79-1
Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Economy From Automobiles
Using Alcohol/Gasoline Blends Under High-Altitude Conditions
October, 1978
by
David Richardson
Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
ABSTRACT
This paper describes the results of emissions tests on ten passenger
cars operated on fuel blends containing methanol and ethanol. The
purpose of the program was to determine the immediate exhaust emission
and fuel economy changes due to use of alcohol/gasoline blends under
high altitude conditions. The vehicles represented the 1973-1978 model
years and were randomly selected from private owners in the Denver area.
The vehicles were tested both as-received and after tune-up. The test
procedures used were the Federal Test Procedure (exhaust emissions only)
and the Highway Fuel Economy Test. In each case, four different fuels
were used: Indolene Clear and blends of Indolene Clear containing 10%
ethanol, 20% ethanol and 10% methanol. Exhaust emission levels for
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, aldehydes and unburned
alcohol were measured. Fuel economy was measured and recorded using the
carbon balance technique. The results indicate significant decreases in
CO emissions with slight increases in NOx emissions, HC emissions of
these vehicles were often erratic, although average values decreased
slightly with the increasing percentage of alcohol in the fuel. In
general, total aldehydes and amount of unburned alcohol were found to
increase with the addition of larger amounts of alcohol. Fuel economy
was found to decrease slightly. Evaporative emission test results on a
single vehicle indicate that greater hot-soak losses can be expected
with the use of these blends.
-------
-2-
INTRODUCTION
The ability to use alcohol as a motor fuel, either alone or in a blend
with gasoline has been studied a number of times over the past several
decades. Scattered emission test results, primarily with methanol
blends, have confirmed that unadjusted engines will tend to run leaner
because of the higher oxygen content and lower energy content of the
alcohol/gasoline blend. Because the costs of alcohols are still some-
what greater than of gasoline there has been no real economic incentive
for the widespread use of blended fuel. Lately, however, there has been
increased interest in alcohol/gasoline blends as a new market for grain
and agricultural waste products, as an energy extender and a way to
immediately enlean carburetors in high altitude areas. Some legislators
are encouraging the trial use of these blends by proposing tax breaks on
their production and sale. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is plan-
ning to guarantee a number of loans to developers who wish to establish
facilities for the production of alcohol.
Probably the biggest proponent for the use of alcohol in motor fuel is
the State of Nebraska. The blend they advocate is named "Gasohol" and
consists of 90% unleaded gasoline and 10% anhydrous ethanol. The
Colorado State Legislature and EPA's Region VIII have expressed an
interest in such a fuel ag an immediate and relatively inexpensive way
to "retrofit" existing vehicles with leaner carburetors. While some
emission tests results do exist, such as preliminary results from a
program at the Bartlesville Energy Research Center of DOE, they do not
include the consideration of the blends for use at high altitude condi-
tions .
PURPOSE
The basic purpose of this study was to develop information on the
immediate effects of alcohol/gasoline blends on exhaust emission and
fuel economy of passsenger cars operated at high altitude. This study
was designed to provide appropriate test data on a vehicle fleet which
included the latest models in both an "as-received" and tuned-up condi-
tion. Results from tests on two different alcohols would be compared to
a baseline test performed on Ihdolene Clear test fuel. Test data
included exhaust emissions (HC, CO, NOx, aldehydes and unburned alcohol)
and fuel economy information as well as the results of a limited drive-
ability evaluation. The results will be useful for the various techni-
cal personnel concerned with fuel blends and will assist legislators
with decisions whether to encourage the use of such blends. This
project could provide the first step in a comprehensive program to
evaluate these fuels in other areas. Such areas include starting
ability, temperature effects, engine durability, fuel system deterio-
ration, formation of larger quantities of unregulated emissions, evapo-
rative emissions and necessary engine parameter adjustments for use of
higher concentration blends. Some of these areas niay be investigated in
other work by EPA or others.
-------
-3-
DESIGN OF TESTING
Basic Design
This effort involved the procurement and testing of ten vehicles in the
Denver area. The desired fleet was chosen on a sales-weighted basis
while the vehicles themselves were procured randomly from private
owners in the Denver area. The standard incentive package offered to
prospective participants was a $100 U.S. Savings Bond, the use of a late
model loan car and a full tank of fuel upon the return of the test
vehicle. These vehicles were to be tested both as-received and after
tune-up with Indolene Clear fuel and three alcohol/gasoline blends: of
10% ethanol, 20% ethanol and 10% methanol. Thus, each vehicle received
eight test sequences. The test sequence included a 1975 FTP (exhaust
emissions only), an HFET, and a limited evaluation of driveability.
The work itself was performed under contract to EPA by Automotive
Testing Laboratories, Inc. of Aurora, Colorado.
Narrative Test Procedures (See flow chart attached as Figure 1)
Obtain candidate vehicles - The Project Officer supplied the list of
candidate vehicles. Potential test vehicles were drawn from the general
public using commercially available mailing lists or other means designed
to ensure overall randomness of the sample.
Screen - Willing owners whose vehicles appear to meet the vehicle
configuration criteria were contacted to verify the information provided
and to obtain any missing items. At this time, the owner was questioned
with regard to vehicle age and mileage, types of usage, and extent of
possible modifications. He was also asked to allow minor adjustments to
be performed, if necessary, and informed of the incentive package and
possible test duration.
Upon arrival at the laboratory, the candidate vehicle was physically
examined to determine its suitability for the program. During this
cursory inspection, a sample of tank fuel was drawn and tested for lead
content. The owner was also interviewed to complete the questionnaire.
The outcome of this portion of the sequence was to accept or reject the
vehicle for further testing. A modest amount of emission control
malperformance on some vehicles was acceptable. However, vehicles which
had undergone misadjustments or modifications which were not readily,
inexpensively or ultimately restorable were to be rejected from the
sample at this point. Rejection would result from clearly worn or
defective internal engine parts, extensive modifications, improper use,
or indications that the vehicle used leaded fuel (if the vehicle required
unleaded fuel). If accepted, the owner completed the remaining loan
vehicle and test agreement forms and his vehicle was retained for the
program.
-------
-4-
Figure 2: Sequence of Testing
( ST
\
ART J
/
OBTAIN
! CANDIDATE "
VEHICLE
\
SCREEN
/
^
NO
YES
TESTS #1-4
(AS RECEIVED
CONDITION,
FOUR DIFFERENT
I FUELS),
\
/
INSPECTION
AND
TUNE-UP
\
/
! TESTS #5-8
[(TUNED-UP CONDI-
| TION, FOUR
LJJIFF.ERENT FUELS;
RETURN
i VEHICLE
i TO
OWNER
X TEST[NG\
-. COMPLETE?/''"'
NO
YES
I SUBMIT
DATA
-------
-5-
Test - The actual test sequence on each vehicle began with the removal
of the current fuel and addition of test fuel to 40% of tank fuel
volume. Each test fuel used in this project originated from the same
batch of Indolene clear. Alcohol/gasoline blends were formulated by the
addition of 100% ethanol or methanol. The vehicle was then driven for
at least twenty minutes on city streets to ensure the test fuel had
fully purged the system. During this time, a driveability evaluation of
the vehicle in a warmed-up condition was conducted. Cold-start opera-
tion was evaluated and recorded during the subsequent FTP driving cycle.
The dynamometer driving sequence consisted of a cold start FTP and HFF.T.
A total of four cold start dynamometer test sequences were required for
each state of tune on each vehicle. One test sequence was performed
with each of the following four fuels: Indolene Clear, a 10% ethanol
blend (Gasohol), a 20% ethanol blend and, finally, a 10% methanol blend.
Thus, eight sequences were conducted on each of ten vehicles for a total
of eighty tests.
The dynamometer test sequence began after the prescribed soak period.
Appropriate dynamometer settings (inertia weight, horsepower, air
conditioning load) and vehicle starting procedures were those listed in
the material furnished by EPA for use in the FY77 Passenger Car Testing
Program. All test settings and vehicle specifications were "as-certified."
Inspection and tune-up - Following the "as-received" series of tests,
each vehicle received a thorough underhood inspection followed by a
tune-up. The tune-up included all recommended maintenance for a vehicle
with the age and mileage of the test vehicle. As a minimum for very new
vehicles, parameters to be adjusted during the tune-up were ignition
timing, idle mixture and idle speed. Disabled or defective components
were replaced or repaired regardless of age or mileage.
Return vehicle to owner - The contractor prepared the vehicle for
return to its owner as well as fulfilled the provisions of the incentive
package.
Testing complete? - Once the prescribed number and types of vehicles had
been procured and successfully tested, the testing portion of the
project was complete.
Emission Measurements
During each test cycle on each test sequence, the following emission
measurements were made:
Oxides of nitrogen, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide -
Standard exhaust emission test procedures and calculations were employed
in the measurement of these emissions. The flame ionization detector
-------
-6-
was used to measure unburned HC. Chemiluminescent methods were used for
measurement of NOx emissions and CO and C07 exhaust emissions were
measured with a nondispersive infrared analyzer.
Aldehydes and ketones The measurement of aldehydes (formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, isobutyraldehyde, crotonaldehyde, hexanaldehyde, and
benzaldehyde) and ketones (acetone and methylethylketone) in exhaust was
accomplished by bubbling the exhaust through glass impingers containing
2,4 dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) in dilute hydrochloric acid. The
exhaust sample was collected continuously during the test cycle. The
aldehydes and ketones (also known as carbonyl compounds) reacted with
the DNPH to form their respective phenylhydrazone derivatives. These
derivatives are insoluble or only slightly soluble in the DNPH/HC1
solution and are removed by filtration followed by pentane extractions.
The filtered precipitate and the pentane extracts are combined and then
the pentane is evaporated in a vacuum oven. The remaining dried extract
contains the phenylhydrazone derivatives. The extract was dissolved in
a quantitative volume of toluene containing a known amount of anthracene
as an internal standard. A portion of this dissolved extract was
injected into a gas chromatograph and analyzed using a flame ionization
detector. The detection limits for this procedure under normal opera-
ting conditions are on the order of 0.005 ppm carbonyl compound in
dilute exhaust.
Alcohols - Unburned alcohols were collected using a separate bag arrange-
ment similar to the one employed for the basic test. Analyses were
conducted using a gas chromatograph.
Evaporative Emissions - Measurement of evaporative emissions were not
originally included in the basic plan of this project. Because of the
need for data in this area, a small experiment was conducted after the
main portion of the effort was complete. These results are found in
Appendix A.
PROGRAM RESULTS
Test Vehicle Procurement
A total of ten passenger cars were procured randomly from private owners
in the Denver area. Model years of vehicles were grouped in terms of
their level of emission control technology. The pre-catalyst vehicles
of the 1973 and 1974 model years were grouped together. The 1975 and
1976 vehicles were grouped on the basis of their use of first generation
catalyst systems. The 1977 and 1978 models represented those produced
after certification testing of vehicles was actually conducted at high
altitude.* A list of the basic characteristics of vehicles in the test
fleet are shown in Table 1.
*Although 1978 models were technically not required to meet standards at
high altitude, many had been tested at the time of Clean Air Act Amendments.
The systems present in this fleet were ones designed to meet those standards.
-------
-7-
Emission Results
Shown in table 2 are the average exhaust emission results for the entire
fleet. The results for the regulated pollutants versus concentration of
alcohol in the fuel are displayed graphically in Figures 2,3, and 4.
Tables 3, 4 and 5 list the average results for vehicles in each of the
model year groups. Attached as Appendix B is the complete set of data
sheets on each vehicle in the fleet. These data indicate a general
decrease in HC and CO emissions with greater concentrations of alcohol
while increases in NOx, total aldehydes and unburned alcohols were
found. Levels of all pollutants (other than NOx) were found to be more
closely related to control technology rather than use of alcohol in the
fuel.
Fuel Economy
The average fuel economy results for the entire fleet over both the FTP
and the HFET are listed in Table 6. These values were calculated using
the carbon balance technique. Several changes in the constants in the
basic formula were necessary because the number of carbon atoms per
volume of alcohol/gasoline blends differ from those of pure gasoline.
Thus, correction factors were developed that could be applied to the
fuel economy values calculated by the typical formula for gasoline. For
a 10% ethanol blend, this factor is 0.969, for 20% ethanol it is 0.933
and for 10% methanol it is 0.950. Since these alcohols possess a lower
heating value than gasoline, the fuel economy of vehicles in terms of
miles-per-gallon of fuel shows a slight penalty. In terms of use of
gasoline, however, the alcohols do act as an extender and result in
greater fuel economy in terms of miles-per-gallon of gasoline.
An important aspect in the use of any resource is the expenditure to
achieve a unit of output. For this study, this parameter is defined as
fuel cost per mile travelled. In order to equal the cost/mile for
gasoline, these results indicate a driver must pay just over one cent
per gallon less for Gasohol and almost two cents less for a gallon of a
20% ethanol blend. A 10% blend of methanol should be priced almost
three cents less per gallon. From an overall economic standpoint, cost-
per-mile equivalency should be achieved when ethanol can be produced
with a "retail price equivalent" of 75-80% that of gasoline. The
corresponding figures for methanol are 55-60%.
Driveability
A thorough and proper evaluation of vehicle driveability is a sophis-
ticated process which requires a great deal of expertise. Such an
evaluation was beyond the scope of this project. As a part of this
work, however, a modest evaluation was conducted during the precon-
ditioning phase and during the first few minutes of dynamometer oper-
ation. Based on a review of these results and conversations with the
-------
-8-
contractor personnel who drove these vehicles, there appeared to be no
noticeable difference in performance between pure gasoline and either of
the two 10% blends. Likewise, there was little difference in operation
on 20% ethanol except for the two occasions in which the vehicles
stalled and could not readily be restarted.
CONCLUSIONS
On an immediate basis for high altitude areas, a moderate blend of
alcohol in gasoline appears to be a feasible way to extend gasoline
supplies and to help reduce HC and CO exhaust emission levels from light
duty motor vehicles. On the other hand, there are a number of findings
from this study which should be considered.
1. Average NOx, aldehyde and unburned alcohol emissions from vehicles
in the test fleet were found to increase slightly due to the use of
alcohol/gasoline blends. These aspects must be considered from the
standpoint of overall air quality impact on a case-by-case basis.
2. Operation of a current vehicle on an alcohol/gasoline blend contain-
ing over 10% alcohol may require internal carburetor adjustments or
retrofit to avoid excessively lean operation.
3. A properly-tuned vehicle will emit equal or lesser amounts of HC
and CO than can be obtained by use of alcohol/gasoline blends
although these situations are not incompatible.
4. Fuel economy will be found to decrease. Thus, blends using alcohol,
which is currently more expensive than gasoline, cannot equal
gasoline in terms of cost per mile. Naturally, tax breaks, subsidies
or other pricing measures could neutralize this situation.
5. Based only on the results of evaporative emissions tests on a single
vehicle, greater hot-soak losses can be expected with the use of
these blends.
The precise values resulting from this study must also be considered in
light of the fact they were obtained in a laboratory situation and did
not address the long-term effects of alcohol in the fuel of current in-
use vehicles.
-------
-9-
Table 1 - Test Vehicle Information
VEHICLE NUMBER
8001
8002
7003
7004
7005
5006
5007
5008
4009
3010
YEAR/ MAKE
78 Ford
78 Chevrolet
77 Dodge
77 Ford
77 Chevrolet
75 Dodge
75 Ford
75 Buick
74 Ford
73 Chevrolet
MODEL
Granada
Monte Carlo
Aspen
Granada
Monte Carlo
Coronet
Torino
Regal
Torino
Chevelle
CID/CYL
302/8
350/8
225/6
302/8
350/8
318/8
351/8
350/8
351/8
350/8
ODOMETER
10,000
10,719
23,000
16,830
15,700
27,542
48,135
31,310
48,135
10,500
Table 2 - Fleet Average FTP Exhaust Emission Levels
In Grams per Mile
State
of Tune
As-Rec'd
it
Tuned
Fuel
Indolene Clear
10% Ethanol
20% Ethanol
10% Methanol
Indolene Clear
10% Ethanol
20% Ethanol
10% Methanol
N
HC
CO
NOxc
Total Unburned
Aldehydes Alcohols
10
10
9*
10
10
10
9*
10
2.
2.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
44
13
84
12
64
41
48
62
43.
32.
23.
30.
29.
16.
17.
19.
4
9
7
3
5
8
4
0
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
73
86
06
95
75
90
92
13
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
052
056
078
060
043
061
055
061
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
007
007
010
021
Oil
018
023
015
*There were two separate cases in which the vehicle stalled and
could not be restarted to complete the test. Thus, the entire
fleet is not represented in these averages.
-------
4 I
-10-
Figure 2: HC Emissions vs Percent Alcohol
1,2 H
_
0
- 0 -
0 10 20
Volume % Alcohol
Figure 3: CO Emissions vs Percent Alcohol
5(h
40-
S 10.
10 20
Volume % Alcohol
Figure 4: NOx Emissions vs Percent Alcohol
3,
Q)
i—I
•g 2H
10 20
Volume % Alcohol
As Received Tuned Up
0 Ethanol • Ethanol
A Methanol A Methanol
-------
-11-
Table 3 - Average FTP Exhaust Emission Levels for the 1977 and 1978
Models in Grams per Mile
State
of Tune
As-Rec'd
it
Tuned
Fuel
N
HC
1.68
1.30
1.54
1.55
.90
1.00
.99
1.13
CO
22.8
16.0
19.3
16.7
12.4
10.6
8.0
6.2
NOxc
1.10
1.18
1.08
1.21
1.18
1.25
1.56
1.47
Total
Aldehydes
.027
.031
.029
.028
.026
.024
.023
.023
Unburned
Alcohols
.003
.006
.005
.007
.009
.008
.008
.016
Indolene Clear 5
10% Ethanol 5
20% Ethanol 4*
10% Methanol 5
Indolene Clear 5
10% Ethanol 5
20% Ethanol 4*
10% Methanol 5
*There were two separate cases in which the vehicle stalled and
could not be restarted to complete the test. Thus, the entire
1977-78 vehicle group is not represented in these averages.
Table 4 - Average FTP Exhaust Emission Levels for the 1975 and 1976
Models in Grams per Mile
State
of Tune Fuel
As-Rec'd
Tuned
Total Unburned
N HC CO NOxc Aldehydes Alcohol^
Indolene Clear 3
10% Ethanol 3
20% Ethanol 3
10% Methanol 3
Indolene Clear 3
10% Ethanol 3
20% Ethanol 3
10% Methanol 3
2.68 46.7 2.13 .048
2.51 37.0 2.09 .062
1.20 8.6 2.15 .054
1.77 22.8 2.26 .045
1.82 40.9 1.80 .039
.98 9.5 1.94 .100
.84 9.7 2.10 .025
1.20 18.3 2.49 .033
.011
.007
.008
.006
.004
.018
.023
.019
-------
-12-
Table 5 - Average FTP Exhaust Emission Levels for the 1973 and 1974
Models in Grams/Miles
State
of Tune
As Rec'd
Fuel
N
Indolene Clear 2
10% Ethanol 2
20% Ethanol 2
10% Methanol 2
HC
4.00
3.67
3.42
4.08
CO
89.8
72.0
55.3
75.5
NOxc
2.69
3.23
3.90
3.37
Total Unburned
Aldehydes Alcohols^
,109
.100
.188
.140
.012
.015
.029
.071
Tuned
n
it
n
Indolene Clear 2
10% Ethanol 2
20% Ethanol 2
10% Methanol 2
3.24 55.1 3.00 .114
3.12 43.1 3.47 .110
3.37 47.0 3.30 .172
3.45 52.1 3.14 .198
.027
.044
.051
.006
Table 6 - Fleet Average Fuel Economy
Miles per gallon
State of fuel
of Tune Fuel N FTP HFET
Miles per gallon
of gasoline
FTP HFET
As Rec'd
n
Tuned
Indolene Clear 10 13.67
10% Ethanol 10 13.50
20% Ethanol 9* 12.79
10% Methanol 10 13.00
Indolene Clear 10 13.43
10% Ethanol 10 13.16
20% Ethanol 9* 12.75
10% Methanol 10 13.02
19.10
18.70
18.25
18.15
13.67
15.00
15.99
14.44
19.10
20.78
22.81
20.17
18.53
18.00
17.59
17.59
13.43
14.62
15.94
14.47
18.53
20.00
21.99
19.54
*There were two separate cases in which the vehicle stalled and
could not be restarted to complete the test. Thus, the entire
fleet is not represented in these averages.
-------
-13-
ATTACHMENT A
September 20, 1978
Evaporative Emissions from High Altitude Cars Fueled
with Gasohol
John T. White, Project Manager, TAEB
Michael Walsh, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mobile Source
Air Pollution Control
THRU: Ralph C. Stahman, Chief, TAEB
Charles L. Gray, Director, ECTD
At the present time, we are compiling a report from our recent program
on alcohol/gasoline blends in Denver. This project examined the effect
of different blends on exhaust emissions and fuel economy using a fleet
of ten 1973-1978 model year passenger cars. Preliminary results were
used by MSED in the recent waiver hearings. As a result of those proceedings,
concern was expressed that evaporative emission levels may suffer w±th
usa of these blends because the alcohol could reduce the effectiveness
of the charcoal in retaining fuel vapors. Based on this concern, we
immediately modified our test program to add some further tests that
would directly address this issue. The purpose of this memorandum is to
provide you with data from this work. Although this study was conducted
under high altitude conditions, we feel that basic discussions and
conclusions regarding evaporative emissions are valid.
Attached is a table which lists the emission levels and canister weights
at each step in a six-test procedure. A 1979 Buick Tlegal with a 305 CID
engine was used in this study. The initial two test sequences were
conducted with Indolene Clear fuel to establish a baseline. The remaining
four tests were run on a mixture of 10% ethanol/and 907, Indolene Clear.
This mixture is known as Gasohol. If the theory about reduced effectiveness
of the evaporative control system is true, we would expect to see higher
diurnal losses and, perhaps, increasing canister weights.
As shown on the table, this was not the case. Diurnal losses did not
exhibit any increase and canister weights fluctuated without a discernable
trend. From this, we conclude that the canister was able to handle the
vapors effectively and operated properly through the charge and purge
cycles included in each test sequence. Evaporative losses, however, did
show an increase during the hot soak phase. The reason for this is the
generally higher volatility of the alcohol at hot-soak temperatures. In
addition, the engine itself may tend to become hotter because of the
leaner mixture.
-------
-14-
In confirmation of our work on the earlier ten vehicles, CO emissions on
the FTP showed an identifiable decrease, NOx emissions increased slightly
and IIC emissions remained essentially unchanged.
The vehicle used for this project belong to our contractor and is used
as a loaner when procuring test vehicles from private owners. Since
completing these six tests, it has been loaned out with a full tank of
gasohol fuel. We plan to continue with the use of this fuel and to test
this vehicle on several later occassions. Several other late model
vehicles of various descriptions will also be examined in this manner.
This information should be useful in comparison with other inputs you
have received on this topic. If you have any questions or comments on
this effort, please contact one of us.
Attachment
cc: T..Tupaj (w/ attach.)
TAEB:WHITE:jb:2565 Plymouth Rd:9-20?73
-------
Emission Test Results
Indolene - Gasohol Fuel
1978 Buick Regal w/ 305 CID Engine
Denver
Test
1
2
3
4
5
6
r uea.
Type
Indolene
Indolene
Gasohol
Gasohol
Gasohol
Gasohol
Date
9-8
9-9
9-15
9-16
9-18
9-19
HC
0.99
0.88
0.93
0.87
1.02
0.83
CO
32.1
25.9
23.8
20.0
25.9
19.1
NOx
1.18
1.28
1.31
1.20
1.31
1.86
MPG
15.6
15.8
15.6
15.9
15.5
15.8
Evaporative Emissions(g)
Diurnal Hot Soak Total
2.6
2.2
2.7
2.4
2.7
2.2
1.8
3.6
4.5
6.3
7.0
4.5
4.4
5.8
7.2
8.7
9.7
6.7
Canister Weights (g) '
Before After Before After
Prep Prep Diurnal Hot Soat
A
*
972
950
955
949
*
*
946
934
933
932
"Test program modified to obtain canister weights after Indolene tests were run.
A*Missing data point.
*
*
959
AA
952
949
A
A
963
950
959
952
-------
"GASPHOL" EVALUATION -- SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS SITE DENVER
VEHICLE NO. gtfOZ VIN 1 Z370gZ ^7377 ODOMETER |Q 7fl
YEAR/MAKE 78 CHEVJ, MODEL I^MTE CARLO CID/CYL JS^y
AS RECEIVED SERIES
-TEST NO. DATE
1.
IND CLEAR
2.
10% ETH
3.
20% ETH
4.
10% METH
7-IO-7g
7-\l
7-13
>if
1975 FTP (cm/mi;
HC CO
G| 1
* o I
.77
A/0
/.3fc
//.%
7.01
£".
-------
VEHICLE NO.
"GASQHOL" EVALUATION — SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS SITE DENVER
VIN
ODOMETER £3,000 INERTIA WT. /HP 3S"OO/| 2. .3
YEAR/MAKE 77 QOpGE MODEL ASP£N) CID/CYL
i
r>-
TRANS
A
CARB
AS RECEIVED SERIES
"TEST NO. DATE
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
HC CO
NOX
1.
IND CLEAR
2.
10% ETH
3.
20% ETH
A.
10% METH
S-7-7g
8-«
8-7
2-IH
.18
•71
.85"
.87
feflt
4". 33
5-Zff
6.17
/.og
/./?
M7
/.22
UNBURNED
ALCOHOL ALDEHYDES
(mg/mi) (mg/mi)
FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
•it
13.21
20.29
FTP
HFET
/t.fcz
AT.2S
77.
IS. a
Inspection and Maintenance Results:
FAST IPU5 B/W PcuJD TD £>£T TOO Suoio
COAS TOO (_e/vi,
TUNF.D-U? SERIES
TEST NO. DATE
1975 FTP (gm/rni)
HC CO
NOX
TD
UNBURNED .
ALCOHOL ALDEHYDES FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
(mg/mi) (mg/mi) p^P • HFET
5.
T.ND CLEAR
6.
10% ETH
7.
20% ETH
8.
10% METH
rlSvfl
'S-lfc
8-17
•A
3./J
6,13
7,2
W.I?
I?,?/
Comments:..
-------
APPENDIX B
"GASOHOL" EVALUATION — SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS SITE DENVER
VEHICLE NO. 2Q01 VIN %U3% | F \V\ 3^0 ODOMETER 10^000 INERTIA WT
./HP 3SOO/8.b
YEAR/MAKE '
MODEL
CID/CYL
AS RECEIVED SERIES
-TEST NO. DATE
1975 FTP (gm/mi)'
HC CO NOX
Inspection and Maintenance Results:
A/OP
TD
A£>0 0 VTEP
TUNED-UP SERIES
TEST NO. DATE
1975 FTP (Rui/mi)
HC CO NOX
TRANS
A
GARB
1.
IND CLEAR
2.
10% ETH
3.
20% ETH
4.
•10% METH
4-8-78
«--/
2-10
«-ID
UH-
£.g
1 »5 / TC
/6.7I
• HFET
at. 23
23.06
23.77
23.^7
oo
I
-------
"GASQHOL" EVALUATION — SUMMARY. OF TEST RESULTS SITE DENVER
VEHICLE NO. 7QQH- VIN 7 (A 3ST b"3 74"Z7 ODOMETER lfc82)Q INERTIA WT. /HP
YEAR/MAKE 77
MODET£RANAPA CID/CYL 302-/8
TRANS
A
CARB
I
ON
AS RECEIVED SERIES
-TEST NO. DATE
1975 FTP (gin/mi)
HC CO NOX
1.
TND CLEAR
2.
10% ETH
3.
20% ETH
4.
10% METH
7-10-78
TI2.
7-IJ
7-lf
/•*t
/.2f
/•2fc
|.H-g
2.7Z
^.Z1?
4-. 13
H.^t
.13
(.07
m
1.2-H
UNBURNED
ALCOHOL ALDEHYDES FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
(mg/mi) (mg/mi)
FTP
HFET
]3,fe7
13.79
I2,7g
I3.H?
•18,1*
13.Z7
18.3)
I7.7Z
Inspection and Maintenance Results :
4"
TUNED-UP SERIES
TEST NO. DATE
1975 FTP (gm/ml)
HC CO NOX
UNBURNED
ALCOHOL ALDEHYDES FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
5.
IND CLEAR
6.
10% ETH
7.
20% ETH
8.
10% METH
Commen
7-15-7-2
7- It
1-17
±!i_
ts: . .
/.•is:
/.tl
7-3?
;.??
H-.fe3
3-5T
3.O5"
f-^f
/.2
-------
"GASO.HOL" EVALUATION -- SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS SITE DENVER
VEHICLE NO. 100 $ VIN I MS 7 L7 K 12.8 5"2 7 ODOMETER /5". 7Q£ INERTIA WT. /HP
YEAR/MAKE
77
MODEL
CARIQ CID/CYL 35*0/8
TRANS
CARB
AS RECEIVED SERIES
-TEST NO. DATE
1975 FTP (em/mi)
HC CO NOX
1.
TND CLEAR
2.
10% ETH
3.
20% ETH
4.
10% METH
8-7-7S
8-8
8-10-
•7k
•8.1
£NGj/A'
.
-------
VEHICLE NO.
"GASOHOL" EVALUATION — SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS SITE DENVER
VIN IOP2.-3G
YEAR/MAKE 7^
MODEL
CID/CYL
ODOMETER
3)8/-g
INERTIA WT. /HP
/"'
TRANS
CARB
ZN/
AS RECEIVED SERIES
-TEST NO. DATE
1975 FTP (am/mi)
HC CO
NOX
1.
TND CLEAR
2.
10% ETH
3.
20% ETH
4.
10% METH
8-I7-T2
Z-M
frA
9-2.)
2.fe7
2.32.
.61
l.ok
H-H.17
3^,k3
5i3\
I'Us'
2,22,
1.91
l.tl-
l.to
UNBURNED
ALCOHOL ALDEHYDES
(mg/mi) (mg/mi)
FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
11.77
15.87
H.32,
3H.87
FTP
. HFET
14,17
IH-.OH-
13, tS"
13. W
18.%
18.81
18.00
|g.0£
Inspection and Maintenance Results:
- HeArex? Are /
-------
"GASDHOL" EVALUATION — SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS SITE DENVER
VEHICLE NO. 500% VIN V H S7v^ $"H1 kBk^V ODOMETER 3 \ 3 1Q INERTIA WT. /HP
YEAR/MAKE
MODEL
CID/CYL
AS RECEIVED SERIES
"TEST NO. DATE
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
HC CO NOX
Inspection and Maintenance Results:
tour ^/"osv tJAS TZ>O
TUNED-UP SERIES
TEST NO. DATE
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
HC CO NOX
TRANS
A
CARB
i.
TND CLEAR
2.
10% ETH
3.
20% ETH
4.
10% METH
7-10 -18
7- a
7-13
7-lH
3.oo
Z-W
.51
1.13
74,H|
64. LD
4.0^
3^17.
/./fT
/.1 2.
/.31
(.34-
UNBURNED
• ALCOHOL . ALDEHYDES
(mg/mi) (mg/mi)
FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
3'2.81
FTP
HFET
/2.I1
II.67
//.08
It. iff
, T^rs WAS
A* i
UNBURNED
ALCOHOL. ALDEHYDES
(mg/mi) (mg/mi)
THtf
FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
FTP • HFET
5.
IND CLEAR
6.
10% ETH
7 .
20% ETH
8.
10% METH
7-/WS
7-17
>/S
7-18
2.£>7
,87
,^
)', 18
air
13,11
3.32
' ft^lo
\M
ISI
i.^H
i-z^t
7.3S"
7.07
38.^
13.6?
11.35"
|2..S^
12.19
12.32.
I7.81?
\7.2-b'
lfc.7?
17,2-0
Comments:.
N)
N)
I
-------
"GASD.HOL" EVALUATION — SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS SITE DENVER
VEHICLE NO
.500? VIN 5/431 H1S7G92. ODOMETER & O3O
75" FORD MODEL TOfc\ND CID/CYL '35*1
/S TRANS /A
/
AS RECEIVED SERIES
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
-TEST NO. DATE
1.
IND CLEAR
2.
10% ETH
3.
20% ETH
4.
10% METH
f^» *^j ^5 Gf
^j ^^3 * ^j
g-if
S-7
8'-?
HC CO NOX
2.37
2.52,
2.H|
i.S'V
2\.H^
12.2^
/t.ffe
14.5?
3,03
3.3C,
3.4b
3,^H
Inspection and Maintenance Results :
"pyVStC TWf*l{- <^A-S Fo»JjJ0 TO ^E A
Vet^ cGA»*>i. i/A^-Uo *v. ^fi^fllei DfAfn^A^*1
do £J£€"C.TE$ AiJP THE" "itoTbiE. W T^
TUNED-UP SERIES """ ~
TEST NO. DATE
5.
IND CLEAR
6.
10% ETH
7.
20% ETH
8.
10% METH
9-10-78
9-lt
8^1^
g-n
. 1975 FTP (p,m/mi)
HC CO NOX
,t7
•^H-
.37
1.37
3^,10
5.4|
H.38
Ig.fcH-
2.W
a.w
3,3(5
i • ' *
INERTIA WT
CARB
. /HP VSbc
UNBURNED
ALCOHOL ALDEHYDES
(rag/mi) (rag/mi) J
4-30
3,19
7,01
7,li5TjC"S'2- wJAS £-t
UNBURNED
ALCOHOL ALDEHYDES
(rag/mi) (mg/mi)
^J ill
•Ig.t7
*N ^3 , |/^fT
I0.(^
66.26
26,7,37
HH.13
rg'.so
•
FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
FTP . HFET
12.87
12-M
I2..2J
12.45-
/fc.7|
lb.60
ir.«i
ir.sfc
£TT"AO£ tJ ^ S
;£• t^6>ie'
FUEL ECONO>fY (MPG)
•FTP • HFET
11.80
IZ.3I
;/.vr
//.SI
(b.3b
IV. JO
/ D < 5w
K.70
Comments:..
-------
YEAR/MAKE
"GASOHOL" EVALUATION -- SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS SITE DENVER
,2,
. to**} YIN 4&3I H \H7t374
14 FORD MODEL fbfc\NO
AS RECEIVED SERIES
-TEST NO. DATE
1.
T.ND CLEAR
2.
10% ETH
3.
20% ETH
4.
10% METH
8-l^-Tg
g-2-j
8-24
S-Zi
ODOMETER 4S,\35~ INERTIA WT. /HP HOOO/ 1
CID/CYL 351/8' TRANS A
/
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
HC CO NOX
^.SH
H.H&
3. 52.
.4.^
tco.cfl
73.7H
Hfc,3*
&3.IS
3.2-4-
4'lfo
o» 1^
H.33
Inspection and Maintenance Results:
I0u= MixTo'e'(? (A/^VS T«5o <52.lCf| . iPce P-P M
TUNED-UP SERIES
TEST NO. DATE
5.
IND CLEAR
6.
1.0% ETH
7.
20% ETH
8.
10% METH
^•23-78
8 -'25
8.2b'
8-2^
1975 FTP (Rm/mi)
HC CO NOX
3/.5I
3.5Z
3.59
3.^
H8.7g
3^.47
tY (MPG)
FTP • HFET
13.73
/3.70
I3./3
13.53
12.13
1^.43
11.17
l?.5-«
Comments:..
-------
"GASOHOL" EVALUATION ~ SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS SITE DENVER
VEHICLE NO. 3010 VIH / C35" fB K S"^g 5"2- ODOMETER
INERTIA WT. /HP
YEAR/MAKE
E "73
MODEL
CID/CYL
AS
SS'O/ 8
TRANS
A
CARB
-TEST NO. DATE
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
HC CO NOX
1.
TND CLEAR
2.
10% ETH
3.
20% ETH
4.
10% METH
S-l V)8
8 -2-1
8-23
8-^3
3.1?
2.S7
3.33
3.72.
79,^
70. IZ
6H-.Z8
97", 7Z
L 2..) 5"
2,31
2.^5"
2.4rl
Inspection and Maintenance Results: TlM.1nit-
Tfce> c_eAAJx He^TEj? At'C )i\Ji^T Ttwjc sew?o4_
' TU
------- |