National Academies Press: OpenBook

Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles (2015)

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

« Previous: Appendix I: Variable Valve Lift Systems
Suggested Citation:"Appendix J: Reasons for Potential Differences from NHTSA Estimates for Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of Turbocharged, Downsized Engines." 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.
×

Appendix J

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

The committee estimated that the fuel consumption reduction effectiveness for a 24 bar BMEP, 50 percent downsized, turbocharged engine could be approximately 2 percentage points lower than NHTSA’s estimates for the following reasons:

Reason 1: Compression ratio is likely to be reduced to accommodate 91 RON gasoline (87 AKI) in the U.S. instead of European 95 RON gasoline used in the Mahle and Ricardo analyses.

  1. Compression ratios of engines cited by EPA/NHTSA:

    EPA/Ricardo Report (EPA/Ricardo 2011, p. 19): CR = 10.5:1 for full system simulation

    Research engines cited in EPA/Ricardo Report (p. 19): Sabre engine, Lotus Engineering, UK (Coltman 2008)

    “Operating on regular 95 RON”
    CR = 10.2:1

    Mahle 30 bar BMEP engine (Lumsden 2009)

    CR = 9.75
    Engine was not tested on 91 RON gasoline, Mahle presentation to NRC committee (Blaxill 2012)

  2. Compression ratios of U.S. turbocharged downsized engines (Mahle Wards Light Duty Engine Chart 2014):

    Ford: 2.0L EcoBoost CR = 9.3:1

    GM: 2.0L Turbo CR = 9.2:1
    1.4L Turbo CR = 9.5:1

  3. Conclusion 1: U.S. turbocharged engines operating on 91 RON gasoline compared to European engines operating on 95 RON gasoline have approximately a 1.0 lower compression ratio.
  4. Effect of lower compression ratio on fuel consumption 1.0 CR results in approximately 1.5 percent FC increase (Chapter 2, High Compression Ratio with High Octane Gasoline section)
  5. Conclusion 2: The 1.0 lower compression ratio of turbocharged engines in the U.S. will have approximately a 1.5 percent increase in fuel consumption relative to the cited European research engines.

Reason 2: Spark retard is likely to be required in some higher load regions encountered in the CAFE drive cycles.

  1. Apply the criteria from “A review of the Effect of Engine Operating Conditions on Borderline Knock”(Russ 1996) to provide an estimate of the spark retard required for the boost pressures encountered in the CAFE drive cycles.

    Criterion for RON change due with a change in compression ratio: 5 RON / 1 CR (This criterion illustrates the reduction in CR required in the U.S. for engines operating on gasoline with 91 RON instead of 95 RON.)

    Criterion for RON change with a change in intake pressure: 3-4 RON / 10 kPa (100 kPa = 14.5 psi)

    Criterion for RON change with spark retard: 1 RON/1 degree

    The pressure ratio at higher speed/load conditions in the CAFE drive cycles was estimated to be 1.5:1. The increase in pressure of 50 kPa (above 100 kPa atmospheric pressure) would result in the need for a

Suggested Citation:"Appendix J: Reasons for Potential Differences from NHTSA Estimates for Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of Turbocharged, Downsized Engines." 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.
×
  1. 15 RON increase by applying the RON/kPa criteria shown above.

    With the assumed 91 RON gasoline at these conditions, spark must be retarded, according to the RON/spark retard criteria shown above:

    Spark Retard = 15 degrees from MBT (minimum spark advance for best torque)

  2. Apply the guideline in “Study of the effects of ignition timing on gasoline engine performance and emissions” (Zareei 2013):

    15 degrees spark retard: BSFC increases by 6% (at some conditions)

  3. Conclusion: Spark retard to avoid knock at some conditions on the CAFE drive cycles will result in approximately 6 percent increase in fuel consumption at those conditions and an estimated 0.25 percent increase in fuel consumption on the CAFE drive cycles.

images

FIGURE J.1 Generic fuel island map for a 3.3L V6 gasoline engine with brake specific fuel consumption in g/kWh.
SOURCE: Dick (2013). Reprinted with permission from SAE paper 2013-01-1272 Copyright © 2013 SAE International.

Reason 3: Wider transmission spans, or modified torque converters, may be used to overcome turbocharged lag during launch (higher engine speeds at launch)

  RPM Torque lbs-ft (Nm) Transmission 1st Gear Ratio Driveshaft Torque (lbs-ft) BSFC
3.3L NA Engine: 1500 133 (181) 4.0:1 532 240 g/kWh
1.65L TC Engine:a 1500 133 (181) Torque not achievable at same engine speed due to turbocharger lag    
1.65L TC Engine:a 2000 100 (136) 5.3:1 530 255 g/kWh

a For the 50 percent downsized engine, torque must be multiplied by 2 to enter Figure J.1.

  1. The following example is based on the fuel island map shown in Figure J.1. This example is for a
Suggested Citation:"Appendix J: Reasons for Potential Differences from NHTSA Estimates for Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of Turbocharged, Downsized Engines." 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.
×
  1. moderate launch acceleration rate with a 3.3L naturally aspirated engine and a 50 percent downsized, turbocharged 1.65L engine.

  2. At launch, the 1.65L turbocharged (TC) engine cannot develop the torque of the 3.3L naturally aspirated (NA) engine due to turbocharger lag.
    • - Higher transmission ratio is provided to TC engine for higher torque multiplication.
    • - As a result, the same driveshaft torque can be provided.
    • - This results in a higher engine speed for the same vehicle speed.
    • - Fuel consumption will be increased by 6 percent during these periods (BSFC of 255 g/kWh for the turbocharged, downsized engine compared to 240 g/kWh for the naturally aspirated engine).
  3. Conclusion: During launch from idle, which occurs 18 times during the FTP-75 drive cycle, fuel consumption of the turbocharged engine will be lower by up to approximately 6 percent and an estimated 0.25 percent increase in fuel consumption on the CAFE drive cycles.

Overall Conclusion: Fuel consumption reduction effectiveness for turbocharged, downsized engines could be approximately 2 percentage points lower than NHTSA’s estimates due to 1) lower compression ratio, 2) the effects of spark retard to avoid knock at higher speed/load conditions, and 3) higher transmission ratios during launch to provide driveshaft torque comparable to the naturally aspirated engine.

REFERENCES

Blaxill, H. 2012. MAHLE Downsizing Demonstrator. Presentation to the National Research Council Committee on Assessment of Technologies for Improving Fuel Economy of Light-Duty Vehicles, Phase 2. Dearborn, Michigan, September 27.

Coltman, D., J.W.G. Turner, R. Curtis, D. Blake, B. Holland, R.J. Pearson, A. Arden and H. Nuglisch. 2008. Project Sabre: A Close-Spaced Direct Injection 3-Cylinder Engine with Synergistic Technologies to Achieve Low CO2 Output. SAE Technical Paper 2008-01-0138.

Dick, A., J. Greiner, A. Locher, and F. Jauch. 2013. Optimization Potential for a State of the Art 8-Speed AT. SAE 2013-01-1272.

EPA/Ricardo. 2010. Computer Simulation of Light-Duty Vehicle Technologies for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction in the 2020-2025 Timeframe. EPA-420-R-11-020, December.

Lumsden, G., D. OudeNijeweme, N. Fraser and H. Blaxill. 2009. Development of a Turbocharged Direct Injection Downsizing Demonstrator Engine. SAE Technical Paper 2009-01-1503.

Russ, S. 1996. A review of the effect of engine operating conditions on borderline knock. SAE Technical Paper 960497. doi:10.4271/960497.

Zareei, J., and A.H. Kakaee. 2013. Study of the effects of ignition timing on gasoline engine performance and emissions. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 5:109-116.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix J: Reasons for Potential Differences from NHTSA Estimates for Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of Turbocharged, Downsized Engines." 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 390
Suggested Citation:"Appendix J: Reasons for Potential Differences from NHTSA Estimates for Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of Turbocharged, Downsized Engines." 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 391
Suggested Citation:"Appendix J: Reasons for Potential Differences from NHTSA Estimates for Fuel Consumption Reduction Effectiveness of Turbocharged, Downsized Engines." 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 392
Next: Appendix K: DOE Research Projects on Turbocharged and Downsized Engines »
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!