Transcript Automotive CO2 Emissions Characterization by U.S. Light

Automotive CO2 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
†Energy
Defense
and Transportation Technologies, LLC
1
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
2
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.
3
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.
4
Platform Strategy as a Balancing Act
Minimizing
costs through
economies
of scale
Maximizing
the market
benefits of
product
differentiation
5
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)
6
Top Platforms Ranked by U.S. Sales
MY2002
Sales
CY2002
Production
1,221,120
1,698,211
Toyota Camry Lexus RX 330; Toyota Avalon, Camry, Sienna
808,798
523,605
Ford PN96
Ford F-150, Expedition; Lincoln Navigator
613,885
812,204
GM W2
Buick Century, Regal; Chevrolet Impala,
Monte Carlo; Pontiac Grand Prix
595,633
702,738
Ford DN101
Ford Taurus, Windstar; Mercury Sable
573,245
692,914
Platform
Nameplates
GMT800
Cadillac Escalade; Chevrolet Avalanche,
Silverado, Suburban, Tahoe;
GMC Sierra, Yukon
Next 5: Ford Explorer, Honda Accord, Chevy Trailblazer, Chrysler Voyager, Chevy Malibu
7
Platform Distribution by MY2002 Sales
(a ) Cumula tiv e s a le s d is trib utio n
C u mmu l a ti ve sh a r e b y sa l e s
80%
69%
70%
56%
60%
50%
38%
40%
30%
20%
24%
8%
10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
P la tfo rm ra nk b y s a le s (s e e T a b le 2)
8
C u m. sh a r e b y ca r b o n c o n tr i b u t io n
Platform Distribution by MY2002 CO2 Emissions
(b ) Cumula tiv e c a rb o n e mis s io ns d is trib utio n
80%
72%
70%
59%
60%
50%
41%
40%
26%
30%
20%
10%
10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
P la tfo rm ra nk b y s a le s (s e e T a b le 2)
9
Variability within a Platform
 Factors: # of engines, # of body styles, weight
 Examples
• GMT800 (Silverado, etc.)
7 models, 5 engines, 3 body styles
variations: 33% in disp, 26% in wt, 23% in CO2
• Dodge Dakota/Durango
2 models, 4 engine, 2 body styles
variations: 75% in disp, 31% in wt, 45% in CO2
• Honda Odyssey / Acura MDX
2 models, 1 engine, 1 body style
variations: (0) in disp, 5% in wt, 6% in CO2
Variation ≡ (Max-Min)/Mean [sales-weighted]
10
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.
11
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
12
Platform average peak power vs. engine size
Engine Peak Power (HP)
300
GM
Ford
DCX
Other
Fit
250
200
150
100
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
Engine Size (Liter)
13
Ton-MPG Indeces for Selected Platforms
(identified here by representative models)
Ho nda Odyssey
GM Aztek
GM Silverado
DCX Caravan
Fo rd Fo cus
To yo ta Tundra
Fo rd F-150
DCX Stratus
GM Chevy S-10
DCX Jeep Liberty
35
40
45
To n-MPG
50
14
Ton-MPG vs. average platform weight
Big 3 Car
Big 3 Truck
Foreign Car
Foreign Truck
Powertrain efficiency index, ton-mpg
55
No correlation to
weight (r = -0.04)
50
Ton-MPG
for trucks only
5% lower than cars
on average
45
Some, but not all,
large variations
reflect platform age
("dated"-ness)
40
35
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Equivalent test weight, lbs
6,000
15
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
16