###### Abstract
Each of these newly introduced regulatory driving cycles are characterized by the presence of frequent acceleration and deceleration regions, driving a vehicle with an air conditioner on, and driving a vehicle in a cold environment [3]. So, fuel consumption calculated from the process contributes to bridging divergence between real world and laboratory fuel consumption. [PERSON] et al. revealed that the characteristics demonstrated in additional driving cycles, US06, SC03, and cold FTP, have a major effect on lowering fuel consumption. Also, it was found that the presence of frequent acceleration and deceleration regions are the heaviest factors undermining fuel consumption [4]. [PERSON] et al. presented the results of a vehicle powered by different fuel, mostly affected by characteristics of each additional three driving cycles, in terms of deterioration of fuel consumption. In low-temperature environmental condition mode and air conditioner mode, the hybrid vehicle was most affected, and in rapid acceleration and deceleration mode, the vehicle fueled by gasoline was most affected, in terms of deterioration of fuel efficiency [5]. The study of the Environment Protection Association (EPA) delves into SC03 and Cold FTP drive cycles, from the perspective of fuel economy. Like that of the SC03 test, excess fuel use due to operating the air conditioner varies in inverse proportion to vehicle speed. For the cold FTP driving cycle, how quickly the engine reaches the warmed-up state is the critical factor in determining fuel efficiency [6]. [PERSON] et al. tested average emission rates of all measured gaseous pollutants (CO, NOx, and THC, as well as CO\({}_{2}\)) for HWFET testing, and compared these with those for all other testing. For US06 testing, CO and THC emission rates were significantly higher than those of other testing. For CO\({}_{2}\), average emission rate of SC03 testing was the highest, followed by those of FTP, UDDS, US06, and HWFET. The authors believe that different measured emission rates for different testing and pollutants were due to different characteristics of test driving schedules [7]. [PERSON], et al. presented a tailored model for the assessment of environmental benefits achievable by \"light-weighting\" in the automotive field. The work is composed of two main sections: simulation and environmental modelling. Simulation modelling performs an in-depth calculation of weight-induced FC whose outcome is the FRV evaluated for a wide range of Diesel Turbocharged (DT) vehicle case studies. Environmental modelling converts fuel saving to impact reduction basing on the FRVs obtained by simulations [8]. [PERSON], et al. compares the benefits of two parallel drivetrain configurations with an Integrated Starter Generator (ISG): one with the ISG connected directly to the engine, and one with the ISG connected to the drivetrain, after the clutch. Both configurations include Start-Stop operation, but only the latter one can turn off the engine during propulsion. The effect on fuel economy is analyzed by simulations using optimization over a given driving cycle [9]. [PERSON], et al. measured on-road emissions for 60 LDPVs in three of China's cities and calculated their fuel consumption and CO\({}_{2}\) (carbon dioxide) emissions. We further evaluated the impacts of variations in area-averaged speed on relative fuel consumption of gasoline LDPVs for the UAB (urban area of Beijing) [10]  
Like the above method, it is possible to reduce divergence between official fuel consumption and real-world fuel consumption calculated through such a fuel consumption correction formula, but 10-15% difference exists between the fuel economy experienced by a driver, and certified fuel consumption. The reasons for this difference in fuel economy are as follows [8]. * Many external factors, such as driving conditions, accumulated mileage, traffic conditions, temperature, weather conditions, etc., affect fuel economy.