Search Results

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.

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.