Renewable synthetic fuels offer the opportunity to significantly reduce carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions worldwide if burned in the internal
combustion engines of existing and future passenger car fleets. To evaluate this
potential, two renewable synthetic gasoline fuels and alcohol blends that can be
produced via the methanol-to-gasoline (MtG) synthesis process are evaluated in
this study. The first synthetic gasoline, hereafter referred to as MtG, was
developed by Chemieanlagenbau Chemnitz GmbH and Technische Universität
Bergakademie Freiberg, produced within the closed carbon cycle mobility
(C3-Mobility) project, and was blended with 10%(V/V) ethanol
(MtG-E10), 20%(V/V) ethanol (MtG-E20), 15%(V/V) methanol (MtG-M15), and 15%(V/V)
2-butanol (MtG-2Bu15). The second synthetic fuel, named POSYN (POrsche SYNthetic
fuel), was developed by Porsche. The suitability of the synthetic fuels was
experimentally investigated in a spark-ignition (SI) single-cylinder research
engine with a compression ratio (CR) of 10.8 and compared with conventional
gasoline fuel with Research Octane Number 95 and 10%(V/V) ethanol (RON95 E10)
gasoline fuel. Load variations at a constant engine speed of 2500 rpm showed no
significant differences between Methanol-to-Gasoline with 10%(V/V) ethanol
(MtG-E10) and RON95 E10 in terms of both combustion performance and emissions.
Additionally, a load variation with MtG-E10 and RON95 E10 at an engine speed of
3000 rpm was performed on a commercially available BMW multi-cylinder engine
(MCE), which confirmed that both these fuels show an almost identical combustion
and emission behavior. However, the knock resistance improved with higher
alcohol fractions. Because of the favorable anti-knock properties of methanol,
Methanol-to-Gasoline with 15%(V/V) methanol (MtG-M15) showed the highest maximum
net indicated efficiency of 39.33%. This is 2% more than with
Methanol-to-Gasoline with 20%(V/V) ethanol (MtG-E20), despite the lower alcohol
volume fraction. In contrast, Methanol-to-Gasoline with 15%(V/V) 2-butanol
(MtG-2Bu15) showed no improvement. POSYN enabled a significant efficiency
advantage over RON95 E10 because of its high knock resistance, however, achieved
the same maximum engine load because of the reduced octane sensitivity. The
variation of the relative air/fuel ratio at an engine speed of 2500 rpm and an
engine load of 16 bar net indicated mean effective pressure confirmed these
findings. The highest net indicated efficiency of 42.4% was achieved with POSYN
at a relative air/fuel ratio of 1.6. The lean limit could not be increased with
the synthetic fuels and alcohol blends albeit with an improved combustion
stability.