EPA/AA/CTAB/87-02
                         Technical Report
                     Phase  I  Testing of Toyota
                 Lean Combustion  System (Methanol)
                                by
                       Gregory K. Piotrowski
                        J. Dillard Murrell
                           January 1987
                              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

-------
       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                    ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
                                                        OFFICE OF
                                                     AIR AND RADIATION
June 4, 1987

MEMORANDUM


SUBJECT:   Exemption From Peer and  Administrative  Review
FROM:
TO:
           Karl H. Hellman, Chief
           Control Technology and Applications  Branch

           Charles L. Gray, Jr., Director
           Emission Control Technology  Division
     The  attached  report  entitled,  "Phase  I  Testing of  Toyota
Lean    Combustion    System   (Methanol ) , "    (EPA-AA-CTAB-87-02)
describes   characterization  testing   comprised  of   transient
driving  and evaporative  emission tests conducted on both  M100
and M85 methanol fuels.

     Since  this  report is  concerned  only  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:
                                             Date
                                 _
           Charles L. Gray, Jr// I>ir.,  ECTD
Attachment

-------
Note

     This   report   has   been  published,   substantially  as  it
appears here,  as  SAE Paper 871090,  "Fuel Economy  and Emissions
of a Toyota T-LCS-M methanol Prototype Vehicle," May 1985.

Background

     The  Toyota  lean combustion system methanol  (T-LCS-M)  is a
lean  burn methanol  combustion system  designed  to max-  imize
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  or  M85 methanol fuels  under transient
driving   and   evaporative  emissions   test   conditions.    Total
vehicle hydrocarbon emissions  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 MlOO fuel.

     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[2]-[5]  to  achieve
improvements  in  fuel economy  as  well  as  comply  with  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 upstream  of  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   calibrated  for  operation on  methanol
fuel.

     Toyota provided a  T-LCS-M system in  a Carina  chassis,  a
right-hand-drive vehicle  sold in Japan.
     Numbers in brackets  denote  references  listed at the end of
     the paper.

-------
                               -2-

     Toyota   equipped   the   engine  for  M85  methanol/unleaded
gasoline blend operation with three calibrations:

     1.    A  calibration optimized for driveability;

     2.    A  calibration  for operation  at  the engine's maximum
lean limit; and

     3.    A  calibration intermediate between the first two.

     Toyota  also  provided a  single  M100  calibration optimized
for best driveability.

     M85  testing  described  in  this  paper  was  accomplished
utilizing only the M85  best-driveability calibration for direct
comparability   to    the    test    results    from    the   M100
best-driveability calibration.  Testing  of  the M85 intermediate
and  maximum  lean  limit  calibrations will  be  conducted  as  a
future effort.

     SAE  Paper  860247[5]  describes  the  development  of  the
T-LCS-M  system;  additional  technical  details beyond  those  in
[5] were provided to EPA by Toyota prior to vehicle delivery.

     Early  in May  of 1986,  the T-LCS-M Carina  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)  driving
cycle,  utilizing  M85 fuel.   On  May 9,  1986  the vehicle 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 sequential
fuel injection  of the  Toyota  lean  combustion  system (T-LCS).
Modifications to  the fuel  system included the  substitution  of
parts resistant to methanol corrosion.

     The car  can be  operated on M100 neat methanol  as  well  as
M85 methanol/gasoline  blend.   Fuel  changeover  is  accomplished
by  draining  and  flushing  the  fuel  system   and changing the
electronic  control  unit  (PROM,   for  programmable  read  only
memory)  to  a unit  compatible  with  the  desired  fuel.   The
exhaust catalyst  is  a closecoupled  manifold catalyst.  Details
of  the   vehicle  are   provided  in   Appendix   A   and   fuel
specifications for the M85 blend are given in Appendix B.

-------
                               -3-

Test Facilities and Equipment

     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  constant  volume  sampler  has  a  nominal
capacity of 350 cfm.

     Exhaust  hydrocarbon  emissions  were  measured  by  flame
ionization detection (FID) using a Beckman Model 400 calibrated
with propane; no  attempt was made to adjust for FID response to
methanol.   No  corrections   were  made  for  the  difference  in
hydrocarbon composition  due  to the use  of methanol  rather than
unleaded  gasoline.    An  alternate  method   which   has   been
proposed[6]  is  discussed in Appendix E,  which  calculates  the
methanol emissions  and  organic material  hydrocarbon equivalents
required by [6].

     NOx  emissions   were  measured  by   the   chemiluminescent
technique utilizing a  Beckman  Model  951A NOx analyzer.   CO  was
measured using a Bendix Model 8501-5CA infrared CO analyzer.

     Exhaust     formaldehyde    was     measured    using    a
dinitrophenylhydrazine  (DNPH)  technique.[7]  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).   A   spectrophotometer  in  the
chromatograph  effluent   stream  drives   an   integrator  which
determines formaldehyde derivative concentration.

Evaluation Process

     Toyota  published emissions  test  results   from the  LCS-M
system  in  SAE Paper  860247.   Regulated pollutant  levels over
the  FTP,   highway  fuel   economy  (HFET)  and  Japanese  10-mode
cycles  were  presented  in  that  paper,   as  well   as  aldehyde
emissions data collected over the FTP cycle by the DNPH method.

     This Phase  I  EPA  evaluation  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  M85
best-driveability PROM was used in  this series of tests.  These
tests were  followed by  three  evaporative  emissions/FTP tests.
This sequence  consisted of  a diurnal heat  build conducted in a
sealed  evaporative  emissions  determination  (SHED)  enclosure
followed by FTP  and  hot soak evaporative loss  tests.   After
this set of tests, the  vehicle was drained  and  refueled with
M100 neat  methanol and  the PROM replaced with  the MlOO PROM.
Three  evaporative  emissions/FTP  tests   were then   repeated  on
MlOO fuel.   Following replacement of the fuel  pump by Toyota,
three additional FTP/HFET tests were  completed  on  the vehicle,
also using MlOO fuel.

-------
                               -4-

     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

     Upon  its arrival  at  the Toyota Technical  Center  in  Ann
 Arbor,  the   Carina  was   tested   for   regulated   exhaust  and
 evaporative  emission levels.   The fuel  used by  Toyota for this
 testing was  M85  fuel borrowed from the EPA laboratory,  and  the
 M85  best-driveability  PROM was utilized.   The results  of this
 testing  were given  to  EPA  when  the   car  was  delivered  for
 evaluation.

     Following the   receipt of the  Carina  by EPA,  the vehicle
 fuel  system  was  drained  and  a  fresh fill  of  M85 was  added.
 Three  FTP/HFET/idle/10  mph/30 mph  tests were  then  conducted
 using  the M85   bestdriveability  PROM.   The  results  of  this
 testing  are   presented  in  Tables  1  through  3.    (All  testing
 presented in this report was conducted at the  EPA  Motor Vehicle
 Emissions Laboratory unless otherwise noted.)

     As shown in Table 1,  the delivered Carina's  FTP emissions
 did  not exactly replicate the  values  reported  in  SAE  Paper
 860247  for the  earlier T-LCS-M vehicle:  the  delivered car  has
 lower HC emissions and  higher CO,  NOx,   and aldehyde emissions.
 The  EPA  FTP results  and  Ann  Arbor  Toyota FTP  results  did
 correlate quite well, however.

     HFET test results  are  presented in Table 2.   Test results
 from  idle, 10 mph and 30 mph  steady-state testing are given in
 Table 3.  Steady-state  sampling was  conducted over  a 10-minute
 period of operation, and  the  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   M85
 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   unfamiliarity   with  the
vehicle's right-hand drive,  left-hand shift system.

     The  testing  in  late  May  1986  was  conducted  using  a
 flexible  steel   tube connection between the  tailpipe  of  the
vehicle and the  CVS.   The tests  conducted in June 1986 utilized
 an insulated  stainless steel  tube  for  the 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.   The
blanket/insulation made  no difference  in emission  levels  of
 aldehydes,  nor any of the other pollutants.

-------
             -5-




           Table  1



FTP Test Results,  M85 Fuel [a]

Test Site
Toyota-
Japantb]
Toyota-
Ann Arbor
EPA-Ann
Arbor[d]
EPA

Date
1985
May 1986
[d]
May-June
1986
Sep. 1986
No. of
Tests

l
6
3
HC
g/mi
0.21
0. 12
0.11
0.11
CO
g/mi
0.56
0.93
1.07
0.80
NOx Aide .
g/mi mg/mi
0.39 3.2 [c]
0.69
0.75 7.3 [c]
0.67 6.2 [c]
Meth
MPG
23.1
21.7
21.7
20.9
[a] Results of individual tests are given in Appendix C.
[b] 10.6 compression ratio, lean burn (SAE 860247).
[c] 1.0-liter Pt-Rh catalyst.
[d] 11.5 compression ratio.


Test Site
Toyota-
Japan
EPA


Date
1985
May-June
1986

HFET Test
No. of
Tests


3
Table
2


Results, M85 Fuel
HC
g/mi

0.02
CO
g/mi
reported
0.05
NOx Aide .
g/mi mg/mi

0.51 3.9
Meth
MPG
32.0
30.2

-------



-6-



Table 3
Speed
Idle
10 MPH
30 MPH
Steady
No. of
Tests
3
3
3
Speed Test Results,
(EPA, May 1986)
HC
g/mi
O.OOta]
0.02
0.01
CO
g/mi
0.0[a]
0.0
0.0
M85 Fuel
NOx
g/mi
O.Olta]
0.50
0.57
Aide.
mq/mi
0.8[b]
40.1
1.4
Meth
MPG
.297[c]
14.4
31.4
[a]   Grams per minute.
[b]   Milligrams per minute.
[c]   Indicates gallons  per minute on idle test.
                                Table 4

                      EPA Test Results. M100 Fuel
Date
Sep.
Dec.
Dec.
1986
1986
1986
Cycle
FTP
FTP
HFET
No. of
Tests
3
3
3
HC
g/mi
0. 13
0.09
0.01
CO
g/mi
0.77
0.74
0.02
NOX
g/mi
0.55
0.76
0.45
Aide.
mg/mi
6.6
11.3
5.7
Meth
MPG
18.7
17.9
25.7

-------
                               -7-

     At  this point  Phase  I  testing was  interrupted  by  the
relocation  of  the methanol  test  capability from one  test  cell
to  another  at  EPA.   Testing resumed  in  September   1986  with
evaporative   emissions/FTP   cycle   testing,   using   standard
gasoline car evaporative emissions test procedures.

     No  significant driving difficulties  were  noticed  during
the M85  phase  of  this  testing, but vehicle performance problems
were  experienced  shortly  after  the  car  was  configured  to
operate  on  M100   fuel.   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.

     Test  results  from the  Fall  of  1986 are given in Table  4
for  M85  and M100  fuels.   Evaporative  emissions  results  are
reported  in  Table 5 for  M85 and M100  fuels.   As was  done for
tailpipe  HC  emissions,  the  evaporative HC  losses  were obtained
by FID and were not adjusted  for  FID response 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  250°F  before  the  start  of
testing.    (This is  a minimum  temperature  maintained  throughout
the  test;  exhaust  gas   heating   may  have  caused  the  tube
connection temperature to rise above 250°F during the test.)

Comparison, M85 Vs. M100

     HC  levels  from the M85  FTP  testing  in  September did not
change    significantly    from   the   earlier    M85    testing.
Consistently  lower  CO  and  NOx  levels  on M85  were  noted  in
September, however.

     M100  FTP  HC  levels were not consistent  from  test to test.
The higher HC levels in some of the FTP tests may  have resulted
from  the  start difficulties  experienced.    NOx  levels  should
have been  relatively unaffected by the start difficulties;  the
average  level  of  .55 g/mi was a significant  reduction from the
M85 FTP NOx levels achieved at EPA earlier.

     M85 evaporative emissions were  low;  it  would appear  that
this vehicle would meet gasoline  vehicle  evaporative standards
with  a   substantial   safety  margin.   The  M100   evaporative
emissions were even lower.

-------
                              -8-

                            Table 5

                    Evaporative Test Results
  Site
 Date
Fuel
Toyota-   May 1986   M85
Ann Arbor
EPA

EPA
Sep. 1986  M85

Sep. 1986  M100
No. Of
Tests
Diurnal
(grams)

 0.24
Hot Soak
(grams)

  0.47
 Total
(grams)

  0.71
3
3
0.49
0. 11
0.22
0. 16
0.71
0.27
                            Table  6

                   Bag-by-Bag FTP HC Emissions
Date
Sep. 1986
Dec. 1986
Bag 1 Bag 2 Bag 3
Fuel g/mi g/mi g/mi
M85 0.410 0.027 0.031
M100 0.350 0.012 0.053

-------
                               -9-

     After  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  FTP  was  attempted.   Serious
 driveability  problems resulted,  and on  October  8,   1986,  t!~e
 vehicle   was   brought  to   the  Toyota   Technical  Center  for
 diagnosis of the problem.   The problem was  determined by Toyota
 to  be  related to the tank  fuel pump's electrical  lead, and the
 pump  was  replaced.    On  December  2,  1986,  the  vehicle  was
 returned by Toyota to MVEL.

     In  December  1986,  the  T-LCS-M was  tested three  times over
 the FTP and HFET utilizing MlOO fuel (Table 4).

     The vehicle experienced no start  problems  in the December
 testing,  after  the pump had been replaced.   FTP HC levels from
 this  phase of  MlOO  testing  were   lower than  those  measured
 during  the  September  M100  testing.   The  high  HC   levels  in
 September were  probably caused by the start  difficulties.   FTP
 CO  levels from  these two  phases  of  testing  were similar,  but
 the M100  NOx  levels  measured  during December were higher than
 in September.

     As the December  MlOO  testing was unaffected by performance
 problems,  these test results  are  the   ones which   should  be
 compared  to the M85  data   in  Table  1.   HC  emissions  from this
 phase of MlOO  testing are  lower  than HC levels  measured under
 M85  fuel   operation.    The  MlOO  CO  emission   levels  appear
 slightly  lower, while  NOx  emissions  are  about  the  same  for
 either fuel.

     M100  aldehyde  levels  measured during  December are  not
 consistent  with those of  the September  MlOO testing.   Two  of
 the  three  FTP  tests  conducted  in  December  produced aldehyde
 levels twice as large as other MlOO FTP tests.

 Total Vehicle HC Emissions Per Day

     A  useful  measure  of  a  vehicle's  HC  emissions  is  total
 vehicle  HC emissions per  day.  This  includes  evaporative  HC
 losses as well  as  exhaust  HC  emissions.  This characterization
 may  be particularly  important  in  the  case of  vehicles  whose
 powerplants differ as to the type of fuel used.

     One  method[8]   combines  into  a   single   equation  the
 evaporative and running HC  losses  using data from diurnal  and
 hot  soak   evaporative  tests  and   the  FTP   driving  cycle.
 Evaporative   losses   have   separate  diurnal  and   hot   soak
 components.  The diurnal component is treated as  a  once-a-day
 occurrence,  and the  hot   soak losses  are  multiplied by  the
 number of trips per driving  day.  Running losses are   recognized
 as  having  cold start  and warm  driving  components.    The cold
 start contribution is represented by the  difference between Bag
 1 and  Bag 3 emissions  multiplied by the number of cold starts
 per day.  The warm driving component is represented by the  sum
 of  Bag  2   and  Bag   3  emissions,  divided   by  7.5 miles,  and
multiplied by the number of miles driven per day.

-------
                              -10-

     The above combine into:

grams/day  =   NCS(Bagl HC Bag3 HC)
               + diurnal loss-+
               TPD(Bag2 HC + Bag3 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:

grams/day  =   2(Bagl HC Bag3 HC) + diurnal +
               4.7(Bag2 HC + Bag3 HC) + 4.7(hot soak)

     Data  from Tables 5  and 6,  evaporative  emissions and FTP
bag  results,  have been used to  calculate the g/vehicle/day for
M85  and M100.   Table 7 shows that  the LCS-M Carina  emits less
"daily  HC" with  M100 than  with  M85.   Tailpipe  HC  levels from
M100 operation are lower in each FTP bag  than HC  levels from
M85  testing,  and  M100  evaporative emissions (both  diurnal and
hot  soak)  are also lower.

Fuel Economy

     Fuel  economy data  are  shown  in  Table  8  for  all  testing
which  included both  a FTP  and a HFET  test  on  the  same date.
(The  fuel  economy calculation  method used  in  this paper  is
detailed in  Appendix D.)  M100 city and  highway fuel economies
are  lower  than M85 fuel economies.

T-LCS-M Compared to Gasoline Cars

     Table  9  shows   a comparison  between  the  emissions  and
gasoline equivalent  fuel economies  of the  T-LCS-M  Carina and
similar  gasoline-fueled  1984-85  Toyota  vehicles.[9]    While
differences in some  parameters  exist between the vehicles, they
are slight.

     Both  M85  and  M100  gasoline equivalent fuel  economies were
higher than  that  of the heavier  gasoline vehicles.   The  Tercel
vehicle  tested at  2,250  Ibs   and  7.3  dynamometer  horsepower
achieved   a   composite  fuel   economy  very  similar  to  the
methanol-fueled vehicle.   Overall,  the  T-LCS-M vehicle,  when
fueled   with  either   M85  or   M100,   demonstrated  gasoline
equivalent   fuel    economies   very   comparable   to   similar
gasoline-fueled vehicles.

-------
                         -11-

                        Table 7

                    Total  HC Per  Day
                 (from Tables 5 and 6)


               M85  fuel:    2.55  grams/day

               M100 fuel:   1.76  grams/day



                        Table 8

                  Fuel Economy Summary


         No. of       City     Hwy    Combined   Gas.  Eguiv.
Fuel     Tests        MPG      MPG      MPG      Comb. MPG

M85    3 (May 1986)   21.9     30.2     25.0         43.6

M100   3 (Dec 1986)   17.9     25.7     20.7         41.6

-------
-12-
Table 9
Comparison of T-LCS-M Versus
"Equivalent" Toyota Gasoline Cars
(All testing done at EPA laboratory. )
A. Vehicle Specifications
Vehicle
Carina LCS-M
1984/5 Tercel
1984/5 Tercel
1984/5 Corolla
Vehicle
Carina-M85
Carina-MlOO
Tercel M4
Tercel M5
Corolla

97 CI,
89 CI,
89 CI,
97 CI,
B.
Gasol
City
37.5
36.8
38.7
34.4
33.5
Enqine
FI, 11.5 CR
2 bbl, 9.0 CR
2 bbl, 9.0 CR
2 bbl, 9.0 CR
Drive
FWD
FWD
FWD
FWD
Fuel Economy and FTP
ine Equivalent
52.7
51.6
49.8
48.2
47.2
MPG
Comb.
43.1
42.3
43.0
39.5
38.5
Trans-
mission
M5
M4
M5
M5
Emissions
HC
q/mi
. 11
. 11
.21
.20
.18
Dyno
HP
8.0
7.3
7.8
7.7
CO
q/mi
0.98
0.76
1.02
1.19
0.93
Test
Weiqht
2250
2250
2375
2500
NOx
q/mi
0.72
0.66
0.63
0.36
0.43

-------
                              -13-

     HC emissions  of  the gasoline vehicles were almost twice as
high  as  the  Carina's HC  levels  on  either  methanol  fuel.   CO
levels from  the  methanol vehicle  were slightly lower than those
from  the  gasoline cars,  except  for the gasoline  Corolla.   The
M100  CO  level  of  .76  g/mi  was  significantly lower  than  all
other configurations  compared  here.   The lower NOx  levels  from
the  heavier  Tercel   and  Corolla  gasoline  vehicles  compare
favorably  to  those   from  the   4-speed  gasoline  Tercel   and
methanol  Carina  vehicles.  NOx emissions  of .36  g/mi  from  the
5-speed Tercel were  half as large as the  .72 g/mi average  from
the M85 configuration tested.   The .66 g/mi NOx level from M100
testing was  roughly  equivalent to the levels measured  from  the
2250 Ib gasoline Tercel.

     No  attempt  is   made  here  to  analyze  the  cause of  the
emission  level  differences between the  gasoline  and  methanol
vehicle  configurations  (e.g.,  vehicle  test weight,  catalytic
converters  present,   etc.).   These  differences   in  individual
cases  may   be   significant.    Overall,   however,   the  T-LCS-M
vehicle,  fueled  with either M100  or  M85, demonstrated similar
regulated  pollutant   levels to  comparably  configured  gasoline
vehicles.

Acknowledgement s

     The  authors  gratefully acknowledge the  efforts  of  James
Garvey  and  Ernestine  Bulifant  of  the  Test  and  Evaluation
Branch, Emission Control  Technology Division,  who  conducted the
driving cycle tests,  and  the efforts  of Lottie  Parker  of  the
Engineering  Operations  Division,  who conducted the evaporative
emissions testing.

Conclusions

     1.    NOx  emissions over  the FTP  cycle  on  M85  fuel,  an
average of  .72 grams  per mile, were  higher  than  the  .39 grams
per  mile   reported  for   this  car's  predecessor  in  SAE  Paper
860247.  NOx  measured during M100 operation over  the  FTP cycle
averaged .66 grams per mile.

     2.    CO  emissions  from  both M85  and M100  testing  were
well  below  current   light-duty vehicle  standards.   CO  levels
with M100  were lower than with M85.

     3.    Aldehyde emission levels were approximately the  same
for M100 and M85 operation.

     4.    Evaporative emissions  were very  low.   Average total
loss per  SHED test was  .27 grams with  M100 fuel, while use of
M85 emitted  an  average  .71 grams  per test.   (These  tests  were
conducted using a FID calibrated with propane.)

-------
                              -14-

     5.    Total  grams  of  HC  emitted  per  vehicle/day  were
calculated  to  be   1.76  and  2.55  grams,  from  M100  and  M85
operation  respectively.    This  calculation  accounts  for  both
evaporative and transient  emissions, for  a  particular operating
cycle.
     6.     Gasoline equivalent
fuels was comparable to similar
fuel  economy  for  both methanol
non-lean burn gasoline vehicles.
     7.     Regulated  emission  levels  from  the  MlOO  or  M85
fueled T-LCS-M were similar  to  those from comparably configured
gasoline vehicles.

-------
                              -15-

                           References

     1.    N.  Kobayashi,  et  al. ,  "Development  of  Toyota  Lean
Combustion  System,"  Japan  Society  of  Automotive  Engineering
Review, July 1984, pp. 106-ill.

     2.    Y.  Kimbara,  K.  Shinoda, H.  Koide and N.  Kobayashi,
"NOx Reduction  Is  Compatible With Fuel Economy Through Toyota's
Lean Combustion System," SAE Paper 851210, October 1985.

     3.    T.  Kamo,  Y. Chujo,  T. Akatsuka,  J.  Nakano and  M.
Suzuki, "Lean Mixture Sensor," SAE Paper 850380, February 1985.

     4.    S.  Matsushita,  T.  Inoue,  K.  Nakanishi,  T.  Okumura
and  K.  Isogai,  "Effects  of  Helical  Port  With Swirl  Control
Valve  On  the  Combustion  and Performane  of  S.I.  Engine,"  SAE
Paper 850046, February 1985.

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

     6.    "Proposed Emission  Standards  and  Test Procedures  for
Methanol-Fueled Vehicles,  Draft  Regulation,"  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,  Federal  Register,  Vol. 51,  No.  168,  August
29, 1986.

     7.    "Formaldehyde  Measurement   In  Vehicle   Exhaust   At
MVEL," R.  L.  Gilkey, EPA,  Ann Arbor,  MI, 1981.

     8.    "M100  vs.  M85,"  Memo from  Karl  H.  Hellman,  EPA to
Charles L. Gray, Jr., November 20, 1986.

     9.    "V.I.  Report"  and  "Tests  Report"  (Test  Car  Lists)
for 1984 and 1985, EPA, Ann Arbor, MI.

-------
                      APPENDIX A

       DESCRIPTION OF TOYOTA LCS-M TEST VEHICLE
Vehicle

Transmission

Shift speed code

Fuel

Number of cylinders

Displacement

Camshaft

Compression ratio

Combustion chamber

Fuel Metering

Bore and Stroke

Ignition



Ignition timing
Fuel injectors
Fuel pump
2015 Ibs

Manual, 5 speed

15-25-40-45 mph

M85 or M100

Four, in-line

97 cubic inches

Single, overhead camshaft

11.5, flat head pistons

Wedge shape

Electronic port fuel injection

3.19 inches x, 3.03 inches

Spark   ignition;   spark  plugs
are  ND  W27ESR-U,  gapped  at  .8
mm, torqued to 13  ft-lb.

With  check connecter  shorted,
ignition  timing  should be  set
to   10°BTDC   at   idle.    With
check    connecter    unshorted,
ignition  timing  advance should
be  set  to  15°BTDC  at  idle.
Idle  speed   is    approximately
550-700 rpm.

Main   and   cold   start   fuel
injectors capable  of  high fuel
flow rates.   The fuel injector
bodies have been nickel-
plated,   and   the   adjusting
pipes are stainless steel.

In-tank   electric   fuel   pump
with    brushless   motor    to
prevent  corrosion.   The  body
is nickel  plated  and  its fuel
delivery  flow   rate   capacity
has been increased.

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

       DESCRIPTION OF TOYOTA LCS-M TEST VEHICLE
Fuel tank
Fuel lines and filter
Catalytic converter
Stainless  steel  construction;
capacity 14.5 gals.

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 nickel-phosphorus.

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

-------
                           APPENDIX B

                SPECIFICATIONS FOR M85 TEST FUEL
           Test
Min.
Max.
Result
Composition
    Methanol, vol. %
    Unleaded gasoline, vol.%

Distillation, °F
    IBP
    10 percent
    50 percent
    90 percent
    End point

Reid vapor pressure, psi

Gravity, °API


103
133
140
140

9.0
48.3


117
143
149
150

9.2
49.1
85.0
15.0
103
139
148
148
152
9.2
48.7

-------
                               APPENDIX C
                      INDIVIDUAL TEST RESULTS AT EPA

                         A.  Tailpipe Emissions

Test Type
FTP
HFET
Idle
10 MPH
30 MPH
FTP
HFET
Idle
10 MPH
30 MPH
FTP
HFET
Idle
10 MPH
30 MPH
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
HFET
FTP
HFET
FTP
HFET

Date
05/21/86
05/21/86
05/21/86
05/21/86
05/21/86
05/22/86
05/22/86
05/22/86
05/22/86
05/22/86
05/23/86
05/23/86
05/23/86
05/23/86
05/23/86
06/06/86
06/10/86
06/11/86
09/11/86
09/12/86
09/16/86
09/17/86
09/18/86
09/19/86
12/09/86
12/09/86
12/10/86
12/10/86
12/11/86
12/11/86

Fuel
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M100
M100
M100
M100
M100
M100
M100
M100
M100
HC
(q/mi)
.13
.02
.00[a]
.02
.01
.09
.02
.00[a]
.01
.00
. 12
.02
.00[a]
.03
.01
.12
.09
.12
.11
.12
.10
.07
.16
.17
.08
.01
.09
.01
.11
.01
CO
(q/mi)
1.17
.08
.00[a]
.00
.00
1.03
.04
.00[a]
.00
.00
1. 12
.03
.00[a]
.00
.00
1.11
.86
1.13
.86
.73
.80
.76
.79
.75
.69
.01
.80
.00
.73
.04
NOx
(q/mi)
.82
.54
.01[a]
.53
.57
.74
.47
.00[a]
.48
.63
.79
.53
.01[a]
.50
.52
.69
.72
.75
.68
.65
.67
.56
.53
.55
.70
.37
.75
.42
.82
.56
Aide.
(mg/mi)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
7.9
3.9
0.8[b]
40.1
1.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5.8
6.8
8.8
8.9
5.2
4.5
6.0
6.5
7.3
13.7
7.1
7.2
6.4
12.9
3.7
Meth.
MPG
21.7
30. 1
.316[c]
14.3
30.8
22. 1
30.5
.258[c]
14.3
31.6
21.8
30.1
.317[c]
14.6
31.7
21.4
21.6
21.4
20.5
21.0
21.2
18.4
19.2
18.4
17.8
25.5
17.9
25.5
17.9
26.1
[a]  Idle test results in grams per minute.
[b]  Idle test results in milligrams per minute.
[c]  Idle test results in gallons per minute.
N/A signifies not available.

-------
     APPENDIX C (cont'd)

INDIVIDUAL TEST RESULTS AT EPA

  B.  Evaporative Emissions

Date
09/11/86
09/12/86
09/16/86
09/17/86
09/18/86
09/19/86

Fuel
M85
M85
M85
M100
M100
M100
Diurnal
(qms)
.32
.49
.66
.13
.10
.09
Hot Soak
(qms)
.20
.21
.25
. 19
.16
.13
                                     Total
                                      .52
                                      .70
                                      .91
                                      .32
                                      .26
                                      .22

-------
                           APPENDIX D
   The  fuel  economy calculations  used in  this report  are an
 application of the general carbon balance equation:
miles/gal
       N
Where:

    .866
    .375
    2799
    2994
    %G
    %M
grams carbon/gallons fuel   = N
   grams carbon/mile          D

(.866)(2799)(%G)+(.375)(2994)%M,
carbon fraction of gasoline,
carbon fraction of methanol,
grams gasoline/gallon,
grams methanol/gallon,
% gasoline/100, and,
% methanol/100
   The  nominal  values for  gasoline  were determined  by  EPA (50
FR  27127)  and  are  based  on  a specific  gravity of  0.739 and
8.345   Ibs  HzO/gal,  yielding  6.17  Ib/gal.   The  values  for
methanol  are  based on a  specific  gravity of 0.791,  giving 6.60
Ib/gal  for methanol.

   D    =   0.866 HC + 0.429 CO + 0.273 C02
           + 0.375 CH,OH  +  0.400 HCHO

Where:

   The  coefficients  are  the  carbon  weight  fractions   of the
carbon-containing  compounds,  and  the  compounds  have units  of
grams per mile.

   The  gasoline equivalent fuel  economy  values are based  on
adjusting  for  the  energy  content  difference  between gasoline
and  methanol.   The  EPA  rulemaking  established  the  nominal
energy  content  of  gasoline at  18,507  BTU/lb  yielding  114,132
BTU/gallon.   Similarly,  methanol  at   8,600  BTU/lb   is  56,768
BTU/gallon.  The adjustment, based on fuel  energy is:
Gasoline equivalent adjustment =_
                             of gasoline
                                _
                                (Energy of gasoline)%G +
                                (Energy of methanol )%M
   Dividing by the energy of gasoline:

Gasoline equivalent adjustment =
                                 %G + 0.4974 %M
Which  =   2.01 for M100 and 1.75 for M85.

-------
                           APPENDIX E

              CALCULATION OF HC, METHANOL AND HCHO
     As  proposed,  the  regulations  in  reference  6  require  the
measurement  of   methanol   (CHsOH)   and   formaldehyde  (HCHO).
Methanol emissions  are especially important  since the dilution
factor  equation  includes  CH3OH  emissions.   At   the  time  the
test  results  reported here  were made,  the  EPA  lab did  not
measure  CH3OH.    Therefore,   the  results   shown  here   were
computed with  an  assumed  FID response  factor  of  0.75   and an
assumed  HC  ppm to methanol  ppm  factor of xx/.85, where  xx is
the  fraction  of  methanol  in  a  methanol  gasoline  blend..  HC,
methanol and organic  material hydrocarbon equivalents computed
using these procedures, as  called for  in reference 6,  are given
below.

-------
                         APPENDIX E (cont'd)

            CALCULATED METHANOL, HC AND ORGANIC MATERIAL
                       HYDROCARBON EQUIVALENTS

Test Date
05/21/86
05/21/86
05/21/86
05/21/86
05/21/86
05/22/86
05/22/86
05/22/86
05/22/86
05/22/86
05/23/86
05/23/86
05/23/86
05/23/86
05/23/86
06/06/86
06/10/86
06/11/86
09/11/86
09/12/86
09/16/86
09/17/86
09/18/86
09/19/86
12/09/86
12/09/86
12/10/86
12/10/86
12/11/86
12/11/86

Test Type
FTP
HFET
Idle
10 MPH
30 MPH
FTP
HFET
Idle
10 MPH
30 MPH
FTP
HFET
Idle
10 MPH
30 MPH
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
HFET
FTP
HFET
FTP
HFET

Test Fuel
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
MS 5
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M85
M100
M100
M100
M100
M100
M100
M100
M100
M100
Methanol
(q/tni)
.295
.036
.003 [a]
.053
.026
.217
.034
.004 [a]
.028
.010
.291
.043
.003 [a]
.060
.032
.266
.207
.280
.243
.267
.235
.195
.440
.463
.219
.019
.242
.018
.300
.019
HC
(q/mi)
.032
.004
.000 [a]
.006
.003
.024
.004
.000 [a]
.003
.001
.031
.005
.000 [a]
.007
.003
.029
.022
.030
.026
.029
.025
.008
.019
.020
.009
.001
.010
.001
.013
.001
OMHCE
(q/mi)
. 160
.019
.002 [a]
.029
.014
.121
.020
.002 [a]
.033
.005
.157
.023
.002 [a]
.033
.017
. 147
.115
. 155
.135
.147
. 129
.098
.213
.224
.110
.009
.118
.009
. 149
.011
[a]   Grams per minute,

-------