UMTRI-2008-48 OCTOBER 2008

LEDS AND POWER CONSUMPTION

OF EXTERIOR AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING:
IMPLICATIONS FOR GASOLINE AND
ELECTRIC VEHICLES

BRANDON SCHOETTLE
MICHAEL SIVAK
YOSHIHIRO FUJIYAMA
LEDS AND POWER CONSUMPTION OF EXTERIOR AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING:
IMPLICATIONS FOR GASOLINE AND ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Brandon Schoettle
Michael Sivak
Yoshihiro Fujiyama

The University of Michigan

Transportation Research Institute
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2150
U.S.A.

Report No. UMTRI-2008-48

October 2008
 Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient
s Catalog No.

UMTRI-2008-48
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

LEDs and Power Consumption of Exterior Automotive October 2008

Lighting: Implications for Gasoline and Electric Vehicles 6. Performing Organization Code

302753
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Schoettle, B., Sivak, M., and Fujiyama, Y. UMTRI-2008-48

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit no. (TRAIS)

The University of Michigan

Transportation Research Institute
11. Contract or Grant No.
2901 Baxter Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2150 U.S.A.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

The University of Michigan

Industry Affiliation Program for 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Human Factors in Transportation Safety
15. Supplementary Notes
The Affiliation Program currently includes Alps Automotive/Alpine Electronics, Autoliv,
BMW, Chrysler, Com-Corp Industries, Continental Automotive Systems, Denso, Federal-
Mogul, Ford, GE, General Motors, Gentex, Grote Industries, Hella, Hitachi America,
Honda, Ichikoh Industries, Koito Manufacturing, Lang-Mekra North America, Magna
Donnelly, Mitsubishi Motors, Muth, Nissan, North American Lighting, OSRAM Sylvania,
Philips Lighting, Renault, SABIC Innovative Plastics, Sisecam, SL Corporation, Stanley
Electric, Toyota Technical Center USA, Truck-Lite, Valeo, Visteon, and 3M Visibility and
Insulation Systems. Information about the Affiliation Program is available at:
http://www.umich.edu/~industry/
16. Abstract

This study evaluated the power consumption of traditional and LED-based exterior
lighting systems on passenger vehicles, examining nominal consumption as well as
realistic consumption based on real-world usage patterns of various lighting equipment.
The results indicate that an all-LED system employing the current generation of LEDs
would result in general power savings of about 50% (nighttime) to about 75% (daytime)
over a traditional system. The effect on long-term savings for the LED system depends
upon the type of vehicle in use (gasoline-powered vs. electric). While the long-term fuel-
cost savings (dollars) were higher for the gasoline-powered vehicle, long-term distance
savings (range) favored the electric vehicle. Also presented are calculations of potential
savings for two different scenarios of future improvements in LED power consumption.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

LED, exterior lighting, electric vehicle, power consumption Unlimited

19. Security Classification (of this report) 20. Security Classification (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

None None 21

i
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Appreciation is extended to the members of the University of Michigan Industry

Affiliation Program for Human Factors in Transportation Safety for support of this
research. The current members of the Program are:

Alps Automotive/Alpine Electronics Lang-Mekra North America

Autoliv Magna Donnelly
BMW Mitsubishi Motors
Chrysler Muth
Com-Corp Industries Nissan
Continental Automotive Systems North American Lighting
Denso OSRAM Sylvania
Federal-Mogul Philips Lighting
Ford Renault
GE SABIC Innovative Plastics
General Motors Sisecam
Gentex SL Corporation
Grote Industries Stanley Electric
Hella Toyota Technical Center, USA
Hitachi America Truck-Lite
Honda Valeo
Ichikoh Industries Visteon
Koito Manufacturing 3M Visibility and Insulation Systems

The authors thank Michael Larsen of GM and Jeff Erion for assistance with this
research. However, the authors are solely responsible for the content of this report.

ii
 CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................. ii
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1
APPROACH ................................................................................................................. 2
Lamp usage data...................................................................................................... 2
Lighting systems examined...................................................................................... 3
Baseline power ........................................................................................................ 3
Traditional system ............................................................................................. 3
LED system........................................................................................................ 3
Values used in the power consumption and savings calculations.............................. 4
Vehicle efficiency (kW
h/km) .............................................................................. 4
Fuel costs ($/kW
h) ............................................................................................ 5
RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 6
General power requirements .................................................................................... 6
Daytime functions .............................................................................................. 6
Nighttime functions............................................................................................ 7
Long-term power consumption ................................................................................ 7
Potential long-term power savings ........................................................................... 9
Daytime savings per 100 km: No DRLs.............................................................. 9
Daytime savings per 100 km: Dedicated DRLs................................................... 9
Nighttime savings per 100 km ............................................................................10
Total annual savings..........................................................................................12
Potential savings with future reductions in LED power consumption .................13
DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................................15
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................17

iii
 INTRODUCTION

In a recent study, we documented the increasing use of light-emitting diode

(LED) light sources for various external lighting functions on light vehicles sold in the
U.S. (Schoettle, Sivak, and Takenobu, 2008). In that study, we surveyed 97% of all
currently sold light-vehicle models, and provided sales-weighted information about the
frequencies of LEDs. Although the results showed that overall penetration of LEDs for
most external functions is still low, advances in technology have recently enabled vehicle
manufacturers to offer completely LED-based exterior lighting systems for the first time.
One of several advantages that LED lighting offers over traditional lighting
systems is the reduction in power required to perform the same functions. Recent studies
(DOE, 2003; Erion, 2006) have examined the power savings in automotive applications
using LEDs. The critical factor in such calculations is the frequency of use of various
functions. Previous work has relied on either estimates (DOE, 2003) or frequency of use
by employees of a vehicle manufacturer (Erion, 2006).
There are two main contributions of the present study. First, we used recent data
on the usage of different lighting functions that were obtained in a naturalistic study
employing a large, random sample of drivers. Second, we extended the focus of
implications beyond gasoline-powered passenger vehicles to electric vehicles as well.
Consequently, savings with LED lighting were expressed not only in terms of power and
cost reductions, but also in terms of increases in range on an individual charge for current
electric vehicles.

1
 APPROACH

Lamp usage data

The usage data for various lamps and lighting functions on U.S. passenger
vehicles came from Buonarosa, Sayer, and Flannagan (2008). In turn, those data were
obtained in a field operational test at UMTRI of crash-warning systems, with 87 drivers
using 11 instrumented vehicles. Each driver used one instrumented vehicle as a personal
vehicle for between 13 and 27 days, with data collection occurring each time the vehicle
was driven. Table 1 shows the summary data that were used in the present study.

Table 1
Average usage rates for each function.
Average usage rate
Function
Minutes per 100 km Hours per year
†
DRL 116.5 382.0
*
Low beam 97.6 97.3
*
High beam 9.8 9.8
*
Parking/position 107.4 107.1
Turn signal, left 5.8 24.9
Turn signal, right 4.6 19.5
*
Side markers 107.4 107.1
Stop 18.9 80.7
*
Tail 107.4 107.1
CHMSL 18.9 80.7
Backup/reverse 0.9 3.8
*
License plate 107.4 107.1
†
Daytime driving only.
*
Nighttime driving only.

2
Lighting systems examined
Two lighting systems were considered in this study: a traditional system using
100% incandescent and halogen light sources, and a 100% LED system. To simplify the
comparisons, it was assumed that both systems used separate lamps for all functions (i.e.,
no functions were combined, though this is frequently done on actual production
vehicles). A typical number of lamps currently employed were used in the calculations
for both systems.

Baseline power
Traditional system
The baseline power requirements for the traditional lighting system were based on
the measured wattages of the actual light sources installed on the instrumented test
vehicle used in the field operational test that produced the usage data (a 2003 Nissan
Altima), with the following exceptions:
• For low- and high-beam headlamps: Market-weighted, measured wattages for the
high- and low-beam headlamps were used (based on the information in Schoettle et
al., 2008).
• For DRLs: Two DRL implementations were used—no DRLs and dedicated DRLs.
As indicated above, all functions were treated as having separate light sources
(although several functions were combined on the actual test vehicle). Table 2 includes
the list of the traditional system’s baseline wattages used in this study.

LED system
We computed average wattages for the various functions in the LED system based
on measured and reported data for LED lamps currently available on production vehicles.
These data were provided by vehicle manufacturers and lighting suppliers. The list of the
LED system’s average baseline wattages used in this study is included in Table 2.

3
 Table 2
Baseline wattages for each function in the two systems.
Power per lamp (W)
Function Traditional
LED system
system
DRL, dedicated 22.9 11.4
Low beam 56.2 54.0
High beam 63.9 34.4
Parking/position 7.4 1.7
Turn signal, front 26.8 6.9
Side marker, front 4.8 1.7
Stop 26.5 5.6
Tail 7.2 1.4
CHMSL 17.7 3.0
Turn signal, rear 26.8 6.9
Side marker, rear 4.8 1.7
Backup/reverse 17.7 5.2
License plate 4.8 0.5

Values used in the power consumption and savings calculations

Vehicle efficiency (kW
h/km)
Table 3 shows the efficiency values that were used in the calculations of long-
term consumption and potential power savings of each lighting system.

Table 3
Efficiency values used in the consumption and power-savings calculations.
Variable Value used
Alternator efficiency1 45%
Engine efficiency1 40%
Energy content of gasoline1 8.9 kW
h/L (33.7 kW
h/gal)
Electrical output, gasoline engine1 1.6 kW
h/L
8.5 km/L (20 mpg) =
Fuel efficiency, gasoline engine2
0.19 kW
h/km (0.30 kW
h/mile)
Fuel efficiency, electric vehicle3 0.10 kW
h/km (0.17 kW
h/mile)
1
Kassakian, Wolf, Miller, and Hurton (1996).
2
Typical efficiency for U.S. vehicles (DOE, 2008).
3
Average of efficiency values from Tesla (2008) and Edmunds (2008).

4
Fuel costs ($/kW
h)
For gasoline, a range of possible gasoline prices was used. Translating from $/gal
to $/kW
h yields the following values:
• $3.00/gal = $0.50/kW
h
• $4.00/gal = $0.66/kW
h
• $5.00/gal = $0.83/kW
h
Equations 1 and 2 were used to convert from $/gal to $/kW
h for gasoline:
$
gal
=$ (1)
3.785 L L
gal
$
L =$ (2)
1.6 kW·h kW·h
L

For electricity, the minimum, maximum, and average current (April, 2008)
residential electricity prices in the U.S. were used (EIA, 2008).
• Minimum: $0.07/kW
h
• Average: $0.11/kW
h
• Maximum: $0.30/kW
h

5
 RESULTS

General power requirements

Daytime functions
Table 4 presents the daytime power requirements for each function using both
lighting systems. Each system’s total is shown for two DRL implementations—no DRLs
and dedicated DRLs.

Table 4
Daytime power requirements of the traditional
and LED-based exterior lighting systems.
Total power (W) LED percent of
Number
Daytime functions Traditional traditional
of lamps LED system
system system
DRL, dedicated 2 45.8 22.8 49.8
Turn signal, front 2 53.6 13.8 25.7
Stop 2 53.0 11.2 21.1
CHMSL 1 17.7 3.0 16.9
Turn signal, rear 2 53.6 13.8 25.7
Backup/reverse 2 35.4 10.4 29.4
Total (no DRLs) 213.3 52.2 24.5
Total (with dedicated DRLs) 259.1 75.0 28.9

When using dedicated DRLs, the traditional system requires about 20% more
power than when using no DRLs at all, while the LED system requires about 45% more
power when using dedicated DRLs, compared to using no DRLs at all. A comparison
between systems shows that the traditional system uses about three and a half times the
power of the LED system when they both use dedicated DRLs, and about four times the
power without DRLs.

6
Nighttime functions
Table 5 presents the nighttime power requirements for each function using both
lighting systems. The traditional system requires about two times the power of a
comparable LED system.

Table 5
Nighttime power requirements of the traditional
and LED-based exterior lighting systems.
Total power requirement (W) LED percent of
Number
Nighttime functions Traditional traditional
of lamps LED system
system system
Low beam 2 112.4 108.0 96.1
High beam 2 127.8 68.8 53.8
Parking/position 2 14.8 3.3 22.6
Turn signal, front 2 53.6 13.8 25.7
Side marker, front 2 9.6 3.4 35.4
Stop 2 53.0 11.2 21.1
Tail 2 14.4 2.8 19.4
CHMSL 1 17.7 3.0 16.9
Turn signal, rear 2 53.6 13.8 25.7
Side marker, rear 2 9.6 3.4 35.4
Backup/reverse 2 35.4 10.4 29.4
License plate 2 9.6 1.0 10.4
Total 511.5 242.9 47.5

Long-term power consumption and savings

Using the per-distance and annual usage data in Table 1, the average power
consumption and savings per 100 km are shown in Tables 6 and 7, and the average
annual power consumption and savings in Tables 8 and 9.

7
 Table 6
Total average power consumption of each system per 100 km.
Power consumption per 100 km (W
h)
DRL type Traditional system LED system
Day Night Day Night
None 21.0 4.5
313.9 213.2
Dedicated DRLs 110.0 48.7

Table 7
Power savings of LEDs over traditional lighting per 100 km (LED
consumption minus traditional consumption).
LED power savings per 100 km (W
h)
DRL type
Day Night
None 16.5
100.7
Dedicated DRLs 61.3

Table 8
Total average power consumption of each system annually.
Power consumption per year (W
h)
DRL type Traditional system LED system
Day Night Total Day Night Total
None 5,391 25,431 1,144 14,167
20,040 13,023
Dedicated DRLs 22,887 42,927 9,854 22,877

Table 9
Power savings of LEDs over traditional lighting per year (LED
consumption minus traditional consumption).
LED power savings per year (W
h)
DRL type
Day Night Total
None 4,247 11,264
7,017
Dedicated DRLs 13,033 20,050

8
Potential long-term power savings
In this section, calculations of potential power savings were performed, both for
conventional gasoline-powered passenger vehicles and current examples of electric
passenger vehicles. These savings represent the power and cost (of fuel) that could be
saved by completely switching from traditional lighting systems to systems that are
completely LED-based. These power savings were calculated for each vehicle type for
the following three conditions:
• No DRL use by either system (minimum required lighting for the U.S.). This
condition represents the lowest daytime power consumption for both systems.
• Daytime LED system savings over the traditional system using dedicated DRLs.
• Nighttime LED system savings over the traditional system.
Summaries of these results were produced for all daytime and nighttime
conditions, as a function of distance driven (km and dollars saved per 100 km) and
savings per year (km and dollars saved per year). Each set of results is presented for
various fuel costs for each vehicle type. Potential distance savings per 100 km are shown
in Figure 1, while the potential fuel-cost savings in dollars are shown in Figure 2.

Daytime savings per 100 km: No DRLs

Potential distance savings per 100 km for daytime driving are relatively low for
this condition, with the electric and gasoline-powered vehicles saving 0.2 km and 0.1 km,
respectively. The fuel-cost savings amount to $0.01 or less for the electric vehicle, and
$0.01 for the gasoline vehicle.

Daytime savings per 100 km: Dedicated DRLs

Potential daytime distance savings per 100 km are slightly higher for this
condition, with the electric and gasoline-powered vehicles saving 0.6 km and 0.3 km,
respectively. The fuel-cost savings amount to $0.02 or less for the electric vehicle, and
from $0.03 to $0.05 for the gasoline vehicle.

9
Nighttime savings per 100 km
For nighttime use, the overall distance savings per 100 km is greater for the
electric vehicle than for the gasoline-powered vehicle (0.96 km vs. 0.53 km). These
savings amount to approximately 1% of the total distance driven for the electric vehicle,
and 0.5% for the gasoline-powered vehicle. However, the higher cost (per kW
h) of
operating a gasoline-powered vehicle leads to greater overall potential fuel-cost savings
for that vehicle type ($0.05 to $0.08 per 100 km for gasoline vs. $0.01 to $0.03 per 100
km for electric).

Figure 1. Potential distance savings (km) per 100 km for vehicles equipped with LED
lighting vs. traditional lighting, both with and without DRLs.

10
Figure 2. Potential fuel-cost savings (in dollars) per 100 km for vehicles equipped with
LED lighting vs. traditional lighting, both with and without DRLs.

11
Total annual savings
Potential total annual distance savings are presented in Figure 3, and potential
annual fuel-cost savings are shown in Figure 4. Annual distance savings for the electric
vehicle are approximately 80% higher for both day and night driving for all conditions.
(This is due to the electric vehicle in our calculations being 80% more efficient in terms
of kW
h/km.) These savings ranged from 60 km to 106 km for the gasoline-powered
vehicle and from 107 km to 191 km for the electric vehicle. Monetary savings, however,
are significantly higher for the gasoline vehicle for all conditions. For the dedicated DRL
condition, total annual savings ranged from $9.92 to $16.53 per year for the gasoline-
powered vehicle, compared to $1.34 to $6.08 for the electric vehicle. When using no
DRLs, the gasoline-power vehicle saves between $5.57 and $9.28 per year, compared to
$0.75 to $3.41 for the electric vehicle.

Figure 3. Potential annual distance savings (km) for vehicles equipped with LED lighting
vs. traditional lighting, both with and without DRLs.

12
Figure 4. Potential annual fuel-cost savings (in dollars) for vehicles equipped with LED
lighting vs. traditional lighting, both with and without DRLs.

Potential savings with future reductions in LED power consumption

In the preceding sections we analyzed potential savings using the current
generation of LEDs. In this section, we made analogous calculations using projected
future reductions in LED power consumption. We considered two scenarios: (1) a 25%
reduction in LED power consumption for all functions and LED types, and (2) a 50%
reduction for all functions employing white LEDs, with the remaining functions
achieving a 25% reduction. Results for both scenarios are shown for conditions
employing dedicated DRLs and the highest of the fuel-cost values considered earlier.
The potential savings are shown in Tables 10 and 11.

13
 Table 10
Potential savings resulting from an additional 25% reduction in power consumption
for all LED types. (These results are for the use of dedicated DRLs.)
Distance savings (km) per
Annual savings
Vehicle type Fuel cost 100 km
Day Night Fuel cost Distance
Electric $0.30/kW
h 0.70 1.47 $7.81 245 km
Gasoline $5.00/gal 0.39 0.82 $21.23 136 km

Table 11
Potential savings resulting from a 50% reduction in power consumption for
white LEDs and a 25% reduction for all other LED types.
(These results are for the use of dedicated DRLs.)
Distance savings (km) per
Annual savings
Vehicle type Fuel cost 100 km
Day Night Fuel cost Distance
Electric $0.30/kW
h 0.80 1.92 $9.33 293 km
Gasoline $5.00/gal 0.45 1.07 $25.36 163 km

14
 DISCUSSION

This study evaluated the power consumption of traditional and LED-based

exterior lighting systems on passenger vehicles, examining nominal consumption as well
as realistic consumption based on real-world usage patterns of various lighting
equipment. The results indicate that an all-LED system employing the current generation
of LEDs would result in general power savings of about 50% (nighttime) to about 75%
(daytime) over a traditional system. The effect on long-term savings for the LED system
depends upon the type of vehicle in use (gasoline-powered vs. electric).
Though the consumption (in terms of W
h) does not vary between vehicle types,
the difference in electrical load for the two lighting systems affects each vehicle type
differently. The electric vehicle, with a relatively low fuel cost ($/kW
h), is more
substantially affected in terms of overall vehicle range. The total savings in overall range
amount to approximately 1% per distance driven for current generation electric vehicles.
Another way to express this is that the savings with LED lighting extend the range on
each battery charge by up to 1%. Alternatively, this adds up to as much as one full
battery charge per year (from 107 km to 191 km). This effect becomes even more
pronounced as an electric vehicle’s overall efficiency (kW
h/km) improves.
The gasoline-powered vehicle, as a result of its lower fuel efficiency, does not
experience the same effect in terms of overall range. However, because of much higher
fuel costs (relative to electricity), the effect of the differing electrical loads is felt mostly
in overall dollars spent on fuel. These reductions in total fuel costs due to LED lighting
resulted in savings between $5 and $17 per year for the conditions modeled in this report.
Due to the influence of fuel efficiency (kW
h/km) and cost of fuel ($/kW
h) on cost per
distance ($/km), this effect is approximately constant over the range of fuel efficiencies
for gasoline-powered vehicles in the U.S.—10 to 32 mpg (4.2 to 13.5 km/L, or 23.5 to
7.3 L/100 km) (DOE, 2008).
As the calculations and results presented here are based on two extreme examples
(a 100% incandescent/halogen system and a 100% LED system), the ultimate benefit
from LED lighting will vary with each application. Furthermore, the presented
calculations are based on the efficiency of the current generation of LED systems. Future

15
LED systems are generally expected to substantially reduce the power requirements,
especially for headlamp applications. With the current LED headlamps being
approximately on par with the high power requirements of their traditional counterparts,
further improvements in LED efficiency for these functions (and others) will only serve
to increase the power saving advantages of LED systems over incandescent/halogen
systems. Potential savings could reach as high as $25 per year in fuel costs for the
gasoline-powered vehicle, and about 300 km per year for the electric vehicle. This would
amount to 1% (daytime) to 2% (nighttime) of the total distance driven, or approximately
one to two full battery charges for the current generation of electric vehicles.

16
 REFERENCES

Buonarosa, M. L., Sayer, J. R., and Flannagan, M. J. (2008). Real-world frequency of use
of lighting equipment (Technical Report No. UMTRI-2008-14). Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

DOE [U.S. Department of Energy]. (2003). Energy savings estimates of light emitting
diodes in niche lighting applications. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program.

DOE [U.S. Department of Energy]. (2008). Fuel economy guide: Model year 2008
(Document No. DOE/EE-0321). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.

Edmunds. (2008). First drive: 2010 Mitsubishi i MIEV plug-in electric. Retrieved
September 9, 2008 from
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124867

EIA [Energy Information Administration]. (2008). Average retail price of electricity to

ultimate customers by end-use sector, by state. Retrieved September 9, 2008
from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html

Erion, J. (2006). LEDs in exterior vehicle lighting. Photonics Spectra, 40(12), 50-52.

Kassakian, J. G., Wolf, H.-C., Miller, J. M., and Hurton, C. J. (1996). Automotive
electrical systems circa 2005. IEEE Spectrum, 33(8), 22-27.

Schoettle, B., Sivak, M., and Takenobu, N. (2008). Prevalence of LED light sources on
vehicles sold in the U.S. (Technical Report No. UMTRI-2008-12). Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

Takenobu, N., Schoettle, B., and Sivak, M. (2008). Availability and implementation of
Daytime Running Lights in the U.S. (Technical Report No. UMTRI-2007-33).
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

17
Tesla. (2008). Well-to-wheel energy efficiency. Retrieved September 9, 2008 from
http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/well_to_wheel.php

18