Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles (2015) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
8 Estimates of Technology Costs and Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness
8 Estimates of Technology Costs and Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness
Pages 263-306
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 263... ...
the Midsize Car class used in the TSD. Likewise, the Large Car class in the RIA was aligned with the Standard/Large Car FUEL CONSUMPTION REDUCTION EFFECTIVENESS class used in the TSD.
|
From page 264... ...
, values for several technologies, including mass reduction • Fixed valve timing and lift, and (12.2 percent compared to NHTSA's estimate of 10.2 percent • Four-speed automatic transmission. for a 20 percent mass reduction)
|
From page 265... ...
The ranges of most mass reduction relative to the previous mass reduction, such likely direct manufacturing costs for several technologies, as for the 5-10 percent mass reduction increment. A transiincluding advanced diesel engines (with an estimated cost tion occurs at 15 percent mass reduction, which will likely of $2,572 for an I4 advanced diesel engine for a midsize car involve a change from a vehicle with high-strength steel to compared to NHTSA's estimate of $1,752 in 2025)
|
From page 266... ...
The base year of these learning curves to have an incremental effectiveness of 8.3 percent relative to tends to be preceded by steep learning schedules, which is the the previous technologies, which included friction reduction, concept of applying negative learning to estimate the costs variable valve timing and lift, and stoichiometric gasoline of new technologies during early, low-volume introductions direct injection. The relative effectiveness shown in the deciinto production.
|
From page 267... ...
ing and downsizing costs need to be adjusted, as shown for the example of an I4 engine downsized to an I3 engine in a midsize car in Table 8.2. All of the previously applied techEffect of Engine Downsizing on Costs nologies for the four cylinders of the baseline engine need An important factor affecting costs of turbocharged, to be reduced to only three cylinders to provide cost savings downsized engines is downsizing displacement.
|
From page 268... ...
adjusted percent reductions in fuel consumption of several NHTSA defined decision trees that consist of separate transmission technologies are significantly reduced relative paths for SI engines, diesel engines, transmissions, ac- to the baseline engine when applied to an engine containing cessories, hybrids, mass reduction, low rolling resistance all of the fuel consumption reduction technologies. The relatires, aerodynamic drag reduction, and low drag brakes and tively close agreement of the adjusted percent reductions in secondary axle disconnect.
|
From page 269... ...
The 2025 MY Cost Effectiveness of Technologies direct manufacturing cost per percent reduction in fuel con The cost effectiveness of the technologies defined by sumption of an SI engine with all of NHTSA's technologies NHTSA for SI engines is illustrated in Figure 8.3. The included is less than $50 per percent, which is lower than NHTSA-defined technologies are shown on the plot of NRC advanced diesel engines and strong hybrids, which are in the estimated incremental 2025 MY direct manufacturing cost in range of $75 to $100 per percent reduction in fuel consump2010 dollars versus percent reduction in fuel consumption.
|
From page 270... ...
270 COST, EFFECTIVENESS, AND DEPLOYMENT OF FUEL ECONOMY TECHNOLOGIES FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES FIGURE 8.3 NHTSA technologies for spark ignition I4 engines in midsize cars shown on a plot of NRC-estimated incremental 2025 MY R02853 CAFEII 8.3.eps direct manufacturing cost in 2010 dollars versus percent reduction in fuel consumption. FIGURE 8.4 SI engine technologies, hybrid, and advanced diesel technologies in midsize cars shown on a plot of NRC-estimated incre R02853 CAFEII 8.4.eps mental 2025 MY direct manufacturing cost in 2010 dollars versus percent reduction in fuel consumption.
|
From page 271... ...
many of the technologies discussed in the previous technology chapters to a specific vehicle. Important factors in The following considerations were applied in ranking the developing a technology pathway include sequencing of technologies for the example pathway: the technologies and synergies of the technologies within a decision tree path and across such paths.
|
From page 272... ...
(LUB1 EFR2) SOHC DOHC OHV Coupled Cam Cylinder Intake Cam Phasing Deactivation Phasing (ICP)
|
From page 273... ...
Engine Technologies Strong Hybrid (EngMod)
|
From page 274... ...
Technologies applied in the technologies for mass reductions, low rolling resistance tires, example here include only NHTSA-defined technologies,
|
From page 275... ...
The direct applying technologies that were defined by NHTSA for manufacturing costs for 2017, 2020, and 2025 are listed for SI engines, transmissions, and vehicle technologies in the each technology and are then added to provide a cumulative TSD together with 10 percent mass reduction. As shown in direct manufacturing cost for the pathway.
|
From page 276... ...
3.5% 0.965 0.698 2.263 30.2% 44.2 -$92 -$89 -$82 -$26.29 TRBDS2 50% DS 24 bar BMEP 8 Speed Automatic Transmissionc 1.7% 0.983 0.687 2.225 31.3% 45.0 $56 $52 $47 $32.94 8 SP AT Shift Optimizerc 0.7% 0.993 0.682 2.209 31.8% 45.3 $26 $24 $22 $37.14 SHFTOPT Improved Accessories - 2 2.4% 0.976 0.665 2.156 33.5% 46.4 $43 $40 $37 $17.92 IAAC2 Low Rolling Resistance Tires 2.0% 0.980 0.652 2.113 34.8% 47.3 $58 $46 $31 $29.00 ROLL2 Aero Drag Reduction - 2 2.5% 0.975 0.636 2.060 36.4% 48.5 $117 $110 $100 $46.80 AERO2 Mass Reduction - 5.0%-10.0% 4.6% 0.954 0.607 1.965 39.3% 50.9 $154 $151 $151 $33.48 MR10-MR5 (-175 lbs) Low Friction Lub - 2 & Engine Friction Red - 2 1.3% 0.987 0.599 1.940 40.1% 51.6 $51 $51 $51 $39.23 LUB2_EFR2 Continuously Variable Valve Lift 1.0% 0.990 0.593 1.920 40.7% 52.1 $58 $55 $49 $58.00 CVVL (vs.
|
From page 277... ...
Turbocharging & Downsizing - 1 7.7% 0.923 0.731 2.368 26.9% 42.2 $331 $312 $282 $42.99 TRBDS1 33% DS 18 bar BMEP Turbocharging & Downsizing - 2 3.2% 0.968 0.707 2.292 29.3% 43.6 -$96 -$92 -$86 -$30.00 TRBDS2 50% DS 24 bar BMEP 8 Speed Automatic Transmissionc 1.3% 0.987 0.698 2.262 30.2% 44.2 $151 $126 $115 $116.15 8 SP AT Shift Optimizerc 0.3% 0.997 0.696 2.255 30.4% 44.3 $26 $24 $22 $86.67 SHFTOPT Improved Accessories - 2 2.4% 0.976 0.679 2.201 32.1% 45.4 $43 $40 $37 $17.92 IAAC2 Low Rolling Resistance Tires 2.0% 0.980 0.666 2.157 33.4% 46.4 $58 $46 $31 $29.00 ROLL2 Aero Drag Reduction - 2 2.5% 0.975 0.649 2.103 35.1% 47.5 $117 $110 $100 $46.80 AERO2 Mass Reduction - 5%-10% 4.6% 0.954 0.619 2.006 38.1% 49.8 $325 $322 $315 $70.65 MR10-MR5 (-175 lbs) Low Friction Lub - 2 & Engine Friction Red - 2 1.3% 0.987 0.611 1.980 38.9% 50.5 $51 $51 $51 $39.23 LUB2_EFR2 Cooled EGR - 1 3.0% 0.970 0.593 1.921 40.7% 52.1 $212 $199 $180 $70.67 CEGR1 50% DS 24 bar BMEP High Efficiency Transmission 4.9% 0.951 0.564 1.827 43.6% 54.7 $314 $296 $267 $64.08 HEG1 & 2 2025 Target 54.2 mpg Continuously Variable Valve Lift 1.0% 0.990 0.558 1.809 44.2% 55.3 $67 $63 $56 $67.00 CVVL (vs.
|
From page 278... ...
278 COST, EFFECTIVENESS, AND DEPLOYMENT OF FUEL ECONOMY TECHNOLOGIES FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES FIGURE 8.8 Pathway example for midsize car with I4 SI engine showing NRC low and high most likely estimates of 2025 MY direct manufacturing costs and fuel consumption reduction R02853 CAFEII 8.8.eps effectiveness. FIGURE 8.9 Midsize car with I4 SI engine pathway example using NHTSA's estimates of 2025 MY cumulative direct manufacturing and total costs.
|
From page 279... ...
This technology was effective in reducing reduction in overall fuel consumption provided by the EAVS the direct manufacturing cost in the 2017 to 2025 MY time supercharger system might provide either longer-term adframe by $17 to $66 relative to the pathway using NHTSA- vantages or other opportunities compared to technologies defined technologies with 10 percent mass reduction, as with lower overall fuel consumption reduction. For example shown in Table 8.6.
|
From page 280... ...
technologies provide a total credit of 0.000631gal/mi, as shown in Table 8.7, which lists the credits for the applicable FULL SYSTEM SIMULATION MODELING OF FUEL technologies. The results from using this credit for the CONSUMPTION REDUCTIONS midsize car pathway are shown in Tables 8.8a and b for the most likely low and high cost estimates.
|
From page 281... ...
Begin A schematic of the model architecture is shown in ning with the baseline Task 3 and progressing to Task 6, Figure 8.10. The engine model consists of a number of the results show a steady improvement in fuel economy physics-based submodels, including a standard entrainment with friction reduction, DVVL, and direct injection.
|
From page 282... ...
ICP) 2008 Example Vehicle Low Rolling Resistance Tires - 1 1.9% 0.981 0.932 3.018 6.8% 33.1 $5 $5 $5 $2.63 ROLL1 Low Friction Lubricants - 1 0.7% 0.993 0.925 2.997 7.5% 33.4 $3 $3 $3 $4.29 LUB1 6 Speed Automatic Transmissionc 1.6% 0.984 0.910 2.949 9.0% 33.9 $37 $34 $31 $23.13 6 SP AT with Improved Internals IATC Aero Drag Reduction - 1 2.3% 0.977 0.889 2.882 11.1% 34.7 $39 $37 $33 $16.96 AERO1 Engine Friction Reduction - 1 2.6% 0.974 0.866 2.807 13.4% 35.6 $48 $48 $48 $18.46 EFR1 Improved Accessories - 1 1.2% 0.988 0.856 2.773 14.4% 36.1 $71 $69 $60 $59.17 IACC1 Electric Power Steering 1.3% 0.987 0.845 2.737 15.5% 36.5 $87 $82 $74 $66.92 EPS Mass Reduction - 2.5% 0.8% 0.992 0.838 2.715 16.2% 36.8 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 MR2.5 (-87.5 lbs)
|
From page 283... ...
Turbocharging & Downsizing - 1 7.7% 0.923 0.731 2.368 26.9% 42.2 $331 $312 $282 $42.99 TRBDS1 33% DS 18 bar BMEP Turbocharging & Downsizing - 2 3.2% 0.968 0.707 2.292 29.3% 43.6 -$96 -$92 -$86 -$30.00 TRBDS2 50% DS 24 bar BMEP 8 Speed Automatic Transmissionc 1.3% 0.987 0.698 2.262 30.2% 44.2 $151 $126 $115 $116.15 8 SP AT Shift Optimizer c 0.3% 0.997 0.696 2.255 30.4% 44.3 $26 $24 $22 $86.67 SHFTOPT Improved Accessories - 2 2.4% 0.976 0.679 2.201 32.1% 45.4 $43 $40 $37 $17.92 IAAC2 Low Rolling Resistance Tires 2.0% 0.980 0.666 2.157 33.4% 46.4 $58 $46 $31 $29.00 ROLL2 Aero Drag Reduction - 2 2.5% 0.975 0.649 2.103 35.1% 47.5 $117 $110 $100 $46.80 AERO2 Mass Reduction - 5%-10% 4.6% 0.954 0.619 2.006 38.1% 49.8 $325 $322 $315 $70.65 MR10-MR5 (-175 lbs) Low Friction Lub - 2 & Engine Friction Red - 2 1.3% 0.987 0.611 1.980 38.9% 50.5 $51 $51 $51 $39.23 LUB2_EFR2 Cooled EGR - 1 3.0% 0.970 0.593 1.921 40.7% 52.1 $212 $199 $180 $70.67 CEGR1 50% DS 24 bar BMEP High Efficiency Transmissionc 4.9% 0.951 0.564 1.827 43.6% 54.7 $314 $296 $267 $64.08 HEG1 & 2 2025 Target 54.2 mpg Continuously Variable Valve Lift 1.0% 0.990 0.558 1.809 44.2% 55.3 $67 $63 $56 $67.00 CVVL (vs.
|
From page 284... ...
CVTs in Task 10-A showed fuel economy comparable to the The incremental fuel consumption reductions are similar 6 AT in Task 8. Analysis showed a significant tightening of for all three estimation methods, although some differences the visitation points on the engine map toward the optimal appear for individual technologies.
|
From page 285... ...
1 2 TC GDI -- -- Model validation engine 2 2.5 NA PFI Fixed 6 AT 22.9 40.4 28.4 3.52 Engine reconfigured to 2.5L NA 3 2.5 NA PFI DCP 6 AT 26.2 42.9 31.8 3.15 2012 Ford Fusion simulation 4 2.5 NA PFI EFR-LUB DCP 6 AT 27.5 44.5 33.2 3.01 -4.4 -4.4 5 2.5 NA PFI EFR-LUB DCP DVVL 6 AT 29.3 46.7 35.2 2.84 -5.7 -9.8 6 2.5 NA GDI EFR-LUB DCP DVVL 6 AT 29.7 47.0 35.6 2.81 -1.1 -10.8 7 1.68 TC GDI EFR-LUB DCP DVVL 6 AT 33.3 50.7 39.4 2.54 -9.6 -19.4 8 1.25 TC GDI EFR-LUB DCP DVVL CEGR 6 AT 35.1 52.7 41.3 2.42 -4.6 -23.0 9-A 1.25 TC GDI EFR-LUB DCP DVVL CEGR 8 AT 34.7 53.1 41.1 2.43 0.4 -22.8 9-Ba 1.25 TC GDI EFR-LUB DCP DVVL CEGR 8AT 35.4 54.2 41.9 2.39 -1.9 -24.2 -15% 9-Ca 1.25 TC GDI EFR-LUB DCP DVVL CEGR 8AT -30% 36.0 55.4 42.8 2.34 -1.9 -25.7 9-Da 1.25 TC GDI EFR-LUB DCP DVVL CEGR 8AT -45% 36.7 56.4 43.5 2.30 -1.8 -27.0 9-Ea 1.25 TC GDI EFR-LUB DCP DVVL CEGR 8AT -60% 37.3 57.4 44.3 2.26 -1.8 -28.3 10-Ab 1.25 TC GDI EFR-LUB DCP DVVL CEGR CVT 35.5 52.6 41.6 2.41 6.6 -23.6 10-Bb 1.25 TC GDI EFR-LUB DCP DVVL CEGR CVT 35.6 52.8 41.8 2.40 -0.4 -23.9 aTasks 9-B – 9-E have reduced transmission torque losses relative to the 6 AT and 8 AT transmissions in Tasks 8 and 9-A, as indicated by the percentage in the table under Trans. b Task 10-B is the same as Task 10-A except that CVT-2 uses the more efficient loss map of the 6 AT automatic transmissions.
|
From page 286... ...
TABLE 8.11 Comparison of U of M Full System Simulation Results with NHTSA RIA and EPA Lumped Parameter Model Estimates 286 U of M Full System Simulation From NHTSA RIA Table V-126 From Lumped Parameter Model U of Ma U of M FSS Results FSS Results U of M NHTSA RIA NHTSA RIA EPA LPM EPA LPM EPA LPM Adjusted Incremental Incremental FSS Results Incremental Incremental NHTSA RIA Incremental Incremental Cumulative EPA LPM % FC % FC Cumulative % % FC % FC Cumulative % % FC % FC % FC Cumulative % Technology Reduction Reduction FC Reduction Reduction Reduction FC Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction FC Reduction DCP and 6AT-IATC Baseline 1.000 0 0.0 0.929 7.1 0.0 LUB1 0.7 0.993 0.5 0.995 7.6 0.5 EFR1 2.6 0.974 1.8 0.982 9.3 2.4 EFR2 1.3 0.987 1.4 0.986 10.6 3.8 LUB and EFR 4.4 0.956 4.4 4.5 0.955 4.5 3.8 0.962 DVVL 5.7 0.943 9.8 4.6 0.954 8.9 2.2 0.978 12.6 5.9 SGDI 1.1 0.989 10.8 1.5 0.985 10.3 1.5 0.985 13.9 7.3 TRBDS1 9.6 0.904 19.4 8.3 0.917 17.7 6.4 0.936 19.4 13.2 TRBDS2 3.5 0.965 2.6 0.974 21.5 15.5 CEGR1 3.5 0.965 3.6 0.964 24.3 18.5 TRBDS2 and CEGR1 4.6 0.954 23.0 6.9 0.931 23.4 6.1 0.939 8 AT -0.4 1.004 3.9 0.961 26.4b 3.7 0.963 27.1 21.5 8 AT-HETRANSa 3.8 0.962 25.7 2.7 0.973 28.4b 4.0 0.960 30.0 24.7 Summary for Turbocharged Downsized Engines SGDI 0.989 0.987 0.985 TRBDS1 0.904 0.917 0.936 TRBDS2 and CEGR2 0.954 0.931 0.939 0.853 14.7% 0.843 15.7% 0.866 13.4% a30% loss reduction. bSynergies applied.
|
From page 287... ...
NHTSA estimated fuel consump- 2012 MY through 2025 MY shown in Figure 8.11 for cars tion reductions for the vehicles by applying its estimated and Figure 8.12 for light trucks. The fuel economy values fuel consumption reductions for each of the technologies cluster around the 2016 MY targets and between the 2019 that had been applied to four high volume midsize cars.
|
From page 288... ...
TABLE 8.12 Fuel Consumption Reductions for 2014 MY Compared to 2008 MY Midsize Cars, Based on EPA Certification Test Data Compared to Aggregation 288 of NHTSA Technology Effectiveness Estimates Actual EPA Fuel Consumption Reductions Compared to Aggregation of NHTSA Technology Effectiveness Estimates Example Vehicles from EPA Fuel Economy Guide Baseline Vehicle Ford Fusion Chevrolet Malibu Toyota Camry Honda Accord NA, 4 valves/cyl 2.3L I4 NA 2.4L I4 NA 2.4L NA 2.4L NA Fixed valve timing ICP - VVT DCP - VVT ICP - VVT ICP - VVT AT-4 AT-5 AT-4 AT-5 I-VTEC (DVVL) AT-5 Possible NHTSA % FC NHTSA NHTSA NHTSA NHTSA Technologies Reductions EPA Data Estimates EPA Data Estimates EPA Data Estimates EPA Data Estimates 2008 MY EPA Combined FE (uncorrected)
|
From page 289... ...
calculation using NHTSA estimates 0.0% 1.2% 1.9% 4.1% SOURCE: EPA (2008, 2014)
|
From page 290... ...
; Cars.com. The CAFE fuel economy values of several hybrid vehicles an aluminum body with a reported 700 lb weight reduction are also plotted on Figure 8.11.
|
From page 291... ...
; EPA (2008, 2014) ; Cars.com added to a "null" vehicle, defined as one having an engine in the 2016 MY fleet should be assigned EPA certification with four valves per cylinder, fixed valve timing and lift, fuel economy values and reasons for any differences between port fuel injection, and a four-speed automatic transmission.
|
From page 292... ...
The ranges or provide alternative approaches at lower cost. In addition, of most likely direct manufacturing costs for several other the committee has identified several technologies that might technologies, including diesel engines, several transmission be available after the 2025 MY, although these technologies technologies, and mass reduction, were estimated to be are generally still in the research phase of development.
|
From page 293... ...
2011. Assessment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty September.
|
From page 294... ...
VVA N/A N/A 3.2 Baseline for OHV Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection SGDI 1.5 1.5 1.5 Previous Tech Turbocharging and Downsizing Level 1 - 18 bar BMEP 33%DS TRBDS1 7.7 - 8.3 7.3 - 7.8 6.8 - 7.3 Previous Tech Turbocharging and Downsizing Level 2 - 24 bar BMEP 50%DS TRBDS2 3.2 - 3.5 3.3 - 3.7 3.1 - 3.4 Previous Tech Cooled EGR Level 1 - 24 bar BMEP, 50% DS CEGR1 3.0 - 3.5 3.1 - 3.5 3.1 - 3.6 Previous Tech Cooled EGR Level 2 - 27 bar BMEP, 56% DS CEGR2 1.4 1.4 1.2 Previous Tech Other Technologies By 2025: Compression Ratio Increase (with regular fuel) CRI-REG 3.0 3.0 3.0 Baseline Compression Ratio Increase (with higher octane regular fuel)
|
From page 295... ...
HEG2 2.6 - 2.7 2.6 - 2.7 2.6 - 2.7 Previous Tech Shift Optimizer (ASL-2) SHFTOPT 0.5 - 1.0 0.5 - 1.0 0.5 - 1.0 Previous Tech Secondary Axle Disconnect SAX 1.4 - 3.0 1.4 - 3.0 1.4 - 3.0 Baseline Other Technologies Continuously Variable Transmission with Improved internals CVT 3.5 - 4.5 3.5 - 4.5 N/A Previous Tech (Rel to 6 sp AT)
|
From page 296... ...
SHEV2-PS 33.0 - 33.5 32.0 - 34.1 N/A Baseline Plug-in Hybrid - 40 mile range PHEV40 N/A N/A N/A Baseline Electric Vehicle - 75 mile EV75 N/A N/A N/A Baseline Electric Vehicle - 100 mile EV100 N/A N/A N/a Baseline Electric Vehicle - 150 mile EV150 N/A N/A N/A Baseline Other Technologies Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle FCEV N/A N/A N/A Baseline Vehicle Technologies Abbreviation Most Likely Most Likely Most Likely Relative To NHTSA Technologies Without Engine Downsizingd 0 - 2.5% Mass Reduction (Design Optimization) MR2.5 0.80 0.80 0.85 Baseline 2.5 - 5% Mass Reduction 0.81 0.81 0.85 Previous MR 0 - 5% Mass Reduction (Material Substitution)
|
From page 297... ...
DOHC VVT- Dual Cam Phasing DCP 31 - 35 72 - 82 37 - 43 Previous Tech Discrete Variable Valve Lift DVVL 116 - 133 168 - 193 37 - 43 Previous Tech Continuously Variable Valve Lift CVVL 58 - 67 151 - 174 N/A Previous Tech Cylinder Deactivation DEACD N/A 139 N/A Previous Tech Variable Valve Actuation (CCP + DVVL) VVA N/A N/A 157 Baseline for OHV Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection SGDI 192 290 277 - 320 Previous Tech Turbocharging and Downsizing Level 1 - 18 bar BMEP 33%DS TRBDS1 288 - 331 -129 to -86 942 - 1,028 Previous Tech V6 to I4 and V8 to V6 -455*
|
From page 298... ...
HEG2 194 194 194 Previous Tech Shift Optimizer (ASL-2) SHFTOPT 26 26 26 Previous Tech Secondary Axle Disconnect SAX 100 100 100 Baseline Other Technologies Continuously Variable Transmission with Improved internals CVT 179 179 N/A Baseline (Rel to 6 sp AT)
|
From page 299... ...
SHEV2-P2 2,463 - 3,126 2,908 - 3,726 2,947 - 3,762 Baseline Strong Hybrid - PS - Level 2 (Power Split System) SHEV2-PS 3,139 3,396 N/A Baseline Plug-in Hybrid - 40 mile range PHEV40 13,193 - 14,776 17,854 - 20,141 N/A Baseline Electric Vehicle - 75 mile EV75 14,812 - 15,446 19,275 - 20,393 N/A Baseline Electric Vehicle - 100 mile EV100 16,831 21,123 N/A Baseline Electric Vehicle - 150 mile EV150 22,257 26,193 N/A Baseline Other Technologies Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle FCEV N/A N/A N/A Baseline Vehicle Technologies Abbreviation Most Likely Most Likely Most Likely Relative To NHTSA Technologies Without Engine Downsizing 0 - 2.5% Mass Reduction (Design Optimization)
|
From page 300... ...
DOHC VVT- Dual Cam Phasing DCP 29 - 33 67 - 76 35 - 41 Previous Tech Discrete Variable Valve Lift DVVL 109 - 125 158 - 182 N/A Previous Tech Continuously Variable Valve Lift CVVL 55 - 63 142 - 163 N/A Previous Tech Cylinder Deactivation DEACD N/A 131 147 Previous Tech Variable Valve Actuation (CCP + DVVL) VVA N/A N/A 261 - 301 Baseline for OHV Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection SGDI 181 273 328 Previous Tech Turbocharging and Downsizing Level 1 - 18 bar BMEP 33%DS TRBDS1 271 - 312 -122 to -81 877 - 958 Previous Tech V6 to I4 and V8 to V6 -432*
|
From page 301... ...
HEG2 183 183 183 Previous Tech Shift Optimizer (ASL-2) SHFTOPT 24 24 24 Previous Tech Secondary Axle Disconnect SAX 94 94 94 Baseline Other Technologies Continuously Variable Transmission with Improved internals CVT 168 168 NA Baseline (Rel to 6 sp AT)
|
From page 302... ...
SHEV2-P2 2,295 - 2,912 2,410 - 3,472 2,744 - 3,503 Baseline Strong Hybrid - PS - Level 2 (Power Split System) SHEV2-PS 2,954 3,196 N/A Baseline Plug-in Hybrid - 40 mile range PHEV40 9,763 - 11,253 13,172 - 15,325 N/A Baseline Electric Vehicle - 75 mile EV75 10,189 - 10,768 13,310 - 14,331 N/A Baseline Electric Vehicle - 100 mile EV100 11,482 14,492 N/A Baseline Electric Vehicle - 150 mile EV150 14,954 17,737 N/A Baseline Other Technologies Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle FCEV N/A N/A N/A Vehicle Technologies Abbreviation Most Likely Most Likely Most Likely Relative To NHTSA Technologies Without Engine Downsizing 0 - 2.5% Mass Reduction (Design Optimization)
|
From page 303... ...
DOHC VVT- Dual Cam Phasing DCP 27 - 31 61 - 69 31 - 36 Previous Tech Discrete Variable Valve Lift DVVL 99 - 114 143 - 164 N/A Previous Tech Continuously Variable Valve Lift CVVL 49 - 56 128 - 147 N/A Previous Tech Cylinder Deactivation DEACD N/A 118 133 Previous Tech Variable Valve Actuation (CCP + DVVL) VVA N/A N/A 235 - 271 Baseline for OHV Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection SGDI 164 246 296 Previous Tech Turbocharging and Downsizing Level 1 - 18 bar BMEP 33%DS TRBDS1 245 - 282 -110 to -73 788 - 862 Previous Tech V6 to I4 and V8 to V6 -396*
|
From page 304... ...
HEG2 165 165 165 Previous Tech Shift Optimizer (ASL-2) SHFTOPT 22 22 22 Previous Tech Secondary Axle Disconnect SAX 86 86 86 Baseline Other Technologies Continuously Variable Transmission with Improved internals CVT 154 154 NA Baseline (Rel to 6 sp AT)
|
From page 305... ...
0 - 2.5% Mass Reduction MR2.5 0.00 - 0 .25 0.00 - 0 .25 0.00 - 0.28 Baseline 0 - 5% Mass Reduction MR5 0.00 - 0.49 0.00 - 0.49 0.00 - 0.55 Baseline 0 - 10% Mass Reduction MR10 0.43 - 1.15 0.43 - 1.15 0.48 - 1.29 Baseline 0 - 15% Mass Reduction MR15 0.82 - 1.39 0.82 - 1.39 0.91 - 1.55 Baseline 0 - 20% Mass Reduction MR20 1.31 - 1.90 1.31 - 1.90 1.47 - 2.13 Baseline 0 - 25% Mass Reduction MR25 2.22 - 2.96 2.22 - 2.96 2.49 - 3.12 Baseline Low Rolling Resistance Tires - Level 1 (10% reduction in ROLL1 5 5 5 Baseline rolling resistance) Low Rolling Resistance Tires - Level 2 (20% reduction in ROLL2 31 31 31 Previous Tech rolling resistance)
|
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.