1. Vehicle selection / Family concept - Japan - ICE lab proc mtg 2012/Sep/4-6 WLTP-DTP-LabProcICE-142

2. Latest Japanese position Vehicle Weight CO2 Emission Ver. AVer. BVer. C Ver. D TMH TML With best aerodynamics With worst aerodynamics Better CO2 than catalog. Worse CO2 than catalog. NL/T&E/ICCT (DTP-09-13) Family parameters MPW Engine capacity Max. net power Type of gearbox Number of gears Max. number of seating Counterproposal of Family concept. Family criteria should avoid to produce too much CO2 variation. Items described in R83 Annex I (except tires, weight, and road load) ECU calibration ID. Criteria of body shape influenced to aerodynamics If technical authorities agree with no influence of CO2, the specification can be the same family although above parameters are not identical. > Is it OK to set tolerance of road load by variable aerodynamics specification in the [best/worst approach by weight]? > It is acceptable with our proposal for family concept. (Aerodynamics parts are OK to include in a family, but body which have different aerodynamics should be separated.) With worst aerodynamics With best aerodynamics

3. Major parameters of R83 Annex I Type Commercial name(s) Vehicle category (R.E.3(rev.2) Section2) Powered axles Mass MPW Power plant Specification of ICE Specification of engine or motor combination Temperature permitted Lubrication Transmission Suspension Bodywork (R.E.3) Seats