You are on page 1of 19


PAPER SERIES 2003-01-3279

Saving Petroleum with Cost-Effective Hybrids

Andrew Burke
University of California-Davis

Reprinted From: Hybrid Electric Vehicle Technology Developments


Powertrain & Fluid Systems

Conference & Exhibition
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA
October 27-30, 2003

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web:
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Fax: 724-772-4891
Tel: 724-772-4028

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-1615

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2003 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

Saving Petroleum with Cost-Effective Hybrids

Andrew Burke
University of California-Davis

Copyright © 2003 SAE International

ABSTRACT generally agreed that the hybrid-electric vehicles will

exhibit significant improvements in fuel economy when
Trade-offs between fuel economy improvement, and compared to similar vehicles using the conventional ICE
thus petroleum savings, and economic factors, such as driveline. There are a wide range of hybrid powertrain
vehicle cost differential and break-even gasoline price, configurations and control strategies being discussed
are studied for mild (15% of total driveline power (Reference 1) and developed into products which have
electric) and full (engine and electric power are about different levels of fuel economy improvement and
equal) hybrid vehicles. The study considered compact associated cost increases when compared with a
and mid-size passenger cars and mid-size SUVs. The conventional ICE models. Results to date seem to
same weights and road loads were used for the indicate clearly that there is a consistent relationship
conventional ICE and hybrid vehicles. It was found that between the magnitudes of the fuel economy
the fractional fuel savings are greater for the full hybrids improvement and the cost increase with larger fuel
(40-50%) than for the mild hybrids (30-40%). However, economy improvement resulting in a larger cost
the break-even gasoline prices for the mild hybrids are differential. Hence evaluation of the trade-offs between
significantly lower than that for the full hybrids. In the fuel economy improvement and cost differential
cases of the mild hybrids using conventional PFI becomes an important part of any decision regarding the
gasoline engines, the break-even gasoline prices were design of hybrid-electric vehicles. Presently there is
found to be $1.25-1.50/gal for a vehicle use of 100,000 considerable debate and uncertainty regarding these
miles over 8 years and a discount rate of 4%. For the trade-offs resulting in a wide range of views between
full hybrids, the corresponding break-even gasoline auto companies concerning the marketability of hybrid-
prices were $2.00-2.30/gal. electric vehicles both in terms of vehicle classes of prime
An EXCEL spreadsheet economic model was interest and the hybrid powertrain design to be
developed in which the cost input and economic factors developed. In this paper, the questions of hybrid
could easily be changed by the user. This was done powertrain design, vehicle type, and cost differential are
because the results obtained in the study are highly addressed in some detail. Much of the material in this
dependent on the cost and economic factors assumed. paper is taken from Reference (2), which was an in-
The primary objective of the study was to show the depth study of those questions. Related studies can be
trade-offs between potential petroleum savings and found in References (3-5).
economic attractiveness for different hybrid vehicle
design options (mild and full) for a reasonable set of Vehicle and Powertrain Analysis
inputs. The fuel economy and break-even gasoline price In order to quantitatively assess the tradeoffs
trends for the two hybrid designs are more meaningful between fuel economy and the associated cost
than the absolute numerical values obtained. differential, it is necessary to consider specific vehicle
designs, powertrain configurations and control
INTRODUCTION strategies, and component performance characteristics
Most of the auto companies in the world are developing and cost. This was done in this study. For each of the
hybrid-electric vehicles using internal combustion vehicle classes considered in the study (compact and
engines (ICE) as the prime energy converter with mid-size cars and mid-size SUVs), the characteristics of
gasoline or diesel as the fuel. Some of the companies a conventional ICE powered vehicle were calculated and
(Honda and Toyota) are presently marketing hybrid- hybrid–electric vehicles having the same size, road load
electric passenger cars. The other auto companies parameters, performance, and utility were
have made numerous announcements of hybrid vehicle conceptualized. Only parallel hybrid drivelines, which
products to be introduced over the next five years. It is permit the engine to drive directly to the wheels when

required by the control strategy were considered. The change in maximum torque from that of the baseline
operation of each of the conventional and hybrid engine or motor. The simulation program displays or
vehicles were then simulated for various driving cycles writes out the average efficiencies of the components so
using the Advisor 2002 computer program. Two types the user can validate that the scaling is functioning
of hybrid –electric vehicles were conceptualized. One, properly. It is necessary to check the average
termed a mild hybrid had a relatively small electric drive efficiencies as the system voltage is altered, because
system in that the electric motor supplied only about that can cause significant reductions in the efficiencies
15% of the total power of the driveline. In a second set of the electric motor/electronics. It was found that the
of hybrid vehicles, termed full hybrids, the engine and MC AC75 motor could be used over the voltage ranges
electric motor supplied close to the same power. It was of both the mild and full hybrids.
expected that the mild hybrid would save less fuel than The batteries were sized by specifying the number of
the full hybrid, but the incremental cost of the mild modules in the series string and the Ah capacity to attain
hybrid compared to the ICE conventional vehicle would the battery weight and energy storage (kWh) desired for
be significantly less than that of the full hybrid. the various hybrid drivelines. The adequacy of the
Each vehicle class and hybrid driveline were battery pack to provide the power needed was verified
simulated for three engines- a baseline port fuel injected by calculating the peak power density required to meet
(PFI) gasoline engine, an advanced PFI lean-burn the peak power demand of the motor. For the nickel
gasoline engine based on the Honda Insight engine, and metal hydride batteries used in this study, a peak power
a turbo-charged direct injected diesel engine based on density of 350-400 W/kg was used. The efficiency of the
the Audi 2.5L engine. In the Advisor program, these battery was tracked for each simulation run to be sure
engines are designated as the SI 63, Insight, and CI88 that it was in an acceptable range (greater than 75%).
engines, respectively. At the present time, there are no In the case of the ultracapacitors, the unit was sized by
engine maps in Advisor for the improved PFI engines voltage and weight. An intermediate cell voltage (about
being used in 2002 model cars or for lean burn engines 2V per cell) was used to determine the number of cells
other than the Insight 50 kW engine. There is also required in series to meet the specified system voltage.
minimal information on high-speed turbocharged diesel The size (Ah or capacitance) of the ultracapacitor cells
engines suitable for light duty passenger cars, vans, and was scaled to yield the desired weight for the energy
trucks. The diesel engine data available are for older, storage unit. The adequacy of the ultracapacitor unit
lower RPM engines. There are no data available as yet was assessed by checking the ability of the control
for direct injection gasoline (GDI) engines. It is expected strategy to maintain the state-of-charge of the capacitors
that this situation will change over the next several of greater than 50% and the average efficiency over the
years when data from Argonne National Laboratory for driving cycle of the simulation greater than 95%. All the
these advanced engines become available. battery and ultracapacitor units used in the simulations
All the vehicle drivelines utilized a continuously met these requirements.
variable transmission (CVT) as such transmissions
appear to be well suited for hybrid vehicles designed to Simulation Results
maintain engine operation near the maximum engine As noted previously, hybrid vehicles in three
efficiency. Recent developments in CVT technology vehicle classes were considered. The vehicle and
(Reference 6) indicate the technology can now be used powertrain characteristics for the mild and full hybrids
in large vehicles like mid-size SUVs. The control are given in Table 1. The corresponding characteristics
strategy designated PTC-PAR-CVT in Advisor was of the conventional ICE vehicles simulated for
used for all the CVT simulations. This is a charge- comparison with the hybrid vehicles are given in Table 2.
sustaining control strategy in which the batteries are The conventional and hybrid vehicles were simulated
maintained near 50% SOC. In addition, five repeated using the same three engines. For each vehicle the
cycles were run for each case to assure that any small driveline components were sized so that the 0-60 mph
change in SOC would have minimal effect on the acceleration times of the vehicles were 9-10 seconds.
calculated fuel economy. When it seemed appropriate Simulations were run for the US driving cycles (FUDS
to perform simulations using a manual 5 speed and Highway), the Japanese 10/15 cycle, and the
transmission for comparison with the CVT simulation European ECE-EUDC cycle. The calculated fuel
results, the control strategy PTC-PAR-BAL was used. economy results (uncorrected for real world differences)
All the components in the hybrid drivelines were are summarized in Table 3 with the fuel economy
modeled using the standard models in the Advisor improvement factors for a mid-size passenger car given
programs. No work was done in this study to improve in Table 4. The results in Tables 3 and 4 show that the
the models for either the engine/transmission or electric improvement factor varies from near 1 (no improvement)
drive components. In general, the engine/transmission to over 2 (double the fuel economy) for the different
and electric motor/controller components are modeled in vehicles, engines, and driving cycles. Most of the
terms of input tables of efficiency as a function of torque increases range from 20-60% with the largest increases
and RPM. The scaling is done internal to the simulation occurring for the urban driving cycles. The largest
program by setting for each case the appropriate increases are projected for full hybrids, but the
maximum torque to attain the specified peak power. increases for the mild hybrids in most cases are
The efficiency maps are then scaled to account for the significant and result in meaningful fuel savings.
Vehicles using the more efficient engines offer higher hybrid designs, and driving cycles follow consistent and
fuel economy (mpg) in absolute terms, but in some predictable patterns, but there are anomalies that do not.
cases a smaller incremental improvement compared to a One explanation for the anomalies is that the same
ICE vehicle using the same type of engine. control strategies are used for all the cases and the
It is important to note from the tables that the strategies are far from optimal for a few cases while
fuel economy improvements using the same hybrid satisfactory for most cases. This is another indication
driveline vary significantly between driving cycles. In that the control strategy for a hybrid should be tailored to
general, the improvement is the smallest for the Federal the vehicle design and type of driving expected with the
Highway cycle and the largest for the Federal Urban vehicle.
driving cycle and the Japanese 10-15 cycle. Both urban All the hybrid vehicles utilized a parallel
cycles have much stop-and-go driving with many arrangement with the engine and electric motor on a
opportunities for energy recovery using regenerative single shaft connected to a CVT. This is the
braking. In addition, the average power requirement for configuration used by Honda in the Insight and Hybrid
those cycles is relatively low, which forces the engine in Civic. It appears to be applicable to vehicles of all
a conventional ICE vehicle to operate inefficiently much classes. The use of the single-shaft arrangement and
of the time. On the highway, the opportunities for CVT yields a vehicle with a reasonably efficient
energy recovery in braking are minimal and the average automatic transmission, the possibilities for an arbitrary
power required to drive the vehicle is higher than in city selection of engine and motor size (maximum power),
driving. This permits the engine in a conventional and relatively simple control algorithms. The average
vehicle to operate more of the time in a more efficient efficiency of the CVT varies with the driving cycle. It is
mode than for city driving. This means that the potential 88% for the FUDS cycle and 91% for the highway cycle
for fuel economy improvement using a hybrid-electric and US06 cycles. The simulation results for fuel
driveline is significantly less for highway cycles than for economy show that the hybrid driveline need not be
city driving cycles. Hence the fuel savings for a particular complex and have large electric drive components to
user would depend on the fraction of the time the user achieve relatively large improvements in fuel economy.
drives in the city and on the highway. It is assumed by
EPA that the fractions for the United States are .55 for
the city and .45 for the highway. The differences Cost Projections
(percentage-wise) in the fuel savings between the full The second part of the hybrid vehicle study involved an
and mild hybrids are greater for highway driving than for estimation of the powertrain cost for each of the
city driving. The size (power rating) of the electric motor vehicle/powertrain combinations simulated. The
could be increased to improve both the acceleration spreadsheet cost model developed permits the quick
performance and highway fuel economy of the mild analysis of the economics of various hybrid vehicle
hybrid, but this would adversely affect the economic designs for compact and mid-size cars and mid-size
attractiveness of the hybrid compared to the SUVs operated in North America, Europe, and Japan.
conventional ICE vehicle. The economics were analyzed as a function of fuel
Note in Table 4 that for the mild hybrids the price, use-pattern (driving cycle and miles/year), and
vehicles using ultracapacitors showed consistently discount rate. The key input data to the cost analysis
higher fuel economy than those using nickel metal are the fuel economy projections for each of the
hydride batteries. The batteries even though having a vehicle/driveline combinations and the unit costs of the
high peak power density (400-500 W/kg) exhibited an driveline components. The costs of the
average efficiency of 75-80% on the FUDS cycle while engine/transmission and electric motor/electronics are
the ultracapacitors had an average efficiency of 97-98% calculated from the maximum power rating of the
on the same cycle. For the full hybrid cases, the components and their unit cost ($/kW). In the case of
batteries had an average efficiency of 90-94% due to the batteries and ultracapacitors, the unit costs are given
larger size. For this reason and the need for much as $/kg and the cost is simply the product of the unit cost
larger energy storage in the full hybrids, only battery and the weight of the component. For pulse power
energy storage was considered for those cases. energy storage components, it seems appropriate to
The simulation results (Tables 3) indicate that the base the cost on weight rather than power (kW) or
differences in how the vehicle classes respond to energy stored (Wh), because the energy and power of
hybridization are not large. However, in general the the devices actually used by the vehicle may be quite
improvement factors increase slightly as the size of the different than their rated values depending on the
vehicle increases. This is due to the use of the larger driveline control strategy. The input values for the fuel
engines in the conventional ICE baseline vehicles and economy have been given in Table 3 and unit
the resultant inefficient operation over much of the component costs are given in Tables 5. The costs
driving cycles. The use of the electric drive in the shown are the retail or in show-room incremental cost of
hybrids permits the improvement in fuel economy to be the vehicle. The values in Table 5 are the default cost
achieved with no sacrifice in performance (acceleration values used in spreadsheet. These input cost values
times or top speed). This can be done using a relatively are far below present costs/prices for limited production
small degree of hybridization. In general, the of the components. It is expected that the component
improvement factors for the different vehicle sizes, costs will be much lower for mass production of hybrids.
Additional input values to the cost model include the Pmax relationship yields a much higher cost for 10 kW
price of the fuel, the annual mileage use of the vehicles, motors.
the years over which the analysis is to be done, and the Another source of uncertainty is the mark-up
discount rate. Values of all the input parameters can be factor used to convert OEM costs into sticker prices for
changed by the user from the keyboard as part of the the vehicle. In this study, it was assumed that all the
setup of the run. technologies were mature and in high volume production
The cost model spreadsheet is run as an and that the markup factor was 1.75-2 for all the
EXCEL macro with the output displayed in a large table. driveline components. Realizing the uncertainty of the
Each row of the table is for a specific engine type, hybrid cost inputs the spreadsheet model was configured such
design (full or mild), and energy storage technology that the user could easily change the unit cost inputs
(batteries or ultracapacitors). The output sheet itself is from the keyboard prior to making a run if desired.
specific for a vehicle type and driving cycle and input The cost results are summarized in Tables 7
economic values (fuel price, discount, etc.). Table 6 and 8 and will be discussed in detail in the next section.
shows a typical output sheet of the economic model.
Key output parameters are the average composite fuel Prospects for Fuel Savings
economy for the vehicle in real world use, differential Calculation of the fuel savings of the new vehicle
driveline cost, fraction of fuel saved, actual and fleet is complicated as it depends on the fuel economy of
discounted fuel saved (gallons) and the cost of the fuel the hybrid and conventional vehicles, the sales of the
saved, actual and discounted differential ownership cost, vehicles, and the use of the vehicles by consumers. No
and actual and discounted breakeven fuel price ($/gal). attempt was made to make such a calculation in this
For the different engines, the differential costs of the study. What was done was to assess the economic
various hybrid vehicle designs are referenced to either attractiveness of the various hybrid vehicle designs in
the baseline ICE PFI engine vehicle or in the case of the terms of the breakeven fuel price needed to allow
advanced engines, the ICE vehicle using the same consumers to justify their purchase on economic
engine. By choosing this second option one is able to grounds and to note the fraction fuel savings of those
separate out the effects of hybridization and the use of vehicles. If hybrid vehicles having significant fuel
engines more efficient than the baseline PFI engine. economy improvement are economically attractive, sales
The more advanced engines are more efficient, but of those vehicles will be reasonably large and as a result
higher in cost. there will be significant savings of petroleum. Hybrid
At the present time there is considerable vehicles must be sold in large numbers before hybrid
uncertainty concerning the costs of the electric driveline vehicle technology can make a meaningful contribution
components – the electric motor, power electronics, and to petroleum savings and greenhouse gas emission
batteries/ ultracapacitors. There is a smaller uncertainty reduction.
about the costs of the advanced lean burn gasoline and The cost results shown in Table 7 and 8 are for
turbocharged diesel engines and the continuously a discount rate of 4% and a use-period of eight (8)
variable transmissions (CVT). The costs of the electric years. Several conclusions are clear from the tables.
drive components presented in the literature span a wide First in all cases, the full hybrid designs save more fuel
range – often differing by a factor of 2-3. In this study, for all the driving cycles than the mild hybrid designs,
information developed at UC Davis (References 7 and but in all cases the breakeven fuel price is lower for the
8) was used primarily because its source, basis, and mild hybrids than for the full hybrids. This means that
limitations were better understood than similar the mild hybrid designs are more cost effective than the
information developed elsewhere. The costs of the full hybrid designs. Using the ICE vehicle with the PFI
components are highly dependent on the assumed level engine as the reference vehicle (see Table 7), the
of maturity of the technology and the volume of breakeven fuel price for the mild hybrids is close to the
production. Another factor that contributes to the present gasoline price in the United States and much
uncertainty in the cost of the electrical components in below the fuel price in Japan and Europe. The
this study is that the size (kW) of the electric breakeven fuel prices for the full hybrids are well above
motor/electronics. In the mild hybrid designs, the the gasoline price in the United States, but below the
electric drive is much smaller (10-20kW) than that used fuel price in Europe and Japan. Using the PFI engine in
in the full hybrid designs (40-75kW). In this study, the the reference vehicle, the fuel saving fraction is greater
cost of the electric driveline components were assumed than 30% for the mild hybrid cases and greater than
to be given by 40% for full hybrid cases, but the saving fraction varies
Cost = A + B*Pmax significantly with engine type, driving cycle, and vehicle
with the constants A and B being determined by fitting class.
cost data for relatively high power motors and Both the fuel saving fraction and breakeven fuel
extrapolating to low power levels. In a recent study price depend on the engine used in the reference ICE
given in Reference (4 ), a cost equation of the form vehicle (see Table 8). As would be expected,
Cost = A’ + B’*ln Pmax hybridization with the advanced engines looks more
was assumed. The two cost relations yield nearly the attractive using as the reference vehicle an ICE vehicle
same cost ($) value for motors near 50 kW, but the ln using the PFI engine than when the reference ICE
vehicle uses the same advanced engine as in the hybrid.
The cost effectiveness of hybridizing using the used by EPA with the measured fuel economy values.
turbocharged diesel (TCD) engine is not as great (higher Tables 9 indicate that fuel savings in the 40-50% range
breakeven fuel cost) as that with the gasoline engines are predicted for full hybrids and 30-40% for mild
primarily because of the relatively high cost of the diesel hybrids. The fuel savings for the large vehicle (mid-size
engine. It was difficult to obtain information on the car and mid-SUV) are higher than for the compact car.
differential cost of diesel engines. The value ($/kW) Larger fractional fuel savings might be expected based
used for the diesel engines was estimated based on the on the fuel economy improvements (Table 4), but it
difference in showroom cost of the same passenger car should be noted that the saving potential is proportion to
with a gasoline and a diesel engine. The advanced lean the reciprocal of the improvement factor and not the
burn gasoline engine in the mild hybrids appears to be factor itself. The breakeven gasoline prices for the mild
the most cost effective solution compared to present ICE hybrids are in the range of $1.20 and $1.50 for the
cars as its fuel savings potential is comparable to the gasoline fueled mild hybrids and $1.90-$2.30 for the full
diesel engine and its breakeven gasoline price is even hybrids. Hence it appears that cost-effective hybrids can
lower than for hybrid vehicles using the PFI engine. In be developed for all classes of vehicles with the mild
the case of the hybrids using the lean-burn engine about hybrids being more cost effective initially and the full
one-half the fuel savings is due to replacing the PFI hybrid becoming more cost effective as the cost of the
engine and the remainder is due to hybridization. It was electric driveline components become lower in cost. In
assumed that the cost of the PFI lean burn engine was either case, significant petroleum savings can be
only slightly higher than that of the standard PFI engine. realized using available components, including PFI
The diesel (TCD) engine has the highest fuel saving engines, with even greater petroleum savings to be
potential in both the full and mild hybrid designs, but its expected as higher efficiency lean burn engines are
breakeven fuel price is also the highest for all the cases developed. Hybridizing vehicles using those advanced
considered. engines makes economic sense as the breakeven
The economic results indicate that when gasoline price is lower for those engines than for the PFI
considering both fuel savings potential and economic gasoline engines. Hybridizing vehicles using diesel
attractiveness (low breakeven fuel price), the mid-size engines results in attractive potential fuel savings, but
car class offers the best prospects for hybridization, but the predicted breakeven fuel price is higher than those
by a small margin compared with the compact cars and for vehicles using gasoline engines.
the mid-size SUV. These trends are true for both the full It must be emphasized that all the results cited
and mild hybrid designs. Note in Tables 7 and 8 that are highly dependent on the cost inputs used in the
the effective economic value of the fuel saved ($/gal economic analysis. Also it has been assumed that the
saved) calculated directly from the differential cost of the life of all the energy storage units is at least eight (8)
hybrid driveline and the gallons of fuel saved by years – the period of the economic analysis and the
hybridization over 100,000 miles of travel closely tracks discount rate is 4%. Reducing the years for the
the trend of the breakeven fuel price. It appears that the economic analysis or increasing the discount rate will
differential cost of the hybrid driveline can be recovered result in higher breakeven fuel prices. The fuel savings
from fuel savings in about 8 years even at the present do not depend on the economic inputs, but do depend
low fuel prices. Whether cost recovery over 8 years and on the driving cycles selected for the analysis.
a discount rate of 4% are proper to use in the economic
analysis for first owners is debatable, but what is not
debatable is that all the owners and society as whole will References
continue to benefit from the improved fuel economy of 1. Anderman, M., Advanced-Vehicle Market Growth and
the hybrid vehicles over their entire life-time and some Power-source Technology Challenges, Proceedings of
way should be found to use that fact to assist in their the 3rd Annual Advanced Automotive Battery
marketability Conference, Nice, France, June 2003
The fuel economy results in Tables 3 using the 2. Burke, A.F., Abeles,A., Zhou, L., Sperling, D., and
different energy storage technologies in mild hybrids Brodrick, C.J., The Future of Hybrid-Electric ICE
indicate that the fuel economy using ultracapacitors is Vehicles and Fuels Implications, UCD-ITS Report No.
the highest for all the cases considered. Hence the fuel UCD-ITS-RR-02-09, October 2002
savings potential using the ultracapacitors is also the 3. Friedman, D. and An, F., Hybrid Electric Vehicles:
greatest. The breakeven gasoline prices for cases using Possible Configurations, Fuel Economy Potential, and
nickel metal hydride batteries and ultracapacitors are Performance, Union of Concerned Scientists Report,
essentially the same for a battery cost of $25/kg and a April 2003.
capacitor cost of $35/kg . 4. Lipman, T. and Delucchi,M.A., Hybrid-Electric Vehicle
Design Retail and Lifecycle Cost Analysis, UCD_ITS
Summary Report No. UCD-ITS-RR-03-01, April 2003
The fuel savings potential for all the vehicle/powertrain 5. Plotkin, S., etals., Hybrid Electric Technology
combinations are summarized in Tables 9a-c. The Assessment: Methodology, Analytical Issues, and
results shown are for use in the United States on the Interim Results, Argonne National Laboratory Report,
urban and highway cycles with the calculated fuel ANL/ESD/02-2, October 2001
economy values discounted in the same manner as
6. Abo, K., Sugano, K., and Shibayama, T.,
Development of New-Generation Belt CVTs with High
Torque Capacity for Front Drive Cars, SAE paper 2003-
01-0593, March 2003
7. Delucchi, M.A., etals., Electric and Gasoline Vehicle
Lifecycle Cost and Energy-Use Model, UC Davis ITS
Report No. UCD-ITS-RR-99-4, April 2000
8. Lipmann, T., Zero-Emissions Vehicle Scenario Cost
Analysis using Fussy Set-based Framework, December

The study on which this paper is based was supported in
part by a gift from the ExxonMobil Corporation to the
Institute of Transportation Studies, University of
California, Davis. The author wishes to acknowledge
discussions with Charles Schleyer, Walt Weismann, and
Yuon Kwon of ExxonMobil during the study. The
economic spreadsheet model was prepared by Ethan
Abeles and Linda Zhou, students at UC Davis.

T a b le 1 : H y b r id V e h ic le D e s ig n s - P o w e r tr a in C h a r a c te r is tic s
f o r F u ll a n d M ild H y b r id s

F u ll M ild
H y b r id H y b r id
T est
V e h ic le W e ig h t E n g in e M o to r B a tte r ie s E n g in e M o to r B a tte r ie s
C la s s kg kW kW V /A h kW kW V /A h
C om pact 1350 60 40 3 3 5 /1 2 85 10 1 5 0 /8
M id -s ize 1660 75 65 3 3 5 /2 0 120 15 1 5 0 /1 3
M id -s ize 2170 90 75 3 3 5 /2 4 150 20 1 5 0 /1 8

A ll v e h ic le s h a v e C V T tr a n s m is s io n s a n d N ic k e l M e ta l H y d r id e
b a tte r ie s

T a b le 2 :C h a r a c te r is tic s o f I C E V e h ic le s o f V a r io u s T y p e s

T ype C urb C D A f R o llin g P m ax 0- E PA m pg

W e ig h t F t2 r e s is t. kW 60m ph C ity /h w *
kg coeff. sec
C om pact 1160 .3 2 1 .4 .0 0 7 95 10 2 5 /3 1
M id -s iz e 1500 .3 2 3 .1 .0 0 7 135 8 .5 2 0 /2 8
F u ll-s iz e 1727 .3 2 2 3 .7 .0 0 7 180 8 .0 1 7 /2 5
S m a ll 1590 .3 8 2 6 .4 .0 0 8 135 10 1 9 /2 5
M id -s iz e 1910 .4 2 2 8 .0 .0 0 8 165 9 .5 1 5 /1 9
L arge 2500 .4 5 34 .0 0 8 200 9 .5 1 4 /1 6

A ll v e h ic le s h a v e A 4 tr a n s m is s io n s
• T h e M p g s h o w n a r e th o s e in th e E P A F u e l E c o n o m y G u id e . M e a s u r e d
f u e l e c o n o m y h a s b e e n c o r r e c te d b y .9 f o r th e F U D S a n d b y .7 8 f o r th e
h ig h w a y c y c le .

Table 3: Fuel Economy Results
***MPG derived from Advisor Simulations***
Types of Vehicle Components Drive Cycle
Type of Type of Engine Transmission Energy Japan ECE-
Vehicle Drivetrain Type Type Storage FUDS Highway US06 10/15 EUDC
Full HEV PFI CVT/auto NiMH (gen 2) 46.5 55.9 35.9 50.6 44.8
Car Full HEV Lean Burn CVT/auto NiMH (gen 2) 57.2 69.6 45.8 60.8 56.9
Full HEV TC Diesel CVT/auto NiMH (gen 2) 59.1 75.1 49.0 62.0 59.0
Full HEV PFI CVT/auto NiMH (gen 2) 39.7 49.7 31.8 45.8 38.9
Car Full HEV Lean Burn CVT/auto NiMH (gen 2) 48.7 60.9 40.1 55.3 49.6
Full HEV TC Diesel CVT/auto NiMH (gen 2) 50.0 66.0 44.0 56.0 50.0
Full HEV PFI CVT/auto NiMH (gen 2) 30.3 33.3 21.2 30.4 30.9
SUV Full HEV Lean Burn CVT/auto NiMH (gen 2) 36.8 40.0 25.1 38.5 35.3
Full HEV TC Diesel CVT/auto NiMH (gen 2) 42.0 45.0 31.0 37.0 41.0
Mild HEV PFI CVT/auto NiMH (gen 2) 40.2 43.8 30.1 38.8 36.6
Car Mild HEV Lean Burn CVT/auto NiMH (gen 2) 50.4 57.4 41.9 48.2 49.9
Mild HEV TC Diesel CVT/auto NiMH (gen 2) 50.3 59.7 44.0 46.0 49.0
Mild HEV PFI CVT/auto NiMH (gen 2) 33.8 37.3 26.1 32.9 30.7
Car Mild HEV Lean Burn CVT/auto NiMH (gen 2) 42.1 48.7 36.5 41.7 41.7
Mild HEV TC Diesel CVT/auto NiMH (gen 2) 42.0 50.6 38.0 40.0 41.0
Mild HEV PFI CVT/auto NiMH (gen 2) 27.2 27.2 18.5 30.5 26.1
SUV Mild HEV Lean Burn CVT/auto NiMH (gen 2) 33.6 35.0 25.3 37.1 34.0
Mild HEV TC Diesel CVT/auto NiMH (gen 2) 34.0 38.0 28.0 37.0 37.0
Mild HEV PFI CVT/auto ultracapacitor 43.9 50.0 32.9 40.7 39.8
Car Mild HEV Lean Burn CVT/auto ultracapacitor 54.2 64.0 43.6 49.8 52.2
Mild HEV TC Diesel CVT/auto ultracapacitor 54.3 68.0 48.0 49.0 52.0
Mild HEV PFI CVT/auto ultracapacitor 37.2 42.9 29.4 34.2 34.7
Car Mild HEV Lean Burn CVT/auto ultracapacitor 45.4 54.8 38.7 43.0 45
Mild HEV TC Diesel CVT/auto ultracapacitor 46.3 58.4 41.0 41.0 45.0
Mild HEV PFI CVT/auto ultracapacitor 28.9 30.3 20.0 29.7 28.3
SUV Mild HEV Lean Burn CVT/auto ultracapacitor 35.3 38.1 26.5 35.5 35.4
Mild HEV TC Diesel CVT/auto ultracapacitor 35.9 41.3 30.0 35.0 40.0
Conv. ICE PFI CVT/auto - 27.0 41.0 29.0 21.9 26.4
Car Conv. ICE Lean Burn CVT/auto - 39.1 56.1 36.3 33.4 38.4
Conv. ICE TC Diesel CVT/auto - 37.1 52.8 35.0 30.0 36.0
Conv. ICE PFI CVT/auto - 20.4 32.3 23.3 16.5 20.2
Car Conv. ICE Lean Burn CVT/auto - 29.7 44.4 29.4 25.0 29.5
Conv. ICE TC Diesel CVT/auto - 27.7 39.5 27.0 23.0 26.0
Conv. ICE PFI CVT/auto - 15.9 24.5 17.6 13.1 15.8
SUV Conv. ICE Lean Burn CVT/auto - 23.5 33.5 22.2 20.0 22.9
Conv. ICE TC Diesel CVT/auto - 22.3 32.7 22.0 18.0 21.0

Table 4: The Fuel Economy Improvement Factor for Mid-size Cars - Full and Mild

hybrids- with various Engines

Economy Factor

Type of Engine type Japan ECE-

driveline FUDS Highway US06 10/15 EUDC
Full hybrid Gasoline PFI
1.94 1.54 1.29 2.77 1.93

Lean burn 1.64 1.37 1.28 2.21 1.68

TC Diesel 1.80 1.53 1.63 2.50 1.88

Mild hybrid Gasoline PFI

Ultracap 1.66 1.16 1.14 2.0 1.52
1.82 1.33 1.26 2.08 1.72
Lean burn
Bat. 1.42 1.1 1.24 1.67 1.41
Ultracap 1.53 1.23 1.32 1.72 1.53
TC Diesel
Bat. 1.52 1.28 1.40 1.80 1.58
Ultracap 1.61 1.48 1.52 1.78 1.73

Convent. Gasoline PFI

ICE –CVT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lean burn 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

TC Diesel 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Table 5: Cost model inputs and calculated component/vehicle results

E n g in e /T ra n sm issio n (C V T /a u to ) C o sts [P F I] F ix e d C o stV a ria b le C o s

V e h ic le C o m p a c t C a r M id -S iz e C a r M id -S iz e S U V $ $ /k W
F u ll H y b rid $ 1 ,9 2 0 $ 2 ,0 8 0 $ 2 ,7 2 0 $0 $ 3 2 .0
M ild H y b rid $ 2 ,7 2 0 $ 3 ,8 4 0 $ 4 ,8 0 0 $0 $ 3 2 .0
C o n v e n tio n a l $ 3 ,0 4 0 $ 4 ,3 2 0 $ 5 ,2 8 0 $0 $ 3 2 .0

E n g in e /T ra n sm issio n (C V T /a u to ) C o sts [L e a n B u rn ]
V e h ic le C o m p a c t C a r M id -S iz e C a r M id -S iz e S U V $ $ /k W
F u ll H y b rid $ 2 ,1 6 0 $ 2 ,3 4 0 $ 3 ,0 6 0 $0 $ 3 6 .0
M ild H y b rid $ 3 ,0 6 0 $ 4 ,3 2 0 $ 5 ,4 0 0 $0 $ 3 6 .0
C o n v e n tio n a l $ 3 ,4 2 0 $ 4 ,8 6 0 $ 5 ,9 4 0 $0 $ 3 6 .0

E n g in e /T ra n sm issio n (C V T /a u to ) C o sts [T C D ie se l]
V e h ic le C o m p a c t C a r M id -S iz e C a r M id -S iz e S U V $ $ /k W
F u ll H y b rid $ 3 ,0 0 0 $ 3 ,2 5 0 $ 4 ,2 5 0 $0 $ 5 0 .0
M ild H y b rid $ 4 ,2 5 0 $ 6 ,0 0 0 $ 7 ,5 0 0 $0 $ 5 0 .0
C o n v e n tio n a l $ 4 ,7 5 0 $ 6 ,7 5 0 $ 8 ,2 5 0 $0 $ 5 0 .0

E n g in e /T ra n sm issio n (M a n u a l) C o sts [P F I] F ix e d C o stV a ria b le C o s

V e h ic le C o m p a c t C a r M id -S iz e C a r M id -S iz e S U V $ $ /k W
F u ll H y b rid $ 1 ,8 0 0 $ 1 ,9 5 0 $ 2 ,5 5 0 $0 $ 3 0 .0
M ild H y b rid $ 2 ,5 5 0 $ 3 ,6 0 0 $ 4 ,5 0 0 $0 $ 3 0 .0
C o n v e n tio n a l $ 2 ,8 5 0 $ 4 ,0 5 0 $ 4 ,9 5 0 $0 $ 3 0 .0

E n g in e /T ra n sm issio n (M a n u a l) C o sts [L e a n B u rn ]
V e h ic le C o m p a c t C a r M id -S iz e C a r M id -S iz e S U V $ $ /k W
F u ll H y b rid $ 1 ,9 8 0 $ 2 ,1 4 5 $ 2 ,8 0 5 $0 $ 3 3 .0
M ild H y b rid $ 2 ,8 0 5 $ 3 ,9 6 0 $ 4 ,9 5 0 $0 $ 3 3 .0
C o n v e n tio n a l $ 3 ,1 3 5 $ 4 ,4 5 5 $ 5 ,4 4 5 $0 $ 3 3 .0

E n g in e /T ra n sm issio n (M a n u a l) C o sts [T C D ie se l]
V e h ic le C o m p a c t C a r M id -S iz e C a r M id -S iz e S U V $ $ /k W
F u ll H y b rid $ 2 ,8 5 0 $ 3 ,0 8 8 $ 4 ,0 3 8 $0 $ 4 7 .5
M ild H y b rid $ 4 ,0 3 8 $ 5 ,7 0 0 $ 7 ,1 2 5 $0 $ 4 7 .5
C o n v e n tio n a l $ 4 ,5 1 3 $ 6 ,4 1 3 $ 7 ,8 3 8 $0 $ 4 7 .5

M o to r C o sts
V e h ic le C o m p a c t C a r M id -S iz e C a r M id -S iz e S U V $ $ /k W
F u ll H y b rid A C m o to r $ 1 ,5 7 1 $ 2 ,2 6 1 $ 2 ,8 1 3 $467 $ 2 7 .6
F u ll H y b rid D C B P M $ 2 ,0 0 0 $ 2 ,9 0 0 $ 3 ,6 2 0 $560 $ 3 6 .0
M ild H y b rid A C m o to r $743 $881 $ 1 ,0 1 9 $467 $ 2 7 .6
M ild H y b rid D C B P M $920 $ 1 ,1 0 0 $ 1 ,2 8 0 $560 $ 3 6 .0

B a tte ry C o sts (N iM H , g e n . 2 )
V e h ic le C o m p a c t C a r M id -S iz e C a r M id -S iz e S U V $ $ /k g
F u ll H y b rid $ 2 ,0 1 0 $ 3 ,3 5 0 $ 4 ,0 2 0 $0 $ 2 5 .0
M ild H y b rid $640 $ 1 ,0 4 0 $ 1 ,6 0 0 $0 $ 2 5 .0

B a tte ry C o sts (L i-Io n )

V e h ic le C o m p a c t C a r M id -S iz e C a r M id -S iz e S U V $ $ /k g
F u ll H y b rid $ 1 ,1 2 6 $ 1 ,8 7 6 $ 2 ,6 2 6 $0 $ 4 2 .0
M ild H y b rid $357 $584 $895 $0 $ 4 2 .0

U ltra c a p a c ita to r C o sts

V e h ic le C o m p a c t C a r M id -S iz e C a r M id -S iz e S U V $ $ /k g
M ild H y b rid $910 $ 1 ,3 6 5 $ 2 ,1 0 0 $0 $ 3 5 .0

Table 5 (cont.)
Battery Voltage (V)
Full Hybrid Mild Hybrid
Compact Car 335 160
Mid-Sized Car 335 160
Mid-Sized SUV 335 160

Battery Amp-Hour (Ah)

Full Hybrid Mild Hybrid
Compact Car 12 8
Mid-Sized Car 20 13
Mid-Sized SUV 24 20

Battery Energy (Wh) [V*Ah]

Full Hybrid Mild Hybrid
Compact Car 4020 1280
Mid-Sized Car 6700 2080
Mid-Sized SUV 8040 3200
NiMH (gen.2) ~ 50 Wh/kg 50
Li-Ion ~ 75 Wh/kg 75
NiMH Battery Weight (kg) [Wh / (Wh/kg)]
Full Hybrid Mild Hybrid
Compact Car 80.4 25.6
Mid-Sized Car 134.0 41.6
Mid-Sized SUV 160.8 64.0

Li-Ion Battery Weight (kg) [Wh / (Wh/kg)]

Full Hybrid Mild Hybrid
Compact Car 26.80 8.5
Mid-Sized Car 44.67 13.9
Mid-Sized SUV 62.53 21.3

Ultracapacitor Weight (kg) [Wh / (Wh/kg)]

Mild Hybrid
Compact Car 26.00
Mid-Sized Car 39.00
Mid-Sized SUV 60.00

Table 6: Typical output sheet from the cost model
User Input Information:
Vehicle Mid Size 0.55 Baseline
Drive Cycle Highway: Miles/ Year 12000
Type: Car 0.45 0 Measure:
FUDS: 0.9
Battery Real World North
NiMH Highway: 0.78 # of Years 8
Type: Factor America:
US06: 0
Electric AC Discount
Drive: Induction Rate

Calculation Result:

Differential Quantity of
DriveTrain Composite Cost of Total Fuel Fraction of
Engine Type DriveLine Fuel Saved
Type MPG Driveline ($) Used (Gal) Fuel Saved
Cost ($) (Gal)

PFI 37.0 $7691 $3371 2592 1998 0.44

Full Hybrid LB Gas 45.4 $7951 $3631 2114 2476 0.54
TC Diesel 47.7 $8861 $4541 2012 2578 0.56

PFI 29.8 $5761 $1441 3221 1370 0.30

Mild Hybrid
LB Gas 37.9 $6241 $1921 2531 2060 0.45
TC Diesel 38.5 $7921 $3601 2491 2099 0.46

Mild Hybrid PFI 33.5 $6086 $1766 2868 1722 0.38

(Ultra- LB Gas 41.7 $6566 $2246 2303 2288 0.50
capacitor) TC Diesel 43.3 $8246 $3926 2215 2375 0.52

PFI 20.9 $4320 $0 4591 0 0.00

LB Gas 29.8 $4860 $540 3223 1368 0.30
TC Diesel 27.3 $6750 $2430 3520 1070 0.23

Table 6 (cont)


Gas Price: $1.50/Gal


Discounted Actual Fuel Discounted Actual Net Discounted Breakeven
Fuel Saved Cost Fuel Cost Cost Net cost Fuel Price
Fuel Price
(Gal) Savings ($) Savings ($) Savings ($) Savings ($) ($/Gal)
1682 $2998 $2523 -$373 -$848 1.69 2.00
2084 $3715 $3126 $84 -$505 1.47 1.74
2170 $3867 $3254 -$674 -$1287 1.76 2.09

1153 $2055 $1729 $614 $288 1.05 1.25

1733 $3090 $2600 $1169 $679 0.93 1.11
1767 $3149 $2650 -$452 -$951 1.72 2.04

1450 $2584 $2174 $818 $408 1.03 1.22

1925 $3431 $2888 $1185 $642 0.98 1.17
1999 $3563 $2998 -$363 -$928 1.65 1.96

0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00 0.00
1151 $2052 $1727 $1512 $1187 0.39 0.47
901 $1606 $1351 -$824 -$1079 2.27 2.70

Table 7: Summary of Cost Results for Various Engines and Vehicle
Classes for Full and Mild Hybrids-baseline ICE vehicle with the PFI Gasoline Engine
Full HEV Mild HEV

Diff. Frac. Fuel $/gal $/gal Diff. Frac. Fuel $/gal $/gal
Cost Fuel Saved fuel break Cost Fuel Saved fuel break
$ saved gal saved even $ saved gal saved even


Compact 2461 .36 1272 1.93 2.30 1063 .23 800 1.33 1.58
Mid-car 3371 .44 1998 1.69 2.00 1441 .30 1370 1.05 1.25

Mid-SUV 4273 .40 2351 1.82 2.16 2139 .30 1757 1.22 1.45

Compact 2701 .48 1702 1.59 1.89 1403 .40 1395 1.00 1.20
Mid-car 3631 .54 2476 1.47 1.74 1921 .45 2060 .93 1.11

Mid-SUV 4613 .50 2972 1.55 1.84 2739 .44 2622 1.04 1.24

Compact 3541 .51 1794 1.97 2.35 2593 .41 1430 1.81 2.16
Mid-car 4541 .56 2518 1.76 2.09 3601 .46 2099 1.71 2.04

Mid-SUV 5803 .56 3373 1.75 2.06 4839 .47 2767 1.75 2.08

Notes: (1) All fuel use is based on the FUDS/Highway composite driving cycle and
100,000 miles.
(2) The baseline vehicle in all cases is the conventional vehicle using a
gasoline PFI engine
(3) The breakeven gasoline price is calculated for a use period of 8 years
and mileage of 12,000 miles/yr and a discount rate of 4%.

Table 8: Summary of Cost Results for Various Engines and Vehicle
Classes for Full and Mild Hybrids with Advanced Engine
ICE Vehicles as the Baseline

Full HEV Mild HEV

Diff. Frac. Fuel $/gal $/gal Diff. Frac. Fuel $/gal $/gal
Cost Fuel Saved fuel break Cost Fuel Saved fuel break
$ saved gal saved even $ saved gal saved even



Compact 2461 .31 1104 2.23 2.65 1063 .23 800 1.33 1.58
Mid-car 3371 .37 1699 1.98 2.36 1441 .30 1370 1.05 1.25

Mid-SUV 4273 .36 2125 2.01 2.39 2139 .28 1638 1.31 1.55

Compact 2321 .22 538 4.31 5.13 1023 .14 359 2.84 3.39
Mid-car 3091 .27 881 3.51 4.17 1381 .21 692 2.00 2.37

Mid-SUV 3953 .23 969 4.08 4.85 2079 .18 735 2.82 3.36

Compact 1831 .29 767 2.38 2.84 883 .20 536 164 1.96
Mid-car 2111 .37 1302 162 1.93 1171 .29 1029 1.14 1.35

Mid-SUV 2833 .32 1395 2.03 2.41 1869 .25 1070 1.75 2.08

Notes: (1) All fuel use is based on the FUDS/Highway composite driving cycle and
100,000 miles.
(2) The baseline vehicle in all cases is the conventional vehicle using the
conventional ICE vehicle using the same engine
(3) The breakeven gasoline price is calculated for a use period of 8 years
and mileage of 12,000 miles/yr and a discount rate of 4%.

Table 9a: Fuel Saving Potential of Hybrid Compact Cars using Various Engines
( FUDS and Fed-Highway cycles)
Fuel Fuel even
Vehicle Hybrid Engine Compos. sav. sav. gasoline
class type type mpg frac frac. price
(real world) PFI adv. $/gal.
ref. ref. PFI ref
Compact Full
PFI 42.7 .36 --- 2.30
burn 52.7 .48 .27 1.89
diesel 53.4 .49 .32 2.35

Mild PFI 35.3 .22 --- 1.58

burn 45.2 .40 .15 1.20
diesel 46.0 .41 .21 2.16

Conv. ICE
PFI 27.3 --- ---- -----
burn 38.6 ----- ----- ------
diesel 36.5 ------ ----- -------

Table 9b: Fuel Saving Potential of Hybrid Mid –size Cars using Various Engines
( FUDS and Fed-highway cycles)

Fuel Fuel even
Vehicle Hybrid Engine Compos. sav. sav. gasoline
Class type type mpg frac frac. price
(real world) PFI adv. $/gal.
ref. ref. PFI ref
Compact Full
PFI 37.0 .44 --- 2.00
burn 45.4 .54 .35 1.74
diesel 47.7 .56 .43 2.06

Mild PFI 29.8 .30 --- 1.25

burn 37.8 .45 .21 1.10
diesel 38.5 .46 .29 2.08

Conv. ICE
PFI 20.9 --- ---- -----
burn 29.8 ----- ----- ------
diesel 27.2 ------ ----- -------

Table 9c: Fuel Saving Potential of Hybrid Mid –size SUVs using Various Engines
( FUDS and Fed-Highway cycles)

Fuel Fuel even
Vehicle Hybrid Engine Compos. sav. sav. gasoline
class type type mpg frac frac. price
(real world) PFI adv. $/gal.
ref. ref. PFI ref
Compact Full
PFI 26.7 .40 --- 2.16
burn 32.2 .51 .29 1.84
diesel 36.5 .56 .39 2.06

Mild PFI 22.9 .31 --- 1.45

burn 28.8 .44 .21 1.10
diesel 30.1 .47 .26 2.08

Conv. ICE
PFI 15.9 --- ---- -----
burn 22.9 ----- ----- ------
diesel 22.2 ------ ----- -------