The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), a government and industry joint initiative, has established a goal of tripling the fuel economy of a midsize sedan. A series of modeling experiments was conducted to examine the relative effectiveness of various technical steps cumulatively accomplishing this goal. A composite 1995 midsize sedan was sequentially modified, resulting in 21 different vehicles, each with selectively singularly altered candidate technical modifications that are evaluated with respect to their effectiveness for increasing fuel economy. The candidate technical modifications included manual transmission; reduced acceleration requirement; reduced frontal area and coefficient of drag; low-resistance tires; lightweight material; fuel-efficient, turbocharged, direct-injection diesel engine; hybridizing to a parallel configuration; and lower grade-climbing requirements. The study design is discussed, and simulated fuel economy gain for each step is presented. The modeling exercise also estimated that it is possible to reach the triplefuel-economy goal with these modifications.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
National Research Council. Review of the Research Program of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Sixth Report. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2000.
2.
WipkeK., CuddyM., BharathanD., BurchS., JohnsonV., MarkelT., and SprikS.ADVISOR 2.0: A Second-Generation Advanced Vehicle Simulator for Systems Analysis. http://www.ctts.nrel.gov/analysis/reading_room.html.
3.
WipkeK., CuddyM., and BurchS.ADVISOR 2.1: A User-Friendly Advanced Powertrain Simulation Using a Combined Backward/Forward Approach. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Special Issue on Hybrid and Electric Vehicles, Columbus, Ohio, 1999.
4.
AnF., BarthM., NorbeckJ., and RossM.Development of a Comprehensive Modal Emissions Model: Operating Under Hot-Stabilized Conditions. In Transportation Research Record 1587, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 52–62.
5.
AnF., BarthM., and ScoraG.Impacts of Diverse Cycles on Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Performance. SAE Technical Paper 972646, Warrendale, Pa., 1997.
6.
AnF., and BarthM.Critical Issues in Quantifying Hybrid Electric Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Consumption. SAE Technical Paper 981902, Warrendale, Pa., 1998.
7.
CuencaR. M., GainesL. L., and VyasA. D.Evaluation of Electric Vehicle Production and Operating Costs. Report ANL/ESD-41. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., 1999.
8.
Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club (ADAC) Special, Auto 2000: 200 Autos im Test (in German). Das Automagazine, 2000.
9.
Hors-Serie Essais 2000, no. 11 (in French). Auto Plus, 2000.
10.
GreeneD. L., and DeCiccoJ.. Engineering-Economic Analysis of Automotive Fuel Economy Potential in the United States. Report ORNL/TM-2000/26. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., 2000.
11.
SantiniD. J., VyasA. D., AndersonJ. L., and AnF.. Estimating Trade Offs Along the Path to the PNGV 3X Goal. In Preprint CD-ROM, 80th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2001.
12.
AnF., StodolskyF., and SantiniD.. Hybrid Options for Light-Duty Vehicles. SAE Technical Paper 99-01-2929, Warrendale, Pa., 1999.
13.
PRIUS Product Information 2000. Toyota Product Information for North America, PR-E-00UJ03, 2000.
Mobile Source Report. Clean Car Environmental Program Goes Final Amid Environmentalist Protest. Inside EPA, Vol. 6, No. 6, March12, 1998, p. 3.
20.
Lower Sulfur Gasoline: Petroleum Industry Proposes Regulations for Cleaner Fuels. American Petroleum Institute (API) Info Brief, API Editorial and Special Issues Department, Washington, D.C., Oct.9, 1998.
21.
BaunerD., Johansson-StenmanO., and LindgrenM.. Socioeconomic Hybrid Vehicle Drivetrain Design for Sweden. Proc., 17th Electric Vehicle Symposium, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Oct.15–18, 2000.
22.
McCubbinD. R., and DelucchiM. A.The Health Costs of Motor-Vehicle-Related Air Pollution. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 33, Part 3, Sept.1999, pp. 253–286.
23.
StreetsD. G., ChangY.-S., TompkinsM., GhimY. S., and CarterL. D.Efficient Regional Ozone Control Strategies for the Eastern United States. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 61, 2001, pp. 345–365. Available athttp://www.idealibrary.com.
24.
SantiniD., et al.Gasoline-Fueled Hybrid vs. Conventional Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Economy. Presented at Annual Meeting of the Air and Waste Management Association and Exposition (Paper 99-851), St. Louis, Mo., 1999.
25.
PlotkinS., AnF., AndersonJ., BharathanD., SantiniD., VyasA., and WangM.. ANL’s Hybrid Electric Vehicle Analyses: Scoping Out the Potential Energy Cycle Impacts and Monetary Costs of Hybrid Vehicles. Presented at 78th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1999.
26.
SantiniD. J., PattersonP. D., and VyasA. D.Importance of Vehicle Costs, Fuel Prices, and Fuel Efficiency in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Market Success. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1738, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 11–19.
27.
SantiniD., and VyasA.Commercial Viability of Hybrid Vehicles: Best Household Use and Cross-National Considerations. Proc., 20th Annual North American Conference of the U.S. Association for Energy Economics/International Association for Energy Economics (USAEE/IAEE), Orlando, Fla., 1999.
