Ford Fiesta ECOnetic - Diesel - Test results report →
Ford Fiesta ECOnetic - Diesel - Test results report →
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 ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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 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 5.2 CO2 EMISSION RESULTS . . 20 5.3 REGULATED AIR POLLUTION EMISSION RESULTS . . 20 6 PHASE II - DYNAMICS TESTING . . 21 6.1 ACCELERATION EVALUATION . . 22 6.2 MAXIMUM SPEED IN GEAR . . 24 6.3 LATERAL ACCELERATION . . 25 6.3.1 Skid Pad Test . . 25 6.3.2 Emergency Lane Change Manoeuvre . . 27 6.4 NOISE EMISSIONS TESTS . . 29 6.4.1 Exterior Noise (CMVSS 1106 . . 29 6.4.2 Interior Noise . . 31 6.5 BRAKING . . 33 6.5.1 Light Vehicle Braking Systems (CMVSS 135 . . 33 7 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 gasoline- powered 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 • 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 CO2 Emissions 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 diesel- powered vehicle in the Canadian compact class (2009 Volkswagen Jetta TDI).
ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 4
Criteria Results Regulated Exhaust Emissions (CO, NMOG, NOx, and PM) 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) CO NMOG NOx PM HCHO 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, non- methane 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 Result Acceleration 0-100 km/h in 15 seconds Maximum speed (Vmax) in gear 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) Maximum lateral acceleration Skid pad: 0.77 G (7.6 m/s2 ) Emergency lane change: 1.0 G (10 m/s2 ) Noise (exterior) – CMVSS 1106 Acceleration – 65.5 dB (pass) Deceleration – 64.9 dB (pass) Noise (interior) Acceleration – 77.6 dB Constant speed (100 km/h) – 74.0 dB Braking distance – CMVSS 135 From 50 km/h – 11.6 m (pass) From 80 km/h – 27.7 m (pass) From 100 km/h – 39.1 m (pass) From 110 km/h – 49.1 m (pass) ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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 gasoline- powered 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 pre- ignition 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.
ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 6 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.h tm, Business Wire, 2011.
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 ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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.
ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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. Table 1: Specifications for the Ford Fiesta ECOnetic Weight 1,105 kg Drive Type Front wheel Length 3.95 m Engine 4-cylinder 1.6 L Duratorq TDCi Width 1.97 m Transmission 5-speed manual Height 1.48 m Torque 200 Nm / 148 lb-ft Seating 5 Power 66 kW / 90 hp Fuel Type Ultra low sulphur diesel Fuel Efficiency* City Highway 4.6 L/100 km 3.2 L/100 km Drag Coefficient 0.33 Fuel Tank Capacity 40 L Acceleration 0-100 km/h in 12.3 seconds Driving Range 1080 km CO2 Emissions 98 g/km Brakes (f/r) Discs / Discs *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 ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 9
consumption. Once mileage accumulation was completed, the vehicle was soaked2 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 Test Standard # of tests Urban Driving FTP-75 2 Highway Driving HWFET 2 Cold Test FTP-72 1 Aggressive Driving US06 1 Electrical Load US SC03 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.
ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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 gasoline- powered 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 pre- ignition 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. ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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 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 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 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. ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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. 22.214.171.124 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. ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 13
EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule Length 1,369 seconds - Distance = 12.1 km - Average Speed = 31.5 km/h 0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 80,0 100,0 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 Test Time, Secs Vehicle Speed, Kph 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 = 18 126.96.36.199 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 cold- start 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 ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 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 Test Time, secs Vehicle Speed, kph 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 = 23 188.8.131.52 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. ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 15
EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test Driving Schedule Length 765 seco nds - D istance - 16.5 km - A verage Speed - 77.7 km/ h 20 40 60 80 100 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 Test Time, secs Vehicle Speed, kph 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 • Top Speed = 96.5 km/h • Average Speed = 77.7 km/h 184.108.40.206 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.
ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 16
US 06 or Supplemental FTP Driving Schedule Length 596 seconds - Distance - 12.8 km - Average Speed - 77.4 km/h 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1 30 59 88 117 146 175 204 233 262 291 320 349 378 407 436 465 494 523 552 581 Test Time, secs Vehicle Speed, kph Figure 6: US06 Driving Cycle The parameters for the driving cycle are listed below: • Ambient temperature = 20°-30°C • Time = 596 seconds (9 minutes, 56 seconds) • Length = 12.8 km • Top Speed = 129.2 km/h • Average Speed = 77.4 km/h • Number of Stops = 5 220.127.116.11 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. ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 17
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 31 61 91 121 151 181 211 241 271 301 331 361 391 421 451 481 511 541 571 601 V e h i c l e S p e e d , k p h Test Time, secs SC 03 Speed Correction Driving Schedule Length 596 seconds - Distance - 5.8 km - Average Speed - 34.8 km/ h Figure 7: SC03 Driving Cycle The parameters for the driving cycle are listed below: • Ambient temperature = 20°-30°C • Time = 596 seconds (9 minutes, 56 seconds) • Length = 5.8 km • Top Speed = 88.2 km/h • Average Speed = 34.8 km/h • 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.
ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 18
Table 3: 2-Cycle Fuel Consumption Values 2- Cycle Fuel Consumption (L/100 km) City Highway Combined Measured Fuel Consumption 4.8 3.3 4.2 Derived Advertised ‘Label’ Fuel Consumption 5.3 3.9 4.7 Published European Fuel Consumption* 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. ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 19 3 Transport Canada. “CAFC targets and Canadian Fleet Averages”. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs/environment-fcp-cafctargets-385.htm.
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 2- cycle 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 City Highway Combined eTV-Derived Advertised ‘Label’ 2-Cycle Fuel Consumption 5.3 3.9 4.7 eTV Derived 5-cycle value 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. ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 20
Table 5: Criteria Air Contaminant Emissions Results FTP-75 Emissions (g/mi) CO Non-Methane Organic Gas (NMOG) HC + NOx NOx Particulate Matter (PM) Formaldehyde (HCHO) Euro 4** 0.50 - 0.30 0.25 0.025 - 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 ECOnetic 0.10 0.016 0.64 0.62 0.002 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. Anti- NOx 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 non- methane 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. ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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 Speed ( km/h ) 1/4 mile (402.3 m) 118.7 1,000 m 148.3 Figure 9 shows a graph of the speed and distance with respect to time for the maximum acceleration evaluation.
ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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.
ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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 Vmax (km/h) 1st gear 43.2 2nd gear 80.8 3rd gear 121.6 4th gear 160.9 5th gear 164.5 The maximum speed and the speed in each gear in one direction are shown graphically in Figure 10, before being averaged.
ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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. ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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 Counter Clockwise Speed (km/h) Stay inside? Speed (km/h) Stay inside? 50 Yes 50 Yes 55 Yes 55 Yes 60 Yes 60 Yes 63 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 ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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 ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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) Pylon Hit? 50 No 55 No 60 No 63 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 ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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. ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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 gas- powered 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) Approaching RPM End Speed (km/h) RPM max Noise Level dB (A) Right Side – 1 48 1250 58 1550 65.5 Right Side – 2 48 1250 58 1550 64.2 Right Side – 3 48 1250 58 1550 64.3 Right Side – 4 48 1250 58 1550 64.3 Average 58 65.5 Left Side – 1 48 1250 58 1550 64.6 Left Side – 2 48 1250 58 1550 64.4 Left Side – 3 48 1250 58 1550 64.2 Left Side – 4 48 1250 58 1550 64.5 Average 58 64.4 ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 30
Table 11: Coastdown deceleration external noise test results Test Approaching Speed (km/h) Approaching RPM End Speed (km/h) RPM max Noise Level dB (A) Right Side – 1 58 1550 53 1500 64.5 Right Side – 2 58 1550 53 1500 65.2 Right Side – 3 58 1550 53 1500 65.0 Right Side – 4 58 1550 53 1500 64.8 Average 53 64.9 Left Side – 1 58 1550 53 1500 64.5 Left Side – 2 58 1550 53 1500 64.8 Left Side – 3 58 1550 53 1500 64.7 Left Side – 4 58 1550 53 1500 64.3 Average 53 64.6 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. ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 31
Table 12: Constant speed internal noise test results Test # and Targeted Test Speed Calibration dB (A) Noise Level dB (A) Transmission Selection Idle 93.8 52.3 Neutral Ambient Noise Level 47.7 Engine Off Full Acceleration – 1 93.9 77.0 20 sec. – 100 km/h Full Acceleration – 2 93.9 78.1 20 sec. – 100 km/h Full acceleration – 3 93.9 77.7 20 sec. – 100 km/h Average 77.6 20 sec. – 100 km/h 110 km/h – 1 93.9 75.2 5th 110 km/h – 2 93.9 74.6 5th 110 km/h – 3 93.9 75.6 5th Average 75.1 5th 100 km/h – 1 93.9 73.5 5th 100 km/h – 2 93.9 74.2 5th 100 km/h – 3 93.9 74.3 5th Average 74.0 5th 80 km/h – 1 93.9 73.8 4th 80 km/h – 2 93.9 74.1 4th 80 km/h – 3 93.9 74.6 4th Average 74.3 4th 50 km/h – 1 93.9 69.4 3rd 50 km/h – 2 93.9 69.9 3rd 50 km/h – 3 93.9 69.1 3rd Average 69.5 3rd The maximum average recorded sound level inside the vehicle was 77.6 decibels and experienced during full acceleration, as expected.
ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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 • 80 km/h to 0 km/h • 100 km/h to 0 km/h • 110 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. ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 33
Table 13: Deceleration (braking) test results Test Speed (km/h) Stops Pass Best Stop (m) Max Allowable Braking Distance (m) Pedal Force (N) Results Pass Fail 50 6/6 11.59 20.0 614 X 80 6/6 27.66 46.4 745 X 100 6/6 39.09 70.0 621 X 110 6/6 49.12 83.6 590 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.
ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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 NOx- reduction 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. ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 35
Table 14: Summary of dynamics testing results Test Parameter Result Acceleration 0-100 km/h in 15 seconds Maximum speed (Vmax) in gear 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) Maximum lateral acceleration Skid pad: 0.77 G (7.6 m/s2 ) Emergency lane change: 1.0 G (10 m/s2 ) Noise (exterior) – CMVSS 1106 Acceleration – 65.5 dB (pass) Deceleration – 64.9 dB (pass) Noise (interior) Acceleration – 77.6 dB Constant speed (100 km/h) – 74.0 dB Braking distance – CMVSS 135 From 50 km/h – 11.6 m (pass) From 80 km/h – 27.7 m (pass) From 100 km/h – 39.1 m (pass) From 110 km/h – 49.1 m (pass) 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 ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 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. ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 37 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.h tm, Business Wire, 2011.
ecoTECHNOLOGY for Vehicles 38 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