### Technologies Considered in the Agencies’ Analysis

3-1 

## Table of Contents

CHAPTER 3: TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED IN THE AGENCIES’
ANALYSIS 2

3.1 HOW DO THE AGENCIES DECIDE WHICH TECHNOLOGIES TO
INCLUDE IN THE ANALYSIS? .......................... ................................................. 2

3.1.1 REPORTS AND PAPERS IN THE LITERATURE .............. ................ 2

3.1.2 FUEL ECONOMY CERTIFICATION DATA ................... ................... 3

3.2 WHICH TECHNOLOGIES W ILL BE APPLICABLE IN THE
RULEMAKING TIME FRAME? ............................ .............................................. 4

3.3 WHAT TECHNOLOGY ASSUMPTIONS HAVE THE AGENCIES USED
FOR THIS PROPOSAL? ................................

................................................... . 88 8

3.3.1 HOW ARE THE TECHNOLOGIES APPLIED IN THE AGENCIES’
RESPECTIVE MODELS? ................................

.................................................. 88 8

3.3.2 HOW DID THE AGENCIES DEVELOP TECHNOLOGY COST AND
EFFECTIVENESS ESTIMATES FOR THE PROPOSAL? .........

.............. 1010 10

3.3.2.1 Considerations that affect technology effectiveness

............................ 1010 10

3.3.2.1.1 Technology synergies ..............................

......................................... 1010 10

3.3.2.2 Considerations that affect technology costs .......

................................. 1111 11

3.3.2.2.1 Direct manufacturing costs ........................

...................................... 1212 12

3.3.2.2.2 Cost markups to account for indirect costs ........

............................. 1414 14

3.3.2.2.3 Concept behind and development of indirect cost mul tipliers ....... 1414 14

3.4 SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED AND ESTIMATES OF
COSTS AND EFFECTIVENESS ...........................

...................................... 2121 21

3.4.1 WHAT DATA SOURCES DID THE AGENCIES EVALUATE? 2121 21

3.4.2 INDIVIDUAL TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTIONS AND
COST/EFFECTIVENESS ESTIMATES ......................

............................... 2121 21

3.5 COST AND EFFECTIVENESS TABLES .....................

..................... 8529 84

3.5.1 NHTSA cost and effectiveness tables ...............

................................ 8529 84

3.5.2 EPA cost and effectiveness tables .................

................................. 10029 98

Appendix 3.A ......................................

................................................... .......... 10529 103 Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-2 * Due to the extremely high level of detail in this c hapter, NHTSA and EPA engineers are continuing to review it, and further refinements should be expected in
time for formal submission

.



# CHAPTER 3: Technologies Considered in the Agencies’

Analysis

This Chapter of the joint TSD describes the technol ogies NHTSA and EPA evaluated as potential inputs in their respective m odels and provides estimates of the technologies’ costs, effectiveness and availability . This Chapter also describes, in general terms, how the agencies use these inputs in their r espective models. For greater detail on this subject, please see Section V of NHTSA’s PRIA and Chapter 4 of EPA’s draft RIA.



## 3.1 How do the agencies decide which technologies to in clude in the analysis?

Technology assumptions, i.e., assumptions about the ir availability, cost, effectiveness, and the rate at which they can be in corporated into new vehicles, are often very controversial as they have a significant impac t on the levels of the standards. Agencies must, therefore, take great care in develo ping and justifying these assumptions. In developing technology inputs for M Y 2012-2016 standards the agencies reviewed the technology assumptions that NHTSA used in setting the 2011 standards and the comments that NHTSA received in response to its May 2008 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In addition, the agencies reviewed the technology input assumptions identified in EPA’s 2008 Staff Technical Report 1 

### and supplemented their review with
information from the sources described in the follo wing section. This analysis between the agencies continued until the publication of thi s notice and will continue until the final rule is published.

3.1.1 

## Reports and papers in the literature

NHTSA and EPA have done extensive research in ident ifying the most credible
sources of information. These sources included: the 2002 NAS report on the effectiveness and impact of CAFE standards; 2 

### the 2004 study done by NESCCAF; 3 

### the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Initial Statement of Reasons in support of their carbon rulemaking; 4 

### a 2006 study done by Energy and Environmental Anal ysis (EEA) for the Department of Energy; 5 

### a study done by the Martec Group for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and an update by the Mart ec Group to that study; 6 

### and vehicle fuel economy certification data. Both agen cies also reviewed the published
technical literature which addressed the issue of C O 2 

### emission control and fuel economy, such as papers published by the Society of Automoti ve Engineers and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. In addition, conf idential data submitted by vehicle manufacturers in response to NHTSA’s request for pr oduct plans, 7 

### and confidential information shared by automotive industry component suppliers in meetings with EPA and NHTSA staff held during the second half of the 2007 calendar year were used as a

### Technologies Considered in the Agencies’ Analysis

3-3 cross check of the public data mentioned above and not as a significant basis for this rulemaking. EPA also has a contracted study ongoin g with FEV that consists of complete system tear-downs to evaluate technologies down to the nuts and bolts to arrive at very detailed estimates of the costs associated with manufacturing them (and, as noted, the agencies used this analysis to estimate costs o f turbocharging with downsizing). 8



### EPA and NHTSA reviewed all this information in orde r to develop the best estimates of availability, cost and effectiveness of these fuel- saving/CO 2 

### -reducing technologies. Note
that tear-down cost estimates from FEV for addition al engine and transmission technologies became available shortly before the re lease of this proposal, but were not incorporated into the agencies’ cost analysis. The se preliminary results are available for review and the agencies will consider this informat ion for use in the final rule analysis. 9 

### A detailed report will be submitted to the docket o n these additional technologies during the public comment period for this proposal. In ad dition, additional technologies are expected to be completed from this study with FEV a fter the close of the comment period which the agencies will also docket.

The agencies would also like to note that per the E nergy Independence and Security Act (EISA), the National Academies of Scie nces is conducting an updated study to update chapter 3 of their 2002 NAS Report, which presents technology effectiveness estimates. The update will take a fresh look at tha t list of technologies and their
associated cost and effectiveness values.

The updated NAS report is expected to be available on September 30, 2009. As the Report is received by the agencies, it will be placed in the respective dockets for this rulemaking for the public’s review and comment. Be cause this is expected to occur during the comment period, the public is encouraged to check the docket regularly and provide comments on the updated NAS Report by the c losing of the public comment period. As requested by the President in the Janua ry 26, 2009 Executive Order, NHTSA and EPA will consider the updated NAS Report and an y comments received on it, as appropriate, in developing the technology cost and effectiveness estimates for the final
rule.

3.1.2 

## Fuel economy certification data

Where available, data from recent model years of EP A's Fuel Economy
Certification Data was used. CO 2 

### and fuel consumption reduction estimates were estimated from EPA's fuel economy database on the t wo-cycle (FTP city & highway) fuel economy test results. During the standard fuel eco nomy test cycles, direct measurements
of CO 2 

### emissions are made. This data, along with other m easurements, are then used to calculate the estimated fuel economy performance in gallons of fuel consumed per mile. Vehicle certification data are an obviously reliabl e source for determination of the CO 2 

### and fuel consumption reduction potential when a dir ectly comparable vehicle was offered both with and without the specific CO 2 

### and fuel consumption reducing technology, because a comparison between the emissions data bet ween the two vehicles directly reflect the application of the technologies on the vehicle test cycles. Where possible, technology-specific effectiveness numbers were extr acted for vehicles where only the

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-4 specific technology would be changed from a referen ce vehicle, in order to eliminate any confounding of values across several technologies. In some hybrid vehicle cases, the exact same vehicle may not be offered, and a simila r vehicle was selected for comparison.



## 3.2 Which technologies will be applicable in the rulema king time
frame?

Fuel consumption and CO 2 

### emissions reductions are possible from a variety o f technologies whether they be engine-related (e.g., turbocharging), transmission-related (e.g., six forward gears in place of four), accesso ry-related (e.g., electric power steering), or vehicle-related (e.g., low rolling resistance ti res). One of the key factors that NHTSA and EPA considered in developing the proposed stand ards for each model year is the availability and feasibility of fuel-saving/CO 2 

### -reducing technologies. In order to analyze the availability and feasibility of technologies in an objective way, the agencies reviewed
NHTSA’s MY 2011 CAFE final rule and EPA’s 2008 Staf f Report and updated the assumptions based on more current information. As a check on the new analysis, NHTSA and EPA also reviewed the product plans submi tted by manufacturers to the agencies in response to NHTSA’s March 2009 request for product plans.

Many technologies considered by the agencies are we ll known, readily available during the rulemaking time period, and could be inc orporated into vehicles once production decisions are made. The agencies did no t consider technologies in the research stage because their effectiveness and/or c osts are presently only known with greater levels of uncertainty.

The technologies considered by the NHTSA and EPA mo dels are briefly described below. They fall under the five broad ca tegories of engine, transmission, vehicle, electrification/accessory, and hybrid tech nologies. A more detailed description of each technology, and the technology’s costs and effectiveness, is described in greater
detail in section 3.5 of this TSD.

Types of engine technologies that improve fuel econ omy and reduce CO2 emissions include the following:

• 

### Low-friction lubricants – low viscosity and advanced low friction lubrican ts oils are now available with improved performance an d better lubrication.

• 

### Reduction of engine friction losses – can be achieved through low-tension piston rings, roller cam followers, improved materi al coatings, more optimal thermal management, piston surface treatments, and other improvements in the design of engine components and subsystems that improve engine operation.

• 

### Conversion to dual overhead cam with dual cam phasi ng – as applied to overhead valves designed to increase the air flow w ith more than two valves per cylinder and reduce pumping losses.

### Technologies Considered in the Agencies’ Analysis

3-5 • 

### Cylinder deactivation – deactivates the intake and exhaust valves and preve nts fuel injection into some cylinders during light-loa d operation. The engine runs temporarily as though it were a smaller engine which substantially reduces pumping losses

• 

### Variable valve timing – alters the timing or phase of the intake valve, exhaust valve, or both, primarily to reduce pumping losses, increase specific power, and control residual gases.

• 

### Discrete variable valve lift – increases efficiency by optimizing air flow over a broader range of engine operation which reduces p umping losses. Accomplished by controlled switching between two or more cam profile lobe heights.

• 

### Continuous variable valve lift – is an electromechanically controlled system in which cam period and phasing is changed as lift hei ght is controlled. This yields a wide range of performance optimization and volumetric efficiency, including enabling the engine to be valve throttled

.

• 

### Stoichiometric gasoline direct-injection technology – injects fuel at high pressure directly into the combustion chamber to im prove cooling of the air/fuel charge within the cylinder, which allows f or higher compression ratios and increased thermodynamic efficiency.

• 

### Combustion restart

– can be used in conjunction with gasoline direct- injection systems to enable idle-off or start-stop functional ity. Similar to other startstop technologies, additional enablers, such as ele ctric power steering, accessory drive components, and auxiliary oil pump, might be required.

• 

### Turbocharging and downsizing – increases the available airflow and specific power level, allowing a reduced engine size while m aintaining performance. This reduces pumping losses at lighter loads in com parison to a larger engine.

• 

### Exhaust-gas recirculation boost – increases the exhaust-gas recirculation used in the combustion process to increase thermal effic iency and reduce pumping
losses.

• 

### Diesel engines – have several characteristics that give superior fuel efficiency, including reduced pumping losses due to lack of (or greatly reduced) throttling, and a combustion cycle that operates at a higher compression ratio, with a very lean air/fuel mixture, than an equivale nt-performance gasoline engine. This technology requires additional enable rs, such as NO
x 

### trap catalyst after-treatment or selective catalytic red uction NO
x 

### after-treatment.

Types of transmission technologies considered inclu de:

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-6 • 

### Improved automatic transmission controls – optimizes shift schedule to maximize fuel efficiency under wide ranging conditi ons, and minimizes losses associated with torque converter slip through lock- up or modulation.

• 

### Six-, seven-, and eight-speed automatic transmissio ns – the gear ratio spacing and transmission ratio are optimized for a broader range of engine operating
conditions.

• 

### Dual clutch or automated shift manual transmissions – are similar to manual transmissions, but the vehicle controls shifting an d launch functions. A dualclutch automated shift manual transmission uses sep arate clutches for evennumbered and odd-numbered gears, so the next expect ed gear is pre-selected, which allows for faster and smoother shifting.

• 

### Continuously variable transmission – commonly uses V-shaped pulleys connected by a metal belt rather than gears to prov ide ratios for operation.
Unlike manual and automatic transmissions with fixe d transmission ratios, continuously variable transmissions can provide ful ly variable transmission ratios with an infinite number of gears, enabling f iner optimization of transmission torque multiplication under different operating conditions so that the powertrain can operate at its optimum efficienc y.

• 

### Manual 6-speed transmission – offers an additional gear ratio, often with a higher overdrive gear ratio, than a 5-speed manual transmission.

Types of vehicle technologies considered include:

• 

### Low-rolling-resistance tires – have characteristics that reduce frictional loss es associated with the energy dissipated in the deform ation of the tires under load, therefore reducing the energy needed to move the vehicle.

• 

### Low-drag brakes – reduce the sliding friction of disc brake pads o n rotors when the brakes are not engaged because the brake p ads are pulled away from
the rotors.

• 

### Front or secondary axle disconnect for four-wheel d rive systems – provides a torque distribution disconnect between front and re ar axles when torque is not required for the non-driving axle. This results in the reduction of associated parasitic energy losses.

• 

### Aerodynamic drag reduction – is achieved by changing vehicle shape or reducing frontal area, including skirts, air dams, underbody covers, and more aerodynamic side view mirrors.

• 

### Mass reduction and material substitution – Mass reduction encompasses a variety of techniques ranging from improved design and better component integration to application of lighter and higher-st rength materials. Mass

### Technologies Considered in the Agencies’ Analysis

3-7 reduction is further compounded by reductions in en gine power and ancillary systems (transmission, steering, brakes, suspension , etc.).

Types of electrification/accessory and hybrid techn ologies considered include:

• 

### Electric power steering (EPS) – is an electrically-assisted steering system that has advantages over traditional hydraulic power ste ering because it replaces a continuously operated hydraulic pump, thereby reduc ing parasitic losses from the accessory drive.

• 

### Improved accessories (IACC) – may include high efficiency alternators, electrically driven (i.e., on-demand) water pumps a nd cooling fans. This
excludes other electrical accessories such as elect ric oil pumps and electrically driven air conditioner compressors.

• 

### Air Conditioner Systems

– 

### These technologies include improved hoses, connectors and seals for leakage control. They als o include improved compressors, expansion valves, heat exchangers and the control of these components for the purposes of improving tailpipe C O2 emissions as a result of A/C use. These technologies are covered separa tely in the EPA RIA.

• 

### 12-volt micro-hybrid (MHEV) – also known as idle-stop or start stop and commonly implemented as a 12-volt belt-driven integ rated starter-generator, this is the most basic hybrid system that facilitat es idle-stop capability. Along with other enablers, this system replaces a common alternator with an enhanced power starter-alternator, both belt driven , and a revised accessory drive system.

• 

### Higher Voltage Stop-Start/Belt Integrated Starter G enerator (BISG)
– provides idle-stop capability and uses a high volta ge battery with increased energy capacity over typical automotive batteries. The higher system voltage allows the use of a smaller, more powerful electric motor and reduces the weight of the motor, inverter, and battery wiring h arnesses. This system replaces a standard alternator with an enhanced pow er, higher voltage, higher efficiency starter-alternator, that is belt driven and that can recover braking energy while the vehicle slows down (regenerative b raking).

• 

### Integrated Motor Assist (IMA)/Crank integrated star ter generator (CISG)
– provides idle-stop capability and uses a high volta ge battery with increased energy capacity over typical automotive batteries. The higher system voltage allows the use of a smaller, more powerful electric motor and reduces the weight of the motor, inverter, and battery wiring h arnesses. This system replaces a standard alternator with an enhanced pow er, higher voltage, higher efficiency starter-alternator that is crankshaft mo unted and can recover braking energy while the vehicle slows down (regene rative braking).

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-8 • 

### 2-mode hybrid (2MHEV) – is a hybrid electric drive system that uses an adaptation of a conventional stepped-ratio automati c transmission by replacing some of the transmission clutches with tw o electric motors that control the ratio of engine speed to vehicle speed, while clutches allow the motors to be bypassed. This improves both the tran smission torque capacity for heavy-duty applications and reduces fuel consum ption and CO2 emissions at highway speeds relative to other types of hybrid electric drive systems.

• 

### Power-split hybrid (PSHEV) – a hybrid electric drive system that replaces the traditional transmission with a single planetary ge arset and a motor/generator. This motor/generator uses the engine to either char ge the battery or supply additional power to the drive motor. A second, mor e powerful motor/generator is permanently connected to the veh icle’s final drive and always turns with the wheels. The planetary gear s plits engine power between the first motor/generator and the drive motor to ei ther charge the battery or supply power to the wheels.

• 

### Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) – are hybrid electric vehicles with the means to charge their battery packs from an outside source of electricity (usually the electric grid). These vehicles have l arger battery packs with more energy storage and a greater capability to be disch arged. They also use a control system that allows the battery pack to be s ubstantially depleted under electric-only or blended mechanical/electric operat ion.

• 

### Electric vehicles (EV)

– 

### are vehicles with all-electric drive and with vehic le systems powered by energy-optimized batteries charg ed primarily from grid electricity.



## 3.3 What technology assumptions have the agencies used for this proposal?

3.3.1 

## How are the technologies applied in the agencies’ r espective
models?

While both NHTSA and EPA are basing their fuel eco nomy and emission modeling on the same baseline vehicle fleet and cos t and effectiveness estimates for control technologies, differences in the Volpe and OMEGA models require that this common information be processed prior to use in dif ferent ways. With respect to the vehicle fleet, the Volpe Model evaluates the additi on of technology to individual vehicle configurations or models, while the OMEGA model doe s so for vehicle platforms broken down further by engine size. Thus, NHTSA used the vehicle sales estimates described above directly, while EPA combined the sales of cer tain vehicle models. The Volpe

### Technologies Considered in the Agencies’ Analysis

3-9 Model evaluates technologies individually. This, c oupled with the modeling of individual vehicle models, means that only the pres ence or absence of any particular technology needs to be indicated, as described abov e. OMEGA applies technology in combinations or packages. This, plus the grouping of individual vehicle models, requires that the total effectiveness of the technology alre ady applied in the baseline fleet must be calculated and must be reflected as a percentage of the various technology packages
available to be added to those vehicles.

With respect to the cost and effectiveness of tech nology, as mentioned above, the Volpe Model applies technologies individually. It does this following certain specified pathways for several categories of technologies (e. g., engine, transmission, accessories, etc.). The Volpe Model applies technology incremen tally, so the effectiveness of each subsequent technology needs to be determined relati ve to the previous one. The same is true for cost. In addition, because of overlap in the effectiveness of certain technologies, herein referred to as the dis-synergy, any such ove rlap between the next technology on a specified pathway with those which have already bee n potentially applied in other pathways must be determined. For example, the incr emental effectiveness of switching from a six-speed automatic transmission to a dual c lutch transmission will depend on the level of engine technology already applied (e.g., i ntake cam phasing on a port-fuel injected engine or a down-sized, turbocharged, dire ct injection engine).

EPA’s OMEGA model applies technologies in packages and according to a fixed sequence for any particular group of vehicles. Thi s requires that the overall cost and effectiveness of each package be determined first, considering any and all dis-synergies which may exist. Then, the incremental cost and ef fectiveness of each subsequent package is determined relative to the prior one.

Thus, while the same baseline vehicle fleet and cost and effectiveness estimates for technologies are being used in both the Volpe a nd OMEGA models, the form of the actual inputs to the model will appear to be differ ent. For more information on EPA’s and NHTSA’s unique approaches to modeling, please refer to each agency’s respective draft/proposed RIA.

In order to estimate both technology costs and fuel consumption/CO2 reduction estimates, it is necessary for each agency to descr ibe the baseline vehicle characteristics from which the estimates can be compared. This “ba seline” is different from the usage in Chapter 1 of this joint TSD. In Chapter 1, the bas eline fleet is the projected fleet in 2016 before accounting for technologies needed to meet t he 2011 MY CAFE standards and before accounting for changes in fleet composition attributable to that rule (those later steps accounted for independently by each agency in developing their separate reference fleets). In the present context, it indicates the vehicle types and technologies that will be used for comparison from a strictly cost and effect iveness point of view. These baselines may be slightly different for the two agencies. Fo r EPA, unless noted elsewhere, the baseline vehicle is defined as a vehicle with a por t-fuel injected, naturally aspirated gasoline engine with two intake and two exhaust val ves and fixed valve timing and lift. The baseline transmission is a 4-speed automatic, a nd the vehicle has no hybrid systems.

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-10 For NHTSA, unless noted elsewhere, the baseline veh icle is the actual vehicle as it exists in the baseline fleet (NHTSA models each unique veh icle separately). For details on how the technology cost and effectiveness estimates pre sented below are used in each agency’s model, refer to each agency’s respective d raft/proposed RIA.

3.3.2 How did the agencies develop technology cost and ef fectiveness estimates for the proposal?

3.3.2.1 Considerations that affect technology effectiveness

Regarding estimates for technology effectiveness, N HTSA and EPA also
reexamined the estimates from NHTSA’s MY 2011 CAFE final rule and EPA’s ANPRM and Staff Technical Report, which largely mirrored NHTSA’s NPRM estimates in the 2008 proposed rule. The agencies also reconsidered other sources such as the 2002 NAS Report, the 2004 NESCCAF report, recent CAFE compli ance data (comparing similar vehicles with different technologies against each o ther in fuel economy testing, such as a Honda Civic Hybrid versus a directly comparable Hon da Civic conventional drive), and confidential manufacturer estimates of technology e ffectiveness. Using the BOM framework utilized in MY 2011 CAFE final rule, NHTS A and EPA engineers reviewed effectiveness information from the multiple sources for each technology. Together, they compared the multiple estimates and assessed their validity, taking care to ensure that
common BOM definitions and other vehicle attributes such as performance, refinement, and drivability were taken into account. However, because the agencies’ respective models employ different numbers of vehicle subclass es and use different technology decision trees to arrive at the standards, direct c omparison of BOMs was somewhat more complicated. To address this and to assure an appl es-to-apple comparison, NHTSA and EPA developed mapping techniques, devising technolo gy packages and corresponding incremental technology estimates. This approach hel ped compare incremental and packaged estimates and derive results that are cons istent and could be translated into the respective models of the agencies. In general, mos t effectiveness estimates used in both
the MY 2011 CAFE final rule and the 2008 EPA staff report were determined to be accurate and were carried forward without significa nt change into this rulemaking. When NHTSA and EPA’s estimates for effectiveness diverge d slightly due differences in how agencies apply technologies to vehicles in their re spective models, the agencies will report the ranges for the effectiveness values used in each model, as well as the reasons the range is reasonable.

3.3.2.1.1 Technology synergies

The benefits of these technologies are generally b ut not always additive. That is, adding cylinder deactivation to dual cam phasing do es not necessarily result in a 10 percent improvement. This is true because some of the technologies address the same

### Technologies Considered in the Agencies’ Analysis

3-11 shortcomings of the internal combustion engine, alt hough in different ways. Where that is the case, negative synergies are said to exist b etween two (or more) technologies. It is also true that combining some technologies provides more benefit than a simple additive effect. In those cases, positive synergies are sai d to exist. The analysis accounts for these positive and negative synergies wherever appr opriate so as to ensure no double or insufficient counting of effects. Synergies are discussed in more detail in each agency’s respective draft/proposed RIA.

3.3.2.2 Considerations that affect technology costs

As a general matter, the best way to derive technol ogy cost estimates is to conduct
real- world tear down studies. These studies break down each technology into its respective components, evaluate the costs of each c omponent, and build up the costs of the entire technology based on the contribution of each component. As such, tear down studies require a significant amount of time and ar e very costly. EPA has begun conducting tear down studies to assess the costs of 4-5 technologies under a contract with FEV Inc., an independent engine and powertrain syst ems research, design and development company. To date, only one technology ( downsizing and turbo charging)
has been evaluated. Note that tear-down cost estim ates from FEV for additional engine and transmission technologies became available shor tly before the release of this proposal, but were not incorporated into the agenci es’ cost analysis. These preliminary results are available for review and the agencies w ill consider this information for use in the final rule analysis. 10 

### A detailed report will be submitted to the docket on these additional technologies during the public comment p eriod for this proposal. In addition, additional technologies are expected to be complete d from this study with FEV after the close of the comment period which the agencies will also docket. As tear down studies are concluded by FEV during the rulemaking process, the agencies will make them
available in the joint rulemaking docket of th is rulemaking

. The agencies will consider these studies and any comments received on them, as practicable and appropriate, in developing technology cost assumptions for the fina l rule. As noted above, the agencies
relied on some of the FEV findings of FE V for estimating the cost of this technology costs in this rulemaking.

Regarding the other technologies, because tear down studies were not yet available, the agencies decided to pursue the Bill of Materials (BOM) approach as
outlined in NHTSA’s 2011 final rule and EPA’s 2008 staff report. This approach was recommended to NHTSA by Ricardo, an international e ngineering consulting firm retained by NHTSA to aid in the analysis of public comments on its proposed standards for MYs 2011-2015 because of its expertise in the a rea of fuel economy technologies. A BOM approach is similar in concept to the approach used in tear down studies. The difference is that under a BOM approach, the build up of cost estimates is conducted
based on a review of cost and effectiveness estimat es for each component from available literature. To the extent that the agencies depart ed from the 2011 CAFE final rule and the 2008 staff report estimates, the agencies expla ined the reasons and provided supporting analyses. For example, while NHTSA and Ricardo engineers had relied considerably in the MY 2011 final rule on the 2008 Martec Report for costing contents of

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-12 some technologies, upon further joint review and fo r purposes of the MY 2012-2016 standards, the agencies decided that some of the co sting information in that report was no longer accurate due to downward trends in commodity prices since the publication of that report. The agencies reviewed, revalidated or upda ted cost estimates for individual components based on new information.

The subsequent sections describe the costs associat ed with the new vehicle technologies. The costs represent the piece costs for an individual piece of hardware or system, e.g., an intake cam phaser to provide varia ble valve timing. Costs are presented in terms of their hardware incremental compliance c ost. This means that they include all potential costs associated with their application o n vehicles, not just the cost of their physical parts. The basis for the piece costs pres ented here is NHTSA’s 2011 CAFE FRM and EPA’s 2008 Staff Technical Report. 11,12 

### In those analyses, piece costs were
estimated based on a number of sources for cost rel ated information. The objective was
to use those sources of information considered to b e most credible for projecting the costs of individual vehicle technologies. As a result of meetings between EPA and NHTSA staff in the first half of 2009, where both piece c osts and fuel consumption efficiencies were discussed in detail, cost estimates have been adjusted slightly. Where estimates differ between sources, engineering judgment was us ed to arrive at what is believed to be the best cost estimate available today, and explain ed the basis for that exercise of judgment. Thus while NHTSA and EPA found that much of the cost information used in NHTSA’s MY 2011 final rule and EPA’s 2008 staff rep ort was consistent to a great extent, the agencies, in reconsidering information from many sources, revised several component costs of several major technologies infor mation (turbocharging downsizing, mild and strong hybrids, diesels, SGDI, Valve Train Lift Technologies).

Note that EPA’s 2008 staff report presented costs i n terms of 2006 dollars. For this analysis, costs are expressed in terms of 2007 dollars. Any costs presented here that are based on costs expressed in 2006 dollars have b een adjusted to reflect 2007 dollars using the Gross Domestic Product price deflator (se e Appendix 3.A). 13,a 

### The following discussion summarizes the piece cost estimates and how these data sources were used to arrive at the best estimate of piece costs. The fo llowing sections describe individual technologies and their respective cost and effectiv eness estimates. For purposes of this joint TSD, these estimates were developed jointly b y NHTSA and EPA. Due to differences in the modeling and technology applicat ion methodologies employed by the two agencies, the estimates used by each agency may not match exactly but will be consistent given the different modeling tools used. Additional details are also provided in each agency’s respective proposed/draft RIAs.

3.3.2.2.1 Direct manufacturing costs

Building on NHTSA’s estimates developed for the M Y 2011 CAFE final rule and EPA’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, w hich relied on the 2008 Staff Technical Report, 14 

### the agencies took a fresh look at technology cost and effectiveness

a The adjustment used to convert from 2006 dollars t o 2007 dollars was 1.03.

### Technologies Considered in the Agencies’ Analysis

3-13 values for purposes of the joint proposal under the National Program. For costs, the agencies reconsidered both the direct or “piece” co sts and indirect costs of individual components of technologies. For the direct costs, the agencies followed a bill of materials (BOM) approach as noted above. A bill of materials, in a general sense, is a list of components that make up a system—in this case, a n item of fuel economy-improving technology. In order to determine what a system co sts, one of the first steps is to determine its components and what they cost.

NHTSA and EPA estimated these components and their costs based on a number of sources for cost-related information. The objec tive was to use those sources of information considered to be most credible for proj ecting the costs of individual vehicle technologies. For example, while NHTSA and Ricardo engineers had relied considerably
in the MY 2011 CAFE final rule on the 2008 Martec R eport for costing contents of some technologies, upon further joint review and for pur poses of the MY 2012-2016 standards, the agencies decided that some of the costing infor mation in that report was no longer accurate due to downward trends in commodity prices since the publication of that report. The agencies reviewed, revalidated or updated cost estimates for individual components based on new information. Thus though NHTSA and EPA found that much of the cost
information used in NHTSA’s MY 2011 CAFE final rule and EPA’s staff report was consistent, the agencies, in reconsidering informat ion from many sources, revised several component costs of several major technologies (turb ocharging downsizing, mild and strong hybrids, diesels, SGDI, Valve Train Lift Tec hnologies). b 

### These are discussed at length below. For one technology (turbocharging/do wnsizing), the agencies relied, to the extent possible, on the tear down data available an d scaling methodologies used in EPA’s ongoing study with FEV. This study consists of com plete system tear-down to evaluate technologies down to the nuts and bolts to arrive a t very detailed estimates of the costs associated with manufacturing them. 15 

### The confidential information provided by manufacturers under their product plan submissions to the agencies or discussed in meetings between the agencies and the manufacturers and suppliers served largely as a check on publicly-available data.

Once costs were determined, they were adjusted to e nsure that they were all expressed in 2007 dollars using the GDP price defla tor as described in Appendix 3.A. Indirect costs were accounted for using a new appro ach developed by EPA for this rulemaking and explained below rather than using th e Retail Price Equivalent (RPE) multiplier of 1.5 as was done in NHTSA’s 2011 FRM a nd EPA’s 2008 staff report.
NHTSA and EPA also considered how costs should be a djusted to reflect manufacturer learning as discussed below. Lastly, costs were ad justed by modifying or scaling content assumptions to account for differences across the r ange of vehicle sizes and functional requirements, and adjusted the associated material cost impacts to account for the revised

b The 2002 NAS Report, the 2004 study done by NESCCA F, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Initial Statement of Reasons in support of their ca rbon rulemaking, a 2006 study done by Energy and Environmental Analysis (EEA) for the Department of Energy, a study done by Martec for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the 2008 Martec Report which updated that study, and vehicle fuel economy certification data. and confidential data s ubmitted by manufacturers in response to the March 2009 request for product plans.

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-14 content, although these adjustments were different for each agency due to the different vehicle subclasses used in their respective models.

3.3.2.2.2 Cost markups to account for indirect costs

Indirect costs include production-related costs (r esearch, development, and other engineering), business-related costs (corporate sal aries, pensions), and retail-sales-related costs (dealer support, marketing). For this analy sis, direct cost estimates were first developed for each technology or system at the auto manufacturer level, i.e., the price paid by the manufacturer to a Tier 1 component supp lier. To these costs, an indirect cost markup factor was then applied that varied by the b est estimate of the particular technology’s complexity. This section describes th e approach to determining the indirect cost multipliers (ICM) used in this analysis and th e specific multipliers used for each piece of technology.

3.3.2.2.3 Concept behind and development of indirect cost

multipliers

If all desirable data were available, when a new te chnology is implemented, the costs of that technology would include the direct a nd indirect costs particular to that technology. For instance, some changes may involve new tooling, while others may not; some may affect the way the car is marketed, while others are of limited interest to consumers. In a world of full information, the ind irect costs of a new technology would be calculated specifically for that technology. In practice, though, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to identify the indirect costs spec ific to a new technology.

The automotive industry, EPA, and NHTSA have common ly used retail price equivalent (RPE) multipliers to approximate the ind irect costs associated with a new technology. The RPE is a ratio of total revenues t o direct manufacturing costs. Because, by definition, total revenues = direct costs + indi rect costs + profit, the RPE is the factor that, when multiplied by direct manufacturing costs , recovers total revenue. This multiplication is accurate only in the aggregate; i t does not in reality apply to any specific technology. The RPE is a way to estimate indirect costs on the assumption that indirect costs are constant across all technologies and proc esses in a company. In the MY 2011 CAFE final rule NHTSA utilized a 1.5 RPE multiplier

.

In fact, however, the indirect costs of new technol ogies vary, both with the complexity of the technology and with the time fram e. For instance, a hybrid-electric engine is likely to involve greater research and de velopment and marketing costs per dollar of direct costs than low-rolling-resistance tires; the research and development costs of any technology are likely to decrease over time. In recognition of this concern, EPA contracted with RTI International to provide a curr ent estimate of the RPE multiplier and
to examine whether the indirect costs of new techno logies are likely to vary across technologies. The report “Automobile Industry Reta il Price Equivalent and Indirect Cost Multipliers,” by Alex Rogozhin, Michael Gallaher, a nd Walter McManus, 16 

### calculates the

### Technologies Considered in the Agencies’ Analysis

3-15 RPE multiplier as 1.46 in 2007. The report then de velops indirect cost (IC) multipliers that vary with the complexity of technology and the time frame. While any multiplier is only an approximation of the true indirect costs of a new technology, the IC multipliers in this report move away from the assumption that the proportion of indirect costs is constant across all technologies and take into acco unt some of the variation in these costs. The multipliers developed in this report are presen ted in Table 3-1Table 3

- 1 Table 3

- 1

.

The indirect cost multipliers used adjustment facto rs, developed by a team of EPA engineers with expertise in the auto industry, whic h accounted for the differences in complexity of the specific technologies under study . To examine the sensitivity of the results to different technologies of the same compl exity, and to provide more detailed documentation of the development of the adjustment factors, EPA convened a second panel, 17 

### with NHTSA’s input, to develop adjustment factors for three different technologies. This latter process allowed for estimates of the va riation in adjustment factors, and thus in the variation of indirect cost multipliers. These results are also presented in Table 3-1Table 3

- 1 Table 3

- 1

.

Table 3

- 1 3

- 1 Indirect Cost Multipliers

STUDY TECHNOLOGY COMPLEXITY Short Run Long Run Low Medium High Low Medium High

RTI Report 1.05 1.20 1.45 1.02 1.05 1.26

EPA Memo : Average 1.16 1.29 1.64 1.12 1.20 1.39

Standard Deviation 0.14 0.15 0.21 0.14 0.13 0.15

Median 1.12 1.26 1.66 1.06 1.20 1.40

Max 1.43 1.53 2.15 1.42 1.45 1.69

Min 1.00 1.02 1.37 1.00 1.01 1.12

Multipliers Used in this Analysis 1.11 1.25 1.45 1.64 1.07 1.13 1.26 1.39



### The table shows minor differences in the multiplier s for low- and mediumcomplexity technologies (roughly 0.1), but larger d ifferences in the high-complexity technologies. The EPA and NHTSA engineers who revi ewed the results believed that the
differences reflected actual differences in the tec hnologies under study. In particular, for low complexity, low-rolling-resistance tires (the a pplication in the RTI Report) would involve lower indirect costs than aerodynamic impro vements (the application in the EPA memo); and, for medium complexity, dual-clutch tran smissions (the application in the RTI Report) should have a smaller multiplier than e ngine downsizing done in conjunction with turbocharging (the application in the EPA Memo ). For these two cases, EPA and NHTSA considered these technologies to span the ran ge of technologies assigned to those classes; the costs in this study, then, use t he averages of the values of the two reports, as shown in the last line of Table 3-1Table 3

- 1 Table 3

- 1 . For high complexity technologies, the agencies felt the technologies as signed to these categories—hybridField Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Comment [TSh1]: Table updated 9/10/09 to include Std Deviations, Medians, Max and Min.

Field Code Changed

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-16 electric vehicles in the RTI Report; plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the EPA Memo— were sufficiently different that each deserved a di fferent category. This is discussed in more detail in the next section which highlights th e multipliers used for each specific technology.

3.3.2.2.3.1 Application of specific indirect cost multipliers t o each technology



### As noted in the previous section, a different ICM w as applied to each technology’s direct cost to arrive at its complianc e cost. These different ICMs were chosen based on the complexity of the technology in the opinions of staff engineers at EPA and NHTSA, most of whom have several years of e xperience in the auto industry.
As shown in Table 3-1Table 3

- 1 Table 3

- 1 , ICMs were developed via two separate processes: that presented in the RTI report; and t hat presented in the EPA Memo. While all of the ICMs generated via these two processes w ere in general agreement, some differences did exist. In determining how to deal with these differences, EPA and NHTSA agreed that, for the low and medium complexit y technologies, a simple average of the two values would be used. However, for the high complexity technologies, it was decided that two separate high-multipliers should b e used. The lower multiplier, deemed high, would be applied to those technologies of hig h complexity but with some level of use in the marketplace today. Such technologies wo uld be power-split and 2-mode hybrid electric vehicles. The higher multiplier, d eemed high+, would be applied to those technologies of high complexity but with no, or ess entially no, use in the current fleet. Such technologies would be plug-in hybrids and full electric vehicles. Table 3-2Table
3

- 2 Table 3

- 2 shows the complexity level for each technology con sidered in this analysis.

Table 3

- 2 3

- 2 Complexity Levels of Technologies

LOW COMPLEXITY MEDIUM COMPLEXITY HIGH COMPLEXTIY HIGH+
COMPLEXITY Low friction lubes VVLT-continuous (OHV) VVLT-conti nuous (OHC) Plug-in hybrid

Engine friction reduction VVLT-discrete (OHV) Camle ss valve actuation Full electric vehicle VVT-intake (OHC) GDI-lean burn Homogeneous charge
CI VVT-coupled (OHC & OHV) Turbocharge with downsize W eight reduction – 30% VVT-dual (OHC) Conversion to diesel Integrated moto r assist hybrid Cylinder deactivation (OHC & OHV) Dual clutch transmission 2-mode hybrid

VVLT-discrete (OHC) Continually variable trans Powe r-split hybrid

GDI-stoich 42 Volt conversion Turbocharge (with no downsize) Weight reduction – 2 0% Downsize (with no turbocharge) Integrated starter g enerator (stop-start) Cam configuration changes (with no downsize) Combustion restart

Aggressive shift logic Cooled EGR/EGR boost Early torque converter lockup

5

- speed auto transmission

6

- speed auto transmission

6

- speed manual transmission Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

### Technologies Considered in the Agencies’ Analysis

3-17 Improved accessories Electric power steering Low rolling resistance tires Low drag brakes Secondary axle disconnect Improved aerodynamics Weight reduction – 3% Weight reduction – 5% Weight reduction – 10% A/C Leakage Reduction A/C Efficiency Improvement



### The estimates of vehicle compliance costs cover the years of implementation of the program – 2012 through 2016. In EPA’s analysis , compliance costs have also been estimated for the years following implementation to shed light on the long term – 2022 and later – cost impacts of the proposal. The year 2022 is used by EPA because the short-term and long-term markup factors described a bove are applied in five year increments with the 2012 through 2016 implementatio n span and the 2017 through 2021 span both representing the short-term.

3.3.2.2.4 Cost reduction through manufacturer learning

For some of the technologies considered in this ana lysis, manufacturer learning effects would be expected to play a roll in the act ual end costs. The “learning curve” or “experience curve” describes the reduction in unit production costs as a function of accumulated production volume. In theory, the cost behavior it describes applies to cumulative production volume measured at the level of an individual manufacturer, although it is often assumed—as both agencies have done in past regulatory analyses—to apply at the industry-wide level particularly in in dustries that utilize many common technologies and component supply sources. 18 

### Both agencies believe there are indeed many factors that cause costs to decrease over time . Research in the costs of manufacturing has consistently shown that, as manuf acturers gain experience in production, they are able to apply innovations to s implify machining and assembly operations, use lower cost materials, and reduce th e number or complexity of component parts. All of these factors allow manufacturers to lower the per-unit cost of production (i.e., the manufacturing learning curve). 19



### NHTSA has a detailed description of the learning ef fect in the 2011 CAFE final rule, and EPA has a detailed description of the lea rning effect in the 2008 staff report and in several past rules. 20 

### The description here is focused on how the learni ng effect has been used in the analyses support each agency’s rul e.

Most studies of the effect of experience or learnin g on production costs appear to assume that cost reductions begin only after some i nitial volume threshold has been reached, but not all of these studies specify this threshold volume. The rate at which costs decline beyond the initial threshold is usual ly expressed as the percent reduction in

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-18 average unit cost that results from each successive doubling of cumulative production volume, sometimes referred to as the learning rate. Many estimates of experience curves do not specify a cumulative production volume beyon d which cost reductions would no longer occur, instead depending on the asymptotic b ehavior of the effect for learning rates below 100 percent to establish a floor on cos ts. Table 3-3Table 3

- 3 Table 3

- 3 summarizes estimates of learning rates derived from studies of production costs for various products.

Table 3

- 3 3

- 3 Estimated Learning Rates and Associated Volumes f or Various Products

PRODUCT COSTS
AFFECTED THRESHOLD

VOLUME LEARNING

RATE

Photovoltaic cells Total costs Not reported 20%

Wind turbines Total costs 100 MW 20%

Gas turbines Total costs 100 MW 10%

Se miconductors Total costs Not reported 13

- 24% Automobile assembly Assembly labor Not reported 16% Truck manufacturing Total costs Not reported 10% Battery-electric LDV Total costs 10,000 units 10% Fuel cell hybrid LDV Total costs 10,000 units 16% Fuel cell LDV powertrain Total costs 10,000 units 1 9%



### In past rulemaking analyses, as noted above, both a gencies have used a learning curve factor of 20 percent for each doubling of pro duction volume. NHTSA has used this approach in analyses supporting recent CAFE ru les. In its analysis, EPA has simplified the approach by using an “every two year s” based learning progression rather than a pure production volume progression (i.e., af ter two years of production it was assumed that production volumes would have doubled and, therefore, costs would be reduced by 20 percent). This approach has served E PA well, especially considering that those rulemaking analyses have reflected programs i n which every new engine or vehicle beginning in year one of implementation would be eq uipped with the newly required piece of technology.

In the 2011 CAFE final rule, NHTSA considered not o nly this volume-based learning as described above, but also “time-based” learning. The time-based learning, estimated by NHTSA at three percent per year, occur s in years following the volumebased learning steps and represents the smaller sca le learning that occurs as
manufacturers continue to innovate. The time-based learning is, in effect, represented by the flattened out, asymptotic portion of the learni ng curve.

For this analysis, each agency has employed both vo lume-based and time-based learning effects. In NHTSA’s analysis, volume-base d learning is estimated to result in 20 percent lower costs as production volumes of the gi ven technology reach 300,000 units and again when they reach 600,000 units within the entire industry. The count of production units begins in the 2012 model year and/ or with the first units produced, whichever is earlier. In EPA’s analysis, as noted above, volume-based learning is Field Code Changed

### Technologies Considered in the Agencies’ Analysis

3-19 estimated to result in 20 percent lower costs after two full years of implementation (i.e., the 2014 MY costs are 20 percent lower than the 201 2 and 2013 model year costs). In each agency’s analysis, time-based learning is esti mated to result in 3 percent lower costs in each year following first introduction of a give n technology. Once two volume-based learning steps have occurred, or once the five year time-based learning period is completed, learning is assumed to be complete, at l east for purposes of the analyses done to support each agency’s rule.

Both agencies considered learning impacts on most b ut not all of the technologies expected to be used because some of the expected te chnologies are already used rather widely in the industry and, presumably, learning im pacts have already occurred. Volume-based learning was considered for only a han dful of technologies that are considered to be new or emerging technologies such as the hybrids and electric vehicles. Most technologies have been considered to be more e stablished given their current use in the fleet and, hence, the lower time-based learning has been applied. The learning effects applied to each technology are summarized in Table 3-4Table 3

- 4 Table 3

- 4 . Volumebased learning has been applied to all of the hybri d and electric vehicle technologies with the exception of the power-split hybrid. For each analysis, the power-split hybrid (e.g., the Toyota Prius) was considered to have been in th e market for enough years that the volume-based learning effects have already passed a nd all that remains are the smaller, time-based learning effects (this is consistent wit h NHTSA’s 2011 CAFE FRM). Field Code Changed

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-20 Table 3

- 4 3

- 4 Learning Effects Applied to Each Technology

TECHNOLOGY LEARNING EFFECT

Low friction lubricants None Engine friction reduction None

VVT

– intake cam phasing Time VVT – coupled cam phasing Time

VVT

– dual cam phas ing Time Cylinder deactivation Time

Discrete VVLT Time

Continuous VVLT Time

GDI

– stoichiometric Time

GDI

– lean burn Time Turbocharge (with no downsize) Time Downsize (with no turbocharge) Time Turbocharge with downsize Time Cam configuration changes (with no downsize) Time Homogeneous charge CI Time

Conversion to diesel Time Aggressive shift logic Time Early torque converter lockup Time 5-speed automatic Time 6-speed automatic Time 6-speed DCT – dry clutch Time 6-speed DCT – wet clutch Time 6-speed manual Time

CVT Time Stop-Start Volume IMA/ISA/BSG (includes engine downsize) Volume

2

- Mode hybrid electric vehicle Volume Power-split hybrid electric vehicle Time Plug

- in hybrid electric vehicle Volume Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle Volume

Full electric vehicle Volume Improved high efficiency alternator & electrificati on of accessories Time Upgrade to 42 volt electrical system Time Electric power steering (12 or 42 volt) Time Aero drag reduction (20% on cars, 10% on trucks) Ti me Low rolling resistance tires None Low drag brakes (ladder frame only) None Secondary axle disconnect (unibody only) None Front axle disconnect (ladder frame only) Time A/C Leakage Reduction Time A/C Efficiency Improvements Time



### Table 3-20Table 3

- 20 Table 3

- 20 through Table 3-25 Table 324 show Volpe model costs and effectiveness values for each particular technology described throughout this chapter. The costs shown are applicable for the 20 12 model year. The Volpe Model handles learning effects within the model itself so that individual technology costs in the 2016 model year would be lower than those shown in the tables.

Table 3-26Table 3

- 26 Table 3

- 26 through Table 3-35Table 3

- 35 Table 3

- 35 show
OMEGA model costs and effectiveness values for each particular technology described throughout this chapter. The costs shown are appli cable for the 2016 model year and, therefore, represent fully learned costs in the con text of EPA’s analysis. For technologies Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

### Technologies Considered in the Agencies’ Analysis

3-21 added in years prior to 2016, EPA has backed out th e learning effects relative to the costs shown in the tables. For example, Table 3-28Table 3

- 28 Table 3

- 28 shows the small car stop-start vehicle cost as $351 in 2016. In the 20 12 model year, this cost would be higher since the volume-based learning reflected in the 20 16 cost would not have occurred yet. Backing out two volume-based learning steps (i.e., dividing $351 by 80% twice) would result in a 2012 cost estimate of $548.

The different handling of learning effects across t he two analyses (that done by EPA and that by NHTSA) would have little impact on the overall results of the analyses. NHTSA handles learning effects in the CAFE model. EPA handles learning effects
outside of the OMEGA model since OMEGA is run for o nly one model year - 2016. Because the CAFE model adds technology on a year-by -year basis, it applies volumebased learning effects once the applicable producti on volume thresholds have been exceeded. In contrast, EPA would not apply volume- based learning until year 3 (assumed to be the point at which initial productio n volumes have doubled). Most technologies in both analyses are subject to time-b ased learning which is applied on an annual basis in the same way by both agencies (with the exception that NHTSA applies time-based learning in the CAFE model while EPA app lies it outside the OMEGA model). Importantly, by the 2016 model year, both agencies will have applied two volume-based learning steps to the appropriate tech nologies (hybrid and electric vehicles only) and four time-based learning steps to the app ropriate technologies (most other technologies) to arrive at the same technology cost s.



## 3.4 Specific technologies considered and estimates of c osts and
effectiveness

It is important to note that the cost and effective ness values presented by NHTSA and EPA in this Draft TSD are used when creating in put files for the agencies’ respective models but are not literally the inputs themselves. The Docket to this proposed rulemaking contains the specific input files EPA an d NHTSA used when modeling the technology cost.

3.4.1 What data sources did the agencies evaluate?

Refer to section 3.1 for a discussion of the specif ic data sources and reference material used for the analysis of this rulemaking.

3.4.2 

## Individual technology descriptions and cost/effecti veness estimates

The sections that follow describe the technologies applied by both EPA and NHTSA. It is important to note that there are dist inct differences between the agencies in how cost and effectiveness estimations are reported and applied. Field Code Changed

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-22 EPA reports the total cost and effectiveness associ ated with a respective technology. The technologies are then applied to a vehicle type as a package. To calculate a cost for a vehicle package, the individ ual technologies are summed. To estimate the overall effectiveness, the lumped para meter method is applied.

NHTSA applies cost and effectiveness through a seri es of decision trees. The progressive nature of this methodology results in c onditions for which a portion of a technology has already been added. In this case, N HTSA would add an incremental
value which is the difference between the total cos t of a technology and the portion already existing. An example of this is cylinder d eactivation. At the point in the decision tree that it is applied, valvetrain technologies wh ich could enable this feature have already been added. NHTSA will add the delta in co st, which in this example accounts
for the NVH attributes.

3.4.2.1 

## Engine Technologies

NHTSA and EPA have reviewed the engine technology e stimates used in
NHTSA’s MY 2011 CAFE final rule and EPA’s 2008 staf f report. In doing so NHTSA and EPA reconsidered all available sources and upda ted the estimates as appropriate. The section below describes each of the engine technolo gies considered for this rulemaking.

3.4.2.1.1 

## Low Friction Lubricants (LUB)

One of the most basic methods of reducing fuel cons umption in gasoline engines is the use of lower viscosity engine lubricants. M ore advanced multi-viscosity engine oils are available today with improved performance in a wider temperature band and with better lubricating properties. This can be accompl ished by changes to the oil base stock ( e.g. , switching engine lubricants from a Group I base o ils to lower-friction, lower viscosity Group III synthetic) and through changes to lubricant additive packages ( e.g. , friction modifiers and viscosity improvers). The u se of 5W-30 motor oil is now widespread and auto manufacturers are introducing t he use of even lower viscosity oils, such as 5W-20 and 0W-20, to improve cold-flow prope rties and reduce cold start friction. However, in some cases, changes to the crankshaft, rod and main bearings and changes to the mechanical tolerances of engine components may be required. In all cases, durability testing would be required to ensure that durability is not compromised. The shift to lower viscosity and lower friction lubricants will also i mprove the effectiveness of valvetrain technologies such as cylinder deactivation, which r ely on a minimum oil temperature (viscosity) for operation.

Several manufacturers have previously commented con fidentially, that low
friction lubricants could have an effectiveness val ue between 0 to 1 percent. For purposes of this NPRM, NHTSA and EPA are using effe ctiveness estimates within this range. Therefore 0.5 percent was used in both mode ls.

### Technologies Considered in the Agencies’ Analysis

3-23 The 2002 NAS study estimated the low friction lubri cant RPE at $8 to $11 using a 1.4 markup factor. The NESCCAF study showed an RPE of $5 to $15 with a 1.4 markup. The EEA report to DOE showed manufacturer costs of $10 to $20 with no markup. Confidential Business Information (CBI) da ta estimates an average incremental cost of $3 for the use of low friction lubricants. EPA’s 2008 Staff Report also confirms this $3 cost (2006$). Both NHTSA and EPA believe t hat manufacturer’s estimates are the most accurate, and thus continue to believe tha t the $3 cost estimate is appropriate and independent of vehicle class since the engineer ing work required should apply to any engine size. Applying an indirect cost multiplier (ICM) of 1.11, for a low complexity technology, results in a compliance cost of $3 per vehicle (2007$) for a MY 2012 through MY 2016 vehicle (learning effects are not applied t o low friction lubes). c



### 3.4.2.1.2 

## Engine Friction Reduction (EFR)

In addition to low friction lubricants, manufacture rs can also reduce friction and improve fuel consumption by improving the design of engine components and subsystems. Approximately 10 percent of the energy consumed by a vehicle is lost to friction, and just over half is due to frictional l osses within the engine. 21 

### Examples include improvements in low-tension piston rings, p iston skirt design, roller cam followers, improved crankshaft design and bearings, material coatings, material substitution, more optimal thermal management, and piston and cylinder surface treatments. Additionally, as computer-aided modeli ng software continues to improve, more opportunities for evolutionary friction reduct ions may become available.

All reciprocating and rotating components in the en gine are potential candidates for friction reduction, and minute improvements in several components can add up to a measurable fuel economy improvement. The 2002 NAS, NESCCAF and EEA reports as well as confidential manufacturer data suggested a range of effectiveness for engine friction reduction to be between 1 to 3 percent. N HTSA and EPA continue to believe that this range is accurate. Because of the increme ntal nature of the CAFE model, NHTSA needed to continue to use the narrower range of 1-2, which was also used in the
MY 2011 CAFE final rule.

In the MY 2011 CAFE final rule, NHTSA estimated a r ange from $13 to $49 using a 1.5 RPE on a per cylinder basis, or $9 to $ 33 without RPE (2007$). In the 2008 NPRM engine friction reduction was estimated to cos t up to $14 without RPE on a per cylinder basis (2006$). EPA’s 2008 staff report es timated this at $11 using a 1.5 RPE on a per cylinder basis, or $7 without RPE (2006$). A fter review, NHTSA and EPA believe
that the cost estimate is closer to the lower end o f the MY 2011 CAFE final rule range and thus for this rulemaking is $13 per cylinder co mpliance cost (2007$), including the low complexity ICM markup value of 1.11, for a MY 2 012 through MY 2016 vehicle

c Note that the costs developed for low friction lu bes for this analysis reflect the costs associated with any engine changes that would be required as well as an y durability testing that may be required.

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-24 (learning effects are not applied to engine frictio n reduction). This cost is multiplied by the number of engine cylinders.

3.4.2.1.3 

## Variable Valve Timing (VVT)

Variable valve timing (VVT) classifies a family of valve-train designs that alter the timing of the intake valve, exhaust valve, or b oth, primarily to reduce pumping losses, increase specific power, and control the level of r esidual gases in the cylinder. VVT reduces pumping losses when the engine is lightly l oaded by controlling valve timing closer to an optimum needed to sustain horsepower a nd torque. VVT can also improve volumetric efficiency at higher engine speeds and l oads. Additionally, VVT can be used to alter (and optimize) the effective compression r atio where it is advantageous for certain engine operating modes ( e.g. , in the Atkinson Cycle).

VVT has now become a widely adopted technology: in MY 2007, over half of all new cars and light trucks had engines with some met hod of variable valve timing. 22 

### Manufacturers are currently using many different ty pes of variable valve timing, which have a variety of different names and methods. The three major types of VVT are listed
below.

Each of the three implementations of VVT uses a cam phaser to adjust the camshaft angular position relative to the crankshaf t position, referred to as “camshaft phasing.” The phase adjustment results in changes to the pumping work required by the engine to accomplish the gas exchange process. The majority of current cam phaser applications use hydraulically-actuated units, powe red by engine oil pressure and managed by a solenoid that controls the oil pressur e supplied to the phaser.

3.4.2.1.3.1 Intake Cam Phasing (ICP) 

### Valvetrains with ICP, which is the simplest of the cam phasing technologies, can modify the timing of the inlet valves by phasing th e intake camshaft while the exhaust valve timing remains fixed. This requires the addi tion of a cam phaser on each bank of intake valves on the engine. An in-line 4-cylinder engine has one bank of intake valves, while V-configured engines have two banks of intake valves.

NHTSA’s MY 2011 CAFE final rule and EPA 2008 Staff Report estimated an effectiveness of 1 to 2 percent for ICP, which was supported by the NESCCAF report and a majority of confidential manufacturer comments. The agencies have found no additional sources to suggest strongly that this es timate is inaccurate, and so have employed it for this NPRM.

As for costs, NHTSA’s MY 2011 CAFE final rule estim ated a $61 RPE ($41 nonRPE) cost per cam phaser, based on the 2008 Martec Report and confidential manufacturer data (2007$). In the 2008 staff repor t, EPA estimated this at $59 using a 1.5 RPE or $40 without RPE (2006$). NHTSA and EPA believe that this estimate remains accurate. Using the new indirect cost mult iplier of 1.11, for a low complexity

### Technologies Considered in the Agencies’ Analysis

3-25 technology, the compliance cost per cam phaser woul d be $45 per bank , yielding a $45 cost for and in-line engine configurations and $90 for V-engine configurations for a MY 2012 vehicle (2007$). Time-based learning is appli ed to ICP so the MY 2016 cost would be $40 for in in-line engine and $80 for the V-engi ne (2007$).

3.4.2.1.3.2 Coupled Cam Phasing (CCPS and CCPO) 

### Valvetrains with coupled (or coordinated) cam phasi ng can modify the timing of both the inlet valves and the exhaust valves an equ al amount by phasing the camshaft of a single overhead cam (SOHC) engine or an overhead va lve (OHV) engine. d 

### For overhead cam engines, this requires the addition of a cam ph aser on each bank of the engine. Thus, an in-line 4-cylinder engine has one cam phaser, wh ile SOHC V-engines have two cam phasers. For overhead valve (OHV) engines, which h ave only one camshaft to actuate both inlet and exhaust valves, CCP is the only VVT implementation option available and requires only one cam phaser. e



### Based on NHTSA’s MY 2011 CAFE final rule, previousl y-received confidential manufacturer data, and the NESCCAF report, NHTSA an d EPA estimated the effectiveness of CCP to be between 1 to 4 percent. NHTSA and EPA reviewed this estimate for purposes of the NPRM, and continue to find it accurate.

The same cam phaser has been assumed for ICP and C CP applications, thus CCPs cost per cam phaser is identical to ICPs. This res ults in a cost of $45 for in-line SOHC and OHV engines and $90 for SOHC V-engine configura tions for a MY 2012 vehicle (2007$). With time-based learning applied, these c osts for a 2016 MY vehicle would be $40 and $80, respectively (2007$).

3.4.2.1.3.3 Dual Cam Phasing (DCP) 

### The most flexible VVT design is dual (independent) cam phasing, where the intake and exhaust valve opening and closing events are controlled independently. This option allows the option of controlling valve overl ap, which can be used as an internal EGR strategy. At low engine loads, DCP creates a r eduction in pumping losses, resulting in improved fuel consumption/reduced CO 2 

### emissions. Increased internal EGR also results in lower engine-out NO X 

### emissions. The amount by which fuel consumption i s improved and CO 2 

### emissions are reduced depends on the residual tole rance of the combustion system. Additional improvements are obse rved at idle, where low valve overlap could result in improved combustion stabili ty, potentially reducing idle fuel consumption.

d Although CCP appears only in the SOHC and OHV bran ches of the decision tree, it is noted that a singl e phaser with a secondary chain drive would allow CCP to be applied to DOHC engines. Since this would potentially be adopted on a limited number of DOHC engines NHTSA did not include it in that branch of
the decision tree.

e It is also noted that coaxial camshaft development s would allow other VVT options to be applied to OH V engines. However, since they would potentially be a dopted on a limited number of OHV engines NHTSA
did not include them in the decision tree.

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-26 NHTSA MY 2011 CAFE final rule estimated the effecti veness of DCP to be between 3 to 5 percent relative to a base engine or 2 to 3 relative to an engine with ICP. NHTSA and EPA believe that this estimate remains ap plicable for the NPRM.

As above, the same cam phaser has been assumed for ICP and DCP applications. Thus, DCP’s cost per cam phaser is identical to ICP ’s. DCP requires two cam phasers per cylinder bank, one to control the intake valves and one to control the exhaust valves. This results in a cost of $90, relative to an engin e without ICP, or $45 relative to an engine with ICP, minus $6 for the removal of the EG R valve, ultimately yielding costs of $84 and $39 respectively for in-line DOHC configura tions (all in 2007$). For Vconfiguration engines, the cost is $180 relative to an engine without ICP, or $90 relative to an engine with ICP, minus $6 for the removal of the EGR valve, ultimately yielding costs of $174 and $84, respectively (all in 2007$). These costs are appropriate for a MY 2012 vehicle. With time-based learning applied, th ese costs for a 2016 MY vehicle would be $157 and $73, respectively (2007$).

3.4.2.1.4 

## Variable Valve Lift (VVL)
Controlling the lift of the valves provides a poten tial for further efficiency improvements. By optimizing the valve-lift profile for specific engine operating regions, the pumping losses can be reduced by reducing the a mount of throttling required to produce the desired engine power output. By moving the throttling losses further downstream of the throttle valve, the heat transfer losses that occur from the throttling process are directed into the fresh charge-air mixt ure just prior to compression, delaying the onset of knock-limited combustion processes. V ariable valve lift control can also be used to induce in-cylinder mixture motion, which im proves fuel-air mixing and can result in improved thermodynamic efficiency. Variable val ve lift control can also potentially
reduce overall valvetrain friction. At the same ti me, such systems may also incur increased parasitic losses associated with their ac tuation mechanisms. A number of manufacturers have already implemented VVLT into th eir fleets (Toyota, Honda, and BMW), but overall this technology is still availabl e for most of the fleet. There are two major classifications of variable valve lift, descr ibed below:

1. Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVLS, DVVLD, DVVLO) 

### DVVL systems allow the selection between two or thr ee discrete cam profiles by means of a hydraulically-actuated mechanical system . By optimizing the cam profile for specific engine operating regions, the pumping loss es can be reduced by reducing the amount of throttling required to produce the desire d engine power output. This increases the efficiency of the engine. These cam profiles c onsist of a low and a high-lift lobe, and may include an inert or blank lobe to incorporate c ylinder deactivation (in the case of a 3- step DVVL system). DVVL is normally applied together with VVT control. DVVL is also known as Cam Profile Switching (CPS). DVVL is a mature technology with low
technical risk. NHTSA’s MY 2011 CAFE final rule, previously-receive d confidential manufacturer data, and the NESCCAF report, all esti mate the effectiveness of DVVL to

### Technologies Considered in the Agencies’ Analysis

3-27 be between 1 to 4 percent above that realized by VV T systems. NHTSA and EPA believe this estimate continues to be applicable fo r the NPRM. In the 2011 CAFE final rule, NHTSA estimated an RPE (1.5 markup factor) of $201 for an inline 4-cylinder engine, $306 for a V6 engine and $396 for a V8 engine or without the RPE markup $134, $204, $264, respective ly (all in 2007$). In the 2008 staff report, EPA estimated this at $169, $246, and $322, respectively, using a 1.5 RPE factor (2006$) or $113, $164 and $215, respectively withou t markup (all in 2006$). For this analysis, the agencies have estimated the complianc e costs, including $25 for controls and using a 1.11 ICM for a low complexity technolog y, at $141 for an inline 4-cylinder engine, $205 for a V6 engine and $293 for a V8 for a 2012 MY vehicle (2007$). With time-based learning applied, these costs would be $ 125, $181, and $259, respectively for a 2016 MY vehicle (2007$).

2. Continuously Variable Valve Lift (CVVL)



### In CVVL systems, valve lift is varied by means of a mechanical linkage, driven by an actuator controlled by the engine control uni t. The valve opening and phasing vary as the lift is changed and the relation depends on the geometry of the mechanical system. BMW has considerable production experience with CVV L systems and has sold portinjected “Valvetronic” engines since 2001. CVVL al lows the airflow into the engine to be regulated by means of intake valve opening reduc tion, which improves engine efficiency by reducing pumping losses from throttli ng the intake system further upstream as with a conventionally throttled engine.

Variable valve lift gives a further reduction in p umping losses compared to that which can be obtained with cam phase control only, with CVVL providing greater effectiveness than DVVL, since it can be fully opti mized for all engine speeds and loads, and is not limited to a two or three step compromis e. There may also be a small reduction in valvetrain friction when operating at low valve lift, resulting in improved low load fuel consumption for cam phase control wit h variable valve lift as compared to cam phase control only. Most of the fuel economy e ffectiveness is achieved with variable valve lift on the intake valves only. CVV L is only applicable to double overhead cam (DOHC) engines.

NHTSA’s MY 2011 CAFE final rule estimated the effec tiveness for CVVL at 1.5 to 3.5 percent over an engine with DCP, but also re cognize that it could go up as high as 5% above and beyond DCP to account for the implemen tation of more complex CVVL systems such as BMW’s “valvetronic” engines. This coincides with EPA Staff report estimates of the contribution of CVVL, which were b ased on the NESCCAF report, in which CVVL could improve effectiveness by 4 percent (minivans) and up to 6 percent (large cars) over dual cam phasing. Thus, the effec tiveness range for CVVL in this joint TSD ranges from 1.5 to 6 percent depending on the c omplexity level of the application. However, due to the complexity and cost of this tec hnology, the GHG model did not consider it and the CAFE models projected very limi ted application of less complex

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-28 version of this technology respectively (i.e., 2 ou t of 1100 vehicles in the CAFE model). The most recent submission of manufacturers’ produc t plans confirmed that this technology will not be applied by most manufacturer s.

In the MY 2011 CAFE final rule, NHTSA estimated and RPE (1.5 factor) of continuously variable valve lift to be $306 for an inline 4-cylinder engine, $432 for a V6 engine and $582 for a V8 engine or without RPE $204 , $287, $388, respectively. In the 2008 staff report, EPA estimated this at $254, $466 , and $508, respectively, using a 1.5 RPE factor (2006$) or $169, $311 and $339, respecti vely without markup (all in 2006$) For this analysis, the agencies have estimated the compliance costs, using a 1.45 ICM for a high complexity technology, at $277 for an inline 4-cylinder engine, $509 for a V6 engine and $554 for a V8 engine for a MY 2012 vehic le (2007$). With time-based learning applied, these costs would become $245, $4 49, and $489, respectively for a MY 2016 vehicle (2007$).

3.4.2.1.5 

## Cylinder Deactivation (DEACS, DEACD, DEACO )
In conventional spark-ignited engines throttling th e airflow controls engine torque output. At partial loads, efficiency can be improv ed by using cylinder deactivation instead of throttling. Cylinder deactivation (DEAC ) can improve engine efficiency by disabling or deactivating (usually) half of the cyl inders when the load is less than half of the engine’s total torque capability – the valves a re kept closed, and no fuel is injected – as a result, the trapped air within the deactivated cylinders is simply compressed and expanded as an air spring, with reduced friction an d heat losses. The active cylinders combust at almost double the load required if all o f the cylinders were operating. Pumping losses are significantly reduced as long as the engine is operated in this “partcylinder” mode.

Cylinder deactivation control strategy relies on se tting maximum manifold absolute pressures or predicted torque within which it can deactivate the cylinders. Noise and vibration issues reduce the operating range to which cylinder deactivation is allowed, although manufacturers are exploring vehicle change s that enable increasing the amount of time that cylinder deactivation might be suitabl e. Some manufacturers may choose to adopt active engine mounts and/or active noise canc ellations systems to address NVH concerns and to allow a greater operating range of activation. Manufacturers have stated that use of DEAC on 4 cylinder engines would cause unacceptable NVH; therefore cylinder deactivation has not been applied to 4-cyl inder engines.

Cylinder deactivation has seen a recent resurgence thanks to better valvetrain designs and engine controls. General Motors and Ch rysler Group have incorporated cylinder deactivation across a substantial portion of their V8-powered lineups. Honda (Odyssey, Pilot) offers V6 models with cylinder dea ctivation.

### Technologies Considered in the Agencies’ Analysis

3-29 Effectiveness improvements scale roughly with engin e displacement-to-vehicle weight ratio: the higher displacement-to-weight veh icles, operating at lower relative loads for normal driving, have the potential to operate i n part-cylinder mode more frequently.

NHTSA and EPA reviewed the MY 2011 CAFE estimate an d confirmed a range of 0.5 to 6 percent depending on the valvetrain con figuration and other existing technologies. The 6 percent was based on official fuel economy te st data (i.e., 2005 V6 Honda Odyssey with cylinder deactivation compared t o the same vehicle (and engine displacement) without cy linder deactivation). The OMEGA model, which is based on packages, applies 6% reduction in CO2 emissions in all applications. The CAFE model, due to its incremental nature, uses a range dependi ng on the engine valvetrain configuration. For example, for DOHC engines which are already equipped with DCP and DVVLD, there is little benefit that can be achi eved from adding cylinder deactivation since the pumping work has already been minimized a nd internal Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) rates are maximized, so the eff ectiveness is only up to 0.5 percent for DEACD. For Single Overhead Camshaft engines wh ich have CCP and DVVLS applied, effectiveness ranged from 2.5 to 3 percent for DEACS. For OHV engines, without VVT or VVL technologies, the effectiveness for DEACO ranged from 3.9 to 5.5
percent.

NHTSA and EPA considered a range of $170 to $190 (o r $28 to $190 depending on whether an engine already has lost motion device s, oil control valves and camshaft position sensors). This is a departure from NHTSA’ s 2011 final rule, which used a range of $306 to $400. That range was primarily based o n 2008 Martec Report and applied a higher RPE value. In reviewing these assumptions, NHTSA and EPA amended the MY 2011 CAFE estimates and adjusted the estimates to i nclude the new ICM low complexity markup of 1.11. The EPA staff report estimated thi s ranging from $203 to $229 (RPE using a 1.5 factor) or $135 to $153 without RPE (20 06$). NHTSA’s NPRM showed estimates of a $170 for a 6-cylinder engine and $19 0 for an 8-cylinder engine—when adjusted for 2007 dollars and using the new ICM mul tipliers— for engines that do not
have lost motion devices. These numbers were withi n the ranges described by the 2002 NAS and NESCCAF reports. The $170 and $190 costs a re appropriate of a MY 2012 vehicle (2007$). With time-based learning applied, these would become $150 and $169, respectively, for a MY 2016 vehicle (2007$).

If lost motion devices are on the engine, the cost of DEAC as applied to SOHC and DOHC engines could be as low as $28. f 

### This $28 g 

### accounts for the potential additional application of active engine mounts on S OHC and DOHC engines and can only be applied on 50 percent of the vehicles. Fur ther, this SOHC and DOHC engine

f The $28 is an adjustment from the $75 estimate use d in the MY 2011 final rule to account for the new ICM markup factor and the fact that it could only b e applied on up to 50 percent of the vehicles.

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-30 estimate is relevant to the CAFE model only because the OMEGA model does not apply technologies in the same incremental fashion as the CAFE model.

3.4.2.1.6 

## Conversion to Double Overhead Camshaft Engine with Dual Cam Phasing (CDOHC)

Double overhead camshaft engines achieve increased airflow at high engine speeds, improve volumetric efficiency and reduction s of the valvetrain’s moving mass. Such engines typically develop higher power at high engine speeds. Manufacturers may choose to replace OHV engines with DOHC engine desi gns with dual cam phasing (DCP). EPA and NHTSA estimate the effectiveness to be between 1 to 2.5 percent.

As for costs, NHTSA’s MY 2011 CAFE final rule assum ed that CDOHC would have an RPE of $746 ($497 non-RPE) for a V8 engine, $590 ($393 non-RPE) for a V6 engine and $373 ($249 non-RPE) for inline 4-cylinde r engine (2007$). In the 2008 staff report, EPA did not estimate a cost for this specif ic technology. For purposes of this NPRM, NHTSA revised the costs only by identifying t his technology as a low complexity technology and applying an indirect cost multiplier of 1.11 resulting in a compliance cost of $552 for V8 engine, $436 for a V 6 and $276 for an inline 4-cylinder engine. The above costs are for a MY 2012 vehicle and with the application of timebased learning will be slightly lower for MY 2016 v ehicle

3.4.2.1.7 

## Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection (SGDI)

Gasoline direct injection (GDI), or Spark Ignition Direct injection (SIDI), engines inject fuel at high pressure directly into the comb ustion chamber (rather than the intake port in port fuel injection). GDI requires changes to the injector design, an additional high pressure fuel pump, new fuel rails to handle t he higher fuel pressures and changes to the cylinder head and piston crown design. Direct injection of the fuel into the cylinder improves cooling of the air/fuel charge within the cylinder, which allows for higher compression ratios and increased thermodynamic effi ciency without the onset of combustion knock. Recent injector design advances, improved electronic engine management systems and the introduction of multiple injection events per cylinder firing cycle promote better mixing of the air and fuel, en hance combustion rates, increase residual exhaust gas tolerance and improve cold sta rt emissions. GDI engines achieve higher power density and match well with other tech nologies, such as boosting and variable valvetrain designs.

Several manufacturers have recently introduced vehi cles with GDI engines, including VW/Audi, BMW, Toyota (Lexus IS 350) and G eneral Motors (Chevrolet Impala and Cadillac CTS 3.6L). BMW, GM, Ford and VW /Audi have announced their plans to increase dramatically the number of GDI en gines in their portfolios.

### Technologies Considered in the Agencies’ Analysis

3-31 NHTSA’s MY 2011 CAFE final rule estimated the effec tiveness of SGDI to be between 2 and 3 percent. NHTSA and EPA reviewed es timates from the Auto Alliance of American Manufacturers, which projects 3 percent gains in fuel efficiency and a 7 percent improvement in torque. The torque increase provides the opportunity to downsize the engine allowing an increase in efficie ncy of up to a 5.8 percent. NHTSA and EPA also reviewed other published literature, r eporting 3 percent effectiveness for
SGDI. 23 

### Another source reports a 5 percent improvement on the NEDC drive cycle. 24 

### Confidential manufacturer data reported an efficien cy effectiveness range of 1 to 2 percent. NHTSA and EPA determined that the range of 2 to 3 percent continues to be appropriate. Combined with other technologies ( i.e. , boosting, downsizing, and in some cases, cooled EGR), SGDI can achieve greater reduct ions in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions compared to engines of similar power outp ut.

The NHTSA and EPA cost estimates for SGDI take into account the changes required to the engine hardware, engine electronic controls, ancillary and Noise Vibration and Harshness (NVH) mitigation systems. Through co ntacts with industry NVH suppliers, and manufacturer press releases, the age ncies believe that the NVH treatments will be limited to the mitigation of fuel system no ise, specifically from the injectors and
the fuel lines

. To that end, the agencies estimate SGDI costs at $251 for an inline 4- cylinder and $326 for V6 and $353 for V8 including the low complexity ICM markup value of 1.11 (2007$). The preceding costs are for a MY 2012 vehicle. With time-based learning applied, these costs would be $222, $287, and $301 for a MY 2016 vehicle (2007$).

3.4.2.1.8 

## Combustion Restart (CBRST)

Combustion restart allows “start-stop” functionalit y of DI engines through the implementation of an upgraded starter with bi-direc tional rotation to allow precise crankshaft positioning prior to subsequent fuel inj ection and spark ignition, allowing engine restart. This method of implementing engine stop/start funct ionality allows not only the fuel savings from not idling the engine, b ut also reduces fuel consumption as the engine speeds up to its operational speed. A Direc t Injection (DI) fuel system is required for implementation of this technology.

NHTSA reviewed the MY 2011 CAFE final rule assumpti ons and determined that due to technical risks with its implementation, thi s technology will be made available in the CAFÉ model in MY 2014 at the earliest. Some of the risks are associated with unresolved issues regarding the impact of very high or very low ambient air temperatures on the ability to start the engine in the described manner. Although the starter motor can provide fail-safe starting capability in these temp erature limited areas, strategies must be developed to manage the transitions. Others relate to production readiness.

Additional hardware is required to implement combus tion restart, beyond SGDI. This includes a battery sensor, incremental wiring and high current switching, an

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-32 incremental crank position sensor, and, in the case of an automatic transmission applications, a transmission oil pump to allow for torque converter continuity.

BMW has published a 3.5 percent fuel consumption ef fectiveness over the NEDC drive cycle for combustion restart, 25 

### and AVL a 4.8 percent effectiveness. 26 

### However, these reported effectiveness levels could potential ly be reduced significantly on the EPA combined drive cycle, as combustion restart does no t save fuel on the highway drive cycle. Therefore, NHTSA estimates the fuel consump tion effectiveness for CBRST to range from 2 to 2.5 percent.

Regarding the cost estimate, NHTSA determined that the estimate of $118 from the 2008 Martec Report cost estimates for individua l pieces was the best available. The total RPE cost (excluding transmission pump) is $14 1 at high volumes, which includes $70 for upgrading the starter, $10 for a battery s ensor and wiring, $10 for high current switch and $4 for crank sensor a totaling $94 (non- RPE) cost. Applying an indirect cost multiplier of 1.25, for a medium complexity technol ogy, results in a compliance cost of $118 for a MY 2012 vehicle and will be reduced in f uture years with the application of time-based learning.

3.4.2.1.9 

## Turbocharging and Downsizing (TRBDS)

The specific power of a naturally aspirated engine is primarily limited by the rate at which the engine is able to draw air into the co mbustion chambers. Turbocharging and supercharging (grouped together here as boosting) a re two methods to increase the intake manifold pressure and cylinder charge-air mass abov e naturally aspirated levels. Boosting increases the airflow into the engine, thu s increasing the specific power level, and with it the ability to reduce engine displaceme nt while maintaining performance. This effectively reduces the pumping losses at ligh ter loads in comparison to a larger, naturally aspirated engine.

Almost every major manufacturer currently markets a vehicle with some form of boosting. While boosting has been a common practic e for increasing performance for several decades, turbocharging has considerable pot ential to improve fuel economy and reduce CO2 emissions when the engine displacement i s also reduced. Specific power levels for a boosted engine often exceed 100 hp/L, compared to average naturally aspirated engine power densities of roughly 70 hp/L . As a result, engines can conservatively be downsized roughly 30 percent to a chieve similar peak output levels. In the last decade, improvements to turbocharger turbi ne and compressor design have improved their reliability and performance across t he entire engine operating range. New variable geometry turbines and ball-bearing center cartridges allow faster turbocharger spool-up (virtually eliminating the once-common “tu rbo lag”) while maintaining high flow rates for increased boost at high engine speed s. However, even with turbocharger improvements, maximum engine torque at very low eng ine speed conditions, for example launch from standstill, is increased less than at m id and high engine speed conditions.

### Technologies Considered in the Agencies’ Analysis

3-33 The potential to downsize engines may be less on ve hicles with low displacement to vehicle mass ratios in order to provide adequate ac celeration from standstill, particularly up grades or at high altitudes.

Use of GDI systems with turbocharged engines and ai r-to-air charge air cooling also reduces the fuel octane requirements for knock limited combustion and allows the use of higher compression ratios. Ford’s “Ecoboost ” downsized, turbocharged GDI engines introduced on MY 2010 vehicles allow the re placement of V8 engines with V6 engines with improved in 0-60 mph acceleration and with fuel economy improvements of up to 12 percent. 27



### NHTSA and EPA reviewed NHTSA’s MY 2011 CAFE final r ule estimates that a turbocharged and downsized engine at equivalent per formance levels would offer an effectiveness improvement of 2 to 5 percent over a naturally-aspirated SGDI engine of comparable performance. This would equate to a 12 to 14 effectiveness improvement over baseline fixed-valve engine, similar to the es timate for Ford’s Ecoboost. NHTSA and EPA kept these estimates for this NPRM.

Recently published data with advanced spray-guided injection systems and more aggressive engine downsizing targeted towards reduc ed fuel consumption and CO2 emissions reductions indicate that the potential fo r reducing CO 2 

### emissions for turbocharged, downsized GDI engines may be as much as 15 to 30% relative to port-fuelinjected engines. 14,15,16,17,18 

### EPA and NHTSA seek comment on how best to determi ne these values. Confidential manufacturer data sugges ts an incremental range of fuel consumption and CO2 emission reduction of 4.8 to 7. 5 percent for turbocharging and downsizing. Other publicly-available sources sugge st a fuel consumption and CO2 emission reduction of 8 to 13 percent compared to c urrent-production naturally-aspirated engines without friction reduction or other fuel ec onomy technologies: a joint technical paper by Bosch and Ricardo suggesting fuel economy gain of 8 to 10 percent for downsizing from a 5.7 liter port injection V8 to a 3.6 liter V6 with direct injection using a wall-guided direct injection system; 28 

### a Renault report suggesting a 11.9 percent NEDC fuel consumption gain for downsizing from a 1.4 lit er port injection in-line 4-cylinder engine to a 1.0 liter in-line 4-cylinder engine, al so with wall-guided direct injection; 29 

### and a Robert Bosch paper suggesting a 13 percent NEDC g ain for downsizing to a turbocharged DI engine, again with wall-guided inje ction. 30 

### These reported fuel economy benefits show a wide range depending on the GDI technology employed.

As noted above, the agencies relied on engine teard own analyses conducted by EPA, FEV and Munro to develop costs for turbocharge d GDI engines. 31 

### Teardown studies are one of the most effective ways to estim ate technology costs. The study showed the cost of a turbocharger (variable geometr y turbo, air-to-air charge air cooler, auxiliary cooling pump, lubes, upgrades to the exha ust manifold, and necessary controls) for the I4 DOHC engine studied to be $372 (2007$). The study also showed an engine downsizing savings for downsizing a 2.4L DOHC engin e to a 1.6L DOHC engine of $60

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-34 (2007$). These savings were the result of reduced bore spacing, a shorter camshaft and crankshaft, removal of two balance shafts and assoc iated hardware, and a smaller intake manifold. These values ($372 and -$60) have been u sed for I4 engines adding boost and for I4 engines undergoing downsizing to a smaller I 4, respectively. These costs are applicable for a MY 2012 vehicle. With time-based learning applied, these costs would be $329 and -$53 for a MY 2016 vehicle.

Consistent with the 2008 staff report, the agencies estimate direct manufacturing costs associated with downsizing to be $50 per cyli nder, $10 per valve, and $100 per cam shaft for the 2015 model year (2006$). Applying a 1 year of time-based learning to these costs, and adjusting them to 2007 dollars, results in 2016 direct manufacturing costs of $50 per cylinder, $10 per valve, and $100 per cam s haft. A summary of the final costs and how they were calculated is shown in Table 3-5Table 3

- 5 Table 3

- 5 for a MY 2016 vehicle in 2007$. For a MY 2012 vehicle, 4 years o f time-based learning at 3% per year
would be added back to the values shown in Table 3-5Table 3

- 5 Table 3

- 5

. Field Code Changed

Field Code ChangedTechnologies Considered in the Agencies’ Analysis3-35Table 3-53-5Turbocharging and Downsizing and Other Camshaft Configuration Costs in 2016 (2007 dollars)technology incremental toDirect manufacturing costs in 2016IC MarkupComplianceCost*Turbo Engine downsize costsI3/I4 V6/V8 cylinder #change at$50/valve #change at$10/Cam #change at$100/ResultantDownsizecost

Turbo w/o downsize Downsize w/o turboTurbocharge (single) Base engine $329 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.11 $366Turbocharge (twin) Base engine n/a $598 n/a n/a n/an/a 1.11 $663Downsize to I4 DOHC V6 DOHC n/a n/a -2 -8 -2 -$3791.11 -$337Downsize to I4 DOHC V6 SOHC n/a n/a -2 +4 0 -$60 1.11 -$53Downsize to I4 DOHC V6 OHV n/a n/a -2 +4 +3 $239 1.11 $265Downsize to I4 DOHC I4 DOHC (larger) n/a n/a 0 0 0-$53 1.11 -$47Downsize to I3 DOHC I4 DOHC n/a n/a -1 -4 0 -$90 1.11 -$80Downsize to V6 DOHC V8 DOHC n/a n/a -2 -8 0 -$179 1.11 -$160Downsize to V6 DOHC V8 SOHC 2V n/a n/a -2 +8 +2 $179 1.11 $199Downsize to V6 DOHC V8 SOHC 3V n/a n/a +2 0 +2 $2991.11 $332Downsize to V6 DOHC V8 OHV n/a n/a -2 +8 +3 $279 1.11 $310

Turbo with downsizeDownsize to I4 DOHC & addturboV6 DOHC w/o turbo$398 n/a -2 -8 -2 -$379 1.25 $214Downsize to I4 DOHC & addturboV6 SOHC w/o turbo$398 n/a -2 +4 0 -$60 1.25 $453Downsize to I4 DOHC & addturboV6 OHV w/o turbo$398 n/a -2 +4 +3 $239 1.25 $797Downsize to I4 DOHC & addturboI4 DOHC (larger) w/oturbo$329 n/a 0 0 0 -$53 1.25 $372Downsize to I3 DOHC & addturboI4 DOHC w/o turbo$329 n/a -1 -4 0 -$90 1.25 $344Downsize to V6 DOHC & addtwin turboV8 DOHC w/o turbon/a $598 -2 -8 0 -$179 1.25 $613Downsize to V6 DOHC & addtwin turboV8 SOHC 2V w/o turbon/a $598 -2 +8 +2 $179 1.25 $971Downsize to V6 DOHC & addtwin turboV8 SOHC 3V w/o turbon/a $598 -2 0 +2 $100 1.25 $872Downsize to V6 DOHC & addtwin turboV8 OHV w/o turbon/a $598 -2 +8 +3 $279 1.25 $1,096

Cam changesConvert to V6 DOHC V6 SOHC n/a n/a 0 +12 +2 $319 1.11 $354Convert to V6 DOHC V6 OHV n/a n/a 0 +12 +3 $418 1.11 $464Convert to V8 DOHC V8 SOHC 2V n/a n/a 0 +16 +2 $3591.11 $398Convert to V8 DOHC V8 SOHC 3V n/a n/a 0 +8 +2 $2791.11 $310Convert to V8 DOHC V8 OHV n/a n/a 0 +16 +3 $419 1.11 $509* Note that, where downsizing results in cost savings, the compliance cost is calculated as the IC markup less 1 which is then multiplied by the absolutevalue of the direct manufacturingcost. The absolute value of the direct manufacturing cost is then subtracted from that to arrive at the end result. For example, for the V6 DOHC downsized to the I4 DOHC at a directmanufacturing cost of -$379, the compliance cost would be (1.11-1) x│-$379│-│-$379│= -$337.

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-36 3.4.2.1.10 

## Cooled Exhaust Gas Recirculation/EGR Boost (EGRB)

Cooled exhaust gas recirculation (cooled EGR) or EG R Boost is a combustion concept that involves utilizing EGR as a charge dil utant for controlling combustion temperatures and cooling the EGR prior to its intro duction to the combustion system. Higher exhaust gas residual levels at part load con ditions reduce pumping losses for increased fuel economy. Cooled EGR reduces knock s ensitivity which enables the use of more optimal spark advance or enables compression r atio to be increased for improved thermal efficiency, and increased fuel economy. Cu rrently available turbo, charge air cooler, and EGR cooler technologies are sufficient to demonstrate the feasibility of this
concept.

However, this remains a technology with a number of issues that still need to be addressed and for which there is no production expe rience. EGR system fouling characteristics could be potentially worse than die sel EGR system fouling, due to the higher HC levels found in gasoline exhaust. Turboc harger compressor contamination may also be an issue for low pressure EGR systems. Additionally, transient controls of boost pressure, EGR rate, cam phasers and intake ch arge temperature to exploit the cooled EGR combustion concept will require developm ent beyond what has already been accomplished by the automotive industry. These are all “implementation readiness” issues that must be resolved prior to putting EGR B oost into high volume production.

NHTSA has concluded that these implementation issue s could be resolved and this technology could be brought to production by MY 2013. Supporting this conclusion, MEMA has previously suggested a 5 to 7 percent effectiveness for cooled EGR systems, although without boosting. 32



### Two public sources indicate a 10 to 20 percent fu el consumption effectiveness for a downsized DI engine with cooled EGR compared to a naturally aspirated baseline engine 33 

### and a 4 percent fuel consumption effectiveness for cooled EGR compared to a conventional downsized DI turbocharged engine. 34 

### Based on the data from these reports, NHTSA estimat es the incremental reduction in fuel consumption for EGR Boost to be 4 percent o ver a turbocharged and downsized DI engine. Thus, if TRBDS precedes EGRB, adding the 12 percent gain from TRBDS to the 4 percent gain from EGRB results in total fuel consumption reduction of 16 percent. This is in agreement with the range suggested in the Lotus
report.

Regarding costs, the addition of EGR cooler and EGR valve were estimated in
NHTSA’s MY 2011 rule to have an incremental RPE cos t impact of approximately $173 based on confidential individual component cost dat a from 2008 Martec describing EGR cooler costs of $75, EGR valve costs of $20 and ass ociated piping costs of $20, totaling $115 (non-RPE). For purposes of this NPRM, NHTSA f ound no information to indicate that these estimates were inaccurate. To that end, NHTSA applied an indirect cost Formatted: Left: 1.25", Right: 1.25"

### 3-37

multiplier of 1.25, for a medium complexity technol ogy, resulting in a compliance cost of $144 for MY 2012 vehicles with time-based learning applied. However, given the lack of public data on this technology, the agencies see k comment on these assumptions.

3.4.2.1.11 

## Diesel Engine Technologies

Diesel engines have several characteristics that gi ve them superior fuel efficiency compared to conventional gasoline, spark-ignited en gines. Pumping losses are much lower due to lack of (or greatly reduced) throttlin g. The diesel combustion cycle operates at a higher compression ratio, with a very lean air/fuel mixture, and turbocharged lightduty diesels typically achieve much higher torque l evels at lower engine speeds than equivalent-displacement naturally-aspirated gasolin e engines. Additionally, diesel fuel has a higher energy content per gallon. h 

### However, diesel fuel also has a higher carbon to hydrogen ratio, which increases the amount of CO2 e mitted per gallon of fuel used by approximately 15% over a gallon of gasoline.

Diesel engines have emissions characteristics that present challenges to meeting
federal Tier 2 NOx emissions standards. It is a significant systems-engineering challenge to maintain the fuel consumption advantag e of the diesel engine while meeting U.S. emissions regulations. Fuel consumption can b e negatively impacted by emissions reduction strategies depending on the combination o f strategies employed. Emission compliance strategies for diesel vehicles sold in t he U.S. are expected to include a combination of combustion improvements and aftertre atment. These emission control strategies are being introduced on Tier 2 light-dut y diesel vehicles today

To achieve U.S. Tier 2 emissions limits, roughly 45 to 65 percent more NO
x 

### reduction is required compared to the Euro VI stand ards. Additionally, as discussed below, there may be a fuel consumption penalty asso ciated with diesel aftertreatment since extra fuel is needed for the aftertreatment, and this extra fuel is not used in the combustion process of the engine that provides torq ue to propel the vehicle.

Light-duty diesel emissions control systems capable of meeting Tier 2 Bin 5
emission standards are already in production. Several key advances in diesel technology have made it possible to reduce emissions coming fr om the engine prior to aftertreatment. These technologies include improved fuel systems (h igher injection pressure and multiple-injection capability), advanced controls a nd sensors to optimize combustion and emissions performance, higher EGR levels and EGR co oling to reduce NO
x 

### , and advanced turbocharging systems.

On the aftertreatment side, the traditional 3-way c atalyst aftertreatment found on gasoline-powered vehicles is ineffective due to the lean-burn combustion of a diesel. All diesels will require a diesel particulate filter (D PF) or catalyzed diesel particulate filter

h Burning one gallon of diesel fuel produces about 1 5 percent more carbon dioxide than gasoline due to the higher density and carbon to hydrogen ratio.

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-38 (CDPF), a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC), and a NO
x 

### reduction strategy to comply with
Tier 2 emissions standards. The most common NO
x 

### reduction strategies include the use
of lean NO
x 

### traps (LNT) or selective catalytic reduction (SCR) , which are outlined
below.

3. Diesel Engine with Lean NO

x 

### Trap (LNT) Catalyst AfterTreatment



### A lean NO
x 

### trap operates, in principle, by storing oxidizing NO to NO2 in the exhaust and storing NO2 on alkali sorbent material. When the control system determines (via mathematical model or a NO
x 

### sensor) that the trap is saturated with NO
x 

### , it switches the engine into a rich operating mode o r may in some cases inject fuel directly into the exhaust stream to produce excess hydrocarb ons that act as a reducing agent to
convert the stored NO
x 

### to N 2 

### and water, thereby “regenerating” the LNT and open ing up
more locations for NO
x 

### to be stored. LNTs preferentially store sulfate c ompounds from the fuel, which can reduce catalytic performance. The system must undergo periodic desulfurization by operating at a net-fuel-rich con dition at high temperatures in order to
retain NO
x 

### NO
x 

### trapping efficiency.

NHTSA and EPA have concluded that the application o f diesel engines on small vehicles is not a viable or cost effective option. The two agencies have also concluded that LNT-based diesel engines are best suited to sm aller vehicle. Thus for purposes of this NPRM the application of LNT-based diesel engin es has not been included and cost and effectiveness estimates were not generated.

4. Diesel Engine with Selective Catalytic Reduction (S CR) AfterTreatment



### An SCR aftertreatment system uses a reductant (typi cally, ammonia derived from urea) that is injected into the exhaust stream ahea d of the SCR catalyst. Ammonia
combines with NO
x 

### in the SCR catalyst to form N 2 

### and water. The hardware configuration for an SCR system is more complicated than that of an LNT, due to the onboard urea storage and delivery system (which req uires a urea pump and injector to inject urea into the exhaust stream). While a rich engine-oper ating mode is not required
for NO
x 

### reduction, the urea is typically injected at a rat e of approximately 3 percent of the fuel consumed. Manufacturers designing SCR sys tems intend to align urea tank refills with standard maintenance practices such as oil changes. As is the case with LNTbased diesels, EPA and NHTSA project that SCR-based diesel engines will be available within the next couple of years. Mercedes-Benz rec ently introduced two 2009 model year vehicles R320 and GL320, both of which are cer tified to Tier 2, Bin 5 emission
standards s . Based on public announcements from several other companies, an increased number of product offerings from multiple companies are expected over the next few

years.

In order to maintain equivalent performance to com parable gasoline-engine vehicles, an in-line 4-cylinder diesel engine, with displacement varying around 2.8 liters Formatted: Subscript

### 3-39

was assumed to replace a V6 gasoline base engine fo r Performance Compact, Performance Midsize, Large Passenger Car, Minivan, and Midsize Truck for the CAFE model. A V-6 diesel engine, with displacement var ying around 4.0 liters to meet vehicle performance requirements, was assumed to replace a V8 gasoline base engine for Large Truck and Performance Large Car vehicle classes for the CAFE model. It was also assumed that diesel engines for these classes would utilize SCR aftertreatment systems.
Confidential manufacturer and non-confidential comm ent data submitted in response to NHTSA’s past rulemaking for diesel engines showed a fuel consumption reduction in the range of was in the range of 16.7 percent to 26.7 percent fuel consumption reduction or a 15% to 23% CO2 emission reduction over a baseline g asoline engine.

NHTSA’s MY 2011 CAFE final rule, which was supporte d by confidential manufacturer data, estimated the fuel consumption reduction benefit of a SCR-based
diesel engine to be between 19 to 25 percent over a basel ine gasoline engine. NHTSA
and EPA have revisited these values and found them to be reasonable. EPA estimates a 15 to 26% CO2 reduction for light-duty diesels equi pped with SCR.

Diesel engines are more costly than port-injected s park-ignition gasoline engines. These higher costs result from:

• Fuel systems (higher pressures and more responsive injectors);

• Controls and sensors to optimize combustion and emi ssions performance;

• Engine design (higher cylinder pressures require a more robust engine, but higher torque output means diesel engines can have reduced displacement);

• Turbocharger(s);

• Aftertreatment systems, which tend to be more costl y for diesels;

Due to a significant decrease in platinum group met al prices since NHTSA’s MY 2011 CAFE final rule analysis, the agencies chose t o re-analyze diesel costs. In EPA’s 2008 Staff Report, costs were considered for two ty pes of diesel systems: one using a
lean- NOx NO X 

### trap (LNT) along with a diesel particulate filter ( DPF); and one using a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system along wi th a DPF. In that report, EPA estimated direct manufacturing costs to range from $1,860 for the small car (LNT plus DPF) to $2,710 for the large truck (SCR plus DPF). For comparison, the NESCCAF study showed direct manufacturing costs of $1,500 t o $1,950. More recently, NHTSA’s 2011 CAFE final rule showed direct manufacturing co sts of $2,670 for a 4-cylinder engine using a LNT plus DPF system, $3,735 for a 6- cylinder engine using a SCR plus DPF system, and $4,668 for an 8-cylinder engine usi ng a SCR plus DPF system.
NHTSA noted that estimates in the MY 2011 CAFE fina l rule were higher than those shown in the proposed rule due largely to the spike in platinum group metal prices that had occurred in the months just prior to issuing th e final rule. Formatted: Subscript

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-40 The following diesel engine costs were developed by first taking a look back at EPA’s 2008 Staff Report, which reveals a couple of factors that resulted in somewhat misleading costs. First, the engine costs estimate d there did not take into account the downsizing that would occur when moving from a gaso line engine to a diesel engine (provided equivalent performance was maintained). Second, the engine costs used in that analysis were actually stated in terms of 2002 doll ars rather than 2006 dollars in which the report was meant to be stated. The agencies de cided that an update to the enginerelated costs would provide a much better cost estimate of the costs of for converting to diesel. This was done by starting with the source for engine costs in the 2008 staff report which was an October 2005 EPA Interim Report 35 

### which, in turn, sourced estimates to from a 2003 study done by FEV for EPA contained within a 2 004 EPA Interim Technical Report. 36 

### These direct manufacturing costs are reproduced i n Table 3-6Table 3

- 6 Table
3

- 6

.

Table 3

- 6 3

- 6 Diesel Engine Direct Manufacturing Source Costs, I ncremental to a Baseline Gasoline Engine (2002 dollars)

Component(s) Large SUV Midsize Gasoline engine (baseline) 5L V8 2.4L I4 Diesel engine 4L V8 2.2L I4 Add high-pressure, common rail diesel fuel injectio n system $980 $630 Delete gasoline fuel injection system -$245 -$165 Add variable geometry turbocharger $175 $126 Delete gasoline ignition system -$120 -$75 Delete fuel pump and other changes to fuel system - $94 -$75 Enhance powertrain mounting system $87 $107 Other engine changes $80 $70 Add air intercooler, ducts, and sensor $80 $55 Larger battery and starter, add glow plugs $72 $50 Delete exhaust gas oxygen sensor* -$60 -$30 Add supplemental heater $50 $15 Modify transmission $25 $25 Enhance sound insulation package $25 $10

Smaller radiator -$13 -$4

Total $1,042 $739
Note: Table reproduced from EPA420

- R

- 05

- 012, October 2005



### Building on the direct manufacturing costs shown in Table 3-6Table 3

- 6 Tabl e 3

- 6 , the agencies used appropriate scaling to estimate the costs for replacing a baseline gasoline engine with a diesel engine for the follow ing four situations: a large car converted from a 4.5L V8 gasoline to a 3L V6 diesel ; a medium/large MPV converted from a 3.2L V6 to a 2.8L I4 diesel; a small truck c onverted from a 3.2L V6 gasoline to a 2.8L I4 diesel; and a large truck converted from a 5.6L V8 gasoline to a 4L V6 diesel. A
small car conversion was not considered since the d iesel conversion for the small car was not considered to be a viable or cost effective opt ion. The results for the four base gasoline to diesel conversions are shown in Table 3-7Table 3

- 7 Table 3

- 7 . Values from
Table 3-6Table 3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 have been updated to 2007 dollars using the GDP pr ice deflator factor of 1.15 (see Appendix 3.A). Since t he source costs were developed in Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

### 3-41

2003, this analysis conservatively considers the co sts shown in Table 3-7Table 3

- 7 Table
3

- 7 as being applicable to the 2012 model year.

Table 3

- 7 3

- 7 Diesel Engine Direct Manufacturing Scaled-Costs in 2012, Incremental to Baseline Gasoline Engine (2007 dollars)

Component(s) Large

car Med/large

MPV Small

truck Large

truck Notes

(see text below) Gasoline engine (baseline) 4.5L V8 3.2L V6 3.2L V6 5.6L V8 Diesel engine 3L V6 2.8L I4 2.8L I4 4L V6 Add high-pressure, common rail diesel fuel injection system $1,026 $724 $724 $1,026 1

Delete gasoline fuel injection system -$89 -$73 -$7 3 -$89 2 Add variable geometry turbocharger $173 $145 $145 $ 201 3 Delete gasoline ignition system -$138 -$112 -$112 - $138 4 Delete fuel pump and other changes to fuel system -$108 -$86 -$86 -$108 5

Enhance powertrain mounting system $100 $123 $123 $ 100 6 Other engine changes $86 $80 $80 $86 7 Add air intercooler, ducts, and sensor $78 $63 $63 $92 8 Larger battery and starter, add glow plugs $70 $57 $57 $70 9

Delete exhaust gas oxygen sensor* $0 $0 $0 $0 10 Add supplemental heater $37 $17 $17 $57 11 Modify transmission $29 $29 $29 $29 12 Enhance sound insulation package $20 $11 $11 $29 13 Smaller radiator -$15 -$10 -$10 -$15 14 Engine downsize credit -$185 -$390 -$390 -$185 15 Total $1,085 $580 $580 $1,156
* Note: Oxygen sensor removals are included in aft ertreatment costs.



### The costs shown in Table 3-7Table 3

- 7 Table 3

- 7 were scaled in the following ways:

1. Large car and large truck calculated as 75% the cos t of Table 3-6Table 3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s large SUV and 25% of midsize car; medium/large MPV and small truck calculated as equal to Table 3-6Table 3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s midsize car. Values converted to 2007 dollars using GDP factor of 1.15.

1. 2. The estimates generated by FEV for eliminating the gasoline fuel injection systems were considerably larger than EPA & NHTSA b elieved was appropriate. Therefore, to remain conservative, these costs were estimated, in 2007 dollars as follows: large car and large truck were calculated using incremental costs of $8/injector, $20/fuel rail, and $5 for a pressure d amper or $8x8+$20+$5=$89; medium/large MPV and small truck were calculated us ing incremental costs of $8/injector, $20/fuel rail, and $5 for a pressure d amper or $8x6+$20+$5=$73.

1. 3. Large car calculated as the average of Table 3-6Table 3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s large SUV and midsize car; medium/large MPV and small truck c alculated as equal to Table
3-6Table 3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s midsize car, and large truck calculated as equal to Table Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Bullets and Numbering

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-42 3-6Table 3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s large SUV. Values converted to 2007 dollars usi ng GDP
factor of 1.15.

1. 4. Medium/large MPV and small truck calculated as the average of Table 3-6Table
3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s large SUV and midsize car; Large car and large t ruck calculated as equal to Table 3-6Table 3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s large SUV. Values converted to 2007 dollars using GDP factor of 1.15.

1. 5. Medium/large MPV and small truck calculated as equa l to Table 3-6Table
3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s midsize car; Large car and large truck calculate d as equal to Table
3-6Table 3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s large SUV. Values converted to 2007 dollars usi ng GDP
factor of 1.15.

1. 6. Medium/large MPV and small truck calculated as equa l to Table 3-6Table
3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s large SUV; Large car and large truck calculated as equal to Table
3-6Table 3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s midsize car. Values converted to 2007 dollars u sing GDP
factor of 1.15.

1. 7. Medium/large MPV and small truck calculated as equa l to Table 3-6Table
3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s midsize car; Large car and large truck calculate d as the average of
Table 3-6Table 3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s large SUV and midsize car. Values converted to 2007 dollars using GDP factor of 1.15.

1. 8. Medium/large MPV and small truck calculated as equa l to Table 3-6Table
3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s midsize car; Large car calculated as the average of Table 3-6Table
3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s large SUV and midsize car; Large truck calculate d as equal to Table
3-6Table 3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s large SUV. Values converted to 2007 dollars usi ng GDP
factor of 1.15.

1. 9. Medium/large MPV and small truck calculated as equa l to Table 3-6Table
3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s midsize car; Large car and large truck calculate d as the average of
Table 3-6Table 3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s large SUV and midsize car. Values converted to 2007 dollars using GDP factor of 1.15.

1. 10. Medium/large MPV and small truck calculated as equa l to Table 3-6Table
3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s midsize car; Large car and large truck calculate d as the average of
Table 3-6Table 3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s large SUV and midsize car. Values converted to 2007 dollars using GDP factor of 1.15.

1. 11. Medium/large MPV and small truck calculated as equa l to Table 3-6Table
3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s midsize car; Large car calculated as the average of Table 3-6Table
3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s large SUV and midsize car; Large truck calculate d as equal to Table
3-6Table 3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s large SUV. Values converted to 2007 dollars usi ng GDP
factor of 1.15.

1. 12. Values from Table 3-6Table 3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 converted to 2007 dollars using GDP
factor of 1.15. Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

### 3-43

1. 13. Medium/large MPV and small truck calculated as equa l to Table 3-6Table
3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s midsize car; Large car calculated as the average of Table 3-6Table
3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s large SUV and midsize car; Large truck calculate d as equal to Table
3-6Table 3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s large SUV. Values converted to 2007 dollars usi ng GDP
factor of 1.15.

1. 14. Medium/large MPV and small truck calculated as the average of Table 3-6Table
3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s large SUV and midsize car; Large car and large t ruck calculated as equal to Table 3-6Table 3

- 6 Table 3

- 6 ’s large SUV. Values converted to 2007 dollars using GDP factor of 1.15.

1. 15. Based on the approach presented in the turbochargin g/downsizing section (see section 3.5.2.1.11), the savings associated with do wnsizing the gasoline engine were calculated by estimating the cost in 2007 dollars o f each cylinder at $51, each valve at $10, and each cam at $103. i 

### Therefore, the large car and large truck, which e ach lose two cylinders (-$102), eight valves (-$82) and no c ams realize a $185 savings. The medium/large MPV and small truck would each lose tw o cylinders (-$102) and eight valves (-$82) and two cams (-$205) for a savings of $390.

For the diesel aftertreatment systems, the approach taken is consistent with the approach taken in EPA’s 2007/2010 Highway Diesel ru le and EPA’s recent locomotive
and marine rule. 37 

### For platinum group metal costs, monthly average p rices as of March 2009 as reported by Johnson-Matthey were used. 38 

### Those values were $1,085/troy ounce for platinum and $1,169/troy ounce for rhodium. Af tertreatment devices were sized according to the diesel engine displacement with a 1:1 ratio for both the SCR catalyst and the DPF, and a 0.5:1 ratio for the DOC (i.e., the D OC is half the displacement of the engine). The end result for aftertreatment devices , including a urea dosing unit, urea tank and necessary brackets and heaters, are shown in Table 3-8Table 3

- 8 Table 3

- 8 . Also
shown in Table 3-8Table 3

- 8 Table 3

- 8 are the savings associated with removal of the gasoline catalyst. Note that the gasoline catalyst was sized according to the gasoline engine that served as the baseline engine.

Table 3

- 8 3

- 8 Diesel Aftertreatment Direct Manufacturing Costs i n 2012 (2007 dollars)

i These are the correct costs for the 2015MY in 2007 $. But, they are used here inappropriately as 2012 MY values. Technically, 3 years of time-based learnin g should have been backed out to get 2012MY values. So, the 2012MY costs are slightly underestimated by roughly $10. Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-44 Component(s) Large car Med/large

MPV Small truck Large truck

Gasoline engine (baseline) 4.5L V8 3.2L V6 3.2L V6 5.6L V8 Diesel engine 3L V6 2.8L I4 2.8L I4 4L V6

DOC $277 $257 $257 $339 DPF (includes a $20 pressure sensor for OBD & sensing) $534 $503 $503 $668

SCR system (includes a $50 NOx sensor for OBD & sensing) $904 $904 $914 $996

Removal of gasoline catalysts & sensors -$401 -$288 -$298 -$483

Total $1,314 $1,376 $1,376 $1,520



### The incremental costs to convert from a gasoline to a diesel engine— Table
3-7Table 3

- 7 Table 3

- 7 and Table 3-8Table 3

- 8 Table 3

- 8 combined—are shown in Table
3-9Table 3

- 9 Table 3

- 9

.

Table 3

- 9 3

- 9 Direct Manufacturing Costs to Convert from a Gasol ine to Diesel System in 2012 (2007 dollars)

Component(s) Large car Med/large

MPV Small truck Large truck

Gasoline engine (baseline) 4.5L V8 3.2L V6 3.2L V6 5.6L V8 Diesel engine 3L V6 2.8L I4 2.8L I4 4L V6 Engine-related costs $1,085 $580 $580 $1,156 Aftertreatment $1,314 $1,376 $1,376 $1,520 Total $2,399 $1,956 $1,956 $2,676



### This analysis applies time-based learning to diesel systems and a 1.25 ICM for a medium complexity rating. Therefore, the MY 2016 c ompliance costs are as shown in
Table 3-10Table 3

- 10 Table 3

- 10

.

Table 3

- 10 3

- 10 Compliance Costs to Convert from a Gasoline to Die sel System in 2016 (2007 dollars)

Component(s) Large car Med/large

MPV Small truck Large truck

Gasoline engine (baseline) 4.5L V8 3.2L V6 3.2L V6 5.6L V8 Diesel engine 3L V6 2.8L I4 2.8L I4 4L V6 Total $2,655 $2,164 $2,164 $2,961



### In the NHTSA analysis, and consistent with the abov e analysis, SCR-based diesel costs for a 2.8L in-line 4-cylinder from a V-6 gaso line engine were estimated to be $2445 in MY 2012. A MY 2012 cost of $3345 was estimated for a conversion to 4.0L V-6 diesel from a V-8 gasoline engine. These MY 2012 es timates were obtained using the inline 4 cylinder cost of $1956 and V-6 cost of $2676 , from Table 3-9Table 3

- 9 Table 3

- 9

, and multiplying them by the medium complexity ICM m arkup of 1.25 and are eligible for time-based learning cost reductions. Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

### 3-45

3.4.2.2 Transmission Technologies

NHTSA and EPA have also reviewed the transmission t echnology estimates used in the MY 2011 CAFE final rule. In doing so NHTSA a nd EPA considered or reconsidered all available sources and updated the estimates as appropriate. The section below describes each of the transmission technologi es considered for this rulemaking.

3.4.2.2.1 

## Improved Automatic Transmission Control (IATC) (Aggressive Shift Logic and Early Torque Converter Lockup)

Calibrating the transmission shift schedule to upsh ift earlier and quicker, and to lock-up or partially lock-up the torque converter u nder a broader range of operating conditions can reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emis sions. However, this operation can result in a perceptible degradation in noise, vibra tion, and harshness (NVH). The degree to which NVH can be degraded before it becomes noti ceable to the driver is strongly influenced by characteristics of the vehicle, and a lthough it is somewhat subjective, it always places a limit on how much fuel consumption can be improved by transmission control changes. Given that the Aggressive Shift L ogic and Early Torque Converter Lockup are best optimized simultaneously due to the fact that adding both of them primarily requires only minor modifications to the transmission or calibration software, these two technologies are combined in the modeling

.

3.4.2.2.2 

## Aggressive Shift Logic

During operation, an automatic transmission’s contr oller manages the operation of the transmission by scheduling the upshift or downs hift, and locking or allowing the torque converter to slip based on a preprogrammed s hift schedule. The shift schedule contains a number of lookup table functions, which define the shift points and torque converter lockup based on vehicle speed and throttl e position, and other parameters such as temperature. Aggressive shift logic (ASL) can b e employed in such a way as to maximize fuel efficiency by modifying the shift sch edule to upshift earlier and inhibit downshifts under some conditions, which reduces eng ine pumping losses and engine friction. The application of this technology does r equire a manufacturer to confirm that drivability, durability, and NVH are not significan tly degraded.

The agencies have estimated the effectiveness of ag gressive shift logic at 1 to 2 percent. The agencies have estimated the cost at $ 32 for a MY 2012 vehicle, regardless of size (2007$). j 

### With time-based learning applied, this cost would be $28 for a MY 2016 vehicle (2007$)

j This reflects a revisiting of component costs for NHTSA since the 2011 CAFE FRM.

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-46 3.4.2.2.3 

## Early Torque Converter Lockup

A torque converter is a fluid coupling located betw een the engine and
transmission in vehicles with automatic transmissio ns and continuously-variable transmissions (CVT). This fluid coupling allows fo r slip so the engine can run while the vehicle is idling in gear (as at a stop light), pro vides for smoothness of the powertrain, and also provides for torque multiplication during acceleration, and especially launch. During light acceleration and cruising, the inheren t slip in a torque converter causes increased fuel consumption, so modern automatic tra nsmissions utilize a clutch in the torque converter to lock it and prevent this slippa ge. Fuel consumption can be further reduced by locking up the torque converter at lower vehicle speeds, provided there is sufficient power to propel the vehicle, and noise a nd vibration are not excessive. k 

### If the torque converter cannot be fully locked up for maxi mum efficiency, a partial lockup strategy can be employed to reduce slippage. Early torque converter lockup is applicable to all vehicle types with automatic transmissions. Some torque converters will require upgraded clutch materials to withstand additional l oading and the slipping conditions during partial lock-up. As with aggressive shift l ogic, confirmation of acceptable drivability, performance, durability and NVH charac teristics is required to successfully implement this technology.

Regarding the effectiveness of Improved Automatic T ransmission Control, the MY2011 CAFE final rule, which was supported by the 2002 NAS and NESCCAF reports as well as confidential manufacturer data, estimate d an effectiveness improvement of 1 to 2 percent for aggressive shift logic and 0.5 percen t for early torque converter lockup. These estimates are in agreement with the values st ated in the NESCCAF report and confidential manufacturer data. For the purpose of this NPRM, NHTSA and EPA
concluded that the combined estimated effectiveness is 1.5 to 2.5% reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption.

Regarding cost estimates, the agencies estimate the cost at $29, regardless of vehicle size and including a low complexity ICM of 1.11 for a MY 2012 vehicle(2007$). With time-based learning, this cost would be $25 fo r a MY 2016 vehicle (2007$). For IATC (or the combination of aggressive shift logic and early torque converter lockup), the cost, including the 1.11 ICM, would be $60 for a MY 2012 vehicle and $53 for a MY 2016 vehicle after time-based learning (2007$).

3.4.2.2.4 

## Automatic 6-, 7- and 8-Speed Transmissions (NAUTO 

## )

Manufacturers can also choose to replace 4- and 5-s peed transmission with 6-, 7-, or 8-speed automatic transmissions. Additional rat ios allow for further optimization of

k Although only modifications to the transmission ca libration software are considered as part of this technology, very aggressive early torque converter lock up may require an adjustment to damper stiffne ss and hysteresis inside the torque converter.

### 3-47

engine operation over a wider range of conditions, but this is subject to diminishing returns as the number of speeds increases. As addi tional planetary gear sets are added (which may be necessary in some cases to achieve th e higher number of ratios), additional weight and friction are introduced. Als o, the additional shifting of such a transmission can be perceived as bothersome to some consumers, so manufacturers need to develop strategies for smooth shifts. Some manu facturers are replacing 4- and 5-speed automatics with 6-speed automatics, and 7- and 8-sp eed automatics have also entered production, albeit in lower-volume applications in luxury and performance oriented cars.

As discussed in the MY 2011 CAFE final rule, confid ential manufacturer data projected that 6-speed transmissions could incremen tally reduce fuel consumption by 0 to 5 percent from a baseline 4-speed automatic transmi ssion, while an 8-speed transmission could incrementally reduce fuel consumption by up t o 6 percent from a baseline 4-speed automatic transmission. The 2008 Martec report est imated a cost of $323 (RPE adjusted) for converting a 4-speed to a 6-speed transmission and a cost of $638 (RPE adjusted) for converting a 4-speed to an 8-speed transmission. G M has publicly claimed a fuel economy improvement of up to 4 percent for its new 6-speed automatic transmissions.39 The 2008 EPA Staff Technical Report found a 4.5 to 6.5 percent fuel consumption improvement for a 6-speed over a 4-speed automatic transmission. 40 

### Based on this information, NHTSA estimated in the MY 2011 rule, t hat the conversion to a 6-,7- and 8- speed transmission (NAUTO) from a 4 or 5-speed auto matic transmission with IATC would have an incremental fuel consumption benefit of 1.4 percent to 3.4 percent, for all vehicle classes. From a baseline 4 or 5 speed tran smission without IATC, the incremental fuel consumption benefit would be appro ximately 3 to 6 percent, which is consistent with the EPA Staff Report estimate.

NHTSA and EPA reviewed these effectiveness estimate s and concluded that they
remain accurate. While the CAFE model follows the incremental approach discussed above, the GHG model estimates the packaged effecti veness of 4.5 to 6.5 percent.

NHTSA and EPA also reviewed the cost estimates from the MY 2011 CAFE final rule and the 2008 staff report (which assumed use o f a Lepelletier gear set) and concluded that some but not all 6-speed automatic t ransmissions would be equipped with Lepelletier gear set, and as such, the estimates we re revised to establish the cost for the 6- speed transmission to be equally divided between ap plication using Lepelletier, and application of a standard planetary gear set 6-spee d automatic transmission as estimated in the 2008 Martec report (and the MY 211 CAFE fina l rule). As a result, the final incremental cost estimate was $170, independent of vehicle type and size and including a low complexity 1.11 ICM (2007$). In the CAFE model , due to the structure vehicle classes used, an additional $102 (2007$) is include d to account for performance vehicle classes and for medium and large trucks. This is because for performance classes, additional gear ratios, such as 7 and 8 speed trans missions may be utilized, and for medium and large trucks heavier duty transmissions are required. These estimates represent MY 2012 vehicle costs. With time-based l earning, the $170 cost would lower to $150 for a MY 2016 vehicle (2007$).

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-48 3.4.2.2.5 

## Dual Clutch Transmissions / Automated Manual Transmissions (DCTAM)

An Automated Manual Transmission (AMT) is mechanica lly similar to a conventional manual transmission, but shifting and launch functions are automatically controlled by the electronics. There are two basic types of AMTs, single-clutch and dualclutch (DCT). A single-clutch AMT is essentially a manual transmission with automated clutch and shifting. Because of shift quality issu es with single-clutch designs, DCT’s will likely be far more common in the U.S. and are the basis of the estimates that follow. A DCT uses separate clutches (and separate gear sha fts) for the even number gears and odd-numbered gears. In this way, the next expected gear is pre-selected which allows for faster and smoother shifting. For example, if the vehicle is accelerating in third gear, the shaft with gears one, three and five has gear three engaged and is transmitting power. The shaft with gears two, four, and six is idle, bu t has gear four engaged. When a shift is required, the controller disengages the odd-gear cl utch while simultaneously engaging the even-gear clutch, thus making a smooth shift. If, on the other hand, the driver slows down instead of continuing to accelerate, the trans mission will have to change to second gear on the idling shaft to anticipate a downshift. This shift can be made quickly on the idling shaft since there is no torque being transfe rred on it.

In addition to single-clutch and dual-clutch AMTs, there are also wet clutch and dry clutch designs which are used for different typ es of vehicle applications. Wet clutch AMTs offer a higher torque capacity that comes from the use of a hydraulic system that cools the clutches. Wet clutch systems are less ef ficient than the dry clutch systems due to the losses associated with hydraulic pumping. A dditionally, wet AMT’s have a higher cost due to the additional hydraulic hardware requi red.

Overall, DCT’s likely offer the greatest potential for effectiveness improvements among the various transmission options presented in this report because they offer the inherently lower losses of a manual transmission wi th the efficiency and shift quality advantages of electronic controls. The lower losse s stem from the elimination of the conventional lock-up torque converter, and a greatl y reduced need for high pressure hydraulic circuits to hold clutches or bands to mai ntain gear ratios (in automatic transmissions) or hold pulleys in position to maint ain gear ratio (in Continuously Variable Transmissions). However, the lack of a to rque converter will affect how the vehicle launches from rest, so a DCT will most like ly be paired with an engine that offers sufficient torque at low engine speeds to allow for adequate launch performance.

For the MY 2011 CAFE final rule, NHTSA estimated a 5.5 to 9.5 percent improvement in fuel consumption over a baseline 4/5 -speed automatic transmission for a wet clutch DCT, which was assumed for all but the s mallest of vehicle subclasses,

### 3-49

Subcompact and Compact cars and small LT. This res ults in an incremental effectiveness estimate of 2.7 to 4.1 percent over a 6-speed autom atic transmission with IATC. For Subcompact and Compact Cars and small LT, which wer e assumed to use a dry clutch DCT, NHTSA estimated an 8 to 13 percent fuel consum ption improvement over a baseline 4/5-speed automatic transmission, which eq uates to a 5.5 to 7.5 percent incremental improvement over the 6-speed transmissi on. This is consistent with the EPA staff report, which estimated that these transmissi ons offer an effectiveness of 9.5%- 14.5% over a 4-speed automatic transmission. EPA a nd NHTSA therefore conclude that 8 to 13 percent effectiveness is appropriate for th is proposal.

In the MY 2011 CAFE final rule, the dry clutch DCT incremental cost was previously estimated to be $68 for Subcompact and C ompact cars relative to the 6-speed automatic transmission. For larger vehicles such a s Midsize and Large Car and Minivan the wet clutch DCT incremental cost over 6-speed tr ansmission was estimated at $218, with both of these estimates assuming a 1.5 RPE. I n the 2008 staff report, EPA estimated the RPE (1.5 RPE factor) of a wet clutch DCT (calle d an AMT in the report) at $141 (2006$)

The agencies revised these estimates to reflect upd ated sources and the ICM markup of a medium complexity technology of 1.26. For this NPRM, the agencies estimated MY 2012 costs of $74 for dry and $159 for wet DCT (2007$), which are only slightly different from MY 2011 CAFE final rule. W ith time-based learning these costs would be $65 and $139, respectively, for a MY 2016 vehicle (2007$).

3.4.2.2.6 

## Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT)

A Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) is uniqu e in that it does not use gears to provide ratios for operation. Instead, th e most common CVT design uses two Vshaped pulleys connected by a metal belt. Each pul ley is split in half and a hydraulic actuator moves the pulley halves together or apart. This causes the belt to ride on either a larger or smaller diameter section of the pulley wh ich changes the effective ratio of the input to the output shafts. Advantages of the CVT are that the engine can operate at its most efficient speed-load point more of the time, s ince there are no fixed ratios. However, CVT’s are limited by engine power and cann ot be applied to high torque applications. Also, CVTs often have a wider range of ratios compared to conventional automatic transmissions which can provide for more options in engine optimization. While CVTs by definition are fully continuous, some automakers choose to emulate conventional stepped automatic operation because so me drivers are not used to the sensation of the engine speed operating independent ly of vehicle speed.

Considering the confidential data together with ind ependent review, NHTSA has estimated the fuel consumption effectiveness for CV Ts at 2.2 to 4.5 percent over a 4/5-

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-50 speed automatic transmission, which translates into a 0.7 to 2.0 incremental effectiveness improvement over an automatic transmission with the IATC technology. EPA and
NHTSA reviewed these estimates and found them to be accurate.

The agencies adjusted the original estimates used i n MY 2011 CAFE final rule to account for medium complexity ICM of 1.25. This res ulted in estimated incremental compliance cost of $250 for the MY 2012 vehicles. In the Volpe model, this technology was only applied to vehicles manufactured with unib ody construction methods. CVTs are an established and readily available technology so time based learning is applied.

3.4.2.2.7 

## 6-Speed Manual Transmissions (6MAN)

Manual transmissions are entirely dependent upon dr iver input to shift gears: the driver selects when to perform the shift and which gear to select. This is the most efficient transfer of energy of all transmission la youts, because it has the lowest internal gear losses, with a minimal hydraulic system, and t he driver provides the energy to actuate the clutch. From a systems viewpoint, howe ver, vehicles with manual transmissions have the drawback that the driver may not always select the optimum gear ratio for fuel economy. Nonetheless, increasing th e number of available ratios in a manual transmission can improve fuel economy by all owing the driver to select a ratio that optimizes engine operation more often. Typica lly, this is achieved through adding overdrive ratios to reduce engine speed at cruising velocities (which saves fuel through reduced engine pumping losses) and pushing the torq ue required of the engine towards the optimum level. However, if the gear ratio step s are not properly designed, this may require the driver to change gears more often in ci ty driving resulting in customer dissatisfaction. Additionally, if gear ratios are selected to achieve improved launch performance instead of to improve fuel economy, the n no fuel saving effectiveness is
realized.

NHTSA’s MY 2011 CAFE final rule estimated an effect iveness increase of 0.5 percent for replacing a 5-speed manual with a 6-spe ed manual transmission, which was
derived from confidential manufacturer data. NHTSA and EPA have found no evidence to dispute this estimate and chosen to use 0.5 perc ent reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption for replacing a 5-speed manual wit h a 6-speed manual transmission for this proposal.

NHTSA updated costs to reflect the ICM low complexi ty markup of 1.11 which resulted in a incremental compliance cost of $250 a s compared to $338 for MY 2012, with lower costs later MYs due to the application o f time based learning factors. In the 2008 staff report, EPA estimated this RPE (1.5 RPE factor) at $107 (2006$) relative to a 5-speed manual transmission and for a MY 2015 vehic le. EPA updated this value to

### 3-51

2007$ and used a 1.11 ICM to get costs of $89 for a MY 2012 vehicle and $69 for a MY 2016 vehicle, both relative to a 5-speed manual tra nsmission (2007$).

3.4.2.3 Hybrid and Electrification/Accessory Technologies

A Hybrid is a vehicle that combines two or more sou rces of propulsion energy, where one uses a consumable fuel (like gasoline), a nd one is rechargeable (during operation, or by another energy source). Hybrid te chnology is established in the U.S. market and more manufacturers are adding hybrid mod els to their lineups. Hybrids reduce fuel consumption through three major mechani sms:

• The internal combustion engine can be optimized (th rough downsizing, modifying the operating cycle, or other control tec hniques) to operate at or near its most efficient point more of the time. Po wer loss from engine downsizing can be mitigated by employing power assi st from the secondary

power source.

• Some of the energy normally lost as heat while brak ing can be captured and stored in the energy storage system for later use.

• The engine is turned off when it is not needed, suc h as when the vehicle is coasting or when stopped.

Hybrid vehicles utilize some combination of the thr ee above mechanisms to reduce fuel consumption and CO 2 

### emissions. A fourth mechanism to reduce petroleum fuel consumption, available only to plug-in hybrids , is by substituting the petroleum fuel energy with energy from another source, such as the electric grid. The effectiveness of fuel consumption and CO 2 

### reduction depends on the utilization of the above mechanisms and how aggressively they are pursued. One area wh ere this variation is particularly prevalent is in the choice of engine size and its e ffect on balancing fuel economy and performance. Some manufacturers choose not to down size the engine when applying hybrid technologies. In these cases, performance i s vastly improved, while fuel efficiency improves significantly less than if the engine was downsized to maintain the same performance as the conventional version. Whil e this approach has been used in cars such as the Honda Accord Hybrid (now discontin ued), it is more likely to be used for vehicles like trucks where towing and/or hauling is an integral part of their performance requirements. In these cases, if the engine is dow nsized, the battery can be quickly drained during a long hill climb with a heavy load, leaving only a downsized engine to carry the entire load. Because towing capability i s currently a heavily-marketed truck attribute, manufacturers are hesitant to offer a tr uck with downsized engine which can lead to a significantly diminished towing performan ce with a low battery , and therefore engines are traditionally not downsized for these v ehicles.

.

Although hybrid vehicles using other energy storage concepts (flywheel, hydraulic) have been developed, the systems current ly in production in the U.S. for

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-52 passenger cars and light trucks use battery storage and electric drive systems. Hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) are part of a continuum of vehicles using systems with differing levels of electric drive and electric energy storag e. This range of vehicles includes relatively basic engine start/stop systems, HEV sys tems with varying degrees of electric storage and electric drive system capability, plug- in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) with differing degrees of all electric range and battery electric vehicles (EV) that rely entirely on electric drive and battery electric energy stora ge.

Different HEV, PHEV and EV concepts utilize these m echanisms differently, so they are treated separately for the purposes of thi s analysis. Below is a discussion of battery energy storage and the major hybrid concept s that were determined to be
available in the near term.

3.4.2.3.1 

## Batteries for MHEV, HEV, PHEV and EV Applications

The design of battery secondary cells can vary cons iderably between MHEV, HEV, PHEV and EV applications.

MHEV batteries: Due to their lower voltage (12-42 VDC) and reduced power and energy requirements, MHEV systems will likely conti nue to use lead-acid batteries. MHEV battery designs differ from those of current s tarved-electrolyte (typical maintenance free batteries) or flooded-electrolyte (the older style lead-acid batteries requiring water “top-off”) batteries used for start ing, lighting and ignition (SLI) in automotive applications. Standard SLI batteries ar e primarily designed to provide highcurrent for engine start-up and then recharge immed iately after startup via the vehicle’s charging system. Deeply discharging a standard SLI battery will greatly shorten its life. MHEV applications are expected to use:

• Extended-cycle-life flooded (ELF) lead-acid batteri es

• Absorptive glass matt, valve-regulated lead-acid (A GM/VRLA) batteries –

or –

• Asymmetric lead-acid battery/capacitor hybrids (e.g . flooded ultrabatteries)

MHEV systems using electrolytic double-layer capaci tors are also under development.

HEV batteries: HEV applications operate in a narrow, short-cycling , chargesustaining state of charge (SOC). Energy capacity in HEV applications is somewhat limited by the ability of the battery and power ele ctronics to accept charge and by space and weight constraints within the vehicle design. HEV battery designs tend to be optimized for high power density rather than high e nergy density, with thinner cathode and anode layers and more numerous current collecto rs and separators (Figure 3-1). Field Code Changed

### 3-53 EV batteries: EV batteries tend to be optimized for high energy d ensity and are considerably larger than HEV batteries. PHEV batte ry designs are intermediate between power-optimized HEV and energy-optimized EV battery cell designs.

PHEV batteries: PHEV batteries must provide both c harge depleting operation similar to an EV and charge sustaining operation si milar to an HEV. Unlike HEV applications, charge sustaining operation with PHEV s occurs at a relatively low battery state of charge (SOC) which can pose a significant challenge with respect to attaining acceptable battery cycle life. In the case of the GM Volt, this limits charge depleting operation to a minimum SOC of approximately 30%. 41 

### An alternative approach for PHEV applications that has potential to allow exten sion of charge depletion to a lower battery SOC is using energy-optimized lithium-ion b atteries for charge depleting operation in combination with the use of supercapac itors for charge sustaining operation. 42

Figure 3-1 

### : Schematic representation of power and energy opti mized

prismatic-layered battery cells

Collector (-)

Cathode (-)

Separator

Anode (+)

Collector (+) HEV Power-optimized Battery Cell

EV Energy-optimized Battery Cell



### Power-split hybrid vehicles from Toyota, Ford and N issan, integrated motor assist hybrid vehicles from Honda and the GM 2-mode hybrid vehicles currently use nickelmetal hydride (NiMH) batteries. Lithium-ion (Li-io n) batteries offer the potential to approximately double both the energy and power dens ity relative to current NiMH batteries, enabling much more electrical-energy-int ensive automotive applications such as PHEVs and EVs. Li-ion batteries for high-volume automotive applications differ substantially from those used in consumer electroni cs applications with respect to cathode chemistry, construction and cell size. Li -ion battery designs currently under

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-54 development by CPI (LG-Chem) for the GM Volt PHEV a nd by AESC, GS-Yuasa and A123 Systems (respectively) for the upcoming Nissan , Mitsubishi and Chrysler EVs use large-format, layered-prismatic cells assembled int o battery modules. The modules are then combined into battery packs.

Cathodes for large-format, automotive Li-ion batter ies are becoming increasingly focused on two chemistries – LiMn2O4-spinel (CPI, G S-Yuasa, AESC) and LiFePO4 (A123 Systems).

In addition to the purely hybrid technologies, whic h decrease the proportion of propulsion energy coming from the fuel by increasin g the proportion of that energy coming from electricity, there are other steps that can be taken to improve the efficiency of auxiliary functions ( 

### e.g. , power-assisted steering or air-conditioning) whic h also
reduce CO 2 

### emissions and fuel consumption . These steps, together with the hybrid technologies, are collectively referred to as “vehi cle electrification” because they generally use electricity instead of engine power. In order to achieve consistency between the two modeling techniques, and to improve the number and range of technology offerings, the CAFE model was revised to include one additional mild hybrid technology. The high voltage or improved efficienc y alternator (HVIA) technology, which was used in the 2011 rule, is no longer repre sented as a separate technology and has instead been incorporated into this new mild hy brid technology, as discussed further
below.

3.4.2.3.2 

## Hybrid System Sizing and Cost Estimating Methodolog y

NHTSA and EPA reviewed estimates of cost and effect iveness for hybrid and related electrical technologies and adjusted them a s appropriate. Both agencies found the hybrid technology cost estimating methodology that Ricardo and NHTSA developed during the 2011 final rule to be reasonable and use d it to estimate hybrid systems costs and account for variation in component sizing acros s both the hybrid types and vehicle subclasses. That method utilizes four pieces of da ta: (1) key component sizes for a midsize car by hybrid system type; (2) normalized c osts for each key component; (3) component scaling factors that are applied to each vehicle class/subclass by hybrid system type; and (4) vehicle characteristics for th e subclasses which are used as the basis for the scaling factors. During development of the methodology, NHTSA and Ricardo made several assumptions:

1) Hybrid controls hardware varies with the level of f unctionality offered by the hybrid technology. Assumed hybrid controls complexi ty for a 12V micro hybrid (MHEV) and belt integrated starter generator (BISG) was 25 percent of a strong hybrid controls system and the complexity for a Crank Integrated Starter Generator (CISG) was 50 percent. These rat ios were estimates based on the directional need for increased functionality as system complexity
increases.

### 3-55 1) 2) Li-Ion batteries for hybrid electric vehicles are c urrently entering production, including a 2010 MY Mercedes and Hyunda i. One estimate from Anderman indicates that Li-ion market penetration w ill achieve 35 percent by
2015. 43 

### However, as was discussed above, significant deve lopment effort is underway by a number of battery producers which cou ld impact cost and
overcome other technical concerns. Therefore it wa s assumed that mild hybrids (MHEV, BISG, CISG) and strong hybrids (PSHE V, 2MHEV, PHEV) will use either Li-Ion or NiMH batteries, depending on cost considerations. However, plug-in hybrids will use Li-ion batteries only. Battery usage is
discussed further below. 1) 3) The plug-in hybrid battery pack was sized for a mid -sized car by assuming: the vehicle has a 20 mile all electric ra nge and consumes an average of 300 W-hr per mile; the battery pack can be discharged down to 30 percent depth of discharge; l 

### and the capacity of a new battery pack is 20 percent greater than at end of life ( 

### i.e. , range on a new battery pack is 24 miles). 1) 4) All hybrid systems included a DC/DC converter which was sized to accommodate vehicle electrical loads appropriate fo r increased vehicle
electrification in the time frame considered. 1) 5) High voltage wiring scaled with hybrid vehicle func tionality and could be represented as a fraction of strong hybrid wiring. These ratios were estimates
based on the directional need for increased functio nality as system complexity
increases. 1) 6) All hybrid systems included a supplemental heater t o provide vehicle heating when the engine is stopped; however, in thi s proposal, it is assumed that only half of the vehicles will adapt this tech nology, as discussed further below. Only the strong hybrids included electric a ir conditioning to enable engine stop/start when vehicle air conditioning was requested by the operator.

Furthermore, NHTSA and Ricardo recognized that some strong hybrid systems replaced a conventional transmission with a hybrid- specific transmission, resulting in a cost offset (i.e., a cost credit) for the removal o f a portion of the clutches and gear sets within the transmission. In the MY 2011 rule, the transmission cost in Table 3-11Table
3

- 11 Table 3

- 11 below expressed hybrid transmission costs as a per centage of traditional automatic transmission cost, as described in the 20 08 Martec Report, at $850 direct manufacturing costs ( non-RPE/ICM ) . The method assumed that the mechanical aspect of a power-split transmission with a reduced number of gear sets and clutches resulted in a cost savings of 50 percent ($425) over a convention al transmission with torque converter. For a 2-mode hybrid, the mechanical aspects of the transmission are similar in complexity to a conventional transmission, so no co st savings was appropriate. The plugin hybrid assumed a highly simplified transmission for electric motor drive, thus 25 percent of the base vehicle transmission cost was a pplied (resulting in a $638 credit).

l The GM Volt operates between 30% DOD and 85% DOD. So there is 55% useable DOD, but charge sustaining operation starts at 30% and cycles betwe en 30 and 35% DOD. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering

Field Code Changed

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-56 The NHTSA MY 2011 CAFE final rule discusses in deta il how the hybrid cost estimating methodology uses the information provide d in the tables below to calculate costs for each of the strong hybrid systems used in this proposal. It also includes a stepby-step example for the midsize vehicle mild hybrid systems used in the MY 2011 CAFE
final rule. 44 

### As in that analysis, it is important to understan d that the CISG technology replaces existing mild hybrid systems. m



### NHTSA and EPA in reviewing the above made the follo wing revisions. First, NHTSA and EPA revalidated the component sizes that were estimated for a midsize car for each type of hybrid system as shown in Table 3-11Table 3

- 11 Table 3

- 11 . However, NHTSA and EPA added an additional component-- front engine accessory drive (FEAD), because hybridization often involves revision to th e FEAD design such that certain devices (belts, pulleys, idlers, etc) as well as ot her engine components (alternator, A/C compressor, and starter) may no longer be needed an d can thus be eliminated, or may be de-specified to lower cost alternatives. This is ap plicable to CISG and the strong hybrid technologies, and is intended to account for cost s avings associated with items that changed or are no longer required as a result of th ese technology applications.

m For the incremental CAFE model, before CISG is app lied, the costs for MHEV and BISG are subtracted if they were previously applied. Field Code Changed

### 3-57 Table 3

- 11 3

- 11

. Component Sizes by Hybrid Type for a Midsize Car

Component MHEV

BISG CISG PSHEV 2MHEV PHEV

Primary Motor power, continuous (kW) 3 11 45 45 45 Secondary Motor power, continuous (kW) na na 30 45 30 Primary Inverter power, continuous (kW) 3 11 45 45 45 Secondary Inverter power, continuous (kW) na na 30 45 30 Controls complexity (relative to strong hybrid) 25% 5 0% 100% 100% 100% NiMH Battery Pack capacity (kW-hr) 1 na 1 2 2 na Li-Ion Battery Pack capacity (kW-hr) 1 na 1 2 2 15 DC/DC Converter power (kW) 0.7 2 2 2 2 High Voltage Wiring (relative to strong hybrid) na 50 % 100% 100% 100% Supplemental heating 2 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% Mechanical Transmission (relative to baseline vehic le) 100% 100% 50% 100% 25%

Electric AC No No Yes Yes Yes
Blended Brakes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
FEAD Credit No Yes Yes Yes Yes Charger power, continuous (kW) na na na na 3

2 - Implemented through a reduction in compo nent cost (50%) 1 - Assumes the use of either NiMH or Li-Ion , and not both. Hybrid Type



### Second, the costs estimates of the key components w ere revised. The MY 2011 CAFE final rule was developed at a time when econom ic conditions were significantly different than those that currently exist, a time w hen many of the commodity materials used in the hybrid systems were more expensive than today. These changes in economic conditions were one of the factors leading to some of the cost revisions EPA and NHTSA jointly discussed and made. Differences in estimat es provided by confidential sources to either EPA or NHTSA also played a part in the revis ions. In addition, the agencies applied the new ICM mark-up factors instead of the RPE that was used previously. An appropriate ICM factor (1.45 for most mild and stro ng hybrid technologies) replaces the previous RPE factor (1.5), as discussed in section 3.3.2.2.2. Specifically, the primary and secondary inverter cost per kilowatt were revised d ownward from $10 to $7, the controls cost was revised upward from $100 to $115, the DC/D C converter costs were revised from $100 to $88, the blended brake system that was revised from $400 to $310, and finally the fully learned, high volume production, cost per kilowatt hour (kW-hr) for Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) battery was revised fro m $350 to $320 to match the updated costs for Lithium Ion batteries discussed b elow

. n



### The cost for Lithium Ion (Li-Ion) batteries was als o revised. As previously stated, Li-Ion batteries are being implemented in series pr oduction in model year 2010. Battery technology is changing rapidly in the marketplace t oday, as discussed above, and is expected to continue along this path throughout the rulemaking period. OEMs are now forming relationships with battery manufacturers in an effort to research and develop not only new and improved battery technology, but also more efficient manufacturing

n In the MY 2011 final rule NHTSA had misstated thi s $350 per kW-hr cost as $50 per kW-hr due to a typographical error. Field Code Changed

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-58 processes capable of supporting high volume product ion. Accordingly, as shown in
Table 3-12Table 3

- 12 Table 3

- 12 , the $600 per kW-hr used in the 2011 rule was revi sed downward to $320 per kW-hr , matching that of the NiMH technology

. The revision downward from $600/kW-hr in the 2011 CAFE final rul e to $320/kW-hr in this analysis was done based a study by Deutsche Bank that estima ted Li-Ion battery costs at 300-400
€/kW-hr. 45 

### This was converted to $500/kW-hr then learned twi ce using volume-based learning to arrive at the $320/kW-hr applicable in the 2015 timeframe.

Li-ion batteries were originally restricted to plug -in hybrids only. Recent vehicle introductions confirm either battery technology can be used in any mild or strong HEV application. However, manufacturers are likely to consider cost highly in their selection of battery technology. If Li-ion battery prices re main high, NiMH would be the default battery technology for all hybrid electric vehicles . For plug-in hybrids Li-ion would continue to be required because plug-in hybrids dem and higher energy density than NiMH can provide. Neither the CAFE nor OMEGA model predicts a high penetration of plug-in technology in achieving the proposed standa rds.

Finally, the agencies assessed the cost savings ass ociated with the FEAD c C redit discussed above. This cost was not previously repr esented in the hybrid cost model. As
shown in Table 3-12Table 3

- 12 Table 3

- 12 below, a $100 credit is proposed which offsets directly the costs of the other components specifie d. This is the best approximation of the value of these items, based on NHTSA and EPA engine ering assessment.

Estimates of each key component are shown in Table 3-12Table 3

- 12 Table 3

- 12 below along with the sources of those estimates. T he cost basis estimates assume fully learned, high-volume (greater than 1.2 million unit s per annum) production, and the costs shown are direct manufacturing costs that are not R PE or ICM adjusted. This table does not show a cost applicable to the belt integrated s tarter generator system (BISG) since it is a fixed cost that, like the automatic transmissi on pump cost, is not scaled by subclass as
described later. Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

### 3-59 Table 3

- 12 3

- 12 . Component Cost Basis at High Volumes and Data So urces



### COMPONENT COST BASIS DATA SOURCE Primary Motor ($/kW) $15 Martec 2008 Secondary Motor ($/kW) $15 Primary Inverter ($/kW) $7

Confidential Business Information Secondary Inverter ($/kW) $7

Controls $115

NiMH Battery Pack ($/kW-hr.) $320 TBD EPA 2011 CAFE FRM (with revision) Li-ion Battery Pack ($/kW-hr.) $320 TBD EPA Deutsche Bank 2008 DC/DC Converter (Size: 2kW) $88 Confidential Business Information High Voltage Wiring $200 Martec 2008 Supplemental Heating $42 Mechanical Transmission $850 Martec 2008 (to 4-spd auto) Electric Air Conditioning $450

Confidential Business Information Blended Brakes $310 Charger $100 Automatic Transmission Pump $75 Martec 2008 FEAD Credit $(100) Confidential Business Informatio n

Third, NHTSA and EPA also revised component size/sc aling assumptions for some vehicles (i.e., large trucks). NHTSA and EPA recognized that some manufacturers may choose not to use supplemental cabin heating op ting instead to continue engine operation in the event heat demand occurs; therefor e supplemental heating is specified for only half of the vehicles. Table 3-12Table 3

- 12 Table 3

- 12 above indicates the 50 percent application rate implemented in the hybrid cost est imating methodology reducing the component cost from $84 to $42.

EPA and NHTSA also reviewed the choice of a 3 kW DC /DC converter as a component size input for a midsize vehicle, which r epresented a 250 amp current capability. In retrospect this is a high specifica tion for a midsize vehicle and revised the estimate to a 2 kW DC/DC converter, as shown in Table 3-12Table 3

- 12 Table 3

- 12 above, which would represent a more reasonable 150 amp current capacity.

The scaling factor used for the primary and seconda ry motors and invertors on the large truck and SUV vehicles was revised. As in th e MY 2011 CAFE final rule, a linear extrapolation was used from the midsize vehicle and extended it out to the largest of vehicles, the large truck class. This resulted in projected component sizes that are larger than those used on a commercially realized truck in this vehicle class, the Chevrolet Tahoe two-mode HEV. Accordingly the scaling factor s have been revised for this class (and the agencies have verified scaling factors for the other classes). This more closely approximates the motor and inverter sizes specified in the Tahoe application. For future Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-60 analysis, the agencies are considering whether it m ay be more accurate to use one set of scaling for passenger cars and another different se t for light trucks.

Another revision involves the addition of a stand-a lone higher voltage Start-Stop/ BISG mild hybrid system. NHTSA and EPA determined that by applying a cost increase to the MHEV technology to allow for a voltage incre ase (lead acid batteries) and efficiency improvements to the alternator, the syst em would then approximate the higher voltage Start-Stop /BISG applied by EPA. Based on confidential sources, the estimates provided were first converted to 2007 dollars and t hen reverse learned through two cycles, since volume learning is applicable, to arr ive at a non-RPE/ICM incremental compliance cost to be $229. This cost is applicabl e to all classes that use higher voltage Start-Stop/BISG and is not scaled by any vehicle at tribute.

Component scaling factors for each type of hybrid s ystem are as shown in Table
3-13Table 3

- 13 Table 3

- 13 below.

Table 3

- 13 3

- 13 . Component Scaling Factors applied to Vehicle Cla ss for each Hybrid System



### Component MHEV CISG PSHEV 2MHEV PHEV

Primary Motor Engine displacement Curb

weight Engine power

Secondary Motor na na Curb weight 2



### Primary Inverter Secondary Inverter na na

Controls NiMH Battery Pack na na Li-Ion Battery Pack na Curb weight

DC/DC Converter High Voltage Wiring na Supplemental heating

Mechanical Transmission

Electric AC na na

Blended Brakes na

Charger na na na na Same for all

vehicle classes

(1) 

### For all vehicle classes except for performance cla sses which use Engine Torque

(2) 

### Curb weight used as surrogate for vehicle road loa d

(3) 

### Curb weight used as surrogate for vehicle electric al load Same for all vehicle classes Hybrid Type

Engine displacement Curb weight 1



### Curb weight 3


### Vehicle footprint

Same for all vehicle classes Vehicle footprint

Vehicle footprint Primary motor power Secondary motor power Complexity

Curb weight Field Code Changed

### 3-61 Component MHEV CISG PSHEV 2MHEV PHEV

Primary Motor Engine displacement Curb

weight Engine power

Secondary Motor na na Vehicle mass 2



### Primary Inverter Secondary Inverter na na

Controls NiMH Battery Pack na na Li-Ion Battery Pack na Vehicle mass

DC/DC Converter High Voltage Wiring na Supplemental heating

Mechanical Transmission

Electric AC na na

Blended Brakes na

Charger na na na na Same for all

vehicle classes

(1) 

### For all vehicle classes except for performance cla sses which use Engine Torque

(2) 

### Vehicle mass used as surrogate for vehicle road lo ad

(3) 

### Vehicle mass used as surrogate for vehicle electri cal load Same for all vehicle classes Hybrid Type

Engine displacement Curb weight 1



### Vehicle mass 3


### Vehicle footprint Primary motor power Secondary motor power Complexity

Vehicle mass

Same for all vehicle classes Vehicle footprint

Vehicle footprint



### Regarding the market data file from the MY 2011 CAF E final rule, NHTSA and EPA did not make any revisions to the average vehic le characteristics for each vehicle
subclass as shown in Table 3-14Table 3

- 14 Table 3

- 14 , which defines the average vehicle
characteristics for each vehicle subclass. These c haracteristics were used as the basis of the scaling factors in the CAFE and OMEGA models. EPA used these vehicle specifications solely for the purpose of scaling hy brid vehicle attributes in order to remain consistent with the NHTSA methodology.

Table 3

- 14 3

- 14

. Key Vehicle Characteristics For Each Vehicle Subcla ss for CAFE Model Field Code Changed

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-62 

## Vehicle Subclass Curb Weight
(lbs) Footprint

(ft2) Engine Disp. (L) Engine

Power (hp) Torque (ft-lb)

Subcompact Car 2795 41 1.9 134 133 Compact Car 3359 44 2.2 166 167

Midsize Car 3725 47 2.9 205 206 Large Car 4110 50 3.4 258 248 Performance Subcompact Car 3054 40 2.7 260 260 Performance Compact Car 3516 44 3.0 269 260

Performance Midsize Car 3822 47 3.9 337 318 Performance Large Car 4189 51 4.8 394 388

Minivan 4090 50 3.3 247 242

Small Truck 3413 45 2.6 178 185

Medium Truck 4260 50 3.6 250 256 Large Truck 5366 63 5.0 323 352



## Vehicle Subclass Curb Weight
(lbs) Footprint

(ft2) Engine Disp. (L) Engine

Power (hp) Torque (ft-lb)

Subcompact Car 2795 41 1.9 134 133 Compact Car 3359 44 2.2 166 167

Midsize Car 3725 47 2.9 205 206 Large Car 4110 50 3.4 258 248 Performance Subcompact Car 3054 40 2.7 260 260 Performance Compact Car 3516 44 3.0 269 260

Performance Midsize Car 3822 47 3.9 337 318 Performance Large Car 4189 51 4.8 394 388

Minivan 4090 50 3.3 247 242

Small Truck 3413 45 2.6 178 185

Medium Truck 4260 50 3.6 250 256 Large Truck 5366 63 5.0 323 352

3.4.2.3.3 

## Electrical Power Steering (EPS)

Electric power steering (EPS) provides a potential reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption over hydraulic power steering because of reduced overall accessory loads. This eliminates the parasitic losses associ ated with belt-driven power steering pumps which consistently draw load from the engine to pump hydraulic fluid through the steering actuation systems even when the wheels are not being turned. EPS is an enabler for all vehicle hybridization technologies since it provides power steering when the

### 3-63

engine is off. EPS may be implemented on most vehic les with a standard 12V system. Some heavier vehicles may require a higher voltage system which may add cost and complexity.

In the 2011 final rule NHTSA estimated a NHTSA and EPA estimate 1.0 to 2 1 to
2 percent effectiveness based on the 2002 NAS report, a Sierra Research rep ort, and
confidential manufacturer data. NHTSA and EPA revi ewed these effectiveness and
estimates and found them to be accurate , thus they have been retained for this proposal.

.

Regarding costs, in the MY 2011 CAFE final rule, NH TSA estimated EPS at $105-120 at 1.5 RPE mark-up factor . NHTSA and EPA adjusted these the EPS cost s for the current proposal based on a review of the speci fication of the system . Adjustments were made to include potentially , which could accommodate higher voltage or heavier duty system operation , such as would be required on some hybrid trucks . Accordingly, higher costs were estimated for systems with higher capability. After accounting for the differences in system capability and applying the I CM markup of low complexity technology of 1.11, the estimated costs for this ru lemaking are $106 for a MY 2012 vehicle (2007$). With time-based learning, this co st would be $94 for a MY 2016 vehicle (2007$). As EPS systems are in wide spread usage today, time based learning is deemed applicable.

3.4.2.3.4 

## Improved Accessories (IACC)

The accessories on an engine, including the alterna tor, coolant and oil pumps are traditionally mechanically driven. A reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption can be realized by driving them electrically, and o nly when needed (“on-demand”).

Electric water pumps and electric fans can provide better control of engine cooling. For example, coolant flow from the an electric water pump can be restricted
reduced and the radiator fan can be shut off during engine warm-up cold

- start or cold
ambient temperature conditions which will reduce warm-up time, reduce w arm-up fuel
enrichment

, and reduce parasitic losses.

Indirect benefit may be obtained by reducing the fl ow from the water pump electrically during the engine warm-up period, allo wing the engine to heat more rapidly and thereby reducing the fuel enrichment needed dur ing cold starting of the engine. Further benefit may be obtained when electrificatio n is combined with an improved, higher efficiency engine alternator. Intelligent c ooling can more easily be applied to vehicles that do not typically carry heavy payloads , so larger vehicles with towing capacity present a challenge, as these vehicles hav e high cooling fan loads. o

o In the CAFE model, IACC refers solely to improved engine cooling however EPA has included a high efficiency alternator in this category, as well as improvements to the cooling system.

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-64 NHTSA and EPA jointly reviewed the estimates of 1 t o 2 percent effectiveness
estimates used in MY 2011 rule and found them to be accurate for Improved Electrical
Accessories. NHTSA and EPA also reevaluated the as sumptions from the MY 2011 CAFE final rule. For its analysis, NHTSA simply ad justed the 2011 CAFE final rule costs to reflect the new ICM markup of low complexi ty value of 1.11, resulting in a cost estimate for this rulemaking of $128 at MY 2012 (20 07$). Improved accessory systems are in production currently and thus timer based le arning is applied. For its analysis, EPA considered both an accessory upgrade to a 12 Vo lt system and a combined accessory upgrade with conversion to a 42 Volt syst em. The accessory upgrade itself is estimated to cost $86 in MY 2012 and $76 in MY 2016 (with time-based learning; both in 2007$). The conversion to a 42 Volt electrical system is estimated to cost $97 for a MY 2012 vehicle and $86 for a MY 2016 vehicle (agai n with time-based learning; both in 2007$).

3.4.2.3.5 

## 12V Micro Hybrid (MHEV)

12V Micro-Hybrid (MHEV) systems are the most basic of hybrid systems and offer only the ability to turn the engine off when the vehicle is stopped or potentially during deceleration (i.e. idle stop). Their low co st and adaptability to existing powertrains and platforms can make them attractive for some applications. The conventional belt-driven alternator is replaced wit h a belt-driven, enhanced power starter-alternator and a redesigned front-end acces sory drive system. A conventional 12V gear-reduction starter is retained to ensure re liable cold-weather starting. Also, during idle-stop, some functions such as power stee ring and automatic transmission hydraulic pressure are lost; so electric power stee ring and an auxiliary transmission pump are needed.

Although EPA doesn’t use the 12 V version of this s top-start technology, NHTSA and EPA jointly reviewed the assumptions. The effe ctiveness estimates for this technology ranged from 2.0 to 4.0 percent dependent on whether the vehicle is equipped with a 4, 6 or 8 cylinder engine, with the 4 cylind er engine having the lowest range and the 8 cylinder having the highest. The estimates r eflect the limited capability of 12 volt systems; sources citing higher estimates typically involve higher voltage systems that have increased capability.

For this proposal, the system specifications assume d in the 2011 CAFE final
rule 46 

### were applied (i.e., use of a 3 kW motor and a DC/D C converter) and the hybrid technology cost method produced costs like those in 2011 rule; however, the use of new ICM markups resulted in costs ranging from $288 for Subcompact subclass to $410 for the Large Performance subclass. This technology is not applied to the Large Truck and SUV subclass due to the heavy duty utility requirem ents of these vehicles. Time based learning is considered applicable, and a schematic of the MHEV system is shown in Figure 3-2.

Figure 3-2 Schematic of MHEV type System [Husted, 2 003] Field Code Changed

### 3-65 3.4.2.3.6 

## Higher Voltage Stop-Start/Belt Integrated Starter Generator (BISG)

Higher Voltage Stop-Start and Belt Mounted Integrat ed Starter Generator (BISG) systems are similar to a micro-hybrid system , offering idle-stop functionality except that they utilize larger electric machine an d a higher capacity battery, typically 42 volts or above, thus enabling a limited level of regenerative braking which is generally not applicable to 12 volt systems. The l arger electric machine and battery also enables a limited degree of power assist, whic h MHEV cannot provide. However, because of the limited torque capacity of the belt driven design, these systems have a smaller electric machine, and thus less capability than crank integrated or stronger hybrid systems. These systems replace the conventi onal alternator with a belt-driven starter/alternator and may add electric power steer ing and an auxiliary automatic transmission pump. The limited electrical requirem ents of these systems allow the use of lead-acid batteries or supercapacitors for energ y storage.

The effectiveness estimates used for these technolo gies range from 3.0 to 7.5 percent dependent on vehicle subclass. The CAFE mo del, which applies this effectiveness incrementally to the prior 12 Volt te chnology, uses estimates of 4 falls within the range of 3 to 6 percent. The estimate s are is based on those found in the 2002 NAS and 2004 NESCAFF reports, and confidential manu facturer data.

EPA estimates an incremental compliance cost range of $549 (small car) to $682 (large truck) for a MY 2012 vehicle and including a medium complexity ICM of 1.25 (2007$). With volume-based learning applied, these become $351 (small car) and $437 (large truck) for a MY 2016 vehicle (2007$). The c ost estimate in the CAFE model is incremental to the 12 Volt micro hybrid systems as just noted and therefore is adjusted upwards to $286 to reflect the additional battery c apacity, wiring upgrades, and a larger optimized electric machine only, as discussed above . The $286 reflects volume based learning factors and the ICM medium complexity mark up of 1.25. 

### Engine Motor/ Generator

Trans.

Controller Inverter

Final Drive Wheel

+

- Battery

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-66 3.4.2.3.7 

## Integrated Motor Assist (IMA)/Crank Integrated Star ter Generator (CISG)

IMA is a system developed and marketed by Honda 47 

### and is similar to CISG. They both utilize a thin axial electric motor bolte d to the engine’s crankshaft and connected to the transmission through a torque conv erter or clutch. The axial motor is motor/generator that typically operates above 100 v olts (but lower than the stronger hybrid systems discussed below , which typically operate at around 300 volts ) and can provide sufficient torque for launch as well as gen erate sufficient current to provide significant levels of brake energy recovery. The m otor/generator also acts as the starter for the engine and can replace a typical accessory- driven alternator. Current IMA /CISG systems typically do not launch the vehicle on elec tric power alone, although some commercially available systems can cruise on electr ic power and dual-clutch
IMA /CISG systems capable of all-electric drive are under de velopment. IMA and CISG could be applied to all classes of vehicles. A schematic of the Honda IMA system is shown in Figure 3-3

.

Figure 3-3 Schematic of Honda IMA System [Husted, 2 003]



### NHTSA did not have an equivalent technology to CISG in the 2011 final rule (the ISG technology used in the 2011 rule was envisioned to be less capable than the CISG technology defined here). For the CISG technology NHTSA estimated a net effectiveness range of 16 to 20 percent, relative t o the baseline vehicle and across all vehicle subclasses in this analysis. The CAFE mode l therefore applies an incremental effectiveness of approximately 8.6 to 8.9 percent r elative to the BISG technology and dependent on vehicle subclass except for large truc k and SUV in which case BISG does not apply. Note that the net effectiveness assumpt ions used in this proposal do not include engine downsizing, or any other effectivene ss gains from engine, transmission, or vehicle technologies added to the vehicle by the mo deling process.

For the IMA/ CISG technology NHTSA estimated a total effectiveness range of 16 to 20 percent across the various subclasses . T he CAFE model applies an incremental
effectiveness of between 8.5 and 9 percent depending on the vehicle subclas s. The net Final Drive Engine Motor/

Generator Trans.

+ -



### Battery Controller
Inverter Wheel

### 3-67

effectiveness assumptions do not include or assume any form of engine downsizing, or the application of any additional engine, transmiss ion, or vehicle technology to the vehicle being modeled.

EPA relied on a combination of certification data ( comparing vehicles available with and without a hybrid system and backing out ot her components where appropriate) and manufacturer-supplied information to determine that the effectiveness of these systems in terms of CO 2 

### reduction is 30% for small cars, 25% for large car s, and 20% for minivans and small trucks similar to the range esti mated by NHTSA for the respective
vehicle classes.. The effectiveness for small cars assumes engine downsizing to maintain approximately equivalent performance. The large ca r, minivan, and small truck effectiveness values assume less engine downsizing in order to improve vehicle performance and/or maintain towing and hauling perf ormance.

EPA has estimated these costs, relative to a base e ngine/transmission, as $4,459 (small car) to $6,924 (large truck) for a MY 2012 v ehicle and including a high complexity ICM of 1.45 (2007$). With volume-based learning, these costs become $2,854 and $4,431, respectively, for a MY 2016 vehi cle (2007$). NHTSA has estimated the MY 2012 compliance cost, relative to a BISG bas eline, to range from $2,791 for Subcompact vehicles to $3,611 for Midsize Light Tru ck and Minivan vehicles. These include a high complexity ICM markup factor of 1.45 for this technology. As this technology is still in limited production use, volu me based learning is applied, resulting in lower costs in later years.
NHTSA has estimated a compliance cost range of $2,791 to $4

, 431 in MY 2012 based on the results provided by the hybrid costs e stimating methodology . For the CA FE incremental approach, the costs were $2

, 791 for the Subcompact and $ 5,124 for the Large Truck and SUVs subclass when the high complex ity ICM markup factor of 1.45 is
used (all in 2007$)

. As this technology is still in limited production u se, volume bas ed learning is applied, resulting in lower costs in la ter years.

3.4.2.3.8 

## Power Split Hybrid

The Power Split hybrid (PSHEV) has the ability to m ove the vehicle on electric power only. It replaces the vehicle’s transmission with a single planetary gear and a motor/generator. A second, more powerful motor/gen erator is directly connected to the vehicle’s final drive. The planetary gear splits e ngine power between the first motor/generator and the final drive. The first mot or/generator uses power from the engine to either charge the battery or supply power to the wheels. The speed of the first motor/generator determines the relative speed of th e engine to the wheels. In this way, the planetary gear allows the engine to operate ind ependently of vehicle speed, much like a CVT. The Toyota Prius and the Ford Hybrid Escape are two examples of power split hybrid vehicles.

In addition to providing the functions of idle engi ne stop, subsequent restart and regenerative braking, this hybrid system allows for pure EV operation. The power split

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-68 system provides very good fuel consumption in city driving. During highway cycles, the hybrid functions of regenerative braking, engine st art/stop and optimal engine operation cannot be applied as often as in city driving, and so the effectiveness in fuel consumption is less. Additionally, it is less efficient at hig hway speeds due to the fact that the first motor/generator must be spinning at a relatively hi gh speed and therefore incurs losses. Newer designs incorporate a gear-reduction motor to provide improved high speed efficiency and improved matching of motor torque to engine torque.

The Power Split hybrid also reduces the cost of the transmission, replacing a conventional multi-speed unit with a single planeta ry gear. The electric components are bigger than those in mild hybrid and IMA/CISG confi gurations so the costs are correspondingly higher.

EPA and NHTSA used a combination of manufacturer-su pplied information and a comparison of vehicles available with and without a hybrid system from EPA’s fuel economy test data to determine that the effectivene ss is 23

- 35 19-36 % for the classes to which it is applied. The estimate would depend on w hether engine downsizing is also assumed. As an example, See Table 3-15Table 3

- 15 Table 3

- 15 and Table 3-16Table
3

- 16 Table 3

- 16 , which assume some level of engine downsizing. In the CAFE incremental model, the range of effectiveness used was 23 to 33 percent as engine downsizing is not assumed (and accounted for elsewh ere).

Table 3

- 15 3

- 15 Large Car Power Split Certification Data

Tailpipe CO 2 City Hwy 55/45 comb.

Nissan Altima

3.5L CVT 444 306 38 6

HEV 2.5L PS 317 254 286

Net % difference

- 26%

Toyota Camry
3.0L 5-auto 404 286 355

HEV 2.4L PS 222 234 228

Net % difference -36%

Lexus GS
4.3L 6-auto 493 355 423

HEV 3.5L PS 355 317 341

Net % difference -19%

Table 3

- 16 3

- 16 Small Truck Power Split Certification Data

Tailpipe CO 2 City Hwy 55/45 comb. Ford Escape 4X4

3.0L 4-auto 467 386 423

HEV 2.3L PS 277 306 286

Net % difference

- 32%

Ford Escape 4X2 Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

### 3-69 3.0L 4-auto 444 370 404

HEV 2.3L PS 247 286 261

Net % difference -35%

Toyota Highlander 4X4
3.3L 5-auto 493 370 423

HEV 3.3L PS 286 329 306

Net % difference -28%



### Using the hybrid cost estimating methodology with u pdated component costs, EPA established a compliance cost range of $4,481 ( small cars) to $8,145 (large trucks) relative to the base engine and transmission for a MY 2012 vehicle (all in 2007$). With time-based learning, these costs become $3,967 and $7,210, respectively, for a MY 2016 vehicle (2007$). Using the same methodology, NHTSA established overall PSHEV system costs with electric power steering ( PES EPS ) and improved accessories (IACC) ranging from $5,509 to $11,534 for MY 2012, which l eads to incremental costs in the CAFE model ranging from $1,600 to $6,723 depending on the subclass (all in 2007$).
The estimates were determined with a 1.45 ICM for a high complexity technology. Time-based learning is applicable to the power spli t technology.

3.4.2.3.9 

## 2-Mode Hybrid

The 2-Mode Hybrid (2MHEV) uses an adaptation of a c onventional stepped-ratio automatic transmission which replaces some of the t ransmission clutches with two electric motor/generators allowing the transmission to act like a CVT. The motor/generators control the ratio of engine speed to vehicle speed. The clutches allow the motors to be bypassed improving the transmissio n’s torque capacity and the efficiency for improved fuel economy at highway spe eds. This type of system is used in the Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid.

In addition to providing the hybrid functions of en gine stop and subsequent restart and regenerative braking, the 2MHEV allows for pure EV operation. The two motor/generators allow the engine to be run in effi cient operating zones. The 2-mode system provides significantly reduced CO2 emissions and fuel consumption. The primary motor/generator is comparable in size to th at in the PSHEV system, but the secondary motor/generator is larger. The 2-mode sy stem cost is greater than that for the power split system due to the additional transmissi on complexity and secondary motor sizing.

The battery pack for 2MHEV is assumed to be 300V Ni MH as is used in current 2MHEV systems today however GM recently announced a n agreement with Hitachi to provide Li-ion battery packs for 2012 and later 2MH EVs.

For this proposal the CAFE model considered a range of 23 to 33 percent with a midpoint of 28 percent, assuming no engine downsizi ng to preserve the utility nature of medium and large trucks (e.g., maintaining full tow ing capability even in situations with

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-70 low battery charge) and EPA estimates CO2 emissions reduction effectiveness to be 25 percent for large trucks (LDT3 and LDT4 categories) based on vehicle certification data. EPA estimates an effectiveness of 40 percent for sm aller vehicles.

EPA and NHTSA estimated MY 2012 costs using the upd ated component costs and scaling factors in the hybrid cost estimating m ethodology discussed above. EPA estimated the compliance cost to range from $5,469 for large car to $7,236 for large truck/SUV relative to the base engine/transmission (all in 2007$). NHTSA determined incremental cost estimates ranging from $3,521 to $ 5,779 for light-duty truck applications in the CAFE model. These include the 1.45 ICM markup value for high complexity technology. Given that the CAFE and OME GA models classify vehicles differently, these numbers varied slightly in the m odeling to reflect the different
classification methods of the OMEGA and CAFE models , as described in the individual NHTSA and EPA PRIAs. Volume based learning is appl icable to this technology.

3.4.2.3.10 

## Plug-In Hybrid

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) are very s imilar to Hybrid Electric Vehicles, but with three significant functional dif ferences. The first is the addition of a means to charge the battery pack from an outside so urce of electricity (e.g. the electric grid). Second, a PHEV would have a larger battery pack with more energy storage, and a greater capability to be discharged. Finally, a PH EV would have a control system that allows the battery pack to be significantly deplete d during normal operation.

Table 3-17Table 3

- 17 Table 3

- 17 below, illustrates how PHEVs compare functionally to both hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) and electric vehicles (EV). These characteristics can change significantly within eac h class/subclass, so this is simply meant as an illustration of the general characteris tics. In reality, the design options are so
varied that all these vehicles exist on a continuum with HEVs on one end and EVs on the
other.

Table 3

- 17 3

- 17 Conventional, HEVs, PHEVs, and EVs Compared

Increasing Electrification

Attribute Conventional HEV PHEV EV

Drive Power Engine Blended Engine/Electric Blended Engine/Electric Electric

Engine Size Full Size Full Size or Smaller Smaller or Much
Smaller No Engine

Electric Range None None to Very Short Short to Med ium Medium to Long Battery Charging None On

- Board Grid/On

- Board Grid Only Field Code Changed

### 3-71 Deriving some of their propulsion energy from the e lectric grid provides several advantages for PHEVs. PHEVs offer a significant op portunity to replace petroleum used for transportation energy with domestically-produce d electricity. The reduction in petroleum usage does, of course, depend on the amou nt of electric drive the vehicle is capable of under its duty cycle. [1] 

### PHEVs also provide electric utilities the possibi lity to increase electric generation during “off-peak” peri ods overnight when there is excess generation capacity and electricity prices are lowe r. Utilities like to increase this “base load” because it increases overall system efficienc y and lowers average costs. Utilities are also investigating the use of PHEV and EV batte ries as a source of grid storage capacity to provide ancillary services for grid sta bilization purposes. PHEVs can lower localized emissions of criteria pollutants and air toxics especially in urban areas by operating on electric power. The emissions from th e power generation occur outside the urban area at the power generation plant which prov ides health benefits for residents of the more densely populated urban areas by moving em issions of ozone precursors out of
the urban air shed. Unlike most other alternative fuel technologies, PHEVs can initially use an existing infrastructure for refueling (charg ing and liquid refueling) so investments in infrastructure may be reduced.

In analyzing the impacts of grid-connected vehicles like PHEVs and EVs, the emissions from the electrical generation can be acc ounted for if a full upstream and downstream analysis is desired. While this issue i s being studied on an on-going basis, upstream CO 2 

### emissions are not unique to grid-connected technol ogies and so are not included in this analysis.

PHEVs will be considerably more costly than convent ional vehicles and some other advanced technologies. To take advantage of their capability, consumers would have to be willing to charge the vehicles nightly, and would need access to electric power where they park their vehicles. For many urban dwe llers who may park on the street, or in private or public lots or garages, charging may not be practical. Charging may be possible at an owner’s place of work, but that woul d increase grid loading during peak
hours which would eliminate some of the benefits to utilities of off-peak charging vs. onpeak. Oil savings will still be the same in this c ase assuming the vehicle can be charged fully.

The effectiveness potential of PHEVs depends on man y factors, the most important being the energy storage capacity designe d into the battery pack. To estimate the fuel consumption and tailpipe CO 2 

### reduction potential of PHEVs, EPA has developed an in-house vehicle energy model (PEREGRIN) to esti mate the fuel consumption/CO 2 

### emissions reductions of PHEVs. This model is based on the PERE (Physical Emission Rate Estimator) physics-based model used as a fuel consumption input for EPA’s
MOVES mobile source emissions model [2]



### .

The PHEV small car, large car, minivan and small tr ucks were modeled using parameters from a midsize car similar to today’s hy brids and scaled to each vehicle’s

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-72 weight. The large truck PHEV was modeled separatel y assuming no engine downsizing.
PHEVs can have a wide variation in the All Electric Range (AER) that they offer. Some PHEVs are of the “blended” type where the engine is on during most of the vehicle operation, but the proportion of electric energy th at is used to propel the vehicle is significantly higher than that used in a PSHEV or 2 MHEV. Each PHEV was modeled with enough battery capacity for a 20-mile-equivale nt AER and a power requirement to provide similar performance to a hybrid vehicle. 2 0 miles was selected because it offers a good compromise for vehicle performance, weight, battery packaging and cost. Given expected near-term battery capability, a 20 mile ra nge represents the likely capability that
will be seen in PHEVs in the near-to-mid term. [3]



### To calculate the total energy use of a PHEV, the PH EV can be thought of as operating in two distinct modes, electric (EV) mode , and hybrid (HEV) mode. At the tailpipe, the CO 2 

### emissions during EV operation are zero. The EV mo de fuel economy can then be combined with the HEV mode fuel economy using the Utility Factor
calculation in SAE J1711 to determine a total MPG v alue for the vehicle. (See Table
3-18Table 3

- 18 Table 3

- 18 )

Table 3

- 18 3

- 18 Sample Calculation of PHEV Gasoline-Equivalent CO 2 Reduction

Midsize Car Large Truck EV energy comb (0.55 city / 0.45 hwy) 0.252 kwh/mi 0.429 kwh/mi EV range (from PEREGRIN) 20 miles 20 miles SAE J1711 utility factor 0.30 0.30 HEV mode comb FE (0.55 city / 0.45 hwy) 49.1 mpg 25 .6 mpg

Total UF

- adjusted FE (UF*FCEV + (1

- UF)*FCHEV) 70.1 mpg 36.6 mpg

Baseline FE 29.3 mpg 19.2 mpg Percent FE gain 139% 90%

Percent CO 2 reduction -58% -47%



### Calculating a total fuel consumption and tailpipe C O 2 

### reduction based on model outputs and the Utility Factor calculations results in a 58% reduction for small cars, large cars, minivans, and small trucks. For large trucks , the result is a 47% reduction. The lower improvement is due to less engine downsizing in the large truck class. The CAFE model does not apply this technology to medium and large trucks and SUVs.

Using the hybrid cost estimating model and updated component costs, EPA and
NHTSA determined MY 2012 incremental cost estimates for the CAFE model ranging from $11,527 for a subcompact car to $ 9,187 19,265 for a midsize performance car. This includes the 1.64 ICM markup value for very high co mplexity technology. In the OMEGA model, and relative to a IMA/ISA/BSG, these v alues range from $6,922 for small car to $12,467 for a large truck, and relativ e to power-split hybrid, these values range from $5,423 for small car to $9,643 for large truck (all values for MY 2016 in 2007$). Volume-based learning is applied to plug-i n hybrid costs since this is a newly emerging technology. Field Code Changed

### 3-73



### 3.4.2.4 

## Vehicle Technologies

3.4.2.4.1 

## Mass Reduction

Reducing a vehicle’s mass, or down weighting the ve hicle, reduces decreases fuel consumption by reducing the energy demand that is n eeded to overcome forces resisting motion, and rolling resistance. Manufacturers empl oy a systematic approach to mass
reduction were the net mass reduction is the additi on of a direct component or system mass reduction plus the additional mass savings reduction taken from indirect ancillary systems and components, as a result of full vehicle optimization, effectively compounding the mass savings reductions . Many manufacturers have already announced proposed future products plans reducing the weight of a vehicle body through the use of high strength steel body-in-white, composite body p anels, magnesium alloy front and rear energy absorbing structures reducing vehicle weight sufficiently to allow a smaller, lighter and more efficient engine.

Use of a smaller, lighter engine with lower torque- output subsequently allows the use of a smaller, lighter-weight transmission and d rive line components. The compounded weight reductions of the body, engine an d drivetrain reduce stresses on the suspension components, steering components, wheels, tires and brakes, allowing further reductions in the weight of these subsystems. The reductions in weight for unsprung masses such as brakes, control arms, wheels and tir es further reduce stresses in the suspension mounting points allowing still furtherin g the compounding effect of mass
reductions.

Down-weighting through material substitution is bro adly applicable across all vehicle subsystems including the engine, exhaust sy stem, transmission, chassis, suspension, brakes, body, closure panels, glazing, seats and other interior components, engine cooling systems and HVAC systems. Weight re ductions of 10 percent without the compounding effects account for a 2 to 4 percent fu el consumption and CO2 emissions
reduction



### . When the mass reduction compounding techniques are used, this value is increased to a 6 to 7 percent fuel consumption and CO2 emissions reduction. 48,49,50 

### It is estimated that up to 1.25 kilograms of secondary we ight savings can be achieved for every kilogram of weight saved on a vehicle when al l subsystems are redesigned to take into account the initial primary weight savings. 51,52



### Down-weighting/material substitution can be accompl ished by proven methods
such as:



### • Smart Design: Computer aided engineering (CAE) too ls can be used to better optimize load paths within structures by reducing s tresses and bending moments applied to structures (Figure 3-4 through Figure 3- 6). This allows better optimization of the sectional thicknesses of struct ural components to reduce mass while maintaining or improving the function of the component. Smart designs also integrate separate parts in a manner that redu ces mass by combining Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-74 functions or the reduced use of separate fasteners. In addition, some “body on frame” vehicles are redesigned with a lighter “unib ody” construction.



### • Material Substitution: Substitution of lower densi ty and/or higher strength materials into a design in a manner that preserves or improves the function of the component. This includes substitution of high-stre ngth steels, aluminum, magnesium or composite materials for components cur rently fabricated from mild
steel.



### • Reduced Powertrain Requirements: Reducing vehicle w eight sufficiently allows for the use of a smaller, lighter and more efficien t engine while maintaining or increasing performance. Approximately half of the r eduction is due to these reduced powertrain output requirements from reduced engine power output and/or displacement, changes to transmission and final dri ve gear ratios. The subsequent reduced rotating mass (e.g. transmission, driveshaf ts/halfshafts, wheels and tires) via weight and/or size reduction of components are made possible by reduced torque output requirements.

Using smart design, material substitution and space efficient designs have already been integrated into vehicles as new platforms cycl e into production although net vehicle weight and performance has continued to increase (F igure 3-4).

Figure 3-4: Example of CAE optimization of the des ign and position of the roof rails and front seat cross-member for the “Future Generation Passenger C ompartment.” 53 The thin lines represent Field Code Changed

### 3-75 relative positions for roof bows and front cross-me mbers considered during iterations of the CAE analysis of the vehicle structure. The different c olors given to the structural components represent
differences in sectional material thickness within this particular CAE modeling run.

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-76 Figure 3-5: Example of CAE optimization of a roof-r ail design for the “Future Generation Passenger

Compartment” that reduces component mass by 41%. 53 53

Figure 3-6: Example of CAE optimization of a door- beam design for the “Future Generation Passenger Compartment” that reduces component mass by 57% and reduces part count and assemby. 53 53 Field Code Changed

Formatted: Superscript

Field Code Changed Formatted: Superscript

### 3-77 Figure 3-7: Lightweight, tubular front door intrusi on beams (2007 Civic)



### • Automotive companies have largely used weight savin gs in some vehicle subsystems to offset or mitigate weight gains in ot her subsystems from increased feature content (sound insulation, entertainment sy stems, improved climate control, panoramic roof, etc.).



### • Lightweight designs have also been used to improve vehicle performance parameters by increased acceleration performance or superior vehicle handling and braking.

Many manufacturers have already announced proposed future products plans reducing the weight of a vehicle body through the u se of high strength steel body-inwhite, composite body panels, magnesium alloy front and rear energy absorbing structures reducing vehicle weight sufficiently to allow a smaller, lighter and more efficient engine. Use of a smaller, lighter engine with lower torque-output subsequently allows the use of a smaller, lighter-weight transmi ssion and drive line components. The compounded weight reductions of the body, engine an d drivetrain reduce stresses on the suspension components, steering components, wheels, tires and brakes, allowing further reductions in the weight of these subsystems. The reductions in weight for unsprung masses such as brakes, control arms, wheels and tir es further reduce stresses in the suspension mounting points allowing still further r eductions in weight.

NHTSA in the CAFE model has used a tiered approach using material substitution to reduce mass without considering oth er means of vehicle mass reduction.

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-78 MS1, a 1.5 percent mass reduction, is applicable in any year at refresh or redesign. MS2, a 3.5 to 8.5 percent mass reduction is only availab le in MY 2014 and beyond in an attempt to mimic the product plans’ applications of down-weighting/material substitution in later years. For smaller vehicles MS2 was limit ed to a 3.5 percent mass reduction of down-weighting/material substitution on smaller veh icles and for larger cars and trucks up to 8.5 percent mass reduction.

In the CAFE model, MS2 is cumulative to MS1, as i t is only applied after MS1; therefore the maximum weight reduction that can occ ur for smaller subclass vehicles is 5%, while large cars, truck, and SUVs could experie nce up to a 10% weight reduction. Restricting weight reduction on smaller vehicles to lower limits, and vice versa for larger vehicles, is intended to mitigate or minimize the p otential safety consequences from the modeled down-weighting/material substitution. Maki ng the MS2 technology unavailable until MY 2014 is intended to recognize the lead tim e required to implement platform redesigns that would be necessary for these levels of weight reduction.

NHTSA and EPA estimate that a 10 percent reduction in mass results in a 6.5 percent reduction in fuel consumption while maintai ning equivalent vehicle performance (i.e. 0-60 mph time, towing capacity, etc.) which i s consistent with estimates in the 2002 NAS report

NHTSA and EPA have reviewed three studies of down-w eighting/material substitution and the associated cost. The first, N AS, estimated that vehicle weight could be reduced for approximately $1.50 per pound. (3-4 % reductions in fuel consumption, without engine downsizing, from a 5% reduction in v ehicle weight at a cost of $210- $350. This translates into $1.50 per pound, assumi ng a 3800 pound base vehicle and using the midpoint cost.) Additionally, Sierra Res earch estimates a 10% reduction, with compounding, could be accomplished for a cost of $1 .01 per pound. Finally, MIT estimated that the weight of a vehicle could be red uced by 14%, with no compounding, for a cost of $1.36 per pound. The final cost esti mate is $1.32 per pound and is based on the average of the three referenced studies. Apply ing an ICM factor of 1.11 for a low complexity technology results in a compliance cost of $1.48 per pound. For the vehicle mass reduction technologies, neither volume-based n or time-based cost reductions are applied since many of the materials under considera tion are commodity based.

3.4.2.4.2 

## Low Drag Brakes (LDB)

Low drag brakes reduce the sliding friction of disc brake pads on rotors when the brakes are not engaged because the brake pads are p ulled away from the rotating disc either by mechanical or software designs electric methods . While most passenger cars have already adopted this technology with the stand ardization of electronic brake control, there are indications that this technology is still available for body-on-frame trucks.

.

NHTSA’s MY 2011 CAFE final rule estimated the effec tiveness of LDB to be up to 1 percent, based on confidential manufacturer da ta. NHTSA and EPA have reviewed this estimate and believe it to be applicable for t he NPRM.

### 3-79 NHTSA and EPA have reviewed the cost estimates from the MY 2011 CAFE final rule and have not found any evidence to sugge st that this cost is not a valid cost and have chosen to maintain this estimate. However, th e agencies adjusted the costs to apply the ICM of 1.11, for a low complexity technology. The compliance cost for LDB is estimated to be $63 for MY 2012 through MY 2016 veh icles as no learning effects are applied to this technology..

3.4.2.4.3 

## Low Rolling Resistance Tires (ROLL)

Tire rolling resistance is the frictional loss asso ciated mainly with the energy dissipated in the deformation of the tires under lo ad and thus influences fuel economy
and CO 2 

### emissions. Other tire design characteristics ( 

### e.g. , materials, construction, and tread design) influence durability, traction (both wet and dry grip), vehicle handling, and ride comfort in addition to rolling resistance. A typical low rolling resistance tires
attributes would include: increased tire inflation pressure, material changes , and tire construction with less hysteresis, geometry changes ( 

### e.g. , reduced aspect ratios), and
reduction in sidewall and tread deflection. These changes would generally be accompanied with additional changes to suspension t uning and/or suspension design.

EPA and NHTSA estimate a 1 to 2 percent increase in effectiveness with a 10 percent reduction in rolling resistance, which was based on the 2002 NAS report findings
and consistent with NHTSA’s MY 2011 CAFE final rule estimate. NHTSA and EPA
still believe that this NAS effectiveness estimate to be is valid for this NPRM. Lower rolling resistance tires are widely available today

.

Based on NHTSA’ MY 2011 CAFE final rule and the 200 6 NAS/NRC report, the agencies have estimated the cost for low rolling re sistance tires to be $6 per vehicle. 54 

### This is based on a cost of $1 per tire as estimated by NAS/NRC 2006 report, which is $5 per vehicle, including the spare tire. When applyi ng the ICM low complexity markup factor, of 1.11, results in compliance cost of $6 p er vehicle for MY 2012 through MY 2016 vehicles (2007$). p 

### Due to the commodity based nature of this technol ogy cost learning is not applied.

3.4.2.4.4 

## Front or Secondary Axle Disconnect for Four-Wheel Drive Systems (SAX)

Energy is required to continually drive the front, or secondary, axle in a four wheel drive system even when the system is not requ ired during most operating conditions. This energy loss directly results in i ncreased fuel consumption and CO 2

p Note that the costs developed for low rolling resi stance tires for this analysis do not include the i ncrease in lifetime costs that would be expected at each tire replacement. Instead, the analysis includes only t he upfront increase in costs. The agencies intend to include the lifetime costs in the final analysis.

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-80 emissions. Many part-time four-wheel drive systems use some type of front axle disconnect to provide shift-on-the-fly capabilities ,. The front axle disconnect is normally part of the front differential assembly. As part of a shift-on-the-fly four-wheel drive system, the front axle disconnect serves two basic purposes. First, in two-wheel-drive mode, it disengages the front axle from the front d riveline so the front wheels do not turn the front driveline at road speed, saving wear and tear. Second, when shifting from twoto four-wheel drive "on the fly" (while moving), th e front axle disconnect couples the front axle to the front differential side gear only when the transfer case's synchronizing mechanism has spun the front driveshaft up to the s ame speed as the rear driveshaft. Four-wheel drive systems that have a front axle dis connect typically do not have either manual- or automatic-locking hubs. To isolate the front wheels from the rest of the front driveline, front axle disconnects use a sliding sle eve to connect or disconnect an axle shaft from the front differential side gear. NHTSA and EPA are not aware of any manufacturer offering this technology in the US tod ay on unibody frame vehicles; however, it is possible this technology could be introduced by manufacture r s within the rulemaking time period. there is no reason why this technology could not be introduced by manufacturers within the next o ne to two years

Based on confidential manufacturer data, NHTSA’s MY 2011 CAFE final rule estimated an effectiveness improvement of 1 to 1.5 percent for axle disconnect. NHTSA
and EPA believe this to still be an accurate estima te for this rulemaking.

Regarding costs, the agencies believe the increment al compliance cost from
NHTSA’s MY 2011 final rule to be accurate. However , this was revised by applying the new ICM factor markup, for a low complexity technol ogy, of 1.11. Thus, the compliance cost estimate for this NPRM, is $95 for a MY 2012 v ehicle (2007$). With time-based learning this cost would be $84 for a MY 2016 vehic le (2007$).

3.4.2.4.5 

## Aerodynamic Drag Reduction (AERO)

Many factors affect a vehicle’s aerodynamic drag an d the resulting power required to move it through the air. While these f actors change with air density and the square and cube of vehicle speed, respectively, the overall drag effect is determined by the product of its frontal area and drag coefficien t. Reductions in these quantities can therefore reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions . Although frontal areas tend to be relatively similar within a vehicle class (mostly d ue to market-competitive size requirements), significant variations in drag coeff icient can be observed. Significant changes to a vehicle’s aerodynamic performance may need to be implemented during a redesign (e.g. changes in vehicle shape). However, shorter-term aerodynamic reductions, with a somewhat lower effectiveness, may be achieve d through the use of revised exterior components (typically at a model refresh in mid-cyc le) and add-on devices that currently being applied. The latter list would include revis ed front and rear fascias, modified front

### 3-81

air dams and rear valances, addition of rear deck l ips and underbody panels, and more efficient lower aerodynamic drag exterior mirrors.

The MY 2011 CAFE final rule estimated that a fleet average of 10 to 20 percent total aerodynamic drag reduction is attainable (wit h a caveat for “high-performance” vehicles described below) which equates to incremen tal reductions in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of 2 percent and 3 percent for ca rs and trucks. These numbers are generally supported by confidential manufacturer da ta and public technical literature and therefore NHTSA and EPA are retaining these estimat es, as confirmed by joint review, for the purposes of this proposal.

In the MY 2011 CAFE final rule, NHTSA estimated a r ange from $60 to $116 (1.5 RPE); $40 to $75 (without RPE). .NHTSA and EP A reviewed these estimates and updated these estimates to reflect the new ICM mark up factor of 1.11 for a low complexity technology. In addition, given its low complexity and the facility of its implementation during design and refresh cycles, NH TSA and EPA estimate closer to the lower end of the range is more appropriate. Thus, the cost estimate used in this rulemaking is $48, including the 1.11 ICM markup va lue, for a low complexity technology (2007$). This compliance cost is for a MY 2012 vehicle. With time-based learning, this cost would be $42 for a MY 2016 vehi cle (2007$)



### 3.4.2.5 

## Technologies considered but not included in the fin al rule analysis

NHTSA and EPA have identified six technologies that will not be available in the time frame considered under this rulemaking (though electric vehicles are available today). These technologies while considered were n ot made available in the CAFE and OMEGA models. They are: electric vehicles, camles s valve actuation (CVA), lean burn gasoline direct injection (LBDI), homogeneous charg e compression ignition (HCCI), and electric assist turbocharging and full series hydra ulic hybrids (HHV). NHTSA and EPA will continue to monitor the industry and system su ppliers for progress on these technologies, and should they become more available , consider them for use in future rulemaking activity.

3.4.2.5.1 

## Electric Vehicles

The recent intense interest in Hybrid vehicles and the development of Hybrid vehicle battery and motor technology has helped mak e Electric Vehicle technology more viable than it has ever been. Electric Vehicles (E Vs) require much larger batteries than either HEVs or PHEVs, but the batteries must be of a high-energy and lower-power design to deliver an appropriate amount of power ov er the useful charge of the battery. These high-energy batteries are generally less expe nsive per kilowatt-hour than high-

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-82 power batteries required for hybrids, but the size of the battery pack still incurs a
considerable cost.

Electric motor and power electronics designs are ve ry similar to HEV and PHEV designs, but they must be larger, more powerful, an d more robust since they provide the only motive power for the vehicle. On the other ha nd, the internal combustion engine, fuel system, and possibly the transmission can all be removed for significant weight, complexity and cost savings.

As for PHEVs, two electric vehicles were modeled, a small car and a large car, using the same model (PEREGRIN) and similar assumpt ions. EVs are only considered for these two classes because the larger, heavier v ehicles would require too much battery capacity to be practical in the short-to-mid term a nd the agencies do not see any serious development activities for these vehicle types in t he market.

We chose to model the EVs with a range of 150 miles on the urban driving cycle because this range offers a good compromise in capa bility and battery cost, weight and size with expected technology in the near- to mid-t erm. Using the same methodology as used for PHEVs to calculate gasoline-equivalent fue l consumption, the results obtained
are shown in Table 3-19Table 3

- 19 Table 3

- 19 , below.

Table 3

- 19 3

- 19 Electric Vehicle Gasoline-Equivalent CO2 Reduction

Small Car Large Car EV energy comb (0.55 city / 0.45 hwy) 0.202 kwh/mi 0.244 kwh/mi City cycle EV range 150 miles 150 miles Highway cycle EV range 166 miles 162 miles

Baseline FE 35.5 25.3 mpg Tailpipe CO 2 reduction 100% 100%



### 3.4.2.5.2 

## Camless Valve Actuation

Camless valve actuation relies on electromechanical actuators instead of camshafts to open and close the cylinder valves. W hen electromechanical actuators are used to replace cams and coupled with sensors and m icroprocessor controls, valve timing and lift can be optimized over all conditions. An engine valvetrain that operates independently of any mechanical means provides the increased flexibility for intake and exhaust timing and lift optimization. With it come s increased ability to vary valve overlap, the rapid response required to change betw een combustion operating modes (such as HCCI and GDI), intake valve throttling, cy linder deactivation, and elimination of the camshafts (reduced friction and rotating mas s). This level of control can enable even further incremental reductions in fuel consump tion and CO2 emissions. Field Code Changed

### 3-83 This technology has been under research for many de cades and although progress is being made, NHTSA and EPA have not found evidenc e to support that the technology can be successfully implemented within the 2012 thr ough 2016 timeframe of these regulations. Thus NHTSA and EPA have not estimated cost or effectiveness at this time.

3.4.2.5.3 

## Lean-Burn Gasoline Direct Injection Technology

Direct injection, especially with diesel-like “spra y-guided” injection systems, enables operation with excess air in a stratified o r partially-stratified fuel-air mixture, as a way of reducing the amount of intake throttling. A lso, with higher-pressure fuel injection systems, the fuel may be added late enough during t he compression stroke so as to delay the onset of autoignition, even with higher engine compression ratios or with boosted intake pressure. Taken together, an optimized “lea n-burn” direct injection gasoline engine may achieve high engine thermal efficiency approa ching which approaches that of a diesel engine. European gasoline direct-injectio n engines have implemented stratifiedcharge lean-burn GDI, although at higher NOx emissi ons levels than are allowed at under U.S. Federal Tier 2 emissions standards. Fuel sy stem improvements, changes in combustion chamber design and repositioning of the injectors have allowed for better air/fuel mixing and combustion efficiency. There i s currently a shift from wall-guided injection to spray guided injection, which improves injection precision and targeting towards the spark plug, increasing lean combustion stability. Combined with advances
in NO
x 

### after-treatment, lean-burn GDI engines may eventua lly be a possibility in North
America.

EPA and NHTSA’s current assessment is that the avai lability of ultra-low sulfur (less than 15 ppm sulfur) gasoline is a key technic al requirement for lean-burn GDI engines to meet EPA’s Tier 2 NO
x 

### emissions standards, therefore the technology was not applied in within EPA or NHTSA analyses.

3.4.2.5.4 

## Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition

Gasoline homogeneous charge compression ignition (H CCI), also referred to as controlled autoignition (CAI), is an alternate engi ne operating mode that does not rely on a spark event to initiate combustion. The principl es are more closely aligned with a diesel combustion cycle, in which the compressed ch arge exceeds a temperature and pressure necessary for spontaneous autoignition alt hough it differs form from diesel by having a homogenous fuel/air charge rather than bei ng a diffusion controlled combustion event. The subsequent combustion event is much sho rter in duration with higher thermal efficiency.

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-84 An HCCI engine has inherent advantages in its overa ll efficiency for two main

reasons:



### • The engine is operated with a higher compression ra tio, and with a shorter combustion duration, resulting in a higher thermody namic efficiency, and



### • The engine can be operated virtually unthrottled, e ven at light loads,

Combined, these effects have shown an increase in e ngine brake efficiency (typically 25-28%) to greater than 35% at the high end of the HCCI operating range. 55 

### Criteria pollutant emissions are very favorable dur ing HCCI operation. Lower peak incylinder temperatures (due to high dilution) keep e ngine-out NOx emissions to a minimum – realistically below Tier 2 levels without aftertreatment – and particulates are low due to the homogeneous nature of the premixed c harge.

Due to the inherent difficulty in maintaining combu stion stability without encountering engine knock, HCCI is difficult to con trol, requiring feedback from incylinder pressure sensors and rapid engine control logic to optimize combustion timing, especially considering the transient nature of oper ating conditions seen in a vehicle. Due to the highly dilute conditions under which gasolin e-HCCI combustion is stable, the range of engine loads achievable in a naturally-asp irated engine is somewhat limited. Because of this, it is likely that any commercial a pplication would operate in a “dualmode” strategy between HCCI and spark ignition comb ustion modes, in which HCCI would be utilized for best efficiency at light engi ne loads and spark ignition would be used at higher loads and at idle. This type of dua l-mode strategy has already been employed in diesel HCCI engines in Europe and Asia (notably the Toyota Avensis D-Cat and the Nissan light-duty “MK” combustion diesels).

Until recently, gasoline-HCCI technology was consid ered to still be in the research phase. However, most manufacturers have m ade public statements about the viability of incorporating HCCI into light-duty pas senger vehicles, and have significant vehicle demonstration programs aimed at producing a viable product within the next 5-10

years.

There is widespread opinion as to the CO 2 

### reduction potential for HCCI in the
literature. Based on confidential manufacturer inf ormation, EPA and NHTSA believe s that a gasoline HCCI / GDI dual-mode engine might a chieve 10-12% reduction in CO 2 

### , compared to a comparable SI engine. Despite its pr omise, application of HCCI in light duty vehicles is not yet ready for the market. It is not anticipated to be seen in volume for at least the next 5-10 years, which is concurrent w ith many manufacturers’ public
estimates. NHTSA also noted in its MY 2011 CAFE fi nal rule that the technology will
not be available within the time frame considered b ased on a review of confidential product plan information.

### 3-85 3.4.2.5.5 

## Electric Assist Turbocharging

The Alliance commented in NHTSA’s previous rulemak ing that global development of electric assist turbocharging has no t demonstrated the fuel efficiency effectiveness of a 12V EAT up to 2kW power levels s ince the 2004 NESCCAF study, and stated that it saw remote probability of its ap plication over the next decade. a 

### While hybrid vehicles lower the incremental hardware requ irements for higher-voltage, higherpower EAT systems, NHTSA and EPA agree that signifi cant developmental work is required to demonstrate effective systems and that implementation in significant volumes
will not occur in the 2012 to 2016 time frame consi dered in this rulemaking. Thus, this technology was not included in the NPRM.

3.4.2.5.6 

## Full Series Hydraulic Hybrid

A Full Series Hydraulic Hybrid Vehicle (HHV) is som ewhat similar in concept to a full series electric hybrid vehicle, except that the energy is stored in the form of compressed nitrogen gas and the power is transmitte d in the form of hydraulic fluid. Series HHV technology currently under development b y EPA is capable of a 40% decrease in tailpipe CO 2 

### emissions in the small car, large car, minivan, and small truck classes. In the large truck class, a 30% CO 2 

### reduction is possible. The large truck benefit
is somewhat lower than the other classes because it is assumed that a large truck requires a larger engine to maintain towing and hauling perf ormance after the energy in the high pressure hydraulic accumulator is exhausted. This t echnology is still under development and not yet commercialized however there are techno logy demonstration vehicles in service with UPS in daily package delivery service.



## 3.5 

# Cost and effectiveness tables

The tables representing the Volpe model input files for incremental technology costs by vehicle subclass are presented below. The tables have been divided into passenger cars, performance passenger cars, and lig ht trucks to make them easier to read.



### 3.5.1 NHTSA cost and effectiveness tables

Table 3

- 20 3

- 20 Technology Incremental Cost Estimates for V olpe OLPE model, Performance Passenger Cars

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-86 VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ICM COSTS PER VEHICLE (2007$) BY VEHICLE

SUBCLASS - PASSENGER CARS

Subcompact Compact Midsize Large

Car Car Car Car
Nominal Baseline Engine (For Cost Basis) Inline 4 Inline 4 Inline 4 V6

Low Friction Lubricants 3 3 3 3 Engine Friction Reduction EFR 50 50 50 75 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on SOHC CCPS 45 45 45 90 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on SOHC DVVLS 142 142 142 205 Cylinder Deactivation on SOHC DEACS n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 - 56 VVT - Intake Cam Phasing (ICP) ICP 45 45 45 90 VVT - Dual Cam Phasing (DCP) DCP 38 38 38 83 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on DOHC DVVLD 142 142 142 205 Continuously Variable Valve Lift (CVVL) CVVL 277 277 277 509 Cylinder Deactivation on DOHC DEACD n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 - 56 Cylinder Deactivation on OHV DEACO n.a. n.a. n.a. 170 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on OHV CCPO 45 45 45 45 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on OHV DVVLO 142 142 142 0 - 56

Conversion to DOHC with DCP CDOHC 276 276 276 436 Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) SGDI 251 251 251 326

Combustion Restart CBRST 118 118 118 118 Turbocharging and Downsizing TRBDS 644 644 644 512 Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) Boost EGRB 144 144 144 144 Conversion to Diesel following CBRST

DSLC n.a. n.a. n.a. 1,572 - 1,627 Conversion to Diesel following TRBDS

DSLT n.a. n.a. n.a. 916 - 971 6-Speed Manual/Improved Internals 6MAN 250 250 250 250 Improved Auto. Trans. Controls/Externals IATC 60 60 60 60 Continuously Variable Transmission CVT 250 250 250 250 6/7/8-Speed Auto. Trans with Improved Internals NAUTO 170 170 170 170

Dual Clutch or Automated Manual Transmission DCTAM 73 73 158 158 Electric Power Steering EPS 106 106 106 106 Improved Accessories IACC 128 128 128 128 12V Micro-Hybrid MHEV 288 311 342 367 Belt mounted Integrated Starter Generator BISG 286 286 286 286 Crank mounted Integrated Starter Generator CISG 2,791 3,107 3,319 3,547 Power Split Hybrid PSHEV 1,600 2,133 2,742 3,261 2-Mode Hybrid 2MHEV n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Plug-in Hybrid

PHEV 11,520 - 11,527 14,135 -

14,142 16,136 -

16,215 n.a. Mass Reduction (1.5%) MS1 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 1 Mass Reduction (3.5 to 8.5%) MS2 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51 Low Rolling Resistance Tires ROLL 6 6 6 6 Low Drag Brakes LDB n.a. n.a. n.a. 63 Secondary Axle Disconnect SAX 87 87 87 87

### 3-87

Aero Drag Reduction AERO 48 48 48 48

Perform. Perform. Perform. Perform. Subcomp. Compact Midsize Large

Car Car Car Car

Inline 4 V6 V6 V8

Low Friction Lubricants LUB 3 3 3 3 Engine Friction Reduction EFR 13 13 13 13 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on SOHC CCPS 45 45 45 45 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on SOHC DVVLS 142 103 103 147 Cylinder Deactivation on SOHC DEACS n.a. 0 - 56 0 - 56 0 - 56 VVT - Intake Cam Phasing (ICP) ICP 45 45 45 45 VVT - Dual Cam Phasing (DCP) DCP 38 41 41 41 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on DOHC DVVLD 142 103 103 147 Continuously Variable Valve Lift (CVVL) CVVL 277 254 254 277 Cylinder Deactivation on DOHC DEACD n.a. 0 - 56 0 - 56 0 - 56 Cylinder Deactivation on OHV DEACO n.a. 28 28 24 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on OHV CCPO 45 23 23 23 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on OHV DVVLO 142 0 - 28 0 - 28 0 - 28

Conversion to DOHC with DCP CDOHC 276 218 218 276 Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) SGDI 63 54 54 44

Combustion Restart CBRST 118 118 118 118 Turbocharging and Downsizing TRBDS 644 512 512 1,098 Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) Boost EGRB 144 144 144 144 Conversion to Diesel following CBRST

DSLC n.a. 1,792 -
1,847 1,792 -

1,847 2,675 -

2,731 Conversion to Diesel following TRBDS

DSLT n.a. 1,135 -
1,191 1,135 -

1,191 1,434 -

1,489 6-Speed Manual/Improved Internals 6MAN 250 250 250 250 Improved Auto. Trans. Controls/Externals IATC 60 60 60 60 Continuously Variable Transmission CVT 250 250 250 250 6/7/8-Speed Auto. Trans with Improved Internals NAUTO 170 - 272 170 - 272 170 - 272 170 - 272

Dual Clutch or Automated Manual Transmission DCTAM 73 158 158 158 Electric Power Steering EPS 106 106 106 106 Improved Accessories IACC 128 128 128 128 12V Micro-Hybrid MHEV 314 337 372 410 Belt mounted Integrated Starter Generator BISG 286 286 286 286 Crank mounted Integrated Starter Generator CISG 2,839 3,149 3,335 3,571 Power Split Hybrid PSHEV 3,661 4,018 5,287 6,723 2-Mode Hybrid 2MHEV n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Plug-in Hybrid PHEV 14,987 16,792 19,265 n.a. Material Substitution (1.5%) MS1 1 1 1 1 Material Substitution (3.5 to 8.5%) MS2 1 1 1 1 Low Rolling Resistance Tires ROLL n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Low Drag Brakes LDB n.a. n.a. n.a. 63 Secondary Axle Disconnect SAX 87 87 87 87 Aero Drag Reduction AERO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

### VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ICM COSTS PER VEHICLE ($) BY VEHICLE

TECHNICAL CLASS - PERFORMANCE PASSENGER CARS

Nominal Baseline Engine (For Cost Basis)

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-88 Table 3

- 21 3

- 21

. Technology Incremental Cost Estimates for V olpe OLPE model, Performance Passenger cars Light Trucks



### VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ICM COSTS PER VEHICLE (2007$) BY VEHICLE

SUBCLASS - PERFORMANCE PASSENGER CARS

Perform. Perform. Perform. Perform. Subcomp. Compact Midsize Large

Car Car Car Car Nominal Baseline Engine (For Cost Basis) Inline 4 V6 V6 V8

Low Friction Lubricants LUB 3 3 3 3 Engine Friction Reduction EFR 50 75 75 101 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on SOHC CCPS 45 90 90 90 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on SOHC DVVLS 142 205 205 293 Cylinder Deactivation on SOHC DEACS n.a. 0 - 56 0 - 56 0 - 56 VVT - Intake Cam Phasing (ICP) ICP 45 90 90 90 VVT - Dual Cam Phasing (DCP) DCP 38 83 83 82 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on DOHC DVVLD 142 205 205 293 Continuously Variable Valve Lift (CVVL) CVVL 277 509 509 555 Cylinder Deactivation on DOHC DEACD n.a. 0 - 56 0 - 56 0 - 56 Cylinder Deactivation on OHV DEACO n.a. 170 170 190 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on OHV CCPO 45 45 45 45 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on OHV DVVLO 142 0 - 56 0 - 56 0 - 56

Conversion to DOHC with DCP CDOHC 276 436 436 552 Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) SGDI 251 326 326 353

Combustion Restart CBRST 118 118 118 118 Turbocharging and Downsizing TRBDS 644 512 512 1,098 Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) Boost EGRB 144 144 144 144 Conversion to Diesel following CBRST

DSLC n.a. 1,572 - 1,627 1,572 -

1,627 2,331 -

2,377 Conversion to Diesel following TRBDS

DSLT n.a. 916 - 971 916 - 971 1,090 - 1,145 6-Speed Manual/Improved Internals 6MAN 250 250 250 250 Improved Auto. Trans. Controls/Externals IATC 60 60 60 60 Continuously Variable Transmission CVT 250 250 250 250 6/7/8-Speed Auto. Trans with Improved Internals NAUTO 170

- 272 170

- 272 170

- 272 170

- 272

Dual Clutch or Automated Manual Transmission DCTAM 73 158 158 158 Electric Power Steering EPS 106 106 106 106 Improved Accessories IACC 128 128 128 128 12V Micro-Hybrid MHEV 314 372 372 410 Belt mounted Integrated Starter Generator BISG 286 286 286 286 Crank mounted Integrated Starter Generator CISG 2,839 3,335 3,149 3,571 Power Split Hybrid

PSHEV 3,661 5,106 - 5,287 3,838 -

4,018 6,543 -

6723 2-Mode Hybrid 2MHEV n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Plug-in Hybrid

PHEV 14,891 - 14,993 19,085 -

19,265 16,612 -

16,714 n.a.

### 3-89

Mass Reduction (1.5%) MS1 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51 Mass Reduction (3.5 to 8.5%) MS2 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51 Low Rolling Resistance Tires ROLL n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Low Drag Brakes LDB n.a. n.a. n.a. 63 Secondary Axle Disconnect SAX 87 87 87 87 Aero Drag Reduction AERO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-90 Small Midsize Large

LT LT LT LT

V6 Inline 4 V6 V8

Low Friction Lubricants LUB 3 3 3 3 Engine Friction Reduction EFR 13 13 13 13 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on SOHC CCPS 45 45 45 45 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on SOHC DVVLS 103 142 103 147 Cylinder Deactivation on SOHC DEACS 0 - 56 n.a. 0 - 56 0 - 56 VVT - Intake Cam Phasing (ICP) ICP 45 45 45 45 VVT - Dual Cam Phasing (DCP) DCP 41 38 41 41 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on DOHC DVVLD 103 142 103 147 Continuously Variable Valve Lift (CVVL) CVVL 254 277 254 277 Cylinder Deactivation on DOHC DEACD 0 - 56 n.a. 0 - 56 0 - 56 Cylinder Deactivation on OHV DEACO 28 n.a. 28 24 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on OHV CCPO 23 45 23 23 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on OHV DVVLO 0 - 28 142 0 - 28 0 - 28

Conversion to DOHC with DCP CDOHC 218 276 218 276 Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) SGDI 54 63 54 44

Combustion Restart CBRST 118 118 118 118 Turbocharging and Downsizing TRBDS 512 644 512 1,098 Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) Boost EGRB 144 144 144 144 Conversion to Diesel following CBRST

DSLC 1,792 -
1,847 n.a. 1,792 -

1,847 2,675 -

2,731 Conversion to Diesel following TRBDS

DSLT 1,135 -
1,191 n.a. 1,135 -

1,191 1,434 -

1,489 6-Speed Manual/Improved Internals 6MAN 250 250 250 250 Improved Auto. Trans. Controls/Externals IATC 60 60 60 60 Continuously Variable Transmission CVT 250 250 250 250 6/7/8-Speed Auto. Trans with Improved Internals NAUTO 170 170 170 - 272 170 - 272

Dual Clutch or Automated Manual Transmission DCTAM 158 73 158 158 Electric Power Steering EPS 106 106 106 106 Improved Accessories IACC 128 128 128 n.a. 12V Micro-Hybrid MHEV 367 325 376 n.a. Belt mounted Integrated Starter Generator BISG 286 286 286 n.a. Crank mounted Integrated Starter Generator CISG 3,547 3,141 3,611 4,386 Power Split Hybrid

PSHEV 3,261 2,377 3,462 -
3,897 n.a. 2-Mode Hybrid 2MHEV n.a. 3,521 4,764 - 5,098 5,678 -

5,779 Plug-in Hybrid PHEV 18,648 14,662 n.a. n.a. Material Substitution (1.5%) MS1 1 1 1 1 Material Substitution (3.5 to 8.5%) MS2 1 1 1 1 Low Rolling Resistance Tires ROLL 6 6 6 6 Low Drag Brakes LDB 63 n.a. 63 63 Secondary Axle Disconnect SAX 87 87 87 87 Aero Drag Reduction AERO 48 48 48 48 

### VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ICM COSTS PER VEHICLE ($) BY VEHICLE

TECHNICAL CLASS - LIGHT TRUCKS

Nominal Baseline Engine (For Cost Basis)



### The tables representing the Volpe model input files for incremental technology effectiveness values by vehicle subclass are presen ted below. The tables have been

### 3-91

divided into passenger cars, performance passenger cars, and light trucks to make them
easier to read.

Table 3

- 22 3

- 22

. Technology Incremental Cost Estimates for V olpeOLPE model, Light
Trucks Technology Incremental Effectiveness Estimates for VOLP E model , Passenger Cars



### VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ICM COSTS PER VEHICLE (2007$) BY VEHICLE
SUBCLASS - LIGHT TRUCKS

Minivan Small Midsize Large

LT LT LT LT
Nominal Baseline Engine (For Cost Basis) V6 Inline 4 V6 V8

Low Friction Lubricants LUB 3 3 3 3 Engine Friction Reduction EFR 75 50 75 101 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on SOHC CCPS 90 45 90 90 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on SOHC DVVLS 205 142 205 293 Cylinder Deactivation on SOHC DEACS 0 - 56 n.a. 0 - 56 0 - 56 VVT - Intake Cam Phasing (ICP) ICP 90 45 90 90 VVT - Dual Cam Phasing (DCP) DCP 83 38 83 83 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on DOHC DVVLD 205 142 205 293 Continuously Variable Valve Lift (CVVL) CVVL 509 277 509 555 Cylinder Deactivation on DOHC DEACD 0 - 56 n.a. 0 - 56 0 - 56 Cylinder Deactivation on OHV DEACO 170 n.a. 170 190 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on OHV CCPO 45 45 45 45 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on OHV DVVLO 0 - 56 142 0 - 56 0 - 56

Conversion to DOHC with DCP CDOHC 436 276 436 552 Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) SGDI 326 251 326 353

Combustion Restart CBRST 118 118 118 118 Turbocharging and Downsizing TRBDS 512 644 512 1,098 Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) Boost EGRB 144 144 144 144 Conversion to Diesel following CBRST

DSLC 1,572 - 1,627 n.a. 1,572 -

1,627 2,331 -

2,387 Conversion to Diesel following TRBDS

DSLT 916 - 971 n.a. 916 - 971 1,090 - 1,145 6-Speed Manual/Improved Internals 6MAN 250 250 250 250 Improved Auto. Trans. Controls/Externals IATC 60 60 60 60 Continuously Variable Transmission CVT 250 250 250 250 6/7/8-Speed Auto. Trans with Improved Internals NAUTO 170 170 170 - 272 170 - 272

Dual Clutch or Automated Manual Transmission DCTAM 158 73 158 158 Electric Power Steering EPS 106 106 106 106 Improved Accessories IACC 128 128 128 n.a. 12V Micro-Hybrid MHEV 367 325 376 n.a. Belt mounted Integrated Starter Generator BISG 286 286 286 n.a. Crank mounted Integrated Starter Generator CISG 3,547 3,141 3,611 5,124 Power Split Hybrid

PSHEV 3,261 2,377 - 2,384 3,282 -

3,462 n.a.

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-92 2-Mode Hybrid

2MHEV n.a. 3,521 4,663 - 4,764 5,678 -

5,779 Plug-in Hybrid PHEV n.a. 14,589 n.a. n.a. Mass Reduction (1.5%) MS1 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51 Mass Reduction (3.5 to 8.5%) MS2 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51 Low Rolling Resistance Tires ROLL 6 6 6 6 Low Drag Brakes LDB 63 n.a. 63 63 Secondary Axle Disconnect SAX 87 87 87 87 Aero Drag Reduction AERO 48 48 48 48

Subcompact Compact Midsize Large

Car Car Car Car


### Inline 4 Inline 4 Inline 4 V6

Low Friction Lubricants LUB 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Engine Friction Reduction EFR 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on SOHC CCPS 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on SOHC DVVLS 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 Cylinder Deactivation on SOHC DEACS n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.5 - 3.0 VVT - Intake Cam Phasing (ICP) ICP 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 VVT - Dual Cam Phasing (DCP) DCP 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on DOHC DVVLD 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 Continuously Variable Valve Lift (CVVL) CVVL 1.5 - 3.5 1.5 - 3.5 1.5 - 3.5 1.5 - 3.5 Cylinder Deactivation on DOHC DEACD n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 - 0.5 Cylinder Deactivation on OHV DEACO n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.9 - 5.5 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on OHV CCPO 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on OHV DVVLO 0.5 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.5

Conversion to DOHC with DCP CDOHC 1.0 - 2.5 1.0 - 2.5 1.0 - 2.5 1.0 - 2.5 Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) SGDI 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0

Combustion Restart CBRST 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 2.5 Turbocharging and Downsizing TRBDS 4.2 - 4.8 4.2 - 4.8 4.2 - 4.8 1.8 - 1.9 Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) Boost EGRB 3.5 - 4.0 3.5 - 4.0 3.5 - 4.0 3.5 - 4.0 Conversion to Diesel following CBRST DSLC n.a. n.a. n.a. 10.8 - 11.7 Conversion to Diesel following TRBDS DSLT n.a. n.a. n.a. 5.3 - 6.9 6-Speed Manual/Improved Internals 6MAN 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Improved Auto. Trans. Controls/Externals IATC 1.5 - 2.5 1.5 - 2.5 1.5 - 2.5 1.5 - 2.5 Continuously Variable Transmission CVT 0.7 - 2.0 0.7 - 2.0 0.7 - 2.0 0.7 - 2.0 6/7/8-Speed Auto. Trans with Improved Internals NAUTO 1.4 - 3.4 1.4 - 3.4 1.4 - 3.4 1.4 - 3.4

Dual Clutch or Automated Manual Transmission DCTAM 5.5 - 7.5 5.5 - 7.5 2.7 - 4.1 2.7 - 4.1 Electric Power Steering EPS 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 Improved Accessories IACC 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 12V Micro-Hybrid MHEV 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.5 - 3.5 Belt mounted Integrated Starter Generator BISG 4.0 - 6.0 4.0 - 6.0 4.0 - 6.0 3.5 - 5.5 Crank mounted Integrated Starter Generator CISG 8.6 - 8.9 8.6 - 8.9 8.6 - 8.9 8.6 - 8.9 Power Split Hybrid PSHEV 6.3 - 12.4 6.3 - 12.4 6.3 - 12.4 6.3 - 12.4 2-Mode Hybrid 2MHEV n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Plug-in Hybrid PHEV 45.2 - 47.7 45.2 - 47.7 45.2 - 47.7 n.a. Material Substitution (1.5%) MS1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Material Substitution (3.5 to 8.5%) MS2 2.3 2.3 3.9 5.6 Low Rolling Resistance Tires ROLL 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 Low Drag Brakes LDB n.a. n.a. 0.5 - 1.0 0.5 - 1.0 Secondary Axle Disconnect SAX 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 Aero Drag Reduction AERO 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 

### VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY INCREMENTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION REDUCTION (-%)

BY VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY CLASS - PASSANGER CAR

Nominal Baseline Engine (For Cost Basis)

### 3-93



### Table 3

- 23 3

- 23

. 

### Technology Incremental Effectiveness Estimates for V olpeOLPE model, Passenger Cars 

### Component Technology Incremental Effectiveness Estimates

for VOLPE model , Performance Cars

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY INCREMENTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION RED UCTION

(-%) BY VEHICLE SUBCLASS - PASS EA NGER CAR

Subcompact Compact Midsize Large

Car Car Car Car



### Nominal Baseline Engine (For Cost Basis) Inline 4 Inline 4 Inline
4 V6

Low Friction Lubricants LUB 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Engine Friction Reduction EFR 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on
SOHC CCPS 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on
SOHC DVVLS 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 Cylinder Deactivation on SOHC DEACS n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.5

- 3.0 VVT - Intake Cam Phasing (ICP) ICP 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 VVT - Dual Cam Phasing (DCP) DCP 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on
DOHC DVVLD 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 Continuously Variable Valve Lift (CVVL) CVVL 1.5

- 3 .5 1.5

- 3.5 1.5

- 3.5 1.5

- 3.5 Cylinder Deactivation on DOHC DEACD n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 - 0.5 Cylinder Deactivation on OHV DEACO n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.9 - 5.5 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on OHV CCPO 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on
OHV DVVLO 0.5 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.5

Conversion to DOHC with DCP CDOHC 1.0 - 2.5 1.0 - 2.5 1.0 - 2.5 1.0 - 2.5 Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) SGDI 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0
Combustion Restart CBRST 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 2.5 Turbocharging and Downsizing TRBDS 4.2 - 4.8 4.2 - 4.8 4.2 - 4.8 1.8 - 1.9 Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) Boost EGRB 3.5 - 4.0 3.5 - 4.0 3.5 - 4.0 3.5 - 4.0 Conversion to Diesel following CBRST
DSLC n.a. n.a. n.a. 10.8 -
11.7 Conversion to Diesel following TRBDS DSLT n.a. n.a. n.a. 5.3 - 6.9 6-Speed Manual/Improved Internals 6MAN 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Improved Auto. Trans. Controls/Externals IATC 1.5 - 2.5 1.5 - 2.5 1.5 - 2.5 1.5 - 2.5 Continuously Variable Transmission CVT 0.7 - 2.0 0.7 - 2.0 0.7 - 2.0 0.7 - 2.0 6/7/8-Speed Auto. Trans with Improved
Internals NAUTO 1.4

- 3.4 1.4

- 3.4 1.4

- 3.4 1.4

- 3.4
Dual Clutch or Automated Manual
Transmission DCTAM 2.7 - 4.1 2.7 - 4.1 2.7 - 4.1 2.7 - 4.1 Electric Power Steering EPS 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 Improved Accessories IACC 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 12V Micro-Hybrid MHEV 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.5 - 3.5 Belt mounted Integrated Starter Generator BISG 4.0 - 6.0 4.0 - 6.0 4.0 - 6.0 3.5 - 5.5 Crank mounted Integrated Starter Generator CISG 8.6 - 8.9 8.6 - 8.9 8.6 - 8.9 8.7 - 8.9 Power Split Hybrid
PSHEV 6.3 - 12.4 6.3 - 12.4 6.3 -
12.4 6.3 -

12.4

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-94 2-Mode Hybrid 2MHEV n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Plug-in Hybrid

PHEV 45.2 - 47.7 45.2 -
47.7 45.2 -

47.7 n.a. Mass Reduction (1.5%) MS1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mass Reduction (3.5 to 8.5%) MS2 2.3 2.3 3.9 5.6 Low Rolling Resistance Tires ROLL 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 Low Drag Brakes LDB n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.5 - 1.0 Secondary Axle Disconnect SAX 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 Aero Drag Reduction AERO 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0

Perform. Perform. Perform. Perform. Subcomp. Compact Midsize Large

Car Car Car Car

Inline 4 V6 V6 V8

Low Friction Lubricants LUB 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Engine Friction Reduction EFR 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on SOHC CCPS 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on SOHC DVVLS 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 Cylinder Deactivation on SOHC DEACS n.a. 2.5 - 3.0 2.5 - 3.0 2.5 - 3.0 VVT - Intake Cam Phasing (ICP) ICP 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 VVT - Dual Cam Phasing (DCP) DCP 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on DOHC DVVLD 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 Continuously Variable Valve Lift (CVVL) CVVL 1.5 - 3.5 1.5 - 3.5 1.5 - 3.5 1.5 - 3.5 Cylinder Deactivation on DOHC DEACD n.a. 0.0 - 0.5 0.0 - 0.5 0.0 - 0.5 Cylinder Deactivation on OHV DEACO n.a. 3.9 - 5.5 3.9 - 5.5 3.9 - 5.5 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on OHV CCPO 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on OHV DVVLO 0.5 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.5

Conversion to DOHC with DCP CDOHC 1.0 - 2.5 1.0 - 2.5 1.0 - 2.5 1.0 - 2.5 Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) SGDI 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0

Combustion Restart CBRST 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 2.5 Turbocharging and Downsizing TRBDS 4.2 - 4.8 1.8 - 1.9 1.8 - 1.9 1.8 - 1.9 Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) Boost EGRB 3.5 - 4.0 3.5 - 4.0 3.5 - 4.0 3.5 - 4.0 Conversion to Diesel following CBRST DSLC n.a. 10.8 - 11.7 10.8 - 11.7 10.8 - 11.7 Conversion to Diesel following TRBDS DSLT n.a. 5.3 - 6.9 5.3 - 6.9 5.3 - 6.9 6-Speed Manual/Improved Internals 6MAN 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Improved Auto. Trans. Controls/Externals IATC 1.5 - 2.5 1.5 - 2.5 1.5 - 2.5 1.5 - 2.5 Continuously Variable Transmission CVT 0.7 - 2.0 0.7 - 2.0 0.7 - 2.0 n.a. 6/7/8-Speed Auto. Trans with Improved Internals NAUTO 1.4 - 3.4 1.4 - 3.4 1.4 - 3.4 1.4 - 3.4

Dual Clutch or Automated Manual Transmission DCTAM 5.5 - 7.5 2.7 - 4.1 2.7 - 4.1 2.7 - 4.1 Electric Power Steering EPS 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 Improved Accessories IACC 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 12V Micro-Hybrid MHEV 2.0 - 3.0 2.5 - 3.5 2.5 - 3.5 3.0 - 4.0 Belt mounted Integrated Starter Generator BISG 4.0 - 6.0 3.5 - 5.5 3.5 - 5.5 3.5 - 5.5 Crank mounted Integrated Starter Generator CISG 8.6 - 8.9 8.7 - 8.9 8.7 - 8.9 8.6 - 8.9 Power Split Hybrid PSHEV 6.3 - 12.4 6.3 - 12.4 6.3 - 12.4 6.3 - 12.4 2-Mode Hybrid 2MHEV n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Plug-in Hybrid PHEV 45.2 - 47.7 45.2 - 47.7 45.2 - 47.7 n.a. Material Substitution (1.5%) MS1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Material Substitution (3.5 to 8.5%) MS2 2.3 2.3 3.9 5.6 Low Rolling Resistance Tires ROLL n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Low Drag Brakes LDB n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.5 - 1.0 Secondary Axle Disconnect SAX 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 Aero Drag Reduction AERO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Nominal Baseline Engine (For Cost Basis) 

### VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY INCREMENTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION REDUCTION (-%) BY

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY CLASS - PERFORMANCE PASSANGER C AR

### 3-95 Table 3

- 24 3

- 24

. 

### Component Technology Incremental Effectiveness Esti mates for
V olpeOLPE model, Performance Cars Component Technology Incremental Effectiveness Estimates for VOLPE model, Light Trucks 

### VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY INCREMENTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION RED UCTION

(

- %) BY VEHICLE SUBCLASS

- PASSANGER CAR

Subcompact Compact Midsize Large

Car Car Car Car 

### Nominal Baseline Engine (For Cost Basis) Inline 4 Inline 4 Inline
4 V6

Low Friction Lubricants LUB 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Engine Friction Reduction EFR 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0

VVT

- Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on
SOHC CCPS 1.0

- 3.0 1.0

- 3.0 1.0

- 3.0 1.0

- 3.0

Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on
SOHC DVVLS 1.0

- 3.0 1.0

- 3.0 1.0

- 3.0 1.0

- 3.0

Cylinder Deactivation on SOHC DEACS n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.5

- 3.0

VVT

- Intake Ca m Phasing (ICP) ICP 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0

VVT

- Dual Cam Phasing (DCP) DCP 2.0

- 3.0 2.0

- 3.0 2.0

- 3.0 2.0

- 3.0 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on
DOHC DVVLD 1.0

- 3.0 1.0

- 3.0 1.0

- 3.0 1.0

- 3.0

Continuously Variable Valve Li ft (CVVL) CVVL 1.5

- 3.5 1.5

- 3.5 1.5

- 3.5 1.5

- 3.5 Cylinder Deactivation on DOHC DEACD n.a. n.a. n.a. 0

- 0.5 Cylinder Deactivation on OHV DEACO n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.9

- 5.5

VVT

- Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on OHV CCPO 1.0

- 1.5 1.0

- 1.5 1.0

- 1.5 1.0

- 1.5 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on
OHV DVVLO 0.5

- 2.5 0.5

- 2.5 0.5

- 2.5 0.5

- 2.5

Conversion to DOHC with DCP CDOHC 1.0

- 2.5 1.0

- 2.5 1.0

- 2.5 1.0

- 2.5 Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) SGDI 2.0

- 3.0 2.0

- 3.0 2.0

- 3.0 2.0

- 3.0

Combustion Restart CBRST 2.0

- 2.5 2.0

- 2.5 2.0

- 2.5 2.0

- 2.5 Turbocharging and Downsizing TRBDS 4.2

- 4.8 4.2

- 4.8 4.2

- 4.8 1.8

- 1.9 Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) Boost EGRB 3.5

- 4.0 3.5

- 4.0 3.5

- 4.0 3.5

- 4.0

Conversion to Diesel f

ollowing CBRST DSLC n.a. n.a. n.a. 10.8

- 11.7 Conversion to Diesel following TRBDS DSLT n.a. n.a. n.a. 5.3

- 6.9

6

- Speed Manual/Improved Internals 6MAN 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Improved Auto. Trans. Controls/Externals IATC 1.5

- 2.5 1.5

- 2.5 1.5

- 2.5 1.5

- 2. 5 Continuously Variable Transmission CVT 0.7

- 2.0 0.7

- 2.0 0.7

- 2.0 0.7

- 2.0

6/7/8

- Speed Auto. Trans with Improved
Internals NAUTO 1.4

- 3.4 1.4

- 3.4 1.4

- 3.4 1.4

- 3.4

Dual Clutch or Automated Manual
Transmission DCTAM 2.7

- 4.1 2.7

- 4.1 2.7

- 4 .1 2.7

- 4.1

Electric Power Steering EPS 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0 Improved Accessories IACC 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0

12V Micro

- Hybrid MHEV 2.0

- 3.0 2.0

- 3.0 2.0

- 3.0 2.5

- 3.5 Formatted Table

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-96 Belt mounted Integrated Starter Generator B ISG 4.0

- 6.0 4.0

- 6.0 4.0

- 6.0 3.5

- 5.5 Crank mounted Integrated Starter Generator CISG 8.6

- 8.9 8.6

- 8.9 8.6

- 8.9 8.7

- 8.9 Power Split Hybrid PSHEV 6.3

- 12.4 6.3

- 12.4 6.3

- 12.4 6.3

-

12.4
2

- Mode Hybrid 2MHEV n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Plug

- in Hyb rid PHEV 45.2

- 47.7 45.2

- 47.7 45.2

-

47.7 n.a.

Mass Reduction (1.5%) MS1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mass Reduction (3.5 to 8.5%) MS2 2.3 2.3 3.9 5.6 Low Rolling Resistance Tires ROLL 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0 Low Drag Brakes LDB n.a. n.a. n.a. 0. 5

- 1.0 Secondary Axle Disconnect SAX 1.0

- 1.5 1.0

- 1.5 1.0

- 1.5 1.0

- 1.5 Aero Drag Reduction AERO 2.0

- 3.0 2.0

- 3.0 2.0

- 3.0 2.0

- 3.0



### VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY INCREMENTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION RED UCTION (-%) BY VEHICLE SUBCLASS - PERFORMANCE PASSENGER CAR

Perform. Perform. Perform. Perform. Subcomp. Compact Midsize Large

Car Car Car Car Nominal Baseline Engine (For Cost Basis) Inline 4 V6 V6 V8
Low Friction Lubricants LUB 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Engine Friction Reduction EFR 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on
SOHC CCPS 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on
SOHC DVVLS 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 Cylinder Deactivation on SOHC DEACS n.a. 2.5 - 3.0 2.5 - 3.0 2.5 - 3.0 VVT - Intake Cam Phasing (ICP) ICP 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 VVT - Dual Cam Phasing (DCP) DCP 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on
DOHC DVVLD 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 Continuously Variable Valve Lift (CVVL) CVVL 1.5 - 3.5 1.5 - 3.5 1.5 - 3.5 1.5 - 3.5 Cylinder Deactivation on DOHC DEACD n.a. 0.0 - 0.5 0.0 - 0.5 0.0 - 0.5 Cylinder Deactivation on OHV DEACO n.a. 3.9 - 5.5 3.9 - 5.5 3.9 - 5.5 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on OHV CCPO 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on
OHV DVVLO 0.5 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.5

Conversion to DOHC with DCP CDOHC 1.0 - 2.5 1.0 - 2.5 1.0 - 2.5 1.0 - 2.5 Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) SGDI 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0
Combustion Restart CBRST 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 2.5 Turbocharging and Downsizing TRBDS 4.2 - 4.8 1.8 - 1.9 1.8 - 1.9 1.8 - 1.9 Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) Boost EGRB 3.5 - 4.0 3.5 - 4.0 3.5 - 4.0 3.5 - 4.0 Conversion to Diesel following CBRST
DSLC n.a. 10.8 -
11.7 10.8 -

11.7 10.8 -

11.7 Conversion to Diesel following TRBDS DSLT n.a. 5.3 - 6.9 5.3 - 6.9 5.3 - 6.9 6-Speed Manual/Improved Internals 6MAN 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Improved Auto. Trans. Controls/Externals IATC 1.5 - 2.5 1.5 - 2.5 1.5 - 2.5 1.5 - 2.5 Continuously Variable Transmission CVT 0.7 - 2.0 0.7 - 2.0 0.7 - 2.0 n.a. 6/7/8-Speed Auto. Trans with Improved
Internals NAUTO 1.4 - 3.4 1.4 - 3.4 1.4 - 3.4 1.4 - 3.4

### 3-97

Dual Clutch or Automated Manual
Transmission DCTAM 2.7 - 4.1 2.7 - 4.1 2.7 - 4.1 2.7 - 4.1 Electric Power Steering EPS 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 Improved Accessories IACC 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0 1.0

- 2.0 12V Micro-Hybrid MHEV 2.0 - 3.0 2.5 - 3.5 2.5 - 3.5 3.0 - 4.0 Belt mounted Integrated Starter Generator BISG 4.0 - 6.0 3.5 - 5.5 3.5 - 5.5 3.0 - 5.0 Crank mounted Integrated Starter Generator CISG 8.6 - 8.9 8.7 - 8.9 8.7 - 8.9 8.7 - 8.9 Power Split Hybrid
PSHEV 6.3 - 12.4 6.3 -
12.4 6.3 -

12.4 6.3 -

12.4 2-Mode Hybrid 2MHEV n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Plug-in Hybrid

PHEV 45.2 -
47.7 45.2 -

47.7 45.2 -

47.7 n.a. Mass Reduction (1.5%) MS1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mass Reduction (3.5 to 8.5%) MS2 2.3 2.3 3.9 5.6 Low Rolling Resistance Tires ROLL n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Low Drag Brakes

LDB n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.5 -
1.0 Secondary Axle Disconnect SAX 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 Aero Drag Reduction AERO n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-98 Minivan Small Midsize Large

LT LT LT LT

V6 Inline 4 V6 V8

Low Friction Lubricants LUB 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Engine Friction Reduction EFR 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on SOHC CCPS 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on SOHC DVVLS 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 Cylinder Deactivation on SOHC DEACS 2.5 - 3.0 n.a. 2.5 - 3.0 2.5 - 3.0 VVT - Intake Cam Phasing (ICP) ICP 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 VVT - Dual Cam Phasing (DCP) DCP 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on DOHC DVVLD 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 Continuously Variable Valve Lift (CVVL) CVVL 1.5 - 3.5 1.5 - 3.5 1.5 - 3.5 1.5 - 3.5 Cylinder Deactivation on DOHC DEACD 0.0 - 0.5 n.a. 0.0 - 0.5 0.0 - 0.5 Cylinder Deactivation on OHV DEACO 3.9 - 5.5 n.a. 3.9 - 5.5 3.9 - 5.5 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on OHV CCPO 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on OHV DVVLO 0.5 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.5

Conversion to DOHC with DCP CDOHC 1.0 - 2.5 1.0 - 2.5 1.0 - 2.5 1.0 - 2.5 Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) SGDI 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0

Combustion Restart CBRST 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 2.5 Turbocharging and Downsizing TRBDS 1.8 - 1.9 4.2 - 4.8 1.8 - 1.9 1.8 - 1.9 Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) Boost EGRB 3.5 - 4.0 3.5 - 4.0 3.5 - 4.0 3.5 - 4.0 Conversion to Diesel following CBRST DSLC 10.8 - 11.7 n.a. 10.8 - 11.7 10.8 - 11.7 Conversion to Diesel following TRBDS DSLT 5.3 - 6.9 n.a. 5.3 - 6.9 5.3 - 6.9 6-Speed Manual/Improved Internals 6MAN 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Improved Auto. Trans. Controls/Externals IATC 1.5 - 2.5 1.5 - 2.5 1.5 - 2.5 1.5 - 2.5 Continuously Variable Transmission CVT 0.7 - 2.0 0.7 - 2.0 n.a. n.a. 6/7/8-Speed Auto. Trans with Improved Internals NAUTO 1.4 - 3.4 1.4 - 3.4 1.4 - 3.4 1.4 - 3.4

Dual Clutch or Automated Manual Transmission DCTAM 2.7 - 4.1 5.5 - 7.5 2.7 - 4.1 2.7 - 4.1 Electric Power Steering EPS 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 Improved Accessories IACC 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 n.a. 12V Micro-Hybrid MHEV 2.5 - 3.5 2.0 - 3.0 2.5 - 3.5 n.a. Belt mounted Integrated Starter Generator BISG 3.5 - 5.5 4.0 - 6.0 3.5 - 5.5 n.a. Crank mounted Integrated Starter Generator CISG 8.7 - 8.9 8.6 - 8.9 8.7 - 8.9 8.7 - 8.9 Power Split Hybrid PSHEV 6.3 - 12.4 6.3 - 12.4 6.3 - 12.4 n.a. 2-Mode Hybrid 2MHEV n.a. 0.1 - 3.9 3.0 - 7.2 3.0 - 7.3 Plug-in Hybrid PHEV 45.2 - 47.7 45.2 - 47.7 n.a. n.a. Material Substitution (1.5%) MS1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Material Substitution (3.5 to 8.5%) MS2 3.9 3.9 3.9 5.6 Low Rolling Resistance Tires ROLL 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 Low Drag Brakes LDB 0.5 - 1.0 n.a. 0.5 - 1.0 0.5 - 1.0 Secondary Axle Disconnect SAX 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 Aero Drag Reduction AERO 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 

### VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY INCREMENTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION REDUCTION (-%)

BY VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY CLASS - LIGHT TRUCKS

Nominal Baseline Engine (For Cost Basis)

Table 3

- 25 . Component Technology Incremental Effectiveness Es timates for VolpeOLPE model, Light Trucks



### VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY INCREMENTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION REDUCTION (-%) BY VEHICLE SUBCLASS - LIGHT TRUCKS

Minivan Small Midsize Large

LT LT LT LT
Nominal Baseline Engine (For Cost Basis) V6 Inline 4 V6 V8

Low Friction Lubricants LUB 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Formatted Table

### 3-99

Engine Friction Reduction EFR 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on
SOHC CCPS 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0

Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on
SOHC DVVLS 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0

Cylinder Deactivation on SOHC DEACS 2.5 - 3.0 n.a. 2.5 - 3.0 2.5 - 3.0 VVT - Intake Cam Phasing (ICP) ICP 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 VVT - Dual Cam Phasing (DCP) DCP 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on
DOHC DVVLD 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0 1.0 - 3.0

Continuously Variable Valve Lift (CVVL) CVVL 1.5 - 3.5 1.5 - 3.5 1.5 - 3.5 1.5 - 3.5 Cylinder Deactivation on DOHC DEACD 0 - 0.5 n.a. 0.0 - 0.5 0.0 - 0.5 Cylinder Deactivation on OHV DEACO 3.9 - 5.5 n.a. 3.9 - 5.5 3.9 - 5.5 VVT - Coupled Cam Phasing (CCP) on
OHV CCPO 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5

Discrete Variable Valve Lift (DVVL) on
OHV DVVLO 0.5 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.5 0.5 - 2.5

Conversion to DOHC with DCP CDOHC 1.0 - 2.5 1.0 - 2.5 1.0 - 2.5 1.0 - 2.5 Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) SGDI 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0

Combustion Restart CBRST 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 2.5 2.0 - 2.5 Turbocharging and Downsizing TRBDS 1.8 - 1.9 4.2 - 4.8 1.8 - 1.9 1.8 - 1.9 Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) Boost EGRB 3.5 - 4.0 3.5 - 4.0 3.5 - 4.0 3.5 - 4.0 Conversion to Diesel following CBRST DSLC 10.8 -
11.7 n.a. 10.8 -

11.7 10.8 -

11.7 Conversion to Diesel following TRBDS DSLT 5.3 - 6.9 n.a. 5.3 - 6.9 5.3 - 6.9 6-Speed Manual/Improved Internals 6MAN 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Improved Auto. Trans. Controls/Externals IATC 1.5 - 2.5 1.5 - 2.5 1.5 - 2.5 1.5 - 2.5 Continuously Variable Transmission CVT 0.7 - 2.0 0.7 - 2.0 0.7 - 2.0 n.a. 6/7/8-Speed Auto. Trans with Improved
Internals NAUTO 1.4 - 3.4 1.4 - 3.4 1.4 - 3.4 1.4 - 3.4

Dual Clutch or Automated Manual
Transmission DCTAM 2.7 - 4.1 2.7 -4.1 2.7 - 4.1 2.7 - 4.1

Electric Power Steering EPS 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 Improved Accessories IACC 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 n.a. 12V Micro-Hybrid MHEV 2.5 - 3.5 2.0 - 3.0 2.5 - 3.5 n.a. Belt mounted Integrated Starter Generator BISG 3.5 - 5.5 4.0 - 6.0 3.5 - 5.5 n.a. Crank mounted Integrated Starter Generator CISG 8.7 - 8.9 8.6 - 8.9 8.7 - 8.9 14.1 -
16.3 Power Split Hybrid PSHEV 6.3 -
12.4 6.3 -

12.4 6.3 -

12.4 n.a.

2-Mode Hybrid 2MHEV n.a. 3.0 - 7.3 3.0 - 7.2 4.1 - 9.5 Plug-in Hybrid PHEV n.a. 45.2 -
47.7 n.a. n.a.

Mass Reduction (1.5%) MS1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mass Reduction (3.5 to 8.5%) MS2 5.6 3.9 3.9 5.6 Low Rolling Resistance Tires ROLL 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 Low Drag Brakes LDB 0.5 - 1.0 n.a. 0.5 - 1.0 0.5 - 1.0 Secondary Axle Disconnect SAX 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 Aero Drag Reduction AERO 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0 2.0 - 3.0

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-100 

### 3.5.2 EPA cost and effectiveness tables

The tables below show costs and effectiveness valu es for each particular technology described throughout this chapter (those considered by EPA in its model). The costs are shown as incremental to a particular baseline as noted in the tables. In general, the costs are meant to reflect the cost of a given technology relative to a baseline vehicle or engine with fixed timing 4 valves per cy linder, port fuel injection and a 4 speed automatic transmission. Where this is not th e case is made clear in the tables. The
same is true of the effectiveness tables below. As such, the costs and effectiveness values
shown in the tables below will differ from the valu es contained in the NHTSA tables due to the different ways that the agency’s models hand les them. However, the underlying cost and effectiveness values used by each agency i n their respective analyses are
consistent.

Table 3

- 26 3

- 25 EPA’s Incremental Piece Costs for Engine Technolog ies Marked up to include both Direct and Indirect Costs in 2016 (2007 Dollars per Vehicle)

TECHNOLOGY INCREMENTAL TO VEHICLE CLASS Small Car Large Car Minivan Small Truck Large Truck Low friction lubricants Base engine $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 Engine friction reduction Base engine $50 $75 $75 $75 $100OHC Engines VVT – intake cam phasing Base engine $40 $80 $80 $80 $80

VVT – coupled cam phasing Base engine $40 $80 $80 $80 $80

VVT – dual cam phasing Base engine $73 $157 $157 $1 57 $157 Cylinder deactivation Base engine n/a $150 $150 $15 0 $169 Discrete VVLT Base engine $125 $181 $181 $181 $259 Continuous VVLT Base engine $245 $449 $449 $449 $48 9OHV Engines Cylinder deactivation Base engine n/a $150 $150 $15 0 $169 VVT – coupled cam phasing Base engine $40 $40 $40 $40 $40

Discrete VVLT Base engine $141 $204 $204 $204 $291

Continuous VVLT (includes conversion to Overhead Cam) Base engine w/ VVTcoupled $497 $1,048 $1,048 $1,048 $1,146

Camless valvetrain (electromagnetic) Base engine $501 $501 $501 $501 $501

GDI – stoichiometric Base engine $222 $287 $287 $2 87 $312 GDI – lean burn GDI - stoich $623 $623 $623 $623 $ 623Turbo w/o downsizeDownsize w/o turbo Turbocharge (single) Base engine $366 $366 $366 $36 6 $366 Turbocharge (twin) Base engine $663 $663 $663 $663 $663 Downsize to I4 DOHC V6 DOHC -$337 -$337 -$337 -$337 -$337 Downsize to I4 DOHC V6 SOHC -$53 -$53 -$53 -$53 -$ 53 Downsize to I4 DOHC V6 OHV $265 $265 $265 $265 $265 Downsize to I4 DOHC I4 DOHC (larger) -$47 -$47 -$47 -$47 -$47 Downsize to I3 DOHC I4 DOHC -$80 n/a n/a n/a n/a Downsize to V6 DOHC V8 DOHC n/a -$160 -$160 -$160 - $160 Downsize to V6 DOHC V8 SOHC 2V n/a $199 $199 $199 $ 199 Downsize to V6 DOHC V8 SOHC 3V n/a $111 $111 $111 $ 111

Downsize to V6 DOHC V8 OHV n/a $310 $310 $310 $310Turbowithdownsize Downsize to I4 DOHC
& add turbo V6 DOHC w/o turbo $214 $214 $214 $214 $214

Downsize to I4 DOHC
& add turbo V6 SOHC w/o turbo $453 $453 $453 $453 $453

### 3-101 Downsize to I4 DOHC
& add turbo V6 OHV w/o turbo $797 $797 $797 $797 $797

Downsize to I4 DOHC
& add turbo I4 DOHC (larger)
w/o turbo $372 $372 $372 $372 $372

Downsize to I3 DOHC
& add turbo I4 DOHC w/o turbo $344 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Downsize to V6 DOHC
& add twin turbo V8 DOHC w/o turbo n/a $613 $613 $613 $613

Downsize to V6 DOHC
& add twin turbo V8 SOHC 2V w/o
turbo n/a $971 $971 $971 $971

Downsize to V6 DOHC
& add twin turbo V8 SOHC 3V w/o
turbo n/a $872 $872 $872 $872

Downsize to V6 DOHC
& add twin turbo V8 OHV w/o turbo n/a $1,096 $1,096 $1,096 $1,096

Convert to V6 DOHC V6 SOHC n/a $354 $354 $354 $354 Convert to V6 DOHC V6 OHV n/a $464 $464 $464 $464

Convert to V8 DOHC V8 SO HC 2V n/a $398 $398 $398 $398 Convert to V8 DOHC V8 SOHC 3V n/a $310 $310 $310 $ 310 Convert to V8 DOHC V8 OHV n/a $509 $509 $509 $509

Gasoline HCCI dualmode GDI - stoich $253 $375 $375 $375 $659

Diesel – Lean NOx trap Base gasoline engine Diesel – urea SCR Base gasoline engine $2,655 $2 ,164 $2,164 $2,961

Table 3

- 27 3

- 26 EPA’s Incremental Piece Costs for Transmission Tec hnologies Marked up to include both Direct and Indirect Costs in 2016 (2007 Dollars per Vehicl e)

TECHNOLOGY INCREMENTAL TO VEHICLE CLASS

Small
Car Large

Car Minivan Small

Truck Large

Truck Aggressive shift logic Base trans $28 $28 $28 $28 $ 28 Early torque converter lockup Base trans $25 $25 $2 5 $25 $25 5-speed automatic 4-speed auto trans $90 $90 $90 $9 0 $90 6-speed automatic 4-speed auto trans $150 $150 $150 $150 $150 6-speed DCT – dry clutch 6-speed auto trans $65 $65 $65 $65 $65 6-speed DCT – wet clutch 6-speed auto trans $139 $1 39 $139 $139 $139

6

- speed manual 5

- speed manual trans $79 $79 $79 $79 $79

CVT 4

- speed auto trans $192 $224 $224 n/a n/a

Table 3

- 28 3

- 27 EPA’s Incremental Piece Costs for Hybrid Technolog ies Marked up to include both Direct and Indirect Costs in 2016 (2007 Dollars per Vehicle)

TECHNOLOGY INCREMENTAL
TO VEHICLE CLASS

Small Car Large Car Minivan Small Truck Large Truck

Stop-Start Base engine &

trans $351 $398 $398 $398 $437

IMA/ISA/BSG (includes engine downsize) Base engine &

trans $2,854 $3,612 $3,627 $3,423 $4,431

2-Mode hybrid
electric vehicle Base engine &

trans $4,232 $5,469 $5,451 $4,943 $7,236

Power-split hybrid electric
vehicle Base engine &

trans $3,967 $5,377 $5,378 $4,856 $7,210

Plug-in hybrid IMA/ISA/BSG $6,922 $9,519 $9,598 $9, 083 $12,467 Formatted: Font: 9 pt, Italian (Italy)

Formatted: Italian (Italy)

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-102 electric vehicle hybrid Plug-in hybrid
electric vehicle Power-split

hybrid $5,423 $7,431 $7,351 $7,128 $9,643

Full electric
vehicle Base engine &

tra ns $27,628 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Table 3

- 29 3

- 28 EPA’s Incremental Piece Costs for Accessory Techno logies Marked up to include both Direct and Indirect Costs in 2016 (2007 Dollars per Vehicle)

TECHNOLOGY INCREMENTAL
TO VEHICLE CLASS

Small Car Large Car Minivan Small Truck Large Truck Improved high efficiency
alternator &
electrification of
accessories Base accessories $76 $76 $76 $76 $76

Upgrade to 42 volt electrical system 12 volt electrical
system $86 $86 $86 $86 $86

Electric power steering (12 or 42 volt) Base power steering $94 $94 $94 $94 $94

Table 3

- 30 3

- 29 EPA’s Incremental Piece Costs for Vehicle Technolo gies Marked up to include both Direct and Indirect Costs in 2016 (2007 Dollars per Vehicle)

TECHNOLOGY INCREMENTAL
TO VEHICLE CLASS

Small Car Large Car Minivan Small Truck Large Truck Aero drag reduction (20% on cars, 10% on trucks) Base vehicle $42 $42 $42 $42 $42

Low rolling resistance
tires Base tires $6 $6 $6 $6 $6

Low drag brakes (ladder frame only) Base brakes n/a n/a n/a $63 $63

Secondary axle disconnect (unibody only) Base vehicle $514 $514 $514 $514 n/a

Front axle disconnect (ladder frame only) Base vehicle n/a n/a n/a $84 $84



### Table 3-31Table 3

- 31 Table 3

- 31 through Table 3-35Table 3

- 35 Table 3

- 35
summarize the estimates for the CO 2 

### reduction estimates of various technologies which can be applied to cars and light-duty trucks. Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

### 3-103 Table 3

- 31 3

- 30 Engine Technology Effectiveness

Technology Absolute CO 2 Reduction (% from baseline vehicle)

Small Car Large

Car Minivan Small

Truck Large

Truck Low friction lubricants – incremental to base engin e 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Engine friction reduction – incremental to base eng ine 1-3 1-3 1-3 1-3 1-3

Overhead Cam Branch VVT – intake cam phasing 2 1 1 1 2

VVT

– coupled cam phasing 3 4 2 3 4

VVT

– dual cam phasing 3 4 2 2 4 Cylinder deactivation (includes imp. oil pump, if applicable) n.a. 6 6 6 6

Discrete VVLT 4 3 3 4 4

Continuous VVLT 5 6 4 5 5

Overhead Valve Branch Cylinder deactivation (includes imp. oil pump, if applicable) n.a. 6 6 6 6

VVT – coupled cam phasing 3 4 2 3 4

Discrete VVLT 4 4 3 4 4 Continuous VVLT (includes conversion to Overhead Cam) 5 6 4 5 5

Camless valvetrain (electromagnetic) 5

- 15 5

- 15 5

- 15 5

- 15 5

- 15 Gasoline Direct Injection–stoichiometric (GDI-S) 1- 2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 Gasoline Direct Injection–lean burn (incremental to GDI-S) 8-10 9-12 9-12 9-12 10-14

Gasoline HCCI dual-mode (incremental to GDI-S) 10-1 2 10-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 Turbo+downsize (incremental to GDI-S) 5-7 5-7 5-7 5 -7 5-7 Diesel – Lean NOx trap[]* 15-26 15-26 15-26 15-26 1 5-26 Diesel – urea SCR []* 15-26 15-26 15-26 15-26 15-26

Table 3

- 32 3

- 31 Transmission Technology Effectiveness

Technology Absolute CO 2 Reduction (% from baseline vehicle)

Small
Car Large

Car Minivan Small

Truck Large

Truck

5

- speed automatic (from 4

- speed auto) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Aggressive shift logic 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 Early torque converter lockup 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 6-speed automatic (from 4-speed auto) 4.5-6.5 4. 5-6.5 4.5-6.5 4.5-6.5 4.5-6.5

6

- speed AMT (from 4

- speed auto) 9.5

- 14.5 9.5

- 14.5 9.5

- 14.5 9.5

- 14.5 9.5

- 14.5 6-speed manual (from 5-speed manual) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 CVT (from 4-speed auto) 6 6 6 n.a. n.a.

Table 3

- 33 3

- 32 Hybrid Technology Effectiveness

Technology Absolute CO 2 Reduction (% from baseline vehicle)

Small
Car Large

Car Minivan Small

Truck Large

Truck Stop-Start with 42 volt system 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7 .5 IMA/ISA/BSG (includes engine downsize) 30 25 20 20 20

2

- Mode hybrid electric vehicle n.a. 40 40 40 25

Power

- split hyb rid electric vehicle 35 35 35 35 n.a. Full

- Series hydraulic hybrid 40 40 40 40 30

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-104 Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle 58 58 58 58 47 Full electric vehicle (EV) 100 100 n.a. n.a. n.a.

Table 3

- 34 3

- 33 Accessory Technology Effectiveness

Technology Absolute CO 2 Reduction (% from baseline vehicle)

Small
Car Large

Car Minivan Small

Truck Large

Truck Improved high efficiency alternator & electrificati on of accessories (12 volt) 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2

Electric power steering (12 or 42 volt) 1.5 1.5-2 2 2 2 Improved high efficiency alternator & electrificati on of accessories (42 volt) 2-4 2-4 2-4 2-4 2-4

Table 3

- 35 3

- 34 Other Vehicle Technology Effectiveness

Technology Absolute CO 2 Reduction (% from baseline vehicle)

Small
Car Large

Car Minivan Small

Truck Large

Truck Aero drag reduction (20% on cars, 10% on trucks) 3 3 3 2 2 Low rolling resistance tires (10%) 1

- 2 1

- 2 1

- 2 1

- 2 n.a. Low drag brakes (ladder frame only) n.a. n.a. n. a. 1 1 Secondary axle disconnect (unibody only) 1 1 1 1 n.a. Front axle disconnect (ladder frame only) n.a. n .a. n.a. 1.5 1.5

### 3-105 

## Appendix 3.A

Gross Domestic Product Adjustments Used to Adjust 2 002-2006 Dollars
to 2007 Dollars

Throughout this analysis, the incremental cost esti mates have been presented in terms of 2007 dollars. However, most of the data s ources relied upon as the basis for the estimates have presented costs in terms of 2006 dol lars. To convert the 2006 dollars to 2007 dollars, the “chain-type” Gross Domestic Produ ct (GDP) deflator was used. Table
3.A-1 shows the GDP deflator data used for this ana lysis.

Table 3.A-1 Price Indexes for Gross Domestic Produ ct

LINE 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1 Gross domestic product 104.193 106.409 109.462 113.039 116.676 119.819 122.5

2 Personal consumption

expenditures 103.542 105.597 108.392 111.581 114.675 117.659 121 .596

3 Durable goods 95.766 92.366 90.696 89.984 88.772 87.154 86.071

4 Nondurable goods 102.089 104.145 107.626 111.606 114.984 118.407 124.666
5 Services 106.018 109.379 112.929 116.7 120.752 124.712 128.752

6 Gross private domestic

investment 101.64 103.191 106.686 111.381 116.102 117.735 118. 509

7 Fixed investment 101.66 103.313 106.845 111.638 116.38 117.995 118.727
8 Nonresidential 99.513 99.591 100.896 103.829 107.277 108.739 110.513
9 Structures 110.03 113.872 120.912 135.177 151.822 157.662 163.298
10 Equipment and software 95.956 94.912 94.6 94.534 94.594 94.87 95.485

11 Residential 107.24 112.372 120.587 129.268 136.897 138.884 135.587

12 Change in private inventories

13 Net exports of goods and

services

14 Export s 99.273 101.429 104.997 108.814 112.618 116.586 122.788
15 Goods 98.661 100.64 104.323 107.536 111.131 115.062 121.147
16 Services 100.762 103.333 106.632 111.855 116.156 120.211 126.684

17 Imports 96.341 99.685 104.526 111.154 115.932 120.168 132.698
18 Goods 95.288 98.063 102.915 109.568 114.171 118.326 131.408
19 Services 101.878 108.291 113.049 119.496 125.257 129.928 139.217

20 Government consumption

expenditures and gross investment 105.507 109.849 114.754 121.47 127.239 132.941 139. 234

21 Fed eral 105.631 110.094 115.322 120.834 125.806 130.076 134.289

22 National defense 105.792 110.751 115.932 121.944 127.381 131.874 136.574
23 Nondefense 105.345 108.898 114.218 118.744 122.803 126.636 129.869
24 State and local 105.435 109.712 114.431 121 .862 128.109 134.671 142.219 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Departmen t of Commerce, http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?S electedTable=4



### Using Line 1 in the table, 2006 dollars can be adju sted to 2007 dollars by multiplying the ratio 119.8/116.7, or 1.027, by any value expressed in 2006 dollars. For example, $1 in 2006 dollars would be $1 x 1.027, or $1.03 in 2007 dollars.

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-106 

### References

CHAPTER 3: TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDE RED I N THE AGENCIES’
ANALYSIS 2 2

3.1 HOW DO THE AGENCIES DECIDE WHICH TECHNOL OGIES TO
INCLUDE IN THE ANALY SIS?

.................................................. ....................... 2 2

3.1.1 REPORTS AND PAPER S IN THE LITERATURE

............................ 2 2

3.1.2 FUEL ECONOMY CERTIFI CATION DATA

.................................... 3 3

3.2 WHICH TECHNOLOGIES W ILL BE APPLICABLE IN THE
RULEMAKING TIME FRA ME?

.................................................. ...................... 4 4

3.3 WHAT TECHNOLOGY ASSU MPTIONS HAVE THE AGE NCIES USED
FOR THIS PROPOSAL?

.................................................. .................................... 8 8

3.3.1 HOW ARE THE TECHNOLO GIES APPLIED IN THE AG ENCIES’
RESPECTIVE MODELS?

.................................................. .................................. 8 8

3.3.2 HOW DID THE AGENCIES DEVELOP TECHNOLOGY C OST AND
EFFECTIVENESS ESTIMA TES FOR THE PROPOSAL ?

........................... 10 10

3 .3.2.1 Considerations that affect technology effectiveness

................................ 10 10

3.3.2.1.1 Technology synergies

.................................................. ......................... 10 10

3.3.2.2 Considerations that affect technology costs

............................................ 11 11

3.3.2.2.1 Direct manufacturing costs

.................................................. ................ 12 12

3.3.2.2.2 Cost markups to account for indirect costs

......................................... 14 14

3.3.2.2.3 Concept behind and development of indirect cost mul tipliers

........... 14 14

3.4 SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGIE S CONSIDERED AND EST IMATES OF
COSTS AND EFFECT IVENESS

.................................................. ................... 21 21

3.4.1 WHAT DATA SOURCES DI D THE AGENCIES EVALU ATE?

... 21 21

3.4.2 INDIVIDUAL TECHNOLOG Y DESCRIPTIONS AND
COST/EFFECTIVENESS E STIMATES

.................................................. ....... 21 21

3.5 COST AND EFFECTIVENE SS TABLES

.............................................. 85 83

3.5.1 NHTSA cost and effectiveness tables

.................................................. . 85 83

3.5.2 EPA cost and effectiveness tables

.................................................. .... 100 96

Appendix 3.A

.................................................. ................................................... .. 105 101

1 “EPA Staff Technical Report: Cost and Effectivene ss Estimates of Technologies Used to Reduce Lightduty Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emissions,” EPA420-R-08 -008, March 2008. Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

### 3-107 2 “Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fue l Economy (CAFE) Standards,” National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 2002.

3 “Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Light-Duty Motor Vehicles,” Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future, September 2004.

4 “Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Pr oposed Rulemaking,” California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Regulations to Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles, August 6, 2004.

5 “Technology to Improve the Fuel Economy of Light D uty Trucks to 2015,” Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., May 2006.

6 “Variable Costs of Fuel Economy Technologies,” pre pared for The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, June 1, 2008; and, “Variable Costs o f Fuel Economy Technologies,” prepared for The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, June 1, 2008, Amended December 10, 2008.

7 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Re quest for Product Plan Information, 70 FR 51466, August 30, 2005.

8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Draft Report – Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study,” Contract No. EP-C-07-069, Work Assignment 1 -3, September 3, 2009 Reference report/draft report
of FEV work

.

9 Memorandum from Don Kopinski, U.S. EPA, to the docket , dated September xx, 2009 ( EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0472

- xxx) , dated September 11, 2009

.

10 Memorandum from Don Kopinski, U.S. EPA, to the docket , dated September xx, 2009 ( EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0472

- xxx ) , dated September 11, 2009

.

11 Reference NHTSA’s 2011 CAFE FRM final rule at (FR cite) 74 FR 14196

.

12 “EPA Staff Technical Report: Cost and Effectivene ss Estimates of Technologies Used to Reduce Lightduty Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emissions,” EPA420-R-08 -008, March 2008.

13 National Income and Product Accounts Table 1.1.4: Price Indexes for Gross Domestic Product; downloaded on 6/25/2009 At 12:00:25 PM, Last Revise d June 25, 2009; Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, www.bea.gov.

14 “EPA Staff Technical Report: Cost and Effectivene ss Estimates of Technologies Used to Reduce LightDuty Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emissions,” EPA420-R-08 -008, March 2008.

15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Draft Report – Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study,” Contract No. EP-C-07-069, Work Assignment 1 -3, September 3, 2009 Reference report/draft report
of FEV work

.

16 Rogozhin, Alex, Michael Gallaher, and Walter McMan us, “Automobile Industry Retail Price Equivalent and Indirect Cost Multipliers,” EPA 420-R-09-003, F ebruary 2009, http://epa.gov/otaq/ldhwy/420r09003.pdf.

17 “Memorandum: Documentation of the Development of Indirect Cost Multipliers for Three Automotive Technologies,” Gloria Helfand and Todd Sherwood, Of fice of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DATE August 2009

.

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-108 18 “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy

- Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diese l Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements,” EPA420

- R

- 00

- 026, December 2000; “Final Regulatory Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines,” EPA420-R -04-007, May 2004; “ Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution fr om Locomotive Engines and Marine CompressionIgnition Engines Less than 30 Liters per Cylinder,” EPA420-D- 07 08 -001 a , March 2007 May 2008; NHTSA
2011 CAFE final rule at 74 FR 14196

.

19 “Learning Curves in Manufacturing,” Linda Argote a nd Dennis Epple, Science, February 23, 1990, Vol. 247, pp. 920-924.

20 NHTSA 2011 CAFE final rule at 74 FR 14196; Reference NHTSA 2011 (o r 2008, or both) FRM

, “EPA Staff Technical Report: Cost and Effectiveness Est imates of Technologies Used to Reduce Light-Duty Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emissions,” EPA420-R-08-008, March 2008; “Final Regulatory Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines,” EPA420-R-04-007, May 2004; “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution fr om Locomotive Engines and Marine CompressionIgnition Engines Less than 30 Liters per Cylinder,” EPA420-D-08-001a, May 2008 2008 staff report

, 20 07/2010 Hwy Rule RIA, NRT4 rule RIA

.

21 “Impact of Friction Reduction Technologies on Fuel Economy,” Fenske, G. Presented at the March 2009 Chicago Chapter Meeting of the ‘Society of Tribolog ists and Lubricated Engineers’ Meeting, March 18th, 2009. Available at: http://www.chicagostle.org/pr ogram/2008- 2009/Impact%20of%20Friction%20Reduction%20Technolog ies%20on%20Fuel%20Economy%20- %20with%20VGs%20removed.pdf (last accessed July 9, 2009).

22 “Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2007”, EPA420-S-07- 001, September 2007. Available at http://www.epa.g ov/oms/cert/mpg/fetrends/fetrends-archive.htm (last accessed July 9, 2009).

23 Paul Whitaker, Ricardo, Inc., “Gasoline Engine Per formance And Emissions – Future Technologies and Optimization,” ERC Symposium, Low Emission Combusti on Technologies for Future IC Engines, Madison, WI, June 8-9, 2005. Available at http://www.erc.wisc.edu/symposiums/2005_Symposium/J une%208%20PM/Whitaker_Ricardo.pdf (last accessed Nov. 9, 2008).

24 Stefan Trampert, FEV Motorentechnik GmbH, “Engine and Transmission Development Trends - Rising Fuel Cost Pushes Technology,” Symposium on Internat ional Automotive Technology, Pune, India, January
2007.

25 Stefan Wolff, Dirk Abendroth, Werner Weigl, Claus- Peter Linner, Rupert Neudecker, Michael Schneider, Wolfgang Huber, and Andreas Rau, BMW, “I ntroducing The Automatic Start-Stop (ASS) Function In Series Models,” 7th Stuttgart Automotiv e Vehicle and Engine Symposium, Organised by FKFS, Mar 2007, Vol. 1.

26 G.K. Fraidl, P.E. Kapus, and H. Friedl, AVL List G mbH, “Future Gasoline Engine Technologies for 130 g/Km CO2,” VKM-THD 11th Symposium on the Working Pr ocess of Combustion Engines, TU Graz, Sept. 2007.

27 “Development and Optimization of the Ford 3.5L V6 EcoBoost Combustion System,” Yi,J., Wooldridge, S., Coulson, G., Hilditch, J. Iyer, C.O., Moilanen, P., Papaioannou, G., Reiche, D. Shelby, M., VanDerWege, B., Weaver, C. Xu, Z., Davis, G., Hinds , B. Schamel, A. SAE Technical Paper No. 2009-01- 1494, 2009.

### 3-109 28 David Woldring and Tilo Landenfeld of Bosch, and M ark J. Christie of Ricardo, “DI Boost: Application of a High Performance Gasoline Direct Injection Con cept,” SAE 2007-01-1410. Available at http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2007-01-1410 (l ast accessed Nov. 9, 2008)

29 Yves Boccadoro, Loïc Kermanac’h, Laurent Siauve, a nd Jean-Michel Vincent, Renault Powertrain Division, “The New Renault TCE 1.2L Turbocharged Ga soline Engine,” 28th Vienna Motor Symposium, April 2007.

30 Tobias Heiter, Matthias Philipp, Robert Bosch, “Ga soline Direct Injection: Is There a Simplified, Co stOptimal System Approach for an Attractive Future of Gasoline Engines?” AVL Engine & Environment Conference, September 2005.

31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Draft Report – Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot Study,” Contract No. EP-C-07-069, Work Assignment 1 -3, September 3, 2009 Reference FEV/Munro report that provides details of turbo/downsize tear

- down and costs

.

32 Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0089-0193.1

33 Cairns et al. , Lotus, “Low Cost Solutions for Improved Fuel Econ omy in Gasoline Engines,” Global Powertrain Congress September 27-29, 2005, vol. 33. Available at http://www.gpcicpem.org/pages/publications.html (last accessed Nov. 9, 2008).

34 Tim Lake, John Stokes, Richard Murphy, and Richard Osborne of Ricardo and Andreas Schamel of Ford-Werke, “Turbocharging Concepts for Downsized D I Gasoline Engines,” VKA/ika Aachen Colloquium 2003. Available at http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=169735 98 (last accessed Nov. 9, 2008).

35 “Interim Report: New Powertrain Technologies and Their Projected Costs,” October 2005, EPA420-R05-012.

36 “Cost and Fuel Economy Comparison of Diesel and G asoline Powertrains in Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,” submitted by FEV Engine Technology, Inc., April 23, 2003, contained as Appendix I within EPA Interim Technical Report EPA420-R-04-002.

37 cite EPA’s 2007/2010 diesel heavy-duty highway final rule at FRM 66 FR 5002; EPA’s Locomotive and
Marine final rule at 73 FR 37096. and L

- M rule FRM

38 http://www.platinum.matthey.com/ Cite J

- M website

.

39 General Motors, news release, “From Hybrids to Six -Speeds, Direct Injection And More, GM’s 2008 Global Powertrain Lineup Provides More Miles with L ess Fuel” (released Mar. 6, 2007). Available at http://www.gm.com/experience/fuel_economy/news/2007 /adv_engines/2008-powertrain-lineup-082707.jsp (last accessed Sept. 18, 2008).

40 Page 17, “EPA Staff Technical Report: Cost and Effectiveness Estimates of Technologies Used to Reduce Light-duty Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emissions” Environmental Protection Agency, EPA420-R-08- 008, March 2008 , at page 17

.

41 “Latest Chevrolet Volt Battery Pack and Generator Details and Clarifications.” Lyle Dennis intervie w of Rob Peterson (GM) regarding the all-electric dri ve range of the GM Volt, August 29, 2007. Accessed on the Internet on June 30, 2009 at: http://gm-volt.c om/2007/08/29/latest-Chevrolet-volt-battery-pack-an dgenerator-details-and-clarifications/

### Draft Joint Technical Support Document

3-110 42 “Active Combination of Ultracapacitorsand Batteri es for PHEV ESS.” Bohn, T. U.S. Department of Energy 2009 Vehicle Technologies Merit Review, May 20, 2009

43 Anderman, Advanced Automotive Battery Conference, May 2008. Proceedings available for purchase at http://www.advancedautobat.com/Proceedings/index.ht ml (last accessed October 17, 2008).

44 74 FR 14291 (Mar. 30, 2009)

45 “Electric Cars: Plugged In, Batteries must be incl uded,” Deutsche Bank Global Markets Research Company, June 9, 2008.

46 74 FR 14293 (Mar. 30, 2009)

47 http://automobiles.honda.com/insight-hybrid/feature s.aspx?Feature=ima (last accessed on September 10, 2009). Insert reference for Honda hybrid system

.

48 “Factor of Two: Halving the Fuel Consumption of N ew U.S. Automobiles by 2035,” Cheah, L., Evans, C., Bandivadekar, A., Heywood, J., Massachusetts In stitute of Technology, Publication No. LFEE 2007-04 RP, October 2007.

49 “FY 2007 Progress Report for Lightweighting Materi als”, Davis, P., Sullivan, R., Carpenter, J., U.S. Department of Energy Office of Vehicle Technologies , December 2008. Accessed on the Internet on April 30, 2009 at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesa ndfuels/resources/vt_lm_fy07.html

50 “Benefit Analysis: Use of Aluminum Structures in Conjunction with Alternative Powertrain Technologies in Automobiles,” Bull, M. Chavali, R., Mascarin, A., Aluminum Association Research Report, May 2008. Accessed on the Internet on Apri l 30, 2009 at: http://www.autoaluminum.org/downloads/IBIS-Powertra in-Study.pdf

51 “Future Generation Passenger Compartment-Validatio n,” in “Lightweighting Materials – FY 2008 Progress Report,” U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Vehicle Technologies Program, May 2009.

52 “Preliminary Vehicle Mass Estimation Using Empiric al Subsystem Influence Coefficients,” Malen, D.E., Reddy, K. Auto-Steel Partnership Report, May 2007. Accessed on the Internet on May 30, 2009 at: http://www.a-sp.org/database/custom/Mass%20Compound ing%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf

53 “Future Generation Passenger Compartment – Final R eport,” Auto-Steel Partnership Report, June 2007. Accessed on the Internet on May 30, 2009 at: http:/ /www.a-sp.org/database/custom/FGPC%20Phase %201%20Final%20Report.pdf

54 “Tires and Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy,” Transp ortation Research Board Special Report 286,
National Research Council of the National Academies , 2006.

55 “An HCCI Engine Power Plant for a Hybrid Vehicle,” Sun, R., R. Thomas and C. Gray, Jr., SAE Technical Paper No. 2004-01-0933, 2004.