Potential Increase In Fuel Economy And Related Price Increase For Cars

Energy Efficiency Assignment o. 5

Assignment Title:

POTE TIAL I CREASE I FUEL ECO OMY A D RELATED PRICE I CREASE FOR CARS

Edited by: Emad Sadeghi ezhad KGH080002

Lecturer: T.M.I. Mahlia

Academic Year-(Semester): Session 2008/2009-(Sem. 2)

Contents List of Tables………………………………………………………………...2 List of Figures……………………………………………………………….3 Nomenclature………………………………………………………………..4 Summary…………………………………………………………………….5 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………….6 2. Survey Data……………………………………………………………….7 3. Methodology……………………………………………………………...8 3.1. Chosen values…….………………………………………………... 8 3.2. Percentage of RPI...………………………………………………... 8 3.3. Priority……………………………………………………………...9 3.4. Chosen Technology………………………………………………..9 3.5. FEI…………………………………………………………………..9 3.6. Cumulative fuel economy improvement…………………………... 9 3.7. Vehicle price………………………………………………………9 3.8. Percentage of worth factor………………………………………….9 3.9. Operating cost………………………………………………………9 4. Results and Discussions………………………………………………....11 6. Conclusions……………………………………………………………...14 References………………………………………………………………….15

1

List of tables: Table 1: Car technologies, fuel econmy improvement, and retail price increase…………7 Table 2: Aspects of car usage and the values……………………………………………..8 Table 3: Car technologies, input data, and chosen values……………………………….11 Table 4: Technologies chosen and engineering-economy analysis……………………...12

2

List of Figures: Fig 1: Impact of design options changes on appliance price and EER………..…………13 Fig 2: Payback period and life cycle cost………………………………………………..13

3

omenclature

4

Summary Technology progresses continually in the automotive industry. Engineering and design abilities have expanded greatly in recent years, stimulated by the computer, electronics, and materials revolutions, public policies, and the industry's recognition of the need for technological solutions to meet future market and societal challenges. At the same time, growing income and wealth create seemingly insatiable demands for customer-satisfying amenities that command designers' priorities and product planners' budgets. Just what is the automobile industry's capability to redesign cars and light trucks for higher fuel economy as a way to address concerns about global warming and petroleum dependence? Answering this question involves not only identifying technical options available to automotive engineers, but also addressing how such options can be applied to raise fuel economy as well as enhance other vehicle amenities. Our study estimates the car and light truck design outcomes feasible over the next 10–15 years if the industry's capabilities were redirected toward improving average fuel economy. We also estimate the corresponding impacts on vehicle price. Technical measures considered range from efficiency-optimized applications of current and emerging technologies to initial deployments of "next-generation" technologies such as advanced materials substitution and hybrid drive. We evaluated these options using computer simulations to examine the improvements feasible for a set of representative models spanning the principal vehicle classes. In order to evaluate designs at varying degrees of ambition, we defined technology packages that represent moderate to advanced evolutions of conventional power trains as well as hybrid drive. This summary highlights results for a fleet wide fuel economy scenario based on our fuel economy improvements range from 37% for a full-size pickup truck to 70% for a midsize, standard-performance sport utility vehicle (SUV). The associated retail price impacts amount to 4%–7% of today's vehicle prices. The full-size pickup shows the greatest relative challenge, given the need to maintain torque and power capabilities; nevertheless, the Moderate Package brings its fuel economy up to the level of today's midsize cars. We find that a midsize car can be improved by 56%, from 26 mpg to 41 mpg, at a 5% increase in price. Other technology packages provide greater efficiency 5

improvements, as listed in Table S1. The first part of Table S1 shows the representative vehicles we selected for analysis along with their baseline Model Year (MY) 2000 fuel economy and price. The relative cost/benefit pattern among vehicle types with other design packages is similar to that of the Moderate Package. This paper analyse the engineering-economic analysis of sophisticated-technology application for cars in Malaysia. Three types of sophisticated technologies are applied; started

with

Engine

Technologies,

Transmission

Technologies,

and

Vehicle

Technologies. The three categories affects different level of fuel economy increase and different level of price increase. This paper will analyse the comparation of fuel economy increase against the retail price increase

1. Introduction Absent fuel economy increases, the light vehicle share of energy consumption and its associated oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions impacts grow with vehicle miles of travel (VMT). Both decoupling VMT from economic growth and decoupling motor vehicle energy use from petroleum are difficult challenges. Although programs and policies for VMT reduction and alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) have been pursued for several decades (albeit perhaps unevenly), no clear evidence exists demonstrating an ability to effect such decoupling at national scales. The possibilities of shifting fuels away from petroleum and shifting travel away from private vehicles should not be discounted and are arguably key parts of a balanced transportation energy strategy (DeCicco and Mark 1998). However, both are dependent on long-lived infrastructures and so are likely to be significantly achievable only on time scales much longer than the roughly 15 year usage lifetime of light vehicles. Moreover, both past experience and knowledge of markets suggest that policies to directly regulate new vehicle fuel economy are an effective means of controlling transportation energy use (Greene 1998). The application of sophisticated technologies for cars in Malaysia will surely affect the fuel economy (savings of fuel), and reduce the life cycle cost of the cars itself. But off course not all of the technologies can be simply applied to the market, because we also have to consider the retail-price increase aspect of the car. This paper paper will shoe the 6

methodologies to choose the best technologies with the best price-priority level for he customer.

2.

Survey Data The data available in this study are; car technologies, fuel economy improvement,

and retail price increase; aspects of car usage and the values Table 1: Car technologies, fuel econmy improvement, and retail price increase

o A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8

Technology Engine friction & mechanical loss reduction Low friction lubricants Multi-valve, OH camshaft valve trains Variable valve timing Variable valve lift & timing Cylinder deactivation Engine accessory improvement Engine downsizing & supercharging

B1 B2

Continuous Variable Transmission Five speed automatic transmission

C1 C2 C3

Aerodynamic drag reduction Improved rolling resistance Vehicle weight reduction (5%)

FEI : Fuel Efficiency Improvement RPI : Retail Price Increase

7

Input Data FEI (%) RPI (RM) 1-5 133-532 1 30-42 2-5 399-532 2-3 133-532 1-2 266-798 5-7 426-958 5-10 319-426 2-6 1330-2128 4-8 2-3

532-1330 266-585

1-2 1-1.5 3-4

0-532 53-213 798-1330

Table 2:

Aspects of car usage and the values

o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3.

Aspects Fuel Economy (Baseline) Vehicle Price (VP) Discount rate Fuel price Vehicle lifespan Average mileage use Average maintenance cost

Value 7.8 litre/100 km RM 44500 7% RM 1.80/ltr 10 years 19320 km/year RM 245/year

Methodology The first part of our analysis involves selecting vehicles to model and calibrating the

simulation model. This step provides our baseline results to which the results of our moderate, advanced, and hybrid technology packages can be compared. Details of model runs are given in Table 1. Table 2 provides other in formations, comparing the simulated fuel economy to test values for the representative models .We use the simulated values as the basis of comparison for results and they are the values identified as "Baseline" in other tables. This study and data analysis is using the following terms:

3.1.

Chosen Values From table 1, Fuel Economy Improvement (FEI) and Retail Price Increase (RPI)

have certain range. The chosen values of all of this range is the maximum values of each ranges.

3.2.

Percentage of RPI

RPI (%) =

RPI ( RM ) , that is Retail Price Increase (RM) devided by Vehicle Price (VP) VP

8

3.3. Priority Priority =

3.4.

FEI (%) RPI (%)

Chosen Technologies The technologies chosen are the technologies with the top seven priorities.

3.5.

FEI (ltr/100km) FEI (ltr/100km) = FEI (%) * BLD + BLD

Baseline Design (BLD) is 8 litre/100 km

3.6.

Cumulative Fuel Economy Improvement (CFEI) CFEIn

3.7.

= FEI (%) * CFEIn-1 + CFEIn-1

Vehicle Price (VP) VPn = RPI (RM) + VPn-1

3.8. Present Worth Factor (PWF)

N

= vehicle lifespan

3.9.Operating Cost (OC) Baseline OC = AMU*FP*BFE Average Mileage Use (AMU) = 19320 km/year Fuel Price (FP)

= RM 1.92/litre 9

Baseline Fuel Economy (BFE) = 8 litre/100 km OCn = OCn-1 – (CFEI*OCn-1)

10

4. Result and Discussion The result of calculation using the listed formulas, are presented as follows: Table 3:

o A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8

Car technologies, input data, and chosen values

Input Data Chosen Value Technology FEI (%) RPI (RM) FEI (%) RPI (RM) Engine friction & mechanical loss reduction 1-5 133-532 3.0% 242.5 Low friction luricants 1 30-42 1.0% 36 Multi-valve, OH camshaft valve trains 2-5 399-532 3.50% 465.5 Variable valve timing 2-3 133-532 2.50% 332.5 Variable valve lift & timing 1-2 266-798 1.50% 532 Cylinder deactivation 5-7 426-958 6.0% 692 Engine accessory improvement 5-10 319-426 7.50% 372.5 Engine downsizing & supercharging 2-6 1330-2128 4.0% 1729

B1 Continuous Variable Transmission B2 Five speed automatic transmission C1 Aerodynamic drag reduction C2 Improved rolling resistance C3 Vehicle weight reduction (5%)

4-8 2-3

532-1330 266-585

6.0% 2.50%

931 425.5

1-2 1-1.5 3-4

0-532 53-213 798-1330

1.50% 1.25% 3.50%

266 133 1064

11

Table 4:

o A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 B1 B2 C1 C2 C3

Technologies chosen and engineering-economy analysis

Technology Engine friction & mechanical loss reduction Low friction lubricants Multi-valve, OH camshaft valve trains Variable valve timing Variable valve lift & timing Cylinder deactivation Engine accessory improvement Engine downsizing & supercharging Continuous Variable Transmission Five speed automatic transmission Aerodynamic drag reduction Improved rolling resistance Vehicle weight reduction (5%)

EER 7.57 7.49 7.23 7.05 6.94 6.53 6.04 5.79 5.45 5.31 5.23 5.17 4.98

price 54742.5 54778.5 55244 55576.5 56108.5 56800.5 57173 58902 59833 60258.5 60524.5 60657.5 61721.5

12

OC (RM/year) 2876.152 2849.841 2758.671 2695.829 2659.067 2514.223 2344.031 2260.07 2139.166 2091.812 2064.109 2041.371 1978.498

PWF 7.023 7.023 7.023 7.023 7.023 7.023 7.023 7.023 7.023 7.023 7.023 7.023 7.023

LCC (RM) 74699.22 74514.43 73874.15 73432.81 73174.63 72157.39 70962.13 70372.47 69523.36 69190.79 68996.24 68836.55 68394.99

pay 1.482055 1.368222 5.105879 5.291066 14.47129 4.777553 2.188708 20.59283 7.700311 8.985486 9.602134 5.849016 16.92301

FS (ltr/year) 45.2088 59.82631 110.476 145.3881 165.8117 246.2806 340.8315 387.4767 454.6457 480.9535 496.3436 508.9763 543.9058

Fig 1: Impact of design options changes on appliance price and EER 64000

Appliace Prices (RM)

62000 60000 58000 56000 54000 52000 50000 4.98

5.17

5.23

5.31

5.45

5.79

6.04

6.53

6.94

7.05

7.23

7.49

7.57

EER (Btu/Wh)

Fig 2: Payback period and life cycle cost 25.00

75000 5.79

Life Cycle Cost (RM)

74000 73000 72000

6.53

71000 70000 69000 68000 67000 66000 65000

6.94 7.05

4.98

7.23

5.79 5.23 5.31 5.45 5.17 5.23 5.31 4.98 5.45 5.17

15.00

6.94

6.04

7.49 7.57 20.00

10.00

6.53 6.04

7.05 7.23

5.00

7.49 7.57 0.00 4.98 5.17 5.23 5.31 5.45 5.79 6.04 6.53 6.94 7.05 7.23 7.49 7.57 EER (Btu/Wh)

13

Payback Period (Yrs)

76000

LCC PAY

5. Conclusions Examining the technical options for improving automotive fuel economy reveals a rich and growing set of measures that automakers could use to redesign their vehicles with efficiency mind. We combined options for improving the vehicle structure, engine, and transmission, emerging technologies such as the integrated starter generator and hybrid electric drive, into design packages applicable to representative vehicles spanning light duty fleet. Engineering simulation was used to calculate the fuel economy achievable through such redesign. The resulting benefits varied by vehicle type, but overall demonstrate a capability to affordably improve average car and light truck fuel economy by 50%–70% over the coming decade. The technology packages would add 6%–8% to average vehicle price, but the fuel economy increases are cost effective if viewed from a societal perspective over a vehicle lifetime.

The usage of the top seven chosen technologies produces an increase in fuel eonomy. Off course the increase of fuel economy also followed by the increase of vehicle price (table 1). But the fuel economy increase has reduces the lifecycle cost up to RM 5,000 in ten years, and reduces the fuel consumption up to 675 litre/year or RM 1,300/year This surely proves that the usage of the seven top priority technologies has significant effect of fuel savings and the overall car operating cost.

14

References [1]Dr. Indra Mahlia, Engineering-Economic Analysis, Lecture Paper of Energy Efficiency, 2007 [2] Technical Options for Improving the Fuel Economy of U.S. Cars and Light Trucks by 2010–2015 John DeCicco, Feng An, and Marc Ross April 2001 [3] Fuel Efficiency and Motor Vehicle Travel: The Declining Rebound Effect Kenneth A. Small and Kurt Van Dender* Department of Economics University of California, Irvine Irvine, CA 92697-5100

15