Review of the Research Program of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Seventh Report (2001)

Page 78

Page 79

and added emphasis to the PNGV purpose to reduce passenger-car fuel consumption.

On the other hand, during this time the demand for sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and pickup trucks has increased to 46 percent of new light-duty vehicle sales. Due to their larger size and weight these vehicles have reduced the average new light-duty vehicle fleet fuel economy from 25.9 mpg in 1987 to 24 mpg in 2000 (EPA, 2000). There is also an implication that, if these lower-fuel-economy vehicles continue to dominate market share, the fleet average fuel economy will continue to decline. Also, the promulgation of Tier 2 emission requirements by the EPA potentially increases fuel consumption of all new cars and will postpone or possibly preclude the widespread use of diesel engines in light-duty vehicles in the United States.

During the past several years foreign and domestic competition in the automotive industry has become ever more difficult to define. Foreign companies (including DaimlerChrysler) produced about 45 percent of the new cars and light trucks sold in 1999 in the United States (U.S. Business Reporter, 2001), and GM and Ford both have added numerous overseas subsidiaries and collaborators to their corporate structures.

This new context for the PNGV makes it timely to consider whether the original goals should be altered to fit the changed situation while recognizing the substantial accomplishments already gained in pursuing the program so far.

Page 80

Toyota). On this basis it seems inappropriate to justify the broad PNGV manufacturing R&D charter as addressing U.S. competitiveness.

It also should be recognized that today foreign car companies market over 40 percent of the passenger cars sold in the United States. This fact, too, makes the Goal 1 competitiveness concept difficult to justify. In order to reduce the nation's petroleum fuel consumption it is desirable that all vehicles have reduced fuel consumption. For this to occur, the high-efficiency PNGV technologies and their associated manufacturing processes will have to be incorporated in cars sold in the United States by foreign manufacturers as well.

Notwithstanding these questions of scope and definition, the committee believes that the Goal 1 activities in the PNGV to date have been quite successful as detailed in earlier reports (NRC, 1999, 2000). Several manufacturing improvements actually have been implemented in production, and a number of others are well on their way. Many new projects to resolve some of the manufacturing challenges presented by the Goal 3 concept vehicles have been identified and ranked in cost/benefit order. It appears that there may be too few manufacturing people and financial resources in the program to pursue the bulk of these projects. Thus, the committee believes that the PNGV manufacturing goal should be tied closely to the fuel-efficiency objective of the program. Manufacturing R&D is vital to assure that the required new components can be produced with appropriate quality, cost, and predictability and can ultimately result in marketable vehicles. In today's context this focus seems more appropriate than a broad charter to impact overall U.S. vehicle manufacturing competitiveness.

Page 81

selected and advanced the most critical of these, and enabled the construction of advanced, well-engineered concept cars in only six years. The automobile companies have invested many hundreds of millions of dollars in achieving this result, and this activity has led each of them to HEV product marketing plans.

General Motors has announced plans to produce an HEV Silverado pickup truck in 2004 and has indicated that its ParadiGM HEV system would be available worldwide across a variety of market segments from compacts to SUVs starting in 2004. DaimlerChrysler has announced that its Dodge Durango HEV will be introduced in 2003. Ford plans HEV Escape and Explorer vehicles in 2003. All these will be gasoline engine hybrids rather than diesel; they will not have fuel economies of 80 mpg, but will be 10 to 30 percent better than comparable current vehicles. As sales increase, these vehicles will have a substantial impact on fuel consumption in high-volume, high-use market segments.

In terms of the objective to decrease fleet fuel consumption, the production of these vehicles is especially significant. A 20 percent improvement in miles per gallon of a light-duty truck starting at 15 mpg would save about 155 gallons of fuel in a year, whereas the same percentage improvement of a mid-size sedan at 28 mpg saves only 83 gallons. Clearly, applying PNGV HEV technologies to light-duty trucks, vans, and SUVs will save more fuel per vehicle than applying them to mid-size sedans as currently specified in Goal 3.

As noted in Chapter 3, Goal 3 calls for a production-prototype mid-size sedan to be built by 2004. Early in the program it was decided that each of the automotive companies would build its own Goal 3 production-prototype vehicle, since this activity could not be performed in the context of precompetitive research. It seems clear now that an affordable mid-size sedan with three times the fuel economy of its 1994 counterpart cannot be a part of the foreseeable product marketing programs of any of the manufacturers at the present time. While performance, comfort, cargo space, utility, and safety targets can be met, the combination of 80 mpg and affordability appears well out of reach. Furthermore, it would be wasteful at this point to develop a production prototype for a vehicle that could not be marketed. The immense resources required to build and validate such a prototype can be justified only if the vehicle is part of the manufacturer's forward product marketing plan.

In light of the above facts, the committee concludes that it would be more appropriate for the program vehicle-efficiency goal to be based on fuel consumption and total fuel savings instead of miles per gallon. Fuel consumption more directly measures the resulting decrease in the use of petroleum-based fuels that would result if the improved vehicle-efficiency targets were achieved. If the program goal were refocused on reducing total new light-duty vehicle petroleum consumption, this would encourage emphasis to be placed on those vehicles that offer the greatest potential for achieving this societal goal. For better public understanding, the overall fuel consumption reduction could be translated into a

Page 82

goal of miles-per-gallon improvement for vehicles that start from various base fuel economy levels.

Events have shown that any restructuring and refocusing of the program should consider the merits and problems created by choosing a specific target vehicle type to use in measuring efficiency improvement. A specific vehicle target does provide a clear objective that can be simply stated. In the PNGV program to date the mid-size car target has resulted in concept vehicles that illustrate three different approaches to meeting conflicting program goals. However, choosing just one target vehicle type can also result in a narrower search for new technology and thus may be counterproductive. Clearly, the PNGV program intends that the promising marketable technology it develops be applied to all types of vehicles that can have a significant impact on total fleet fuel consumption.

Furthermore, the committee believes that it is inappropriate to include the process of building production prototypes in a precompetitive, cooperative industry-government program. The timing and construction of such vehicles is too intimately tied to the proprietary aspects of each company's core business to have this work scheduled and conducted as part of a joint, public activity. The success of the year 2000 concept cars suggests that perhaps second generation concept vehicles, still aimed at a stretch goal, might provide a suitable milestone in place of production prototypes.

Page 83

The committee believes that, overall, the PNGV program is an excellent example of how long-range societal goals can be effectively addressed by the efforts of a collaborative, precompetitive government-industry R&D partnership. It is hoped that future activity will build on this program's success and enhance its effectiveness with lessons learned from the past several years.