National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×

COST, EFFECTIVENESS,
AND DEPLOYMENT OF
FUEL ECONOMY
TECHNOLOGIES FOR
LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES

Committee on the Assessment of Technologies for Improving
Fuel Economy of Light-Duty Vehicles, Phase 2

Board on Energy and Environmental Systems

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
                          OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.

www.nap.edu

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS    500 Fifth Street, NW    Washington, DC 20001

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.

This study was supported by Contract No. DTNH22-11-H-00352 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number 13: 987-0-309-37388-3
International Standard Book Number 10: 0-309-37388-3
Library of Congress Control Number: 2015947372

Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2015 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C.D. Mote Jr. is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C.D. Mote Jr. are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×

COMMITTEE ON THE ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR IMPROVING
FUEL ECONOMY OF LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES, PHASE 2

JARED COHON, Chair, NAE,1 Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

KHALIL AMINE, Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois

CHRIS BAILLIE, AxleTech International, Troy, Michigan

JAY BARON, Center for Automotive Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan

R. STEPHEN BERRY, NAS,2 University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

L. CATHERINE BRINSON, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

MATT FRONK, Matt Fronk & Associates, LLC, Honeoye Falls, New York

DAVID GREENE, University of Tennessee-Knoxville, Knoxville, Tennessee

ROLAND HWANG, Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, California

LINOS JACOVIDES, NAE, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan

THERESE LANGER, American Council for Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, D.C.

REBECCA LINDLAND, King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

VIRGINIA McCONNELL, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.

DAVID MERRION, Merrion Expert Consulting, LLC, Brighton, Michigan

CLEMENS SCHMITZ-JUSTEN, CSJ Schmitz-Justen & Company, Greenville, South Carolina

ANNA STEFANOPOULOU, University of Michigan Automotive Research Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan

WALLACE WADE, NAE, Ford Motor Company (retired), Novi, Michigan

WILLIAM WALSH, Automotive Safety Consultant, McLean, Virginia

Staff

K. JOHN HOLMES, Study Director

DANA CAINES, Financial Manager

LINDA CASOLA, Senior Program Assistant

ELIZABETH EULLER, Program Assistant

STEVE GODWIN, Director, Studies and Special Programs, Transportation Research Board

LaNITA JONES, Administrative Coordinator

MICHELLE SCHWALBE, Program Officer

E. JONATHAN YANGER, Research Associate

ELIZABETH ZEITLER, Associate Program Officer

JAMES J. ZUCCHETTO, Director, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems

_____________

1 NAE, National Academy of Engineering.

2 NAS, National Academy of Science.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×

BOARD ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS

ANDREW BROWN, JR., Chair, NAE,1 Delphi Corporation, Troy, Michigan

DAVID T. ALLEN, University of Texas, Austin

W. TERRY BOSTON, NAE, PJM Interconnection, LLC, Audubon, Pennsylvania

WILLIAM BRINKMAN, NAS,2 Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey

EMILY CARTER, NAS, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey

CHRISTINE EHLIG-ECONOMIDES, NAE, Texas A&M University, College Station

NARAIN HINGORANI, NAE, Independent Consultant, San Mateo, California

DEBBIE NIEMEIER, University of California, Davis

MARGO OGE, Environmental Protection Agency (retired), McLean, Virginia

MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey

JACKALYNE PFANNENSTIEL, Independent Consultant, Piedmont, California

DAN REICHER, Stanford University, Stanford, California

BERNARD ROBERTSON, NAE, DaimlerChrysler (retired), Bloomfield Hills, Michigan

DOROTHY ROBYN, Consultant, Washington, DC

GARY ROGERS, Roush Industries, Livonia, Michigan

ALISON SILVERSTEIN, Consultant, Pflugerville, Texas

MARK THIEMENS, NAS, University of California, San Diego

ADRIAN ZACCARIA, NAE, Bechtel Group, Inc. (retired), Frederick, Maryland

MARY LOU ZOBACK, NAS, Stanford University, Stanford, California

Staff

JAMES J. ZUCCHETTO, Director, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems

DANA CAINES, Financial Manager

LINDA CASOLA, Senior Program Assistant

ALAN CRANE, Senior Scientist

ELIZABETH EULLER, Program Assistant

K. JOHN HOLMES, Associate Board Director

LaNITA JONES, Administrative Coordinator

MARTIN OFFUTT, Senior Program Officer

E. JONATHAN YANGER, Research Associate

ELIZABETH ZEITLER, Associate Program Officer

_____________

1 NAE, National Academy of Engineering.

2 NAS, National Academy of Sciences.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×

Preface

In 2012, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed significant new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)/greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for light-duty vehicles. These standards will require the new vehicle fleet to double in fuel economy by 2025. Importantly, the vehicle manufacturers and suppliers by and large supported these new regulations. However, the manufacturers understandably had reservations in light of the aggressive nature of the standards. In order to address such concerns and meet statutory regulations, the Agencies proposed a mid-term review of the fuel economy standards. This review is to be completed by April 2018 in order to finalize the 2022-2025 standards.

The Committee on Assessment of Technologies for Improving the Fuel Economy of Light-Duty Vehicles, Phase 2, was established upon the request of NHTSA to help inform the mid-term review. Our committee was asked to assess the CAFE standard program and the analysis leading to the setting of the standards, as well as to provide its opinion on costs and fuel consumption improvements of a variety of technologies likely to be implemented in the light-duty fleet between now and 2030. The committee took the implications of our work very seriously, given the large potential impacts of the CAFE/GHG rules on the environment, consumers and vehicle manufacturers.

The committee comprised a wide array of backgrounds and sought input from agency analysts, vehicle manufacturers, equipment suppliers, consultants, academicians and many other experts. In addition to regular committee meetings, committee members held workshops on several critical topics, visited agency laboratories for extended discussions with their experts, and conducted numerous information-gathering site visits to automobile manufacturers and suppliers. The committee put great effort into thorough preparation for these meetings, asked probing questions and requested follow-up information in order to understand the perspectives of the many stakeholders. In addition, the committee commissioned a vehicle simulation modeling study from the University of Michigan in order to better understand the impacts of technology interactions. I greatly appreciate the considerable time and effort contributed by the committee’s individual members throughout our information-gathering process, report writing and deliberations, and the committee extends its gratitude to the highly qualified experts who provided us with excellent presentations and rigorous discussions and graciously hosted us on our many excursions.

The committee operated under the auspices of the National Research Council Board on Energy and Environmental Systems (BEES). I would like to recognize the BEES staff for organizing and planning meetings, and assisting with information gathering and report development. The efforts of K. John Holmes, Elizabeth Euller, LaNita Jones, Michelle Schwalbe, Jonathan Yanger, Elizabeth Zeitler, James Zucchetto, and Steve Godwin were invaluable to the committee’s ability to deliver its final report. I would also like to recognize David Cooke and Dharik Mallapragada for their early input. Thanks also to the many presenters, too numerous to name individually, who contributed to the committee’s data-gathering process. Their contributions were invaluable and are listed in Appendix C.

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Alexis Bell, NAS, University of California, Berkeley,

Andrew Brown Jr., Delphi Corporation,

John German, International Council for Clean Transportation,

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×

Kenneth Gillingham, Yale University,

Imtiaz Haque, Clemson University,

Roger Krieger, University of Wisconsin, Madison,

Robert Lindeman, Northrop Grumman/Mission Systems (retired),

Shaun Mepham, Drive System Design, Inc.,

Margo Oge, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (retired),

Gary Rogers, Roush Industries, Inc.,

Robert Sawyer, University of California, Berkeley,

Alan Taub, University of Michigan,

Thomas Wenzel, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,

Ron Zarowitz, AutoPacific, and

Martin Zimmerman, University of Michigan.

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Elisabeth M. Drake, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Elsa Garmire, Dartmouth College. Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and institution.

Jared Cohon, Chair

Committee on Assessment of Technologies for Improving the Fuel Economy of Light-Duty Vehicles, Phase 2

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×

4   ELECTRIFIED POWERTRAINS

Fuel Efficiency Fundamentals of Electrified Powertrains

Types of Electrified Powertrains

Fuel Consumption Benefits

Costs

Findings and Recommendations

References

Annex Tables

5   TRANSMISSIONS

Introduction

Transmission Fundamentals for Achieving Fuel Consumption Reductions

Fuel Consumption Reduction Technologies Considered in the Final CAFE Rule Analysis

Fuel Consumption Reduction Technologies Not Included in the Final CAFE Rule Analysis

Transmission Controls

Findings and Recommendations

References

Annex Tables

6   NON-POWERTRAIN TECHNOLOGIES

Introduction

Aerodynamics

Mass Reduction Opportunities from Vehicle Body and Interiors

Rolling Resistance

Vehicle Accessories

Automated and Connected Vehicles

Findings and Recommendations

References

7   COST AND MANUFACTURING CONSIDERATIONS FOR MEETING FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS

Estimating the Costs of Meeting the Fuel Economy Standards

Manufacturing Issues—Timing Considerations for New Technologies

Findings and Recommendations

References

8   ESTIMATES OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND FUEL CONSUMPTION REDUCTION EFFECTIVENESS

Introduction

Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness and Cost of Technologies

Technology Pathway Example

Full System Simulation Modeling of Fuel Consumption Reductions

Implementation Status of Fuel Consumption Reduction Technologies

Findings and Recommendations

References

Annex Tables

9   CONSUMER IMPACTS AND ACCEPTANCE ISSUES

Introduction

Trends in Vehicle Characteristics

Consumer Valuation of Fuel Economy: The Energy Paradox?

Automakers’ Risk Aversion to Supplying Greater Fuel Economy

Evidence on Consumer Value for Vehicle Attributes

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×

Costs and Benefits of the New Rules to Individual Consumers

Findings and Recommendations

References

10 OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF CAFE PROGRAM METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN

Choice of Vehicle Attributes in the Design of Current Regulations

Credit Trading

Assessing Adequacy of the Certification Test Cycles

The Treatment of “Alternative” Technologies in the CAFE/GHG Program

Approach and Methodology Used to Set Standards and Evaluate Costs and Benefits

Findings and Recommendations

References

APPENDIXES

A Statement of Task

B Committee Biographies

C Presentations and Committee Meetings

D Ideal Thermodynamic Cycles for Otto, Diesel, and Atkinson Engines

E SI Engine Definitions and Efficiency Fundamentals

F Examples of Friction Reduction Opportunities for Main Engine Components

G Friction Reduction in Downsized Engines

H Variable Valve Timing Systems

I  Variable Valve Lift Systems

J  Reasons for Potential Differences from NHTSA Estimates for Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of Turbocharged, Downsized Engines

K DOE Research Projects on Turbocharged and Downsized Engines

L Relationship between Power and Performance

M HCCI Projects

N Effect of Compression Ratio of Brake Thermal Efficiency

O Variable Compression Ratio Engines

P Fuel Consumption Impact of Tier 3 Emission Standards

Q Examples of EPA’s Standards for Gasoline

R Impact of Low Carbon Fuels to Achieve Reductions in GHG Emissions (California LCFS 2007—Alternative Fuels and Cleaner Fossil Fuels CNG, LPG)

S NHTSA’s Estimated Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of Technologies and Estimated Costs of Technologies

T Derivation of Turbocharged, Downsized Engine Direct Manufacturing Costs

U SI Engine Pathway—NHTSA Estimates—Direct Manufacturing Costs and Total Costs

V SI Engine Pathway—NRC Estimates—Direct Manufacturing Costs—Alternative Pathway, Alternative High CR with Exhaust Scavenging, and Alternative EVAS Supercharger

W Technologies, Footprints, and Fuel Economy for Example Passenger Cars, Trucks, and Hybrid Passenger Cars

X Full System Simulation Modeling of Fuel Consumption Reductions

Y Acronym List

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×

Boxes, Figures, and Tables

BOXES

5.1     FEV Cost Teardown Study Issues: Six-Speed versus Five-Speed Automatic Transmission

5.2     Teardown Cost Study Issues: Eight-Speed Automatic Transmission and Dual-Clutch Transmission

6.1     Committee Summary of Two Studies on Reducing Vehicle Mass

FIGURES

S.1     Certification fuel economy values of 2013 and 2014 MY cars plotted on NHTSA CAFE target curves

1.1     Vehicle footprint (track width × wheelbase) shown in orange. CAFE target curves for passenger cars as a function of footprint for MY 2012-2025

1.2     Diminishing fuel consumption reduction from 5 mpg fuel economy improvement at low to high fuel economy

2.1     Energy balance for SI gasoline engine for an operating condition representative of the FTP cycle

2.2     Low-friction technologies in a Nissan 1.2L three-cylinder gasoline engine

2.3     Effect of turbocharging and downsizing on BSFC versus torque

2.4     Fuel consumption reduction of MAHLE’s 30 bar BMEP, turbocharged and downsized engine

2.5     EPA-proposed time constants and resulting effect on torque rise time for turbocharging

2.6     Twin scroll turbocharger

2.7     Preignition and detonation limits for a turbocharged, downsized engine

2.8     Cumulative 2025 direct manufacturing costs (2010 dollars) (with low estimates shown as diamonds and high estimates shown as squares) versus percent fuel consumption reduction for an example I4 SI engine pathway

2.9     Changes in horsepower, 0 to 60 time, weight, and fuel economy, 1980 to 2009

2.10   Performance as indicated by 0 to 60 mph acceleration time versus power-to-weight ratio

2.11   Advanced combustion concept spanning the range from gasoline SI to diesel CI engines

2.12   Effects of compression ratio on brake thermal efficiency, indicated thermal efficiency, and mechanical efficiency for (a) full load and (b) part load conditions representative of CAFE test cycles

2.13   Schematic of SwRI D-EGR engine system

2.14   Variable compression ratio concepts

2.15   Scalzo variable displacement engine (VDE)

2.16   ESI variable displacement engine in a barrel or axial configuration

2.17   Tier 3 emission technologies for large, light-duty truck compliance

3.1     Schematic of the V6 diesel engine system for a passenger car used in the Ricardo full system simulation

3.2     HCCI combustion regime with lean equivalence ratios and low temperatures for low NOx and PM emissions

3.3     Advanced combustion concepts spanning the range from gasoline SI to diesel CI engines showing various fuels and stratification strategies

3.4     Schematic of RCCI combustion system with port-injected gasoline and DI diesel fuel showing the mixing of the two fuels in the combustion chamber

3.5     Relative deNOx, Inc. efficiency for vanadia and zeolite SCR catalysts for NO as the NOx species

4.1     P2 hybrid architecture showing the motor/generator coupled to the engine through a clutch

4.2     Power split hybrid architecture showing the separate generator and motor electrically connected via the battery and also via a planetary gear set

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×

4.3     Series hybrid architecture, as used in PHEV applications

4.4     Honda two-motor series architecture, showing the clutch-modulated connection between the battery, engine, motor and generator, and the wheels

4.5     Honda two-motor series showing modes of operation at various vehicle speeds and driving forces

4.6     Battery electric vehicle architecture

4.7     Fuel cell hybrid vehicle architecture

4.8     Working Li-ion battery utilizing a LiCoO2 cathode and a graphite anode having aluminum and copper current collectors, respectively

4.9     Specific capacities of graphite, LixAl, LixSn, Li and LixSi anodes (mAh/g)

4.10   Volume expansion of different Li-metal alloys, including Li4Si

4.11   The battery management system protects each cell from a variety of detrimental conditions

4.12   Scheme of a Li-S cell and its electrochemical reactions

4.13   Diagram of a non-aqueous Li-air battery

4.14   Cell design comparison between a conventional Li-ion battery and all-solid-state battery

4.15   Diagram of a fuel cell vehicle, including hydrogen storage, the fuel cell stack, power electronics, and batteries

4.16   Schematic of a hydrogen fuel cell

4.17   Fuel cell system efficiency at various vehicle power loads

4.18   Projected worldwide locations of hydrogen stations

5.1     Wheel force, which is proportional to wheel torque, versus vehicle speed, which illustrates multiplication of engine torque and reduction in engine speed provided by a six-speed transmission

5.2     Energy distribution in a gasoline vehicle

5.3     Market share of different types of transmissions in 2014

5.4     Planetary gear set configuration

5.5     Typical six-speed planetary automatic transmission

5.6     Cross section of the ZF eight-speed automatic transmission – 8HP45

5.7     Schematic of a dual clutch transmission

5.8     CVT with details of the steel belt

5.9     Manual transmission

5.10   Comparison of vibration dose value (VDV) for automated manual transmission (AMT) with conventional automatic transmission (AT) and dual clutch transmission (DCT)

5.11   Engine operating conditions on the CAFE cycle for a vehicle with a six-speed automatic transmission and a BSFC island map overlaid with several lines of constant power

5.12   Fuel consumption benefits of an eight-speed compared to a six-speed automatic transmission, shown as an overlay on a BSFC island map

5.13   Increase in ratio spread over the past 65 years

5.14   Engine operating conditions for six-speed (left) and eight-speed (right) automatic transmissions on the FTP-75 drive cycle

5.15   Fuel consumption reduction as a function of ratio range and number of speeds (ratios)

5.16   Transmission losses in a modern eight-speed automatic transmission

5.17   Typical clutch torque capacity as a function of hydraulic pressure

5.18   Alternative pump systems for oil supply

5.19   Off-axis double stroke vane pump

5.20   Transmission oil pump designs for reduced energy consumption in conventional automatic transmissions and CVTs

5.21   Electric motor with ball ramp and axial bearing for shifting a wet clutch in a conventional planetary automatic transmission

5.22   Wave springs for separating clutch plates

5.23   Improvements in clutch drag

5.24   Spin loss vs. temperature and oil level

5.25   Fuel economy improvements with low friction lubricants in a 2.0L, four-cylinder SUV equipped with a FWD six-speed automatic transmission

5.26   Transmission power losses as a function of input speed

5.27   Transmission power losses as a function of input torque

5.28   Torque losses as a function of input torque for a dual clutch transmission

5.29   Comparison of wet and dry DCT efficiencies

5.30   Schematic of signal flow and coordination between engine controller and driveline controller for gear ratio selection and the clutch control

5.31   Increase in ROM requirements in transmission control units as a result of the increase in number of gears or ratios over time

6.1     Selected material content per light-duty vehicle, 1995 and 2008

6.2     Auto part targets for lightweight plastics and rubber

6.3     EDAG cost chart–2011 Honda Accord

7.1     Indirect costs as a percent of direct manufacturing costs by OEM, 2007

7.2     Total costs as a ratio to direct manufacturing costs (RPE), 1972-1997 and 2007

7.3     Estimates of scale economies in automobile manufacturing

7.4     Example vehicle incorporating a combination of steel and aluminum types

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×

8.1     Learning factors for several different learning curves

8.2     Excerpt from NHTSA’s decision tree for a midsize car

8.3     NHTSA technologies for spark ignition I4 engines in midsize cars shown on a plot of NRC-estimated incremental direct manufacturing cost in 2010 dollars versus percent reduction in fuel consumption

8.4     SI engine technologies, hybrid, and advanced diesel technologies in midsize cars shown on a plot of NRC-estimated incremental direct manufacturing cost in 2010 dollars versus percent reduction in fuel consumption

8.5     Engine technology decision tree

8.6     Electrification/accessory, transmission, and hybrid technology decision tree

8.7     Vehicle technology decision tree

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 effectiveness

8.9     Midsize car with I4 SI engine pathway example using NHTSA’s estimates of 2025 MY cumulative direct manufacturing and total costs

8.10   Schematic of engine–vehicle model

8.11   Fuel economy values of 2013 and 2014 MY cars incorporating many CAFE technologies plotted on NHTSA CAFE target curves

8.12   Fuel economy values of 2013, 2014, and 2015 MY trucks incorporating many CAFE technologies plotted on NHTSA CAFE target curves

9.1     Label fuel economy, horsepower/weight ratio, and 0-60 mph acceleration time for MY 1978-2014 light-duty vehicles

9.2     Fuel economy in miles per gallon (two-cycle certification CAFE) vs. horsepower, passenger cars in 1980 (blue dots) and in 2006 (grey squares)

9.3     Results of J.D. Power U.S. Vehicle Dependability Study, in which owners of 3-year-old vehicles report problems they have experienced with their vehicles

9.4     Average annual cost of driving a new car

9.5     Fuel economy standards and actual fuel economy of cars and trucks by year plotted against real gasoline prices in 2014 dollars

9.6     Percent of passenger vehicles in different label fuel economy categories by year

9.7     Number of models in several categories of label fuel economy

9.8     Light-truck share of vehicle fleet by type of vehicle, showing the breakdown of the light-truck segment into CUVs, SUVs, minivans, pickups, and vans

9.9     Uptake of hybrid and electric drivetrains is highly regional

9.10   Household expenditures on gasoline + motor oil and vehicles by income quintile

10.1a Fuel economy target vs. vehicle footprint for cars in each model year from 2017 to 2025

10.1b Fuel economy target vs. vehicle footprint for trucks in each model year from 2017 to 2025

10.2a Changes in the distribution of car weights in MY 1975-2007

10.2b Changes in the distribution of light truck weights in MY 1975-2007

10.3   EPA certification fuel economy vs. vehicle footprint, plotted with the CAFE footprint standard for cars by vehicle nameplate, MY 2014

10.4   EPA certification fuel economy vs. vehicle footprint, plotted with the CAFE footprint standard for trucks by vehicle nameplate, MY 2014

10.5   Annual California sales for MY 2018-2025 expected for ZEV regulation compliance, showing projected PHEV, BEV, and FCEV sales

10.6   Simplified diagram illustrating the Agencies’ methodology for setting standards

10.7   Schematic illustrating the Agencies’ definition of null vehicles, 2010 baseline fleet, 2017 reference fleet, reference case, and control case used to evaluate the CAFE/GHG standards

10.8   Distribution of lifetime private benefits and costs (black) and external benefits and costs (red) of 2017-2025 MY light-duty vehicles under the standards, using a 3 percent discount rate

D.1    Ideal thermodynamic cycles for Otto, Diesel, and Atkinson engines shown on pressure-volume (P-V) diagrams

H.1    Oil-pressure-actuated (OPA) variable valve timing system

I.1      Honda i-VTEC

I.2      Toyota Valvematic variable valve lift systems illustrating low and high lift configurations resulting from adjusting the angle between the intermediate roller follower and additional follower to obtain the desired valve lift

I.3      Multiair electro-hydraulic valve-timing system

J.1      Generic fuel island map for a 3.3L V6 gasoline engine with brake specific fuel consumption in g/kWh

M.1    BSFC map for a multi-mode combustion 2.0L engine showing operating regimes for lean HCCI (red solid), SACI (orange dotted), and the optimum boundary between modes (purple dotted)

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×

M.2    Drive cycle simulations (FTP-75 Phase 2 and Phase 3) for fuel economy (mpg), engine out NOx, and tailpipe NOx with the SULEV limit of 20 mg/mi for a TWC equipped 2.0L multi-mode combustion engine

O.1    Variable compression ratios used for gasoline and E85 for an FFV

R.1    Compliance schedule for the LCFS

X.1    Predicted fuel consumption (combined cycle) for various technologies

TABLES

S.1     NRC Committee’s Estimated Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of Technologies

S.2     NRC Committee’s Estimated 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs of Technologies

1.1     Estimated Required Fleetwide Average Efficiencies under the National Program

2.1     EPA/NHTSA Technology Penetration for the MY 2025 Control Case with the 2017-2025 CAFE/GHG Standards in Effect for the Combined Light-Duty Truck and Car Fleet (percent)

2.2     Analysis of Improvements in Thermal Efficiency or Reductions in Losses for SI Engine Technologies Based on Fuel Consumption Reduction Estimates by EPA/NHTSA and Distributions of Reductions in Losses and Improvements in ITE from the EPA Lumped Parameter Model (percent)

2.3     Viscosity Grades of Engine Motor Oils

2.4     Engine Motor Oils Specified for 2013 MY Light-Duty Vehicles (LDVs)

2.5     Estimated Fuel Consumption Reductions (percent) and 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs (2010 dollars) for Friction Reduction Technologies in a Midsize Car with a Naturally Aspirated I4 Engine

2.6     Predominant Effects with VVT

2.7     Estimated Fuel Consumption Reductions (percent) and 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs (2010 dollars) for VVT Technologies in a Midsize Car with an I4 Engine

2.8     Estimated Fuel Consumption Reductions (percent) and 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs (2010 dollars) for VVL Technologies in a Midsize Car with an I4 Engine (except as noted)

2.9     Estimated Fuel Consumption Reductions (percent) and 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs (2010 dollars) for Cylinder Deactivation Technologies in V6 and V8 Engines

2.10   Percent of LDVs with Gasoline Direct Injection

2.11   Estimated Fuel Consumption Reductions (percent) and 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs (2010 dollars) for Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection Technology in a Midsize Car with an I4 Engine

2.12   Boost Systems for Turbocharged, Downsized Engines

2.13   Three-Cylinder Gasoline Engines in Production or Under Consideration for U.S. Applications

2.14   Percent of Light-Duty Vehicles with Turbochargers

2.15   Values for Constants in the Empirical Equation of NHTSA

2.16   Comparisons of Full System Simulation Results with NHTSA Estimates for Turbocharged, Downsized Engines (percent fuel consumption reduction)

2.17   Recommended Expanded Most Likely Range of Effectiveness for Turbocharging and Downsizing Technologies

2.18   Fuel Consumption Reductions and 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs (2010$s) for Turbocharged, Downsized I4 Engines in a Midsize Car with an I4 Engine (not including cost of SGDI, which is considered an enabler for TRBDS)

2.19   Estimated Fuel Consumption Reductions with Improved Engine Required Accessories Included in NHTSA’s IACC Categories

2.20   Results of Binning Costs

2.21   High-Cost Components in High-Cost Subsystems for Turbocharged and Downsized Engines

2.22   Example of Direct Manufacturing Cost (DMC) Estimates for Intake Cam Phasing (ICP) System

2.23   Example of Direct Manufacturing Cost (DMC) Assessment for Continuously Variable Valve Lift (CVVL) System

2.24   Example of Direct Manufacturing Cost (DMC) Assessment for Downsizing and Turbocharging (TRBDS1) Technology

2.25   Product Development Cost Estimates for Intake Cam Phasing Technology Example

2.26   Calculation of Revised ICM for Intake Cam PhasingI4 Engine Technology Example for an I4 Engine

2.27   Calculation of Revised ICM for Intake Cam PhasingV6 Engine Technology Example

2.28   Complexity Levels for SI Engine Technologies

2.29   Other Available Cost Data for Turbocharged, Downsized Engines

2.30a Low Most Likely Estimates of SI Engine Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness and Costs for 2017, 2020 and 2025 (2010 dollars)

2.30b High Most Likely Estimates of SI Engine Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness and Costs for 2017, 2020, and 2025 (2010 dollars)

Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×

2.31   Estimated Percent Fuel Consumption Reductions and Direct Manufacturing Costs for I4 SI Engine Technologies for Midsize Car in the Selected Time Frames

2.32   Comparison of 2012 MY Gasoline and Natural Gas Honda Civic

2.33   Fuel Consumption Reduction Test Results from Eaton EAVS Supercharger System and Comparison to NHTSA Estimates

2.34   Estimated Direct Manufacturing Cost for the Eaton EAVS Supercharger System

2.35   Comparisons of EPA Fuel Economy for Mazda Vehicles with Skyactiv Technology

2.36   D-EGR Vehicle Demonstration

2.37   EPA Tier 3 Emission Standards for LDVs, light-duty trucks (LDTs), and medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs) and Schedule for Phasing-in Tier 3 PM Standards

2.38   California LEV III Emission Standards

2A.1   NRC Committee’s Estimated Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of SI Engine Technologies

2A.2a NRC Committee’s Estimated 2017 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs of SI Engine Technologies

2A.2b NRC Committee’s Estimated 2020 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs of SI Engine Technologies

2A.2c NRC Committee’s Estimated 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs of SI Engine Technologies

2A.3  NRC Estimates of Low and High Most Likely Effectiveness Values (As a Percent Reduction in Fuel Consumption) Relative to NHTSA Estimates for SI Engine Technologies for I4 Engines

2A.4  NRC Low and High Most Likely Direct Manufacturing Cost Estimates Relative to NHTSA Estimates for SI Engine Technologies for I4 Engine

2A.5  EPA Fuel Economy Data Examples of Downsizing and Turbocharging

3.1     Estimated Fuel Consumption and Carbon Dioxide Reductions for Diesel Engines Relative to Gasoline Engines

3.2     Summary of Diesel Vehicle Fuel Consumption Based on NRC Phase One Estimates of Technologies for Improving Fuel Economy for Light-Duty Vehicles (percent)

3.3     Comparison of Diesel and Gasoline Vehicle Fuel Consumption Using EPA Certification Data Normalized for Power:Weight Ratio

3.4     Criteria Emission Standards (g/mile) Relevant in This Study to Diesel Engines in Light-Duty Vehicles

3.5     Diesel Engine and Vehicle Incremental Direct Manufacturing Costs at ULEV II (Tier 2 Bin 5) Emissions from NRC Phase One Study(dollars)

3.6     Summary of Tier 2 Bin 5 Diesel and Conversion to Advanced Diesel Incremental Costs (dollars)

3.7     Derivation of the Committee’s Estimated 2017 Direct Manufacturing Costs at Tier 2 Bin 2 Emission Standards Relative to Tier 2 Bin 5 Emission Standards (2008 dollars)

3.8     Derivation of the Committee’s Estimated 2017 Diesel Engine Direct Manufacturing Costs at Tier 2 Bin 2 Emissions

3.9     Comparison of NRC Direct Manufacturing Costs (All Costs in 2010 dollars) for Advanced Diesel Engine at Tier 2 Bin 2 Emissions with EPA/NHTSA Estimates

3.10   Direct Manufacturing Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for EURO 6 Standards (U.S. dollars)

3.11   Comparison of Costs of European Emission Reduction Technologies for Euro 6 Standards and for Tier 2 Bin 5 Standards

3.12   Diesel Engine Technologies Considered by the Agencies and the NRC Phase One Study

3.13   Prices of Gasoline and Diesel Equivalent Vehicles

3.14   Light-Duty Diesel Vehicle Models

3A.1   NRC Committee’s Estimated Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of Diesel Engine Technologies

3A.2a NRC Committee’s Estimated 2017 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs of Diesel Engine Technologies

3A.2b NRC Committee’s Estimated 2020 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs of Diesel Engine Technologies

3A.2c NRC Committee’s Estimated 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs of Diesel Engine Technologies

3A.3  The Fuel Economy of Current Vehicles, with Gasoline and Diesel Engines

4.1     Relative Fuel Economy Improvements Obtained Between Optimal Control Strategies and Rule-Based Strategies in Simulations and Experiments of Various Fuel Economy Drive Cycles (percent)

4.2     Best-Case (low rate), Practically Achievable Working Voltages and Capacities vs. Li/Li+ for Various Cathode Materials

4.3     Li-ion Battery Systems in Electric Vehicles

4.4     2013 DOE Report Key Assumptions of Cost Analyses for Fuel Cell System

4.5     Comparison of Effectiveness Estimated by the Agencies with EPA Certification Fuel Consumption and Fuel Economy Data of Actual Vehicles

4.6     Summary of NRC Estimates of Direct Manufacturing Costs and Fuel Consumption Effectiveness for Electrification Technologies for a Midsize Car Replacing an I4 Engine

4A.1  List of xEVs on Sale in the U.S. in 2014

4A.2  Further Examples of P2 Hybridization Effectiveness in Vehicles in MY 2014

Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×

5.1     Gear Ratios for Five-, Six- and Eight-Speed Transmissions Representative of Current Transmissions on the Market

5.2     Transmission Losses Estimated for a 2010 Baseline Automatic Transmission

5.3     Learning Factors for Most Transmission Technologies

5.4     Estimated Fuel Consumption Reductions and 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs (2010 dollars) for Improved Automatic Transmission Controls/Externals

5.5     Autonomie Vehicle Simulation Fuel Consumption Results and Percentage Improvements for Automatic Transmissions with a 2.2L Naturally Aspirated Engine

5.6     Derivation of Direct Manufacturing Costs for Automatic Transmission (2007 dollars)

5.7     Derivation of Direct Manufacturing Costs for Six-Speed Automatic Transmissions from Four-Speed Automatic Transmissions

5.8     Estimated Fuel Consumption Reductions and 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs for Six- and Eight-Speed Automatic Transmissions (2010 dollars)

5.9     Incremental Cost Estimates for Transmission Technologies Relative to 2007 Four-Speed Automatic Transmissions

5.10   Direct Manufacturing Cost Estimate for an Eight-Speed Automatic Transmission Relative to a Six-Speed Automatic Transmission

5.11   Reduction in Losses, Reduction in Fuel Consumption, and Estimated Costs for High-Efficiency Gearbox—Level 1 (HEG1), Level 2 (HEG2), and Level 3 (HEG3)

5.12   Estimated Fuel Consumption Reductions and 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs for High-Efficiency Gearboxes (2010 dollars)

5.13   Autonomie Vehicle Simulation Fuel Consumption Results and Percentage Improvements for DCT Transmissions with a 2.2L Naturally Aspirated Engine

5.14   Estimated Fuel Consumption Reductions and 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs for Six- and Eight-Speed DCT Transmissions

5.15   Direct Manufacturing Cost (DMC) Estimate for a Six-Speed Wet Dual Clutch Transmission Relative to a Six-Speed Conventional Automatic Transmission

5.16   Derivation of Eight-Speed DCT Costs from Six-Speed DCT Direct Manufacturing Costs

5.17   Estimated Fuel Consumption Reductions and 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs for Dual-Clutch Transmission Variants (2010 dollars)

5.18   Estimated Fuel Consumption Reductions and 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs for Secondary Axle Disconnect System

5.19   Estimated Fuel Consumption Reductions and 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs for Continuously Variable Transmission and High Efficiency Gearbox

5A.1  NRC Committee’s Estimated Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of Transmission Technologies

5A.2a NRC Committee’s 2017 MY Estimated Direct Manufacturing Costs of Transmission Technologies

5A.2b NRC Committee’s 2020 MY Estimated Direct Manufacturing Costs of Transmission Technologies

5A.2c NRC Committee’s 2025 MY Estimated Direct Manufacturing Costs of Transmission Technologies

6.1     Agency-Estimated Costs for Aerodynamic Drag Improvement-Levels 1 and 2 (2010 dollars)

6.2     Summary of the Committee’s Findings on the Costs and Impacts of Technologies for Reducing Light-Duty-Vehicle Fuel Consumption

6.3     Distribution of Automotive Aluminum Utilization by Type

6.4     Illustration of the Difference in the Distribution Between Primary Mass Reduction and Secondary Mass Reduction for a Total of 10 Percent Mass Reduction

6.5     NHTSA-Estimated Maximum Mass Reduction for a Safety-Neutral Environment

6.6     Light-Duty Vehicles Material Technical Requirements and Gaps

6.7     Summary of Results from Electricore/EDAG/GWU Study Sponsored by NHTSA

6.8     Analysis of Mass Reduction Studies and Results

6.9     Comparison of Materials Used to Reduce Vehicle Mass

6.10   Learning Factors for Levels of Mass Reduction

6.11   Ricardo Estimates for Fuel Economy Improvements by Percent Weight Reduction over the EPA Combined Drive Cycle

6.12   Reduction in Fuel Consumption per Percent Mass Reduction (percent)

6.13   Committee Estimates of Costs and Effectiveness for Mass Reduction for Midsized Cars, Large Cars, and Light-Duty Trucks

6.14   EPA/NHTSA Technical Support Document Estimates for Low-Rolling-Resistance Tires: Levels 1 and 2 in the 2017-2025 Time Frame (2010 dollars)

6.15   Summary of Estimated Costs for Low-Rolling-Resistance Tires from Various Studies

6.16   Costs of Electric/Electrohydraulic Power Steering (2010 dollars)

6.17   Efficiency-Improving AC Technologies and Credits

6.18   Derivation of Maximum CO2 Credits for Air Conditioning Efficiency Improvements

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×

6.19   Costs for AC Efficiency Improvements

6.20   Compilation of Effectiveness of Improved Accessories from Various Studies and Organizations

6.21   Estimates of Technology Effectiveness and Costs for 2017, 2020, and 2025

6.22   Mass Reductions Foreseen by NHTSA/EPA and by the Committee (percent)

7.1     Breakdown of Indirect Costs for an OEM

7.2     Indirect Cost Multipliers Used in the 2025 Rule

7.3     Estimated Added Cost of Stranded Capital

7.4     Product Lifetimes and Development Cycles

7.5     Manufacturing Considerations with Associated Timelines and Costs Estimated for the Introduction of Various Vehicle Fuel Economy Technologies

8.1     Changes in Number of Cylinders as Engines Are Downsized

8.2     Effects of Reducing Number of Cylinders on Direct Manufacturing Cost When Changing from Level 1 to Level 2 Turbocharged, Downsized Engine

8.3     Synergy Factors for Application of Transmission Technologies to 27 bar BMEP (CEGR2) Engines

8.4a   Midsize Car SI Engine Pathway Showing NRC Low Most Likely Estimates for 2017, 2020, and 2025 (2012 dollars)

8.4b   Midsize Car with SI Engine Pathway Showing NRC High Most Likely Estimates for 2017, 2020, and 2025 (2012 dollars)

8.5     Illustrative Incremental Direct Manufacturing Costs for the 2017-2025 Target for an Example Midsize Car with an I4 SI Engine (2010 dollars)

8.6     Alternative Pathways for a Midsize Car with an I4 Gasoline Engine

8.7     Air Conditioning Efficiency and Off-Cycle Credits

8.8a   Extract of Midsize Car Pathway Showing the Effect of A/C Efficiency Credits and Active Aerodynamics Off-Cycle Credits on the NRC Low Most Likely Cost Estimates

8.8b   Extract of Midsize Car Pathway Showing the Effect of A/C Efficiency Credits and Active Aerodynamics Off-Cycle Credits on the NRC High Most Likely Cost Estimates

8.9     Example of the Effect of Credits on 2017 MY to 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs for a Midsize Car with an I4 Gasoline Engine

8.10   Detailed Fuel Economy Results from the U of M Full System Simulation Study

8.11   Comparison of U of M Full System Simulation Results with NHTSA RIA and EPA Lumped Parameter Model Estimates

8.12   Fuel Consumption Reductions for 2014 MY Compared to 2008 MY Midsize Cars, Based on EPA Certification Test Data Compared to Aggregation of NHTSA Technology Effectiveness Estimates

8A.1   NRC Committee’s Estimated Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of Technologies

8A.2a NRC Committee’s Estimated 2017 Direct Manufacturing Costs of Technologies

8A.2b NRC Committee’s Estimated 2020 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs of Technologies

8A.2c NRC Committee’s Estimated 2025 MY Direct Manufacturing Costs of Technologies

9.1     Studies on Consumer Valuation of Fuel Economy

9.2     Recent Surveys Show High Public Support for Fuel Economy Standards

9.3     Inferred Willingness of Consumers to Pay for Vehicle Attributes

9.4     Survey of New Car Buyers Showing the Percent of Survey Respondents Rating a Particular Attribute as an “Extremely Important” Reason For Purchase

9.5     NADA New Car and SUV/Truck Preference Surveys, August 2014

9.6     Private Cost of Ownership at Purchase Decision Born By the Individual Consumer

10.1   Comparison of Credit Programs under NHTSA and EPA

10.2   Comparison of EPA Test Cycles

M.1   Simulated Fuel Economy Benefits for an Experimental Vehicle with a 2.0L Four-Cylinder Engine with Multi-Mode Combustion including SI, HCCI, and SACI Without Fuel Economy Penalties for NOx Control

R.1    Carbon Intensity of Fuels that Substitute for Gasoline

S.1    NHTSA’s Estimated Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of Technologies

S.2a  NHTSA’s Estimated 2017 Costs of Technologies (2010 dollars)

S.2b  NHTSA’s Estimated 2020 Costs of Technologies (2010 dollars)

S.2c  NHTSA’s Estimated 2025 Costs of Technologies (2010 dollars)

U.1    Midsize Car with I4 Spark Ignition Engine Pathway Example Using NHTSA’s Estimate and Showing Direct Manufacturing Costs for 2017, 2020, and 2025 MYs (2010 dollars)

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R16
Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R17
Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R18
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R19
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21744.
×
Page R20
Next: Summary »
Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $124.00 Buy Ebook | $99.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The light-duty vehicle fleet is expected to undergo substantial technological changes over the next several decades. New powertrain designs, alternative fuels, advanced materials and significant changes to the vehicle body are being driven by increasingly stringent fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards. By the end of the next decade, cars and light-duty trucks will be more fuel efficient, weigh less, emit less air pollutants, have more safety features, and will be more expensive to purchase relative to current vehicles. Though the gasoline-powered spark ignition engine will continue to be the dominant powertrain configuration even through 2030, such vehicles will be equipped with advanced technologies, materials, electronics and controls, and aerodynamics. And by 2030, the deployment of alternative methods to propel and fuel vehicles and alternative modes of transportation, including autonomous vehicles, will be well underway. What are these new technologies - how will they work, and will some technologies be more effective than others?

Written to inform The United States Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards, this new report from the National Research Council is a technical evaluation of costs, benefits, and implementation issues of fuel reduction technologies for next-generation light-duty vehicles. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles estimates the cost, potential efficiency improvements, and barriers to commercial deployment of technologies that might be employed from 2020 to 2030. This report describes these promising technologies and makes recommendations for their inclusion on the list of technologies applicable for the 2017-2025 CAFE standards.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!