79-4A
Gasohol Test Program
by
Richard Lawrence
Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
December, 1978
-------
Introduction
A request for a waiver to permit use of 10% Ethanol in gasoline ("gasohol")
is being considered by EPA-Mobile Source Enforcement Division (MSED).
The Emission Control Technology Division (ECTD) in Ann Arbor, MI was
requested to assist MSED by testing ten vehicles on two gasoline fuels
and three gasohol fuels. In addition, ECTD directed Southwest Research
Institute (a contractor laboratory) to test three vehicles on the five
fuels plus other fuels containing MTBE and TEA.— EPA-ORD was requested
to provide more extensive emission data on two test vehicles.
The Administrator's decision must be made within 180 days of receipt of „/
the application for waiver otherwise the waiver is automatically granted.—
The decision date for this waiver is December 16, 1978. Testing support
.from MSAPC was requested on September 28, 1978. Vehicles and fuel were
acquired and vehicle tests began October 16 and were completed on Novem-
ber 20. Because of the limited time available, duplicate tests of each
vehicle/fuel combination were planned with retesting for void tests to
be done only on a time available basis.
Summary
Eleven vehicles (4 three-way systems and 7 oxidation catalyst systems)
were tested on five fuels. A summer grade gasoline was selected as the
base fuel and was used both before and after testing on the two commercial
gasohols. Indolene and a gasohol fuel containing Indolene and Ethanol
were the other two fuels. All gasohol fuels used in this program
contained 10 percent Ethanol (by volume). Duplicate tests were planned
on four fuels and four tests were planned on the base fuel.
The test procedure was similar to the standard FTP test normally run on
certification vehicles. Some deviations from this procedure were
required in order to acquire additional data, such as cannister weights.
Also, void test criteria were adjusted when appropriate and when engi-
neering judgement could be used to verify the integrity of the results.
In the following list comparisons of each gasohol fuel are made with the
appropriate base fuel:
1. Gasohol fuels increased evaporative HC emissions an average of 49
to 62% on the eleven vehicles tested.
2. The two mixed gasohol fuels (gasoline mixed with 10% Ethanol)
decreased exhaust HC by about 9% on all vehicles. The blended
gasohol fuel (gasoline blended with 10% Ethanol for correct vola-
tility) increased exhaust HC by an average of 24% on all vehicles.
3. Total HC (evap. & exhaust) for 3.3 trips per day increased 11 to 32
percent with the gasohol fuels.
_!/ Methyl tertiary butyl ether and tertiary butyl alcohol are other
fuel additives for which waivers have been requested.
2/ .Sec. 211(f)(4) of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments
-------
-2-
4. Evaporative emissions contained about 0.6 grams Ethanol and 3.3 to
5.4 grams HC (as GIL _ ) with the gasohol fuels.—'
5. CO emissions decreased 20 to 34 percent with the gasohol fuels.
6. NOx emissions increased 6 to 11 percent with the gasohol fuels.
7. Fuel economy (by carbon balance) decreased 1 to 5 percent with the
gasohol fuels.
8. Driveability complaints increased with the gasohol fuels.
9. Three-way catalyst systems were not appreciably different from
oxidation catalyst systems in exhaust and evaporative emission
sensitivity to gasohol fuels.
10. It is not known if a gasoline fuel containing 10 percent Ethanol
can be commercially blended to match distillation characteristics
of a gasoline fuel containing no Ethanol.
11. It is not known if a "blended" gasohol with volatility characteristics
similar to a gasoline would give driveability or evaporative emission
levels similar to the gasoline.
Test Procedure
The test procedure agreed upon for the ECTD program was to test each
vehicle twice on each fuel using the standard FTP with SHED procedure as
used for certification tests. Some modifications were necessary to
allow for cannister weights to be taken before and after the Diurnal
Breathing Loss (DEL) test and after the Hot Soak (HS) test.
Void test criteria normally applied to certification tests were waived
for some tests where engineering judgment could be used to verify that
the test results were valid for the purpose of this program. Typical
examples of this include tests where a heat build for diurnal emissions
might be one degree (F) out of tolerance or tests where an exhaust
emission analyzer might respan 3-4 percent low when the tolerance is
+2 percent.
Some portions of the FTP were made more restrictive to provide more
repeatable SHED results.
-The overnight soak tolerance of 12-36 hours was adjusted to 12-24
hours.
-Two preconditioning driving cycles with a one hour hot soak between
them and refueling prior to each cycle were required each time the
fuel type was changed.
Ethanol was measured during 12 Diurnal and 10 Hot Soak Tests.
The HC reported here corresponds to those tests and is corrected
for Ethanol response to the FID.
-------
—3—
The complete test procedure is shown in Appendix A. Six vehicles could
be run each day using two SHED and two chassis dynamometers. The vehicles
were separated into two groups. The first group followed the fuel
sequence of 1,2,3,4,5,3 with duplicate tests each time. The second
group followed the fuel sequence of 3,4,5,3 and then fuels 1 and 2 if
time permitted. Nearly all vehicles did receive duplicate tests on all
fuels.
Fuels
Five fuels were chosen for comparison as follows:
Fuel 1: Indolene
Fuel 2: 90% Indolene (same fuel batch as fuel no. 1) plus 10% Ethanol
Fuel 3: Summer grade gasoline (SG)
Fuel 4: 90% Fuel 3 plus 10% Ethanol
Fuel 5: Blended gasohol containing 10% Ethanol and approximating the
RVP and distillation characteristics of fuel no. 3
The reason for running Fuels 1 and 2 was to show the changes in emissions
which result when the certification fuel is combined with Ethanol thus
increasing fuel volatility.
Fuel 3 was selected as a base fuel which might be representative of
National average summer grade fuel.
Fuel 4 shows the effect on emissions when Ethanol is added to Fuel 3 as
might be done by a fuel retailer or distributor. Fuel 4 volatility is
higher than Fuel 3.
Fuel 5 was to be a gasohol blend with RVP and distillation curve similar
to Fuel 3. It is not known if this fuel is representative of what a
commercial gasohol would be if it were blended by the refiner to meet
market requirements. Because Ethanol significantly alters the distillation
curve it was difficult to blend a gasohol fuel to meet the distillation
curve of a gasoline fuel.
All fuels were ordered by MSED from Howell Hydrocarbons. However,
because of time constraints EPA-ECTD started testing on in-house Indolene
(Fuel 1) and blended Fuel 2 using Fuel 1 and locally purchased Ethanol.
Fuels 3,4, and 5 were supplied by Howell Hydrocarbons. Fuel 5 was found
to be out of tolerance and was not used. It was replaced by Howell
Hydrocarbons and the replacement was designated Fuel 6.
A fuel sample was drawn from a fuel cart each time the cart was refueled.
Since the fuel cart capacity is 50 gallons there is at least one fuel
sample for every 55 gallon drum of fuel supplied by MSED. About half of
-------
-4-
these samples have been analyzed by EPA-MVEL, Ethyl Corporation, or
Petroleum Specialities, Inc. Typical fuel inspection data is included
in Appendix B. Figure 1 shows typical distillation data of the five
fuels used at EPA-MVEL.
By comparing Fuel 2 with Fuel 1 or Fuel 4 with Fuel 3 the increase in
volatility caused by the addition of 10% Ethanol can be seen. Fuel 6
compared with Fuel 3 illustrates the difficulty encountered in trying to
blend a "gasohol" to the same distillation curve as a typical gasoline.
A comparison of volatility characteristics of the two gasolines used in
this program with D.O.E. fuel survey inspection data for typical summer
grade gasoline and for Southern California gasoline is shown in Figure
2.
Vehicles
All vehicles were supplied by the vehicle manufacturers. Ten 1978 and
1979 vehicles were to be run. To ensure completion of ten vehicles in
the required time eleven were requested from manufacturers. All eleven
were received and all completed the test sequence.
All eleven vehicles were catalyst equipped - 4 with three-way catalysts
and 7 with oxidation catalysts. The vehicles included four from Ford (2
three-way catalysts and 2 oxidation catalysts); four from GM (2 three-
way catalysts and 2 oxidation catalysts); two from Chrysler; and 1 from
Toyota. Vehicle information sheets are included in Appendix C.
Data and Discussion
The data has been summarized and emissions on each gasoline and gasohol
fuel are shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5. The total hydrocarbon exhaust
plus evaporative emissions for 3.3 trips per day are designated "TOTHC".
DEL, HSL, and TLOSS are the diurnal, hot soak, and total evaporative
emissions, respectively.
Emissions and fuel economy for Indolene with 10 percent Ethanol are
compared with Indolene and the two "commercial" gasohols are compared
with the SG base fuel (Fuel 3) for all vehicles (Figure 6). The gasohol
fuels increased both diurnal and hot soak evaporative emissions by 29 to
71 percent. Total evaporative emissions increased by 49 to 62 percent
on gasohol fuels. Total HC emissions (evap. plus exhaust) increased by
11 to 32 percent on gasohol fuels. CO emissions decreased 20 to 34
percent and fuel economy decreased 1 to 5 percent on gasohol. NOx
increased 6 to 11 percent on gasohol fuels.
Evaporative emissions with Fuel 6 (blended gasohol) were slightly lower
than with Fuel 4 but HC and CO exhaust emissions were higher on Fuel 6
than on Fuel 4. The total HC (exhaust plus evap) for 3.3 trips per day
were higher. Fuel 4/3 showed an 18 percent increase and Fuel 6/3 showed
a 32 percent increase in total HC emissions.
-------
-5-
FIGURE 1. COMPARISIONS OF DISTILLATION CURVES OF TEST FUELS
Fuel #2
Fuel #4
80
60
40
20
0
IBP 10 20 30 40 50 60
-. ' . % RECOVERED
70
80
90
EP
Fuels: 1. Indolene (RVP=9.0) 4. 90% Fuel 3 + 10% Ethanol (RVP=10.7)
2. Indolene + 10% Ethanol (RVP=9.2) 6. Blended Gasohol containing
3. Commercial Gasoline (RVP=10.0) 10% Ethanol (RVP=10.0)
-------
-6-
FIGURE 2. COMPARISONS OF TEST FUELS WITH NATIONAL
AVERAGE DATA
So. Calif. S.G.G.
Nat'l Avg S.G.G.
_IBP 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 EP
% RECOVERED
Fuels: (Fuel 1.) Indolene (RVP=9.0)
(Fuel 3.) MSED Test Fuel (RVP=10.0)
DOE Nat'l Avg. Summer Grade Gasoline (RVP=9.8)
DOE Southern California Summer Grade Gasoline (RVP=8.4)
-------
FIGURE 3. AVERAGE EMISSIONS OF 11 1978-79 CATALYST VEHICLES.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
a -8
1 .6
1 .4
.2
0
r HC 16
14
12
10
a °
s 6
3
0 4
2
. | n
CO 2'1
1.8
1.5
1 ?
M im *•
.
-
-
a
I -6
.3
1 r\
NO 25
X
23
-
.
.
*
"
21
O in
S 19
17
_l i t;
FE
.
•
i
12346 12346 12346 12346
FUELS* FUELS FUELS FUELS
i
i
O
5
4
3
2
1
0
EVAPORATIVE HC EMISSIONS
DIURNAL
5
4
3
HOT SOAK
CO
O
CO
o
8
7
6
5
3 l-
1
0
TOTAL SHED
S
o
o
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
TOTAL HC
**
12346
FUELS
12346
FUELS
12346
FUELS
Fuels: 1. Indolene
2. Indolene plus 10% Ethanol
3. Commercial Gasoline
4. 90% Fuel 3+10% Ethanol
6. Blended Gasohol containing
10% Ethanol
12346
FUELS
Exhaust plus Evaporative
Emissions for 3.3 trips
per day.
-------
FIGURE 4. AVERAGE EMISSIONS OF 4 1978-79 THREE-WAY CATALYST VEHICLES
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
1.6
1.4
1.2
wl.O
s
w -8
3 6
0
.4
.2
0
r HC 16
14
12
H10
a
w 8
^E /r
o
2
1 n
r 2.1
CO
. 1.8
1.'5-
Si. 2.
CO
r— i— ° .6
.3
i /-,
r 25
NOY
*
21
•
MIMMi
•HIM^
O
§ 19
17
_l IE:
FE
•
.
.
i
12346 12346 12346 12346
FUELS * ' FUELS FUELS FUELS
i
00
i
EVAPORATIVE HC EMISSIONS
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
co ,
2 4
0
TOTAL SHED
12346
FUELS
12346
FUELS
12346
FUELS
Fuels: 1. Indolene 4. 90% Fuel 3 plus 10% Ethanol
2. Indolene plus 10% Ethanol 6. Blended Gasohol containing
3. Commercial Gasoline 10%
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
A*
TOTAL HC
**
12346
' FUELS
Exhaust plus Evaporative
Emissions for 3.3 trips
Per day.
-------
FIGURE 5. AVERAGE EMISSIONS OF 7 1978-79 OXIDATION CATALYST VEHICLES.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
' 1.6
1.4
1.2
M 1.0
o
.6
.4
.2
0
2346
FUELS*
DIURNAL
12346
FUELS
16
12
M 10
s
1/3 8
12346
FUELS
EVAPORATIVE HC EMISSIONS
O
HOT SOAK
12346
FUELS
O
2.1
1.8
1.5
.9
.6
.3
0
NO
X
12346
FUELS
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
TOTAL SHED
12346
FUELS
Fuels: 1. Indolene
2. Indolene plus 10% Ethanol
3. Commercial Gasoline
4. 90% Fuel 3 plus 10% Ethanol
6. Blended Gasohol containing
10 % Ethanol
25
23
21
19
17
FE
12346
FUELS
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
TOTAL HC
12346
FUELS
i
vO
I
Exhaust plus Evaporative
Emissions for 3.3 trips
per day.
-------
FIGURE 6. RATIOS OF AVERAGE EMISSIONS OF 11 1978-79 CATALYST VEHICLES.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
200
150
100
50
0
200
150
100
50
HC
2
1
4 6
3 3
Fuel Ratio
246
133
Fuel Ratio
200
150
% 100
50-
0
CO
246
133
Fuel Ratio
EVAPORATIVE HC EMISSIONS
200
150
% 100
50
0
NO,
±
133
Fuel Ratio
246
133
Fuel Ratio
200
150
100
50
0
DIURNAL 2°°
B
•
•
1 Sf)
% 100
50
0
-
•
•
HOT SOAK 2°°
i in
% 100
50
0
TOTAL SHED
•
•
200
150
100
50
Fuels: 1. Indolene
2. Indolene plus 10% Ethanol
3. Commercial Gasoline
246
133
Fuel Ratio
4. 90% Fuel 3 plus 10% Ethahol
6. Blended Gasohol containing
10% Ethanol
FE
246
133
Fuel Ratio
TOTAL HC
**
o
2 4 b
133
Fuel Ratio
Exhaust plus Evaporative
Emissions for 3.3 trips
per day.
-------
-11-
The fuel inspection data shows that gasohol fuels blended by adding
Ethanol to a base gasoline are more volatile than the base fuel. The
increased RVP and front end volatility of gasohol would be expected to
increase diurnal and hot soak losses, respectively. The oxygen present
in alcohol causes leaner operation and would be expected to decrease
exhaust HC and CO, unless other fuel characteristic changes such as
density, viscosity, or volatility were dominant.
Vehicle emission data supports the above relationships:
1. Higher RVP gave higher diurnal losses.
2. Increased front end volatility (up to 50% point) increased hot
soak losses.
3. Gasohol generally gave lower HC and CO exhaust emissions than
gasoline.
One exception was Fuel 6 - a blended gasohol. Driveability was poor
with stumbling, hesitation and backfiring during acceleration on some
vehicles. The HC emissions were 24% higher on this gasohol than on the
base fuel. CO emissions were 20% lower but this is not as great as the
34% decrease in CO emissions seen with the other two gasohols.
The mean emissions, fuel ecnomy, and cannister weights were determined
for each vehicle on each fuel. These tables are presented in appendix
D. Note that the fuels are shown in the order run in these tables.
Summaries showing the average of vehicle means for all vehicles; for the
TWC vehicles; and for the oxidation catalyst vehicles are shown in
Tables 1,2, and 3, respectively. Here the means for the five fuels, the
difference between selected fuels and ratios of the means of selected
fuels is given.
The emissions and fuel economy data in these tables was presented in
Figures 3,4, and 5. The last 5 columns of each table contain cannister
weight data (grams):
BDBL = before diurnal test
ADBL = after diurnal test
AHSL = after hot soak test
DDBL = A diurnal (ADBL-BDBL)
DTEST = A test (AHSL-BDBL)
Cannister weights could not be measured before the hot soak test without
interfering with the test.
The cannister weight gains during the diurnal breathing loss tests
(DDBL) are related to the Reid Vapor Pressures of the fuels. The cannister
weights before the diurnal test (BDBL) (which is after a 12-24 hour
soak) are fuel related but it is not clear which fuel parameter(s) exert
the strongest influence.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
ANN AtfHOK, MICHIGAN
Table 1.
GASOHOL PRO'iKAM DATA SUMMARY
CATALYST TYPfelS: 3-WAYS
NUMBER OF VEHICLES!
MEANS OF
FUEL
FUEL 1
FUEL 2
FUFL 3
FUEL 4
FUEL 6
aLL TESTS
N
(19)
(21)
(41)
(21)
(25)
HC CD
|— __ifioAMC/
0.451 6.61
0.410 4.39
0.535 8.20
0.490 5.51
0.665 6.S7
NOX
MILE>-
1.16
1.26
1.25
1.33
1.38
CU2 FE DHL
470. 19.3 1.12
467. 19.0 1.45
472. 19.1 2.51
46«. 18.8 4.04
482. 18.2 3.93
AND OX-CATS
11
HSL
1.02
1.75
1.63
2.68
2.24
TLOSS
2.14
3.20
4.15
6.72
6.17
TOTHC
15.60
17.35
21.11
24.97
27.76
PROCESSED: DEC 15.
(REVISION A: DEC. 27.
BDBL ADBL AHSL
890. 904.
891. 9Q7.
900. 919.
905. 927*
90S. 924,
885.
892.
898.
90S.
905.
1978
1978)
DD8L I'TEST
13.3 -4.9
1<>.3 1.1
19. . 224.
99. 99. 161.
102. 95. 156.
0.73
0.61
1.04
0.61
171.
160.
164.
137.
1.06
2.00
2.57
2.02
149.
193.
162.
149.
1.76
5.52
3.86
6.65
111.
135.
118.
132.
1. 4.
10* 16*
5. 64
5. 5«
100. 100.
101. 102.
101. 101*
101. 10U
7.
12.
10.
7.
101.
101.
101.
101.
3.0 6.0
6.1 2.9
2.1 4.8
-0.1 2.7
122. -23.
145. 42.
111. -131.
100. -29.
NOTES: i. TOTHC is TOTAL HC EMISSIONS (HXHAIIST » EVAPORATIVE) FOR 3.3 TRIPS PER DAY.
2. FOEL DESCHIPTIONS-
1. INOULFNE (RVP=9.0). SOUHCE! EPA MVEL LAh) FUEL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
2. 90* INOOLENE » 10% ETHANOL ("VP=9.3>. SOURCE: BLENDED USING FUEL NO. 1 AND 200 PROOF ETHANOL AT KPA MVEL
3. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE (RVP=10.0). SOURCE: rtO' ELL HYDROCARBONS (MSEH ORDER1) .
*.. 9o
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMIS^BN LABORATORY
ANN ARBOR, MT?HIG4N
Table 2.
GASOHOL PRO'iRflM DATA SUMMARY
CATALYST TYPE: 3-rtAYS
NUMHER <>f VEHICLES: 4
MEANS OF ftLL TESTS
FUtL N
FUKL 1 ( 9)
FUEL 2 do)
FUEL 3 (16)
FUEL 4 ( 8)
FUEL 6 <9)
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS
FUEL 2 - FULL 1
FUEL 3 - Hlrl. 1
FUEL <• - FUtl 3
FUF.L 6 - FUKL 3
RATIOS OF MEANS (*)
FUEL 2 / FUfL 1
FUEL 3 / Fur.'L 1
FUEL 4 / FUEL 3
FUEL b / FUKL 3
HC CO NOX C02 Fh DHL
0.?62 3.94 0.79 479. 18.8 1.13
0.?W 3.29 0.81 47b. 18.3 1.38
O.T1* 4.64 0.81 479. 18.7 1.96
0.31* 4.26 0.85 477. 1H.2 2.67
0.445 5.57 0.89 48H. 17.6 2.77
-.015 -O.oS 0.03 -•». -0.5 0.25
0.053 0.70 0.02 1. -0.1 0.83
-.001 -0..38 0.04 -3. -0.5 0.71
0.131 0.93 0.07 9. -1.1 0.80
94. 83. 103. 99. 98. 122.
120. 11M. 103. 100. 10n. 174.
100. 92. 105. 99. 97. 136.
142. 120. 109. 102. 94. 141.
HSL TLOSS
0.95 2.08
1.81 3.19
1.48 3.45
2.11 4.79
2.26 5.03
0.86 1.11
0.53 1.36
0.63 1.34
0.78 1.58
190. 153.
156. 165.
142. 139.
152. 146.
TOTHC
10.75
13.49
14.65
17.41
21.24
2.74
3.90
2.76
6.60
125.
136.
119.
1*5.
PROCESSED: DEC is» 1978
(REVISION A: DEC. 27, 1978)
BDBL ADBL AHSL OUBL nTEST
(GRAMS) -
954.
958.
971.
977.
977.
3.
17.
5.
6.
100.
102.
101.
101.
969.
976.
993.
1002.
999.
6.
23.
9.
6.
101.
102.
101.
101.
949. 15.0 -6.4
959. 18.3 1.4
96H. 21.7 -2.9
979. 25.4 2.1
978. 21.9 1.1
11. 3.3 7.8
20. 6.7 3.5
10. 3.7 5.1
10. 0.3 A.O
101. 122. -21.
102. 145. 46.
101. 117. -72.
101. 101. -38.
NOTES: i. TOTHC is TOTAL HC EMISSIONS (EXHAUST » EVAPORATIVE) FOR 3.3 TRIPS PER DAY.
. BLENDFO GASOHOL CONTAINING 10% ETHANOL HVP=IO.O>. SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED
(5. OUT UP SPECIFICATIONS. NOT USED FOR VEHICLE TESTS.)
-------
PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
ANN AK80R, MICHIGAN
Table 3.
GASOHOL PROGR.-.M
DATA SUMMARY
PROCESSED: DEC is»
1978
CATALYST TYPE: OX-CATS
NUMrtER OF VEHICLES: 7
MEANS OF
FUEL
FUKL 1
FUKL 2
FUFL 3
FUKL 4
FUEL 6
ALL TESTS
N
(10)
(11)
(25)
(13)
(16)
HC CO
0.559 8.14
O.S03 5.01
0.661 10.24
0.^90 6.22
0.791 7.14
NOX
MILE)-
1.38
1.51
1.50
1.60
1.66
C02 FF
465. 19. b
463. 19.3
468. 19.3
464. 19.2
479. 18.4
DHL
1.12
1.50
2.83
4.82
4.59
HSL
1.06
1.71
1.72
3.00
2.22
TLOSS
2.18
3.21
4.54
7.82
6.82
TOTHC
18.37
19.56
24.81
29.29
31.49
BDBL AOBL AHSL
(GRAMS) -
854.
853.
859.
865.
864.
866. 850.
868. 854.
877. 858.
884. 868.
881. 864.
OPHL "TEST
12.3 -4.1
15.1 1.0
1H.O -1.6
19.3 3.1
17.8 0.2
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS
FUEL 2 -
FUFL 3 -
FUEL 4 -
FUEL 6 -
RATIOS
FUEL 2 /
FUEL J /
FUEL 4 /
FUEL 6 /
FUKL 1
FUkL 1
FUFL 3
KUfcL 3
OF ilEANS (*)
FUf.L 1
FUKL 1
FUKL 3
FUEL 3
-.056 -3.13
0.102 2.10
-.071 -4.02
0.130 -3.10
90. 62.
118. 12to.
89. 61.
1?0. 70.
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.17
110.
109.
107.
111.
-2. -0.3
3. -0.4
-4. -0.1
11. -0.8
99. 98.
101. 9fl.
99. 99.
102. 96.
0.33
1.71
1.99
1.76
134.
252.
170.
162.
0.65
0.66
1.28
0.51
162.
162.
175.
130.
1.03
2.37
3.27
2.27
147.
209.
172.
150.
1.19
6.44
4.49
6.68
107.
135.
118.
127.
-1.
5.
6.
4.
100.
101.
101.
101.
2. 4.
11. 8.
7. 10.
4. 6.
100. 101.
101. 101.
101. 101.
100. 101.
2.8 5.1
5.7 2.5
1.2 4.6
-0.2 1.8
122. -24.
146. 39.
107. -195.
9S». -14.
K'OTFS: 1. TOTHC IS TOTAL HC EMISSIONS (KXHAUST » EVAPORATIVE) FOR 3.3 TRIPS PER DAY.
2. FJFL DESCKIPTIONS-
1. INOUIENE
-------
-15-
Vehicle operation on the FTP causes a net decrease in cannister weight
from after the diurnal test to after the hot soak test (AHSL-ADBL).
This indicates that the cannister is purging during the test and that
there was plenty of cannister capacity available during the hot soak
test. High hot soak losses then imply that the evaporative emission
control systems do not effectively trap hot soak emissions on these
vehicles. This is an important consideration since hot soak losses are
more significant than diurnal losses from an air quality viewpoint.
This is because there is only one diurnal per day but an average of 3.3
hot soaks per day per vehicle in "real world" use.
SHED Alcohol Data
Ethanol measurements were made on some evaporative emissions tests.
Capability for Ethanol measurement did not exist at EPA-MVEL at the
start of this program. The Laboratory Branch, in conjunction with
EPA-ORD, was able to provide a gas chromatograph and procedure capable
of measuring SHED Ethanol concentrations in time to obtain data part way
through the program.
Ethanol emissions from gasohol fuels 4 and 6 for the diurnal and hot
soak test ranged from .1 to.6 grams for each test. The average diurnal
emissions were 0.26 grams Ethanol on 12 tests and the average hot soak
emissions were 0.33 grams Ethanol on 10 tests. This amounts to 0.6
grams Ethanol for a complete test or 1.35 grams Ethanol for 3.3 trips*.
Correcting the SHED FID for response to Ethanol would result in a decrease
in SHED HC of about 5 percent for the gasohol fuels. The Ethanol present
as determined by the GC would then have to be added to the SHED HC to
arrive at the total evaporative HC plus Ethanol emissions. This can not
be done directly since HC is given in grams of CH.. -.,. (MW=13.85) and
Ethanol is given in grams of C~H OH (MW=46). The reported HC emissions
(evaporative and exhaust) are not corrected for Ethanol response of the
FID nor for measured Ethanol in the sample.
Driveability
Driveability experiments were not run. However, drivers were requested
to note any driveability comments on the test data sheets. These
comments indicate a slight degradation in driveability on some vehicles
on Fuels 2, 3, and 4. A more severe degradation in driveability on Fuel
6 was noted, with occurrences of backfiring and poor acceleration on
several vehicles.
Conclusion
The purpose of this test program was to evaluate the effect on emissions
(evaporative and exhaust) that the use of gasohol would have. The data
*3.3 trips per day = DBL X 1.0 +. HSL X 3.3
-------
shows that gasohol increased total hydrocarbon emissions by .11 to 32
percent and NOx emissions by 6 to 11 percent while decreasing CO emissions
by 20 to 34 percent on the eleven 1978 and 1979 vehicles tested.
Driveability on the blended gasohol (Fuel 6) degraded to the extent that
if commercial fuel like Fuel 6 were used it is likely that persons using
this fuel would either stop using it or would have their vehicles adjusted
to compensate for the different fuel. This would most likely be an air-
fuel ratio (A/F) adjustment towards richer operation. Once properly
adjusted for gasohol fuel the vehicle exhaust emissions might be expected
to be similar to emissions from a vehicle correctly adjusted for and
running on gasoline, but evaporative emissions would remain high.
However, if a vehicle adjusted for gasohol were then operated on gasoline
a rich A/F ratio would result and would likely cause a marked increase
in HC and CO emissions while not affecting driveability.
Driveability comments on Indolene plus 10 percent Ethanol compared with
Indolene and on S.G. plus 10 percent Ethanol compared with S.G. indicated
that the driveability was the same in some cases and slightly degraded
(hard to start and stalling when cold) in other cases. Thus these
"mixed" gasohols did not pose the driveability problem that the "blended"
gasohol did.
It is not known if a decreased volatility gasohol could be blended which
would not cause an increase in evaporative emissions or degradation in
driveability on in-use vehicles. The "blended" gasohol (Fuel 6) used in
this program did result in increased evaporative emissions over Fuel 3
even though its RVP and distillation curve were adjusted close to that
of Fuel 3.
Other considerations regarding the use of Ethanol in gasoline, such as
emission system deterioration, fuel system compatability, or cost of
production were beyond the scope of this program and were not addressed.
-------
Appendix A.
Test Procedure
-------
A-l
Gasohol Test Sequence
1. Drain and refuel to 20% tank capacity.
2. Run 1 LA-4 cycle.
a. Check idle CO and RPM first time on each fuel.
3. Hot soak one hour (key off to key on).
4. Drain and refuel to 40% tank capacity.
5. Run 1 LA-4 cycle.
6. Soak 12-24 hours @ 68-86F (key off to key on).
7. Run 1 FTP with SHED:
a. Drain and refuel to 40% tank capacity (leave fuel cap off).
b. Move vehicle to SHED.
c. Weigh cannister.
d. Check cannister lines.
e. Perform 1 hour diurnal heat build. (Fuel cap on @ 60°F.)
f. Immediately after heat build:
-Remove heat blanket
-Weigh cannister
-Reinstall cannister & check cannister lines.
g. Run 3 bag FTP emissions test within 15-60 minutes of end of
diurnal test.
h. Run 1 hour hot soak immediately following emissions test.
i. Weigh cannister immediately following hot soak test.
8. Precondition for next test:
a. If within 24 hours of FTP key off go to step 4.
b. If longer than 24 hours since FTP key off go to step 1.
c. If changing fuel type go to step 1.
9. Two tests for each fuel type with following sequence:
1,2,3,4,6,3 for group 1 vehicles.
3,4,6,3,1,2 for group 2 vehicles.
(6 fuel runs X 2 tests each X 11 vehicles = 132 tests)
-------
Appendix B.
Test Fuel Data
-------
B-l
Typical Fuel Inspection Data
Analyzed Fuel 1 Fuel 2 Fuel 3 Fuel 4 Fuel 5 Fuel 6 Nat'l. Calif.
ITEM by _!/ EPA EPA Howell Howell Howell Howell Avg. 2j 2J
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
API Gravity H-3,4,5,6
Sp. Gr. C
R.O.N. E-l, 2, 3, 4
H-5,6
M.O.N. H-3,4,5,6
Ole. % E-l
H-3,4,5,6
Aro. % E-l
H-3,4,5,6
RVP, PS I M-l-6 '
Dist., F, 3/
IBP
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
EP
—
-
98.0
-
2.5
24.0
9.0
87
128
162
194
215
229
240
253
274
313
383
—
-
100.5
-
_
_
9.2
94
130
147
156
179
220
234
245
265
309
386
57.5
0.749
92.0
82.6
16.5
28.5
10.0
89
119
142
167
196
227
255
287
321
360
417
56.5
0.753
95.4
84.2
16.6
28.9
10.7
86
118
132
144
154
201
243
272
314
355
413
61.0
0.735
95.5
88.1
0.4
23.0
7.9
107
126
136
145
152
205
232
260
295
321
337
52.6
0.769
96.4
88.6
17.6
34.6
10.0
94
126
139
150
162
242
280
311
335
370
408
59.3
.742
92.9
83.9
1.2-1
30.8^
9.8
89
121
146
171
—
221
—
266
-
333
410
57.7
.748
93.2
84.7
—
_
8.4
94
126
147
168
—
216
—
275
-
344
413
I/ H = Howell Hydrocarbons, Ethyl = Ethyl Cord, M = EPA-MVEL, D = D.O.E. Fuel Survey,
C = Calculated value.
2J D.O.E. Fuel Survey, Summer, 1977.
3J Fuels 1-6 were analyzed by EPA.
4/ MVMA Fuel Survey, Summer, 1977.
-------
Appendix C.
Vehicle Specification Sheets
-------
REPORT UMF \T.?T.«
OATK MOV if.-
VFHICLF SPECIFICATION
- (STANDARD) - IMTt Oh ENTRY ! 11/22/78
MANUFACTURER
VMIK.Lt S
VF.HICI t iu / VER 'VEPH!Fs|-''ift') >•
7 ISA? 0 THUNDERBIRD
AM. '"ts
ICATIONS
MODEL coot
.•»••«•»_«»•
SEDAN
DRIVE CODE
SOURCE
»M«»«»W*vW«»wa
MANUFACTURER
FORM
VEHICLE MOUK.L ACT FULL F.-'^I
TYPE ACTUAL VfHIfl.F MOOFJ. vfc'AK Y>.-.A« TANK TA m WFIC.HT CLASS CDE DYNO HP
TIRE - SPECIFICATIONS
CllKb INRTIA 0/0 ACTUAL TIKE & RIM S«L HLT PSI
CONSTR N M N M FT RR
SIZES
MFH
r-"IRO
7^ •/<» <»500 P Z 13.1
|)MR«'4lLITY VcHICI.E IOENT IF 1C.. a JON OR ASSIGNED OF (IF APPLICABLE)
«LT. MANUFACTURER
DISPLACEMKNT hODf
_..„.._••.._ •..._
351. E .
t" ml INC. ^
ICUIONS
RATKt> ENrtlMF
STROKE HP TYPt
'.-.MC.INE MO. NO. TOTAL NO. FUEL SYSTF.M FUEL COMP. COAST-
CuMKIGURAT ION CYL CARBS BARRELS MFR/MOOEL INJECTION RATIO DOWN TM
OTTO SRARK
0«
01
02
FDBK CARB
NO
8.4
IGNITION I ('NIT I ON TIM. TIMl
TIMIN'3 1 Tlf'IMl- 2 TOL. KPM
I/PM TIM.
TO!.. GKAR
CO «, f:0 % Co CO IOLI: IL)LF IDLt
T ;
-------
REQUESTOR 10 : 1 7iMr>
NAME: 5.
TEST » 79-S&28 ,\
VKHICLE SPECIFICATION Rr.t'uRf -(TESTi-JO GEM)- OrtTt OF EMTRY : 10/lb/7«
VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
MANUFACTURER
VEHICLE ID / VER WEPRFSKN IKi.i r;iRLH«IE MODEL COOK ORIVE C-H1E
8Y2-2.3-C-122 2 HOHCAT nAini-J WAGON HEAR DRIVE ST^. LEFT
SOURCE
MANUFACTURER
DRIVE A XL his MRF. - SPECIFICATIONS
^ODEL ACT FULL EMPTY CURb INRT1A 0/0 ACTUAL TI*!-. (, RIM $WL BLT PSI
ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL YEAR YEAR TANK TAiK WEIGHT CLASS CUE OYNO HP SIZES MFR CONSTR iJ M N M Fl RR
FORD
VEHICLE
TYPE
NOM-CER P(HCAT
78 78 2696P JOOOP 1 10.3 BH/HX13
OUPAHILITY VEHICLE IOENT IF IC-iT luN OK1 ASSIGNED OF (IF APPLICABLE)
ALT.
H09t
3.8 F.
RATED
STROKE HP
HMGIMc. SPECIFICATIONS
ENGINE feNCilNE NO. NO. TOTAL NO. FUEL SYSTEM FnEL CUMP. COAST-
TYPE ColiK I, .uHATlON CfL CAKrtS BARRELS MFR/MOHEl. INJECTION RATIO OOWN TM
3.1 E
Si2 OTTO SPARK iM-LlNi"
HOLLEYhBOn
NO
9.0
IGNITION KiNITION TIM. TJMIMfi fi
3.18 46.
MILKS
MAIN-TANK
CAPACITY VOLUME
14.00
S.fif,
AIR INJECTION
NO
SINGLE LFFT WEAK
CLOSED
M-4
AIIX.-TANK
CAPACTTY VOLUME
SHIFT 5"EED
SPFCIAL SHIFT SPDs (MAN OR S-A;
CONTROL SYSTEM TYPES
V« W W4*»W«W« • ^«B ^^ «••• — ^ ^ — ^ ^ -• — ^ ••—•• ^ „«.,»,• ^ ^ — — •
CATALYTIC REACTOR EXH-UST RECYCLE
CoNlSTER
EVAPORATIVE EMISSION
FAMILY CO.jE
INO UNi EuDEO. 100 OCf
SALES CLASS
CALlf• LIGHT DUTY VEH
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS
GASOHOI. PROJECT
VAI.IIi.
TKST VALID. /DATA
<)A T^/CERT. (PRrLIM. )
CERT. /TEST V\LlD.
TEST VAl ID. /CERT . (OFF. J
-------
NOW ?.) - DATt Of Ei-lTMY : 11/22/7M
VuHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
VtHlCl.t ll> / VE* KHPUKShNTt!/ r.AWLINt MODEL CODE ' 0«IVF COOK SOURCE
•M_*__M— • •_•»••••_..•••• • «_•_«•_••_••••»»—*_« .*._.._.„_••.._•—_..•._-...•-•• »•.._.._...•..•• .»—— — •... — — .— — ,• -•«•« — — •-.— •»• ••*•••**..«•«••»•
GENFRAL MDTORS *01i>3 . 0 SUNBIRD SKDAN HtA« UKIVE STu. LEFT MANUFArToKER
i/rs TIKE - SPECIFICATIONS
VEHICLE I-'OUKL At.T FULL Mr'I Y CIJKb INRTIA 0/LI ACTUAL TlKf i HIM S«(L HLT PSI
TYPF aClHAL VErtlCLK MODEL YKAK Yt AM TANK T/..iK WEIGHT CLASS CUE OYNU HH SIZES MFH CONSTrt N M N M FT R
NON-CER SIK'HIWO 7H /ft 3000 11. b
DUWAKILITY Vi-.HITI E lOtNl J ¥ 1C. >T f UN OK ASSIGNEO OF (IF AHPLICABLE) »LT.
Fli(>l,-.T. > I'ECJh ICATIOMS
WATf.ll ENilclE r.NiilNf. NO. NO. TOTAL NO. FUEL SYSTEM FUEL COMP. COAST-
nfSPLACEMhHT hOWh STROKE n»> TYPt C'INF I f.UKATION CYL CA^HS rtARHELS MFk/MOOEL INJt.'TION RATIO DOWN TM
151. . . uTTO SPAKK 1M-L1NK 4.1 - .
S * $
IGNITION INMIT10N TIM. TP'lwr, »pM TI^. * CO •>• ru *, O CO I OLE IDLE lOLr-
TIMING 1 TIMING ?. TOL. KPH TOL. 13FA« Lr-r-T r(I",r(T COM^. TOL. wPM IOL. G£A(v tNGjNt FAMILY ENGINE CODE
10(10 ORIVt 2UX2CEU
ii«IVK TK«•••«_• » — — — _•_«•• •._•*•.»__«•.•—— •— *•« W»«*M*W««V ••••••••*•••••<••••••*••••««••
2.v3 . MIL'-'?; YF«j AUTO CiNISTEH INO UNLEuOEDt 91 OCT
MAlN-TAfJK ftiiX.-T*iNK tVAPOP-ATIwF EMISSION
VOLIIMF CAPACITY voi UM£ ^.HIFT S^EEU FAMILY cone SALES CLASS
7.4-1 no HOT -jriji-r MANUALLY • Cfii-lf LlCtfT Ot-Hy
t.uNTKOL SYSTEM TYPES
S<-LCIFXCATION COMMENTS
-------
REPORT TIME 1
DATE NOV 2V. l<»78
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION Rf-JPURT - (SUNDARO) - OATt OF ENTRY : 11/29/78
VtHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
MANUFACTURER VFHKl E ID / VER REPRESENTED C«RLINE MOUEL CODE DRIVE CODE
MOTORS 48?57 0 REGAL SEDAN REAR DRIVE STH. LEFT
S'URCE
MANUFArTURtR
VEHICLE
DRIVE AXL »1S
MODEL A(.T FULL EMPJY CURB INRTIA 0/0 ACTUAL
ACTUAL VEHICLE MODF.L YEAR YtAR TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS CDE DYNO HP
TIRE - SPECIFICATIONS
RIM S**L RLT PSI
SIZES MFHr CONSTR N M N M FT RR
NON-CER *UICK-PFG4L 78 V8 3500 12.2
HRIMARY DURAHILITY VfHICl.E IDENTIFICATION OR ASSIGNED OF (IF APPLICABLE)
ALT. MANDFflCTURFH
ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS
DISPLACEMENT POR»-.
3800. M
IGNITION
TIMINU 1
•
IGNITION
TIMING 2
RATED
STROKE HP
•
TIM. TIMING RPM
TOL. RPM TOL.
ENGINE
TYPE
OTTO SPARK
TIM.
GF4R
tNGINE
CONFIGURATION
V-HLOCK
% co * co % Co
LF.FT WIGHT COMH.
NO.
CYL
6
CO
TOL.
NO.
CARfiS
1
IDLE
RPM
TOTAL NO.
BARRELS
?.
IDLE IDLE
10L. GEAR
FUEL SYSTEM
MFR/MUDEL
ENGINE
FUEL
INJECTION
FftMILY
COMP.
RATIO
•
ENGINE:
COAST-
DOWN TM
CODE
ORRIVE
600
DRIVE
940E3CYU
URIVF TRAIN AMO CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
AXLE N/V A/C
RATIO RATIO ODOMETFR INSTALLED
EXHAUST TYPE
CRAMKCASE TRANSMISSION EVAPORATION
SYSTEM CONFIGIJFMTION CODE SYSTEM
FUEL TYPE
MILKS
YFS
SINGLE RIGHT RF.AW
AUTO
MAIN-T4NK
CAPACITY VOLUME
AIIX.-TANK
CflPACITY VOI.UMF
18. IG
7.?G
SHIFT SPEED
00 NOT SHIFT MANUALLY
CDNTKOL SYSTEM TYPES
CANISTER
EVAPORATIVE EMISSION
FAMILY COOE
INU UNLEADED. 100 OCT
SALES CLASS
CALIF. LIGHT DUTY VEH
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS
-------
, . VF.H1CLE SPECIFICATION R£PU«T -(TESTNO GEN)- DATE OF ENTRY S 10/16/7U
' VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
MANUFACTURER VEHICLE ID / VtR REPRESENTED ONLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CODE
FORO 881-302-F-97 S M/VVEUCK SEDAN " REAN DRIVE STR. LEFT MANUFACTURER
DRIVE AXL «TS TIHt - SPECIFICATIONS
VEHICLE MODEL ACT FULL FlP'IY CU«ti INRTIA 0/0 ACTUAL TIRE f. RIM . SWL BLT PSI
TYPE ACTUAL VKrilCLF MODKL YE4r* Yt.AH TANK FA-JK WEIGHT CLASS COE UYNO rtP SIZES MFK CONSTR N M N H FT RR
' NON-CEft MAVFRICK-F-'X 78 78 3l^^P 3500P 1 V.7
[jllKABlLITY VcNICI.E IOENT 1 f ICwTION OK ASSIGNED OF (IF APPLICABLE) ALT. MANUFACTURED
. FOKU
ENGlNn SPEC If I CAT IONS
' _____________________
RATE!) ENGINE C.NG1NE NO. NO. TOTAL NO. FUEL SYSTEM FuEL COMH. COAST-
. STROKE HP TYPE CONK I (,oR AT ION CYL CAKuS BARRELS MFR/MUUEL INJECTION RATIO DOWN TM
. E 4. f 3« t 135 OTTO SPARK v-ULUCK 81 2 CARBURETOR Nf) 8.4
IGNITION IGNITION TIM. TIMING KPM T.M. % CO
-------
1LJ| «
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT -(TESTNO GEN)- DATE OF ENTRY J 10/16/78
VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
MANUFACTURER. VEHICLE ID / VER KEPHEStNTEU CAKLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CuDE SuURCF
FORD 9E2-2.3-F-65 5 PINTO ' SEDAN REAR DRIVE STR. LEFT . MANUFACTURER
i— : ,
ca ' - • DRIVE AXL WTS TIRE - SPECIFICATIONS i'~)
VEHICLE , MODEL ACT FULL F.MKIY CURB INRTIA 0/0 ACTUAL TIRE t. RIM SWL BLT PSI
> TYPE ACTUAL yEnlCLF MODEL YEAR YHAH TANK TAuK WEIGHT CLASS COE DYNO HP M2ES MFK CONSTR N M N M FT R«
NON-CER PINTO 79 79 1016P IP 2^^P 275f)P l 97 A7oxl3 FrRESTO.NE
PRIMARY OURAHILITY VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION OK ASSIGNED DF (IF APPLICABLE) ALT. MANUFACTURER
SPECIFICATIONS
— —•»«• — — — .._•-—.M«_«ww_va»M |
RATEO ENGINE ciNGlNE NO. NO. TOTAL NO. FUEL SYSTEM FUEL COMH. COAST-
niSPLACEMF_NT HORt. STROKE HP TYPE CONFIGURATION CYL CA*HS BAR«ELS MFR/MOUEL INJECTION RATIO DOWN TM
1*u» E 3«rt f 3.1 E 92 OTTO SPARK JN-LINK -04 01 02 HOLLEYb200~ NO ~"."o~
IGNITION IGNITION. TIM. TIDING (VPM TIM. % CO * CO % CO CO IDLE IDLE IDLE
TIMING 1 TIMING 2 TOL. RPM TOL. Gh'AR LEFT Klr.rtT COM^i. TOL. RPM TOL. GEAK ENGINE FAMILY ENGINE CODE
550 MNEIITRAL bSO 50 NEUFHAL 2.JA1A92 902AKOON
TRAIN AND CUNVHOL SYSTEM SPECIF 1CA T IOMS
AXLE N/V A/C Ci^AsrCASc TRANSMISSION EVAPORATION
RATIO HA1IO OOOMtfFK INSTALLED EXHAUST TYPE SYSTEM CONFIGURATION CODE SYSTEM FUEL TYPE
2.73 A!). MILrS YES ' SINGLE LEFT P.F.AR CLfiSED M-4 3.9tt CANISTER INI) UN| E-OED* 100 OCT
MAIN-TANK ADA. -TANK EVAPOHATIVE EMISSION
CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY VOLUMF bnirr SCEED FAMILY coot SALES CLASS
11.7H 4.76 IS - 2i> - '+0 riA B-l-^AwO 49 STATE LIOrtT DUTY
COMTWOL SYSTEM TYPES
RECYCLE Ai^ PUMP OAiOATioi-j CATALYST
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS
GASOHOL PRUJECT
ANAI../1F.ST VALID. TlrST VALli-./DATA (,,M A/(^ RT. (HRr LIM. ) CERT./TEST VALID. TtST VALID. /CERT. (OFF. )
-•^•0^ S
-------
OAif MOV 21'
VFHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (STANDARD) - OATH OF ENTRY « H/27/7H
VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL MOTORS
VEHICLE ID / VER REPRESENTED rAKLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CODE
880*2 0 IHPAIA SEDAN RF.AR DRIVE ST^. LEFT
SOURCE
MANUFACTURER
DRIVE AAL WTS TIME - SPECIFICATIONS
VEHICLE MODEL ACT FULL EMPTY CURB INRTIA 0/D ACTUAL TI^E &, RIM SWL BLT PSI
TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL YEAR YE.AR TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS COE OYNO HP SIZES MFR CONSTR N M N M FT RR
NON-ctR
77/7 4000P 13.3 GR78/15
PRIMARY DURABILITY VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION OR ASSIGNED OF (IF APPLICABLE)
«LT. MANUFACTURER
DISPLACEMENT BORE
w •»•***•••*••••«» ~ MWMWI
350. E
RATED
STROKE HP
ENGINE
TYPE
ENGlNt SPECIFICATIONS
tNGINE NO. NO. TOTAL NO. FUEL SYSTEM FUEL COMP. COAST-
CONFIGURATION CYL CARBS BARRELS MFR/MODEL INJEcTI°N RATIO DOwN TM
OTTO SPARK V-BLOCK
IGNITION IGNITION TIM. TIMINfi RPM TIM. « CO * CO % CO CO IDLE IDLE IDLE
TIMING 1 TIMING 2 TOL. RPM TOLi GEAR LEFT RIGHT COM-1. TOL. RPM TOL. GEAR ENGINE FAMILY
ENGINE CODE
6B
500
DDRIVE
500
DRIVt
AXLE N/V A/C
RATIO RATIO OOOMETFR INSTALLFD
flRIVE TRAIN AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
CHANKCASE TRANSMISSION
EXnAUST TYPE SYSTEM CONFIGURATION CODE
EVAPORATION
SYSTEM
FUEL TYPE
MILKS
MAlN-TflNK
CAPACITY VOLUME
20.70 • 8'i3ti
YES
SINGLE RIGHT R£AW
AUTO
AUX.-TANK
CAPACITY VOLUME
SHIFT
DO NOT SHIFT MANUALLY
CONTKOL SYSTEM TYPES
CANISTER
EVAPORATIVE EMISSION
FAMILY CODE
INO UNLEADED, 100 OCT
SALES CLASS
49 STATE LIGHT DUTY VEH
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS
-------
DATE NOV 27» 1978
w. .*••_*.. w. _» .»•. **• .»_•».. » — -•«.• — •—•• — »—•«•*.» .•. — •^••_*»__ «_••;...»*__»«••»*•
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (STANDARD) - DATE OF ENTRY : 11/27/7B
VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
MANUFACTURER VEHICLE 10 / VER REPRESENTED CARLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CoDE SOUHCF
________.__.__--—-___ ___________________ __________-----__-- ___-.____- —---____—-_-___------- -._••-_—_-•—»_.
GENFRAL MOTORS 5944 0 REGAL SEDAN -REAR DRIVE STH. LEFT MANUFACTURER
DRIVE AXL WTS TIRE - SPECIFICATIONS
VEHICLE MODEL ACT FULL EMPTY CURB INRTIA 0/0 ACTUAL TI«F & RIM SWL HLT PS1
TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL YEAR YEAR TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS CDE OYNO HP bIZES MFR CONSTR N M N M FT R«
*...-..* .• — -• — — «..-» — - — «. — — — •• •*..• .*•_ ' ..-•__-__.*_.. — •.•»" ' — •«•«»' •*•**•. —•» ••• — ••-. »^«,_.» —»•»»•.. — •.»••• — — — — • — *.» — *-•.. — • — ..• — — —
NON-CER 4UICK REGAL 78 78 3500P 13.2 P205/70R14
PRIMARY DURABILITY VtHICLE IDENTIFICATION OH ASSIGNED OF
-------
iATE NOV 27. 1978
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (STANDARD) - DATE OF ENTRY : 11/27/78
MANUFACTURER
CHRYSLER
VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
VEHICLE ID / VER REPRESENTED rARLINE MODEL CODE' DRIVE CODE SOURCE
ZL44A8015906<» 0 OMNI SEDAN FRONT DRIVE STR. LEFT MANUFACTURER
VEHICLE MODEL ACT
TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODFL YEAR YEAR
DRIVE AXL WfS
FULL EMPTY CURB INRTIA 0/0 ACTUAL TIKE i RIM
TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS COE DYNO HP SIZES
TIRE - SPECIFICATIONS
SWL BLT PSI
MFK CONSTR N M N M ft RR
NON-CER OMNI
78 78 2500P 7.3 P165/75R13
PRIMARY OURAHILITY VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION OR ASSIGNED OF (IF APPLICABLE)
ALT. MANUFACTURER
ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS
DISPLACEMENT
105. E
BORE
.
IGNITION IGNITION
TIMING 1 TIMING 2
STROKE
.
TIM. TIMING
TOL. RPM
RATED
HP
RPM
TOL.
- ENGINE ENGINE
TYPE CONFIGURATION
OTTO SPARK IN-LINF
TIM. % CO <« CO % CO
GEAR LEFT RIGHT COMH.
NO.
CYL
4
CO
TOL.
NO.
CARBS
1
IDLE
RPM
TOTAL NO.
BARRELS
IDLE IDLE
TOL. GEAR
FUEL SYSTEM
MFR/MODEL
ENGINE
FUEL
INJECTION
FAMILY
COMPi
RATIO
.
ENGINE
COAST-
DOWN TM
CODE
15B
900 100 NNEUTRAL
900 100 NEUTRAL FG-lOS-2-KA
AXLE
RATIO
N/V
RATIO ODOMtTER
A/C
INSTALLFD
DRIVE
EXHAUST
TRAIN
TYPE
AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
CHANKCASE TRANSMISSION
SYSTEM CONFIGURATION CODE
EVAPORATION
SYSTEM
FUEL TYPE
MILtS
YES
SINGLE RIGHT REAH
AUTO
MAIN-TANK
CAPACITY VOLUME
AI.IX.-TANK
CAPACITY VOLUME
13.06
5.2G
SHIFT SPEED
DO NOT SHIFT MANUALLY
CONTROL SYSTEM TYPES
CANISTER 1ND UNLEADED, 100 OCT
. SALES CLASS
EVAPORATIVE EMISSION
FAMILY CODE
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS
<*86B 0
-------
DATE NOV 27» 1978
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (STANDARD) - DATE OF ENTRY : 11/27/78
VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
MANUFACTURER • VEHICLE 10 / VER REPRFSLNTEU CARLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE COOE SOURCE
CHRYSLER RH41G8A?06799 0 SALON SEDAN RKAH DRIVE STk. LEFT MANUFACTURER
DRIVE AXL WTS
VEHICLE MODEL ACT FULL EMPTY Cu«B INRTIA 0/D ACTUAL
TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL YEAR YLAR TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS CDE DYNO HP
TIRE - SPECIFICATIONS
TIKE {. RIM SWL BLT PSI
SIZES MFR CONSTR N M N M FT RH
NON-CER PLYMOUTH-SALON 78 7« ^SOOP 12.3 F7«/is
PRIMARY DURABILITY VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION OR ASSIGNED OF (IF APPLICABLE)
ALT. MANUFaCTURER
ENGINt SPECIFICATIONS
DISPLACEMENT BORE
318.
$
IGNITION IGNITION
TIMING 1 TIMING 2
l&B
STROKE
*
$ %
TIM. TIMING
TOL. RPM
2 750
RATED
Hp
RPM
TOL.
100
. ENGINE
TYPE
OTTO SPARK
TIM.
GEAR
NNEUTRAL
KNGINE
CONFIGURATION
V-tlLOCK
-------
1 ' ! I I<
NAME: s.
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT -(TESfNO GEN)- DATE OF ENTRY : 6/26/78 ~
VKHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
MANUFACTURER VEHICLE 10 / VER REPPEStNTEu CARLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CODE SOURCE
——————————-••-—-__._-__ «—•———»•——•—___-___ ___________________ _______•_• —-—--—--—-—_-•__.«.«•»•• ««••«,••••••••„.
TOYOTA 79-FE-3 1 COROLLA SEDAN REAR DRIVE STK. LEFT MANUFACTURER
DRIVE AXL alTS TIKE - SPECIFICATIONS
VEHICLE MODEL ACT FULL EMPTY CURB INRTIA 0/0 ACTUAL TIKE &. RIM SWL BLT PSI
TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL YEA!* YtAR TANK TAUK WEIGHT CLASS CDE OYNO HP SIZES MFW CONSTR N M N M FT R«
ALT. MANUFACTURER
CERT EM COROLLA LH SP5 79 79 ' 109E
IGNITION ISNITION TIM.
TIMING 1 TIMING 2 TOL.
10H
AXLf
RATIO
N/V
RATIO OnOMtTER
STROKE
2.76E
TIMING
RPM
RATED
HP
07S
RPM
TOL
900
A/C
INSTALLED
ENGINE
TYPE
OTTO SPARK
TIM. %
GEAR L
NNFIITRAL
DRIVE TRAIN
f.XHAUST TYPE
ENGINE
CONFIGURATION
IN-LINF
CO * CO •* CO
E'KT KldHT COMH.
1.0
AND CONTROL SYSTEM
NO. NO.
CYL CARBS
04 01
CO IDLE
TOL. RPM
.5 flSO
TOTAL NO. FUEL SYSTEM
BARRELS MFR/MODEL
02
IDLE
TOL;
150
AISAN
IDLE
GEAR ENGINE
NEUTRAL 2T-C(F)
FUEL
INJECTION
NO
FAMILY
COMP.
RATIO
9.0
ENGINE
COAST-
DOWN TM
CODE
FMS-NL
SPECIFICATIONS
CRANKCASf- TRANSMISSION
SYSTEM CONFIGURATION CODE
EVAPORATION
bYSTEM
FUEL TYPE
3.73 51.3 MILtS NO SINGLE LFFT REAR CLOSED
M-5
CAPACITY VOLUME
13.2'i b.3G
AIR In.JKCTION
CAPACITY VOLUME" SHIFT SPEED
SPECIAL SHIFT SPDS (MAN OR S-A» EV-T
CuNTROL SYSTEM TYPES
CATALYTIC REACTOR . EXH.MJST RECYCLE
CANISTER IND UNLEADED, 100 OCT
SION
FAMILY COOE " SALES CLASS
CC-2 49 STATE LIGHT DUTY VEH
VEHICLE SF-ECIFICATION COMMENTS
ANAL./TFST VALIU.
1979KFUV-2500-Mb
SHIFT PROCEDURE-15-2S-40-'»b TRACE
TEST VALID./DATA
CEKT./TEST VALID.
TEST VALID./CERT.(OFF.)
-------
Appendix D.
Test Result Tables
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
ANN AKBO-}. MICHIGAN
GASOriOL PROGRAM
AVERAGE. TEST RESULTS
PROCESSED: DEC is. 1978
VEHICLE; FOPO T-RIRD
VIN: 71S42
TEST TYPE: FTP
INERTIA wi: 4500
ACTUAL HP: 13.1
|<—..—-EXHAUST >t l< AMBIENT—>| I < SHED >l l<—-—C^NNISTER WEIGHTS >l
HC CO NOx COS FE BARO nUM NOXFC D6t HSL TLOSS TOTMC BDBL AO&L AHSL DUBL OTEsT
GRAMS/MILE >l (MPG) (IN-HG) (C-PilNS
/LH>
-GRAMS-
1 2 ME&N 0.2. SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED ORDER).
4. 9ot FUF.L NO. 3 . 10% ETHAMOL (Rv»=io.7>. SOURCE: HO^ELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED ORDER).
6. BLENDED GASOHOL CONTAINING lO* ETHANOL (RvPslO.O). SOURCE: HOWELL HYOHOCARBONi (MSED ORQEH). '
-------
MOTO°
ANN
PROTECTION 4T,£NCY
LA80WATQRY
MICHIGAN
GASOHOL
VetMGc. TtST VtSuLTS
PROCESSED: c)tC
VEHICLE: FO^>0 BOBCAT (3-«Ay)
VIN:
-f. J-C-12?
TEST Tl |< Af'HIENT >| |< SHEO >l l< C.'-NNISTEW WEI
HC CO NO* C02 FE dARO hlJH Nn*FC USl. HSL TLOSS TOTHC 80BL A"bL AMSL DUbL DTEiT
i<—GRAMS/MILE—->i (*PGI(IN-HGI(GRAINS
X-
-GR4MS-
1 2 ME4N 0.245 2.10 0.94 399. 22.1 29.25 52.66 0.91 0.76 1.07 1.84 10.38 743. 753. 731. 9.6 -12.4
STi). PEV 0.021 0.283 .04? 1. ri.l 0.296 *««•• 0.046 0.45 0.13 0.58 O.J2 3.67 . ;,.71 1.41 4.U3 p. ,9
C. . * o.7 13.5 4.5 0.2 o.3 1.0 ••«• 5.10 58.2 12.5 31.5 3.09 0.49 ;,.09 0.19 42.20 o.u
2 3 ME3N 0.237 1.57 l.lft 383. 21.9 29.13 72.29 1.99 I.o7 2.19 3.27 1-.19 740. 756. 733. IS.6 -7.4
STO. OEV 0.11^ 0.379 .0*6 1. 0.1 0.108 4.002 0.018 0.43 0.28 0.72 3.92 2.00 i,.91 0.41 1.16 ?.*2
C.v. * 48.8 24.2 5.6 0.1 H.3 0.4 5.54 I.d4 45.0 12.8 22.1 27.65 0.27 :>.12 0.06 .7.41 0.'.;
I 1
O.HO 1.80 0.96 396. 22.2 29.16 7*.70 1.00 O.rtl 1.35 2.16 9.94 739. 751. 72fa. 12.* -10.4
2 MEAN 0.270 2.35 1.11 397. 22.1
ST). OEV 0.000 0.212 .021 3. U.I
C.v. % 0.1 9.0 1.9 0.7 u.6
26.80 SO.15 1.02
0.043 0.455 0.002
0.1 0.57 0.20
1.09 1.73 2.82 13.49 736. 753. 728. 17.2 -7.5
0..13 0.30 0.2a 0.95 0.0 0.0 2.55 n.2l ?..~ri
2.6 17.5 9.8 7.02 0.0 0.0 0.35 1.2* o."
4 2 MEiN 0.240 1.85 1.3? 396. 21.4 29.11 -50.36 1.03
STO. OEV O.U 0.071 .0*4 0. u.O 0.155 0.670 0.003
C.'.'. * 0.0 3.8 4.P 0.0 0.0 0.5 u..-)3 0.3H
3.14 3.11 6.25 19.34 739. 7hO. 730. 21.(i -9.1
0.18 0.04 0.34 0.20 1.00 0.0 0.71 0.2* n.<9
12.2 1.4 5.4 1.02 0.14 :i.O 0.10 1.3'* 0.)
6 2 *E FutL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
2. 90"S l^OOLENE * 10*. ETMANOL (RVP=9.3). SOU^CK: BLE.NO'0 USING FUEL N'O. 1 AND 20i! PROOF ETnANOL AT £i'A «
3. COMM£JCtAL GASOLINE (rfVP=10.0). SOUOCt: Hj»KLL HYDR.-KAKI30NS . BLENO^D GASOHOL CONTAINING 10* CTHA-JOL (K./prio.o). SOURCE; HOWELL HYDRocARBONb. (MSED
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
A>iN AriBOS. MICHIGAN
C-ASOHOL PROOHAM
AVERAGE TEST RESULTS
PROCESSED: otc is. 1971
VEHICLE: GM-SUNBIRO n-WAY>
VIN: 8015.)
TEST TYPE: FTP
INERTIA «T: 3000 ACTUAL HP: u.4
FUEL N
|< EXHAUST >l |< AMBIENT >|l< SHED >l l< CuNNISTEH WEIGHTS >l
HC CO NOX C02 FE HARO HUM NrXFC DSL HSL TLOSS ToThC BOBL A^/riL AHSL OO&L DTEST
i i MEV.N
<—GPAMS/MILE—>
-GRAMS-
• > I
/L-i)
0.210 4.50 0.65 428. 20.4 29.41 6«.83 0.97 0.51 0.87 1.38 8.56 795. *07. 79b. 12.0 3.0
2 2
MEttN 0.2JO 4.10 0.66 434. 19.4 29.04 6B.10 0.97 0.69 1.8R 2.57 12.62 812. n?7. 824. 15.1 12.1
STO. DEV 0.014 0.141 .04? 10. 0.4 0.155 7.148 0.032 0.07 0.21 0.28 1.12 5.92 ".95 5.92 0.99 0 . u 1
C.v. 9, 6.1 3.4 6.4 2.3 2.2 0.5 •««» 3.25 10.2 10.9 10.7 8.92 0.73 0.60 0.72 6.56 0.09
1 MEiN
0.230 4.90 0.67 424. 20.5 29.09 74.02 1.00 0.56 0.87 1.43 9.14 810. H24. 811. 13.9 1.2
3 2 MEAN 0.335 5.9Q 0.69 418. 20.8
STD. OEV 0.021 0.141 .007 1. 0.1
C.v. % 6.3 2.4 1.0 0.2 0.3
28.77 79.91 1.02
0.070 4.679 0.023
0.2 5.86 2.25
0.79 1.09 1.88 12.69
0.17 0.07 0.24 p. 15
21.5 6.5 12.3 1.14
823. 841.
4.64 4.69
0.56 n.56
830. 18,3 7.3
4.b9 0.07 0.07
0.57 0.3'» 0.-8
4 2 ME4N 0.36Q 6.40 0.71 416. 20.1
STO. OEV 0.057 0.707 .014 3. 0.1
C.v. % IS.7 11.0 2.0 0.7 0.3
28.89 77.26 1.01
0.085 3.107 0.015
0.3 4.02 1.48
1.13 2.06 3.19 16.85
0.?4 0.04 0.28 1.80
21.3 1.7 8.6 lfi.68
824. 846.
6.00 5.00
0.73 0.59
839. 21.9 )5.1
1.U7 0.99 4.03
0.22 4.52 2«-. 78
6 2 ME«N 0.500 7.40 0.7ft 430. 19.3
STD. DEV 0.071 0.283 .OU 5. 0.2
C.v. * !<•.! 3.8 l.Q 1.2 1.1
29.13 77.13 1.01
0.016 l.°60 0.009
0.1 2.54 0.92
1.10 2.34 3.64 21.37
O.n8 0.7S 0.71 0.72
6.0 33.6 19.4 3.37
835. ^55.
0.71 1.00
0.08 0.12
845. 20.2 9.8
1.00 0.64 1.41
0.12 3.16 la.»3
3 2 MEAN 0.290 5.75 0.74 423. 2U.3
STO. CEV 0.0 0.071 .014 6. 0.3
C.v. % 0.0 1.2 I." 1.5 1.4
29.03 77.49 1.01
0.155 2.9H2 0.014
0.5 3.45 1.42
0.^4 1.16 2.10 11.95
0.03 O.OH 0.06 0.27
3.0 7.3 2.7 2.26
834. r53.
1.87 2.35
0.22 0.27
840. 19.3 6.3
3.61 0.49 1.70
0.-»3 2.57 2(-. <4
NOTES:
1. FUELS ARE PRINTED IN THE ORDER THAT THEY WERn" PUN.
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EMITTED FOR j.3 TRIPS/DAY. (NOT CORRECTED FOR ETMANOL RESPONSE OF Fit).)
TOTHC= 3.3». SOU^CF: BLENDED USING FUEL NO. i AND 200 PROOF ETMANOL AT E?A
.1. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE (HVP = 10.0). SOURCE: ,-iOW. BLENDED GASOHOL CONTAINING 10*. ETHANOL IRVP=IO.O). SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS IMSEO
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
ANN AKBO^t MICHIGAN
GASOHOL PROGRAM
4VERAOL TEST RESULTS
PROCESSED; OEC is. 197;
VEHICLE: OM REGAL «2
VIN:
INERTIA *T: 3500
ACTUAL HP: 12.2
. TEST TYPE: FT°
FUEL N
|< EXHAUST >| |< AMBIENT >| I < SHED >l l< CiNNISTER WEIGHTS >l
HC CO NO* C02 FE BARO HUM NOXFC OBL HSL TLOSS TOTHC 8DBL ACfiL AHSL DDBL OTEST
< — GRAMS/MILF — >
IMPGI UN-HGI (GRAINS
-GRAMS-
3 2 MEiN 0.390 8.35 0.19 463. 18.6
STO. OEV 0.028 1.061 .028 0. 0.1
C../. *, 7.3 12.7 14.9 0.0 0.4
29.36 76.14 1.01
0.090 1.369 0.006
0.3 1.80 0.64
3.63 1.14 4.77 17.06 956. 475.
0.39 0.13 0.25 n.65 1.58 n.71
10.7 11.7 5.3 3.30 0.17 0.07
955. 20.0 -0.3
2.65 0.7B 1.06
0.28 3.90 0.0
4 Z MEAN 0.4ii5 7.90 0.25 459. 18.1
STO. OEV 0.0.15 0.283 .007 0. 0.0
. C.V. % d.7 3.6 2.9 0.0 0.1
29.29 7H.54 n.98
0.120 3.324 0.015
0.4 4.71 1.S3
5.47 1.66 7.14 21.95 957. 931.
0.97 0.30 1.36 3.12 0.0 2.45
17.7 23.4 19.0 14.90 0.0 n.25
9bO. 24.5 3.1
1.00 1.48 O.U7
0.10 t.Q/ 2.32
6 2 ME»N 0.555 10.60 0.31 476. 17.3
ST'.l. OEV 0.007 0.011 .014 4. 0.1
C . V . *, 1.3 -0.1 4.6 0.9 0.8
29.12 73.86 0.99
0.098 1.855 0.009
0.3 2.51 0.86
5.59 2.08 7.66 26.23 952. ^73.
0.22 0.20 0.42 1.05 0.0 0.71
3.9 9.5 5.4 4.02 0.0 0.07
951. 21.5 -0.4
1.22 0.4^ 1.77
0.13 1.97 0.0
3 2 MEAN 0.430 10.05 0.27 469. ia.3
STO. DEV O.OH 0.354 .007 1. 0.1
C.'/. % 16.4 3.5 2.6 n.2 0.4
29.0? 73.91 1.00
0.091 4.103 0.019
0.3 5.55 1.92
2.91 l*4a 4.34 1H.2S 945. 967.
1.35 O.OS 1.27 0.55 1.00 0.71
46.3 5.5 29.3 3.01 0.11 a.07
945. 21.7 -0.3
1.41 0.99 ?.«3
0.15 4.56 n.Li
1 I MEAN 0.400 8.30 0.16 470. IB.3 29.37 72.28 0.99 2.06 0.84 2.90 14.69 934. 949. 930. 15.3 -3.9
2 2 MEaN 0.315 6.35 0.24 462. ltt.1 29.09 80.39 1.03 2.46 1.35 3.81 14.73 937. V56. 94P. 18.8 2.7
STO. OEV O.or.7 0.212 .014 1. 0.0 0.474 »«*<>« 0.061 0.33 0.07 0.25 0.26 2.35 4.06 1.00 1.77 1.13
C.>. % 2.2 3.3 5.9 0.2 0.1 1.6 ««•« 5.90 13.2 5.2 6.7 1.75 0.25 n.43 0.11 9.4J 41.-vl
l i
n.3aO 7.60 0.22 469. 18.4 29.58 74.91 1.00 1.77 1.12 2.89 14.13 939. v54. 934. 14.<• -5.5
NOTES:
1. FUELS AR£ PRINTED IN THE ORDER TMAT THEY WERE RUN.
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EMITTED FOR 3.T TRIPS/OAY. (NOT CORRECTED FOR ETHANOL RtSPONst Or FL>.)
TOTHC= ).3»(HC,G/MI)"OISTANCE * DdL » 3.3*«SL
THE FUELS USEO WERE:
1. iNOOLi'ME (RVP=9.0). SOURCE: EPA MVEL LAB FUEL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
?. 9o* INOOLENE • 10* ETHANOL (Rvp=9.3i. sour. SOURCE: HO^ELL HYDROCARaONS (MSED OROEP).
*. BLENDED GASOHOL CDNTAlNINii 10*.. ETHANOL (WvP=10.0>. SOURCE: HOXELL HYDROCARBONS (MSEO ORr)E»).
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE FMISSION LABORATORY
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN
'3ASOHOL PROGRAM
AVERAGE TEST RESULTS
PROCESSED: DEC is. 1973
VEHICLE: FORD MAVERICK
(OX-C)
VlN: 8
Bl-30<
i-r-97
TEST TYPE:
'EL
N
HC
CO
;HAUSI
NOX.
f— — —
C02
| < GRAMS/MILE — -> 1
1
Z
3
4
6
3
2 MEAN
STT. DEV
C.V. %
z MEAN
STO. DEV
C.V. %
STO. DEV
C.V. *
2 MEAN
STD. OEV
C.V. *
3 MEAN
STO. OEV
C.V. %
2 ME4N
STO. DEV
C.V. *
0.660
8.6
0.730
0.099
13.6
0.330
0.001
0.1
0.825
0.035
4.3
1.570
0.798
50.8
0.7dO
0.0<»2
5.4
5.05
1.061
21.0
3.50
0.707
20.2
9.40
0.283
3.0
4.75
0.495
10.4
8.20
3.470
42.3
7.05
0.636
9.0
1.3*
.04?
3.1
1.46
.071
1.3"
.01*
1.0
1.55
.035
2.3
1.55
.09^
6.1
1.40
.OHS
6.1
547.
b.
1.6
535.
4.
0.7
539.
0.
0.0
535.
4.
0.7
541.
7.
1.3
550.
6.
1.0
FE
(MPG)
15.9
0.2
1.3
15.8
0.1
0.4
15.9
0.0
0.1
15.8
0.1
(1.4
15.3
0.0
0.1
15.8
0.2
1.3
l< AMBIENT >l
BARO HU«^ NnxFC
(IN-HG)
29.32
0.212
0.7
29.13
0.169
0.6
28.78
0.071
0.2
29.11
0.170
0.6
29.11
0.072
0.2
28.97
0.063
0.2
(GRAINS
VLH)
63.15
5.54B
ti.78
72.27
0.568
0.79
80.30
1.6y7
2.10
82.54
1.930
2.34
74.20
3.506
•».72
82.47
4.985
6.04
0.95
0.023
2.47
0.99
0.002
0.25
1.03
0.008
O.fal
1.04
0.010
0.94
1.00
0.016
I.o3
1.04
0.025
2.43
INERTIA WT: 3500
FTP
OBL HSL TLOSS TOTHC BOBL
0.35 0.75 1.10 19.14 743.
0.10 0.0 0.10 1.62 10.89
28.3 0.0 9.0 S.47 1.47
1.73 1.27 3.01 24.01 759.
0.79 0.36 1.15 4.45 7.25
45.8 28.3 38.4 le.53 0.95
3.48 1.40 4.88 2S.69 762.
0.35 0.09 0.26 0.28 1.41
10.2 6.5 5.4 0.99 0.19
6.05 3.4R 9.53 37.95 769.
0.35 2.23 2.57 fe.78 3.67
5.7 63.9 27.0 17.87 0.48
6.31 1.97 8.28 51,79 771.
0.51 0.21 0.68 16.74 2.52
8.1 10.7 8.2 36.19 0.33
2.67 1.23 3.90 26.03 759.
1.53 0.24 1.77 1.30 5.66
57.2 19.5 45.3 5.00 0.75
ACTUAL HP; 9.7
.CJNNISTER WEIGHTS >i
AD8L AHSL DUBL DTEST
755.
10.44
1.38
772.
o.Sl
1.10
777.
2.00
0.26
783.
3.24
0.41
784.
1.91
0.24
776.
3.94
o.Sl
733.
7.91
1.08
754.
4.24
O.b6
754.
2.74
0.36
767.
0.0
0.0
765.
0.21
755.
1.22
0.16
12. S
0.42
3.39
12. &
1.27
10.10
14.7
0'.57
3.35
14.3
0.49
3.47
12.9
0.79
6.15
17.0
1.70
9.98
-9.6
7.97
-5.8
3.04
O.U
-7.8
1.20
o.a
-1.8
?..rt3
O.U
-6.1
l.nO
0.0
-4.0
4.^4
O.o
NOTES:
1. FUELS ARE PRINTED IN THE ORDER T«AT THEY WEDr RUN.
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS FMITTED FOR i.3 TRIPS/DAY. (NOT CORRECTED FOR ETHANOL RESPONSE OF Flu.)
TOTHC= 3.3«(HC,G/MI)«UISTANCE • DBL » 3.3«HSL
THE FUELS USED WERF.:
1. INDOLENE (RVP=9.0). SOURCE: FPA MVEL LAB FlJEL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
2. 90* IMDOLENE • 10* ETHANOL (RVP = 9.3). SOUftCr: BLENDED USING FUEL f-0. 1 AND 200 PROOF ETHANOL AT EHA MVE
3. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE (RvP=10.0). SOURCt: HOKCLL HYDROCARBONS (MSED ORDER).
<». 9o* FUEL NO. 3 * io« ETHANOL . SOURCE: .NOVELL HYDROCARBONS IMSED ONUERI.
6. BLENDED GASOHOL CONTAINING IDS ETHANOL I9i/P=10.0>. SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS (MSEO ORDER) .
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
»HN A«-60R. MICHIGAN
GASONOL PRC<'RA".
AVtRAGc TEST RESULTS
PROCESSED: one is. I97t
VEHICLE: FORD PIMTO (ox-o
VIN:
INERTIA WT: 2750
ACTUAL hP: 9.7
TEST TYPE: FTP
UEL N
l< EXHAUST >| (< AMBIENT >ll< SHED >l l< CoNNISTEP WEIGHTS >l
HC CO N0.« C02 FE BARO HUM NOXFC DHL HSL TLOSS TCTHC BDBL AOHL AHSL OUBL DTE5T
|< GRAMS/MILE >l (MPG)(IN-HG)(GRAINS
-GRAMS-
1 2 MEW 0.515 2.40 1.64 378. 2J.1 29.25 52.66 0.91 1.07 0.53 1.65 15.64 783. V92. 772. 9.2 -10.8
ST.!. DEV O.U07 0.283 .Oft4 1. 0.1 0.296 •«««• 0.046 0.12 0.04 O.OB 0.15 4.06 3.39 3.24 0.71 0.78
C.V. *, 1.4 11.8 3.9 0.4 0.3 1.0 ««»« 5.10 11.2 7.3 4.7 0.96 0.52 0.43 0.42 7.69 o.J
Z 3 MEAN 0.473 1.90 1.87 373. 22.7 29.13 72.29 0.99 1.12 0.79 1.91 15.38 782. 792. 766. 10.6 -!5.6
STO. DEV 0.0b9 0.361 .10= 3. u.2 0.103 4.002 0.018 0.33 0.07 0.38 1.50 1.00 2.16 10.70 1.31 11.23
C. '. % 12.4 19.0 5.* 0.7 0.9 0.4 5.54 1.64 29.6 8.5 20.2 9.76 0.13 0.27 1.40 12.J5 0.0
3- 1 ME IN
0.650 3.50 1.7* 378. 23.0 28.83 60.47 1.03 1.37 0.65 2.02 19.56 783.' 795. 759. 12.1 -24.1
2 MEAN 0.600 2.65 1.89 377. 22.4
STO. DEV O.OS7 0.636 .001 7. 0.4
C.V. * 9.4 24.0 0.1 1.-9 1.6
2 MEAN 0.760 2.70 1.99 397. 21.2
STO. OEV 0.028 0.566 .049 6. 0.3
C.v. % 3.7 21.0 2.5 1.4 1.3
2 MEftN 0.6:;5 3.45 1.9ft 396. 22.0
STO. OEV O.OJ5 0.071 .04? 2. 0.1
C.v. *, 5.8 2.0 2.2 0.5 <>.6
29.11 80.36 1.03
0.155 0.670 0.003
O.S 0.83 0.32
29.16 71.21 0.98
0.011 3.023 0.014
0.0 4.24 1.40
29.06 75.30 1.00
0.141 2.909 0.014
0.5 3.86 1.37
2.63 0.90 3.53 2u.45
0.40 0.08 0.31 1.20
15.1 9.4 8.6 5.88
1.39 1.03 2.93 2^.03
0.11 0.01 0.11 0.69
6.0 0.7 3.6 2.88
1.55 0.8R 2.42 19.37
0.37 0.11 0.47 fi.12
23.7 12.1 19.5 0.64
785.
1.73
0.22
783.
1.22
0.16
777.
1.00
0.13
".71
').09
799.
2.12
".27
797.
0.71
H.09
778.
1.41
0.18
775.
0.71
O.C9
770.
O.U
0.0
16.0
l.U
7.07
16.3
3.75
22.92
20.1
1.98
-6.2
O.u
-8.2
1.41
0."
-7.0
O.f<5
0..;
NOTES:
1. FUELS ARE PRINTED IN THE ORDER THAT THEY WER£ PUN.
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EMITTED FOR J.3 TRIPS/DAY. (NOT CORRECTED FOR ETnaNOL RESPONSE OF FI;>.)
TOTHC= 3.3»(HC«G/M!)«DI5TAMCE » DBL » 3.3«nSL
THE FUELS USEO WERE:
1. INOOLENE. (KVP=9.0>. SOURCE: EPA MVEL L43 FUEL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
?. 90* INOOLENE * 10^ ETHANOL (Rvp=9.3>. sourer: BLFNOEO USING FUEL no* i AND 200 PROOF ETHAMOL AT E^A MVE
3. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE IRVP=IO.O). SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS IMSEO ORDER).
. 4. 90* FUEL NO. 3 • 10% ETHANOL (RVP=10.7). 'JOURCE: HO*ELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED ORuER).
6. BLENDED GASOHOL CONTAINING 10* ETHANOL . SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS IMSED ORDER).
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EHISSIOM LABORATORY
ANN AKBOfit MICHIGAN
6ASOHOU PROGRAM
AVERAGE TEST RESULTS
PROCESSED: DEC IB. 1973
VEHICLE: GM-IMPALA (Ox-O
8HU4? INERTIA WY: "000 ACTUAL HP: 13.3
TEST TYPE: FTP
FUEL N
i< EXHAUST >l l< AMBIENT >|l< SHED >l l< CANNISTER WEIGHTS >l
HC CO NOX COS FE 8ARO HUM NQXFC OBL HSL TLOSS TOTHC 8DBL AI'BL AHSL DOBL DTEST
<—GRAMS/MILE—>i . SOURCE: HOwELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED ORl'ER).
6. BLENOED GASOHOL CONTAINING 10% ETHANOL («V'P=10.0). SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED ORi)£f<>.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VtHICLE EMISSIOM LABORATORY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN
GASOHOL PROGRA"
AVERAGE TEST RESULTS
PROCESSED: DEC is. 1978
VEHICLE! 5UICK REGAL (OX-C) VIN! 59"4 INERTIA rfT: 3500
TEST"TYPE: FTP
ACTUAL HP: 12.2
FUEL
|< FXHAUST >l |< AMBIENT >|l< SHED >l l< CiNNIST£(< WrIGHTS >l
HC CO' NOX C02 FE 8ARO HUM NOXFC 08L HSL TLOSS TOTHC BORL AOSL AHSL OD8L DTE>T
t<—GRAMS/MILF—>i (MPG> . SOURCE: BLENDED USING FUEL NO. i AND 200 PROOF ETHANOL AT E^A MVE
3. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE (RVP=10.0). SOURCE: HOwELL HYDROCARBONS (MSEO ORDER).
4. 90HS F'JEL NO. 3 * 10* ETHANOL . SOl'KCE: HO JELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED OR">ER).
o. BLENDED GASOHOL CONTAINING 10* ETHANOL . SOURCE; HOWELL HYDROCARBONS IMSED OROER>.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
ANN AXBOR. MICHIGAN
GASOHOL PROGRAM
AVERAGE TEST RESULTS
PROCESSED: DEC is. 1978
VEHICLE: CHRY. OMNI (OX-C)
VIN:
INERTIA WT: 2soo
ACTUAL HP; 7.3
TEST TYPE: FTP
FUEL'N
|< EXHAUST— >| |< A«BIENT >||< SHED >l l< CiNNISTER WEIGHTS >l
HC CO NOX C02 FE BARO HUM NOXFC UBL HSL TLOSS TOTHC BnBL A'JBL AHSL DUBL DTEST
i<—GRAMS/MILE—->i
0.35
2.61
14.0
0.28
1.91
13.4
0.28
2.11
12.8
0.21
1.65
6.1
1.06
17. S3
11.3
0.-15
->.14
9.2
1.S6
!<•.-!
6.0
O.ii7
1.17
1 1 M£aN 0.410 12.50 1.00 331. 25.2 29.33 71.76 0.99 1.35 1.91 3.26 17.83 558. 569. 563. 10.-J 4.4
NOTES:
i. FUELS A*-: PRINTED IN THE ORDER THAT THEY WERE RUN.
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EMITTED FQ* J.3 TRIPS/DAY. (NOT CORRECTED FOR ETnANOL RESPONSE OF FIvJ.)
TOTHC= 3.3«(HC.G/MI)«OISTANCE • DBL » 3.3»HSL
THE FUELS USED WERE:
1. INDOLENE (RVP=9.0). SOURCE: EPA MVEL LAB FljEL IN U?E FOP. CERTIFICATION TESTI.'.G.
?. 901* INDOLENE * 10« ETHANOL (RvP=9.3). SOURCE: BLENDED USING FUEL \'0. 1 AND 200 PROOF tTHANOL AT E^A MvF
3. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE (RVP=10.0). SOURCE: HOWFLL HYDROCARBONS (MSEO OrtOER).
4. 90% FUEL NO. 3 • 10% ETHANOL (RVP=10.7). SOURCE: HO.-.ELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED OHf'ER).
*. BLENDiD GASOHOL CONTAINING 10% ETHANOL (RvPrlO.O). SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED ORoER).
-------
I
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
ANN ArtBOKt MICHIGAN
GASOHOL PROGRAM
AVERAGE TEST KESULTS PROCESSED: DEC IS, 197
VEHICLE: ^LY. SALON (ox-o VIN: RHa)ortaace>799 IMERTIA WT: 4500 ACTUAL HP: 12.3
TEST TYPE: FTP
'*- "EXHAIJf;T »' '< AMBIENT >ll< SHED >l l< CiNNISTER WEIGHTS >l
HC CO NOX C02 FE BARO MUM NoXFC DHL HSL TLOSS TOTMC BDBL ADSL AHSL DDRL OTEST
|< --- GRAMS/MILF. --- >l (*PG) (IN-HG) (GRAINS l< ------------------ GRAMS
1 1 MEAN 0.770 17.10 1.65 607. 13.9 29.24 72.28 0.99 I.a9 1.06 2.95 24.26 744. 760. 743. 15.7 -1.0
Z 1 MEAN 0.530 8.80 1.93 613. 13.6 29.04 76.27 1.01 2.34 1.61 4.45 21.24 742. 762. 754. 19.d 11.2
3 2 MEAN 0.765 17.10 l.«5 609. 13.9 29.36 76.1* 1.01 5.37 1.40 7.27 2^.*0 758. 777. 760. 18.6 2.3
STO. DEV 0.007 0.0 .007 1. 0.0 0.090 1.369 0.006 O.S8 0.40 0.48 0.32 0.0 0.71 2.24 0.07 l.-l
C.v. % 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.80 0.64 14.9 28.3 6.6 1.09 0.0 0.09 0.29 0.36 84.*S
4. 2 MEAN 0.5^0 9.90 2.14 609. 13.6 29.29 70.5<* 0.98 10.06 2.3812.43 32.54 765. 765. 774. 20.1 8.8
STO. DEV 0.001 0.566 .023 1. 0.1 0.120 3.32* 0.015 0.0 0.16 0.16 0.56 3.46 2.45 1.87 1.06 1.-8
C.v. * 0.2 5.7 1.3 0.2 0.5 0.* *.71 1.53 0.0 6.8 1.3 1.72 0.45 0.31 0.24 5.29 l~./8
6 2 MEAN 0.7nO ll.SS 2.19 63<». 13.1 29.12 73.86 ".99 9.?8 1.8611.1* 34.1& 763. 782. 767. 18.8 3.5
STO. DEV 0.071 1.344 .07] 2. 0.1 0.098 1.855 0.009 0.65 0.03 0.68 1.14 1.73 0.0 0.0 1.0t> I.,i6
C.V. % 9.3 11.6 3.2 0.3 1.1 0.3 2.51 0.86 7.0 1.5 6.1 3.33 0.23 0.0 0.0 5.66 29.£8
3 2 MEAN 0.360 21.25 1.63 61fl. 13.5 29.02 73.91 1.00 5.^5 1.45 7.40 31.91 754. 775. 757. 20.7 3.2
STO. DEV 0.014 0.778 .021 .1. 0.1 0.091 4.103 0.019 0.59 0.16 0.74 0.76 2.45 C.71 0.71 2.55 2.-0
C.V. % 1.6 3.7 1.3 0.1 0.5 0.3 5.55 1.92 9.9 10.7 10.0 2.38 0.32 0.09 0.09 12.30 92.y3
NOTES:
1. FUELS ARE PRINTED IN THE ORDER THAT THEY WE»C. PUN.
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EMITTED C03 i.3 TRIPS/DAY. (NOT CORRECTED FOR EThANOL RESPONSE OF FI'',.)
TOTHC= J.3«(HC,G/MI)"DISTANCE « DHL » 3.3»HsL
THE FUELS USED WERE:
1. INOOLENE (RVP=9.0). SOURCE: EPA MVEL LA9 FUEL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
2. 9o% INOOLENE * io-» ETHANOL . SOU^CF: SLEDDED USING FUEL ^o. i AND 200 PROOF ETHANOL AT EPA
3. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION! LABORATORY
ANN ArtBO*. MICHIGAN
OASOHOL PROGRAM
AVERAGt TEST RESULTS
PROCESSED: DEC is. me
VEHICLE: TOY. COROLLA
VIN: 7Q-FE-.1 INERTIA WT: 2500 ACTUAL HP: o.O
TEST TYPE: FTP
FUEL! N
|< EXHAUST ->l l< AMRIENT >tl< SHED——>1 l< CANNISTEH WEIGHTS >l
HC CO NO* C02 FE 3ARO HUM NOXFC DflL MSL TLOSS TOTHC BDBL A06L AHSL DD8L DTEST
1 1 ME1N
—-GRAMS/MILE—>i
-GRAMS-
/Irt)
0.550 7.10 1.06 326. 26.2 29.24 72.28 0.99 0.98 0.60 1.56 16.53 1427. 1435. 1423. 8.1 -3.5
2 1 MEAN 0.570 4.90 1.36 326. 25.5 29.04 76.27 1.01 0.92 0.67 1.59 17.28 1425. 15 0.99 3.04 22.91 1425. 1440. 1424. 15.1 -0.3
STD. DEV 0.037 0.0 .014 1. 0.1 0.112 1.641 0.008 0.12 0.11 0.23 0.96 0.0 0.0 1.00 O.S7 n.-tZ
C.V. * B.O 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 2.28 0.77 5.9 10.7 7.4 4.18 0.0 0.0 0.07 3.75 fi.c
6 2 MEAN O.dOO 6.70 1.47 338. 24.3 29.07 74.69 1.00 l.fll 1.20 3.01 25.60 1422. 1434. 1420. 12.7 -1.6
STO. DEV 0.001 0.283 .014 3. 0.2 0.112 0.188 0.001 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.0 1.00 0.0 0.71 Q.«i7
C.V. % 0.1 4.2 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.25 0.10 5.5 5.3 1.2 0.22 0.0 0.07 0.0 5.57 o.i)
3 2 ME4N 0.730 9.30 1.01 339. 24.9 29.07 79.67 1.02 1.53 1.03 2.57 24.23 1421. 1433. 1421. 12.3 0.3
STi). DEV 0.028 0.142 .34ft 4. 0.2 0.064 8.943 0.044 0.19 0.02 0.17 0.78 0.0 1.00 0.0 0.21 1.34
C,v. % 3.6 1.5 34.1 1.0 0.8 0.2 •••• 4.30 12.4 2.0 6.6 3.20 0.0 0.07 0.0 1.72 •«•»«
NOTES:
1. FUELS ARE PRINTED IN THE ORDER TMAT THEY WEHE »UN.
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EMITTED FOH 1.3 TRIPS/DAY. (NOT CORRECTED FOR ETr-ANOL RESPONSE OF FI,.-.)
TOTHC= 3.3»(HC,G/MI)»OISTANCE * OBL • 3.3»nSL
THE FUELS USED WERE:
1. INOOLENE (RVP=9.0). SOURCE: EPA MVEL LAB FUEL !N USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
2. 90*. INOOLENE . 10* ETHANOL (Rvp=9.3>. SOUKCF: BLENDFD USING FUEL **o. i AND 200 PROOF ETHANOL AT EHA MVE
3. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE (PVP=10.01. SOURCE: Huwett HYDROCARBONS (MSED ORDER).
4. 90% FiJF.L NO. 3 • 10% ETHAf. 50UKCE: HOwELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED OR'.'ER).
6. BLENDED GASOHOL CONTAINING 10% ETHANOL (RVP=IO.O>. SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS IMSED OROEH>.
------- |