Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 216 Download : 99

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study presents the first field-based, OBD-II–supported comparison of an electric vehicle (Changan Eado EV300) and a gasoline vehicle (Kia K3, 2019) under realistic Jordanian driving conditions. Using a 100 km mixed-route test and annualized projections, we evaluate energy consumption, operating cost, greenhouse-gas emissions (including battery manufacturing amortization), dynamic performance, cabin noise/comfort, and payback of purchase-price premium. Results indicate that, under predominant home charging, EV energy costs are reduced by over 60% relative to the tested gasoline vehicle, and operational CO₂ emissions fall substantially when charged from a low-carbon grid; battery manufacturing increases lifecycle emissions but does not offset operational benefits under renewable charging scenarios. EVs deliver superior low-speed torque and smoother acceleration, while ICE vehicles retain advantages in raw range and refueling time. Payback of the purchase premium is estimated at ~5.6–7.5 years (without battery replacement) and can extend beyond a decade if mid-life battery replacement is required. Findings inform policy on charging infrastructure, tariff design, and battery-lifecycle management for Jordan and similar contexts.

Keywords

Electric vehicles ICE Vehicle Vehicle performance analysis Life cycle assessment

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

References

  1. V. Vieira, A. Baptista, A. Cavadas, G. F. Pinto, J. Monteiro, and L. Ribeiro, “Comparison of Battery Electrical Vehicles and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles–Greenhouse Gas Emission Life Cycle Assessment,” Applied Sciences, vol. 15, no. 6, p. 3122, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.3390/app15063122.
  2. W. Achariyaviriya, W. Wongsapai, D. Rinchumphu, N. Tippayawong, K. Y. Tippayawong, and P. Suttakul, “A comparative study of vehicle powertrain efficiency: Data-driven analyzing energy consumption and environmental impact,” Transportation Engineering, vol. 18, p. 100286, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.treng.2024.100286.
  3. D. S. Puma-Benavides et al., “Comparative Analysis of Energy Consumption between Electric Vehicles and Combustion Engine Vehicles in High-Altitude Urban Traffic,” World Electric Vehicle Journal, vol. 15, no. 8, p. 355, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.3390/wevj15080355.
  4. F. Dulce, J. Murillo-Hoyos, and E. Caicedo, “Comparative analysis of the performance, environmental impact, and costs of electric, combustion, and gas buses in an operating context of a mid-sized city of an emerging country,” Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, vol. 25, p. 101113, May 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.trip.2024.101113.
  5. G. K. Ayetor, R. Opoku, C. K. K. Sekyere, A. Agyei-Agyeman, and G. R. Deyegbe, “The cost of a transition to electric vehicles in Africa: A case study of Ghana,” Case Studies on Transport Policy, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 388–395, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.cstp.2021.12.018.
  6. K. Chidambaram et al., “Critical analysis on the implementation barriers and consumer perception toward future electric mobility,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, vol. 237, no. 4, pp. 622–654, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1177/09544070221080349.
  7. M. Setiyo et al., “Cooling power characteristics of half-cycle refrigeration system in LPG fuelled vehicles by auxiliary chiller as heat exchanger,” Thermal Science and Engineering Progress, vol. 27, p. 101145, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.tsep.2021.101145.
  8. I. Mokashi et al., “Nusselt number analysis from a battery pack cooled by different fluids and multiple back-propagation modelling using feed-forward networks,” International Journal of Thermal Sciences, vol. 161, p. 106738, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2020.106738.
  9. O. David Samuel et al., “Prandtl number of optimum biodiesel from food industrial waste oil and diesel fuel blend for diesel engine,” Fuel, vol. 285, p. 119049, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2020.119049.
  10. M. Gurusamy, B. Subramaniyan, M. Subramaniyan, O. D. Samuel, C. C. Enweremadu, and S. Sarıkoç, “Energy, Exergy, Exhaust, and Economic Attributes of a CI Engine Powered with Binary Blends of Watermelon Seed and Pine Oil, with Diethyl Ether as a Fuel Additive,” 2025, pp. 287–309. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-68497-5_15.
  11. C. Zhu et al., “Enhancing CI engine performance and emission control using a hybrid RSM–Rao algorithm for ZnO-doped castor–neem biodiesel blends,” Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, vol. 74, p. 106841, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.csite.2025.106841.
  12. KIA Motors, “Kia Catalogue Cerato,” kia.com. [Online]. Available: https://www.kia.com/content/dam/kwcms/bn/en/pdf/Cerato-e-Catalogue.pdf
  13. Carnews China, “Changan Eado EV,” data.carnewschina.com. [Online]. Available: https://data.carnewschina.com/database/changan/changan-eado-ev/2024
  14. C. Greco, P. Kotak, L. Pagnotta, and C. Lamuta, “The evolution of mechanical actuation: from conventional actuators to artificial muscles,” International Materials Reviews, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 575–619, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1080/09506608.2021.1971428.
  15. Y. Deng, “Future Vehicle Trend: A Comparative Study of the Fuel Vehicle, Electrical Vehicle, and Hybrid Vehicles,” Highlights in Science, Engineering and Technology, vol. 29, pp. 143–148, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.54097/hset.v29i.4531.
  16. Jordan Electricity Company, “Annual Reports - Jordan Electricity Company Public Shareholding Limited,” 2024.
  17. M. Setiyo, I. C. Setiawan, and M. H. Bin Peeie, “Research Trends of Electric Vehicles (EVs) in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand: A Quick Analysis using Bibliometric,” Automotive Experiences, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–8, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.31603/ae.13020.
  18. S. Syarifudin, E. Yohana, M. Muchammad, and S. Suhartana, “Performance and Emission Characteristics of an Engine Fueled with Mangrove Bioethanol–Gasoline Blends,” Automotive Experiences, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 177–188, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.31603/ae.13121.
  19. S. Chiquier, P. Patrizio, M. Bui, N. Sunny, and N. Mac Dowell, “A comparative analysis of the efficiency, timing, and permanence of CO 2 removal pathways,” Energy & Environmental Science, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 4389–4403, 2022, doi: 10.1039/D2EE01021F.
  20. T. Terlouw, C. Bauer, L. Rosa, and M. Mazzotti, “Life cycle assessment of carbon dioxide removal technologies: a critical review,” Energy & Environmental Science, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1701–1721, 2021, doi: 10.1039/D0EE03757E.
  21. United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle,” United States Environmental Protection Agency. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle
  22. The International Energy Agency, “Global EV Outlook 2024,” The International Energy Agency. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2024
  23. G. Palmer, A. Roberts, A. Hoadley, R. Dargaville, and D. Honnery, “Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions and net energy assessment of large-scale hydrogen production via electrolysis and solar PV,” Energy & Environmental Science, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 5113–5131, 2021, doi: 10.1039/D1EE01288F.
  24. S. Bakkaloglu and A. Hawkes, “A comparative study of biogas and biomethane with natural gas and hydrogen alternatives,” Energy & Environmental Science, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1482–1496, 2024, doi: 10.1039/D3EE02516K.
  25. T. Abukhalil, H. AlMahafzah, M. Alksasbeh, and B. A. Y. Alqaralleh, “Fuel Consumption Using OBD-II and Support Vector Machine Model,” Journal of Robotics, vol. 2020, pp. 1–9, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1155/2020/9450178.
  26. D. E. Liarokapis, A.G. Zarifis, J. Trahanas, and G. G. Tzabiras, “Experimental investigation of the wake flow of a bulk-carrier model using a five-hole Pitot arrangement,” in Maritime Technology and Engineering, CRC Press, 2014, pp. 899–906. doi: 10.1201/b17494-95.
  27. A. Stark, “Power vs. Torque,” x-engineer.org. [Online]. Available: https://x-engineer.org/power-vs-torque/
  28. D. Fernandez Comesana and M. Korbasiewicz, “Evaluation of electric vehicle interior noise focused on sound source identification and transfer path analysis,” in Proceedings of Aachen Acoustics Colloquium, 2015.
  29. Q. Li et al., “The Synergistic Effect of Topographic Factors and Vegetation Indices on the Underground Coal Mine Utilizing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Remote Sensing,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 20, no. 4, p. 3759, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.3390/ijerph20043759.
  30. S. G. Kotakar and R. Navthar, “Controlling CO2 Emissions from Power Plants: A Environmental View,” Applied Mechanics and Materials, vol. 110–116, pp. 2049–2053, Oct. 2011, doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.110-116.2049.
  31. B. Zhou et al., “Variability of fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of a gasoline passenger car under multiple in-laboratory and on-road testing conditions,” Journal of Environmental Sciences, vol. 125, pp. 266–276, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jes.2021.12.042.
  32. D. Rimpas, A. Papadakis, and M. Samarakou, “OBD-II sensor diagnostics for monitoring vehicle operation and consumption,” Energy Reports, vol. 6, pp. 55–63, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2019.10.018.