Comparative performance and life cycle economic analysis of commercial EV batteries under standard driving cycles

Abstract

ABSTRACT Electric-vehicle adoption depends on battery systems that maintain driving range, support fast charging, ensure thermal safety, and minimize lifecycle cost. Lithium iron phosphate, nickel–metal hydride, and lead–acid batteries remain relevant across vehicle classes, yet rankings change when cell data are linked with drivetrain demand. Existing comparisons often separate laboratory battery tests from vehicle simulation and cost recovery, leaving selection dependent on isolated metrics. The present investigation examines batteries through an integrated experimental, simulation, and techno-economic framework for EV and HEV applications. A123 LiFePO4, Thunder Sky LiFePO4, Winston LiFePO4, Uniross NiMH, and Classic Enersol lead–acid batteries were tested for charging behavior, temperature rise, and cycling response, and measured parameters were used in a backward-facing MATLAB/Simulink drivetrain model under the New European Driving Cycle. A123 reached 146 km per full charge, including 60 km urban and 86 km extra-urban operation. At 5C charging, surface-temperature rise was 20 °C for A123, 25 °C for Thunder Sky, and 30 °C for Winston. A123 retained 97% capacity after 2000 cycles and achieved a 4.0-year payback period. These results support the selection of LiFePO4 for fast-charging EV platforms with long life. Future innovation should address WLTP validation and charging above 5C.