760121
`
`Hybrid Vehicle for
`
`Fuel Economy
`
`L. E. Unnewehr, J. E. Auiler, L. R. Foote.
`D. F. Moyer, and H. L. Stadler
`Research Staff. Ford Motor Co.
`
`A HEAT ENGINE/ELECTRIC drive train has
`been evaluated as a means of improving the
`fuel economy of various types of
`automotive vehicles. Computer simulation
`studies and dynamometer tests on a
`prototype system indicate that
`improvements in CVS-Hot fuel economy
`(miles/gallon) of from 30% to 100% can be
`realized with this system in a vehicle of
`identical weight and performance
`characteristics. Preliminary test data
`also indicates that these fuel economies
`
`may be realizable while meeting the
`1975/76 Federal Emission Standards (1.58C,
`15C0, 3.1NO ) with the use of external
`emissions cgntrols such as catalytic
`converters. Although similar in
`configuration to a standard parallel
`hybrid drive train,
`the control strategies
`and energy flow of this system are
`considerably different from any known
`hybrid drives. This system does not
`appear to be of equal merit for all
`classes of vehicles, but gives the
`greatest fuel economy improvements when
`applied to delivery vans, buses, and large
`passenger cars. There are certain
`drawbacks to this particular hybrid
`
`system, principally in increased initial
`cost as compared to conventional systems,
`but this cost differential may be reduced
`as improved electrical components are
`developed and as automotive production and
`marketing techniques are applied to the
`electrical components. Other potential
`limitations of this hybrid system are
`reduced driving range at very low speeds
`and reduced capability to supply vehicle
`auxiliaries at standstill.
`In general,
`the replacement of a conventional drive
`train by this particular hybrid train will
`not increase the vehicle curb weight.
`From almost the beginning of the
`Automotive Age, various combinations of
`drive systems have been tried in order to
`achieve vehicle performance
`characteristics superior to those that can
`be obtained using a single type of drive.
`These efforts have been made in the name
`
`of many worthwhile goals, such as
`increased vehicle acceleration capability,
`audible noise reduction, operation of an
`engine or turbine at optimum efficiency,
`reduction of noxious emissions, and
`improved fuel economy. These efforts have
`so far not led to any commercial
`
`ABSTRACT-——-———————~————————-——-——-—————m—~—M——---*—-—-—-———-———————*—‘—*—*————”'
`
`A heat engine/electric hybrid drive
`train is proposed as a means for improving
`CVS—Hot fuel economy by an estimated 30%
`to 1002 in various types of automotive
`vehicles. This drive train, classified as
`a parallel hybrid, has been analyzed by
`means of computer simulation studies to
`evaluate its fuel economy, performance,
`
`Page 1 of 18
`
`and emissions characteristics, and has
`been compared with existing internal
`combustion engine drive trains and other
`types of hybrid drives.
`A prototype
`system has been assembled and evaluated on
`a dynamometer test stand and has
`corroborated the computer analysis and
`predictiOns.
`Problems and limitations of
`this system are discussed.
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`
`

`

`Downloaded from SAE International by John Rondini, Friday, January 03, 2014 10:15:22 AM
`
`Page 2 of 18
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`
`

`

`parallel hybrid with engine on-off
`control, and bears some similarity in
`configuration with two other recent hybrid
`developments.
`(9),(10)
`In addition to these major power
`components, other components required by
`the hybrid drive train include:
`control
`circuitry for the proper operation of the
`power controller; modified engine throttle
`and carburetor; sensors for converting
`vehicle speed, battery voltage and charge
`level, component temperatures, etc.,
`to
`electrical signals suitable for use in
`control and protection systems; protection
`systems for both engine and electrical
`system emission controls; and an overall
`vehicle control system.
`Two modifications of the above system
`(Figure 1) have capabilities for improved
`system performance but usually add some
`cost penalties:
`I.
`The use of an automatically-controlled
`decouple:
`to permit
`the engine to be
`detached from the electrical motor
`drive shaft when the vehicle is
`
`operating in an all—electric drive
`mode or in a braking mode.
`It has
`been shown that the use of such a
`clutch will result in a further
`
`2.
`
`improvement in fuel economy (see
`Figure 5).
`The use of an electrically—controlled
`gear changing system. This will often
`result in 3 reduce electrical system
`weight and an improved electrical
`system efficiency.
`
`
`
`POWER
`CONTROL
`
`BATTERY
`
`Fig.1 ~Ford parallel hybrid
`
`SYSTEM OPERATION
`
`The system has six modes of
`operation.
`The first five modes are shown
`in Figure 2. Mode I is all electric at
`speeds below 10 to 15 MTH.
`In Mode II the
`engine is the primary saurce of propulsion
`and there is no energy in or out of the
`
`I AllELECTRIC
`
`
`
`
`HHCMAROE
`
`Fig.2 —Five hybrid modes of operation
`
`electrical system. Mode III is the
`battery charging mode.
`The engine still
`drives the rear wheels; however, excess
`energy is used to charge the battery.
`When acceleration demands exceed the powar
`input of the engine,
`the motor provides
`the needed additional power. This is
`shown as Mode IV. Mode V is regenerative
`breaking.
`The deceleration energy of the
`vehicle is used to charge the battery.
`Fuel is shut off to the engine during the
`all electrical mode and during braking.
`The battery state of charge is maintained
`between fairly narrow limits by the
`control system around a state of charge of
`about 752 of full charge. This strategy
`prevents deep discharge cycles on the
`battery.
`The sixth mode is at vehicle
`standstill, during which condition both
`the engine and electrical motor are
`inoperative or "dead". Required vehicle
`auxiliaries are supplied electrically at
`standstill.
`
`The objective of this system is to
`provide an increase in fuel economy over a
`conventional automotive drive system while
`maintaining equivalent acceleration
`performance. Comparisons between the
`hybrid system and conventional systems
`have been stressed in all studies.
`The
`
`manner in which this comparison is viewed
`from an overall systems standpoint is
`important in understanding the
`significance of this particular hybrid
`configuration and its operation.
`Figures 3 and 4 show that the fuel
`economy for both a conventional and hybrid
`system can be expreSSed as follows:
`
`Page 3 of 18
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`
`

`

`ENBIHE
`
`
`TORQUE
`CONVERTER
`
`
`TMHSHISSION
`
`
`
`”SYS
`
`mm: smciaucv
`
`Pouenmm EFFICIENOY
`
`51515::
`
`transact
`
`mus / canon
`
`715'?“IN
`
`Ew
`””73.
`E
`”main.IN
`
`wow/cm
`m . _.__._.___
`amuw/mu)
`
`TIE fiPT‘QIN/GAL)
`
`MPG: (Ew/MILE)
`
`Fig.3 ~Average fuel economy for a conven-
`tional vehicle in terms of system efficien—
`cies
`
`
`
` [nexus emclsucv
`
`7;
`E
`
`. _E_'E_
`
`
`
`
`
` 17ELECTRICAL svsren Ermine! - 59-—
`
`POIERTRMH EFFICIfNGY
`
`SYSTEH EFFlCIENCY
`
`IFS (MILES / GALLON)
`
`
`
`p9.”E’7m‘°nu’GM-’
`(EwIIIILE)
`
`Figtd ~Average fuel economy for a hybrid
`vehicle in terms of system efficiencies
`and energies
`
`n
`
`n
`
`_
`E
`PT (
`MPG — (EW7Mile)
`
`/Ga1
`
`Page 4 of 18
`
`where ”E is the average engine brake
`termal efficiency, "PT is the average
`transmission efficiency,
`(Q/Gal) is the
`energy content per gallon gasoline
`consumed and (E /Mile) is the total energy
`requirement at fhe driVe wheels per mile
`necessary to accelerate the vehicle and to
`overcome vehicle friction and aerodynamic
`drag.
`The quantities in this expression
`represent average values over a prescribed
`driving cycle.
`It should be noted that
`the average powertrain efficiency is
`defined as the ratio of total positive
`engine shaft work to total positive energy
`requirement at
`the drive wheels.
`Stated
`in another way,
`this represents the
`fraction of total engine work used to
`propel
`the vehicle.
`For the hybrid drive
`train state of charge is assumed to be the
`same at the beginning and end of the drive
`cycle,
`thus the net energy input
`to the
`transmission from the battery is zero.
`The task facing the hybrid system can
`now be clearly seen.
`In order to provide
`an increase in fuel economy over a
`conventional system the quantity nE "PT
`/(Ew/Mile) must be increased.
`The present
`hybrid system will be described in terms
`of how it strives to maintain high average
`engine efficiency, high average
`transmission efficiency and low work
`requirements at the drive wheels while
`maintaining the equivalent acceleration
`performance of the conventional system it
`replaces.
`A. High Average Engine Efficiency
`1.
`Small engine — The engine used in
`the conventional system is
`replaced by a much smaller engine
`in the hybrid system.
`The smaller
`engine operates at higher load
`factors, resulting in increased
`efficiencies.
`The hybrid engine
`is sized to meet vehicle cruise
`requirements up to a specified
`road speed. This enables the
`vehicle to be propelled by the
`engine alone for extended cruise
`periods. This corresponds to Mode
`II in Figure 2.
`2. Fuel off during idle and
`deceleration - Approximately 20%
`of the CVS—H fuel consumption is
`used during idle and braked
`deceleration for the conventional
`vehicles with automatic
`transmission considered in this
`study. Elimination of idle and
`braked deceleration fuel flow in
`the hybrid configuration results
`in significant improvements in
`average engine efficiency.
`3. Fuel off during low speed
`operation - Since the engine is
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`
`

`

`geared directly to the drive
`wheels the fuel is shut off at low
`
`vehicle speeds and the vehicle is
`propelled by the electrical
`system. This corresponds to Mode
`I in Figure 2.
`The fuel savings
`must be weighed against the
`electrical energy dissipated that
`must be replaced by charging the
`battery later in the driving
`cycle.
`Since this charging is
`done at a higher engine
`efficiency, this mode has a
`positive effect on the average
`engine efficiency. However,
`this
`charging has an adverse effect on
`the average transmission
`efficiency since a lower fraction
`of the engine work shows up as
`useful work at the drive wheels.
`
`The total gasoline used to replace
`the battery energy expended during
`this mode can actually exceed the
`amount of gasoline used in a
`conventional vehicle in
`
`accelerating up to the
`The
`corresponding vehicle speed.
`energy requirements of this mode
`can be substantially improved by
`lowering the work required to
`motor the engine by opening the
`throttle, collapsing the valves or
`by de—clutching the engine. Other
`approaches include gear changes or
`use of motors with better
`low'speed efficiencies.
`4. Charging the battery at
`high-engine efficiency - When the
`battery requires charging from the
`engine as represented by Mode III
`in Figure 2,
`the basic strategy is
`to provide the charging energy at
`the most efficient engine
`operating point. This contributes
`to a high overall engine energy
`efficiency; hOWever,
`this effect
`must be weighed against the effect
`on transmission efficiency since
`the optimum engine efficiency will
`not
`in general correspond to the
`most efficient charging torque
`level for the electrical system.
`Additional trade—offs appear when
`the effect of engine torque on
`emissions is discussed in a later
`section.
`
`5. Accelerate at high—engine
`efficiency — When the vehicle
`acceleration demands exceed the
`power capacity of the engine,
`the
`electrical system is used to
`provide the extra needed power.
`This is described as Mode IV in
`
`Figure 2.
`
`In general the engine
`
`B.
`
`c.
`
`torque level at which the
`electrical system is called upon
`corresponds to a high—engine
`efficiency point.
`The effect on
`transmission efficiency must also
`be considered since a lower engine
`torque requires more electrical
`energy.
`Transmission Efficiency ~ The
`transmission in a hybrid drive train
`is the portion of the system that
`transmits useful work from the engine
`to the drive wheels.
`Since all the
`
`the vehicle
`energy needed to propel
`ultimately comes from the engine
`(assuming the battery ends the drive
`cycle at the same state of charge) the
`basic objective of the transmission is
`to minimize the amount of engine
`energy used for other purposes. This
`is achieved as follows:
`
`1. Engine geared directly to rear
`wheels for primary source of
`propulsion ~ When the electrical
`system is not in use,
`the energy
`from the engine is transmitted
`directly to the rear wheels
`through the differential. This is
`Mode II in Figure 2.
`The
`instantaneous transmission
`
`The
`
`efficiency during this mode is
`essentially equal
`to the
`differential efficiency.
`engine is sized to provide
`sufficient torque in this mode for
`extended high~speed cruise.
`2. Use of electrical system only when
`needed - To keep the use of the
`electrical system to a minimum,
`the motor is used only when
`needed.
`The two modes requiring
`the motor are the all electric
`
`mode at low speed Odode I) and
`during heavy accelerations Oiode
`Iv)-
`3. Use of regenerative braking —
`During braking the kinetic energy
`of the vehicle is used to charge
`the battery. This is described as
`Mode V in Figure 2. This has a
`substantial effect on transmission
`
`efficiency by reducing the charge
`energy required from the engine.
`Drive Wheel Energy - In conVerting a
`conventional vehicle to a hybrid
`configuration the total energy
`requirements at the drive wheel must
`also be considered in assessing the
`potential fuel economy gains.
`The
`primary factors that could reduce fuel
`economy are an increase in the vehicle
`weight and an increase in the
`rotational inertia due to higher
`rotational speeds of the engine and
`
`Page 5 of 18
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`
`

`

`System weights will vary
`motor.
`considerably with the vehicle
`acceleration requirements. For the
`hybrid configurations considered in
`this study small weight savings were
`realized. These differences were
`
`generally not enough to change the
`inertial weight class of the vehicle
`and were not considered in the fuel
`economy projections.
`The effects of
`increased rotational inertias were
`also seen to be minimal for the
`configurations investigated.
`
`METHOD OF ANALYSIS
`
`The
`
`A computer program was developed to
`simulate all elements of the drive train
`for the six basic modes of operation over
`an arbitrary drive cycle.
`The required
`power at the drive wheel is computed from
`the drive cycle data,
`the vehicle
`friction, aerodynamic drag, inertial
`acceleration and rotational inertias.
`corresponding power levels are computed
`throughout
`the drivetrain based on
`rotational speeds and torques and
`component performance characteristics.
`Motor/generator and controller
`efficiencies are computed from efficiency
`tables in terms of torque and RPM.
`The
`efficiency tables used for the D.C. system
`are based on experimental data from
`reference (7). Similar tables for a
`brushless synchronous motor system are
`based on experimental data from reference
`(8). Battery efficiency is computer from
`equivalent circuit models for specific
`battery types as described in Reference
`(16).
`
`The engine is sized to provide
`sufficient power for extended cruise
`without the electrical system. Fuel flows
`are computed in terms of engine speed and
`torque.
`In general, automatic calibration
`fuel island data is used with simulated
`exhaust system, fan on, alternator
`operated at one—half charge and power
`steering pump loaded. Engine motoring
`torque is computed as a function of engine
`RPM from experimental data.
`Axle ratio between the engine and
`drive wheels and gear ratio between the
`motor and engine are varied in the
`analysis until a suitable compromise is
`reached between fuel economy,
`top speed,
`acceleration, maintaining battery charge
`and,
`in some cases, emissions.
`Comparisons with conventional
`drivetrains are made by applying the same
`basic technique of starting at the rear
`wheels and describing each element
`individually. Transmission efficiencies
`are computed for each gear from output
`
`Page 6 of 18
`
`speed. Automatic transmission shift
`schedules are determined from driveshaft
`RPM and manifold vacuum. Manifold vacuum
`
`must be implied from engine torque which
`cannot be computed until the proper gear
`is determined.
`The engine torque and
`transmission shift schedule must,
`therefore, be matched iteratively.
`The approach is similar to techniques
`described in Reference (11) for
`conventional vehicles and in Reference
`(16) for electric vehicles.
`
`DYNAMOHETER TESTS
`
`Early in the course of the computer
`simulation and other analytical studies of
`the hybrid concept,
`the need for some
`experimental evidence to support
`the
`computer predictions of fuel economy and
`performance was recognized. Also,
`emission measurements and engine strategy
`for emission control were required.
`The
`first step in such experimental
`evaluations has been the testing of an
`engine-electric drivetrain with a
`dynamometer and inertia wheel as loading
`devices. Ultimate evaluation of any
`alternate engine or other drivetrain
`component must of necessity by made
`through a long series of vehicular tests
`under typical or prescribed driving
`conditions. However, for systems so far
`removed from conventional automotive
`practice as a hybrid drivetrain,
`dynamometer testing appears essential
`before vehicular testing is initiated.
`The principal goals of the hybrid
`dynamometer tests were:
`1.
`To test the computer predictions of
`fuel economy, performance, and
`emissions using a production engine.
`To establish that the fuel economy
`improvement is attainable at
`acceptable emission levels. This
`required that near optimum engine
`strategy regarding spark, air-fuel
`ratio, and exhaust gas recirculation
`be developed. This was done by
`dividing the speed torque plane in a
`grid pattern, studying each area in
`the grid and summing the total for
`hybrid operation. This process is
`called engine mapping in subsequent
`discussions.
`To determine that the on-off fuel
`control required by the hybrid Wes
`practical at acceptable performance,
`emissions and cost. This was
`determined using a carburetor and
`minor modifications.
`To determine that the selected battery
`was adequate.
`To determine that the engine is
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`

`

`basically suited to the unique or
`unusual operations in this concept,
`such as:
`
`a. Motoring the engine between 0 and
`800 RPM as required by the direct
`coupling to the wheels. Normally
`an engine is cranked and
`immediately accelerated to an idle
`speed of 700 RPM or more.
`b. Operation at high torque most of
`the time.
`
`o. Higher than normal total use and
`long duration of high torque at
`high speed.
`The experimental hybrid drivetrain
`was configured as in the block diagram of
`Figure l with two exceptions:
`The
`electric motor was on a common shaft with
`
`the engine, and the driveshaft was
`directly coupled to a dynamometer and
`inertia wheel
`to simulate the vehicle
`road, aerodynamic, and inertial loads.
`The principal components used were:
`'74
`1. Engine:
`Ford 2.3L, 4-cy1inder,
`production engine, modified for fuel
`off operation.
`2. Motor: Westinghouse, AOHP, 240 V.,
`1750 RPM industrial shunt motor;
`blower cooled.
`
`SCR chopper for motor
`3. Controller:
`armature control during motoring and
`regenerative braking (designed and
`assembled at Ford); separate power
`supply for field control.
`4. Battery:
`140 cells connected in
`series of Marathon,
`type 20D120, NiCd;
`auxiliary forced—air cooling to
`maintain cells at approximately 20 C;
`plus required monitoring equipment.
`5. Loading Device: Absorption
`dynamometer of 150 lb—EE
`inertia and
`a flywheel of 360 lb«ft
`inertia.
`The combined inertias of the rotating
`members of the experimental system are
`equivalent to a vehicle of 7500 lb.
`inertia weight based upon an engine
`RPM/vehicle MPH (N/V) ratio of 53.5.
`Conventional gas analysis equipment was
`used to meaSure emissions under conditions
`of steady state engine operation.
`Measurements of exhaust CO, CO , HC, 0
`and NOx and intake 002 were made.
`Fue
`flow was measured by weight.
`Since the hybrid application requires
`operating an engine under conditions
`considerably different from those
`associated with conventiOnal Vehicles,
`preliminary evaluation and modification of
`the 2.3L engine was necessary:
`1.
`The engine was modified to permit fuel
`to be turned off during deceleration
`and at speeds below 15 MPH. This was
`accomplished by means of a small
`solenoid valve to block fuel flow in
`
`2.
`
`the idle jet, removal of the throttle
`stop to permit full closure of the
`throttle plate, a means of admitting
`air below the throttle, and PCV
`modification.
`A sequence control was required for
`minimum emissions and quality
`performance during engine fuel turn-on
`and turn—off.
`For example, during
`turn—off,
`the following sequence was
`used:
`(a) close throttle,
`idle
`solenoid, and PCV valve,
`(b) open
`by-pass air valve around throttle to
`permit air without fuel into intake
`manifold,
`(c) turn—off ignition, with
`elapsed time between these events.
`3. Removal of some engine auxiliaries;
`for example,
`the engine alternator is
`not required in a hybrid drive; air
`conditioner was not used.
`The power
`steering pump was connected and
`driven.
`
`5.
`6.
`
`In a
`4. Low-speed engine friction:
`conventional vehicle,
`the engine is
`operated below the idle speed (about
`800 RPM) for only a few seconds during
`start—up.
`In the hybrid, much longer
`operation may be required.
`The
`low—speed friction torques of the 2.3L
`engine were measured.
`Low—speed lubrication was evaluated.
`The EGR valve and plumbing were
`enlarged to permit large EGR flow at
`wide-Open throttle operation.
`Another interesting problem for which
`there was almost no precedent was the
`measurement of HG emissions during the
`frequent engine off/on transitions that
`the engine passes through during a typical
`driving cycle.
`Since CVS equipment for
`this measurement was not available a
`
`technique using diluted samples from the
`engine—off period was developed and
`considered to give reasonable accuracy.
`This method was used to predict the
`emissions discussed in later sections of
`this paper.
`The resulting experimental system
`proved to be very "driveable" with smooth
`transitions between the various operating
`modes.
`The system was "driven" through
`several of the standard test driving
`cycles with ease and accuracy after a few
`learning cycles by the operator.
`In order to experimentally verify the
`calculated values of fuel economy that had
`been obtained from the various computer
`simulations described above, several
`dynamic runs over both CVS—H and SAE (17)
`driving cycles were performed an the
`experimental hybrid system mounted on a
`dynamometer test stand.
`The SAE driving
`cycle is a simplified version of the CVS—H
`cycle developed mainly for the electric
`
`Page 7 of 18
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`
`

`

`vehicle tests. Many comparisons of the
`two driving cycles have shown that both
`result in approximately the same fuel
`consumption for both ICE and electric
`vehicles. Since the "driving" of an
`experimental drivetrain on a dynamometer
`test stand over the SAE cycle is much
`simpler than over the CVS—H cycle, and
`since the control of the system was not
`fully automated but required considerable
`manual control,
`the SAE cycle was chosen
`as the means for comparing calculated with
`measured fuel economy of the hybrid
`drivetrain.
`It was found that after only
`a few tries, manual control was able to
`follow the required speed and acceleration
`variations specified by the SAE cycle
`almost perfectly.
`The actual efficiencies
`of the components in the electric branch
`of the hybrid and the actual road load
`simulated by the dynamometer were fed into
`the computer model
`to obtain the
`calculated fuel economy.
`The engine
`throttle positions were likewise made to
`correspond between the measure and
`calculated test runs.
`The results are
`summarized below:
`
`TABLE I
`COM?ARISON OF MEASURED AND CALCULATED
`DYNAMIC FUEL ECONOMY OF HYBRID
`
`Simulated vehicle
`
`inertia weight
`Length of test run
`
`Calculated fuel economy
`Measured fuel economy
`
`7500 lbs
`3 SAE cycles
`(3 miles)
`15.2 mpg
`15_3 mpg
`
`FUEL ECONOMY STUDIES WITH AUTOMATIC ENGINE
`CALIBRATIONS
`
`A variety of studies was conducted by
`applying the computer program to hybrid
`and conventional versions of the same
`vehicle using fuel island data for stock
`engines with automatic calibrations.
`The
`hybrid electrical systems were sized to
`provide approximately equivalent
`acceleration performance.
`The results of
`these studies are summarized in Figure 5.
`The purpose of this section is to discuss
`the reasons for the fuel economy
`improvement resulting from a hybrid system
`and to discuss the effects of fundamental
`system changes on fuel economy.
`A. Reasons for Fuel Economy Improvement
`Resulting from a Hybrid System — The
`Econoline Van and the Mark IV
`configurations received the most
`emphasis in these studies. Figures 6
`and 7 present summaries of comparisons
`made between typical hybrid and
`conventional versions of the Econoline
`
`The
`Van and Mark IV, respectively.
`computations were done for the CVS-H
`drive cycle and both comparisons are
`based on equivalent acceleration
`performance between the respective
`hybrid and conventional
`configurations. Both hybrid systems
`represent typical configurations with
`automatic engine calibrations. DC
`motor and controller and normal idle
`throttle engine motoring friction
`during fuel off modes.
`In Figure 6 a 4500 lb.
`conventional van with 300 CID engine
`
`hhicle
`
`inn‘“’
`Van
`
`Van
`you
`
`Van
`
`Van
`
`Van
`Van
`
`
`
`Hybrid I’m-nu Train
`
`m
`1.! with elated throttle
`Ll with uldmopcn throttle
`
`Ll . valvon closed
`1.1 . clutch
`
`2,) diesel
`
`2.3 diesel, clutch
`
`1.1 . clutch
`2.] diesel. clutch
`
`Mark tv‘”’
`Mark xv
`
`2,:
`2.3
`
`(ICE), clutch
`(xct), clutdt
`
`(1) £500 lb“ Inertia Ht.
`(5) 5500 lb. Inertia Vt.
`
`(c)
`
`Calculated Fuel Sconce:
`(m)
`M M 325
`or
`18.5
`14,4“’
`DC
`18.!
`“LA
`
`1 Improvement
`Hybrid/Ice
`28
`31
`
`DC
`DC
`
`DC
`
`In:
`
`Disc(c)
`Dine
`
`9c
`urac("
`
`19.5
`20.0
`
`22.0
`
`23.7
`
`21.3
`28.4
`
`19.7
`2|.9
`
`“LA
`NA
`
`“Jo
`
`14.4
`
`14.4
`“.4
`
`no.5“l
`10.5
`
`15
`39
`
`5)
`
`65
`
`as
`97
`
`7:
`109
`
`(c) All fuel economy calculations based upon vehicle driving the Federal c‘Js-Il cycle; no cc: change Ln battery
`ltnla-af-uflmrac.
`(d) Calculated for unenlsolonizcd, 2&0 cm engine. Calculations based upon the 1975. callglonlted 300 CID engine used
`on [975 Vehicles resulted in a fuel economy at
`ILA MPG.
`(o) Axial ctr-pp reluctance moor developed by Ford.
`(See References)
`(8) and 06)).
`(6’ Calculated {or 1971: 460 CID engine with automatic Cdllbrltlon.
`
`Fig.5 -Calculated fuel economy comparisons
`
`Page 8 of 18
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`
`

`

`450018
`VAN
`
`CV5
`MPG-l3!
`
`VAN
`
`7755234
`
`0V5
`HPG-l&5
`
`SOOOW
`
`
`
`ENGINE
`POIERTRAIN
`
`SYSTEM
`MPG
`
`OIOZDSOWSOGO'IOGO
`% IIPROVEIENV OVER CORVEHTIONAL
`
`Fig.6 —CVS-H fuel economy and efficiency
`comparison between hybrid and conventional
`econoline van
`
`SHWLB
`
`MARK II
`46° “'9
`
`5500 us "ca
`HYBRID
`um 11
`
`u “‘5“
`
`
`
`CV5
`m - no.5
`
`3:: - ITS
`
`ENWNE
`
`POWERTRMH
`
`6.9 %
`
`SYSTEM
`m
`
`80'93
`
`670%
`66.1%
`
`0l020304050607080
`% INPROVEHEHT OVER CONVENTIOHAl
`
`during braking. Gearing between the
`engine and rear wheels gives a ratio
`of engine RPM to vehicle speed in MPH
`(N/V) of 100, while the ratio of
`electric motor RPM to engine RPM is
`1.75.
`The weight summary of this
`The
`substitution is shown in Table II.
`performance predictions (acceleration)
`for this same vehicle are given in
`Table III.
`
`In Figure 7 a 5500 lb.
`conventional 1974 Mark IV with 460 CID
`engine and automatic transmission is
`compared to a 5500 lb. hybrid Mark IV
`with a 2.3 liter engine, DC motor with
`260 ft. lb. peak torque and 80 KW of
`NiCd batteries. Accelerations are
`
`done at wide—open throttle, while
`battery charging is done at optimum
`fuel consumption.
`Fuel is shut off at
`
`TABLE II
`VEHICLE WEIGHT EXCHANGE
`
`
`Production Systems — 1975 Nantucket Weight
`(lbs)
`
`Curb
`
`
`Delete:
`. 300 CID Engine
`. 0—4 Automatic Transmission
`. Exhaust System
`. Fuel System (22 gal. base tank)
`. Battery and Alternator
`
`or:
`. 1.1L Engine
`. Exhaust System
`. Fuel System (13.3 gal.
`base tank)
`. Motor
`(Provision
`. 2-spd. Trans.
`~— not
`included in fuel
`
`economy)
`. Controller
`. Battery and Cooling
`(Ni—Cad System)
`. 12V Inverter
`
`631
`155
`56
`29
`_23
`222 lbs.
`
`243
`25
`
`18
`120
`
`80
`70
`
`170
`__§
`123 lbs.
`
`Fig.7 ~CVS-H fuel economy and efficiency
`comparison between a hybrid and conventional
`Mark IV
`
`NOTE: Structural and other small
`component changes may alter this
`weight comparison.
`
`and automatic transmission is compared
`to a 4500 lb. hybrid van with a 1.1
`liter engine, DC motor with 130 ft.
`lb. peak torque and 45 KM of NiCd
`batteries. Acceleration and battery
`charging are both done at wide~open
`throttle and fuel is shut off at
`engine speeds below 1000 RPM and
`
`Page 9 of 18
`
`engine speeds below 800 RPM and during
`braking.
`Engine RPM to vehicle MPH is
`58.66, and electric motor RPM to
`engine RPH is 2.27.
`The comparisons shown in
`Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the
`following important characteristics
`regarding fuel economy comparisons
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`
`

`

`TABLE III
`
`TED(h)
`(sec)
`
`Performance (g)
`1.1L Hybrid Wide
`Open Thrott1e(b)(e) 13.3
`1966 240 CID —
`E~100 (b)
`Memo:
`1974 240 CID
`E—ZOO (c)
`
`12.5
`
`13.3
`
`0~10
`
`0‘60 25—60
`
`sec mph
`(ft) (sec)
`
`mph
`
`(sec)
`
`358
`
`19.7
`
`l5.l
`
`385
`
`17.1
`
`12.9
`
`364
`
`19.0
`
`14.4
`
`3.
`
`system with automatic transmission
`and torque converter.
`The effect of higher rotating
`inertias on the required work at
`the drive wheels for the hybrid
`configurations is not a
`significant factor in the fuel
`
`45001.0. 300 CID CONVENTIONAL VAN- 04 A010. TRhHSHISSIDN
`Numbers in dunked region: roprenont
`percent of total fuel eonnuned,
`
`17E - 17.3 $0
`BSFC -.71?
`
`(b) Non-emissionized.
`(c) Emissionized.
`test Weight, 25 HP
`(e)
`CVS~CH at 4500 lb.
`motor, a 50 KM battery, and maximum
`speed of 81 mph.
`(3) Computer projections developed by
`Powertrain Research, PP&R, Ford Motor
`Company.
`"Time Exposed to Danger”; this is the
`time required to gain 150 ft. on a
`vehicle traveling at 55 mph.
`
`(h)
`
`betwaen hybrid and conventional
`vehicles over the CVS-H drive cycle:
`1. For both the van and Mark IV
`configurations the improvement
`the hybrid fuel economy is
`approximately equal to the
`improvement in overall engine
`efficiency.
`2. Average hybrid transmission
`efficiencies are comparable in
`magnitude to the transmission
`efficiencies of the conventional
`
`in
`
`I20
`
`[00
`
`m
`
`so
`
`so
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`.49 ( 21.5 m
`
`85H: (17:)
`
`.52 (25.0%)
`
`.mzum
`
`scum)
`
`.54 (24.8%)
`
`
`
`Jonam
`
`1.003.400)
`ms PERCENI or
`cvs run
`
`57"
`
`0
`
`moo
`
`2000
`m
`Fig.8 -cvs-H fuel economy utilization for
`4500 lb conventional econoline van
`
`3000
`
`4000
`
`4500 L8. LI LITER HYBRID VAN (HIV-85)
`
`176-24.! 96
`
`BSFG -.556
`
`Nahu- in dachcd regions :cpmncnt
`percent of mm). £uo1 conuuuci
`
`50
`
` 40
`.60 (22.3 9(a)
`
`cvs FUEL
`
`
`
`BSFC ( 176)
`.64 (20.9 %)
`
`.60(22.3 %)
`
`
`
` .4?(28.4%)
`
`.70(19.l%)
`
`1.003.436)
`
`BHP
`
`0
`
`|000
`
`2000
`
`3000
`
`4000
`
`5000
`
`6000
`
`RPM
`Fig.9 *CVSuH fuel utilization for a 4500
`lb hybrid econoline van (N/V=85)
`
`Page 10 of 18
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`
`

`

`economy, resulting in fuel economy
`penalties of less than 2%.
`Another important feature of these
`comparisans is the much greater fuel
`economy improvement shown for the
`hybrid Mark IV (66.7%) over that shown
`for the van (37.9%).
`Fuel economy is
`stated in miles per gallon.
`The
`reasons for this difference are shown
`
`in Figures 8 through 11 which show
`distributions of fuel utilization over
`
`the CVS driving cycle for the
`conventional and hybrid versions of
`the van and the Mark IV.
`The
`
`percentages of total fuel consumed at
`various engine operating points are
`indicated by the numbers enclosed by
`the dashed square regions. This
`information is superimposed on the
`engine fuel island curves which show
`contours of constant engine efficiency
`and brake specific fuel consumption in
`terms of engine RPM and brake
`horsepower for an automatic engine
`mumumm fiewmmfimflvm
`
`does not offer as much improvement
`potential.
`In addition, it was
`necessary to charge at wide open
`throttle with the hybrid van, while in the
`case of the Mark IV charging was done at
`optimum fuel consumption resulting in a
`higher average engine efficiency.
`The
`
`5500 L81 MARK]! 460010 06 AUTOMATIC
`Entire fuel
`Inland not chasm for clarity
`7’6 - I46 06
`BSFC ' .9l8
`
`
`
`
`esrc ‘77:)
`:00 (167%)
`
`7009150)
`
`3009.199)
`
`
`
`.BOHBJ‘M
`
`
`
`.90U4‘970}
`‘0('34%)
`‘49(273%)
`
`W
`
`‘80
`
`|60
`
`I40
`
`£20
`
`100
`
`80
`
`80
`
`40
`
`20
`
`
`
`Numbers in dothud regionu reprint-n!
`percent of rota! fuel consumed,
`
`00
`mo 2000
`3000
`4000
`RPM
`
`Fig.10 ~CVS~H fuel utilization for a 5500
`lb conventional Mark IV
`
`55001.0. 2.3 LITER HYBRID MR! 11
`«75- 26.3%
`
`
`35": --5|!
`arr cause
`
`2:22;: 3:; :2::h::%‘:::.:::rm=
`
`an?
`
`we
`
`80
`
`6°
`
`40
`
`2°
`
`0
`
`8ch ‘17:)
`.50(26.8%)
`
`.smwm
`
`
`
`
`.49(27.5%>
`.48(27.9%)
`
`.46(29.l%)
`-54‘24~8%>
`
`00122390)
`
`
`mums)
`
`
`
`.90u4.9%)
`
`o
`
`moo
`
`2000
`m
`Fig.11 -CVS-H fuel utilization for a 5500
`lb hybrid Mark Iv (optimum fuel charge)
`
`5000
`
`4000
`
`Page 11 of 18
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`FORD EXHIBIT 1123
`
`

`

`IOO
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`SH?
`
`5500 L0. 2.5 LITER HYBRID MARK II
`1,5' 22.0 9':
`
`85H) - .592
`IOT CHARGE
`
`Number-u 1n dnuhod region: reproach:
`percent of t