Fuel Economy and Emissions of the Ethanol-Optimized Saab 9-5 Biopower

Saab Automobile recently released the BioPower engines, advertised to use increased turbocharger boost and spark advance on ethanol fuel to enhance performance. Specifications for the 2.0 liter turbocharged engine in the Saab 9-5 Biopower 2.0t report 150 hp (112 kW) on gasoline and a 20% increase to 180 hp (134 kW) on E85 (nominally 85% ethanol, 15% gasoline). While FFVs sold in the U.S. must be emissions certified on Federal Certification Gasoline as well as on E85, the European regulations only require certification on gasoline. Owing to renewed and growing interest in increased ethanol utilization in the U.S., a European-specification 2007 Saab 9-5 Biopower 2.0t was acquired by the Department of Energy and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) for benchmark evaluations. Results show that the vehicle’s gasoline equivalent fuel economy on the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET) are on par with similar U.S.-legal flex-fuel vehicles. Regulated and unregulated emissions measurements on the FTP and the US06 aggressive driving test (part of the supplemental FTP) show that despite the lack of any certification testing requirement in Europe on E85 or on the U.S. cycles, the vehicle is within Tier 2, Bin 5 emissions levels (note that full useful life emissions have not been measured) on the FTP, and also within the 4000 mile (6400 km) US06 emissions limits. Emissions of hydrocarbon-based hazardous air pollutants are higher on Federal Certification Gasoline while ethanol and aldehyde emissions are higher on ethanol fuel. The advertised power increase on E85 was confirmed through acceleration tests on the chassis dynamometer as well as on-road.

[1]  Venkatesh Rao,et al.  Investigation into the Vehicle Exhaust Emissions of High Percentage Ethanol Blends , 1995 .

[2]  D. P. Gardiner Improving the Fuel Efficiency of Light - Duty Ethanol Vehicles - An Engine Dynamometer Study of Dedi , 1999 .

[3]  W. O. Siegl,et al.  Improved Emissions Speciation Methodology for Phase II of the Auto/Oil Air Quality Improvement Research Program - Hydrocarbons and Oxygenates , 1993 .

[4]  Pedro Caffaro Vicentini,et al.  RATING THE PERFORMANCE OF BRAZILIAN FLEX FUEL VEHICLES , 2005 .

[5]  Frans Theunissen,et al.  Percent Ethanol Estimation on Sensorless Multi-Fuel Systems; Advantages and Limitations , 2003 .

[6]  Amilton Sinatora,et al.  Wear and Corrosion Evaluation of Electric Fuel Pumps with Ethanol/Gasoline Blends , 2005 .

[7]  Kenneth J. Kelly Correlation of I/M240 and FTP Emissions for Alternative Motor Fuels Act Test Vehicles , 1994 .

[8]  Robert M. Reuter,et al.  Emissions with E85 and Gasolines in Flexible/Variable Fuel Vehicles - The Auto/Oil Air Quality Improvement Research Program , 1995 .

[9]  F. G. Kremer,et al.  Alcohol as Automotive Fuel - Brazilian Experience , 2000 .

[10]  Orlando Volpato,et al.  Engine Management for MultiFuel® plus Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles , 2005 .

[11]  Kenneth Kelly,et al.  Federal Test Procedure Emissions Test Results from Ethanol Variable-Fuel Vehicle Chevrolet Luminas , 1996 .

[12]  Ingemar Denbratt,et al.  Influence of Ethanol Content in Gasoline on Speciated Emissions from a Direct Injection Stratified Charge SI Engine , 2001 .

[13]  Bryce J. Stokes,et al.  Biomass as Feedstock for A Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply , 2005 .

[14]  Lester B. Lave,et al.  Promise and Cost of Cellulosic Ethanol for the U.S. Light-Duty Fleet , 2001 .