EPA/AA/CTAB/88-03
Technical Report
Evaluation of a MetHanoi-Fueled
(M85) Turbocharged Nissan Sentra
by
David M. Blair
May 1988
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
-------
(j
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
June 16, 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Exemption From Peer and Administrative Review
Karl H. Hellman, Chief
Control Technology and Applications Branch
Charles L. Gray, Jr., Director
Emission Control Technology Division
The attached report entitled "Evaluation of Methanol-Fueled
(M85) Turbocharged Nissan Sentra" (EPA/AA/CTAB/88-03),
describes emissions testing conducted at the Motor Vehicle
Emissions Laboratory on a turbocharged Sentra, which was
designed by Nissan to use methanol fuel (M85).
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.
Concurrence:/
Ch'arles L. Gray,
Date:
., ECTD
Nonconcurrence:
Attachment
cc: E. Burger, ECTD
Date:
Charles L. Gray, Jr., Dir., ECTD
-------
introduction
Section 211 of the Clean Air Act[1] requires that the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) play a key
role Jn 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 evalution of
alternate-fueled vehicles.
A turbocharged Nissan Sentra was emission tested at the
U.S. EPA Motor Vehicle Emissions Laboratory located in Ann
Arbor, Michigan. This vehicle was designed by Nissan to
operate on M85 (85 percent methanol/15 percent gasoline) fuel.
The vehicle's chassis is a late-1986 configuration while the
engine is based on a 1983 1.3-liter design. Additional vehicle
information is presented in Table 1.
Project Summary
The turbocharged Nissan Sentra was loaned to the EPA
through a formal cooperative agreement between Nissan and the
EPA dated July 6, 1987. Nissan supplied the EPA with the
methanoI-fueled Sentra for use in EPA's program to evaluate
Nissan's and other manufacturer's methanol technology. The
stated purpose of the EPA program is to evaluate the use of
methanol as an alternative to gasoline for automotive uses to:
1) improve the ambient air quality, and 2) reduce U.S.
dependence on imported petroleum.[2]
The Sentra arrived at the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Laboratory (MVEL) in July of 1987 and was then baseline
emission tested during late July and early August 1987. Nissan
previously emissions tested this vehicle and a similar vehicle
at their Japanese and Ann Arbor laboratories. These results
are presented in the Appendix and show that Nissan's evaluation
of the Sentra is close to the EPA evaluation of the Sentra. An
updated Nissan vehicle is scheduled to arrive at MVEL at the
end of September 1988. Both the Sentra and the upgraded
vehicle are scheduled to be returned to Nissan by November 30,
1988.
Testing conducted from February 25, 1988 to March 24, 1988
is the basis of this report. These tests were all conducted
after new fuel injectors were installed in the Sentra.
Replacement was required due to a resistance rise of the
injectors and a corresponding inability to deliver fuel, which
caused vehicle driveability problems. Inspection of the
injectors revealed what appeared to be corrosion on the fuel
inlet side of the injector. Based on Nissan's investigation,
the injector's solenoid metals and copper wires were corroded
by methanol. This corrosion is caused by a seal's insufficient
ability to close off the flow of methanol to the solenoid coil.
-------
-2-
Table 1
Vehicle Description
Turbocharged Nissan Sentra
Vehicle Identification Number (VIN):
JN1PB15S6FU151356
EngIne:*
Type
Bore X stroke
Displacement
Compression ratio
Fuel metering
Maximum turbo boost pressure
Maximum power
Maximum torque
Minimum BSFC**
Chassis and Drivetrain:
Type
Mode I
Tires
Curb weight
Test weight (ETW)
Actual Dynamometer Horsepower
Transmission
4-stroke Otto cycle, in-line
4-cylinder
76 x 70 mm
1270 cc
9.8 to 1
Electronic Fuel Injection
(EFI)
7.3 psi
106 PS/5600 rpm (NET)
15.0 kg x m/4000 rpm (NET)
180g/PSh @ 2800 rpm
Two-door Sedan
B11-USA Model
P155/80R13 Bridgestone
radials
1,965 weight
2,250 weight
7.5
5-speed manual
-------
-3-
Table 1 (cont'd)
Vehicle Description
Turbocharged Nissan Sentra
Other:
Fuel
Eng i ne Oil
Fuel tank
Exhaust
Feedback
Catalyst
Odometer reading on
vehicle when delivered
to EPA
Odometer reading at the
start of the testing reported
Odometer reading at
end of testing
Catalyst mileage
MBS (methanol 85 volume
percent, gasoline 15 volume
percent)
15W-30 (modified for
methanol-fueled engine use)
13.2 gallons-plastic
construction
Single left side
Closed-loop A/F ratio control
Located downstream of
turbocharger catalyst 10 to
1 Pt/Rh with 35 grams/cuft
Ioad i ng
16,552 miles
16,739 miles
17,218 miles
A new catalyst was installed
in this vehicle by Nissan at
16,017 miles
* Data supplied by Nissan.
** Gasoline equivalent.
-------
Testing Summary
The vehicle was LA-4 prepped, then driven over the Federal
test procedure (FTP) and highway fuel economy test (HFET) cycles
at standard test conditions. Steady-state (SS) testing at idle,
10 miles per hour (MPH), and 30 MPH was conducted after the HFET
was completed. Emissions of HC, NOx, CO, C02, methane and
formaldehyde were sampled and measured. Evaporative loss tests
were conducted according to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
procedures. No HFET or steady-state tests were conducted after
the completion of the hot soak evaporative testing.
Testing was conducted in two phases: "as received," the
Sentra with the standard catalyst installed, and "engine-out,"
the Sentra with a dummy catalyst installed. Six FTP, three HFET,
three idle, four 10 MPH SS and four 30 MPH SS repeat able tests
were run in the "as received" configuration. Three FTP/HFET and
two SS test sequences were • run in the "engine-out"
configuration. Three repeatable evaporative emission tests were
also conducted on the Sentra in the "as-received" configuration.
The average values are reported for the FTP, HFET and evaporative
emission tests in the text, while individual FTP/HFET test
results may be found in the Appendix. The results of the
steady-state tests are presented in Tables A-5 and C-7.
Exhaust emission values in the text and in Appendix A are
presented using the proposed methanoI-fueled vehicle test
procedures.[3] These calculation procedures differ considerably
from the gasoline-fueled vehicle calculations. Modifications to
the proposed methanoI vehicle procedures were required since
methanoI emissions from the Sentra were not measured. These
modifications are briefly discussed in Appendix B.[4] The data
in Appendix C present the results of the testing using
gasoline-fueled vehicle procedures. The Nissan-supplied data is
presented in Appendix C using the gasoline-fueled vehicle
procedures.
A problem with the evaporative emission and/or fuel system
of the Sentra may exist as carbon monoxide (CO), organic material
hydrocarbon equivalent (OMHCE) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
tailpipe emissions were consistently higher over the FTP cycle
when an evaporative loss test (diurnal heat build) was conducted
prior to the start of the emissions testing. Results of the
"as-received" FTP emission testing is thus presented in three
parts: FTP testing conducted without evaporative testing
(FTP/HFET), FTP testing conducted with evaporative testing
(FTP/Evap), and an average of the above two phases (composite).
-------
-5-
Discussion
The EPA proposed emission standards for throttled methanol
engines over the FTP cycle are 1.0 grams per mile oxides of
nitrogen (NOx), 3.4 grams per mile carbon monoxide (CO), and
.41 grams per mile organic material hydrocarbon equivalent
(OMHCE). The data presented in Table 2 indicate that the
vehicle emission output would be unacceptable without a
catalyst. The vehicle would fail the OMHCE and CO standards
even with the catalyst installed if a diurnal heat build is
conducted prior to the start of the FTP driving cycle. The
vehicle meets all of the emission standards if a diurnal heat
build is not conducted prior to the start of the FTP driving
eye Ie.
The HFET data presented in Table 3 shows a very high
catalyst efficiency for all regulated emissions except for NOx
which has a conversion efficiency of only 17 percent.
Analyzing the grams NOx per mile data shows that the vehicle
only emits .55 g/mi NOx over the HFET without a catalyst.
Evaporative loss testing was done according to gasoline
vehicle procedures. The flame ionization detector's (FID)
response was not corrected for methanol and methanoJ
evaporative loss was not measured. The reported values are
grams of hydrocarbon (HC) and not grams of OMHCE. Calculation
of OMHCE is required for evaporative loss tests with
methanol-fueled vehicles according to the proposed rulemaking
in reference 3.
The EPA evaluated evaporative emission testing is
presented in Table 4 along with results for tests conducted at
Nissan laboratories. The results show that the Sentra has
evaporative emissions comparable to other methanol-fueled
vehicles tested by the EPA. Nissan reported two test results:
one with higher than EPA evaluated losses (first test), and one
with lower than EPA evaluated losses (second test). The EPA
evaporative emission evaluation resembles Nissan's first
evaluation of the Sentra with 32 percent of the emission as
diurnal losses and 68 percent of the emission as a hot soak
loss. Nissan's second evaporative emission test does not
correlate to either Nissan's first evaporative test or the EPA
evaluation. The M85 fuel for the EPA and Nissan's Ann Arbor
tests was supplied by Howe I I Hydrocarbons.
Fuel economy of the Sentra over the FTP and HFET cycles is
presented in Table 5. The average EPA and individual Nissan
evaluations are comparable. The gasoline energy equivalent MPG
was 34.5 to 34.9 over the FTP and 51.3 to 51.6 over the HFET.
-------
-6-
Table 2
FTP Emission Results*
Turbocharqed M85-Fue
led Nissan Sentra
HC HCHO CO NOx OMHCE CH30H C02
(q/mi) (mq/mi) (q/mi) (q/mi) (q/mi) (g/mi) (a/mi)
Composite
with cat.
FTP/HFET
with cat.
FTP/Evap
with cat.
Without
cat.
Composite
cat. eff
(percent)
FTP/HFET
Cat. eff.
(percent)
FTP/Evap
Cat. eff.
(percent)
* Calcu
.08 25 3.02
.07 25 2.51
.09 26 3.52
.49 286 6.39
83 91 83
85 91 61
81 91 45
.57 .42 .76 235
.56 .37 .67 235
.59 .47 .85 235
1.17 2.57 4.51 224
51 84 83
53 85 85
49 82 81
lated using proposed methanol procedures.
Table
3
HFET Emission Results*
With cat.
Without
cat.
Cat. eff.
(percent)
Turbocharged M85-Fue
HC HCHO CO
(g/mi) (mg/mi) (g/mi)
.01 4 .05
.24 97 1.21
98 96 96
led Nissan Sentra
NOx OMHCE CH30H C02
(g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi)
.45 .02 .04 164
.55 1.23 2.18 158
17 98 98
Calculated using proposed methanol procedures.
-------
Test
Facility
Ann Arbor 1*
Ann Arbor 2*
EPA
-7-
Table 4
Evaporative Emissions
Turbocharged MSB-Fueled Nissan Sentra
Diurnal Loss
(gram)
.20
.04
.16
Hot Soak Loss
(gram)
.42
.22
.34
Total Loss
(gram/test)
.62
.26
.50
Test run at Nissan's Ann Arbor laboratory
Table 5
FueI Economy
Turbocharged MSS-Fueled Nissan Sentra
Test
Facility
Japan*
Ann Arbor**
EPA
EPA
Catalyst
Instal led
Y
Y
Y
N
M85 Fuel Economy
(mpg M85-FTP/HFET)
21.0/29.0
21.3/N/A
20.0/29.4
20.0/29.5
Energy Equivalent
(mpg-FTP/HFET)
37.0/50.5
37.3/N/A
34.5/51.3
34.9/51.6
* Test run at Nissan's Japanese laboratory.
** Test run at Nissan's Ann Arbor laboratory.
-------
-8-
With the 13.2 gallon fuel tank and the actual fuel economy
being 20.0 miles per gallon of M85 over the FTP and 29.5 miles
per gallon of M85 over the HFET, the driving range of the
Sentra would be approximately 264 miles in the city and 389
miles on the highway. These ranges do not include the
reduction factors used to calculate Gas Mi I cage Guide fuel
economy for gasoline-fueled vehicles.
Individual "as-received" FTP test results in Table A-1 of
Appendix A indicate that the Sentra has a potential problem
with the control of regulated pollutants after a diurnal heat
build test. With the diurnal heat build, NOx is .03 grams per
mile higher, CO is 1.40 grams per mile higher, and OMHCE is .10
grams per mile higher over the FTP driving cycle.
"Engine-out" FTP test results presented in Table A-2 indicate
that the Sentra also has a potential problem with the control
of CO emissions. Bag 1 CO ranged from 43.28 grams to 61.75
grams, Bag 2 CO ranged from 16.87 grams to 19.22 grams, and Bag
3 CO ranged from 12.21 to 16.58 grams, while FTP CO emissions
ranged from 5.69 grams per mile to 7.36 grams per mile. The
tests with the higher CO emissions also tended to have
increased OMHCE emissions. This could indicate that the engine
was running richer or leaner than normal in some modes.
However, reduction in NOx emissions was not apparent wherf
CO/OMHCE emissions increased. HFET emission results show CO
and HC to be very stable in both the "engine-out" and
"as-received" configurations. This indicates that the CO/OMHCE
inconsistency is probably caused at a low engine speed. This
can be somewhat confirmed by the steady-state data presented in
Table A-5. Ten MPH tests with the catalyst installed revealed
highly variable CO (.09-6.02 gr/mi) and OMHCE (.034-.22
gr/mi). No abnormal vehicle behavior was apparent during any
of the ten MPH testing.
Emission comparisons are made with Nissan's test results
in Tables C-1 through C-3. Table C-1 shows that the EPA
evaluated the Sentra's CO and HC emissions higher than Nissan,
while the EPA measured formaldehyde (HCHO) emissions were lower
than the Nissan value. NOx and C02 emission were evaluated
to be almost equivalent by both Nissan and the EPA. The HFET
comparison in Table C-2 reveals the same trends, higher CO and
HC evaluated by EPA and equivalent NOx and C02- No HFET
formaldehyde (HCHO) emission data was supplied by Nissan.
Air/fuel ratio testing conducted on the Sentra revealed
that the engine operates at stoichiometric conditions (Lambda =
1.0) at idle and 10 MPH. The Sentra operated lean, at Lambda =
1.3 to Lambda = 1.4, during 30 MPH steady-state testing. This
was expected since the Sentra's central processing unit (CPU)
is calibrated to control the air/fuel ratio at stoichiometric
at low speed, low torque conditions while in the first or
second gear. However, if the vehicle is operated at low speed,
low torque conditions in third, fourth or fifth gear, the
calibration calls for lean operation. The 30 MPH steady state
was run in third gear.
-------
-9-
The average formaldehyde emissions over the FTP and HFET
cycle, reported in Tables C-1 and C-3, are comparable to other
methanoI-fueled vehicles previously tested by the EPA. Over
the FTP cycle, engine-out formaldehyde emission was 286
rag/mile. With the catalyst installed, this output dropped to
26 ing/ml which translates into a 91 percent catalyst efficiency
for formaldehyde. HFET data show a 94 percent catalyst
efficiency for formaldehyde. These efficiencies are slightly
lower (approximately 5 percent) than other platinum/rhodium
catalysts tested by the EPA.[6]
It should be noted that there were mechanical problems
with the gas chromatagraph used to analyze the dilute samples
which contained formaldehyde (HCHO) during part of the test
program. These problems resulted in a ±15 percent uncertainty
in the reported HCHO values. The OMHCE values, which rely
partly on the HCHO level, will be variable to a much lesser
extent. This uncertainty applied to the OMHCE would be at the
most +2 percent. The problems with the chromatagraph were not
discovered until after the test program was completed, and it
was not possible to reanalyze the formaldehyde samples from
each test.
Even though this vehicle's catalyst is close coupled, i.t
is located directly behind the turbocharger which cools the
exhaust gas. One might expect catalyst efficiencies comparable
with other methanoI-fueled vehicles with underfloor catalysts
for the Bag 1 testing of the FTP cycle. Table C-8, which was
calculated using gasoline-fueled vehicle procedures, indicates
that the Bag 1 catalyst efficiencies for tests conducted
without evaporative loss tests were lower than expected: 61
percent for HC, 32 percent for CO, 43 percent for NOx, and 66
percent for HCHO. Table C-8 also shows that the Sentra's Bag 2
and Bag 3 catalyst efficiencies are comparable to a M100-fueled
Volkswagen Rabbits, except for Bag 3 CO which was 32 percent
less efficient for the Sentra. Overall, FTP catalyst
efficiencies are comparable for both vehicles except for CO.
FTP CO catalyst efficiency of the Sentra was observed to be
much lower than the Volkswagen's catalyst efficiency. These
low efficiencies could indicate a catalyst temperature problem
with the Sentra.
Conclusions
Since the Sentra's fuel injectors had to be replaced after
operating for 16,738 miles, work is shown to be needed in
design of more methanol-tolerant fuel system components or
possibly a fuel additive to improve injector life. Injector
problems seem to be a common occurrence on methanoI vehicles
fueled with M100 or M85.
Other methanoI-fueled vehicles tested by the EPA have
shown variable CO and OMHCE emissions over the FTP driving
cycle. Thus, the variable CO and OMHCE emissions recorded for
the Sentra in the "engine-out" configuration over the FTP
driving cycle may not signal a vehicle problem, but may
actually be an expected occurrence.
-------
-1O-
Work may be needed on the Sentra's evaporative emissions
system since FID measured HC and CO tailpipe emissions
increased significantly over the FTP, especially during Bag 1
(11 percent HC, and 30 percent CO), when a diurnal heat build
was conducted prior to the start of the FTP driving cycle.
Canister purge rates may have to be adjusted to limit the
amount of fuel vapor which can be delivered to the engine under
cold operating and warm-up conditions and/or main injector
delivery rates could be adjusted to compensate for the
additional fuel being delivered from the evaporative emission
system.
Nissan may want to develop a more effective catalyst
system which would light-off quicker under cold starting
conditions. The fundamental problem is one of trying to
quickly heat a catalyst to light-off temperature with the cool
methanol exhaust produced from a small 1.3-liter turbocharged
engine. Work is thus needed in the area of optimum catalysts
for small displacement methanoI-fueled vehicles if such small
displacement engines are to be used to replace larger gasoline
engines due to metHanoi's efficiency/power advantages over
gasolinc.
AcknowIedgemen t s
The vehicle used in this test program was provided by
Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.
The author appreciates the efforts of Ernestine Bulifant,
Bob Moss, Ray Ouillette and Steve Ha If yard of the Test and
Evaluation Branch, Emission Control Technology Division (ECTO),
who conducted the drive ing cycle tests.
In addition, the author appreciates the efforts of
Jennifer Criss and Marilyn Alff of the Control Technology
Applications Branch, ECTD, who typed this manuscript.
-------
-11-
References
1. The Clean Air Act as amended through July 1981,
Section 211(C)(1).
2. Loan agreement between Nissan (Nagayuki Marumo) and
the EPA (Charles Gray), July 6, 1988.
3. "Proposed Emission Standards and Tests Procedures
for MethanoI-Fueled Vehicles, Draft Regulation" U.S. EPA,
Summer I986.
4. "Calculation of Emissions and Fuel Economy When
Using Alternate Fuels," EPA 460/3-83-009, Urban, Charles M.,
March 1983.
5. "Interim Report on the Evaluation of a
MethanoI-Fueled LTD Crown Victoria," EPA/AA/CTAB/87-03,
Piotrowski, G. P., R. M. Heavenrich, R. I. Bruetsch, J. P.
Cheng, March, 1987.
6. "Evaluation of Emissions From Low Mileage Catalysts
On a Light-Duty MethanoI-Fueled Vehicle," EPA/AA/CTAB/87-05,
Piotrowski, G. K., April 1987.
-------
APPENDIX A
INDIVIDUAL TEST RESULTS USING
METHANOL VEHICLE PROCEDURES
-------
A-1
Table A-1
Individual FTP Emission Results With Catalyst Installed*
Turbocharged MSB-Fueled Nissan Sentra
Exhaust Emissions**
Test Number
HC
HCHO
CO
882091 (FTP/HFET):
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Composite
(g/mi)
1.25
.02
.06
.08
344
20
33
25
37.92
.59
3.48
2.52
882142 (FTP/HFET):
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Composite
(g/mi)
1.11
.02
.08
.07
369
16
40
26
32.23
.32
6.92
2.43
882169 (FTP/HFET):
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Compos! te
(g/mi)
.98
.02
.06
.07
313
20
37
24
35.48
1.50
4.13
2.59
882233 (FTP/Evap) :
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Compos! te
(g/mi)
1.38
.02
.08
.09
370
31
55
30
47.90
1.19
8.77
3.58
882413 (FTP/Evap):
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Composite
(g/mi)
1.38
.02
.08
.09
297
21
56
24
49.04
.67
5.88
3.33
NOx OMHCE CH30H
2.13
1 .85
2.28
.54
2.18
2.00
2.16
.56
2.39
1 .83
2.30
.56
2.29
2.16
2.20
.59
2.38
2.02
2.44
.59
6.39
.13
.29
.41
5.74
.12
.44
.38
5.04
.13
.33
.34
7.06
.11
.44
.45
7.03
.11
.42
.45
11.52
.22
.51
.73
10.29
.21
.78
.68
9.04
.22
.58
.60
12.72
.18
.77
.81
12.73
.19
.72
.81
C02
857
961
740
234
861
964
747
236
834
954
727
234
873
983
757
239
844
962
743
233
-------
A-2
Table A-1 (cont'd)
Individual FTP Emission Results With Catalyst Installed*
Turbocharqed M85-Fueled Nissan
Sentra
Exhaust Emissions**
Test Number
HC
HCHO
CO
NOx
OMHCE
CH30H
C02
882411 (FTP/Evap):
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Composite
(g/mi)
1.58
.03
.08
.10
335
18
46
25
54.56
1.11
4.99
3.65
2.34
2.05
2.55
.60
8.05
.16
.42
.51
14.59
.27
.74
.93
847
961
754
234
* Calculated using proposed methanol procedures.
** HCHO emission presented in mg or mg/mi.
-------
A-3
Table A-2
Individual FTP Emission Results With No Catalyst Installed*
Turbocharged MBS-Fueled Nissan Sentra
Exhaust Emissions**
Test Number
882475:
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Compos I te
(g/ml)
882480:
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Composite
(g/mi)
882618:
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Compos i te
(g/mi)
HC
3.26
1.68
1.55
.53
2.99
1.63
1.34
.49
2.35
1.59
1.29
.45
HCHO
1110
1156
940
289
1017
1253
902
293
904
1092
1027
277
CO
61.75
19.22
16.58
7.36
50.26
17.58
12.40
6.14
43.28
16.87
12.21
5.69
NOx
3.89
4.88
4.17
1.19
3.84
4.57
3.99
1.13
4.01
4.78
4.27
1.20
OMHCE CH30H C02
16.82
8.94
8.20
2.78
15.42
8.73
7.12
2.58
12.19
8.46
6.92
2.36
* Calculated using proposed methanol procedures.
** HCHO emission presented in mg or mg/mi.
30.13
15.53
14.34
4.88
27.62
15.06
12.39
4.52
21 .74
14.70
11.90
4.13
833
930
721
226
821
913
707
222
814
909
707
223
-------
A-4
Table A-3
Individual HFET Emission Results With Catalyst Installed*
Test
Number
882143
882170
882471
* Ca
Indiv
Test
Number
882476
882481
88261 9
Turbocharged
HC HCHO
(g/mi) (mg/mi)
>. 01 5
> . 01 7
M85-Fueled Nissan Sentra
CO NOx
(g/mi) (g/mi)
.05 .43
.05 .49
.04 .45
Iculated using proposed methanol
Table A-4
idual HFET Emission Results With
Turbocharged
HC HCHO
(g/mi) (mg/mi)
.24 99
.23 96
.24 95
M85-Fue
CO
(g/mi)
1.29
1 .22
1.13
OMHCE
(g/mi)
CH30H
(g/mi)
.02 .04
.02 .04
.03 .04
procedures.
No Catalyst Instal
led Nissan Sent
NOx
(g/mi)
.59
.55
.50
OMHCE
(g/mi)
1.24
1 .22
1.22
ra
CH30H
(g/mi)
2.21
2.16
2.17
C02
(g/mi)
165
162
165
led*
C02
(g/ml)
161
156
157
Calculated using proposed methanol procedures.
-------
A-5
Table A-5
Steady-State Emission Results*
Turbocharged M85-Fueled Ni
Test
Number
882144
882171
882472
882145
882172
882203
882473
882146
882173
882204
882474
882482
882620
882483
882621
882479
882622
Cat
Inst.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Speed
(mph)
Idle
Idle
Idle
10
10
10
10
30
30
30
30
Idle
Idle
10
10
30
30
ssan Sentra
Exhaust Emissions**
HC
(g/ml)
.01
.01
.01
.01
.04
.01
.04
<.01
<-01
.01
<-01
.22
.20
.15
.14
.27
.25
HCHO
( ing/mi)
6
6
7
1
7
7
8
3
2
3
4
213
190
179
156
240
219
CO
(g/mi)
.01
.01
.01
.21
6.02
.09
5.34
.01
.01
.01
<.01
3.89
2.58
8.20
7.95
1 .22
1.20
NOx
(g/mi)
.10
.11
.08
.03
.03
.06
.09
.11
.14
.09
.09
.18
.23
.44
.44
.14
.14
OMHCE
(g/ml)
.03
.04
.03
.05
.22
.03
.20
.01
.02
.03
.02
1.19
1.07
.81
.75
1 .44
1.33
CH30H
(g/mi)
.05
.06
.04
.08
.40
.06
.35
.02
.03
.06
.02
2.01
1.82
1.35
1 .25
2.45
2.26
C02
(g/mi)
259
266
254
327
319
322
322
163
157
162
168
250
251
307
304
160
156
* Calculated using proposed methanol procedures.
** Grams per 10 minutes for idle tests except HCHO which is mg per
10 minutes for idle tests.
-------
APPENDIX B
Calculation of HC. Methanol. and HCHO
As proposed, the regulations in reference 3 require the
measurement of methanol (CH3OH) and formaldehyde (HCHO).
Methanol emissions are especially important since the dilution
factor equation includes CH3OH emissions. At the time the
test results reported here were made, the EPA lab did not
measure CH3OH. Therefore, the results shown here were
computed with 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.[5]
-------
APPENDIX C
INDIVIDUAL TEST RESULTS USING
GASOLINE VEHICLE PROCEDURES
-------
C-1
Table C-1
FTP Emission Results*
Turbocharged M85-Fueled Nissan Sentra
Test Catalyst HC CO C02 NOx
Facility (y/n) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi)
Japan** Y .20 2.04 N/A .57
Japan*** Y .23 1.82 223 .57
Ann Arbor**** Y .28 2.45 222 .54
EPA (composite) Y .33 3.02 235 .57
EPA (FTP/HFET) Y .29 2.51 235 .55
EPA (FTP/Evap) Y .37 3.52 235 .59
EPA N 1.96 6.40 224 1.17
* Calculated using current gasoline procedure.
** Average of three FTP/Evap tests run on a similar
at Nissan's Japanese laboratory.
*** FTP/HFET test run at Nissan's Japanese laboratory.
**** FTP/Evap test run at Nissan's Ann Arbor laboratory.
Table C-2
HFET Emission Results*
Turbocharged M85-Fueled Nissan Sentra
Test Catalyst HC CO C02 NOx
Facility (y/n) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi)
Japan** Y .01 .01 168 .52
EPA Y .02 .05 164 .46
EPA N .94 1 . 21 1 58 .55
HCHO
(mg/m i )
N/A
41
N/A
26
26
26
286
veh i c I e
HCHO
(mg/m i )
N/A
6
96
* Calculated using current gasoline procedure.
** Test run at Nissan's Japanese laboratory.
-------
C-2
Table C-3
Individual FTP Emission Results With Catalyst Installed*
Turbocharged MSS-Fueled Nissan Sentra
Test Number HC
Japan*****:
Exhaust Emissions**
CO
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Compos i te
(g/mi)
3.60
.05
.18
.23
28.7
.51
.18
1.82
Ann Arbor******:
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Composite
(g/mi)
4.40
.14
.14
.28
39.67
.13
2.08
2.45
882091 (FTP/HFET):
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Compos i te
(g/mi)
4.99
.10
.22
.32
37.92
.59
3.48
2.52
882142 (FTP/HFET):
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Compos i te
(g/mi)
4.46
.09
.34
.29
32.23
.32
6.92
2.43
882169 (FTP/HFET):
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Compos i te
(g/mi)
3.91
.09
.25
.26
35.48
1.50
4.13
2.59
C02
863
910
733
223
801
920
705
222
857
961
740
234
861
964
747
236
834
954
727
234
NOx
2.13
1.90
2.52
.57
1.86
1.95
2.22
.54
2.13
1.85
2.29
.54
2.18
2.00
2.16
.56
2.39
1.83
2.30
.56
FueI Economy
HCHO MPG*** EMPG****
414
87
66
41
21.0
37.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
21.3
37.3
344
21
33
25
20.2
35.3
369
16
59
28
20.1
35.0
313
21
38
24
20.2
35.3
-------
C-3
Table C-3 (cont'd)
Individual FTP Emission Results With Catalyst Installed*
Turbocharged MSS-Fueled Nissan Sentra
Exhaust Emissions** FueI Economy
Test Number HC CO C02 NOx HCHO MPG*** EMPG****
882233 (FTP/Evap):
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Compos i te
(g/mi)
5.51
.08
.33
.35
47.90
1.19
8.77
3.58
873
983
757
239
2.29
2.16
2.20
.59
370
31
52
30
19.6 34.2
882413 (FTP/Evap):
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Composite
(g/mi)
5.51
.08
.31
.35
49.04
.67
5.88
3.33
844
962
743
233
2.38
2.02
2.44
.59
297
22
56
24
20.2 35.2
882411 (FTP/Evap);
2 54.56 847 2.34 335
2 1.11 961 2.05 19
2 4.99 754 2.55 46
20.0 34.9
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Composite
(g/mi)
6.32
.12
.32
.40
54.56
1.11
4.99
3.65
847
961
754
234
2.34
2.05
2.55
.60
335
19
46
25
* Calculated using current gasoline procedure.
** HCHO emission is presented in mg or mg/mi.
*** Methanol miles per gallon calculated using methanol-
fueled vehicle procedures.
**** Gasoline energy equivalent miles per gallon.
***** FTP/HFET test run at Nissan's Japanese laboratory.
****** FTP/Evap test run at Nissan's Ann Arbor laboratory.
-------
C-4
Table C-4
Individual FTP Emission Results With No Catalyst Installed*
Turbocharged MSS-Fueled Nissan Sentra
Exhaust Emissions**
Test Number
882475 :
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Compos i te
882480:
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Compos i te
(g/mi)
882618:
Bag 1 (g)
Bag 2 (g)
Bag 3 (g)
Composite
(g/mi)
HC
13.05
6.72
6.21
2.12
11.96
6.52
5.36
1.96
9.41
6.37
5.15
1.79
CO
61.75
19.22
16.58
7.36
50.26
17.58
12.40
6.14
43.28
16.87
12.21
5.69
C02
833
930
721
226
821
913
707
222
814
909
707
223
NOx
3.89
4.88
4.17
1.19
3.84
4.57
3.99
1.13
4.01
4.78
4.27
1.20
HCHO
1109
1156
939
289
1016
1252
902
293
904
1092
1027
277
*
**
FueI Economy
MPQ*** EMPG****
19.6
34.1
20.2
35.2
20.2
35.3
Calculated using current gasoline procedure.
HCHO emission is presented in mg or mg/mi .
*** Methanol miles per gallon calculated using methano I -fueled
vehicle procedures.
**** Gasoline energy equivalent miles per gallon.
-------
C-5
Table C-5
Individual HFET Emission Results With Catalyst Installed*
Turbocharged
Test Number
882143
882170
882471
HC
(q/mi)
.02
.02
.02
MSB-Fueled Nissan Sentra
Exhaust Emissions
CO
(g/mi)
.05
.05
.04
C02
(g/roi)
165
162
165
NOx
(q/mi)
.43
.49
.45
HCHO
(mq/m i )
6
5
7
Fuel
MPG**
29.2
29.7
29.2
Economy
EMPG***
51.0
51.9
51.1
**
Calculated using current gasoline procedure.
Methanol miles per gallon calculated using methanoI-fueled
vehicle procedures.
*** Gasoline energy equivalent miles per gallon.
-------
C-6
Table C-6
Individual HFET Emission Results With No Catalyst*
Turbocharqed
MSS-Fueled Nissan Sentra
Exhaust Emissions
Test Number
882476
882481
882619
HC
(q/mi)
.96
.94
.94
CO
(g/mi)
1.29
1.22
1.13
C02
(g/mi)
160
156
157
NOx
(g/mi)
.59
.55
.50
HCHO
(mg/m i )
99
96
95
Fuel
MPG**
29.0
29.9
29.7
Economy
EMPG***
50.6
52.2
51.9
*
**
***
Calculated using current gasoline procedure.
Methanol miles per gallon calculated using methane I-fueled
vehicle procedures.
Gasoline energy equivalent miles per gallon.
-------
C-7
Table C-7
Steady-State Emission Results*
Turbocharqed M85-Fueled Nissan
Sentra
Exhaust Emissions****
Test
Number
882144
882171
882472
882145
882172
882203
882473
882146
882173
882204
882474
882482
882620
882483
882621
882479
882622
Cat.
Inst.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Speed
(mph)
Idle
Idle
Idle
10
10
10
10
30
30
30
30
Idle
Idle
10
10
30
30
HC
(q/mi)
.02
.03
.02
.04
.18
.03
.15
.01
.01
.03
.01
.87
.79
.58
.54
1.06
.98
CO
(q/mi)
.01
.01
.01
.21
6.02
.09
5.34
.01
.01
.01
<.01
3.89
2.58
8.20
7.95
1.22
1.20
C02
(q/mi)
259
266
254
327
319
322
322
163
157
162
168
250
251
307
304
160
156
NOx
(q/mi)
.10
.11
.08
.03
.03
.06
.08
.11
.14
.09
.09
.18
.23
.44
.44
*
.14
.14
HCHO
(mq/mi)
7
7
8
2
7
7
9
3
2
3
5
214
191
179
157
240
219
Fuel
Economy*****
MPG** EMPG***
.3
.3
.3
14.8
14.7
14.9
14.6
29.7
30.7
29.8
28.7
.3
.3
15.0
15.1
.29.0
29.7
.2
.2
.2
25.8
25.6
26.1
25.5
51.8
53.6
52.0
50.1
.2
.2
26.1
26.4
50.6
51.9
* Calculated usinq current qasoline procedure.
** Methanol miles per qallon calculated usinq methanol-fueled vehicle
procedures.
*** Gasoline energy equivalent miles per qallon.
**** Grams per 10 minutes for idle tests except HCHO which is mq per 10
minutes for idle tests.
***** Gallons per hour for idle tests.
-------
C-8
Table C-8
Average FTP Catalyst Efficiencies*
Exhaust Emissions**(Sentra/M100 VW***)
Composite:
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
FTP/HFET :
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
FTP/Evap :
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
FTP
HC
55/72
99/98
95/89
83/86
61/72
99/98
95/89
85/86
50/72
99/98
94/89
81/86
CO
17/77
95/98
59/97
53/90
32/77
96/98
65/97
61/90
2/77
94/98
52/97
45/90
NOx
42/51
58/44
44/52
51/49
43/51
60/44
46/52
53/49
40/51
56/44
42/52
50/49
HCHO
67/81
98/96
95/95
91/92
66/81
98/96.
96/95
91/92
67/81
98/96
95/95
91/92
* Calculated using current gasoline procedures.
** Values reported are catalyst efficiencies of the
MSS-fueled Sentra/catalyst efficiencies of an M100-fueled
Volkswagen Rabbit with a 5 Pt to 1 Rh under floor catalyst
with 40 grams per cubic foot loading.
*** Volkswagen data is from a FTP driving cycle test done
without evaporative emissions testing.
------- |