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,
------- |