Search Results

The 2001 FutureTruck competition involved 15 universities from across North America that were invited to apply a wide range of advanced technologies to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas impact while producing near-zero regulated exhaust emissions in a 2000 Chevrolet Suburban. The modified vehicles designated as FutureTrucks demonstrated improvements in greenhouse gas emissions, tailpipe emissions, and over-the-road fuel economy compared with the stock vehicle on which they were based. The technologies represented in the vehicles included ICE-engines and fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle propulsion systems, a range of conventional and alternative fuels, advanced exhaust emissions controls, and light weighting technologies.

In June of 2002, 15 universities participated in the third year of FutureTruck, an advanced vehicle competition sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and Ford Motor Company. Using advanced technologies, teams strived to improve vehicle energy efficiency by at least 25%, reduce tailpipe emissions to ULEV levels, and lower greenhouse gas impact of a 2002 Ford Explorer. The competition vehicles were tested for dynamic performance and emissions and were judged in static events to evaluate the design and features of the vehicle. The dynamic events include braking, acceleration, handling, and fuel economy, while the dynamometer testing provided data for both the emissions event and the greenhouse gas event. The vehicles were scored for their performance in each event relative to each other; those scores were summed to determine the winner of the competition. The competition structure included different available fuels and encouraged the use of hybrid electric drivetrains.

Two limited-production hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) - a 1988 Japanese model Toyota Prius and a 2000 Honda Insight - were tested at Argonne National Laboratory to collect data from vehicle component and systems operation. The test data are used to analyze operation and efficiency and to help validate computer simulation models. Both HEVs have FTP fuel economy greater than 45 miles per gallon and also have attributes very similar to those of conventional gasoline vehicles, even though each HEV has a unique powertrain configuration and operation control strategy. The designs and characteristics of these vehicles are of interest because they represent production technology with all the compromises for production included. This paper will explore both designs, their control strategies, and under what conditions high fuel economy was achieved.

The U.S. Department of Energy, through Argonne National Laboratory, and in cooperation with Natural Resources-Canada and Chrysler Canada, sponsored and organized the 1996 Propane Vehicle Challenge (PVC). For this competition, 13 university teams from North America each received a stock Chrysler minivan to be converted to dedicated propane operation while maintaining maximum production feasibility. The converted vehicles were tested for performance (driveability, cold- and hot-start, acceleration, range, and fuel economy) and exhaust emissions. Of the 13 entries for the 1996 PVC, 10 completed all of the events scheduled, including the emissions test. The schools used a variety of fuel-management, fuel-phase and engine-control strategies, but their strategies can be summarized as three main types: liquid fuel-injection, gaseous fuel-injection, and gaseous carburetor. The converted vehicles performed similarly to the gasoline minivan.

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.

From June 12-20, 1994, an engineering design competition called the 1994 Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) Challenge was held in Southfield, Michigan. This collegiate-level competition, which involved 36 colleges and universities from across North America, challenged the teams to build a superior HEV. One component of this comprehensive competition was the emissions event. Special HEV testing procedures were developed for the competition to find vehicle emissions and correct for battery state-of-charge while fitting into event time constraints. Although there were some problems with a newly-developed data acquisition system, we were able to get a full profile of the best performing vehicles as well as other vehicles that represent typical levels of performance from the rest of the field. This paper will explain the novel test procedures, present the emissions and fuel economy results, and provide analysis of second-by-second data for several vehicles.

The objective of this paper is to analyze and summarize the performance results and the technology used in the 1995 Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) Challenge. Government and industry are exploring hybrid electric vehicle technology to significantly improve fuel economy and reduce emissions of the vehicles without sacrificing performance. This last in a three-year series of HEV competitions provided the testing grounds to evaluate the different approaches of 29 universities and colleges constructing HEVs. These HEVs competed in an array of events, including: acceleration, emissions testing, consumer acceptance, range, vehicle handling, HVAC testing, fuel economy, and engineering design. The teams also documented the attributes of their vehicles in the technical reports. The strategies and approaches to HEV design are analyzed on the basis of the data from each of the events. The overall performance for promising HEV approaches is also examined.