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 20F and 75F  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 20F 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   20F  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 75F 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 0F
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 75F 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 20F 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  176F to
122F.
                              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  (167F),  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 20F
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 75F site  utilized a Philco Ford constant
volume sampler that  has  a nominal capacity of 600  cfm,  and the 20F
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 75F 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  75F  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 20F with gasoline fuel. Five Heat Battery
configurations were  evaluated at 20F  and  four at  75F. 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)
75F 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 20F 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  20F.

-------
                               -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 75F 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  75F 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, 75F 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, 75F 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
75F 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 20F 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, 20F 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 75F for
the  same Heat  Battery configurations  used during  20F 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,  75F 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 75F  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,  20F 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 75F.   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 75F.

-------
                               --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,  75F 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, 75F 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  125F  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, 20F 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  (75F  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  75F  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,  75F 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, 75F 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 75F.

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 75F.

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.

-------

-------