Emission Laboratory Correlation Study
Between EPA and the
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
of the United States, Inc.
by
Richard E. Lowery
September 24, 1974
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
This report presents the results of an emission laboratory correlation
study involving EPA and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the
United States, Inc. (MVMA). It specifically compares test equipment charac-
teristics and vehicle emission measurements at the test facilities of EPA,
American Motors Corporation, Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company,
General Motors Corporation, and International Harvester Company.
In general, the facilities involved in this study exhibited a high
degree of equipment and emission test correlation. Factors which may
affect emission measurement correlation, including dynamometers, constant
volume samplers, gas analysis systems, and ambient conditions, are presented
and discussed.
-------
Introduction;
On February 13, 1974, EPA representatives attended a meeting of MVMA's
Exhaust Emission Measurement Panel to discuss details of a proposed cross-
correlation program. At that meeting, EPA and representatives of American
Motors Corporation (AMC), Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General
Motors Corporation (CMC), and International Harvester Company (IHC)
approved a three phase correlation program which was designed to check
equipment, procedures, and vehicle emission levels at all participating
laboratories. Upon initiation of Phases I and II of the study, the
committee reassembled to discuss the details of the tests which would
be useful in Phase III. That meeting, held on April 9, completed the
organizational tasks of the cross-correlation program.
Objective;
It is the intent of this report to present the EPA test results re-
lating to the MVMA correlation program and to compare these results to
available data from other laboratories. Conclusions will emphasize the
impact of this correlation study upon EPA emission testing activities.
Organization of Testing;
All cross-checks tests conducted for this study were performed at
the following facilities: EPA-Ann Arbor, American Motors Corporation-
Detroit, Chrysler Corporation Proving Ground-Chelsea, Ford Motor Company
Automotive Emissions Office-Dearborn, General Motors Corporation Motor
Vehicle Emissions Laboratory-Milford. All tests except the 1975 level
emission tests were also performed at the International Harvester Company
facility. In an attempt to minimize the variables involved in this study,
all correlation checks were conducted at one certification site at each
laboratory, when possible. At EPA, all checks relating to this program
were conducted on certification site #5.
Summary of Cross-Check Tests;
Phases I and II - These portions of the correlation study were
designed to expose differences in facilities, equipment, and procedures
(Phase I) and to quantify the effects of any such differences (Phase II).
The data were generated by technical groups from Ford and CMC.
Original data relating to these phases of the study were obtained
by CMC's Vehicle Emission Laboratory Plant Assistant Group during the
week of March 11. At that time, the following checks were performed at
EPA;
1. Equipment checks to determine the types of instruments in
usage, their calibration procedures, and the techniques
and frequencies of their maintenance.
-------
-2-
2. Observations of certification testing to check and compare
test procedures.
3. A hand-calculation of a 1975 certification test to check
the accuracy of the computer's computations.
4. Static gas checks to determine analyzer accuracy over a
range of concentrations.
5. An efficiency check of the NOx converter.
6. Dynamometer coast-down checks at the 3000 and 5000 pound
inertia settings.
7. A strobotac check of the driver's aid speed calibration.
8. A CVS check using the propane injection technique.
Similar checks were performed by the CMC group at all participating
facilities.
Ford's input to Phases I and II of the program was begun during
the week of March 25, when technicians from the Ford Automotive Emissions
Office performed the following tests at EPA:
1. Dynamometer torque checks using Ford's Emission Test Cell
Performance Analyzer.
2. The complete CVS-analyzer system was checked using Ford's
mass simulator.
Similar tests were conducted at all participating laboratories'by
the Ford AEO group.
Phase III - This phase of the study consisted of vehicle emission
test cross-checks. These checks were accomplished in two stages.
1. CMC's 1974 level hot start repeatable car was tested at
all participating facilities. Data were collected and
analyzed by the CMC group (April 10 - 26).
2. Each participating manufacturer, except IHC, tested a 1975
level vehicle at EPA after completing several tests on that
vehicle at its facility. Data were collected and compiled
by EPA.
Data which describes the vehicles used in these tests are summarized in
Table 1.
-------
Manufacturer
CMC1
CMC2
AMC
Chrysler
Ford
-J-
Table 1
Vehicle Specifications
V.I.D.
PG-73277
PG-72709
D40-32L(F)
965
33Q55D
1974 Hot-start vehicle
"1975 Cold-start vehicle
Inertia
(Ibs.)
4500
4500
3000
4500
4000
C.I.D.
350
350
232
318
302
Control System
Engine Modification
EGR, AI, Catalyst
EGR
EGR, Catalyst
Engine Modification
Catalyst
Test Procedures;
Because most of the checks involved in Phases I and II of this study
followed standard, established procedures, those procedures will not be
elaborated here. However, the vehicle emission tests (Phase III) were
conducted under unique procedures which deserve further documentation.
Two types of emission tests were conducted during this study:
1975 cold-start certification tests and 1372 second hot-start tests.
Hot-start tests were run on only one vehicle, the CMC 1974-level repeat-
able car. Prior to testing, this vehicle was warmed on the dynamometer
and the proper dynamometer loading was set. The test vehicle was then
brought to an idle to begin the test. Two sets of collection bags were
used for each test. A minimum of four hot-start tests were run on this
vehicle at each laboratory all of which were driven by a CMC driver. In
addition to the emission data which were generated, the vehicle was
equipped with instrumentation which measured several vehicle parameters,
including throttle angle, manifold vacuum, wheel torque and wheel horse-
power. No evaporative measurements were taken during any of these vehicle
emission tests.
-------
-4-
To complete Phase III testing, three valid 1975 cold-start certi-
fication tests were run at EPA on each of the four test vehicles. Test
procedures were based on the Federal Test Procedure (FTP)-'-. Prior to
its first EPA test, each Vehicle was preconditioned in accordance with
§85.075-12(c) of the FTP. Subsequent tests were conducted on consecu-
tive days so that further preconditioning was unnecessary. An exception
was the CMC vehicle, which was dynamometer preconditioned to allow an
approximate 14 hour soak period before each test. Vehicle fueling was
performed in accordance with §85.075-13(a)(2) of the FTP. Artificial
heating of the fuel, as elaborated in §85.075-13(a)(4), was performed
exclusively on the Chrysler vehicle. Other procedures followed
§85.075-14 through §85.075-20 and §85.075-22 through §85.075-26 of
the FTP. Test drivers were provided by EPA for tests at the Ann Arbor
laboratory, however, CMC chose to supply a driver for tests on its
vehicle.
Data Analysis:
Phase I and II - Analysis of the information gathered during these
phases of the study can best be presented under the topics outlined in
the preceding cross-check test summary. Data cited in this analysis are
summarized in Appendices A and B.
1. Equipment Audit - The most pronounced differences in test
equipment between the involved laboratories were found to be related
to dynamometer types. EPA, CMC, and Chrysler laboratories employed
direct-drive dynamometers, while Ford, AMC,i and IHC used belt-drive
types. Also, AMC and IHC dynamometers were equipped with "200 horse-
power power absorbers, while the other laboratories' dynamometers
employed 50 horsepower absorbers. The effect of these differences
were studied during Phase II of this program, and the results of that
study will be presented later in this report.
Other differences in facilities' equipment were discovered, but
none of these differences should significantly affect test results.
Suggestions for possible improvements in each laboratory were presented
by the CMC group, whose major recommendation to EPA was improvement of
the existing equipment calibration and maintenance documentation.
2. Test Observation - Observation of a 1975 certification test
at the EPA facility revealed no major procedural questions. However, a
leakage of water from the CVS-tailpipe interface was observed during
the test. The CMC group recommended possible solutions to this problem.
3. Hand Calculation of Test Results - The accuracy of computer
calculations was verified at all facilities except IHC, where a problem
was discovered with the computer results. A 5% error was revealed in
the computer CO mass calculation of the test results in question.
-------
-5-
4. Static Gas Checks - To analyze the data from these checks,
mean values of all cylinder concentrations were calculated from the
facility readings. Each facility's reading was then compared to the mean
value (See Appendix A-4). Discrepancies of greater than 3% of the mean
were considered significant. .
The best correlation of facility readings was experienced in
C02 measurements. The only significant discrepancy revealed was AMC's
5.5% difference from the mean value at an approximate C02 concentration
of 0.5%. NOX correlation was also excellent, with the only problems
experienced being at low concentrations (less than 25 ppm). Two read-
ings at each CMC and IHC were found to be significantly variant from
the mean at low concentration.
Significant differences in low concentration HC readings were
revealed between facilities. On four cylinders with concentrations
less than 50 ppm HC, CMC readings were consistently higher than the mean
(3.4 to 6.8%) as were EPA readings (2.7 to 3.7%). Chrysler and IHC
readings of these cylinders were consistently lower than the mean
(3.5 - 7.5% and 1.2 - 8.2% respectively). One AMC reading was also
significantly different from the mean; 6.4% lower at approximately 2
ppm concentration. All readings of HC cylinder's above 50 ppm concen-
trations were within 3% of the cylinder's mean concentration reading.
Correlation of CO static gases was generally good at high
concentrations with some problems at lower concentrations. In the
250-2600 ppm range, only two readings differed significantly from the
mean. At about 2500 ppm, the CMC value exceeded the average by 3.1%,
while at about 1500 ppm, the AMC value was 4.1% lower than the mean.
Below 250 ppm, all IHC readings were significantly below mean values
(16.4 - 100%), thus new means were calculated from the other five data
points. Using this new mean as the comparator, EPA readings were
significantly low in the 0-60 ppm range (3.2 - 19%), while Ford values
were 3.2 - 3.3% lower than the five-laboratory mean in the 0-30 ppm
range. All readings fell outside the + 3% range at about 10 ppm, with
EPA and IHC deviation being the largest.
5. NOX Converter Efficiency - A problem was discovered at AMC
as a result of the 86.3% efficiency calculated during the check.
Maintenance of the converter raised its efficiency to 95.6%. Other
calculated NOX converter efficiencies were: GMC-100%, Ford-95.3%,
EPA-98.3%, Chrysler-91.5%, and IHC-94.0%.
6. Dynamometer Coast-Down Checks - All coast-down checks revealed
absorbed horsepower within + 0.5 hp of the Federal Register specification
except: Chrysler, + 0.68 hp @ 5000# inertia; AMC, - 0.74 hp @ 3000//
inertia and - 1.64 hp @ 5000# inertia; IHC, + 1.3 hp @ 4000// inertia
and + 1.2 hp inertia @ 5000// inertia.
-------
-6-
7. Speed Calibration Check - All speed meter calibrations,
except Fords, were accurate as checked. A 0.6% error was measured
at Ford.
8. CVS Propane Injections - Four of the six laboratories
involved reported CVS errors of less than 2%. The CVS error at
Chrysler was measured at 6.75%, and upon a new calibration it measured
4.0%. The IHC error was 5.45%.
9. Ford Mass Simulation - Because of the high variability of the
mass simulation, differences between laboratory analytical systems were
difficult to substantiate with the Ford mass data. These data are
tabulated in Appendix B-l.
10* Ford Dynamometer Checks - These checks compared power
absorption unit (PAU) and inertia characteristics of the dynamometers
involved in the cross-correlation study. PAU curve areas varied within
about 4% of the mean value, with a maximum deviation from the average
of 4.55% at AMC. The 50 mph PAU load varied within about 3% of the
mean value, 3.08% being the largest difference (at IHC). Inertia checks
of each dynamometer's 4500 pound simulation revealed an average value of
4642 pounds, with discrepancies from this mean as high as + 4.83% (at
CMC). However, high test-to-test variability at each site made the
significance of these inertia differences questionable. A summary of
these dynamometer-check data may be found in Appendix B-2.
Phase III - Data gathered during this portion of the study pro-
vided vehicle emission level comparisons as well as further dynamometer
characterizations.
1. Repca I Data - Ideally, emission levels measured on GM's
repeatable car could best be analyzed using sophisticated statistical
methods. Unfortunately, such an analysis is difficult because of the
changing emission characteristics of this vehicle. This is exemplified
by the fact that Repca I HC, NOX, and C02 emissions, as measured at the
CMC laboratory, were significantly different (90% confidence level) at
the end of the MVMA program than at the beginning. Consequently, a
less rigorous analysis, which accounts for changing vehicle character-
istics, must be employed.
Such an analysis is the "Bogie" method derived by CMC personnel.
This analysis uses previous tests on the vehicle to establish confidence
limits on its emissions. At the beginning of the MVMA program, Repca I
had "Bogie" emission numbers as listed in Table 2. Comparison of each
facility's measurements to these data gives an indication of significant
emission discrepancies.
-------
-7-
Table 2
Repca I "Bogie" Numbers (Grams/Mile)
Upper 95% Lower 95%
Mean Limit Limit
HC 1.38 1.50 1.26
CO 22.2 25.1 19.3
NOX 3.21 3.55 2.87
C02 611 628 594
Using the above guidelines, the most pronounced discrepancies
revealed were in C02 and NOX levels. Significantly high C02 levels
were measured at AMC and IHC site #1, while significantly high levels
of NOX were measured at IHC site #4. The other laboratories were
within vehicle variability in measurements of C02 and NOx- Only
one site experienced significant problems in measurements of KG or CO,
that being IHC site //4, which reported consistently low HC levels.
More detailed Repca I emission data are summarized in Appendices C-l
through C-5.
During emission testing on the repeatable car, GM technicians
recorded dynamometer torque characteristics using their total torque
tester. Data from these determinations are plotted in Appendices C-6
through C-8. Analyses of these data show minor site-to-site differences
in steady-speed power absorption and in work done over the LA-4 cycle.
The most pronounced tendencies were discovered at AMC and IHC, where the
test vehicle generally expended more work to complete the driving schedule
than it did at other facilities. Statistical analyses of torque and
horsepower data verify this tendency (See Table 3).
Table 3
Repca I Work Analysis
3
Significant Differences Among Laboratories (95% Confidence)
Average Average Positive Positive
Laboratories Torque Horsepower Torque Horsepower
All Yes Yes Yes Yes
All except IHC Yes Yes No No
All except IHC, AMC Yes No No No
-------
-8-
As a final dynamometer check, Repca I was driven over a prescribed
driving schedule to determine inertia. These data are presented in
Appendix 9. All dynamometers were within specifications except EPA #5
and IHC #4, where significantly low inertia values were calculated.
2. 1975-level Vehicle Tests - Unfortunately, the 1975-level
vehicles tested at EPA did not approach the repeatability of Repca I.
However, results of these tests did reveal some significant discrepancies.
EPA's measurement of lower C02 emissions than manufacturers, which was the
case for all vehicles, was the most apparent trend. Also pronounced, were
EPA's measurements of lower HC emissions on the CMC and Ford vehicles.
Other mean emission differences, although often large, were within the
variability of the vehicles in question. Presentation of the complete
1975-level vehicles data is made in Appendix D.
Discussion;
Data generated during this cross-correlation study revealed several
factors which may contribute to laboratory correlation problems. These
factors may be considered in four categories: (1) dynamometer effects,
(2) analysis system effects, (3) CVS effects, and (4) ambient effects.
Dynamometer Effects - During Phase III of this study, CMC generated
data which directly compared dynamometer loading to vehicle emissions.
Regression analyses of these data do not reveal a good correlation between
loading and NOX and C02 emissions (See Table 4). The analyses do show,
however, the highest degree of correlation between NOX and positive
torque (.50). Also of some significance are the correlation coefficients
of C02 to positive torque (.47) and NOx to positive horsepower (.46).
These coefficients indicate that vehicle loading does affect NOX and
C02 emissions, but to a lesser degree than other, undefined variables.
Graphical presentations of NOX and C02 emissions versus loading parameters,
which include least-square fit lines and standard estimate of errors,
are made in Appendices C-10 through C-13.
Table 4
Regression Analysis of Repca I NOX and C02
Emissions Versus Vehicle Loading
Correlation
Loading Parameter Coefficients
NOX C02
Average Torque .32 .37
Positive Torque .50 .47
Negative Torque .18 .10
Average Horsepower .37 .29
Positive Horsepower .46 .24
Negative Horsepower .12 .28
-------
These regression analyses do indicate that relatively high C02 and NOX
emissions, as measured at IHC and AMC, can be particularly attributed
to relatively high vehicle loading at those facilities.
Another dynamometer factor investigated during this study was the
accuracy of inertial simulation. Unfortunately, tests conducted inde-
pendently by CMC and Ford on the same dynamometers did not produce
similar results. Discussions with the involved personnel documented
that current techniques for determining dynamometer inertia are not
sufficiently perfected to produce accurate and repeatable results.
Therefore, data which showed significant inertial discrepancies between
dynamometers are deemed to be inaccurate, and any effect of dynamometer
inertia on vehicle emissions is thus deemed undefinable.
A- final dynamometer factor which may have affected test results
is the accuracy of the speed calibration. CMC data generated during
Phase III shows that speed differences as large as 2 mph were measured
at the 50 mph calibration point (See Appendix C-6). Because a vehicle's
speed significantly affects its expenditure of energy, it is believed
a speed calibration error could significantly affect CC>2 emissions.
This could be a possible explanation of relatively low C02 emissions
at EPA during latter stages of Phase III vehicle tests.
Analysis System Effects - In general, vehicle emission correla-
tion results during this study were not affected by analysis system
errors. The only large discrepancies in gas analyzer measurements were
at very low concentrations of HC and CO, hence the measurement of
catalyst-equipped vehicle emissions may have been slightly affected.
However, since such discrepancies are a very minor factor in the passing
or failing of a 1975 or 1976 emission certification test, they are not
of major concern at this time.
CVS Effects - Checks of the various CVS systems employed in this
study showed large variations in propane injection results. However,
these data do not differentiate between the CVS repeatability and the
repeatability and the reproducibility of the propane injection technique.
Consequently, it can be concluded that CVS calibration inaccuracies may
add to the test variability between laboratories, but the extent of
this influence cannot be isolated using the available data.
Ambient Effects - It should be emphasized that various ambient
conditions, namely temperature, pressure, and humidity, may significantly
affect the degree of inter-laboratory correlation. In this study, con-
clusions regarding the effects of these ambient parameters are extremely
difficult to derive because of the large number of other variables under
consideration.
-------
-10-
Conclusions;
1. The EPA-MVMA emission correlation study demonstrated the
ability of various laboratories, employing different equipment and
personnel, to measure very similar emission levels. Test-to-test
variability made any determination of "average" or "typical" dif-
ferences between laboratories very difficult.
2. Vehicle loading was a minor factor affecting NOx and C02
emission levels. In general, increased loading tended to result in
higher NOX and C02 emissions.
3. Extensive checks of the gas analysis systems of the involved
laboratories revealed only minor discrepancies in gas measurements.
The most pronounced discrepancies were at very low concentrations, where
the effect on passing a certification test would be minimal.
4. Other factors which may influence emission laboratory correla-
tion were revealed. These factors include dynamometer speed calibra-
tions, CVS accuracy, and ambient conditions. More specifically-designed
test programs would be required to further investigate the contribution
of these factors to current emission correlation discrepancies.
Recommendations;
1. Future correlation programs that include round-robin vehicle
tests should be more carefully scheduled. Because vehicle characteris-
tics may vary over time, the vehicle(s) should be tested in as short a
time span as possible with frequent "baseline" tests at one facility.
2. In programs designed to isolate the cause of correlation problems,
diagnostic checks should be performed either just before or -just after
vehicle emission tests.
3. Because of statistical considerations, the same number of
emission tests should be conducted at each laboratory on a round-robin
vehicle. The base laboratory should choose a "typical" cell and conduct
the specified number of tests at the beginning, periodically throughout,
and at the end of the program.
-------
References
1. Federal Register, Volume 37, Number 221, November 15, 1972 (as
amended).
2. Letter from David I. Buist, General Motors Proving Ground, to
Lewis E. Duffing, MVMA; Exhaust Emission Measurement Panel Correspondence;
June 12, 1974.
3. Practical Statistics Simply Explained, Dr. Russell Langley, 1970,
pp. 212-221.
4. Letter from Lewis El Duffing (MVMA) to Rick Lowery (EPA), June 24,
1974. \
5. Letter from David W. Hermance, General Motors. Proving Ground, to
Lewis E. Duffing, MVMA; Exhaust Emission Measurement Panel Correspond-
ence; May 10, 1974.
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
Phase II Data
Generated by
General Motors Corporation
-------
General Information
Appendix A-l
GM
Ford
EPA
Chrvsler
AMC
In't Harvester
Analyzers
HC
LCD
HCO
NO.
CO-
Bench
Beckman 400
0-100 ppra
H2/N2 Fuel
Bendlx 8501- .
0-500 ppra
0-1000 ppm
0-2500 ppm
Beckman 31SB
0-5000 ppm
5 1/4" cell
TECO 10A
0-150 ppm
Air Ozone Source
- Beckman 315B
0-3.5%
1/8" cell
Scott .
1 pump/analyzer
Ice Bath for LCO
6 HCO
Beckman 400
0-20 ppm
0-100 ppm
H2/He Fuel
Beckman 315B
0-500 ppm
0-1500 ppm
0-4000 ppm
Phllco
0-25 ppm
0-100 ppm
O2 Ozone Source
Beckman 315B
0-4%' 0-7%
1/8" cell
Philco
1 pump/analyzer
Ice Bath for LCO
Beckman 400
0-50 ppm
0-100 ppm
H2/N2 Fuel
Bendix 8501
0-500 ppm
0-1000 ppm
BeckmanOlSA
0-2500 ppm
2 1/4" cell
TECO IDA
0-100 ppm
O2 Ozone Source
(calibrated as
NOX)
Beckman 315A
0-3.5%
1/8" cell
Homebuilt
plumbed per
register
Water Trap for
LCO & KCO
(no flow in reset)
Beckman 400
0-100 ppm
H2/He Fuel
Beckman 865
0-3000 ppm
Beckman 400
0-100 ppm
H2/He Fuel
Beckman 315B
0-250 ppnj
0-1250 ppm
0-3500 ppm
Beckman 400
0-30 ppm
0-330 ppm
H2/He Fuel
Beckman 315B
0-2500 ppm
Beckman 951
0-250 ppm
02 Ozone Source
(atmospheric
press, reaction)
Beckman 864
0-4.5%
TECO IDA
0-100 ppm
Air Ozone
Source
TECO 10A
O-ioo ppm
Air Ozone Source
Beckman 315A
0-7.5%
1/8" cell
Beckman 865
0-5%
Beckman
1 "push" type pump
Ice Bath for LCO
CO Conditioning
Agents
CVS
i
Ascarite
Drierite
Separate Tubes
Delco 102
Cal w/LFE on Outlet
A P 70" H20 @
1332 rpm
6 bag
Ascarito
Drierite
Common Tube
Philco
Cal LFE on
(Critical Flow
6 bag
Met
Venturi)
Ascarite
Silica Gel
Common Tube
AMI
Cal
AP
Trans Drive
LFE on Inlet
72" H20 @
1464 rpm
4 bag
Malcasorb
Aquasorb
Separate Tubes
Heath
Cal LFE on Outlet
AP 12.2" H20@
1041 rpm
6 bag
Driver's Aid
HP7100
6" = 60 mph
6"/l minute
Coinpujer generated
Trace
HP7100
5" = 60 mph
4"/l minute
Pre-printed Trace
Varian PCS CRT
5" = 60 mph 6" = 50 mpb
4"/l minute 22.5"/l minute
Pre-printed Trace Computer gener-
ated Trace •
Scott Homebuilt
FID & CO on com- 1 "push" type
mon flow stream pump
w/ Ice Bath -8: 1 Water Trap for
pump
CO2 t NOjj - 1
pump each
(no flow in reset)
CO
(no flow in reset)
Ascarite
Silica Gel Drierite
Separate Tubes One Tube
Scott 301 Scott 301
Cal LFE ca Met Cal .LFE on Inlet
AP13.5"H20@ AP28"H20@
DYNO
Clayton CT-50
Direct Drive
Auto Loading
Clayton CT-50
Belt Drive
(Oil Can-Type Load
Cell)
Clayton CT-50
Direct Drive .
Auto Loading
(Auto Load Not In
Use)
Clayton CT-50
Direct Drive
Auto Loading
Clayton C150
Belt Drive
(Oil Can-Type
Load Cell)
Clayton CT-200
Dog Clutch/Belt Dr.
(Oil Can-Type
Load Cell)
SEL8600
On-Llne
Xerox Sigma 13
On-Llne
IBM 370
Off-Line
PCS HP-2100
On-Line
Honeywell
Olf-Llne
DEC
Off-Line
David W. Hermance
May 9, 1974
lee
-------
Appendix A-2
Functional Chocks
CM
NOX Converter 100
Efficiency
(?o Efficient)
Propane Injection +1.06
(% Error)
Sample Line Hang-up .09
(PPM C3)
-.26
Coast Down 3000 8IW
Horsepower 5000 #IW -.14
(Actual HP - Chart HP)
Roll Speed Cal 46. 3
(MPH)
Wet C02 Check 0
(PPM CO)
Without
Dual Blend Check Ascarite
(PPM CO) , h
Wlt 1485
Ascarite
HC 0.0
Mass Calculations CO 00
(% Error) NQ Q|0
•IW « 4000 Ibs
CM
Propane Injection Dally
NOX Converter Efficiency Daily
CO Column Check Daily
Analyzer Calibration Monthly
Analyzer Spot Check N/A
Pull Down Leak Check Dally
Dyno Spot Check Monthly
Dyno Calibration AR
Ford EPA Chrysler AMC IH
95.3 98.3 91.5 86.3 94.0 •
95.6 after maint.
-1.60 -.97 -6.75 +1.37* +5.45
-4.0 CVS recal.
.35 .3 .0 . . .05 .6
-.42 -.39 -.42 -.74 +1.3'
-.07 -.17 +.63 -1.64 +1.2
46.0 40. 3 46.3 46.3 46.3
0 0 1.2 ppm 0 10 ppm
1476 1453 1478 1501
Not Done
1492 1475 1466 1530
-0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -5.1
0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.5 -.4
'
Calibration & Maintennnco Frequencies
Ford EPA Chrysler AMC • IH
Monthly Weekly Weekly Weekly Not Done
Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Monthly
Monthly Daily Not Done Each Shift N/A
- Monthly Weekly ' AR Monthly Monthly
N/A N/A Monthly N/A N/A
Each Test Each Test Each Shift Daily Daily
Weekly Weekly Monthly Not Done Not Done
Monthly Monthly AR Maintenance Maintenance
CVS Calibration
AR
6 mo. or AR
AR
AR
AR
Installation
FID Peaking
Monthly Installation Weekly Not Done
Annual
Installation
-------
Tag
Value
GM
Gas Results
Chrysler
AMC
IH
HC
.05
2.08
G.G3
10.23
30.6
59.2
96.35
.05
2.06'
G.81
10.39
30.77
59.26
96.47
.0
1.9
5.9
9.2
28.7
56.4
93.8
.05
1.85
6.45
10.15
30.25
59.25
96.05
.05
2.0
6.1
9.45
27.3
55.8
93.8
Methane
72.3
56.7
64.05
55.8
CO
NO/
NO,
CO,,
.4
8.84
32.0
54.7
100.2
2-17
505
718
1026
1539
2G38
0.0
4.8/4.85
8.- 5/3. 5
22. -15/22. 5
46.8/-17.0
75.3/75.8
9G.3/97.6
.0003
.50
1.03
1.55
2.64
.02
8.98
32.2
54.4
98.0
247.6
506.7
709.5
1022
"1530
2G32
.1
4.75
8.0
22.43
46.4
76.0
97.1
.00
1.53
2.63
0
8.0
30.4
53.8
99.4
2-19.4
49G
708
1018
1532
2509
0
4.G4
7.9
21.47
45.1
73.3
93.7
*
.00
1.53
2.63
0
6.7
30.4
51.5
Ofi.G
2-17.5
513.4
- 719.7
1025.2
1547
Off Scale
S--
.1
4.G
7.7
21.7
45.2
7-1.2
'95.8
**
.00
.522
1.018
1.52
2.68
0
8.7
32.0
5-1.6
99.1
250.5
518.6
730.7
1022
1530
. 2567
.2
4.7
7.7
21.8
46. 1
74.7
95.0
.01
.51
1.04
1.52
2.56
1
9
32
54
101
-249
511
720
1041
1454
2506
.2
4.6
7.8
21.3
44.7
72.8
92.4
*»«
.00
.48
1.03
1.56
2.71
0
0
10
30
80
250
510
700
1010
1500
Off Scale
.0
5
7
21
45
73'
96
.00
. .52
1.02
1.52
2.60
* Span Tag Low 1.5 ppm
•• Head inNOx Mode
**• Span Tag Low 1.1 ppm
4-18-74
DWH
T3
(D
3
o.
H-
.X
-------
Appendix A-4
Gas
HC
CO
NO/
MVMA FACILITIES STATIC GAS CHECK
Mean Readings and % Deviation from Mean
Mean Value % Deviation from Mean
1.98
6.38
9.91
29.75
58.16
95.51
6.9
* 8.3
27.8
* 31.4
49.
* 53.
95.
* 98.8
250
509
714
1023
1515
2553
CO,
4.7
7.7
21.6
45.4
74.0
95.0
.51
1.03
1.53
2.64
CMC
4.2
6.8
4.9
3.4
1.9
1.0
30.2
8.5
15.7
2.5
9.4
1.4
2.4
-0.8
-1.0
-0.5
-0.7
-0.1
1.0
3.1
0.7
4.1
3.8
2.2
2.7
2.2
_ _
—
0.0
-0.2
Ford
1.2
1.2
1.4
3.0
1.5
1.2
• 16.0
-3.3
9.2
-3.2
8.2
0.3
3.9
0.6
-0.2
-2.6
-0.9
-0.4
1.1
-1.7
-1.6
2.8
-0.6
-0.7
-0.9
-1.4
—
0.0
-0.2
EPA
3.7
2.7
3.0
3.7
1.8
0.8
-2.9
-19.0
9.2
-3.2
3.6
-4.0
1.0
-2.2
-1.0
0.8
0.7
0.2
2.1
—
-2.4
0.2
0.5
-0.5
0.3
0.8
2.8
-0.9
-0.7
1.7
Chrysler
-3.9
-7.5
-7.1
-3.5
-3.0
-1.8
26.0
5.1
15.0
. 1.9
9.8
1.8
3.6
0.3
2.6
1.8
2.2
-0.1
1.0
0.5
-0.3
0.2
0.5
1.5
0.9
0.0
0.4
1.3
-0.7
-2.8
AMC
-6.4
1.2
2.4
1.7
1.9
0.5
30.5
8.7
14.9
1.9
8.6
0.6
5.6
2.2
-0.4
0.3
0.7
1.8
-4.1
-1.9
-2.4
1.5
-1.4
-1.6
-1.6
-2.7
-5.5
0.3
2.0
2.8
IHC
-1.2
-4.3
-4.6
-8.2
-4.1
-1.8
-100
—
-64.1
—
-39.7
—
-16.4
—
0.0
0.1
-2.0
-1.3
-1.0
—
6.0
-8.9
-2.8
-0.9
-1.4
1.1
2.4
-0.7
-0.7
-1.3
Calculations excluding IHC reading.
-------
APPENDIX B
Phase II Data
Generated by
Ford Motor Company
-------
MVMA FACILITIES GAS ANALYTICAL SYSTEM PERTORMANCE
GAS & TEST MODE
C3H8 BAG 1 (grama)
BAG 2 (grams)
BAG 3 (grams)
GRAMS/MILE
CO BAG 1 (grams)
BAG 2 (grams)
BAG 3 (grams)
CRAMS/MILE
NO BAG 1 (grams)
BAG 2 (grams).
BAG 3 (grama)
GRAMS/MILE
C02 BAG 1 (grams)
BAG 2 (grams)
BAG 3 (grams)
GRAMS/MILE
MVMA
MEAN*
3-75
1.75
3.12
0.69
U8.33
19.43
30.15
7.69
9.02
3°. W
6.2k
1.46
216.14
214.41
198.23
55.38
< VARIABILITY
6.46
7.64
7-39
6.75
7-92
6.03
1.99
3.89
8.98
5.07
10.26
7-17
4.68
8.51
2.95
5.14
% DIFF
FROM
FORD MEAN
3-70
1.81
3.33
0.71
43.35
19.50
30.00
7.48
7.86
3.21
6.00
1.34
226.09
240.17
I252.00)
(64.14)
- 1.33
+ 3.43
+ 6.73
+ 2.90
-10.30
+ 0.36
- 0.5
- 2.73
-12.86
-7-56
- 3.85
- 8.22
+ 4.60
+12.01
% DIFF
FROM
EPA MEAN
3-70
1.67
2.84
0.65
47-55
19.26
(22.37)
(7.01)
9.04
3-33
5-37
1.37
225.01
229.32
199.94
58.68
- 1.33
- 4.57
+ 8.97
- 5.80.
- 1.61
- 0.87
+ 0.22
-4.31
-13.94
- 6.16
+ 4.10
+ 6.95
+ 0.86
+ 5.96
% DIFF
GENERAL FROM
MOTORS MEAN
3.85
1.81
3.28
0.71
49.97
20.43
31.02
7.92
9-50
3.61
6.57
1.53
204.58
204.33
204. 58
5^-52
+ 2.67
+ 3.43
+ 5-13
+ 2.90
+ 2.36
+ 5.15
+ 2.89
+ 2.99
+ 5-32
+ 3-74
+ 5-29
+ 4.79
- 5-35
- 4.70
+ 3.20
- 1.55
% DIFF
FROM
CHRYSLER MEAN
3.31
1.51
2.83
0.61
46.67
17.73
29.40
7.27
9.08
3.47
6.21
1.46
206.53
191.67
191.47
51.95
-11.73
-13-71
- 9.29
-11.59
- 3.43
- 8.75
- 2.49
-5-46
+ 0.67
- 0. 29
- 0.48
0
- 4. 45
-10.61
- 3-M
- 6.19
. % DIFF
AMERICAN FROM
MOTORS MEAN
3.94
1.84
3.16
0.71
47.97
20.97
29-96
7.82
8.43
3.60
6.03
1.42
218.49.
218.49
192.72
56.35
+ 5.07
+ 5.14
+ 1.28
+ 2.90
- 0.74
+ 7.93
- 0.63
+ 1.69
- 6.'54
+ 3-45
- 3-37
- 2.74
+ 1.09°
+ 1.90
- 2.78
+ 1.'75
% DIFF
INTR'L. FROM
HARV. KEAH
3-97
1.85
3.30
0.73
54.94
18.68
30.39
7.95
10.18
3.65
7.28
1.62
257.62)
202.46
202. 46
(57.15)
+ 5-87
+ 5-71
+ 5-77
+ 5.80
+13.68
- 3.86
+ 0.8
+ 3.38
+12.86
+ 4.89
+16.69
+10.96
- 5-57
+ 2.13
.
*Mean values exclude rejected outliers and dependent values; excluded values are listed In parentheses.
T3
13
n>
g.
£
w
I
-------
MVMA FACILITIES DYNAMOMETER PERFORMANCE
DATE
03-1 6-74
03-57-74
03-28-74
04-02-74
04^04-74
04-09-74
FACILITY & CELL
FORD 3
EPA 5
GM 1
CHRYSLER 6
AMC 1
IN'L. HARVESTER 1
GRAND MEAN
MEAN
CYCLE WORK
(FT-iBS)
1048231
1050500
1079375
1060263
1023825
1106050
1060541
% %
FROM PAU CURVE FROM
MEAN AREA (HP-MPH) MEAN
-1.16
-0.95
+1.30
-0.02
-3.1*
+4.29
498.3
490.9
471.7
471.8
51^.7
506.7
492.3
+1.22
-0.28
-4.18
-4.16
+^.55
+2.93
50 MPH
LOAD
(HP)
25.35
25.64
26.17
25.90
25.27
26.62
25.83
% CALCULATED
FROM INERTIA
MEAN. (LBS)
-1.89
-0.72
+1.34
+0.30
-2.15
+3.08
4504
4512
4866
^733
^583
^53
4642
TEST TO %
TEST % FROM
VARIABILITY MEAN
2.28
2.82
3.40
2.49
1.43
3.99
-2.97
-2.80
+4.83
+1.96
-1.27
+0.24
X)
(D
P
a.
to
-------
APPENDIX C
Phase III Data
CMC Repeatable Car
Generated by
General Motors Corporation
-------
Appendix C-l
No. of Tests
HC
Mean
Std. Deviation
Range
95% Max.
<>r>% Min.
CO
Mean
Std. Deviation
Range
95% Max.
95% Min.
NOx
Mean
Std. Deviation
Range
95% Max.
95% Min.
CO2
Mean
Std. Deviation
Range
95% Max.
95% Min..
MVMA CROSS-CORRELATION
Phase III
' April 1974
GM +
8
1.3H
. or.
.18
1.42
1.34
23.0
.99
3.05
23.8
22.2
3.23
.20
.09
3.40
3.07
618
8.9
23
625
611
EPA #5
5 '
I. 2!)
.02
.05
1.31
1.26
21.1
.51
1.30
21.7
20.6
3.15
.07
.20
3.23
3.07
607
4.1
11
612
603
Vehicle - GM
Chrysler //G
,(
I . -1 1
01
.02
1.42
1.40
20.0
.18
.50
20.3
19.8
3.48
.02
.05
3.51
3.46
626
5.0
14
632
619
REPCA I
AMC //I
«
i . ",L:
. (u;
.16
1..T7
1 . 2(i
21.1
1.09
2.80
22.2
20.0
3.52
.04
.14
3.56
3.47
665
14.1
42
674
651
Ford ..-
4
i . :}<;
.03
.06
1.39
1.32
21.2
.29
.80
21.6
20.8
3 -17
.08
.20
3.58
3.35
593
4.8
11
600
587
IH #1 v
i3
1.33
.02
.06
1.36
1.30
22.6
.88
2.39
23.6
21.6
3.48
.10
.28
:..60
3.'36
598
11.3
28
611
585
III ' !
1.20
.01
.02
1.23
1.17
23.2
.05
.10
23.4
23.1
3.65
.06
.12
3.83
3.47
700
2.5
5
707
692
CM +
)
1.44
.03
.10
1.46
1.41
22.4
.91
3.1
23.1
21.8
3.48
.16
.44
3.60
3.36
628
9.0
31
635
621
••)• GM data from five different sites and ilii'ferent drivers
* III #1 data corrected for change in CVS flow rate
-------
MVMA CORRELATION PROGRAM - REPCA 1 HC DATA
Composite
GPM
1. 5
1.4
1.3
1.2
Grams
Phase 1
6.0
5.0
4.0
Grains
Phase 2
6.0
5.0
4.0
.
- . . + . .
! *
. . ^ . .
—
.-4 .
i
t .
!
• !
. i
..* *
•f ..::
i ' .
": i -
1
+ i
i
•
'. *
i
i
t • -•'-•• -
4- ;
i*
4>
!
1
i
.-
: •
fc. . . .
:=*
4- :
+ +
i
—
•
—
1
*
4
pre-MVMA
_
i
.. j . .
• i
.. 4^.
*--:Ai
A.
: i ^
; j
1
. i
i
i
.:'.
<
. :
*
; I
1
|
i
; <
;
>°
1
i
i
i
* u.
A!
^
l
1
—
e*
:
1
• 0
i
i
»
:.. -
-j
. •
i
—
•
.._ .
I
ol
a
.1..
••
[""
°0
i
i
<
._
i
^
»
O
o
;
•
i »
9
!
t'""*
i
•
t •
i -
•
-f-i
&
. L
::: I:
• II-
'*' «i '
...
i
i °
O ;
i
EPA CHRYSLER AMC
4-10-74 4-17.74 4-19.74
j
i .
.
*
i
; <
-
*
:
i
•
:
'*
.
.— '
»*
• t
t
t A + *
|.
-
I
!
I
!
-
I
I
. |
I
1 -•
t
1-
• i
'
'
•«
f
1
: i
i-
*
1
1
• i
• j
i
j
.. : .1
_,
i 0
f
r r
! i
i
j
• t
H
_
! T-
i
i _
i
. ..
-4- *-
;
!
|
i
{
1
I--
t"*;
i
i
+"
'
i
i
i . . .
i- --
' • ! ••
; • .
(•..:«
i . ; '.
i . - .
*[..:.
'!- ::
i-
i
•J
,
r
|
* •» "">
! .
.-_..
'
+l:i
i "
" \ 4- >
* : ' ' * -*
;
--— r
— r 7—
: l. :
•:;•:.:
. . .
::-_-
•
::~.~
::^.
•-••
- -•
:-.::
L'~~
_._
rr_"
1
_
:: :j..:::
;.::|:::H
f - - • •
-..:-_
•:;:"j;:;;
^-1^.
--d
— —
zrr:
— .-
.— -—
—
._!,
_-^:r
- " ' '
E=±
•
HH
—
—
—
:.—
• i
i
\ • •
..!_
i
FMC IH 01 • [H"#4 MVEL
4-23-74 4-24-74 4-25-74 post-MVMA
••— • • -
. ' i " ; '
!
. ::[:::
:- : • j.: :.-
--h:
• : ':.:
-—--
— -"-'
rr—
-—ry
i . i
— TI
Tr'"|-
SS
55
±i±r
— ,...
— :..-
-'• '-.
-.- ..
• It
•b
X)
to
3
o
- H
r
i
r_r.r
— —
4—
, — i
'^
-*--
rn
ffi
SB
i^_j —
•— •
_.
-rr;
!_I
^
>
-------
MVMA CORRELATION PROGRAM - REPCA 1 CO DATA
Composite
GPM
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
Grams
Phase 1
60.0
50.0
40.0
Grams
Phase 2
120.0
110.0
100.0
_•::
4--..,
tfcht
•H-H-
-l - . _
r ;
" ' ; •;
:"r
:':::'
TI ! .
I.....
._.-
....
;~:i
»*v
*
.:; |. .
;: '
.. { -i- .
• •
• •
*—
4-*
—
-1
— 4
'. ' ' '*
l*i
k
•:*:
•"
*
» "
r "
--
-
-
i
i
-:-
{•
.] v
• •*
!
1
|
.4
— »
*
.
t*
;
i
.. .
!
i .
— »
-
~l
> ;
!
i *
!
1
; •
i .
— ^J*-
i
j '*'
4
"H
I'
>*
•
..
'
1
•ft
f—
-
...i.j
KJ^.
i
«
_
1
H
--
-
4
-
4
L. .
i
#
t
IT"
* '
•
i
0
^
^
.
'*
*|
— 1-
: :: :'
...(
' : : *
1
._
1
r
--
t.:
. i
•_
,*
>
I
-
-
••
• -I
^
!
i
i
..,<
i •
-i
!
i
r~ -
L | ^P
^^- ^k
I
!
i
!
< • -
1 - -
-
•t*
t
•'
:1
-
1:::
!
ft
I
—
i-
i
i
—
t
::1
*
ft
•
;
!
0^
i
.•
•
.-4
—
•
"-•
—
_>•
1 ;
-
•
-
-^
i
-
••
•
-a
4-
:::
:r»r
^
4
._ . r. . -
1 i
!
1
!
-41
.
«, A
r'H
^
"~~
-j
. n i
: : it
*;
j
i
™ T I
-^ L-
- -i
*:.::
., 1 .1 !
^
L
!+,-•_•
' 1— '
•_'•••
:•: : •:{::
. •.
. , . .
' ....[._
• t
:;~
• — '"
-4:
— -
;. :
—
. — ,.
— - —
i j . . . . .j- . . .
t — r 1 1 ! ' ' : 1 1 :
—
. . . „ . . . _
. . —
::-_ iTzrrr
....
::: : : LJ:^
:":; ":; I"
• .:.;; ::.
_— - ; — '
-- i—
;::;if*F
- - — i
.4-
-r-r *-
i ;
t . r!| ^ I
4-t- • ' ( . i .
j .
- - -
- : g
: (0
MYEL " - EPA CHRYSLER AMC FMC IH*1 IH #4 MVEL " £~
prej-MVMA 4-10-74 4-17-74 4-19-74 4-23-74 4-24-74 4-25-74 post-MVMA
-------
MVMA CORRELATION PROGRAM - REPCA 1 NOx DATA
Composite
GPM
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
Grmms
Phase 1
17.5
16. 5~
15.5
Grains
Phase 2
10.0
8.0
6.0
- -- -»-
— r-
... 4
ii-.
..
_*-.
-:- •
;•*
k '. '. '.
+
—4
• : •
.;:*
* *
~~ T' ' ."
1
*
' ~ ~ i
:::^
•-
-
v • ' '
::::
::n
-... . .
-*.
4.
1
»
-
:
- - -
I
::
...
'
"t--
!
.
•-
-
'•
t
i •
• L.-
4
:• '
K...
<
>
-0^-
:
h f
1
... .
•I*
•1
J
!
' i
j
!
- 1
| ...
* i
' • i
i
i
j
• A
y A'
. .
i
i i
M*
•
T" "
<
_._
T
»
....
* °
j
. _ _
.<
_j_
• *
-
4
— -
_.
-
B0
•<
_.
i
-
_£.
>
• *
-
—
i
;
»
. u. .
L___
• o
i
i
^^
>
-
ih
-On
: ;l
...
1
f
i '•
; ;
\
0 +
.
......
i
i
4
1
i
" 1 <
t. -
j
*_
;:.: i
*::
i
i
' k •
j
»
-
• {
- !
!
4
:•
[
••H
1
1
>
:l
••
r
i
1 i
t
i
i "
m m
9
• • •
1
mm
m.
^
i
i
i
i
i
. i. .-
-i-
h —
— i
4
•
.
i
—
t
- ;••
-
-\
— 1
t
--
'
- •
• •
•*•
: ;
.!:
: . .
-*
-
*- •
i
i *
. ;._
MVEL EPA CHRYSLER AMC FMC IH I 1 IH #4
pre-MVMA 4-10-74 4-17-74 4-19-74 4-23-74 4-24-74 4-25-74
: ,
*
41
'
•. t: :
f -:
'::*
. - . .
:::;
-.:::
~"-~ V^
;:::
1 I I 1
• -: -
t
t . - - -
"
* 4"
i
• • •
•_*:
"*
1*
:^t.iT
-«rr 4-— •
^""H:
.^.4.,
:rtr
rfEr
'
-
• • "
~"~C
r^ri
•*•! '
ted
itb
Trf-
trr-
T !Ja_
.;. : :
i
'
.
;:::
...
j.
•* i * *
.
__..i.
— ::-
; 7; ~;
~r:
l:-J
7— -
f
-»JH
T. i )
— -,
— —
~~~
'-•'-•
. j. •:
i .
. . !
MVEL
post-MVMA
;
. . . _J
; !:-:•:
.
:i~ -:~1
p-33
— —
— — :
j'iiiiii i
-H-f-^l
*v :::::
4tj-5^
• ! ! 1
?^g
-— - ~-
. . . i . —
. . .1 —
— r
_. . —
- H-
:.--.;
. . — -
y~- £•
HE:
__,
: 1 1
E : ...
til''
—LI • -t
i ! i
f:±^
4— J-l- -_
t^^
•o
(D
Ou
4>-
-------
MVMA CORRELATION PROGRAM - REPCA 1 COZ DATA
Composite
CPM
680
660
640
620
600
580
S60
Gram*
Phase I
2200
Z100
2800
Crams
Phase 2
3000
2800
2600
i—, _
9
K*I»
i
-f-
\.\
-ft
-1—
lZ.il
;a
trttrt
T
f
:"ifi
+
•f I
-K
-T-
4-
I
f
io
I el
--{-•
T~f
MVEL
pre-MVMA
EPA
4-10-74
CHRYSLER
4-17-74
AMC
4-19-74
FMC
4-23-74
IHfl
4-24-74
IH »4
4-25-74
MVEL
post MVMA
-6
•o
(D
O
-------
Appendix C-6
MVMA CROSS-CORRELATION - REPCA 1
HP vs ACTUAL MPH
LOCATION COMPOSITE OF BEST FIT LINES
H
O
R
S
E
P
O
w
E
R
MVEL (site ten)
MVEL (site two)
EPA (site five)
CHRYSLER (site six) .
AMC ( site one)
FMC ( site two)
IH (~site one)
IH (site four)
20 30
ACTUAL MPH
-------
MVMA CORRELATION PROGRAM - REPCA 1 TORQUE DATA
Average
Torque
Ft. -Ibs.
80.0
70.0
60.0
4-Torque
ft. Ib. sees.
2iO.O
210.0
200.0
'. Torque
ft. Ib, se.cs.
"(*io3)
110.0
100.0
90.0
:;':l. :
—
'--•
::::
;:."
—
....
<
r
:::: '..':
— ^
- •
-
•
. . , if
v . . .
Y — —
•
*
A
T
i • •
fc
: : ;:<
• -L
> K
i
i -
MVEL
^
<
— T
>
•
i
• - - ^
h
. . i
i
*
....
4
. • 4
<
—
:
> j
.
1
> <
* ~*
> '
i
i
T... .
^
>
f
-H
ih —
^
•-
^
>
EPA
4-10-74
,
i
T
.i J
t
1
•"
i
I
t
i
i
* 1
, ..;
t
• • •<
i
1
t . .
i
i
i
-
—
i
:. '-
(•••••
I
4
.:':
-•-4
<
r—
4
i
r ..
:::J
(....
r • ;•
:::i
1
1'
j
;
»
i
— r • -
\::::
: : : a
.
i
1. . 4
— -
^— <
-
;:4:::
i
rr^
>•
> r-
i
... ... .
—
i
r
--,
CHRYSLER AMC
4-17-74 4-19-74
**
_
_:
4
_..
• - i
>.
- •
.
^
- ' .
-r- —
-r • - •
«
: ::l
n
i
—
»• *'•:
::rr
'~*~T"
g
:'.::
':':':':
i.::~:
•-rl
:TT::
i
I ! '
s
._ .
' 1 ' * " ~ ~
1
....
r:-;:
H
U{-
• ;•
r:?l::i- i;
..„ „
r-" -. nr;- —
[S-ir3|
L_r _:_j .4-
•1
rwtffl
+-»--*-
^ *• ! ! ' 1 ^
[r;:rj:_iilJ4
;;:!.;H^
"T^-
: •;':--:•:?
- --
.: •-
^E:^?
-i?i^E
:: -^-— ...
-.-. •: — -^-f
... — ^_
rj^ihrrrr.
-pf r- -r -*TT'
-i-i-H
ft
• ••••*%
ii^-it
5^^
iw§fe^.
^^f^
- - . : . J
:: ::T: ^
— »•• - rrt
Q
. ; " " , y :
:- "::: H*
FMC IH~*1 IH §'. O
4-23-74 4-24-74 4-25-T ^j
-------
MVMA CORRELATION PROGRAM - REPCA 1 HORSEPOWER DATA
AVERAGE
HP
6. 0
5 0
4.0
+ HP - SEC.
(«103)
H.O
10.0
9.0
- HP - SEC.
(«10J)
3 5
3 0
:-:
-...
P±r
-
. 1
..
;.;
....
.4
j
1
1
K
L
>
J
'
i
L "
r
* * "'
K
4
H
h <
t
k
4
—
. : 9
<
..
1
, ,
I 4
t
> •
> 4
—
....
4
•<
N
pi
..-
^
V
A
^
'
>
»
1
— 1
•1
1
1
..
\— -
\
. «
I «
. . . I
r ' '
c
1
|- — 1
r I
i
i "
•<
...<
4
4
>
:::^
>: . .
i
^
^ ,
'
.
r.: . •
j
, j
r • 1
':i
'•
- -
-
ri
\ J
i'
» 1
^—4
> «
:
j
.: *
h
^ ^
»
H
>
j
- — i
•
•
•
••-4
<
L <
> *
> 4
f.
J
4
N
4
— .
^ ^
L tj
r "
— -J
r^
>• <
i
'-"-'-
f ...
> ••
i
1
1
» !*
• ;
kt--.-—-.-
....
i
—
>
j
: ' . :
' 1
1. ...
r_r:.
i
(I— T-
Lrr:
1 1
:~
r
4^
ti
1
— '
_.
-
"T
1
— h
":
'
_._: ;
::r;
h -r
4
H
?
-M—
:::-:
' ':
^
•.;
: :' . : ~. r
::/. ~-
~:^
^= ::.:
1 ._»
_._ _
t ! ' ' :
£ . . . .
• , t 4-1
.:";-"-ri
:rr^~. J;
.
-.:::.•:;
.;-TL .:
'~: '-.'.
-~ .—
::: ~.~
^:fe
. _
3iE
~~ ^^
4-f. 4"
4-u \f
TT T
44- -—
-.*. 4-*
^-4- ->—
^ '^Ij
T:, ™
,_ ..
~i
T^P
••*
:g
— Qi
MVEL
EPA
4-10-74
CHRYSLER
4-17-74
AMC
4-19-74
FMC
4-Z3-74
IH tl
4-24-74
IH t< X
4-25-'o
oo
-------
Total Torque Tester Results
Appendix C-9
Facility
GMM-VEL
EPA
Chrysler
AMC
Ford
IH#1
IH#4
Absorber
Horsepower
50
50
50
200
50
200
200
Inertia
System
Direct Drive
Direct Drive
Direct Drive
Belt Drive
Belt Drive
Belt Drive
Belt Drive
Roll
Configuration
Paired
Single
Paired
Single
Paired
Paired
Paired
Facility
GM M-VEL
EPA
Chrysler
AMC
Ford
IH#1
IH#4
Theoretical
Inertia
(ft-lbs)
457.3
471.1*
457.3
457.3
457.3
457.3
457.3
Actual
Inertia
(Average)
(ft-lbs)
442.8
428.1
446.3
446.7
451.8
429.6
452.8
Percent
Difference
-3.2
-9.1
-2.4
-2.3
-1.2
-6.1
-1.0
* Data generated with "cold-start" testing on FRODO.
-------
MVMA CORRELATION PROGRAM - REPCA 1
( C02 va POSITIVE TORQUE )
C02
gm/m
700
650
600
= MVEL
O = EPA (04-10-74)
O = CHRYSLER (04-17-74)
o = AMC (04-19-74)
.- FMC (04-23-74)
-- IH 104-24-74. site 1)
* IH (04-25-74. site 4)
200000
205000
2/^000
POSITIVE TORQUE
215000
o
I-1
o
-------
MVMA CORRELATION PROGRAM - REPCA 1
( CO2 vs AVERAGE HORSEPOWER )
CO2
gm/mi
700 --
650
600
4.00
MVEL
EPA (04-10-74)
CHRYSLER (04-17-74)
AMC (04-19-74)
FMC (04-23-74)
IH (04-24-74, site 1)
IH (04-25-74. site 4)
4. 50.
5.00
AVERAGE HORSEPOWER
O
I
-------
MVMA CORRELATION PROGRAM - REPCA 1
( NOX vs POSITIVE TORQUE)
! i
= MVEL
O = EPA (04-10-74)
O = CHRYSLER < 04-17-74)
o = AMC (04-19-74)
= FMC (04-23-74)
• = IH ")04-24-74/ site 1)
• = IH (04-25-74. site 4)
3.0
200000
205000
210000
215000
POSITIVE TORQUE
-------
MVMA CORRELATION PROGRAM - REPCA
( NOx vs AVERAGE HORSEPQWER )
NOx
gm/mi i
4.0
3.5
3.0
MVEL
EPA (04-10-74)
CHRYSLER (04-17-74)
AMC (04-19-74)
FMC (04-23-74)
IH (r 1-24-74, site 1)
IH (04-25-74, site 4)
r-
4.00
4.50
5.00
AVERAGE HORSEPOWER
5.50
O
-------
APPENDIX D
Phase III Data
1975 Emission-Level Vehicles
-------
Vehicle I.D.
HC
Mean
Std. Deviation
95% Max.
95% Min.
CO
Mean
Std. Deviation
95% Max.
95% Min.
NOX
Mean
Std. Deviation
95% Max.
95% Min.
C02
Mean
Std. Deviation
95% Max.
95% Min.
EPA - MVMA CROSS - CORRELATION STUDY
Phase III
Cold-Start 1975 Emission Test Results
Weighted Values (grams/mile)
GM
EPA
PG 72709
219
016
248
190
.14
.01
.17
.12
.542
.150
.842
.241
2.39
.39
3.17
1.61
2.2
.4
3.0
1.3
7.00
1.80
10.61
3.40
Chrysler EPA
#965
.427
.014
.455
.398
5.54
.89
7.33
3.76
AMC EPA
D40-32L(F)
732.7
12.4
757.4
708.0
689.23
6.74
702.70
675.75
667.2
14.5
696.2
638.2
.98
.04
1.06
.90
9.09
.29
9.67
8.51
1.06
.04
1.15
.98
9.77
.77
11.31
8.24
2.40
.12
2.65
2.15
2.43
.02
2.46
2.39
2.649
.079
3.21
2.09
2.65
.07
2.79
2.51
2.87
.07
3.01
2.73
2.71
.07
2.86
2.56
1.46
.04
1.55
1.37
1.38
.04
1.46
1.31
648
11
671
625
534.6
24.9
584.4
484.7
457
4
464
450
Ford
33Q55D
.20
.02
.24
.17
1.64
.70
3.04
.25
1.46
.04
1.55
1.37
845.32
5.59
856.49
834.14
EPA
.155
.019
.194
.116
1.84
.38
2.60
1.08
1.38
.04
1.46
1.31
804
6
815
793
"O
(V
3
CL
H-
x
_ o
-------
EPA-MVMA Correlation
1975-Level Vehicle Emission Comparisons
Appendix D-2
co
rH
OJ
%
»J
C co ,'
5 "S
•H 0
co cd
co PQ
•H.
a §
S3
*S
13 O ,
Q) O !
N I
•rl B-S i.
i-i in
cd :•'•:• !•,: :'.-':l:".-' :•
i . . •-..,...
1" i:;:; •=:t;;li'
H'-';-!;l;M
.. ^:l:|;::'
• : t ' ' ' • ' . ' ' "
;=,-!:.-: J;-!};-:M.
"^ ;"".:.' ; .'f' " •
:" ' . ^"T ^"" :a^ . "T^
1|.-JJ1 :.l .•!ijj-ij;i •:•;•; •;•
rf.-. .! -:]-i;r-b::-;j-HJ-;-
Bfiifife
;j..:.
'li
• i
'i
"TT
•N
J
\ [•
'' i:
• *'H
!-::••
r j * i
.......
i S .
: MI .
. it
i4^--
• :','
t ;i'
L!i:
' : ;r
•:'-:.
I
t r
!!!;!• i; • !ii 111 .•'•!
iihi'h.1;']!]!^: tt;
; ! i ; ' '] ' < , i ; . ! ' '
: ; : ^jj Labor
::
i
J
'•
i:
::.f
;;|
:.-T
1 '
... p
t;
I
'. i'
i
/:|;;::!7
iiii]i:£iii
3
'
, 4.. M J . .
-•' "
:• ;• . :
* • i - 1 ' ;
' ' -::T;.
. :};;•;•
:•:• .:•' ;:
•' I '•','•',. ".
.;:•..( -,
. : . : : : r ; :
H-niiH-Tii
..;;'•'
A
^
:ilu. 1
.'i...
| ' ; " ; t
1 ••: i
ato
EP
GM
AM
Ch
Foi
' • iiH:i.i
.' .!:!:
' ' i i'* i
12: t
-^•L
:' ! iri
— .jr^
'• ; .:;
'-'• \ li'i
:L ' '!i
' ^?ii.
:"' ir; f;]I
, • l . i : ; | :
. •;.-. ,
' ':!
i ...
; : IT:-
::1:
I it
ry
A.
C
n
ry
rd
Symbols
sler
' . ; I ' S '
' . ' ; ' : i .
.-. . i ;^-- : i ,
;'. "|.i;i.
",i'L
I
i c°
: ... ' | ' . .
:.:::"' '' 1 .! •-!•:'. : • .ij -!. '•'•>'•
'•'• '••'• 'l'( ;'M-;?i ';•
i
.Lli
''• ; •-:
;.,^4 U.«-J.l
i.:ri^jiii
111
u..
*"! " ^ ; 1 *". \ '.
:;.!.:: ;.
i..i
i;
. •' ' r •' •
4
-1-.-
' i • . • ;
t~-
. '".'" : 2.
.T
- ' • 3.
j)
];
;
:
II
jj
i
H
:•
j;
| ;
i;
• .• i •
. i , , ... i .
jH-.N::.;:i;;;.;i':iu
: : . I .' . : • ; : : :
•• ''.!• '••' ; • .' • :i :
i .,-, j.;:i :!.••;:
.! •; ••;:•:..., p- : :
!:fl!;!iii::i.\;:i:!.iii
:: ;i;:- 't:.-: |^ i:;..::!
;•;",!•• lr':\' : >::-: !: '
.;: •'••
; :•(;;;.
.!••,. M^AL. :-:aui;
^jlf:.: .rii: '.'. 'iU .'
" !! •:.:•::.; S.I; , . ;•
!i:.:::.;--;^:=:;';;:
i • ; > I :
I.,!)::;.1::;. • :::-"'. ..
•]:::,!.". : .'•:, : •;
• ••;'•:.•—•. .:j • •
. " : . • '• LL' : ' .
::' . •, 1 -:
•'.' : i ,;'ir.: ;t:'' .•] '.
!>'.: ' .','; :.' ••( i;-
Vehicles
Chevrolet Caprice ..: :.„
AMC Hornet ; :.•
Dodge Coronet :• r'r
.: L j . .'
Ford Maverick i:Jjj;
• • pil
. ' l
'.'. '. ;. ;
t • ' , * ' '
:"i:i;
; ; • j , ' ; ; '
*"* ; ;j ' :
,
'
. • ( ,
;;:"I|;:H1[
~\'
li-'i
l ' . ;- : ' •. . i :
' J ' ' ' . i i
;'•!. ":';!?!;
' -4 ; . l , ;3 :. ji- .
'•.':' j !;;!: . • -:
••:
:'!':: ;: \',\... ,.'.'.• :;
::],::,!;: : ;; ,-i-
jjii'Jfl '!;i::|iii-.
":::,,:; '. .'i ]'. I'1':
: ;:i;;.-;;-
:..T:; :i:-,
:
1.1:3;
T:":T
: :| "V
^ J; I
;: u •!., .
2
,--4 U.
-•!!;•;
• :'T !-:
: ; t i • • ; •'.
• ! i '
.1 ;..;-'' ' • '
!:.;f.:"'-I
" . : i :
••''':-.
" .1 ' ' '
.. :r; "."••'
r';;
i-
-'.;•
3
.,
' . 1 i .".'-. ;
••:•.:•' ;•
. . ... - ..
*
.
''.'.." -i^.j * *-.
-;.j; ;;;.-•*; •.
i'"!: :;,i- :'•
! ' i '
%:».
!:::;.:• -:v.
ir- :.:'
• . , . j '
: i ", :
, ' r "*
i" :
; i . '
.J 1 ' • i • ' .
' i ,~ . : 1 '
: ' '.,:'!!
•VliiT: if -4-
•-' !
V
i, .
'.'i'
•
!j: '
:ii
-------
EPA-MVMA Correlation
1975-Level Vehicle Emission Comparisons
Appendix D-3
CO
I-l
cu
C co
o -u
•H C
CO 0)
CO M
•H
e co
W O
0
-------
MVMA Correlation - AMC
Vehicle Hornet D40-32L(F)
Test Lab. AMC
Cold
Transient
(g)
Cold
Stabilized
(9)
Hot
Transient
(g)
Total
(g/m1le)
Test No.
HC
5.06
5.10
4.88
3.28
3.21
3.21
3.16
2.59
4.06
3.82
3.70
0,52
1.03
1.00
0.98
CO
90.28
96.16
102.47
102.65
15.70
13.58
11.88
11.23
30.36
22.37
19.26
19.14
9.58
NOv
10.11
9.69
9.38
8.48
12.24
12.75
12.19
12.26
8.11
9.64
'9.21
9.02
2.83
9.02
8.92
8.84
2.99
2.86
2.81
C02
2100.49
2042.00
921.79_
1935.48
2264.45
2237.18
1997.07
1995.37
1875.59
1815.67
1750.55
1755.46
564.9
553.4
509.5
510.4
Fuel
Consumption
(mpg)
15.17
15.49
16.79
16.77
Barometric
Pressure
(in. Hg)
29.34
29.20
29.21
29.34
K-Factor
0.9033
0.9216
0.9293
0.9264
3
a.
7
*-
-------
MVMA Correlation - Ford
Vehicle Maverick 33Q55D
Test Lab. EPA
Test No.
HC
CO
NO
C02
Fuel
Consumption
(mpg)
Barometric
Pressure
(in. Hg)
K- Factor
Transient
2.03
32.10
4.74
3097.03
10.1
1.37
19.26
5.18
3079.44
10.2
1.44
28.81
4.93
3098.23
10.1
Cold
Stabilized
(g)
0.21
0.52
4.87
3125.22
11.1
0.22
0.16
5.29
3148.63
n.o
0.17
0.15
5.20
3197.06
10.8
Hot
Transient
(g)
0.50
2.70
5.46
2706.12
11.7
0.50
2.32
5.69
2683 . 1 0
11.8
0.42
5.53
5.29
2742.72
11.6
Total
(g/mlle)
0.182
2.12
1.34
800
10.9
0.146
0.137
1.30
2.09
1.43
1.38
800
812
11.0 .
10.8
28.58
29.05
28.96
0.9835
0.9480
0.9404
X
o
-------
MVMA Correlation - GMC
r.O A
to id
Transient
tn\
\9I
Cold
Stabilized
/_ \
(g)
Hot
Transient
(q)
V3 /
Total
(g/mlle)
Vehicle
Test No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
, 3
1
2
3
"Frodo" F
HC
2.14
1.79
1.70
0.14
0.09
0.16
0.26
0.23
0.27
0.16
0.13
0.14
'B72709
CO
38.67
29.50
24.84
1.43
0.15
0.45
3.35
4.52
2.79
2.7
2.1
1.7
NOX
11.13
11.00
10.84
6.12
6.20
5.85
13.03
12.88
13.10
2.44
2.44
2.40
T
C02
2592.72
2524.85
2524.67
2825.97
2747.09
2798.59
2264.47
2236.88
2252.66
697.54
681.04
689.10
est Lab. EPA
Fuel
Consumption
(mpg)
12.0
12.4
•12.4 -
12.3
12.6
12.4
14.0
14.2
14,1
12.7
13.0
12.9
Barometric
Pressure
(in. Hg)
/
/
/
28.80
29.06
28.82
K-Factor
/
y
/
/
/
/
0.8791
0.8300
0.9368 •
•o
s
CL
H-
x
-------
MVMA Correlation - Chrysler
Vehicle Coronet 965
Test Lab.
EPA
Test No
HC
CO
NO
C02
Fuel
Consumption
(mpg)
Barometric
Pressure
(in. Hg)
K-Factor
Cold
Transient
4.67
66.05
11.59
2334.38
13.0
4.62
99.95
10.02
2257.24
13.1
4.64
76.68
10.40
2271.40
.13.2
Cold
Stabilized
(g)
0.54
4.03
7.90
2711.10
12.8
0.55
4.71
7.78
2630.92
13.1
0.49
3.52
7.54
2626.92
13.2
Hot
Transient
(g)
0.95
4.62
13.62
2214.77
14.3
1.11
5.36
13.02
2096.28
15.1
1.51
4.15
13.11
2105.03
15.1
Total
(g/mile)
0.412
4.68
2.75
664
13.3
0.422
0.446
6.77
5.18
2.60
2.60
640
640
13.7
13.7
28.91
28.62
28.71
0.8898
0.9541
0.9237
cu
£
a
-------
MVMA Correlation - AMC
f**t A
to Id
Transient
[n\
\9)
Cold
Stabilized
/_ \
(g)
Hot
nu L
Transient
(q)
\y /
Total
(9/mile)
Vehicle
Test No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
. 3
1
2
3
Hornet C
HC
4.83
4.99
4.79
3,87
3.91
3.63
3.69
3.98
3.35
1.07
1.11
1.01
)40-32L(F
CO
78.28
98.70
95.91
18.70
23.12
17.59
25.99
26.96
22.55
8.96
10.8
9.56
)
NOX
5.49
8.34
8.93
12.71
11.31
12.16
8.97
8.51
8.89
2.69
2.63
2.81
T
C02
1719.77
1662.69
1700.38
1844.08
1811.23
1814.03
1550.58
1534.99
1538.00
•462
453
456
est Lab. EPA
Fuel
Consumption
(mpg)
17.1
17.4
.17.1
18.4
18.7
18.7
19.9
20.0
20.1
18.4
18.6
18.6
Barometric
Pressure
(in. Hg)
/.
/
/
/
/
/
28.95
28.59
28.75
K-Factor
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
0.9020
0.9581
0.9395
•XJ
I
Ou
H-
X
-------
MVMA Correlation - Ford
Vehicle Maverick 33Q55D
Test Lab.
Ford
Test No.
HC
CO
NOV
C02
Fuel
Consumption
(mpg)
Barometric
Pressure
(in. Hg)
K-Factor
Cold
Transient
(g)
1.24
14.0
5.77
3154.25
1.18
14.0
5.73
3242.22
1.64
15.8
5.60
3234.24
Cold
Stabilized
(9)
0.64
0.79
5.46
3419.56
0.52
8.46
4.85
3349.10
0.26
0.20
5.42
3310.30
Hot
Transient
(g)
0.80
2.62
5.54
2739.19
0.98
9.14
5.59
2893.43
0.65
3.30
6.01
2787.60
Total
(g/mile)
0.22
1.11
1.48
844.96
0.21
0.18
2.63
1.19
1.40
1.50
852.33
838.66
29.31
29.25
29.42
0.8200
0.8607
0.8708
•o
(0
X
o
vo
------- |