79-3
Technical Report
Restorative Maintenance Retesting
of 1977 Model Year Passenger Cars in Denver
November, 1978
by
Gary T. Jones
Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Office of Air and Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Abstract
This report describes the results of a exhaust emission testing program
in which 24 relatively-new vehicles sampled in a Restorative Maintenance
Program in Denver were retested approximately one year later. The
vehicles involved were 1977 model year passenger cars certified for sale
at high altitude. Vehicles manufactured by Chrysler, Ford and General
Motors were represented equally. The vehicles were subjected to the
same sequence of inspections, maintenance and tests as used in the 1977
program. Again, representatives of the three automobile manufacturers
assisted in the inspection and maintenance activities.
The results show that average HC and CO levels from vehicles which were
tuned-up earlier had degraded to a point slightly worse than their
original levels in as-received condition. The average NOx level had
also increased but not quite past the original value. Many vehicles had
experienced maladjustment and disablements even though the owner reported
that he felt his vehicle had been maintained according to the manufacturer's
recommendations. The most frequent maladjustment was idle mixture,
followed by maladjusted ignition timing, incorrect choke settings and
disabled EGR systems. Reductions in average emission levels followed
the correction of the maladjustment and disablement actions to a point
close to those after the prior tune-up. Modest fuel economy improvements
were noted this year, probably due to the fact that the vehicles had now
overcome the "green engine" effect.
-------
Background
During the-period from February to May of 1977, a prescribed sequence of
emission and fuel economy tests were performed on forty-two 1977 model
year passenger cars in Denver (Reference 1). Vehicles of this model
year were the first to actually undergo EPA certification testing under
high altitude conditions. The purpose of that program was to Investi-
gate and quantify the effects of various types of emission control
malperformance on exhaust emissions and fuel economy. This type of
effort is known as a "Restorative Maintenance Evaluation." This report
concerns a program conducted in May, 1978 in which 24 of these original
42 vehicles were retested after approximately one year of in-use service.
There were three basic purposes behind this retesting:
1. To determine the extent and nature of modifications which have
occurred to the vehicles since they were inspected and tested in
the previous program.
2. To examine the effects of vehicle deterioration on exhaust emissions
and fuel economy.
3. To evaluate vehicle restorability in terms of the baseline emission
data established in the previous testing.
In both cases, the actual testing was carried out by Automotive Testing
Laboratories, Inc. under contract to EPA.
Vehicle Selection ,
In the', original 1977 Denver Restorative Maintenance (RM) testing, the 42
vehicles .were divided into a "Group A" and a "Group B". For each Group
A vehicle there was a Group B counterpart which was identical in engine
displacement, carburetor Venturis and transmission type. Matching of
vehicles was done to establish Group B as a "control group." The
"A" vehicles received a series of up to 3 tests, depending on what, if
any, disablements, maladjustments or defective emission components were
discovered. The "B" group received only one test and inspection with no
adjustments or repairs.
Of the original 42 vehicles tested last year, 6. ,had been'sold. The
inability to contact the new owners of these vehicles reduced the number
available for testing to 36. Each of these owners was willing to parti-
cipate again. From these 36, the 24 vehicles to be' involved in this
years' retesting were selected. These vehicles were selected to be a
reasonable subset of the original group with regard to engine size,
model type and mileage accumulated. GM, Ford and Chrysler were represented
with 8 vehicles each. Each fleet of 8 vehicles was made up of 4 of the
original group "A" vehicles and their original group "B" counterparts.
-------
-2-
Test Procedures
All vehicles involved in the retesting underwent the first test sequence
in their "as-received" condition. The test sequence consisted of a 1975
FTP, a Highway Fuel Economy Test and three short cycles (Federal Three
Mode, Federal Short Cycle, Two-Speed Idle). The vehicles were then
examined for any maladjustment or disablement actions and failure of any
emission components. The criteria for these determinations were the
same as used in the original program. This was the extent of the
testing and inspection for the Group B vehicles which were then returned
to their owners. If the Group A vehicles passed the first test and no
maladjustment or disablement actions were found, they were also returned
to the owners. However, if any maladjustment or disablement action was
encountered on a Group A vehicle, it was corrected and the vehicle
received a second test. If it then failed test two, the vehicle received
a major tune up along with the replacement of any defective emission
components.* It was then tested a third and final time. Upon completion
of the third test, the vehicle was returned to the owner. A flow chart
illustrating this procedure is attached. Test results on individual
vehicles are contained in the Appendix.
Inspection Results
With the aid of representatives of the three automobile manufacturers,
inspections were performed on all vehicles. Through these inspections
it was found that 92% of the test vehicles exhibited some form of mal-
adjustment and/or disablement. Of these, 50% failed Federal Standards
on their initial test. The most frequently observed problem was malad-
justed idle mixtures found on 71% of the vehicles tested. Manufacturer's
recommended procedures were used in this determination ("Propane enrichment"
on the Ford and Chrysler vehicles, and the "lean-drop" procedure on the
GM vehicles). If a .5% idle CO cutpoint was used as in low-altitude RM
programs the rate of idle mixture maladjustment would be reduced to 21%.
Ignition timing on 41% of the vehicles was advanced beyond manufacturer's .
specifications. 33% had maladjusted chokes and the EGR system had been
disabled on 16%. Two vehicles (#7003 and #7108) emitted exceptionally
high amounts of HC and CO. Through inspection, the primary cause of the
high amounts of these pollutants was found to be a maladjustment on one
car and a maladjustment and disablement on the other. Vehicle #7003, a
Plymouth station wagon with a 318 cubic inch engine and a 2 barrel
carburetor, was found to have maladjusted metering rods which are located
in the main power circuit of the carburetor. This caused the vehicle to
run "rich" when it was off idle. According to the owner, .this vehicle
had not received a tune-up between last years' and this years' tests,
although it had been returned to the dealer at least three times for
driveability problems. Vehicle #7108's high HC and CO emissions were
*0nly replacement of defective components was allowed in preparation
for test number 3 in the original testing of these vehicles since the
mileage constraint (< 4000) was lower than any scheduled major
maintenance point.
-------
-3-
traceable to a rich, idle mixture and a disconnected vacuum line..which -
caused the air pump to continually vent to the atmosphere. The emission-
related component which was observed to be defective-most--frequently-was-
the temperature sensor which controls the heated, air door in the air
cleaner assembly. 16% of them were defective. One EGR valve had a
leaky diaphragm and one throttle stop solenoid was inoperative.
FTP Results • ,
Attached as Table 1 is a summary of the overall results on the entire
fleet from last year along with the results from the 24 vehicles retested
this year. As this table shows, the retested Group A vehicles which,,met
Federal Standards fell from 100% on the final test last .year to 58% on
the initial test this year. Test results on individual vehicles are •
attached as an appendix. . .
In Group A, HC and CO were the dominant problem areas showing average
increases of 215% and 275%, respectively. The principal reason for
these large increases was vehicle #7003. Its HC and CO emissions were
so high when tested as-received that its results have been separated
from the others in Tables 1 and 2. Without these values, the average .
increases would be 47% and 72%. This vehicle's Group B counterpart,
#7103 showed relatively low HC and CO emissions, but failed NOx. Of all
Group B vehicles retested, the percentage that passed federal standards
fell from 83% to 58%. The unusually high results in the HC and CO
column of the Group B vehicles tested this year (in Tables 1 and 4) are
due to vehicle #7108. The HC and CO emissions of this car's counterpart
in Group A were within Federal Standards, but it failed NOx when tested
as received. Through correction of maladjustment and disablement
actions, along with the replacement of defective emission components and
a major tune-up, Group A's final pass rate increased to 92%. The only
Group A vehicle that failed the final test was a Chevrolet Chevelle that
failed NOx with a reading of 2.22 gm/mi versus the 2.0 gm/mi standard.
This vehicle was somewhat atypical of the rest of the group because of
its high mileage (over 49,000 miles). Average fuel economy increased
slightly between the initial and final test on the Group A vehicles
while overall average fuel economy for both groups increased since last
year.
Idle Test Results
All vehicles tested underwent idle tests for HC and CO using a garage-
type instrument. 79% of all vehicles tested passed the idle test "as-
received" when typical cutpoints of 150 ppm HC and .5% CO were used.
The CO cutpoint is the same as that used in earlier Restorative/Maintenance
programs. Of those vehicles which passed the idle test, 68% met the
applicable Federal Standards for the FTP when tested "as received." Of
all vehicles tested, there was only one that passed the FTP and failfd
the idle test. 75% of Group A passed the idle test, and of these
vehicles, 67% met Federal Standards. Of the Group A vehicles which
-------
-4-
failed the idle test, 33% met Federal Standards. After maintenance,
only one Group A car failed the idle 'test. In Group' B, 83% passed and
70% of these vehicles met Federal Standards. 17% of the Group B vehicles
failed the "idle test and of these vehicles, none met Federal Standards.
Table 5 shows average emission results with regard to idle test results.
Summary ....
This program shows the importance that proper maintenance has in the
effort to reduce motor vehicle emissions. It reveals that many of the
1977 model year vehicles 'in this program failed to meet federal standards
when tested in an as-received condition. ' According 'to the owner question-
naires, 92% had 'been maintained in accordance to the manufacturer's
recommendations and 33% had been returned to the dealer for driveability
problems. The majority of the vehicles tested exhibited maladjustment
and disablement actions, primarily idle mixture and initial ignition
timing. After correction of these maladjustments and other maintenance
procedures, all but one Group A vehicle met 1977 Federal Standards.
References
1. J. T. White, "An Evaluation of Restorative Maintenance on Exhaust
Emissions from In-Use Automobiles," SAE Paper 780082, March, 1978.
-------
Restorative Maintenance Retesting of
1977 Model year Vehicles in Denver
Vehicle Flow Diagram
Vehicle
Owner
Maladj us tment-
Disablement
and
Emission Component
Inspection
Any
ladjustment-
Disablement
Action Found?
Correction of
Maladjustment
Disablement
• Actions
Test #2
Fail
Major tune-up
and Defective |
Emission Com-
ponent Replace-
ment
Pass
-------
Table 1
Restorative Maintenance Evaluation
Retesting of 1977 CM, Ford and Chrysler
Vehicles in Denver
Number of Vehicles
Avg. Odometer
Avg. HC (gm/mi)
Avg. CO (gm/mi)
Avg. N0xc(gm/mi)
Avg. MPG(FTP)
Avg. MPG(HFET)
TEST RESULTS
UJ-UUf f\
Last Year
(Apr-May 77)
Entire
Fleet
21
1986
Initial
.71
11.85
1.98
12.9
17.4
Final
.51
7.15
1.46
12.7
17.0
These
Vehicles
12
2088
Initial Final
.54 .53
7.32 5.97
1.96 1.30
12.8 12.7
17.4 17.0
This Year
(May 78)
These
Vehicles
12
15128
Initial Final
1.67 .71
(.78)*
22.41 8.62
(10.29)*
1.70 1.41
13.2 13.4
17.3 18.1
UJ.UUJJ
Last Year
(Apr-May 77)
Entire
Fleet
21
2628
.70
8.77
1.81
12.9
17.5
This Year
(May 78)
These These
Vehicles Vehicles
12
2505
[One Test
.60
7.10
1.51
12.9
17.5
12
13490
Only]
1.77
(.80)**
22.11
(9.23)**
1.94
13.8
19.0
MET FED STDS
48%
76%
67%
100%
58%
92%
67%
83%
58%
* Average HC and CO without vehicle //7003 which emitted high amounts of these pollutants
prior to major tune-up.
** Average HC and CO without vehicle //7108 which emitted high amounts of these pollutants.
-------
Table 2
Restorative Maintenance Evaluation
Retesting of 1977 Chrysler Vehicles in Denver
Number of Vehicles.
Avg. Odometer
Avg. HC (gm/mi)
Avg. CO (gm/mi)
Avg. N0xc(gm/mi)
Avg. MPG(FTP)
Avg. MPG(HFET)
MET FED STDS
Last
(Apr
Entire
Chrysler
7
1353
Initial
.46 ,
7.52
1.94
12.8
17.0
57%
Final
.45
9.40
.95
12.7
16.1
85%
Group
Year .
77)
These
Vehicles
4
1187
Initial
.41
8.14
2.21
11.9
15.9
50%
TEST RESULTS
A-
This Year
(May 78)
. These
Vehicles
4
13161
Final Initial Final
.40 3.43 .69
(.75)*
6.88 45.68 9.55
(9.01)*
.99 1.44 1.31
11.4 11.8 12.0
14.8 14.2 15.3
100% 50% 100%
Last
(Apr
Entire
Chrysler
7
2337
.46
6.57
1.27
12.5
16.7
100%
uroup
Year
77)
This Year
(May 78)
These These
Vehicles Vehicles
4
2207
[One Test
.35
5.39
1.15
12.1
15.9
100%
4
17772
Only]
.61
7.59
2.17
13.4
17.6
25%
* Average HC and CO without vehicle #7003 which emitted high amounts of these
pollutants prior to major tune-up.
-------
Table 3
. •„- •'
Restorative Maintenance Evaluation
Retesting of 1977
-------
Table 4
Restorative Maintenance Evaluation
Retesting of 1977 Ford Vehicles in Denver
TEST RESULTS
Number of Vehicles
Avg. Odometer
Avg. HC (gin/mi)
Avg. CO (gm/mi)
Avg. NOxc(gm/mi)
Avg. MPG(FTP)
Avg. MPG(HFET)
MET FED STDS
Entire
Ford
7
2448
Initial
1.26
23.19
2.10
13.0
17.6
Last Year
(Apr 77)
Final
.66
6.54
1.61
13.0
17.5
iiroup H
These
Vehicles
4
2630
Initial Final
.81 .79
9.08 6.91
2.10 1.31
13.5 13.7
18.4 18.3
This Year
(May 78)
These
Vehicles
4
12256
Initial Final
.78 .89
8.37 8.16
2.09 1.18
13.9 14.3
19.3 19.2
Last Year
(May 77)
Entire
Ford
7
3072
[One
.94
9.77
2.19
12.5
17.3
-oroup a
This
(May
These
Vehicles
4
3047
Test Only]
.93
9.23
1.38
13.3
18.1
Year
78)
These
Vehicles
4
11486
3.90
(1.05)*
46.07
(6.84)*
2.00
13.9
19.8
29%
71%
50%
100%
75%
100%
57%
100%
75%
Average HC and CO without vehicle #7108 which emitted high amounts of these pollutants.
-------
Table 5
Restorative Maintenance Evaluation
Idle Test Results of
24 1977 GM, Ford and Chrysler Vehicles
Retested in Denver
Group A
As Received
After Maintenance
Group B
As Received
Passed
Failed
Passed
Failed
Passed
Failed
Idle Test
Idle Test
•Idle Test
Idle Test
Idle Test
Idle Test
N
9
3
11
1
10
2
FTP Results
HC CO NOx
1.88
1.06
.73
.54
.71
7.07
25.32
13.69
8.42
10.80
7.31
96.15
1.50
2.31
1.34
2.22
1.89
2.21
Fuel Economy
FTP HFET
13.2
13.4
13.4
13.0
14.2
12.0
17.1
17.9
17.9
20.1
19.2
18.2
Met FTP
Standards
67%
33%
100%
0%
70%
0%
Idle
HC
20
193
18
153
21
761
Test
CO
.01
2.60
0.02
0.10
.02
6.03
Group A & B Combined
As Received
Passed
Failed
Idle Test
Idle Test
19
5
1.27
3.46
15.8
46.7
1.70
2.27
13.7
12.8
18.2
18.0
68%
20%
21
420
.02
4.06
Note:: FTP results are in grams/mile
Fuel economy values are in miles per gallon
Idle HC results are in ppm
Idle CO results are in mole percent
-------
APPENDIX
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN
ODOMETER 13
H MODEL
CID
TRANS
GARB
INERTIA WT.
TEST I
fJ&Ty&f-
2.
1
1.
'
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
V//i
ill 13
Z/n/TB
v5//r
HC
^r^-
.r^
o."7»
..%
CO NOXC
6.1H
^ao
7.7- f
g»l8
z."7g:
/.or
-2, ,30
1.15
MPG
FTP
/r.oi.
/^.7^
/S,2fT
/6". 0?
1
1 .... «
HFET
ft. (el
/fr,«iKT^at 0? THE
4 rOAUSp^sl vnt NT, THIS Com^S?Ei4T e*""'IL
• ". .5W • KioT GE ^UioSTtO COp.p.ecTL^. THEpt P=ei.ty
IT "AS, (J.ePlAtB» FOffi!. TEST* a. §
1976 Standards
1.5
HC
15
CO
2.0
3.1
NOX
-------
VEHICLE NO.
7003
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN H-H
I./&T
ODOMETER
MAKE
TEST I
. 2
/
i.
^
*t
PLY MODEL ST/AUJ CID 3)8' •'•" TRANS A CARB 2^ INERTIA WT. VS"00
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
3//V77;
s/nfr
<'/;»/*
s/if
HC
;»
J'.m
(3*9
,fefe
CO
3.5"
/^^fc^
zo9.if
S.iO
N0xc
*W
aw
o.feo
/.fTT
MPG
>•
FTP
/3.0
/o-9
9.ST..
..«•« .
/2.00
1
1
HFET
// ^l b*
/ J » *O •
l.U 6£y(LA . ' _' I "^
Cyy>\q£ ^oO C>iAJO»K)^~
oSAc. U'INES coKrt^niD Wb$>E(!?iy
7D/-E /7?/XT^RC A£)ki . '
i"bsi. P^F7ER.\MO-vt^oP S* '' •<
[XVSioU- TVVit-^9
^MO iNitf-v^Lf w rve cmfiwepAfoft,
W~?7 A'-*" '*" 2-0
1976 Standards 1.5 ' 15 ' 3.1 .
: HC CO Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
?oo
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN ^Lt^k 7G f2'$ 7g \ '
MODEL
CID 31^
TRANS
ODOMETER W 00^ ( 1.72.) )
CARB ^ INERTIA WT.
TEST #
/
1.
/
2.
i
••' .
i * -
t
19 7 5. FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
W»6/77
XT"
V2-
HC CO NOXC
•3j
,&,
'-"
^fc Q
H^ • "^
^,3e
,;.9^
i^f
7,2.3
/-Og'
MPG
FTP
/0 -7
/^?< Z
H.7J
..
-------
VEHICLE NO.
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN
ODOMETER lO.Sl0!
yew
\.
•MAKE CHRV MODEL CORD CID 3&0 '•' TRANS A CARS ^ INERTIA WT. ^SO^
TEST |
/
2.
1
2 .
•
1975 FTP (gin/mi)
DATE
27/3/77
r/"/7e.
flfrhB
HC
.31
.40
•rm
.fcfc
. .
CO
8.8
ivo-
s,%
NOXC
•tl
/,07
1 .^Hi
/.HI
MPG
FTP
/o.l.
12,05
.^,^.
1
HFET
;3,7
/V-3
ifc.fciT
n,37
IHC (ppm)
7
0
/2-
.- >f
ICO (%)
o
. -°f
0
.
COMMENTS
C/VPS Olf- ) IPIt *\CH
AC.i, IPL6 /VM.Xruft.^.
| D L. fc \^« 1 vJ|Y i " -'i -^
^JP/E /7WTU*e
• •
117*? AT /r 2,0
1976 Standards 1.5 15 3.1
HC CO Nox . .-]•••..
-------
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
.SUMMARY OF.TEST RESULTS
IA&T
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE /^Rl
luut> ,.
} MODEL vl
SITE
LTD
pfcfiJVt; (^
CID
VIN .~yjfc
•Hfco • • •„
>jiri.'-}:G)-2-S
•TRANS
Q5
A
ODOME
CARB q
TE.R S.SH / C ^o^
INERTIA WT. 5"<
TEST |
ugrystty
i
/
Z
1975 FTP {gm/mi)
DATE
V*/77 --
r/aV7,,
-r/zs/*
HC CO NOXC
.64.
•58
,78
••&'
' tf.S.7
~?. 18
(0.71,
.<*,&.
'
•-S
H.^
JJ7.
MPG-:
FTP-
/O.i"7
// .13'.
11,07 /•• '
• (MO; u
r.
'• . '
1.
HFET
.;V.? •
/H.&>|
/f,2>i-
• ._.
1 '
•. ..: .-
IHC Jppm)
IJII '
f
t :w.fc ^., , .v .
^. 'f •- ••-
si
.
^
*
ICO (%)
5*. 2.
Sr.3
«•'":..
O . 'O
COMMENTS '
CAM ffllSS>A<&-/ T»»V »«&•*•*», t6«. «VO&GCp
T/"J»JU* AOJ. *&K 'fP^V^VffO, lUfc WHl'.AKt.
ftf^Dioreo I^P miXTvRff
Timiioc. -n^ j toie ^^.\e«k/c^p5nllsslMOr
f£«^re '"T^.
•' j
'
1976 Standards
/•'f
1.5
HC
15
CO
2.0
3.1
Nox
-------
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VEHICLE NO. /C-^~l SITE /2£A»VfcK VIN TT'^MOq^^ ODOMETER |l,IIU ^ r2Jb^ J
MAKE
,TEST 1
wyv*
I
1
•
fO^vD MODEL . V \YVTC* CID VAC* ••' TRANS H- CARB 2- INERTIA WT. 27 S"C
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
•tfa*/*!
^As/Tg
f/W»
. .
HC
fl'i
.%
0.-76
. .
/**O XT A
w\J WWyf^
/ » &.V0
fc.i-l
S".0-7
. . .
1.03
•i.ts-
I.OL}-
•
MPG
FTP
n :*•?.•.
lfl.10.
4I-?' .
1
!
r
HFET
32 ,.T^
31. 4^
3 1 .97
.... . .
•C3SB9)VDiKfl^^HH0MB^H^HBVWBVfl0MIMBB0^^^^^^BWVB^M^B
-*"~~~" ...--" . ~
IHC (ppm)
.s
31
. . ?.\ :
.
.
ICO (%)
.oifc- .
O.O
o.a
.
••^^^^•^••^•^••••^•^^^•••••••^^•••i^^^
COMMENTS '
CA.5 r»».fr
JOLt P.»<^
CAP* pMiS/xG-
ADi
-------
VEHICLE NO. ~?O\0
MAKE PCM) MODEL
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN 9U&M F
3O'2 • ••
ODOMETER > 5*.
CID
TRANS
CARB
INERTIA
PEST I
M'MK,
/
•7.
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
%V,r
•f/2£/?%.
Wit
HC
'.St-
,70.
•Si
CO
™l
w
(,.ss
NOXC
/':S
1.34-
»./«i
MPG
FTP
/l.S"0
/3.I"?
\l\tS(p-
i.t.^ .
i
i
HFET
',^7
ife.^4.
:,(«.^>
IHC (ppm)
1 0
IZ1
77- :
ICO (%)
.oa- .
c?
1.03
G.O
COMMENTS '
CAPS oK.jioif G\W, vAiwiHwm.tr^LMa^a)
tPLe minuac Atu , .y^^m -CREA^ Atti .
C-AP& fi|&S|J^*
V^COVItt C(^€A\^K BBIy^O^viSTCD
ApA IDLE ywiOffct'
-
.
1
1976 Standards
1.5
HC
15
CO
2.0
3.1
Nox
-------
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS . .
VEHICLE NO. 7013 SITE Z^AJVtR. VIN "7W3HF,£7£ S3S ODOMETER / 3 » °l ) ^ C 2S/3Y
MAKE
TEST I
foefcC- MODEL ntONA42£-l&
CID 3&
2. TRANS A GARB Z INERTIA WT. *10QO
1975 FTP (gra/mi)
DATE HC CO NOXC
3 ^pSJO'1
/ 5&l/7£
Sl«fa
t
i
i
• •
.60
•:JA
,/.0»
• . .
A5"2
2. 46
.£j ;7O
/i.zf
2. IX
/.S3
'/.I3
131
MPG
FTP
/3-00
j*l *0
\ 1 ^"tT*
. '
•
HFET
n.si
I*W
Ig.^t
....
, • •
IHC (ppm)
Isr
/H
.. 13'"
. .
.
...
ICO (%)
0
o . .
ao
o.o
'• '
COMMENTS '
C4PS OK IDLt ^°^
APJ. »o*f iHirjvrie
C^>^> VhttSlMCr TM^Ha^*"^
CHOCP 1.f/-L. « vf'f i nftn OMW t f 4^ '
IDwf R\Cy\
Tir»MM& ACdj..|t|H>*ip AOi
|*Af f fli^yk tfttflf &Jf Jk^\ V •
W"*1^**' W IQv «v "^W *^^U* • • •
" - *
'
\ . " ( i
* . i
N77
1976 Standards
A 5T
1.5
HC
15
CO
2.0
3.1
Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
SITE
MODEL
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN ^S'7/.7z?r 1 7^310- ODOMETER 8 £25"
• • TRANS A- CARB M-
ciD • 36-O
INERTIA WT.V3"dQ
TEST |
U*TWK
\
1975 FTP (gin/mi)
DATE
lijii
EH
HC CO
:V.
.3^
^
. .
Co ^*fi*5
|_1 IL jB>
9/51
•
NOXC
HiH
'/,5g
MPG
FTP
/3.0M-
•9BHI
.
•
i
HFET
/ Sc.02.
tf.02-
... . . . . . .
. . . .
IHC (ppm)
o
/6
...-.-
•
.
ICO (%)
c>
o.o
•
COMMENTS
Cikpe OF xM^v"*1 6R^A^ 0*WCO«
v^£-oviflft SRcA\^ AO^
£ W?& O\x
•
'
1979
1976 Standards
1.5
HC
15
CO
2.0
3.1
Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS . .
VIN
ODOMETER
MODEL
CID
GfTO
TRANS
A
GARB
INERTIA WT.
TEST i
/
;*/•
-v
:
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
s/fe/7,
Slnh.
sinl*
HC CO NOXC
.w.
•",
,ift
3,44-
4.^
^.fet
IA1
a.J"?
/.^
MPG
FTP
,S.'iq ..
/H'-^i^
/Oo
HFET
I S.P.H
1 Q /^"<<
.'.{.id.V.
.://»!#
IHC (ppm)
.2.
. . . .<«
. .. 3r-:
ICO (%)
0 .
o.o
o:
.
COMMENTS '
CAPS o ^
^o^T \^
— Ifco \0t£ iipiOi . v
j
^f'^^J
•
j K77
1976 Standards
1.5
HC
15
CO
3.1
Nox
-------
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
•SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VEHICLE NO. 7Un SITE /7£~AJVETR VIN / C ^\ L / f^^Ob ^,-S ODOMETER HT, .3 / 1 (95-QJ <
MAKE
^***m*mmmm
TEST #
1
I
1.
3;,
CfttVJ MODEL C4\UJtULE CID 3t>O ' ' ' TRANS A CARB f INERTIA WT. ^ZoO '•
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
£/lo/7 7
^llbllb
$ln/?&
f/I^Tg
. .
HC
• to
.&S-
.^
•*•*:
t
CO
jC/0
/s:ii
/0./5"
,0^0
•
N°XC
/.fig
>»
2,^
1.Z1
MPG
FTP
'2.^0 ..
13. Of
./3.73L .
/J.0Z.'
i
| .... .
HFET
/?,^
.n^o
20-Ob
IO.OL
r*WMWMMWM«^KM*m*KMeMMnnMMMMMM^
"T . • 'i --!••• •' - '— '
IHC (ppm)
.0..
3 a.
. . !->(* -
./«
,
.<
ICO (%)
<*0- .
00
O.6
O.I
• . •'
2525E253H^BWBBBH^I^BBBBB^HiBBBB^^Bi^^^^^BB^^^'^^BMiWMMBi^M^B^p
COMMENTS ' !
«M 01S .
//AO 7l?A)P SFfCoRv 6^)-.
f»w»«Mt» AfJt
V/^C, ACV DMC COfHCcTctL,
ADJ. lDt-6 l>i>>(iT«S.6 i /*OJ , C>10H^
^•-c^e P£R:MU>
t
H77 / *' /*" 2.0
1976 Standards 1.5 ' 15 ' 3.1
;HC CO Nox
-------
' VEHICLE NO.
MAKE O UD5
7O 2-O
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
.SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN 3m6"7R7£
MODEL
Cin"'-M>5
CID
TRANS __Ar
ODOMETER 1 ' 3*3 Q 374)
CARB H INERTIA
TEST ft
tHaCMSB
*/.'
i,
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE HC CO NOXC
&8/?7
Mfh
*h1*
•
.
.«
/.«
,8«-
•
..
3.m
4ift.
7./.T
.
•
I.U
/.y«
/.!*•
.
MPG
FTP
14. ir .
/r.is
^-."
'
1
HFET
20, ZS
^^,o
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
1
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN tiLHK7f M 3 ^fc>-
ODOMETER IS.
C
MODEL \10VA
CID 2-2-tT
TRANS
CARB / INERTIA WT. 4QOC
1975 FTP (gin/mi)
'EST § DATE HC CO
N°
xc
FTP
HFET
IHC (ppm)
ICO (%)
COMMENTS
7.05-
/-S
.03 .
CAPS
P-S7-
0.0
. T E 0> p
1977
1976 Standards
1.5
HC
15
CO
2.0
3.1
Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
7|03
SITE
MODEL \JO
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN ft/"f 9S"6 7k /f ?5~9*f ODOMETER
"\ f g ' ' ' ' TRANS A
yiAQ.
CID
GARB "X. INERTIA WT.
TEST #
/
•
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
^ /I&/7 7
f>/77
. .
HC
.IS
o.m-
. .
CO
a.,*
HA6-
. . .
N°xc
1.^
\,^
MPG
FTP
//. 6, d
ii.xt- ..
...
1
1 .... t
HFET
•'/?.?,
,5-,qfo
..
. ... . .
IHC (ppm)
O
•z.s"
.,-.-
.
• «•
ICO (%)
0 / ..
•'•03.
^
•
•
• •
COMMENTS '
C-AP3 miSS » Nfr
lOiX- ^tc^^'CA^ "WVtSiM^-
f "• • ••-...,•
AT^ t^CAMCP- &A&|ff.T 1fite£»jJ(r
• ..
: • •
. .
•
•
1976 Standards
1.5
HC
15
CO
2.0
3.1
Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO.
"7 IP
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN M^-tfr
ODOMETER
( J30«J
MODEL
CID
TRANS ' ' ' A-
CARB
INERTIA WT. V5"<30
.TEST #
i
/
1975 FTP (gin/mi)
DATE
•»//*/??
S/rJV
HC CO NOXC
.3 *
,^
2..1
Lf.U
1,10
3.0^
MPG
FTP
II '.0
/3-2L8"
1
1 .
HFET
,.13.9.
/6.^
IHC (ppm)
O
%S
..;.-
ICO (%)
0
. .o/ .
COMMENTS '
M7£'"^"££%-n
ypi-fi- «»6h » ^-APS rAissiMC,
.
. •
i Kj 77
I 1976 Standards
1.5
HC
/r
15
CO
7.0
3.1
Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
7/09
MODEL COE..O
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS .
SITE pewEfc. VIN 55 2,^7(3. 172,035 ODOMETER 21
CID 3&>O • ' • TRANS 'A CARS 4"
INERTIA
TEST I
*w5* ^M^»
/
1975 FTP (gra/mi)
DATE HC CO NOXC
1*177.
flvfo
.m
,67
?.o
/3.0
. -^
- ,
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
-SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN •
MODEL LTD
CID
TRANS A
ODOMETER
GARB t| INERTIA
TEST ft
lAsryetfk
\
1975. FTP (gm/xni)
DATE
HA^/^:
^^
HC
,S-fe>
•/Z.HI
co NOXC
t.^
163.17
.^H
3.'\9|
MPG
FTP
10. -/3
|0,it3
i
r
HFET
/^-.sf
/r^c,
....
IHC (ppm)
500
/fofe
..;.•
.
ICO (%)
5.1
/a/3
COMMENTS
CAPS IVMSS/WG^v (DtCCpnt HiG^f
iDiS wi/rufte RitHy .
£6^ AHD AIR. pvimf> ceouvr Tf«»f
if WOR. UU6 0>^c«p»JfffTEO
IDlp P.\CHytAP^ n»sciN'C>
•
•^*
R77
1976 Standards
1.5
HC
/r
15
CO
2.0
3.1
Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
"7109
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
•SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN ">ftV2-Y 10'"77-OC> '
ODOMETER
MODEL 9 \yyy.o
CID
TRANS ' •'
CARB
INERTIA WT.
TEST 8
/*r»*-
/
i
,
i
i
i
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
t/W/7?
5/V#
HC
/,M
-1.1.3
CO
I/. tt2L
7.*'
NOXC
/.St
i.rt
MPG
FTP
ifi.U
Z0.17-
. '
HFET
•a?'**:
ao.m
IHC (ppm)
..11
it?
...-.-
.
ICO (%)
0.0 .
0.0
• .
COMMENTS '
CAP& rtMS*'*'*.
(DUE P-'C-H. Tn*i iMG* •" if '
T 1**»K*C» -^(o 1 lWs Y«*SMNCr
p^t IP* w»m -TOO
IOLE RX&H
•
\
•
n 77
1976 Standards
/.r
1.5
HC
/r
15
CO
2.0
3.1
NOX
-------
t
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
7113
SITE
.RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN 7t°35 fro/
ODOMETER
MODEL
CID ' 2O 2.
TRANS A
GARB
INERTIA WT.
TEST |
**r)«fc
' 1
1975 FTP (gra/mi)
DATE
f/W/97
'^/l^h-j
HC
».0K-y (OtF ff-tt-H
^^rrwijiDie
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN
MODEL
CID
TRANS
ODOMETER (2-j3&3
CARS 2^ INERTIA WT.
TEST |
tWf&R
1
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
f/J^S
#*V/#.
•<
HC
.»7
I,o3
. .
CO NOXC
°IA
£,to\
. . .
AST
1.68
•
MPG
i*
FTP
/*.•*"*" ...
I3.2-1."
.
.
i
t
HFET
/4-8P
11, IS'
...........
. ... . .
IHC (ppm)
7.0
^7
...-.-
.
.
ICO (%)
o.o .
o.o
•
.
COMMENTS '
f*fs ofey cwon(? 5Tau.
ioi.£ (5.\cri
CA?S mH6>|)fcr , tWt>f.£ fi'AJ.V-
^«»P- ^^PWfSfr*^ V-^AfS
'
•
•
•
•
R 77
1976 Standards
AfT
1.5
HC
15
CO
2.0
3.1
Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO. .7 I I
MAKE
MODEL
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
-SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
SITE pewtfL VIN l-y6^
CID 3^3 ' TRANS
ODOMETER
GARB
INERTIA WT.
TEST |
tAsry&ffi-
/
i
1
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
S//0/7^>
sYlb
HC CO NOXC
,M 1
•6l
3.56
7jjfo
2.3Z
Ufe
MPG
,*
FTP
/j;^*?
/^'.^ .
i
i .
HFET
^.'^3,
R.^0
IHC (ppm)
P
/«f
,.-.-
ICO (%)
o.o
o.o
COMMENTS '
CAPS TwS&iH(=r;~rt*itkJb + g-
/£>£.& K'CH-.
r'/m/MG' +^;dAPSr»"S.s/KJ(»
/o^E R»cit
.
1976 Standards
/.jT
1.5
HC
If
15
CO
3.1
Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN / •£) 2^*72. >30 95
LAST
ODOMETER
MODEL
CID
TRANS
GARB
INERTIA WT.
TEST '#
Mfr^yw^
/
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE HC CO NOXC
5//1/7-)
5//^
.57
-,5"!
^2
g.oB
2, S3"
9..O1-
MPG
FTP
/J.60
/3.«B'
'
HFET
•'8.' 7,
f ct. {£
IHC (ppm)
O
-7
../.•
ICO (%)
o.o
C5.0
COMMENTS '
^AfS miSS/A/Cr^ TiiK/tJ&t-tf
VAC. aKCAC- rvijALAiuSreO
f/biUtr+y. vAc/8Cf/H; ^&WjusVc)
CAPS fhjsS/J/C'"
•
!
1976 Standards
1.5
HC
15-
CO
2.0
3.1
Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO. "71 I
MAKE G>U ICfc
MODEL
SITE
L-
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN
ODOMETER
CID
TRANS
CARB *t
INERTIA WT.
TEST |
lASrf&p.
\
s?1""
1975 FTP (gin/mi)
DATE
V/J/77
.ry/f/tf.
HC
,34>
,40
CO
^.^r
6.^4
NOXC
/< 96'
I.L*
MPG
<•
FTP
|2..7fe...
IS.?*
t
\
HFET
|7>^
i&.fe
IHC (ppm)
O
3
..-.-
ICO (%)
0.0
,01
COMMENTS '
£AP5 o<
CAPS o £
^
•
1976 Standards
7.5-
1.5
HC
15
CO
2.0
3.1
Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
712.)
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN ^ S 7 E»7 P2-i S 33*1
MODEL
CID
TRANS
CARB
ODOMETER <°j
t-
INERTIA WT.
TEST I
/
.--•
:
!
t
1
1975 FTP (gn\/mi)
DATE
*7/fe/77
5//?/?>
.
HC
,8Z
/.7o
. .
CO NOXC
f/.ZS
2S53
. . .
7,03 .
/,23
MPG
FTP
/3,5"^
/^./fc
.
i
i
HFET
2(9.1$,
ZI.&
. ... . -
IHC (ppn\)
P
Mb'
...•/
.
ICO {%)
0 .0 .
. I.U
.
COMMENTS
CAPS oCj TtiHiMj -3
^y»*» 6REAKC mAi/"W'^TC:^
CAP* tV\»6tlN^. -.-••-
i^wv^ fiBtA'ti WHUAOJviS-lt 0
fWT lDu£ KPm t?OP
•
•
1976 Standards
1.5
HC
15
CO
2.0
3.1
Nox
------- |