4.0 ALTERNATIVE FUELS TRUCK COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS PROGRAM

4.1. Summary of Projects

Five alternative fuel-heavy duty vehicle projects are currently operating, involving a
total of 130 vehicles:

¢ The Archer Daniels Midland Company, in cooperation with the Illinois
Department of Energy and Natural Resources, is operating five line-haul
tractors. Four of these vehicles operate on E95 (a mixture of 95 percent
ethanol and 5 percent unleaded gasoline) and the other vehicle is a diesel
baseline control vehicle.

¢ Vons Grocery Company, in cooperation with Acurex Environmental
Corporation, is operating two line-haul tractors in California; one vehicle
operates on compressed natural gas and the other vehicle is a diesel control
vehicle.

* The New York Department of Sanitation is operating nine refuse haulers,
with six of the vehicles being compressed natural gas vehicles and the other
three are diesel baseline control vehicles.

¢ Hennepin County, Minnesota, is operating three snow plow/dump truck
vehicles in the project. Two of the vehicles are operating on E95 and the
third vehicle is a diesel baseline control vehicle.

* Federal Express, in cooperation with the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, is operating 111 pickup and delivery-type vehicles in
southern California. Twenty of these vehicles operate on propane, 20
operate on M85 (a mixture of 85 percent methanol and 15 percent unleaded
gasoline), 21 operate on compressed natural gas, 21 operate on reformulated
gasoline, two are electric vehicles, and the remaining 27 are baseline
contro! vehicles operating on regular unleaded gasoline.

The locations for these vehicle projects and the type engines used for each of the
alternative-fueled vehicles are described in Table 4-1, Section 4.1.3 of this report.

4.1.1 Participants

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, located in Golden, Colorado, manages
data collection activities of the alternative fuels truck commercial applications program. This
program has projects which include the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural
Resources/Archer Daniels Midland, Acurex/Vons Grocery Co., New York Department of
Sanitation, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Federal Express
Corporation.

4-1


Figure A-7. The Detroit Diesel 6V-92TA Methanol Bus Engine
(Photo from Detroit Diesel Information Update)

technology. The primary differences between natural gas and diesel buses are the fuel tanks
and other fuel system components.

The configuration of compressed natural gas transit buses may vary, depending on the
manufacturer, but the fuel-system components will be similar to those shown in Figure A-9.
Liquefied natural gas buses are similar to the compressed natural gas buses, with the
exception of the fuel tanks and some fuel-system components.

A-9


2.3 Transit and School Buses

2.3.1 Transit Buses

Two separate transit bus data collection projects are being managed by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, under DOE sponsorship. These include data collection from
the various transit bus operational sites, analysis, data storage in the Alternative Fuels Data
Center, and making the data available to the industry, transit bus agencies, and other
interested parties. Other participants in these projects include the Federal Transit Authority,
various state and local governments, transit bus agencies, engine manufacturers, and bus
manufacturers. These data are collected on alternative fuel and diesel control buses from two
separate transit bus projects and stored at the Alternative Fuels Data Center.

The first project, sponsored by DOE, involves the collection of detailed operational,
maintenance, and emissions data from six carefully selected transit agencies across the United
States. The transit agencies were selected based on:

¢ The availability of new alternative fuel buses that have new original
equipment manufactured engines for fuels such as compressed natural gas
(CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), methanol (M100), and ethanol (E95).

+ The availability of identically equipped control vehicles.
* Cooperation of the transit agency in supplying detailed data.

A second project is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal
Transit Authority and provides a more general data base on most of the alternative fuel transit
buses in service throughout the United States. Data are generated on the types, quantities,
locations, and mileage accumulations for all of the alternative fuel buses in service at major
transit agencies across the country. DOE’s role is to collect data on emissions, fuel economy,
and other operational characteristics for selected alternative fuel buses and compare those data
with similar data from diesel buses that are currently in service.

2.3.2 School Buses

In addition to the transit buses, DOE is coordinating, providing incentives, and
assisting various school districts around the country in setting up alternative fuel

demonstration vehicles. Data are generated on fuel economy, driveability, maintenance, and
emissions.

In fiscal year 1992, the Department of Energy issued eleven grants to fund the
incremental cost of alternative fuel school buses. This money was distributed in fiscal year
1993 with most of the school districts receiving their money and ordering the buses. Many

buses were acquired over the summer and had just begun operation at the end of fiscal year
1993.

2-7


ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The U.S. Department of Energy gratefully acknowledges the cooperation of the participating
Government agencies in the Alternative Motor Fuels Program - the General Services
Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Environmental Protection
Agency, and the many other Federal agencies who are operating these vehicles and providing
valuable data on their operation. The Department also acknowledges the participation and
cooperation of the vehicle and engine manufacturers, fuel suppliers, private fleets, and state
and local transit companies who have worked to make this program a success.

ii


Figure A-4. Unique Components of the Compressed Natural Gas Dodge B-250/350

Glossary of Components

Fuel Cylinder (Side)

Fuel Cylinders (Rear)

Fuel Fill Receptacle

Check Valve

Manual Shut-Off Valve

Fuel Pressure Regulator
Powertrain Control Module
Fuel Injector Driver Module
Pressure Relief Discharge Tube

PW R2ANAMWEYNS

10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

Fuel Gauge Pressure Sensor
High-Pressure Fuel Shut-off Solenoid
Engine Coolant Hoses (2)

Fuel Temperature Sensor

Fuel Pressure Sensor

Low-Pressure Fuel Shut-off Solenoid
Fuel Shut-off Solenoid Relay
Pressure Relief Device

Fuel Injectors (8)

Source: Chrysler Corporation

A-5



Figure 4-9. Fuel Economy Measured During Emissions Testing of
Ethanol Tractors as Compared to a Diesel Control Vehicle

PS es

x
1

Fuel Economy (MPG)
a
L

Miles/Galion (Volumetric) Miles/Galion (Diesel Gallon Equivalent)
i Ethanot Ad #2 Ethanol Average
[] #1 Ethanol [1] Dieset

Figure 4-10. On-Road Fuel Economy for the Compressed Natural Gas Refuse Haulers
in the New York Department of Sanitation Fleet as Compared to a Diesel Control Vehicle

2
1.5 4
=
i ;
Fd
05 4
° : fe :
25CNG-001 25CNG-002 25CNG-008 25CNG-004 25CNG-005 25CNG-006 | Average Diese!
Convo!
CNG Vehicle Numbers:

CNG Data (Diesel Gallon Equivalent)

4-10



(2) A city delivery heavy-duty project in southern California using a
liquefied natural gas vehicle manufactured by Ford Motor Company,
and using a Cummins "B"-series engine.

(3) A soy diesel (biodiesel) project using heavy-duty (80,000 gross vehicle
weight) trucks with a variety of engines engaged in agricultural
commodity hauling in Iowa and South Dakota.

(4) A heavy-duty project using liquefied natural gas-powered line-haul
trucks in Louisiana.

(5) Urban pick-up and delivery by food-product and utility companies
vehicles using medium-duty Ford F-700 vehicles with original
equipment manufacturer compressed natural gas engines.

Data will be collected from all of these future projects under a strict data collection
protocol which includes baseline control vehicles operating on conventional fuels. All data
collected from these projects will be submitted to the Alternative Fuels Data Center at the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

4-21


Future Transit Bus Activities—Phase I of the Alternative Fuels Bus Program was
structured to gain basic information from the existing bus demonstrations which are being
managed by the U.S. Department of Transportation. A more focused Phase II project has
been initiated by DOE to gather more detailed data with limited numbers of alternative fuel
buses from selected transit authorities. Data collection and analysis will continue on current
and new projects.

School Bus Operations

In addition to the transit buses, DOE is providing incentives and assisting various
school districts around the country in setting up alternative fuel demonstration vehicles.
There were five buses in operation during fiscal year 1993 in Wood County, West Virginia,
and Shenendehowa Central School District, New York. The total mileage accumulation for
these five buses as of September 1993 was 30,125 miles. Four of the school buses used
compressed natural gas with Hercules natural gas engines, and one bus used a Chevrolet
gasoline engine converted to natural gas with an aftermarket conversion kit. Also included
was a modified diesel engine with an aftermarket natural gas fumigation system, along with
gasoline and diesel control school buses.

Results from the emissions tests varied over a wide range for the different fuel
systems. This illustrates the difficulty with many aftermarket natural gas conversion systems.
If the proper equipment is not available to calibrate the engine air-fuel ratio when setting up
the system, emissions can be extremely high. The existing data indicate that significant
engine development work is required on natural gas conversions if natural gas is to be a
viable alternative fuel option for school bus applications.

Future School Bus Activities—Eleven localities have received grants for original
equipment manufacturer alternative fuel school buses, with two operating as above, and nine
others about to begin. Ten of these projects will be fueled with compressed natural gas and
one will be fueled with methanol. There are plans for Phase II grants which would add 16
new school bus projects.

14 — Safety

Safety experience was based on information collected from communications with
drivers involved in accidents, discussions with fleet managers, and queries of the General
Services Administration data on these vehicles through September 1993. Examination of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration manufacturer recall data base and discussions
directly with vehicle manufacturers revealed the following safety-related recalls or no-cost
warranty actions specifically targeted toward alternative fuel and electric vehicles:

¢ The 1992 Chevrolet Lumina with the methanol/ethanol fuel system was

recalled for fuel leakage. These vehicles were returned to the dealers and
the fuel tanks were replaced.

1-9


Figure 4-15. CO, NO,, and OMHCE/HC Emissions from Ethanol
and Diesel Heavy-Duty Line-Haul Trucks

120
4 @ Ethanol
100 +... GZYyi..... sccevessssseseeensnssssssnsanasneneesenuseuunnnene E Diesel
A
7
£
5°]
Pl ee Dene 77, eS EEOOOOOOEOOOOEOOOOOEOSOOSOEEEOOOSSY
20 ee an yyy
Z CA
| Z yyy
° u Vi
NOx OMHCE/HC(a)

(2) For diesel vehicles, unburned hydrocarbon is expressed as HC.
For, ethanol vehicles OMHCE is defined as Organic Mat
Hydrocarbon Equivalent.

(b) CO Data Unavailable for Diesel Test

Grams/Mile

25

20

15

10

Figure 4-16. Particulate, Aldehydes, and Unburned Ethanol Emissions
for Ethanol and Diesel Line-Haul Trucks

Ethanol Diesel
Ss x
Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde Ethanol

4-16



Street, SE, which is owned and operated by Sun Oil Company. All regions in the tests have
at least one M85 refueling location with the exception of the New York region. However,
there are plans to open two M835 facilities in that region in the spring of 1994.

Compressed natural gas is being supplied by various natural gas utilities throughout
the United States. Currently, there are more than 730 compressed natural gas refueling
facilities in the United States. About 75 percent of these are owned by natural gas utilities,
while about 10 percent are publicly owned. In Washington, D.C., there is one public
compressed natural gas refueling station located at 823 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, which is
owned and operated by AMOCO. At this time, all regions have access to compressed natural
gas facilities except for the upstate New York area, which has plans to install a refueling site
scheduled to open in the spring of 1994.

Currently, E85 is being supplied by fuel suppliers at more than 30 public refueling
facilities. In Washington, D.C., there is one public E85 refueling station located at 1248
Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., which is owned and operated by Sun Oil Company. All of the
regions which have been assigned E85 vehicles have at least one E85 refueling facility.

3.5.2 Authorized Repair Facilities

With the vast expansion of alternative fuel vehicles in the Federal fleet, a greater
demand has been placed upon the automotive manufacturers to provide the service and spare
parts infrastructure support. For the most part, the supply of parts and trained mechanics has
been adequate because of the careful placement of alternative fuel vehicles. During Phase I,
vehicles were placed in locations close to specified service centers. By starting the project on
a small scale and then ramping up the number of vehicles slowly, the automotive
manufacturers have had valuable time to develop repair procedures and to set up mechanic
training. Now that these training materials and the parts supply network are in place, Phase II
regions have been able to start operations without difficulty.

3.6 Vehicle Performance/Operations

3.6.1 Mileage Accumulation

Through fiscal year 1993, 2,154,838 miles have been accumulated for Phase I and
Phase II vehicles. Figure 3-2 illustrates the mileage accumulated for each project. In this
figure, the Los Angeles, Bakersfield, and San Diego projects were combined and shown as
California. It also should be noted that many of the Phase II vehicles and regions were
Starting operations but had not yet provided data. The dramatic increase in project size will
become apparent with large mileage accumulations projected for fiscal year 1994. Figure 3-3
illustrates the mileage accumulation by the vehicle fuel type. Although the largest amount of
miles (1,262,386) was accrued by the M85 vehicles, there were many in this group which did
not use M85 fuel. Compressed natural gas vehicles accumulated 515,874 miles. Because
operations for these vehicles started in fiscal year 1993, the mileage accumulations for these
vehicles are modest. Accumulations for these vehicles are projected to increase dramatically
during fiscal year 1994. The E85 vehicles (which operated only in the Argonne, Illinois, and
Washington, D.C., areas) accumulated 43,342 miles.

3-6


5.3.3 School Bus Emissions

During calendar years 1992 and 1993, several school buses in the Wood County,
West Virginia, School Bus Program were emissions-tested. The emissions tests were
conducted by West Virginia University using the Transportable Emissions Testing Laboratory.
The school buses that were tested included four compressed natural gas buses with Hercules
natural gas engines and one bus with a Chevrolet gasoline engine converted to natural gas
with an aftermarket conversion kit. Also included was a modified diesel engine with an
aftermarket natural gas fumigation system along with gasoline and diesel control school
buses.

As can be seen from Figure 5-17, carbon monoxide (CO) emissions vary over a wide
range for the different fuel systems. The extremely high carbon monoxide (CO) emissions of
609 grams/mile for the converted gasoline engine is due to an over-rich air-fuel mixture. The
low oxides of nitrogen (NO,) emissions for the same engine is also indicative of an over-rich
mixture. This illustrates the difficulty with many aftermarket natural gas conversion systems.
If the proper equipment is not available to calibrate the engine air-fuel ratio when setting up
the system, emissions can be extremely high. The carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from the
Hercules natural gas engine and the fumigated engine are reasonable, but they are
significantly higher than that for the diesel control vehicle. The carbon monoxide (CO)
emissions for the gasoline control vehicle are not unusual for heavy-duty gasoline engines.
Heavy-duty gasoline engines tend to have high carbon monoxide (CO) emissions because they
are typically run rich at high loads to prevent the engine from failing due to high temperature
during wide-open throttle accelerations and/or engine lugging during hill climbing.

The fumigated engine has high oxides of nitrogen (NO,) emission and extremely high
hydrocarbon emissions. The high hydrocarbon emissions are typical of this type of natural
gas conversion system. The extremely high hydrocarbon emissions from this fumigated
engine confirms the results of earlier research on natural gas engines that has been published
in the technical literature over the years. It is also consistent with the results observed with
similar systems that were discussed earlier in the transit bus section of this report.

Figure 5-18 shows particulate emissions from the several school buses that were
tested. As would be expected, the compressed natural gas engines have markedly lower
particulate emissions compared to the diesel control vehicle. The relatively high particulate
emissions from the fumigated engine are primarily due to the diesel pilot fuel. The small
amount of particulate emissions from the natural gas engines is due to the contribution of
lubrication oil consumption to the formation of particulates in the combustion chamber.

Fuel economy for the different engines are reasonably comparable, with the exception
of the converted gasoline engine and the gasoline engine. The relatively low fuel economy
for these two engines is caused by the over-rich mixtures with correspond with wasted fuel in
the form of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions that are emitted from the tailpipe.

In summary, the existing data indicate that significant engine development work is
required on natural gas engines for natural gas to be a viable alternative fuel option for school

5-23


Table 3-3. On-Road Fuel Economy Summary (continued)

DODGE SPIRIT

Cumulative Fuel Economy

miles/gallon — No. of Vehicles
Vehicle miles/gallon gasoline/gallon | That Contributed
Type (range) equivalent* to this Sample

M85 11.0 (6.8 - 22.3)

M85 10.1°
Gasoline 24.6 (15.9 - 44.5)

DODGE B250/B350 RAM VAN

Cumulative Fuel Economy

miles/gallon —
gasoline/gallon No. of Vehicles
Federal Fleet Vehicle equivalent® That Contributed
Sites Type Fuel miles/gallon (range) to this Sample

Denver, CO
12.7 (1.5 - 26.9)

Houston, TX 9.1 (3.3 - 22.6)

Bakersfield, CA 11.8 (1.0 - 29.7)

CHEVROLET C2500 PICKUP

Cumulative Fuel Economy

miles/gallon — No. of Vehicles
Federal Fleet gasoline/gallon equivalent® That Contributed
Sites (range) to this Sample

Denver, CO 9.0 (1.3 - 22.2) 28

Houston, TX 11.2 (1.2 - 29.3) 24

EI Paso, TX 12.5 (1.2 - 29.9) 48

a Gasoline gallon equivalent miles per gallon is the M85 fuel economy adjusted for the difference in
fuel-energy content between gasoline and M85 (e.g, M85 has 56 percent of the energy of unleaded
gasoline).

b Based on limited information or not yet available.

¢ Gasoline gallon miles per gallon is the CNG fuel economy adjusted for the difference in fuel-energy
content between gasoline and CNG.

3-13


Table 4-1. Participants, Number and Type of Vehicles, and Location of Vehicles

Participants Truck Type Number of Vehicles and Fuels Engine Location
Baseline Alternative
Archer Daniels
Midland
Corp illinois Line-Haul . 4-Ethanol Detroit Diesel | Decatur, Ilinois
Department of 1-Diesel
Tractor (E95) 6V92

Energy and
Natural
Resource/
Von Grocery Line-Haul L-Diesel 1-Compressed Caterpillar El Monte,
Co./Acurex Tractor Natural Gas 3406 California

New York

Department of Refuse Hauler 3-Diesel 6-Compressed

Cummins L10 New York City,

Sanitation Natural Gas New York
Research Hennepin
Institute/Henne Snowplow/ 1-Diesel 2-Ethanol Detroit Diesel County,
: P| Dump Truck (E95) 6V92 Minnesota
in County,
Minnesota
Federal 20-Propane
Express/South 20-Methanol .
Coast Air (M85) Various 5 ial.
Quality 27-Unleaded Original Irvine ,
Management Pick-up and Gasoline 21-Compressed Equipment Los An eles,
District Delivery (All Natural Gas Manufacturer Beles,
. . . and
Locations) 21- V6, Inline Six, Culver Ci
Reformulated and V8 er Cy
. California
Gasoline

2-Electricity

4.2 Performance
4.2.1 Mileage Accumulation

Mileage accumulation data are being collected for all of the heavy-duty projects. Data
analysis of this information is underway.

The Federal Express vehicles for which these data have been recorded went into
service starting July 1992. Figure 4-6 shows that these vehicles have accumulated a total of

4-6


Figure 3-5. Phase I Alcohol Fuel Utilization

Total

Washington, D.C.

San Diego, CA

Los Angeles, CA

Detroit, MI |:

100

Percent

Source: Natlonal Renewable Energy Laboratory

facilities and DOE and the General Services Administration have placed great emphasis on
the need for sites to operate on alternative fuels. Flexible-fuel vehicles or dual-fuel vehicles
which are not in a demonstration project might not be operated so frequently on alternative
fuels, It is projected that the alcohol fuel utilization rate will fal! somewhat during fiscal year
1994 because the Phase II projects are much larger and more widely dispersed.

3.6.3 Challenges of Operation

As with any large expansion of a project, there have been a number of startup
problems. Often these problems simply involve inadequate coordination or poor timing. The
most frequent problems encountered on startup involve the lack of alternative fuel refueling
facilities. For the flexible-fuel vehicles (M85/E85), this is not a significant problem because
these vehicles can operate on gasoline until alternative fuel refueling sites become available.
However, those compressed natural gas vehicles that are dedicated fuel vehicles must have
adequate local refueling facilities in order to function. An example of this involves the West
Point, New York, location which has twelve C2500 pickups and cannot start operations until
the planned refueling facility is completed. Many compressed natural gas refueling locations
do not have adequate fuel-metering devices to enable the operator to record how much fuel
was put into the vehicle, hampering the collection of refueling data at these locations.

3-9


Emissions and fuel economy have been measured on two ethanol trucks and one diesel
control truck from the Archer Daniels Midland project. These tests were conducted by West
Virginia University, using the Transportable Emissions Laboratory, shown in Figure 4-8. For
these tests, each vehicle was operated on the Central Business District (CBD) transit bus
cycle. Emissions are expressed as grams per mile (the emissions results will be reported in a
later section of this report) and fuel economy is calculated as miles per gallon. When
alternative fuel was used, fuel economy was calculated as diesel gallon equivalent miles per
gallon. When these tests were conducted, an appropriate driving cycle for trucks had not
been developed. Therefore, the transit bus cycle was used for testing these trucks on the
chassis dynamometer. A dynamometer testing cycle to be used in future truck testing is
currently under development and will be reported as a part of next year’s activities.

The fuel economy as measured during the emissions testing for two of the Archer
Daniels Midland ethanol trucks and one diesel control vehicle is shown in Figure 4-9. The
relatively low volumetric fuel economy of the ethanol vehicles compared to the diesel
vehicles is to be expected because of the lower energy density of ethanol. However, when
the ethanol fuel economy is expressed as diesel gallon equivalent miles per gallon, the fuel
economy is nearly the same for both fuels. The ethanol engines used in these trucks are
Detroit Diesel Corporation compression-ignition engines that have been modified from the
Detroit Diesel Corporation’s methanol-based engine buses.

The variation in the on-road fuel economy for the six compressed natural gas trucks
used in the New York Department of Sanitation project shown in Figure 4-10 ranges from

Figure 4-8. West Virginia Mobile Emission Testing Facility
bt re

rs



z
5
3
Ee

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

°

Figure 5-16. School Bus Mileage Accumulation

vets Joeeutuyiitiiig

(DO New York Bus #101

FRY New York Bus #104

West Virginia Bus #105
(Z) West Virginia Bus #106
El West virginia Bus #107

Dec 92 Jan 93 Feb 93 Mar 93 Apr 93 May 93 Jun93 Jul93 Aug 93 Sep 93

Figure 5-17. Gaseous Emissions for Alternative-Fueled School

Buses Compared to Diesel and Gasoline Fuels

Grams/Mile

ZB

WM Hercules CNG Engine

Chevrolet Gasoline Engine Converted to CNG
{J Fumigated CNG Engine

[ standard Gasoline Engine

CZ Standard Diese! Engine

413.0

5-24



Figure 3-7. THC and OMHCE Emissions for M85 VFV
Luminas Tested with Indolene, M85, and MSO

° @.000 10,000 15,000 20,000 26,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 465,000
Mileage

Figure 3-8. CO Emissions for M85 VFV Luminas
Tested with Indolene, M85, and M50

Erissions
(gansmi)
ose eaaay

° B.000 10,000 165,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 36,000 40,000 45,000
Mileage

Figure 3-9. NO, Emissions for M85 VFV Luminas
Tested with Indolene, M85, and M50

° B,000 10,000 16,000 20,000 26,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
Mileage

Indolene Ma5_ MEO
Saree ar NS"

3-19



the emissions test period. The decrease in fuel economy for the CNG2 is expected given that
the calibration is likely richer than before (substantiated by the emissions test results) and the
fact that more power is available to the driver. The Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority
fuel-economy results may be lower than the other transit properties because they travel
significantly fewer miles per day than their diesel counterparts.

The emissions testing was conducted during August of 1993. Emissions were
measured at the New York City Department of Environmental Protection Agency Frost Street
Vehicle Emission Test Laboratory. Because of the distance between the transit bus project
location and the emissions laboratory, it was only practical to measure emissions from the
Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority Buses. Engine configuration and bus weight are major
variables that affect bus emissions. The other compressed natural gas buses that use the same
transmissions are likely to have very similar emissions over the same driving cycles.

Table 5-5 lists the buses tested and their accumulated mileage at the time of testing.
The Cummins L10 engines in the compressed natural gas buses are operated "lean," meaning
that more air is admitted into the combustion chamber than is theoretically needed to
complete combustion. Lean-burn engines tend to have very low carbon monoxide (CO)
emissions, low oxides of nitrogen (NO,) emissions, and high hydrocarbon emissions.
Methane, the primary constituent of natural gas, is the most stable of all the hydrocarbons and
resists oxidation at low temperatures. In-cylinder temperatures in lean-burn systems are
relatively low due to the diluent effect of the excess air. To counteract this characteristic of
lean-burn engines, Cummins has added an oxidation catalyst to this engine which lowers
hydrocarbon emissions somewhat, but it is not as effective as for other fuels because methane
is difficult to oxidize at the relatively low exhaust temperatures.

Two diesel buses were emissions-tested as a baseline to allow comparison with the
emissions performance of many existing buses in transit property fleets. The two diesel
control buses were 1991-model-year Orion 40-foot transit buses with DDC 6V-92TA engines
and Allison 4-speed automatic transmissions. Emissions data from four New York City
1990-model-year TMC 40-foot transit buses with DDC 6V-92TA engines with Donaldson
particulate traps were included for comparison purposes even though particulate trap
technology may not be a choice for transit bus emission control in the future. The emissions
tests consist of operating the buses on a chassis dynamometer over a prescribed driving cycle.
The driving cycle used for emissions testing was the Central Business District transit-bus test
cycle.

Figure 5-2 illustrates the differences in hydrocarbon emissions among these groups of
buses. The CNG1 buses have similar total hydrocarbon emissions as the baseline diesel
buses, but the vast majority of these hydrocarbons are methane which, although relatively
non-reactive, is a significant greenhouse gas. The CNG2 buses show a large increase in
hydrocarbon emissions. In lean-burn engines such as these, lowering oxides of nitrogen
(NO,) emissions often has an opposite effect on hydrocarbon emissions. The trap buses
tended to have hydrocarbon emissions slightly less than the diesel baseline buses. This could
be due to the fact that traps, in addition to collecting particulate matter, tend to cause a small
amount of hydrocarbon oxidation to occur.

5-7


Figure 1-1. Map Illustrating Locations of Federal Light-Duty,
Heavy-Duty Truck, and Bus Fleet Vehicles

! “Honeiepi Gounty

Minneepolis 4 >. n
vod ‘Seder Rapids Arseny,
Arvequnses Heres

~. } {Denver

OA
‘AColé. Springs

AOkianome city,

ABirminghsim, ..°

A Raswoll

“ FL Worth
“BB ENPis0 ier

© Light Duty AMFAI & AMFA II
© Heavy Duty Phase 1

4 Urban Transit Bus

4 Schoo! Bus Phase 1

AFL. Lauderdale
,SMiami

Overall Light-Duty Alternative Fuel Vehicle Operation

The performance of motor vehicles is directly influenced by the driving cycles or
usage patterns to which they are subjected. Therefore, operating locations have been selected
(see Figure 1-1) to allow data to be collected for many varied vehicle operating conditions
and usage patterns. A primary influence on vehicle performance is the climate in which these
vehicles are operated. The Detroit and New York/New Jersey regions permit the evaluation
of cold-weather performance, whereas the Houston region provides a warm-weather
environment. Changes in altitude greatly affect the performance of motor vehicles. The
Denver region vehicles, specifically, provide a means to evaluate the alternative fuel vehicles
performance between high and low altitudes. Other locations with smaller fleet sizes allow
for more-controlled usage. For example, the Bakersfield, California, location has only
compressed natural gas vans, each of which covers 50 to 90 miles daily with a minimum of
stop-and-go traffic. This can be compared and contrasted with the El Paso, Texas, location
which operates compressed natural gas pickups. These vehicles average only 10 to 40 miles
per day and often involve extended periods of idling and low-speed travel.

Fuel Use and Economy

Through fiscal year 1993, just over 2 million miles have been accumulated by vehicles
operating at the light-duty vehicle locations identified in Figure 1-1. With more vehicles and
regions joining the program by the end of 1993, large mileage accumulations are projected for
fiscal year 1994. Under this project, M85 (a mixture of 85 percent methanol and 15 percent

1-2


Number

1-1

2-1

3-1
3-2
3-3

3-4

3-5

3-6

3-7

3-8

3-9

3-10

3-11

3-12

3-13

LIST OF FIGURES

Title Page

Map Illustrating Locations of Federal Light-Duty,
Truck Commercial, and Bus Fleet Vehicles ........ 0.000000 ee eee 1-2

Location of Methanol/M85, Ethanol/E85, and Compressed.

Natural Gas Vehicle Refueling Sites ...... 0.2.0.0... cece eee eee 2-5
Current Phase I and Phase II Light-Duty Vehicle Locations ........... 3-3
Accumulated Miles by Fleet Location .. 2.6.0... 00.00: e eee e eens 3-7
Accumulated Miles by Vehicle Fuel Type ............... 000.0008 3-8
Cumulative Fuel Used - All Sites from October 1992 to

September 1993 2.2... ee eee teenie 3-8
Phase I Alcohol Fuel Utilization .. 0.0.0.0... 00. c cee eee eee eee 3-9
Comparison Between In-Use and Laboratory Fuel Economy

for the Ford Taurus and Chevrolet Lumina .................0-05- 3-15
THC and OMHCE Emissions for M85 VFV Luminas Tested with

Indolene, M85, and M50 ... 1... ee eee eens 3-19
CO Emissions for M85 VFV Luminas Tested with Indolene,

M85, and M50 2... ce eee nee 3-19
NO, Emissions for M85 VFV Luminas Tested with Indolene,

M85, and M50 20... ce eee 3-19
Emissions Comparisons for M85 VFV Luminas Tested with

Indolene and M85 0.1.6... eee eee 3-21
Emissions Comparisons for M85 FFV Tauruses Tested with

Indolene and M85 2.0... eee eee 3-21
Emissions Comparisons for M85 VFV Luminas and M85 VFV

Lumina Control Vehicles Tested with Indolene ..............-.005 3-22
Emissions Comparisons for M85 VFV Luminas Tested with

M85, and Gasoline Control Luminas Tested with Indolene........... 3-22


Table 3-4. Fuel Economy In-Use Versus Laboratory

In-Use Lab
City* Highway? City® Highway?
miles/gallon miles/gallon miles/gallon miles/gallon
(gasoline gallon (gasoline gallon (gasoline gallon | (gasoline gallon

Vehicle Type Fuel equivalent) equivalent) equivalent) equivalent)
Lumina VFV M85 11.2 (19.8) 15.6 (27.5) 10.3 (18.1) 15.35 (27.1)
Lumina VFV Gasoline 19.9 25.9 17.2 27.0
Lumina Conv. | Gasoline 22.7 25.9 18.0 248
Taurus FFV M85 11.7 (20.6) 15.2 (26.8) 10.7 (18.9) 15.6 (27.5)
Taurus FFV | Gasoline 20.9 21.2 18.5 27.5
Taurus | Conv. | Gasoline 19.5 wA4 19.5 28.6

Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

* In-use fuel economy based on average daily mileage less than 50 miles.

> In-use fuel economy based on average daily mileage greater than 100 miles.

* City fuel-economy data were reduced 10 percent per standard EPA practice for comparison with in-use data.

4 Highway fuel-economy data were reduced 22 percent per standard EPA practice for comparison with in-use data.

3.8 Laboratory Emissions

Collection of emissions data is a very important part of the Light-Duty Alternative
Motor Fuels Program. Over the past fiscal year, an expanded emissions data base has been
developed from the Phase I project. Since 1991, 150 emissions tests have been performed in
accordance with test procedures specified by the Environmental Protection Agency. Data
from 18 Phase I vehicles in the Detroit and Washington, D.C., regions were used in
developing the information for this report. Vehicles represented include Taurus M85
flexible-fuel and Lumina M85 variable-fuel vehicles operated on gasoline and M85 and
standard control vehicles operated on gasoline. Substantive emission testing of Phase II
compressed natural gas vehicles started after fiscal year 1993, therefore, analysis based on
these data will be presented in next year’s report. Three emissions test laboratories, the
Environmental Protection Agency’s Ann Arbor, Michigan, facility, the Environmental
Protection Agency’s Research Triangle Park, North Carolina facility (operated by Mantech,
Inc.), and the Environmental Research & Development Corporation facility in Gaithersburg,
Maryland, conducted the tests. Although some additional fuel formulations were tested on a
very limited number of vehicles, the focus of this report is on trends associated with
comparisons of emissions between gasoline and M85 fuels. In several tests, unburned
hydrocarbon emissions were further examined to more fully characterize the nature of specific
compounds (a laboratory analysis process known as speciation). These data are still being
analyzed.

The test procedures used for performing emission tests were described briefly in the
previous report to Congress and will not be discussed further here. The procedures,
equipment, test conditions, process, and analysis requirements are specified by the
Environmental Protection Agency in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40: Part 86

3-16


4.2.4 Emissions

As mentioned earlier, emissions and fuel economy have been measured on two ethanol
trucks and one diesel control truck from the Archer Daniels Midland Company project and
two compressed natural gas trucks from the New York City Department of Sanitation. These
tests were conducted by West Virginia University using the Transportable Emissions
Laboratory. Each vehicle was operated on the Central Business District (CBD) transit bus
cycle, with emissions expressed as grams per mile.

For methanol-fueled engines, organic material hydrocarbon equivalent (OMHCE)
emissions is used rather than hydrocarbon, where organic material hydrocarbon equivalent is
determined by summing the masses of residual hydrocarbon, adjusted for values of methanol
and formaldehyde which eliminates the oxygen portion of these emissions, making organic
material hydrocarbon equivalent comparable on a mass basis to the hydrocarbon emissions
measured from diesel engines.

Shown in Figure 4-15 are the carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NO,, and
organic material hydrocarbon equivalent (OMHCE) emissions from the three trucks tested. In
this case, no carbon monoxide emission data are available for the diesel control vehicle. The
lower oxides of nitrogen levels for the ethanol vehicles when compared with the diesel
vehicles confirm the results from earlier DOE-sponsored research work. The organic material
hydrocarbon equivalent emissions from the ethanol engine are significantly higher than the
hydrocarbon emissions from the diesel control vehicles. This indicates that further
development on the emissions control systems of ethanol engines will be required. However,
it should be noted that ethanol hydrocarbon emissions are less reactive and less toxic than the
equivalent amount of hydrocarbon emissions from diesel fuel. Shown in Figure 4-16 are
particulate, aldehydes, and unburned ethanol emissions for the Archer Daniels Midland trucks.
No particulate emissions data are available for the E95 trucks. However, based on previous
research work, particulate emissions are expected to be low for ethanol as compared to diesel
fuel. The emissions of aldehydes and unburned ethanol for the E-95 trucks were high.

The emissions from the two New York City Department of Sanitation compressed
natural gas trucks are shown in Figure 4-17; no emissions data are available on diesel control
vehicles. The data indicate that the emissions from two identical compressed natural gas
trucks can be markedly different, particularly in carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions.
Both of these trucks have original-equipment Cummins L10 natural gas engines. However,
natural gas engines for heavy-duty vehicles are still early in their development and a certain
amount of engine-to-engine variability of emissions is to be expected. As the development of
natural gas engines progresses, engine-to-engine variability should decrease.

Shown in Figure 4-18 are the particulate emissions for the two New York City
Department of Sanitation compressed natural gas trucks when operated over the CBD transit
bus cycle. The particulate emissions from natural gas engines are almost entirely due to
consumption of lubricating oil within the engine because natural gas does not produce
particulates when combusted. Lubricating oil consumption also contributes to the particulate
emissions of diesel engines using diesel fuel. Diesel engine manufacturers have reduced

4-15


5.1.1.2 Vehicles

In the DOE bus project, a total of 78 transit buses are operating at five locations.
An additional project is being established in New York and a biodiesel project is planned for
St. Louis, Missouri. Of the 78 buses already operating, 5 are operating on methanol (M100),
10 are operating on ethanol (E95), 10 are operating on compressed natural gas, 10 are
operating on liquified natural gas, 13 are diesel buses equipped with particulate traps, and 30
are diesel control buses. The alternative fuel engines in the current projects are manufactured
by Detroit Diesel Corporation and Cummins Engine Company. Included in the current
projects are buses manufactured by Bus Industries of America (Orion), Flxible, Mercedes, and
Transportation Manufacturing Corporation (TMC). In the Federal Transit Authority’s
alternative fuel bus program, 1,163 alternative fuel buses are in service at various locations
across the country.

5.1.1.3 Locations

The transit bus project locations that are a part of the DOE sponsored project are
given in Table 5-1, along with the number of buses, the various engine/fuel technologies, and
bus manufacturers. Figure 5-1 shows the locations of both the DOE and the U.S. Department
of Transportation Federal Transit Authority projects.

5.1.1.4 Technical Characteristic of Vehicles

The technical characteristics of the various transit bus engines and fuel systems are
outlined in Appendix A. It should be noted that the technology levels of the engines in these
projects are somewhat behind the levels of the latest models because technology
improvements are progressing rapidly.

5.1.1.5 Infrastructure Support

Due to the nature of transit bus operations, the use of public refueling stations is
generally not practical, and refueling facilities are usually located at the transit agency
property. Due to the high capital cost of installing alternative fuel refueling facilities, some
of the transit agencies have made arrangements to use the local gas utility company’s natural
gas refueling facilities. For compressed natural gas buses, about half of the transit agencies
use gas utility company refueling facilities, while the others use their own facilities. Almost
all of the transit agencies with liquefied natural gas buses have provided their own refueling
facilities.

Due to the limited number of transit buses and their specialized characteristics, public
facilities authorized to repair and maintain alternative-fueled vehicles are generally not used.
The various transit agencies are generally set up to repair their own vehicles. In the case of
alternative fuel buses, certain mechanics and repair personnel are specially trained so that they
can repair and maintain the alternative fuel equipment.

5-2


DOE/EE-0033

Federal Alternative Motor Fuels
Program-Light Duty Federal
Vehicles, Trucks,

and Buses

Third Annual Report to Congress
for Fiscal Year 1993

September 1994

U.S.Department of Energy

Office of Transportation Technologies

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Washington, DC 20585

2683




6.0

7.0

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Page
5.3. School Bus Operations .... 0... 6. eee ete eee 5-21
5.4 Future School Bus Activities 2.0.0.6... ce cece ee eee eee eee 5-25
Safety 2... ee eee eee t teens 6-1
Consumer Awareness ..... 0... ce eee ee tee eee ene 7-1

Appendix A - Technical Characteristics of Vehicles Participating
in the Alternative Motor Fuels Program

iv


6.0 SAFETY

The overall safety assessment of the vehicles in the Alternative Motor Fuels Program
are based on information collected from communications with drivers involved in accidents,
discussions with fleet managers, and queries of General Services Administration data on these
vehicles. In addition, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration maintains an
automotive defects and recall data base and a special file on crashes involving alternative fuel
and electric vehicles.

In response to the growing number of alternative fuel vehicles, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration is in the process of developing safety standards that will
regulate the safety performance of the fuel systems of these vehicles. During fiscal year
1993, the anti-siphoning performance of alcohol-fueled vehicles of 4,536 kilograms
gross-vehicle-weight rating or less and all school buses was regulated (58 Fed. Reg. 5633).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is also conducting rulemaking to
develop safety standards for compressed natural gas fuel systems, and a final rule is
scheduled to be promulgated in fiscal year 1994.

Examination of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration manufacturer
recall data base and discussion directly with vehicle manufacturers revealed the following
safety-related recalls or no-cost warranty actions specifically targeted toward alternative fuel
and electric vehicles:

* The 1992 Chevrolet Lumina with the methanol/ethanol fuel system was
recalled for fuel leakage. These vehicles were returned to the dealers and
the fuel tanks were replaced.

¢ The light-duty Phase II project M85 (a mixture of 85 percent methanol and
15 percent unleaded gasoline) Dodge Spirits were not allowed to go into
service due to a leaking fuel sensor. These vehicles were returned to the
dealers and the fuel sensors were replaced.

Analysis of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration alternative fuel and
electric vehicle crash file reveals only one vehicle collision in the September 1992 to
September 1993 time period. This case (#DS 9202) involved an electric vehicle, which is not
part of the current Alternative Motor Fuels Program.

On September 13, 1993, one Federal Express vehicle had a fire while operating on
M85. The fire started under the hood and was quickly extinguished, with no injuries and
minimal damage to the engine compartment wiring. Preliminary examination of the vehicle
by Ford Motor Company indicated that the fire started near the cold-start injector, most likely
from a fuel leak.

On December 6, 1992, a Neoplan transit bus powered by a dual-fuel Detroit Diesel
6V92 pilot-injection natural gas engine was damaged by a natural gas ignition. While new-
vehicle inspection certification was being conducted at the Houston Metro Transit

6-1


ve

7661 FAK [eOS!y UI Poppe SoIOTYOA ,

SUONROT BPITYA °Z-¢ 22L

z s [a | o | o 0 0 + 0 v1 z s |e] o 1 T ouuosry
> o | ufo foo ry 0 0 0 z o|9|z $ Vo ‘oBaIq ues
+ | o o |mafo fo] o 0 0 0 0 0 z o | 9 z $ Vo ‘Soja8uy Soy
s | o | o | o f o | o | s | o | 0 0 0 0 0 o | of] o 0 VO PRUs
z | & | o of o | o | 0 0 z | ew | o 0 0 o fof o 0 XL ‘Std TH
x | w | o fo fo |o | s $ ox | » | s | os | o o | of o 0 IN/ 00K ON
oe | Oo o | az io fo | o 0 0 o | o | zs z o|s | SI TA oreq
o | « [ o | o | o | o | 0 € s | o | s | o€ 0 of of o 0 XL ‘worsnoH
sor | z | o | os | or | o | oc | o | 9 | cw | x | os | « | o |e) eal] a (00 ‘aug
ror | se | o | 8 | wo | 6 | o | <x s | os | 9 | os | ew | ow | oz] | st “rq “woIRuTySE
ou ou au oun aut] out au
-oep | OND | sea | sew | -oseo | caw | -os0 | OND | -osep | OND | -osea | caw | -oseo | cea | saw | -oen | cow NOLLVDOT
auT[ou0sq eur]
pioy yojoIAaT



Figure 5-2. Comparison of Unburned Hydrocarbon Emissions
from Compressed Natural Gas and Diesel Buses

10
8 be.
DG Loree eternity
=
an
&
Bye
64
2b
MSBA DIESEL MSBACNG1 MSBACNG2 NYCTRAP NYC wio TRAP
ee |

NYC Diesel Bi
Unburned Hydrocarbons nesermuses

Figure 5-3 illustrates the differences in carbon monoxide (CO) emissions among these
groups of buses. Both CNG1 and CNG2 buses have very low carbon monoxide (CO)
emissions, which is a characteristic of lean-burn engines equipped with catalysts. The trap
buses have significantly higher carbon monoxide (CO) emissions than the baseline diesel
buses. This could be due to the fact that hydrocarbons oxidized in the particulate trap create
carbon monoxide (CO) emissions which add to those produced by the engine. This
supposition is supported by the data of Figure 5-3 that illustrate higher carbon monoxide (CO)
emissions for the trap buses when using the traps.

Figure 5-4 illustrates the differences in oxides of nitrogen (NO,) emissions among
these groups of buses. As expected, the CNG2 buses’ nitrogen (NO,) emissions are nearly
half those of the CNG1 buses, which are in turn only about 75 percent of the baseline diesel
fuel oxides of nitrogen (NO,) emissions. As expected, traps have insignificant impact on
oxides of nitrogen (NO,) emissions.


Figure 5-1. Map Showing the Location of Alternative Fuel Transit Bus Fleets

Minneapolis oa

Acoma EE
‘Ft Collins fod eee, AaPosria bresturg
. H ) Denver &
. H “Acole. Springs
Los Angeles & FIR ee ASpriny
sy : Albuquerque ?
* a Phoenix A Oklahoma City, “| .
® Tucson —_ aRGswell wongersd ABirmingham .“
, : A Dallas/Ft. Worth
“MEI Paiso
2 A Austin
Sa Houston AA:
A Federal Transit Authority 7 Galveston
Urban Transit Bus Project “AFL Lauderdale
A DOE Urban Transit Bus if “44Miami

natural gas buses. Data are being collected from Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority in
Nassau County, Niagara Frontier Transit Authority in Buffalo, Central New York Transit
Authority in Syracuse, Rochester-Genesee Regional Transit Authority in Rochester, and
Broome County. The Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority is the only transit property that
has an onsite fast-fill refueling facility. Niagara Frontier Transit Authority currently has a
time-fill refueling facility set up to refuel their buses. This facility is “bare-bones” and does
not have the capability to measure the amount of natural gas delivered to each bus. Central
New York Transit Authority, Rochester-Genesee Regional Transit Authority, and Broome
County all have arrangements with their local utilities to refuel their buses at nearby utility
compressed natural gas refueling facilities.

The fuel economy of a transit bus is dependent on a variety of factors including
engine efficiency, the weight of the bus, and typical routes that the bus travels. Idle time is
especially important because the fuel consumed during idle does no useful work to move the
vehicle. The rate of fuel consumption at idle is one of the larger differences in engine
efficiency between typical diesel transit bus engines and the Cummins L10 natural gas engine.
Spark-ignition engines typically have about four times the fuel consumption, on an equal
energy basis at idle, compared to diesel engines of similar size.

5-4


promise for improved performance. Engine development, for example, is highly refined for
diesel engines, which have been modified over many decades of use, whereas ethanol engines
are being tested for the first time in some instances. In addition, there are differences in the
technology of ethanol/methanol engines that require different throttling; compressed natural
gas tanks are presently heavy compared to gasoline tanks, offsetting expected gains; and the
newer alternative fuel engines have undergone less development and, as a result, are less
optimized than their counterparts. Overall, however, the largest fuel economy difference was
only an eight percent lower diesel gallon equivalent fuel economy for ethanol vehicles as
compared to diesel vehicles in the Archer Daniels Midland line-haul tractors. Other projects
showed much smaller differences or, in some cases, small advantages for the alternative fuels.

Emissions

Emissions data are still being collected and show mixed results on the small samples
collected to date. Where emissions are higher than expected, valuable insight is gained into
the need for further development of the engines. As an example, Archer Daniels Midland
ethanol trucks had oxide of nitrogen (NO,) emissions that were lower than those for the
diesel control vehicle, as would be expected. The organic material hydrocarbon equivalent
(OMHCE) emissions from the ethanol engine were significantly higher than the hydrocarbon
emissions from the diesel control vehicles. It should be noted, however, that ethanol
hydrocarbon emissions are generally less reactive and less toxic than the equivalent amount of
hydrocarbon emissions from diesel fuel. The emissions of aldehydes and unburned ethanol
for the ethanol trucks were extremely high, indicating that catalytic converter development
might be needed to control such emissions.

Maintenance and Reliability

Maintenance and reliability data are being collected on all of the heavy-duty truck
projects and will be provided in future reports. Durability of the alternative-fuel engines will
be assessed and reported at the end of the demonstration projects. In the Federal Express
project, oil consumption is being reported by Federal Express employees, and oil samples are
being collected for chemical analysis with each oil change. As of September 30, 1993, a total
of 421 oil samples had been analyzed. Nearly all of the vehicles have had at least four oil
changes.

For the Federal Express project, engine durability will be assessed at the end of the
demonstration, with detailed inspections of two disassembled engines from each fleet location.

Future Activities

Several new truck demonstration projects will begin in the near future. One will begin
operations in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and will operate on E95. Two ethanol heavy-duty
road maintenance and truck/snowplows will begin operating with the State of Nebraska
Department of Public Roads. The United Parcel Service will begin operating compressed
natural gas-powered package vehicles in the near future. These projects account for a total of
25 alternative fuel vehicles. Several compressed natural gas vehicle projects are also planned

1-6


Figure 3-19 presents the same data on a mileage basis, plotting of the average number
of driveability problems per vehicle which were experienced for each vehicle which
completed each mileage interval. This graph indicates that driveability problems are
experienced within the first 5,000 miles and for the variable-fuel Chevrolet Luminas peak at
about 11,000 miles. Driveability problems for the Ford Taurus also are experienced within
the first 5,000 miles and remain relatively constant to about 25,000 miles. For both vehicles,
the flexible-fuel vehicles exhibit a greater frequency of driveability problems for most mileage
intervals. Comparison between Figure 3-18 and Figure 3-19 indicates that the driveability
problems have not diminished as dramatically as Figure 3-18 suggests.

In addition to the frequency of driveability problems, it is helpful to look at the
relative frequencies of each driveability problem. Figure 3-20 shows the distribution of
driveability problems for the Phase I methanol vehicles. The most common difficulties were
hesitation, idle quality, and stalling in traffic. In nearly all cases, the vehicles running on
M85 encountered many more driveability problems than the gasoline-fueled vehicles.

The Phase II compressed natural gas vehicles at Bakersfield, California, reported a
very high number of driveability problems during fiscal year 1993. The relative distribution
of these problems is shown on Figure 3-21. In this figure, the highest frequency of driver
complaints are hesitation, pinging, hard starting, and lack of power.

For the Phase II project in El Paso, Texas, Figure 3-22 presents the number and type
of problems reported from November 1992 to May 1993. This graphic dramatically
illustrates the early driveability problems for this project. In addition, the dramatic drop in
driveability problems corresponds to a high level of maintenance performed on these vehicles
during this time period. Figure 3-24 in the next section presents a breakdown of the number
and type of components that were replaced to correct these driveability problems.

3.10 Maintenance

Driveability problems and maintenance should be linked with a cause-and-effect
relationship. Typically, the vehicle operator experiences a driveability problem which then
prompts a maintenance response. If, however, the maintenance repair is unsuccessful and
fails to solve the problem, the operator, after a number of attempts to correct the problem,
may stop reporting the problem. Figure 3-23 plots the frequency of unscheduled fuel-system
maintenance actions at progressive mileage intervals for both the M85 Taurus and M85
Lumina. Unscheduled maintenance for the conventional gasoline vehicles is not shown on
this graph since only one fuel-system repair for eight conventional gasoline control vehicles
was performed. This graph suggests that unscheduled fuel-system maintenance actions tend
to decrease somewhat with accumulated mileage. This result seems to agree with the trends
shown on Figure 3-18, although not to the same degree. However, when compared with
Figure 3-19, there seems to be some contradiction. It appears that the cause-and-effect
relationship between driveability and maintenance is not as strong as hypothesized. This may
be due to the phenomenon outlined earlier where vehicle operators tire of bringing the vehicle
in for service which only partially corrects the problem. It will take additional data from
Phase II projects to determine, with statistical methods if, and to what degree, the vehicles are
actually improving with regard to driveability and maintenance.

3-28


Figure 5-8. On-Road Fuel Economy of Methanol and Diesel Control Buses

Methanol
ZA Diesel

Miles/Galion
x)
T

Miles/Gallon Miles/Gallon
(Diesel Gallon Equivalent)

monoxide (CO) emissions than others, and their emissions are not always lower than those for
corresponding diesel engines.) The oxides of nitrogen (NO,) emissions are generally more
predictable and consistent from engine-to-engine and from test-to-test when compared to
carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. Figure 5-9 shows the classic result that methanol produces
lower oxides of nitrogen (NO,) emissions than does diesel fuel. This is primarily due to the
higher latent heat of vaporization of methanol. The lower oxides of nitrogen (NO,) for
methanol results from the cooling effect when methanol is injected into the combustion
chamber, with the final result effectively reducing the temperature of combustion, which
favors lower oxides of nitrogen (NO,) production.

Illustrated in Figure 5-10 are the organic and particulate emissions compared between
the methanol and diesel control buses. Unburned methanol and formaldehyde were not
measured for the diesel bus. It is known from past research studies that formaldehyde and
methanol emissions from diesel engines are low when compared to methanol engines. The
organic material hydrocarbon equivalent is determined by summing the masses of residual
hydrocarbon, adjusting for values of methanol and formaldehyde. This has the result of
subtracting out the oxygen portion of these emissions and making the value comparable on a
mass basis to the hydrocarbon emissions measured from diesel engines. For the methanol bus

5-16


Figure 4-17. Gaseous Emissions from Two Compressed Natural Gas

Refuse Hauler Trucks

Grams/Mile

ZZ CNG Truck #1
EE] CNG Truck #2

Figure 4-18. Particulate Emissions for Two Compressed Natural Gas

Refuse Hauler Trucks

@) CNG Truck #1

0.08 q cestesteeeeteted

Grams/Mile

0.04

0.02

CNG Truck #2

Particulates

4-17



For both the compressed natural gas vehicles and alcohol-fueled vehicles, several
driveability problems were encountered. The Chevrolet compressed natural gas C2500
pickups experienced numerous problems such as stalling, surging, and failure to start. These
problems have been traced to debris in the fuel lines left over from various manufacturing
processes. This debris has resulted in the frequent replacement of injectors and fuel filters.
The compressed natural gas Dodge vans also experienced numerous driveability problems,
which were solved by replacing the engine control computer with an updated version.

With compressed natural gas vehicles, there are two primary refueling connectors
which are not compatible. In addition, the use of adapters is not very easy. As a result,
operators may encounter difficulty in finding refueling stations with the correct connector. A
new standardized connection identified as NGV1 is expected to be installed on compressed
natural gas vehicles and refueling stations in the near future, eliminating much of this
problem.

The M85 Dodge Spirits that are part of the Phase II project arrived with leaking
alcohol-percentage sensors, which needed to be replaced and delayed the availability of these
vehicles for use.

Initial driveability problems that occurred with the M85 Ford Taurus were largely
attributed to performance degradation of various unique components of the vehicle, such as
the EEC-IV engine microprocessor, fuel-sending unit, and fuel-pressure regulator. Upgrade
kits were subsequently delivered to the participating authorized Ford service centers, and the
upgraded hardware was installed on the vehicles exhibiting driveability problems.

The driveability problems that occurred with the M85 Chevrolet Lumina were largely
attributed to performance degradation of the unique fuel injector and fuel pump
speed-controller components. However, an updated dealer service bulletin was issued in
November 1991 to the participating authorized General Motors service centers, outlining the
driveability problems, possible causes, and correct repair procedures to follow (install new
service calibration programmable read-only memory (prom) computer chip and fuel-pump
speed controller).

Some of the long-term problems encountered have involved specific vehicle
limitations. Several characteristics of the alternative fuel vehicles have limited their
popularity. The most significant of these involve a reduction in driving range. For both
alcohol and compressed natural gas fuels, the amount of energy contained in a specified
volume is less than that of gasoline. Thus, for the same size fuel tank, the vehicle’s range is
reduced. In some of the M85 vehicles this has been addressed by installing slightly larger
fuel tanks. The compressed natural gas vehicles have the largest number of complaints
concerning travel range. This is due to the fact that dedicated compressed natural gas
vehicles can use only compressed natural gas, and drivers must plan their use very carefully
to ensure that adequate refueling facilities are available. In addition, the compressed natural
gas fuel tanks, which are filled with up to 3,600-pounds-per-square-inch pressure, are bulky
and not easy to package. The compressed natural gas C2500 pickup truck has an extra fuel
tank installed in the bed to increase its range. Unfortunately, this limits the ability to haul
large items. Compressed natural gas vehicles also typically take a long time to refuel. Many

3-10


Figure 3-12.

Emissions Comparisons for M85 VFV Luminas and M85 VFV

Lumina Control Vehicles Tested with Indolene

-

Emissions
(grams/mite)
yn

=

0
0

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
Mileage
M85 Vehiclos ‘M85 Gasoline Control Vohicios
THC co THC co
—a— ---&-- ee oa

Figure 3-13. Emissions Comparisons for M85 VFV Luminas Tested
with M85, and Gasoline Control Luminas Tested with Indolene

Emissions
(grams/mile)

am

0

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000

Mileage
M85 Vehicles Gasoline Control Vehicles
OMHCE CO Nox THC co Nox
ME RA. NSE... Ree ge

3-22



Figure A-2. Unique Components of the M85 Ford Taurus

Glossary of Components

A.

E.

F,

Spark Plugs: The wire electrode is wider for
increased heat transfer.

Fuel Injectors: FFV fuel injectors have a higher
fuel flow capacity and a modified spray nozzle
design.

Fuel Rail: Material changes are made for fuel
methanol compatibility.

Fuel Pressure Regulator: Material changes are
made for fuel methanol compatibility.

EEC-IV Microprocessor: A different calibration
is used to monitor and activate FFV sensors and
systems as required.

Wiring Harnesses: Wiring changes have been
made to connect with the Fuel Sensor and Cold
Start System.

Engine Oil: Specially formulated for required
use with all of the possible fuel mixtures. Oil
change intervals for fuel methanol vehicles are
required every 4800 km (3000 miles).

Fuel Supply, Return and Vapor Lines:
Material changes are made for methanol fuel
compatibility.

Fuel Sensor: This unique FFV component
allows the EEC-IV microprocessor to determine
the percentage of methanol in the fuel.

Filler Pipe: Improved coating is applied and
anti-siphon screen installed. Material changes
are made for fuel methanol compatibility.

Fuel Filter: Material changes are made for fuel
methanol compatibility.

Fuel Pump Assembly/Fuel Sending Unit:
Nickel plating is applied to non-stainless steel
parts. All other parts are of different materials
for compatibility with methanol fuels.

Fuel Tank: A high-density polyethylene fuel
tank is used for fuel methanol compatibility and
is shielded to reduce evaporation.

Cold Start System: Allows faster, more reliable
starts in extremely cold temperatures.

Evaporative Emission System: Charcoal
canister enlarged and vapor vent valves modified
to relieve pressure from extended idling and hill
climbing.

Source: Ford Motor Company

A-3



possible cause, and repair procedures (install new service calibration programmable read-only
memory (prom) computer chip and fuel-pump speed controller). Repairs were performed on
all 25 M85 Chevrolet Lumina vehicles participating in Phase I. Installation of upgraded
hardware and the dealer service bulletins reduced the number of driveability problems
experienced by these vehicles.

Analysis of Figure 3-18 indicates that the driveability difficulties reported per month
appear to be declining significantly for the 1993 fiscal year. This reduction in driveability
complaints is probably a direct result of the fuel-system updates. However, these vehicles
still have a significantly higher rate of driveability problems when compared to both
alternative fuel vehicles running on gasoline and conventional gasoline control vehicles.

Figure 3-18. Driveability Problems by Month

114.27
6 | fj 11.79
8
2°
Ra
§
2°
B,
=, fH f
PAY Ve AMINA tA

Sep’91 Nov Jan'92 Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan'93 Mar May Jul Sep
Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug

SS mss FFV Boss contro! Gasoline Controt

Figure 3-18 can also be examined to identify whether driveability problems exhibit
seasonal variances particularly with respect to temperature. Due to the characteristics of M85
and its low volatility, an increase in cold-starting problems would be expected during the cold
months. Although examination of the data suggest that a mild trend may exist, it cannot be
Statistically confirmed. As the driveability data set increases with the Phase II vehicles, next
year’s report should be able to present a more definitive analysis.

3-27



Figure 3-14. Emissions Comparisons for M85 FFV Tauruses Tested

Emissions

(grams/mile)

with M85, and Gasoline Control Tauruses Tested with Indolene

ne Cn

e

i i i 4

° Se i
0 5 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
Mileage
M85 Vehiclos Gasoline Control Vehicles
OMHCE CO Nox THC co Nox
Ae Qe | ede gee

Figure 3-15. Emissions Comparisons for M85 FFV Control Tauruses

Emissions

and Gasoline Control Tauruses Tested with Indolene

8
7
6
g@5
a
&
53
2
1
° .
© — 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
Mileage
‘M85 Gasoline Control Vehicles | Gasoline Control Vehicles
THC co Nox | THC co NOx
ceBeee ene |B eee gees

3-23



and slow acceleration response. For the one ethanol vehicle, all injectors were replaced four
times, glow plugs and controller were replaced three time; and driveability problems required
numerous attempts to reprogram the engine controller to solve these problems. Given that
alternative fuel engines were in the early stages of development when these demonstrations
started, it is not surprising that significant operational problems occurred. Much work on
alternative fuel engine development has been accomplished since these existing alternative
fuel projects were put into place. These improvements are reflected in some of the bus
demonstrations that are reported on in a later section of this report.

4.4  Fuure Activities

Three new truck demonstration projects will begin in the near future. One project will
begin operations in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and will operate on E95. Two ethanol
heavy-duty road maintenance and truck/snowplows will begin operation with the State of
Nebraska Department of Public Roads. The United Parcel Service will begin operating
compressed natural gas-powered package vehicles in the near future. These projects account
for a total of 25 alternative fuel vehicles. In addition, data will be collected from six standard
control vehicles in these projects, providing a baseline for comparison. Data concerning
accumulated miles, fuel economy, maintenance, reliability, and operating cost, for these
vehicles will be collected in a structured standardized format to permit statistically valid
comparisons. Emissions tests will be conducted periodically on these vehicles with the West
Virginia University Transportable Emissions Laboratory. Data from all participating vehicles
will be sent to National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Alternative Fuels Data Center.

Financial and in-kind contributions are being made by industry and other participants.
As an example, for the State of Nebraska ethanol project, the contributors are Hennepin
County, Minnesota; Archer Daniels Midland; Minnesota Corn Growers; Nebraska Department
of Roads; Nebraska Energy Office; Midwest Grain Products; Trucking Research Institute; and
the United Parcel Service. The total contributions of industry and other participants results in
nearly a 50-50 cost share between the Federal government and industry for these projects.

4.4.1 Planned New Demonstrations

Several compressed natural gas vehicle projects are planned for operation in
California. These demonstrations will be set up by Acurex Environmental Corporation with
cooperation from a number of host sites. Data will be collected from these operations and
will be entered into the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Alternative Fuels Data
Center.

The Trucking Research Institute is actively working toward bringing several other
commercial alternative fuel heavy-duty projects into operation. These projects include:

(1) — Seven original equipment manufacturer heavy-duty refuse vehicles

operating on liquefied natural gas vehicles manufactured by Mack
Trucks, Inc.

4-20


Table 5-5. Compressed Natural Gas Test and Diesel Fuel
Baseline Buses

Group Engine Transmission Miles
CNG1 Cummins L10 ZF 6,649
CNG1 Cummins L10 ZF 16,962
CNG1 Cummins L10 ZF 16,976
CNG1 Cummins L10 ZF 14,624
CNG2 Cummins L10 ZF 15,298
CNG2 Cummins L10 ZF 17,659
CNG2 Cummins L10 ZF 16,789
CNG2 Cummins L10 ZF 13,869
CNG2 Cummins L10 ZF 17,036
Baseline DDC 6V-92TA Allison 102,256
Baseline DDC 6V-92TA Allison 101,384
TMC Trap | DDC 6V-92TA ND! 48
TMC Trap DDC 6V-92TA ND 16,132
TMC Trap DDC 6V-92TA ND 41,236
TMC Trap DDC 6V-92TA ND 74

' Not Determined.

5-8


Subpart B - Emission Regulations for 1977 and Later Model Year New Light-Duty Vehicles
and New Light-Duty Trucks; Test Procedures. Test vehicles were tested at various mileage
increments as shown in the graphs and tables which accompany this report section.

In accordance with the Federal Test Procedure, the exhaust of each test vehicle was
sampled and analyzed for three major emission constituents: carbon monoxide (CO), total
unburned hydrocarbons (THC), and oxides of nitrogen (NO,). For methanol-containing fuels,
the term organic material hydrocarbon equivalent (OMHCE) is used rather than hydrocarbons.
The organic material hydrocarbon equivalent is determined by the summation of the mass of
residual hydrocarbons and adjusted to the values of methanol and formaldehyde, comparable
to hydrocarbons for gasoline engines.

The following series of graphs and tables illustrate trends, with mileage, for the
various vehicles which were tested. Note from the graphs that emissions data were obtained
at various mileage points which are not always consistent across the group of vehicles tested.
This resulted from several factors, but is primarily related to the combination of vehicle
availability and test laboratory availability. With the limited number of vehicles being tested,
precise, statistically significant statements are difficult to make at this time. As discussed in
the report section on Future Activities, the emissions test component of the Light-Duty
Alternative Motor Fuels Program has been expanded significantly to improve the base of
emissions data and thus enhance the significance of results. In compiling the data for this
report, composite data on vehicles of like type, tested on like fuels, at approximately like
mileage points were grouped for analysis purposes.

With the very limited set of emissions data (at early vehicle mileage accumulation
points) that were available for previous annual reports, it was convenient to express results in
simple bar chart form. Because emissions data are now available over extended vehicle
mileage intervals, trends with mileage can be illustrated. The traditional method for
illustrating emission trends with mileage is to denote the emission values for the mileage
points at which the vehicles were tested, then "connect the dots" to illustrate the overall trend.
It is important to note that interpolation between each test point is not generally advised,
because different results might have been obtained if the vehicle were to have been tested at
an intermediate mileage point.

The data illustrated in the following graphs represent the average of the emissions for
the subgroup of like vehicle/fuel combinations. For the sake of clarity, the highest and lowest
emissions data for each point (illustrating the range of emission variability) are not shown
because such information would have no effect on the overall trends illustration. A
discussion of emission variability (and several explicit examples) are discussed later in this
report section. The results allow the inference of comparative trends. This presentation
technique permits relative assessments to be made without the need for being overly reliant
on the absolute values of specific emission results, because there are many factors that
contribute to the variability of emission test results.

Before beginning the discussion of emission trend results, a few additional points are
worth mentioning. The current emission standards that the automotive manufacturers were

required to meet are as follows: 0.41 grams per mile total hydrocarbons, 3.4 grams per mile

3-17


APPENDIX A

TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VEHICLES
PARTICIPATING IN THE FEDERAL ALTERNATIVE
MOTOR FUELS PROGRAM


International. Due to the limited range of these electric vehicles, they are used exclusively in
short-trip operations and accumulate very little mileage.

A3 Technical Characteristics of Transit Bus Engines and Fuel Systems

Detroit Diesel Corporation has developed and commercialized a two-stroke cycle
compression-ignition bus engine product line that can operate on M100 or M85. This engine
was developed by modifying a two-stroke cycle diesel engine product line that has been in
service for many years. The primary difference is a compression ratio raised from 19:1 for
the diesel engine to 23:1 for the methanol engine, an electronically controlled bypass
scavenge blower, glow plugs for cold-start and warmup, methanol-compatible materials in the
fuel system, and larger-capacity fuel injectors to accommodate the lower volumetric energy
value of methanol as compared to diesel fuel. Shown in Figure A-7 is a photograph of the
Detroit Diesel 6V-92TA engine. The Detroit Diesel ethanol engine used in some of the
transit-bus demonstration fleets is a modified methanol engine and has been certified for
emissions.

The vehicle fuel systems for the methanol and ethanol buses are similar to that of the
diesel buses with the exception that the alcohol fuel tanks and other fuel system components
must be manufactured from alcohol-compatible materials. In addition, alcohol fuel tanks are
sized to account for the differences in energy density between alcohol and diesel fuels such
that the vehicle driving range between refueling is comparable.

The natural gas engines used in DOE’s current demonstration program are
manufactured by both Detroit Diesel and Cummins. One version of the Detroit Diesel natural
gas engine is a pilot-injection natural gas engine that has been adapted from a technology
used for large natural gas engines in stationary applications. The pilot-injection natural gas
bus engine is a 6V-92 two-stroke cycle engines, where natural gas is injected directly into the
cylinder during the compression stroke. Near the end of the compression stroke, a small
amount of diesel fuel is injected through the normal diesel fuel-injection system providing the
ignition source for the natural gas and air mixture that is already in the cylinder. Although
this engine is still in production, it tends to emit higher levels of total hydrocarbons
(discussed in the emissions section) when compared to spark-ignition natural gas engines.
However, this pilot-injection natural gas engine provides better idle and part-load efficiency
than the spark-ignition natural gas engines because, like the diesel engine, it is unthrottled at
idle and part-load.

The Cummins L10 natural gas engine is a dedicated natural gas engine. It is a
6-cylinder inline heavy-duty engine derived from the Cummins L10 diesel engine. The diesel
injection system is replaced by a natural gas system with carburetor, governor, and a

spark-ignition system. Figure A-8 is a photograph of the Cummins L10 dedicated natural gas
bus engine.

Other engine manufacturers that are involved in producing dedicated spark-ignition
natural gas engines using similar technology include Detroit Diesel Corporation (Series 50
engine), Detroit Diesel Corporation/Navistar International (Series 30 engine), and Hercules
Engines, Inc. In addition, Tecodrive produces dedicated natural gas engines that use similar

A-8


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page
Executive Summary 0.6... cece ee eens 1-1
1.1 Alternative Fuel Use by Light-Duty Federal Vehicles .............-5 1-1
1.2 Alternative Fuels Truck Commercial Applications Program . . 1-5
1.3. Alternative Fuels Bus Program .......... 0.00 ee ee eee . 1-7
14 Safety ...... .. 19
1.5 Infrastructure... eee ee eee teens 1-10
Introduction 20... cee eee ee tenet nee e teens 2-1
2.1 Light-Duty Vehicles 2.6.0... cc ect eee ee eeeneee 2-4
2.2. Commercial Vehicles and Heavy-Duty Trucks .......... 0.0. ee eee 2-6
2.3. Transit and School Buses .. 1... 0... cece ee ene eens 2-7
Alternative Fuel Use by Light-Duty Federal Vehicles ............00 000 e ee 3-1
3.1 Program Participants ©... 60... eee eee tee 3-1
3.2 Vehicles/Locations 2... 0.0... ccc ee eee eens 3-2
3.3. Vehicle Usage Patterns 2.2.6... eee eee eee 3-5
3.4 Technical Characteristics 20... 0... cece eee ete 3-5
3.5 Infrastructure Support 2.6... ee eee ee ete 3-5
3.6 Vehicle Performance/Operations ....... 06.0: eee eee eee eee 3-6
3.7 Efficiency of Performance/Cost .... 2.0... 06 cece eee ee eee 3-11
3.8 Laboratory Emissions ........ 2.6.0 cee eee ee eee ee eee 3-16
3.9 Operator Satisfaction/Driveability ...... 06... see eee eee eee ee 3-24
3.10 Maintenance .... 00... cc eee ee eens 3-28
3.11 Future Activities 2.0.0... eects 3-31
Alternative Fuels Truck Commercial Applications Program ..........-.-+-- 4-1

4.1 Summary of Projects .
4.2 Performance ..... 0... ee eee eee teens
4.3. Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Projects Coordinated by

the Trucking Research Institute oe. 419
44 Future Activities 0.0... ee een eee nee 4-20
Alternative Fuels Bus Program .. 0.2... 06. cece eee eens 5-1

5.1 Transit Buses... ce eee eee t ene
5.2. Future Transit Bus Activities

iii


Table 5-7. School Bus - Heavy-Duty Delivery Schedule - Phase II Grants

Number Scheduled
of for
Phase State Vehicles Type of Vehicles Location Delivery
Il | Illinois 2 E95 Snow Plow/Construction trucks | Peoria, IL To be
determined
Ir Illinois 1 E95 School Bus Peoria, IL To be
determined
Ir | Kentucky 3 CNG Municipal Wreckers Louisville/Jefferson County, KY August 1994
II | North 4 CNG School Buses Mecklenburg County, NC To be
Carolina determined
I Nevada 2 CNG 15,000-GVW Crew Cab To be determined March 1994
Dump Trucks
Nevada 2 CNG Tymco Street Sweepers To be determined March 1994
New York 2 CNG Athey Street Sweepers New York City, NY July 1994
Il New York 2 CNG Transit Style Buses used in Bethlehem School District, Albany | February 1994
school bus operation County, NY
II_ | Rhode Island 4 CNG School Buses East Providence, RI To be
determined
aif South 4 CNG Heavy-Duty Trucks Richland and Lexington Counties, To be
Carolina sc determined
Il | Virginia 3 LPG Class 7 (28,000 - 33,000 Richmond, Northern Virginia, and July 1994
GVW) Dump Trucks Suffolk, VA
I Virginia 1 CNG School Bus Virginia Beach, VA October 1994

5-26



4.2.3 Efficiency

Fuel-economy data for alternative and conventional fuels are being collected and
analyzed for all of vehicles participating in the program. Because a portion of the truck
project operations are in the early stages, some fuel-economy data cannot be reported at this
time due to quality assurance measures. Therefore, fuel economy will be reported and
discussed for those fleets where quality fuel-economy data are available.

The on-road fuel economy for the four ethanol line-haul trucks in the Archer Daniels
Midland project as compared to the diesel-fuel baseline control vehicle is shown in Figure
4-7. The diesel gallon equivalent fuel economy for the four different ethanol vehicles range
from 4.6 to 5.5 miles per gallon. The vehicle-to-vehicle fuel economy appears to be fairly
consistent considering that this is on-road fuel economy and there can be variations in the
weight of the load hauled, duty cycle, etc., which can significantly affect fuel economy. The
fuel economy of the ethanol vehicle’s expressed as miles per diesel gallon equivalent is about
8 percent less than that for the diesel control vehicle.

Variations in fuel economy for on-road vehicles may be due to both differences in
operational duty cycle and engine technology. Engine technology differences are to be
expected when considering that diesel engines have been under development for decades
whereas the ethanol engine is in the early stages of development. Once the ethanol engine is
fully developed, it should have essentially the same diesel gallon equivalent fuel economy of
the diesel engine with the additional advantages of lower oxides of nitrogen and particulate
emissions.

Figure 4-7. On-Road Fuel Economy for the Ethanol Tractors in the Archer
Daniels Midland Fleet as Compared to the Diesel Control Vehicle

92002 92004 92006 92008 | Average Diese!
Vehicle Numbers Control

Ethanol Vehictes:

Galion
Equivalent

4-8



Table 3-6. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Emission Data Variability
for Indolene and M85 Test Fuels in M85 Tauruses

Percent Difference between Lowest and Highest

Values for CO Emissions at 4,000 Miles and
10,000 Miles.
Test Fuel From Average to Min. From Min. to Max.
or Max.
4,000 mi. | 10,000 mi. | 4,000 mi. | 10,000 mi.

Indolene +13 + 58 27 279
M85 £22 + 32 57 95

Table 3-7. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Emission Data Variability for
Indolene and M85 Test Fuels in M85 Luminas

Percent Difference between Lowest and Highest
Values for CO Emissions at 12,000 Miles and
24,000 Miles

Test Fuel From Average to Min. From Min. to Max.

or Max.

12,000 mi. | 24,000 mi. | 12,000 mi. | 24,000 mi.

Indolene +37 +37 119 119
M85 +91 +74 2064

Since the beginning of vehicle operations, various driveability difficulties were
reported on some of the vehicles, including rough engine idling, hesitation on acceleration,
"check engine" light on, and engine stalling. Figure 3-18 presents the frequency distribution
of driveability problems for Phase I vehicles by month, and shows that the problems per
vehicle per month were the largest during fiscal year 1992. During this time period, the
driveability problems that occurred with the M85 Ford Taurus were largely attributed to
performance degradation of various unique components of the vehicle such as the EEC-IV
engine microprocessor, fuel-sending unit, and fuel-pressure regulator. Upgrade kits were
delivered to the participating authorized Ford service centers, and the upgraded hardware was
installed on the vehicles exhibiting driveability problems.

The driveability problems that occurred with the M85 Chevrolet Lumina were largely
attributed to performance degradation of the unique fuel injector and fuel-pump
speed-controller components. A dealer service bulletin was issued in November 1991 to the
participating authorized General Motors service centers, outlining the driveability problems,

3-26


5.2 Future Transit Bus Activities

The initial phase of the Alternative Fuels Bus Program was structured to gain basic
information from the existing bus demonstrations that are being managed by the U.S.
Department of Transportation. For the future, a second-phase project has been designed by
DOE to gather more-detailed data with limited numbers of alternative fuel buses from
selected transit authorities. Data collection and analysis will continue on the current, as well
as the new, projects.

5.3 School Bus Operations

In addition to the transit buses, DOE is coordinating, providing incentives, and
assisting various school districts around the country in setting up alternative fuel
demonstration vehicles.

5.3.1 Program Participants

In fiscal year 1992, the Department of Energy issued eleven grants as an initial
phase to fund the incremental cost of alternative fuel school buses. This money was
distributed in fiscal year 1993, with most of the school districts in the program receiving their
money and ordering the buses. Many buses were acquired over the summer and had just
begun operation at the end of fiscal year 1993. For this reason, only a limited amount of data
is available. The results will be fully presented in the Fourth Annual Report to Congress.

Figure 5-14 shows the locations of the Phase I school buses. However, out of these
eleven projects, only five buses started operation during fiscal year 1993. These buses were
located in Wood County, West Virginia, and Shenendehowa Central School District, New
York. The compressed natural gas buses in Wood County were emissions-tested over fiscal
year 1993 and the results are presented in the following section. Figure 5-15 shows one of
the Wood County CNG buses.

Unfortunately, with one exception, the compressed natural gas-powered school buses
refueled at the Wood County, West Virginia, site did not have individual fuel-metering
systems; therefore, on-road fuel economy figures can be calculated for only one bus. When
the next generation of buses begins sustained operation, a larger amount of vehicles enter the
data collection pool, and with the increased possibility of installing more fuel-metering
devices, fuel economy figures will be calculated.

5.3.2 Vehicle Accumulated Miles
From December 1992 through September 1993, two buses in Wood County have
accumulated 23,497 miles. Three additional buses went into service in July 1993 and these

buses accumulated only 6,628 miles by September 1993. The total accumulation for these
five buses is 30,125 miles as shown in Figure 5-16.

5-21




Overall, the data collection efforts are yielding the types of information that DOE
believes will be useful for prospective users of alternative fuel vehicles. As more data
continue to become available, more-informed judgments can be made about the benefits,
limitations, and operating characteristics of alternative fuel vehicles.

The increasing number of alternative fuel vehicles in the Federal fleet are becoming a
primary driving force for developing an alternative fuel vehicle refueling infrastructure.
Figure 2-1 details the distribution of alternative fuel refueling locations throughout the
country. Although this map shows an impressive array of alternative fuel refueling locations,
there are still many locations where government alternative fuel vehicles have been placed
where no existing or convenient alternative fuel refueling facilities exist. This has spurred the
private sector to respond to this demand. In some cases, however, the number of alternative
fuel vehicles in a fleet location remains too small to justify infrastructure investment by the
private sector. As a consequence, some government alternative fuel vehicles have not
achieved the usage (or in the case of flexible fuel vehicles, have used more gasoline) that
they would have if alternative fuel refueling facilities had been conveniently available.

Title XIX of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 provides incentives for alternative fuel
refueling facilities in the form of tax deductions. However, the basic obstacle to investment
in alternative fuel refueling facilities remains the number of vehicles that will be served by a
given facility. Unless private investors are given assurances that sufficient alternative fuel
vehicles will become available in the near future, they will not take the risk of investing in
alternative fuel refueling facilities.

2.1 Light-Duty Vehicles

The Light-Duty Alternative Motor Fuels Program is currently divided into two phases.
Phase I began in 1991 with the introduction of 25 M85 (a mixture of 85 percent methanol
and 15 percent unleaded gasoline) variable-fuel 1991 Chevrolet Luminas, 40 flexible-fuel
1991 Ford Tauruses, and 16 control vehicles (standard-production 1991 Luminas and
standard-production 1991 Tauruses). The four initial alternative fuel vehicle fleets were
located in Detroit, Michigan; Los Angeles, California; San Diego, California; and
Washington, D.C. Phase II was started in 1992 with the introduction of alternative fuel
vehicles in Argonne, Illinois; Bakersfield, California; Houston and El Paso, Texas; New York
City, New York; Denver, Colorado; and expansion of the Washington, D.C., and Detroit
Phase I sites. The number of vehicles participating in the program now include an additional
644 alternative fuel vehicles and the 286 conventional gasoline-fueled control vehicles. In the
near future, there are plans for a third phase with 196 additional vehicles and one additional
site in Atlanta, Georgia.

Data are being collected to evaluate the operation and cost of these vehicles relative to
the gasoline control vehicles. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory are responsible for
collecting and managing the data-gathering efforts. Once the data are collected and passed
through quality checks, they are made available to the public through online computer
access and published reports. Typical data and information being collected on this fleet
include:

2-4


Figure 5-18. Particulate Emissions and Fuel Economy of School Buses
Comparing Compressed Natural Gas with Diesel and Gasoline Engines

4
Il CNG (Hercules)
CNG (Chevrolet)
£4 CNG/D2 (Fumigated)
3 Gasoline 900 | weer RB BRB fee
9 C Dieset
=
ra
c-}
i es Me
2
Q
£
=
6
ab
0.05 0.05
0 _—

bus applications. It is expected that acceptable natural gas engines for school buses will
emerge, but more engine development is required.

5.4 Future School Bus Activities

Currently, eleven localities have received grants for original equipment
manufacturer alternative fuel school buses. Ten of these projects will be fueled with
compressed natural gas and one will be fueled with methanol. At this point, only the Wood
County, West Virginia, and Shenendehowa Central School District, New York, projects are
operational and reporting data. The other nine locations will be operational in the near future.
There are plans for a second phase of grants which would add another sixteen school bus

project locations. Table 5-7 outlines the type, number, and location of these buses, along
with anticipated delivery dates.

5-25



Figure 3-3. Accumulated Miles by Vehicle Fuel Type

25 ne
I \
1991 \ 1992 | 1993 y Cees Frv
2.0 7 t a5 FFV
| 1 [J Gasoline
i \
8 ' 1
2 u15 —r T
a
Be !
42
Feio !
3 1
8
< 1
I
0s
S

0
Jan'91 May Sep Jan'92 May
Mar Jul Nov Mar Jul
Year-Month of Operation

Fuel Used
(Thousands of Gallons)

Figure 3-4. Cumulative Fuel Used - All Sites from
October 1992 to September 1993

(1 Gasoline

CNG Gasoline
© Gallon Equiv.

KS mes
“| Wess

°
OCT NOV DECJAN’93FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
Month

3-8



A.l Technical Characteristics of Light Duty Vehicles

Currently, six vehicle models are represented in the program, the 1991/1992/1993
Chevrolet Lumina, 1992/1993 Chevrolet C2500 pickup truck, 1991/1992/1993 Ford Taurus,
1993 Dodge Spirit, 1993 Ford Econoline van, and 1992/1993 Dodge B-250/350 van.
Although these vehicles outwardly appear no different from conventional gasoline vehicles,
they incorporate various fuel system and engine modifications in order to operate on
methanol/gasoline mixtures, ethanol/gasoline mixtures, and compressed natural gas fuel.

The unique components of the M85/E85 Chevrolet Lumina for operating on a mixture
of methanol/gasoline or denatured ethanol/gasoline are shown in Figure A-1. Major changes
include different piston rings, fuel tank, engine electronic control module, and the addition of
a fuel sensor to determine the proportion of methanol or ethanol in the fuel mixture. The
M85 Chevrolet Lumina is able to operate on fuel ranging from 85 percent methanol/15
percent gasoline to 100 percent gasoline. Similarly, the E85 Chevrolet Lumina is able to
operate on fuel ranging from 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline to 100 percent gasoline.
The M85 Chevrolet Luminas refill at the same rate as the conventional gasoline vehicles.

Unique components of the M85 Ford Taurus for operating on methanol and gasoline
fuel blends are shown in Figure A-2. The major changes include different spark plugs, a fuel
tank, engine electronic control module, and the addition of a sensor to determine the
proportion of methanol in the fuel mixture. The M85 Ford Taurus operates on fuel mixtures
ranging from 85 percent methanol/15 percent gasoline to 100 percent gasoline. The M85
Ford Taurus tank capacity is 2.6 gallons more than conventional vehicles.

The unique components of the M85 Ford Econoline van for operating on methanol and
gasoline fuel blends are shown in Figure A-3. The major changes include engine
modifications to increase durability and compatibility with methanol fuel, different spark
plugs, fuel-tank electronic control module, and the addition of a sensor to determine the
proportion of methanol in the fuel mixture. The M85 Ford Econoline is able to operate on
mixtures ranging from 85 percent methanol/15 percent gasoline to 100 percent gasoline fuel.

Basic operation of the M85/E85 Chevrolet Lumina, M85 Ford Taurus, M85 Ford
Econoline, and the Dodge M85 Spirit are unchanged from their conventional gasoline
counterparts. All of the alternative fuel vehicle engine control systems for these vehicles
continuously adjust the engine for proper performance regardless of the proportion of
methanol/ethanol in the fuel. Because these adjustments do not require intervention by the
driver, the only difference the driver may notice is a slight increase in vehicle response and
acceleration with fuels of a high methanol/ethanol content.

Unique components of the Dodge B-250/350 and Chevrolet C2500 vehicles for
operating on compressed natural gas are shown in Figures A-4 and A-5, respectively. Both
the Dodge and Chevrolet vehicles have three pressurized compressed natural gas cylinders in
place of the gasoline tank and are dedicated vehicles; that is, they only operate on natural gas.
The time required to refuel the compressed natural gas vehicles is often longer than
conventional gasoline vehicles, depending on whether the compressed natural gas

A-l


Figure 3-24. CNG Fuel System Components
Which Were Replaced through September 30, 1993

Fuel Injectors

Throttle-Body Assembly

Fuel-Filter Assembly |’
Electronic Control Module
Regulator Assembly
Low-Pressure Valve | |
Throttle-Position Sensor | |

Fuel-Fill Valve

Fuel-Injector Valve

Poeiei sii i
0 02 04 O06 O8 1 1200614 «16 «18
Average Number of Parts Replaced per Vehicle

In addition to the expansion of the light-duty projects, an emissions test plan has been
developed for expanding the testing of the exhaust and evaporative emissions for these
vehicles. The main aspects of the plan include:

+ Six vehicle fuels including E85, E50, M85, M50, compressed natural gas,
and reformulated gasoline (RFG).

* Combined emissions tests comprising a Federal Test Procedure test
followed by duplicate 4-minute special tests (known as an IM240 test) used
to approximate the Federal Test Procedure results. Emissions are measured
for both the Federal Test Procedure and the IM240 portions.

¢ Testing of about 400 vehicles at five sites and 624 FTP/IM240 emissions tests to
determine differences in exhaust and evaporative emissions.

¢ To the maximum extent practical, vehicles will be tested at the 4,000-mile mark to
assure stable operation of the emissions control system. Following the initial
emissions test, tests will be conducted at 10,000 miles and every 10,000 miles
thereafter, or annually, whichever is more frequent. Testing will proceed for at
least 3 years, after which time specific vehicles from the project may be chosen for
longer-term testing at higher mileage.

3-32



meetings are held in conjunction with universities across the country to increase students’
awareness of, and interest in, alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles.

As an integral part of this effort to educate and stimulate the student engineers interest
in alternative fuel vehicles, DOE co-funded the 1993 Natural Gas Vehicle Challenge student
engineering competition. Students competing in the most recent Challenge represented
schools in Canada and Mexico, as well as the United States. The top five U.S. universities
have been sponsored to participate in the international Natural Gas Vehicle Showcase event to
be held in Toronto, Canada, in 1994. To capitalize on the synergy between the SAE
TOPTECs and student competitions, attempts have been made to schedule these events in
tandem. Figure 7-1 shows a lineup of student entries at the 1993 Natural Gas Vehicle
Challenge.

A major part of increasing the public awareness about the presence of alternative fuel
vehicles is visibility of the vehicles themselves acting as traveling billboards. Each vehicle
displays graphics which identify the vehicle as an alternative fuel vehicle and also displays
the type of fuel being used. In addition to their external markings, many vehicles have
internal materials such as owner’s manual supplements that include operation, safety, and
servicing information. Not only do the vehicles advertise alternative fuel use, but so do the
refueling locations, which are also clearly marked and display fuel type, operating
instructions, and safety precautions.

Figure 7-1. Student Competitors and Their Entries at the Natural Gas
Vehicle Challenge Event

7-2


lubricating oil consumption significantly in recent years and further reductions will be
difficult since it is not feasible to eliminate lubricating oil consumption using current engine
technology. Further reductions in natural gas engine particulate emissions could come from
optimized lubricating oil formulations and more advanced emissions aftertreatment devices.
Particulate reduction in natural gas engines is expected to be achieved by evolutionary design
improvements to reduce lubricating oil consumption. As the project continues, data will be
collected for similar diesel control vehicles to establish a baseline for comparison.

Thirty-six Federal Express vehicles are being tested at the California Air Resources
Board emissions laboratory. Emissions tests are planned three times during the 24 month
demonstration as the vehicles accumulate mileage. The first set of tests included duplicate
measurements of exhaust emissions. This first set of tests was conducted November 1992
through July 1993 as each vehicle reached at least 4,000 miles. In September 1993, the
second round of emissions tests began on the same vehicles. Measurements of both exhaust
and evaporative emissions are to be made. Data analyses of these emissions results from the
Federal Express project are currently in progress and will be reported in next year’s report.

4.2.5 Durability, Maintenance, and Reliability

Maintenance and reliability data are being collected on all of the heavy-duty truck
projects and will appear in future reports. Durability of the alternative-fueled engines will be
assessed and reported at the end of the demonstration with detailed inspections of two
disassembled engines from each project location. In the Federal Express project, oil
consumption is being recorded by Federal Express employees, and oil samples are being
collected for chemical analysis with each oil change. As of September 30, 1993, a total of
421 oil samples had been analyzed. Nearly all of the vehicles have had a minimum of four
oil changes. Results of the oil analyses will be reported in future technical reports and made
available to industry and other interested parties. Any problems identified by the oil analyses
as related to alternative fuels will be reported to ensure that corrective actions can be taken in
by engine design changes and/or reformulation of lubricating oils.

As with all new systems, a number of maintenance and reliability problems have
occurred with some of the alternative fuel vehicles. For the Federal Express propane
vehicles, several problems associated with fuel-system electronic components, fuel control
valves, vacuum lock-off valves, false activation of "check engine" lights, engine stalling, and
computer software have surfaced. The manufacturer of the fuel system has been working,
and continues to work, with Federal Express to correct these problems by replacing
components and upgrading the related systems.

Problems associated with the Federal Express compressed natural gas vehicles
included engine stalling, leakage of high voltage from ignition coils in some Chevrolet
vehicles, and contamination of pressure regulators with lubricating oil (apparently from the
natural gas refueling compressors). Corrective actions are being taken to eliminate these
problems.

For the Federal Express M85 vehicles, one Ford vehicle had a small fire in the engine
compartment. There were no injuries and only minor damage occurred to the vehicle. Ford

4-18


Table 3-1. Selected Federal Agencies Participating in the
Federal Light-Duty Alternative Motor Fuels Program

Bureau of Indian Affairs Department of State National Park Service, Denver
Central Intelligence Agency Department of Transportation Service Center
Consumer Product Safety Department of Treasury Naval Reserve Recruiting
Commission Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Personnel Management
Defense Contracts Environmental Protection Agency Peace Corps
Administration Federal Emergency Management Small Business Administration
Defense Information Systems Agency US. Air Force
Agency Federal Energy Regulatory U.S. Army
Defense Intelligence Agency Commission U.S. Coast Guard
Defense Logistics Agency Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Customs Seaport
Department of Agriculture Food and Drug Administration US. District Court
Department of Commerce General Services Administration U.S. Geological Survey
Department of Defense Government Printing Office U.S. Marine Corps
Department of Energy Library of Congress US. Military Academy
Department of Health and Human National Archives Record U.S. Navy
Services Administration US. Postal Service
Department of Housing and Urban _—National Credit Union U.S. Secret Service
Development Administration Veterans Administration Hospital
Department of Interior National Guard Walter Reed Army Medical
Department of Justice National Oceanic and Atmospheric Hospital
Department of Labor Administration

in the First Annual Report to Congress for fiscal year 1991! and the Second Annual Report
to Congress for fiscal year 1992?

3.2 Vehicles/Locations

The Federal Light-Duty Alternative Motor Fuels Program is currently divided into two
phases. Phase I began in 1991 with the introduction of 25 M85 variable fuel 1991 Chevrolet
Luminas, 40 M85 flexible fuel 1991 Ford Tauruses, and 16 control vehicles (8 standard
production 1991 Luminas and 8 standard production 1991 Tauruses). The four initial
alternative fuel vehicle projects were located in Detroit, Michigan; Los Angeles and San
Diego, California; and Washington, D.C. Phase II was started in 1992 with the introduction
of alternative fuel vehicles in Argonne, Illinois; Bakersfield, California; El Paso and Houston,
Texas; New York City, New York; Denver, Colorado; as well as expansion of the
Washington, D.C., and Detroit Phase I sites. The number of vehicles participating in the
program now include an additional 644 alternative fuel vehicles and 286 conventional
gasoline control vehicles. Figure 3-1 and Table 3-2 outline the locations and

1U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Transportation Technologies, Federal Alternative Fuel
Program Light-Duty Vehicle Operations - First Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1991,
DOE/CE-0351, March 1992.

2U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Transportation Technologies, Federal Alternative Fuel
Program Light-Duty Vehicle Operations - Second Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year
1992, DOE/EE-0004, July 1993.

3-2


Figure 5-7. Particulate Emission and Fuel Economy for Pilot Injection Compressed Natural
Gas and Liquefied Natural Gas Buses Compared to Diesel Control Buses

35 I DiesevLNG

Y Diesel/CNG
oe £& Clean Diesel/LNG

Clean Diesel/CNG

Diesel

C Clean Diese!

Grams/Mile or Miles/Gallon

NESE
Particulates Miles/Gallon
(Diesel Gallon Equivalent)

Over the life of the bus, the cost per mile of the methanol buses is more than twice
that of the diesel buses. The most significant difference in costs are related to labor, repair
parts, and higher cost of the methanol fuel. There is an increased number of road calls for
the methanol buses. However, in spite of the increased road calls, the uptime of methanol
buses was still greater than 90 percent. (It should be noted that road calls are for all reasons,
not just engine/fuel system problems.) Higher costs for operating the methanol buses are to
be expected because methanol engine development is still in progress. As these engines
become more developed, their reliability will increase, and the life-cycle cost will decrease.
One must remember that diesel buses have been in service for more than 30 years, and the
technology is mature in terms of reliability and durability.

On-road fuel economy for three methanol and three diesel control buses is depicted in
Figure 5-8. When methanol fuel economy is expressed in terms of diesel gallon equivalent
miles per gallon, the methanol fuel economy is less than that for the diesel vehicles. When
the methanol engine technology matures, the fuel economy for both methanol and diesel buses
should become nearly equal.

5-14


unleaded gasoline) alternative fuel vehicles have accumulated about 1,200,000 miles;
compressed natural gas vehicles accumulated just over 500,000 miles; and the E85 (a mixture
of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent unleaded gasoline) vehicles have accumulated only
about 40,000 miles. Total fuel consumed for fiscal year 1993 was more than 41,000 gasoline
gallons equivalent of natural gas, about 20,000 gallons of M85, nearly 3,000 gallons of E85,
and more than 12,000 gallons of gasoline. During fiscal year 1993, the percentage of M85
and E85 fuel consumed to total fuel consumption ranged from 95 percent to 74 percent. This
means that our test vehicles are using their alternative fuels a large percentage of the time,
using gasoline only when out of range of an M85 or E85 station. The M85 use is high
because many of the vehicle operation sites were centralized around available M85 refueling
facilities.

Fuel economy data were obtained in the laboratory as part of the Federal emissions
test procedure. In addition, on-road fuel economy was obtained from the weekly vehicle data
sheets completed by the vehicle operators for the Phase I vehicles. Comparison of the fuel
economy reveals that for both the in-use and laboratory cases the fuel economy for M85
alternative fuel vehicles fueled with M85, when adjusted for fuel energy, was similar to the
fuel economy of the M85 alternative fuel vehicles fueled with gasoline.

For both the Phase I and Phase II vehicles, on-road fuel economy data were obtained
for the Ford Taurus, Chevrolet Lumina, and Dodge Spirit operating on M85; the Chevrolet
Lumina operating on E85; and both the Dodge Ram 250 and Chevrolet C2500 pickup
operating on compressed natural gas (CNG). Examination of the on-road fuel economies,
when adjusted for fuel energy, reveals that for most of the sites the M85 alternative fuel
vehicles have slightly higher fuel economy than the conventional gasoline vehicles. The
exceptions to this are the Luminas in Washington, D.C., and the Tauruses in Los Angeles.
Overall, the on-road fuel economies of the compressed natural gas alternative fuel vehicles,
when adjusted for fuel energy, are lower than the conventional gasoline vehicles.

Emissions Testing

Since 1991, 150 emissions tests have been performed in accordance with the test
procedures specified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Vehicles represented in
the testing include Taurus and Lumina M85 flexible fuel vehicles operated on gasoline and
M85 and standard control vehicles operated on gasoline. When examining the emissions data
for the flexible fuel Taurus, it should be noted that these vehicles have not been federally
certified.

Substantive emission testing of Phase II compressed natural gas vehicles started after
fiscal year 1993, therefore, analysis based on these data will be presented in next year’s
report.

Comparison of variable fuel vehicle Luminas and flexible fuel vehicle Tauruses, when
each set of vehicles was tested on Indolene test gasoline and M85, indicated that, for both
fuels and vehicle types, carbon monoxide emissions increased with mileage, while unburned
hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen emissions were relatively constant. When tested with
Indolene gasoline, control vehicles exhibited trends similar to those of the M85 Luminas

1-3


is investigating the cause of the fire, which seems to have started near the cold-start injector.
This vehicle was out of service for 2 weeks during September 1993.

The Federal Express vehicles operating on reformulated gasoline have not experienced
any significant problems.

4.2.6 Operating Costs

Operating cost data are being collected for all of the medium and heavy duty vehicle
projects. Analyses of these data are underway and will appear in later reports.

4.3, Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Projects Coordinated by the Trucking Research
Institute

In the Trucking Research Institute’s effort to catalog existing alternative fuel
heavy-duty and medium-duty vehicles, 26 different projects that operate 387 vehicles on
alternative fuels were identified. Of the 387 vehicles, 207 operate on compressed natural gas,
166 operate on liquefied petroleum gases, 7 operate on liquefied natural gas, 6 operate on
methanol, and 1 operates on ethanol. Data have been collected from 19 of the 26 projects
and provided to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

To date, the number of existing projects from which to gather data is limited. Data
acquisition has been widely variable because of the unstandardized data tracking and the wide
variety of duty cycles represented. Medium- and heavy-duty trucks operate over various duty
cycles, ranging from pick-up and delivery in congested urban areas, long-distance
over-the-road operations, and rural and urban road maintenance. A number of the existing
alternative fuel vehicle projects are better characterized as experiments rather than vehicle
demonstrations. Furthermore, none had defined their driving cycles in terms of speed versus
time. Also, no common maintenance procedures nor systems for tracking maintenance costs
have been developed. Therefore, it is very difficult to make direct comparisons among fleet
experiences. For the alternative fuel truck projects that did start prior to the Alternative
Motor Fuels Program, the most available and useful type of information is anecdotal. The
Trucking Research Institute has gathered and cataloged most of the available data and
continues to track those projects that are still underway. This information is provided to the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory on a periodic basis.

4.3.1 Experience with Existing Alternative Fuel Vehicles

The alternative fuel trucks in the demonstrations that began before the Alternative
Motor Fuels Program included package delivery, local delivery, LNG tanker, line haul, coal
hauler, utility, garbage packer, refuse hauler, and logging trucks. Gross-vehicle-weight ratings
for these vehicles ranged from 10,000 to 80,000 Ibs. There are no operational cost,
maintenance, fuel economy, or emissions data available from which to base conclusions about
the operational characteristics of these alternative fuel vehicles. The only information
available are subjective comments about the driveability of the vehicles. Anecdotal
driveability comments about the vehicles included excellent, good, satisfactory, quiet and
smooth, good power but poor acceleration, power loss, good acceleration but engine stalls;

4-19


Table 5-1. Number, Location, and Description of Transit Buses
in the DOE Program

Engine/Fuel Technology

Agency LNG | CNG Diesel
Location PING! sr Control Bus

Houston 10 40 ft
Mercedes

Miami 40 ft
Fixible

40 ft
Gillig

35 ft TMC

40 ft Orion

! Pilot-Injection Natural Gas
2 Spark-Ignition

5.1.2 Transit Bus Operations

For the purposes of this report, it is impractical to include results from every
transit bus project from which data are being collected. Therefore, results from selected
representative projects that are operating buses on compressed natural gas, liquified natural
gas, methanol, and ethanol will be used. The representative projects were chosen on the basis
of completeness of the available data and of the representativeness of bus operations for other
locations. The majority of the vehicle performance analysis has been generated for the
vehicles in the earlier Department of Transportation project. It should be noted that because
these programs have been in place for a while, the technology levels of these vehicles are
behind the technology levels of the DOE/NREL-sponsored program vehicles.

5.1.2.1 Compressed Natural Gas Buses

Compressed natural gas bus operations from New York State, which are part of the
project sponsored by the Federal Transit Authority, represent a cross-section of transit
agencies at various locations across one state and are fairly representative of compressed

5-3


Number

5-13

5-14
5-15
5-16

5-17

5-18

71

A-1

A-2

A-4

A-5

A-6

A-7

A-8

A-9

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Title Page
Particulate, Unburned Ethanol, Aldehyde Emissions, and

Fuel Economy for the Ethanol and Diesel Buses ..............2005 5-20
Locations of Current Phase I School Buses ..............0000005 5-22
Wood County CNG Bus ...... 20.00... cece cece ee ene 5-22
School Bus Mileage Accumulation .......... 00.0000. 0 ee eee 5-24
Gaseous Emissions for Alternative-Fueled School Buses

Compared to Diesel and Gasoline Fuels ........... 0.00. e eee eee 5-24
Particulate Emissions and Fuel Economy of School Buses

Comparing Compressed Natural Gas with Diesel and Gasoline

Engines 20... 0... eee eee teens 5-25
Student Competitors and Their Entries at the Natural Gas

Vehicle Challenge Event .. 02... 000. c cece eee eee 7-2
Unique Components of the M85/E85 Chevrolet Lumina.............. A-2
Unique Components of the M85 Ford Taurus .................000- A-3
Unique Components of the M85 Ford Econoline Van .............08 A-4
Unique Components of the Compressed Natural Gas

Dodge B-250/350 6... 6... cee eens A-5
Unique Components of the Compressed Natural Gas

Chevrolet C2500 Pickup Truck ... 0.2.0.0... 0c cece cece A-6
Typical Installation of Compressed Natural Gas Fuel

Tanks Under a Dodge B250 Van... 0... 0. cee cece tee A-7
The Detroit Diesel 6V-92TA Methanol Bus Engine

(Photo from Detroit Diesel Information Update) ................00. A-9
Cummins Natural Gas Bus Engine (Photo from Cummins

Brochure)... 2... teen ete e eens A-10
Unique Components of a Compressed Natural Gas Transit Bus ....... A-11


7.0 CONSUMER AWARENESS

In fiscal year 1993, various publications were prepared and distributed by the
Department of Energy/National Renewable Energy Laboratory on the objectives of the
Alternative Motor Fuels Program, current and planned demonstration projects, and technology
facts about alternative fuels, such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, methanol,
ethanol, and liquefied petroleum gas. During fiscal year 1993, the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory has published and distributed two light-duty vehicle operational reports
titled, "Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988 - Light-Duty Vehicle Summary Information and
Individual Vehicle Graphs." The Department has also published quarterly information updates
concerning the initiation, function, and operation of the Alternative Fuels Data Center. In
addition to presenting reports, the Department has prepared a video explaining the operation
and characteristics of using compressed natural gas as a fuel. Plans for videos about other
fuels are in progress.

DOE, through the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, has established the
Alternative Fuels Data Center to assemble and manage a series of data bases that document
government and selected private fleet on-road alternative fuel vehicle performance. As of
September 1993, 363 organizations have obtained data from the center. The distribution of
these organizations are 28 in academia, 118 government agencies, 170 private industry, seven
original equipment manufacturers, eight private citizens, and 32 research and consulting firms.

In addition, DOE established and operates a National Alternative Fuels Hotline. The
toll-free number, 1-800-423-1DOE, is available to all callers outside the Washington, D.C.,
area (local callers may call (703) 528-3500 to reach the hotline). The hotline is available to
callers between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, on weekdays except Federal
holidays. This hotline currently handles about 600 calls per month and provides such services
as access to technical publications on alternative fuel topics; a free copy of Windows-based
software that allows the caller to access and query the Alternative Fuels Data Center data
base; a subscription to the Alternative Fuels Data Center Update quarterly newsletter, and a
20-page directory that provides over 8,000 contacts for government, industry, and academic
alternative fuel participants.

Because alternative fuels and vehicles have unique characteristics in the areas of
safety, handling, engine performance, and environment regulations, DOE is developing a
certification requirement for training programs for technicians who install and maintain
alternative fuel components. This work is being done cooperatively, with experts in
alternative fuel vehicle design, fuel suppliers, technical curriculum designers, technical
colleges, the Institute for Automotive Service Excellence, and government agencies
developing these curricula, as well as developing a train-the-trainers program for alternative
fuel vehicle maintenance.

Education of the current and next-generation automotive engineers about alternative
fuel vehicle technology is being accomplished in cooperation with the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). TOPTECs are meetings held for transfer of the latest technologies on
various SAE topics. DOE funds about four alternative fuel TOPTECs annually. These

7-1


5.0 ALTERNATIVE FUELS BUS PROGRAM

The Alternative Fuels Bus Program includes transit buses as well as school buses.
The transit bus and the school bus demonstration projects will be discussed in two separate
sections of this report.

5.1 Transit Buses
5.1.1 Summary of Projects

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory collects data on alternative fuel and
diesel control buses from two separate transit bus projects and stores the resulting data in the
Alternative Fuels Data Center. The first project, sponsored by DOE, involves the collection
of detailed operational, maintenance, and emissions data from five carefully selected transit
agencies across the United States. The transit agencies were selected based on the following
criteria:

¢ The availability of new alternative fuel buses that have new
original-equipment engines for fuels such as compressed natural gas,
liquefied natural gas, pure methanol (M100), and E95 (a mixture of 95
percent ethanol and 5 percent gasoline). The program goal was to have ten
buses of each fuel/engine technology split between two transit agencies.

¢ The availability of identically equipped control vehicles with the exception
of the fuel used.

+ Cooperation of the transit agency in supplying detailed data.

The second project, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal
Transit Authority, provides a more general data base on most of the alternative fuel transit
buses in service throughout the United States. Data are generated on the types, quantities,
locations, and mileage accumulations for all of the alternative fuel buses in service at major
transit agencies across the country. DOE’s role for both projects is to collect data on
emissions, fuel economy, and other operational characteristics for selected alternative fuel
buses and to compare these data with similar data from diesel buses that are currently in
service.

5.1.1.1 Participants

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory is responsible to collect data from the
various transit bus operational sites, analyze the data, store the data in the Alternative Fuels
Data Center, and make the data available to the industry, transit bus agencies, and other
interested parties. Other participants in the program include the Federal Transit Authority,
various State and local governments, transit bus agencies, engine manufacturers, and bus
manufacturers.


State

Table 5-7. School Bus - Heavy Duty Delivery Schedule - Phase II Grants (Cont.)

Number
of
Vehicles

Type of Vehicles

Location

for
Delivery

West Virginia

2

CNG Transit-Style Buses used in
school bus operation

Pleasants County, WV

To be
determined

District of
Columbia

CNG Jet Vac Machines

Washington, D.C.

To be
determined

District of
Columbia

CNG 38,000-GVW Dump Truck

Washington, D.C.

To be
determined

Iowa

Soy diesel (70% Soy diesel/30%
Diesel blend) School Buses

5-27

Waco and Washington Community
School Districts, [A

Delivered



natural gas engines were emissions-tested using the West Virginia Transportable Emissions
Laboratory.

Shown in Figure 5-6 are the emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen
(NO,), and hydrocarbon for six similar buses with diesel/liquified natural gas,
diesel/compressed natural gas, clean diesel/liquified natural gas, and clean diesel/compressed
natural gas pilot-injection natural gas engines, as well as diesel and clean-diesel control buses.
The carbon monoxide (CO) emissions for the pilot-injection natural gas engines are
significantly higher than those for the diesel control vehicles. Oxides of nitrogen (NO,)
emissions are fairly consistent across the range of engines. The higher oxides of nitrogen
(NO,) emissions for the diesel/compressed natural gas engine and the lower oxides of
nitrogen (NO,) emissions for the diesel/liquified natural gas system are probably due to a
difference in the engine calibrations rather than any fundamental difference in liquified natural
gas versus compressed natural gas fuels. As would be expected, the pilot-injection natural
gas engines exhibit extremely high total hydrocarbon emissions.

The spark-ignition natural gas engines discussed in the preceding sections had fairly
low hydrocarbon emissions because of their catalytic converters. However, none of the
pilot-injection natural gas engines discussed here were equipped with catalytic converters.
Because of the high hydrocarbon emissions for this type of engine, Detroit Diesel Corporation
is concentrating its efforts on the development of spark-ignition natural gas engines rather
than continuing the development of the pilot-injection natural gas engine. Even though the
hydrocarbon emissions for the pilot-injection natural gas engines are largely composed of
methane, this level of hydrocarbon emissions would probably be unacceptable for commercial
applications in the long term.

Another concept for a pilot-injection natural gas engine is known as fumigation and is
largely supplied by aftermarket providers. In these systems, natural gas is introduced into the
intake air stream of a four-stroke cycle diesel engine and premixed with air in the intake
manifold and during the compression stroke. Near the end of the compression stroke, a small
amount of diesel fuel is, injected which compression ignites, and provides a flame for igniting
the premixed charge of natural gas and air.

Fumigation systems typically exhibit extremely high hydrocarbon emissions.
Moreover, the aftermarket systems show a much wider range of hydrocarbon emissions than
the pilot-injection natural gas system. This may be because most aftermarket providers do
not have the required instrumentation to properly evaluate and calibrate the systems when
they are installed.

Shown in Figure 5-7 are particulate emissions and fuel economy as determined during
the emissions testing. It is interesting to note that particulate emissions for the pilot-injection
natural gas engines are nearly the same as those for the diesel control vehicles, even though
the majority of the fuel consumed during the driving cycle is natural gas. Part of these
particulate emissions are accounted for by lubricating oil consumption, but in this case there
appears to be a large contribution from the pilot injection, and/or incomplete mixing of the
natural gas with air during the compression stroke.

5-12


The Trucking Research Institute has been under contract to the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory to serve as a focal point in the commercial trucking industry for the
advancement of alternative fuel use. The Trucking Research Institute is the research and
educational arm of the American Trucking Association’s Foundation, Inc., which is, in turn,
the research arm of the American Trucking Association, the trucking industry’s national trade
association, with affiliated state associations in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The primary tasks in the Trucking Research Institute’s subcontract are to catalog all
existing Alternative Fuels Heavy-Duty and Medium-Duty Trucking Demonstrations; gather
data from ongoing demonstrations, recognizing that such data may be incomplete, fragmented,
and not standardized; provide incentives for new alternative fuel heavy-duty and medium-duty
projects organized under a strict data collection protocol which includes baseline control
vehicles operating on conventional fuels; and publicize truck-related alternative fuel
information throughout the industry and government with a quarterly newsletter and periodic
industry presentations. The new demonstration projects bring together vehicle and engine
manufacturers, fuel-system designers, fuel suppliers, interested government agencies, and
commercial motor carrier host fleets, all of whom contribute to the program.

New alternative fuel truck demonstrations are aimed at encouraging truck original
equipment manufacturers and engine manufacturers to design, produce, and warranty vehicles
designed to operate on alternative fuels. Wherever possible, emphasis is given to producing
dedicated alternative fuel vehicles, rather than dual-fuel vehicles. All vehicles in the new
demonstrations are to be emissions tested periodically by West Virginia University’s
Transportable Emissions Testing Laboratory during a 3-year data collection period.

The Trucking Research Institute has coordinated the start of a new demonstration
project which involves 20 city "package cars" (medium duty) operated on compressed natural
gas by United Parcel Service, Inc., at its Landover, Maryland (Washington, D.C., metro area)
terminal. State and local government demonstrations involve two new projects being
coordinated by the Trucking Research Institute. Included are two sets of ethanol (E85), a
mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent unleaded gasoline, heavy-duty road maintenance
and truck/snowplows operating in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and the State of Nebraska
Department of Public Roads.

4.1.2 Vehicles

A variety of different truck types are being used in the Alternative Fuels Truck
Commercial Applications Program. Examples of several of the types of vehicles used in the
demonstration projects are illustrated in Figures 4-1 through 4-4.
4.1.3 Locations

As shown in Figure 4-5, the various truck projects are located at a number of different

locations throughout the United States. Table 4-1 outlines the locations, type of vehicles, and
engine technologies used in the Alternative Fuels Truck Commercial Applications Projects.

4-2


Figure 3-21. Driver-Reported Problems
Phase II CNG Vehicles at Bakersfield, California

Hesitation

Pinging

Hard to Start

Lack of Power

Idle

Stalled In Traffic

Stalled after Starting

Check Engine Light

° 2 4 6 8 10
Average Number of Driver Reported Problems
for Each Vehicle at Bakersfield, California

12

Figure 3-22. CNG-Reported Driveability Problems
at El Paso, Texas

200
—e— Idle Quality
180 + —#— Hositation/Coughing
—o— Stalled after Starting
160 |

—4— Hard to Start
—4— Lack of Power
—+— Stalled in Tratfic
—8— Check Engine Light

8

Number of Problems
3

8 8 8 8

0 T
Nov 92

T T T -
Dec 92 Jan 93 Feb 93 Mar 93 Apr 93 May 93

‘Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

3-30





Figure 3-10. Emissions Comparisons for M85 VFV Luminas
Tested with Indolene and M85

“

Emissions
(gramsimile)
er a ae)

Ls me lee
© — 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
Mileage
M85 Gasoline Control Vehicles Gasoline Control Vehicles
THC co NOx THC co NOx
AR Be NS A SB NE...

Figure 3-11. Emissions Comparisons for M85 FFV
Tauruses Tested with Indolene and M85

2

Emissions
(gramsimite)
o

7a 1 L L L 4 L

10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
Mileage

Indolene Fuel M65 Fuel

Nox | OMHCE CO NOx

Qin | ee ede ee

AY ecore 0
0 5,000

THC

co
Bees

3-21



Figure 3-16. Comparison of CO Emission Variability
for M85 FFV Tauruses Tested with Indolene and M85

INDOLENE Mss
8
TR
6 L-
ae eevesseaercsssrsetsneeese cecsesineeeedcceneseetee seceeetnsteeeneseneeneecesnet
1 Lececescccstessienenentimetemenianimentiasieetied oe oosesetunseseee
0 ne 1 i n ee 1
© 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Mileage
A average value © maximumvalue O minimum value |
Figure 3-17. Comparison of CO Emission Variability for
M85 VFV Luminas Tested with Indolene and M85
INDOLENE M85
8
7
6
eos
ES:
ges
GS:
2
th
° 1 \ 1 1 1 1 1 L
© 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 o 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Mileage

average value O maximumvalue O minimum value |

3-25





for operation in California and will be set up by Acurex Environmental Corporation with
cooperation from a number of host sites.

The Trucking Research Institute is actively working toward bringing several other
commercial alternative fuel heavy-duty projects into operation. These projects include seven
original equipment manufacturer heavy-duty refuse vehicles operating on liquefied natural gas
vehicles manufactured by Mack Trucks, Inc.; a city delivery heavy-duty project in Southern
California using a liquefied natural gas vehicle manufactured by Ford Motor Company; a soy
diesel (biodiesel) project using heavy-duty trucks with a variety of engines engaged in
agricultural commodity hauling in Iowa and South Dakota; a heavy-duty project using
liquefied natural gas-powered trucks in Louisiana; heavy duty compressed natural gas
powered vehicles in the Boston Metropolitan area; and urban pickup and delivery by
food-product and utility companies vehicles using medium-duty Ford F-700 vehicles with
compressed natural gas engines.

1.3 Alternative Fuels Bus Program

The Alternative Fuels Bus Program includes transit buses as well as school buses.
Data are being collected on alternative fuel and diesel control buses from two separate transit
bus programs. Emissions and fuel economy measurements are being collected using the
Transportable Engine Emissions Testing Laboratory, which was developed by West Virginia
University. This mobile laboratory records emission data for major vehicle pollutants during
transient and steady-state chassis dynamometer tests on both medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles. The first project, sponsored by DOE, involves the collection of detailed operational,
maintenance, and emissions data from six carefully selected local transit agencies across the
United States. The second part of the project, sponsored by the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s Federal Transit Authority, provides a more general data base on most of the
alternative fuel transit buses in service throughout the United States.

In the DOE bus project, a total of 78 transit buses are operating at 5 locations, with a
biodiesel demonstration being set up in St. Louis, Missouri. Of the 78 buses already
operating, five are operating on pure methanol (M100), 10 are operating on E95, 10 are
operating on compressed natural gas, 10 on liquified natural gas, 13 are diesel buses equipped
with particulate traps, and 30 are diesel control buses. In the Federal Transit Authority’s
alternative fuel bus project, 1,163 alternative fuel buses are in service at various locations
across the country, with data collected by the owners/sponsors of each individual project.

Transit Bus Operations

Results were obtained for buses running on compressed natural gas, liquefied natural
gas, E95, and M100 tested in the DOE project (Tacoma, Washington; Houston, Texas; Miami,
Florida; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Peoria, Illinois); and M100 (Riverside, California).

Fuel Use/Economy—A number of projects around the United States are evaluating
methanol as an alternative fuel for transit bus applications. As an example, the Riverside
(California) Transit Agency is currently operating three methanol buses and three diesel
control buses in an alternative fuels demonstration project.

1-7


Figure 3-19. Phase I M85 and Gasoline Driveability Problems

05

2
= Soa}
g=
af
iF 0.3 |
i
3 ; o2b
3 i i
2

Bort
a
‘ |

° T T T T T
1 5 9 13 7 2 25 29 33
Thousands of Miles Traveled
‘M85 Lumina | | M85 Taurus Gasoline Lumina & Gasoline Taurus
Figure 3-20. Driver-Reported Problems
Phase I Methanol Vehicles
Hesitation/Coughing — : - : — —

Idle Quality _————

Check Engine Light _————

Stalled in Tratfic _—————

T
Lack of Power
IS

a]

Stalled after Starting _

KS Ss

Hard to Start =

Pinging &, i : i i i i

° oA 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Number Of Reported Problems/1,000 Miles

{= Gasoline Control (_] FFV Controt [X) FFV M85

0.7

3-29



Number

3-14

3-15

3-16

3-17

3-18
3-19
3-20

3-21

3-22
3-23

3-24

41

4-2

43

4-4

4-5

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Title Page

Emissions Comparisons for M85 FFV Tauruses Tested with

M85, and Gasoline Control Tauruses Tested with Indolene .......... 3-23
Emissions Comparisons for M85 FFV Control Tauruses and

Gasoline Control Tauruses Tested with Indolene ................4. 3-23
Comparison of CO Emission Variability for M85 FFV

Tauruses Tested with Indolene and M85 ........... 00.000 ee eee 3-25
Comparison of CO Emission Variability for M85 VFV

Luminas Tested with Indolene and M85.......... 00.0.0 20 ee eeee 3-25
Driveability Problems by Month ....... 0... 0.0 c eee eee eee 3-27
Phase I M85 and Gasoline Driveability Problems ...............44 3-29
Driver-Reported Problems - Phase I Methanol Vehicles ............. 3-29
Driver-Reported Problems - Phase II CNG Vehicles at

Bakersfield, California .... 0.2.0... cece eee eee ene ee 3-30
CNG-Reported Driveability Problems at El] Paso, Texas...........-- 3-30
Phase I M85 Fuel System Repairs... 0.20... cece cee eee 3-31
CNG Fuel System Components Which Were Replaced

through September 30, 1993... 2.2... cece cece eee ee 3-32
Ethanol-Fueled Tractor Operated by Archer Daniels

Midland in Decatur, Hlinois .. 0... 1. ec eee 4-3
One of New York City’s Compressed Natural Gas-Powered

Refuse Haulers 2.2... 2... ec te eee eee 4-3
A Propane-Powered Federal Express Delivery Truck is Part

of the Clean Fleet Program in Los Angeles .......... 0000s ee ueee 4-4
This Compressed Natural Gas Over-the-Road Truck is Operated

by Vons Companies, Inc., in California 2.0... 0... eee eee eee ee 4-4
Map Showing Heavy-Duty Fleet Locations .............0 000s eee 4-5

vi


Figure 4-13. On-Road Fuel Economy of M85 and Gasoline Ford
E250 Vehicles Operating at the Santa Ana, California, Site

10

a
1

Fuel Economy (MPG)
(Gasoline Gallon Equivalent)

Ford E250

[SS Methanol (M85)

Gasoline |

‘Source: Battelle Memorial Institute

Figure 4-14. On-Road Fuel Economy for Reformulated Gas and Regular Unleaded Gas
Used in Chevrolet G30, Dodge B/350, and Ford E250 Vehicles Operating at the
Los Angeles, California, Site

10
wf?)
g:
zo
s
53 |
32
“3.1
;

Chevrolet G30

Dodg:

je B350 Ford E250

[ Reformulated Gasoline

Gasoline

Source: Battelle Memorial Institute

4-14



3.0. ALTERNATIVE FUEL USE BY LIGHT-DUTY FEDERAL VEHICLES

3.1 Program Participants

For light-duty vehicle operations, alternative fuel vehicles supplied by General Motors
Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and Chrysler Corporation have been procured by the
General Services Administration for use in the Light-Duty Alternative Motor Fuels Program.
There are six vehicle models currently represented in Phase I and Phase II projects. The
Dodge Spirit, Ford Taurus, Chevrolet Lumina, and Ford Econoline vans operate on M85 (a
mixture of 85 percent methanol and 15 percent unleaded gasoline), or any mixture to 100
percent gasoline. Chevrolet also produces a version of the Lumina which is capable of
operating on E85 (a mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent unleaded gasoline) or any
mixture to 100 percent gasoline. The Dodge Ram van and Chevrolet C2500 pickup trucks
operate exclusively on compressed natural gas. In addition to supplying these vehicles to
General Services Administration, Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler support the program by
supplying service facilities, service technician training, and replacement parts. All vehicles
carry the standard warranty offered by these auto manufacturers on conventional vehicles.

As of this report, M85 is being supplied by fuel providers at 78 public refueling
facilities throughout the United States. Although E85 does not have as many refueling sites
as M85, there are 30 E85 refueling locations scattered throughout the country. The major
fuel providers participating are: ARCO, Chevron, Conoco, Exxon, Methanex, Mobil Oil
Company, Shell Oil Company, and Sun Oil Company. Compressed natural gas is being
supplied by various natural gas utilities throughout the United States. Currently, there are 730
compressed natural gas refueling facilities in the United States.

The M85, E85, and compressed natural gas vehicles procured for this program by the
General Services Administration are owned and managed by the Interagency Fleet
Management System. These vehicles are continually being incorporated into Federal fleets
throughout the United States and will continue through fiscal year 1994. The General
Services Administration has also been instrumental in getting additional alternative fuel
refueling locations installed to support the Light-Duty Alternative Motor Fuels Program
through its placement of vehicles and through negotiations with fuel suppliers. In addition to
providing the procurement and management of the light-duty alternative fuel vehicle fleet,
General Services Administration also provides access to valuable vehicle maintenance and
operational data through its computerized maintenance and refueling record-management
centers. In addition, the local General Services Administration regions have been especially

helpful to DOE/National Renewable Energy Laboratory in providing special data queries and
analysis.

Most of the Federal agencies currently participating in the program are noted in Table
3-1. Participation requires the collection of data specific to vehicle performance. Data from
these vehicles have been collected and analyzed by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory since 1991, with these findings being reported in the First Annual Report to

3-1


economy for the various fuels were calculated from the regression model using the predicted
on-road fuel economy for a typical duty cycle of 40 miles per day. These estimated on-road
fuel economy results are presented in Figures 4-10 through 4-13. These data were analyzed
and produced by Battelle, Columbus, Ohio and reported in "Vehicle Fuel Economy - First
5,000 Miles," Statistical Analysis Report No. 2, November 1993.

The fuel economy of compressed natural gas and gasoline vehicles for Chevrolet G30,
Dodge B350, and Ford E250 vehicles is shown in Figure 4-11, indicating that the
compressed natural gas vehicles have slightly lower on-road gasoline gallon equivalent fuel
economy than the baseline gasoline control vehicles for the Chevrolet and Dodge vehicles,
and slightly higher on-road fuel economy for the Ford vehicles. Compressed natural gas
vehicles should give essentially the same gasoline gallon equivalent fuel economy as gasoline
vehicles for two reasons. First, due to the higher octane number of compressed natural gas,
the engine compression ratio of the compressed natural gas engine can be increased to
improve efficiency. Secondly, during cold-start and warmup, compressed natural gas engines
can be started without mixture enrichment as needed for gasoline engines, and the relatively
leaner operation during the cold-start and warmup phases of the driving cycle results in
improved fuel economy. However, this improvement can be offset to some extent by the
extra weight of the compressed natural gas fuel tanks.

The on-road fuel economy of propane and gasoline vehicles for both Chevrolet G30
and Ford E250 vehicle is shown in Figure 4-12. These results indicate that the propane
vehicles have a lower on-road fuel economy than the baseline gasoline control vehicles. As
with compressed natural gas vehicles, propane vehicles should have essentially the same or
better gasoline gallon equivalent fuel economy as gasoline vehicles for the same reasons that
were discussed earlier. The differences in on-road fuel economy between propane and
gasoline for this particular project could be due to the fact that these propane vehicles are
probably not as optimized as their gasoline counterparts.

The on-road fuel economy data for unleaded gasoline and M85 for Ford E250 vehicles
(Figure 4-13) indicate that the gasoline gallon equivalent on-road fuel economy for the M85
vehicles is slightly lower than that for the gasoline control vehicles. A slight improvement in
the efficiency is expected for the methanol vehicles because of the high latent heat of
vaporization of methanol as compared to gasoline. When methanol vaporizes in the intake
manifold, the high latent heat of vaporization causes charge cooling, tending to reduce
throttling losses at part load, which should result in a slight improvement in efficiency when
compared to gasoline. As the development of methanol vehicles continues, any on-road fuel
economy deficiency for methanol vehicles should disappear. The small difference in fuel
economy for the vehicles shown here is not statistically significant.

The on-road fuel economies for reformulated gasoline and regular unleaded gasoline
are compared in Figure 4-14 for the three different types of vehicles, indicating that the
gasoline gallon equivalent on-road fuel economy for reformulated gasoline was slightly higher
than that for regular unleaded gasoline in the Dodge vehicles and slightly lower for the
Chevrolet and Ford vehicles. The gasoline gallon equivalent fuel economy between
reformulated gasoline and regular gasoline should be similar for any given vehicle.

4-12


Figure 4-5. Map Showing Heavy-Duty Fleet Locations

tenn
York City

4.1.4 Technical Characteristics of Vehicles

The technical characteristics of the various truck commercial engines and fuel systems
are outlined in Appendix A. It should be noted that the technology levels of the engines in
these projects are somewhat behind the levels of the latest models since technology
improvements are progressing rapidly.

4.1.5 Infrastructure Support

Refueling facilities are lacking in some of the project locations, causing fleet operators
to provide their own refueling facilities. For some compressed natural gas vehicles, the fleet
operators have made arrangements to use the local gas utility companies’ compressed natural
gas refueling facilities. In certain locations, such as New York City or the Los Angeles area,
some public refueling facilities are available. See Section 2.0 of this report for locations of
alternative fuel public refueling facilities.

Similarly, due to the limited number of alternative fuel heavy-duty vehicles in the
program, authorized repair facilities have not been set up to service the heavy-duty vehicles,
except for the Federal Express project. Although the Federal Express vehicles are classified
as medium-duty vehicles, the engine and fuel system technologies used in these vehicles are
similar to those used for light-duty vehicles. Therefore, authorized repair facilities listed in
the light-duty vehicle section of this report can make the repairs. However, in the heavy-duty
vehicle locations, most all of the repair and maintenance work is done at the fleet operators’
own repair facilities.

4-5



The Alternative Fuels Bus Program is required by Section 400CC(a) of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6374b. Section 400CC(a) states:

"(a) Testing.- The Secretary, in cooperation with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Administrator of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, shall, beginning in the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1990, assist State and local government agencies in the
testing in urban settings of buses capable of operating on alternative fuels for
the emissions levels, durability, safety, and fuel economy of such buses,
comparing the different types with each other and with diesel powered buses,
as such buses will be required to operate under Federal safety and
environmental standards applicable to such buses for the model year 1991. To
the extent practicable, testing assisted under this section shall apply to each of
the various types of alternative fuel buses."

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act encourages the use and production of
alternative fuel vehicles. The Congress has recognized that replacement of imported oil with
domestically available alternative fuels will help to achieve energy security and improve air
quality. In implementing this Act, the Federal government is assisting clean-burning, non-
petroleum-based transportation fuels in order to achieve a threshold level of commercial
application and consumer acceptability. At that time, they will successfully compete with
petroleum-based transportation fuels. The objectives of the program are to demonstrate the
environmental, economic, and performance characteristics of alternative fuel fleet vehicles and
to provide information for engine/vehicle manufacturers and the general public.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act directs the Department of Energy to
undertake certain tasks to implement alternative fuel projects in the transportation area and to
work with other Federal agencies, including the General Services Administration, the
Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Energy Policy
and Conservation Act provides for the cooperative efforts of State and local governments, as
well as an active role for industry. In the vehicle evaluation/demonstration/testing efforts,
three major activities are identified: a Federal light-duty vehicle demonstration program, a
truck commercial application program, and an alternative fuels bus program. The Department
has identified the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, formerly the Solar Energy Research
Institute, as the field manager to support the alternative fuel evaluation/demonstration/testing
efforts. Information on vehicle emissions, fuel economy/consumption, reliability, driveability,
operating costs, and health/safety is currently being collected and evaluated to determine the
commercial viability of alternative fuel vehicles in a fleet environment. The Alternative Fuels
Data Center established at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory is responsible for
managing, storing, displaying, and allowing public access to all available data on alternative
fuels.

2-2


vehicle locations have onsite "slow fill" capabilities and thus take an extended period of time
to refuel the vehicle. For many operations, "slow-fill” refueling is conducted overnight and
does not affect the efficiency of the overall vehicle operation. Public compressed natural gas
locations are usually state-of-the-art “fast fill" facilities. Although these facilities are
becoming more common, it will take time before they replace enough of the "slow fill”
facilities to change the users’ perceptions that compressed natural gas vehicles are slow to
tefuel.

3.7 Efficiency of Performance/Cost

Collection of data concerning fuel usage is an integral part of the Light-Duty
Alternative Motor Fuels Program. For Phase I, drivers of project vehicles are required to
record odometer readings at the beginning and end of each day, and the amount of fuel added
during the week. This information is recorded by each driver in a weekly log sheet. For
Phase II, a data input form is completed by the driver at refueling and mailed to the data
collection contractor. The data are then entered and pre-screened before being submitted to
the Alternative Fuels Data Center. These records are used to calculate the on-road fuel
economy.

3.7.1 Fuel-Economy Analysis Methodology

From October 1992 through September 1993, there were over 9,500 recordings of
refueling events. Because these data are used for subsequent fuel-economy calculations, it is
necessary to assure that the data are as error-free as possible. First, the data that were
obviously incorrect were eliminated. Most appeared to be due to transcription errors that
resulted in unrealistically high or low fuel-economy values. Once the erroneous data were
eliminated, the next step was to eliminate fuel-type changes (i.e., refueling an M85 alternative
fuel vehicle on gasoline, then next on M85; or similarly, refueling a gasoline control
alternative fuel vehicle on M85, then next on gasoline). For example, when an M85
alternative fuel vehicle was refueled once with gasoline then next with M85, the gasoline
refueling and the next two M85 refueling entries were eliminated. By eliminating these data,
the calculated M85 and gasoline alternative fuel vehicle fuel-economies reflected operation
almost exclusively on M85 and gasoline fuel, respectively. Of the more than 9,500 refueling
data points collected from October 1992 through September 1993, about 15 percent were
removed through the elimination of erroneous and mixed fuel-type data.

On-road fuel economies for nine of the ten sites are summarized in Table 3-3 on the
basis of cumulative fuel economy and gasoline energy-equivalent fuel economy. The
cumulative fuel economy includes a running total of all miles traveled and fuel consumed.
Gasoline gallon equivalent miles per gallon is the M85 alternative fuel vehicle fuel economy
adjusted for the difference in fuel energy content between gasoline and M85. It is often
desirable to compare gasoline fuel economy to M85 fuel economy on a gasoline gallon
equivalent basis to show relative fuel-energy economy.

Examination of the on-road fuel economies, when adjusted for fuel energy, reveals that
for most of the sites, the M85 alternative fuel vehicles have slightly higher fuel economy than

the conventional gasoline vehicles. The exceptions to this are the Luminas in Washington,

3-11


Figure 3-23. Phase I M85 Fuel System Repairs

07
3
Ze 06
33
2
=
& 5 05
Ee
g3
£5 04
i
e
3303
if

0.2
2°
32
H $F o1
<

0
5 9 aky ard 21 25 29 33 37
Thousands of Miles Traveled

{= M85 Lumina [=] Mss Tours |

What can be reliably determined from Figure 3-23 is that alternative fuel vehicles have
required more unscheduled fuel-system maintenance than the conventional gasoline vehicles.

The compressed natural gas C2500 pickups in the El Paso region have also
experienced a high number of driveability problems which have, in turn, prompted a high
number of maintenance actions. Figure 3-24 illustrates the frequency by which fuel-system
components were replaced. Examining the data reveals that the most frequently replaced
items are the fuel injectors, with an average of almost two sets of fuel injectors per vehicle.
In addition, almost all of the vehicles have the throttle-body assembly replaced. The
fuel-filter assembly was replaced on 75 percent of the vehicles, and about half of the vehicles
had the electronic control modules replaced. For this project, the maintenance actions appear
to have corrected the driveability problems.

3.11 Future Activities

Additional alternative fuel vehicles are planned to be added to the Light-Duty
Alternative Motor Fuels Program in fiscal year 1994. Like the previous Phase I and Phase I
projects, this project will be supported with full data collection and technical support services.
In the near future, there are plans to add 196 additional vehicles and one additional site in
Atlanta, Georgia, for a Phase III project.

3-31



Figure 2-1. Location of Methanol/M85, Ethanol/E85, and Compressed Natural
Gas Vehicle Refueling Sites

fn,
ae
Pea }

ee

Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

* Vehicle usage and fleet characterizations.

¢ Inventory and analysis of alternative fuel use and refueling facility
characterizations.

* Measurement and analysis of vehicle fuel use.
* Measurement and analysis of operating cost.

* Vehicle emissions performance.

* Vehicle driveability and operator satisfaction.

¢ Reliability and maintenance information including oil sampling and
analysis.

+ Sampling and analysis of fuel composition and quality.

2-5



Figure 5-3. Comparison of Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions
from Compressed Natural Gas and Diesel Buses

20
15 eo
2
3 10
£
£
oS
5
: 0.11 0.09 ‘#
MSBA DIESEL MSBACNG1 MSBACNG2 NYCTRAP NYC wo TRAP
nen |
co NYC Diesel Buses

Figure 5-5 illustrates the differences in particulates among these groups of buses. The
compressed natural gas buses show more than 95 percent reduction in particulates compared
to the baseline diesel buses. Natural gas does not produce fuel-derived particulate emissions
because the air-fuel ratio is high (lean) and the air and fuel are well mixed prior to
combustion. The small amount of particulates emitted when using natural gas are from
lubricating oil consumed in the engine. Figure 5-5 also illustrates that the particulate traps
are about 80 percent efficient.

5.1.2.2 Liquified Natural Gas and Compressed Natural Gas Buses

Compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas buses differ only in their fuel
storage/dispensing systems. There are a number of different engine fuel systems that can be
used with both compressed natural gas and liquified natural gas. All of the compressed
natural gas buses that were discussed in the preceding section were equipped with
spark-ignition engines. Several of the liquified natural gas buses used in the Houston
Metropolitan Transit Authority demonstration project are pilot-injection natural gas (PING)
engines that were supplied by Detroit Diesel Corporation. Several of the pilot-injection

5-10


carbon monoxide, and 1.0 grams per mile oxides of nitrogen. Well in advance of new
model-year production, each automotive manufacturer develops a fleet of prototype vehicles
for emission certification. These vehicles are intended to be representative of vehicles for the
new model year. A very rigorous mileage-accumulation and emission-testing program is
carried out to demonstrate compliance of the prototype vehicle fleet with the applicable
model-year emission standards. Relative to typical manufacturing volumes for production
vehicles (which may number in the hundreds of thousands for some models), the number of
prototype vehicles used for a manufacturer’s emission certification program is very small
(often, a few hundred or less). As such, the emissions characteristics of high-volume
production vehicles do not always match the characteristics of the prototypes that were used
for certification. Evidence of such differences appear to be reflected in some of the vehicles
selected for emission testing in the Phase I project. The Phase I Ford Taurus flexible-fuel
vehicles supplied for the project are not emissions certified and are operating as "experimental
vehicles." As such, their emissions might not be expected to be comparable to those of
production-level gasoline vehicles.

Another point of importance has to do with the overall variability associated with
emission test data. Contributions to such variability come from vehicle differences, test driver
differences, tolerance stack-up on test equipment and emission analyzers, differences among
test laboratories, variations in vehicle-preparation procedures, and variations in specific test
conditions (especially in humidity and barometric pressure). Although the reasons cited
above do contribute to variability, the bulk of the variability cannot be accounted for by
variations in test conditions. In general, overall variability in reported test data across all
cars, laboratories, etc., of 20 percent or less is considered excellent. Many of the collective
test points used for the analysis contained in this report were well within that range.
Substantially larger "scatter" occurred in a significant number of carbon monoxide data points,
however, making it difficult to ascribe much precision to those data. An example is shown
later in this section for illustration purposes.

Figures 3-7, 3-8, and 3-9 illustrate composite data for total hydrocarbon (and organic
material hydrocarbon equivalent, for the methanol fuels), carbon monoxide and oxides of
nitrogen emissions for M85 variable-fuel vehicle Luminas tested at about 12,000 and 24,000
miles on Indolene gasoline, M85, and M50 (a mixture of 50 percent methanol and 50 percent
unleaded gasoline). Emission testing using M50 provides valuable data about the vehicle
emission performance for a mid-range methanol/gasoline concentration which is commonly
encountered during in-use operation whenever the vehicle switches fuel type). Note the
increasing trend in total hydrocarbon emissions for all three fuels. Note also the increasing
trend in carbon monoxide emissions for all three fuels. Oxides of nitrogen emissions exhibit
a mixed trend, with the M85 fuel showing a slight increase with mileage. Table 3-5 contains
a comparison of the relative change in emissions, with mileage, for each test fuel.

Figure 3-10 shows composite data for the M85 variable-fuel vehicle Luminas that have
been tested at various mileage points with Indolene and M85. Note the "U-shaped" trend in
carbon monoxide emissions for both fuels and the early modest growth, then essentially flat
characteristics, of the hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen emissions for both fuels. Prior to
about 4,000 vehicle miles, engine and vehicle break-in is usually still occurring. Thus,
limited significance should be attached to any emission data prior to that point. A similar

3-18


For transit buses, fuel economy is expressed in miles per gallon of diesel fuel. Natural
gas is measured in units of standard cubic feet (SCF) or therms (100,000 Btus). To properly
compare the fuel economy of the compressed natural gas buses to their diesel counterparts, it
is necessary to calculate fuel economy in miles per diesel gallon equivalent, using the heating
content of both the natural gas and the diesel fuel. Shown in Table 5-2 is the variation in
standard cubic feet of natural gas that equals one gallon of diesel fuel at each transit property.

Table 5-2. Equivalence Between Natural Gas and Diesel Fuel

Central New Rochester- Metropolitan Broome Co.
York Transit Genesee Suburban Bus
Authority Regional Authority
Transit
Authority

SCF of natural
gas per diesel 134 126 129 133
gallon
equivalent

The fuel economies for the compressed natural gas and diesel buses are presented in
Table 5-3. Efforts were made to choose buses that used the same routes and traveled similar
distances each day. The data of Table 5-3 suggest that this criteria was met fairly well.

Table 5-4 compares fuel economies. Amounts less than 1 indicate that the fuel
economy of the compressed natural gas buses is less than their diesel counterparts, whereas
numbers greater than 1 indicate better fuel economy. As illustrated in Table 5-4,
Rochester-Genesee Regional Transit Authority stands out from the others with much better
relative fuel economy. Conversations with Rochester-Genesee Regional Transit Authority
personnel suggest that this may be because they used express-type routes with very little idle
time and a relatively high average speed. Given these conditions, it would be expected that
there would be small differences in fuel economy because at high loads the differences in
thermal efficiency between the natural gas and diesel engines is at their minimum whereas at
idle the differences are at a maximum.

The difference between the CNG1 and CNG2 groups of buses at Metropolitan
Suburban Bus Authority bears some mention. Before emissions testing could be initiated,
Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority changed the engine management system on five of their
ten compressed natural gas buses to give these buses more torque (850 ft-lbs versus 750
ft-lbs) and lower oxides of nitrogen (NO,) emissions. In addition to engine management
software changes, the CNG2 buses also had a Tescom single type high pressure regulator
replace the dual type high pressure regulators. In the table, these buses are designated as
"“CNG2" with the compressed natural gas buses in original configuration listed as "CNG1".
One of the CNG1 group of buses could not be tested because of transmission problems during

5-5


Figure 4-3. A Propane-Powered Federal Express Delivery
Truck is Part of the CleanFleet Program in Los Angeles

Figure 4-4. This Compressed Natural Gas Over-the-Road
Truck is Operated by Vons Companies, Inc., in California


Table 5-3. Fuel Economy for Compressed Natural Gas and Diesel Buses

Transit Property Miles Per Gallon | Miles Per

(Diesel Gallon Day
Equivalent)

Central New York Transit 2.91 128

Authority CNG

Central New York Transit 4.15 116

Authority DIESEL

Rochester-Genesee 3.48 163

Regional Transit Authority

CNG

Rochester-Genesee 3.54 149

Regional Transit Authority

DIESEL

Metropolitan Suburban 2.88 141

Bus Authority CNG1

Metropolitan Suburban 2.79 138

Bus Authority CNG2

Metropolitan Suburban 3.71 171

Bus Authority DIESEL

Broome Co. CNG 3.26 147

Broome Co. DIESEL 3.99 155

Table 5-4. Fuel-Economy Differences by Transit Property

Central Rochester- | Metropolitan | Metropolitan | Broome Co.
New York Genesee Suburban Suburban
Transit Regional Bus Bus
Authority Transit Authority Authority
Authority CNG1 CNG2
Ratio of CNG
to Diesel MPG 0.70 0.98 0.78 0.75 0.82

5-6


The Cummins L10 engine is a lean-burn spark-ignition natural gas engine that was
developed for bus applications. The engine is now a commercialized natural gas engine
derived from the Cummins L10 diesel version.

The engines operating on gaseous fuels are original-equipment gasoline versions that
have been modified by the original equipment manufacturers, in cooperation with alternative
fuel system manufacturers, for operation on fuels such as propane and natural gas. For the
natural gas vehicles, fuel is carried onboard the vehicles in lightweight high-pressure tanks.
Figure A-6 shows a typical installation of compressed natural gas tanks under a Dodge B250
van. Fuel for the propane vehicles is stored as a liquid onboard the vehicle in moderate-
pressure steel tanks.

Figure A-6. Typical Installation of Compressed Natural Gas Fuel
Tanks Under a Dodge B250 Van

The M85 vehicles used in the Federal Express fleets are original equipment
flexible-fuel or variable-fuel vehicles that are designed to operate on M85 or any mixture of
gasoline and methanol from 100 percent gasoline down to the 15 percent gasoline and 85
percent methanol mixture. In this fleet, the methanol vehicles operate 100 percent of the time
on M85. The overall Federal Express fleet of pick-up and delivery vehicles include original-
equipment 1992-model-year vehicles from Chevrolet Motor Division of General Motors
Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and Chrysler Corporation.

The two electric vehicles used in the Federal Express fleet are 1990-model-year
full-sized electric G-vans that have been produced by Conceptor, a Division of Vehma

A-7


Figure A-8. Cummins Natural Gas Bus Engine (Photo from Cummins Brochure)

110 naturai gas engine

A-10



geographic locations. The expansion of the Detroit region and addition of the New York
region permit the evaluation of cold-weather performance of M85, E85, and compressed
natural gas, whereas the addition of the Houston region provides a warm-weather environment
for similar evaluations. The Denver region will provide a means to evaluate alternative fuel
vehicles performance at high altitudes. The Denver region has just started operations and
there have not been enough data generated to make vehicle performance comparisons based
on altitude.

3.3. Nehicle Usage Patterns

Driving patterns and daily usage will affect vehicle performance parameters such as
fuel economy. When making comparisons between regions, it is necessary to consider the
differences in both climate and usage patterns. Of the five major regions, fleet managers at
both Washington, D.C., and Houston reported that their operations experienced little to no
tural driving. For the Detroit, Denver, and New York regions, fleet managers classified about
10 percent of their operation as rural. The upstate New York vehicles account for all of the
tural driving in that region. It is also interesting to note that the Houston region fleet
managers reported the largest urban driving segment at 86 percent, with the Washington,
D.C., fleet managers reporting the second largest at 50 percent. Because these demographics
are based on fleet manager judgments of what constitutes an "urban" versus "suburban"
location, some biases in the data may be present.

The regions with smaller fleet sizes allow for more-controlled usage. For example, the
Bakersfield, California, location has compressed natural gas vans which cover 50 to 90 miles
daily, with minimum of stop-and-go traffic. This can be compared and contrasted with the El
Paso, Texas, location, which operates compressed natural gas pickups. These vehicles
average only 10 to 40 miles per day and often involve extended periods of idling and
low-speed travel.

3.4. Technical Characteristics

Currently, six vehicle models are represented in the program, the 1991/1992/1993
Chevrolet Lumina, 1992/1993 Chevrolet C2500 pickup truck, 1991/1992/1993 Ford Taurus,
1993 Dodge Spirit, 1993 Ford Econoline van, and 1992/1993 Dodge B-250/350 van.
Although these vehicles outwardly appear no different from conventional gasoline vehicles,
they incorporate various fuel-system and engine modifications in order to operate on
methanol/gasoline mixtures, ethanol/gasoline mixtures, and compressed natural gas fuel.
Appendix A details the specific modifications which were made to each model vehicle.

3.5 Infrastructure Support
3.5.1 Fuel Suppliers

Currently, M85 is being supplied by fuel suppliers at more than 78 public refueling
facilities throughout the United States. The major participating oil companies are ARCO,
Chevron, Conoco, Methanex, Exxon, Mobil Oil Company, Shell Oil Company, and Sun Oil
Company. In Washington, D.C., there is one public M85 refueling station located at 50 M

3-5


10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This annual report to Congress details the Federal light-duty alternative fuel vehicle
operations from October 1992 through September 1993 as required by Section
400AA(b)(1)(B) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6374(b)(1)(B). Also
included are the results of the first year of the Alternative Fuels Truck Commercial
Application Program and the Alternative Fuels Bus Program activities required by sections
400BB and 400CC, respectively, of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C.
6374a and 6374b). The research that is associated with these projects is coordinated by the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Transportation Technologies, through the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

Significant expansion of the Alternative Motor Fuels Program data collection efforts
occurred during fiscal year 1993 with the addition of more alternative fuel vehicles, test sites,
and Federal agency involvement. In addition, the heavy-duty and bus projects required by the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act have developed to the point where data are available for
reporting. Figure 1-1 illustrates the locations of the Federal light-duty, heavy-duty truck, and
bus vehicles that are participating in the data collection program. Of particular note:

(1) The three years of data now available allow us to provide insight on the
differences between gasoline and alternatively fueled vehicles involved
in the project.

(2) The 65 alternative fuel vehicles initially acquired by the General
Services Administration are nearing the end of their service life.

(3) Joint cooperation between government agencies has provided cost-effective
methods for capturing vehicle performance data by using existing reporting
systems at little additional cost.

(4) The heavy-duty truck demonstration and bus projects have advanced to
where meaningful data collection is now underway.

(5) The heavy-duty truck and bus projects have benefitted from a high
degree of cost sharing, cost contribution, and voluntary efforts on the
part of participants. Thus, Federal dollars spent on these projects have
been leveraged well with other Federally funded efforts, state/local
government funds, and private-sector funding, leading to significant
enhancement of the utility of the information collected.

1.1 Alternative Fuel Use by Light-Duty Federal Vehicles

Through fiscal year 1993, 709 alternative fuel vehicles in the program have been
procured by the General Services Administration for government operations in locations
nationwide. General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and Chrysler Corporation
have developed alternative fuel vehicles that are being used in these operations. ,

1-1


Table 3-5. Comparison of Indolene, M85, and M50
Test Fuels in M85 Luminas

Percent Change in Emissions from 12,000
Test Fuel miles to 24,000 miles
THC OMHCE co NO,
Indolene +14 N/A +46 -10
M85 N/A +33 +124 43
M50 N/A +17 +26 -35

plot of data for the Ford flexible-fuel vehicle Tauruses is shown in Figure 3-11. Note that
test points beyond about 14,000 miles have not been obtained yet for these vehicles, and
future trends might be different from those shown.

In Figure 3-12, comparisons are shown for M85 variable-fuel vehicle Luminas (which,
in general, were operated mostly with M85 during mileage accumulation) and M85 variable-fuel
vehicle control Luminas (which were operated on gasoline-only during mileage accumulation)
tested on Indolene fuel. Except for the somewhat higher level of oxides of nitrogen for the
M85 Luminas, the mileage trends and overall emission levels appear to be quite similar.

M85 variable-fuel vehicle Luminas tested with M85 fuel and gasoline control Luminas
tested on Indolene are compared in Figure 3-13. This comparison illustrates emissions from
vehicles as they were intended to be operated on specific fuels, i.e., M85 variable-fuel vehicle
Luminas on M85 and standard-production Luminas on gasoline. The gasoline control
vehicles have been emission-tested through 42,000 miles, whereas the M85
Luminas have only been tested up to about 24,000 miles. Although the trends are similar
through 24,000 miles, further testing of the M85 Luminas will determine if their trends
continue to follow those of the gasoline control Luminas. Note the distinct drop in composite
carbon monoxide emissions for the gasoline control vehicles between 14,000 miles and
16,000 miles. There was nothing unusual in the vehicle operating data between those two
points to provide an explanation for these emission test results. Figure 3-14 is a similar set of
comparisons for the M85 flexible-fuel vehicle Tauruses tested on M85 and the gasoline
control Tauruses tested on Indolene. As with the M85 Luminas, much more mileage
accumulation and emission testing is required to determine if the M85 Tauruses will
ultimately follow the gasoline control-vehicle trend. The emissions of the gasoline control
Tauruses have maintained a constant level after 25,000 miles.

Figure 3-15 illustrates a comparison between M85 flexible-fuel vehicle control

Tauruses (operated exclusively on gasoline during mileage accumulation) and gasoline control
Tauruses tested on Indolene. This figure provides an indication of emission behavior when

3-20


Number

3-1

3-2
3-3
3-4

3-5

3-6

3-7

4-1

5-1

5-2

5-4

5-5

5-7

LIST OF TABLES

Title Page

Selected Federal Agencies Participating in the Federal
Light-Duty Alternative Motor Fuels Program

Vehicle Locations

On-Road Fuel Economy Summary ...... 0.0.0. ce eee eee eee eee

Fuel Economy In-Use Versus Laboratory ......... 00+ e eee eeeee

Comparison of Indolene, M85, and MSO Test Fuels in
M85 Luminas .. 2... 6... een eee ene

Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Emission Data Variability for
Indolene and M85 Test Fuels in M85 Tauruses ..............0-005

Comparison of Carbon Monoxide Emission Data Variability for
Indolene and M85 Test Fuels in M85 Luminas

Participants, Number and Type of Vehicles, and Location
of Vehicles... 0... ec eee eee eee ene

Number, Location, and Description of Transit Buses in the
DOE Program .. 6... eee eee teens

Equivalence Between Natural Gas and Diesel Fuel ..........-.---05
Fuel Economy for Compressed Natural Gas and Diesel Buses .........
Fuel-Economy Differences by Transit Property .........-..-+++s00-
Compressed Natural Gas Test and Diesel Fuel Baseline Buses .........
On-Road Operational and Cost Data for Three Methanol and

Three Diesel Buses in the Riverside Transit Bus

Demonstration Project ©... 6... eee eee ee teens

School Bus - Heavy-Duty Delivery Schedule -
Phase II Grants... 0... cee eee eens


D.C., and the Tauruses in Los Angeles. Overall, the on-road fuel economies of the

compressed natural gas alternative fuel vehicles, when adjusted for fuel energy, are lower than
the conventional gasoline vehicles.

3.7.2 Laboratory Fuel Economy

Fuel economies of selected vehicles from the Washington, D.C., and Detroit areas
were determined based on laboratory testing conducted during fiscal years 1992 and 1993.
The vehicles tested included M85 alternative fuel vehicles, gasoline alternative fuel vehicles,
and conventional gasoline vehicles. The vehicles were tested at the Environmental Research
and Development Corporation in Gaithersburg, Maryland; the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan; and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Research Triangle Park, North Carolina facility
(operated by Mantech, Inc). The fuel economies of the M85 alternative fuel vehicles were
measured on M85 and Indolene to determine the difference in vehicle fuel economy on both
fuels. Indolene is the trade name for a gasoline with highly controlled properties that is used
for vehicle emission testing.

The test procedure used in determining fuel economy for the certification of new
vehicles by the Federal Government is the Federal Test Procedure, which is also used to
measure emissions. Vehicle fuel economy during the Federal Test Procedure was determined
by measuring the mass of the carbon in the vehicle emissions. A carbon-balance method is
used to calculate the amount of fuel consumed by the vehicle over the prescribed "city" or
“highway” driving schedules. The 1975 Federal Test Procedure Schedule is used to calculate
official "city" fuel economy values. The Highway Fuel Economy Test Schedule is used to
obtain the official "highway" fuel economy values. These fuel economy tests were performed
to determine fuel economy differences under controlled laboratory conditions, using the same
driving cycle, to rule out influences of weather, driving habits, and other factors.

Figure 3-6 and Table 3-4 summarize the comparison between in-use fuel economy
and the laboratory fuel economy for both the Taurus and Lumina. The in-use highway
calculations were based on vehicles that reported mileage greater than 50 miles per day. The
city calculations were based on vehicles that reported mileage less than 50 miles per day.
Comparison of the fuel economy reveals that for both the in-use and laboratory cases, the fuel
economy for M85 alternative fuel vehicles fueled on M85, when adjusted for fuel energy, was
similar to the fuel economy of the M85 alternative fuel vehicles fueled with gasoline.

3.7.3 Operating and Life-cycle Costs

Operating cost data are being collected from the General Services Administration and
are currently being analyzed. Life-cycle cost analysis will be conducted following the
removal and resale of the vehicles from the Federal fleet and will include factors such as
vehicle purchase price, operating costs (over the mission profile of the vehicle), operation
efficiencies (e.g. lost productivity due to increased time for CNG refueling or extended
service periods), and vehicle resale value.. These detailed cost analyses will be presented in
future reports.

3-14


Figure A-5. Unique Components of the Compressed Natural
Gas Chevrolet C2500 Pickup Truck

(N-TANK ELECTRIC SOLENOID VALVES MODIFIED EXHAUST ROUTING
OVERTEMPERATURE
OVERPRESSURE
GASEOUS FUEL INJECTORS A FUEL TANKS a NEF VALVES
s) \ al = A
z —}
|
/~ ‘S) yor] z om
( } __A
FUEL SHUT-OFF ‘FUEL SHUT-OFF
VALVE (ELECTRIC) sf ‘ VALVE (MANUAL) VENTIFILLER VALVE
PRESSURE REGULATOR FUEL LEVEL TRANSDUCER

vehicles are refueled from a time-fill or fast-fill refueling station. With fast-fill, refueling
occurs in a time period slightly longer than conventional liquid-fuel vehicles. Time-fill
refueling relies only on the compressor itself and may take several hours to complete. This is
dependent on compressor operating capacity and the number of vehicles being refueled at one
time. With time-fill, the vehicles are typically parked and refueled overnight. However, most
of the compressed natural gas vehicles participating in the light-duty vehicle program are
located near refueling facilities that have fast-fill capability.

A.2 Technical Characteristics of Truck Commercial Vehicles

A variety of turbocharged engine technologies are being used in the Alternative
Fuels Truck Commercial Applications Project. The vehicles operating on ethanol use the
Detroit Diesel 6V92 engine. These engines are derived from Detroit Diesel’s commercial
two-stroke cycle methanol engine that has been designed for bus applications. The engine has
been slightly modified to accommodate the differences in fuel properties between ethanol and
methanol.

The Caterpillar G3406 natural gas engine is derived from Caterpillar’s 3406
commercial diesel engine. The G3406 engine incorporates a lean-burn spark-ignition
combustion technology based on the natural gas engine technology that has been used for
many years by Caterpillar in stationary engine applications.

A-6


2.0 INTRODUCTION

This annual report to Congress details the third year of Federal light-duty alternative
fuel vehicle operations for the period from October 1992 to September 1993, and provides
additional information on the Alternative Fuels Bus Program, and Truck Commercial
Application programs. The Federal light-duty vehicle operations for fiscal years 1991 and
1992 were reported in the first and second annual reports to Congress, respectively.!

The Federal Light Duty Alternative Motor Fuels Program’s annual report is required
by Section 400AA(b)(1)(B) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C.
6374(b)(1)(B). Section 400AA(b)(1) states:

"(A) The Secretary, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection
Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, shall conduct
a study of a representative sample of alternative fueled vehicles in Federal
fleets, which shall at a minimum address—

"(i) the performance of such vehicles, including performance in cold
weather and at high altitude;

"(i) the fuel economy, safety, and emissions of such vehicles; and

"Gii) a comparison of the operation and maintenance costs of such vehicles
to the operation and maintenance costs of other passenger automobiles and
light duty trucks.

"(B) The Secretary shall provide a report on the results of the study
conducted under subparagraph (A) to the Committees on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee
on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives, within one year
after the first such vehicles are acquired, and annually thereafter."

The Alternative Fuels Truck Commercial Application Program is required by Section
400BB(a) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6374a. Section 400BB(a)
states:

"(a) Establishment.- The Secretary, in cooperation with manufacturers of
heavy duty engines and with other Federal agencies, shall establish a
commercial application program to study the use of alternative fuels in heavy
duty trucks and, if appropriate, other heavy duty applications."

lus. Department of Energy, Office of Transportation Technologies, Federal Alternative Fuel
Program Light-Duty Vehicle Operations - First Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1991,
DOE/CE-0351, March 1992.

2US. Department of Energy, Office of Transportation Technologies, Federal Alternative Fuel
Program Light-Duty Vehicle Operations - Second Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year
1992, DOE/EE-0004, July 1993.

2-1


The average on-road fuel economy of the methanol buses in Riverside, California, on
an equal energy basis, was 3.38 miles per gallon, as compared to 3.62 miles per gallon for the
diesel controls. During emissions testing, however, the methanol bus tested for emissions
gave slightly higher diesel gallon equivalent fuel economy (on an equal-energy basis) than the
diesel bus tested.

The diesel gallon equivalent fuel economy for E95-fueled buses, operated by the
Greater Peoria Mass Transit District was comparable to the diesel control buses. The ethanol
buses perform similarly in terms of exhaust emissions to the diesel control vehicles, with the
exception of unburned ethanol and aldehydes.

On-road fuel economy data from five transit authority projects indicate that the diesel
gallon equivalent fuel economy of compressed natural gas buses can range from 70 percent to
98 percent of that for conventional diesel buses, depending on the operational duty cycle.

Emissions—In laboratory tests of emissions, methanol showed lower emissions than
diesel including emissions of oxides of nitrogen, organic material hydrocarbon equivalent,
carbon dioxide, and particulates.

Total hydrocarbon emissions from natural gas buses varied around the level seen in
diesel vehicles, but are composed largely of methane, which is essentially unreactive in
atmospheric reactions that produce photochemical smog. The carbon monoxide emissions,
oxides of nitrogen emissions, and particulate emissions from the two compressed natural gas
buses were significantly lower than those for the diesel control vehicles.

The carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions for the pilot injection natural gas
engines were significantly higher than those for the diesel control vehicles. Oxides of
nitrogen emissions were fairly consistent across the range of engines. Particulate emissions
for the pilot injection engines were nearly the same as those for the diesel control vehicles,
even though the majority of the fuel consumed during the driving cycle is natural gas.

Carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen emissions were somewhat lower for the
ethanol buses than for the diesel control buses. On the other hand, the hydrocarbon emissions
for the ethanol buses were substantially higher than for the diesel control buses. The
emissions results show that the particulate emissions from the ethanol buses were higher than
those from the diesel control vehicles (equipped with particulate traps). The ethanol and
aldehyde emissions from the ethanol engines were quite high, as expected, because these
vehicles were not equipped with catalytic converters.

Maintenance—The overall cost per mile ($0.57) of the methanol buses is more than
twice that of the diesel buses ($0.21). The most significant difference in costs are related to
labor, repair parts, and higher cost of the methanol fuel. The increased number of road calls
for the methanol buses is indicative of more failures on the road for these buses, but the
uptime was still greater than 90 percent. It should be noted that the technology used for these
buses is more than 3 years old, and subsequent improvements in design, many based on
operating data, have been realized.

1-8


Number
4-6

4-7

48

49

4-10

4-11

4-12

4-13

4-14

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Title Page

Cumulative Miles for Alternative Fuel and Baseline Vehicles
in the Federal Express Fleets 2.0.0.0... cece cece eee eee
On-Road Fuel Economy for the Ethanol Tractors in the Archer

Daniels Midland Fleet as Compared to the Diesel Control

Vehicle

West Virginia Mobile Emission Testing Facility ................0005

Fuel Economy Measured During Emissions Testing of Ethanol
Tractors as Compared to a Diesel Control Vehicle ..............45

On-Road Fuel Economy for the Compressed Natural Gas
Refuse Haulers in the New York Department of Sanitation
Fleet as Compared to a Diesel Control Vehicle .................0.

On-Road Fuel Economy of Compressed Natural Gas and Gasoline
Chevrolet G30, Dodge B350, and Ford E250 Vehicles Operating
at the Los Angeles, California, Site... 2.22... eee eee eee
On-Road Fuel Economy of Propane and Gasoline Chevrolet G30

and Ford E250 Vehicles Operating at the Rialto,

California, Site 2.6... eee eee eeee

On-Road Fuel Economy of M85 and Gasoline Ford E250
Vehicles Operating at the Santa Ana, California, Site ..............

On-Road Fuel Economy for Reformulated Gas and Regular
Unleaded Gas Used in Chevrolet G30, Dodge B/350, and Ford
E250 Vehicles Operating at the Los Angeles, California,

Site cee cece ee tees
CO, NO,, and OMHCE/HC Emissions from Ethanol and Diesel
Heavy-Duty Line-Haul Trucks .. 2.0.0.0... cee eee eee

Particulate, Aldehydes, and Unburned Ethanol Emissions for
Ethanol and Diesel Line-Haul Trucks ......... 0.000 c cee eens

Gaseous Emissions from Two Compressed Natural Gas Refuse
Hauler Trucks 2... eee eee teens

vii


maintenance facility, a leak in the cryogenic fuel-pump system was discovered. Attempts
were made to move the bus out of the shop to safely vent the leaking gas. A lack of
communication with factory personnel resulted in the maintenance facility supervisor
attempting to drive the vehicle out of the shop. Three attempts to start the vehicle were
made, and on the last, the ignition occurred. Preliminary investigation suggests that the
leaking natural gas collected in the air-conditioning return duct and was probably ignited by
various relays operating in the vicinity. No injuries resulted from this incident.

Special Item

As this report was in final preparation, a significant event occurred. Two General Motors
C2500 pickups running on natural gas, one in California and one in Minnesota, incurred
identical compressed natural gas fuel tank ruptures, with injuries to personnel. Investigation
into the cause of the fuel-tank ruptures is ongoing. However, preliminary results suggest that
the tanks failed due to environmental degradation (most likely from contact with corrosive
agents) of the outer composite wound reinforcement. Additional findings will be presented in
future reports. Although these were not Federal vehicles, they were identical to 600 General
Services Administration vehicles. The General Services Administration promptly issued
orders to cease all operation of these vehicles. General Motors has recalled all of these
vehicles (including the 600 Federal vehicles) and has agreed to refund the purchase price of
these vehicles to the General Services Administration.

6-2


1.3 to 2.0 diesel gallon equivalent miles per gallon. This amount of variation is not unusual
for these type of engines. Although the Cummins L10 natural gas engine is fairly well
developed, it is a throttled spark-ignition engine, and fuel economy can be significantly
affected depending on the duty cycle. A throttled natural gas engine will have much lower
fuel economy for stop-and-go driving when compared to the same or similar vehicle operating
on a highway cycle. On the other hand, the fuel economy of diesel vehicles, which are
unthrottled engines, will show much less variation in fuel economy throughout the different
driving cycles. The variation in fuel economy for the natural gas vehicles is likely to be due
to a difference in on-road driving cycles, rather than an engine-to-engine variation. The
average on-road diesel gallon equivalent fuel economy of the natural gas vehicles is about
seven percent less than the on-road fuel economy of the diesel baseline control vehicle.
Again, this lower fuel economy for the natural gas vehicles (as compared to the diesel
vehicles) is expected because the natural gas engines are throttled and suffer from throttling
losses at part load, whereas the diesel engines are unthrottled, and do not suffer from these
throttling losses.

Two of the New York Department of Sanitation compressed natural gas trucks were
tested for emissions using the West Virginia University Transportable Emissions Test
Laboratory, but no corresponding baseline diesel control vehicle was tested. The fuel
economy was found to be nearly equal, 2.6 and 2.7 miles per diesel gallon equivalent,

respectively. As the project continues, data will be collected for similar diesel control
vehicles to establish a baseline for comparison.

The Federal Express project involves the evaluation of several alternative fuels,
including compressed natural gas, propane, M85, and reformulated gasoline, as well as two
electric vehicles. Fuel economy for the electric vehicles will not be discussed here because,
due to their range limitations, these vehicles were operated on a much different driving cycle
from the other vehicles, making comparisons difficult. To minimize the effect of the various
driving cycles, fuel-economy comparisons are based on gasoline control vehicles of the same
type operating in similar environments as the test vehicles.

Federal Express operations are typical of most pickup and delivery services. The
vehicles are driven between 20 to 80 miles per day on fixed routes for 5 or 6 days each week.
Most vehicles make dozens of stops per day. However, the results from the Federal Express
project should not be generalized and applied to all types of fleet operations. Applications
that involve heavier payloads or other types of duty cycles can produce different results.

To compare on-road fuel economy between gaseous fuels, methanol, and gasoline, fuel
economy is expressed in terms of gasoline gallon equivalent miles per gallon. A gasoline
gallon equivalent of an alternative fuel is equal to the amount of alternative fuel that has the
same energy content as one gallon of a reference unleaded gasoline.

Statistical treatment of the data was used to account for variations in duty cycles
within the Federal Express operations. The delivery vans were randomly assigned to delivery
routes that varied from less than 20 to more than 80 miles per day. Regression analysis was
used to establish the relationship between vehicle fuel economy and both the average daily
mileage and the average number of delivery stops per day. Estimates of on-road fuel

4-11


2.2 Commercial Vehicles and Heavy-Duty Trucks

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, located in Golden, Colorado, is the
primary field laboratory responsible for the operation and data collection activities of the
Alternative Fuels Truck Commercial Applications Program. Project participants in this
program include the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources/Archer Daniels
Midland, Acurex/Vons Grocery Co., and New York Department of Sanitation.

The Trucking Research Institute, under contract to the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, serves as a focal point in the commercial trucking industry for the advancement
of alternative fuel usage. Its primary responsibilities are to:

+ Catalog all existing alternative fuels heavy-duty and medium-duty trucking
demonstrations.

¢ Gather data from ongoing demonstrations.

¢ Provide incentives for new alternative fuel heavy-duty and medium-duty
projects.

* Publicize truck-related alternative fuel information throughout the industry

and government through a quarterly newsletter, and periodic industry
presentations throughout the country.

Although medium-duty vehicle projects are not expressly included in the heavy-truck
and commercial vehicle statute requirements, they are included in this program because their
operating environment closely resembles that of their heavy-duty vehicle counterparts. While
some of the vehicles share similar components to those in the light-duty projects, their
specific application requires more rigorous use than their light-duty counterparts. Data
generated and analyzed from these vehicles will allow DOE and potential commercial fleet
operators to identify operational issues that influence the incorporation of additional
medium-duty alternative fuel vehicles in both Federal and private fleets.

Five alternative fuel heavy-duty vehicle fleet projects are currently operating,
involving a total of 130 vehicles with:

¢ The Archer Daniels Midland Company.

*  Vons Grocery Company.

* The New York City Department of Sanitation.
* Hennepin County, Minnesota.

¢ Federal Express Corporation.

2-6


when they were tested with M85: increasing carbon monoxide emissions and relatively
constant unbumed hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen emissions. Comparisons of M85
variable fuel vehicle Luminas and flexible fuel vehicle Tauruses, using M85, to their
counterpart gasoline production control vehicles, showed increasing carbon monoxide
emissions through 15,000 to 25,000 miles of operation for M85 vehicles. Testing of the
gasoline control vehicles shows an increase of carbon monoxide emissions to 15,000 miles
followed by a decreasing trend at later mileage intervals.

In all, the trends observed seem to suggest that the overall emission-related behavior
of M85 and gasoline test vehicles is not unusual and is similar to the variation of trends
generally observed for conventional gasoline vehicles. The variability of some of the data,
and the frequency of tests which exceed the current standards, seem unusually high in a few
cases, indicating that there may be other factors affecting outcomes. DOE has expanded the
emissions testing and data collection effort in order to improve the confidence level for
fuel-to-fuel comparisons.

Driveability/Maintenance

Vehicle driveability was recorded by the driver for each vehicle and problems were
recorded on idle quality, hesitation, hard starting, stalling after starting, and pinging. Through
fiscal year 1993, the driveability difficulties that occurred with the M85 Ford Taurus were
largely attributed to performance degradation of various unique components of the vehicle
such as the Electronic Engine Control-IV engine microprocessor, fuel-sending unit, and fuel-
pressure regulator. Those that occurred with the M85 Chevrolet Luminas were largely
attributed to performance degradation of the unique fuel injector and fuel pump speed-
controller components. Installation of upgraded hardware and the dealer service bulletins
have reduced the incidence of driveability problems.

Although driveability problems have significantly declined through extensive
maintenance and vehicle-design upgrades, the number of reported driveability difficulties
experienced by the M85 alternative fuel vehicles at the end of fiscal year 1993 were still
greater than reported for the conventional gasoline control vehicles.

Most alternative fuel vehicles fueled by alcohol and compressed natural gas have had
a higher frequency of unscheduled maintenance than their conventional gasoline counterparts.
In some cases, maintenance has appeared to solve or greatly reduce many driveability
problems. In other cases, the maintenance may have only marginally corrected the
driveability difficulty, prompting the vehicle operator to continue operations and "just live
with the problem." The addition of new vehicles in fiscal year 1993 has highlighted a
number of challenges that face owners and operators of these vehicles. For example, the M85
Dodge Spirit vehicles were to begin operations in fiscal year 1992, but the start of these
operations was delayed due to a problem with the fuel sensor that measures the relative
proportions of methanol and gasoline.

1-4


Figure 3-1. Current Phase I and Phase II Light Duty Vehicle Locations

distributions of these vehicles. In the near future, there are plans to add 196 additional
vehicles and one additional site in Atlanta, Georgia, for Phase III.

The primary criteria that General Services Administration uses in selecting locations
for alternative fuel vehicles are (1) whether the location is one of the 22 non-attainment areas
for poor ambient air quality under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; (2) whether the
location is one of the 125 metropolitan areas covered under the Environmental Protection Act;
(3) alternative fuel potential availability in the location; (4) vehicle replacement needs of
Federal agencies; and (5) vehicle availability from the original equipment manufacturers.

In addition to the General Services Administration criteria for location selection, DOE
and the National Renewable Energy Laboratories use programmatic and vehicle operation
considerations. It is less than desirable from a programmatic and efficiency viewpoint to
attempt to manage and collect data from many highly dispersed vehicle locations. Therefore,
vehicle locations were selected and restricted to specific major metropolitan areas or larger
centralized agencies that have made an expressed commitment to participate.

Primary influences on vehicle performance are temperature and altitude in which these
vehicles operate. The Phase II portion of this program added several significant

3-3


tested, the organic material hydrocarbon equivalent emissions were significantly lower than
the hydrocarbon emissions from the diesel control bus.

The particulate emissions from the methanol bus were also significantly lower than
those for the diesel bus. The small amount of particulate emissions for the methanol bus is
probably derived from lubricating oil that is consumed by the engine. Oil consumption for
the methanol bus (Table 5-5) was slightly lower than that for the diesel control bus. As the
design of methanol engines improve, oil consumption should be reduced with a corresponding
reduction in exhaust particulates. In summary, it appears that catalytic converters may be
required to control unburned methanol and aldehydes for methanol fueled buses. These
exhaust emission components are easily converted in catalytic converter systems.

The fuel economy associated with the emissions testing is determined by a
carbon-balance method, which is common practice in automobile emissions testing. The fuel
economy for the two buses for the emissions tests shown in Figure 5-11 shows a different
result from that discussed earlier for the on-road data. In this case, the diesel gallon
equivalent fuel economy of the methanol bus was greater than that for the diesel control bus,
which is the opposite of that measured in the on-road tests. In the emission testing, the
driving cycle is fixed and both buses are forced to follow the same driving schedule of
vehicle speed versus time, and accelerations. In case of the on-road tests, the driving cycle
can vary depending on the bus route, the driver, vehicle acceleration performance, and other
factors. Therefore, it is not unusual for one bus to show better fuel economy than another
bus in one case, whereas the reverse trend might be shown on a different driving schedule.

5.1.2.4 Ethanol Buses

The Greater Peoria Mass Transit District in Peoria, Illinois, is operating several
ethanol transit buses. The emissions and fuel economy characteristics of these buses were
determined by West Virginia University using the Transportable Emissions Testing
Laboratory. Emissions tests were conducted on five ethanol buses and two diesel control
buses. The ethanol buses were equipped with DDC 6V-92 engines that were derived from the
DDC methanol engine which has been commercialized for bus applications. The fuel for the
ethanol engines was E95. The diesel control buses were equipped with DDC 6V-92
production diesel engines. The fuel used in the bus engines was "Jet A" jet fuel, and the two
diesel control vehicles were equipped with Donaldson particulate traps.

Shown in Figure 5-12 are the average carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen
(NO,), and organic material hydrocarbon equivalent/hydrocarbon emissions from the ethanol
and diesel control buses. Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions were somewhat lower for the
ethanol buses than for the diesel control buses. This trend is consistent with that of the
Riverside Transit Agency’s methanol buses. The lower oxides of nitrogen (NO,) emissions
for the ethanol buses is consistent with classic results that show that ethanol fuel produces
lower oxides of nitrogen (NO,) emissions than diesel fuels, due to the relatively higher latent
heat of vaporization of ethanol as compared to diesel or jet fuel. On the other hand, the
organic material hydrocarbon equivalent emissions for the ethanol buses are substantially
higher than the hydrocarbon emissions for the diesel control buses.

5-18


Figure 5-4. Comparison of Oxides of Nitrogen (NO,) Emissions
from Compressed Natural Gas and Diesel Buses

Grams/Mile
Ty

SS 3

MSBA DIESEL MSBA CNG

NOx

Figure 5-5. Comparison of Particulate Emissions
from Compressed Natural Gas and Diesel Buses

16

E 3 POPE] i bed 4

MSBA DIESEL MSBACNG1 MSBACNG2 (NYC TRAP NYC w/o TRAP
[al Renan

Particulates NYC Diesel Buses



Future Light-Duty Vehicle Activities

Vehicle performance and cost comparisons will continue to be generated and presented
in future annual reports. As additional vehicle performance and cost data become available,
progressively more comprehensive comparisons will be presented. Lifecycle cost comparisons
will be conducted following the disposal of a significant number of program vehicles.
Analysis methods which will be used to conduct lifecycle cost comparisons will include
factors such as vehicle purchase price, operating costs (over the mission profile of the
vehicle), operation efficiencies (e.g. lost productivity due to increased time for CNG refueling
or extended service periods), and vehicle resale value.

Additional alternative fuel vehicle acquisitions are planned for the light-duty vehicle
operations Program in fiscal year 1994, to be procured as part of a third phase of the
Alternative Motor Fuels Program. Like the previous Phase I and Phase II projects, this
project will be supported with full data collection and technical support services. An
emissions test plan has been developed for expanding the testing of the exhaust and
evaporative emissions of the light-duty vehicle fleet.

1.2 Alternative Fuels Truck Commercial Applications Program

Five alternative fuel medium- and heavy-duty vehicle projects are currently operating
in California, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York. These involve 97 alternative-fueled
vehicles and 33 control vehicles, for a total of 130 vehicles, including line-haul tractors,
refuse hauler trucks, snowplow/dump truck maintenance vehicles, and delivery vans. These
vehicles are operated by Vons Grocery Co., Archer Daniels Midland Company, the New York
City Department of Sanitation, Hennepin County (Minnesota), and the Federal Express
Corporation. The alternative fuels currently being used by the heavy-duty vehicles include
compressed natural gas and ethanol (E95, a mixture of 95 percent ethanol and five percent
unleaded gasoline). The alternative fuels being evaluated in the medium-duty vehicles are
compressed natural gas, electricity, M85, propane, and reformulated gasoline.

Overall Vehicle Operations

Mileage accumulation data are being collected for all of the heavy-duty projects and
data analysis is underway. The total accumulated miles for the Federal Express project from
initiation through September 1993 were nearly 1,500,000 miles. The New York City
Department of Sanitation project has accumulated over 20,000 miles in fiscal year 1993 with
six compressed natural gas trucks. For the Archer Daniels Midland project, 662,261 miles
have been accumulated on four vehicles that operate on E95 and on one diesel control
vehicle.

Fuel Use and Economy

Overall fuel economy for the alternative fuel vehicles, expressed as miles per gasoline
gallon equivalent, or miles per diesel gallon equivalent, were comparable to their gasoline or
diesel vehicle counterparts. Although alternative formulations achieved slightly lower miles
per gallon equivalent relative to traditional fuels, there are some mitigating factors that hold

1-5


Figure 5-9. Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NO,)
Emissions from Methanol and Diesel Control Buses

Methanol
SS Diese

AB vere QQ ee

Grams/Mile

NOx

Figure 5-10. Organic and Particulate Emission from
Methanol and Diesel Control Vehicles

Methanol
NS Dieset

AB bree

Grams/Mile
T

0.5 be vetereeeeee PQQ ee

OMHCE/HC PM Methanol Formaidehyde

5-17



Figure 5-14. Locations of Current Phase I School Buses

Figure 5-15. Wood County CNG Bus

5-22


Figure A-3. Unique Components of the M85 Ford Econoline Van

V7729-A

Glossary of Components

. Engine: The engine is designed for increased

durability and compatibility with fuel methanol.
|. Spark Plugs: The wire electrode is wider for
increased heat transfer.

'. Fuel Injectors: FF vehicle fuel injectors have a
higher fuel flow capacity and a modified spray
nozzle design.

. Fuel Pressure Regulator: Material changes are
made for fuel methanol compatibility.

. Mass Air/SFI: The engine control system has
been changed to a measured air flow design with
sequential operation of the fuel injection.

. Powertrain Control Module (PCM): A different
calibration is used to monitor and activate FF
vehicle sensors and systems as required.

|. Wiring Harnesses: Wiring changes have been
made to connect with the Fuel Sensor. Cold Start
System and Air/Fuel Control Systems.

|. Fuel Supply, Return and Vapor Lines:
Material changes are made for methanol fuel
compatibility.

Fud Pump Assembly/Fuel Sending Unit:
Nickel plating is applied to non-stainless steel
parts. All other parts are of different materials
for compatibility with methanol fuels.

Fuel Tank: A coated steel fuel tank is used for
fuel methanol compatibility and is shielded to
reduce evaporation.

. Filler Pipe: Improved coating is applied and anti-

siphon screen installed. Material changes are
made for fuel methanol compatibility.

. Evaporative Emission System: Additional

charcoal canisters (four total) have been added to
relieve pressure from extended idling and hill
climbing.

. Fuel Filter: Material changes are made for fuel

methanol compati

. Engine Oil: Specially formulated for required use

with all of the possible fuel mixtures. Oil change
intervals for Flexible Fuel vehicles are required
every 4800 km (3000 miles).

. Fuel Sensor: This unique FF vehicle component

allows the powertrain control module to
determine the percentage of methanol in the fuel.

. Cold Start System: Allows faster, more reliable

A-4



1,497,735 miles in 14 months of service. The total accumulated mileage for each fuel type
was 474,363 for the regular unleaded gasoline-powered vehicles; 188,568 for the reformulated
gasoline-powered vehicles; 233,241 for the M85-powered vehicles; 219,049 for the
compressed natural gas-powered vehicles; 378,620 for the propane-powered vehicles; and
3,894 for the electric-powered vehicles. Due to the short range and limited mileage for the
electric vehicles, the electric vehicle miles are not shown in Figure 4-6.

The New York City Department of Sanitation project accumulated over 20,000 miles
in fiscal year 1993 with six compressed natural gas trucks. The Archer Daniels Midland
project has accumulated 662,261 miles with four E95 and one diesel control vehicle.

4.2.2 Challenges of Operations

As with all new technologies that are introduced into service, there are problems that
must be solved and corrected. The trucks fueled with ethanol sometimes experience
cold-starting difficulty during cold weather due to the low volatility and high heat of
vaporization of the ethanol fuel. The engines used in the ethanol trucks were originally
designed for methanol which has different cold-start characteristics than ethanol. Engine
developments are expected to decrease the cold-starting difficulties experienced by the current
ethanol engines.

Figure 4-6. Cumulative Miles for Alternative Fuel and
Baseline Vehicles in the Federal Express Fleets

16

Unleaded Gasoline
1-4-7 | BQ Reformutsted Gasoline
12 - [Z Methanol (M85)

(Compressed Nat. Gas
Propane

Miles (Millions)
°
cy
\

06 4

02 -

5 + : ;
JUL "92 SEP’92 NOV'S2 JAN’93 MAR’93 MAY’93 JUL '93 SEP '93

4-7


Figure 4-11. On-Road Fuel Economy of Compressed Natural Gas and Gasoline
Chevrolet G30, Dodge B350, and Ford E250 Vehicles Operating at the
Los Angeles, California, Site

10
ee... :
gi
2.1.
rE
a2 WY
Yu
° Chevrolet G30 Dodge B350 Ford E250

CNG jasoline

Source: Battelle Memorial Institute

Figure 4-12. On-Road Fuel Economy of Propane and Gasoline Chevrolet
G30 and Ford E250 Vehicles Operating at the Rialto, California, Site

=
°o

ry

Fuel Economy (MPG)

(Gasoline Gallon Equivalent)

N

we
Ford E250

Chevrolet G30

[SS Propane _ {J Gasoline |

‘Source: Battelle Memorial Institute

4-13



¢ The Alternative Motor Fuels M85 Dodge Spirits were not allowed to go
into service due to a leaking fuel sensor. These vehicles were returned to
the dealers and the fuel sensors were replaced.

During the third quarter of 1993, one Federal Express vehicle had a fire while
operating on M85. The fire started near the cold-start injector, most likely from a fuel leak.
No personal injury or damage to cargo occurred; however, there was minor damage to the
engine compartment wiring.

On December 6, 1992, a Neoplan transit bus powered by a dual-fuel Detroit Diesel
6V92 pilot injection natural gas engine was damaged by a natural gas ignition. This occurred
while new-vehicle inspection certification was being conducted at the Houston Metro Transit
maintenance facility. No injuries resulted from this incident.

Analysis of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration alternative fuel and
electric vehicle crash file reveals only one vehicle collision in the September 1992 to
September 1993 time period. This involved an electric vehicle which is not part of the
current Alternative Motor Fuels Program.

Special Item

As this report was in final preparation, a significant event occurred. Two General
Motors C2500 pickups running on compressed natural gas, one in California and one in
Minnesota, incurred identical compressed natural gas fuel-tank ruptures, with injuries to
personnel. Investigation into the cause of the fuel-tank ruptures is ongoing. However,
preliminary results suggest that the tanks failed due to environmental degradation (most likely
from contact with corrosive agents) of the outer composite wound reinforcement. Additional
findings will be presented in future reports. Although these were not Federal vehicles, they
were identical to 600 General Services Administration vehicles. The General Services
Administration promptly issued orders to cease all operation of these vehicles. General
Motors has recalled all of these vehicles (including the 600 Federal vehicles) and has agreed
to refund the purchase price of these vehicles to the General Services Administration.

1.5 Infrastructure

The increasing number of alternative fuel vehicles is becoming a primary driving force
for developing an alternative fuel vehicle refueling infrastructure. At this time, supply is not
universally available, and in certain demonstrations vehicles have had to be placed in areas
that have inconvenient or nonexistent alternative fuel refueling facilities. These vehicles have
not achieved the usage they might have, or in the case of flexible fuel vehicles, used more
gasoline than they otherwise would have. Although this is not a major factor in the
operations of vehicles which are used locally, such as transit buses, that have a central
refueling site, the availability of fuels themselves may be.

Title XIX of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 does provide incentives for alternative
fuel refueling facilities in the form of tax deductions. Many suppliers are beginning to invest
in the facilities and the necessary product development. Many of these have supplied fuels

1-10


Miles/Gallon

Figure 5-11. Fuel Economy for Methanol and Diesel Control
Vehicles During the Emissions Test Cycle

Methanol
WN Dieset

Miles/Galion

Miles/Gallon

(Diesel Galion Equivatent)

Grams/Mile

Figure 5-12. CO, NO,, and Organic Material Hydrocarbon Equivalent/
Hydrocarbon Emissions from the Ethanol and Diesel Buses

Ethanol (E95)
SW Jet a

NOx

OMHCE/HC

5-19



The objectives of the Alternative Fuels Data Center are to:

¢ Design, implement, and operate a computerized data base system for
storage and retrieval of available data on alternative transportation fuel
demonstration and evaluation efforts.

¢ Provide access via computer to external users in the scientific, industrial,
and government communities.

Significant expansion of data collection efforts occurred during fiscal year 1993, with
the addition of more alternative fuel vehicles, test sites, and Federal agency involvement. In
addition, the heavy-duty and bus projects have developed to the point where data reporting
can begin.

There has been a significant expansion in data collection, altering the format and
content of this third annual report (compared to the prior annual reports). Trends have been
described, using selected operational characteristics as examples.

In reviewing the remainder of this report, particularly as related to the status of fleet
data collection efforts, it is important to keep the following points in mind:

(69) After nearly three years of operation, the light-duty project fleets have
matured to the point where preliminary comparisons and judgments
about the relative differences between gasoline and alternative-fueled
vehicles can be made.

(2) The 65 alternative fuel vehicles initially acquired by the General
Services Administration for the Phase I light-duty project are nearing
the point at which they have completed their service life and may be
teplaced.

(3) Joint cooperation between government agencies has provided cost-effective
methods for capturing vehicle performance data by using existing reporting
systems at little additional cost.

(4) The heavy-duty truck and bus projects have evolved to a point where
meaningful data collection is now underway.

(5) The heavy-duty truck and bus projects have benefitted from a high
degree of cost sharing, cost contribution and voluntary efforts on the
part of participants. Thus, Federal dollars spent on these projects have
been leveraged very well with other Federally funded efforts, State/local
government funds, and private-sector funding.

2-3


both vehicle types are operated on gasoline. There is a modest growth, then leveling, of all
three emission constituents for the gasoline control Tauruses. It is difficult to determine a
trend in emissions for the M85 control Tauruses because of the substantial swing in direction
(particularly for carbon monoxide emissions) between 14,000 and 16,000 miles. These
differences come from results of testing different vehicles at the same Environmental
Protection Agency laboratory and reflect the comments made earlier about the contributions to
variability in emissions test data. In reviewing the data from those two mileage points, and as
with the carbon monoxide data from Figure 3-13, no valid reason could be found to discard
one or the other data sets. Further examples of the effect of emission data variability are
illustrated in Figures 3-16 and 3-17 and Tables 3-6 and 3-7. In addition, it should be noted
that improvements in emission levels were not observed in a number of cases where vehicle
maintenance and/or repair were performed between emission tests. Figure 3-16 compares the
range of carbon monoxide emission data for M85 flexible-fuel vehicle Tauruses tested with
Indolene and M85 fuels.

Table 3-6 shows the differences between the average value and range of test data and
the total spread from the minimum to the maximum test data values. Figure 3-17 and Table
3-7 present similar data for the M85 variable-fuel vehicle Luminas at 12,000 and 24,000
miles.

Note from Figures 3-8 and 3-10 through 3-15 that there are frequent occasions where
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions exceed the current standards, and often within
the range of 10,000 to 25,000 miles. As mentioned previously, normal test-procedure
variability factors cannot account for either the wide range of observed emission values and
the relatively high frequency of test data that exceed the standards. This is one of the major
reasons why the DOE has significantly expanded the emission test portion of the Light-Duty
Alternative Motor Fuels Program—to increase the precision of judgments about comparative
emission trends among the alternative fuels being evaluated.

Of the Lumina test vehicles (representing a mix of the same vehicles used for exhaust
emissions) used to develop evaporative emissions test data, only one vehicle test (an M85
variable-fuel vehicle Lumina tested with Indolene) failed to meet the maximum limit of 2
grams of hydrocarbons set by the Environmental Protection Agency for emission certification
purposes. It is suspected that a problem may have occurred in that vehicle during that
specific test because subsequent evaporative emission testing indicated results which were
well below the 2-gram standard.

3.9 Operator Satisfaction/Driveability

For Phase I vehicles, the driveability information was recorded on the weekly survey
form which summarizes the weekly operation of the participating vehicles. Vehicle
driveability was recorded by the driver for each day of operation. Driver observations on idle
quality, hesitation, hard starting, stalling after starting, and pinging were recorded. For Phase
II vehicles, the vehicle driveability information were recorded on the data input form and
mailed to the data collection contractor after every vehicle refueling. The type of driveability
information recorded was the same as for Phase I.

3-24


Table 5-6. On-Road Operational and Cost Data for Three Methanol and
Three Diesel Buses in the Riverside Transit Bus Demonstration Project

Methanol Diesel
Total Miles 261,707 446,784
Fuel Economy, Miles/Gallon 1.48 3.62
(Diesel Gallon Equivalent (3.38)
Miles/Gallon)
Oil Economy, Miles/Quart 420 389
Number of Road Calls 35 7
Total Labor Hours 651 120
% of Uptime 91.2 99.3
Labor Costs $10,482.34 $1,916.11
Parts Cost $41,003.74 $10,871.17
Fuel Cost $98,112.70 $79,916.11
Total Cost $149,598.78 $92,704.08
Cost Per Mile $0.57 $0.21

During November of 1992, one of the methanol buses and one of the diesel buses
from the Riverside project were tested for emissions by the West Virginia Transportable
Emissions Laboratory. The driving cycle used for these emissions test was the central
business district transit-bus cycle. The emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of
nitrogen (NO,) from the two test vehicles are shown in Figure 5-9. In this case, the methanol
bus gave lower carbon monoxide (CO) emissions than the diesel bus. (Carbon monoxide
(CO) emissions can vary over a wide range depending on the driving cycle and from
engine-to-engine. Research has shown that some methanol engines produce more carbon

5-15


Figure 3-2. Accumulated Miles by Fleet Location

25 EX] Detroit, MI
EY] California

1991 1992

2.0 Denver, CO

Soo “ Washington, D.C.
ate

vs El Paso, TX
i | Argonne, IL

>
wu

=
i)

Accumulated Miles
(Millions)

05

0 ¢ ts

Jan’91 May Sep Jan’92 May Sep Jan’93 May Sep

Mar Jul Nov Mar Jul Nov Mar Jul
Year-Month of Operation

3.6.2 Fuel Usage
3.6.2.1 Total Fuel Consumption

Figure 3-4 presents the total fuel consumption of Phase I and Phase II vehicles for
the 1993 fiscal year. By the end of the year, more than 41,000 gasoline gallon equivalent of
natural gas, about 20,000 gallons of M85, nearly 3,000 gallons of E85, and more than 12,000
gallons of gasoline were consumed.

3.6.2.2 Alcohol Fuel Utilization

To further understand the amount and apportionment of M85 to gasoline and E85 to
gasoline fuel used and its relative impact on in-use vehicle operation, a refueling index was
computed. The refueling index is the ratio of the amount of M85 or E85 fuel used in gallons
compared with the total amount of fuel (M85 or E85 and gasoline fuel) used in gallons, for
each of the four locations. As shown in Figure 3-5 for Phase I projects, the refueling index
ranges from about 73 percent for San Diego, California, to 94.7 percent for Detroit, Michigan.
This indicates that, of the total amount of fuel used for operating the alternative fuel vehicles,
the majority of fuel used was M85 or E85 for these locations. These M85 uses are high
because the vehicle locations were centralized around available M85 refueling

3-7


for the vehicles discussed in this report. They include ARCO, Chevron, Conoco, Exxon,
Methanex, Mobil Oil Company, Shell Oil Company, and Sunoco. However, the basic hurdle
to investment in alternative fuel refueling facilities remains the number of vehicles that will
be served by a given facility. This issue is being addressed by DOE in other related
alternative fuel infrastructure expansion efforts such as the Clean Cities Program.

Currently, M85 is being supplied by fuel companies at more than 78 public refueling
facilities throughout the United States. E85 has 30 refueling sites scattered throughout the
country. Compressed natural gas is being supplied by various natural gas utilities at more
than 730 compressed natural gas refueling facilities in the United States. The General
Services Administration has, through its placement of vehicles and through negotiations with
fuel suppliers, been instrumental in getting additional alternative fuel refueling locations
installed to support alternative fuel vehicle projects.


Figure 4-1. Ethanol-Fueled Tractor Operated by
Archer Daniels Midland in Decatur, Illinois

Figure 4-2. One of New York City’s Compressed
Natural Gas-Powered Refuse Haulers





Figure A-1. Unique Components of the M85/E85 Chevrolet Lumina

SNAWAYWNSO

Remote Injector Driver

Electronic Control Module (ECM)
Fuel Pump Speed Controller

Fuel Sender Assembly

Fuel Filler Cap

Evaporative Canister

Fuel Tank Filler Neck

Fuel Tank

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

Flame Arrestors

In-Line Fuel Filter

Low Fuel Light

Fuel Sender Control Module
Fuel Feed

Variable Fuel Sensor

Fuel Return

Fuel Rail Assembly

Source: General Motors Corporation



Number

4-18

5-1

5-2

5-3

5-4

5-5

5-6

5-7

5-8

5-9

5-10

5-11

5-12

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Title Page

Particulate Emissions for Two Compressed Natural Gas Refuse
Hauler Trucks

Map Showing the Location of Alternative Fuel Transit Bus Fleets ......

Comparison of Unburned Hydrocarbon Emissions from Compressed
Natural Gas and Diesel Buses .. 1.2.0.6... cece cee eee ee

Comparison of Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions from Compressed
Natural Gas and Diesel Buses

Comparison of Oxides of Nitrogen (NO,) Emissions from Compressed
Natural Gas and Diesel Buses

Comparison of Particulate Emissions from Compressed Natural
Gas and Diesel Buses 2.2... 0.6 ec eters

Carbon Monoxide (CO), Oxides of Nitrogen (NO,), and Hydrocarbon
Emission for Pilot-Injection Compressed Natural Gas and Liquefied
Natural Gas Buses Compared to Diesel Control Buses ............+-.

Particulate Emission and Fuel Economy for Pilot-Injection
Compressed Natural Gas and Liquefied Natural Gas Buses
Compared to Diesel Control Buses .. 1... 0.0.0. c cece eee eee eee
On-Road Fuel Economy of Methanol and Diesel Control Buses .......

Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NO,) Emissions
from Methanol and Diesel Control Buses .......... 000000 evenness

Organic and Particulate Emission from Methanol and Diesel
Control Vehicles 2.6.6... eee teens

Fuel Economy for Methanol and Diesel Control Vehicles During
the Emissions Test Cycle .. 0.0... ec eee teens

CO, NO,, and Organic Material Hydrocarbon Equivalent/
Hydrocarbon Emissions from the Ethanol and Diesel Buses ..........

viii


Figure 5-6. Carbon Monoxide (CO), Oxides of Nitrogen (NO,),
and Hydrocarbon Emission for Pilot Injection CNG and
LNG Buses Compared to Diesel Control Buses

70

Il DiesevLNG
Diesel/CNG

& Clean Diesel/LNG
Clean Diesel/CNG
Diesel

CO Clean Diesel

Grams/Mile

The fuel economy of the six buses tested is comparable, with the exception of the two
diesel/compressed natural gas buses. There is no information available which would provide
an explanation for this difference in fuel economy.

5.1.2.3. Methanol Buses

A number of transit bus projects around the United States are evaluating methanol
as an alternative fuel for transit bus applications. The Riverside Transit Agency, Riverside,
California, a representative example, is currently operating three methanol buses and three
diesel control buses in an alternative fuels demonstration project.

Both the methanol buses and the diesel control buses in the demonstration are
equipped with DDC 6V-92 engines. The methanol engines are operated on 100 percent
methanol and the diesel engines are operated on No. 2 diesel fuel.

Shown in Table 5-6 are data for the three methanol buses and the three diesel control
vehicles over the life of the project to date.

5-13


Table 3-3. On-Road Fuel Economy Summary

CHEVROLET LUMINA

Cumulative Fuel Economy

miles/gallon — No. of Vehicles
Vehicle miles/gallon gasoline/gallon That Contributed
Type Fuel (range) equivalent* to this Sample
M85 M85 11.9 (5.1 - 43.3) 21.0 7
M85 Gasoline 16.9 (14.3 - 18.6) - 1
Gasoline | Gasoline | 23.2 (16.6 - 35.5) 2
Washington, D.C.
E85 E85 10.5 (5.1 - 43.1) 149 8
E85, Gasoline - - -
Gasoline | Gasoline | 23.2 (16.6 - 35.5) 2
E85 E85 16.8 (8.5 - 28.3) 23.7 5
Argonne, IL E85 Gasoline | 25.4 (13.5 - 43.3) ~ 4
Gasoline | Gasoline + -
M85 M85 15.4 (9.7 - 43.7) 27.1 3
Detroit, MI M85 Gasoline | 27.6 (18.3 - 39.6) ~- 1
Gasoline | Gasoline 25.4 (8.6 - 43.0) 2
M85 M85 17.1 (7.3 - 42.6) 30.1 5
Los Angeles, CA M85 Gasoline 19.3 (12.2 - 36.5) - 1
Gasoline | Gasoline | 25.6 (7.5 - 39.3) 2
M85 M85 18.2 (9.1 - 42.9) 32.2 4
San Diego, CA M85 Gasoline } 22.1 (21.5 - 25.7) - 1
Gasoline | Gasoline 21.6 (10.4 - 36.4) 2
FORD TAURUS
Cumulative Fuel Economy
miles/gallon — | No. of Vehicles
Federal Fleet Vehicle miles/gallon gasoline/gallon | That Contributed
Sites Type Fuel (range) equivalent* to this Sample
M85 M85 13.1 (5.0 - 38.2) 23.0
Washington, D.C. M85 Gasoline -> -
Gasoline | Gasoline | 18.6 (14.3 - 28.1) >
M85 M85 16.3 (9.4 - 44.4) 28.7
Detroit, MI M85 | Gasoline 24.6? -
Gasoline | Gasoline 23.6 (10.7 - 44.9)
M85 M85 13.8 (9.2 - 44.3) 24.4
Los Angeles, CA M85 Gasoline 25.1 (13.0 - 44.6) -
Gasoline | Gasoline 26.5 (6.7 - 43.4)
M85 M85 16.9 (8.5 - 33.5) 29.9
San Diego, CA M85 Gasoline 24.2 (13.1 - 40.5) -
Gasoline | Gasoline 21.4 (13.3 - 31.5)

a Gasoline gallon equivalent miles per gallon is the M85/E85 fuel economy adjusted for the difference in fuel-
energy content between gasoline and M85/E85 (e.g., M85 has 56 percent of the energy of unleaded gasoline,
and E85 has 71 percent of the energy of unleaded gasoline).

b Based on limited information or not yet available.

¢ Calculation supplemented with non-fiscal-year 1993 fuel-economy data.

3-12


aNr1 Ta Tang

ONIN LNZA
a anna ow sana zinsenag
A “ ae “svn
$ 4 \ 3IDLda0gu TaNd
oa SON. 3ATYA 430 LOHS TWANY
/ é _ \ IRTVA 30319

‘TIDILAIOIA HOUVA

/ = eS ~ sovan tans ans EET
Y 7s The wanita tana
rs MOLVINOTY FOVIS Sula

MOAWASEY DINVNGAH

x. ~~
yy < +}
( sworavo zievsn is SS an
SNOTIVO atavsn zs. Af }
N\. shotive maven if " S Ak
. STBSSIA DINZDOAUD Sf? 0S OAKS t
sv mune ar ave
cewey me arTK panssaad \ - [yates aan
tovno Tand WSASTONON ae ‘azzivoava 5) ]
“anv rauana on bs K!
1 ang srinvaaan
‘GcTans) 3NIT OrinYWOAH: ~ “ OSSawsIVOD ¥IV
Gvuntaw ann oninvaaatt va
ATVA SAOLAMNS GIONTIOS ~ . TANSSTU ONLLVAREO
“—~.. “IVPRION 01
NM LNVT¢q9 anton — fON tsa 1
soivinoga aovis anz
SASS ONULVEI4O TWNTHON 154 00! teeasr rues
BAIA 44OLANS GIONSIOS

sng isueiy, sep [eMeN passosdwioy kv Jo sjuouodwioD onbuy *6-y ounsTy



Shown in Figure 5-13 are the particulate, other organic emissions, and fuel economy
as determined during the emissions testing procedures. The results show that the particulate
emissions from the ethanol buses were slightly higher than those from the diesel control
vehicles. The primary reason for the low particulate emissions from the diesel control buses
is that they were equipped with particulate traps. As mentioned earlier, lubricating oil
consumption can contribute to particulate emissions. No data are available at the present time
to assess the oil consumption of the ethanol buses.

Figure 5-13. Particulate, Unburned Ethanol, Aldehyde Emissions,
and Fuel Economy for the Ethanol and Diesel Buses

Grams/Mile or Miles/Gallon
a
T

>» Lass | co.

PM Ethanol Formadehyde Acetaldehyde Miles/Gallon Miles/Gallon
(Jot A Gal, Equiv.)

The ethanol and aldehyde emissions from the ethanol engines were quite high, as
would be expected, because these vehicles were not equipped with catalytic converters.
Aldehyde emissions data were not collected for the diesel control buses. The fuel economy
for the ethanol buses was comparable to the diesel control buses when adjusted for the
differences in heating values between the two fuels.

In summary, the ethanol buses appear to be performing similarly to the diesel control
vehicles, with the exception of unburned ethanol and aldehydes. Most of the unburned
ethanol and aldehydes can be eliminated with the use of catalytic converter systems. It
appears that all of the alternative fuel engines will require some kind of exhaust
after-treatment to meet future clean-air requirements.

5-20


Figure 3-6. Comparison Between In-Use and
Laboratory Fuel Economy for the Ford Taurus
and Chevrolet Lumina

Ford Taurus

In-Use City

Lab City

In-Use Highway

Lab Highway
. ° . . . —]
1 rT 1 L 1
() 5 10 15 20 25 30
Miles per Gallon
Chevrolet Lumina
In-Use City

Lab City

In-Use Highway

Lab Highway

i i i i i
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Miles per Gallon

E& Gasoline Control [J FFV on Gasoline
FFV on M85 £3 FFV on M85 (Gasoline Gallon Equivalent)

Note: City Fuel-Economy Data were reduced 10% and Highway Fuel-Economy Data were reduced 22% for
comparison with in-use fuel economy data.