Characterization .Report
Analysis of Gasohol Fleet Data to
Characterize the Impact of
Gasohol on Tailpipe and
Evaporative Emissions
December 1978
Technical Support Branch
Mobile Source Enforcement Division
Office of Mobile Source and Noise Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Summary
This paper presents an analysis of the data which was
*
developed in consideration of the request from "Gas Plus*
of Nebraska and the Illinois Department of Agriculture for a
waiver of the limitation and prohibition from use of up to
10% ethanol in unleaded fuel. The document comprises a
description of the test program that generated the data, the
vv
analyses of the data, and a discussion of results of that
analysis.
«
Statistical analyses were conducted on the three
regulated tailpipe emissions components (hydrocarbons,
oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide) measured in the
Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and on evaporative emissions
measured in the Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determination
(SHED) procedure.
Due to variations in testing conditions and procedures,
some of the data made available to EPA were not included in
the analysis. In addition, data on fuel economy, and
unregulated pollutants, are not relevant to the waiver
*/
request and hence, summarization is omitted here. —
A procedure for review was applied to the projected
50,000 mile emissions levels for regulated tailpipe and
•
evaporative emissions of each vehicle by catalyst technology,
—' These data will be reported separately
-------
-2-
This analysis reveals that it cannot be concluded with
X"
sufficiently high confidence that a 10% ethanol - 90%
gasoline mixture, "Gasohol", will not cause or contribute
V ' ' -
to the failure of more -than 20% of the vehicle fleet
\
represented by the test vehicles to meet the Federal
emissions standards.
Introduction v.
Section 211(f)(3) of the Clean Air Act (Act) prohibits,
. •
after September 15, 1978, the distribution in commerce of
any fuel or fuel additive not substantially similar to any
fuel or fuel additive utilized in the certification of any
model year 1975, or subsequent model year, vehicle or
engine. Gasohol is such a fuel. However, the Administrator
may waive this prohibition if he determines that the fuel or
fuel additive, and the emission products thereof, will not
cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control
device or system (over the useful life of any vehicle in
which such a device or system is used) to meet its certified
emission standards.
On June 19, 1978, EPA received such a waiver application
from "Gas Plus" Inc. of Nebraska and the Illinois Department
of Agriculture.
-------
-3-
A public hearing on the Gasohol waiver request was held
on September 6, 1978. At that time, the Ford Motor Company
--,
presented data which indicated a potential problem with
-------
-4-
Testing Programs
The testing programs which provided Gasohol data for
*
EPA's consideration are described below:
1) EPA - DOE Gasohol program
Four emissions test laboratories participated in
a twenty-six vehicle testing program to measure the emis-
sions effect of the addition of 10% ethanol to unleaded
fuel. EPA provided the following fuels— to each laboratory:
1. Indolene - the standard emissions test fuel
(40 CFR 86.113-78)
2. Indolene mixed with 10% ethanol
3. A commercially available summer grade unleaded
gasoline
4. The above summer grade gasoline mixed with 10% ethanol
5. A gasoline blended with 10% ethanol with Reid
vapor pressure and volatility characteristics
similar to Fuel 3.
The standard 1978 Federal Test Procedure (FTP) for
tailpipe emissions was followed at each laboratory.
*
The specific characteristics of each program are
listed below:
—' The fuels specifications are shown in Table 9 and
Figure 2.
-------
-5-
1) The EPA MVEL tested eleven vehicles; seven with
oxidation catalysts and four with three-way
•
catalysts. FTP'S including the SHED procedure
were performed on each vehicle. Some replicate
tests were conducted as well. Three vehicles tested
had been included in the earlier Ford Gasohol
testing program. Because testing began before the
X.
arrival of the fuels specifically procured for
this program, specification indolene was used
from laboratory supplies until the program fuels
arrived.
2) The EPA laboratory at the Research Triangle
Park tested two oxidation catalyst vehicles.
FTP's, including the SHED procedure, (including
alcohol measurements) were performed on each
i
vehicle for all five fuels. Data on evaporative
emissions for the 1977 vehicle were not included
in the analyses of Gasohol data because the
vehicle model year predated the 1978 SHED standards,
3) The Department of Energy Research Laboratory
in Bartlesville, Oklahoma tested ten vehicles, six
-------
-6-
with oxidation catalysts and four with three-way
catalysts. The FTP performed included the SHED
procedure on both tailpipe and evaporative emissions
(including alcohol measurements).
4) The Southwest Research Institute, under contract
to EPA, tested two oxidation catalyst vehicles
and one three-way catalyst vehicle on the full
FTP, including the SHED procedure. Replicate
tests were performed on fuels 3, 4, and 5 only.
Other sources
1) The Ford Motor Company presented test results
on nine vehicles, five with oxidation catalysts
and four with three-way catalysts, tested on
specification indolene and indolene 4- 10% ethanol.
The 1978 FTP, including the SHED portion, was
followed for each vehicle. Additional FTP and SHED
tests were performed on two of these vehicles
- using EPA fuels 1, 3, and 5.
2) General Motors Corporation tested one three-way
catalyst vehicle on its own indolene and indolene
-------
-7-
with 10% ethanol fuels, following the 1975 .FTP.
No evaporative emissions results were provided.—'
3) The EPA Mobile Emissions Test Facility and the
EG&G Laboratory under contract to EPA tested
\ ~*
three oxidation catalyst vehicles on indolene and
indolene with 10% ethanol. A modified version of
the 1978 FTP which did not include evaporative v
emissions testing was used by the EG&G Laboratory.
The 1977 FTP (non-evaporative) was performed
by the Mobile Emissions Test Facility.
4) The DOE Bartlesville Laboratory in an earlier
alcohol fuels program tested two oxidation
catalyst and two three-way catalyst vehicles
on indolene and indolene with 10% ethanol added.
Of these, the two three-way catalyst vehicles
were retested in the EPA-DOE program and data
from both test programs were used in the analysis.
Aaditional emission tests by GM on 2 vehicles using
specification indolene, indolene + 10% ethanol and
ad}usted RVP indolene + 10% ethanol were received to
late to incorporate into this analysis. Directionally,
these data show the same effect reported herein and
will be incorporated into this report.
-------
-8-
5) Prior to the September 6 hearing, Automotive
^-
Testing Laboratories, Denver, Colorado^completed
a high-altitude alcohol fuels testing program on
an EPA contract. Ten vehicles were tested using
the 1975 FTP on indolene and indolene with 10%
ethanol. Because the high altitude is expected to
effect emission levels, results of the program v
were reviewed but not included in the analysis of
t
•
Gasohol data.
For the purposes of the analysis of the Gasohol data,
the specification indolene and indolene with ethanol fuels
were considered to be sufficiently similar to be compared
without distinction in this analysis.
The set of vehicles, then, whose emissions values were
analyzed consisted of 26 oxidation catalyst and 12 three-way
catalyst vehicles. Of these, 14 oxidation catalyst and 8
three-way catalyst vehicles were tested on all five fuels on
i
both the exhaust and evaporative emissions portions of the
Federal Test Procedure. Appendix 1 contains a list of each
test vehicle whose emissions were included in the Gasohol data
base.
For many vehicles, repetitive tests were run on each
fuel to establish more reliable estimates of the average
-------
-9-
emissions performance for the vehicle. For some vehicles
more repetative tests were run on the exhaust emissions
portion than on the evaporative emissions portion of the
• •
test.
Summarization of T)ata
The average emission level for each pollutant for
each vehicle and test fuel is shown in Appendix 2. The
list is separated by catalyst technology (oxidation catalyst
vehicles and three-way catalyst vehicles). It should be
noted that the summaries for vehicles which were tested by two
laboratories include data from both laboratories.
Overall average emission levels by fuel and
pollutant were computed for each catalyst technology
from the vehicle averages. They appear in Tables 1 and 2.
Comparision of average results of fuels 1 and 2
and of fuels 3 and 4 indicates that average CO values
decreased while average NOx and evaporative emissions rose
with the use of alcohol in the fuel for both technology
groups. The results on exhaust hydrocarbons (HC) were
mixed, however. Average HC emissions values decreased with
the use of both alcohol fuels (fuels 2 and 4} for oxidation
catalyst vehicles but decreased between fuels 1 and 2 and
increased between fuels 3 and 4 for three-way catalyst*
vehicles.
-------
-10-
The significance of each of the above observations
was tested using one-sided sign tests, comparing a base
fuel and an alcohol fuel. The base fuel/alcohol fuel
f
*
pairs considered were:
a)' Fuel 1 (base) vs. Fuel 2 (alcohol)
b) Fuel 3 (base) vs. Fuel A (alcohol)
In each test for each pollutant the null hypothesis was
that the median emission level for that pollutant was
v
the same for both base and alcohol fuels. The alternative
hypothesis for both HC and CD was that the median emissions
•
*
level for the alcohol fuel was lower than that of the
*
base fuel. The alternative hypothesis for NOx and evaporative
emissions was that the median level was higher for the
alcohol fuel than that of the base fuel.
Emissions levels on each base fuel were compared to
emissions levels on its alcohol fuel counterpart for each
vehicle tested on both fuels. From this comparison, the
number of vehicles which manifested an increase
in average emissions between fuels was obtained.
If there were no real difference in any emissions
level attributable to a difference in fuels, the expected
proportion of instances in which an increase between fuels
would occur for any pollutant would be 0.5. A
-------
-11-
large proportion of observed increases in emission levels
for a pollutant would indicate an adverse effect of the
alcohol fuel. By a similar argument, a small proportion of
•
increases in emission levels between fuels for a pollutant
would indicate a decrease in the emissions of the alcohol fuel,
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results of these tests by
catalyst technology comparing fuels 1 and 2 and fuels 3 and
4. As predicted by the comparision of average emissions
V
for fuels 1 and 2, HC and CO emissions decreased signifi-
cantly and NOx and evaporative looses increased significantly
for oxidation catalyst vehicles.
For three-way catalyst vehicles, the comparison of
fuels 1 and 2 showed a significant decrease in CO and
•
a significant increase in evaporative emissions. The
results of the comparision of fuels 3 and 4 were similar but
indicated only significant decreases in CO and increases in
evaporative emissions for both catalyst technology groups.—
Though emission levels for pollutants differed
significantly between base fuels and their alcohol mixture
counterparts, the difference between emissions levels for
fuels 1 and 3 was as remarkable. Table 5 displays the
—' Evaporative emissions are unaffected by exhaust
(catalyst) technology.
-------
-12-
results of sign tests performed comparing emissions data
derived using these two fuels. These tests indicated highly
significant increases in emissions levels for all pollutants
and evaporative losses for oxidation catalyst vehicles and
^^ r ^jf —
highly significant increases in NOx emissions in three-way
n *•
catalyst vehicles in going from fuel 1 to fuel 3.
Estimates of the ratio of average emission levels
for the following fuel combinations were calculated to s
assess the relative directional (Table 6):
*
.Fuel 2 and Fuel 1
.Fuel 4 and Fuel 3
.Fuel 3 and Fuel 1
Each fuel to fuel ratio was computed using overall averages
for vehicles on which both fuels were tested.
Method of Review
A statistical method of review was established to
determine whether the applicant had demonstrated that Gasohol
would not cause or contribute to the failure of any vehicle to
meet emission standards during its useful life. This
method of review was designed as a one-sided sign test
and evaluates compliance using projected
50,000 mile emissions levels. The statistical method
assumes that the difference in emission levels between two
-------
-13-
fuels for a vehicle either remains constant or becomes
x-
larger over the useful life of the vehicle.
Because 50,000 mile test data were not available for
any test vehicle, projected 50,000 mile emission levels for
each nondevelopmental test vehicle were obtained by using
average back-to-back FTP results and 50,000 mile certifi-
cation data.
The sign test portion of the method of review was
• *
designed to assure with 90% confidence that the sign test
would be failed if 20% or more of the vehicle fleet represented
by the sample fleet were to fail to meet Federal emission
standards for the fuel comparison considered.
Figure 1 depicts the risk of failing the method of
review versus the true fleet failure rate for various
sample sizes. It is clear from the figure that for small
sample sizes the risk of failing the criterion is high for
low fleet failure rates but decreases when sample fleet size
is increased.
The method of review was evaluated for the following
three fuel comparisons:
a) Fuel 1 with Fuel 2
b) Fuel 3 with Fuel 4
c) Fuel 1 with Fuel 3
-------
-14-
The first two comparisons were selected to assess the effect
of ethanol as a fuel additive; the third was chosen to assess
the effect of the commercially available summer grade gasoline
*
fuel compared to the indolene test fuel.
i
Statistical procedures for each fuel comparison were
>*«. _^
applied as follows: 50,000 mile emissions levels for each
test vehicle were obtained from certification records for
*/
the test vehicle.—' Projected 50,000 mile emissions levels
v
for a test vehicle were computed by adding the difference
between average emission levels for the two fuels to its
50,000 mile certification values. These projected values
were then compared to the emission standards. A failure was
scored when the projected value of any pollutant exceeded
•
the emission standard for the vehicle. Table 7 shows the
results of this analysis. Total failures for each pollutant
were then compared to the critical values computed for the
corresponding number of observations. If the number of
failures equalled or exceeded the critical value (c) for any
pollutant, the criterion was failed. Table 8 lists critical
values by sample size (total number of observations)
for the standard of review criterion.
*/
—' The certification test results used were from the '
emission data vehicle of the same description as
the test vehicles.
-------
-15-
Application of the method of review was done separately
by catalyst technology. Evaporative emissions results were
examined in the aggregate.
f s*
Evaluation of the scores summarized in Table 7 using
critical values In Table 8 resulted in the failure -of the
% —-•— —ru» — »s.i»j^-. •-»
— - ^<-*-o '~
method of review by fuels containing alcohol compared to
indolene and the summer grade commercial fuel compared to
indolene.
t.
Specifically, comparison of fuels 1 and 2 resulted in
a failure of the criteria on evaporative losses across both
catalyst technologies, on NOx for oxidation catalyst vehicles,
V
and on HC for three-way catalyst vehicles. Comparison of
fuels 3 and 4 yielded the same results, with the exception
that failures occurred for both HC and CO for three-way
vehicles. The fuel 1 to fuel 3 comparison, however, resulted
*
in the largest number of projected failures. In that
instance, the criteria was failed on evaporative
emissions for both technologies, on all three tailpipe
emissions for oxidation catalyst vehicles, and on HC for
three-way catalyst vehicles.
Conclusions
The statistical analyses performed on the Gasohol data
indicate that the use of ethanol in 10% concentration in
-------
-16-
unleaded fuel has a statistically significant, adverse
effect on emissions. Carbon monoxide emissions decrease and
evaporative emissions increase consistently both for oxidation
catalyst and three-way catalyst vehicles. Furthermore,
application of the method of review shows that the data
fails to demonstrate that the use of 10% ethanol as a fuel
additive will not cause or contribute to the failure of any
vehicles to meet emission standards.
-------
Table 1 Average Emissions Levels by Pollutant by Fuel for
Oxidation Catalyst Vehicles
ALL PROGRAMS - OX CATALYSTS
OVERALL AVERAGES
FUEL * "- 1
VARIANCE
NO OSS1
OVERALL AVERAGES
FUEL 2
VARIANCE
NO DBS1
OVERALL AVERAGES
FUEL 3
VARIANCE '
NO OSS1'
OVERALL AVERAGES
FUEL 4
VARIANCE
NO DBS1"
OVERALL AVERAGES
FUEL 5
VARIANCE
NO DBS 1"
- HC2 . CO
0.795 8.771
0.485 41.754
24. 24.
HC CO
0.665 5.326
0.268 13.866
23. * 23.
HC . CO
0.826 9.953
0,387 49.693
19, 19.
HC CO
0,653 6,705
0.102 13.985
17. '17.
HC CO
0.808 7.307
0.273 29.45
-------
Table 2 Average Emissions Levels by Pollutant by Fuel for
All Three-way Catalyst Vehicles
ALL PROGRAMS • 3-WAY CATALYSTS
OVERALL AVERAGES
FUEL 1
VARIANCE
NO tJBS1
OVERALL AVERAGES
FUEL " 2
VARIANCE
NO OBS1
OVERALL AVERAGES
FUEL * 3
VARIANCE
NO OSS1"
OVERALL AVERAGES
FUEL 4
VARIANCE
NO 08S1
OVERALL AVERAGES
FUEL 5
VARIANCE
NO OBS1
HC-* CO NOX*4 EVAPJ
0.338 4.864 0,666 2*194
0.011 12.426 -0,093 0.776
11. 11. 11. e»
HC CO NOX EVAP
0.317 3.919 0.724 3..219'
0.008 6,005 0,099 U385-
11. 11. 11* 6*
HC CO
0.370 5.696
0.027 16.040
9. 9.
HC CO
0.413 5.269
0,023 13.909
-------
TABLE 3
Sign Test Statistics 'and Confidence Levels For Comparison of
Median Emission Levels of Vehicles Tested on Fuel 1 and Fuel 2
Oxidation Catalyst
Vehicles
1) Increases/Observations
2) Confidence Level of
Increase/Decrease
HC
7/23
95.34
CO
3/23
99.98
(D)
NOr
17/23
98.27
(I)
EVA?
14/17
99.36
(I)
Three—Way Catalyst
Vehicles
1) Increases /Observations
2) Confidence Level of
Increase/Decrease
HC
4/11
72.56
(D)
CO
2/11
96.73
tt>)
NOx
8/11
88.67
(I)
^
8/8
99.61
(I)
TABLE 4
••
Sign Test Statistics and Confidence Levels For Comparison of
Median Emissions Levels of Vehicles Tested on Fuel 3 and Fuel 4
Oxidation Catalyst
Vehicles
1) Increases/Observations
2) Confidence Level of
Increase/Deerease
HC
6/17
83.38
(D)
CO
1/17
99.99
(D)
NOz
10/17
•68.55
(I)
Three-Way Catalyst
Vehicles
1) Increases/Observations
2) Confidence Level of
Increase/Decrease
HC
3/9
74.61
(D)
CO
2/9
91.02
(D)
NChc
4/9
50.00
(I)
EVA?
7/8
96.48
(I)
-------
TABLE 5
Sign Test Statistics and Confidence Levels For Comparison of
Median Emissions Levels of Vehicles Tested on Fuel 1 and Fuel 3
Oxidation Catalyst
Vehicles
1) Increases/Observations
2) Confidence Level of
Increase/Decrease
•
Three-Way Catalyst •
Vehicles
1) Increases/Observations
2) Confidence Level of
Increase/Decrease
CO
CO
TJOx
SOx
EVA?
13/17
97.55
(I)
13/17
97.55
(I)
15/17
99.88
CD
13/16
98.94
(I)
EVAP
5/8
63.67
(I) '
4/8
36.33
(I)
7/8
96.48
(I)
5/7
77.34
(I)
TABLE 6
Estimated Ratio of Hean Emissions Levels for Vehicles
Operated on Different Fuels by Catalyst Technology
by Pollutant by Fuel Comoanson
Technology
'uel/Fuel
HC
CO
EVA?
Oxidation Catalyst
Three-Way Catalyst
2/1
4/3
3/1
2/1
4/3
3/1
0.835
0.768
1.083
0.937
1.116
1.101
0.633
0.632
1.115
0.806
0.925
1.066
1.120
1.105
1.151
1.087
1.086
1.109
1.521
1.603
1.507
1.467
1.426
1.268
-------
Table 7
Method of Review Analysis
(f failures/total I)
•
COMPARING FUELS 1 & 2
HC
CO
NOx
EVAP
All
All
All
Programs
Programs
Programs
(oxidation & three-way)
(oxidation catalysts only)
(three-way catalysts only)
1/28
0/22
[1/6]
0/28
0/22
0/6
2/28
[2/22]
0/6
13/21
[3/17
0/4
COMPARING FUELS 364
All
AU
All
Programs
Programs
Programs
(oxidation & three-way)
(oxidation catalysts only)
(three-way catalysts only)
1/23
0/17
H/6]
1/23
0/17
H/6]
[3/23]
[3/17]
0/6
[5/21
15/16
0/5
COMPARING FUELS 1 & 3
i
All
All
All
Programs
Programs
Programs
(oxidation & three-way)
(oxidation catalysts only)
(three-way catalysts only)
[4/22J
[2/17]
2/5
W/22}
[4/17]
0/5
14/22J
[4/17]
0/5
[5/20
[5/16
0/4
Brackets indicate failure with respect to the method of review
-------
Table 8 Sample Sizes and Critical Values for Application
of the Standard of Review with Probability of
Failure Equal to 90% for a Fleet Failure Rate of 20%
Sanple Size Critical Value (c) Exact Risk of Failure
fox Fleet Failure Rate
of .20
10 1 ~ ,893
11 1 .914'
12 1 .931
13 1 .945
14 1 .956
15 1 .965
16 2 '.859
17 2 .882
18 2 .901-
19 2 .917
20 2 .931
21 2 .942
22 2 .952
23 3 .867
24 3 .886
25 3 .902
26 3 .916
27 3 .928
28 3 .939
29 3 .948
30 4 .877
31 4 .893
32 4 .907
33 4 .919
34 4 .930
35 4 .939
40 5 .924
45 6 .910
50 7 .897
100 16 .920
-------
TABLE 9 - FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR GASOHOI, TESTING PROGRAM
Fuel
1
2
3
4
5
* •
1978 DOC
Winter Avg
1977 MVMA
Winter Avg
1975 MVMA
Summer Avg
1978 DOE
Summer Avg
RON
96.5
90.9
92.3
94.8
96.4
V
92.9
92.6
92.1
92.9
Key
MON RVP
88.
90.
82.
84.
00.
03.
84.2
84.1
83.9
to
7 9.0
1 9.6
6 10.0
2 10.9
6 10.0
•
9 12.5
I
12.2
10.1
9.0
Fuels
% 160 °F
20
32
25
42
30
36
36
30
27
Aromatics
20.5
25.7
29.0
20.9
34.6
29.5
20.9
31.2
Olefins Saturates
0.4 71.1
0.6 73.7
17.2 53.0
it
16i6 ''54.5
i
17.6 57.8
0.0 62.6
•
5.8 . 65.2
• t
6.0 62iB
*
S. G.
.7397
.7440
.7487
.7526
.7686
.7354
.7356
.7402
. '
.7416
1 - Indolene Type
2 - Indolene Type/10% Ethanol mix
3 - llowell Northern Summer Grade
4 - Fuel 3/10% Ethnnol mix
5 - Dlended Summer Grade and 10% (volume),Bthanol to resemble
Fuel 3 with respect to IWP and distillation curve.
-------
0)
H
•d
M
I
in
•a
JQ
8
3
5
a
tn
C
H
•a
CM
O
fr
*M
a .
a
9
id
N=aoo
C=»16
Legend
N » Sample Size
C « Critical Value (fail standard of review
if C or more out of N observations
fail certification standards at projected
50,000 mile emissions levels)
-t
f-
-I-
-I-
•f-
ca.tzi at. i ta.a ta.ra ra.H ca.s ca.s c*.*7
Fleet Proportion Failing Certification Standatds
GJ.Q
Figure 1 Probability of Failing the Standard of Review for Different Sample Slees and Critical
Values versus the True Proportion in the Fleet Failing .Certification Standards
-------
FUELS FOR GASOHOL
TEST PROGRAM
DISTILLATION CORVES
450 4-
400* 4-
350 -L
300 4-
e:
25°
Ca
s
u
&* .
200
150 f
100
u
e
I
IBP 10
20
"PERCENT EVAPORATED
-------
Test Vehicle Description
Appendix 1
Model Vehicle
Source Year ID
Ann Arbor1 1979 NOOOl
Ann Arbor1 1978 N0002
Ann Arbor1 1978 N0003
Ann Arbor 1979 N0004
Ann Arbor 1978 N0005
Ann Arbor 1970 N0006
Ann Arbor 1978 N0007
Ann Arbor 1977 N0008
Ann Arbor 1978 N0009
Ann Arbor 1979 NOOIO
Ann Arbor 1978 N0011
RTF2 1977 RMUST
RTF 1979 RLTDI
Bartlesville 1976 BOXC1
Dartlesville 1977 DOXC2
Bartlesville 1977 BOOOl
Bartlesville 1978 B0002
Bartlesville 1978 B0003
Bartlesville 1978 B0004
Bartlesville 1978 B0005
Bartlesville 1978 B0006
Bartlesville 1978 B0007
Bartlesville 1970 B0008
Bartlesville 1978 B0009
Bartlesville 1978 B0010
SWRIJ 1978 SSAAB
SWRI 1978 SCHEU
SWRI 1978 SMUST
\\
Make/Model
Ford Thunderbird
Ford Bobcat
Ford Maverick
Ford Pinto
Pontiac Sunbird
Chrysler Omni
Plymouth Salon
Chevrolet Impala
Buick Regal I
Toyota Corolla
Buick Regal II
Ford Mustang
Ford LTD II
Chevrolet Impala
Pontiac Astre
Volvo 242
Ford Pinto
AMC Gremlin
Buick Century
Oldsmobile Delta
Ford Futura
Buick Skyhawk
Pontiac Sunbird
Plymouth Salon
Plymouth Horizon
Saab 99GL
Chevrolet Malibu
Ford Mustang
88
Cal./Fed.
Configuration•
Developmental
California
Federal
Federal
California
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
California
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
California
California
Federal
Federal ' j '.
Federal ,' ».,
Federal . "'
California
California
Federal , {>
Federal
California
California
Federal
Catalyst
Three-way
Three-way
Oxidation
Oxidation
Three-way
Oxidation
Oxidation
Oxidation
Oxidation
Oxidation
Three-way
Oxidation
Oxidation
Oxidation
Oxidation
Three-way
Three-way
Oxidation
Oxidation
Oxidation
Oxidation
; Three-way
, Three-way
Oxidation
Oxidation
Three-way
Oxidation
Oxidation
-------
Test Vehicle Description (cont.)
Appendix 1
Source
*
Ford
Ford1
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford .
Ford1
Ford
Ford1
EG&G
EGfiG
EG&G
General Motors
Model
Year
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1979
1978
1978
1978
1978
Vehicle
ID
i
F0001
F0002
F0003
F0004
F0005
F0006
F0007
F0008
F0009
EMERC
EAMCO
ETOYO
GSUNB
Make/Model
Ford Fiesta
Ford Bobcat
Ford Fairmont
Ford Granada
Ford Developmental
Ford Developmental
Ford Maverick
Ford Light Duty Truck
Ford Thunderbird
Mercury Monarch
AMC Concorde
Toyota
Pontiac Sunbird
Cal./Fed.
Configuration
California '
California
Federal
California
Developmental
Developmental
Federal
Federal
Developmental
Federal
Federal
Federal
California
Catalyst
Oxidation
Three-way
Oxidation
Oxidation
Three-way
Three-way-
Oxidation
Oxidation
Three-way
Oxidation
Oxidation
Oxidation
Three-way
Notes:
i
2
3
This vehicle was tested by both EPA - Ann Arbor and Ford Motor Company
RTF - Research Triangle Park
SWRI - Southwest Research Institute
-------
SOURCt VtH
a uxci
0 UXC2
u
8
d
B
a
0
tt
a
u
d
a
d
a
d
d
tt
B
H
a
b
rl
d
B
U
H
UXC2
0003
0003
0003
0003
0003
0004
000«
0004
0004
0004
0005
000!>
POOS
0005
0005
0006
0006
0006
1
0006
0006
ooio
0010
OOIO
0010
FUEL
t
2
1
2
V
Z
3
4
S
1
2
3
4
S
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
S
1
2
3
4
N OaS
3
3
3
3
2
1
t
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
I
1
2
1
1
I
1
/
, 1
1
1
HtAN
0.56
O.V3
0.51
0,30
Q.Stt
0,56
0,86
0.68
0.71
1,46
0.71
0.77
0,72
0.53
0,77
O.B2
0.59
0,63
0.36
1.01
0.61
0,7'l
0.31
O.?l
P.32 .
»'.3i
HC
VArt
0.002
O.OOb
0.031
0.007
o.oo;
0.0
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.006
o.o
o.o
o.o
0,0
O.Oltt
o.tf
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.014
o.O
o.o
o.o
o.o .
0.001
o.o
0,'J
u.O
smtv
O.O'I
0.07
0,|H
0.04
0.06
0.0
o.o
0,0
0.0
o.oa
o.'o
0,0
0.0
o.o
0.13
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.12
0.0
0.0
o.o
J.O
O.O'I
0.0
u.u
U 0
6.74
o.Vl
9.16
6.33
4.43
3,15
S.62
5.47
5.93
10.38
6.00
14.02
tt.10
9./b
4.97
2.97
5.31
7,B'>
3.21
17.36
b.oO
20,t>0
10.07
13. ib
I./7
1 ,i"
2.10
It'll
tu
0.13V
0.22M
0.011
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.7b4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.106
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.767
0,0
o.o
0.0
0.0
I.. Oo
O.M
0,0
1 II ,U
Slot V
0.37
0 . (•!>
l.t'6
O.flfl
0.11
0.0
o.o
o.o
o.o
1.94
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.0
2.67
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.33
0.0
o.o
0.0
O.It
U . 1 a
0,0
0.0
»,o
.it AN
1.70
l,7o
1.2*
1,23
I.I*
1.21
1.24
1.35
1.48
1.77
1.47
1.63
2.01
l.bb
\
2.U
2.03,
O.hB
1.37
1.21
I.M»
1.72
1.'?
<:,2I
I.VO
r'.OO
mix
VAX
0.0"2
O.OVb
0.024
0.011
0.000
0,0
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.010
o.o
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.014
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.005
o.o
0,0
0.0
o.o
O.OU
0.0
0.0
0,0
5>TO£V
0.20
0,10
0.01
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.10
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.07
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.13
O.o
0.0
o.o
HtAN
-
3.37
4.82
4.02
4.69
4,98
4.00
5.62
3.61
4.68
.5.72
5.71
6.33
6.42
V.I 7
6.06
4.71
3.05
l.bb
2.03
3.36
3.23
0.06
3.1M
U.M<]
VAH
*•
-
0.218
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.334
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.097
0.0
•
o.o
0.0
0.0
9.202
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.911
0.0
1
0,0
0.0
SlotV
"
0.«7
0.0
0.0
o.o'
o.o
2.71
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.31
o.o
o.o
0.0
0.0
3.03
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
o.«,s
0.0
o.o
0.0
-------
u
u
B
U
d
U
E
E
E
E
E
E
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
0010
0009
0009
0009
0009
0009
AhCO
A*CO
MtHC
HfcRC
TOVO
TUYO
0001,
oooi v
0003
0003
0003
0003
0004
0004
0004
0004
000?
0007
0007
0007
0007
OOOtt
ooov
s
1.
2
3
4
•
b
1
2
1
2
1
2
1 •
2
1
2
3
5
1
2
3
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
«!
1
2
1
1
i
1
. 1
2
2
3
2
1
1
4
.4
6
2
2
3
7
2
4
3
i
4
4
2
.3
' 3
2
0,27
1.27
0.61
U.95
0.62
0.63
0.76
0.99
0.66
0.63
1.10
0.90
0.39
0.39
O.AS
0.72
0.83
0,79
0,40
0.31
0.41
0.50
0,65
0,70
0,00
0,02
I.5/
O.HI
0.6D
-•
o.o
0.000
0.0
' o.o
o.o
o.o
0.013
0.060
0.011
0.013
o.o
0,0
0.003.
0.009
0.054
0.001
0.026
0.000
0.005
0,003
0,004
0.005
0.001
0,004
0.001
0.001 '
O.OJ/
O.OIH
0.001
.
0,0
0.01
o.o
0.0
o.o
o.o
0,11
0.48
0.11
0.11
0.0
o.o
0.05
0.09
0.23
0.04
O.lb
0,02
0.07
0,06
0.06
0.07
O.Ott
0.06
0.04
O.Ott
O.ftO
0.14
0.04
A ( |
1.4U
IH.ii'j
.1.66
15.5')
6.90
6,16
5il2
5.9/1
4.68
2.7?
11,00
5.00
3.64
2,77
4.3B
5,1«
5.60
5.16
3.47
1.57
3.01
2.50
4,99
3.h2
6.22
4.75
H.2..
'1.04
h.dl)
0.0
2.311
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,101
0.619
0,3«?
o.oua
0.0
0,0
0.5V2
1.039
2,455
0.65U
1.201
0.075
l.Olo
0.638
1.611
0,147
2.26A
0.971
2.00J
0.445
14. 040
/.4«M
\ ,'in«J
.. .u,,.
o.o
1.52
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.12
0.91
0.6«»
0,04
0.0
0.0
0.77
1.02
1.57
0.93
1.10
0,27
1.35
O.BO
1.35
0.3M
1.51
0.9V
1.42
0.49
3.«7
?.U
1.3*
n •>:
«?,07
1./.7
?.77
1.67
3.^6
2.11
2.10
l.hl
1.14
1.44
l.bO
2.20
1.3*
1.67
i.n
1.1H. ,
2.46
2.40
1.16
1.18
1.44 '
i
i
1.66 '
1.3U
1.47
1.39
1.55
I.5S
i
?.30
i MI
0,0
0.006
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
0,039
0.059
o.onn
0.001
0.0
0.0
0.029
0.005
0.095
0.016
0,051
0.004
0.004
0.001
0.015
0.043
0,001
0.007
0.003
0.001
0,009
0.0/3
0.054
n n 'i u
o.o
O.Ott
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.20
o.?o
0.09
0.03
0.0
o.o
0.17
0.07
0.31
0.13
0.23
0.06
0.07
0.04
0.12
0.21
0.03
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.10
0.47
0.43
II Oh
3.65
5.H4
9.33
d.jv
6,35
5.19
-
-
-
-
•
m
3.44
5.60
1,71
1.32
?.44
5.65
3.96
6.01
10.97
14.66
1.27
6.19
4.39
9.53
H.26
2.4V
b.60
» t,S
o.o
13,729
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0
"
m
-
-
-
•
0.064
0.969
0.160
o.oo/
0.013
21.416
9.546
9.724
U.752
7.626
0.095
16.966
1.366
6.625
O.U61
o.o
6,d45
(i no<>
0.0
3.71
o.o
0.0
o.o
o.o
-
-
-
-
-
M
0.94
0.96
0.42
0.06
0.11
4.63
3.09
3,12
3.57
2.60
0.31
4.1?
1.10
•J.57
0.60
o.o
?.6
-------
•'4
n
M
it
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
H
.N
H
H
n
N
M
«
II
it
,<
I.
H
0004
0004
0004
0004
OOOt.
0006
0006
0006
0006
0007
0007
0007
0007
0008
OOOtt
000»
oooa
oooa
0009
0009
0009
0009
0009
0010
0010
0010
0010
0010
LIN
2
3
4
b
t
2
3
4
i
b
I '
3
4
b
t
2
i
4
8
1
2
3
4
S
1
2
5
4
^
1
3
3
2
2
2
*
2
' 4
2
/ 2
;, i
4
2
2
I
1
3
2
'3
1
I
3
1
2
1
1
«
' 2
2
3
0.«7
0..,?
0.60
0.7o
0.42
0.30
0.52
0,34
0.37
0,77
0,01
0,S">
0,76
0.40
0,>9
O.'ll
0.«9
0.54
0.60
0.53 •
0.60
0.57
0.73 '
0.5S
0,->7
0.71
0.71
O.ttO
0,40
0.01.3
O.UOI
0.003
0.001
0.000
0,000
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.0
0,003
0.0
0.005
1.0
U.I*
0,000
0.000
0.002
0.0
o.tf
0,002
o.o
0.001
o.o
o.o
O.l'OO
0.0.03
0.0
Q.OOb
0.1-6
O.o'l
0.06
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.04
0.0^
0,0
0.06
o.o
0.07
O.U
0.0
o.o«>
0.09
O.Ob
0.0
o.o
0.04
o.o
0.03
0,0
11. II
0...2
'J.Ol.
o.o
0,09
1 .vo
3.4/
d.^
c\/0
I^.SS
a.?o
10.00
10. 3b
tl.6b
17.10
19.17 '
9.90
II. 5b
6.20
3.30
fc.'jO
5.10
b.bO
6.60
4.50
7.23
b.uo
h.70
7.10
O.W.I
«/ , 0 /
S.H,,
6.70
*,«!.»
'J.I 30
0 . 0 U )
O.'H-'i
. 0.3i."J
C'.OOS
0.720
3.6d7
3.605
O.O'lb
0.0
5.9-13
0.320
1.U05
0.0
0.0
0.09U
i.^ao
0.160
0.0
0.0
0.161
0.0
0.0
0.0
il.O
(I.V 1 1)
O.I.
«.0h.)
l/(,09o
».5o
O.Oh
O.oa
o.b/
o.«./
0.65
1.92
1.91
0.^1
0.0
2.04
O.b7
1.34
0.0
0.0
0.30
1.15
0.40
o.o
0.0
0.40
0.0
0.0
0.0
II. ('
.,.'0
il.O
^ » <* tf
i./S
l.M/
1.90
!.»»
1.V9
1.04
1.37
I.Ob
l.Vl
1.40
l.hS
1.74
2.14
2.1«
l.ol
1.31
I.7H
I.4B
l.t.2
l.?7
1.27
l.«6
1.36
I.U6
1.06
l.*6
l.H
1.'!'
l."7
I.H'J
n.ui i
0.012
o.o
0.0,2
0.005
0.002 •
0.001
0.005
0.001
0.0
O.Olb
0.001
0.005
0.0
o.o
0,001
o.o
0.000
0.0
o.o
0:002
o.o
0,000
O.U
0.0
(>."l)|
0.000
0,000
O.Olb
O.M
0.11
0.0
O.Ob
0.06
O.Ob
0.03
0.07
O.Oil
0.0
0,12
O.Oi
o.o/
0.0
0.0
0.03
0.0
0.01
0,0
0.0
O.Ob
o.o
0.02
o.o
o.o
".0
o.ot
0.01
0.12
1.91
?.29
3.J5
a. 92
i1. 92
b.61
7.49
13. b9
A. 69
2.95
7.34
1?.«3
11.14
2.^6
2.33
3.39
5.30
6. Id
2.6fl
3.bb
4.49
7.30
7.47
l.btt
I.b9
2. •**
3.00
3,01
i.da
0.1 'III
0.167
O.PV7
O.OII
O.^u
0.994
0,644
0.471
0.051
o.o
0.267
0.02b
0.«6J
o.o
0.0
0.004
0.072
2.521 '
0.0
o.o
0.123
0.0
O.SfJ
o.o
0.0
O..IV
0.001
0.001
O.QdO
0.3U
0.41
0.31
0.11
O.d7
1.00
0.80
0.69
0.2*
0.0
0.52
O.lo
0.6tt
G.O
0.0
0.29
0.«!7
l.bV
0.0
0.0
0.33
0.0
0.7«»
0.0
0.0
0.20
O.t'5
J.04
0.24
-------
AVtHAoE
IJV VtrilCU tar Hlfl fun liXlOAlliifi (.AlALYM VthlCUb
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
3
3
3
3
3
3
Lfl'I
LTOI
UOI
UOI
MUST
MUST
MUST
MUST
MUST
CHtv',
V
CHEV
CMEV
MUST
MUST
MUST
2
3
' 4
5
1
2
3
4
S
J
4
5
3
4
5
it
2
'. 2,
i
2
2
1
1
1
1
5
•
2
*
2
4
2
2
0.41
0.52
0.38
0.61
3.62
2.82
3.15
1.72
2.66
0.35
0.39
0.41
0.71
0.83
0.76
"O.OtM
0.013
• 0.013
0.006
0.000
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.001
0.000
0.0
0.002
0.016
0.007
a.06 7.«3
0.11 0.36
0.11 5.5ft
0,0V 6.19
0.01 29.75
0.0 19.60
0.0 «J7.00
0.0 17.20
0.0 25.50
0.03 3.95
t
0.01 2.52
0.0 2.B|
0.04 6.07
0.13 5.08
0.210
7. 335
0.026
5.152
IB. 605
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.073
0.002
0.051
0.204
0.162
0.076
2.50
2.71
11.16
•J.27
'I.3J
O.f-
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,27
0.05
0.23
0.45
0.40
0.2«
I./1-
1.72
2.13
1.92
1.10
1.53
1.27
1.72
1.48
0./7
0.6d
0.0)
l.»7
1.49
1.53
O.OM
, 0.031
0.006
0.061
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.005
0,0
O.Oli
0.007
0.000
0.002
Afl'tNim 2 FACL 4
0,11 4.14 (
O.lfl 2.33
U./O
O.I2U 0.35
1.901 1.38
4.U70
2.11
0.09 7.19
0.25 5.49
0.0
0.0
0.0 -
0.0 -
0.0 ...
0.07 20.31 45.91* 6.7U
0.0 19.24 0.036 0.19
0.11 21.63 0.001 0.03
0.08 6.56 16.US 4.01
0.01 27.28 7.220 2.69
O.O'I 23,87 0.17« 0.42
-------
SOURCE V£H
S SAAB
S
S
N
N
N,
N
N
N
N
U
n
II
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
SAAB
SAAO
0005
0005
OdOb
OOOb
OOOb
0011
0011
001J'
0011 v
0011
0002
0002
0002
0002
0002
0005
OOOb
0006
0006
0009
0009
OOP* '
11009
ooov
Fuet
4
s
3
1
2 .,
3
4
5
1
2
3 ,
5
1
, i
3
4
S
1 '
2
1
2
1
3
4
5
N OBS
i
2
2
2
• ','" 2
4
2
2
2
2
i
2
7
i
<> it
•; '-'2
2
* '5
3
4
2
6
5
•2
4
.
KtHH
0,32 '
0.2d
0.22
0.31
A. 36
0.50
0.37
0.31
0,41 ,
1 '
0,55
' 0.23
, 0,26
0.24
0.33
0.25
0.33
0.40
0.23
0.21
tt.it
0.27
0,19
HI:
VAH
0,001
0.003
o.i»
0.000
0.000
o.ooi
0.003
O.OOb
0.001
O.QOO
0.002
0,001
0.000
0.002
0.007
0.000
0.0
0.000
0.004
0.101
U.UOb
0.002
0.000
O.uOl
O.Oi/
1
srotv
0.0«
0.06
0,0
o.oi
0.01
0.03
O.Oo
0,07
O.OU
0.01
0.04
0.01
O.Ob
0.09
0.02
o.o
0.02
0,06
0.32
0,09
O.U7
0..14
O.IU
G.iU
„.,.,
0,1')
• * i
*'t Al'
3, II?
4.10
4.01
4.70
4.10
5,«2
b.<0
/.<•<»
7.95
6.35
9.20
7.90
10. bU
2.27
I. 01
2.2?
I.BS
2.10
3.57
4. Ib
0,60
I.O'i
1.3rt
!.«•'
l.ou
t.\1
• > l
CM
1 VAX
O.IIUl
0.012
0.002
O.OUO
0.020
O.Olo
O.bOO
0.000
U.2«b
0.0'Jb
1.380
O.OdO
0.000
0.220
0.235
0,09b
O.OOb
O.POO
0.27d
1.161
0.012
0.003
0.117
o.o/s
tl.ljl /
ti.u^n
1,373
.1 1 1 i
0.00
0,^1
0.0/1
0.2()
0.14
O.M
O./l
0.2U
0.40
b.2l
I.I/
0.28
O.OI
0.47
0.49
0.31
J.b7
0.00
0.53
1.00
0.1 1
0.06
0.11
ll.r">
•1 . 1 'I
I.I/
1 1
.i«
O.PH
0.19
0.66
0.66
0.7?
0,71
0,7b
0.19
0,23
0,24
0,31
0.93'
1.22
1.32
1,32
0.93
O.bO
0.70
1.15
1 . 1 (i
1 ' I
i.?i :
i.i'
i.i'.
H i n
n(jX
VAH
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.002
0.001
O.bOO
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.003
o.ooo
o.oco
0.001
O.OOb
0.002
0,004
0.002
0.015
0.013
0,001
U.O
0.041
O.oui
0.0 '!!
0.( Oo
o.ool
A fill*
atutv
0.01
O.OJ
o.ot
O.OI
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.01
O.U<4
0.01
O.Ob'
o.oi
O.OI
0.03
0.09
0.0
-------
AYEMbb tHlSSlO'4.1 tlV VF
d 0001 i
U
B
B
a
8
B
0
a
B
8
8
B
8
8
8
8
a
8
G
C
Cool
00.01
0001
0002
0002
0002
0002
0002
0007
^0.007
0007
0007
0007
oooe
ovoe
0008
0008
OOOd
SUMd
SUN8
3
i
4
t
S
i •
i
2
3
4
b
t
1
2
*
3
1
5
1
i
2
3
0
5
1
2
.ucu
5
0.52
0.44
0.30
L fUK Ih^tt-^Al "f> l»-ttol t'HtllL
fl.UU 0.11 t.9| 0.7J5
3.3o
U.U
ii.O
0.0
t.ll J
2.^11
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.353
o.o
o.o
0.0
o.o
B.fc91
0.0
0.0
M.O
II.O
o.o
0.0
es
*
a. Mi
o.o
O.n
0.0
1,06
1,59
o.o
o.o
0,0
P. 59
o.o
0.0
0.0
0,0
2.°>
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
0.0
APPfci.'DIX 2
•).c!4 tt.Oli O.II
0.10
0.10
0.12
o./s
O./d
p. 01
O.tto
P. 00
P,S7
O.bB
'
0.77
1,01
0,99
0.6b
i
0.72
0.71
0,71
0.73
0,o7
U.71
o.o
o.o
O.o
0.039
0.003
0.0
o.o
0,0
O.OOd
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0
0,021
0.0
0.0
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.10
0.06
o.o
o.o
0.0
0,09
0,0
0,0
o.o
-.«
0,16
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.0
o.o
0,0
' *»
VI
*
2,19
3.13
2.98
4.1?
3.06
3.92
5.56
*.07
". 11
5.84
l.dB
1.97
1.29
2,^6
1,99
Ml
-
PAGt 6
M
M
»
«*
0.018
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.638
o.o
o.u
o.o
o.o
«
*•
*
-
«*
4*
•
0.13
o.o
o.o
0.0
0,0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.oO
o.o
o.o
O.U
o.o
.
.
------- |