Search Results

Engine dynamometer testing was performed comparing fuels having different octane ratings and ethanol content in a Ford 3.5L direct injection turbocharged (EcoBoost) engine at three compression ratios (CRs). The fuels included midlevel ethanol “splash blend” and “octane-matched blend” fuels, E10-98RON (U.S. premium), and E85-108RON. For the splash blends, denatured ethanol was added to E10-91RON, which resulted in E20-96RON and E30-101 RON. For the octane-matched blends, gasoline blendstocks were formulated to maintain constant RON and MON for E10, E20, and E30. The match blend E20-91RON and E30-91RON showed no knock benefit compared to the baseline E10-91RON fuel. However, the splash blend E20-96RON and E10-98RON enabled 11.9:1 CR with similar knock performance to E10-91RON at 10:1 CR. The splash blend E30-101RON enabled 13:1 CR with better knock performance than E10-91RON at 10:1 CR. As expected, E85-108RON exhibited dramatically better knock performance than E30-101RON.

This paper presents engine dynamometer testing and modeling analysis of ethanol compared to gasoline at part load conditions where the engine was not knock-limited with either fuel. The purpose of this work was to confirm the efficiency improvement for ethanol reported in published papers, and to quantify the components of the improvement. Testing comparing E85 to E0 gasoline was conducted in an alternating back-to-back manner with multiple data points for each fuel to establish high confidence in the measured results. Approximately 4% relative improvement in brake thermal efficiency (BTE) was measured at three speed-load points. Effects on BTE due to pumping work and emissions were quantified based on the measured engine data, and accounted for only a small portion of the difference.

Modification of gasoline blendstock composition in preparing ethanol-gasoline blends has a significant impact on vehicle exhaust emissions. In “splash” blending the blendstock is fixed, ethanol-gasoline blend compositions are clearly defined, and effects on emissions are relatively straightforward to interpret. In “match” blending the blendstock composition is modified for each ethanol-gasoline blend to match one or more fuel properties. The effects on emissions depend on which fuel properties are matched and what modifications are made, making trends difficult to interpret. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate that exclusive use of a match blending approach has fundamental flaws. For typical gasolines without ethanol, the distillation profile is a smooth, roughly linear relationship of temperature vs. percent fuel distilled.

The exhaust blowdown pulse from each cylinder of a multi-cylinder engine propagates through the exhaust manifold and can affect the in-cylinder pressure of other cylinders which have open exhaust valves. Depending on the firing interval between cylinders connected to the same exhaust manifold, this blowdown interference can affect the exhaust stroke pumping work and the exhaust pressure during overlap, which in turn affects the residual fraction in those cylinders. These blowdown interference effects are much greater for a turbocharged engine than for one which is naturally aspirated because the volume of the exhaust manifolds is minimized to improve turbocharger transient response and because the turbines restrict the flow out of the manifolds. The uneven firing order (intervals of 90°-180°-270°-180°) on each bank of a 90° V8 engine causes the blowdown interference effects to vary dramatically between cylinders.