-------
Table of Contents
Page
Number
I. Summary 1
II. Introduction 1
III. Description of Test Vehicles/Engines ......... 5
IV. Test Facilities and Analytical Methods 8
V. Discussion of Tests and Procedures 8
VI. Discussion of Test Results 10
A. Low Emissions Calibrated Ford Fiesta 10
B. High MPG Calibrated Honda CRX HF ........ 16
VII. Future Efforts 25
VIII. Acknowledgments 26
IX. References 26
APPENDIX A - Orbital Prototype Engine Specifications . . . A-l
APPENDIX B - Transmission Shift Schedules B-l
APPENDIX C - Individual Bag Test Results, FTP Cycle,
Ford Fiesta Vehicle C-l
APPENDIX D - Individual Composite Test Results,
FTP Cycle, OEC Honda Vehicle D-l
APPENDIX E - Individual Bag Test Results, FTP Cycle,
OEC Honda Vehicle E-l
-------
I £% \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I -^j^L ,° ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
January 13, 1992
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Exemption From Peer and Administrative Review
FROM: Karl H. Hellman, Chief K^
Control Technology and Applications Branch
TO: Charles L. Gray, Jr., Director
Emission Control Technology Division
The attached report entitled "Evaluation Of Research Prototype
Vehicles Equipped With Direct Injection Two-Stroke Cycle Engines,"
EPA/AA/CTAB/92-01, provides emissions and fuel economy results from
a program to evaluate two prototype vehicles powered by state-of-
the-art two-stroke cycle engines.
Since this report is only concerned with the presentation of
data and its analysis and does not involve matters of policy or
regulations, your concurrence is requested to waive administrative
review according to the policy outlined in your directive of April
22, 1982.
Approved: (_ ^sw***' - f ™y /y ~-~ Date:.
Charles L. Gray, ^Xr./^ Director, ECTD
-------
I. Summary
Prototype two-stroke cycle light-duty automotive engines in
late model Honda CRX HF and Ford Fiesta bodies were evaluated by
EPA for emissions and fuel economy. These vehicles were tested
over the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and Highway Fuel Economy Test
(HFET) cycles; the sampling process included the measurement of
particulate emissions.
The Ford Fiesta vehicle is owned by Ford and was loaned to EPA
for this test program. The engine in the Ford Fiesta test vehicle
was calibrated for low emissions, including the California Ultra-
Low Emissions Vehicle (ULEV) standards. At low mileage, during the
initial testing conducted at the EPA laboratory, this vehicle
approached, but did not meet the level of the ULEV standards. The
average FTP composite emission levels for all testing conducted at
EPA were 0.05 g/mi non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), 0.2 g/mi carbon
monoxide (CO), and 0.2 g/mi oxides of nitrogen (NOx). NOx levels
remained at 0.2 g/mi for every FTP test cycle conducted.
Particulate levels of 0.01 g/mi over the FTP cycle were measured
during this testing, well below the current standard. The average
fuel economy measured over the city cycle was 43.7 miles per gallon
(mpg), and the average highway fuel economy was 61.3 mpg, leading
to a combined "55/45" value of 50.2 mpg.
The Honda CRX HF vehicle is owned by the Orbital Engine
Company (OEC) and was loaned to EPA for this test program. The
engine in the Honda CRX HF test vehicle was calibrated for high
fuel economy. The evaluation of this vehicle was carried out in
two phases. The first evaluation program was terminated after a
single cold start emission test was completed over the FTP and HFET
cycles. The test vehicle was then removed from the EPA laboratory
by Orbital personnel for approximately one month before it was
returned to EPA for further evaluation. Emission levels of NMHC,
CO, NOx, and particulate from this test vehicle were well below
current light-duty vehicle standards. According to OEC, the design
target for their car was the 1990 California version of the Honda
CRX HF. The composite fuel economy from the OEC Honda CRX HF, 56.0
mpg, exceeded the fuel economy of the 1990 California version of
the Honda CRX HF, 53.3 mpg. NOx emissions from both cars were 0.3
grams/mile over the FTP.
II. Introduction
Arguably the two factors having the most profound effect on
automobile design in recent memory have been the oil price shock of
the 1970's and increased environmental awareness. The first factor,
coupled with the introduction of Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) regulations in the United States, prompted automakers to
respond with a variety of measures designed to increase the fuel
efficiency of their products. The second factor, together with
Clean Air legislation at both Federal and State levels, greatly
accelerated the development of mobile source emission control
technologies both in the United States and abroad.
-------
-2-
Significant improvements in fuel economy and decreases in
automotive HC, CO and NOx emission levels have resulted from
legislative efforts and the corresponding technological responses
from industry. Recently, however, it has been noted that
improvements in fuel economy have been leveling off, and in some
cases, declining.[1]
Future advances in either automotive fuel economy technology or
emission controls must be evaluated in light of the effects on both
of these goals simultaneously. New technologies as well as
improvements to older technologies are now being evaluated for use
in one or both of these applications. Refinements of lean burn
technology promising significant fuel economy benefits have
recently been announced by the Honda and Mitsubishi Motor
Corporations. [2,3] Air assisted, electrically heated catalysts
appear to offer significant HC and CO control benefits.[4,5,6]
Waste heat storage devices [7,8] may be used to improve both
emissions and fuel efficiency when used for engine heating at cold
start. Alternate fuels [9,10] offer unique emissions and fuel
economy benefits. As an indication of the rapid pace sometimes
associated with technological development, the 1992 Honda Civic HB
VX equipped with a four-stroke cycle, lean burn engine has combined
fuel economy values ranging from 54.5 mpg to 60.9 mpg. These
values can be compared to the combined fuel economy values for the
vehicles equipped with the two-stroke cycle engines discussed
earlier, but it should be noted that the Honda Civic HB VX was
tested at an ETW of 2375 Ibs. and 5.6 to 6.2 road load horsepower,
somewhat different from the vehicles tested in this report.
The use of two-stroke cycle engine technology offers the
possibility of significant gains in fuel economy when compared to
conventional four-stroke cycle engines. This is possible in large
part because of the elimination of two of the four strokes through
combination of their functions. Several disadvantages have
prevented widespread usage of two-stroke engines in the U. S.
light-duty automotive market, however. A very brief discussion of
two-stroke cycle engine technology is given below.
Four-stroke cycle engines must complete two complete crankshaft
rotations to deliver each power stroke. The first, or intake stroke
draws fuel and air into the combustion chamber through a valve(s)
at the end of an intake manifold runner. The following upstroke
compresses the fuel/air mixture into the top of the chamber. In a
conventional spark-ignited engine, a spark plug ignites the
compressed mixture and the third or power stroke next occurs. The
final stroke pushes the exhaust gases from the chamber past a
valve(s) and into an exhaust manifold runner.
Conventional two-stroke cycle engines utilize the crankcase to
compress a fuel/air mixture prior to its introduction into the
combustion chamber. Fuel and air are admitted to the crankcase
through a simple valve arrangement in the crankcase wall. This
mixture is compressed by the piston on its downstroke, and passes
to intake ports on the side of the combustion chamber wall. As the
-------
-3-
piston travels downward on its power stroke these intake ports are
uncovered, admitting the fresh fuel/air mixture into the combustion
chamber.
As the piston travels upward it compresses the fuel/air mixture
in the combustion chamber. Fresh fuel/air is then drawn into the
dry crankcase. As the piston reaches the top of its upstroke, a
spark plug fires, igniting the mixture to begin a power stroke. As
the piston travels downward the fresh fuel/air mixture in the
crankcase is compressed. Exhaust ports, built into the side of the
combustion chamber walls are uncovered, and the exhaust gases
escape from the cylinder. As the piston travels further downward,
the intake ports are uncovered and fresh compressed charge from the
crankcase enters the combustion chamber. The introduction of fresh
charge scavenges, or assists the passage of the exhaust gases out
of the chamber. As the piston reaches the bottom of the stroke and
begins to travel upward, a new charge of fuel/air mixture begins to
enter the crankcase. The upward motion begins the compression of
the charge in the combustion chamber, and the intake ports to the
crankcase are uncovered, beginning the process anew.
The increase in frequency of power strokes provides for an
approximately 50 percent increase in power for the same swept
volume of a four-stroke cycle engine. This increase in power means
that for a given output, the two-stroke cycle engine may be
significantly smaller (and weigh less) than a comparable four-
stroke cycle engine. Elimination of the valve train might also
result in reduced engine friction.
In spite of these advantages, two-stroke cycle engines have not
been considered serious competitors of four-stroke automotive
engines. First, the smoky exhausts of traditional two-stroke cycle
engines occur because oil is premixed with the fuel to provide
lubricity for the dry sump engines. This mixing process may also be
considered bothersome today by most U.S. drivers, and the smoky
exhaust may be considered a significant environmental problem,
particularly in larger cities. The oil burned in the combustion
chamber, particularly if it contains a high metals content, may
have a very deleterious effect on any exhaust catalyst, three way
or oxidative. Spark plug fouling may also result from use of a
gasoline/oil fuel mixture. The cylinder scavenging process permits
the loss of a substantial amount of fresh fuel/air charge through
the exhaust ports, leading to high HC emissions. This loss of fresh
charge is also responsible for high fuel consumption. Residual
exhaust gases in the cylinder, though possibly reducing the rate of
formation of oxides of nitrogen, may be the cause of poor
combustion during some operating conditions, if they are not
controlled.
Recently, however, significant advances in two-stroke cycle
engine and combustion technology were announced that may address
many of these concerns. The evaluation described in this report is
an outgrowth of these developments.
-------
-4-
In the past, the Orbital Engine Corporation, LTD., (OEC) has
engaged in developments in addition to two-stroke cycle engines.
With respect to two-stroke cycle engine development, it was the
adaptation of OEC's pneumatic fuel injection system to a two-stroke
cycle engine that led to the development of the Orbital Combustion
Process (OCP) engine [11]. The initial effort was eventually
channelled into rebuilding a three cylinder, two-stroke cycle
marine engine. The evolution of this process led to the OCP "X"
series engine, displacing 1.2 liters, weighing 41 kg (approximately
100 Ibs.) and having an output of 60 kw, according to OEC. OEC,
Perth, W. Australia, is the owner of this technology; their wholly
owned U.S. subsidiary is Orbital Engine Company, U.S.A., located in
Tecumseh, Michigan.
The 1.2-liter engine referred to above employs crankcase
scavenging. A 1.0-liter, three cylinder wet sump engine employing
plain bearings was shown in early 1990 by OEC. This newer engine is
fitted with a balance shaft, and a centrifugal blower, concentric
with the crankshaft, is built into the engine block near the
flywheel.[12]
The heart of the Orbital Combustion Process may be the use of a
pneumatic direct-injection fuel system. This direct injection
occurs after the exhaust ports close, meaning that air only
scavenges the exhaust. Fuel economy ,and HC emissions are both
improved by the elimination of this fuel short circuiting.
The pneumatic injection system assists in the atomization of the
fuel, and makes possible charge stratification within the cylinder.
[13] A richer mixture near the spark plug is claimed to
substantially assist cold starting, and the leaner mixture during
the latter stages of the combustion event provides improved fuel
economy and lower emissions of HC, CO, and NOx, according to OEC.
Weighted mean-average droplet sizes of less than 15 microns have
been achieved using the OCP injection system [13]. A 36 cubic
centimeter air compressor is used to supply air through the
injectors. The injectors operate at relatively low pressure for a
direct injection system; the compressor operates at 5.5 bar (80
psi) pressure while the fuel pressure to the injectors is 6.2 bar.
(90 psi)
Both of the vehicles tested by EPA used exhaust gas
recirculation to control NOx emissions. Current versions of the OCP
engines do not make use of three way catalysts containing rhodium.
Oxidation catalysts containing only a platinum:palladium mixture
are used instead.
Orbital claims to use an electronically controlled, light
lubricating schedule; oil consumption is reported to approximate
four-stroke engine usage levels.[11] Additives having a poisoning
effect on emission catalysts, such as zinc and phosphorus, are not
required in the oil used in this two-stroke cycle engine.[11]
-------
—5—
EPA became interested in the Orbital two-stroke cycle engine
because of its claimed low emissions and high fuel economy compared
to an equal performance four-stroke cycle powerplant. The pneumatic
fuel/air injection system also offers the promise of a cold start
assist to methanol and high methanol blend fueled engines due to
the improvements in fuel atomization over conventional fuel
injection systems. A meeting between Orbital and EPA
representatives was conducted at the EPA Motor Vehicle Emission
Laboratory during December, 1990. Orbital agreed to provide EPA
with a Honda CRX HF vehicle equipped with an OCP engine for testing
and evaluation. This vehicle was delivered to EPA on November 13,
1991. A second vehicle, the property of the Ford Motor Company,
was loaned to EPA by Ford for evaluation in December, 1991. This
Ford Fiesta vehicle also made use of an OCP two-stroke cycle
powerplant. This report is a summary of the results from the
initial evaluation of these vehicles.
III. Description Of Test Vehicles/Engines
The first test vehicle, consisting of an OCP "XK" series engine
mounted in the engine compartment of a 1990 Honda CRX HF vehicle,
was provided by OEC. The "XK" series engine mounted in this vehicle
was a direct injection, two-stroke cycle, gasoline-fueled engine.
It's direction of rotation was reversed from typical OEC practice
to suit the Honda powertrain. This engine was an all aluminum
design, with a separate head and block. A dry sump design
incorporating crankcase scavenging was used in this powerplant. A
two-catalyst system using only oxidation catalysts was present on
the engine. This engine was calibrated with low fuel consumption as
the primary consideration. Detailed engine specifications are
given here in Appendix A. A picture of an OCP "X" series engine is
given in Figure 1 below.
-------
-6-
Figure 1
OCP "X" Series Two-Stroke Engine
This test vehicle was evaluated at 6.2 actual dynamometer
horsepower and a test weight of 2250 Ibs. ETW, conditions
simulating the stock 1990 Honda CRX HF vehicle. The stock 1990
Honda CRX HF incorporated a 1.5-liter, fuel injected, four cylinder
engine, with exhaust gas recirculation and a five speed manual
transmission. Emissions and fuel economy data from the 1990 EPA
Test Car List are provided later in the Discussion section of this
report as a reference. A picture of this test vehicle is presented
below as Figure 2.
-------
-7-
Figure 2
1990 Honda CRX HF Test Vehicle
The second test vehicle was a 1990 Ford Fiesta (European
market only) equipped with a 1.2-liter "XK" series engine. This
engine was equipped with a unique catalyst system and calibrated by
Orbital for low emissions; the design targets for this engine were
the proposed California ULEV standards. A picture of this vehicle
is given below as Figure 3.
Figure 3
1990 Ford Fiesta Test Vehicle
-------
-8-
IV. Test Facilities And Analytical Methods
EPA emission testing during this evaluation was conducted at
three different test sites. The first site, denoted D508 in the
Discussion of Test Results section, was equipped for particulate
sampling. This site utilized a Clayton Model ECE-50 double-roll
chassis dynamometer with a direct-drive, variable inertia flywheel
unit and a road load power control unit. A Philco Ford constant
volume sampler with a blower set at a capacity of 350 cfm was used.
Exhaust HC 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.
At this site, particulate sampling was performed using a
single-dilution method which is accomplished by collecting a
proportional sample from a single dilution tunnel, and then passing
this sample through a collection filter maintaining proportionality
between the dilution tunnel and the sample flow rate within ± 5
percent. The EPA system uses Flowmation particulate sample pumps
and 315 ft3/hour Rockwell dry gas meters with a maximum working
pressure of 5 psi.
The second test site, denoted D001, was not equipped for
particulate sampling. The same types of emissions analyzers and
constant volume sampler mentioned above were used here.
A single test conducted on the Honda CRX HF vehicle was
performed in a third test cell, denoted D510. This site was
situated next to the D508 site, however cell D510 was not capable
of particulate sampling. This site shared the same emissions
analyzer bench and constant volume sampling system with site D508.
V. Discussion of Tests and Procedures
On October 7, 1991, EPA proposed a tentative test plan for the
high fuel economy prototype vehicle to OEC, U.S.A., in a written
communication. This proposal consisted of emissions and fuel
economy testing over the FTP and HFET cycles at 75 and 2OOF
conditions, as well as particulate and modal emissions sampling.
OEC, U.S.A. did not respond to this proposal with a written reply.
On November 7, 1991, representatives of OEC, Australia and EPA
met at the EPA Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory to discuss the
delivery of the test vehicle to EPA. The Orbital representatives at
this meeting proposed a test plan much abbreviated from the
original EPA proposal due to other commitments. Orbital suggested
that the prototype high fuel economy test vehicle (Honda CRX body)
be loaned to EPA for a limited 4-5 day period only, a much shorter
timeframe than EPA had originally considered. Orbital requested
that emissions and fuel economy testing be conducted at two
separate conditions: 1) actual dynamometer horsepower of 6.2 Hp,
-------
-9-
2250 Ibs. ETW, and 2) actual dynamometer horsepower of 5.6 Hp, and
a test weight of 2375 Ibs. ETW. These test conditions would
facilitate a comparison between the Orbital and selected Honda
engine configurations. Orbital expressed a desire to postpone any
plans for vehicle testing at 20°F conditions with the car as
configured for delivery to EPA due to the nonavailability of
specific 1C chips for the control unit. Modal testing was not
objected to by Orbital.
The Orbital representatives also informed EPA that the vehicle
was not calibrated for the California ULEV emission standards.
Orbital explained that another prototype vehicle was configured to
meet ULEV standards, but that this car/engine configuration might
not be available for testing by EPA, as it was owned by Ford Motor
Company. A request to use OEC personnel as drivers during the EPA
evaluation was also made by Orbital. No final decisions relating to
a plan for testing were made at that meeting.
Another meeting between EPA and OEC, Australia representatives
was conducted on November 13, 1991, at the EPA Motor Vehicle
Emission Laboratory. At that time, the following test plan was
agreed to by the representatives in attendance from both OEC and
EPA for the Honda CRX HF test vehicle equipped with the high fuel
economy calibrated Orbital engine:
1) Two separate emissions/fuel economy tests over both FTP and
HFET cycles, VOOF soak, 6.2 actual dynamometer horsepower, 2250
Ibs. ETW,
2) Two separate emissions/fuel economy tests over the FTP
cycle only, 70°F soak, particulate sampling included, 6.2 actual
dynamometer horsepower, 2250 Ibs. ETW,
3) Two separate emissions/fuel economy tests over both FTP and
HFET cycles, 5.6 actual dynamometer horsepower, 2375 Ibs. ETW, and
4) Two hot start "505 second" (1st portion of LA-4 cycle)
emission tests using Orbital personnel as drivers.
EPA personnel would be responsible for all driving tasks, with
the exception of the "hot 505 second" tests. (The "hot 505 second"
tests were to be conducted at the request of OEC to verify the
performance of the vehicle.)
OEC also requested that OEC personnel be allowed to provide
the transmission shift points for all testing by marking these
points on the stripchart drivers traces. EPA agreed to this
request. Attachment B details the location of these shift points
as they occur during each bag segment of the FTP.
After a single cold start test over FTP/HFET cycles, Orbital
personnel removed this vehicle from the EPA laboratory. This
vehicle was returned to the EPA laboratory on December 10, 1991,
together with a European model Ford Fiesta equipped with an Orbital
-------
-10-
two-stroke engine calibrated for low emissions. The Fiesta is
owned by the Ford Motor Company.
A test plan consisting of four emissions/fuel economy tests
over FTP/HFET cycles with particulate sampling, and three
emissions/fuel economy tests over FTP/HFET cycles without
particulate sampling was agreed upon for both test vehicles.
VI. Discussion of Test Results
A. Low Emissions Calibrated Ford Fiesta
This test vehicle was delivered to the EPA Motor Vehicle
Emission Laboratory on December 10, 1991. Testing commenced on
December 11. The fuel tank was drained and filled with a 40
percent fill of unleaded indolene clear test fuel. This vehicle
was tested at 2,125 Ibs. ETW and 4.1 actual dynamometer horsepower.
It should be noted that these test parameters are not those of the
standard Ford Fiesta vehicle. These values were used for the EPA
tests in order to replicate those used for the tests at Ford. The
values were determined by Ford and Orbital to duplicate the
coastdown time of the standard Honda CRX HF.
Composite FTP emission results are presented in Table 1 below
in grams per mile. Two separate test sites were utilized in this
evaluation. The first, designated D508, was capable of sampling
particulate matter, a possible concern with direct injection
engines using gasoline or Diesel fuel. The second site, designated
D001, was not equipped for particulate sampling. The first line of
data represents results from testing by the Ford Motor Company at
a Ford facility just prior to the vehicle's delivery to EPA at an
actual dynamometer horsepower of 4.1. The second line of data
represents results from testing by Ford at an actual dynamometer
horsepower of 6.5. Comparing low mileage emissions to emissions
standards is not straightforward, because the emission standards
apply for a production vehicle's useful life, 50K or 100K miles,
and low mileage results are obtained at low mileage, 4K miles in
this case. In order to account for car-to-car, test-to-test and DF
variability, it is common to have a low mileage target as another
basis to which low mileage emission data can be compared. If a
development durability vehicle can attain about 70 percent of the
standards at say, 50K miles, it has a good chance of being
duplicated into a successful certification durability vehicle.
Using the 70 percent value and the assigned DF's that can be found
in QMS Advisory Circular No. 51/C, one can compute low mileage
targets of 0.02.HC, 1.0 CO, 0.1 NOx and 0.03 PM (all g/mi). These
form another set of data to which low mileage emission results can
be compared. These values are called typical 4K targets in the
tables. Both the Ford and EPA evaluations utilized a similar shift
schedule provided by Orbital. (Appendix B) All EPA results
presented here were obtained from testing at 2,125 Ibs. ETW and an
actual dynamometer horsepower of 4.1 Hp.
-------
-11-
Table 1
OEC 1.2-L Two-Stroke Engine, 1990 Ford Fiesta
FTP Cycle Emissions
HC NMHC CO NOX City PM
Date Site* g/mi g/mi g/mi g/mi MPG g/mi
Ford AEFEO
4K Results
Ford APTL
4K Results
Ford Test
6.5 AHp
Typical 4K
Targets
AEFEO
APTL
Ford
—
0.09
0.07
0.06
NA
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.10
0.09
0.06
1.0
0.15
0.17
0.22
0.1
42.7
50.3
42.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.03
EPA Data
12-12-91
12-16-91
12-18-91
12-20-91
D508 Average
D508
D508
D508
D508
D508
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
44.0
43.4
42.5
43.8
43.4
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
EPA Data
12-13-91
12-17-91
12-19-91
DO 01 Average
D001
D001
D001
D001
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
43.8
44.7
43.6
44.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
* Site D508 denotes particulate sampling test cell.
Site D001 denotes non-particulate sampling test cell.
NA Not available.
Subsequent to the 4K mile testing conducted at the Ford AEFEO
laboratory, a shift in the EGR stop was corrected and the car was
tested at the Ford APTL laboratory before being consigned to EPA.
NOx emissions were consistent and low in the EPA tests,
representing a significant accomplishment in obtaining low NOx
without the use of catalytic NOx control. Emission results are
rounded using ASTM procedures and are reported to the same number
of significant digits that are used to express the standards. All
of the 0.2 g/mi results for the Fiesta vehicle are from tests in
which the NOx levels were below 0.20 g/mi NOx. NMHC levels exceeded
the levels implied by the California ULEV requirements. (In making
-------
-12-
the comparison of our measured NMHC values to the California 0.04
grams/mile non-methane organic gas (NMOG) levels we assumed that
the reactivity adjustment factor (RAF) was 1.0, and that the
ketone, alcohol, aldehyde and ether contributions to NMOG were
negligible) . FTP composite CO emissions were very low for each test
conducted during this evaluation and well below the ULEV CO
standard of 1.7 grams/mile. The level of the particulate matter
(PM) ULEV standard was also met during testing of this vehicle;
currently, this standard is set at 0.04 grams/mile over the FTP. PM
was measured at 0.01 grams/mile over the FTP during EPA testing.
The combined city/highway fuel economy during testing at Ford
AEFEO laboratory was 49.2 mpg. Combined fuel economy from EPA
testing was 50.2 mpg. The highest FTP fuel economy value
determined during EPA testing was 44.7 mpg; the average FTP fuel
economy from EPA testing was 43.4 and 44 mpg from test sites D508
and D001.
Table 2 below presents HFET results for the same Ford Fiesta
vehicle tested at EPA. All tests here were conducted at a 2,125
Ibs. ETW and 4.1 actual dynamometer horsepower.
Table 2
OEC 1.2-L Two-Stroke Engine, 1990 Ford Fiesta
HFET Cycle Emissions
HC NMHC CO NOx Hwy PM
Date Site* g/mi g/mi g/mi g/mi MPG g/mi
12-12-91
12-16-91
12-18-91
12-20-91
D508
Average
D508
D508
D508
D508
D508
**
0.01
0.02
0.01
- 0.01
**
**
0.01
**
**
***
***
***
***
***
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
61.6
60.3
61.6
62.0
61.4
**
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
12-13-91
12-17-91
12-19-91
D001
Average
D001
D001
D001
D001
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
NA
**
**
**
***
***
***
***
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
61.1
62.0
60.7
61.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
* Site D508 denotes particulate sampling test cell.
Site D001 denotes non-particulate sampling test cell
** Less than 0.005 grams/mile detected.
*** Less than 0.05 grams/mile detected.
NA Not available.
-------
-13-
With the exception of one HFET test, less than 0.005
grams/mile NMHC were detected during each test conducted at EPA.
Less than 0.05 grams/mile of CO were detected during each test, and
NOx remained constant at 0.2 grams/mile. Levels of PM over the HFET
were also very low at 0.01 grams/mile for each test.
The highest highway fuel economy measured during this testing
was 62.0 miles per gallon; the lowest HFET fuel economy was 60.3
miles per gallon, a difference of less than 3 percent. Combined
city/highway fuel economy values were 50.0 and 50.4 mpg for testing
in Cells D508 and D001, respectively.
The cold start portion of Bag 1 accounts for the greatest
portion of HC and CO emissions from current model vehicles. [4]
Figure 4 presents Bag 1 and Bag 3 emission levels in grams per Bag
for the tests conducted in each test cell. The significance of the
amount of HC emissions attributable to cold start is apparent in
Figure 4; the relative difference in emission levels between the
different phases of the test is similar to differences noted in
four-stroke cycle vehicles [4,5]. HC emission levels were similar
in magnitude between both test sites. A complete summary of the Bag
emissions data from this testing is given in Appendix C.
Figure 4
Hydrocarbon Emission Results
Low Emission Ford Fiesta
Test Site/Bag Sample
D508, Bag 1
D508, Bag 3
D001, Bag 1
D001, Bag 3
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Exhaust Hydrocarbons (grams)
D508 denotes particulate site.
D001 denotes non-particulate site.
-------
-14-
Figure 5 below is a summary of average CO emissions over the
Bag 1 and 3 segments of the FTP testing in both cells. There is an
approximately 25 percent difference in the weight of Bag 1 CO
emissions between test cells, a greater difference than that noted
between HC levels from both cells. Bag 2 (not shown in Figure 5)
and Bag 3 CO emissions were essentially negligible, not unlike
emission levels from some late model, catalyst-equipped, four-
stroke cycle vehicles. Engine-out emissions and catalyst
temperature were not monitored; it is therefore not possible to
quantify how catalyst light-off or richer operation immediately
after cold start may have affected CO levels.
Figure 5
Carbon Monoxide Emission Results
Low Emission Ford Fiesta
Test Site/Bag Sample
D508, Bag 1
D508, Bag 3
D001, Bag 1
D001, Bag 3 • Q.-|
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Exhaust Carbon Monoxide (grams)
D508 denotes particulate site.
D001 denotes non-particulate site.
Because the Ford Fiesta is a European model vehicle not sold
in the United States, it is difficult to compare these two-stroke
engine emission results with production vehicle levels. Therefore,
Table 3 compares the FTP emission test results of the OEC engine-
equipped Ford.Fiesta with other U.S. market production vehicles
that were also emission tested at 2,125 Ibs. ETW. These comparison
vehicles were selected from the 1992 EPA Test Car List. The
vehicles chosen for comparison also had low composite NOx emissions
somewhat comparable to the Fiesta test car.
-------
-15-
Table 3
Ford Fiesta Low Emission Vehicle Evaluation, FTP Cycle Emissions
Comparison Vehicles Tested at 2,125 Ibs. ETW
HC CO CO2 NOx City
Vehicle 9/roi g/mi 9/roi g/mi MPG AHp
Low Emissions
Two-Stroke Fiesta
Ford Test, 6.5 AhP*
Ford Festiva**
Daihatsu Charade**
Suzuki Metro**
Suzuki Metro LSi
Convertible**
Suzuki Swift**
Fuji Justy**
0.08
0.06
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.16
0.15
0.2
0.06
0.9
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.8
203
NA
224
211
223
241
273
251
0.2
0.22
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.4
43.7
42.6
39.5
41.6
39.7
36.3
32.4
35.4
4.1
6.5
7.0
7.5
6.8
6.2
7.0
7.8
* Test conducted by Ford at Ford Motor Company facility.
** From 1992 EPA Test Car List.
NA Not available.
The criteria used to select vehicles for comparison here were
low NOx levels and comparable test weight. Consideration was not
given to the actual dynamometer horsepower over which the vehicles
were tested, options, performances characteristics, transmission
gear ratios, etc. These differences add to the difficulty of trying
to compare a two-stroke cycle engine-powered vehicle to cars with
conventional four-stroke cycle powerplants.
Most of the comparison vehicles had HC and NOx emission levels
similar to those from the two-stroke cycle engine-equipped vehicle.
Indeed, four of the comparison vehicles had NOx levels below 0.2
grams per mile over the FTP. The Ford Festiva is the only
comparison vehicle with FTP CO emissions lower than 1.0 gram per
mile; the two-stroke vehicle was much lower, at 0.2 grams/mile
average. The city cycle fuel economy of the two-stroke cycle
vehicle exceeded that of each comparison vehicle. Fuel economy
improvements ranged from a minimum of 5 percent (Daihatsu Charade)
to a high of 35 percent (Suzuki Swift). It must be remembered that
performance factors were not considered in choosing the comparison
vehicles, however.
Table 4 below presents HFET cycle emission and fuel economy
results for the same vehicles presented in Table 3.
-------
-16-
Table 4
Ford Fiesta Low Emission Vehicle Evaluation, HFET Cycle Emissions
Vehicles Tested at 2,125 Ibs. ETW
HC CO C02 , NOx Hwy
Vehicle g/roi g/mi g/roi g/mi MPG AHp
Low Emissions
Two-Stroke Fiesta
Ford Test, 6.5 AhP*
Ford Festiva**
Daihatsu Charade**
Suzuki Metro**
Suzuki Metro LSi
Convertible**
Suzuki Swift**
Fuji Justy**
0.01
NA
0.01
0.10
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.10
***
NA
0.5
1.0
0.2
0.5
0.9
0.9
145
NA
166
164
173
190
206
186
0.2
NA
***
***
***
***
0.1
0.4
61.3
50.7
53.5
53.6
50.9
46.4
43.1
48.0
4.1
6.5
7.0
7.5
6.8
6.2
7.0
7.8
* Test conducted by Ford at Ford Motor Company facility.
** From 1992 EPA Test Car List.
*** Less than 0.05 grams/mile detected.
NA Not available.
HC and CO HFET levels from the two-stroke cycle test vehicle
were lower than or comparable to the vehicles from the Test Car
List. Relatively low NOx levels were obtained with each vehicle;
four comparison vehicles emitted negligible amounts of NOx over the
highway cycle. Highway fuel economy improvements for the two-stroke
cycle test vehicle over the comparison vehicles ranged from 14 to
42 percent.
B. High Fuel Economy Calibrated Honda CRX HF
A 1990 Honda CRX HF vehicle equipped with an OEC "XK" series
engine was originally delivered by OEC to the EPA Motor Vehicle
Emission Laboratory on November 13, 1991. The car was soaked
overnight at 73°F for testing on the following day; no test driving
occurred on November 13.
On November 14, the evaluation of this vehicle commenced. The
fuel tank was drained and filled with a 40 percent fill of unleaded
indolene clear test fuel. Total vehicle weight with a 40 percent
filled fuel tank (without driver/passengers/cargo) was 1871 Ibs.
Orbital requested that a check of the dynamometer coastdown (55
to 45 mph) time be made on the test cell equipment at the
conditions of 6.2 actual dynamometer horsepower and 2250 Ibs. ETW.
Several coastdowns were conducted; a front roll coastdown average
of 16.8 seconds at the conditions referred to above was measured.
-------
-17-
Two "hot 505 second" tests were then conducted, using
alternately Orbital and EPA personnel as drivers. A hot 505 test is
described here as a test over the first 505 seconds (Bag 1 portion)
of the FTP cycle with the engine/catalyst system warmed to
relatively steady-state/catalyst light-off conditions. This testing
was conducted at the request of OEC to verify the condition of the
Honda test vehicle and to determine the difference in emissions and
fuel economy resulting from the use of different drivers. Drivers
traces marked with shift points provided by Orbital were again used
during this testing. These shift points are illustrated in Appendix
B. Results from this testing are given below in Table 5.
Table 5
Orbital High Fuel Economy Vehicle Evaluation
Hot 505 Second (Bag 1) Emission Testing
Driver
Orbital
EPA
HC
(grams)
0.22
0.31
NOx
(grams)
1.5
1.7
C02
(grams)
608
617
CO
(grams)
0.1
0.3 .
NMHC
(grams)
0.15
0.22
Generally, lower emissions were measured when an Orbital
driver operated the vehicle. This comparison was limited to a
single test, however, and both drivers operated inside the driving
trace boundaries which constitute an acceptable test with respect
to the EPA emissions procedure.
The Orbital personnel present during this testing requested
that one of their (Orbital) personnel be allowed to drive a "hot
start" emissions test over the entire FTP cycle. EPA allowed this
request, though it was not part of the agreed test plan; the test
documentation was marked "manufacturers driver" to reflect the
deviation from the general procedure of allowing only EPA personnel
to drive during emission testing. (This approval was granted as a
courtesy to OEC.) The "hot start" emissions test was considered to
be the vehicle driving preparation for the testing to be conducted
on the following day.
On the following day, November 15, 1991, the prototype vehicle
was tested over the FTP and HFET cycles as part of the actual EPA
evaluation. An EPA driver was used; the FTP test was preceded by an
overnight cold soak at 73°F conditions. The emissions results from
this testing are given in Table 6.
-------
-18-
Table 6
Orbital High Fuel Economy Vehicle Evaluation
FTP Cycle Emission Testing
Test
Conditions
Hot start
FTP, Orbital
driver*
Cold start
FTP,
EPA driver
Honda 1990 Cal.
CRX HF**
HC
g/mi
0.14
0.12
0.10
NOx
g/mi
0.3
0.3
0.3
C02
g/mi
173
176
185
CO
g/mi
0.1
0.2
1.0
NMHC
g/mi
0.11
0.09
NA
* Not part of agreed evaluation.
** Data from 1990 EPA Test Car List.
NA Not available.
Though the hot start test over the FTP cycle driven by Orbital
personnel was not considered part of the EPA evaluation, the test
results are also included in Table 6. The results of an emission
test of a 1990 Honda California CRX HF vehicle are also included in
Table 6 for reference; this data is taken from the 1990 EPA Test
Car List. The Honda 1990 California CRX HF was tested at an actual
dynamometer horsepower of 6.2 Hp, at a test weight of 2250 Ibs.
ETW.
The emission levels from hot and cold start testing of the
Orbital vehicle over the FTP cycle were not dissimilar. The HC
emission level from the cold start FTP, using an EPA driver, was
lower than the HC emission level from the hot start FTP test
conducted on the previous day. NOx levels from both tests were
similar, at approximately 0.3 grams/mile. Both tests had emission
levels in all categories significantly below the current U.S.
light-duty vehicle certification levels. Neither test, however, had
HC or NOx levels below the California ULEV standards of 0.04 and
0.2 grams/mile, respectively.
HC levels are roughly similar from the Orbital test car and
the Honda CRX HF certification vehicle. CO emissions from the Honda
CRX are low, at only 1.0 grams/mile. The CO emission level from the
Orbital vehicle was extremely low, however, and similar to the OEC
engine-equipped Fiesta mentioned in the previous section.
-------
-19-
One emission test with the Orbital vehicle was conducted over
the HFET cycle using an EPA driver. The results from this test are
presented in Table 7, together with reference data from an EPA 1990
Honda CRX HF vehicle.
Table 7
Orbital High Fuel Economy Vehicle Evaluation
HFET Cycle Emissions Testing
Test
Conditions
Orbital vehicle,
EPA driver
Honda 1990 Cal.
CRX HF*
HC
g/mi
0.01
0.02
NOx
g/mi
0.5
0.2
C02
g/mi
138
142
CO
g/mi
**
0.2
NMHC
g/mi
***
NA
* Data from 1990 EPA Test Car List.
** Less than 0.05 grams/mile detected.
*** Less than 0.005 grams/mile detected.
NA Not available.
HC and CO levels were uniformly low for both vehicles over the
highway cycle. The OEC vehicle had lower CO and higher NOx than did
the 1990 Honda California CRX HF.
Fuel economy test results from all tests of the Orbital
vehicle, using both EPA and Orbital drivers, are given in Figure 6.
Fuel economy data for the Honda 1990 California CRX HF from the
1990 EPA Test Car List is included for comparison.
Figure 6
Fuel Economy Test Results
High MPG OEC Vehicle
Vehicle/Driver
City MPG
2-Stroke, OEC
2-Stroke, EPA
Honda Cert.
Highway MPG
2-Stroke, OEC
2-Stroke, EPA
Honda Cert.
Combined MPG
2-Stroke, OEC
2-Stroke, EPA
Honda Cert.
NA Not available.
10 20 30 40 50
Miles per Gallon
60
70
80
-------
-20-
City fuel economy values are given for both tests of the
Orbital vehicle. Both city mpg figures are similar to the Honda CRX
HF city fuel economy data. HFET cycle data was not available for
the Orbital vehicle driven by Orbital personnel. The fuel economy
of the OEC vehicle exceeded that of the Honda,1990 California CRX
HF by 5 percent on the city cycle, 3 percent on the highway cycle,
and 5 percent on the combined cycle.
On November 15, 1991, Orbital personnel suggested that a fuel
system component may have failed, and that this failure may have
adversely affected fuel economy significantly. Orbital personnel
removed the vehicle from the EPA laboratory on that day, to
facilitate diagnosis and correction of the suspected problem. The
removal of the vehicle occurred well in advance of the completion
of the EPA evaluation.
This vehicle was tested by OEC personnel at a private facility
after its removal from the EPA laboratory. This vehicle was then
returned to the EPA Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory on December
10, 1991. An evaluation similar to that conducted on the low
emissions OEC Fiesta was also planned for the OEC high fuel economy
vehicle.
This new test plan was considered by EPA to be a separate and
distinct evaluation from the limited testing conducted previously.
The same test cells used in the evaluation of the OEC low emissions
vehicle were also used in this new round of testing.
Figure 7 presents HC FTP emission levels from this portion of
the evaluation together with some figures for comparison. The test
described as "11-15-91" refers to the single EPA-driven test
previously mentioned in Table 6. The test referred to as "Ind.
Lab.11, for Independent Laboratory, refers to testing which was
conducted after the vehicle was removed from the EPA laboratory by
Orbital for diagnosis and repair of the suspected fuel system
problem. This testing was performed by Orbital at the request of
EPA as a precondition to resuming an evaluation of this vehicle.
D508 and D001 refer to testing conducted in the two EPA test cells
mentioned in the discussion of the OEC low emission vehicle
evaluation. Finally, the vehicle described as "Honda Cert." refers
to data from a 1990 Honda California CRX HF emissions certification
vehicle taken from the 1990 EPA Test Car List.
-------
-21-
Figure 7
Hydocarbon FTP Emission Results
High MPG OEC Vehicle
Test Site
11-15-91 Test
0.17
Honda Cert.
0.1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Exhaust Hydrocarbons (grams/mile)
D508 denotes particulate site.
D001 denotes non-particulate site.
The initial emissions test of the high fuel economy two-stroke
vehicle had the lowest average HC emissions measured, 0.12
grams/mile. The tests conducted at the independent laboratory as
well as those by EPA in Test Cells D508 and D001 had similar HC
emissions, approximately 0.16 grams/mile. The 1990 Honda California
CRX HF certification vehicle had slightly lower HC emissions over
the FTP, 0.10 grams/mile.
Figure 8 presents CO emissions data from this testing in a
format similar to Figure 7. The average CO emissions level for all
of the tests conducted by EPA on this prototype vehicle was 0.2
grams/mile. This very low number was also measured during the
independent laboratory testing. The 1990 Honda California CRX HF
comparison vehicle emitted a low 1.0 grams/mile CO during
certification testing.
-------
-22-
Figure 8
Carbon Monoxide FTP Emission Results
High MPG OEC Vehicle
0.2
0.2
Test Site
11-15-91 Test
Ind. Lab.
D508
D001
Honda Cert.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Exhaust Carbon Monoxide (grams/mile)
D508 denotes particulate site.
D001 denotes non-particulate site.
Table 8 is a summary of average FTP emissions and fuel economy
data from this "second phase" of testing the OEC high fuel economy
vehicle. HC and CO emissions are commented on above; average NOx
emissions were the same at all test sites, approximately 0.3
grams/mile. Particulate matter (PM) emissions were measured at 0.02
grams/mile over each of four separate tests. Methane emissions as
a fraction of hydrocarbons measured were similar in proportion to
methane emissions from four-stroke cycle engines. City cycle fuel
economy averaged approximately 51 mpg; this compares with a city
cycle fuel economy of 47.6 mpg from the 1990 Honda California CRXJ
HF certification vehicle.
-------
-23-
Table 8
OEC High Fuel Economy Vehicle Evaluation
FTP Test Cycle
Test HC NMHC CO NOx City PM
Location* 9/mi
-------
-24-
Th e average highway fuel economy value for all EPA testing was
64.4 miles per gallon, for an average metro/highway fuel economy
value of approximately 56 miles per gallon. This is approximately
5 percent better than the 53.3 miles per gallon metro/highway fuel
economy obtained from the 1990 EPA Test Car List for the production
1990 Honda California CRX HF vehicle.
HC Bag data from FTP testing is given in Figure 9. This data
is provided to quantify the contribution of cold start emissions to
weighted FTP emission levels. Data from the cold start portion
(Bag 1) of FTP is included together with data from Bag 3. Data from
the three test sites used at the EPA laboratory in this evaluation
are included here.
Figure 9
Hydrocarbon Emission Results
High MPG OEC Vehicle
Test Site/Bag Sample
D510, Bag 1
D510, Bag 3
D508, Bag 1
D508, Bag 3
D001, Bag 1
D001, Bag 3
1.29
1-42
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Exhaust Hydrocarbons (grams)
D5Q8 denotes particulate site.
D001, D510 denote non-particulate sites.
HC cold start emissions as a fraction compared to emissions
from a warmed engine from the testing here differ slightly to those
from the vehicle in Figure 4. Bag 3 emissions from Figure 9 appear
to be more significant with respect to overall HC FTP emissions
than Bag 3 emissions in Figure 4. Much more variation is shown in
Bag 1 (cold start) emission levels than during Bag 3 (warmed
engine) testing. Again, because catalyst temperatures and engine-
out emissions were not measured, it is not possible to quantify the
contribution of time to catalyst light-off and engine air/fuel
ratio during cold start/warmup to excess HC emissions in Bag 1.
-------
-25-
CO Bag data from this phase of testing is given in Figure 10;
the same format used in Figure 9 is used here. This Bag data
differs significantly from that from the low emission Ford Fiesta
vehicle given in Figure 5. CO emissions from the low emission Ford
Fiesta in Bag 1 were significantly higher than Bag 1 emissions from
the OEC Honda CRX high mpg vehicle (Figure 10). Bag 3 CO emissions
from the low emission vehicle were much lower, however, than those
from the high mpg two-stroke vehicle (Figure 10). Both vehicles had
weighted FTP CO emissions of approximately 0.2 grams/mile, a very
low emission rate. A large part of the difference between Bag I/Bag
3 data between these two vehicles may be related to the composition
and time to light-off for their respective exhaust catalysts.
Figure 10
Carbon Monoxide Emission Results
High MPG OEC Vehicle
Test Site/Bag Sample
D510, Bag 3
0.5
D508, Bag 1
D001, Bag 1 0-8
D001, Bag 3 • 0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Exhaust Carbon Monoxide (grams)
D508 denotes particulate site.
D001, D510 denote non-particulate sites.
VII. Future Efforts
EPA has concluded its initial evaluation of both these two-
stroke cycle, Orbital engine-powered vehicles at a cold soak
temperature of 75oF.
The low emissions calibrated Ford Fiesta vehicle is scheduled
to arrive at the EPA Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory by the end
of January for further evaluation of FTP emission levels when a
cold soak of 20°F is utilized. In addition, engine-out emissions
will be measured. At that time, results will be published in a
Phase II technical report.
-------
-26-
VIII. Acknow1edgements
The prototype Honda CRX HF test vehicle used in this
evaluation were furnished by Orbital Engine Corporation, Ltd., an
Australian Company. The Ford Fiesta test vehicle was furnished by
Ford Motor Company of Dearborn, Michigan.
The authors appreciate the efforts of James Garvey, Robert
Moss, and Ray Ouillette of the Test and Evaluation Branch, ECTD,
who conducted the driving cycle tests discussed in this report.
IX. References
1. "Light Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends
Through 1991", R.M. Heavenrich, et al., EPA/AA/CTAB/91-02, May,
1991.
2. "Honda Lean Burn 4-Cyl. Set To Bow In October," Wards Engine
Update. August 15, 1991.
3. "Mitsubishi Offers Lean Burn Engine," Wards Engine Update.
August 15, 1991.
4. "Evaluation Of Different Resistively Heated Catalyst
Technologies," SAE Paper 912382, K.H. Hellman, et al., October,
1991.
5. "Recent Results From Prototype Vehicle And Emission Control
Technology Evaluation Using Methanol Fuel," SAE Paper 901112,
Hellman, K.H. and G.K. Piotrowski, May, 1990.
6. "Recent Developments In Electrically Heated Metal
Monoliths," SAE Paper 900503, Kubsh, J.E., et al., February, 1990.
7. "Evaluation Of A Schatz Heat Battery On A Flexible-Fueled
Vehicle," Schaefer, R. , etal., EPA/AA/CTAB/91-05, September, 1991.
8. "Cold Start Improvements With A Heat Store," SAE Paper
910305, 0. Schatz, February, 1991.
9. "Analysis of the Economic and Environmental Effects of
Methanol as an Automotive Fuel," Special Report of the Office of
Mobile Sources, U.S. EPA, September, 1989.
10. "Analysis of the Economic and Environmental Effects of
Compressed Natural Gas as an Automotive Fuel," Special Report of
the Office of Mobile Sources, U.S. EPA, April, 1990.
11. Orbital Engine Corporation Sales Literature, 1991.
12. "Orbital Shows Wet Sump Design," Wards Engine Update, March
15, 1990.
13. Orbital/Walbro Sales Literature, 1991.
-------
A-l
APPENDIX A
ORBITAL PROTOTYPE ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS
Manufacturer
Basic designator
Combustion process
Cylinder arrangement
Displacement
Bore x stroke
Engine power
Combustion chamber
Fuel (for evaluation here)
Fuel system
Exhaust gas recirculation
Engine lubrication system
Engine oil
Exhaust catalyst
Orbital Engine Corporation
OCP "XK" series engine
Spark ignited two-stroke cycle
3 cylinder in-line
1.2 liters
84 mm x 72 mm
60 kW at 5500 rpm rated,
maximum torque of 122 Nm
at 3000 rpm
OCP turbulent combustion
chamber
Indolene clear unleaded
test fuel
Orbital/Walbro pneumatically
assisted electronically
controlled direct injection
Fuel pressure 620 kPa,
air pressure 550 kPa
Used
Dry sump design
Electronically controlled
oil pump
Special formulation for two
stroke engine use, free of zinc
and phosphorus compounds to
enhance catalyst durability
The OEC Honda uses a manifold
close coupled quick light-off
converter and larger volume
underfloor main catalyst. Both
catalysts are oxidation
catalysts. The Ford Fiesta uses
a single close coupled oxidation
catalyst.
-------
B-l
APPENDIX B
60
50 -
40 -
•g.
E
30 -
Cu
(73
20 -
10 -
0
0
Ford Fiesta Shift Points
Bag 1 of FTP
200 300
Time (seconds)
400
+ 2nd Gear A 3rd Gear x 4th Gear , + 5th Gear
500
Neutral
600
-------
B-2
APPENDIX B (CONT'D)
40
30
JO
ex
20
C/3
10
0
Ford Fiesta Shift Points
Bag 2 of FTP
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Time (seconds)
* 2nd Gear * 3rd Gear v 4th Gear j_ 5th Gear i Neutral
-------
60
50
40
-
0-
B
30
o,
C/3
B-3
APPENDIX B (CONT'D)
Ford Fiesta Shift Points
Bag 3 of FTP
20
10
0
1300 , 1400
^ 2nd Gear
1700 1800
Time (seconds)
3rd Gear x 4th Gear + 5th Gear j^ Neutral
1500 1600
Time (seconds)
1900
-------
60
50
40
30
Ou
C/3
20
10
0
B-4
APPENDIX B (CONT'D)
Honda CRX HF Shift Points
Bag 1 of FTP
0 100
• 2nd Gear * 3rd Gear * 4th Gear
ffft ^%
200 300
Time (seconds)
400 500
5th Gear ^ Neutral
600
-------
B-5
APPENDIX B (CONT'D)
40
30
20
Q-,
GO
10
0
Honda CRX HF Shift Points
Bag 2 of FTP
500 600 . 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Time (seconds)
A 2nd Gear * 3rd Gear x 4th Gear + 5th Gear i Neutral
^r •* ^ i^ ^\
-------
B-6
APPENDIX B (CONT'D)
60
50
40
Cu
£
13
V
a,
C/3
30
20
10
0
1300
Honda CRX HF Shift Points
Bag 3 of FTP
1400
2nd Gear
1500 1600
Time (seconds)
3rd Gear
4th Gear
1700
5th Gear
1800
Neutral
1900
-------
C-l
APPENDIX C
1990 Ford Fiesta, Bag Emissions, FTP Cycle
Low Emissions Calibration
HC NMHC CO NOX PM
Date Site* g g g g MPG g
Bacr 1
12-12-91
12-13-91
12-16-91
12-17-91
12-18-91
12-19-91
12-20-91
D508
D001
D508
D001
D508
D001
D508
0.73
0.73
0.71
0.70
0.74
0.78
0.68
0.63
0.62
0.61
0.61
0.64
0.67
0.58
3.1
3.0
2.2
3.3
3.0
3.9
2.5
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
41.2
41.0
40.8
41.7
39.7
40.5
41.4
0.07
NA
0.13
NA
0.09
NA
0.04
Baa 2
12-12-91
12-13-91
12-16-91
12-17-91
12-18-91 .
12-19-91
12-20-91
D508
D001
D508
D001
D508
D001
D508
0.17
0.18
0.22
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.05
0.06
0.11
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.1
**
**
**
0.1
**
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
43.9
43.6
43.0
44.1
42.2
43.2
43.7
0.02
NA
0.03
NA
0.04
NA
0.03
Baa 3
12-12-91
12-13-91
12-16-91
12-17-91
12-18-91
12-19-91
12-20-91
D508
D001
D508
D001
D508
D001
D508
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.2
0.3
0.2
**
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
46.9
46.6
46.1
48.6
45.5
46.4
46.4
0.03
NA
0.04
NA
0.05
NA
0.02
* D508 denotes particulate sampling test cell.
D001 denotes non-particulate sampling test cell.
** Less than 0.05 grams detected.
NA Not available.
-------
D-l
APPENDIX D
1990 Honda CRX HF, FTP Cycle Emissions
High Fuel Economy Calibration
HC NMHC CO NOx City PM
Date Site* g/nii g/mi 9/roi g/mi MPG g/mi
11-15-91
Unknown
12-12-91
12-13-91
12-16-91
12-17-91
12-18-91
12-19-91
12-20-91
D510
Ind.
Lab.
D508
D001
D508
D001
D001
D508
D508
0.12
0.17
0.14
0.17
0.17
0.14
0.16
0.17
0.16
0.09
NA
0.12
0.15
0.14
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.13
0.2
0.098
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.28
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
50.2
51.9
- 51.7
50.2
50.6
51.0
51.0
51.0
51.6
NA
NA
0.02
NA
0.02
NA
NA
0.02
0.02
NA
D510, D001 denote separate non-particulate sampling sites,
D508 denotes particulate sampling site.
Ind. Lab. denotes testing at the independent laboratory.
Not available.
-------
E-l
APPENDIX E
1990 Honda CRX HF, Individual Bag Results
High Fuel Economy Calibration
HC NMHC CO NOx PM
Date Site* g g g g MPG" g
Baa 1
11-15-91
12-12-91
12-13-91
12-16-91
12-17-91
12-18-91
12-19-91
12-20-91
D510
D508
D001
D508
D001
D001
D508
D508
1.10
1.13
1.79
1.27
1.18
1.29
1.45
1.30
1.00
1.05
1.71
1.19
1.10
1.21
1.35
1.21
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.7
0.7
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.4
48.5
49.8
48.3
48.8
49.3
50.0
48.7
49.3
NA
0.05
NA
0.14
NA
NA
0.08
0. 12
Bacr 2
11-15-91
12-12-91
12-13-91
12-16-91
12-17-91
12-18-91
12-19-91
12-20-91
D510
D508
D001
D508
D001
D001
D508
D508
0.23
0.30
0.31
0.53
0.36
0.38
0.39
,0.38
0.10
0.19
0.20
0.40
0.25
0.26
0.26
0.25
0.4
0.3
0.2
2.4
1.1
1.0
1.4
1.3
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
50. 1
51.6
50.2
50.6
50.5
50.8
51.5
51.9
NA
0.04
NA
0.06
NA
NA
0.04
0.06
Baa 3
11-15-91
12-12-91
12-13-91
12-16-91
12-17-91
12-18-91
12-19-91
12-20-91
D510
D508
D001
D508
D001
D001
D508
D508
0.37
0.44
0.38
0.37
0.36
0.40
0.42
0.42
0.28
0.38
0.32
0.31
0.30
0.34
0.35
0.35
0.5
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
1.6
1.9
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.6
52.0
53.4
52.3
52.2
53.0
52.7
52.4
52.8
NA
0.09
NA
0.09
NA
NA
0.08
0.11
* D510, D001 denote non-particulate sampling test cells
D508 denotes particulate sampling test cell.
NA Not available.
-------
Errata To EPA/AA/CTAB/92-01
In this report, an entry in Table 1 was found to be in error.
The City MPG value for the APTL tests of the Fiesta was 44.2, not
50.3. The 50.3 value was a composite fuel economy number and was
incorrectly listed as the City MPG.
Please replace Table 1 of the report with Table la which is
enclosed.
-------
-11-
Table la
OEC 1.2-L Two Stroke Engine, 1990 Ford Fiesta
FTP Cycle Emissions
HC NMHC CO NOx City PM
Date Site* g/mi g/mi g/mi g/mi MPG g/mi
Ford AEFEO
4K Results
Ford APTL
4K Results
Ford Test
6.5 AHp
Typical 4K
Targets
AEFEO
APTL
Ford
—
0.09
0.07
0.06
NA
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.10
0.09
0.06
1.0
0.15
0.17
0.22
0.1
42.7
44.2
42.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.03
EPA Data
12-12-91
12-16-91
12-18-91
12-20-91
D508 Average
D508
D508
D508
D508
D508
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
44.0
43.4
42.5
43.8
43.4
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
EPA Data
12-13-91
12-17-91
12-19-91
DO 01 Average
D001
D001
D001
D001
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
43.8
44.7
43.6
44.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
* Site D508 denotes
Site D001 denotes
NA Not available.
particulate sampling test cell.
non-particulate sampling test cell
------- |