Gasoline Engine Turbocharging & Rightsizing Presented by S. M. Shahed, Honeywell Turbocharging Technologies California Air Resource Board Technology Assessment Workshop CO 2 Emission Reduction - Cost & Feasibility Analysis Climate Change Emissions - Light Duty Vehicles Sacramento, CA April 20, 2004
Presentation Content Benefits/feasibility (% CO 2 Reduction) • Over 12 years of production data • Methodical comparison by world class experts • Experiments on two US SUVs Cost • Direct approach to rightsizing • Engine family rationalization Customer Acceptance • Turbo gasoline in Europe • European turbo gasoline imports in the US 2
CARB Baseline for Cost/Benefit Analysis Engine 2. 2 L L 4 3. 0 L V 6 3. 4 L V 6 3. 3 L V 6 5. 3 L V 8 Cam/Valve DOHC 4 V OHV 2 V Vehicle Cavalier Taurus Tacoma Town & C Sierra 0 -60 mph (sec) 8. 08 7. 24 9. 23 9. 18 7. 97 Curb Weight 2762 3380 3714 3980 4826 Power k. W 109 154 140 149 213 ** (L) 1. 8 2. 6 2. 3 2. 5 3. 6 ** State of the Art European Engine - Production Vehicle/Engine Data 55 • Baseline engines oversized • Potential rightsizing by using state of the art • MAJOR rightsizing by TURBOCHARGING 50 Power Density k. W/l compared to European average Europe 45 40 US 35 30 25 20 1975 Technology in Use in Europe 1985 1995 2005 3
Benefits/feasibility (% CO 2 Reduction) Production vehicle data from 1992 to 2004 5 -12% CO 2 Reduction Methodical, comparison by world class experts 15 -21% Experimental US SUVs 5 -18% 5 to 20% CO 2 Reduction 4
Production Vehicle Data • All production engines/vehicles in family sedan sports cars excluded range - • Manufacturer certification data from published sources – All data INCLUDED in mathematical linear fit – Graph display sized for visibility – Some data fell off the chart but is part of linear fit • Hundreds of non-turbo and tens of turbocharged vehicles in the data base Benefits Measured over a Long Period and on Large Sample Production Vehicles 5
Broad Results - Production Vehicles 1992 -2004 300 260 Non Turbo 260 Turbo 240 220 200 120 140 Rated Power k. W 160 240 Turbo 2002 -03 120 140 Rated Power k. W 160 220 2000 -01 120 140 160 Rated Power k. W 180 260 180 100 Turbo 230 200 180 Non Turbo 220 240 210 1992 -93 280 "Mixed" CO 2 Emissions g/km CO 2 Emissions (g/km) Non Turbo 250 180 240 Non Turbo 220 Turbo 2003 -04 180 100 120 140 160 Rated Power k. W 180 Less CO 2 Emissions with Turbo Engines on All Model Years 6
1992 -93 Production Vehicles CO 2 Emissions (g/km) 300 280 Non Turbo 9. 6% 260 Turbo 240 220 200 120 140 160 Rated Power k. W 180 7
2000 -01 Production Vehicles 260 Non Turbo CO 2 Emissions g/km 250 Turbo 4. 9% 240 230 220 210 200 120 140 160 180 Rated Power k. W 8
2002 -03 Production Vehicles "Mixed" CO 2 Emissions g/km 280 Non Turbo 260 11. 8% 240 Turbo 220 200 180 100 120 140 160 Rated Power k. W 180 9
2003 -04 Production Vehicles "Mixed" CO 2 Emissions g/km 260 240 Non Turbo 8. 5 % 220 Turbo 200 180 100 120 140 160 Rated Power k. W 180 10
2003 -04 MY Vehicles Urban & Extra-Urban Emissions Extra-Urban CO 2 Emissions g/km 340 330 320 Non Turbo 11. 6% 310 300 Turbo 290 280 270 260 100 120 140 Rated Power k. W 160 180 200 190 180 Non Turbo 170 7. 3% Turbo 160 150 140 100 120 140 160 180 Rated Power k. W CO 2 Reduction in Both Driving Cycles 11
Methodical Comparison - World Class Experts Common Denominator - Boosting/Rightsizing Methodical Development Gives 15 -20% CO 2 Reduction 12
US SUV Examples - Rough Experiments • No optimization • No special control of regulated urban • • • emission (conventional 3 -way catalyst) No durability/towing capability Just an exploratory investigation Advanced turbo technology - still to come 5 to 18% CO 2 Reduction on First Trials - Potential for Refinement 13
Cost of Rightsizing and Turbocharging Two approaches to Rightsizing Direct “across the board” rightsizing $300 Cost REDUCTION Engine family rationalization More Cost Reduction Possible Cost-Benefit Analysis Turns into Benefit-Benefit Analysis 14
Cost Reduction - Direct Rightsizing • • Across the board rightsizing by 35 -40% Stay with baseline engine technology Vee configuration converted to in line Contractor went through detailed parts differences, supplier prices, OEM cross checks to estimate costs and add up • • Turbo I 4 Naturally Aspirated V 6 • Camshafts, valves, keepers, lash adjusters, pistons, rings etc. Direct cost reduction $700 Variable geometry turbo, charge air cooler, plumbing, engine upgrades etc. Cost $400 Net $300 REDUCTION $300 Net Cost Reduction at Equal Performance 15
Rightsizing Strategy - Engine Family Rationalization Actual Production Example 2003 -04 Model Year 134 k. W 168 k. W Displacement Litres 4. 0 3. 5 3. 0 Non Turbo 2. 5 Turbo 2. 0 1. 5 127 k. W 112 k. W Market Data 1. 0 100 120 140 160 180 Turbo Engine Power (k. W) Equivalent Non-Turbo CO 2 Reduction Mass Reduction Rated Power k. W (L) (k. W) (L) (%) (kg) 1. 8 112 2. 4 8 - 1. 8 127 2. 8 11 5 -20 1. 8 134 3. 0 17 30 -50 1. 8 168 3. 2 4 30 -50 • Capital cost, common parts, inventory reduction • Warranty reduction, service costs • Development cost reduction • Production flexibility Further Cost Reduction Potential 16
Customer Acceptance Turbo gasoline in Europe • 15% gasoline powered cars turbocharged currently projected to grow to 25% by 2010 European Turbo Gasoline Imports in the US • 32% of European gasoline powered cars imported in US are turbocharged Europe is Paving the Way - US Consumers Embrace it 17
Customer Acceptance - Europe and US • Saab 9 -3, 9 -5, Aero • Mazda. Speed Protégé • Dodge SRT- 4 • PT Cruiser Turbo • Beetle Turbo • Volvo XC 90 • Subaru WRX • Audi A 4 1. 8 T • Passat 1. 8 T • Jetta 1. 8 T • Porsche Cayenne Turbo Gasoline • Same or better performance than larger displacement naturally aspirated engine with 10 - 20% less CO 2 15% of gasoline engines in Europe 25% in 2010 Turbo is a Growing Differentiator & Brand Equity Builder 18
Is it Going to Happen in the US? 32% of European Imports are Boosted Units 1000 K European cars sold in the US 300 K 1992 2002 American Consumers Buy Boosted Engines 19
Summary Benefits/feasibility (% CO 2 Reduction) • 15 -20% reduction in emissions possible with proper development Cost • $300 net cost reduction with simple rightsizing • Further cost reduction with engine family rationalization Customer Acceptance • 32% “acceptance” already demonstrated in the US Rightsizing / Turbocharging is a Proven & Available Solution 20
Скачать презентацию Gasoline Engine Turbocharging Rightsizing Presented by S
373f922d5fc0644f8dc17ccb656f5246.ppt