Search Results

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.

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.