1 / 16

Automotive CO 2 Emissions Characterization by U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Platform

Automotive CO 2 Emissions Characterization by U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Platform. John DeCicco, * Feng An, † Huiming Gong † Presentation at the TRB Annual Meeting Washington, DC – January 2005. * Environmental Defense † Energy and Transportation Technologies, LLC. Overview.

buck
Download Presentation

Automotive CO 2 Emissions Characterization by U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Platform

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Automotive CO2 Emissions Characterizationby U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Platform John DeCicco,* Feng An,† Huiming Gong† Presentation at the TRB Annual Meeting Washington, DC – January 2005 *Environmental Defense †Energy and Transportation Technologies, LLC

  2. Overview • Objectives (why look at platforms?) • What is a platform? • Methodology and data sources • Platforms in the U.S. auto market • CO2 Emissions Characterizations • Explore variability within and across platforms • Compare platform efficiency estimates • Conclusions

  3. Objectives Why look at platforms? • Link CO2 emissions and related factors to the way production is organized. • Proliferation of nameplates and artificiality of the car-truck distinction makes traditional class-based analysis more difficult and less revealing. • Foundation for analyzing issues of part-scale production and staggered design change. • Provide a basis for assessing costs pertinent to production credits or similar incentives.

  4. What is a Platform? • In general, a collection of manufacturing assets shared among different products. • Historically related to common chassis components and "hard points" for an assembly line. • Flexible manufacturing long since obviates need for fixed dimensions. • Platform ("architecture") now entails sharing of both "soft" and "hard" assets.

  5. Platform Strategy as a Balancing Act Maximizing the market benefits of product differentiation Minimizing costs througheconomies of scale

  6. Data and Methodology • EPA & NHTSA data for fuel economy, matched to trade (Ward's) platform data • Only up to 8,500 lb gvw, even though some platforms also include heavier models • Platforms are not always "well defined" • MY2002 sales, CY2002 platform production • early MY2003 models not counted in sales • Nominal, direct CO2 emissions based on 8.8 kg/gal, 15% fuel economy shortfall • Diesel and AFV use assumed negligible (diesel LDV share was only 0.1% in MY2002; estimated FFV credits were backed out)

  7. Top Platforms Ranked by U.S. Sales Next 5: Ford Explorer, Honda Accord, Chevy Trailblazer, Chrysler Voyager, Chevy Malibu

  8. Platform Distribution by MY2002 Sales

  9. Platform Distribution by MY2002 CO2 Emissions

  10. Variability within a Platform • Factors: # of engines, # of body styles, weight • Examples • GMT800 (Silverado, etc.)7 models, 5 engines, 3 body stylesvariations: 33% in disp, 26% in wt, 23% in CO2 • Dodge Dakota/Durango2 models, 4 engine, 2 body stylesvariations: 75% in disp, 31% in wt, 45% in CO2 • Honda Odyssey / Acura MDX2 models, 1 engine, 1 body stylevariations: (0) in disp, 5% in wt, 6% in CO2 Variation ≡ (Max-Min)/Mean [sales-weighted]

  11. Typical Variations within a Platform • Weight, in general, varies least: median 17% • Greatest variation (26%-35%) in pickup platforms, which include body-on-frame SUVs • Engine displacement median variation: 26% • Greatest for compact pickups, with I4 - V8 options • CO2 emissions rate median variation: 20% • Outlier is VW Jetta, with diesel: 67% variation • For others, compact pickups show 45% variation N.B. Drive type was not examined, but other analysis indicates typical 10%-15% CO2 impact for 4- vs. 2-WD.

  12. Variability Across Platforms • Comparing platform averages (but remember the significant within-platform variability) • Examined: • Power, specific power (HP/L) • Ton-MPG • Reciprocal of mass-normalized fuel consumption • Isolates non-mass-related aspects of efficiency • A good (but not perfect) index of powertrain efficiency

  13. Platform average peak power vs. engine size

  14. Ton-MPG Indeces for Selected Platforms (identified here by representative models)

  15. Ton-MPG vs. average platform weight No correlation to weight (r = -0.04) Ton-MPGfor trucks only 5% lower than cars on average Some, but not all, large variations reflect platform age ("dated"-ness)

  16. Conclusions • Platform-level data enable analysis linked to how the industry manages production • Highest volume platforms contribute, by a modest margin, disproportionately to CO2 • Top 30 ⇛ 69% of sales, 72% of CO2 (MY2002) • Variability within and across platforms can reflect some opportunities for CO2 reduction • Newer platforms generally more "efficient" • Provides a baseline and foundation for several types of future analyses

More Related