Southwest Research Institute® San Antonio, Texas

Technologies For 

MD/HD GHG & Fuel 

Efficiency 

Thomas Reinhart 

Dec. 10, 2014 
Agenda

1. Project Outline

2. Project Status

3. Preliminary Results

4. Preliminary Observations

2

2014
NHTSA Project Outline

• Engine and vehicle technology simulations

• Engines:

– 15 liter long haul diesel (with 12.5 liter 5-cylinder variant)

– 6.7 liter medium duty diesel (with 8.9 liter 8-cylinder variant)

– 6.7 liter pickup truck diesel (with 4.5 liter 4-cylinder variant)

– 6.2 liter V-8 gasoline 

– 3.5 liter V-6 turbocharged DI gasoline

3
Project Outline

• Vehicles:

– Class 8 tractor-trailer

– Class 6 delivery truck (box truck)

– Class 6 roll-on tow truck

– Class 2b / 3 pickup

4

2014
Drive Cycles Used

• Class 2b / 3 (Pickup Truck)

– FTP-City, FTP-Highway (light duty certification cycles)

– US06 (Aggressive light duty certification cycle)

– SC03 (Urban cycle used for light duty A/C testing)

– WHVC (World Harmonized Vehicle Cycle, a truck cycle 

with urban, suburban, and highway segments)

 Not representative of 2b/3 operation, but used for comparison 

with MD truck results

– 65 MPH cruise

 Used for comparison with MD truck results

• Note: A/C use was simulated on all cycles, with 

all vehicles 5

2014
Drive Cycles Used

• Class 6 (F-650 and T-270):

– CARB truck urban cycle, 55 MPH cruise, 65 MPH cruise

 Cycles used for Phase 1 GHG regulatory compliance

– WHVC (World Harmonized Vehicle Cycle, a truck cycle 

with urban, suburban, and highway segments)

 Used for comparison with other truck results

– CILCC (Combined International Local & Commuter Cycle)

 Delivery cycle designed with gentle accelerations and 

decelerations, with 6% idle time

– Parcel delivery cycle

 Represents a delivery truck operating in an urban / suburban 

environment, with 50% idle time

6

2014
Drive Cycles Used

• Class 8 (T-700 tractor-trailer)

– CARB truck urban cycle, 55 MPH cruise, 65 MPH 

cruise

 Cycles used for Phase 1 GHG regulatory compliance

– WHVC (World Harmonized Vehicle Cycle, a truck 

cycle with urban, suburban, and highway segments)

 Used for comparison with other truck results

– NESCCAF (Northeast States Center for a Clean Air 

Future)

 Cycle designed to simulate a long haul duty cycle

 Includes a brief urban/suburban segment and a long cruise

 Includes +/- 1% and +/- 3% grades, 64 – 67 MPH cruise

7

2014
Drive Cycles Used

• Note that the drive cycles selected were used 

for research purposes

– These cycles may not be used in the Phase 2 

regulations

8

2014
Project Status

• All simulation of individual engine technologies is 

complete

– 64 engine technologies evaluated

– 64 fuel maps created

• All simulation of individual vehicle technologies is 

complete

– 28 vehicle technology combinations evaluated

– 2,118 vehicle simulation runs completed

• Simulation of engine and vehicle technology 

combinations is now complete

– 32 engine technology combinations evaluated

– Several thousand vehicle simulation runs completed

9

2014
A Note On FMEP (Engine Friction)

• In our study, we assumed that FMEP could be reduced 

by addressing any engine component needed for 

engine operation

• Examples:

– Piston / ring / liner friction

– Bearing friction

– Valve train and gear train friction

– Variable speed / displacement oil and water pumps

 On/off control of piston cooling nozzles

– Reduced power demand fuel pump

– Reduced viscosity engine oil, friction modifiers in oil

• Accessories required by the vehicle are addressed 

separately (A/C, power steering, air compressor, etc.)

10

2014
Heavy Duty Long-Haul

• This category uses one base engine, the DD15

• This category uses one base vehicle, the 

Kenworth T-700 aerodynamic tractor with a 

standard (non-aero) 53 foot box van trailer

11
Long Haul Engine Technologies

12 0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Fuel Savings, %

DD15 Technologies in T-700 at 50% Payload

CARB 55 MPH 65 MPH

WHVC NESCCAF

Drive

Cycles

2014
Tractor-Trailer Technologies

13

-16%

-12%

-8%

-4%

0%

4%

8%

12%

16%

Fuel Savings, %

Vehicle Tech. in T-700 vs. Baseline at 50% Payload

CARB 55 MPH 65 MPH

WHVC NESCCAF

Drive

Cycles

16.8%
Some Preliminary HD 

Observations

• Engine friction reduction provides significant benefits, 

particularly on lightly loaded cycles

• Both downspeeding and downsizing show 1.5% to 4% 

benefit

– Hard to combine both, because of BMEP limits

• R245 BC provides about 3% (for reference, water 

based BC provides about 5%)

– Note transient performance issues – long haul only technology

• Large Cd and Crr reductions provide large benefits

• Turbocompound didn’t work out well here. Other, 

smaller engines have shown better results

14 2014
Some Preliminary HD 

Observations

• Increasing the number of gear ratios doesn’t help much

– Engine has good BSFC over a wide enough range to work well 

with the 10-speed

• It takes big weight reductions to provide a significant 

fuel savings / GHG benefit (See notes)

• Road speed governors provide a big benefit, if the drive 

cycle has a large portion of high speed operation

– Note productivity issue

• Simulating a manual transmissions is tricky, and needs 

to be supported by field tests

– Fuel penalty for manual indicated by 55 MPH cycle and WHVC 

involve running a gear down, which causes a large penalty

15 2014
2019 Baseline DD15

• Uses asymmetric turbo – similar to 2014 

production

• Assume a 1% improvement from shorter 

combustion duration

–This can represent any incremental 

improvement

• Complies with 2017 GHG requirement

–With zero margin

16 2014
HD Engine Technology Combos

17

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Fuel Savings, %

DD15 Technologies in T-700 at 50% Payload

CARB

55 MPH

65 MPH

WHVC

NESCCAF

Drive

Cycles
HD Engine Technology Combos

18

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Fuel Savings, %

DD15 Technologies in T-700 at 50% Payload

CARB 55 MPH 65 MPH

WHVC NESCCAF

Drive

Cycles

Note: P3 Performance is relative to P2
HD Vehicle Technology Combos

19 0%

4%

8%

12%

16%

20%

24%

28%

32%

36%

40%

P1 15% Cd, 

10% Crr, 3% 

Weight

P2 25% Cd, 

30% Crr, 6.5% 

Weight

P3 P1 + 40% 

AC, 20% 

Chassis, 6X2, 18-spd AMT

P4 25% Cd, 

30% Crr + 40% 

AC, 20% 

Chassis, 6X2, 18-spd AMT, ... P5 P3 with 10- spd AMT, P5 

Engine

Fuel Savings, %

Vehicle Tech. in T-700 vs. Baseline at 50% Payload

CARB 55 MPH 65 MPH

WHVC NESCCAF

Drive

Cycles
Some Preliminary HD Combo 

Observations

• Friction reduction and downspeeding perform on the 

2019 baseline similar to the original baseline

• The refrigerant-based WHR system benefits 

significantly from a recuperator, but the other working 

fluids show a smaller benefit

• Methanol, ethanol, and water working fluids give 

similar WHR performance

• Throwing the kitchen sink at the turbocompound 

engine still does not result in performance better than 

asymmetric turbo packages on this particular engine

– Note that turbocompound has shown a benefit on other engines

20 2014
Some Preliminary HD Combo 

Observations

• Vehicle Combo Package 4 pushes into SuperTruck

territory

– Combines vehicle and engine technology packages, similar to 

SuperTruck

– ~33% fuel savings on long haul cycles = ~50% MPG improvement

– Note that SuperTrucks have ~50% Cd reduction, vs. 25% in this 

study, so SuperTrucks perform even better

• Larger fuel savings are available from vehicle power 

demand reductions than from engine efficiency 

improvements

– Maximum engine potential fuel savings in this study is ~10%

21 2014
Medium Duty Vocational

• This category uses 3 engines:

– The medium-duty ISB diesel

– A 6.2 liter port-injected V-8

– A 3.5 liter turbocharged V-6

• This category uses 2 trucks:

– Ford F-650 roll-on tow truck

– Kenworth T-270 delivery truck

22
MD Diesel Technologies

23

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Low Back Pres. Low FMEP No EGR + 5% Turbo Eff

Fuel Savings, %

ISB Technologies in T-270, 50% Payload

CARB 55 MPH 65 MPH

WHVC CILCC Parcel

Drive

Cycles
Boosted V-6 Technologies for MD

24

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

VVA / VVL Cyl. 

Deact.

Lean GDI Stoich 

EGR

EGR + 

Dwnspd

Low FMEP + 5% 

Turbo Eff

Fuel Savings, %

3.5 V-6 Tech. in T-270, 50% Payload

CARB 55 MPH 65 MPH

WHVC CILCC Parcel

Drive

Cycles
V-8 Technologies for MD

25

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

GDI Lean GDI VVA / VVL Cyl. Deact. Stoich EGR Low FMEP

Fuel Savings, %

6.2 V-8 Tech. in T-270, 50% Payload

CARB 55 MPH 65 MPH

WHVC CILCC Parcel

Drive

Cycles
MD Engine Comparison

26

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

3.5 V-6 Baseline 6.7 Diesel Baseline

Fuel Savings, %

V-6 and ISB vs. V-8 in T-270, 50% Payload

CARB 55 MPH

65 MPH WHVC

CILCC Parcel

Drive

Cycles
T-270 Vehicle Technologies

27

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

A/C -40% Cd - 15% Crr - 30% 8-Spd 

Auto

6-Spd 

AMT

10-Spd 

AMT

Wght -

1100 lb.

Chassis Fr 

- 30%

Fuel Savings, %

T-270 Tech. with ISB vs. Baseline, 50% Payload

CARB 55 MPH

65 MPH WHVC

CILCC Parcel

Drive

Cycles

2014
F-650 Vehicle Technologies

28

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

A/C -40% Cd - 10% Crr - 30% 8-Spd 

Auto

6-Spd 

AMT

10-Spd 

AMT

Wght -

1100 lb.

Chassis 

Fr - 30%

Fuel Savings, %

F-650 Tech. with ISB vs. Baseline, 50% Payload

CARB 55 MPH 65 MPH

WHVC CILCC Parcel

Drive

Cycles
Technology Sensitivity to Payload, 

CARB Cycle

29

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Fuel Savings, %

Percent Payload

T-270 Technologies vs. Baselines, CARB

Wght - 1100 lb.

V-8 Cyl. Deact.

Cd - 15%

Crr - 30%

V-6 EGR

V-6 EGR+Dnspd

Technology

0% 50% 100%

2014
Technology Sensitivity to Payload, 

65 MPH Cruise

30 2014

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Fuel Savings, %

Percent Payload

T-270 Technologies vs. Baselines, 65 MPH

Wght - 1100 lb.

V-8 Cyl. Deact.

Cd - 15%

Crr - 30%

V-6 EGR

V-6 EGR+Dnspd

Technology

0% 50% 100%
Some Preliminary MD 

Observations

• Reduced FMEP helps the diesel

– Up to 8% on low speed, light load cycles

– About 2% on high speed, high load cycles (see notes)

• The diesel and V-6 gas can provide significant 

benefits over the V-8 gas engine

– V-6 benefit is up to 10% on lightly loaded cycles only

 Reduced pumping work and friction

 No V-6 benefit at high loads

– Diesel benefit is 20 – 25% on most cycles

 Biggest benefit at high loads

– Diesel suffers from tighter torque converter match on 

cycles with significant idle time (Parcel cycle)

31 2014
Some Preliminary MD 

Observations

• Lean burn looks attractive for gasoline engines, 

but there are aftertreatment issues

– High exhaust temps, sulfur poisoning

• VVA/VVL provides 3% to 4% benefit for gasoline

• EGR provides 4% to 10% benefit for gasoline

– Best at high load, where enrichment is eliminated

• An AMT provides 3% to 4% on most cycles, but 

up to 10% with significant idle

– Suggests benefit for idle neutral feature on automatic

32 2014
Some Preliminary MD 

Observations

• Crr reduction provides 4% to 8% benefit, 

similar to the long haul truck

• Weight reduction benefit is modest (1% to 2%) 

across all drive cycles

• Benefit of EGR and reduced tire rolling 

resistance goes up with increasing payload, 

while benefit of cylinder deactivation declines

33 2014
2019 Baseline MD Engines

• ISB Diesel

– Assumed 1% benefit from shorter combustion 

duration

 Could represent any incremental improvement

– Assumed partial FMEP reduction

 5% at high speed and load, increasing to 17.5% at low speed, 

light load

– Provides 2% to 5% improvement vs. 2013 baseline, 

to comply with 2017 requirements

• Gasoline engines were carried over 

unchanged for 2019

34 2014
MD Diesel Engine Tech. Combos

35

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2013 Baseline ISB P1 ISB P2 ISB P3 ISB P4 ISB P5

Fuel Savings, %

ISB Technologies in T-270, 50% Payload

CARB 55 MPH 65 MPH

WHVC CILCC Parcel

Drive

Cycles

2.5T+Dwnspd No EGR+5T+FMEP No EGR+5G+.5F+Dwn F+2.5T 4Cyl+EGR
MD V-6 Technology Combos

36

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

3.5 P1 3.5 P2 3.5 P3 3.5 P4

Fuel Savings, %

3.5 V-6 Tech. in T-270, 50% Payload

CARB 55 MPH 65 MPH

WHVC CILCC Parcel

Drive

Cycles

VVA + EGR P1 + Dwnspd P1 + Lean P2 - VVA
MD V-8 Technology Combos

37

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

6.2 P1 6.2 P2 6.2 P4 6.2 P5 6.2 P7

Fuel Savings, %

6.2 V-8 Tech. in T-270, 50% Payload

CARB 55 MPH 65 MPH

WHVC CILCC Parcel

Drive

Cycles

GDI+Deac+EGR+F P1 + VVA P1 – VVA + Phasers P1 - FMEP P1 - Deac
T-270 Truck Technology Combos

38

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

Fuel Savings, %

T-270 Tech. with ISB vs. Baseline, 50% Payload

CARB 55 MPH 65 MPH

WHVC CILCC Parcel

Drive

Cycles

Package 1 Sweeps

P3 Results Are vs. P2, and P5 is vs. P3

-20Crr+8spd+Id 

N+AC-800 Lb
F-650 Truck Technology Combos

39

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

Fuel Savings, %

F-650 Tech. with ISB vs. Baseline, 50% Payload

CARB 55 MPH 65 MPH

WHVC CILCC Parcel

Drive

Cycles

P3 Results Are vs. P2, and P5 is vs. P3

Package 1 Sweeps -20Crr+8spd+Id 

N+AC-800 Lb
Axle Ratio and Weight Sweeps

• Sweeps were performed on axle ratio and 

vehicle empty weight

– For all 3 2019 baseline engines (2 gasoline and 1 

diesel)

– On both medium duty trucks and on the pickup truck

• In the interest of time, these slides are hidden

– But you are welcome to review them at your leisure

40
Effect of Axle Ratio Sweep, Diesel

41

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

Fuel Savings, %

Axle Ratio

T-270 Axle Ratio Sweep w/ ISB, 50% Payload

CARB 55 MPH

65 MPH WHVC

CILCC Parcel

3.73 4.11 4.56 5.29 5.64 6.17 6.89

Drive

Cycles

Baseline
Effect of Axle Ratio Sweep, V-6

42

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

Fuel Savings, %

Axle Ratio

T-270 Axle Ratio Sweep w/ V-6, 50% Payload

CARB 55 MPH

65 MPH WHVC

CILCC Parcel

5.64 6.17 6.89 7.50 8.42 9.50 11.0

Drive

Cycles

Baseline
Effect of Axle Ratio Sweep, V-8

43

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

Fuel Savings, %

Axle Ratio

T-270 Axle Ratio Sweep w/ V-8, 50% Payload

CARB 55 MPH

65 MPH WHVC

CILCC Parcel

5.64 6.17 6.89 7.50 8.42 9.50 11.0

Drive

Cycles

Baseline
Effect of Empty Weight, T-270

44

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

ISB 

0 Lb

ISB 

400 

L b

ISB 

800 

L b

ISB 

1.2k 

L b

V-6 

0 Lb

V-6 

400 

L b

V-6 

800 

L b

V-6 

1.2k 

L b

V-8 

0 Lb

V-8 

400 

L b

V-8 

800 

L b

V-8 

1.2k 

L b

Fuel Savings, %

Effect of Empty Wt. Reduction @ 50% Payload

CARB 55 MPH 65 MPH

WHVC CILCC Parcel

Drive

Cycles
Some Preliminary MD Combo 

Observations

• Downspeeding helps, except on cycles with 

significant idle time

– Higher torque converter load hurts at idle

– An idle neutral feature can fix this issue

• Downsizing helps with lightly loaded drive 

cycles, but hurts on highly loaded cycles

• There is significant overall potential for gasoline 

engine improvement (6% to 10%)

• Potential vehicle improvement is 5% to 10%

– Less than for long haul trucks

45 2014
Some Preliminary MD Combo 

Observations

• The T-270 is more sensitive to Cd than the F-650

– Driven by frontal area differences

• Other technologies have a very similar effect on 

both trucks

• Low speed drive cycles are insensitive to axle 

ratio

– High speed cycles can be very sensitive

• The baseline axle ratios appear near optimal for 

the diesel and V-6

– The V-8 could benefit from a one step taller axle

46 2014
Some Preliminary MD Combo 

Observations

• Sensitivity to vehicle empty weight is rather 

small

• The V-6 is most sensitive to weight, while the 

V-8 is least sensitive

47 2014
Class 2b / 3 Pickup Truck

• This category uses 3 engines:

– The light duty ISB diesel

 Higher power, torque, and RPM than the medium duty version

– A 6.2 liter port-injected V-8

– A 3.5 liter turbocharged V-6

• This category uses 1 truck:

– Ram 2500/3500

48
Pickup Diesel Technologies

49

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

+ 5% Turbo Eff Low FMEP Low Back Press. No EGR 4-Cylinder

Fuel Savings, %

ISB Technologies in Ram, ALVW

FTP-City FTP-Hwy US06

SC03 WHVC 65 MPH

Drive

Cycles
3.5 V-6 Technologies in Pickup

50

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

VVA / 

VVL

Cyl. 

Deact.

Lean 

GDI

Stoich 

EGR

EGR + 

Dwnspd

Low 

FMEP

+ 5% 

Turbo 

Eff

Base ISB

Fuel Savings, %

3.5 V-6 Tech. in Ram, ALVW

FTP-City FTP-Hwy US06

SC03 WHVC 65 MPH

Drive

Cycles
6.2 V-8 Technologies in Pickup

51

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

GDI Lean GDI VVA / 

VVL

Cyl. 

Deact.

EGR Low 

FMEP

Base ISB

Fuel Savings, %

6.2 V-8 Tech. in Ram, ALVW

FTP-City FTP-Hwy US06

SC03 WHVC 65 MPH

Drive

Cycles

21%

22%
Comparison of V-6 & Diesel to V-8

52

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

3.5 V-6 Base ISB Base

Fuel Savings, %

V-6 and ISB vs. V-8 in Ram, ALVW

FTP-City FTP-Hwy US06

SC03 WHVC 65 MPH

Drive

Cycles
Pickup Vehicle Technologies

53

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

A/C -40% Cd - 10% Crr - 30% 8-Spd Auto Wght - 500 

lb.

Chassis Fr -

30%

Fuel Savings, %

Ram Tech. with ISB vs. Baseline, ALVW

FTP-City FTP-Hwy US06

SC03 WHVC 65 MPH

Drive

Cycles
Pickup Vehicle Technologies

54

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

A/C -40% Cd - 10% Crr - 30% 8-Spd Auto Wght - 500 

lb.

Chassis Fr -

30%

Fuel Savings, %

Ram Tech. with ISB vs. Baseline, ALVW

FTP-City FTP-Hwy US06

SC03 WHVC 65 MPH

Drive

Cycles
Technology Payload Sensitivity, 

City Cycle

55

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Fuel Savings, %

Payload

RamTechnologies vs. Baselines, FTP-City

Wght - 500 lb.

V-8 Cyl. Deact.

Cd - 10%

Crr - 30%

V-6 EGR

V-6 EGR+Dnspd

4-Cyl ISB

Technology

0% ALVW GCW
Technology Payload Sensitivity, 

US06 Cycle

56

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Fuel Savings, %

Percent Payload

Ram Technologies vs. Baselines, US06

Wght - 500 lb.

V-8 Cyl. Deact.

Cd - 10%

Crr - 30%

V-6 EGR

V-6 EGR+Dnspd

4-Cyl ISB

Technology

0% ALVW 50% 100% GCW

False 

Economy
Some Preliminary Pickup 

Observations

• For the diesel, friction reduction and the 4-

cylinder option work better than in medium 

trucks

– Because of the low average load

• Lean burn looks very good, but aftertreatment 

issues remain

• EGR provides ~4% benefit for gas engines

• Downspeed helps the V-6, and cylinder 

deactivation helps the V-8

– More than in MD trucks, because of lower average 

load

57 2014
Some Preliminary Pickup 

Observations

• On very lightly loaded cycles, the V-6 can beat 

the diesel

– Low friction and pumping work, higher BMEP

• Accessory power reduction provides a bigger 

benefit than in MD 

– lower average power demand

• Vehicle technologies provide modest benefits

• When towing:

– EGR and Crr are important

– Cylinder deactivation loses benefit

58 2014
2019 Baseline Pickup Engines

• ISB Diesel

– Assumed 1% benefit from shorter combustion 

duration

 Could represent any incremental improvement

– Assumed partial FMEP reduction

 5% at high speed and load, increasing to 17.5% at low speed, 

light load

– Provides 2% to 5% improvement vs. 2013 baseline, 

to comply with 2017 requirements

• Gasoline engines were carried over 

unchanged for 2019

59 2014
Comparison of V-6 and Diesel To 

V-8

60

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

3.5 V-6 Base ISB 2019 Base

Fuel Savings, %

BaselineV-6 and ISB vs. V-8 in Ram, ALVW

FTP-City FTP-Hwy

US06 SC03

WHVC 65 MPH

Drive

Cycles
Pickup Diesel Tech. Combos

61

-8%

-4%

0%

4%

8%

12%

2013 Base ISB P1 ISB P2 ISB P3 ISB P4 ISB P5

Fuel Savings, %

ISB Technologies in Ram, ALVW

FTP-City FTP-Hwy US06

SC03 WHVC 65 MPH

Drive

Cycles

Dwnspd +.5T No EGR+FMEP+T No EGR+dwnspd+T 2019 + FMEP 4-Cyl + FMEP
Pickup V-6 Technology Combos

62

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

3.5 P1 3.5 P2 3.5 P3 3.5 P4 ISB 2019

Fuel Savings, %

3.5 V-6 Tech. in Ram, ALVW

FTP-City FTP-Hwy US06

SC03 WHVC 65 MPH

Drive

Cycles

VVA + EGR P1 + Dwnspd P1 + Lean P2 - VVA
Pickup V-8 Technology Combos

63

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

6.2 P1 6.2 P2 6.2 P4 6.2 P5 6.2 P7 ISB 2019

Fuel Savings, %

6.2 V-8 Tech. in Ram, ALVW

FTP-City FTP-Hwy

US06 SC03

WHVC 65 MPH

Drive

Cycles

GDI+Deact+EGR+

FMEP

P1 + VVA P1 – VVA + 

Phasers P1 - FMEP P1 - Deact
Pickup Vehicle Tech. Combos

64

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

P1 Cd 

5%

P1 Cd 

10%

P1 Crr 

10%

P1 Crr 

20%

P1 Crr 

30%

P2 ISB P3 ISB 

vs. P2

P4 ISB P5 ISB 

vs. P3

Fuel Savings, %

Ram Vehicle Tech. with 2019 ISB, ALVW

FTP-City FTP-Hwy US06

SC03 WHVC 65 MPH

Drive

Cycles

-20Crr+8spd

Idle Neutral

-20Crr, -10Cd

P3-600LB-40A/C
Pickup Axle Ratio Sweep with 

Diesel 

65

-18%

-14%

-10%

-6%

-2%

2%

6%

10%

14%

18%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Fuel Savings, %

Ram P2 Axle Ratio Sweep with ISB, ALVW

FTP-City FTP-Hwy

US06 SC03

WHVC 65 MPH

Drive

Cycles

2.67 2.94 3.21 3.42 3.73 4.11 4.56

Axle Ratio

Baseline
Pickup Axle Ratio Sweep with V-6 

66

-18%

-14%

-10%

-6%

-2%

2%

6%

10%

14%

18%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Fuel Savings, %

Ram P2 Axle Ratio Sweep with V-6, ALVW

FTP-City FTP-Hwy

US06 SC03

WHVC 65 MPH

Drive

Cycles

Axle Ratio

3.73 4.11 4.56 5.03 5.37 5.79 6.17

Baseline
Pickup Axle Ratio Sweep with V-8 

67

-18%

-14%

-10%

-6%

-2%

2%

6%

10%

14%

18%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Fuel Savings, %

Ram P2 Axle Ratio Sweep with V-8, ALVW

FTP-City FTP-Hwy

US06 SC03

WHVC 65 MPH

Drive

Cycles

3.73 4.11 4.56 5.03 5.37 5.79 6.17

Axle Ratio

Baseline
Pickup Empty Weight Reduction

68

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

ISB 

0 Lb

ISB 

300 Lb

ISB 

600 Lb

ISB 

900 Lb

V-6 0 

Lb

V-6 

300 Lb

V-6 

600 Lb

V-6 

900 Lb

V-8 0 

Lb

V-8 

300 Lb

V-8 

600 Lb

V-8 

900 Lb

Fuel Savings, %

Effect of Vehicle Weight Reduction at ALVW

FTP-City FTP-Hwy US06 SC03 WHVC 65 MPH

Drive Cycles
Some Preliminary Pickup Combo 

Observations

• The 4-cylinder provides a big benefit

– As long at heavy towing is not required

• Gas engine improvements up to 10% (V-6) or 

12% (V-8) appear possible

• Vehicle improvements up to 10% appear 

possible

69 2014
Some Preliminary Pickup Combo 

Observations

• Taller axle ratios benefit fuel economy on most 

cycles

– Note that our baseline gas axle ratios are much 

shorter than those on the market. We went for 

25,000 pound towing capacity, which is not currently 

offered with gas engines

– The pickup has more margin to use taller axles 

without running a gear down, except at GCW

• As in the MD trucks, the V-6 is most sensitive 

to vehicle weight reduction

70 2014
Overall Observations

• Long haul trucks have the largest potential % 

fuel savings

– Given their high VMT, they can also support more 

investment in fuel saving technology

 Still, not all technologies will prove cost effective

– Savings of up to 33% appear feasible, although not 

necessarily all cost-effective

• Medium trucks and pickups have a potential 

for up to 20% fuel savings

– It will be a struggle to make some of these savings 

cost-effective

71 2014