Search Results

When comparing the potential of advanced versus conventional powertrains, a traditional approach is to hold glider design constant and simulate “comparable performance” to a conventional vehicle (CV). However, manufacturers have developed hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV), and all-electric vehicle (EV) powertrains in gliders designed to synergistically enhance fuel saving benefits of such powertrains by further reducing road load and engine output power (or continuous power for the EV) where no conventional powertrain option is provided. In the U.S. marketplace, there are now several examples of both hybrid and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles using gliders common to top selling CVs and a few using low load gliders to further reduce fuel consumption.

Vehicles with electrified powertrains, such as hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in HEV (PHEVs), and AEVs (all-electric vehicles using grid-supplied battery energy exclusively), are potentially marketable because of low operating costs, but each comes with a significant initial cost penalty in comparison to a conventional vehicle (CV) powered by an internal combustion engine. Accordingly, a high rate of utilization is necessary for cost effectiveness. This paper examines the projected future (2020) cost effectiveness of several alternative powertrains within a standard compact sedan glider: an AEV and a set of selected input-split and output-split HEV and PHEV powertrains with various battery power and energy storage capabilities. Vehicle performance and consumption rates of fuel and electricity were estimated using vehicle simulations, and vehicle prices were estimated using cost models.

This paper analyzes fuel economy benefits of direct hydrogen and gasoline reformer fuel cell vehicles, with special focus on cold-start impacts on these fuel cell based vehicles. Comparing several existing influential studies reveals that the most probable estimates from these studies differ greatly on the implied benefits of both types of fuel cell vehicles at the tank-to-wheel level (vehicle-powertrain efficiency and/or specific power), leading to great uncertainties in estimating well-to-wheel fuel energy and/or greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction potentials. This paper first addresses methodological issues to influence the outcome of these analyses. With one exception, we find that these studies consistently ignore cold-start and warm-up issues, which play important roles in determining both energy penalties and start-up time of fuel cell vehicles. To better understand cold-start and warm-up behavior, this paper examines approaches and results based on two available U.S.

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.

This paper analyzes four recent major studies carried out by MIT, a GM-led team, Directed Technologies, Inc., and A. D. Little, Inc. to assess advanced technology vehicles. These analyses appear to differ greatly concerning their perception of the energy benefits of advanced technology vehicles, leading to great uncertainties in estimating full-fuel-cycle (or “well-to-wheel”) greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction potentials and/or fuel feedstock requirements per mile of service. Advanced vehicles include, but are not limited to, advanced gasoline and diesel internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) with gasoline, diesel, and compressed natural gas (CNG) ICEs, and various kinds of fuel-cell based vehicles (FCVs), such as direct hydrogen FCVs and gasoline or methanol fuel-based FCVs.

Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), working with the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), maintains hybrid vehicle simulation software: the PNGV System Analysis Toolkit (PSAT). The importance of component models and the complexity involved in setting up optimized control strategies require validation of the models and controls developed in PSAT. Using ANL's Advanced Powertrain Test Facilities (APTF), more than 50 tests on the Honda Insight were used to validate the PSAT drivetrain configuration. Extensive instrumentation, including the half-shaft torque sensor, provides the data needed for through comparison of model results and test data. In this paper, we will first describe the process and the type of test used to validate the models. Then we will explain the tuning of the simulated vehicle control strategy, based on the analysis of the differences between test and simulation.