EPA/AA/CTAB/8 7-0 7
Technical Report
Evaluation of MSS-Fueled 1987 Turbo Buick Regals
by
David M. Blair
December 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
December 7, 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Exemption From Peer and Administrative Review
FROM: Karl H. Hellman, Chief
Control Technology and Applications Branch
TO: Charles L. Gray, Jr., Director
Emission Control Technology Division
The attached report entitled "Evaluation of M85-Fueled
1987 Turbo Buick Regals," (EPA/AA/CTAB/87-07) describes
emissions testing conducted at the motor vehicle emission
laboratory on two turbocharged Buick Regals which were
converted to use M-85 fuel.
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; / /&:^&" -'£ -S^ // Date;
-------
Introduction
Section 211 of the Clean Air Act[l] requires that the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) play a key
role in the introduction of new motor vehicle fuels. The
Emission Control Technology Division (ECTD), of the Office of
Mobile Sources, EPA, assesses technology that could be used to
reduce mobile source emissions, including evaluation of
alternate-fueled vehicles.
Two 1987 turbocharged Buick Regals were emission tested at
the U.S. EPA Motor Vehicle Emissions Laboratory located in Ann
Arbor, MI. These vehicles which were converted to use methanol
(M85) fuel have the potential to create a consumer interest in
methanol-fueled or flexible-fueled vehicles due to the
increased performance possible when using methanol fuel in a
turbocharged engine.
Project Summary
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), which is operated
for the Department of Energy (DOE) by Martin Marietta Energy
Systems, Inc., leased ten 1987 turbocharged Buick Regals for
fleet use. Five of these vehicles were modified for use with
M85 fuel (85 percent methanol/15 percent gasoline) by Michigan
Automotive Research Corporation (MARCO) at their Ann Arbor
facilities. Arrangements were made with ORNL and MARCO to
supply EPA with two of the converted vehicles for emission
testing prior to delivery to the ORNL fleet.
An informal cooperative effort between EPA and ORNL has
been established to generate emission and performance data on
these vehicles. The EPA will perform emission and fuel economy
testing on these two vehicles and ORNL will supply basic
performance and driver response data after the vehicles have
been driven a few thousand miles.
The two Buick Regals arrived at the Ann Arbor Motor
Vehicle Emissions Laboratory on November 10, 1987 and were
subsequently tested on November 12, 13, and 17, 1987. The
vehicles were returned to MARCO on November 23, 1987. MARCO
transferred all five of the methanol-converted Regals to ORNL
on December 7, 1987. The vehicles began accumulating mileage
in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory fleet shortly after this
date. ORNL will keep records of vehicle maintenance and driver
response. EPA is particularly interested in driver performance
ratings of the methanol-fueled versus gasoline-fueled
vehicles.
Contact will be maintained with ORNL to obtain the
performance data. Phase II emission testing of the M-85
vehicles is a possibility after the vehicles have accumulated
mileage. This testing would be conducted to evaluate emission
control degradation with mileage accumulation.
-------
-2-
Testinq Summary
The stock gasoline-fueled Regals were emissions certified
at an equivalent test weight (ETW) of 3,625 pounds. The
methanol-fueled (M85) Regals were also tested at this weight,
even though the larger 30-gallon fuel tank and additional fuel
in the methanol vehicles could have moved the ETW up to 3,750
pounds. This was done to allow direct comparison of
gasoline-vehicle emissions to methanol-vehicle emissions.
The vehicles were LA-4 prepped then driven over the
Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and Highway Fuel Economy Test
(HFET) cycles at standard test conditions. Emissions of all
regulated pollutants, along with formaldehyde, were sampled and
measured. The two vehicles were each tested over three
.FTP/HFET cycles and the average values are reported. One
evaporative loss test was conducted to determine the effect of
the larger 30-gallon tank and the use of M85 fuel on
evaporative emissions. The tailpipe emission values were
fairly large; both vehicles would fail the 1.0 gram per mile
new vehicle NOx standard and one vehicle would fail the 3.4
gram per mile new vehicle CO standard.
Turbocharger boost pressure was observed to be negligible
over all portions of the FTP and HFET driving cycles.
Dynamometer drivers reported both vehicles as responding
identically during the test sequences, although one vehicle
(#565) did have a false start at the beginning of the third FTP
cycle.
Discussion
Vehicle description data is given in Table 1. It is
interesting to note that the engine and drivetrain in the
methanol-fueled Regals are relatively stock. The changes made
by MARCO to the stock vehicles to increase vehicle performance
and operating range included: modified fuel delivery system
with larger Bosch injectors, slight cylinder head cleanup and
installation of hardened valve seats, increased fuel tank
capacity to 30 gallons, slightly increased maximum turbo boost
pressure, and modified onboard computer software including a
special PROM chip.[2]
Data concerning the evaporative loss test indicates that
the underhood temperature of the Regal is relatively hot,
probably due to underhood turbo and exhaust plumbing. As seen
in the Table 3 data, the stock evaporative emission system can
effectively handle the hydrocarbon vapors emitted from the 12
gallons of M85 fuel. Although the total loss was .30 grams
greater with the M85-fueled Regal compared to the stock
gasoline-fueled Regal, the total loss was less than the 2.0
gram/test new vehicle certification standards.
-------
-3-
Table 1
Vehicle Description
1987 Turbocharged Buick Regals
Modified to Use M85 Fuel by MARCO*
Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN):
G4GJ1172HP448039:
G4GJ1171HP448565:
Engine:
Type
Bore x stroke
Displacement
Compression ratio
-Fuel metering
Turbocharger
Horsepower
Drivetrain:
Transmission
Axle Ratio
Chassis:
Type
Tires
Gun weight
Test weight (ETW)
Actual dynamometer
horsepower
referred to as K039
referred to as #565
4-stroke Otto cycle, 60 degree v-6
3.76 x 3.40 inches
231 cubic inches
8.0:1
Bosch sequential port-fuel
injection
Garrett AiResearch
Estimated at 300**
Four-speed automatic with lock-up
converter
3.42
Two-door Sedan
Goodyear Eagle GT P215/65R15
3,433 Ibs (before modification)
3,625 Ibs
9.6
-------
-4-
Table 1 (cont'd)
Vehicle Description
1987 Turbccharged Buick Regals
Modified to Use M85 Fuel bv MARCO*
Other:
Fuel tank
Exhaust
Feedback
Odometer reading when
returned to MARCO
~Q-gallon, stainless steel
construction***
Dual-side exhaust, one three-way
catalytic converter
Closed loop A/F ratio control
#039: 780 miles (approx.)
#565: 445 miles .(approx.)
* Michigan Automotive Research Corporation, 1254 N.
Ann Arbor, MI, 48197, Phone (313) 995-2544
** Stock vehicle was rated at 235 hp.
*** Stock vehicle uses an 18.1-gallon tank.
Main,
-------
-5-
Exhaust emission values and fuel economy values for stock
1987 turbocharged Buick Regals are presented in Table 2. A
fuel mileage comparison between the methanol-fueled Regals and
the stock gasoline-fueled vehicles, presented in Table 4, show
that while the methanol vehicles' miles per gallon (MPG) and
energy equivalent MPG are both lower than the gasoline-fueled
vehicle MPG, the range of both vehicles is comparable due to
the methanol-fueled vehicles larger 30-gallon fuel tank.
Exhaust emission results obtained over the FTP and HFET
are presented using the proposed methanol vehicle procedures in
Tables 5-7. The calculations for the data presented in these
tables were based on the new proposed test procedures for
methanol-fueled vehicles.[3] These calculation procedures
differ considerably from the gasoline calculations and are
discussed briefly in Appendix B.[4] Tables 8-10 present the
emissions resultsy using the current gasoline-fueled vehicle
procedures for reference purposes.
Exhaust emissions over the FTP sequences remained fairly
constant for each vehicle, except for CO emission from vehicle
#565 which was 3.72 g/mile for test 1 and rose steadily to 6.00
g/mile for test 3. These individual test results can be found
in Appendix A. This rising CO emission problem of vehicle
#565, coupled with the fact that this vehicle produced
consistently high emissions levels compared to vehicle #039,
could indicate that vehicle #565 is experiencing a problem that
is not present with vehicle #039. The CO problem of vehicle
#565 seems to be limited to Bags 2 and 3. The Bag 2 CO output
of vehicle #565 is 4.2 times greater than vehicle #039, Bag 3
CO is 2.2 times greater while bag 1 CO is only 1.1 times
greater. Thus CO formation of vehicle #565 is only a problem
at the higher operating temperatures encountered during Bags 2
and 3. The high emissions could also be caused by a fuel
enrichment modification programmed into the software to
compensate for a hesitation when moderately accelerating.
MARCO thoroughly checked vehicle #565's computer system before
the car was returned to the ORNL, but no problems were found.
It must be realized, however, that vehicle #565 had less than
445 miles on the odometer when tested, compared to 780 miles on
vehicle #039.
Both vehicles exhibited higher than expected NOx values
for methanol, which are spread throughout the entire FTP.
MARCO revised the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) function and
reduced total EGR in the vehicle calibrations. This would be
expected to have the effect of increasing NOx output.
Table 8 and Table 10 present data that indicates the
methanol-fueled Regals produce less hydrocarbon (HC) emissions
than the comparable gasoline-fueled vehicles. The formaldehyde
emission values of 32.54 milligrams per mile for vehicle #039
and 33.59 milligrams per mile for vehicle #565 over the FTP, as
presented in Table 8, are comparable to the formaldehyde
outputs of other methanol-fueled vehicles. For a
gasoline-fueled vehicle, formaldehyde levels would be in the
5-10 milligram per mile range.
-------
-6-
Table 2
Certification Data
Gasoline-Fueled 1987
Turbocharqed Buick Reqals 231 Cubic Inches V-6
FTP Emissions:
50K miles**
4K miles***
OK miles****
4K miles (HWY)**
* Gas Mileage
HC
(c/mi)
.30
.312
. 183
* .026
Guide, fuel
CO
(g/mi)
3.2
2.47
2.09
.51
economy
NOx
(g/mi) City/Hi
.39
.48 19.3
.18 15.9
. 13
= 17.0/25.0
** Certification data.
*** Data gathered from 1987 EPA Test Car List, vehicle ID
B55107-FEC.
**** Data from EPA audit from December 8 through December 13,
1986.
Taole 3
Evaporative Emission Data
1987 Turbocharged Buick Regals
Evaporative Family: 7BO-ZE
Evaporative Code: 401
M85-fueled vehicle
I.D.K565
(30-gallon tank)
1.21 gram/test tocai loss
0.62 gram diurnal
0.59 gram heat soak
Gasoline-fueled vehicle
certification data
(18.1-gallon tank)
.91* gram/test total loss
4K miles certification value: test K854872.
-------
-7-
Table 4
Fuel Mileage
1987 Turbocharged Buick Regals
#039
#565
M85 (City/HWY)
Methanol (MPG>
10.2/15.9
10.2/16.0
EMPG*
17.7/27.8
17.8/27 .9
Range (mi)
306/477
306/480
Gasoline-Fueled Vehicle (City/HWY)
OK
4K
Gas Mileage Guide
Gasoline MPG
15.9/—
19.3/31.6
17.0/25.0
Range (mi)
288/—
349/572
308/452
EMPG is the energy equivalent gasoline fuel economy.
Table 5
FTP Emission Results*
1987 Turbocharged Buick Regal MSS-Fueled Vehicle
ID
Fuel
HC HCHO CO NOx OMHCE CH30H
(g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi)
#039 M85
#565 M85
.040
.048
.. 18-. 31
.03460
.03338
—
2
4
2.
.809
.951
1-3.2
1 . 116
1 . 181
. 18-. 48
.215
.256
—
.368
.444
—
* Calculated using proposed methanol procedure.
** Certification data on the gasoline-fueled turbocharged
Regal using gasoline-vehicle procedures is shown for
comparison (see Table 2).
-------
-8-
Table 6
Bag-By-Bag Emission Results*
1987.Turbocharqed Buick Regal M85-Fueled Vehicle
Vehicle #039:
HC(g)
HCHO (mg)
CO (g)
NOx (g)
OMHCE (g)
CH3OH (g)
Bag 1
.498
386.95
33.985
4.797
2.668
4.597
Bag 2
.051
61.73
3.394
3.840
.285
.473
Bag 3
.053
49.81
4.954
4. 167
.287
.487
Vehicle #565:
HC(g)
HCHO (mg)
CO (g)
NOx (g)
OMHCE (g)
CH,OH (g)
Bag 1
.563
323.93
38.419
5. 117
2.962
5. 197
Bag 2
.081
68.05
14.126
3.990
.438
.751
Bag 3
.060
72.05
10.868
4.557
.335
.557
Calculated using proposed methanol procedures.
-------
-9-
Table 7
Highway Emission Data*
1987 Turbocharqed Buick Reqal M85-Fueled Vehicle
Vehicle
tt039
#565
CERT**
HC
(q/mi)
.004
.005
.026
HCHO
(q/mi)
.00868
.01618
—
CO
(q/mi)
. 154
.492
.51
NOX
(q/mi)
1. 110
1.410
. 13
OMHCE
(q/mi)
.024
.031
—
CH3OH
(q/mi)
.037
.044
—
* Calculated using proposed methanol procedures.
** Certification data on a gasoline-fueled turbocharged Regal
using gasoline-vehicle procedures, shown for comparison
(see Table 2).
Table 8
FTP Emission Results*
1987 Turbocharged Buick Regals
ID
#039
#565
CERT**
Fuel
M85
M85
Gasoline
HC
(q/mi)
. 159
. 192
.18-. 31 •
CO
(q/mi)
2.81
4 .95
2.1-3.2
NOX
(q/mi)
1 . 12
1 . 18
. 18-. 48
HCHO
(mq/mi)
32. 54
33 . 59
— —
* Calculated using current gasoline procedures.
** Certification data on the gasoline-fueled turbocharged
Regal shown for comparison (see Table 2).
-------
-10-
Table 9
Bag-By-Bag Emission Results*
1987
Vehicle #039 :
HC(g)
CO (g)
NOx (g)
HCHO (mg)
Vehicle #565:
HC(g)
CO (g)
NOx (g)
HCHO (mg)
Turbocharqed Buick Regal
Bag 1
1.99
33.99
4,80
387.05
Bag 1
2.25
38.42
5.12
324.20
* ' Calculated using current gasoline
Table 10
Highway Emission
M85-Fueled Vehic
Bag 2
.20
3.39
3.84
45.98
Bag 2
.33
14.13
3.99
68.93
procedures .
Data*
le
Bag 3
.21
4.95
4.17
50.23
Bag 3
.24
10.87
4.56
72.46
1987 Turbocharged Buick Regal
Vehicle
#039
#565
Cert**
HC CO
(g/mi) (g/mi)
.016 .15
.019 .49
.026 .51
NOx
(g/mi)
1. 11
1 .41
. 13
HCHO
(mq/mi)
8.74
16.23
—
* Calculated using current gasoline procedures.
** Certification data on a gasoline-fueled turbocharged Regal
shown for comparison (see Table 2).
-------
-11-
The highway formaldehyde data, presented in Table 10,
again indicates a problem with vehicle #565's ability to reduce
regulated emission outputs at higher operating temperatures.
Vehicle #565's highway formaldehyde emission was 16.23
milligrams per mile, compared to vehicle #039's output of 8.74
milligrams per mile.
Street performance of the vehicles can only be rated as
excellent. Although cold starting was difficult after the
vehicles had been stored outdoors for four days at
approximately 45°F, indoor (68°F) starting was generally not a
problem, except for the one false start by vehicle #565. The
vehicles handle well, although a person not accustomed to
driving a high-performance vehicle may have problems
controlling wheelspin and maneuvering corners under
acceleration. The vehicles were not equipped with antispin
rearaxles (positraction), the deletion of which can lead to
excessive off-line wheelspin and cornering wheelhop. Drivers
should be informed of the increased performance nature of these
vehicles, especially if these vehicles will see everyday
service in rain and snow.
-------
-12-
References
l. The Clean Air Act as amended through July 1981,
Section 211(C)(1).
2. "Conversion of 1984 Buick Turbo Regal to Use
Methanol (M85) As a Motor Fuel," Yee-, G. , Woodward, 3., and
Yuille, R. , SAE Paper 861592, presented at the International
Fuels and Lubricants Meeting and Exposition, Philadelphia, PA,
October 6-9, 1986.
3. ' "Proposed Emission Standards and Test Procedures for
Methanol-Fueled Vehicles, Draft Regulation" U.S. EPA, Summer
1986.
4. "Calculation of Emissions and Fuel Economy When
Using Alternate Fuels," EPA 460/3-83-009, Urban, Charles M.,
March 1983.
5. "Interim Report en. the Evaluation of a
Methanol-Fueled LTD Crown ictoria", EPA/AA/CTAB/87-03,
Piotrowski, G. P., Heavenrich, R. M. , Bruetsch, R. I., Cheng,
J. P., March, 1987.
-------
A-l
APPENDIX A
Individual FTP Test Results*
Date
Vehicle
11/12/87
11/13/87
11/17/87
Vehicle
11/12/87
11/13/87
11/17/87
Test
Number
K039:
880631 Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Composite (g/mi)
880633 Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Composite (g/mi)
880638 Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Composite (g/mi)
K565:
880634 Bag l (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Composite (g/mi)
880637 Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Composite (g/mi)
880694 Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Composite (g/mi)
Exhaust Emissions
HC
1.96
0.22
0.20
0. 16
2.11
0.19
0.20
0 . 16
1.90
0.21
0.23
0.16
1.78
0.23
0.20
0. 15
1.87
0.35
0.29
0. 18
3. 10
0.39
0.23
0.25
CO
30.95
2.61
4.84
2.51
37.37
3.72
4.68
3.03
33.63
3.85
5.35
2.89
34.98
7.53
8.93
3.72
35.69
16. 10
11.71
5.13
44. 59
18. 75
11.97
6.00
NOX
4.79
3.81
4. 10
1. 10
4.64
3.73
4. 13
1 . 09
4.96
3.98
4.27
1. 16
5.30
3.97
4.45
1. 18
5. 18
3.77
4.82
1. 18
4 .87
4 .23
4 . 40
1. 19
HCHO
.364
.041
.069
.032
.439
.048
.021
.034
.358
.048
.060
.032
.315
.058
.069
.031
.327
.059
.044
.030
.330
.089
. 105
.039
MPG**
10. 12
10 .21
10. 17
10.24
10 .20
10 . 17
* *
Calculated using current gasoline vehicle procedures.
Methanol miles per gallon calculated using methanol-fueled
vehicle procedures.
-------
B-l
APPENDIX B
Calculation of HC, Methanol, and HCHO
As proposed, the regulations in reference 3 require the
measurement of methanol CHjOH and formaldehyde, HCHO.
Methanol emissions are especially important since the dilution
factor equation includes CH,OH 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 a 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 results were then
computed using the procedures specified in the draft
regulations.[report ref.5]
------- |