Search Results

It is widely understood that cold ambient temperatures negatively impact vehicle system efficiency. This is due to a combination of factors: increased friction (engine oil, transmission, and driveline viscous effects), cold start enrichment, heat transfer, and air density variations. Although the science of quantifying steady-state vehicle component efficiency is mature, transient component efficiencies over dynamic ambient real-world conditions is less understood and quantified. This work characterizes wheel assembly efficiencies of a conventional and electric vehicle over a wide range of ambient conditions. For this work, the wheel assembly is defined as the tire side axle spline, spline housing, bearings, brakes, and tires. Dynamometer testing over hot and cold ambient temperatures was conducted with a conventional and electric vehicle instrumented to determine the output energy losses of the wheel assembly in proportion to the input energy of the half-shafts.

As new advanced-technology vehicles are becoming more mainstream, analysts are studying their potential impact on petroleum use, carbon emissions, and smog emissions. Determining the potential impacts of widespread adoption requires testing and careful analysis. PHEVs possess unique operational characteristics that require evaluation in terms of actual in-use driving habits. SAE J2841, “Utility Factor Definitions for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles Using 2001 U.S. DOT National Household Travel Survey Data,” published by SAE in 2009 with a revision in 2010, is a guide to using DOT's National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) data to estimate the relative split between driving in charge-depleting (CD) mode and charge-sustaining (CS) mode for a particular PHEV with a given CD range. Without this method, direct comparisons of the merits of various vehicle designs (e.g., efficiency and battery size) cannot be made among PHEVs, or between PHEVs and other technologies.

In order to determine the factors that affect fuel economy quantitatively, the power flows through the major powertrain components were measured during operation over transient cycles. The fuel consumption rate and torque and speed of the engine output and axle shafts were measured to assess the power flows in a vehicle with a CVT. The measured power flows were converted to energy loss for each component to get the efficiency. Tests were done at Phase 1 and Phase 3 of the FTP and for two different CVT shift modes. The measured energy distributions were compared with those from the ADVISOR simulation and to results from the PNGV study. For both the Hot 505 and the Cold 505, and for both shift modes, the major powertrain loss occurs in the engine, including or excluding standby losses. However, the efficiency of the drivetrain/transmission is important because it influences the efficiency of the engine.

Reductions in vehicle drive losses are as important to improving fuel economy as increases in powertrain efficiencies. In order to measure vehicle fuel economy, chassis dynamometer testing relies on accurate road load determinations. Road load is currently determined (with some exceptions) using established test track coastdown testing procedures. Because new vehicle technologies and usage cases challenge the accuracy and applicability of these procedures, on-road experiments were conducted using axle torque sensors to address the suitability of the test procedures in determining vehicle road loads in specific cases. Whereas coastdown testing can use vehicle deceleration to determine load, steady-state testing can offer advantages in validating road load coefficients for vehicles with no mechanical neutral gear (such as plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles).

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) through Argonne National Laboratory sponsored and recorded energy data of electric vehicles (EVs) at five competitions in 1994. Each competition provided different test conditions (closed-track, on-road, and dynamometer). The data gathered at these competitions includes energy efficiency, range, acceleration, and vehicle characteristics. The results of the analysis show that the vehicles performed as expected. Some of the EVs were also tested on dynamometers and compared to gasoline vehicles, including production vehicles with advanced battery systems. Although the EVs performed well at these competitions, the results show that only the vehicles with advanced technologies perform as well or better than conventional gasoline vehicles.

In the 1995 HEV Challenge competition, 17 prototype Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) were tested by using special HEV test procedures. The contribution of the batteries during the test, as measured by changes in battery state-of-charge (SOC), were accounted for by applying SOC corrections to the test data acquired from the results of the HEV test. The details of SOC corrections are described and two different HEV test methods are explained. The results of the HEV test methods are explained. The results of the HEV tests and the effects on the test outcome of varying HEV designs and control strategies are examined. Although many teams had technical problems with their vehicles, a few vehicles demonstrated high fuel economy and low emissions. One vehicle had emissions lower than California's ultra-low emission vehicle (ULEV) emissions rates, and two vehicles demonstrated higher fuel economy and better acceleration than their stock counterparts.

As emerging automated vehicle technology is making advances in safety and reliability, engineers are also exploring improvements in energy efficiency with this new paradigm. Powertrain efficiency receives due attention, but also impactful is finding ways to reduce driving losses in coordinated-driving scenarios. Efforts focused on simulation to quantify road load improvements require a sufficient amount of background validation work to support them. This study uses a practical approach to directly quantify road load changes by testing the coordinated driving of two vehicles on a test track at various speeds (64, 88, 113 km/h) and vehicle time gaps (0.3 to 1.3 s). Axle torque sensors were used to directly measure the load required to maintain steady-state speeds while following a lead vehicle at various gap distances.