SIST-TP CEN/TR 16569:2013
(Main)Automotive fuels - Assessing the effects of E10 petrol on vehicle emissions and performance
Automotive fuels - Assessing the effects of E10 petrol on vehicle emissions and performance
This Technical Report describes a study executed to evaluate the performance of representative vehicles of current and recent production when operating on petrol fuels containing up to 10 % (V/V) ethanol. Vehicle performance evaluations included regulated and evaporative emissions as well as hot and cold weather driveability. The testing procedures used in each of the three main vehicle studies were adapted to the requirements of the testing facilities. The studies were designed to demonstrate whether a relaxation in the E70max, E100max, and VLI limits in EN 228 would introduce unacceptable vehicle driveability or regulated emissions performance problems. The results were used to advise CEN/TC 19/WG 21 on the revision of the EN 228 petrol specification [1]. A procedure for future revision of EN 228 (see Annex A) was also developed.
Kraftstoffe für Kraftfahrzeuge - Beurteilung der Auswirkung von E10-Kraftstoff auf Kraftfahrzeugemission und -leistung
Carburants pour automobiles - Evaluation des effets de l'essence E10 sur les émissions de véhicules et leurs performances
Goriva za motorna vozila - Ocena vpliva bencina E10 na emisije in delovanje vozila
V tem tehničnem poročilu je opis študije z oceno delovanja tipičnih vozil iz trenutne in nedavne proizvodnje pri uporabi motornega bencina z deležem etanola do 10 % (v/v). Ocene delovanja vozil vključujejo regulirane emisije in izhlapine ter obnašanje vozila v vožnji v vročem ali mrzlem vremenu. Postopki preskušanja, uporabljeni v vsaki od treh glavnih študij vozil, so bili prilagojeni zahtevam preskusnih prostorov. Namen študij je bilo pokazati, ali bi sprostitev meja za E70max, E100max in VLI v standardu EN 228 pomenila nesprejemljivo obnašanje vozila v vožnji ali težave na področju reguliranih emisij. Rezultati so bili uporabljeni v CEN/TC 19/WG 21 pri reviziji specifikacije goriva EN 228 [1]. Oblikovan je bil tudi postopek za nadaljnjo revizijo EN 228 (glejte Dodatek A.
General Information
Standards Content (Sample)
SLOVENSKI STANDARD
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16569:2013
01-september-2013
Goriva za motorna vozila - Ocena vpliva bencina E10 na emisije in delovanje vozila
Automotive fuels - Assessing the effects of E10 petrol on vehicle emissions and
performance
Kraftstoffe für Kraftfahrzeuge - Beurteilung der Auswirkung von E10-Kraftstoff auf
Kraftfahrzeugemission und -leistung
Carburants pour automobiles - Evaluation des effets de l'essence E10 sur les émissions
de véhicules et leurs performances
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: CEN/TR 16569:2013
ICS:
75.160.20 7HNRþDJRULYD Liquid fuels
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16569:2013 en
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.
---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16569:2013
---------------------- Page: 2 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16569:2013
TECHNICAL REPORT
CEN/TR 16569
RAPPORT TECHNIQUE
TECHNISCHER BERICHT
June 2013
ICS 75.160.20
English Version
Automotive fuels - Assessing the effects of E10 petrol on vehicle
emissions and performance
Carburants pour automobiles - Evaluation des effets de Kraftstoffe für Kraftfahrzeuge - Beurteilung der Auswirkung
l'essence E10 sur les émissions de véhicules et leurs von E10-Kraftstoff auf Kraftfahrzeugemission und -leistung
performances
This Technical Report was approved by CEN on 17 May 2013. It has been drawn up by the Technical Committee CEN/TC 19.
CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and United
Kingdom.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION
EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG
Management Centre: Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels
© 2013 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. CEN/TR 16569:2013: E
worldwide for CEN national Members.
---------------------- Page: 3 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16569:2013
CEN/TR 16569:2013 (E)
Contents page
Foreword . 3
1 Scope . 4
2 Background . 4
3 Fuel selection . 5
4 CONCAWE vehicle study - High-level summary of results . 6
5 OEM vehicle studies - high-level summary of results . 8
6 Applus IDIADA vehicle study . 10
6.1 Study background . 10
6.2 Vehicle selection and preparation . 10
6.3 High-level summary of results . 11
7 Revision of petrol volatility requirements in EN 228. 12
8 Monitoring vehicle performance in the field . 13
8.1 Introduction . 13
8.2 Monitor marketplace fuel properties and vehicle performance: . 14
8.3 Implement immediate remedies through Member State actions: . 14
8.4 Revise the EN 228 specification through a CEN/TC 19 amendment: . 15
8.5 Conduct joint research to anticipate future fuel-related problems . 15
9 Glossary . 16
Annex A (informative) Procedure for EN 228 revision. 17
Annex B (informative) Summary of OEM test programs - EN 228 high volatility robustness . 20
Bibliography . 24
2
---------------------- Page: 4 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16569:2013
CEN/TR 16569:2013 (E)
Foreword
This document (CEN/TR 16569:2013) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 19 “Gaseous and
liquid fuels, lubricants and related products of petroleum, synthetic and biological origin”, the secretariat of which is
held by NEN.
3
---------------------- Page: 5 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16569:2013
CEN/TR 16569:2013 (E)
1 Scope
This Technical Report describes a study executed to evaluate the performance of representative vehicles of current
and recent production when operating on petrol fuels containing up to 10 % (V/V) ethanol. Vehicle performance
evaluations included regulated and evaporative emissions as well as hot and cold weather driveability. The testing
procedures used in each of the three main vehicle studies were adapted to the requirements of the testing facilities.
The studies were designed to demonstrate whether a relaxation in the E70 , E100 , and VLI limits in EN 228
max max
would introduce unacceptable vehicle driveability or regulated emissions performance problems. The results were
used to advise CEN/TC 19/WG 21 on the revision of the EN 228 petrol specification [1]. A procedure for future
revision of EN 228 (see Annex A) was also developed.
2 Background
The former European EN 228 specification [1] included volatility requirements for unleaded petrol in order to ensure
good performance of vehicles in real world driving conditions. These requirements were put in place following
extensive technical studies in the 1990’s at a time when vehicles were more sensitive to volatility than they are
today and when blending of oxygenates, like ethanol, was not widespread. Different petrol volatility classes are
included in the EN 228 specification that depend on climatic conditions. Minimum and maximum volatility limits for
summer and winter petrols are included as well as additional limits for spring and autumn seasonal transitions.
Since these volatility requirements were put in place, the use of oxygenate blending components, such as ethanol
and ethers, has increased, in response to the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED, 2009/28/EC [3]). This
Directive requires Member States to use at least 10 % renewable energy in transport fuels by 2020. Although
biogas, renewable electricity, and other energy types are encouraged, only conventional and some advanced bio-
blending components are likely to be available in sufficient volumes by 2020 to meet the mandate. The major bio-
derived blending components until 2020 are likely to be bio-ethanol produced from sugar fermentation, ethers
manufactured from bio-ethanol or bio-methanol, and esters and hydrocarbons produced from vegetable oils and
animal fats.
Blending ethanol into gasoline at low concentrations alters the volatility characteristics of the resulting blend and
the fuel refining and blending process shall account for this effect. In addition to increasing the vapour pressure of
the ethanol/petrol blend, ethanol also changes the shape of the blend’s distillation curve. This has the potential to
impact the vehicle’s regulated emissions and driveability performance in cold and hot weather. Furthermore, any
change in the blend’s distillation characteristics due to ethanol addition must be compensated in the refinery by
changing the composition of the hydrocarbon-only petrol mixture into which the ethanol is ultimately blended.
Following the publication of the EU Fuels Quality Directive (FQD, 2009/30/EC [3]), CEN/TC 19 reviewed the
European EN 228 unleaded petrol specification in order to enable the higher ethanol blending envisioned by the
FQD from 5 % (V/V) up to 10 % (V/V). As input to this review, CEN/TC 19 Working Group 21 (WG 21) reviewed a
1 2
2009 study of published literature [4] on the effect of blending up to 20 % (V/V) ethanol on E70 and E100
volatility parameters, as well as on hot and cold weather vehicle driveability performance. This literature review was
completed to better understand the observed effects on the petrol distillation curve due to the addition of higher
levels of ethanol to petrol [5].
Any changes to CEN specifications for fuel parameters beyond those required by EU legislation should be based
on the best-available technical data and shall not impact the performance of the vehicle fleet. Based on its review
of the existing literature, WG 21 concluded that additional vehicle studies were warranted in order to assess the
effects of 10 % (V/V) ethanol in petrol on current and future engines (Euro 5 and 6), especially with respect to
vehicle regulated and evaporative emissions, CO , and hot and cold weather driveability performance.
2
Summer and winter grade petrols containing 10 % (V/V) ethanol were specially blended for this study that had
volatility specifications at today’s EN 228 maximum limits and at higher limits consistent with CONCAWE’s volatility
relaxation proposal. The vapour pressures (measured as Dry Vapour Pressure Equivalent (DVPE)) targeted
summer grade petrols with a maximum 60 kPa DVPE and winter grade petrols with a maximum 100 kPa DVPE.
The DVPE of the test fuel was selected to be consistent with the type of vehicle test that was completed.
1
The percentage of a petrol sample that evaporates at 70 °C
2
The percentage of a petrol sample that evaporates at 100 °C
4
---------------------- Page: 6 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16569:2013
CEN/TR 16569:2013 (E)
In order to give sufficient technical input on behalf of CEN/TC 19 WG 21 members, a Volatility Task Force (VTF)
was established in December 2010. Experts were nominated from WG 21 stakeholders and primarily from ACEA
and CONCAWE, under the leadership of the WG 21 Chair and NEN Secretary.
The VTF met for the first time on 21 February 2011 and in total 21 meetings or web-conferences were held. Eight
reports to WG 21 were issued and three presentations were given at WG 21 meetings.
3 Fuel selection
The VTF agreed to use a common set of specially blended test fuels to test the effect of the proposed relaxation in
the volatility limits. The test fuels were based on early indications by CONCAWE on what qualities (mainly
regarding volatility parameters) could be expected in the future when more refineries are supplying E10 fuels.
Other options are also considered for the blending of E10 petrol, i.e. ETBE up to the 3,7% (m/m) oxygen content
limit and ETBE + E5 blends up to the 3,7 % (m/m) oxygen content limit. The fuel matrix covered summer (class A)
and winter (class E1) petrols as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 — Targets and measured values for test fuels
Baseline Fuels
Summer (Class A) Winter (Class E1)
CEC RF-02-08
(Condition and pretest fuel)
Target values: Measured values:
60 kPa DVPE 58,7 kPa DVPE
max
4,7 % (V/V) Ethanol
5 % (V/V) Ethanol
37,0 % E70
E70 mid-range
53,5 % E100
E100 mid-range
Baseline E10-A Baseline E10-E
Target values: Measured values: Target values: Measured values:
60 kPa DVPE 57,1 kPa DVPE 95 kPa DVPE 97,0 kPa DVPE
max
10 % (V/V) Ethanol 9,7 % (V/V) Ethanol 10 % (V/V) Ethanol 9,5 % (V/V) Ethanol
Class A Class E 51,9 % E70
48 % E70 49,7 % E70 50 % E70
max max
71 % E100 Class A 68,4 % E100 71 % E100 Class E 67,1 % E100
max max
918,9 VLI 1333,3 VLI
Relaxed Volatility Fuels
Summer (Class A) Winter (Class E1)
Step 1 E10-A Step 1 E10-E
Target values: Measured values: Target values: Measured values:
60 kPa DVPEmax 58,7 kPa DVPE 95 kPa DVPE 93,2 kPa DVPE
10 % (V/V) Ethanol 9,5 % (V/V) Ethanol 10 % (V/V) Ethanol 9,5 % (V/V) Ethanol
52 % E70 (max+4 %) 52,9 % (V/V) E70 54 % E70 (max+4 %) 54,9 % E70
73 % E100 (max+2 %) 73,2 % (V/V) E100 73 % E100 (max+2 %) 70,9 % E100
957,3 VLI 1316,3 VLI
Step 2 E10-A Step 2 E10-E
Target values: Measured values: Target values: Measured values:
60 kPa DVPEmax 61,0 kPa DVPE 95 kPa DVPE 94,1 kPa DVPE
10 % (V/V) Ethanol 9,4 % (V/V) Ethanol 10 % (V/V) Ethanol 9,4 % (V/V) Ethanol
58 % E70 (max+10 %) 59,4 % (V/V) E70 60 % E70 (max+10 %) 60,6 % E70
75 % E100 (max+4 %) 75,7 % (V/V) E100 75 % E100 (max+4 %) 73,9 % E100
1025,8 VLI 1365,2 VLI
5
---------------------- Page: 7 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16569:2013
CEN/TR 16569:2013 (E)
4 CONCAWE vehicle study - High-level summary of results
CONCAWE tested six vehicles to investigate the impact of changes in the volatility characteristics of unleaded
gasoline containing 10 % (V/V) ethanol on regulated exhaust and evaporative emissions and on hot and cold
weather vehicle driveability performance. The vehicles selected for this study were representative of the current EU
fleet, met or exceeded Euro 4 emissions limits, spanned the range from upper medium to small vehicle classes,
were compatible with 10 % (V/V) ethanol according to the manufacturer’s warranty information, and included two
modern gasoline DISI engine types.
Table 2 — Characteristics of vehicles evaluated in the CONCAWE study
1 2 3 4 5 6
Vehicle No.
Upper Medium Medium Small Lower Medium Mini Small
Vehicle Class
M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 M1
Category
Euro 4 Euro 5 Euro 4 Euro 4 Euro 4 Euro 4
Emissions Homologation
Engine Displacement 2.5 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.0 1.25
(litres)
140 118 57 80.5 50 60
Max. Power (kW)
1590 1470 1130 1360 910 1020
Inertia Class (kg)
6 4 4 4 3 4
Cylinder
24 16 8 16 12 16
Valves
Natural Turbo Natural Natural Natural Natural
Aspiration
Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous
Combustion Type
stoichiometric stoichiometric stoichiometric stoichiometric stoichiometric stoichiometric
Sequential Sequential Sequential Sequential
Direct Injection Direct Injection
Injection System Fuel Injection Fuel Injection Fuel Injection Fuel Injection
Three-way Three-way Three-way Three-way Three-way Three-way
After-treatment device
Catalyst Catalyst Catalyst Catalyst Catalyst Catalyst
Rear Front Front Front Front Front
Rear or Front Wheel Drive
Manual Manual
Manual Manual Manual Manual
Transmission 5-speed 6-speed 5-speed 5-speed
6-speed 6-speed
Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Drive by wire?
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Traction control?
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
E10 Compatible?
15/06/2007 04/06/2009 29/09/2007 29/09/2009 23/07/2008 28/01/2010
Registration Date
Mileage at start of test 23,354 8,890 21,496 14,934 13,704 15,607
(miles)
Vehicle testing included regulated emissions measured over the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) at +23 °C
and -7 °C, evaporative emissions according to the European regulatory procedure, cold engine starting and idling
at -20 °C, and Hot Weather Driveability performance at +40 °C.
6
---------------------- Page: 8 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16569:2013
CEN/TR 16569:2013 (E)
CONCAWE’s conclusions from this study [6] were:
• All vehicles satisfactorily completed all required driving cycles on all fuels with no false starts, no misfires, no
stalls, no failures, and no OBD faults.
• Impacts of fuel volatility on emissions and performance were small relative to vehicle-to-vehicle effects.
• No major differences were observed in the fleet-average HC and NOx emissions between the Baseline E10-A
and Step 2 E10-A fuels for NEDC regulated emissions at +23 °C. The fleet-average CO emissions were 36 %
higher on the more volatile Step 2 fuel but were still well below the Euro 4/5 limits for this test.
• No major differences were observed between the Baseline E10 and Step 2 E10 fuels for fleet-average NEDC
regulated emissions at -7 °C and for HWD performance at +40 °C.
• Cold operation at -20 °C and -7 °C:
− Overall conclusions:
> The measurement of lambda at these cold conditions was critical to understanding the in-cylinder
conditions and the resulting impacts on emissions. The following conclusions apply particularly to the -
20 °C results and to a limited extent the -7 °C results.
The exhaust UEGO sensor data indicated that the Step 2 E10-E fuel gave slightly richer lambda
during the initial warm-up period. These results were not supported, however, by direct
measurements of fuel and air flow, which suggested that there was no difference in AFR between
the fuels.
The reason for these apparently conflicting results is not clear, but it is possible that the UEGO
sensor responded to differences in exhaust composition between the two fuels rather than to a
change in overall AFR. Alternatively, the lower volatility of the Baseline E10-E fuel may result in
some fuel being retained on the cylinder wall during the initial cold engine conditions. If this were
the case, then this fraction of fuel would not participate in the combustion process and would not
appear in the exhaust gas.
Although conditions in the combustion chamber could not be directly measured, it can be expected
that the more volatile Step 2 E10-E fuel should give better evaporation and mixing even in a cold
combustion chamber. It is not clear whether the overall effects of this are beneficial or detrimental.
− Cold starting and Idling at -20 °C:
> The tests comparing the Baseline E10-E fuel with the Step 2 E10-E fuel, having a difference in E70 of
8,7 %, showed:
All vehicles started easily (<1,6 s) and satisfactorily completed the 1180s test. Idle speeds were
stable and consistent throughout and showed no differences between the fuels, although there
were differences between vehicles in terms of fuel consumption, emissions, and time to reach
lambda control.
Compared to the Baseline E10-E fuel, the more volatile Step 2 E10-E fuel produced more CO, less
CO , and slightly lower levels of unburned HCs in the exhaust.
2
Limited tests comparing the Step 1 E10-E fuel with the Baseline E10-E fuel, which differed in E70
by 3 %, showed very similar emissions and starting performance.
• ECE regulated emissions at -7 °C:
− The tests comparing the Baseline E10-E fuel with the Step 2 E10-E fuel, having a difference in E70 of
8,7 %, showed:
> CO and HC emissions on all fuels were well below the ECE regulated limits.
> Higher fleet-average CO emissions were measured on the Step 2 E10-E fuel although the effect was
dominated by one DISI vehicle (Vehicle 2).
• Evaporative Emissions
− Hot Soak Loss (HSL) emissions were low for all tests and fuels and the evaporative emissions results were
dominated by diurnal emissions.
7
---------------------- Page: 9 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16569:2013
CEN/TR 16569:2013 (E)
− Three of the vehicles met the 2 g/test emission limit in all tests, but the other three vehicles consistently
exceeded this limit, by up to 100 %.
− Substantial differences were found between repeat tests on the same fuel, so the data were not adequate
to carry out statistical analysis. However, there were no clear differences in emissions for any of the
vehicles between the Baseline E10-A and Step 2 E10-A fuels.
− Additional diurnal tests with extra carbon canisters connected to the vehicle canister vents showed that the
diurnal emissions were not due to canister breakthrough, but from other sources, possibly including
permeation through fuel system materials.
• Hot Weather Driveability (HWD) at +40 °C:
− No overall increase in demerits was observed with the Step 2 E10-A fuel compared to the Baseline E10-A
fuel for hesitations, stumbles and surges and for idle instability. For these demerit types 5 of 6 vehicles
showed lower demerits on the Step 2 E10-A fuel, and one vehicle showed similar demerits on both fuels.
− The two smaller vehicles showed higher demerits due to idle instability during Sequence 6 (heavy city
traffic driving). This was due to greater idle speed variation than expected after throttle opening and
closing.
− Total demerits were higher than expected for all fuels when acceleration demerits were included, but these
are believed to be due to the Engine Management System not allowing full throttle when demanded by the
driver.
Overall, CONCAWE concluded that the results of this six-vehicle testing supported the conclusion from previously
published studies that a small relaxation in the E70 and E100 volatility parameters in the EN 228 gasoline
max max
specification would not be expected to increase the risk of regulated emissions or vehicle driveability performance
problems. The majority of the tests completed in this study compared results between ‘Baseline’ and ‘Step 2’
gasolines, in order to provide greater confidence that the performance of ‘Step 1’ gasolines would also be
acceptable in real-world use. This conclusion applied to the current fleet of European gasoline vehicles as
represented by the six E10-compatible vehicles selected for this study.
5 OEM vehicle studies - high-level summary of results
In order to help evaluate the changes to E70 , E70 and E100 that were proposed by CONCAWE, four
min max max
vehicle manufacturers undertook and funded individual test programs on a range of representative vehicles and
fuels (see Annex B for details of the various tests and the fuels evaluated). The results of the tests are summarised
in Table 3.
The results were discussed in the VTF in order that all stakeholders were able to review and question the results.
Some of the 4 vehicle manufacturers also had additional discussions with representatives of oil companies where
they have a working relationship.
The results on these new fuel formulations clearly showed that, under certain tests, fuel-related effects were
observed at a level that the specific vehicle manufacturer categorised as being a concern when compared against
vehicle sign-off criteria and also based on expert engineering judgement.
The vehicles tested were signed-off for production under the strictest engineering conditions using fuel formulations
know at the time of sign-off. The tests demonstrated that there would be a risk that customers would experience
problems using such ‘new fuels’ that are outside the validation area for the vehicles.
The vehicle manufacturers cannot accept any risk that their customers would experience problems using ‘new
fuels’ that have not been evaluated in all the development and testing programs that are necessary to sign-off of
new vehicles. Any complaints of poor vehicle operation would come directly to the vehicle manufacturers and their
dealers and the vehicle manufacturers cannot accept this burden.
8
---------------------- Page: 10 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16569:2013
CEN/TR 16569:2013 (E)
Table 3 — OEM study results
Summer Fuels Renault PSA Ford Mercedes-Benz
NEDC (+23 °C) No Data ↑ CO Step 1 No Data Step 2
NEDC (-7 °C) No Data No Data No Data Step 2
Cold Start (-20 °C) Step 1 Step 1 lambda No Data Step 2 (at -25 °C)
HWD (+40 °C) Step 1 No Data No Data Step 2 vapor lock
Evaporative
Step 1 No Data No Data Step 2
Emissions
Winter Fuels
Step 2 CO above
NEDC (+23 °C) No Data ↑ CO Step 1 Step 2
limit
NEDC (-7 °C) No Data No Data Step 2 Step 2
Step 1 (at 0 °C),
Cold Start (-7 °C) lambda leaner, No Data Step 2 ↑Misfire No Data
engine speed
Step 1
Cold Start (-20 °C) lambda leaner, Step 1 lambda Step 2 Step 2 (at -25C)
potential for stalling
Step 1 (at 30 °C) Step 2 vapor lock
HWD (+40 °C)
No Data Step 2
lack of richness and odour
Evaporative
Step 1 No Data No Data Step 2 slightly ↑
Emissions
Colour Codes:
Green: no significant effects were observed;
Yellow: some effects were observed;
Red: effects were observed that the data originator categorized as a concern or a fail based on their engineering judgment and vehicle sign-off
criteria.
In summary:
• Mercedes-Benz declared that the evaluated fuels were not accepted for their vehicles.
• Ford declared that the evaluated fuels were not accepted for their vehicles.
• PSA Peugeot Citroën declared that the evaluated fuels were not accepted for their vehicles.
• Renault declared that the evaluated fuels were not accepted for their vehicles.
In addition, vehicle manufacturers declared the results of these limited tests cannot be extrapolated to the whole
vehicle fleet, current or planned.
The results of the test conducted by the four vehicle manufacturers were provided to WG 21 in document
CEN/TC 19/WG 21/N 255 [7].
9
---------------------- Page: 11 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16569:2013
CEN/TR 16569:2013 (E)
6 Applus IDIADA vehicle study
6.1 Study background
A third study was designed to conduct targeted testing on high-mileage passenger cars. To complete and fund this
th
study, NEN developed a project proposal based on a tender call from the European Commission under the 7
Framework Partnership Programme. Following an analysis of the tender bids, the vehicle study was contracted to
Applus IDIADA in Spain. The Volatility Task Force managed the project on behalf of NEN through regular
teleconferences and email exchanges.
Based on IDIADA’s offer, the available budget from the EC, and the preliminary results from the other two test
programmes, the VTF decided to limit the number of tests and fuels for this study on used vehicles. Many of the
same fuels that were tested in the other two studies were shipped by CONCAWE to the testing facility. IDIADA
supplemented with CEC reference fuel from their own supply.
The fuels tested by IDIADA were:
Test type Fuel type
Evaporative emissions Gasoline Euro 4 E10-A Baseline E10-A Step 1 E10-A Step 2
Exhaust emissions @ ambient temp. Gasoline Euro 4 E10-A Baseline E10-A Step 1 E10-A Step 2
o
Exhaust emissions @ -7 C Gasoline Euro 4 E10-A Baseline E10-A Step 1 E10-A Step 2
o
Hot start and drive @ +40 C CEC RF-02-08 E10-A Baseline E10-A Step 1 E10-A Step 2
o
Cold start plus idle @ -20 C E5-E Market Fuel E10-E Baseline E10-E Step 1 E10-E Step 2
Vehicle tests similar to those conducted in the other two studies were carried out to assess cold and hot fuel
handling and vehicle driveability effects as well as evaporative emissions. The following tests were carried out:
Coastdown tests,
Exhaust emission test Type I according to the Euro 4 Regulation,
Evaporative emission test Type IV according to the Euro 4 Regulation,
o
Exhaust emission test Type VI at -7 C according to the Euro 4 Regulation,
o
Cold engine starting and idling test at -20 C, and
o
Hot weather driveability test at +40 C.
The test procedures were largely based on regular (standard) test procedures as defined in EU Regulations with
limited adaptations in order to optimize the correlation with actual driveability performance. Alternative procedures
were discussed by the VTF and it was agreed in the end to stay in line with the procedures used in the CONCAWE
study as much as possible in order to improve the comparison of results. These procedures and results did not
compare exactly with the parallel ACEA programme, but the OEM representatives to the VTF indicated they might
derive conclusions from the results. Exhaust tests were performed at ambient and cold temperature starting along
with additional OBD monitoring.
6.2 Vehicle selection and preparation
In cooperation with IDIADA, four used passenger cars were sourced for this study in order to provide an indication
on the impact of the gasoline volatility proposal on vehicle performance. The intention was that each vehicle would
represent a worst-case scenario based on the type of engine and its presumed sensitivity to gasoline volatility. The
four cars selected for this study are shown in Table 4.
10
---------------------- Page: 12 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 16569:2013
CEN/TR 16569:2013 (E)
Table 4 — Characteristics of vehicles evaluated in the Applus IDIADA study
Vehicle No. 1 2 3 4
Vehicle Make and Model OPEL ZAFIRA OPC VW GOLF VW TOURAN OPEL CORSA
Vehicle Class Upper Medium Medium Upper Medium Small
Category M1 M1 M1 M1
Emission Standard (homologation) Euro 4 Euro 4 Euro 4 Euro 4
Engine Displacement
2.0 1.4 1.6 1.2
(litres)
Max. Power (kW) 177 90 75 59
Inertia Class (kg) 1717 1406 1590 1249
Cylinder 4 4 4 4
Valves 16 16 8 16
Aspiration Turbo Turbo Natural Natural
Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous
Combustion Type
stoichiometric stoichiometric stoichiometric stoichiometric
Injection System Sequential Injection Direct Injection Sequential Injection Sequential Injection
After-treatment device Three-Way Catalyst Three-Way Catalyst
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.