S O U T H W E S T R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E ®

6220 CULEBRA ROAD • POST OFFICE DRAWER 28510 • SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78228-0510, USA • WWW.SWRI.ORG 

1 

December 12, 2009 

SUBJECT: Meeting Minutes 

Program E-87-2 

 Catalyst Durability with Ethanol Blends 

 

DATE OF MEETING: 11/05/09 

LOCATION: Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) 

MEETING RECORDER: Brent Shoffner, SwRI bshoffner@swri.org

I. INTRODUCTION 

Martin Heimrich of Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM. 

The list of personnel attending the meeting at SwRI is included in Attachment A. Several people, 

also listed in Attachment A, participated in the meeting via a telephone conference call. The 

agenda is included as Attachment B. The electronic files of the presentations given during the 

meeting, as listed in Table 1, have been uploaded to the dedicated password protected ftp site 

established for this program or are included in the attachments. 

Table 1 - List of Presentations 

Reference 

Number File Name Presenter Location for Reference 

1 020 Oak Ridge Project E-87-2 Emissions 

20091105.ppt 

Martin 

Heimrich ftp site 

2 Oak Ridge Project E-87-2 Fleet Lab 0901105.ppt Brent Shoffner ftp site 

3 040 Veh_Selection_2009_11_03_bw.ppt Brian West ftp site 

4 050 E87 Orban - November 5 2009 Final.pptx John Orban ftp site 

5 e87 ranking.ppt Brian West Attachment E 

II. REPORTS 

A. Light Duty Vehicle Emissions Laboratory Report – Martin Heimrich 

Martin Heimrich gave the presentation entitled “Vehicle Emissions and WOT Testing Overview” 

noted as reference #1 in the Introduction, Section I. This presentation consisted of background 

information regarding the emissions tests conducted for the E-87-2 program. 
2 

B. Automotive Fleet Laboratory Report – Brent Shoffner 

The presentation entitled “Automotive Fleet Laboratory Vehicles, Fuel, & Mileage 

Accumulation” is noted as reference #2 in Table 1. The presentation consisted of a review of the 

vehicle naming convention, the current status of mileage accumulation, progress of vehicle 

procurement, and test fuel status. 

The group discussions centered on the availability of the RE0 mileage accumulation fuel for the 

life of the program. At some time in the near future, most fuel terminals in the U.S. will only 

offer E10, not E0. The current terminal used to procure E0 for the program will have E0 

available until the end of 2009 and probably until mid-January. Another terminal in Louisiana 

will have E0 available through the 1Q 2010. After that time SwRI will search for terminals 

(potentially in the mountain western states) to purchase RE0, which would be used for blending 

RE15 and RE20. Fuel available in higher altitude areas could potentially have octane ratings 

lower than 87. 

As the distance (and freight cost) becomes greater the RE0 could be used only for the RE0 

mileage accumulation and locally available RE10 would be used for the RE15 and RE20 blends. 

Unfortunately this option would add another degree of freedom into the program. Using E0 

“BOB” fuel, which is formulated to mix with ethanol for E10, is a complicated issue and should 

be avoided if at all possible in the program 

The following are action items that resulted from the discussion: 

Action Item 1: Get a per-mile estimate of the fuel transportation cost for procuring E0 fuel from 

terminals at greater distances from SwRI than the current local terminal. 

Brent Shoffner 

An approximate range is $2.00 - $2.50 per mile for a tanker truck with 7,500 gallons of fuel. 

Action Item 2: Determine the term of the project fuel storage. As an example: How much time 

do we have to identify a new E0 fuel supplier, should the existing supplier no longer offer E0 

fuel? 

Brent Shoffner 

In the worst case the fuel in storage would be approximately 8,000 gallons less than the total 

capacity. After a tanker truck had been ordered, E10 was not available at the terminal. In this 

worst case scenario there would be about 80 days of fuel remaining assuming 9 vehicles 

averaging 850 miles per day and 25 mpg. 

The fuel sulfur level of the mileage accumulation fuel was discussed. The question was asked, 

“Should there be an alarm if the sulfur level is found to be above a given level?” 

Coleman Jones suggested a guideline for sulfur based on the project history. 

Action Item3: Analyze the sulfur concentration measured from fuel samples taken from the 

tanker trucks, which delivered E0 fuel for the program. 

Brent Shoffner 

Please refer to Table 2. 
3 

Table 2 – Sulfur Concentration of E0 Fuel Delivered by Tanker Trucks 

Sample 

Number 

Sulfur Concentration 

(PPM)

1 39.7

2 51.1

3 48.4

4 47.8

5 52.3

6 62.2

7 52.3

8 50.1

9 43.6

10 49.1

11 41.9

12 56.9

13 56.1

Average 50.1

Maximum 56.9

Standard 

Deviation 6.23

C. Vehicle Selection – Brian West 

The presentation entitled “Non-Tier 2 Vehicles for V4 / E-87-2” is noted as reference #3 in Table 

1. Brian presented a program time table (shown in Attachment C) and proposed a “way 

forward” for the selection of non-tier 2 vehicles, which is included in Attachment D. The vehicle 

table lists the planned vehicles and candidate vehicles sorted by manufacturer. The 

recommended non-tier 2 vehicles are matched with the comparable tier 2 counterpart already 

identified for the program. The vehicle manufacturers in the table represent approximately 87% 

of the vehicle population. 

It was noted that the original vehicle proposal was to test the most severe vehicles from the E-87-

1 program. The purpose of the E-87-1 program was to develop test methodology and evaluate 

vehicle makes/models for potential vehicle sensitivity to catalyst degradation with intermediate 

ethanol blends. It was stated that the objective of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 

to evaluate a representative vehicle population. EPA will not consider “low volume” vehicles 

(e.g., <~100K vehicles/engines per year). The E-87-1 vehicle ranking was reviewed and that 

table is given in Attachment E. 

CRC agreed to fund the purchase of the three 2006 Nissan Quest and three 2002 Nissan Frontier 

vehicles. It was stated that the two Chevrolet non-tier 2 vehicle groups (2000 Chevrolet 

Silverado and 2003 Chevrolet Cavalier) are probably not sensitive to intermediate ethanol 

blends, with regards to catalyst deterioration. 
4 

It was recommended that the similar make/model tier 2 and non-tier 2 vehicles be tested in the 

same laboratory. It might also be advantageous to retest a few vehicle groups at the end of the 

program for replicate results. 

The meeting participants came to the following consensus: 

Consensus 1 

Accept the non-tier 2 vehicles (in Attachment D) 

The following non-tier 2 vehicles (from the “Green list vehicles”) will be tested at SwRI in the 

order noted below: 

2002 Nissan Frontier 

2000 Ford Focus 

2002 Dodge Durango 

2000 Honda Accord 

2003 Toyota Camry (contingent on funding and schedule; this vehicle will likely be tested at 

TRC to maintain schedule)

D. Emissions Results – John Orban 

The presentation entitled “Accord and Silverado Preliminary Test Results and Statistical 

Modeling Approach” is noted as reference #4 in Table 1. The presentation included a 

description of the statistical modeling approach and a summary of the final emissions results 

from the Chevrolet Silverado and Honda Accord vehicles. The following emissions FTP-75 

composite results are shown in graphs, which are included in Attachment F. 

Carbon Monoxide 

Oxides of Nitrogen 

Non-methane Hydrocarbons 

Fuel Economy

The PowerPoint® presentation includes additional emissions results.

III. DISCUSSIONS 

Brian West stated that another laboratory had issues with the Jeep Liberty vehicles’ fuel adaption 

following fuel change, preps, and FTP tests. FTP-75 E0 tests that followed E20 WOTs and E0 

fuel prep differed from the FTP E0 test results that followed 4k mileage accumulation on RE0. 

The decision was made to incorporate a lengthy procedure, which included disconnecting the 

battery and re-learning trim values (but only after completing duplicate emissions tests in the 

“abnormal” state). In summary, re-adapting to gasoline appeared to be a real concern for the 

Jeep Liberty. 
5 

Marty Heimrich stated that the fuel changes at SwRI have been thorough and there has been little 

or no evidence of ethanol in the E0 emissions data. SwRI also added a flush on suspect vehicles 

to improve flush effectiveness. 

To improve the strength of the statistics and quality of the data set, the following action item was 

proposed: 

Action Item: 

Conduct a third emissions test when the variation of the first two tests exceeds a repeatability 

threshold. 

Martin Heimrich 

It was stated that a fuel terminal in Big Springs, TX (west of Dallas) might not be converting to 

E10 and it could possibly be a source of E0 for the project. 

The meeting adjourned at 2:00 PM. 
Attachment A 

List of Meeting Attendees
Attendance List 

Name Company 

In 

Attendance 

By 

Telephone 

Brian West ORNL X 

Chris Tennant CRC X 

Coleman Jones GM X 

Mike Viola GM X 

Ken Wright Conoco Phillips X 

Marie Valentine Toyota X 

Brent Bailey CRC X 

King Eng Shell Global Solutions X 

Keith Knoll NREL X 

Charlie Schleyer Exxon X 

James Uihlein Chevron X 

John Orban Battelle X 

Ken Kimura BP X 

Andy Mabutol Mitsubishi X 

Dominic DiCicco Ford X 

Connie Hart EPA X 

Tony Fernandez EPA X 

David Lax API X 

 

Martin Heimrich SwRI X 

Brent Shoffner SwRI X 

Don Hart SwRI X 

Michael Lochte SwRI X 

Ryan Hecox SwRI X 

Terry Westrum SwRI X 
Attachment B 

Meeting Agenda 
V4/E-87-2 Oak Ridge National Laboratory/ CRC Project Meeting 

Agenda 

November 5, 2009 

Engine, Emissions, & Vehicle Research Division 

Southwest Research Institute 

6220 Culebra Road 

San Antonio, TX 78238-5165

Project Engineer/Host: 

Martin J. Heimrich 

Emissions Research and 

 Development 

Department 

Phone: (210) 522-3022 

FAX: (210) 522-3950 

Email: 

mheimrich@swri.org

Directors: 

Jeff J. White Michael D. Lochte

Emissions Research and Fuels and Lubricants

 Development Department Research

Phone: (210) 522-2649 Phone: (210) 522-5430

FAX: (210) 522-3950 FAX: (210) 684-7523

Email: jjwhite@swri.org Email: 

michael.lochte@swri.org

Division Vice President: 

Bruce Bykowski 

Phone: (210) 522-2937 

Fax: (210) 522-3950 

Email: bbykowski@swri.org

Visiting Client Staff: Brian West, ORNL James Uihlein, Chevron Brent Bailey, CRC

 Chris Tennant, CRC Keith Knoll, NREL 

 Coleman Jones, GM Marie Valentine, Toyota 

 David Lax, API (by phone) King Eng, Shell Global Solutions 

 John E. Orban, Battelle Ken Wright, Conoco Phillips 

 Charlie Schleyer, Exxon (by phone) Jeff Jetter, Honda 

Purpose of Visit: V4/E-87-2 Project Review Meeting 

Bldg. 87, Main Conference Room – November 5, 2009, from 8 am to 5 pm 

TENTATIVE AGENDA 

Thursday, November 5, 2009

8:30 -9:00 Arrivals & Introductions ........................................................................................................................... All 

9:00 Opening Remarks ................................................................... Brian West, Marty Heimrich, Brent Shoffner 

 Emissions Test Plan Review ................................................................................................. Marty Heimrich 

 Fleet Test Data Overview ....................................................................................................... Brent Shoffner 

 V4/E-87-2 Program Vehicle Selection ......................................................................................... Brian West 

 FTP Emissions Test Data Overview ..................................................................................... Marty Heimrich 

 Data and Statistical Interpretation................................................................................................. John Orban 

 Alcohols and Aldehydes Measurements ................................................................................. Patrick Merritt 

11:30 Lunch at SwRI Cafeteria .......................................................................................................................... All 

1:00 Discussions ............................................................................................................................................... All 

2:00 Adjourn ..................................................................................................................................................... All 

cc/ B Bykowski, D Barranco, L Cruz, J White, T Davison, C Sharp, K Whitney, S Sampson, E Krueger, K Echtle, 

 S Tondre, D Reeh, L Grant, B Shoffner, K Brunner, M Lochte, Patrick Merritt. 
Attachment C 

Projected Time Table 
Oak Ridge Project E-87-2 Time Table 

CRC-DOE confidential – Do not Cite 

Schedule

Facility # veh

Ne w/ Used Ja n Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Ma r Apr May J

4 2007 Accord Used 35k 85k 120k - - - - 10b*4 2006 Silverado Used 27k 77k 120k4 2008 Altima Used 20k 70k 120k4 2008 Taurus Used 17k 67k 120k4 2007 Caravan Used 45k 95k 120k3 2006 Cobalt Used 50k 95k 120k3 2006 Quest Used 50k 95k 3 2007 Caliber Used 50k 93 2009 Civic New 4k 60k 120k3 2009 Explorer New 4k 60k 120k3 2009 Corolla New 4k 60k 123 2009 Liberty New 4k 60k 123 2005 Tundra Used 50k 95k 3 2006 Impala Used 35k 95k 3 2005 F150 Used 50k 95k 2 2009 Outlo ok New 4k 60k 90k 120k2 2009 Camry New 4k 60k 90k 120k2 2009 Focus New 4k 60k 90k 120k2 2009 Odyssey New 4k 60k 90k 120k

2009 

ETC 

(5000 ft 

El.)

TRC

Yea r and Model

SWRI

• Non-Tier 2 vehicles to start in Spring 2010 at SwRI and TRC• Priority on finishing Tier 2 vehicles per EPA/DOE• Non-Tier 2 vehicles could finish late 2010, early 2011
Attachment D 

Vehicle Selection
CRC-DOE confidential – Do not Cite 

Proposed path forward: 19 Tier 2, 8 “pre-20Non-Tier 2 picks from same mfrs is most defensible mixRegistration database, E-87-1 “Top Ten,” and V1 screening considered in selections

Year Make Model Eng ine site Year M ake Model Engine Cer

2006 Chevrolet Silverado 5.3L V8 SwRI 2000 Chevrolet Silverado 5.3L V8 T 1 

2006 Chevrolet Impala 3.9L V6 TRC2009 Saturn Outlook 3.6L V6 ETC2006 Chevrolet Cobalt 2.2L I4 SwRI 2003 Chevrolet Cavalier 2.2L I4 LEV2008 Ford Taurus 3.5L V6 SwRI 2003 Ford Taurus 3.0L V6 LE2009 Ford Explorer 4.0L V6 TRC2009 Ford Focus 2.0L I4 ETC 2000 Ford Focus 2.0L I4 LEV2005 Ford F150 5.4L V8 TRC2007 Dodge Caravan 3.3L V6 SwRI2007 Dodge Caliber 2.4L I4 SwRI2009 Jeep Liberty 3.7L V6 TRC 2002 Dodge Durango 4.7L V8 T 1, 2005 Toyota Tundra 4.0L V6 TRC2009 Toyota Corolla 1.8L I4 TRC2009 Toyota Camry 2.4L I4 ETC 2003 T oyota Camry 2.4L I4 ULE2007 Honda Accord 2.4L I4 SwRI 2000 Honda Accord 2.3L I4 LEV2009 Honda Civic 1.8L I4 TRC2009 Honda Odyssey 3.5L V6 ETC2008 Nissan Altima 2.5L I4 SwRI 2002 Nissan Frontier 2.4L I4 LEV2006 Nissan Quest 3.5L V6 SwRI

Hon daNissan

T ier 2 non-Tier 2

G M

Ford

Chrysler

Toyota

Black Te xt: Under Test Red Text: Planned / in acquisition

 Green T ext: This Proposal

2.0L I4
Attachment E 

E-87-1 Results – Vehicle Ranking
CRC # Vehicle 

LFT @ 

WOT

Ave rage 

La mbda E20

Power to 

Weight 

Ratio

Aver age E20 Catalyst Inlet Tem peratur e

Delta 

Lam bda E0 -

E20

Delta Catalys

Tem peratur 

E2 0 

6 2 002 Nissan Fron tier No 1 1 1 5 2 3 7 20 01 Hy und ai Accen t No 13 5 1 6 11 

2 5 2 001 Ma zda 626 No 23 7 2 7 1 1 8 20 00 For d Focu s No 3 15 1 0 9 8 

2 3 20 06 Nis san Que st No 5 23 9 1 7 

3 19 99 Fo rd C rown Vic tor ia No 9 16 1 4 4 2 

2 4 20 01 Vo lkswag en Jetta Yes 6 2 6 16 15 

1 20 01 Ch evr olet Tr acke r No 10 8 5 13 9 

2 0 2 002 Dod ge Dura ngo 4WD No 2 14 1 9 5 12 

2 2 20 00 Hond a Acco rd LX No 14 12 1 8 8 5 

1 9 20 03 Fo rd Tau ru s Yes 12 10 8 17 10 1 4 20 06 Chevr olet Coba lt No 4 18 3 10 22 

5 200 3 Niss an Altim a No 20 20 4 11 4 

1 2

200 7 Ch rysler Jee p 

Ru bicon No 7 19 7 3 23 

1 1 1 995 Hon da C ivic No 21 9 2 0 12 6 

2 200 1 Ch evro let M etr o ? 16 3 2 5 14 13 9 1 999 Mits ubish i Mira ge Yes 11 6 2 2 18 20 

4 2 001 Chry sler PT Cr uiser ? 24 11 1 7 15 17 

1 0

20 01 Mitsu bishi M on tero 

Sp ort 4WD Yes 19 4 1 3 24

24

8 20 04 BM W 33 0i Yes 8 25 1 1 22 18 

1 7 20 07 For d Focu s ? 17 17 1 2 23 16 

1 5

200 6 Ch evro let Silver ad o, 

Ext end ed Cab Yes 15 24 1 6 20

21

2 1 20 00 To yota Sie nna Yes 22 13 2 4 19 19 1 6

2 002 Che vrole t Sub urb an, 

4W D Yes 18 21 2 3 21 14 

1 3 20 03 Vo lkswag en Jetta NA 25 22 2 1 25 25 

Revised E-87-1 (Screening Study) Vehicle Rankin

CRC Picks: Non-Tier 2CRC Pick: Tier 2

Cha rt b ase d o n Ta ble 20, “C RC E- 87- 1 Fin al Ra nk Or de r Re sult s “ fro m the E-8 7- 1 Fina l Re por t, with the Reg istr at io n C rite 
Attachment F 

Summary of Honda Accord and Chevrolet Silverado 

 Emissions Test Results
Silverado Accord

0.000.200.400.600.801.001.20

CO(g/mi)

Composite CO

E0 E10 E15 E20

0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL 

RE0 RE10 RE15 RE20

ORCS00 ORCS10 ORCS15 ORCS20

Test Fuel

Test MilesRoad FuelVehicle

0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.40

CO(g/mi)

Composite CO

E0 E10 E15 

0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FU

RE0 RE10 RE15 

ORHA0 ORHA10B ORHA15 

Test Fuel

Test MilesRoad FuelVehicle

Ethanol effect (negative) with Accords (no LFT at WOT)
Silverado Accord

0.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.060

NOx(g/mi)

Composite NOx

E0 E10 E15 E20

0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL 

RE0 RE10 RE15 RE20

ORCS00 ORCS10 ORCS15 ORCS20

Test Fuel

Test MilesRoad FuelVehicle

0.0000.0050.0100.0150.0200.0250.0300.035

NOx(g/mi)

Composite NOx

E0 E10 E15 

0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | 

RE0 RE10 RE15 

ORHA0 ORHA10B ORHA

Test Fuel

Test MilesRoad FuelVehicle
Silverado Accord

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.07

NMHC(g/mi)

Composite NMHC

E0 E10 E15 

0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | F

RE0 RE10 RE15 

ORHA0 ORHA10B ORHA1

Test Fuel

Test MilesRoad FuelVehicle

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.08

NMHC(g/mi)

Composite NMHC

E0 E10 E15 E20

0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL 

RE0 RE10 RE15 RE20

ORCS00 ORCS10 ORCS15 ORCS20

Test Fuel

Test MilesRoad FuelVehicle

Ethanol effect (negative) with Accords (no LFT at WOT)
Silverado Accord

24.525.025.526.026.527.027.528.0

FuelEconomy(mi/gal)

Composite Fuel Econom

E0 E10 E15 

0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL 

RE0 RE10 RE15 

ORHA0 ORHA10B ORHA15 

Test Fuel

Test MilesRoad FuelVehicle

14.515.015.516.016.517.017.5

FuelEconomy(mi/gal)

Composite Fuel Economy

E0 E10 E15 E20

0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL 0 | 50 | FUL 

RE0 RE10 RE15 RE20

ORCS00 ORCS10 ORCS15 ORCS20

Test Fuel

Test MilesRoad FuelVehicle

~7% Reduction in Fuel Economy with E20