CRC Project No. E-87-1 

Mid-Level Ethanol Blends 

Catalyst Durability Study Screening 

Prepared by: 

Transportation Research Center Inc. 

10820 State Route 347 

East Liberty, OH 43319 

Final Report 

June 2009 

Prepared for: 

Coordinating Research Council, Inc. 

3650 Mansell Road 

Suite 140 

Alpharetta, GA 30022 

Deleted: February 
Notice

Transportation Research Center Inc. does not endorse or certify products of manufacturers. The 

manufacturer's name appears solely to identify the test article. Transportation Research Center Inc. 

assumes no liability for the report or use thereof. It is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of 

the data presented herein. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. 

Report Approved By: 

_________________________________________ Date __________________________ 

Walt Dudek 

Project Engineer 
Table of Contents

List of Tables 

No. Page 

1 Target Program Vehicle List and Actual Vehicle Information 10 

2 E-87-1 Averages Test Fuels Analysis Results 12 

3 E-87-1 Fuel Blending Laboratory Test Fuels Analysis Results 13 

4 E-87-1 Detailed Test Fuels Hydrocarbon Analysis Results 13 

5 E-87-1 Fuel Change Procedure 14 

6 Composite FTP Emissions Results 15 

7 Vehicle Service Detail 16 

8 Vehicle Thermocouple Locations 19 

9 CRC E-87-1 EPEFE Sulfur Purge Cycle Procedure 22 

10 CRC E-87-1 Fuel Test Matrix 23 

11 Long Term Fuel Trims 27 

12 Assessment of Long Term Fuel Trim (LTF) Usage in Open Loop Control 30 

13 CRC E-87-1 LFT Identification Criteria 31 

14 CRC E-87-1 Average Lambda E20 Rank Order Results 32 

15 CRC E-87-1 Power-to-Weight Ratio Rank Order Results 33 

16 CRC E-87-1 Vehicle Registration Rank Oder Results 34 

17 CRC E-87-1 Average E20 Catalyst Inlet Temperature Rank Order Results 35 

18 CRC E-87-1 Delta Lambda E0-E20 Rank Order Results 36 

19 CRC E-87-1 Delta Inlet Catalyst Temperature Lambda E20-E0 Rank Order Results 37 

20 CRC E-87-1 Final Rank Order Results 38 

List of Figures 

1 Vehicle Test Sequence for E-87-1 as provided by CRC 9 

2 2006 Chevrolet Silverado (CRC #15) Lambda Chart 25 

3 2002 Nissan Frontier (CRC #6) Lambda Chart 26 

4 Distribution of Long Term Fuel Trims 28 

5 Hyundai Accent Emissions Results Taken From the Orbital study 40 

List of Photographs 

1 Instrumentation Installation 2007 Ford Focus (CRC #17) 16 

2 Instrumentation Installation 2003 Ford Taurus (CRC #19) 17 

3 Instrumentation Installation 2003 Ford Focus (CRC #19) 17 

4 Instrumentation Installation 2003 Nissan Altima (CRC #5) 18 

Formatted: French (France)
 1 

E-87-1: Mid-Level Ethanol Blends Catalyst Durability Study Screening 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The goal of the Coordinating Research Council (CRC) E-87-1 Mid-Level Ethanol Blends 

Catalyst Durability Screening Study was to identify vehicles which used learned fuel trims to 

correct open loop air-fuel ratios. 

The Coordinating Research Council (CRC) E-87-1 Mid-Level Ethanol Blends Catalyst 

Durability Screening Study is the first phase of a two phase program to develop data on the 

durability effects of mid-level ethanol blends on emission control systems. The second phase 

consists of aging vehicles identified during this screening study to full useful life with mid-level 

ethanol blends to determine their durability effects. 

Procedure 

For this screening study TRC Inc. identified and acquired a fleet of 25 test vehicles based on 

criteria provided by the CRC. The target vehicle fleet consisted of models suggested by the US 

Department of Energy National Laboratories and by automakers. Twelve of the models 

represented high production vehicles manufactured since 2000. The thirteen remaining vehicles 

were identified as being unlikely to use adapted fuel trim and manufactured since 1990. 

Each test vehicle was screened prior to acceptance into the program using a standard exhaust 

emissions FTP. None of the selected vehicles exceeded their full useful life emissions 

certification standards by more than 20% and each was accepted into the program. The vehicles 

were instrumented with a wide range universal exhaust gas oxygen (UEGO) sensor, 

thermocouples, and an Engine Control Module (ECM) data link. The wide range oxygen sensor 

was installed upstream of the front catalyst while the thermocouples were located upstream and 

downstream of the front catalyst and at the factory installed oxygen sensor. 

Following instrumentation, each vehicle performed a matrix of four tests using fuels with four 

different ethanol levels. The test was a modified version of the European Programme for 

Emission, Fuels, and Engine Technologies (EPEFE) Sulfur Purge Cycle1

. The ethanol content 

levels of the test fuels were 0%, 10%, 15%, and 20% by volume. The fuels were designated E0, 

E10, E15, and E20 respectively. The initial EPEFE test was performed using E0 fuel while the 

test order for the remaining three fuels was randomized for each vehicle. 

The test cycle consists of two complete iterations of a vehicle warm-up phase followed by five 

successive wide-open throttle (WOT) accelerations from 0 to 84 mph each. Each WOT is 

separated by a brief cruise and idle period. Each EPEFE test includes a total of ten WOT 

 

1 F. Palmer et. al., 1995, “Outcome of the European Programme on Emissions, Fuels, and Engine Technologies 

(EPEFE),” SAE SP1042 
 2 

accelerations. During each EPEFE test, the UEGO, thermocouples, and ECM data were 

continuously recorded for post-test analysis. UEGO and thermocouple data were recorded at 

10Hz while ECM data were collected at the maximum output rate of each test vehicle. TRC Inc. 

collected all available ECM data channels for each vehicle. These data ranged from 13 to 36 

channels for the vehicle in the program. One test vehicle was not equipped with a Data Link 

Connector (DLC) and no ECM data were recorded. 

Vehicle speed, oxygen sensor air-fuel-ratio (AFR), and catalyst temperature data from the tenth 

WOT event for each vehicle and fuel combination were analyzed to determine which vehicles 

used adaptive fuel trims during open loop control. 

Results 

Twenty-five vehicles were evaluated as to whether they adjusted their fueling with increased 

ethanol content to maintain a consistent fuel:air equivalence ratio (fuel:air actual / fuel:air 

stoichiometric) in open loop control. The assessment method for this study was the same as that 

used in the recently published Department of Energy screening test program: “Effects of 

Intermediate Ethanol Blends on Legacy Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines, Report 1 –

Updated“

2

. 

Thirteen of the twenty-five vehicles did not adjust open loop fueling to compensate for ethanol in 

the fuel. Eight of the twenty-five vehicles did adjust open loop fueling to compensate for ethanol 

in the fuel. Four of the twenty-five vehicles gave unclear results. 

The thirteen vehicles (and potentially the four that could not be analyzed or gave ambiguous 

results) that do not adjust for ethanol in open loop control are likely to have their fuel enrichment 

operation compromised when operated on mid-level ethanol blends. As was documented in the 

Australian ethanol durability study3

, this can lead to catalyst performance degradation and 

increased harmful exhaust emissions. In addition, the durability of the engine and other systems 

may also be compromised. It is notable that one of the vehicles examined, the 2001 Hyundai 

Accent, demonstrated the same control behavior as a similar 2001 Hyundai Accent tested in 

Australia. During further durability testing in Australia, the 2001 Hyundai demonstrated catalyst 

performance degradation and an inability to meet the emissions standard after 50,000 mile aging 

on a mid-level ethanol blend. 

The twenty-five vehicles were ranked by six criteria developed jointly by CRC and US 

Department of Energy National Laboratories. This ranking was developed to identify vehicles 

 

2 http://feerc.ornl.gov/publications/Int_blends_Rpt1_Updated.pdf

3 Orbital Engine Company, “Market Barriers to the Uptake of Biofuels Study, A Testing Based Assessment to 

Determine Impacts of a 20% Ethanol Gasoline Fuel Blend on the Australian Passenger Vehicle Fleet Report to 

Environment Australia March 2003 

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Deleted: ¶
 3 

for further testing in phase 2 of this program, aging to full useful life with mid-level ethanol 

blends to determine their durability effects. 

The vehicles identified for further study are: 

1. 2002 Nissan Frontier (4cyl) 

2. 2000 Ford Focus 

3. 1999 Ford Crown Victoria 

4. 2001 Hyundai Accent 

5. 2001 Mazda 626 (4cyl) 

6. 2000 Honda Accord LX (4 cyl) 

7. 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt 

8. 2002 Dodge Durango 4WD 

9. 2003 Nissan Altima (4cyl) 

10. 2006 Nissan Quest 
 4 

INTRODUCTION 

At both the federal and state levels, there has recently been legislation that mandates and/or 

encourages the use of alternative fuels, including ethanol. The Energy Independence and 

Security Act, passed in December 2007, mandates 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels usage by 

2022. On-going and planned increases in ethanol production have made it likely that the supply 

of ethanol will exceed that required for nationwide 10% blending with gasoline. Although 

further production increases could expand the pool of E85 available, slow progress on installing 

E85 infrastructure has produced concerns that an ethanol “glut” could develop. In Minnesota, a 

law requires the use of E20, a blend of gasoline with 20% denatured ethanol by 2013. The 

Assistant Secretary of Energy for renewable energy called the use of E15 and E20 an “alternative 

approach to balance fuel production and use”4

. One important aspect of E20 fuel usage is the 

durability of legacy and current production vehicles that were not designed for its use. Studies 

in Australia5

 have shown that the use of E20 can cause catalyst damage to some vehicles. 

Because no technical publications addresses US vehicle exhaust system durability with E10 – 

E20 fuels, CRC was motivated to conduct this test program. 

The use of mid-level ethanol blends such as E20 results in a lean combustion mixture that will 

cause elevated oxygen concentrations in the exhaust gas impacting the oxygen sensor and 

catalyst. Lean Combustion will also result in elevated in-cylinder engine, oxygen sensor, and 

catalyst temperatures. Modern closed loop engine control systems will prevent this from 

occurring by adjusting the fuel flow to ensure stoichiometric operation. However, most vehicles 

use switching type oxygen sensors and are in open loop control during periods of commanded 

enrichment such as heavy throttle operation. This is when the combustion mixture is enriched to 

cool the exhaust gases and thus the engine, catalyst and oxygen sensor. This is called “power 

enrichment”, “engine protection mode”, or “catalyst protection mode”, depending on the 

immediate purpose. As was seen in the Australian studies6

, some vehicles do not use the learned 

fuel composition, adapted fuel trim, when calculating the amount of fuel required to operate in 

these modes. When the fuel contains ethanol, the use of a baseline (unlearned) fuel trim results 

in open loop operation that is leaner than anticipated. This enleanment is proportional to the 

 

3  Testimony of Alexander Karsner Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency snd Renewable Energy, Before the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate. Topic: Improving the Nation's Renewable Fuels 

Infrastructure, July 31, 2007 

5 Orbital Engine Company, “Market Barriers to the Uptake of Biofuels Study Testing Gasoline Containing 20% 

Ethanol (E20),” Phase 2B Final Report to the Department of the Environment and Heritage, May 2004.

6 Orbital Engine Company, “Market Barriers to the Uptake of Biofuels Study, A Testing Based Assessment to 

Determine Impacts of a 20% Ethanol Gasoline Fuel Blend on the Australian Passenger Vehicle Fleet

Report to Environment Australia March 2003

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Bold

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not

Superscript/ Subscript

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not

Superscript/ Subscript

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Deleted: and 

Deleted: ing

Deleted: Orbital Engine Company, 

“Market Barriers to the Uptake of 

Biofuels Study, A Testing Based 

Assessment to Determine Impacts of a 

20% Ethanol Gasoline Fuel Blend on the 

Australian Passenger Vehicle Fleet¶

Report to Environment Australia March 

2003

Deleted: Orbital Engine Company, 

“Market Barriers to the Uptake of 

Biofuels Study Testing Gasoline 

Containing 20% Ethanol (E20),” Phase 

2B Final Report to the Department of the 

Environment and Heritage, May 2004.
 5 

fuel’s ethanol content so ethanol blends greater than E10 are more likely to cause damage. Sixty 

percent of the vehicles tested in Australia did not use an adapted fuel trim (one that compensated 

for the ethanol) during open loop control and all of these vehicles showed some level of catalyst 

performance deterioration after 50,000 miles of operation on E20. 

A reduction in oxygen sensor or catalyst performance across large portions of the in-use fleet 

could have major implications for air quality. However, it was not known whether the same 

calibration strategies are used in US vehicles and whether, if used, they will have the same 

effect. 

TEST BACKGROUND 

There are two options for controlling the amount of fuel injected during open loop operation. 

Open loop operation is when there is no information from the oxygen sensor that enables the 

controller to use real time data to calculate the actual air-fuel ratio, thus the controller has no 

feedback and must control using pre-programmed parameters. 

The first option is to use only the pre-programmed fuel values for the calculation of the air fuel 

ratio. These values contain no corrections for the actual build and aging of the particular vehicle 

being used nor for any variation in the fuel properties and will be the same value for all vehicles 

with a given calibration. The advantage is that potential errors from various sensors are not 

included in a calculation whose accuracy is critical for the protection of both the engine and the 

catalyst. This includes any changes in sensor accuracy when operating in the potentially 

different engine operating conditions characteristic of 'closed loop' and 'open loop' operation. 

The second option is to calculate the air fuel ratio using the long term fuel trim that is frequently 

calculated and stored by the engine controller while in closed loop operation. The long term fuel 

trim corrects for variation from a range of sources including fuel oxygen content and helps 

ensure that the air and fuel volumes are exactly matched to minimize harmful exhaust emissions. 

The advantage of using the long term fuel trim during open loop control is that the vehicle to 

vehicle and part to part variation is accounted for in the air fuel ratio. In other words the air fuel 

ratio under a given set of conditions should be the same for all vehicles with a given set of 

software and calibration regardless of any part or fuel variations. 

It is impossible to gather the details of the calibration for the thousands of types and model years 

of vehicles on US roads. The best way to determine whether a vehicle uses learn fuel trim 

during open loop operation is through experimentation. One way to run the experiment, a way 

particularly relevant to the ethanol blend question, is to reduce the heating value of the fuel, 

typically by increasing the oxygen content by adding ethanol. Observations of the air-fuel ratios 

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times

New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Auto

Formatted: Font color: Auto

Deleted: a stored 

Deleted: is

Deleted: s

Deleted: The disadvantages of this 

approach are that variations in fuel line 

pressure, injector flows, air leakage, mass 

air flow (MAF) sensor accuracy, and fuel 

composition are not incorporated into the 

calculation and the amount of fuel 

commanded to be injected is the same for 

every vehicle of the same type. 

Deleted: In other words the amount of 

fuel injected during open loop engine and 

catalyst protection operation is too 

important to be left to the accuracy of the 

various sensors on a particular vehicle.¶

Deleted: vehicles 

Deleted: The long term fuel trim is a 

correction used to adjust the amount of 

fuel injected into the engine with each 

unit of air as measured by the MAF 

sensor. 

Deleted: It will 

Deleted: variety 

Comment [B1]: Do we want to use 

this word?

Deleted: for calculating the amount of 

fuel to be injected 

Deleted: in performance and aging 

Deleted: The disadvantage is that a 

sensor or some other error on a particular 

vehicle can result in the amount of fuel 

being injected being too large or too 

small, potentially resulting in engine or 

catalyst damage.
 6 

in open loop control can be done by installing a wide range oxygen sensor and operating the 

vehicle at wide open throttle (WOT) with fuels of various compositions after a suitable exposure 

of the vehicle to the fuel that enables the vehicle to “learn” the fuel (develop new long term fuel 

trims that take the new fuel into account). A vehicle which adapts (by using the long term fuel 

trims in calculating air fuel ratios) to the fuel composition will use the same air fuel ratio under 

the same conditions regardless of the fuel composition. A vehicle that does not adapt will have 

the air fuel ratio become progressively leaner as more ethanol (oxygen) is added to the fuel. 

When the air fuel ratio is normalized and expressed as a lambda (the actual air-fuel ratio divided 

by the stoichiometric air fuel ratio) the oxygen content can be found by looking at the change in 

lambda. For example, a vehicle with a lambda of 0.80 on straight gasoline would have a lambda 

of 0.837 on E10 and 0.874 on E20 reflecting the 3.7% oxygen content in E10 and 7.4% oxygen 

content in E20. 

Based on the experience in Australia, the decision as to which of the two approaches to use in 

determining the amount of fuel injected during open loop engine control is critical. All of the 

vehicles in the Orbital study that did not use long term fuel trims to determine the open loop air 

fuel ratio exhibited increases of over 100% in the emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, 

and nitrogen oxides after 80,000 km durability testing using the European catalyst durability test 

cycle. Conversely none of the vehicles tested that used long term fuel trims for calculating open 

loop control exhibited a significant deterioration. 

TEST PROGRAM 

Approach 

There are thousands of different makes and models of vehicle on the US road and it is impossible 

to perform durabilitys test on all of them. The approach taken in this investigation was to break 

the test program into two phases. The first was to determine by experimentation if the 

calibration strategies found to be responsible for the Australian catalyst deterioration were 

present in the US market (the screening test). The second phase is to perform durability testing 

on a selection of vehicles (if any) found to use the calibration strategy of interest to determine if 

this strategy will indeed result in emissions performance degradation of US vehicles. 

The plan for phase two (durability testing) of the test program is to rank the vehicles in the test 

fleet by six criteria jointly developed by CRC and US Department of Energy National 

Laboratories. The vehicles with the highest pooled rankings will then be selected for the 

durability portion of the test program to determine if there is any effect of long term mid-level 

ethanol usage on catalyst performance. 

Comment [B2]: Needed?

Deleted: As previously mentioned the 

long term fuel trim compensates for 

variation in a variety of components such 

as the fuel pump, fuel injector, fuel 

pressure regulator and mass air flow 

sensor in addition to the actual fuel 

composition. Often the controller has no 

way to distinguish the cause of the 

variation in air fuel ratio. Indeed, when 

the long term fuel trim value becomes too 

large it typically indicates that there is a 

hardware problem at fault. Thus a large 

long term fuel trim value can trigger a 

diagnostic trouble code and a malfunction 

indicator (check engine) light.¶

¶

Page Break

Deleted: a 
 7 

Vehicles 

A balanced approach was chosen to develop the screening fleet. Twelve of the 25 vehicles were 

selected by US Department of Energy National Laboratories based on volumes sales and 

manufacturer distribution. Thirteen of the 25 vehicles were selected by the CRC member 

automakers as being likely to use the calibration strategy found in Australia. Two of the vehicles 

selected by CRC were not manufactured by the CRC member automakers, but were selected 

based on data available in the literature. The Hyundai Accent was selected because it is a vehicle 

that displayed catalyst performance degradation on E20 in Australia that is also available in the 

US. The BMW 330 was selected based on internal CRC member company data. With one 

exception, all the screened vehicles were less than 9 years old at the beginning of the program 

and were younger than the median age of the US car fleet. 

Plots of the test data are presented in the report’s appendix. The raw data are available in MS 

Excel format from the Coordinating Research Council (CRC). 

Procedure 

The test procedure used here is essentially the same as used by the US Department of Energy in 

its recently published screening test program: “Effects of Intermediate Ethanol Blends on Legacy 

Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines, Report 1 – Updated“

7

. The description of the test 

procedure of the Catalyst Durability Study Screening Program will highlight the following 

topics: 

• Vehicle test sequence 

• Step 1: Vehicle selection and procurement 

• Step 2: Vehicle preconditioning and test fuels and specifications 

• Step 3: FTP emissions testing and vehicle repair 

• Step 4: Vehicle and laboratory instrumentation 

• Step 5: EPEFE Sulfur Purge Cycle test matrix 

• Data Collected and Analysis 

Vehicle Test Sequence – The vehicle test sequence for this program was provided by CRC and 

is included as Figure 1. Each step of the seven-step sequence is discussed in detail within this 

report. 

 

7 http://feerc.ornl.gov/publications/Int_blends_Rpt1_Updated.pdf Formatted: Font: 10 pt
 8 

Step 1: Vehicle selection and procurement – The test fleet composition was based on the 

following guidelines: 

• 13 vehicles suggested by automakers as being unlikely to use adapted fuel trim and being 

built since 1990 

• 12 vehicles suggested by the DOE as representing high production vehicles built since 

2000 

The 25-vehicle list is included as Table 1 in this report. Table 1 also details the model year and 

incoming odometer reading for each vehicle procured for the program. 

1. Procure vehicle (after visual inspection to verify emissions components) 

3. Run FTP emissions test on E0 

Pass New exhaust system 

2. Fill and prep vehicle with E0 using CRC fuel change procedure 

4. Instrument vehicles with A/F sensors, thermocouples, and ECM Data Link 

5. Record data during modified EPEFE sulfur purge cycle procedure 

6. Fill with randomly-selected ethanol blend and prep using CRC fuel change procedure 

Yes

No

7. Repeat steps 5 and 6 until all fuels are completed 

Figure 1. Vehicle Test Sequence for E-87-1 as provided by CRC 
 9 

Table 1 Target Program Vehicle List and Actual Vehicle Information 

CRC # Manufacturer Model Year(s) Brand/Model 

Engine/ 

Transmission 

Actual 

Model 

Year 

Selected 

Actual 

Odometer 

At 

Delivery 

1 GM 2001-03 Chevrolet Tracker 2.0L Auto 4x4 2001 115,223 

2 GM 2001 Chevrolet Metro 1.3L Auto 2001 81,790 

3 Ford 1999 Crown Victoria 4.6L Auto 1999 73,057 

4 Chrysler 2001 PT Cruiser 2.4L Auto 2001 76,637 

5 Nissan 2003 Altima 

QR25 I-4 2.5L 

Auto 2003 85,396 

6 Nissan 2002 Frontier Truck 

KA24 I-4 2.4L 

Auto 2002 70,210 

7 Hyundai 2001 Accent 1.5L Auto 2001 79,382 

8 BMW 2004 330i 3.0L Auto 2004 38,722 

9 Mitsubishi 1999-2001 Mirage 1.5L Auto 1999 113,204 

10 Mitsubishi 2001 Montero Sport 3.5L 4WD Auto 2001 85,871 

11 Honda 1992-95 Civic DX, LX 1.5L Auto 1995 165,455 

12 Chrysler 2007 Jeep Rubicon 3.8L 4WD Auto 2007 5,312 

13 VW 2000-03 Jetta 1.8L Turbo Auto 2003 88,025 

14 GM 2006 

Chevrolet Cobalt 

 4 door 

2.2L engine 

Auto 2006 12,423 

15 GM 2006 

Chevrolet Silverado 

 Extended Cab 

5.3L engine 

Not FFV Auto 2006 41,613 

16 GM 2002 

Chevrolet Suburban 

 4WD 

5.3L engine 

Not FFV Auto 2002 83,036 

17 Ford 2007 Focus 

Federal Bin 4 Focus 

2.0L Auto 2007 19,988 

18 Ford 2000 Focus SPI, 2.0L, Auto 2000 93,755 

19 Ford 2003 Taurus 

3.0L 2 valve 

not FFV Auto 2003 51,366 

Deleted: Ford 

Deleted: Nissan 

Deleted: Nissan 

Deleted: Hyundai 

Deleted: BMW 
 10 

Table 1 Target Program Vehicle List and Actual Vehicle Information, Continued. 

CRC # Manufacturer Model Year(s) Brand/Model 

Engine/ 

Transmission 

Actual 

Model 

Year 

Selected 

Actual 

Odometer 

At 

Delivery 

20 Chrysler 2001-02 Dodge Durango 4WD 4.7L Auto 2002 75,191 

21 Toyota 2000-02 Sienna 3.0L Auto 2000 81,880 

22 Honda 2000 Accord LX 2.3L Auto 2000 97,291 

23 Nissan 2006 Quest 3.5L Auto 2006 35,644 

24 VW 2000-01 Jetta 2.0L, Auto, federal 2001 71,927 

25 Mazda 2000-01 626 2.0L 16v Auto 2001 75,253 

The following steps were taken to ensure each vehicle selected was correct and appropriate for 

this program. 

• Each of the 25 vehicles was inspected prior to purchase to verify all emissions control 

components were in place and connected. Any vehicles with pending or existing 

Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTC) were repaired by the seller prior to purchase and 

delivery. 

• A maximum/minimum odometer range guideline was established for each vehicle based 

on the model years selected by the committee. Vehicles which had accumulated 

between 7,500 and 15,000 odometer miles per year since manufacture were selected. 

This odometer range was selected to assist with vehicle identification and location of 

any matching vehicles required for the then proposed future work related to this project. 

23 of the 25 vehicles selected for the test program fell within the maximum/minimum odometer 

range guideline. The 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt (CRC #14) and 2007 Jeep Rubicon (CRC #12) 

selected for use in the program were slightly below the minimum mileage guideline target but 

were accepted as valid vehicles for the study. Their odometer mileages were determined to be 

close enough to typical that finding matching vehicles for any future work would be possible. 

The 25 test vehicles for this program were procured and delivered to TRC Inc.’s East Liberty, 

Ohio facility between April 3, 2008 and June 26, 2008. Each vehicle received an incoming 

technical inspection to verify it was mechanically sound for chassis dynamometer operation. At 

that time only minor repairs were made to the vehicle exhaust systems prior to the initial FTP 

emissions test. The intent of the minimal repairs was to minimize any repair expenses for 

vehicles that could potentially fail the screening process and not enter the actual test program. 
 11 

Step 2: Vehicle preconditioning and test fuels and specifications – Test fuels for this program 

were provided by CRC. The test fuels provided by CRC for the E-87-1 program are detailed in 

Tables 2, 3, and 4. Table 2 contains the averaged analysis results from four laboratories using 

standardized ASTM test methods. Table 3 contains the analysis results from the fuel blending 

laboratory. Table 4 contains the detailed hydrocarbon analysis results obtained by gas 

chromatography. 

Table 2 E-87-1 Test Fuels: General Analysis Results (Average of Four Laboratories)

Designation Units E0 E10 E20

 

API Gravity °API 63.3 58.8 57.0 

 

Relative Density 60/60°F 0.7262 0.7435 0.7506 

 

DVPE – D5191 psi 9.10 8.79 8.47 

 

Oxygenates - D4815 

MTBE vol % 0.00 0.00 0.00 

ETBE vol % 0.00 0.00 0.00 

EtOH vol % 0.00 9.42 20.38 

O2 wt % 0.00 3.49 7.49 

Hydrocarbon Composition 

- D1319 

 Aromatics vol % 23.4 23.6 21.2 

 Olefins vol % 9.6 9.6 10.9 

 Saturates vol % 67.1 57.5 47.4 

 

D86 Distillation 

 IBP °F 88.8 97.2 103.3 

 5% Evaporated °F 114.2 119.7 125.0 

 10% Evaporated °F 122.4 125.1 131.2 

 20% Evaporated °F 134.5 135.1 141.1 

 30% Evaporated °F 148.2 143.6 148.5 

 40% Evaporated °F 167.5 151.7 154.6 

 50% Evaporated °F 191.0 189.8 159.6 

 60% Evaporated °F 214.2 225.9 163.8 

 70% Evaporated °F 236.6 246.9 227.9 

 80% Evaporated °F 266.2 275.2 270.1 

 90% Evaporated °F 316.5 319.0 313.7 

 95% Evaporated °F 329.3 331.9 325.3 

Designation Units E0 E10 E20

 EP °F 353.7 357.2 342.0

Recovery Vol % 97.6 97.9 98.3

Residue Vol % 1.6 1.1 1.1

Loss Vol % 0.8 1.0 0.7

Driveability Index 1073.2 1075.9 989.1

Formatted: Left

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Centered

Formatted Table

Formatted Table

Formatted: Left

Formatted: Left

Formatted: Left

Formatted: Left

Formatted: Left

Formatted: Left

Formatted: Left

Formatted: Left

Formatted: Left

Formatted: Left

Formatted: Left

Formatted: Left

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: Averaged 

Deleted: 

Comment [B3]: Agreement with 

below?

Deleted: Page Break

Table 2 E-87-1 Averaged Test Fuels 

Analysis Results, continued¶

¶

Designation ... [2]

... [1]
 12 

Some fuel parameters were supplied by the fuel supplier (Table 3). The fuel supplier estimate 

(calculated) for the C/H ratio of the E0 fuel was used in the carbon balance calculations for 

emissions results to qualify the vehicles.

Table 3 E-87-1 Fuel Supplier Test Fuels Analysis Results 

Designation Units E0 E10 E20 

Sulfur Content ppm 28 29 27 

Estimated C/H Ratio 6.159 - -

Benzene Vol % 1.00 1.00 0.96 

Research Octane Number 94.4 92.9 94.6 

Motor Octane Number 84.5 84.1 83.4 

(R+M)/2 89.5 88.5 89.0 

A more accurate C/H ratio for the E0, E10, and E20 fuels was made available in the .following 

Table 4, from the detailed hydrocarbon analysis (DHA) performed by one of the participating 

laboratories in the general fuel analysis. Note that the DHA yields results for many parameters 

already reported above, but the methods differ (and the general results are the average of four 

laboratory results). Despite the different methods, the results are in close agreement, and thus are 

shown here to confirm the earlier results. 

Table 4 E-87-1 Test Fuels Detailed Hydrocarbon Analysis Results 

Designation Units E0 E10 E20 

Aromatics Vol % 25.65 24.57 21.78 

Olefins Vol % 10.09 10.21 10.74 

Saturates Vol % 63.50 53.72 46.23 

Unclassified Vol % 0.76 1.75 0.15 

Ethanol Vol % 0.00 9.75 21.11 

Benzene Vol % 1.05 1.10 0.97 

C/H Ratio 6.196 6.106 5.835 

Oxygen wt. % 0.00 3.61 7.73 

Net Heat of Combustion Btu/lb 18,733 17,973 17,160 

The required E15 test fuel was not available from CRC. TRC Inc. splash blended E98 by 

volume with the existing E10 fuel to produce E15 for this program. Four drums of E10 were 

splash blended to create E15 for this program. Detailed analyses were not performed on the E15 

test fuel blended at TRC Inc. The E15 fuel ethanol content was verified as 14.94 volume% using 

ASTM D4815 by a one of the laboratories participating in the project fuel analyses. 

All test fuels for the E-87-1 program were provided, stored, and dispensed in drum quantities. 

All program fuel drums were maintained at 54° F in TRC Inc.’s Emissions Laboratory Fuel 

Storage Building throughout the program. Fuels were dispensed directly to the Emissions 

Formatted: Left

Formatted: Centered

Formatted Table

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Font: Italic

Formatted: Centered

Formatted Table

Deleted: 4

Deleted: Blending Laboratory

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: 6.3243

Deleted: 6.3252

Deleted: Est. Net Heat of 

Combustion – D3338

Deleted: The fuel blending laboratory’s 

ASTM D3338 calculation does not have 

an oxygen term and therefore does not 

provide a correct result for oxygenated 

fuels. The results for C/H ratio

Deleted: n and net heat of combustion 

have been included as estimated values in 

Table 3 since the oxygen content of the 

fuels was not taken into account

Deleted: table (

Deleted: )

Deleted: 

Deleted: Detailed 

Deleted: ¶

Comment [B5]: Does not agree with 

above 

Comment [KK6]: Maybe we should 

list the test methods used. Probably 

different test method than above. 

Comment [B7]: 

Comment [B8]: 

Deleted: A full fuel

Deleted: i

Deleted: as

Comment [B9]: We really need an 

ethanol value for the E15 

... [3]
 13 

Laboratory Refueling Bay via individual drum pumps using underground transport piping. To 

minimize the possibility of any potential fueling errors during the program each fuel change 

event included redundant vehicle/fuel checks between the technician performing the fuel change 

and a Project Engineer assigned to the Emissions Laboratory. 

Prior to the initial vehicle preconditioning each vehicle was drained and filled to 40% tank 

capacity with the E0 test fuel. For this and each fuel change in the program the fuel change and 

preparation procedure provided by CRC and detailed in Table 5 was used. 

Table 5 E-87-1 Fuel Change Procedure 

Step Action 

1 Drain the fuel tank 

2 Fill with new test fuel to 40% full 

3 Run 3 cycles of the road LA-4 cycle 

All test vehicle emissions, test weights and chassis dynamometer settings were taken from the 

US EPA Annual Certification Test Results and Data website 

(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/crttst.htm). All test vehicle fuel tank capacity data were collected 

from manufacturer information. 

Step 3: FTP emissions testing and vehicle repair – A single exhaust emissions FTP test was 

employed to qualify the test vehicles for inclusion into the test program. If each of the emissions 

were less than 120% of the relevant emissions standards the vehicle was used for the screening 

tests. If any of the emissions were greater than 120% of standards the vehicle would either be 

serviced and retested or dropped from the program. Composite FTP emissions results for each of 

the twenty five vehicles in the program are included as Table 6. Details of TRC Inc’s facilities 

and equipment are included as Appendix 1. 
 14 

Table 6 Composite FTP Emissions Results 

 Composite FTP Result (g/mile)

CRC # MY Vehicle Mileage NMHC CO NOx 

1 2001 Chevrolet Tracker 115,223 0.081 1.5 0.15 

2 2001 Chevrolet Metro 81,790 0.144 1.4 0.01 

3 1999 Ford Crown Victoria 73,057 0.136 1.4 0.06 

4 2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser 76,637 0.040 0.6 0.08 

5 2003 Nissan Altima 85,396 0.033 1.0 0.12 

6 2002 Nissan Frontier Truck 70,210 0.090 1.3 0.18 

7 2001 Hyundai Accent 79,382 0.058 3.1 0.15 

8 2004 BMW 330i 38,722 0.016 0.8 0.01 

9 1999 Mitsubishi Mirage 113,204 0.368 4.5 0.41 

10 2001 Mitsubishi Montero Sport 85,871 0.074 2.4 0.06 

11 1995 Honda Civic DX, LX 165,455 0.208 2.6 0.37 

12 2007 Jeep Rubicon 5,312 0.030 1.0 0.01 

13 2003 Volkswagen Jetta 88,025 0.104 4.9 0.52 

14 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt, 4 door 12,423 0.034 0.7 0.02 

15 2006 Chevrolet Silverado Extended Cab 41,613 0.062 1.1 0.07 

16 2002 Chevrolet Suburban 4WD 83,036 0.103 0.9 0.38 

17 2007 Ford Focus 19,988 0.010 0.2 0.00 

18 2000 Ford Focus 93,755 0.044 1.0 0.05 

19 2003 Ford Taurus 51,366 0.116 2.9 0.02 

20 2002 Dodge Durango 4WD 75,191 0.180 2.7 0.21 

21 2000 Toyota Sienna 81,880 0.194 1.6 0.29 

22 2000 Accord LX 97,291 0.068 1.9 0.06 

23 2006 Nissan Quest 35,644 0.038 0.1 0.01 

24 2001 Volkswagen Jetta 71,927 0.010 0.4 0.02 

25 2001 Mazda 626 75,253 0.056 0.6 0.03 

During the FTP testing, 23 of 25 vehicles were below their full useful life emission standards. 

No vehicles required any repairs, replacement, or retesting of the emissions system. The 1999 

Mitsubishi Mirage (CRC #9) and the 2003 Volkswagen Jetta (CRC #13) exceeded their NMHC 

standard by 18% and 15% respectively. The Jetta also exceeded the CO standard by 15%. 

Neither of these vehicles exceeded their standards by 20% which would have required repair or 

replacement. 

 

Seven vehicles received minor service prior to entering the test program. The vehicle service is 

detailed in Table 7. Four vehicles had exhaust system leaks which required new exhaust pipes. 

The 1995 Honda Civic (CRC #11) oxygen sensors were not functioning and were replaced prior 

to starting the test program. 
 15 

Table 7 Vehicle Service Detail 

CRC # Vehicle Repair 

1 2001 Chevrolet Tracker Exhaust pipe from catalyst rearward including muffler 

2 2001 Chevrolet Metro Exhaust pipe from catalyst rearward including muffler 

11 1995 Honda Civic Upstream and downstream oxygen sensors 

13 2003 VW Jetta Upper radiator hose replacement, new coolant 

19 2003 Ford Taurus New battery 

20 2002 Dodge Durango Exhaust pipe from catalyst rearward including muffler 

25 2001 Mazda 626 Exhaust system including muffler but excluding catalyst 

Step 4: Vehicle and laboratory instrumentation – All vehicles selected for the screening test 

were instrumented with a wide-range oxygen sensor just upstream of the front catalyst. 

Thermocouples were located just upstream and downstream of the front catalyst and at the 

oxygen sensor(s). The wide range oxygen sensor determines the air fuel ratio (Lambda) even 

during periods of enrichment or enleanment. The thermocouples were installed to document 

changes in exhaust and catalytic converter temperature. For vehicles with two separate exhaust 

streams for each engine bank, only a single exhaust stream was instrumented. During vehicle 

instrumentation all exhaust gaskets and fasteners exposed during vehicle disassembly were 

replaced with new ones. 

TRC Inc. attempted to place all thermocouples in the center of the exhaust stream 1” from the 

catalyst face. The thermocouples located at the factory oxygen sensor locations were placed in 

the center of the exhaust stream slightly upstream of the sensor. In some cases two 

thermocouples would have occupied approximately the same location. Typically this occurred 

with the oxygen sensor thermocouple and the catalyst inlet thermocouples. Photos 1 – 4 are 

included as typical instrumentation installation scenarios. TRC Inc. installed between two and 

four thermocouples in each of the 25 vehicles for this program, a detailed list of the 

thermocouple locations for each vehicle is included in Table 8. 
 16 

Photograph 1 Instrumentation Installation 2007 Ford Focus (CRC #17) 

Photograph 2 Instrumentation Installation 2003 Ford Taurus (CRC #19) 

Thermocouple #2 pre-catalyst

UEGO oxygen sensor

Exhaust manifold

OEM oxygen sensor

Thermocouple #1 at oxygen sensor Thermocouple #3 post-catalyst 

Thermocouple #1 at oxygen sensor

UEGO oxygen sensor

OEM oxygen sensor

Exhaust manifold
 17 

Photograph 3 Instrumentation Installation 2003 Ford Focus (CRC #19) 

Photograph 4 Instrumentation Installation 2003 Nissan Altima (CRC #5) 

Thermocouple #2 pre-catalyst

UEGO oxygen sensor port 

OEM oxygen sensor

Thermocouple #1 at oxygen sensor/pre-catalyst 
 18 

Table 8 Vehicle Thermocouple Locations 

Thermocouple 

CRC # T #1 T #2 T #3 T #4 

1 

Oxygen Sensor; 

manifold 

pre-catalyst; close 

coupled post-catalyst 

Oxygen Sensor 

downstream 

2 

Oxygen Sensor; 

manifold 

pre-catalyst; 

underfloor Post-catalyst 

3 

Oxygen Sensor/Pre 

catalyst; drivers side 

not in manifold 

Oxygen Sensor/Postcatalyst - close 

coupled 

4 

Oxygen Sensor; 

manifold 

Pre-catalyst ; 

underbody ~15" Post-catalyst 

5 

Oxygen Sensor/Pre 

catalyst #1; manifold 

Post catalyst 

#1/Oxygen Sensor - 

close coupled Pre catalyst #2 Post catalyst #2 

6 

Oxygen Sensor/Pre 

catalyst; manifold 

Post-catalyst; close 

coupled Oxygen Sensor #2 

7 

Oxygen Sensor/Pre 

catalyst; manifold 

Post-catalyst; close 

coupled 

8 

Oxygen Sensor/Pre 

catalyst; manifold 

Post-catalyst; close 

coupled Oxygen Sensor #2 

9 

Oxygen Sensor; 

manifold 

pre-catalyst; underfloor Post-catalyst 

10 

Oxygen Sensor 

passenger side 

pre-catalyst; underfloor Post-catalyst 

11 Oxygen Sensor Pre-catalyst Post-catalyst 

12 

Oxygen Sensor; 

manifold 

pre-catalyst; underfloor Post-catalyst 

13 

Oxygen Sensor; 

underbody Pre-catalyst Post-catalyst 

14 

Oxygen Sensor; 

manifold 

Pre-catalyst ; 

underbody ~18" Post-catalyst 

15 

Oxygen Sensor/Pre 

catalyst; drivers side 

not in manifold Pre-catalyst Post-catalyst Oxygen Sensor #2 

16 

Oxygen Sensor; 

underbody Pre-catalyst Post-catalyst 

17 

Oxygen Sensor; 

manifold 

pre-catalyst; close 

coupled 

post-catalyst; 2nd 

Oxygen Sensor 

18 

Oxygen Sensor; 

manifold 

pre-catalyst; close 

coupled Post-catalyst 

19 

Oxygen Sensor; 

manifold 

pre-catalyst; close 

coupled Post-catalyst 
 19 

Table 8 Vehicle Thermocouple Locations, continued 

CRC # T #1 T #2 T #3 T #4 

20 

Oxygen Sensor; 

underbody Pre-catalyst Post-catalyst Oxygen Sensor #2 

21 

Oxygen Sensor; 

manifold 

pre-catalyst; underfloor Post-catalyst 

22 

Oxygen Sensor; 

manifold 

pre-catalyst; underfloor Post-catalyst 

23 

Oxygen Sensor/Pre 

catalyst; manifold 

Post-catalyst; close 

coupled Oxygen Sensor #2 

24 

Oxygen Sensor; 

manifold 

pre-catalyst; underfloor Post-catalyst 

25 

Oxygen Sensor/Pre 

catalyst; manifold 

Post-catalyst; close 

coupled; 2nd Oxygen 

Sensor 

pre-catalyst #2 

underbody post-catalyst #2 

All thermocouples installed in vehicles for this program were K-type and were installed into the 

vehicle exhaust system using a compression fitting welded or threaded into the pipe or exhaust 

manifold as appropriate. Twisted/shielded K-thermocouple wiring was used to connect the 

thermocouples to the TRC Inc. data acquisition equipment. 

The wide-range oxygen sensor data for this program were collected using a universal exhaust gas 

oxygen (UEGO) sensor and Air Fuel Ratio Module. Several individual UEGO sensors were 

used for this program. Each vehicle completed the entire test program with the same sensor 

however, sensors were reused during the program and TRC Inc. did not track which sensors were 

used in each vehicle throughout the program. 

Wide range UEGO and thermocouple data were collected using TRC Inc. data acquisition 

equipment supported by TRC Inc. data acquisition software operating at 10 Hz for this program. 

Engine Control Module (ECM) data were recorded from each vehicle during the European 

Programme for Emission, Fuels, and Engine Technologies (EPEFE) Sulfur Purge test cycle 

(EPEFE test) via the Data Link connector (DLC). TRC Inc. elected to record each channel 

available via the vehicle’s DLC during the program. The number of data channels recorded 

during the program varied based on vehicle make/model and ranged from 36 channels (2007 

Jeep Rubicon) to 13 channels (2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser). Data were recorded at the maximum 

speed provided by the vehicle DLC (approximately 4 Hz). The 1995 Honda Civic (CRC #11) 

was not equipped with a DLC and no ECM data were recorded. Additional instrumentation was 

not added to the 1995 Honda Civic to collect data. 
 20 

Step 5: European Programme for Emission, Fuels, and Engine Technologies (EPEFE) 

Sulfur Purge Test Cycle Matrix – The EPEFE sulfur purge cycle was chosen as the basis for 

the test procedure. This cycle was developed to heat the catalyst to a very high temperature in a 

rich environment. Its original purpose was to facilitate the purging of accumulated sulfur from 

the catalyst to enable more representative evaluation of catalyst efficiency. For the purposes of 

this test, the high catalyst temperatures induced by this procedure will ensure that the vehicle’s 

control system will enrich the air-fuel ratio to cool the exhaust and protect the catalyst. 

Operation in the enriched (Lambda < 1) region ensures that the control system is not in closed 

loop control and is using calculated fuel volumes for control of the air-fuel ratio. 

Each vehicle has its own map of Lambda versus engine speed, manifold pressure and other 

parameters. Although most vehicles frequently operate enriched (Lambda <1) it is important to 

have a repeatable procedure that ensures the engine is operating with an enriched air-fuel ratio. 

The EPEFE purge cycle does this and has the additional benefit of allowing the control system 

many opportunities to learn the various test fuel compositions. 

The procedure was modified from its original cycle of 30 mph to 70 mph accelerations to 0 to 

84 mph accelerations. This lengthening of the acceleration was done to lengthen the time the 

vehicle spends at WOT. Many vehicles have a timer or other device to initially inhibit 

enrichment at WOT. By lengthening the duration of the WOT period the vehicle is more likely 

to go into enrichment enabling the fuel effect to be discerned. 
 21 

The EPEFE test was performed for each vehicle and fuel combination. A total of ten wide open 

throttle accelerations were performed while recording UEGO, thermocouple, and DLC data. The 

steps to perform the EPEFE test for this program are detailed in Table 9. During the program all 

test vehicles were stored in TRC Inc.’s emissions soak room between 68-86° F. 

Table 9 CRC E-87-1 EPEFE Sulfur Purge Test Cycle Procedure 

Step # Procedure 

1 Drive the vehicle from idle to 55 mph and hold speed for 5 minutes (to bring catalyst to full 

working temperature). 

2 Reduce vehicle speed to 30 mph and hold speed for one minute. 

3 Reduce speed to 0 mph and idle for 90 seconds. 

4 Accelerate at WOT (wide-open throttle) for a minimum of 5 seconds, to achieve a speed in 

excess of 70 mph (84 mph). Continue WOT above 70 mph, if necessary to achieve 5-second 

acceleration duration (12 seconds or more is desirable). Hold the peak speed for 15 seconds 

and then decelerate to 30 mph. 

5 Maintain 30 mph for one minute. 

6 Reduce speed to 0 mph and idle for 90 seconds. 

7 Repeat steps 4 through 6 to achieve 5 WOT excursions. 

8 One sulfur removal cycle has been completed. 

9 Repeat steps 1 to 7 for the second sulfur removal cycle. 

10 The protocol is complete if the necessary parameters8 have been achieved. 

 

8 Successful completion of the protocol was defined as collection of data from ten WOT events meeting the 

conditions detailed in Step #4 of the procedure. 
 22 

Each vehicle performed the EPEFE test using the E0, E10, E15, and E20 test fuels. The initial 

test fuel was always E0. Following the E0 EPEFE test, the sequence of the remaining EXX fuels 

was randomized for the entire vehicle fleet. The test fuel order for each vehicle is detailed in 

Table 10. 

Table 10 CRC E-87-1 Fuel Test Matrix 

CRC # Vehicle Test #1 Test #2 Test #3 Test #4 

1 Chevrolet Tracker E0 E10 E20 E15 

2 Chevrolet Metro E0 E15 E20 E10 

3 Ford Crown Victoria E0 E15 E10 E20 

4 Chrysler PT Cruiser E0 E20 E10 E15 

5 Nissan Altima E0 E20 E10 E15 

6 Nissan Frontier Truck E0 E10 E15 E20 

7 Hyundai Accent E0 E15 E20 E10 

8 BMW 330i E0 E20 E15 E10 

9 Mitsubishi Mirage E0 E15 E20 E10 

10 Mitsubishi Montero Sport E0 E10 E15 E20 

11 Honda Civic DX, LX E0 E20 E10 E15 

12 Jeep Rubicon E0 E15 E10 E20 

13 Volkswagen Jetta E0 E10 E20 E15 

14 Chevrolet Cobalt, 4 door E0 E20 E15 E10 

15 Chevrolet Silverado Extended Cab* E15* E10 E20 E0* 

16 Chevrolet Suburban 4WD E0 E10 E15 E20 

17 Ford Focus E0 E15 E10 E20 

18 Ford Focus E0 E15 E10 E20 

19 Ford Taurus E0 E20 E10 E15 

20 Dodge Durango 4WD E0 E15 E20 E10 

21 Toyota Sienna E0 E10 E20 E15 

22 Accord LX E0 E10 E15 E20 

23 Nissan Quest* E20* E15 E10 E0* 

24 Volkswagen Jetta E0 E20 E15 E10 

25 Mazda 626 E0 E10 E20 E15 

* The Chevrolet Silverado (CRC #15) and Nissan Quest (CRC #23) E0 test results were 

determined to be invalid post-test due to a failure of the data acquisition system. For those two 

vehicles the E0 test was repeated at the conclusion of the randomized test fuel sequence. 
 23 

Step 6: Fuel Change Procedure – For each fuel change in the program, the CRC E-87-1 fuel 

change and preparation procedure was used. This included a drain of the fuel tank, a 40% tank 

capacity fill with new test fuel, and operating the vehicle though three consecutive LA-4 road 

cycles on a chassis dynamometer. 

Data Collected and Analysis - Each vehicle performed four EPEFE Sulfur Purge Cycle 

Procedures during the program. The vehicle speed, oxygen sensor air-fuel-ratio (AFR), and 

catalyst temperature data from the tenth WOT event for each vehicle and fuel combination were 

used for analysis purposes to determine if each vehicle used adaptive fuel trims during open loop 

control. The 10th WOT event was chosen to ensure that the vehicle was able to learn and apply 

the fuel trim in the WOT condition to assess if the control software used adaptive fuel trim. 

The oxygen sensor AFR data were normalized for each vehicle using a 14.68 value. A chart was 

created for each vehicle visually displaying the normalized oxygen sensor lambda for each test 

fuel. If the individual fuel curves in this Lambda Chart overlay each other once the vehicle 

stabilizes, the vehicle is identified as using adaptive fuel trip during open loop control. For the 

purposes of this program, vehicle stability was identified as operating vehicle speeds above 40-

50 mph. If the individual fuel curves in the Lambda Chart shadow each other separated by the 

oxygen content of the test fuel, the vehicle was identified as not employing adaptive fuel trim 

during open loop control. In these cases, the curves should be separated according to the oxygen 

content of the test fuel with the E0 curve being the lowest numeric lambda curve followed by 

E10 < E15 < E20. 

Lambda Charts from a typical representative of using adaptive fuel trim and no adaptive fuel 

trim during open loop control are included as Figures 5 and 6 in this report. A complete set of 

Lambda Charts for the program is included as Appendix 2 of this report. 
 24 

Figure 2 is the Lambda Chart for the 2006 Chevrolet Silverado (CRC #15). As noted on the 

chart, the fuel mixture is constant as ethanol content increases. This vehicle is adjusting for the 

ethanol content of the test fuel during open loop control. This vehicle and data are representative 

of an adjusting vehicle. 

Figure 2 2006 Chevrolet Silverado (CRC #15) Lambda Chart 

Formatted: French (France)
 25 

Figure 3 is the Lambda Chart for the 2002 Nissan Frontier (CRC #6). As noted on the chart the 

fuel mixture enleans as ethanol content increases from test to test. This vehicle is not adjusting 

for the ethanol content of the test fuel during open loop control. This vehicle and data are 

representative of a non-adjusting vehicle. 

Figure 3 2002 Nissan Frontier (CRC #6) Lambda Chart 

While testing the vehicles, data was taken from the data port and recorded. This data included 

the long term fuel trims throughout the test. The long term fuel trims vary depending on engine 

speed and manifold pressure because of the variation in fuel flows. Typically a vehicle has many 

values of long term fuel trim stored to account for fluctuations in its value as the engine speeds 

and loads change. 

To compare the vehicles, samples were taken of these trims under three conditions that were 

relatively easy to replicate. In all cases, the data was taken from the E0 tests. The first was at 

idle where the vehicle speed was zero, the throttle opening was at a minimum, and engine was at 

idle speed. The second was at 55 mph cruise where the vehicle speed was approximately 

55 mph, throttle opening was modest and stable and rpm was indicative of top gear with a locked 

Deleted: fluctuate
 26 

or slip controlled torque converter. The third was wide open throttle (WOT) where the speed 

was high, the engine speed was over 4500 rpm except for a few high torque engines, and the 

throttle opening was at a maximum. 

The data are presented in Table 11 and Figure 4 

Table 11 Long Term Fuel Trims 

      Long Term Fuel Trim

CRC # Vehicle Idle   Cruise   WOT  

1 Tracker  ‐8  ‐4.2 0

2 Metro   3.6 0.4 4.68

3 Crown Vic 4.9 4.3 0

4 PT Cruiser  ‐18  ‐9.3 0

5 Altima  ‐4.7  ‐6.1  ‐0.2

6 Frontier 4.4  ‐2.4 0.1

7 Accent  ‐0.78  ‐1 0

8 BMW  ‐2.6  ‐1.1  ‐0.1

9 Mirage  ‐5.4 3 2.3

10 Montero  ‐1 0.8 1.4

11 Civic No Data No Data No Data

12 Rubicon 3.4 3.1 0

13 2003 Jetta 11.7 11.1 12.05

14 Cobalt  ‐14.7  ‐10 0.78

15 Silverado 4.7 3.7 2.1

16 Suburban 2.9 4.7 8.9

17 2007 Focus  ‐8.1  ‐4.6  ‐0.78

18 2000 Focus 1.9  ‐0.4 0

19 Taurus  ‐6.3 0.9 1.95

20 Durango  ‐6.6  ‐5.6 0

21 Sienna  ‐5.8  ‐6.9  ‐5.5

22 Accord  ‐10  ‐8.2  ‐9.6

23 Quest 7.5 4.7 0.7

24 2001 Jetta  ‐2.34 0 0

25 626  ‐6.5  ‐5.1 0

   Average  ‐2.33  ‐1.18 0.78

   St. Dev.   7.10 5.23 4.02
 27 

Figure 4 Distribution of Long Term Fuel Trims 

As can be seen the average fuel trim at idle is -2.33 indicating a rich bias. This richness is 

probably due to canister purge activity. When the evaporative emissions canister is purging fuel 

vapors that were stored in the canister, the vapors are flushed into the intake manifold. This 

unmetered fuel vapor would make the vehicle appear “rich” to the engine controller prompting it 

to reduce the fuel trim hence the average negative value. Canister purge typically has a greater 

effect on fuel trim at idle because the overall fuel volumes are small. More interesting is the 

wide variation in conditions. This shows that there may be considerable variability in the 

response of individual vehicles to added fuel oxygen content. It is expected that vehicles with a 

negative long term fuel trim would be less likely to experience catalyst durability impacts with 

added oxygenate because these vehicles would tend to operate rich in the absence of long-term 

fuel trim. 

Unfortunately, it is difficult to know the details of each vehicle’s control strategy and we cannot 

know how the compensation for these effects work or even if it exists. For the purposes of doing 

additional experiments to determine if mid-level ethanol blends will have an effect, several 

vehicles of each type would be required to sample the fuel trim variation for that vehicle type. 

Alternatively, vehicles selected for additional testing could be screened and those with a built-in 

rich bias removed from the test sample on the assumption that they would be relatively 

insensitive to the effects of ethanol on the control system. 
 28 

DATA ANALYSIS 

The goal of data analysis was to identify vehicles which run lean and hot on E20. Several 

criteria were jointly determined by CRC and the US Department of Energy National Labs to be 

important to correctly identify these vehicles. The first stage of the data analysis was to identify 

the vehicles which did not use learned fuel trim (LFT) at WOT. This was decided by looking at 

Lambda changes relative to changes in fuel ethanol level. 

Average lambda values from 60 to 63 mph and the data traces themselves were examined. 

Thirteen vehicles appear not to use learned fuel trim (LFT) at WOT. Eight vehicles appeared to 

use learned fuel trim (LFT) at WOT and one could not be analyzed. Three vehicles gave 

ambiguous results with either unexpected ordering of the lambda values for each fuel or similar 

E10, E15, and E20 lambda values but significantly richer E0 lambda results. The results are 

summarized in Table 12 and Table 20, column 3. 

Comment [KK10]: This sentence is 

confusing. Not sure what you are trying 

to say. 

Deleted: leaner 
 29 

Table 12 Assessment of Long Term Fuel Trim (LTF) Usage in Open Loop Control 

CRC # Vehicle LFT @ WOT 

1 2001 Chevrolet Tracker No 

2 2001 Chevrolet Metro ? 

3 1999 Ford Crown Victoria No 

4 2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser ? 

5 2003 Nissan Altima No 

6 2002 Nissan Frontier No 

7 2001 Hyundai Accent No 

8 2004 BMW 330i Yes 

9 1999 Mitsubishi Mirage Yes 

10 2001 Mitsubishi Montero Sport 

4WD 

Yes 

11 1995 Honda Civic No 

12 2007 Chrysler Jeep Rubicon No 

13 2003 Volkswagen Jetta NA 

14 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt No 

15 2006 Chevrolet Silverado, Ext. Yes 

16 2002 Chevrolet Suburban, 4WD Yes 

17 2007 Ford Focus ? 

18 2000 Ford Focus No 

19 2003 Ford Taurus Yes 

20 2002 Dodge Durango 4WD No 

21 2000 Toyota Sienna Yes 

22 2000 Honda Accord LX No 

23 2006 Nissan Quest No 

24 2001 Volkswagen Jetta Yes 

25 2001 Mazda 626 No 

The twenty-five vehicles were then rank from 1 to 25 using the criteria detailed in Table 13. 

These criteria were equally weighted and summed. The detailed ranking for each category for all 

vehicles are included as Tables 13-19 while the summarized Final Rank Order results are 

included as Table 20. The supporting catalyst inlet temperature data collected during the 

program was included in Appendix 3 of this report. 
 30 

Table 13 CRC E-87-1 LFT Identification Criteria 

# Criteria 

1 Average Lambda E20, (50-70 mph), (highest to lowest) 

2 Power to weight (lowest to highest) 

3 Vehicle Registration, (2008 data), (highest to lowest) 

4 Average inlet catalyst temperature, (50-70mph), (highest to lowest) 

5 Delta lambda, (E20-E0), (60-63 mph), (highest to lowest) 

6 Delta inlet catalyst temperature, (50-70mph), highest to lowest) 

These six criteria were selected for the following reasons. Average Lambda E20 was selected 

because a vehicle with a high Lambda value at WOT should be more likely to approach 

stoichiometry (Lambda = 1) or even go lean in ordinary open loop operation. This near 

shoichiometric operation is most likely to be damaging to catalyst durability. Power to weight 

was selected because a vehicle with a low power to weight ratio is more likely to operate its 

engine at high loads and in open loop control. Number in service was deemed important because 

a vehicle with a catalyst durability issue is more important for air quality if there are a large 

number of vehicles in the in-use fleet. Average inlet catalyst temperature was chosen because a 

vehicle with an initially hot catalyst will be more sensitive to temperature increases. The 

difference in Lambda between E20 and E0 operation is indicative of whether and how well a 

vehicle is using adapted fuel trims to calculate open loop air fuel ratios. Similarly the difference 

in inlet catalyst temperatures between E20 and E0 operation is indicative of how well the control 

system is adapting to the ethanol in the fuel. 

For criteria 1, 4, and 6 (tables 14, 17, and 19) the data traces were analyzed between 50 and 70 

mph during the tenth WOT event for each vehicle. In cases where there was unstable data 

present, the unstable regions were excluded from the analysis. The typical cause of data 

instability was a gearshift. The vehicles which included unstable speed ranges and the actual 

speed range used to analyze the Lambda data are indicated in column 4 of each table. For 

criteria 1, 4, 5, and 6 (tables 14, 17, 18, and 19) The 2003 Volkswagen Jetta (CRC #13) data 

exhibited widely varying air-fuel ratios (Lambdas) throughout the 50-70 mph analysis range and 

were excluded from the rank order analysis.

Deleted: running 

Deleted: and more likely to be 

operating in enriched open loop control

Deleted: The Average E20 Lambda 

values reported and ranked in Table 14 

were recorded 

Deleted: Table 14

Deleted: ¶
 31 

Table 14 CRC E-87-1 Average Lambda E20 Rank Order Results 

CRC # Vehicle 

E20 

Lambda 

Adjusted 

Analysis 

Range 

Rank 

Order 

6 2002 Nissan Frontier 0.99 1 

20 2002 Dodge Durango 4WD 0.89 2 

18 2000 Ford Focus 0.88* 50-66 mph 3 

14 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt 0.87 4 

23 2006 Nissan Quest 0.86 5 

24 2001 Volkswagen Jetta 0.86 6 

12 2007 Chrysler Jeep Rubicon 0.86* 56-70 mph 7 

8 2004 BMW 330i 0.85 8 

3 1999 Ford Crown Victoria 0.84 9 

1 2001 Chevrolet Tracker 0.83 10 

9 1999 Mitsubishi Mirage 0.81 11 

19 2003 Ford Taurus 0.80 12 

7 2001 Hyundai Accent 0.79 13 

22 2000 Honda Accord LX 0.78 14 

15 2006 Chevrolet Silverado, Ext. 0.78 15 

2 2001 Chevrolet Metro 0.77 16 

17 2007 Ford Focus 0.77 17 

16 2002 Chevrolet Suburban, 4WD 0.75 18 

10 2001 Mitsubishi Montero Sport 4WD 0.75* 50-68 mph 19 

5 2003 Nissan Altima 0.73 20 

11 1995 Honda Civic 0.725 21 

21 2000 Toyota Sienna 0.72 22 

25 2001 Mazda 626 0.72* 50-64 mph 23 

4 2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser 0.7 24 

13 2003 Volkswagen Jetta NA 25 
 32 

Table 15 CRC E-87-1 Power-to-Weight Ratio Rank Order Results 

CRC # Vehicle Power (HP) 

Weight 

(lbs) 

P:W 

Ratio 

Rank 

Order 

Results 

6 2002 Nissan Frontier 143 3734 0.038 1 

24 2001 Volkswagen Jetta 115 2886 0.040 2 

2 2001 Chevrolet Metro 79 1958 0.040 3 

10 2001 Mitsubishi Montero Sport 4WD 165 4085 0.040 4 

7 2001 Hyundai Accent 92 2251 0.041 5 

9 1999 Mitsubishi Mirage 92 2185 0.042 6 

25 2001 Mazda 626 125 2864 0.044 7 

1 2001 Chevrolet Tracker 127 2805 0.045 8 

11 1995 Honda Civic 102 2226 0.046 9 

19 2003 Ford Taurus 155 3335 0.046 10 

4 2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser 150 3117 0.048 11 

22 2000 Honda Accord LX 150 3020 0.050 12 

21 2000 Toyota Sienna 194 3826 0.051 13 

20 2002 Dodge Durango 4WD 235 4629 0.051 14 

18 2000 Ford Focus 130 2545 0.051 15 

3 1999 Ford Crown Victoria 200 3909 0.051 16 

17 2007 Ford Focus 136 2636 .052 17 

14 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt 145 2726 0.053 18 

12 2007 Chrysler Jeep Rubicon 205 3762 0.054 19 

5 2003 Nissan Altima 175 3043 0.058 20 

16 2002 Chevrolet Suburban, 4WD 285 4914 0.058 21 

13 2003 Volkswagen Jetta 180 3091 .058 22 

23 2006 Nissan Quest 240 4086 0.059 23 

15 2006 Chevrolet Silverado, Ext. 295 4627 0.064 24 

8 2004 BMW 330i 225 3278 0.069 25 
 33 

The Polk 2008 Vehicle Registration data included in Table 16 are model year specific for engine 

displacement only. The registration total for the 2003 Volkswagen Jetta (CRC #13) includes 

both turbo and non-turbo 4 cylinder engines. The twenty five vehicles selected for screening 

represent approximately 3.2 million of the vehicle registered in 2008. 

Table 16 CRC E-87-1 Vehicle Registration Rank Order Results 

CRC # Vehicle Registration (x1,000) 

Rank 

Order 

15 2006 Chevrolet Silverado, Ext. 414 1 

22 2000 Honda Accord LX 256 2 

18 2000 Ford Focus 248 3 

11 1995 Honda Civic 237 4 

19 2003 Ford Taurus 228 5 

17 2007 Ford Focus 225 6 

14 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt 218 7 

3 1999 Ford Crown Victoria 178 8 

5 2003 Nissan Altima 175 9 

4 2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser 147 10 

21 2000 Toyota Sienna 111 11 

13 2003 Volkswagen Jetta* 108 12 

24 2001 Volkswagen Jetta 98 13 

20 2002 Dodge Durango 4WD 89 14 

12 2007 Chrysler Jeep Rubicon 88 15 

25 2001 Mazda 626 65 16 

7 2001 Hyundai Accent 60 17 

10 2001 Mitsubishi Montero Sport 4WD 39 18 

16 2002 Chevrolet Suburban, 4WD 32 19 

8 2004 BMW 330i 31 20 

6 2002 Nissan Frontier 27 21 

9 1999 Mitsubishi Mirage 27 22 

23 2006 Nissan Quest 22 23 

1 2001 Chevrolet Tracker 17 24 

2 2001 Chevrolet Metro 14 25 

Formatted: Justified

Deleted: Page Break
 34 

Table 17 CRC E-87-1 Average E20 Catalyst Inlet Temperature Rank Order Results 

CRC # Vehicle 

Average Catalyst 

Inlet Temperature 

Adjusted 

Analysis Range 

Rank 

Order 

7 2001 Hyundai Accent 811 1 

25 2001 Mazda 626 807* 50-64 mph 2 

14 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt 795 3 

5 2003 Nissan Altima 787 4 

1 2001 Chevrolet Tracker 780 5 

24 2001 Volkswagen Jetta 770 6 

12 2007 Chrysler Jeep Rubicon 768* 56-70 mph 7 

19 2003 Ford Taurus 756 8 

23 2006 Nissan Quest 753 9 

18 2000 Ford Focus 739* 50-66 mph 10 

8 2004 BMW 330i 735 11 

17 2007 Ford Focus 725 12 

10 2001 Mitsubishi Montero Sport 4WD 717 13 

3 1999 Ford Crown Victoria 715 14 

6 2002 Nissan Frontier 715 15 

15 2006 Chevrolet Silverado, Ext. 708 16 

4 2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser 707 17 

22 2000 Honda Accord LX 691 18 

20 2002 Dodge Durango 4WD 653 19 

11 1995 Honda Civic 641 20 

13 2003 Volkswagen Jetta* 626 21 

9 1999 Mitsubishi Mirage 603 22 

16 2002 Chevrolet Suburban, 4WD 600 23 

21 2000 Toyota Sienna 590 24 

2 2001 Chevrolet Metro 579 25 

Deleted: The Average E20 Catalyst 

Inlet Temperature values reported and 

ranked in Table 17 were recorded 

between 50 and 70 mph during the tenth 

WOT event for each vehicle. In cases 

where there was unstable data present, the 

unstable regions were excluded from the 

analysis. The vehicles which included 

unstable speed ranges and the actual 

speed range used to analyze the Lambda 

data are indicated in Table 12. The 2003 

Volkswagen Jetta (CRC #13) data were 

unstable throughout the 50-70 mph 

analysis range and were excluded from 

the rank order analysis.¶

Page Break
 35 

The Delta Lambda E0-E20 values reported and ranked in Table 18 were recorded between 60 

and 63 mph during the tenth WOT event for each vehicle. It is anticipated that the E0-E20 

difference should be near zero for adapting vehicles and around 0.07 for non-adapting vehicles. 

Table 18 CRC E-87-1 Delta Lambda E0-E20 Rank Order Results 

CRC # Vehicle 

Delta Lambda 

E0-E20 

Adjusted 

Analysis 

Range 

Rank 

Order 

23 2006 Nissan Quest 0.099 1 

6 2002 Nissan Frontier 0.096 2 

12 2007 Chrysler Jeep Rubicon 0.085 3 

3 1999 Ford Crown Victoria 0.084 4 

20 2002 Dodge Durango 4WD 0.071 5 

7 2001 Hyundai Accent 0.068* 62-65 mph 6 

25 2001 Mazda 626 0.062 7 

22 2000 Honda Accord LX 0.061 8 

18 2000 Ford Focus 0.059 9 

14 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt 0.059 10 

5 2003 Nissan Altima 0.052 11 

11 1995 Honda Civic 0.050* 61-64 mph 12 

1 2001 Chevrolet Tracker 0.046 13 

2 2001 Chevrolet Metro 0.034 14 

4 2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser 0.026* 58-61 mph 15 

24 2001 Volkswagen Jetta 0.013 16 

19 2003 Ford Taurus 0.01 17 

9 1999 Mitsubishi Mirage 0.009 18 

21 2000 Toyota Sienna 0.009 19 

15 2006 Chevrolet Silverado, Ext. 0.002 20 

16 2002 Chevrolet Suburban, 4WD -0.001 21 

8 2004 BMW 330i -0.002 22 

17 2007 Ford Focus -0.008 23 

10 2001 Mitsubishi Montero Sport 4WD -0.019 24 

13 2003 Volkswagen Jetta* 25 

Deleted: In cases where there was 

unstable data present, the unstable 

regions were excluded from the analysis. 

The vehicles which included unstable 

speed ranges and the actual speed range 

used to analyze the Delta Lambda data 

are indicated in Table 13. The 2003 

Volkswagen Jetta (CRC #13) data were 

unstable throughout the 60-63 mph 

analysis range and were excluded from 

the rank order analysis. 

Deleted: Page Break
 36 

The Delta Inlet Catalyst Temperature E20-E0 values reported and ranked in Table 19. It is 

anticipated that the E20-E0 difference should be negative for adapting vehicles due to the 

cooling effect of ethanol and positive for non-adapting vehicles due to the enleanment effect of 

ethanol. 

Table 19 CRC E-87-1 Delta Inlet Catalyst Temperature Lambda E20-E0 Rank Order Results 

CRC # Vehicle 

Delta Catalyst 

Temperature E20-E0 

Adjusted 

Analysis 

Range 

Rank 

Order 

25 2001 Mazda 626 33.2 50-64 mph 1

3 1999 Ford Crown Victoria 28.2     2

6 2002 Nissan Frontier 25.0     3

5 2003 Nissan Altima 23.3     4

22 2000 Honda Accord LX 20.1     5

11 1995 Honda Civic 19.5     6

23 2006 Nissan Quest 18.0     7

18 2000 Ford Focus 8.9 50-66 mph 8

1 2001 Chevrolet Tracker 8.3     9

19 2003 Ford Taurus 8.3     10

7 2001 Hyundai Accent 7.7     11

20 2002 Dodge Durango 4WD 6.9     12

2 2001 Chevrolet Metro 5.7     13

16 2002 Chevrolet Suburban, 4WD 5.1     14

24 2001 Volkswagen Jetta 2.9     15

17 2007 Ford Focus 1.6     16

4 2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser ‐2.9     17

8 2004 BMW 330i ‐3.2     18

21 2000 Toyota Sienna ‐5.3     19

9 1999 Mitsubishi Mirage ‐7.3     20

15 2006 Chevrolet Silverado, Ext. ‐7.7     21

14 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt ‐9.1     22

12 2007 Chrysler Jeep Rubicon ‐10.6 56-70 mph 23

10 2001 Mitsubishi Montero Sport 4WD ‐11.1     24

13 2003 Volkswagen Jetta no data     25

Deleted: were recorded between 50 

and 70 mph during the tenth WOT event 

for each vehicle. In cases where there 

was unstable data present the unstable 

regions were excluded from the analysis. 

The vehicles which included unstable 

speed ranges and the actual speed range 

used to analyze the Delta Inlet Catalyst 

Temperature data are indicated in Table 

19 column 4. The 2003 Volkswagen 

Jetta (CRC #13) data were unstable 

throughout the 50-70 mph analysis range 

and were excluded from the rank order 

analysis. 

Comment [KK11]: This paragraph 

appears to be repeated quite a bit in the 

last few pages for tables 12, 15, 16 and 

17. I would suggest consolidating at the 

beginning. 

Deleted: Page Break
 37 

The goal of the data analysis was to identify vehicles which run lean and hot on E20. Table 20 

includes the ranking for each of the six analysis categories and the final rank order summary. 

Vehicles identified as non-adapting (those not using LFT at WOT) are listed at the top of the 

table in ascending order of rank order sum. The 2003 Volkswagen Jetta (CRC #13) was 

excluded from the final rank order table due to its unstable results throughout the data analysis 

ranges. 

Table 20 CRC E-87-1 Final Rank Order Results 

CRC # Vehicle 

LFT @ 

WOT

Average 

Lambda E20

Power to 

Weight 

Ratio

Registration 

Number

Average E20 

Catalyst Inlet 

Temperature

Delta 

Lambda E0-

E20

Delta Catalyst Inlet 

Temperature E0-

E20 Final

6 2002 Nissan Frontier No 1 1 21 15 2 3 43

18 2000 Ford Focus No 3 15 3 10 9 8 48

3 1999 Ford Crown Victoria No 9 16 8 14 4 2 53

7 2001 Hyundai Accent No 13 5 17 1 6 11 53

25 2001 Mazda 626 No 23 7 16 2 7 1 56

24 2001 Volkswagen Jetta Yes 6 2 13 6 16 15 58

22 2000 Honda Accord LX No 14 12 2 18 8 5 59

19 2003 Ford Taurus Yes 12 10 5 8 17 10 62

14 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt No 4 18 7 3 10 22 64

20 2002 Dodge Durango 4WD No 2 14 14 19 5 12 66

5 2003 Nissan Altima No 20 20 9 4 11 4 68

23 2006 Nissan Quest No 5 23 23 9 1 7 68

1 2001 Chevrolet Tracker No 10 8 24 5 13 9 69

11 1995 Honda Civic No 21 9 4 20 12 6 72

12 Rubicon No 7 19 15 7 3 23 74

17 2007 Ford Focus ? 17 17 6 12 23 16 91

4 2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser ? 24 11 10 17 15 17 94

2 2001 Chevrolet Metro ? 16 3 25 25 14 13 96

15

2006 Chevrolet Silverado, 

Extended Cab Yes 15 24 1 16 20 21 97

9 1999 Mitsubishi Mirage Yes 11 6 22 22 18 20 99

10

2001 Mitsubishi Montero 

Sport 4WD Yes 19 4 18 13 24 24 102

8 2004 BMW 330i Yes 8 25 20 11 22 18 104

21 2000 Toyota Sienna Yes 22 13 11 24 19 19 108

16

2002 Chevrolet Suburban, 

4WD Yes 18 21 19 23 21 14 116

13 2003 Volkswagen Jetta NA 25 22 12 21 25 25 130

CONCLUSIONS 

This preliminary screening study looked at 25 late model vehicles selected by CRC and the U.S. 

Department of Energy and sold in the US market. The vehicles were screened experimentally to 

determine which ones used learned fuel trims to correct the open loop air-fuel ratios. Of these 

twenty-five vehicles thirteen do not appear to use learned fuel trims, eight appear to use learned 

fuel trims and the results of four vehicles were unclear. Of the 3.2 million vehicle registrations 

represented by these vehicles, 53% do not appear to use learned fuel trims, 31% appear to use 

learned fuel trims, and 16% of the results were unclear. 

Deleted: Page Break
 38 

The suitability of these vehicles for further testing was ranked based on six equally weighted 

criteria. The top ten vehicles were selected. Any vehicles that did use learned fuel trim were 

removed from the top ten resulting in these vehicles in order: 

1. 2002 Nissan Frontier (4cyl) 

2. 2000 Ford Focus 

3. 1999 Ford Crown Victoria 

4. 2001 Hyundai Accent 

5. 2001 Mazda 626 (4cyl) 

6. 2000 Honda Accord LX (4 cyl) 

7. 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt 

8. 2002 Dodge Durango 4WD 

9. 2003 Nissan Altima (4cyl) 

10. 2006 Nissan Quest 

One of the vehicles screened was the 2001 Hyundai Accent. This is the only vehicle that 

demonstrated catalyst performance degradation in the Orbital study in Australia that is also 

available in the US. When it was evaluated by Orbital the Hyundai control system did not 

compensate for the extra oxygen introduced by the ethanol in the fuel. This was demonstrated 

by the enleanment of the open loop air-fuel mixture when operated on ethanol blended fuel and 

an increase in catalyst temperature. This vehicle was durability tested for 80,000 km on E0 and 

E20 using the AMA drive cycle as defined in European Council directive 98/69/EC. The 

emissions results are shown below. 

Deleted: ¶

¶

¶

¶

¶

Deleted: was evaluated

Deleted: increase in 
 39 

Figure 5, Hyundai Accent Emissions Results Taken from the Orbital study9

The US Hyundai tested in this study also exhibited increases in catalyst temperature and reduced 

fuel enrichment when operated on E20. This demonstrated that the emissions issues found in 

Australia may also be found in the US if vehicles are operated for extended durations on 

mid-level ethanol blends. 

This study has found that of the 25 vehicles tested, 13, including the Hyundai, have the potential 

to have their emissions control systems damaged by extended operation on mid-level ethanol 

blends. Eight of the vehicles tested appear not to have this potential problem and for four 

vehicles the results are unclear. 

 

9 P128. Orbital Engine Company, “Market Barriers to the Uptake of Biofuels Study Testing Gasoline Containing 

20% Ethanol (E20),” Phase 2B Final Report to the Department of the Environment and Heritage, May 2004. 

Formatted: Not All caps

Formatted: Normal, Left

Formatted: Tabs: 5.9", Left
 A-1 

APPENDIX A 

TRC INC. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 

Chassis Dynamometer Laboratory Facility and Equipment:

Emissions Chassis Dynamometer: 

AVL 48” Roll Dual Axle 2WD/4WD Dynamometer 

Maximum Inertia Simulation: 12,000 lbs. in AWD 

 8,000 lbs. in 2WD mode 

Maximum Vehicle Speed: 125 MPH 

Repeat Tolerance of Inertia and Road Simulation: ≤ 1% 

4WD wheelbase adjustment range: 82 -185 in (2100-4700 mm) 

Maximum vehicle wheel width: 107 in (2725mm) 

Maximum vehicle Axle Weight: 10,000 lbs. per axle 

Emissions Dynamometer Test Chamber: 

 Maximum Temperature: 125°F 

 Minimum Temperature (during driving): 20°F 

 Nominal Temperature with Humidity Control: 75°F 

 Humidity Control: 35% to 75% RH ±5%RH 

 Chamber Ceiling Clearance Height: 9 Feet 

Chamber Depth: 40 Feet 

 Chamber Width: 28 Feet 

 Vehicle Cooling Fan Max Airspeed at vehicle: 32mph at 0.5 m2 discharge 

Emissions Constant Volume Sampler (CVS):

 Manufacturer: Rosemount Analytical 

 Dilution Tunnel: 12” Diameter 

 Cyclonic Separator: No 

Nominal Flow Rate: 600 SCFM 

 Calibration Method: Laminar Flow Element (LFE) 

 Sample System: Continuous Dilute or Tedlar Bag Method 

 

Analyzer Bench (Dilute/Bag): 

 Analyzers: Horiba 200 series 

 AIA-220 Non-Disperse Infrared Analyzer CO2: 0-2 & 4 % 

 AIA-220 Non-Disperse Infrared Analyzer CO (Low): 0-25, 50, 250 ppm 

 AIA-220 Non-Disperse Infrared Analyzer CO (High): 0-1000, 3000, 10000 ppm 

CLA-220 Chemiluminescent NOx Analyzer: 0-25, 50, 100 ppm 

FIA-220 Flame Ionization Detector (THC): 0-10, 30, 100, 300, 1000 ppmC 

GFA-220 CH4 Gas Chromatography Analyzer: 0-25 ppm 
 A-2 

Additional Support Equipment

Lambda data for this program were collected using UEGO sensors and an AFR-1000 Air 

Fuel Ratio Module from ECM Motorsports. 

TRC Inc. collected DLC data using an Auto Enginuity Enhanced ODB-II scan tool. This 

tool is capable of collecting data from all vehicle makes and models offered for sale in the 

United States via the OBD-II port. 

All test fuel was stored and dispensed from TRC Inc.’s temperature controlled drum storage 

building during the program. This building is located adjacent to the TRC Inc. Emissions 

Laboratory and includes small volume blending and weighing equipment, fuel transfer 

pumps and hazardous materials storage. Two of the 10 pumps and dispensing lines are 

designed for transfer and dispensing of high concentration alcohol fuels. 
 B-1 

APPENDIX B 

AIR/FUEL RATIO DATA 
 B-2 

2001 Chevrolet Tracker (CRC #1)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8644=E0

8653=E10

8680=E15

8678=E20

2001 Chevrolet Metro (CRC#2)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air/Fuel Ratio)

8552=E0

8575=E10

8558=E15

8572=E20
 B-3 

1999 Ford Crown Victoria (CRC#3)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8548=E0

8582=E10

8579=E15

8588=E20

2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser (CRC#4)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8589=E0

8598=E10

8610=E15

8595=E20
 B-4 

2003 Nissan Altima (CRC#5)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8623=E0

8638=E10

8643=E15

8632=E20

2002 Nissan Frontier Truck (CRC#6)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8549=E0

8581=E10

8586=E15

8596=E20
 B-5 

2001 Hyundai Accent (CRC#7)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8604=E0

8637=E10

8621=E15

8631=E20

2004 BMW 330i (CRC#8)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8819=E0

8824=E10

8821=E15

8820=E20
 B-6 

1999 Mitsubishi Mirage (CRC#9)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8797=E0

8816=E10

8806=E15

8815=E20

2001 Mitsubishi Montero Sport (CRC#10)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8721=E0

8729=E10

8740=E15

8772=E20
 B-7 

1995 Honda Civic DX, LX (CRC#11)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8553=E0

8568=E10

8585=E15

8557=E20

2007 Jeep Rubicon (CRC#12)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8783=E0

8811=E10

8804=E15

8814=E20
 B-8 

2003 Volkswagen Jetta (CRC#13)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8784=E0

8788=E10

8805=E15

8793=E20

2006 Chevrolet Cobalt, 4 Door (CRC#14)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8790=E0

8807=E10

8802=E15

8791=E20
 B-9 

2006 Chevrolet Silverado Extended Cab, (CRC#15)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8594=E0

8584=E10

8570=E15

8587=E20

2002 Chevrolet Suburban 4WD, (CRC#16)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8679=E0

8713=E10

8718=E15

8728=E20
 B-10 

2007 Ford Focus (CRC#17)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8787=E0

8808=E10

8803=E15

8813=E20

2000 Ford Focus (CRC#18)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8602=E0

8620=E10

8606=E15

8627=E20
 B-11 

2003 Ford Taurus (CRC#19)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8746=E0

8779=E15

8773=E10

8751=E20

2002 Dodge Durango 4WD (CRC#20)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8544=E0

8593=E10

8583=E15

8590=E20
 B-12 

2000 Toyota Sienna (CRC#21)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8727=E0

8733=E10

8767=E15

8750=E20

2000 Accord LX (CRC#22)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8551=E0

8564=E10

8571=E15

8576=E20
 B-13 

2006 Nissan Quest (CRC#23)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8634=E0

8597=E10

8592=E15

8580=E20

2001 Volkswagen Jetta (CRC#24)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8640=E0

8657=E10

8647=E15

8642=E20
 B-14 

2001 Mazda 626 (CRC#25)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Lambda (Normalized Air Fuel Ratio)

8635=E0

8639=E10

8714=E15

8658=E20
 C-1 

APPENDIX C 

TEMPERATURE DATA 
 C-2 

2001 Chevrolet Tracker (CRC#1)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8644=E0

8653=E10

8680=E15

8678=E20

2001 Chevrolet Metro (CRC#2)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8552=E0

8575=E10

8558=E15

8572=E20
 C-3 

1999 Ford Crown Victoria (CRC#3)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8548=E0

8582=E10

8579=E15

8588=E20

2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser (CRC#4)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8589=E0

8598=E10

8610=E15

8595=E20
 C-4 

2003 Nissan Altima (CRC#5)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8623=E0

8638=E10

8643=E15

8632=E20

2002 Nissan Frontier Truck (CRC#6)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8549=E0

8581=E10

8586=E15

8596=E20
 C-5 

2001 Hyundai Accent (CRC#7)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8604=E0

8637=E10

8621=E15

8631=E20

2004 BMW 330i (CRC#8)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8819=E0

8824=E10

8821=E15

8820=E20
 C-6 

1999 Mitsubishi Mirage (CRC#9)

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8797=E0

8816=E10

8806=E15

8815=E20

2001 Mitsubishi Montero Sport (CRC#10)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8721=E0

8729=E10

8740=E15

8772=E20
 C-7 

1995 Honda Civic DX, LX (CRC#11)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8553=E0

8568=E10

8585=E15

8557=E20

2007 Jeep Rubicon (CRC#12)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8783=E0

8811=E10

8804=E15

8814=E20
 C-8 

2003 Volkswagen Jetta (CRC#13)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8784=E0

8788=E10

8805=E15

8793=E20

2006 Chevrolet Cobalt, 4 Door (CRC#14)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8790=E0

8807=E10

8802=E15

8791=E20
 C-9 

2006 Chevrolet Silverado Extended Cab, (CRC#15)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8594=E0

8584=E10

8570=E15

8587=E20

2002 Chevrolet Suburban 4WD, (CRC#16)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8679=E0

8713=E10

8718=E15

8728=E20
 C-10 

2007 Ford Focus (CRC#17)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8787=E0

8808=E10

8803=E15

8813=E20

2000 Ford Focus (CRC#18)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8602=E0

8620=E10

8606=E15

8627=E20
 C-11 

2003 Ford Taurus (CRC#19)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8746=E0

8779=E15

8773=E10

8751=E20

2002 Dodge Durango 4WD (CRC#20)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8544=E0

8593=E10

8583=E15

8590=E20
 C-12 

2000 Toyota Sienna (CRC#21)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8727=E0

8733=E10

8767=E15

8750=E20

2000 Accord LX (CRC#22)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8551=E0

8564=E10

8571=E15

8576=E20
 C-13 

2006 Nissan Quest (CRC#23)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8634=E0

8597=E10

8592=E15

8580=E20

2001 Volkswagen Jetta (CRC#24)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8640=E0

8657=E10

8647=E15

8642=E20
 C-14 

2001 Mazda 626 (CRC#25)

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Miles per Hour

Temperature C

8635=E0

8639=E10

8714=E15

8658=E20
Page 11: [1] Deleted CTennant 6/17/2009 12:37:00 PM 

 

Designation Units E10 E20 

Page 11: [2] Deleted CTennant 6/17/2009 12:35:00 PM 

Page Break

Table 2 E-87-1 Averaged Test Fuels Analysis Results, continued 

Designation Units E10 E20 

 EP °F 357.2 342.0 

Recovery Vol % 97.9 98.3 

Residue Vol % 1.1 1.1 

Loss Vol % 1.0 0.7 

Driveability Index 1075.9 989.1 

Page 12: [3] Deleted CTennant 6/16/2009 8:34:00 PM 

Est. Net Heat of 

Combustion – D3338 Btu/lb 1.00 18516 18513

[B1]