EPA/AA/CTAB/87-09
                        Technical Report
          Evaluation of Toyota LCS-M Carina:  Phase II
                               by
                      Gregory K.  Piotrowski
                          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

-------
                        Table  of  Contents

                                                          Page
                                                         Number
I.   Summary	1
II.  Introduction  	  3
III. Vehicle Description   	4
IV.  Emission Analysis - Methods 	  5
V.   Program Design/Discussion of Test Results 	  5
     A.    Improved M100 Best Driveability Calibration .  .  5
     B.    Two-Catalyst System   	   6
     C.    Testing At Increased Inertia Weight 	 11
     D.    Use of Higher Aspect Ratio Tires. ....... 13
     E.    Cold Start/Emissions Testing  	 13
     F.    Baseline Testing  	 18
     G.    Air/Fuel Ratio Analysis 	 25
VI.  Conclusions	26
VII. Acknowledgments	35
VIII.References  	 36
APPENDIX A - Description of Toyota LCS-M Test Vehicle  .  . A-l
APPENDIX B - Calculation of HC, Methanol and HCHO  .... B-l
APPENDIX C - NTK Micro Oxivision Air/Fuel Ratio Meter  .  . C-l

-------
 I.   Summary

     Initial  testing of the  Toyota Lean  Combustion (Methanol)
 Carina  loaned to the  U.S.  EPA by  the  Toyota Motor Corporation
 involved ]the  determination and  comparison of fuel  economy and
 pollutant  emission  profiles  of  the vehicle when  operated on
 M100 and M85  methanol fuels.   The  results from this  "Phase I"
 testing were  summarized in SAE  Paper 871090, "Fuel Economy and
 Emissions of  a Toyota T-LCS-M Methanol Prototype Vehicle."

     Testing  subsequent  to Phase I involved a number  of short
 programs designed to  further define the  capabilities  of  this
 methanol  lean burn  system with  regard to  pollutant  emissions
 and  fuel  economy.  This testing was conducted using  M100  neat
 methanol  exclusively,   and   i.=   referred   to  as   "Phase   II"
 testing.  A summary  of the results from these separate tests is
 presented below.

     1.    An  improved version  of  the  M100 best  driveability
 calibration was  tested and the results  compared with those from
 testing with  the  PROM  originally  supplied  with   the  vehicle.
 Toyota describes the improved best driveability  calibration as
 8  percent  leaner at  idle  than  the original best  driveability
 calibration.  NOx and CO emission  levels  over  the  FTP and HFET
 cycles rose when the improved calibration was  used.   Aldehydes
 and hydrocarbons  remained  at  similar emisJLsori levels regardless
 of  calibration,  however.    (NOx,  CO,   arid  formaldehyde  were
 emitted  at  rates of   1.25  and  .93 grams  per mile   and  12.1
 milligrams per mile respectively over the  FTP with  the improved
 calibration.)   Composite gasoline  eguivalent fuel  economy was
 39.4 MPG for both calibrations.

     2.    The Carina  was  tested with  an underfloor  converter
 in -addition  to  its  original close-coupled  manifold converter.
 Substantial   increases   in  emission level   efficiencies  over
 manifold catalyst-only testing  were obtained  for  HC,  CO,  and
 aldehydes over the FTP cycle.   The  two-catalyst system emitted
 only 5  milligrams per  mile of  formaldehyde over   the  FTP,  but
 NOx emissions  increased to 1.45  grams  per  mile  over  the  same
 cycle.   Gasoline  equivalent composite fuel economy was 38.8 MPG
 with the two-catalyst system.

     3.    The  Carina  was  tested  over  FTP/HFET cycles at  an
 inertia weight  of 2625  Ibs,  up from  2250   Ibs inertia weight
 tested  at   previously.   The  additional  weight  was  added  to
 simulate operation of  heavier  vehicles  equipped with engines of
 similar horsepower rating.   CO levels over the  FTP  increased to
 1.26 grams per mile,  up from the .93 grams per  mile measured at
 2250 Ibs test weight.    Little  change  in  other emission levels
 over the  FTP or HFET cycle  resulted  from  the additional  test
weight.  City and highway  fuel  economy  were reduced by .3 and
 .7 MPG respectively due to the increased weight.

-------
                              -2-

     4.    The  original equipment  165SR13  tires  on the  front
drive  wheels were  replaced with higher  aspect  ratio 175/80R13
tires.  The  use of higher  aspect  ratio  tires  than those present
on  the vehicle  as original  equipment  simulates  the use  of  a
larger  chassis  vehicle and  increases  the demand  placed  on the
engine  at': constant speed.

     Efficiencies  decreased   by   16   to  50   percent  in  each
emissions category through the use  of  the higher  tires.   City
fuel  economy was also  penalized  approximately 5  percent  for  a
city MPG of  16.2 through the use of the higher tires.

     5.    The vehicle  was soaked and  tested in  the cold room
to  determine:   a)  the  lowest  temperature at which  the vehicle
would start  and run on M100 fuel, and b)  the  emissions  and fuel
economy profiles of this vehicle at lower than 75°F conditions.

     The lowest temperature at which the Carina would start and
run   reliably  was   55°F.    Emissions   of   carbon-containing
pollutants  generally  increased  as  soak  temperature decreased;
emissions measured  as HC  increased  from .09  to   .19 grams  per
mile  as  temperature  was  decreased  from  60°  to  55°F,  for
example.  Average  NOx emissions, however,  decreased over this
same temperature range,  from 1.25 to 1.18 grams per mile.  Fuel
economy gradually  decreased   with   decreasing   temperature.
Average city-MPG  decreased to 16.34 MPG  at 55°F  from 16.79 MPG
at 75°F.

     6.    The close-coupled  manifold catalyst was  removed and
a   non-catalyzed  substrate   substituted  in  its  place   to
approximate   engine-out,   or    baseline  emissions.     Three
electronically  controlled   air/fuel   ratio   calibrations  were
utilized  in  this  testing:    a)  a  calibration  optimized  for
driveability, b)   a  calibration  similar to  the  first,   yet  8
percent  leaner   at   idle  according   to  Toyota,   and   c)   a
calibration  for operation at the maximum lean limit.

     HC baseline  levels from the Carina  ranged from 7.2  to 7.7
grams per mile over the FTP; CO was emitted at a  rate of  5.4 to
5.9 grams per mile over  the same cycle.  Average formaldehyde
levels  over  the  FTP varied from 312 milligrams  per mile with
the improved best  driveability calibration to 573.1 milligrams
per mile with the  original best driveability  calibration.  The
lowest  HC, CO and  formaldehyde levels over the FTP were emitted
when the improved  best  driveability  PROM was  utilized.   Higher
levels  of NOx,  over those  from the original  best driveability
and maximum  lean limit  calibrations,  however were  emitted when
the improved best  driveability calibration was  used.  Gasoline
equivalent  composite  MPG  was  highest,  40.2  MPG,  with  the
maximum lean limit calibration.

     7.    An  air/fuel   ratio  measuring system,  described  in
Appendix  C  was  used   to  characterize  the   lean  operating
conditions  of the Carina  over  several steady-state  cycles.

-------
                             -3-

Three  separate air/fuel  ratio calibrations were  utilized,  and
pollutant  emissions  were  also measured.   Actual  dynamometer
horsepower  of  8.0 and  vehicle inertia test weight  of 2250 Ibs
were used  for this  testing.   The dummy  catalyst  substrate was
used  in place of  the platinum/rhodium  manifold  close-coupled
catalyst lin   order  to  provide   an  estimate  of  uncatalyzed
engine-out emissions.

     The  air/fuel  ratio  measuring  technique  employed did  not
indicate that  the improved best driveability PROM  was 8 percent
leaner  at  idle  than  the  original  best  driveability  PROM.
Values   of    lambda    (actual   air/fuel   ratio   divided   by
stoichiometric  air/fuel  ratio)  from  both  best  driveability
calibratins were  similar  over idle cycle  testing.   The  best
driveability calibrations ran at lambda  values  of 1.0 at idle,
while the maximum lean limit PROM ran  leaner,  at  approximately
a lambda value of 1.14.

     The two  best driveability calibrations  operated at  lambda
values of approximately 1.3  over  the 10, 20,  30,  40  and  50 MPH
steady-state cycles, which  equates  to an M100 air/fuel ratio of
approximately  8.4 to  1.   The maximum  lean  limit  calibration
operated at very near  a lambda of  1.4 for these same cycles,
which equates to an M100  air/fuel ratio  of  approximately  9.0 to
1.  HC, NOx,  and  formaldehyde levels at idle were similar among
the three  PROMs;  approximately 0.6  and  0.04  grams  per  minute
and 50 to 80  milligrams per minute, respectively.   CO emissions
with the maximum  lean  limit PROM,  0.41 grams per minute,  were
less  than  30  percent  of  the emission  levels  from the  best
driveability PROMs, however.

     NOx levels  at 10  MPH  were  1.22  grams per mile with  the
lean limit  PROM,  approximately 30  percent below levels from the
other PROMs.   HC  and   CO  levels  were  similar  over   all  three
calibrations.    Aldehyde  emissions   approached  an average  600
milligrams  per   mile   with  the  improved  best   driveability
calibration;  the  other  two  calibrations  emitted  at  roughly
twice  this  level.   This  difference  in  aldehyde levels,  due
solely  to   the air/fuel  ratio calibration  dissimilarities,  is
difficult to  explain,   particularly  the difference between  the
two best  driveability  calibrations.   Further analysis  of  the
steady-state data is currently underway.

     Average aldehyde values did  not exceed 650 milligrams  per
mile  for  any calibration   over  the  20,  30,  40,  and  50  MPH
cycles,   considerably   lower  levels  than  the  emission  rates
reported at  10 MPH conditions.  CO  emissions  did  not exceed an
average 2.5 grams  per  mile  with  any  calibration over  these
cycles,  and  average CO emission  rates  generally decreased with
increasing  speed  for  each calibration.   Emissions measured as
HC  also  generally  decreased  as  speed  increased  with  each
calibration over these  cycles.

II.   Introduction

     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

-------
                             -4-

made  use   of   three  particular  technologies[2]   to  achieve
improvements  in fuel  economy  as  well  as comply  with emission
requirements under the Japanese 10-mode cycle:

     A.  ..A  lean  mixture  sensor[3]  was  used  in  place of  an
oxygen  sensor  to  control  air/fuel  ratio in the  lean  mixture
range;

     B.    A  swirl  control valve[4]  upstream  of  the  intake
valve  was  adopted  to  improve  combustion  by  limiting  torque
fluctuation at  increased air/fuel ratios; and

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

     The Toyota Lean  Combustion  System  Methanol   (T-LCS-M)  is
similar  to the  T-LCS,  but has  been modified to  maximize  fuel
economy  and  driving  performance  while  minimizing  pollutant
emissions   through   the  use  of  methanol   fuel.    SAE  Paper
860247[5] described the development of the T-LCS-M system.

     EPA became interested in this system  because  of  its use of
fuel methanol  and Toyota  provided  EPA  a T-LCS-M system  in a
Carina  chassis.   The   Toyota  Carina   is  a  right-hand-drive
vehicle sold in Japan.   The vehicle provided to EPA was capable
of operation on both M85 and M100  fuels  by changing the onboard
electronic  control  unit   (PROM,   for   programmable  read-only
memory) to a system compatible with the fuel.

     Initial testing  of this vehicle at the EPA  Motor  Vehicle
Emissions  Laboratory  involved  the  use  of  both  M85  and  M100
methanol   fuels.    This   "Phase   I"    testing    involved   the
determination  and  comparison   of  fuel  economy  and  pollutant
emission profiles of the vehicle when operated on  each of  these
fuels.   A  summary of  this testing  was  published  in  SAE  Paper
871090.[6]

     Testing  subsequent  to  Phase  I   involved   a  number  of
separate issues concerned with various  aspects of  the  T-LCS-M
system.   This  testing  was  conducted using  MlOO  neat  methanol
exclusively, and is  referred to  as "Phase II" testing.  Some of
these    issues    have    been    reported     on    in    earlier
memoranda.[7,8,9,10]    A summary  of these separate  issues  has
been compiled,  however, and is  reported here.

III. 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.    Modifications   to  the   fuel    system   included   the
substitution  of parts resistant to methanol  corrosion.

-------
                             -5-

     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 PROM
to  a  unit  compatible  with  the  desired  fuel.   The  testing
reported |On   here   was   conducted  using  M100  neat  methanol
exclusively,   however.   Details   and   specifications  for  the
vehicle are given in Appendix A.

IV.  Emission Analysis - Methods

     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
[11]  requires the  reporting of methanol  and  organic  material
hydrocarbon   equivalents   (OMHCE).   An   explanation   of   the
methanol data presented in this paper is given in Appendix B.

     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 dinitrophenyl-
hydrazine  (DNPH)  technique.[12]   Exhaust  carbonyls  including
formaldehyde  are bubbled through  DNPH  solution or drawn through
DNPH-coated  cartridges  forming hydrazone  derivatives.   These
derivatives are  separated  from the remaining  unreacted DNPH by
high '   performance    liquid    chromatography    (HPLC).     A
spectrophotometer in the  chromatograph  effluent stream drives
an   integrator   which   determines   formaldehyde   derivative
concentration.

V. - Progam Design/Discussion of Test Results

     A.    Improved M100 Best Driveability Calibration

     Toyota supplied EPA  with  two M100  electronic  calibrations
for the LCS-M Carina different  that the calibration  reported on
in  SAE  Paper  871090.[6]    The M100  electronic  control  unit
mentioned  in   SAE   Paper  871090  was   calibrated   for   best
driveability  conditions,  and is  referred to  as the "original"
M100  best  driveability   PROM.   The   "improved"    M100   best
driveability  calibration   reported on  here  operated  at  an  8
percent  leaner  setting  at  idle  than   the   "original"  best
driveability  calibration;   no other changes were made,  however.
The other recently provided M100 calibration,  set to operate at
maximum  lean   limit  conditions, is  referred  to later  in  this
report.

     The Carina was  tested several  times  over  the Federal  test
procedure  (FTP)  and  highway  fuel  economy  test (HFET)  cycles
utilizing the original best driveability  calibration.   The PROM

-------
                              -6-

was then replaced with the improved calibration  and  the  car was
tested  over   the   same   cycles.    The  close-coupled  manifold
converter  that the  vehicle   was  originally  equipped with  was
kept  in the exhaust stream during  this  testing.   Emissions and
fuel  economy  test  results from  the  improved calibration  are
presented^ in  Tables  1,   2,   and  3;  results  from the  original
calibration testing are also presented for comparison.

     Average CO and NOx  emissions  increased  21 percent  and 29
percent  respectively  over  the  FTP   cycle  when  the  improved
calibration was used.   No out-of-the-ordinary  driving  problems
were  noted   during  this  testing,   however.    Aldehydes  and
emissions  measured  as  hydrocarbons remained  at similar  levels
over  both  calibrations.   Emissions  of  aldehydes  and  NOx
increased  to 11.4 mg/mi  and  0.97 g/mi over  the HFET cycle,  up
from  8.5   mg/mi and 0.73 g/mi  respectively  with the  original
best driveability PROM.   While  emissions  measured as HC  and CO
also  increased with  the  leaner  improved  PROM,  the reference
levels  obtained with the  original  best  driveability PROM were
very low.

     Composite  fuel  economy  was  not  appreciably  aided  by  the
leaner  calibration.  While a small gain  in fuel  economy under
city driving conditions was noticed with the improved PROM, the
original calibration  had  a  slightly  higher  MPG  under  highway
conditions.  The result was a similar composite MPG and hence a
similar gasoline equivalent MPG of 39.4 for both calibrations.

     B.     Two-Catalyst System

     The   LCS-M Carina   arrived   at   the  EPA  Motor   Vehicle
Emissions  Laboratory  equipped  with   a  close-coupled  manifold
catalytic  converter.   The  exhaust  system  was  modified  to
accept  an  underfloor  converter  in  addition  to  the  manifold
catalyst.    The underfloor   converter  was  the   "black  box"
converter  from Engelhard  Industries that was tested as  part of
the  EPA  low  mileage  methanol  catalyst  test  program.    This
combination  of manifold  and  underfloor   converters   tested
simultaneously  is referred to  here as the "two-catalyst" system.

     The "black box"  converter is  so named because  its  maker,
Engelhard  Industries,   has  not  yet  disclosed  the  catalytic
formulation     to    protect    patent     rights.      Engelhard
representatives have stated,  however,  that  this formulation may
be  particularly  effective   in   an   oxidation   catalyst   mode.
Testing this  configuration on  a  lean burn vehicle,  therefore,
would seem to be particularly  appropriate.

     The  black  box  was installed   in  the   exhaust   stream
approximately   1   foot   downstream   from  the   close-coupled
manifold converter.  The  improved M100  best  driveability PROM
was used in  this testing.  The car was tested  three times over
FTP/HFET  cycles.    FTP   results  are  presented   in Table  4,
together with  recent  results  from  vehicle  testing with  only a
manifold  catalyst.    Efficiencies  over   manifold-catalyst-only

-------
                               -7-
                              Table  1
               Improved Ml00 Best Driveability PROM
Test
Number
1
2
3
4
Average
Test
Averages
Average
Efficiency
Percent
HC
q/mi
.06
.08
.08
.08
.08
HC
q/mi
.07
Em is
CO
q/mi
.64
1.14
1.01
.91
.93
Original
CO
g/mi
FTP
C02
q/mi g
240.4
238.7
242.4
240.2
Cycle
NOx
•/mi
1.03
1.19
1.33
1.46
Aide
mg/mi
11.5
13.1
13.3
10.4
HC*
g/mi
.007
.010
.010
.009
CH30H* OMHCE*
g/mi g/mi
.17 .09
.22 .11
.22 .11
.20 .10
240.4 1.25 12.1 .009 .20 .10
Ml 00 Best Driveability PROM
FTP
C02
g/mi g
.77 242.8
sions Efficiency
Over The Orig
HC CO
(14
.3) (20.
FTP
NOx
7) (28.
Cycle


NOx Aide HC*
/mi mg/mi g/mi
.97 12.4 .009
of Improved Calibr
inal Calibration
Cycle

Aide
9) (
2.4)
HC*
<-,
CH30H* OMHCE*
g/mi q/mi
.20 .10
at ion
CH30H* OMHCE*
<-> <->
*    Calculated values per proposed rulemaking.

-------
                               -8-


                              Table  2

               Improved MlQO Best Driveability PROM

                            HFET Cycle
Test
Number
1
2
3
4
Average
HC
g/mi
.005
.005
.006
.005
.005
CO
q/mi
.04
.04
.08
.04
.05
C02
g/mi
167.4
168.6
169.5
171.7
169.3
NOx
g/mi
.89
.87
1.06
1.06
.97
Aide
mg/mi
10.2
11.6
11.7
12.2
11.4
HC*
g/mi
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
CH30H*
g/mi
.01
.01
.02
.01
.01
OMHCE*
g/mi
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
               Original M100 Best Driveability PROM

                            HFET Cycle
 Test      HC
Averages  g/mi
Average
.004
 CO
g/mi

.02
                                   HC*  CH30H*   OMHCE*
                                   I/mi    g/mi     g/mi
                        167.8
.73
8.5
.001
.01
.01
           Emissions Efficiency of Improved Calibration
           	Over the Original Calibration	

                            HFET Cycle
                      CO
                  NOx
                    Aide    HC*   CH30H*  OMHCE*
Efficiency    HC	            	

Percent     (25.0)  (150.)  (32.9)  (34.1)   ( —)    ( —)     ( —)
*    Calculated values per proposed rulemaking.

-------
                               -9-


                              Table 3

               Summary of Fuel Economy Test Results
               Original/Improved M100 Calibrations


     Testing         City   Highway   Composite   Gasoline Equiv,
   Configuration     MPG      MPG        MPG       Composite MPG

Improved M100 PROM    17.0     24.3       19.6          39.4
Manifold Catalyst

Original M100 PROM    16.8     24.5       19.6          39.4
Manifold Catalyst

-------
                               -10-
Table 4
Two-Catalyst System Testing
FTP Cycle
Improved Ml 00 Best
Test
Number
1
2
3
Average
HC
q/mi
.06
.06
.06
.06
CO
g/mi
.61
.64
.82
.69
C02
q/mi
246.8
243.1
243.2
244.4
Driveability Calibration
NOx
q/mi
1.47
1.46
1.43
1.45
Aide
mq/mi
5.1
5.6
4.9
5.2
HC*
g/mi
.008
.007
.008
.008
CH30H*
q/mi
.18
.16
.18
.17
OMHCE*
g/mi
.09
.08
.09
.09
              Recent FTP Results, Manifold Catalyst Only
  Test     HC
Averages  q/mi
Average
.08
 CO
q/mi

.93
                            Aide     HC*   CH3OH*   OMHCE*
                            mq/mi   g/mi    g/mi     g/mi
240.4   1.25
12.1
.009
.20
.10
                Efficiency of Two-Catalyst System
                   Over Manifold Catalyst Only
Efficiency    HC     CO     NOx     Aide   	

Percent      25.0   25.8   (16.0)   57.4   11.1
                                  HC*    CH30H*   OMHCE*
                                         15.0
                                          10.0
     Calculated values per proposed rulemaking.

-------
                             -li-
test ing  have  been  calculated  and  are  also  included.   HFET
results  are  presented  in  similar  format  in  Table 5.   Fuel
economy results for this testing are presented in Table 6.

     Substantial  increases in emission level  efficiencies over
manifold Catalyst-only testing  were  obtained for  HC,  CO,  and
aldehydes*over  the FTP cycle.  Particularly notable  was  the 57
percent  decrease  in  aldehyde  levels,  from  12  to  roughly  5
milligrams per mile.  Though  not presented  here,  an analysis of
bag data  revealed that all  of the aldehydes  measured here were
collected in  Bag  1—no aldehydes were detected>in  Bags  2 or 3.
NOx levels,  however,  rose to an average 1.45  grams per  mile,  a
16 percent  increase over  the manifold-catalyst-only comparison
level.

     HFET  results  are  presented  in Table   5,  together  with
results  from  manifold-catalyst-only  testing  for  comparison.
The  overall   trend  is   for  emission  levels   to  follow  in
direction, though of course  not in magnitude,  those from FTP
testing.

     Substantial  increases  in  HC,  CO  and aldehyde conversion
efficiency were attained through use of the'black box converter
over the HFET cycle.  HC and CO levels from manifold-catalyst-
only testing were very low, however,  so the decrease in  mass of
emissions was not  great.   Aldehyde  levels decreased from 11.4
to 0.0  milligrams per mile;  this was  a significant decrease.
NOx levels however  increased 14  percent  over those from testing
with the manifold-catalyst-only.

     Fuel economy decreased over both city and  highway cycle
through  the   use  of  the  two catalyst system compared  to th
close-coupled   manifold   catalyst  system;   the   decrease  i
efficiency was  not extreme, however.   The  decrease in city anc
highway M100  MPG  was  0.3  and 0.4 respectively  for  a gasoline
equivalent composite MPG of 38.8 with the dual-catalyst system.

     C.     Testing At Increased Inertia Weight

     The LCS-M  Carina had  been  previously  evaluated  at  a test
weight of 2250  Ibs and at  an' actual  dynamometer  horsepower of
8.0.    Toyota   claimed  that  the  engine  horsepower  of  the
1.6-liter LCS-M engine is  approximately 80 hp.   The 1984 Test
Car List  was  examined to  determine  average  inertia  weight and
dynamometer horsepower ratings of  vehicle  systems  with  similar
engine  horsepower  ratings.    Considered  cars  also  had  to  be
comparably  equipped  in   terms   of  transmissions  and  emission
control equipment.   The  selected  cars included  Ford's  Escort,
GM 2000 Sunbird,  Toyota's Camry, the Mazda 626, VW  Jetta, and
the Mitsubishi Cordia.  A test weight of 2625 Ibs at 8.0 actual
dynamometer horsepower was selected as representative.

     A 60/40  weight loading  between  front  and rear  wheels for
this front-wheel-drive  car  was  assumed,  and the  wall  between
the engine and  front  seat  compartment was  loaded  with  233 Ibs

-------
Average
                                  -12-

                                 Table  5

                       Two-Catalyst  System  Testing
HFET Cycle
Improved
Test
Number
1
2
3
Average
Test
Average
HC
q/mi
.003
.004
.003
CO
g/mi
0.00
0.01
0.00
M100
C02
g/mi
177.
170.
169.
Best Driveability Calibration
0
1
9
NOx
g/mi
1.23
1.04
1.05
Aide
mg/mi
0.0
0.0
0.0
.003 0.00 172.3 1.11 0.0
Recent HFET Results, Manifold
HC
g/mi
CO
g/mi
C02
g/mi

NOx
g/mi
HC* . CH30H*
g/mi g/mi
.000
.001
.000
.000
Catalyst
.008
.013
.008
.008
Only
Aide HC* CH30H*
mg/mi g/mi g/mi
OMHCE*
g/mi
.004
.006
.004
.004
OMHCE*
g/mi
.005
.05
169.3
.97
11.4
.001
.01
.01
                 Efficiency  of Two-Catalyst System
                   Over Manifold Catalyst Only
Efficiency    HC

Percent      40.0
           CO
          NOx
            Aide
            HC*    CH30H*
          100.0   (14.4)    100.0   100.0    20.0
                     OMHCE*
                                          60.0
     Calculated values per proposed rulemaking.
                               Table 6

                 Summary of Fuel  Economy Test Results
                Manifold Catalyst/Two-Catalyst  System
        Testing
     Configuration
             City  Highway  Composite  Gasoline  Equiv,
             MPG     MPG       MPG      Composite  MPG
Manifold Catalyst Only  17.0    24.3

Dual Catalyst System    16.7    23.9
                                19.6

                                19.3
                                     39.4

                                     38.8

-------
                             -13-

of  sandbags.   This was  the  most practical way  of  loading  the
vehicle.   The improved  M100 best driveability  calibration  was
used, and  the car tested twice over FTP/HFET  cycles.   Emission
test  results  are given  in  Tables  7  and  8,  and fuel  economy
results are summarized in Table 9.
         r
     Little   change   in   emission  levels  resulted   from  the
additional  loading of  the  vehicle and  testing  over the  FTP
cycle.  NOx,  aldehyde and HC levels were  relatively unaffected
by  this testing.   CO  levels  over the FTP, however, increased to
1.26 grams per mile,   above  the  0.93  grams per  mile  level  at
2250 Ibs test weight.   The only notable difference in HFET test
results was  the decrease  to 0.70 grams  per  mile NOx at 2625
Ibs.   The  difference  between  the  two  individual  NOx  test
results, 0.40 grams  per mile,  is high  when compared to  the
average level of 0.70 grams per mile.

     A degradation in fuel economy occurred with testing at  the
increased  inertia weight.  City and highway MPG  were reduced by
0.3  and  0.7  MPG respectively  due  to  the   increased  weight.
Gasoline composite MPG was 38.6 at 2625 Ibs. test weight.

     D.     Use of Higher Aspect Ratio Tires

     The use of higher aspect ratio tires  than those present on
the vehicle  as  original  equipment simulates the use of a larger
chassis vehicle  and  increases the  demand placed  on  the  engine
at  constant  speed.   A degradation  in  emissions  performance  and
fuel  economy may be  expected from  this  increased  demand  on
engine output.

     The original  equipment  tires (165SR13) on  the  front-drive
wheels were replaced with the highest  aspect ratio 13-inch tire
that  we could  fit on  the  wheels  (185/80R13).   Larger  tires
would have interfered with the suspension  struts which extended
out  over  the  front  wheels.   The  vehicle was  then  tested over
the  FTP cycle.   This  testing  was  accomplished  at  2250  Ibs
inertia weight, 8.0 actual dynamometer horsepower, and utilized
the   M100    improved    best  driveability   calibration   and
close-coupled manifold  converter.   Test  results  are  presented
in Tables 10 and 11.

     Emission  levels   increased   in  each  category  over  those
obtained   with   the   lower    aspect   ratio   tires.    Emission
efficiencies  decreased  by 16  to  50  percent  in  each emission
category.   Fuel  economy  over  city driving conditions  was also
penalized,   the  penalty  amounting to  0.8  MPG  or  roughly  5
percent from the reference figure presented in Table 11.

     E.     Cold Start/Emissions Testing

     The  Carina  was   soaked  overnight  in the  cold room  at
successively  lower temperatures,  each  soak  followed by  a cold
start and  test over the  FTP  cycle.  The purpose of this testing
was twofold:   1)  to   determine the lowest temperature at which

-------
                                  -14-

                                 Table 7

                   Testing At  2625  Lbs. Inertia Weight

                                FTP Cycle

               Improved MlOO Best Driveability Calibration
Test
Number
l
2
Average
HC
g/mi
.06
.07
.07
CO
g/mi
1.30
1.22
1.26
C02
g/mi
244.9
244.0
244.5
NOx
g/mi
1.19
1.27
1.23
Aide
mg/mi
12.4
11.8
12.1
HC*
g/mi
.008
.009
.009
CH30H*
g/mi
.18
.21
.20
OMHCE*
g/mi
.09
. 11
. 10
                  Testing  at  2250 Lbs.  Inertia Weight
                               FTP Cycle

              Improved MlOO Best Driveability Calibration
.Test      HC
Averages  g/mi
        CO
        'mi
                     Aide    HC*   CH30H*  OMHCE*
                     mg/mi   g/mi    g/mi     g/mi
Average
.08
.93
240.4
1.25   12.1  .009
.20
.10
          Emissions Efficiency At  2625 Lbs. Test Weight
          	Compared With  2550  Lbs. Test Weight	
Efficiency   HC      CO     	

Percent     12.5   (35.5)   1.6
                  NOx    Aide   HC*   CH3OH*   OMHCE*
     Calculated values per proposed rulemaking.

-------
                         -15-



                         Table  8



           Testing at 2625  Lbs. Inertia  Weight
HFET Cycle
Improved Ml 00 Best Driveability
Test
Number
1
2
Average
HC CO
g/mi g/mi
.006 .05
.005 .07
.005 .06
Testing
C02
g/mi
175.7
172.3
174.0
At 2250
NOx Aide
g/mi mg/mi
.50 14.9
.90 12.6
.70 13.8
Lbs. Inertia
Calibration
HC* CH30H*
g/mi g/mi
.001 .01
.001 .01
.001 .01
Weight
OMHCE*
g/mi
.01
.01
.01
HFET Cycle
Improved M100 Best Driveabilityi
Test
Averages
Average
Eff icency
Percent
HC CO
g/mi g/mi
C02
g/mi
NOx Aide
g/mi mg/mi
.005 .05 169.3 .97 11.4
Emissions Efficiency At 2625 Lbs.
Compared With 2250 Lbs. Test
HC CO
(20.0)
NOx
20.6
Aide HC*
(21.0) —
Calibration
HC* CH3OH*
g/mi g/mi
.001 .01
Test Weight
Weight
CH30H* OMHCE*
— —
OMHCE*
g/mi
.01
Calculated values per proposed rulemaking.

-------
                              -16-

                             Table  9

               Summary of Fuel Economy Test Results
             2625  Lbs  Test Weight/2250 Lbs  Test Weight


        Testing          City  Highway  Composite Gasoline Equiv,
	Configuration	  MPG     MPG       MPG	Composite MPG

2250 pounds test weight   17.0    24.3     19.6;        39.4

2625 pounds test weight   16.7    23.6     19.2        38.6

-------
 Test
Number

  1
  2
Average
 Test
Average



-17-



Table 10
Testing With Higher Aspect Ratio Tires
FTP Cycle, M100 Improved Best Driveability
HC
g/mi
.12
.11
.12
CO
q/mi
1.21
1.09
1.15
C02
q/mi
253.6
248 . 8
251.2
Recent Test
NOx
q/mi
1.54
' 1.35
1.45
Results
PROM
Aide HC* CH30H*
mq/mi q/mi q/mi
15.1 .014
14.8 .012
15.0 .013
, OEM Tires
FTP Cycle, MlOO Improved Best Driveability
HC
q/mi
CO
q/mi
C02
q/mi
NOx
q/mi
.31
.29
.30

PROM
Aide HC* CH30H*
mq/mi q/mi
q/mi
OMHCE*
q/mi
.15
.14
.15

OMHCE*
q/mi
.08
.93
240.4  1.25
12.1  .009
.20
.10
               Emissions Efficiency, Higher Aspect
                    Ratio Tires Over OEM Tires
Efficiency   HC      CO     NOx     Aide    HC*    CH3OH*  OMHCE*

Percent    (50.0)  (23.7)  (16.0)  (24.0)  (44.4)  (50.0)  (50.0)
     Calculated values per proposed rulemaking.

                               Table 11

                 Summary of Fuel Economy Test Results
              Higher Aspect Ratio Tires Versus OEM Tires
Testing Configuration

OEM tires

Higher aspect ratio tires
                                  City MPG

                                     17.0

                                     16.2

-------
                             -18-

the  vehicle  would  start   and  run  on  M100  fuel;  and  2)  to
determine  the  emissions  and  fuel  economy  profiles  of  this
vehicle  at   lower  than  75°F  conditions.   This  testing  was
conducted   using    the    original    M100    best   driveability
calibration.  The Carina was not  equipped  with any special cold
start assist  devices for this testing.

     The  vehicle  was  started  and  tested twice  at  75°F.   As
expected,  the vehicle  experienced  no  significant driveability
problems.   No  problems  were  experienced  at  60°F  conditions
either.  The  car would not  start  at 50°F,  however.  Five-second
cranking  periods  were followed by 10-second  pause periods for
this start attempt;  this crank/pause  cycle was  repeated  seven
times before  failure to start  was  declared.  The car  was then
started  and  tested  twice   at  55°F  conditions.   An  extended
15-second  crank  was necessary  in order to  start  the  engine at
55°F conditions.   Emission results  are presented in Table 12,
while fuel economy results are given in Table 13.

     Emissions   of   carbon-containing   pollutants   generally
increased  as  soak  temperatures  decreased;  emissions measured as
HC  increased  from  0.09  to  0.19  grams per  mile  as temperature
was  decreased from  60°  to  55°F,   for example.   Average  NOx
emissions, however, decreased over  this same temperature range,
from  1.25 to 1.18  grams  per  mile.   Fuel  economy  gradually
decreased  with   decreasing  temperature.    Average   city  MPG
decreased to  16.34 MPG at 55°F from 16.79 MPG at 75°F.

     F.     Baseline Testing

     In  addition   to  the  two   PROMs  calibrated  for   best
driveability  which  were mentioned earlier  in  this  paper,  a
third M100 PROM was  supplied to  EPA  by Toyota.    This  PROM was
calibrated for maximum lean operation, and  is  referred to here
as the M100 maximum lean limit  PROM.   A dummy  manifold catalyst
substrate was also  supplied to  EPA, and this substrate replaced
the  original  manifold  catalyst   for   an  effort to  measure
engine-out, or  baseline emissions  from the vehicle.   Baseline
as  defined in this  testing on the Carina  includes  the  dummy
substrate  in  the vehicle exhaust, rather than a "straight pipe"
replacing the converter arrangement.

     The Carina was tested several  times over  the FTP/HFET test
cycles,  utilizing  each of the  M100  PROM's.  The dummy catalyst
was  used  in  place of  the  platinum/rhodium manifold  catalyst
during this testing.   Emissions data  is provided in  Tables 14,
15, and 16 while  a fuel economy  summary is presented  in  Table
17.

     Tests of  an  MIOO-fueled Volkswagen Rabbit  equipped  with a
1.6-liter engine indicated  baseline HC emission  levels of 0.96
grams  per  mile  over  the   FTP. [133    This  Volkswagen  vehicle
utilized a straight pipe rather than a dummy catalyst  substrate
for  baseline  testing,  however.    HC   levels  from  the  Carina
presented here varied  from  7.2  to 7.7 grams per  mile.  CO from
this Volkswagen engine was  measured at 6.54 grams per mile over

-------
                               -19-

                             Table 12

                         Cold Room Testing
Oriqinal M100 Best Driveability
Test
Number
1
2
Average
Test
Number
l
2
Average
Test
Number
1
2
Average
HC
g/mi
.08
.07
.08
HC
g/mi
.08
.09
.09
HC
g/mi
.22
.15
.19
CO
g/mi
.79
.92
.86
CO
g/mi
.93
.96
.95
CO
g/mi
1.25
1.11
1.18
75
C02
g/mi
232.2
255.1
243.7
60
C02
g/mi
243.5
246.3
244.9
55
CO2
g/mi
250.2
248.0
249.1
°F Soak
NOx
g/mi
1.01
1.20
1.11
°F Soak
NOx
g/mi
1.22
1.28
1.25
°F Soak
NOx
g/mi
1.18
1.17
1.18
Calibration — FTP Cycle
Aide
mg/mi
12.3
9.6
11.0
Aide
mg/mi
9.2
N/A
9.2
Aide
mg/mi
19.7
11.3
15.5
HC*.
g/mi
.010
.009
.010
HC*
g/mi
.009
.011
.010
HC*
g/mi
.020
.020
.020
CH30H*
g/mi
.22
.20
.21
CH3OH*
g/mi
.22
.25
.24
CH30H*
g/mi
.61
.41
.51
OMHCE*
g/mi
. 11
. 10
. 11
OMHCE*
g/mi
.11
.12
.12
OMHCE*
g/mi
.30
.20
.25
*    Calculated per proposed rulemaking.
N/A signifies test results not available.

-------
               -20-
              Table 13
Summary of Fuel Economy Test Results

Testing
Conf iquration
75°F Soak
60°F Soak
55°F Soak
Cold Room Testing
City MPG
16.79
16.65
16.34

Gasoline
Ecru iva lent MPG
33.76
33.47
32.86

-------
                               -21-

                             Table 14

                    Baseline Testing—FTP Cycle
            Original M100  Best  Dciveability Calibration
 Test
Number

   1
   2
   3
Average
9.05
7
7
09
01
7.72
        CO
5.11
6.46
6.12
208.2
204.7
203.0
     5.90   205.3
                    NOx    Aide   HC*  CH30H*  OMHCE*
                    'mi   mq/mi  q/mi   q/mi    q/mi
1.38  608.8  1.065
1.63  561.9   .834
1.52  548.7   .825
1.51  573.1   .908
24.60  12.00
19.26   9.43
19.05   9.33
20.97  10.25
            Improved M100 Best Driveability Calibration
Test
Number
1
2
3
Average
HC
q/mi
8.21
6.87
6.54
7.21
CO
q/mi
5.53
4.74
5.83
5.37
C02
q/mi
203.2
206.2
209.7
206.4
NOx
q/mi
1.51
1.52
1.84
1.62
Aide
mq/mi
473.7
232.7
230.8
312.4
HC*
q/mi
.966
.808
.770
.848
CH3OH*
q/mi
22.31
18.66
17.78
19.58
OMHCE*
q/mi
10.85
9.00
8.58
9.48
M100 Maximum Lean Limit Calibration
Test
Number
1
2
3
4
Average
HC
q/mi
8.52
7.54
6. 17
7.04
7.32
CO
q/mi
5.70
5.42
5.28
5.36
5.44
C02
q/mi
198.3
197.8
204.8
198.4
199.8
NOx
q/mi
1. 14
1.01
1.02
0.87
1.01
Aide
mq/mi
500.0
454.1
621,1
597.0
543.1
HC*
q/mi
1.002
.887
.726
.828
.861
CH30H*
q/mi
23.15
20.49
16.77
19.12
19.88
OMHCE*
q/mi
11.26
9.97
8.28
9.38
9.72
     Calculated values per proposed rulemaking.

-------
                              -22-

                             Table 15

                   Baseline Testing—HFET Cycle
            Original  M1QO  Best  Driveability  Calibration
 Test
Number

   1
   2
Average
 HC
q/mi
CO
       1.91
       2.06
C02
      151.1
      149.2
       1.21
       0.76
155.6
196.7
       1.99   150.2   0.99  176.2
HC*  CH30H*  OMHCE*
      q/mi    q/mi

587   13.55   6.53
330    7.62   3.72
459   10.59   5.13
            Improved M100  Best  Driveability Calibration
 Test
Number

   1
   2
   3
   4
Average
2.98
CO
q/mi
2.10
1.95
1.97
C02
q/mi
152.6
148.9
151.8
NOx
q/mi
1.39
1.05
1.10
Aide
mg/mi
188.0
98.6
94.9
HC*
q/mi
.509
.510
.452
2.01 151.1 1.18 127.2 .490
M100 Maximum Lean Limit Calibration
CO
q/mi
2.09
2. 11
2.05
1.82
2.02
C02
q/mi
149.0
148.0
143.9
150.4
147.8
NOx
q/mi
.52
.51
.50
.57
.53
Aide
mq/mi
286.6
258.5
278.4
229 . 1
263.2
HC*
q/mi
.332
.323
.390
.358
.351
CH30H*
q/mi
11.76
11.78
10.45
11.33
CH30H*
q/mi
7.67
7.47
9.00
8.28
8.11
OMHCE*
q/mi
5.69
5.66
5.02
5.46
OMHCE*
q/mi
3.79
3.68
4.42
4 .04
3.98

-------
                              -23-

                             Table 16

               Emissions Efficiency of Two-Catalyst
                   System Over  Baseline  Emissions

          FTP Cycle—Improved Ml00 Best  Driveability PROM
Emissions
Efficiency    HC      CO     NOx    Aide   HC*  , CH30H*   OMHCE'

Percent      99.2    87.2    10.5   98.3   99.1   99.1     99.1
               Emissions Efficiency =...  Two-Catalyst
                   System Over  Baseline Emissions

         HFET 'Cycle—Improved Ml00 Best Driveabilitv PROM
Emissions
Efficiency    HC      CO     NOx    Aide   HC*   CH30H*   OMHCE*

Percent      99.9    100.    5.9    100.   100.   99.9     99.9

-------
                               -24-

                              Table 17


                Summary of Fuel Economy Test Results
                	Baseline Testing	


       Testing            City  Highway  Composite  Gasoline Equiv
     Configuration        MPG     MPG       MPG	  Composite MPG

Original best             16.6    24.3       19.4         39.0
driveability calibration

Improved best             16.8    24.0       19.4         39.0
driveability calibration

Maximum lean              17.2    25.0       20.0         40.2
limit calibration

-------
                             -25-

the  FTP;  a  comparable  5.4 to  5.9  grams per mile  was  measured
with  the  Carina.    While NOx  baseline  emission  levels  were
comparable  between  these vehicles  when the best  driveability
Carina PROMS are considered, the Carina  maximum  lean limit PROM
emitted ,^>nly an average  1.01  grams per mile NOx  over  the FTP.
This  levfel  was  substantially  below  the 1.5 to  1.6 grams  per
mile  NOx  measured  with  the  Carina  best  driveability  PROMs.
Formaldehyde  emission levels  from  the  Carina  were  also  above
those  reported  from  this  Volkswagen  vehicle  testing.    The
Carina  original  best   driveability  and   maximum  lean  limit
calibrations  emitted  formaldehyde  emissions  of  573  to  543
milligrams per  mile over  the  FTP,  respectively.    These  levels
were more  than  twice as high as the average  252  milligrams  per
mile over the same cycle with the Volkswagen vehicle.

     The  efficiency  of  the  catalyst  system  tested  on  this
vehicle may  be  better appreciated  by a  comparison of emissions
from  the  catalyst-equipped  car  versus  the  baseline  levels
presented here.   Table  16 presents the  emissions  efficiency of
the  two-catalyst  configuration referred  to  earlier  in  this
report versus baseline levels over each pollutant measured.

     All   carbon-containing  pollutant   levels   were   greatly
reduced  by  the  two-catalyst   system;  efficiencies  over  both
cycles exceeded  90  percent, with the exception of  CO  over  the
FTP  cycle.   NOx  efficiencies  were  very low  in  comparison  to
those  of  the  carbon-containing pollutants,  however.  The  NOx
improvement with  the two-catalyst  system was  a mere  6 percent
over the HFET cycle.

     The fuel economy figures  presented  in  Table 17 are similar
to  those  presented  in  Tables  3  and  6,  manifold  catalyst  and
two-catalyst  equipped  testing  respectively.   A  slight  trend
toward better fuel  economy from the  maximum  lean  limit  PROM,
however,   is  evident  from  the higher  city  and  highway  MPG
figures  obtained   with   this   calibration,   over  the   best
driveability PROMs.

     G.    Air/Fuel Ratio Analysis

     A measure  of  the how lean the  vehicle may be operated  may
be taken by operating the  vehicle at various  steady-state modes
and  measuring  air/fuel   ratio  requirements  over  these  modes.
The  Micro  Oxivision  air/fuel   ratio  meter,  Model  MO-1000,  is
described  by its  manufacturer  NGK  Spark  Plug Co.,   Ltd.,  as
being able to perform this analysis  quickly  over a  wide  range
of  fuels,  to  include  methanol.    The  testing described  below
made  use   of   this  meter  to  characterize  air/fuel   ratio
requirements  over  several  steady-state  conditions  with  the
Carina.  Details of the operation of  this meter and the exhaust
gas sensor  used  are given in Appendix C.

     All  three  M100  calibrations  referred  to  earlier  in this
paper  were  used  in  this  evaluation.    The  dummy  catalyst
substrate was  used  in  place of  the  platinum/rhodium  manifold
close-coupled catalyst   in order   to  provide  an  estimate  of

-------
                             -26-

uncatalyzed  engine-out  emissions.   The  exhaust  gas  sensor  was
mounted  in the exhaust pipe  approximately  1  foot  downstream of
the  manifold-mounted dummy  catalyst.   The  vehicle was  tested
over  idle,  10,  20,  30,  40  and  50  mile per  hour steady-state
conditions  with  the original  and  improved  best  driveability
calibrations,  as well  as the  maximum lean  limit calibration.
Lambda,  i-which   is   defined   as  actual  air/fuel   ratio   over
stoichiometric   air/fuel   ratio,  was  measured   to   give   an
indication  of  engine  leanness  at  these  various  steady-state
conditions.   Pollutant  emissions  were  also  measured during this
testing.   A  summary  of  emissions data and air/fuel data  in  the
form of  lambda  is given in Tables 18 through 23.

     Toyota   has   claimed   that   the   improved  MlOO   best
driveability  calibration  was  8  percent leaner at  idle  than  the
original  best driveability  calibration.  The data in  Table 18
indicate  a slightly  richer  mixture  at  idle  for   the  improved
PROM, however.   The  mixture  was approximately 10 percent leaner
than  best driveability PROM levels  at  idle  when the  maximum
lean  limit  calibration  was  used.   HC,  NOx, and formaldehyde
levels at  idle were similar among the  three PROMs; CO emissions
with the maximum lean  limit  PROM were  less  than  30  percent of
the emission  levels from the best driveability PROMs.

     An  average lambda  of  1.38 was measured with the  maximum
lean  limit  PROM  at  10  MPH  steady-state  conditions,  slightly
leaner   than  the   1.31   measured  with   the  improved   best
driveability  calibration.  NOx  levels  at 10 MPH were 1.22 grams
per  mile with  the  lean  limit  PROM,  approximately  30  percent
below  levels  from   the  other  PROMs.    HC  and  CO levels  were
similar   over  all   three   calibrations.    Aldehyde   emissions
approached an average 600 milligrams per mile with the improved
best  driveability   calibration;   the   other   two   calibrations
emitted  at   roughly  twice  this  level.   This  difference  in
aldehyde  levels,  due solely  to the  air/fuel  ratio calibration
dissimilarities,  is  difficult  to  explain,   particularly  the
difference between the two best driveability calibrations.

     Average  lambda  values over 20,  30,  40, and 50 MPH  testing
cycles exhibit  a  trend  of roughly equivalent values between the
two  best  driveability calibrations  and  a  leaner  value  for  the
lean limit  calibration  at each testing  cycle.  The  lean  limit
PROM lambda  values  approached  1.4 while the  best driveability
PROMs gave measured  lambda  values  near  1.3  for  this  testing.
Average aldehyde  values did  not exceed 650  milligrams  per  mile
for  any  calibration  over these  cycles,  considerably  lower  at
levels than  the emission rates reported at  10  MPH conditions.
CO emissions  did  not exceed an average  2.5 grams  per mile with
any  calibration  over  these  cycles,   and   average  CO  emission
rates  generally  decreased   with   increasing  speed  for  each
calibration.   Emissions measured as  HC also  generally decreased
with increasing speed with each calibration over these cycles.

VI.  Conclusions

     Conclusions  from each aspect  of Phase  II testing are drawn
below.

-------
                               -27-
 Test
Number

   1
   2
   3
Average
                             Table 18

                        Idle Cycle Testing
Original M100
HC
g/min
1.00
.31
.46
.59
CO
g/min
1.46
2.25
1.25
1.65
NOX
g/min
.07
.02
.03
.04
Best Driveability PROM
Aide
mg/min
143.1
40.3
49.4
77.6
HC*
g/min
.117
.036
.054
.069
CH30H*
g/min
2.70
.84
1.26
1.60
OMHCE*
g/min
1.35
.42
.62
.80
                                                 Lambda

                                                  1.10
                                                   .94
                                                  1.Q6
                                                  1.03
               Improved Ml00 Best Driveability PROM
 Test
Number

   1
   2
Average
        CO    NOX    Aide    HC*    CH30H*  OMHCE*
       T/min  g/min  mg/min  g/min   g/min   g/min   Lambda
,35
.70
,53
Test
Number
l
2
3
4
5
Average
HC
g/min
.40
.46
.37
.55
1.04
.56
CO
g/min
.68
.48
.30
.34
.25
.41
2.49
1.78
2.14
M100
CO
'/min c
.68
.48
.30
.34
.25
.41
.03
.05
.04
32.4
72.6
52.5
Maximum Lean
NOx
?/min
.03
.04
.05
.05
.09
.05
Aide
mg/min
44.7
51.6
60.9
52.3
59.7
53.8
.041
.082
.062
Limit
HC*
g/min
.047
.054
.044
.065
.122
.066
.95
1.90
1.43
PROM
CH30H*
g/min
1.08
1.24
1.02
1.49
2.82
1.53
.47
.94
.71

OMHCE*
g/min
.54
.61
.51
.74
1.37
.75
.96
1.04
1.00


Lambda
1.08
1.08
1.12
1.16
1.26
1.14
     Calculated per proposed rulemaking.

-------
                              -28-


                             Table 19

                  10 MPH Steady State Conditions
Original M100
Test
Number
1
2
Average
HC CO
q/mi g/mi
23.07 3.94
19.08 4.92
21.08
4.43
NOx
g/mi
1.90
2.11
2.01
Best Driveability PROM
Aide
mg/mi
1370.
1149.
1259.
0
0
5
HC*
g/mi
2.714
2.245
2.480
CH3OH*
g/mi
62.67
51.85
57.26
OMHCE*
g/mi
30.49
25.23
27.86
Lambda
1.38
1.30
1
.34
               Improved Ml00 Best Driveability PROM
 Test
Number

   1
   2
Average
HC
g/mi
17.15
17.32
17.24
CO
g/mi
3.
3.
3.
63
61
62
NOX
g/mi
1
1
1
.69
.90
.80
Aide
mg/mi
624.9
540.8
582.9
HC*
g/mi
2.017
2.038
2.028
CH30H*
g/mi
46
47
46
.58
.05
.82
OMHCE*
g/mi
22.
22.
22.
48
66
57
Lambda
1.32
1.30
1.31
                   Ml00 Maximum Lean Limit PROM
Test
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Average
HC
g/mi
21.09
15.53
13.85
16.17
16.75
16.68
CO
g/mi
4.79
5.04
4 .66
3.83
3.76
4.42

NOx
g/mi
l
l

1
l
l
. 11
.08
.96
.50
.45 •!
.22
Aide

mg/mi
1077
1049
1364
1174
1155
1164
.5 2
.5 1
.9 1
.6 1
.0 1
.3 1
HC*
g/mi
.481
.827
.629
.903
.970
.962
CH3OH*
g/mi
57.29
42.19
37.62
43.94
45.50
45.31
OMHCE*
g/mi
27
20
18
21
22
22
.79
.58
.55
.47
.21
. 12
Lambda
1.36
1.32
1.30
1.56
1.38
1.38
     Calculated per proposed rulemaking.

-------
                              -29-
 Test
Number

   1
   2
   3
Average
                             Table 20

                  20 MPH Steady-StateConditions
Oriqinal M100
HC
q/mi
13.41
11.20
10.17
11.
59
CO
q/mi
2.09
2.15
2.76
2.33
NOx
q/mi
1.90
1.08
2.09
1.69
Best
Driveabilitv PROM
Aide
mq/mi
229.4
515.7
820.8
522.
0
1
1
1
1
HC*
q/mi
.578
.318
.197
.364
CH30H*
q/mi
36.44
30.44
27.64
31.51
OMHCE*
q/mi
17.46
14.74
13.55
15.25
Lambda
1
1
1
1
.36
.30
.30
.32
               Improved Ml00 Best Driveability PROM
Test
Number
1
2
Average

Test
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Average
HC
q/mi
12.62
11.73
12.18

HC
q/mi
10.92
8.71
12.85
11.49
9.69
10.73
CO
q/mi
2.28
2.10
2.19
M100
CO
q/mi
3.03
2.83
2.61
2.05
2.04
2.51
NOX
q/mi
1.87
2.41
2.14
Aide
mq/mi
213.2
228.3
220.8
Maximum Lean
NOx
q/mi
1.18
1.09
1.08
.99
1.63
1.19
Aide
mq/mi
836.5
712.3
455.5
626.7
495.5
625.3
HC*
q/mi
1.485
1.380
1.433
Limit
HC*
q/mi
1.285
1.025
1. 512
1.351
1.140
1.263
CH30H*
q/mi
34.29
31.86
33.08
PROM
CH30H*
q/mi
29.67
23.66
34.92
31.21
26.33
29.16
                                                   q/mi   Lambda
                                                   16.43   1.34
                                                   15.28   1.32
                                                   15.85   1.33
                                                   OMHCE*
                                                    q/mi

                                                    14.52
                                                    11.60
                                                    16.85
                                                    15. 16
                                                    12.77
                                                    14.18
Lambda

 1.36
 1.32
 1.38
 1.78
 1.42
 1.45
     Calculated per proposed rulemaking.

-------
                              -30-

                             Table 21

                  30 MPH Steady-State Conditions

               Original MlOO Best Driveabi1ity PROM
 Test
Number
 HC
g/mi
   1     8.82
   2     6.35
   3     4.57
Average  6.58
       1.95
 NOx   Aide
g/mi   rag/mi
 2.31  371.7  1.038
  N/A  451.2   .747
 1.53  583.6   .538
 1.92  468.8   .774
CH30H* OMHCE*
 g/tni   g/mi   Lambda
 23.97  11.59
 17.26   8.43
 12.42   6.18
 17.88   8.73
                                                   1.30
                                                   1.28
               Improved MlOO Best Driveability PROM
Test
Number
1
2
Average

Test
Number
l
2
3
4
Average
HC
g/mi
7.22
8.16
7.69

HC
g/mi
2.90
4.22
4.07
3.08
3.57
CO
g/mi
1.90
1.64
1.77
MlOO
CO
g/mi
2.08
2.22
2.11
1.87
2.07
NOX
g/mi
1.98
2.43
2.21
Aide
mg/mi
130.3
127.0
128.7
Maximum Lean
NOx
g/mi
1.23
1.18
1. 13
1.40
1.24
Aide
mg/mi
482.3
411.7
250.4
206.0
337.6
HC*
g/mi
.849
,961
.905
Limit
HC*
g/mi
.342
.497
.478
.362
.420
CH3OH*
g/mi
19.62
22.18
20.90
PROM
CH30H*
g/mi
7.89
11.47
11.05
8.37
9.70
OMHCE*
g/mi
9.40
10.62
10.01

OMHCE*
g/mi
3.98
5.65
5.38
4.08
4.77

Lambda
1.30
1.32
1.31


Lambda
1 .28
1.30
1.58
1.38
1.39
*    Calculated per proposed rulemaking.
N/A signifies not available.

-------
                              -31-

                             Table 22

                  40 MPH Steady-State Conditions

               Original M1QO Best Driveability PROM
 Test     HC     CO     NOx
Number   q/mi   q/mi   q/mi
                 1.65
                 1.78
1.80
1.37
                 1.72  1.59
       Aide    HC*  CH30H*  OMHCE*
       mq/mi  q/mi  q/mi     q/mi  Lambda
314.9  .269   6.21
377.0  .319   7.37
346.0  .294   6.79
3.10   1.24
3.69   1.32
3.40   1.28
               Improved MlOO Best Driveability PROM
 Test
Number

   1
   2
Average
HC
f/mi
.64
1.51
1.58
CO
q/mi
1.66
1.75
1.71
NOx
q/mi
2.08
2.07
2.08
Aide
mq/mi
84.2
95.8
90.0
HC*
q/mi
.429
.413
.421
CH30H*
q/mi
9.90
9.55
9.73
OMHCE*
q/mi
4.76
4.59
4.68
                                    Lambda

                                     1.28
                                     1.28
                                     1.28
                   MlOO Maximum Lean Limit PROM
 Test
Number

   1
   2
   3
   4
Average  2.61   1.75   1.40   212.2
HC
q/mi
1.61
1.53
1.80
5.48
CO
q/mi
1.58
1.62
1.71
2.07
NOx
q/mi
1.38
1.58
1.26
1.37
Aide
mq/mi
323.3
153.3
262.3
110.0
HC*
q/mi
. 189
. 179
.212
.645
CH30H*
q/mi
4.37
4.14
4.89
14.89
OMHCE*
q/mi
2.23
2.04
2.45
7.14
               306
               7.07   3.47
       Lambda

        1.28
        1.29
        1.58
        1.40
        1.39
     Calculated per proposed rulemaking.

-------
 Test
Number
   1     5.24
   2     1.24
   3     3.46
Average  3.31
                               -32-

                             Table 23

                  50 MPH Steady State Conditions
Original M100
CO
q/mi
1.68
1.48
1.96
1.71
NOx
q/mi
1.53
1.44
NA
1.49
Best Driveability PROM
Aide
mq/mi
372.7
245.8
388.4
335.6
HC*
q/mi
.616
.145
.407
.389
CH30H*
q/mi
14.23
3.36
9.40
9.00
OMHCE*
q/mi
6.95
1.71
4.66
4.44
Lambda
               Improved M100 Best Driveability PROM
Test
Number
l
2
Average

g
2
4
3
HC
/mi
.14
.57
.36
CO
q/mi
1
1
1
.60
.61
.61
NOX
q/mi
i
i
1
.75
.86
.81
Aide
mq/mi
62.8
63.6
63.2
HC*
q/mi
.252
.537
.395
CH30H* OMHCE*
q/mi
5.82
12.41
9.12
q/mi
2.80
5.94
4.37
Lambda
1.30
1.30
1.30
                   Ml00 Maximum Lean Limit PROM
Test
Number
1
2
3
4
Average
HC
q/mi
.95
1. 17
1.16
1.58
1.22
CO
q/mi
1.35
1.48
1.47
L.75
1.51
NOX
q/mi
1.62
1. 14
1 . 17
1.11
1.26
'Aide
mq/mi
253.
243.
293.
211.
250.


1
6
6
1
4
HC*
q/mi
.112
.137
.137
. 186
.143
CH30H*
q/mi
2.58
3.16
3. 16
4.30
3.30
OMHCE*
q/mi
1.35
1.62
1.64
2.15
1.69

Lambda
1.30
1.30
1.32
1.44
1.34
*    Calculated per proposed rulemaking.
NA signifies test results not available.

-------
                               -33-

     1.    An  improved version  of the  M100 best  driveability
calibration was tested and the results compared  with those from
testing  with  the  PROM  originally supplied  with  the  vehicle.
Toyota describes the  improved best driveability  calibration  as
8  percenj?  leaner  at  idle than  the original best  driveability
calibration.  NOx  and  CO  emission levels over the  FTP  and HFET
cycles rose  when the  improved calibration  was  used.  Aldehydes
and hydrocarbons remained at  similar emission levels regardless
of  calibration,  however.   Composite  gasoline  equivalent  fuel
economy was 39.4 MPG for both calibrations.

     2.    The Carina  was tested  with  an  underfloor  converter
in  addition  to  its  original close-coupled  manifold converter.
Substantial  increases  in   emission   level  efficiencies  over
manifold catalyst-only testing were  obtained for  HC,  CO,  and
aldehydes over the FTP cycle.   The two-catalyst  system emitted
only  5  milligrams per  mile of  formaldehyde over  the  FTP,  but
NOx emissions  increased to  1.45  grams  per  mile  over  the same
cycle.  Gasoline equivalent  composite  fuel  economy was 38.8 MPG
with the two-catalyst system.

     3.    The Carina  was tested over  FTP/HFET  cycles   at  an
inertia weight of  2625  Ibs,  up from the 2250 Ibs inertia weight
tested at previously.   CO levels over the FTP increased to 1.26
grains per mile,  up from the  0.93 grams per mile emitted at 2250
Ibs test weight.   Little change  in  other  emission levels over
the  FTP  or  HFET  cycle  resulted  from  the  additional  test
weight.  City  and  highway fuel  economy were reduced by 0.3  and
0.7 MPG respectively due to the increased weight.

     4.    The original  equipment  165SR13  tires on the  front
drive wheels were  replaced with  higher  aspect  ratio   175/80R13
tires.   Efficiencies  decreased  by 16  to  50 percent  in  each
emissions category through  the use of  the higher  tires.   City
fuel economy was also penalized approximately 5  percent  or  0.8
MPG by the use of the higher  tires.

     5.    The vehicle  was  soaked and  tested  at   colder  than
75°F  conditions  to  determine:    a)  the  lowest  temperature  at
which the vehicle  would start  and run  on M100 fuel,  and  b)  the
emissions and  fuel economy  profiles  of  this vehicle  at  lower
than 75°F conditions.

     The lowest temperature at which the Carina  would  start  and
run   reliably   was  55°F.    Emissions  of   carbon-containing
pollutants  generally   increased  as soak  temperature  decreased
over  the  FTP  cycle;  average NOx  emissions decreased  over  the
same  range,  however.   Fuel   economy  gradually  decreased  with
decreasing soak temperature.

-------
                              -34-

     6.    The  close-coupled  manifold catalyst was  removed and
a   non-catalyzed   substrate   substituted   in   its  place  to
approximate   engine-out,   or   baseline    emissions.     Three
electronically   controlled  air/fuel   ratio   calibrations  were
utilized! in  this  testing:   a)  a  calibration  optimized  for
driveability,  b)  a calibration similar  to  the  first,  yet  8
percent   leaner  at  idle  according   to   Toyota,  and   c)   a
calibration for operation at the maximum lean limit.

     HC  baseline levels from the Carina ranged from 7.2  to 7.7
grams per mile over the FTP; CO was emitted at a rate of  5.4 to
5.9 grams  per mile over  the  same cycle.  Average formaldehyde
levels over  the FTP varied  from 312  milligrams  per mile  with
the improved  best driveability  calibration  to  573.1 milligrams
per mile with the original  best driveability  calibration.   The
lowest HC, CO and formaldehyde  levels over the FTP were emitted
when the  improved best  driveability  PROM was  utilized.   Higher
levels of  NOx,  over those  from the original  best driveability
and maximum lean limit  calibrations,  however were  emitted when
the improved  best driveability  calibration  was  used.   Gasoline
equivalent  composite  MPG  was  highest,   40.2  MPG,  with  the
maximum lean  limit calibration.

     7.    An  air/fuel   ratio  measuring  system,  described  in
Appendix  C   was   used   to   characterize  the   lean  operating
conditions  of  the Carina  over several  steady-state  cycles.
Three  separate  air/fuel ratio  calibrations  were  utilized,  and
pollutant  emissions were  also measured.   Actual  dynamometer
horsepower of 8.0  and  vehicle  inertia test  weight  of  2250 Ibs
were used for this testing.

     The  air/fuel  ratio  measuring technique  employed did not
indicate that the improved best  driveability PROM  was  8 percent
leaner  at  idle  than  the  original  best  driveability  PROM.
Values   of   lambda   (actual   air/fuel    ratio   divided   by
stoichiometric  air/fuel  ratio)  from each  calibration  were
similar  over  idle  cycle testing.    The original   and  improved
best driveability calibrations  ran at  lambda  values of  1.0 at
idle,   while  the  maximum  lean  limit  PROM  ran  leaner,  at
approximately 1.14.

     The two  best driveability  calibrations operated  at  lambda
values of approximately  1.3 over the 10,  20, 30,  40 and  50 MPH
steady-state  cycles, which equates to  an  M100  air/fuel  ratio of
approximately 8.4  to  1.   The  maximum lean limit  calibration
operated at  very near  a lambda of  1.4  for  these  same cycles,
which equates to an M100 air/fuel ratio of approximately  9.0 to
l.

     HC,   NOx,  and formaldehyde levels  at  idle  were  similar
among  the  three  PROMs:   approximately 0.6  and 0.4 grams  per
minute and  50  to  80  milligrams per  minute,  respectively.   CO
emissions with  the maximum  lean  limit  PROM,   0.41 grams  per
minute, were  less than  30  percent  of the emission levels from
the best driveability  PROMs,  however.

-------
                              -35-

     NOx  levels  at  10  MPH  were  1.22  grains  per mile  with the
lean limit PROM,  approximately 30 percent below  levels  from the
other  PROMs.   HC  and  CO  levels  were  similar  over all  three
calibrations.   Aldehyde  emissions   approached   an  average  600
milligrams  per   mile  with  the   improved  best  driveability
calibration;  the  other  two calibrations  emitted  at  roughly
twice  this  level.    This  difference  in aldehyde  levels,  due
solely  to the air/fuel ratio  calibration  dissimilarities,  is
difficult  to  explain,  particularly the difference  between the
two best driveability calibrations.

     Average aldehyde values  did  not exceed  650  milligrams per
mile  for  any calibration   over  the  20,   30,  40,   and 50  MPH
cycles,  considerably   lower  levels  than  the  emission  rates
reported  at  10  MPH conditions.   CO  emissions did not  exceed an
average  2.5 grams  per  mile with  any  calibration  over  these
cycles,  and average  CO emission rates  generally decreased as
speed  increased  with each  calibration.   Emissions measured as
HC  also  generally  decreased  as  speed  increased  with  each
calibration over these cycles.

     Future work in  this  area  should include an  effort  at
mapping excess air  ratio (lambda)  over  at  least two additional
parameters:   intake   manifold  pressure   and   engine  speed.
Air/fuel  ratio  analysis  presented  in the  literature  typically
involves mapping over these  parameters.  A  direct comparison of
data gathered by the method described in Appendix C  with other
published data is difficult in the absence of this format.

VII.  Acknowledgment s

     The  author  wishes  to  thank  the  Toyota  Motor Company for
providing  the  T-LCS-M  Carina  vehicle  that  was used   in  this
evaluation.

     The  author  also  gratefully acknowledges  the  efforts  of
James  Garvey,  Ernestine  Bulifant,  Steven Halfyard, and Robert
Moss,  technicians,   all  of the  Test  and   Evaluation  Branch,
Emission  Control  Technology Division.   The  efforts of Marilyn
Alff   and   Jennifer   Criss  of   the  Control   Technology   and
Applications Branch,  ECTD,  who typed  this  manuscript,  are also
appreciated.

-------
                                -36-

VIII.References

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

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

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

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

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

     6.    "Fuel  Economy  and  Emissions   of  a  Toyota  T-LCS-M
Methanol Prototype  Vehicle," Piotrowski,   G.  and J.  D. Murrell,
SAE Paper 871090, May 1987.

     7.-    Cold  Room  Testing  of  LCS-M  Vehicle,  Memorandum,
Piotrowski, G. K. OAR, OMS, ECTD, Ann Arbor, MI, 1987.

     8.    Phase  II  Testing   of  LCS-M   Vehicle,  Memorandum,
Piotrowski, G. K., OAR, OMS, ECTD, Ann Arbor, MI,  1987.

     9.    Manifold  and  Underfloor Converter Testing  On  Toyota
LCS-M  Carina,  Memorandum,  Piotrowski,  G.  K. ,  OAR, OMS,  ECTD,
Ann Arbor,  MI, 1987.

     10.    Summary  of  Fuel  Economy  Data,  Recent Toyota  LCS-M
Carina Testing,  Memorandum,  Piotrowski,  G.  K. ,  OAR,  OMS,  ECTD,
ann Arbor,  MI, 1987.

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

     12.    Formaldehyde Measurement In  Vehicle  Exhaust At MVEL,
Memorandum, Gilkey,  R. L., OAR, OMS,  EOD,  Ann Arbor, MI, 1981.

     13.    "Catalysts For Methanol Vehicles,"  Piotrowski,  G. K.
and Murrell,  J.  D.,  SAE Paper 872052,  November, 1987.

-------
                         A-l

                      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, overheau. 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.

-------
                        A-2


                 APPENDIX A  (cont'd)

       DESCRIPTION OF TOYOTA LCS-M TEST VEHICLE
Fuel tank                   Stainless  steel  construction;
                            capacity 14.5 gals.

Fuel lines and filter       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.

Catalytic converter         l-liter volume,  Pt:Rh  loaded,
                            close  coupled  to the exhaust
                            manifold.

-------
                              B-l


                           APPENDIX B

              CALCULATION OF HC. METHANOL AND HCHO
     As  proposed,  the  regulations  in  reference  7  require  the
measurement   of   methanol  (CHjOH)   and   formaldehyde   (HCHO).
Methanol emissions are  especially important since  the  dilution
factor  equation  includes  CHjOH  emissions.   At  the  time  the
test  results  reported  here  were made,  the  EPA  lab  did  not
measure  CHsOH.   Therefore,  the results   in  this  paper  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.

-------
                              C-l


                           APPENDIX C

            NTK MICRO OXIVISION AIR/FUEL RATIO METER
     The  MICRO OXIVISION MO-1000  is an  air/fuel  ratio  meter
designed  specifically for  use with  the NTK Universal  Exhaust
Gas Oxygen Sensor.

     The  detecting section  of the sensor  is made  of two  Zr02
substrate  elements:    1)  an  Oj  pumping  cell,   and 2)  an  O2
detecting cell,  both heated by ceramic  heaters.  Zr02  has  two
interesting  properties with respect  to  its  use  as a  sensor.
First,  a  galvanic potential is caused by different  02  partial
pressures  on  either  side  of  a  ZrO2   element.   Second,   an
oxygen  ion  may  be  moved  by  applying  voltage to  the  Zr02
element.

     The detecting cell  contains two  chambers.   The first,  or
reference cavity  contains a high concentration  of oxygen.   The
othe side  of the  detector  is  exposed to  exhaust gas,  and  is
referred  to as  the  detecting gas cavity.   The  separation  of
these  two  cells  by  a  Zr02   element   generates  a  galvanic
potential voltage  in the same  fashion as  a conventional oxygen
sensor.  The galvanic  potential is  approximately  lOOmV  at  very
lean conditions and may rise to 900 mV under rich conditions.

     The pumping  cell can  control the  partial  02  pressure  in
the  gas detecting cavity  by  pumping  02;   therefore,  it  may
also control galvanic  potential.  This potential may be held at
450 mV  in  any  exhaust condition  by controlling  current to  the
pumping cell,  and therefore the pumping current corresponds  to
the air/fuel ratio of the exhaust gas.

     Further information concerning the  operation of the sensor
is  available  from the U.S.  distributor  of  this product,  NGK
Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc.

-------
                             C-2

                     .  APPENDIX C  (cont'd)

            NTK MICRO OXIVISION AIR/FUEL RATIO METER


                         Specifications
Sensor Specification (MB-1QO) :

Measurement Range:
     Lambda
     Air/Fuel Ratio
     02 Partial Pressure
Accuracy and Repeatability:
     Lambda
     Measurement Range
       other

     Air Fuel Ratio:
     Measurement Range
     13
-------
                              C-3

                     Specifications  (cont'd)

Meter Specifications (MO-100Q):

Sensor Operation System:
     Icp Current
     Vs Voltage
     Limit of pumping current

     Heater supplied voltage

Data Processing System:
     Sample Period
     Measurement for Pumping
       Current of Sensor
                     25+3 micro A
                     450 mV
                     - 12.5 -
                       12.5 mA
                     10.5 + 0.5V DC
                     10 msec

                     12 Bit A/D
Readout Equipment Details:
     4 digit LED

     Lambda
     Air Fuel Ratio
     02%
     Function
Analog Output Voltage:
     Connector:
     Display:
     Function:
Indication Range
0.500-2.290 X
4.00-33.30 A/F
0.00-22.00%0Z
Running Average:
0.5 sec.;  2.0 sec
and HOLD
 Resolution
 0.001*
 0.01 A/F
 0.01%02

10.0 sec.;
BNC connector (0.5V)
Same as readout
Real time, the running average between
2.0 and 10.0 sec.
The readout gain of A/F can be selected
corresponding to 0 - 5V
Range of Usage:
     Sensor Gain
     Hydrogen/Carbon Ratio of Fuel
     Oxygen/Carbon Ratio of Fuel

Power Source:
     AC 90 - 126V
       (dp. AC 180 - 260V
     DC12 - 16V
                     000-999
                     0.00-9.99
                     0.00-9.99
                     2A
                     1A)
                     5A
     DC Power Cord
       White Wire
       Black Wire
Connector:
     Power line connector
     Sensor harness
       connector
      Positive
      Negative (-) or ground
      TEA spec.
      NANA BOSHI
        NJC 20A alpha - 7
Environmental Operating Conditions:
     Temperature             5 - 45°C
     Humidity                15 - 80% R.H. (non-condensing)

Physical Size:
     250mm W x 100mm H x 300mm D
     Weight 4.6 Kg

-------