Search Results

Increasingly stringent fuel economy and emissions regulations around the world have forced the further optimization of nearly all vehicle systems. Many technologies exist to improve fuel economy; however, only a smaller sub-set are commercially feasible due to the cost of implementation. One system that can provide a small but significant improvement in fuel economy is the lubrication system of an internal combustion engine. Benefits in fuel economy may be realized by the reduction of engine oil viscosity and the addition of friction modifying additives. In both cases, advanced engine oils allow for a reduction of engine friction. Because of differences in engine design and architecture, some engines respond more to changes in oil viscosity or friction modification than others. For example, an engine that is designed for an SAE 0W-16 oil may experience an increase in fuel economy if an SAE 0W-8 is used.

Chassis dynamometer tests are often used to determine vehicle fuel economy (FE). Since the entire vehicle is used, these methods are generally accepted to be more representative of ‘real-world’ conditions than engine dynamometer tests or small-scale bench tests. Unfortunately, evaluating vehicle fuel economy via this means introduces significant variability that can readily be mitigated with engine dynamometer and bench tests. Recently, improvements to controls and procedures have led to drastically improved test precision in chassis dynamometer testing. Described herein are chassis dynamometer results from five fully formulated engine oils (utilizing improved testing protocols on the Federal Test Procedure (FTP-75) and Highway Fuel Economy Test (HwFET) cycles) which not only show statistically significant FE changes across viscosity grades but also meaningful FE differentiation within a viscosity grade where additive systems have been modified.

In this study, the criteria pollutant emissions from a light duty vehicle equipped with Dedicated EGR® technology were compared with emissions from an identical production GDI vehicle without externally cooled EGR. In addition to the comparison of criteria pollutant mass emissions, an analysis of the gaseous and particulate chemistry was conducted to understand how the change in combustion system affects the optimal aftertreatment control system. Hydrocarbon emissions from the vehicle were analyzed usin g a variety of methods to quantify over 200 compounds ranging in HC chain length from C1 to C12. The particulate emissions were also characterized to quantify particulate mass and number. Gaseous and particulate emissions were sampled and analyzed from both vehicles operating on the FTP-75, HWFET, US06, and WLTP drive cycles at the engine outlet location.

Conventional diesel fuel has been in the market for decades and used successfully to run diesel engines of all sizes in many applications. In order to reduce emissions and to foster energy source diversity, new fuels such as alternative and renewable, as well as new fuel formulations have entered the market. These include biodiesel, gas-to-liquid, and alternative formulations by states such as California. Performance variations in fuel economy, emissions, and compatibility for these fuels have been evaluated and debated. In some cases contradictory views have surfaced. “Sustainable”, “Renewable”, and “Clean” designations have been interchanged. Adding to the confusion, results from one fuel in one type of engine such as an older heavy-duty engine, is at times compared to that of another fuel in another type such as a modern light-duty engine. This study was an attempt to compare the performance of several fuels in identical environments, using the same engine, for direct comparison.