1. WLTP Number of Tests Different Options And Their Consequences IWG in Stockholm, 14.-16.04.2015 Christoph Lueginger, BMW WLTP-10-26e

2. WLTP Number of Tests  Instead of requiring one test with emissions below 90% of limits, and CO 2 within an acceptable bandwidth, EU Commission requests up to three test or the application of a CO 2 -malus (dp1, dp2).  Three tests would require 6 physical tests (pre + test).  There is a preliminary proposal of JRC for these values: dp1: 1.0%; dp2: 0.5%.  ACEA expects the limit value to be the "declared" value for criteria emissions, which is also the position of main European member states. + testing effort: one  three

3. Measurement example  Example from correlation exercise (measured CO 2, RCB corrected). The variation of OEM-tests during type approval is not expected to be higher than that of an independent lab.  The biggest deviations from the average of that four measurements are +0.4% and -0.4%.  "Cherry picking" in this example would have delivered a CO 2 -value, which is 1 g/km below the average, or 0.04 l/100km.  Taking that as a basis, we are only talking about 1 g/km up and down (rounding effect).

4. Averaging and dp-values How to deal with phase values? Averaging of combined value or averaging of phases and distances? Someone has to take the task to define to procedure. dp1 and dp2 are dependent on the CO 2 level and the vehicle type. dp1 and dp2 are dependent on the cycle (3 phase, downscaling, …). How to deal with electrified vehicles (in conjunction with phase specific values)? E.g. AER? Averaging is not trivial. It has to be defined first, and the consequences have to be analyzed. Two issues to be solved

5. WLTP Number of Tests  Averaging the results is complex, someone have to take the task making a proposal, especially for plug-in hybrid vehicles.  In current text it is less critical, as it will be not the usual case.  Performing more tests, has no benefit for the customer (value is within rounding tolerance in l/100km) or the environment (vehicle emits the same, independent on number of tests). In addition, increasing costs will never be beneficial for the customer.  There is already a significant number of tests: vehicle "High", vehicle "Low", COP-testing and demonstration testing for several purposes (e.g. modes).  EU Commission proposal would require 8 more tests for one vehicle: 2 additional times pre+test, each for H and L.  A typical measurement variance should be covered, therefore the proposal of Japan is supported for CO 2.  Validation 2 program and round robin testing should deliver complementary information on that.  ACEA recommends to retain the possibility of performing one test without CO 2 -malus.

6. European Automobile Manufacturers Association www.acea.be Thank you!