EPA-AA-CORR 76-2
         Ford-EPA Emission Laboratory
               Correlation Study
               April 1976
        Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
    Emission Control Technology Division
' Standards Development and Support Branch
            Ann Arbor, Michigan

-------
Abstract









     A specific emissions correlation program between the EPA Motor




Vehicle Emissions Laboratory and the Ford Motor Company AEO facility has




been completed.  This report summarizes emission and cross check results




for this program.









     Examination of the Ford mass simulator results, gas cross check




results, and emission and fuel economy comparisons do not indicate a




serious correlation problem exists between laboratories.

-------
Introduction









     Analysis of paired 1977 model year durability emission test data




from January through March have produced significant differences between




Ford and EPA results.  The problem has been most severe in the measurement




of CO where EPA consistently reported cold start 1977 FTP values 20%




higher than Ford results.  Several pairs of test data have produced HC




and CO differences in excess of 50%,  although these large percent dif-




ferences are most often observed at or below statutory standards.








     Ford and EPA have conducted gas cross checks, mass emission simulator




tests, and a vehicle correlation program.  The results of these tests




are part of a larger program to locate and correct or account for the




discrepancies in emission results between manufacturers facilities and




the EPA-MVEL based on paired emission differences.









1.   Test Design









     Three checks were made between facilities:  a gas cross check




analysis, tests with the Ford mass emission simulator, and a vehicle




cross check tising a 1977 Ford durability vehicle.








   '  Mass Emission Simulator;  On March 3, 1976, the Ford emissions




simulator was tested using EPA CVS's 21 and 22 (analytical train #9).  A




CO analyzer failure prevented additional tests on CVS's 23 and 24 (analy-




tical train #19).

-------
     Gas Cross Check:  On March 4, 1976, a gas cross check was made at




EPA to verify analyses of Ford supplied reference gases.   The gases were




read on EPA certification analysis systems 9 and 19, with the exception




of the high concentration CO sample which was named on analysis train 9




only.








     Vehicle Cross Check;  A series of vehicle correlation tests were




arranged using a 1977 Ford durability vehicle.  A vehicle with a known




history of emissions repeatability, REPCA III, supplied to EPA by General




Motors, was used as a confirmatory test vehicle.




                            i




     The Ford vehicle cross check consisted of cold start 1977 type




tests, highway fuel economy tests, and hot start 1974 type tests.  Each




test day included one cold start test, 2 HFET's, and 2 hot start tests.




This series of tests was completed on two successive days at each facility.




The vehicle was then exchanged between laboratories until each laboratory




had completed 6 cold starts, 12 HFET's, and 12 hot starts.  All tests




were scheduled for a single dynamometer with each facility supplying its




test driver.  Testing with the Ford durability vehicle began on March 25




and ended on April 14.




            /



     The GM REPCA III vehicle was tested two times at each facility




usi,ng the same dynamometer and analysis equipment that were used for




testing the Ford vehicle.  Emission and torque data from the REPCA III




vehicle were collected and statistically analyzed.

-------
2.   Test Vehicles









     The Ford vehicle, I.D.  No.  7A1-400-5AINP,  had completed 50,000




miles durability testing in March.   The vehicle was tested three times




at EPA during its mileage accumulation and a summary of the emissions




history of this vehicle is presented below:









                                       Composite Emission Results
'est Site
Ford
EPA
Ford
EPA
Ford
EPA
Ford
•EPA
Mileage
22,866
i
46,052
51,033
Average of
5 tests
HC
0.405
0.408
0.333
0.498
0.518
0.454
0.460
0.377
CO
5.88
7.75
3.64
7.60
6.26
7.98
6.20
.5.57
co2
710
697
695
702
700
722
694
686
NOx
1.72
1.73
1.57
1.65
1.72
1.83
1.66
1.77
F.E.
12.31
12.49
12.64
12.40
12.47
12.06
12.56
12.78
The last set of data summarize the FTP results of this study.   The vehicle




is in the 5000 pound inertia class and has a 400 CID engine with automatic




transmission.  Emission controls include:   engine modifications, an




oxidation catalyst with secondary air injection, exhaust recirculation,




and canister evaporative control.








     The vehicle was equipped to measure carburetor inlet temperature,




air cleaner inlet temperature, engine speed, change in engine  speed, and




manifold vacuum.

-------
     The repeatable emissions vehicle, REPCA III,  is a 350 CID,  4500




pound inertia weight vehicle which has been modified to produce  stable




hot start emissions at approximately 1974 federal  standards.   REPCA III




is equipped with torque wheels and a fifth wheel speed pickup.  The




digital recording system is designed to measure and display positive and




negative torque and calculate and display positive and negative  horsepower.




The Ford-EPA correlation program summed torque and horsepower over the




1372 second LA-4 cycle.









     2.1  Preconditioning:









     Preconditioning for the first cold start at each test facility




consisted of AMA, LA-4 dynamometer preconditioning, a 12 to 20 hour




soak, and a one hour heat build.  Evaporative emissions were not measured




for the emission tests.  Emission and fuel economy tests served  as




preconditioning for the second cold start test at  each facility.









     Dynamometer preconditioning consisting of steady state warmup was




necessary to* achieve a stable engine temperature before sampling emissions




from REPCA III.



  r





     2.2  Facilities;









     2.2-1  Equipment:  Gas cross checks at EPA were conducted using




analytical trains #9 and 19.  Mass simulator tests were made on  CVS's 21




and 22 (analytical train #9).  Vehicle emission and fuel economy tests

-------
were run using test cells 2, 4, and 5 at Ford,  while all tests were run

using cell 5 and analytical train #33 at EPA.
                                    t

     2.2-2  Calibration;  Dynamometers,  CVS's,  and analytical systems

were determined to be operating properly when  tests were conducted at

Ford and EPA.  Equipment checks and calibrations at EPA and Ford are

performed at least as often as specified in the Federal Register.


3.   Test Results


     3.1  Mass Emissions Simulator Results


     Mass emission results were obtained on only two sites due to a CO

chopper motor failure on train #19 and a malfunctioning solenoid valve

on the Ford emissions simulator.  Results of the emissions simulator

tests are shown in Tables 1 and 2.


     3.2  Gas Cross Check Analyses


     Ford reference gases were named within 2.6 percent on analytical

systems 9 and 19.  These results are presented in Table 3.


     3.3  Exhaust Emission Results


     The results of the exhaust emissions and  fuel economy test are

presented in Appendix A.  HC, CO, C02 results  are plotted in Figures 1-

3.  All emission and fuel economy results are  composite values with

-------
                                8



units of gm/mile.  NOx emissions were not plotted because the  composite


results are approximately equal for cold start,  fuel  economy,  and  hot


start tests.




     Changes in engine speed were measured and examined  to determine if


notable differences among test drivers at Ford and  EPA could be detected.


No significant variations could be observed.




     3.4  REPCA III Results



                             >
     The emission results from REPCA III exhibited  much  more variability


than the baseline data supplied by GM and the vehicle was not  judged


useful for comparisons between laboratories.   A baseline of twelve tests


were run at GM to verify its repeatibility before its delivery to  EPA.


HC and CO emissions from the second sample bag of the LA-4 cycle have


coefficients of variation of 1.5 and 2.7%, while 30 tests at EPA have


variability of 8.5 and 16.0% for HC and CO respectively.  The  vehicle  is


now at the GM Proving Grounds to correct several mechanical problems and


determine why the repeatability is poor.




     Torque and horsepower data from the vehicle are  valid and comparisons


of two dynamometers are summarized in Table 4.




4.   Analysis of Test Results




     HC, CO, and CO- mass values from the Ford emission  simulator  are


within + 5% of the expected results.  NOx values measured by EPA are

-------
slightly higher than expected theoretical limits.   The reason for higher




NOx values is not known, but the gas cross check and vehicle cross




checks do not show similar NOx correlation problems.









     Six gas cylinders were read on analysis trains //9 and #19:   1 HC,




2 CO, 1 C0«, and 2 NOx.  The high concentration CO cylinder was  not read




on train 19 because of an instrument failure.  All gases were determined




to be within 2.6% of their named concentrations.









     Ford and EPA exhaust emission and fuel economy results are  compared




by using a statistical "t" test.  As shown in Tables 5, 6, and 7 for




cold start, fuel economy and hot start emission tests, statistically




significant differences were proven at high confidence levels.









     A statistical difference between Ford and EPA HC results exists at




the 90% C.L. for cold start, fuel economy, and hot start tests.   The




differences are not believed to be important, however, because the mag-




nitude of the differences are small; 0.08, 0.02, and 0.04 gm/mi  for cold




start, fuel "economy, and hot start tests, respectively.  Ford measured




higher average HC values for all three types of tests and generally had




higher variability for all emission and fuel economy tests.  For




CO, cold start tests showed differences between facilities of over 11%,




with the Ford results higher.  No significant CO differences are proven




at the 90% C.L. for fuel economy or hot start tests.  Statistical differ-




ences are not proven for NOx results from cold start, fuel economy, or hot




start tests.  A statistical difference between Ford and EPA measurements




of C02 (8 gm/mi) is evident from an analysis of cold start tests at the

-------
                                 10
90% C.L.  No other differences between measurements  of  CO,,  are  observed,

indicating the CO- differences between facilities  are not serious.   A

difference of 0.2 mi/gal for urban fuel economy is statistically signifi-

cant at the 90% C.L.  This reflects the slight measurement  differences

in C02.



     The effects of ambient conditions have not been accounted  for  in

the analysis, although differences between facilities are significant.

The notable differences are:

x Ford
x EPA
PB ,
29.35
29.02
TD
82.3
73.0
*H
20.6
41.0
KH
0.841
0.901
Corrections for barometric pressure would be expected to produce a

larger difference between Ford and EPA HC and CO measurements but the

correlation between ambient conditions and HC and CO results  is very poor.

The significance of dry bulb temperature differences cannot be assessed

from this program.  Slightly lower Ford NOx measurements are  probably

related to their low levels of relative amd absolute humidity.


            j
     An analysis of the torque and horsepower results show statistical

differences between facilities at the 90% C.L. but the importance
   r
of these differences can be assessed in terms of the differences between

Ford and EPA values of NOx, C02 and fuel economy.  Only slight differences

in cold start measurements of NOx and calculated urban fuel economy were
                                         t
proven.  The differences between torque measurements at Ford  and EPA are

-------
                                 11



less than previous measurements from the 1975 MVMA-EPA correlation


program.  The trends in dynamometer differences for torque and horsepower


are more important than the statistical differences between Ford and


EPA.




Conclusions





1)   Based on this program the correlation between Ford and EPA test


sites is acceptable.  Emission and fuel economy tests and checks of


dynamometers and analysis equipment do not indicate serious correlation


problems.




2)   The effect of ambient test conditions for this particular correlation


vehicle are relatively unknown.  Ford ambient test conditions are sig-


nificantly different from average EPA ambient conditions but emissions


measurements and calculated fuel economy results between facilities


correlate well.




3)   This program was unable to determine the causes for the poor correlation


between Ford-EPA paired test results, or the reasons why the Ford-EPA

            /
correlation has now improved.
   r
Recommendations
1)   An MVMA-EPA correlation program would have identified correlation


problems among the participating manufacturers much more efficiently.  A

-------
                                   12




mutually acceptable correlation program between MVMA and EPA test labora-




tories would have been useful in determining the extent of suspected




emissions correlation problems.  Such a program should be conducted in




the future.









2)   Humidity control at Ford and EPA should be improved, particularly




at Ford.

-------
                                                  Table  1

                          AEO VEHICLE EXHAUST SIMULATOR RESULTS  ON EPA CVS SYSTEM #1
•#1
#2
 #3
March 3, 1976 - One Test
Orifice Bank
#1 & #2
#2
#1
Constituent
IIC
CO
2 NOx
HC
CO
2 NOx
HC
CO
o C02
2 NOx
Measured
Gran Value
3.01
827
5.U9
1.81
28.3
832
1.2k
13.7
839 '
2.21
Time Adjusted
Gram Value
2.U6
33-6
677
l.tfS
23.2
681
2.90*
1.01
11.2
686
1.80*
AEO 5$
, Upper Limit
2.63
• 3^-9
726
If . *5k
1 . 5^-
23.6
727
2.80
1.11
. H-5
729
1 1.78
AEO 5$
Lover Limit
2.38*
32.2.
656
U.10
i.ko
21.3
657
2.53
1.00
10. k
659
                                            1.  Multiplied by 180 sec../220 sec for 180 sec. test.
                                            2.  Corrected NOx values have "been divided by the humidity
                                             ,  correction factor of 0.88^ to yeild uncorrected results.
                                                 of  5$ Limits.

-------
//I
                                                     Table 2

                          AEO VEHICLE EXHAUST SIMULATOR RESULTS ON EPA CVS SYSTEM #2
March 3, 1976 - One Test
Orifice Bank
*'*
#2
#1
Constituent
HC
CO
C02
2 NOx
HC
CO
C02
2 NOx
HC
CO
C02
2 NOx
Measured
Gram Valve
3-04
41.0
822
5-59
1.83
29.0
832
3.56
1.27
14.0
. 849
2.27
Time Adjusted1
Gram Value
2.^9
33-5
672
1.50
23. 7*
681
2. 91*'
11.4
695
1.85*
AEO 5$
Upper Limit
2.63
34.9
726
Jt tr^i
1 ^IL
23.6
727
2.80
1.11
11.5
729
1.78
AEO 5$
Lower Limit
2.38
32.2
656
4.10
1.40
21.3
657
2.53
1.00
10.4
659
1.61
                                            1.   Multiplied "by^ l8o sec/220 sec  for  180 sec.  test.
                                            2.   Corrected NOx' values  have been divided "by the
                                                humidity correction factor of  0.877 to yeild
                                                uncorrected results.

                                            *0ut of 5$ limits.

-------
                                    15
Ford Results

A 3470 CO 675
A 1563 CO 1275
A 10817 HC 50.82
A 14870 C02 1.93
A 5482 NO  44.7
         x
A 4969 NO  81.2
         J*L

* % Difference =
                                 Table 3
                         Ford-EPA Gas Cross Check
EPA Results
Train 19
684.0
	 **
51.30
1.92
44.6
80.7
Ford - EPA
Train 9
692.7
1250.4
50.24
1.90
44.9
83.4

% Difference*
Train 19
-1.3
	
-0.9
+0.5
+0.2
+0.6

Train 9
-2.5
+2.0
+1.2
+1.6
-0.4
-2.6

                     EPA
**  High CO Range on Train 19 Inoperative

-------
                                                   Figure 1
          FCCDAVE .c
          EPA AVE
HC    0.3
       O.I
          EPA
              jF.z  ,F,2

          EPA
1/5J
  FOfiO           EPA
                                                 •H
                                                 •H
                                                                • H.2.
                                                             •H   -H
                                                             •H
                                                                  •H
                                                                                       C s COLO
                                                                                       H= HOT
                                                                                       F
                                                                        V/7,?
                                             FOfcO          EPA

-------
                                          Figure 2
CO    3
FORD
FPA
     •H
          •H
          'H
                         -H

                                   •H
                                   • F
                                                   • H
                                                        •H.2
                                                                  -H

                                                                                               -H
                                                                                 • H
3/2$- 3/36
  FOCO
   3/30
EPA
                                  3/3/
                                                   EPA
                                                                           FO/JO
EPA

-------
00
        6(50
         3.0O
            £PA
            £DpO

            EPA
.
-HU
                3/2?

                  FO^D
                                                       Figure 3
           '  '
               3/30

            £PA
FO£D
EPA

-------
                                  19
FORD
                                Table 4
                         Dynamometer Correlation

Site
n =



EPA
Site
n =



V
*F'

X
t -

4
3_
X
a
CV

5
6
X
a
CV
^
X x 100%

T?
£i
statistic
+Torque
ft-lbf-sec

208,750
1,129
0.5

,„ -KTorque

206,535
1,576 ,
0.8
2,215

1.1
2.14
-Torque


114,837
1,126
1.0

-Torque

110,856
1,113
1.0
3,981

3.6
5.04
Roll Ft.


38,619
117
0.3

Roll Ft.

38,281
111
0.3
338

0.9
4.24
+Horsepower
horsepower-sec

10,203
64
0.6

+Horsepower

9,994
95
1.0
209

2.1
3.38
-Horsepower


3,806
20
0.5

-Horsepower

3,645
25
0.7
161

4.4
9.54
t - values
99% C.L.
3.50
90% C.L.
1.90
ND
D
             D
           D
ND
D
D

-------
                                    20

                                   Table 5
                            Cold  Start Correlation
Ford
n = 5

X
a
CV
Min.
Max.
EPA
n = 5
x t
a
CV
Min.
Max
V*.
-IT i r\na/
X J-UU/o
t = statistic
t - valuer
99% C.L.
3.36
90% C.L. '
1.86

HC

0.460
0.051
11.0
0.419
0.556


0.377
0.015
4.0
0.356
0.390
0.083
+22.0
3.26

ND*

D**


CO

6.201
1.041
16.8
5.23
7.64


5.570
0.497
8.9
4.97
6.15
0.631
+11.3
0.92

ND
_
ND


NO
X
1.664
0.107
6.4
1.54
1.79


1.766
0.090
5.1
1.68
1.86
-0.102
-5.8
-1.63

ND

ND

                                                         C0_          FE
                                                       694.2        12.56
                                                         8.9         0.15
                                                         1.3         1.2
                                                       685          12.4
                                                       706          12.8
                                                       686.4        12.78
                                                         7.5         0.13
                                                         1.1         1.0
                                                       678          12.6
                                                       694          12.9

                                                         7.8        -0.22
                                                        +1.1        -1.7

                                                         1.88       -1.99

                                                         ND          ND
 *No difference exists
**Difference exists

-------
                                    21

                                   Table 6
                            Fuel Economy Correlation
FORD
n = 12
X
o
CV
Min.
Max.
EPA
n = 12
X
o •
CV
Min.
Max.
HC
0.082
0.006
7.3
0.072
0.093

0.066
0.007
10.3
0.059
0.08
CO
0.298
0.273
91.5
0.077
1.03

0.309
0.26
85.0
0.042
0.76
NO
X
1.610
0.106
6.6
1.46
1.86

1.645
0.162
9.8
1.47
1.86
co2
502.2
17.1
3.4
483
534

512.6
10.1
2.0
502
531
FE
17.67
0.58
3.4
16.6
18.3

17.33
0.36
2.1
16.7
17.9
X., -  X.,          0.016      -0.011      -0.035        -10.4          0.3
 .t     £i

——	-xlOO%  +24.2        -3.6        -2.1          -2.0        +1.7

t - statistic     6.18       -0.10       -0.63         - 1.68       +1.72
t - values
99% C.L.          D           ND          ND             ND           ND
90% C.L.          D           ND          ND             ND           ND
1.72

-------
        22

       Table 7
Hot Start Correlation
FORD
n = 12

X
a
CV
Min.
Max.
EPA
n = 12
X
0
CV
Min.
Max.
XF ~ XE
ir i no"7

t - statistic
t - values
99% C.L.
2.82
r
90% C.L.
1.72

HC

0.215
0.041
19.0
0.159
0.333


0.174
0.023
13.0
0.155
0.243
0.041
+23.6
3.05

D


D


CO

2.656
0.692
26.0
1.70
3.82


2.470
0.421
17.1
1.56
3.08
0.186
+7.5
0.79

ND


ND


NO
X
1.538
0.080
5.2
1.43
1.67


1.583
0.067
4.2
1.49
1.70
-0.045
-2.8
-1.47

ND


ND

                             co2
                           654.3
                            24.3
                             3.7
                           583
                           678
                           648.8
                             6.7
                             1.0
                           641
                           659

                             5.5


                            +0.8


                             0.76

                             ND


                             ND

-------
                            APPENDIX A

Composite Emission Results from Correlation Vehicle 7A1-400-5A1NP
Date

Ford
3/25




3/26




EPA
3/29




3/30




Test Type.


CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H

CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
Site HC




CO


co2
7

NOx


F.E.


T./T
d w


PB


*H


NOx K.


5 VOID
0
0
0
0
2 0
0
0
0
0

5 0
0
0
0
0
5 ' 0
0
0
0
0
.089
.084
.204
.204
.464
.085
.082
.213
.224

.376
.072
.074
.172
.176
.390
.064
.066
.18
.18
0.117
0.175
2.54
3.24
5.94
0.512
0.315
2.83
3.82

5.55
0.575
0.533
2.67
2,46
5.21
0.253
0.216
2.35
3.02
534'
532
583
666
706
509
501
664
672
'
694
,531
524
655
649
686
516
509
649
642
1.65
1.72
1.59
1.49
1.54
1.63
1.86
1.64
1.47

1.86
1.86
1.91
1.57
1.60
1.86
1.79
1.80
1.70
1.65
16.6
16.7
15.1
13.2
12.4
17~4
17.7
13.3
13.1

12.6
16.7
16.9
13.4
13.6
12.8
17.2
17.4
13.6
13.7
80.0/57.0
80.0/57.0
80.0/57.0
80.0/57.0
80.0/60.0
84.0/62.0
88.0/65.0
86.0/64.0
82.0/64.0

75.0/60.5
72.0/60.0
73.5/60.5
74.0/61.5
74.0/61.2
76.0/63.5
74,5/62.0
73.0/62.0
74.5/63.0
75.5/62.5
29.30
29.30
29.31
29.33
29.31
29.28
29.27
29.23
29.15

29.05
29.06
29.06
29.02
29.01
28.74
28,72
28.73
28.73
28.73
21
21
21
21
29
27
28
29 *
37

43
49
47
49
48
50 '
49
54
53
48
0.833
0.833
0.833
0.833
0.878
0.887
0.917
0.911
0.939

0.921
0.932
0.930
0.947
0.941
0.977
0.957
0.968
0.978
0.960
                                                                                          N5
                                                                                          LO

-------
Page 2 cont. Appendix A
Date
Ford
3/31




4/1




EPA
4/5




4/6




Test Type

CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H

CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
Site HC

2 0.
0.
v o.
0.
0.
2 0.
0.
0.
0.
• 0.

5 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

419
085
093
220
211
449
084
082
333
201

356
07
08
169
237
386
06
06
156
157
CO

5.38
0.378
1.03
1.97
2.49
6.20
0.351
0.354
3.39
1.74

6.15
0.76
0.72
2.89
3.08
5.97
0.15
0.12
2.23
2.22
co2

685
489
483
650
648
697
514
503
666
658

694
522
516
655
653
680
506
505
641
643
NOx

1.60
1.46
1.51
1.43
1.50
1.63
1.50
1.61
1.57
1.44

1.75
1.68
1.67
1.67
1.74
1.68
1.53
1.51
1.53
1.50
F.E.

12.8
18.1
18.3
13.6
13.6
12.5
17.2
17.6
13.2
13.4

12.6
16.9
17.1
13.4
13.4
12.8
17.5
17.6
13.7
13.7
TjT
d' w

80.0/57.0
82.0/57.0
83.0/57.0
84.0/58.0
80.0/57.0
83.0/58.0
83.0/58.0
83.0/58.0
83.0/58.0
83.0/58.0

73.5/58.5
72.0/57.5
72.0/57.0
72.5/56.5
72.5/57.0
70.5/58.5
72.0/58.0
74.0/57.5
73.0/56.5
72.5/56.5
PB

29.18
29.17
29.17
29.10
29.31
29.12
29.14
29.15
29.14
29.16

29.02
29.00
29.00
28.96
28.97
28.94
28.94
28.94
28.94
28.93
KH

21
18
16
17
21
19
19
19
19
19

40
40
39
36
38
49
42
35
34
36
NOx 1C

0.834
0.824
0.819
0.827
0.833
0.832
0.832
0.832
0.832
0.832

0.896
0.889
0.882
0.871
0.879
0.916
0.898
0.878
0.869
0.872
                                                                                                                  NJ

-------
Page 3 cont. Appendix  A
Date
Ford
4/7


4/8

4/9




EPA
4/13




4/14




Test Type

CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H

CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
CVS-C
HFET
HFET
CVS-H
CVS-H
Site HC

4 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.


556
076
076
215
185
420
077
072
159
216

CO

7.64
0.086
0.086
3.36
2.16
5.23
0.100
0.077
2.63
1.70

co2

690
491
490
657
678
702
493
487
648
661
•
NOx

1.76
1.58
1.61
1.48
1.58
1.79
1.60
1.59
1.60
1.67

F.E.

12.6
18.1
18.1
13.4
13.0
12.5
18/0
18.2
13.6
13.4

f/T
d w

81/57
81/57
81/57
83/57
83/58
84/57
85/60
85/58
80/56
81/56

PB

29.53
29.54
29.54
29.61
29.62
29.68
29.66
29.64
29.61
29.60

*H

19
19
19
16
18
14
20
15.
18
17

toxK,

0.826
0.826
0.826
0.815
0.829
0.810
0.846
0.818
- 0.818
0.813

5 VOID
0.
0.
0.
0.
5 0.
0.
0,
0,
0.
061
066
163
155
379
059
059
165
169
0.109
0.160
2.56
1.56
4.97
0.068
0.042
2.43
2.17
507
496
659
653
678
508
502
642
641
1.49
1.47
1.54
1.59
1.68
1.56
1.47
1.49
1.54
17.5
17.9
13.4
13.5
12.9
17.5
17.7'
13.7
13.7
73.0/55.5
72.5/55.0
72.5/55.0
72.0/55.0
72.0/56.5
72.0/57.0
73.0/57.0
72.0/56.5
72.0/57.0
29.31
29.31
29.31
29.31
29.18
29.17
29.17
29.17
29.17
31
30
30
32
37
39
36
37
39
0.851
0.847
0.847
0.850
. 0.872
0.880
0.874
0.872
0.880
                                                                                                                  to
                                                                                                                  Ul

-------