EPA/AA/TDG/93-03
Technical Report
Evaluation of Specialized catalysts
for Methanol (M100) Vehicles
by
Robert I. Bruetsch
Ronald M. Schaefer
Gregory K. Piotrowski
June 1993
NOTICE
Technical Reports do not necessarily represent final EPA
decisions or positions. They are intended to present technical
analysis of issues using data which are currently available. The
purpose in the release of such reports is to facilitate the
exchange of technical information and to inform the public of
technical developments which may form the basis for a final EPA
decision, position, or regulatory action.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Mobile Sources
Regulatory Programs and Technology
Technology Development Group
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
JUL 8 1993 OFnoEOF
AIR AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Exemption from Peer and Administrative Review
FROM: Karl H. Hellman, Chief
Technology Development Group
TO: Charles L. Gray, Jr. , Director
Regulatory Programs and Technology
The attached report entitled, "Evaluation of Specialized
Catalysts f or Methanol (M100) Vehicles," EPA/AA/TDG/93-03 , presents
the emission test results of two catalyst systems, one developed by
GM and the other by Nippon Shokubai, which are specially formulated
for use with methanol-fueled vehicle applications. This report
presents the data from vehicle tests using these catalysts with and
without air injection on a vehicle equipped with a lean burn engine
and a vehicle equipped with an engine operated at the
stoichiometric air/ fuel ratio.
Since this report is concerned only with the presentation of
data and their 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: a>r^^\ / . — Date: 7-/Z-—
// . —
Charles L. Gray, r.y Director, RPT
Nonconcurrence : _ Date :
Charles L. Gray, Jr., Director, RPT
Attachment
cc: E. Burger, RPT
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Number
I. Summary 1
II. Introduction 1
III. Test Program 1
IV. Test Results 3
V. Conclusions 7
VI. Acknowledgments 9
VII. References 9
APPENDIX A - Vehicle and Fuel Specifications A-l
APPENDIX B - Catalyst Formulations B-l
-------
Evaluation of Specialized Catalysts
for Methanol (M100) Vehicles
I. Summary
A test program was performed at EPA's National Vehicle and
Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) to evaluate two different
methanol vehicle catalyst systems on both lean burn and
stoichiometric port injected engine-equipped vehicles using M100
(neat methanol) fuel.[1,2] Emission levels, particularly
formaldehyde emissions, were significantly reduced by both
catalysts. Air injection strategies were implemented to obtain
very low cold start emissions of unburned fuel and formaldehyde.
II. Introduction
Recently, an abstract for a Japanese patent application for a
novel alcohol-fueled engine exhaust catalyst was published in
Platinum Metals Review.f31 EPA contacted the catalyst
manufacturer, Nippon Shokubai Co., Ltd., and requested catalyst
samples for evaluation on methanol-fueled vehicles at NVFEL.
Nippon Shokubai America, Inc. responded stating that they
would be willing to participate in a cooperative program, with
provisions to keep proprietary certain aspects of their catalyst
and its development. The Nippon Shokubai catalyst system includes
two catalysts, one for oxidation of unburned fuel, CO and
formaldehyde and the other for reduction of NOx emissions, in
separate beds with an air injection nozzle inlet before the
oxidation catalyst.
EPA also learned of specialized catalyst development for
methanol application at General Motors. EPA requested and received
catalyst samples from GM. EPA then tested the GM catalyst samples
on the same vehicles in similar fashion as the Nippon Skokubai
catalysts. The GM catalyst system does not contain separate
catalyst beds, but EPA inserted an air injection nozzle inlet
upstream of the catalyst in the exhaust pipe to evaluate catalyst
conversion efficiencies under very lean conditions.
III. Test Program
Both catalyst systems were expected to be tested on both lean
burn and stoichiometrically calibrated neat methanol vehicles. The
lean burn vehicle mentioned above is a Toyota Corolla with a 1.8L
methanol engine using a second generation Toyota Lean Combustion
System and is originally equipped with both close-coupled exhaust
manifold start catalysts and a main underfloor catalyst. Both the
Nippon Shokubai and GM catalysts were evaluated on the Toyota
Corolla in place of the stock underfloor catalyst.
-------
-2-
The stoichiometrically calibrated vehicle is a Volkswagen
Rabbit with a 1.6L methanol engine. The Rabbit was equipped with
a stock underfloor catalyst (i.e., no close coupled exhaust
manifold start catalyst) which was removed for placement of the GM
catalyst. The Nippon Shokubai catalyst was not tested on the VW
Rabbit.
An electric air pump manufactured by Coltec Industries, Inc.,
was obtained to test each catalyst at constant air injection rates.
The catalyst manufacturers were asked to provide optimum air
injection strategies for the evaluation. Nippon Shokubai specified
.that the air injection should be supplied for the first 180 seconds
of the Federal Test Procedure (FTP), or longer if the catalyst bed
temperature did not exceed 500°C (932°F) after three minutes.
Nippon Shokubai did not specify an air injection rate, but assumed
it should be enough to achieve air/fuel ratios in excess of 18:1
(unless this caused high aldehyde emission rates to occur). GM did
not specify an air injection strategy.
It was decided to use the maximum air flow rate of the air
pump, 4.2 cfm, for all tests utilizing air assist. The flow
duration of 100 seconds was chosen because this was the same
duration as the catalyst preheating time used in preceding
evaluations of electrically heated catalysts at NVFEL.[4] In order
to avoid the creation of hot spots in the catalyst substrates, no
attempt was made to measure catalyst bed temperature throughout the
test program.
After one test on the Toyota Corolla with the Nippon Shokubai
catalyst system, the Coltec air pump failed due to a faulty voltage
regulator. An air compressor with a flow meter flowing shop air
into the exhaust stream between the beds of the Nippon Shokubai
system, and just upstream of the GM catalyst, was used for all
subsequent tests involving air injection. The Nippon Shokubai
catalyst was tested with shop air injection rates of 4.2, 6.0, and
2.0 cfm. On tests involving air injection, the GM catalyst was
tested with 100 seconds of shop air injected at 5 cfm.
In addition to these air injection strategies evaluated, both
catalyst systems were tested in a variety of other configurations
as discussed below.
Initially, both vehicles were baseline tested for emissions
over the FTP cycle (i.e., no catalyst installed) to determine an
engine-out emissions baseline for calculating catalyst conversion
efficiencies.
The methanol-fueled Toyota Corolla was tested with dummy
(i.e., uncatalyzed) substrates in both the underfloor and the
manifold close coupled catalyst locations. The Corolla was then
tested with first the Nippon Shokubai and then the GM
catalyst in place of the main underfloor catalyst and uncatalyzed
substrates in the close coupled catalyst location. Neither
catalyst system was tested with an electrically heated catalyst in
-------
-3-
the exhaust system. Finally, the Corolla was tested with the GM
catalyst in place of the main underfloor catalyst and catalyzed
substrates in the close coupled exhaust manifold catalysts. The
Nippon Shokubai catalyst was not tested in combination with
catalyzed close coupled manifold catalysts on the Toyota Corolla.
The Volkswagen Rabbit was tested with the GM catalyst in place
of the stock underfloor catalyst. No close coupled catalysts were
installed in the exhaust system of the VW Rabbit.
IV. Test Results
Tables 1 and 2 present the Bag 1 and FTP emission levels
measured during the Nippon Shokubai catalyst evaluation on the
Toyota Corolla vehicle. "Base" refers to baseline levels without
any catalyst being present in the exhaust system. "No air"
represents emissions measured with the catalyst in the exhaust
system in an underfloor location without any secondary air
injection to aid the oxidation reactions. The "4.2 cfm airpump"
levels were obtained by using the Coltec electric air pump for
secondary air injection at a 4.2 cubic feet per minute (cfm)
flowrate for 100 seconds after key-on. The "6.0, 4.2, and 2.0 cfm"
levels were obtained by using a shop air line for secondary air
injection at these three flowrates for 100 seconds after key-on.
The last row of data ("no air") was obtained with the catalyst in
the exhaust system without any air assist. This was a repeated
test sequence conducted at the end of the test program to determine
if any drift in the "no air" data occurred.
Table 1
Nippon Shokubai Catalyst Evaluation
Bag 1 Emissions Levels in Grams (HCHO in Milligrams)
Toyota Corolla Methanol-Fueled Vehicle
Conf ig
Base
No Air
4.2 cfm
Airpump
6.0 cfm
4.2 cfm
2.0 cfm
No Air
*HC
7.22
2.22
2.51
2.94
2.38
2.49
2.89
NOX
2.8
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.4
1.9
CO
30.7
16.0
18.9
24.2
20.3
20.8
22.8
C02
808
864
859
858
862
879
850
CH3OH
20.20
6.41
6.90
8/06
6.95
7.10
8.51
HCHO
2118
49
202
269
253
255
298
OMHCE
10.38
2.92
3.35
3.93
3.25
3.38
3.96
NMHC
0.61
0.14
0.22
0.26
0.16
0.12
0.08
* Gasoline-fueled vehicle measurement procedure.
-------
-4-
Table 2
Nippon Shokubai Catalyst Evaluation
FTP Emission Levels in Grams/Mile (HCHO in Milligrams/Mile)
Toyota Corolla Methanol-Fueled Vehicle
Config
Base
No Air
4 . 2 cfm
Airpump
6.0 cfm
4 . 2 cfm
2 . 0 cfm
No Air
*HC
1.67
0.15
0.17
0.20
0.16
0.16
0.19
NOT
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
CO
5.8
1.1
1.9
2.2
1.8
1.9
2.2
CO,
214
231
229
230
233
235
230
CH?OH
4.71
0.40
0.44
0.55
0.45
0.43
0.55
HCHO
624
4
15
20
19
19
24
OMHCE
2.47
0.20
0.22
0.27
0.21
0.21
0.26
NMHC
0.13
**
0.01
0.02
0.01
**
0.01
* Gasoline-fueled vehicle measurement procedure.
** Less than 0.005 grams/mile measured.
From this data, it can be seen that unassisted catalyst levels
did drift substantially. This is especially true with formaldehyde
emissions. Bag 1 levels changed from 49 milligrams to 298
milligrams; the corresponding FTP formaldehyde levels were 4 to 24
milligrams per mile. Also, air assist to this catalyst during cold
start had little effect in lowering emission levels and, in fact,
increased the emissions of unburned fuel, CO, and formaldehyde.
Tables 3 through 6 present the test results of the second
methanol catalyst evaluation; the catalyst was provided to EPA by
General Motors. Table 3 presents individual bag results when the
catalyst was used on the methanol-fueled Toyota Corolla test
vehicle. The first row of data, "Base," represents Bag 1 emission
levels with dummy substrates in the manifold and underfloor
catalysts. The second row of data "GM Cat. Only" represents Bag 1
emission levels from the Corolla vehicle with the GM catalyst
present in the exhaust system in an underfloor location. The third
row of data "GM Cat. + cc cat" represent Bag 1 emission levels
obtained with the GM catalyst again in the underfloor location in
conjunction with the standard Toyota close-coupled catalysts that
were originally equipped on the vehicle. The last configuration
"GM Cat. + cc cat + Air" again utilized the GM catalyst in the
underfloor location and the Toyota close-coupled catalyst in
conjunction with secondary air assist to promote catalyst oxidation
reactions. This air assist was provided by the shop air line in
the test cell and was supplied for 100 seconds after key-on in Bag
1 only at a flowrate of 5 standard cubic feet per minute. This
table also contains emission levels measured during the Bag 2 and
3 segments of the FTP.
-------
-5-
Table 3
GM Methanol Catalyst Evaluation
Toyota Corolla Methanol-Fueled Vehicle
Config.
HC
g
NOX
g
CO
g
C02
g
CH3OH
g
ECHO
mg
OMHCE
g
NMHC
g
BAG 1:
Base
GM Cat.
Only
GM Cat.
+cc cat
GM Cat.
+cc cat
+ Air
6.70
2.14
1.62
1.24
2.5
1.7
1.7
1.8
29.1
16.8
17.9
15.4
802
859
894
887
19.62
6.19
4.77
3.76
2089
257
122
102
9.79
2.93
2.20
1.69
0.40
0.08
0.01
**
BAG 2:
Base
GM Cat.
Only
GM Cat.
•fee cat
GM Cat.
+cc cat
+ Air
6.56
0.05
0.03
0.04
1.8
0.8
1.1
1.0
19.2
0.1
***
0.1
830
913
939
930
18.80
0.12
0.07
0.10
2628
26
10
8
9.80
0.07
0.04
0.05
0.42
**
**
**
BAG 3:
Base
GM Cat.
Only
GM Cat.
+cc cat
GM Cat.
•fee cat
+ Air
5.06
0.03
0.04
0.03
2.4
1.7
1.6
1.4
18.8
0.1
0.8
1.0
735
761
779
778
14.72
0.08
0.10
0.08
2167
8
4
2
7.66
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.34
**
**
**
~" Represents less than 0.005 grains measured.
*** Represents less than 0.05 grains measured.
-------
-6-
Table 4 presents individual bag emission levels when using the
same GM methanol catalyst on the methanol-fueled Volkswagen Rabbit
vehicle. "Base" again refers to levels obtained without any
catalyst in the exhaust stream. "GM Cat. Only" represents emission
levels when using the GM catalyst in an underfloor location. The
last configuration with the VW Rabbit utilized the GM catalyst with
the same air assist as described previously.
Table 4
GM Methanol Catalyst Evaluation
Volkswagen Rabbit Methanol-Fueled Vehicle
Config.
HC
g
NOX
g
CO
g
CO,
g*
CH3OH
g
HCHO
mg
OMHCE
g
NMHC
g
BAG l:
Base
GM Cat.
Only
GM Cat.
+ Air
5.79
2.72
2.38
7.0
3.4
3.9
33.3
14.4
14.8
1058
1094
1100
16.45
8.04
6.90
1728
389
395
8.37
3.77
3.31
0.39
0.06
0.09
BAG 2:
Base
GM Cat.
Only
GM Cat.
+ Air
3.13
0.15
0.14
4.3
1.9
2.0
23.7
0.1
**
1156
1194
1203
8.42
0.04
0.02
1649
30
16
4.81
0.16
0.15
0.36
0.10
0.10
BAG 3:
Base
GM Cat.
Only
GM Cat.
-i- Air
2.99
0.05
0.05
7.4
3.2
3.3
18.7
0.5
0.4
933
966
970
8.30
0.06
0.04
1297
9
5
4.49
0.06
0.06
0.27
0.01
0.01
** Represents less than 0.05 grams measured.
Table 5 presents weighted composite emission levels obtained
over the FTP cycle with the Toyota vehicle using the same catalyst
configurations as described previously. All levels are in grams
per mile except for formaldehyde, which are in milligrams per mile.
-------
-7-
Table 5
GM Methanol Catalyst Evaluation
Toyota Corolla Methanol-Fueled Vehicle
Config.
Base
GM Cat.
Only
GM Cat.
+cc cat
GM Cat.
+cc cat
-i- Air
HC
g/mi
1.66
0.13
0.10
0.08
NOX
g/mi
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.3
CO
g/mi
5.7
1.0
1.1
1.0
CO2
g/mi
214
231
236
236
CH3OH
g/mi
4.79
0.38
0.29
0.24
ECHO
mg/mi
640
19
9
7
OMHCE
g/mi
2.47
0.18
0.14
0.11
NMHC
g/mi
0.12
**
**
**
** Represents less than 0.005 grams/mile measured.
Table 6 contains weighted composite FTP emission levels using
the VW Rabbit vehicle over the same catalyst configurations
described above.
Table 6
GM Methanol Catalyst Evaluation
Volkswagen Rabbit Methanol-Fueled Vehicle
Config.
Base
GM Cat.
Only
GM Cat.
+ Air
HC
g/mi
0.99
0.18
0.16
NOX
g/mi
1.5
0.7
0.7
CO
g/mi
6.5
0.9
0.9
C02
g/mi
288
298
299
CH3OH
g/mi
2.72
0.48
0.41
HCHO
mg/m
421
27
26
OMHCE
g/mi
1.48
0.25
0.21
NMHC
g/mi
0.09
0.02
0.02
All emission data values in Tables 1 through 6 were obtained
by averaging at least three individual test results. The catalysts
were fresh and tested right out of the box.
V.
Conclusions
Catalyst formaldehyde conversion efficiencies with the Nippon
Shokubai catalyst on a lean-calibrated methanol vehicle were quite
high and ranged from 86 to 98 percent in Bag 1, and 96 to 99
percent over the full FTP on all tests.
-------
-8-
Air assist to the Nippon Shokubai catalyst during cold start
had little effect in lowering emission levels and, in some
instances, increased the emissions of unburned fuel, CO, and
formaldehyde. Conversion efficiencies of these pollutants were
quite high over the FTP with or without air injection.
Emission results on tests with the Nippon Shokubai catalyst
without air injection varied considerably from the beginning to the
end of the test program. Formaldehyde emissions in particular
increased over 500 percent in Bag 1 of the FTP on tests without air
injection at the beginning of the test program, as compared to
similar tests run at the end of the test program.
The best catalyst formaldehyde conversion efficiencies with
the GM catalyst were obtained on tests with air injection and
catalyzed close coupled exhaust manifold catalysts. Bag 1 HCHO
conversion efficiencies ranged from 88 to 95 percent on the lean
calibrated Toyota Corolla and were 77 percent on the VW Rabbit with
and without air injection.
HCHO conversion efficiencies with the GM catalyst system were
higher on the lean calibrated Toyota Corolla than on the
stoichiometric calibrated VW Rabbit. It is not known whether this
is due to the relative air/fuel ratio calibration of the respective
vehicles, or the fact that engine-out emissions of the VW Rabbit
were considerably lower than those of the Toyota Corolla.
Though somewhat improved with air injection, the conversion
efficiencies of the GM catalyst were quite high with or without air
injection, particularly those of HC, HCHO, and CH3OH.
Tests with the GM catalyst and catalyzed close coupled
catalysts without air injection on the Toyota Corolla did not
improve conversion efficiencies over results of tests where the
manifold catalysts were uncatalyzed or where the GM catalyst was
tested in combination with catalyzed close coupled catalysts and
air injection.
Both catalyst systems are highly selective and active for
conversion of formaldehyde emissions. Conversion efficiencies of
hydrocarbons, CO, and methanol are also significant. Carbon
dioxide emissions increase slightly, between 3 and 10 percent, over
engine-out levels with both catalyst systems.
The lowest levels of formaldehyde with the Nippon Shokubai
catalyst on the Toyota Corolla were obtained with an air injection
rate of 4.2 cfm. HCHO conversion efficiencies of similar quality
were obtained with only 2.0 cfm of air injected, but were degraded
significantly with 6.0 cfm of air injection.
-------
-9-
VI. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the cooperative efforts of the
Nippon Shokubai and General Motors Corporations for supplying the
methanol catalysts for evaluation.
The authors also thank technicians Jim Garvey, Bob Moss, and
Ray Ouillette for assisting with the test program.
VII. References
1. "Test Plan for Evaluation of Nippon Shokubai Methanol
Catalysts," Piotrowski, Gregory P. and Ronald M. Schaefer,
memorandum to Charles L. Gray, Jr., EPA/OAR/OMS/RPT/TDG, September
24, 1992.
2. "Test Plan for Evaluation of GM Production Catalyst for
Methanol Vehicle Application," Piotrowski, Gregory P. and Ronald M.
Schaefer, memorandum to Charles L. Gray, Jr., EPA/OAR/OMS/RPT/TDG,
February 11, 1993.
3. Platinum Metals Review. 36:(1), "Exhaust Purification
Catalysts for Alcohol Fueled Engines," patent abstract of Nippon
Shokubai Kagaku, January 1992.
4. "Start Catalyst Systems Employing Heated Catalyst
Technology for Control of Emissions from Methanol-Fuelled
Vehicles," Hellman, Karl H., Gregory K. Piotrowski, and Ronald M.
Schaefer, U.S. EPA, SAE Paper 930382, International Congress and
Exposition, Detroit, Michigan, March 1-5, 1993.
-------
Appendixes
-------
A-l
APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTION OF SECOND-GENERATION
TOYOTA LCS-M PROTOTYPE VEHICLE
Engine:
General
Compression ratio
Fuel metering
Ignition
Combustion Chamber
Bore x Stroke (mm)
Idle Speed
Spark Timing Control
Fuel
Exhaust Gas Recirculation
Vehicle:
Base vehicle
Test weight
Test HP
Transmission
Gear ratio
L4, 4A-FE engine, 1.6-liter,
dual overhead cam design
11.0:1
D-Jetronic sequential port fuel
injection
W27ESR-U Nippondenso spark plugs
Compact pent roof design
81 x 77
700 rpm, 10° BTDC ignition
timing at idle
Electronic spark advance
M100 or M85 (Toyota provided
different calibrations for each
fuel)
EGR used
1988 Corolla sedan
2,750 Ibs
8.9 hp
5-speed manual transmission,
shifting schedule 15-25-40-45
MPH
1st 3.545
2nd 1.904
3rd 1.233
4th 0.885
5th 0.725
-------
A-2
APPENDIX A (CONT'D)
DESCRIPTION OF SECOND-GENERATION
TOYOTA LCS-M PROTOTYPE VEHICLE
Differential Ratio
Tire Size
Catalytic Converter System
Other Modifications Made:
Engine Oil
Fuel Tank, Inlet, Delivery
Pipes
Intake Valves
Exhaust Valves
Fuel Injectors
Fuel Lines
Fuel Hose
Fuel Pump
3.722
155SR13
0.71-liter Pt:Rh (manifold
close coupled) 0.51-liter Pd
(underfloor)
Multiweight oil specially
formulated for use with methanol
Nickel/phosphorus plated
Martensitic steel with
stelliting
Austenitic steel with stelliting
Modified to accommodate greater
flowrate of methanol
Nickel plated
NBR modified
In-tank fuel pump body nickel
plated
-------
1-1
Test Vehicle Description*
A.
ngsrKIPTlDN
1981 Volkswagen Babbit "L" 4-Ooor Sedan - Model 177243
VII 1VWF80175BV012728 Engr. Car * 1285
Automatic transmission, air conditioning, 155 80R13 tires, radio and cloth
interior. (A vehicle with Vinyl "leatherette" interior was not available at time
prototype was built. This may have a small influence on evaporative losses, but
this will be negligible once the "new car" background level deteriorates.)
COMPARISON OF PRODUCTION vs. MBTHANQL POMERTRAIN AND FUEL SYSTEM
ITEM
1980 PRODUCTION
METHANCL VEHICLE
Basic Engine
o Type
o Displacement
o Bore
o Stroke
o Compression Ratio
o Valvetrain
o Bated Power
o Bated Torque
o Other
- 827
- 1.6 liter (1588cc)
- 3.13 inches
• 3.15 inches
- 8.2:1
- Overhead camshaft
• 76 HP SAE net S 5500 RPM
- 82.7 Ft. Ibs. SAE net
@ 3200 BPM
Euel System - Bosch CIS fuel Injection with
Lambda feedback control.
827
1.6 liter (1588cc)
3.13 inches
3.15 inches
12.5:1 (new pistons)
Overhead camshaft
Not measured
Mat measured
GTI basic engine
European high
performance engine to
withstand higher loads
- U.S. cylinder head.
Sane as Production with
calibration for Mathanol
operation.
*Keproduced from Reference 2.
-------
Fuel System (Continued)
o Fuel Pump
Pump Life
Other
o Accumulator
Maxinun holding
pressure
o Fuel Filter
o Fuel Distributor
System pressure
Calibration
Other
o Air sensor
o Fuel Injectors
o Gold Start Injector
Quantity
Function
1-2
1980 PRODUCTION
- Life of Vehicle
- 2.5 Bar
4.6 - 4.8 bar
Optimized for gasoline
Ona
On for start only.
MEXHANOL VEHICLE
6 months to 1 year due
to corrosiveness of
Methanol.
Unproved insulation on
wiring exposed to fuel.
3.0 bar (due to fuel
difference) .
Bonding glue changed
for fuel compatability.
valve
Che way check
deleted (
with fuel).
5.0 - 5.3 bar
Optimized for Methanol.
Material changes for
fuel compatability.
Modified airflow char-
ter istics.
Material change for
fuel compatability.
Plastic screen replaced
by metal screen.
- TVo
Cold start valves pulse
for 8 seconds oeyond
start mode, below zero
degrees centigrade.
-------
1-3
J.JJH 1980 PRODUCTION METHANOL VEHICLE
Rael System (Continued)
Other - ~ Calibration changed for
Methanol.
- Material changed for
fuel '-X^'ujft^tf^M 1 ity •
o EUei Injection Wiring - - Modified for cold start
pulse function and to
accomodate relays and
thermo switch.
o Air Conditioner
Idle load Compensation
- ignition distributor - flirottle body idle air
vacuum advance controlled. flow bypass system
controlled. (Same as
1982 Production)
o Idle Setting - Specific to Methanol
calibration
PCV - PCV Valve with calibrated - PCV valve with
plunger and calibrated calibrated plunger -
orifice. no orifice.
IGNITION
o Distributor - Transistor high energy - Slightly reduced maximum
with hall effect and centrifugal advance and
digital idle speed control slightly modified vacuum
through spark advance. advance/retard char-
acteristics.
o Spark Plugs - Bosch W175T30 - Bosch W260T2-Colder
OIL COOLING - None - Heat exchanged from
engine oil to cooling
water for high loads
only (e.g. trailer
nauling) not
anticipated to be
needed in normal
operation.
-------
TRANSMISSION
o Torque Converter Ratio
o Stall Speed
o Gear Katios
1
2
3
Axle
FUEL TANK
o Material
o Coating
o Seams & Fittings
o Cap -
ETJEL
1-4
- Automatic 3-Speed
- 2.44
• 1900-2200 RFM
- 2.55
- 1.45
- 1.00
- 3.76
- Steel
- Ternepiate
- Soldered
- Non-locking
- unleaded gasoline
Automatic 3-Speed (1981
Production Transmission)
2.44
2000-2200 RFM
- 2.55
- 1.45
- 1.00
- 3.57
- (European)
- Steel
- Phosphated . steel,
exterior painted
- Brazed
- eUropean neck and
locking cap
- Methanol with 5.5%
Isopentane
*
I
1
1
I
1
I
-------
B-l
Catalyst Formulations
Nippon Shokubai Kagaku:
Japanese Appls. 3/72,949-50
Catalysts for purifying exhaust gas from internal combustion
engines using alcohol as a fuel consist of a 3-dimensional
structure coated with a catalyst composition containing: (a) 0.5-
4.0 g of Pt, Pd or Rh and 1.0-20 g of Ag on stable Ce oxide (50-200
g) containing at least Mg, Ba, Ca, Sr or Y; or (b) 0.5-1.5 g/1 Pd
and 5-10 g/1 Ag on A12O3 (80-150 g/1) containing at least one oxide
of Ti, Si, and Zr. The catalysts decompose CO, CH3OH and HCHO in
the exhaust gas at low temperature, and catalyst (a) shows improved
heat stability of the Ce oxide.
According to Nippon Shokubai, the catalyst specifications are:
Size Volume Active Material
Front Catalyst
Rear Catalyst
105 mm dia. 1.0 L
114 mm long
105.7 mm dia. 1.0 L
114 mm long
1.5 g 5/1 Pt/Rh
Base Metal
General Motors Corporation:
The GM catalyst was a production unit for the flexible-fueled
Chevrolet Lumina equipped with a 3.1-liter engine. Two monolithic
elements were canned in the same shell. The first monolith was
coated with Palladium only, and the second element was coated with
a Platinum/Rhodium mixture. Additional catalyst specifications
were provided by GM and presented below.
Front Catalyst
Rear Catalyst
Size
169.67 mm by
80.77 mm oval
117.5 mm long
169.67 mm by
80.77 mm oval
117.5 mm long
Volume Active Material
1.6 L 3.88 g Pd Only
1.6 L 1.53 g 6/1 Pt/Rh
------- |