Comparison of fuel consumption and exhaust emissions in WLTP and NEDC procedures
 
More details
Hide details
1
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Lublin University of Technology.
2
Head of Emissions Testing Laboratory at Automotive Research and Development Institute BOSMAL in Bielsko-Biała.
3
Head of Engine Testing Laboratory at Automotive Research and Development Institute BOSMAL in Bielsko-Biała.
Publication date: 2019-10-01
 
Combustion Engines 2019,179(4), 186–191
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Fuel consumption achieved in the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) could be 50% lower than the fuel consumption in real driving conditions and in the case of emissions of regulated toxic compounds the differences could even be much greater. In order to bring the results achieved in official tests closer to real life figures, the European Commission introduced in 2017 the Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP), which replaced the NEDC. In this article the results of fuel consumption and exhaust emissions for 3 cars fitted with engines of the same displacement but with direct and indirect gasoline injection, determined according to the NEDC and WLTC were presented. The results show that the effect of driving cycle on the fuel consumption is equivocal – for one car, fuel consumption was higher in the WLTC; for the other one in the NEDC; and for the third one, fuel consumption achieved in both driving cycles was practically the same. Emissions of regulated exhaust compounds, except for THC, obtained in the WLTC were higher than in the NEDC driving cycle.
 
REFERENCES (9)
1.
BIELACZYC, P., SZCZOTKA, A., WOODBURN, J. Exhaust emissions of particulate matter from light-duty vehicles – an overview and the current situation. Combustion Engines. 2017, 171(4), 227-238. DOI: 10.19206/CE-2017-439.
 
2.
DUARTE, G.O., GONÇALVES, G.A., FARIAS, T.L. Analysis of fuel consumption and pollutant emissions of regulated and alternative driving cycles based on real-world measurements. Transportation Research Part D. 2016, 44, 43-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2016.02.009.
 
3.
JIMÉNEZA, J.L., VALIDOB, J., MOLDENC, N. The drivers behind differences between official and actual vehicle efficiency and CO2 emissions. Transportation Research Part D. 2019, 67, 628-641. DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2019.01.016.
 
4.
MERKISZ, J., PIELECHA, J. Selected remarks about RDE test. Combustion Engines. 2016, 166(3), 54-61. DOI: 10.19206/CE-2016-340.
 
5.
PAVLOVIC, J., MAROTTA, A., CIUFFO, B. CO2 emissions and energy demands of vehicles tested under the NEDC and the new WLTP type approval test procedures. Applied Energy. 2016, 177, 661-670. DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.05.110.
 
6.
TIETGE, U., ZACHAROF, N., MOCK, P. et al. From laboratory to road – a 2015 update of official and “real-world” fuel consumption and CO2 values for passenger cars in Europe. The International Council on Clean Transportation. 2015.
 
7.
TSIAKMAKIS, S., FONTARAS, G., ANAGNOSTOPOULOS, K. et al. A simulation based approach for quantifying CO2 emissions of light duty vehicle fleets. A case study on WLTP introduction. Transportation Research Procedia. 2017, 25, 3898-3908. DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.308.
 
8.
VARELLA, R.A., FARIA, M.V., MENDOZA-VILLAFUERTE, P. et al. Assessing the influence of boundary conditions, driving behavior and data analysis methods on real driving CO2 and NOx emissions. Science of the Total Environment. 2019, 658, 879-894. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.053.
 
9.
ZACHAROF, N., TIETGE U., FRANCO, V., MOCK, P. Type approval and real-world CO2 and NOx emissions from EU light commercial vehicles. Energy Policy. 2016, 97, 540-548. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.08.002.
 
eISSN:2658-1442
ISSN:2300-9896