EPA-AA-CORR 74-06
Emission Laboratory Correlation Study
Between EPA and the
Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc
by
Richard E. Lowery
April, 1974
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Programs
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Procedures Development Branch
Ann Arbor, Michigan
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of an extensive correlation
study between EPA and the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association,
Inc. (JAMA). It specifically compares the test facilities of Nissan
and Toyota to EPA's Ann Arbor Laboratory.
No significant differences were discovered between the Toyota and
EPA laboratories. Emission levels produced by vehicles tested at both
laboratories were very similar.
Significant differences in emissions levels of vehicles tested
at both Nissan and EPA laboratories were experienced. Vehicle vari-
ability appeared to be a major cause of the discrepancies.
-------
Emission Laboratory Correlation Study Between EPA and
the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc.
Introduction:
Certification of motor vehicles which meet the 1975 Federal
emission requirements is a very precise process, especially since
these vehicles have considerably lower exhaust emissions than vehicles
of previous years. Because such precision is necessary, it is essen-
tial that the EPA laboratory and laboratories of vehicle manufacturers
are equivalent in terms of test equipment, procedures, and conditions.
Such equivalency is necessary to produce repeatable emission results
among various laboratories. This report will compare laboratory char-
acteristics of EPA's Certification Test Site #5 and the laboratories
of the member companies of the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Associa-
tion, Inc. (JAMA) and infer from this comparison degrees of test site
equivalency. The report will not deal with test site correlation with-
in the participating laboratories.
Purpose:
It is the intent of this report to investigate differences re-
lating to emission certification testing between the laboratories
involved and to attempt to determine the significance of these dif-
ferences.
Test Equipment:
The equipment brought to the EPA laboratory by JAMA included
two vehicles, fifteen cylinders of calibration gases, a flame ioni-
zation detector (FID), a digital fuel consumption meter, and a fuel
tank weigh scales apparatus to measure fuel consumption.
The two vehicles tested were a 96.9 CID 1975 Toyota Carina and
a 119.1 CID 1975 Datsun 610. Both had four cylinder engines and were
equipped with catalytic reactors which could easily be removed from
the exhaust system, if desired.
The calibration gases, provided by JAMA, included three tanks
of propane in air, three tanks of carbon monoxide in nitrogen, three
tartks of carbon dioxide in nitrogen, two tanks of mixed hydrocarbons
in air, and one tank of nitrogen dioxide in air. Special regulators
were provided by JAMA which fit these metric-sized cylinders.
The portable FID used in the testing, which was provided by
Nissan Motor Company, was a Yanaco Model EHF-1001 fueled by a hydrogen-
helium mixture. The digital fuel consumption meter, provided by
Toyota, was manufactured in Japan by JAM. The other auxiliary fuel
consumption apparatus consisted of a balance type scale supporting a
fuel can which was connected to the vehicles' fuel line. This
apparatus was provided and operated by Nissan.
-------
Sequence of Correlation Testing:
All of the test equipment brought to EPA for this correlation
study was used to conduct similar tests at Toyota and/or Nissan
laboratories in Japan during the month of January. After the tests
at EPA were completed in mid-February, the test vehicles and equip-
ment were returned to Japan for testing at all JAMA member laboratories.
This second phase of Japanese testing was begun early in March.
Test Procedures:
This subject can best be studied by categorizing the different
areas of the correlation program.
Emission Tests - Before discussing the various tests which were
performed, it should be emphasized that part of the normal certification
procedure was omitted, namely evaporative testing. This omission was
made because evaporative results have limited utility with regard to
laboratory correlation.
The emission tests which were performed can be classified as
three types: (1) 1975 certification tests, (2) steady-state cruising
tests, and (3) "hot-start" tests. The certification tests were con-
ducted in accordance with the 1975 Federal Test Procedure, except
with respect to evaporative measurement procedures. It should be
noted, however, that the test vehicles' fuel was heated from 60°F
to 84°F prior to testing, as specified in the evaporative paragraphs
of the FTP.
The steady-state cruising tests consisted of a series of exhaust
emission collections at constant speeds. After the test vehicle was
warmed on the dynamometer, it was tested for five minutes at each of the
selected steady speeds - 15, 30, 40, and 50 mph. Only enough time elapsed
between speeds to change sample bags and adjust speed. A separate set of
collection bags was deployed for each steady-state speed.
Each "hot-start" test was conducted upon completion of a 1975
certification test and consisted of emission measurements over the
7.5 mile LA-4 cycle. Two exhaust sample bags were used for each test,
one for the 505 second "hot transient" portion of the cycle, and one
for the remaining "hot stabilized" segment. To ensure that the vehicle
was properly warmed for the test, an appropriate warm-up cycle was run
prior to the actual "hot-start" test.
Because of requests by Toyota and Nissan, the types of tests run
on the two vehicles were not exactly the same. Each vehicle underwent
six valid 1975 certification tests, three with and three without the
-------
vehicles' catalytic reactors in use. Each vehicle also underwent two
series of steady-state tests while the catalyst was removed. Six
"hot-start" tests were performed exclusively on the Datsun 610, one-
half of which were conducted with the catalytic reactor removed.
Calibration Gas Check - The calibration gases were used to check
the equivalency of various laboratories' gas analyzers. This was
accomplished by testing calibration gases from the same cylinders at
all laboratories on analyzers used for certification testing. At EPA,
these tests were performed on Train 9. Assuming the gas concentrations
in the calibration tanks remained constant with time, this test is an
excellent indication of analyzer equivalency.
Fuel Consumption Checks - Two different fuel consumption measure-
ment methods were employed by JAMA to compare results with EPA's carbon
balance technique. Toyota used their digital fuel consumption meter to
monitor fuel flow during all EPA testing of the Toyota Carina. The meter
was connected between the vehicle's fuel pump and carburetor, and a tur-
bine type flow transducer in the meter measured fuel flow. The mass of
fuel flow was continuously monitored on the meter's digital display and
the total fuel consumed was recorded at the completion of each test.
Nissan employed the classic "fuel-weigh" technique to measure
fuel consumption during hot-start tests conducted on the Datsun 610.
An auxiliary fuel can was used to replace the vehicle's fuel tank,
and the weight of the can was recorded before and after each hot-start
test. The fuel consumed was calculated from those data and then trans-
lated to vehicle miles per gallon.
FID Check - The portable FID supplied and operated by Nissan was
used during all tests on the Datsun 610 to check EPA's hydrocarbon
emission data. Span gases and FID fuel for the analyzer, which was
operated in the dynamometer test cell, were provided by EPA. EPA tech-
nicians also provided a tap on the dilute exhaust sample line so that
Nissan could continuously monitor HC levels. At the completion of each
test, the Nissan FID was also used to analyze the test's sample bags
after EPA technicians had completed their analysis.
Data Sources:
All data presented in this report were generated in the Japanese
laboratories of Toyota and Nissan or in EPA's Ann Arbor laboratory.
Emission test and calibration gas data were generated in all three
laboratories. Figures for fuel consumption and FID cross-checks were
derived exclusively at the EPA laboratory.
-------
Analysis of Data:
In an attempt to lead to the desired comparison of this study,
the data analysis will be presented in the following categories:
(1) Emission Tests - Toyota vs. EPA, (2) Emission Tests - Nissan
vs. EPA, (3) Calibration Gases, (4) Fuel consumption, and (5) FID
check.
Emission Tests - Toyota vs. EPA - Two types of emission tests
were used to compare the Toyota and EPA laboratories - 1975 Certifi-
cation Tests and steady-state tests. Data generated from these tests
can be found in Appendix I.
Comparing average emission values of Certification Tests on
three vehicle types (Toyota Carina, without catalyzer; Toyota Carina,
with Catalyzer; Datsun 610 with Catalyzer), one discovers only two
significant discrepancies. The CO value measured by EPA on the Toyota
Carina, with catalyzer, was 23.8% lower than the value determined by
Toyota. The HC level measured on the Datsun 610, with catalyzer, was
22.4% higher at EPA than at Toyota. Of the other ten comparative
points, EPA and Toyota agreed within 3% in nine cases.
The steady-state test comparison reveals larger deviations be-
tween the two labs. EPA reported generally higher emissions at speeds
of 15 and 40 mph, while Toyota's values were generally greater at 30
and 50 mph. Discrepancies were the largest at 30 mph, where EPA's HC
value was 73.5% lower than that of Toyota's.
Emission Tests - Nissan vs. EPA - Three types of emission-tests
were used to compare these laboratories - 1975 certification tests,
two phase hot-start tests, and steady-state tests. Data of these
tests are presented in Appendix I.
Differences in average emission levels of the Datsun 610 between
laboratories were similar for all certification and hot-start tests.
EPA's HC values ranged 18-34% higher than Nissan's, while CO values
revealed large discrepancies between labs, EPA levels being 47-141%
higher. Nissan produced higher NOX levels on the vehicle (10-20%),
but C02 emissions differed by less than 2%.
Use of the Toyota Carina as a comparator of these labs shows
much smaller differences in emission levels. Average emissions of
that vehicle, catalyzer equipped, showed EPA 44.1% higher on HC,
only 9.5% higher on CO, and only 5.3% lower on NOX. C02 again was
comparable, EPA being 2.4% higher.
-------
experienced at Nissan's Japanese laboratory. There are several possible
reasons for the discrepancies. (1) Most of the data comparisons presented
in this report are based on vehicle emission tests. Unfortunately,
vehicles are never repeatable enough to be a good source of comparison,
and in this program, that fact is especially evident. When the Datsun
610 is used to compare EPA and Nissan test sites, EPA levels are appro-
ximately 30% higher for HC, 90% higher for CO, and 15% lower for NOX.
However, when the Toyota Carina is used for comparison, EPA is 44%
higher than Nissan on HC, about 10% higher on CO, and only about 5%
lower on NOX. Depending upon the vehicle used for comparison, one
reaches different conclusions about the degree of test site equivalency.
This inconsistency is not only a major source of correlation discre-
pencies, but it also lowers confidence in any correlation based on
vehicle emission testing. (2) Barometric pressures recorded at the two
laboratories were in significantly different ranges. Nissan's facility,
which is located near sea level, experienced barometric pressure averag-
ing 760 mm of mercury during testing, while EPA's readings averaged
about 740 mm. The significance of this pressure difference cannot be
determined from the available data, but it could possibly be of major
importance. (3) Differences in dynamometer characteristics between
the test sites could be an important factor, but the tests used in this
correlation were not conclusive in that regard.
As was previously discussed, the conclusions of this correlation
study differ depending upon which vehicle is used as the comparator.
There is a possible reason why the vehicles produced such different
conclusions. Before the Toyota Carina was delivered to EPA for testing,
it was completely checked by Toyota technicians at their Ann Arbor
laboratory. As a result, the Toyota vehicle was probably in excellent
condition before the correlation tests. On the other hand, the Datsun
610 was delivered directly from Detroit Metropolitan Airport to EPA
without a careful check of its operating conditions. Thus the chances
of the Datsun operating differently at EPA than it did in Japan were
very good. Without a careful check of the vehicle's operation before
testing, the results of the emission test correlation could have been
very misleading.
The results of the fuel consumption checks performed by Toyota and
Nissan also require further investigation. Nissan's mileage figures,
which averaged about 3% lower than corresponding EPA numbers, were
within the accuracy of a fuel weigh versus carbon balance comparison.
However, Toyota's fuel meter produced miles per gallon numbers which
averaged 7% lower than EPA's corresponding values. The probable reason
for this discrepancy can be seen by studying the Toyota data in Appendix
III. Comparing tests conducted on the first two days of the study
(all steady-state tests and certification tests 1 and 2 on the Carina,
without catalyzer) reveals a constant difference in Toyota's values
between the two days. In all five comparisons Toyota's mileage numbers
from the first test are 89-93% of the second test values. This seems to
-------
Steady-state tests on the Datsun 610 tended to confirm emission
level differences experienced in the other tests. HC values were
generally higher at EPA (maximum 14.8%), CO was also slightly higher,
and NOX was considerably lower (21.8% maximum). However, C02 values,
which were approximately the same for the other tests, were consist-
ently lower (10-16%) at EPA for the steady-state tests.
Calibration Gases - The analysis of JAMA calibration gases on
EPA's Train 9 produced data very similar to that generated at the
Toyota and Nissan laboratories. (See Appendix II) The only large
discrepancy in readings was EPA's naming of the cylinder containing
N02 in air, which could be expected because of the instability of
that mixture. Of the other 14 gases analyzed, Toyota values were
within 2.0 percent of EPA values in 11 cases, with the largest
deviation being 4.0 percent. Nissan's values were within 3.0
percent in 11 cases, with a maximum discrepancy of 4.9 percent.
Fuel Consumption - Both auxiliary fuel consumption measurement
methods employed during the JAMA tests yielded lower miles per gallon
numbers than EPA's carbon balance method. For the six '75 certifica-
tion tests performed on the Toyota Canna, Toyota's fuel meter figures
were an average of 7.2% lower than EPA's calculated values. Toyota's
figures were an average of 6.6% lower on two series of steady-state
tests on that same vehicle. For the five hot-start tests on the
Datsun 610 used in the companson.^EPA's mileage numbers were an
average of 3.2% greater than those calculated by Nissan's fuel
weigh. A complete data comparison may be found in Appendix III. ,
FID Check - During emission testing of the Datsun 610, Nissan
technicians correlated their FID by analyzing sample bags upon comple-
tion of EPA's analysis. A comparison of HC values of 33 exhaust sample
bags showed EPA's values to be an average of 0.3% lower than Nissan's.
However, 32 background sample HC values determined by EPA were an
average of 65.7% higher than the corresponding values derived by
Nissan. Complete FID comparison data may be found in Appendix IV.
Discussion:
The correlation between the test sites of Toyota and EPA was
generally good. The only significant difference which could be seen
was the comparative emission levels of the Carina at Steady-state
speed of 30 mph, the cause of which is unclear. However, vehicle
emission levels on the 1975 certification test cycle were very com-
parable. Consequently, whatever differences did exist between test
sites was of minor significance in correlating certification emission
levels.
The comparison between EPA and Nissan did not produce such a good
correlation. In general, EPA emission values were higher than those
-------
indicate an error in calibration of the Toyota flow-meter. This
would also explain the large day to day variations, (3-15%) in
EPA - Toyota mileage figures.
Conclusions:
Results of exhaust emission tests at Toyota and EPA facilities
indicate a high degree of test site equivalency. No major differences
which would affect emission certification testing could be discovered.
A comparison of results at Nissan and EPA laboratories provides
some indication of possible differences. Nissan's HC emission levels
were consistently lower than EPA's regardless of test vehicle or type
of test. EPA's measurements of lower NOx and much higher CO than Nissan
are expected to be a result, for the most part, of test vehicle incon-
sistencies. Whatever differences between the laboratories which do
exist were difficult to isolate from the emission test data. As a re-
sult, an accurate assessment of test site equivalency cannot be made.
The most conclusive check performed during this correlation
program was the calibration gas cross-check. The three laboratories
involved can feel secure that no significant differences exist
among their gas analysis systems.
The fuel consumption checks performed by Toyota and Nissan gave
some indication of the equivalency of various techniques. The carbon
balance technique produced approximately 3% higher mileage data than
fuel weigh techniques, while data derived from a fuel flow-meter deviated
significantly from EPA data, probably because of meter calibration prob-
lems.
Nissan's FID check verified EPA's HC analyzer and exposed dif-
ferences between the calibration techniques of the two instruments.
Summary and Recommendations:
Test site equivalency of EPA and two JAMA member companies has
been compared. In general, the Nissan laboratory tended to produce
higher NOx and lower CO and HC emission levels than the other two
laboratories. Variability of test vehicles between test sites makes
an accurate assessment of laboratory differences very difficult.
In future correlation programs, emphasis should be put on studying
analyzer, CVS, and dynamometer characteristics independent of vehicle
emission tests. If emission tests are used for an overall comparison,
the test vehicle should be closely checked to ensure the highest possible
degree of operational consistency. It would also be advantageous to use
a type of test which would allow a large number of repetitions at each
laboratory. Cold-start certification tests are not suitable for this
application.
-------
10
APPENDICES
-------
11
APPENDIX I
Emission Test Data
Section Classification
IA Toyota Canna without Catalyzer
IB Toyota Carina with Catalyzer
1C Datsun 610 without Catalyzer
ID Datsun 610 with Catalyzer
-------
12
Section IA
Toyota Carina without Catalyzer
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (L.A4 CH)
TOYOTA
Vehicle CARINA
System without. Catalyzer
Cold
-Trans ient
(a)
Cold
-Stabi 1 ized
(g)
Hot
-Transient
(?)
Total
(g/mile )
Test Labo.
TOYOTA
NISSAN
EPA
TOYOTA
NISSAN
EPA
TOYOTA
NISSAN
EPA
TOYOTA
NISSAN
EPA
HC
9.93
8.42
3.35
3.48
4.20
4.92
1.34
1.32
CO
61.55
60.02
43.87
43.96
35.16
37.81
12.05
12.17
NO>
10.80
a. 8 4
5.13
5.35
9. BO
8.61
2.05
1.93
«.«K.
CO2
1452
1383.95
1757
1773.48
1335
1298.21
419
414.47
Fuel
ConsuTiotion
/
/
/
20.5
20.8
Comment
»
u>
Note
Unit
Fuel Consumption
mile/gal
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (l_A4 CH)
TOYOTA wxthout
Vehicle CARIM System Catalyzer Test Labo.
TOYOTA
Cold
-Transient
(g)
Cold
-Stabil ized
(g)
Hot
-Transient
(g)
Total
(g/mile )
Test No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
HC
9.B3
9.38
10.73
3. 10
3.43
3.51
3.88
4.27
4.46
1.27
1.32
1.42
CO
04. fc>4
59.32
60.68
40.40
43.46
47.74
33.12
35.08
37.29
11.61
11.86
12.68
NOx
10.53
10.85
11.02
5.30
5.46
4.64
9.71
9.81
9.88
2.05
2.09
2.00
CC>2
1441
1451
1463
1723
17o2
1786
1309
1334
1362
412
420
426
Fuel
Consumption
/
/
/
20.8
20.5
20.2
Barometric
Presuure
735.6
7-1.2
740.9
K-factor
0.975
0.993
1.095
Note
Unit
Fuel Consumption
Barometric Pressure
mile/gal
mm. g
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (l_A4 CH)
vehicieToyota Carina System Without Catalyst Test Lobo. EPA
Cold
-Transient
(g)
Cold
-Stabi 1 ized
(g)
Hot
-Transient
(g)
Total
(g/mile )
Test No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
HC
8.54
8.36
8.35
3.33
3.85
3.27
4.71
4.85
5.21
1.29
1.36
1.31
CO
68.97
52.85
58.24
44.14
43.71
44.04
37.94
36.56
38.93
12.7
11.6
12.2
NOx
9.86
9.94
9.71
5.46
5.32
5.26
8.73
8.55
8.56
1.96
1.93
1.91
C02
1394.74
1363.75
1393.36
1772.55
1743.69
1804.19
1282.23
1284.74
1327.65
413.75
408.32
421.35
Fuel
Consumption
/
/
/
20.8
21.1
20.5
Barometric
Presuure
743.5
747.8
741.9
K-factor
.8615
.8871
.8211
" mm Hg"
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (CRUISING)
TOYOTA
Vehicle CARINA
15 mph
(g/mile)
30 mph
(g/mile)
40 mph
(g/mile)
50 mph
(g/mile)
Test Labo.
TOYOTA
EPA
TOYOTA
EPA
TOYOTA
EPA
TOYOTA
EPA
HC
0.400
0.52
0.606
0.16
0.560
0.70
n.fifiq
0.73
CO
9.10
10.96
5.32
4.14
5.40
5.92
6.26
5.96
NOx
0.444
0.45
1.046
0.76
1.437
1.46
2.978
2.47
CO^
389.6
407.20
P57.R
333.14
?1R.4
226.08
240.fi
245.30
Mainifold
Vacuum
430
433
391
355
Engine
rpm
1860
2500
t
2400
3045
Comment
Note:
15 mph
30
40
50
2 nd
3 rd
Top
Top
Unit
Manifold Vacuum
-mmHg
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (CRUISING)
Test Labo. Toyota
Toyota
Vehicle Carina
15 mph
(g/mile)
30 mph
(g/mile)
40 mph
(g/mile }
50 mph
(g/mile)
Test No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
HC
0.392
0.408
0.682
0.530
0.534
0.584
0.604
0.774
CO
8.96
9.36
5.50
5.12
5.79
5.01
5.47
7.06
NOx
0.432
0.456
1.020
1.072
1.365
1.508
2.696
3.260
t
co2
378.4
400.8
245.8
257.8
210.0
226.7
217.2
264.4
Mamifold
Vacuum
429
431
430
435
392
390
355
355
Engine
rpm
1880
1840
2500
2500
2400
2400
3050
3040
K-Factor
1.001
1.009
0.996
1.010
0.998
0.995
1.016
1.002
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (CRUISING)
Vehicle Toyota Car.ina Test Labo. EPA
1 5 moh
(g/mile)
30 mph
(g/mile)
40 mph
(g/mile
50 mph
(g/mile)
Test No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
HC
0.58
0.45
0.17
0.14
0.75
0.65
0.76
0.70
CO
11.93
9.99
4.44
3.84
6.11
5.72
6.05
5.88
NOx
0.43
0.47
0.74
0.77
1.47
1.44
2.56
2.38
co2
406.50
407.90
333.59
332.70
225.54
226.61
243.36
247.23
Mainifold
Vacuum
Engine
rpm
K-Factor
.8339
.9034
.8339
.9034
.8339
.8750
.8339
.8750
oo
-------
19
Section IB
Toyota Carina with Catalyzer
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (|_A4 CH)
Vehicle
TOYOTA <
CARINA
System with Catalyzer
Cold
-Trans tent
(g)
Cold
-Stabilized
(g)
Hot
-Transient
(g)
Total
(g/mile )
Test Labo.
TOYOTA
NISSAN
EPA
TOYOTA
NISSAN
EPA
TOYOTA
NISSAN
EPA
TOYOTA
NISSAN
EPA
HC
7.42
5.08
7.10
1.92
1.19
1.83
2.23
2.00
2.62
0.85
0.59
0.85
CO
50.22
28.4
34.28
16.30
13.6
13.08
15.66
11.9
13.68
6.24
4.34
4.75
NOx
9.93
11.5
9.99
5.11
5.31
5.43
9.11
9.36
8.71
1.94
2.07
1.96
>.
C02
U32
1427
1439.69
1799
1803
1867.05
1356
1326
1337.36
428
423
433.12
Fuel
Consumption
/
/
/
20.6
21 .2
20.6
Comment
ho
O
Note
Unit
Fuel Consumption
mile/gal
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (LA4 CH)
TOYOTA
Vehicle CARINA Systerr,_withCatalyzer Test LabO.
TOYOTA
Cold
-Transient
(g)
Cold
CfrtKi I t-resfi
(g)
Hot
-Transient
(g)
Total
(g/mile )
Test No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
HC
6.63
7.65
7.97
1.76
1.92
2.08
2.19
2.17
2.34
0.78
0.86
0.91
CO
57.05
45.95
47.65
17.50
15.68
15.71
16.84
14.96
15.19
6.88
5.86
5.98
NOx
9.53
10.21
10.05
4.90
5.20
5.23
8.93
9.24
9.17
1.88
1.98
1.97
.
C02
1496
1481
1468
1811
1785
1802
1351
1350
1372
430
426
429
Fuel
Consumption
/
/
/
20.5
20.7
20.6
Barometric
Presuure
734.4
733.4
734.6
K-factor
0.899
0.992
1.035
Note
Unit
Fuel Consumption mile/gal
Barometric Pressure mmHg
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (.LA4. CH)
Vehicle CARINA
Sysiemwitfi Catalyzer Tear Lobo. Nissan
r~/-\ (A
-Transient
(9)
Cold
-Stabi 1 izecl
ln\
19>
Hbt
(n\
\9>
Total
\Q/ mne )
Test No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
HC
5-21
5-37
4.66
1.19
1 .16
1 .22
2.38
1.53
2.08
0.63
0.57
0.58
CO
29.56
29.83
25.95
14.35
12.97
13.36
13.49
10.54
11.55
4.63
4.24
4.14
NOx
12.00
10.27
12.09
5-47
4.82
5.64
9-59
8.48
10.02
2.14
1.87
2.21
C02*
1434
1433
1414
1815
1790
1805
1337
1321
1320
426
421
422
Fuel
Consumption
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
S^
/
/
21 .0
21.2
21 .3
©arometr'ic
Presuure
760
764
762
760
764
762
760
763
762
K-f3CtOr
0.822
0.828
0.827
0.822
0.828
0.827
0.815
0.828
0.827
ho
(mpg)
(mmHg)
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (l_A4 CH)
Veh ic I-Toyota Carina System With Catalyst Test Labo.
EPA
Cold
-Trans lent
(g)
Cold
-Stabil ized
(g)
Hot
-Transient
(g)
Totol
(g/mile )
Test No.
-]
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
HC
7.61
5.75
7.95
1.56
1.70
2.23
2.60
2.47
2.79
0.842
0.745
0.97
CO
32.97
32.39
37.48
12.91
12.60
13.73
14.15
13.34
13.54
4.69
4.55
5.0
NOx
9.76
10.70
9.50
5.15
5.24
5.91
8.83
8.93
8.36
1.92
1.99
1.97
*.
CO2
1386.73
1434.54
1497.81
1795.39
1816.31
1989.44
1349.65
1310.20
1352.23
421.46
424.00
453.90
Fuel
Consumption
/
/
/
21.1
21.0
19.7
Barometric
Presuure
741.9
739.1
741.2
K-factor
.8163
.8600
.8095
N>
OJ
"mm Hg"
-------
24
Section 1C
Datsun 610 without Catalyzer
-------
CROSS CHECK OAT A
Vehicle DATSUN 61O
System
Cold
-Transient
CQ~)
Cold
-Stabilized
13
He*
-Transient
Toiol
Test Labo.
TOYOTA
NISSAN
EPA
TOYOTA
NISSAN
EPA
TOYOTA
NISSAN
EPA
TOYOTA
NISSAN
EPA
HC
4.66
6.81
4.57
6.09
3-91
4.90
1.17
1.57
CO
73.1
111.63
37.7
60.41
29.2
63.92
11.4
19.333
NO*
7.84
7.42
6.23
4.60
6.01
6.30
1.73
1.52
C02
1622
1616.99
1531
1514.04
1388
1445.31
402
404.42
Fuel
Consumption
X
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
20.6
19.9
Comment
to
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (LA4 CH)
without
Vehicle DATSUN 6lO System Catalyzer Test Labo. Nissan
Cold
-Transient
(a)
Cold
-Stabil ized
(g)
Hot
-Transient
(g)
Total
(g/rm !e )
Test No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
HC
4.82
4.55
4.6l
4.66
4.55
4.49
3-89
4.10
3-75
1.19
1.18
1.14
CO
73.1
70.5
75.7
35.2
39.4
38.6
26.4
29.4
31.8
10.9
11.5
11.9
NOx
8.43
7.34
7.76
6.75
6.01
5.94
6. 19
5.8?
5.96
1.85
1.66
1.69
»
CO2
1581
1624
1661
1514
1506
1572
1367
1385
1413
396
399
412
Fuel
Consumption
/
/
/
21.0
20.7
20.1
Barometric
Presuure
761
756
759
761
756 '
759
761
757
759
-
-
-
K-factor
0.836
0.819
0.818
0.836
0.819
0.818
O.8l6
0.826
0.820
-
-
-
'NJ
( mpg )
( mmHg )
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (LA4 CH)
Vehicle Datsun 610 System Without Catalyzer Test Labo. EPA
Cold
-Transient
(g)
Cold
-Stabil ized
(g)
Hot
-Transient
(g)
Total
(g/mile )
Test No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
HC
9.32
5.92
5.18
5.17
7.00
6.10
4.71
4.95
5.05
1.58
1.65
1.49
CO
128.85
107.27
98.78
55.35
62.34
63.54
46.54
48.53
96.70
18.3
18.2
21.5
NOx
7.68
7.26
7.31
5.03
4.45
4.33
6.30
5.57
7.02
1.59
1.43
1.53
CO2*
1576.13
1657.72
1617.12
1470.27
1551.62
1520.22
1405.77
1335.62
1594.55
393.24
403.43
416.60
Fuel
Consumption
/
/
/
20.2
19.9
19.0
Barometric
Presuure
747.8
740.2
743.5
K-factor
.9331
.8272
.8159
N3
"mm Hg"
-------
CROSS-CHECK DATA (LA-4 Hot)
Vehicle
Datsun 610
System Without Catalyzer
Hot
Transient
(g)
Hot
Stabilized
(g)
Total
(g/mile)
Test
Lab
Nissan
EPA
Nissan
EPA
Nissan
EPA
HC
2.97
4.10
4.40
5.00
1.02
1.21
CO
27.52
43.94
34.78
49.73
8.30
12.49
NOx
5.71
5.37
5.84
4.74
1.53
1.35
C02
1367
1364.02
1479
1412,93
380
370.26
Fuel
Consumption
fmoq)
Barometric
Pressure
(mm Ha)
K-Factor
CO
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (LA4 Hot)
Vehicle Datsim 610 System Without Catalyzer Test Lobo. Nissan
Hot
Transient
(g)
Hot
Stabilized
(g)
Totol
(g/mile )
Test No.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
HC
3.89
3.07
2.87
3.06
4.69
4.43
4.44
4.25
1.14
1.00
0.97
0.97
CO
25.6
24.6
28.8
31.8
36.1
32.5
37.5
38.3
8.22
7.62
8.82
9.34
*
NOx
5.62
6.07
6.29
5.63
5.49
6.19
6.14
5.58
1.48
1.63
1.65
1.49
CO2
1299
1336
1442
1375
1439
1478
1488
1496
365
375
391
383
Fuel
Consumption
/
/
/
21.5
21.9
Barometric
Presuure
30.02
30.00
29.80
29.83
K-factor
0.866
0,822
0.823
0,828
mpg
in. Hg
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (l_A4Hot)
Vehicle Datsun 610 System Without Catalyst Test Lobo. EPA
. - -
%
Hot
-Transient
(g)
Hot
-Stabilized
(g)
»
Totol
(g/mile )
Test No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
HC
4.28
3.92
4.10
4.97
5.01
5.03
1.23
1.19
1.22
CO
42.97
44.97
43.87
46.21
51.69
51.29
11.89
12.89
12.69
NOx
6.25
4.91
4.96
5.28
4.57
4.36
1.54
1.26
1.24
C02~
1437.45
1304.62
1349.98
1438.14
1371.61
1429.03
383.41
356.83
370.53
Fuel
Consumption
/
/
/
Barometric
Presuure
-
747.8
739.1
743.0
K-foctor
.9390
.8460
.8287
LO
O
"m Hg"
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (CRUISING)
Vehicle DATSUN 610
1 5 mph
(g/mile)
30 mph
(g/mile)
40 mph
(g/mile)
50 mph
(g/mile)
Test Labo.
TOYOTA
NISSAN
EPA
TOVQTA
NISSAN
EPA
TOYOTA
NISSAN
EPA
TOYOTA
NISSAN
EPA
HC
0.86
1.01
0.58
0.65
0.56
0.61
0.42
0.40
CO
3.26
2.78
7.39
7.88
3-76
3.80
4.97
5.36
NOx
0.68
0.68
1.65
1.41
0.63
0.52
1. 19
0.93
*.
co2"
307
257.74
279
249.51
343
309.23
361
303.44
Mamifold
Vacuum
308
308
446
459
Engine
rpm
10OO
.
1800
2350
2900
Comment
u>
( mmHg Abs. )( rpm )
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (CRUISING)
Vehicle DATSUN 6lO Test Uobo. Nissan
1 5 moh
(g/mile)
30 mph
(g/mile)
40 mph
(g/miL
50 mph
(g/mile)
Test No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
HC
O.92
0.8?
0.80
0.58
0.57
0.60
0.63
0.56
0.50
0.46
0.4l
0.38
CO
2.88
3-29
3.60
6. 02
8.14
8.02
3-51
3-76
4.02
4.60
5.19
5.11
NOx
0.69
0.67
O.67
1.75
1.64
1.56
0.62
0.67
0.60
1.18
1-33
1.07
».
CO."
324
296
301
282
27^
280
334
353
343
348
385
351
Ma in if old
Vacuum
302
307
314
297
312
314
437
452
449
447
472
459
Engine
rpm
1050
1000
1000
1800
1900
1800
2400
2420
2320
29OO
2950
2850
K-Factor
0.866
0.823
0.828
0.866
0.823
0.828
0.866
0.823
0.828
0.866
0.823
0.828
OJ
( mmHg Abs. )( rpm )
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (CRUISING)
Vehicle Datsun 610 Test Labo. EPA
15 mph
(g/mile)
30 mph
(g/mile)
40 mph
(g/mile
50 mph
(g/mile)
Test No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
HC
1.00
1.02
0.66
0.64
0.62
0.60
0.40
0.39
CO
3.17
2.40
8.26
7.51
3.83
3.77.
5.52
5.19
NOx
0.77
0.60
1.56
1.26
0.60
0.45
1.05
0.81
*.
co2
257.45
258 . 02
255.22
243.80
320.69
297.77
309.13
297.75
Mamifold
Vacuum
Engine
rpm
K-Factor
CMOR
.8393
.9408
.8393
.9645
.8393
.9645
.8393
-------
34
Section ID
Datsun 610 with Catalyzer
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (LA4CH)
Vehicle DATSUN 610
System wxth Catalyzer
Cold
-Transient
(9>
Cold
-^tnh it \7c*A
(g)
Hot
-Transient
(g)
Total
(g/mile )
Test Labo.
TOYOTA
NISSAN
EPA
TOYOTA
NISSAN
EPA
TOYOTA
NISSAN
EPA
TOYOTA
NISSAN
EPA
HC
3-33
2.56
2.83
1.35
1.34
1.98
1.58
1.86
2.28
0.49
0.46
0.599
CO
65.1
27-6
52.88
6.06
3.05
9.08
14.1
7.8l
16.34
5.6l
2.58
5.48
NO*
6. 23
7.79
6.61
4.91
6.20
4.44
5.19
5-75
5.20
1.41
1.71
1.37
cor
1700
1694
1673.31
1551
1573
1517.75
1462
1*132
1410.96
415
416
405.53
Fue.1
Consumption
/
/
/
20.3
20.7
20.7
Comment
( mpg )
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (LA4 CH)
DATSUN with
Vehicle 610 Syster Catalyzer Test Labo.
TOYOTA
Cold
-Transient
(g)
Cold
-Stabil ized
(g)
Hot
-Transient
(g)
Total
(g/mile )
Test No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
HC
3.17
3.44
3.39
1.36
1.36
1.34
1.57
1.65
1.51
0.48
0.50
0.49
CO
58.40
71.00
65.90
5.66
5.71
6.80
11.88
15.79
14.50
5.01
6.03
5.79
NOx
6.42
6.13
6.14
5.03
4.83 ~
4.87
5.24
5.02
5.32
1.44
1.38
1.41
w
CO2
1641
1711
1749
1542
1567
1543
1444
1476
1465
409
419
417
Fuel
Consumption
/
/
/
20.8
20.1
20.1
Barometric
Presuure
732.8
733.1
733.9
K-factor
1.036
0.986
1.023
CO
OS
Note
Unit
Fuel Consumption mile/gal
Barometric Pressure mmHg
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (|_A4 CH)
with
Vehicle DATSUN 610 System Cataly^r- Test Lobo. Nissan
Cold
-Trans lent
(a)
Cold
-Stabil ized
(g)
Hot
-Transient
(g)
Total
(g/mile )
Test No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
HC
2.75
2.34
2.59
1.30
1.24
1.4?
1.94
1.78
1.86
0.48
0.43
0.48
CO
29.5
22.0
31.2
2.54
3.45
3.16
7.58
8.38
7.47
2.60
2.36
2.78
NOx
8.14
7.66
7-56
6.33
6.26
6.02
6.31
5.44
5-49
1-79
1.68
1.65
*
CO2
1656
1703
1723
1556
1557
1605
i4oo
1433
1463
409
4l4
424
^uel
Consumotio"!
/
/
/
21.1
20.8 '
20.3
Barometric
Presuure
761
760
762
761
760
762
760
760
761
-
-
-
K-factor
0.8O6
0.843
0.809
0.806
0.843
0.809
0.813
0.829
0.802
-
-
-
CO
( nipg )
( mmHg )
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (LA4 CH)
Vehicle DatSUP 610 System With Catalyzer Test Labo. EPA
Cold
-Transient
(g)
Cold
-Stabil ized
(g)
Hot
-Transient
(g)
Total
(g/mile )
Test No.
\
2
3
^
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
HC
2.89
2.65
2.95
1. 78
1.78
2.37
2.25
2.23
2.36
0.574
0.559
0.665
CO
49.59
49.88
59.16
8.87
7.53
10.85
17.96
15.76
15.29
5.39
5.06
6.00
NOx
7.02
6.40
6.41
4.74
4.35
4.22
5.60
5.02
4.98
1.46
1.33
1.31
C02~
1659.82
1674.69
1685.43
1541.45
1499.59
1512.21
1436.66
1398.80
1397.43
409.86
402.27
404.46
Fuel
Consumption
/
/
/
20.6
20.9
20.7
Barometric
Presuure
737.9
734.1
734.8
K-factor
.8634
.8461
.8445
u>
OO
"mm Hg"
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (LA-4 Hot)
Vehicle Datsun 610
System With Catalyzer
Hot
Transient
(g)
Hot
Stabilized
(g)
Total
(g/mile)
Test
Lab
Nissan
EPA
Nissan
EPA
Nissan
EPA
HC
1.20
1.57
1.28
1.66
0.33
0.43
CO
6.42 __
16.55
3.59
7.22
1.33
3.21
NOX
5.44
5.13
5.58
4.70
1.46
1.31
C02
14.16
1410.58
15.04
1498.49
390
388
Fuel
Consumption
fmnn )
Barometric
Pressure
(mm Mn ^
K-Factor
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (LA4 ' Hot)
Vehicle Datsun 610 System With Catalyst Test Lobo. Pat sun
Test No.
HC
CO
NOx
CO2
Fuel
Consumption
Barometric
Presuure
K-factor
Hot
-Transient
(9)
1.10
6.30
5.34
1403
1.30
6.53
5.53
1440
Hot
-Stabilized
(g)
1.18
3.41
5.48
1496
1.39
3.77
5.69
1513
Total
(g/mile )
0.30
1.29
1.44
386
0.36
1.37
1.49
394
759.5
0.833
760.7
0.813
"mm Hg"
-------
CROSS CHECK DATA (l_A4Hot)
Vehicle Datsun 610 System With Catalyst Test Lobo. EPA
Hot
-Transient .
(g)
Hot
-Stabilized
(g)
%
Total
,(g/mile )
Test No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
HC
1.68
1.53
1.51
1.56
1.62
1.79
0.43
0.42
0.44
CO
17.74
17.32
14.59
6.84
7.35
7.46
3.28
3.29
2.94
NOx
5.59
4.98
4.83
4.70
4.74
4.67
1.37
1.30
1.27
CO2"
1454.65
1392.77
1384.33
1433.45
1545.60
1516.41
385.08
391.78
386.76
Fuel
Consumption
/
/
/
Barometric
Presuure
737.9
734.1
732.0
K-factor
.8634
.8704
.8827
"mm Hq1
-------
42
APPENDIX II
Calibration Gas Cross-Check
-------
43
CKQSS CHECK DATA ( CALIBRATION GAS )
-
C3H8
in Air
( ppmC )
t1
CO
in N2
( ppm )
NO
in N2
( ppm )
co2
in N,
( % )
he (mix)
in Air
( ppmC )
NO2 m Air
Cyl inder
Number
2K-21938
2K-26749
2K-15134
2K-20169
2K-25154
2K- 10712
2K-13281
2K-20219
1K-90729
2K- 25089
2K-15250
2K-199H
IK- 9 086
K-84996
1K-48197
TOYOTA
59.1
117.3
184.2
316
635
891
64.9
128
181
0.92
1.79
2.90
17S
51.5
46.8
NISSAN
58.6
116.7
184.8
312
629
884
66
132
184
0.95
1.80
2.86
181
48
47.2
EPA
60.0
118.8
182.1
324.3
639.7
893.4
NOX = 62.9
NO = 62.9
NOX =126.0
NO = 126.0
NOX =181.2
NO = 181.2
.932
1.806
2.908
177.6
49.5
NOX = 39.0
NO = 4.0
( ppm )
-------
44
APPENDIX III
Fuel Economy Cross-Check
-------
45
Fuel Economy Cross-Check
Vehicle Toyota Canna
Test Lab.
EPA
Certification Tests
Exhaust
System
Without
Catalyzer
With
Catalyzer
Test
No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
Fuel Economy (miles/gallon)
Toyota Fuel
Flow Meter
18.2
20.3
19.6
19.3
18.7
19.1
EPA Carbon
Balance
20.8
21.1
20.5
21.1
21.0
19.7
EPA-Toyota
EPA
12.5%
3.8%
4.4%
8.5%
11.0%
3.0%
Steady-State Tests
Cruise
Speed
15 mph
30 mph
40 mph
50 mph
Test
No.
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Fuel Economy [miles/gallon)
Toyota Fuel
Flow Meter
17.7
19.9
22.6
25.5
32.3
36.4
31.3
33.8
EPA Carbon
Balance
20.8
20.9
26.0
26.2
37.4
37.3
34.8
34.3
EPA-Toyota
EPA
14.9%
4.8%
13.1%
2.7%
13,6%
2.1%
10.1%
1.5%
-------
46
Fuel Economy Cross-Check
Vehicle Datsun 610
Test Lab.
EPA
Exhaust
System
Without
Catalyzer
With
Catalyzer
'.
Test
No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
Fuel Economy (miles/gallon) {
Nissan
Fuel Tank
Weigh
Failure
22.4
21.9
21.6
21.8
22.1
EPA
Carbon
Balance
21.9
23.3
22.5
22.7
22.3
22.6
EPA-Nissan |
EPA ;
!
__ i
!
|
1
3.9% :
2.7% !
4.8% |
2.2% !
i
2.2% j
-------
47
APPENDIX IV
FID Analyzer Cross-Check
-------
FID CROSS CHECK DATA (l_A4 CH)
Vehicle Datsun 610 SystemWith Catalyst Test Lobo.
Cold
-Transient
(ppm)
Cold
-Stabilized
(ppm)
Hot
-Transient
(ppm)
Test No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1 '
2
3
Exhaust Sample
EPA
65.10
59.10
67.80
25.20
25.80
33.75
51.30
51.15
54.45
EHF-1001
67.0
60.0
71.2
25.0
25.0
36.0
54.0
52.0
56.0
Background Sample^
EPA
3.60
3.60
4.80
3.00
3.75
4.35
3.30
3.15
4.20
EHF-1001
2.6
2.6
7.4
3.0
2.6
7.1
3.2
2.7
5.5
>
J>
oo
FID Description:
EPA - Beckman Model 400; Operated by EPA
EHF-1001 - Yanaco; Operated by Nissan
-------
FID CROSS CHECK DATA (LA4 Hot)
Vehicle Datsun 610 System With Catalyzer jest
EPA
Hot
-Transient
(ppm)
Hot
-Stabilized
(ppm)
Test No.
1
2
3
\
2
3
1
2
3
Exhaust Sample
EPA
39.60
37.95
37.95
22.80
23.70
24.90
EHF-100'
42.0
38.0
36.8
23.0
23.2
22.8
Background Sample-
EPA
3.75
5.25
5.55
3.30
4.35
3.00
EHF-1001
3.4
3.8
3.6
3.1
3.1
1.4
FID Description:
EPA - Beckman Model 400; Operated by EPA
EHF-1001 - Yanaco; Operated by Nissan
-------
FID CROSS CHECK DATA (LA4 CH) ,
Vehicle Datsun 610 System Without Catalyzer Test Labo.
EPA
Cold
-Transient
(ppm)
Cold
-Stabil ized
(ppm)
Hot
-Transient
(ppm)
Test No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Exhaust Sample
EPA
198.60
124.20
113.40
67.20
90.60
78.60
102.60
110.40
110.40
IHF-1001
--
125
--
--
92.0
83.5
--
112
112
Background Sample
EPA
4.20
3.60
--
3.45
3.60
3.5
3.60
3.90
3.45
EHF-1001
--
3.5
--
2.4
2.0
--
1.4
2.8
FID Description:
EPA - Beckman Model 400; Operated by EPA
EHF-1001 - Yanaco, Operated by Nissan
-------
FID CROSS CHECK DATA (LA4 Hot)
VehicleDatSun 610 System Without Catalyzer Test Lobo. EPA
Hot
Transient
(ppm)
Hot
Stabilized
(ppm)
*
Test No.
\
2
3
1
2
.3
1
2
3
Exhaust Sample
EPA
93.90
86.70
90.60
65.10
65.85
66.00
IHF-1001
--
87.8
91.0
65.0
67.0
67.0
Background Sample
EPA
3.60
2.70
3.00
3.90
3.60
3.60
EHF-1001
--
2.0
2.6
2.3
1.2
2.7
FID Description:
EPA - Beckman Model 400; Operated by EPA
EHF-1001 - Yanaco, Operated by Nissan
-------
FID CROSS-CHECK DATA
Vehicle Datsun 610
Test Lab.
EPA
STEADY-STATE TESTS
Cm i se
Speed
b mpn
oU mpn
4D nipn
ou mpn
Test
No.
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Exhaust
EPA
49.05
53.40
61.20
60.75
75.90
75.45
63.90
61.80
Sample
EHF-1001
51.0
52.0
60.0
59.0
68.0
75.0
64.0
60.0
Backgroun
EPA
4.80
7.50
3.45
4.20
3.60
3.60
4.20
r
3.60
d Sample
EHF-1001
2.8
4.4
1.3
1.7
1,0
0.8
2.8
--
FID Description:
EPA - Beckman Model 400; Operated by EPA
EHF-1001 - Yanaco; Operated by Nissan
Ui
tNi
-------
53
APPENDIX V
Supplementary Data
-------
Supplementary Data
Test Cell:
Ambient Air Temp-°F (average)
Barometric Pressure-mm Hg (average)
Dynamometer
Roll Spacing (inches)
Inertia Drive - Type
Test Vehicle Tire Pressure (psig)
Toyota Carina
Datsun 610
Vehicle Soak Area Tempera ture-°F
Test Laboratory
Toyota
74.8
735.5
17.25
Belt
45
--
77
Nissan
78
760
17.25
Belt
45
32
82.4
EPA
75
741.1
17.25
Direct
45
32
80
v_n
------- |