The lean-bum gasoline engine is another advanced conventional technology that offers fuel
efficiency improvements of around 10 percent at relatively low cost. This has been a technology
targeted by several Japanese manufacturers in the Japanese market. As with the diesel,
commercialization of the lean-bum technology in the United States will require the development
of improved catalysts capable of reducing NOX emissions. Japanese manufacturers apparently
believe they can achieve many of the benefits of leapfrog technologies through evolutionary
improvement in conventional technologies (such as lean-bum engines) at much lower cost. To
date, no U.S. automaker has announced its intention to market a lean-bum engine vehicle.These examples are not offered to suggest that U.S. automakers are ignoring these
technological opportunities. Rather, they reflect differences in automakers’ assessments of the
cost-effectiveness of these technologies, given current fuel prices and consumer preferences in the
United States. In fact, the Big Three have extensive in-house research programs on lean NOX
catalysts, and will build direct injection diesels for the European market through their subsidiaries
in Europe. Further, federal finding for compact diesels, lean NOX catalysts, and aluminum
manufacturing technologies is requested to grow substantially in the FY 1996 budget (see
below). The main lesson from this experience for leapfrog technologies is that even when the
feasibility of these technologies is proven, commercialization will depend on the manufacturers’
judgments of cost effectiveness and market acceptance.
U.S. R&D PROGRAM.
The U.S. R&D program for leapfrog automotive technologies is technologically diversified and
includes a mix of near-term and far-term options. At this writing, it is very uncertain which
powertrains, energy storage systems, body designs, and materials will combine to give the best
package of cost and performance in advanced light duty vehicles of the future. Indeed, depending
on the desired vehicle function, location, and driving conditions (e.g., fleet or private, cold or
warm climate, urban or rural), different combinations of technologies may be most appropriate.
The federal R&D program is conscious of these uncertainties, and is structured to pursue several
options simultaneously, so as not to miss promising opportunities.PNGV Budgetary Changes in FY 1996.
Although PNGV was initiated in 1993, FY 1996 is significant because it is the first real
opportunity for the PNGV program to influence the budget priorities of the participating federal
agencies. Table 1-5 gives a summary of some of the larger budget changes requested in FY 1996
for federal agency programs. At this writing, Congress is considering major cuts in programs that
make up the PNGV, and few believe that any overall increases for FY 1996 are realistic.
Nevertheless, the proposed increases are presented because they represent the
government/industry consensus view of the key R&D problems that must be solved to achieve the
PNGV goal of a threefold increase in fuel economy.