EPA-AA-SDSB-91-06
Technical Report
Application of Onboard Refueling Emission Control System
to a 1988 Ford Taurus Vehicle
Standards Development and Support Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Sources
Office of Air and Radiation
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE
Technical Reports do not necessarily represent final EPA decisions
or positions. They are intended to present technical analysis of
issues using data which are currently available. The purpose in
the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of
technical information and to inform the public of technical
developments which may form the basis for a final EPA decision,
position or regulatory action.
-------
Table of Contents
Section Page
I. Introduction 1
II. Test Vehicle Selection 2
III. System Construction and Installation on the Vehicle 6
A. rill Pipe and Check Valve 6
B. Fuel Tank 10
C. Vent Valve 10
D. Charcoal Canister 12
E. Purge Line 14
IV. Emissions Testing 16
V. On-road Vehicle Evaluation 16
A. Slosh Testing 20
B. Fueling at Commercial Stations 20
C. Comparative Fueling with Production Vehicles 31
VI. Hot Ambient Temperature Tests 46
VII. NHTSA On-road Evaluation 48
VIII. Conclusions ' 52
References . 53
Appendix A - Detailed Compilation of Emission Test Results 54
Appendix B - Memorandum - Hot Ambient Test Summaries 80
-------
List of Figures
Figure Page
1. Enhanced Evap. Test Sequence 3
2. Simplified Onboard System Schematic 7
3. Stock Taurus Filler Neck and Fuel Tank
Assembly - Schematic 8
4. Chrysler Check Valve 9
5. Overflow Tube 11
6. Refueling Vapor Vent Valve 13
7. Canister (3.5 liter) 15
8. Filler Neck, Canister, Fuel Tank, Vent Valve
Assembly Schematic 17
9. Refueling Test Procedure; Fully-Integrated Systems 18
10. Deflector 21
11 Pressure and Temperature Traces during Fueling
- Onboard System (Original Configuration)
(Amoco Station @ Jackson and Stadium Roads;
January 27, 1989; Fueling Rate: 11.7 gpm) 23
12. "Pingpong Ball" Check Valve 29
•
13. Pressure and Temperature Traces during Fueling
- Onboard System (Second System Modification)
(Shell Station on Plymouth Road; February 8, 1989;
Fueling Rate: 11.3 gpm) 30
11
-------
Table Page
1. Baseline and Enhanced Evap Teat Sequence.
1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera - Evaporative
and Tailpipe Data Summary 4
2. Baseline and Enhanced Evap Test Sequence.
1988 Taurus - Evaporative and Tailpipe Emissions
Data Summary 5
3. Refueling Emissions Test Procedure. Evaporative,
Tailpipe and Refueling Emissions Data Summary
- Onboard System on 1988 Taurus 19
4. Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard
System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Original
. Configuration) 25
5. Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard
System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Final System
Configuration) 32
6. Test Results from Comparative Fuelings of Onboard
Equipped Vehicle and Stock Vehicles (Refueling at
Commercial Fuel Stations) 36
7. Test Results from Comparative Fuelings of Onboard
Equipped Vehicle and Stock Vehicles (Refueling in
EPA Fuel Bay) 43
8. Fueling Test Summary - Relative Performance of
Onboard System and Production Vehicles 47
9. Running Loss Test Data 49
10. Test Results from NHTSA Evaluation of Onboard
Equipped Vehicle 51
111
-------
I. Introduction
This report describes the construction and installation of a
simplified onboard refueling emission control system on a
production Ford Taurus vehicle. Results from tests performed on the
vehicle following installation of the system together with
subsequent system enhancements to improve performance are
presented.
The system installed on the vehicle was an improved version of
an earlier EPA design. Development of the earlier onboard refueling
emission control system and resulting refueling emission test
results were presented in "Draft, Summary and Analysis of Comments
Regarding the Potential Safety Implications of Onboard Vapor
Recovery Systems" (August 1988) and are not included here. That
development was performed using bench mounted fuel tank and filler
neck systems from a GM Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera and from a Ford
Taurus.
The major components of the onboard system as originally
configured were a modified filler pipe, modified vent-rollover
valve, larger diameter tubing to the canister, an enlarged canister
and canister purge tubing connecting to the purge control valve.
Both of the bench mounted systems demonstrated good control of
refueling emissions coupled with good fueling characteristics.
However, problems were reported by both GM and Ford for similar
systems when installed in vehicles and had been experienced in
tests performed by EPA on onboard equipped vehicles furnished by
API. Therefore, the objective of the work reported herein was to
demonstrate successful operation of a vehicle mounted simplified
system.
The design goals for the project covered by this report were:
1) to adapt the original simplified system to a production vehicle
with little if any modification to the vehicle using existing
vehicle components, 2) to meet the proposed refueling emission
standard (0.10 g/gal) over the proposed test procedure range of
fueling rates (4 to 10 gpm), 3) to meet or exceed the fueling
performance of the production vehicle under a wide range of adverse
fueling conditions (high fueling rates, high fuel volatility and
high fuel temperatures), and 4) to avoid vehicle driveability
and/or performance impacts of the system. All of these goals were
fully met by the onboard equipped vehicle described in this report.
Construction and evaluation of the vehicle system is presented
in the report which follows. The body of the report is subdivided
into seven sections which address the following subjects: test
vehicle selection; system construction; emissions testing; on-road
vehicle evaluation; hot ambient temperature testing; on-road
evaluation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA); and finally conclusions.
-------
II. Test Vehicle Selection
Since one of the goals of the project was to avoid
driveability or other vehicle operational problems and because
reprogramming canister purge strategy was beyond the scope of the
project, selection of a production vehicle with good canister purge
was necessary. As an indicator of good purge performance, EPA used
data which was being collected on running losses. Because the
running loss data was being collected under test conditions which
would lead to the rapid generation of vapor in the fuel tank; i.e.
high tank temperature combined with high volatility fuel, it was
reasoned that low running loss emissions would be associated with
relatively high canister purge rates. Data from the ongoing running
loss program identified two likely candidate vehicles: an
Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera and a Mercury Sable (Ford Taurus). To
further narrow the selection, two candidate vehicles were then
procured for further evaluation of their purge characteristics.
In evaluating the relative applicability of the Oldsmobile and
the Ford to the onboard project, EPA employed what was known as the
enhanced evaporative test sequence (Figure 1) . Briefly, the
enhanced evaporative test sequence is initiated with a loaded
canister and, with the exception of a gas cap removal step at the
start of the hot soak, parallels the present certification test
procedure through the hot soak which follows the tailpipe emissions
test. Two high temperature heat builds are then performed after the
hot soak. Diurnal emissions are measured during the second high
temperature heat build instead of during the low temperature heat
build which is performed earlier in the test sequence. The multiple
heat builds provided the opportunity to evaluate the vehicle's
ability to purge vapor amounts roughly equivalent to expected
refueling emissions.
•
In order to separate purge effects from the question of basic
canister capacity, tests were performed with the vehicles in the
following configurations: 1) stock and 2) stock canister replaced
with a larger canister. In the case of the Oldsmobile, a single 3.7
liter canister configuration was tested. In the case of the Ford
two enlarged canister configurations were tested. These enlarged
canister configurations were a 3.0 liter canister and then two
stock canisters in series (1.8 liter total). The results from the
tests on the Oldsmobile are shown in Table 1, while those from the
Ford are shown in Table 2.
As can be seen in Tables 1 and 2, tailpipe emissions remained
well within applicable standards and did not exhibit major
differences among canister configurations. In the case of the
Oldsmobile, when tested by the enhanced evaporative test procedure,
evaporative emissions increased significantly to as much as 4.5
times the evaporative emissions standards. This indicated that,
even with an enlarged canister, the stock vehicle purge was
inadequate for refueling control.
-------
Start
A ver
6 hours MIN T vt"
Y
| Drain Fuel Tank
1
icle Temperature Stabil
( as required )
1
1
zation
(Toad Canister to Breakthrough)
1 hour MAX 1
1 hour MAX T
5 min. MAX I
12 - 36 hours
I 0-1 hour T
10 min T
I
Fuel Drain and Fill
i
Dyno Preconditioning
I
(Cold Soak Park
|
Fueling
* Drain
MO % Fill
+
First Diurnal Heat Bu
* Heat Fuel - 1 hour
( 60 - 84 ° F )
Evap. Test Not Reqd.
1
Cold Start Exhaust Tes
Evap. Test HC Runnin
Not Losses
Performed as Require
I 1
Hot Start Exhaust Tes
1
X
(Q
2
C.
"E
£
J£
(Q
$
1
«
OT
Q
W
ild H
•e
CO
55
o
•o
Ul
t
g
4
t
I
\ i
Hot Soak
Enclosure
Test
1 T 15 min MAX
Fueling
* Drain
* 40% Fill ( 60 - 72 ° F fuel )
iA 5 min
1 MAX
Second Diurnal Heat Build
* Heat Fuel - 1 hour
n 10 min MAX
(72-96 F )
..... • ., ,„£.» 24 hours
Drain Fuel Tank
1 I
Fueling
* 40 % Fill
( 60 -72 ° F fuel
T 5 min MAX
Diurnal Enclosure Test
* Heat Fuel - 1 hour
(72-96 ° F )
\ '
©
ENHANCED EVAP TEST SEQUENCE
Figure 1
-------
Table 1
Baseline and Enhanced Evap Test Sequences. 1987 Qldsmobile Cutlass Ciera - Evaporative and Tailpipe Emissions Data Summary
Tailpipe Emissions*
Vehicle Test
Configuration Procedure
Stock Certification
With 3.7L Enhanced evap.
canister
With 3.7L Enhanced evap.
canister
With 3.7L Enhanced evap.
canister
HC
to/mflel
0.25
0.27
0.19
0.20
CO NOx
(a/mite) (a/mile)
3.07 0.56
2.43 0.58
1.95 0.55
1.87 0.39
Evaporative Emissions
Heat Bid. Heat Bid. Heat Bid.
60°-84°F Hot Soak #1,72°-96°F #2,72°-960F Total"
M M ial MM
0.23 0.25 — ~ 0.48
15.51 0.39*" 9.30 8.61 9.00
6.06 1.05*" 5.20 6.45 7.50
8.34 0.57*" 6.22 6.40 6.97
Fuel Economy
fMPG)
18.8
19.0
19.4
19.1
* 1987 model year emission standards: HC - 0.41 g/mile, CO - 3.4 g/mile, NOx - 1.0 g/mile, Evap. - 2.0 g/test.
** Sum of 60°- 84°F heat build and hot soak in case of stock vehicle certification test procedure, or sum of hot soak
and #2 72°- 96°F heat build in case of enlarged canister and enhanced evaporative test procedure.
*** Gas cap removal step of enhanced evaporative test procedure not performed because of lack of access port in SHED.
-------
Table 2
Baseline and Enhanced Evap Test Sequences. 1988 Taurus - Evaporative and Tailpipe Emissions Data Summary
Tailpipe Emissions*
Vehicle
Configuration
Stock
Stock
Stock
With 3.0L
canister
With 3.0L
canister
With two
prod. cans.
in series
Test
Procedure
Certification
Enhanced evap.
(No gas cap
removal)
Enhanced evap.
Enhanced evap.
Enhanced evap.
Enhanced evap.
HC
(a/mllel
0.19
0.20
0.23
0.20
0.20
0.23
CO NOx
(g/mile) (g/mile)
1.88 0.71
2.11 0.76
2.64 0.74
2.28 0.76
2.16 0.70
2.30 0.71
Heat Bid.
60°-84°F
lal
0.12
0.18
0.14
0.48
0.39
0.29
Evaporative Emissions
Heat Bid. Heat Bid.
Hot Soak #1,72°-960F #2,72°-960F Total"
MM MM
0.22 — — 0.34
0.18 0.16 2.68 2.86
0.40 0.17 8.27 8.67
(0.25)"*
0.96 0.43 0.49 1.45
(0.69)"*
0.72 0.38 0.36 1.08
(0.40)*"
0.87 0.39 0.21 1.08
(0.70)*"
Fuel Economy
(MPG)
21.47
20.77
20.92
21.05
21.01
21.20
* 1988 model year emission standards: HC - 0.41 g/mile, CO - 3.4 g/mile, NOx -1.0 g/mite, Evap. - 2.0 g/test.
" Sum of Hot Soak and #2, 72°- 96°F heat build.
"* Values in parenthesis are approximate cap removal contribution to total.
-------
In the case of the Ford in the stock configuration,
evaporative emissions also exceeded the standard of 2.0 gram per
test when measured on the enhanced evaporative test procedure.
However, increased canister capacity resulted in a return to
compliance with the 2.0 gram per test evaporative standard.
Furthermore, comparisons between the tailpipe emissions values for
the vehicle when tested by the 1988 model year test procedure
(Table 2 - stock vehicle, certification test procedure) and the
results from the revised test procedure (Table 2 - modified
vehicle, enhanced evap. test procedure) showed insignificant
differences among tests performed with the different size
canisters.
The similarity in the results suggested that the test
vehicle's canister purge system would provide adequate purge of
larger than stock canisters and that the vehicle's fuel management
system could accommodate changes caused by the larger canisters
without loss in control of tailpipe emissions.
Based upon this evaluation, the Ford Taurus was selected for
development of the refueling control system. More specifically, the
test vehicle was a 1988 model year Ford Taurus equipped with a 3.0
liter engine, automatic transmission and air conditioning. When
received, the vehicle had accumulated approximately 6,500 miles in
general rental fleet operation.
Ill. System Construction and Installation on the Vehicle
Construction and installation of the onboard refueling
emission control system (integrated system) on the test vehicle is
described in this section. This section of the report is subdivided
by primary system components which are the filler pipe and check
valve, the fuel tank modifications to incorporate the liquid seal
and vent/rollover valve, the carbon canister, and associated
plumbing. The system is shown schematically in Figure 2.
A. Fill Pipe and Check Valve
Typical production vehicle design provides for fuel from the
dispensing nozzle to flow through a relatively large diameter
filler pipe (Figure 3) to the fuel tank and for the vapors
displaced from the tank by the dispensed fuel to be routed through
a relatively small diameter vent tube to the inlet end of the
filler pipe and thence to the atmosphere. A production Ford Taurus
filler pipe and vapor vent tube assembly was modified by removal of
the external vapor vent tube to eliminate the direct route for
atmospheric venting of the vapors, and by plugging of the hole at
the inlet end of the filler pipe left by removal of the vent tube.
A caged-ball check valve, derived from a production check valve
used by Chrysler to control fuel spit-back during fueling (Figure
4), was installed at the exit of the filler pipe to assist in the
-------
Vent/Rollover Valve
(Vent Valve)
Liquid Seal
Check Valve
Modified Filler
Pipe Assembly
\
Hose - Valve to Canister
Hose to Purge
Control Valve
Enlarged
Canister
Fuel Tank
SIMPLIFIED ONBOARD SYSTEM SCHEMATIC
Figure 2
-------
Vapor Vent Valve
Fuel Tank
Tank Mounted
Segment of
Vent Tube
External Vapor Vent Tube
Filler Pipe
Vapor Tubing to Canister
and Engine
Front of Vehicle
In-tank Support
Tank Mounted Segment of Filler Pipe
Connecting Hoses
STOCK TAURUS FILLER NECK, VENT TUBE AND FUEL TANK ASSEMBLY - SCHEMATIC
Figure 3
-------
1 1/4 in. dia. ball
tO
1 1/16 in.
dia.
1
CHRYSLER CHECK VALVE
Figure 4
-------
control of fuel spit-back. The production Chrysler check valve was
modified to enhance fuel flow through the valve by enlarging the
throat diameter of the valve slightly to 1 5/64 inch. The
connection between the filler pipe and the fuel tank was
accomplished by use of a short length of flexible production hose
(Taurus) designed for this purpose.
B. Fuel Tank
Three modifications were made to the production fuel tank in
the conversion to a fuel tank for use with the onboard refueling
system. These modifications were: 1) removal of the segment of the
vent line which was part of the production tank (the hole resulting
from removal of the vent line was plugged) , 2) removal of the
segment of the filler pipe which formed part of the fuel tank
assembly and installation of the liquid seal overflow tube in place
of the filler pipe segment, and 3) provision of a hole in the top
of the tank for installation of a production sealing grommet and
mounting of the vent valve.
The system as originally developed and described in Draft,
"Summary and Analysis of Comments Regarding the Potential Safety
Implications of Onboard Vapor Recovery Systems" employed a flow
area restrictor at the end of the fill pipe. While this design
provided good control of refueling vapors, it imposed a greater
than necessary restriction on the flow of fuel entering the tank,
and as a result limited the fuel dispensing rate. The design was
changed, therefore, to an "overflow tube" liquid seal which
facilitated the use of high fuel dispensing rates while providing
an effective vapor seal. Schematically, the overflow tube liquid
seal used in the vehicle is shown in Figure 5. Support for the
overflow tube was provided on the inside of the tank by the
production bracket, in its production location, designed .to support
the segment of the production filler neck which had been removed.
The final modification to the production fuel tank was the
provision of a mounting hole on the top of the tank for mounting of
the vent valve. Adequate clearance between the body of the vehicle
and the top of the tank for mounting of the vent valve and vapor
tube was identified above the tank's rear vapor space. The point on
the top of. the tank selected for mounting of the vent valve was
just to the right of the tank centerline and as far forward in the
rear vapor apace as possible while retaining clearance to the body.
C. Vent Valve
The design of the vent valve used in the vehicle installation
was similar to that used in earlier work, and was similar in design
and concept to a production valve used by Ford on some light-duty
trucks. The performance requirements of the valve were also similar
10
-------
T
1.35 " dia
IN-TANK SEGMENT OF PRODUCTION FILLER PIPE
Length Of Overflow Tube Matching Discharge Point
Of Production In-tank Pipe
OVERFLOW TUBE
1/8 " dia Drain
OVERFLOW TUBE AND IN-TANK SEGMENT OF PRODUCTION FILLER PIPE
Figure 5
-------
to those previously applied in the development project, i.e.,
closure at full-tank dispensed volume, low pressure drop through
the valve during fueling and sealing of the valve during rollover.
The vent valve which was fabricated for use in the vehicle
installation differed slightly from that used previously. The
changes included a longer valve housing to achieve valve closure at
correct full-tank fuel volume, and an increase in the diameter of
the vent orifice from 0.35 inch to 0.40 inch to achieve lower back
pressure. The outer diameter of the valve was the same as that of
previously used vent valves, so that a production grommet could be
used to seal between the tank and the 'valve. The valve is shown
schematically in Figure 6. In the vehicle installation, the
existing fuel tank to canister evaporative vent valve was retained
and provided for venting of the tank when full. The design of the
refueling vapor vent did not, therefore, include this operational
characteristic.
Prior to use on the vehicle, bench testing was performed to
validate the performance of the valve under simulated vehicle
rollover conditions. Briefly, tests performed by EPA followed the
NHTSA rollover procedures as specified in FMVSS 301 for
determination of fuel leakage from a vehicle fuel tank during
vehicle rollover. Since EPA was not equipped to perform the
rollover test on the complete vehicle, the test sequence was
performed on the fuel tank-vent valve system. The tests on the
modified fuel tank and the vent valve system were performed for
both clockwise and counter clockwise rollovers about the axis of
the tank. There was no leakage from the fuel tank-vent valve system
during these tests. The system was as a result considered to meet
NHTSA requirements for the control of fuel spillage during a
vehicle rollover. Following demonstration of system performance on
the bench, the components were installed in the vehicle.
•
D. Charcoal Canister
Inspection of the underside of the vehicle showed a cavity
suitable for mounting of the canister immediately behind the under
floor mounted fuel tank and in front of the points on the chassis
to which the rear suspension lateral control arms are attached.
This mounting location for the canister would provide protection
for the canister in the event of an accident and because of the
proximity to the vent valve would limit pressure drop in the tube
connecting the vent valve and the canister. It was decided to
provide an upward sloping loop in the tube from the vent valve to
the canister to allow gravity return to the tank of any condensed
fuel vapor. The tube connecting the vent valve and the canister was
made from 5/8 inch interior diameter nylon tubing. The nylon tubing
material was the same as used for production fuel lines on the Ford
Taurus.
Canister sizing calculations indicated that a canister of
about 3.0 to 3.5 liter charcoal capacity would be suitable for use
on the test vehicle. Since, as noted earlier, EPA was not in a
12
-------
Float-
Spring
T
5/8 " dia
1
To Fit
Production"
Gromet
Length As Required
To Achieve Closure
At Full-tank Fuel
Level
REFUELING VAPOR VENT VALVE
Figure 6
13
-------
position to make modifications to the production vehicle canister
purge strategy it was decided to use the 3.5 liter size to insure
adequate capacity. The shape of the space available for the
canister was such that a 3.5 liter canister could be designed to
have a desirable long length relative to its cross sectional flow
area while still achieving an acceptably low pressure drop through
the canister. The shape of the space was, however, such that the
canister had to have a non-symmetric cross section.
One other design characteristic of the test vehicle which
influenced the design of the canister was the location of the
vehicle exhaust system. In the general region of the vehicle
selected for canister mounting, the exhaust pipe is on the left
side of the vehicle and approximately 12 inches from the center of
the vehicle. Because of the location of the exhaust pipe, the
decision was made to locate all of the lines to and from the
canister as well as the purge air pick-up/vapor vent for the
canister on the right side of the vehicle. The canister was filled
with charcoal similar to that used in production Ford canisters.
A schematic of the canister is shown in Figure 7.
E. Purge Line
Since the onboard canister would be mounted toward the rear of
the vehicle, instead of in the front as is the case in the
production vehicle, the canister purge line would be much longer
than that used in the production vehicle. With an expected purge
line length of approximately 12 feet, it was necessary that any
excessive pressure drop in the purge line be avoided to insure
adequate canister purge. Based upon preliminary testing of several
system components, it appeared that acceptable purging of the
canister would probably be achieved with a 1/4 inch ID purge line.
However, as was the case in the canister size selection, a decision
was made to use a larger diameter (3/8 inch) purge line to provide
full confidence in the operation of the system.
In the vehicle installation, the 3/8 inch interior diameter
canister purge line was made from fuel grade nylon tubing and was
routed along the inner side of the vehicle's right rocker panel.
This routing was the same as that used on the production vehicle
for the fuel supply and return lines and the tank vent line to the
canister. In the general area of the vehicle firewall, the routing
of the fuel lines and tank vent line, which utilize formed tubing,
turns upward into the engine compartment. For simplicity of
installation (pre-formed tubing was not employed) the routing of
the purge line deviated from that of the production fuel lines and
tank vent line and was continued forward along the side of the
vehicle's front sub-frame. Care was taken during installation to
ensure that there would be no interference between the purge line
and vehicle suspension, driveline or steering components due to
steering and road surface induced movement of these components.
The use of nylon tubing was terminated at the front of the
sub-frame because of the need for several bends in the remainder of
14
-------
Purge to Engine
tn
Wire Mesh Charcoal Support
Vapor from
Fuel Tank
CANISTER (3.5 liter)
Figure 7
-------
the purge line. Flexible fuel line of 3/8 inch diameter was
substituted for the nylon tubing. This flexible fuel line was
routed from the right side to the left side of the vehicle along
the sub-frame and then to the vehicle's purge control valve. The
production location of the purge control valve on the left side of
the vehicle was retained. In a production application of the
onboard system to a Taurus, pre-formed canister purge tubing could
be employed and the purge control valve could be relocated on the
right side of the vehicle. The routing of the purge line could,
therefore, be equivalent to that of the present vapor line and the
total length of the purge line could be reduced from that used on
the test vehicle.
Installation on the vehicle of the fuel tank and vent valve
assembly, the canister, tubing between the canister and the vent
valve and the filler pipe were bolt-in operations. A schematic of
the onboard system, except for some of the purge tubing, as it was
configured for installation on the production vehicle is shown in
Figure 8.
IV. Emissions Testing
Following installation of the onboard system components,
testing was initiated to evaluate the performance of the onboard
system when mounted on the test vehicle. Testing to establish the
emissions performance of the onboard equipped vehicle followed the
procedure for fully integrated systems, Figure 9. Briefly, the test
sequence is initiated with a loaded canister and, with the
exception of the addition of a gas cap removal step at the start of
the hot soak, parallels the present certification test procedure
through the hot soak which follows the tailpipe emissions test.
Following completion of the hot soak, the vehicle is driven for 7.5
miles in accordance with the urban dynamometer driving schedule,
and undergoes a 10 percent fueling and temperature stabilization
step prior to measurement of refueling emissions, as detailed in
Figure 9. The results obtained from this set of1 tests are
summarized in Table 3 (Detailed test results including canister
weight data, are shown in the Appendix). The test results presented
in Table 3 show that the vehicle complied with the existing exhaust
and evaporative standards and could comply with a refueling
standard of 0.10 g/gal. Refueling emissions under 0.10 g/gal were
achieved at both the lowest (4 gpm) and highest (10 gpm) fuel
dispensing rates which had been proposed for onboard systems.
V. On-road Vehicle Evaluation
Upon completion of emissions testing, the on-road performance
of the vehicle was evaluated. On-road performance evaluations
included slosh testing for potential carryover of fuel to the
canister and fueling performance evaluations at commercial
stations.
16
-------
Fuel Tank
Refueling Vapor
Vent Valve
Production Vent Valve
Vapor Tubing
to Canister
Purge Tubing to
Engine (3/8" ID)
Canister
Front of Vehicle
Refueling Vapor
Tubing to Canister
(5/8" ID)
Filler Pipe
FILLER NECK, CANISTER. FUEL TANK. VENT VALVE ASSEMBLY SCHEMATIC
Figure 8
17
-------
Exhaust / Evaporative
Emissions of
Subparts B or M
Emissions Measurements
Not Required
15 min MAX
EPA Urban Dynamometer
Driving Schedule
I
Disconnect Refueling Canister
Remove Fuel Tank Cap
Drain Tank
I
10 min MAX
10 % Fueling (81 - 84 0 F fuel)
Replace Fuel Tank Cap
Vehicle Temperature Stabilization
* Remove Fuel Tank Cap
* Conned Refueling Canister
1 hour MAX
6 to 24 hours
I
Place Vehicle in SHED
5 min MAX
Measure Refueling Emissions
REFUELING TEST PROCEDURE
FULLY-INTEGRATED SYSTEMS
Figure 9
18
-------
Tabled
Refueling Emissions Test Procedure. Evaporative. Tailpipe and Refueling
Emissions Data Summary
Tailpipe Emissions-
HC
(Q/mile)
0.19
0.17
0.20
0.18
CO
(o/rnflel
1.80
1.66
2.10
NOx
(60°-84°F)
(g/mael
0.72
0.65
0.71
1.72 0.76
* Applicable emission standards: HC - 0.41
** Canister not disconnected before fueling
*** ND' No detectable emissions associated
- Onboard System
on 1988 Taurus
Evaporative Emissions*
Diurnal
ifli
0.27"
(ND)*"
0.30
(ND)"*
0.36
(ND)***
Hot Soak
ifli
0.34
0.35
0.25
Total
ifli
0.61
0.65
0.61
0.34 0.38 0.72
(ND)"*
g/mile, CO - 3.4 g/mile, NOx - 1.0 g/mile, Evap. -
for neat build.
with removal of aas can.
Refueling
Emissions
(q/oaJ.)
0.04
0.02
0.07**"
0.07
2.0 g/test.
Fuel
Econorr
(MPGl
20.70
20.91
21.17
21.25
Fuel dispensing rate of 4 gpm.
19
-------
A. Slosh Testing
In addition to controlling the flow of refueling vapors, the
vent valve must also prevent the escape of liquid fuel from the
fuel tank. The rollover performance of the vent valve was evaluated
prior to installation on the vehicle, as described earlier. On-road
tests were performed to insure that no fuel escaped due to fuel
sloshing in the fuel tank. Fuel sloshing in the tank was evaluated
at four fuel levels in the tank: 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and full tank.
Prior to fuel slosh testing a section of transparent tube was
attached to the vapor tube connecting the vent valve and the
canister by way of a tee immediately upstream of the canister. The
tee was mounted with the branching segment of the tee pointing down
and, as a result, any liquid fuel passing the vent valve would be
diverted and enter the transparent tube.
Fore and aft sloshing of the fuel in the tank was induced by
repetitions of maximum accelerations and heavy braking between
approximately 5 mph and 30 mph. Side-to-side fuel sloshing was
induced by driving the vehicle in a figure eight pattern at 20 to
30 mph and employing high lateral accelerations. Fore and aft and
side-to-side sloshing maneuvers were intermixed. The severity of
the side-to-side sloshing maneuvers was high and represented
vehicle operation which greatly exceeded normal driving patterns.
Following completion of each fuel sloshing sequence, the
transparent section of tube was inspected for the presence of
liquid fuel. Following the tests at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 tank volumes,
no fuel was seen in the transparent tube. A small amount of fuel
(approximately 2 cc) was found in the tube following slosh testing
with the tank full. Given the severity of the test conditions, the
amount of fuel (2 cc) was small enough as not to constitute either
a safety concern or a threat to the performance of the charcoal in
the canister.
While only a small amount of fuel would have reached the
canister even under the severe test conditions employed, it is
preferable to prevent all liquid fuel from reaching the canister.
A deflector surrounding the vent valve was, therefore, added to the
inside of the tank. The deflector was approximately 1 3/4 inch in
diameter and 1 inch long (Figure 10) and was intended to block
direct splashing of liquid against the vent valve without affecting
the free flow of vapor. Since the slosh performance of the valve
was already excellent, no specific tests were performed with the
deflector installed.
B. Fueling at Commercial Stations
The second area of vehicle on-road performance evaluated was
refueling performance at commercial stations. The vehicle was
instrumented with fittings to allow monitoring of the pressure in
the filler neck, the tank and the vapor line to the canister.
Equipment to record these pressures and to measure ambient
20
-------
Refueling Vapor Vent Valve
G cornet
N>
Top of Tank
DEFLECTOR
Figure 10
-------
temperature, dispensed fuel temperature and in-tank fuel
temperature was installed in the vehicle.
Procedures employed in the evaluation of the fueling
performance of the onboard system at commercial fuel stations were
as follows. The vehicle fuel tank was drained at EPA and in most
cases only sufficient fuel to safely reach the commercial filling
station was added to the tank. The vehicle was then driven to the
commercial fuel station and fueled. Following full insertion of the
fuel nozzle into the vehicle filler pipe, fuel was dispensed at the
maximum rate achievable from that pump (efforts were made to avoid
fueling of the test vehicle while other vehicles were being fueled
at the station). Fueling was continued until automatic nozzle
shutoff, and any fuel expulsions or premature nozzle shut-offs were
noted. Following the first full-tank nozzle shut-off, tank
topping-off fuelings were performed using maximum fuel dispensing
rates at each activation of the fuel nozzle. Any fuel spillage was
noted. The maximum dispensing rate was selected for topping-off
events because that procedure could be repeatably performed and
because it severely stressed the system. For most of the early
fuelings at commercial stations, fuel topping-off events were
repeated four to seven times. A fuel sample was collected, in most
cases, following completion of the fueling event so that the Reid
Vapor Pressure (RVP) of the fuel could be determined.
During fuelings, continuous traces of the pressures in the
filler pipe, the tank and the entrance to the canister were
recorded. An example of pressure trace data is shown in Figure 11.
The figure shows, reading from right to left, the start of fueling
through four topping off events and reading from top to bottom, the
pressure in the filler pipe, the pressure in the fuel tank and the
temperature of the fuel in the fuel tank (pressure at the canister
was not recorded during this fueling) . Immediately after fueling is
initiated, the pressure traces show a sharp rise in the pressures
to the levels corresponding to fuel dispensing at that delivery
rate with the vent valve open. When the fuel in the tank reaches
the full level, the vent valve closes which results in (1) a rapid
rise in fuel tank pressure, (2) backing up of fuel in the filler
pipe with an associated sharp rise in pressure in the filler pipe
and finally, 3) the fuel in the filler pipe reaching the nozzle
shutoff port causing automatic shutoff of the nozzle. Following
nozzle shutoff the pressure in the filler pipe decays rapidly. In
the example shown, automatic nozzle shutoff occurred initially when
11.2 gallons of fuel had been dispensed. Fuel tank topping-offs are
shown on the figure by the almost vertical rises and falls in
filler pipe pressure and the somewhat smaller pressure spikes in
the fuel tank. For the fueling event shown, a total of four
topping-offa were performed which resulted in an additional 0.3
gallons of fuel being dispensed.
As part of the initial evaluation, a stock Taurus was fueled
at two of the stations immediately after fueling of the onboard
vehicle was completed. Fuelings of the stock vehicle were performed
using the same pump and nozzle as were used with the onboard
vehicle and the same number of topping-off repetitions were
22
-------
Pressure and Temperature Traces during fueling - Onboard System (Original Configuration)
(Amoco Station @ Jackson and Stadium Rds; January 27, 1989; Fueling Rate: 11.7 gpm)
Figure 11
10
If!
9-
8 —
6-
«o
3*
0)
N
co A •
CO
0
3-
1-
—100
90
j> Pressure-Filler Neck
Pressure-Fuel Tank
Tank Temperature
1!
Pressure-Filler Neck
Nozzle Automatic
Shut-off
23
Top-off
Events
1
-------
performed. During these tests neither vehicle exhibited any fueling
problems.
The results of testa performed at commercial filling stations
on the onboard vehicle as originally configured, together with the
two back-to-back fuelings of a stock Taurus, are shown in Table 4.
Approximately two-thirds of the fuelings to the full tank level
were completed without either premature shutoff or fuel spillage.
Fuel spills or premature nozzle shutoff occurred, however, in
approximately one-third of the fuelings either at the first or
second nozzle shutoff. The existence of a fuel spill at the third
or subsequent topping-off event was considered to be a lesser
problem because of the severity of the full flow test procedure
which was used. Inspection of Table 4 shows that there was no
readily discernible pattern in the spill/spit control performance
of the onboard system with respect to station, nozzle type,
dispensing rate or temperature. In addition, a meaningful
comparison between the performance of a stock Taurus and the
onboard equipped Taurus was not possible because both vehicles
fueled without incident during the two back-to-back fuelings which
were performed.
Based on these initial tests, it was decided that changes were
desirable to reduce fuel spillage. The changes were directed at
enhancing fuel flow into the tank and reducing the in-tank pressure
peak at closure of the vent valve. To enhance fuel flow, the
Chrysler check valve was replaced by a check valve with a larger
diameter ball (1.5" dia.) and enlarged throat (1.4" dia.). These
changes reduced the resistance to the flow of fuel through the
check valve because of the increased flow area. Since a standard
pingpong ball was used in this valve it was referred to by that
name, Figure 12. Reducing the magnitude of the pressure peaks at
nozzle shutoff required improved venting of the tank following
closure of the vapor vent valve. To accomplish this, the stock
Taurus vapor vent valve (white) was replaced with a larger Ford
vent valve (blue) used on some light trucks. Because of the
increased vapor flow capacity of the orifice in the "blue" valve,
the pressure peak at closure of the refueling vent valve was
reduced. An example of typical pressure trace during fueling with
this system revision is shown in Figure 13. In addition to the
filler pipe and tank pressures shown in Figure 11, Figure 13
includes the pressure trace for canister inlet pressure. For this
fueling, automatic nozzle shutoff occurred when 11.6 gallons of
fuel had been dispensed. Four topping-offs resulted in an
additional 0.7 gallons of fuel being dispensed. Relative to the
pressure traces shown in Figure 11, Figure 13 shows that filler
pipe pressure is reduced, both during fueling and at nozzle shut-
of fa.
When this modified hardware was placed on the vehicle, it was
also found that a metal sleeve was needed to protect the enlarged
check valve from interference with the flexible rubber hose joining
the filter neck to the fuel tank. After initial evaluation, a two
inch diameter sleeve was selected for this purpose.
24
-------
Table 4
Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Original Configuration}
ONBOARD SYSTEM CONFIGURATION: 3.5L Canister, "Chrysler" spitback valve, "white" stock vapor vent valve.
Date
1/10/89
Kin
Amoco
(Plymouth Rd.)
Dispensing Dispensed
Rate Fuel RVP*
fgpml Temp.fR (psil
Initial Initial/ Volume
Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed
Nozzle Temp.fF) Tank(gal) Temp.(°F) (gal)
1.0
4.0
Observations
No fueling problems.
Vehicle used for fuel
tank slosh testing.
1/10789 Unocal 76
(Washtenaw &
Carpenter Rd.)
5.0
3.0
No fueling problems.
Vehicle used for fuel
tank slosh testing.
1/10/89 Sunoco
(Carpenter Rd
& Mich. Ave.)
8.0
3.6
No fueling problems.
Vehicle used for fuel
tank slosh testing.
1/10/89 Sunoco
(Carpenter Rd
& Mich. Ave.)
11.5
3.0 Approximately 1 pint
spill @ second nozzle
shut-off. Vehicle used
for fuel tank slosh test.
1/10/89 Sunoco
(Carpenter Rd
& Mich. Ave.)
— 14.5/14.4 —
1.0
12.9 Approximately 1 cup spill
at first nozzle shut-off.
1/11/89 Amoco
(Plymouth Rd.)
6.1
14.2/14.0 Emco
Wheaton
A2000
1.0
54.3/41.7
15.35
No fueling problems.
Two measurements of RVP performed per fuel sample.
25
-------
Table 4 (cont)
Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Original Configuration!
ONBOARD SYSTEM CONFIGURATION: 3.5L Canister, 'Chrysler* spitback valve, "white" stock vapor vent valve.
Date Station
Dispensing Dispensed
Rate Fuel RVP
fqoml Temp.fF) fpsi)
Initial Initial/ Volume
Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed
Nozzle Temp.fF) Tank (gal) Temp.(°F) (gal)
Observations
1/11/89 Shell 12.0 — 14.8/14.2 OPW ~
(Plymouth Rd.) 11A
ised.
1.0 54.3/38.5 13.8 Multiple premature nozzle
shut-offs; at 1.8, 3.5, 4.3
5.1, 7.8, 9.3 gallons
Spit-back at second (13.4 gal)
and third (13.7 gal) shut-offs.
1/11/89 Shell
(Plymouth Rd.)
following.)
12.0 36.6 Sample OPW
not 11A
taken
32.7
1.0 43.2/40.5 14.2 No fueling problems.
(Stock Taurus fueled without
problem immediately
1/13/89 Sunoco
(Carpenter Rd)
& Michigan Ave.)
following.)
10.8 39.8 14.9/14.8 OPW 31.8
11B
1.0
-/40.2 12.5 No fueling problems.
(Stock Taurus fueled without
problem immediately
1/13/89 Shell 11.7
(Plymouth Rd.)
— 14.8/14.8 OPW
11B
1.0
40.5/37.5
13.6
No fueling problems.
1/17/89 Unocal 76
(Washtenaw &
Carpenter Rd)
8.4
43.2
14.7/14.7 No I.D. 47.8
2.0 48.8/41.5 12.2 Small spit (10-15 drops)
at first nozzle shut-off.
1/18/89 Standard
(Washtenaw &
OwendaJe Rd)
12.8 41.5 14.3/14.2 Emco 38.0
Wheaton
A2001
2.0 52.0/41.0 12.0 Spill, 2 to 3 tablespoons at
5th nozzle shut-off.
26
-------
Table 4 (cont)
Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Original Configuration)
ONBOARD SYSTEM CONFIGURATION: 3.5L Canister, 'Chrysler' spitback valve, 'white' stock vapor vent valve.
Date
Dispensing Dispensed Initial Initial/ Volume
Rate Fuel RVP Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed
;ion (qpml Temp.(°F) (psi) Nozzle Temp.fF) TankfoaH Temp.(°F) (gal)
Observations
1/18/89 Shell 6.0 43.5 14.8/14.7 — 49.0
(Stadium &
Maple Rds.)
1/19/89 Shell 11.0 40.5 14.8/14.8 OPW 36.5
(Plymouth Rd.)
1/20/89 Standard 12.0 38.8 14.3/14.2 Emco 33.6
(Washtenaw & Wheaton
Owendale Rds.) A200
1/23/89 Amoco 11.8 — 14.3/14.3 OPW —
(Jackson and
Stadium)
1/24/89 Mobil 10.4 43.5 14.9/15.0 OPW 43.9
(Washtenaw
& Carpenter)
2.0 57.0/44.5 12.0 No fueling problems.
2.0 41.0/39.5 12.5 No fueling problems.
11.0 49/48 2.5 No fueling problems.
(readings
fluctuating)
6.0 58/49 7.7 2 - 3 teaspoon spill at
second nozzle shut-off.
4.0 42/41 1 1 .2 1/2 cup spill at first
nozzle shut-off.
1/27/89 Mobil
(Washtenaw
& Carpenter)
10.3
40.8 15.1/15.2 OPW 32.5
2.0 34.5/37.0 10.8
No fueling problems.
27
-------
Table 4 (cont)
Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Original Configuration}
ONBOARD SYSTEM CONFIGURATION: 3.5L Canister. 'Chrysler* spitback valve, "white' stock vapor vent valve.
Date Station
Dispensing Dispensed Initial Initial/ Volume
Rate Fuel RVP* Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed
Temp.m Ipsjl Nozzle Temp.fF) Tank (gal) Temp.(°F) (gal)
Observations
1/27/89
1/30/89
1/30/89
Amoco 11.7
(Jackson &
Stadium)
Mobil 9.0
(Washtenaw
& Carpenter)
Standard 12.4
(Washtenaw
43.0 14.2/— OPW 34.5
11-B
42.0 14.9/15.0 OPW 40.3
11-B
— — Emco 41.9
Wheaton
3.0 44.5/41.5 11.5 No fueling problems.
3.0 41.5/41 11.6 No fueling problems.
3.0 51/47 10.2 A few drops at 5th shut-off,
2-3 teaspoons at 7th nozzli
& Owendale)
shut-off.
28
-------
LLJ
E
O
LLI
I
O
O
O
Q.
O
CM
O
O)
29
-------
Pressure andTemperature Traces during Fueling - Onboard System (Second System Modification)
(Shell Station on Plymouth Rd; February 8. 1989; Fueling Rate; 11.3 gpm)
01
4J
m
10.
9-r
8-
7-
,.
6-ft
1 5.
5
01
3-
Figure 13
rflOO
Pressure-Filler Neck
Pressure-Fuel Tank
Tank Temperature
Pressure - Canister Inlet
e
B
2
01
I Ml
Top-off
4 Events
Nozzle Automatic
Shut-off
- 0
Start of
Fueling
30
-------
The vehicle installation also incorporated another small
improvement designed to reduce occasional spitback of small fuel
droplets. This improvement consisted of a small deflector on the
inside of the unleaded fuel nozzle restrictor support plate to
eliminate any straight line path for droplet expulsion through the
main vent hole in the restrictor plate.
The results of fuelings at commercial stations following
incorporation of the above modifications to the onboard system are
shown in Table 5. As can be seen in Table 5, the vast majority of
the fuelings occurred without incident and the overall performance
of the system was considered to be excellent. Because similar
fueling incidents; e.g. premature nozzle shutoff and fuel spillage,
occur with production vehicle designs it was unclear how the
modified vehicle was performing compared to stock fuel systems. The
next step in the evaluation of the performance of the onboard
system was, therefore, the collection of data on back-to-back
fuelings with stock production vehicles.
C. Comparative Fueling with Production Vehicles
Following establishment of the final system configuration,
comparative testing was performed with production vehicles. The
purpose of this testing was to compare the fueling performance of
the onboard system and production systems under identical fueling
conditions at commercial stations.
The production vehicles employed in these comparative fuelings
were a 1988 Ford Taurus, a 1989 Buick Century, a 1988 Dodge mini-
van, a 1989 Pontiac 6000, a 1987 Ford Crown Victoria, and a 1987
Plymouth Reliant. Comparative fuelings were performed at commercial
fuel stations and in the EPA refueling bay where fuel dispensing
rates higher than those at commercial stations could be employed.
The detailed results of the comparative fuelings performed at
commercial fuel stations are shown in Table 6. Comparative fuelings
performed in the EPA fueling bay are shown in Table 7.
With respect to the number and severity of spills, inspection
of Tables 6 and 7 shows that very few spills occurred with the
onboard system or the production Taurus and that the few spills
which did occur were very small. In the case of some of the other
production vehicles, fuel spillage occurred frequently and usually
involved a significant volume of fuel. Thus, relative to the other
stock vehicles which were evaluated, it appears that the Taurus
fuel tank system is very well designed with respect to the control
of fuel spit-back and premature nozzle shut-off. Further inspection
of Tables 6 and 7 shows that there were a few instances where
premature nozzle shut-off occurred with the onboard system as was
also the case with some production vehicles. While occasional
premature nozzle shut-off is a nuisance, it is not a significant
problem compared to actual fuel spillage.
31
-------
Tables
Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Final System Configuration!
SYSTEM CONFIGURATION: 3.5L Canister, 'Pingpong ball" spit back valve with 2" dia. sleeve, "blue" stock vapor vent valve, deflector at fill neck vent.
Date Station
2/21/89 Mobil
(Washtenaw
& Carpenter)
Dispensing Dispensed Initial Initial/ Volume
Rate Fuel RVP Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed
fqoml Temp.fF) fpsi) Nozzle Temp./°F> Tank foal) Temp.rF) /gal)
10.1 40.4 15.4/15.2 OPW 38.7
11B
3.0 48/43.5
13.6
Observations
No fueling problems.
2/22/89 Shell 11.1
(Washtenaw
& Golfview)
2/22/89 Sunoco 10.4
(Carpenter
& Michigan Ave.)
2/22/89 Shell 1 1 .0
(Plymouth Rd.)
2/23/89 Amoco 10.5
(Zeeb & I94)
2/23/89 Standard 12.0
(Washtenaw
& Owendate)
2/23/89 Amoco 10.5
(Zeeb & 194)
39.8 14.8/14.7 OPW 28.6
11A
38.4 14.4/14.3 OPW 29.0
11A
38.2 14.8/14.7 OPW 30.6
34.4 13.8/13.9 Husky 10.4
1XS
36.5 13.8/13.7 Emco 18.4
Wheaton
A2001
38.5 13.9/14.0 Husky 21.8
1XS
3.0 42.5/41 11.1 No fueling problems.
3.0 45.5/40.5 10.7 No fueling problems.
3.0 35.5/37.5 11.9 No fueling problems.
3.0 30/35.5 12.6 No fuel spill seen.
(deflector on nozzle damp,
may have prevented spill).
3.0 38/37.5 10.5 No fueling problems.
3.0 40/37.5 13.2 Premature shut-off
at 0.96 gal.
2/27/89 Standard
Washtenaw
& Owendale)
11.9 39.2 13.4/13.3 Emco 25.7
Wheaton
A2001
3.0
61/50
11.0
No fueling problems.
32
-------
Table 5 (cont)
Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Final System Configuration)
SYSTEM CONFIGURATION: 3.5L Canister, 'Pingpong ball* spit back valve with 2" dia sleeve, 'blue' stock vapor vent valve, deflector at fill neck vent.
Date
2/27/89
Station
Amoco
(Zeeb & 194)
2/27/89 Sunoco
(Carpenter
& Michigan Ave.)
2/28/89
3/1/89
3/2/89
3/2/89
uicUoiy
3/10/89
Mobil
(Zeeb & 194)
Mobil
(Zeeb & 194)
Standard
(Washtenaw
& Owendale)
shut-offs)
Standard
(Washtenaw
& Owendale
Sunoco
(Carpenter &
Michigan Ave.)
Dispensing
Rate
loom}
'F^r®T
10.4
10.8
10.4
10.4
Could not
be determined
(premature
12.2
10.6
Dispensed
Fuel RVP
Temo.m (Dsi)
39.6 14.0/13.9
39.7 14.5/14.4
42.5 —
35.3 14.7/14.5
36.6 12.5/12.6
— 12.6/12.6
43.8 14.4/14.6
Ambient
Nozzle TemD.(°F)
Husky 28.4
1XS
OPW 32.3
No Manf. 36.1
Name
(1A?)
No Manf. 32.7
Name
(1A?)
Emco 26.9
Wheaton
A2001
Emco 32.1
Wheaton
A2001
OPW 46.4
11A
Initial Initial/ Volume
Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed
Tank (aal) Temp.(°F) (aal) Observations
3.0 45.5/40.5 12.9 No fuefing problems.
3.0 49/41.5 11.0 No fueling problems.
7.0 46/42.5 10.0 No fueling problems.
3.0 35/32 11.8 No fueling problems.
3.0 37/34 12.0 Multiple premature nozzle
shut-offs at 3.1, 5.0, 5.9
6.6, 7.8 gals, dispensed.
3.0 40/37 12.25 1/4 pint spill at 6th shut-off.
Stock vehicle fueled
after without problems through
7 nozzle shut-offs.
3.0 59.5/43 10.96 No fueling problems
33
-------
Table 5 (cent)
Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Final System Configuration)
SYSTEM CONFIGURATION: 3.5L Canister, "Pingpong ball* spit back valve with 2' dia sleeve, "blue" stock vapor vent valve, deflector at fill neck vent
Date Station
3/10/89 Mobil
(Carpenter
& Washtenaw)
Dispensing Dispensed Initial Initial/ Volume
Rate Fuel RVP Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed
(qpfnl Temp.fFl (psil Nozzle Temp.(°F) Tank (gal) Temp.m (gal)
9.7 41.5 15.0/14.9 Emco 45.6
Wheaton
A2000
3.0
58/44.5
11.6
Observations
No fueling problems.
3/11/89 Shell 12.2
(Plymouth Rd)
3/11/89 Sunoco 10.8
(Carpenter &
Michigan Ave.)
3/11/89 Sunoco 10.8
(Carpenter &
Michigan Ave.)
3/1 1/89 Unocal 76 8.6
(Washtenaw
& Carpenter)
3/1 1/89 Shell 12.2
(Plymouth Rd.)
3/14/89 SheU 11.5
(Plymouth Rd.)
38 13.9/14.0 OPW 43
11A
41.5 14.6/14.6 OPW 48
11A
42 14.6/14.5 OPW 49.6
11A
41 14.7/14.6 Not 49.9
deter-
minable
•
38 13.9/13.8 OPW 52.1
11A
45.6 14.2/14.3 OPW 54.5
3.0 32.5/35 11.53
3.0 54.4/42.5 11.51
3.0 63.5/44 11.6
3.0 47/31 12.0
1 .0 Thermocouple 1 5.8
problem.
3.0 67.5/45 12.6
One drop spill at 6th
nozzle shut-off.
1/4 cup spill at 1st
nozzle shut-off.
One tablespoon spill at 6th
nozzle shut-off and two
tablespoons spill at
8th nozzle shut-off.
No fueling problems.
No fueling problems.
4 tablespoon spill at
4th nozzle shut-off.
1/2 teaspoon spill
at 7th shut-off.
3/21/89 Sunoco
(Carpenter &
Michigan Ave.)
10.5 46.0 13.8/13.8 OPW 33.2
11B
3.0 58.5/47 10.14
No fueling problems.
34
-------
Table 5 (cont)
Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Final System Configuration!
SYSTEM CONFIGURATION: 3.5L C
Dispensing
Rate
Date Station (qprnl
3/23/89 Standard 11.6
(Washtenaw
& Owendate)
3/23/89 Amoco
(Plymouth Rd.)
3/27/89 Amoco
(Plymouth Rd.)
3/27/89 Standard
(Washtenaw
& OwendaJe)
3/27/89 Sunoco
(Carpenter &
Michigan Ave.)
12.2
11.4
12.0
10.7
anister, 'Pingpong ball*
Dispensed
Fuel RVP
TemD.(°F) (osO
41.8 12.1/12.0
- 11.9/11.9
55.5 11.8/--
52.0 11.8/11.9
55.0 13.3/13.2
spit back valve with 2*
Ambient
Nozzle TemD.(°F)
Emco 45.6
Wheaton
A2001
Emco —
Wheaton
A2000
Emco 66
Wheaton
Emco 77.3
Wheaton
OPW 77.1
11B
dia sleeve, 'blue* stock v<
Initial Initial/
Fuel in Final Tank
Tank (pal) TemD.(°F)
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
63/49
58.5/47
70.5/58
84.5/60
88/64.5
apor vent valve,
Volume
Dispensed
(gall
10.58
10.4
9.0
11.5
9.55 •
deflector at fill neck vent.
Observations
1 teaspoon spiU at
1st nozzle shut-off.
Premature nozzle shut-
offsat3.3, 5.15, 6.0.
7.0, 7.58, 8.34, 9.13
and 9.68 gallons.
No fueling problems.
No fueling problems.
No fueling problems.
35
-------
Tables
Test Results from Comparative Fuetinqs of Onboard Equipped Vehicle and Stock Vehicles
Comparative Refueling
Date Station
3/28/89 Amoco
(Plymouth Rd.)
3/28/89 Shell
(Plymouth Rd.)
3/28/89 Shell
(Stadium &
Maple)
3/30/89 Amoco
(Plymouth Rd.)
at Commercial Fuel Stations
Dispensing Dispensed
Rate Fuel
Vehicle loom) Temp.(°R
Onboard 11.2 52.5
Stock
Taurus
Onboard
Onboard
Stock
Taurus
Onboard
Stock
Taurus
Stock
Buick
Century
11.9
11.0
7.2
9.1
11.4
11.2
11.3
52.5
50.4
50.2
50.2
54
54
54
Initial Initial/
RVP Ambient Fuel in Final Tank
tosi) Nozzle TemD.(°F) Tank (aal) TemD.(°F)
12.0A- Emco 63.4 3.0 64/54.4
Wheaton
12.0/~ Emco 63.4 3.0 64/54.4
Wheaton
13.1/13.0 OPW 69.6 3.0 68/53.5
12.6A- — 66.1 3.0 74/56
12.67— — 66.1 3.0 74/56
— Emco 39.7 3.0 53/48
Wheaton
— Emco 39.7 4.0 —
Wheaton
— Emco 39.7 3.0 —
Wheaton
Volume
Dispensed
(gal) Observations
10.75 No fueling problems.
10.75
12.0
13.0
13.0
11.76
10.33
14.00
Two drop spit from stock
vehicle at 2nd nozzle shut-off.
No fueling problems.
No fueling problems.
No fueling problems.
3 drop spill at 3rd nozzle
shut-off.
No fueling problems through
3 nozzle shut-offs.
4 to 5 teaspoon spill at
1st nozzle shut-off. 1/4 pint
spilJ at 2nd nozzle shut-off.
3rd. shut-off not performed.
36
-------
Table 6 (cont)
Test Results from Comparative Fuelings of Onboard Equipped Vehide and Stock Vehicles
Comparative Refueling
Date Station
3/30/89 Sunoco
(Carpenter &
Michigan Ave.)
3/31/89 Standard
(Washtenaw
& Owendate)
at Commercial Fuel Stations
Dispensing Dispensed
Rate Fuel
Vehicte (opm) Temp.fF)
Onboard 11.6 47
Stock 11.6 47
Taurus
Stock — 47
Buick
Century
Onboard 11.9 43.3
Stock 11.9 43.3
Taurus
Stock 11.9 43.3
Buick
Century
Initial Initial/ Volume
RVP Ambient Fuel in Final Tank
(Dsi) Nozzle TemD.(°F) Tank (aal) Temp.(°F)
13.1 OPW 48.2 3.0 59.5/50.5
11A
13.1 OPW 48.2 4.0 —
11A
13.1 OPW 48.2 3.0 —
11A
12.0 Emco 35.5 3.0 43/49
Wheaton
A2001
12.0 Emco 35.5 4.0 —
Wheaton
A2001
12.0 Emco 35.5 3.0 —
Wheaton
A2001
Dispensed
(gal) Observations
1 1 .76 No fueling problems
through 3 nozzle
shut-offs.
12.82 3 drop spill at 2nd nozzle
shut-off. 2 teaspoon spill
at 3rd nozzle shut-off.
1 1 .92 Would not fuel at highest
and middle nozzle flow
rate settings. 2nd and 3rd
nozzle shut-offs not performed.
10.68 Premature nozzle shut-off
at 6.9 gallons.
12.53 No fueling problems.
12.43 1/2 pint spill @ first
nozzle shut-off. 2nd &
3rd shut-offs not performed.
37
-------
Table 6 (cont)
Test Results from Comparative Fuelings of Onboard Equipped Vehicle and Stock Vehicles
Comparative Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations
Date Station
Dispensing Dispensed Initial Initial/ Volume
Rate Fuel RVP Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed
Vehlcte loom) Temp.m (psh Nozzle Temp.m Tank (oah Temp.(°Fl (gal)
Observations
4/6/89 Amoco Onboard 10.7
(Zeeb & I94)
Stock 10.3
Dodge
mint-van
Stock 10.6
Buick
Century
4/6/89 Mobil Onboard 10.4
(Zeeb & 194)
Stock 10.4
Dodge
mini- van
49.4 11.8/11.8 Husky 45 4.0 ---/--
1+X
49.4 11.8/11.8 Husky 45 1/8 to 1/4 ~/~
1+X tank
49.4 11.8/11.8 Husky 45 1/8 to 1/4 —/—
1+X tank
48.2 13.1 No Name 52.6 4.0 63/53.5
48.2 13.1 No Name 52.6 1/8 to 1/4 --/—
tank
10.35 Premature nozzle shut-off
at 1.26 gal.
10.95 No fueling problems.
12.58 1/4 cup spill at second
nozzle shut-off.
10.0 No fueling problems.
10.65 Five immediate premature
nozzle shut-offs with
nozzle fully inserted.
No fueling problems when
nozzle retracted by 1/4 in.
Stock 10.4 48.2
Buick
Century
13.1 No Name 52.6 1/8 to 1/4 — /-
tank
11.2 1/2 cup spill at 1st
nozzle shut-off. 2nd and
3rd shut-offs not performed.
38
-------
Table 6 (cont)
Test Results from Comparative Fuelings of Onboard Equipped Vehicle and Stock Vehicles
Comparative Refueling
Date Station
4/7/89 Amoco
(Zeeb
& 194)
4/10789 Standard
(Washtenaw
& Owendale)
at Commercial Fuel Stations
Dispensing Dispensed
Rate Fuel RVP
VehicJe fawn) TemD.(°F) tosH
Stock 10.1 -- -
Buk*
Century
Onboard 9.8 48.9
Stock 9.6 48.9 —
Dodge
mini-van
Stock 9.6 48.9 —
Buick
Century
*
Onboard 11.6 41.3 12.0
•
Stock 11.6 41.3 12.0
Dodge
mini-van
Stock 11.6 41.3 12.0
Buick
Century
Nozzle
Husky
1+X
Husky
1+X
Husky
1+X
Husky
1+X
Emco
Wheaton
A2001
Emco
Wheaton
A2001
Emco
Wheaton
A2001
Initial Initial/
Ambient Fuel in Final Tank
Temo.m Tankfaall Temo.m
41 1/8 to 1/4 — /—
tank
48.2 4 66.5/52.5
48.2 1/8 to 1/4 — /~
tank
48.2 1/8 to 1/4 — /—
tank
30.8 1/8 to 1/4 53/—
tank
30.8 1/8 to 1/4 — /—
tank
30.8 1/8to1/4 — /—
tank
Volume
Dispensed
(gal) Observations
11.6 5 to 6 teaspoon spill at 1 st
nozzle shut-off. 2nd and 3rd
shut-off s were not performed.
10.25 No fueling problems.
1 1 .95 5 to 1 0 drop spit back
at 1st nozzle shut-off.
2nd and 3rd shut-otfs
not performed.
1 0.7 Two immediate premature nozzle
shut-otfs with nozzle fully
inserted. No fueling problems,
with nozzle retracted 1/4
inch, through three shut-offs.
1 1 .2 Premature nozzle shut-offs
at 2.4 and 3.6 gallons.
20 drop spill @ 1 st nozzle shut-off.
1 3.26 Premature nozzle shut-off
at 4.4 gal.
14.26 1/4 cup spill @ 1st nozzle
shut-off. 2nd and 3rd
shut-offs not performed.
39
-------
Table 6 (cont)
Test Results from Comparative Poolings of Onboard Equipped Vehicle and Stock Vehicles
Comparative Refueling
Date Station
4/10/89 Sunoco
(Carpenter &
Mich. Ave)
4/11/89 Amoco
(Jackson
& Stadium)
at Commercial Fuel Stations
Dispensing Dispensed
Rate Fuel
Vehtate fopml Temp.fF)
Onboard 10.8 46.5
Stock 10.8 46.5
Pontiac
6000
Stock 10.8 46.5
Buick
Century
Onboard 11.9 45.5
Stock 11.9 45.5
Pontiac
6000
Initial Initial/
RVP Ambient Fuel in Final Tank
tosi) Nozzle TemD.m Tank foal) Temo.m
12.8 OPW 40.5 1/8 to 1/4 44.5/44.5
11A tank
12.8 OPW 40.5 1/8 to 1/4 — /—
11A tank
12.8 OPW 40.5 1/8 to 1/4 •—/—
11A tank
11.5 OPW 36.2 1/8.to1/4 51/41.5
tank
11.5 OPW 36.2 1/8 to 1/4 — /—
tank
Volume
Dispensed
(gal) Observations
12.0 No fueling problems.
12.7 Two immediate premature
shut-offs with nozzle
fully inserted. Premature
shut-off at 4.1 gal with
nozzle withdrawn 1/4 inch.
1/8 cup spill at 3rd nozzle
shut-off.
10.9 One immediate nozzle shut-off .
Nozzle withdrawn 1/4 inch.
10 drop spill at 1st nozzle shut-
off. 1/4 cup spill at 2nd
nozzle shut-off. 3rd shut-off
not performed.
12.44 No fueling problems.
1 1 .72 Two immediate premature
nozzle shut-offs. 1/2 cup
spill at 3rd nozzle shut-off.
40
-------
Table 6 (cent)
Test Results from Comparative Fuetings of Onboard Equipped Vehicle and Stock Vehicles
Comparative Refueling
Date Station
4/11/89 Amoco
(Zeeb & 194)
4/12/89 Amoco
(Zeeb & 194)
at Commero
V*m
Onboard
Stock
Ford
Crown
Victoria
Onboard
Stock
Taurus
Stock
Buick
Century
Stock
Reliant K
ial Fuel Stations
Dispensing Dispensed
Rate Fuel
(oomi TemD.fR
10.4 47.8
10.4 47.8
10.2 46.6
10.1 46.6
10.2 46.6
10.2 46.6
RVP
(psi) Nozzle
11.8 Hushy
1+X
11.8 Husky
1+X
11.9 Husky
1+X
11.9 Husky
1+X
11.9 Husky
1+X
11.9 Husky
1+X
Initial Initial/
Ambient Fuel in Final Tank
TemD.f°F) TanMaal) Temo.m
45.1 1/8 to 1/4 53.5/43.5
tank
45.1 1/4 to 3/8 — /--
tank
40.5 Under 1/8 — /—
tank
40.5 Under 1/8 — /—
tank
40.5 Under 1/8 — /—
tank
40.5 Under 1/8 -/—
tank
Volume
Dispensed
(gal) Observations
1 1 .62 Premature nozzle shut-
off at 7.8 gal.
1 1 .68 One immediate shut-off with
nozzle fully inserted. No
fueling problems with nozzle
withdrawn 1/4 inch, through
3 nozzle shut-offs.
13.54 No fueling problems.
12.33 No fueling problems.
14.07 1/8 cup spill at 2nd
nozzle shut-off. 3rd
shut-off not performed.
9.87 10 drop spit at 2nd
nozzle shut-off.
-------
Table 6 (cont)
Test Results from Comparative Fuelinqs of Onboard Equipped Vehicle and Stock Vehicles
Date
4/13/89
Amoco
(Zeeb & 194)
1 Commercial Fuel Stations
Vehicle
Onboari
Stock
Taurus
Stock
Buick
Century
Stock
Plymouth
Reliant K
Dispensing
Rate
fapm)
10.3
10.2
10.3
10.2
Dispensed
Fuel
TemD.fF)
45.8
45.8
45.8
45.8
RVP
(osi) Nozzle
11.4 Husky
1+X
11.4 Husky
1+X
11.4 Husky
1+X
11.4 Husky
1+X
Initial Initial/
Ambient Fuel in Final Tank
Temo.m TanMaali Temo.m
46.9 1/8 to 1/4 — /—
tank
46.9 1/8 to 1/4 — /—
tank
46.9 1/8 to 1/4 ~/~-
tank
46.9 1/8 to 1/4 — I—
tank
Volume
Dispensed
(aal)
11.66
10.43
13.25
10.22
Observations
No fueling problems.
No fueling problems.
2 drop spit at 1st nozzle
shut-off. 1/8 cup spill at
2nd nozzle shut-off. 3rd
nozzle shut-off, dean.
3 to 4 teaspoon spill at
2nd nozzle shut-off. 15
drop spit at 3rd nozzle
shut-off.
42
-------
Table?
Test Results from Comparative Fuelinqs of Onboard Equipped Vehicle and Stock Vehicles
Comparative Refueling
Date Station
3/22/89 EPA fuel
bay
4/13/89 EPA fuel
bay
in EPA Fuel Bay
Dispensing Dispensed
Rate Fuel
Vehicle loom) Temp.fF)
Onboard 15 76
Stock 15 76
Taurus
Onboard 12 76
Stock 12 76
Taurus
Onboard 10 76
Stock 10 76
Taurus
Onboard 15.4 81
Stock 15.4 84.6
Taurus
RVP
(DSi)
13.8
13.8
13.8
13.8
13.8
13.8
11.2
11.2
Initial Initial/ Volume
Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed
Nozzle TemD.fF) Tank laal) Temo.rF) (aal)
opw — -- — i—
11A
OPW /
\Ji V» ^^ ^^ -y — —
11A
OPW — — — /— -
11A
OPW — — ~/~
11A
OPW — — — /— —
11A
OPW — — — /—
11A
OPW — 1/8 to 1/4 — /— 12.15
11A tank
OPW — 1/8 to 1/4 —/— 10.85
11A tank
Observations
No fueling problems.
Few drops discharged
during fueling. 1
teaspoon spit at 1st
shut-off.
No fueling problems.
No fueling problems.
No fueling problems.
No fueling problems.
No fueling problems.
1/8 cup spill at 2nd
nozzle shut-off.
-------
Table 7 (cont)
Test Results from Comparative Fuelinqs of Onboard Equipped Vehicle and Stock Vehicles
Comparative Refueling in EPA Fuel Bay
Date
4/13/89
Station
EPA fuel
bay
Dispensing Dispensed
Rate Fuel
(gpm) Temp.(°F)
RVP
Initial Initial/ Volume
Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed
Nozzle Temp.(°F) Tank (gal) Temp.(°F) (gal)
15.3
89.2
11.2
OPW
11A
1/8 to 1/4
tank
12.25
Observations
No fueling problems.
Stock
Taurus
15.1
89.1
11.2
OPW
11A
1/8 to 1/4 — /--
tank
11.5
12 drop spill at 2nd
nozzle shut-off.
Stock Not
Buick measurable.
Century Fuel-cart
at 15gpm
89.7
11.2
OPW
11A
1/8 to 1/4
tank
12.35 Premature nozzle shut-offs
at 2.6, 2.85. 2.95 and 3.1
gallons. 2 drop spill at
1st full tank nozzle
shut-off. 2nd and 3rd
nozzle shut-offs dean.
Stock
Reliant K
Stock
Buick
15.0 89.5
Not —
measurable.
11.2
' 11.2
OPW
11A
OPW
11A
- 1/8 to 1/4 — /—
tank
— 1/8 to 1/4 — /--
tank
Fuel cart out of fuel at
9.8 gal. dispensed.
13.05 Three immediate nozzle
shut-offs. Nozzle
Century Fuel-cart
at 15gpm
retracted 1/4 inch - eight
premature nozzle shut-offs
though 4.75 gal. dispensed.
1/8 cup spill at 1st full
tank nozzle shut-off.
1/2 cup spill at 2nd and
3rd nozzle shut-offs.
Stock
Reliant K
14.6
11.2
OPW
11A
1/8 to 1/4
tank
10.15 10 drop spit at 2nd nozzle
shut-off. 1/8 cup spill at
3rd nozzle shut-off.
44
-------
Table 7 (cont)
Test Results from Comparative Fuelings of Onboard Equipped Vehicle and Stock Vehicles
Date
4/14/89
Station
EPA fuel
bay
EPA Fuel
Vehicle
Stock
Reliant K
Onboard
Stock
Taurus
Bay
Dispensing
Rate
(apm)
15.6
15.0
15.0
Dispensed
Fuel
Temo.m
92.9
98.4
98.4
RVP
(osi) Nozzle
10.8 OPW
11A
10.8 OPW
11A
10.8 OPW
11A
Initial Initial/
Ambient Fuel in Final Tank
Temo.m TanMaal) TemD.(°F)
— 1/8 to 1/4 --/—
tank
— 1/8 to 1/4 —1—
tank
~ 1/8 to 1/4 — /—
tank
Volume
Dispensed
taal)
11.2
12.9
11.4
Observations
3 to 4 teaspoon spill
at 2nd nozzle shut-off.
1/8 cup spill at 3rd
nozzle shut-off.
Premature nozzle shut-
off at 1 .75 gal. No
spills through three full
tank nozzle shut-offs.
2 drop spit at 2nd nozzle
shut-off.
45
-------
The relative performance of the onboard system and the
production systems are summarized in Table 8. The summary results
indicate that the onboard system performed substantially better
than the production systems with respect to fuel spitback both at
commercial stations and in tests performed in the EPA fueling bay.
With respect to premature nozzle shut-off during fueling, the
onboard system performed better than most of the stock vehicles.
The stock Taurus appears to have performed better than the onboard
system in this area, but this conclusion is uncertain given the
relatively small number of tests on that vehicle. Also because of
the small number of tests, no conclusion can be drawn about the
shut-off performance of the Plymouth Reliant.
VI. Hot Ambient Temperature Tests
During vehicle operation, fuel in the fuel tank undergoes
heating and fuel evaporation increase. In many vehicle designs,
including that of the production Taurus, an orifice is incorporated
into the fuel tank vent valve leading to the canister. At times
this orifice limits the rate at which vapor generated in the tank,
as a result of the heating of the fuel, moves to the canister and
ultimately to the engine. Since the onboard system provides
essentially unrestricted venting of vapors from the fuel tank to
the canister and ultimately to the engine when the vehicle is in
operation, the potential exists for an increase in the quantity of
fuel vapor reaching the engine. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and manufacturers have expressed concerns
with respect to the effects on vehicle operation, and possibly on
running losses (fuel vapor which escapes from a vehicle and enters
the atmosphere during vehicle operation), of any increase in the
flow rate of vapors from the fuel tank to the engine when the
onboard equipped Taurus is operated at high ambient temperatures.
These concerns were evaluated using two procedures. One
evaluation procedure entailed operation of the vehicle on roads in
the Ann Arbor area under summer conditions. The other evaluation
procedure was performed in the EPA laboratory at simulated ambient
conditions of approximately 95°F. In the on-road segment of the
evaluation performed in the Ann Arbor area, ambient temperatures
were approximately 80°F. This segment of the evaluating was
initiated with a full tank of fuel (Amoco, commercial) and was
continued over three days until most of the fuel had been consumed.
The vehicle was operated on Ann Arbor city streets, on two lane
country roads around Ann Arbor and on the Interstate highways
adjacent to Ann Arbor. This driveability evaluation is presented in
a memo dated September 22, 1989 (Appendix B). During the
evaluation, the vehicle drove well, i.e. no driveability problems
were observed.
The second segment of the high temperature evaluation of the
onboard equipped vehicle was performed to evaluate the running loss
control characteristics of the vehicle. Running loss tests are
normally conducted in a dynamometer test cell which is sealed
46
-------
Tables
Fueling Test Summary - Relative Performance of Onboard System and Production Vehicles
Refuellnas at Commercial Stations
Vehlde
Onboard System
Production Ford Taurus
Production Buick Century
Production Dodge Mini-van
Production Pontiac 6000
Production Ford Crown Victoria
Production Plymouth Reliant K
Number
of Tests
43
8
11
4
2
1
2
Number
of Sprtbacks*
4 (9%)"
2 (25%)
9 (82%)
1 (25%)
2 (100%)
0 (0%)
2 (100%)
Number of
Premature Shutoffs
7 (16%)
0 (0%)
3 (27%)
2 (50%)
2 (100%)
1 (100%)
0 (0%)
Refuelinqs at EPA Fueling Bay
Onboard System
Production Ford Taurus
Production Buick Century
Production Plymouth Reliant K
6
6
2
2
0 (0%)
4 (67%)
2 (100%)
2 (100%)
1 (17%)
0 (0%)
2 (100%)
0 (0%)
* In first three shutoff events.
** Failure rate shown in ( ) as percent.
47
-------
except for ducts routed directly to and from the vehicle to supply
engine combustion air and to remove exhaust gases. Since none of
the dynamometer test cells in the EPA laboratory are sealed to
allow direct measurement of running loss emissions, changes in
canister weight during testing were employed as a measure of the
presence or absence of running losses; i.e. a reduction in canister
weight during vehicle operation would indicate that the rate of
purge by the engine exceeded the vapor generation rate in the fuel
tank and that running losses were being controlled. Any canister
weight increase would indicate the opposite. The testing was
performed at approximately 95°F. The details of the testing
performed and the test data collected are presented in a memo dated
November 15, 1989 (Appendix B).
The test sequence employed at EPA was essentially the same as
that which is employed to measure running losses. Differences
between the test procedure used to measure running losses and the
test performed on the onboard vehicle were: (1) that following
loading to breakthrough, the onboard canister was bench purged
until 135+5 grams of stored HC had been removed from the canister
(this purging was performed to simulate initial stabilized
operating canister conditions) and (2) the canister was removed
from the vehicle and weighed after each LA-4. Heating of the fuel
in the fuel tank followed running loss test procedure practice.
The total increase in fuel temperature achieved during the period
of the test was approximately 30°F, i.e. the same temperature rise
as was measured under test track conditions for a similar vehicle.
Data collected during four running loss tests on the onboard
equipped Taurus, from one test performed in the EPA laboratory on
a stock Taurus, and from a test on a stock Sable performed at a
contractor's laboratory are presented in Table 9. The test results
from the onboard equipped Taurus showed ^that canister weight
decreased continuously throughout the test sequence, indicating
that vehicle purge was adequate to control vapors generated and
that running loss had not occurred from the onboard system. The
data also show that vehicle exhaust emissions were not adversely
affected by the onboard system. Finally, a vehicle refueling test
was performed following the last running lost test, demonstrating
that the vehicle maintained refueling control capability after
these high temperature operating conditions.
VII. NHT3A On-road Evaluation
Because of its concerns pertaining to the effect of fuel tank
generated vapors on vehicle driveability, especially under extended
highway driving conditions, NHTSA requested an opportunity to
evaluate the onboard equipped vehicle on the road. Following
finalization of the onboard system configuration, an on-road
evaluation of the vehicle was performed by a NHTSA employee and an
A.D. Little employee. Two EPA employees participated in this
evaluation. The on-road evaluation was initiated at EPA's
laboratory and went first to Detroit's Metropolitan Airport for
48
-------
Table 9
Running Loss Test Data
Canister Wt. after breakthrough (g) 4089.4
Canister Wt. after bench purge (g) 3964.2
Canister Wt. after fuel heating (g) —
Initial tank temperature (°F) 96
Tank temp. @ 1st 505 sec. (°F) 99
Tank temp. <§> end of #1 LA-4 (°F) 110
Tailpipe emissions, #1 LA-4
HC (g/mile) 0.44
CO (g/mile) 4.92
NOx (g/mile) 1.01
CO2 (g/mile) 413.2
Canister Wt. after #1 LA-4 (g) 3963.4
Tank temp. @ 2nd 505 sec. (°F) 117
Tank temp. <§> end of #2 LA-4 (°F) 122
Tailpipe emissions, #2 LA-4
HC (g/mile) 0.09
CO (g/mile) 4.39
NOx (g/mile) 1.12
C02 (g/mile) 393.5
Canister Wt. after #2 LA-4 (g) 3956.4
Tank temp. @ 3rd 505 sec. (°F) 123
Tank temp. @ end of #3 LA-4 (°F) 125
Tailpipe emissions, #3 LA-4
HC (g/mile) 0.18
CO (g/mile) 1.91
NOx (g/mile) 1.17
CO2 (g/mile) 398.1
Canister Wt. after #3 LA-4 (g) 3951.1
Canister Wt. after refueling (g) —
Refueling emissions (g/gal) --
Onboard Equipped Taurus
4112.4
3974.6
4005.1
93
98
109
0.47
5.63
1.08
412.2
3969.3
116
121
0.10
4.31
1.17
396.2
3958.4
123
125
0.07
2.80
1.23
392.8
3950.1
4092.1
3948.5
3989.9
94
99
110
0.41
5.93
1.03
416.4
3955.5
117
121
0.10
4.46
1.11
395.2
3948.4
124
125
0.08
3.19
1.24
391.8
3940.6
4100.9
3964.9
3995.5
95
99
109
0.55
6.12
1.00
413.2
3959.3
115
122
0.10
4.05
1.09
391.7
3950.4
123
125
0.09
3.37
1.16
395.7
3941.9
4053.2
0.04
Stock Taurus
Stock Sable
95
99
108
0.36
5.18
1.00
407.3
114
121
0.12
5.3D
0.79
381.3
124
126
0.15
6.41
0.79
375.7
95
NR*
NR*
0.40
6.81
1.08
482.1
113
115
0.10
4.13
0.96
428.0
NR"
125
0.12
4.58
0.88
444.9
NR; not recorded.
49
-------
pick-up of the A,D. Little employee [1] . The vehicle was then
driven to the Chicago/Joliet area where that day's driving was
terminated. The vehicle was driven back to the MVEL on the second
day of the evaluation trip. During this evaluation, the vehicle was
driven for approximately 650 miles, most of which occurred during
extended high speed expressway conditions. During the evaluation
trip, the vehicle was fueled three times. The first fueling was
performed in the neighborhood of Detroit's Metropolitan Airport
shortly after leaving EPA'a laboratory. The other fuelings were
performed in the Chicago/Joliet area. The final fueling in
Chicago/Joliet area was with gasohol (fuel containing up to 10
percent ethanol). As can be seen in Table 10, these three fuelings
were performed without incident. With respect to the operational
characteristics of the vehicle during the evaluation, the
participants reported that no driveability problems were
experienced.
50
-------
Table 10
Test Results from NHTSA Evaluations of Onboard Equipped Vehicle
Date
4/24/89
Station
Vicinity
Detroit
Metro
Airport
Vehicle
Onboard
Stock
Buick
Century
Dispensing Dispensed
Rate Fuel RVP
(oprn) Temp.(°F) (psi)
12 ~ 10.7
12 — 10.7
Initial Initial/ Volume
Ambient Fuel in Final TankDispensed
Nozzle Temo.m Tank (aaO TemD.(°F) (aal)
/ 11^
/ 1 1 .0
Observations
No fueling problems.
Would not fuel at
full dispensing rate.
Significant spit back
at end of fueling.
4/24/89 Chicago Onboard
area
4/25/89 Joliet Onboard
area
9.2
11.2
14.0
—/— 11.4 No fueling problems.
(partial fill)
---/— 9.8 No fueling problems.
(10% ethanol blend)
51
-------
VI11. Conclusions
This program has demonstrated that the simplified onboard
design used by EPA can be successfully adapted for vehicle use on
a Ford Taurus. The test vehicle exceeded the proposed refueling
emissions standard under all proposed test conditions and exhibited
no adverse effects on exhaust emissions or vehicle driveability
under a broad range of conditions. It had equal or better fill
performance than the stock vehicle configuration and several other
production vehicles with which it was compared. Test results also
showed that the onboard system successfully controlled running loss
emissions, and provided full rollover protection and excellent fuel
tank slosh protection. Overall, the test vehicle met all the
design goals established for the program.
52
-------
References
1. EPA Memorandum. "NHTSA Evaluation of Onboard Equipped
Taurus," John F. Anderson, Standards Development and
Support Branch, to Docket A-87-11, May 5, 1989.
53
-------
APPENDIX A
Detailed Compilation of Emission Teat Results
54
-------
Evaporative. Tailpipe and Refueling Data Summary - 1988 Taurus Test Vehide
Tailpipe Emissions
Vehicle
Configuration
Stock
Stock
Test
Procedure
1988 MY Cert.
Enhanced Evap.
HC
(g/m)
0.19
0.20
CO
(g/m)
1.88
2.11
NOx
(g/m)
0.71
0.76
60°-84°F
M
0.12(Diumal)
0.18
Evaporative Emissions
Hot Soak #1.72°-96°F
M M
0.22 —
0.18 0.16
(No cap removal)
Stock
With 3.01
canister
With 3.01
canister
With two prod
canisters in
series
3.0L canister
1/8' pi."
(simulated
procedure)
3.5L canister
1/4- pi."
(simulated
procedure)
3.5L canister
1/4- pi."
(simulated
procedure)
Enhanced Evap.
Enhanced
Evap.
Enhanced
Evap.
. Enhanced
Evap.
Refueling
Procedure
Refueling
Procedure
Refueling
Procedure
0.23
0.20
0.20
0.23
0.20
0.18
0.18
2.64
2.28
2.16
2.30
2.08
1.65
1.56
0.74
0.76
0.70
0.71
0.57
0.77
0.78
0.14
0.48
0.39
0.29
0.25
(Diurnal)
0.49
(Diurnal)
0.62
(Diurnal)
0.40 0.17
(0.25)*
0.96 0.43
(0.69)'
0.72 0.38
(0.40)'
0.87 0.39
(0.70)'
0.62 ~
(0.33)*
0.81 —
(0.33)'
0.74 —
(0.33)*
#2.72°-96°F Total
ial M
-~ 0.34
2.68 2.45
(Diurnal)
8.27 8.67
(Diurnal)
0.49 1.45
(Diurnal)
0.36 1.08
(Diurnal)
0.21 1.08
(Diurnal)
- 0.87
— 1.30
~ 1.36
Refueling Fuel
Emissions Economy
(g/gal) (mpg)
21.47
20.77
20.92
21.05
21.01
21.20
0.22 21.32
0.03 21.21
0.10 21.32
Values in () are approximate contribution from cap removal.
Purge line interior diameter.
55
-------
Evaporative. Tailpipe and Refueling Data Summary (cont) -1988 Taurus Test Vehicle
Vehicle
Configuration
3.5L canister
3/8 pi."
(simulated
procedure)
Integrated
System
(3.5L Can.)
Integrated
System
(3.5L Can.)
Integrated
System
(3.5L Can.)
Integrated
System
(3.5L Can.)
Test
Procedure
Refueling
Procedure
Refueling
Procedure
Refueling
Procedure
Refueling
Procedure
Refueling
Procedure
Tailpipe Emissions Evaporative Emissions
HC CO NOx 60°-84°F Hot Soak #1,72°-96°F #2.72°-96°F Total
igM iaM isM ial ial ial ial ial
0.19 1.74 0.72 0.34 1.29 — — 1.63
(Diurnal) (0.98)
0.19 1.80 0.72 0.27 0.34 — — 0.61
(ND)'"
0.17 1.66 0.65 0.30 0.35 — — 0.65
(ND)"*
0.20 2.10 0.71 0.36 0.25 — — 0.61
(0.04)*
0.18 1.72 0.76 0.34 0.38 — — 0.72
(0.02)*
Refueling Fuel
Emissions Economy
(g/gal) (mpq)
0.07 20.90
0.04 20.70
0.02 20.91
0.07*"* 21.17
0.07 21.25
* Values in () are approximate contribution from cap removal.
** Purge line interior diameter.
"• ND - Not detected.
**** 4 gpm refueling rate.
56
-------
VEHICLE: 1988 Taurus
CONFIGURATION: Stock
TEST PROCEDURE: 1988 Cot
TEST DATE: 10/16 - 10/17/88
Test Emissions
Segment HC CO NOx MPG
Diurnal 0.12 (g) — —
10/17 Bag 1 0.612 (g/mile) 5.027 (g/rrate) 1.115 (g/mile) 21.5
10/17 Bag 2 0.044 (g/mile) 0.897 (g/rrale) 0.319 (g/mile) 20.0
10/17 Bag3 0.153 (g/mite) 1.368 (g/mile) 1.150 (g/mile) 24.9
10/17 Tailpipe
Composite 0.192 (g/mile) 1.883 (g/mite) 0.713 (g/mile) 21.47
10/17 Hot Soak 0.22 (g) — — —
Total Evap. 0.34 (g) — — —
57
-------
VEHICLE:
CONFIGURATION:
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
1988 Taurus
Stock
Supplemental NPRM - #1 Test, Partially and Non-integrated
System Evap.and Tailpipe (no gas cap removal in hot soak)
10/18-10/21/88
Date
10/18
10/18
10/18
10/19
10/19
10/19
10/20
10/20
10/20
10720
10/21
Test
Segment
Load to Breakthrough
#1 Heat Build
#2 Heat Build
#3 Heat Build
#4 Heat Build
#5 Heat Build
Prep. LA-4
Bag 1
Bag 2
Cold Soak
60°-84°F Heat Build
Tailpipe
Bagl
Bag 2
Bag 3
Canister
Weight Change (o)
+ 8.3
+ 15.2
+ 24.3
+ 13.4
+ 8.9
-46.2
+ 5.0
+ 17.9
*
Tailpipe Composite —
Hot Soak (no gas cap removal) -38.1
#1:72°-960F Heat Build +23.1
*2; 72°-96QF Heat BuBd + 35.5
Tntal Fuan
Emissions
HC CO NOx
0.61 (g) -
0.12 (g) -
0.15 (g) -
3.36 (g) - -
12.09 {g)
0.743 (g/mile) 8.785 (g/mife) 0.905 (g/mile)
0.037 (g/mile) 0.923 (g/mile) 0.470 (g/mife)
01A tn\
.10 igj
0.633 (g/mile) 6.859 (g/mile) 0.935 (g/mile)
0.030 (g/mile) 0.416 (g/mile) 0.646 (g/rrule)
0.1 96 (g/mile) 1 .698 (g/mile) 0.839 (g/mile)
0.201 (g/mile) 2.108 (g/mile) 0.759 (g/mile)
01 a in\
.10 lyj
01 R iff\
• lo W —
2.68 (g) - -
J»«fi ln\
MPG
—
20.9
19.5
—
21.0
19.5
23.5
20.77
58
-------
VEHICLE:
CONFIGURATION:
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
Date
10/18
10/18
10/18
10/18
10/19
10/19
1988 Taurus
Stock
Supplemental NPRM - #1 Test, Partially and Non-integrated
System Evap. and Tailpipe (no gas cap removal in hot soak)
10/18-10/21/88
Weighing
Initial
After #1 Heat Build
After #2 Heat Build
After #3 Heat Build
After #4 Heat Build
After #5 Heat Build
Canister Loading
Canister
Weight (o)
HCto
SHED la)
Total HC
From Tank (
8.91
15.32
24.45
16.76
20.99
Date
10/19
10/20
10/20
10720
10/20
10/21
Canister Weight During Testing
Weighing Canister Weight (g)
After LA-4 Prep.
After Cold Soak
After #1 Heat Build
After Exhaust Test a Hot Soak
After #1 High Temp Heat Build
After i2 High Temp Heat Build
668.5
673.5
691.4
653.3
676.4
711.9
59
-------
VEHICLE:
CONFIGURATION:
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
Date
10/25
10/25
10/26
10/26
10/26
10/27
10/27
10/27
10/27
10/28
1988 Taurus
3.0 L canister, stock evap system. (#2 test sequence (#1 sequence void))
Supplemental NPRM - Partially and Non-integrated System Evap and Tailpipe
10/25 - 10/28/88
Test
Segment
Load to Breakthrough
#1 Heat Build
#2 Heat Build
#3 Heat Build
#4 Heat Build
Prep. LA-4
Bag 1
Bag 2
Cold Soak
60°-84°F Heat Build
Tailpipe
Bag1
Bag 2
Bag 3
Tailpipe Composite
Hot-Soak (with gas
Canister
Weight Change (a)
12.0
23.0
£5
18.8
-55.9
-4.1
Emissions
CO
HC
0.29 (g)
0.43 (g)
0.54 (g)
0.79 (g)
0.911 (g/mile) 9.417 (g/mile)
0.039 (g/miie) 1.166 (g/mile}
0.48
0.653 (g/mile) 7.140 (g/mile)
0.028 (g/mile} 0.524 (g/mile)
0.191 (g/mile) 1.920 (g/mile)
NOx
0.981 (g/mile)
0.477 (g/mile)
0.978 (g/mile)
0.564 (g/mile)
0.949 (g/mile)
MPQ
20.8
19.7
0.203 {g/mile) 2.283 (g/mile) 0.756 (g/mile)
21.3
19.7
23.9
21.05
cap removal)
#1;72°-96°F Heat Build
#2; 72°-96DF Heat Build
Total Evap.
-22.5
+ 36.1
+ 31.7
0.96 (g)
0.43 (g)
0.49 (g)
1-45 (g)
60
-------
VEHICLE:
CONFIGURATION:
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
1988 Taurus
3.0 L canister, stock evap system (#2 test sequence)
Supplemental NPRM - Partially and Non-integrated System Evap. and Tailpipe
10/25 - 10/28/88
Date
10/25
10/25
10/25
10/26
10/26
Weighing
Initial
After #1 Heat Build
After #2 Heat Build
After #3 Heat Build
After #4 Heat Build
Canister Loading
Canister
Weight (a)
2207.1
2219.1
2242.1
2244,6
2263.4
AW» 56.3
HCto
SHED (g)
0.29
0.43
0.54
0.79
Total =• 2.05
Total HC
from Tank (g)
12.29
23.43
3.04
19.59
Date
10/26
10/27
10/27
10/27
10/27
10/28
Canister Weight During Test
Weighing Canister Weight (g)
After LA-4 Prep
After Cold Soak
After #1 Heat Build
After Exhaust Test & Hot Soak
After #1 High Temp Heat Build
After #2 High Temp Heat Build
2207.5
2203.4
2180.9
2217.0
2248.7
61
-------
VEHICLE:
CONFIGURATION:
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
1988 Taurus
Stock
Supplemental NPRM - #2 Test, Partially and Non-integrated System Evap. and Tailpipe
10/29-10/31/88
Pate
10/29
10/29
10/29
10/30
10/30
10/30
10/30
10/30
10/31
Test
Segment
Load to Bfeakttv ouoh
#1 Heat BukJ
#2 Heat Bund
Preo. LA-4
Bag1
Bag 2
Cold Soak -
60°-84°F heat build
Tailpipe
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
Tailpipe Composite
Hot Soak (with gas
cap removal)
#1:72°-96°F Heat Build
#2: 72°-96°F Heat Build
Total Evap.
Canister
Weight Changefg)
+ 17.5
+ 6.4
-39.7
+ 1.0
+ 13.9
—
—
-32,3
+ 31.8
+ 30.2
HC
2.39 (g)
7.42 (g)
0.920 (g/mile)
0.032 (g/mite)
—
0.14 (g)
0.758 (g/mile)
0.031 (g/mile)
0.212 (g/mile)
0.232 (g/mile)
0.40 (g)
0.17 (g)
8-27 (g)
8.67 (g)
Emissions
eg
10.402 (g/mile)
0.666 (g/mile)
—
«*
8.364 (g/mile)
0.500 (g/mile)
2.353 (g/mile)
2.642 (g/mile)
—
NOx
1.1 82 (g/mile)
0.639 (g/mile)
—
...
1.056 (g/mile)
0.534 (g/mile)
0.890 (g/mile)
0.740 (g/mile)
—
MPG
20.6
19.8
—
21.0
19.7
23.7
20.92
—
62
-------
VEHICLE: 1988 Taurus
CONFIGURATION: Stock
TEST PROCEDURE: Supplemental NPRM - #2 Test, Partially and Non-Integrated System Evap. and Tailpipe
TEST DATE: 10/29 - 10/31/88
Canister Loading
Canister HC to Total HC
Date Weighing Weight (Q) SHED M from tank (q)
10/29 InWaJ 693.7
10/29 After #1 Heat Build 711.2 2.39 19.89
10/29 After *2 Heat Build 717.6 7.42 13.82
AW - 23.9 Total - 9.81
Canister Weight During Testing
Date Weighing Canister Weight (g)
10/29 After Prep LA-4 677.9
10/30 Alter Cold Soak 678,9
10/30 After Heat Build 692.8
10/30 After Tailpipe & Hot Soak 660.5
10/30 After #1 High Temp Heat Build 692.3
10/31 After f2 High Temp Heat Build 722.5
63
-------
VEHICLE:
CONFIGURATION;
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
1988 Taurus
3.0 L Canister, Stock Evap System (#3 Test Sequence)
Supplemental NPRM - Partially and Non-Integrated System Evap and Tailpipe
10/31 -11/3/88
Date
10/31
11/01
11/01
11/01
11/01
11/02
11/02
11/02
11/02
11/03
Test
Segment
Load to Breakthrough
#1 Heat Build
#2 Heat Build
#3 Heat Build
#4 Heat Build
(25 minutes)
Prep. LA-4
Bag1
Bag 2
Cold Soak
60°-84°F Heat Build
Tailpipe
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
Tailpipe Composite
Hot Soak (wHh pas
cap removal
#1;72°-96°F Heat Build
#2; 72°-96°F Heat Build
Canister
Weight Change (o)
+ 22.6
+ 9.3
+ 21.8
+ 4.2
-52.4
-3.7
+ 23.0
—
-41.7
+ 33.8
+ 22.5
HC
0.70 (g)
0.55 (g)
0.62 (g)
0.37 (g)
0.679 (g/mile)
0.032 (g/mile)
0.39 (g)
0.671 (g/mile)
0.033 (g/mile)
0.174 (g/mile)
0.204 (g/mile)
0.72 (g)
0.38 (g)
0.36 (g)
Emissions
CO NOx
— —
5.486 (g/mile) 1 .023 (g/mile)
0.707 (g/mile) 0.479 (g/mile)
6. 1 80 (g/mile) 1 .046 (g/mile)
0.783 (g/mile) 0.471 (g/mile)
1.716 (g/mile) 0.884 (g/mile)
2. 1 58 (g/mile) 0.704 (g/mile)
MPG
—
20.4
19.6
—
21.1
19.7
23.8
21.01
—
Total Evap.
1-08 (g)
64
-------
VEHICLE:
CONFIGURATION:
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
Date
10/31
10/31
11/01
11/01
11/01
1988 Taurus
3.0 L Canister, Stock Evap System (#3 test sequence)
Supplemental NPRM - Partially Integrated and Non- Integrated System Evap. and Tailpipe
10/31 - 11/03/88
Canister
Weighing
Initial
After f 1 Heat Build
After #2 Heat Build
After #3 Heat Build
After #4 Heat Build
(25 minutes)
Canister Loading
Weight (g)
2212.1
2234J
2244.0
2265.8
2270.0
AW m 57.9
HCto
SHED la)
0.70
0.55
0.62
0.37
Total» 2.24
Total HC
From Tank (
23.30
9.85
22.42
4.57
Date
11/01
11/02
tt/02
11/02
11/02
11/03
Canister Weight During Testing
Weighing Canister Weight to)
After Prep LA-4
After Cold Soak
After f 1 Heat Build
After Exhaust Test & Hot Soak
After f 1 High Temp Heat Build
After #2 High Temp Heat Build
2217.6
2213.9
2236.9
2195.2
2229.0
2251.5
65
-------
VEHICLE:
CONFIGURATION:
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
Date
11/08
11/08
11/08
11/09
11/10
11/10
11/14
11/15
11/15
11/15
11/15
11/16
1988 Taurus
Two Production Canisters in series; stock evap. system
Supplemental NPRM - Partially and Non-integrated system Evap. and Tailpipe
11/08- 11/16/88
Test
Segment
Load to Breakthrough
#1 HaatBuM
#2 Heat Build
#3 Heat Build
#4 Heat Build
#5 Heat Build
#6 Heat Build
Prep. LA-4
1
2
Canister
Weight Change (q)
Cold Soak
60°-84°F Heat Build
Tailpipe
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
Tailpipe Composite
Hot Soak (with gas
cap removal)
m: 72°-96°F Heat Build
#2: 72°-96°F Heat BuiM
+ 22.3
+ 24.9
+ 22.5
+ 14.7
+ 12.6
+ 23.5
-62.0
0.0
+ 21.2
-44.3
+ 28.2
+ 38.7
Emissions
CO
HC
0.18 (g)
0.22 (g)
0.32 (g)
0.24 (g)
0.35 (g)
0.72 (g)
0.830 (g/mile) 9.725 (g/mile)
0.049 {g/mHe) 1.454 (gAnile)
NOx
MPQ
0.964 (g/mile)
0.695 (g/mile)
21.1
19.7
0.29 (g)
0.666 (g/mile) 7.704 (g/mile) 0.917 (g/mile)
0.029 (g/mile) 0.585 (g/mile) . 0.552 (g/mile)
0.274 (g/mile) 1.486 (g/mile) 0.840 (g/mile)
0.227 (g/mile) 2.297 (g/rnle) 0.706 (g/mile)
0.87 (g) -
0.39 (g) - ~
0.21 (g) - -
21.1
20.0
24.1
21.20
TotalEvap.
1.08 (g)
66
-------
VEHICLE:
CONFIGURATION:
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
1988 Taurus
Two Production Canisters in Series; stock evap. system
Supplemental NPRM - Partially and Non-integrated system Evap. and Tailpipe
It/08- 11/16/88
Canister Loading
Date
11/08
11/08
11/08
11/08
11/09
11/10
11/10
Weighing
Initial
After #1 Heat Build
After #2 Heat Build
After *3 Heat Build
After #4 Heat Build
After #5 Heat Build
After #6 Heat Build
Canister
Weight (ai
1529.8
1552.1
1577.0
1599.5
1614.2
1626.8
1650.3
AW - 120.5
HCto
SHED (g)
_
0.18
0.22
0.32
0.24
0.35
0.72
Total - 2.03
Total HC
From Tank (a)
22.48
25.12
22.82
14.94
12.95
24.22
Date
11/14
11/15
11/15
11/15
11/15
11/16
Canister Weight During Testing
Weighing Canister Weight fg)
After LA-4 Prep.
After Cold Soak
After #1 Heat Build
After Exhaust Test & Hot Soak
After #1 High Temp Heat Build
After #2 High Temp Heat Build
1588.3
1588.3
1609.5
1565.2
1593.5
1632.2
67
-------
VEHICLE;
CONFIGURATION:
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
Date
11/16
11/16
11/17
11/17
11/17
11/17
11/18
1988 Taurus
Simulated refueling*; 3.0 L canister -1/8* I.D. purge line, 12 ft long; 0.030 orifice removed from tank vapor line
Supplemental NPRM - Fully integrated system
11/16- 11/18/88
Canister
Weight Change (g)
Test
Segment
Load to Breakthrough
Vapor from
36 gailoni fuel +140.0
Prep. LA-4
Bagl
Bag 2 - 40.7
CoM Soak -7.6
60°-84°F Heat Build + 20.8
Tailpipe
Bagl —
Bag2 —
Bag 3 —
Tailpipe Composite —
Hot Soak {with gas
cap removal -29.7
Total Evap. —
LA-4
Bag 1 —
Bag 2** -11.4
Temp.Stabilization +6,2
Refueling (16.0 gal.
manual shut-off) -t- 87.2
HC
Emissions
CO
NOx
0.563 (9/mile) 5.424 (g/mile)
0.035 (g/mile) 0.718 (g/mile)
0.25 (gram)
0.651 (g/mile) 6.643 (g/mile)
0.024 (g/mile) 0.318 (g/mile)
0.198 (g/mile) 1.965 (g/mile)
0.932 (g/mile)
0.480 (g/mile)
1.055(g/rrale)
0.244 (g/mile)
0.808 (g/mile)
0.202 (g/mile) 2.079 (g/mile) 0.566 (g/mile)
0.62 (gram) — —
0.87 (gram) — —
0.370 (g/mile) 2.523 (g/mile)
0.031 (g/mile) 0.512 (g/mile)
0.22 (g/gal)
0.790 (g/mile)
0.610 (g/mile)
MPQ
21.8
20.0
21.3
20.1
24.3
21.32
24.0
18.9
' Canister loading to breakthrough and refueling emission measurement performed with a non-vehicle mounted tank, canister purging with canister on vehrte,
tank vent line in place.
" Deviation from drivers trace - dyno problem.
68
-------
VEHICLE:
CONFIGURATION:
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
Dale
11/16
11/16
1988 Taurus
Simulated refueling*; 3.0 L canister - purge line: 1/8" I.D. X 12 ft long,
0.030 orifice removed from tank vapor line
Supplemental NPRM - Fully-integrated system
11/16-11/18/88
Canister Loading
WetaMno
Initial
After loading using
36 gals. fuel.
Canister
Weioht (Q)
2126.8
2266.8
AW =. 140.0
Canister Weight During Testing
Dale Weighing
11/16 After LA-4 Prep.
11/17 After Cold Soak
11/1? After Heat Build (Diurnal)
11/17 After Exhaust Test & Hot Soak
11/1? After LA-4 Drive
11/18 After Temperature stabilization
11/18 After Refueling emissions
measurement
Canister Weight (g)
2226.1
2218.5
2239.3
2209.6
2198.2
2204.4
2291.6
* Canister loading to breakthrough and refueling emissions measurement performed with a non-vehicle mounted tank, canister purging with canister on vehicle,
tank vent line in place.
69
-------
VEHICLE:
CONFIGURATION:
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
Date
12/2
12/2
12/2
1988 Taurus
Simulated Refueling'; 3.5 L Canister -1/4" I.D. purge line, 12 ft. long;
0.030 orifice removed from tank vapor line.
Supplemental NPRM - Fully integrated system
12/2- 12/5/88
Test
Segment
Canister
Weight Change (q)
12/3
12/3
12/3
12/3
12/5
Load to Breakthrough
f1 Fueling
#2 Fueling (7.0 gal)
Prep. LA-4 .
Bag1
Bag 2
ColdSoak
60°-84°F Heat Build
Tailpipe
Bag1
Bag 2
Bag 3
Tailpipe Composite
Hot Soak (with gas
cap removal)
Total Evjp.
LA-4 Drive
1
Bag 2
Temperature
Stabilization
Refueling
+ 162.8
+ 60.2
-104.3
+ 0.1
+ 20.5
-39.6
-21.4
+ 7.2
+ 89.6
HC
Emissions
CO
NOx
MPG
1.298 (g/mile) 22.722 (g/mile) 0.755 (g/mile)
0.082 (g/mile) 3.607 (g/mile) 0.467 (g/mile)
0.49 (g)
0.564 (g/mile) 4.839 (g/mile) 1.167 (g/mile)
0.030 (g/mile) 0.453 (g/mile) 0.566 (g/mile)
0.160 (g/mile) 1.492 (g/mile) 0.833 (g/mile)
0.177 (g/mile) 1.651 (g/mile) 0.765 (g/mile)
0.81 (g)
1.30(g)
0.346 (g/mile) 2.016 (g/mile) 1.145 (g/mile)
0.025 (g/mile) 0.179 (g/mile) 0.444 (g/mile)
0.03 (g/gal)
20.3
19.7
21.0
20.0
24.1
21.21
23.8
20.3
'Canister loading to breakthrough and refueling emission measurement performed with a non-vehicle mounted tank, on vehicle canister purge, tank vent line in place.
70
-------
VEHICLE:
CONFIGURATION:
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
Date
12/2
12/2
12/2
1988 Taurus
Simulated Refueling*; 3.5 L Canister -1/4* I.D. purge line, 12 ft long;
0.030 orifice removed from tank vapor line.
Supplemental NPRM • Fully integrated System
12/2 - 12/5/88
Canister Loading
Weighing
Initial
After f 1 Fueling
After m Fueling
(7.0 gal)
Canister
Weight (o)
3756.8
3919.6
3979.8
AW . 223.0
Canister Weight During Testing
Date Weighing
12/2 After LA-4 Prep,
12/3 After Cold Soak
12/3 After Heat Build (Diurnal)
12/3 After Exhaust Test & Hot Soak
12/3 After LA-4 Drive
12/5 After Temperature Stabilization
12/5 After Refueling emissions
measurement (14.1 gal,
manual shutoff)
Canister Weight (g)
3875.5
3875.6
3896.1
3856.5
3835.1
3842.3
3931.9
Canister loading to breakthrough and refueling emissions measurement performed with non-vertide mounted tank, canister purging with canister on vehicle,
tank vent line in place.
71
-------
VEHICLE:
CONFIGURATION:
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
Date
12/5
12/5
12/5
12/6
12/6
12/6
12/6
1988 Taurus
Simulated Refueling*; 3.5 L Canister - 1/4* I.D. purge line, 12 ft. long;
0.030 orifice removed from tank vapor line.
Supplemental NPRM - Fully integrated system
12/5 - 12/6/88
Canister
Weight Change (q)
Test
Segment
Load to Breakthrough
#1 FiMfctg + 68.1
#2 Fueling (14.6 gal) + 69.6
Prep. LA-4
Bag1 —
Bag 2 -81.7
Cold Soak +0.8
60°-84°F Heat Build +20.0
Tailpipe
Bag1 -
Bag2 —
Bag3 -
Tailpipe Composite —
Hot Soak (with gas
cap removal) - 47.5
LA-4 Drive
Bag1 —
Bag 2 -19.3
HC
Emissions
CO
0.934 (g/mUe) 11.890 (g/mile)
0.045 (g/mile) 1.523 {g/mile)
0.62 (g)
0.576 (g/mile) 5.272 (g/mile)
0.026 (g/mile) 0.389 (g/mile)
0.160 (g/mile) 0.976 (g/mile)
0.177 (g/mile) 1.562 (g/mile)
0.74 (g)
0.486 (g/mile)
0.024 (g/mile)
2.763 (g/mile)
0.167 (g/mile)
NOx
0.756 (g/mile)
0.549 (g/mile)
1.035 (g/mile)
0.584 (g/mile)
0.971 (g/mile)
0.784 (g/mile)
1.093 (g/mile)
0.619 (g/mile)
MPG
20.5
19.8
21.1
20.1
24.3
21.32
23.7
20.0
12/6
Total Evap.
Temperature
Stabilization
Refueling
+ 7.9
+ 102.5
1.36(g)
0.10 (g/gal)
Canister loading to breakthrough and refueling emission measurement performed with non-vehicle mounted tank, canister purging with canister on vehicle,
tank vent line in place.
72
-------
VEHICLE:
CONFIGURATION:
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
Date
12/5
12/5
12/5
1988 Taurus
Simulated Refueling*; 3.5 L Canister - 1/4" I.D. purge line, 12 ft long;
0.030 orifice removed from tank vapor line.
Supplemental NPRM - Fully integrated System
12/5 - 12/6/88
Canister Loading
Canister
Weighing
Initial
After *1 Fuettng
After #2 Fueling
(14,6 gal)
Weight (g>
3854.5
3922.6
3992.2
AW » 137.7
Canister Weight During Testing
Date Weighing
12/5 After LA-4 Prep.
12/6 After Cold Soak
12/6 After Heat Buid (Diurnal)
12/6 After Exhaust Test & Hot Soak
12/6 After LA-4 Drive
12/6 After Temperature Stabilization
12/6 After Refueling emissions
measurement (16.95 gal,
automatic shutoff)
Canister Weight (g)
3910.5
3911.3
3931.3
3883.8
3864.5
3872.4
3974.9
Canister loading to breakthrough and refueling emissions measurement performed with non-vehide mounted tank, canister purging with canister on vehicle,
tank vent line in place.
73
-------
VEHICLE:
CONFIGURATION:
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
1988 Taurus
Simulated Refueling*; 3.5 L Canister - 3/8" I.D. purge line, 12 ft. long;
0.030 orifice removed from tank vapor line.
Supplemental NPRM - Fully integrated system
12/7- 12/8/88
Date
12/7
12/7
12/8
12/8
12^
12/8
12/8
Test Canister
Segment Weight Change (a)
#1 Fusing + 168.9
Prep. LA-4
Bag1 —
Bag 2 - 106.1
CoM Soak +0.8
60°-84°F Heat Build + 16.6
Tailpipe
Bagl —
Bag 2 —
Bag3 ~-
Tailpipe Composite —
Hot Soak (with gas
cap removal) -42.2
Total Evap. —
LA-4 Drive
Bag1 -
Bag 2 - 17.2
Temperature
Stabilization +12.6
Refueling +94.0
HC
—
0.951 (g/mile)
0.071 (g/mile)
0.34 (g)
0.625 (g/mile}
0.023 (g/mile)
0.184 (g/mile)
0.192 (g/mile)
1-29(g)
1.63(g)
0.307 (g/mile)
0.012 (g/mile)
0.07 (g/gal)
Emissions
co
—
21. 124 (g/mile)
2.839 (g/mile)
6.224 (g/mile)
0.214 (g/mile)
1.227 (g/mile)
1.739 (g/mile)
2.197 (g/mile)
0.249 (g/mile)
—
NOx
—
0.801 (g/mile)
0.518 (g/mile)
1.191 (g/mile)
0.496 (g/mile)
0.779 (g/mile)
0.718 (g/mile)
1.1 38 (g/mile)
0.542 (g/mile)
—
MPG
—
20.7
19.7
20.8
19.7
23.8
20.90
24.0
20.3
—
Canister loading to breakthrough and refueling emission measurement performed with non-vehicle mounted tank, canister purging with canister on vehicle,
tank vent line in place.
74
-------
VEHICLE: 1988 Taurus
CONFIGURATION: Simulated Refueling'; 3.5 L Canister - 3/8* I.D. purge line, 12 ft long;
0.030 orifice removed from tank vapor line.
TEST PROCEDURE: Supplemental NPRM - Fully integrated System
TEST DATE: 12/7 - 12/8/88
Canister Loading
Canister
Date Wakftfro Weight (a)
12/7 Initial 3838.3
12/7 After fl Fueling 4007.2
(11.5RVP@ 95oF)
AW . 168.9
Canister Weight During Testing
Date Weighing Canister Weight to)
12/7 After LA-4 Prep. 3901.1
12/8 After Cold Soak 3901.9
12/8 After Heat Build (Diurnal) 3918.5
12/8 After Exhaust Test & Hot Soak 3876.3
12/8 After LA-4 Drive 3859.1
12/8 After Temperature Stabilization 3871.7
12/8 After Refueling emissions
measurement (14.4 gal,
automatic shutoff) 3965.7
Canister loading to breakthrough and refueling emissions measurement performed with non-vehicle mounted tank, canister purging with canister on vehicle,
tank vent line in place.
75
-------
VEHICLE:
CONFIGURATION:
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
1988 Taurus
Refueling System with 3.5 L Canister.
Supplemental NPRM* - Fully integrated system
12/29-1/3/89
Date
12/29
12/29
12/30
12/30
12/30
12/30
1/3/89
Test
Segment
, i* ,'• <•.;•
Preo. LA-4
Bag1
Bag 2
CoM Soak
60°-84°F Heat Build
Tailpipe
Bag1
Bag 2
Bag 3
Tailpipe Composite
Hot Soak (with gas
cap removal)
Total Evap.
LA-4 Drive
Bag1
Bag 2
Refueling (12.85 gal)
HC
0.076 (g/m)
0.27 (g)
0.545 (g/m)
0.036 (g/m)
0.195 (g/m)
0.185 (g/m)
0.34 (g)
0.61 (g)
0.390 (g/m)
0.036 (g/m)
0.04 (g/gaf)
Emissions
CO
16.072 (g/m)
3.044 (g/m)
4.885 (g/m)
0.836 (g/m)
1.284 (g/m)
1.798 (g/m)
3.090 (g/m)
1.209 (g/m)
— -
NOx
0.736 (g/m)
0.603 (g/m)
1.064 (g/m)
0.534 (g/m)
0.794 (g/m)
0.715 (g/m)
1.033 (g/m)
0.512 (g/m)
„
MPG
20.0
19.1
20.9
19.3
23.7
20.70
23.3
19.7
_—
Canister not disconnected before fueling for heat build.
76
-------
VEHICLE:
CONFIGURATION;
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
Dale
1/3/89
1/3
1/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
1/5
Test
Segment
Load to
Prep. LA-4
Bag 2
Cold Soak
60"-84*F Heat BuBd
Tailpipe
Bag1
Bag 2
Bag 3
Tailpipe Composite
Hot Soak (with gas
cap removal)
Total Evap.
LA-4 Drive
Bag1
Bag 2
Refueling (13.63 gal)
1988 Taurus
Refueling System with 3.5 L Canister.
Supplemental NPRM - Fully integrated system
1/3/89 -1/5/89
HC
0.774 (g/m)
0.060 (g/m)
0.30 (g)
0.593 (g/m)
0.028 (g/m)
0.1 13 (g/m)
0.168 (g/m)
0.35 (g)
0.65 (g)
0.354 (g/m)
0.032 (g/m)
Emissions
CO
11. 692 (g/m)
2.216 (gym)
—
4.590 (g/m)
0.706 (g/m)
1.239 (g/m)
1.655 (g/m)
—
—
2.565 (g/m)
1.072 (g/m)
NOx
0.858 (g/m)
0.656 (g/m)
—
1.049 (g/m)
0.474 (g/m)
0.686 (g/m)
0.651 (g/m)
_
—
1.040 (g/m)
0.489 (g/m)
MPQ
20.3
19.4
20.7
19.6
24.1
20.91
23.6
20.1
0.02 (g/gaJ)
77
-------
VEHICLE.
CONFIGURATION:
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
Date
1/5
1/5
1988 Taurus
Refueling System with 3.5 L Canister.
Supplemental NPRM * Fully integrated system (Refueling emissions measured at fueling rate of 4 gpm)
1/5 - 1/7/89
Test
Segment
Load to
uah
1/6
1/6
1/6
Preo. LA-4
B«g1
Bag 2
CoM Soak
60°-84°F Heat Budd
Tailpipe
Bag1
Bag 2
Bag 3
Tailpipe Composite
Hot Soak (with gas
cap removal)
Emissions
CO
0.783 (g/mile) 8.329 (g/mile)
0.043 (g/mile) 1.637 (g/mile)
0.36 (g)
0.652 (g/mile) 5.633 (g/mile)
0.031 (g/mile) 0.677 (g/mile)
0.181 (g/mile) 2.136 (g/mile)
NOx
0.876 (g/mile)
0.567 (g/mile)
1.01 3 (g/mile)
0.541 (g/mile)
0.793 (g/mile)
MPG
20.8
19.6
0.200 (g/mile) 2.100 (g/mile) 0.708 (g/mile)
0.25 (g)
21.1
19.8
24.3
21.17
1/6
1/7
Total Evap.
LA-4 Drive
Bagl
Bag 2
Refueling (14.81 gal)
(4 gpm)
0.61 (g)
0.346 (g/mile) 2.310 (g/mile) 1.067 (g/mile)
0.035 (g/mile) 1.283 (g/mile) 0.579 (g/mile)
0.07 (g/gal)
23.9
20.3
78
-------
VEHICLE:
CONFIGURATION:
TEST PROCEDURE:
TEST DATE:
Date
1/7
1/7
1988 Taurus
Refueling System with 3.5 L Canister.
Supplemental NPRM - Fully integrated system
1/7 - 1/9/89
Test
Segment
Load to
rough
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/9
Preo. LA-4
Bag t
Bag 2
Cold Soak
6
-------
APPENDIX B
Memorandum - Hot Ambient Test Summaries
80
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1
/ ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
22
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT*. Evaluation of Hot Ambient Testing for the Onboard
Taurus
FROM: Joseph P. Hurley, Technician 'V'*^it/*x "P
Standards Development and Suppor£_iranch
TO: John F. Anderson, Senior Project Manager
Standards Development and Support Branch
THRU: Thomas M. Baines, Heavy-Duty Testing Coordinate
Standards Development and Support Branch r """"""""
The following is my evaluation of the performance of the
onboard Taurus during the hot ambient testing. Attached you
will find records of the daily temperature logs, and both the
official temperatures and the temperatures taken at the EPA
before and after each of the days that the onboard Taurus was
driven. I have also enclosed the official temperatures for the
whole testing period.
It is my conclusion that the overall performance of the
onboard Taurus was excellent. After driving several different
routes at different speeds, I could not find any performance
faults. Both the cold and hot starts were good with normal
cranking periods.
Attachments.
81
-------
8/22/89
HOT AMBIENT TEST
Using the onboard Taurus with the canister
modifications, we are trying to gather information on the
effects that hot ambient temperatures have on the
driveability and performance of this vehicle.
THE TESTING PROCEDURES WERE PERFORMED AS
FOLLOWS
(1) The fuel in the vehicle was drained to 1/4 of a tank.
(2) The modified canister was purged for 1 hour.
(3) The car was then parked outside of the fueling
area where the battery cables were disconnected.
Removing the battery cables and then reconnecting them
would delete all of the learned driving memory in the
onboard Taurus computer. This would allow the Taurus to
be able to learn new information and store it in its
learning memory. Thus, the vehicle would begin testing in
a standard baseline condition.
(4 ) The high and low temperatures were recorded for each
day during the testing period. This will also included the
days where the weather wasn't sufficient enough for our
testing standard.
(5) We will Drive the onboard Taurus until we have driven
out one tank of commercial fuel obtained from
a local gas station.
82
-------
WED-8/23/89 AMBIENT TEMP.
Start Finish
78 80
EVALUATION HOT AMBIENT TEST
DAY1
After reconnecting the battery cables on the Onboard
Taurus, and checking the ambient temperature, I then
started the Taurus, which fired off in about 2 seconds.
Then I proceeded to the Amoco station on Washtenaw
where I filled the gas tank full of commercial unleaded fuel.
After leaving the Amoco station with the first full tank of
fuel, I drove a combination of different speeds. The route
consisted of both highway and city driving. The overall
driveability of the Taurus was excellent, with no stumbles
on takeoffs or during any of the speeds obtained this day.
TOTAL MILEAGE ACCUMULATED TODAY WAS (74)
83
-------
THUR -8/24/89 AMBIENT TEMP.
Start. Finish.
78 78
EVALUATION HOT AMBIENT TEST
DAY 2
Its 12:00, the sun is shining and the temperature is
78 degrees; I decided that it was a good day to put a lot
of mileage on the Taurus. The initial firing of the Taurus
was excellent within 2 seconds.
I drove a lot of different routes today, most of which
included expressway driving. The overall performance of
the onboard Taurus was excellent, with no problems.
TOTAL MILEAGE ACCUMULATED TODAY WAS (164)
84
-------
TUES -8/29/89 AMBIENT TEMP.
Start. Finish.
78 79
EVALUATION HOT AMBIENT TEST
DAY 3
This wasn't the best of days to use for our testing,
but I wanted to use up the remaining fuel in the Taurus
as soon as possible. At 12:00 I noticed a break in the
weather so I decided to drive the 50 miles or so to use
the remainder of fuel up in the onboard Taurus.
Again I didn't encounter any abnormal problems with
the cranking periods, neither the cold, nor the hot. Both
of which fired off within 2 to 3 seconds.
TOTAL MILEAGE ACCUMULATED TODAY WAS < 46).
85
-------
HOT AMBIENT TEST ONBOARD TAURUS
TEMPERATURE RECORDS
OFFICIAL AMBIENT TEMPERATURES DURING THE DAYS
THAT THE ONBOARD TAURUS WAS BEING USED,
WHICH INCLUDES WEEKENDS AND BAD WEATHER DAYS.
HIGHEST TEMP. LOWEST TEMP.
DAY. NIGHT.
DEG F. DEG F.
TUE 8/22/89
WED 8/23/89
THUR 8/24/89
FRI 8/25/89
SAT 8/26/89
SUN 8/27/89
MON 8/28/89
TUE 8/29/89
WED 8/30/89
THUR 8/31/89
FRI 9/1/89
SAT 9/2/89
SUN 9/3/89
MON 9/4/89
TLF 9/5/SQ
81
77
76
76
79
83
79
80
77
83
76
73
73
73
?.("!
61
60
53
51
53
•
62
63
58
55
55
60
53
52
52
62
86
-------
DRIVEABILITY TEST
ONBOARD TAURUS
DATE: ' Aa/-y*i DRIVER'S NAME: ^OSglPH ?.
AMBIENT TEMP COLD START: Q \ P>t6> * (o I Dcfe
TIME OUT: TIME IN:
GAS TANK GAUGE READING START: END:
MILEAGE ON VEHICLE START: °\ 7 13. END;
TOTAL MILEAGE ACCUMULATED:
COMMENTS ON DRIVEABILITY OF VEHICLE
A OQ\r\ed -Htt -f u«i \n -VKe
-Pa* I
iQ>V
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ROUTE TAKEN:
ROAD CONDITIONS:
WEATHER CONDITIONS: fiw£g£ftS V "Pft.RJUS' / S OPilMS* \ \-
,_
87
-------
DRIVEABILITY TEST
ONBOARD TAURUS
DATE:
DRIVER'S NAME
"ft
AMBIENT TEMP COLD START:
•7 C»
" *
O* /*\
S Q
-77
TIME OUT: V- 3.O
TIME IN: 3 '. 3 O
GAS TANK GAUGE READING START:
GIH>
END
MILEAGE ON VEHICLE START: S 1 \ 3.
END
TOTAL MILEAGE ACCUMULATED: "2 H
COMMENTS ON DRIVEABILITY OF VEHICLE:
oc HOT yraft-T o\<-
pg
^ ?o
•5-
10-
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ROUTE TAKEN
A6
t-o
a.*«i>ne4 cxrid
~VO Ann.
ROAD CONDITIONS:
WEATHER CONDITIONS:
uK Sv>JMV / vAo o 1
88
-------
DRIVEABILITY TEST
ONBOARD TAURUS
^ | 3.4.'| ?S DRIVER'S NAME
DATE:
3~
AMBIENT TEMP COLD START: "?1
TIME GUT: \3-.QQ _ TIME IN: 4'. \S"
COMMENTS ON DRIVEABILITY OF VEHICLE
K'O ~»*
a. sg.eo.ftds
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ROUTE TAKEN:
US - J."3
-to
c . T*-
ROAD CONDITIONS:
WEATHER CONDITIONS:
\Ao\
89
C-AS TANK GAUGE READING START: -?0\\ _ END: git^wegiA k y >•
MILEAGE ON VEHICLE START: l 37 END:
TOTAL MILEAGE ACCUMULATED: \
-------
DRIVEABILITY TEST
ONBOARD TAURUS
DATE: \ a°l[ ^^ DRIVER'S NAME: ^Qs£?H "?
• ' ^
-------
August AH
SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SflT
6
13
20
27
UCi vO
4,1
?1
7
14
21
28
V«vO ^^
V i
"rV*
1
8
15
22
ir
29 "s<4
L0^>
?0
2
9
16
23 °*e<$
\_0uu
£00
n
30
uo«o
SS
77
3
10
17
*
24 ^^
^ O b^
31
UOua
** * ^
4
11
18
25
LOuJ
S I
-l(o
5
12
19
26
Lo^»
91
-------
SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
3
UOuJ
53.
HlfcH
73
10
17
24
4
V-OuJ
si
1-UfrH
n
11
18
25
5
WOW
k3-
H'fert
ro
12
19
26
6
UOuJ
HtbH
13
20
27
7
UOuJ
i-iiiH
14
21
28
1
U OuJ
fro
t&
8
WoO
H'iH
15
22
29
2
UO l*J
53
73
9
16
23
30
92
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
f 5
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Onboard Taurus - Testing With Fuel at High
Temperature
FROM: Peter Hutchins, Mechanical Engineer
Standards Development and Support Br^frch
TO: Charles L. Gray, Jr., Director
Emission Control Technology Division
THRU: John F. Anderson, Senior Project Manager
Standards Development and Support
Chester J. France, Chief
Standards Development an
Introduction
The testing reported herein was performed because of
concerns with respect to the running loss control capability of
the onboard system. In current production fuel tank venting
systems, the flow rate of fuel vapor generated in the tank to
the canister and engine is limited by means of flow restricting
orifices. The fuel tank acts, therefore, as a storage vessel
for fuel vapor which could become running losses if the vapor
generation rate exceeds the capacity of the engine and canister
to utilize or store the vapor. In the onboard system there is
no comparable restriction in the flow of these vapors. The
concern was, therefore, that the vapor generation rate in the
unpressurized tank could exceed the capacity of the canister
and engine to store and/or utilize the vapor, thereby leading
to running losses.
Testing was performed by TEB as requested in a memo dated
June 26, 1989. Since the lab is not configured to directly
measure running losses, monitoring of changes in canister
weight during the tests was used to indicate the potential
absence or presence of running losses. It was reasoned that
reductions in canister weight during testing would indicate an
absence of running loses. It was also reasoned that any gain
93
-------
in canister weight, provided breakthrough weight was not
exceeded, would also indicate an absence of running losses.
The test sequence employed; i.e., three consecutive LA-4s with
high in-tank fuel temperature, was the same as that employed in
evaluations of running losses performed for EPA by ATL.
Exhaust emissions during the triplicate LA-4 test sequence and
refueling emissions following the triplicate LA-4 operation
were to be determined. Since RVP controls are expected to be
fully implemented before any onboard program, only 9 RVP fuel
was used in these tests.
The temperature profile of the fuel in the tank was to be
similar to that measured on a Mercury Sable during track tests
in high ambient temperatures and during running loss testing at
ATL patterned on the track data. Utilizing a tolerance band of
± 2°F, the required fuel temperatures during testing were to be
as follows:
Temperature of Fuel in Tank (°F)
After After After After After After
First First Second Second Third Third
Initial 505 sec. LA-4 505 sec. LA-4 505 sec. LA-4
94 100 112 116 121 122 124
Prior to initiation of testing, the canister* was
temporarily located on the outside of the vehicle at rocker
level, just in front of the right rear wheel. This location
facilitated weighing of the canister during testing. _. The fuel
tank was equipped with a heating blanket.
In addition to the testing performed on the onboard
equipped Taurus, one test sequence was performed on a stock
Taurus (canister weights were not measured). Testing of the
stock Taurus was performed for purposes of comparison with data
from the onboard vehicle and similarly collected data from ATL.
Test Sequence
v.>
The sequence of events employed in the testing of the
vehicle was as follows. The canister was loaded to
breakthrough by dispensing 9 RVP fuel (Indolene) into the
vehicle's fuel tank. Following loading, the canister was
weighed and then bench purged until 135+5 grams of stored HC
had been removed from the canister. This purging was performed
to simulate stabilized operating canister conditions. The
vehicle was fueled to 40 percent tank volume (6 gallons) with
Indolene at approximately 55°F, the canister connected, and the
vehicle placed in the test cell. Heating of the fuel was
3.5 L filled with Westvaco charcoal similar to that used
by Ford in production canisters.
94
-------
performed until the temperature of the fuel in the tank reached
the required 94+2°F starting temperature. The canister was
again weighed and reconnected. Vehicle operation on the three
consecutive LA-4 drives was initiated and heating of the fuel
tank was performed as required. Following the completion of
each LA-4, the canister was removed from the vehicle and
weighed. During the weighing operation, the vehicle plumbing
to and from the canister and the canister inlet and purge
connections were capped. The vehicle engine was allowed to
idle during the weighings which required approximately 1 1/2
minutes each.
Exhaust emissions were measured for each LA-4 sequence.
Because of facility limitations in the number of bag samples
which could be collected and analyzed on an ongoing basis,
exhaust emissions were sampled and analyzed for each LA-4.
This procedure gave three samples and resulting data sets per
test rather than the six samples (two per LA-4) which would
have been collected had the equipment been available.
Following completion of the third LA-4, refueling emissions
were to be measured as specified in the refueling NPRM.
During the first performance of the test sequence, the
temperature of the test cell was maintained at the normal
setting for that cell of approximately 70 to 75°F. It was
observed during this testing that vehicle engine temperature
was running higher than normal and that the vehicle cooling fan
was operating continuously. In subsequent tests (those from
which test data are reported) one additional Hartzel fan was
employed to achieve engine operating temperatures similar to
those seen on the road and to avoid continuous operation of the
vehicle fan. In addition, during the first performance of the
test sequence liquid fuel was found in the vapor line leading
to the canister, The amount of liquid present was greater at
the end of the second LA-4 than at the end of the first LA-4.
This observation lead to the conclusion that vapor condensation
was occurring in the line as vapors from the heated fuel tank
encountered the cooler line to the canister. Therefore, in
subsequent tests, the temperature of the test cell was raised
to approximately 95°F. One additional test sequence, from
which data are not reported, was performed to establish the
tank' heating rates required at the elevated cell temperature
and to confirm that vapor condensation did not occur in the
line to the canister and the adequacy of engine cooling. The
results obtained from four tests* using the triplicate LA-4
test sequence are shown in Table 1.
Two other tests were initiated but not completed because
of vehicle failures during these tests. Vehicle failures
were exhibited as stalling of the engine. Engine restart
was achieved almost immediately on the first of these
sequences but was delayed significantly on the second
sequence. The cause of the failures was traced to damage
to the in-tank fuel pump due to significant contamination
in the tank. Fuel pump replacement corrected the problem.
95
-------
Results from the stock Taurus tested at MVEL and those
obtained from a stock Sable tested at ATL on a triplicate LA-4
test sequence at approximately 95°F are shown in Table 2.
Conclusions
The key conclusions drawn from this testing were: (1) that
canister weight decreased continuously throughout the test
sequence, indicating that vehicle purge was adequate to control
generated vapors and running losses had not occurred from the
onboard system (see Table 1 for canister weights), (2) that
vehicle exhaust emissions were not adversely affected by the
onboard system (comparison of Tables 1 and 2), and (3) that the
vehicle maintained refueling control capability after these
high temperature operating conditions.
Attachments
7447W
96
-------
Table 1
Test Results - Onboard Taurus
Canister Wt.:
- after breakthrough (g)
- after bench purge (g)
. - after fuel heating (g)
Initial tank temp (*F)
Tank temp (I 1st 505 sec. (°F)
Tank temp @ end of U LA-4 (°F)
Tailpipe emissions, tfl LA-4
HC (g/mile)
CO (g/mile)
NO* (g/mile)
COj (g/mile)
Canister Wt. after HI LA-4 (g)
Tank temp 9 2nd 505 sec. (F°)
Tank temp 9 end of #2 LA-4
-------
Table 2
Test Results - stock Vehicles
Taurus Sable
(CEPA) (<§ ATL)
Initial tank temp ("F) " 95 95
Tank temp S 1st 505 sec, (°F) 9i NR*
Tank temp f end of 111 LA-4 (°F) 108 HE
Tailpipe emissions, ttl LA-4
HC (g/mile) 0,36 0.40
CO (g/mile) 5.18 6.81
HOx (g/mile) 1,00 1,08
C02 (g/mile) 407,32 482.1
Tank temp i 2nd 505 sec. (F*)
Tank temp § end of #2 LA-4 (Fs)
* NR » Not reported.
114 113
121 115
Tailpipe emissions, #2 LA-4
HC (g/raile) 0.12 0.10
CO (g/mile) 5.30 4,13
NOx (g/mile) 0.79 o,96
CO2 (g/mile) 381.28 428.0
Tank temp 9 3rd 505 sec. (°F) 124 NR
Tank temp S end of #3 LA-4 ('F) 126 125
Tailpipe emissions, tt3 LA-4
HC (g/mile) 0,15- 0.12
CO (g/mile) 6.41 4.58
NOx (g/mile) 0.79 0.88
C02 (g/mile) 375.74 444.9
98
------- |