4.7 Article

How much difference in type-approval CO2 emissions from passenger cars in Europe can be expected from changing to the new test procedure (NEDC vs. WLTP)?

Journal

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART A-POLICY AND PRACTICE
Volume 111, Issue -, Pages 136-147

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2018.02.002

Keywords

CO2 emissions; Vehicle type-approval; NEDC; WLTC; WLTP; Correlation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

After significant efforts from many parties, the World-wide harmonized Light duty Test Procedure (WLTP) has seen its light first as the UNECE Global Technical Regulation and then as the procedure adopted in the type-approval of light-duty vehicles in Europe. The paper focuses its attention on the main procedural differences between the WLTP and the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC), which is the test-procedure currently used in Europe. In general terms the WLTP appears to be a significant improvement compared to the NEDC. The main differences between two test procedures are identified and their impact on CO2 emissions quantified using the in-house built simulation software CO(2)MPAS. On the basis of each of these differences, the paper assesses the potential total impact on the final reported type-approval CO2 emissions. The biggest impact on CO2 emissions is coming from the changes in the road load determination procedure (similar to 10% increase). Procedural changes concerning the test in the laboratory will bring another 8% and post-processing and declaration of results will result in difference of approximately 5% (each). Overall, the WLTP is likely to increase the type-approval CO2 emissions by approximately 25%. Therefore, the WLTP will be able to reduce more than half of the gap identified between the type-approval and real-life figures in Europe. This should be seen as a considerable improvement given the ontological limitations of a laboratory-based test procedure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available