EPA/AA/CTAB/87-03
Technical Report
Interim Report On the Evaluation of a
Methanol-Fueled LTD Crown Victoria
By
Gregory K. Piotrowski
Robert M. Heavenrich
Robert I. Bruetsch
Jensen P. Cheng
March 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
25o5 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Exemption From Peer and Administrative Review
Karl H. Bellman, Chief
Control Technology and Applications Branch
Charles L . Gray, Jr., Director
Emission Control Technology Division
The attached report entitled "Interim Report on the
Evaluation of a Methanol-Fueled LTD Crown Victoria,"
(EPA-AA-CTAB-87-03) describes a project involving testing a M85
fueled cycles LTD Crown Victoria at MVEL on the FTP, HWY, New
York City, and evaporative tests and includes a comparison to
similar data taken at three other labs (Ford, Engines and
Control Systems, Inc., and the City of New York). The vehicle
tested is intended for taxicab fleet service in New York City.
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:
Attachment
Date
Charles L. Gray, 'Jr., Dir
ECTD
-------
Background
The New York City Department of Environmental Protection
is considering sponsoring a methanol-fueled taxi cab fleet of
vehicles for operation in New York City. Celanese Corporation
has sponsored the build of a prototype vehicle- for this
project, and that vehicle is the subject of this report.
Taxi permits (medallions) are required for operating a cab
in New York City. Extra medallions could be used as an
incentive to taxi cab companies willing to incorporate
methanol-fueled taxis into their fleets.
EPA is interested in this program to assess the potential
of methanol vehicles to reduce urban pollution levels.
Test Vehicle/Fuel
The vehicle tested in this program, a 1986 Ford LTD Crown
Victoria (see Table 1), is powered by a 5-liter fuel-injected
engine, equipped for operation on methanol/gasoline fuel.
Approximately 3,500 miles had been accumulated on the vehicle
when it was made available to EPA. The stock catalyst had been
replaced at 1,500 miles, however, so only 2,000 miles had been
accumulated on the replacement catalyst.
The vehicle was designed and built for use with M85 fuel
(calibrated to run approximately stoichiometric, A/F = 7.6:1,
for most speed/load combinations). A replacement electronic
control unit to allow operation with M100 was not available, so
no testing with M100 was possible.
The vehicle has a total fuel capacity of 33 gallons, using
an 18-gallon main tank supplemented by a 15-gallon auxiliary
tank in the trunk. The two tanks are connected in sequence to
function as one source of fuel filled through one filler neck.
The auxiliary tank is permanently connected to the main tank,
rather than as an optional tank that can be connected and/or
disconnected at will.
The vehicle was delivered with a tank of M85 fuel from an
unknown source (assumed to be Celanese); additional M85 fuel
needed to complete the test program was procured by EPA from
Howell Hydrocarbons, San Antonio, Texas.
-------
Tests Run in New York City
The car was tested five times by New York City's
Department of Environmental Protection on the FTP and New York
City cycles at 4,000 Ibs inertia weight. As shown in Table 2,
test number 4190 run on April 29, 1986 is the only- valid New
York test on the same catalyst tested in Ann Arbor. Tests 4176
and 4182 were made using M85 after the car had been misfueled
with unleaded gasoline (see test 4172.) Test 4192 was a void
test. Tables 3 and 4 give the results of the tests run in New
York. At the time the car was tested in New York, the
auxiliary fuel tank had not as yet been installed.
Table 2
FTP and New York City Cycle Tests Performed
On the 1986 Crown Victoria in New York City
Date
03/14/86
Odometer
Test Number Read ing
03/19/86
03/25/86
04/29/86
04/30/86
4172
4176
4182
4190
4192
1449
1469
1636
2500
2500
Comments
Tested as delivered from
Celanese; car was misfueled
with unleaded gasoline. The
NYC lab used Bag 3 data twice
to get composite results.
Test with proper fuel (M85)
Test with proper fuel (M85)
After catalyst replaced
Void test; vehicle chains were
not tight for the start of Bag
1; consequently a rocking
motion of the vehicle affected
throttle response and
emissions.
-------
-3-
Table 3
FTP Results Obtained in New York City
on the LTD Crown Victoria
Exhaust Emissions
Date
03/14/86
03/19/86
03/25/86
04/29/86
04/30/86
Test
Number (
4172 Bag 1*
Bag 2
Bag 3
Composite
4176 Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
Composite
4182 Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
Composite
4190 Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
Composite
4192 Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
Composite
HC
!g/mi )
5.22
10.07
5.22
7.74
0.80
0.16
0.18
0.30
0.83
0.08
0.15
0.26
0.35
0.04
0.12
0.13
0.60
0.05
0.13
0.19
CO
(g/mi )
98.05
169.8
98.05
135.3
2.92
0.11
0.31
0.74
1.99
0.07
0.35
0.54
0.96
0.05
0.19
0.28
2.04
0.06
0.22
0.51
C02
(g/mi)
394
N/A
N/A
394
N/A
N/A
N/A
481
N/A
N/A
N/A
482
N/A
N/A
N/A
497
N/A
N/A
N/A
492
NOx
(g/mi )
0.51
0.29
0.51
0.39
1.26
0.72
1.05
0.92
1.19
0.67
0.97
0.86
1.13
0.61
1.00
0.82
1.16
0.63
0.95
0.83
ECHO
(mg/mi) MPG
N/A 7.6
N/A 10.0
N/A 10.0
N/A 9.7
N/A 9.8
The NYC lab used Bag 3 in
composite emissions values.
lieu of Bag 1 to calculate
-------
Table 4
New York City Cycle Results
Obtained in New York City
Exhaust Emissions
Date
03/14/86
03/19/86
03/25/86
04/29/86
04/30/86
Test
Number
4172
4176
4182
4190
4192
HC
(g/mi)
22.21
0.32
0.30
0.17
0.18
CO CO2
(g/mi) (g/mi)
337.2
0.27
0.74
0.12
0.26
726
926
943
919
919
NOx
(g/mi )
0.58
1.40
1.45
1.21
1.17
HCHO -
(mg/mi
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
) MPG
3.6
5.2
5.1
5.2
5.2
Tests Run at MVEL
A total of 17 tests were run on the LTD Crown Victoria at
MVEL. As shown in Table 5, seven of these were FTPs, four were
HWY tests, three were EVAP/FTP tests, and three were NYC cycle
tests. Fuel supplied by Celanese was used for the tests run
through October 28, 1986; fuel supplied by Howell Hydrocarbons
was used for the remaining tests.
For the evaporative test, 13.2 gallons was considered to
be the equivalent of a 40 percent fill. For this test, the top
mounted (auxiliary) tank was drained in the usual fashion by
dropping a drain line into the main tank, venting it and
pumping out the fuel. Due to the curved line from the
auxiliary tank to the main tank, it was not possible to drain
the main tank in the same manner as the auxiliary. The main
was instead drained by hot wiring the fuel pump with a 12-volt
battery and drawing the fuel off through a tap on the injector
supply rail.
The car was then filled with 13.2 gallons of fuel through
the filler neck. Because the drain pipe from the auxiliary to
the main is tapped into the auxiliary tank almost two inches
above the bottom of the auxiliary, approximately 10 of the 13.2
gallons flowed into the main tank. The other 3.2 gallons of
fuel were trapped in the bottom of the auxiliary tank.
-------
-5-
Table 5
Tests Run on M85 Fueled MY86 LTD Crown Victoria at MVEL
Test Number
870379
870380
870381
870382
870383
870384
870555
870611
870612
870639
870659
871164
871165
871200
871201
871202
871199
Date Odometer Reading Test Type Fuel Source
10/23/86
10/23/86
10/24/86
10/24/86
10/28/86
10/28/86
11/06/86
11/13/86
11/13/86
11/14/86
11/14/86
12/16/86
12/17/86
12/18/86
12/19/86
12/19/86
12/19/86
3399.9
3410.6
3437.5
3447.2
3474.0
3485.7
3514.0
3532.0
3552.2
3569.0
3580.9
3589.0
3607.0
3625.4
3631.2
3644.5
3655.2
FTP
HWY
FTP
HWY
FTP
HWY
Evap/FTP*
FTP
HWY
FTP
NYC
Evap/FTP
Evap/FTP
FTP
NYC
FTP
NYC
Celanese
Celanese
Celanese
Celanese
Celanese
Celanese
Howe 11
Howe 11
Howe 11
Howe 11
Howe 11
Howe 11
Howe 11
Howe 11
Howe 11
Howe 11
Howe 11
Results suspect.
-------
-6-
For the diurnal heat build phase of the evaporative test,
the metal tiedowns that hold the auxiliary tank in place were
taken apart and both tanks wrapped with heat blankets. It was
impossible to place thermocouples in both tanks. Instead, the
temperature sensors that control the diurnal heat build up were
epoxy cemented to the sanded skin of both tanks. Evaporative
emissions results were as follows:
Diurnal Loss Hot Soak Loss Total Mass Loss
Test Number; (grams) (grams) (grams)
870555 0.36 0.79 1.15
871164 7.56 0.71 8.27
871165 3.48 0.70 4.18
Average 3.80 0.73 4.53
The higher than normal evaporative emissions levels may
have been caused by the car's evaporative emissions system
being designed for only the main fuel tank, and not the
additional tank.
Tables 6, 7, and 8 give the FTP and HWY test results from
the test runs at MVEL on the car. The engine is calibrated to
run slightly lean at idle making stalls likely at the beginning
of a cold. FTP, and causing poor driveability consistently
during the first two minutes of FTP operation. The response
was so poor that a conscious effort had to be made by the
driver during this time period to keep the car from stalling,
as noted on the driver's record for tests 870381 and 870383.
The calculations for the data presented in these tables
were based on the new proposed test procedures for methanol
fueled vehicles.*[1] These calculation procedures differ
considerably from those used in the past and are discussed
briefly in Appendix B.F2]
The data for test 870555 is suspect and in fact was
excluded from the calculation of the averages in Table 6. The
HC and CO results for this test were roughly twice as high as
the other FTP tests at MVEL. This FTP test was run immediately
after an evaporative emissions test. The high HC and CO
emissions may have been caused by the evap canister becoming
saturated during the heat build phase of the evap test and not
being purged until the FTP was started.
Numbersin brackets denote references listed at the end of
this report.
-------
-7-
Table 6
Emissions Data Obtained in FTP Tests
Of LTD Crown Victoria at MVEL
Exhaust Emissions
Test
Number
870379
870381
870383
Average
870555*
870611
870639
871164
871165
871200
871202
Average*
HC CO
(g/mi) (g/mi)
.039 .30
.050 .54
.046 .29
.045 .38
.082 .49
.045 .24
.046 .23
.049 .34
.071 .41
.042 .28
'.044 .29
.050 .30
NOx HCHO
(g/mi) (mg/mr) MPG Comments
.66 29.14 9.1 Celanese fuel
.63 36.29 9.1 Celanese fuel
.70 29.46 9.2 Celanese fuel
.66 31.63 9.1 Celanese fuel
.69 17.42 9.1 Howell
.67 44.93 9.2 Howell
.71 32.38 9.2 Howell
.72 25.53 9.3 Howell
.68 30.38 9.2 Howell
.71 26.58 9.3 Howell
.68 26.16 9.3 Howell
.70 31.00 9.2 Howell
fuel
fuel
fuel
fuel
fuel
fuel
fuel
fuel
-
Average
.048 .32
.68 31.21 9.2 All but
870555
test
* Suspect test not used in calculating any of the averages
-------
-8-
Table 7
FTP Aldehyde Emissions (mg/tni)
of LTD Crown Victoria at MVEL
Test
Number
870379
870381
870383
Average
870555*
870611
870639
871164
871165
871200
871202
Average
Bag 1
104.51
120.53
101.14
108.73
18.01
153.73
115.55
89.72
109.47
. 90.29
85.90
107.44
Bag 2
3.41
10.28
4.08
5.92
4.37
11.00
6.46
5.54
5.57
5.27
5.57
6.57
Bag 3
21.56
22.43
23.83
22.60
42.24
27.74
19.22
15.65
17.89
20.54
20.22
20.21
Total
29.14
36.29
29.46
31.63
17.42
44.93
32.38
25.53
30.38
26.58
26.16
31.00
Fuel
Celanese
Celanese
Celanese
Celanese
Howe 11
Howe 11
Howe 11
Howe 11
Howel 1
Howe 11
Howe 11
Howe 11
Average
all runs
107.87
6.35
21.01
31.21
All but
test
870555
Suspect test not used in calculating any of the averages.
-------
Emissions
Of LTD
Exhaust
Test
Number
870380
870382
870384
Average
870612
HC
(g/mi)
.006
.007
.006
.006
.005
CO
(g/mi
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-9-
Table 8
Data Obtained in
Crown Victoria at
Emissions
NOx
) (g/mi)
.54
.53
.53
.53
.71
HCHO
(mg/mi.)
0.00
2.48
4.10
2.19
5.09
HWY Tests
MVEL
MPG Comments
15.2 Celanese fuel
15.2 Celanese fuel
15.2 Celanese fuel
15.2 Celanese fuel
15.4 Howell fuel
Average
.006
Compar
Fueled
0.0
ison
LTD
Exhaust
Lab
MVEL*
NYC
Ford
ECS
HC
(g/mi )
.05
.13
.24
.20
CO
(g/mi
.32
.22
.22
.37
.58
Table
2.92
9
of FTP Emissions
Crown Victoria by
Emi ssions
NOx
) (g/mi)
.68
.82
.69
.65
HCHO
(mg/mi )
30
N/A
N/A
N/A
15.2 All four tests
From An M85
Laboratory
MPG Comments
9.2 Nine tests
9.7 Test #4190**
9.6***
9.1***
* Calculations made in accordance with Reference 1. HC
calculated using the same methods as those assumed to be
used at the other labs gives 0.19 g/mi. FTP CH3OH
emissions from the MVFL tests were 0.24 g/mile.
** The only valid NYC -.^st with the same catalyst as in the
MVEL tests.
*** Personal communication, R. Nichols, Ford.
-------
-10-
As mentioned earlier, two different sources of M85 fuel
were used. Differences in the chemical content of the two
fuels may account for some of the variation of the data in
Tables 6, 7, and 8, but the consistency of the HC test results
for the two fuel types on both the FTP and HWY tests makes this
unlikely. Table 7 gives bag-by-bag FTP aldehyde emissions.
Table 9 compares the FTP results obtained at MVEL, New
York, Ford, and Engine and Control Systems, Inc (ECS). The New
York City NOx and MPG results are different than those obtained
at the other labs. Possible causes of variation in the data
include the fuel used, age of the catalyst, and unavoidable
driver variance due to the tendency of the car to stall. In
addition, the car was tested at 4,000 Ibs inertia weight in New
York vs. 4,500 Ibs at MVEL which could explain the difference
in fuel economy results.
These lab-to-lab differences also occur for the New York
City cycles shown in Table 10.
Table 10
Comparison of NYC Cycle Emissions From An M85
Fueled LPT Crown Victoria by Laboratory
Lab
MVEL*
MVEL
MVEL
MVEL
NYC
HC
(g/mi)
.041
.033
.040
.038
.17
Exhaust
CO
(g/mi)
0.000
0.000
0.084
0.028
.12
Emissions
NOx
(g/mi )
1.091
1.065
1.099
1.085
1.21
ECHO
(mg/mi )
24.76
19.73
48.64
31.04
N/A
MPG
4.5
4.6
4.5
4.5
N/A
Comments
870659
871201
871199
Average
Test #4190**
* Calculations made in accordance with Reference 1.
** The only valid NYC test with the same catalyst as in the
MVEL tests.
-------
-11-
Summary
When tested at. EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Laboratory,
the methanol-fueled LTD Crown Victoria produced the emissions
listed below. The evap results are grams per test.
Test
HC
(g/mi)
CO
(g/mi)
NOx
(g/mi.)
HCHO
(mg/mi)
MPG
FTP
HWY
NYC
Evap
.05
.01
.04
4.53
.32
.00
.03
.68
.58
1.09
31
3
31
9.2
15.2
4.5
The composite fuel economy for the vehicle tested is 11.2
miles per gallon of M85. Using a gasoline equivalent
conversion factor range of 1.75 to 1.82, this is equivalent to
a range of 19.5 to 20.4 MPG. According to Ford Motor Company,
the comparable gasoline-fueled model year 1986 LTD Crown
Victoria car got 21.9 MPG on gasoline. Other MPG values for
other Ford cars similar to the vehicle tested are shown in
Appendix A.
~HC emissions were obtained with the FID
propane for the tests run at MVEL.
calibrated with
References
1. "Proposed Emission Standards and Test Procedures For
Methanol-Fueled Vehicles, Draft Regulation," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Summer 1986.
2. "Calculation
Using Alternate Fuels,'
March 1983.
of Emissions and
EPA 460/3-83-009,
Fuel Economy When
Urban, Charles M. ,
-------
APPENDIX A
1986 Certification Test Car List Data
Ford 302-CID Fuel-Injected Engines With
4-Speed Lockup Transmissions
ETW
Thunderbird
3875 Ibs
Grand Grand
Marquis Marquis
Mark VII Wagon Wagon
4000 Ibs 4250 Ibs 4250 Ibs
Thunderbird
3750 Ibs
8.9
2.73
Compression
ratio
Axle ratio
City Data:
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
MPG
Highway Data;
HC (g/mi)
CO (g/mi)
NOx (g/mi)
MPG
Composite MPG 24.2
Evap (grams)
8.9
2.73
8.9
3.27
8.9
3.27
8.9
2.73
.140
.24
.45
19.8
0.043
0.0
0.56
33.3
24.2
N/A
.126
.16
.35
18.1
0.039
0.0
0.32
30.7
22.2
0.84
.144
.40
.46
17.6
0.061
0.0
0.20
26.7
20.8
0.65
.158
.40
.41
17.7
0.069
0.03
0.17
27.3
21.0
N/A
.226
.54
.39
19.4
0.139
0.01
0.18
33.0
23.8
N/A
-------
APPENDIX B
Calculation of EC, Methanol and HCHO
As proposed, the regulations in reference 1 require the
measurement of methanol CH3
------- |