EPA-AA-SDSB-80-11
                         Technical Report
            Electronic Engine Controls - Availability,
           Durability, and Fuel Economy Effects on 1983
              and Later Model Year Light-Duty Trucks
                                by
                          Thomas Nugent
                         Zachary Diatchun
                           Timothy Cox
                             June 1980
                              NOTICE

Technical Reports do  not  necessarily  represent  final  EPA decisions
or positions.   They are intended to  present technical  analysis  of
Issues using  data which are  currently  available.   The  purpose  in
the  release  of such  reports  is  to facilitate the  exchange  of
technical information  and to  inform the  public  of  technical  devel-
opments which may form the basis for a final EPA decision, position
or regulatory action.

             Standards Development and Support  Branch
               Emission Control Technology Division
          Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
               Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
I.   Introduction

     The application  of  microprocessor technology to optimize  the
functions of the internal combustion engine is underway.   Passenger
car model years 1980 and 1981 have seen the widespread introduction
of  electronic  engine  controls  of varying  degrees  of complexity.
These  controls  hold the promise  of lowering engine emissions  and
raising  engine  fuel economy  through  the  optimization  of the com-
bustion process at all engine operational  conditions.

     This paper examines the potential of this technology for  use
in  the future light-duty  truck  fleet.   The implications of this
technology  on fleet  fuel  economy,  in conjunction with  the more
stringent emission  standards  in  1983, will be examined along with
projections as  to the future availability and durability of  these
microprocessors and their associated engine sensors.

II.  Availability

     Three  factors  are identifiable in analyzing the availability
of electronic engine controls for 1983 light-duty  truck application
to meet  emission  and  fuel  economy requirements.   The first  factor
concerns  the  availability  of sufficient  technology  to  implement
such controls.   Secondly,  production  limitations are an  important
factor.   Finally,  costs of  electronic engine controls  using  the
selected technology may be prohibitive.

     The use  of electronics  in  automotive applications,  especially
iri the area of" engine controls,  is one of  the fastest growing  areas
of electronic development and has been stimulated  at an accelerated
pace by  emission  and  fuel  economy requirements.   Electronic engine
controls first  appeared  in the early  1970's  with the introduction
of  ignition modules and  increased in  complexity and application to
controlling spark timing in the late 1970's.   Chrysler's  "Lean Burn
engine," General Motors' "MISAR" system, and Ford's  "EEC-1" are  all
examples  of modules  that  controlled  spark  timing.   Although  no
statute  exists  requiring  the use  of  electronic  engine  controls,
future emission and  fuel economy  requirements dictate that  further
increases  in  electronic control  of the  powertrain will  accompany
downsizing, aerodynamic  changes, and improvements in catalyst
technology  to meet fuel economy  and  emission requirements of  the
1980's.

     The  initial  development effort  in  the early  seventies used
analog  circuitry.   This  development  technique  illustrated that
electronics  could  provide a substantially  more  accurate  engine
control  system but  would not  improve fuel economy  and  emission
levels unless a more  advanced methodology was developed.  With  the
advent of  microprocessors  and large  scale  integration (LSI)  tech-
niques developed  in  the  late  1970's,  the  automotive world became a
prime  candidate to  reap  the  benefits  of what many social  observers
refer  to as the  second  industrial revolution.  This advanced  LSI
technology brings about  an unprecedented level of  functional

-------
complexity and intelligence for engine control  systems  and replaces
many previous mechanical and electromechanical  solutions.

     Parallel to  the development of LSI  techniques  for  engine
control applications,  sensor  development  became the pacing factor
for using microprocessor based engine controls.   The more important
sensed  parameters that are  used in  1980  model year  light-duty
vehicle applications are:ll/

     - Crankshaft angle position.  This indexes  ignition timing for
spark  advance control  and injection  timing for  electronic  fuel
injection systems.   There  are five current technologies commonly
used to  sense this  parameter:   magnetic reluctance,  Hall-effect,
Weigand-effeet, optical, and variable-inductance.

     - Pressure.   This includes manifold absolute pressure (MAP),
manifold vacuum,  and ambient  absolute pressure (AAP).   MAP param-
eters  are used with speed/density fuel control systems; mani-
fold vacuum  is used for  ignition  control  and  load  sensing;  AAP
parameters  are  used  for  exhaust-gas-recirculation  (EGR)  flow
correction and for  altitude  compensation.   Technologies  in  pro-
duction  include  aneroid/  LVDT, diaphragm/silicon strain gage,
capacitive,  surface  wave  diaphragm,  aneroid/linear  inductor,  and
metal diaphragm/ semiconductor strain gauge.

     - Coolant  temperature.   These are now mature components with
thermistors  and wire-wound resistive elements  used for cold start
emission requirements.

     - Oxygen  partial  pressure is monitored in  three-way catalyst
systems.  Two  sensors  are  of interest; zirconia oxygen sensor and
the titania oxygen sensor.

     - Throttle position is monitored  for engine power command and
idle shut-off on coastdown.  As in the case  of  coolant  temperature,
throttle  position technology  is  mature  with  plastic  and  ceramic
element potentiometers dominating the market.

     With' the assistance  of  the LSI revolution and  the  neces-
sary  peripheral   sensor  developments, electronic  engine controls
have increased.   In  light-duty vehicle (LDV) applications,  General
Motors  plans  to  use a three-way catalyst system with  feedback
•carburetor  for all  1981  LDV  applications; Ford  is  also  contem-
plating  full  usage  of a  similar system (EEC III) for  full LDV
application in 1983.

     The  usage of such  complex  systems  (three-way  catalysts and
feedback  carburetors)  is  not  necessary to meet  emission  standards
for  1983  LDTs  since  the  equivalently stringent  1980 LDT  California
emission  standards are met without  any electronic engine controls
or  three-way  catalyst systems.  The  1980 California standards are
more stringent than the  1983  Federal standards (see Fuel  Economy
section).   A  simple spark advance/EGR  electronic engine  control

-------
                              4

system, developed in the late 1970's,  should  be  all  that  is  neces-
sary to meet emission and  fuel economy standards.

     Therefore,  regarding technological availability for 1983  LOT
electronic engine  control  application,  the  question is no  longer
"can it  be  done," but  rather  "when,  what quantity, and for  what
price."

     Another  area affecting availability  of  electronic engine
controls  for 1983 LDT application  is  production  limitations.
Total  LDT electronic  engine control  application  could  increase
production volume up to 33 percent over LDV applications.   Tooling,
production  leadtime,  and  facilities are  all limiting factors
in production.   Any design changes  necessary to  meet  1983  LDT
requirements would principally involve a  rewrite of  the  micropro-
cessor software  in already  existing  systems.   An  industry  stan-
dard currently  held by microprocessor manufacturers  is  26  weeks
for complete microprocessor  development.   Discussions with  Motor-
ola, a manufacturer  of electronic engine controls  and associated
sensors,  indicated  that  a production volume  increase  of about
3 times would take 22-30 weeks to implement and would be paralleled
by  any  necessary microprocessor  software changes.   Additionally,
Motorola acknowledged that such a production  volume  increase would
require  an  accelerated program, but by no means  an impossible
program,  for the 1983 model year implementation.  Ford engineering
also made comments  consistent with  Motorola  on the production
availability of  electronic  engine controls,  i.e.,  an  accelerated
program would be necessary and feasible.

     The  last  factor  which  may  limit  electronic  engine  control
availability is prohibitive costs.  Surveys have been done  on  the
percentual share of manufacturing  costs of LDV  for  electronics in
the next decade.   Figure  1  indicates  that a  4 percent increase in
percentual share cost  in  1983  is expected compared to the  uncon-
trolled  LDV  emission  baseline  (pre!968)  electrical  system  share
cost of  8 percent.   A 1-2 percent deletion from  the 4 percent
incremental  level  is  justified  if only electronic engine controls
are  considered.   The  1-2  percent deletion is attributable to
increased electronic  technology applications  to instrument  panels
and  driver  convenience devices such  as   clocks, air  conditioning
controls, and diagnostic warning  systems.12/  A further,  detailed
cost analysis has  been developed  and  presented  on  the anticipated
application   of  electronic engine  controls  for  1983  LDTs  in  the
Regulatory  Analysis  and  Environmental  Impact  of  Final  Emission
Regulations   for  1983 and  Later  Model Year  Light-Duty  Trucks.1Q/
The  net  increase  in  retail  cost is  anticipated  to be  $95  (1980
dollars),  and  is  similar  in  percentual   share  cost  to LDVs.

     While there are incremental costs associated with the applica-
tion of electronic engine  controls for  1983 LDTs, cost would not be.
a  limiting   factor  affecting the  availability  of  such  controls.

-------
 III. Durability

      There have  been three generally accepted  techniques used  in
 predicting the durability  of  any  system used  in automotive  appli-
 cation :_13/

      a.    Accumulated data  from actual field experience.

      b.    Analytical techniques.

      c.    Accelerated life  testing.

      The  first  method  applied  to  electronic  engine controls  is
 currently  not  extensively  available  because  of  the newness  and
 rapid evolution of LSI technology applied to the automotive  field;
 1983 electronic  engine  control systems  are  being  developed  now in
 1980.  Analytic techniques  require a mature data base; life testing
 usually  produces  a  generic  failure  rate and  relies heavily  upon
 extrapolation.    Both of these methods,  b and c,  would have  to be
 used  in  establishing confidence  in  an   electronic  engine  control
 system for 1983 LDT application.

      A reasonable  durability  confidence level may  be  established
 for LSI  techniques used in electronic engine controls.   The  latest
 circuits contain up  to 100,000 transistors  in  memory arrays,  or up
 to  50,000  transistors in random  logic.   Even with  this  semicon-
 ductor complexity, the actual reliability has  increased.   Figure 2
 illustrates  the  failure rate per  function  versus time or  device
 complexity.

      Factors affecting the  increase  in  durability  are  three-
 fold.  First, a  system  using  LSI  techniques results in  a  decrease
 in  the   number  of  peripheral  electronic  components.   Second,
 as  device  complexity increases,   the  number of external  LSI  chip
 interconnections,  such as chip  lead bonding,  is  significantly
 reduced.   Chip  lead  bonding  has  been identified by the  industry
 as  one  of the principal causes  of failure when exposed  to  the
 automotive  environmental  factors of  temperature  extremes  and
 humidity,*   Third, and  perhaps  most  importantly, significant  ad-
 vances in  device manufacturing  techniques  and  knowledge of  device
 mechanisms has facilitated production of LSI devices which improve
 failure  resistance when  exposed  to extremes  in  environmental
' conditions.

      There have  been identified,  however,  some  problems unique to
 LSI technology when  applied to the automotive  field  as  compared to
 discrete devices.    Discrete devices  are reasonably immune to
 effects  of power  supply variation and little  or no  protection has
 been  taken  in the  past against  control transients,  steady-state
 noise,  and  voltage  regulation.   Automotive  environments  contain
 complex  signals  under  each  of these areas  including load  dump
 transients,  electromagnetic  interference,  alternator field  delay
 transients, and accessory noise.

-------
                                6


     The nature of  LSI failure rates may be  further  discussed  by
using two partitions:  intrinsic and extrinsic.  Intrinsic failure
rates are  associated with  manufacturing  defects  such as  masking
areas»  process contamination,  and passivation  defects.  These
defects  dominate  the  failure  rate  in applications where  the  en-
vironment is controlled,  e.g.  computers.    Extrinsic  failures  are
caused  by  environmental   factors.   As environmental  severity  in-
creases, the'contribution of the extrinsic failure rate increases.
Figure  3  illustrates  the  influence of environmental  severity  on
device failure  rates.14/

     Sensors used  for engine  controls  have  been identified  as
the  limiting factors in  durability, especially electro-mechanical
devices.  Even  though  guidelines have been set on the specifica-
tion and testing on  some  of  the sensors,15J the most crucial factor
in  establishing  confidence  in a  100,000  mile durability  factor
for  LDTs  is actual in-use experience,  which is  currently not
available at mileages up to 100,000.  However, a reasonable degree
of durability confidence  may  be applied  to the sensors  that will
potentially be  used  on 1983 LDTs to meet  emission and fuel economy
requirements.    Such sensors  are the crankshaft position  and  the
manifold  vacuum sensor.  These particular  sensors  have a high
durability potential as  they  are either  non-mechanical,  use  solid
state technology, have a long aerospace  history, and exhibit  no
severe environmental deterioration  problems,  as is the case of  the
oxygen sensor used with three-way catalyst systems.

   ... Concluding,  both the electronics and  sensors  that may be used
on 1983 LDTs have a high durability potential because  of  increases
in the  development  of large  scale integration  and the  already
secure, sensor development.

IV.  Fue1  Economy

     Manufacturers'  comments to the  National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's (NHTSA)  light truck fuel economy  proposed  stan-
dards for  1982  through 1985 model   years, and  to  EPA's Light-Duty
Truck (LOT) proposed emission  regulations  for 1983 are consistent.
According^, to the  manufacturers, the 1983 and  1985  emission  stan-
dards will result  in  a  fuel  economy penalty  ranging from 3-14
percent.  The  EPA  staff's  intention in this  report  is to address
manufacturers'  comments  concerning  the  fuel  economy  penalty  as-
sociated only with the  1983  emission standards.

     Most  manufacturers further  agree through  passenger  car
research  that  Electronic Engine Controls  (EEC), more specifi-
cally fully  interactive  EEC  systems,  have  shown promise  in  com-
bating  the  loss of fuel economy  as demonstrated  by application
of the  more stringent California  standards  to  passenger vehi-
cles.   Manufacturers further  claimed, however, that  such systems
are  not generally  planned to be used to achieve 1983-1985  LOT
standards due to what the manufacturers vifew as  their high variable
cost.

-------
     One manufacturer  indicated that while  a  system of this  type
was not  necessary to attain  1983  emission standards,  it could be
justified if cost effective with regard  to fuel  economy.  The  same
manufacturer referred  to computer  simulations with EEC that re-
sulted in a fuel economy benefit of at least 2  percent.

     On the other hand,  additional'manufacturers'  research  yielded
no fuel  economy benefit with EEC  with  or without three-way cata-
lysts, and  then concluded  that  the fuel economy penalty could not
be offset, and also dismissed the  use  of EEC for  1983  due to
leadtime requirements.

     Finally,  when  questioned in Public Hearings before EPA about
the use of  electronic controls  in  future product lines,  the indus-
try refused to comment  on  the grounds  that  such information was
"proprietary."  Given the  widespread  use of EECs  in the LDV fleet
and given  the   constantly growing  amount of published research on
EECs,  this  is  highly suggestive that the  research and development
programs heeded to  incorporate  EECs into the LDT fleet are  already
underway.

     These  inconsistencies in the  manufacturers' comments indicate
the need for a  more critical  review of  current EEC technology  with
respect  to  fuel  economy,  emission standards,  and  the future LDT
fleet.

     Industry   projections  for fuel  economy impact arise  from
anticipated use of  current  technology at  emission levels near the
1980  California  standards.    The magnitude  of this Federal to
California  fleet  fuel economy  penalty  was estimated  in Reference
1 to  be  approximately 4.0 percent,  as  determined from EPA certi-
fication tests on an average vehicle-by-vehicle basis.  A conserva-
tive estimate of  1983 production mix for different  engine sizes and
corrections  for  relative  stringencies   of  standards also  entered
into the derivation of the average  penalty.

     A  separate  source  for  evaluating  the effect  of  California
emission  standards  upon LDT  fuel  economy is  a  recent  SAE paper
published^by EPA  personnel.2/  Data from that  report is  reproduced
in Table  1.  The average  penalty  for each manufacturer is broken
down in Table 2.  Note that the average sales-weighted  fuel  economy
impact per  manufacturer of  the California emission standards was
found to  be a  loss of  4.2  percent.    (This  is comparable to the
overall  5.2 percent  loss  derived  by  the EPA staff  in Reference
1, before adjustments were  made for future engine mix and  for the
relative stringencies of 1980 California and  1983  Federal emission
standards.)  Note  also the  significant impact  of the changing
marketplace; an increase in  sales  of products by  manufacturers of
more  fuel  efficient vehicles in California  has  resulted in a net
improvement in  overall  fleet fuel  economy of  6.5  percent relative
fo the Federal  fleet!   Significant  increases in  fleet  fuel  economy
and simultaneous  reductions  in emissions  have occurred.   This  is
not to say  that market  mix  negates  the  effects of  tighter emission

-------
                               3

standards.    It  is  in  the  context  of an  anticipated 4.0 percent
loss* in average  engine  fuel  efficiency  using  current  technology
that  the  fuel  economy  effects  of  future  technology,  electronic
engine controls  in particular, will be evaluated.   (This change in
market mix to more  fuel-efficient vehicles and  its  overall effect
on fleet mpg  should  not go unnoticed, however.)

     Given  the  availability  of  electronic  engine  controls,  EPA
anticipates  their  incorporation into the LDT  fleet to  achieve
compliance  with  increasingly  stringent  emission and  fuel  econ-
omy  standards.    This judgement is  based upon the documented
potential  for  engine optimization  attributable  to  EECs,  and
their already widespread  use  in  the light-duty  vehicle  (LDV)
fleet.

     The level  of complexity  of electronic controls  can  vary.
Parameters  controllable  by electronics  include  fuel/air ratio,
spark advance,  EGR rate,  idle  speed, auxiliary air injection,
torque  converter clutch,  fuel  injection profile,  and ignition
voltage.   Electronic  controls  permit infinitely  variable  cali-
bration settings for each parameter and  for changes  in engine
operating  demands  -  including  idle,  acceleration,  deceleration,
cruising, and transient temperature (warm-up) effects.  Cali-
brations and response times  of each feedback  control loop can
be set  to optimize  fuel  economy  and  driveability at  any  level of
emissions.   A method of engine  parameter mapping  and  control
algorithm generation is  presented by Auiler, et  al.J>/  A  complete
description  of a  comprehensive electronic  control system  is given
by Grimm, et  al.6/

     The degree  of  complexity required for  1983  LDTs  to attain
emission standards  while  incurring no  net  fuel economy penalty
was judged previously to  be  less than that of a  comprehensive
system,  i.e.  electronic  control  of only a  few parameters  will be
sufficient.   Most likely controlled  will be  spark advance and EGR
rate.   The option  still exists for more complex  systems  to be
introduced  at the manufacturer's  discretion.  With  forthcoming NOx
reductions in 1985, manufacturers may choose  to  phase  in com-
prehensive  control systems  because of  varying  leadtimes  for
microprocessor  programming  and engine optimization  -  see the
conclusions in Reference 4.  We  do not judge these leadtimes to be
prohibitive to introducing less complex,  less costly EEC's  in 1983,
however, due to  the  previous  design experience  acquired with
light-duty vehicles.

     Several  reports have outlined the  fuel  economy  and  emission
reduction potential  of  electronic spark advance  (ESA), and of
comprehensive EECs  including ESA.   Schwarz,  in a  report to the
Institute of Electrical Engineers^/, reported  that at  a  given
emission  level,  use  of a digital ESA  system produced a 8-11
percent fuel economy improvement over a mechnical system in a
     As derived  in Reference 1.

-------
four  cylinder  passenger  car  engine.    Evernham,  et  al,  reported
in  1978  9/  that  the  first microprocessor unit  installed on  a
production passenger car  (GM MISAR system on  the  1977  Oldsmobile
Toronado), a simple electronic spark advance system, improved  fuel
economy by 1.2 mpg (9 percent)* over the mechanical system.   It is
difficult to understand  the  industry's claims that technology first
applied  in  1977  cannot  be  applied  to  LDTs in 1983  to  preclude  a
fuel  economy  penalty, which will at most  be a  fleetwide  4.0
percent using  current LDT technology,  while technology  introduced
six years  prior  to 1983  on passenger  cars produced  fuel  economy
improvements of 8-11  percent.

     Comprehensive EECs,  although  not  anticipated  to  .be  widely
used in 1983 LDT's, nevertheless  incorporate ESA, and evaluation of
a comprehensive system> fuel economy potential  can indicate  to  some
degree a  range of ESA's  potential.   IkeuraS/ reported that  the
comprehensive  system  developed  by  Nissan and  currently  marketed
extensively in  Japan produced an overall improvement in fuel
economy of 10 percent.   (The Nissan  system  controls fuel  injection,
spark advance,  EGR rate, and idle air flow).  Some fraction of  this
improvement must  be  attributable to ESA and EGR control, and  its
certainly reasonable  to conclude that at  least  4.0  percent  of  the
overall 10 percent is attributable to ESA and EGR control.

     Lockhart4/ reported different magnitudes  of improvements,  but
which  are highly  informative nevertheless.  Table 3  lists  the
emission  levels  and  fuel  economy  improvements  obtained  in a  GM
prototype  fuel  economy  vehicle  equipped  with, among other  tech-
nologies, a GM EPEC (Electronic Programmed  Engine Control.)  While
simultaneously reducing  emissions  from  1978   to  1981  levels,  an
overall fuel economy  benefit of 12.5 percent was achieved, of which
3.5 percent was  attributable to  the  comprehensive EPEC  (which
controlled fuel  injection, spark  advance, idle  air,  and EGR.)
Emission  reductions were  reported to decrease  net  fuel  economy by
2.5 percent.  In extrapolating these results to future LDTs, it is
understood that a comprehensive system is not anticipated for 1983,
but also note that  the relative degree  of emission  reductions
required  for  1983 LDTs  are  far  less  than  that  seen by passenger
cars  frony 1978  to 1983 (although  differences  in  inertia  weights
certainly affect attainable emission levels.)   Therefore, although
a comprehensive EEC is not anticipated, the emission reductions  are
not quite so  drastic  (most importantly  for  NOx)  as achieved  in
Reference 4.   The  fuel  economy impacts  of lower LDT standards  and
the use of ESA and electronic  EGR controls  are  judged comparable in
magnitude and opposite  in  sign,  i.e. no net  fuel economy penalty is
expected.  In  fact,  based upon data  presented  in the earlier
reference,  it  is  conceivable  that  the  fuel   economy benefits  of
the expected  EECs may  be  larger than  those  penalties  associated
with the 1983 emission  reductions.
*    EPA combined fuel economy ratings  for  the 1977 Toronado was 15
mpg.  Presuming  15  mpg represents  1.2  mpg more  than 13.8 rapg, the
ESA resulted in a 9 percent  gain.

-------
                                10

   In summary,  the  1983  emission reductions are  not  drastic and
are attainable with' today's technology.   Today's  electronic control
technology as  applied  to  light-duty vehicles will  permit  no net
fuel economy penalty  to be experienced  as a result of these emis-
sion standards.  Industry  claims of  fuel  economy penalties are not
consistent with  the  cost-effective*  technological  options  avail-
able.  Looking at  the engine alone,  there is no reason to presume
that fuel  economy  effects  attributable  to the 1983 standards will
be negative.   We believe it  is a  conservative judgement based upon
the  published data  that  no net  fuel  economy  loss will  occur.
     See Reference 1, Chapter F;  Reference 10,  Chapter 5.

-------
                                11

                             References

I/   "Summary  and  Analysis of  Comments on the Notice  of  Proposed
~    Rulemaking for Gaseous Emission Regulations for 1983 and Later
     Model Year Light-Duty Trucks," U.S. EPA, May 1980.

2J   "Passenger  Car and  Light  Truck  Fuel Economy Trends  Through
~    1980," by J.D. Murrell, et al, SAE Paper No. 800853.

3/   "Microprocessor Control  Brings  About Better Fuel  Economy with
~    Good  Driveability," by  K. I.  Ikeura,  et  al,  SAE Paper  No.
     800056.

4/   "A Fuel Economy Development Vehicle with Electronic Programmed
~    Engine Controls  (EPEC)," by Bruce D. Lockhart, SAE Paper No.
     790231.

5/   "Optimization of Automotive Engine Calibration for Better Fuel
     Economy - Methods  and  Applications," by J.  Auiler, et al, SAE
     Paper No. 770076.

6/   "GM Micro-Computer Engine  Control  System," by R.  Grimm, et al,
     SAE Paper No. 800053.

7/   "Chrysler  Microprocessor  Spark  Advance  Control," by  J.
      Lappington and L. Caron,  SAE Paper No. 780117.

Bf   "Features and Facilities of a Digital Electronic  Spark Advance
   " System and  its Advantages Compared  with Mechanical Systems,"
     by  H. Schwarz from Automotive  Electronics,  IEE Conference
     Publication No. 181, November 1979.

_9_/   "MISAR - The Microprocessor Controlled Ignition System," by T.
     Evernham and D. Guetershlok. SAE Paper No. 780666.      :

10/  "Regulatory Analysis and  Environmental  Impact of Final Emis-
     sion  Regulations  for 1983  and  Later  Model Year Light-Duty
     Trucks, U.S. EPA, May  1980.                         ^
         ./
11 /  "Automotive Engine Control Sensors '80," by William G. Wolben,
     SAE Paper No. 800121.

,12/  "Current  Status of  Automobile  Electronic  in Europe,"  by K.
     Ehlers,  from  Automotive Electronics, IEE  Conference  Publica-
     tion  No.  181, November 1979.

13/  "Electronic  Reliability  Issues  Relating  to  Automotive  Pro-
     duct," by J.G. Rivard, SAE Paper No.  780833.

_14/  "The  Automobile and the  Microcomputer  Revolution — Solving
     the  Reliability  Problem,"  Automotive  Electronics,  IEE  Con-
     ference Publication  No.  181, November 1979.

15/  "Guidelines  for Establishing Specifications  and  Test Methods
     for  Automotive Sensors," by R.K.  Frank, SAE Paper No. 800022.

-------
                                                   Table  1  2/





                          Percent Difference  in  1980  California Truck MPG Due to:
                        *   - T	 j i i. • •• -ir        	         _ . . .  	 	

1980
49-States
Manufacturer Truck SWMPG
American Motors
Chrysler Corp.
Ford Motor Co.
General Motors
Nissan (Datsun)
Toyo Kogyo
(Mazda)
Toyota
Volkswagen
Fuji
(Subaru)
16.6
17.3
16.8
16.6
25.3
30.4
20.5
24.9
26.3

System
Optimization
-5.3
-5.9
-5.0
-5.1
-5.1
-4.7
-6.3
-1.2
-6.7
l :
Transmission
Mix Shifts
0.3
-0.2
-0.8 '
0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0

Engine
Mix Shifts
-1.3
-10.8
-1.8
-0.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0

Weight
Mix Shifts
-4.3
16.0
7.5
3.9
-0.2
-0.1
3.4
-1.1
0.0

All Changes
Combined
-10.2
-2.8
-0.8
-2.2
-5.3
-4.8
-3.2
-2.3
-6.7
1980
California
Truck SWMPG
14.9
16.8
16.7
16.2
24.0
29.0
i— '
NJ
19.9
24.3
24.6
Fleet
17.0
-5.3
0.0
-1.9
14.6
6.5
18.1

-------
                                13



                               Table 2*




              Relative Fuel Economy by LPT Manufacturer
Manufacturer
AMC
Chrysler
Ford
GM
Nissan
Toyo Kogyo
Toyota
VW
Fuji
Fleet
Average Loss
Federal SWMPG
16.6
17.3
16.8
16.6
25 . 3
30.4
20.5
24.9
26.3
17.0
per Manufacturer (%):
California SWMPG
14.9
16.8
16.7
16.2
24.0
29.0
19.9
24.3
24.6
18.1
-4.2
% Less
-10.2
-2.9
-0.6
-2.4
-5.1
-4.6
-2.9
-2.4
-6.7
+6.5
"
*    From Table 1

-------
                                 14

                               Table 3 4/

                   Emission and Fuel Economy Results

                                        HC     CO     NOx

            1978 LDV standards:        1.5     15     2.0
            1981 LDV standards:         .41   3.4     1.0
               Percent reduction:       73%   77%     50%

            1980 LDT standards:        1.7    18.0    2.3
            1983 LDT standards:         .76*   9.1*   2.0*
               Percent reduction:       50%    49%    13%


            % Fuel Economy Improvements:

            All efficient technologies:       +15%

            Calibration to 1981 LDV           -2.5%
            emission standards:

            Overall improvement of 1978      +12.5%
            base case:

            Improvement attributable          +3.5%
            to full.EPEC:
*    A revised definition of useful life and stricter assembly line
testing procedures  essentially  increase the stringency of the 1983
LDT standards.  The increased stringency,  as derived on page 69 of
Reference  1,  has  been  taken into  account  by lowering  the actual
standards by the amount by which stringency  is increased.

-------
                    15

                 Figure 1 12/
 vs

 8

 JO

 t>
 n
 •o
 o

 a
 RJ
 x:

 05
 o
 o.
   18
          1970
75
80
85
Share of cost of electric & electronic components

in total vehicle cost

-------
                        16
                Figure  2  14/
   10*
I   101
U*
O
5
u;
O
§   '»"
<
r
  10-
  10- •
                                        C-K RAM

                       1S-.3      19/2      19/S     19BO

                           YEAR

-------
                                 17
                            Figure  3   14/
                                 GAV'.V w*!.'.»tf.i
                                     3 • «
HIC'R'-CM. NO'Sf         ""

MfCH*NtCAL SMOCH       *-O
                                                       SOVI

                                                      WOOf D*ll.

-------