EPA/AA/CTAB/90-04
                        Technical  Report
    Durability Testing Of  An MIOO-Fueled Toyota  LCS-M Carina
     Equipped  With A Resistively Heated Catalytic  Converter
                              by
                     Gregory K.  Piotrowski
                         September  1990
                            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

-------
.322,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

             ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
                             SS> 24
                                                          OFFICE OF
                                                       AIR AND RADIATION
  MEMORANDUM
  SUBJECT:    Exemption From Peer and Administrative Review
  FROM:       Karl H. Hellman, Chief
             Control Technology and Applications Branch"


  TO:         Charles L. Gray, Jr., Director
             Emission Control Technology Division


       The  attached  report  entitled  "Durability  Testing Of  An
  MIOO-Fueled  Toyota  LCS-M  Carina   and   A  Resistively  Heated
  Catalytic Converter" EPA/AA/CTAB/90-04 describes the evaluation
  of  these two systems for exhaust  emissions after 6,000 miles of
  driving over the AMA Durability Driving cycle.

       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;    ._.- ^-OS-SU*' '^^j  ///\	Date;  
-------
                       Table of Contents

                                                          Page
                                                         Number
I.   Summary	    1
II.  Background	    2
III. Program Design	    5
IV.  Test Vehicle Description  	    5
V.   Catalytic Converter Description 	    6
VI.  Test Facilities and Analytical Methods  	    7
VII. Discussion	    8
     A.    Emission Test Results 	    8
     B.    Fuel Economy Testing	   21
     C.    Lubricant Analysis  	   23
VIII.Test Highlights 	   28
IX.  Acknowledgments	   29
X.   References	   30

APPENDIX A - Description of Driving Cycle  	   A-l
APPENDIX B - Test Vehicle Specifications 	   B-l

-------
 I.   Summary

     Industry   representatives   have   stated   that   tailpipe
 formaldehyde  levels from methanol  and flexible-fueled vehicles
 appear  to  rise  significantly  in  the  first  30,000  miles of
 normal  vehicle  operation.    It  has  been  stated  that  these
 emissions  typically  exceed  15  milligrams per  mile  in  a  test
 over the Federal test procedure  (FTP)  after 30,000 miles.

     An  earlier EPA  program  accumulated  6,000 miles  over  the
 AMA  durability  cycle on  an  MIOO-fueled  Toyota  LCS-M Carina.
 Formaldehyde  levels  from  this  vehicle did  not  substantially
 increase   during    this    testing.     A   resistively   heated
 palladium:cerium    catalytic   converter   was   also   recently
 evaluated by  EPA.   Vehicle  formaldehyde emissions were held to
 a  very low  2  milligrams  per mile  over  the  FTP with  a  fresh
 catalyst.

     This  mileage  accumulation  program referred to  above  was
 repeated   here    incorporating    both  the    stock   manifold
 close-coupled  platinum:rhodium  converter   and  the  resistively
 heated  palladium:cerium converter   in  an  underfloor  location.
 Though  the  underfloor  catalyst  was  not  resistively  heated
 during the  mileage accumulation,  the  goal of  this  project  was
 to  determine  the  catalyst's  ability to  reduce  formaldehyde
 emissions over time.

     Emissions   measured   as   organic   material   hydrocarbon
 equivalent  (OMHCE),methanol  and carbon monoxide (CO)  increased
 substantially after 6,000 miles  were accumulated.   OMHCE and CO
 were measured  at  0.09 and 1.90 grams  per  mile over  the Federal
 test procedure  at  the end  of testing.  These  levels  were  still
 below  the  current  Federally  regulated emission levels of  these
 pollutants  for methanol-fueled  vehicles.   Aldehyde  emissions
 rose to 18.8 milligrams  per mile over the FTP, up from a low of
 3.0  milligrams per  mile  at  the  beginning  of testing.   This
 level  of   18.8  milligrams   per   mile   still   represents   an
 efficiency  of  97   percent   from baseline  (no  catalyst)   with
 respect to this vehicle.

     A  severe  ^driveability  problem  occurred  with  the  test
vehicle midway through the project.  At  that  time,  the  fuel
pump,  spark plugs,  fuel  injectors,  lean  mixture  sensor,  and
engine  computer were replaced.   The extent  to  which  these
problems .and the subsequent  repairs  may have contributed to the
 increase in emissions over time is unknown.

-------
                              -2-
 II.  Background

     The  subject  of  how emission levels change with accumulated
 mileage  with methanol  engine operation  has  been  discussed on
 numerous  occasions  between  U.S.  EPA  and automotive  industry
 representatives.   Some  industry  representatives  have  stated
 that  their   research   suggests   that  a  significant  rise  in
 pollutant   emissions  occurred   suddenly,   during   the   first
 5,000-15,000 miles of  driving.   The nature of this increase was
 a  step-change of  considerable  magnitude  relative to  emission
 levels  noted  immediately  prior  to  the  change.   Increases in
 emissions  of unburned  fuel  and  formaldehyde  were  noted;  the
 vehicles  involved were  late model,  catalyst  equipped methanol
 vehicles.

     Toyota  Motor v Corporation  recently  published a  study  of
 formaldehyde    emissions    with    mileage    accumulation    on
 methanol-fueled  vehicles.[1]   Toyota  noted   that  engine-out
 formaldehyde   emissions,   particularly   from   methanol  engines
 calibrated  for  lean  burn,   increased  substantially  over  the
 first 30,000  miles  of driving.  Toyota attributed much of this
 increase to combustion chamber deposits of  lubricating oil,  and
 partial  oxidation of  unburned  methanol  fuel  in  the  catalytic
 converter promoted by  increases in  engine-out  NOx emissions.  A
 significant  catalyst-out  decrease  in CO efficiency  was  noted
 over  30,000  miles   with  this  study;  formaldehyde  efficiency
 decreased  from 97  percent  to  92  percent  after  30,000  miles.
 Aldehyde  emissions  from  flexible-fueled vehicles  (FFV)  have
 been  noted  to  substantially increase  as mileage accumulates,
 when the  FFV's  are  fueled with M85 (85 percent  methanol  and 15
 percent gasoline).[2]

     A   large  increase   in  emissions  from   an  MIOO-fueled
 Volkswagen Rabbit over 15,000 miles of driving  at  the EPA Motor
 Vehicle  Emissions  Laboratory (MVEL)  was not  noted.[3]   This
 study was  limited  to  an  evaluation of  engine-out  emissions
 only; a catalyst was not present on the vehicle for the testing.

     Another  EPA  study examined  emission level  changes  with
 catalyst  aging  on MSS-fueled vehicles.[4]   The catalysts  were
 two noble metal formulations at  a  lighter loading of  20 grams
 per cubic foot OH the substrate.

     When tested  in  a  three-way  catalyst mode,  one formulation
 exhibited  virtually  no  change  in  emission  levels after  aging
 for  12,000 miles.   The  second  formulation  had  decreases  in
 efficiency  ranging  from six percent  for emissions measured as
 hydrocarbons  to  40  percent  for  NOx  emissions,  over  the  FTP
 cycle.  A number  of factors may have combined  to  influence  the
 test  results   and   reduce  the  usefulness   of   this   study,
however.[4]

-------
     A  more  recent  study  of emission  levels  versus  mileage
 accumulation   on   a  methanol-fueled   vehicle   involved  the
 accumulation  of  approximately 6,000 miles  on a  Toyota  Carina
 equipped  with   the  Toyota  Lean  Combustion  System  Methanol
 (T-LCS-M).[5]   The driving was performed under contract  at the
 Bendix  test  track located in  South  Bend,  Indiana.   The driving
 cycle  used  for  this  work was  the Federal  Durability Driving
 Schedule.[6]    The   6,000   miles   were   accumulated   in  two
 3,000-mile  increments.   The vehicle was  emission tested  by EPA
 prior   to  its   initial   consignment   to  South   Bend.    Upon
 completion  of  the  first  3,000-mile increment, the vehicle was
 returned  to the  EPA Motor  Vehicle Emission Laboratory (MVEL) in
 Ann  Arbor,   Michigan and  emission  tested.   The  car was then
 shipped   to  South   Bend   for   the  second  3,000-mile  driving
 increment.   Upon  completion  of  this work,   the  vehicle  was
 returned  to MVEL for  further emissions testing.

     Emissions  measured  as hydrocarbons  (HC),  organic material
 hydrocarbon  equivalents  (OMHCE),[7]  methanol  (CH3OH),   carbon
 monoxide  (CO)  and  formaldehyde  (HCHO)  over  the  FTP  cycle  did
 not  substantially  change  during  this  durability  testing.
 Emission  levels of these  pollutants at the  completion  of this
 project  were  similar to  emission  levels  from  several  months
 prior to  its start.

     NOx  emissions  increased  slightly  over   the  first  3,000
 miles of  this project, from  0.89 to  1.01  grams  per  mile.  NOx
 was measured  at  a  higher  level of  1.42  grams  per mile  at  the
 end of  the  project.  The  technicians noted a slight  misfire at
 low-speed  cruise  conditions  during the  final  500  miles  of
 mileage  accumulation.   This  condition  was not apparent  during
 the emissions  testing of  the  vehicle  after it was  returned to
 the EPA  laboratory.   Immediately  after  completion of this work,
 NOx emissions were  measured at 1.04 grams per mile  during  FTP
 testing conducted with this vehicle.

     City and highway fuel economies were essentially unchanged
 during this project.

     EPA   has   also  been   concerned   about   emissions   of
 formaldehyde from methanol-fueled vehicles for some  time.  The
major   portion "-of   formaldehyde   (HCHO)   emissions  from   a
 catalyst-equipped  methanol-fueled vehicle  over  the  FTP  cycle
 are generated  during cold  start  and warm-up of the catalyst.
 These  emissions  are difficult  to  control because  engine-out
 emissions'"  are   high  and   catalytic    converters   have   low
 conversion  efficiency during their warm-up phase of operation.

     Heating the catalytic converter at  cold start may provide
 an  emissions   reduction   benefit   over   the  FTP  cycle.[8]
Resistively heating a catalytic converter  at cold  start  may be
 a  feasible  concept if the electrical   power  requirement  for
heating  is  not excessive  and  resistive heating is  required  for
 only a limited period of time while the vehicle is operated.

-------
                              -4-
     Resistively  heated  metal  monolith  catalytic  converters
have  been  previously evaluated  by EPA.[8,9,10,11]   The first
testing  of this  technology  [9]  on  a  methanol-fueled vehicle
utilized   a   platinum/palladium/rhodium  mixture   similar   to
conventional  three-way automotive  catalysts.  FTP  Bag  1 levels
of  emissions  measured  as  hydrocarbons  and formaldehyde  were
0.50 and  0.054 grams respectively when  the  catalytic  converter
was  resistively  heated  for  30 seconds  at  cold  start.   These
were improvements of  71 and 67  percent  respectively over HC and
HCHO  levels from the  same catalyst  in  the absence of  resistive
heating.   The  lower  Bag 1  emissions  translated  into weighted
average  FTP   levels   of  0.05  grams  per  mile  for   emissions
measured as HC  and 5 milligrams per mile for HCHO.

     Another   recent  catalyst   evaluation   program  utilized
similar  resistively heated  substates  but two  different active
catalyst formulations.[12,13]  These catalysts were:

     1.    Palladium,  with cerium promoter, and

     2.    A base metal composition.

     The exact  specifications  of the catalyst  compositions  are
considered  proprietary by  the  catalyst  manufacturers,  Camet,
Inc. and W. R.  Grace.  The testing  was conducted  on a vehicle
equipped   with  a  1.6   liter,   4-cylinder   stoichiometrically
calibrated engine, fueled with M100.

     The  Pd:Ce  catalyst  had   the  highest  emission  control
efficiencies  of either catalyst over the  FTP cycle.   Emissions
measured  as  organic  material  hydrocarbon  equivalents (OMHCE)
were  reduced  to  0.08 grams  per  mile,  and methanol  (CH3OH)
emissions  were  measured at  0.20  grams  per  mile  with  this
catalyst.   Formaldehyde  emissions  were reduced to  a  very low 2
milligrams per mile over the FTP.

     The resistively heated catalysts had  been  evaluated at  low
mileage  only   by  EPA.   Some   industry  studies  referred  to
previously  [1,2]  have  questioned  the  ability  of  the current
generation  of M85  and flexible fueled vehicles to  meet a  15
milligram per mile HCHO  standard over  the FTP at high mileage.
It  was   decided  to  repeat  the  durability  testing  project
involving  the  M100   Carina   vehicle  mentioned   before,   [5]
incorporating  the  resistively  heated  Pd:Ce  catalyst.   This
project would  age  the catalyst for  6,000  miles and  provide  an
indication  of  the  catalyst's  ability  to  reduce  emissions  of
formaldehyde over time from a vehicle with high engine-out  HCHO
emissions.

-------
                              -5-
 III. Program Design

     This  project  accumulated  6,000  miles  on an  MIOO-fueled
 test vehicle equipped  with a resistively heated Pd:Ce catalytic
 converter  under  controlled conditions.   The  goal  of  this work
 was  to note  any  "step  change"  behavior  in HCHO  or methanol
 emissions from the test vehicle during this driving.

     The   test   vehicle   was   equipped   originally   with   a
 platinum:rhodium  manifold  close-coupled  catalytic  converter;
 the  resistively   heated  Pd:Ce  catalyst   was  added   in  an
 underfloor location.   Configured  in this  manner,  the  car was
 tested twice at the MVEL over the FTP and  highway  fuel economy
 test (HFET) cycles.  The  resistively heated catalyst was heated
 for  10 seconds prior  to  cold  start  and 50  seconds  following
 cold start  in  Bag  1 of the  FTP;  the catalyst was  also heated
 for 5  seconds  prior to hot  start  and 30 seconds  following hot
 start  in  Bag  3.   No  resistive  heating  was  applied  during the
 Bag 2  portion  of  the FTP or  during  the  HFET  cycle  tests.   The
 car  was  then  consigned   to  ATL  for  the  first   increment  of
 mileage accumulation.

     The  driving  was  performed  under contract by  ATL at the
 Bendix test  track  located in South Bend, Indiana.   The   6,000
 miles  were  accumulated  in  two  3,000-mile  increments.    The
 underfloor  converter  was  not   resistively  heated  during the
 driving  at ATL;   the  catalyst  was  aged  in  the  absence  of
 resistive heating.

     Upon completion of  the  first  3,000-mile driving increment
 the car was to be sent to EPA for  emissions  testing;  following
 this testing,  the  car  was to be returned to  ATL for  the second
 3,000-mile driving  increment.   After the  completion  of  this
 second 3,000-mile  increment,  the car was to  be returned to EPA
 for final emissions testing.

     The  driving  cycle used  for the  mileage  accumulation was
 the Federal Durability Driving Schedule  referred  to previously
 in  this  report.[6]   A description of  this  driving  cycle  is
given  in  Appendix  A.   The  engine  oil   was   to  be changed  at
 1,500-mile increments  and the waste oil was  saved for  metals
 analysis.   Results  from  this   testing   are   presented  in  the
Discussion section.

 IV.  Test Vehicle  Description

     The Toyota Lean Combustion System (T-LCS)  was  described  in
 a  paper  appearing  in   the Japanese  Society  of  Automotive
Engineering Review  (JSAE)  July 1984.  This  system made use  of
three  particular  technologies [14]  to achieve  improvements  in
 fuel economy  as  well  as  to comply  with  NOx emission  levels
under the Japanese 10-mode cycle:

-------
                              -6-


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

      2.    A  swirl  control  valve  before  the intake  valve was
 adopted to improve  combustion by  limiting  torque fluctuation at
 increased air/fuel  ratios; and

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

      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
 [15]  describes the  development of the T-LCS-M system.

      Toyota  provided   EPA  with  a  T-LCS-M  system  in a Carina
 chassis.  The Toyota  Carina  is  a right-hand-drive  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 was  modified for
 operation on  methanol  in  a  lean-burn mode,  incorporating the
 lean  mixture  sensor,   swirl  control  valve and timed sequential
 fuel  injection found  on  the  Toyota  lean  combustion  system.
 Modifications  to  the  fuel  system  included  the  substitution of
 parts resistant to  methanol corrosion for stock parts.

     Detailed  test vehicle  specifications  are  provided  in
 Appendix B.

 V.   Catalytic Converter Description

     The exhaust  system  of the  test  vehicle was  equipped with
 two  catalytic converters,  a  manifold close-coupled converter,
 and  a resistively  heated converter  mounted  in  an underfloor
 location.    The  close-coupled  converter   was  a  Toyota  stock
 converter,   utilizing   a  ceramic  monolith   substrate.   This
 catalyst was  approximately one  liter in  volume  and  contained
platinum:rhodium  in  proportion and   loading  similar   to  most
 current OEM three-way  catalysts.  The  underfloor  catalyst  was  a
dual  bed  configuration,   consisting  of   an  unheated  metal
monolith  substrate  and  smaller   resistively  heated  metal
monolith.    The   resistively  heated   converter  was   located
 approximately 39 inches downstream of the outlet  of  the  exhaust
manifold."*

     The metal  monolith is  resistively heated  using a single
 12-volt DC battery  capable of  providing  500-600 cold  cranking
 amps.  Voltage measured  across  the converter during heating was
typically 9.0-9.5   volts.   Current through  the  converter  was
typically measured  at  325 and  260  amps  at  the  start  and  after
one minute of resistive heating.   The battery  used for  EPA's
testing was  an additional battery,  not  the vehicle's  battery,
 and was located externally to the vehicle.

-------
                               -7-
     No  resistive  heating was  applied  to the  metal monolith
 during   the  mileage   accumulation  at  ATL.   During  emissions
 testing  at the EPA laboratory,  the period of resistive heating
 was  limited  10 seconds prior  to and 50  seconds  following cold
 start  (Bag 1), and 5  seconds  prior to  and 30 seconds following
 hot  start  (Bag 3)  in the FTP cycle  at 72°F  soak conditions.

     The dimensions of the  underfloor  catalyst  are  similar to
 those   of   typical   underfloor   catalyst(s)   on   late  model
 automobiles.   The  amperage  draw is  comparable  to  the maximum
 required by  an   automotive  starter  cranking  in cold weather,
 although starter  motors generally  do not  draw this  high level
 of current for as  long as  the  resistively heated  catalyst does.

     The active  catalyst  on  the  resistively  heated converter
 was  palladium  with cerium promoter.  This  formulation had been
 very effective  at  controlling  formaldehyde  emissions  from a
 methanol vehicle  at low mileage conditions.[12,13]

     Further   details   concerning   the  characteristics  of  the
 resistively   heated   catalytic   converter   may  be   found  in
 publications  [9,16,17] and  the  sales  literature  [18]   of  the
 manufacturer,  Camet,   Inc.,  a  subsidiary  of  the  W.  R.  Grace
 Company.

 VI.  Test Facilities and Analytical Methods

     Emissions testing at  EPA  was conducted on a Clayton Model
 ECE-50 double-roll chassis  dynamometer,  using  a  direct-drive
 variable  inertia   flywheel unit  and road   load  power  control
 unit.  The Philco  Ford constant volume  sampler has  a nominal
 capacity of 350 CFM.  Exhaust  HC emissions  were measured with a
 Beckman  Model  400  flame  ionization detector  (FID).   CO  was
 measured  using a  Bendix  Model  8501-5CA  infrared  CO  analyzer.
 NOx  emissions  were   determined   by  a   Beckman  Model  951A
 chemiluminescent NOx analyzer.

     Exhaust formaldehyde was measured using a dinitrophenyl-
 hydrazine  (DNPH)  technique.[19,20]   Exhaust carbonyls including
 formaldehyde are  reacted  with DNPH solution  forming  hydrazine
 derivatives.    These  derivatives are  separated  from the  DNPH
 solution  by  means  of  high  performance  liquid  chromatography
 (HPLC),  and  quantization   is  accomplished  by spectrophotometric
 analysis of the LC effluent stream.

     The" procedure   developed   for   methanol   sampling   and
 presently  in-use  employs  water-filled  impingers through  which
 are  pumped  a  sample   of  the  dilute  exhaust  or  evaporative
 emissions.  The methanol   in the sample gas dissolves  in water.
After  the sampling  period  is complete,  the  solution  in  the
 impingers is analyzed using gas chromatograph (GO analysis.[21]

-------
                              -8-


 VII. Discussion

     A.    Emission Test Results

     The   resistively   heated  Pd:Ce  catalytic  converter  was
 placed  underfloor  on  the   vehicle  exhaust  system,  and  the
 vehicle was emission tested several  times  over  the FTP and HFET
 cycles.    The  Pd:Ce  catalyst  was  resistively  heated  during
 portions  of the  FTP as described earlier;  no  resistive heating
 was  applied during  the HFET testing.   Following these initial
 tests, the vehicle was  consigned to  ATL for the first  increment
 of mileage accumulation.

     Table 1  is  a summary of emission  test results over the FTP
 and HFET  cycles for this preliminary testing.

     The   test  vehicle had   emissions  well   below   currently
 regulated limits  in  all  categories.   Non-methane hydrocarbons
 (NMHC)  were  not  measured  at  significantly  detectable  levels
 over the  FTP.  Organic  material hydrocarbon equivalents at 0.03
 grams  per mile  were well  below the Federal  standard  of  0.41
 grams  per  mile.   Aldehyde  emissions   in  particular  were  very
 low, only 3.0 milligrams per mile over the FTP.   NOx  was  the
 only category of pollutants  in which   the  test  vehicle did not
 have emission  levels  well  below the Federal standard, although
 the level of  the  current  NOx standard  of  1.0 gram per mile was
 easily  met.   The   only   pollutant  measured   in  appreciable
 concentration under highway driving  conditions  was NOx, also at
 approximately 0.7 grams per mile over the HFET.

     The  mileage accumulation at ATL was  conducted over the AMA
 durability cycle.   This driving was  conducted  without incident
 for the  first 1,000 miles.   Several vehicle stalls  were  noted
 by  the  drivers   during this  time,  but  the   stalls  were  not
 considered by the technicians to be serious enough to halt  the
 project.   The stalls were noted and the driving continued.

     The  stalling problem  worsened as the driving  continued,
 however.   After  approximately  1,300  miles  of  driving,   the
 vehicle stalled on  the  track  and the technicians were unable to
 immediately restart  the engine.  It was towed  to  a  garage  at
 the ATL facility-where  it  remained overnight.   On the following
 morning,  the  vehicle was  placed on  a  chassis  dynamometer;  the
 vehicle  ran well,  with no  driveability  problems noted.   The
 mileage accumulation work was therefore resumed the next day.

     The   vehicle  was  fueled   with  M100  for   this  mileage
 accumulation;   no  special  cold   start  system  was  provided.
 Because of this,  vehicle start  temperature  was  limited to  a low
 of approximately  55°F.   In order  to start the  vehicle easily,
 it  was   stored   in   an  indoor  facility  during   periods   of
 inactivity.  Prior  to driving, the  vehicle was started indoors
 and immediately  driven  onto  the  test  track  where  the driving
was performed.

-------
                            -9-
                           Table  1

            M100 Carina With Two-Catalyst System
              Emission Test Results, FTP Cycle
        Testing Prior To Initial Vehicle Consignment
Date
Jan 1990
HC*
(q/mi)
0.02
NMHC
(q/mi)
0.00
OMHCE
(q/mi)
0.03
CH30H
( q/mi )
0.06
CO
(q/mi)
0.75
NOx
(q/mi)
0.70
Aide.
(mg/mi)
3.0
HFET Results
Date
Jan 1990
HC*
(q/mi)
0.00
NMHC
(q/mi)
0.00
OMHCE
( q/mi )
0.00
CH3OH
(q/mi)
0.01
CO
(q/mi)
0.00
NOx
(q/mi)
0.69
Aide.
(mq/mi)
0.0
HC measured with propane calibrated FID.

-------
                              -10-


     Cold  outdoor  temperatures  were  experienced  during  this
 testing, which  occurred in February  1990.   It  is possible that
 these   cold   ambient   conditions   adversely   affected   the
 driveability  of  this MIOO-fueled vehicle.   No  attempt was made
 at  that  time,  however,  to  determine  whether  cold  outdoor
 temperatures  on  a  particular day  affected such parameters  as
 coolant temperature or oil temperature during driving.

     At approximately 2,563 miles the stalling  problem worsened
 appreciably.  The  technicians  determined that  the  vehicle was
 not  sufficiently reliable  to  ensure completion  of  the  first
 3,000-mile  driving   increment.   The  vehicle   was  therefore
 returned to MVEL on March 12,  1990 for diagnosis and repair.

     Only  one  problem/incident  specifically  related  to  the
 underfloor  catalyst  was noted  during driving at this time.   A
 leak was noted behind the converter.   The tailpipe  was removed,
 and  a  new  flange  was  placed on the pipe to provide a better
 mating  surface  to  the  catalyst  flange.   The leak  had occurred
 at the downstream joint of the converter.

     Upon arrival at  MVEL,  the vehicle was test driven over the
 FTP cycle.  The  stalling problem noted at ATL was  also noticed
 by  EPA  technicians.   On  the  advice  of  Toyota  engineering
 personnel,  the vehicle  fuel  tank was  drained  and  the in-tank
 fuel pump  was replaced.   This  action  did not  remedy the idle
 stall problem, however.   The  fuel injectors were  then replaced
 and  the spark  plugs cleaned.    The  vehicle driveability then
 appeared to have improved enough to conduct emissions testing.

     A  sample  of the fuel  in the vehicle  tank  was  taken when
 the  tank  was drained for  the  replacement  of  the  pump.   This
 sample  was  tested  twice at MVEL for water  content  under  ASTM
 standard   "Test   Method   for   Determination   of   Ct  to   C4
 Alcohols  and  MTBE   in  Gasoline  Using  Gas   Chromatography"
 (D4818-88)  Vol.  5.01, 1988.  The samples should have consisted
 of nearly  100 percent  alcohol  due  to the  use  of  M100  fuel.
 Instead,  alcohol contents  of  85 and  88 percent  respectively
were measured for the two samples.

     The remainder  of the  fuel  sample was  sent to  a contract
 laboratory  for -Karl  Fischer  titration  analysis (ASTM D1744).
We were concerned that possible water  contamination  of the fuel
might have  occurred.  The  analysis  indicated only 511 ppm water
 content in the fuel, however.

     It is  possible  that  fuel contamination or  even misfueling
might have  occurred  during the mileage  accumulation,  based  on
the above.  Very little fuel  remained in the  ATL  M100  supply
when  the  test   vehicle was  returned  to  EPA.   New M100  was
ordered at  this  time, and  the  remaining  fuel was disposed of.
We were unable,  therefore,  to sample the M100 used  by ATL when
the driveability problems arose.

-------
                              -11-
     Table  2 contains  a summary  of the  testing over  the FTP
cycle  performed at 2,563  miles into  this project.   The  first
category  under  "Description  of  Testing" is  a  test  with no
resistive   heating   applied  to   the  catalyst,    after   the
replacement  of   the   fuel   pump  and  injectors.    The  second
category  repeats  this  testing with  the underfloor  catalyst
resistively heated as described  earlier.

     Resistive  heating  significantly  increased  the efficiency
of  the underfloor  catalyst with  respect  to  methanol,   HC and
formaldehyde emissions.   These emissions  are  reduced roughly 50
percent by catalyst  resistive heating.   CO was not  affected by
catalyst   resistive   heating.    Even   with   a    lean    burn
methanol-fueled vehicle,  it may be necessary to  add additional
air  in front of  the  converter  to reduce  CO  levels during  warm
up.[11]  The  reduction in  NOx levels  was unexpected given our
previous experience with this heated converter.[12,13]

     The emission levels  of most measured pollutants appeared
to  have significantly changed from the start of the  program to
the  2,563-mile  point.   Most emission  levels  appeared  to   have
doubled with CO and aldehyde  emissions  increasing  more than 100
percent.  The  aldehyde  increase,  from 3.0 milligrams per   mile
increasing to 8.3 milligrams per mile,  was most noticeable.

     During this testing  another driveability problem was noted
by  the EPA  technicians.  Stalls in  the latter part  of  the FTP
(Bags  2 and  3)  were noticed,  occurring two  to three times per
test.  Though  these stalls were not occurring during the   most
critical portion of  the test with respect to emissions  (Bag  1
cold  start),  it  was  possible  that  this driveability  problem
might  have   materially  affected the  emissions  profile.   The
problem  was  described  to  Toyota,  and their  assistance  with
diagnosis and repair was again requested.

     Toyota  provided  EPA  with  a  new  lean  burn  sensor  and
computer  PROM  for   the   Carina  vehicle.   These  parts  were
installed,  and the driveability  problems ceased.   The FTP tests
were  repeated  with the  underfloor catalyst resistively heated
as  referred  to  previously.   The  third   category  in  Table  2
provides results from this testing.
                *• **
     Emissions  of  HC,  methanol and aldehydes  did  not  change
significantly  as  a  result   of  these   latest   modifications.
Emissions of CO and NOx however, decreased approximately 40 and
50  percent  respectively,   from  levels   measured  immediately
before the lean burn sensor and PROM were  replaced.

     Table 3 contains  data  in grams  per Bag 1 from  FTP  testing
with the underfloor catalyst  resistively heated.   Testing prior
to  mileage  accumulation  is  described  together  with  testing at
2,563  miles  after  replacement of  the  fuel  injectors and  fuel
pump,  and finally after  replacement of the lean burner  sensor
and engine computer.

-------
                                 -12-
                                Table  2

                 M100 Carina With Two Catalyst System
                   Emission Test Results, FTP Cycle
                 	Testing At 2,563 Miles	
Description
of Testing
 HC*
(q/mi)
New pump,         0.11
injectors,
no resistive heat

New pump,         0.05
injectors,
resistive heat
to catalyst

New pump,         0.05
injectors,
LB sensor, ECU,
resistive heat
to catalyst
 NMHC    OMHCE   CH30H    CO     NOx     Aide.
(q/mi)   (q/mi)  (q/mi)  (q/mi)  (q/mi)  (mq/mi)

 0.01    0.15    0.26    2.04    0.97    20.3
         0.00    0.07    0.13    2.14    0.66
         0.00    0.06    0.11    1.34    0.34
                                          8.3
                                          8.5
     HC measured with propane calibrated FID.

-------
                                -13-
                                Table 3

                    Bag 1 Emissions From FTP Cycle
                  FTP  Cycle,  Testing at  2,563  Miles
Description
of Testing*

Prior to
mileage
accumulation

2,563 miles,
new pump,
injectors

2,563 miles,
new pump,
injectors,
sensor, ECU
  HC**   NMHC    OMHCE   CH30H    CO      NOx     Aide.
(g/bag)  (g/bag) (g/bag) (g/bag) (g/bag) (g/bag)  (mg/bag)
  0.25    0.04    0.33    0.55
9.39   2.85
33.9
  0.58    0.04    0.79    1.42    15.81   2.66    111.5
  0.66    0.11    0.87    1.47    14.08   1.92     109.8
*    Underfloor catalyst resistively heated.

**   HC measured with propane calibrated FID.

-------
                              -14-


     The  trends  in emissions  in  Bag l  follow those  for the
weighted  FTP  noted  earlier.    Emissions  measured  as  organic
material  hydrocarbon  equivalents,  methanol and aldehydes in Bag
1  increased significantly after  2,563 miles.   The  replacement
of   the  lean   burn  sensor   and  engine   computer   did  not
significantly effect tailpipe emissions over  Bag 1.   CO and NOx
Bag  1  levels  appeared to be reduced slightly by the replacement
of these  components.

     Driveability was  much  improved as a  result  of  these  final
changes;  the  stalling problem, either at  hot or cold idle, was
not  noticed.   The  driveability had  improved enough  to permit
the  completion  of  the durability  driving,  so  the  vehicle was
returned  to the ATL facility.

     Driving  continued   at  the   test  track  without  serious
incident,  the  only driveability  concern  being an  occasional
stall followed by a quick restart.  The vehicle  was  returned to
MVEL  following  the  completion of  the mileage  accumulation at
the end of June 1990.

     Table  4 contains  a  summary of the  test data prior  to the
start   of  driving,  at  the   2,563-mile   point,   and  at  the
completion  of the project.   Emissions measured  as NMHC,  OMHCE,
and  of  methanol  are  presented  in  graphical form in  Figure 1.
Figure 2  presents the same information for CO, NOx  and aldehyde
emissions.   Aldehyde  emissions,  in  milligrams  per mile,  have
been divided by  a  factor of 10  for easier  inclusion  on Figure
2.   The  testing  at  the  2,563-mile  point  referred  to  was
conducted after all  of the  diagnostic and repair work referred
to previously was  completed.  No  attempt  is made to  determine
the  effect  of  these  repairs  on the  comparability of  emission
levels  between  the  2,500-mile point  and  the completion  of the
project.

     NMHC  emissions,   possibly  associated  primarily  with  lube
oil  emissions,  were uniformly low throughout  the duration of
the  project.    Emissions  of  OMHCE   and   methanol   steadily
increased with  accumulated mileage,  however.  Emissions  of CO
increased steadily  over  time  also;  after the  repair work,  CO
levels  continued to  increase.  NOx  was  reduced to  a  low of
about 0.4 grams",per mile at  the  time of the  engine  repairs;
this level  increased to  approximately 0.5  grams  per  mile at the
end of the project.  Aldehydes  increased steadily, exceeding 18
milligrams  per  mile over the  FTP  at the end of the project.
The  18.8"-milligrams  per  mile  level at  the  end  of  testing
exceeds the 15 milligrams per  mile standard for  model year 1993
methanol  vehicles  proposed  by the  California  Air  Resources
Board. [22]   The  18.8  milligrams per  mile  over  the FTP  still
represents an efficiency of 97 percent with  respect  to baseline
emissions of 570 milligrams per mile with this vehicle.[23]

-------
                            -15-
                           Table 4

              Emission Test Results, FTP Cycle
            Summary After Completion  of Testing
Test
Date
Jan 1990
start of
testing
April 1990
2,563 miles
May 1990
6,000 miles
HC*
(q/mi)
0.02
0.05
0.07
NMHC
(q/mi)
0.00
0.00
0.01
OMHCE
(q/mi)
0.03
0.06
0.09
CH3OH
( q/mi )
0.06
0.11
0.16
CO
(q/mi)
0.75
1.34
1.90
NOx
(q/mi)
0.70
0.34
0.48
Aide.
(mq/mi)
3.0
8.5
18.8
HFET Results
Test
Date
Jan 1990
April 1990
May 1990
HC*
(Q/mi)
0.00
0.00
0.00
NMHC
(q/mi)
0.00
0.00
0.00
OMHCE
(q/mi)
0.00
0.00
0.01
CH30H
(q/mi)
0.01
0.01
0.01
CO
( q/mi )
0.00
0.03
0.09
NOx
(q/mi)
0.69
0.14
0.22
Aide.
(mq/mi)
0.0
0.5
1.7
HC measured with propane calibrated FID.

-------
                               -16-
                               Figure 1
                   M100 Carina With Heated Catalyst
                      Emission Results, FTP Cycle
         	NMHC (g/mi)
   OMHCE (g/mi)
CH3OH (g/mi)
       Emission Levels
   0.15 -
   0.06 -


     o -
     0 mi


* Not to scale
    2563 mi
 Test Intervals*
      J
           6000 mi
                               Figure 2
                  M100 Carina With Heated Catalyst
                     Emission Results, FTP Cycle
                   CO (g/mi)
      NOx (g/mi)
Alde.<
      Emission Levels
    0 mi
• mg/mi divided by 10
•• Not to scale
    2663 mi
Test Intervals**
J
           6000 mi

-------
                              -17-
     The  general  increase  in  pollutant  emissions  noted  here
 could  have been  caused by  a number of  factors.   For example,
 the  driveability problems noted  earlier could  be a  source of
 higher  HC  and  CO  emissions.   It  is  possible  that  other
 problems,  not  identified during the diagnostic  and  repair work
 performed  midway  in  the project,  contributed  to the  higher
 emissions  noted at the end of the project.  A new methanol-
 tolerant  fuel  pump  will  soon be  supplied  to EPA by Toyota.
 Toyota  believes  that  the  replacement  pump presently on  the
 Carina  may  be subject  to  deterioration that  would   adversely
 affect the performance of the engine.

     Deterioration  of  the  catalytic  converter   systems  could
 also have  occurred  and caused an increase in pollutant emission
 levels.   This  deterioration  could have occurred  in  several
 different  ways.    For  example,   the   manifold  close-coupled
 converter  could  have  been   subjected  to  significant  thermal
 shock  if   engine  misfire  occurred.   A  small  amount   of  black
 carbon matter  was  found on  the face of  the  resistively  heated
 catalytic  converter  after  the  project.   It  is  possible  that
 conditions in  front  of  the  converter  together with the  choice
 of  active  catalyst  combined to  induce  coking.   This reaction
 would be detrimental  to the  catalyst,  eventually  poisoning  and
 deactivating it.

     Figures 3 and 4  give FTP emissions over  time  for several
 pollutant  categories  for  the  M100 Carina  equipped  with  the
 stock  manifold close-coupled  catalyst.    The testing reported
 was   conducted  without  utilizing   the  resistively  heated
 underfloor Pd:Ce  converter.   The testing referred to  as  August
 1990  was  conducted   after   the   completion  of   the  mileage
 accumulation program.

     In  general,   emissions   from  the  test   vehicle   have
 approximately  doubled  during  the  last  8,000  miles of driving
 (much  of   this mileage  being  the  durability  work reported  on
here).   Emissions  measured  as OMHCE  and  methanol  more  than
doubled during this  time,  to 0.19  and  0.34  grams   per  mile.
Formaldehyde  emissions  roughly doubled  to  25  milligrams  per
mile.   CO  emissions  have  quadrupled  from  the  December  1986
 levels.  NOx  emissions are  presently  at  approximately similar
 levels to  those^vhen the car was first  received  from  Toyota in
 1986.  During  this  time, NOx  has varied from a  high of  1.42
grams per  mile in June 1990.   These swings may have been  caused
 in large part  by modifications and engine  repairs to correct
perceived "driveability problems.

-------
                               -IB-
                              Figure 3
                M100 Carina Without Camet Catalyst
                     Emission Results, FTP Cycle
                     OMHCE (g/mi)
                 CH3OH (g/mi)
      Emission Levels
       DEC 88
OCT 88          MAR 89
    Test Intervals**

                                                     AUQ 90*
« Denotes end of current effort
** Not to scale
                              Figure 4
                 M100 Carina Without Camet Catalyst
                     Emission Results, FTP Cycle
                 i CO (g/mi)
          NOx (g/mi)
Aide.
     Emission Levels
      DEC 86          OCT 88          MAR 89
                          Test Intervals***
* mg/mi divided by 10
•• Denotes end of current effort
••• Not to scale
                                AUQ 90"

-------
                              -19-
     At  present,  it  is difficult  to  determine quantitatively
what  portion of the  recent increase  in  emission levels is due
to  mechanical troubles  yet  occurring with  the vehicle.   The
fuel   pump  on  the  vehicle  will   be  replaced  with  a  new
methanol-tolerant   pump  when  it   is   received  from  Toyota.
Subsequent   emissions  testing   will  indicate  whether   this
component was a  cause of higher emission  levels.

     One  way  to   determine  whether  the  resistively  heated
underfloor  catalyst had deteriorated  and contributed to higher
emissions  is  to  test this catalyst  on  a  vehicle other than the
LCS-M  Carina.   The same resistively heated Pd:Ce converter had
been  evaluated   on  a stoichiometrically  calibrated MlOO-fueled
vehicle  just  prior to  the work described  in  this  report.   The
results  from  testing  on   this  stoichiometrically   calibrated
vehicle  have been previously  reported.[12,13]  This previous
testing  was recent enough  to attempt  a  comparison  of results
from   previous   and   current   testing.    In   addition,   the
stoichiometrically  calibrated vehicle had  not  been used for  a
project   since   the   testing   described   in   [12,13];    no
modifications had  been made to  the vehicle,  nor  had  it  been
operated under severe conditions.

     The  stoichiometrically calibrated  vehicle  was  a  1981
Volkswagen  Rabbit  sedan equipped with a  1.6   liter  engine and
fueled  with  M100.   The   characteristics  of  this  vehicle are
given in detail  in  [12].   The resistively heated Pd:Ce catalyst
was  removed from  the Carina  and placed on  the Rabbit  in the
same underfloor  location  as  the  testing  described  in [12,13].
The Rabbit  was  emission tested  twice over the FTP cycle.   The
catalyst was resistively heated in the  same manner  as described
in  this  earlier testing  [12,13] and in this  report.  Results
from this  current  testing  are  compared with testing  conducted
on this  vehicle  in December 1989 in Table 5.   Test  results over
the FTP  cycle are  presented,  together with emission  levels  in
grams from the Bag 1 portion of the tests.

     Current  levels of OMHCE and CHjOH  were  much  higher  than
the very low levels  measured during December  1989.   At  0.29
grams per  mile,  current OMHCE were  still below  the 0.41  grams
per  mile level  mandated  in the  Federal  light-duty  methanol
vehicle  regulations.    CO   was   still  below  the  Federally
regulated  emission  levels  of  3.4  grams  per  mile,   but   the
current  emissions  level was three  times  the  magnitude of the
December 1989 level.  NOx  also rose  slightly,  to 1.0  gram per
mile during the current testing.

     The  emissions  category showing the  greatest  percentage
increase over time was aldehyde.  Very low aldehyde  emissions
of  2.0  milligrams  per mile were measured  with this catalyst
when it was  fresh.   After  6,000  miles on the  MlOO-fueled  lean
burn vehicle,  the  catalyst  was  capable  of  reducing aldehyde
emission levels  to only 33 milligrams per mile over  the FTP.

-------
                      -20-
                     Table 5

        M100  Volkswagen Rabbit With Camet
Pd:Ce Converter Emissions Testing, FTP Test Cycle
Date
December 1989
August 1990
Date
December 1989
August 1990
NMHC
(q/mi)
0.01
0.02
NMHC
Ifll_
0.04
0.37
OMHCE
( q/mi )
0.08
0.29
Baq
OMHCE
1.19
3.98
CH30H
(g/mi)
0.20
0.55
1 Only
CH30H
(
-------
                              -21-
     Bag  1  emissions  were uniformly higher when the most recent
tests  were  compared to  testing with  a fresh  catalyst.   OMHCE
emissions during the most  recent  testing  were over three times
as high as testing  during December 1989.   Aldehyde emissions  in
particular   had  increased   in  magnitude   significantly,    to
approximately 406 mg over Bag 1.

     No driveability  problems with  the Volkswagen  Rabbit  were
noted  during the  August 1990  testing;  the  car  performed very
well.  No problems with  catalyst  resistive heating  were noted
during  this testing.   Baseline  (no-catalyst) emission  levels
were  not  measured  during August  1990,  because  there were   no
comparable emissions data available from December 1989.

     The  resistively heated Pd:Ce  catalyst was removed from the
Rabbit vehicle following  the  completion  of testing and returned
to W.  R.  Grace.   This  catalyst  will  be  analyzed  by Grace  to
determine whether  catalyst deterioration  has occurred,  and   if
so, what the mechanism of deactivation was.

     B.    Fuel Economy Testing
     Fuel economy  test  results  are presented in Table 6.  City,
highway,  and composite  methanol  MPG  figures  are  presented as
well  as  gasoline  equivalent  composite  fuel  economy.   Fuel
economy data  is  in chronological  order,  since the  test  vehicle
was   received  from  Toyota,  Japan,  is   also   presented  for
comparison.

     The  gasoline  equivalent fuel economy  values  are based on
adjusting  for the energy  content difference between  gasoline
and methanol.  The nominal  energy content  of gasoline has been
established  at  18,507 BTU/lb [24] yielding 114,132 BTU/gallon.
Methanol  at  8,600  BTU/lb is 56,768 BTU/gallon.  The adjustment
for M100 fuel based on fuel energy is:

     Gasoline equivalent adjustment = Energy of gasoline
                                      Energy of methanol

     Dividing the energy of gasoline:

     Gasoline equivalent adjustment = 2.0105

     FTP  fuel  economy was  essentially unchanged from  previous
levels by this project.   Fuel economy  increased slightly during
the proje'Ct from 18.3 MPG over the FTP at project start  to 19.0
MPG at  the completion.   This 19.0 methanol MPG  was the  highest
city fuel economy  measured  to date with the test  vehicle,  but
this was  only 0.3  MPG higher than the values  recorded when the
vehicle was  first  delivered to  EPA.   We  do not  know the effect
on fuel economy  of each of the modifications that  were  made to
the vehicle  midway in the  project (replacement of  plugs,  lean
mixture sensor, ECU, and fuel pump).

-------
                             -22-
                            Table 6

                      Toyota LCS-M Carina
                   Fuel Economy Test Results
Date
September 1986
December 1986
July 1987
July 1988
October 1988
March 1989
January 1990*
May 1990**
June 1990***
City
MPG
18.7
17.9
17.0
18.2
18.6
18.0
18.3
18.6
19.0
Highway
MPG
N/A
25.7
24.4
23.7
26.5
25.4
26.1
26.2
27.3
Composite
MPG
N/A
20.7
19.7
20.3
21.5
20.7
21.1
21.4
22.0
Gasoline
Equivalent
Composite MPG
N/A
41.6
39.6
40.8
43.2
41.6
42.4
43.0
44.2
*    Start of current program.

**   Midway point of current program.

***  End of current program.

-------
                              -23-
      Highway fuel  economy  appears  to  follow city MPG.  A  small,
 yet  measurable increase in  highway fuel economy was noted over
 the  current project.   The 27.3 MPG highway  fuel  economy at the
 end  of the  project combined with  the higher 19.0 methanol city
 MPG  to give a gasoline  equivalent  composite  fuel  economy  of
 44.2   MPG.    While this  was  the  highest  gasoline  equivalent
 composite  fuel economy yet  recorded  with this  vehicle,  it was
 yet   only   marginally  higher  than  the  43.2  MPG measured  in
 October 1988.

      C.     Lubricant Analysis

      Published  reports have  indicated that  the  use  of methanol
 fuel  may  result  in  engine wear  rates  that  exceed  those  of
 comparably  sized  gasoline engine,  when conventional  lubricants
 are  used.[25,26]   Typically,  this increased wear  is described
 as having  occurred in the top piston  ring and  upper  cylinder
 bore  area.[27]

      Toyota  specified an  oil  change  interval  of 3,000  miles
 when  the Carina was  delivered to EPA for  evaluation.   During a
 previous  mileage  accumulation effort  involving this  vehicle,
 the  oil  was  changed  every  1,500  miles  and analyzed  for wear
 metals  content.[5]  For the effort described here,  the engine
 oil was also to be changed  at 1,500-mile  intervals  and samples
 were  to be taken for metal content.

      The  first sample  was  taken  after  1,500  miles  had been
 driven.   The  vehicle  had  been driven for  an  additional  850
 miles  prior  to the start  of the program, for  a total  of 2,350
 miles with the  same oil.   We chose to not  change  the  oil at the
 beginning of  the program  to  determine what the effect of a more
 normal  oil  change interval  would  be  on  contaminant  metals
 concentrations.

     The  second oil  sample  was  taken after  the vehicle  was
 returned to MVEL for engine  diagnostics  and  repair.   A complete
 1,500-mile  increment  was  not driven   between   the  first  oil
 change  and  the return  of  the  vehicle  to MVEL.   It  proved
 convenient  to change  the  oil while the  vehicle  was at  MVEL,  so
 this sample is  referred to here as being taken  after  only 1,063
miles of driving-on the oil that was sampled.

     The third sample  was  taken  after  a cumulative  total  of
 4,500 miles  had been  driven  on the vehicle  during the  project.
This  third  sample  therefore  was taken after approximately 1,936
miles had been  accumulated since the  second  sample.   The fourth
 and final  sample  was  drawn  after  the  final  1,500-mile driving
 increment.

-------
                              -24-


     The  oil  samples  were  analyzed  from  FRAM through  their
FRAM/CODE  oil  analysis  program.   This  analysis  includes  a
spectrographic  metals  test as  well  as  a  series  of  physical
tests to determine  viscosity,  fuel dilution and  solids content
of  the  oil.   This  information  was  used  as  an  indicator  to
determine whether abnormal wear of parts was occurring.

     Results  from  analyzing  these individual  oil  samples  are
presented  in Table 7.  The wear  metals data  presented here was
limited  to  those metals  which  indicated  higher  than  normal
parts wear or  related to major engine components.[28]  The FRAM
program made the determination that higher  than normal wear was
occurring.

     The wear  metals data  is presented in  two  formats.  First,
wear metals  content of the sample taken  is presented  in  units
of  parts  per  million  (ppm)  by  weight.    Because  the oil  was
sampled  after  different  driving  intervals  and  the  oil  was
changed  when  sampled,  this  length of  driving  time  may  have
influenced the metals  content  of  the oil.  For  example,  the
first sample was  taken after 2,358 miles  of  driving, and the
oil  was changed  at  sampling time.   Barring  unusual  driving
conditions or  engine trouble, it may  be  logical  to expect that
the metals content of  the second  sample,  taken after driving
1,063 miles,  might  be lower due  to the shorter period of  wear.
The data is  therefore presented  also  in  terms  of  ppm  of  metal
per mile driven with the oil sampled at that time.

     Oil sample number  2  exhibited somewhat different levels of
wear metals  per mile  than the other  samples.    This  situation
may have been  related to the  driveability problems  which  became
very noticeable  at  that time.  Water  contamination of the  oil
was noticed  at  this time;  this contamination was not  noticed in
the   other  samples   taken.    The   source    of   this   water
contamination  is  unknown.   This  could have been  caused by fuel
contamination,  excessive  blowby,   or  cold  ambient  temperatures
which may have  hindered the functioning  of the  PCV  system.   The
following  two  oil  samples  indicated  less  wear  generally  with
respect  to the  number of  miles traveled with the same oil.   For
these  reasons,  the  second  oil  sample  may  not   be  a   good
indicator  of the  average  wear  metals levels  to  the  expected
from a methanol-vehicle under  normal wear  conditions.

     Higher  than  normal concentrations of  iron  were  indicated
in  three of  the four  oil samples.   Higher concentrations  of
iron are-normally present where increased wear  in the cylinders
and of  gears  is  occurring.  Elevated levels  of aluminum  were
also found in the  same three samples.   Aluminum  is  generally
present  in oil due to wear of  pistons and  bearing surfaces.

-------
                               -25-
                             Table  7

              Metal Contaminants In Lube Oil Samples
                  (data given in PPM and  PPM/mile)
Metal/Other
Contaminant
Iron
Aluminum
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Water
Sample 1
2,358 miles
72V0.031
20V0.008
22V0.009
6 /0.003
37V0.016
—
Sample 2
1,063 miles
67V0.063
13V0.012
22*/0.021
4 70.004
25*70.024
0.1**
Sample 3
1,936 miles
75*70.039
18*70.009
30*70.015
4 70.002
14 70.007
—
Sample 4
1,500 miles
37/0.025
6/0.004
17/0.011
2/0.001
16/0.011
—
*    Levels flagged by FRAM as of moderate concern.

**   Water level greater than 0.1 volume percent measured.

-------
                              -26-
     Elevated  concentrations of chromium,  probably from piston
 rings,  were noted in the  first  three oil samples.  Higher than
 normal  concentrations  of lead were also  noted  in  the  first two
 samples.   Because  of the use of M100, the  lead probably was not
 related  to  the  fuel  vapors.   Higher   levels  of  lead,  when
 accompanied  by elevated concentrations  of aluminum,  may be an
 indicator  of bearing wear.   Copper  levels,  however, were within
 the  range  considered  to be  normal  by FRAM;  copper  is  also
 commonly associated with bearing surfaces.

     Pefley,  in SAE  Paper  831704,  [29] provides  oil analysis
 wear metals  data from  a small  fleet of methanol-fueled sedans.
 These  vehicles were  powered by  1.6-liter Volkswagen engines;
 vehicle  weight  and  engine  displacement were  similar  to the
 Toyota Carina  test  vehicle used in this  project.   The oil  used
 in Pefley's  work was a commercially available SAE 20W-40  SF-CC
 oil.  The  oil  was  sampled every 1,000 miles  and was  changed at
 3,000-mile  intervals.   Pefley's  vehicles were driven  from  7,000
 to  17,000  miles;  oil sampling  did not  occur during  the  first
 3,000  miles   of  break-in   driving.    Numerical   averages  of
 Pefley's wear metals data  are presented  in Figures 5 and 6.

     Also presented in  Figures 5 and  6 is wear metals  data from
 the  previous   6,000-mile   durability  effort  with   this  test
 vehicle.[5]  These samples were  taken at 1,500-mile increments;
 the driving was  conducted over  the same driving schedule as the
 present effort  described here.   The oil  used in  this earlier
 testing   was   the  same    specially   blended  lubricant   for
 methanol-fuelec vehicles.    Figures  5 and  6  also  contain  wear
 metals  data from  the  first,  third,  and fourth  samples  taken
 during the current  effort.   The data from the  second  sample  is
 not  included  here,  as   this  sample  was  taken  when  the vehicle
 was  experiencing  obvious  driveability  problems.    The  data
 presented   in   Figures  5   and  6   is   limited  to   metals
 concentrations  in  ppm  as  presented in  the  earlier  reports
 quoted from here.[5,29]

     The   iron   concentrations   measured  during   the  present
 testing were roughly comparable to  the  levels measured  during
 the  earlier  durability  effort  [5]  if  the extended driving  of
 the first  two  samples  is considered.   The last sample,  37  ppm,
 is a  considerably  improvement over the  49  ppm average measured
 during.[5]  All of  the  samples  from   the  MIOO-fueled  Toyota
 vehicle  had much   lower  iron  levels  in  their   oil  than the
 methanol-fueled Volkswagen vehicles used by Pefley.[29]

     Aluminum concentrations from  the first  and  third  samples
 of the current  effort were similar in magnitude to those of the
 previous  durability effort  [5] when the  mileage  over  1,500
miles is considered.  The  last  sample of the current effort was
 taken after driving 1,500 miles;  at  6 ppm,  this  concentration
 of aluminum was  less  than one half of that measured during the
 previous   durability   experiments.[5]    The   methanol-fueled
Volkswagen  vehicles   used   in   SAE  Paper   831704   exhibited
 considerably higher aluminum wear  metals concentration  than  on
 the MlOO Toyota vehicle.

-------
                               -27-
                              Figure 5
                  Oil Analysis - Metal Contamination
                   Comparison With Published Data
                        Iron (Fe)
Aluminum (Al)
J
       PPM By Weight
         831704*   Previous**  2358 mi***  1936 mi***
                          Source Of Sample
• From SAE 831704
•• From CTAB 89-03
**• Present Work Described Here
              1600 mi**
                              Figure 6
                  Oil Analysis - Metal Contamination
                  Comparison With Published Data
                     I Chromium (Or)   RMS! Copper (Cu) I
      PPM By Weight
       831704*    Previous**   2368 mi*-   1936 mi***
                         Source Of Sample
* From SAE 831704
•• From CTAB 89-03
••• Present Work Described Here
              1600 mi***

-------
                              -28-
     Chromium  levels  in oil  from Carina  testing could  not be
 correlated  with miles  driven on the  same oil.   The  30  ppm of
 chromium measured  with  the oil used for  1,936 miles  was higher
 than the 22 ppm measured in  oil  that  was  run in the engine for
 2,358  miles.   The final  1,500-mile  sample taken  during  the
 present work had a chromium concentration of only 17 ppm.  This
 was considerably below  most other measured  levels and the data
 presented in SAE Paper  831704.

     Concentrations  of  copper  were measured at relatively low
 levels  during  the present  work  as well  as during   the  past
 durability  project.[5]   Though  copper  concentrations appeared
 to  increase with  increasing  mileage  experienced by the  oil
 during  the  present work, the  final  sample over  1,500  miles had
 less  than   half the  level  measured  for  1,500  miles  in  the
 previous project.   The  copper  concentration of  2 ppm from this
 final  sample was  also  substantially below  the  19  ppm measured
 by Pefley during his work.

     No attempt  to relate  metals wear rates to engine condition
 or emissions is made here.   We  did not  examine  the condition of
 cylinder walls, bearing  surfaces,  piston  crowns, etc.  either
 before  or  after the current  effort.  A  limited number  of  oil
 analyses were  made, and these  did  not occur at  evenly spaced
 intervals.    Gasoline  control  vehicles were not  used and  the
 analysis  was   limited  to  a  single  test  vehicle.   The  data
 presented here  suggests that  some accelerated engine  wear with
 respect to  expected gasoline  vehicle  wear  may  be  occurring in
 the test vehicle,  according to FRAM.  While the possibility of
 advanced wear  rates should be  a concern of those  responsible
 for methanol vehicle fleets, no  attempt was  made to  reduce them
 here,  through the  use of special lubricant  additives or special
 methanol-tolerant metal  surfaces.

 VIII.Test Highlights

     1.    Emissions  of OMHCE,  CH,OH,  and CO  over  the  FTP
 increased substantially after  6,000  miles  of driving  over  the
AMA durability  cycle.   OMHCE  at  0.09  and  CO at  1.90  grams  per
mile at  the end of  testing were still  below current  Federally
 regulated emission levels for methanol vehicles.

     2.    NOx  emissions  over  the  FTP dropped  to a  very  low
 0.34   grains  per  mile  after   a   driveability  problem   was
 investigated and corrected midway in the program.

     3.    Aldehyde emissions  rose  to 18.8  milligrams  per  mile
 at the  end  of  testing,  up from  a  very low 3.0  milligrams  per
mile at the start of  the  program.    This  18.8  milligrams  per
mile over the  FTP still represents  an  efficiency of  97 percent
from baseline with respect  to this vehicle.

-------
                              -29-


     4.    City  and  highway  fuel  economies  were  essentially
 unchanged  by the  project.   The  gasoline  equivalent  composite
 fuel  economy of  44.2 MPG  measured at  the end  of  testing was
 similar to the 43.2 MPG measured during October 1988.

     5.    Oil  samples were  taken  four  times   from  the  test
 vehicle  during  this  project  and  analyzed  for  wear  metals
 concentrations.   According  to  FRAM,  Inc.  standards,  three  of
 the  samples  indicated  higher  than normal  concentrations  of
 iron, aluminum, and  chromium.   Lead concentrations  were judged
 by FRAM to be  higher than normal  in two samples.  A significant
 amount of water was  found to be present  in the  lube oil during
 a  period  in which severe  driveability problems with  the test
 vehicle were noted.

     The  extent  to   which  out  of  the  ordinary  driveability
 problems may have affected these  wear  metals  concentrations is
 unknown.   The  final   sample,   taken   after  1,500   miles  of
 relatively incident-free  driving,  showed  normal  concentrations
 of  the metals  mentioned  above;   no category  was  flagged  as
 indicative of  abnormal wear rates.  More  testing over  a longer
 period  of  vehicle operation  should be conducted to  determine
 whether this methanol-fueled  engine is  experiencing metal wear
 rates   higher   than   those   expected   from   a   comparable
 gasoline-fueled engine.

 IX.  Acknowledgments

     The Toyota Carina test vehicle was loaned  to  EPA  for use
with .alternative  fuels research  programs  by  the Toyota  Motor
Co., Ltd.   The MIOO-fueled Rabbit vehicle has  been  loaned  to
EPA by Volkswagen  of  America.   The.resistively  heated  catalyst
was  provided  by   Camet,  Inc.,  a  subsidiary  of W.  R.  Grace.
FRAM,  Inc.,   a  subsidiary  of   Allied  Signal,   provided  the
 lubricant analysis.   The  engine oil, specially  blended  for use
with methanol vehicles, was provided by Lubrizol.

     The author appreciates the efforts  of  James  Garvey, Robert
Moss,  and  Steve  Half yard  of  the Test  and Evaluation  Branch
 (TEB) who conducted the emissions  testing  and assisted with the
driveability problem  diagnosis and repair.  John Shelton,  also
of TEB, acted  a£- the EPA contract officer and liason with ATL
for this effort.

-------
                              -30-
 X.    References

      1.     "Study  of Mileage-Related Formaldehyde Emission  from
 Kethanol-Fueled  Vehicles,"  Tsukasaki,  Y. ,  et  al.,   SAE  Paper
 900705, February 1990.

      2.     "A   View  of   Flexible   Fuel   Vehicle   Aldehyde
 Emissions,"  Nichols, R.  J.,  et al. ,  SAE Paper  881200,  August
 1988.

      3.    Results  of Methanol Catalyst  Testing  Analyzed  for
 Trends  In  Baseline Variance,  Memorandum,  Piotrowski,  G.   K.,
 OAR/OMS/ECTD/CTAB,  October  24,  1985.

      4.     "Durability     of     Low    Cost    Catalysts     for
 Methanol-Fueled Vehicles,"  Heavenrich,  R.  M. ,  R.  I.  Bruetsch,
 and G. K. Piotrowski, EPA/AA/CTAB/87-01, October 1987.

      5.     "Durability  Testing of   a   Toyota  LCS-M  Carina,"
 Piotrowski, G. K.,  EPA/AA/CTAB/89-03, June 1989.

      6.    Federal  Durability  Driving  Schedule,  Appendix   IV,
 Part  86, 40 CFR, Chapter 1.

      7.    Definitions, 40  CFR Part 86.092-2,  Federal Register,
 Vol.  54, No. 68, Tuesday, April 11, 1989.

      8.     "Resistive  Materials   Applied   to   Quick  Light-Off
 Catalysts,"  SAE Paper  890799,  Hellman,  K. H.,  et  al.,  March
 1989.

      9.     "Evaluation of   a  Resistively  Heated Metal Monolith
 Catalytic  Converter on  an M100 Neat Methanol-Fueled Vehicle,"
 Blair,  D.  M.  and   G.  K.  Piotrowski, EPA/AA/CTAB/88-08,  August
 1988.

      10.   "Evaluation of   a  Resistively  Heated Metal Monolith
 Catalytic Converter on a Gasoline-Fueled  Vehicle,"  Piotrowski,
 G. K., EPA/AA/CTAB/88-12, December 1988.

      11.   "A  Resistively   Heated  Catalytic  Converter With  Air
 Injection For  Oxidation  of  Carbon  Monoxide  and  Hydrocarbons At
Reduced Ambient Temperatures," Piotrowski, G. K., EPA/AA/CTAB/
 89-06, September 1989.

      12. I "Evaluation  of  Resistively  Heated  Metal  Monolith
Catalytic Converters On  An M100 Neat  Methanol-Fueled Vehicle,"
Part  II, Piotrowski, G. K., EPA/AA/CTAB/89-09,  December 1989.

      13.   "Recent  Results  from Prototype Vehicle  and Emission
Control Technology Evaluation  Using  Methanol  Fuel,"  SAE  Paper
901112, Hellman, K. H. and G. K. Piotrowski, May 1990.

-------
                              -31-
      14.    "NOx   Reduction  Is  Compatible  With  Fuel   Economy
 Through  Toyota's Lean  Combustion  System,"  Kimbara, Y.  K.,   et
 al.,  SAE Paper 851210, October  1985.

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

      16.    "Recent  Developments  in  Electrically  Heated  Metal
 Monoliths,"  Whittenberger, W.  A.  and  J.  E.  Kubsh,  SAE  Paper
 900503, February 1990.

      17.    "Evaluation   of Metallic   and  Electrically   Heated
 Metallic  Catalysts on   a  Gasoline-Fueled Vehicle,"  Hurley,   R.
 G., et al., SAE  Paper 900504, February 1990.

      18.    "Camet  Electrically  Heated   Catalytic  Converter,"
 Sales  Literature,  Camet  Company,  12000  Winrock  Road,  Hiram,
 Ohio, 44234, February 1990.

      19.   Formaldehyde  Measurement In Vehicle Exhaust  at  MVEL,
 Memorandum, Gilkey, R. L., OAR/OMS/EOD,  Ann Arbor, MI, 1981.

     20.    "Formaldehyde  Sampling  From  Automobile  Exhaust:   A
 Hardware Approach," Pidgeon, W., EPA/AA/TEB/88-01, July  1988.

     21.    "Sample   Preparation    Techniques   For   Evaluating
 Methanol   and   Formaldehyde   Emissions   From  Methanol-Fueled
 Vehicles and Engines," Pidgeon, W.  and M. Reed, EPA/AA/TEB/
 88-02, September 1988.

     22.    "Proposed  Regulations  For Low-Emission Vehicles and
 Clean Fuels,"  Staff  Report, State  of California  Air  Resources
 Board, August 13, 1990.

     23.    "Evaluation  of  Toyota  LCS-M  Carina:   Phase  II,"
 Piotrowski, G. K., EPA/AA/CTAB/87-09, December 1987.

     24.   Federal Register,  Vol.   50, No.  126,  p.  27179, July
 1, 1985.

     25.   "The   Mechanisms   Leading  to   Increased  Wear   In
Methanol Fueled^I Engines,"  Ryan,  T.  W., et  al. ,  SAE  Paper
 811200,  October  1981.

     26.    "Lubrication  Experience  In   Methanol-Fueled  Engines
Under ShoYt-Trip Service Conditions," Chamberlin,  W. B.  and W.
C. Brandon, SAE  Paper 831701,  November 1983.

     27.    "The  Effects  of Lubricant Composition  on  SI Engine
Wear With  Alcohol Fuels,"  Marbach,  H.  W., et  al.,  SAE  Paper
831702,  November 1983.

-------
                             -32-
     28.    The   FRAM/CODE   Oil   Analysis    program,"    Sales
Literature,  Allied  Automotive   Aftermarket   Division,   Allied
Signal, East Providence, RI,  1990.

     29.    "Methanol Engine  Durability," Ernst,  R.  J.,  R.  K.
Pefley, and F.  J. Weins, SAE Paper 831704, November 1983.

-------
                           APPENDIX A

            DESCRIPTION OF TOYOTA LCS-M TEST  VEHICLE


     The  Durability Driving  Schedule  for  light-duty  vehicles
consists  of 11  laps  of  a 3.7-mile course.   The  basic vehicle
speed for each lap is given below.


                           Table A-l

                        Basic Lap Speed
                  Durability Driving Schedule


                                               Speed
                                          (miles per hour)

         1                                       40
         2                                       30
         3                                       40
         4                                       40
         5                                       35
         6                                       30
         7                                       35
         8                                       45
         9                                       35
        10                                       55
        11                                       70


     Each  of  the  first  nine  laps  contain  four  steps  with
15-second  idle  periods.   These  laps  also  contain  five  light
decelerations from  base speed to 20 miles per hour  followed by
light accelerations to the base speed.   The  tenth  lap  is  run at
a  constant  speed of  55  miles  per  hour.   The eleventh  lap is
begun  with wide-open  throttle  acceleration from stop  to  70
miles  per  hour.   A  normal deceleration  to  idle  followed  by a
second wide-open  throttle acceleration occurs  at the  midpoint
of. the lap.
                n
     Figure A-l below  is  a diagram of one lap of the Durability
Driving  Schedule  taken  from  40  CFR,  Chapter  1,   Part  86,
Appendix ,IV.

-------
                         Figure  A-l


           Durability Driving  Schedule Lap


 [From  40  CFR, Chapter  1,  Part 86,  Appendix IV]
                          0.7
                             SlQE
                         THEN ACCELERATE
                         TO LAP SPEED
0 AND 3,7
MILES
     3,3
     2,9
          /DECELERATE
           TO 20 M.P.H.
           THEN ACCELERATE
           TO LAP SPEED
START-FINISH
    STOP
THEN ACCELERATE
TO LAP  SPEED
DECELERATE
TO 20  M.P.H.
THEN ACCELERATE
TO LAP SPEED
    STOP
THEN ACCELERATE
TO LAP  SPEED
        DECELERATE
        TO 20 M.P.H.
        THEN ACCELERATE
        TO LAP SPEED
DECELERATE
TO 20 M.P.H.
THEN ACCELERATE
TO LAP SPEED
1,3
     2,6  \   DECELERATE
             TO 20 M.P.H.
             THEN ACCELERATE
            JO LAP SPEED
                    2,2    STOP
                       THEN ACCELERATE
                       TO LAP SPEED
                                        ALL STOPS  ARE 15 SECONDS

-------
                      APPENDIX B
       DESCRIPTION OF TOYOTA LCS-M TEST VEHICLE
Vehicle weight
Test weight
Transmission
Shift speed code
Fuel
Number of cylinders
Displacement
Camshaft
Compression ratio
Combustion chamber
Fuel Metering
Bore and Stroke
Ignition

Ignition timing
Fuel injectors
2015 Ibs
2250 Ibs
Manual, 5 speed
15-25-40-45 mph
Ml00 neat methanol
Four, in-line
97 cubic inches
Single, overhead camshaft
11.5, flat-head pistons
Wedge shape
Electronic port fuel injection
3.19 inches x 3.03 inches
Spark ignition; spark plugs
are ND W27ESR-U,  gapped at .8
mm, torqued to 13 ft-lb.
With check connecter shorted,
ignition timing should be set
to 10°BTDC at idle.  With
check connecter unshorted,
ignition timing advance should
be set to 15°BTDC at idle.
Idle speed is approximately
550-700 rpm.
Main and cold start fuel
injectors capable of high fuel
flow rates.   The fuel injector
bodies have been nickel-
plated, and the adjusting
pipes are stainless steel.

-------
                 APPENDIX B (CONT'D)

       DESCRIPTION OF TOYOTA LCS-M TEST VEHICLE
Fuel pump
Fuel tank
Fuel lines and filter
Catalytic converter
(stock)
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.

Stainless steel construction;
capacity 14.5 gals.

The tube running from the fuel
tank to the fuel filter has
been nickel plated.  The fuel
filter, located in the engine
compartment, has also been
nickel plated.  The fuel
delivery rail has been plated
with nickel-phosphorus.

1-liter volume, Pt:Rh loaded,
close coupled to the exhaust
manifold.

-------