Ford Fiesta ECOnetic Diesel Test results report

Transcription

Ford Fiesta ECOnetic
Diesel
Test results report
November 2011
ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles
1
Disclaimer notice
Transport Canada's ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles program ("eTV") tests emerging vehicle technologies to assess
their performance in accordance with established Canadian motor vehicle standards. The test results presented herein
do not, in themselves, represent an official determination by Transport Canada regarding fuel consumption or
compliance with safety and emission standards of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle component. Transport Canada
does not certify, approve or endorse any motor vehicle product. Technologies selected for evaluation, and test results,
are not intended to convey policy or recommendations on behalf of Transport Canada or the Government of Canada.
Transport Canada and more generally the Government of Canada make no representation or warranty of any kind,
either express or implied, as to the technologies selected for testing and evaluation by eTV, nor as to their fitness for
any particular use. Transport Canada and more generally the Government of Canada do not assume nor accept any
liability arising from any use of the information and applications contained or provided on or through these test results.
Transport Canada and more generally the Government of Canada do not assume nor accept any liability arising from
any use of third party sourced content.
Any comments concerning its content should be directed to:
Transport Canada
Environmental Initiatives (AHEC)
ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles (eTV) Program
330 Sparks Street
Place de Ville, Tower C
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
E-mail: eTV@tc.gc.ca
© Her Majesty in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Transport, 2010-2011
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 4 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 6 2 TESTING PROGRAM........................................................................................... 7 3 TESTING LOCATIONS ........................................................................................ 7 4 VEHICLE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................ 8 5 PHASE I - FUEL CONSUMPTION AND EMISSIONS TESTING.................. 9 5.1 5.2 5.3 6 PHASE II - DYNAMICS TESTING ................................................................... 21 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 7 FUEL CONSUMPTION .................................................................................... 11 5.1.1 2-Cycle vs. 5-Cycle Fuel Consumption Methods ............................ 11 5.1.2 2-Cycle Fuel Consumption Results ................................................. 18 5.1.3 5-Cycle Fuel Consumption Results ................................................. 20 CO2 EMISSION RESULTS .............................................................................. 20 REGULATED AIR POLLUTION EMISSION RESULTS ........................................ 20 ACCELERATION EVALUATION ...................................................................... 22 MAXIMUM SPEED IN GEAR .......................................................................... 24 LATERAL ACCELERATION ............................................................................ 25 6.3.1 Skid Pad Test ................................................................................... 25 6.3.2 Emergency Lane Change Manoeuvre ............................................. 27 NOISE EMISSIONS TESTS .............................................................................. 29 6.4.1 Exterior Noise (CMVSS 1106) ........................................................ 29 6.4.2 Interior Noise .................................................................................. 31 BRAKING...................................................................................................... 33 6.5.1 Light Vehicle Braking Systems (CMVSS 135) ................................... 33 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 35 7.1 WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR CANADIANS?................................................... 36 LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................... 38 ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Diesel vehicles are typically 20-30% more fuel efficient than comparable gasolinepowered vehicles. In the past, the advantages of diesel-powered light duty vehicles were
overshadowed by operational deficiencies compared to gasoline vehicles such as noise,
vibration, harshness (NVH), higher emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate
matter (PM) in the exhaust, and poor cold starting performance. Due to advancements in
the diesel combustion process and exhaust treatment, the technology is now better-suited
for consumers to reduce their fuel consumption and carbon footprint without sacrificing
operational characteristics.
The ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles (eTV) program acquired the Ford Fiesta ECOnetic
because it possesses a number of advanced technology features that reduce emissions and
help save fuel. The Fiesta ECOnetic is one of the most fuel efficient vehicles in Ford's
European line up. ECOnetic is the name used by Ford to refer to its models designed to
minimize environmental impacts.
The advanced technologies in this vehicle include a turbocharged diesel engine equipped
with a common rail direct injection system, a diesel particulate filter and an aerodynamic
design that includes small air deflectors on the trailing edge of the wheel wells.
The eTV program is evaluating the extent to which the advanced diesel technologies
equipped on the vehicles and aerodynamics reduce fuel consumption, greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and other pollutants. In particular, eTV is evaluating the European
Fiesta ECOnetic's performance under Canadian driving conditions in order to identify any
possible regulatory or consumer barriers that may negatively impact the introduction of
the various advanced technologies featured in the vehicle.
Results of eTV’s testing activities are summarized in the following table.
Criteria
Results
Fuel Consumption •
•
CO2 Emissions
2-cycle testing representing city driving and highway driving, the method used
to determine fuel consumption according to Canadian regulations, resulted in
the following consumption values:
o 5.3 L/100 km for the city
o 3.9 L/100 km for the highway
o 4.7 L/100 km combined city and highway
5-cycle testing, the method used by United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) typically results in fuel consumption values that are 10 to 20%
higher than those determined using the 2-cycle method. eTV’s results using this
test method are:
o 6.0 L/100 km for the city
o 4.7 L/100 km for the highway
o 5.4 L/100 km combined city and highway
The combined value of 4.7 L/100 km results in CO2 emissions of 126 g/km. When
compared with the national average for all 2010 compact cars available in Canada
of 225 g/km, the Fiesta ECOnetic offers a 44% improvement in CO2 emissions.
The vehicle is also 19% more fuel efficient than the most efficient dieselpowered vehicle in the Canadian compact class (2009 Volkswagen Jetta
TDI).
4
Criteria
Regulated
Exhaust
Emissions (CO,
NMOG, NOx, and
PM)
Results
The Ford Fiesta ECOnetic tested was obtained from the European market. The
vehicle conforms to Euro 4 emission standards. The Canadian emission
regulations adopt the EPA emission standards that categorize emission limits into
bins. Light-Duty Vehicles (LDV) must satisfy Bin 8 or lower. Manufacturers’
fleet average must also satisfy the Bin 5 level emissions for NOx.
The following is a summary of the air pollution emission results from eTV’s tests
on the Fiesta ECOnetic:
FTP-75 Emissions (g/mi)
PM
HCHO
CO
NMOG
NOx
Tier 2, Bin 5
3.40
0.075
0.05
0.010*
0.015
Tier 2, Bin 8
3.40
0.100
0.14
0.020*
0.015
Ford Fiesta
0.10
0.016
0.62
0.002
0.001
* these emission limits apply to the “full useful life” of 120,000 miles (193,121
km) or 10 years, whichever occurs first. All other Tier 2 emission standards
apply to “intermediate useful life,” which is 50,000 miles (80467 km) or 5 years.
The recorded NOx emissions were higher than the Canadian Tier 2, Bin 8 standards.
The Ford Fiesta exceeds the Canadian standard of 0.14 g/mi. Levels of CO, nonmethane organic gases (NMOG), particulate matter (PM) and formaldehyde
(HCHO) were all well below Tier 2, Bin 5 emissions standards.
Dynamic
Performance
The vehicle performed adequately in all dynamic performance evaluations
conducted on the test track. One possible concern may be the vehicle’s slower than
average acceleration. Typical vehicles in North America can accelerate from 0-100
km/h in about 9 seconds. Very few will take longer than 12 seconds. Since the
acceleration results show that the Fiesta took approximately 15 seconds to complete
0-100 km/h, some consumers may be concerned about the vehicle’s ability to merge
with traffic at highway speeds.
The following is a summary of the results from the tests conducted:
Test Parameter
Acceleration
Maximum speed (Vmax) in gear
Maximum lateral acceleration
Noise (exterior) –
CMVSS 1106
Noise (interior)
Braking distance –
CMVSS 135
Result
0-100 km/h in 15 seconds
1st – 43.2 km/h, 2nd – 80.8 km/h
3rd – 121.6 km/h, 4th – 160.9 km/h
5th – 164.5 km/h (top speed overall)
Skid pad: 0.77 G (7.6 m/s2)
Emergency lane change: 1.0 G (10 m/s2)
Acceleration – 65.5 dB (pass)
Deceleration – 64.9 dB (pass)
Acceleration – 77.6 dB
Constant speed (100 km/h) – 74.0 dB
From 50 km/h – 11.6 m (pass)
5
Barriers to the Introduction of Diesel Technologies in Canada
Potential barriers to the introduction of clean diesel technologies into Canada include:
1) Cost:
One concern consumers may have regarding the purchase of new vehicle technologies,
such as diesel, is the capital acquisition cost. Clearly presenting the fuel consumption
advantages and performance of clean diesel results to Canadians can help them better
understand benefits of diesel vehicles, and increase market uptake.
Acceptance of diesel technology has improved in North America in recent years – a result
of advances in clean diesel technologies. In fact, when a diesel powered vehicle is
available as an option over the traditional gasoline powered vehicle, the consumer chose
the diesel up to 30% of the time (in comparison to 10% for hybrids over their gasoline
counterparts) 1 .
2) Compliance Costs
There are important emissions and safety compliance differences between North America
and Europe. It is up to the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) to ensure compliance
with the standards in effect in each market. Sometimes modifications required to ensure
compliance of diesel technology in multiple jurisdictions may come at a large cost– thus
making it difficult to justify certification of a new diesel engine for the North American
market, rather than alternatively focusing on improvements to gasoline engines.
1 INTRODUCTION
Diesel vehicles are typically 20-30% more fuel efficient than comparable gasolinepowered vehicles. One prominent factor for this increased efficiency is that diesel engines
typically operate at much higher compression ratios, often around two times the
compression ratio of typical gasoline engines. Since diesel fuel is not vulnerable to preignition or “knocking,” the compression ratio can be significantly higher, which
effectively allows more mechanical force to be extracted from each drop of fuel.
In the past, the advantages of diesel-powered light duty vehicles were overshadowed by
operational deficiencies compared to gasoline vehicles such as noise, vibration, harshness
(NVH), higher emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) in the
exhaust, and poor cold starting performance. Due to advancements in the diesel
combustion process and exhaust treatment, the technology is now better-suited for
consumers, and can help reduce their fuel consumption and carbon footprint without
sacrificing operational characteristics.
1
“Research and Markets: Analysis of Diesel Powertrain Outlook and Technology Roadmap in NA”.
http://www.pr-inside.com/research-and-markets-analysis-of-diesel-r2516746.htm, Business Wire, 2011.
6
The ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles (eTV) program acquired the Ford Fiesta ECOnetic
because it possesses a number of advanced technology features that reduce emissions and
help save fuel. The Fiesta ECOnetic is one of the most fuel efficient vehicles in Ford's
European line up. ECOnetic is the name used by Ford to refer to its models designed to
minimize environmental impacts.
The Fiesta ECOnetic's advanced technologies include a turbocharged diesel engine
equipped with a common rail direct injection system and a diesel particulate filter that
significantly reduces the unburned carbon “soot” from the vehicles exhaust. As well, its
aerodynamic design includes small air deflectors on the trailing edge of the wheel wells
and a suspension lowered by 10 mm (compared to other Ford Fiesta trims), that helps
control airflow and reduce aerodynamic drag.
Compared to the previous-generation Fiesta 1.6-litre TDCi, the ECOnetic model uses 160
litres less fuel over 20,000 km, offering real savings in daily driving. The use of
lightweight materials in its construction has also helped improved efficiencies. Despite the
addition of new safety equipment and sound insulation, the Fiesta ECOnetic weighs 40 kg
less than the previous model.
The eTV program is evaluating the extent to which the Fiesta ECOnetic's advanced diesel
technologies and aerodynamics reduce fuel consumption, Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions and other pollutants. In particular, eTV is evaluating the European ECOnetic's
performance in Canadian driving conditions.
2 TESTING PROGRAM
The Ford Fiesta ECOnetic was tested and evaluated over two phases: laboratory fuel
consumption and emissions testing, and dynamics testing on a track. These different
phases assessed the vehicle’s overall performance, and served to identify any possible
regulatory or consumer barriers that may negatively impact the introduction of the various
advanced technologies featured in the vehicle.
The Fiesta ECOnetic was evaluated using standard test procedures for conventional
vehicles based on practices used by the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(CMVSS). These procedures are included in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
and were developed with input from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT), the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and SAE International.
3 TESTING LOCATIONS
Phase I testing was performed in partnership with Environment Canada at the Emissions
Research and Measurements Section (ERMS) located in Ottawa, Ontario. Fuel
7
consumption testing was performed in a controlled laboratory using a vehicle chassis
dynamometer. The laboratory environment ensured that testing was completed within ± 1
degree Celsius of the required test temperature. The vehicle was tested under different
driving cycles, where speed was maintained within a ± 1.5 km/h limit.
Phase II testing was performed at Transport Canada’s Motor Vehicle Test Centre in
Blainville, Québec. The closed test track environment was necessary to ensure that testing
was performed under controlled conditions. The test track is comprised of over 25
kilometres of road, including a high-speed and a low-speed circuit, which allow for a
variety of tests to be conducted.
4 VEHICLE OVERVIEW
Figure 1: Ford Fiesta ECOnetic
The Ford Fiesta ECOnetic is a compact passenger vehicle produced for the European
market. The Fiesta ECOnetic is equipped with several technologies that can reduce the
vehicle’s carbon footprint, emissions, and NVH (Noise, Vibration and Harshness).
The combustion cycle of diesel vehicles can be improved through the use of common rail
direct fuel injection. This technology employs a high pressure fuel rail and electronically
activated injection of a precise amount of high-pressure fuel, which improves the fuel-air
mixing in the engine’s cylinders. This results in better timing, improved efficiency and
reduced NVH.
8
Manufacturers often use advanced diesel exhaust treatment technologies, such as diesel
particulate filters (DPF) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) converters, to reduce PM
emissions, and NOx respectively. However, the Fiesta ECOnetic is only equipped with a
passive DPF to capture PM emissions. Therefore, the Fiesta ECOnetic is expected to emit
low PM emissions but high NOx emissions compared to other vehicles equipped with
SCR converters.
Some technical features of the Fiesta ECOnetic that optimize the fuel efficiency and
minimize emissions are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Low rolling resistance tires, which reduce the energy lost to friction along the
road;
Engine calibration optimized for fuel efficiency;
Transmission final drive ratio changed from 3.37 to 3.05 (compared to other Fiesta
trims), which lowers the engine rpm and reduces fuel consumption at highway
speeds;
Green shift indicator light that signals optimum upshift gear change timing to help
improve fuel economy;
Aerodynamic rear air deflectors which channel airflow over the tires more
efficiently to reduce drag; and
Sport suspension lowered by 10 mm maximises aerodynamic stability to achieve a
lower drag coefficient.
Table 1 shows manufacturer claimed specifications for the vehicle.
Weight
Length
Width
Height
Seating
Fuel Type
Drag Coefficient
Acceleration
CO2 Emissions
Table 1: Specifications for the Ford Fiesta ECOnetic
1,105 kg
Front wheel
Drive Type
3.95 m
4-cylinder 1.6 L Duratorq
Engine
TDCi
1.97 m
5-speed manual
Transmission
1.48 m
200 Nm / 148 lb-ft
Torque
5
66 kW / 90 hp
Power
Ultra low sulphur diesel
Fuel Efficiency*
4.6 L/100 km
City
Highway 3.2 L/100 km
0.33
40 L
Fuel Tank Capacity
0-100 km/h in 12.3 seconds
1080 km
Driving Range
98 g/km
Discs / Discs
Brakes (f/r)
*Based on European driving cycles
5 PHASE I - FUEL CONSUMPTION AND EMISSIONS TESTING
More than 3,500 kilometres of vehicle and engine use were accumulated on the Ford
Fiesta ECOnetic, in accordance with Canadian test procedures for measuring fuel
9
consumption. Once mileage accumulation was completed, the vehicle was soaked 2 at the
specified temperature (for the particular test) for no less than eight hours before each test.
This ensures that the vehicle may be compared against other test vehicles undergoing the
same emissions and fuel/energy consumption evaluations, and that all electrical and
mechanical components and fluids have reached the chosen temperature by the time of
testing.
Emissions and fuel consumption tests were performed as per the Canadian and U.S.
regulation procedures, which were all performed at the facilities operated by the
Emissions Research and Measurements Section (ERMS) of Environment Canada.
Evaluations were performed over five duty cycles listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Chassis Dynamometer Test Schedule
Duty Cycle
Urban Driving
Highway Driving
Cold Test
Aggressive Driving
Electrical Load
Test Standard
FTP-75
HWFET
FTP-72
US06
US SC03
# of tests
2
2
1
1
1
The vehicle was mounted on a chassis dynamometer. A chassis dynamometer allows the
vehicle’s drive wheels to turn while the vehicle is stationary, and provides a resistance that
is equivalent to what the vehicle would experience travelling on actual roads (essentially a
treadmill designed for automobiles).
The road load force parameters were obtained from a series of coastdown tests performed
from 115 km/h to 15 km/h, as specified by SAE J1263 – Road Load Measurement and
Dynamometer Simulation Using Coastdown Techniques. The result was a model for road
load force as a function of speed. This model is used to calibrate the dynamometer such
that it provides a resistance that is equivalent to what the vehicle would experience
travelling on actual roads. The calibrations simulate driving on a dry, level road, under
reference conditions of 20°C (68°F) and approximately 101 kPa (29.00 in-Hg), with no
wind or precipitation and with the transmission in neutral.
ERMS collected and analyzed exhaust emissions for each of the duty cycles listed in
Table 2. The emissions data were analyzed for:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2);
• Carbon monoxide (CO);
• Nitrogen oxides (NOx);
• Particulate matter (PM);
• Total hydrocarbons (THC);
2
To soak a vehicle means to park it in the test chamber with the engine turned off and allow the entire
vehicle, including engine, fluids, transmission and drive train, to reach the test cell temperature prior to the
beginning of a test.
10
•
•
Non-methane organic gases (NMOG); and
Formaldehyde (HCHO).
Other than CO2, the analyzed substances are considered air pollutants, commonly referred
to as criteria air contaminants (CACs).
5.1 FUEL CONSUMPTION Diesel vehicles are typically 20-30% more fuel efficient than comparable gasolinepowered vehicles. One prominent factor for this increased efficiency is that diesel engines
typically operate at much higher compression ratios, often around two times the
compression ratio of a typical gasoline engine. Since diesel fuel is not vulnerable to preignition or “knocking,” the compression ratio of diesel engines can be significantly higher
than gasoline engines, which effectively allow more mechanical force to be extracted from
each drop of fuel. Based on the Fuel Consumption Guide 2011, the cost per year in fuel
use is about 20% lower for diesel vehicles compared to similar gasoline-powered variants,
based on the following assumptions: fuel prices of $1.05 for regular gasoline, $1.15 for
premium gasoline and $1.15 for diesel fuel. This is around $400 in fuel savings each year
for a typical compact vehicle driven 20,000 km annually, and furthermore the savings are
likely to be even greater for larger vehicles that consume more fuel.
However, diesel engines often cost more to purchase, because they must be designed to
operate at higher pressures. Often, for a mid-sized vehicle, a diesel engine option is
$2,000-3,000 more expensive than the gasoline version. Based on this cost differential, the
fuel savings would take approximately 5-7.5 years to return the extra capital cost on the
diesel engine for a compact car. Vehicles priced above $50,000 may not have a significant
difference in price between the diesel engine option and a comparable gasoline engine
option. Other fuel-saving technology options are available and should be considered when
examining the cost-benefit of diesel vehicles.
5.1.1 2‐Cycle vs. 5‐Cycle Fuel Consumption Methods Two methods were used to measure the fuel consumption of the Ford Fiesta ECOnetic:
• The 2-cycle method, which utilizes simulated drive patterns or ‘cycles’
representing city driving and highway driving, is the method used to determine
fuel consumption values published by Natural Resources Canada in the Fuel
Consumption Guide and on the EnerGuide Label affixed to all new light-duty
vehicles.
• The 5-cycle method utilizes cycles that simulate city driving, highway driving,
aggressive driving style, city driving in cold temperature (at -7 ºC), and driving
with an electrical load due to air conditioning. This test method is generally
considered to more accurately reflect real-world driving. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency uses this method to determine fuel consumption.
11
The test cycles are derived from extensive data on real-world driving conditions, such as
driving activity, trip length and stopping frequency, among other factors.
The Federal Test Procedure (FTP), or 2-cycle test method, is composed of two tests – the
city test (using the U.S. FTP-75 driving cycle) and the highway test (using the U.S.
HWFET driving cycle). Fuel consumption from these test cycles are calculated from the
emissions generated. The fuel consumption ratings, or advertised fuel consumption, as
published by Natural Resources Canada in the annual Fuel Consumption Guide, are
generated based on fuel consumption values from the laboratory testing. They are then
adjusted, using Canadian factors, to reflect real-world driving conditions. Advertised fuel
consumption is obtained by adjusting the measured fuel consumption upward 10% and
15% respectively for the city and highway cycles to account for real-world differences
between the way vehicles are driven on the road and over the test cycles. Combined city
and highway fuel consumption is obtained using a ratio of 55% city and 45% highway.
The 5-cycle test method takes into
consideration additional driving conditions
including: aggressive driving style, use of air
conditioning, and urban driving in cold
conditions. The U.S. EPA began to
implement the additional test cycles, known
collectively as the Supplemental Federal
Test Procedure (SFTP), for fuel consumption
in 2006, and started publishing fuel
consumption results according to the 5-cycle test procedure for model year 2008 vehicles.
Prior to this, both Canada and the United States used both the FTP and SFTP, or 5-cycle
method, for emissions testing of vehicles only.
The annual Fuel Consumption Guide is
just one of several decision-making tools
produced by the ecoENERGY for Personal
Vehicles program at NRCan. This program
provides Canadian motorists with helpful
tips on buying, driving and maintaining
their vehicles to reduce fuel consumption
and GHG emissions that contribute to
climate change.
The 5-cycle method includes testing over a wider range of driving patterns and
temperature conditions than those tested under the 2-cycle method. For example, the US06
aggressive driving cycle takes into account aggressive driving. Furthermore, drivers often
use air conditioning in warm and/or humid conditions. The US SC03 test cycle reflects the
added fuel needed to operate the air conditioning system. As well, given Canada’s
climate, a typical vehicle will be driven below 0°C on a fairly regular basis. The U.S.
FTP-72 cold test cycle, conducted at 20°F (-7°C), is used to reflect the effect on fuel
consumption when starting and operating an engine at lower temperatures.
Fuel consumption values derived from either the 2-cycle or 5-cycle method have merit
when used to compare the fuel consumption of one vehicle to that of another. However,
comparisons are only valid when the method for obtaining the fuel consumption value is
consistent. For example, a fuel consumption value derived from the 2-cycle method
should only be compared to other fuel consumption values derived from the 2-cycle
method. Because it takes other factors into account that typically increase fuel
consumption the 5-cycle method usually yields fuel consumption values that are
approximately 10% to 20% higher than the advertised 2-cycle fuel consumption value for
the same make and model. However, accurate forecasting of fuel consumption is difficult
in practice due to the many unpredictable factors that affect driving efficiency.
12
Figure 2 shows a schematic of the process that is used to determine the advertised or
‘label’ fuel consumption values. As figured, the 2-cycle method used in Canada measures
fuel consumption based on the city and highway drive cycles. These results are adjusted
upward 10% and 15% respectively to produce the advertised fuel consumption values. The
5-cycle method uses the city, highway, aggressive (US06), air conditioning (SC03), and
cold city drive cycles, all of which are used to calculate the advertised city and highway
fuel consumption estimates in the United States.
Figure 2: Schematic Diagram of the Process for Calculating Fuel Consumption Using the 2-Cycle
Method and the 5-Cycle Method
The following sub-sections describe the driving cycles used for fuel consumption testing.
5.1.1.1 U.S. FTP‐72 (Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule) Cycle The FTP-72 cycle is performed in cold (-7ºC) test conditions only.
U.S. FTP-72 (Federal Test Procedure) is also known as the Urban Dynamometer Driving
Schedule (UDDS) and the LA4 cycle. The cycle is a simulation of an urban driving route
that is approximately 12.07 km long and takes 1,369 seconds (approximately 23 minutes)
to complete. The cycle consists of multiple stops and achieves a maximum speed of 91.3
km/h. The average speed of the cycle is 31.5 km/h.
The cycle is separated into two phases. The first phase begins with a cold start and lasts
505 seconds (a little over 8 minutes), with a distance of 5.78 km and an average speed of
41.2 km/h. The second phase begins after an engine stop of 10 minutes. It lasts 864
seconds (about 14 minutes). All emissions are recorded in grams/mile. The speed versus
time trace of the cycle is shown in Figure 3.
13
EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
Length 1,369 seconds - Distance = 12.1 km - Average Speed = 31.5 km/h
Vehicle Speed, Kph
100,0
80,0
60,0
40,0
20,0
1
52
103
154
205
256
307
358
409
460
511
562
613
664
715
766
817
868
919
970
1021
1072
1123
1174
1225
1276
1327
0,0
Test Time, Secs
Figure 3: FTP-72 Driving Cycle
A composite result for fuel consumption and emissions production of all the combined
phases is achieved by applying weighting factors of 0.43 for the first phase and 0.57 for
the second phase. The parameters for the driving cycle are listed below.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ambient temperature = –7°C
Time = 1,369 seconds (22 minutes, 49 seconds)
Length = 12.1 km
Top Speed = 91.3 km/h
Average Speed = 31.5 km/h
Number of Stops = 18
5.1.1.2 FTP‐75 Driving Cycle The U.S. FTP-75 cycle is used in North America for emissions and fuel economy
certification of light duty vehicles. The cycle is also traditionally used to evaluate coldstart and hot-start emissions and fuel consumption, and represents low speed urban driving
conditions with mild acceleration and deceleration.
The FTP-75 cycle consists of the following segments; (i) cold start phase, 505 seconds (a
little more than 8 minutes); (ii) transient phase, 864 seconds (about 14 minutes); and (iii)
hot-start phase, 505 seconds (a little more than 8 minutes). The FTP-75 is identical to the
FTP-72 procedure, with the addition of a third phase with a hot-start, essentially a repeat
of the first 505 seconds of the cycle. After the second phase is completed the engine is
stopped for a 600-second (10-minute) soak and re-started. The entire cycle lasts 1,874
seconds or approximately 31 minutes (not including the 600-second soak), with a total
distance travelled of 17.8 km. The average speed of the cycle is 34.1 km/h. Emissions are
14
collected in a Teflon bag and analyzed. The results are reported in g/mile. The speed
versus time trace of the cycle is shown in Figure 4.
EPA Federal Test Procedure
Length 1,874 seconds - Distance - 17.8 km - Average Speed - 34.1 km/h
90
70
50
30
10
-10
1
69
137
205
273
341
409
477
545
613
681
749
817
885
953
1021
1089
1157
1225
1293
1361
1429
1497
1565
1633
1701
1769
1837
Vehicle Speed, kph
110
Test Time, secs
Figure 4: U.S. FTP-75 Driving Cycle Chart
A composite result for fuel consumption and emissions production of all the combined
phases is achieved by applying weighting factors of 0.43 for the cold start, 1.0 for the
transient and 0.57 hot start phases. Parameters of the driving cycle are listed below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ambient temperature = 20°C to 30°C
Time = 1,874 seconds (31 minutes, 14 seconds)
Distance = 17.8 km (11.04 miles)
Top Speed = 91.3 km/h (56.7 mph)
Average Speed = 34.1 km/h (21.2 mph)
Number of Stops = 23
5.1.1.3 HWFET Driving Cycle The Highway Fuel Economy Test (HWFET) is a simulation of higher speed/highway
driving. It takes 765 seconds (nearly 13 minutes) to complete, with a total distance of 16.5
km travelled. The maximum speed of the cycle is 96.5 km/h. The test is preceded by a
warm-up cycle. The speed versus time trace of the cycle is shown in Figure 5.
15
EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test Driving Schedule
Le ngt h 7 6 5 s e c o nds - D is t a nc e - 16 .5 k m - A v e ra ge S pe e d - 7 7 .7 k m / h
Vehicle Speed, kph
100
80
60
40
20
1
29
57
85
113
141
169
197
225
253
281
309
337
365
393
421
449
477
505
533
561
589
617
645
673
701
729
757
0
Test Time, secs
Figure 5: HWFET Driving Cycle
The parameters for the driving cycle are listed below:
•
•
•
•
•
Ambient temperature = 20°-30°C
Time = 765 seconds (12 minutes, 45 seconds)
Length = 16.5 km
5.1.1.4 US06 Driving Cycle The US06 driving cycle was developed by the EPA to represent aggressive, high speed,
hard acceleration/deceleration driving. It incorporates rapid speed fluctuations and better
represents “real world” driving behaviour. Figure 6 illustrates this driving cycle. The cycle
takes 596 seconds (nearly 10 minutes) to complete, with a total distance of 12.8 km
travelled. The maximum speed of the cycle is 129.2 km/h. The average speed of the cycle
is 77.4 km/h. The cycle is preceded by a warm-up cycle.
16
US 06 or Supplemental FTP Driving Schedule
Length 596 seconds - Distance - 12.8 km - Average Speed - 77.4 km/h
Vehicle Speed, kph
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
581
552
523
494
465
436
407
378
349
320
291
262
233
204
175
146
117
88
59
30
1
0
Test Time, secs
Figure 6: US06 Driving Cycle
•
•
•
•
•
•
Length = 12.8 km
Number of Stops = 5
5.1.1.5 SC03 Driving Cycle The SC03 cycle is part of the supplemental Federal Test Procedure and is used to
represent the fuel consumption and exhaust emissions associated with the use of air
conditioning. The speed versus time trace is shown below in Figure 7. The cycle takes 596
seconds (nearly 10 minutes) to complete, with a total distance of 5.8 km travelled. The
maximum speed of the cycle is 88.2 km/h. The average speed of the cycle is 34.8 km/h.
17
SC 03 Speed Correction Driving Schedule
Length 596 seconds - Distance - 5.8 km - Average Speed - 34.8 km/ h
100
h90
p80
k
, 70
d
e60
e
p50
S
le40
c
i 30
h20
e
V10
0
1
31 61 91 121 151 181 211 241 271 301 331 361 391 421 451 481 511 541 571 601
Test Time, secs
Figure 7: SC03 Driving Cycle
•
•
•
•
•
•
Length = 5.8 km
Number of Stops = 6
5.1.2 2‐Cycle Fuel Consumption Results The Ford Fiesta ECOnetic was tested twice against the FTP-75 city cycle and twice
against the HWFET highway cycle (Canadian standards require two tests be completed for
both the city and highway driving cycle for fuel consumption testing). The results were
averaged for each cycle. The results for the measured fuel consumption and ‘label’ fuel
consumption, based on these tests, are shown in Table 3.
18
Table 3: 2-Cycle Fuel Consumption Values
2- Cycle Fuel Consumption (L/100 km)
Measured Fuel
Consumption
Derived Advertised ‘Label’
Fuel Consumption
Published European Fuel
Consumption*
City
Highway
Combined
4.8
3.3
4.2
5.3
3.9
4.7
4.6
3.2
3.7
* The European procedure for determining fuel consumption results is different; in fact, the testing is
performed using completely different drive cycles. Therefore the published European fuel consumption
values cannot be directly compared to fuel consumption values determined using other test procedures.
The Government of Canada, in conjunction with motor vehicle industry, sets Company
Average Fuel Consumption (CAFC) targets annually. CAFC numbers are calculated as a
weighted average using the unadjusted fuel consumption numbers and the production
volumes for each new vehicle model within the particular vehicle class (passenger cars or
light-duty trucks). The CAFC target represents the maximum weighted average fuel
consumption numbers for a vehicle manufacturer’s fleet. Historically, Canada's CAFC
targets have been harmonized with the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
standards in the United States.
The measured combined fuel consumption value is used for determining the CAFC value.
The Fiesta ECOnetic’s measured combined fuel consumption value of 4.2 L/100 km is
51% below the 2010 model year Company Average Fuel Consumption (CAFC) target (8.6
L/100 km) and 38% below the estimated sales weighted Canadian fleet average (6.8 L/100
km) achieved by all new light duty passenger cars in 2010. 3 This indicates that the Fiesta
ECOnetic can contribute to lowering the manufacturer’s CAFC value below the CAFC
target and the overall Canadian fleet average.
Manufacturers and importers have strived to meet or improve upon the CAFC targets,
established under the voluntary program. Because of the voluntary nature of Transport
Canada’s Fuel Consumption Program, there were no credits for companies over-achieving
CAFC targets and no penalties incurred by companies that fail to meet the CAFC targets
for any year. However, starting with model year 2011 vehicles, the Passenger Automobile
and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations are applicable and will formally
regulate the allowable carbon dioxide emission limits of vehicles. This effectively
determines the allowable average fuel consumption for vehicles based on the fuel used,
since the carbon dioxide emissions are essentially proportional to the amount of fuel used.
3
Transport Canada. “CAFC targets and Canadian Fleet Averages”.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/environment-fcp-cafctargets-385.htm.
19
5.1.3 5‐Cycle Fuel Consumption Results Since the 5-cycle fuel consumption test method takes additional factors into account that
typically increase fuel consumption, the resulting fuel consumption estimation 5-cycle
method usually yields fuel consumption values that are approximately 10 to 20% higher
than the 2-cycle fuel consumption value for the same make and model.
The 5-cycle fuel consumption of the Fiesta ECOnetic, as determined by the test results, is
6.0 L/100 km (city) and 4.7 L/100 km (highway). Comparing against the advertised 2cycle combined value of 4.7 L/100 km, the 5-cycle combined fuel consumption value is
15% higher. Table 4 summarizes the fuel consumption results.
Table 4: Fuel Consumption Results
Driving Cycle
eTV-Derived Advertised ‘Label’ 2-Cycle Fuel
Consumption
eTV Derived 5-cycle value
City
Highway
Combined
5.3
3.9
4.7
6.0
4.7
5.4
5.2 CO2 EMISSION RESULTS As determined by eTV, the combined Canadian label value, , of 4.7 L/100 km produces
126 g/km, in CO2 emissions or 2538 kilograms of CO2 per year (based on 20,000 km of
annual driving). These values are determined according to the Fuel Consumption Guide
2010’s method of calculating CO2 emissions. It assumes that 2.7 kg of CO2 is emitted for
every litre of diesel consumed. When compared with the national average for all compact
cars available in Canada (225 g/km according to Transport Canada’s Vehicle Fuel
Economy Information System), the Fiesta ECOnetic produces a 44% less CO2 emissions.
The vehicle is 19% more fuel efficient than the most efficient diesel-powered vehicle in
the Canadian compact class (2009 Volkswagen Jetta TDI).
5.3 REGULATED AIR POLLUTION EMISSION RESULTS Regarding regulated air pollution emissions, the Ford Fiesta ECOnetic tested was
obtained from the European market while Euro 4 emission standards were in effect.
Table 5 summarizes the results of emissions testing. The Canadian emission regulations
align with the EPA set of emission standards, which categorize emission limits into
Bins 1 through 11. Light-Duty Vehicles (LDV) must satisfy Bin 8 or lower.
Manufacturers’ fleet average must also satisfy the Bin 5 level emissions for NOx.
20
Table 5: Criteria Air Contaminant Emissions Results
CO
Euro 4**
Tier 2, Bin 5
Tier 2, Bin 8
Ford Fiesta
ECOnetic
0.50
3.40
3.40
Non-Methane
Organic Gas
(NMOG)
0.075
0.100
0.10
0.016
FTP-75 Emissions (g/mi)
Particulate
NOx
HC +
Matter
NOx
(PM)
0.30
0.25
0.025
0.05
0.010*
0.14
0.020*
0.64
0.62
0.002
Formaldehyde
(HCHO)
0.015
0.015
0.001
* these emission limits apply to the “full useful life” according to regulations, this is 120,000 miles
(193,121 km) or 10 years, whichever occurs first. All other Tier 2 emission standards apply to
“intermediate useful life,” which is 50,000 miles (80467 km) or 5 years.
** The European procedure for determining vehicle emissions is different; in fact, the emission testing is
performed over a different drive cycle. Therefore, the results determined by eTV, which use the North
American emission testing method, do not compare directly to the Euro 4 emission standard limits.
The recorded NOx emissions exceed the Euro 4 limit of 0.25 g/mi and also exceed the
Canadian standard of 0.14 g/mi by a significant margin. Diesel engines typically produce
higher levels of NOx than gasoline engines due to higher combustion temperatures. AntiNOx technologies such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) could aid the vehicle in
satisfying emission standards.
With regards to other gaseous emissions, levels of CO, formaldehyde (HCHO) and nonmethane organic gases (NMOG) were well below Tier 2, Bin 8 emissions standards.
Taken in combination with the NOx emissions there is likely room for the vehicle’s timing
to be slightly adjusted to lower NOx emissions while maintaining the other gaseous
emissions at acceptable levels.
Particulate matter (PM) emissions are a common byproduct of the diesel combustion
process. Technologies such as diesel particulate filters are designed to limit the amount of
particulates that pass through the exhaust stream and into the surrounding atmosphere.
High PM emissions have historically been an issue for diesel engines, but the diesel
particulate filter in use on the Ford Fiesta ECOnetic addresses this challenge with its
efficient operational capability. The PM level determined for the Ford Fiesta ECOnetic is
well below the Canadian emission limits, which apply to all on-road passenger vehicles
regardless of fuel type.
6 PHASE II - DYNAMICS TESTING
The dynamic testing phase was performed by PMG Technologies at Transport Canada’s
Motor Vehicle Testing Centre in Blainville, Québec. An aerial view of the test track is
presented in Figure 8.
21
Most aspects of the tests performed were not for compliance or regulation, as the vehicle
was not designed for the Canadian market. They were used to develop a general
assessment of the vehicle’s dynamic characteristics, and because the eTV program
mandate includes testing and evaluating how well fuel-efficient vehicles perform on
Canadian roads. Concerns about fuel-efficient vehicles are not always limited to exhaust
emissions and greenhouse gas reduction. Additionally, the eTV program personnel wanted
to identify any possible issues that may arise with any of its test vehicles that undergo
extensive dynamics testing.
Figure 8: Aerial View of Transport Canada’s Motor Vehicle Test Track
6.1 ACCELERATION EVALUATION Procedure
The maximum acceleration was determined by starting the vehicle from a standing start
and following the procedure set out below.
•
•
The vehicle was evaluated by accelerating to the maximum attainable speed in a
quarter mile (402.3 m); and
The vehicle was evaluated by accelerating to the maximum attainable speed in a
kilometre (1,000 m).
Results & Analysis
Shifting occurred at the optimum shift point, or when the shift indicator requested an
upshift to the next gear. To account for variation in wind, the vehicle was driven in both
directions, with the results averaged. The results are illustrated in Table 6 below.
Table 6: Acceleration Evaluation Results
Distance
1/4 mile (402.3 m)
1,000 m
Speed ( km/h )
118.7
148.3
Figure 9 shows a graph of the speed and distance with respect to time for the maximum
acceleration evaluation.
22
Figure 9: Speed vs. time graph during acceleration evaluation
The results in Figure 9 indicate that the vehicle can accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h in
approximately 15 seconds. This is a slower pace than conventional vehicles available in
Canada, which typically accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h in about 9 seconds, and very few
passenger cars on the Canadian market take longer than 12 seconds. Therefore, Canadian
drivers may potentially have concerns with the acceleration performance of the Ford
Fiesta ECOnetic, and may be concerned about the vehicle’s ability to merge with traffic at
highway speeds.
The slower than average acceleration is not a problem that is attributable to diesel
technology. Diesel vehicles can achieve similar or better performance than comparable
gasoline vehicles while attaining reduced fuel consumption. In the European market, there
are many economic vehicles available with less than 100 horsepower, including the Ford
Fiesta ECOnetic. European consumers may find acceleration performance of 15 seconds
for 0 to 100 km/h to be acceptable, as this performance level is not uncommon for vehicles
in Europe. In North America, passenger vehicles rarely have less than 110 horsepower.
For the Canadian market, the vehicle would likely need to be revised to offer the
acceleration capabilities accepted by Canadian consumers. These adjustments would
increase fuel consumption, but the vehicle would remain more fuel efficient than typical
Canadian vehicles. Therefore, the Fiesta ECOnetic Diesel technologies would still be very
usable in the North American market.
23
6.2 MAXIMUM SPEED IN GEAR Procedure
The maximum speed attainable was tested and recorded for each gear. The driver started
from a standing start for first gear only. The driver accelerated and changed gears only
when the vehicle engine speed had reached its maximum allowable rpm for at least 3
seconds. Since speed is affected by wind, tests were performed in both directions and
averaged.
Results & Analysis
Table 7 shows that the Fiesta ECOnetic reached an averaged maximum speed of 164.5
km/h, while operating in 5th gear. Thus, the Fiesta has the ability to meet and exceed all
minimum speed requirements on public roads throughout Canada.
Table 7: Maximum Speed in Each Gear (Averaged Results)
Transmission Position
1st gear
2nd gear
3rd gear
4th gear
5th gear
Vmax
(km/h)
43.2
80.8
121.6
160.9
164.5
The maximum speed and the speed in each gear in one direction are shown graphically in
Figure 10, before being averaged.
24
Figure 10: Maximum Speed in Each Gear
6.3 LATERAL ACCELERATION 6.3.1
Skid Pad Test
Procedure
The skid pad test was used to test the vehicle’s steady state road holding ability. Under
this test, when the vehicle reaches its cornering limits, it loses traction on the curve. When
the vehicle is about to lose traction, the maximum lateral acceleration is recorded.
In order to measure the vehicle’s lateral and longitudinal displacement, speed and lateral
acceleration, the vehicle was equipped with a combined GPS and accelerometer-based
data acquisition system. All measurements refer to the vehicle’s centre of gravity.
Tires were warmed up and conditioned by using a sinusoidal steering pattern at a
frequency of 1 Hz, a peak steering-wheel angle amplitude corresponding to a peak lateral
acceleration of 0.5–0.6 g, and a speed of 56 km/h. The vehicle was driven through the
course four times, performing 10 cycles of sinusoidal steering during each pass.
25
Testing was performed under the following conditions:
• The vehicle was equipped with new tires;
• Tire pressure was adjusted to conform to the manufacturer’s recommendations;
• Vehicle loaded to lightly loaded vehicle mass (LLVM) condition, which means the
unloaded vehicle weight plus the mass of 180 kg, including driver and
instrumentation; and
• The skid pad was 61 m in diameter.
Figure 11 shows an image of the Fiesta ECOnetic performing the lateral skid pad test.
Figure 11: Lateral acceleration during a clockwise run on the lateral skid pad
Results & Analysis
The results of the lateral skid pad are summarized in Table 8 below.
Table 8: Maximum lateral acceleration (skid pad)
Clockwise
Speed (km/h)
Stay inside?
50
Yes
55
Yes
60
Yes
63
Yes
Counter Clockwise
Speed (km/h)
Stay inside?
50
Yes
55
Yes
60
Yes
63
Yes
The maximum speed achieved in testing was 63 km/h. The vehicle’s Electronic Stability
Control (ESC) system activated during testing, which limits the maximum speed of the
vehicle during cornering, preventing the vehicle from reaching its cornering limit during
testing. The maximum lateral acceleration was 0.78 G (7.7 m/s2) in the clockwise
direction and 0.75 G (7.4 m/s2) in the counter clockwise direction, for an average of 0.77
G (7.6 m/s2).
The vehicle displays acceptable steady state road holding ability, and is comparable to
typical compact cars in the Canadian market. The ESC system enhances the Fiesta’s safety
by reducing the possibility of loss of control in corners. This is particularly beneficial on
slippery surfaces, such as when there is snow on the road. In fact, Transport Canada
26
introduced a new Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that will require that an ESC
system be installed on most vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 4536 kg or less and
manufactured on or after September 1, 2011. This will reduce the number of collisions
where the driver loses control of the vehicle.
6.3.2 Emergency Lane Change Manoeuvre Procedure
The emergency lane change manoeuvre with obstacle avoidance test was performed based
on ISO 3888-2 standard. During this test, the driver entered the course at a particular
speed and released the throttle. The driver then attempted to negotiate the course without
striking the pylons. The test speed was progressively increased until instability occurred
or the course could not be negotiated.
Figure 12: Emergency Lane Change Course
As illustrated in Figure 12, section 4 of the course was shorter than section 2 by one metre
in order to get maximum lateral acceleration at this area. Tests were performed in one
direction only. If any pylons were hit, the run was disallowed.
Figure 13: Ford Fiesta ECOnetic during emergency lane change maneuver test
27
Results & Analysis
Several tests were necessary to determine at which speed the Fiesta ECOnetic was able to
negotiate all the way through the prescribed course without hitting a pylon. Table 9 lists
all runs in increasing order, by speed.
Table 9: Emergency lane change results
Initial Speed (km/h)
50
55
60
63
Pylon Hit?
No
No
No
Yes
The maximum successful entry speed through the course was recorded as 63 km/h. The
vehicle’s maximum speed through the emergency lane change was limited by ESC. The
lateral acceleration during the test is shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14: Lateral acceleration during emergency lane change manoeuvre
From Figure 14, the maximum lateral acceleration in the emergency lane change
manoeuvre was approximately 1.0 G (10 m/s2).
The test results indicate that the Fiesta ECOnetic has good lateral stability, which ensures
the vehicle is unlikely to roll in the case of aggressive steering inputs. The Fiesta displays
acceptable handling capability, evident by the speed and lateral acceleration it achieved
28
while properly navigating the emergency lane change manoeuvre. Overall, the vehicle
compares well with current compact Canadian vehicles.
6.4 NOISE EMISSIONS TESTS 6.4.1 Exterior Noise (CMVSS 1106) Procedure
Noise pollution is a potential area of concern with diesel vehicles. A common
misconception is that diesels are always significantly louder than gasoline powered
vehicles. The noise emission tests were based on the procedure used in CMVSS 1106
subsection 2b)iii which stipulates: “every vehicle [. . .] shall be so constructed that where
tested in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J986, Sound Level for Passenger
Cars and Light Trucks (August 1994), or SAE Standard J1470, Measurement of Noise
Emitted by Accelerating Highway Vehicles (March 1992), the exterior sound level does
not exceed 80 dBA when a value of 2 dBA is subtracted from the highest average sound
level recorded during the test, in the case of a passenger car regardless of its GVWR or
any other vehicle with a GVWR of 2,722 kg or less.”
In order to achieve this, cones were set up on test track with the microphone installed 1.2
metres above the ground as indicated in Figure 15.
Figure 15: Noise Emissions Set-up
Testing was performed under the following conditions:
• The vehicle test weight, including driver and instrumentation, did not exceed the
vehicle’s curb weight by more than 125 kg;
• Before each run, in order to stabilize the transmission and exhaust system
temperatures, the vehicle was allowed to idle in neutral for a period of one minute.
29
The test procedure for the acceleration tests was as follows:
• The vehicle was brought to a speed of 48 km/h ± 1.2 km/h before entering the noise
measurement zone;
• At the start of the zone (the acceleration point) the throttle was opened wide,
accelerating the vehicle;
• The vehicle continued to accelerate until it had exited the zone; and
• The sound meter was set to fast dB (A).
The noise emission tests with the vehicle decelerating followed the same procedure as
above, with two modifications:
• The vehicle was brought to a speed of 58 km/h ± 1.2 km/h (the speed at which it
exited the zone in the acceleration noise emission test) before entering the noise
measurement zone; and,
• At the start of the zone (the deceleration point), the throttle was released, and the
vehicle was allowed to decelerate until its speed had dropped to 24 km/h, or it had
exited the zone.
Results & Analysis
Results from all tests show that the ambient noise levels are within the limits of the
CMVSS 1106 standards. Due to the logarithmic nature of the decibel scale, a level of 60
dB is significantly lower than 90 dB. Generally 60 dB is considered to be the level of
normal human conversation while 90 dB would be the sound generated by a typical gaspowered lawn mower.
The low levels measured for the Fiesta ECOnetic show how quiet diesel engines have
become as a result of engineering and design improvements in recent years.. The results
from the noise emissions tests are summarized in Table 10 and Table 11.
Table 10: Full acceleration external noise test results
Test
Approaching
Speed (km/h)
Right Side – 1
Right Side – 2
Right Side – 3
Right Side – 4
48
48
48
48
Left Side – 1
Left Side – 2
Left Side – 3
Left Side – 4
48
48
48
48
Approaching
RPM
1250
1250
1250
1250
Average
1250
1250
1250
1250
Average
End
Speed
(km/h)
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
RPM
max
Noise Level
dB (A)
1550
1550
1550
1550
65.5
64.2
64.3
64.3
65.5
64.6
64.4
64.2
64.5
64.4
1550
1550
1550
1550
30
Table 11: Coastdown deceleration external noise test results
Test
Approaching
Speed (km/h)
Right Side – 1
Right Side – 2
Right Side – 3
Right Side – 4
58
58
58
58
Left Side – 1
Left Side – 2
Left Side – 3
Left Side – 4
58
58
58
58
Approaching
RPM
1550
1550
1550
1550
Average
1550
1550
1550
1550
Average
End
Speed
(km/h)
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
RPM
max
Noise Level
dB (A)
1500
1500
1500
1500
64.5
65.2
65.0
64.8
64.9
64.5
64.8
64.7
64.3
64.6
1500
1500
1500
1500
Results from all tests show that the ambient noise levels are within the limits of the
CMVSS 1106 standards.
The levels measured for the Fiesta ECOnetic are comparable to typical gasoline vehicle
levels. Most of the noise being generated from the vehicle at these test speeds is due to tire
and wind resistance, which is acceptable and similar across any vehicle power train
platform. There is little concern that the noise level of this vehicle would be an issue for
Canadian consumers.
6.4.2 Interior Noise Procedure
For interior noise level measurement at constant speed, the microphone was installed six
inches from the driver’s right ear. Interior noise was evaluated at different constant speeds
in order to determine the noise levels experienced by the driver of the vehicle. The
CMVSS for noise emission that a passenger vehicle must satisfy only applies to exterior
sound levels.
Results & Analysis
The results from these tests are shown in Table 12.
31
Table 12: Constant speed internal noise test results
Test # and Targeted
Test Speed
Idle
Full Acceleration – 1
Full Acceleration – 2
Full acceleration – 3
110 km/h – 1
110 km/h – 2
110 km/h – 3
100 km/h – 1
100 km/h – 2
100 km/h – 3
80 km/h – 1
80 km/h – 2
80 km/h – 3
50 km/h – 1
50 km/h – 2
50 km/h – 3
Calibration
dB (A)
93.8
Ambient Noise Level
93.9
93.9
93.9
Average
93.9
93.9
93.9
Average
93.9
93.9
93.9
Average
93.9
93.9
93.9
Average
93.9
93.9
93.9
Average
Noise Level
dB (A)
52.3
47.7
77.0
78.1
77.7
77.6
75.2
74.6
75.6
75.1
73.5
74.2
74.3
74.0
73.8
74.1
74.6
74.3
69.4
69.9
69.1
69.5
Transmission Selection
Neutral
Engine Off
20 sec. – 100 km/h
20 sec. – 100 km/h
20 sec. – 100 km/h
20 sec. – 100 km/h
5th
5th
5th
5th
5th
5th
5th
5th
4th
4th
4th
4th
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
The maximum average recorded sound level inside the vehicle was 77.6 decibels and
experienced during full acceleration, as expected.
32
6.5 BRAKING 6.5.1 Light Vehicle Braking Systems (CMVSS 135) Procedure
In order to comply with the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS) and be
eligible for the Canadian market, the Ford Fiesta ECOnetic would need to pass all required
braking tests. The braking standards for European vehicles are different, yet the braking
performance requirements are similar, such that European vehicles have been able to pass
Canadian braking standards. The procedures set out in CMVSS 135 - Light Vehicle Brake
Systems are resource-intensive and produce results that indicate a vehicle’s ability to
satisfy minimum braking standards. But, these procedures are not appropriate to compare
the stopping ability between vehicles. It was therefore decided that testing according to
CMVSS 135 - Light Vehicle Brake Systems was unnecessary. A simplified brake testing
procedure was performed to determine the stopping distance for abrupt stops from the
following speeds:
• 50 km/h to 0 km/h
For each of these speeds, six stops were performed.
The vehicle’s total braking distance in metres and time in seconds were recorded. Since
the test vehicle was equipped with ABS brakes, the test driver fully depressed the brake
pedal, allowing the computer to modulate the braking force at the wheels. The braking
tests were conducted under the following conditions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Vehicle loaded to Lightly loaded vehicle mass (LLVM) condition, which means the
unloaded vehicle weight plus the mass of 180 kg, including driver and instrumentation
Transmission position: In neutral (N)
Initial brake temperature: ≤ 100°C
Pedal force: as necessary to activate ABS
Wheel lockup: No lockup of any wheel for longer than 0.1 second allowed at speeds
greater than 15 km/h
Number of runs: 6
Test surface: Maximum coefficient of friction of 0.9
Results & Analysis
Table 13 summarizes the braking results for the Fiesta ECOnetic. The best stopping
distance recorded (out of the six trials) is indicated for each initial speed.
33
Table 13: Deceleration (braking) test results
Test Speed
(km/h)
50
80
100
110
Stops
Pass
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
Best Stop
(m)
11.59
27.66
39.09
49.12
Max Allowable Braking
Distance (m)
20.0
46.4
70.0
83.6
Pedal
Force (N)
614
745
621
590
Results
Pass Fail
X
X
X
X
It is clear that the Fiesta ECOnetic falls well within the required braking thresholds. Runs
with higher pedal force (both peak force and average force over the braking event) did not
necessarily yield shorter braking distances. Variations in pedal force seem to have little
effect on the recorded braking distance, as ABS was activated during all brake tests. At 50
km/h there was a variation of about 1.5 m in the braking distance of the six runs, at the
100 and 110 km/h speeds the variation was up to 4 m. The braking aspects tested of the
Fiesta were satisfactory with conventional expectations. From these braking results, the
Ford Fiesta may succeed in meeting the CMVSS 135 standard.
34
7 CONCLUSIONS
The Ford Fiesta ECOnetic was tested and evaluated by the eTV program to study the
environmental performance of a diesel-powered light duty vehicle, assess the vehicle’s
dynamic performance characteristics, and identify the benefits of clean diesel
technologies.
During laboratory testing, the vehicle demonstrated measured test results of 4.8 L/100 km
in the city, 3.3 L/100 km on the highway, and 4.2L/100 km combined. This would
produce a 2-Cycle Canadian advertised ‘label’ fuel consumption value of 5.3 L/100 km in
the city, 3.9 L/100 km on the highway, and 4.7 L/100 km combined. The 5-Cycle fuel
consumption, which includes supplemental cold city, aggressive driving and electrical
load driving cycles, resulted in 6.0 L/100 km in the city, 4.7 L/100 km on the highway,
and 5.4 L/100 km combined.
The 5-cycle fuel consumption ratings are normally 10-20% higher than the 2-cycle ratings,
the Fiesta averaged about 13% higher fuel consumption on the 5-cycle testing than the
advertised 2-cycle test. This shows how cold climates, aggressive driving, and electrical
loads (such as air conditioning) can affect fuel consumption.
Based on the calculated Canadian ‘Label’ combined city and highway driving fuel
consumption, the Fiesta ECOnetic demonstrated 126 g/km emissions of CO2, 19% better
than the most fuel efficient diesel-powered vehicle available in Canada in the compact
class. Based on 20,000 kilometers of annual driving, the Fiesta ECOnetic would emit 2538
kg of CO2 per year.
The vehicle’s exhaust emissions levels of CO, formaldehyde (HCHO) and non-methane
organic gases (NMOG) were well below Tier 2, Bin 8 emissions standards. Only NOx
emissions exceeded the relevant Canadian Standard. The Fiesta could make use of NOxreduction technologies, such as an SCR converter, to aid in meeting Canadian emission
requirements.
High PM emissions have historically been an issue for diesel engines, but the diesel
particulate filter in use on the Ford Fiesta ECOnetic addresses this challenge with its
efficient operational capability. The PM level determined for the Ford Fiesta ECOnetic is
well below the Canadian emission limits, which apply to all on-road passenger vehicles
regardless of fuel type.
Dynamic testing results indicated that the Ford Fiesta ECOnetic meets the relevant
Canadian standards in terms of external noise and braking. Lateral acceleration was
measured on a skid pad and during emergency lane change procedures. These tests did
not identify any stability issues as the car performed acceptably. Table 14 shows a
summary of the dynamics testing results.
35
Table 14: Summary of dynamics testing results
Test Parameter
Acceleration
Maximum speed (Vmax) in
gear
Maximum lateral
acceleration
Noise (exterior) –
CMVSS 1106
Noise (interior)
Braking distance –
CMVSS 135
Result
0-100 km/h in 15 seconds
1st – 43.2 km/h,
2nd – 80.8 km/h,
3rd – 121.6 km/h,
4th – 160.9 km/h,
5th – 164.5 km/h (top speed overall)
Skid pad: 0.77 G (7.6 m/s2)
Emergency lane change: 1.0 G (10 m/s2)
Acceleration – 65.5 dB (pass)
Deceleration – 64.9 dB (pass)
Acceleration – 77.6 dB
Constant speed (100 km/h) – 74.0 dB
The vehicle performed adequately in all dynamic performance evaluations conducted on
the test track. The only potential issue from the dynamic assessment of the vehicle is the
slower than average acceleration compared to the fleet of Canadian vehicles. Typical
vehicles in North America can accelerate from 0-100 km/h in about 9 seconds; very few
will take longer than 12 seconds. Since the acceleration results show that the Fiesta took
approximately 15 seconds to complete 0-100 km/h, some consumers may be concerned
about the vehicle’s ability to merge with traffic at highway speeds on Canadian roads.
The slower than average acceleration is not a problem that is attributable to diesel
technology. Diesel vehicles can achieve similar or better performance than comparable
gasoline vehicles while attaining reduced fuel consumption. European consumers may
find acceleration performance of 15 seconds for 0 to 100 km/h to be acceptable, as this
performance level is not uncommon for vehicles in Europe. The technologies used in the
Fiesta ECOnetic are still applicable in the North American market, but the vehicle might
need to be revised to offer an acceleration profile more consistent with the expectations of
the Canadian consumers. This would increase fuel consumption, however the vehicle
would still offer improved fuel efficiency compared to typical Canadian vehicles.
7.1 WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR CANADIANS? In the past, the advantages of diesel-powered light duty vehicles were overshadowed by
operational deficiencies compared to gasoline vehicles such as NVH, higher emissions of
NOx and PM, and poor cold starting performance. Due to advancements in the diesel
combustion process and exhaust treatment, the technology is now better-suited for
36
consumers to reduce their fuel consumption and carbon footprint without sacrificing
operational characteristics.
Recently, acceptance of diesel technology has improved in North America – a rebound
from misperceptions that have lingered over the past several years. In fact, when a diesel
powered vehicle is available as an option over the traditional gasoline powered vehicle,
the consumer chooses the diesel up to 30% of the time (in comparison to 10% for hybrids
over their gasoline counterparts) 4 .
Based on the Fuel Consumption Guide 2011, the cost per year in fuel use is about 20%
lower for diesel vehicles compared to similar gasoline-powered variants. This assumes
fuel prices of $1.05 for regular gasoline, $1.15 for premium gasoline and $1.15 for diesel
fuel. This is around $400 in fuel savings each year for a typical compact vehicle driven
20,000 km annually, and furthermore the savings would be even greater for larger vehicles
that consume more fuel. However, diesel engines often cost more to purchase, because
they must be designed to operate at higher pressures. Often, for a mid-sized vehicle, a
diesel engine option is $2,000-3,000 more expensive than the gasoline version. Based on
this cost differential, the fuel savings would take approximately 5-7.5 years to return the
extra capital cost on the diesel engine for a compact car. Vehicles priced above $50,000
may not have a significant difference in price between the diesel engine option and a
comparable gasoline engine option. Other fuel-saving technology options are available
and should be considered when examining the cost-benefit of diesel vehicles.
4
Research and Markets: Analysis of Diesel Powertrain Outlook and Technology Roadmap in NA”.
http://www.pr-inside.com/research-and-markets-analysis-of-diesel-r2516746.htm, Business Wire, 2011.
37
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CAFC – Company Average Fuel Consumption
CFR – Code of Federal Regulations
CMVSS – Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
CO – Carbon Monoxide
CO2 – Carbon Dioxide
DoT – Department of Transportation
DPF – Diesel Particulate Filter
EPA – Environmental Protection Agency
ERMS – Emissions Research and Measurements Section
eTV – ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles
FTP – Federal Test Procedure
GHG – Greenhouse Gas
HC – Hydrocarbon
HCHO – Formaldehyde
ICE – Internal Combustion Engine
LDV – Light-Duty Vehicle
LLVM – Lightly Loaded Vehicle Mass
NMOG – Non-Methane Organic Gas
NOx – Nitrogen Oxides
NVH – Noise, Vibration and Harshness
OEM – Original Equipment Manufacturer
PM – Particulate Matter
SAE – Society of Automotive Engineers
SCR – Selective Catalytic Reduction
SFTP – Supplemental Federal Test Procedure
38

Ford Fiesta ECOnetic Diesel Test results report

Transcription

Similar documents

NI CIHT Venturer 19th October 2015

Window Sticker - Lamb Motor Company

Life Without Oil: Microcab H2EV – 2011

READ ME FIRST – THEN DELETE THE SLIDE

olefins fuel gas recovery presenters: sean mollberg and john west

42011-AK007 Navara

GFEI National Panel - Global Fuel Economy Initiative

the scangauge ii - parksoffroad.com

FM-Web

Eco-marathon