Automotive Fuel Economy How Far Can We Go? (1992) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
7 FUEL ECONOMY PROJECTIONS
7 FUEL ECONOMY PROJECTIONS
Pages 122-148
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 122... ...
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a number of studies attempted to project fuel economy levels for automobiles and light trucks through 1990. Most of the studies overestimated fleet fuel economy levels by a substantial amount.
|
From page 123... ...
123 TABLE 7-1 Recent Projections of the Average Fuel Economy of Future New Passenger-Car Fleets Sourcea Fleet-Average Fuel Economy (mum MY 1995-1996 MY 2000-2001 MY 2005-2006 MY 2010 ACEEEb Berger et al.C Bryan billy Chrysler Engineering assessments Max technology EEAf Product plan Max technology Risk level 1 Risk level 2 Risk level 3 DOE9 Product plan Cost effective Max technology Industryh Johnston bill' Ledbetter & Rossl Lov~nsk OTA~ 1995 2001 2005 2010 sRIm i 29.5-30.3 34.3 30.1 28.3 29.1 30.2 29.9 45 30.3-32.8 -39.5 30.9 34.5 32 36 36.2 38.6 42.0 30.6 33.6 40.1-43.8 (no specific time frame)
|
From page 124... ...
The 1996 standard involves nearly full market penetration of fuel saving technologies and substantial penetration by the two-stroke engine. Light-truck corporate average fuel economy (CAFE)
|
From page 125... ...
The technology-penetration, or shopping cart, approach attempts to locate the limits of possibility, subject to certain constraints, by assuming that specific, wellcharacterized, fuel-saving technologies will be adopted in a larger proportion of all vehicles than they are today. Unlike the trend-projection and BIC methods, the shopping cart approach provides the basis for an explicit projection of costs.
|
From page 126... ...
During the m~d-1980s, vehicle weights stabilized, and technological improvements resulted in 2These include, for example, market shares of automatic and manual transmissions and shares of ~ whee! drive in light trucks.
|
From page 127... ...
Nonetheless, in the absence of any obviously preferable choice, the committee projected the straight lines over the entire period to estimate future fuel economy progress. The trend-based extrapolation results for cars and light trucks are summarized in Tables 7-2 and 7-3.
|
From page 128... ...
._ ~30 c a) 20 10 o _ -0~ Ton-miles per gallon art · ~ ~ ~ ~ A~ Miles per gallon 1 1 1 1 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year FIGURE 7-2 Fuel economy trends for the new light-tn~ck fleet.
|
From page 129... ...
129 TABLE 7-2 Trend Projections of Fuel Economy of New Passenger Cars Size Class and Mode} Year Fuel Economy (mpg) Based on MPG Trends for 1975-1991 Based on Ton-MI'G Trends for 1975-1991 Car fleet 1991 2001 2006 Subcompact cars 1991 2001 2006 Compact cars 1991 2001 2006 Midsize cars 1991 2001 2006 Large cars 1991 2001 2006 27.8 34.9 38.5 31.2 39.2 43.2 29.2 36.7 40.4 25.8 32.4 35.7 23.7 29.8 32.8 27.8 32.3 34.5 31.2 36.2 38.7 29.2 33.9 36.2 25.8 29.9 32.0 23.7 27.5 29.4 NOTE: Projections for MY 2006 have been adjusted downward by 3 percent to account for the fuel economy impact of safety and emissions (Tier I)
|
From page 130... ...
Year for 1975-1991 for 1975-1991 Light truck fleet 1991 2001 2006 Small utility trucks 1991 2001 2006 Small vans 1991 2001 2006 Small pickups 1991 2001 2006 Large pickups 1991 2001 2006 20.8 25.2 27.5 21.2 25.7 28.0 22.8 27.7 30.1 25.2 30.6 33.3 19.5 23.7 25.8 20.8 24.8 26.8 21.2 25.2 27.3 22.8 27.2 29.3 25.2 ~u.u 32.4 19.5 23.2 25.1 NOISE: Projections for MY 2006 have been adjusted downward by 3 percent to account for the fuel economy impact of safety and emissions (Tier I) standards.
|
From page 131... ...
without regard to sales volume, and it identifies the BIC vehicle, the five BIC vehicles, and the top dozen vehicles within each weight class (the weight classes differ from the volume-based size classes used throughout this report) .6 6For MY 1990 passenger cars, the EPA estimated a 24 percent improvement in the fleet-average fuel economy, to 34.4 mpg, assuming that the fuel economy of the average vehicle would equal that of the single BIC and maintaining the actual 1990 sales distribution by weight class.
|
From page 132... ...
The BIC fuel economy for each class is calculated as the sales-weighted harmonic average fuel economy (see Chapter 9) of the BTC car lines, reduced by 3 percent for the effects of safety and emissions standards.
|
From page 133... ...
Thus, the committee believes that the BIC method, as applied here to light trucks, gives only a general indication of fuel economy potential by class. TECHNOLOGY-PENETRATION OR SHOPPING CART PROJECTIONS Method and Assumptions The technology-penetration projection method is based on an explicit consideration of the potential fuel economy contributions of specific, well-established technologies.
|
From page 134... ...
The BIC fuel economy for each class is the sales-weighted harmonic average fuel economy of these car lines adjusted downward by 3 percent to account for safety and emissions (Tier I) standards.
|
From page 135... ...
The BIC fuel economy for each class is the salesweighted harmonic average fuel economy of these vehicle lines, adjusted downward by 3 percent to account for safety and emissions (Tier I) standards.
|
From page 136... ...
For the set of technologies applicable to a size class, summing the average fuel economy gains and average costs yields estimates of aggregate fuel economy gains and costs for the size class. The average gain in fuel economy is then added to the average fuel economy for the size class in the base year (3 percent having been subtracted from the base-year fuel economy to account for the effects of safety and emissions technology)
|
From page 137... ...
remaining rear-wheel drive vehicles to front-wheel drive, as well as a 10 percent weight reduction through materials substitution.9 o The maximum market shares for each technology for each vehicle type were assumed to be 100 percent unless there were compelling reasons to limit market penetration.~° ~ Positive and negative synergistic effects among technologies were neglected, and thus, individual percentage improvements for different technologies were assumed to be additive.~i Data The shopping cart algorithm requires several key inputs. The MY 1990 baseyear composite fuel economy rating used for each car and light-truck class is that reported by Heavenrich et al.
|
From page 138... ...
The EEA and SR! studies deal with passenger cars and generally exclude light trucks (EEA, 1988~.
|
From page 139... ...
In contrast, SRI's estimates might be seen as short-run RPEs, in that they reflect the costs of premature abandonment of productive capital investments. Results Using the shopping cart approach, the committee developed two projections of fuel economy and costs for each vehicle size class.
|
From page 140... ...
~ / i 1 1 1 B I 1 1 1 ~ I ~1 _ 40 45 so FIGURE 7-4 Shopping cart projection results for subcompact passenger cars. A= Relatively high-cost, moderate fuel economy gains 8= Relatively low-cost, greater fuel economy gains 2500 : ~1 it ~,, c' 2000 ' A / ' ~.
|
From page 141... ...
' / ~ ~1 1 / ~1 O ~1 1 ~1 71 24 26 28 30 32 3436 38 Miles per Gallon FIGURE 7-6 Shopping cart projection results for midsize passenger cars. A= Relatively high-cost, moderate fee/ economy gains B= Re/adve/y low-cost, greater fee/ economy gains 2s00 8 2000 to ~ 1500 a)
|
From page 142... ...
o ' / I , / B I it/ / ~ L IOwl . ~I 20 2224 26 28 30 Miles per Gallon A / I , 1 1 ~ 1 1 FIGURE 7-9 Shopping cart projection results for small vans.
|
From page 143... ...
lo: o moderate fug/ economy gains B= Relatively low-cost greater fuel economy gains -- -- - -- = Best in class -- = MPG trend - Ton-MPG trend 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 Baby j / j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 71' 26 28 A 18 20 22 24 Miles per Gallon FIGURE 7-~! Shopping cart projection results for large pickups.
|
From page 144... ...
CONCLUSIONS 0 Three vepr different methods were used to project the future fuel economy levels for passenger cars and light trucks. Each method exemplifies a different view of the problem and each yields different projections of the potential for fuel economy improvement by vehicle class.
|
From page 145... ...
b Fue] economy projections are based on the shopping cart approach keeping vehicle performance fixed at MY 1990 levels.
|
From page 146... ...
None of the projections offers proof of technical potential. Together, however, they increase confidence that substantial fuel economy improvements could be achieved over the next 15 years without compromising the functionality of light-duty vehicles.
|
From page 147... ...
Presented to the Technology Subgroup, Committee on Fuel Economy of Automobiles and Light Trucks, Detroit, Mich., July 31. Energy and Environment Analysis (EEA)
|
From page 148... ...
1991. Potential for Improved Fuel Economy in Passenger Cars aM Light Trucks.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.