Performance and Emissions

of the 1999 LS1 Engine

Edward Froehlich
Eric Tribbett
Lex Bayer
Mechanical Engineering Department
Stanford University
 2

ABSTRACT
In this study we examine the performance and emissions of the 1999 GM LS1 engine.
First we analyze the variation of performance with throttle position, engine speed, equivalence
ratio and spark timing. Then we analyze emission trends with changing equivalence ratio and
spark timing. Lastly, we discuss the challenges in trying to optimize both performance and
emissions simultaneously.
Varying manifold pressure, optimal performance was found to be at wide-open throttle.
Increasing engine speed also resulted in enhanced performance. An equivalence ratio of 1.14
provided greatest BMEP. Optimal spark timing depended on engine speed. MBT at 2000 RPM
was found to be roughly 33? BTDC.
Emission reduction suggests slightly different optimal settings for equivalence ratio and
spark timing. These optimal settings are different for different pollutants. In general, pre-
catalyst emissions are lowest at lean equivalence ratios and less advanced spark timing. The
effects of equivalence ratio and spark timing on emissions must be incorporated into engine
design in order to meet current pollution regulations.

INTRODUCTION
One of the greatest challenges faced by the automotive industry has been reducing
emissions in order to comply with state and federal regulations. The first emissions requirements
were established by the state of California in 1964. Since then, regulations have become
commonplace worldwide and are continually becoming more stringent. The challenge of
meeting these regulations has been especially difficult for high-performance cars.
One engine that has met this challenge is the LS1 engine by General Motors. The LS1 is
a 5.7L, V8, all aluminum, push-rod engine. It is the latest in a line of engines dating back to
Chevrolet’s classic cast iron small block LT1. The LS1 was first introduced into the Corvette in
1997. This engine meets customer demands while simultaneously satisfying legislative
requirements for emissions. This is particularly impressive considering that GM decided not to
include EGR for marketing reasons. The LS1 succeeds in providing increased power and torque
while delivering better fuel economy.
While the data derived from this study is specific to the LS1, it provides us with a feel for
the key concepts in optimizing performance. Engine speed, throttle position, equivalence ratio
and spark timing are all relevant. While engine speed and throttle are controlled by the driver,
equivalence ratio and spark timing are predetermined by the manufacturer. Performance,
however, is just one factor that must be taken into consideration in determining proper
equivalence ratio and spark timing.
Emissions regulations for automobile engines focus on hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide
and nitrogen oxides. The abundance of these pollutants is largely a function of the two
parameters essential for optimizing performance—equivalence ratio and spark advance.
Examining the effects of these paramaters allows for the simultaneous optimization of
performance and emissions.
As emissions regulations continue to tighten, it will become increasingly important to
understand how to maximize performance while satisfying emissions standards. The study of the
General Motors LS1 engine makes us aware of the challenges automobile engine designers will
face in the future.
 3

APPARATUS AND METHOD

In order to measure the performance and emissions of the LS1 engine, it was mounted to
a dynamometer and fitted with a series of sensors and controllers. Depicted in Figure 1, the
system can be best understood by following the energy flows. The air first passes through a filter
and laminar flow element. A laminar flow meter, a pressure sensor, and a thermocouple were
used to record air intake conditions. A computer controlled throttle meters air into the intake
manifold where a second pressure sensor is located. Computer-controlled injectors dispense fuel
into the air flow. After combustion, the burned gases enter the exhaust manifold where a second
thermocouple records temperature. Further down the exhaust line, a small sample of the exhaust
gases is removed for emissions analysis, after which it is returned to the exhaust stream. Finally,
the exhaust gas passes through a three-way catalyst before exiting the laboratory. Crankshaft and
camshaft angle encoders were used to feed the computer controller with the necessary
information for controlling the spark timing and fuel injection.

1
Intake Manifold Thermocouple
Computer Controller Dynamometer
Intake Manifold Pressure Sensor Controller

Throttle Spark Injection

FUEL

Air Meter Pressure Sensor

Air Meter Thermocouple

Air Flow Rate Sensor

AIR
Exhaust Manifold Thermocouples

Camshaft Position Sensor

Crankshaft Angle Encoder

Exhaust Analyzers
Exhaust
HC CO CO2 O2 NO

Fig. 1: Line diagram of the experimental setup for the GM LS1 engine [4].

Refrences denoted by square brackets.

 4

The sample gases that were removed from the exhaust line were diverted to a series of
emissions sensors which measured the concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide
(CO2 ), oxygen (O2 ), nitric oxide (NO), and hydrocarbons (HC). The first four species were
measured under dry conditions. The equipment relies on the absorption of light by particles in
the exhaust stream. Condensation of water in the analyzer tubes would have skewed the test
results, and was therefore removed prior to testing the samples. HC was measured under wet
conditions to prevent the hydrocarbons from condensing out along with the water.
The dynamometer joined to the LS1 is a 600 horsepower, eddy-current dynamometer
capable of maintaining the engine at speeds up to 6000 RPM. The engine speed was set using the
dynamometer controller. The dynamometer readings measured both torque and power for the
LS1 while providing a means for the engine to dissipate energy.
For the purpose of this study four sets of data were recorded. Each set examined the
effect of one operating variable: manifold pressure (throttle position), engine speed, equivalence
ratio, and spark timing.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

PERFORMANCE
The first set of performance data was taken varying throttle position. By changing the
position of the throttle, the intake manifold pressure was varied from 40 kPa to 100 kPa—
corresponding to wide-open throttle. Spark timing was adjusted to MBT for each throttle
position. Speed was held at 2000 RPM and equivalence ratio was held at unity.

1.00

0.75
Volumetric Efficiency

0.50

0.25

0.00
0 25 50 75 100
Intake Manifold Pressure (kPa)

Fig. 2: The relationship between volumetric efficiency and intake manifold pressure.
Equivalence ratio of unity; engine speed of 2000 RPM; spark timing at MBT.

Figure 2 shows volumetric efficiency versus intake manifold pressure. At higher

pressure, the air in the intake manifold has greater density. This results in a greater mass of air
entering the cylinder per intake stroke. Volumetric efficiency is the ratio of the mass of air
 5

inducted into the cylinder to the mass of ambient air that would theoretically fill the cylinder. It
follows that volumetric efficiency increases with increasing intake manifold pressure. For this
set of data the air-fuel ratio was held constant. Since we stay at a stoichiometric air-fuel ratio,
more fuel also enters the cylinder.

1250 300

1000

Brake Power (kW)

200
BMEP (kPa)

750

BMEP
500
100

250
Brake Power

0 0
0 25 50 75 100
Intake Manifold Pressure (kPa)

Fig. 3: The relationship between BMEP and brake power versus intake manifold pressure.
Equivalence ratio of unity; engine speed of 2000 RPM; spark timing at MBT.

Figure 3 shows BMEP and brake power versus intake manifold pressure. BMEP is
indicative of the work produced by the engine for a given cycle and tends to increase with intake
manifold pressure. This is primarily a result of the increasing volumetric efficiency. At a
stoichiometric air-fuel ratio and MBT timing, the combustion is generally limited by the amount
of mixture available to burn, not the ability to burn it. More air and fuel are available to burn per
cycle at higher manifold pressures, and so the work for a given cycle increases.
Brake power is work per unit time produced by the engine. It is the product of work per
cycle and the number of cycles per unit time (engine speed). The work per cycle (BMEP)
increases linearly and the engine speed is held constant. As a result, the brake power increases
linearly as well.
 6

0.15 0.4
Brake Thermal Efficiency

Brake Thermal Efficiency

0.3
0.10
BSFC (mg/J)

0.2

BSFC
0.05
0.1

0.00 0.0
0 25 50 75 100
Intake Manifold Pressure (kPa)

Fig. 4: The relationship between BSFC and brake thermal efficiency versus intake manifold
pressure. Equivalence ratio of unity; engine speed of 2000 RPM; spark timing at MBT.

Figure 4 shows brake thermal efficiency and brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC)
versus intake manifold pressure. Thermal efficiency is lower at lower intake manifold pressures.
This is a result of the increased pumping work that must be done to induct fresh charge into the
cylinder. Under throttled conditions, the pressure in the intake is pulled below atmospheric as
the piston falls during the intake stroke. Since the pressure below the piston (in the crankcase) is
at atmospheric, work must be done to induct the fresh charge. At lower intake manifold
pressures (more throttled) this work is greater. As a greater percentage of the gross power output
goes to pumping and less to net power output, the efficiency drops. BSFC is the inverse of
thermal efficiency divided by the lower heating value of the fuel. It is clear from this inverse
relationship that as efficiency rises BSFC should fall.
 7

1500

Exhaust Temperature (K) 1250

1000

750

500
0 25 50 75 100
Intake Manifold Pressure (kPa)

Fig. 5: The relationship between exhaust temperature and intake manifold pressure.
Equivalence ratio of unity; engine speed of 2000 RPM; spark timing at MBT.

Figure 5 shows exhaust temperature versus intake manifold pressure. Exhaust

temperature increases over the range of intake manifold pressures studied. At higher intake
manifold pressures more air-fuel mixture is inducted into the cylinder and burned. The energy
released by the chemical bonds of the fuel goes into producing work as well as increasing the
enthalpy of the exhaust gas. However, at higher intake manifold pressures, there is also more
mixture present to absorb the additional energy released. These two factors balance out.
The element responsible for the observed increase in the exhaust temperature results from
the experimental setup. The thermocouple used to measure exhaust temperature was located
approximately ten centimeters along the exhaust manifold. The manifold is cold compared to the
exhaust gas. As the gas travels through the manifold it is cooled due to heat loss to the walls. At
higher manifold pressures there is a greater mass of exhaust gas per cycle. This greater mass
effectively acts as a larger thermal capacitor. This means that the temperature drop from the
initial exhaust to the thermocouple is smaller at higher intake manifold pressures.

The second set of performance data was taken varying engine speed from 2000 to 5000
RPM. Spark timing was adjusted to MBT for each speed. Throttle position was held wide open
(corresponding to an intake manifold pressure of 100 kPa). Equivalence ratio was set at LBT.
 8

1.00

0.75
Volumetric Efficiency

0.50

0.25

0.00
0 2000 4000 6000
Engine Speed (RPM)

Fig. 6: The relationship between volumetric efficiency and engine speed. Equivalence ratio at
LBT; wide-open throttle; spark timing at MBT.

Figure 6 shows volumetric efficiency versus engine speed. Volumetric efficiency as a

function of engine speed is affected by two major factors. The first of these is inertial effects in
the intake and exhaust flows. At high engine speeds, fresh charge is inducted into the cylinder
and exhaust gases leave the cylinder with greater velocity. This greater velocity means that the
inertia in the flow becomes more important. At the beginning of the intake stroke the air in the
intake manifold begins to move. This flow should continue until the pressures in the cylinder
and the intake manifold have equilibrated. At high speeds, however, there is enough momentum
in the flow that it does not stop instantaneously. The additional air that enters the cylinder
increases the in-cylinder pressure above the intake manifold pressure. An analogous effect in the
exhaust stream pulls the in-cylinder pressure down below atmospheric pressure after the exhaust
stroke. This causes the general increasing trend in volumetric efficiency as a function of engine
speed.
The second factor influencing volumetric efficiency is the presence of tuning points in
the intake manifold (and possibly exhaust as well). The intake manifold is tuned to cause a slight
increase in volumetric efficiency around 4400 RPM. As the intake valves open, an expansion
wave is sent down the intake manifold runner. At the opening of this runner, the wave reflects
back as a compression wave. The lengths of the intake manifold runners are designed such that,
at a certain engine speed, this compression wave will push more fresh charge into the cylinder,
increasing volumetric efficiency around that speed. While the exhaust on our experimental setup
was not intentionally tuned, there is an expansion from the manifold into the exhaust pipe as well
as a reflection point at the entrance to the catalyst. This may cause a similar tuning effect,
increasing volumetric efficiency at some specific engine speed.
 9

1250 300

BMEP
1000

Brake Power (kW)

200
BMEP (kPa)

750

Brake Power
500
100

250

0 0
0 2000 4000 6000
Engine Speed (RPM)

Fig. 7: The relationship between BMEP and brake power versus engine speed. Equivalence
ratio at LBT; wide-open throttle; spark timing at MBT.

Figure 7 shows BMEP and brake power versus engine speed. Initially BMEP increases
due to increasing volumetric efficiency—as it did in the first set of performance data. At high
engine speeds, however, BMEP begins to decrease. As volumetric efficiency increases at higher
engine speeds, there is more mass of mixture in the cylinder. This causes the in-cylinder
pressure to generally be higher. This increases the work that must be done to compress the
mixture and overcome friction. Another effect has to do with the amount of time it takes for
combustion to take place. At higher engine speeds the piston spends less time at top dead center.
Even though the spark timing was adjusted to MBT for each speed, at higher engine speeds,
more of the combustion takes place too early or too late in the cycle. This results in decreased
power output. At higher engine speeds these effects begin to dominate over the additional fuel-
air mixture that can be burned, decreasing BMEP.
Brake power increases much faster than BMEP over the range studied. As discussed
earlier, brake power is work per unit time produced by the engine, and is the product of the work
per cycle and the number of cycles per unit time (engine speed). Even though BMEP increases
quite slowly and, in fact, begins to fall off, brake power continues to increase due to the
increasing engine speed.
 10

0.15 0.4
Brake Thermal Efficiency

Brake Thermal Efficiency

0.3
0.10
BSFC (mg/J)

0.2

BSFC
0.05
0.1

0.00 0.0
0 2000 4000 6000
Engine Speed (RPM)

Fig. 8: The relationship between BSFC and brake thermal efficiency versus engine speed.
Equivalence ratio at LBT; wide-open throttle; spark timing at MBT.

Figure 8 shows thermal efficiency and brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) versus
engine speed. Neither seems to be correlated with engine speed. BSFC is mass flow rate of fuel
divided by the power output. At greater engine speeds the mass flow rate of fuel is higher, but
the power output (work per unit time) is higher as well. These two increase at essentially the
same rate, so there is little change in BSFC. Brake thermal efficiency is a scaled inversion of
BSFC, and so it follows that brake thermal efficiency also does not change with engine speed.

1500
Exhaust Temperature (K)

1250

1000

750

500
0 2000 4000 6000
Engine Speed (RPM)

Fig. 9: The relationship between exhaust temperature and engine speed. Equivalence ratio at
LBT; wide-open throttle; spark timing at MBT.
 11

Figure 9 shows exhaust temperature versus engine speed. Our measurements show that
the exhaust temperature increases with engine speed. The dominant factor causing the trend is,
most likely, the increased thermal capacitance of the exhaust flow. At higher engine speeds the
mass flow rate of exhaust gas through the exhaust manifold is clearly much greater. The heat
lost to the manifold walls has less of an effect on the overall temperature of the flow at high flow
rates (high engine speed).

The third set of performance data was taken varying equivalence ratio from 0.84 to 1.24
by varying the fuel injection duration. This moderate range was chosen according to the
limitations of our exhaust analyzer. Throttle position was held constant such that the intake
manifold pressure was 60 kPa. Engine speed was held at 2000 RPM and spark timing was set to
32.7? BTDC.

500

400
BMEP (kPa)

300

200

100

0
0.70 0.85 1.00 1.15 1.30
Equivalence Ratio

Fig. 10: The relationship between BMEP and equivalence ratio. Engine speed of 2000 RPM;
intake manifold pressure of 60 kPa; spark timing at MBT.

The BMEP decreases as the mixture becomes very lean or very rich. At very low
equivalence ratios the available fuel limits the combustion process. At equivalence ratios that are
too high the combustion process is limited by the availability of oxygen. The second-order
polynomial fitted to the data has a maximum at an equivalence ratio of 1.14. Maximum
performance is expected to be slightly on the rich side of stoichiometric. In real combustion,
there is an equilibrium concentration of secondary products, such as carbon monoxide. This
means that there is oxygen left in the exhaust past and equivalence ratio of unity. This allows
additional fuel to be added and oxidized, increasing power and BMEP.
 12

0.15 0.4

Brake Thermal Efficiency

Brake Thermal Efficiency

0.3
0.10
BSFC (mg/J)

0.2
BSFC

0.05
0.1

0.00 0.0
0.70 0.85 1.00 1.15 1.30
Equivalence Ratio

Fig. 11: The relationship between BSFC and brake thermal efficiency versus equivalence ratio.
Engine speed of 2000 RPM; intake manifold pressure of 60 kPa; spark timing at MBT.

Figure 11 shows that thermal efficiency reaches a maximum, and BSFC reaches a
minimum, just slightly lean of stoichiometric. Thermal efficiency is work-out divided by
energy-in. In this case the energy-in is the product of the mass of fuel and the lower heating
value. As the mixture becomes richer a greater amount of the fuel does not burn. The energy
contained in the bonds of this fuel is counted in the energy-in term but does not contribute to the
work-out since it does not burn—thus the thermal efficiency decreases. A similar effect is
encountered on the lean side. Less fuel is burned at lean conditions and the temperature is
generally lower. The lower temperature does not allow all of the fuel to burn. Once again, a
portion of the fuel that is counted in the energy-in term does not contribute to the work-out.
These two factors cause there to be a maximum value of thermal efficiency at an intermediate
equivalence ratio. This maximum is achieved just slightly lean of stoichiometric. Since BSFC is
inversely proportional to thermal efficiency, it reaches its minimum at the same point thermal
efficiency reaches its maximum—just lean of stoichiometric.
The fact that the critical point occurs slightly on the lean side of stoichiometric can be
explained by examining the effects of equivalence ratio on the specific heat ratio (k=Cp /Cv). At
richer mixtures k tends to be smaller due to the higher percentage of large fuel molecules in the
mixture. If the expansion process is modeled as isentropic, the following equations hold:
T2 V1 k-1 ;
W=mCv(T1 -T2 ).
T1 V2
From these relationships we see that increasing k (lower equivalence ratio) causes T2 to decrease
and work to increase, thus affecting the thermal efficiency and giving us a critical point slightly
lean of stoichiometric.
 13

1.00

0.75
Volumetric Efficiency

0.50

0.25

0.00
0.70 0.85 1.00 1.15 1.30
Equivalence Ratio

Fig. 12: The relationship between volumetric efficiency and equivalence ratio. Engine speed of
2000 RPM; intake manifold pressure of 60 kPa; spark timing at MBT.

It is evident that there is no significant correlation between volumetric efficiency and

equivalence ratio. We would expect to find a very weak increase in volumetric efficiency as one
moves to values of the equivalence ratio that are either very rich or very lean. At very lean
conditions there is little fuel in the mixture. This means that the cylinder takes in a greater
amount of air for a given amount of mixture. At very high equivalence ratios the effects of
charge cooling may be significant. This decrease in temperature increases the density of the
mixture, thus increasing volumetric efficiency. The fact that volumetric efficiency does not
notably change with equivalence ratio indicates that these effects are too weak to be detected.
Thus for practical purposes we can regard volumetric efficiency as constant with varying
equivalence ratio.
 14

1500

Exhaust Temperature (K) 1250

1000

750

500
0.70 0.85 1.00 1.15 1.30
Equivalence Ratio

Fig. 13: The relationship between exhaust temperature and equivalence ratio. Engine speed of
2000 RPM; intake manifold pressure of 60 kPa; spark timing at MBT.

Figure 13 indicates that there is a weak trend between exhaust temperature and
equivalence ratio. The exhaust temperature decreases toward the rich side as excess fuel remains
unburned and cools the charge. At lean conditions, there is less combustion than occurs nearer
stoichiometric, and thus the temperature of the mixture is not as high. The maximum exhaust
temperature occurs at an intermediate equivalence ratio. While the above-mentioned trends are
apparent in Fig. 13, we can see that the effects are only marginal over the range studied.
 15

For the last set of performance data the spark advance was varied between 17? and
43? BTDC. The engine speed was held at 2000 RPM and the equivalence ratio set at unity. The
throttle was held in a position so as to create an intake manifold pressure of 60 kPa.

500

400
BMEP (kPa)

300

200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Spark Timing (°BTDC)

Fig. 14: The relationship between BMEP and spark timing. Engine speed of 2000 RPM; intake
manifold pressure of 60 kPa; equivalence ratio of unity.

The results show that BMEP tends to increase with spark advance between 17? and
43? BTDC. It is expected that BMEP should increase with spark advance to a point, and then
drop off. Best performance will be achieved when the greatest portion of the combustion takes
place just after top dead center. If the spark is not advanced enough, the piston will already be
moving down when much of the combustion takes place. In this case we loose the ability to
expand this portion of the gas through the full range, decreasing performance. If the spark is too
advanced, too much of the gas will burn while the piston is still rising. The work that must be
done to compress this gas will decrease the net work produced. These competing effects cause
there to be a maximum in the BMEP as a function of spark advance.
The second-order polynomial fitted to the data has a maximum BMEP at an ignition
timing of 38.4? BTDC. Minimum advance for best torque (MBT) is defined as the smallest
advance that achieves 99% of the maximum power. Using the equation of the trend line, we
obtained a value of 34.2? BTDC for MBT under these conditions.
It should be noted that MBT will vary with both throttle position and engine speed. Under
more throttled conditions, the density of charge in the cylinder will be lower. Since the flame
propagates more slowly in less dense mixtures, a larger spark advance will be required. As the
piston moves faster at greater engine speeds, the flame must be given a larger head start in order
for most of the combustion to occur near top dead center.
 16

0.15 0.4

Brake Thermal Efficiency

Brake Thermal Efficiency

0.3
0.10
BSFC (mg/J)

0.2
BSFC
0.05
0.1

0.00 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Spark Timing (°BTDC)

Fig. 15: The relationship between BSFC and brake thermal efficiency versus spark timing.
Engine speed of 2000 RPM; intake manifold pressure of 60 kPa; equivalence ratio of unity.

Figure 15 shows that brake thermal efficiency and BSFC tend to improve over the range
studied. Thermal efficiency is work-out divided by energy-in. In this case the energy-in is the
product of the mass of fuel and the lower heating value which was held constant. The work-out
increases proportionally to the BMEP increase. Thus the thermal efficiency increases. BSFC
follows inversely.

1.00

0.75
Volumetric Efficiency

0.50

0.25

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50
Spark Timing (°BTDC)

Fig. 16: The relationship between volumetric efficiency and spark timing. Engine speed of
2000 RPM; intake manifold pressure of 60 kPa; equivalence ratio of unity.

Figure 16 makes it evident that volumetric efficiency is unaffected by spark advance.

Volumetric efficiency is the amount of air inducted into the cylinder divided by the theoretical
 17

amount of ambient air that could occupy the cylinder. We expected that volumetric efficiency
would increase slightly with spark advance due to the presence of cooler residual gases in the
chamber (see Fig. 17) that would lower the density of the air. This effect, however, is not
significant and cannot be seen in our data.

1500 500
BMEP

400
Exhaust Temperature (K)

1250

BMEP (kPa)
300

1000

Exhaust Temperature 200

750
100

500 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Spark Timing (°BTDC)

Fig. 17: The relationship between exhaust temperature and BMEP versus spark timing. Engine
speed of 2000 RPM; intake manifold pressure of 60 kPa; equivalence ratio of unity.

Figure 17 shows that the exhaust temperature decreases between 17? and 43? BTDC.
This is because more energy is transformed into work as the spark advance is increased. Since
the same amount of energy is released by the combustion, the enthalpy of the exhaust gas must
decrease in order to conserve energy. This trade off between work and decreasing exhaust gas
enthalpy can be seen by the inverse relationship between exhaust temperature and BMEP in Fig.
17.
 18

EMISSIONS
The first set of emissions data was taken varying equivalence ratio from 0.84 to 1.24.
Intake manifold pressure was kept at 60 kPa. Engine speed was held at 2000 RPM. MBT spark
timing was used.

3000 6

O2
HC Concentration (PPMC, wet)

O2 Concentration (%, dry)

2000 HC 4

1000 2

0 0
0.70 0.85 1.00 1.15 1.30
Equivalence Ratio

Fig. 18: The relationship between HC and O2 concentrations versus equivalence ratio. Engine
speed of 2000 RPM; intake manifold pressure of 60 kPa; spark timing at MBT.

Figure 18 shows hydrocarbon and oxygen concentrations in the exhaust gas as a function
of equivalence ratio. HC emissions are the result of incomplete combustion. This can be caused
by an insufficient supply of oxygen or by flame quenching. The flame can be quenched along
walls and in crevices in the combustion chamber such as the region between the piston crown
and the cylinder wall. At higher equivalence ratios there will be a greater number of fuel
molecules in the crevices that escape combustion. This will cause the HC concentration to be
higher at richer equivalence ratios.
A much greater effect in this case, however, is the availability of oxygen. In mixtures
that are rich there is not enough oxygen to combust all of the fuel. This leads to large amounts of
unburned hydrocarbons. Figure 18 shows hydrocarbon concentration rising and oxygen
concentration dropping at higher equivalence ratios. There also appears to be an increase in
hydrocarbon emissions at very lean conditions. At lean conditions, less fuel is burned and the in-
cylinder temperature is generally lower. We speculate that this lower temperature is not
sufficient to allow all of the hydrocarbons to be oxidized. The HC concentration would increase
dramatically were the equivalence ratio lowered to the point of lean misfire.
 19

6 CO2 15

CO and O2 Concentration (%, dry)

CO2 Concentration (%, dry)

4 10

2 O2 CO 5

0 0
0.70 0.85 1.00 1.15 1.30
Equivalence Ratio

Fig. 19: The relationship between CO2 , CO, and O2 concentrations versus equivalence ratio.
Engine speed of 2000 RPM; intake manifold pressure of 60 kPa; spark timing at MBT.

Figure 19 shows carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and oxygen concentrations in the
exhaust versus equivalence ratio. In idealized combustion, hydrocarbons react completely to
form CO2 and water. If there is not enough oxygen available for all of the carbon in the fuel to
react to form CO2 , some of the carbon is converted to CO instead. Figure 19 shows that at
equivalence ratios less than unity, there is excess oxygen and thus very little CO. CO does
increase slightly under lean conditions due to partial burn. The concentration of CO2 increases
with equivalence ratio on the lean side because putting in more fuel means there is more carbon
available to convert to CO2 . Rich of stoichiometric there is a shortage of oxygen. This means
that not all of the carbon in the fuel can react to form CO2 . As a result the concentration of CO2
trails off and the concentration of CO increases dramatically.
 20

5000

NO Concentration (PPM, dry)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0.70 0.85 1.00 1.15 1.30

Equivalence Ratio

Fig. 20: The relationship between NO concentrations and equivalence ratio. Engine speed of
2000 RPM; intake manifold pressure of 60 kPa; spark timing at MBT.

Figure 20 shows nitric oxide concentration in the exhaust versus equivalence ratio. This
concentration shows a pronounced peak around stoichiometric, trailing off on either side. Nitric
oxide formation is a strong function of temperature. A temperature difference of a few hundred
Kelvin can cause a difference of a factor of ten in the NO concentration. Lean of stoichiometric
there is not enough fuel for there to be much combustion. As a result, the in-cylinder
temperature is lower. This causes the NO concentration to drop off dramatically. On the rich
side there is significant charge cooling as large fuel molecules absorb much of the thermal
energy. Again, the in-cylinder temperature is reduced and NO formation goes down. An
additional factor contributing to reduced NO formation at rich conditions is the availability of
oxygen. At rich conditions there is less oxygen available and thus it is harder to form products
with oxygen in them such as NO.
 21

The second set of exhaust data was taken varying spark timing from 16.9? to
43.2? BTDC. Intake manifold pressure was fixed at 60 kPa. Engine speed was held at 2000
RPM. The equivalence ratio was set at unity.

3000 6
HC Concentration (PPMC, wet)

O2 Concentration (%, dry)

2000 4

1000 2
HC

O2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Spark Timing (°BTDC)

Fig. 21: The relationship between HC and O2 concentrations versus spark timing. Engine
speed of 2000 RPM; intake manifold pressure of 60 kPa; equivalence ratio of unity.

Figure 21 shows HC and O2 concentrations in the exhaust as a function of spark timing.

In the case of variable equivalence ratio, the significant factor in HC emissions was the
availability of oxygen and the two lines showed an inverse relationship. In the case of variable
spark timing this does not appear to be true. Unburned hydrocarbons in small crevices in the
combustion chamber seem to be the more significant contributor here. Advanced spark timing
causes higher in-cylinder peak pressures. This higher pressure pushes more of the fuel-air
mixture into crevices (most significantly the space between the piston crown and cylinder walls)
where the flame is quenched and the mixture is left unburned. Additionally, the temperature late
in the cycle, when the mixture comes out of these crevices, is lower at more advanced spark
timing (see Fig. 17). The lower temperature means that the hydrocarbons and oxygen do not
react. This increases the concentration of unburned hydrocarbons and oxygen in the exhaust.
 22

6 15
CO2

CO and O2 Concentration (%, dry)

CO2 Concentration (%, dry)

4 10

2 5

O2
CO
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Spark Timing (°BTDC)

Fig. 22: The relationship between CO2 , CO, and O2 concentrations versus spark timing. Engine
speed of 2000 RPM; intake manifold pressure of 60 kPa; equivalence ratio of unity.

Figure 22 shows that oxygen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide concentrations
change very little with spark advance in the range studied. In the previous set of emissions data
(variable equivalence ratio), CO concentration increased and CO2 concentration decreased when
there was not enough oxygen. In this case, the equivalence ratio was held at unity, so there was
enough oxygen to react most of the carbon to CO2 . Some carbon monoxide does appear in the
exhaust due to frozen equilibrium concentrations of O2 , CO and CO2 . We might expect spark
advance to affect the relative concentrations of CO and CO2 in two ways. The higher
temperatures achieved at higher spark advance might cause more CO2 to disassociate and
increase the CO concentration. Conversely, the higher pressures achieved at higher spark
advance could tend to make the equilibrium favor CO2 over CO and O2 . The fact that neither of
these trends appear in our data would suggest that neither is significant or that the two effects
offset each other.
 23

5000

NO Concentration (PPM, dry) 4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Spark Timing (°BTDC)

Fig. 23: The relationship between NO concentrations and spark timing. Engine speed of 2000
RPM; intake manifold pressure of 60 kPa; equivalence ratio of unity.

Figure 23 shows NO concentration in the exhaust gas as a function of spark timing. As

discussed earlier NO formation is a strong function of temperature. As the spark is advanced, the
in-cylinder peak pressure increases. The ideal gas law tells us that this increase in peak pressure
must correspond to an increase in peak temperature. This higher temperature causes the NO
concentration to be higher. An additional effect comes from the fact that much of the
combustion takes place earlier in the cycle at more advanced spark timing. The products from
this early combustion are exposed to high temperatures for a longer period of time. We
speculate that this additional time at high temperature does not allow the NO to be destroyed.

PERFORMANCE AND EMISSIONS CONSIDERATIONS

While we have examined engine performance and emissions separately, in reality the two
are coupled.
In order to optimize performance we need to consider BMEP and brake thermal
efficiency. The equivalence ratio for optimal performance (highest BMEP) was found to be at
1.14. At this equivalence ratio, HC and CO concentrations are rising and NO emissions are close
to their maximums. Thus an equivalence ratio of 1.14 is not optimal for emissions. Brake thermal
efficiency is optimized just lean of stoichiometric. At this equivalence ratio, emissions are better,
but NO concentrations are still high. Thus a slightly lean equivalence ratio does not provide an
ideal solution either.
It is difficult to discern an optimal equivalence ratio for all emissions, since the different
pollutant species behave differently. In general emissions are better under lean conditions. In
reality, however, attaining low emissions and high performance is made much easier by the use
of a catalyst. Modern three-way catalysts reduce CO, NOx , and HC emissions considerably.
These catalysts require an equivalence ratio that hovers around unity—so the best equivalence
ratio for emissions reduction is, in fact, determined by the catalyst. While performance is not
maximized at an equivalence ratio of unity, the performance is the best possible that, together
with a catalyst, will meet modern emissions standards.
 24

Another parameter that is pertinent to both performance and emissions is spark timing.
Thermal efficiency and BMEP reach maximums around 38.4? BTDC for 2000 RPM and an
intake manifold pressure of 60 kPa. MBT was found to be at 34.2? BTDC. At this spark timing
NO and HC emissions are considerably higher than at less advanced spark timing. Despite these
increased emissions, however, cars generally run at MBT timing. HC emissions are, instead,
reduced by the use of a catalyst, while NO emissions can be reduced with a catalyst or with
EGR.
It is clear that the use of a catalyst is essential in modern-day engine design. Two
common strategies include the use of a three-way catalyst with an equivalence ratio hovering
around unity or an oxidation catalyst with a lean equivalence ratio. A further study in emissions
concentrations after the catalyst would compliment this study well.

CONCLUSION
Throttle position, engine speed, equivalence ratio and spark timing were all found to
significantly influence performance in the LS1 engine.
Performance increased as the throttle was opened, as engine speed increased, at an
equivalence ratio of 1.14, and at MBT timing. Spark timing for optimal performance depends on
engine speed and was found to be at 32.4? BTDC for 2000 RPM.
Reducing emissions suggests slightly different optimal settings for equivalence ratio and
spark timing. These optimal settings vary for different pollutants. In general, pre-catalyst
emissions are lowest at lean equivalence ratios and less advanced spark timing.
In order to optimize performance while simultaneously meeting emissions regulations,
engines are set to run at MBT timing and an equivalence ratio which hovers around unity. This
equivalence ratio allows for the use of a three-way catalyst.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was performed at the Engine Research Laboratory belonging to the
Mechanical Engineering Department at Stanford University. The research was facilitated through
the ME130 Internal Combustion class.
The authors would like to thank Prof. Chris Edwards, Mr. A.J. Simon and Mr. Nalu
Kaahaaina for helpful discussion and assistance during the course of this work. Thank you also
to Matthew Svreck for editorial advice. A special thanks also to A.J and Nalu for providing
much needed sustenance during lab sessions in the form of gummi, tootsie rolls, and root beer.

REFERENCES
1. Heywood, J. B., Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998
2. Amann et al, 1997 GM 5.7L LS1 V8 Engine, General Motors Corporation, 1997
3. Cengel and Boles, Thermodynamics, An engineering Approach, McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1998
4. McFarland, J, Old Bottle, New Wine, Popular Mechanics, September 1996