test report c-1 - · pdf filetest report c-1 page 3 of 11 form # 8355 attachments 1. test...

TEST REPORT C-1

PAGE 1 OF 11 FORM # 8355

CUSTOMER Department of the Environment and Heritage PROJECT GOV5 - 24

TITLE Comparison of Vehicle Drivability Hyundai Excel– GOV5-01

AIM

• To evaluate the general startability, idle and acceleration performance of the vehicle using petrol, E5 and E10.

• To evaluate the vehicles fully warmed up driveability on petrol, E5 and E10.

• To provide a comparative measure between the use of petrol, E5 and E10.

EQUIPMENT

• N/A

PROCEDURE

• The vehicle was refuelled with the test fuel and 200km of varied driving performed to allow the EMS to fully adapt to the new fuel.

• The vehicle driveability assessment was commenced when the vehicle had soaked to the ambient air temperature (approximately 25oC).

• The vehicle driveability assessment was performed, for differing driving conditions, to evaluate the vehicles startability, idle, acceleration, driveability and performance. These conditions are laid out on the Vehicle Appraisal Form (Form #8838).

• The vehicle driveability assessments were performed twice on each fuel type by different drivers. These subjective ratings were then compared to ensure the assessments were mutually agreeable.

TEST REPORT C-1


RESULTS

Average Driveability Ratings. ULP ULPE5 ULPE10 Max. Delta (Δ)Cold Start 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Warmed-up Start 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Overall Restart 6.8 7.0 6.8 0.0Idle Stability 7.2 7.0 6.8 -0.3Idle Roughness 7.2 7.0 6.8 -0.3Launchability, Part Load 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Launchability, WOT 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Acceleration Feel, Part Load 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Acceleration Feel, WOT 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Passing feel, Part Load 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Passing feel, WOT 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Gradeability 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Low speed shunt/chuggle 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Part Load, Steady State 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Part Load, Accel (LTI, crowd) 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Fuel Cut-off and re-intro shock 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Full Load ,Torque Delivery 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Knocking 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0P/N to D transition 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Average 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Minimum 6.8 7.0 6.8 -0.3Maximum 7.2 7.0 7.0 0.0

Table 1 – Driveability Assessment Summary and Comparison

The values in the table above are the rounded average results of two vehicle driveability evaluations. Max Delta (largest reduction in rating of any fuel compared to ULP result) also rounded to one decimal place. CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION

1. Overall, driveability and performance were very similar when comparing the use of petrol, E5 and E10 fuels. The subjective ratings for all fuels were deemed acceptable for a production vehicle.

2. The subjective ratings, as assessed by two drivers, provided acceptable agreement. 3. An average driver is unlikely to notice any difference between petrol, E5 and E10.

TEST REPORT C-1


ATTACHMENTS

1. Test summary of start, idle, performance and driveability ratings 2. Vehicle Appraisal Results #1 ULP 3. Vehicle Appraisal Results #2 ULP 4. Vehicle Appraisal Results #1 E5 5. Vehicle Appraisal Results #2 E5 6. Vehicle Appraisal Results #1 E10 7. Vehicle Appraisal Results #2 E10

TEST REPORT C-1


Attachment 1 Test summary of start, idle performance and driveability ratings

Each point on these charts is an average of two tests.

Startability and Idle Quality

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0Cold Start

Warmed-up Start

Overall RestartIdle Stability

Idle Roughness

ULP ULPE5 ULPE10

Figure 1 - Start and Idle Quality

TEST REPORT C-1


Vehicle Performance

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0Launchability, Part Load

Launchability, WOT

Acceleration Feel, Part Load

Acceleration Feel, WOTPassing feel, Part Load

Passing feel, WOT

Gradeability

ULP ULPE5 ULPE10

Figure 2 - Vehicle Performance Comparison

Warmed-up Driveability

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.0Low speed shunt/chuggle

Part Load, Steady State

Part Load, Accel (LTI, crowd)

Fuel Cut-off and re-intro shockFull Load ,Torque Delivery

Knocking

P/N to D transition

ULP ULPE5 ULPE10

Figure 3. – Warmed – up Driveability Comparison

TEST REPORT C-1


Attachment 2 Vehicle Appraisal Results #1 ULP

Vehicle name GOV5-01 Test date 23/06/2006Mileage (km) 80929 Test time 13h00Ambient temperature (deg C) 18 Test road Balcatta areaBarometric pressure (Kpa) 102 Engine StandardTest driver AT1 Fuel ULPCo-driver HS1 Oil 10W40

Soak Temp 25degC (set point)1. Startability Rating Remarks

Starting Time 7Flare to idle 7Restartability 6Starting Time 7Flare to idle 7Restartability 7

2. Idle Quality Rating RemarksNo load 8part load 7Full load 7No load 8part load 7Full load 7

3. Performance Rating RemarksPart throttle 7WOT 7Part throttle 7WOT 7Part throttle 7WOT 7

Gradeability 7Long hill climbing ability 7

4. Acceleration Pedal Feel Rating RemarksStart 7End 7

Linearity 7Stroke 7

5. Clutch Pedal Feel Rating RemarksStart n/aEnd n/a

Stroke n/aLinkage noise n/a

6. Driveability Rating Low speed driveability(<50 Kph) 7Low speed shunt/chuggle 7 Subjective ratingTip-in (1st and 2nd gear) ("n/a" if auto) n/aTip-out (1st and 2nd gear) n/a 1. Very badTip-in (3rd,4th and 5th gear) n/a 2. BadTip-out (3rd, 4th and 5th gear) n/a 3. Very poorPart-throttle steady-state 7 4. PoorPart-throttle acceleration inlc throttle crowding 7 5. Mediocre

Engine brake feel 7 6. Agreeable (just acceptable)Harshness at refuelling 7 7. Satisfactory

WOT torque delivery/strength 7 8. GoodWOT noise/harshness 7 9. Very goodWOT knocking 7 10. ExcellentGear change 1st to 2nd 7Gear change 2nd to 3rd 7P/N to D Transition ("N/a" if m/t) 7

Effort

Effort

Fuel cut-off

Idle roughness

Launch feel

Accel feel

Passing feel

Vehicle Appraisal Form Fuel (1, driver A)

Cold start

Warmed up start

RPM stability

TEST REPORT C-1


Attachment 3 Vehicle Appraisal Results #2 ULP

Vehicle name GOV5-01 Test date 26/06/2006Mileage (km) 80949 Test time 10h00Ambient temperature (deg C) 16.3 Test road Balcatta areaBarometric pressure (Kpa) 102.6 Engine StandardTest driver HS1 Fuel ULPCo-driver AT1 Oil 10W40







Linearity 7Stroke 8






Vehicle Appraisal Form (fuel 1, driver B)

Cold start

Warmed up start

RPM stability

Effort

Effort

Fuel cut-off

Idle roughness

Launch feel

Accel feel

Passing feel

TEST REPORT C-1


Attachment 4 Vehicle Appraisal Results #1 ULPE5

Vehicle name GOV5-01 Hyundai Test date 18/07/2006Mileage (km) 81632 Test time 8:30Ambient temperature (deg C) 6.6 Test road Balcatta areaBarometric pressure (Kpa) 102.6 Engine StandardTest driver HS1 Fuel ULPE5Co-driver DFN Oil 10W40






4. Acceleration Pedal Feel Rating RemarksStart 7 hardEnd 7

Linearity 7Stroke 7






Vehicle Appraisal Form (Fuel 2, driver A)

Cold start

Warmed up start

RPM stability

Effort

Effort

Fuel cut-off

Idle roughness

Launch feel

Accel feel

Passing feel

TEST REPORT C-1



Vehicle name GOV5-01 Hyundai Test date 18/07/2006Mileage (km) 81649 Test time 13h30Ambient temperature (deg C) 19.7 Test road Balcatta areaBarometric pressure (Kpa) 102.4 Engine StandardTest driver AT1 Fuel ULPE5Co-driver JWP Oil 10W40







Linearity 7Stroke 7



6. Driveability Rating Low speed driveability(<50 Kph) 7Low speed shunt/chuggle 7 Subjective ratingTip-in (1st and 2nd gear) ("n/a" if auto) n/aTip-out (1st and 2nd gear) n/a 1. Very badTip-in (3rd,4th and 5th gear) n/a 2. BadTip-out (3rd, 4th and 5th gear) n/a 3. Very poorPart-throttle steady-state 7 4. PoorPart-throttle acceleration 7 5. Mediocre



Effort

Effort

Fuel cut-off

Idle roughness

Launch feel

Accel feel

Passing feel

Vehicle Appraisal Form (Fuel 2, driver B)

Cold start

Warmed up start

RPM stability

TEST REPORT C-1



Vehicle name GOV5-01 Hyundai Test date 11/07/2006Mileage (km) 81280 Test time 10h30Ambient temperature (deg C) 12.1 Test road Balcatta areaBarometric pressure (Kpa) 103 Engine StandardTest driver AT1 Fuel ULPE10Co-driver JWP Oil 10W40


Starting Time 7 engine shake during crankingFlare to idle 7Restartability 7Starting Time 7Flare to idle 7Restartability 6



Gradeability 7Long hill climbing ability

4. Acceleration Pedal Feel Rating RemarksStart 7 hardEnd 7

Linearity 7Stroke 7






Effort

Effort

Fuel cut-off

Idle roughness

Launch feel

Accel feel

Passing feel

Vehicle Appraisal Form (Fuel 3, driver A)

Cold start

Warmed up start

RPM stability

TEST REPORT C-1



Vehicle name GOV5-01 Hyundai Test date 12/07/2006Mileage (km) 81296 Test time 08h00Ambient temperature (deg C) 6 Test road Balcatta areaBarometric pressure (Kpa) 103.4 Engine StandardTest driver HS1 Fuel ULPE10Co-driver DFN Oil 10W40







Linearity 7Stroke 7



6. Driveability Rating Low speed driveability(<50 Kph) 7Low speed shunt/chuggle 7 Subjective ratingTip-in (1st and 2nd gear) ("n/a" if auto) n/aTip-out (1st and 2nd gear) n/a 1. Very badTip-in (3rd,4th and 5th gear) n/a 2. BadTip-out (3rd, 4th and 5th gear) n/a 3. Very poorPart-throttle steady-state 7 4. PoorPart-throttle acceleration 7 5. Mediocre



Vehicle Appraisal Form (Fuel 3, driver B)

Cold start

Warmed up start

RPM stability

Effort

Effort

Fuel cut-off

Idle roughness

Launch feel

Accel feel

Passing feel

TEST REPORT C-2



TITLE Hot Start and Driveability Evaluation Hyundai Excel – GOV5-01

AIM

• To evaluate the hot startability, extended idle and no-load acceleration performance of the vehicle using petrol, E5 and E10.

• To evaluate hot driveability of the vehicle on petrol, E5 and E10.


EQUIPMENT

• Hot vehicle chamber

• Data logger – Virtual Bench with National Instruments DAQ Card 1200

• Thermocouple readouts

PROCEDURE

• The vehicle was fuelled with the test fuel – a drive for the EMS to learn the new fuel was only carried out if necessary.

• The vehicle was driven on the test road until a minimum oil temperature of 120oC was reached.

• The vehicle was driven into the hot chamber, which was set to an ambient temperature of 40oC, with a track temperature of 60-65oC and a solar radiation load of 1100W/m2.

• The battery voltage and starter current were logged for each initial engine start. The oil, coolant and ambient temperatures were recorded. Handheld, battery powered digital readouts were used to indicate the temperatures.

• The vehicle went through the steps outlined in the “Hot Start and Driveability Evaluation” schedule to evaluate startability, extended idle roughness/stability and hot driveability. This included a hot start and idle assessment within the hot chamber, an extended idle within the hot chamber, and the hot driveability evaluation performed on the real road.

• The above procedure was performed twice on each fuel type by different drivers. These subjective ratings were then compared to ensure the assessments were mutually agreeable.

TEST REPORT C-2


RESULTS

Average Ratings. Fuel: ULP ULPE5 ULPE10Max.

Delta (Δ)Start Time - 10min Soak (seconds) 0.7 0.7 0.6Restart Time - 30min Soak (seconds) 0.7 0.6 0.6Restart Time - Ext. Idle/20min Soak (se 0.7 0.6 0.6Hot Startability (10min. Soak) 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Hot Idle Quality (10min. Soak) 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Hot Restartability (30min. Soak) 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Hot Idle Quality (30min. Soak) 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Hot Idle Quality (40min. Idle) 7.0 7.0 6.8 -0.3Hot Startability (Ext. Idle/20min. Soak) 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Hot Idle Quality (Ext. Idle/20min. Soak) 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Hot Acceleration - Idle Racing Mode 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Restart and idle after drive rating 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Hot Soak & Drive Idle Quality 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Part Throttle Acceleration 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0WOT acceleration 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.050km/h Steady State 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.070km/h Steady State 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Average all. 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0Minimum 7.0 7.0 6.8 -0.3Maximum 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0

Table 1 Hot Start and Driveability Assessment Summary and Comparison

The values in the table above are the rounded average results of two vehicle hot start and driveability evaluations. Max Delta (largest reduction in rating of any fuel compared to ULP result) also rounded to one decimal place. CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION

1) Overall, hot start, idle and driveability performance were very similar when comparing the use of petrol, E5 and E10 fuels. The subjective ratings for all fuels were deemed acceptable for a production vehicle. a) There is no evidence of poorer hot start/idle with E5/E10, which may have been

expected. 2) Although the objective start times recorded show a definite trend, even the slowest

start was subjectively rated as a seven. This shows the difference in start times is unlikely to be noticed by an average user.

3) The subjective ratings, as assessed by two drivers, provided acceptable agreement. 4) An average driver is unlikely to notice any difference between petrol, E5 and E10.

TEST REPORT C-2


ATTACHMENTS

1. Test summary of the hot start, extended idle and hot driveability 2. Hot start and driveability evaluation results #1 ULP 3. Hot start and driveability evaluation results #2 ULP 4. Hot start and driveability evaluation results #1 E5 5. Hot start and driveability evaluation results #2 E5 6. Hot start and driveability evaluation results #1 E10 7. Hot start and driveability evaluation results #2 E10

TEST REPORT C-2


Attachment 1 Test summary of hot start, extended idle and hot driveability


Hot Startability and Idle Quality after Hot Soak

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.0Hot Startability (10min. Soak)

Hot Idle Quality (10min. Soak)

Hot Restartability (30min. Soak)

Hot Idle Quality (30min. Soak)

ULP ULPE5 ULPE10 Figure 1 – Hot Start and Idle after Soak

Hot Extended Idle Test and 20min. Hot Soak

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.0Hot Idle Quality (40min. Idle)

Hot Startability (Ext. Idle/20min.Soak)

Hot Idle Quality (Ext. Idle/20min.Soak)

Hot Acceleration - Idle RacingMode

Restart and idle after drive rating

ULP ULPE5 ULPE10 Figure 2 – Hot Start and Idle after extended idles and soaks

TEST REPORT C-2


Hot Driveability Test

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.0Hot Soak & Drive Idle Quality

Part Throttle Acceleration

WOT acceleration50km/h Steady State

70km/h Steady State

ULP ULPE5 ULPE10 Figure 3 – Hot Driveability Comparison

Hot Start Times

0.730.70 0.72

0.68

0.57

0.610.58 0.57 0.57

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Start Time - 10min Soak(s) Restart Time - 30min Soak(s) Restart Time - Ext. Idle/20min Soak(s)

Star

t Tim

e*

ULP ULPE5 ULPE10*This data is average of two test measurements

Figure 3 – Hot Start Times

TEST REPORT C-2


Attachment 2 Hot start and driveability evaluation results #1 ULP

Vehicle Number RegistrationVehicle name Test dateVehicle colour Test timeMileage (km) Soak hoursAmbient temperature (deg C) EngineBarometric pressure (Kpa) Fuel

Test driver OilSOAK Temp 40degC (Set point)

1. Vehicle preparationDrain tank fuel and refill to 60% (or 28L) of tank volume Ambient Temperature: 40oCMove the vehicle to the test road (Mitchell freeway) Track Temperature: 60-65oCWarm-up the vehicle until oil temperature reaches a min.120 deg C Solar Radiation: 1100W/m2

Return vehicle to hot chamberNote that engine oil temperature must be min. 120 deg C before hot soak

Rating Ambient Fuel Tank Fuel Tank Coolant oilSoak 10 minutes (oC) (oC) (kPa) (oC) (oC)Ignition on 41 56 99Crank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 seconds Crank time 0.74Evaluate startability 7 Data file names: C:..\logs\gov05\veh_ 01_HTST1Evaluate idle roughness for 10 sec. 7Ignition-off and soak 30 minutesIgnition-on 40 55 70Crank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 seconds Crank time 0.72Evaluate re-startability 7Evaluate idle roughness for 10 sec. 7

Data file names: C:..\logs\gov05\veh_ 01_HTST2

Move the vehicle to the test road (Mitchell freeway)Warm-up the vehicle until oil temperature reaches a min.120 deg C Return vehicle to hot chamber (note: do not turn-off the engine)

Rating Ambient Fuel Tank Fuel Tank Coolant oilExtended idle for 40 minutes, in gear and A/C on (Blower medium, External air mode) (kPa) (oC) (oC)Record data, 0 minute 7 42 79 108Record data, 10 minute 7 38 81 103Record data, 20 minute 7 39 86 102Record data, 30 minute 7 40 87 103Record data, 40 minute 7 40 88 104Ignition-off and soak 20 minutesIgnition on 38 60 89Crank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 secondsCrank time 0.72Evaluate startability 7 Data file names: C:..\logs\gov05\veh_ 01_HTST3Evaluate idle roughness 7

Shift to P/N or disengage clutch (NIG)Idle racing mode to 3000rpmEvaluate acceleration 7

Rating Ambient Fuel Tank Fuel Tank Coolant oilMove the car to the test road with A/C on (Blower medium and external air mode ) (kPa) (oC) (oC)Idle 10 seconds 71/2 throttle to 50km/hr 750km/hr cruise 7Stop and idle 10 seconds 7WOT to 70km/hr 770km/hr cruise 7Stop and idle 10 seconds 71/4 throttle to 50km/hr 750km/hr cruise 73/4 throttle to 70km/hr 770km/hr cruise 7Stop and idle 10 seconds 7Interrupted acceleration 71/2 throttle to 70km/hr 770km/hr cruise 7Stop and idle 20 seconds 7Steering lock to lock 7 Driveability Ratings:Idle in P/N 7 Idle during drive 7Ignition off Start after various soak times 7Restart 7 Average accell rating 7

Average Steady speed rating 7

No start: 1, Start and stall : 3, Rough: 5, Normal: 7 more

Hot Start and Driveability Evaluation

Hot acceleration

Hot soak and drive

Hot acceleration ratingEngine stall: 1, Backfires: 2, Hesitation:3 , Surge:4, Rough: 5, Normal: 7 more

Hot acceleration rating

Engine stall: 1, Surge: 3, Rough: 5, Normal: 7 more


Hot startability rating

Hot idle quality ratingEngine stall: 1, Backfires: 2, Hesitation:3 , Surge:4, Rough: 5, Normal: 7 more

Hot Start and Driveability Evaluation, 1a

29/06/200614:00 (drive)

Hyundai ExcelWhite80985

GOV5-01 1AJH 944

3. Vehicle preparation

4. Hot extended idle Hot idle quality ratingEngine stall: 1, Surge: 3, Rough: 5, Normal: 7 more

2. Hot soak No start: 1, Start and stall : 3, Rough: 5, Normal: 7 more

Hot idle quality rating

1.6L, In line, 4cylULP

10W40


14102.8

HS

TEST REPORT C-2


Attachment 3 Hot start and driveability evaluation results #2 ULP








Rating Ambient Fuel Tank Fuel Tank Coolant oilExtended idle for 40 minutes, in gear and A/C on (Blower medium, External air mode) (kPa) (oC) (oC)Record data, 0 minute 7 39 66 109Record data, 10 minute 7 39 73 102Record data, 20 minute 7 38 80 99Record data, 30 minute 7 38 81 100Record data, 40 minute 7 37 84 99Ignition-off and soak 20 minutesIgnition onCrank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 secondsCrank time 0.71Evaluate startability 7 Data file names: C:..\logs\gov05\veh_ 01_HTST6Evaluate idle roughness 7


Rating Ambient Fuel Tank Fuel Tank Coolant oilMove the car to the test road with A/C on (Blower medium and external air mode ) (kPa) (oC) (oC)Idle 10 seconds 71/2 throttle to 50km/hr 750km/hr cruise 7Stop and idle 10 seconds 7WOT to 70km/hr 770km/hr cruise 7Stop and idle 10 seconds 71/4 throttle to 50km/hr 750km/hr cruise 73/4 throttle to 70km/hr 770km/hr cruise 7Stop and idle 10 seconds 7Interrupted acceleration 71/2 throttle to 70km/hr 770km/hr cruise 7Stop and idle 20 seconds 7Steering lock to lock 7 Driveability Ratings:Idle in P/N 7 Idle during drive 7Ignition off Start after various soak times 7Restart 7 Average accell rating 7





10W40


15.4102.3

RAS (cell) HS/dfn (veh)



Hot Start and Driveability Evaluation, 1b

30/06/200608h30


GOV5-01 1AJH 944







Hot acceleration

Hot soak and drive



TEST REPORT C-2


Attachment 4 Hot start and driveability evaluation results #1 E5








Rating Ambient Fuel Tank Fuel Tank Coolant oilExtended idle for 40 minutes, in gear and A/C on (Blower medium, External air mode) (kPa) (oC)Record data, 0 minute 7 41 81 106Record data, 10 minute 7 43 90 102Record data, 20 minute 7 40 96 106Record data, 30 minute 7 40 99 111Record data, 40 minute 7 40 103 116Ignition-off and soak 20 minutesIgnition on 39 80 94Crank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 secondsCrank time 0.61Evaluate startability 7 Data file names: C:..\logs\gov05\veh_ 01_HTST9Evaluate idle roughness 7


Rating Ambient Fuel Tank Fuel Tank Coolant IntakeMove the car to the test road with A/C on (Blower medium and external air mode ) (kPa)Idle 10 seconds 71/2 throttle to 50km/hr 750km/hr cruise 7Stop and idle 10 seconds 7WOT to 70km/hr 770km/hr cruise 7Stop and idle 10 seconds 71/4 throttle to 50km/hr 750km/hr cruise 73/4 throttle to 70km/hr 770km/hr cruise 7Stop and idle 10 seconds 7Interrupted acceleration 71/2 throttle to 70km/hr 770km/hr cruise 7Stop and idle 20 seconds 7Steering lock to lock 7 Driveability Ratings:Idle in P/N 7 Idle during drive 7Ignition off Start after various soak times 7Restart 7 Average accell rating 7




Hot acceleration

Hot soak and drive








20/07/20069:05~11h00 drive

na


GOV5-01 1AJH 944





1.6L, In line, 4cylULPE5

10W40


17.7101.7

HS1

TEST REPORT C-2










Rating Ambient Fuel Tank Fuel Tank Coolant IntakeExtended idle for 40 minutes, in gear and A/C on (Blower medium, External air mode) (kPa)Record data, 0 minute 7 41 86 113Record data, 10 minute 7 40 95 107Record data, 20 minute 7 40 100 111Record data, 30 minute 7 41 103 115Record data, 40 minute 7 39 99 119Ignition-off and soak 20 minutesIgnition on 40 62 99Crank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 secondsCrank time 0.615Evaluate startability 7 Data file names: C:..\logs\gov05\veh_ 01_HTST12Evaluate idle roughness 7







10W40


19101.3

AT1/jwp




20/07/200612:05~14h00 drive

na


GOV5-01 1AJH 944







Hot acceleration

Hot soak and drive



TEST REPORT C-2







Rating Ambient Fuel Tank Fuel Tank Coolant oilSoak 10 minutes (oC) (oC) (kPa) (oC) (oC)Ignition on 40 58 92Crank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 seconds Crank time 0.575Evaluate startability 7 Data file names: C:..\logs\gov05\veh_ 01_HTST14Evaluate idle roughness for 10 sec. 7Ignition-off and soak 30 minutesIgnition-on 36 46 73Crank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 seconds Crank time 0.565 0.565sec=estimate based on other times, and recorded, <1secEvaluate re-startability 7Evaluate idle roughness for 10 sec. 7



Rating Ambient Fuel Tank Fuel Tank Coolant IntakeExtended idle for 40 minutes, in gear and A/C on (Blower medium, External air mode) (kPa)Record data, 0 minute 7 40 60 95Record data, 10 minute 7 42 87 91Record data, 20 minute 7 36 89 94Record data, 30 minute 6.5 38 86 95Record data, 40 minute 6.5 36 80 96Ignition-off and soak 20 minutesIgnition on 42 65 83Crank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 secondsCrank time 0.565Evaluate startability 7 Data file names: C:..\logs\gov05\veh_ 01_HTST15Evaluate idle roughness 7






Hot acceleration

Hot soak and drive








13/07/200609h00~13:30 drive

na


GOV5-01 1AJH 944






10W40


8103

AT1/jwp

TEST REPORT C-2







Rating Ambient Fuel Tank Fuel Tank Coolant oilSoak 10 minutes (oC) (oC) (kPa) (oC) (oC)Ignition on 41 72 93Crank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 seconds Crank time 0.575 0.9sec=estimate based on other times, and recorded, <1secEvaluate startability 7 Data file names: C:..\logs\gov05\veh_ 01_HTST16Evaluate idle roughness for 10 sec. 7Ignition-off and soak 30 minutesIgnition-on 42 51 62Crank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 seconds Crank time 0.565 0.9sec=estimate based on other times, and recorded, <1secEvaluate re-startability 7Evaluate idle roughness for 10 sec. 7



Rating Ambient Fuel Tank Fuel Tank Coolant IntakeExtended idle for 40 minutes, in gear and A/C on (Blower medium, External air mode) (kPa)Record data, 0 minute 7 43 90 80Record data, 10 minute 7 41 85 92Record data, 20 minute 7 43 93 103Record data, 30 minute 7 43 94 103Record data, 40 minute 7 43 95 106Ignition-off and soak 20 minutesIgnition onCrank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 secondsCrank time 0.565 other times, and recorded, <1secEvaluate startability 7 Data file names: C:..\logs\gov05\veh_ 01_HTST18Evaluate idle roughness 7







10W40


16.3102.5

HS1/jwp




13/07/200611:50~13:40

na

Hyundai ExcelWhite

813336

GOV5-01 1AJH 944







Hot acceleration

Hot soak and drive



TEST REPORT C-3



TITLE Cold Start and Warm-up Evaluation Hyundai Excel – GOV5-01

AIM

• To evaluate the cold startability, idle and no-load acceleration performance of the vehicle using petrol, E5 and E10.

• To evaluate the warm-up driveability on petrol, E5 and E10.


EQUIPMENT

• Cold vehicle chamber

• Stopwatch/data logger

• Thermocouple readouts

PROCEDURE

• The vehicle was fuelled with the test fuel – a drive for the EMS to learn the new fuel was only carried out if necessary.

• The vehicle was placed in the cold environment chamber and cooled until it had stabilised at the setpoint temp of -10 deg C (+/- 1deg C)

• The oil, coolant and inlet air temperatures were logged. Handheld, battery powered digital readouts were used to indicate the temperatures.

• The vehicle went through the steps outlined in the “Cold Start and Warm up Evaluation” schedule to evaluate startability, idle roughness/stability and warm up driveability. This included a cold start assessment within the cold chamber, and the warm up driveability evaluation performed on the road immediately after cold start and idle testing.

• The above procedure was performed twice on each fuel type by different drivers. These subjective ratings were then compared to ensure the assessments were mutually agreeable.

TEST REPORT C-3


RESULTS

Average Ratings. Fuel: ULP ULPE5 ULPE10Max.

Delta (Δ)Start Time (seconds) 1.0 1.4 0.8Restart Time (seconds) 0.7 1.8 0.7Cold Startability 7.5 7.0 7.0 -0.5Cold Restartability 7.5 7.0 7.0 -0.5Cold Idle Roughness/Stability No Load 7.5 7.0 7.0 -0.5Cold Idle Roughness/Stability Electrical loa 7.5 7.0 7.0 -0.5Cold Idle Roughness/Stability Elec+P/S loa 7.5 7.0 7.0 -0.5Cold Acceleration Idle racing mode 7.5 7.0 7.0 -0.5Warm-up idle Roughness/Stability 7.1 7.0 7.0 -0.1Warmed up idle and restart 7.4 7.0 7.0 -0.4Part Throttle Acceleration 7.3 7.0 7.0 -0.3Interrupted accel 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0WOT acceleration 7.5 7.0 7.0 -0.550km/h steady state 7.3 7.0 7.0 -0.360/70km/h steady state 7.5 7.0 7.0 -0.5Average 7.4 7.0 7.0 -0.4Minimum 7.0 7.0 7.0 -0.5Maximum 7.5 7.0 7.0 0.0

Table 1 – Cold Start and Warm-up Assessment Summary and Comparison

The values in the table above (except where indicated) are the rounded average results of two cold start and warm up driveability evaluations. Max Delta (largest reduction in rating of any fuel compared to ULP result) also rounded to one decimal place. CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION

1) Based on the subjective ratings, cold start and warm-up were very similar when comparing the use of petrol, E5 and E10 fuels. The subjective ratings for all fuels were deemed acceptable for a production vehicle. a) There is no evidence of improved cold start/idle with E5/E10, which may have

been expected. 2) Although the objective start times recorded show longer cranks with E5, even the

slowest start was subjectively rated as a seven. This shows the difference in start times is unlikely to be noticed by an average user.

3) The subjective ratings, as assessed by two drivers, provided acceptable agreement. 4) An average driver is unlikely to notice any difference between petrol, E5 and E10.

TEST REPORT C-3


ATTACHMENTS

1. Test summary of the cold start, idle and warm-up driveability 2. Cold start and warm up evaluation results #1 ULP 3. Cold start and warm up evaluation results #2 ULP 4. Cold start and warm up evaluation results #1 E5 5. Cold start and warm up evaluation results #2 E5 6. Cold start and warm up evaluation results #1 E10 7. Cold start and warm up evaluation results #2 E10

TEST REPORT C-3


Attachment 1 Test summary of cold start, idle and warm-up driveability


Cold Starting and Idle

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.0Cold Startability

Cold Restartability

Cold Idle Roughness/Stability NoLoad

Cold Idle Roughness/StabilityElectrical load

Cold Idle Roughness/StabilityElec+P/S load

Cold Acceleration Idle racingmode

ULP ULPE5 ULPE10

Figure 1 – Cold Start and Idle Quality

Warm-up Driveability after Cold Start

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.0Warm-up idle Roughness/Stability

Warmed up idle and restart

Part Throttle Acceleration

Interrupted accelWOT acceleration

50km/h steady state

60/70km/h steady state

ULP ULPE5 ULPE10

Figure 2 – Driveability during Warm-up

TEST REPORT C-3


-10C Cold Start Times>10 secs is a non start

0.990.74

1.351.75

0.80 0.70

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Start Time (seconds) Restart Time (seconds)

Star

t Tim

e*

ULP ULPE5 ULPE10*This data is average of two test measurements except:

ULP - only one valid recording

TEST REPORT C-3


Attachment 2 Cold start and warm up evaluation results #1 ULP

Vehicle Number GOV5-01 RegistrationVehicle name Hyundai Excel Test dateVehicle colour White Test timeMileage (km) 81021 Soak hoursAmbient temperature (deg C) 11 EngineBarometric pressure (Kpa) 102.7 FuelTest driver HS1/dfn Oil

SOAK Temp -10degC (Set point)

Rating Oil (oC) Coolant(oC) Intake (oC)Ignition on -11 -11 -11Crank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 seconds Crank time N/AEvaluate startability 7Ignition -off within 5 secondsIgnition-onCrank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 seconds Crank time N/AEvaluate re-startability 7 Data file: C:..\logs\gov05\veh_ 01_CST1a

Oil Coolant IntakeEvaluate idle roughness (10 seconds) 7Shift to D/R or clutch engagedEvaluate idle roughness (10 seconds) 7Turn on the headlights, blower (max position) and defrosterEvaluate idle roughness (10 seconds) 7Turn power steering to the right endEvaluate idle roughness (10 seconds) 7Turn power steering to the left endEvaluate idle roughness (10 seconds) 7Re-align steering Turn off headlights, blower and defroster

Oil Coolant IntakeShift in P/N or disengage clutch (NIG)Idle racing mode to 3000rpmEvaluate acceleration 7Black smoke present? 7 Dark: 1, Grey:5, Normal: 7

Move the car to the test road Oil Coolant IntakeIdle 10 seconds 71/2 throttle to 50km/hr 7

Oil Coolant Intake50km/hr cruise 7 (oC) (oC) (oC)Stop and idle 10 seconds 7

WOT to 70km/hr 770km/hr cruise 7Stop and idle 10 seconds 71/4 throttle to 50km/hr 750km/hr cruise 73/4 throttle to 70km/hr 770km/hr cruise 7Stop and idle 10 seconds 7Interrupted acceleration 71/2 throttle to 70km/hr 770km/hr cruise 7Stop and idle 20 seconds 7Steering lock to lock 7Idle in P/N 7Ignition offRestart 7


Cold Start and Warm-up Evaluation

Cold idle quality ratingEngine stall: 1, Surge: 3, Rough: 5, Normal: 7 more

Cold startability rating

Cold acceleration ratingEngine stall: 1, Backfires: 2, Hesitation:3 , Surge:4, Rough: 5, Normal: 7 more

Cold startability ratingNo start: 1, Start and stall : 3, Rough: 5, Normal: 7 more

Cold acceleration rating


4. Warm-up drive

4. Warm-up drive



Engine stall: 1, Backfires: 2, Hesitation:3 , Surge:4, Rough: 5, Normal: 7 moreCold idle quality rating



10W40

1. Cold start

2. Cold idle

3. Cold acceleration


Cold Start and Warm-up Evaluation, Test no 1a

3/07/200607h3012+

1AJH 944

TEST REPORT C-3


Attachment 3 Cold start and warm up evaluation results #2 ULP

Vehicle Number GOV5-01 RegistrationVehicle name Hyundai Excel Test dateVehicle colour White Test timeMileage (km) 81028 Soak hoursAmbient temperature (deg C) 16.5 EngineBarometric pressure (Kpa) 102.6 FuelTest driver AT1/dfn Oil


Rating Oil (oC) Coolant(oC) Intake (oC)Ignition on -10 -9 -10Crank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 seconds Crank time 0.986Evaluate startability 8Ignition -off within 5 secondsIgnition-onCrank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 seconds Crank time 0.737Evaluate re-startability 8 Data file: C:..\logs\gov05\veh_ 01_cst3b






Cold Start and Warm-up Evaluation, Test no 1b

4/07/200614h00

6.5

1AJH 944

2. Cold idle




10W40

1. Cold start



4. Warm-up drive

4. Warm-up drive











TEST REPORT C-3


Attachment 4 Cold start and warm up evaluation results #1 E5

Vehicle Number GOV5-01 RegistrationVehicle name Hyundai Excel Test dateVehicle colour White Test timeMileage (km) 81662 Soak hoursAmbient temperature (deg C) 1.6 EngineBarometric pressure (Kpa) 102.5 FuelTest driver HS1/dfn Oil


Rating Oil (oC) Coolant(oC) Intake (oC)Ignition on -10 -10 -10Crank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 seconds Crank time 1.2Evaluate startability 7Ignition -off within 5 secondsIgnition-onCrank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 seconds Crank time 2Evaluate re-startability 7














4. Warm-up drive

4. Warm-up drive





1.5L, In line, 4cylULPE510W40

1. Cold start

2. Cold idle




19/07/200607h3012+

1AJH 944

TEST REPORT C-3



Vehicle Number GOV5-01 RegistrationVehicle name Hyundai Excel Test dateVehicle colour White Test timeMileage (km) 81669 Soak hoursAmbient temperature (deg C) 20.3 EngineBarometric pressure (Kpa) 102.1 FuelTest driver AT1/jwp Oil


Rating Oil (oC) Coolant(oC) Intake (oC)Ignition on -10.6 -11 -11Crank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 seconds Crank time 1.5Evaluate startability 7Ignition -off within 5 secondsIgnition-onCrank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 seconds Crank time 1.5Evaluate re-startability 7







19/07/200613h30

8

1AJH 944

2. Cold idle




1. Cold start



4. Warm-up drive

4. Warm-up drive











TEST REPORT C-3



Vehicle Number GOV5-01 RegistrationVehicle name Hyundai Excel Test dateVehicle colour White Test timeMileage (km) 181343 Soak hoursAmbient temperature (deg C) 8.8 EngineBarometric pressure (Kpa) 102.6 FuelTest driver HS1 Oil


Rating Oil (oC) Coolant(oC) Intake (oC)Ignition on -10 -10 -10.9Crank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 seconds Crank time 0.7Evaluate startability 7Ignition -off within 5 secondsIgnition-onCrank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 seconds Crank time 0.7Evaluate re-startability 7














4. Warm-up drive

4. Warm-up drive






1. Cold start

2. Cold idle




14/07/20060.3125

1AJH 944

TEST REPORT C-3



Vehicle Number GOV5-01 RegistrationVehicle name Hyundai Excel Test dateVehicle colour White Test timeMileage (km) 81350 Soak hoursAmbient temperature (deg C) 17.8 EngineBarometric pressure (Kpa) 102.6 FuelTest driver AT1/jwp Oil


Rating Oil (oC) Coolant(oC) Intake (oC)Ignition on -9 -9 -10.4Crank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 seconds Crank time 0.9 <1 secEvaluate startability 7Ignition -off within 5 secondsIgnition-onCrank after fuel pump relay is off. No start if crank time is > 10 seconds Crank time 0.7 <1 secEvaluate re-startability 7







14/07/20060.541666667

6

1AJH 944

2. Cold idle




1. Cold start



4. Warm-up drive

4. Warm-up drive











TEST REPORT C-4



TITLE Snap Fuel Change Test – Vehicle Driveability Assessment Hyundai Excel – GOV5-01

AIM

• To determine if the vehicles Engine Management System is able to cope with a sudden switch between petrol/E5/E10 fuels by assessing the vehicles subjective driveability immediately after the vehicles fuel tank is drained of one test fuel and refuelled with another.

EQUIPMENT

N/A

PROCEDURE

• The vehicle’s fuel tank was drained completely of fuel, and then refuelled with the new test fuel.

• Without starting the engine the vehicle was soaked to the ambient air temperature (approximately 25oC).

• The vehicle driveability assessment was performed, for differing driving conditions, to evaluate the vehicle’s startability, idle, acceleration, driveability and performance. These conditions are laid out on the Vehicle Appraisal Form (Form #8838).

TEST REPORT C-4


RESULTS

Average Driveability Ratings. ULP Baseline ULPE10** Max. Delta

(Δ)Cold Startability 7.0 7.0 0.0Warmed-up Start 7.0 7.0 0.0Overall Restart 6.8 7.0 0.3Idle Stability 7.2 7.0 -0.2Idle Roughness 7.2 7.0 -0.2Launchability, Part Load 7.0 7.0 0.0Launchability, WOT 7.0 7.0 0.0Acceleration Feel, Part Load 7.0 7.0 0.0Acceleration Feel, WOT 7.0 7.0 0.0Passing feel, Part Load 7.0 7.0 0.0Passing feel, WOT 7.0 7.0 0.0Gradeability 7.0 7.0 0.0Low speed shunt/chuggle 7.0 7.0 0.0Part Load, Steady State 7.0 7.0 0.0Part Load, Accel (LTI, crowd) 7.0 7.0 0.0Fuel Cut-off and re-intro shock 7.0 7.0 0.0Full Load ,Torque Delivery 7.0 7.0 0.0Knocking 7.0 7.0 0.0P/N to D transition 7.0 7.0 0.0Average 7.0 7.0 0.0Minimum 6.8 7.0 -0.2Maximum 7.2 7.0 0.3

Table 1 – Driveability Assessment Summary and Comparison

* The ULP driveability results are the rounded average of two driveability evaluations. See separate vehicle driveability section for full ULP data. Max Delta (largest reduction in rating of any fuel compared to ULP result) also rounded to one decimal place. **Each “Snap Fuel Change Test” was result of a single test. CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION

1. The Snap Fuel Change driveability assessment provided no clear indication the vehicle EMS is affected by a sudden (short term) AFR enleanment/enrichment as a result of changing fuels.

2. An average driver is unlikely to notice any temporary differences on switching between petrol, E5 and E10 fuels.

TEST REPORT C-4


ATTACHMENTS

1. Test summary of start, idle, performance and driveability ratings 2. Snap Fuel Change Vehicle Appraisal Results ULPE10

TEST REPORT C-4


Attachment 1 Test summary of start, idle performance and driveability ratings

* The ULP driveability results are the rounded average of two driveability evaluations. **Each “Snap Fuel Change Test” was result of a single test.

Startability and Idle Quality Snap Fuel Change Comparison

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.0Cold Startability

Warmed-up Start

Overall RestartIdle Stability

Idle Roughness

ULP Baseline ULPE10**

Vehicle Performance Snap Fuel Change Comparison

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.0Launchability, Part Load

Launchability, WOT

Acceleration Feel, Part Load

Acceleration Feel, WOTPassing feel, Part Load

Passing feel, WOT

Gradeability


TEST REPORT C-4


Warmed-up driveability Snap Fuel Change Comparison

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.0Low speed shunt/chuggle

Part Load, Steady State

Part Load, Accel (LTI, crowd)

Fuel Cut-off and re-intro shockFull Load ,Torque Delivery

Knocking

P/N to D transition


TEST REPORT C-4


Attachment 2 Snap Fuel Change Vehicle Appraisal Results ULPE10

Vehicle name GOV5-01 Hyundai Test date 7/07/2006Mileage (km) 81060 Test time 15:30Ambient temperature (deg C) 23 Test road Balcatta areaBarometric pressure (Kpa) 102 Engine StandardTest driver HS1 Fuel ULPE10Co-driver DFN Oil 10W40







Linearity 7Stroke 7






Vehicle Appraisal Form (Snap fuel change 3)

Cold start

Warmed up start

RPM stability

Effort

Effort

Fuel cut-off

Idle roughness

Launch feel

Accel feel

Passing feel

TEST REPORT C-5


CUSTOMER Department of the Environment and Heritage PROJECT GOV005

TITLE WOT Performance Test Hyundai Excel – GOV5-01

AIM

• To evaluate the WOT acceleration performance of a vehicle.

• To compare petrol, E5 and E10 for WOT acceleration performance. EQUIPMENT

• MACD – Mileage Accumulation Chassis Dynamometer

• Data logger – Virtual Bench with National Instruments DAQCard 1200. PROCEDURE This procedure evaluated the wide-open throttle (WOT) performance of a power train installed in a vehicle. It was based on the SAE standard, J1491. An ambient air temperature below 32oC was required before proceeding with testing. The same procedure described below was used for Petrol, E5 and E10 fuels. Preparation

• The roadload was equivalent to the mileage accumulation roadload, based on the ADR79 “book value”.

• The MACD was warmed and calibrated, and the coast-down data recorded (with vehicle off the dynamometer).

• The fan speed was set to be equivalent to the road speed. • Vehicle tyre pressures were checked to be as per vehicle specification, and all

vehicles electrical accessories were set to the ‘OFF’ position. • The vehicle was driven for a minimum of 32km at an average speed of 88km/h.

WOT Accelerations from a Standing Start • The test was conducted in “drive” for automatic transmissions and gear shifts

occurred at redline engine speed for manual transmissions. • Three (3) WOT accelerations were performed from a standing start to a speed of

no less than 100km/h, and covering no less than 402m. • Each test followed the previous one with minimum delay, began from a standing

start and driven to achieve maximum performance with minimum wheel spin. • The vehicle speed, exhaust temperatures and AFR were logged. The presence, or

absence, of audible engine knock and also general engine/vehicle performance was noted.

WOT Accelerations from 64 km/h • From a stabilized speed of 64km/h (± 0.8 km/h) the vehicle was accelerated at

wide-open throttle to 97km/h. • Separate tests for manual transmissions were run in top gear, and top gear less

one, and not downshifted during the acceleration. Automatic transmissions were allowed to downshift as determined by the vehicle transmission controller.

• The vehicle speed, exhaust temperatures and AFR were logged. The presence, or absence, of audible engine knock and also general engine/vehicle performance was noted.

TEST REPORT C-5


RESULTS The WOT test procedure produced repeatable results with minimal variability. Figures 1 and 2 below represent the average petrol, E5 and E10 WOT acceleration test data.

WOT accel comparison, Hyundai Excel, 1999m/y.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Time, s

Spee

d, k

m/h

ULPULP_E5ULP_E10

Figure 1 – Standing Start WOT Acceleration Comparison

Between Petrol, E5 and E10

WOT accel comparison, 64-97km/h, Hyundai Excel, 1999m/y

60.00

65.00

70.00

75.00

80.00

85.00

90.00

95.00

100.00

105.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Time, s

Spee

d, k

m/h

ULPULP_E5ULP_E10

Figure 2 – 64 to 97 km/h WOT Acceleration Comparison Between Petrol, E5 and E10

TEST REPORT C-5


Results: ULP ULP E5 ULP E10

E5 E100-48km/h elapsed time,s 4.03 3.97 4.07 2% -1%

0-80km/h elapsed time,s 9.07 8.97 9.00 1% 1%


64-97km/h elapsed time,s 6.00 6.13 6.17 -2% -3%

0-5s distance covered, m 44.35 45.0 43.7 1% -1%

0-5s terminal speed, km/h 55.43 55.8 55.6 1% 0%

0-300m elapsed time 15.60 15.5 15.6 1% 0%

0-300m terminal speed, km/h 108.66 109.2 110.3 1% 2%

Uego Average Lambda 0.92 0.91 0.93 -0.8% 1.4%

Exhaust temp max. 756 751.5 760.7 -1% 1%

% Improvement over Petrol.

The values shown are average values, calculated from the three acceleration runs on each fuel. During the WOT test, the vehicle did not reach the 400m point and results are quoted for the 300m point, as a means of comparison across the fuels.

Table 1 – Averaged WOT Acceleration Performance Test Data

0.0

2.04.0

6.0

8.010.0

12.0

14.0

0-48km/helapsedtime,s




Tim

e, s

ec

ULPULP E5ULP E10

0-97 and 0-80km/h Time, Hyundai Excel, 1999m/y

Figure 3 – Elapsed Times for WOT Accelerations

Overall the WOT acceleration test data indicates little difference in the acceleration times for E5, E10 and petrol. E5 appears slightly better than petrol, with an improvement of 1~2% in the times to reach all three terminal speeds. For accelerations from 64~97km/h km/h the trend is reversed with petrol providing a slightly quicker acceleration time than E5 and E10, the difference being 2~3%.

TEST REPORT C-5


0-300m Time and Terminal Speed, Hyundai Excel,1999m/y

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0-5s distancecovered, m

0-5s terminalspeed, km/h

0-300melapsed time

0-300mterminal speed,

km/h

Tim

e, s

dis

tnac

e, m

and

spe

ed, k

m/h

ULPULP E5ULP E10

Figure 4 – 0 to 5s and 0 to 402m WOT Acceleration Performance Comparison The standing start WOT acceleration test data indicates that there is little difference in performance between E5, E10 and petrol. A slight improvement of 1% was noted for E5 in 0~300m elapsed times, while both E5 and E10 gave improvements of 1% and 2% in the 0-300km/h terminal speeds. Launch, as measured by the 0~5s distance was slightly poorer for the E10 fuel although slightly improved for E5.

AFR (Lambda), Hyundai Excel, 1999m/y.

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time, s

Lam

bda

ULP

ULP_E5

ULP_E10

Figure 5 – Standing Start WOT Acceleration Lambda Comparison The Lambda value in Figure 5 shows that on average the engine was running at a slightly

TEST REPORT C-5


at a similar Air/Fuel Ratio (AFR) for E5 as on Petrol, while a slight enleanment of 1.4% was evident for E10. It would appear that AFR correction is being applied to the WOT region for this vehicle. This supports the generally improved performance obtained with E5 and E10 fuels.

Pre-Cat Exh Temp, Hyundai Excel, 1999m/y.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time, s

Exha

ust T

emp,

deg

C

ULPULP_E5ULP_E10

Figure 6 – Standing Start WOT Acceleration Exhaust Temperatures

The peak pre-catalyst exhaust gas temperature recorded at the end of each run was within 1% (4 degC) of the petrol figure, for the E5 and E10 fuels. (The peak temperature is a better indicator of the exhaust temperature than the average over the test, as it is less affected by the entry temperature, which is variable, than the average value). CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION The WOT acceleration results on the Hyundai Excel indicate there is no evidence of a detrimental effect caused by the use of E5 and E10 on the WOT performance. Similar WOT performance occurred for petrol, E5 and E10 for the Hyundai Excel. ATTACHMENTS

1. MACD WOT Acceleration Performance Vehicle Data Sheet for petrol. 2. MACD WOT Acceleration Performance Vehicle Data Sheet for E5. 3. MACD WOT Acceleration Performance Vehicle Data Sheet for E10. 4. MACD WOT Acceleration Comparison over all fuels tested.

TEST REPORT C-5


Attachment 1 MACD WOT Acceleration Performance Vehicle Data Sheet

For Petrol.

Test Date 7/06/2006Vehicle: Make Hyundai Model Excel Year 1999 Car No 01

Odometer 81036 km

Test Location MACD no 1 Driver R BrooksStart of test date 6/07/2006 Time strt 10:30End of test date 6/07/2006 Time end 12:30Transmission, type 4a/t Automatic shift mode Drive

Fuel Type ULP

Remarks

Ambient conditions for test:Temperature oC Barometric Pressure 102.7 kPa Relative Humidity 55Wind Velocity roller speed km/h Direction Head-on Peak wind velocity road speed

Results: Test1 Test2 Test3 Average Variability (Max-mean)/mean

0-48km/h elapsed time,s 4.1 4 4 4.03 1.65 %

0-80km/h elapsed time,s 9.1 9 9.1 9.07 0.37 %

0-97km/h elapsed time,s 12.3 12.1 12.2 12.20 0.82 %

64-97km/h elapsed time,s 6.1 6 5.9 6.00 1.67 %

0-5s distance covered, m 43.8 44.6 44.7 44.4 0.71 %

0-5s terminal speed, km/h 54.8 55.8 55.7 55.4 0.75 %

0-400m elapsed time 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 0.00 %300m times used as throttle was released prior to 400m being reached.

0-400m terminal speed, km/h 106.9 109.5 109.5 108.7 0.80 %300m times used as throttle was released prior to 400m being reached.

Uego Average 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.59 %

Exhaust temp max. 726.5 751.7 771.7 755.8 2.10 %

File reference: P:\Projects\Government\GOV005\Test Data\GOV5-01 - Hyundai Excel\MACD\[VEH01_WOT03.xls]WOT_0-100

15

TEST REPORT C-5


Attachment 2 MACD WOT Acceleration Performance Vehicle Data Sheet

for E5.

Test Date 17/10/2006Vehicle: Make Hyundai Model Excel Year 1999 Car No 01

Odometer 81242 km


Fuel Type ULP E5

Remarks

Ambient conditions for test:Temperature 18 oC Barometric Pressure 102.6 kPa Relative Humidity,% 45Wind Velocity roller speed km/h Diretion Head-on Peak wind velocity n/a


0-48km/h elapsed time,s 4 3.9 4 3.97 0.84 %

0-80km/h elapsed time,s 9.1 8.8 9 8.97 1.49 %







Uego Average 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 4.67 %

Exhaust temp max. 727.0 749.1 766.5 751.5 1.99 %


TEST REPORT C-5


Attachment 3

MACD WOT Acceleration Performance Vehicle Data Sheet for E10.

Test Date 10/07/2006

Vehicle: Make Hyundai Model Excel Year 1999 Car No 01Odometer 81280 km


Fuel Type ULP E10

Remarks

Ambient conditions for test:Temperature oC Barometric Pressure 102.7 kPa Relative Humidity 60 %Wind Velocity roller speed km/h Diretion Head-on Peak wind velocity road speed










Uego Average 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.31 %

Exhaust temp max. 733.9 766.5 767.0 760.7 0.82 %


12

TEST REPORT C-5


Attachment 4

MACD WOT Acceleration Performance Vehicle Data Sheet Averaged data and variance for all fuels.

Test Date 7/06/2006

Vehicle: Make Model Year 1999 Car No 01Odometer kmEnd Ods km

Test Location MACD no 1 Driver R BrooksStart of test date Time strt variousEnd of test date Time end variousTransmission, type Automatic shift mode Drive

Fuel Type (base)

Remarks

Ambient conditions for test:Temperature oC Barometric Pressure 102.6~102.7 Relative Humidity 45~60 %Wind Velocity roller speed km/h Direction Head-on Peak wind velocity Road speed

Results: ULP ULP E5 ULP E10E5 E10

0-48km/h elapsed time,s 4.03 3.97 4.07 2% -1%



64-97km/h elapsed time,s 6.00 6.13 6.17 -2% -3%

0-5s distance covered, m 44.35 45.0 43.7 1% -1%

0-5s terminal speed, km/h 55.43 55.8 55.6 1% 0%

0-300m elapsed time 15.60 15.5 15.6 1% 0%

0-300m terminal speed, km/h 108.66 109.2 110.3 1% 2%

Uego Average Lambda 0.92 0.91 0.93 -0.8% 1.4%

Exhaust temp max. 756 751.5 760.7 -1% 1%


Hyundai Excel81036

6/07/2006

81280

12~18

% Improvement over Petrol.

17/10/20060

ULP

TEST REPORT C-6

GOV5-01 Material_Compatibility Report.doc 1 OF 12 FORM# 8879/1

CUSTOMER Department of Environment and Heritage PROJECT GOV005

TITLE 2000hr Materials Compatibility Testing of Fuel System Components for a “1986 onward” Hyundai Excel GOV5-01

AIM To identify the impacts of 5% and 10% ethanol gasoline fuel blends on the fuel system components of a “1986 onward” Hyundai Excel.

EQUIPMENT • Environmental test cell utilised as a soak room operating at 55oC. • Adjacent test cell at 23oC for test part monitoring and fuel disposal and

replenishment. • Wide mouth polyethylene test bottles • 3 test fuel types

o S.ULP (summer grade ULP) o S.ULP.E5 containing 5% ethanol and 0.25% corrosive water o S.ULP.E10 containing 10% ethanol and 0.5% corrosive water.

• Fuel system components as outlined in the attached data. • Digital camera • Shore hardness tester • Micrometer • Gravimetric scales

PROCEDURE • A selection of fuel system components was made based on them having contact with

fuel and potentially influencing the integrity and function of the fuel system. These components were characterised accordingly and their features recorded. A photographic record of the components was also taken.

• All components were labelled with part numbers according to the appropriate SAE standard. A listing of the components tested is shown in Table 1.

• Parts tested were from a MY1999 Hyundai Excel and unless otherwise noted were genuine OEM parts or OEM recommended alternatives.

• Components were immersed in S.ULP and in the S.ULP/ethanol/corrosive water mix. Immersion was according to the appropriate SAE standard. Parts were placed in the test bottles and listed on test sheets, on which all components in that bottle were listed. One sheet was kept per part and results were recorded on these test sheets as the test progressed

• Each test bottle was also marked with the immersed components part number ensuring adequate quality control. The test bottles were sealed and placed into the soak room at 55oC. Tests were run on groups of bottles for each set of vehicle components. The start time and inspection times for each group of bottles were recorded in a log book to track the exposure time.

• Final test duration target was 2000hrs of soak time.

TEST REPORT C-6


• At regular times the fluid level in the sample containers was inspected and replenished if necessary.

• At interim times, the samples were removed from the bottles for progress inspection. At each of these times the test fuels were replaced with fresh fuel prior to recommencing the soak.

• At completion of the 2000hrs, the samples were inspected as per the interim points, but were also “dried” in accordance with the SAE standard and given a final inspection.

• In addition to weighing, dimensioning and hardness testing (as appropriate), component inspection included recording of the visual differences (such as distortion, enlargement, colour change or loss of shape) between the initial appearance by photograph and comparison between the fuel types was made. For the metal engine components, evidence of corrosion, discoloration or tarnishing was recorded.

RESULTS The GOV5-01 test parts completed 2016 hours of fluid exposure with interim progress inspections and recordings made at 480 hrs and at 970 hours. The fluid effects noted were:

• swelling and softening of elastomers when wet; • shrinkage and hardening of elastomers when dried; and • corrosion of some metallic components.

Numeric results are shown in Table 2 through Table 4. Results showing the relative change (%) are shown graphically in Figure 1 through Figure 7. 2000hr “Wet” Results for Elastomeric Components Figure 1 shows the weight gain of components when wet. Of particular note was the weight gain of:

• Rubber hoses (part #’s 1, 3a, 4a, 8) • Seals (part #’s 5 and 10b) • O-rings (part #’s 3b, 4b, 6b, 6c and 7c)

For these parts the weight gain when wet was generally greater for E5 than for S.ULP, with a further increase for E10. This indicates greater absorption of fuel by rubber or elastomer parts when exposed to ethanol blends. Figure 2 shows the change in a key dimension (thickness or diameter) of the part after exposure to fuel. Of note was the swelling of:

• Rubber hoses (part #’s 1, 3a, 4a, 8) • Seals (part #’s 2 and 10b) • O-rings (part #’s 3b, 4b, 6b, 6c and 7c)

For these parts the swelling was generally greater for E5 than for S.ULP, with further a increase for E10 in most cases. This indicates greater swelling of rubber or elastomer parts when exposed to ethanol blends.

TEST REPORT C-6


Figure 3 shows the hardness (where measured) for parts after exposure to fuel. Of note was the reduced hardness of:

• Rubber hoses (part #’s 1, 3a, 4a, 8) For these parts the softening was generally greater for E5 than for S.ULP, with a further softening for E10 in most cases. 2000hr “Dry” Results for Elastomeric Components Figure 4 shows the weight change of components when dried at the completion of the test. Of particular note was the weight loss of:

• Rubber hoses (part #’s 1, 3a, 4a, 8) • Seals (part #’s 2 and 10b) • O-rings (part #’s 3b, 4b, 6b, 6c and 7c) • Diaphragm (part # 7b)

For these parts the weight loss was generally greater for E5 than for S.ULP, with a further loss for E10. The loss of weight compared to the initial weight of the component indicates that material has been dissolved by the fuel, changing the material composition. This indicates greater change in the material composition after exposure to ethanol blends. Figure 5 shows the change in a key dimension (where measured) of the part when dried after exposure to fuel. Typically outside diameter was measured for hoses, thickness for flat material and section diameter for O-rings. Of note was the shrinkage of:

• Rubber hoses (part # 1) • Diaphragm (part # 7b)

These showed greater shrinkage after exposure to E10 than after exposure to S.ULP. Figure 6 shows the hardness (where measured) for parts when dried after exposure to fuel. Of note was the increased hardness of:

• Rubber hoses (part #’s 1, 3a, 4a) For these parts the hardness was generally greater for E5 than for S.ULP with further hardening for E10 in most cases. 2000hr Results for Metal Components Figure 7 shows evidence of metal corrosion:

• Banjo seal (part #5) shows increasing levels of corrosion for increased levels of ethanol.

General Observations

• Rubber of pressure regulator diaphragm (part #7b) is rigid after exposure to E10. • Corrosion on cut edges of fuel filter element (part # 11a) after exposure to ethanol

blends. • Glue of filter element has detached from the steel casing (part # 11b) after

exposure to ethanol blends.

TEST REPORT C-6


CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION Examination of the selected parts of the Hyundai Excel after exposure to S.ULP, E5 and E10 fuel blends showed:

• Increased weight gain of elastomer components due to increased absorption of fuel for ethanol blends.

• Increased swelling of elastomer components due to exposure to ethanol blends

• Softening of elastomer components due to exposure to ethanol blends.

• Greater weight loss by elastomer components when dried after exposure to ethanol blends

• Greater shrinkage of elastomer components when dried after exposure to ethanol blends

• Hardening of elastomer components when dried after exposure to ethanol blends.

• Corrosion of some metal components when exposed to ethanol blends The swelling and softening of components (in particular hoses) has the potential to cause fuel connections to fail. The swelling and softening of O-rings and seals causes a risk of damage to the O-ring or incorrect fitment of the seal during assembly of joints leading to fuel leakage. Hardening of hoses has the potential for failure through material degradation. Materials experiencing significant changes due to contact with E5 and E10 are considered unacceptable. Metal components which corroded during this accelerated test are considered incompatible with the test fluid. Some of the elastomer and polymer components tested would not normally be exposed to fuel immersion on their external surface whilst in-service, however identification of a difference in compatibility between S.ULP and ethanol blend results highlights potential for a change in performance should fuel exposure occur.

ATTACHMENTS The materials compatibility result sheets.

TEST REPORT C-6


Table 1 – Components Tested

86 Onward Vehicle GOV5-01 Hyundai Excel

Part Description Material

1 Hose - tank to filler vent tube rubber 2 Packing (seal) Fuel pump module to tank rubber

3a Hose - tank to forward supply tube rubber 3b O-Ring - Hose - tank to forward supply tube rubber 4a Hose - filter to rail with banjos rubber 4b O-ring - Hose - filter to rail with banjos rubber 5 Banjo seal (gasket) copper

6a Fuel injector composite 6b O-ring - bottom - fuel injector rubber 6c O-ring - top - fuel injector rubber 6d Washer - retaining aluminium 7a Casing - Pressure regulator steel 7b Diaphragm -Pressure regulator rubber 7c O-Ring seal - Pressure regulator rubber 8 Hose - Pressure reg to rear return tube rubber 9 Two-way valve plastic composite

10a Tank check valve plastic composite 10b Seal - Tank check valve rubber 11a Casing - Fuel filter steel 11b Element - Fuel filter paper/metal

TEST REPORT C-6


Table 2 – Measurements at beginning of test

86 Onward Vehicle Pre Test measurements GOV5-01 Hyundai Excel S.ULP S.ULP.E5 S.ULP.E10

Part

Description Material

Wei

ght (

g)

Thic

knes

s/D

ia (m

m)

Har

dnes

s (S

hore

)

Wei

ght (

g)

Thic

knes

s/D

ia (m

m)

Har

dnes

s (S

hore

)

Wei

ght (

g)

Thic

knes

s/D

ia (m

m)

Har

dnes

s (S

hore

)

1 Hose - tank to filler vent tube rubber 11.717 22.2 66 10.599 19.5 65 10.959 19.8 67 2 Packing (seal) Fuel pump

module to tank rubber 22.408 5.5 22.651 5.4 22.425 5.5

3a Hose - tank to forward supply tube

rubber 11.932 14.65 71 6.041 14.45 70.5 5.707 14.5 72

3b O-Ring - Hose - tank to forward supply tube

rubber 0.158 1.9 0.160 1.8 0.161 1.85

4a Hose - filter to rail with banjos

rubber 8.704 14.6 70 12.068 14.45 69.5 11.564 14.3 70

4b O-ring - Hose - filter to rail with banjos

rubber 0.385 2.5 0.380 2.5 0.382 2.44

5 Banjo seal (gasket) copper 1.078 0.98 1.105 0.98 1.06 0.98 6a Fuel injector Composite 48.69 1.15 48.73 1.22 48.667 1.16 6b O-ring - bottom - fuel injector rubber 0.639 3.58 0.629 3.55 0.597 3.45 6c O-ring - top - fuel injector rubber 0.626 3.49 0.632 3.55 0.634 3.55 6d Washer - retaining aluminium 0.242 0.99 0.244 1 0.244 1 7a Casing - Pressure regulator steel 12.811 12.855 12.8 7b Diaphragm -Pressure

regulator rubber 6.729 0.7 6.588 0.64 6.724 0.7

7c O-Ring seal - Pressure regulator

rubber 0.369 2.4 0.373 2.45 0.375 2.42

8 Hose - Pressure reg to rear return tube

rubber 6.997 12 68 12.305 12.1 70 16.255 12.1 68.69

9 Two-way valve Plastic composite

14.175 7.2 14.193 7.25 14.202 7.1

10a Tank check valve Plastic composite

25.76 7.47 25.627 7.45 25.614 7.45

10b Seal - Tank check valve Rubber 1.765 3.05 1.802 3.1 1.829 3.12 11a Casing - Fuel filter steel 15.011 14.343 14.98 11b Element - Fuel filter 2.868 2.862 2.787

TEST REPORT C-6


Table 3 – Measurements at completion of test, wet. 86 Onward Vehicle 2000 hr measurements (wet) GOV5-01 Hyundai Excel S.ULP S.ULP.E5 S.ULP.E10

Part


Wei

ght (

g)

Thic

knes

s/D

ia (m

m)

Har

dnes

s (S

hore

)

Wei

ght (

g)

Thic

knes

s/D

ia (m

m)

Har

dnes

s (S

hore

)

Wei

ght (

g)

Thic

knes

s/D

ia (m

m)

Har

dnes

s (S

hore

)

1 Hose - tank to filler vent tube rubber 11.857 22.68 65 11.558 21.3 54 12.245 21.4 50 2 Packing (seal) Fuel pump



rubber 12.811 14.7 68 6.818 15.2 64 6.615 15.1 55


rubber 0.17 1.95 0.174 2.01 0.178 2


rubber 9.328 14.78 70 13.538 14.95 60 13.532 15.5 58


rubber 0.402 2.5 0.413 2.55 0.415 2.57

5 Banjo seal (gasket) copper 1.07 1 1.08 1.01 1.044 1.06 6a Fuel injector Composite 49.335 49.808 49.991 6b O-ring - bottom - fuel injector rubber 0.666 3.67 0.663 3.71 0.647 3.64 6c O-ring - top - fuel injector rubber 0.652 3.59 0.67 3.67 0.685 3.72 6d Washer - retaining aluminium 0.243 1 0.243 1 0.244 1 7a Casing - Pressure regulator steel 12.872 12.869 12.896 7b Diaphragm -Pressure



rubber 0.383 2.47 0.392 2.51 0.41 2.52


rubber 7.418 12.45 61 13.815 12.91 52 19.322 13.6 45


15.729 7.25 15.266 7.38 15.934 7.26


26.525 7.51 26.682 7.52 26.956 7.53

10b Seal - Tank check valve Rubber 1.884 3.15 1.921 3.35 2.246 3.45 11a Casing - Fuel filter steel 15.05 14.369 15.019 11b Element - Fuel filter 0 8.338 7.79 8.248

TEST REPORT C-6


Table 4 – Measurements at completion of test, dry. 86 Onward Vehicle Post test measurements (dry) GOV5-01 Hyundai Excel S.ULP S.ULP.E5 S.ULP.E10

Part


Wei

ght (

g)

Thic

knes

s/D

ia (m

m)

Har

dnes

s (S

hore

)

Wei

ght (

g)

Thic

knes

s/D

ia (m

m)

Har

dnes

s (S

hore

)

Wei

ght (

g)

Thic

knes

s/D

ia (m

m)

Har

dnes

s (S

hore

)

1 Hose - tank to filler vent tube rubber 9.673 20.7 82 8.648 18.2 87 8.898 18 84 2 Packing (seal) Fuel pump



rubber 11.57 14.5 72 5.787 14.5 81 5.386 14.4 80


rubber 0.166 1.93 0.163 1.92 0.166 1.92


rubber 8.384 14.5 78 11.515 14.4 78 10.881 14.4 80


rubber 0.39 2.48 0.393 2.49 0.392 2.48

5 Banjo seal (gasket) copper 1.079 0.99 1.056 1.01 1.04 1 6a Fuel injector Composite 48.571 48.806 48.866 6b O-ring - bottom - fuel injector rubber 0.65 3.65 0.64 3.64 0.606 3.55 6c O-ring - top - fuel injector rubber 0.639 3.55 0.643 3.6 0.643 3.64 6d Washer - retaining aluminium 0.245 1 0.247 1.01 0.244 1 7a Casing - Pressure regulator steel 12.79 12.823 12.786 7b Diaphragm -Pressure



rubber 0.374 2.46 0.375 2.47 0.379 2.49


rubber 6.698 11.9 71 11.624 11.6 74 15.146 11.8 70


14.407 7.2 14.271 7.28 14.284 7.18


25.925 7.51 25.81 7.42 25.797 7.49

10b Seal - Tank check valve Rubber 1.535 2.92 1.529 2.88 1.55 3 11a Casing - Fuel filter steel 15.001 14.334 14.93 11b Element - Fuel filter 0 2.849 2.855 2.846

TEST REPORT C-6


GOV5-001 % Weight Change, Wet

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Hos

e - t

ank

to fi

ller v

ent t

ube

Pac

king

(sea

l) Fu

el p

ump

mod

ule

to ta

nk

Hos

e - t

ank

to fo

rwar

d su

pply

tube

O-R

ing

- Hos

e - t

ank

to fo

rwar

dsu

pply

tube

Hos

e - f

ilter

to ra

il w

ith b

anjo

s

O-r

ing

- Hos

e - f

ilter

to ra

il w

ithba

njos

Banj

o se

al (g

aske

t)

Fuel

inje

ctor

O-r

ing

- bot

tom

- fu

el in

ject

or

O-r

ing

- top

- fu

el in

ject

or

Was

her -

reta

inin

g

Cas

ing

- Pre

ssur

e re

gula

tor

Dia

phra

gm -P

ress

ure

regu

lato

r

O-R

ing

seal

- P

ress

ure

regu

lato

r

Hos

e - P

ress

ure

reg

to re

ar re

turn

tube

Two-

way

val

ve

Tank

che

ck v

alve

Seal

- Ta

nk c

heck

val

ve

Cas

ing

- Fue

l filt

er

1 2 3a 3b 4a 4b 5 6a 6b 6c 6d 7a 7b 7c 8 9 10a 10b 11a

Wei

ght C

hang

e (%

)

S.ULP S.ULP.E5 S.ULP.E10

Figure 1 – Component weight change at test completion, wet.

GOV5-001 % Dimension Change, Wet

-6%-4%-2%0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%

Hos

e - t

ank

to fi

ller v

ent t

ube

Pac

king

(sea

l) Fu

el p

ump

mod

ule

to ta

nk

Hos

e - t

ank

to fo

rwar

d su

pply

tube

O-R

ing

- Hos

e - t

ank

to fo

rwar

dsu

pply

tube

Hos

e - f

ilter

to ra

il w

ith b

anjo

s

O-ri

ng -

Hos

e - f

ilter

to ra

il w

ithba

njos

Ban

jo s

eal (

gask

et)

O-r

ing

- bot

tom

- fu

el in

ject

or

O-r

ing

- top

- fu

el in

ject

or

Was

her -

reta

inin

g

Dia

phra

gm -P

ress

ure

regu

lato

r

O-R

ing

seal

- P

ress

ure

regu

lato

r

Hos

e - P

ress

ure

reg

to re

ar re

turn

tube

Two-

way

val

ve

Tank

che

ck v

alve

Sea

l - T

ank

chec

k va

lve

1 2 3a 3b 4a 4b 5 6b 6c 6d 7b 7c 8 9 10a 10b

Dim

ensi

on C

hang

e (%

) S.ULP S.ULP.E5 S.ULP.E10

Figure 2 – Component thickness change at test completion, wet

TEST REPORT C-6


GOV5-001 % Hardness Change, Wet

-40%

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

Hos

e - t

ank

to fi

ller v

ent t

ube

Hos

e - t

ank

to fo

rwar

d su

pply

tube

Hos

e - f

ilter

to ra

il w

ith b

anjo

s

Hos

e - P

ress

ure

reg

to re

ar re

turn

tube

1 3a 4a 8

Har

dnes

s C

hang

e (%

)


Figure 3 – Component hardness change at test completion, wet

GOV5-001 % Weight Change, Dry

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

Hos

e - t

ank

to fi

ller v

ent t

ube

Pac

king

(sea

l) Fu

el p

ump

mod

ule

tota

nk

Hos

e - t

ank

to fo

rwar

d su

pply

tube

O-R

ing

- Hos

e - t

ank

to fo

rwar

dsu

pply

tube

Hos

e - f

ilter

to ra

il w

ith b

anjo

s

O-ri

ng -

Hos

e - f

ilter

to ra

il w

ithba

njos

Ban

jo s

eal (

gask

et)

Fuel

inje

ctor

O-ri

ng -

botto

m -

fuel

inje

ctor

O-ri

ng -

top

- fue

l inj

ecto

r

Was

her -

reta

inin

g

Cas

ing

- Pre

ssur

e re

gula

tor

Dia

phra

gm -P

ress

ure

regu

lato

r

O-R

ing

seal

- P

ress

ure

regu

lato

r

Hos

e - P

ress

ure

reg

to re

ar re

turn

tube

Two-

way

val

ve

Tank

che

ck v

alve

Sea

l - T

ank

chec

k va

lve

Cas

ing

- Fue

l filt

er

Ele

men

t - F

uel f

ilter

1 2 3a 3b 4a 4b 5 6a 6b 6c 6d 7a 7b 7c 8 9 10a 10b 11a 11b

Wei

ght C

hang

e (%

)


Figure 4 – Component weight change at test completion, dry

TEST REPORT C-6


GOV5-01, % Dimension Change, Dry

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

Hos

e - t

ank

to fi

ller v

ent t

ube

Pac

king

(sea

l) Fu

el p

ump

mod

ule

to ta

nk

Hos

e - t

ank

to fo

rwar

d su

pply

tube

O-R

ing

- Hos

e - t

ank

to fo

rwar

dsu

pply

tube

Hos

e - f

ilter

to ra

il w

ith b

anjo

s

O-ri

ng -

Hos

e - f

ilter

to ra

il w

ithba

njos

Ban

jo s

eal (

gask

et)

O-r

ing

- bot

tom

- fu

el in

ject

or

O-r

ing

- top

- fu

el in

ject

or

Was

her -

reta

inin

g

Dia

phra

gm -P

ress

ure

regu

lato

r

O-R

ing

seal

- P

ress

ure

regu

lato

r

Hos

e - P

ress

ure

reg

to re

ar re

turn

tube

Two-

way

val

ve

Tank

che

ck v

alve

Sea

l - T

ank

chec

k va

lve

1 2 3a 3b 4a 4b 5 6b 6c 6d 7b 7c 8 9 10a 10b

Dim

ensi

on C

hang

e (%

)


Figure 5 – Component thickness change at test completion, dry

GOV5-01, % Hardness Change, Dry

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Hos

e - t

ank

to fi

ller v

ent t

ube

Hos

e - t

ank

to fo

rwar

d su

pply

tube

Hos

e - f

ilter

to ra

il w

ith b

anjo

s

Hos

e - P

ress

ure

reg

to re

ar re

turn

tube

1 3a 4a 8

Har

dnes

s C

hang

e (%

)


Figure 6 – Component hardness change at test completion, dry

TEST REPORT C-6


GOV5-001 Part #5 Banjo Seal S.ULP S.ULP.E5 S.ULP.E10

Pre

Tes

t

Pos

t Tes

t

Figure 7 – Corrosion on Banjo Seal GOV5-01 part #5

1114/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-7


CUSTOMER Australian Government : Department of the Environment and Heritage

PROJECT GOV005

TITLE 20,000km MACD Durability of Hyundai Excel (GOV5-01) on E5 AIM

• To assess engine durability after 20,000km of mileage accumulation on E5. Previous ULP operation serves as the baseline for normal wear/durability.

EQUIPMENT • Hyundai Excel, MY1999, 1.5L MPI, 4spd Automatic, 81,759kms at start of test. • MACD facility with vehicle driven under robot control for 20,000km • Test drive cycle was the Australian Petrol CUEDC for light duty vehicles • ECD facility for pre/post engine strip emissions and fuel consumption tests. • Metrology and photographic equipment for pre/post test component inspection. • Fuel systems test laboratory. • Oil analysis laboratory.

PROCEDURE • Commission test vehicle:

o Service and tune to manufacturer’s specifications, including: Replacement of the following service parts: oil filter, fuel filter, air

filter, spark plugs and leads. Diagnostic test / report of engine management systems.

o Instrument engine for oil, coolant and cylinder head temperature and speed signal output.

• ULP baseline is condition of the engine with mileage accumulated at time of purchase. Condition was assessed by the following process:

o Conduct pre-strip IM 240 emission tests (after 200km of ULP adaptation driving).

o Take engine oil sample. o Conduct compression test of all cylinders. o Remove specified engine components from the vehicle and strip (by

dealership technician); measure and photograph key parameters and components.

o Conduct SAE recommended fuel systems tests (see separate report). • Rebuild engine, check the vehicle systems and install at the MACD facility.

o Reassemble and install engine components into vehicle (by dealership technician).

o Conduct post-strip IM240 emissions tests (after 60km ULP adaptation drive).

o Take engine oil sample. o Install the robot driver system in the vehicle o Set up the high temperature test shutdown limits, fire protection and other

safety systems • Accumulate 20,000 km mileage on E5

o Record the odometer and the volume of fuel added when the vehicle is stopped for refuelling.

2214/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-7


o Service the vehicle at the prescribed service interval and sample the engine oil for analysis (at 10,000 kms).

• E5 condition after 20,000km was assessed by the following process:

o Take oil sample. o Conduct pre-strip IM 240 emission tests. o Conduct compression test of all cylinders. o Remove specified engine components from the vehicle and strip (by


o Conduct SAE recommended fuel systems tests (see separate report). Compare engine and fuel system condition after the mileage accumulation to that at the start of the test.

3314/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-7


RESULTS

This report is a summary of major differences found upon inspection of the engine when running the vehicle on the MACD durability cycle with E5. Full strip report data and photographs are available in supplementary reports.

1. Engine Durability

1.1 Base Engine Wear • The measured base engine wear after completion of the durability test was within

acceptable limits. • See attachment Figures 1a and 1b for a complete listing of measured parameters.

1.2 Engine Deposits • Attachment Figures 2 through 6 show deposits in selected critical areas, ie

combustion chamber, pistons, valves and spark plugs. • General deposit formation for the engine operating on ULP is acceptable for

mileage at initial strip / inspection • General deposit formation for the engine operating on E5 is acceptable. • Operation on E5 has higher levels of dark carbon deposits in or on these critical

areas: o Inlet valves – additional carbon deposits in strip pattern, shadowed by the

valve stem, indicating some valves were not rotating during service. o Exhaust ports – additional carbon deposits in combustion chamber and

downstream of exhaust valve seats. o Exhaust valves had whiter shade deposits, indicating hotter running.

Cylinder #1 exhaust valves had increased dark carbon deposits. o Piston crown showed increase levels of crusty deposit formation. o Spark plugs were generally clean and white, indicating lean running.

2. Fuel System Durability • No specific fuel system durability problems were found. A thorough fuel system

assessment has been conducted and is reported for each vehicle.

3. Fuel System Deposits Fuel system deposit formation after completion of the E5 durability test showed identifiable levels of dirt in the fuel filter assembly. This dirt is likely to have been dislodged from the fuel tank by the E5 (see Figure 7).

4. Oil Analysis The engine oil was sampled at regular intervals over the test period. Laboratory tests for metals, contaminants, additives and various physical properties indicated all oil samples were normal after the engine was run on ULP and E5 fuel (Table 1).

4414/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-7


5. Emissions and Fuel Consumption test (IM240)

The vehicle was tested on an ECD prior to and after each engine strip procedure, to determine if engine characteristics had changed. The IM240 tests results (Table 2) indicate that there were changes in emission performance after the 20,000 km test on the E5 fuels, i.e. an increase in CO and NOx values. The indicated change in pre/post the initial engine strip/rebuild is due to two different emissions/FC measurement methods (modal vs bag) and as such the data is not directly comparable.

CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION

Durability of the Hyundai Excel engine over the selected test cycle was satisfactory on the E5 fuel. The summary list below provide the key observations from the test:

• Measured base engine wear after completion of the durability test was within

acceptable limits, however, there is evidence that some key wear dimensions had increased on E5.

• General deposit formation for the engine operating on E5 fuel was still acceptable,

however there is clear evidence that the deposit formation had increased significantly after 20,000 kms on E5 compared to the ULP baseline.

• No specific fuel system durability problems were found.

• Fuel system deposit formation after completion of the durability test was

acceptable.

• Oil analysis results were normal.

• IM240 fuel consumption results after operation on E5 did not identify any significant change in base engine friction levels or gross drift in the operation of the fuel system. The most notable change was the increase in CO and NOx values after 20,000 km of E5. This may be suggestive of degradation in catalyst performance – but as it was outside the scope of this durability assessment to quantify emissions performance result can not be fully substantiated.

5514/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-7


ATTACHMENTS

Figure 1a : Wear measurements before/after test: 0 – 20,000 kms on E5 Figure 1b : Wear measurements before/after test: 0 – 20,000 kms on E5 Figure 2 : Exhaust port and combustion chamber deposits. Figure 3 : Inlet Valve deposits. Figure 4 : Exhaust Valve deposits. Figure 5 : Piston Crown Deposits Figure 6 : Spark Plug Condition Figure 7 : Fuel filter contaminants Table 1 : Key Oil Analysis Parameters over duration of test Table 2 : Summary of pre/post engine-strip IM240 Results

6614/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-7


Figure 1a : Wear measurements before/after test: 0 – 20,000 kms on E5 Hyundai Excel - GOV5-01Strip #1 @ 81,759 kms.Strip #2 @ 102,014 kms (after 20,000 kms on E5).

Cylinder Number Cylinder #1 Cylinder #2 Cylinder #3 Cylinder #4 AverageStrip #1 1000 900 950 1000 963Strip #2 1000 1000 950 950 975Strip #3Strip #1 75.363 75.363 75.370 75.364 75.365Strip #2 75.358 75.360 75.370 75.361 75.362Strip #3Strip #1 75.449 75.448 75.455 75.453 75.451Strip #2 75.449 75.450 75.459 75.451 75.452Strip #3Strip #1 75.468 75.467 75.476 75.473 75.471Strip #2 75.466 75.466 75.476 75.473 75.470Strip #3Strip #1 1.030 1.880 2.740 2.440 2.023Strip #2 1.080 2.300 2.300 2.110 1.948Strip #3Strip #1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.050Strip #2 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.055Strip #3Strip #1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.050Strip #2 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.053Strip #3Strip #1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.050Strip #2 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.050Strip #3Strip #1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.050Strip #2 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.050Strip #3Strip #1 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.313Strip #2 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.35 0.338Strip #3Strip #1 0.60 0.55 0.60 0.60 0.588Strip #2 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.600Strip #3Strip #1 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.613Strip #2 0.65 0.70 0.65 0.70 0.675Strip #3Strip #1 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.60 0.638Strip #2 0.65 0.70 0.65 0.70 0.675Strip #3Strip #1 2.86 2.85 2.86 2.86 2.858Strip #2 2.86 2.85 2.86 2.86 2.858Strip #3Strip #1 2.91 2.91 2.91 2.91 2.910Strip #2 2.9 2.9 2.89 2.89 2.895Strip #3Strip #1 3.06 3.06 3.06 3.06 3.060Strip #2 3.06 3.06 3.05 3.06 3.058Strip #3Strip #1 3.1 3.08 3.09 3.08 3.088Strip #2 3.08 3.07 3.07 3.08 3.075Strip #3Strip #1 75.530 75.540 75.540 75.535 75.536Strip #2 75.524 75.540 75.535 75.530 75.532Strip #3Strip #1 75.520 75.535 75.535 75.535 75.531Strip #2 75.528 75.538 75.530 75.535 75.533Strip #3Strip #1 75.520 75.530 75.525 75.530 75.526Strip #2 75.526 75.526 75.531 75.530 75.528Strip #3Strip #1 75.525 75.505 75.508 75.510 75.512Strip #2 75.523 75.504 75.508 75.509 75.511Strip #3Strip #1 75.525 75.515 75.520 75.510 75.518Strip #2 75.523 75.523 75.525 75.512 75.521Strip #3Strip #1 75.525 75.530 75.528 75.515 75.525Strip #2 75.519 75.527 75.528 75.512 75.522Strip #3

Compression Test

Piston Skirt Surface Finish (Ra)

Piston Skirt Diameter (mm)

Piston Ring Groove Clearance (mm)

Piston Ring Fitted Gap (mm)

Piston Ring Thickness (mm)

Cylinder Bore Diameter (mm)

Cranking cylinder pressure (kPa)

Height 1 - 25 mm

Height 2 - 35 mm

Height 3 - 45 mm

Thrust side - 15 mm long @ 5 mm

below oil ring

Top Ring Thrust

Top Ring Gudgeon

2nd Ring Thrust

2nd Ring Gudgeon

Top Ring

2nd Ring

Oil Ring Top

Oil Ring Bottom

Top Ring Min.

Top Ring Max.

2nd ring Min.

2nd ring Max.

Dia. A @ Top

Dia. A @ Middle

Dia. A @ Bottom

Dia. B @ Top

Dia. B @ Middle

Dia. B @ Bottom

7714/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-7


Figure 1b : Wear measurements before/after test: 0 – 20,000 kms on E5 Hyundai Excel - GOV5-01Strip #1 @ 81,759 kms.Strip #2 @ 102,014 kms (after 20,000 kms on E5).

Engine Valve # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AverageStrip #1 5.966 5.966 5.961 5.966 5.961 5.960 5.968 5.965 5.9641Strip #2 5.966 5.963 5.960 5.961 5.960 5.961 5.966 5.962 5.9624Strip #3Strip #1 5.965 5.965 5.962 5.965 5.963 5.960 5.968 5.965 5.9641Strip #2 5.964 5.963 5.962 5.962 5.960 5.960 5.966 5.962 5.9624Strip #3Strip #1 5.964 5.964 5.964 5.965 5.962 5.957 5.964 5.962 5.9628Strip #2 5.963 5.964 5.961 5.961 5.959 5.957 5.961 5.960 5.9608Strip #3Strip #1 5.943 5.942 5.942 5.940 5.942 5.938 5.943 5.939 5.9411Strip #2 5.941 5.939 5.940 5.939 5.942 5.934 5.943 5.940 5.9398Strip #3Strip #1 5.945 5.944 5.942 5.941 5.943 5.937 5.946 5.940 5.9423Strip #2 5.942 5.942 5.942 5.940 5.942 5.935 5.946 5.941 5.9413Strip #3Strip #1 5.947 5.946 5.948 5.943 5.948 5.941 5.950 5.945 5.9460Strip #2 5.945 5.945 5.946 5.939 5.946 5.939 5.950 5.943 5.9441Strip #3Strip #1 91.880 91.871 91.852 91.870 91.847 91.865 91.865 91.869 91.8649Strip #2 91.874 91.864 91.853 91.845 91.843 91.826 91.853 91.851 91.8511Strip #3Strip #1 92.514 92.509 92.500 92.501 92.504 92.499 92.500 92.514 92.5051Strip #2 92.504 92.504 92.487 92.488 92.490 92.487 92.490 92.502 92.4940Strip #3Strip #1 5.998 6.005 6.002 5.998 6.004 6.002 5.996 5.998 6.0004Strip #2 5.998 6.005 6.002 5.998 6.005 6.003 5.996 5.998 6.0006Strip #3Strip #1 5.998 6.005 6.002 5.998 6.004 6.002 5.996 5.998 6.0004Strip #2 5.998 6.005 6.002 5.998 6.005 6.003 5.996 5.998 6.0006Strip #3Strip #1 5.998 6.006 6.002 5.998 6.004 6.002 5.997 5.998 6.0006Strip #2 5.998 6.005 6.002 5.998 6.005 6.003 5.996 5.998 6.0006Strip #3Strip #1 6.002 6.003 6.002 6.000 5.997 5.998 6.000 5.998 6.0000Strip #2 6.002 6.003 6.002 6.001 5.998 5.998 6.000 5.999 6.0004Strip #3Strip #1 6.002 6.003 6.002 6.000 5.997 5.998 6.000 5.998 6.0000Strip #2 6.002 6.002 6.002 6.000 5.998 5.997 6.000 5.998 5.9999Strip #3Strip #1 6.002 6.003 6.002 6.000 5.998 5.998 6.001 5.998 6.0003Strip #2 6.002 6.003 6.002 6.001 5.999 5.999 6.000 5.999 6.0006Strip #3Strip #1 0.033 0.040 0.040 0.033 0.041 0.042 0.028 0.033 0.0363Strip #2 0.034 0.042 0.040 0.036 0.045 0.043 0.030 0.036 0.0383Strip #3Strip #1 0.057 0.059 0.060 0.059 0.054 0.061 0.054 0.058 0.0578Strip #2 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.056 0.062 0.054 0.057 0.0586Strip #3Strip #1 39.900 39.900 39.920 39.910 40.010 39.900 39.890 39.880 39.9138Strip #2 39.906 39.968 39.950 39.945 40.051 39.915 39.885 39.917 39.9421Strip #3Strip #1 39.450 39.710 39.600 39.400 39.570 39.550 39.430 39.530 39.5300Strip #2 39.470 39.690 39.460 39.480 39.600 39.620 39.500 39.550 39.5463Strip #3Strip #1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0250Strip #2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0000Strip #3Strip #1 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.0500Strip #2 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.0500Strip #3

Intake Valve Diameters (mm)

Exhaust Valve Diameters (mm)

Intake Valve Stem Length (mm)

Exhaust Valve Stem Length (mm)

Intake Valve Guide Bore Diameter (mm)

Exhaust Valve Seat Contact Area (mm)

Exhaust Valve Guide Bore Diameter (mm)

Intake Valve Seat Recession (mm)

Exhaust Valve Seat Recession (mm)

Intake Valve Seat Contact Area (mm)

Intake Valve to Guide Clearance (mm)

Exhaust Valve to Guide Clearance (mm)

Setting 1 @ 28 mm Max.






Valve length (mm)

Valve length (mm)

Top Max.

Middle Max.

Bottom Max.

Top Max.

Middle Max.

Bottom Max.

Mid-to-Setting#2

Mid-to-Setting#2

8814/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-7


Figure 2 : Exhaust port deposits. Additional carbon deposits present in combustion chamber and downstream of valve seats after test: 0 – 20,000 kms on E5

Before

After

Figure 3 : Inlet Valve deposits. Additional carbon deposits in strip pattern after test: 0 – 20,000 kms on E5, shadowed by the valve stem, indicating valves were not rotating during service

Before

After

9914/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-7


Figure 4 : Exhaust Valve deposits. Exhaust valves had whiter shade deposits after test: 0 – 20,000 kms on E5, indicating hotter running.

Before

After

Figure 5 : Piston Crown Deposits Piston crown showed increase levels of crusty deposit formation after test: 0 – 20,000 kms on E5.

Before

After

101014/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-7


Figure 6 : Spark Plug Condition Spark plugs were generally clean and white after test: 0 – 20,000 kms on E5, indicating lean running. Spark Plug #4 had additional deposit formation on the earth electrode and insulator.

After

After

Figure 7 : Fuel Filter Contaminants Fuel system deposit formation after completion of the E5 durability test showed identifiable levels of dirt in the fuel filter assembly.

After

111114/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-7


Table 1 : Key Oil Analysis Parameters over Duration of Test

Vehicle Mileage 81,759 81,980 92,649 102,014Oil Mileage 897 221 10,669 9,365Sample # 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

DescriptionPost drivability

testsPre E5

DurabilityAt 10,000 kms

on E5At 20,000 kms

on E5Aluminium (Al) 2 2 2 2Copper (Cu) 2 <1 1 1Chromium (Cr) 1 5 2 2Iron (Fe) 5 7 10 11Lead (Pb) 7 2 4 3Tin (Sn) <1 2 1 1Nickel (Ni) 11 3 2 1Silicon (Si) 5 15 15 129Boron (B) <5 <5 <5 <5Sodium (Na) 1 1 2 2Potassium (K) <1 3 3 3Phosphorous (P) 1248 1130 1116 1189Molybdenum (Mo) 3 <1 <1 <1Magnesium (Mg) 96 22 15 10Calcium (Ca) 1690 1698 1795 1989Zinc (Zn) 1425 1276 1305 1468Water (% by FTIR) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Nitration (Abs) 4.3 2.6 4.6 5.6Viscosity (cSt.40oC) 78 87 85 84.7PQ Index 14 13 23 11Glycol (Abs) 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9Petrol (% by Distillation) <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5

VEHICLE : GOV5-01 Hyundai Excel

Metal (ppm)

Contaminants / Additives (ppm)

Physical Tests

121214/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-7


Table 2 : Summary of pre/post engine-strip IM240 Results

Emission Result, Test 1 Emission Result, Test 2 Emission Result, Test 3 Emission ResultHC (g/km) 0.114 HC (g/km) 0.131 HC (g/km) 0.123 HC (g/km) 0.127CO (g/km) 1.349 CO (g/km) 1.340 CO (g/km) 1.348 CO (g/km) 1.344NOx (g/km) 0.289 NOx (g/km) 0.234 NOx (g/km) 0.208 NOx (g/km) 0.221CO2 (g/km) 155.269 CO2 (g/km) 149.692 CO2 (g/km) 161.701 CO2 (g/km) 155.697

FC (L/100km) 6.719 FC (L/100km) 6.480 FC (L/100km) 6.990 FC (L/100km) 6.735







Pre-Engine Strip (0k) Average of Test 2 and Test 3

Post-Engine Strip (0k)

Pre-Engine Strip (20k, E5)

Average of Test 2 and Test 3


Post-Engine Strip (20k, E5) Average of Test 2 and Test 3

TEST REPORT C-8


CUSTOMER Australian Government : Department of the Environment and Heritage.

PROJECT GOV005

TITLE Fuel System Component Performance for the GOV5-01 Hyundai Excel (ULP/E5) at 20,000 km.

AIM

To assess fuel system component performance after 20,000km of mileage accumulation on E5. Previous ULP operation serves as the baseline for normal wear/durability.

EQUIPMENT Wet test bench configured to conduct tests compliant with the relevant SAE Recommended Practice/ Standard as tabled below (Table 1).

Component SAE Recommended Practice/ Standard Fuel Pump J1537 – Validation Testing of Electric Fuel Pumps for Gasoline

Fuel Injection Systems Fuel Filter J905 – Fuel Filter Test Methods Fuel Pressure Regulator

J1862 – Fuel Injection System Fuel Pressure Regulator and Pressure Damper

Fuel Injector J1832 – Low Pressure Gasoline Fuel Injector Table 1 – SAE Recommended Practice/ Standard for Fuel System Components

PROCEDURE Each component was tested to a procedure developed by Orbital based on the relevant SAE Recommended Practice. Orbital procedure and procedure overview for each component follow.

• Fuel Pump – Procedure TECH 12 Measure and record resultant flow rate and load in amperes at the requested voltages with the pump subject to nominal system pressure. Eight (8) measurement points in total. • Fuel Filter – Procedure TECH 19 Measure and record differential pressure across the filter for the requested test fluid flow rates. Six (6) measurements in total. • Fuel Regulator – Procedure TECH 20 Measure and record regulator input pressure for requested bypass flow rates. • Fuel Injector – Procedure TECH 18 Measure and record fuel injector dynamic and static flow rates.

TEST REPORT C-8


RESULTS • Fuel Pump Measured data is illustrated in Figure 1. • Fuel Filter Measured data is illustrated in Figure 2. • Fuel Regulator Measured data is illustrated in Figure 3. • Fuel Injectors Measured data is illustrated in Figure 4 and listed in Tables 2 & 3..

CONCLUSIONS/ DISCUSSION

• Fuel Pump At nominal system pressure of 300 kPa, the fuel pump produced measurable flow for the operating voltage range of 10 VDC to 18 VDC. At the nominal voltage of 14 volts, the flow rate was 23.15 g/s at 5.49 amps. Manufacturer’s performance specifications were not available, however all measured data suggests that the pump performed as intended. After 20,000 kms on E5, the fuel pump achieved equivalent performance of 22.25 g/s at 5.54 amps. • Fuel Filter Manufacturer’s specifications were not available, however all measured data suggests that the filter performed as intended. At the nominal flow rate of 23.15 g/s, the pressure differential across the filter was approximately 4.75 kPa. After 20,000 kms on E5, the fuel filter differential pressure increased to 5.75 kPa at an equivalent flow. • Fuel Regulator At the nominal flow rate of 23.15 g/s the fuel regulator operating pressure was 307.30 kPa. Manufacturer’s specifications were not available, however all measured data suggests that the regulator performed as intended. After 20,000 kms on E5, the fuel regulator pressure was 309.95 kPa at equivalent fuel flow conditions. • Fuel Injectors The fuel injector results show that the individual injectors were closely grouped in terms of their performance. The spread of results was within +- 5% of the mean flow, as recommended by SAE J1832. The summarised results are shown below (table 2 & 3). There was no appreciable change in performance after the 20,000 kms on E5.

TEST REPORT C-8


ATTACHMENTS Figure 1: In-Tank Fuel Pump Performance Comparison.

In-Tank Fuel Pump Performance

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Operating Voltage (VDC)

Flow

Rat

e (g

/s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Cur

rent

Dra

w (a

mpe

re)

Flow Rate @ 0 km Flow Rate @ 20,000 kmCurrent @ 0 km Current @ 20,000 km

Figure 2: Fuel Filter Differential Pressure Comparison.

Differential Pressure Across Filter

0

5

10

15

20

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Flow Rate (g/s)

Diff

eren

tial P

ress

ure

(kPa

)

0 km 20,000 km

TEST REPORT C-8


Figure 3: Fuel Pressure Regulator Performance Comparison.

Fuel Pressure Regulator Performance

290

295

300

305

310

315

320

0 10 20 30 40

Flow Rate (g/s)

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

0 km 20,000 km

Figure 4: Fuel Injector Performance Comparison.

Table 2. Vehicle Fuel System: Injector Test Results. Vehicle reference:

Gov5-04 Honda Civic

Average Dynamic Delivery Flow, mg/p at 2.5ms

Range, % of mean

Average Static Delivery Flow,

g/s

Range, % of mean

At 0 kms 4.607 -0.51 / 0.72 2.422 -0.20 / 0.30 At 20,000 kms 4.598 -0.89 / 0.78 2.416 -0.19 / 0.22

Dynamic Delivery, Results for 0 & 20,000km

4.504.524.544.564.584.604.624.644.66

1 2 3 4Injector (position number)

Deliv

ery,

mg/

p

Test results at 0 km Test results at 20 000 km

% Variation, Difference from 0 to 20,000km

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

1 2 3 4

Injector (position number)

Varia

tion

%

Dynamic Delivery, mg/p, 2.5ms

Static Delivery, Results for 0 & 20,000km

2.40

2.41

2.41

2.42

2.42

2.43

2.43


Deliv

ery,

mg/

p

Test results at 0 km Test results at 20 000 km

% Variation, Difference from 0 to 20,000km

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.01 2 3 4


Varia

tion

%

Static Delivery, g/s

TEST REPORT C-8


Table 3: Fuel Injector Performance Data

FUEL INJECTOR AUDIT TEST PER SAE J1832

Vehicle IDRail Number:Fuel Injector ModelProject Code:Date

Voltage: 14 Driver settingsCylce Speed (rpm2s): 6000 Fi_Ton (ms) 0Fuel Type: Recosol Fi_Toff (ms) 0Fuel Temp (Deg C): 21+/-1 Ramp Duration (ms) 30Number of Cycles: 1000 Hold Current (Amps) 2Dynamic Set pt, ms. 2.5 Ramp Rate (Amps/ms) 2

Allowable range+/-0.1kPa Static Delivery time, ms 2.5

Shots/min. 6000 High/low imp. Driver H/L

Injector no 1 2 3 4

Position in engine 1 2 3 4

ID no or manufacturers no n/a n/a n/a n/a

Condition, visual inspection Nozzle clean, oily solenoid body - refer

photos.

Nozzle clean, oily solenoid body -

refer photos.


refer photos.


refer photos.Photo nos (if applicable)

Dynamic Delivery, mg/p,2.5ms 4.583 4.640 4.603 4.600 - -Static Delivery, g/s 2.422 2.429 2.417 2.419 - -Leakage, ml/min N2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - -Coil Resistance, Ohms 14.70 14.80 14.80 15.20 - -Temperature during static flow measurement was within+/- 2 degC of targetTemperature during dynamic flow measurement was within+/- 2 degC of target

Pressure was held within +/- 1.5 kPa of target

Test technician, name John Paluch Approved, Engineer David Caley

Dynamic Delivery, mg/p, 2.5ms 4.557 4.633 4.590 4.610 - -Static Delivery, g/s 2.411 2.421 2.416 2.414 - -Leakage, ml/min N2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - -Coil Resistance, Ohms 14.3 14.4 14.4 14.5 - -Temperature during static flow measurement was within+/- 2 degC of targetTemperature during dynamic flow measurement was within+/- 2 degC of target



Condition, visual inspectionDynamic Delivery, mg/p -0.03 -0.01 -0.01 0.01 - -Static Delivery, g/s -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 - -Leakage, ml/min N2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - -Coil Resistance, Ohms -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.7 - -

Dynamic Delivery, mg/p, 2.5ms -0.58 -0.14 -0.29 0.22Static Delivery, g/s -0.44 -0.32 -0.03 -0.19

Test results - % Variation over Test Duration

Test results - Variation over Test Duration

STANDARD TEST CONDITIONS 02.08.06 @ 0 kms.

TEST RESULTS

Test results at 0 km

Test results at 20 000 km

Enter Fuel Pressure (kPa) (to suit vehicle) 300

Hyundai Excel; GOV5-01HMC_35304_23600Bosch: 35310-26040 : 9260 930 001GOV005

Refer test precedure "Test 18" for test specification and

method.Enter data in yellow

cells

1114/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-9


CUSTOMER Australian Government : Department of the Environment and Heritage

PROJECT GOV005

TITLE 20,000km MACD Durability of Hyundai Excel (GOV5-01) on E10 AIM

• To assess engine durability after 20,000km of mileage accumulation on E10. Previous E5 operation serves as the baseline for normal wear/durability.

EQUIPMENT • Hyundai Excel, MY1999, 1.5L MPI, 4spd Automatic, 81,759kms at start of test. • MACD facility with vehicle driven under robot control for 20,000km • Test drive cycle was the Australian Petrol CUEDC for light duty vehicles • ECD facility for pre/post engine strip emissions and fuel consumption tests. • Metrology and photographic equipment for pre/post test component inspection. • Fuel systems test laboratory. • Oil analysis laboratory.

PROCEDURE • Commission test vehicle:

o Service and tune to manufacturer’s specifications, including: Replacement of the following service parts: oil filter, fuel filter, air

filter, spark plugs and leads. Diagnostic test / report of engine management systems.

o Instrument engine for oil, coolant and cylinder head temperature and speed signal output.

• ULP baseline is condition of the engine with mileage accumulated at time of purchase. Condition was assessed by the following process:

o Conduct pre-strip IM 240 emission tests (after 200km of ULP adaptation driving).

o Take engine oil sample. o Conduct compression test of all cylinders. o Remove specified engine components from the vehicle and strip (by


o Conduct SAE recommended fuel systems tests (see separate report). • Rebuild engine, check the vehicle systems and install at the MACD facility.




safety systems .

2214/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-9


• Accumulate 20,000 km mileage on E5






o Conduct SAE recommended fuel systems tests (see separate report). Compare engine and fuel system condition after the mileage accumulation to that at the start of the test. • E5 baseline is the condition of the engine with 20,000 km mileage accumulated.

• Rebuild engine, check the vehicle systems and install at the MACD facility.




safety systems • Accumulate 20,000 km mileage on E10






o Conduct SAE recommended fuel systems tests (see separate report). Compare engine and fuel system condition after the mileage accumulation to that at the start of the test, i.e. E5 baseline condition.

3314/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-9


RESULTS

This report is a summary of major differences found upon inspection of the engine when running the vehicle on the MACD durability cycle with E10. Full strip report data and photographs are available in supplementary reports.

1. Engine Durability

1.1 Base Engine Wear • The measured base engine wear after completion of the durability test was within

acceptable limits. • See attachment Figures 1a and 1b for a complete listing of measured parameters. • The parameters that indicated moderate change were :-

o Intake valve seat contact area increased by 21% on average. o Exhaust valve seat contact area increased by 19% on average.

1.2 Engine Deposits • Attachment Figures 2 through 9 show deposits in selected critical areas, ie

combustion chamber, pistons, valves and spark plugs. • General deposit formation for the engine operating on E5 is acceptable for mileage

at initial strip / inspection • General deposit formation for the engine operating on E10 is acceptable. • Operation on E10 has higher levels of dark carbon deposits in or on these critical

areas: o Piston ring grooves – additional carbon deposits present. o Exhaust valves had whiter shade deposits, indicating hotter running. o Piston crown showed similar levels of crusty deposit formation. o Spark plugs were generally clean and white, indicating lean running.

2. Fuel System Durability • No specific fuel system durability problems were found. A thorough fuel system

assessment has been conducted and is reported for each vehicle.

3. Fuel System Deposits • Fuel system deposit formation after completion of the E10 durability tests was

acceptable.

4. Oil Analysis • The engine oil was sampled at regular intervals over the test period. Laboratory

tests for metals, contaminants, additives and various physical properties indicated all oil samples were normal after the engine was run on E5 and E10 fuel (Table 1).

4414/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-9


5. Emissions and Fuel Consumption test (IM240)

• The vehicle was tested on an ECD prior to and after each engine strip procedure, to determine if engine characteristics had changed. The IM240 tests results (Table 2) indicate that there were no significant changes in engine performance after the 20,000 km test on the E10 fuels.

CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION

Durability of the Hyundai Excel engine over the selected test cycle was satisfactory on the E10 fuel. The summary list below provide the key observations from the test:

• Measured base engine wear after completion of the durability test was within

acceptable limits, however, there is evidence that some key wear dimensions had increased on E10.

• General deposit formation for the engine operating on E10 fuel was acceptable,

however there is clear evidence that the deposit formation in the piston ring grooves had increased significantly after 20,000 kms on E10 compared to the E5 baseline.

• No specific fuel system durability problems were found.

• Fuel system deposit formation after completion of the durability test was

acceptable.

• Oil analysis results were normal.

• IM240 emissions and fuel consumption results using ULP reference fuel were normal before and after mileage accumulation on the E10 fuel.

5514/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-9


ATTACHMENTS

Figure 1a : Wear measurements before/after test: 20,000 – 40,000 kms on E10 Figure 1b : Wear measurements before/after test: 20,000 – 40,000 kms on E10 Figure 2 : Combustion Chamber Deposits. Figure 3 : Exhaust Port Deposits. Figure 4 : Inlet Valve Deposits. Figure 5 : Exhaust Valve Deposits. Figure 6 : Piston Crown Deposits Figure 7 : Piston Ring Groove Deposits. Figure 8 : Spark Plug #3 Condition. Figure 9 : Spark Plug #4 Condition. Table 1 : Key Oil Analysis Parameters over duration of test Table 2 : Summary of pre/post engine-strip IM240 Results

6614/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-9


Figure 1a : Wear measurements before/after test: 20,000 – 40,000 kms on E10 Hyundai Excel - GOV5-01Strip #2 @ 102,014 kms (after 20,000 kms on E5).Strip #3 @ 122,135 kms (after 20,000 kms on E10).

Cylinder Number Cylinder #1 Cylinder #2 Cylinder #3 Cylinder #4 AverageStrip #1Strip #2 1000 1000 950 950 975Strip #3 1000 1000 950 1000 988Strip #1Strip #2 75.358 75.360 75.370 75.361 75.362Strip #3 75.364 75.358 75.367 75.363 75.363Strip #1Strip #2 75.449 75.450 75.459 75.451 75.452Strip #3 75.445 75.446 75.457 75.452 75.450Strip #1Strip #2 75.466 75.466 75.476 75.473 75.470Strip #3 75.464 75.464 75.475 75.474 75.469Strip #1Strip #2 1.080 2.300 2.300 2.110 1.948Strip #3 1.610 2.040 2.000 2.090 1.935Strip #1Strip #2 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.055Strip #3 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.055Strip #1Strip #2 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.053Strip #3 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.055Strip #1Strip #2 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.050Strip #3 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.050Strip #1Strip #2 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.050Strip #3 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.050Strip #1Strip #2 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.35 0.338Strip #3 0.40 0.40 0.35 0.40 0.388Strip #1Strip #2 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.600Strip #3 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.600Strip #1Strip #2 0.65 0.70 0.65 0.70 0.675Strip #3 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.700Strip #1Strip #2 0.65 0.70 0.65 0.70 0.675Strip #3 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.700Strip #1Strip #2 2.86 2.85 2.86 2.86 2.858Strip #3 2.85 2.85 2.89 2.86 2.863Strip #1Strip #2 2.9 2.9 2.89 2.89 2.895Strip #3 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.89 2.898Strip #1Strip #2 3.06 3.06 3.05 3.06 3.058Strip #3 3.06 3.05 3.05 3.06 3.055Strip #1Strip #2 3.08 3.07 3.07 3.08 3.075Strip #3 3.08 3.07 3.07 3.08 3.075Strip #1Strip #2 75.524 75.540 75.535 75.530 75.532Strip #3 75.530 75.540 75.540 75.535 75.536Strip #1Strip #2 75.528 75.538 75.530 75.535 75.533Strip #3 75.545 75.545 75.545 75.545 75.545Strip #1Strip #2 75.526 75.526 75.531 75.530 75.528Strip #3 75.525 75.525 75.525 75.527 75.526Strip #1Strip #2 75.523 75.504 75.508 75.509 75.511Strip #3 75.522 75.505 75.510 75.510 75.512Strip #1Strip #2 75.523 75.523 75.525 75.512 75.521Strip #3 75.525 75.525 75.520 75.512 75.521Strip #1Strip #2 75.519 75.527 75.528 75.512 75.522Strip #3 75.520 75.527 75.525 75.512 75.521

Dia. B @ Top

Dia. B @ Middle

Dia. B @ Bottom

2nd ring Max.

Dia. A @ Top

Dia. A @ Middle

Dia. A @ Bottom

Oil Ring Bottom

Top Ring Min.

Top Ring Max.

2nd ring Min.

2nd Ring Gudgeon

Top Ring

2nd Ring

Oil Ring Top

Thrust side - 15 mm long @ 5 mm

below oil ring

Top Ring Thrust

Top Ring Gudgeon

2nd Ring Thrust

Cranking cylinder pressure (kPa)

Height 1 - 25 mm

Height 2 - 35 mm

Height 3 - 45 mm

Piston Ring Fitted Gap (mm)

Piston Ring Thickness (mm)

Cylinder Bore Diameter (mm)

Compression Test

Piston Skirt Surface Finish (Ra)

Piston Skirt Diameter (mm)

Piston Ring Groove Clearance (mm)

7714/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-9


Figure 1b : Wear measurements before/after test: 20,000 – 40,000 kms on E10 Hyundai Excel - GOV5-01Strip #2 @ 102,014 kms (after 20,000 kms on E5).Strip #3 @ 122,135 kms (after 20,000 kms on E10).

Engine Valve # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AverageStrip #1Strip #2 5.966 5.963 5.960 5.961 5.960 5.961 5.966 5.962 5.9624Strip #3 5.964 5.965 5.962 5.964 5.960 5.960 5.965 5.961 5.9626Strip #1Strip #2 5.964 5.963 5.962 5.962 5.960 5.960 5.966 5.962 5.9624Strip #3 5.964 5.965 5.962 5.964 5.963 5.960 5.966 5.963 5.9634Strip #1Strip #2 5.963 5.964 5.961 5.961 5.959 5.957 5.961 5.960 5.9608Strip #3 5.963 5.963 5.961 5.960 5.960 5.967 5.962 5.960 5.9620Strip #1Strip #2 5.941 5.939 5.940 5.939 5.942 5.934 5.943 5.940 5.9398Strip #3 5.940 5.939 5.939 5.939 5.940 5.934 5.942 5.938 5.9389Strip #1Strip #2 5.942 5.942 5.942 5.940 5.942 5.935 5.946 5.941 5.9413Strip #3 5.943 5.942 5.941 5.938 5.941 5.935 5.946 5.939 5.9406Strip #1Strip #2 5.945 5.945 5.946 5.939 5.946 5.939 5.950 5.943 5.9441Strip #3 5.945 5.944 5.944 5.940 5.944 5.938 5.948 5.941 5.9430Strip #1Strip #2 91.874 91.864 91.853 91.845 91.843 91.826 91.853 91.851 91.8511Strip #3 91.854 91.865 91.836 91.841 91.822 91.840 91.847 91.845 91.8438Strip #1Strip #2 92.504 92.504 92.487 92.488 92.490 92.487 92.490 92.502 92.4940Strip #3 92.504 92.503 92.488 92.491 92.491 92.488 92.488 92.503 92.4945Strip #1Strip #2 5.998 6.005 6.002 5.998 6.005 6.003 5.996 5.998 6.0006Strip #3 5.998 6.005 6.002 5.998 6.005 6.003 5.996 6.000 6.0009Strip #1Strip #2 5.998 6.005 6.002 5.998 6.005 6.003 5.996 5.998 6.0006Strip #3 5.998 6.005 6.002 5.998 6.005 6.003 5.996 5.998 6.0006Strip #1Strip #2 5.998 6.005 6.002 5.998 6.005 6.003 5.996 5.998 6.0006Strip #3 5.998 6.005 6.002 5.998 6.005 6.003 5.996 5.998 6.0006Strip #1Strip #2 6.002 6.003 6.002 6.001 5.998 5.998 6.000 5.999 6.0004Strip #3 6.001 6.003 6.002 6.001 5.998 5.998 6.000 5.999 6.0003Strip #1Strip #2 6.002 6.002 6.002 6.000 5.998 5.997 6.000 5.998 5.9999Strip #3 6.002 6.002 6.002 6.001 5.999 5.997 6.000 6.000 6.0004Strip #1Strip #2 6.002 6.003 6.002 6.001 5.999 5.999 6.000 5.999 6.0006Strip #3 6.002 6.004 6.002 6.001 5.999 5.999 6.000 6.002 6.0011Strip #1Strip #2 0.034 0.042 0.040 0.036 0.045 0.043 0.030 0.036 0.0383Strip #3 0.034 0.040 0.040 0.034 0.042 0.043 0.030 0.035 0.0373Strip #1Strip #2 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.056 0.062 0.054 0.057 0.0586Strip #3 0.059 0.060 0.061 0.063 0.058 0.062 0.054 0.061 0.0598Strip #1Strip #2 39.906 39.968 39.950 39.945 40.051 39.915 39.885 39.917 39.9421Strip #3 40.000 39.903 39.961 39.967 40.115 39.939 39.899 39.931 39.9644Strip #1Strip #2 39.470 39.690 39.460 39.480 39.600 39.620 39.500 39.550 39.5463Strip #3 39.468 39.729 39.700 39.464 39.600 39.610 39.516 39.540 39.5784Strip #1Strip #2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0000Strip #3 1.40 1.40 1.10 1.10 1.40 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.2125Strip #1Strip #2 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.0500Strip #3 1.20 1.30 1.10 1.40 1.10 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.2500

Bottom Max.

Mid-to-Setting#2

Mid-to-Setting#2

Middle Max.

Bottom Max.

Top Max.

Middle Max.


Valve length (mm)

Valve length (mm)

Top Max.






Exhaust Valve Seat Contact Area (mm)

Exhaust Valve Guide Bore Diameter (mm)

Intake Valve Seat Recession (mm)

Exhaust Valve Seat Recession (mm)

Intake Valve Seat Contact Area (mm)

Intake Valve to Guide Clearance (mm)

Exhaust Valve to Guide Clearance (mm)

Exhaust Valve Diameters (mm)

Intake Valve Stem Length (mm)

Exhaust Valve Stem Length (mm)

Intake Valve Guide Bore Diameter (mm)

Intake Valve Diameters (mm)

8814/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-9


Figure 2 : Combustion Chamber Deposits Combustion chamber deposits after completion of the E10 durability test were similar to or marginally reduced from baseline E5 deposits.

After

After

Figure 3 : Exhaust port deposits. Marginally reduced levels of carbon deposits present in combustion chamber and downstream of exhaust valve seats after test: 0 – 20,000 kms on E10.

Before

After

9914/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-9


Figure 4 : Inlet Valve deposits. Reduced carbon deposits on upstream side of inlet valves after test: 0 – 20,000 kms on E10.

Before

After

Figure 5 : Exhaust Valve deposits. Exhaust valves had white shade deposits after test: 0 – 20,000 kms on E10, indicating hotter running.

Before

After

101014/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-9


Figure 6 : Piston Crown Deposits Piston crown showed similar levels of crusty deposit formation after test: 0 – 20,000 kms on E10.

Before

After

Figure 7 : Piston Ring Groove Deposits Piston ring grooves showed increase levels of crusty deposit formation after test: 0 – 20,000 kms on E10.

Before

After

111114/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-9


Figure 8 : Spark Plug #3 Condition Spark plugs were generally clean and white after test: 0 – 20,000 kms on E10, indicating lean running.

Before

After

Figure 9 : Spark Plug #4 Condition Spark plugs were generally clean and white after test: 0 – 20,000 kms on E10, indicating lean running. Spark Plug #4 had additional deposit formation on the earth electrode and insulator.

Before

After

121214/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-9


Table 1 : Key Oil Analysis Parameters over Duration of Test

Vehicle Mileage 102,097 111,655 122,135Oil Mileage 83 9,558 10,480Sample # 1.6 1.7 1.8

Description Pre E10 Durability At 30,000 kms on E10

At 40,000 kms on E10

Aluminium (Al) 2 3 2Copper (Cu) 1 2 1Chromium (Cr) 2 3 1Iron (Fe) 8 21 10Lead (Pb) 1 16 7Tin (Sn) 1 1 <1Nickel (Ni) <1 <1 <1Silicon (Si) 64 161 31Boron (B) <5 <5 <5Sodium (Na) <1 8 5Potassium (K) 1 1 <1Phosphorous (P) 1274 1191 1214Molybdenum (Mo) <1 <1 <1Magnesium (Mg) 12 15 8Calcium (Ca) 1970 2035 2044Zinc (Zn) 1491 1473 1524Water (% by FTIR) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Nitration (Abs) 4.8 7.9 8.6Viscosity (cSt.40oC) 85 89 82PQ Index <10 <10 10Glycol (Abs) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1Petrol (% by Distillation) <2.5 <2.5 <2.5

VEHICLE : GOV5-01 Hyundai Excel

Metal (ppm)

Contaminants / Additives (ppm)

Physical Tests

131314/11/200614/11/200614/11/2006

TEST REPORT C-9


Table 2 : Summary of pre/post engine-strip IM240 Results







Post 1986 Vehicle GOV5-01, Hyundai, Excel

Pre-Engine Strip (20k, E5)

Post-Engine Strip (20k, E5)



Pre-Engine Strip (40k, E10) Average of Test 2 and Test 3

TEST REPORT C-10


CUSTOMER Australian Government : Department of the Environment and Heritage.

PROJECT GOV005

TITLE Fuel System Component Performance for the GOV5-01 Hyundai Excel (E5/E10) at 20,000 km.

AIM

To assess fuel system component performance after 20,000km of mileage accumulation on E10. Previous E5 operation serves as the baseline for normal wear/durability.

EQUIPMENT Wet test bench configured to conduct tests compliant with the relevant SAE Recommended Practice/ Standard as tabled below (Table 1).

Component SAE Recommended Practice/ Standard Fuel Pump J1537 – Validation Testing of Electric Fuel Pumps for Gasoline

Fuel Injection Systems Fuel Filter J905 – Fuel Filter Test Methods Fuel Pressure Regulator

J1862 – Fuel Injection System Fuel Pressure Regulator and Pressure Damper

Fuel Injector J1832 – Low Pressure Gasoline Fuel Injector Table 1 – SAE Recommended Practice/ Standard for Fuel System Components

PROCEDURE Each component was tested to a procedure developed by Orbital based on the relevant SAE Recommended Practice. Orbital procedure and procedure overview for each component follow.

• Fuel Pump – Procedure TECH 12 Measure and record resultant flow rate and load in amperes at the requested voltages with the pump subject to nominal system pressure. Eight (8) measurement points in total. • Fuel Filter – Procedure TECH 19 Measure and record differential pressure across the filter for the requested test fluid flow rates. Six (6) measurements in total. • Fuel Regulator – Procedure TECH 20 Measure and record regulator input pressure for requested bypass flow rates. • Fuel Injector – Procedure TECH 18 Measure and record fuel injector dynamic and static flow rates.

TEST REPORT C-10


RESULTS • Fuel Pump Measured data is illustrated in Figure 1. • Fuel Filter Measured data is illustrated in Figure 2. • Fuel Regulator Measured data is illustrated in Figure 3. • Fuel Injectors Measured data is illustrated in Figure 4 and listed in Tables 2 & 3..

CONCLUSIONS/ DISCUSSION

• Fuel Pump At nominal system pressure of 300 kPa, the fuel pump produced measurable flow for the operating voltage range of 10 VDC to 18 VDC. At the nominal voltage of 14 volts, the flow rate was 22.25 g/s at 5.54 amps. Manufacturer’s performance specifications were not available, however all measured data suggests that the pump performed as intended. After 20,000 kms on E10, the fuel pump required increased current (in the order of 7.2% on average) to achieve equivalent performance of 22.70 g/s at 5.91 amps. • Fuel Filter Manufacturer’s specifications were not available, however all measured data suggests that the filter performed as intended. At the nominal flow rate of 22.25 g/s, the pressure differential across the filter was approximately 5.35 kPa. After 20,000 kms on E10, the fuel filter differential pressure increased to 7.0 kPa at an equivalent flow. • Fuel Regulator At the nominal flow rate of 22.25 g/s the fuel regulator operating pressure was 309.45 kPa. Manufacturer’s specifications were not available, however all measured data suggests that the regulator performed as intended. After 20,000 kms on E10, the fuel regulator pressure was 306 kPa at equivalent fuel flow conditions. • Fuel Injectors The fuel injector results show that the individual injectors were closely grouped in terms of their performance. The spread of results was within +- 5% of the mean flow, as recommended by SAE J1832. The summarised results are shown below (table 2 & 3). There was no appreciable change in performance after the 20,000 kms on E10.

TEST REPORT C-10


ATTACHMENTS Figure 1: In-Tank Fuel Pump Performance Comparison.

In-Tank Fuel Pump Performance

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Operating Voltage (VDC)

Flow

Rat

e (g

/s)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Cur

rent

Dra

w

(am

pere

)

Flow Rate @ 20,000 km Flow Rate @ 40,000 kmCurrent @ 20,000 km Current @ 40,000 km

Figure 2: Fuel Filter Differential Pressure Comparison.

Differential Pressure Across Filter

0

4

8

12

16

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Flow Rate (g/s)

Diff

eren

tial P

ress

ure

(kPa

)

20,000 km 40,000 km

TEST REPORT C-10


Figure 3: Fuel Pressure Regulator Performance Comparison.

Fuel Pressure Regulator Performance

290

295

300

305

310

315

320

0 10 20 30 40

Flow Rate (g/s)

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

20,000 km 40,000 km

Figure 4: Fuel Injector Performance Comparison.

Table 2. Vehicle Fuel System: Injector Test Results. Vehicle reference:

Gov5-04 Honda Civic

Average Dynamic Delivery Flow, mg/p at 2.5ms

Range, % of mean

Average Static Delivery Flow,

g/s

Range, % of mean

At 20,000 kms 4.598 -0.89 / 0.78 2.416 -0.19 / 0.22 At 40,000 kms 4.603 -0.43 / 0.72 2.423 -0.22 / 0.32

Dynamic Delivery, Results for 20,000 & 40,000km

4.504.524.544.564.584.604.624.644.66


Deliv

ery,

mg/

p

Test results at 20,000 km Test results at 40,000 km

Variation, Difference from 20,000 to 40,000km

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1 2 3 4


Varia

tion

%

Dynamic Delivery, mg/p, 2.5ms

Static Delivery, Results for 20,000 & 40,000km

2.40

2.41

2.41

2.42

2.42

2.43

2.43

2.44


Deliv

ery,

mg/

p

Test results at 20,000 km Test results at 40,000 km

Variation, Difference from 20,000 to 40,000km

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.7

1 2 3 4


Varia

tion

%

Static Delivery, g/s

TEST REPORT C-10


Table 3: Fuel Injector Performance Data

FUEL INJECTOR AUDIT TEST PER SAE J1832Vehicle IDRail Number:Fuel Injector ModelProject Code:Date

Voltage: 14 Driver settingsCylce Speed (rpm2s): 6000 Fi_Ton (ms) 0Fuel Type: Recosol Fi_Toff (ms) 0Fuel Temp (Deg C): 21+/-1 Ramp Duration (ms) 30Number of Cycles: 1000 Hold Current (Amps) 2Dynamic Set pt, ms. 2.5 Ramp Rate (Amps/ms) 2

Allowable range+/-0.1kPa Static Delivery time, ms 2.5

Shots/min. 6000 High/low imp. Driver H/L

Injector no 1 2 3 4

Position in engine 1 2 3 4

ID no or manufacturers no n/a n/a n/a n/a

Condition, visual inspection Nozzle clean, oily solenoid body - refer

photos.


refer photos.


refer photos.


refer photos.Dynamic Delivery, mg/p,2.5ms 4.557 4.633 4.590 4.610 - -Static Delivery, g/s 2.411 2.421 2.416 2.414 - -Leakage, ml/min N2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - -Coil Resistance, Ohms 14.30 14.40 14.40 14.50 - -Temperature during static flow measurement was within+/- 2 degC of targetTemperature during dynamic flow measurement was within+/- 2 degC of target



Dynamic Delivery, mg/p, 2.5ms 4.603 4.637 4.590 4.583 - -Static Delivery, g/s 2.425 2.430 2.417 2.418 - -Leakage, ml/min N2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - -Coil Resistance, Ohms 14.6 14.7 14.7 14.8 - -Temperature during static flow measurement was within+/- 2 degC of targetTemperature during dynamic flow measurement was within+/- 2 degC of target



Condition, visual inspectionDynamic Delivery, mg/p 0.05 0.00 0.00 -0.03 - -Static Delivery, g/s 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 - -Leakage, ml/min N2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - -Coil Resistance, Ohms 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 - -

Dynamic Delivery, mg/p, 2.5ms 1.02 0.07 0.00 -0.58Static Delivery, g/s 0.59 0.39 0.06 0.14

Test results - % Variation over Test Duration

Test results - Variation over Test Duration

STANDARD TEST CONDITIONS 02.08.06 @ 0 kms.

TEST RESULTS

Test results at 20,000 km

Test results at 40,000 km

Enter Fuel Pressure (kPa) (to suit vehicle) 300

Hyundai Excel; GOV5-01HMC_35304_23600Bosch: 35310-26040 : 9260 930 001GOV005

Refer test precedure "Test 18" for test specification and

method.Enter data in yellow

cells

test report c-1 - · pdf filetest report c-1 page 3 of 11 form # 8355 attachments 1. test...

Documents