mtc report 6901 - dieselnet · new engine and pollutant control technology mtc 6901. 10. 2.3...

NEW ENGINE AND POLLUTIONCONTROL TECHNOLOGY

MTC 6901

Lars Eriksson

MTC AB

DieselNet.com

This document published on DieselNet http://www.dieselnet.com/tech/papers/mtc6901.pdf © 2000 MTC AB

INFORMATION FOR THE LIBRARYPublisher Project PublishedMTC AB MTC 6901 2000-03Box 223 Client

136 23 Haninge NaturvårdsverketAuthor

Lars ErikssonTel: +46 8 500 656 00Fax: +46 8 500 283 28

REPORT No

MTC 6901

ISSN 1103-0240ISRNASB-MTC-R--00/2--SE

Title and subtitles of the report.New engine and pollution control technology

Language

EnglishNo of pages 25

Abstract

This project is an annual recurrent investigation of some state of the art vehicles and is financed

by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. This study includes two passenger cars; a

bifuel car (gas /gasoline) and a small diesel car.

The bi-fuel car is a Volvo 850 SE vehicle. This car which can run with either gas or gasoline

fuels was tested in accordance with three driving cycles, NEDC, FTP-75 and US-06. The tests

were carried out for both gas and gasoline. Furthermore, the car was also tested in sub-zero

temperatures (- 7OC). The emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and unburned hydrocarbons

(HC) were lower when the gas fuel was used compared with gasoline, whereas the NOX-

emissions were higher when the power source was gas. The emissions of methane were higher

for gas than gasoline fuels. There were no significant differences in fuel consumption between

the two fuels used. Besides standard measurements, some unregulated hydrocarbons were also

measured during all two tests.

Vehicle 2 was a VW Lupo. The most interesting question was if the fuel consumption was as

low as the manufacturer claims. The study clearly showed that the consumption was so low,

lower than 0 3 litre per 10 km for test in accordance with the FTP-75 driving cycle and just

Suggestion of keywordsPollution, New engines, Fuel consumption

Title of seriesMTC AB

New Engine and Pollutant Control Technology MTC 6901

3

New EngineAnd

Pollution ControlTechnology

Lars ErikssonMTC AB

2000-03-08


4

ABSTRACT

This project is an annual recurrent investigation of some state of the art vehicles and is

financed by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. This study includes two

passenger cars; a bifuel car (gas /gasoline) and a small diesel car.

The bi-fuel car is a Volvo 850 SE vehicle. This car which can run with either gas or gasoline

fuels was tested in accordance with three driving cycles, NEDC, FTP-75 and US-06. The tests

were carried out for both gas and gasoline. Furthermore, the car was also tested in sub-zero

temperatures (- 7OC). The emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and unburned hydrocarbons

(HC) were lower when the gas fuel was used compared with gasoline, whereas the NOX-

emissions were higher when the power source was gas. The emissions of methane were higher

for gas than gasoline fuels. There were no significant differences in fuel consumption between

the two fuels used. Besides standard measurements, some unregulated hydrocarbons were also

measured during all two tests.

Vehicle 2 was a VW Lupo. The most interesting question was if the fuel consumption was as

low as the manufacturer claims. The study clearly showed that the consumption was so low,

lower than 0.3 litre per 10 km for test in accordance with the FTP-75 driving cycle and just

above 0.3 litre for NEDC tests. The emission levels were below the limits for all regulated

components, for tests in accordance to the NEDC cycle. For FTP-75, the NOX emissions were

higher than the limit (A14-regulation) whereas the emission of CO, HC and particles were

well below the limit.


5

SAMMANFATTNING

Detta projekt är ett årligt återkommande projekt där “state of the art” bilar eller andra bilar

som bedöms som intressanta. Projektet är finansierat av Naturvårdsverket. Denna studie

omfattar två bilar, en bifuel-bil (gas / bensin) och en liten dieseldriven bil.

Bifuel-bilen var en Volvo 850 SE. Denna bil kan köras på endera gas eller bensin och bilen

testades i enlighet med tre olika körcykler, NEDC, FTP-75 och US 06. Testerna utfördes med

både gas- och bensindrift. Bilen utsattes även för prov vid låg temperatur (- 7O C).

Emissionerna av kolmonoxid (CO) och oförbrända kolväten (HC) var lägre vid gas- än vid

bensindrift medan NOX-emissionerna var högre vid gasdrift. Också metanutsläppen var högre

med gas som bränsle. Det var ingen signifikant skillnad i bränsleförbrukning mellan de två

bränslena. Förutom standardmätningar mättes även utsläppen av några oreglerade

föroreningar.

Bil 2 var en VW Lupo. Den mest intressanta frågan inför dessa prov var om bilen hade så låg

bränsleförbrukning som angivits av tillverkaren. Testerna visade tydligt att så var fallet. Vid

FTP-75-testerna var bränsleförbrukningen lägre än 0.3 liter per 10 km och vid NEDC-testerna

strax över. Emissionsnivåerna av alla reglerade komponenter var under gränsvärdena för

NEDC-proven. För FTP-75 var NOX-utsläppen något högre än gränsvärdet enligt regulation

A14. För CO, HC och partiklar var dock utsläppen lägre än gränsvärdena.

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 6

2. EXPERIMENTAL ............................................................................................................................................ 7

2.1 VEHICLES AND FUELS2.2 DRIVING CYCLES ............................................................................................................................................ 82.3 ANALYSIS OF REGULATED COMPONENTS...................................................................................................... 102.4 ANALYSIS OF UNREGULATED COMPONENTS ................................................................................................. 10

3. RESULTS......................................................................................................................................................... 11

3.1 VEHICLE 1 [BI-FUEL CAR]............................................................................................................................. 113.2 VEHICLE 2 [DIESEL CAR] .............................................................................................................................. 21


6

1. INTRODUCTION

The amount of unwanted pollutants originating from passenger vehicle exhaust gases decrease

with time. The main reason is due to the fact that the number of older cars without catalytic

exhaust cleaning systems decreases year by year. Also the quality of engines, exhaust

cleaning systems and fuels tend to be better with time.

This project is an annual recurrent investigation of some of the state of the art vehicles for the

actual year and is financed by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.

The objective of this investigation (year 1999) was to determine the exhaust emission and fuel

consumption of two different types of passenger vehicles (the vehicles were chosen by the

Swedish EPA). The first car was a bi-fuel vehicle, which can operate with either gas or

gasoline fuel. The second car was a small diesel vehicle.

Besides standard measurements the amount of some unregulated pollutants should also be

measured.


7

2. EXPERIMENTAL

2.1 Vehicles and fuels

This study includes two vehicles:

A. Volvo 850 SE 2.5 [bi-fuel]

Fuels [used in tests] Reference gasoline and Bio-gasRated power: 106 kW @ 5400 rpmWeight: 1500 kgModel year: 1996Odometer: 60428 kmGear box: A4Displacement: 2.435 litre

This car is a bi-fuel car and the fuels, which can be used, are gasoline and gas and it is

possible to drive the car in either gas or gasoline mode. However, from the start gasoline fuel

is automatically chosen. The power source is a 5-cylinder gasoline engine with a rated power

of 106 kW at 5400 rpm. The engine is equipped with 2-valves per cylinder.

B. VW Lupo 1.2 TDI 3L

Fuel [used in tests]: Reference dieselRated power: 45 kW @ 4000 rpmWeight: 830 kgModel year: 2000Odometer: 9104 kmGear box: ASG 5Displacement: 1.191 litre

“Der 3-liter-Lupo” was presented at the International Car Saloon in Paris, as the car with the

lowest fuel consumption in the world (lower than 0.3 litre diesel per 100 km).

The power source is a 1.2 litre 3-cylinder diesel engine with a rated power of 45 kW at 4000

rpm. The engine is equipped with a newly developed high-pressure (~ 2000 bar) fuel injection

system, with one injection pump per cylinder.

The car is also equipped with a new type of “smart” gearbox. By driving in economic mode

the gearbox works automatically. It is also possible to use the gearbox in the same way as in

racing cars (e.g. sequential and without clutch pedal).

In order to reduce the fuel consumption the engine is automatically turned off in the “idle”

mode while driving the car at the economy mode.

To reduce the weight of the car, the Lupo is built with low weight materials like aluminium,

magnesium and plastic.


8

2.2 Driving cycles

During these tests three driving cycles have been used, NEDC, FTP-75 and US 06. The cycles

are described as graphs below, see figure 1 – 3. The tests have been carried out on a chassis

dynamometer in test cell 4 at MTC AB test laboratory, Sweden. The roller used was an

electric Clayton EIS 500 dynamometer. The dynamometer parameters were set according to

the A14 regulation. The test cell temperatures were set to + 20O and – 7O C respectively. A

standard cooling fan was used in the front of the cars during tests.

NEDC

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300Time [s]

Spee

d [k

m/h

] Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Figure 1. Driving cycle NEDC [EU 2000]. Phase 1 (40 to 430 s); Phase 2 (430 to 820 s); Phase 3 (820 to 1220 s)


9

FTP-75

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600Time [s]

Spee

d [k

m/h

]

Yct

Ys

Yht

Figure 2. FTP-75 driving cycle. Yct (1-505 s); Ys (506-1371 s); Yht (1971-2476 s)

US 06

0102030405060708090

100110120130140

1 51 101 151 201 251 301 351 401 451 501 551 601Time [s]

Driv

ing

spee

d [k

m /

h]

Figure 3. Driving cycle US 06


10

2.3 Analysis of regulated components

All tests were performed in test site number 4 at MTC's laboratory. All exhaust gas sampling

was carried out on diluted exhaust gases in a dilution tunnel that is designed to fulfil the

specifications in the literature (U.S. Federal Register 1986). The flow of diluted exhaust was 9

m3/min maintained by a venturi. The vehicles were driven on a chassis dynamometer, Clayton

chassis dynamometer system DC500, while following the driving schedules shown in Figures

1 – 3. Measurements of regulated emissions were in accordance with the test procedure using

a Horiba 9000 system. Regulated emissions were measured as follows: carbon monoxide

(CO) with a non-dispersive infrared analyzer (NDIR), total unburned hydrocarbons (HC) with

a flame ionization detector (FID), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) with a chemiluminescence

analyzer (CLA), and particulate emissions by means of Teflon-coated glass fiber filters

(Pallflex T60A20; Pallflex Inc).

2.4 Analysis of unregulated components

Particle size distribution (ELPI)

The particle number and size distribution was measured using an Electrical Low Pressure

Impactor (ELPI). The instrument operates by charging the particles in a unipolar positive

polarity charger and the particles are thereafter separated (in a 12-step impactor) according to

aerodynamic size (0.03 to 7 um) in a low-pressure impactor. The particles deposited at each

stage in the impactor produces an electrical current which is recorded with a time resolution

of 1 s. The number concentration measurement is based on assumed values for charging

probability of the particles, penetration through the impactor, and current measurement.

Masspectrometer (MS)

An Airsense 500 is used to monitor individual hydrocarbon components via the CVS system.

Airsense is a secondary ion mass spectrometer based upon the ion-neutral interaction

principle. Hg+, Xe+ and Kr+ with well-defined energies are used for the ionisation process. A

quadrupole mass filter is utilised for the mass analysis. In this study, only Hg+ ionisation

source was used and the time resolution is set at 100ms per compounds.


11

3. RESULTS

3.1 Vehicle 1 [bifuel car]

The results from the tests of the bi-fuel car are shown in figures 4 – 15 and tables

1 – 5. All tests were repeated twice times. Generally, the emissions of carbon monoxide (CO)

and unburned hydrocarbons (HC) are lower when gas-fuels are used compared with when

gasoline is used. The NOX-emission seems to be higher for gas than for gasoline. The

emission levels of all measured components seem to be higher with decreasing ambient

temperature. However, this trend is more clearly for gasoline fuel.

As expected, the emission of methane is much higher for gas compared with gasoline. There

were not any significant differences in fuel consumption between the two fuels used in this

study.

In figures 9 – 14 the emission levels of some unregulated components are shown. The

distribution of these components is shown in figure 15. The unregulated components were not

measured online during the tests. The contents in bag 1 (from the first phase of the cycles, see

figure 1 - 3) were introduced in the MS-analyser. The levels in bag 2 –3 were very low (under

detection limit), so these results are not presented. Besides methane, the emissions of

unregulated hydrocarbons are higher for gasoline fuel compared with gas-fuel. Also the

content of “unknown hydrocarbons” are higher for the gasoline fuel.

Generally, the emissions of almost all measured components were lower during US 06 test

compared with the other two driving cycles. The explanation of this behaviour maybe due to

that the US 06 is a “hot driving cycle” whereas the other two are not (e.g. the catalytic

converter had already reached the “working temperature” before start). The FTP-75 cycle

gives rise to lower emission levels than the NEDC-cycle. This explanation may be that the

catalytic converter reached working temperature faster than in the NEDC cycles since the

FTP-75 cycle contains higher accelerations and higher speeds than the NEDC-cycle.

In table 1 – 5 the emission values for each “bag” and the weighted results are presented.


12

CO-emissions

43,42 44,74

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0U

S 06

[1]

US

06 [2

]

NED

C [1

]

NED

C [2

]

NED

C -7

[1]

NED

C -7

[2]

FTP-

75 [1

]

FTP-

75 [2

]

US

06 [3

]

US

06 [4

]

NED

C [3

]

NED

C [4

]

NED

C -7

[3]

NED

C -7

[4]

FTP-

75 [3

]

FTP-

75 [4

]

Bag 3Bag 2Bag 1

GAS

GASOLINE

Figure 4. CO emissions in g / km. Exhaust gases from US 06 is sampled in one bag whereas the gases from theother cycles are sampled in three bags.

Gas fuel Bag 1 Bag 2 Bag 3 Weighted resultsUS 06 [1] 0.55(6) 0.56US 06 [2] 0.83(1) 0.83NEDC [1] 2.21(0) 0.81(0) 0.16(3) 0.66NEDC [2] 2.51(2) 1.26(4) 0.13(2) 0.78NEDC – 7O C [1] 2.43(8) 0.88(2) 0.15(3) 0.71NEDC – 7O C [2] 3.43(5) 0.52(9) 0.08(0) 0.77FTP-75 [1] 0.77(6) 0.25(7) 0.64(6) 0.47 1 0.29 2

FTP-75 [2] 0.77(4) 0.79(2) 0.52(4) 0.71 1 0.75 2

Gasoline fuelUS 06 [1] 3.87(1) 3.87US 06 [2] 3.22(7) 3.23NEDC [1] 7.28(6) 0.02(7) 0.01(2) 1.36NEDC [2] 9.14(3) 0.00(7) 0.00(7) 1.69NEDC – 7O C [1] 43.41(7) 0.25(6) 0.17(8) 8.15NEDC – 7O C [2] 44.73(7) 0.26(8) 0.07(6) 8.30FTP-75 [1] 2.30(1) 0.03(9) 0.04(7) 0.51 1 0.003 2

FTP-75 [2] 1.89(1) 0.06(3) 0.05(8) 0.44 1 0.012 2

Table 1. CO emissions in g / km during driving cycles NEDC, FTP-75 and US 06. 1 Results from UDC part.2 Results from HDC part.


13

HC-emissions

0,032 0,043 0,0380,0340,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

US

06 [1

]

US

06 [2

]

NED

C [1

]

NED

C [2

]

NED

C -7

[1]

NED

C -7

[2]

FTP-

75 [1

]

FTP-

75 [2

]

US

06 [3

]

US

06 [4

]

NED

C [3

]

NED

C [4

]

NED

C -7

[3]

NED

C -7

[4]

FTP-

75 [3

]

FTP-

75 [4

]

Bag 3Bag 2Bag 1

Figure 5. HC emissions in g / km. Exhaust gases from US 06 is sampled in one bag whereas the gases from theother cycles are sampled in three bags.

Gas fuel Bag 1 Bag 2 Bag 3 Weighted resultsUS 06 [1] 0.032 0.032US 06 [2] 0.043 0.043NEDC [1] 1.370 0.832 0.131 0.489NEDC [2] 1.471 0.624 0.145 0.479NEDC – 7O C [1] 1.738 0.568 0.131 0.506NEDC – 7O C [2] 2.505 0.502 0.142 0.638FTP-75 [1] 0.524 0.177 0.345 0.295 1 0.057 2

FTP-75 [2] 0.471 0.354 0.399 0.390 1 0.056 2

Gasoline fuelUS 06 [1] 0.034 0.034US 06 [2] 0.038 0.038NEDC [1] 1.102 0.002 0.001 0.205NEDC [2] 1.252 0.002 0.001 0.232NEDC – 7O C [1] 6.945 0.121 0.014 1.310NEDC – 7O C [2] 7.764 0.105 0.012 1.451FTP-75 [1] 0.375 0.000 0.009 0.509 1 0.003 2

FTP-75 [2] 0.335 0.001 0.007 0.440 1 0.012 2

Table 2. HC emissions in g / km during driving cycles NEDC, FTP-75 and US 06. 1 Results from UDC part.2 Results from HDC part.


14

NOX-emissions

0,00,20,40,60,81,01,21,41,61,82,02,22,42,62,8

US

06 [1

]

US

06 [2

]

NED

C [1

]

NED

C [2

]

NED

C -7

[1]

NED

C -7

[2]

FTP-

75 [1

]

FTP-

75 [2

]

US

06 [3

]

US

06 [4

]

NED

C [3

]

NED

C [4

]

NED

C -7

[3]

NED

C -7

[4]

FTP-

75 [3

]

FTP-

75 [4

]

Bag 3Bag 2Bag 1 GAS

GASOLINE

Figure 6. NOX emissions in g / km. Exhaust gases from US 06 is sampled in one bag whereas the gases from theother cycles are sampled in three bags.


FTP-75 [2] 0.872 0.222 0.395 0.404 1 0.198 2


FTP-75 [2] 0.516 0.023 0.131 0.154 1 0.172 2

Table 3. NOX emissions in g / km during driving cycles NEDC, FTP-75 and US 06. 1 Results from UDC part.2 Results from HDC part.


15

Methane-emissions

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2,0U

S 06

[1]

US

06 [2

]

NED

C [1

]

NED

C [2

]

NED

C -7

[1]

NED

C -7

[2]

FTP-

75 [1

]

FTP-

75 [2

]

US

06 [3

]

US

06 [4

]

NED

C [3

]

NED

C [4

]

NED

C -7

[3]

NED

C -7

[4]

FTP-

75 [3

]

FTP-

75 [4

]

Bag 3Bag 2Bag 1

GAS

GASOLINE

Figure 7. Methane emissions in g / km. Exhaust gases from US 06 is sampled in one bag whereas the gases fromthe other cycles are sampled in three bags.


FTP-75 [2] 0.346 0.331 0.363 0.342 1 0.051 2


FTP-75 [2] 0.019 0.001 0.005 0.006 1 0.000 2

Table 4. Emission of methane in g / km during driving cycles NEDC, FTP-75 and US 06. 1 Results from UDCpart 2 Results from HDC part.


16

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption is calculated in accordance to the carbon balance method. In the case of

bio-gas fuel the consumption is expressed in units of gasoline. These determinations are based

on an energy content of 48.4 MJ / kg for the gas fuel and 43.0 MJ / kg for gasoline. The

calculation method is described in MTC report 98/10.

0,99

1

0,94

9 1,63

5

1,67

08 2,18

81

2,13

43

1,14

1

1,18

2

0,95

1

0,97

7 1,62

8

1,66

17 2,38

54

2,40

68

1,14

6

1,13

4

1,40

91

1,42

57

1,62

34

1,57

6

1,10

7

1,13

7

1,38

1,41

39

1,57

7

1,58

98

1,10

3

1,10

3

0,78

6

0,80

1

0,89

3

0,81

6

0,94

2

0,97

0

0,76

3

0,77

7

0,87

6

0,88

2

0,93

1

0,92

7

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

US

06 [1

]

US

06 [2

]

NED

C [1

]

NED

C [2

]

NED

C -7

[1]

NED

C -7

[2]

FTP-

75 [1

]

FTP-

75 [2

]

US

06 [3

]

US

06 [4

]

NED

C [3

]

NED

C [4

]

NED

C -7

[3]

NED

C -7

[4]

FTP-

75 [3

]

FTP-

75 [4

]

Bag 3Bag 2Bag 1

GAS

GASOLINE

Figure 8. Fuel consumption in litre per 10 km. Exhaust gases from US 06 is sampled in one bag whereas thegases from the other cycles are sampled in three bags.


FTP-75 [2] 1.182 1.137 0.970 1.100 1 0.662 2


FTP-75 [2] 1.134 1.103 0.927 1.061 1 0.636 2

Table 5. Fuel consumption in litre per 10 km during driving cycles NEDC, FTP-75 and US 06. 1 Results fromUDC part. 2 Results from HDC part.


17

Unregulated emissions

The results from measurements of unregulated components are presented in figures 9 –15. All

values are counted in mg of actual component per km. For NEDC and FTP-75 the emissions

are sampled during the first phase of the cycles, see figure 1 and 2. For US 06, the emission

represent the hole driving cycle, see also figure 3.

263,

1

284,

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

US

06 [1

]

US

06 [2

]

NED

C [1

]

NED

C [2

]

NED

C -

7 [1

]

NED

C -

7 [2

]

FTP-

75 [1

]

FTP-

75 [2

]

US

06 [1

]

US

06 [2

]

NED

C [2

]

NED

C -

7 [1

]

NED

C -

7 [2

]

FTP-

75 [2

]

GASOLINE

GAS

Figure 9. Emissions of C2H4 in mg / km.

256,

7

224,

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

US

06 [1

]

US

06 [2

]

NED

C [1

]

NED

C [2

]

NED

C -

7 [1

]

NED

C -

7 [2

]

FTP-

75 [1

]

FTP-

75 [2

]

US

06 [1

]

US

06 [2

]

NED

C [2

]

NED

C -

7 [1

]

NED

C -

7 [2

]

FTP-

75 [2

]

GAS

GASOLINE

Figure 10. Emissions of C3H6 in mg / km


18

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

US

06 [1

]

US

06 [2

]

NED

C [1

]

NED

C [2

]

NED

C -

7 [1

]

NED

C -

7 [2

]

FTP-

75 [1

]

FTP-

75 [2

]

US

06 [1

]

US

06 [2

]

NED

C [2

]

NED

C -

7 [1

]

NED

C -

7 [2

]

FTP-

75 [2

]

GAS

GASOLINE


227,

15

218,

44

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

US

06 [1

]

US

06 [2

]

NED

C [1

]

NED

C [2

]

NED

C -

7 [1

]

NED

C -

7 [2

]

FTP-

75 [1

]

FTP-

75 [2

]

US

06 [1

]

US

06 [2

]

NED

C [2

]

NED

C -

7 [1

]

NED

C -

7 [2

]

FTP-

75 [2

]GAS

GASOLINE



19

1107

,6

1033

,7

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

US

06 [1

]

US

06 [2

]

NED

C [1

]

NED

C [2

]

NED

C -

7 [1

]

NED

C -

7 [2

]

FTP-

75 [1

]

FTP-

75 [2

]

US

06 [1

]

US

06 [2

]

NED

C [2

]

NED

C -

7 [1

]

NED

C -

7 [2

]

FTP-

75 [2

]

GAS

GASOLINE


973,

2

902,

1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

US

06 [1

]

US

06 [2

]

NED

C [1

]

NED

C [2

]

NED

C -

7 [1

]

NED

C -

7 [2

]

FTP-

75 [1

]

FTP-

75 [2

]

US

06 [1

]

US

06 [2

]

NED

C [2

]

NED

C -

7 [1

]

NED

C -

7 [2

]

FTP-

75 [2

]

GAS

GASOLINE



20

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

US

06 [1

]

US

06 [2

]

NED

C [1

]

NED

C [2

]

NED

C -

7 [1

]

NED

C -

7 [2

]

FTP-

75 [1

]

FTP-

75 [2

]

US

06 [1

]

US

06 [2

]

NED

C [2

]

NED

C -

7 [1

]

NED

C -

7 [2

]

FTP-

75 [2

]

Methane

UnknownhydrocarbonsC8H10

C7H8

C6H6

C4H6

C3H6

C2H4

GAS

GASOLINE

Figure 15. Distribution of hydrocarbons


21

3.2 Vehicle 2 [diesel car]

The results from the Lupo tests are presented in figures 16 - 20 and in tables

6 – 10 below. All tests were repeated twice times. One of the most interesting questions

before the start of this study was to see if the fuel consumption was as low as the manufacture

claims, below 0.3 litre diesel per 10 km driving.

This study clearly showed that this car consumes small amounts of fuel. During the FTP-75

cycles, the consumption was lower than 0.3 litre (~0.29) whereas test in accordance with the

NEDC cycles resulted in consumption just above the 0.3 litre limit.

The CO and HC emission were higher during NEDC than for the FTP-75. Most of these

pollutants originate from the first part of the cycles in both cases. It was expected that the

emission of CO and HC should be lower from the diesel car compared with the bi-fuel car

with a gasoline engine. So it is interesting to note that the NOX emission were also lower.

However, it is difficult to compare the results since the emissions are counted in g / travelling

distance units and the difference in size and weight of the two cars are relatively large.

There were no significant differences in particle emission between the two test cycles used.

Also the pollutant of the particles seem to be constant over the cycles. (e.g. about same

amount of particles in all phases counted in g per km).

Since the emissions levels of methane were very low, these results are not presented in figures

and tables.


22

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30

0,35

NEDC [1] NEDC [2] FTP-75 [1] FTP-75 [2]

Bag 1Bag 2Bag 3

Figure 16. CO emissions in g / km during driving cycle NEDC and FTP-75.

Bag 1 Bag 2 Bag 3 Weighted resultsNEDC [1] 0,274 0,003 0,103NEDC [2] 0,307 0,023 0,127FTP-75 [1] 0.200 0.007 0.018 0.050FTP-75 [2] 0.244 0.005 0.015 0.057

Table 6. CO emissions in g / km during driving cycle NEDC and FTP-75.


23

0,000

0,005

0,010

0,015

0,020

0,025

0,030

0,035

0,040

0,045

0,050

NEDC [1] NEDC [2] FTP-75 [1] FTP-75 [2]

Bag 1Bag 2Bag 3

Figure 17. HC emissions in g / km during driving cycle NEDC and FTP-75.

Bag 1 Bag 2 Bag 3 Weighted resultsNEDC [1] 0.032 0.002 0.013NEDC [2] 0.046 0.003 0.019FTP-75 [1] 0.013 0.001 0.014 0.007FTP-75 [2] 0.024 0.004 0.014 0.011

Table 7. HC emissions in g / km during driving cycle NEDC and FTP-75.


24

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30

0,35

0,40

0,45

0,50

NEDC [1] NEDC [2] FTP-75 [1] FTP-75 [2]

Bag 1Bag 2Bag 3

Figure 18. NOX emissions in g / km during driving cycle NEDC and FTP-75.

Bag 1 Bag 2 Bag 3 Weighted resultsNEDC [1] 0.211 0.246 0.234NEDC [2] 0.230 0.240 0.236FTP-75 [1] 0,481 0,256 0,344 0,327FTP-75 [2] 0,310 0,219 0,308 0,263

Table 8. NOX emissions in g / km during driving cycle NEDC and FTP-75.


25

0,000

0,002

0,004

0,006

0,008

0,010

0,012

0,014

0,016

0,018

0,020

NEDC [1] NEDC [2] FTP-75 [1] FTP-75 [2]

Bag 1Bag 2Bag 3

Figure 19. Particle emission in g per km during driving cycle NEDC and FTP-75.

Bag 1 Bag 2 Bag 3 Weighted resultsNEDC [1] 0.0147 0.0151 0.0150NEDC [2] 0.0164 0.0181 0.0175FTP-75 [1] 0,0166 0,0102 0,0160 0,0131FTP-75 [2] 0,0173 0,0115 0,0163 0,0140

Table 9. Particle emission in g per km during driving cycle NEDC and FTP-75.


26

0,000

0,050

0,100

0,150

0,200

0,250

0,300

0,350

0,400

NEDC [1] NEDC [2] FTP-75 [1] FTP-75 [2]

Bag 1Bag 2Bag 3

Figure 20. Fuel consumption in litre per 10 km during driving cycle NEDC and FTP-75.

Bag 1 Bag 2 Bag 3 Weighted resultsNEDC [1] 0.371(2) 0.264(3) 0.303(5)NEDC [2] 0.364(4) 0.274(5) 0.307(4)FTP-75 [1] 0,3500 0,2760 0,2770 0,292FTP-75 [2] 0,3140 0,2820 0,2720 0,286

Table 10. Fuel consumption in litre per 10 km during driving cycle NEDC and FTP-75.


27

Unregulated components

The same unregulated hydrocarbons as for the bi-fuel vehicle have been measured. The levels

were very low and often close to the lower detection limit of the MS-analyser. The results are

presented in table 11 below.

NEDC [1] NEDC [2] FTP-75 [1] FTP-75 [2]C2H4 19.66 12.78 0.32 0.39C3H6 5.48 ~ 0 ~ 0 0.78C4H6 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0.94C6H6 2.04 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0C7H8 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 2.37C8H10 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0

Table 11. Unregulated components from the first phase of the cycles in mg / km.

There seems to be a big difference between the tests but almost all values are very low and

therefore, it is difficult to say if the observed differences are real or not. However, it is clear

that driving cycle NEDC gives rise to higher levels of C2H4 than the FTP-75 cycle.

mtc report 6901 - dieselnet · new engine and pollutant control technology mtc 6901. 10. 2.3...

Documents