HyBoost Project Aiming for 30-40% CO2 Reduction Without Performance Compromise
30 November 2009
The HyBoost project (earlier post), a two-year collaborative research program led by Ricardo in partnership with Controlled Power Technologies, the European Advanced Lead Acid Battery Consortium, Ford, Imperial College London, and Valeo, aims to demonstrate a very cost-effective, ultra-efficient gasoline engine in a C-segment passenger car.
The vehicle is to offer the performance of a 2.0 liter model but with a real-world 30-40% reduction in CO2 emissions to below 100 g/km. This is to be achieved through the synergistic application of an extremely downsized gasoline engine coupled with electrified boosting and exhaust gas energy recovery; micro-hybrid functionality with stop/start, torque assist and regenerative braking; and a novel energy storage technology.
The technologies to be incorporated in the HyBoost demonstrator vehicle will be restricted to innovations which are capable of practical production implementation in the near term; they must be constructed with readily available and affordable materials, and have the high scalability required by the automotive sector.
The £3 million (US$4.9 million) HyBoost project is supported by a £1.5 million investment from the UK Government-backed Technology Strategy Board with balancing resources provided by the project partners.
HyBoost aims to demonstrate the very significant benefits that can be achieved using an intelligent combination of innovative technologies to deliver low carbon transport solutions. The stated targets of this research would enable a consumer-attractive “average car” to be offered with CO2 emissions well below the mandated future target set for the European fleet average without compromising vehicle performance.
—Neville Jackson, Ricardo group technology director
Controlled Power Technologies (CPT) is responsible on the project for the electric supercharger and exhaust gas energy recovery system. (Earlier post.) Valeo will support the project with innovative solutions on the air intake loop including a cooled EGR system, an integrated watercooled charge air cooler and a low-voltage recovery system based on Valeo’s BSG (belt-starter-generator) StARS (stop/start system) machine with associated electrical energy management electronics.
Recent research by the Advanced Lead Acid Battery Consortium members into the use of valve-regulated lead-acid batteries in hybrid vehicle applications, has resulted in the development of batteries with a capacitive function in the negative plate. A program of work is being developed to ascertain whether the use of these batteries can lower the cost of the Valeo StARs + X approach—a supercapacitor-based extension to StARS (StARS + X) to support regenerative braking and thus enable a greater reduction in fuel consumption than is possible with the stop-start system alone. (Earlier post.)
It is amazing to see how simple existing technologies can be used to reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions by up to 40%.
What is more amazing is why this was not tried and implemented some 50 years ago instead of the race to 500+ hp V-8, V-10 and V-12 gas guzzling monsters.
Were we lead in the wrong alley all that time? It is indeed amazing to find out how blind we were and still are.
Posted by: HarveyD | 30 November 2009 at 07:44 AM
A project such as this was needed to pull together various technologies into a production viable concept. The project parameters are well thought out. The OEM's aren't likely to fund this on their own, ie integrate various new tech. The OEM's would take baby steps as they always have.
@Harvey have you seen the latest TV ads touting Dodge Ram PU's-I'm outraged, its back to peddling gas guzzlers as the measure of manhood. As a taxpayer funding this I object!
Posted by: nordic | 30 November 2009 at 10:12 AM
Excuse me but 50 years ago would make it the late 60s early 70s. At that time there were no micro processors nor power electronics components available to implement the electrical system for this proposed hybrid vehicle application.
Posted by: Mannstein | 30 November 2009 at 01:35 PM
That should have been the late 50s early 60s. Sorry for that slip.
Posted by: Mannstein | 30 November 2009 at 01:36 PM
Mannstein, didn't you know - in the 50's and 60's we could have used a warehouse sized computer powered by triode vacuum tubes pulling a small-town sized coal generator for electricity to achieve these types of fuel economy reductions!
Posted by: Patrick | 30 November 2009 at 01:39 PM
50 years ago, direct injection and turbocharging would have been quite feasible. We're just starting to see those in the USA too.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 30 November 2009 at 02:46 PM
This year GM introduced " the biggest change in the history of (GM's) Holden to the new DI V6.
They ad been exporting cylinder heads to Alfa for some years prior, but were still planning to stay with multipoint.
Then the punters became aware and next minute there the wraps were off on a brand new DI.
This is how technology works, roll it out a bit at a time to keep the buyers interest. When things look bad, then go to the pantry and bring out the best.
Cost can be an issue, but nowadays the cost of not acting is greater.
Posted by: arnold | 30 November 2009 at 04:09 PM
"...restricted to innovations which are capable of practical production implementation..."
This makes whatever they come up with a real possibility. It has been said that we have the technology now to solve a lot of the problems. Maybe that was the point Harvey was making. There is nothing to it but to do it and the sooner we get going the better off we will all be.
Posted by: SJC | 30 November 2009 at 09:59 PM
One could change the 50 years for 40 years and even 30 years but it would not change the fact that major automobile manufacturers did not introduce available technologies fast enough.
Even today, (30+ years after the micro chip) new technologies are introduced in a haphazardly fashion and very unevenly across the car industry. Look how long it is taking to introduce HEVs, even 12 years after Toyota started to mass produce them. PHEVs could have been around for 15+ years. Decent BEVs could have been around some 10+++ years ago. CVT and 8-speed transmissions could have been in use 50+ years ago. Smaller ICE with efficient compressors could have been around from 1950s. Electric sub-systems could have been around for 40+ years. This list could go on and on.
The facts are that most manufacturers did not care much about buyers need, fuel economy and GHG. Instead, they spent $$B trying to convince the majority that we all needed 3 1/2 tonne Hummers (or equivalent) to drive to work or go shopping. They should be sued for peddling fallacies not getting more $$B in public funds to carry on doing the same.
Posted by: HarveyD | 01 December 2009 at 07:46 AM
Harvey, I'm old enough to remember a time when the Big 3 would offer a "new" model every year with the only difference being in the placement of the chrome or the height of the tailfins.
The auto industry was no better than the fashion industry, which changed the hem level of their dresses each year just to make last year's out of fashion.
Posted by: ai_vin | 01 December 2009 at 12:15 PM
There may have been a relationship between oil and autos for 100 years, but when gasoline went above four dollars per gallon and large SUVs became less popular, there has been a split.
It occurred to me what a monopoly oil companies have with fueling stations. They either own or franchise their stations and have a strong vertical integration. Trying to get alternative fuels into those stations will be an uphill battle.
Posted by: SJC | 01 December 2009 at 03:21 PM
ai_vin:
And the long lasting problem is that many of us still believe the flawed informations car manufacturers shoved down our throat for so many decades.
Many are still convinced that bigger cars/SUVs are safer than well built smaller cars when the opposite is true.
How are we going to get rid of all those acquired fallacies? What took decades and $$B to implant may take decades and $$B to exude. De-programming is not always easy.
Posted by: HarveyD | 03 December 2009 at 06:09 AM