SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES

2002-01-2877

Testing of the Toyota Avensis DPNR at U.S. EPA-NVFEL
Joseph McDonald and Byron Bunker
U.S. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality
Powertrain and Fluid Systems Conference & Exposition San Diego, California, USA October 21-24, 2002
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department. Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department. To request permission to reprint a technical papers or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.
All SAE papers, standards, and selected books are abstracted and indexed in the Global Mobility Database
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group. Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

ABSTRACT
An advanced prototype of the Toyota Avensis light-duty diesel vehicle equipped with a version of Toyotas DPNR exhaust emission control system was tested at the U.S. EPA NVFEL facility. The vehicle is under development by Toyota Motor Corporation for introduction in Europe. While this particular model is not anticipated to be offered for sale in the U.S., EPA evaluated the vehicle to gauge the current state of light-duty diesel vehicle technology. The vehicle was tested using a low sulfur (6 ppm) diesel fuel with a cetane number that was improved to near typical European levels (~50 cetane). Emission levels over the FTP75 consistent with U.S. Federal Light-Duty Tier 2 emission standards were achieved at levels of fuel economy that are competitive with current light-duty diesel passenger vehicles offered for sale in the U.S. The vehicle was tested with relatively low accumulated mileage. Further testing at 50,000-120,000 accumulated miles will be necessary to determine the long-term durability of the emission control system.
This vehicle is not intended for sale in the U.S., and has not been specifically developed to meet current or future U.S. vehicle emission standards.

TEST PROCEDURES

VEHICLE DESCRIPTION The vehicle tested was a new version of the Toyota Avensis mid-size light-duty passenger vehicle marketed by Toyota in Europe. Major vehicle specifications are summarized in Table 1. The vehicle is equipped with a turbocharged, direct-injection diesel engine. The new Toyota Avensis diesel engine uses an electronically controlled high-pressure common-rail fuel system, highpressure-loop electronically controlled EGR, and an electronically controlled intake throttle. Under some light-load conditions, the engine operates using a smokeless low-temperature combustion mode developed by Toyota Motor Corporation1. The Toyota Avensis was also equipped with Toyotas Diesel Particulate NOx Reduction (DPNR) system2. This system incorporates a NOx adsorber catalyst and a catalyzed diesel particulate filter within a single catalyzed wall-flow monolith. Toyota has previously demonstrated NOx and PM emissions reductions of greater than 80% for this type of exhaust emission control system. The vehicle was also equipped with a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) for additional control of hydrocarbon and CO emissions. The vehicle provided by Toyota was a pre-production engineering prototype with relatively low accumulated mileage. As such, emissions performance should be considered to be for a relatively unaged catalyst and emission control system. The vehicle tested is similar to the 60 vehicles that will participate in an 18-month monitoring program in Europe during 2002-20033.

INTRODUCTION

The Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is currently evaluating progress in the development and application of NOx exhaust emission control systems for heavy-duty diesel trucks, buses, and light-duty diesel vehicles. This evaluation will gauge progress towards meeting new U.S. Federal Heavy-duty Engine emissions standards for heavy-duty buses and trucks that will phase-in beginning with model year 2007. It will also provide information to EPA on progress being made to introduce clean, fuel-efficient diesel technology that can be certified to meet the new U.S. Federal Light-duty Tier 2 emission standards that will phase-in for passenger vehicles between the 2004 and 2007 model years. This report summarizes testing conducted on a mid-size lightduty diesel passenger vehicle incorporating recently developed technology to control NOx and PM emissions to very low levels. The vehicle was provided by Toyota Motor Corporation. The Toyota Avensis Diesel is currently under development for the European market with a target of having lower emissions than the European Stage IV emission levels.
Table 1: Summary of major vehicle specifications. Manufacturer/Model: Vehicle Type: Interior Passenger and Cargo Volume: Power Transmission: Prototype Toyota Avensis DPNR Small station wagon
TEST FUEL The fuel used for all testing was Phillips Chemical Company Lot 1APULD02. This fuel was similar to that specified by the U.S. Department of Energys Diesel Emission Control-Sulfur Effects (DECSE) program to have properties comparable to todays on-highway fuel with the exception of very low sulfur content. The engine was originally calibrated for use with diesel fuels available in Western Europe. Approximately 0.1% by mass of a common cetane additive (Ethyl Corporation, HiTEC 4103 Cetane Improver) was added to the fuel. The cetane additive (chiefly 2-ethylhexyl nitrate) was added to raise cetane number from 43 to 50 in order to provide compression ignition properties closer to that of fuels for which the engine was originally calibrated. The properties of the fuel used are summarized in Table 2. TEST CYCLES Examples of the driving traces used for chassis dynamometer testing are presented in the appendix. The vehicle was tested using the full range of chassis dynamometer test cycles required for Tier 2 certification. This included the FTP75, US06, SC03, and highway fuel economy driving cycles. The environmental conditions of the SCO3 test were simulated using a modified version of the AC2 test procedure4. The modifications to the AC2 procedure included operation at ambient conditions of 35 C 1 C with the vehicle windows down and the air-conditioner at its lowest temperature setting. The vehicle was also tested using the New York City Cycle to simulate operation in heavily congested urban areas. FACILIITIES Testing was conducted at the U.S. EPA National Vehicle and Fuel Emission Laboratory (NVFEL) in Ann Arbor, MI USA. The vehicle was tested using a 48-diameter single-roll, electric chassis dynamometer. A summary of track and dynamometer coast-down data, including the derived dynamometer coefficients, is included in the Appendix. Vehicle exhaust was diluted using a full-flow, low-particle-loss dilution system developed by EPA. A description of the features of this system is included in the appendix. A PHILCO CFV-CVS was used for flow control of the dilute exhaust, and was operated at a nominal flow-rate of 750 scfm. Table 3 contains a summary of the exhaust gas analytical equipment used.

3.62 m3 Front-drive, 5-speed manual transmission Engine: 2.0 L, 4-cyl. Turbocharged, charge-air-cooled DI Diesel w/DOHC and 4 valves/cyl. Power/Torque Rating: 81 kW @ 4000 rpm 250 Nm @ 2000 rpm Fuel System: Denso HPCR Emission Control Systems: DPNR system, cooled EGR, Catalyst Volume: DPNR: 2.8 L DOC: 2.0 L Inertia Weight (as tested): 1590 kg
Table 2: Summary of fuel properties.
Test Method Net Heat of Combustion, ASTM D3338-92 (MJ/kg) 3 Density @ 15.5 C (g/cm ) Cetane Number Cetane Index Olefins, FIA D1319-93 (% Vol.) Aromatics, D1319-93 (% Vol.) Sulfur, ASTM D2622 (ppm mass) Carbon, ASTM D3343-95 (% mass) Distillation Properties, ASTM D86 IBP (C): 10 % (C): 50 % (C): 90 % (C): End Point (C): Residue Diesel (%): Recovery:
Results 43.11 0.891 50.2 51.7 2.7 27.0.8654
347 1.0 99.9% Note: Fuel additive (2-ethyl-hexyl-nitrate) used to raise cetane number from ~43 to ~50. Table 3: Exhaust gas analyzers. Bag-sample Dilute Gas Analyzers
Horiba AIA-23 NDIR Horiba AIA-23 NDIR Beckman 400 FID Beckman 951A CLD

Species

CO CO2 NOx THC NOx
Continuos Dilute Gas Analyzers
Horiba FIA-220 HFID Rosemount 955 HCLD

RESULTS

Emissions and fuel economy results are summarized in Table 4. PM emissions over the FTP75 drive cycle were at approximately one-half of the Tier 2 standards for certification bins 2 through 6. The NOx and NMHC emissions were at or just under the Tier 2 bin 5 50,000 mile FTP emission standards. Approximately 75% of the emissions during phase-1 of the FTP75 were from the second of the five accelerations following the cold-start (figure 1). Immediately after the second acceleration, minimal additional NOx was accumulated over phase-1. NOx emissions over phase-2 of the FTP75 were essentially zero. During phase-3 of the FTP75, the accumulated mass of NOx emissions was only ~10% of the mass accumulated over phase-1. As with phase-1, a majority of the NOx emissions accumulated over phase-3 of the FTP75 were associated with the second acceleration following the hot-start. NOx accumulated as a series of break-through events that occurred primarily over the first half of the US06 (figure 2). NOx emissions were at or below background levels over the SC03, HWFET, and NYCC drive cycles. NMHC emissions were roughly comparable over phase1 and phase-3 of the FTP75 test. Emission levels of NMHC for the hot-stabilized (phase 2) portion of the FTP were approximately half that of phases 1 and 3. Hydrocarbon mass-emissions appeared to accumulate at near-constant rates over each phase of the FTP75 (figure 1) and over the over the US06 (figure 2), SC03, and HWFET drive cycles. It is possible that NMHCcontrol with this vehicle would benefit from additional oxidation catalyst volume or activity. The measured mass emissions from the continuous heated FID measurement had coefficients of variance of approximately 20 to 50% over the range of drive cycles. This was likely due to the very low level of measured NMHC emission. Additional testing using more sensitive HFID instrumentation would be necessary to draw further conclusions with respect to NMHC emissions from this vehicle at such low emission levels. NOx and HC emissions from the Toyota Avensis DPNR over phase-1 of the FTP75 test are compared to those of a similar gasoline vehicle certified to California LEV-I LEV standards in figure 3. Stabile control of NOx emissions occurred later for the Toyota Avensis DPNR, indicating a somewhat longer period prior to NOx storage and/or light-off compared to the time to light-off for a conventional 3-way LEV catalyst system. NOx emissions, however, were considerably less for the Toyota Avensis DPNR in the period prior to achieving the NOx light-off temperature, which would indicate lower engine-out NOx emissions than the gasoline LEV vehicle immediately following the cold-start or some low temperature NOx storage depending on the engine-out level of NO2 present in the exhaust at such relatively low exhaust temperatures.

The Toyota Avensis DPNR demonstrated improved fuel economy when compared to the highest fuel economy conventional gasoline vehicles sold in the U.S. for the 2002 model year (table 6). Fuel economy was less than the highest fuel economy diesel vehicle currently offered for sale in the U.S., the 2002 VW Jetta Wagon. It should be noted that the VW Jetta Wagon is a lighter vehicle. The Jetta was also certified to U.S. Federal Tier 1 diesel emission standards that represent PM and NOx emission levels that are approximately an order of magnitude higher than the levels measured from the Toyota Avensis DPNR. Table 4: Summary of exhaust emission and fuel economy results Test PM NOx NMHC CO CO2 FE Cycle (mg/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (mi/gal) Tier 0.05 0.075 3.4 bin 5 Tier 0.08 0.075 3.4 bin 6 FTP75 5.7 0.05 0.273 37.2 ( 0.8) ( 0.01) ( 0.03) ( 2) ( 0.2) US0.14 0.289 35.2 ( 3) (.0.04) ( 0.07) ( 7) (0.8) SC0 0.367 27.7 (2) ( 0.09) ( 3) ( 0.3) HWFET 0.192 52.9 ( 1) (0.07) ( 2) (0.7) NYCC 0.474 21.5 (2) ( 0.01) (10) ( 0.5) Notes: 50,000 mile Tier 2 bin 5 and bin 6 emission standards shown for comparison purposes. A summary of Tier 2 standards can be found in Appendix Table 1. The values represent 95% confidence intervals for a two-sided students t-test with 3 to 4 FTP75, US06,SC03, and HWFET replicates; and 6 NYCC replicates. Bag-sampled results are shown for NOx, CO, and CO2. NMHC was derived from integrated-continuous heatedFID measurements and bag-sampled CH4.
Fuel economy results are reported here as unadjusted test results.
Table 5: Comparison of Toyota Avensis DPNR emissions results to 4,000 mile light-duty Tier 2 SFTP emission standards US06 NMHC+ CO NOX (g/mi) (g/mi) 0.14 8.SC03 NMHC+ CO NOX (g/mi) (g/mi) 0.20 2.7 0.14 0
Tier 2 SFTP Standard (4k miles) Toyota Avensis DPNR 0.33
(a) FTP75 Phase 1 (cold start)
(b) FTP75 Phase 2 (stabilized)
(c) FTP75 Phase 3 (hot start)
Figure 1: Accumulation of NOx and THC mass emissions over the 3-phases (cold-start, stabilized, hot-start) of the FTP75 chassis dynamometer drive cycle. Phase 1 cold start emissions (a) were compared to an SIequipped vehicle of comparable size and power that was certified to California LEV standards.
Figure 2: Accumulation of NOx and THC mass emissions over the US06 high-speed chassis dynamometer drive cycle.
Figure 3: Phase 1 cold start emissions compared to an SI-equipped vehicle of comparable size and power and certified to California LEV standards.
Table 6: Measured fuel economy of the Toyota Avensis DPNR station wagon to similar vehicles offered for sale in the U.S. Vehicle Type Engine Transmission/ Drive City/Highway Fuel Economy (mi/gal) 33/41 Test Weight (lbs.) 3500

Toyota Avensis Small Station 2.0-L 4-cyl. Turbo-Diesel 5-speed Manual/ DPNR Wagon with charge-air cooling Front-drive 2002 VW Jetta Small Station 1.9-L 4-cyl. Turbo-Diesel 5-speed Manual/ 42/Wagon Wagon with charge-air cooling Front-drive 2002 Ford Mid-size Station 2.0-L NA SI gasoline 5-speed Manual/ 28/Focus Wagon Front-drive Station Wagon 2002 Honda Mid-size Passenger 2.3-L NA SI gasoline 5-speed Manual/ 26/Accord Vehicle Front-drive Notes: The 2002 VW Jetta Wagon, Ford Focus Station Wagon, and Honda Accord included in this comparison demonstrated the highest combined fuel economy for their respective vehicle classes. Fuel economy results for Toyota Avensis include adjustments of 10% over the city cycle and 22% over the highway cycle to better suit realworld driving conditions and to allow comparison with values reported in the Fuel Economy Guide.

CONCLUSION

The Toyota Avensis DPNR demonstrated emissions over the FTP75 drive cycle that were consistent with a vehicle capable of meeting the mid- to upper-bins (bins 5-8) of the Tier 2 emissions standards. With moderate improvements in HC emissions, the Toyota Avensis vehicle would be capable of achieving Tier 2 bin 5 or bin 6 emissions over the FTP75 using low sulfur diesel fuel similar to fuels that will be available in the U.S. after 2006 if the emission control system is relatively durable up to the statutory full useful life (120,000). Further NOx and NMHC reductions over the US06 drive cycle should be necessary for a vehicle of this type to meet Tier 2 SFTP standards.

REFERENCES

1. S. Sasaki, T. Ito, S. Iguchi, Ruarme fette Verbrennung mit Niedertemperatur-Oxydation in Diesel Motoren, 9. Aachener Kolloquium Fahrzeugund Motorentechnik 2000 (Smoke-less Rich Combustion by Low Temperature Oxidation in Diesel Engines, 9th Aachen Colloquium Automobile and Engine Technology 2000). 2. K. Nakatani, S. Hirota, S. Takeshima, K. Itoh, T. Tanaka, K. Dohmae, Simultaneous PM and NOx Reduction System for Diesel Engines, SAE Technical Paper Series, No. 2002-01-0957. 3. Press release, Toyota Motor Corporation, March 6, 2002 (Internet URL: http://global.toyota.com/ci.html) 4. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 86, Subpart B, section 86.162, 2000.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank the Toyota Motor Corporation and the Toyota Technical Center for their provision of an advanced prototype vehicle for testing by EPA, especially Dr. Kiyoshi Nakanishi, Dr. Koichiro Nakatani, Mr. Taro Aoyama, Mr. Tadao Shimbori and Mr. Thomas Beiershmitt. The authors also would like to thank the engineers and technicians of the Laboratory Operations Division at the U.S. EPA-NVFEL facility in Ann Arbor, MI, especially Mr. David Bochenek and Mr. John Menter.

APPENDIX

Appendix Table 1: Summary of U.S. Federal Tier 2 Light-Duty Vehicle and Truck Intermediate-Life (50,000 mile) Emission Standards.
HCHO NOx NMOG CO (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) 10 0.4 0.125 3.4 0.0.2 0.075 3.4 0.015 The above temporary bins expire in 2006 (for LDVs and LLDTs) and 2008 (for HLDTs) 8 0.14 0.100 3.4 0.0.11 0.075 3.4 0.0.08 0.075 3.4 0.0.05 0.075 3.4 0.015 Bin Number
Appendix Table 2: coefficients
Track coast down-data, dynamometer coast-down data, and derived dynamometer Speed Range (km/hr) 125-115 115-105 105-95 95-85 85-75 75-65 65-55 55-45 45-35 35-25 25-15 15-5
Expected Actual Time Expected Force Actual Force Time (s) (N) (N) (s) 6.81 6.662 7.77 7.578 8.92 8.503 10.29 10.436 11.93 12.374 13.88 14.320 16.17 16.277 18.8 18.238 21.67 21.205 24.60 27.180 27.21 27.161 29.07 30.146 Inertia: 1590 kg Highway Inertia: 1614 kg Dynamometer Coefficient Set points Measured Coefficients A B C A B C (N) (N/km/hr) (N/km/hr2) (N) (N/km/hr) (N/km/hr2) 61.27 -0.8526 0.03783 144.31 0.0808 0.03513
Appendix Figure 1: Dynamometer coast-down with vehicle.
Appendix Figure 2: FTP75 Drive Cycle.
Appendix Figure 3: Highway Fuel Economy Drive Cycle.
Appendix Figure 4: US06 Drive Cycle.
Appendix Figure 5: SC03 Drive Cycle.
Appendix Figure 6: New York City Drive Cycle.
Appendix Figure 7: Toyota Avensis DPNR sedan3. The physical layout of the drivetrain and exhaust emission control system is distinguishable between the sedan and station wagon versions of the Toyota Avensis DPNR.
Appendix Figure 8: Low-particle-loss dilution system. Cyclone and filter packs designed according to 40 CFR 86.1310-2007. Single Pall-Gellman TX40 high-efficiency 47mm filters were used for all PM sampling. Filter-face temperature was held to <50 C for all reported PM test results. Mixing at the cross-section of the inlet to the sample probes was characterized by tracer gas method as per 40 CFR 86.1310-2007.

Toyota Avensis

Toyota Avensis 2.0 D4-D, RHD

ADULT OCCUPANT

FRONTAL IMPACT 15 pts FRONTAL IMPACT
HEAD Driver airbag contact Passenger airbag contact CHEST Passenger compartment Windscreen Pillar rearward Steering wheel rearward Steering wheel upward Chest contact with steering wheel stable 27mm none none none stable stable

Total 32 pts | 90%

Driver

Passenger

SIDE IMPACT CAR SIDE IMPACT POLE

8 pts 6 pts

UPPER LEGS, KNEES AND PELVIS Stiff structures in dashboard Concentrated loads on knees LOWER LEGS AND FEET Footwell Collapse Rearward pedal movement Upward pedal movement none none none none none

SIDE IMPACT Car Pole

Head protection airbag Chest protection airbag Yes Yes

REAR IMPACT (WHIPLASH)

3,3 pts

WHIPLASH

Seat description Standard, cloth trim Reactive 1 pts 2,7 pts 2,3 pts 2,2 pts
ADEQUATE MARGINAL WEAK POOR
Head restraint type Geometric assessment TESTS - High severity - Medium severity - Low severity

CHILD OCCUPANT

18 MONTH OLD CHILD
Restraint Group Facing Installation Britax Romer Duo Plus 1 forward ISOFIX anchorages and top tether

Total 42 pts | 86%

FRONTAL IMPACT
Head forward movement Head acceleration Chest load protected good good

SIDE IMPACT

PERFORMANCE INSTRUCTIONS INSTALLATION 10 pts 4 pts 2 pts Head containment Head acceleration protected good

3 YEAR OLD CHILD

PERFORMANCE INSTRUCTIONS INSTALLATION 12 pts 4 pts 2 pts Head containment Head acceleration protected good

VEHICLE BASED ASSESSMENT

Airbag warning Label
Text and pictogram warning label permanently attached to both sides of the passenger sun visor.

PEDESTRIAN

Total 19 pts | 53%

GOOD MARGINAL POOR

SAFETY ASSIST

Total 6 pts | 86%

SPEED LIMITATION ASSISTANCE - 0, 0 ELECTRONIC STABILITY CONTROL (ESC) - standard or optional SEATBELT REMINDER

3 pts 1 pts 1 pts 1 pts

HEAD PELVIS LEG

12,6 pts 0,5 pts 6 pts

- driver - passenger - rear

DETAILS OF TESTED CAR

SPECIFICATIONS
Tested model Body type Year of publication Kerb weight Toyota Avensis 2.0 D4-D, RHD 4 door saloon 2009 1531kg

SAFETY EQUIPMENT

Front seatbelt pretensioners Front seatbelt load limiters Driver frontal airbag Front passenger frontal airbag Side body airbags Side head airbags Driver knee airbag single stage single stage
VIN from which rating applies applies to all Avensis

COMMENTS

Adult occupant The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal test. Dummy readings showed good protection of the knees and femurs of both driver and passenger. Toyota showed that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes or those sat in different positions. The Avensis scored maximum points for all body regions in the side barrier test. In the side pole impact, the dummy was loaded in a way which is unrepresentative of a human and the car was penalised. Combined with the rib deflections measured in the test, protection of the chest in this test was rated as weak. However, protection against whiplash injuries was good. Child occupant Based only on the dummy responses in the tests, the car scored maximum points for protection of the 3 year infant. For the 1 year old, Euro NCAP awards fewer points for a forward facing restraint than for a rearward facing one but the dummy readings were all good. The passenger airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward facing child restraint to be used in that seating position. Clear information is provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag, essential to the safety of a child or adult occupant. Moreover, a clear warning is given of the dangers of using a rearward facing child restraint in that seating position without first disabling the airbag. Pedestrian The bumper provided good protection to pedestrians' legs. In most areas likely to be hit by the head of a struck child, the bonnet was also rated as good. However, the bonnet provided predominantly poor protection to the head of a struck adult. Safety assist Electronic Stability Control is at least an option on all variants throughout Europe and is expected to be standard equipment in the great majority of car sales. A seatbelt reminder system covering front and rear seats is standard equipment