MFR

aur
AUOT
auDI
AUDI
AUOT
AUDI
AUDI
AUOL

FUUT
FUJI
FUul
Fuul
Fuul
Fuul
FUJI
FUSE
FuJl
Fuul
Fuut
Fuul
FUJT
Fuul
Fudl

CARLINE NAME
4000
5000

5000
5000

4000

SUBARU WAGON
SUBARU WAGON
SUBARU

SUBARU WAGON

SUBARU
SUBARU

BRAT 4WD
SUBARU WAGON

SUBARU
SUBARU
SUBARU WAGON

wo

vib.
1980 FUEL
49 STATE.TEST Cal
CARB
OISP VENT
VEHICLE ID /C1O /FI
384 s7 FI
BASIC
490 669 121 FL
BASIC
637-80 191 FE
425-80 191 FE
BASIC
027-80 131 FE
BASIC
*BOFE-12 97 2
*BOFE-12 97 2
“BOFE-12 97 2
BOFE-12 97 2
BASIC
*8OFE-10 97 2
*8OFE-10 97 2
BASIC
*BOFE-1 97 2
*@OFE-11 97 2
BASIC
BOFE-16 109 2
BOFE-15, 109 2
BOFL-t4 109 2

REPORT

APR 10, 1980 01:57:45

‘CONOMY PROGRAM
R LIST - PASSENGER CARS (GAS MILEAGE GUIDE)
COMP . ET ow.
RATIO. HP CONTROL SYSTEM TRNS-O/D LBS.
6.1 76 FI /EGR/OXO/ =f = =/CAN 4-2 2500
ENGINE DESCRIPTOR: (OLESEL)
23.0 6 FI/ sf Ff f {NON M5-2 3250
ENGINE DESCRIPTOR: NONE
8.1 103 FI /EGR/OXO/ / /CAN A3-1 3000
B.4 103° FI /EGR/OXD/ =f /CAN 5-2 3000
ENGINE DESCRIPTOR: (CAL)(FFS)
8.2 100 FI /3wY/CLS/  / = /CAN AB-1 2875
ENGINE DESCRIPTOR: (NO CAT)
8.5 67 EGR/PLS/OTR/ =f /CAN = M4-2 2375
8.5 67 EGR/PLS/OTR/ / /CAN M4-2 2500
8.5 67 EGR/PLS/OTR/ =f /CAN MS-2 2375
8.5 67 EGR/PLS/OTR/ = =/ =/CAN = -M5-2 2500
ENGINE DESCRIPTOR: (CAT)
9.0 68 EGR/PLS/OXD/ / /CAN M4-2 2375
9.0 68 EGR/PLS/OX0/ / /CAN M5-2 2375
ENGINE DESCRIPTOR: (NO CAT)
a) 67  EGR/PLS/OTR/ =f = =/CAN  -M4-2 2500
8.5 G7 EGR/PLS/OTR/ = / = /CAN 4-2 2625
ENGINE DESCRIPTOR: NONE
8.7 72° EGR/PLS/OTR/ =f = /CAN  A-1 2375
8.7 72° EGR/PLS/OTR/- = / = /CAN AS-1 2500
8.7 72° EGR/PLS/OTR/  /  /CANA-4 2625

nnenaten a/n

AXLE
RATIO RATIO

4.

4

vow

eo BO LLLe

Ww

-78

.90
ft

45
.89

.89
89

89

70
70

89

-89

59
.59
80

NIN

56.6

a6

56.
46.

$3.

s7
ST
44

44.

54.
42.

s9.
59.

56.
S56.
59.

Lsi7
WW? LS3t 08 b/

200 00 00 d000

at

A932


-27-

Table 9

Reduced NOx Calibration FTP

Emission and Fuel Economy Results, Audi/HRCC (g/mi)

Date HC co NOx CH30H HCHO OMHCE MPG City
07/09/87 0.44 13.5 0.54 10.20 .348 4.86 26.8
08/27/87 0.46 13.8 0.40 10.56 +395 5.03 26.8
08/28/87 0.50 10.3 0.39 11.43 405 5.44 26.5
Average 0.47 14.5 0.44 10.73 +383 5.11 26.7

MPG city means 1975 gaosline equivalent mpg.
Test one: 5 stalls, 1 false start in Bag l.
Test two: No stalls, false starts reported.
Test three: 4 stalls in Bag l.


Table of Contents

Page

I. Background of Engine Development Work ........ 1
Il. Diesel Vehicle Baseline Exhaust Emissions,

Fuel Economy, Performance and Rated Power

Output ... a 7
III. Diesel Vehicle Modifications and Engine

Installation ...... . Soe ee ee 9
Iv. Vehicle Testing for Best Economy .......... 19
Vv. Vehicle Testing for Performance ........... 22
VI. Vehicle Testing for Reduced NOx Emissions ...... 24
VII. Conclusions ©... 6 we ee ee eee ee ee 29
VIII. Future Engine Modifications and

Vehicle Evaluation ©... 1 eee ee eee ee eee SD
IX. References «6. 6 ee ee eee ee ee ee ee 82
x. Appendices «2. 6 1 ee ee eee ee ee ee AMD
Appendix A - Baseline Engine Data
Appendix B - Vehicle Specifications and Baseline Data
Appendix C - Vehicle and Engine Modification Details
Appendix D - Exhaust Emissions, Fuel Economy and

Performance Test Data


Qrin

ENGINE VEHICLELENGTH . 189.0in/4798mm
Horsepower SAE net. . . bee 103 hp at $300 rpm WIDTH .. 69.6 in/1768 mm
Canada models only . . wae 110 hp at 5300 rpm. HEIGHT . 5$4.7in/1390mm
Diesel engine . . bees 67 hp at 4800 rpm (unladen)
No. of cylinders 5
Displacement. . . . : 130.8 cu. in/2144 cr?
Diesel engine ........... 121 cu. in/1986 cme? dual diagonal circuits, power-
see in line, front mount assisted, discs front, drums rear
SUSPENSION .. . . front wheels: independent
Cooling... 2.7... ss. water-cooled ‘ear wheels: orion crank axle
FueV/air suppl CIS fuel injection 7 [
Diesel engine "mech. fuel injection STEERING .... .  rack-and-pinion, power-assisted
Fuel tank capacity 19.8 U.S. gal./

75 liters DRIVE TRAIN

Type front wheel drive
Gears (Manual) . 5 forward, t reverse
Speeds(Automatic) . . 3 forward, | reverse

Engine oil capacity
with filter change 48 U.S. qu
4.5 liters

without filter change oo.) 45US. qu oe » 12 Volt
4.0 liters Battery . 63 Ampere hours
Diesel engine . 88 Ampere hours
Alternator. . . 1050 watts (14 volts/75 amp.)

US. Metric
‘ Fueltank 2... 1. coe 19.8 gal 73.0 liters
Capacities Reserve of total capacity V1 gal 40 liters
See page 106 for Diesel engine.
Cooling systemincludingheater .. . . . 8.6 qt 8.1 liters
Engine oil (API/SE)
withfilterchange 2. 2... fe 48 qt 4.5 liters
withoutfilterchange 2... 2... 43 qt 4.0 liters
Oil capacity between upper and lower
marksondipstick ......... Li qt 1.0 liter
Automatic Transmission
atchange(ATF) .......... 3.2 qt 3.0 liters
finaldrive 2... ee Li qt 1.0 liter
(hypoid oil — does not have to be chan-
ged)
ManualTransmission ........ 2.75 qt 2.75 liters
(hypoid oil — does not have to be char-
ged)
Windshield washercontainer .. . . . . 1.8 qt 1.7 liters
Powerassistedsteering ........ 0.8 qt 0.8 liter

89


WC SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
0 180 360 540 720
DEG. CRANK ! L 1 | tL
CAM. PULSE [. |

SIGAL :

CRANK SIGNAL
__J LJ L_J LJ 1 J
1 3 ‘ 2 1
VALVE _PERIONS.
CYLINDER 1 cA
ae: |
{ J
"4 ews —a
ne
. 2 ia IN J
a: : a
70_DEG._BIDC
REP, POISE | | | | |
IG aT
IGUTION_ _ -! iz | L |
INJECTION
END OP INJECTION BEFORE oo
1 @
C4) fa]
@ ;
tT T T I T

DEG. CRANK 0 180 - 360 $40 720


Map Name

Steady-State
Fuel

Idle Fuel

Exp. Impulse
Time Constant

Throttle Angle

Derivative
arbitrary

Advance Table
Idle Ignition
Map

EGR valve

Temperature*
Compensation

——_—__——_

* The X map
transient constant,
to be applied in a

-17-

Table 5

Microprocessor Engine Controller Maps

Select

Character

F

temperature range.

contains

Horizontal Axis
para,units, range

Vertical Axis
para,units, range

Map’ Output
para,units

rev/s,-, 20-100

rev/s,-, 2-20

rev/s,-, 20-100

rev/s,-, 10-100

rev/s,-, 20-100

rev/s,-, 2-20

rev/s,-, 20-100

Temp. °K, 100-1000

“percent” of

steady-state

MAP, mbar 100-1000

MAP, mbar 100-1000

Fuel/Inj. 5-50

MAP, mbar 100-1000

MAP, mbar 100-1000

MAP, mbar 100-1000

MAP, mbar 100-1000

TTC, MCT, THC, SSF,
CT, EGR

fueling,

Fuel Inj.
Fuel/100
arbitrary
unit

Fuel/Inj.
Fuel/100
arbitrary
unit

Trans. height,
constant, mS

Derivative
coef,

unit

Ign. advance
deg BTDC/100

Ign. advance,
deg BTDC/100

0-1000 EGR,
arbitrary unit

0-100 percent,
°K

transient height coefficient, and EGR

specified manifold charge or

TTC = Transient time constant.

MCT = Manifold charge temperature.
THC = Transient height coefficient.
SSF = Steady-state fueling.

CT = Coolant temperature.

EGR = Exhaust gas recirculation.

coolant


RIGRDO

Comsucting Cwomeens

EEPROM REDUCED NOX STRATEGY JUNE 86 recalled
H.A.- RPS(*10), V.A.~ FUEL(*5) << Exp. Impulse Time Constant(mS) - "Cc" >
10 | 00385 0030 0085 0050 0080 0150 0150 0150 0150 0150

91 0040 0035 0090 0055 0090 0150 0150 0150 0150 0150
8} 0045 0035 0095 #60 0100 0150 0150 0150 0150 0150
7+ ©0050 0040 0100 0065 0110 0150 0150 0150 0150 0150
6 {| 00SS 0040 0105 0070 0120 0150 0150 0150 0150 0150
5 + 0060 0045 0110 0075 0130 0150 0150 0150 0150 0150
4} 0065 0045 0115 0075 0140 0150 0150 0150 0150 0150
34 0070 ©0050 0120 0080 0150 0150 0150 0150 0150 0150
24 0070 0050 0120 0080 0150 0150 0150 0150 0150 0150
1+ 0070 0050 0120 0080 0150 0150 0150 0150 0150 0150

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

H.A.- RPS(*10), V.A.- MAP(mB*100) << Throttle Angle Derivative - "K" >>

10 {| 0000 0220 0120 0260 0320 0300 0300 0300 0300 0300
9 i 0330 0230 0130 0280 0330 0300 0300 0300 0300 0300
8} 0340 0240 0140 0290 0340 0300 0300 0300 0300 0300
73; #0350 0250 0150 0300 0350 0300 0300 0300 0300 030
6 | 0360 0260 0160 0310 0360 0300 0300 0300 0300 0300
St 0370 0270 0170 0320 0370 0300 0300 0800 0300 0300
4} 0380 0280 0180 0330 0380 0300 0300 0300 0300 0300
3 | 0390 0290 0190 0340 0390 0300 0300 0300 0300 0300
21 0400 0300 0200 0350 0400 0300 0300 0300 0300 0300
11 0400 0300 0200 0350 0400 0300 0300 0300 0300 0300

H.A.- RPS(*10), V.A.- MAP(mB*100)<< Advance Table(deg/100 BTDC) - "I" >>
10 | 0000 0500 0700 0800 0900 1000 1600 1700 1700 1800

'
9 1 00C0OO 0700 0900 1000 1000 1000 2100 2100 2100 2100
8; O0}CO) 1000 1200) 1200 1200) 1200 2200 2300 2400 2400
71 OOOO 200 2100 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2500 2500
6 | O0COO 2100 2100 2100 2200 2400 2400 2500 2500 2500
5 | 0000 2100 2100 2100 2200 2400 2400 2500 2500 2600
4} 0000 .2100 2100 2100 2200. 2400 2400 2500 2500 2600
31 OOO 2100 2100 2100 220 . 2400 400 2500 2500 2600
24 OCOCO 200 2100 2100 2200 2400 2400 2500 2500 2600
1; 0cOO «COCO §=60c000-s-€O}C}KHKD—s«s HKHHN—«s«sackk00s—«s«@00s«s« CKHK0H—«s«s«e=s«#08000
1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10

H.A.- RPS(#2), V.A.> MAP(MB*100)_< Idle Ign. Map = "J" (deg/100 STDC) >
10 | 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0500 0500 0500 +0500 0500
9! 00CO COCO 000 CCOO «(0000 «20500 «0500: «0800 :=«:1000-—s:1600
8} coo COO OOO «6000 «6(000OS080K0-s«0700:s«icd0—s«s«1400-—s: 1900
7: o0O COCO COCO COCO COCO «(0600 0700 1200 1600 2100
6 | 0CCO COCO COCO 0400 0600 0600 0800 1200 1700 2100
5} 0000 00CO 0000 0400 0600 0600 0800 1400 1800 2100
4} 0000 0000 0000 0400 0600 0600 0800 1600 2000 2:00
3} 0000 0000 0000 0400 0600 0600 0800 1600 2000 2100
2+ 0000 0000 0000 0400 0600 0600 0800 1300 1600 2000

1}


APPENDIX A


bYNO SETE: 0209 TEST # B75U36 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 12:32:40 AUG 28, 1987
a MER. ALT. EQUIVALENT ACTUAL OVER-  /==--7 7-7 TEST TYPE -------~
Mek. VER~ REP. RUN. RETEST HOP. TEST OvNO TRANS. ORIVE EXPE
bau AAU LSI AGE o N CVS 75-LATER
CUR DRY AXLE AXLE y->> IGNITION TIMING >--/ 0 /7~-~-~ --s OLE SOAK —COASTDOWN TIME
PRE DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASUKE “#1 a2 RPM GEAR IDLE HIGH SPEED RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED
Ou- 27-87 EMPTY 16 0.0
Poon se AMBLER TEST CONDE TIONS === 5 7
BARU DEW AMY TEMP % KELL S.HUM UA cvs
“HG POENT AE HUM GELB FACIOR ALUEHYDES RGE
tu 46.4 39.4 48.96 U.891U 27
Jovem == DYNAMOME EER TEST CONDITIONS = ---=-/
bymy AC UAL OYNO  TIRt UBDOMETER SYSTEM
Vind wale wR SITE tw SEY TwP Poe CMT) MILES
us LH Bs OB DZU9 — gz50 5.0 45.00 75570.9 N/A
BAL oy MLL 728 KM BYOB. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 2947.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.845
Sth wan EXHAUST SAMPHE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX,
KANG METER GONG, RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS, Gms. GMS/MI GMS/KM - FIELD1 = FIELD2 CODE
ni PED 9 16/7 498.80 19 ° 8.94 490.40 PPM 23.56 6.620 4.413
HOS CHEM i UZ 18.47 16 rae 3.89 14.81 PPM 2.10 0.591 0.367 MPG KPL L/100KM
coe Ze OF 70.617 22 ag 0.046 0.634 % 966.0) 271.43) 168.659 12.8 5.44 18.4
wo 19 Zhou as 19 00% 0.0 689.43 PPM 66.87 18.790 14.676
ML LANE ws “8 ban 15 3.97% 1.95 3.57 PPM 0.17 0.048 0.030
Ho NM 486.83 PPM 23.39 6.572 4.083
BAU YZ 3.uu4 o.2G/ KM 9079, ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 4833.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 24.852
Sik wAzus HAUS T SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX.
RANGE MEDER CONC. RANGE METER 7 CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMs. GMS/MI GMS/KM—FIELO1 = FIELD2_ CODE
HURL 1G 65 Walon $9 16 1 5.09 191.50 PPM WS. 11 3.881 2.412
NOA- CHER Ae o 6.20 4.80 PPM v.12 0.287 0.178 MPG KPL L/T00KM
coz 5770-406 a7 0.044 0.444 % 1442.22 285.629 177.482 12.9 5.48 18.2
co 3 7753408 o. 0.0 334.08 PPM 53.23 13.671 8.495
ME THANE 5.6 2.80 3 1.90 0.98 PPM 0.08 0.020 0.012
HC “WM 190.52 PPM 15.04 3.862 2.399
BAG S 3.897 MILES 5.709 nM B3B7. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 2806.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 18.395
NITE #azas RHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTEO MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX.
RANGE METER 7 CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS Gms. GMS/MI GMS/KM FIELD = FIELD2 = CODE
me RED 16 Bue Aca Zo 6 16 1 sr 4.90 238.61 PPM 10.64 3.014 1.873
NUK CLM wu 23.8 -B7 1 oo 0.0 11.87 PPM 1.61 0.447 0.278 MPG KPL—L/100KM
coe 4. G.e2d rz 4.677 0.045 0.586 % 852.01 236.858 147.177 14.9 6.32 15.8
co 2 FZ ery 19 0.0 0.0 761.11 PPM 70.41 19.575, 12.163
ME THANE wo 4.06 18 3. 1.95 2.21 PPM 0.10 0.028 0.017
HC- NM 234.40 PPM 10.74 2.986 1.855
WETUMTED VALUES NM =H co coz NOX MPG KPL L/100Km
GRAMS /M1L.E AV 269. 0.39 FUEL ECONOMY 13.4 5.7 17.6
BEFORE ROUNDING 4.17847 269.36 0.3932 13.3667 5.6873 17.5829
GRAMS / KM 2.596 167. 0.24
BEFORE ROUNDING 2.59632 167.37 0.2443
COMMENDS: AUDL PROM 5 #it @ STALLS BAG 1 START
hea On) FCOROMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS.
16418 0 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 87-5036


~
ry

BSFC_(LB/BHPHAI
ao o Ww

2
.
«

0.2

0.0

BSFC_(LB/BHPHA)
°

a-7

Fuel Coasumption

Pigure 3

—— RICAROO 100%
PHA :

aos EPR 100% PHR

Innes RICRAOG 67-
7S5Z PHA

jee EPA 70% PHA

1 1 1

1

0

1000 2000 3000
RPM

Fuel Consumption

4000 5000 §000

—— RICRROO
S9Z% PHA

ses EPR 50%

wanna RICAROO
31% PHA

see EPA 30%
1 1

g-

PHAR
26-

PHR

0

1000 2000 3000 Todo 5000 6000.

RPM



TECHNICAL DATA

Engine Four stroke, five cylinders in line, in front of front axle tilted to right, crankshaft with six main
Diesel engine bearings, spur-belt overhead camshaft.
see page 10. Water cooling, thermostatically-controlled, with electric fan, thermostatically operated.

Pressure oil feed with gear-type pump and full flow filter.

Electric fuel pump. CIS fuel injection system.

Paper element air cleaner with temperature sensitive intake air pre-heating.

Exhaust emission control system. Activated charcoal filter (carbon canister) in the fuel sy-

stem.
- MaximumoutputSAEnet . . . . 103 hp at 5300 rpm.
110 hp at 5300 rpm*
- MaximumtorqueSAEnet . . . . 112.4 ft. Ibs. at 4000 rpm
163 Nm at 4000 rpm
115.9 ft. Ib. at 4000 rpm*
168 Nm at 4000 rpm*
- Displaement .......... 130.8 cu. in/2144 en?
- Stroke 2.2... eee 3.40 in/86.4 mm
- Bore .. 2... 2... 2 eee 3.13 in/79.5 mm
- Compressionratio . 2... ... 8.0:1
Coolingsystem 2... ee Electric fan with thermo switch.
Water pump spur-belt driven. .
Ful 6 2 ee Canada models: “Regular”, incl. low-lead or
unleaded fuels
“Untleaded fuel only” for cars with catalytic
converter.
* Canada models only, 87
Transmissions: Automatic Transmission

Automatic transmission with separate final drive. The transmission consists of a hydrodynami
torque converter and planetary gearing with three forward gears and one reverse.
Front wheel drive with two constant velocity joints per drive shaft.

Manual Transmission

Single plate, dry clutch.

Hydraulic clutch system.

Baulk synchronized five-speed transmission and bevel gear differential in one housing.
Front wheel drive with two constant velocity joints per drive shaft.

Body/Chassis: All steel unitized body/chassis, passenger compartment designed as safety cell, front anc
rear ends designed to absorb impact energy.

Steering: Rack and pinion steering (power assisted) with maintenance-free tie rods.

Front wheel suspension: Independent froat wheel suspension: coil spring/shock absorber struts with negative stee
ring coll radius, stabilizer bar.

Rear wheel suspension: Rear wheel suspension: torsion crank axle with Panhard rod for lateral stability, progressive
coil springs, telescopic shock absorbers.

Service (foot) brakes: Foot brakes: Power assisted, dual diagonal hydraulic system, disc brakes witt

brake wear indicators at front, self-adjusting drum brakes at rear
. brake pressure regulator for the rear wheels.
Parking brakes: Parking brake: Mechanical, effective on rear wheels.
Tires: Steel belted radial tires 185/70 SR (HR) 14. Steel rims 5'/, J x 14 or light alloy rim:

63x 14 (Always go by information listed on label inside of fuel tank flap).

Tire size and pressure: Tire pressures: See sticker on inside of the fuel filler flap.

88


4-3

<-3-

for most of our larger idle fuel consumption, which ranges
from about 5-20% greater than theirs. Another factor is that
Ricardo measured fuel mass during their tests and converted
it to volumeé using an assumed specific gravity about 3%
higher tham we do which resulted in Ricardo reporting a lower
fuel volume and therefore lower fuel consumption values,**
one interesting note is that Ricardo ran seven idle tests at
19°prpc and used only the last test for use in their graph.
Two of the six earlier tests showed higher fuel consumption
than did our test at 20°BTDC. Apparently Ricardo did not use
the earlier tests because the test cell and fuel temperatures
were not yet stabilized.

Emission maps for our HC, CO and NOx results are shown in
Pigures 8-10. The emission maps were drawn using coarse map
data obtained after the 6/1/83 engine rebuild. For
comparison, many Ricardo points are shown on the maps, in
circles with the letter °R*. There is reasonable agreement
for all three emissions; the agreement for NOx seems to be
the best.

When I input the Ricardo data into our computer, I
converted their measured fuel mass values to volume. This
was. performed by using textbook specific gravities for the
reported fuel temperatures. The specific gravities I used
were generally about .796 whereas they used .818 for all
cases. Measured data on our fuel indicates a specific
gravity of .7955.


fg-ti

Technical data
Engine _ Four stroke, five cylinders in line, crankshaft with six main bearings. spur-helt overhead
camshaft.
Water cooling, thermostatically-controited. with electric fan, thermostatically operated.
Pressure oil feed with gear-type pump and full flow filter. Mechanical fuel injection pump,
fuel injectors.
Paper element air cleaner.
Maximum output SAE net... . 67 hp at 4800 rpm,
Maximum torque SAE net. 90 ft. 1b at 3000 rpm
125 Nm at 3000 rpm
Displacement. . . . see eee 121 cu. in./ 1986 com
Stroke. . : beeen eee 3.402 in/86.4 mm
Bore . 3.012 in/76.5 mm
Compression ratio. . . 1
Cooling system. . Electric fan with thermo switch.
Water pump spur-beilt driven.
Fuel . Diesel Fuel No. 2
Transmission 5-speed Manual Transmission.
Cooling system Capacity 9.9 US. quarts/9.4 liters
Electrical system Battery 88 Ah
Starter 2.0 hp
Radiator fan 250 watts
Alternator . 75 Amp/1050 watts
V-belt foralterdator OXSIZLA
forairconditioner 125 0915
for power assisted sivering 12.3 « 1030
Weights Curb weight with Manual Transmission 2730 Ib/1240 kg

106



Test #'s B#777I2

; FORMALDEHYDE WORKSHEET DATE: 4L¢S87
Units BAG 1 BAG 2 BAG 3 AEE.
cu40 me/mi Primary 450-38 [3 4S. 8 11 300, PR}
~ Secondary B0,7/ | ARISE L6-$¢1
totan |¥2oe 7) 1594%,02 | 37 6.L¥
rH.9 me Primarv ISIS: | HF, (fo? 3
= Secondarv W177 | f07.3 S865
ToTAL V466.57 Boag 4 W737. sz
L ——ee |
Pistance mi 2.597 3.6027 | 3S 7
i (9.5) (1,9) (0.5)
"we mi Pe mw LE? = 743 |
TOTAL CH,9 mg 1466-57 |2228. 7% VW37,6CS
i I i (9.43) (1.90) (0,57)
i l [we (paar. 7% | o¢s- 090 2

LENT

anatysts Test pate: %-/9-8 7

VEHICLE:

Quek’

VEHICLE CONFI.: Cohen ot G

“ae



CO. - Ga/Kw-hr Figure 9
100 - + ~
30}
SOP
70} C=
—— a? Oo
eof ee 3
>".
‘sol BN , oe
49°
30},
@
2ot =
rob 2
Lf


(can)

RIGRBO

CONSULTING ENGINEERS,

ENGINE LOOM INTERFACE FRONT PANEL ITEMS.

PLUGS

M.A.P.
AN 1 (PRT Water) AMPHENOL 55 WAY

\ 5 Pin XLR31 Type (ITT CANNON)
12 Pin multipole connector.
3 Pin Locking Din

- 3 pin Locking Din

NB See Appendix 1 for PLUG & Socket configuration.

SUPPLIERS : -
PLUGS: - AMPHENOL F.C.Lane, Horsham
OR Aviation Electrical & Radio Co Ltd
12 North Parade , Horsham
XLR31 RS
Multipole Con'r RS
DIN Locking Type Stock


-10-
Table 4

Methanol Test Fuel Specifications

Appearance

Relative Density 0/00
15.5/15.5°C
IBP°C

95% Dist. Temp. (°C)
FBP°C

Water Content

Aldehydes and Ketones
Alkalinity
Acidity
Sulfur and Sulfur Compounds
Composition % by weight:
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen

Octane quality (from lite-
rature):

RON
MON

Stoichiometric air/
fuel ratio

Measured Calorific
Value, kJ/kg

Latent Heat of
Vaporization
kJ/kg (from
literature)

Clear, colorless, free from
suspended matter and sediment

0.798 —- 0.795

>64.5

<65.25

<65.5

<0.5  % by weight (measured -
571ppm)

<.015 % by weight, as acetone
<.0005 % by weight, as ammonia
<.003 % by weight, as formic acid

<.0001 % by weight, as sulfur

37.5
12.5

50.0

104-114
87-97

6.46
19940

1100


-3-

Compared with the carbureted engine, the injected engine
has a much reduced ignition requirement at part load by 6 to 10
degrees with reduced HC emissions and higher brake thermal
efficiency. Some of these differences were evidently due to
the mechanism of fuel preparation since the engine was shown to
be sensitive to fuel injection rate and timing.

At full load the changes to mixture preparation, fuel
distribution and intake manifold geometry led to a significant
improvement in BMEP above 50 rev/s and an increase in brake
thermal efficiency of 2.5 percent over the speed range.
Volumetric efficiency is, however, some 5-10 percent lower at
20 to 40 rev/s because the manifold geometry favors high speed
running.

Pre-ignition was encountered while running at optimum
mixture strength above 60 rev/sec at full load. This caused
slight damage which necessitated fitting a new piston. This ©
was an unforeseen problem as test work with the carbureted
engine had indicated that the engine could be over advanced by
up to 10 degrees before encountering pre-ignition when BN-60Y
sparking plugs were fitted. Richer mixtures were later used to
prevent reoccurrence of pre-ignition.

The mixture strength for best economy without significant
HC emissions penalty was generally found to be at an
equivalence ratio of 0.7 and this mixture strength was used for
the "best economy" maps. This equivalence ratio was the same
as that established as optimum for the carbureted engine.
Maldistribution and lack of adequate transient fueling control
with the carburetor meant that this lean potential could not
previously be utilized. This was not the case for the injected
engine so that the full potential of the engine concept could
be realized in the vehicle application. The result of this was
a predicted fuel economy improvement of 18 percent
(Audi/Injected/HRCC over VW/Carb/HRCC) despite the increase of
vehicle weight from 2500 to 3250 lbs.

A second control strategy, using EGR and ignition timing
retard, was identified to reduce the NOx emission level below
that obtained with best economy and comply with the project
objectives of less than 0.7 g/mi NOx. The control strategy
optimization showed that NOx emissions could be reduced by 62
percent with an insignificant increase of HC emissions by
selecting a suitable strategy for EGR, mixture strength, and
ignition timing. This strategy increased predicted fuel
consumption 6 percent (0.9 MPG). It was felt that the low
vehicle power/weight ratio, which at about 43 kw/ton (58
hp/ton) is well below that typical of current gasoline engine
vehicles at 50 to 60 kw/ton (67 to 80 hp/ton), combined with
lean air/fuel mixtures, EGR and ignition retard would result in
a vehicle concept whose driveability may be unsatisfactory.
Without ignition retard, 1.07 g/mi NOx was achieved, and
Ricardo developed this as a first cut at a reduced NOx strategy
with driveability that was believed to be acceptable.


VOL -EFF (4)

100

3s

8s

80
7s
70
65
60
$5

$0

Pigure 6
VOLUMETRIC EFFICIENCY
EPA |—— TEST 1175
EPA lecrs TEST 1177
EPA |anans TEST 1287
BD,
L 4 L 1 1 lL
500 1500 2500" 3500 usoo 5500

RPM



RIGRBO
REDUCED NOx MAPS seine
EEPROM REDUCED NOX STRATEGY JUNE 86
H.A.- RPS(*10), V.A.- MAP(mB*100)<< Fuel Injection Table(Fuel/100) - "F" >>
10 | 0000 4100 4600 4950 5350 5450 5700 5900 6100 6300
91 0000 2660 2750 2820 2930 3030 3900 5000 5400 5700
8} OOOO 2170 2250 2280 2340 2365 2700 2970 3000 3050
71 0000 1830 1900 1960 1980 2000 2280 2550 2620 2650
6+ 0000 1540 1690 1750 1800 1820 2000 2200 2240 2300
5 | 000CO 1300 1420 1470 1500 1510 1670 1820 1850 1900
4}; 0000 1210 1190 1175 1250 1290 1360 1470 1490 1520
3 $ 0000 0900 0915 0920 1000 - 1080 1100 1200 OVRUN OVRUN
2 1 0000 OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN “OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN
1} ©000 OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN

H.A.~ RPS(*2), V.A.- MAP(mB*100) < Idle Fuel Map - "G" (Fuel/100) >

10 | 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 4100
9; 4500 4500 4500 4500 4400 4200 4000 4000 4000 2600
81 4200 4200 4200 4000 3700 3400 3200 3200 3200 2170
7 {| 3800 3800 3800 3500 3200 3000 2600 2600 2600 1830
6 | 3000 3000 3000 2700 2400 2100 2000 2000 2000 1540
5 1 2600 2600 2400 2200 2000 1700 1700 1600 1600 1300
4 i 2000 1900 1800 1600 1600 1480 1370 1280 1250 1210
3 | OVRUN OVRUN 1500 1400 1300 1200 1020 0950 0900 0900
2 | OVRUN OVRUN 1800 1600 1500 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200
1 { OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN

H.A.- RPS(*10), V.A.- FUEL(*5) << Exp. Impulse Height(%) - "H" >>

10} 0110 0110 0020 0040 0020 0030 0030 0030 0030 0030
9; 0110 0110 0030 0040 0020 0030 0030 0030 0030 0030
8 | 0120 0120 0030 0045 0025 0030 0030 0030 0030 0030
7 + 0120 0120 0080 0045 0025 0030 0030 0030 0030 0030
6 i 0130 0130 0030 0050 0030 030 30 0030 0030 0030
5} 0140 0140 0050 ©0050 30 30 C030 O30 0030 30
4; 0140 0140 0060 ©0055 0035 C030 C030 0030 30 30
31 0150 0150 0060 0055 0035 0030 #30 . 0030 0030 030
2; C150 C150 0060 O60 0040 030 C030 30 0030 30
1{ 0150 0150 O60 M60 4 0030 0030 0030 0030 0030

HA. RPS(*2), V V.A.- MAP(mB*100) << WW Idle Height - "W" >>


ro

160
140

Best NOx

Impulse Time

180,
140f ooh

Best Economy

Impulse Time

[



EPA/AA/CTAB/87-06

Technical Report

Evaluation of Fuel Economy, Exhaust Emissions and Performance
of a Sequentially Fuel-Injected High Compression
Methanol-Fueled 1.5 L Engine in a Light-Duty Diesel Vehicle

by

Robert I. Bruetsch

December 1987

NOTICE

Technical Reports do not necessarily represent final EPA
decisions or positions. They are intended to present technical
analysis of issues using data which are currently available.
The purpose in the release of such reports is to facilitate the
exchange of technical information and to inform the public of
technical developments which may form the basis for a final EPA
decision, position or regulatory action.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Mobile Sources
Emission Control Technology Division
Control Technology and Applications Branch
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105


on ie i ee ge i a pe ee ie See,
-le _
eres 4) ——}. + it
TEST 4's ST SDe ‘yi
FORMALDEHYDE WORKSHEET DATE: B2-S036 |
Units | Bac y BAG 2 | Bat 2 BFET i
: melst Vorinaey | 990 971 UST £71 B79 4
~ T Secondary | 23,77 ° o

tora, |4¥/ ¥. S81 ¢5/ -F/ 1 307. IF t
i
eal me Primary 1290-7 |1752.% | [67.7 E
= Secondary BF, 46 a ol Ey
totaL 1/475, /6|\/7527¢% |[//O7/ it
‘
iseance mi 3°86 [3 FF 15 Go _ i
.: (0.5) (1,99 (0.5) 4
we mi | 7k 1 389 LgOQ iz 7. 77 i
“STAL CHA2 ne L475:S6 11759-¢ WO? + °

= | (0,43) (1.90) (0.57) __

| Lowe. CHI S37 32 17757 7 163 0os O22.
: wi { |
i !
I

“wt, mi

{
i

ee
>. Emissions = wt, CHo9 |
TO — |
|

PPM

73.396 | 7G. 2971 1.775
8/3 ° °
ToTALs |/¥.; 9 | 70.497 V///7 3

44} }- FF F]— —f—J-JJ -] -

ANALYSIS TEST DATE:_ 7-7-9 7

ZA 7
VEHICLE: hehe
VEHICLE CONFIG.: ££ 2 Man +

KtJ- RTA Se


-2-

EPA initially attempted to test the engine on an engine
dynamometer (as received) in order make an exact comparison to
the Ricardo tests. This evaluation was performed under the
direction of engineers in the Technical Support Staff with the
aid of technicians in the heavy-duty test cell at MVEL. The
details of this test program are included in Appendix A.[18]
After this evaluation, it was envisioned that the engine would
then be placed in the chassis of an Audi 5000 Diesel vehicle to
compare the performance, fuel economy and exhaust emissions of
the methanol and Diesel engines in the diesel vehicle on a
chassis dynamometer.

Problems were experienced by the previous project team
when it came to fitting the engine into a vehicle for chassis
dynamometer testing purposes. The vehicle chosen was a
three-year old 1980 Audi 5000 Diesel with a  5-speed
transmission. The Audi is a 3250 lb IW vehicle, whereas the
HRCC engine is based on a VW Rabbit powerplant which is
normally fit into a 2500 lb IW vehicle. It was believed that
the increased power output of the high compression HRCC (ry =
13:1) would compensate for the lower power-to-weight ratio
obtained by swapping a smaller engine into a larger vehicle.
The objective was to compare the fuel economy of the
methanol-fueled engine with the certification Audi Diesel fuel
economy. Secondary objectives included the comparison of
exhaust emissions and performance. A transmission adapter was
fabricated to fit the transverse HRCC engine into the
longitudinal Audi chassis. Though no documentation exists
regarding the engine swap or attempted chassis dynamometer
testing, it is believed that this effort was unsuccessful due
‘to problems which occurred when the VW Rabbit flywheel was
mated to the Diesel clutch. Proper clutch operation was never
obtained. Additional complications may have occurred as a
result of the engine's relatively simple control system and the
vehicle never achieved acceptable power output for the FTP
driving cycle.

The engine was then removed from the vehicle and shipped
bac Ricardo for further development of the fuel management
SySié.. 2 incorporate a sequential fuel injection system in
place of the carburetor, and to provide mapped Microprocessor
control of various Engine Control (MEC) parameters. This work
was performed from October 1984 through September of 1986 under
EPA Contract No. 68-03-1968.[9]

Under this contract, alternative ignition systems were
initially investigated before the fuel metering system was
modified. A Bosch/MEC ignition system was shown to result in
similar performance compared with the original A.C. Delco
ignition system and was adopted for the subsequent engine
development program. This result showed only that the high
energy ignition system previously used did not offer any
significant advantage to the methanol engine concept.

/


COMPOSITE TEST RESULTS FROM 2658Z-MXx

Test
NUMBER

871791
871792
871793
873925
875035
9875036

8
A

wwHwen uO

% <---CURRENT TEST RESULTS --->
OF. MILES HC co coz NOX
METH ---== 0 weno serene sane nn wenn
100. 11,086 4.013 6.725 270.18 0.0 0
100. 10.997 3.934 7.109 268.79 1.459 0
100. 11.053 3.592 6.561 266.75 1.273 O
100. 11.088 3.751 13.532 271.54 0.535 0
100. 11.186 3.885 13.798 270.99 0.405 Oo
100. 11.050 4.206 16.338 269.36 0.393 0

-472
-463
-423
-4ar
.457
-495

~~~ PROPOSED TEST CALCULATIONS (GRAMS/MILE)
co

coz

0.0

1,459
1.274
0.536
0.405
0.394

NOX

5.19410.
5.09110.
4.649 9.
4.85610.
5.02810.
5.444ant.

OMHCE = CH30H

903
689
761
195
556
430

00001
-00001
00001

Hi

13.83
13.88
14.08
13.34
13.33

3.17

77> METH-
CHO ANOL

2.0105
2.0105
2.0105
2.0105
2.0105
2.0105

GAS
FACTOR EQUIV
MPG

ci.


-32-
IX. Réferences

1. “Optimum Engine For Methanol Utilization,” EPA~460/3-
83-005, April 1983.

2. “Gasoline Engine Combustion - Turbulence and the
Combustion Chamber,” Overington, M. T. and Thring, R. H., SAE
Paper 810017.

3. "Gasoline Engine Combustion - Compression Ratio and
Knock," Overington, M. T. and Thring, R. H., VW Conference on
Knocking of Combustion Engines, Wolfsburg, 1981.

4. "Gasoline Engine Combustion - The High Ratio Compact
Chamber," Thring, R. H. and Overington, M. T., SAE Paper 820166.

5. “High Compression Ratio Gasoline Engines and Their
Impact On Fuel Economy," Overington, M. T., Automotive

Engineer, Feb/March 1982.

6. “High Compression Lean Burn Engines For Improved
Fuel Economy and Lower NOx Emissions,” Collins, D. and Mears,
Cc. R., U.S./Dutch International Symposium on Air Pollution by
Nitrogen Oxides, Maastricht, 1982).

7. "The Ricardo HRCC Combustion Chamber Applied to a
Multi-Cylinder Engine and Vehicle," de Boer, C. D., Ricardo
Internal Report DP 83/111, 1983.

8. "Electronic Sequential Fuel Injection System Task IV
- Definition of Design Specification of EGR System," Ricardo DP
85/502. .

9. "Application of Electronic Fuel Injection to the
Optimum Engine for Methanol Utilization," EPA-460/3-86-002,
July 1986.

10. "Alcohol Fuel Vehicles of Volkswagen," Menrad, H.
Decker, G. and Weidmann, K., SAE Paper 820968.

1l. "Development of A Pure Methanol Fuel Car,” Menrad,
H., Lee, W., and Berhardt, W., SAE Paper 770790.

12. "Combustion and Emissions Characteristics of
Methanol, Methanol-Water and Gasoline~Methanol Blends in a
Spark Ignition Engine," LoRusso, J. A., and Tabaczynski, R. J.,
Proceedings 11th Intersoc. Energy Conv. Eng. Conf., 1976.

13. "Users Guide for the Cycle Simulation Program
CYSIM," Green, R. P., Ricardo Internal Report DP 81/1163, 1981.

14. "Preparation of Design Documentation and Testing
Procedures For An Air/Fuel Metering System," DP 85/141.


Grav

RAR

AMPHENOL 55 way connector to Engine pin asignments

a a

vee ce f no on no ne no H+ wo oe oo wo 22 22 +--+ - + = +

SIGNAL
Probe

penn --~ n= == $+ + + - $5 -- ===.

Lead

6 Way
Pin No

‘LON

at ! . efi GH

CABLE

Po dd EE

'
1
BEasStecan Hn PS PZzxN 4888

eo ee nn ne fF no nn ne 8 oo ee oe 2+ 22 + oe -- e+ ew -- = eo

rn
1 1

SIGNAL
Probe/device

Lead

!
i

1 +--
i

XLR3.
Plug

CABLE

Henn nto nnn nnn nnn nn nn nnn pon nn nn nnn po nnn nnn nnn geen nt

INTERCONNECTION

wkk

'
1
1
t
‘
J
t
t

-- +--+ +---- + --- +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ ----- 4 -- +--+

$ooe ce eee

4 Injector system

FOUR CORE SCREENED CABLE.

$eenn-+--------- +--+ +--+ $$ 2-4 -- -  - - e- et
H
!
1
1
‘
!
1

a eS ae ae St

1
t


ere

RIGRDO

CONSULTING EncmeemS

Appendix _1
CONFIGURATION OF PLUG/SOCKET INTERFACE WITH PROBES AND LOOM

ILLUSTRATION OF PREFERED PRATICE

PROBE CONNECTION LOOM MEC
Receptacle ~ Plug
Type Pin Skt Type Pin Skt
PRT'S Cable * PTO1E-10-6P><PTO6E-10-6S Cable * s=>-
AN'S " * " >< " rs * \
Ring Gear ” * " x " " * '
C ft " * " >< “ " * H
Crankshaft " * " “« " " * 1 55-way
Ignition " * " >< 0 " * '
Knock & EGR" * "oe " * ==>}
Map < < ” ” * '
Throttle < < 1 AC Special * -
Injector Plug * PTO6E-10-6P><PTOOE-10-6S Recept/Cha * == XLR31

'K' Type t/c SCREENED camp-lead & mimiature plugs to be used as std.
Connector Identification

PTOLE-10-6P(SR) ---
PTO6E-10-6S(SR) -
PTOOE-10-6S(SR) -
PTO6E-10~-6P(SR) -
PTOOE-22~-55S(SR)
PTO6E-22-S5P(SR) --

~-Receptacle Cable

~-Plug Cable

Notes. .
PT___ shell type
-10-shell size in mm

6 NO. of contacts

P pins

S skts

(SR) Strain Relief

The above part numbers are of Aviation Elect. & Radio Co, Horsham
similar Mil-C-26482 spec connectors are available from Townsend Coates
Leicester, with a different prefix. Refer to catalogue.

1 REVISED
Now using PTO1E-10-6S PLUG (cable type), since addition of
signal condition, connected direct to throttle-pot, which is
terminated with a CHASSIS type PTOOE-10-6P to match.


“14- AG Me 3
RKARDO mem 5.11173

eee «= ARCH
EGR SYSTEM

THROTTLE
| a =
From 7\~
Ave cleanse >| A{_ | INLET MANIFOLD: L—
\ y,
LINEAR POTENTIOMETER
INDICATING EGR VALVE ece
OPENING Sy VALVE
7 t
—=— fGR FLOW
MODULATED VACUUM
TO EGR VALVE.
VENT 10 VACUUM
ATMOSPHERE , SUPPLY

ELECTRO-
PNEUMATIC
TRANSMITTER

. NON-RETURN VALVE

VACUUM
RESERVOIR

|. 0-10 VOLT SIGNAL FROM
anions = M.E.C. PROPORTIONAL TO
NI REQUIRED EGR VALVE
OPENING.

PIERBURG PART N°*:-
EGR VALVE TAKR 714

ELECTRO-PNEUMATIC TRANSMITTER 7. 21.03).00
CONTROL UNIT PY 12.300


TEST NO.: HO-811287 ENGINE: S90 VW-B oO TEST D/T: 6-13-83 8:30 REPORT D/T: 08-22-83 16:38 Poslset
SUMMARY REPORT
BSFC ENERGY
GAS EFFICIENCY
% PHI 8: . EQUIV 1000

TORQ. MAX THR IGN. INU. CORR. MEAS. EQUIV AIR FUEL Li: LB/ MBTU/ ----- BRAKE SPECIFIC EMISSIONS (G/BHPHR) ----
RPM FT-LB8 TQ. POSN TIMG. TIMG. BHP A/F RATIO LB8/HR _LB/HR BHYHR BHPHR _X%  BHPHR BS5CcO c 8: gsPaar
3800 62.0 100 140 12.08 0. 54.66 5.01 1.29 267.4 53.32 0.976 0.458 30.2 8.43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3500 73.5 90 160 14.08 0. 49.06 6.63 0.98 274.1 41.33 0.842 0.396 35.0 7.28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3500. 69.8 80 300 16.08 0. 46.59 6.55 0.99 247.1 37.71 0.809 0.380 36.4 7.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0:0 0.0
3600 57.0 70 460 18.08 0. 38.04 6.43 1.01 215.7 33.54 0.882 0.414 33.4 7.62 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3500 49.5 6O 680 21.08 0. 33.02 6.34 1.02 193.2 30.48 0.923 0.434 31.9 7.98 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9500 41.5 50 890 22.08 0. 26.83 6.30 1.03 170.7 27.10 0.940 0.441 31.3 8.12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3500 32.5 40 1080 24.08 0. 21.67 3.06 2.11 71.0 23.18 1.070 0.503 27.5 9.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3500 24.0 30 1320 28.08 0. 16.00 2.72 2.38 53.9 19.79 1.237 0.581 23.8 10.69 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3500 17.0 20 1480 28.08 0. 11.34 2.91 2.22 49.4 16.97 1.497 0.703 19.7 12.94 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3500 8.5 10 1680 28.08 0. 5.66 3.30 1.96 44.9 13.61 2.403 1.129 12.3 20.77 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 82.3 100 110 12.08 0. 47.00 4.96 1.30 229.2 46.20 0.983 0.462 30.0 8.50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 74.5 90 120 12.08 0. 42.60 6.71 0.96 2938.1 35.48 0.833 0.391 35.4 7.20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 66.6 80 180 14.08 0. 38.10 6.54 0.99 211.2 32.30 0.848 0.398 34.7 7.33 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9000 57.7 70 380 14.08 0. 33.01 6.59 0.98 188.7 28.65 0.868 0.408 33.9 7.50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9000 49.5 6O 570 18.08 0. 28.32 6.69 0.97 170.7 25.54 0.902 0.424 32.7 7.80 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 41.5 50 750 20.08 0. 23.73 6.95 0.93 157.3 22.62 0.953 0.448 30.9 8.24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 33.0 40 1030 24.08 0. 18.87 2.96 2.19 58.0 19.61 1.039 0.488 28.4 8.98 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 24.5 30 1230 22.08 0. 14.01 2.99 2.17 49.4 16.56 1.182 0.555 24.9 10.22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 16.5 20 1430 25.08 0. 9.43 3.38 1.91 47.2 13.96 1.480 0.695 19.8 12.79 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 8.2 10 1890 26.08 0. 4.69 3.71 1.74 40.4 10.90 2.326 4.093 12.7 20.11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 81.0 100 100 12.08 0. 38.57 4.42 1.47 179.3 40.59 1.052 0.494 28.0 9.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2600 73.4 90 110 12.08 0. 35.01 6.32 1.02 164.2 29.13 0.832 0.391 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 65.0 60 200 12.08 0. 31.01 7.06 0.92 184.2 26.10 0.842 0.395 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 56.5 70 330 14.08 0. 26.95 7.25 0.89 168.5 23.24 0.862 0.405 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 49.0 60 470 15.08 0. 23.37 7.25 0.89 152.3 21.02 0.900 0.423 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 40.6 50 770 18.08 0. 19.34 6.84 0.95 125.8 18.40 0.951 0.447 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 33.0 40 970 20.08 0. 15.71 3.78 1.71 60.7 16.05 1.022 0.480 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 24.3 30 1190 22.08 O. 11.56 3.48 14.86 47.2 13.54 1.172 0.580 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 16.4 20 1660 24.08 0. 7.79 3.61 1.79 40.4 11.22 1.438 0.676 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 8.4 10 1940 25.08 0. 3.99 3.74 1.73 33.7 9.01 2.259 1.061 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 77.9 100 060 8.08 0. 29.62 4.44 1.46 134.8 30.35 1.025 0.481 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 70.5 90 070 10.08 0. 26.82 6.38 1.01 143.3 22.46 0.837 0.393 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 63.0 60 100 10.08 0. 23.96 7.51 0.86 152.3 20.290 0.398 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 84.0 70. 320 12.08 0. 20.539 7.43 0.87 134.8 18.180 0.415 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 46.5 60 490 15.08 0. 17.68 6.98 0.93 112.3 16.10 0.910 0.428 32. 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 39.0 SO 690 18.08 0. 14.82 7.10 0.91 101.1 14.23 0.960 0.451 30. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 31.5 40 850 18.08 0. 11.97 6.59 0.98 83.1 12.61 1.053 0.495 28. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 23.4 30 1420 20.08 0. 8.89 3.62 1.79 38.2 10.56 1.188 0.558 24.8 10.27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 15.5 20 1720 21.08 ©. 5.89 3.61 1.79 31.5 8.72 1.481 0.696 19.9 12.80 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 7.8 10 1930 22.08 0. 2.96 3.84 1.69 26.5 6.90 2.329 1.094 12.6 20.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sons allen a ed


ey ea peter -au oe
‘ Fe'eos/ Facsimile Message RIGRDO!
‘ 8° 4 \ Cae
To EPA ANN ARBOR
ATTEN N= U: +
ATTENTION ~ ROB BRUBTSCH Fax No. Brighton (0273) 464124
Yoinxa/ Fax No. 0201 313 668 4368 Telex No. 87383 RICSHAM G
from GRA HAM LEESON Date 9.1.87
Subject ——VW METHANOL ENGINE page 1 of _1

IGNITION MAP TO GIVE 1ST REDUCED NOx STRATEGY I.E. 1.91 HC
19.9 CO 1,07 NOx (gm/mile).

IGNITION -°£

Mbar
1000 5s OG @ @ « 7 7 1s
900 | Ga» Gy aD GS) 22 22 2b ok
300 Gs) @Yy @ 22. 23 «02424
700 es ee > er Ss
600 2200 2.2 & 2424S 8S
300 21.212 ED 24°«24i2S Ss
400 Pre er San CE ry ry ee +
390 Pr er Sa CL) ry eS
o00 | GD 2 2 GD 2 24 25 25 26
100 0 0 0) ie) 0 9 QO 0 10)
ne er ee, en

SPEED REV/SEC

6 Cau“
~~

if you do not receive all of the pages oF the message is distorted
please call 0273 435611 ext 2334 and speak to fax operator


a |

RIGRBO

Cowsucrna ewcimeens

EEPROM REDUCED NOX STRATEGY JUNE 86 recalled
H.A.- RPS(*10), V.A.- MAP(mB*100) < E.G.R. © to 1000 >

10 | 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
0000 0240 0350 0450 0500 0550 0420 0000 0000 0000
0000 0250 0350 0430 0475 0500 0400 0000 0000 0000
0000 0260 0370 0440 0550 0650 0550 0000 0000 0000
0000 60240 «=(0830-«:0400-s«:0470:«s«0560)= «0440 «0000 0000-s—« C00
0220 0280 0320 0350 0370 0330 0000 0000 0000
0000 0200 0230 0230 0240 0260 0240 0000 0000 0000
0000 0000 0225 «+0225 «20225:=«=— 0000 s« C0K00.-s« CKH-—«C0K0—«€@C0.

PNWRUANIDWO

5 Two Line Temp. Camp. Tables (COMP. /TEMP.), TEMP(KELVIN), COMP(%)

' 0200 0200 0200 0200 0200 0180 0160 0140 0100 0100
' 0270 C 30 0290 0295 0300 0305 0310 0317 03823 0328
' 0200 0200 0200 0200 0200 0180 0160 0140 0100 0100
! 0270 0280 0290 0295 0300 0305 0310 0317 0323 0328
' 0350 0250 0200 0160 0140 0125 0115 0110 0100 0100
1 0270 0280 0285 0290 0295 0305 0310 0320 0330 0340
' 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100
' 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100
' 0000 0000 0000 «0000 «COCO «6«OKOCO «60020: «20040 «= 0070: Ss «0100
' 0270 0280 0285 0290 0295 0305 0310 0320 0330 0340

70


not

-4-
€

Engine History at EPA (Summary test results are shown in the
Appendix) -

4/22/83

4/27/83

5/4/83
5/17/83

5/18/83

6/1/83

6/28/83

ce: w/a
J.
WW.
W.
R.
Le

Pirst’ dynamometer runs — (warmups and engine
check-out) at EPA in as-received condition. Best
torque measured was 75-77 ft-lbs.
In attempting to find TDC for accurate timing
measurements, the small rubber stop, fell into
cylinder No. 1. \The head was removed to retrieve
it. When the head was put back on, the camshaft
cover was not .replaced. This was felt to be
alright, since it: had been done on an engine with a
similar timing belt set-up (Daihatsu). However, in
doing an engine warm-up the camshaft belt came off
and the valves were bent.
Installed new intake and exhaust valves.
Pirst fine maps, without emissions, run. (Test
1173.) Peak torque was 81.0 ft.-lbs.
Engine failure. The apparent reason was that some
of the material Ricardo used in reforming the intake
channels flaked off and got into the combustion
chamber. This seems likely, because a lot of
material is missing from the No. 3 intake channel,
and the No. 3 cylinder wall was greatly damaged.
Reassembled engine with new block, new head (without
the material in the intake channels), new pistons
and valves, and the original crank and rods. Coarse
Maps and emissions tests run shortly after. (Tests
1175-1178.) Peak torque was 81.5 ft.-lbs.
Carburetor cleaned due to engine not idling well.
Idle tests and fine maps run after this. (Tests
1334 and 1287.)

ttachments

Alson

Clemmens

Smuda

Wagner

Landman


TEST NO.; HD-818173 ENGINE: S90 VW ' TEST O/T: §-17-83 10: O REPORT D/T: 08-22-83 16:37 Pog2se1

SUMMARY REPORT (First EPA test)

BSFC ENERGY
Gas EFFICIENCY

% PHI BSFC EQUIV 1000*
TORQ. MAX THR IGN. INU. CORR. MEAS. EQUIV AIR Fuel t8/ tB/ MBTU/ ----- BRAKE SPECIFIC EMISSIONS (G/BHPHR) ----
RPM FT-LB TQ. POSN TIMG. TING. BHP A/F RATIO LB/HR LB/HR BHPHR BHPHR % BHPHR BSHC_ _8SCO  _85CO2 _B BSALOYH BsPAaR

5400 68.0 100 33 23.08 0. 69.80 4.64 1.39 375.6 80.96 1.160 0.545 25.4 10.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
$400 61.0 80 37 23.08 O. 62.65 6.08 1.06 372.9 61.34 0.979 0.460 30.1 8.46 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
8400 54.5 80 S2 25.08 O. 56.04 6.08 1.06 343.3 86.47 1.008 0.473 29.2 8.71 0.0 0.0 0.0 0:0 0.0
$400 47.6 70 70 30.08 O. 48.98 6.01 14.08 310.0 51.57 1.053 0.495 28.0 8.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
$400 40.8 60 92 30.08 O. 42.01 3.31 1.96 156.4 47.25 1.125 0.528 26.2 9.72 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
$400 34.1 S50 110 32.08 O. 35.12 3.14 2.06 133.9 42.65 1.214 0.570 24.3 10.50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
$400 27.4 40 1270 30.08 O. 28.20 2.82 2.29 107.6 38.20 1.355 0.636 21.7 41.71 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5400 20.1 30 1470 30.0B Oo. 20.67 2.59 2.50 86.3 33.34 1.613 0.758 18.3 13.94 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
$400 19.7 20 161 30.08 O. 14.09 2.66 2.44 73.7 27.75 1.970 0.925 15.0 17.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5400 6.8 10 1780 30.08 oO. 6.99 2.84 2.28 66.5 23.44 3.353 1.575 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
$000 72.2 100 29 25.06 O. 68.70 4.79 1.35 365.8 76.42 1.112 0.523 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
S000 64.2 90 360 25.08 0. 61.08 6.21 1.04 356.8 57.49 0.941 0.442 0.0 0.0" 0.0 0.0 0.0
$000 58.0 80 490 25.08 QO. 55.23 6.17 1.05 328.0 53.19 0.963 0.452 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5000 50.2 70 670 30.08 0. 47.86 6.14 1.05 296.6 48.30 1.009 0.474 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5000 43.0 60 90 30.08 0. 41.00 3.30 1.96 146.0 44.22 1.079 0.507 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
$000 36.0 50 1090 30.08 0. 34.34 3.02 2.14 120.4 39.87 1.161 0.545 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5000 28.9 40 1270 30.08 O. 27.56 2.77 2.34 98.0 35.42 1.285 0.604 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
S000 21.6 30 1450 30.08 0. 20.60 2.55 2.54 78.6 30.83 1.497 0.703 0.0 0.0 00 60.0 0.0
S000 14.1 20 1620 30.08 O. 13.44 2.64 2.47 67.4 25.78 1.918 0.901 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5000 7.5 10 1800 30.08 oO. 7.15 2.67 2.26 62.5 21.78 3.048 1.432 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 76.0 100 250 23.08 O. 65.14 4.96 1.30 340.6 68.66 1.054 0.495 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 68.0 90 280 23.08 ©. 58.34 6.46 1.00 340.6 52.75 0.904 0.425 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 60.8 80 420 25.08 O. 52.17 6.42 1.01 309.1 48.17 0.923 0.434 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 53.0 70 580 30.08 0. 45.47 6.43 1.01 283.1 44.00 0.968 0.455 0.0 0.0 0.0 «0.0 0.0
4500 45.9 60 800 30.08 0. 39.38 6.35 1.02 254.8 40.15 1.019 0.479 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

. 50 1020 30.08 0. 32.64 3.10 2.09 111.4 35.94 1.102 0.518 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 30.6 40 1200 30.08 O. 26.26 2.67 2.26 90.8 31.68 1.206 0.567 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 23.1 30 1360 30.08 Oo. 19.83 2.78 2.33 75.5 27.16 1.370 0.644 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 15.0 20 1560 30.08 0. 12.87 2.75 2.95 62.9 22.84 1.775 0.834 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 7.8 10 1760 30.08 oO. 68.34 3.16 2.05 $8.4 16.49 2.216 1.041 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 77.5 100 20 25.08 0. $9.36 5.04 1.28 310.0 61.57 1.037 0.487 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 69.8 90 240 25.08 0. 53.48 6.56 0.99 309.1 47.10 0.881 0.414 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 62.2 80 380 26.08 0. 47.70 6.54 0.99 282.2 43.15 0.904 0.425 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 54.3 70 540 30.08 0. 41.64 6.50 1.00 254.3 39.14 0.940 0.442 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 46.3 60 750 32.08 0. 35.52 5.69 1.10 206.7 35.11 0.988 0.464 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 38.6 SO 950 30.08 0. 29.64 3.24 2.00 101.1 31.25 1.055 0.496 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 31.0 40 1120 30.08 QO. 23.77 3.01 2.15 1.158 0.541 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 23.2 30 1310 30.08 0. 17.77 1.53 4.23 35.9 23.48 1.321 0.621 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 15.5 20 1520 30.08 oO. 11.68 0.94 7.11 18.0 19.75 1.663 0.781 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 7.7 10 1720 30.08 oO. 5.90 0.17 37.15 2.7) 15.48 2.625 14.233 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mew


TEST NO.: HO-811173

ENGINE: 590 VW

TEST D/T:

5-17-83 10: 0

REPORT O/T: 08-22-83 16:37

Pos2sst

SUMMARY REPORT
@sFC ENERGY
GAS EFFICIENCY
%* PHI @sFc EQUIV 1000*
TORQ. MAX THR IGN. INU. CORR. MEAS. EQUIV AIR FUEL LB/  LB/ “BTUs ----- BRAKE SPECIFIC EMISSIONS (G/BHPHR) ----
RPM FI-LB TQ. POSN TIMG. TIMG. BHP A/F RATIO LB/HR LB/HR BHPHR BHPHR X%  BHPHR BSHC _BSCO 02 _BSNOX BSALDYH gsPaRT
1000 72.4 100 30 18.08 0. 13.68 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.02 1.536 0.722 19.2 13.28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ak 0.0
1000 64.0 90 40 18.08 0. 12.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.58 1.288 0.605 22.8 11.14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ve 0.0
1000 58.3 80 150 20.08 0. 11.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.23 1.291 0.607 22.8 11.16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1000 $1.0 70 380 20.08 oO. 9.64 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.82 1.330 0.625 22.1 11.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1000 43.4 60 520 22.0B oO. 8.20 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.28 1.376 0.646 21.4 11.69 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1000 38.0 SO 870 30.08 0. 7.18 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.65 1.483 0.697 19.9 12.62 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0° 0.0
1000 29.4 40 1210 30.08 o. 5.56 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.19 1.653 0.777 17.8 14.29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1000 22.2 30 1430 30.08 0. 4.20 0.0 0.0 0.0 7,89 1,860 0.883 15.7 16.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 06.0 0.0
1000 14.4 20 1660 30.08 0. 2.72 0.0 0.0 0.0, 6.30 2.316 1.088 12.7 20.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1000 7.3 10 1920 30.08 0. 1.38 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.93 3.574 1.678 8.2 30.80 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


TEST NO.: HO-811173 ENGINE: 590 VW 1 TEST D/T: 5-17-83 10: O REPORT O/T: 08-22-83 16:37 PO62581
SUMMARY REPORT
BsFC ENERGY
GAS EFFICIENCY
* PHI BSFC EQUIV 1000* *
TORQ. MAX THR IGN. INU. CORR. MEAS. EQUIV AIR FUEL LB/ .8/ MBTU/ ----- BRAKE SPECIFIC EMISSIONS (G/BHPHR) ----

RPM FT-L8 TQ. POSN TIMG. TIMG. BHP A/F RATIO L6/HR LB/HR BHPHR BHPHR %  BHPHR BSHC _@SCO co: RBSALOVH BsPaRr
3500 79.5 100 140 22.08 ©. 52.80 5.18 1.25 277.7 53.61 1.015 0.477 29.0 6.78 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Figs 0.0
3500 71.0 90 190 23.08 O. 46.92 6.32 1.02 260.6 41.23 0.879 0.413 33.5 7.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0
3500 63.5 80 350 25.08 0. 41.95 5.34 14.2% 202.2 37.86 0.903 0.424 32.6 7.80 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3500 65.9 70 470 25.08 0. 36.91 5.83 1.11 197.7 33.94 0.919 0.432 32.0 7.98 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3500 47.4 60 680 30.08 Oo. 31.29 6.95 1.09 179.7 30.23 0.966 0.454 30.5 8.35 0.0 0.0 00 «0.0 0.0
3500 39.4 50 850 30.08 0. 26.01 6.05 1.07 161.8 26.75 1.028 0.483 28.6 8.89 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3500 31.8 40 1070 30.08 0. 20.98 4.03 1.61 95.3 23.64 1.126 0.529 26.2 9.74 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3500 23.9 30 1300 30.0B Oo. 15.78 2.99 2.16 60.2 20.12 1.275 0.599 23.1 11.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3500 16.1 20 1470 30.08 ©. 10.63 3.51 1.84 58.4 16.64 1.566 0.736 18.8 13.54 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3500 8.1 10 1840 30.08 0. 5.35 3.68 1.76 49.4 19.44 2.512 1.180 11.7 21.72 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 80.9 100 110 22.08 0. 45.82 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.65 1.018 0.478 28.9 8.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 73.4 90 130 23.08 O. 41.55 6.94 0.93 248.5 35.83 0.862 0.405 34.2 7.45 0.0 0.0" 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 64.5 80 300 23.08 0. 36.49 7.02 0.92 224.7 34.99 0.877 0.412 33.6 7.58 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 57.2 70 400 25.08 0. 32.37 6.98 0.93 202.2 28.96 0.895 0.420 32.9 7.73 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 49.0 60 550 25.08 0. 27.74 7.04 0.92 182.0 25.84 0.931 0.438 31.6 8.05 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 41.0 50 790 30.08 O. 23.21 7.01 0.92 161.6 23.08 0.995 0.467 29.6 8 60 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 32.4 40 1030 30.08 0. 18.33 4.40 1.47 68.1 20.02 1.092 0.513 27.0 » 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 24.2 30 1250 30.08 O. 13.70 2.41 2.68 40.4 16.75 1.223 0.574 24.1 10.57 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 16.1 20 1500 30.08 6. 9.11 2.45 2.64 33.7 13.75 1.509 0.709 19.5 13.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 8.1 10 1900 30.08 0. 4.58 3.26 1.99 35.9 11.04 2.407 1.131 12.2 20.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 81.0 100 10 22.08 0. 38.25 4.4t 1.47 183.3 41.54 1.086 0.510 27.1 9.39 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 72.8 90 130 22.08 ©. 34.38 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.91 0.641 0.395 35.0 7.27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 64.2 80 220 20.08 0. 30.30 7.11 0.91 184.2 25.91 0.855 0.402 34.4 7.39 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 56.8 70 330 22.08 0. 26.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.41.0.673 0.410 33.7 7.55 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 48.2 60 560 25.08 0. 22.75 4.72 1.37 98.9 20.96 0.921 0.433 32.0 7.96 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 40.4 50 790 30.08 0. 19.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.56 0.974 0.457 30.3 8.42 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 32.1 40 1010 32.08 O. 15.15 1.97 3.26 31.5 165.95 1.053 0.495 Oo 9.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 24.1 30 1260 30.08 0. 11.37 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.61 1.197 0.562 24.6 10.34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 16.5 20 1660 30.08 oO. 7.79 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.59 1.488 0.699 19.8 12.86 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 10.2 10 1940 30.08 0. 4.82 1.96 3.30 18.0 9.16 1.903 0.894 15.5 16.45 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 77.4 100 60 20.08 0. 29.26 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.53 1.044 0.490 28.2 9.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 70.2 90 070 20.08 0. 26.53 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.26 0.839 0.394 35.1 7.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 62.4 80 130 20.08 Oo. 23.57 0.0 00 0.0 20.17 0.856 0.402 34.4 7.40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 54.1 70 360 22.08 0. 20.43 00 900 0.0 17.91 0.876 0.412 33.6 7.68 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 46.5 60 55 22.08 0. 17.56 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.98 0.910 0.427 32.4 7.86 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 38.7 60 740 25.08 0. 14.62 7.30 0.89 103.3 14.16 0.969 0.455 30.4 8.37 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 31.2 40 100 30.08 Oo. 1.79 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.35 1.048 0.492 28.1 8.06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 23.0 30 1450 32.0B oO. 8.69 00 00 0.0 10.61 1.222 0.574 24.1 10.56 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000: 15.5 20 1730 30.08 0. 5.85 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.99 1.635 0.721 19.2 13.27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2000 7.2 10 1960 30.08 0. 2.72 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.66 2.445 1.149 12.0 21.14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


oe “o=q
Telex/ Facsimile Message

RIGRDO

To EPA Ann ARB

Atren Ton RoB BRvLETSCH Fax No. Brighton (0273) 464124
Teter /FaxNo. O10! 3'3 6L8 4363 Telex No. 87383 RICSHAM G
from CG Rauan VLéesont Date 4.8. 1987
Subject VW METHANOL EN Gwe Page —! _ of

MEC FUEL CALCULATIONS,

In order to understand the fuel algorithms the user may need to
identify the engine panel display values with the nodes on the fuelling
strategy chart. the trace values with the fuelling strategy chart, and
the total fuel calculated with the injector opening time,

The fuel calculations are written in assembly code which allows only

six characters for names of variables and procedures.

This causes the

names to be unpronouncable and brief but they have been used in the

diagrams and descriptions to aid accuracy.

Throttle tmpulse calculation.

This adds fuel as the throttle is opened.

Engine Speed (RPSGV)
KMAP (TKIGV) >
Manifold Air (MAPGV)
Pressure
Throttle P (TAGV) > (FTAFGV) KDTADT
Position | .

(TIGV)

If you do not receive all of the pages or the message is distorted
please call 0273 455611 ext 2334 and speak to fax operator


any

RIGRBO

CONSULTING ERGINEERS

AMPHENOL 55 way connector to Engine pin asignments

etd eal offi ot@ ond of ay ait af

we ee ne ee foe on ne wn nn nn on ne we Won wn Wo wo we we on wn oe wo we ww $= ee w= w= oe oo woo ne we wo oe eo ee

Rees |

wo en oe en $ Hoe Ho we ee ee ee ee oe = +--+ -- -- -- 2+ == = -- 2+ + +--+ + ++ -- -- -- = +

f£M0Q HHO HMAE BD> BMH NG® QFQDV0U0U0 HOG nex

; of ot as ef ne Gf
b&b Poa Ua ab
| ih hie .§ 0G) TEGED bes ef)
ui ip wo OG, ag ag
OCGe GR ow" gob Reb nb
‘ 1 H R R Pp t
| fal eh § oe abut oo!
| jdidsgt dant deat EE agi
gi i cove amon cmoa amo cno cm cmo cmo <n!
fo gek


Pigure 7

TOLE FUEL CONSUMPTION

>}

0007 wears
laine ePn RESULTS

\areanoo aeront

L 2 » nN J a

s 10 1s 20 2s
TIMING §=(B8T00)


I. Background of Engine Development Work

Various properties of methanol fuel have been
investigated which specifically relate to its suitability as a
fuel for use in conventional light-duty engines. The poor
self-ignition characteristics, i.e., low cetane number of
methanol fuel indicates that it is not easily utilized in
Diesel engines. Conversely, methanol's high octane quality
implies it is fairly suitable for application in spark-ignited
engines. The octane number of methanol is significantly higher
than that of current commercial gasolines and methanol lends
itself for use in engines having relatively high compression
ratios with inherent thermal efficiency advantages over current
gasoline-fueled engines. Methanol also has good lean burn
properties which offer further advantages in terms of thermal
efficiency and low exhaust emissions when used in a
spark-ignited engine.

In recent years, several research organizations have
worked on the development of engine concepts capable of
successfully utilizing high compression ratios for optimized
methanol combustion. Ricardo Consulting Engineers, plc. have
developed the HRCC (High Compression Ratio, Compact Combustion
chamber) engine which, by specific design of the combustion
chamber, permits the use of a high compression ratio (with a
relatively low fuel octane requirement) together with the
ability to successfully utilize lean mixtures or tolerate high
levels of EGR. Both are important attributes with regard to
fuel economy and exhaust emissions.

Considerations of the major performance characteristics
of the HRCC combustion system and some of the properties of
methanol fuel suggested that they complement each each other to
a large extent. It therefore appeared that an HRCC unit was a
promising basis for the development of an optimized engine for
methanol use. In order to confirm this theory, a practical
engine test program, aimed at investigating the potential
performance, fuel economy and exhaust emissions of an HRCC
engine when fueled with methanol, was carried out by Ricardo
under contract with EPA.[1]*

This contract resulted in the production of a
methanol-fueled High Compression Ratio, Compact Chamber (HRCC)
engine in which air/fuel mixture strength was controlled using
a simple carburetor and ignition timing was varied using a
conventional distributor with vacuum advance. This engine
showed considerable potential with regard to high thermal
efficiency and low exhaust emissions. However, it was apparent
that the relatively simple engine control system used imposed
significant limitations on several aspects of engine
performance.

* Numbers in parentheses denote references listed at the
end of the paper.


Units B. BAG 2. BAG 3

HFET
e449 me/mi Primary (ff 16 ,
Secondary a ___
I TOTAL |S 30 42 “sf a/ UL 2h
CH, mg Primary CET ze ¥a-S72
= Secondary 2 2
ToTaL | 7297 L2a2 Y2:-57
Pistance mi 3.575 cwec5 ~67F
(0,5) (1,9) (0.5) |
t wt. mi me LY4F
=OTAL CHD) me 73897_| 7968 _1¥a.S57
: Hl : 9,43) 1,90 9,57
Pwe. CHa BIE, 97 | Peek TIE TO Y)

ANALYSIS TEST DATE:- J7/6: 67
VEHICLE: earn _

VEHICLE CONFIS.: _AF Nalig itor.
Srp

EES OTE TT



Lubricants

Engine oil

Always use quality oil labeled “For Service API/SE" for the engine of your Audi.
Engine oils are graded according to their viscosity. The proper grade to be used in
your engine depends on existing climatic or seasonal conditions.

The table on the right contains the grading for oils to be used in your Audi engine.
As temperature ranges of the different oil grades overlap, brief variations in outside
temperatures are no cause for alarm. It is also permissible to mix oil of different vis-
cosities if you find it necessary to add oil.

Transmission oil

Hypoid oil* Single-grade  Multi-grade = Specifications Additive basis

Manual SAE8OWTM | SAE 80 W/90| Mii-L-2105
Transmission APV/GL4
sulphur
phosphorus
Final drive of Mil-L-2105 B
the Automatic | SAE 90 —_ APLGLS
Transmission

+ Does not have tw be changed

Automatic Transmission and torque converter require ATF all year round. All
ATFs labeled Dexron can be used.

Lubricant additives

If your Audi is properly maintained, it is uneconomical to mix any type of additive
with fuel, or lubricating oils and transmission fluids.

Battery
Silicone spray or petroleum jelly should be used for the battery terminals and posts.

Chumat on Saat | Mutigradt ot
coven Jott [8
of 31 i
ait .
ool 1 RE
SLI $3 tas
ol (718) [REESE RSS
Moderate | 9. bJ 33 33 28
al Shek Pa
BR Sah
C 13] 3
Arce : 3
LJ

When using single grade SAE 10 W or multi
grade SAE $ W-20 engine oil avoid high speed
long distance driving if the outside temperature
rises above the indicated limit.

DIESEL ENGINE

This portion of the Owner's Manual contains information that applies to Audi

5000 vehicles with Diesel Engine.

As this Owner's Manual is based on the gasoline engine equipped car. there are
certain data that do not apply to your Audi 5000 Diesel, such as Catalytic Conver-
ter, Exhaust Gas Recirculation. Emission Control System. Fuel Octane Rating.

Engine Oil Grades. Spark Plugs.

Please read the following pages before you drive your Audi 5000 Diesel. especially
the explanations on

- Starting with pre-glow

= Diesel Fuei No. 2

— Engine vil grade: API/CC or CD

Allother ontormation and operating instructions for your Audi as described in this
Owner's Manual apply. For warranty and service information consult your War-
ranty & Maintenance booklet.

Diesel

93


TEST NO.: HO-811361 ENGINE: 590 VW-6 °o TEST D/T: 1-13-83 13: O REPORT D/T: 08-22-63 16:38 Po62581

SUMMARY REPORT (Ricardo test data)

BSFC ENERGY
GAS EFFICIENCY

% PHI BSFC EQUIV 1000* .

TORQ. MAX THR IGN. INU. CORR. MEAS. EQUIV AIR FUEL L8/  LB/ MaTu/ ----~ BRAKE SPECIFIC EMISSIONS (G/BHPHR) ----

RPM FT-L68 TQ. POSN TIMG. TIMG. GHP A/F RATIO L@/HR LB8/HR BHPHR BHPHR % SHPHR BSHC _BSCO RSALOVH BsPaRT_
5400 68.6 100 22.08 0. 68.21 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.49 1.107 0.520 26.6 9.87 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 4g 0.0
4800 75.3 100 22.08 0. 66.56 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.24 t.010 0.475 28.2 8.73 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0' 0.0
4800 59.6 79 24.08 0. 51.88 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.09 0.983 0.462 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4800 46.6 62 30.08 0. 40.64 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.84 1.079 0.507 27.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4800 34.1 45 34.08 0. 29.74 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.14 1.255 0.871 24.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4200 79.7 100 22.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 $9.89 0.972 0.456 30.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4200 69.6 75 24.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.95 0.958 0.450 30.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4200 46.6 58 29.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.85 1.027 0.483 28.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4200 34.1 43 33.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.40 1.168 0.544 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4200 21.2 27 35.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 24,00 1.471 0.691 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3600 81.9 100 21.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.84 0.955 0.449 30.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3600 59.6 73 22.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.61 0.939 0.441 31.4 0.0 0.0° 0.0 0.0 0.0
3600 46.6 57 28.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.66 1.006 0.473 29.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3600 34.1 42 31.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.25 1.132 0.532 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3600 21.2 26 33.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.65 1.417 0.666 20.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 82.0 100 18.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.29 0.956 0.449 30.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 59.6 73 19.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.84 0.910 0.428 32.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 46.6 57 23.08 OO. 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.99 0.975 0.458 30.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 34.1 42 28.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.44 1.100 0.817 26.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 21.2 26 30.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.95 1.380 0.648 21.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3000 14.0 17 31.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.25 1.736 0.816 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2400 81.3 100 16.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.03 0.978 0.458 30.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2400 59.6 73 15.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.52 0.905 0.425 32.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2400 46.6 57 19.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.78 0.973 0.457 30.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2400 34.1 42 24.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.35 1.099 0.516 26.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2400 24.2 26 27.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.88 1.360 0.638 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2400 12.7 16 27.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.74 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1800 79.3 100 12.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.89 1.050 0.493 28.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
18600 55.7 70 12.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.13 0.932 0.438 31.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1800 46.6 59 14.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 14,80 0.963 0.452 30.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1800 34.1 43 21.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.87 1.055 0.496 27.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1800 21.2 27 23.08 0. : 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1800 12.7 16 ~ 23.08 0. 4.19 0.0 0.0 0.0 16. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1200 69.4 100 10.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1200 $1.8 75 9.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1200 46.6 67 11.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1200 34.1 49 19.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1200 21.2 31 23.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1200 12.7 18 22.08 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0



DYNO SITE:0209 TEST # 873925 ( { PROCESSED: 12:34:58 JUL 9, 1987
a MFR. ALT. EQUIVALENT ACTUAL OVER- /--------- TEST TYPE -----~--
MER. VER- REP. RUN. RETEST HLP. TEST DYNO TRANS. ORIVE EXPE
bad 4300131668 0 N CVS 75-LATER
CURB DRV AXLE AXLE y>=- IGNITION TIMING --~/ 0 />--~-- CO --~--- / IDOLE SOAK  COASTOOWN TIME
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE = #1 #2 RPM GEAR 1DLE HIGH SPEED RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED
7-08-87 EMPTY 7 0.0
el AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS -~-~---~- v
BARO LEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX Cvs
“HG POLNT TEMP UNIT HUM  GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE
1.04 46.5 72.8 0 39 48.32 0. 88u6 27€
. -7-> >>> DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS --==----/
DYNO ACTUAL = DYNO TIRE ULOMETER SYSTEM
lest DATE HR SITE Iw SET TWwHP PST (MI) MILES
U7-u9-87 UB 0209 3250 5.0 45.00 75472.7 N/A
BAU } 3.576 MILES 5.755 KM 8337, ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 3052.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 17.309
SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX, AUX.
HANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS Gms. GMS /MI GMS/KM  FIELOI = FIELO2 CODE
19 15.7 468.87 i) 0.7 20.85 449.22 PPM 22.39 6.261 3.891
15 ai 20.75 15 6.8 3.45 17.50 PPM 2.57 0.719 0.447 MPG KPL —-L/100KM
2Z 68.6 0.666 22 5.0 0.045 0.624 % 987.32 276.119 171.573 12.8 5.42 18.4
3 19 63.7 607.68 19 0.0 0.0 607.68 PPM 61.15 17.101 10.626
METHANE 15 10.0 5.u1 15 3.6 1.80 3.31 PPM 0.17 0.046 0.029
HC-NM 445.91 PPM 22.22 6.215 3.862
BAG 2 3.893 MILES 6.265 KM 9077. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 4798.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 25.164
SITE A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUK. AUX. AUX.
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. ~  GMS/MI GMS/KM = FIELD1 = FIELD2 CODE
HC-FID 16 58.0 173.59 16 2.8 8.39 165.54 PPM 12.97 3.332 2.070
NOA-CHEM 5 22.0 V.14 5 6.8 3.45 7.83 PPM 1.81 0.464 0.288 MPG KPL L/100KM
coz 22 51.4 0.490 22 4.7 0.042 0.449 % 1117.20 286.970 178.315 13.1 5.58 17.9
co 1g 20.9 254.11 1g o.0 0.0 254.11 PPM 40.20 10.325 6.416
ME THANE 15 4.7 2.35 15 3.5 1.75 0.67 PPM 0.05 0.013 0.008
HC -NM 164.87 PPM 12.92. 3.318 2.062
BAG 3) 3.619 MILES 24 KM 8438. RULL REVS SECS. VMIX= 2802.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 18.525
SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUK. AUX. AUX
CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMs. GMS/MI GMS/KM = FIELD1, = FIELO2 = CODE
HC -FID 16 217.72 16 2.5 7.49 210.63 PPM 9.64 2.663 1.655
15, 17,44 1S 6.7 3.40 14.22 PPM 1.92 0.530 0.329 MPG KPL. L/100Km
22 U.635 22 4.7 0.042 0.596 % 864.59 238.903 148.447 15.0 6.39 18.7
19 663.03 19 G.0 0.0 663.03 PPM 61.25 16.925 10.517
ME THANE 15 65 15 3.3 1.65 2.09° PPM 0.10 0.026 0.016 .
HC-NM 208.54 PPM 9.54 2.637 1.638
WEIGHTED VALUES ie NMHC co coz NOX MPG KPL L/100KM
GRAMS/MILE $3.75) 3.727 13.53 272. 0.53 FUEL ECONOMY 13.5 5.7 17.4
BEFORE ROUNDING 3.75113 3.72736 13.5324 271.53 0.5346 13.4919 5.7362 17.4329
GRAMS /KM 2.331 2.316 8.41 169. 0.33 \
BLFORE ROUNDING 2.33084 2.31607 8.4086 168.72 0.3322
GUMMENT'S; AUOL STKAIGHT PIPE NOX SAMPLED CAST STALLS 1 FALSE START BAG
FIP W/ALK FUEL RATIO METER PROM #5 NOX VALUES QUESTIONABLE-VOID
Ink FUEL ECUNUMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS.
DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 87-3925

16418 0


-28-

It was recognized that more than enough NOx control had
been achieved at the expense of other emissions and fuel
consumption, though driveability was much better than Ricardo
predicted. Ricardo was then asked to submit the ignition
timing maps from the original reduced NOx strategy that
(Ricardo reported) achieved 1.07 g/mi NOx in the cycle
simulations. The idea was to give up a little NOx control to
make the overall emissions performance in the reduced NOx
calibration more acceptable. The results showed not only
higher NOx emissions, though still within project goals, but
also higher HC, CO, and methanol emissions. Methanol emissions
were calculated for all emissions tests in this test program
using the CTAB MXX emission factor program and are included in
Appendix D.

Some weaknesses of the Ricardo CYSIM_ predictive
capabilities were identified in MVEL Audi/HRCC vehicle
testing. Although all project goals were achieved and the
engine showed an unlimited ability for alternate engine control
flexibility, it was believed that the completely optimized lean
operation of methanol, particularly during cold starts, has yet
to be realized with this engine, vehicle, and control system
combination. Driveability is indeed a parameter that the
predictive capabilities of the model are not sophisticated
enough to determine. Transient operation of the vehicle was,
all in all, quite acceptable though the times predicted for
accelerations were considerably higher than the measured
performance times.


-24-

VI. Vehicle Testing for Reduced NOx Emissions

The second calibration which Ricardo developed for our
evaluation was the reduced NOx strategy which employs a
sophisticatd EGR control scheme and slightly richer operation
(0.8 equivalence ratio) than the best economy calibration in
order to achieve the project goals of 0.7 g/mi NOx exhaust
emissions.

In order to determine an effective strategy for reduced
NOx using exhaust gas recirculation, a Ricardo computer program
"CONTROL" was used to analyze the test results from several EGR
keypoint tests. The objective was to devise an alternative
control strategy that would result in a maximum reduction in
NOx emissions with minimum penalties of HC emissions and fuel
consumption. Exploration over the range of mixture strengths
and EGR rates established the operating envelope shown in
Figure 6. From this data, it is clear that the best economy
strategy represents a strategy towards the lower range of NOx
emissions possible with MBT ignition timing. Furthermore,
there is a strong link between reducing HC and increasing NOx
emissions indicating that a simultaneous reduction of both is
difficult to achieve, and the direction for minimum NOx is
similar to that for a fuel consumption penalty. This indicates
that reduced NOx will result in increased fuel consumption.
This simple keypoint model also indicated that the limits
presented by the test data resulted in a minimum NOx level of
about 1 g/mi for the Federal Test Procedure if MBT timing were
used. From this trade-off data, it was decided to pursue a
strategy which would result in a minimum NOx strategy without a
significant HC emission penalty, i.e., the dashed line in
Figure 6.

The “CONTROL” program enabled the equivalence ratio and
EGR rate for the reduced NOx strategy to be identified for the
keypoint loads and speeds. This indicated that relatively rich
mixtures of 0.8 and 0.9 equivalence ratio should be used with
high rates of EGR to obtain NOx reduction without penalizing HC
emissions. This strategy, using MBT ignition timings,
resulted in a CYSIM NOx level prediction of 1.07 g/mi with a
level of HC emissions similar to the best economy strategy. It
was evident that a control strategy with MBT ignition timing
would not enable the project goal of 0.7 g/mi to be achieved.
The primary reason for the difficulty in achieving 0.7 g/mi NOx
compliance was considered by Ricardo to be EPA's choice of
vehicle which resulted in a poor power/weight ratio and
subsequent high engine duty cycle. It was therefore necessary
to apply 7°-10° ignition retard in the mid-upper load range
from 20-60 rev/s in order to achieve the required level of 0.7
g/mi NOx. The final strategy resulted in a _ reasonable
compromise between NOx reduction, HC emissions and fuel
consumption. However, Ricardo believed that when operating at,
or close to, the dilution tolerance limit of an engine, the use
of ignition retard would result in a significant deterioration
of driveability.


rectal enc Tass

= 37-/773
7 TEST #3 7 23 :
FORMALDEHYDE WORKSHEET pate: YAS-E7
Units BAG 1 BAS 2 BAG 3 HPES
e449 me/mi Primary 373.99 EPy 293/42 4
Secondary $+ 36 . 1s,21 :
TOTAL 2 YS, 295-32
rH, mg Primary 1333-/ V5) LOST.
~ Secondary TBSP 2 SASF
TOTAL 1/37 6.29 |/226,.O3 1/1 06.39
Distance mi 345 xy 3. a8 EAS]
(0.5) 9) (0.5)
1 wh, mi Lee zee L272
L
TOTAL CHAD | ne 2276 +29 | 7736.03) Joe. 39

i | (0.43) 1.90) (0,57)

t Saas
( L wt. CHI Gpe Fos T (7 2E-O3 “230.642 'e 2767.08
1 i] 1 . ,

— | 377.74 |

ANALYSIS TEST DATE: +4 -/S-87

VEHICLE: (
VEHICLE CONFIG. : Drm. t=


Results

Prom the beginning, we experienced problems with trying to
test the engine in its as-received condition. We replaced
the valves: prior to running our first tests (see the “Engine
History" section), so technically we do not have an exact
comparison to the Ricardo tests. However, because stock
replacement parts were used and all settings were the same as
at Ricardo, I believe that we can compare the data as if the
engine were in the as-received condition. Pigures 1-3
graphically show thermal efficiency, power, and fuel
consumption for both the ‘initial EPA testg* and the Ricardo
tests. Ricardo test data was used to generate results on our’
own computer for these comparisons. However, because of the
manner: in which Ricardo ran their tests, Ricardo data from a
range of “percent powers® had to be used in our program as if
they were a single “percent power®. As can be seen, even
with this data conversion, the EPA results are generally in
very close agreement with the Ricardo results.

The Ricardo reported results were usually better than the
results we obtained using theiz input data, however. Por
example, the Ricardo report shows a maximum horsepower of
70.6 and thermal efficiency of 32% at full load whereas the
EPA generated results using their data shows only 68.2 hp and
30% efficiency. The different values apparently are due to
different horsepower correction factors (DIN_va. SAE).

The Ricardo data could not be used to calculate volumetric
efficiency on our computer, therefore the Ricardo reported
results were hand drawn on the graph showing the initial EPA
results (Figure 4). Their results showed about 10% better
efficiency than our tests. Again, the difference in
calculating results is probably the cause of this. Our many
tests both before and after the engine rebuild gave very
consistent results (see Figures 5 and 6), so I do not believe
we had a problem with our initial testing.

Idle fuel consumption and emission measurements at EPA were
all performed after the engine rebuild of 6/01/83. Idle fuel
consumption is shown in Pigure 7. Ricardo reported lower
fuel consumption for all ignition timing settings than we
did. Ricardo performed idle tests at 750 rpm whereas ours
were at 875 rpm, a difference of 17%. This probably accounts

*EPA test No. 1173, which was prior to the engine rebuild.


' TESTS REPORT APR 10, 1980 01:57:45 30
1980 FUEL ECONOMY PROGRAM
49 STATE TEST CAR LIST - PASSENGER CARS (GAS MILEAGE GUIDE)

ACT CITY EMISSIONS HIGHWAY EMISSIONS
A/C DYNO (GRAMS/MILE ) city (GRAMS/MILE) HIGHWAY COMBINED

MFR. VEHICLE IO. SIM uP HC co co2 NOX MPG HC co co2 NOX MPG MPG
AUOL 364 VES 7.9 0.107 ° 4.00 396. 1.23 22 0.029 0.04 258.

AUDI ——

. AUDIT. 490-669 NO 7.0 0.405 1.93 371, 1,74 “(27 ] : ~ 0144
. toot. Q,186 0.48

AUOT

AUDI 637-80 YES 7.0 0.160 1.20 S34. 1,47 17 0.030 0.0 382.

AUDI 125-80 VES 7.0 0.250 2.50 529. 1.53 17 0.020 0.0 296.

Auol ~

AUDI 027-80 YES G5 ONT 4.4 437. 0.9520 0.056 0.47 319. 0.01 28 29
Fuul
FUJI * BOFE-12 NO 9.4 0.256 3.61 3st. 1.20 25 0.005 0.43 248. 1.65 36 29
FUJI + BOFE-12 Nu 9.4 0.240 3.97 356. 1.27 24 0.004 0.76 261. 1.77 34 28
FUuI— * BOFE-12 NO 9.4 0.288 3.65 351. 1.21 25 0.006 0.61 222. 1.69 40 30
Fuul BOFE-12 i) 9.4 0.251 3.91 361. 1.29 24 0.005 0.73 228. 1.50 39 29
Fuul

Fuul * BOFE-10 NO 9.4 0.208 4.52 274. 1.27 32 0.047 0.02 207. 1.59 at 35
FuJl — * BOFE-10 NO 9.4 0.254 1.14 271. 1.19 32 0.052 0.13 194. 1.42 46 37

0.052 0.03 194. 4.47 46

FUJI

Fuul * BOFE-1 no 9.2 0.187 4.24 379. 1.07 23 0.003 0.78 262. 4.21 34 27
Fuul * BOFE-11 40 9.4 0.326 3.15 387. 1.08 23 0.002 0.32 266. 1.52 33 26

0.267 3.70 395. 1.17 22 0.008 0.52 275. 1.56 32

Fuul

FUJI BOFE-16 No 9.4 0.167 4.90 390. 1.02 22 0.002 0.49 287. 1.16 at 25-
FUJI BOFE-15 No 9.4 0.301 6.14 395. 1.98 22 0.002 0.23 295. 1.24 30 25
Fuul BOFE-14 NO 9.4 0.246 6.14 421, 1.52 24 0.008 1.58 308. 1.86 29 24


D-2be
APPENDIX D (cont'd)

EPA Measured Audi/HRCC Performance Data

0-50 MPH Tests 30-50 MPH Tests

1. 12.22 seconds 1. 7.16 seconds
2. 12.26 2. 7.43
3. 13.07 3. 7.09
4. 13.11 4. 7.32
5. 12.94 5. 7.08
6. 13.31 6. 6.90
7. 13.11 7. 7.02
8. 13.15 8. 6.93
9. 13.19 9. 7.25
10. 13.24 10. 6.96
ll. 13.47 ll. 7.24
12. 12.64 12. 7.06
13. 13.74
14, 13.05 Avg. 7.12
15. 12.82

S.D. +43
Avg. 13.02
S.D. 78


To EPA. Ann ALBOR ~

Attenction MR &. BROETSCH | Fax No. Brighton (0273) 464124
Feiox /FaxNo.__O1O1 BiZ blo8 4368 Telex No. 87383 RICSHAM C
from GRauar LEESON Date __ B12: Blo
subject METHANOL, IGNITION SYSTEM | page 2 of 2

SPARK PLOGS,

-

t
~ | iS Te .QvTee

_ Rerokba M.EC.
Sten he _leonAsred.

“VE ve |
12345 6 F
Barreky Boesch /LONEN iTien
IGNITION MoDULE

If you do not receive all of the pages or the message is distorted
please call 0273 455611 ext 2334 and speak to fax operator



-30-

7 Had the HRCC engine been placed in a vehicle with a
more appropriate vehicle weight and engine compartment
configuration, i.e., a VW Rabbit, the engine vehicle
combination would have a 30 percent improvement in power/weight
ratio and a Ricardo estimated additional 3.3 percent improvment
in fuel economy as well as an additional 12 percent reduction
in NOx emissions. However, these simulated emissions and fuel
economy values were obtained without reoptimization of the
engine control strategy to account for the different control
required at given engine speeds and loads with the 2500 lb
inertia weight.

8. It is hoped that the application of a cylinder head
configuration more closely resembling "direct injection," with
the pencil injectors and variable start of injection, will
further improve fuel economy and engine exhaust emissions.
With fuel injected past open intake valves, it is believed that
heat losses will be minimal, A/F ratio can be higher, more
residuals will be burned (more combustion near TDC), and the
engine should theoretically start quicker.

9. The microprocessor engine controller and the
air/fuel ratio meter were invaluable engine management and
diagnostic tools in the application of the sequentially
fuel-injected HRCC engine in the Audi 5000 vehicle. Program
objectives would have been quite difficult to obtain without
them.


- WOW NH =

Se Ky

vw HRCC AUDI 5000
STARTING PROCEDURE
Flip MEC switch ON (plug in fuse at battery).
Power MEC by flipping switch on. front of VDU.
Turn on ignition.
Press reset button on MEC (blue box).
NOTE: Car has tendency to stall when reset button
is pushed (give it a little fuel).
Set calibration by typing "R1” for best economy, or
"R3" for low NOx (as a check, type "N" and VOU will
tell you what EEPROM you are in).
Shift cookbook (Sth gear @ 50 MPH).

!f car stalls, stop trace and begin again at 3.


‘Major car components / Voikewagen

Front-drive transverse-engine cars

Rabbit, Scirocco, Pickup

ENGINE
1. Engine block 18. Upper radiator hose
2. Cylinder head 18. Lower radiator hose
3. intake manitold 20. Exhaust pipe
“ Carburetor 21. Camshalt drive ben cover
6.
7

. Fuel-inyection distributor . Overhead camshaft cover
. Ait cleaner *
 Fuel-injector lines

8. Fuel-injector nozzie
9. Gas pedal

10: PCV hose

11. Oilhiter

12. Oil tiller cap

13. Drive belt

44. Electric fan

45. Waler pump

16. Radiator

17. Radiator cap

% Carburetor engine

IT eanbhta
-TT-

ONIVE TRAIN
23. Cluich housing
24. Manual transinission
25. Ditlerentiat

26. Cv joint

27. Drive axte

28. Shutt tever

29. Clutch pedal

30. Clutch free play adjuster
31. Clutch cable

32. Clutch- operating fork

WHEELS, [IHES, BHAKES ELECTRICAL SYSIEM

33. Tue ). Battery
34. Wheel bearing 51. Con

35. Brake disc ‘STEERING 52. Distributor

36. Brake calper SUSPENSION 45, Steenng wheel 53. Alternator

37. Brake pedal 41. Lower A-aim 46, Steering column 54. Starter motor

38. Brake vacuum booster 42. Coil spring 47, Rack and pinion assembly 55. Slarter solenoid
39. Brake tluid reservorr 43. Shock absorber 48. ferod 56. Spark plug

40. Brake master cylinder 44, MacPherson strut 49. Rubber boot 57. Spark plug cables

162


i ee jak 8. Lots S's Sree | (CER NO. GP SUS Riv GO j
|. from GSasar Lester j Dae SB 1984s
subject METWavon. Fue. SySren Page of

| nn ae
rc

HAoGE.

3 > fhume ee AT
—<zJ—

awtEeR

P2essoke

CEGr.recroe \

PressoB=
iss TECTOLG

MTS To BE Metuanor, PROOF.

AL CorWonté
G

"Tan Kk

Inf the pages of the meccage is
pages 52 is

S fax pperater

a0 =20°0H “ON MO OG Ost 39.50, ET


crit

RIGRBO

CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Wiring details of MEC injector and ignition relay

+12 V
to acivate Pe 4
relay 99 ---77----7 > riod Supply to
(normally from i W2 [ [oaecrenono > ignition &
ignition switch) ! -—- injectors
H cl ot
H I
412 Yo ------------- > Hl
from battery Hl H
i wl ot
1 Kcneeccersne ov
H -—- battery neg
H H ( chassis )

Relay type LUCAS 6RA
Pin view showing pin numbers.


-T-

II. Diesel Vehicle Baseline Exhaust Emissions, Fuel Economy,
Performance and Rated Power Output

After the engine development work under the second Ricardo
contract was completed, it was decided to reinstall the engine
in the Audi vehicle to determine whether the initial program
objectives of comparing the methanol and Diesel engine exhaust
emissions, fuel economy and performance could now be
successfully performed.

The 1980 Audi 5000 was not cyclic tested in the
as-received condition (as a Diesel) when it arrived at the
Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory prior to removal of the
original Diesel engine. However, the vehicle was placed on the
dynamometer for a few performance tests. These performance
data consist of several 0-50 MPH and 30-50 MPH accelerations
which are listed in Table 2. By comparison with Table 1
values, the actual acceleration times for the Audi/HRCC and
Audi/Diesel combinations are quite a bit (5-6 seconds) faster
than the performance predicted by the Ricardo simulations.
However, as we shall see in a later section, the percent
improvement in performance with the methanol engine over the
Diesel baseline is essentially the same, roughly 22 percent,
for both EPA tests and Ricardo simulations.

Cyclic emissions and fuel economy data for the Audi/Diesel
were obtained from the 1980 Fuel Economy Program 49-State Test
Car List (Gas Mileage Guide) as published in the August 27,
1980 Federal Register.[22] These data are listed in Table 3
and pertain to a 3,250 1b. ETW vehicle with a 121 in® in-line
five-cylinder fuel-injected Diesel engine with a compression
ratio of 23:1 and rated power of 67 HP. The Audi 5000 Diesel
has front-wheel drive, a manual five-speed transmission, an
axle ratio of 4.78 and an N/V ratio of 46.1.

No deterioration factors were applied to the exhaust
emissions data to account for the fact that this vehicle was
three years old when procured by EPA, and over six years old
when evaluated with a methanol engine installed in it.

The vehicle condition prior to installation of the
fuel-injected HRCC engine was quite poor since it had not been
moved for three years and had acquired a substantial amount of
rust from sitting dormant over three Michigan winters outside
of the MVEL. Several parts were in need of repair and
replacement and the vehicle required cleaning and maintenance
from bumper to bumper.


D-1s"
APPENDIX D

HRCC-Audi Cold FTP Bag Data

Test No. 871791 871792 871793 Average Error Range Percent

Bag 1 GMS GMS GMS GMS GMS Error
HC-FID 23.82 24.37 18.65 22.28 +2.86 12.8
NOx-Chem -—- 6.10 5.18 5.64 40.46 8.2
CO, 1007.37 972.95 963.53 981.28 +21.92 2.2
co 40.02 46.48 42.24 42.91 +3.23 7.5
Methane 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.10 +0.01 9.7
HC-NM 23.71 24.26 18.57 22.18 +2.84 12.8
Bag 2 GMS GMS GMS GMS GMS Error
HC-FID 14.35 13.64 13.67 13.89 +0.36 2.6
NOx-Chem -- 4.77 3.94 4.36 +0.42 9.5
co, 1100.59 1098.44 1092.49 1097.34 +3.80 0.3
co 15.31 15.10 15.24 15.22 +0.10 0.7
Methane 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 +0.0005 25.0
HC-NM 14.33 13.63 13.64 13.87 +0.35 2.5
Bag 3 GMS GMS GMS GMS GMS Error
HC-FID 9.54 9.02 9.02 9.19 +0.26 2.8
NOx-Chem -- 6.08 5.87 5.98 +0.10 1.8
CO, 854.09 848.23 851.18 851.16 +2.93 0.3
co 31.20 31.24 27.37 29.94 +1.94 6.5
Methane 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 +0.0005 10.0
HC-NM 9.49 8.97 8.98 9.15 +0.26 2.8

HRCC-Audi Weighted Emissions/Fuel Economy

Test No. 871791 871792 871793 Average Error Range Percent

“HC-FID 4.013 3.934 3.592 3.846 +0.21 5.5
NOx-Chem 4.000 3.923 3.581 3.835 +0.21 5.5
CO2 270. 269. 267. 269. #+1.5 0.6
co 6.72 7.11 6.56 6.80 +0.275 4.0
NOx -- 1.46 1.27 1.36 +0.095 7.0
MPG 14.038 14.069 14.261 14.123 +0.112 0.8


20

0

50
4
ay .

iO

a

oo?

Impulse Time Best NOx
t

I 160

\

i s40

i L

| 120}



see

PES S

&

TEST #'s G7 S935

FORMALDEHYDE WORKSHEET DATE: 8-27-87
Units BAG 1 BAG 2 BAG 3 ‘2 HFET

224 ne/mi Primary A444. G2 YOY. 71 Asi aAb
~ Secondary al. SA| AR, 47 AL, 2Yy
tora, | 96 7,99! B/E le79 54
20 me Primary 7605.5 0| /5%2,60 GV. La
- Secondary €/. AZ LR, 431 27 46
ToTaL |/666+ 771/68/,0.3 or 7.88

istance mi 3.@] 2.7 3 3.67 “|

(0.5) (1.9) (0.5)
yr mi ED 3.74 7 ¥ Da =
“TAL CHAI me [eke 27 | leaf, 03 \16/7.56
: \ (9.43) 90) ~

[wt, 0 7e8, 37 1

RA-2BTAO

: : i!
i i |
1 ! |
. i \ |
: | ;
“PPM | 75.737 1 7-F3Z6R| FSOFF¢
j i -22 7 SA ¥O DSSS
i (TeTAls 72.5.3 41 9.7208 10,3579
i |
[ |
i |
|
_ ]
i 4
i
1
9 -3B-F7
ANALYSIS TEST DATE: 2=33=¥
VEHICLE: hike
VEHICLE CONFIG.: 44 Gan 4S

TAT TEE vp a fF



REVISED RICCARDO URAWING

LOCATION OF ORBIT PICK-UP IN BELL-HOUSING

‘56m Sok, AUDI

pre Housin G
-— L
ALUMINUM /

| apaeTeR,

\

Zum
no WOLe (ALREADY DRILLED)
coywheee

in

XA
am

/
a oe

gi

Puy wre io
—~-s

4 + Dacerow

oO
j ROTATION

<&— Reesrenca 2D
Fo? 3aTDpc (FR &NFY


MANUFACTURER
CAR_LINE

{a
CONCORD

PACER

Audl
(3000

TS
7331

bulcn
SKYLARK

€lAL_
STRADA

fogp

GRANADA

bGuBR
XJ

COMPACT Cans

AVERAGE

EST. ANNUAL = COMM Hwy
— EVEL Cust mre Meo

22 + 014 2 30

20 % 61D 22 2o

ay > 194 ray 26

ls & Toh ra 25

17 e794 2 26

is $ Tol 200 es

et e444 33 43
WT 8 194 ray 30
18 $751 20 25
7 $794 20 26

16 Ha wv 23
16 $ Bae ih 23

24 % S63 eg 36
22 Bole 260 34
ray) % 67S 24 33
20 b AIS 23 30

ao % SoU ey a5
24 $ 503 2b 30
an » 402 3 38
26 $ S20 ey 32

9 & Tho 22 238
7 ’ 7194 19 23
7 $194 2000 25

15 $ 900 17 22

ENGINE DESCRIPTION

isis
Vis
2o87
2587

2567
2587

AD are

leis
aie
V3hs

Ce)

wae

wn

196 3.2L)
1960 3.2L) 7

~
co

1514 2.5L)
WSL 2,5b)
173¢ 2.8L)
173 2.0L)

NwAwS

9LCLSOOCEIZ
GIA1SOOCCds
9141)500CC)7
91 (1S00CC)7

250 4.1L)
2500 4.1L)
302¢ 5.0L)

SAN

256( Ge2h) /

Peee aoee

Doe

Ciluccyy sTyPe)

(CAL) (FF SD
(TURBO)

(CAL) (FFS)
(CAL) (FFS)

(CALIF)
(CALIF)

(CALI (FF SD

TRANS-
MLSS1LON

4
ay
MG
Lx)

MG
ay

AJ

MG
ag

MG
a3
MG
AZ

“Ss
AZ
MS
a3

me
AZ
a3

aj

HUDY TYRE

INTERTOR SPACE

FUEL PASSENGERS
212 TRUNG_OB_CARGO(CUsF Ta)
2 20R- 90/11
2 4OR- 90/11
2
2
2 HOK= 91/11
2

fl _

Las

FI
Fl

fai 4OR- 94/13
las

2 20R- 94/14
2 GOR 95/14
2

2

2 HOK= 85/16
2

Ft

Ft

1 2DR= 89/15
1 40R- 93715
2
fl 4OR~ 91710

4-¢/


APPENDIX B


-20-

The best economy strategy was based on engine runs over
the load range at 20, 40, 60 and 80 rev/s to determine MBT
ignition timings with 0.7 equivalence ratio up to 900 mbar
absolute inlet manifold pressure. Above this, the mixture was
progressively enriched for full load conditions. The fueling
level and ignition timing required for each load and speed was
centered in a set of MEC maps. Following this, the engine was
run with the fueling level and ignition timing automatically
controlled by the MEC to obtain performance and emissions
readings from which a set of specific performance maps, e.g.,
BSFC, BTE, equivalence ratio, BSNOx and BSHC versus speed and
load, was derived.

This precise calibration resulted in efficient engine
operation and a maximum brake thermal efficiency of over 33
percent. Ricardo reported improvements of up to 10 percent
under low load conditions compared to the carbureted HRCC
engine.

Ricardo also found high levels of HC emissions under low
load conditions when operating under "best economy" calibration
conditions with lean mixtures and MBT ignition timings. NOx
emissions during lean operating conditions (below 6 bar) were
low and half that achieved with the carbureted version of the
engine.

EPA run FTP test results for best economy calibration
evaluations are listed in Table 6. All of these tests were run
with zero throttle angle derivative and "engine-out" exhaust
emissions averaged 0.45, 6.97, and 1.38 g/mile for HC, CO and
NOx emissions, respectively. These levels are acceptable given
that no catalyst was installed on the vehicle and the results
varied by only five to six percent. Engine-out methanol
emissions, as predicted by CTAB's MXX methanol emissions
calculation program, were quite high, over 10 g/mile, as
expected from a methanol vehicle which does not employ a
sophisticated cold-start engine control strategy. .

Fuel economy program objectives were met and exceeded with
the results of the best economy vehicle tests. Methanol fuel
economy averaged 14.13 MPG which translates into a gasoline
equivalent (energy based fuel economy) of 28.0 mpg, or 3
percent higher urban MPG than the Audi 5000 Diesel
baseline.[20] Fuel economy test results varied by only +2
percent, such that the improvement over the Diesel engine fuel
economy varied from 1 to 5 percent. Details of these and other
exhaust emissions and fuel economy data are included in
Appendix D.


TEST NO.: HO-811175 ENGINE: 590 VW-B8 oO TEST D/T: 6- 6-83 9:0 REPORT D/T: 09-18-83 09:40 POGl@5e81

summary REPORT (First test with rebuilt engine)

BSFC ENERGY
GAS EFFICIENCY

* PHI BSFC EQUIV 1000¢
TORQ. MAX THR IGN. INU. CORR. MEAS. EQUIV AIR FUEL LB/  LB/ MBTU/ - BRAKE SPECIFIC EMISSIONS (G/BHPHR) ----
REM FT-LB TQ. POSN TIMG. TIMG. BHP A/F RATIO L8/HR LB/HR BHPHR BHPHR %  BHPHR _@SHC_ _8SCO_ _85CG2_ BSALOVH BSPART
5400 67.7 100 32 25.08 0. 70.40 4.65 1.39 368.5 79.30 1.126 0.529 26.2 9.74 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
8400 46.9 70 70 24.08 0. 48.52 5.43 1.19 274.1 1.040 0.489 28.3 6.99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
$400 33.7 50 112 26.08 0. 3.08 2.10 129.0 1.201 0.664 24.5 10.38 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
$400 20.0 30 145 25.08 0. 2.48 2.61 60.9 1.578 0.741 18.7 13. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 76.9 100 24 15.08 0. 4.85 4.34 330.9 68.15 1.029 0.483 28.6 8.89 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 53.3 70 60 22.08 0. 6.32 1.02 274.1 43.40 0.945 0.444 31.2 8.17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 39.0 50 102 25.08 0. 3.19 2.08 $10.1 35.42 1.055 0.496 27.9 9.12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 23.4 30 137 30.08 0. : 2.71 2.38 71.9 26.0 1.315 0.618 22.4 11.37 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3500 81.5 100 14 18.08 0. 54.57 5.04 1.28 269.6 53.45 0.980 0.460 30.1 6.47 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3800 57.0 70 50 20.08 0. 38.16 6.46 1.00 220.2 34.10 0.894 0.420 33.0 7. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3500 40.0 50 92 25.08 0. 26.80 3.14 2.06 84.5 26.86 1.002 0.471 29.4 8. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3500 24.5 30 129 30.08 0. 16.40 2.78 2.93 86.2 20.22 1.233 0.579 23.9 10. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 80.5 100 10 16.08 0. 38.50 4.41 1.47 179.7 40.79 1.060 0.498 27.8 9.16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 56.7 70 32 15.08 0. 27.13 7.22 0.90 70.7 23.64 0.871 0.409 33.86 7.63 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 40.4 50 76 21.08 0. 19.34 6.63 0.98 {21.3 18.30 0.946 0.444 31.1 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2500 24.6 30 115 26.08 0. 11.78 3.50 1.85 46.1 13.74 1.165 0.548 25.3 10. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1500 70.0 100 20 6.08 0. 20.11 4.63 14.40 98.9 21.95 1.062 0.499 27.7 9.18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1500 48.6 70 33 6.08 0. 13.95 7.87 0.82 98.9 12.56 0.900 0.423 32.7 7. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1500 35.7 50 90 16.08 0. 10.25 3.99 1.62 40.4 10.14 0.989 0.465 29.8 8. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1500 21.0 30 145 20.08 0. 6.03 3.81 1.70 28.2 7.66 1.270 0.597 23.2 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

flew


TEST NO.: HO-811287 ENGINE: S90 VW-68 (+) TEST O/T: 6-13-83 6:30 REPORT O/T: 08-22-83 16:38 Po62Set

Summary REpoRT (Rebuilt engine and carb cleaned)

BSFC ENERGY
GAS EFFICIENCY

% PHI EQuiv t000*
TORQ. WAX THR IGN. INJ. CORR. MEAS. EQUIV AIR .B/ MBTU/ ----- BRAKE SPECIFIC EMISSIONS (G/BHPHR) ----
RPM FI-LB TQ. POSN TIMG. TING. BHP A/F RATIO L8/HR _LB/HR BHPHR _%  BHPHR BSHC _BSCO_ _B$CO2_ _BSNOX BSALOYH BSPART

$400 68.0 100 330 12.08 0. 70.19 4.79 1.35 364.0 0.509 27.2 9.36 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0:0
$400 61.0 90 340 14.06 0. 62.94 6.14 1.05 368.5 0.448 30.9 8.24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
$400 55.0 80 480 16.08 0. 56.71 6.05 1.07 337.0 0.462 30.0 8.50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5400 47.7 70 690 18.08 0. 49.14 §.99 1.08 301.1 0.481 28.8 8.85 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5400 40.9 6O 890 21.08 ©. 42.19 5.64 1.15 256.1 0.507 27.3 9.32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5400 34.3 50 1410 22.08 0. 35.92 3.14 2.06 130.3 0.551 25.1 10.14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5400 27.0 40 1300 24.08 0. 27.81 3.22 2.01 103.3 0.842 25.6 9.986 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
$400 20.5 30 1480 24.08 0. 21.10 2.73 2.37 85.4 0.697 19.9 12.83 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5400 13.0 20 1620 26.08 0. 13.37 2.58 2.51 69.6 0.948 14.6 17.45 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
$400 6.5 10 1790 26.08 0. 6.69 2.56 2.52 57.5 1.578 8.8 28.98 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5000 72.8 100 300 12.08 0. 69.98 4.70 1.38 346.0 0.498 27.8 9.17 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.0
5000 65.0 90 310 14.08 0. 62.00 6.20 1.04 355.0 0.434 31.9 7.98 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5000 56.4 80 450 16.08 0. 55.69 6.16 1.05 323.1 0.442 31.3 6.14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
$000 51.2 70 610 18.08 0. 48.82 6.18 1.05 296.6 0.462 30.0 8.50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
S000 43.8 60 830 21.08 0. 41.75 6.14 1.05 265.1 0.486 28.5 8.94 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6000 36.5 5O 1060 24.08 0. 34.79 3.12 2.07 121.3 0.525 26.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
$000 29.0 40 1250 25.08 0. 27.64 2.92 2.22 98.9 0. 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
S000 21.9 30 1470 27.08 0. 20.86 2.58 2.51 75.8 oO. 20.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
S000 14.6 20 1640 28.08 0. 13.90 2.46 2.63 61.6 ° 16.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
$000 7.5 10 1790 28.08 0. 7.14 2.61 2.48 53.9 ‘. 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 77.0 100 250 12.08 0. 65.99 4.81 1.35 323.5 0.479 28.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 69.0 90 260 14.08 0. 69.24 6.30 1.03 328.0 0.413 33.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 62.3 80 380 16.08 0. 53.46 6.22 1.04 301.4 0.425 32.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 64.6 70 550 18.08 0. 46.84 6.32 1.02 278.1 0.440 31.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 46.6 60 760 21.08 0. 39.96 6.39 1.01 251.6 0.463 29.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 38.5 50 1020 24.08 0. 33.00 3.08 2.10 107.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 31.0 40 1210 26.08 0. 26.57 2.91 2.22 89.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 23.5 30 1400 27.08 0. 20.14 2.70 2.40 71.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 15.5 20 1610 286.08 0. 13.28 2.50 2.58 56.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4500 7.9 10 1810 286.08 O. 6.77 2.69 2.41 49.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 80.9 100 200 14.08 0. 61.62 4.83 1.34 292.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 72.4 90 210 14.08 0. 55.22 6.36 1.02 301.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 64.5 80 340 16.08 0. 49.19 6.35 1.02 274.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 56.6 70 500 18.08 0. 43.08 6.43 1.01 251.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 48.0 60 720 21.08 0. 36.60 6.45 1.00 224.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 39.7 50 980 24.08 0. 30.27 3.05 2.12 94.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 32.0 40 1150 26.08 0. 24.399 2.95 2.20 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 24.4 30 1360 28.08 O. 18.60 2.69 2.41 62.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 17.0 20 1540 28.08 0. 12.96 2.73 2.37 53.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4000 8.0 10 1730 30.08 0. 6.10 3.16 2.05 49.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


160,

|
LLL]

=

A
N
N
N

=)

ALLE

nu
°

io}
Impulse Time Best NOx



Input_and Outnut of Microprocessor Engine Controller

Crankshaft Timing Reference

Ignition Signal

Hell Effect Sensor (+

Camshaft Sync. Pulse

intake Manifold Vacuum

Temperature Inputs

TTT

th

Inductive

Proximity Detector

meters

MAP Pressure
Transducer G

Resista:

Fuel Injection Signals

| cat si mi
a

es
HM
s£

EGR
Valve

Driver

Display
Unit

AIUIQUICN IE. ‘8 pied
arte ie tae aed
SHE EER SUES * Microprocessor

Keyboard Engine Controller

y eanbta

-ST-


TEST NO.: HDO-811287 ENGINE: 590 VW-B oO TEST D/T: 6-13-83 8:30 REPORT D/T: 08-22-83 16:38 PO62681

SUMMARY REPORT

BSFC ENERGY
GAS . EFFICIENCY

% PHI BSFC EQUIV 1000* : :

TORQ. MAX THR IGN. INJ. CORR. MEAS. EQUIV AIR FUEL LB/  16/ Matus ----- BRAKE SPECIFIC EMISSIONS (G/BHPHR) ----

RPM FT-L8 TQ. POSN TIMG. TIWG. GHP A/F RATIO L6/HR _LB/HR BHPHR BHPHR X  SHPHR BSHC_ _8SCO BSNOX BSALDYH BSPART_
1500 72.8 100 030 8.08 0. 20.75 4.67 1.39 98.9 24.18 1.021 0.480 28.9 8.82 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1500 63.0 90 030 8.08 0. 17.98 6.57 0.99 101.1 15.39 0.856 0.402 34.4 7.40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 J 0.0
1500 58.0 80 070 8.08 0. 16.55 7.17 0.90 105.6 14.74 0.891 0.418 33.1 7.70 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1800 49.5 70 340 8.08 0. 14.12 7.45 0.87 96.6 12.97 0.918 0.431 32.1 7.84 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1500 43.7 60 400 10.08 0. 12.46 7.47 0.87 69.9 12.03 0.865 0.493 30.5 8.34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1500 37.0 SO 620 14.08 0. 10.55 7.64 0.85 80.9 10.59 1.004 0.472 29.3 8.68 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ° 0.0
1500 28.5 40 1240 20.08 0. 8.13 3.55 1.83 31.5 8.87 1.091 0.513 27.0 9.43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1500 22.0 30 1460 20.08 0. 6.27 3.77 1.72 29.2 7.75 1.236 0.581 23.8 10.68 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1500 15.0 20 1640 20.08 0. 4.28 4.04 14.60 26.1 6.45 1.509 0.709 19.5 13.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1800 7.9 10 1800 20.08 0. 2.25 5.21 1.24 27.0 5.17 2.297 1.079 12.8 19.86 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

OF.


-4-

Simulation of engine transients was carried out on the
test bed by actuation of the throttle lever between "stops." A
smooth transition between engine loads was achieved by
calibration of the MEC maps.[15] It was recognized that it was
not possible to fully calibrate transient engine performance on
the engine testbed and that further development of engine
transients would be required when the engine was fitted into
the vehicle by EPA.

The engine "cold start strategy" was set up to enable an
unaided start to be achieved at an ambient temperature of 10°C
(50°F). Tests could not be conducted at lower temperatures
because the cell had no cooling facility. Initial strategies
for warm-up compensation and modulation of EGR rate during the
warm-up phase were also devised using testbed data and Ricardo
experience gained from similar applications. Again, this area
was recognized as one where further development would be
required during the vehicle phase or as part of another test
program.

The application of electronic sequential fuel injection
and electronic engine management to the engine was successfully
carried out during this second Ricardo project.

The effect of fuel injection was to improve the engine
performance when compared to that previously obtained with the
carbureted version of the engine. At full load, maximum BMEP
increased by 6 percent and peak power output by 16 percent;
however, some increased sensitivity to pre-ignition was
evident. Under part load conditions brake thermal efficiency
increased and HC emissions were reduced. The engine was noted
to be sensitive to fuel injection characteristics such as fuel
injection rate.

The part load vehicle calibration for best economy was
carried out at a leaner mixture strength than that of the
carbureted engine, 0.7 equivalence ratio, instead of 0.8
equivalence ratio due to improved mixture preparation and
distribution with sequential fuel injection, as well as the
sophisticated transient fueling control possible with the
Ricardo MEC unit.

The two calibration strategies developed for the engine
were entered as data to the Ricardo "CYSIM" drive cycle
simulation computer program.[13] The vehicle details input to
the cycle simulation program were those of the Audi 5000
vehicle. To supplement the comparison with the results
predicted for the carbureted version of this engine when fitted
to a VW Rabbit vehicle, a simulation of the Audi 5000
diesel-engined vehicle using Ricardo in-house data was also
carried out. These results are summarized in Table 1 for the
“FTP" driving cycle, but are really representative of hot-start
FTP engine-out emissions.


RIGROO

Comsucting encmeens,

EEPROM BEST ECONOMY/OPT IGN.FEB 1986 recalled
H.A.- RPS(*10), V.A.- MAP(mB*100) < E.G.R. 0 to 1000 >

10 0000 0000 0000 0000 =0000 «00000000: 0000.-s«s;C}¥KHEKN-—C=«000
0000. 0000 0000 §=0000 «= 0000--« 0000-«C0K00.-«CCKKN-«ccKEKMHN—S#=«02000

3
3
§
3
g
8
3
3
§
g

5S Two Line Temp. Comp. Tables (COMP. /TEMP.), TEMP(KELVIN), COMP(%) .
10 i 0200 0200 0200 0200 0200 0180 0160 0140 0100 0100
9 + 0270 0280 0290 0295 0300 0305 0310 0317 0323 0328
8 | 0200 0200 0200 0200 0200 0180 0160 0140 0100 0100
7 4 0270 0280 0290 0295 0300 0305 0310 0317 0323 0328
6; 0350 0250 0200 0160 0140 0125 01:5 0110 0100 0100
5 1 0270 0280 0285 0290 0295 0805 0310 0320 0330 0340
4 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100
3; 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100 0100
2+ 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0020 0040 0070 0100
1} 0270 0280 0285 0290 0295 0305 0310 0320 0330 0340

66


-29-
VII. Conclusions

1. The application of sequential fuel injection to the
HRCC methanol engine was performed successfully with an 11
percent increase in rated power over the carbureted version.
The installation of this engine in the Audi 5000 (Diesel)
vehicle and subsequent chassis dynamometer evaluation was also
accomplished successfully.

2. On a "gasoline" equivalent basis, the Audi/HRCC (28
MPG city) demonstrated a 3 percent improvement in fuel economy
over the certification Audi/Diesel value. On a constant

performance basis, obtained by comparison to on-road data, the
Audi/HRCC showed an improvement of 10 percent in fuel economy
compared to the Audi/Diesel.

3. Measured and predicted Audi/HRCC performance is
improved by 22 percent over Audi/Diesel performance. The
Audi/HRCC averaged 13.0 seconds on ten 0-50 MPH acceleration
tests and 7.1 seconds on ten 30-50 MPH runs. Ricardo's
predicted values were 1.4 to 1.6 times higher (slower) than
EPA's measured values, but the percent improvement (22 to 24
percent) was the same.

4. Reduced NOx emissions, 0.44 g/mi + 0.07 g/mi, are
capable of being achieved with the sophisticated engine
management system provided by the Ricardo microprocessor engine
controller. An optimum combination of EGR rate, HC emissions,
ignition timing and transient control were obtained to achieve
this objective.

5. Transient operation of the Audi/HRCC was obtained
with acceptable driveability for both best economy and reduced
NOx control strategies when the MEC was calibrated with zero
throttle angle derivative. This result indicates that there
are already enough transient fueling controls built in to the
Ricardo MEC fueling strategy, such that minute changes in fuel
output with small changes in throttle angle are not necessary,
and actually degrade engine performance and driveability.

6. Engine cold start control needs to be improved and
is the source of unacceptably high methanol emissions. A
follow-up program which will modify the cylinder head for use
of pencil injectors with open-valve variable start of injection
through MEC control may address this shortcoming of the current
state of Audi/HRCC development.


crt

EEPROM BEST ECONOMY/OPT IGN.FEB 1986
H.A.- RPS(*10), V.A.- FUEL(*5)
0080 00s0

10} 0035
91 0090 0030 0030
8} 0100 0035 0035
7% 0110 0040 0040
61 0120 0045 0045
5} 0130 0050 0050
41 0140 0055 0055
31 0150 0060 0060
24 0150 0060 0060
1{ 0150 0060 0060

Exp. Impulse Time Constant(mS) - "Cc"

0030
0035
0035
0040
0040
0045
0045
0050
0050
0050

0050
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050

BEST ECONOMY MAPS

0050
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050

0050
00S0
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050

RIGRBO

Comauiring encimeens

0050
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050
00s0

>
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050
0050

H.A.- RPS(*10), V.A.- MAP(mB*100) <<

10 | 0000

rPNWRUDANDWO

0500
i 0500
1 0500
1 ©600
| ©000
t 0600
t 600
| 0600
i 0600
1

1

PNWHhUAYO.

H.A.- RPS(*2), V.

190

A.

>

>»>

0200
0200
0200
0200
0200
0200
0200
0200
0200
0200

Throttle Angle Derivative - "K" >
0140 0200 0200 0200 0200 0200 0200 0200
0160 0310 0280 0150 0200 0200 0200 0200
0180 0330 0300 0170 0200 0200 0200 0200
0200 0340 0320 0210 0200 0200 0200 0200
0220 0350 0340 0240 0200 0200 0200 0200
0240 0375 0360 0260 0200 0200 0200 0200
0270 0400 0380 0280 0200 000O 0200 0200
0300 0450 0400 0300 0200 0200 0200 0200
0300 0450 0400 0300 0200 0200 0200 0200
0300 0450 0400 0300 0200 0200 0200 0200
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
H.A.- RPS(*10), V.A.- MAP(mB*100)<< Advance Table(deg/100 BTDC) - "I"
a 0500 40900) «61300 41400 1500 1600 1700 1700
1600 1700 1900 2000 2200 2200 2200 2200
1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2600 2600
2100 2100 2200 2300 2400 2600 2700 2700
2300 2300 2300 2300 2500 2600 2700 2700
2300 2300 2300 2300 2500 2600 2700 2700
2300 2300 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2700
2300 _ 2300 2300 2400 2500 25600 2700 2700
2300 2300 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2700
occa =—00c00-s0cKH-—s—s« CcKK0K00—s EKHE0MNs—«s @—«s«aco—=«“#=EK
2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9
- MAP(mS*100) < Idle Ign. Map - "J" (deg/1CO BIDC) >
ccoo cooo. §=60500- 0500-0500 0500
0000 cooo. = 0500 1000
coco 0000 ©0500 1400
coco 000 = C600 1600
C000 0600 0600
000 Cé00 = 500 1800
000 0600 C600 1500 = 2000
0000 0600 0600 1600 2000
0000 0600 0600 1300 1600
0000 0000 = 0000 00cd =: 0000

PNW UIA TOO

64


(hou duns Pud; F000 Dieses

. Accel. Tess
- 6-30-85

O- 50 mph es

4. j§.7F see ae
gq. 13.75 see

3. 1§-9 see

4. 16.75 ses

5. 17. 50 See

ANG. 16.55 see 46. 7/25)
SDdey ).5359 V.¢¢36)

1770 AUDI Seco S Dike.

ViN= LE ADIZI72 #

30- 50 mph

1. 2.0 see
2. 3.5 see
2. 95 See
4. 9-5 see
6.9.9 See

AVE... 7/0 see

SDV. -4183


-22-

Vv. Vehicle Testing for Performance

In order to compare the Audi/HRCC MPG to the Audi/Diesel
MPG at equal performance, a series of acceleration tests were
performed on the Audi/HRCC to compare to the values in Table
2. Several sequences of 0 to 50 and 30 to 50 MPH accelerations
were run. Zero to 50 MPH times averaged 13.0 seconds and 30 to
50 MPH times averaged 7.1 seconds (see Table 7). Both sets of
measurements varied by roughly +6.0 percent. Both EPA
(measured) and Ricardo (predicted) Diesel performance values
are roughly 22 percent higher (slower) than the corresponding
M100 values with the Audi/HRCC as shown in Table 8.

The decision to run 0 to 50 MPH acceleration tests
initially on the Audi/Diesel as a baseline was made by the
previous project engineer on this program. Subsequent 0 to 50
MPH tests were run, by Ricardo simulation and by EPA on the
Audi/HRCC, for direct comparison to the baseline. Zero to 60
MPH tests, as is generally the standard practice in the
automotive industry, would have allowed "measured" values to be
compared to on-road acceleration data by the following equation
which has been derived using on-road acceleration data:[21]

to-so0 (sec) = 0.82 (HP/IW)~° *?

Using this expression, "calculated" values for 0 to 60 MPH
performance of the Audi/HRCC and the Audi/Diesel vehicles (both
3,250 lbs. 1W) are 17.3 and 19.8 seconds, respectively. This
means that the predicted 3,250 lb. Audi performance is improved
by 13 percent by using the sequentially fuel-injected methanol
HRCC engine instead of the original 2.0-liter Diesel engine.
This translates into a 6 percent loss in fuel economy due to
the higher performance of the HRCC engine (change in
performance = 0.454 change in MPG). Therefore, to compare the
methanol-fueled Audi to the diesel-fueled Audi at equal
performance, all fuel economy measurements generated in this
test program need to be multiplied by 1.06. Multiplication of
the Audi/HRCC average FTP MPG (28.0) by 1.06 yields 29.7 MPG,
or a 10 percent improvement over the Audi/Diesel at constant
performance.


FT-LBS AND BHP

ao

100
80
80
70
60
so
4O
30
20

10

Thermal Efficiency

i

Pigure 1

a
‘@
a
—— RICRAOG 100%
PWR
ees EPA 100% PHA *
1 1 4 1 L i
t) 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
: RPM
POWER
aor
ooo ‘
“rT. RICRACO TOROU
ooo EPR TORQUE
anpw RICAROO HP
seeder EPA HP
1 1 4. 1 1 1
to} 1000 2000 3000 4000 s000 6000
RPM .

_* EPA results from test 1173, Ricardo results on test 1361.



SUBCOMPACT CARS (Continued)

SUBCOMPACT CARS (Continued)

Menutecturer Veructe Oesenpton
H dis

i il oaag

i i Eo isl ahlss

MERCEDES-

BENZ

450SLC 275(4.SL1/8 (CAL\(FFS)|A3 Fi | 20A-80/8

OLDSMOBILE |

STARFIRE jrsesuza Ma 2 [HBK-78/10
15112.5U4 a3 zy
231(3.80)/6 (GM-BUICK}| M4 2
Zavasiyve = (GMBUICKIAS —|2

PUYMOUTH {

CHAMP Led Load 2 jheKr7et
jeara max2 [2 |
8/4 Max2 2
asa Aa 2

HORIZONS 10574 (M4 [2 HBK.81/17

TURISMO 10874 mf |

‘SAPPORO 15674 IMs 12 1208-7878
186/4 Aa i2 |

PONTIAC Ly

FIREBIRD 231(3.8L)/6 (GM-BUICK)|A3 @ 20R-85/7
‘01/4 91/8 wm lal
1 301(4.90)/8 (TURBO)! A9 i‘ q

i

SUNBIRO |evasure Ime '2 208-797
1su2.stye fag 12 im@k.7a/10
1231(3.8/8 (GM-BUICK)|Ma 2i
231(3.8L)/6 (GM-BUICK)|A3 2 1

sueARU !

SUBARU jo7/4 (NO CAT| Ma 2ORTINZ

32 (S421 9774 (CATIMa 4OR-78/12
yore (NO CATIMS: SBK-78/12
lore (canios. :

24 18649 | 109/4 43 i

SUBARU «WO ‘$887 larva (no CAN) ma HEK-78/12

TOYOTA ' i} :

CELICA 134/4 iM 20A-75/9
1344 (MS HOK.75/14
tiger 1A '

| ‘

CELICA SUPRA l 1586/6 {CAL)(FFS)( MS, MOK-75/13
1158/8 (CALIFS)| a4 i

COROLLA 108/4 Me 2 | 208-79/11
r08/4 Ims [2 !40R-79/15
roar [ag 2 (HBK-75/14
: H i

COROLLA ‘age ‘aaa 2 20R-80/9

TERCEL 89/4 Ms, 2 48K 30/13
sara wo 2

CORONA ware [Me 12 .sOR-B0/11
rare MS H8K-77/16
rare is “2 |

iy

CRESSIDA 56/8 (cauyers|ae if | aoR6or11

VOUXSWAGEN ! |

OASHER \90r4 (OIESEL)| Ma FIs HBK-76/15

(Com) (23 13887 197/46 Me Ae

16

Manutecturer . Veticte Osecription
Hy { d ad
2 E isl lst
VOUXSWAGEN
(Cont)
ASHER 22 java [97/4 as iF
(Cont) y
JETTA 25 |sseo jo7/4 Ms jet |20R70/13
22 jana 97/4 aa [477719
RABBIT 27 's800 |e0r4 ua |y |20R7778
/40 (s900 |90r4 (OTESEL)} ise [FI HOK.77/14
42 |szee |oore (OESELIMS FH
lz arse wer
25 lsao [ores ms fa
23 ee jorsa rey FI
SCIROCCO —_ 24 's580 07/6 a fri | HBK.72/14
25 |ssao |07/4 ws |
issa7 [9774 ia ir
F
-conorny Vohicte Oesenption
| H
i}
iL?
y t
‘sore 15174 ha
20 's675 |151/4 cag
17 "$794 !258/6 (FF) Me
‘s751 1258/6 (FFS)IAS
PACER s7oa !250/8 cersile
3 $751 258/68 AFFSILAD
Avot en {
5000 aaa [120/58 (OIESEL|MS
7 $794 1431/5 Ms
> $794 1131/5 a3
euw I i
7331 saea |196¢9.211/6 (CALUFFSIIMG |
Seas | 196(9.218 ALIFFSIAS |
BUICK hod |
SKYLARK ‘$569 |151(2.5Ly/4 M4 (2 '20R-94/16
S254 ‘43, 2 40R95/14
TH236 Me 2:
17312 86 ay 2}
FIAT
STRADA ‘anisooceya MS 2 HBK.85/15
3180060174 aa 2
FORO 1
GRANADA 28014 106 Met 20R.8975
2501816 LA 2 0R33/5
30215.0L178 is 2
UNCOLN 4 ian
MERCURY :
MONARCH S710 2504 14/6 (Mat 20R-89716
tCoet
17


Vw Ree MetHanon 1:4974 [72:Smmy 73-4m0] Org. No. OSGB08
HC - NO, TRADE ore Oate mARCH ‘8G

—eP INCREASING FUEL ConsuUMPTION
-——/_ TOWARD MINIMUM NO,

——

4
|—

jt
»
|

thoy RY: le
|
S

L 4
NA east Economy ‘Tey



~ nw

26 exhaust System-Emission Controls (ud! 4oe

UO

EGR vaive
if equipped 10 Nm (7 ft Ib) CAUTION
Do not hit or drop catalytic converter
because ceramic insert will be destroyed
Plug
CO probe ~ |
{Pe Patt

af BN aN) yw

38 Nm (25 ft Ib)
Te
wil Note

{.

Heat deflector
shield

rubber mounts as illustrated

25 Nm (18 ft Ib)

Oxygen sensor

(if equipped)

do not allow
anti-seize compound
‘on threads to get

in slots of sensor

Exhaust manifold

Exhaust pipe, front

dual jh
(dual pipe shown) 25 Nm (18 ft (b)

Gasket
metai lip faces

exhaust pipe 30 Nem (2 It 1b)

25 Nm (18 ft Ib)

[> rT)

Exe
— -
L Gasket

metal lip faces
intermediate pipe

OQ ruter mount

for rear muffler

intermediate pipe, rear

Rear muffler |

Exhaust system aligning VA
see page 26.3 25 Nm (18 ft Ib)

rene oan

for tail pipe

EGR temperature valve
checking page 26.14

Gasket

metal lip faces
Catalitic con
Catalytic converter
except Canada
checking, page 26.36

Nipple Always replace gaskets and use correct type

Intermediate pipe, front

verter



Ft lek

Pigure 3

100 T T + v T ——T r

90-

70P

60,

SOF

40h

SOF

“20b

10F



erie

RIGROO

CONSULTING EMGINEERS

(. ITEMLSTS .MEC. EPACON) MEC WIRING LOOM DETAILS 12-06-86

change description initials |
Derived from NEBOON all information not
relating to the EPA/METHANOL MEC loom
deleted.

12-06-86

NOTES:

12V Connected direct to injectors via relay

Gen. interconnection between loam and pickups by AMPHENOL type

plugs and sockets to MIL-C-?5482--62GB series.

** All these connections are made external to plug for

convenience and these pins should NOT be used.

*kkFuel injector outputs are routed through own bulkhead fitting

this applies to same vehicle applications ie. MEC in trunk.

SCREENED 4 - core 7/0.2 cable to be used throughout with

exception of fuel injs. where 4-core 16/0.2 is to be used.

Screens connected to pins as indicated through bulk-head

interface (i.e.Plug engine loam, Socket b/head) only.All screens

grouped at M.E.C. and remote from plug and grounded to case

(N.B. Ensure case is adequately grounded.

7 The cold start/warm-up air control valve is to be supplied via

the (battery) relay.(N.B. there is no connection through the

55-way. ).

8 Cammunication link between an ADM 3/5 terminal & MEC is detailed
in attached sketch.

9 Separate supply to MEC (NOT through 55-way). Gauge of cable
dependant on distance between battery and MEC ; in case of
VWi/Jetta(MEC sited in trunk, battery in engine comp't) 50/0.2
single core was used.

10 Same facilities provided for in the loom are not implemented
on the EPA/Methanol MEC and should be ignored. These are
Knock, Ring gear and spare PRT inputs .

ao a & WOW NH


Font = VOH . NOL.
pre & wee ot me SIZE CASS qutbe
a ane fee Cont sate cacent
$ ‘ nS. ven SAUts meee Cyn w
HER tw |S] seen “ay (ab Teas / , yin Ase
. | MY cuss t cua) ng Fine
Listing of -f at |IS: 8 an Jui refs c of sno I vm
vor Parl vt OWL pL
1 591 3000 FMDS 67 59021 121.0 M520 5 18.41 4 80 FLOD 9809 9809 5015 21.00 27.20 43.00 32.59 5000
2 591 3000 FAMS 103 59026 131.0 A310 5 13146 4 80 CLOV 4790 4790 5015 21.40 16.70 24.60 19.52 5000
3 591 3000 FMMS 103 59026 aa 131.0 M5205 13.19 4. 80 CLOV 663 663 5015 21.40 14.90 30.40 19.34 5000
4 591 3500 FAMS 107 59028 44 131.0 A310 5 14.78 4 80 FLOV 3987 3987 5015 21.40 17.50 24.90 20.20 5000
5 591 3000 FaMS 107 59027 44 131.0 A310 5 13.06 4 BO FLOV 10840 10840 5015 21.10 16.20 24.30 19.06 5000
6 591 3000 FMMS 107 59027 44 131.0 M5205 12.81 4 80 FLOV 1809 1809 ‘S015 21.10 16.10 29.50 20.24 5000


RIGRBO

Comsuctina ENGINEERS

MEC "IGNITION DRIVE" Interface with "IGNITION MODULE".

te----: 7
i (BOSCH) I
! Amplifier Switch Device H
penne - = - = - = +
7-WAY PLUG.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
i i { { { '
i t H H i H
{ Vv t t { t
Amphenol | Redundant | Hl t i
Plug Pin { Not used | ! t '
Wire Code B { B H i
Blu H Red i i
H v i v Vv
i Coil(Batt) | Battery -ve
i +12v ! Earth OOIL
1 '
Vv v
k j
MEC MEC
Ign. Drive Ign. Drive
Signal Return
ADM Terminal (RS232) Link To MEC
3 Pin-Din 25 Way



~33-
IX. Réferences (cont'd)

15. "Transient Mixture Strength Excursions - An
Investigation of Their Causes and the Development of a Constant
Mixture Strength Fueling Strategy,” Hires, S. D., et al., SAE
Paper 810495.

16. Audi 5000 Official Factory Service Manual: 1977
through 1983, Robert Bentley, (VW Service Publications), 1983.

17. VW Rabbit Official Factory Repair Manual: 1980-1982
Gasoline and Diesel, Robert Bentley, (VW Service Publications),
1982.

18. “Results of Initial Ricardo VW Testing," Bruce
Michael, Internal EPA Memo to Charles Gray, October 19, 1983.

19. "Examination of High Speed Data During Engine
Transients," C. A. Clark and B. J. Challen, SAE Paper 850402,
1985.

20. "Calculation of Emissions and Fuel Economy When
Using Alternate Fuels,' EPA/3-83-009, C. M, Urban, March 1983.

21. "Trends in Alternate Measures of Vehicle Fuel
Economy," K.H. Hellman, J.D. Murrell, J.P. Cheng, SAE 861426,
_ September 1986.

22. "Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles
and New Motor Vehicle Engines; Federal Certification Test
Results for the 1980 Model Year," Federal Register, Vol. 45,
No. 168, August 27, 1980.

23. “Methanol Interference on Chemilluminescent NOx
Analyzers," W. Adams, internal EPA memo to F.P. Hutchins, May
6, 1987.

24. "Toyota Electronic Control System for a Diesel
Engine," H. Miyagi, J. Nakano, M. Kobashi, SAE 830862, February
1983.


=9-

III, Diesel Vehicle Modifications and Engine Installation

The HRCC engine, as mentioned earlier, was installed in a
1980 Audi 5000 Diesel vehicle (VIN= 43A0131868). Prior to
engine installation, however, a substantial number of vehicle
and engine parts were procured or fabricated and various
vehicle modifications needed to be made.

The goal of these efforts was to ensure that the test
vehicle could be used both on the dynamometer for emissions
tests and as a vehicle for operation on the road. The overall
test program consisted of five distinct phases requiring
significant coordination of in-house personnel and test
facilities and extramural equipment and services. These five
phases were: 1) parts procurement; 2) vehicle modifications;
3) engine installation; 4) baseline Audi/HRCC vehicle cyclic
testing; and 5) transient fuel and EGR calibration optimization.

Neat methanol fuel was used for all chassis dynamometer
testing of the engine/vehicle combination. The test fuel
specifications are listed in Table 4.

Fitting a transverse engine into a vehicle originally
designed for a longitudinal engine presented significant
problems, particularly with a front-wheel drive vehicle (see
Figures 1 and 2). The exhaust system for this configuration is
completely different than VW Rabbit system and had to be
fabricated based on Audi 4000 components.[16]) Fortunately, the
engine being installed was relatively small (4-cylinder,
1.5-liter VW Rabbit base engine) compared to the vehicle engine
compartment designed for a S-cylinder 2.0-liter Audi Diesel
engine.{17] Engine compartment space was not expected to cause
insurmountable problems. However, the. front-end grille frame
on the Audi had been cut away slightly indicating that extra
space was necessary for the radiator when the carbureted
version of the HRCC engine was installed in the Audi.

Since the Audi vehicle had been sitting outside MVEL
without an engine for three years without ever being moved,
some components acquired a significant amount of rust. The
bell housing, transmission inlet shaft, and transaxle were
scrubbed with steel wool, thoroughly cleaned and lubricated.
The front tires were replaced and new front disc brake pads
were installed. New engine mounts were fabricated and the
alignment, fitting, and weight distribution of the engine,
drivetrain and transmission was performed. Radiator mounting
brackets were fabricated and installed and a hood scoop was
fitted since the new engine configuration sat a little higher
in the vehicle compartment with the new engine mounts and fuel
injection components. The emergency brake was repaired and the
hood release was attached.


Ane

Pigure 10

NOx. - Ga/Kw-hr



Test Run

OPWNH

Average

Std. Dev.

-8-

Table 2

Audi 5000 Diesel Performance:

June 30,

1983 Acceleration Tests

0-50 MPH

(sec)

15.75
18.75
15.00
15.75
17.50

16.55

1.535

Test Run

UePWnre

Average

Std. Dev.

30-50 MPH
(sec)

wo wvwnw
ouunue

ray

* 30-50 MPH accelerations performed cruising at 30 MPH
third gear.

HC
co
CO:
NOx
MPG

Table 3

1980 Audi 5000 Certification Diesel Emissions

and Fue

1 Economy (g/mi, MPG)

ETP
0.405
1.330

371
1.710

27

HFET
0.162
0.460

236
1.075

43

Combined = 33

in


Pigure ¢
Volumetric Efficiency Comparison
a0
va
70 ° —— x —X
ae Riedardo (400% p
60
eS emo . .
“vo
i}
dso EPA Test 1173
>
— 1002 PNR
20 wwe 70% PHA
10
l L 1 1 1
3800 4000 usoo $000 $s00

APR



-21-

Table 6

Best Economy Calibration FTP
Emission and Fuel Economy Results, Audi/HRCC (g/mi)

Date HC co NOx CH30H HCHO OMHCE MPG City
04/10/87 0.47 6.7 N/R 10.90 N/T 5.19 27.8
04/14/87 0.46 7.1 1.5 10.69 - 483 5.09 27.9
04/15/87 0.42 6.6 1.3 9.76 +398 4.65 28.3
Average 28.0
Average (@ constant performance) 29.7
Diesel comparison 27.0

MPG city means 1975 FTP gasoline equivalent MPG.

N/R means not reported. Stable NOx readings were not possible.
N/T means not tésted for.

First test: one stall, six false starts in Bag l.

Second test: 8 stalls, 1 false start, Bag 1.

Third test: 5 stalls, 1 false start, Bag l.

Table 7

Performance Results, Audi/HRCC

0-50 Accel. 30-50 Accel.

(seconds) (seconds) Vehicle
13.0 7.1: Audi/HRCC
16.6 9.1 Audi/Diesel

Testing conducted on a chassis dynamometer.

For 0-50 times, gears selected for best performance.

For 30-50 times, maneuver started at 30 cruise, run in third
gear.


-16-

A- MEC calibration operates by defining the ignition
advance and fuel injector pulse length for a given engine speed
(rev/s) and manifold absolute pressure (mbar). The temperature
inputs (ambient, inlet manifold, and coolant) are used to
modify certain derived variables in the engine control strategy
during warmup periods. The control strategy structure is
fixed, but is tunable by ten maps (of 10 by 10 elements). The
elements of these maps may be individually edited. Permanent
or temporary offsets may also be added to every element of a
specified map. The state of MEC can be constantly displayed on
a Lear Siegler ADM 11 terminal. A trace of input and output
variables may also be stored in volatile memory, and
subsequently retrieved for display. The required changes to
maps are also made via the terminal. The ten derived variables
and their associated maps are described further in Table 5.

The 10 by 10 elements are accessed by using the two input
values as indices (after normalization), such that a block of
four map values are identified as "surrounding" the true map
operating point. The map output is then computed by linear
interpolation within this block. The temperature compensation
coefficients (X map variables) are also linearly interpolated
between adjacent defined values.

On power-up, the MEC writes a heading at the top of the
screen and then writes several lines of variable names together
with their current values. These values are only updated when
the engine is running, consequently at power-up, the values
have no significance. The final line of the display field
prompts for a character to be entered. A drawing of a typical
MEC VDU engine panel display is shown in Figure 5.

If the "character" is one corresponding to a map (as in
Table 5), then the corresponding map will be displayed together
with a prompt for map modification. While the display is being
continuously updated, other characters can be entered which
perform map storage and recall functions with the non-volatile
memory. Up to six sets of ten 10 by 10 maps, i.e., six "proms”
can be stored simultaneously in non-volatile memory.

A trace facility is also provided for diagnostic
purposes. Traces can be started, aborted and displayed.[19]
Up to ten variables from a pre-defined set may be stored every
occasion control of the engine is invoked. Memory capacity
allows up to 800 cycles to be retained. Up to four of the
variables may be output on analog channels, with a facility to
determine the gain of individual channels. These traces helped
immeasurably in the fine tuning of MEC maps to achieve lean
operation of methanol in the Audi on the chassis dynamometer
with acceptable driveability.


Predicted Hot-LA4 Results Using Ricardo CYSIM

-5-

Table 1

Drive Cycle Simulation Program*

Fuel Economy Accel. Time
HC NOx cO Meth. Gas 0-50 30-50
Vehicle/Engine/Strategy (q/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) MPG Equiv. (sec) (sec)
1. VW Rabbit/Carb/0.8 ER 1.61 2.07 1.17 13.85 28.61 -- --
2. VW Rabbit/Carb/EGR 1.35 0.98 1.75 14.76 30.49 - --
3. VW Rabbit/Injected/ 1.95 1.29 3.35 16.84 34.80 15.0 9.1
0.7 ER
4, VW Rabbit/Injected/ 1.70 0.59 8.77 16.48 34.05 15.0 9.1
EGR
5. Audi 5000/Injected/ 1.92 1.75 3.37 16.30 33.68 18.0 11.0
0.7 ER
6. Audi 5000/Injected/ 1.91 1.07 19.90 14.90 30.79 -- -~
EGR**
7. Audi 5000/Injected/ 1.82 0.67 #%14.52 15.40 31.82 18.0 11.0
EGR+
8. Audi 5000/Injected/ 1.94 0.65 21.24 14.50 29.96 -- --
EGR++
9. Audi 5000/Diesel/no 0.11 2.15 -- -- 32.85 22.9 14.4
EGR
* Steady-state simulation--no cold start adjustment.
** Reduced NOx calibration without spark retard.
+ Initial reduced NOx calibration with spark retard.
++ Final reduced NOx calibration with spark retard.
Notes:

VW Rabbit - 2500 lbs inertia weight.
Audi 5000 - 3250 lbs inertia weight.
0.8 ER = Best economy carbureted calibration.

0.7 ER = Best economy fuel-injected calibration.
EGR = Reduced NOx calibration (0.8 ER).


BAG BY BAG TEST RESULTS FROM 26582-MXx

TEST BO % <---CURRENT TEST RESULTS --->  <--- PROPOSED TEST CALCULATIONS (GRAMS/BAG ) --->
NUMBER A OF. MILES HC co coz NOX ne co co2 NOX = OMHCE =CH30H HCHO
- G METH === = rrr ene ee eee nent teen were seer natn atertee
71791 BAG=1 100. 3.630 23.616 40.016 1007.37 0.0 2.802 40.018 1006.85 0.0 30.82164.702 0.00004
671791 BAG=2 100. 3.877 14.351 15.308 1100.59 0.0 1.689 15.308 1101.68 0.0 18.57438.993 0.00004
871791 BAG=3 100. 3.579 9.543 31.201 8654.09 0.0 1.123 31.201 653.60 0.0 12.35225.931 0.00003
871792 BAG=1 100. 3.540 24,368 46.476 972.95 6.098 2.867 46.482 974.09 6.10031.53566.201 0.00004
871792 BAG=2 100. 3.883 13.641 15.103 1098.44 4.772 1.605 15.103 1099.11 4.77217.65537.064 0.00004
871792 BAG=3 100. 3.574 9.020 31.239 848.23 6.077 1.061 31.239 847.99 6.07811 .67624.510 0.00003
871793 BAG=1 100. 3.579 18.655 42.235 963.53 5.177 2.195 42.250 964.17 5.18124.14650.690 0.00004
671793 BAG=2 100. 3.885 13.667 15.239 1092.99 3.938 1.608 15.239 1095.55 3.94117.686937.135 0.00004
871793 BAG=3 100. 3.589 9.018 27.371) 651.18 5.866 1.061 27.37) 850.89 5.86811.67324.505 0.00003
873925 BAG=1 100. 3.576 22.389 61.147 987.32 2.571 2.635 61.148 986.79 2.57628.98760.853 0.0
873925 100. 3.893 12.970 40.198 1117.20 1.807 1.526 40.197 1118.51 1.81316.79U35.248 0.0
873925 100. 3.619 9.638 61.252 864.59 1.918 1.134 61.252 864.71 1.92212.47726.192 0.0
875035 100, 3.609 22.421 60.956 996.49 2.472 2.638 60.956 997.23 2.47329.01960.921 0.0
875035 tou, 3.936 13.940 44.957 1132.80 1.085 1.640 44.956 1132.02 1.08618.04437.881 0.0
875035 (UU. 4.641 10,153 58.219 856.32 1.605 1.195 58.219 855.63 1.60613. 14227.589 0.0
875036 10. 3.559 23.560 66.873 966.01 2.103 2.772 66.873 966.71 2.10930.49664.02U 0.0
875036 WOO, 3.894 15.114 53,234 1112.22 1.118 1.778 53.234 1111.94 1.11919,.56541.068 0.0
875036 1G, 3.597 10.642 70.413 852.01 1.608 1.276 70.413 851.71 1.60814.04329.459 0.0

bl-my


APPENDIX C



~26-

Following calibration of the control strategy, the engine
was then run with auto fueling/auto ingition/auto EGR to obtain
performance and emission readings from which the specific
reduced NOx strategy performance maps were derived.

As a result, up to 15 percent EGR is used under medium
load conditions and part load equivalence ratios are in the
range of 0.8 to 0.9. Brake thermal efficiency was slightly
reduced with the maximum reduced by 2 percent to 31 percent.
Comparison of the reduced NOx maps with the best economy maps
shows that at low load conditions, significant reductions have
been achieved but increased HC emissions are evident at higher
loads. Conversely, NOx emissions are somewhat increased at low
load conditions, although they remain at a low absolute level
but are significantly reduced in the medium to high load range;
the peak NOx level of 12 g/kW h is reduced to 2 g/Kw h over the
range of engine speed used during the FTP drive cycle.

When we began testing the Audi/HRCC with the MEC set on
the reduced NOx strategy, it was difficult to achieve accurate
NOx emissions, because NOx response failed to return to zero
stripchart deflections after pre-sample bag analyzer span
checks. The error was determined to be less than 5 percent by
the amount of deflection from the zero point and this
deflection remained stable throughout most tests. However, the
cause of interference by methanol exhaust has not been
determined as of this writing. Preliminary analysis determined
that the deflection from zero was proportional to methanol
emissions and did not occur at low methanol emission rates or
with other methanol vehicles and other NOx measuring
instruments.[23] This problem is still being investigated
within the Test and Evaluation Branch.

A catalyst, with a loading of 9:1 Pt:Rh, was installed on
the Audi/HRCC vehicle to see if the level of catalyst-out
emissions was significantly lower than engine-out emissions
enough to not interfere with accurate operation of the NOx
analyzer. Although emission levels were significantly reduced,
particularly the reported HC and NOx emissions, problems with
the NOx analyzer persisted. It was then decided to complete
testing of the reduced NOx (zero throttle angle) calibration
without the catalyst and merely note that NOx emissions are in
error by the amount of the response deflection from zero. The
results of this testing are shown in Table 9.

These test results show that the NOx emission target of
0.7 g/mi was easily achieved with the HRCC engine in the Audi
with acceptable driveability. Unfortunately, though NOx
averaged 0.44 g/mi ’(37 percent below the emission target),
other exhaust emissions were substantially high, particularly
formaldehyde and methanol emissions.


ve ee es Figure 2

Front-drive longitudinal-engine cars

VW Dasher; Audi Fox, 4000, 5000
Four-cylinder carburetor engine
Cylinder head :
}. Intake marutold

|. Fuel-injection distributor

1
2.

3.

4.

5. Air cleaner

6. Cool aw duct

7. Fuel-injector tines

8. PCV hose

9. Oil dipstick

10. Cilfiter

11. Oil filler cap.

12. Drive belt

13. Crankshall pulley

14. Electric tan

15. Water puinp

16. Radiator

17. Radiator cap

18. Radiator hoses

19. Radiator overtiow recovery tank
20. Exhaust pipe

21. Mutftler

22. Camshalt drive bell cover

23. Overhead camshalt cover ny
Drive trans a

24. Clutch housing '

25. CVjoint

26. Drive axle

27. Shift tever

28. Shittlinkage

29. Clutch pedat

30. Clutch cable

31. Clutch- operating fork
32. Transaxle

WHLELS, IES GARE S

. Tue FLECIRICAL SYSIEM
. Wheel bearing . Battery

- Brake disc STEERING . Coit

. Brake caliper SuSLNSION |. Steering wheel . Distributor

37. Brake pedal 42. Lower A-arm 48. Steering column |. Alternator

38. Brake vacuum booster Stabilizer bar 49. Rack and pinion assembly 57. Spark plug
39. Brake fluid reservoir spring $0. Tierod 58. Spark plug cables
40. Brake master cylinder jock absorber 51. Steering knuckle 59. Windstueld washer
41. Parking brake lever 46. MacPherson sut 52. Rubber boot reservoir
163



-31-

VIII.FUture Engine Modifications and Vehicle Evaluation

At the completion of the second Ricardo contract,
additional contract funds still remained and Ricardo agreed to
use them for the further development of the HRCC engine
concept. It was decided, as an attempt to improve cold
startability and warm-up emissions, that the HRCC engine would
be modified to employ low-cost high-speed “direct-injection"
methanol combustion.

An additional VW Rabbit cylinder head was machined with
the same compression ratio and squish as the original HRCC
design to incorporate pencil (stream-type) fuel injectors as
opposed to the previous spray-cone injectors.[24] MEC software
is being modified to change the end of injection such that the
start of injection will vary with fuel quantity during engine
transients. The injection phasing will remain the same at 70° _
CA.

This work will soon be completed by Ricardo such that EPA
evaluation of this HRCC modification can be performed. The
theory behind this system is that enough of the spray will
ignite before impingement so that the delay period will be
normal, while the bulk of the spray will have to evaporate from
the cavity walls prior to combustion. Thus, the second stage
of the combustion process is slowed down, avoiding excessive
rates of pressure rise. With fuel injected past open intake
valves, it is theorized that heat losses will be minimal as
More combustion occurs at TDC, more residuals are burned,
leaner combustion is possible, and engine startability and
warm-up emissions should be measurably improved.


O“NO S1TE:0209

TEST # 871791

1980

LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS

| PROCESSED: 16:31:44 APR 10, 1987
a MFR. ALT EQUIVALENT ACTUAL OVER- /- ~-- TEST TYPE -
MFR. VER- REP, RUN. RETEST HP TEST DYNO TRANS. DRIVE — EXPE
640 4300131868 ie) N CVS 75-LATER
CURB ORV AXLE AXLE /->7- IGNITION TIMING ---/  / 1OLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE = #1 a2 RPM GEAR IDLE HIGH SPEED RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED
04-09-87 EMPTY 2 0.0
ieieieieteneiel AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS --~~---/
BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX cvs
“HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM  GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE
28.93 48.0 74.0 0 39.7 51.36 0.9000 27
OYNAMOMETER TESf CONDITIONS -------~ J
DYNO. ACTUAL OYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM
TEST OATE HR SITE {Iw SET TwHP PSI (MI) MILES
04-10-87 12 0209 3250 §.0 45.00 75214.5 N/A
BAG 1 3.630 MILES 5.841 KM 8463. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 3256.0 CU.FT. OILUTION FACTOR = 18.572
SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX, AUX. AUX,
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC, CONCENTRATIONS GMS GMS/MI GMS/KM = FIELOI1 = FIELD2 CODE
HC-FID 19 35.0 447.92 19 0.0 0.0 447.92 PPM 23. 6.561 4.077
NOX-CHEM 15 0.0 0.0 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 PPM oO. 0.0 0.0 MPG KPL -L/S00KM
co2 22 66.0 0.639 22 5.0 0.045 0.597 % 1007 277.531 172,450 13.0 6.55 18.0
co 19 40.3 372.78 19 0.0 0.0 372.78 PPM 40. 11.025 6.851
METHANE 15 7.2 3.60 15 3.4 1.70 1,99 PPM o. 0.029 0.018
HC-NM 445.92 PPM 23. 6.532 4,059
BAG 2 3.877 MILES 6.239 Km 9039. ROLL REVS. SECS, VMIX= 4747.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 25.901
SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX, AUX. AUX.
% RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMs. GMS/M1 GMS/KM = FIELD1 ~— FIELD2 CODE
HC-FID 16 63.0 188.59 16 1.2 3.60 185.13 PPM 14.35 3.702 2.300
NOX-CHEM 15 0.0 0.0 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 PPM 0.0 0.0 0.0 MPG KPL —L/VO00KM
coz 22 51.3 0.489 = 22 4.8 0.043 0.448 % 1100.59 263.693 176.403 13.6 5.80 17.2
co 7 39.8 97.85 7 0.0 0.0 97.81 PPM 15.31 3.949 2.454
METHANE 15 3.6 1.80 15 3.2 1.60 0.26 PPM 0.02 0.05 0.003
HC-NM 184.87 PPM 14.33 3.696 2.297
BAG 3 3.579 MILES 5.759 KM 8344. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 2761.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 19.272
SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX.
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM = FIELDI = FIELD2 CODE
HC-FIO 16 72 215.92 16 1.5 4.49 211.66 PPM 9.54 2.667 1.657
NOX- CHEM 15 0.0 0.0 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 PPM 0.0 0.0 0.0 MPG KPLL/100KM
coz 22 66.0 0.639 22 5.0 0.045 0.597 % 854.09 238.661 148.297 15.8 6.71 14.9
co 19 37.2 342.76 19 0.0 0.0 342.76 PPM 31.20 6.719 5.417
METHANE 15 5.5 2.75 15 3.4 1.70 1.14 PPM 0.05 0.014 0.009
HC-NM 210.52 PPM 9.49 2.652 1,648
WEIGHTED VALUES HC NM-HC co co2 NOX MPG KPL L/100KM
GRAMS /MILE 4.013 4.000 6.72 270. 0.0 FUEL ECONOMY 14.0 6.0 16.8
BEFORE ROUNDING 4.01312 4.00040 6.7250 270.19 0.0 14,0380 5.9604 16.7773
GRAMS/KM 2.494 2.486 4.18 168. 0.0
BEFORE ROUNDING 2.49363 2.48573 4.1787 167.89 0.0
COMMENTS: RICARDO AUDI EE PROM 6 COLD START ONE STALL 6 FALSE STARTS BAG 1
NOX SAMPLES OVER 20 MIN. LIMIT UNABLE TO GET STABLE NOX READINGS
THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS.
16418 0 DYNO SITE:D209° TEST 87-1791


|
|
a

sts i
aie fai
a - es ca
eae I — a CE wy
pS a ai
od T ia
NO 4 or
B i a es
of
VT
eS
= ‘sn oe 3
=z a tit
fio “ ee =
ct J 1} io u a
{- + ‘ar : t at =
4 L man ~T a) x
X ms a a oO =
T Z- _f "3
¥ : im :
a" ae Fe
i :
\ — my & oo 4
X\ : Y As a kJ
ae a
aw : rer”
- i a
=— me
- L ae
is i Tors
i Toy
aL st ei]
J an z
N TTT 7
-=— eS Pe m
I Tso
: I 3a
By i re Fuso
a aT AR = i Ps
i - Y oa
>) =a on
i PS
Ts
I x) <>
a" |
— L vt
: Xx f
SS
AE > 7
7
iz oS
y
I AN
w
i
Lam
=
=
7
a ba : To
ay YS Li at ‘im
ari: Sa st t n
=x a7 i Hi Te
ak a : i
“ = Lite 7 T
Sarai Pa tt Ti i
a pS 7 T
! marae 6 am TH
— T oa TEN



-13-

Engine installation required the measurement and fitting
of several related components. A flywheel spacer plate was
fabricated to align the Ricardo flywheel with the flywheel
adaptor plate, bell housing, magnetic pickup and = starter
motor. The flywheel adaptor was machined to accept a slightly
altered starter geometry to line up with the Ricardo flywheel
teeth. A new pilot bearing was machined to match the main
shaft from the transmission. A new throwout bearing was
installed and the clutch slave piston was lengthened to allow
the clutch to engage and disengage smoothly without loss of
hyraulic fluid. All hydraulic systems were bled and fluids
replaced. A new Bosch fuel pump, stainless steel fuel lines,
fuel filters and pressure gauges were installed. Existing
power steering and air conditioning system components were
removed since they would not be needed for the Audi/HRCC test
program. A methanol tolerant fuel cell was installed in the
trunk.

After vehicle modifications were complete, and the engine
was installed in the vehicle, all associated components were
assembled and connected. The air inlet system needed to be
rerouted to connect. with the previous transverse engine
configuration. A VW throttle cable was purchased and installed
with a special pop fit terminal on the throttle to adapt it
from automatic to a standard transmission configuration. Two
adaptors were manufactured to fit the modified Audi 4000
exhaust manifold and head pipe through the engine compartment.
A straight section in the exhaust pipe was fitted in case
-catalyst testing was to be performed after the engine-out
emissions were baselined. A completely new wiring harness was
installed to hook up all electrical connections. This allowed
the Ricardo EGR and microprocessor engine controller (MEC)
systems to be installed and tested for accurate operation (see
Figures 3 and 4). Once these systems were set up and nominally
functional, all other hoses, pipes, valves, sensors, belts and
thermostats were hooked up. New fuses, a battery, spark plugs
and wires, distributor cap and rotor and oil filter were all
purchased locally and installed.

The MEC required many connections for various inputs and
outputs. Inputs to the MEC include a throttle potentiometer,
crank and camshaft pickups, exhaust gas and manifold charge
thermocouples, and coolant and inlet air platinum resistance
thermometers. MEC outputs include signals to the ignition
module (distributor and coil), fuel injectors, the Pierburg EGR
control unit and an ADM 11 video display terminal. The MEC
unit itself was installed in the passenger compartment by
removing the front passenger-side seat.


BRACE EER EERE EEN ES EERE EERE ERT ED HER EN EE RES EREE DEERE EERE SEAB ERAN E RSE EAED DEE DEER EEE EAE
WARNING: CRITICAL CODE STORED IN VI FILE DIFFERS FROM ERRORS FOUND DURING THIS RUM.
CRITICAL CODE=0(" ") - PROGRAM FOUND "#"= 1,"*#"= 0 ~ PLEASE “CORRECT” Ths vEMICLE.
Peeereete rete ctelestitirrsiiriteiereteeterr ric aer tsi ttee rise teeTsveee sees cere srreceerredes

VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT ~ DATE OF ENTRY Vs 7/87
MANUFACTURER VEHICLE ID / VER REPRESENTED CARLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CODE SOURCE
AuDI 4300131868 io} SEDAN FRONT ORIVE STR. EPA
DRIVE AXL WTS EQuiv, Etw
VEHICLE MODEL ACTIVE FULL EMPTY CURB INERTIA TEST C.D. O76 ACTUAL RUNNING CHG
TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL VEAR YEAR TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS WEIGHT H.P. METHOD ven COLL DYNO HP NUMBER
NON-CER AUDI 5000S 80 80 P Pe 2625P 3000P 3250P NO ENTRY you
ODOMETER FIRE - SPECIE SCAT ions
CORRECTION TIRE & RIM swi BLT PST TO
ASSIGNED DF OR DURABILITY VEHICLE 10 ALT. MANUFACTURER INITIAL FACTOR SIZES MER Ons Fie ho M oN MET RR OP
185/70R14
ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS
RATED ENGINE ENGINE NO. NO, TOTAL FUEL SYSTEM FUEL TuRBUsUPEK | LOM. COAST
DISPLACEMENT BORE STROKE HP TYPE CONFIGURATION CYL. CARBS BBLS MER/MODEL IND GHARGLI,COULING RATIO ON TM
3.13€ 2.896 79 OTTO SPARK IN-LINE 4 HONE O.U
IGNITION IGNITION TIM, TIMING RPM TIMING % CO % CO %CO co IOLE IDLE I0LE
TIMING 1 TIMING 2 TOL. RPM TOL. GEAR LEFT RIGHT COMB TOL. RPM TOL. GEAR ENGINE AMIEL» FNGINE CODE
ORIVE TRAIN ANO CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
AXLE N/V AIC CRANKCASE TRANSMISSION SHIFT INDIC, EVAPORATION
RATIO RATIO ODOMETER INSTALLED EXHAUST TYPE SYSTEM CONFIG MODIF CODE LIGHT SYSTEM FUEL TYPE
0.0 0.0 -NO ENTRY ME PHAHOL,
$$$
MAIN-TANK AUX. ~ TANK EVAPORATIVE EMISSION

CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY VOLUME SHIFT SPEED FAMILY COBE DALES CLASS

HO “ALES ChASS SPECIFIED

VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS hoakt COMMENTS

1641B 0


beng sles beuy Fest # w/bu35 I 1980 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 12:32:47 AUG 28, 1987

a MER. ALT. EQUIVALENT ACTUAL OVER- f- --- TEST TYPE -- om
ME ls. Ver REP, RUN. RETEST HEP. TEST DYNO TRANS. ORIVE EXPE
dt a SAU Tis bes tits vu n CVS 75-LATER
CURB DRY AALE BALE /--> IGNITION TIMING - % CO - 1OLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME
PREP DALE WEI! WEIGHT GAUGE MLASURE ay #2 RPM GEAR IDOLE HIGH SPEED RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED
ob Zora EMPTY 24 0.0,
a moses AMBIENT Thott CONDLTIONS => >> ca
BAR DEW AMB TEMP 2 REL S.HUM NOAA cvs
"4G POINT PEMP UNIT 1tUuM GR/LB FACTOR ALLEMYDES RGE
9.08 47.9 TS. b au. 50.90 U.H98S 27C
--s os DYHAMOMLIEK FEST CONDITIONS /
DYN ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODUMETER SYSTEM
HOES VATE Hk SITE tw SET TwHP: est (Mi) MILES
beets Bs Yb D2Uy 3eZbu 5.0 45.00 75556.2 N/A
BAG I 0009 MITES 5. HUB RM 6415. ROLL REVS. SECS. vVMIxX= 2489.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.346
“Ele wavs EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX.
METER CONC RANGE METER CONC. .CONCENTRATIONS GMS GMS/M1 GMS/KM FIELD! FIELD2 CODE
web tbe woe 40 Ba ww 0.27 5.96 475.25 PPM 22.42 6.212 3.860
Get soy” VW Ge 1S 0.74 0.35 17.59 PPM 2.47 0.685 0.426 MPG KPL L/100KM
ae “ we L708 a 4.4 0.045 0.666 % 996.49 276.102 171.562 12.8 5.43 18.4
te Ww LOB Lsy Ub WW uu 0.0 639.95 PPM 60.96 16.689 10.494
Me brant iy yiue 4.96 it 3.87 1.90 3.17 PPM 0.15 0.041 0.026
wioNM 472.08 PPM 22.27 6.170 3.834
Wan $956 MILES 6.344 KM GI77. RULL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 4779.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 24.444
STR wares EXMAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX,
KANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER 7 CONE CONCENTRATIONS GMS - GMS/MI GMS/KM FIELOr FIELD2 CODE
me FLO 1G bIL5 164.09 16 yg 5.09 178.63 PPM 94 3.542 2.201
NUS TUE M 1U. 8%, v.49 tb , 3f, 215 4.67 PPM 09 0.276 o.171 MPG KPL L/10UKM
cue blue u.s0l 2 4.97 0.046 0.458 % 80 287.807 178.835 13.0 5.52 18.1
co SV. 24 2bG se 9 o.u4 0.0 285.32 PPM .96 11,422 7.097
METHANE ana 2.55 15 he 1.85 0.78 PPM .06 0.015 0.010
HL- NM 177.85 PPM 88 3.526 2.191
BAG 3 3.4) MILES So bho KM B4b9. KOLL REVS SECS. 2782.0 CU.FT. OILUTION FACTOR = 18.563
SITE #Azus BANAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX.
KANGE MEIER, CONC RANGE METER os CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM FIELDI FIELD2 CODE
Ck oe TO.57 15 ww 2.0 5.99 223.48 PPM 10.15 2.789 1.733
NOA> CHEM ik whee ye wal ws 1s 7 0.65 11.66 PPM 1.60 0.441 0.274 MPG KPL L/100KM
coz ee 6o.0 UL 69d LZ 4.7, 0.044 0.594 % B56.32 235.195 146.143 45.3 6.50 15.4
co ir 66.3% vsd 73 1 v0.0" 0.0 634.73 PPM 58.22 15.990 9.936
ME THANE 15 117 J.u5 9 3.87 1.90 2.06 PPM 0.09 0.026 0.016
HC -NM 221.43 PPM 10.06 2.763 1.77
WEIGHTED VALUES fae NM-HC co co2 NOX MPG KPL L/100KM
GRAMS/MILE ¥. BBS 3.86) 13.460 277. 0.41 FUEL ECONOMY 13.5 5.8 17.4
BEFORE KUUNDING Subd Ss 3.86117 13.7977 270.98 0.4051 13.4986 5.7509 17.3883
GRAMS / KM aia 2 8.57 168. 0.25
BEFORE ROUNUING 413uu 2 8.5735 168.38 0.2517

COMMENTS: AUDI FROM Sat

TL FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS.

16418 0 OYNO SITE:D209 TEST 87-5035


Electrical system
See page 106 for Diesel engine.

90

Starter
Radiator fan
Alternator

Size of V-belts:
for alternator
for air conditioner ;
for power assisted steering

{Ignition distributor

{gnition system

Firing order
Spark plugs

for California models

Plug thread
Electrode gap

Dimensions
A — 189.0 in/4798 mm

B- 69.6in/1768 mm

C= 54.7 in/1390 mm (unladen)
D- 40.3 in/1023 mm

E- 42.9 in/1087 mm

F- 24°

G- 19° (unladen)

H — 105.9 in/2688 mm (unladen)
J - 57.9in/1470 mm

K- 4.4 in/ 112 mm (laden)

Turning circle, curb to curb 33.8 ft/10.3 m.

Weights
Vehiclecapacityweight . . 2...
Curb weight with Manual Transmission
Curb weight with Automatic Trans-
mission
Gross vehicle weight
Gross axle weight, front
Gross axle weight. rear

Permissible roof weight*

oe 12 Volts
oe 63 Ampere hours

1.5 hp/L.ikw

- + 250 watts
- . 1050 watts 14 volts/75 amp.

Le 9.5 x 800
we 12.5 x 91S

12.5 x 1003 LA

with combined vacuum and centrifugal
spark advance

Le Transistorized (breakerless)
ae 1-2-4-5-3
. + Bosch W 175 T30

Beru 175/14/3A
Champion N8 Y

ae Bosch WR 7 DS

Beru RS 35
Champion N 8 GY

oa {4mm
«+ 0.027 in/0.7 mm

+ —) —> 36-201
+ 8 —____ >
i

see sticker on the inside of the fuel filler Map.
2703 Ib/1225 kg

2736 Ib/1240 kg

see Safety Compliance Sticker on the left
door jamb.

165 (b/75 kg

+ Applies only to roof rack mounted to rain gutters. Distribute luau eveniy!


RIGREO

Cowaucring tmcime tas,

EEPROM BEST ECONOMY/OPT IGN.FEB 1986 recalled
H.A.- RPS(*10), V.A.- MAP(mB*100)<< Fuel Injection Table(Fuel/100) - "F" >>
10} 0000 4100 4600 4950 5350 5450 5700 5900 6100 6300
1 0000 2380 2575 2710 2800 2815 2930 2990 3050 3100
+ 0000 2130 2275 2395 2470 2480 2590 2650 2700 2750
1 0000 1850 1980 2080 2125 2165 2240 2305 2380 2450
1 0000 1580 1690 1770 1830 1840 1950 1970 2020 2100
+ 0000 1350 1420 1470 1520 1530 1640 1640 1670 1700
1 Q00O 1100 1160 1170 1220 1220 1320 1320 1350 1400
1 0000 0900 0915 0930 0970 1010 1050 1200 OVRUN OVRUN
1 0000 OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN
' 0000 OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN

PNWRUDNIDO

~ RPS(*2), V -A.- MAP(mB*100) < Idle Fuel Map - "G" (Fuel/100) >

10 i 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 4100
1 4500 4500 4500 4500 4400 4200 4000 4000 4000 2380
t 4200 4200 4200 4000 3700 3400 3200 3200 3200 2130
{ 3800 3800 3800 3500 3200 3000 2600 2600 2600 1850
t 3000 3000 3000 2700 2400 2100 2000 2000 2000 1580
1 2600 2600 2400 2200 2000 1700 1700 1600 1600 1350
t+ 2000 1900 1800 1600 1600 1480 1370 1280 1250 1100
| OVRUN OVRUN 1500 1400 1300 1200 1020 0950 0900 0900
| OVRUN OVRUN 1800 1600 1500 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200
| OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN OVRUN

PNWRUDNIDO

H.A.- RPS(*10), V.A.- FUEL(*5) << Exp. Impulse Heighe(®) "H" >>

10; OOOO 0030 0030 0030 0030 0030 0030 0030 0030
+ 0000 0050 0040 40 0045 0030 $030 0030 «40030 0030
+ 0000 0070 0045 0050 0060 0030 0030 0030 30 0030
i+ 0000 0080 0050 055 0070 0030 0030 0030 030 0030
+ 0000 0090 0060 0060 0080 030 O30 0030 0030 0030
+ 00CO 0100 0070 0065 85 O30 030 0030 0030 0030
+ 0000 0110 0080 0075 0090 30 30 0030 0030 0030
+ 0000 0120 0cOo90 0080 0100 0030 C030 0030 0030 0030
i 0000 0120 0090 0080 0100 30 030 0030 0030 030
+ OOOO 0120 0090 80 0100 30 30 0030 30 0030

PNWRUDANWO

H.A.- RPS(*2), V.A.- MAP(mB*100) << WW Idle Height - "W" >>
10 | O00OO OOOO cCcOO «(0000 §=60000. «=—000K0—s CED.-—«s«aOHD—«s«=—«*aOD'—é=«tOET.
0000 «= 0000. C000-s CCKHD—«s« CCKHN-—«s« K0KN-—s«@GD—s=—«a0G—«s«“—«sED-—Sé=—«0100


-18-

Figure 5

Typical Continuously Updated MEC Engine Panel Video Display

(~ Ricaroo eC (V2.8.3)

ENG SPEED (RPS) = 15.00 MAP (mB) = 365 EGR = 0 EGRPOS = -122
IGN (deg STDC) = 12.36 E.0.1, (deg ATOC) = 330

FUEL: - TOT 212.19 We 0 Tle: .0 FBL = 12.14 (TPC = .0)
TRN HEIGHT (%) = 160, (TMPC = 0), TRN.T.C. (mS) = 178, (TWPC = 20)
TEMPS (°K): ~ WIR = 359, ANB = 300, WC = 343 EX = 431, CJ = 307

WAPS BEING USED ARE THOSE IN PROM 6, "BEST ECONOMY"

modification, formatting and display

This screen space available for map or trace

~

RPS = Revolutions per second

mB = Millibars pressure

MAP = Manifold absolute pressure

EGR = Exhaust gas recirculation

EGRPOS = EGR valve position (arbitrary units)

IGN = Ignition timing (degrees before top dead center)
EOI = End of injection (degrees after top dead center)
TOT = Total fuel output (=FBL + TRN + TMPC)

ww = Wall wetting compensation

TI = Throttle impulse

FBL = Fuel baseline (interpolated from "F" and "G" maps
TRN = Transient fuel compensation

TRNTC = Transient time constant (milliseconds)

TMPC = Temperature fuel compensation

WIR = Coolant temperature (°K)

AMB = Ambient temperature (°K)

MC = Manifold charge temperature (°K)

EX = Exhaust gas temperature (°K)

ong = Cold junction temperature (°K)


DYNO SITE:D209 TEST # 871792 PROCESSED: 11:02:20 APR 15, 1987
a MFR. ALT EQUIVALENT ACTUAL OVER- | cn TEST TYPE ~-~-----
MFR. VER- REP. RUN. RETEST H.P TEST DYNO TRANS. ORIVE EXPE
640 4340131868 Oo N CVS 75-LATER
CURB DRV AXLE AXLE /--- IGNITION TIMING - - % CO ~ nad IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE wl a2 RPM GEAR TOLE HIGH SPEED RPM GEAR PERIOO ACTUAL ADJUSTED
EMPTY o 0.0
AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS ~- ‘
BARO WET AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX cvs
“HG BULB TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE
29.06 59.9 74.2 F 42.9 55.60 0.9164 27C
J - DOYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS --------/
DYNO) ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM
TEST OATE HR SITE Iw SET TWHP PSI (M1) MILES
04-14-87 09 D209 3250 5.0 45.00 75232.0 N/A
BAG | 3.540 MILES 5.697 KM 68253. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 3203.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 18.553
SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX.
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. GMS/MI GMS /KM FIELD) FIELO2 CODE
HC-FID 9 15.6 465.88 19 0.0 0.0 465.88 PPM 24.37 6.884 4.278
NOX-CHEM 1S 78.1 39.23 Ss 1.8 0.91 38.36 PPM 6.10 1.723 V.071 MPG KPL L/100KM
coz 22 65.2 0.631 22 5.3 0.047 0.586 % 972.95 274.870 170.797 13.0 5.52 1.1
co 20 22.0 445.57 20 0.3 5.78 440.10 PPM 46.48 13.130 8.159
METHANE 1S 7.8 3.90 iS 3.9 1.95 2.06 PPM O.11 0.030 0.019
HC-NM 463.82 PPM 24.26 6.854 4.259
BAG 2 3.883 MILES 6.249 KM 9053. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 4767.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 26.010
SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUK. AUX,
RANGE METER CONC, RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM FIELOV FIELD2 CODE
HC-FID 16 59.7 178.69 16 v.2 3.60 175.23 PPM 13.64 3.513 2.183
NOX-CHEM 15 41.0 20.70 Lk} yt 0.56 20.17 PPM 4.77 1.229 0.764 MPG KPL L/100KM
coz 220 «$1.2 0.488 22 5.0 0.045 0.445 % 1098.44 282.899 175.786 13.7 5.83 wird
co V7 39.1 96.10 7 0.0 0.0 96.10 PPM 15.10 3.890 2.417
METHANE ih) 4.0 2.00 15 3.9 1.95 0.13 PPM 0.01 0.003 0.002
HC-NM 175.11 PPM 13.63 3.511 2.181
BAG 3 3.574 MILES 5.752 KM 6334. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 2780.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 19.520
SITE #4203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX, AUX
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. GMS/MI1 GMS/KM FIELON FIELD2 CODE
HC-FID 16 67.6 202.40 16 Vw 3.90 198.70 PPM 9.02 2.524 1.568
NOX-CHEM ih) 68.6 44.43 15 0.8 0.4) 44.04 PPM 6.08 1.700 1.056 MPG KPL L/100KM
coz 22 65.3 0.632 22 5.1 0.046 0.589 % 648.23 237.307 147.456 15.9 6.76 14.68
co 9 37.0 340.83 19 0.0 0.0 340.83 PPM 31.24 B.740 5.43)
METHANE 15 5.8 2.90 is 4.0 2.00 1.00 PPM 0.05 0.013 0.008
HC~NM 197.70 PPM 8.97 2.511 1.560
WEIGHTEO VALUES HC NM-HC co coz UX MPG KPL L/1U0KM
GRAMS/MILE 3.934 3.923 7.00 269. 1.16 FUEL ECONOMY 4.4 6.0 16.7
BEFORE ROUNDING 3.93405 3.92303 7.1096 268.79 V2. 589 14.0686 5.9859 16.7058
GRAMS/KM 2.445 2.438 4.42 167. 0.9.
BEFORE ROUNDING 2.44451 2.43765 4.4177 167.02 0.90e5
COMMENTS: NOX SAMPLES RUN AT EOT EEPROM 6 COLD CRANK 7 STALLS BAG #1 IFALSE
START - 168 SEC STALL BAG #1 NOX SCALE SHIFT
CO SAMPLE #2 CORRECTED VALVE 39.1 °
THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE~1988 REGULATIONS
16418 0 . DYNO SITE:0209 TEST 87-1792


-23-

Table 8

EPA/Ricardo Comparison MPG and Performance
Ricardo: Computer Simulation - EPA: Measured

Ricardo EPA
Measure Diesel M100 Percent Diesel M100 Percent
MPG 32.9 33.7 +2% 27.2 28.0 +33
0-50 22.9 18.0 +21% 16.6 13.0 +22%
30-50 14.4 11.0 +243 9.1 7.1 +223


TEST NO.: HO-819177 ENGINE: 590 VW-8 ° TEST O/T: 6- 9-83 8: 0 REPORT O/T: 08-22-63 16:37 Po6zset
SumMaRY REPORT (Test with rebuilt engine)
BSFC ENERGY
GAS EFFICIENCY
%* PHI 8SFC EQUIV 1000¢
TORQ. MAX THR IGN. INJ. CORR. MEAS. EQUIV AIR tB/ 1B/ MBTU/ ----- BRAKE SPECIFIC EMISSIONS (G/BHPHR) ----

RPM FT-LB TQ. POSN TIMG. TING. BHP A/F RATIO LB/HR _LB/HR BHPHR BHPHR %  BHPHR BSHC _BSCO ry RSALDYH BSPART_
$400 67.4 100 32 25.08 0. 69.64 4.65 1.39 368.5 1,198 0.534 25.9 9.83 0.971 62.546 831.78 4.120 Ti? 0.0
6400 47.0 70 68 20.08 0. 48.64 6.01 1.08 305.5 1,048 0.492 28.1 9.06 0.829 5.329 679.81 9.157 0.0
6400 33.4 SO 110 25.08 0. 34.50 2.98 2.17 124.9 1.216 0.571 24.2 10.51 0.838 4.575 773.37 9.589 0.0
$400 20.0 30 1450 30.08 0. 20.64 2.47 2.62 80.9 1.584 0.744 18.6 13.69 1.509 9.347 962.93 7.878 0.0
4500 76.5 100 24 15.08 0.° 65.75 4.86 1.33 328.0 4.027 0.482 26.7 8.88 0.914 69.673 $12.19 4.583 0.0
4500 53.4 70 S56 22.08 0. 45.91 6.33 1.02 278.6 0.958 0.450 30.7 8.28 0.985 4.379 582.07 7.891 0.0
4500 38.0 50 99 25.08 0. 32.68 3.05 2.12 107.8 1.082 0.608 27.2 8.35 1.104 3.550 666.22 7.780 0.0
4500 23.0 30 1340 30.08 0. 19.77 2.62 2.47 71.0 1.369 0.643 21.5 11.84 1.806 6.464 810.05 6.100 0.0
3500 81.0 100 140 15.08 0. 54.12 5.10 1.27 271.8 0.986 0.463 29.9 8.52 0.891 469.61 4.138 0.0
3500 56.5 70 450 20.08 0. 37.73 6.46 1.00 220.2 0.904 0.425 32.6 7.81 1.174 848.07 6.328 0.0
3500 40.5 5O 860 23.08 0. 27.02 3.139 2.06 85.4 t.008 0.474 29.2 8.72 1.542 2.965 610.82 4.973 0.0
3500 24.3 30 1250 30.08 0. 16.32 2.69 2.40 55.9 1.259 0.591 23.4 10.68 2.607 3.791 742.83 2.280 0.0
2500 79.9 100 10 12.08 0. 38.28 4.40 1.47 179.7 1.068 0.502 27.6 9.23 4.111 128.755 409.44 1.682 0.0
2500 56.0 70 320 23.08 0. 26.83 7.18 0.90 170.7 0.887 0.417 33.2 7.67 1.833 3.637 501.90 2.982 0.0
2500 40.0 50 720 20.08 0. 19.16 7.02 0.92 130.3 0.968 0.455 30.4 8.37 2.362 3.165 566.70 1.426 0.0
2500 24.5 30 110 25.08 0. 11.73 3.51 1.84 49.4 1.201 0.564 24.5 10.38 3.963 6.825 709.66 0.866 0.0
1800 70.9 100 30 15.08 0. 20.38 4.70 1.38 98.9 1.033 0.485 28.5 8.93 2.299 99.609 444.40 1.676 0.0
1500 60.0 70 31 15.08 0. 14.38 7.40 0.87 98.9 0.930 0.437 31.7 6.04 2.795 3.519 $37.26 2.769 0.0
1500 35.4 50 92 20.08 0. 10.16 3.69 1.66 40.4 1.022 0.480 28.6 6.64 3.195 3.198 582.83 3.636 0.0
1500 21.3 30 1420 20.08 0. 6.12 3.81 1.70 30.6 1.308 0.615 22.5 11.32 4.699 4.884 721.78 5.126 0.0



APPENDIX D


-_ “Yh. ClLinnrvs.

ye
y a", UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(xz 4 ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
pac :
OFFICE OF
AIR, NOISE ANO RADIATION
OCT 19 isez
MEMORANDUM:
“SUBJECT: Results of Initial Ricardo VW Testing
PROM: Bruce Michael Lin In, hr
: Technical Support Staff
TO: Charles Gray, Director

Emission Control nay eae Division

THRO: William Clenmens, Project
Phil Lorang, Chief
Technical. Support Staff

EPA funded a contract for Ricardo to develop an optimum
Chamber shape for a High Ratio Compact (combustion) Chamber
(HRCC) engine. The contract specified delivery of that
engine to EPA in Ann Arbor. Prior to continuing with EPA
plans to install the engine into a vehicle, the engine was
tested on the engine dynamometer to ensure that the engine
was operating properly after shipment, and to _ check
correlation of testing equipment.

This memo presents the initial EPA dynamometer tests of this
BRCC engine, and compares them with the results Ricardo
obtained at’ their lab. These initial results will also be.
used as baseline data with which to compare our further
development of the engine.

To briefly summarize, the EPA results were in close agreement
to the Ricardo results in thermal efficiency, power, fuel
consumption, and emisions. The volumetric efficiency reported
by Ricardo was higher than that tested at EPA.


-19-

IV. Vé6éhicle Testing for Best Economy

Once the MEC, EGR, fuel injection and all other necessary
engine control systems were functioning accurately, baseline
FTP tests were run to observe vehicle driveability at various
speed and load combinations and during engine transients. 2
series of stripchart recordings were made to observe engin:
functions of manifold vacuum, CO emissions (percent), rol
speed (MPH), engine speed (rpm), and air/fuel ratio (lambda
while the vehicle operated under steady-state and cycli.
conditions.

These traces and the FIP test results showed a vehicle
with minimally acceptable driveability and sporadically rich
operation with extremely high levels of HC and CO emissions.
Specific segments of the vehicle trace were examined in more
detail to see if minor adjustments might improve vehicle
operation. :

Examination of manifold vacuum and air/fuel ratio during
transients revealed that the engine was too sensitive to small
changes in throttle angle. The Ricardo MEC fueling strategy
algorithm was investigated to see if changes to the algorithm
could be made to smooth out the noise in the air/fuel ratio
trace. This fueling strategy is included in Appendix Cc. As
shown in this diagram, the throttle angle derivative (K) map is
an independent additive function to the total fuel output, and
therefore does not directly effect other map functions. The
elements in the K map were zeroed out to determine whether the
MEC was "smart" enough to control the engine without fueling
compensation for changes in throttle position with time.

The result was a dramatic improvement in vehicle
driveability and significantly leaner operation under all
engine conditions. Various increments of throttle angle
derivative were tested with the engine controlled in the "best
economy" calibration. This testing began in early April 1987.
The best economy tests were all performed with.zero throttle
angle derivative.

Ricardo engine dynamometer test results from mixture range
tests at key point conditions indicated that the highest brake
thermal efficiency was achieved at an equivalence ratio of
0.7. %It was considered, from Ricardo vehicle experience of
applying lean control strategies to HRCC methanol engines, that
a control strategy with 0.7 equivalence ratio could be
developed in a vehicle for satisfactory driveability given
sophisticated transient fueling compensation. Ignition timing
was kept optimum since Ricardo believed that retard from MBT
would degrade engine response to an unacceptable level.


EXNMUST CRIS TONS
[> (MPLA ED

ep (Eva
ere core | ak
O1SP.& 4 TEST Ontes

Cane” e~ cE1GHY AME | Hv CARBON OF” uvORe

BURRS,

IPC FIT CONT : oy

*  (ERMAUST CEVERLORAT ION FACTOR FO = FI Aeen/OmA. / fF SF OR! 1 7 OL ORS *tyaae e- teen wee
AEWAROR, OLTERLORAT ION FACTORS FOR =. 7 / As / (CAN FANLD BAORA22 NI 7)

- Wows ate
7

Pru ae 2 FIL seeme Ff (CAMO eD BS00 TH. Pay
¢ ery aWo . FU SEGRS 7 1 PRAM. OPE em. 2378 - OE! bev e
© Pru 2W0 FL VEGas 7 7 EAN OTT = 2378 3.08 wa

(EXHAUST OLTERLORATLON FACTORS FoR © FI EGR 7 FantLy 37 PF wed
(EWaPOR, DETERIORATION FACTORS FOR = 77% /  FCAW FAMTL a7 BD. 7e1Se>

’ 120-71 4-3 3878
(EAN 12008 eee 2800

FL syerscuss 7
7

FL eGR 70107. re
Go

+ Cera eee FU /8GRs0I04. 7 JEAN + STOR aed. 2508 Me

Prd eve FL /EGRs 4 7 SCAN TOPE tee. 2375 Le

- 1980 OL *E4@ LIGHT-OUTY OLESEL VENICLES a ‘
MANUFACTURER ERE ks
EXWAUST EMTSSTON FAMILIES ExnasT ESTSSLOM evasORs
(CUBIC INCH O1s>uacewenr) ! (odanssntier E<155104S
CARLINES COVERED ENGINE = 2 FQUIY ——————
vIse.y A TEST OXIDES,
VemICLE CARL INE cows Mo «E1GmT AXLE nYOND® _CAWHON UF) nyONne
SEPRESENIED Eaissioy -iut2a srsitw yeuluwis suas, zatia.
AUDL = FARILLES CERTIFIEDL < .
on
aay
so0e 5000 PLP te 4953250 6478 O40 1a Me we
SEQmauST DETEMLOWATIIN FACTORS FOR FEY 7 8 FF Fate oe 1.000 1,900 L.na0 wae
23926
Gea
CUTLASS WAGON seviuLe FL sees 7 1 YON AL 23 45ND eed 920 ve) La wa
cutuass CATALINAZOONNE WGN FL /EG27 7 7 (MON MedeFT and 8780 2073 832 na iv ws
CUTLASS SUPREME == NINETY ELGRT FL (ead 7 7 NOM Jade U3 4500 Pew) 9035, ey Vs waa
IMPALA/CAPOICE #ON CUTLASS FL YEGus 7 7 ON Sede E Lod 000 2029 LU 3 ie we
CATALINA/GONO UN
ALINA/BONNE «
CUSTOM CRUISER WG
GeLra 98
Lesaane
ESTATE waGow
NINETY EIGHT
. evectaa
DEVILLE ZeROULHAN
‘ORONAOO
SIVIERA
ELvaraog
SEVILUE :
HEAMAUST OETERLOWATION FACTORS FOR © FI /EGns 7 7 A FaMiLy 01926 a Se OS
MERCEDES Bu? = FAMILIES CEMTIFIEOR
‘woonk fasby Tél ven lowes
40620.38626 .
(188) .
© eeoosenc€s3000 | ¢ 2400/2H0€ 73 FLL 7 fF FeO LebeFE “Une 3500 3609 003T 8. Le
2600/280E73009 = C 2690728073000: tr ee dD tet

3506 00 tee Leas


=6-

Both carbureted and fuel-injected HRCC engine "reduced
NOx" strategies result in about 1.0 g/mi FTP NOx emissions if
MBT ignition timings were used and again showed the
fuel~injected engine to advantage in fuel economy despite the
end weight differential. More directly comparable results,
i.e., at the same simulated inertia weight, were carried out
though the results are marginally representative since the
change of vehicle weight requires a reoptimization of the
engine control strategy since different engine speeds and loads
are used.

The comparison with the simulated diesel-engined vehicle
shows the Audi/Diesel to have low HC emissions but NOx
emissions indicated that optimization of the control strategy
and/or EGR would be required. A comparison of the fuel
consumption showed the methanol concept to be favorable.


Al ath

seen CELT Vr

5 Hes FT Py _

bla Maeee HEEL
SARUDARHGDRBABORE

RAD
BRAG

Leal

: ae /

tian,



A-t

Pigure 2
40 ; Thermal Efficiency
3s}
Puemee.,
30 wae,
ee,
_
ra -
2s o J— RICAROO 67-
. g 7SZ PWR
345 mmm EPA 70% PUR
w
=
a
is}
10
s
0 1 1 rn tL n 1
° 1000 2000 3000 4000 $000 6000
RPK
40 Thermal Efficiency
I—— AICRADO 26-
38 . 31% PHR
- oom EPA 30% PHA
30
2s peemesaa,,,
ees,
5 i
~20 Sea,
2 o Se
oa Oo
a
1s
10
s
0 1 n L rf

1
0 1000 «= 2000 3000 4000 $000 6000
APM *


DYNO SITE:0209 TEST # 871793 PROCESSED: 15:15:47 APR 15, 1987
a MFR. ALT. EQUIVALENT ACTUAL OVER- — /--------- TEST TYPE --------
MFR. VER- REP. RUN. RETEST HAP. TEST DYNO TRANS. DRIVE EXPE
640 4340131868 to) N CVS 75-LATER
CURB DRV AXLE AXLE f--- IGNITION TIMING ---/  /------ % CO ---- 1OLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE #1 #2 RPM GEAR IDLE HIGH SPEED RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED
EMPTY a 0.0
AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS ~~--~
BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX cvs
“HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE
26-89 44.6 74.3 0 34.6 45.16 0.8770 27c
J-------- OYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS --~-----
DYNO, ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM
TEST DATE HR SITE Iw SET TwHP PSI (MI) MILES
04-15-87 08 0209 3250 5.0 45.00 75243.0 N/A
BAG | 3.579 MILES 5.759 KM 8344. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 2987.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 17.875
SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMs. GMS/MT GMS/KM = FIELD1) = FIELD2 «CODE
HC-FID 19 13.0 388.08 19 0.2 5.96 382.46 PPM 18.65 5.213 3.239
NOX~CHEM 15 77.8 39.08 15 5.4 2.74 36.49 PPM 5.18 1.447 0.899 MPG KPL L/100KM
co2 22 68.6 0.666 22 5.2 0.046 0.623 % 963.53 269.241 167,299 13.5 5.75 17.4
co 20 21.9 443.44 20 0.8 15.44 428.86 PPM 42.24 11,802 7.333
METHANE 15 7.3 3.65 1S 4.0 2.00 1.76 PPM 0.09 0.024 0.015
HC-NM 380.69 PPM 18.87 5.1BY 3.224
BAG 2 3.885 MILES 6.253 KM 9059. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 4751.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 25.945
site #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX, AUX
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM = FIELD1 = FIELO2 = CODE
. HC-FID 16 60.2 180.19 16 1.4 4.19 176.15 PPM 13.67 3.517 2.186
NOX~CHEM 15 38.6 19.50 1S 4.2 2.13 17.45 PPM 3.94 ¥.013 0.630 MPG KPLL/100KM
co2 22 51.3 0.489 22 5.2 0.046 0.444 % 1092.99 281.309 174.797 13.8 5.86 VW.
co 19 10.9 97.26 19 0.0 0.0 97.28 PPM 15.24 3.922 2.437
METHANE 15 4.6 2.30 15 4.2 2.10 0.28 PPM 0.02 0.006 0.003
HC-NM 175.87 PPM 13.64 3.512 2.182
BAG 3 3.589 MILES 5.776 KM 8368. ROLL REVS. SECS, VMIX= 2771.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 19.547
SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM = FIELD1. = FIELD2 CODE
HC-FID 16 67.8 203.00 16 1.3 3.90 199.30 PPM 9.02 2.513 1.561
NOX~CHEM 15 91.9 46.06 15 3.1 1.57 44.57 PPM 5.87 1.634 1.016 eG KPL —L/100kKM
co2 22 6 0.635 22 5.0 0.045 0.593 % 851.18 2a? lies 147.367 16.0 6.81 14,7
co 19 7 299.60 9 0.0 0.0 299.60 PPM 27.37 7.626 4.739
METHANE 15 oO 3.00 15 4.4 2.20 0.91 PPM 0.04 0.012 0.007
HC-NM 198.39 PPM 8.98 2.501 1.554
WEIGHTED VALUES les NM-HC co coz NOX MPG KEL L/100KM
GRAMS/MILE 3.592 3.581 6.56 267. 1,27 FUEL ECONOMY 14.3 6.1 16.5
BEFORE ROUNDING 3.59203 3.58100 6.5605 266.73 1.2727 14,2610 6.0596 16.5026
GRAMS /KM 2.232 2.225 4.08 166. 0.79
BEFORE ROUNDING 2.23198 2.22513 4.0765 165.74 0.7908

COMMENTS: NOX SAMPLED AT EOT NOX DATA BAD 1 FASE START 5 STALLS START OF TEST

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS

16418 0 OYNO SITE:D209 TEST «87-1793


3s

rie

BIE

70
6S
60
ss
so
as
40
3s
30
es
20

10

Figure §
EPR THEAMAL EFFICIENCY COMPARISON
70x Pua
l— 1173 70%
emer 1177 702
mre 1287 702 30% PHA
meme 1173 30%
jens 1177 902,
m - L 1 1 LL I.
1000 2000 3000 4000 3000 6000

APN

* Test 1287 at 30% pwr could not be graphed due to the
graphics program only allowing 5 lines.

EPR HORSEPOWER COMPARISON

—— TEST 1173
eee TEST 1177
wows TEST 1287

1 1 n
1500 2500 3800 4soo $500
APM