Search Results

Projected NOx and fuel costs are compared for a plasma-catalyst system and an active lean NOx catalyst system. Comparisons are based on modeling of FTP cycle performance. The model uses steady state laboratory device characteristics, combined with measured vehicle exhaust data to predict NOx conversion efficiency and fuel economy penalties. The plasma system uses a proprietary catalyst downstream of a plasma discharge. The active lean NOx catalyst uses a catalyst along with addition of hydrocarbons to the exhaust. For the plasma catalyst system, NOx conversion is available over a wide temperature range. Increased electrical power improves conversion but degrades vehicle fuel economy; 10 J/L energy deposition costs roughly 3% fuel economy. Improved efficiency is also available with larger catalyst size or increased exhaust hydrocarbon content. For the active lean NOx system, NOx conversion is available only in a narrow temperature range.

The U.S. Department of Energy, through Argonne National Laboratory, and in cooperation with Natural Resources-Canada and Chrysler Canada, sponsored and organized the 1996 Propane Vehicle Challenge (PVC). For this competition, 13 university teams from North America each received a stock Chrysler minivan to be converted to dedicated propane operation while maintaining maximum production feasibility. The converted vehicles were tested for performance (driveability, cold- and hot-start, acceleration, range, and fuel economy) and exhaust emissions. Of the 13 entries for the 1996 PVC, 10 completed all of the events scheduled, including the emissions test. The schools used a variety of fuel-management, fuel-phase and engine-control strategies, but their strategies can be summarized as three main types: liquid fuel-injection, gaseous fuel-injection, and gaseous carburetor. The converted vehicles performed similarly to the gasoline minivan.