EPA/AA/TDG/92-03
Technical Report
Evaluation Of A Schatz Heat Battery
On A Flexible-Fueled Vehicle
Phase II
by
Gregory K. Piotrowski
Ronald M. Schaefer
June 1992
NOTICE
Technical 'Reports do not necessarily represent final EPA
decisions or positions. They are intended to present technical
analysis of issues using data which are currently available. The
purpose in the release of such reports is to facilitate the
exchange of technical information and to inform the public of
technical developments which may form the basis for a final EPA
decision, position or regulatory action.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Mobile Sources
Regulatory Programs and Technology Division
Technology Development Group
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
JUN 25 I992
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Exemption From Peer and Administrative Review
FROM: Karl H. Hellman, Chief
Technology Development Group
TO: Charles L. Gray, Jr., Director
Regulatory Programs and Technology Division
The attached report entitled "Evaluation Of A Schatz Heat
Battery On A Flexible-Fueled Vehicle - Phase II" (EPA/AA/TDG/92-03)
describes the evaluation of a Schatz Heat Battery as a means of
reducing cold start emissions from a vehicle fueled alternately
with indolene clear and M85 high methanol blend fuels. This
evaluation was conducted at both 20 and 75QF ambient temperatures.
The Heat Battery was previously evaluated, and the results of
this preliminary evaluation were presented in the technical report
EPA/AA/CTAB/91-05. The coolant system was then reconfigured in an
attempt to further reduce cold start emissions. This report
presents the results obtained during this later evaluation.
Since this report is concerned only with the presentation of
data and its analysis and does not involve matters of policy or
regulation, your concurrence is requested to waive administrative
review according to the policy outlined in your directive of April
22, 1982.
/ /
Concurrence: "^ -r, -^^.f / — Date: J>- L z • '^
diaries L. Gray, Jr., Dir., RPT
cc: E. Burger, RPT
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Number
I. Summary 1
II. Introduction . . 3
III. Description of Schatz Heat Battery 5
IV. Description of Test Vehicle and Coolant Configuration . 6
V. Test Facilities and Analytical Methods 8
VI. Test Procedures 9
VII. Heat Battery Effect 10
VIII. Discussion of Test Results 12
A. Auxiliary Pump Effect 12
B. Gasoline Fuel Results 16
C. M85 Fuel Results 24
D. 11-Day Cold Soak Results 32
E. Retests At Manufacturer's Request 34
IX. Acknowledgments 38
X. References 38
APPENDIX A Test Vehicle Specifications . A-l
APPENDIX B Manufacturer Requested Retests B-l
APPENDIX C Comments Provided by Schatz Thermo Engineering. C-l
-------
I.
Summary
The Schatz Heat Battery stores waste latent heat energy from
engine exhaust. At cold start, this stored heat is returned by
conduction to the engine coolant which in turn heats the cold
engine; an auxiliary pump can circulate the coolant at cold start.
A Schatz Heat Battery was evaluated by EPA to reduce emissions of
unburned fuel and carbon monoxide (CO) during cold start (Bag 1) of
the CVS-75 Federal Test Procedure (FTP). This evaluation was a
continuation of testing previously reported on.[l]
The Heat Battery was installed on a flexible-fueled vehicle
and emission tested at ambient temperatures of 2QQF and 75QF while
operating on either indolene or M85 methanol blend fuels. Through
a valve system, the heater core could be removed from the coolant
system. ("Core Out", below, refers to testing with the heater core
taken out of the coolant system.) "Preheat" signifies engine
warming for 60 seconds prior to cold start in the FTP.
Table 1 presents Bag 1 percent changes from stock for each
pollutant and fuel economy variations resulting from several Heat
Battery strategies at both 20°F and 75°F ambient temperatures with
gasoline fuel. Stock emissions are from previous EPA testing.[1]
Table 1
Schatz Heat Battery Evaluation
Indolene Clear Fuel, Bag 1 of FTP
Percent Changes From Stock
Configuration
HC
CO
Testing at 20°F Ambient Conditions
Core In/No Preheat/ 2 OOF
Core In/Preheat/ 2 OOF
Core Out /No Preheat/ 2 OOF
Core Out /Preheat/ 2 OOF
Core Out/ 2 OOF/
2 -Minute Preheat
-46
-63
-50
-66
-63
-56
-71
-58
-73
-73
Testing at 75op Ambient Conditions
Core In/No Preheat/75op
Core In/Preheat/75oF
Core Out/No Preheat/ 7 50 F
Core Out/Preheat/75QF
-22
+ 3
-19
+ 4
-37
-62
-27
-58
MPG
+ 7
+ 8
•f 8
+ 10
+ 3
+ 2
+ 2
NC
+ 3
NC
No change
-------
-2-
A negative number in Table 1 indicates a reduction from the
stock emission level occurred. With the Core In the coolant system
at a cold soak temperature of 2OOF, Bag 1 levels of unburned HC and
CO decreased 66 and 73 percent respectively when preheating for 60
seconds. Bag 1 fuel economy also slightly improved (10 percent)
with this Heat Battery configuration at 20«F conditions. An
extended preheat period (2 minutes) and Core Out had little effect
on further lowering cold start emission levels of HC and CO but did
result in a slight fuel economy reduction from the levels obtained
with the 60-second preheat period.
Bag 1 emission level reductions at 75«F were much lower than
those obtained during 2 OOF testing. The largest reduction of
unburned HC occurred with Core In the coolant circuit and no
preheat, 22 percent from stock. Bag 1 fuel economy also increased
slightly with this configuration. The largest reduction in Bag 1 CO
(62 percent from stock) was obtained with Core In and preheat. The
vehicle was also soaked at 2 OOF for 11 days to test the heat
storage duration capability of the Heat Battery. The vehicle was
tested over the FTP cycle on indolene fuel; the Heat Battery
configuration used was Core Out with a 60-second preheat period.
This test resulted in 50 percent reductions from stock for both Bag
1 hydrocarbons and CO, and a slight increase in Bag 1 fuel economy.
Testing continued over the same schedule with M85 methanol
blend fuel. Table 2 presents emission changes from stock with M85.
Table 2
Schatz Heat Battery Evaluation
M85 Fuel, Bag 1 of FTP
Percent Chancres From Stock
Conf igurat ion
HC
CO
MPG
Testing at 2 OOF Ambient Conditions
Core In/No : Preheat/ 2 0«F
Core In/Preheat/20oF
Core Out /No Preheat/ 2 OOF
Core Out /Preheat/ 2 OOF
+ 14
-58
- 8
-60
+ 1
-72
-23
-54
+ 3
+ 13
+ 7
+19
Testing at 7 SOF Ambient Conditions
Core In/No Preheat/ 7 SOF
Core In/Preheat/75oF
Core Out/No Preheat/ 7 SOF
Core Out/Preheat/75oF
+ 13
-25
+15
- 7
-19
-54
- 6
-55
+ 1
+ 2
+ 1
+ 3
-------
-3-
Signifleant reductions were noted in Bag 1 levels of emissions
measured as hydrocarbons and CO when M85 fuel was used during 2OOF
testing. The greatest reductions in Bag 1 emissions at 2 OOF (60
percent for HC and 72 percent for CO) occurred with a 60-second
preheat period. Bag 1 fuel economy at this temperature also
increased by 19 percent with Core Out of the coolant system and
preheating. However, with Core In and no preheat, Bag l levels of
emissions measured as hydrocarbons and CO increased above stock
configuration levels.
The maximum reduction in Bag 1 hydrocarbons at 75op occurred
with Core In and preheat, a 25 percent reduction from stock. The
maximum reduction in Bag 1 CO resulted with Core Out of the coolant
system and preheat, 55 percent from stock emission levels.
In the absence of a preheat period during testing at 75QF, Bag
1 hydrocarbons increased above stock configuration levels.
However, even though hydrocarbons increased, Bag 1 CO levels
decreased for both configurations without preheat. Increases in
Bag 1 fuel economy were also noted for each Heat Battery
configuration tested at 75op.
Several engine modifications and repairs were performed by
Volkswagen of America (VW) at the conclusion of this testing. The
engine repairs included replacement of the fuel injectors, the
oxygen sensor, and the fuel composition sensor. The engine coolant
temperature sensor was also relocated from the radiator loop to the
outlet of the engine. The vehicle was then returned to EPA for
additional testing at 75°F at the reguest of VW and Schatz Thermo
Engineering.
During the testing that followed, the test vehicle stalled
during Bag 1 on many tests that included a preheat period. One test
conducted on M85 fuel that utilized a preheat period did not
experience a stall in Bag 1, however. During this single test, Bag
1 hydrocarbons and CO were reduced 52 and 65 percent from stock.
This same configuration also resulted in a 3 percent fuel economy
increase over Bag 1. When gasoline fuel was used without preheat,
Bag 1 hydrocarbon and CO reductions from stock levels were 16 and
42 percent respectively.
II. Introduction
The largest portion of unburned fuel (hydrocarbon emissions
for gasoline fuel and methanol emissions for M100 fuel), carbon
monoxide (CO), and formaldehyde exhaust emissions from a catalyst-
equipped vehicle tested over the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) occur
during the cold start or catalyst warm-up phase in Bag 1.[2,3,4]
Emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) at cold start are generally
much lower than levels generated later in the FTP when the engine
has warmed. Cold start is defined here as following a vehicle soak
of 12-36 hours at 70-80QF for testing at 75op and at 15-250F for
testing at 2OOF.[5]
-------
-4-
Cold start emissions of unburned fuel (UBF) and CO from late
model vehicles are much higher when testing over the FTP at lower
ambient temperatures such as 20op.[6] These higher levels of
unburned fuel and CO result partly from an increased period of fuel
enrichment, cold cylinder/intake manifold walls, and an extended
period before catalyst light-off occurs. Recent enactment of new
clean air legislation in the United States has fefocused attention
on regional problems of high levels of CO emissions from motor
vehicles operated at low ambient temperatures.[7]
One way to reduce cold start UBF and CO emissions from either
gasoline or MIOO-fueled vehicles is to reduce the catalyst light-
off time. EPA is interested in catalyst preheating and has
evaluated electrically heated catalyst (EHC) technologies with
favorable results. [2,3,6,8,9,10,11] This resistive heating reduces
the time during which the catalyst remains ineffective because of
insufficient warming by the cold exhaust gas.
Another way to reduce cold start emissions of unburned fuel
and CO is to reduce the period of cold start enrichment. This
period of enrichment is generally a function of engine temperature.
If the engine is heated to operating temperature faster, the period
of enrichment to ensure good driveability might be correspondingly
reduced.
Schatz Thermo Engineering, Munich, Germany, has developed a
heat storage device that stores excess heat energy from the engine
coolant for use in later applications. This device, referred to
here as a Heat Battery, stores heat energy under vacuum in a molten
salt. The salt releases heat energy to the cold engine coolant
which is pumped through a canister containing the packaged molten
salt. The coolant, warmed by contact with the salt containing
packages, may be pumped to various locations within the vehicle.
Although applications for the heat energy have included passenger
compartment heating [12], the discussion in this report will be
limited to the application of engine heating. This heating allows
the engine to heat to near steady-state conditions faster, thereby
reducing the time requirement for richer operating conditions at
cold start.
An initial evaluation of this technology at the EPA National
Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan [1],
was conducted using both gasoline and M85 high methanol blend
fuels. This evaluation was conducted at both 75op and 20°F ambient
temperatures. At 2OOF, Bag 1 levels of HC and CO were reduced 69
and 76 percent respectively from stock levels when gasoline fuel
was used (a 60-second preheat period was used to obtain these
results) . Bag 1 HC and CO were reduced 85 and 83 percent
respectively from stock with a similar preheat period at 2OOF with
M85 fuel. A substantial improvement in Bag 1 fuel economy was also
noted during this testing with both fuels.
-------
The manufacturer of the Heat Battery stated that significant
improvements in emissions could be obtained with minor adjustments
to the coolant circuit. The circuit was rerouted to transfer more
stored heat to the cold engine block. The placement of the Heat
Battery in the coolant system is detailed below in Section IV.,
Description of Test Vehicle and Coolant Configuration. The vehicle
was then retested on both gasoline and M85 fuels at 20<>F and 75op
ambient temperatures; the results from this latest testing are
presented in this report.
III. Description of Schatz Heat Battery
The Schatz Heat Battery is a latent heat storage device
which accumulates waste heat from the engine's coolant and can
store this heat for an extended period of time. Upon or before
engine cold start, the Heat Battery releases this stored energy to
the coolant; the warmed coolant heats the engine to operating
temperature faster.
Figure 1 below is a picture of the interior of a Heat Battery.
This unit is cylindrical in shape with dimensions of 370 mm length,
170 mm outside diameter, and a total weight of approximately 10 kg.
The heat release capacity is 600 Wh when cooled from 176°F to
122°F.
Figure 1
Interior of the Schatz Heat Battery
INSULATING VACUUM
SALT IN SEALED FINS
INNER CASING
-------
-6-
The core of the Heat Battery consists of stacked, flat-sheet
metal elements that contain the heat storage salts. If the coolant
temperature flowing between the stacked elements exceeds the heat
storage mass melting point (167°F), latent heat is absorbed and
stored. During cold start, the stored heat is then transferred to
the cold engine head through coolant circulated by an auxiliary
pump. Once the circulating coolant temperature exceeds the
temperature of the salt, the Heat Battery begins to recharge.
The heat storage mass inside the sealed metal elements is the
molten salt Ba(OH) 2*8H2O. The latent heat of the pure molten salt
is 88.5 Wh/kg, and the heat conductivity in its solid state is 1.26
W/mK. The Heat Battery core is surrounded by high-vacuum
insulation which limits ambient heat losses to approximately 3 W at
-40F, according to Schatz Thermo Engineering.
IV. Description of Test Vehicle and Coolant Configuration
The test vehicle was a flexible-fueled (MO through M85) 1990
Audi 80 four-door sedan, equipped with a manual 5-speed
transmission, air conditioning, and radial tires. The vehicle had
approximately 5,000 miles accumulated when it was received by EPA.
The 1.8-liter engine has a rated maximum power output of 75 kw at
5,500 rpm with gasoline fuel and 80 kW at 5,500 rpm with M85 fuel.
The vehicle was tested at 1,304 kilograms (2,875 pounds) ETW and
6.4 actual dynamometer horsepower. This vehicle was loaned to the
U.S. EPA by Volkswagen of America. A picture of this vehicle is
presented as Figure 2.
Figure 2
Audi Flexible-Fueled Test Vehicle
A detailed description of the test vehicle and
methanol-blend modifications is included as Appendix A.
special
-------
A schematic diagram of the new coolant configuration was
provided to EPA by Schatz Thermo Engineering. Figure 3 below is a
schematic diagram of the reconfigured coolant system as it was
tested here by EPA.
Figure 3
Coolant System Configuration
1 Engine
2 Auxiliary Pump
3 Heat Battery
4 Heater Core
5 Oil Cooler/Heater
6 Radiator
7 Electric Valves
8 Thermostat
Two switches inside the passenger compartment dictated the
Heat Battery configuration. One switch enabled the circulation of
coolant prior to the starting of the engine. This switch initiated
a Bosch electric pump (2) , which circulated the coolant through the
Heat Battery (3) prior to key-on of the FTP. The Heat Battery was
then able to transfer the stored heat to the cold coolant, and thus
to the engine (1) prior to start of the FTP. At this point, the
thermostat (8) is still closed so that none of the coolant passes
through the radiator (6) . This engine warming prior to key on cold
start is referred to here as a "preheat" test. If a "no. preheat"
test was desired:, the auxiliary pump remained off until the start
of the FTP.
The auxiliary pump operated during the entire FTP to supply
the maximum amount of stored heat to the engine during idle, with
the pump operating, the coolant flow approximately doubled during
the first acceleration of the FTP cycle.
The second switch inside the passenger compartment removed the
heater core from the coolant system. If a test was desired with the
heater core out (Core Out) of the coolant system, this switch would
close valve 7b and open 7a. During cold start, this action allowed
coolant to pass from the engine (1), through valve 7a, the
auxiliary pump (2), the Heat Battery (3), the oil cooler/heater
(5), and back to the engine.
-------
-8-
The Heat Battery was present in the coolant system for each
test conducted in this evaluation. Baseline levels presented in
this report were obtained during the Phase I evaluation and were
published in an earlier report. [1] No heat was supplied to the
passenger compartment during any test conducted in this evaluation.
V. Test Facilities And Analytical Methods
Two dynamometer sites were used for this testing. Emissions
testing at 75<>F was conducted on a Clayton Model ECE-50 double-roll
chassis dynamometer using a direct-drive variable inertia flywheel
unit and a road load power control unit. Emissions testing at 20°F
was conducted on a Labeco Electric single-roll chassis dynamometer
using a direct-drive variable inertia flywheel unit and a road load
power control unit. The 75°F site utilized a Philco Ford constant
volume sampler that has a nominal capacity of 600 cfm, and the 20°F
site used a similar model with a nominal capacity of 350 cfm. Both
test sites used similar emission analyzers. Exhaust hydrocarbon
emissions were measured with a Beckman Model 400 flame ionization
detector (FID). CO was measured using a Bendix Model 8501-5CA
infrared CO analyzer. NOx emissions were determined with a Beckman
Model 951A chemiluminescent NOx analyzer. Methane emissions were
quantified with a Model 8205 Bendix methane analyzer.
Exhaust formaldehyde and methanol emission samples were only
measured at the 75°F test site. Exhaust formaldehyde was measured
using a dinitrophenol-hydrazine (DNPH) technique.[13,14] Exhaust
carbonyls including formaldehyde are reacted with DNPH solution
forming hydrazone derivatives; these derivatives are separated from
the DNPH solution by means of high performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC), and quantization is accomplished by
spectrophotometric analysis of the LC effluent stream.
The procedure developed for methanol sampling and presently
used by EPA employs water-filled impingers through which are pumped
a sample of the dilute exhaust or evaporative emissions. The
methanol in the sample gas dissolves in water. After the sampling
period is complete, the solution in the impingers is analyzed using
gas chromatographic analysis.[15]
Some of the emission results in this report for MS5 fuel are
computed using the methods outlined in the "Final Rule For
Methanol-Fueled Motor Vehicles And Motor Vehicle Engines," which
was published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, April 11, 1989.
Because the EPA cold room test cell was not equipped to measure
methanol and formaldehyde emissions, measurements using gasoline
fuel procedures are included here.
-------
-9-
VI. Test Procedures
This program had as its goal the evaluation of a Schatz Heat
Battery for the reduction of cold start unburned fuel and CO
emission levels with both gasoline and M85 fuels. This Phase II
evaluation was performed with a reconfigured -coolant system to
further reduce cold start emissions below those noted during the
initial Phase I evaluation.[1]
This evaluation consisted of five phases, discussed separately
in the Discussion of Test Results section below. The first phase
determined the effect of auxiliary pump on cold start emissions of
unburned fuel and CO when the pump operated during the entire FTP.
The auxiliary pump was used to provide the maximum amount of heat
to the engine during a cold start by circulating more coolant than
a standard water pump. This testing was conducted at a soak
temperature of 75°F with gasoline fuel. All tests here were
conducted over the FTP cycle.
The second phase of this evaluation was conducted at ambient
temperatures of 75QF and 20°F with gasoline fuel. Five Heat Battery
configurations were evaluated at 20°F and four at 75°F. Table 3
below presents a summary of these configurations.
Table 3
Heat Battery Configurations Evaluated
Indolene Clear Fuel. FTP Cycle
2 OOF Testing
Configuration
1
2
3
4 :
5
Heater Core In/ Out
In
In
Out
Out
Out
Preheat ( ? )
No
Yes (60 Seconds)
No
Yes (60 Seconds)
Yes (2 Minutes)
75°F Testing
1
2
3
4
In
In
Out
Out
No
Yes (60 Seconds)
No
Yes (60 Seconds)
-------
-10-
The third phase of this evaluation consisted of the same
ambient temperature and Heat Battery configuration testing
discussed above, except that M85 fuel was utilized. No 2-minute
preheat tests were conducted with M85 fuel, however.
The fourth phase consisted of a single test after the vehicle
had soaked at an ambient temperature of 20°F for an 11-day period.
The Heat Battery configuration for this test utilized the Core Out
of the coolant system with a 60-second preheat period. This test
was conducted to determine the Heat Battery's heat storage
capability over extended soak periods. The final phase consisted of
retests done at the request of the manufacturer of the Heat
Battery.
VII. Heat Battery Effect
During each FTP cycle test conducted during this evaluation,
coolant temperature was monitored in several locations. Coolant
flowrates were also measured over the entire FTP cycle with and
without the auxiliary pump running.
Thermocouples were installed to monitor coolant temperature at
three different locations. The first thermocouple was located
approximately 25 mm from the entrance of the Heat Battery, denoted
here as Heat Battery In temperature. The second thermocouple was
located approximately 250 mm from the exit of the Heat Battery,
denoted here as Heat Battery Out temperature. The last
thermocouple was located approximately 240 mm from the exit of the
oil cooler/heater, referred to as oil cooler/heater out
temperature.
A flowmeter was installed to measure flow in the coolant
system. With the auxiliary pump, the flow remained relatively
constant throughout the FTP at about 2.2 gallons/minute. The
coolant flow and temperature data enable a rough estimate of the
heat supplied to the cold engine during a test with the Core Out of
the coolant system. The Heat Battery was considered "fully-charged"
when the Heat Battery In/Out temperatures were equal.
Figure 4 below presents coolant temperature into and out of
the Heat Battery and vehicle speed/time data for the first 125
seconds of the FTP cycle. Oil cooler/heater In and Heat Battery
Out temperatures are denoted here as equal, because it was assumed
that a negligible amount of heat was lost from the coolant during
travel from the Heat Battery to the oil cooler/heater. Oil
Cooler/Heater Out coolant temperatures were approximately equal to
Heat Battery Out temperatures and were not included in Figure 4.
The data presented in Figure 4 was obtained with the Core Out of
the coolant system, with indolene fuel, and at an ambient
temperature of 20°F.
-------
-11-
Figure 4
Heat Battery Effect On Coolant Temperature
Bag 1 Cold Start, 20 Deg. F Conditions
Temperature (degrees F)
Speed (mph)
200
150
100
25
50 75
Time (seconds)
100
125
The trace labeled "HB Out" represents the temperature of the
coolant leaving the Heat Battery and entering the oil
cooler/heater. The path labeled "HB In" represents the temperature
of the coolant leaving the engine and entering the Heat Battery.
The "HB Out" path was similar to the "Oil Cooler/Heater Out" trace
and therefore is representative of the coolant temperature entering
the engine. The heater core was not present in the coolant system
(Core Out) when these tests were conducted.
The initial spike in "HB Out" coolant temperature is the
result of the approximately one gallon of coolant that was trapped
inside the Heat Battery during the vehicle soak. The maximum
temperature of this spike was above the melting point of the molten
salt, 1670F, an indication of a "charged" Heat Battery.
The maximum temperature difference between "HB Out" and the
temperature of the engine at cold start (2QOF) is approximately
1550F. The coolant flow remained relatively constant at
approximately 2.2 gallons per minute for the duration of the FTP
with the auxiliary pump operating. This information may be used to
estimate a maximum heat transfer rate at cold start, approximately
43.5 kW. This maximum rate decreases sharply with time, however.
(Figure 4)
-------
-12-
VIII. Discussion of Test Results
A. Auxiliary Pump Effect
This evaluation consisted of five separate phases. The first
phase investigated the effect of operating the auxiliary coolant
pump during the entire FTP cycle (except for the 10-minute soak
period before the Bag 3 segment). All testing during this phase
was conducted over the FTP at an ambient temperature of 75°F with
indolene fuel. Bag 1 emission levels are given in grams (g) over
the test segment (Bag 1) except for formaldehyde, which is
presented in milligrams (mg) over Bag 1. Composite FTP emissions
are given in grams per mile (g/mi) except formaldehyde, given in
milligrams per mile (mg/mi).
Four separate Heat Battery configurations were evaluated here.
The first had the heater core present in the coolant system (Core
In) and no preheat period (preheat signifies circulation of the
coolant by the auxiliary pump for 60 seconds prior to key-on). The
second configuration had the Core In the coolant circuit with a 60-
second preheat. The final two configurations had the heater core
out of the coolant system (Core Out) with/without a 60-second
preheat period. The vehicle was first tested over each of these
configurations with the auxiliary pump inoperative during the FTP,
then tested again over the same four configurations with the pump
running during the entire FTP cycle. The results from this testing
are presented below.
Figure 5 below presents Bag 1 hydrocarbon levels noted during
this testing at 75°F conditions. Preheating occurred when the
auxiliary pump operated for 60 seconds prior to key-on in Bag l.
Figure 5
Auxiliary Pump Effect, 75 Deg. F Testing
Indoiene Fuel, Bag 1 HC Levels
Coolant Configuration
Heater Core In
No Preheat, Pump Off
No Preheat, Pump On
Preheat. Pump Off
Preheat, Pump On
Heater Core Out
No Preheat, Pump Off
No Preheat, Pump On
Preheat, Pump Off
Preheat, Pump On
2.44
2.81
J2.22
I 2.2
2.48
2.83
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Hydrocarbon Emissions (grams)
3.5
-------
-13-
The top bar presented in Figure 5 denotes the Bag 1
hydrocarbon level measured with Core In the coolant system, the
auxiliary pump off during the FTP cycle (Pump Off), and no preheat
utilized (No Preheat). The remaining bars represent variations of
heater core position, preheat, and pump operating strategy.
Operating the auxiliary pump during the entire FTP had a small
effect on Bag 1 hydrocarbons. With the Core In the coolant system
and no preheat, Bag 1 hydrocarbons decreased approximately 6
percent by operating the pump during the FTP. With the Core Out of
the coolant system and no preheat, Bag 1 hydrocarbons were
approximately equal for testing with and without the pump operating
during the FTP cycle.
Using a 60-second preheating period for the Heat Battery
unexpectedly resulted in higher Bag 1 hydrocarbon emissions,
however. With both the Core In/Out configurations, hydrocarbon
emissions were also higher when the auxiliary pump continued to
operate during the entire FTP.
Figure 6 below presents Bag 1 CO levels for the same testing
configurations referred to in Figure 5.
Figure 6
Auxiliary Pump Effect, 75 Deg. F Testing
Indolene Fuel, Bag 1 CO Levels
Coolant Configuration
Heater Core In
No Preheat, Pump Off
No Preheat, Pump On
Preheat, Pump Off
Preheat, Pump On
Heater Core Out
No Preheat, Pump Off
No Preheat, Pump On
Preheat, Pump Off
Preheat, Pump On
34.1
20.7
//1 / ! / I / / .'7112.7
I 27.4
24
14.4
I 13.7
0 5 10 15 20 25
Carbon Monoxide Emissions (grams)
30
With the Core In the coolant system and no preheat, Bag 1 CO
levels decreased approximately 14 percent by running the auxiliary
pump during the FTP cycle. When a 60-second preheat period was
utilized with this Heat Battery configuration, Bag 1 levels of CO
remained the same regardless of the pump operating strategy.
-------
-14-
With the Core Out of the coolant system, Bag l CO levels
slightly decreased with the operation of the pump during the FTP.
Without preheat and the Core Out, Bag 1 levels of CO decreased 12
percent when the pump continued to operate during the FTP.
Operating the pump over the FTP with a 60-second preheat period
reduced Bag 1 levels of CO about 5 percent.
Table 4 below presents all Bag 1 emission levels noted during
this testing. "PH" represents a 60-second preheating period.
Table 4
Auxiliary Pump Effect, 75°F Testing
Bag 1 Emission Levels
Indolene Clear Fuel
Configuration
Core In/Pump Off/No
PH*
Core In/ Pump On/ No PH
NMHC
g
2.06
1.93
HC
g
2.26
2.13
HCHO
mg
32
36
CO
g
24.1
20.7
NOX
g
1.6
2.1
MPG
25.9
25.6
Core In/Pump Off/PH**
Core In/ Pump On/PH
2.29
2.64
2.44
2.81
44
47
12.4
12.7
1.8
1.8
25.9
25.7
Core Out/Pump Off/No
PH
Core Out/Pump On/No PH
2.00
1.99
2.22
2.20
32
34
27.4
24.0
1.4
1.7
26.0
25.3
Core Out/Pump 'Off /PH
Core Out/Pump On/PH
2.28
2.64
2.48
2.83
44
43
14.4
13.7
1:. 8
2.0
25.9
26.0
* Denotes no preheat period.
** 60-second preheat period.
Bag 1 NOx appeared to increase when the pump operated during
the entire FTP and the Heat Battery was not preheated. For
example, with the Core In the coolant system, Bag 1 levels of NOx
increased from 1.6 grams to 2.1 grams, a 31 percent increase. Bag
1 formaldehyde (HCHO) levels generally increased only slightly when
the auxiliary pump operated during the entire test.
-------
-15-
Bag 1 fuel economy decreased very slightly for each Heat
Battery configuration, except Core Out and a preheat period, when
the pump was operated during the entire FTP cycle. In this
configuration, a slight increase, from 25.9 mpg to 26.0 mpg, was
recorded; this change was essentially negligible.
Table 5 below presents the composite FTP emission rates for
this phase of testing.
Table 5
Auxiliary Pump Effect, 75«F Testing
Composite FTP Emission Levels
Indolene Clear Fuel
Configuration
Core In/Pump Off/No
PH*
Core In/Pump On/No PH
NMHC
g/mi
0.15
0.14
HC
g/mi
0.18
0.17
HCHO
mg/mi
3
3
CO
g/mi
1.8
1.8
NOx
g/mi
0.4
0.3
Core In/Pump Off/PH**
Core In/Pump On/PH
0.16
0.18
0.18
0.21
4
4
1.3
1.3
0.3
0.4
Core Out/Pump Off/No
PH
Core Out/Pump On/No PH
0.15
0.15
0.18
0.18
2
2
2.2
2.0
0.3
0.3
Core Out/Pump Off/PH
Core Out /Pump • On/PH
0.16
0.19
0.19
0.22
4
4
1.4
1.6
0.3
0.4
MPG
25.6
25.1
25.4
25.2
25.7
25. 1
25. 3
25. 2
* Denotes no preheat period.
** Denotes 60-second preheat period.
Operating the auxiliary pump during the entire FTP had little
effect on composite emission levels of hydrocarbons and CO and fuel
economy. FTP composite hydrocarbons, however, even increased with
the pump running during preheat configuration testing. FTP
composite NOx levels also increased during preheat testing with the
pump on during the FTP. For each of the four Heat Battery
configurations tested, FTP fuel economy decreased very slightly
when the pump operated during the entire FTP cycle.
-------
-16-
At the suggestion of the manufacturers of the Heat Battery,
the auxiliary pump was operated during the entire FTP cycle for the
remainder of the tests conducted during this evaluation. All test
results discussed in the next three sections were obtained with the
pump operating during the entire FTP.
B. Gasoline Fuel Results
The vehicle was next tested at an ambient temperature of 2OOF
using indolene fuel. In this section, emissions data presented for
75°F testing are the same data presented in the previous section
(A). However, the focus of this discussion will be changes in
emission levels and fuel economy resulting from the use of the Heat
Battery, not the effect of operating the auxiliary pump.
All results presented here were obtained with the auxiliary
pump running during the entire FTP cycle. In this section, the
emission levels with gasoline fuel will be compared to stock levels
to determine the effect of the Heat Battery as an emissions control
device. Stock levels presented here were the levels obtained
during the Phase I evaluation and presented in the EPA technical
report EPA/AA/CTAB/91-05. These stock levels were obtained with
the Heat Battery out and the heater core in (Core In) the coolant
system.
The same conventions used to describe the Heat Battery
configurations in the previous section are used here also. Preheat
(PH) levels were obtained by running the auxiliary pump 60 seconds
prior to cold start in the FTP cycle. A 60-second preheat prior to
key-on may be impractical in order to accommodate a driver's desire
for a quick start/drive sequence; this preheat period, however,
ensured a warmed engine prior to key-on for these laboratory
experiments. During 2OOF testing, some tests were also conducted
while using an extended 2-minute preheat period and the Core Out.
Figure 7 below presents Bag 1 hydrocarbon emission levels for
gasoline fuel testing at 20op. Stock levels presented here were
obtained with the Heat Battery out of the coolant system.
-------
-17-
Figure 7
Indolene Fuel, 20 Deg. F Testing
Bag 1 Hydrocarbon Levels
Coolant Configuration
Stock
Heater Core In
No Preheat
Preheat
Heater Core Out
No Preheat
Preheat
2-Minute Preheat
13.95
_J7.49
5.1
hj'IIIM . Ill 6.96
5.16
0 4 8 12
Hydrocarbon Emissions (grams)
16
With the Core In the coolant system with no preheat, Bag 1
hydrocarbons were reduced 46 percent, to 7.49 grams from the stock
level of 13.95 grams. With the Core In and 60 seconds of preheat,
Bag 1 hydrocarbon levels decreased an additional 17 percent, to
5.10 grams. This represents a Bag 1 hydrocarbon reduction of 63
percent from stock levels.
Bag 1 hydrocarbons were reduced to even lower levels with the
Core Out configuration. With the Core Out and no preheat, Bag 1
hydrocarbons were 7 percent lower than with Core In and no preheat.
When a 60-second preheat period was used, Bag 1 hydrocarbons with
Core Out were 6 percent lower than with Core In and preheat. The
4.80 grams of hydrocarbons in Bag 1 with this Heat.- Battery
configuration represented a 66 percent reduction from stock. Using
an extended 2-minute preheat period did not further affect Bag 1
unburned hydrocarbon levels.
Figure 8 below presents Bag 1 CO levels for the same Heat
Battery configurations described in Figure 7.
-------
-18-
Figure 8
Indolene Fuel, 20 Deg. F Testing
Bag 1 Carbon Monoxide Levels
Coolant Configuration
Stock
Heater Core In
202.9
No Preheat
Preheat
Heater Core Out
No Preheat
Preheat
2-Minute Preheat
..-V..-/..V/ 89.8
'.///' I 59.7
M j ! I ! ! i i i I 85
! i i I H ! 54.8
! I i 55.1
0 50 100 150 200 250
Carbon Monoxide Emissions (grams)
With the Core In and no preheat, Bag 1 levels of CO were
reduced approximately 56 percent from stock, from 202.9 grams to
89.8 grams. When a 60-second preheat period was used with Core In,
Bag 1 levels of CO decreased an additional 15 percent, to 59.7
grams. This represents a 71 percent reduction in levels of Bag 1
CO from stock. With the Core Out, Bag 1 CO levels were slightly
lower than Core In levels. With Core Out and no preheat, Bag 1 CO
was reduced to 85.0 grams, approximately 5 percent lower than
levels with HC In. With the Core Out and a 60-second preheat
period, Bag 1 CO,levels were reduced to 54.8 grams, approximately
8 percent lower than with the Core In. A longer 2-minute preheat
period did not further reduce Bag 1 CO levels.
Table 6 below presents Bag 1 emission and fuel economy data
for testing with indolene fuel at a 20°F ambient temperature.
-------
-19-
Table 6
Indolene Fuel, 2OOF Testing
Schatz Heat Battery Evaluation
Bag 1 Emission Levels
Configuration
Stock
Core In, No Preheat
Core In, Preheat
Core Out, No Preheat
Core Out, Preheat
Core Out, 2 -Minute
Preheat
NMHC
g
NA
6.99
4.67
6.41
4.40
NA
HC
g
13.95
7.49
5.10
6.96
4.80
5.16
CO
g
202.9
89.8
59.7
85.0
54.8
55.1
NOX
g
0.5
2.6
3.2
3.2
3.6
4.4
MPG
21.1
22.5
22.8
22.8
23.2
21.7
NA Not available.
A small improvement in Bag 1 fuel economy was also noted
during this testing. With Core In, Bag 1 fuel economy increased to
22.5 mpg with no preheat and to 22.8 mpg with a 60-second preheat
period. These represent 7 and 8 percent increases, respectively,
from stock levels. Bag 1 fuel economy also increased above stock
levels with the Core Out. When a 60-second preheat period was used,
Bag 1 fuel economy levels reached 23.2 miles per gallon, a 10
percent increase from stock levels. The extended 2-minute preheat
period resulted in Bag 1 fuel economy only slightly higher than
stock, at 21.7 mpg.
A significant increase in Bag 1 NOx was also noted during this
testing for all four Heat Battery configurations. The lowest Bag 1
NOx with the Heat Battery was with Core In and no preheat, 2.6
grams. This represents a 420 percent increase from stock levels.
The largest increase in Bag 1 NOx from stock was with the Core Out
and a 2-minute preheat, at 4.4 grams.
Table 7 below presents composite FTP emissions and fuel
economy results from this testing at 2OOF.
-------
-20-
Table 7
Indolene Fuel, 20°F Testing
Schatz Heat Battery Evaluation
FTP Composite Emission Levels
Configuration
Stock
Core In, No Preheat
Core In, Preheat
Core Out, No Preheat
Core Out, Preheat
Core Out, 2 -Minute
Preheat
NMHC
g/mi
NA
0.43
0.30
0.40
0.29
NA
HC
g/mi
0.88
0.48
0.34
0.45
0.33
0.36
CO
g/mi
12.6
5.8
4.1
5.6
3.9
3.8
NOx
g/mi
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
MPG
24.7
24.5
24.6
24.8
24.7
23.0
NA Not available.
Generally, changes in Bag 1 emissions of unburned fuel and CO
are reflected in the weighted FTP levels. For example, the 73
percent reduction in Bag 1 CO with the Core Out and 60 seconds of
preheat resulted in a 69 percent reduction in the FTP composite
emission rate, from 12.6 grams/mile to 3.9 grams/mile. The same
trend was also noted in FTP composite levels of NOx. For the five
Heat Battery configurations tested here, FTP composite levels of
NOx increased substantially from the stock level of 0.1 grams/mile.
The slight increases in Bag 1 fuel economy for the Heat Battery
configurations did not materially affect overall city fuel economy.
For example, the 10 percent increase in Bag 1 fuel economy with the
Core Out and 60 seconds of preheat resulted in no change in FTP
fuel economy. In fact, testing with the Core In resulted in FTP
fuel economy va.lues less than stock. This also occurred when an
extended 2-minute preheat period was used.
Figure 9 below presents Bag 1 hydrocarbon levels at 75°F for
the same Heat Battery configurations used during 20°F testing
except for 2-minute preheat testing.
-------
-21-
Figure 9
Indolene Fuel, 75 Deg. F Testing
Bag 1 Hydrocarbon Levels
Coolant Configuration
Stock
Preheat
2.72
Heater Core In
No Preheat
Preheat
Heater Core Out
No Preheat
. • / '///.7/////,|2.i3
. •'.• •/// •'//////// ///////
:' ' ; '• | i HI j I |l. |, I 2.2
IE
2.83
01234
Hydrocarbon Emissions (grams)
With the Core In the coolant system and no preheat, Bag 1
levels of hydrocarbons decreased from 2.72 grams to 2.13 grains, a
reduction of 22 percent from stock. Similarly, when the heater
core was removed from the coolant system (Core Out) and with no
preheat, the Bag 1 hydrocarbons reduction from stock was 19
percent, at 2.20 grams. Unexpectedly, when a 60-second preheat
period was used, Bag 1 hydrocarbons increased above levels noted
during stock configuration testing. No unusual driving conditions
or engine problems were noted during this testing that might have
contributed to this unexpected result. Because modal analysis or
catalvst temperature monitoring was not used during this-testing,
it is very difficult to determine the effect that preheating may
have on the catalyst activity or light-off time.
Figure 10 below presents Bag 1 CO levels for this testing.
-------
-22-
Figure 10
Indolene Fuel, 75 Deg. F Testing
Bag 1 Carbon Monoxide Levels
Coolant Configuration
Stock
Heater Core In
No Preheat
Preheat
Heater Core Out
No Preheat
Preheat
"'''-, /.////', 7/7-7/T20-
,-/'• •// 12.7
I 24
iiiiSl Mil 113.7
0 10 20 30 40
Carbon Monoxide Emissions (grams)
The Heat Battery substantially reduced Bag 1 CO emission
levels when tested at an ambient temperature of 750F. Without
preheating and with the Core In, Bag 1 CO levels decreased from the
33 0 grams stock level to 20.7 grams, a reduction of 37 percent.
When a preheat period was used with the Core In, Bag 1 CO decreased
to 12.7 grams, a reduction from stock of approximately 62 percent.
However, when the heater core was removed from the coolant
system, reductions in Bag 1 CO levels were not as great as those
noted with the heater core in. For example, in the absence of a
preheat period, Bag 1 CO was 24.0 grams, a 27 percent reduction
from stock levels. With the heater core out and a 60-second
preheat period, Bag 1 levels of CO were 13.7 grams, a 58 percent
reduction from stock.
Table 8 below presents Bag 1 emission and fuel economy results
for testing with gasoline fuel at an ambient temperature of 75op.
-------
-23-
Table 8
Indolene Fuel, 75<>F Testing
Schatz Heat Battery Evaluation
Baa 1 Emission Levels
Configuration
Stock
Core In, No Preheat
Core In, Preheat
Core Out, No Preheat
Core Out, Preheat
NMHC
g
2.43
1.93
2.64
1.99
2.64
HC
g
2.72
2.13
2.81
2.20
2.83
HCHO
mg
34
36
47
34
43
CO
g
33.0
20.7
12.7
24.0
13.7
NOx
g
1.3
2.1
1.8
1.7
2.0
MPG
25.2
25.6
25.7
25.3
26.0
Bag 1 fuel economy increased only slightly over stock levels
for each Heat Battery configuration tested here. The highest fuel
economy value noted was obtained with the Core Out of the coolant
system and a 60-second preheat, 26.0 mpg. This represents a 3
percent increase over stock levels. With the Core Out of the
coolant system and no preheat, Bag 1 fuel economy was essentially
unchanged from stock.
Bag 1 NOx increased over stock levels for each Heat Battery
configuration tested here. The highest level of Bag 1 NOx noted
was with the Core In and no preheat, at 2.1 grams. This represents
a 62 percent increase from stock levels. The lowest level of Bag
1 NOx was obtained with the Core Out of the coolant system and no
preheat. At 1.7 grams, this represents a 31 percent increase in
Bag 1 NOx from stock.
Levels of Bag 1 formaldehyde also significantly increased
above stock levels when a preheat period was used. With the Core
In and preheat,.Bag 1 formaldehyde increased to 47 milligrams from
the 34 milligrams stock value. This represents an increase of 38
percent. When no preheat was utilized, Bag 1 formaldehyde levels
remained basically unchanged from stock levels.
Table 9 below presents FTP composite emissions and fuel
economy results for this testing.
-------
-24-
Table 9
Indolene Fuel, 75°F Testing
Schatz Heat Battery Evaluation
Composite FTP Emission Levels
Configuration
Stock
Core In, No Preheat
Core In, Preheat
Core Out, No Preheat
Core Out, Preheat
NMHC
g/mi
0.17
0.14
0.18
0.15
0.19
HC
g/mi
0.21
0.17
0.21
0.18
0.22
HCHO
mg/mi
3
3
4
2
4
CO
g/mi
2.7
1.8
1.3
2.0
1.6
NOx
g/mi
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
MPG
25.2
25.1
25.2
25.1
25.2
Similar to 2OOF results, Bag 1 emission changes in unburned
fuel and CO are reflected in changes in FTP composite emission
rates. For example, the 62 percent reduction in Bag 1 CO levels
noted with the Core In and preheat correlates with the 52 percent
reduction in FTP composite CO obtained with this configuration.
Also, the increases noted in Bag 1 NOx are reflected in increases
in FTP composite levels of NOx. The increase in Bag 1 fuel economy
values, however, is not reflected in overall FTP fuel economy.
Though increases were noted in Bag 1 fuel economy for both no
preheat configurations, reductions in city fuel economy from stock
levels also occurred.
C. M85 Fuel Results
Once gasoline testing was complete, the fuel tank was drained
and filled with a blend of 85 percent methanol and 15 percent
gasoline (M85). The same test sequence described for gasoline
testing in subsection B was repeated, except that no 2-minute
preheat tests were conducted. Hydrocarbon values presented here
were levels that would be obtained if the exhaust was treated as if
the fuel were gasoline. Exhaust methanol and formaldehyde were
sampled only during 75°F testing.
Figure 11 below presents Bag 1 hydrocarbon levels from cold
room testing with M85 fuel. Substantial emission reductions were
again noted here when a 60-second preheat period was used. With
the Core In, Bag 1 hydrocarbons decreased 58 percent from stock
levels, from 16.88 grams to 7.12 grams, when a 60-second preheat
was used. An even greater reduction of 60 percent was noted when
the heater core was removed from the coolant circuit. Emission
levels without a preheat period varied considerably. With the
heater core present in the coolant system (Core In) , Bag 1
hydrocarbons increased above stock levels by 14 percent, to 19.22
-------
-25-
graros. With the Core Out of the coolant circuit, Bag 1
hydrocarbons decreased to 15.53 grams, a 19 percent reduction from
Core In/no preheat levels and an 8 percent reduction from stock
levels.
Figure 11
M85 Fuel, 20 Deg. F Testing
Bag 1 Hydrocarbon Levels
Coolant Configuration
Stock
Heater Core In
No Preheat
Preheat
Heater Core Out
No Preheat
Preheat
t9.22
Jr.12
hliUi lIUlLTTufNM 15-53
0 5 10 15 20 25
Hydrocarbon Emissions (grams)
Similar trends were also noted with Bag 1 CO. Bag 1 CO levels,
depicted in Figure 12, were unchanged from stock levels with the
Core In and no preheat. However, when the heater core was removed
from the coolant' system again with no preheat, Bag 1 levels of CO
decreased to 130.0 grams, a 23 percent reduction from stock. When
a 60-second preheat period was used with the Core Out, Bag 1 CO
decreased to 77.7 grams, a reduction of 54 percent from stock
levels. The largest reduction in Bag 1 CO, however, was obtained
with the Core In the coolant system and a 60-second preheat. Bag 1
CO was measured then at 46.8 grams, a 72 percent reduction from
stock.
-------
-26-
Figure 12
M85 Fuel, 20 Deg. F Testing
Bag 1 Carbon Monoxide Levels
Coolant Configuration
Stock
Heater Core In
No Preheat
Preheat
Heater Core Out
No Preheat
Preheat
169.6
••'•'//'/.-/ '//•'//////•'/..• /"/' '/V| 170.8
46.8
Mi [[|130-
0 50 100 150 200
Carbon Monoxide Emissions (grams)
Table 10 below presents Bag 1 emissions and fuel economy
results from testing at 20op with M85 fuel. Using the Heat Battery
without preheat, Bag 1 fuel economy increased by 3 percent with the
Core In the coolant circuit and by 7 percent with the Core Out.
When a preheat period was used, Bag 1 fuel economy increased
substantially above stock levels. With the heater core in and 60
seconds of preheat, Bag 1 fuel economy reached 13.4 miles per
gallon, a 13 percent increase from the stock value of 11.9 miles
per gallon. With Core Out/60 seconds preheat, Bag 1 fuel economy
was 14.2 mpg, 19 percent higher than stock.
-------
-27-
Table 10
M85 Fuel, 2OOF Testing
Schatz Heat Battery Evaluation
Baa 1 Emission Levels
Configuration
Stock
Core In, No Preheat
Core In, Preheat
Core Out, No Preheat
Core Out, Preheat
NMHC
g
NA
18.50
6.80
14.92
6.35
*HC
g
16.88
19.22
7.12
15.53
6.67
CO
g
169.6
170.8
46.8
130.0
77.7
NOx
g
2.3
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.7
MPG
11.9
12.3
13.4
12.7
14.2
NA Not available.
* Gasoline-fueled vehicle measurement with a propane
calibrated FID.
Each of the four configurations evaluated here had lower than
stock levels of Bag 1 NOx. Also, preheating tended to increase Bag
1 NOx from no preheat levels. For example, with the Core In the
coolant circuit and preheat, Bag 1 NOx doubled from no preheat
levels (0.4 grams to 0.8 grams).
FTP composite emission levels are given below in Table 11.
Table 11
M85 Fuel, 20°F Testing
Schatz Heat Battery Evaluation
FTP Composite Test Levels
Configuration
Stock
Core In, No Preheat
Core In, Preheat
Core Out, No Preheat
Core Out, Preheat
NMHC
g/mi
NA
1.16
0.44
0.96
0.47
*HC
g/mi
1.44
1.21
0.48
1.02
0.51
CO
g/mi
11.4
10.4
5.4
8.4
5.4
NOx
g/mi
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
MPG
14.0
14.2
14.5
14.3
14.6
NA Not available.
* Gasoline-fueled vehicle measurement with a propane
calibrated FID.
-------
-28-
FTP NOx levels decreased slightly below above the 0.2
grams/mile noted with the stock configuration for most Heat Battery
configurations tested here. Although Bag 1 hydrocarbons increased
above stock levels with the Core In and no preheat, a small
reduction was noted in FTP composite levels. In spite of the 14
percent increase in Bag 1 hydrocarbons, a 16 percent reduction in
FTP composite hydrocarbons, from 1.44 grams/mile to 1.21
grams/mile, was noted. Emissions measured with this Heat Battery
configuration during the Bag 2 and Bag 3 portions of the FTP were
substantially lower than stock levels.
Changes in Bag 2/3 emissions may have resulted from running
the auxiliary pump during the entire FTP cycle. For example,
although Bag 1 CO was unchanged from stock levels with the Core In
and no preheat configuration, FTP composite CO was lower than
stock levels, from 11.4 grams/mile to 10.4 grams/mile. Here also,
Bag 2 and Bag 3 levels were substantially lower than stock levels
with this Heat Battery configuration.
FTP emissions were reduced in every case with the Core Out/no
preheat configuration. An 8 percent reduction in Bag 1 hydrocarbons
as well as a 29 percent reduction in FTP composite hydrocarbon
levels was noted with this configuration. Here also, Bag 2 and Bag
3 levels of hydrocarbons were substantially lower than stock levels
with this Heat Battery configuration. The CO reduction noted in FTP
composite levels remained consistent with Bag 1 reductions for this
configuration, however.
When a preheat period was used, reductions in Bag 1
hydrocarbons and CO were similar to those in FTP composite levels.
For example, the 54 percent reduction from stock levels noted in
Bag 1 CO with the Core Out and 60 seconds of preheat resulted in a
52 percent reduction in FTP composite CO levels. Bag 1 fuel economy
improvements were also reflected in overall FTP fuel economy
results, however, the FTP increases were much smaller. For example,
the 19 percent improvement in Bag 1 fuel economy calculated with
the Core Out and preheat was much larger than the 4 percent
increase in FTP fuel economy when compared to stock levels.
Upon completion of the cold room testing, these Heat Battery
configurations were evaluated again after overnight cold soaks in
an ambient temperature of 75°F. Figure 13 presents Bag 1 exhaust
methanol levels for each Heat Battery configuration evaluated at
this temperature.
-------
-29-
Figure 13
M85 Fuel, 75 Deg. F Testing
Bag 1 Methanol Levels
Coolant Configuration
Stock
Heater Core In
2.96
No Preheat
Preheat
Heater Core Out
No Preheat
Preheat
2-44
3.49
3.44
2.9
1 2 3
Methanol Emissions (grams)
Without preheating, Bag 1 levels of methanol increased above
stock levels. This was an unexpected result. However, when a 60-
second preheat period was utilized, Bag 1 methanol decreased 18
percent from stock levels with the Core In, to 2.44 grams. When
the heater core was removed from the coolant system and preheating
was used, methanol emissions were approximately unchanged from
stock levels.
Figure 14 presents Bag 1 CO measured during testing at 75°F.
-------
--30-
Figure 14
M85 Fuel, 75 Deg. F Testing
Bag 1 Carbon Monoxide Levels
Coolant Configuration
Stock
Heater Core In
No Preheat
Preheat
Heater Core Out
No Preheat
Preheat
20.7
v ^////AvV//// 16-8
; ''•//////////I 9-6
19.4
9.4
0 5 10 15 20 25
Carbon Monoxide Emissions (grams)
Without preheac, lower levels of Bag 1 CO were noted with the
heater core in the coolant circuit. With the Core In and no
preheat, Bag 1 CO decreased from the stock level of 20.7 grams to
16.8 grams, a 19 percent reduction. When the Core Out configuration
was tested, Bag 1 CO levels were essentially unchanged from stock
levels. When a preheat period was used, Bag 1 CO decreased
substantially from stock levels, regardless of heater core
presence. Both configurations utilizing a preheat period had Bag l
CO emissions approximately 54 percent lower than stock levels.
Table 12 below presents Bag 1 emissions and fuel
levels measured 'during testing with M85 fuel at 75<>F.
economy
-------
-31-
Table 12
M85 Fuel, 75°F Testing
Schatz Heat Battery Evaluation
Baa 1 Emission Levels
Configuration
Stock
Core In, No PH
Core In, PH**
Core Out, No PH
Core Out, PH
*HC
g
1.75
1.98
1.32
2.02
1.63
NOx
g
1.1
1.4
2.0
1.2
1.8
CO
g
20.7
16.8
9.6
19.4
9.4
CH3OH
g
2.96
3.49
2.44
3.44
2.90
HCHO
mg
274
218
187
234
181
OMHCE
g
2.20
2.46
1.67
2.50
2.03
MPG
14.9
15.1
15.2
15.0
15.4
* Gasoline-fueled vehicle measurement with a propane
calibrated FID.
** PH indicates 60-second preheat period.
Bag 1 fuel economy increased only very slightly when the Heat
Battery was used. Cold start aldehydes also decreased from stock
levels when the Heat Battery was used. In the absence of a preheat
period with the Core In, Bag 1 formaldehyde decreased over 20
percent from stock levels, from 274 milligrams to 218 milligrams.
The largest reduction in formaldehyde noted was with Core Out and
60 seconds of preheat. Bag 1 NOx increased above stock levels for
each Heat Battery configuration tested here. The largest increase
in Bag 1 NOx was with the Core In and 60 seconds of preheat, from
1.1 grams to 2.0 grams.
Table 13 below presents composite emissions from this testing.
-------
-32-
Table 13
M85 Fuel, 75°F Testing
Schatz Heat Battery Evaluation
FTP Composite Emission Levels
Configuration
Stock
Core In, No PH
Core In, PH**
Core Out, No PH
Core Out, PH
*HC
g/mi
0.12
0.14
0.10
0.14
0.12
NOx
g/mi
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.4
CO
g/mi
1.8
1.4
0.8
1.6
1.0
CH3OH
g/mi
0.22
0.26
0.20
0.26
0.22
HCHO
mg/mi
19
16
12
18
14
OMHCE
g/mi
0.15
0.17
0.12
0.18
0.15
MPG
14.7
14.7
14.8
14.6
14.9
* Gasoline-fueled vehicle measurement with a propane
calibrated FID.
** PH indicates 60-second preheat period.
The changes noted in Bag 1 emission levels of methanol and CO
were generally reflected in FTP emission levels. The 54 percent
reduction noted in Bag 1 CO levels with the Core In and 60 seconds
of preheat resulted in a 56 percent reduction in FTP composite CO,
from 1.8 grams/mile to 0.8 grams/mile. Increases in methanol
emissions above stock levels noted when no preheat was used
resulted in greater than stock levels of FTP composite methanol
emissions (up from 0.22 grams/mile to 0.26 grams/mile). Weighted
FTP NOx levels substantially increased above stock levels for each
Heat Battery configuration tested even though the increases noted
in Bag 1 NOx were not as proportionally large. The greatest
increase occurred when a preheat period was used, from 0.1
grams/mile to 0.4 grams/mile. FTP fuel economy was" affected
slightly by the use of the Heat Battery. However, with Core Out
and no preheat, FTP fuel economy decreased below stock levels.
D. 11-Dav Cold Soak Results
The test vehicle was soaked for an 11-day period at a 2OOF
ambient temperature in an attempt to determine the heat storage
duration capability of the Heat Battery. This single test was run
on gasoline with the heater core out of the coolant system and with
a 60-second preheat period. The initial spike in coolant
temperature leaving the Heat Battery was typically around 17 5° F for
a 1-day cold soak test at 2QQF (Figure 4) . The initial spike
approached 125°F for this test. The emission results from this
test are presented below in Table 14, along with the stock and 1-
-------
-33-
day soak emission levels with same Heat Battery configuration.
Both Bag 1 and composite FTP emission and fuel economy results are
presented in Table 14.
Table 14
Gasoline Fuel, 20°F Testing
Schatz Heat Battery Evaluation
11-Day Cold Soak Emission Levels
Configuration
HC
CO
NOx
MPG
Bag 1 (grams) :
Stock
1-Day Soak*
11-Day Soak*
13.95
4.80
7.35
202.9
54.8
101.6
0.5
3.6
5.3
21.1
23.2
22.0
FTP (grams /mile) :
Stock
1-Day Soak*
11-Day Soak*
0.88
0.33
0.49
12.6
3.9
6.5
0.1
0.5
0.6
24.7
24.7
23.7
* Core Out, 60-second preheat period.
After soaking for 11 days at a constant ambient temperature of
20QF, the use of the Heat Battery with a 60-second preheat period
resulted in a 47 percent reduction from stock in Bag 1 hydrocarbons
and a 50 percent reduction in Bag 1 CO levels. Bag 1 CO decreased
from the stock level of 202.9 grams to 101.6 after the 11-day cold
soak; the 1-day cold soak level was 54.8 grams. Bag 1 fuel economy
after an 11-day cold soak increased from 21.1 miles per gallon to
22.0 miles per gallon, lower than the 1-day cold soak Bag 1 fuel
economy of 23.2 miles per gallon. Bag 1 NOx was surprisingly
highest after the 11-day cold soak test (5.3 grams, compared to the
stock level of 0.5 grams).
This increase in Bag 1 NOx levels also affected composite FTP
NOx levels. After an 11-day cold soak, FTP composite NOx levels
increased to 0.6 grams/mile from the stock level of 0.1 grams/mile.
This is also larger than the 0.5 grams/mile composite NOx level
noted during the 1-day cold soak test. The reductions noted during
the Bag 1 portion for hydrocarbons and CO was again reflected in
FTP composite levels. The 50 percent reduction from stock levels
in Bag 1 CO after the 11-day soak resulted in a 48 percent
reduction in FTP'composite CO levels, from 12.6 grams/mile to 6.5
grams/mile. However, the increase noted in Bag 1 fuel economy with
-------
-34-
the extended cold soak was not reflected in overall FTP fuel
economy results. After soaking for 11 days, the FTP fuel economy
(23.7 miles per gallon) fell below the stock configuration fuel
economy of 24.7 miles per gallon. FTP fuel economy after a 1-day
cold soak remained unchanged from stock levels.
E. Retests At Manufacturer's Request
Once the testing discussed in Sections A-D above was
completed, the test vehicle was returned to Volkswagen of America
(VW). VW detected a misfire resulting from a malfunctioning fuel
injector during idle operation. This condition was also noted by
EPA personnel, but did not develop, however, until the very end of
the test program (75°F testing with M85 fuel). All test data was
obtained during testing conducted within valid driving limits
according to the EPA vehicle testing procedure in spite of the
misfire.
VW made several repairs and modifications to the test
vehicle. The fuel injectors, oxygen sensor, and the fuel
composition sensor were all replaced. The coolant system was again
rerouted by placing the ECU coolant temperature sensor at the
outlet of the engine. For all the previous testing, this sensor
was located behind the thermostat in the radiator loop. Therefore,
the sensor did not detect warm coolant until the thermostat began
to open. The sensor location now allowed for detection of warm
coolant immediately upon circulation. VW and Autotech then
requested that certain tests previously conducted at 75°F be
repeated in order to determine the effect of the repairs on vehicle
emissions.
Figure 15 is a schematic diagram of the coolant configuration
utilized for the retests presented in this section. In this
configuration, it was possible to run stock configuration tests
(Heat Battery out of the coolant system) by using the electric
valves (7). The ECU coolant temperature sensor (2) is present at
the outlet of the engine and not in the radiator loop as before.
Stock tests were performed with the auxiliary pump not running
during any portion of the FTP cycle. For testing with the Heat
Battery in the .'coolant system, the auxiliary pump was'operating
during the entire FTP.
-------
-35-
Figure 15
Coolant System Configuration
Manufacturer Requested Retests
1 Engine
2 ECU Coolant Sensor
3 yeater Core
4 Electric Valves
5 Heat Battery
6 Auxiliary Pump
7 Oil Cooler/Heater
8 Standard Water Pump
9 Radiator
Figure 16 presents Bag 1 emission results of CO obtained
during this testing for both fuels at an ambient temperature of
75op. Also presented in this figure are the stock values that were
obtained previously and presented in Sections A-D of this report.
When M85 fuel was used, tests with the Heat Battery were conducted
only with a 60-second preheat period. When gasoline fuel was used,
tests were conducted with both preheat and no preheat.
-------
-36-
Figure 16
75 Deg. F Testing
Bag 1 Carbon Monoxide Levels
Coolant Configuration
M85 Fuel
Original Stock
New Stock
Preheat
Indolene Fuel
8.5
Original Stock
New Stock
No Preheat
Preheat
7/////J33.4
'/////!/!///////f\ .19-4
•///•'////Vl 11.7
0 10 20 30 40
Carbon Monoxide Emissions (grams)
For both fuels, the engine modifications and coolant system
reconfiguration did not significantly change levels of CO emissions
over the Bag 1 portion of the FTP. With M85 fuel, a 59 percent
reduction in Bag 1 CO from stock levels resulted when a 60-second
preheat period was used. Similarly, with gasoline fuel, a 65
percent reduction in Bag 1 CO occurred with a similar preheat
period. In the absence of preheat with gasoline fuel, a 42 percent
reduction in Bag 1 CO occurred.
Figure 17 presents Bag 1 hydrocarbon levels for the same Heat
Battery configurations discussed in the previous figure. .-
-------
-37-
Figure 17
75 Deg. F Testing
Bag 1 Hydrocarbon Levels
Coolant Configuration
M85 Fuel
Original Stock
New Stock
Preheat
Indolene Fuel
1.75
Original Stock
New Stock
No Preheat
Preheat
2.72
''.''//'/'//'///////////.i 2.04
///// /////////////] 2.16
01234
Hydrocarbon Emissions (grams)
With both fuels, the stock level of Bag 1 hydrocarbons
obtained during this testing was slightly lower than the stock
level obtained previously. With M85 Fuel, an 11 percent reduction
in Bag 1 hydrocarbon levels occurred when a 60-second preheat
period was used. However, when a preheat period was used, engine
stalls were noted in three of the four tests conducted. Each of
these stalls occurred during the first 15 seconds following cold
start, while the vehicle was still idling. These stalls were the
only driveability problems that occurred during these three tests.
During the single test conducted without stalling, a
substantial reduction in Bag 1 hydrocarbons of 52 percent from
stock was noted. During the tests where engine stall did occur, Bag
1 levels of hydrocarbons remained unchanged from stock levels.
When gasoline fuel was used, a 60-second preheat also resulted
in engine stall following cold start. Two tests were then
conducted utilizing no preheat, and no engine stalls occurred. Bag
1 hydrocarbon levels were reduced 11 percent from stock levels with
a preheat and 16 percent without preheat.
Fuel economy slightly increased from stock levels over the Bag
1 portion with both fuels when the Heat Battery was utilized, with
M85 fuel, a 60-second preheat period resulted in a Bag 1 fuel
economy improvement from 15.2 to 15.6 mpg. With gasoline fuel, the
use of the Heat Battery, with and without preheat, resulted in a
Bag 1 fuel economy gain from 25.7 to 26.3 mpg. The fuel economy
increase over the entire FTP was limited to 0.1 mpg for M85 fuel
and 0.2 mpg with gasoline.
-------
-38-
Appendix B contains the individual test results for all
testing conducted at manufacturer's request. Both Bag 1 and
composite FTP results are presented for each fuel. Appendix C
contains comments provided by Schatz Thermo Engineering regarding
the results from this testing.
IX. Acknowledaements
The Schatz Heat Battery evaluated in this test program was
supplied by Autotech Associates, Inc., located in Southfield,
Michigan. Autotech is the United States representative for Schatz
Thermo Engineering of Munich, Germany, the manufacturers of the
Heat Battery. The flexible-fueled Audi test vehicle was supplied
by Volkswagen of America.
The authors appreciate the efforts of James Garvey, Rodney
Branham, Robert Moss, and Ray Ouillette of the Regulation
Development and Support Division, who conducted the driving cycle
tests and prepared the methanol and formaldehyde samples for
analysis. The authors also appreciate the efforts of Jennifer
Criss and Mae Gillespie of TDG, RPT, for word processing and
editing support.
X. References
1. "Evaluation Of A Schatz Heat Battery On A Flexible-Fueled
Vehicle," Piotrowski, G. K., and R. M. Schaefer, EPA/AA/CTAB/91-05,
September 1991.
2. "Evaluation Of Resistively Heated Metal Monolith
Catalytic Converters On An M100 Neat Methanol-Fueled Vehicle, Part
II," Piotrowski, Gregory K., EPA/AA/CTAB/89-09, December 1989.
3. "Evaluation Of Camet Resistively Heated Metal Monolith
Catalytic Converters On An M100 Neat Methanol-Fueled Vehicle, Part
III," Piotrowski, Gregory K., and R. M. Schaefer, EPA/AA/CTAB/91-
03, July 1991.
4. "Air Injection To An Electrically-Heated Catalyst For
Reducing Cold Start Benzene Emissions From Gasoline Vehicles," SAE
Paper 902115, Heimrich, Martin J., 1990.
5. 1075 Federal Test Procedure, Code of Federal Regulations,
Title 40, Part 86.
6. "A Resistively Heated Catalytic Converter With Air
Injection For Oxidation Of Carbon Monoxide And Hydrocarbons At
Reduced Ambient Temperatures," Piotrowski, Gregory K. ,
EPA/AA/CTAB/89-06, September 1989.
7. United States Code 7401. Public Law 101-549, Section
202(j), November 15, 1990.
-------
-39-
8. "Resistive Materials Applied To Quick Light-Off
Catalysts," SAE Paper 890799, Hellman, Karl H., et al., March 1989.
9. "Recent Results From Prototype Vehicle And Emission
Control Technology Evaluation Using Methanol Fuel," SAE Paper
901112, Hellman, Karl H., and G. K. Piotrowski,. May 1990.
10. "Evaluation Of A Resistively Heated Metal Monolith
Catalytic Converter On A Gasoline-Fueled Vehicle," Piotrowski, G.
K., EPA/AA/CTAB/88-12, December 1988.
11. "Evaluation Of A Resistively Heated Metal Monolith
Catalytic Converter On A M100 Neat Methanol-Fueled Vehicle,"
Blair, D. M. , and G. K. Piotrowski, EPA/AA/CTAB/88-08, August 1988.
12. "Closeup: SAAB Will Use The Schatz Heat Battery," Ward's,
Engine and Vehicle Technology Update. Volume 17, Number 10, May
15, 1991.
13. "Formaldehyde Measurement In Vehicle Exhaust At MVEL,"
Memorandum, Gilkey, R. L., OAR/OMS/EOD, Ann Arbor, MI, 1981.
14. "Formaldehyde Sampling From Automobile Exhaust A Hardware
Approach," Pidgeon, W., EPA/AA/TEB/88-01, July 1988.
15. "Sample Preparation Techniques For Evaluating Methanol
and Formaldehyde Emissions From Methanol-Fueled Vehicles and
Engines," Pidgeon, W. , and M. Reed, EPA/AA/TEB/88-02, September
1988.
-------
A-l
APPENDIX A
Test Vehicle Specifications
Vehicle Type
Fuel(s)
Mileage When Received
Engine;
Cylinders
Displacement
Bore
Stroke
Compression Ratio
Maximum Output
Exhaust Catalyst System
Fuel System
Transmission Type
Equivalent Test Weight
Actual Dynamometer Horsepower
1990 Audi 80
Indolene clear unleaded
gasoline, M85 high methanol
blend fuels
8,000 kilometers
4 in-line
1.8 liter
81.0 mm
86.4 mm
75 kw at 5,500 rpm with gasoline
80 kw at 5,500 rpm with M85
Oxygen sensor controlled
closed-loop system with
a 3-way catalyst
Fuel Injection,
Digifant II/I-System
Modified for multi-fuel
operation
5-speed manual
1304 kilograms (2,875 Ibs.)
6.4
-------
B-l
APPENDIX B
Schatz Heat Battery Evaluation
M85 Fuel, 75op Testing
Bag 1 Emission Levels
HC NOx CO CH3OH HCHO OMHCE
Config. g g g g mg g MPG
Stock #1
Stock #2
Stock #3
Stock #4
Stock #5
Ave . Stock
Preheat#l
Preheat#2*
Preheat#3*
Preheat#4*
Average
Preheat
1.62
1.52
1.53
1.42
1.42
1.50
0.72
1.66
1.43
1.52
1.33
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
22.1
18.4
18.6
23.5
20.8
20.7
7.2
8.3
7.9
10.5
8.5
2.69
2.73
2.72
2.39
2.32
2.57
0.89
2.69
2.19
2.54
2.08
141
134
155
163
176
154
67
117
131
132
112
1.97
1.88
1.90
1.75
1.75
1.85
0.84
2.01
1.72
1.85
1.60
15.1
15.2
15.2
15.1
15.2
15.2
15.7
15.7
15.7
15.5
15.6
* Engine stall occurred during test.
-------
B-2
APPENDIX B (CONT'D)
Schatz Heat Battery Evaluation
M85 Fuel, 75«F Testing
FTP Composite Emission Levels
HC
NOx
Config.
CO CH3OH
HCHO OMHCE
mg/mi g/mi
MPG
Stock #1
Stock #2
Stock #3
Stock #4
Stock #5
Ave . Stock
Preheat#l
Preheat#2*
Preheat#3*
Preheat#4*
Average
Preheat
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.06
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.1
0.1
0.1
**
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
**
0.1
0.1
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.5
0.8
0.9
0.8
- 1.0
0.9
0.20
0.19
0.20
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.09
0.21
0.17
0.18
0.16
11
10
11
12
13
11
5
8
10
10
8
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.13
0.07
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.12
15.1
15.2
15.1
15.1
15.2
15.2
15.3
15.3
15.3
15.2
15. 3
* Engine stall occurred during test.
** Less than 0.05 g/mi measured.
-------
B-3
APPENDIX B (CONT'D)
Schatz Heat Battery Evaluation
Indolene Fuel, 75<>F Testing
Baa 1 Emission Levels
HC NOx CO NMHC HCHO
config. g g g g mg MPG
stock #1
Stock #2
Stock #3
Stock #4
Stock #5
Ave . Stock
Preheat*
No Preheat
#1
No Preheat
#2
Average
No Preheat
2.61
2.46
2.61
2.18
2.32
2.44
2.16
2.07
2.02
2.04
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
33.3
34.2
32.2
32.0
35.2
33.4
11.7
18.2
20.6
19.4
2.36
2.21
2.36
1.94
2.07
2.19
1.97
1.86
1.80
1.83
21
21
20
25
25
22
34
23
25
24
25.8
26.1
25.6
25.5
25.5
25.7
26.3
26.6
26.0
26.3
* Engine stall occurred during test.
-------
B-4
APPENDIX B (CONT'D)
Schatz Heat Battery Evaluation
Indolene Fuel, 75°F Testing
FTP Composite Emission Levels
Config.
HC NOx CO NMHC
g/mi g/mi g/mi
HCHO
ing/mi MPG
Stock #1
Stock #2
Stock #3
Stock #4
Stock #5
Ave . Stock
Preheat*
No Preheat
#1
No Preheat
#2
Average
No Preheat
0.19
0.20
0.21
0.17
0.17
0.19
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.3
-2.4
2.4
1.1
1.4
1.6
1.5
0.16
'0.16
0. 18
0.14
0.14
0.16
0.14
0.13
0.13
0. 13
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
26.1
26.0
25.8
25.7
25.6
25.8
26.0
26.3
25.7
26.0
* Engine stall occurred during test.
-------
C-l
APPENDIX C
Comments Provided by Schatz Thermo Engineering
M85 Testing
1. M85 baseline tests are O.K. There is a tendency of increase in
CO over the test series. Therefore, it is reasonable to average
all 5 tests for a baseline value. This baseline value is somewhat
smaller than in the first test series with M85 at EPA.
2. M85 preheat tests with engine stalls cannot be accepted to be
representative for possible hydrocarbon reduction. In the EPA
technical report, at least the emission reductions of the Preheat
#1 test without any stall need to be acknowledged. This test
showed that HC dropped below the LEV level (-42%) and in CO a 48%
reduction was achieved when the Heat Battery is applied.
The fuel enrichment in the engine map so far never was
optimized for Heat Battery operation. By doing this in small
steps, it is expected that stalls will be eliminated and no
significant changes in HC and CO emissions will result compared to
the test Preheat#l. The test Preheat#l showed already that only a
little more enrichment would be necessary.
3. The NOx increase is significant (+38%) but still the NOx
emissions is within the ULEV limit.
4. The 1.6% improvement in M85 fuel consumption in
Preheat#l occurred mainly in the first bag (+3.7%).
the test
5. Compared to the first test series, in test Preheat#l a
significant reduction in HC and CO with the Heat Battery and
preheat was achieved at 75°F.
Gasoline Testing Without Preheat
1. The gasoline baseline tests are pretty much O.K. There is a
tendency of HC decrease comparing the values before and- after the
Heat Battery tests. Again, it is reasonable to average all 5
baseline tests. The baseline value is a bit lower than in the
first test series at EPA with gasoline.
2. The Heat Battery tests with no preheat are O.K. A 14%
improvement in HC and a 37% improvement in CO was achieved. The CO
level dropped below the ULEV level.
3. NOx decreased by 3.1%.
4. The 0.8% improvement in gasoline fuel consumption resulted
mainly from the first bag (1.9%).
-------
C-2
5 Compared to the first test series, a significant further
reduction in HC and CO with the Heat Battery and no preheating was
achieved at 75°F.
Gasoline Testing With Preheat
1. The test with preheat and engine stall cannot be accepted to be
representative for possible HC reduction.
2 With an optimized engine map, the engine stalls would be
avoided when preheat is applied. Then further emission improvement
is expected.
-------
------- |