Search Results

Gaseous compounds, particle number and size distribution measurements on a gasoline direct injection (GDI) vehicle and a port fuel injection (PFI) vehicle were conducted over the U.S. Federal Test Procedure 75 (FTP-75) and US06 Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (US06) on Tier 2 certification gasoline (E0) and a 10% by volume ethanol (E10). Overall the GDI test vehicle was observed to have lower fuel consumption than the PFI test vehicle by 6% and 3% for the FTP-75 and US06 drive cycles, respectively. When using E10, this GDI vehicle had a better fuel consumption than the PFI vehicle by 7% and 5% for the FTP-75 and US06 drive cycles, respectively. For particle emissions, the solid particle number emission rates for the GDI, equipped with a 3-way catalyst in its original equipment manufacturer configuration (i.e., stock GDI), were 10 and 31 times higher than the PFI vehicle for the FTP-75 and US06 drive cycles, respectively.

Gaseous and particle emissions from a gasoline direct injection (GDI) and a port fuel injection (PFI) vehicle were measured at various ambient temperatures (22°C, -7°C, -18°C). These vehicles were driven over the U.S. Federal Test Procedure 75 (FTP-75) and US06 Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (US06) on Tier 2 certification gasoline (E0) and 10% by volume ethanol (E10). Emissions were analyzed to determine the impact of ambient temperature on exhaust emissions over different driving conditions. Measurements on the GDI vehicle with a gasoline particulate filter (GPF) installed were also made to evaluate the GPF particle filtration efficiency at cold ambient temperatures. The GDI vehicle was found to have better fuel economy than the PFI vehicle at all test conditions. Reduction in ambient temperature increased the fuel consumption for both vehicles, with a much larger impact on the cold-start FTP-75 drive cycle observed than for the hot-start US06 drive cycle.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and Environment Canada have jointly participated along with partners the New York City Metropolitan Transit Agency (MTA); Johnson Matthey, Environmental Catalysts & Technologies; Equilon Enterprises, LLC and Corning, Inc. in a project to evaluate the effect of various combinations of fuels and aftertreatment configurations on diesel emissions. Emissions measurements were performed during engine dynamometer testing of an International DT 466E heavy-duty diesel engine. Fuels tested in the study were Diesel Fuel 1 and 2, low sulfur diesel (150 ppm), two ultralow sulfur fuels (<30 ppm), Fischer-Tropsch, Biodiesel, PuriNOx™ and two Ethanol-Diesel blends. Configurations tested were: engine out, and diesel oxidation catalyst, continuously regenerating diesel filter, and exhaust gas recirculation aftertreatment. In general, the use of more aggressive aftertreatment (ie.

A 1.9L turbocharged direct-injection engine representing a model year 1998-2003 Volkswagen vehicle, equipped with the OEM diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), was tested on an eddy-current engine dynamometer with a critical flow venturi-constant volume sampling system (CFV-CVS). The engine was operated over three steady-state modes: 1600 rev/min at 54 Nm; 1800 rev/min at 81 Nm; and 2000 rev/min at 98 Nm. Commercially available ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (≺15 ppm S) was splash-blended with fatty acid methyl ester biodiesels derived from three different feedstocks: canola, soy, and tallow/waste fry oil. Test blend levels included: 0%, 2%, 5%, 20%, 50%, and 100% biodiesel for each feedstock.

The recent tightening of emission standards for new heavy duty engines has lead to the development and implementation of alternative fuel engines, particularly for urban transit bus applications. Alternative fuels are intended to offer a potential emissions benefit with regards to the regulated emissions, and especially the particulate matter, which has received the greatest degree of regulatory action. However, the entire composition of the engine emissions should be considered when evaluating the environmental benefits of these new fuels, and also the continued performance of these engines in actual fleet service. In this study the exhaust emissions from methanol, ethanol, and diesel - powered buses were determined during transient operation of the vehicles on a heavy duty chassis dynamometer. The tests of the alcohol fuelled buses, and a control diesel bus were conducted as the buses accumulated mileage in revenue generating service.

Heavy-duty diesel engines for transit bus applications are having to meet increasingly stringent emission standards. The new engines are significantly cleaner than they were just a few years ago. However, due to the long life of transit buses in Ontario (18 years), many buses still in service are powered by older engines which produce greater amounts of regulated exhaust emissions. The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission (OC Transpo) has an interest in reducing emissions from older transit buses in their fleet. Eight Donaldson particulate trap systems were installed on transit buses. The purpose of the work, involving four different bus/engine combinations, was to assess the practicality and benefits of particulate traps in transit applications. This paper discusses the demonstration of diesel exhaust particulate traps in Ottawa-based transit buses.

This paper presents the emissions testing results of various heavy duty engines and vehicles with and without retrofitted diesel oxidation catalyst technology. 1987 Cummins L10 and 1991 DDC 6V92TA DDECII engine results over the U.S. Heavy Duty Transient Test are presented for comparison to chassis test results. The vehicles in this study include two urban buses, two school buses and three heavy duty trucks. The Central Business District, New York Bus and New York Composite urban driving cycles have been used to evaluate baseline emissions and the catalyst performance on a heavy duty chassis dynamometer. The results demonstrate that 25-45% particulate reduction is readily achievable on a wide variety of heavy duty vehicles. Significant carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon reductions were also observed.

As more stringent vehicle emission standards are introduced worldwide, there is an increased need to provide a thorough assessment of the environmental impact of alternative fuels. With the advent of CNG as a viable transportation fuel, the development of advanced computer controlled fuel delivery systems is imperative in order to ensure acceptable emission performance. At present, the majority of light and medium duty engines operating on natural gas are primarily gasoline automotive engines which have been retrofitted to allow for the use of CNG. The Mobile Sources Emissions Division of Environment Canada and the Canadian Gas Association have conducted a joint test program in order to develop a database of exhaust emissions from vehicles typically converted for operation on either gasoline or natural gas at various operating temperatures.