Zeno Swijtink
06-10-2010, 10:45 AM
Are the latest fuel economy targets achievable?
By: Michael Murphy, Thursday, June 10, 2010, AutomotiveWorld (https://www.automotiveworld.com/news/powertrain/82402-can-the-latest-fuel-economy-targets-be-achieved).com
Although fuel efficiency is now a central preoccupation of governments, automotive OEMs and consumers, it has had an on-and-off place on the agenda ever since the OPEC oil shocks of the 1970s. However, advances in efficiency have been significant since that period.
In the US, fuel economy at constant weight has improved more than 30% since 1975, although the gains were overwhelmed by a market shift to heavier vehicles so that the average light vehicle fuel economy actually fell more than 12% between 1987 and 2004. Since then, however, average fuel economy began to improve as fuel prices increased and heavy vehicles such as SUVs became less attractive.
In Europe, the average fuel economy improved 22% between 1995 and 2005, although a significant proportion of that resulted from a steady shift towards diesels. However, as in the US, a market shift towards larger, heavier vehicles compounded by the effects of mandated safety requirements reduced the overall gain to around 13%.
In Europe, the average fuel economy improved 22% between 1995 and 2005, although a significant proportion of that resulted from a steady shift towards diesels
Between 2004 and 2009, both Europe and the US recorded average light vehicle fuel economy improvements to the order of 10%. The US EPA reported that the 2009 combined average for light vehicles was 21.1mpg (US gallons), with cars at 24.5mpg and light trucks (pick-ups, SUVs and minivans) at 18.4mpg, but warned that these figures reflect "real world" fuel economy, rather than that determined by the tests used for CAFE standards, which it said, give results about 20% higher. This curious admission is supported by the fact that when President Obama announced the new combined target of 34.1mpg for 2016, he said that it represents an increase of 30%, which suggests a current CAFE average of around 26mpg - 23% higher than the "real world" figure.
Meanwhile, new light vehicles in Europe achieved an average of 146g of CO2 per kilometre in 2009, which is equivalent to about 37mpg (US). In Japan, although local OEMs had exceeded the regulatory fuel economy targets set for 2010 by 2006, the government introduced regulations during 2007 that require OEMs to improve the fuel efficiency of their new vehicles by more than 23% over 2004 levels by 2015 to achieve an average of 39.5mpg (US). China has set its 2015 target close to that set for Europe, at 42.2mpg (US).
https://www.automotiveworld.com/img/2010/06/Image/environment/features/figure-1.jpg
This means that the fuel economy regulations now in place challenge Japanese OEMs to achieve a gain of less than 10% by 2015 and those in Europe by a little more than 12% by the same year. Alongside this and by the same year if the 2016 model year is being referred to, US OEMs and consumers are faced with achieving a 30% improvement. Even cars in the US, which averaged 32.6mpg (CAFE figures ) in 2009, must improve by nearly 20% to 39mpg.
However, an improvement closer to 40% will surely be required if light trucks, which currently comprise 49% of new US light vehicles, are to achieve their 30mpg target unless consumers downsize away from them in numbers far greater than currently predicted.
Of course, the situation for US OEMs can be alleviated considerably by the fact that flex-fuel E85 vehicles (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) are eligible for CAFE credits of 165% of the fuel economy achieved by their gasoline-only equivalent. No doubt with this and the inexpensive nature of the technology required in mind, US OEMs have substantially increased the proportion of flex-fuel vehicles they produce.
However, E85 is not available throughout the country and a recent survey found that only 10% of the owners of the 8 to 9 million flex-fuel vehicles in the country know that their vehicle can use it. By 2015, OEMs must prove that consumers are actually using E85 in order to claim the credits.
a recent survey found that only 10% of the owners of the 8 to 9 million flex-fuel vehicles in the country know that their vehicle can use it
Returning to the central issue at hand, an examination of the technologies that can help to improve fuel economy is cause for encouragement. Robert Bosch, a company with considerable interest in the topic, has estimated that a 1.4-litre gasoline engine using direct injection, variable valve timing and turbocharging can provide the same performance as a 2.0-litre engine with port injection while improving fuel economy 22%. Furthermore, higher turbo boost and variable valve lift will enable a 1.1-litre, three-cylinder engine to provide the same performance and improve fuel economy nearly 30% while costing around €1,000 more to produce than the baseline 2.0-litre unit. For light diesels, Bosch claims that a 2.0-litre unit can be replaced by a 1.2-litre unit incorporating the latest injection and turbocharging technology while providing similar performance and a 33% improvement in fuel economy.
As well as advances in engines, there are a range of other technologies that improve fuel economy and which are already well established in the marketplace:
• Stop-start technology can provide a fuel economy gain of 5% to 8% with higher gains for vehicles primarily used in congested urban situations.
• Electric power steering in place of a belt-driven, hydraulic system can provide a 3% to 5% gain and electric systems are now powerful enough for use in a full-size US pick-up.
• An automated manual transmission in place of a six-speed planetary automatic or a CVT in place of a five-speed automatic can each provide a gain of more than 3%.
• Reducing the weight of a mid-size car by 100kg can realize a 4.5% gain.
• Low rolling-resistance tyres can add 3% to 5%.
• LED lighting can add a gain of 1.75% when all exterior lights are on under highway driving and somewhat more in urban driving.
• Aerodynamic changes such as streamlining the underside of the vehicle and lowering it 10mm can produce a 1% gain on a vehicle that already has good aerodynamic properties.
Without considering hybrid drivetrains or a list of new technologies such as turbo-alternators and electric air conditioning, compounding the lower figures in the list above suggests a combined fuel economy improvement of around 35%, while taking the less likely upper estimates increases it to 45%.
Of course, new and additional technologies come at a cost. When announcing the new US fuel economy targets for 2016, President Obama stated that the cost of achieving them would add US$600 per vehicle although other estimates have set it at US$1,300. Similarly, the European Automobile Constructors Association (ACEA) claimed that the technology required for the EU regulation would add €1,500 per vehicle, while the EC estimated it at €1,300.
However, the respective government estimates of the potential fuel savings to consumers over the useful lifetime of the vehicle were put at US$2,800 and €2,700, which would more than offset the purchase premium.
When announcing the new US fuel economy targets for 2016, President Obama stated that the cost of achieving them would add US$600 per vehicle
While the focus tends to fall on OEMs, consumers could have a huge impact in all this by driving a shift towards smaller, lighter vehicles. In 2009, JATO Consult reported that such a shift was occurring in Europe, driven by consumers seeking a lower purchase price, lower taxation and lower overall running costs for fuel and maintenance, although the report acknowledged that scrapping incentives and the recession had partly stimulated it. In the US, Capital One Auto Finance found that 53% of respondents to a survey published in April 2010 said their next car would be more fuel efficient and 55% were prepared to give up a larger vehicle. However, a survey by Experian Automotive in 2009 found that while US consumers shifted more towards smaller cars when gasoline prices increased, the trend was not sustained as people become accustomed to the higher price.
Returning to the question posed in the title above, it appears that the 2015 fuel economy targets for Europe and Japan are achievable with technologies that are already available and in the marketplace. Several analysts have reported CO2 emissions figures during recent months that suggest that Europe is tracking comfortably towards its goals and the 12% or so required during the next five years should not present a great challenge. In Japan, the 10% gain required should be even more achievable, especially if the dramatic shift to hybrids that occurred last year continues.
However, the challenge for the US is far greater. Even with flex-fuel credits, surely a significant downsize shift will be necessary to achieve the daunting 30% required. While this might appear to be a simple matter to consumers in Europe or Japan, where the average light vehicle engine is less than half the size of the average in the US, consumers in the US have long been used to much larger vehicles and substantial incentives and/or a dramatic increases in fuel prices might be necessary to stimulate such a change.
For a more in-depth review of light vehicle fuel efficiency technology, see The light vehicle fuel efficiency report (2nd edition). (https://www.automotiveworld.com/research/the-light-vehicle-fuel-efficiency-report-2nd-edition)
Published on Thursday, June 10, 2010
By: Michael Murphy, Thursday, June 10, 2010, AutomotiveWorld (https://www.automotiveworld.com/news/powertrain/82402-can-the-latest-fuel-economy-targets-be-achieved).com
Although fuel efficiency is now a central preoccupation of governments, automotive OEMs and consumers, it has had an on-and-off place on the agenda ever since the OPEC oil shocks of the 1970s. However, advances in efficiency have been significant since that period.
In the US, fuel economy at constant weight has improved more than 30% since 1975, although the gains were overwhelmed by a market shift to heavier vehicles so that the average light vehicle fuel economy actually fell more than 12% between 1987 and 2004. Since then, however, average fuel economy began to improve as fuel prices increased and heavy vehicles such as SUVs became less attractive.
In Europe, the average fuel economy improved 22% between 1995 and 2005, although a significant proportion of that resulted from a steady shift towards diesels. However, as in the US, a market shift towards larger, heavier vehicles compounded by the effects of mandated safety requirements reduced the overall gain to around 13%.
In Europe, the average fuel economy improved 22% between 1995 and 2005, although a significant proportion of that resulted from a steady shift towards diesels
Between 2004 and 2009, both Europe and the US recorded average light vehicle fuel economy improvements to the order of 10%. The US EPA reported that the 2009 combined average for light vehicles was 21.1mpg (US gallons), with cars at 24.5mpg and light trucks (pick-ups, SUVs and minivans) at 18.4mpg, but warned that these figures reflect "real world" fuel economy, rather than that determined by the tests used for CAFE standards, which it said, give results about 20% higher. This curious admission is supported by the fact that when President Obama announced the new combined target of 34.1mpg for 2016, he said that it represents an increase of 30%, which suggests a current CAFE average of around 26mpg - 23% higher than the "real world" figure.
Meanwhile, new light vehicles in Europe achieved an average of 146g of CO2 per kilometre in 2009, which is equivalent to about 37mpg (US). In Japan, although local OEMs had exceeded the regulatory fuel economy targets set for 2010 by 2006, the government introduced regulations during 2007 that require OEMs to improve the fuel efficiency of their new vehicles by more than 23% over 2004 levels by 2015 to achieve an average of 39.5mpg (US). China has set its 2015 target close to that set for Europe, at 42.2mpg (US).
https://www.automotiveworld.com/img/2010/06/Image/environment/features/figure-1.jpg
This means that the fuel economy regulations now in place challenge Japanese OEMs to achieve a gain of less than 10% by 2015 and those in Europe by a little more than 12% by the same year. Alongside this and by the same year if the 2016 model year is being referred to, US OEMs and consumers are faced with achieving a 30% improvement. Even cars in the US, which averaged 32.6mpg (CAFE figures ) in 2009, must improve by nearly 20% to 39mpg.
However, an improvement closer to 40% will surely be required if light trucks, which currently comprise 49% of new US light vehicles, are to achieve their 30mpg target unless consumers downsize away from them in numbers far greater than currently predicted.
Of course, the situation for US OEMs can be alleviated considerably by the fact that flex-fuel E85 vehicles (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) are eligible for CAFE credits of 165% of the fuel economy achieved by their gasoline-only equivalent. No doubt with this and the inexpensive nature of the technology required in mind, US OEMs have substantially increased the proportion of flex-fuel vehicles they produce.
However, E85 is not available throughout the country and a recent survey found that only 10% of the owners of the 8 to 9 million flex-fuel vehicles in the country know that their vehicle can use it. By 2015, OEMs must prove that consumers are actually using E85 in order to claim the credits.
a recent survey found that only 10% of the owners of the 8 to 9 million flex-fuel vehicles in the country know that their vehicle can use it
Returning to the central issue at hand, an examination of the technologies that can help to improve fuel economy is cause for encouragement. Robert Bosch, a company with considerable interest in the topic, has estimated that a 1.4-litre gasoline engine using direct injection, variable valve timing and turbocharging can provide the same performance as a 2.0-litre engine with port injection while improving fuel economy 22%. Furthermore, higher turbo boost and variable valve lift will enable a 1.1-litre, three-cylinder engine to provide the same performance and improve fuel economy nearly 30% while costing around €1,000 more to produce than the baseline 2.0-litre unit. For light diesels, Bosch claims that a 2.0-litre unit can be replaced by a 1.2-litre unit incorporating the latest injection and turbocharging technology while providing similar performance and a 33% improvement in fuel economy.
As well as advances in engines, there are a range of other technologies that improve fuel economy and which are already well established in the marketplace:
• Stop-start technology can provide a fuel economy gain of 5% to 8% with higher gains for vehicles primarily used in congested urban situations.
• Electric power steering in place of a belt-driven, hydraulic system can provide a 3% to 5% gain and electric systems are now powerful enough for use in a full-size US pick-up.
• An automated manual transmission in place of a six-speed planetary automatic or a CVT in place of a five-speed automatic can each provide a gain of more than 3%.
• Reducing the weight of a mid-size car by 100kg can realize a 4.5% gain.
• Low rolling-resistance tyres can add 3% to 5%.
• LED lighting can add a gain of 1.75% when all exterior lights are on under highway driving and somewhat more in urban driving.
• Aerodynamic changes such as streamlining the underside of the vehicle and lowering it 10mm can produce a 1% gain on a vehicle that already has good aerodynamic properties.
Without considering hybrid drivetrains or a list of new technologies such as turbo-alternators and electric air conditioning, compounding the lower figures in the list above suggests a combined fuel economy improvement of around 35%, while taking the less likely upper estimates increases it to 45%.
Of course, new and additional technologies come at a cost. When announcing the new US fuel economy targets for 2016, President Obama stated that the cost of achieving them would add US$600 per vehicle although other estimates have set it at US$1,300. Similarly, the European Automobile Constructors Association (ACEA) claimed that the technology required for the EU regulation would add €1,500 per vehicle, while the EC estimated it at €1,300.
However, the respective government estimates of the potential fuel savings to consumers over the useful lifetime of the vehicle were put at US$2,800 and €2,700, which would more than offset the purchase premium.
When announcing the new US fuel economy targets for 2016, President Obama stated that the cost of achieving them would add US$600 per vehicle
While the focus tends to fall on OEMs, consumers could have a huge impact in all this by driving a shift towards smaller, lighter vehicles. In 2009, JATO Consult reported that such a shift was occurring in Europe, driven by consumers seeking a lower purchase price, lower taxation and lower overall running costs for fuel and maintenance, although the report acknowledged that scrapping incentives and the recession had partly stimulated it. In the US, Capital One Auto Finance found that 53% of respondents to a survey published in April 2010 said their next car would be more fuel efficient and 55% were prepared to give up a larger vehicle. However, a survey by Experian Automotive in 2009 found that while US consumers shifted more towards smaller cars when gasoline prices increased, the trend was not sustained as people become accustomed to the higher price.
Returning to the question posed in the title above, it appears that the 2015 fuel economy targets for Europe and Japan are achievable with technologies that are already available and in the marketplace. Several analysts have reported CO2 emissions figures during recent months that suggest that Europe is tracking comfortably towards its goals and the 12% or so required during the next five years should not present a great challenge. In Japan, the 10% gain required should be even more achievable, especially if the dramatic shift to hybrids that occurred last year continues.
However, the challenge for the US is far greater. Even with flex-fuel credits, surely a significant downsize shift will be necessary to achieve the daunting 30% required. While this might appear to be a simple matter to consumers in Europe or Japan, where the average light vehicle engine is less than half the size of the average in the US, consumers in the US have long been used to much larger vehicles and substantial incentives and/or a dramatic increases in fuel prices might be necessary to stimulate such a change.
For a more in-depth review of light vehicle fuel efficiency technology, see The light vehicle fuel efficiency report (2nd edition). (https://www.automotiveworld.com/research/the-light-vehicle-fuel-efficiency-report-2nd-edition)
Published on Thursday, June 10, 2010