-------
EPA 460/3-83-005
OPTIMUM ENGINE FOR METHANOL UTILIZATION
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Mobile Sources
Emission Control Technology Division
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
APRIL 1983
RIG1RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
-------
RI0RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency
by Ricardo Consulting Engineers, Bridge Works, Shoreham-by-Sea, Sussex.
BHk 5FG England, in fulfilment of contract 68-03-16^7. The contents of
this report are produced herein as received from Ricardo Consulting
Engineers. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those
of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an
endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA 460/3-83-005
-------
RK2RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SUMMARY
The purpose of this project was to investigate the potential
performance of a Ricardo HRCC (high compression ratio, compact chamber)
combustion system when fuelled with methanol. The basic engine used for
this work was a production 1.5 litre Volkswagen gasoline unit, the combustion
system of which was converted to HRCC form with a compression ratio of 13:1.
Baseline tests were made using 98 RON gasoline. The results indicated
that engine performance was generally similar to that of other HRCC engines
developed by Ricardo; thermal efficiency at part load being approximately
10% better than that of current conventional gasoline engines of similar
displacement. The octane requirement was significantly less than that of
conventional gasoline engines at the same compression ratio.
The engine was converted to methanol operation by fitting an
appropriate carburettor and inlet manifold. Work was then carried out to
optimize the performance, especially with respect to fuel economy and
exhaust emissions when using this fuel. The ignition distributor was
modified to provide automatic spark timing control and an effective EGR
system was developed. With the methanol proof carburettor used in this
exercise - a relatively simple, single barrel, device - it proved to be
impossible to achieve optimum mixture settings over much of the engine's
operating range. Despite this, the prototype engine in its final build form
was free of detonation and pre-ignition and appeared likely to provide
good vehicle driveabi1ity, moderately low exhaust emissions and reasonable
fuel economy when operated on methanol. Using a computer simulation
program the predicted 'engine-out' exhaust emissions and fuel consumption
over the 1975 Federal Test Procedure of a 2375 1 b passenger car powered by
the engine were:
HC - 1.35 g/mile
NOx - 0-98 g/mile
CO - 1.75 g/mile
Fuel Consumption - 1^.7 miles/US gallon (methanol)
- 30.3 miles/US gallon (gasoline equivalent)
Considerable improvements in all aspects of engine performance could,
most probably, be achieved with the aid of a more sophisticated, twin
barrel, carburettor.
-------
RKaRDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. THE HRCC ENGINE
2.1 Genera]
2.2 Engine Characteristics
3- CHARACTERISTICS OF METHANOL FUEL
4. TEST EQUIPMENT AND DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 Test Bed Installation and Instrumentation
4.2 Test Fuels
4.3 General Data Processing
4.4 Vehicle Simulation Work
5. ENGINE DEVELOPMENT
5.1 Baseline Tests with Gasoline
5.2 Conversion to Methanol Operation
5-3 Full Load Performance
5.4 Knock and Preignition Characteristics
5-5 Part Load Mixture Loops
5.6 Cylinder to Cylinder Mixture Distribution
5-7 Performance Mapping with Best Economy Mixture Strength
and Ign it ion Timing
5.8 Performance Mapping at 0.8 Equivalence Ratio
5-9 EGR System Development
5.10 Optimisation of Ignition Timing Settings
5.11 Mixture Strength Adjustments
5.12 Fuel Economy and Emissions with Automatic Control of
Operating Parameters
5.13 Engine Starting Characteristics
5.14 Idle Operation
5.15 Engine Performance in Final Build
5-16 Aldehyde Emissions
5.17 General Engine Condition
6. SUMMARY OF ENGINE DEVELOPMENT WORK
7. CONCLUSIONS
8. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK
9. REFERENCES
APPENDIX
-------
RK3RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
LIST OF TABLES
1. Fuel Specification - ^-Star Petrol
2. Fuel Specification - Methanol
3. Predicted FTP Results
-------
RK2RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Ricardo Multi-Cylinder HRCC
2. Ricardo Multi-Cylinder HRCC Inlet Port Design
3. HRCC Cylinder Head
4. Full Load Power Curve (98 RON Gasoline)
r n ii n ii ii ii M
ฃ ii n it n M 11 ii
7- Octane Requirement Tests
8. Mixture Loop at 20 rev/s, 1.5 bar (98 RON Gasoline)
Q II II I I I I II II II I I I I II
1 Q n n 11 ii n ii ii 11 11 n
11. " " " 40 rev/s, 2.5 bar " " "
12 '' " n 11 n n n n n n
-) O II II II II II II II II II II
14. " " " 40 rev/s, 5-5 bar
i r ii n n ii n II ii 11 11 n
i ฃ II n 11 11 n II ii 11 11 n
17. " " " 60 rev/s, 4.0 bar " " "
1 Q II II I I I I II II II I I II II
in n n 11 11 n n n 11 11 n
20. Full Load Power Curve - Methanol
o -j II II II II II
00 II II II II II
23. Firing Plug lonisation System
24. Examples of Traces Obtained from Preignition Detection System
25. Knock and Preignition Characteristics with Methanol Fuel
26. Mixture Loop at 20 rev/s, 1.5 bar - Methanol
07 n ii 11 n M n ii n
o o n M 11 n n n n n
29. " " " 40 rev/s, 2.5 bar
or> II II II II II II II II
o -I II II II II II II II II
32. " " " 40 rev/s, 5-5 bar
-3 > n n 11 n n n n n
-*L II II I I I I II II II II
35. " " " 60 rev/s, 4.0 bar
oฃ II II I I I I II II II II
-,-, II II II II II II II II
38. Mixture Distribution - Methanol
39- BSFC Contours best economy mixture strength and ignition timing
40. Brake Thermal Efficiency Contours best economy mixture strength and
ign it ion timing
41. NOX Emissions Contours best economy mixture strength and ignition timing
42. HC Emissions Contours " " " " " " "
L o f Q II II II II II II II II II
44. Production VW 1.6 1 Engine Brake Thermal Efficiency Map
45. " Specific Nox Map
46. " " HC Map
-------
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
List of Figures (Cont'd)
kj . BSFC Contours - equivalence ratio - 0.8 optimum ignition
48. Brake Thermal Efficiency Contours - equivalence ratio - 0.8 optimum
igni t ion
49. NOx Emissions Contours - equivalence ratio - 0.8 optimum ignition
50. HC Emissions Contours - " " " " "
51. CO Emissions Contours -
52. EGR Circuit
53- Effect of EGR at 40 rev/s, 2.5 bar
5^. Auto EGR Schedule
55. Distributor Characteristics
56. Auto Ignition Timing Schedule
57. Equivalence Ratio Contours with Auto Carburettor Settings
58. BSFC Contours - auto fuelling (lean), auto ignition, auto EGR
59. Brake Thermal Efficiency Contours - auto fuelling (lean), auto ignition,
auto EGR
60. NOx Emissions Contours - auto fuelling (lean), auto ignition, auto EGR
f. 1 UP II II _ II II II 'I " I I I I
/ n pQ || || II II II II II II I I
63. Installation of Inlet Heater Grid
64. Test Bed Starting Characteristics with Methanol Fuel
65. Idle Tests - Mixture Loop
66. " " " "
L-l II II II II
68. " " - Ignition Swing
M M >' II
-in II M II II
71. Fuel Consumption and HC Emissions at Idle
72. Equivalence Ratio Contours - Final Build
73. Full Load Power Curve - " "
JL II II II II II II
-ir n II II it II II
76. Position of Inlet Manifold Sample Probe
77. BSFC Contours - Final Build
78. Brake Thermal Efficiency - Final Build
79. NOx Emissions - Final Build
80. HC Emissions - " "
81. CO Emissions -
82. Aldehyde Emissions
-------
RK2RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
1. INTRODUCTION
In the future, supplies of conventional, petroleum based, fuels for
road vehicles are likely to be less readily available and considerably
more expensive than at present. The potential of many alternative energy
sources to supplement or, in some vehicle applications, to entirely replace
conventional fuels has been evaluated by numerous investigators and the
relative merits of many of the possible alternative fuels are now quite
well understood. Methanol has various characteristics which are desirable
attributes of future alternative fuels - it can be produced from a variety
of raw materials (some of which are renewable), production technology
already exists, the fuel is in liquid form which facilitates storage,
transportation and handling and its energy density is moderately high which
provides an extensive vehicle range for a quite modest weight of fuel.
Of the properties of methanol which specifically relate to its
suitability as a fuel for conventional light duty engines, its poor self
ignition characteristics - low cetane number - ensures that it cannot
be easily utilised in diesel units. Conversely its high octane quality
implies fairly ready application in spark ignited engines. The octane
number of methanol is significantly higher than that of current motor
gasoline so that it lends itself for use in engines having relatively
high compression ratios with inherent thermal efficiency advantages over
current gasoline engines. Methanol also has good lean burn properties,
so offering further advantages in terms of thermal efficiency and low
exhaust emissions when employed in a spark ignited engine.
In recent years several research organisations have worked on the
development of engine concepts capable of successfully utilising high
compression ratios. The Ricardo HRCC (high compression ratio, compact
combustion chamber) engine is one example of this approach which by careful
design of the combustion chamber permits the use of a high compression
ratio (with a relatively low fuel octane requirement) together with an
ability to successfully utilise lean mixtures or tolerate high levels of
EGR - important attributes with regard to both fuel economy and exhaust
emi ss ions.
Considerations of the major performance characteristics of the HRCC
combustion system and some of the properties of methanol fuel (high octane
quality and good lean burn characteristics) suggested that they complemented
each other to a large extent. It therefore appeared that an HRCC unit was
a promising basis for the development of an optimum engine for methanol
utilisation. In order to confirm this theory a practical engine test
programme aimed at investigating the potential performance, fuel economy
and exhaust emissions of an HRCC engine when fuelled with methanol was
considered, by EPA, to be necessary. As originally envisaged this project
was to involve work by Ricardo in four main stages:-
-1-
-------
RK3RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
i) Production of an HRCC engine based on a standard Volkswagen gasoline
un i t.
ii) Test bed development of the HRCC engine, including modification and
appraisal of any components or systems necessary for successful
methanol utilisation.
iii) Installation of the developed engine in a passenger car, together^
with necessary modifications to the vehicle's fuel system to permit
methanol fuel 1 ing.
iv) Final calibration of engine fuelling, ignition timing and scheduling
of any necessary emission control systems in order to produce an
engine build fully optimised for methanol utilisation and meeting
target exhaust emission levelsover the 1975 Federal Test Procedure
of 0.2/1.8/0.8 g/mile HC/CO/NOx respectively.
Due to budget cutbacks within EPA the contract eventually awarded
to Ricardo covered only the first two stages of the total work programme
outlined above, vehicle installation and final engine calibration,
including provision of an exhaust oxidation catalyst would be performed,
1 in-house1 by EPA.
2. THE HRCC ENGINE
2.1 General
The Ricardo HRCC gasoline combustion system has been the subject of
considerable research and development work over a number of years (1~5)".
This work culminated in the derivation of general guidelines for the design
of combustion chambers capable of operating at compression ratios of 1 to 2.5
numbers higher than conventional combustion chambers, when using fuel of
equal octane quality, resulting in economy improvements of the order of
5%. The HRCC arrangement was also found to permit utilisation of leaner
air/fuel mixtures than was possible with conventional combustion chambers
while still maintaining an adequate safety margin from the misfire limit
and consequent vehicle driveability problems; this yielded further fuel
economy improvements, making a total of the order of 10%. Furthermore
it was found that increases in brake mean effective pressure (BMEF)of
5-10% over much of the engine's speed range were generally achieved with
HRCC combustion systems.
The ability of HRCC engines to operate well with lean air/fuel
mixtures ensured that NOx and CO emissions were relatively low. HC emissions
were somewhat increased over those produced by well developed conventional
"Numbers in parentheses indicate references listed in section 9-
-2-
-------
RK2RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
combustion chambers operating at a lower compression ratio but were
nevertheless maintained at a reasonable level.
Most of the initial HRCC investigations were carried out using single
cylinder research engines. Later the experience gained with the single
cylinder units was applied in a Ricardo research exercise to the design
of an HRCC version of a production 1.5L, four cylinder, Volkswagen engine.
After a short development programme this engine was installed in a passenger
car in which application it exhibited good performance, fuel economy and
exhaust emission characteristics when operating on 97 RON gasoline (6).
As a basis for the production of an optimum engine for methanol
utilisation a unit identical to the original HRCC version of the 1.5L
Volkswagen engine used in Ricardo1s research work was employed.
2.2 Engine Characteristics
The basic Volkswagen engine used in this exercise had the following
main characteristics.
Cyli nders b, i n-1ine
Bore Diameter 79-5 mm
Stroke 73.^ mm
Displacement 1.^57 litres
Compression Ratio 8.2:1
Cylinder Block cast iron with integral cylinder bores
Cylinder Head aluminium with uni-sided inlet and
exhaust ports
Combustion Chambers bath tub type in cylinder head
Valve Gear 1 inlet and 1 exhaust per cylinder,
vertically in-line, driven directly
by an overhead camshaft
Inlet Valve Inner Seat Dia 30.5 mm
Exhaust Valve Inner Seat Dia 29-5 mm
Carburettor Twin barrel Zenith type 2B5
Ignition System conventional coil with mechanically
driven distributor having speed and
load advance
In order to convert the engine to HRCC form, several new components
were required. Of these the major item was the cylinder head which
incorporated the HRCC combustion chambers. The main features of the
combustion chamber are indicated on Fig. 1, it was of compact design and
was situated under the exhaust valve, its aspect ratio - maximum length
divided by its depth - was 3-8. The introduction of the HRCC combustion
system involved some changes to other features of the cylinder head compared
to those of the production unit. Spark plug location was slightly different
and the vertical positions of the inlet and exhaust valves were changed.
-3-
-------
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Lowering the inlet valves permitted introduction of revised inlet ports,
as shown on Fig. 2, which had better flow characteristics than did the
inlet ports in the production cylinder head. Most of the external features
of the cylinder head, including the disposition of manifold mounting flanges
and the location of the camshaft, were identical to those of the production
unit. A photograph of the lower face of the cylinder head is shown in
Fig. 3-
Modified pistons were fitted to the HRCC engine, These were of
basically similar design to the production components, having flat crowns,
but the compression height was increased to give a nominal piston/head
clearance of \% of the stroke and the disposition of the rings was changed
in order to reduce the height of the top land and increase the height of
the second land. With the revised cylinder head and pistons the engine's
compression ratio was 13:1-
A camshaft producing valve events differing from those of the
production unit was fitted to the HRCC engine. Experience with the similar,
gasoline fuelled, Ricardo research engine had indicated that the revised
camshaft produced higher BMEP at low speeds than the production unit without
compromising other aspects of performance. The valve events provided by
this camshaft were:-
Inlet Exhaust
Valve Opens 8ฐ BTDC 51ฐ BBDC
Closes 52ฐ ABDC 9ฐ ATDC
Maximum Lift 9-3 mm 9-3 mm
EPA had requested that a Delco-Remy high energy ignition system be
fitted to the engine. This employed an integral coi1/distributor unit of
rather large dimensions which was impossible to fit directly in the place
of the standard Bosch distributor located on the side of the cylinder
block. The original distributor drive was therefore extended upwards to
the Delco-Remy unit which was positioned alongside the top of the cylinder
head. In order to avoid possible problems of seizure of the bearings in
the distributor drive line a small oil reservoir providing a drip feed was
incorporated.
In order to achieve the target HC and CO emission levels of 0.2 and
1.8 g/mile respectively over the LA4 test cycle it was recognised that it
would be necessary during the final vehicle calibration to employ an exhaust
oxidation catalyst and secondary air system. In order to facilitate this
a production Volkswagen air pump, driven from the nose of the crankshaft
by a vee belt, was installed on the engine. These modifications (head,
pistons, camshaft, distributor) were used for all testing of the engine
that is reported in this document.
-------
RIGRDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
For initial testwork, during which gasoline fuel was employed, the
HRCC engine was fitted with the production inlet manifold and twin barrel
carburettor. The latter had fuel and air metering jets, etc, which had
been found during development of the Ricardo research HRCC engine to provide
optimum performance. For testwork with methanol fuel a prototype inlet
manifold, supplied by Volkswagen, was used. Its internal shape was very
similar to that of the production gasoline unit but it incorporated a more
extensive engine coolant jacket in order to provide increased charge heating
to offset the relatively high latent heat of vaporisation of the methanol.
A prototype single barrel, Solex carburettor Type 3^ PIC (T)5 was employed
when operating with methanol, this had a special, methanol proof,, phosphate
coating on all of its surfaces to prevent chemical attack by the fuel. It
was anticipated that difficulties would be encountered in obtaining optimum
fuel/air mixture strength modulation over the engine's operating range
when using this relatively unsophisticated carburettor. Unfortunately,
at the outset of the project, this was the only methanol proof unit
available. A production Volkswagen air cleaner of 'pancake' form, directly
mounted on the carburettor was used.
A production exhaust manifold of k into 2 form was fitted to the
engine. For all testwork conducted by Ricardo production twin exhaust
downpipes approximately 0.5 m long coupled to a large bore test shop
exhaust system were employed.
During development a simple EGR system incorporating a conventional
vacuum operated flow control valve (Pierburg part no. 73195A) was fitted.
3. CHARACTERISTICS OF METHANOL FUEL
Several of the properties of methanol are particularly noteworthy
regarding its use as a fuel for spark ignited engines. It has a high
knock resistance; several different values of RON and MON are quoted in
the literature, the variation being mainly due to the difficulties involved
in applying a test procedure developed for use with relatively low octane,
wide boiling range, gasolines to high octane, single boiling point, methanol
which has a high latent heat of vaporisation. The high knock resistance
favours the use of high compression ratios.
A very significant adverse property of methanol, which affects its
use in engines, is its strong tendency to pre-ignite (7). Many earlier
investigations of methanol utilisation have encountered this problem. It
can be alleviated by attention to cooling of combustion chambers and by
employing an appropriate grade of spark plug, but has been found to be a
troublesome feature in some engine application exercises.
The calorific value on a weight basis of methanol is only kS% of
that of gasoline hence a considerably higher fuel flow is required at any
given engine operating condition. This implies the need for changes in
the fuel metering system where changing from gasoline to methanol operation.
-5-
-------
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
The density of methanol is higher than that of gasoline hence fuel
consumption on a volumetric basis is not as high as might be anticipated
by consideration only of its calorific value.
The high boiling point of methanol together with its high latent
heat of vaporisation are responsible for the poor cold starting characteristics
often associated with engines using this fuel. The most popular means of
overcoming this problem, cited in the literature, is by using either a fuel
additive which has a low boiling point, e.g. isopentane (8), or a
supplementary fuel, such as conventional gasoline, which is used only for
starting (9). Both of these approaches involve significant inconvenience
and/or complexity. A more desirable approach is the use of supplementary
heat applied to the ingoing charge which may assist charge vaporisation and
obviate the formation of ice in the intake system during conditions of high
ambient humidity.
Methanol has generally wider mixture strength combustion limits than
gasoline. This is largely due to the higher flame speeds which occur in
methanol/air mixtures (10). In conventional engines with fairly low
compression ratios the ability to operate with a leaner mixture strength
can produce some advantages in terms of fuel economy and regulated exhaust
emissions, particularly of NOx and CO.
Combustion temperatures of methanol/air mixtures are significantly
lower than those occurring in gasoline/air mixtures even when initial
mixture temperatures are equal (11). In practice the high latent heat of
vaporisation of methanol ensures that the temperature after compression
of a methanol/air mixture is considerably lower than that of an equivalent
gasoline/air mixture. Lower combustion temperatures favour lower heat
losses, hence producing higher thermal efficiency, and also inhibit the
production of NOx during the combustion process.
Combustion of methanol produces a greater number of moles of combustion
products than is the case with gasoline. The combustion equations for
stoichiometric air/fuel mixtures of the fuels are as follows:
For a typical gasol ine -
CH1.8 + K/t5 (ฐ2 + 3>77 N2>~* C02 + ฐ'9 H2ฐ + 1'45 (3'77 N2)
i.e. for every 6.92 moles of air consumed 7-37 moles of products are formed,
a ratio of 1.065.
For methanol -
CH^O + 1.5 (02 + 3-77 N2)-ป~C02 + 2H20 + 1.5 (3-77 N2)
i.e. for every 7-16 moles of air consumed 8.66 moles of product are formed,
a ratio of 1.209.
-6-
-------
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
The greater number of moles of product from methanol combustion
favours the production of a higher pressure in the cylinder, hence a greater
engine power output and the attainment of a higher thermal efficiency.
Methanol can chemically attack some of the materials commonly used
in engine fuel systems, notably the magnesium alloys often used in
carburettors. Such corrosion is a particular problem when water is also
present. Some polymers often used as sealing materials may also suffer
chemical degradation or be liable to swelling when in contact with methanol.
k. TEST EQUIPMENT AND DATA ANALYSIS
^.1 Test Bed Installation and Instrumentation
The engine was installed on a test bed and coupled to a Heenan and
Froude Mark I Dynamatic dynamometer (eddy current type). Instrumentation
was provided for the control and monitoring of lubricating oil and cooling
water temperatures; these were regulated to 80ฐC oil inlet/water outlet.
Inlet air temperature was measured at the carburettor inlet, hence for
tests where an air cleaner with temperature control was used the inlet
temperature was measured downstream of hot/cold air entry points. Exhaust
gas temperature was measured at a point about 200 mm downstream of the
junction of the twin downpipes. A gas sample probe was fitted at the same
location. Inlet manifold pressure was measured using an accurately
calibrated conventional pressure gauge (Bourdon tube type). Exhaust back
pressure was determined using a mercury manometer. Fuel flow was measured
with a Cussons gravimetric flow meter. Ignition timing was varied by means
of a linkage which permitted remote adjustment of the angular orientation
of the ignition unit; the resulting timing was measured with a Cussons
ignition timing meter. Variations in air/fuel mixture strength were produced
by changes to carburettor jets and by use of a Ricardo suck/blow device
which varied the pressure in the carburettor float chamber.
Samples of exhaust gas were analysed using Ricardo emissions trolleys.
During initial testwork using gasoline fuel the analysers employed were:-
CO, C02, NO - Analytical Developments NDIR
HC - Analysis Automation FID
Oo ~ Servomex paramagnetic type OA250
For engine operation on methanol another emissions trolley was
employed, this had the following analysers:-
CO, C02 " Analytical Developments NDIR
NOx - Thermoelectron Corp. Model 10 Chemi1uminescent Analyser
HC - Ratfisch RS5 FID fitted with a separate, heated,
(120ฐC) sample 1 ine
02 ~ Servomex paramagnetic type OA250
-7-
-------
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
The FID analysers used for HC measurements were calibrated using
propane. All HC measurements were then converted to a base of ppm carbon
before calculation of brake specific HC emissions. The brake specific HC
emissions were therefore directly comparable when operating with both
gasoline and methanol fuels although the low response (kQ%) of the FID to
methanol ensured that when this fuel was employed a significant proportion
of the total unburnt fuel emissions was not recorded. Towards the end of
the project some measurements were made of aldehyde emissions produced by
the engine when operating on methanol. For this work a sample of the
exhaust gas, drawn from the heated sample line was bubbled through two
bottles of pure methanol connected in series. The quantity of aldehydes
absorbed by the methanol (measured as formaldehyde) was determined by the
DNPH method (12).
k.2 Test Fuels
Most of Ricardo's previous work with HRCC engines has been conducted
using standard European 'super' gasoline, e.g. BS4040 'four star1 fuel,
having a minimum RON of 97. In order to ensure that the HRCC engine used
in the present exercise had broadly similar performance characteristics
to those of earlier examples of the engine some initial performance tests
were made using this gasoline fuel. Relevant fuel inspection data are
given in Table 1. The specification and other relevant data of the methanol
fuel used during this exercise are shown in Table 2.
4.3 General Data Processing
Raw test bed data were processed using a Ricardo 'in-house1 computer
program. This provided correction of full load performance measurements to
20ฐC, 760 mm Hg using the method described in DIN 70020. Brake specific
fuel consumptions and exhaust emissions were also calculated; BSNOX results
were corrected to 75grains/lb humidity using the EPA correction formula.
In order to facilitate comparison of data brake specific fuel consumptions,
when gasoline and methanol fuelled, were converted to brake thermal
efficiencies by using the appropriate calorific values of the fuels noted
in Tables 1 and 2.
Mixture strength air/fuel ratio, and hence equivalence ratio, was
calculated from emissions data using the Spindt equation (13) in the case
of gasoline fuelling. With methanol fuelling a method derived by
Brettschneider (14) was employed.
Volumetric efficiency and brake specific air consumption were
determined from measured fuel flows and the calculated air/fuel ratios.
Equivalence ratio defined as:- stoichiometric air/fuel ratio
actual air/fuel ratio
was used when considering all results in order to facilitate comparison
-8-
-------
RI0RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
of engine performance when operating with gasoline and methanol since these
fuels had widely different stoichiometric air/fuel ratios.
EGR rate was defined as the flow rate of recycled exhaust gas
divided by the total flow rate into the engine and was calculated as
follows:-
% EGR = Inlet C02 with EGR - Inlet C02 without EGR
x 100
Exhaust C02 with EGR
k.k Vehicle Simulation Work
Since the ultimate objective of the project was to produce a methanol
fuelled engine capable of providing good vehicle performance it was
considered important to assess the likely fuel economy and exhaust
emissions of a vehicle fitted with the engine. In order to provide
approximate predictions of these characteristics a Ricardo computer
simulation program (15) was employed.
The computer program used (CYSIM) is primarily designed to predict
the levels of exhaust emissions and fuel consumption to be expected from a
vehicle during operation over a prescribed velocity cycle (in this case
the 1975 FTP). Vehicle performance, in terms of acceleration times, can
also be predicted.
Essentially the program analyses the driving cycle and, from a
knowledge of vehicle characteristics, calculates the engine speed and BMEP
required to drive the vehicle over each velocity increment in turn. Knowing
these two parameters the levels of exhaust emissions and fuel consumption
are extracted from engine test bed performance maps which are represented
in the program input data by two dimensional numerical arrays.
The emissions data used as input to the simulation program and hence
the predicted results produced by it referred to 'engine-out' exhaust conditions,
The effects of any exhaust after treatment system, such as the oxidation
catalyst which was fitted to the engine exhaust system during the later
vehicle application tests to be conducted by EPA, were ignored.
It should be emphasised that the predicted results produced by the
simulation program are very approximate due to the use of several
simplifying assumptions which are incorporated in the program in order to
facilitate its use. The principal sources of errors are:-
i) The computer program produces simulated results of transient tests
using engine performance and emissions data derived under steady
state conditions, it is likely that under true transient operation
engine performance and emissions levels will show some variation from
predicted results.
-9-
-------
RIGRDQ
CONSULTING eNGIMEEHS
ii) All engine data used as input is nominally acquired at normal
operating temperatures. In actual 1975 FTP tests, the engine starts
from cold and hence its performance and emissions during the early
part of the test may be considerably different to what is predicted.
(These two points have been confirmed in previous work in which
simulation results were compared with measured data when some divergence,
especially in the case of HC emissions, has been observed).
It had been observed in previous exercises that the computer
predicted values of HC and CO emissions were generally lower than those
observed during actual vehicle tests, primarily due to the fact that the
effects of cold start mixture enrichment and the enrichment normally
occurring during transient manoeuvres in a real vehicle installation are
ignored in the simulation program.
For the vehicle simulation exercises the engine was assumed to be
installed in a Volkswagen Jetta passenger car. The main characteristics
of this vehicle were taken as:-
Weight 1020
Transmission manual, k speed
Ratios 1 234
3.45 1-94 1.29 0.97
Final Drive Ratio 3.9
Tyre rolling radius 0.26 m
Polar moment of inertia of:
o
engine and gearbox 0.18 Kg.m
driving wheels 1.81 Kg.m^
Inertia weight and road load settings specified in the Federal
Register (vol. 42, no. 124, 28th June 1977) for a passenger car weighing
1020 Kg were used.
5. ENGINE DEVELOPMENT
5.1 Baseline Tests with Gasoline
Ricardo have considerable previous experience of operating a 1.5 litre
HRCC version of the Volkswagen engine on 97 RON gasoline. It was therefore
decided to first carry out some baseline performance tests on the EPA
HRCC engine using this gasoline fuel and with the same engine build as had
been employed in previous exercises. Comparison of the results of these
tests with those obtained from previous engineswould provide assurance that
the performance of the EPA engine was typical of other HRCC units; the
-10-
-------
RIG1RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
results would also provide a baseline from which the performance exhibited
when methanol fuelled could be assessed. For these tests the engine was
therefore fitted with a production inlet manifold and twin barrel carburettor
having chokes, metering jets, etc. which had been found previously to provide
good full load performance throughout the speed range.
After an initial 20 hour break-in period during which speed and load
were progressively increased the engine was operated at a variety of speeds
and 1oads for approximately 30 hours in an attempt to achieve stable engine
friction levels and a representative level of combustion chamber deposits.
Following this the full load performance was measured over the speed range
from 20 to 90 rev/s.
The results produced by the engine in this build are plotted on
Figs. 4-6; also shown, for comparison, are the results of an earlier test
made on a similar HRCC engine with identical operating conditions. (The
data used to plot these and subsequent graphs is given in tabular form in
the Appendix to this report). A moderately high level of BMEP was
achieved throughout the speed range, this could be largely attributed to
the excellent volumetric efficiency of the engine brought about by the use
of free-flowing inlet ports, the absence of an air cleaner and the
presence of a negligible level of exhaust back pressure. The engine
performance compared quite well in most respects to that of the previously
tested HRCC engine. The BMEP was a little higher throughout the speed
range than had been previously observed but the shape of the curve was almost
identical. At low-mid speeds the increase in BMEP was probably caused by
the higher volumetric efficiency which in turn may have been caused by
slight differences in inlet port shape, valve timings, etc. between the
two nominally identical engines. The mixture strength supplied by the
carburettor was generally a little leaner than had been observed in the
previous exercise, at 30 rev/s the carburettor produced an over-rich mixture
probably due to peculiar pressure pulsations within the intake system at
that particular speed.
Ignition timings of the two engines were quite similar, the timings
of the EPA engine being a little less advanced at all speeds above 20 rev/s.
With both engines MBT (minimum advance for best torque) timings were used
where possible. Despite the use of 98 RON gasoline both engines were knock
limited over much of the speed range. The difference in knock limited
ignition advance between the two engines was partly due to the differences
in mixture strength, richer mixtures producing greater internal engine
cooling and so enabling more advance before knock was encountered, this
trade-off is well illustrated by the mixture strength/ignition timing
results at 30 rev/s (fig. 6).
The exhaust temperatures of the two engines differed by about 100ฐC.
This can be explained by the differences in engine output and mixture
strength and by the fact that the thermocouples used to measure the
temperatures were in slightly different positions in each case.
-11-
-------
CONSULTING EMQINEEHS
In order to obtain an indication of the octane requirement of the
engine some tests were made at full load at 30, 40 and 50 rev/s using b<[>th
the 98 RON gasoline employed for the power curve test and using 105 RON
avgas. With both fuels the mixture strengths used were those supplied
'automatically1 by the carburettor. Knock limited spark advance was
determined with both fuels, and, with avgas, the MBT timing was also ;
identified. The results are plotted on fig. 7 and indicate that the
engine's fuel octane requirement was circa 100-101 RON for the particular
test conditions, mixture strengths and fuels used. A broadly similar i
octane requirement has been demonstrated by other HRCC engine under similar
circumstances. It should be noted that other work conducted by Ricardo had
indicated that when using avgas in HRCC engines MBT timings are generally
some 2ฐ more advanced than those required when using motor gasoline. This
discrepancy may be attributable to the different formulation of the two
fuels.
Baseline tests using gasoline were also run at four selected speed/
load conditions - ;
20 rev/s, 1.5 bar BMEP 1
40 rev/s, 2.5 bar BMEP
40 rev/s, 5-5 bar BMEP I
60 rev/s, 4.0 bar BMEP
These conditions are frequently used by Ricardo as test points since
they cover the speed/load range commonly used by engines in light duty j
vehicles. At each test condition the mixture strength was varied in stages
from rich of stoichiometric to the lean limit of stable running. The j
results of these tests together with the results of similar tests run
previously on the identical Ricardo research HRCC engine are plotted on;
Figs. 8-19.
I
The results produced by the two engines were broadly similar. At
all test conditions the optimum brake thermal efficiency produced by both
engines differed by a maximum of 0.7% in absolute terms or about 4% in
relative terms. These differences can be accounted for by probable small
variations in the engine builds e.g. in combustion chamber configurations,
valve events, inlet and exhaust tract configurations, bearing friction
levels, etc. It was apparent that the EPA engine produced maximum thermal
efficiency at mixture strengths somewhat leaner than those observed with the
Ricardo research engine. The lean limit of operation of the EPA enginejwas
also at rather lower equivalence ratios (.59 or 24.7:1 air/fuel ratio at
40 rev/s, 2.5 bar and 60 rev/s, 4.0 bar). This extension of the lean l|mit
may have been due to small differences in in-cyl inder turbulence levels
caused by small changes in valve events, squish clearances etc. or by addition
of the high energy Delco ignition system.
The exhaust emissions of the EPA engine also showed some differences.
HC emissions were generally slightly higher than those produced by the
-12-
-------
RIORDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Ricardo research engine. Again this may have been partly due to small
differences in in-cylinder combustion conditions but the main cause was
probably differences in exhaust sampling position which permitted less
oxidation of the exhaust gases in the time between their leaving the
cylinder and reaching the sample point. At 20 rev/s, 1.5 bar NOx emissions
were considerably higher from the EPA engine and displayed a different
variation with mixture strength to that observed on the earlier engine.
The cause of this was most probably particularly poor cylinder to cylinder
mixture distribution at this operating condition; this possibility was not
investigated since the object of the project was to develop a methanol
burning engine and not to perfect operation on gasoline.
5.2 Conversion to Methanol Operation
Following completion of the baseline tests with gasoline the engine
was converted to methanol build by fitting the appropriate intake manifold
and carburettor. As noted earlier the intake manifold was of very similar
form to the production gasoline unit but had a more extensive engine
coolant jacket in order to add more heat to the fuel/air charge and
therefore offset the effects of methanol's relatively high latent heat of
vaporisation. The methanol carburettor was a relatively simple single
barrel device having a protective phosphate coating on all surfaces liable
to come into contact with the fuel.
Initial tests using methanol were conducted with a thin (6 mm)
adaptor plate interposed between the carburettor and inlet manifold. The
plate was necessary since the opening into the manifold was of dimensions
suitable for the mounting of a twin barrel Solex carburettor while the
carburettor used (the only methanol proof unit available) was of single
barrel configuration. No air cleaner was employed during initial tests.
5.3 Full Load Performance
In order to assess the potential maximum performance of the engine
when methanol fuelled a full load test over the speed range was conducted
using optimised mixture strengths and ignition timings. The results are
plotted on Figs. 20-22 and may be compared with the results obtained with
gasoline shown on Figs. k-6.
BMEP was generally higher at low speeds and lower at high speeds than
was obtained with gasoline operation. Volumetric efficiency, with the
single choke carburettor, was rather low throughout the speed range and was
primarily responsible for the reduction in BMEP at high speeds. The engine
was knock free throughout the speed range; the ability to utilise MBT
ignition timings was mainly responsible for the relatively high BMEP achieved
at low-mid speeds. The reduction in BMEP at 20 rev/s relative to that
obtained with gasoline was probably mainly due to the especially poor
cylinder to cylinder mixture distribution at this condition (see later
-13-
-------
RK3RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
section 5.6 and Fig. 38). The differences in engine operating parameters,
e.g. volumetric efficiency levels and the use of MBT compared with knock
limited spark advance, conspired to ensure that the theoretical gain in
torque which might be anticipated when changing to methanol fuel (due to
the increased number of moles of combustion products - see section 3) was
not really obvious. Also the changes to the inlet system - different
carburettor and manifold tended to mask any gains in volumetric efficiency
which might have been caused by the charge cooling effects of the methanol
due to its high latent heat of vaporisation.
The achievement of MBT ignition timings even at low speeds reflected
the good anti-knock properties of methanol and the relatively modest
octane requirement of the HRCC combustion system even when operating at a
compression ratio of 13:1. The MBT timings with methanol at 30, 40 and
50 rev/s were 12, 15 and 18ฐ BTDC respectively, these timings were 3ฐ less
advanced than the MBT timings determined using avgas. Due to differences
in volumetric efficiency and mixture strength the full load ignition advance
requirements cannot be compared on a truly equivalent basis but this and
later part load results suggest that slightly less ignition advance was
required with methanol fuel than when using gasoline, reflecting the reduced
ignition delay and faster flame speed associated with this fuel.
The mixture strength at which best torque was obtained was generally
richer when using methanol than in the case of gasoline. This difference
can be largely attributed to the very poor cylinder to cylinder mixture
distribution produced by the methanol carburettor/inlet manifold.
Exhaust gas temperatures were lower when running on methanol. This
was a reflection of the generally lower combustion cycle temperatures caused
by the fact that the calorific value of methanol is less than half that
of gasoline and its latent heat of vaporisation is very much higher. Hence
twice as much fuel having considerably greater cooling potential was
employed in the case of methanol.
Over most of the speed range the engine's full load brake thermal
efficiency when either methanol or gasoline fuelled was approximately equal
at 28%. A somewhat higher thermal efficiency was achieved at 40 rev/s in
both cases due to the fact that a relatively lean mixture strength produced
best torque at this particular speed.
The brake specific air consumption (BSAC) when methanol fuelled was
very low - circa 3.4 Kg/kWH over much of the speed range. This was primarily
due to the achievement of good combustion efficiency which in turn was
brought about by the relatively low temperature combustion of methanol/
air mixtures. The low temperature implied less heat losses to the
combustion chamber walls, less dissociation and a more favourable ratio
of specific heats of the combustion products.
-14-
-------
RK21RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
5.k Knock and Pre-ignition Characteristics
The full load tests described earlier had indicated that when employing
the mixture strengths necessary for the production of maximum torque at
full load (WOT) the engine was knock free and MBT ignition timings could
be safely employed. It was considered desirable to establish the safety
margin available between the knock limited and MBT ignition timings
throughout the speed range. Also, since methanol was known to have a
strong tendency to pre-ignite it was considered essential to make some
investigations of the pre-ignition characteristics of the engine when
operating on this fuel.
In order to determine the onset of pre-ignition an established
Ricardo technique was employed, a similar approach was also used in other
work with alcohol fuels reported elsewhere (17). Essentially the spark
plugs in each cylinder were simultaneously employed in their normal role
as sources of ignition and also as ionisation gaps to indicate the passage
of a flame front. To do this the electrical circuit illustrated in Fig. 23
was attached to each plug and output traces from each circuit were displayed
on an oscilloscope. Examples of the oscilloscope traces observed in various
modes of engine operation are shown on Fig. 2k. Due to the use of a high
energy ignition system on the engine considerable interference between the
pre-ignition detection circuits was encountered, but extensive shielding of
the ignition system and careful interpretation of the oscilloscope traces
by the test operator enabled meaningful results to be obtained.
The major results of this exercise are indicated on Fig. 25. Using
Champion BN60Y spark plugs - the coldest grade readily available of the
type which would fit the engine - ignition timings at least 10ฐ more
advanced than MBT could be safety employed over most of the speed range.
At 80 and 90 rev/s stable autoignition was observed in no. 3 cylinder
at quite advanced timings - this appeared as virtually simultaneous
ignition of the cylinder charge by the hot insulator around the plug
centre electrode and by the normal spark. Unlike the case of true pre-
ignition the timing of autoignition did not advance during successive
engine cycles. Changing to a less cold plug grade - Champion BN6Y -
resulted in violent pre-ignition occurring in numbers 2 and 3 cylinders at
speeds of 50 rev/s and greater with very little advance of ignition
timing beyond MBT. Inspection of the engine components after the incidence
of pre-ignition revealed that the ceramic insulators around the spark plug
centre electrodes were damaged, suggesting that pre-ignition was initiated
at these points.
It was generally concluded from this work that when fitted with a
suitable grade of spark plugs and operated with an appropriate mixture
strength neither knock nor pre-ignition was likely to occur in the HRCC
engine when using methanol fuel.
-15-
-------
RK2RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
5.5 Part Load Mixture Loops
In order to provide a broad assessment of the performance of the
engine/fuel combination, at the operating conditions commonly encountered
in a vehicle application, tests were made at the same part load conditions
as had been used with gasoline fuelling. The results are plotted on
Figs. 26-37 together with the results of the earlier tests when gasoline
fuelled.
At three of the part load conditions methanol operation produced
relative gains in maximum brake thermal efficiency of 4-6% over the results
with gasoline fuel. These gains could be attributed to the effects of lower
combustion temperatures when using methanol and the preater number of moles
of combustion products per mole of fuel. At kO rev/s, 2.5 bar there was
very little difference in maximum thermal efficiency, there was no obvious
explanation for such a result at this test condition.
Particularly at the lower speed and load test condition, there was a
tendency for maximum thermal efficiency to occur at leaner mixture strengths
with methanol than with gasoline fuelling. At 20 rev/s, 1.5 bar there was
a marked extension of the lean limit of stable operation when using
methanol. Both of these trends were probably attributable to the higher
flame speeds normally associated with methanol combustion, this would
permit relatively good combustion with leaner mixtures where thermal
efficiency improvements should result.
NOx emissions were considerable lower (by about 60%) at any specific
speed/load/mixture strength condition than when gasoline fuelled. This
phenomenon was directly attributable to the lower combustion temperatures
which occurred when running on methanol, a fact confirmed by the considerably
lower exhaust gas temperatures in this case.
HC emissions, measured by a FID analyser equipped with a heated sample
line, were approximately half the level produced during gasoline operation.
The FID analyser was, of course, rather insensitive to emissions of methanol
(kQ% response) so that unlike in the case of gasoline operation total
unburnt fuel emissions were not directly recorded. Some tests were made
using an unheated sample line to the FID. In these circumstances most of
the methanol in the exhaust stream was condensed in the sample line and did
not reach the FID. These tests produced HC emission measurements some kQ%
lower than those obtained when using a heated sample line. It could be
concluded from this that the true total HC plus unburnt fuel emissions were
approximately 1.6 times the levels calculated directly from the FID readings.
All HC results in this report are based on FID measurements. No
correction factors are included for the FID response to methanol.
It was observed that, when methanol fuelled, HC emissions increased
gradually with mixture strengths leaner than about 0.9 equivalence ratio
whereas when gasoline fuelled the general level of HC emissions remained
-16-
-------
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
approximately constant until the lean limit of operation was quite closely
approached, when the emissions increased rapidly. This sudden, rapid,
increase commonly observed in gasoline engines can be accounted for by the
occurrence, with lean mixtures, of only partial combustion in the engine's
cylinders, the flame front being generally rather weak and slow moving and
quenching of the flame occurring before all the charge is consumed. The
gradual increase of HC emissions, even with fairly rich mixtures, when
methanol fuelled may have been caused by the low temperatures associated
with methanol combustion; these low temperatures probably produced larger
quantities of unburnt or partly burnt gas at the relatively cold surfaces
of the combustion chamber.
The ignition timing requirement when operating on methanol was
generally slightly less advanced than that for gasoline operation. Published
work (10, 16) based on other methanol utilisation exercises also notes a
similar trend but generally of a greater magnitude than the 2-3ฐ difference
observed in the present exercise. The reduced ignition advance can be
accounted for by the shorter ignition delay period and more rapid flame
speeds in methanol/air mixtures. In the HRCC engine the high compression
ratio and high level of in-cylinder turbulence ensures that even with
gasoline fuelling the combustion period is shorter and ignition advance
requirement is considerable less than in a conventional combustion chamber.
Hence it could be anticipated that the additional change brought about by
methanol fuelling would be relatively small.
5.6 Cylinder to Cylinder Mixture Distribution
In order to assess the cylinder to cylinder mixture distribution of
the engine when methanol fuelled, gas sample probes were fitted to the
exhaust manifold so that gas in each exhaust port could be sampled. With
this arrangement measurements of CO and Qฃ concentrations were made at some
full load and part load conditions. The results are recorded on Fig. 38.
At full load, mixture distribution was poor with a tendency for the
two middle engine cylinders (numbers 2 and 3) to be lean at low and mid
speeds. This kind of mixture imbalance is a fairly common phenomenon in
four cylinder in-line engines fitted with a single choke carburettor. At
part loads mixture distribution between the cylinders was quite uniform.
Since the poor full load mixture distribution did not appear to create
significant engine operational problems providing a sufficiently rich
overall mixture strength was employed, and since the resources dedicated
to this project were limited it was decided to make no direct attempts to
improve mixture distribution although observations made later (section 5-15)
showed that full load distribution was unwittingly improved as an adjunct
to other actions.
-17-
-------
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
5.7 Performance Mapping with Best Economy, Mixture Strength and Ignition
Timing
A review of the results of the part load mixture loop tests suggested
that operation on methanol at mixture strength equivalence ratios of about
0.7 should produce optimum fuel economy, very low NOx and CO emissions and
reasonable levels of HC. It was therefore decided to conduct a mapping
exercise over the part load operating range using this mixture strength
and optimum ignition timing. The results of this exercise, covering the
speed range 20-60 rev/s and BMEP's of 1.5-7.0 bar, are plotted on figs.
39-43.
At the higher* loads it was necessary to enrichen the mixture to about
0.8 equivalence ratio in order to obtain the required power output. The
brake thermal efficiency of the engine was high; being generally about 10%
better in relative terms than previous results obtained by Ricardo from a
gasoline fuelled production 1.61 version of the Volkswagen engine (compare
figs. 40 and 44). NOx emissions were exceptionally low - Figs. 41 and 45;
HC emissions were of the same general magnitude as those of the production
gasoline engine (Figs. 42 and 46) but showed some increase at light load/
low speed conditions.
In order to gain an approximate estimate of the likely fuel consumption
and exhaust emissions of a vehicle powered by the methanol fuelled engine
the steady state data derived from the mapping exercise was used in a
Ricardo computer simulation program.
The results of the simulation exercise are recorded in Table 3- As
anticipated, the fuel economy after making allowance for the low calorific
value of the methanol fuel, was fairly high, NOx emissions were exceedingly
low and HC emissions at 2.2 g/mile could probably have been reduced below
the currently permitted level, .41 g/mile, by application of an exhaust
oxidising catalyst. Although these results were interesting, since they
clearly indicated the potential of a methanol burning HRCC engine to produce
very low levels of NOx emissions and good fuel economy, it was recognised
that with the very simple methanol carburettor fitted to the engine the
control of fuelling so provided was insufficient to ensure acceptable vehicle
driveability at the lean mixture strengths used in the engine mapping
exercise. It was therefore decided to assess the fuel economy and exhaust
emissions levels of the engine when operating with rather richer mixtures.
5.9 Performance Happing at 0.8 Equivalence Ratio
Past experience with other gasoline fuelled HRCC engine had indicated
that good vehicle driveability could be achieved with part load air/fuel
ratios of about 18:1. It was therefore decided to aim for a similar mixture
strength (approximately 0.8 equivalence ratio) over much of the part load
range with the methanol fuelled engine.
-18-
-------
RI0RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
In order to assess the likely fuel economy and exhaust emissions of
the engine when operating at this equivalence ratio a further performance
mapping exercise was conducted. The resulting maps are shown on Figs.
47-51 and the predicted 1975 FTP results using these data are given in
Table 3.
With the richer mixture settings there was only a small decrease in
engine and vehicle fuel economy - confirming the trends of the earlier mixture
loops. However, significant changes occurred in NOx and HC emissions. NOx
emissions were 6 to 10 times greater at low speed/load conditions, HC emissions
were about 30% lower than those observed with the leaner mixture settings.
Both of these results followed the general trends displayed by the mixture
loops.
The predicted vehicle NOx emissions - 1.17 g/mile exceeded the original
target value of 0.8 g/mile by a substantial amount. It was therefore
apparent that in order to approach the target level while using a mixture
strength of 0.8 equivalence ratio at most part load operating conditions,
some additional means of NOx control was required.
The most conveniently available means of NOx control were use of
retarded ignition timings or application of EGR. Experience had shown that,
in the case of gasoline engines, attainment of worthwhile reductions in
NOx emissions by means of retarded ignition timings involve a considerable
trade-off in terms of increased fuel consumption. Use of moderate levels of
EGR could produce useful reductions in NOx, an insignificant change in
fuel consumption and a small increase in HC emissions. On balance it was
considered that application of EGR would be the best means of controlling
NOx emissions in the present exercise.
5.9 EGR System Development
To provide an initial assessment of the effects of EGR on the
performance of the engine a simple supply circuit was installed. This
circuit took exhaust gas from a point near the outlet of the exhaust
manifold and passed it through a conventional vacuum operated control valve
before adding it to the ingoing charge via a block sandwiched between the
carburettor and the inlet manifold. The arrangement of this circuit is
shown in Fig. 52. In order to determine the quantity of recirculated
exhaust gas a sample pipe of 8 mm diameter was fitted into the inlet
manifold directly below the carburettor. This permitted a sample of the
ingoing mixture to be taken so that C02 level could be measured and EGR
flow rate calculated.
For the first test the engine was operated at kO rev/s, 2.5 bar with
mixture strengths of 0.8 and 0.9 equivalence ratio. At each equivalence
ratio the EGR flow rate was increased in stages from 0 to approximately 10%
by progressively opening the control valve using a vacuum signal. The
-19-
-------
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
results of this test are shown on Fig. 53- It was apparent that EGR was
very effective in reducing NOx emissions - a 50% reduction occurring with
about 5% EGR. HC emissions increased by relatively little when using EGR
and thermal efficiency was slightly improved. It was therefore concluded
that use of EGR was an attractive means of controlling NOx emissions in this
case.
In order to produce automatic control of EGR flow it was necessary to
provide an appropriate vacuum signal to the EGR control valve. Measurements
were made of required vacuum signal to provide suitable quantities of EGR
at different engine operating conditions. Tests were then made to identify
an appropriate tapping point in the carburettor body, slightly above the
throttle butterfly, which would provide a vacuum signal approximating to
that required. It was noted during this work that, especially at higher
speed/load operating conditions, EGR flow rate was strongly influenced by
exhaust back pressure. An arbitrary level of exhaust back pressure -
200 mm Hg at 90 rev/s - was therefore set by fitting a restrictor in the
test bench exhaust system. This pressure was chosen as being representative
of the level found in vehicle installations of gasoline engines where
catalytic reactors were incorporated in the exhaust system.
With the EGR system functioning a mapping exercise was conducted
over the engine's operating range in order to determine the variations in
EGR flow rate. The results are shown on Fig. 5^. It was considered that
the EGR levels were broadly satisfactory with a maximum flow rate of about
10% and very low levels at low speeds/loads, where significant quantities
of EGR could adversely affect vehicle driveabi1ity, and at high loads
which would be little used during 1975 FTP tests and were therefore
relatively unimportant with regard to NOx level. Some further benefits
in terms of lower FTP NOx emissions could probably1'have been obtained by moving
the 'eye', of the map towards lower speeds, since during the FTP test with the
vehicle configuration assumed for the computer simulation work, a considerable
amount of the engine's operating time was spent in the speed range 30 to 50 rev/s,
5.10 Optimisation of Ignition Timing Settings
The high energy ignition system fitted to the engine incorporated a
distributor having conventional automatic centrifugal and vacuum operated
timing adjustment systems to provide spark advance with increasing engine
speed and decreasing load respectively. A short series of tests were made
to determine the 'as received' characteristics of these systems and also
to identify the optimum, MBT, ignition timing requirements at full load
and at part load when operating with a mixture strength of 0.8 equivalence
ratio and with the EGR flow rate shown on Fig. $k. Modifications were then
made to the distributor, including changes to the weights and springs
controlling the centrifugal (speed) advance and to the vacuum capsule
controlling the load advance, to obtain automatic timing characteristics
which quite closely matched the optimum requirements - see Figs. 55 and 56.
It was noted during the testwork that the optimum timing during low
-20-
-------
RldRDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
speed/full load operation (approximately 10ฐ BTDC at 20 rev/s WOT) was
considerably less advanced than that required at idle (20-25ฐ BTDC at
15 rev/s). This was due to the relatively rapid burn rate of the HRCC
engine at full load when compared with conventional gasoline engines. In
order to provide close to optimum timing at both conditions the vacuum
signal to the distributor advance mechanism was taken directly from the
inlet manifold rather than from a throttle edge tapping which is commonly
used on conventional gasoline engines.
5-11 Mixture Strength Adjustments
A considerable amount of time was spent attempting to obtain the
desired mixture strength conditions over the engine's operating range, i.e.
approximately 0.8 equivalence ratio at light and medium loads with
progressive enrichment to about 1.2 equivalence ratio at full load. As
noted earlier the carburettor employed was a simple, single barrel, fixed
choke device and had few means of mixture strength adjustment. After
numerous tests during which the effects of changes to the various fuel and
air metering jet sizes were comprehensively assessed it was concluded to be
impossible to obtain either the desired equivalence ratio (0.8) over a
significant portion of the part load operating range or the simultaneous
achievement of a rich mixture (1.2 equivalence ratio) at full load and a
lean mixture (circa 0.8) at part load conditions.
It appeared possible that fundamental modifications to the carburettor's
fuel metering circuits could have, at least partly, overcome these difficulties.
Only a single methanol proof carburettor was available and it was considered
that major modifications to it, involving replacement of 'cast-in' metering
jets and machining of new passages, incurred a substantial risk of
irreparably damaging the unit. Such work would also result in removing the
methanol proof phosphate coating from areas of the carburettor body, hence
permitting chemical degradation of the material. It was therefore decided
to retain the carburettor in its exist ing.basic form with jet sizes selected
to provide part load mixture strength as close as possible to that desired
and to add a supplementary fuel circuit, controlled by throttle position,
to enrichen the mixture at high load conditions.
This supplementary circuit comprised a small diameter tube taking
fuel from the base of the carburettor float chamber and delivering it to
the inlet tract below the throttle butterfly valve. A conventional jet
was incorporated in the circuit to provide a means of modulating fuel
flow rate and a methanol proof solenoid valve, activated by a micro switch
on the throttle linkage, was used to provide on/off control at close to
wide open throttle.
It was recognised that the mixture strength 'tune' resulting from
this approach was far from ideal but it was considered to be the best which
could be achieved with the available carburettor and in view of the cost
and time constraints under which the project was conducted. On the test
-21-
-------
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
bed used for engine development it was not possible to fully assess the
transient characteristics of the engine such as instability problems which
might occur at the throttle position where the supplementary full circuit
was activated. Far better control of mixture strength could be obtained
by using a more sophisticated carburettor - such as a twin barrel device.
No such carburettor, in methanol proof form, was available during the
course of this project.
Using the carburettor in its modified form the mixture strength
variations over the load and speed range shown in Fig. 57 were first
obtained. Over much of the engine's operating range the resulting mixture
strength was close to the desired level, at low speeds the carburettor
produced rather lean mixture (0.75 equivalence ratio).
5.12 Fuel Economy and Emissions with Automatic Control of Operating
Parameters
With the engine operating parameters - mixture strength, ignition
timing and EGR rate - under automatic control a further performance mapping
exercise was undertaken. The results are shown on Figs. 58-62 and the
predicted 1975 FTP results using these data are given in Table 3-
Brake thermal efficiency was very similar overall to that exhibited
during the previous mapping exercise. At low speeds the rather lean mixture
strength produced by the carburettor was close to the optimum value for
best economy while at higher speeds the adverse effect of the richer
mixture was largely offset by the beneficial effect of EGR.
NOx emissions were relatively low, again due to the use of lean
mixtures at low speeds and the presence of EGR at higher speeds. HC
emissions were slightly increased relative to the previous mapping exercise
(which used 0.8 equivalence ratio and no EGR) again due to mixture strength/
EGR effects.
These results were encouraging, ignition timing and EGR calibrations
were considered to be close to optimum and, given the limitations of the
carburettor, mixture strength control over much of the part load operating
range appeared to be reasonable, with the exception of low speed conditions
where lean mixtures were evident which could have incurred vehicle drive-
ability problems.
5.13 Engine Starting Characteristics
It was anticipated that starting and driveability of the engine under
cold operating conditions would be poor since there would be little heat
available from the inlet manifold coolant jacket to vaporise the methanol
fuel. As an attempt to overcome this problem it was decided to supplement
coolant jacket heat with an electrical heater at these operating conditions.
-22-
-------
RI0RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Two types of heater were available, a 'hedgehog' type unit which could be
fitted in the inlet manifold beneath the carburettor and a grid type device
which could be installed in the inlet tract between the carburettor and the
inlet manifold. Installation of a hedgehog unit in the engine's intake
manifold would have been difficult and would have involved considerable
modifications of the coolant jacket on the lower side of the manifold, which
would have resulted in a reduction in mixture heating during normal 'hot'
engine operation probably adversely affecting engine driveabi1ity.
Installation of a grid type heater was much simpler and was considered to be
much less likely to adversely affect general driveability although some
small power loss was anticipated due to the restricting effect of the grid
on inlet mixture flow. On balance it was decided that use of a grid type
heater was the most convenient approach to this particular application.
The heating grid was fitted to the lower side of the block sandwiched,
between the carburettor and inlet manifold, which was used to introduce
EGR to the ingoing charge - see Fig. 63. The power supply to the heater
was controlled by a thermostatic switch mounted in the engine coolant circuit
so that it was energised when the coolant temperature was lower than about
35ฐC.
Other parameters likely to influence the engine operation under cold
conditions included the inlet air temperature and the mixture strength.
A production Volkswagen 'pancake' type, air cleaner suitable for direct
mounting on the single choke carburettor was fitted to the engine. This
air cleaner incorporated a thermostatically controlled flap valve so that
hot air, drawn from around the exhaust manifold, could be induced in order
to maintain a carburettor inlet temperature of about 35ฐC at low speed/
load operating conditions. The carburettor was fitted with a choke flap
which was primarily manually controlled; manual selection of the fully
closed choke position also partly opened the throttle butterfly to a 'fast
idle' position. Two automatic override devices were incorporated in the
choke control mechanism. One, vacuum operated, partly opened the choke
flap in response to wide throttle openings. The other was a bi-metallic
coil spring with an electrical heater element in close proximity to it.
This heater was energised when the engine's ignition circuit was turned on,
this produced expansion of the coil spring which progressively opened the
choke. There was an inbuilt facility to permit the introduction of a time
delay into the choke opening schedule produced by this coil spring/heater
assembly and some adjustments were made to this.
Unfortunately it was not possible to test the starting ability of the
engine under low temperature conditions. All development work was conducted
in a normal engine test cell not provided with any climate control facilities,
Some impressions of the engine's starting characteristics were obtained by
monitoring its behaviour during the first start-ups made each day. Fig. 64
illustrates the changes in the main operating parameters duirng such a
start-up. With the choke manually set to its fully closed position the
throttle was slightly opened, to its fast idle position, by a cam on the
-23-
-------
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
choke lever. Before cranking the throttle was fully opened once - so
activating the carburettor accelerator pump - and then allowed to return
to its fast idle setting, operation of the starter motor would then
produce regular firing in all cylinders within approximately 1 second where
upon engine speed would rapidly rise to about 2200 rev/min when the engine
was connected to the dynamometer - circa 3000 rev/min with the dynamometer
disconnected. As indicated in Fig. 6k the closed choke position caused
the mixture strength to be enriched to approximately 1.2 equivalence ratio
(7% exhaust CO concentration). Automatic choke opening (by the coil spring/
heater device) occurred after about 5 minutes in the example shown, earlier
or later opening could be produced by adjustment of the choke mechanism.
Observations of starting behaviour were made both with and without
the heater in the inlet tract energised. This made no apparent difference
to engine starting ability at the prevailing temperatures (12-15ฐC) at which
these tests were made.
It was, in the absence of specific tests, impossible to predict the
minimum temperature at which reliable engine starting could be achieved
when using pure methanol fuel. The general impression gained from
extensive operation of the engine during the development programme was that
unaided starting should be possible at quite low ambient temperatures -
probably below 5ฐC; with the inlet heater operational starting might be
possible at considerably lower temperatures.
The minimum starting temperatures when using methanol fuel in the
HRCC engine are likely to be rather lower than those found to be possible
with conventional combustion chambers. The reason for this is that the
high compression ratio of the HRCC unit ensures relatively high compression
temperatures and hence a greater likelihood of vaporising the fuel in
the cylinders and producing an ignitible mixture in the vicinity of the
spark plugs.
5.11* Idle Operation
With the engine in its final build form, i.e. with air cleaner and
inlet heater grid fitted, tests were made to assess its performance at
idle. Two standard tests were carried out with the speed held constant
at 15 rev/s - the normal setting for production VW engines of this type.
First ignition timing was held constant at 19ฐ BTDC and mixture strength
was varied in stages by adjustment of the carburettor idle screws, this
permitted identification of the mixture strength for minimum fuel
consumption. In the second test the mixture strength was held constant
at the previously identified optimum value while ignition timing was varied.
The results of this work (shown on Figs. 65-70) indicated that with
optimum mixture strength and ignition timing settings minimum idle fuel
consumption was 960 g/h - equivalent to 435 g/h of gasoline - while HC
emissions were approximately 15 g/h. Previous tests with the gasoline
-2k-
-------
RlffRDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
fuelled Ricardo research HRCC engine had produced best results of 530 g/h
gasoline consumption with 21 g/h HC emissions at the same operating
conditions, while a production 1.6 1 Volkswagen gasoline engine exhibited
corresponding figures of 800 g/h gasoline consumption and 23 g/h HC
emissions. The results of these tests are illustrated on Fig. 71.
5.15 Engine Performance in Final Build
The final build of the HRCC engine, in which it would be fitted to a
vehicle, included automatic control of all operating parameters, fuelling,
ignition timing and EGR rate, and the presence of the air cleaner and
inlet heater grid. In order to enrichen the mixture strength at low speeds/
loads, to ensure good vehicle driveabi1ity, some changes were made to
carburettor jets; the carburettor specification finally derived was:-
venturi diameter 22 mm
main fuel jet 190
air corrector/emulsion tube 100 Z
pilot fuel jet 55
pilot air corrector/emulsion tube 72.5
supplementary enrichment fuel jet 110
This produced variations in equivalence ratio as shown on Fig. 72.
Although still far from the desired condition of 0.8 equivalence ratio
over much of the low and mid load operating range it was concluded that
the carburettor used offered little scope for further improvement in
mixture strength control. The supplementary enrichment system produced
compromise equivalence ratios fairly close to optimum throughout the speed
range at full load.
In order to determine the maximum performance of the engine in its
final form and to assess the losses incurred by the presence of the air
cleaner and inlet heater grid, measurements were made of full load performance
in two builds. Both builds included the air cleaner, automatic ignition
timing and mixture strength control (with the supplementary mixture
enrichment circuit operational) "and a restrictor in the exhaust system
in order to produce levels of exhaust back pressure similar to those
likely to be encountered in a vehicle installation. The inlet heater grid
was omitted in the first build but fitted for the second.
Comparison of the results of the first build with those obtained
during earlier tests - section 5-3 ~ permitted an assessment of the effects
of the air cleaner and a vehicle exhaust system on engine performance to
be made. The second build was effectively the final build of the engine
and so permitted the likely performance when installed in a vehicle to be
assessed.
In addition the effects of the inlet heater grid on engine
performance could be determined by comparing the results achieved with
the first and second builds.
-25-
-------
RK2RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
The results achieved with both builds are shown on Figs. 73~75- As
was anticipated, the presence of the air cleaner and significant exhaust
back pressure reduced the volumetric efficiency of the engine, somewhat
surprisingly the greatest reduction occurred at low speeds, perhaps due to
the occurrence.of adverse pressure pulsation effects within the intake
system. The addition of the heater brought about a further significant
efficiency at mid-high speeds.
The relatively crude supplementary enrichment system provided a
mixture strength at low speed which was richer than that found to be
optimum during the earlier full load tests. Conversely, over most of
the speed range the mixture strength was considerably leaner than that
used previously. Despite this, no combustion irregularities such as knock
or pre-ignition were evident and the brake thermal efficiency was
considerably higher than that observed previously.
The good performance of the engine with mixture strengths significantly
leaner than those previously found to be optimum was at first attributed
to improvements in cylinder to cylinder mixture distribution and mixture
preparation brought about by the changes made to the intake system i.e.
introduction of a sandwich block (for addition of EGR) between the
carburettor and the inlet manifold and fitting of the air cleaner. However,
investigations showed that another feature - a gas sample probe fitted to
the inlet manifold - played a significant part in the achievement of good
mixture distribution. This sample probe, the location of which is shown
on Fig. 76, has been fitted to permit measurement of EGR rate. In order
to maintain the beneficial effects of this probe, while assuring good
durability, a solid steel bar having the same external dimensions was fitted
in its place.
The effects of the air cleaner, exhaust back pressure and the inlet
heater grid on BMEP and power output can be appreciated from comparisons
of Figs. 20 and 73- Without the heater grid maximum BMEP and power output
decreased by only a small amount. With the heater unit fitted a more
significant performance loss was evident (due to the reduction in
volumetric efficiency), but nevertheless the general level of performance
compared quite favourably with that produced by gasoline engines of
similar displacement fitted with single barrel carburettors.
In order to assess the part load performance of the engine in its
final build a further mapping exercise was conducted. The results are
shown on Figs. 77~8l. Variations of BSFC and thermal efficiency over the
engine's operating range were very similar to those observed during previous
mapping exercises. NOx emissions, Fig. 79, were significantly increased
compared with the results obtained with leaner mixture strength settings -
Fig. 60. HC emissions, Fig. 80, were slightly reduced, again due to the
employment of a rather richer mixture strength.
Computer predictions of vehicle fuel economy and exhaust emissions,
Table 3, suggested that with the final engine specification and despite
-26-
-------
RK2RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
the short-comings attributable to the carburettor fuel economy would be
little changed from the previously predicted values. NOx emissions were
likely to be increased to approximately 1 g/mile while engine-out HC emissions
would probably be slightly reduced, to about 1.A g/mile.
5.16 Aldehyde Emissions
Aldehyde emissions from methanol fuelled engines are generally
reported as being considerably higher than those produced by gasoline
fuelled units.
During the present project aldehyde emissions produced by the engine
when methanol fuelled were measured on two occasions firstly during the
course of a mixture loop at 40 rev/s, 2.5 bar and secondly during the
final part load mapping exercise. The results obtained during the mixture
loop are plotted on Fig. 29, the results of the mapping exercise are noted
on Fig. 82.
The aldehyde emissions broadly exhibited the anticipated variation
with mixture strength, i.e. a low level with stoichiometric fuelling, and
a higher level of leaner mixtures. Few reports of similar tests could be
found in the literature but those which were located (18) generally
indicated continually increasing aldehyde emissions with leaner mixture
strengths.
The results shown on Fig. 26 could therefore be considered rather
surprising in that aldehydes were slightly lower in the range 0.6-0.7
equivalence ratio than at 0.8-0.9. The sampling technique and analysis
method used in the present exercise had been used by Ricardo in numerous
other investigations and appeared to produce repeatable, accurate results.
It was therefore concluded that the observed relationship between aldehyde
emissions and mixture strength was due to the combustion characteristics
of HRCC engines.
As indicated on Fig. 82, the general level of aldehyde emissions over
the part load operating range was of the order of 0.5 g/kWh. Comparison
with limited available data relating to similar methanol fuelled, spark
ignited, engines suggest that this level was quite low. It is difficult
to draw meaningful conclusions regarding the variation of aldehyde emissions
over the engine's operating range since two parameters - mixture strength
and EGR rate - were varying simultaneously with engine speed and load.
5.17 General Engine Condition
During the development testwork the engine was run for a total of
about 300 hours, for approximately 80 of which it was gasoline fuelled,
with methanol operation accounting for the remainder.
The cylinder head was removed twice during the project - after about
-27-
-------
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
120 and 200 hours respectively - in order to check the condition of the
cylinders, pistons, valves etc. On both occasions no major components
showed any signs of distress and apart from light lapping of the valves
no remedial work was required. Combustion chamber deposits - both on the
cylinder head surfaces and the piston crown - were quite light and gave no
cause for concern.
Some white/grey powdery deposits occurred in the inlet ports, manifold
and the lower part of the carburettor. These deposits formed only a thin
film on the various surfaces and apart from the need to occasionally remove
them from the idle air passage of the carburettor (where their presence
caused slight idle instability) they caused no problems. Discussions with
Volkswagen revealed that such deposits had also been observed during their
work with methanol fuel. They were attributed to chemical reactions
between the methanol and the small quantities of engine lubricating oil
which passed down the inlet valve stems.
The lubricating oil used in the engine was a conventional commerical
product (Castrol GTX 15W-50) rated SF/CC. Oil changes were made after
80 hours (when changing from gasoline to methanol fuel) and after 50 and
150 hours of engine operation on methanol. During these two latter changes
samples of used oil were analysed for fuel dilution, TBN and viscosity; the
results were:-
Test Fresh Oil 50 hour 150 hour
Method sample sample
Fuel Dilution % Vol IP23 No Dilution <.05
TBN mgKOH/g IP276 9-20 6.34 4.67
Viscosity @ 40ฐC mm2/s IP71 123.10 96.75 102.4
The results were not significantly different to those which might
be anticipated following similar periods of engine operation with gasoline
fuel. Engine oil consumption was low at approximately 1 pint/150 hours of
ope rat ion.
Spark plugs (Champion BN60Y) were routinely changed at frequent
intervals during the project. No signs of plug degradation were observed
except during pre-ignition tests with a rather less cold plug grade (BN6Y)
when damage to the insulator around the central electrode, and in one case
to the ground electrode, was observed. With the BN60Y plugs, despite this
being a very cold grade, no problems such asplug wetting during engine
start up were observed.
No signs of chemical attack by methanol of any of the engine's fuel
system components were noted.
-28-
-------
RK21RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
6. SUMMARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT WORK
The baseline tests on the EPA HRCC engine using gasoline fuel indicated
that its performance was broadly similar to that of a nominally identical,
Ricardo research, HRCC engine tested previously. Full load performance was,
in fact, slightly better and at part load conditions the observed small
variations in thermal efficiency and exhaust emissions could be accounted
for by the inevitable small differences occurring between two engines, e.g.
in inlet tract and combustion system dimensions, in engine friction levels
and test installations. Using 98 RON gasoline the full load performance
was knock limited over much of the speed range; the octane requirement of
the engine was found to be about 101 RON - typical of HRCC engines having
a 13:1 compression ratio and significantly lower than that generally
observed with other combustion chamber forms at the same compression ratios.
After fitting the appropriate inlet manifold and carburettor the full
load performance when using methanol fuel was slightly inferior to that
achieved during the earlier gasoline tests. This degradation could be
largely attributed to the adverse effect of the single barrel methanol
carburettor on volumetric efficiency. The cylinder to cylinder mixture
distribution was also poor, necessitating the employment of fairly rich
mixture strengths and penalising thermal efficiency. Optimum (MBT) ignition
timings could be used at full load at all speeds reflecting the high octane
quality of methanol and the modest octane requirement of the HRCC combustion
system, even at 13:1 compression ratio.
Pre-ignition was found to be avoided by a wide margin when using an
appropriate, cold, grade of spark plugs. These plugs, Champion BN60Y,
appeared to produce good engine operation at all conditions and were
apparently not prone to problems of fouling during engine starts.
At part load conditions, mixture loops indicated that methanol
operation produced higher thermal efficiency than was achieved with gasoline
fuelling due to lower combustion temperatures, which reduced heat losses,
and the larger quantity of combustion products formed when burning methanol.
The mixture strength for best economy was generally found to be at an
equivalence ratio of about 0.7, this was rather leaner than in the case of
gasoline fuelling and might be attributable to the faster flame speeds
associated with methanol combustion. NOx emissions were much lower than
during gasoline operation, this resulted from the lower combustion temperatures
which were in turn primarily caused by the high latent heat of vaporisation
of methanol. HC emissions were significantly lower during methanol operation,
partly due to the relative insensitivity of the FID analyser to the unburnt
fuel emissions.
A part load performance mapping exercise suggested that operation at
the best economy mixture strength, circa 0.7 equivalence ratio, would
produce good vehicle fuel economy (at least on an energy basis) and very
low NOx emissions. However, it was felt that the limitations in mixture
-29-
-------
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
strength control* an inherent feature of the relatively unsophisticated
carburettor which was employed, would heavily penalise driveability when
using such lean mixtures. Therefore it was considered necessary to operate
rather richer than this. Accordingly the mapping exercise was repeated
using a part load mixture strength of 0.8 equivalence ratio; this produced
only a small fuel economy penalty but a large increase in NOx emissions.
In order to reduce NOx emissions a simple EGR system was developed
and fitted to the engine. Tests showed that EGR was a very effective
means of NOx control - 5% EGR produced a reduction on NOx emissions of
approximately 50%, a small gain in thermal efficiency and a relatively
small increase (15~20%) in HC emissions.
Modifications to the distributor provided automatic ignition timing
variations over the speed/load operating range of the engine which were
very close to optimum. Tuning of the carburettor to provide automatic
control of mixture strength at the equivalence ratios desired - 0.8 over
most of the part load operating range and 1.1-1.2 at full load - proved to
be impossible. A supplementary full load enrichment circuit, controlled
by throttle position, was added to the carburettor. With this, mixture
strength at full load was close to ideal but at part loads the desired
equivalence ratio - 0.8 - could only be attained over a small part of the
engine's operating range.
In order to improve the cold starting performance of the engine a grid
type of electrical heater was incorporated in the inlet tract between the
carburettor and inlet manifold. Tests indicated that the presence of this
heater had a small adverse effect on volumetric efficiency and hence on
full load BMEP and power output. It was not possible to investigate the
effects of the device on the engine's cold starting ability. During
general development work immediate, unaided, starting was consistently
achieved at ambient temperatures of around 12ฐC.
The full load performance of the engine in its final 'vehicle' build
exhibited maximum BMEP of 9-6 bar and a maximum power output of 53 kW.
These were considered to be acceptable figures which compared favourably
with results achieved by gasoline engines of similar displacement fitted
with single barrel carburettors.
The part load performance mapping exercise conducted with the engine
in its final build form indicated that despite the far from ideal mixture
strength control provided by the carburettor thermal efficiency was very
similar to that observed during earlier mapping exercises. NOx emissions
were higher, primarily due to the rather richer mixture strength supplied
over much of the operating range. HC emissions were slightly lower, again
due to the use of generally richer mixture strengths. FTP cycle simulation
results suggested that vehicle fuel economy would be similar to earlier
predictions but NOx emissions would be increased to about 1 g/mile;
'engine-out1 HC emissions predicted to be 1.4 g/mile, could most probably
-30-
-------
RlffRDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
be reduced to less than the target value of 0.2 g/mile by application of
an exhaust oxidation catalyst.
The aldehyde emissions produced by the engine were measured at numerous
part load operating conditions. The general levels compared quite favourably
with limited published data relating to other methanol fuelled engines.
The condition of the engine both during and at the end of the test
programme was generally unaffected by the use of methanol. Light deposits
were observed in the inlet system, these were attributed to a chemical
reaction between the fuel and the small quantities of lubricating oi) passing
down the valve guides. Combustion chamber deposits were very light and gave
no cause for concern. The Champion BN60Y spark plugs appeared to offer
good service characteristics, no plug fouling was observed. A commercial
lubricating oil was used and exhibited no signs of abnormal degradation
which could be attributed to the use of methanol fuel.
7. CONCLUSIONS
A prototype optimum engine for methanol utilisation incorporating a
Ricardo HRCC combustion system was successfully developed during this
project.
The performance of the engine on gasoline fuel was typical of HRCC
units, indicating a 10% fuel economy advantage over conventional, low
compression ratio, combustion systems. The engine's octane requirement -
approximately 101 RON - was typical of HRCC units and considerably lower
than that of a conventional combustion system at the same, 13:1^compress ion
rat io.
In its final methanol build form with automatic control of fuelling,
ignition timing and EGR the engine was entirely free of detonation and
preignition and appeared likely to provide good vehicle driveabi1ity,
moderately low exhaust emissions and reasonable fuel economy. Maximum
power output was 53 kW, and was limited primarily by the use of a single
barrel carburettor. Using a computer simulation program 'engine-out1
emission levels and fuel consumption over the 1975 FTP test cycle of a
2375 lb car powered by the engine were predicted to be:
HC - 1.35 g/mile
NOx - 0.98 "
CO - 1.75 "
Fuel Consumption - 14.7 miles/US gallon (methanol)
30.3 miles/US gallon (gasoline equivalent)
When methanol fuelled the maximum thermal efficiency of the engine
at part load was higher than when using gasoline and occurred at a leaner
mixture strength. At such mixture strengths CO and NOx emissions were very
low; HC emissions were moderately low and could be considerably reduced by
-31-
-------
racro
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
application of an exhaust oxidation catalyst. The simple methanol proof
carburettor fitted to the engine could not provide sufficient control of
fuelling to ensure good vehicle driveability with the optimum, lean,
mixture strengths. A richer mixture calibration was therefore employed
for the final engine build.
Unaided starting was easily achieved at ambient temperatures of
10-15ฐC. An inlet charge heater was fitted to the engine to assist starting
at lower temperatures.
The fuel consumption (on an energy basis) at idle was significantly
lower than that of conventional and HRCC gasoline engines.
Aldehyde emissions were moderately high but application of an exhaust
oxidation catalyst should effectively overcome this problem.
Following 220 hours of methanol operation the general engine
condition was highly satisfactory. No problems which could be attributed
to methanol utilisation were observed. Engine operation at low temperatures
was not investigated.
8. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK
1. The performance of the engine when fitted in a vehicle equipped with
an exhaust oxidation catalyst and a suitable secondary air supply
system should be assessed.
.v
2. Mixture strength control over the engine's operating range should be
improved by installing a more sophisticated (twin barrel) carburettor.
Following this the improvements in all aspects of engine performance -
power output, torque, fuel economy, exhaust emissions and vehicle
driveability - should be investigated.
3. The cold starting ability of the engine should be determined. Changes
to the inlet charge heater - its design and installed position may
be advantageous.
4. The possibility of increasing the engine's compression ratio with a
view to obtaining better fuel economy will still retaining full load
operation free of knock and pre-ignition should be assessed.
5. Engine packaging could be improved by changing to an ignition
distributor of smaller dimensions.
6. Engine durability should be investigated.
-32-
-------
RK2RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
9- REFERENCES
1. Overington, M.T. and Thring, R.H.
GASOLINE ENGINE COMBUSTION - TURBULENCE AND THE COMBUSTION CHAMBER
(SAE 810017).
2. Overington, M.T. and Thring, R.H.
GASOLINE ENGINE COMBUSTION - COMPRESSION RATIO AND KNOCK
(VW Conf. on 'Knocking of Combustion Engines', Wolfsburg 198l).
3- Thring, R.H. and Overington, M.T.
GASOLINE ENGINE COMBUSTION - THE HIGH RATIO COMPACT CHAMBER
(SAE 820166)
^. Overington, M.T.
HIGH COMPRESSION RATIO GASOLINE ENGINES AND THEIR IMPACT ON FUEL
ECONOMY
(Automotive Engineer, Feb/March 1982).
5. Collins, D. and Mears, C.R.
HIGH COMPRESSION LEAN BURN ENGINES FOR IMPROVED FUEL ECONOMY AND
LOWER NOx EMISSIONS
(US-Dutch Internal. Symp,on Air Pollution by Nitrogen Oxides,
Maastricht 1982).
6. de Boer, C.D.
THE RICARDO HRCC COMBUSTION CHAMBER APPLIED TO A MULT I-CYLINDER
ENGINE AND VEHICLE
(Ricardo Internal Report DP 83/111, 1983).
7. Downs, D.
AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION INTO PREIGNITION IN THE SPARK IGNITED
ENGINE
(Proc I.Mech.E (AD) 1950-51).
8. Menrad, H., Decker, G and Weidmann, K.
ALCOHOL FUEL VEHICLES OF VOLKSWAGEN
(SAE 820968).
9. Menrad, H., Lee, W., and Bernhardt, W.
DEVELOPMENT OF A PURE METHANOL FUEL CAR
(SAE 770790).
10. LoRusso, J.A. and Tabaczynski, R.J.
COMBUSTION AND EMISSIONS CHARACTERISTICS OF METHANOL, METHANOL-WATER
AND GASOLINE - METHANOL BLENDS IN A SPARK IGNITION ENGINE
(Proc. 11th Intersoc, Energy Conv. Eng. Conf. 1976).
-33-
-------
RKaRDQ
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
11. Hagen, D.L.
METHANOL AS A FUEL: A REVIEW WITH BIBLIOGRAPHY
(SAE 770792).
12. Lappin, G.R. and Clark, L.C.
COLORMETRIC METHOD FOR THE DETERMINATION OF TRACES OF CARBONYL
COMPOUNDS
(Anal. Chem. vol. 23, no. 3, March 1951).
13. Spindt, R.S.
AIR-FUEL RATIOS FROM EXHAUST GAS ANALYSIS
(SAE 650507)
14. Brettschneider, J.
BERECHNUNG DES LUFTVERHALTNISSES VON LUFT-KRAFTSTOFF-GEMISCHEN
UNO DES EINFLUSSES VON MESSFEHLERN AUF X
(Bosch Techn. Berichte 6, 1979).
15. Green, R.P.
USERS GUIDE FOR THE CYCLE SIMULATION PROGRAM CYSIM
(Ricardo Internal Report DP 81/1163, 1981).
16. Haslett, R.A.
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF PETROL, METHANOL AND A BLENDED MIXTURE, AS
FUELS FOR A SINGLE CYLINDER SPARK IGNITION ENGINE
(Ricardo Internal Report DP 18178, 1974).
17. Menrad, H., Haselhorst, M,and Erwig, W.
PRE-IGNITION AND KNOCK BEHAVIOUR OF ALCOHOL FUELS
(SAE 821210)
18. Fleming, R.D. and Chamberlain, T.W.
METHANOL AS AUTOMOTIVE FUEL PART I - STRAIGHT METHANOL
(SAE 750121).
-34-
-------
RK2RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
TABLE 1
TEST
Appearance
FUEL SPECIFICATION
4-STAR PETROL (BS 4040:]97D
METHOD RESULT
Colour
Relative Density @ 60/60ฐF
Reid Vapour Pressure Ibf/in^
Distil 1 at ion
IBPฐC
10% recovered @ ฐC
50%
30%
FBPฐ
Recovery % vol
Residue % vol
Existent Gum mg/100 ml
Sulphur Content
Copper Corrosion @ 50ฐC
Lead Content g/US gal
Phosphorus Content g/US gal
Oxidation Stability mms
Octane Number:
Research Method
Motor Method
Hydrocarbon Types:
Aromatic Content % vol
Unsaturates % vol
Saturates Content % vol
Carbon Content
Hydrogen Content
Stoichiometric Air/Fuel Ratio
Calorific Value kJ/kg
Latent Heat of Vaporisation kJ/kg
Vi sual
Visual
IP] 60
IP69
IP123
IP131
IP107
1P154
A. A.
UOP 353 (mod)
IP40
IP237
IP236
IP156
E 1 emental
Clear and bright
No visible impurities
Yellow
0.7466
12.1
30.0
47.0
100.5
165.0
203.0
98.0
1.0
1
0.04
1
1.36
0.27
>1000
97.9
88.9
35.4
9.3
55.3
86.58
13.37
14.6
43960
400
-------
RIG1RDO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
TABLE 2
FUEL SPECIFICATION
METHANOL (BS 506:1966)
Appearance
Relative Density @ 15.5/15.5ฐC
IBPฐC
95% @ ฐC
FBPฐC
Water Content
Aldehydes and Ketones
Alkal inity
Acidity
Sulphur and Sulphur Compounds
Composition % by weight
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Octane Quality (from literature)
RON
MON
Stoichiometric Air/Fuel Ratio
Measured Calorific Value kJ/kg
Latent Heat of Vaporisation kJ/kg
(from 1i terature)
Clear, colourless, free from suspended
matter and sediment
0.798-0.795
<65.25
<65.5
<0.5% by weight (measured - 571 ppm)
<.015% by weight, as acetone
<.0005% by weight, as ammonia
<.003% by weight, as formic acid
<.0001% by weight, as sulphur
37.5
12.5
50.0
87-97
6.itb
199^0
1100
-------
0G1RDO
CONSUU
TABLE 3
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
PREDICTED FTP RESULTS USING
RICARDO COMPUTER SIMULATED PROGRAM
HC CO NOx Miles/gal
(gram/mile) (methanol) (gasoline
equ ivalent)
1. Best Economy Mixture 2.1? 2.78 0.30 14.73 30.43
Strength
No EGR
(Figures 39 to 43)
2. 0.8 Equivalence Ratio 1.61 2.07 1.17 13-95 28.82
No EGR
(Figures 47 to 51)
3. Initial Auto Mixture 1.87 2.22 0.62 14.73 30.44
(Lean)
with EGR
(Figures 58 to 6])
4. Final Auto Mixture 1.35 1-75 0.98 14.67 30.31
with EGR
(Figures 77 to 81)
-------
APPENDIX
TABULATED TEST RESULTS
-------
13; :'. CR
FULL LOAD POWER CURVE
REFER TO FIGS. ** - 6
BORE
79.50
DAY
S!ROKE
73,00
NUMBER Of-
CYLINDERS
4
2 BRAKE LOAD
3 FUEL. MASS < GRAMS )
5 FUEL TIME ', SEC )
6 FUEL TEMPERATURฃ (. C t
8 AIR METER TEMPERATURE < C >
12 HYDROCARBONS ( r-'PMC >
13 CARBON MONOXIDE i % )
14 OXIDES OF NITROGEN ( PPM )
15 CARBON DIOXIDE < 7, )
16 OXYGEN < % )
28 IGNITION TIMING
26 EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
11 INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESS . n r,
6.40
150.00
68.50
31.00
37.00
.2550.0
2 . 600
1890.0
13.400
.650
4 . 00
669.0
.00
6.40
150,00
51,90
30,00
37.00
2850.0
4,500
1750,0
12,400
.350
11 .00
706.0
,00
18.00
60 00
6,58
200.00
56,20
27,00
33.00
2700,0
3.800
1900.0
12,500
,500
12.00
703.0
.00
DRY
S.G.
,7380
BULB
TEMPERATURE
22
70 . 00
6,65
200.00
48,55
27.00
36.00
2550,0
3,700
2200 .0
12,800
.350
14.00
746.0
.00
.50
80,00
6.44
250.00
54.60
28,00
38.00
2400,0
3,500
2000.0
13,000
,,350
14 .00
772.0
,,00
H/CARBON
RAT
1,
'10
80
POWER
CORRECTION
1
90 .00
6.10
250.00
51,60
28.00
38.00
2400.0
3.200
2050 0
13,300
.250
11.00
797.0
,00
CALORIFIC TURBOCHARGbO
VALUE OPTION
43960.00 0
FRICTION
OP"'-1 ON
1
-------
REFER TO FIGS, k - 6
DATE 6/ 7/82 TE
ST NO. 2
R ฃ \... A "( I V E H U M I D I T Y
H U M I D I T Y C 0 R R E C T I 0 N '- A C T 0 R "~
GRAINS OF WATER/LB DRY AIR =
POWERS CORR
;".D POWER
/S KW
J 12 ,,20
:.) 20.46
0 28.80
;> 30.01
5 44.13
0 52.29
D 58 06
;i 61.87
EC TED TO
BMF'.P
BAR
8.41
9.41
9 94
9.94
10.15
10.31
10.01
9.48
s IF POWE
RESULT
,.0 BAROMETER 766 ,,50 MM . HG W
!".
64 ,,49
1 .00
76 ,,10
R - 0 ., 0 !:
ES'JLTS Li
S IN (BRACKETS) ~AR!
STED Ai
5 G/KW-HP
; CALCULATED FRO
ET BULB TEMPI
:-: V P.iil P, TFMP i'
ARE ACTUALLY
f! -> I1'
C ) 1 3 0
p -, ':'.'.) c;
G/i-lR s
': METER DATA
DIN. 70020
TORQUE
N . fi
97.06
10 8, S3
11 4,. 61
114.61
117.07
113.90
115.52
109.42
FUEL
G/KW.HR
323.5
358.8
279.1
2 9 4 . 7
294.1
288.8
290.0
288.0
VGLUMETR
EFFICIEN
82. 1(
86.4<
89. 6<
88. 4 <
9 1 . 8 (
' 1 . 8 (
90.5<
85. 5<
1C
CYC%)
,,0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
0 )
.0)
.0)
.0)
AIR FUEL
RAT 1C)
1 2 . 9 (
1 0 9 <
13. 6' (
1 2 . 7 <
1 3 . 1 (
13,,OC
13. 1<
13.2'
, 0 )
.0)
., 0 1
.05
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
r, -r
%
-, IT.- -^ 2
22.83
29.34
27.79
27.84
28.36
28.24
28.44
H C
G/KW.HR
6.31
7.76
4.38
4 . 89
4.79
4.39
4.16
4.13
NOX
G/KW.HR
5.49
99
10.84
10.03
11 .27
12.67
1 1 . 58
1.1 .78
C 0
G/KU.HR
158.73
359.34
90.46
156.36
136.67
129 .20
122.85
111. 53
C02
G/KU.w1
760.36
552.84
73?,. 50
676. 9B
706.37
702..29
716.95
728.35
SPEED POWER BMEP TORQUE FUEL VOLUMETRIC AIR FUEL B.T.E. H C NOX C U CO^ HC * NO
G/KW.HR
i 3 ,
i A ..
16 ,,06
17.06
-------
REFER TO FIGS, k - 6
ฃ i RO.E
7'J .40
MOiV'H
NUMBER OP
CY:.. INDERS
IV
81
1 ENGINE SPF.FD 'KFv/3)
2 BRAKE '...QAO
? r'JEL Ms-S3 3RAM3 )
5 r-UEL TIME t SEC ')
6 FUEL TEMPERATURE ' C )
fa AIR METER TEMPERATURE ( C
12 HYDROCARBONS '. F'PMC >
13 CARBOK MONOXIDE C 7. )
14 OXIDES OF NITROGEN ( PPM )
1.5 CARBON DIOXIDE ( % )
\& OXYGEN < % )
2.8 IGNITION TIMING
26 EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
11 INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESS. 1
100
64
23
38
232
5 .
.00
,7'0
.00
.50
.00
.00
0 . 0
100
900.0
1 1 H
10
51
-6
800
300
.00
1.0
.00
33 ,.47
AROMETER
755. 15
4 0 0 0
"j ~< ~z, D
150.00 2
66, 1 1
23 .00
24 .00
2320.0 2
5.500
950.0 1
11.600 1
.300
13.00
567,0
-3.25 -
17
T
50 ,.
.-, ,-,
7 o, .
23
35.
700
IR METE
CONST AN
K'
T
,000000
WE
T BULB
EMPERATURE
1
00
90
00
62
00
00
.0
5,600
700
.0
1.700
.3
15.
597
12.
50
00
,0
00
6.40
60.00
23.20
200.00
52.65
24.00
36.00
3000.0
7.600
1200.0
10.500
.300
17.00
607.0
-18.00
DRY
I-UEL
3,G,
,7500
BULB
TEMPERATURE
23
70,00
23 .70
200.00
46.21
25.00
33.00
2320.0
6.500
.1.300.0
11 ,000
.400
16.00
656.0
-25.50
,30
80.00
22.80
200.00
38.80
25.00
36,00
2850.0
7.200
1500.0
10.700
.300
18.00
657.0
-30,00
!!/ CARBON
RAT
1
PQWE:
10
80
R
CORRECTION
1
90,00
2 1 1 0
200.00
39.20
25.00
38 . 00
2580.0
6.000
1800,0
11.400
300
18,00
687 0
-36.00
100..
1 9 ,
300
CALORIFIC T URB 0 (>i A K >.:: ;>
VALUE OPT t ON
44000,00 0
FRICTION OUTf:'U:
OPTION OPTION
1 ,
00
50
00
53,77
27
40
2460
00
00
,,0
6,200
1800
1 1 . 1
.0
00
400
13.
699
-39
00
.0
00
-------
'ViTE -i9/ 9/81 TEST NO. 7/
RELATIVE. HUMIDITY
HUMIDH'Y CORRECTION FACTOR ==
GRAINS OF WATFR/LB DRY AIR
POWERS CORRi
SPEED
REV/8
20 0
30 0
40 .0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
POWER
KW
1 1 . 86
19 ,,70
28 .21
35 30
42 .93
51.39
56.32
53 . 83
60.60
:" C.TED TO
s 1 l"
(.) BAR
= 49.02
95
' 61.43
POWER =" 0
RESULTS IN
DIN. 7 00 20
BMEP TORQUE
BAR
8 . .1. 4
9.01
9.68
9 69
9.83
10.07
9.66
8.97
8 3 1
N
94
104
1 1 2
1 1 2
114
116
112
104
96
.M
.41
5'}
.26
.36
.02
,.85
. 05
.03
.43
J A 0 !
OMET
.0 RESUL
(BRACKET
FUEL
G./KW
313
O9~<
293
282
328
314
340
323
344
,,HR
0
n 7
.4
1
r^
. 4
.5
.7
.8
VOLi
E-F
7 2
78
81
79
88
90
91
83
82
ER
T 8
S)
JME
ICI
,5(
.,3<
. 1 (
3 V '',
,7(
,,4(
. 4(
.9(
9 (
:iRHf:NCE
755,. 15 MM.HG
LISTED A;
; s/
ARE CALCULAT
T R I C
EHCY(X)
.0)
.0)
.0)
0 )
.0)
.0)
.01
.0)
.0)
A',1
1 1
j. 2
12
12
11
12
11
12
12
wrr BULB
ORY BULB
KU--HR
i-\i_i i_r\ iv.
TEMP (CM 16.4
TEMP (CM 23.3
ARE ACTt' A LEY
ED FROM AIR ME
R FUEL
RATIO
.9(
. 5 (
.3(
.3(
.6(
_0(
. 7 (
. 2 (
1 (
0 )
. 0 )
.0)
,,0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
0 )
.0)
l"ซ
25
27
27
29
24
26
24
25
23
G/HR r.
TER DATA
T . E
'X
.73
.85
.89
0 1
.88
,,03
.03
.27
.73
Ul ""
G/KW.H
5.81
4.82
4.76
4 . 33
5.. 36
4.99
5.34
4.73
4.83
REFER TO FIGS, k - 6
NO* C 0
G/KU..HF; G/KW.HR
3.96
4,85
5.05
8 .60
6.76
10.03
8 85
10.40
11.15
229.05
176.66
188,07
182.15
275.19
232.82
273.17
222.88
246.83
C02
G/'
-------
OCTANE REQUIREMENT TESTS - REFER TO FIG. 7
AUTO CARBURATION
98 RON GASOLINE 105 RON GASOLINE
SPEED BMEP CO MBT/KL BMEP CO MBT/KL
(rev/s) Tba?) (%T (ฐBTDC) Tba?) (%T (ฐBTDC)
30 9.3 9.6 -/8 9.3 9.0 15/35
kQ 9.7 2.6 -/6 10.0 2.5 18/32
50 9.7 5.0 -/11 9.9 6.2 21/36
-------
5L !-!R'*C ENGINE
13slCR
19V 7/82
TEST NO. 10.0
BAROMETER 772.00 MM.. HB
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR
GRAINS CF WATCR/LB DRY AIR
-- 45.06
= .95
- 61., 16
REFER TO FIGS. 8-10 6 26-28
IF POWER = 0..0 RESULTS LISTED AS G/KW-HR ARL ACTUALLY G/HR f.
RESULTS IN (BRACKETS) ARE CALCULATED FROM AIR METER OATA
POWER
KW
?.:L 6
* 16
1 6
1 . 1 6
2.16
BMER
BAR
1 49
1.49
1.49
1 ,. 49
1.49
TORQUE
:N . -i
'I ".'' '"' 'L
1 7 ., 2 1
1 ~' 2 1
1 7 2 1
1 7.21
FUEL
Q/XUi,. MR
551 6
501.5
497.0
435. 4
549.4
VOLUMETRIC AIR ."'UEL B T , F . '--> C NOX C 0 CC2 MC <- NOX
EFFICIENCY(%) RATIO X G/KW.HR G/KU! ..'n* G/KW.HR G/! 14.36 19.43 11.27 138,,l5 1476..0? 30., 70
26. v.; ,0) 15. 2V .0) 16.33 17.69 18.89 10.54 1523.50 36,, .,8
28. 3( ,,0) 1.6.1'. .0) 16.48 17.53 17.25 9.62 1511 -16 34., 7
31.0', .. 0) 18,,0( .0) 16.87 18.01 18,. 27 10.54 1471.29 36 ''./
37. 4( .0) 19. 3( .0) 14.90 28.57 18.64 12.51 1638,55 47,. .0
-------
-': ! '."; A K: ,) 0
REFER TO FIGS. 8-10
. 4c:c) 1.3: 1CR 240CAMSHAFT
73 .40
BRAKE
CONSTANT
33.4717
AIR METER
CONSTANT
.000000
FUEL
B.C.
,7500
H/CARBON
RATIO
1,80
CALORIFIC
VALUE
44000.00
T U R BO 0 M A !'
OPTION
0
DAY
MONTH
9
YEAF
TE SI-
NUMBER
79,00
BAROMETER
757.30
WET BULB
TEMPERATURE
18.,90
DRY BULB
TEMPERATURE
25.60
POWER
CORRECTION
FRICTI ON
OPTION
1.
OUTPUT
CREM/S)
2 BRA'/E LOAD
3 FUEL MASS < GRAMS >
5 FUEL TIME ( SEC )
6 FOE,.. TEMPERATURE C C 1
8 AIR r^TER TEMi:'ฃRAn:KE < C )
12 HYDROCARBONS < PPMC )
13 CARSON MONOXIDE ( % )
14 OXIDE'S Q~ NITROGEN ( PPM )
IS CARBON 01 OX 10" < 7. )
16 OXYGEN '. % )
28 IGNITION TIMING
26 EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
11 INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESS .< n.m .Hg )
20 ,,00
3 66
20 ,,00
66,87
23 ,,00
28.00
4320.0
2.300
600.0
13.600
450
13.00
258.0
20.00
3.66
20.00
69 .01
23.00
28.00
3780.0
-; .500
800 . 0
14.500
.900
13.00
263 ,,0
468.00-466.50-
20.00
3 . 66
20.00
72.34
23.00
28,00
3300.0
.100
1000.0
14.000
2 . 200
15.00
267 . 0
-466.50-
20.00
3,66
20.00
71 .34
25.00
29.00
3180.0
,100
600.0
13.100
3,000
1.6.00
267 . 0
453.75-
20 ,,00
3.66
20 ,,00
70 ,,26
25 00
29.00
3420.0
100
200.0
11.400
5.100
17.00
278 ,,0
4 20 .,7 5
-------
RH'ARDO 1.5L KRCC ENGINE
MIXTURE LOOP e 20REV/9 1 ,. 5
REFER TO FIGS. 8-10
TEST NO,, 7v,,0
B A R 0 M E T E R 7 5 7 ..30 K M . H G
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
WET BULB TEMP CO 18..9
DRY BULB TEMP CO 25.6
.79
HUMIDITY C 0 R R E CTI 0 N F A C T 0 R - 1 .0 0
GRAINS OF UATER/LB DRy AIR = 75.94
POWER
KW
2 1 9
2.19
BMEP
BAR
50
50
50
i.,50
;; IF POUt:
RE3UI...T
TORQUE
N.M
17,. 40
17.40
17,40
17.40
17.40
>: == 0.0 RESUL
'S IH < BRACKET
FUEL
G/KU.HR
4 9 2 , 3
477 1
455.1
46'1.5
468.6
VOL
EFF
23
24
25
TS LISTED AS G/KW--HR
S ) ARE
UMETRIC
iCIENCY
7 (
7 C
. 4 >'
26. 9(
30
. 7 {
CALC
(X)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
ARE ACTUALLY
G /Hri
=
ULATES'i FROM AIR METER DATA
AIR FUEL
RATIO
13 .5 C
14. 5 (
1 5 6 C
1 6 . 3 i
18. 3 C
.0)
. 0 )
.0)
0 )
.0)
B . T . E .
%
16,62
17.15
17.98
17.73
17.46
ri
G/X
13
11
10
10
13
u-
U! ,,HR
.02
.73
.41
.86
.53
NOX
G/KW.HR
6.04
8.29
10.53
6.84
2.64
C 0
G/KU.HR
140.48
31,43
6.39
6 ,,92
8 . 02
CO 2
G/KW.HR
130 =..19
1432 .,06
1405.66
1423.74
1436.07
HC - NO
G /J',W . HR
-:.9 .,06
20 ,,01
20 .94
17 ,,70
1 6 1 B
-------
RICARDO 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
MIXTURE LOOP @ 20REV/S 1.5BAR
REFER TO FIGS. 8-10
DATE 21 / 9/81
TEST NO. 79.0
BAROMETER 757/30 MM.HG
RELATIVE HUhlDITY = 52.79
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR = 1.00
GRAINS OF UATER/LB DRY AIR ~ 75.94
WET BUI.B TEMP(C) 18.9
DRY BULB TEMF'tC) 25.6
SPEED
REV/S
20.0
20 0
20.,0
20.0
20.0
POWER
KU
2.19
2.19
2.19
2.19
2.19
BMEP
BAR
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
IF POWER =0.0 RESULTS LISTED AS G/KW-HR
RESULTS IN (BRACKETS) ARE
TORQUE
N.M
17.40
17.40
17.40
17.40
17.40
FUEL
G/KW.HR
492.3
477 . 1
455.1
461.5
468.6
VOLUMETRIC
ARE ACTUALLY
G/HR s
CALCULATED FROM AIR METER DATA
EFFICIENCY**)
23 . 7 (
24. 7 C
25 . 4 <
26 . 9 <
30 . 7 <
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
AIR FUEL
RATIO
13. 5 (
14. 5 <
15. M
16 .3 (
18. 3(
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
B . T . ฃ ,
%
16.62
17.15
17.98
17.73
17.46
H C
G/KW.HR
13.02
11.73
10.41
10.86
13.53
NOX
G/KW.HR
6.04
8 - 29
10.53
6.84
2.64
C 0
G/KU.HR
140.48
31.43
6.39
6.92
8.02
C02
G/KW . HR
1305,19
1432.06
1405 ,,68
1423.74
1436.07
HC + NOX
G/KW.HR
19.06
20 ,,01
20.94
17.70
16.18
-------
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
13-.1CR
REFER TO FIGS. 11-13 6 29-31
MIXTURE LOOP AT 40REV/S 2.5BMEP BAR
0RDC
CONSULTING ENGIf-
BORE STROKE NUMBER OF
CYLINDERS
79.50 73.00 4
DAY MONTH YEAR
16 7 82
1
2
3
5
6
8
12
13
14
15
16
28
26
11
ENGINE SPEED (REV/S)
BRAKE LOAD
FUEL MASS ( GRAMS )
FUEL TIME < SEC )
FUEL TEMPERATURE < C )
AIR METER TEMPERATURE ( C )
HYDROCARBONS ( PPMC )
CARBON MONOXIDE < % )
OXIDES OF NITROGEN ( PPM )
CARBON DIOXIDE < % >
OXYGEN ( % )
IGNITION TIMING
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESS .< mm. Hg
40
1
50
62
26
30
CYCLE BRAKE AIR METER FUEL H/CARBON
TYPE CONSTANT CONSTANT S.G. RATIO
4. 9.0640 .000000 .7380 1.80
TEST BAROMETER WET BULB DRY BULB POWER
NUMBER TEMPERATURE TEMPERATURE CORRECTION
7.00
.00
.64
.00
.10
.00
.00
3480.0
1.
800
1700.0
13.
B
19
51
700
700
.00
5.0
40
1
50
65
26
31
.00
.64
.00
.50
.00
.00
3540.0
m
200
3080.0
14.
1.
22
400
550
.00
519.0
) -435. 00-427
.50-
765
40
1
50
67
27
31
315
302
13.
3.
24
.50
.00
.64
.00
.30
.00
.00
0.0
100
0.0
300
100
.00
504.0
-412
.50-
17.50
40.00
1.64
50.00
69.00
27.00
31 .00
3150.0
.100
1500.0
11.700
5.150
27.00
484.0
-390.00-
40.00
1.64
50.00
68.90
27.00
32.00
3300.0
.090
325.0
10.200
7.000
31.00
471.0
-352.50-
40
1
50
58
28
32
24.00 1
.00
.64
.00
.00
.00
.00
7500.0
140
60.0
8.
10.
39
000
000
.00
455.0
-262
.50
H/CARBON CALORIFIC TURBOCHARGED
VALUE OPTION
43960.00 0
FRICTION
OPTION
1.
OUTPUT
OPTION
4
-------
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
:l.3slCR
REFER TO FIGS. 11-13 & 29~31
DATE 16/ 7/82
TEST NO. 7.0
BAROMETER 765.50 MM.HG
RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 52.21
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR = .97
GRAINS OF UATER/LS DRY AIR =67.41
WET BULB TEMP 24.0
IF POWER = 0.0 RESULTS LISTED AS G/KW-HR ARE ACTUALLY G/HR
^^^BaB>ซB>*BWปซซB*>ซ>nMBaซBซBti
RESULTS IN (BRACKETS) ARE CALCULATED FROM AIR METER DATA
POWERS CORRECTED TO DIN.70020
SPEED
REV/S
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
POWER
KW
7.31
7.32
7.32
7.32
7.33
7.33
BMEP
BAR
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.53
2.53
TORQUE
N.M
29.07
29.12
29.12
29.12
29.17
29.17
FUEL
G/KW.HR
400.5
379.7
369.6
360.4
361.0
428.3
VOLUMETRIC
EFFICIENCY <5C)
32. 8<
34. 0(
35. 8 <
39. 1(
44 . 1 '.
62. 2<
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
AIR FUEL
B . T . E .
RAT 1 0 "/.
13. 9<
15. 1<
16. 4<
18. 3<
20. 6(
24. 4(
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
20.45
21.57
22.16
22.72
22.69
19.10
H C
G/KW.HR
8.79
8.99
8.49
9.37
11.22
36.18
NOX
G/KW.HR
13.89
25.28
26.30
14.43
3.57
.94
C 0
G/KW.HR
92.16
10.29
5.46
6.03
6.20
13.68
C02
G/KW.HR
1102.17
1164.01
1140.86
1108.17
1103.70
1228.44
HC ซ NOX
G/KW.HR
22.68
34.27
34.79
23-80
14.79
37 . 1 1
-------
R 1 C A R D C ::. ,. 51... >. i"; C C E N G ! M If:'.
MIXTURE LOOP 8 AQREV/1? 2.5BAR
1 7? .5,73,4 , 1457.4cc ) 13;1CC:' 240CAMSHAFT
REFER TO FIGS. 11-13
79,.50
DAY
MONTH
9
NUMBER OF
CYLINDCR
4
:i ENGINE SPEED (REV/8)
2 BRAKE LOAO
3 FUEL MA3S ( GRAMS )
5 FUEL TIME (. 3 EC ')
6 FUEL TEMPERATuRE ( C )
8 A IF: METER TEMPERATURE ( C )
12 HYDROCARBONS ' i:"-"'MC )
1.3 CARBON MONOXIDE ( 7, )
14 OXIDES OF NITROGEN ( PPM )
IS CARBON DIOXIDE ( "/ )
IGNl'rION TIMING
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESS !. mm Hg ) -429
CY
TY!
4
TEST
NIJMBE
78.00
40.00
6 . 1 0
50.00
55.40
25.00
31 ,00
C
.-., p
R
40.
6.
5
0
63.
2
4
34.
3480.0 26
1
4.700
700.0 1
2.100 1
. 300
11.00
412.0
r
00
10
00
82
00
00
70.0
.800
7
4
00.0
.600
.600
1
b
444
429 .00-43
4,,
00
.0
25-
BRAK
CONST
33 4
5AROMETE
755 , 15
40 ,,00
6 . 1 0
50.00
65.67
24.00
33.00
2280.0
.110
1900.. 0
14.400
1.500
15.00
449.0
:E
ANT
7 1 7
R
40
O
50
66
24
34
216
AIR METER
WE
TEMP
1_
.00
1 0
.00
.56
.00
,.00
0.0
100
2000.0
13.
&' U
17
44
-419.25-418
500
350
.00
5 . 0
.50-
CONSTANT
,.000000
T BULB
ERATURE
6., 40
40.00
6 . 1 0
50.00
66 ,,08
24 ,,00
33.00
FUEL H/CAR30N CALORIFIC TURBOC>
S.G. RATIO VALUE OPT i T
.750 0 1 . 8 0 440 0 0 0 0 0
DRY BULB POWER FRICTION C
TEMPERATURE CORRECTION OPTION C
40
&
50
65
24
33
23.30 0 1.
.00
. 1 0
,,00
II \.f V.O
.00
.00
2100.0 2400.0
. 100
1550.0
12.600 1
3.400
19.00
439.0
-402.00-3
100
90 0.0
1
4 ..
21
43
75
900
600
,,00
5.0
.00
-------
: I C A R 0 G 1 .5 L H R C C E N G ! N l~
MIXTURE LOOP (i? 40REV/S 2.5BAR
REFER TO FIGS. 11-13
DATE 21/ 9/81
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
TEST NO. 78.0
B A R 0 M E T E R 75 5 15 M t"i . H G
WET BULB TEMP(C) 16.4
DRY BULB TEMP',C:> 23.3
SPEED
REV/8
40.0
40 .0
40..0
40 0
40.0
40 ,,0
-'OWER
KW
7.29
7.29
7 '"^9
7 . 2 9
7.29
7.29
DITY
ACTION FACTOR -
ER/LB DRY AIR =
= 49.02
.95
= 61.43
s IF POWER = 0.0 RESULTS L
I3MEP
BAR
2.50
2 . 50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
RESULT
TORQUE
N.M
29 ,,01
29.01
29.01
29.01
29.01
29.01
.ISTED AS G/KW-HR
S IN C BRACKETS > ARE CALC
FUEL
G/KW.HR
445.7
386.9
376.0
371.0
373.7
376.8
VOLL'MET
EFF1CIE
33 . 7 C
33. 6 <
34. 7(
35. 9 <
38 . 1 <
40.9-;
R1C
NCY<%)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
ARE ACTUALLY
G/HR s
:..;;.. AT ED FROM AIR METER DATA
AIR FUEL.
RATIO
12. 6<
14. 3<
1 5 ., 2 (
1 5 . 9 (
16. 8<
1 7 . 9 (
.0)
., 0 )
0 )
.0)
.0)
.0)
E: . T E .
7,
18.36
2 1 . 1 5
21.76
22.05
21.90
2 1 7 1
H C
G/KW.HR
9.05
6 . 59
5, .82
5.80
6.08
7.39
NOX
G/KW.HR
5.74
13.23
15.28
16.93
14.14
8.73
C 0
G/KW.HR
247.52
40.03
5 69
5.44
5.86
6.24
CO 2
G/i-:U,,HR
1001 .22
1147. .82
11 69 ,,56
1153.99
1161.02
1166.25
HC ซ MO)
G/KW.'-IR
34.78
19.83
2 1 . 1 0
22 ,,73
20 .22
16 ,,12
-------
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
13slCR
MIXTURE LOOP AT 40REV/S 5.5BMEP BAR
REFER TO FIGS. 1*ป-l6 & 32-31*
BORE
79.50
DAY
20
STROKE
73.00
MONTH
7
1 ENGINE SPEED
-------
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
13slCR
REFER TO FIGS. T*-16 S 32-31*
DATE 20/ 7/82
TEST NO. 11.0
BAROMETER 770.00 MM.HG
RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 45.11
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR = .95
GRAINS OF UATER/LB DRY AIR = 61.38
WET BULB TEMP(C) 17.2
DRY BULB TEMP 25.0
IF POWER = 0.0 RESULTS LISTED AS G/KW-HR ARE ACTUALLY G/HR
s ::::::: : :;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::s s:;:::::;:: 3 ::::
RESULTS IN (BRACKETS) ARE CALCULATED FROM AIR METER DATA
SPEED
REV/S
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
POWER
KW
15.89
15.89
15.89
15.89
15.89
15.89
BMEP
BAR
5.48
5.48
5.48
5.48
5.48
5.48
TORQUE
N.M
63.21
63.21
63.21
63.21
63.21
63.21
FUEL
G/KW.HR
303.3
284.7
280.8
275.7
271.1
275.0
VOLUMETRIC
EFFICIENCY
55. 6 <
57. 5 (
59. 8 (
65. 2<
72.5',
77. 7 <
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
AIR FUEL
B . T . E .
RATIO %
14. 1<
15. 5<
16. 4(
18.2'.
20. 5 <
21. 6<
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
27.00
28.77
29.16
29.71
30.21
29.78
H C
G/KW.HR
6.70
6.39
5.77
6.25
7.82
9.12
NOX
G/KW.HR
15.66
24.85
25.50
24.86
11.17
8.55
C 0
G/KW.HR
50.74
4.79
3.89
4.22
5.13
5.50
C02
G/KW.HR
864.64
878.40
869.43
851.08
829.94
837.80
HC + NOX
G/KW.HR
22 . 37
31.23
31.27
31.11
18.99
17.67
-------
REFER TO FIGS. 14-16
DAY
iTROkE NUMBER Of
CYLINDER:
73.40 4
MONTH
YEAR
ENGINE SPEED (REV'S)
BRAKE LOAD
EUEL MASS ( GRA^S ')
FUEL TIME >: StC ')
FUEL 7EMRERATURE ', C )
AIR i"ETER TEi-'PERATURE ',
HYDROCARBONS ( PPrtC )
CARSON MONOXIDE ( "/. )
OXIDES OF NITROGEN < PRM )
CARBON DIOXIDE ( 7,, >
OXYGEN ( % )
IGNITION TIMING
EXhAtJS'" TEMPERATURE
INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESS. <;mm.\-\
N
CY
-.- y
'"
TEST
UMBE
:... E BRAKE
P f "
CONS'
33.
BAROMET',
TANT
4717
AIR METER
CONSTANT
,,000000
lilR WET BULB
R TEMPERATURE
78.00
40
13
100
64
2 '.?
31
tl
00
41.
00 :i
30
00
00
40.00
13.41
00.00
69.38
23.00
33.00
3020.0 3090.0
6
6
1000
1 0 .
11
49
2.36
00
.0 1
900 1
7'
00
00
2 0
25-2
4.600
450.0
2.200
. 300
13.00
503.0
41 .50-
759.80
40.00
13.4 1
100.00
75.65
23.00
32.00
2640 .0
2 . 400
2500.0
1.3.400
.600
15.00
512.0
40.00
13.41
100 .00
7V. 66
24.00
34.00
2220.0
.900
3500.0
14.000
1.400
17.50
517.0
1.7 .00
40 ,00
13.41
100.00 1
33.30
24.00
33.00
2040.0 1
.200
3600 .0 3
13.450 1
2.600
19.00
516.0
241 .50-229.30-212. 25-2
DRY
TEMRE
24
40.00
1 3 ., 1 4
00.00
S3. 86
25.00
34 .00
920.0
. 1.00
A 0 0 0
2.800
3.400
20 .00
513.0
01 ,.7 5 -
FUEL
q ft
,,7500
BULB
:RATURE
. 7 0
40 .00
1 3.14
100 .00
84 07
2 4 0 0
33,00
1920 .0
. 100
3100 ,,0
12.100
4 .250
21 .00
506.0
.'00.75-
1-1 / CARBON CALORIFIC- TIJRBOCHA'
F'
CO
40
13
100
82
25
33
R
n
2 0 1 0
.1.
2200
11 .
5
2.1
RATIO ^ALliE GPTiOi.'
1.80 44000.00 0
OUER FRICTION DIP
RECTIQN OPTION OR'
0 1 .
00
14
00
08
00
00
.0
00
.0
400
2
503
157
50
00
.0
50
-------
R I C A R 0 0 1,51.. H R C C E N G I N E
MIXTURE LOOP @ 40REV/S 5.5BAR
REFER TO FIGS. Tt-16
DATE 23/ 9/81
TEST MO,, 78.0
13 A R 0 M E T E R 7 5 9 .8 0 M H. H G
RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 45.57
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR == .95
GRAINS 01" WATER/LB DRY AIR = 61 ,,73
WET BULB TEMPCC) :L7.,0
DRY BULB TEMP'.C) 24.7
SPEED
REV/8
40 .. 0
40 ,0
40., 0
40.0
40 ,,0
40 ,,0
40.0
40., 0
POWER
KW
16.03
16 . 03
16.03
16.03
16.03
15.
'.!. b,
70
.70
70
BMEP
BAR
5.50
5.50
5 .50
5,50
5.50
5.39
5,39
5.39
:: IF F'OWE
RESULT
TORQUE.
N.M
63.77
63.77
63 . 77
63.77
63 77
62.48
62 . 48
62.48
R = 0.0 RESULTS !..'.
ISTED AS G/KU-HR ARE ACTUALLY (
S IN (BRACKETS) ARE CALC
FUEL VOLUMETRIC
G/KW.HR
349.4
323 . 8
296.9
282.0
269.7
273 . 4
272.7
279.3
EFFICIENCY CO
54. 4 (
54 . 1 <
53. 5 <
55,,5\
57 . 3 <
59. &'..
62. 4(
67. 6 <
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
3/HK s
:UL.ATED FRQH AIR METER DATA
AIR FUEL B.T.E., H C
RATIO %
1 1 . 8 <
1 2 . 6 (
1 3 7 ',
1 4 8 <
16.K
1 6 . 8 (
17 .6 <
18.7<
,,0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
23 42
25.27
27.55
29.01
30 . 34
29.93
30 . 00
29.29
G/KW.HR
5.93
5 . 85
4.88
4.14
3.97
4.01
4.23
4 . 80
NQX
G/KW.HR
6 ,,19
8.66
14.59
20.60
22.12
22.4 1
21 . 53
16.58
C 0
G/KU.HR
262.44
176.38
89.89
34.01
7.89
4.2.3
4.46
4.84
C02
G/KU..HR
680.99
735.02
788 .,57
831 ,,14
833.49
850.90
847 . 68
866.31
HC J" NQX
G/KW.HR
j 2.12
14.5 1
3.9., 47
24.74
26.09
26.42
25.76
21.37
-------
EPA 1. .51. HRCC ENGINE
13s1CR
MIXTURE LOOP AT 60REV/S 4.06MEP BAR
REFER TO FIGS. 1?-19 & 35~37
BORE STROKE NUMBER OF CYCLE BRAKE AIR METER FUEL H/CARBON
CYLINDERS TYPE CONSTANT CONSTANT S.G. RATIO
79.50 73.00 4 4. 9.0640 .000000 .7380 1.80
DAY MONTH YEAR TEST BAROMETER WET BULB DRY BULB POWER
NUMBER TEMPERATURE TEMPERATURE CORRECTION
16 7 82
1
2
3
5
6
a
12
13
14
15
16
28
26
11
ENGINE SPEED
BRAKE LOAD
FUEL MASS ( GRAMS )
FUEL. TIME < SEC )
FUEL TF.MPERATURE < C )
AIR METER TEMPERATURE < C )
HYDROCARBONS ( PPMC )
CARBON MONOXIDE < "/. )
OXIDES OF NITROGEN ( PPM >
CARBON DIOXIDE ( 7. )
OXYGEN < 7. )
IGNITION TIMING
EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESS .< mm .Hg
60
2
100
59
28
34
8.00
.00
.63
.00
.50
.00
.00
3000.0
1.
700
2500.0
13.
21
800
400
.00
650.0
>-337
.50-
60.00
2.63
100.00
63.70
30.00
36.00
2850.0
.150
4000.0
13.800
2.300
22.00
648.0
766
60
2
100
64
32
36
.30
.00
.63
.00
.70
.00
.00
3300.0
100
4000.0
13.
3.
29
62
-322.50-300
000
400
.00
6.0
.00-
17.50
60.00
2.63
100.00
65.80
31.00
36.00
2850.0
.100
2600.0
11.700
5.150
31.00
600.0
60
2
100
66
32
36
.00
.63
.00
.00
.00
.00
3300.0
.
85
100
0.0
10.200
7.
35
100
.00
575.0
270.00-225
.00-
60
2
100
61
31
36
25.00 0
.00
.63
.00
.00
.00
.00
6000.0
.
12
8.
9.
48
150
5.0
000
800
.00
528.0
127
.50
CALORIFIC TURBOCHARGED
VALUE OPTION
43960.00 0
FRICTION
OPTION
1.
OUTPUT
OPT I ON
4
-------
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
:L3:1CR
REFER TO FIGS. 17-19 6 35~37
DATE 16/ 7/82
TEST NO. 8.0
BAROMETER 766.30 MM.HG
RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 47.02
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR = .96
GRAINS OF WATER/LB DRY AIR =64.33
WET BULB TEMP(C) 17.5
DRY BULB TEMP(C) 25.0
IF POWER =0.0 RESULTS LISTED AS G/KU-HR ARE ACTUALLY G/HR :
BBBBBaBB>BBBBBaBBBBBBBBiinBBBซaBBBBBonซaซBBBaปBMa>aaBHaB>nnn
RESULTS IN (BRACKETS) ARE CALCULATED FROM AIR METER DATA
SPEED
REV/S
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
POWER
KW
17.41
17.41
17.41
17.41
17.41
17.41
BMEP
BAR
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
TORQUE
N.M
46.18
46.18
46.18
46.18
46.18
46.18
FUEL
G/KU.HR
347.5
324.6
319.6
314.3
313.3
339.0
VOLUMETRIC
EFFICIENCY<%>
45. 9(
49. 3<
51. 2<
55 . 7 <
62. 4 <
80. 4 <
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
AIR FUEL
RATIO
13. 8(
15. 7(
16. 6<
18. 3<
20. 6<
24. 6(
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
B . T . E .
7.
23.56
25.23
25.62
26.06
26.14
24.16
H C
G/KW.HR
6.60
6.50
7.85
7.41
9.73
23.24
NOX
G/KW.HR
17.55
29.11
30.38
21.58
8.00
1.55
C 0
G/KW.HR
75.76
6.93
4.82
5.27
5.97
11.77
C02
G/KW.HR
966.33
1001.85
984.88
968.58
957.07
986.67
HC * NOX
G/KW.HR
24.15
35.61
38.24
23.99
17.72
24.79
-------
RICARDu :U5L HRCC ENGINE
MIXTURE LOOP @ 60REV/S 4.0BAR
< 79 . 5 ,73 4 , 1 457 ACC: ) 1.3 ;: i CR 2-iOCftMSHAFT
REFER TO FIGS. 1?-19
BORE
7 9. SO
DAY
23
fROKE
MONTH.
9
NUMBER OF
CYLINDERS
YEAR
81
1 ENGINE SPEED (REV.'3)
2 BRAKE LOAD
3 FUEL MASS ( GRAMS >
5 FUEL TIME < SEC )
6 FUEL TEMPERATURE (. C )
8 AIR MET FIR TEMPERATURE ( C )
12 HYDROCARBONS C PPMC )
13 CARBON MONOXIDE < % )
14 OXIDES OF NITROGEN C PPM )
15 CARBON DIOXIDE < 7, )
16 OXYGEN ( % )
28 IGNITION TIMING
26 EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
11 INT A K E M A N I F U L D P R E S S ., C m m . H g )
CYCLE
TYPE
4
TEST E
NUMBER
81.00
60.00
9.76
150.00
86.44
23.00
33.00
35-40.0
3.950
1650.0
12.550
.300
16.00
557 . 0
348.00-
60.00
9.76
150 ,,00
95.54
25 ,,00
35.00
2400.0
.400
3100 ,,0
14.500
1 .000
18.00
584.0
336.00-
BRAKE AIR METER FUEL H/CARBON
CONSTANT CONSTANT B.C.' RATIO
3 3 4 7 1 7 .0000 0 0 .7500 1 8 0
BAROMETER WET BULB DRY BULB POWER
T E M P E R A T U R E T E M P E R A T U R E C 0 R R E C T I 0 N
765.40
60, .00
9,76
150 ,,00
98.00
25.00
35.00
2100.0
.200
3200.0
14.000
2.000
19.00
582 . 0
-322.50
60.00
9.76
150.00
100,72
25.00
35.00
2220.0
.150
2800.0
13.200
2.950
20.00
573.0
-31 3 .50
1.5.20
60.00
9. "'(.-,
150.00
101 .60
25 ,. 00
35.00
2040.0
.100
2.200.0
12.400
4.100
20.00
569.0
-288.75
'".i
60.00
9.76
150.00
102.84
25.00
35 ,,00
2040.0
.100
1600.0
11.400
5.100
2.3.00
557 0
-275 ป25
I. .70 0
60.00
9.76
150.00
102.40
25 ,,00
35.00
2190.0
100
1000,0
1.0.600
6. 100
24.00
553.0
-250.50
CALORIFIC
VALUE
44000.00
FRICTION
OPTION
1
TURBOCHARGED
OPTION
0
OUTPUT
OPTION
4
-------
REFER TO FIGS. 1?-19
RI CARDO 1.5L HRCC ENGINE:
MIXTURE LOOP C? 60REU/S 4.0BAR
DATE 23/ 9/81
RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 49.,52
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR = .92
GRAINS OF WATER/LB DRY AIR = 55 ,,43
TEST NO. 81.0 BAROMETER 765,40 MM.HG
WET BULB TEMP(C) 15..2
DRY BULB TEMP(C) 21.7'
SPEEC
REV/8
60 .0
60 0
60.0
60 ,0
60.0
60,0
60 ,,0
POWER
KW
17,50
17.50
17.50
17.50
17 .50
17.50
17.50
BMEP
BAR
4,00
4.00
4 ,,00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5 IF POWER = 0.0 RESULTS LISTED AS G/KW-HR
RESULTS IN '-BRACKETS) ARE
TORQUE
N.M
46,41
46.41
46.41
46.41
46.41
46.41
46,41
FUEL.
G/KW.HR
357 1
323 . 1
315.0
306.4
303 . 8
300 1
301.4
VOLUMETRIC
EFFICIENCY
43.8C
45. 9 <
47, 2 C
48,2<
51, 0<
53 , 5 (
57 2 <
ARE ACTUALLY
G/I-IR s
CALCULATED FROM AIR METER DATA
( 7, )
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
AIR FUEL.
RATIO
12.8';
14,7 (
1 5 6 (
1 6 . 3 <
17. 4 (
18 ,5 <
19 ,7 (
,0)
.0)
0 )
,0)
,0)
.0)
,0)
B . T - E ,
X
2 2 . 9 1
25 . 33
25 ,,98
26,70
26,93
27,26
27 ,,14
H C
G/KW.HR
7, SO
5 . 1 2
4.59
5.01
4.88
5.23
6,05
NOX
G/KW.HR
10 ,,73
20.30
21 .46
19.40
16.14
12.59
8.47
C 0
G/KW.HR
169,56
17,2.9
8 . 86
6.86
4.85
5,20
5.59
C02
G/KW.HR
846,45
984,99
974.12
948,83
943,98
930.64
931.53
HC * NOX
G/KW.HR
IS ,23
25,42
26,05
24 ,,41
21 ,,02
17,82
14.52
-------
EPA 1.5L HRCC VW ENGINE
13:1 CR
FULL LOAD POWER CURVE
REFER TO FIGS. 20-22
BORE
79.50
DAY
16
STROKE
73.00
MONTH
8
NUMBER OF
CYLINDERS
4
YEAR
82
1 ENGINE SPEED CREV/S)
2 BRAKE LOAD
3 FUEL MASS ( GRAMS )
5 FUEL TIME < SEC )
6 FUEL TEMPERATURE < C )
8 AIR METER TEMPERATURE ( C )
12 HYDROCARBONS < PPMC )
13 CARBON MONOXIDE < "/. )
14 OXIDES OF NITROGEN < PPM )
15 CARBON DIOXIDE < 7. )
16 OXYGEN ( X )
28 IGNITION TIMING
26 EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
11 INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESS.
CYCLE BRAKE AIR METER FUEL
TYPE CONSTANT CONSTANT S.G.
4. 9.0640 .000000 .8180
TEST BAROMETER WET BULB DRY BULB
NUMBER TEMPERATURE TEMPERATURE
94.00
20.
5.
150.
65.
22.
26.
1710
00
25
00
00
00
00
.0-
5.000
1820
30.00
6.10
200.00
54.70
22.00
26.00
762.
40.
6.
250.
52.
22.
26.
2280.0-1680
4.400
10
00
56
00
96
00
00
.0-
3.700
.0-1890.0-1430
11.400
.900
9.
397
m
00
.0
00
12.100
.700
12.00
477.0
.00
.0
12.600
.600
15.
547
u
00
.0
00
17.00
50.00
6.65
250.00
38.20
23.00
25.00
60.00
6.50
250.00
32.60
25.00
30.00
H/CARBON
RATIO
4.00
POWER
CORRECTION
23.00
70.00
6.42
250.00
28.00
23.00
31.00
80.
6.
250.
25.
23.
34.
-1485.0-1410.0-4950.0-1890
5.600
-840.0
12.300
.500
18.00
564.0
.00
5.640
-780.0
11.200
.450
20.00
591.0
.00
5.700
00
15
00
40
00
00
90.
5.
2.50.
23.
25.
35.
.0-1980
5.400
-930.0-1000
11.300
.450
23.00
620.0
.00
5.5
.0-1000
11.500
.500
24.
639
.
00
.0
00
11.5
1
00
55
00
20
00
00
.0
00
.0
00
.500
25.
650
.
00
.0
00
CALORIFIC TURBOCHARGED
VALUE OPTION
19940.00 0
FRICTION
OPTION
1.
OUTPUT
OPTION
4
-------
EPA 1.5L HRCC VW ENGINE
13si CR
DATE 16/ 8/82
TEST NO. 94.0
BAROMETER 762.10 MM.HG
RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 54.51
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR = 1.26
GRAINS OF UATER/LB DRY AIR =66.55
REFER TO FIGS. 20-22
WET BULB TEMP
-------
2QREV/S 1.5BAR
MIXTURE LOOP
BN60Y
REFER TO FIGS. 26-28
BORE
79.50
DAY
STROKE
73.00
MONTH
9
NUMBER OF
CYLINDERS
4
YEAR
82
1 ENGINE SPEED (REV/S)
2. BRAKE LOAD
3 FUEL MASS < GRAMS >
5 FUEL TIME ( SEC )
6 FUEL TEMPERATURE < C )
7 AIR METER READING
9 AIR METER DEPRESSION (n.m.Hg)
8 AIR METER TEMPERATURE ( C )
12 HYDROCARBONS ( PPMC )
13 CARBON MONOXIDE ( % )
14 OXIDES OF NITROGEN ( PPM )
15 CARBON DIOXIDE ( '/. )
16 OXYGEN < '/. )
28 IGNITION TIMING
26 EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
11 INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESS. Urn, .Hg)
CYCLE
TYPE
4.
TEST
NUMBER
BRAKE AIR METER FUEL H/CARBON
CONSTANT CONSTANT S.G. RATIO
9.0640 .000281 .8180 4.00
BAROMETER UET BULB DRY BULB POWER
TEMPERATURE TEMPERATURE CORRECTION
43.00
20
50
70
26
12
25
.00
.98
.00
.80
.00
.50
.44
.00
1710.0-
1.
-14
13.
12
650
5.0
600
400
.00
265.0
480
20
50
76
26
13
25
.
m
a
-1620
00
98
00
60
00
70
49
00
768
20
50
77
26
14
25
.50
.00
.98
.00
.40
.00
.10
.51
.00
.0-1650.0-
.170
-300
13.
2.
15
.0
300
5
B
00
00
262.0
.00-465.
160
-300.0
12.
3.
20
25
00-453
800
100
.00
8.0
20
50
81
2.6
16
25
18
.00
.98
.00
.00
.00
.20
.57
.00
-2100.0-2
,,
140
-95.0
10.
6.
25
500
300
.00
254.0
.75-427
.00
20
50
79
27
17
.
25.
55
.
0
1
-40
9.
7.
28
22.50 0
00
98
00
30
00
50
61
00
.0
50
.0
600
700
.
00
259.0
.50-412.
50
CALORIFIC TURBOCHARGED
VALUE OPTION
19940.00 0
FRICTION
OPTION
1 .
OUTPUT
OPTION
4
-------
20REV/S 1.5BAR
MIXTURE LOOP
REFER TO FIGS. 26-28
DATE 14/ 9/82
TEST NO. 43.0
BAROMETER 768.50 MM.HG
RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 64.46
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR = .94
GRAINS OF WATER/LB DRY AIR = 75.86
WET BULB TEMP(C) 18.0
DRY BULB TEMP(C) 22.5
SPEED
REV/S
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
POWER
KUi
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.16
BMEP
BAR
1.49
1.49
1.49
1.49
II- POWER = 0.0 RESULTS LISTED AS G/KW-HR ARE ACTUALLY G/HR :
RESULTS IN (BRACKETS) ARE CALCULATED FROM AIR METER DATA
TORQUE
N.M
FUEL
G/KW.HR
VOLUMETRIC
EFFICIENCYCX)
1.49
17.21
17.21
17.21
17.21
17.21
1175.7
1086.7
1075.5
1027.7
1049.7
25. 0< 23.9)
26. 9 < 26.2)
27. 4 < 27.0)
31. 3< 31.0)
34. 8( 33.5)
AIR FUEL
RATIO
6.K
7.2<
7.4<
8.8(
9.6<
5.9)
7.0)
7.2)
8.7)
9.2)
15.36
16.61
16.79
17.57
17.20
B.T.E. H C
7. G/KW. HR
8.44
8.19
8.51
12.05
15.95
NOX
G/KW.HR
C O
G/KW.HR
C02
G/KW.HR
1.83
3.98
4 . 07
1.47
.68
109.65
11.81
11.43
11.55
13.69
1420.10
1452.19
1436.49
1360.92
1377.11
HC + NOX
G/KW.HR
10.27
12.17
12.58
13.51
16.63
-------
/-!< V
40REV/S 2.5BAR
MIXTURE LOOP
BN60Y
REFER TO FIGS. 29-31
BORE
79.50
STROKE
73.00
NUMBER OF
CYLINDERS
4
CYCLE BRAKE AIR METER FUEL H/CARBON CALORIFIC TURBOCHAROED
TYPE CONSTANT CONSTANT S.G. RATIO VALUE OPTION
4. 9.0640 .000281 .8180 4.00 19940.00 0
DAY
8
MONTH
9
YEAR
82
TEST
NUMBER
38.00
BAROMETER
767.80
UET BULB
TEMPERATURE
17.50
DRY BULB
TEMPERATURE
21.20
POWER
CORRECTION
0
FRICTION
OPTION
1.
OUTPUT
OPTION
4
1 ENGINE SPEED
2 BRAKE LOAD
3 FUEL MASS < GRAMS )
5 FUEL TIME ( SEC )
6 FUEL TEMPERATURE < C )
7 AIR METER READING
9 AIR METER DEPRESSION
15 CARBON DIOXIDE ( % )
16 OXYGEN ( % )
28 IGNITION TIMING
26 EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
11 INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESS.(mm.Hg>
40.00
1.64
100.00
54.40
26.00
34.00
1.20
24.00
1200.0
1.600
-530.0
13.800
.350
17.00
438.0
40.00
1.64
100.00
59.60
26.00
36.00
1.27
24.00
40.00
1.64
100.00
60.20
26.00
37.20
1.32
25.00
40.00
1.64
100.00
61.30
26.00
40.30
1.46
25.00
-900.0-1050.0-1380.0
.140
-730.0
13.400
2.000
21.00
442.0
.140
-780.0
12.700
3.100
23.00
437.0
.130
-370.0
11.300
5.000
25.00
422.0
-435.00-420.00-412.50-393.75
40.00
1.64
100.00
62.60
26.00
44.10
1.58
25.00
-1800.0-
.120
-135.0
10.100
7.100
30.00
413.0
40.00
1.64
100.00
61.20
26.00
53.60
1.93
24.00
-3300.0
.190
-18.0
7.800
9.900
39.00
393.0
-363.75-300.00
-------
4QREV/S 2.5BAR
MIXTURE LOOP-
REFER TO FIGS. 29-31
DATE 8/ 9/82
TEST NO. 38.0
BAROMETER 767.80 MM.HG
RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 69.41
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR = .95
GRAINS OF WATER/LB DRY AIR = 75.54
WET BULB TEMP
-------
40REV/S 5.5BAR
MIXTURE LOOP
BN60Y
REFER TO FIGS.
BORE
79.50
STROKE
73.00
NUMBER OF
CYLINDERS
4
CYCLE BRAKE AIR METER FUEL H/CARBON CALORIFIC TURBOCHARGED
TYPE CONSTANT CONSTANT S.G. RATIO VALUE OPTION
4. 9.0640 .000281 .8180 4.00 19940.00 0
DAY
10
MONTH
9
YEAR
82
TEST
NUMBER
40.00
BAROMETER
767.30
WET BULB
TEMPERATURE
20.20
DRY BULB
TEMPERATURE
24.80
POWER
CORRECTION
0
FRICTION
OPTION
1.
OUTPUT
OPTION
4
1 ENGINE SPEED
-------
40REV/S 5.5BAR
MIXTURE LOOP
REFER TO FIGS. 32-3**
DATE 10/ 9/82
TEST NO. 40.0
BAROMETER 767.30 MM.HO
RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 65.61
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR = .97
GRAINS OF WATER/LB DRY AIR =89.09
WET BULB TEMP(C) 20.2
DRY BULB TEMP
-------
60REV/S 4.0BAR
MIXTURE LOOP
BN60Y
REFER TO FIGS. 35-37
BORE
79.50
DAY
13
STROKE
73.00
MONTH
9
NUMBER OF
CYLINDERS
4
YEAR
82
1 ENGINE SPEED (REV/S)
2 BRAKE LOAD
3 FUEL MASS ( GRAMS )
5 FUEL TIME ( SEC )
6 FUEL TEMPERATURE ( C )
7 AIR METER READING
9 AIR METER DEPRESSION
13 CARBON MONOXIDE < 7. )
14 OXIDES OF NITROGEN < PPM )
15 CARBON DIOXIDE ( % )
16 OXYGEN < % )
28 IGNITION TIMING
26 EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
11 INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESS. < mm .Hg )
CYCLE BRAKE AIR METER FUEL H/CARBON
TYPE CONSTANT CONSTANT S.G. RATIO
4. 9.0640 .000281 .8180 4.00
TEST BAROMETER UET BULB DRY BULB POWER
NUMBER TEMPERATURE TEMPERATURE CORRECTION
42.00
60
2
200
58
24
61
2
24
.00
.63
.00
.20
.00
.00
.24
.00
-990.0
1.
-85
100
60
2
200
61
23
70
2
24
.00
.63
.00
.30
.00
.50
.41
.00
-870.0
m
135
770
60
2
200
61
24
73
2
24
.90
.00
.63
.00
.70
.00
.30
.53
.00
19.50
60
2
200
62
26
80
2
25
.00
.63
.00
.70
.00
.00
.77
.00
60.
2.
200.
63.
24.
87.
3.
25.
-990.0-1290.0-1710
M
130
0.0-1150.0-1050.0
13.900
m
18
400
.00
563.0
-363
13.
2.
23
400
200
.00
555.0
.75-337
12.
3.
25
700
150
.00
545.0
.50-330
m
130
-660.0
11.
5.
29
500
000
.00
524.0
.00-303
.75-
00
63
00
50
00
00
02
00
.0-
60
2
200
62
26
105
3
25
26.00 0
.00
.63
.00
.20
.00
.00
.77
.00
-2700.0
.120
-220.0
10.300
6.900
31.
500
-270.
00
.0
170
-30.0
8.
9.
37
600
300
.00
471.0
00-195
.00
CALORIFIC TURBOCHARGED
VALUE OPTION
19940.00 0
FRICTION
OPT I ON
1.
OUTPUT
OPT I ON
4
-------
60REV/S 4.0BAR
MIXTURE LOOP
REFER TO FIGS. 35~37
DATE 13/ 9/82
TEST NO. 42.0
BAROMETER 770.90 MM.HG
RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 54.20
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR = .96
GRAINS OF WATER/LB DRY AIR =78.46
WET BULB TEMP(C) 19.5
DRY BULB TEMP(C) 26.0
IF POWER =0.0 RESULTS LISTED AS G/KU-HR ARE ACTUALLY G/HR :
^anavBBBaBBKBaaBBBBBBBBiiNBiiBBBBBnBaBMBBaB
"""""H*onซnปซซ"ปซซซซ"ซ"
RESULTS IN (BRACKETS) ARE CALCULATED FROM AIR METER DATA
SPEED
REV/S
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
POWER
KW
17.41
17.41
17.41
17.41
17.41
17.41
BMEP
BAR
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
TORQUE
N.M
46.18
46.18
46.18
46.18
46.18
46.18
FUEL
G/KW.HR
710.6
674.7
670.3
659.6
651.3
664.9
VOLUMETRIC
EFFICIENCY<%)
41. 3<
44. 2 <
46. 1<
50. 1<
55. 1(
65. 6(
38.9)
44.9)
46.7)
50.8)
55.3)
66.6)
AIR FUEL
B.T.E.
RATIO %
6.3<
7. 1 (
7.5<
8.2(
9. 1 (
10. 7<
5.9)
7.2)
7.6)
8.3)
9.2)
10. B)
25.41
26.76
26.94
27.37
27.72
27.15
H C
G/KW.HR
3.02
2.74
3.23
4.46
6.35
11.64
NOX
G/KW.HR
6.44
9.32
8.87
6.09
2.20
.35
C 0
G/KW.HR
45.19
5.84
5.88
6.36
6.43
10.88
C02
G/KW.HR
897.15
910.36
902.94
884.11
867.40
864.61
HC + NOX
G/KW.HR
9.45
12.06
12.10
10.55
8.56
12.00
-------
MIXTURE DISTRIBUTION CHECKS - REFER TO FIG. 38
FULL LOAD
SPEED
(rev/s)
20
40
60
80
PART LOAD
Rev/s/bar
20/1.5
40/2.5
40/5.5
60/4.0
CYL.1
9.4
4.0
4.4
3.0
6.8
7.0
6.7
6.3
CYL.2
0.3
1 .2
3.3
5.0
7.1
7.0
6.8
7.25
CO (%)
CYL.3
0.4
2.2
3.4
5.3
0., (%)
7.8
7.0
7.7
7.8
CYL.4
9.3
6.6
8.2
7-8
8.9
7-6
7.9
8.0
T/P
5.0
3-7
5.7
5.4
7.6
7.0
6.8
6.8
-------
REFER TO FIGS.
PN60Y
73.00
6
7
9
f;
:! 2
13
14
15
16
23
26
11
FUL..
A IF;
AIR
A IP
HYD
NUMBER 01-
CYLINDERS
4
YEAR
82.
;:: SPEED
E . J A'.'.)
~>"SS ' GRAMS :
"I ME < SEC )
. TEMPERATURE (
^E"'EX READING
METER DEPRESSION
C
CARDON MONOXIDE < % )
OX'OES OF NITROGEN '. PPM
CAR:VON DIOXIDE <; % )
OXYGEN ป '/. )
IGNITION TIMING
EXHA.:ฃ- TEMPERATURE
INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESS.,,400
3. 100
28.00
424.0
225.00-
RATIO
4.
00
PGuiER
COPREC
C
40. ,00
3.60
100.00
40.10
25.00
75.10
2.87
27.00
-1740.0-
.100
-96.0
9.200
8.000
25.00
446.0
-112.50-
7 1 ON
60 DO
1 .64
150. OC
60 85
25.00
75 . 60
2.87
30.00
2280.0-
. 120
-55.0
9.200
7,900
33 00
463.0
333.75-
CALORI'-
VALUE
19940.
r-RICT
OP "''I
60.00
2.63
150.00
47.70
25.00
96.70
3.67
29 .00
2040.0-
.120
-100.0
9.550
8.000
31.00
479.0
225.00-
IC TUREQCMAF-
00
ION
ON
60.. 00
3 ,,60
150.00
39 40
24.00
113 ,,00
4.28
31.00
1485.0
.100
- 165.0
9.700
7.400
27.00
509.0
135.00
OPTION
0
l..1 '...'
0 '-' "f
60.00
4.60
200.. (.""
43 .60
23.00
120 ,,00
4.56
30.00
-870,. 0
. 085
-950.0
11.800
5.100
25.00
560 ,,0
-90 ,,00
-------
MAP
REFER TO FIGS. 39-^3
BEST FUELLING
SF'EED
V,),,0
20 0
' 0
:0,,0
40.0
40 ,. 0
40.0
40..0
60 0
60 0
60.0
60,. 0
DATE. 24 / 8/82 TEST NO. 29.0
ft E L A T I M E H U M I D I T Y = 5 7 9 0
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR - 1.02
GRAINS OF WATER/L.B DRY AIR - 70 ..56
5 IF POWER -~- 0.
:.D POWER
/S KW
J 2
0 3
":> 5
D 7
0 4
D 7
5 11
0 1 l"j
D 10
3 17
0 23
:> 30
.16
.62
.80
.94
. 3 2
24
.61
.89
.86
. 41
.83
.45
BMEP
BAR
1.49
2.50
4.00
5.43
1 ., 49
2.50
4.00
5.48
2 . 50
4.00
5 . 48
7.00
RESULTS IN ',
TORQUE FUEL
N . M
17.21
28.80
46.18
63.21
17,21
28.80
46.18
63.21
28.80
46.18
63.21
80.77
G/KU.L,
1045.
787 .
634.
570.
1060.
773.
633.
565.
817.,
650 ,
575.
542.
B A R 0 MET E R 7 6 4 .. 1 0 MM,, H G
0 R
ESULT3 LISTED A
BRACKETS) ARE CALC
VO:_UMETR I C
HR
7
0
3
1
4
0
0
X
4
\t*
1
3
S G/
ULAT
A:
WET BULB TEMP(C) 17.5
DRY &ULB TEMP(C) 23.0
Ku-HR ARE ACTUALLY
ED FROM All
R T'JEL
EFFICIENCY (7.) R"T!
35. 4 (
44. 6 (
58. 4-:
72. 1 <
3 6 2 <
44. 8 <
58. 'i (
72. 5(
47,,7(
60.3(
7 1 . 7 (
74,,3(
34.5)
43. 9)
57.9)
7 1.6)
35.5)
44.0)
58.4)
7 1 . 2 )
47.4)
60 . 7 )
70.6)
75. 1)
V
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
9
9
'9
8
.8'.
.7(
.9<
,9 'I
. 3 f
.9-;
. 9<
.0(
.8<
.8C
.6C
.3(
0
9 . 5 )
9.6)
9.8)
9.8)
9 6 )
9.7)
9 8 )
9.3)
9.8)
9 9 .)
9.4)
3 . 3 )
'', ME
17
V \1
28
31
17
2.3
28
31
T'2
27
3 1
33
P 'HP ;:
TER DATA
'" . '" . !"' C
y
.26
. 9 4
.46
.67
,.03
. 3 6
Cj O
.95
.09
.76
.39
.29
G/KW,,!-1'
23. 12
12 .77
8.95
6.82
17.34
9.84
7.79
6.15
11.56
3.01
5.13
2,44
NOX C C
i/KU.HR G/KU..K?
1 ,. HR
a
n
B
n
n
45
58
60
17
67
61
65
95
31
12
68
77
14
8
6
'o
13
8
6
5
8
6
5
3
. 18
.99
.87
.69
1 6
.99
. 25
.20
.94
.88
.04
.36
\
351
1032
1
1
1
836
755
388
021
838
751
077
860
768
733
"-J "i*1
3 T)
.2. '5
.68
. 85
0 <ป
.64
. 4 4
.48
.74
28
7' 7'
23
13
9
....
:',3
10
8
7
.). ~.
9
6
10
.56
.35
55
.99
. 0 1
45
,,44
1 0
'7\ 7
13
.81
o '
-------
20REV/S
REFER TO FIGS.
MAP
BN60Y
BORE
79.50
STROKE
73.00
NUMBER OF
CYLINDERS
4
CYCLE
TYPE
4.
BRAKE
CONSTANT
9.0640
AIR METER
CONSTANT
.000000
FUEL
S.G.
.8180
H/CARBON
RATIO
4.00
CALORIFIC
VALUE
19940.00
TURBOCHAROED
OPTION
0
DAY
21
MONTH
10
YEAR
82
TEST
NUMBER
58.00
BAROMETER
757.70
WET BULB
TEMPERATURE
17.00
DRY BULB
TEMPERATURE
21.00
POWER
CORRECTION
0
FRICTION
OPTION
1 .
OUTPUT
OPTION
4
1 ENGINE SPEED
-------
2.QREV/S
MAP
DATE 21/10/82
TEST NO. 58.0
BAROMETER 757.70 MM.HG
RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 67.09
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR = .39
GRAINS OF UATER/LB DRY AIR =73.04
REFER TO FIGS.
WET BULB TEMP(C) 17.0
DRY BULB TEMP(C) 21.0
SPEED
REV/S
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
POWER
KW
2. 16
3.62
5.80
7.94
10. 15
s IF POWER = 0.0 RESULTS LISTED AS G/KW-HR
RESULTS IN (BRACKETS) ARE
BMEP
BAR
1.49
2.50
4.00
5.48
7.00
TORQUE
N.M
17.21
28.80
46.18
63.21
80.77
FUEL.
G/KW.HR
1045.7
799.7
662.8
596.3
564.8
VOLUMETRIC
EFFICIENCY
29. 8 <
38. 5 (
50. 8<
62. 6 (
68 . 1 (
ARE ACTUALLY
G/HR :
CALCULATED FROM AIR METER DATA
r/.)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
Al-R FUEL
RATIO
8.2(
8.3(
8.2(
8.2<
7.4<
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
E . T . E .
17.26
22.58
27.24
30.28
31.97
H C
G/KW.HR
11.74
8.16
6.00
4.47
2.96
NOX
G/KW.HR
1.84
2.78
4.15
5.95
8.07
C 0
G/KW.HR
9.99
7.39
5.54
4.51
3.22
CO 2.
G/KW.HR
1389.05
1064.86
885.56
800.04
762.38
HC + NOX
G/KW.HR
13.58
10.94
10.14
10.43
11 .02
-------
40REV/S
REFER TO FIGS.
MAP
BN60Y
BORE
79.50
STROKE
73.00
NUMBER OF
CYLINDERS
A
CYCLE
TYPE
BRAKE
CONSTANT
9.0640
AIR METER
CONSTANT
.000000
FUEL
S.G.
.8180
H/CARBON
RATIO
4.00
CALORIFIC
VALUE
19940.00
TURBOCHARGED
OPTION .
0
DAY
20
MONTH
10
YEAR
82
TEST
NUMBER
56.00
BAROMETER
763.70
WET BULB
TEMPERATURE
17.00
DRY BULB
TEMPERATURE
21.00
POWER
CORRECTION
0
FRICTION
OPT I ON
1.
OUTPUT
OPTION
1 ENGINE SPEED (REV/S) 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00
2 BRAKE LOAD .98 1.64 2.63 3.60
3 FUEL MASS ( GRAMS ) 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
5 FUEL TIME < SEC ) 80.30 62.30 48.80 40.00
6 FUEL TEMPERATURE < C > 21.00 22.00 21.00 21.00
8 AIR METER TEMPERATURE < C ) 23.00 24.00 25.00 25.00
12 HYDROCARBONS < PPMC ) -1620.0-1410.0-1200.0-1020.0
13 CARBON MONOXIDE ( % > .130 .120 .110 .100
14 OXIDES OF NITROGEN < PPM ) -220.0 -300.0 -540.0 -780.0-
15 CARBON DIOXIDE ( 7. ) 11.500 11.300 11.100 11.400
16 OXYGEN < 7. ) 4.900 5.000 5.000 5.000
28 IGNITION TIMING 30.00 25.00 24.00 23.00
26 EXHAUST TEMPERATURE 387.0 413.0 448.0 472.0
11 INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESS.(mm.Hg)-450.00-390.00-285.00-191.25
40.00
4.60
100.00
33.00
20.00
26.00
-870.0
.090
-1000.0
11.500
4.800
23.00
498.0
-97.50
-------
40REV/S
REFER TO FIGS.
MAP
DATE: 20/10/92 TEST NO. 56
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR =
GRAINS OF UATER/LB DRY AIR =
.0 BAROMETER 763.70 MM.HG WET BULB TEMP CO 17.0
DRY BULB TEMP
-------
60REV/S
MAP
REFER TO FIGS.
BN60Y
BORE
79.50
STROKE
73.00
NUMBER OF
CYLINDERS
4
CYCLE
TYPE
4.
BRAKE
CONSTANT
9.0640
AIR METER
CONSTANT
.000000
FUEL
S.G.
.8180
H/CARBON
RATIO
4.00
CALORIFIC
VALUE
19940.00
TURBOCHARGED
OPTION
0
DAY
21
MONTH
10
YEAR
82
TEST
NUMBER
57.00
BAROMETER
759.50
WET BULB
TEMPERATURE
17.50
DRY BULB
TEMPERATURE
22.00
POWER
CORRECTION
0
FRICTION
OPTION
1.
OUTPUT
OPTION
4
< C )
1 ENGINE SPEED
16 OXYGEN < % )
28 IGNITION TIMING
26 EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
11 INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESS.(mm.Hg>
60.00
1.64
150.00
61.00
18.00
22.00
60.00
2.63
150.00
47 . 40
21.00
22.00
1410.0-1260.0
.120
-530.0
11.300
5.000
32.00
488.0
386.25-
.115
-620.0
11.200
5.100
26.00
515.0
60.00
3.60
150.00
39.40
17.00
20.00
-840.0
.105
-690.0
11.300
5.000
21.00
540.0
-285.00-202.50
60.00
4.60
150.00
33.10
16.00
20.00
-630.0
.090
-870.0
11.300
4.900
17.00
570.0
-86.25
-------
60REV/S
MAP
DATE 21/10/82
TEST NO. 57.0
BAROMETER 759.50 MM.HO
RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 64.16
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR = .87
GRAINS OF UATER/LB DRY AIR =74.10
REFER TO FIGS. 1*7-51
WET BULB TEMP(C) 17.5
DRY BULB TEMP(C) 22.0
IF POWER = 0.0 RESULTS LISTED A3 G/KW--HR ARE ACTUALLY G/HR
nnaaBBiinauBBanflunBaaaBHitaiiBBBaBnaBBiiBiiBiiBtiaflBBDBBBBiBtiBiinuu
aaaamaaaa*taaamanaaaanmaaot,ammmaailaanaaiiaamaaaaiiaiiaaaaa*maiin
RESULTS IN (BRACKETS) ARE CALCULATED FROM AIR METER DATA
SPEED
REV/S
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
POWER
KW
10.36
17.41
23.83
30.45
BMEP
BAR
2.50
4.00
5.48
7.00
TORQUE
N.M
23.80
46.18
63.21
80.77
FUEL
G/KW.HR
815.4
654.4
575.1
535.8
VOLUMETRIC
EFFICIENCY (7.)
38. 9 (
50 . 5 <
60. 2 <
71. 6(
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
AIR FUEL
B . T . E .
RATIO 7.
8.2(
8.3(
8.3<
8.3(
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
22.14
27.59
31.39
33.70
H C
G/KW.HR
6.11
4.42
2.59
1.81
NOX
G/KW.HR
5.89
5.59
5.30
6.25
C 0
G/KW.HR
7.38
5.74
4.59
3.63
C02
.G/KW.HR
1092.13
878.03
775.98
725.45
HC * NOX
G/KW.HR
12.00
10.01
7.89
8.06
-------
40REU/S 2.5BAR
EGR LOOP
REFER TO FIG.53.
BN60Y
BORE
79.50
STROKE
73.00
NUMBER OF
CYLINDERS
4
CYCLE
TYPE
A.
BRAKE
CONSTANT
9.0640
AIR METER
CONSTANT
.000281
FUEL
S.G.
.8180
H/CARBON
RATIO
4.00
CALORIFIC
VALUE
19940.00
TURBOCHARGED
OPTION
0
DAY
19
MONTH
10
YEAR
82
TEST
NUMBER
55.00
BAROMETER
765.90
WET BULB
TEMPERATURE
15.60
DRY BULB
TEMPERATURE
21.70
POUER
CORRECTION
0
FRICTION
OPTION
1.
OUTPUT
OPTION
4
1 ENGINE SPEED
2 BRAKE LOAD
3 FUEL MASS < GRAMS )
5 FUEL TIME ( SEC )
6 FUEL TEMPERATURE < C )
7 AIR METER READING
9 AIR METER DEPRESSION
-------
40REV/S 2.5BAR
EGR LOOP
REFER TO FIG.53.
DATE 19/10/82
TEST NO. 55.0 BAROMETER 765.90 MM.HG
RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 52.29
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR - .89
GRAINS OF WATER/LB DRY AIR -- 58,58
WET BULB TEMP(C) 15.6
DRY BULB TEMP<0 21.7
5 IF POWER = 0.0 RESULTS LISTED AS G/KW-HR ARE ACTUALLY G/I-IR
SPEED
REV/8
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
POWER
KW
.24
.24
.24
.24
.24
7.24
7.24
7.24
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
RESULTS IN < BRACKETS) ARE CALCULATED FROM AIR METER DATA
BMEP
BAR
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
TORQUE
N.M
28.80
28.80
28.80
28.80
28.80
28.80
28.80
28.80
FUEL
G/KU.HR
806.2
790.8
784.6
785.8
824.9
808.8
815.4
815.4
VOLUMETRIC
EFFICIENCY(X)
37. 8< 37.7)
37. 4 ( 37.1)
37. 5 ( 37.4)
37, 7 < 37.7)
34. 8( 34.7)
34. 0< 34.5)
34. 3< 34.0)
34. 0( 33.5)
AIR FUEL.
RAT1
8.2<
8.3<
8.4<
8.4<
7.4<
7.3<
7.3(
7.3<
0
8.2)
8.2)
8.4)
8.4)
7.3)
7.4)
7.3)
7.2)
B . T . E .
'/
22.39
22.83
23.01
22.98
21.89
22.32
22.14
22.14
H C
G/KW.HR
6.38
7.10
7.76
8.15
4.19
5.03
5.28
5.52
NOX
G/KW.I-IR
3.14
1.46
.67
.63
6.71
3.19
1.59
1.56
C 0
G/KW.HR
6.93
6.55
6.66
6.96
6.91
6.49
6.22
6.34
C02
G/KW.HR
1079.39
1056.86
1046.31
1046.49
1111.16
1087.38
1096.24
1095.38
I-IC + NOX
G/KW.HR
9.52
8.57
8.43
3.78
10, .89
8.22
6.87
7.08
-------
MAP AUTO IGN FUEL EGR
BN60Y
REFER TO FIGS. 51*, 56-62.
BORE
79.50
STROKE
73.00
NUMBER OF
CYLINDERS
4
CYCLE BRAKE AIR METER FUEL H/CARBON
TYPE CONSTANT CONSTANT S.G. RATIO
4. 9.0640 .000000 .8180 4.00
CALORIFIC TURBOCHARGED
VALUE OPTION
19940.00 0
DAY
MONTH
11
YEAR
32
TEST
NUMBER
77.00
BAROMETER
756.70
WET BULB
TEMPERATURE
13.50
DRY BULB
TEMPERATURE
19.00
POWER
CORRECTION
0
FRICTION
OPTION
1.
OUTPUT
OPTION
4
C )
1 ENGINE SPEED (REV/S)
2 BRAKE LOAD
3 FUEL MASS < GRAMS )
5 FUEL TIME ( SEC )
6 FUEL TEMPERATURE ( C )
8 AIR METER TEMPERATURE <
12 HYDROCARBONS < PPMC )
13 CARBON MONOXIDE < 7. )
14 OXIDES OF NITROGEN < PPM )
15 CARBON DIOXIDE ( % )
16 OXYGEN < % )
28 IGNITION TIMING
26 EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
11 INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESS.
-------
MAP AUTO IGN FUEL EGR
REFER TO FIGS. 5^, 56-62.
DATE 25/11/82
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
TEST NO. 77.0
BAROMETER 756.70 MM.HG
UJET BULB TEMP 19.0
SPEED
REV/S
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
ao.o
80.0
POWER
KU
4.32
7.24
11 .61
15.89
20.30
10.86
17.41
23.83
30.45
23.21
31.77
'ITY =53.60
CTION FACTOR = 1.01
:R/LB DRY AIR = 51.37
5 IF POWER = 0.0 RESULTS LISTED AS G/KW-HR ARE ACTUALLY
G/HR s
RESULTS IN (BRACKETS) ARE CALCULATED FROM -AIR METER DATA
BMEP
BAR
1 .49
2.50
4.00
5.48
7.00
2.50
4.00
5.48
7.00
4.00
5.48
TORQUE
N.M
17.21
28.80
46.18
63.21
80.77
28.80
46.18
63.21
80.77
46.18
63.21
FUEL
G/KW.HR
1043.1
785.8
633.0
569 . 3
532.5
811 .4
651.6
585.5
555.9
703.3
626.0
VOLUMETRI
C
EFFICIENCY (7.)
30. 4 (
39. 4 <
49. 4(
59. 8<
75. 1<
38. 6 <
49. 0(
57. 9 (
69 . 5 (
47. 7 (
57 . 6 (
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
AIR FUEL
RATIO
8.4( .0)
8.6< .0)
8.4( .0)
8 . 1 ( . 0 )
8 . 5 ( . 0 )
8.1( .0)
7 . 9 < . 0 )
7.6< .0)
7.5( .0)
7 . 2 C . 0 )
7.1< .0)
B . T . E .
7.
17.31
22.98
28.52
31.71
33.90
22.25
27.71
30.83
32.48
25.67
28.84
H C
G/KW.HR
9.45
7.31
5.85
3.94
2.62
7.76
4.17
2.50
2.19
2.60
1.85
NOX
G/KW.HR
2.25
3.24
.91
2.49
5.74
1.44
3.19
6.32
7.70
7.89
8.50
C 0
G/KW.HR
10.65
6.86
6 . 35
4.65
3.74
9.20
5.57
4.39
4.89
5.92
6.87
C02
G/KW.HR
1390.70
1048.94
843.80
764.21
718.70
1079.25
875.2.2
790.82
750.19
950.03
844.27
HC + NOX
G/KW.HR
1 1 69
10.55
6.76
6.43
8.36
9.20
7.35
8.81
9.89
10.49
10.36
-------
K
-------
20REV/S
MAP AUTO 1GN FUEL EGR
REFER TO FIGS. 51*, 56-62
DATE 26/11/82
TEST NO. 79.0 BAROMETER 753,00 MM.HG
RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 48.26
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR = 1,05
GRAINS OF WATER/LB DRY AIR = 51.01
WET BULB TEMP(C) 14.0
DRY BULB TEMP*C) 20.5
IF POWER = 0.0 RESULTS LISTED AS G/KU-HR ARE ACTUALLY G./HR :
SPEED
REV/S
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
60.0
60.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
80.0
80.0
POWER
KU
6.07
9.05
10.87
14.51
19.86
25.38
3.24
5.43
8.70
11.92
8.67
13.04
12.67
15.21
20.31
27.80
35.53
37.69
40.60
BMEP
BAR
1.67
2.50
3.00
4.00
5.48
7.00
1.49
2.50
4.00
5.48
,99
,00
2.50
3.00
4.00
5.48
7.00
6.50
7.00
1,
3.
RESULTS IN (BRACKETS) ARE CALCULATED FROM AIR METER DATA
TORQUE FUEL VOLUMETRIC AIR FUEL. E.T.E. H C
N.M
19.32
28.80
34 . 59
46.18
63.21
80.77
17.21
28.80
46.18
63.21
23.00
34.59
28.80
34.59
46.18
63.21
80.77
74.98
80.77
G/KW.HR
975.8
791.1
717.0
629.8
566.5
543.6
1055.0
802.9
656.5
576.6
926.7
721.4
826.3
746.4
668.8
603.7
556.8
589 . 6
583.4
EFFICIENCY**)
32 . 1 <
37 . 8 *
40. 7<
46.9*
60. 0<
68 . 4 (
31 .7<
38. 8 *
53 . 5 <
61 .6(
34. 3 <
39. 3 <
37. 6 (
40. 5*
46.3*
56. 8<
67 . 4 (
117.0*
68.9*
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
RATIO
8.5*
8.3*
8.1*
8.0*
8.3*
7.6*
8.5*
8.3*
8.8*
8.3*
8.0*
7.8*
7.8*
7.7*
7.3*
7.2*
7.1*
12.9*
7.0*
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
7.
18.50
22.82
25.18
28.67
31 .87
33.21
17.11
22.49
27.50
31.31
19.48
25.03
21.85
24.19
26.99
29.91
32.43
30.62
30.95
G/KU.HR
10.56
6.59
7.27
5.57
3.95
2.42
14.20
7.93
6.47
4.56
9.90
6.15
6.59
5.41
3.11
2.41
2.52
2.18
2.22
NOX
G/KW.HR
2.68
3.34
.99
1.60
2.16
7.02
2.84
3.69
4.17
2.26
.97
1.45
1 .86
2.43
4.88
7.44
7.70
7.10
8.00
C 0
G/KW.HR
10.68
7.81
6.99
6.05
4.79
5.86
12.41
8.65
6.30
4.74
9.30
6.54
7.38
6.67
5.61
4.55
5.91
5.87
21.70
C02
G/KW.HR
1295.09
1056.74
954.37
840.62
760.07
731 .06
1391 .24
1067.97
874.39
772.33
1231.54
964.16
1105.71
1000.36
901 .72
815.73
748.88
795.03
761 .39
HC * NOX
G/KW.HR
13.24
9.93
8.26
7.18
6.10
9.44
17.04
11.61
10.64
6.82
10.87
7.60
3.45
7.84
7.99
9.85
10.22
9 . 2.8
10.22
-------
MIXTURE LOOP
IGNITION LOOP
BN60Y
REFER TO FIGS. 65-71-
BORE
79.50
DAY
STROKE NUMBER OF
CYLINDERS
73.00 4
MONTH
YEAR
83
1 ENGINE SPEED
2 BRAKE LOAD
3 FUEL MASS ', GRAMS )
5 FUEL TIME < SEC )
6 FUEL TEMPF.RATURE < C )
8 AIR METER TEMPERATURE < C )
12 HYDROCARBONS ( PPMC )
13 CARBON MONOXIDE ( '/. )
14 OXIDES OF NITROGEN ( PPM )
15 CARBON DIOXIDE < % )
16 OXYGEN ( "/. )
28 IGNITION TIMING
26 EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
11 INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESS.
-------
MIXTURE LOOP
REFER TO FIGS. 65-71
IGNITION LOOP
DATE 15/ 1/83
TEST NO. 98.0
BAROMETER 761.70 MM.HG
RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 51.01
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR = 1.19
GRAINS OF WATER/LB DRY AIR = 51.68
WET BULB TEMP(C) 14.0
DRY BULB TEMP(C) 2.0.0
SPEED
REV/S
15,.0
15.0
15,0
15.0
15 .0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
POWER
KW
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
BMEP
BAR
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
TORQUE
N.M
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
FUEL
G/KW.HR
1265.4
1048.0
1043.5
1216.2
1100.9
997.2
1036.0
1090.9
962.6
1016.9
1028.6
1007.0
VOLUMETRIC
EFFICIENCY(
7.)
14.8/,
14 . 4 (
15.2<
14.4<
14 . 0 (
13.7(
14 .2 <
15.0<
13. 4 (
14 . 1 (
14.2(
14.0(
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
G/KU-HR
ARE ACTUALLY
G/I-IR s
.ATED FROM AIR METER DATA
AIR FUEL.
RATIO
5.3<
6.3(
6.7(
5.5<
5.9(
6.2(
6.2(
6.2<
6.3(
6.3<
6.3(
6.3<
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
B . T . E .
'/.
.00
.00
.00
,,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
H C
G/KW.HR
28.97
13.87
20.83
19.81
14.33
12.69
12.61
10.68
14.42
14.67
20.01
14.01
NOX
G/KW.HR
. 13
.11
.12
.09
.10
.13
.13
.14
.13
.14
.14
.11
C 0
G/KW.HR
384.01
95.18
50.79
306.79
172.75
103.37
108.24
101 .81
91.37
97.32
103.51
96.47
C02
G/KU.HR
1055.90
1252.52
1296.89
1134.81
1202.04
1173.05
1218.87
1309.74
1139.55
1204.24
1195.84
1193.70
HC * NOX
G/KU.HR
29. 11
13.98
20.95
19.91
14.43
12.83
12.73
10.82
14.55
14 ,,80
20,15
1 4 1 2
-------
EPA 1.5L HRCC VU ENGINE
13:1 CR
FULL LOAD POWER CURVE-
WITHOUT INTAKE HEATER.
REFER TO FIGS. 73~75.
BORE:
79.50
DAY
12
STROKE
73.00
MONTH
1 ENGINE SPEED (REV/S)
2 BRAKE LOAD
3 FUEL MASS < GRAMS )
5 FUEL TI ME ( SEC, )
6 FUEL TEMPERATURE ( C
8 AIR METER TEMPERATURE <
12 HYDROCARBONS < PPMC >
13 CARBON MONOXIDE ( "/. >
14 OXIDES OF NITROGEN < PPM )
15 CARBON DIOXIDE '. '/. )
16 OXYGEN < 7. )
28 IGNITION TIMING
26 EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
NUMBER OF
CYLINDERS
4
YEAR
CYCLE BRAKE AIR METER
TYPE CONSTANT CONSTANT
4. 9.0640 .000000
TEST BAROMETER UET BULB
NUMBER
83
20
93.
.00
5.38
150
64
) 13
E < C ) 27
.00
.00
.00
.00
00
30.00
6.10
150.00
39.60
14.00
25.00
> -2070.0-1740.0
) 6.
400
PPM ) -100.0
11.
m
10
000
200
.00
406.0
S .
-------
REFER TO FIGS. 73-75.
EPA 1.5L HRCC VU ENGINE
:l.3:l CR
WITHOUT INTAKE HEATER.
DATE 12/ 1/83
TEST NO. 93.0
BAROMETER 772.15 MM.HG
RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 53.88
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR = 1.23
DRAINS OF WATER/L6 DRY AIR = 52.22
WET BULB TEMP(C) 14.0
DRY BULB TEMP
-------
EPA 1.5L HRCC VU ENGINE
13 si CR WITH INTAKE HEATER FITTED
FULL LOAD POWER CURVE
REFER TO FIGS. 73'75
BORE
79.50
STROKE
73.00
NUMBER OF
CYLINDERS
A
CYCLE BRAKE AIR METER FUEL H/CARBON CALORIFIC
TYPE CONSTANT CONSTANT S.G. RATIO VALUE
4. 9.0640 .000000 .8180 4.00 19940.00
TURBOCHARGED
OPTION
0
DAY
13
MONTH
1
YEAR
83
TEST
NUMBER
94.00
BAROMETER
765.75
WET BULB
TEMPERATURE
13.00
DRY BULB
TEMPERATURE
21.00
POWER
CORRECTION
1
FRICTION
OPTION
1.
OUTPUT
OPTION
4
1 ENGINE SPEED (REV/S)
2 BRAKE LOAD
3 FUEL MASS < GRAMS )
5 FUEL TIME ( SEC >
6 FUEL TEMPERATURE ( C )
8 AIR METER TEMPERATURE ( C )
12 HYDROCARBONS ( PPMC )
13 CARBON MONOXIDE ( "/. )
14 OXIDES OF NITROGEN < PPM )
15 CARBON DIOXIDE < 7. )
16 OXYGEN ( y. )
28 IGNITION TIMING
26 EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
11 INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESS.
20.00
5 . 36
150.00
65.00
14.00
24.00
30.00
6.12
150.00
43.00
14.00
22.00
40.00
6.28
200.00
45.10
13.00
21.00
50.00
6.33
200.00
36.50
13.00
22.00
60.00
6.32
250.00
38.10
13.00
23.00
21 00. 0-1860. 0-1 200. 0-1260. 0-13SO.O-
6.100
-150.0
11.800
.250
10.00
428,0
.00
4.500
-400.0
12.500
.200
12.00
462.0
.00
3.000
-720.0
13.100
.300
16.00
533.0
.00
2.600
-830.0
13.300
.400
18.00
578.0
.00
2.400
-920.0
13.400
.400
21.00
609.0
.00
70.00
6 . 1 5
250.00
32.90
11.00
24.00
80.00
5.81
250.00
29.30
11.00
26.00
90.00
5/30
250.00
26.10
11.00
25.00
-1200.0-1080.0-1020.0
2.600
-780.0
13.200
.400
22.00
641.0
.00
2.800
-760.0
13.100
.300
22.00
661.0
.00
3.700
-680.0
12.800
.300
22 . 00
666.0
.00
-------
EPA 1.5L HRCC VU ENGINE
13:1 CR WITH INTAKE HEATER FITTED
REFER TO FIGS. 73"75
DATE 13/ 1/83
TEST NO. 94.0
BAROMETER 765.75 MM.HG
WET BULB TEMP(C) 13.0
DRY BULB TEMP(C) 21.0
RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 38.34
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR = 1.01
GRAINS OF UATER/LB DRY AIR = 41.00
IF POWER =0.0 RESULTS LISTED AS G/KW-HR ARE ACTUALLY G/HR
RESULTS IN (BRACKETS) ARE CALCULATED FROM AIR METER DATA
POWERS CORRECTED TO DIN.70020
SPEED
REV/S
20.0
30 . 0
40..0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
POWER
KU
11.82
20.17
27.55
34.77
41.73
47.46
51.41
52.67
BMEP
BAR
8.15
9.28
9.50
9.60
9.60
9.35
8.87
8.07
TORQUE
N.M
94.05
107.02
109.63
110.69
110.71
107.91
102.29
93.15
FUEL
G/KU.HR
702.4
620.0
576.0
564.9
564 . 6
576.0
599.0
655.2
VOLUMETRIC
EFFICIENCY (X)
68. 7 <
73. 0<
73. 9 (
74.7',
75. 3 <
74. 5 <
72. 8 <
70. 1(
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
AIR FUEL
RATIO
5.2(
5.5(
5.8<
6.0<
6.0(
6.0<
5.9<
5.7<
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
B . T . E .
7.
25.70
29.12
31.34
31 .96
31 .97
31.35
30.14
27.55
H C
G/KW.HR
5.34
4.39
2.78
2.89
3.18
2.82
2.63
2.63
NOX
G/KW.HR
1.09
2.53
4.36
5.11
5.83
5.17
5.50
5.09
C 0
G/KW.HR
206.17
141.49
92.97
79.96
74.16
82.08
91.44
127.47
C02
G/KW.HR
626.63
617.55
637.85
642.68
650.61
654.72
672.20
692.87
HC + NOX
G/KW.HR
6.42
6.92
7 .. 14
8.00
9.01
8.. 00
8.1.3
7.72
-------
MAP
AUTO FUEL IGN EGR
REFER TO FIGS. 77~81
BN60Y
BORE: STROKE NUMBER OF CYCLE
CYLINDERS TYPE
79.50 73.00 4
DAY MONTH YEAR
18 1 83
1 ENGINE SPEED (REV/S)
30.00 80.00
2 BRAKE LOAD
3.60 4 .,60
3 FUEL MASS ( GRAMS )
250.00 250.00
5 FUEL TIME < SEC )
45.10 38.70
6 FUEL TEMPERATURE ( C )
13.00 13.00
8 AIR METER TEMPERATURE < C )
36.00 38.00
12 HYDROCARBONS ( PPMC )
-870.0 -340.0
13 CARBON MONOXIDE ( "/. )
.120 .100
14 OXIDES OF NITROGEN ( PPM >
1250.0-1400.0
15 CARBON DIOXIDE < % )
13.800 13.000
16 OXYGEN ( 7. )
1.700 2.500
28 IGNITION TIMING
30.00 24.00
26 EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
621.0 638.0
11 INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESS. (mm. Hg
2O6.25-112.SO
4.
TEST
NUMBER
97.00
50.00 50.
1.08 1.
100.00 100.
59.70 49.
15.00 15.
42.00 39.
-1860.0-2.010
BRAKE AIR METE
CONSTANT
9.
0640
R FUEL
CONSTANT S.G.
.000000 .8180
BAROMETER WET BULB
TEMPERATURE
00
64
00
65
00
00
766.90
56.00
2.. 63
100.00
38.71
15.00
43.00
40.00
.98
100.00
81.20
15.00
41.00
10.00
40.00
1.64
100.00
62.90
15.00
34.00
. 0-1380. 0-1710. 0-1 4 10.0-
.150 .140
-290.0 -88
.0
11.800 12.000
4.400 4.200
31.00 30.
426.0 432
) -442. 50-330.
00
.0
00
.130
-370.0
12.400
3.500
28.00
468.0
.140
-170.0
11.200
5.000
27.00
386.0
.130
-420.0
11.500
4.700
27.00
402.0
DRY BULB
TEMPERATURE
16.00
40.00 40.00
2 . 63 3 . 60
100.00 100.00
48.45 40.00
15.00 15.00
36.00 39.00
1650.0-1410.0
.130 .120
-160.0 -260.0
11.800 11.500
4.200 4.800
2.4.00 19.00
430.0 464.0
-247.50-450.00-375.00-225.00-135.00
H/CARBON
RATIO
4.00
POWER
CORRECTION
0
40.00 60.00
4.60 1.64
100.00 150.00
33.53 60.40
16.00 15.00
44.00 37.00
CALOR I F I C TURBOCHARGED
VALUE
19940
.00
FRICTION
OPT
1 .
60.00
2.63
150.00
47.00
14.00
37.00
-990.0-1590.0-1140.0
,,090 .150
-790.0 -240.0
11.400 12.900
5.200 3.300
15.00 33.00
496.0 483.0
.130
-580.0
12.600
3.200
31.00
515.0
ION
60.00
3.60
150.00
38.70
14.00
39.00
-960.0-
.110
-920.0-
12.800
3.000
28.00
549.0
-60 . 00-345 . 00-262 . 50-183 . 75-
OPTION
0
OUTPUT
OPT
4
60 . 00
4 . 60
200.00
43.25
13.00
38.00
1140.0
.100
1000.0
12.400
3.600
22 . 00
569 . 0
103.00-
10N
80.00
2.63
250.00
54.70
13.00
37.00
-945.0
.140
-950.0
13.800
1.800
34.00
600 0
28S.OO
-------
MAP
REFER TO FIGS. 77-81
AUTO FUEL IGN EGR
DATE 187 1/83
TEST NO. 97.0 BAROMETER 766.90 MM.I-IG
RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 45.05
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR = 1.35
GRAINS OF WATER/LE: DRY AIR = 35,13
WET BULB TEMP(C) 10.0
DRY BULB TEMP(C) 16.0
IF POWER
0.0 RESULTS LISTED AS G/KW-HR ARE ACTUALLY G/HR s
SPEED
REV/S
50.0
50 .0
50.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
60.0
60 0
60.0
60.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
POWER
KW
5.96
9.05
14.51
4.32
7.24
11.61
15.89
20.30
10.86
17.41
23.83
30.45
23.21
31.77
40.60
BMEP
BAR
1.64
2.50
4.00
1.49
2.50
4.00
5.48
7.00
2.50
4.00
5.48
7.00
4.00
5.48
7.00
RESULTS IN (BRACKETS) ARE
TORQUE
N.M
18.96
28.80
46.18
17.21
28.80
46.18
63.21
80.77
28.80
46.18
63.21
80.77
46.18
63.21
80.77
FUEL.
G/KW.HR
1012.2
801.5
641.0
1025.1
790.8
640.2
566 . 5
528.6
823.5
659 . 9
585 . 5
546.7
708.8
628.0
572.8
VOLUMETRIC
EFFICIENCY
32. 3 (
38. 0(
47. 8 <
30. 8(
38. 2 (
48. 5 <
61.4''.
76. 3 C
37. 0<
47. 7 <
57 . 8 (
70. 8(
47. 7(
57 . 6 <
70. 4 <
CALCULATED FROM AIR METER DATA
(7.)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
AIR FUEL
RATIO
7 . 9 <
7.8(
7 . 6 <
8.2(
8 . 1 (
7 . 9 <
8 . 1 (
8.3<
7.4<
7.5(
7.4<
7.6<
7.QC
6 . 9 (
7.2<
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
E . T . E .
7.
17.84
22.53
28.16
17.61
22.83
23.20
31.87
34.16
21.92
27.36
30.83
33.02
25.47
28.75
31.52
H C
G/KW.HR
9.60
8.10
4.36
9.33
5.83
5.40
4.18
2.78
6.24
3.67
2.72
3.09
3.05
2 .49
2.30
NOX
G/KW.HR
6.00
1.34
4.99
3.54
5.80
1 .85
2.84
8.92
3.49
6.92
10.19
10.13
11.85
13.49
14.85
C 0
G/KW.HR
10.90
7.92
5.74
10.87
7.62
6.00
5.04
3.58
8.15
5.83
4.32
3.78
6.17
4.70
3.79
C02
G/KU.HR
1347.37
1066.65
859.84
1365.97
1058.67
855.45
759.03
713.07
1101 .68
887.59
790.32
736.82
955.90
848.78
774.80
HC + NOX
G/KU.HR
15.60
9.44
9 . 36
12.87
11.64
7.25
7.02
11 .70
9.74
10.59
1 2 . 9 1
13.22
14.91
15.99
17.16
-------
MAP
AUTO FUEL IGN EGR
BN60Y
REFER TO FIGS. 77-81,
BORE STROKE NUMBER OF CYCLE BRAKE AIR METER FUEL
CYLINDERS TYPE CONSTANT CONSTANT S.G.
79.50 73.00 4 A. 9.0640 .000000 .8180
DAY MONTH YEAR TEST BAROMETER WET BULB DRY BULB
NUMBER TEMPERATURE TEMPERATURE
18 1 83
1 ENGINE SPEED (REV/S)
30.00 30.00 30.00
2 BRAKE LOAD
2.63 3.60 4.30
3 FUEL MASS ( GRAMS )
50.00 50.00 70.00
5 FUEL TIME < SEC )
33.30 26.70 32.30
6 FUEL TEMPERATURE ( C )
16.00 16.00 16.00
8 AIR METER TEMPERATURE ( C
36.00 40.00 47.00
12 HYDROCARBONS < PPMC )
1320.0-1230.0-1320.0
13 CARBON MONOXIDE ( % )
.120 .110 .100
14 OXIDES OF NITROGEN < PPM )
-370.0 -210.0 -740.0
15 CARBON DIOXIDE C 7. )
11.500 11.300 10.700
16 OXYGEN ( y. >
4.800 5.000 5.700
28 IGNITION TIMING
21.00 14.00 12.00
26 EXHAUST TEMPERATURE
382. O 427.0 453.0
11 INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESS. (mm.
255. OO-112. SO -6O.OO
98.00
50.00
3.60
150.00
47.40
17.00
) 44.00
-12.00.0
.110
-380.0
11.200
5.000
23.00
498.0
Hg>-l 35.OO
50.00
4.60
150.00
59.70
17.00
46.00
767.70
70.00
1 .64
150.00
49.40
16.00
38.00
12.00 21.00
70.00
2.63
150.00
39.00
16.00
38.00
-990.0-1320.0-1080.0
.100
-900.0
11.800
4.100
19.00
537.0
.150
-380.0
12.400
3.300
35.00
511 .0
.140
70.00 70.00
3.60 4.60
150.00 150.00
32.20 27.00
15.00 15.00
38.00 37.00
20.00
.98
50.00
82.00
16.00
36.00
-990. 0-1050. 0-1620.0-
.120 .100
-770.0-1100.0-1200.0
12.600
2.800
33.00
550.0
12.600 12.300
2.800 3.200
29.00 24.00
581.0 603.0
.140
-120.0
11.400
5.000
22.00
264.0
H/CARBON
RATIO
4.00
POWER
CORRECTION
0
20.00
1.64
50.00
63.85
16.00
36.00
20.00
2.63
50.00
47.80
17.00
36.00
CALORIFIC TURBOCHARGED
VALUE OPTION
19940.00 0
FRICTION OUTPUT
OPTION OPTION
1.
20.00
3.60
50.00
39.60
17.00
37.00
1800.0-1350.0-1320.0-
.130
-250.0
11.000
5.300
23.00
281.0
-82.5O-345.0O-270.00-187.50-1Q5.00-412.50-337.50-
.130
-900.0
12.000
3.800
19.00
309.0
-247.50
.110
-380.0
10.300
6.200
11.00
362.0
-97.50
20.00
4.00
50 . 00
36 . 50
17.00
38.00
1290.0-
.100
-800.0
10.700
5.800
9.00
388.0
-52.50-
4
30.00 30.00
.98 1 . 64
50.00 50,00
54.00 41.80
17.00 16.00
39.00 34.00
1560.0-1320.0
.140 .130
-210.0 -480.0
11.700 11.800
4.400 4.300
23 . 00 23 . 00
353.0 356.0
442.50-375.00
-------
MAP
REFER TO FIGS. 77-81
AUTO FUEL IGN EGR
DATE 187 1/83
TEST NO. 98.0
BAROMETER 767.70 MM.HG
WET BULB TEMP CO 12.0
DRY BULB TEMP CO 21.0
RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 31.71
HUMIDITY CORRECTION FACTOR = 1.46
GRAINS OF WATER/LB DRY AIR = 33.77
SPEED
REV/S
50.0
50,0
70.0
70 ,,0
70.0
70.0
20.0
20.0
20 .0
20.0
20 .0
30 ,,0
30 ,,0
30 .0
30.0
30.0
POWER
KW
19.86
25.38
12.67
20.31
27.80
35.53
2.16
3.62
5.80
7.9 4
8.83
3.24
5.43
8.70
11.92
14.23
B IF POWER = 0.0 RESULTS LISTED A3 G/KU-HR ARE ACTUALLY G./HR 5
BMEP
BAR
5.48
7.00
2.50
4.00
5.48
7.00
1.49
2.50
4.00
5.43
6.09
1 .49
2.50
4.00
5.48
6 . 55
RESULTS IN (BRACKETS) ARE CALCULATED FROM AIR METER DATA
TORQUE FUEL VOLUMETRIC AIR FUEL B.T.E. H C
N.M
63.21
80.77
28.80
46.13
63.21
30.77
17.21
23.30
46.18
63.21
70.24
17.21
28.80
46.18
63.21
75.51
G/KW.HR
573.7
356.5
863 . 1
631.7
603 . 2
563.0
1015.1
779.0
648.9
572.2
558.7
1027.7
793.3
621.0
565.8
548.2
EFFICIENCYC"/,)
64. 2 C
48, 9 C
39 . 1 <
48 . 5 C
58. 8 <
7 1 . 5 C
29. 9 (
39 . 1 C
48. 2 (
67. 4 (
7 1 . 4 <
29. 6 C
37 . 5 C
48. 7 C
62 . 3 C
77 . 1 (
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
RATIO %
8.3C
7.9C
7 . 5 C
7 . 3 <
7.3(
7.5(
8 . 2 C
8.4C
7.7C
8.9C
8 . 7 C
7.9(
7.9C
8 . 1 (
8 . 2 C
8.6C
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
.0)
31 .47
50.65
20.92
26.48
29.93
32.07
17.79
23.18
2.7 . 82.
31.55
32.31
17.57
22.76
29.07
31.91
32.93
G/KU.HR
3.69
1.82
5.62
3.60
2.92
2.95
8.64
7.57
4.44
4.33
4.01
8.26
5.37
4.30
3.71
4.02
NOX
G/KW.HR
4.75
7.39
6.14
9.87
12.49
12.48
2.21
3.60
10.54
4 . 22
8.69
4.16
6.60
4.18
2.36
9 . 43
C 0
G/KW.HR
4.82
2.59
8.90
6.48
4.93
3.93
10.59
7.80
6.00
5.21
4.46
10.46
7.46
5.53
4.71
4.37
C02
G/KU.HR
770.58
480.74
1156.54
916.68
813.09
759.32
1354.56
1037.45
870.06
766.24
749.76
1373.03
1063.65
832.80
759.89
735/35
HC + NOX
G/KW.HR
8.44
9.21
11.75
13.46
15.41
15.43
10.85
1 1 1 7
14 .97
Q ,55
12.69
12 .,42
1 :i .98
8 ,,48
6.07
1 3 4 6
-------
RKMD
R>CAROO MOLTfl- CVUIMDC.* MK.eC
C.H.M. /L.M.
FIG. No. I
Drg. No. ป. SAG'S
\
Transverse Section
View on Cylinder Head Face
JPMLTO.
-------
RK2RDO
H.ICAHDO MUIT1CVI-Iป>ปC>Cป MH.CC
FW. No. *
Ori. No. *
DM* MAV
I Ql.
-------
RIG1RDO
CON3ULTIHO ENGINEERS
FIG. 3 HRCC CYLINDER HEAD
-------
RIGIRDD
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
13HCR (79.5 X 7Z)
FULL LOAD POWER CURVE
Fig .No . 4
Drg.Mo
Dais: 28 Jan 1983
-X 98RON GASOLINE
--* RICARDO RESEARCH HRCC ENSINE (98RDN GASOLINE)
790
80
22
ENGINE SPEED ( rev/s )
20
30
50
60
70
80
90
100
-------
RK2RDD
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
13MCR (79.5 X 73)
FULL LOAD POWER CURVE
Fl g .No . 5
Drg -No .
: 28 Jan 1983
98RON GASOLINE
RICARDO RESEARCH HRCC ENGINE (98RON GASOLINE)
100,
90
5.0,
4.5
3.0"
20
30
ENGINE SPEED ( rev/s )
40
50
60
70
80
90
00
-------
RK2RDD
EPA 1,5L HRCC ENGINE
13HCR (79.5 X 73)
FULL LOAD POWER CURVE
-X 98RON GASOLINE
--* RICARDO RESEARCH HRCC ENGINE C98RON GASOLINE)
Fig.No. 6
Drg -No -
: 28 Jan 1983
900i
-
-------
/M.B.
RK2RDO
EPA l-5t HRCC ENGINE
OCTANE REQUIREMENT TESTS
FK3. No. 7
Or* No. D 50040
Dซ. pซb '13
'AUTOMATIC' CARBURETTER FUELLING.
\
ZJ '
y\
z
LJ
D
C
a
I
I
OC,
04
Oi
oo.
*8
I
1
!
|
J
RE<
OCTANE
JUIfl
^
1
1
EMJ
4- -
I
f
[
\
1
KLSA <
NT$
,
i
X
J^
3
('^
r
-
t
TIOl
r
/
xr-^
.
5
H Tl
r-
-
<
><
1
IN
I
|
X
x
X
,*--
,
2
Mlh
Avr
I
IS
X
"*
**
O
.^r'
'^
iX1
V
MIN
4 Ul
3
r
as
5 'ft
0
^.
^
ma
3
STA
S
R'
-------
RK2RDO
EPA 1.51 HRCC ENGINE
13HCR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP 20REV/S 1.5BAR
-X 98RON GASOLINE
--ป RICARDO RESEARCH HRCC ENGINE (98RON GASOLINE)
Fig-No. 8
Drg -No .
Date' 28 Jan 1983
30CH
200
100
16
14
;LEAN
EQUIVALENCE RATIO.
iRICH
0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15
-------
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
13MCR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP 20PEV/S 1.5BAR
9
Da-te! 28 Jan 1983
98RON GASOLINE
RICARDO RESEARCH HRCC ENGINE (98RDN GASOLINE)
450,
400
300
o
UJ
cc
oc.
2:
UJ
10 J
X
^rSOO
450
400
350
:LEAN
EQUIVALENCE RATIO
:RICH
0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15
-------
RK2RDD
EPA 1.51 HRCC ENGINE
13MCR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP 20REV/S 1.5BAR
-X 98RON GASOLINE
--0 RICAROO RESEARCH HRCC ENGINE (98RON GASOLINE)
Fig -No . 10
Drg.No.
Da-te = 28 Jan 1983
3000i
2000
1000
2000^
:LEAN
EQUIVAUENCE RATIO
RICH
0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15
-------
RK2K30
EPA 1.51 HRCC ENGINE
13HCR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP 40REV/S 2.5BAR
Fig.No. 11
Drg.No .
Daie" 28 Jan 1983
9SRON GASOLINE
~Q RICARDO RESEARCH HRCC EN6INE (98RDH GASOLINE)
20
18 J
:LEAN
0.5 0.6 0.7
:EQU1VAUENCE RATIO
0.8
0.9 1 .0
. 1
. RICH
1.2 1.3
-------
RK3RDO:
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
Fig. No, 12
Drg .No .
Date: 28 Jan 1983
13HCR (7-9*5 X
MIXTURE LOOP ซ 40REV/S 2.5BAR
98RON GASOLINE
RICARDO RESEARCH HRCC ENGINE (98RON GASOLINE)
600,
550
20
10
A1700
600
iLEAN
EQUIVALENCE RATIO
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
| IR1CH
.2 1 .3
-------
RK2RDD
EPA 1.51 HRCC ENGINE
13ซ1CR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP 40REV/S 2.5BAR
98RON GASOLINE
--* RICARDO RESEARCH HRCC EMGINE (98RDN GASOLINE)
Flg.No. 13
Drg.No .
Da-te- 28 Jan 1983
600Oi
4000
2000
1EAN
0.5 0.6
iEQUlVALENCE RATIO
0.7
0-8 0.9
1 .0
1 . 1
1-2
1 .3
-------
RK2HDO
EPA t.SL HRCC ENGINE
I3MCR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP 40REV/S 5.5BAR
X
F I g No . 14
Drg . No .
Date' 28 Jan 1983
98RON GASOLINE
~t> RICARDO RESEARCH HRCC ENGINE C98RDN GASOLINE)
600
400
200
20
LEAN
EOUIVAUENCE RATIO
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
1.2 1.3
JR1CH
1 .4
-------
RK2RDO
EPA 1.51 HRCC ENGINE
I3HCR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP 40REV/S 5.5BAR
Fl g .No . 15
Drg.No-
Daie= 28 Jan 1983.
-X 98RON GASOLINE
~0 RICARDO RESEARCH HRCC ENGINE C98RDN GASOLINE)
B50i
600
500
4501
o
UJ
a:
o.
z:
tU
in
T. '
X
UJ
10 J
LEAN
ซ-^-------4
._--<>
(/>
CO
UJ
CC
CL.
900
800
700
L600
IEQUIVALENCE RATIO
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
I .0
1.1
1 .2
1 .3
.R.I CH
1 .4
-------
RK2RDO
EPA 1 .51 HRCC ENGINE
13HCR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP 40REV/S 5.5BAR
ฐ : i "j/j !
1 i ; I
O i ''':
0 ; i
HRCC ENGI
^_
NE (98ROH
'N^
i
; ' V" ^ฃ A \/ f\ i <1y ^ffftt^.^f^ "^^
ii SUx
\^x
O i ' ! . :
Q_
CL : i
~~" ,'.'. "$"
O ; . : i :
LEAN ; ' i
.
EOUIVAL
, '
^
ENC
s
>J>S
Fig. No. 16
Drg .No
Da-tei 28 Jan 1983
5ASOL1NE)
*.
%-v
'ป__
i \ ^-f
! j-"'^
*y*" ' ' '
^'
E R/
^"^
Mid
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.
1
^
RIGh
i
1.2 1.3 1.4
-------
EPA i.5L HRCC ENGINE
I3UCR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP ซ eOREV/S 4.0BAR
98RGN GASOLINE
--0 RICARDO RESEARCH HRCC ENGINE (98ROH GASOLINE)
Fl g -No . l?
Drg .No -
Date: 28 Jan 1983
300p
20CH
0J
23
26
24
22
U-
u_
LU
cc
LU
I
LU
CC
.LEAN t_
0.5 0.6 0.7"
EQUIVALENCE RATIO
60
40
20
30
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1-2
RICH
1 .3
-------
RBWD
EPA 1.51 HRCC ENGINE
13HCR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP 60REV/S 4.QBAR
98RON SASOLINE
RICARPO RESEARCH HKCC ENSINE (98RDN GASOLINE)"
Fig.No- 18
Drg . No .
Da-te' 28 Jar, 1983
1000
800
600
400
IE AN !_
0.5 0.6
EQUIVALENCE RATIO
;R1CH
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
-------
EPA 1.5L, HRCC ENGINE
13MCR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP ซ SOREV/S 4.0BAR
Fl g .No . 19
Drg .No .
Daie= 28 Jan 1983
-X 98ROM GASOLiNE
--ซ> RICARDO RESEARCH HRCC ENOINE (98RDM GASOLINE)
eooo
4ooa
2000
o
6
4-
2-
o-
8000-
6000
a.
ex.
o
o
o
4000
200QJ
a.
Q_
o
n:
:(.EAN
0.5 0.6
EQUIVALENCE RATIO
0.7
0.8 0.9
1 .0
I . 1
RICH
1.2 1.3
-------
RK2RDO
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
13HCR (79.5 X 73)
FULL LOAD POWER CURVE
Fig. No. 20
Drg.No .
Date' 16 Aug 1982
METHANOI
13 I
12
11
30
28
26
24
CD
ENGINE SPEED: ( rev/is ) j
20
30
40
50
60
80
90
00
-------
RK2RDD
EPA 1,5L HRCC ENGINE
13HCR (79.5 X 73)
FULL LOAD POWER CURVE
FI g .N o. 21
Drg .No .
Da-te = 16 Aug 1982
METHANOL
5.CH
4.5
ENGINE SPEED ( rev/s )I
20
40
50
60
80
90
100
-------
RK2RDO
EPA 1.51 HRCC ENGINE
13HCR (79-5 X 73)
FULL LOAD POWER CURVE
METHANQL
r I g N o - 22
Drg -No .
Date; 16 Aug 1982
BOD.
700
600
500
400
30CH
20 30
40
50
60
70 80 90 100
-------
RKMD
CKM./T*
FIG. No. IS
rtfttMO *U*ft lOWiSATtOJ SYSTEM
**'*ป
FROM mrwMw
-126
IOMJI
,,,,
SPARK
(S00v>
Rl.V 2SKV
FILAMENT VOLTAGE I-?SV
FILAMENTT CUAREMT 2OOmA
AWOOe/ FILAMENT CAPACfTY IpF
CIRCUIT FOB UNIT A
IOKA IOOKA T-45OV
(500V)
( 17SW)
JPMLTD.
-------
RK3RDD
EXAMPLES OF TRACES OBTAINED FROM
PRe-JSNITlpN DETECTION SYSTEM.
D^NaS9825
Dซt* Fab '1
CYLINDER
Up":^
I.
NORMAL COMBUSTION
- NO PRE-IGNITION
->A-
>
A
PRE-K5NITION IN No, 2
CYLINDER WITH SPARK
PLUGS STILU FIRINQ
PRE-I&NIT1ON IN Moป. Z fc 3
CYLINDER WITH NO
SPARK IGNITION.
JMMLTO.
-------
RtelRDO
EPA -
HRCC ENGINE
KNOCK AND PRE-IGNITION CHARACTERISTICS
WITH METHANOL FUEL
/M.S.
FIG. No. 25
Org No O 500 39
Fซb'S3
CHAMPION SNGOY SPARK PLUGS
ENGINE SPEED f
-------
RK2RDD
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
13HCR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP ซ 20REV/S 1.5 BMEP BAR
METHANOL
--0 98RON GASOLINE
F I g N.- 26
Drg -No .
Date: 14 Sep 1982
300i
LEAN
EQUIVALENCE RATIO
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
1 .2
1 .3
RlChj
1 .4
-------
RI0RDO
EPA 1.51 HRCC ENGINE
13ซ1CR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP 20REV/S 1.5 BHEP BAR
Fig. Mo.
Drg .No -
27
14 Sep 1982
METHANOL
98RON QASDLINE
45CH
400
300
25CH
o
LU
o:
CL
z:
LU
:LL'AN :
0-6 0.7
iEOUIVALENCE RATIO
0.8
0.9 1.0
1 . 1
1.2 1.3
1 .4
-------
R
3
3000
2000
1000-
0
3
2
1
0
6000
4000
2000
0
K2RDD ป:::ป:: 2S
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE DaU- 14 Sep 1982
13HCR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP 20REV/S 1.3 BMEP BAR
51
0.
n,.
X
O
z.
^-,
i^t
o
o
o
E
QL
Q_
O
:E
0.
1 ; ;;..*-*"
= #'
r : ; -
i v- i vii <*i
/V i ^V
^^^ ;
A.' i v^
-""T i r\
: : - S '
i 1 ! >
^C^ ^~ 1- xx
: ^\
! i I /
\ : y.
yt
1 / ' j
~^^
-------
RK2RDD
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
13HCR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP 40REV/S 2.5 BMEP BAR
-X METHANOL
--ป 98RON GASOLINE
Fig-No. 29
Drg -No .
Date' 8 Sep 1982
.8
.6
.4
.2
0 j
150
100
50
Ml ,.
P
24
22
20
18
LL
U-
UJ
z:
o:
uu
x
LU
cc
OD
X
..O
60
40
20
0
O
..X.
60
40
20
LEAN
jEQUIVAUENCE RATIO
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
jRICH
1.2 1.3
-------
HGRDD
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
13MCR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP 40REV/S 2-5 BMEP BAR
-X METHANOL
--* 98RON GASOLINE
Fig-No- 30
Drg .No .
Date; 8 Sep 1982
550i
500
450
400J
- T/00
600
500
400
:LEAN
iEQUIVAUENCE RATIO
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0.9
1 .0
i RICH
1 .2 1 .3
-------
RK2HD
EPA 1.51 HRCC ENGINE
13MCR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP 40REV/S 2-5 BMEP BAR
Fis-No. 31
Drg .No .
Dale: 8 Sep 1982
SOOO-
4000
\
200O
0
3
X
O
z.
D
O
0
5000
0000-
5000-
CL
CL
O
K METHANOL
--* 98RON GASOLINE
**ฐ
;LEAN
EQUIVALENCE RATIO
0.5 0-6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1.1
.2
:RICH
1 .3
-------
RK2RDD
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
13ซ1CR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP 40REV/S 5.5 BMEP BAR
METHANOI
98RON GASOLINE
Fig. No. 32
Drg .No .
Date" 14 Sep 1982
EQUIVALENCE RATIO
1 .4
-------
RK2RDD
EPA 1.51 HRCC ENGINE
13H-CR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP 40REV/S 5.5 BMEP BAR
-X METHANOL
S> 98RON GASOLINE
Fig-No.' 33
Drg.No .
Date; 14 Ssp 1982
600i
55<>
500
450i
900
800
700
600
LEAN
EQUIVALENCE RATIO
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
1 .3
RICH
1 .4
-------
Fig. No. 34
RK2RDD !>,-..ซ..
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE Daie- 14 SeP 1982
13ซ1CR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP 40REV/S 5.5 BMEP BAR
^_ i 1
INE
r""r 1 x>j
: i ^ i
^J.^--- i- 'X- '' ^J !
i . ; 1^1
! ! I !/*
i i ^y^
L, i^r !
_ i^ ^^ ;
- : xB*** '"" :
^"j"*! : : ;
IE r ! s\ .^. : /-> :
,LEAN : : ! lEOUlVAliENCE RATIO 1
i
i i i :RICH
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 .'0 1.1 1 .'2 1/3 1 .'4
-------
R
\
1 50i
i nn
^n
28
26
24
22
K2RDD ;;::;:: 35
^ฃ.HSR?VrlME
MIXTURE LOOP 60REV/S 4.0 BMEP BAR
^ _0 98RQN GASOLINE
'.-'- .
':-.'
'.'' ' ''[:'.'
: : : - ! : : : i . i
: - j4fcป : : ; : ,JY
; ; : - ': ',''''' '- "%^J : : i i "^
' &''' ^ ' ' i '
: : "" " : i" ' ''x' : ; ^ *" i ' ~
; ; - X . . i - ': x
~ '" ; ; ' ' : : i : : '
.' \ ::':': I : '.':
* . I : : : ] \ ! i ; '
-X . - . ' , : . : ' , ti> - '' ',
~*^ :: : . : IT
_..:-: ; :;/-;:
i ! : : / ! :
oil : ' j /./ \ 1 '
O : : *_/
1 0^4 ^ ,. A^ ; w ^ 1J^X^ ; '' ' l
HK --"- -*"ป- ^^^
i : \ ; i : : ; : "
! ' .V : : ; ! ; i ; : i
^\ ' : : : : : : ; >N-
; s/ \ i i \ ' "
I ; ' ^s^ ^"^^ ' ' ' ' : ' [
' ^^s ~~~~~& "ฎ"<4> ,. & i ; 0
; ' ^^~~~s-_^ ; : ' V ; 1 ^
^ : ^4 r' t^"' -~-y v
~ . ^^: . ~r^4~^-ป^(. A ^ ; ! ,
LU i i i : ,Jlง < ^^_ . . /^N. ; ] [
-i ' ' '' / i ; """^^-s, '' ^^^v :- '
< ! ' / '' : -. . ' p^! ;. : . ; :..
cc i ;/ : : : ! i >v-, ; : :
w ' ! wl' : ! i Nl, i : :
" - : . ! ! = : = ! i i v> : : :
LJ-1 i - - : : ' : ; i i . .:..;..,..
1 1 ; ! 1 : i i : ; : ; i :
ED ~ : : . - - - - ~ - ( - - = '
1EAN : ;EOU3VALENCE RATIO : : ; iRICh
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1 .
82
. fifY
DU
40
20
"^n
20
1 r\
\ u
0
3
-------
RK2RDD
EPA 1.51 HRCC ENGINE
13HCR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP 60REV/S 4.0 BMEP BAR
METHANOI
98RON GASOLINE
Flg-No. 36
Drg .No .
Date' H Sep 1982
800,
700
600
500
400
50
40
30
20
10 J
100C
800
600
400
LEAN
EQUIVALENCE RATIO
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
RICH
I .' 1 1.2 1.3
-------
RI0RDO
EPA 1,5L HRCC ENGINE
13HCR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP 60REV/S 4.0 BMEP BAR
Fi g .No . 37
Drg.No .
Daie= 14 Sep 1982
600O
4000
200O
0
3
o
o
o
0J
5000
0000
500O
O
-X METHANOL
ป 98RON GASOLINE
O :
E
CL
1EAN :
0.5 0.6
^EQUIVALENCE RATIQ
0.7
0.8 0-9
1 .0
1 .1
; ;RICH
1.2 1.3
-------
RK2RDO
MRCC ENGINE
MIXTURE DISTRIBUTION - METHANOL
1
X X 4O I rซv|s
0 0 6O [FULL LOAD
ฃ 4 80 J
2.O rtv/S
4O r*v/s
40
60
/M.6.
FIG. No. 38
Drg. No. O50041
Date Ftfb '85
PART LOAD
-------
RK2JRDO
e.ft.M. A.M.
FIG. No. 59
Drg. No. O StoooZ.
Dปt* MARCH 'ea
E.RA
HRC.C.
e>.s.r-. c. COMTOURS
&EST ECOKIOMV MIXTURE
^APPซOK. Q-7 ฃR. AT PART TMROTTUE)
IGNITION TIMING
-------
C.R.M. /L.M.
FIG. No.
Drg. No. D SOOO3.
Date MARCH ' S3
BEST ECOWOV^V MnCTURE
-------
RK2RDO
C.K.M. /I..M.
FIG. No. 41
Drg. No. t> sooo.4.
Date MARCH ' tt&
ECOKปOVปY MtVCTURE
-------
.R.M. /L.M.
FIG. No.
Drg. No.
Date MAKCM '
S>TKE(-4
-------
RK21RDO
C..C.VI. J L..M.
FIG. No. 4S
Drg No. o
Date
>-5>L HRCC
CO
REST ECOMOIVtY MI^TOS<.E STREWeTTH 4 X5MIT1OM
-------
. / T W.
RK2RDD
PROPUCTK3M VW 1-fcU EMOIKIE
RRAKC. THERMAL. CFFICIENCY MAP
(AUTO FUeLLtM<ซ AUTO I6NITIOM MO EGR)
FIG. No. 44
Drg. No. D498O5
DM* Ft* '63
-------
RK2RDO
PRODUCTION VW l-fel ENGINE
SHAKE SPECIFIC MO* MAP
(AUTO PUELUMQ.AUTO
FIG. No.
Drg. ^.
Date
187
4ฉ ! 4ป ' soi 4o i TO ' 6p 90 , 190
, ! ' ! ' ' I v i ' I ! '
__j j _; L__e.H
-------
C.*.M. /TW.
FIG. No. 4Cป
No.D4.YMS
Date FRB'ft*
PRODUCTION VW 1 a>L CMGIME.
RRAKB SPECIFIC HC MAP
(AUTO FTJEU-IMG,AUTO IOKIITIOM/ MO
-------
RIG1RDO
EPA I-&L HRCC. EKK51MC
eป.&.r. e. COMTOURS
FIG. No. ATI
Drg. No. b 5>OOO7
Date MARCH 'B*
-------
C. ซ.ป>/>./I.M.
RK2RDO
FIG. No.
Drg. No. o
Data MARCH
EPปA I-SU HKCC
&RAKE THERMAL E-FFICVEMCV COKITOIJR.S
EC3O\\/A|_E.SICe RATIO
WO e.<3-R.
-a OPTIMUM I^NIITIOW -TIMIMซ&.
C CONTOURS--/. 3
-------
RK2RDO
C.K.M. /L..M.
FIG. No. -A9
1
Drg. No. C> SOoo->
Date MAttCM 'eป
-------
FIG. No. So
Drg. No. OJjooio
Date ซ/lARCH 'SS
EPA \-S>\- HRCC
CO>~lTOURg>
-------
<:.ซ..wv /L..M.
FIG. No.
Drg. No. O Soon
Date
-------
RK2RDO
EPA l-5 HRCC ENGINE
CIRCUIT
/M.6
FIG. No. 52
Drg.No.59826
D.t.
CARBURETTER
BODY
VACUUM TAPPING
AUTOMATIC CONTROL
BLOCK
^ฅr^F
INLET MANIFOLD
vV v /__
EXHAUST
MANIFOL-D
VACUUM
SIGNAL
EQR CONTROL VALVE
(VACUUM
44CMT
-------
RK2RDO
EPA 1-5^ HRCC ENGINE
EFFECT OF EGR AT 4Orซ.v|s, Z-S bar 8MEP
METHANOL FUEL
FIG. No. 53
Drg.No. O50042
Dite Ptb '83
[ E6R PROBE AND EXHAUST SACK PRESSURE RCSTRICTER INSTALLED
roR THIS AND SUBSEQUENT fi&u(?Eil
A
Z
1
B
A
u
J
X
1
JL
^^,
L
)
n
n
I
ti
x
1
^B*
VI
>~
d
14
:
i
it
c
II
i
r
^
u
ฃ
Uj
u,
ht
V
3
U
&
CJ
ฐ*
. ~K
il
El H
^
i
4
4
2
o
22
*A
21
SO
20
1
i
4
<
j
1
ฃ
ป -
t -
C
\
\
ป
\*****
K """
M H
i
.^ -
--
N
^
^
^
^^ ^
.
sx
>>*>.
^*ซ
.^
, -
^~
'
\
X
^^
--
L <
VK
-
^o-
X
x-
j
4 K
^
*-^,
i
_.
^^
^-^
-
1
-
---
**-<
= H
t^=i
*
~S
*^>
>ซ
>-o-
r*~
X
fo-s
^ i
-X
-x
.X
j
F^l
RA1
0-^
>
3
JIV>ป
rio)
EC
0^*
-
TF
Lv*]
-------
RK2RDD
EPA l-Sl MRCC ENQINE
AUTOMATIC Egg SCHEDULE
/M.S.
FIG. No. 54
Drg. No. D 50043
Date pซb '83
-------
/M.S.
RK2RDO
EPA l-5 HRCC ENGINE
DISTRIBUTOR CHARACTERISTICS
'AS
+ Mf
V
z
tt
u
C_J
y
0,
z
<
>
0
^
z
O.
p
2
J5
I
7
~z
<
tf
u
JL.
y
u
2
*
-
O
^
Z
V
lb
to
S
w
c
IS
IO
~s~
O
(
)
1
A
z
> RECEIVED/
'TER MODIFICATION.
5T TIMINQS.
X
O
/
^
K
s
X"
r
3
E
/
/
1
1
X'
1C
4AN
o
.NG
(
/
/
/
I
m
/
0
FOL
4
/*
4-
1Mb,
M^ ^
^
xH
D I
<^X
FIG. No. 5 5
Drg. No. D 500U
Date ptfb ซgj
1
/
^
'/i
^^
0
SH
-
^r.
i6Pi
S
fc.L
1
+
^X
^ +
>
ซ
2<
*es
r - . -,
^
,/
r
m
D
_ r|
j p
X
-t-
ป
)O
SIOI
U
--^n
6
r^N
,>
^
+
r
si L
V
O
k/kj
+
X
TO H
M
T<
J
-t-
t-
3<
. & I
1
v
D
5O
8
4-
-f
0
a
9'
t
4C
ป
3
-t-
SO
-------
/M.S.
FIG. No. 56
Dig. No. O 50045
Feb '83
HRCC ENGINE
AUTOMATIC IGNITION T1MIMQ SCHEDULE
-------
RK2RDO
EPA 1 5L HRCC ENGINE
EQUIVALENCE RATIO CONTOURS WITH
FIG. No. 57
Drg. No.DSOOA
o.te FEE 83
6
INITIAL AUTO CARBURETTOR SETTINGS
(EQUIVALENCE RATIO =
( SUPPLEMENTARY FULL LOAD ENRlCHM
THIS AND MjasEQueNT nauRes)
QL
QL
UJ
CO
in
q r
3
r _,
5
1
M -
~
?
1
I
1'19
'
2
/
/
\
0
1-36
, X*
\
\
X
k
\
\
3
V
\
\
\
\
\
0
TO
\
\
N.
1
' "
k
^
\
\*{_ .
\
\
\
\
\
y
\
)
0
ENG
STOICHIOMETRIC AIR /FUEL
ACTUAL AIR /FUEL J
tMT SYST6M APOeO FOซ
|
r-
\
\
\
v
^
\
1
c
INE
\
\
N
o
\
1
0
SPE
i
\
^
\
^N
v
\
\
\
\
6
EED
1-1A
I |tป
^~-~.
h
\
\
\
<ฐ,
\
\
\
0
(R
-^
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
7
EV/
412
(
\
\
\
\
\
\
0
S)
^
T
^
\
\
(
\
\
\
\
8
1U
\
\
\
v
\
\
0
S
N1'12
S.
9
0
-------
C.K.M. /L.M.
FIG. No. a*
Drg. No. o 6OOCZ.
Date
-------
RIG1RDO
FIG. No.
Drg. No. D
Dซtซ
HRCC
THCRMAU CFFIC1EMCY
[AUTO FOCI_LH>Iซ[LCAN], AUTO I^MITIOKI, AOTO
-------
FIG. No.CปO
Drg
Data PEB ' Sft
EPA I & L HRCC EKIdlME
EMISSIQK1 CONTOURS
(AUTO FUELLING (ueAH), AUTO KJKIITIOW, AUTO
-------
RK2RDO
6t*A I SL HRCC CMOINE
MC EMISSION COMTOUR&
(AUTO FLJELUKIQ ( LEAxT), AUTO IGKIITtOM,AUTO COif*)
FIG. No. (*\
Drg.
D.tePEB'6^
-to
(cdMToilJfti-
^
\
10
-------
RK3RDD
FIG. No. aซ
Drg. No. &OOI4.
Date MAKeH 'ป
Co
I'&L. HRCC EM OH ME
CONITQURS
[AUTO
[LCAM], ADTO iซMi-riosi, AUTO
-------
RK21RDO
OF" IMUET HCATeK
FIG. No.
Drg. No.
Date MAH.GV4
-* l-ZV
JPM LTD.
-------
RK2RDO
EPA 1-5ฃ
HRCC ENQINE
/M.B.
FIG. No. 64
Drg. No. D50047
TEST-BED STARTING CHARACTERISTICS
WITH METMANOL FUEL.
CHEATER
-------
RK21RDO
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
13HCR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP AT 15REV/S IDLE
X METHANOL
Fl g .No . 65
Drg .No .
Da-tei 28 Jan 1983
BOO,
400
20W
400i
200
80CH
'LEAN
EQUIVALENCE RATIO
:RICH
0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1-20 1.25 1.30 1.35
-------
RK3RDC
EPA
13'1(
MIXTI
300
250
200
150
100
50 ^
40
30
20
10
Ft M G.G.
\ Q IN 0 OO
1.5L HRCC ENGINE Dซteซ 28 Jan 19
tt (79.5 X 73)
JRE LOOP AT 15REV/S IDLE
C METHANOL
^. i i ; ' ! ^
0 : I : ill
LU i \ : ; - ;
ce i 1 i i
I-"- =
< !
cc ;
LU \
Q- ^
r !
UJ t ; ' ;
I i : j
% : V-
^ X X; v
X : ! ; ; i ;
LU ! i : i
i V
0 i
0 i
CQ' i
0 \
L-*
.. -V
( ; i ; i
Z ! ^ :
0 i i :
2
O :
; X X
IEAN ; ;
0.95
v '
1
^^ !
j \
^ :
W '
;
K i
V
.vx
EQUitVALJENCE RATIO ! i
L.
ID
to
11 'UJ
o:
D-
<
r
2
IRICH
1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.
83
450
400
350
300
35
-------
EPA 1.51 HRCC ENGINE
13MCR (79.5 X 73)
MIXTURE LOOP AT I5REV/S IDLE
METHANOL
F i g . N o . 67
Drg .No .
Daie: 28 Jfsn
983
300Ch
2000
1000
s:
CL
6000
4000
2000-
CL
Q_
, y y.
7*N 7V
LEAN
EQUIVALENCE RATIO
RICH
0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1-20 1.25 1.30 1.35
-------
RK2RDD
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
13MCR (79.5 X 73)
IGNITION LOOP AT I5REV/S IDLE
METHANOL
Fl g -No . 68
Drg .No .
28 Jan 1983
120i
110
900J
IGNITION iTIMING (BTDC)
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
-------
RK2RDD
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
13HCR (79.5 X 73)
IGNITION LOOP AT I5REV/S IDLE
X METHANOL
Fig.No. 69
Drg .No .
Da-te: 28 Jan 1983
300,
o
250
a:
200
QL
UJ
0.
21
UJ"
150
100J
X
LU
ui
DC
CL
450
400
350
300
.3
.2
.1
DC...
UJ
O
z
LU
'O
UJ
.0
IGNITION TIMING (BTDC)
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
-------
RI0RDO
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
13M.CR (79.5 X 73)
IGNITION LOOP AT 15REV/S IDLE
METHANOL
Fig. No. 70
Drg .No
Date' 28 Jan 1983
3000i
2000
Q.
O...
1000
30QCh
4000
3000-
200CH
10
IGNITION TIMING i(BTDC)
20
25
30
35
40
45
-------
RK3RDD
EPA )-5d MRCC ENGINE
SB /M.S.
FIG. No. 71
Drg. No. D
. . ,5 r-v/fi Dงu MorcK'83
4. + lOrev/s RICARDO RESEARCH HKCC ENGINE- GASOLINE FUELLED
A & ซ5 rtv/s PRODUCTION VW l-6dฃNซlNE JCR g-3:)]- puELLc!^
D D IS P&v/s EPA ENGINE - METHAMOL FUELLED.
TO-Q* nl
iU
U
i(*
TJT
a
10
lo
u.
14-
T2T
10
1
~i
^
O
1
(/
C
i7
L.
2
C
rf
Q
(J
C
Q
a
i
*
ป
j
D-c
f. ,
K
Vs
1-
p
Co-
5,-W.
3D
5<-Z
JEL
[0-
98, K
tn
J
1
D
b
5< C
CON
J9,0
'V
/
1
v
[I-C
DIES
SLIM
r
] K
*
I
i
f
/
/
/
/
\l
/
f
?p
H
' w
,/.
F,x
c
i
ซ
IT
&
*>**.
EL
PTIO
LI-
p-
Of.
JU
TIM
^
0-2. 0-3 0-4- 0-S 0-<*
PUfcl_ CONSUMPTION - kซ/
7 '
01,
OI,C
OS,!
IN 1
IVAt
NQ
[o-s
n-f
L ' ^
n r
L *
5]
J
ปAR(
tN<
[ฐe
6,15
^^i ' '
'; s
/;
j-02
NT
.t R
>TD
)]
1 '
,15]
4ES^
ATU
C]
^^
$
>> 1
[1
A(
ij^NI
^
\
\
O|,
^>
ION
-j
D]
0-T O-ft O-^ I-O
K [GASOLINE OR QASOUNC EQUIVAL.E.NT 1
-------
C.K.M./L.M.
FIG. No.
Drg. No. b
Date MARCH *
KPA 1-ftL MK.ee
EQUIVALENCE RATIO eoMTOURS - Fi'ปIAL &UIUP
-------
RK2RDD
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
13HCR (79.5 X 73)
FULL LOAD POWER CURVE
X METHANOL
--* METHANOL WITH INTAKE HEATER FITTED
Flg.No. 73
Drg.No.
Dates 12 Jan 1983
ENGINE SPEED ( rev/9 );
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-------
RKZRDO
EPA 1.51 HRCC ENGINE
13HCR (79.5 X 73)
FULL LOAD POWER CURVE
Fig.No. 74
Drg -No .
Date: 12 Jan 1983
METHANOL
METHANOL WITH INTAKE HEMER FITTED
900,
BOD
7001*
600
500
40V
1CH
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90~
100
-------
RK3RDO
EPA 1.5L HRCC ENGINE
13HCR (79.5 X 73)
FULL LOAD POWER CURVE
-X METHANOL
"* METHANOL WITH INTAKE HEATER FITTED
Fig.No. 75
Drg -No .
Da-te! 12 Jan 1983
100,
90'
601
5.0,
3.01
ENGINE SPEED (
20 30
40
50
60
80
90
100
-------
RK2RDO
EPA t'51 HRCC ENQINฃ
POSITION OF INLET MANFOLP
SAMPLE PROSE.
/M.S.
FIG. No. 7(0
Drs-No. S9827
Date Ftf- b ' 83
SAMPLE PROBE
(& mtr\ O {g.
M4*MT
-------
RK2JRDO
:.ซ.M. /L.M.
FIG. No. 11
Drg. No. DfeOO \A
Date MARCH 1 8ป
EPA I &L. HRCC CKlglMg.
eป.g>.Fe. eow-roun.& -FIWAV. e>on_p
[AUTO FucuuiMOk, AUTO iav-MTioป-J, AUTO
-------
FIG. NO. -re
Drg. No. O &ool~7
Date MKR.CH 'ป*
FOELUIMt^, AOTO lซMITIOW, AUTO
-------
RK2JRDO
FIG. No.
Drg. No.
Date
I-&L. HH.ee
KMIftfelOKl COMTOURS FIK1AL ROIl-D
[AUTO rUEL.I_!Klซ^, AUTO I4M1TIOM, AUTO
-------
FIG. No. 8O
Drg. No.
Date MAttev4'*ป
HC gMlfe&IOH eoMTOORS - FtKIAL. &OII-P
, AOTO iaiKii-riow, AOTO
eo -rops -
-------
RK2RDO
FIG. No. ft I
Drg. No. o *ooZo
Date MAซC*A %es
UCC
co
e>oii-E>
ruti_i_iMdป , AUTO KSMITIOM, AUTO
-------
RK2RDO
EPA ป-5ฃ HRCC ENGINE
ALDEHYDE EMISSIONS C
(AUTO FUELLING IGNITIC
METMANOU FUEL.
0
if
a
Ld
2
ef\
CD
i
j
10
V
8
7
(0
5
4
A
2
Z
22
4-1
34
32
O
3
0
1
4
SJGJIT
FIG. No. W
D.t. Fib ' ป5
g/kWh]
>N AND ฃGR)
i ^
T ^
i
-42
l
_
,
i
*H
55
61
0
IE.
i
5
>PE
O
E.D
|
<2>
E^_
"*
56
62
-T6
O
i
' ~
T
0
8
A-c
-45
S3
O
------- |