78-4
An Evaluation of Restorative Maintenance on Exhaust
Emissions from 1975/1976 In-Use Automobiles in California
October, 1978
by
Patrick Farrell
Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
ABSTRACT
This paper describes the results of emissions testing on one hundred
1975-1976 Model Year vehicles in California conducted by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency from March 1977 to January 1978. The
vehicles were moderate-mileage models of the three major domestic manu-
facturers. Each was obtained randomly from private individuals. Each
vehicle was subject to a series of tests before and after various stages
of tune-up. The findings confirm the poor initial pass-rate of in-use
vehicles and the ultimate ability of most vehicles to meet their appli-
cable standards once maladjustments and disablements have been corrected.
In comparing these results with those of 49-state vehicles in an iden-
tical program, the California vehicles exhibited lower absolute emission
levels but were quite similar when displayed in relation to their more
stringent standards.
-------
Exhaust emissions testing of in-use vehicles has been conducted by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the past several years. These
studies, known as the Emission Factors Programs, were intended to com-
pile data regarding emissions of in-use vehicles for use in calculations
of air quality and overall effectiveness of current emission controls.
Results of these programs have revealed that a substantial number of
relatively new vehicles fail to meet the emissions standards for which
their prototypes were certified, as evidenced in Table 1 (References 1,
2, and 3). The discrepancy between as-certified emissions and as-tested
emissions on the in-use vehicles led to the development of the Restorative
Maintenance Program. The basic purposes of the Restorative Maintenance
program were:
1. To go beyond the basic emission factor testing in determination of
apparent reasons for poor emission performance of in-use vehicles,
and
2. To investigate and quantify the individual and combined effects of
defects, disablement and maladjustment actions on exhaust emissions
and fuel economy.
Table 1 - Performance of new-model year California vehicles
versus applicable California standards
Average % Meeting Applicable
Program Year Model Year N Mileage Standards
FY75 1976 34 8,700 71
FY75 1975 28 16,200 36
FY74 1975 35 8,100 '37
FY74 1974 30 22,600 7
FY73 1974 10 11,300 40
FY73 1973 28 23,000 25
The results of this program are being used to:
1. Assess the effectiveness of the present light duty vehicle cer-
tification process with respect to the performance of defect-free,
properly tuned, in-use vehicles, and
2. Provide background for possible further regulatory action such as
limited adjustments on carburetors, ignition timing, and choke
settings, and
3. Generate information for use in design of inspection and main-
tenance programs, selective enforcement audit and potential recall
actions.
-------
-2-
In the entire program, 400 vehicles were tested; 100 each in Detroit,
Chicago, Washington, B.C., and San Francisco. Results from the 300
vehicles from Detroit, Chicago and Washington, D.C. were previously
reported (Reference 4). This report concerns the remaining 100 vehicles
from San Francisco.
The results of the final 100 vehicles in the program yield more infor-
mation than would be expected from the completion of the program alone.
The previous 300 vehicles were certified to meet 49-state emission
standards for 1975-1976 model year passenger cars. The 100 San Francisco
vehicles were certified to meet the stricter 1975-1976 California vehi-
cle emission standards. The different emission control strategies
required by slightly different standards yielded results different from
those of the 49-state vehicles. These California results prove inter-
esting as both a comparison with the 49-state as well as an examination
of the in-use effectiveness of the California strategies. This last
point may prove illuminating with regard to reliability and effective-
ness expectations of various emission control systems, when stricter
emission standards are required for the 49 states. Current California
emission standards and control techniques may not be directly applied
nationwide, but analysis of their effectiveness with respect to the
current California standards may provide information enabling the EPA
and the vehicle manufacturers to anticipate reliability or other prob-
lems prior to implementation of similar technology on a nationwide
basis.
The vehicles included in this program were 1975 and 1976 model year
vehicles. Each vehicle received the Federal Test Procedure, the Highway
Fuel Economy Test, and five short cycle tests. The short test results
are not included in this report but can be found in the contractor
report on this project (Reference 5). This paper describes the design
of the program and the results obtained from the 100 California vehicles.
Program Design
The basic program design for San Francisco vehicles, as for all others,
called for a precise scenario of tests, inspections, maintenance actions
and retests. The actual sequence was determined after an analysis of the
inspection and emission test results.
100 vehicles were to be obtained in and around the San Francisco area
for test by Automotive Environmental Systems, Inc., an independent
testing laboratory under contract to EPA. The 100 vehicles consisted of
approximately equal numbers of vehicles from each of the three major
domestic automobile manufacturers. Within any manufacturer's sample,
the actual vehicle make and model was specificed using a sales weighting
technique. The vehicles were selected from the general public at random
-------
3
with the requirements that all vehicles be 1975 or 1976 models which
were less than 24 months old and have accumulated less than 27,000
miles. Owners were requested to fill out questionnaires to ensure that
vehicles actually tested were as representative as possible. The ques-
tionnaire also yielded information regarding owner usage and maintenance
of the vehicle.
The actual tests performed were the 1975 FTP, without the evaporative
emission measurements and extensive preconditioning used in Certifi-
cation, the HFET, and the short cycle tests as proposed by EPA (Vol 42
Federal Register, May 25, 1977, p. 26741). The short tests were per-
formed to provide data to select test procedures for future I/M programs
by state and local areas.
The test-maintenance series consists of tests alternating with inspec-
tion and maintenance actions on any vehicle "malperformance" (any emj[.s-
sion-related component or system not operating properly for any reason).
Subcategories of malperformance are maladjustments, disablements, and
defects. Maladjustment refers to either willful or inadvertent adjust-
ment of a parameter so that it is not within certain, defined toler-
ances. Disablements are either willful or inadvertent actions on non-
adjustable components so as to render them inoperable, such as dis-
connecting or plugging vacuum hoses. Defects are those malperformances
ascribed to either a fault in manufacturing or an unusually rapid
deterioration of a component. More complete definitions of these terms
are found in Appendix A.
The actual test sequence begins with an initial, as-received FTP, HFET,
and Short Cycle sequence. A set of tests was performed after correction
of any observed maladjustments and disablements. A third set, if
necessary, was performed following replacement of failed emission
components, combined with a major tune-up. Due to the suspected fre-
quency of maladjusted idle mixture and its effect on FTP emission levels,
correction of this parameter and idle speed were treated separately from
other corrections of maladjustments and disablements. The resulting
sequence, as described in detail in Appendix B, consisted of: an ini-
tial test in as-received condition; a second test following correction
of all maladjustments and disablements except idle mixture and idle
speed; a third test after idle mixture and idle speed are corrected; and
a final test following a major tune-up during which defective components
are repaired or replaced.
Seven of the 100 vehicles were retained and conducted through a "selec-
tive malperformance loop." These vehicles were each in a proper state of
tune and were found to pass their most recent FTP. These seven vehicles
were then used in a series of tests after certain maladjustment and
disablement actions in order to determine their effects on exhaust
emissions and fuel economy.
-------
-4-
Conduct of the Program
The actual vehicle testing was performed at AESi's facilities in Westminster,
California between March, 1977 and January, 1978. Test vehicles were
trucked from the procurement site in San Francisco to the test site, and
returned by truck upon completion of the test sequence. Prior to testing,
the manufacturers were solicited for assistance in the program. General
Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company and Chrysler Corporation each
provided technical assistance in the form of engineers and technicians
to support the contractor's mechanics in the program. The manufacturers
were allowed access to test results from their own vehicles. After the
normal test sequence was completed, manufacturer's suggestions for
further diagnostic, repair, or adjustment actions were solicited on
failed vehicles.
Program Results
"As Received" Emission Levels - Results of the initial test on the 100
vehicles are displayed in Table 2 and Figure 1. Table 2 corroborates
the previous observations that many relatively new, in-use vehicles
cannot meet the emission standards corresponding to their model year.
Despite the stricter California emission standards, a somewhat higher
percentage of the test fleet passed these standards than passed the
federal standards in the 300 vehicles tested in 49-state configuration.
The initial test pass rate for this testing is between the pass rates
for the two Emission Factors programs cited in Table 2. The fleet mix
may contribute to this number, as these Restorative Maintenance vehicles
were only from the three major domestic manufacturers, while Emission
Factors vehicles included imports and smaller domestic manufacturers.
Table 2 - Comparison of Exhaust Emission Levels
of California Vehicles between Emission Factors (EF)
and Restorative Maintenance (RM) Programs
Model Year
1975/1976
1976
1975
Program
RM
EF
EF
N
100
34
35
Averdge
Mileage
14,781
8,700
8,100
HC
(gm/mi)
.84
.72
.52
CO
(gm/mi)
11.4
7.95
6.59
NO
(gm/mi)
2.10
1.57
2.38
% Meeting
Standards
47
71
37.1
The emission values given in Table 2 are fleet averages for all 100
vehicles in their initial test. The fleet average HC meets California's
1975/1976 standards (.9 HC, 9.0 CO, 2.0 NOx) while the average CO and
NOx do not. Conclusions based on this data alone are tenuous since
several vehicles had very high emission levels, boosting the fleet
average substantially. Figure 1 describes specific failure modes for
-------
Fail All 1%
IHC 3%
£/NOx 3%
Figure 1-Pass/Fail outcomes on the initial test
-------
-5-
the initial test. (HC/CO corresponds to failure in both HC and CO
levels). Consideration of both Table 2 and Figure 1 leads to some
qualitative idea of how much the failed vehicles missed their standards.
The proviso regarding singular high emission vehicles precludes any
precise statement, but the trend seems fairly clear - the majority of
the fleet failed the first test, but not by a large margin, since the
first test average values are close to the standards.
Underhood Inspection - The underhood inspection following the first test
showed 63% of the vehicles had some system malperformance. The specific
system breakdown is shown in Table 3. The data shows 4 major areas of
malperformance. The most prevalent was the removal or breakage of the
limiter caps over the carburetor idle mixture screws, which was found on
38% of the vehicles. On 29%, the ignition timing was found to differ
from the manufacturer's specification by more than 2°. The 17% EGR
malperformance reflects plugging of vacuum lines to the EGR or damage to
the valve itself. The last major area of malperformance was choke and
choke settings. Choke settings out of tolerance were found on 11% of
the test vehicles. Overall, some manufacturer's vehicles demonstrated
more frequent malperformance in a given area than others. The most
apparent examples of this are the rate of limiter caps found missing or
broken, maladjustment of timing, and EGR disablement. Chrysler limiter
cap problems occurred in 58% of their vehicles, while Ford and GM had
36% and 21% respectively. Ignition timing changes were most frequent in
Fords, at 48%, compared to 21% for Chrysler and 18% for GM. EGR valve
disablements were found on 46% of the Chryslers, but no Fords and 6% of
GM cars had this problem. These manufacturer variations may reflect a
multitude of factors, from driveability problems to ease of adjustment
(or maladjustment). Further examination of these characteristics in
future EPA efforts may prove valuable in ascertaining the causes of
certain types of system malperformance.
Table 3 - Percent of Emission Component Malperformance by System
Emission System [ Percent Malperformance
Induction 5
Fuel System 43
a) Limiter Caps 38
b) Choke 11
c) Other 1
Ignition 29
a) Timing 29
b) Other 0
EGR 17
Air Pump 0
PCV 0
Exhaust 0
Other £
Any System 63
-------
-6-
Table 4 shows calculations of the relative importance of maladjustments
and disablements to passing or failing the FTP. (Percentages shown are
based on the total vehicle fleet) This table demonstrates a not alto-
gether unexpected resultup to a point, emission control technologies
are fairly tolerant of what is here called maladjustment and disable-
ment. This is reflected in the fact that for the vehicles that passed
the FTP the first time, roughly half had maladjustments and disablements
and half did not. For the vehicles that failed the FTP, a much larger
number of vehicles had maladjustments and disablements - 38% - than did
not - 15%. Thus, sixty six percent of the vehicles with maladjustment
or disablements failed the initial FTP while 60% of the vehicles without
maladjustments or disablements passed the FTP, indicating that the
presence of maladjustments or disablements is a strong influence on the
ability to meet the standards of a vehicle. Nevertheless, it is signi-
ficant that 15% of the vehicles had no maladjustments or disablements,
yet still failed the initial FTP.
Table 4 - Performance of Vehicles on their
Initial Test Results versus the Presence or Absence of
Maladjustments or Disablements
Met FTP Standards Failed FTP Standards
With Maladjustments or 25% 38%
Disablements
Without Maladjustments or 22% 15%
Disablements
Emission Reductions After Maintenance - After completion of the in-
spection, those vehicles that passed Test 1 and were found to have no
maladjustments or disablements were released to their owners. Those
vehicles with maladjustments and disablements other than idle mixture
and idle speed had them corrected at this point. Failure of Test 2
required correction of these idle speed and mixture and a Test 3.
Following Test 3, any failing vehicles left in the loop were subjected
to a major tune-up, complete with replacement of any defective parts.
These vehicles then received Test 4. Figure 2 shows the average fleet
emission results after each test. These results are calculated as total
fleet averages following a given test, so all 100 cars are averaged at
each test using either the results for that test, or the most recent
previous test results if the current test was not performed. This
figure and Figure 3 indicate the most successful maintenance actions
occurred between test 2 and 3. Maintenance between tests 1 and 2 also
proved effective. The tune-up and component replacement between tests 3
and 4 had somewhat less effect.
-------
100
FTP 75
Emissions
as a
Percent of 50
California
Standards
25
.84 .84
.72
Test 1234
No.
FTP HC Emissions (gm/mi)
100
75--
50'
25-
JLA
10.8
7.R
7.7
Test 1234
No.
FTP CO Emissions :',^.i.
2.1
10O
75-
50-
25-
1.7 1.7 i f,f,
Test 1234
No.
FTP NO Emissions (gm/mi)
Test Number
1-as received test
2-after correction of
maladjustments and
disablements(except idle
mixture and idle speed)
3-after adjustment of idle
mixture and idle speed
4-after major tune-up and repair of
repair of any defective
components
Fig. 2-Fleet average emission levels
after successive stages of maintenance
-------
Percent of
Vehicle
Fleet
100
75
50 .
25 -
47
58
72
78
Test 1234
No.
Fig, 3-Cumulative percentage of vehicles meeting
standards after successive stages of maintenance
-------
-7-
Ultimate Non-Compliance - As evidenced by Figure 3, 22% of the vehicles
in the fleet were not able to pass the California emission standards.
The final modes of failure for the vehicle fleet are shown in Figure 4.
Final average emissions for these vehicles were, in the case of CO,
significantly altered by one vehicle which had 22 times the standard in
Test 4. Without this vehicle, the remaining 21 had average emissions
of: 1.03 HC, 9.5 CO, 1.86 NOx. With the outlying vehicle, HC and NOx
were essentially the same, and CO went to 18.0. Comparison with Table 2
reveals that even the vehicles that never passed, had improved CO and
NOx average emissions (excluding the outlying vehicle) and slightly
worse HC emissions. Except for the one vehicle, the spread of emission
values for this group was relatively small, in contrast to the original
test values. Thus, the maintenance actions performed in this project
resulted in some significant emissions improvement, even for vehicles
that never passed the California standards.
Fuel Economy - Miles-per-gallon figures were calculated for each vehicle
during the FTP and HFET. The results of maintenance on the test fleet
mileage was negligible. Shown in Table 5 and Figure 5 are these results
compared to the FTP and HFET values as published in Gas Mileage Guide
for New Car Buyers. No particular maintenance action strongly affected
the fleet average fuel economy figures. These data corroborate those of
the previous report in which no overall mileage advantage is gained by
maladjustment or disablement of emission-related components. Similarly,
little was gained by maintenance actions in terms of fuel economy
values.
Table 5 - Average Measured Fuel Economy Results
as a Percentage of Applicable Guide Values
N FTP HFET
Initial 100 94% 93%
Final Test 100 93% 95%
Selective Malperformance
Those vehicles chosen for the selective malperformance loop received a
series of maladjustments or disablements and subsequent tests in order
to determine the effect of certain actions on emissions. In this test,
seven vehicles were used to conduct this series. All seven were in
proper operating order and met their emission standards prior to ini-
tiating the test sequence. The major individual actions taken as well
as their emission results are displayed in Table 6.
-------
CO/NO
Pass 78%
\ CO 5%
Fig. 4-Pass/Fail outcomes after the
restorative maintenance was complete
;uu%
H
« 75%'
00
n)
gTrH
0 -H
w p5 50%-
w
f 1
0) <4-l
3 O
4J
c
QJ Ot-0/ -
o 25/£
M
CO
OH
CO
<
1 O
1 «n
\
\,
17-
X^ ,-
'/
V"'' ^
,. '
,-x
x'"
.
^.'
^ ' .
x'.
"'.,
^
.-
0 ,
1
1.7
\
..^
^x
V
\
\ "
\
\
16
x'x
t,'".
'S.
"y.
/
-'
./' ,
s *
,
^
/
H
1-7
. [_
\
-%
*».
\.
'X
\.
l 6
' ,
f^
^
-'^.
5 i
1.7
N
^
\,
s .
\
16
^,
X
'''
.-'*
.6
City Highway
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4
Fig. 5-Fuel economy as a percentage of EPA Mileage
Guide figures, following each test
-------
-8-
Table 6 - Percentage Emission and Fuel Economy Increases
Resulting from Selective Maladjustments and Disablements
Action
Plug EGR
Disconnect Air Pump
Full Manifold Vacuum
to Distributor
Lean Best Idle
Bypass Spark Delay
Disconnect Electric
Choke Assist
N
7
5
4
6
2
2
HC
10
23
69
-FTP-
CO
-15% 10%
360 1200
41 42
32
11
200
NO
200%
-40
48
3.7
58
-9
MPG
5.0%
-2.3
2.2
-3.7
7
-5
HFET
7.3%
.9
.9
-3.7
3
-5
The most significant changes in emissions occurred when the air pump was
disconnected. Inspections of the test vehicles had revealed no vehicles
with this type of malperformance, however, Of more immediate interest
are the results for the more commonly observed types of malperformance.
Each of the seven vehicles had their EGR system plugged and measured a
200% average increase in NOx. A significant HC and CO increase was
recorded when the vehicle was tuned to the classic "lean best idle"
configuration. Other induced problems yield significant alteration in
emissions, but were found to occur infrequently in the test fleet.
Conclusions
The primary conclusion reached as a result of this study is that dis-
ablements and maladjustments of in-use vehicles are common and have a
significant effect on individual vehicle emissions, as well as overall
contributions to air quality. This finding is identical to that from
the corresponding effort on 49-state vehicles. Specific items which
support this conclusion are listed below:
1. The majority of vehicles tested 53% were unable to meet the
1975-1976 California emission standards when tested in as-received
condition.
2. A large proportion 63% had some form of maladjustment or dis-
ablement of engine or emission components. Most common examples
were broken or missing limiter caps, maladjusted timing, and dis-
ablement of the EGR valve.
3. More than 70% of the vehicles that failed the first test exhibited
some form of maladjustment or disablement.
-------
-9-
4. The maintenance actions to correct maladjustments and disablements
proved more successful than major tune-up and component repairs in
allowing vehicles to pass succeeding tests.
5. Mileage measurements indicate that while certain specific actions
may allow increased fuel economy, no appreciable advantage in fuel
economy on a fleet average basis is gained by disabling or malad-
justing emission components.
6. Specific emission effects due to selected maladjustments or dis-
ablements as evidenced by the selective malperformance loop,
indicate the relative sensitivity of the emission values to various
maladjustments or disablements on individual vehicles.
Although it is clear that a significant improvement in total vehicle
emissions is attainable if vehicles can be kept free of maladjustments
and disablements, care should be exercised in extending the precise
results of this program outside of its bounds. All test were performed
in a carefully controlled laboratory environment. Inspections and
maintenance were performed by trained mechanics with assistance from
representatives of the automobile manufacturers.
Although different in detail, the results of the San Francisco Restorative
Maintenance testing are basically similar in substance from the Detroit,
Chicago, and Washington, B.C. results. Their basic agreement lends
similar conclusions to all the sites. The added point of interest in
the San Francisco tests was that despite different standards in California,
emission performance of California vehicles with respect to California
standards was similar to the emission performance of 49-state vehicles
with respect to 49-state standards throughout the range of maladjust-
ments and disablements encountered.
-------
References:
J.A. Rutherford, "Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance -
Analysis of the FY1975 Program." EPA Report No. EPA 460/3-77-022,
December 1977.
A.P. Berens and Michael Hill, "Automobile Exhaust Emission Sur-
veillance Analysis of the FY1974 Program" - EPA Report No. EPA 460/3-76-019,
September 1976.
M.Van Loan and J.R. Sachtschale, "A Study of Emissions from
1967-1974 Light Duty Vehicles in Los Angeles and St. Louis,"
EPA Report EPA 460/3-74-016, October, 1974.
J.T. White III, "An Evaluation of Restorative Maintenance on
Exhaust Emissions from In-use Automobiles," SAE Paper No. 780082.
Automotive Environmental Systems, Inc., "Evaluation of Restorative
Maintenance on 1975 and 1976 Light-Duty Vehicles in San Francisco,
California."
-------
APPENDIX A
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
Explanation of Performance Codes
The performance codes used for components and systems in this program
were determined in accordance with the following reasoning:
No Malperformance; The component or system was present, inspected, and
found to be operating properly. This code was also used in cases where
the component or system was not able to be inspected, but where we had
no evidence that it was not operating properly. An example of this is
mechanical valve adjustment on a vehicle which passed early in the
sequence and was released without an actual inspection. Comments
following this rating could provide further information on the component
such as whether it was replaced as part of a major tune-up or if it
exhibited some characteristic which may lead to prema.ture failure.
Maladjusted: This refers to an adjustable component or system which was
found to be outside of the tolerance band around the nominal specifica-
tion. Examples are idle speed, basic timing, and choke settings.
Acceptable ranges for the idle speed were + 100 rpm while +_ 2° was used
for basic timing. Allowable ranges for choke adjustments were the
production tolerances as provided by the manufacturer's representative.
Solely for the purpose of coding and analysis in this program, as-
received idle mixture adjustment was judged on the basis of a 0.5%
tailpipe idle CO cutpoint. This treatment had no impact on the actual
vehicle testing which was performed according to manufacturers' specifica-
tions but is useful in making comparisons among the various vehicles and
in the evaluation of a basic idle mode short test.
Disabled; A component or system which is found not to be functioning
properly due to some person's willful or inadvertent action. Examples
are plugged, disconnected, or rerouted vacuum lines, carefully damaged
EGR valves and broken or missing limiter caps.
Defective; A component which is found not to be functioning properly
due to a manufacturing fault or normal deterioration prior to any service
interval. Examples of these are leaking vacuum diaphragms, coolant
temperature sensing vacuum switches which do not open or close at
appropriate temperatures, timing devices which stay on or off too long
or too short, and broken EGR backpressure transducers.
This code is also used when the condition of the component or system
cannot be absolutely determined by the basic functional checks prescribed
in the program but a replacement and a subsequent emission test reveals
a significant difference in emission levels. This was the case where
carburetor replacements corrected a high CO problem.
-------
APPENDIX B
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
(See flow chart for sequence)
LOCATE CANDIDATE VEHICLES - Potential test vehicles will be drawn
from the general public using commercially-available mailing lists or
other means designed to ensure overall randomness of the sample.
SCREEN - Killing owners whose vehicles appear to meet the vehicle
configuration criteria will be contacted to verify the information
provided and to obtain any missing items. At this time, the owner will
be questioned with regard to vehicle age and mileage, types of usage,
and extent of possible driveline modifications. He will be asked to
allow a tune-up or minor adjustments to be performed, if necessary, and
informed of the incentive package and possible test duration. The owner
should also be informed that his vehicle will be returned to him tuned
to manufacturer's specifications, in a condition that allows it to pass
its emission standards, or both. If the owner remains willing and the
vehicle still appears to be an acceptable candidate, the vehicle will be
scheduled for testing.
Upon arrival at the laboratory, the candidate vehicle will be given
a cursory examination to determine its suitability for the program. The
results of this ziay be noted although no corrective actions are to be
taken at this ti=e. Normally, the complete inspection will be performed
in conjunction with the Emission Control Component Function Check follow-
ing the initial test sequence. Also during this screening process, a
sample of tank fuel will be drawn and tested for lead content and the
owner will be interviewed to complete the questionnaire.
The outcome of this portion of the sequence will be to accept or
reject the vehicle for testing. A modest amount of maladjustment and
disablement on some vehicles is expected. However, vehicles which have
undergone modifications of any kind which are not readily, inexpensively
or ultimately restorable will be rejected from the sample at this point.
Normally, the contractor will make the determination although more
complex decisions may be made jointly by representatives of the contractor,
manufacturer and EPA. While a falling mark in a number of areas would
not disqualify a candidate vehicle, immediate rejection will result from
excessive age or mileage, extensive modifications, evidence of improper
use, or indications that a catalyst-equipped vehicle has used leaded
fuel. If accepted, the owner will complete the remaining loan vehicle
and test agreement forms and his vehicle will be retained for the program.
DRAIN FUEL, COLLECT SAMPLES - Once accepted into the program, the
fuel in each vehicle will be drained, with two samples taken. One of
the samples will be made available to the manufacturer while the other
will be shipped to a laboratory designated by the EPA Project Officer.
-------
TEST - The actual test sequence on each vehicle begins with the
addition of test fuel to 40% of tank fuel volume, rounded to the nearest
gallon. The vehicle shall then be driven for at least ten minutes on
city streets to ensure the test fuel has fully purged the system.
During this time, a driveability evaluation of the vehicle in a warmed-
up condition will be conducted. Cold-start operation will be evaluated
and recorded during the subsequent FTP driving cycle.
The dynamometer test sequence begins after the prescribed soak
period. Tests to be performed are the 1975 FTP (but without fuel tank
heat build or evaporative emission measurements), the Highway Fuel
Economy Test (HFET) and the five short cycles. Appropriate dynamometer
settings and vehicle starting procedures will be provided by the manu-
facturer's representative. All test settings and vehicle specifications
are to be "as-certified". No field fixes or running changes may be
added without prior approval of the EPA Project Officer.
Immediately after the dynamometer sequence, basic engine parameters
shall be measured and recorded. Emission test results should also be
calculated to permit a timely review of the test and to expedite routing
of the test vehicle through the program.
PERFORM INSPECTION FOR MALADJUSTMENT AND DISABLEMENT - This procedure
may be conducted in conjunction with the functional checks of the emission
control components. For the purpose of this examination, the pass-fail
decision for each system will be based on whether it has experienced
maladjustment or disablement. Areas that are deficient due to deter-
ioration or production defects are disregarded here but will be treated
as failures during the functional checks of the emission control components.
ANY DISCOVERED - This block requires a decision based on review of
the Maladjustment and Disablement Inspection Form. Failures discovered
in areas, other than limiter caps, idle speed and idle mixture will cause
a "yes" answer, correction and another test sequence.
CORRECT - Maladjusted or disabled items, except those described
above, will be corrected. While idle speed and mixture which are out of
specifications are also considered maladjustment, their correction will
be treated separately.
INSPECT EMISSION COMPONENTS - Each vehicle in the program will
undergo a functional check of each of the emission control devices and
other emission-related components. Precise procedures and specifica-
tions for these inspections are found in the shop manuals. At this
time, the individual devices and systems are only to be inspected with
the conditions recorded. Any corrective actions required will normally
be performed later in addition to the major tune-up.
FTP RESULTS - This decision will be based on the outcome of the
preceding test sequence with regard to 1975/1976 California Standards.
RECORD IDLE SPEED AND CO - Vehicles which pass test //I or //2 will
be returned to their owners. Before the vehicle is released, the idle
speed and idle mixture will be measured and recorded.
-------
3
INSPECT IDLE SETTINGS - Chrysler and Ford vehicles which reach this
point will be inspected for idle speed and idle mixture using the proce-
dures specified by the manufacturer. Because the nature of General
Motor's procedure for idle mixture adjustment precludes inspection,
these vehicles will proceed directly to the "Adjust" block.
WITHIN SPECIFICATIONS - Chrysler and Ford vehicles may be found to
be within tolerances for both parameters. Such vehicles will not be
adjusted but will immediately receive the required scheduled maintenance
and repair of defective emission control devices.
ADJUST - General Motors vehicles and ones of the other manufacturers
which are found to be out of specifications will receive the appropriate
adjustments. Malfunctioning emission control devices which would prevent
proper settings (e.g. idle stop solenoid), may also be corrected at this
time. Following this procedure, the vehicle shall be given another test
sequence with FTP results again determining its disposition in the
program.
MAJOR TUNE-UP AND EMISSION COMPONENT REPAIR - Vehicles which arrive
at this block will undergo correction of defective emission control
devices and other emission-related components. The major tune-up shall
be performed as prescribed in the appropriate shop manual. The manu-
facturer's representative may provide assistance and guidance in the
performance of these tasks. All replacements shall be made with OEM
parts. A number of local auto dealers are to be contacted in an attempt
to obtain proper replacements for emission components. In some cases,
the manufacturer's representative may actually provide some emission-
related parts which are difficult to obtain from local sources. This
will not, however, reduce the requirement for contact with local dealers.
SEEK COUNSEL OF EPA AND MANUFACTURER - Vehicles which are unable to
pass the FTP after a major tune-up and correction of all malfunctioning
emission control devices will arrive at this block. A substantial
number of these should be very close to the standards and no further
action will be warranted. However, in some cases, the manufacturer's
representative may choose to examine the vehicle and its test results
more closely to determine a possible explanation. This could result in
previously undiscovered maladjustments or disablements or in an extraordinary
problem with the vehicle itself. He may also wish to perform some
additional adjustments on the vehicle or perform an applicable field fix
or running change. These cases are to be handled between the manufacturer
and EPA and there may be instances iii which the vehicle will receive
another test.
ONE OF CHOSEN 5 - Although each vehicle which passes test //4 will .
be subject to further maladjustment, disablement and retesting, as many
as five vehicles from each manufacturer will be chosen to pass through
the "Selective Maladjustment" loop. The contractor shall notify the EPA
Project Officer as each vehicle reaches this portion of the program.
The Project Officer will then determine whether the vehicle is one of
the chosen five.
SELECTIVE MALPERFORMANCE - This will represent what is considered
to be a prevalent form of modification to the make/engine family under
test. It will consist of some combination of engine parameter read-
justments as well as alteration of vacuum, mechanical or electrical
signals. The settings and other actions to be performed will be deter-
mine by the EPA Project Officer after the vehicle has been selected for
this phase of the project.
RESTORE TO SPECIFICATIONS - This block provides for restoration of
the vehicle's engine and emission control system to manufacturer's
specifications prior to further testing or return to its owner. Since
-------
vehicles which have arrived at this later stage of the program have
received extensive inspection and maintenance earlier, this action is
simply the reversal of the "Selective Malperforraance" or "Readjustment"
actions.
ADJUST ONE PARAMETER - The purpose of this loop is to quantify the
effect of individual parameter readjustments on exhaust emissions and
fuel economy. At this point, one or more of the basic parameters such
as idle RPM, idle mixture or ignition timing will be changed, holding
the others constant. Alteration of vacuum, electrical, or mechanical
signals may also be involved. The EPA Project Officer will provide the
precise settings for each vehicle after it has been accepted into this
portion of the program. After this adjustment, the vehicle will receive
another test sequence.
SEQUENCE COMPLETE - This decision -is based on the number of tests
remaining in the contracted effort but will also be based on the current
needs for information on certain vehicles and in various areas of read-
justments. Normally, each vehicle will cycle through the loop four
times. The EPA Project Officer will determine the length of the sequence
on an individual basis for each vehicle. Once the sequence is completed,
the vehicle will be readjusted to manufacturer's specifications.
RETURN VEHICLE TO OWNER - The contractor will prepare the vehicle
for return to its owner as well as fulfill the provisions of the incentive
package.
TESTING COMPLETE - Once the prescribed number and types of vehicles
have been procured and successfully tested, the testing portion of the
project is complete.
PREPARE FINAL REPORT - The data gathered by the contractor are to
be assembled into a final report using a format supplied by the EPA
Project Officer. This report will include a narrative description of
the project, summary tables and individual test results on each vehicle.
-------
C chosen _>
^Vtive?^^
Jves
Selective
Malperformance
*
Test »5
*
Restore to
Specifications
*
Adjust one
Parameter
*
Test
*6.7.8.9 or 10
x**^ Sequence ^*s
I
No
*
------- |