Search Results

Previously fuel consumption on a drive cycle has been shown to be proportional to traction work, with an offset for powertrain losses. This model had different transfer functions for different drive cycles, performance levels, and applied powertrain technologies. Following Soltic it is shown that if fuel usage and traction work are both expressed in terms of cycle average power, a wide range of drive cycles collapse to a single transfer function, where cycle average traction power captures the drive cycle and the vehicle size. If this transfer function is then normalized by weight, i.e. by working in cycle average power/weight (P/W), a linear model is obtained where the offset is mainly a function of rated performance and applied technology. A final normalization by rated power/weight as the primary performance metric further collapses the data to express the cycle average fuel power/rated power ratio as a function of cycle average traction power/rated power ratio.

The drive cycle average powertrain efficiency of current US vehicles is studied by applying a first principles model to the EPA Test Car List database. The largest group of vehicles has naturally aspirated engines and six speed planetary automatic transmissions, and defines the base technology level. For this group the best cycle average powertrain efficiency is independent of vehicle size and is achieved by the lowest power-to-weight vehicles. For all segments of the EPA test, the fuel required per unit of vehicle work (the inverse of powertrain efficiency), is found to increase linearly with a basic powertrain matching parameter. The parameter is (D/M)(n/V), where D is engine displacement, M vehicle mass, and (n/V) the top gear engine speed over the vehicle speed. The fuel consumption penalties in the City segments due to powertrain warm-up, aftertreatment warm-up, stop-and-go operation, and power-off operation are estimated.

Vehicle certification data are used to study the effectiveness of the major powertrain technologies used by car manufacturers to reduce fuel consumption. Methods for differentiating vehicles effectively were developed by leveraging theoretical models of engine and vehicle fuel consumption. One approach normalizes by displacement per unit distance, which puts both fuel used and vehicle work in mean effective pressure units, and is useful when comparing engine technologies. The other normalizes by engine rated power, a customer-relevant output metric. The normalized work/power is proportional to weight/power, the most fundamental performance metric. Certification data for 2016 and 2017 U.S. vehicles with different powertrain technologies are compared to baseline vehicles with port fuel injection (PFI) naturally aspirated engines and six-speed automatic transmissions.

An analytic model of powertrain efficiency on a drive cycle was developed and evaluated using hundreds of cars and trucks from the US EPA ‘Test Car Lists’. The efficiency properties of naturally aspirated and downsized turbocharged engines were compared for vehicles with automatic transmissions on the US cycles. The resulting powertrain cycle efficiency model is proportional to the powertrain marginal energy conversion efficiency K, which is also its upper limit. It decreases as the powertrain matching parameters, the displacement-to-mass ratio (D/M) and the gearing ratio (n/V), increase. The inputs are the powertrain fuel consumption, the vehicle road load, and the cycle work requirement. They could be modeled simply with only minor approximations through the use of absolute inputs and outputs, and systematic use of scaling. On the Highway test, conventional automatic transmission vehicles of moderate performance achieve between 25% and 30% powertrain efficiency.

A normalized analytical vehicle fuel consumption model is developed based on an input/output description of engine fuel consumption and transmission losses. Engine properties and fuel consumption are expressed in mean effective pressure (mep) units, while vehicle road load, acceleration and grade are expressed in acceleration units. The engine model concentrates on the low rpm operation. The fuel mep is approximately independent of speed and is a linear function of load, as long as the engine is not knock limited. A linear, two-constant engine model then covers the speed/load range of interest. The model constants are a function of well-known engine properties. Examples are discussed for naturally aspirated and turbocharged SI engines and for Diesel engines. A similar model is developed for the transmission where the offset reflects the spin and pump losses, and the slope is the gear efficiency.