72-7
          EXHAUST EMISSIONS
        FROM A 25 - PASSENGER
 INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE POWERED
         GASOLINE FUELED BUS
             October 1971
      H. Anthony Ashby, Engineer
      Test and Evaluation Branch
Division of Emission Control Technology
Mobile Source Pollution Control Program
    Environmental Protection Agency

-------
Background

Under a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation,
LTV Aerospace of Dallas will install a Rankine cycle power
system, built by Sundstrand Aviation, in a 25-passenger city
bus for use in the Dallas public transit system.  The bus
chosen for this project is a Twin Coach built by Highway
Products, Inc. of Kent, Ohio.  The engine usually installed
in the bus Is a gasoline fueled V8 internal combustion
engine.

The Test and Evaluation Branch will test the bus when the
Rankine system installation is completed and it was
necessary to test the conventionally powered bus in order
to establish "baseline" emissions, with which the Rankine
system emissions could be compared.

Vehicle Tested

The vehicle was a Twin Coach 25-passenger city bus powered
by a 413 C.I.D. Chrysler V8 engine burning gasoline.  The
engine was mounted in the rear and drove the rear wheels
through an automatic transmission.  The engine had positive
crankcase ventilation, but no other emission control tech-
nique was in evidence.

The normal curb weight of the bus is about 10,500 pounds.
The bus we tested was somewhat lighter, since none of the
passenger seats had been installed.

Test Program

The bus was delivered to the Willow Run laboratory on
Monday, September 13, 1971.  Engine trouble delayed testing
until Friday, September 17.

For these tests a simulated inertia weight of 5500 pounds,
the maximum available on the Clayton two-roll dynamometer,
was used.  All, emissions tests employed the Constant Volume
Sampling method.  Operating conditions used were the
Ann Arbor-1  (AA-1) Urban Bus Cycle, steady state modes, and
an approximation of the- CARB-EMA Diesel Emissions Test
Procedure.

-------
Normal analysis methods were employed: FID for unburned
hydrocarbons, NDIR  for CO and CO?, and chemiluminescence
 (C.L.) for NOx.

The AA-1 Bus_ Route  was developed  by  EPA  for this project
and is—an~""a~ctual speed versus time trace generated using
a fifth wheel on one of the busses of the Ann Arbor Trans-
portation Authority.   It can be and  was  used with either
a hot or cold start.   The modes used for the steady state
tests were idle, 15, 25, and 35 mph  cruises, each maintained
for two to five minutes to allow  time for an adequate sample
to be collected.

The CARB-EMA Diesel procedure used is described in SAE paper
number 700671.   It  is  a steady state procedure for testing
a Diesel engine on  an  engine dynamometer with engine load
as the operating variable at each of two engine speeds,
"Rated" and "Intermediate."  The  load is varied from zero
to maximum torque available at the particular engine speed,
in steps of 25% of  maximum torque.   Three idle periods are
interspersed among  these load points, for a total of 13
operating modes.

From data supplied  by  Mr. J.M. Nunez of  Chrysler  (who was
contacted for us by Mr. David Randolph of LTV) it was
determined that Rated  speed for the  413  engine was 3200 rpm.
The Intermediate speed is defined in the Diesel procedure
as "Peak torque  speed  or 60% of rated speed, whichever is
higher."  On the Chrysler 413, peak  torque occurs at 2000-
2100 rpm, so 2000 rpm  was used as the Intermediate speed.

The engine loads at each speed were  based on the estimated
output of the Rankine  system, which  information was acquired
-from-Sundstrand.  The  -Rankine system will deliver to the
wheels a maximum of 70 hp at its  Rated speed and 50 hp at
60% of its Rated speed.

The procedure for our  13-mode tests  was  to establish the
desired engine speed with the transmission engaged and the
chassis dynamometer water brake  fully unloaded.   In this
condition the dynamometer still  absorbed 7 hp because of
internal friction.  After sufficient time in this mode for
collection of an adequate sample  of  the  diluted exhaust gas,
the water brake  load was then increased'to 25%, 50%, 75%,
and 100% of the maximum power at  the chosen engine speed,
with bag samples collected at each condition.  The idle

-------
modes were run with the transmission engaged and the bus
brakes on to prevent creeping.  Power absorption limitations
prevented us from running in the 70 hp @ 3200 rpm mode.

In addition to the emissions test a simple exterior noise
test was conducted using the SAE Recommended Practice J366,
for full throttle acceleration onlyi  two ¥Uns wete made in
each direction.  The closed throttle deceleration test was
not run.

Results

Mass emissions are reported here in grams per minute for
the 13-mode tests.  Specific mass emissions in grams per
rear wheel horsepower-hour have also been calculated.  Data
from the AA-1 bus route tests is presented in grams per
mile.  The length of-the bus route was estimated to be
eight miles.  From the steady state tests the data is pre-
sented in both grams per minute and grams per mile.

Data from the bus route tests are presented in Table 1.
Emissions of CC>2 are included to indicate fuel consumption.
The variability of CC>2 emissions was greater than normally
experienced, and the variability of HC and NOx emissions
was less than expected, considering the apparent condition
of the engine.

Quite early in our testing a random knocking noise was
heard in the engine.   Informal diagnosis by our experienced
technicians was that the noise was due to problems in the
valve train of one of  the cylinders.  The bus was taken,
at the suggestion of Chrysler, to the Continental-Kromis
engi-ne repair center,  which -specialize in_ Chrysler engines.
It was returned two days later with a report that the engine
Was okay.  The tests and the knocking continued, with an
intermittent miss developing soon after.  The knock and the
miss disappeared when  the engine was heavily loaded.

Data from the steady state tests are presented in Table 2.
On the basis of grams  per mile there was little change in
emissions when speed was increased, except for the HC
emissions.  The increase in road load power from 15 mph
to 35 mph was apparently not enough to affect NOx emissions
greatly.  The C02 emissions, in grams per mile, decreased
about 101 when cruise  speed was increased from 15 mph to
25 or 35 mph.

-------
Listed in Tables 3 and 4 are the results from the 13-mode
tests.  Table 3 presents emissions in terms of grams per
minute.  The Intermediate speed data are fairly repeatable.
Repeatability of the.Rated speed data is poor, except for
NOx emissions.  The mass emissions in Table 4 are in terms
of grams per rear-wheel horsepower-hour.  The efficiency of the
drive train was not known so it was not possible to calculate
brake horsepower.

The arithmetic average of four noise tests, two in each
direction, was 83 dBA.  See Table 5.  Runs 1 and 3 were
in one direction, with the bus radiator on the opposite
side of the bus from the microphone, and were 2 dBA lower than
the runs in. the opposite direction with the .radiator on
the same side as the microphone.

Conclusions
These tests of a gasoline-powered bus were of value to the
T§E Branch mainly for the experience of testing a large     '""' ' '
vehicle at high engine loads.  The value of the emissions
data is suspect because significant test conditions were
not as they should have been.  Because the data are probably
not suitable even as a rough approximation of baseline for
this bus, additional baseline tests are pla-ned when these
limitations are overcome.

Among the conditions that gave rise to questionable data
were the following:

     0  The simulated inertia weight was only 5500 pounds,
        while the actual bus weight is about 10,500 pounds.
        Thus, CO- and -NOx emissions were -ce-rtainly-lower-
        than they.should be.

     0  Because of power absorption limitations we were not
        able to test the maximum load at Rated speed.

     0  The bus was new, with only about 500 to 600 miles
        on the odometer.  Thus the engine was probably still
        in a break-in period and the emissions were probably
        not typical of the same engine when broken in.

     0  The intermittent knocking and misfiring condition of
        the engine should not be considered typical or baseline,
        and probably had a detrimental effect on emissions.

     0  It was not known whether the engine timing and carb-
        uretion conformed to the manufacturer's specifications.

-------
It would be valuable to conduct a similar series of tests
in the future, using an adequate chassis dynamometer, on a
Diesel-powered bus as well as a properly operating gasoline-
powered bus .

-------
              Table 1

25-Passenger Gasoline Powered Bus
         Mass Emissions

      Ann Arbor -1 Bus Route

         Grams per mile
Date
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
-17
-20
-23
-24
-20
-21
-23
HC
22
25
25
23
22
23
25

.09
.77
.31
.75
.63
.85
.09
CO
100
130
97
91
115
101
109

.10
.29
.80
.82
.77
.55
.87
C02
1035
1145
962
1068
1049
1003
1064
NOx
.6
.5
.8
.91
.83
.09
.98
10
11
10
11
11
11
11
.23
.52
.73
.57
.66
.58
.54
Comments
Cold
Cold
Cold
Cold
Hot
Hot
Hot
Start
Start
Start
Start
Start
Start
Start

-------
                                          Table 2
Mode

Idle
Idle

15 mph
15 mph
15 mph
25 mph
25 mph
25 mph
35 mph
35 mph
35 mph
Date

9-20
9-21

9-20
9-21
9-23
9-2.0
9-21
9-23
9-20
9-21
9-23
     25-Passenger Gasoline Powered Bus
              Mass Emissions

             Steady State Modes
              'Grams per minute
HC         CO       C09         NOx
                                 .12
                                 .11

                                 .65
                                2.42
                                2.61
                    373.3       5.06
                    365.7       4.87
                    335.7       4.54
                    524.7       7.42
                    510.2       6.44
                    472.7       5.79
3.70
3.65
9.36
9.00
off
scale
-9.09
4.35
17.52
15.89
15.5

93.15
103.26
257.5
220.1
243.3

12.83
13.07
off
scale

5.48
6.46
7.41
"32.26
 25.05
 23.71

 off
 scale
 46.62
 43.99
                                           Grams per mile

                                           HC      CO

                                           Not applicable
                                           Not applicable
37.44
36.00
off
scale
30.79
31.37
off
scale

9.39
11.07
12.70
70.08
63.56
62.0

77.42
60.12
56.90

off
scale
79 .'92
75.41
                                                  CO-
       NOx
                                                            1030.0  2.60
                                                             880.4  9.68
                                                             973.2 10.44
895.9  12.14
877.7  11.69
805.7  10.90
899.5  12.72
874.6  11.04
810.3   9.93

-------
                                 Table 3
 Mode

 Idle
 Idle
 Idle

 7 hp@2000 rpm
 T, hp§2000 rpm
 7 hp@2000 rpm

13 hp@2000 rpm
13 hp@2000 rpm

25 hp@2000 rpm
25 hp@2000 rpm
25 hp@2000 rpm

38 hp@2000 rpm
38 hp@2000 rpm

   hp@2000 rpm
50 hp@2000 rpm

 Idle
 Idle
 Idle

 7 hp@3200 rpm
 7 hp@3200 rpm

18 hp@3200 rpm
18 hp@3200 rpm

35 hp@3200 rpm
35 hp@3200 rpm

53 hp@3200 rpm

 Idle
 Idle
                    25-Passenger Gasoline Powered Bus
                             Mass Emissions

                            CARB-EMA 13-Mode
                       Diesel Engine Test Procedure
Date
HC
Grams per minute

        CO
C02
NOx
9-23'
9-23
9-24
9-23
9-23
9-24
9-23
9-23
9-23
9-23
9-24
9-23
9-23
9-23
9-24
9-23
9-23
9-24
9-23
9-24
9-23
9-24
9-23
9-24
9-23
9-23
9-24
2.91
3.58
3.40
8.91
9.16
3.36
6.38
6.15
2.73
3.04
2.47
6.59
2.42
2.34
2.56
. 3.13
2.76
2.18
3.65
2.79
3.11
2.18
3.33
1.78
3.70
2.22
1.84
10.61
4.36
4.10
35.20
34.41
31.90
39.76
38.41
off scale
off scale
47.12
48.15
off scale
45.49
off scale
5.70
9.27
5.95
off scale
49.53
off scale
47.09
off scale
35.88
off scale
10.93
4.48
109.95
91.97
92.85
457.94
428.20
446.63
464.30
436.41
562.05
550.49
530.16
off scale
588.21
686.40
674.93
92.63
130.0
107.16
714.69
619.55
752.74
591.72
867.07
574.07
off scale
110.33
80.48
.15
no data
.16
6.24
5.28
6.89
7.06
5.99
9.66
9.02
10.47
off scale
11.20
off scale
12.78
.07
.23
.39
12.45
12.18
14.48
12.76
off scale
13.94
off scale
.23
.28

-------
Table 4 continued
Mode               Date

18 hp @ 3200 rpm   9-23
18 hp @ 3200 rpm   9-24
35 hp @ 3200 rpm   9-23
35 hp @ 3200 rpm   9-24

53 hp @ 3200 rpm   9-23
HC
CO
CO,
NOx
9
9
9
9
9
-23
-24
-23
-24
-23
10
7
5
3
4
.37
.27
.71
.05
.19
off
scale
157.0
off
scale
61.51
off
scale
2509.
1972.
1486.
984.
off
scale
1
4
4
1

48.27
42.53
off
scale
23.90
off
scale

-------
              Table 4

25 - Passenger Gasoline Powered Bus
           Mass Emissions

          CARB-EMA 13-Mode
   • Diesel Engine Test Procedure
Grams per rear wheel horsepower-hour
Mode
7
7
7
13
13

25

25
25

38

38

50

50

7
7
hp
hp
hp
hp
hp

hp

hp
hp

hp

hp

hp

hp

hp
hp
@
@
@
@
•@

e

6
@

e.

@

'@

@

e
@
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000

2000

2000
2000
-
2000

2000

200.0

2000

3200
3200
rpm
rpm
rpm
rpm
rpm

rpm

rpm
<•
rpm

rpm

rpm

rpm

rpm

rpm
rpm
Date
9
9
9
9
9

9

9
9

9

9

9

9

9
9
-23
-23
-24
-23
-23

-23

-23
-24

-23

-23

-23

-24

-23
-24
HC_
76
78
28
29
28

6

7
5

10

3

2

3

31
23

.4
.5
.80
.45
.38

.55

.30
.93
-
.41

.82

.81

.07

.29
.91
C^
301.7
294.9
273.4
183.5
177.3
off
scale
off
scale
113.1

76.03
off
scale

54.59
off
scale
off
scale
424.5
CO-
	 L
3925.2
3670.3
3828.3
2142.9
2014.2

1348.9

1321.2
1272.4
off
scale

928.7

823.7

809.9

6125.9
5310.4
NOx
53.49
45.26
59.06
32.58
27.65

23.18

21.65
25.13
off
scale

17.68
off
scale

15.34

106.7
104.4

-------
             Table 5

25 - Passenger Gasoline Powered Bus

            Noise Tests
                per
           SAE RP J366
   Full Throttle Acceleration
   Run No.             Noise Level
      1                   82 dBA

      2                   84 dBA

      3                   82 dBA

      4                   84 dBA

-------