Comparison of real-world vehicle fuel use and tailpipe emissions for gasoline-ethanol fuel blends.

• Real-world hot-stabilized fuel use and exhaust emission rates were measured. • E0, regular and premium E10 with different octane ratings, and E27 were tested. • All five vehicles, including four non-flexible fuel vehicles, adapted to each fuel. • E27 can increase engine efficiency and reduce CO and PM emissions. Differences in fuel use and emission rates of carbon dioxide (CO 2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxide (NO x), and particulate matter (PM) were quantified for three gasoline-ethanol blends and neat gasoline measured for one flexible-fuel vehicle (FFV) and four non-FFVs using a portable emission measurement system (PEMS). The purpose was to determine if non-FFVs can adapt to a mid-level blend and to compare the fuel use and emission rates among the fuels. Each vehicle was measured on neat gasoline (E0), 10% ethanol by volume (E10) "regular" (E10R) and "premium" (E10P), and 27% ethanol by volume (E27). Four real-world cycles were repeated for each vehicle with each fuel. Second-by-second fuel use and emission rates were binned into Vehicle Specific Power (VSP) modes. The modes were weighted according to real-world standard driving cycles. All vehicles, including the non-FFVs, were able to adapt to E27. Octane-induced efficiency gain was observed for higher octane fuels (E10P and E27) versus lower octane fuels (E0 and E10R). E27 tends to lower PM emission rates compared to E10R and E10P and CO emission rates compared to the other three fuels. HC emission rates for E27 were comparable to those of E10R and E10P. No significant difference was found in NO x emission rates for E27 versus the other fuels. Intervehicle variability in fuel use and emission rates was observed. Lessons learned regarding study design, vehicle selection, and sample size, and their implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]