1. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 1 INGAS Sub Project A3 „Boosted Lean Burn Gas Engine“ Review Meeting 07-08/04/2011 Brussels FEV Motorentechnik, Bertold Hüchtebrock

2. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 2 2 Review meeting Period 2 – Brussels, 8 April 2011 TimeItemName (Company) 09:00Answers to general comments / questions General status of the project Coordinator Massimo Ferrera (CRF) PM Stefania Zandiri (CRF) 10:00SPA1: answers to reviewers comments/questionsAndrea Gerini (CRF) 10:45SPA2: answers to reviewers comments/questionsAlois Fuerhapter (AVL), Harry Schüle (CONTI) 11:30SPA3: answers to reviewers comments/questionsChristoph Bollig (FEV), Bertold Hüchtebrock (FEV), Kenth Johansson (SAPT), Martin Müther (RWTH) 12:30Lunch 13:00SPB0: answers to reviewers comments/questionsManfred Hoppe (EON), Michal Takats (CVUT) Micheline Montero (GDF SUEZ) 13:45SPB1: answers to reviewers comments/questionsDavid Storer (CRF), Volker Strubel (Xperion) 15:00SPB2: answers to reviewers comments/questionsMichel Weibel (DAI), Matthias Rink (USTUTT), Kauko Kallinen (ECOCAT), Alois Fuerhapter (AVL) 16:30End of reviewers meeting 17:30Feedback of the reviewers & PO to the Core Group

3. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 3 Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011 Review aspects (SP A3) Content  Remarks / answers to general comments  Remarks / answers to reviewed deliverables

4. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 4 Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011 Review aspects (SP A3) Discussed during separate meeting (7 th april). Updated 24MPR covers Task A3.3.5. Conclusion (A1-A2-A3) in 06/2010: Comparison will be performed. Linked to WP A3.4.3 [M33…] (potential evaluation) Updated DA3.5 contains cost aspects Future ownership to FEV does not provoke any problem @ Opel!

5. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 5 Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011 Cost aspects SCR Extract of revised DA3.5 from SAPT:

6. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 6 Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011 CO2/Fuel efficiency comparison within A(1..2..3)-Subprojects Conclusions of CG Meeting, 06/2010  A CO 2 -comparison within the A(1..2..3) approaches will be performed  Proposal for INGAS project: Extended NEDC cycle (CRF)  ARTEMIS (by simulation!)  Regarding SP A3: Linked to WP A3.4.3 (Potential evaluation) starting from M33

7. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 7 CO2 emissions comparison

8. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 8 CO2 emission comparison A possible comparison is expressed by the g CO2 / ton vehicle which is an index of the specific energy associated to the technology Ref. Weight [kg]CO2 on NEDC [g/km] Specific CO2 [g CO2 / t] SPA1 SoA Dow1470150102,0 SPA2 SoA Dow176517196,9 SPA3 SoA Dow170014082,3 Ref. Weight [kg]CO2 on NEDC [g/km] Specific CO2 [g CO2 / t] SPA1Target142012890,1 SPA2 Target176513978,7 SPA3 Target170012472,9 CONFIRMED BY FEV

9. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 9 CO2 emission comparison SoA Target

10. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 10 Additional test over NEDC for CO2 evaluation

11. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 11 Additional test over NEDC Needs to adopt an additional test cycle to complete NEDC evaluation The new test cycle must be in measure to represent real life operating conditions of typical CNG applications to be easily shared among partners (both in terms of simulation and experiments) put on evidence the benefit coming from the technologies developed within INGAS project Homologation Real life

12. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 12 Additional test over NEDC NEDC ARTEMIS Artemis appears to be not suitable: because of the typical operating points are too much balanced on high speed/load the actuation of the cycle at the chassis dyno is very complex with different strategies for the gear ratio management that depend on the vehicle weight

13. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 13 Additional test over NEDC 60%30%10% URBANEXTRAURBANHIGHWAY Weight factor Proposal for INGAS project – Extended NEDC cycle

14. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 14 Additional test over NEDC NEDC ARTEMIS The proposal appears to be more suitable: the engine operating field is wider compared to NEDC the weight factors allow to better balance the real mission profile of the vehicles the actuation of the cycle at the chassis dyno is very similar to NEDC (good repeatability/reproducibility) Proposal

15. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 15 CO2 EVALUATION – DECISION from SP A1 – A2 – A3 Driving cycleScopeApproach NEDCHomologation reference cycleExperimental on vehicle chassis dyno Extended NEDCReal life cycle Experimental on vehicle chassis dyno – Results on the 3 different cycle phases (no weighting factors) ArtemisReal life cycleOnly engine dynamic test bench or simulation 1)Results in terms of CO2 emissions will be compared as g/(km x kg vehicle ) and positionned with regard to 443 EU regulation (for NEDC test cycle); 2)A tentative to scale up the 3 engines in order to have a homogeneous comparison on a same common vehicle will also be performed by simulation.

16. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 16 Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011 Ownership SP A3 vehicle Statement from OPEL towards INGAS engagement: Opel, one of Europe’s largest automakers, was founded 1862 in Rüsselsheim, Germany. The company with its headquarters in Rüsselsheim operates 13 plants in eight countries and employs around 47,000 people (as of December 2009). Opel and its sister brand in the U.K., Vauxhall, sell vehicles in more than 35 markets in Europe. Opel vehicles are characterized by their outstanding design, innovative technologies and environmental friendliness. The development and sale of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles is one important pillar of this approach. Consequently Opel / GMPT-G continue their efforts to develop efficient and clean natural gas engines with a technical approach close to InGas workstream A3 and supports the project to the best possible extent. Conclusion:  Future ownership to FEV does not provoke any problem @ Opel!

17. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 17 Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011 Clarification of resources allocation by FEV and RWTH (P1 & P2)

18. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 18 Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011 Clarification of resources allocation by FEV and RWTH (P1 & P2)

19. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 19 Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011 Task A3.2.3: Modelling, design and rig testing of lean burn combustion Task 3.2.3: Modelling, design and rig testing of lean burn combustion  Simulation work reasonably can support the understanding of engine test results / phenomenons and promote further improvement of the engine.  This way purposeful simulation work requires as input results of the previous test campaign.  In SP A3 due to different reasons effective MCE testing started retarded (main reason: difficulties in EMS startup). The limited availability of personal and hardware resources did not allow to regain the delay.  In conclusion the spent MM’s in simulation are behind the plan (4/15.5) and have to be continued in the last year.  Reviewer remark: Missing CFD meshes respective CFD calculation: With month 29 (Feb. 2011) initial CFD calculations on the homogenisation quality are finished. Intentionally the intermediate results have not been reported in the P2 periodic report (ongoing result analysis).

20. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 20 Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011 Task A3.3.5: Design of the power train control strategy Task 3.3.5: Design of the power train control strategy  Deviating from the P1 periodic report the EMS related activities (Task A3.3.5) are not mentioned in the P2 periodic report (first version). [The EMS more or less is a means to an end and does not represent the development mainstream in SP A3]  OPEL contribution (A3.3.5): Informations on sensor-/actuator specifications  Description of activities and results within Task A3.3.5 are covered by the updated P2 periodic report:

21. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 21 Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011 Deliverable DA3.2

22. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 22 Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011 Deliverable DA3.2 DA3.2: Report on components and power train ready to test  If this objection refers to possible investigations on the 1.6 l gasoline engine based A3 approach (side study), it can be clearly stated, that all activities described in the P2 periodic report refer to the 1.9 l diesel engine based approach! Adequate remarks within the revised DA3.2 report hopefully will avoid further misunderstanding.  Regarding the reported investigations I would like to comment, that due to pending MCE testing the final hardware configuration is not known yet!

23. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 23 Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011 Deliverable DA3.4  No objections (report accepted) !

24. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 24 Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011 Deliverable DA3.5 Especially on low engine out NOx-level there is a strong gradient FC vs. NOx. The demanding CO2 target most probably does not allow engine operation on NICE NOx level! See above

25. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 25 Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011 Deliverable DA3.5 Steady-State Replacement-Test Vehicle Test (w/o EGR) NICE result (Ford TRANSIT [2040 kg] & 2 l lean CNG operation)

26. INGAS INtegrated GAS Powertrain B. Hüchtebrock, FEV 26 Review meeting – Brussels, April 2011 Deliverable DA3.8  No objections !