Methanol as a Gasoline Extender-Fuel Economy, Emissions, and High Temperature Driveability

Wigg, Eric E.; Lunt, Robert S.

doi:10.4271/741008

Cited by 33 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Aldehydes showed a 40% increase when oxygenated fuel was used. This result is comparable to that of Wigg and Lunt (1974), who observed a 20-50% increase in aldehyde emissions on noncatalyst equipped vehicles, which was the case here. Harvey et al (1984) found that aldehydes emissions are three to four times higher when oxygenated fuels are used.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 94%

“…Hot weather conditions require lower Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) ratings of 9 or 10 psi, compared with RVP ratings of 13.5 or 15 psi in cold weather. The addition of alcohols to gasoline creates a large increase in RVP (Wigg and Lunt, 1974). A study by Naman and Allsup (1980) reported a dramatic increase of 43-50% in evaporative HC emissions associated with blended fuels.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Monitoring and Modeling the Effect of Fuel Change on Air Quality in a Typical Heavy Traffic Residential Area in Kuwait

Al-Adwani¹,

Elkilani²,

Bouhamra³

2004

Environmental Engineering Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A mobile laboratory was positioned adjacent to a heavy traffic intersection in a typical urban area in Kuwait to monitor the concentrations of vehicular atmospheric pollutants before and after switching to unleaded MTBE gasoline. Monitored NO x and O 3 emissions increased by 26.5% and 27.7%, respectively, while those of CO and HC decreased by 45.7% and 42.6%, respectively. However, evaporative emissions of some hydrocarbons, especially aldehydes, increased due to the higher volatility of the oxygenated fuel. Meteorological and traffic variables were used in estimating pollutant concentrations in the area under study using MOBILE5 and CAL3QHC software. An average normalized mean square error (NMSE) between estimated and monitored concentrations was calculated to be 0.102 for the 2 months of the study period. The effects of vehicle speed, ambient temperatures, and fuel ASTM volatility class on CO, HC, and NO x emissions were also investigated. It was found that CO and HC emissions increase as volatility increases, while NO x emissions did not depend on volatility. Ambient temperature had a similar effect. On the other hand, vehicle speed had an optimum value that minimizes CO emissions.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Monitoring and Modeling the Effect of Fuel Change on Air Quality in a Typical Heavy Traffic Residential Area in Kuwait

Al-Adwani¹,

Elkilani²,

Bouhamra³

2004

Environmental Engineering Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results of the chassis dynamometer study, when taken with the results of other investigators (11,12), lead to the following conclusions. The addition of 10% methanol to unleaded gasoline will reduce the CO emissions of recent model vehicles that are not equipped with catalytic converters by approximately 30%.…”

mentioning

confidence: 78%

Feasibility of Methanol/Gasoline Blends for Automotive Use

Johnson

Riley

1978

Evaporation—Combustion of Fuels

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A three-phase test program evaluated methanol/gasoline blends as possible automotive fuels. Octane rating of the blends demonstrated that methanol substantially increased the research octane number (RON) and had very little effect on the motor octane number (MON). Single cylinder engine tests indicated that 10% methanol/gasoline blends did not substantially alter power, emissions, or fuel economy of the engine. The vehicle portion of the test program included an ordinary spark ignition engine vehicle calibrated to meet 1974 standards and a prechamber, stratified--charge engine vehicle. HC and CO emissions were reduced using a 10% methanol blend in the 1974 calibration vehicle. Emissions and fuel economy were not substantially altered when a 10% methanol blend was tested in the stratified--charge engine vehicle. T^he use of alcohol as an internal combustion engine fuel is a conceptthat hacs been in and out of vogue since the early 1900s. These cycles of interest began in the early 1920s and seemed to peak about every 10 years until the present. Bolt (I) presents an interesting and informative discussion of these recurring efforts through the early 1960s. The incentives for these examinations of alcohols as motor fuels ranged from testing them as antiknock agents to evaluating ways to use surplus grain commodities by making ethyl alcohol.The current interest in alcohols as motor fuels is rooted in the search for alternate fuels to replace our suddenly limited petroleum-based fuels. The fact that methyl alcohol (methanol) can be produced from a variety of sources, including coal and garbage, has focused considerable attention on this material as a possible alternate fuel. The fact that the tech

show abstract

“…This paper has demonstrated the feasibility of fuelling vehicles with neat methanol. Neat methanol fuelling of vehicles appears to be more appealing than using methanol-gasoline blends (Brinkman et al, 1975;Crowley et al, 1975;Wigg and Lunt, 1974). With neat methanol but not methanol-gasoline blends, efficiency (energy-based fuel economy) was better than that with gasoline at the same & and spark timing.…”

Section: Neat Methanol Fuel-a Perspectivementioning

confidence: 98%

“…Neat methanol fuelling of vehicles appears to be more appealing than using methanol-gasoline blends (Brinkman et al, 1975;Crowley et al, 1975;Wigg and Lunt, 1974). Neat methanol fuelling of vehicles appears to be more appealing than using methanol-gasoline blends (Brinkman et al, 1975;Crowley et al, 1975;Wigg and Lunt, 1974).…”

Section: Neat Methanol Fuel-a Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Vehicle evaluation of neat methanol—compromises among exhaust emissions, fuel economy and driveability

Brinkman

1979

Int. J. Energy Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methanol was evaluated as an alternative fuel in vehicles with spark‐ignited, internal‐combustion engines. Acceptable driveability was achieved with a methanol‐fuelled car equipped with electronic fuel injection (EFI) which was modified to provide proper air‐fuel ratios for methanol. the target level for driveability was not achieved with a methanol‐fuelled carburetted car modified to provide proper air‐fuel ratios for and increased vaporization of methanol. With the EFI car, using the average equivalence ratio (Φa = 0·96) and spark timing designed for the production gasoline car, exhaust emissions and fuel economy with methanol fuelling were compared to those with gasoline. With methanol, compared with gasoline, 60 per cent lower NOx, 3·5 times higher unburned fuel emissions (UBF), and similar CO engine emissions were measured. the air pollution significance of the higher UBF emissions from methanol combustion is unknown because the UBF species (mainly methanol) are different from those from gasoline combustion. A catalytic converter decreased emissions of UBF and CO similarly for both fuels. Fuel economy with methanol—about half that of gasoline on a volume basis—was 7–10 per cent better on an energy basis than that with gasoline. With methanol fuelling, spark timing and Φa were varied from production values to obtain a more acceptable compromise among driveability, exhaust emissions and fuel economy. While fuelling with methanol at Φa = 0·96, using best power rather than production spark timing increased fuel economy 3 to 6 per cent without significantly affecting emissions and driveability. As Φa was leaned to 0·62 while maintaining best‐power spark timing engine and tailpipe (after converter) CO emissions decreased, engine UBF emissions increased, NOx and tailpipe UBF emissions were not greatly affected, and driveability deteriorated. With best‐power spark timing and the Φa for maximum economy (0·83), driveability was acceptable, and CO and NOx emissions met the 1977 standards. At Φa = 0·83, NOx emissions were reduced below the statutory standard (0·4 g/mile) by retarding spark timing; however, driveability and fuel economy deteriorated. Although the feasibility and benefits of operating vehicles with neat methanol have been demonstrated, not all problems of methanol fuelling (for example, cold start) were addressed. In addition, other alternatives such as obtaining hydrocarbon liquids from coal or using methanol as fuel for stationary powerplants must also be considered to obtain the most efficient utilization of energy resources.

show abstract

Methanol as a Gasoline Extender-Fuel Economy, Emissions, and High Temperature Driveability

Cited by 33 publications

References 5 publications

Monitoring and Modeling the Effect of Fuel Change on Air Quality in a Typical Heavy Traffic Residential Area in Kuwait

Monitoring and Modeling the Effect of Fuel Change on Air Quality in a Typical Heavy Traffic Residential Area in Kuwait

Feasibility of Methanol/Gasoline Blends for Automotive Use

Vehicle evaluation of neat methanol—compromises among exhaust emissions, fuel economy and driveability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About