5.3.1.2 Improving drive train efficiency

Advanced Direct Injection Gasoline / Diesel Engines and transmissions.

New engine and transmission technologies have entered the light-duty vehicle fleets of Europe, the USA and Japan, and could yield substantial reductions in carbon emissions if more widely used.

Direct injection diesel engines yielding about 35% greater fuel economy than conventional gasoline engines are being used in about half the light-duty vehicles being sold in European markets, but are little used in Japan and the USA (European taxes on diesel fuel generally are substantially lower than on gasoline, which boosts diesel share). Euro 4 emission standards were enforced in 2005, with Euro 5 (still undefined) to follow around 2009–2010. These standards, plus Tier 2 standards in the USA, will challenge diesel NO_x controls, adding cost and possibly reducing fuel efficiency somewhat. Euro 4/Tier 2 compliant diesels for light-duty vehicles, obtaining 30% better fuel efficiency than conventional gasoline engines, may cost about 2000–3000 US$ more than gasoline engines (EEA, 2003).

Improvements to gasoline engines include direct injection. Mercedes’ M271 turbocharged direct injection engine is estimated to attain 18% reduced fuel consumption, part of which is due to intake valve control and other engine technologies (SAE International, 2003a); cylinder shutoff during low load conditions (Honda Odyssey V6, Chrysler Hemi, GM V8s) (SAE International, 2003a) and improved valve timing and lift controls.

Transmissions are also being substantially improved. Mercedes, GM, Ford, Chrysler, Volkswagen and Audi are introducing advanced 6 and 7 speed automatics in their luxury vehicles, with strong estimated fuel economy improvements ranging from 4–8% over a 4-speed automatic for the Ford/GM 6-speed to a claimed 13% over a manual, plus faster acceleration, for the VW/Audi BorgWarner 6-speed (SAE International, 2003b). If they follow the traditional path for such technology, these transmissions will eventually be rolled into the fleet. Also, continuously variable transmissions (CVTs), which previously had been limited to low power drive trains, are gradually rising in their power-handling capabilities and are moving into large vehicles.

The best diesel engines currently used in heavy-duty trucks are very efficient, achieving peak efficiencies in the 45–46% range (USDOE, 2000). Although recent advances in engine and drive train technology for heavy-duty trucks have focused on emissions reductions, current research programmes in the US Department of Energy are aiming at 10–20% improvements in engine efficiency within ten years (USDOE, 2000), with further improvements of up to 25% foreseen if significant departures from the traditional diesel engine platform can be achieved.

Engines and drive trains can also be made more efficient by turning off the engine while idling and drawing energy from other sources. The potential for reducing idling emissions in heavy-duty trucks is significant. In the USA, a nationwide survey found that, on average, a long-haul truck consumed about 1,600 gallons, or 6,100 litres, per year from idling during driver rest periods. A variety of behavioural and technological practices could be pursued to save fuel. A technological fix is to switch to grid connections or use onboard auxiliary power units during idling (Lutsey et al., 2004).

Despite the continued tightening of emissions standards for both light-duty vehicles and freight trucks, there are remaining concerns about the gap between tested emissions and on-road emissions, particularly for diesel engines. Current EU emissions testing uses test cycles that are considerably gentler than seen in actual driving, allowing manufacturers to design drive trains so that they pass emissions tests but ‘achieve better fuel efficiency or other performance enhancement at the cost of higher emissions during operation on the road (ECMT, 2006).’ Other concerns involve excessive threshold limits demanded of onboard diagnostics systems, aftermarket mechanical changes (replacement of computer chips, disconnection of exhaust gas recirculation systems) and failure to maintain required fluid levels in Selective Catalytic Reduction systems (ECMT, 2006). Similar concerns in the USA led to the phase-in between 2000 and 2004 of a more aggressive driving cycle (the US06 cycle) to emission tests for LDVs; however, the emission limits tied to this cycle were not updated when new Tier 2 emission standards were promulgated, so concerns about onroad emissions, especially for diesels, will apply to the USA as well.

Hybrid drive trains

Hybrid-electric drive trains combine a fuel-driven power source, such as a conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) with an electric drive train – electric motor/generator and battery (or ultracapacitor) - in various combinations.^[17] In current hybrids, the battery is recharged only by regenerative braking and engine charging, without external charging from the grid. ‘Plug-in hybrids,’ which would obtain part of their energy from the electric grid, can be an option but require a larger battery and perhaps a larger motor. Hybrids save energy by:

• Shutting the engine down when the vehicle is stopped (and possibly during braking or coasting);
• Recovering braking losses by using the electric motor to brake and using the electricity generated to recharge the battery;
• Using the motor to boost power during acceleration, allowing engine downsizing and improving average engine efficiency;
• Using the motor instead of the engine at low load (in some configurations), eliminating engine operation during its lowest efficiency mode;
• Allowing the use of a more efficient cycle than the standard Otto cycle (in some hybrids);
• Shifting power steering and other accessories to (more efficient) electric operation.

Since the 1998 introduction of the Toyota Prius hybrid in the Japanese market, hybrid electric drive train technology has advanced substantially, expanding its markets, developing in alternative forms that offer different combinations of costs and benefits and improving component technologies and system designs. Hybrids now range from simple belt-drive alternator-starter systems offering perhaps 7 or 8% fuel economy benefit under US driving conditions to ‘full hybrids’ such as the Prius offering perhaps 40–50% fuel economy benefits^[18] (the Prius itself more than doubles the fuel economy average – on the US test – of the combined 2004 US model year compact and medium size classes, although some portion of this gain is due to additional efficiency measures). Also, hybrids may improve fuel efficiency by substantially more than this in congested urban driving conditions, so might be particularly useful for urban taxis and other vehicles making frequent stops. Hybrid sales have expanded rapidly: in the United States, sales were about 7,800 in 2000 and have risen rapidly, to 207,000 in 2005^[19]; worldwide hybrid sales were about 541,000 in 2005 (IEA Hybrid Website, 2006).

Improvements made to the Prius since its introduction demonstrate how hybrid technology is developing. For example, the power density of Prius’s nickel metal hydride batteries has improved from 600 W/kg¹ in 1998 to 1250 W/kg¹ in 2004 - a 108% improvement. Similarly, the batteries’ specific energy has increased 37% during the same period (EEA, 2003). Higher voltage in the 2004 Prius allows higher motor power with reduced electrical losses and a new braking-by-wire system maximizes recapture of braking energy. The 1998 Prius compact sedan attained 42 mpg on the US CAFE cycle, with 0–60 mph acceleration time of 14.5 seconds; the 2004 version is larger (medium size) but attains 55 mpg and a 0–60 of 10.5 seconds. Prius-type hybrid systems will add about 4,000 US$ to the price of a medium sized sedan (EEA, 2003), but continued cost reduction and development efforts should gradually reduce costs.

Hybridization can yield benefits in addition to directly improving fuel efficiency, including (depending on the design) enhanced performance (with reduced fuel efficiency benefits in some designs), less expensive 4-wheel drive systems, provision of electric power for off-vehicle use (e.g., GM Silverado hybrid), and ease of introducing more efficient transmissions such as automated manuals (using the motor to reduce shift shock).

Hybrid drive trains’ strong benefits in congested stop-and-go travel mesh well with some heavier-duty applications, including urban buses and urban delivery vehicles. An initial generation of hybrid buses in New York City obtained about a 10% improvement in fuel economy as well as improved acceleration capacity and substantially reduced emissions (Foyt, 2005). More recently, a different design achieved a 45% fuel economy increase in NYC operation (not including summer, where the increase should be lower) (Chandler et al., 2006). Fedex has claimed a 57% fuel economy improvement for its E700 diesel hybrid delivery vehicles (Green Car Congress, 2004).

Hybrid applications extend to two and three-wheelers, as well, because these often operate in crowded urban areas in stop-and-go operation. Honda has developed a 50 cc hybrid scooter prototype that offers about a one-third reduction in fuel use and GHG emissions compared to similar 50 cc scooters (Honda, 2004). However, sales of two and three-wheeled vehicles in most markets are extremely price sensitive, so the extent of any potential market for hybrid technology may be quite limited.

Plug-in hybrids, or PHEVs, are a merging of hybrid electric and battery electric. PHEVs get some of their energy from the electricity grid. Plug-in hybrid technology could be useful for both light-duty vehicles and for a variety of medium duty vehicles, including urban buses and delivery vehicles. Substantial market success of PHEV technology is, however, likely to depend strongly on further battery development, in particular on reducing battery cost and specific energy and increasing battery lifetimes.

PHEVs’ potential to reduce oil use is clear – they can use electricity to ‘fuel’ a substantial portion of miles driven. The US Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 2001) estimates that 30 km hybrids (those that have the capability to operate up to 30 km solely on electricity from the battery) can substitute electricity for gasoline for approximately 30–40% of miles driven in the USA. With larger batteries and motors, the vehicles could replace even more mileage. However, their potential to reduce GHG emissions more than that achieved by current hybrids depends on their sources of electricity. For regions that rely on relatively low-carbon electricity for off-peak power, e.g., natural gas combined cycle power, GHG reductions over the PHEV’s lifecycle will be substantial; in contrast, PHEVs in areas that rely on coal-fired power could have increased lifecycle carbon emissions. In the long-term, movement to a low-carbon electricity sector could allow PHEVs to play a major role in reducing transport sector GHG emissions.