This presentation discusses a method of accounting for realistic levels of driver aggression to higher-level vehicle studies, including the impact of variation in real-world driving characteristics (acceleration and speed) on vehicle energy consumption and different powertrains (e.g., conventionally powered vehicles versus electrified drive vehicles [xEVs]). Aggression variation between drivers can increase fuel consumption by more than 50% or decrease it by more than 20% from average. The normalized fuel consumption deviation from average as a function of population percentile was found to be largely insensitive to powertrain. However, the traits of ideal driving behavior are a function of powertrain. In conventional vehicles, kinetic losses dominate rolling resistance and aerodynamic losses. In xEVs with regenerative braking, rolling resistance and aerodynamic losses dominate. The relation of fuel consumption predicted from real-world drive data to that predicted by the industry-standard HWFET, UDDS, LA92, and US06 drive cycles was not consistent across powertrains, and varied broadly from the mean, median, and mode of real-world driving. A drive cycle synthesized by NREL's DRIVE tool accurately and consistently reproduces average real-world for multiple powertrains within 1%, and can be used to calculate the fuel consumption effects of varying levels of driver aggression.