75-14 AB
The Petro Electric Motors
Hybrid Vehicle
(Federal Clean Car Incentive Program Candidate Vehicle)
January 1975
Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Air and Waste Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
BACKGROUND
The Federal Clean Car Incentive Program (FCCIP) was initiated in
1970 to encourage industry to develop low emission vehicles. This
is a multiphase program that starts with contractor prototype develop-
ment and government testing (Phase I).
Petro Electric Motors, Ltd. (PEM) designed and constructed a
vehicle to be submitted for Phase I testing under the FCCIP. Under
contract 68-04-008 the vehicle was to be evaluated according to
FCCIP - SPEC - 004, "Prototype Vehicle Test Specifications", over a
ninety day period.
The Emission Control Technology Division (ECTD) of the Office
of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control was requested by the Alternative
Automotive Power Systems Division to conduct the required tests.
The test program was conducted by the Technology Assessment and
Evaluation Branch of ECTD.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
The PEM vehicle is an internal combustion engine (ICE)/battery
hybrid system installed in a 1972 Buick Skylark. The original ICE
was replaced by the PEM hybrid system consisting of the 70 CID Mazda
rotary engine and thermal reactor, electric dynamotor (motor/generator),
and speed control circuits. These components are located in the
engine compartment. Indicating meters, auxiliary vehicle controls,
and manual controls for adjustment of engine air-to-fuel (A/F) ratio
are located on the auxiliary dashboard inside the vehicle. The
batteries and remaining speed control circuits are in the vehicle
trunk (See Figure 1). Specifications for the car are contained in
Table 1 - Test Vehicle Description.
The basic idea is to use a small ICE for average vehicle power
requirements, with power assist from an electric motor operated from
batteries for higher power requirements. The concept is an attempt to
operate the engine over a restricted portion of the engine map in the
belief that both low emissions and good fuel economy might be attained
simultaneously. The replacement engine is considerably smaller than
the original engine and therefore operates at a higher fraction of .
its peak power during average driving, thus hopefully achieving better
efficiency. It is hoped that emissions can be maintained at low
levels by proper controls since engine power transients are greatly
reduced and the engine is operated over a restricted portion of the
engine map. Regenerative braking is also used in an attempt to
improve fuel economy.
-------
2
Table 1
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make
Emission control system
1972 Buick Skylark Sedan
Thermal Reactor, Air Injection, EGR
Engine
type Mazda rotary, 2 rotors, Otto Cycle;
trailing spark plug not fired
displacement (CID/cc) 2 x 35.0/2 x 573.5
compression ratio 9.4:1
maximum power @ rpm 130 hp/97 kW @ 7000 rpm
fuel metering 4 bbl carburetor
fuel requirement 91 RON unleaded**
electric motor Porter 60 hp/44.7 kW @ 5500 rpm,
D.C., with 120 volt separately
excited shunt field
electric power supply eight 12-volt lead-acid batteries
Drive Train
transmission type ........ 3-speed manual (ratios 3.0, 1.85, 1:1)
final drive ratio 5.0:1
Chassis
type body-on-frame, front engine and electric
motor, rear wheel drive
tire size H 78 x 14 (GR 78 x 14 in Part III tests)
•curb weight 4135 lb/1875 kg
inertia weight 4000 Ib*
passenger capacity 6
steering and brakes non-power assisted
Emission Control System
basic type thermal reactor
thermal reactor type standard Toyo Kogyo unit (with temperature
control for choke operation during Part I
and II test)
volume not available
air injection preheated, unmodulated
size pump not available
drive ratio 0.80:1
location exhaust port
EGR type hot, manual on/off
rate 10-25% (estimated by PEM)
evaporative controls carbon canister
* Although the vehicle was 185 to 685 pounds heavier than vehicles which
would be certified at 4000 pound inertia weight, the 4000 pound
setting was used here because the contractors claimed that the
weight could be reduced without affecting performance and also
since the contractor had done all development work and testing at
the 4000 pound inertia weight.
** Basic engine system does not require unleaded fuel, however
Mazda, the engine manufacturer, recommends unleaded fuel in their
vehicles.
-------
Batteries
Air Pump
Thermal Reactor
Emission and Powertrain Component Layout
Clutch
and
Transmission
Internal
Combustion
Engine
Accelerator
Pedal
Electronic
Controls
Dynamotor
Batteries
Powertrain Block Diagram
Figure 1 - Component Location and Function
-------
The dynamotor is permanently coupled to the front of the rotary
engine crankshaft and rotates at the same speed. Power generated by
the engine and the dynamotor (under certain high power conditions)
is transmitted to the rear wheels through a clutch and transmission
at the rear of the engine. Engine power is controlled to maintain
a constant manifold vacuum. Depending on driving load requirements,
additional power is either provided by the dynamotor with electric
current drain from the batteries, or absorbed by the dynamotor
to generate charging current to the batteries. The eight 12 volt
lead/acid batteries supply either 50 volts (low speeds) or 100 volts
(rapid acceleration and high speeds) depending on load requirements.
Dynamotor operation is controlled by the accelerator pedal and
electronic controls that monitor ICE manifold vaccum. Through this
control the dynamotor field current and engine throttle position
are adjusted to maintain constant manifold vacuum. Depending upon
field current the batteries will either charge or discharge. For
higher power demands, depression of the accelerator overrides these
controls to open the throttle for greater engine power output.
The PEM Emission control technique is based on use of a thermal
reactor for hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) control and
exhaust gas recirculation for nitrogen oxides (NOx) control of an
engine operating over a restricted engine map. HC and CO are controlled
by maintaining the proper ratio of combustibles to secondary air in
the thermal reactor. This is achieved by adjusting the engine
A/F ratio to keep the thermal reactor temperature at 1650 F.
Simultaneously, sufficient EGR is added to control NOx. A preheater
for the reactor secondary air reduces the tendency of the reactor
to quench due to carburetor enleanment during transmission gear
changes and permits use of a leaner A/F ratio.
During the initial tests, the A/F ratio of stock carburetor
varied considerably with engine speed. To compensate for this
variation a second vehicle operator/technician is required to
continuously control A/F ratio by adjusting a choke butterfly valve.
The second operator is also required to adjust manifold vacuum and
turn on EGR during the test.
For the last tests, Part III, the vehicle emission control
system was modified. This reduced the second operator's tasks to
a timed sequence during a limited time after vehicle startup.
(See Table Via).
TEST PROCEDURE
The FCCIP Prototype Vehicle Specifications were followed in
part. The TAEB test conductor authorized omissions and deviations
from FCCIP SPEC - 004 in the interests of time or if no test was
deemed necessary due to vehicle's essentially stock condition.
The main emphasis was to acquire gaseous exhaust emissions
data. Other tests were run to define performance, safety, noise,
-------
and emissions of aldehydes. Exhaust emission tests were conducted
according to the 1975 Federal Test Procedures (75 FTP) described in
the Federal Register of November 15, 1972. Additional tests
included the EPA Highway Cycle. Most testing was done at an inertia
weight of 4000 pounds (1814 kg) with a road load setting of 12.0
horsepower (8.95 kW) at 50 miles per hour (80.5 km/hr.). This is
the standard road load for non-air conditioned vehicles. The actual
vehicle weight would normally put the vehicle in the 4500 pound
(2041 kg) inertia weight class. However, since it was a prototype
for a 4000 pound class of vehicles, it was usually tested at the
4000 pound weight.
No durability mileage was accumulated.
Noise testing consisted of the SAE 986a driveby exterior
noise test.
Performance testing was limited to vehicle acceleration tests
using a 5th wheel.
Aldehyde emissions in vehicle exhaust were measured using a
wet chemical method (MBTH).
TEST RESULTS
The test program was divided into three time periods during the
year. This occurred because the EPA Highway Cycle was developed
shortly after the initial testing was concluded, and because of the
decision to retest the vehicle after modifications were made.
PART I
Upon arrival the vehicle was inspected and certain components
under the hood were required to be more positively fastened. The
required Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were still met by
the vehicle chassis. The vehicle was test-driven on local streets
and highways at speeds up to 60 mph (96.6 km/hr.). Engine noise
was noticeable at high speeds but judged to be not objectionable.
Due to the placement of the motor and batteries in this prototype
vehicle, considerable weight was added near the ends of the vehicle.
This adversely affected steering and braking, both requiring consid-
erable effort to control the vehicle safely. PEM attributes this
effect to the loss of braking effect due to the high idle speed
(2000 RPM).
-------
The first set of emission tests were voided when it was
discovered by PEM that the motor had been improperly wired during
PEM refurbishing prior to EPA testing. The thermal reactor secondary
air preheater was reconnected shortly after testing resumed. Several
vehicle, procedural, and equipment problems were encountered. Also
many tests did not show the system's emission control capability
due to error by the second operator in adjusting the A/F ratio.
The result was that no tests were obtained in which the vehicle
achieved the low emission levels claimed by PEM.
However, many of the malfunctions caused only momentary failures.
Often this affected only one of the pollutants or only emissions in
one of the three sample bags. Therefore, if certain emissions results
are eliminated, it is possible to average the remaining to obtain
exhaust emission values.
Tests with the fewest problems were selected and are listed in
Tables II a and II b (individual bag data) and Table III (75 FTP
composite mass emissions). Average results are:
75 FTP Composite Mass Emissions
grams per mile
(grams per kilometre)
I
Fuel Economy
H£ CQ NOx (Fuel Consumption)
i
.46 2.06 1.04 8.9 miles/gal
(.35) (1.28) (.64) (26.5 litres/100 km)
The value of HC exceeds the level of the Phase I requirement
by 12 percent, and the NOx value exceeds the level of the Phase I
requirement by 4 percent. The CO levels were met. These values
do not consider vehicle emissions deterioration factors since
the vehicle was tested at low mileage.
One LA-4 (urban) driving cycle was run with vehicle shutdown during
long idle periods since one approach to improving fuel economy and
avoiding overcharging the batteries during idle periods would be
to shutdown the vehicle during stops. This resulted in a thirty
percent improvement in fuel economy. However, HC and CO increased
several hundred percent, while NOx decreased twenty percent (See
Table II b). 'The magnitude of these emissions could probably be
reduced since no serious attempt was made to optimize emission
control for this type of operation. Results were:
72 FTP Hot Start Composite Mass Emissions
grams per mile
(grams per kilometre)
Fuel Economy
HC CjO NOx (Fuel Consumption)
2.22 9.02 .84 11.6 miles/gal
(1.38) (5.61) (.52) (20.3 litres/100 km)
-------
But, since the batteries receive most of their recharge during idle,
the result indicates what would be expected if the batteries discharge
during the cycle.
Two 1975 FTP's were conducted at 4500 pounds and a road load
setting of 12.7 hp (9.47 kW) (Table II b). These would be the test
conditions if the vehicle were to be tested for certification (without
air conditioning). Both these are listed below since there was
considerable test-to-test variation in pollutants.
75 FTP Composite Mass Emissions
grams per mile
(grams per kilometre)
Fuel Economy
HC CX) NOx (Fuel Consumption)
2.78 20.4 1.16 9.4 miles/gal
(1.73) (12.7) (.72) (25. litres/100 km)
.66 3.88 .86 8.9 miles/gal
(.41) (2.41) (.53) (26.4 litres/100 km)
Battery voltages were taken before testing and several hours
after completion of testing. There was considerable variation in
the net charge (See Table III). However the testing procedures for
measuring battery voltage were not refined until Part III.
Aldehydes were measured during the initial tests'which were
later voided. Time did not permit a repeat of the aldehyde test.
For the two tests the composite results gave very low values.
The results are:
Aldehydes HC
grams per mile grams per mile
(grams per kilometre) (grams per kilometre)
.037 2.15
(0.23) . (1.34)
.032 .62
(.020) (.39)
These levels are as low as those from any other vehicle tested
and, since these HC values are considerably higher than the test
results, the car can be expected to be very low in aldehyde emissions.
The evaporative emission controls were not connected and there-
fore no attempt was made to collect evaporative emission data. However,
no problems would be anticipated in incorporating a complete
evaporative emission system. The effects of the evaporative losses on
-------
vehicle emissions was therefore not measured, however, in the judgement
of EPA personnel, with a proper system the effect should be minimal.
It accelerated well during the emissions test. However, it did
backfire many times and stalled during several tests. The car always
started readily. The transmission, which was a Vega transmission
installed in a Buick body, was often difficult to upshift and on
occasion.it would take several seconds to change gears. Additional
cooling air was always provided by the test laboratory for the
batteries in the trunk.
At the end of the first test period, the vehicle was taken to
a test track for acceleration and noise testing. Acceleration
results are listed in Table IV. Average results are:
Vehicle Acceleration
(4950 Ib. Test Weight)
Speed mpg Average Times (seconds)
(km/hr) Standard Configuration Without Batteries
20 3.2 4.2
(32.2)
30 5.8 7.5
(48.3)
40 .9.4 11.8
(64.4)
50 12.5 16.2
(80.5)
60 17.5 24.2
(96.6)
The difficulty in shifting increased the times above 20 mph by
approximately one second. Noise results are given in Table V.
There overall noise level reported per SAE J 986a is 79 db(a).
PART II
The vehicle was available in early May for a limited number
of tests. Since the EPA Highway Cycle had been recently developed,
the vehicle was tested to determine its highway fuel economy
and to establish if its ratio of EPA Highway Cycle economy to
LA-4 economy was unique. The results of the first two tests
(Table III) showed considerable variation. Therefore a '75 FTP
was run to establish if the car still operated as before and
two additional EPA Highway Cycle fuel economy tests were run. Results
(test no. 21-4331, Tables II b and III) showed the vehicle to be
-------
operating at HC and CO emission levels greatly above the previous tests.
The result was:
175 FTP Composite Mass Emissions
grams per mile
(grams per kilometre)
Fuel Economy
HC CO NOx (Fuel Consumption)
6.50 15.6 .85 9.9 miles/gal
(4.03) (9.69) (.52) (23.8 litres/100 km)
This indicated that possibly the vehicle was no longer in the
former operating condition and therefore the highway fuel economy
results were not representative of its true performance. For these
conditions the average indicated fuel economy was 23.2 mpg (10.2 litres/
100 km). (The test on May 2nd appeared to be significantly lower and
is not included in this average). The car batteries gave a net discharge
during the EPA Highway Cycle. Therefore, the car could not continue
this cycle and the indicated fuel consumption did not show the true
energy consumption. After the last cycle one of the batteries showed
a low voltage and one battery cell appeared damaged.
PART III
Because of the effects on emissions and fuel economy of different
levels of energy storage in the batteries and other unique charact-
eristics, additional tests were performed. The object was to repeat
the emissions tests while maintaining the batteries at well defined
conditions.
Vehicle controls had been sufficiently altered, (Table Via)
so that the second operator's schedule could be accomplished
reliably. Other vehicle modifications which had been performed
were re-jetting the carburetor, a new set of eight 12 volt batteries,
radial tires, and control system changes (Table VIb).
The '75 FTP is an emissions test designed to simulate cold and
hot start trips. This is a four bag procedure. Bags 2 and 4 should
be identical since they are both hot tests of the same driving cycle.
Thus normally only three bags are taken and then a weighted average
is calculated. However the PEM hybrid can store energy in one
portion of the cycle and use it in another. A more representative
test would therefore be the four bag procedure planned for this
series.
-------
10
Battery conditions were to be the same before and after each
test. The voltage of each battery and specific gravity of one cell
per battery would be used to determine battery state-of-charge.
State-of-charge was to be determined before each test. To permit
battery equilibrium, measurements were to be taken no sooner than
four hours after operating the vehicle. To measure accurately
the effect of driving the vehicle, the vehicle was not operated
except during the driving cycles. (Thus it was pushed on and
off the dynamometer.)
Four tests were planned:
'75 FTP with balanced battery state-of-charge
EPA Highway Cycle with FTP settings (net discharge)
EPA Highway Cycle with balanced state-of-charge
'75 FTP with above Highway settings
The vehicle arrived and necessary adjustments were made by
PEM to maintain low emissions without changing battery conditions.
This was a time consuming iterative task since these were cold
start tests and battery conditions were required to be the same
before and after each test. To balance state-of-charge for the
EPA Highway Cycle, EGR was reduced, since this was the most
straightforward approach and allowed the test to be performed
in the time remaining. The results are given in Table VII
and are summarized below.
75 FTP
Balanced Charge
Emissions
grams per mile
(grams per kilometre)
HC
.38
(. 24)
EPA Highway .13
Unbalanced Charge (.08)
(Batteries Discharged)
EPA Highway .01
Balanced Charge (.01
75 FTP .32
Unbalanced Charge (.20)
(Batteries Charged)
CO
2.41
(1.50)
1.09
(.68)
.10
(.07)
2.16
(1.34)
NOx
.76
(.47)
.60
(.37)
1.59
(1.00)
3.29
(2.04)
Fuel Economy
(Fuel Consumption)
8.8 miles/gal
(26.7 litres/100 km)
18.2 miles/gal
(12.9 litres/100 km)
15.6 miles/gal
(15.1 litres/100 km)
7.0 miles/gal
(33.6 litres/100 km)
-------
11
The unbalanced 75 FTP was limited to 11.1 miles to prevent severe
battery overcharge. In contrast to the initial vehicle tests,
no backfire problems were experienced during this series of tests.
To determine the battery condition at the conclusion of testing,
the batteries were fully charged and discharged after the last test.
The battery energy capacity was near the manufacturer's rating. One
battery was observed to have a damaged cell during this test.
The results of the Part III tests are more conclusive than Part I
and Part II since the vehicle operating parameters were well known.
The ratio of balanced EPA Highway Cycle fuel economy to balanced
75 FTP fuel economy is 1.77. For most conventional vehicles this
ratio is between 1.3 and 1.7 for all inertia weight classes.
This result may not be fully representative of what may be achieved
through vehicle developmental testing by PEM since the adjustments
made were probably not optimum.
CONCLUSIONS
The vehicle demonstrated the Phase I exhaust emission levels
of .41 gm/mi HC, 3.4 gm/mi CO, and 1.0 gm/mi NOx during the
40 miles of testing in the last test configuration. However, the
deterioration factor was not established since this was a low
mileage vehicle.
The evaporative emission controls were not tested. In its
present condition the vehicle cannot be driven by an inexperienced
driver over an arbitrary route since there are no automatic
provisions for battery control. In addition a second operator
is required to operate the emission controls for a limited time
after vehicle startup.
-------
APPENDIX
TEST RESULTS
-------
1-1
TABLE II a
MASS EMISSIONS
Bag 1 Cold Transient
HC CO C02 NOx
16-1164
15-60
15-61
15-76
15-77
15-78
1.67
1.63
1.47
1.50
2.50(8)
2.41(9)
4.28
2.84
6.63(6)
3.29
6.14(8)
7.85(9)
781.6
841.5
789.6
805.6
776.7
730.1
.82
1.04
.88
.83
.67
1.01
Fuel
Economy
MPG
11.2
10.4
11.0
10.9
11.2
11.8
GRAMS
PER MILE
Bag 2 Hot Stabilized
HC CO C02
.07(1)
.04
.11(1)
.04
.21(6)
.05
2.61(2)
1.36
3.56(2)
1.35
1.43
.90
1150
1293
1204
1246
1177
1064
.5
.4
.0
.4
.6
.8
Fuel
Economy
NOx MPG
.87
1.36(5)
.84
1.52
1.28
1.17
7.7
6.8
7.3
7.1
7.5
8.3
Bag 3 Hot Transient
HC . CO C02
.56(3)
.55(3)
.66(3)
.39
.37
.68(9)
4.46(4)
2.62
2.74
2.56
3.05(8)
10.32(9)
789.7
804.7
780.2
818.6
700.4
751.1
Fuel
Economy
NOx MPG
.93
1.10
.80
1.44(7)
.99
1.18
11.1
10.9
11.3
10.8
12.6
11.5
Average 1.57 3.47 787.5
(Excludes those with comments 2 to 9)
.87
11.1
.06
1.20
1189.4
1.13
7.4
.38
2.64
774.2
1.00
11.4
(1) Suspect due to break in exhaust pipe. Used in average.
(2) Second operator had difficulty positioning choke during shifts.
(3) Bad start due to possible fuel percolation.
(4) Late reactor lite off/second operator.
(5) EGR valve shifted position.
(6) Out of line with what can be obtained.
(7) No EGR.
(8) Loss of power.
(9) Leak in secondary air cause difficulty in lite off.
-------
1-2
TABLE II b
MASS EMISSIONS
GRAMS PER MILE
Bag 1 Fuel Bag 2 Fuel Bag 3 Fuel
Cold Transient Economy Hot Stabilized Economy Hot Transient Economy
Test Number HC CO CO- NOx MPG HC CO C02 NOx MPG HC CO CO NOx MPG
15-79 (1) 1.60 4.72 915.2 1.14 9.6 2.89 13.70 553.9 .51 15.2
15-80 (2) 5.70 41.12 697.8 .86 11.4 .12 2.29 1128.3 1.39 7.8 5.66 39.53 633.8 .93 12.4
15-81 (2) 1.87 4.54 818.4 1.05 10.7 .26 3.94 1169.4 .88 7.5 .05 3.27 782.6 .68 11.2
21-4331 (3) 3.17 14.11 715.5 .99 11.9 4.70 18.55 969.6 .61 8.8 12.44 11.18 732.6 1.22 11.2
(1) Hot Start shutdown during long idle.
(2) 4500 pound inertia weight test.
(3) 1975 FTP to confirm vehicle condition after highway cycle.
-------
Test Number
16-1164
15-60
15-61
15-76
15-77
15-78
15-79
15-80
15-81
15-4108
15-4211
21-4331
21-4331
21-4332
1-3
TABLE III
WEIGHTED EMISSIONS
GRAMS PER MILE
Fuel
Economy
Date HC CO C00 NOx MPG
MAR 1 .53 3.46 976.1 .88 9.0
MAR 4 .51 2.01 1067.1 1.22 8.3
MAR 5 .54 3.97 1003.1 .84 8.8
MAR 14 .44 2.08 1038.9 1.36 8.5
MAR 15 .93 3.5 979.2 1.06 9.0
MAR 18 .71 4.90 910.3 1.14 9.6
MAR 19 2.22 9.02 742.3 .84 11.6
SHUTDOWN DURING LONG IDLES
MAR 19 2.78 20.4 904.8 1.16 9.4
4500 LB. INERTIA WT. TEST
MAR 22 .66 3.88 991.6 .86 8.9
4500 LB. INERTIA WT. TEST
MAY 2 .02 1.08 540.7 1.42 16.4
MAY 8 .07 4.55 352.8 1.54 24.6
MAY 16 6.50 15.6 853.0 .85 9.9
MAY 16 .13 1.34 376.3 1.80 23.4
MAY 16 .01 2.14 408.4 .83 21.5
Average
Battery
Volts
After 1.231 S.
Before 1.246 S.
-.015
After 12.47
Before 12.46
.01
After 12.47
Before 12.48
-.01
After 12.58
Before 12.38
.20
After 12.37
Before 12.58
-.19
After 12.71
Before 12.37
.34
Hot Start
After (Hot) 12.
Before 12.
-.
After (Hot) 12.
Before 12.
•
HWY Cycle
HWY Cycle '•',
Before 12.
HWY After 12}
HWY After " 11.
G.
G.
56
71
15
40
59
19
30
59
79
-------
1-4
TABLE IV
VEHICLE ACCELERATION RESULTS
MPH TIME (SECONDS)
WEST EAST EAST WEST WEST
20 3.4 3.0 3.2 3.0 3.5
30 5.3 5.4 5.8 6.0 6.2
EAST
3.0
5.8
40
50
60
(.9 sec shift)
11.4 9.1 8.9 8.7
(2.5 sec shift) (.8 sec shift) (1 sec shift)
14.3
18.4
12.7
18.0
11.9
17.1
(.7 sec
shift)
10.0 8.4
(.8 sec shift)
11.8 13.2
(.7 sec shift)
17.0
18.6
11.2
16.1
VEHICLE ACCLERATION WITHOUT ELECTRIC MOTOR
MPH
20
30
40
50
60
TIME (SECONDS)
3.4
6.4
10.9
(.7 sec shift)
15.5
23.8
4.3
7.9
(1 sec shift)
12.0
16.5
26.0
4.4
7.9
(.7 sec shift)
12.0
16.3
23.5
4.2
8.1
(.7 sec shift)
12.4
16.5
24.6
4.5
7.1
11.8
(.7 sec shift)
16.3
23.3
WINDS LESS THAN 6 MPH
TEST DONE ON AN OVAL TRACK IN BOTH DIRECTIONS
TEST WEIGHT 4950 POUNDS
-------
1-5
TABLE V
SOUND LEVELS
SAE J 986a DRIVE BY TEST
VEHICLE LEFT SIDE VEHICLE RIGHT SIDE
DECIBLES DECIBLES
RUN 1 78 78
RUN 2 78 79
RUN 3 79 79
RUN 4 78 78
-------
PETRO - ELECTRIC MOTORS. L.TO.
#9952
1-6
TABLE VI a
November 27, 1974
ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO THE
PEM HYBRID, DURING THE PERIOD MAY-SEPTEMBER
1974 (Befpre latest tests) and DURING THE PERIOD
OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 1974 (During latest tests)
CHANGE
REASON
Completed Before Tests
Plugging Resistor
Automatic Idle Resistor Cutout
Re-jet Carburetor
Tires - Radial
Completed During Tests
Resistor in Field Control
Circuit
Engine Throttle Override
Cable
Choke and Manifold Vacuum
Modified Vacuum and EGR
To reduce time for engine RPM
reduction to izero after turn-off.
To achieve high speed idle dur-
ing first 25 seconds.
To produce proper reactor tem-
perature at 12ir Vacuum, and
eliminate "lean hole" without
need of second operator to vary
choke while driving.
Replace original equipment tires
with Radial Tires on the rear
wheels.
To improve 100/50V transition,
to eliminate wasted armature
current discharge.
Re-arrange engine throttle over-
ride cable to activate lever arm
under hood for convenience of
adding dashpot, if desired.
Utilize new choke countdown
and manifold vacuum schedule.
Modified Vacuum and EGR set-
tings In attempt to attain correct
battory SOC. This Involves put-
ting In a controller that maintained
the vacuum nt snttlngn other thnn
Ilin tn'Uiliml I'?." t
-------
1-7
TABLE VI b
''ETRO - ELECTRIC MOTORS. L.TO.
Hybrid Power Train Vehicle
OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS
URBAN TEST
SHIFT POINTS*; First {— » Second = 18mph
Second <-£ Third = 33mph
CAR PREPARATION :
CHOKE at approximately 0.09" Open and handle in UP position Q **;
15" VACUUM; No EGR;
Emission Control at 5mV - 26mV***;
Throttle Limiter in place
Field Current ON; Ignition Key ON.
START; Press START Button
COLD START RUN; Countdown
TIME OPERATION
3 sec. 1/2 turn Leaner (clockwise)
10 sec. 1/2 turn Leaner
19 sec. 1/2 turn Leaner
30 sec. 1/2 turn Leaner
60 sec, /10 "VAC
1EGR ON
70 sec. 1/2 turn Leaner
80 sec. 1/2 turn Leaner
240 sec. 2-1/2 turns Leaner
1360 sec. - Throttle Limiter OFF
-------
1-8
RETRO - ELECTRIC MOTORS. LTD.
Hybrid Power Train Vehicle
HOT START PREPARATION:
15"VACUUM; NO EGR;
CHOKE Enriched 2-1/2 Turns from end of previous run;
Emission Control at 15mV - 26mV;
Throttle Limiter in Place
HOT START RUN: Countdown
TIME OPERATION
10 sec. /10-VAC
VJEGR ON
60 sec. 2-1/2 turns Leaner
1360 sec. - Throttle Limiter OFF
* For Cold Start shift at First - Second at 26 mph and Second - Third at 40 mph
for the first 40 seconds. Because of carburetion problem,, it is important
that engine not be kept in gear below shift points. For Deceleration re-
commend de-clutching at no less than 35 mph in Third Gear and 20 mph in
Second Gear.
** Choke butterfly is set at 11-1/2 turns from fully open position. This can be
checked with feeler gauge set at 0.09" and choke dial in 1:30 position
*'** Emission Meter lower limit set so car starts with spark advanced for 5mV.
Therefore, for Cold Start lower limit set at 5mV and for Hot Start at 15mV
(since reactor will be at approximately lOmV).
CLR:sg
11-1/9898
-------
1-9
TEST NUMBER
Bag 1 Cold Transient
NOx MPG
HC CO C02
TABLE Vila
MASS EMISSIONS
GRAMS PER MILE
Bag 2 Hot Stabilized
HC O) C02 NOx MPG
Bag 3 Hot Transient
HC CO C02 NOx
MPG HC CO C02
Bag 4 Hot Stabilized
NOx MPG
16-6366, 16-6367 .80 5.24 872.0 .55 10.1 .05 .64 1220.5 .94 7.3 .50 2.58 786.7 .66 11.2 .06 .83 1238.0 .93 7.2
21-6447, 21-6448 .88 6.50 838.1 .50 10.4 .08 .64 1169.4 .88 7.6 .71 3.63 748.8 .61 11.7 .12 .58 1164.1 .92 7.6
16-6728
.99 6.74 1040.3 1.59 8.4 .02 .36 1506.4 4.40 5.9 .38 2.15 994.1 2.46 8.9
-------
1-10
TABLE VII b
WEIGHTED EMISSIONS
GRAMS /MILE
TEST NUMBER MILES
16-6366, 16-6367 15
31 OCT
21-6447, 21-6448 15
5 NOV
16-6464 6 NOV 10.225
16-6693 18 NOV 10.225
16-6694 10.225
16-6728 19 NOV 11.1
TYPE TEST HC CO
FTP .33 2.17
FTP .43 2.65
HWY .13 1.09
HWY .01 .11
HWY .0 .10
FTP .32 2.16
C00 NOx
2. "" •
1035.6 .78
984.9 .74
485.5 .6
569.7 1.62
567.5 1.56
1270.0 3.29
FUEL
ECONOMY
MPG
8.5
9.0
18.2
15.6
15.6
7.0
AVERAGE
BATTERY
VOLTS SPECIFIC
GRAVITY
After
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Before
~
After
Before
12.58
12.57
+ .01
12.57
12.54
+ .03
12.34
12.57
-.23
12.50
12.44
+ .06
12.60
12.50
.10
1.235
1.230
+ .005
1.225
1.224
+ .001
1.200
1.225
-.025
1.230
1.231
-.001
1.244
1.230
.014
COMMENTS
Balanced FTP
Balanced FTP
Unbalanced HWY
Balanced HWY
Unbalanced FTP
------- |