EPA/AA/CTAB/91-06
Technical Report
Evaluation of a Vehicle Equipped with
a Direct Injection Engine
Using Neat Methanol
by
Robert I. Braetsch
Karl H. Hellman
September 1991
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 developments which may form the basis for a final EPA decision, position or
regulatory action.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Mobile Sources
Emission Control Technology Division
Control Technology and Applications Branch
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Number
I . Summary 1
II. Introduction 1
III. Methanol Vehicle Development 1
IV. Description of Test Vehicles ..... 2
V. Test Program 2
VI. Sampling Equipment & Analytical Procedures 5
VII. Methanol Vehicle Test Results - 6
A. FTP Emissions Testing Summary 6
B. Fuel Economy Testing Summary .... 7
C. Performance Testing Summary 10
D. Cold Start Testing Summary 10
VIII.Vehicle Comparison Analysis 14
A. Low-Mileage Emission Comparison 14
B. Performance and Fuel Economy Comparisons ..... 17
C. Low Ambient Temperature Cold Start and
Driveability Comparisons ... 19
IX. Conclusions 20
X. Acknowledgements 21
XI. References 22
APPENDIX A - Test Vehicle Specification A-l
APPENDIX B - Low Ambient Temperature Battery Preparation
Procedure B-l
APPENDIX C - Vehicle Test Results C-l
APPENDIX D - Gasoline Equivalent Fuel Economy Calculations . D-l
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
OCT I 6 1991
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 "Evaluation Of A Vehicle Equipped
With A Direct Injection Engine Using Neat Methanol,"
(EPA/AA/CTAB/91-06) , examines the test results of a vehicle
developed by FEV of America under EPA Contract No. 68-C9-0002. The
test results of similar gasoline-fueled and Diesel-fueled
Volkswagens are also presented for comparison.
Since this report is concerned only with the presentation of
data and its analysis and does not involve matters of policy or
regulation, your concurrence is requested to waive administrative
review according to the policy outlined in your directive of April
22, 1982.
Concurrence: / ^"Nvtx:^ "' "•-•"v^ ,-• '/\ Date:
Charles L. Gray, Jtf. ,'Dir., ECTD
Nonconcurrence: Date:
Charles L. Gray, Jr., Dir., ECTD
cc: E. Burger, ECTD
-------
I. Summary
The cyclic and steady-state vehicle emissions, fuel economy,
performance, and cold start behavior of an automobile equipped with
a direct injection methanol engine are compared with those of three
other comparable vehicles. One of the comparable vehicles was
powered by a gaosline-fueled engine, and the other two were
Diesels. One of the Diesel-powered vehicles was naturally
aspirated and the other was turbocharged. All evaluations were
made using the same road load horsepower and equivalent test
weight. All the evaluations were conducted at low mileage.
II. Introduction
The use of neat methanol as a motor vehicle fuel will be
extremely advantageous if two of the major problems with neat
methanol—cold starting and formaldehyde emissions—can be
overcome. One of the ways that offers promise to overcome the
problems is the use of an engine which injects fuel directly into
the combustion chamber. Under the terms of a contract between EPA
and FEV of America, a vehicle was developed with a direct injection
neat methanol (DI M100) engine and delivered to EPA for testing.
EPA's testing involved evaluating the vehicle for emissions,
fuel economy, performance, and cold startability.
In order to put the results of the test program into
perspective, EPA also tested other vehicles. The vehicles were all
tested at the same test weight and road load horsepower. Since the
DI M100 engine was installed in a Volkswagen Jetta chassis, the
test weight and road load horsepower were representative of that
vehicle. One of the comparison vehicles was a gasoline-fueled
Volkswagen Golf and the other two were Jetta Diesels. One of the
Diesels was naturally aspirated and the other was turbocharged.
III. Methanol Vehicle Development
The engine and vehicle development program is discussed in
detail in the final report for the contract under which the work
was done. This report is now available and is entitled "Design,
Fabrication, Testing, Report and Delivery of a Direct Injection
Methanol-Fueled Passenger Car Engine: Phase IV Report."[1]
A summary of most of the engine development can be found in
"The Concept of a 1.9L DI Methanol Engine For Passenger Car
Application" presented at the llth International Vienna Combustion
Engine Symposium [2] and "Development of a Direct Injected Neat
Methanol Engine For Passenger Car Applications," presented at the
August 1990 SAE Future Transportation Technology Conference and
Exposition.[3]
-------
-2-
The engine development program started with a prototype 4-
cylinder, 1.9-liter, DI Diesel engine. The engine that resulted
from the development process is a 4-cylinder, 1.9-liter
turbocharged, DI, M100 engine. The engine uses a shielded glow
plug to assist in cold starting and light load operation. The
engine's compression ratio is 22:1. The fuel injection pump is a
Bosch MW-type in-line pump modified by FEV for operation on M100.
The vehicle is equipped with an open-loop exhaust gas recirculation
(EGR) system and a 2.65-liter, 100 grams/cubic foot Pt catalyst
located in the underfloor position.
IV. Description of Test Vehicles
Four vehicles were tested as part of this evaluation program
in order to compare similar passenger cars on a variety of
automotive fuels. The vehicles consisted of a gasoline-fueled VW
Golf, a naturally aspirated Diesel-fueled VW Jetta, a turbocharged
Diesel-fueled VW Jetta, and the direct-injected M100 VW Jetta. All
four vehicles have (and were tested at) an equivalent test weight
of 2,750 Ibs and an actual dynamometer horsepower of 7.0 HP.
The gasoline vehicle engine has a displacement of 1.8 liters,
the two Diesel engines are 1.6-liter powerplants, and the M100
engine displaces 1.9 liters. The gasoline engine compression ratio
is 10:1, the Diesel engines are 23:1, and the M100 engine operates
at 22:1. All four vehicles have 4-cylinder fuel-injected engines.
Other vehicle and engine specifications for these four passenger
cars are summarized in Appendix A.
V. Test Program
Evaluation of vehicle emissions, fuel economy and performance
was performed at EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory in Ann
Arbor, Michigan. The two test cells used for this program are
routinely used for fuel and engine technology evaluation and
emission standard test procedure development, and are not those
used for vehicle emissions certification. Evaluation of vehicle
cold start and cold driveability at -29°C (-20°F) was performed at
EG&G Structural Kinematics in Troy, Michigan.
The vehicles fueled with M100 and gasoline were tested in both
the alternative fuel and Diesel test cells. The Diesel Jettas were
tested only in the Diesel test cell. The vehicles fueled with M100
and gasoline were tested over several Federal Test Procedures
(FTPs) and Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET) cycles each with
measurement of gaseous and formaldehyde emissions in the
alternative fuel test cell. In the same cell, these vehicles were
tested under warm engine steady-state conditions at idle, 15 MPH,
30 MPH, 45 MPH, and 60 MPH (10-minute sample bags at each speed)
followed by five repeatable 5 to 60 MPH dynamometer acceleration
tests. The FTP, HFET and steady-state tests were run to determine
and compare emissions and fuel economy, and the accelerations were
used to generate data that could be used to compare vehicle
performance.
-------
-3-
The vehicles fueled with M100 and gasoline were also tested in
the Diesel test cell over the FTP and HFET cycles to determine
particulate emissions of these vehicles. Steady-state emission
tests were not repeated in the Diesel cell, but the performance
tests (5 to 60 MPH accelerations) were repeated to get a complete
set of performance data from all four vehicles on the same
dynamometer as well as to compare the performance, of these vehicles
with their performance on the other dynamometer.
The Diesel Jettas were tested over the FTP and HFET cycles
with measurement of particulate emissions in the Diesel test cell.
The Diesel Jettas also were tested under warm engine steady-state
conditions at idle, 15 MPH, 30 MPH, 45 MPH, and 60 MPH (ten minute
sample bag at each speed) followed by five repeatable 5 to 60 MPH
dynamometer acceleration tests. The Diesel Jettas were not tested
in the alternative fuel test cell.
The vehicle equipped with the DI M100 engine was also tested
over the FTP and HFET cycles including formaldehyde sampling in the
alternative fuels test cell to determine a quick estimate of
engine-out emissions. Removal of the catalyst , changed the
backpressure characteristics in the exhaust system and it is
possible that emissions, particularly NOx emissions, may have been
affected as a result.
As mentioned above, the four vehicles were also tested at a
local contractor cold room facility. These tests included -29°C
(-20°F) cold starting and dynamometer cold driveability
determinations.
EG&G Structural Kinematics performed these cold temperature
start up tests on all four vehicles using an identical vehicle
preparation procedure for each. All vehicles were tested as
received. However, to perform cold ambient weather testing, the
radiator coolant was checked for proper operation at the test
temperature. Also, the oil was changed to the specific weight
indicated in the 1990/1991 Volkswagen Jetta Vehicle Owner's
Manual. [4] The oil recommended in the manual is SAE 5W-20 or 5W-30
multigrade oil for gasoline-fueled vehicles. An SAE 10W oil,
either single or multigrade, is specified for Diesels down to about
-23°C (-10°F). No specific oil is recommended for Diesels at
temperatures below -23°C. SAE 5W-20 oil was not available through
local suppliers, so SAE 5W-30 (Valvoline) oil was used for all four
vehicles during -29°C cold start testing.
-------
-4-
All vehicles were tested using a battery prepared to 80
percent state of charge. The procedure used to accomplish this is
outlined in Appendix B. Oil, coolant and air temperature sensors
were installed down the dipstick tube, in the top radiator hose and
on the car's antenna, respectively. Battery voltage was measured
across the battery terminals. Battery current was measured by
disconnecting the negative battery cable and placing a current
shunt in series between the negative battery post and the cable.
Start voltage was determined by connecting a voltage pickup to the
starter.
Engine speed was estimated by attaching a magnetic sensor to
the alternator to sense the speed of the blades on the alternator
cooling fan.
These data were all fed to a computer data acquisition system.
During the initial start attempts (while the engine was cranking),
data were collected at a rate of 27 data points per second. Once
the vehicle started, the sample rate was changed to 1 data point
every 5 seconds.
To run a cold start test, the environmental test chamber was
chilled to -30°C (-22°F). The vehicle's oil, coolant, and ambient
air were required to be within 1°C for a valid test, and vehicles
were started one hour after the oil temperature reached the target
temperature of -30°C. Cold starting of the vehicles fueled with
gasoline and Diesel fuel was performed in accordance with the
vehicle owner's manual. Commercial winter grade gasoline and
Diesel fuels were used. The vehicle equipped with the DI M100
engine was cold started by heating the glow plugs for 30 to 40
seconds prior to cranking.
After the vehicles were cold started, a dynamometer driveaway
procedure was performed with ambient air temperature still at
-30°C. After starting and a 5-second idle, an engine "clean out"
was performed. This was accomplished by applying heavy throttle
for a few seconds. The vehicle was then idled for 5 seconds, and
a driveaway (moderate throttle) maneuver was performed. This
resulted in approximately 100 feet of travel and simulates pulling
out of one's driveway. The vehicle was then stopped and checked
for stalling. This procedure was repeated and then followed by a
pair of driveaways of approximately one-quarter (^) mile with
intermittent stops and stall checks. The entire driveaway
procedure was then repeated until the engine reached operating
temperature.
-------
-5-
VI. Sampling Equipment and Analytical Procedures
In both test cells, emission testing was conducted on Clayton
ECE-50 double-roll chassis dynamometers which use direct-drive
variable inertia flywheel and road load power control units.
Gaseous emissions flow from the vehicle tailpipe into 350 CFM
nominal capacity Philco Ford Constant Volume Samplers and were
separated into constituent sample bags.
Hydrocarbon emission from vehicles fueled with gasoline and
methanol were measured using a Beckman Model 400 flame ionization
detector (FID). A similar analyzer is used for Diesel vehicles,
but it has a heated line to maintain a sample temperature of
190°C(375°F). NOx emissions were determined by a Beckman Model
951A chemiluminescent NOx analyzer. CO and C02 emissions were
measured using Model A1A-23 Horiba infrared analyzers. Methane
(CH<) emissions were quantified with a Model 8205 Bendix methane
analyzer. Nonmethane hydrocarbons were determined by subtraction
of CH< emissions from total hydrocarbon emissions.
Particulate sampling was performed using a single-dilution
method which is accomplished by collecting a proportional sample
from a single-dilution tunnel, and then passing this sample through
a collection filter maintaining proportionality between the
dilution tunnel and the sample flow rate within ±5 percent. The
EPA system uses Flowmation particulate sample pumps and 315 ft3/h
Rockwell dry gas meters with maximum working pressure of 5 psi.
Formaldehyde exhaust emissions were measured using a
dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) technique.[5,6] Formaldehyde and
other carbonyls in the exhaust are reacted with a DNPH solution
forming hydrazine derivatives. These derivatives are separated
from the DNPH solution by a high performance liquid chromatograph
(HPLC) . The amount of aldehydes in the sample is determined by
spectrophotometric analysis of liquid chromatograph effluent.
The procedure for methanol emission sampling used employs
water filled impingers through which are pumped a sample, of dilute
exhaust or evaporative emissions. The methanol in the sample gas
dissolves in water. After sampling, the solution in the impingers
is analyzed using a gas chromatograph (GC).[7] Emission
calculation procedures for the methanol Jetta were derived from the
final rules and regulations promulgated for methanol-fueled motor
vehicles and published in the Federal Register.[8]
-------
-6-
VII.Methanol Vehicle Test Results
A. FTP Emissions Testing Summary
The FTP emission results of the vehicle with the DI M100
engine are presented in Table l. A total of 22 FTP tests were
performed on this vehicle in three distinct test periods. The
first four FTP and highway fuel economy tests (HFET) were performed
in mid-June 1991 using standard and low-speed shift schedules (two
each) with the vehicle in its as-received calibration. These tests
included sampling for formaldehyde emissions and were all run in
the alternative fuel test cell. To facilitate cold ambient
temperature testing, FTP testing was interrupted, and the vehicle
was shipped to the cold room test facility. Upon its return, the
vehicle underwent 8 more FTP (and, HFET) tests, with intermittent
calibration changes primarily aimed at returning the vehicle to its
pre-cold start emissions performance. The vehicle was then tested
by the General Motors Corporation at the GM Technical Center in
Warren, MI. GM test results were very similar to those obtained on
EPA tests just prior to vehicle shipment.[9] The vehicle was then
returned to EPA a second time, and 10 FTP/HFET test sequences were
performed to complete the originally planned evaluation including
FTP exhaust particulate and engine-out emission sampling as well as
steady-state exhaust emissions and acceleration tests.
Organic material hydrocarbon equivalent (OMHCE) emissions
initially averaged 0.12 g/mile with little variability regardless
of which shift schedule was used. During the recalibration testing
period, OMHCE emissions averaged 0.14 g/mile on tests using a
standard shift schedule, but varied from 0.08 g/mile to 0.19
g/mile. After the vehicle was returned from GM, OMHCE emissions
averaged 0.14 g/mile on rebaseline and 0.09 g/mile on exhaust
particulate tests, and averaged 0.50 g/mile engine-out.
FTP methanol (CH3OH) emissions averaged 0.20 g/mile with the
low-speed shift schedule and 0.16 g/mile with the standard shift
schedule in the as-received condition. After the cold room tests,
methanol emissions averaged 0.24 g/mile on standard shift schedule
FTPs, but like OMHCE emissions, were extremely variable. After the
GM test sequence, methanol emissions averaged 0.25/mile. Engine-
out CH3OH emissions averaged 0.77 g/mile. CH3OH emissions are
shown in Appendix C (not in Table 1).
Formaldehyde (HCHO) emissions over the FTP averaged 2 mg/mile
initially, and increased ranging from 3 to 7 mg/mile after cold
room testing (5 mg/mile average). After GM testing, HCHO emissions
were again 4 or 5 mg/mile. Engine-out formaldehyde averaged 129
mg/mile, indicating catalyst efficiencies averaging 96 percent for
formaldehyde.
-------
-7-
FEV concentrated considerable efforts to control NOx emissions
before and after the vehicle was shipped to EPA for evaluation.
FTP NOx emissions initially averaged 0.3 g/mile with the low-speed
shift schedule and 0.2 g/mile with the standard shift schedule.
The primary reason for post-cold room test recalibrations was due
to the increase in NOx emissions to 0.7 g/mile on the first FTP
after the vehicle's return from EG&G. After several adjustments to
the EGR calibration and electronic engine control system, NOx
emissions were returned to 0.2 to 0.3 g/mile values. After GM
testing, NOx emissions again averaged 0.2 g/mile over two FTPs.
Engine-out NOx emissions were consistently 0.5 g/mile over FTPs in
both alternative fuel and Diesel test cells.
Carbon monoxide emissions averaged 0.2 g/mile on low-speed
shift schedule FTPs and 0.4 g/mile on standard speed shift schedule
FTPs in the as-received condition. After cold room testing, CO
emissions were initially 0.1 g/mile, then returned to an average of
0.4 g/mile over the FTP as the vehicle was recalibrated for lower
NOx emissions. After the GM tests, CO exhaust emissions averaged
0.3 g/mile and engine-out emissions averaged 7.5 g/mile.
Non-methane hydrocarbon exhaust emissions were negligible on
nearly all FTP tests and averaged 0.06 g/mile on two engine-out FTP
cycles.
FTP and HFET emissions and fuel economy test results for the
gasoline and Diesel fuel vehicles are listed in Appendix C.
Steady-state exhaust emissions and fuel economy test results
for all four vehicles are also listed in Appendix C. The vehicle
with the DI M100 engine displayed relatively high steady-state fuel
economy at all speeds, particularly at 60 MPH where its gasoline-
equivalent fuel economy was 45.7 MPG. Idle CO emissions were less
than 0.1 g/minute. Steady-state NOx emissions reached 0.7/mile at
60 MPH.
B. Fuel Economy Testing Summary
Composite gasoline equivalent fuel economy for the DI M100
vehicle averaged 37.4 miles/gallon over a total of 21 FTP/HFET test
sequences. A description of the methodology for calculating
gasoline equivalent fuel economy is contained in Appendix D. This
vehicle averaged 31.6 MPG on the FTP, and 47.9 MPG on highway
tests. FTP fuel economy averaged 5 percent higher when using the
low speed shift schedule (and the same vehicle calibration) than on
tests using the standard shift schedule. HFET fuel economy was 2.5
percent lower when using the low-speed shift schedule. Fuel
economy values were on average 2.5 percent higher on tests in the
Diesel test cell than on those of tests run in the alternative
fuels test cell. Engine-out MPG averaged 1.6 percent higher than
MPG determined for tailpipe emission tests (with catalyst) on the
vehicle with the DI M100 engine.
-------
-8-
TABLE 1
DI M100 VW JETTA FTP EXHAUST EMISSIONS [1]
Test Phase
As Received
As Received
Recalibration
Recalibration
Post-GM
Particulate
Engine-Out
Engine-Out
NO.
of
Tests
2
2
1
7
2
3
2
3
OMHCE
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.14
0.14
0.09
0.50
0.45
ECHO
2
2
3
5
4
129
NMHC
[3],
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
0.03
0.06
[3]
NOx
0.3
0.2
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.5
CO
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.3
8.0
7.1
CO2
255
267
242
263
267
259
249
244
PM
_
_
0.02
0.10
Comments [2
1
LSSS A
A
LSSS E2 A
E2-E5 A
E5 A
E5 D
E5 A
E5 D
[1] All emissions are expressed in grams/mile except HCHO which is expressed
in milligrams/mile.
[2] LSSS = Low-speed shift schedule. All other tests were run with the
standard shift schedule.
E2 = EGR calibration No. 2.
E3 = EGR calibration No. 3.
E4 = EGR calibration No. 4 and electronic control calibration No. 2.
E5 = Electronic control calibration No. 3.
A = Testing performed in alternative fuel test cell.
D = Testing performed in Diesel test cell.
[3] Less than 0.01 grams/mile.
-------
-9-
TABLE 2
DI M100 VW JETTA FTP AND HFET FUEL ECONOMY [1]
Test Phase
As Received
As Received
Recalibration
Recalibration
Post-GM
Particulate
Engine-Out
Engine-Out
No. of
Tests
2
2
1
7
2
3
2
3
FTP
MPO
16.1
15.3
17.0
15.6
15.3
15.8
15.6
16.0
GEFE
32.3
30.8
34.1
31.3
30.9
31.9
31.4
32.3
HFET
MPO
22.7
23.3
24.4
23.7
23.5
24.3
24.3
24.5
GEFE
45.6
46.8
49.1
47.6
47.4
48.9
48.9
49.3 .
Combined 55/45
MPO
18.5
18.1
19.7
18.2
18.2
18.8
18.6
19.0
GEFE
37.2
36.4
39.5
37.0
"36.6
37.8
37.4
38.2
Comments [ 2 ]
"LSSS A
A
LSSS E2 A
E2-E5 A
E5 A
E5 D
E5 A
E5 D
[1] MPG is measured miles per gallon of methanol. GEFE is gasoline
equivalent fuel economy obtained by adjusting the measured MPG by the
ratio of the energy content of the two fuels: -56,768 BTU/gallon for
methanol, and 114,132 BTU/gallon for gasoline.
[2] LSSS = Low speed shift schedule. All other tests were run with the
standard shift schedule.
E2 = EGR calibration No. 2.
E3 = EGR calibration No. 3.
E4-= EGR calibration No. 4 and electronic control calibration No. 2.
E5 = Electronic control calibration No. 3.
A = Testing performed in alternative fuels test cell.
D = Testing performed in Diesel test cell.
The use of dedicated alternative fuel in~ vehicles can have a
beneficial impact on a manufacturer's average fuel economy.
Regulations proposed by EPA for the calculation of the fuel economy
were published in the March 1, 1991 Federal Register in Section
600.510-93. Dividing the MPG by 0.15 yields the appropriate value.
Since the.vehicle tested had miles per gallon values of methanol
over 18 MPG, for fuel economy standards purposes the fuel economy
would exceed 120 MPG.
-------
-10-
C. Performance Testing Summary
The vehicle with the DI M100 engine was tested for 5 MPH to 60
MPH performance on both the Diesel and alternative fuel test cell
dynamometers. In each test cell, the five fastest 5 MPH to 60 MPH
accelerations were averaged, and the same driver was used for all
four vehicles. Shifting RPM was determined for maximum performance
on trial runs prior to the actual performance tests. The initial
speed of 5 MPH was used instead of zero, because accelerations from
a standing start or a double-roll dynamometer can cause wheel
slippage which can lead to high variability in test results. The
results of performance tests on the DI M100 vehicle are shown in
Table 3.
Table 3
M100 Vehicle 5 to 60 MPH Performance Times (Seconds)
Diesel Cell Alternative Fuels Cell
Dynamometer Dynamometer
14.52 14.20
14.40 13.87
14.66 13.88
15.03 13.88
14.79 14.05
Average = 14.68 Average = 13.98
The average of the five best acceleration times in each test
cell was averaged to determine the vehicle performance to be used
for comparison to the other vehicles. By this method, the overall
5 MPH to 60 MPH performance time determined for the DI M100 vehicle
was 14.3 seconds. Table 3 shows that performance times were 5
percent slower on the Diesel test cell dynamometer.
D. Cold Start Testing Summary
In addition to the DI Ml00 vehicle, the low ambient
temperature cold start and cold driveability of the gasoline and
Diesel-fueled vehicles tested are summarized below.
The first vehicle tested was the 1989 Golf GL, VIN
3VWFB11G2KM003517. This was a standard gasoline-powered, 4-
cylinder vehicle. Initially this vehicle would not start due to a
low battery. A Volkswagen representative brought in a new set of
spark plugs, which were installed after observing fouling on the
original plugs (Bosch Super R0851). The replacements were Champion
N7YCX. Spark plug gap was set at .028". The vehicle then started
(battery booster required) after 12 seconds of cranking at an
average cranking speed of 233 RPM. Upon start up, it was necessary
to apply heavy throttle to keep the engine running ("clean out" as
described in the test program section).
-------
-11-
Upon initially putting the vehicle into 1st gear, the rubber
boot on the shift lever broke free (it was frozen stiff at -30QC).
Unsuccessful attempts were made to return it to its normal
position, and consequently it impaired the shifting action during
the remainder of the test. It was noted that the vehicle required
longer than the 5 second idling time specified in the test
procedure. This was due to the lengthy clean out period.
The vehicle ran smoothly once this clean out period was
completed, and shifted smoothly considering it was impaired by the
dislodged rubber boot. No stalling occurred upon applying brakes
and stopping.
The second test vehicle, VIN WVWRG21GXMW013397, a 1990 vehicle
powered by a naturally aspirated Diesel engine would not start
unassisted. After several start attempts, the battery became too
weak to crank the engine. A battery booster was placed on the
vehicle and took considerable time (approximately 1 hour of battery
charging) to be able to crank the engine fast enough to fire it.
Upon starting, heavy throttle was required to keep the engine
running. It was noted that there was little, if any, throttle
response upon initial starting. The vehicle idled at 350 RPM and
stalled approximately five (5) times during this initial idling.
Finally, the engine would not keep running, stalling after 20 to 30
seconds, and the battery ran low. After waiting about one-half
hour, another attempt was made to start the vehicle. Starting was
difficult, but the technician was able to keep the engine running.
Heavy throttle was applied to clean out the engine. The vehicle
stalled 2 to 3 more times, and then began to respond to throttle.
Upon initially putting the vehicle in gear and letting off the
clutch, the vehicle stalled the first three (3) times (but
restarted easily). Upon the first acceleration/braking segment,
the vehicle again stalled (again restarting easily). All
subsequent segments of the test ran well (once the engine warmed
up) , and the vehicle ran smoothly and shifted easily with no
additional stalling.
The third vehicle to undergo cold start evaluation was powered
by a turbocharged Diesel engine in a 1991 Jetta, VIN
WVWRZ21G2MW326888. Upon initial cranking at -30°C, it was
necessary to apply heavy throttle to start the engine. The engine
cranked approximately 7 to 10 times (about 3 seconds) before
firing. Upon releasing the throttle, the engine stalled. A second
attempt was made, and the engine started easily. However, the
engine ran relatively rough, and a clean out procedure was used (as
recommended by Volkswagen). Since the throttle could not be
quickly released (the engine stalled on the first attempt), it was
released slowly until the engine smoothed out. The transmission
was easily placed into 1st gear and the first driveaway was
completed smoothly. Rough engine operation (no stalling) occurred
when a simulated panic stop was performed.
-------
-12-
All subsequent quarter-mile driveaways were very smooth, and
no roughness or hesitance was observed in the throttle response.
Shifting went very smoothly and accurately. No stalling occurred
initially or throughout the driveaway portions of the test.
The fourth and final vehicle evaluated for low ambient cold
start was the 1990 Jetta vehicle equipped with the DI M100 engine,
VIN WVWRA21G3LW696320. Before the engine was started, an FEV
engineer removed the access cover of the fuel injection pump rack.
Cold temperature rack mobility was a major concern for FEV due to
the 5W-30 oil used in this test, since a special blend of oil was
procured during the development program which is normally used for
this experimental engine. Inspection revealed that the rack
mechanism was initially frozen, but manual force allowed
slow/sticky movement. EPA allowed manual movement of the mechanism
during starting attempts since this in-line pump was only being
used while a distributor pump was being developed to replace it.
A 30-second glow plug preheat period was utilized. Five (5)
attempts were made to start the vehicle while the FEV engineer
manually moved the fuel injection pump rack. On the fifth attempt,
the vehicle started. The FEV engineer held the rack at a high idle
position for approximately 30 seconds, then manually revved the
engine several times. According to the vehicle tachometer, this
idle was around 2,500-2,750 RPM.
Between the fourth and fifth start attempts, the EG&G
technician was requested to immediately crank the engine as soon as
the preheat light .went off (without 1-minute intervals between
attempts) to prevent cylinder heat loss. This procedure was not
performed on the previously tested Volkswagen-owned vehicles so as
not to damage the starter.
The vehicle was placed in 1st gear and, upon releasing the
clutch, the vehicle stalled. It was presumed that the reason for
this stalling was that the clutch pedal returned too slowly (sticky
movement), unlike the previously tested vehicles. The vehicle
restarted very easily and ran smoothly, as if fully warmed up.
Throughout the first driveaway, the engine accelerated very well.
However, the clutch still did not appear to have proper movement.
During the initial driveaway portions of the test, the engine
ran extremely well, although the clutch apparently continued to
function improperly. A second and third stall did take place, but
these were due to the driver placing the vehicle in the incorrect
gear.
During all subsequent driveaway portions of the test, the
vehicle ran exceptionally well (compared to previous vehicles) and
showed no signs of roughness. Acceleration was very good and the
clutch pedal problems seemed to disappear after 2.4 miles of
driving.
-------
-13-
Upon arrival at EG&G SK for the second day's test, FEV
requested a change in the preheat/starting procedure. The FEV
representative asked that the glow plugs be preheated for 10
seconds, then turned off and immediately turned back on to allow
the glow plugs to run through their normal heat-up operation at
-30°C (approximately 30 seconds) for a total of 40 seconds of
preheat time. Though the added preheat time made comparisons to
the previous day's test more difficult, the procedure had already
departed from that used for previous vehicles, and the added plug
heating did improve cold start performance.
While inside the chamber, the FEV representative began to
manipulate the rack (fuel injection pump system). Apparently
during cranking, the front wheels were turning indicating a
possible defective clutch (clutch problems were noted during the
first day's test). The vehicle did not start during 10 seconds of
cranking using the 40-second preheat time. Cranking was stopped
and a second attempt of the modified glow plug preheat procedure
was performed. As the second attempt to crank the engine was
initiated, a burning wire was detected. Testing was immediately
stopped. It was discovered that the negative battery cable
insulation was melting. The cable was replaced with a larger gauge
wire.
The third attempt of the modified starting procedure started
the vehicle after 4 seconds of cranking. However, the alarm ("A")
light in the vehicle then became illuminated (apparently the sensor
on the alternator was triggered by belt slippage and shut down the
electronics of the engine). On the next starting attempt, the
engine started with no manipulation of the fuel injection pump rack
by the FEV representative, and idled smoothly.
The driveaway portion took place without problems (other than
the "sticky" clutch as noted in the previous day's test). No
stalling or roughness as observed, and the engine seemed to run as
if fully warmed up. Stalling of the engine was attempted during
operation at low speed/high gear, panic-type stops, etc., but the
engine performed excellently. The vehicle was then removed from
the environmental chamber and shipped back to EPA.
-------
-14-
VIII.Vehicle Comparison Analysis
A. Low-Mileage Emission Comparison
The full and complete listing of the emission results for the
tests conducted for this project are listed in Appendix C.
In this section, comparison of the FTP formaldehyde, non-
methane hydrocarbon, NOx, CO, and particulate emissions of the four
vehicles is provided. Because the Diesels were tested in more than
one configuration, choosing which Diesel results to use as a
comparison was important. We chose to use the Diesel results that
reflected the lower emissions. For these comparisons, this
resulted in also using the data with the higher fuel economy. One
of the differences between the different Diesel tests was the use
of a special low-speed shift schedule. This same shift schedule
was used for some of the tests on the car fueled with neat
methanol, and these values were chosen as the basis of comparison.
Formaldehyde emissions have been a concern for alcohol-fueled
vehicles due to formaldehyde's photochemical reactivity and
toxicity. The formaldehyde emissions therefore were of special
interest. For emissions "rank" is based on the lower, the better.
Engine/Fuel Low-Mileage Formaldehyde (mg/mi) Rank
NA/Gasoline 1 1
TC/M100 2 2
TC/Diesel NT
NA/Diesel NT
The Diesels were not tested (NT) in the test cell that was
equipped with the sampling system for formaldehyde. Both tested
vehicles had low formaldehyde emissions. Separate engine-out
testing of the car fueled with M100 averaged 129 mg/mi engine-out
formaldehyde (using the standard shift schedule), so the
aftertreatment system was about 95 to 98 percent efficient in
removing formaldehyde. Engine-out tests were not conducted with
the gasoline or Diesel-fueled vehicles.
Non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) are of great interest because
of their photochemical reactivity. The 1990 Amendments to the
Clean Air Act required that the next step of Federal hydrocarbon
control be to a 0.25 g/mile NMHC standard. California has more
stringent requirements, the most stringent non-zero value being
roughly 0.04 g/mile NMHC.
Engine/Fuel Low-Mileage NMHC Emissions Rank
NA/Gasoline 0.13 3
TC/M100 LT 0.01 1
TC/Diesel 0.10 2
NA/Diesel 0.32 4
-------
-15-
The methanol-fueled car consistently produced NMHC emissions
below 0.005 g/mile. If rounded to the same number of significant
figures as the standard of 0.25 g/mile, the value could be reported
as 0.00, but this was not done because confusion might result.
The methanol-fueled car was extremely low in NMHC, and the
other two catalyst-equipped vehicles were about equivalent to each
other.
NOx emissions are controlled to reduce ambient NO2 and ozone
levels. Federal NOx requirements will be lowered from the current
standard of 1.0 g/mile NOx to 0.4 g/mile NOx in the future.-
California has more stringent future requirements for 0.2 g/mile
NOx.
Diesels were given their own 1.0 g/mile NOx standard in the
1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act.
Engine/Fuel Low-Mileage NOx Emissions Rank
NA/Gasoline 0.1 1
TC/M100 0.3 2
TC/Diesel 1.0 4
NA/Diesel 0.9 3
The results from the Diesels are about what would be expected
given the standards they have been developed to meet. The results
from the gasoline-fueled car represent what can be attained at low
mileage with the three-way catalyst technology used today.
The NOx emissions from the methanol-fueled vehicle are of
interest because the engine runs lean, like a Diesel, and the other
control approaches involve use of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
and an oxidation catalyst. NOx levels this low without use of
stoichiometric engine air/fuel calibration or the use of a catalyst
formulation optimized for three-way operation are rare. These are
some of the lowest results seen to date for a vehicle with a
lean/EGR/oxidation catalyst emission control system and are a
demonstration of one of the potential emission advantages of
methanol as a vehicle fuel—low NOx. These results are
particularly encouraging considering that the EGR system used is
open-loop and controlled mainly by the amount of accelerator pedal
depression. Tighter control of NOx emissions would therefore seem
possible with a closed-loop electronic controlled EGR system.
Federal carbon monoxide levels are 3.4 grams per mile, with
some interest in levels half of that.
Engine/Fuel Low-Mileage CO Emissions Rank
NA/Gasoline 1.7 4
TC/M100 0.3 1
TC/Diesel 0.4 2
NA/Diesel 0.8 3
-------
-16-
The emissions of all the vehicles equipped with lean operating
engines are less than 1 gram per mile.
Particulate emission requirements were changed substantially
by the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act. Both gasoline-fueled
and Diesel cars and will eventually have to meet a 0.08 gram per
mile particulate matter (PM) standard.
Engine/Fuel Low-Mileage PM Emissions Rank
NA/Gasoline LT 0.01 1
TC/M100 0.02 2
TC/Diesel 0.12 3
NA/Diesel 0.19 4
The results from the Diesels probably reflect targeting toward
the 0.20 g/mile PM standard which is currently in place. The
values for the gasoline-fueled vehicle (less than 0.01 grams per
mile) show the low PM emissions typically associated with premixed
charge gasoline-fueled engines. The results from the methanol-
fueled vehicle exceeded those of the gasoline-fueled car, but were
substantially less than those of both Diesels.
Overall Emissions Comparison
Rank Based On
Engine/Fuel HCHO NMHC NOx CO PM Average Rank
NA/Gasoline 1 3 1 41 2.0
TC/M100 2 1 2 12 1.6
TC/Diesel — 2 4 2 3 2.8
NA/Diesel — 4 3 34 3.5
If the lowest average rank represents the best emissions, then
overall emission ranking is:
1. TC/M100
2. NA/Gasoline
3. TC/Diesel
4. NA/Diesel
B. Performance and Fuel Economy Comparisons
As described in the previous section, an estimate of vehicle
performance was obtained by accelerating each vehicle from 5 MPH to
60 MPH on the chassis dynamometer, with gears chosen for maximum
performance. The initial speed of 5 MPH was chosen to reduce
wheelspin and to make the results more repeatable. The results are
shown for the averages of two sets of data taken at each test site.
-------
-17-
Enqine/Fuel 5-60 MPH Acceleration Time (sec) Rank
NA/Gasoline 10.4 1
TC/M100 14.3 2
TC/Diesel 18.4 3
NA/Diesel 21.4 4
The performance results are seen to span a wide range. In
terms of ranking, the results are about what one would expect for
the more conventional fuels with the vehicle fueled with gasoline
the fastest, and the Diesels slower with the turboc.harged Diesel
faster than the naturally aspirated Diesel. The vehicle with the
DI M100 engine was faster than both Diesels, but slower than the
gasoline—fueled car.
Fuel economy results are shown below as the composite MPG from
all tests (except engine-out tests). All results are shown as
gasoline equivalent MPG values.
Engine/Fuel 55/45 MPG Rank
NA/Gasoline 30.6 4
TC/M100 37.2 2
TC/Diesel 38.5 1
NA/Diesel 36.1 3
Since both the performance and the fuel economy vary among the
vehicles, making comparisons could be done many ways. We have
chosen to use two methods of comparison, "performance doesn't
matter" and "constant performance."
Performance Doesn't Matter - In this approach, differences in
performance are ignored. Percent changes in fuel economy are
computed with the 30.6 value for the gasoline-fueled vehicle as the
baseline.
Engine/Fuel Percent Compared to Baseline Rank
NA/Gasoline 0 4
TC/M100 +22 2
TC/Diesel +26 1
NA/Diesel +18 3
Constant Performance - In this approach, the MPG of the
gasoline-fueled car is adjusted to what we estimate it would be if
it was as slow as the other three vehicles. This adjusted MPG
value is used as the basis to compute a percent change in fuel
economy value.
The equation used to compute the adjusted MPG is:
MPG at t2 = MPG at tx [1 + 0.0362 (t2 - tt ) ] - 0.06
-------
-18-
The results are shown below:
Percent Compared
Engine/Fuel to Base Rank Baseline MPG Used
NA/Gasoline 0 2 30.6
TC/M100 +7 1 34.9
TC/Diesel -2 3 39.4
NA/Diesel -15. 4 42.7
At constant performance, the turbocharged Diesel is slightly
lower than the gasoline-fueled car in efficiency. The naturally
aspirated Diesel is estimated to be less efficient than
equivalently slow gasoline-fueled car. Only the vehicle fueled
with methanol exceeded the efficiency of the gasoline-fueled
vehicle on a constant performance basis.
Based on the two methods of comparison we can.conclude that
the vehicle equipped with the turbocharged DI M100 engine shows an
efficiency improvement over current technology gasoline-fueled
vehicle of between 7 and 22 percent.
Overall Fuel Economy Comparison
Performance Constant Average
Engine/Fuel Doesn't Matter Performance Rank
NA/Gasoline 4 23
TC/M100 2 1 1.5
TC/Diesel 13 2
NA/Diesel 3 4 3.5
If average rank of the vehicles is an indication of their
overall performance, then overall fuel economy ranking is:
1. TC/M100
2. TC/Diesel
3. NA/Gasoline
4. NA/Diesel
C. Low Ambient Temperature Cold Start and Driveability
Comparisons
The -29°C cold start and cold driveability testing performed
at EG&G Structural Kinematic's environmental test facility is
recorded in a report titled "Comparison Cold Weather Starting of
Four VW Vehicles."[10] The data recorded throughout the
performance of this cold start test program are also displayed on
Lotus 123 spreadsheets on IBM formatted hard discs. The cold
starts with the vehicle equipped with the DI M100 engine were also
videotaped.
-------
-19-
As mentioned in previous sections of this report, data
recorded by EG&G included oil, coolant and air temperature, battery
current, battery voltage, starter voltage, and engine RPM versus
time for all four vehicles. From this data, relative measures of
vehicle "cold startability" were determined by ranking such
parameters as number of start attempts required, time to start,
need for start assistance (e.g., battery charger, preheaters),
cranking speed, and battery discharge. Relative measures of
vehicle "cold driveability" were determined from the driver's log.
Cold driveability parameters used to rank vehicles included idle
smoothness, number of stalls, throttle required for clean out,
drive in gear, response to quick stops, and throttle response
during warm up. Based on analysis of the above parameters, the
following vehicle ranking for cold startability and cold
driveability was determined.
Rank Rank Average
-29°C Startabilitv Cold Driveability Rank
NA/Gasoline 2 2 2
TC/M100 3 12
TC/Diesel 1 3 2,
NA/Diesel 4 44
The clearest conclusion is that the NA/Diesel had the poorest
cold start and driveaway performance. The other vehicles appear to
be about the same on an overall rank basis.
IX. Conclusions
A neat methanol-fueled passenger car has been developed which
demonstrated low emissions at low mileage and the ability to be
cold started at -29°C (-20°F) with good cold temperature
driveability.
Formaldehyde emissions as low as 2 mg/mile on the FTP were
obtained and averaged 4 mg/mile on thirteen low mileage tests.
Engine-out HCHO emissions from this direct injected M100 engine
average 129 mg/mile.
Nonmethane -hydrocarbon emissions from this methanol vehicle
were extremely low, averaging less than 0.01 g/mile over seventeen
FTP test cycles. Engine-out NMHC emissions averaged 0.06 g/mile,
lower than the tailpipe NMHC emissions of comparable gasoline and
Diesel-fueled vehicles also tested in this evaluation program.
NOx emissions average 0.3 g/mile on the FTP. These values are
very low for a vehicle with a lean calibrated engine, open-loop
EGR, and an oxidation catalyst as the emission control system.
-------
-20-
FTP carbon monoxide emissions of the vehicle with the DI M100
engine ranged from 0.1 to 0.5 g/mile, and averaged lower than those
from the gasoline and Diesel-fueled comparison vehicles.
Low-mileage particulate emissions of the MIOO-fueled vehicle
averaged 0.02 g/mile on the FTP, higher than gasoline-fueled
vehicle PM emissions, but well below those of the Diesel vehicles
tested.
Using the gasoline-fueled vehicles as the baseline, the
vehicle equipped with the DI M100 engine was 22 percent better in
fuel efficiency. If the fuel efficiency results of the gasoline-
fueled vehicle are mathematically adjusted to account for the
performance difference between it and the MIOO-fueled vehicle, the
MIOO-fueled vehicle is 7 percent better in fuel efficiency.
Performance for the vehicle equipped with the DI M100 engine
based on 5 MPH to 60 MPH dynamometer acceleration time averaged
14.3 seconds on ten tests. The gasoline-fueled vehicle averaged
10.4 seconds, the turbocharged Diesel 18.4 seconds, and the NA
Diesel 21.4 seconds on similar tests.
The turbocharged Diesel was the easiest to cold start at
extremely low ambient temperature, followed by the gasoline-fueled
vehicle, the MIOO-fueled vehicle, and the naturally aspirated
Diesel. All four vehicles did eventually start at -30°C, however,
and the M100,vehicle exhibited the best cold driveability.
X. Acknowledgments
The authors appreciate the efforts of James Garvey, Steven
Halfyard, Robert Moss, Rodney Branham, and Ray Ouillette of EPA,
who conducted the chassis dynamometer tests and prepared the
particulate, methanol, and formaldehyde samples for analysis. The
authors also appreciate the efforts of Jennifer Criss of CTAB and
Donna Hoover of SDSB for word processing and editing support.
The assistance of Volkswagen in cooperating with EPA in the
engine development program and in supplying the comparable test
vehicles for this test program is gratefully acknowledged.
In addition, the authors wish to thank Dan Wojciechowski and
the test technicians at EG&G Structural Kinematics and Dennis
Reineke of Volkswagen for their assistance in the performance of
low ambient temperature cold start testing.
-------
-21-
XI. References
1. "Design, Fabrication, Testing, Report and Delivery of a
Direct Injection Methanol-Fueled Passenger Car Engine: Phase IV
Report," Final Report of EPA Contract No. 68-C9-0002, FEV of
America, Inc., Southfield, MI, September 1991.
2. "The Concept of a 1.9L DI Methanol Engine for Passenger
Car Application," Pischinger, F., U. Hilger, G. Jain, FEV
Motorentechnik GmbH & Co. KG, W. Bernhardt, H. Heinrich, K.
Weidmann, Volkswagen AG Research Dept., presented at the llth
International Vienna Combustion Engine Symposium, Vienna, Austria,
April 26, 1990.
3. "Development of a Direct Injected Neat Methanol Engine
for Passenger Car Applications," Hilger, U., G. Jain, E. Scheid, F.
Pischinger, FEV Motorentechnik GmbH & Co. KG, R. Bruetsch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, W. Bernhardt, H. Heinrich, K.
Weidmann, Volkswagen AG, G. Rogers, FEV of America, Inc., presented
at Future Transportation Technology Conference, SAE Paper 901521,
San Diego, CA, August 15, 1990.
4. 1990/1991 Volkswagen Jetta Owners Manual. Volkswagen AG,
Wolfsburg, Germany, August 1990.
5. "Formaldehyde Measurement in Vehicle Exhaust at MVEL,"
memorandum, Gilkey, R.L., OAR, QMS, EOD, Ann Arbor, MI, 1981.
6. "Formaldehyde Sampling from Automobile Exhaust: A
Hardware Approach," Pidgeon, W., EPA/AA/TEB/88-01, July 1988.
7. "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.
8. Federal Register. Vol. 54, No. 68, April 11, 1989.
9. "Why This DI Methanol VW Jetta?," GM Advanced Product
Engineering, GM Technical Center, Warren, MI, July 1991.
10. "Comparison Cold Weather Starting of Four VW Vehicles,"
Wojciechowski, D., and R.S. Hatmaker, EG&G Structural Kinematics,
Troy, MI, September 1991.
-------
A-l
APPENDIX A
TEST VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
SPECIFICATION
Manufacturer
Model Type
Model Year
Vehicle ID
Engine Displacement
Equivalent Test
Weight
Actual Dynamometer
Horsepower
Engine Type
Test Fuel
Engine
Configuration
No. of Cylinders
Compression Ratio
Rated Horsepower
Fuel Injection?
Turbocharged?
Initial Mileage
Axle Ratio
Transmission
N/V Ratio
GASOLINE
Volkswagen
Golf
1989
3VWFB11G2KM
003517
109 in3
2750 Ibs.
7.0 HP
Otto Spark
Indolene
In-line
4
10:1
100 HP
Yes
No
19700
3.67
M-5
41.7
NA DIESEL
Volkswagen
Jetta
1990
WVWRG21GXMW
013397
97 in3
2750 Ibs.
7.0 HP
IDI Diesel
0.25 S
Diesel No.
2
In-line
4
23:1
52 HP
Yes
No
1704
3.94
M-5
53.3
TURBODIESEL
Volkswagen
Jetta
1991
WVWRZ21G2MW
326888
97 in3
2750 Ibs.
7.0 HP
IDI Diesel
0.1 S
Diesel No.
2
In-line
4
23:1
68 HP
Yes
Yes
253
3.94
M-5
44.4
METHANOL
Volkswagen
Jetta
1990
WVWRA21G3LW
696320
116 in3
2750 Ibs.
7.0 HP
DI Methanol
M100
In-line
4
22:1
90 HP
Yes
Yes
2663
M-5
-------
B-l
APPENDIX B
BATTERY PREPPIN6 PROCEDURE
Batteries to be tested at a state-of-charge less than 100% are
prepared as follows:
1. Start with battery at 100% state-of-charge. This is done
by charging battery at 15.8 ± 0.1 volts for 24 hours. During this
period, electrolyte temperature should be maintained between 15°C
and 40°C.
2. Calculate the ampere-hours to be removed from the fully
charged battery by the following formula:
(110) (20%)
Ampere-hours = 0.6 x RC x % S.O.C. Removed
100%
RC = Rated reserve capacity in minutes.
SOC = State-of-Charge to be removed.
EXAMPLE: Model = 1980693
RC = 110 Minutes
State-of-Charge Desired = 80%
(.6)(110)(20%) = (.6)(110)(.2) = 13.2 Amp-Hrs to be removed
(100%)
3. All ampere-hours to be removed will be done at a 4.0
ampere discharge rate. To calculate discharge run time, divide
ampere-hours to be removed by 4.0 amperes.
EXAMPLE: Amp-Hrs to be removed = 13.2 Amp-Hrs
Discharge Current =4.0 Amp
Discharge Time =3.3 Hours
-------
C-l
APPENDIX C
DI M100 VW JBTTA FTP EXHAUST EMISSIONS [1]
DATE
6/14
6/17
6/18
6/19
6/28
7/01
7/02
7/03
7/09
7/10
7/11
7/12
7/23
7/24
7/25
7/26
8/07
8/09
8/13
8/14
8/15
8/16
TEST
4044
4048
4049
4051
4053
4303
4305
4367
4399
4400
4402
4404
4406
4606
4761
4763
4909
4806
4962
4964
4966
4968
OMHCE
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.07
0.08
0.19
0.13
0.18
0.15
0.12
0.16
0.11
0.11
0.05
0.10
0.51
0.49
0.43
0.46
0.46
CH,OH
0.18
0.21
0.13
0.18
0.12
0.12
0.34
0.21
0.33
0.27
0.20
0.28
0.22
0.81
0.73
0.91
0.96
0.96
HCHO
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
7
5
4
5
4
130
128
CH,
0.06
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
NMHC
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
0.01
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
t3]
0.04
[3]
0.04
0.06
0.06
[3]
[3]
[3]
NOx
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
CO
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
7.6
8.4
6.9
7.0
7.5
C02
255
255
271
263
242
258
261
264
262
266
267
266
269
265
258
261
259
248
250
243
243
245
PM
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.11
COMMENTS
[2]
LSSS
LSSS
LSSS E2
E2
E3
E3
E4
E5 NP
E5
E5
E5
E5
E5 PM
E5 PM
E5 PM
E5 EOM
E5 EOM
E5 EOP
E5 EOP
E5 EOP
II]
(2]
All emissions are expressed in gram*/mil* except HCHO which if expressed in milligrams/mile.
[3]
LSSS
E2
E3
E4
E5
NP
PM
EOM
EOP
Lees than 0.01 grama Anile.
Low—speed shift schedule. All other tests were run with the standard shift schedule.
EGR calibration No. 2
EGR calibration Ho. 3
EGR calibration Ho. 4 and electronic control calibration No. 2
Electronic control calibration No. 3
No prep. Standard vehicle warraup and soak procedure not performed.
Partlculate emiasion test
Engine-out emission test for ntethanol in alternative fuel teat cell.
Engine-out emission teat for particulate in Diesel test cell.
-------
C-2
APPENDIX C (Cont'd)
DI Ml 00 VW JETTA FTP AND HFET FUEL ECONOMY [1]
DATE
6/14
6/17
6/18
6/19
6/28
7/01
7/02
7/03
7/09
7/10
7/11
7/12
7/23
7/24
7/25
7/26
8/07
8/09
8/13
8/14
8/15
8/16
FTP
TEST
4044
4048
4049
4051
4053
4303
4305
4367
4399
4400
4402
4404
4406
4606
4761
4763
4909
4806
4962
4964
4966
4968
MPG
16.1
16.1
15.1
15.6
17.0
15.9
15.7
15.5
15.6
15.4
15.4
15.4
15.2
15.5
15.9
15.7
15.9
15.7
15.6
16.1
16.1
15.9
GEFE
32.3
32.4
30.4
31.3
34.1
32.0
31.5
31.2
31.4
31.0
30.9
31.0
30.6
31.2
32.0
31.6
32.0
31.6
31.3
32.5
32.4
32.0
HFET
TEST
4045
4047
4050
4052
4302
4304
4306
4368
4401
4403
4405
4605
4607
4762
4764
4910
4807
4963
4965
4967
5024
MPG
22.5
22.9
23.1
23.5
24.4
23.8
23.8
23.8
23.5
23.5
23.9
23.5
23.6
24.1
24.2
24.7
24.2
24.5
24.7
24.4
24.5
GEFE
45.2
46.1
46.4
47.2
49.1
47.9
47.8
47.8
47.2
47.2
48.0
47.3
47.5
48.4
48.7
49.7
48.6
49.2
49.6
49.0
49.3
Combined
55/45
MPG
18.5
18.6
17.9
18.4
19.7
18.7
17.2
18.4
18.2
18.2
18.3
18.1
18.3
18.8
18.6
18.9
18.6
18.6
19.1
19.0
18.9
GEFE
37.1
37.4
36.0
36.9
39.5
37.6
37.2
.37.0
36.7
36.6
36.9
36.4
36.9
37.8
37.5
38.1
37.5
37.4
38.5
38.2
38.0
COMMENTS [2]
LSSS
LSSS
LSSS E2
E2
E3
E3
E4
E5 NP
E5
E5
E5
E5
E5 PM
E5 PM
E5 PM
E5 EOM
E5 EOM
E5 EOP
E5 EOP
E5 EOP
[1] MPG - Mile* per gallon. The GEFE calculation ii di«cu»ed In Appendix D.
[2] LSSS - Low-»peed ahift achedule. All other teata were run with the standard »hi£t achedule.
E2 - EGR calibration No. 2
E3 - EGR calibration Ho. 3
E4 - EGR calibration No. 4 and electronic control calibration No. 2
E5 - Electronic control calibration No. 3
NP -No prep. Standard vehicle wannup and aoak procedure not performed.
PM - Particulate eniaaion teat
EOM - Engine-out emiaaion teat for mvthanol in alternative fuel teat cell.
EOP - Engine-out emission teat for partioulate in die*el teat cell.
-------
03
APPENDIX C (Cont'd)
DI M100 VW JETTA HFET EMISSIONS AND FUEL ECONOMY [1]
DATE
6/14
6/17
6/18
6/19
6/28
7/01
7/02
7/03
7/10
7/11
7/12
7/23
7/24
7/25
7/26
8/07
8/09
8/13
8/14
8/15
8/16
TEST
4045
4047
4050
4052
4302
4304
4306
4368
4401
4403
4405
4605
4607
4762
4764
4910
4807
4963
4965
4967
5024
OMHCE
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
[3] -
0.09
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.08
CHjOH
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.07
0.17
0.20
0.16
HCHO
1
1
[5]
1
1
1
1
1
[5]
1
1
1
1
30
24
CH,
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
[3]
[3]
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
[3]
0.01
[3]
[3]
0.01
[3]
NMHC
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
t3]
[3]
0.04
0.02
[3]
[3]
[3]
NOx
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.4
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
CO
[4]
[4]
[4]
[4]
t4]
[4]
14]
[4]
[4]
[4]
[4]
[4]
[4]
[4]
[4]
[4]
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.6
CO2
183
179
178
175
168
173
173
173
175
175
172
175
174
170
170
167
167
165
164
166
165
PM
[3]
0.01
[3]
0.06
0.07
0.07
MPG
45.2
46.1
46.4
47.2
49.1
47.9
47.8
47.8
47.2
47.2
48.0
47.3
47.5
48.4
48.7
53.3
48.6
49.2
49.6
49.0
49.2
COMMENTS
[2]
LSSS
LSSS
LSSS E2
E2
E3
E3
E4
E5 NP
E5
E5
E5
E5 PM
E5 PM
E5 PM
E5 EOM
E5 EOM
E5 EOF
E5 EOP
E5 EOP
m
12]
All •
LSSS
E2
E3
E4
E5
PM
EOM
EOP
[3]
Ml
15]
ion* are expressed in grams/mile except HCHO which 1m expressed in milligrams/mil*.
Low-»p«»d shift schedule. All other tests war* run with the standard shift schedule.
ECR calibration No. 2
EGR calibration No. 3
EGR calibration No. 4 and electronic control calibration No. 2
Electronic control calibration No. 3
Particulate emission teat
Engine-out emission test for methanol in alternative fuel test cell.
Engine-out emission test for particulate in Oieael test cell.
Less than 0.01 grams/mile.
Less than 0.1 grama/mile.
Less than 1 milligram/mile.
-------
C-4
APPENDIX C (Cont'd)
DI Ml 00 VW JETTA STEADY-STATE EXHAUST EMISSIONS AND FUEL ECONOMY [1]
DATE
8/01
8/01
8/01
8/01
8/01
TEST
4692
4693
4694
4695
4803
HC
[3]
[6]
[6]
0.01
[6]
NOx
[4]
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.7
CO
[4]
[7]
[7]
[7]
[7]
C02
28
225
174
169
181
CH,OH
[3]
0.01
0.01
0.17
0.01
HCHO
[5]
[8]
1
1
1
QMHCE
[3]
0.01
0.01
0.08
[6]
CH4
[3]
[6]
[6]
0.06
[6]
NMHC
[3]
[6]
[6]
[6]
[6]
MPG
366.9
36.7
47.4
48.9
45.7
SPEED
(MILES)
Idle [2]
(0)
15 MPH
(2.5)
30 MPH
(5.0)
45 MPH
(7.5)
60 MPH
(10)
[1] Non-idle emissions are expressed in grams/mile except HCHO
expressed in milligrams/mile. Non-idle MPG is expressed in
equivalent miles/gallon
[2] Idle emissions are expressed in grams/minute except HCHO
expressed in milligrams/minute. Idle MPG is expressed in
gallon.
[3] Less than 0.01 grams/minute.
[4] Less than 0.1 grams/minute.
[5] Less than 1 milligram/minute.
[6] Less than 0.01 grams/mile.
[7] Less than 0.1 grams/mile.
[8] Less than 1 milligram/mile.
which is
gasoline
which is
minutes/
-------
C-5
APPENDIX C -(Cont'.d)
GASOLINE-FUELED VW GOLF EXHAUST EMISSIONS AND FUEL ECONOMY [1]
GASOLINE GOLF FTP
Date
091990
092190
092090
092590
Test No.
905525
905534
905527
905536
Average
Cert 1989 Golf
HC
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.16
0.14
0.11
NOx
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
CO
1.8
1.6
"1.7
,1.7
1.7
1.3
C02
341
342
335
334
338
312
PM
[3]
[3]
[3]
HCHO
1
1
\
NMHC
0.13
0.13
0.11
0.14
0.13
CH,OH
[3]
[3]
[3]
CELL
[2]
M
M
D
D
G
MPG
25.8
25.7
26.2
26.3
26.0
28.2
GASOLINE GOLF HFET
Date
091990
092190
092090
092590
Test No.
905526
905535
905528
905537
Average
Cert 1989 Golf
COMBINED MPG:
HC
0.10
0.09
0,09
0.10
0.10
0.10
NOx
[4]
[4]
[4]
[4]
[4J
[4]
CO
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
CERT =33.5
CO2
223
234
210
236
226
203
PM
0.01
0.01
0.01
HCHO
[5]
[5]
[5]
NMHC
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
CH,OH
[3]
[3]
[3]
CELL
[2]
M
M
D
D
G
MPG
39.6
37.8
42.1
37.4
39.1
43.5
GASOLINE GOLF =30.6
[1] All emiaaiona or* *xpr««**d In gram*/mil* *xa*pt HCHO which i» *xpr*««*d In railligram«/mil*. MPO la *xpr*««*d In
miles/gallon. Golf inartia weight and roadload horaapowar la tha sam* aa thoaa of diaaal and M100 Jatta vahiolaa.
[2] T*«t colli ar* d««ign«t»d am follow*: M - mvthanol t«»t ait*, D - di«»«l t*mt aita, and C - gaaolin* o»rtifioation taat
>it*.
[3] L«aa than 0.01 grana/mil*.
J4] L*aa than 0.1 grama/nil*.
[5] L«aa than 1 milligram/mil*.
-------
C-6
APPENDIX C (Cont'd)
GASOLINE-FUELED VW GOLF EXHAUST EMISSIONS AND FUEL ECONOMY [1]
GASOLINE GOLF STEADY-STATE
Data
092090
092090
092090
092090
092090
Test No.
905529
905530
905531
905532
905533
HC
0.01
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.10
NOx
[3]
[5]
[5]
[5]
[5]
CO2
41
294
239
213
224
CO
[3]
0.1
1.4
0.3
0.5
NMHC
[4]
0.01
0.10
0.11
0.08
MPG
217.0
30.2
36.8
41.5
39.3
PM
[4]
[6]
[6]
[6]
[6]
SPEED (MILKS)
Idle[2] (0)
15 MPH (2.5)
30 MPH (5.0)
45 MPH (7.5)
60 MPH (10)
[1] Non-idle emissions are expressed in grams/mile. Non-idle MPG is
expressed in miles/gallon.
[2] Idle emissions are expressed in grams/minute. Idle, MPG is expressed in
minutes/gallon.
[3] Less than 0.1 gram/minute.
[4] Less than 0.01 gram/minute.
[5] Less than 0.1 gram/mile.
[6] Less than 0.01 gram/mile.
-------
C-7
APPENDIX C (Cont'd)
NA DIESEL-FUELED VW JETTA EXHAUST EMISSIONS AND FUEL ECONOMY[1]
NA DIESEL JETTA FTP
Dat*
092890
100390
T«at No.
905673
910145
Average
120590
120690
910857
911172
Average
Cert 1990 NA
Jetta Diesel
HHC
0.52
0.51
0.52
0.35
0.29
0.32
0.24
NOx
1.2
1.3
1.2
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
CO
1.3
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
CO2
314
314
314
284
280
282
243
PM
0.28
0.30
0.29
0.20
0.18
0.19
0.17
NMHC
0.52
0.50
0.51
0.34
0.29
0.32
MPG
29.1
29.2
29.1
32.2
32.8
32.5
41.5[3]
(37.7)
COMMENTS
[2]
BM
BM
AM
AM
NA DIESEL JETTA HFET
Dat«
092790
092890
Average
120590
120690
Average
T««t No.
905667
905674
910858
911173
Cert 1990 NA
Jetta Diesel
COMBINED MPG:
HHC
0.35
0.35
0.34
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.24
NOx
0.7
0.8
0.8
,0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
CO
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
CERT = 46. 9 [3]
(42.6)
C02
236
235
236
220
218
219
181
PM
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.14
0.13
0.14
NMHC
0.33
0.35
0.34
0.25
0.25
0.25
MPQ
38.8
39.0
38.9
41.7
42.1
41.9
55.7[3]
(50.6)
CooMnts
BM
BM
AM
AM
NA DIESEL JETTA = 36.1 AM
32.8 BM
[1] All emiuiona are expre»ed in grara>/mlle. MPQ i« expreaaed in gaaoline equivalent milea/gallon.
(2] CoOMnt* refer to the te»t vehicle condition. BM - before maintenance and AM - after maintenance.
[3] DEfE - Diesel Equivalent Fuel Economy - 1.101 x GEFE
-------
C-8
APPENDIX C (Cont'd)
NA DIESEL-FUELED VW JETTA EXHAUST EMISSIONS AND FUEL ECONOMY [1]
NA DIESEL JETTA STEADY-STATE
Data
120590
120590
120590
120590
120590
Test No.
910859
910860
910861
910862
911171
HHC
[3]
0.12
0.21
0.22
0.08
NOx
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.7
CO
0.1
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.6
CO2
24
240
183
192
248
NMHC
[3]
0.12
0.21
0.22
0.08
MPG
382.4
38.2
50.2
48.0
37.1
PM
0.01
0.11
0.10
0.15
0.17
SPEED (MILES)
Idle[2] (0)
15 MPH (2.5)
30 MPH (5.0)
45 MPH (7.5)
60 MPH (10)
[1] Non-idle emissions are expressed in grams/mile. Non-idle MPG is
expressed in gasoline equivalent miles/gallon.
[2] Idle emissions are expressed in grams/minute. Idle MPG is expressed in
gasoline equivalent minutes/gallon.
[3] Less than 0.01 grams/minute.
-------
C-9
APPENDIX C (Cont'd)
TURBODIESEL VW JETTA EXHAUST EMISSIONS AND FUEL ECONOMY[1]
TURBODIESEL JETTA FTP
Date
031291
032191
032291
032691
032791
Average
041291
041691
041891
041991
T«st No.
912384
912385
912386
912388
912616
BM
912618
912620
912652
912687
Average AM [2}
Cert 1991
Jetta
Turbodiesel
HC
0.20
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.19
NOx
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.7
CO
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
C02
322
311
312
309
311
311
266
262
262
267
264
— — —
PM
0.21
0.17
0.19
0.17
0.16
0.17
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.12
NMHC
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.10
0.10
— —
MPG
28.5
29.5
29.5
29.7
29.5
29.5
34.5
35.1
35.1
34.4
34.8
40.6
[3]
(36.8)
COMMENTS
Zero-mile
test
LD test cell
[1] All emissions are expressed in grams/mile. MPG is expressed in gasoline
equivalent miles/gallon.
[2] After "maintenance" test. No actual maintenance occurred. Vehicle
tests designated "AM" were tested with a low-speed shift schedule.
Before maintenance or "BM" tests were shifted at 15, 25, 40, and 45 MPH.
[3] Diesel equivalent fuel economy = 1.1035 x GEFE
-------
C-10
APPENDIX C (Cont'd)
TURBODIESEL JETTA HFET
Date
032291
032691
032791
Test No.
912387
912615
912617
Average BM
041291
041891
041991
912619
912651
912988
Average AM [2]
HHC
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
NOx
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
CO
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
CO2
219
219
215
218
209
203
210
207
PM
0.17
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.10
0.10
0.10
NMHC
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
Cert 1991 Jetta Turbodiesel
COMBINED MPG:
CERT = 44. 9 [3]
(40.7)
MPG
42.2
42.0
42.9
42.3
44.0
45.4
43.9
44.4
Comments
LD Test
Cell
51.6[3] (46.8)
TURBODIESEL JETTA = 34.2 BM
38.5'AM
[1] All emissions are expressed in grams/mile. MPG is expressed in gasoline
equivalent miles/gallon.
[2] After "maintenance" test. No actual maintenance occurred. Vehicle
tests designated "AM" were tested with a low-speed shift schedule.
Before maintenance or "BM" tests were shifted at 15, 25, 40, and 45 MPH.
[3] Diesel equivalent fuel economy = 1.1035 x GEFE
-------
C-ll
APPENDIX C (Cont'd)
TURBODIESEL VW JETTA EXHAUST EMISSIONS AND FUEL ECONOMY [1]
TURBODIBSEL JETTA STEADY-STATE
Date
042391
042391
042391
042391
042391
Test No.
912989
912990
912991
913126
913127
HC
0.01
0.17
0.06
0.05
0.06
NOx
0.1
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.9
CO
0.1
1.0
0.4
0.1
0.1
CO2
25
259
166
185
234
NMHC
0.01
0.17
0.06
0.04
0.06
MPG
367.9
35.3
55.2
49.8
39.4
PM
0.01
0.12
0.05
0.06
0.14
SPEED (MILES)
Idle[2] (0)
15 MPH (2.5)
30 MPH (5.0)
45 MPH (7.5)
60 MPH (10)
[1] Non-idle emissions are expressed in grams/mile. Non-idle MPG is
expressed in gasoline equivalent miles/gallon.
[2] Idle emissions are expressed in grams/minute. Idle MPG is expressed in
gasoline equivalent minutes/gallon.
-------
D-l
APPENDIX D
GASOLINE EQUIVALENT FUEL ECONOMY CALCULATIONS
When fuels differ greatly in energy content as they did in the
testing of vehicles for this evaluation program, it is necessary to
compare the fuel economy results on an energy equivalent basis.
Since gasoline is the conventional fuel with the most widespread
automotive consumption, the MPG of vehicles are most commonly
compared on a gasoline equivalent basis. The gasoline vehicle in
this test program was fueled with Indolene, the standard EPA
certification test fuel. The value used for the nominal net heat
of combustion for gasoline is 114,132 BTU/gallon. This is the
heating value used in the comparison of fuel economy on a gasoline
equivalent basis.
Five fuels were used in this vehicle evaluation program. The
fuels differ in a number of properties, the most important of which
(for the determination of vehicle fuel economy) are the net heat of
combustion, weight percent of carbon, density, and emissions of
carbon containing compounds per mile. A brief summary of
properties of the fuels used in this test program are listed below.
Grams carbon per gallon fuel is obtained from the product of the
fuel's carbon weight traction and density.
Fuel
Nominal Gasoline
Commercial Gasoline
High Sulfur Diesel
Low Sulfur Diesel
Neat Methanol
Test Fuel Properties
Net Heat
Value (BTU/aal)
114,132
114,886
125,665
125,945
56,768
Grams Carbon
Per Gallon
2424
2376
2761
2753
1123
Converting the results on a fuel different from gasoline to
gasoline equivalent fuel economy (miles/114,132 BTU) involves
adjustments listed below.
Fuel
Gasoline
Methanol
Diesel (Turbo)
Diesel (NA)
Adjustment
1.0
2.0105
0.9062
0.9082
------- |