EPA/AA/CTAB/86-06
                        Technical Report
                    Phase I  Testing  of  Toyota
                Lean Combustion System  (Methanol)
                               by


                      Gregory K.  Piotrowski
                          December  1986
                             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
              Emission Control Technology Division
           Control Technology and Applications Branch
                       2565 Plymouth Road
                   Ann Arbor, Michigan  48105

-------
Summary

     The  Toyota  lean combustion  system-methanol  (T-LCS-M)  is a
lean  burn combustion  system  utilizing  methanol  fuel  that  is
designed  to  maximize  fuel  economy and driving performance while
minimizing   pollutant  emissions.   Testing  at  the  EPA  Motor
Vehicle Emissions  Laboratory  (MVEL)  indicates  that  this  system
allows  relatively   low  emissions  of   regulated  pollutants  and
aldehydes  when  operated on  either  M100 and M85  methanol  fuels
under   transient   driving   and   evaporative   emissions   test
conditions.   Total   vehicle  hydrocarbon  (HC)  emissions  levels
appear  lower when  the vehicle  is  operated on M100  rather  than
M85  fuel.  Fuel  economy is slightly  improved when the system is
operated on  M85  rather than M100 fuel.

Background

     The Toyota  Lean Combustion  System (T-LCS)  was described in
a  paper   appearing  in  the  Japanese  Society  of  Automotive
Engineering  Review  for  July,  1984.[1]   This  lean  burn  system
made   use   of   three   particular   technologies   to   achieve
improvements  in  fuel  economy  as  well  as  comply  with  NOx
emission  levels  under the Japanese 10-mode cycle:

     1.    A  lean mixture  sensor was  used in place of an oxygen
sensor to control air/fuel ratio  in the  lean mixture range;

     2.    A  swirl  control  valve before  the  intake  valve  was
adopted to improve  combustion  by limiting torque fluctuation at
increased air/fuel   ratios; and

     3.    Sequential  fuel   injection  with optimized  injection
timing  was  used   to  complement  the  operation  of  the  swirl
control valve.

     EPA  became  interested  in  this system with regard  to   its
potential   use  with  methanol   fuel  and  requested  that  Toyota
provide a  T-LCS system  optimized  and calibrated  for  operation
on methanol  fuel.

     Toyota   provided   a   Japanese-market-only   vehicle,    the
Carina.   Vehicle details are  provided  in  Appendix  A;  this
right-hand-drive automobile  was not  constructed  to U.S.  safety
specifications and  therefore  is not able to be  driven  over   the
road in the U.S.

     Toyota'equipped  the  engine for M85 methanel/gasoIine blend
operation with three optimized calibrations:

     1.    A calibration optimized for driveabiIity;

     2.    A  calibration  enabling operation  of  the  vehicle at
           its maximum lean  limits; and

     3.    A  calibration  utilizing  air/fuel  ratios  intermediate
           between  the first  two.

-------
     Toyota  also  provided  a   single  M100   calibration,   for
maximum lean operation.

     Several meetings,  between  EPA and  Toyota  personnel  through
the  spring  of  1986  provided  EPA  personnel  with  technical
details  and updates  not  included  in  SAE Paper  860247,[2]  a
technical paper describing the development of  the system.

     Early'in  May of  1986,  the LCS-M vehicle  arrived  at  the
Toyota  Technical Center  in Ann Arbor.   While at  the  Toyota
facility the vehicle was tested for  evaporative emissions  and
over  the  Federal  Test  Procedure  (FTP)   cycle,  utilizing  M85
fuel.  On May 9, 1986 the Carina LCS-M was delivered to  the  EPA
Motor Vehicle Emissions Laboratory for evaluation.

Vehicle Description

     The test  vehicle  is a  1986 Toyota Carina, a vehicle  sold
in Japan but currently not  exported to the United States.   The
power plant is  a 1587 cc displacement, 4-cylinder,  single-
overhead camshaft  engine.    The engine  has  been  modified  for
operation  on  methanol  in  a lean  burn mode,   incorporating  the
lean mixture sensor,  swirl control valve and timed  seguential
fuel  injection  found  on the   Toyota  lean  combustion  system
(T-LCS).   Modifications  to  the   fuel   system   included   the
substitution of  parts  resistant to  methanol  corrosion for stock
parts.

     The car may be  operated on MlOO  neat methanol  as  well as
M85  methanol/unleaded  gasoline blend.   Fuel   changeover   is
accomplished by draining  and   flushing  the  fuel  system  and
changing the electronic control unit  (PROM,  for programmed read
only memory) to  a  unit compatible  with the desired  fuel.   The
exhaust catalyst is  a  close-coupled manifold  catalyst.  Details
of the vehicle  description are  provided in Appendix A  and  fuel
specifications  for  the M85 blend are given in  Appendix B.

Test Facilities And Ecruipment

     Emissions  testing  at  EPA was conducted on  a  Clayton Model
ECE-50  double-roll  chassis  dynamometer,   using  a  direct-drive
variable  inertia  flywheel  unit and  road load power  control
unit.  The Philco Ford CVS  used has  a nominal capacity  of  350
cfm.

     Exhaust  hydrocarbon  emissions   were measured  by  flame
ionization detection (FID) from a  Beckman Model 400.   This  FID
was  calibrated  with  propane;  no attempt was made  to adjust  for
FID  response factor  to methanol.  No  corrections were  made  for
the  difference  in  hydrocarbon  composition  due to  the  use of

-------
methanol rather than unleaded gasoline  for  fuel.   NOx emissions
were measured  by  chemiluminescent  technique utilizing a Beckman
Model 8501-5CA.

     Exhaust  formaldehyde was  measured  using  a  dinitrophenyI
hydrazine  (DNPH)  technique.[3]   Exhaust  carbonyls  including
formaldehyde'  are   bubbled   through   DNPH  solution   forming
hydrazone  derivatives.    These  derivatives  are  separated  from
the  remaining  unreacted  solution  by  high  performance  liquid
chromatography   (HPLC).     Quantization   is   accomplished   by
spectrophotometric analysis of the LC effluent stream.

Evaluation Process Description

     Toyota has published emissions  test  results  from the LCS-M
system  in  SAE  Paper 860247.   Regulated  pollutant  levels  over
FTP, Federal  Highway Fuel Economy  (HWFE)  and Japanese  10-mode
cycles  were  presented   in  this  paper,   as  well  as  aldehyde
emissions  data collected over  the  FTP  cycle  by a  2-4  DNPH
method.

     Phase  I   of  the EPA evaluation  sequence,  the  results  of
which  are  presented here,  sought  to confirm Toyota's  results
over  the  FTP  sequence  and  provide emissions performance  data
over several unreported parameters.   Phase  I  testing  began with
a  series  of  six  FTP tests utilizing M85  test  fuel  supplied by
Howell  Hydrocarbons  of  San  Antonio,  Texas.    The  MBS  best
driveability  PROM was  used  in  this  series  of   tests.   These
tests  were  followed by   three  evaporative emissions/FTP  tests
conducted  jointly by ECTD and  Engineering  Operations Division
(EOD)  personnel.   This  sequence consisted  of  a  diurnal  heat
build  conducted  in  an  EOD sealed  evaporative emissions  test
enclosure (SHED)  followed by FTP and hot  soak  evaporative loss
tests.  Following  completion of this set  of  tests,  the vehicle
was drained and  refueled with M100  neat  methanol  and  the PROM
replaced with  the M100 maximum  lean limit PROM.   The sequence
of three evaporative emissions/FTP  tests  was then  repeated  for
operation of  the vehicle on M100  fuel.   Following  replacement
of a fuel pump by Toyota, three additional FTP/HWFE  tests were
completed on the vehicle, also using M100 fuel.

     Phase   II  will  consist   of   more   extensive  evaluation
techniques  as well  as  attempts  to further  reduce  pollutant
emissions by* means of advanced technology.

Vehicle Emissions Testing

     Upon its  arrival at  the Toyota Technical Center Ann Arbor,
the Carina was tested for  regulated emission  levels  over  FTP
and evaporative emissions cycles.   The fuel  used  by  Toyota for
this testing was M85 fuel borrowed  from the EPA laboratory,  and
the best driveability  PROM  was  utilized.   The  results  of this
testing (Table 1) were given to EPA when  the car  was delivered
for evaluat ion.

-------
      The  vehicle fuel system was  drained and  a  fresh  fill  of
 M85   was  added  following  the  receipt  of  the Carina  by  EPA.
 Three FTP/HWFE/id Ie,  10 and 30 mph  steady-state tests were then
 conducted  using  the-, best  driveability  PROM.   The  results  of
 this  testing are presented in Tables 1 through 5.

      A direct   comparison   of   hydrocarbon   levels   would   be
 difficult  to  make as Toyota does not state  in SAE  Paper 860247
 their procedure for  calibration of  the FID  or any  adjustments
 made   to   the   data  for  methanol   operation.   NOx  emissions
 measured  by EPA over the FTP cycle appeared  high when compared
 to  the .39 g/mi  level  reported  by Toyota  in SAE  Paper 860247.
 Measured  CO  also appears high  compared with  .56 g/mi reported
 in  the   same  paper.   Pollutant   levels  other  than  aldehydes
 correlated  fairly well  between  MVEL and the  Toyota Technical
 Center  testing.   This  engine/vehicle configuration  appears  to
 meet   current   regulated  U.S.   emissions   standards   with   a
 substantial margin  for  error.   Aldehyde levels over the FTP,  an
 average 7.3 mg/mi , appear high when compared  with  the 3.3 mg/mi
 reported by Toyota.

      HWFE  test  results at EPA  are  presented  in Table 2.  Test
 results from idle, 10 and 30 mph steady state testing are given
 in Tables 3,  4,  and 5 respectively.    Steady-state  sampling  is
 conducted over  a 10-minute  period  of  operation, and  an average
 during that time period  is  reported.   These data  provide a more
 complete  characterization  of  the  emissions  profile  of  the
 vehicle during various modes of operation.

      Vehicle driveability on  M85  fuel and the best driveability
 PROM  was  excellent.   Only  relatively  minor   driving  problems
 occurred  during  this  initial  testing  and  none  were  serious
 enough  to  invalidate a  test.    Most  of  these  problems  were
 related  to  driver   unfami Iiarity  with  the   right-hand  drive
 system of the vehicle.

      The  testing  over the period  May  21-23,  1986 was conducted
 using  a  flexible steel tube  connection between the  tailpipe of
 the vehicle and  the  CVS.  The  tests  conducted from  June 6-11,
 1986  utilized  an insulated  stainless steel  tube for  the car to
CVS connection.   The insulating cover  was  fitted  with  a heat
blanket,   but   during  this  portion   of  testing power  was  not
supplied  to  the heating element.   The primary purpose  of  the
blanketed tube  is to prevent  the  condensation of  aldehydes  in
 the   exhaust.    Aldehyde   levels  did  not  appear   to   be
significantly influenced by this change in test procedure.

     This portion of  Phase  I  was  interrupted by the transfer of
 the methanol test  capability  from one  test cell  to  another  at
MVEL.   Testing  resumed on September  10,  1986 with  preparation
of  the  vehicle  for evaporative  emissions/FTP cycle  testing.
No  significant  departures  from  gasoline  car test  procedures
were   allowed   with  respect  to   the   evaporative   emissions
testing.

-------
While  no significant driving  difficulties  were noticed  during
the  M85  phase of  this  testing,  vehicle  performance  problems
were   experienced  shortly  after  the  car  was  configured  to
operate  on  M100  fue.l .   An  extended crank  period,  60   to  70
seconds  over  four attempts was  necessary to start  the  vehicle
on  September   18,   1986.    This  long  crank  period  probably
accounted  for  the  more than  doubling  of  HC emissions  from the
FTP  conducted   the previous  day.  The start  problems continued
during  the following day, during  both the cold  and hot  start
portions   of   the  FTP.   Upon  completion   of   the   hot  soak
evaporative loss test that day the driver was unable  to restart
the  vehicle,   and  it   had  to  be  manually  pushed  out  of  the
evaporative test enclosure.

     FTP  test  results  are given in Tables  6  and  7 for M85 and
M100  fuels,  respectively.   Evaporative  emissions results  are
reported  in Tables 8 and 9 for M85 and M100 fuels respectively.
The  results  from an   evaporative  emission  test  conducted  at
Toyota,  using  M85 fuel  are  given  in Table  8 for  comparison.
The  evap  HC   losses  were also  obtained  by  FID  and were  not
adjusted  for  FID  response  factor  to methanol  nor  for  use  of
methanol rather than unleaded gasoline.

     The  only  procedural  change from  the FTP testing conducted
previously was that during the September  testing  the  vehicle to
CVS  connection  was   heated   to  250F  before  the  start  of
testing.   This  is a minimum  temperature maintained  throughout
the  test;  exhaust  gas  heating  may  cause  the tube  connection
temperature to rise above 250F during the test.

     HC  levels  from  the  M85  FTP testing  in  September did  not
change  significantly  from  the  testing  conducted  previously.
Consistently  lower CO  and  NOx  levels  were noted   during  the
September  testing,  however.    M100   FTP  HC  levels  are  not
consistent from  test  to test.  The higher  levels  of  the   second
and  third   FTP  tests   may   have  resulted   from   the   start
difficulties   experienced.    NOx   levels   should   have   been
relatively  unaffected   by  any  start  difficulties;  the  average
level  of  .55 g/mi  was  a significant reduction  from  the  M85 FTP
NOx levels reported by EPA earlier.

     M85 evaporative  emissions from  the  vehicle  appear low;  it
would appear that  this  vehicle would  meet  the  gasoline vehicle
evaporative " emissions  standards  with   a   substantial   safety
margin.  The M100 evaporative emissions  levels  were  even  lower,
averaging oly 0.27 g/test.

     Following  the  conclusion  of  the  M100  evap  tests  the
vehicle was drained,  flushed and  refilled  with M85.   The PROM
was changed to  the M85 best  driveability unit and an attempt to
test  the  vehicle  over  the  FTP  cycle  was   made.   Serious
driveability problems   resulted,  and  on  October  8,  1986,  the

-------
 vehicle   was   brought   to  the  Toyota  Technical   Center   for
 diagnosis   of  the  fuel   system   problem.    The  problem   was
 determined  by Toyota  to  be related to  the  electrical  lead  to
 the  tank  fuel pump,  -and this pump was replaced.  On December 2,
 1986,  the vehicle was  returned by Toyota to MVEL.

     Over the period December 9-11,  1986,  the  LCS-M  was tested
 three  times over FTP  and  HWFE cycles,  utilizing  M100 fuel  and
 the  M100 maximum  lean  PROM.  Results  from  this  testing  are
 presented in  Tables  10 and  11.

     FTP  HC   levels   from  this  phase  of  M100  testing  were
 significantly  lower  than  those  measured  during  the  September
 M100  testing.   The  high  HC  levels  measured  during  September
 were probably caused by  the start difficulties  with  the faulty
 fuel  pump.    The vehicle  did not  experience  a  start  problem
 during December  testing after  the  pump had  been  changed.   CO
 levels from these  2  phases of testing were similar, but the NOx
 levels measured  during December  were  approximately  40 percent
 higher  than  NOx  levels  measured  during the September  M100
 testing.

     As   the   M100   testing  in  December  was  unaffected   by
 performance problems  it  would be  particularly useful to compare
 these  results with MBS  test  results  from similar  cycles.   HC
 emissions from this  phase of M100  testing are  10 to 15 percent
 lower  than  HC  levels  measured under  M85  fuel  operation.   CO
 emission  levels  appear  slightly   lower  under  M100  conditions
 while NOx emissions  appear relatively  unaffected  by  the change
 in  fuels.   Aldehyde  results  have  not  yet  been  processed  for
 this phase  of M100 testing.

 Total Vehicle HC Emissions  Per Day

     Another  way  to  characterize  a  vehicle's  HC  emissions
 profile  is  to describe  total  vehicle  emissions  in  grams of HC
 per  vehicle  per  day.    This  recognizes  the  fact  that  HC
 emissions  are  a  function of  evaporative   losses  as  well  as
 exhaust emissions.   This  characterization may  be particularly
 important in  the case  of vehicles whose powerplants differ only
 in the type of fuel used to power them.

     One  method  [4]  combines   into   a  single  equation  the
evaporat i ve" and  running  HC  losses using  diurnal  and  hot  soak
evaporative  tests  and  the FTP driving  cycle.   Driving losses
 are  recognized   as   having   cold  start  and   warm  driving
components.'  The cold  start portion may be approximated as  Bag
 1 and  Bag 2  emissions,  the  result multiplied  by the number of
cold starts  in  a driving  day.  The warm  driving  component  may
be approximated  by the sum of Bag 2 and Bag 3 emissions divided
by 7.5 miles  (the  number of  miles  driven  over  this  portion of
 the cycle)  and  this  entire quantity multiplied  by the number of
miles driven  per day.   Evaporative  losses may  be  recognized as

-------
having  separate diurnal  and  hot soak components.   The  diurnal
component can be viewed as a  once-a-day  occurrence,  and  the hot
soak  losses  multiplied  by the number of trips taken per driving
day.

     The above may be condensed  into the following equation:

g/car/day  =     NCS(Bag 1 HC - Bag 3 HC) +
                 diurnal  loss +  TPD (Bag 2 HC + Bag 3 HC) + TPD
                 (hot soak losses)

Where:

     NCS   =     The number of cold starts per day
     TPD   =     The number of trips per day

     Two cold  starts per  day  are assumed here,  as  well  as 4.7
trips per day of 7.5 miles each.   The  equation above,  therefore
reduces to:

g/car/day  =     2 (Bag 1 HC - Bag 3 HC) + diurnal, + 4.7
                 (Bag 2 HC + Bag 3 HC) +4.7 (hot soak)

     Data  from  Tables  12 and  8,   FTP  by  bag  and  evaporative
emissions  results  from MBS testing have  been  used to calculate
the  g/vehicle/day  data  presented  for M85 in  Table  14.   Data
from  Tables  13 and  9 were used  to calculate  the  M100  figures
presented  in Table  14.   The  M100  results   by  bag  from  the
December 9-11  FTP  testing were  used  instead  of the M100 FTP
results  from   testing   conducted  on   September  17-19.    The
September FTP  test results may  have  been adversely impacted by
the fuel pump problems experienced at that time.

     M100  neat  methanol   appears   to  possess  a  substantially
lower  total  HC  emissions profile than  M85  methanol blend by
this  approach.   The  lower M100  emissions  profile  is  due to
comparatively   lower   HC  emissions    in  both  exhaust   and
evaporative emissions.  HC levels  from M100 operation are  lower
in  each FTP bag  category than  HC  levels  from M85 testing.
Evaporative  emissions  for both  the  diurnal  and  hot  soak  tests
for M100 are substantially below  those  obtained  for  MBS  fuel.
The LCS-M Carina then, would appear to offer  lower HC emissions
if  the  system was operated with M100,  rather  than M85 methanol
fuel.

     Fuel  Eaonomy Testing

     Fuel  economy  data  is published  for  all  testing  that was
conducted  using an  FTP/HWFE  test  sequence  on  the  same  date.
Both  city  and  highway  fuel  economy  numbers   are  calculated,
enabling  the  computation  of  a  composite  city/highway   fuel
economy f i gure.

-------
     M85 fuel economy was  calculated  using  an  equation supplied
by Toyota:

MPGnss =   	1315 grams carbon/gallon of  fuel
           .4428 (HC, g/mi) + .4288 (CO g/mi) + .2729
           (CO2 g/mi)

     M100 luel economy was calculated using the formula:

MPGmoo =   	1120.88 grams carbon/gallon	
           .375(HC, g/mi) + .429(CO,  g/mi) + .273(CO, g/mi)

     The derivation  of  this  equation  appears in Appendix  C,  as
well as  the  calculation of gasoline  equivalency  for M100 fuel.
Fuel economy  results  are  presented in Tables 15 and  16 for  M85
and M100 fuels, respectively.

     The  composite  city/highway  MPG  was  calculated  from  the
formula:

MPG        =1              1
             .55     +      .45
           City MPG     Highway MPG

     As  expected,  M10O  city  and highway  fuel  economies  are
lower than M85  fuel  economies.   After adjusting for heat value,
average  M85  gasoline equivalent  composite  mpg  was 45.4,  while
average M100 gasoline equivalent composite mpg was 41.8.

Acknowledgments

     The  author gratefully  acknowledges  the  efforts  of  James
Garvey,   Ernestine  Bulifant  and  the  other  members  of  the  Test
and  Evaluation  Branch,  Emission  Control   Technology  Division,
who conducted the driving tests mentioned here.

     The  author also  gratefully  acknowledges   the  efforts  of
Lottie  Parker  and other  members of   the  Engineering  Operations
Division,  who  conducted   the   evaporative  emissions  testing
mentioned in this report.

-------
                           References
     1.    "Development  of  Toyota   Lean   Combustion  System,"
Kobayashi,  N.,  et  a I., Japan  Society of  Automotive Engineering
Review, July 1984,  pp. 106-111.

     2.    "Development of  Methanol   Lean  Burn System,"  Katoh,
K., Y. Imamura and T.   Inoue, SAE 860247, February 28, 1986.

     3.    Formaldehyde Measurement  In  Vehicle  Exhaust  At MVEL,
Memo from R.  L. Gilkey, OAR, OMS,  EOD, Ann Arbor,  Ml, 1981.

     4.    Memo from  Karl  H.  He) Iman,  OAR,  OMS,  ECTD,  CTAB to
Charles L.  Gray, Jr.,  ECTD,  November 20, 1986.

-------
                               Table 1

                Toyota LCS-M Carina, FTP Test Results
                   Mas Fuel, Best Driveability PROM
 Test   Odometer  Aldehydes
 Date
                     HC
05/21/86  2200.     N/A


05/22/86  2280.    7.92     .094

05/23/86  2360.     N/A     .126

06/06/86  2440.    5.83     .115


06/10/86  2469.    6.76     .090



06/11/86  2493.    8.77     .121
             CO     CO 2
                      rjn

            1.17   220.
                  NOx
(km)      (mg/mi)    (g/mi)  (g/mi)   (g/mi)   (g/mi)  Comments

                   .128
                          1.03   216.

                          1.12   219.

                          1.11   223.


                          0.86   222.



                          1.13   223.
                  .82   Minor gear
                        change error

                  .74   Bag 2 stalI

                  .79   Bag 1 stalI

                  .69   No problems
                        not iced

                  .72   20-sec crank
                        to start,
                        Bag 1

                  .75   Gear change
                        error, Bag 2
Averages

Std. Dev.
          7.32      .112    1.07   221.      .75

          1.29      .016    0.11       .002   .05
N/A signifies aldehyde levels not available due  to technical  problems
                     LSC-M System FTP Cycle Results
         Test Conducted At Toyota Technical Center (Ann Arbor)
 Test
 Type

 FTP
Aldehydes

  N/A
  HC
(g/mi)

 .121
  CO
(g/mi)

 .93
 CO 2
(g/mi)

 220.
 NOx
(g/m i)

 .69

-------
                                Table 2

                Toyota LCS-M Carina, HWFE Test Results
                   MBS Fuel, Best Driveability PROM
Test
Date
05/21/86
05/22/86
05/23/86
Averages
Std. Dev
Odometer
(km)
2236.
2315.
2378.


Aldehydes
(mg/mi )
N/A
3.87
N/A
3.87

HC
(g/mi )
.015
.015
.019
.016
.002
CO
(g/mi )
.08
.04
.03
.05
.026
CO 2
(q/mi )
160.
158.
160.
159.
1 .2
NOx
(g/mi ) Comments
.54
.47
.53
.51
.04
N/A signifies aldehyde  levels not available due to technical problems
                                Table 3

              Toyota LCS-M Carina,  Idle Mode Test  Results
                   M85 Fuel, Best Driveability PROM
Test
Date
05/21/86
05/22/86
05/23/86
Average
Std. Dev.
Odometer
(km)
2252.
2350.
2411 .

r
Aldehydes
(mg/min)
N/A
.81
N/A
.81

HC
(g/min)
.001
.002
.001
.001

CO
( g/m i n )
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 .6
C02
(g/min)
15.1 .
12.5
15.3
14.3

NOx
(g/min)
.001
.011
.011
.011

N/A signifies aldehyde levels not available due to technical problems

-------
                                Table 4

            Toyota LCS-M Carina, 10 MPH Steady-State Cycle
                    M8.5 Fuel,  Best  Driveability PROM
Test
Date
05/21/86
05/22/86
05/23/86
Average
Std. Dev.
N/A sign if
Odometer A
(km)
2253.
2375.
2412.


ies aldehyde I
Idehydes
(mg/mi )
N/A
40.13
N/A
40.13
eve Is not
HC
(q/mi)
.023
.012
.026
.020
.007
avai lable
CO
(q/mi )
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
C02
(q/mi )
338.
337.
329.
335.
4.9
due to technical
NOx
(q/mi )
.53
.48
.50
.50
.025
problems
Table 5
Toyota LCS-M Carina,
M85 Fuel , Best
Test
Date
05/21 /86
05/22/86
05/23/86
Average
Std. Dev.
Odometer A
(km)
2258.
2390.
2420.

r
*
Idehydes
(mq/mi )
N/A
1 .42
N/A
1 .42

30 MPH Steady-State
Driveabi I ity PROM
HC
(q/mi)
.011
.004
.014
.010
.005
CO
(q/mi)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Cycle
CO 2
(q/mi )
157.
153.
152.
154.
2.6
NOx
(q/mi)
.57
.63
.52
.57
.05
N/A signifies aldehyde  levels not available due  to  technical  problems

-------
                      Table 6

       Toyota LCS-M Carina, FTP Test Results
M85 Fuel,  B6st Driveability PROM,  Evap/FTP Sequence
Test Odometer
Date (km)
09/11/86 2528.
09/12/86 2565.
09/16/86 2595.
Averages
Std. Dev.

M100 Fue
Test Odometer
Date (km)
09/17/86 2626
09/18/86 2655
09/19/86 2685
Averages
Std. Dev.
Aldehydes
(mg/mi )
8.90
5.19
4.56
6.22
2.35

HC
(q/mi )
.105
.115
.102
.107
.007
Tab
CO
(q/mi )
.86
.73
.80
.80
.065
le 7
C02
(g/mi)
234.
228.
226.
229.
4.2

NOx
(g/mi) Comments
.68 Stall in
Bag 1
.65
.67
.67
.016

Toyota LCS-M Carina, FTP Test Results
I, Maximum Lean Limit PROM, Evap/FTP Sequence
Aldehydes
(mg/mi )
6.01
6.45
7.28
6.58
.64
HC
(g/mi )
.071
.162
.170
.134
.055
CO
(g/mi )
.76
.79
.75
.77
.02
C02
(g/mi)
222.
212.
222.
219.
5.8
NOx
(g/mi ) Comments
.56
.53 Start probs,
cold start
.55 Hot, cold
start probs
.55
.016

-------
                Table  8

Evaporative Test Results, EPA Laboratory
      Toyota LCS-M Carina M85 Fuel
Diurnal
Test Date (g)
09/1 1 /86 . 32
09/12/86 .49
09/1 6/86 . 66
Average
Evaporative Test
Toyota
Diurnal Loss
(g)
24
Evaporat i ve
Toyota
Diurnal
Test Date (g)
09/17/86 .13
09/18/86 .10
09/16/86 .09
Average
Loss Hot Soak Total
(g) (g)
.20 .52
.21 .70
.25 .91
.71
Results, Toyota Technical Center
LCS-M Carina M85 Fuel
Hot Soak Loss Total
(g) (g)
.47 .71
Table 9
Test Results, EPA Laboratory
LCS-M Carina M100 Fuel
Loss Hot Soak Total
(g) (g)
.19 .32
.16 .26
.13 .22
.27

-------
                                Table 10

                           Toyota LCS-M Carina
                    FTP Testing, December 8-11, 1986
                   M100 Fuel, Maximum Lean Limit PROM
Test , Odometer
Date (km)
12/09/86 2767.
12/10/86 2830.
12/11/86 2893.
Average
Std. Dev.
N/A indicates not avail
Aldehydes
(mg/mi )
N/A
N/A
N/A

able.
HC
(g/mi)
.080
.089
.110
.093
.015
CO
(g/mi)
.69
.80
.73
.74
.056
CO 2
(g/mi)
230.
228.
228.
229.
1 .2
NOx
(g/mi )
.70
.75
.82
.76
.06
Table 11
HWFE
M100
Test Odometer
Date (km)
12/09/86 2785.
12/10/86 2865.
12/11/86 2911.
Average
Std. Dev. r
Toyota
Test ing,
Fuel , Max
Aldehydes
(mg/mi )
N/A
N/A
N/A


LCS-M Car
December
imum Lean
HC
(g/mi )
.007
.007
.007
.007

ina
8-11, 1986
Limit PROM
CO
(g/mi)
.01
.00
.04
.02
.02
CO 2
(g/mi )
161 .
161 .
157.
160.
2.3
NOx
(g/mi)
.37
.42
.56
.45
.098
N/A indicates not available.

-------
            Table 12

  FTP Test Results, HC By Bag
M85 Fuel.  Best Driveability  PROM
Testlt
Date*
09/11/86
09/12/86
09/16/86

Test
Date
12/09/86
12/10/86
12/11/86


Test
1
2
3
Bag 1 HC Bag 2 HC
(q/mi) (g/mi)
. 387 . 027
.453 .027
.389 .027
Table 13
FTP Test Results, HC
M100 Fuel, Maximum Lean
Bag 1 HC Bag 2 HC
(g/mi) (g/mi)
.330 .012
. 389 . 006
.330 .019
Table 14
Emissions Of g HC/Veh
Toyota LCS-M Car
M85 Fuel
(g/veh day)
2.27
2.58
2.81
Average 2.55
Std.
Dev . .27
Bag 3 HC Test HC
(q/mi) (q/mi)
.039 .105
.027 .115
.027 .102

By Bag
Limit PROM
Bag 3 HC Test HC
(q/mi) (g/mi)
.022 .080
.021 .089
.116 .110

icle Day
ina
M100 Fuel
(g/veh day)
1 .80
1 .71
1 .76
1 .76
.05

-------
                            Table 15
                      Fuel Economy Results
                M85 Fuel  - Best  Driveability  PROM

Test
Date
05/21/86
05/22/86
05/23/86
Average,
by category
Std. Dev. by
category


Test
Date
12/09/86
12/10/86
12/11/86

City H
MPG
21 .7
22.1
21 .8
21 .9
.21

Fuel
M100 Fuel -

City H
MPG
17.8
17.9
17.9

i ghway
MPG
30.1
30.5
30.1
30.2
.3
Table
Economy
Maximum

i ghway
MPG
25.5
25.5
26.1

Compos i te
MPG
24.8
25.2
24.9
25.0
.21
16
Resul ts
Lean Limit PROM

Compos i te
MPG
20.6
20.7
20.8
Gasol ine
Equiva lent
MPG
45.1
45.9
45.3
45.4
.42

Gasol ine
Equivalent
MPG
41 .6
41.8
42.0
Average,       17.9
by category

Std. Dev. by      .07
category
25.7


  .35
20.7


  .10
41.8
  .20

-------
                           APPENDIX A

            Description of Toyota LCS-M Test  Vehicle
Vehicle Identification Number

     Curb weight

     Inertia weight

     Odometer reading at del.

     Transmission

     Shift speed code

     Dynamometer horsepower

Engine:

     Fuel


     Number of cylinders

     Displacement

     Camshaft

     Compression ratio


     Combustion chamber

     Fuel  Metering

     Bore

     Stroke

     Calibrat ions
AT15102264700000

2015 Ibs

2250 Ibs

1358 miles

Manual, 5 speed

15-25-40-45 mph

8 HP
M85 or M100 (see
"Calibrations")

4,  in-Iine

97 cubic inches

Single, overhead camshaft

11.5,  pistons with flat heads
are used

Wedge shape

Electronic port fuel injection

3.19 inches

3.03 inches

Three separate calibrations
(PROMs) are available for use
with M85 fuel blend:
1) calibration optimized for
performance and driveabiIity;
2) calibration enabling the
vehicle to run at the maximum
lean limit of operation; and
3) a calibration intermediate
between the first two.

One PROM is available for use
with M100 (neat methane I)
fuel:   a calibration enabling
vehicle operation at the
maximum lean Iimit.

-------
                  APPENDIX A (cont'd)
Fuel  tank


Igni t ion
 Igni t ion t iming
Engine oiI
Fuel  injectors
FueI  pump
Fuel Iines and fiIter
Catalytic converter
Stainless steel  construction;
capacity 14.5 gals.

Spark ignition;  spark plugs
are NO W27ESR-U,  gapped at .8
mm, torqued to 13 ft-lb.
Toyota recommends changing
spark plugs after 9,000 miles
of vehicle operation.

With check connector shorted,
ignition timing should be set
to 10BTDC at idle.   With
check connector unshorted,
ignition timing advance should
be set to 15BTDC at idle.
Idle speed is approximately
550-700 rpm.
10W-30(SF)
oiI  change
mi les.
  Toyota  recommends
interval  of  3,OOO
Fuel injectors (main and cold
start) capable of high fuel
flow rates are used.  The fuel
injector bodies have been
nickel-plated, and the
adjusting pipes constructed of
stainless steel.

In-tank electric fuel pump
with brushless motor is
installed to prevent brushes
and commutators from
corrosion.  The body is nickel
plated and its capacity to
deliver fuel  (flow rate) has
been increased.

The tube running from the fuel
tank to the fuel  filter has
been nickel plated.  The fuel
filter, located in the engine
compartment,  has also been
nickel plated.  The fuel
delivery rail has been plated
with nieke I-phosphorus.

1  liter total volume, Pt:Rh
loaded.  Catalyst  is close
coupled to the exhaust
manifold.

-------
           APPENDIX B



Speci ficat ions for MBS Test Fuel
Test
Compos i t i on
Methanol , vol . %
Unleaded base gasoline, vol .%
Distillation, F
IBP
10 percent
50 percent
90 percent
End point
Reid vapor pressure, psi*
Gravity, API
Min.




103
133
140
140

9.0
48.3
Max.




117
143
149
150

9.2
49.1
Resul t

85.0
15.0

103
139
148
148
152
8.8
48.7

-------
                            APPENDIX C

                Derivation of  Fuel  Economy Equation
                      M100 Neat  Methanol  Fuel
1 gallon of -methanol weighs 2,989 grams

12.011, molecular weight of carbon

32.043, molecular weight of methanol (CH3OH)

Weight percent of carbon in methanol:

     12.011 =  .3748, 37.5 percent carbon
     32.043

2,989 grams methanol x (.375) = 1120.88 grams carbon/gallon
             gal Ion             methanol

Assume:

     Exhaust HC  is methanol composition,
     .429, weight fraction of carbon in CO.
     .273, weight fraction of carbon in C02.

MPG =      	1120.88 grams carbon/gallon methanol
           .375  (HC, g/mi) + .429 (CO,  g/mi) + .273 (CO2,  g/mi)

GasoIi ne equ i vaIency:

     1 liter of  gasoline = 32.16 MJ
     1 liter of  methanol = 15.90 MJ

     32.16 MJ =  2.02,
     15.90 MJ

     factor by which M100 methanol fuel economy must be
multiplied to obtain equivalent gasoline fuel economy on a heat
energy basis.

-------