This content is not included in
your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Potential of Light-Duty Methanol Vehicles
Annotation ability available
Sector:
Language:
English
Abstract
Possible fuel efficiency improvements of light-duty methanol engines are reviewed in comparison to gasoline engines. This comparison outlines improvements resulting from differences in fuel properties and engine configurations. Methanol engines evaluated included those with higher compression and those using lean-burn, stratified charge. Higher compression yields about a 10 percent improvement over gasoline engines. Lean-burn concepts result in 13 percent increases over gasoline engines operated stoichiometrically.
Fuel economy for the California dedicated methanol fleet is evaluated and compared to existing baseline gasoline fuel economy. Data for both carburetted and fuel-injected 1983 Ford Escorts are presented. Fuel economy for the carburetted vehicles used in a variety of fleets ranged from 20.9 to 26.0 mpg on a gasoline equivalent basis. The overall California 500-car fleet average fuel economy is 23.7 mpg which is slightly less than the adjusted EPA city fuel economy for gasoline Escorts. Average fuel economy for the methanol fuel-injected engines is 29.7 mpg on an equivalent energy basis compared to an adjusted EPA city fuel economy of 25.2 mpg. Both comparisons indicate less gains with methanol than expected based on fuel properties and higher compression.
California's experience with dedicated vehicles pointed out concerns of vehicle range and lack of fueling stations. The concept of flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) being developed by many manufacturers may be the best transition strategy for introducing methanol, but not necessarily the best strategy to maximize methanol's air quality and energy security benefits. These issues are discussed relative to different FFV concepts.
Authors
Citation
Blaisdell, T., Jackson, M., and Smith, K., "Potential of Light-Duty Methanol Vehicles," SAE Technical Paper 891667, 1989, https://doi.org/10.4271/891667.Also In
References
- Blaisdell, T. B. Jackson M. D. Moyer C. B. Unnasch S. “California's Methanol Program Evaluation Report, Volume I, Executive Summary.” CEC Report P500-86-012 November 1986
- Blaisdell, T. B. Jackson M. D. Moyer C. B. Unnasch S. “California's Methanol Program Evaluation Report, Volume II, Technical Analyses.” CEC Report P500-86-012A June 1987
- Hagen, D. L. “Methanol as a Fuel: A Review with Bibliography,” SAE Paper 770792 September 1977
- Nichols, R. J. S. Moulton, N. Sefer Ecklund E. E. “The Benefits of a Fuel/Vehicle System Based on Intermediate Methanol Blends,” Ford Motor Company. Southwest Research Institute, and U.S. Department of Energy VII International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels Technology (ISAFT) Paris October 1986
- Saito, N. Pefley R. K. “Comparative Study Between Low-and High-Compression EFI Systems for Alcohol Gasoline Blends,” University of Santa Clara May 1984
- Katoh, K. Imamura Y. Inoue T. “Development of Methanol Lean-Burn System,” SAE Paper B60247 February 1986
- Johns, R. A. “The Analysis of the Combustion of Methanol in the Lean-Burning Regime Using an Engine Combustion Model” University of Surrey June 1985
- Collins, D. Mears C. R. “An Optimized Spark Ignition Methanol Engine for Light-Duty Vehicles,” Ricardo Consulting Engineers May 1984
- Reddi, K. S. Mathur H. B. Gajendia Babu M. K. “A Comparative Study of the Combustion Characteristics of Methanol and Gasoline in a Spark Ignition Engine,” College of Engineering and Indian Institute of Technology June 1985
- “Application of Electronic Sequential Fuel Injection to the Optimum Engine for Methanol Utilization Final Report.” Ricardo Consulting Engineers July 1986
- “Better Than Diesel-MPG and Performance,” EPA Memorandum from Karl H. Hellman, Chief, CTAB, to Charles L. Gray, Jr., Director ECTD April 1987
- Chorn, K. “Fleet Status Report” Califonria Energy Commission March 17 1987
- Smith, C. S Nichols R. J. “Durability Experience of The Methanol-Fueled Escort Fleets” Ford Motor Company, VI ISAFT Ottawa, Canada May 1984
- Hellman, K. H. Murrell J. M. “Development of Adjustment Factors for the EPA City and Highway MPG Values,” SAE Paper 840496 February 1984
- Chorn, K. S. Koyama K. K. Vann, L. G. Jr. Nichols R. J. “California's Methanol Fleet,” California Energy Commission and Ford Motor Company, VIE ISAFT Paris October 1986
- Nichols, R. “Field Experience with U.S. Methanol Vehicles: Future Design Considerations,” Ford Motor Company June 1985
- Bernhardt, W. “Status Report on Volkswagen's Research and Development Efforts on Light-Duty Methanol Vehicles,” Volkswagen AG April 1987
- Gruden, D. Höchsmann G. “A Porsche Concept of a Flexible Fuel Vehicle,” Porsche AG VII SAFT October 1986
- Van der Weide, J. Ramackers M. W. A. “A Retrofittable Alcohol/Gasoline Carburetion System TNO Research Organization 1980
- Weide, J. V. D. Wireland R. J. “Vehicle Operation with Variable Methanol/Gasoline Mixtures,” TNO Research Organization and Ford Motor Company, VI ISAFT Ottawa, Canada May 1984
- Manufacturer's comments at the Three Agency Methanol Task Force Light-Duty Methanol Vehicle Workshop Los Angeles April 1987
- Burns, V. R. “A Review of Chrysler's Methanol Vehicle Programs,” Chrysler Motors April 1987
- McNutt, B. D. Ecklund E. E. “Is There a Government Role in Methanol Market Development?,” SAE Paper 861571 October 1986