1
Please send comments to Tom.Palmer@aeat.co.uk, Nikolas.Hill@aeat.co.uk, Johannes.VonEinem@aeat.co.uk, Yvonne.Li@aeat.co.uk (Authors), and
to Giorgio.Simbolotti@enea.it and Giancarlo Tosato (gct@etsap.org), Project Coordinators
© IEA ETSAP - Technology Brief T01 – April 2010 - www.etsap.org
Advanced Automotive Gasoline Engines
HIGHLIGHTS
„ PROCESS AND TECHNOLOGY STATUS – Internal combustion engine technology is constantly evolving. A
number of improvements in gasoline-powered vehicles have been made to optimize combustion, improve fuel economy
and reduce emissions. Examples of advanced gasoline technologies include reduced engine friction losses, direct
gasoline injection, engine downsizing with turbocharger, variable valve actuation (VVA) and homogeneous
charge compression ignition (HCCI). The majority of these technologies are already commercially available or close
to being on the market. Although HCCI technology is still under development for both gasoline and diesel engines, it
promises improvement in fuel economy and exceptionally low NOx and soot emissions.
„ PERFORMANCE AND COSTS – A study by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2008) presents the
potential CO2 reduction and incremental compliance costs for a number of advanced gasoline technologies as compared
to conventional port-fuelled injection vehicles. The costs account for both direct manufacturing costs and indirect costs.
The technologies covered - and related CO2 reduction and incremental compliance costs in 2006 US dollars – include a)
engine friction reduction (1-3%, $0-126); b) homogeneous direct injection (1-2% $122-525); c) stratified direct injection
(9-14%, $872-1275); d) downsizing with turbocharging (6-9%, $120-690); e) variable valve timing (1-4%, $59-209); f)
variable valve control (3-6%, $169-1262); and g) cylinder deactivation (6%, $203).
„ POTENTIAL AND BARRIERS – Car ownership is expected to grow in many OECD countries as well as in
emerging economies. Demanding environmental concerns and fuel economy standards, as well as increasing fuel
prices, are the major drivers for advancement in engine technologies. The IEA study Energy Technology Perspectives
(IEA, 2008) suggests that improving the fuel economy of light-duty vehicles (car, small van and sport utility vehicles)
would be one of the most important and cost-effective measures to help reduce CO2 emissions in the transport sector.
Given the maturity of some advanced gasoline technologies, and the near-term and cost-effective solutions they can
offer to energy and emissions concerns, there is neither technical-economic nor infrastructure barrier for deployment,
although some technical bottlenecks have to be solved for technologies such as the HCCI.
________________________________________________________________________________
TECHNOLOGY STATUS AND PERFORMANCE -
Advanced gasoline technologies include a variety of
new components and systems aimed at optimizing
combustion and thereby improving the fuel economy
and reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and
other pollutants. Major innovations are listed in Table 1.
„ Reduced engine friction technologies include
systems, components and materials that minimize the
friction between moving metal parts in the engine.
These technologies are available in a significant
number of engine designs [1]. Several friction reduction
opportunities have been identified in piston surfaces
and rings, crankshaft design, improved material
coatings and roller cam followers. Various studies
suggest that the CO2 reduction potential for engine
friction reduction technologies may range from 1-5%
[1,2,3].
„ In the gasoline direct injection (DI) engines, fuel is
injected at high pressure directly into the combustion
chamber rather than into air intake manifolds. The key
advantage is the improvement in fuel efficiency. The
technology was developed more than 10 years ago and
a number of different manufacturers are now using
these types of engines in commercially available
vehicles. The use of sulphur-free fuels is necessary to
obtain the maximum benefit from this technology.
Depending on the ignition and combustion mode and on
the formation process of the mixture, DI engines can be
categorized in homogeneous charge, and stratified
charge, spark ignition. In the homogeneous charge
(stoichiometric) DI engines, a high-pressure fuel
injector sprays fuel directly into the combustion
chamber early enough in the cycle to promote
homogeneous fuel-air mixing. These engines have the
potential to reduce hydrocarbon emissions, increase
power and improve fuel economy, while taking
advantage of the highly-effective catalytic after-
treatment systems, the same as the port fuel injection
(PFI) engines. Various studies suggest a CO2 emission
reduction potential ranging from 1-5% [1,3,4] in
comparison with PFI and multi-point injection. These
engines are often supplemented with turbo-charging,
supercharging1
, or both2
. They are available from
1
Turbochargers and superchargers are air compressors that
allow more air into an engine; turbochargers are powered by
exhaust gases, while superchargers run directly on engine
power.
Table 1 – Advanced Technologies for Gasoline Engines
Technology Status
Reduced Engine Friction Losses Production
Direct Gasoline Injection (incl.
homogeneous/ stratified charge)
Production
Downsizing with Turbocharging Production
Variable Valve Actuation Production
Cylinder Deactivation Production
Variable Compression Ratio Prototype
Homogeneous charge compression ignition
(HCCI)
Prototype
2
Please send comments to Tom.Palmer@aeat.co.uk, Nikolas.Hill@aeat.co.uk, Johannes.VonEinem@aeat.co.uk, Yvonne.Li@aeat.co.uk (Authors), and
to Giorgio.Simbolotti@enea.it and Giancarlo Tosato (gct@etsap.org), Project Coordinators
© IEA ETSAP - Technology Brief T01 – April 2010 - www.etsap.org
several automobile companies worldwide, and more
deployment is expected in the near future. Stratified
charge DI engines involve concentrating fuel spraying
close to the spark plug rather than throughout the whole
of the combustion chamber. The aim is to produce an
overall lean stratified mixture. These engines operate
in at least two modes, depending on load and speed.
During low-load and low-speed operation, the engine
runs with a stratified charge and with lean mixtures. At
high-load and high-speed operation, the engine
operates as a stoichiometric homogeneous charge DI
engine. These engines offer higher CO2 reduction
potential than homogenous charge DI engines, ranging
from 8-14% compared to PFI and multi-point injection
[1, 2 , 3, 4], However, major impediments are cost,
complexity and the requirement of expensive lean NOx
traps in the exhaust after-treatment system. Stratified
charge DI engines are currently in production (wall-
guided variant), but there is a shift towards the spray-
guided injection variants [1, 4, 5] as they improve
injection precision and targeting towards the spark plug,
thus increasing lean combustion stability. These
systems offer improved fuel economy and reduced
emissions. Stratified charge spray-guided DI engines
are nearing production3
. The availability of low-sulphur
fuels and improved lean catalyst technology will speed
the process up.
„ Engine downsizing is seen as one of the most
important technologies to reduce fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions through improved engine efficiency,
lower weight and lower frictional losses [6,7]. It involves
a substitution of a naturally-aspirated engine by an
engine of smaller swept volume. The downsized engine
is typically turbocharged to maintain adequate levels of
torque and power output. The amount by which the
engines are downsized vary depending on the amount
of boost provided by the turbocharger and/or
supercharger. For example, automotive brochures
show that a 1.4 litre engine with the application of both
turbo and supercharging provides an average fuel
economy of 13.9 km/l in the combined cycle and
produces torque (240 Nm) equivalent to a 2.5 litre
standard gasoline engine (which has an average fuel
economy of 10 km/l) [8, 24]. Another automotive
brochure suggests that a 2.5-litre gasoline engine with the
power of 123 kW and torque of 211 Nm can be replaced
by a 2-litre turbo engine, with a 9% reduction in fuel
consumption [9]. Depending on the amount of downsizing,
various studies suggest a 2-12% CO2 reduction.
„ Variable Valve Actuation (VVA) involves controlling
the lift, duration and timing of the intake (or exhaust)
valves for air flow. There are two main variants:
variable valve timing (VVT) and variable valve lift
systems (VVL). The VVT has now become a widely
adopted technology. Manufacturers are using many
different types of VVT mechanisms (or cam phaser
systems) to control timing of the intake and exhaust
2
US EPA (2008) suggests that a turbo and downsized
stoichiometric GDI offers CO2 reductions of 5-7% relative to
stoichiometric GDI without boosting.
3
According to Drake and Haworth (2007), SG-SIDI engines
with piezoelectric pintle injectors are nearing projection.
valve. The advantages of using VVT include
improvement in full-load volumetric efficiency which
results in increased torque and reduction in pumping
losses during low-load operation, which results in
reduced fuel consumption. Depending on the design,
EPA (2008) estimates that VVT may enable 1-4%
reduction in CO2 emissions compared to fixed-valve
engines. The VVL system controls the lift height of the
valves using two different approaches: discrete VVL
and continuous VVL. Compared to VVT, VVL offers a
further reduction in pumping losses and low-load fuel
consumption. There may also be a small reduction in
valve train friction when operating at low valve lift. Most
of the fuel economy gain is achieved with VVL on the
inlet valves only. This is considered to be a cost-
effective technology when applied in addition to VVT
(cam phase control) [1]. A number of manufacturers
have implemented VVL (or VVT with VVL) into their
fleet [10, 11, 12]. Based on standard (ECE) driving
cycles, automotive brochures suggest that the VVL
system provides fuel savings of up to 10%, and
improves cold start behaviour [10]. Various studies
confirm CO2 reductions of 3-7%.
„ Cylinder deactivation allows an engine to run on
part (usually half) of its cylinders during light-load
operation. For example, a 6-cylinder (V6) engine will
run on all cylinders during acceleration (or under high
load), and switch to four or three cylinders for cruising
or low-speed drive. This technology is aimed at large
capacity engines (V6, V8 and V12 engines). Pumping
losses are significantly reduced when the engine is
operated in the “part-cylinder” mode. Several
manufacturers have recently incorporated this
application into their models. EPA (2008) and IEA
(2005) suggest that CO2 reductions associated to these
systems range from 6-8%.
„ Variable Compression Ratio (VCR) technology
enables the compression ratio of an engine to be
automatically adjusted to optimise the efficiency of the
combustion process under different load and speed
conditions. The compression ratio controls the amount
by which the fuel/air mixture is compressed in the
cylinder before it is ignited. This is one of the most
important factors that determines how efficiently the
engine can utilize the fuel energy. At low speed, a VCR
engine operates with high compression ratio in order to
maximize fuel efficiency, whilst at high speed, low
compression ratios are used. The potential benefits and
the importance of VCR technology have long been
known, but it is not commercially available yet due to its
mechanical complexity. Research done by the
European Commission Community showed that VCR
engines can achieve a reduction of fuel consumption of
up to 9%, compared to state-of-the-art turbocharged
gasoline engines with a constant compression ratio of
8.9 [13]. It also suggests that an additional fuel savings
of up to 18% can be obtained by downsizing the engine
by 40%, while keeping torque and performance
constant through high boosting. Thus, this technology
could enable an overall fuel consumption reduction of
up to 27%.
3
Please send comments to Tom.Palmer@aeat.co.uk, Nikolas.Hill@aeat.co.uk, Johannes.VonEinem@aeat.co.uk, Yvonne.Li@aeat.co.uk (Authors), and
to Giorgio.Simbolotti@enea.it and Giancarlo Tosato (gct@etsap.org), Project Coordinators
© IEA ETSAP - Technology Brief T01 – April 2010 - www.etsap.org
„ Gasoline Homogeneous Charge Compression
(HCCI) - also known as Controlled Auto-ignition (CAI) -
is an alternative engine-operating mode that does not
rely on the spark events to initiate the combustion. In
the HCCI engine, fuel and air are premixed to form a
homogeneous mixture; on compression, combustion
occurs by self-ignition at multiple sites [1, 5, 9]. HCCI
operates in a very lean fuel-air mixture or with a mixture
that is considerably diluted with exhaust gases either
re-injected (EGR) or kept in chamber (to increase the
charge temperature as well as to control excessive
rates of heat release) [1, 4, 14]. A major advantage of
HCCI is the exceptional low level of NOx emissions due
to the lower peak-temperature inside the combustion
chamber. High CO and unburned hydrocarbons
emissions can be the result of incomplete reaction in
cool wall boundary layers, but conventional three-way
catalysts are most efficient for removal. Soot emissions
are also very low or negligible due to the homogeneous
nature of the premixed charge. In terms of fuel
economy, the technology can lead to a 10%
improvement for a simulated European drive cycle,
compared to a homogeneous DI gasoline engine [6].
The major challenges of HCCI are the control of ignition
timing and the operation over a wide range of engine
speed and loads [4]. Unlike diesel engines where auto-
ignition and combustion phasing can be controlled by
injection timing, HCCI is controlled primarily by in-
cylinder temperature and temperature distribution. This
requires variable exhaust gases re-injection (EGR)
rates, as well as sophisticated variable-valve actuation
and control systems. Because HCCI engines operate
in a limited speed/load range, commercial applications
are likely to operate in a “dual-mode” between HCCI
and Spark Ignition (SI) application [1]
4
. This dual-mode
strategy has recently been demonstrated by a car
manufacturer on two concept vehicles based on
conventional, production-based models [15, 23]
5
. HCCI
implementation is thought to be about 5-10 years away
from high-volume production.
CURRENT COSTS AND COST PROJECTIONS -
Several studies provide costs of the various advanced
gasoline technologies. The costs vary depending on
the definition of cost and method and assumptions
used. A summary of the cost data can be found in
Tables 2-4. „ The US EPA study in 2008 presented
incremental compliance costs for each technology,
which account for both the direct manufacturing costs
and the indirect costs. Firstly, the piece costs for an
individual piece of hardware or system (e.g. an intake
cam phaser to provide VVT) are estimated, which is the
price paid by the manufacturer to a Tier 1 component
4
Spark Ignition (SI) application would be used at higher loads,
at idle or when engine is started cold.
5
These HCCI prototypes were built on the integration of other
advanced engine technologies which include gasoline direct-
injection and variable valve actuation technologies. They offer
up to 15% improved fuel efficiency relative to a comparable
PFI engine while only requiring conventional automotive
exhaust after-treatment. However, a sophisticated controller
using cylinder pressure sensor and other control algorithms
are required to manage the HCCI combustion process.
supplier. To these costs, an indirect cost mark-up
factor of 50% is to be added to generate the compliance
costs that are then compared to a baseline vehicle. The
technologies covered in this study (priced in dollars and
converted to euros
6
) include engine friction reduction
(€0-88), VVT (€41-146, depending on mechanisms
used), VVL (€118-883, depending on mechanisms
used), cylinder deactivation (€142, for a large car only),
Homogeneous DI (referred to as GDI-stoichiometric in
the study, €85-368), stratified DI (referred to as GDI-
lean burn in the study, €525 relative GDI-stoich), and
downsizing with turbocharging (€84-483). This EPA
study also suggests learning impact to enable lower
per-unit cost of production as soon as manufacturers
gain experience in production and improve in areas
such as simplifying machining and assembly
operations. The “learning rate” is expressed as a
percentage reduction in costs for each doubling of
production. The EPA suggests a 20% learning rate for
all newly applied technologies. „ The joint
TNO/IEEP/LAT study (2006) presents cost data in the
form of additional manufacturers’ costs compared to
2002 baseline gasoline vehicles (small, medium to
large, with 4/6 cylinder in-line and multipoint injection).
The study provides technology costs and cost ranges
for small and large cars, namely, engine friction
reduction (€40-60); DI-homogeneous charge (€125-
175); DI-stratified charge with lean burn (€320-480);
medium (20%) and strong (≥ 30%) downsizing with
turbocharging (€225-510); and VVT (€100-200).
„ The IEA Energy Technology Perspective (2008)
suggests an incremental cost for both engine (incl. VVT,
turbocharging and direct injection) and non-engine
technologies (not discussed in this paper) ranging from
€1960 to €2380 [16]. „ In 2008, EUCAR, CONCAWE
and JRC presented their price assumptions for key
components, systems and technologies used in their
economical assessment of the Tank-To-Wheel (TTW)
study. The prices provided for these components are
equivalent to delivered costs to vehicle manufacturers
and no mark up to include further costs (e.g. warranty)
is included. The study assumes a volume of more than
50,000 units per year, projected for beyond 2010. The
components (and their price assumptions) covered in
this study include friction improvement (€60),
gasoline/spark-ignition direct injection (€500),
turbocharging (€180), and 20% downsizing for
gasoline/spark-ignition (€220) [21, 22].
POTENTIAL AND BARRIERS - Major drivers for the
development and the introduction of new engine
technologies include the need to meet environmental
goals (e.g. Kyoto Protocol) and legislations. There are
several fuel economy and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions standards for passenger cars currently being
proposed, already established or in the process of
revision around the world. The fuel economy standards
include the US Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) programme and Japan’s Top Runner energy
efficiency programme. China, Taiwan and South Korea
have also established mandatory fuel economy
6
0.7 Euros to the Dollar throughout this paper
4
Please send comments to Tom.Palmer@aeat.co.uk, Nikolas.Hill@aeat.co.uk, Johannes.VonEinem@aeat.co.uk, Yvonne.Li@aeat.co.uk (Authors), and
to Giorgio.Simbolotti@enea.it and Giancarlo Tosato (gct@etsap.org), Project Coordinators
© IEA ETSAP - Technology Brief T01 – April 2010 - www.etsap.org
standards while Austria has called for a voluntary
industrial agreement to reduce fleet average fuel
consumption for passenger cars. The California Air
Resources Board (CARB) has issued regulations
limiting the fleet average GHG emissions (CO2, CH4,
N2O and HFCs) from passenger cars. The Canadian
government also announced it will take measures to
reduce GHG emissions, shifting from its earlier
voluntary Company Average Fuel Consumption (CAFC)
programme to mandatory regulatory programmes. In
the European Union, the Commission has proposed
new-car CO2 regulations, which require a fleet average
of 130g of CO2 per kilometre to be achieved by all cars
registered in the EU, and a long-term target of 95g/km
for the year 2020 [17].
Approximately 46.6 million new passenger cars were
sold worldwide in 2006, compared to 43.4 million in
2005 [18, 19]. Apart from the ongoing economic crisis,
not only emerging economies but also OECD countries
still show a strongly increasing car ownership rate [15].
Gasoline engines power the great majority of passenger
cars in the world, especially in countries such as the
US, Japan and China (although in Europe, new sales of
diesel cars surpassed gasoline cars in 2006).
Advanced gasoline engines are expected to remain
competitive in vehicle applications for the near future. If
technologies to improve gasoline engines can obtain a
better “cost to benefit” ratio in terms of CO2 reduction, it
will be commercially attractive to introduce them into the
new car fleet mix. Moreover, they are more technically
mature than hydrogen and electric vehicles and can be
deployed instantly using the existing infrastructure.
They can offer near-term solutions addressed to the
climate issue, with affordable costs for customers.
Market potential may vary between countries depending
on availability, prices and the level of fuel duty between
petrol, diesel and alternative fuels. A few technical
bottlenecks remain for some of the technologies
discussed such as the HCCI (CAI). Moreover, different
advanced technologies are being studied to a greater or
lesser extent by different companies. Some of these
technologies are mutually exclusive while others can be
additive (e.g. turbo-downsized GDI, GDI with VVT and
VVL). Hybrid electric technology may also benefit from
developments in advanced engines.
References and Further Information
1. EPA 2008, EPA Staff Technical Report: Cost and Effectiveness Estimates of Technologies Used to Reduce Light-duty Vehicle
Carbon Dioxide Emissions, EPA420-R-08-008, United States Environment Protection Agency, March 2008.
2. EPA 2008, A Study of Potential Effectiveness of Carbon Dioxide Reducing Vehicle Technologies, Revised Final Report, EPA420-
R-08-004a, United States Environment Protection Agency, June 2008.
3. IEA 2005, Making cars more efficient: Technology for Real Improvements on the Road, International Energy Agency and European
Conference of Ministers of Transport Joint Report, 2005.
4. TNO 2006, Review and analysis of the reduction potential and costs of technological and other measures to reduce CO2-emissions
from passenger cars, Contract nr. S12.408212, TNO/ IEEP/ LAT, October 2006.
5. Drake and Haworth 2007, Advanced gasoline engine development using optical diagnostics and numerical modelling, Proceedings
of the Combustion Institute 31 (2007) 99-124.
6. Alkidas 2007, Combustion advancements in gasoline engines, Energy Conversion and Management 48 (2007) 2751-2761. [6]
Mahle Powertrain 2007, Special Edition Mahle Powertrain, Customer magazine.
7. Lake et al. 2003, Turbocharging Concepts for Downsized DI Gasoline Engines.
8. Volkswagen brochure, TSI. A Miracle of Performance,
http://www.volkswagen.co.nz/publish/vwasia/new_zealand/en/experience/technology/tsi_technology.html.
9. Renault http://www.renault.com/en/innovation/eco-
technologies/documents_without_moderation/pdf%20env%20gb/integrale%20env%20gb.pdf.
10. BMW’s Valvetronic http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/technology_guide/articles/mm_valvetronic.html.
11. Honda’s VTEChttp://world.honda.com/news/2006/4060925VTEC/.
12. Nissan’s VVEL http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/TECHNOLOGY/INTRODUCTION/DETAILS/VVEL/index.html
13. EC2002, Variable Compression Ratio Technology for CO2 Reduction of Gasoline Engines in Passenger Cars, European
Commission Community Research. http://ec.europa.eu/research/growth/gcc/projects/provcr.html.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2002/pdf/presspacks/1-1-vcr_en.pdf.
14. Carbon Trust 2003, Low Cost Solution for Gasoline Engine Controlled Auto Ignition, Project reference number 2003-5-22.
15. General Motor http://www.gm.com/experience/fuel_economy/news/2007/adv_engines/new-combustion-technology-082707.jsp
16. ETP 2008, Energy Technology Perspectives 2008, International Energy Agency.
17. ICCT 2007, Passenger Vehicle Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards: A Global Update, International Council on Clean
Transportation (ICCT), www.theicct.org.
18. ACEA 2008, European Automotive Industry Report 07/08, 2008.
19. ACEA 2006, European Automotive Industry Report 2006, 2006.
20. Kollamthodi, S. et al., Transport technologies marginal abatement cost curve model - technology and efficiency measures, AEA
Technology, 2008.
21. DOE 2008, FY 2008 Progress Report for Advanced Combustion Engine Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Office of Vehicle Technologies, U.S. Department of Energy, December 2008.
22. Ford EcoBoost, gasoline engines with turbocharging and direct injection technology http://www.ford.com/about-ford/news-
announcements/press-releases/press-releases-detail/pr-affordable-technology-for-today-27833#
23. General Motor’s advanced engine technologies (VVT, direct injection, cylinder deactivation, direct injection with turbocharging)
http://www.gm.com/corporate/responsibility/reports/08/400_products/4-2-1.jsp
24. Volkswagen’s TSI engines (gasoline direct injection with turbocharging and supercharging)
http://www.volkswagen.co.nz/publish/vwasia/new_zealand/en/experience/technology/tsi_technology.html
5
Please send comments to Tom.Palmer@aeat.co.uk, Nikolas.Hill@aeat.co.uk, Johannes.VonEinem@aeat.co.uk, Yvonne.Li@aeat.co.uk (Authors), and
to Giorgio.Simbolotti@enea.it and Giancarlo Tosato (gct@etsap.org), Project Coordinators
© IEA ETSAP - Technology Brief T01 – April 2010 - www.etsap.org
Table 2 – Summary Table: Key Data and Figures for Baseline and Advanced Gasoline Vehicles
Baseline Vehicles (Source [20])
Technical Performance Small Cars Medium Cars Large Cars
Energy Input Gasoline
Energy Output Kilometres
Base Energy Consumption (l/km) 0.062 0.072 0.111
Technical Lifetime, yrs 12 12 12
Environmental Impact
CO2 and other GHG emissions, g/km 143.5 166.7 255.0
Costs
Capital Cost, overnight, Euro/unit 10,279 16,643 25,505
O&M cost (fixed and variable), Euro/km 0.03 0.04 0.05
Economic Lifetime, yrs 12 12 12
Advanced Vehicles (Source [20])
Technical Performance Small Cars Medium Cars Large Cars
Energy Input Gasoline
Energy Output Kilometres
Base Energy Consumption (l/km) 0.055 0.064 0.097
Technical Lifetime, yrs 12 12 12
Environmental Impact
CO2 and other GHG emissions, g/km 126.3 146.7 224.4
Costs
Additional Capital Cost, overnight, Euro/unit 231 – 401 308 – 462 130 – 524
O&M cost (fixed and variable), Euro/km 0.03 0.04 0.05
Economic Lifetime, yrs 12 12 12
Table 3 – CO2 Emission Reductions for Advanced Gasoline Technologies
CO2 reduction (%)
EPA 2008 [1]
IEA
2005
[2]
IEA
2008
[3]
TNO/IEEP/LAT
2006 [4]
Drake
and
Haworth
2007 [5]
Small Large Small Medium Large
Reduced engine friction losses 1-3 1-3 2-4 3 4 5
DI / homogeneous charge (stoichiometric) 1-2 1-2
12-15 3-5
3 3 3 3-5
DI/Stratified charge (lean burn/complex strategies)
9-12 10-14 10 10 10
8-12
(WG); 20
(SG)
Mild downsizing with turbocharging
6-9 6-9
2-4
2-3
Medium downsizing with turbocharging 8.5 10 10
Strong downsizing with turbocharging 12 12 12
Variable Valve Timing 2-3 1-4 1.5-2.5 6-8 3 3 3
Variable valve control 4-5 3-6 5-7 7 7 7
Cylinder deactivation 6 6-8
Controlled auto-ignition (CAI) /Gasoline HCCI
dual-mode
11-14 11-14 20
Table 4 – Incremental Costs of Advanced Gasoline Technologies
EPA 2008 [Euro] [1] TNO/IEEP/LAT 2006 [Euro] [2]
Small Large Small Medium Large
Reduced engine friction losses 0-58 0-88 40 50 60
DI / homogeneous charge (stoichiometric) 85-294 143-368 125 150 175
DI / Stratified charge (lean burn / complex strategies) 610-819 668-893 320 400 480
Mild downsizing with turbocharging
Medium downsizing with turbocharging 225 300 375
Strong downsizing with turbocharging 390 450 510
Variable Valve Timing 41-62 41-146 100 150 200
Variable valve control 118-419 172-883 300 350 400
Cylinder deactivation 142
Controlled auto-ignition (CAI) /Gasoline HCCI dual-mode 270-478 416-641
No comments:
Post a Comment