4 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Effect of Intake Air Filter Condition on Vehicle Fuel Economy
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly maintain a fuel economy website (www.fueleconomy.gov), which helps fulfill their responsibility under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to provide accurate fuel economy information [in miles per gallon (mpg)] to consumers. The site provides information on EPA fuel economy ratings for passenger cars and light trucks from 1985 to the present and other relevant information related to energy use such as alternative fuels and driving and vehicle maintenance tips. In recent years, fluctuations in the price of crude oil and corresponding fluctuations in the price of gasoline and diesel fuels have renewed interest in vehicle fuel economy in the United States. (User sessions on the fuel economy website exceeded 20 million in 2008 compared to less than 5 million in 2004 and less than 1 million in 2001.) As a result of this renewed interest and the age of some of the references cited in the tips section of the website, DOE authorized the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Fuels, Engines, and Emissions Research Center (FEERC) to initiate studies to validate and improve these tips. This report documents a study aimed specifically at the effect of engine air filter condition on fuel economy. The goal of this study was to explore the effects of a clogged air filter on the fuel economy of vehicles operating over prescribed test cycles. Three newer vehicles (a 2007 Buick Lucerne, a 2006 Dodge Charger, and a 2003 Toyota Camry) and an older carbureted vehicle were tested. Results show that clogging the air filter has no significant effect on the fuel economy of the newer vehicles (all fuel injected with closed-loop control and one equipped with MDS). The engine control systems were able to maintain the desired AFR regardless of intake restrictions, and therefore fuel consumption was not increased. The carbureted engine did show a decrease in fuel economy with increasing restriction. However, the level of restriction required to cause a substantial (10-15%) decrease in fuel economy (such as that cited in the literature) was so severe that the vehicle was almost undrivable. Acceleration performance on all vehicles was improved with a clean air filter. Once it was determined how severe the restriction had to be to affect the carbureted vehicle fuel economy, the 2007 Buick Lucerne was retested in a similar manner. We were not able to achieve the level of restriction that was achieved with the 1972 Pontiac with the Lucerne. The Lucerne's air filter box would not hold the filter in place under such severe conditions. (It is believed that this testing exceeded the design limits of the air box.) Tests were conducted at a lower restriction level (although still considerably more severe than the initial clogged filter testing), allowing the air filter to stay seated in the air box, and no significant change was observed in the Lucerne's fuel economy or the AFR over the HFET cycle. Closed-loop control in modern fuel injected vehicle applications is sophisticated enough to keep a clogged air filter from affecting the vehicle fuel economy. However for older, open-loop, carbureted vehicles, a clogged air filter can affect the fuel economy. For the vehicle tested, the fuel economy with a new air filter improved as much as 14% over that with a severely clogged filter (in which the filter was so clogged that drivability was impacted). Under a more typical state of clog, the improvement with a new filter ranged from 2 to 6%
Recommended from our members
Technical Issues Associated With the Use of Intermediate Ethanol Blends (>E10) in the U.S. Legacy Fleet
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) supports the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in assessing the impact of using intermediate ethanol blends (E10 to E30) in the legacy fleet of vehicles in the U.S. fleet. The purpose of this report is to: (1) identify the issues associated with intermediate ethanol blends with an emphasis on the end-use or vehicle impacts of increased ethanol levels; (2) assess the likely severity of the issues and whether they will become more severe with higher ethanol blend levels, or identify where the issue is most severe; (3) identify where gaps in knowledge exist and what might be required to fill those knowledge gaps; and (4) compile a current and complete bibliography of key references on intermediate ethanol blends. This effort is chiefly a critical review and assessment of available studies. Subject matter experts (authors and selected expert contacts) were consulted to help with interpretation and assessment. The scope of this report is limited to technical issues. Additional issues associated with consumer, vehicle manufacturer, and regulatory acceptance of ethanol blends greater than E10 are not considered. The key findings from this study are given
Recommended from our members
Fuel Economy and Emissions of a Vehicle Equipped with an Aftermarket Flexible-Fuel Conversion Kit
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grants Certificates of Conformity for alternative fuel conversion systems and also offers other forms of premarket registration of conversion kits for use in vehicles more than two model years old. Use of alternative fuels such as ethanol, natural gas, and propane are encouraged by the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Several original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) produce emissions-certified vehicles capable of using alternative fuels, and several alternative fuel conversion system manufacturers produce EPA-approved conversion systems for a variety of alternative fuels and vehicle types. To date, only one manufacturer (Flex Fuel U.S.) has received EPA certifications for ethanol fuel (E85) conversion kits. This report details an independent evaluation of a vehicle with a legal installation of a Flex Fuel U.S. conversion kit. A 2006 Dodge Charger was baseline tested with ethanol-free certification gasoline (E0) and E20 (gasoline with 20 vol % ethanol), converted to flex-fuel operation via installation of a Flex Box Smart Kit from Flex Fuel U.S., and retested with E0, E20, E50, and E81. Test cycles included the Federal Test Procedure (FTP or city cycle), the highway fuel economy test (HFET), and the US06 test (aggressive driving test). Averaged test results show that the vehicle was emissions compliant on E0 in the OEM condition (before conversion) and compliant on all test fuels after conversion. Average nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions exceeded the Tier 2/Bin 5 intermediate life NO{sub X} standard with E20 fuel in the OEM condition due to two of three test results exceeding this standard [note that E20 is not a legal fuel for non-flexible-fuel vehicles (non-FFVs)]. In addition, one E0 test result before conversion and one E20 test result after conversion exceeded the NOX standard, although the average result in these two cases was below the standard. Emissions of ethanol and acetaldehyde increased with increasing ethanol, while nonmethane organic gas and CO emissions remained relatively unchanged for all fuels and cycles. Higher fraction ethanol blends appeared to decrease NO{sub X} emissions on the FTP and HFET (after conversion). As expected, fuel economy (miles per gallon) decreased with increasing ethanol content in all cases
Fuel Economy and Emissions of a Vehicle Equipped with an Aftermarket Flexible-Fuel Conversion Kit
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grants Certificates of Conformity for alternative fuel conversion systems and also offers other forms of premarket registration of conversion kits for use in vehicles more than two model years old. Use of alternative fuels such as ethanol, natural gas, and propane are encouraged by the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Several original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) produce emissions-certified vehicles capable of using alternative fuels, and several alternative fuel conversion system manufacturers produce EPA-approved conversion systems for a variety of alternative fuels and vehicle types. To date, only one manufacturer (Flex Fuel U.S.) has received EPA certifications for ethanol fuel (E85) conversion kits. This report details an independent evaluation of a vehicle with a legal installation of a Flex Fuel U.S. conversion kit. A 2006 Dodge Charger was baseline tested with ethanol-free certification gasoline (E0) and E20 (gasoline with 20 vol % ethanol), converted to flex-fuel operation via installation of a Flex Box Smart Kit from Flex Fuel U.S., and retested with E0, E20, E50, and E81. Test cycles included the Federal Test Procedure (FTP or city cycle), the highway fuel economy test (HFET), and the US06 test (aggressive driving test). Averaged test results show that the vehicle was emissions compliant on E0 in the OEM condition (before conversion) and compliant on all test fuels after conversion. Average nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions exceeded the Tier 2/Bin 5 intermediate life NO{sub X} standard with E20 fuel in the OEM condition due to two of three test results exceeding this standard [note that E20 is not a legal fuel for non-flexible-fuel vehicles (non-FFVs)]. In addition, one E0 test result before conversion and one E20 test result after conversion exceeded the NOX standard, although the average result in these two cases was below the standard. Emissions of ethanol and acetaldehyde increased with increasing ethanol, while nonmethane organic gas and CO emissions remained relatively unchanged for all fuels and cycles. Higher fraction ethanol blends appeared to decrease NO{sub X} emissions on the FTP and HFET (after conversion). As expected, fuel economy (miles per gallon) decreased with increasing ethanol content in all cases