EPA-460/3-73-009
EFFECTIVENESS OF SHORT EMISSION
INSPECTION TESTS
IN REDUCING EMISSIONS
THROUGH MAINTENANCE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
EPA-460/3-73-009
EFFECTIVENESS OF SHORT EMISSION
INSPECTION TESTS
IN REDUCING EMISSIONS
THROUGH MAINTENANCE
Prepared by
R. D. Gafford and T. A. Huls
Olson Laboratories, Inc.
421 E. Cerritos Avenue
Anaheim, California 92805
Contract No. 68-01-0410
EPA Project Officer:
Thomas A. Huls
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
July 1973
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to
report technical data of interest to a limited number of readers.
Copies are available free of charge to Federal employees, current
contractors and grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplies
permit - from the Air Pollution Technical Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, or from the National Technical Information Service, 5285
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Olson Laboratories, Inc., Anaheim, California in fulfillment of
Contract Number 68-01-0410. The contents of this report are reproduced
herein as received from the Olson Laboratories, Inc. The opinions,
findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author and not
necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of
company or product names is not to be considered as an endorsement by
the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-460/3-73-009
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1-001
1.1 Introduction 1-001
1.1.1 Inspection and Maintenance Programs 1-001
1.1.2 Program Objectives 1-002
1.2 Experimental Design 1-003
1.3 Data Analysis 1-004
1.4 Results of the Effectiveness Analysis 1-005
1.4.1 Test Fleet Emission Reductions 1-005
1.4.2 Effectiveness Index 1-008
1.4.3 Emission Reductions as a Function of Failure
Rate 1-009
1.4.4 Effectiveness of Repairing Idle Only Failures . . . 1-011
1.5 Results of Maintenance Analysis 1-011
1.5.1 Modal Failures 1-012
1.5.2 Diagnosis of Failed Vehicles 1-012
1.5.3 Repair Action Summary 1-015
1.5.4 Excess Repairs 1-015
1.6 Results of Cost Analysis 1-016
1.6.1 Inspection Program Costs 1-016
1.6.2 Vehicle Maintenance Cost 1-016
1.6.3 Total Program Cost 1-018
1.7 Results of the Cost Effectiveness Analysis .... 1-021
1.7.1 Fleet Cost Effectiveness 1-021
1.7.2 Cost Effectiveness Index . 1-022
1.8 Results of the Relatability Analysis . 1-022
1.8.1 Short Test Correlation to 1975 CVS 1-024
1.8.2 Errors of Commission 1-024
1.9 Summary Conclusions 1-025
1.9.1 Effectiveness Analysis 1-025
1.9.2 Maintenance Analysis 1-026
1.9.3 Cost Analysis 1-026
1.9.4 Cost Effectiveness Analysis 1-027
1.9.5 Relatability Analysis 1-027
2.0 TEST PROGRAM METHODOLOGY 2-001
2.1 Study Team 2-001
2.2 Inspection and Maintenance Operations 2-001
2.2.1 Vehicle Procurement 2-004
2.2.2 Emission Testing 2-005
2.2.3 Vehicle Maintenance 2-010
2.2.3.1 Vehicle Service Centers 2-012
2.2.3.2 Idle Service Procedure 2-012
2.2.3.3 Loaded Steady State (L.S.S.) Service
Procedure 2-012
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
2.3 Data Analysis 2-013
2.3.1 Data Acquisition 2-013
2.3.2 Fleet Emission Statistics 2-013
2.3.3 Effectiveness Analysis 2-017
2.3.3.1 Fleet Emission Reductions 2-017
2.3.3.2 Emission Reductions as a Function of
Inspection Test Rejection Rate 2-019
2.3.3.3 Effectiveness of Correcting Idle Only
Failures 2-020
2.3.3.4 Effectiveness Index 2-020
2.3.4 Maintenance Analysis 2-024
2.3.4.1 Modal Failure Analysis 2-024
2.3.4.2 Diagnosis of Failed Vehicles 2-024
2.3.4.3 Service Center Repair Action 2-025
2.3.4.4 Unjustified Repair Action 2-027
2.3.4.5 Analysis of Exited Failing Vehicles 2-028
2.3.5 Program Cost Analysis 2-028
2.3.5.1 Inspection Cost Analysis 2-029
2.3.5.2 Maintenance Cost Analysis 2-030
2.3.5.3 Total Program Cost 2-031
2.3.6 Cost Effectiveness of Inspection and
Maintenance 2-032
2.3.7 Relatability Analysis 2-032
2.3.7.1 Correlation and Regression Analysis 2-032
2.3.7.2 Errors of Commission Analysis 2-034
3.0 PROGRAM RESULTS 3-001
3.1 Test Fleet Statistics 3-001
3.1.1 Test Fleet Vehicle Composition 3-002
3.1.2 Dependence of Emissions on Vehicle Parameters . . . 3-002
3.1.3 Test Fleet Emission Levels 3-006
3.1.4 Statistical Equivalence of Test Fleets
Before Maintenance 3-012
3.1.4.1 Equivalence of Idle and L0S.S. Fleets 3-012
3.1.4.2 Equivalence of California and Michigan 3-016
3.1.4.3 Equivalence of Phase I and Phase II 3-016
3.2 Effectiveness Analysis 3-018
3.2.1 Test Fleet Emission Reductions 3-018
3.2.2 Test of Significance of Emission Reduction .... 3-023
3.2.2.1 Significant Difference in Idle and L.S.S.
Emission Reductions 3-023
3.2.2.2 Significant Differences in Emission Reductions
in California and Michigan 3-025
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
3.2.2.3 Significant Differences in Emission Reductions
Between'Phase I and Phase II 3-025
3.2.3 Emission Reductions as a Function of Inspection
Test Rejection Rate 3-025
3.2.4 Effectiveness of Correcting Idle Only
Failures 3-029
3.2.5 Effectiveness Index 3-032
3.3 Inspection and Maintenance Analysis 3-036
3.3.1 Inspection Test Modal Failures 3-036
3.3.2 Diagnosis of Failed Vehicles 3-039
3.3.3 Repair Action Summary 3-042
3.3.4 Unjustified Repair Action Analysis 3-047
3.3.5 Failed and Exited Vehicles 3-050
3.3.6 Revised Maintenance Procedure Recommendations . . 3-053
3.3.6.1 Suggested Procedure 3-053
3.3.6.2 Implementation Philosophy 3-054
3.4 Cost Analysis 3-054
3.4.1 Inspection Program Costs 3-057
3.4.2 Maintenance Cost Analysis 3-059
3.4.2.1 Average Serviced Vehicle Costs 3-059
3.4.2.2 Excess Repair Costs 3-060
3.4.2.3 Repair Cost as a Function of Inspection Test
Rejection Rate 3-064
3.4.2.4 Average Repair Cost for Service Actions 3-069
3.4.2.5 Average Repair Cost for Correcting Idle
Only Failures 3-071
3.4.3 Total Program Costs 3-071
3.5 Cost Effectiveness Analysis 3-074
3.5.1 Cost Effective Index 3-074
3.5.2 Cost Effectiveness as a Function of Inspection
Test Rejection Rate 3-076
3.5.3 Cost Effectiveness of Correcting Idle Only
Failures 3-076
3.6 Relatibility Analysis 3-079
3.6.1 Correlation and Regression Results 3-079
3.6.2 Errors of Commission 3-099
REFERENCES 3-102
4.0 APPENDICES 4-001
4.1 Appendix A - Test Procedures 4-001
4.2 Appendix B - Vehicle Emission Summary Tables . . . 4-001
4.3 Appendix C - Short Test Regression and
Correlation Summaries 4-001
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1-01 Summary Statistics for All Vehicles 1-006
1-02 Summary Statistics for Serviced Vehicles Only 1-007
1-03 Tests of Significance of Emission Reduction 1-009
1-04 First Year Effectiveness Index 1-009
1-05 Emission Reductions from Correcting Idle Only
Failures 1-011
1-06 Modal Failures of L.S.S. Vehicles 1-012
1-07 Inspection Program Costs 1-016
1-08 Average Service Cost 1-017
1-09 Average Cost for Service Event 1-017
1-10 Average Repair Cost of Correcting Idle Only Failures .... 1-018
1-11 First Year Total Program Cost - Combined States 1-018
1-12 Annual Vehicle Owner Cost - Combined States 1-021
1-13 Cost Effectiveness of Correcting Idle Only Failures .... 1-022
1-14 First Year Program Cost Effectiveness - Combined
States 1-024
2-01 Vehicle Distribution by Model Year 2-005
2-02 California Vehicle Population 2-006
2-03 Michigan Vehicle Population 2-007
2-04 Horsepower Values for Loaded Steady State Test 2-009
2-05 Emission Inspection Failure Limits 2-011
2-06 Reject Levels for Loaded Steady State Test 2-014
2-07 Average Miles Driven Annually 2-022
2-08 Calculation of Pollutant Weighting Factors 2-023
2-09 Suggested Repair Action for Idle and Loaded Steady
State Inspection Test 2-025
2-10 Proper Repair Action, Idle Mode 2-028
2-11 Proper Repair Action, Loaded Steady State 2-028
3-01 Inspection Test Failure Rates 3-004
3-02 General Trends in Mass Emissions 3-005
3-03 Emission Levels for All Vehicles 3-008
3-04 Emission Levels for Serviced Vehicles Only 3-009
3-05 Emission Levels for Controlled Vehicles Only 3-010
3-06 Emission Levels for Uncontrolled Vehicles Only 3-011
3-07 Emission Reductions for All Vehicles 3-019
3-08 Emission Reductions for Serviced Vehicles Only 3-020
3-09 Emission Reductions for Controlled Vehicles Only 3-021
3-10 Emission Reductions for Uncontrolled Vehicles Only 3-022
3-11 Tests of Significance of Emission Reductions After
First Service 3-024
3-12 Test of Significance of Emission Reductions After
Second Service 3-026
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
3-13 Fleet Emission Reduction from Correcting Idle Only
Failures 3-030
3-14 Serviced Vehicle Emission Reduction from Correcting
Idle Only Failures 3-030
3-15 Relative Effectiveness of Correcting Idle Only
Failures 3-031
3-16 Effectiveness Index Input Data (Grams Per Mile
Reduction) 3-033
3-17 Effectiveness Index Input Data (Percent Reductions) .... 3-034
3-18 First Year Effectiveness Index - 1975 CVS Data 3-035
3-19 Distribution of Inspection Test Modal Failures 3-037
3-20 Diagnosis of Repaired Vehicles 3-040
3-21 Repair Action Summary 3-043
3-22 Service Event Summary 3-046
3-23 Summary of Unjustified Repair 3-049
3-24 Summary of Failed and Exited Vehicles 3-051
3-25 Suggested Diagnosis and Maintenance Procedure 3-055
3-26 Inspection Program Costs, State or Single Contractor
Operated 3-058
3-27 Service Cost Averaged Over Serviced Vehicles Only 3-060
3-28 Service Cost Averaged Over All Vehicles 3-061
3-29 Percent of Repair Cost Which Was Excessive 3-061
3-30 Average Cost for Service Event 3-070
3-31 Average Repair Cost of Correcting Idly Only Failures .... 3-072
3-32 First Year Total Program Cost 3-073
3-33 First Year Program Cost Effectiveness 3-075
3-34 Fleet Cost Effectiveness of Correcting Idle Only
Failures 3-079
3-35 Ranking of Short Inspection Test Correlation to 1975
CVS Test, 300 California Vehicles 3-081
3-36 Ranking of Short Inspection Test Correlation to 1975
CVS Test, 300 Michigan Vehicles 3-082
3-37 Ranking of Short Inspection Test Correlation to 1975
CVS Test, Combined States 3"-083
3-38 Selected Regression Equations and Coefficients, 1975
CVS Before Service Data, California Vehicles Only .... 3-088
3-39 Selected Regression Equations and Coefficients, 1975
CVS Before Service Data, Michigan Vehicles Only 3-089
3-40 Selected Regression Equations and Coefficients, 1975
Before Service Data, Combined States 3-090
3-41 Analysis of Errors of Commission 3-100
4-01 Short Test Abbreviations 4-002
VI1
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1-01 Effectiveness as a Function of Rejection Rate 1-010
1-02 Comparison of Repairs Required and Repairs Performed to
Pass the Emission Inspection Tests - Phase I 1-013
1-03 Comparison of Repairs Required and Repairs Performed to
Pass the Emission Inspection Tests - Phase II 1-014
1-04 Average Vehicle Repair Costs - Phase I 1-019
1-05 Average Vehicle Repair Costs - Phase II 1-020
1-06 Cost Effectiveness as a Function of Failure Rate 1-023
2-01 Short Cycle Project Organization 2-002
2-02 Short Cycle Project Vehicle Flow 2-003
2-03 Data Analysis Flow Chart 2-015
2-04 Service Center Repair Analysis 2-026
2-05 Confidence Bands of Predicted CVS Emission Levels 2-035
2-06 Errors of Commission Analysis 2-036
3-01 Distribution of Test Fleets - Phase I (30% Rejection
Rate) 3-003
3-02 Distribution of Test Fleets - Phase II (30% Rejection *
Rate) 3-003
3-03 95% Confidence Intervals of HC Before and After Service
Fleet Means . 3-013
3-04 95% Confidence Intervals of CO Before and After Service
Fleet Means 3-014
3-05 95% Confidence Intervals of NOX Before and After Service
Fleet Means 3-015
3-06 Effectiveness as a Function of Rejection Rate -
California 3-027
3-07 Effectiveness as a Function of Rejection Rate -
Michigan 3-028
3-08 Inspection Test Modal Failures. All Phase I and II
Vehicles 3-038
3-09 Failed Vehicle Diagnosis 3-041
3-10 Repair Action Summary 3-044
3-11 Unjustified Repair Actions 3-048
3-12 Distribution of Average Repair Cost per Repaired
Vehicle 3-062
3-13 Distribution of Average Repair Cost per Repaired
Vehicle 3-063
3-14 Average Vehicle Repair Costs - Phase I 3-065
3-15 Average Vehicle Repair Costs - Phase II 3-066
3-16 Average Vehicle Repair Costs Less Excess Repairs -
Phase I 3-067
Vlil
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
3-17 Average Vehicle Repair Costs Less Excess Repairs -
Phase II 3-068
3-18 Cost Effectiveness as a Function of Failure Rate -
Phase I 3-077
3-19 Cost Effectiveness as a Function of Failure Rate -
Phase II 3-078
3-20 Dependence of Correlation on Number of Steady State
Speeds - California 3-085
3-21 Dependence of Correlation on Number of Steady State
Speeds - Michigan 3-086
3-22 Dependence of Correlation on Number of Steady State
Speeds - All Vehicles 3-087
3-23 HC Confidence Bands of Predicted 1975 CVS Emissions Idle
Inspection Test - Phase I and II Uncontrolled Vehicles . . 3-091
3-24 HC Confidence Bands of Predicted 1975 CVS Emissions Loaded
Steady State Inspection Test - Phase I and II
Uncontrolled Vehicles 3-092
3-25 HC Confidence Bands of Predicted 1975 CVS Emission Idle
Inspection Test - Phase I and II Controlled Vehicles . . . 3-093
3-26 HC Confidence Bands of Predicted 1975 CVS Emission
Loaded Steady State Inspection Test - Phase I and II
Controlled Vehicles 3-094
3-27 CO Confidence Bands of Predicted 1975 CVS Emissions
Idle Inspection Test Phase I and II Uncontrolled
Vehicles 3-095
3-28 CO Confidence Bands of Predicted 1975 CVS Emissions
Loaded Steady State Inspection Test - Phase I and II
Uncontrolled Vehicles 3-096
3-29 CO Confidence Bands of Predicted 1975 CVS Emissions
Idle Inspection Test - Phase I and II Controlled
Vehicles 3-097
3-30 CO Confidence Bands of Predicted 1975 CVS Emissions
Loaded Steady State Inspection Test - Phase I and II
Controlled Vehicles 3-098
IX
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This report documents the conduct, methodology, and results obtained from a
two-phase study performed for the Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract $68-01-0^10, "Effectiveness of Short Emission Inspection Tests in
Reducing Emissions through Maintenance." Throughout the report, this study
of periodic vehicle inspection and maintenance will be referred to as the
"Short Cycle Project."
This report is presented in four sections as follows :
Section 1: Introduction and Summary.
Section 1 is a summary of the study purpose, methodology, results, and
conclusions. Typical and general results are presented without detailed
discussion and support data.
Section 2: Program Methodology
Section 2 provides the detailed discussion of study organization, testing
procedures and analytical methodology.
Section 3: Program Results
Section 3 provides detailed discussion of study results, interpretation and
conclusions.
Section k: Appendices
Section 4 contains detailed test and maintenance procedures and detailed
tables of data for the 1975 CVS test procedures.
1.1.1 Inspection and Maintenance Programs
Periodic Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (PVIM) programs are being con-
sidered in several states as one means of achieving Federal air quality standards.
EPA is required to review and approve the PVIM program proposed by each state.
The EPA, therefore, requires information on the emission reductions and associ-
ated costs of a mandatory PVIM program.
1-1
-------
The purpose of a PVIM program is to identify and correct vehicles with exces-
sive emissions. High emissions of HC and CO are attributable to malfunctioning
components of the vehicle and generally can be corrected by appropriate main-
tenance. The inspection regimes which are best at identifying excess emissions
under some operating conditions may not be able to identify excess emissions
under all conditions. The objective of an inspection regime would be to detect
those malfunctions which are most likely to result in excessive mass emissions
to the atmosphere.
The effectiveness measure selected for this study was the amount of emission
reduction measured by the 1975 CVS Federal Test procedure. This test measures
mass emissions during a typical 7-5 mile drive (23 minutes duration) from a
"cold start" and from a "hot start." The "cold start" test is similar to the
1972 CVS procedure. The emission values are subsequently weighted for cold
and hot start operation to form a composite emission value to represent mass
emissions to the atmosphere.
1.1.2 Program Objectives
The "Short Cycle" project was initiated to evaluate two methods (loaded and
unloaded) of inspection and resulting maintenance. The primary objective was
to determine emission reductions, cost, and cost effectiveness of the Idle
(unloaded) and dynamometer Loaded Steady State (L.S.S.) inspection and mainte-
nance regimes. A secondary objective was to determine how well various short
emission inspection tests, including Idle and L.S.S., correlated with the
1972 and 1975 CVS Federal Test Procedures. This is important since the CVS
procedures measure the official emissions of the vehicles and are the emis-
sion certification tests for new vehicles.
The following are the principal questions which this study seeks to answer:
1. Which inspection and maintenance regime is the most effective
in reducing emissions?
2. Which inspection and maintenance regime is the most cost
effective in reducing emissions?
3- Which short cycle tests are the most accurate predictors of
emissions which would be obtained using the CVS procedures?
k. What confidence can be placed in the predictions of the CVS
results based on short cycle test data and what are the con-
fidence intervals of the predictions ?
5- What are the typical causes of excess emissions, and are automotive
mechanics able to correct them effectively?
6. What are the expected costs of correcting excess emissions?
7. Will a short inspection test fail the same vehicles which would
have failed a CVS procedure and pass-fail limits set to fail the
same percentages of the population?
1-2
-------
1.2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
The study was designed to provide a comparison of emission reductions and
associated costs for the Idle and two L.S.S. inspection and maintenance
regimes. The study was "based on 600 privately owned passenger cars in a two
phase test program; each phase consisting of 300 vehicles. One half of the
vehicles in each phase (150 vehicles) were tested in Anaheim, California and
the other half were tested in Dearborn, Michigan. The two locations provided
a comparison of PVTM in two areas with different climatic conditions and
public awareness of automotive pollution.
The 150 vehicles in each city were then divided into 75 pairs of vehicles
matched according to criteria described in Paragraph 2.2.1. One vehicle of
each pair was assigned to the Idle fleet; the other member of the pair was
assigned to the L.S.S. fleet. The vehicles were procured following a
standard pattern of representative sampling, and provided equivalent Idle and
L.S.S. sample test fleets representative of California and Michigan state
vehicle populations in vehicle age and make. The same vehicle distribution
procurement and testing procedures were used in both Phases.
Phase I of the program provided a comparison of the unloaded Idle emission
inspection test plus repair industry diagnosis of mechanical malfunctions
and the L.S.S. inspection using loaded idle and two cruise modes plus repair
industry diagnosis using the failure modes of HC and CO indicated from the
inspection test. Three repair garages were selected for each vehicle fleet,
were provided with NDIR HC/CO exhaust gas analyzers and briefly instructed
by OLI personnel in emission diagnosis and repair concepts.
Phase II of the program provided a comparison of the unloaded Idle emission
inspection test and industry diagnosis with the L.S.S. inspection using
loaded idle and two cruise modes. The failure modes were related to probable
engine malfunctions using an instruction booklet. In Phase II, the L.S.S.
inspection and maintenance procedure was the KEY MODE Emission Evaluation
System developed by the Clayton Manufacturing Company (El Monte, California).
During Phase II, three different repair garages were used for each vehicle
fleet. Each garage was provided an HC/CO exhaust gas analyzer. OLI person-
nel instructed the Idle garages. OLI and Clayton Manufacturing Co. personnel
instructed the L.S.S. garages.
During both phases, rejection limits were set to fail approximately 50$ of
the vehicle populations. Rejection limits were based on the results of
the previous Northrop/ARB study (reference l). During Phase II, the limits
were further adjusted to attain at least 50$ rejection in each controlled
and uncontrolled vehicle subfleet.* The resulting L.S.S. rejection limits
were therefore different than those recommended by Clayton Manufacturing Co.
for both Phases.
^Controlled vehicles were equipped with PCV and exhaust emission controls;
uncontrolled vehicles were either unequipped or had PCV controls only.
1-3
-------
During testing for both phases every vehicle was subjected to a two hour dyna-
mometer test sequence each time it was tested. The driving cycles utilized
and the order in which they were performed are listed below:
*1. 1972 Driving Schedule from a "Cold Start," CVS Certification
Test (Modified for k bag analysis)
*2. 10-minute soak
*3. First 505 seconds of 1972 Driving Schedule, CVS Certification
Test (2 bags)
IK EPA 9 Mode CVS Short Cycle (l bag)
5. Loaded Steady State - KEY MODE inspection test with automatic trans-
missions in drive at idle. Simultaneous mass and volumetric measure-
ments
6. Steady states - Simultaneous mass and volumetric measurements
60 mph, 50 mph, hO mph, 30 mph, 20 mph, 10 mph.
7- Idle - Simultaneous mass and volumetric measurements
(Automatic transmissions in neutral)
8. Two hot start 7 mode cycles - Simultaneous volumetric and 1 bag
CVS mass measurements
Vehicles in the Idle-and L.S.S. test fleets were inspected and failed by
their respective emission levels. If the vehicle passed its initial inspection
test, it was returned to its owner.. If the vehicle failed, it was sent to an
independent garage for servicing. California garages were state licensed
Class A stations; Michigan garages were general service stations and general
repair garages. This service resulted in corrective action as described in
Section 2.2.3- After servicing, the vehicle was retested again using the
entire two hour dynamometer procedure. If the vehicle failed its "after first
service" test, the cause of the failure was diagnosed and the vehicle was given
additional servicing and retested or rejected without further repair if the
diagnosis indicated major mechanical problems such as valve or ring failure.
1.3 DATA ANALYSIS
Five general analyses were applied to the data for each test regime:
l) emission reduction effectiveness, 2) maintenance action, 3) cost,
k) cost effectiveness, and 5) relatability. Detailed discussion of the
methodology is presented in Section 2. These analyses discuss Phase I and
Phase II separately using rejection limits intended to fail approximately
30/o of the vehicles.
The effectiveness analysis considered the emissions reductions of HC, CO,
and NOX by vehicle population for each state, model-year and make distri-
butions, average mileage accumulation, vehicle age and various inspection
failure rates.
*These three steps represent the 1975 CVS dynamometer procedure.
1-4
-------
The maintenance analysis identified the modes of emission inspection failure,
the work which would-be expected to correct the excessive emissions, the
actual work performed by the garages, an evaluation of excessive work and
the reason for failure of those vehicles which were not brought into compliance
with the inspection test limits.
The cost analysis included repair cost for the following types of repair:
minor adjustment, ignition, carburetion, minor parts, and major mechanical.
Cost were determined for repairs judged to be excessive or unjustified.
First service and second service costs are presented for controlled and
uncontrolled vehicles at various rejection rates.
The cost effectiveness analysis combined the result of the cost and effective-
ness analyses. The cost effectiveness for controlled and uncontrolled
vehicles is presented as a function of failure rate. The overall fleet cost
effectiveness for Phase I and phase II is also presented.
The relatability analysis provided correlation coefficients and equations for
the various short inspection tests and the 1972 and 1975 CVS test procedures.
Confidence intervals of the regressions were determined. The number of
commission errors of Idle and L.S.S. relative to 1972 and 1975 CVS data was
determined for several rejection rates. The relatability analysis was
performed for combined Phase I and Phase II data.
l.U RESULTS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
This section presents the effectiveness analysis based on emission reductions
including second service. The statistical significance of the emission
reductions are also discussed.
1.4.1 Test Fleet Emission Reductions
Idle and L.S.S. fleet emission averages before and after service are shown
in Table 1-1 for all vehicles and in Table 1-2 for the serviced vehicles only.
Data for Phase I and Phase II are shown for the California and Michigan
test fleets. These emission averages and the emission reductions were sub-
jected to statistical tests to evaluate whether a statistically significant
reduction in emissions resulted from the service actions and, if so, whether
Idle of L.S.S. provided greater emission reductions.
Emission levels before service were generally not equivalent for the Idle
and L.S.S. fleets. In Phase I, the Idle fleet had lower emissions than the
L.S.S. fleet in California; but higher emissions in Michigan. In Phase II,
the Idle fleet had lower HC emission than the L.S.S. fleet in California
but higher HC emission than the L.S.S. fleet in Michigan. The Phase II Idle
and L.S.S. fleets had equivalent CO emissions. In both Phases, the emissions
of vehicles in California and Michigan were different.
By combining the California and Michigan fleets, the Idle and L.S.S. before
service means were found to be equivalent for HC, CO and NO in both phases.
Variances were found to be equivalent except for HC and CO emissions where
the Phase II L.S.S. fleet was higher than the Idle fleet. The variances
1-5
-------
Table 1-1
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR ALL VEHICLES
After Second Service - 1975 CVS Data
Vehicle
Fleet
PHASE I
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
PHASE II
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
No.
of
Cars
150
75
75
148
74
74
298
149
149
150
75
75
150
75
75
300
150
150
Hydrocarbons (gm/mile)
Before
K
5.9
6.3
6.7
6.6
6.3
6.4
7.9
8.8
8.6
6.7
8.2
7.8
cr
5.7
5.1
5.5
5.5
5.6
5.3
8.4
11.7
9.2
7.0
8.8
9.7
After
M-
5.0
5.0
5.2
5.3
5.1
5.1
6.0
5.2
6.4
5.1
6.2
5.2
cr
3.9
3.6
3.5
3.1
3.7
3.3
4.7
2.5
4.4
2.2
4.6
2.4
%
Reductioi
15.3
20.6
22.4
20.0
19.0
20.3
24.1
40.9
25.6
23.9
24.4
33.3
Carbon Monoxide (gm/mile)
Before
H-
65.3
72.2
84.6
78.0
74.9
75.0
93.0
96.2
86.2
85.8
89.6
91.0
cr
43.7
44.6
55.9
49.1
50.9
46.8
51.4
66.1
42.9
41.8
47.3
55.4
After
H-
55.5
64.2
66.4
61.9
60.9
63.1
80.0
70.7
73.7
71.0
76.9
70.8
cr
34.5
39.7
34.8
34.8
35.0
37.2
41.8
39.1
39.1
36.1
40.5
37.5
%
Reduction
15.0
11.1
21.5
20.6
18.7
15.9
14.0
26.5
14.5
17.2
14.2
22.2
Oxides of Nitrogen (gm/mile)
Before
H
2.6
2.6
4.0
4.2
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.1
4.1
4.0
3.7
3.5
cr
1.5
1.5
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.7
After
M-
2.6
2.6
4.1
4.2
3.3
3.4
3.3
3.3
4.3
4.0
3.8
3.6
cr
1.4
1.5
2.1
1.9-
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
1.5
%
Reduction
0.0
0.0
-2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
-6.5
-4.9
0.0
-2.7
-2.9
I
a\
-------
Table 1-2
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SERVICED VEHICLES ONLY
After Second Service - 1975 CVS Data
Vehicle
Fleet
PHASE I
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
PHASE II
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
No.
of
Cars
43
22
21
50
24
26
93
46
47
55
26
29
44
22
22
99
48
51
Hydrocarbons (gm/mile)
Before
H-
8.5
10.0
9.2
10.3
8.9
10.2
13.2
15.5
14.3
10.3
13.7
13.3
cr
7.4
6.1
7.1
7.5
7.1
6.9
12.5
16.8
14.5
11.9
13.3
15.0
After
^
5.4
5.3
4.4
6.5
4.9
5.9
7.8
6.2
7.1
4.8
7.5
5.6
(T
2.3
2.8
1.7
4.2
2.0
3.6
7.2
3.3
5.6
2.1
6.5
2.9
%
Reduction
36.5
47.0
52.2
36.9
44.9
42.2
40.9
60.0
50.3
53.4
45.3
57.9
Carbon Monoxide (gm/mile)
Before
M-
96.3
98.7
116.4
112.4
106.8
106.3
124.9
138.3
107.1
108.4
116.7
125.4
cr
46.0
49.8
77.2
50.1
64.3
49.9
60.0
82.3
38.9
40.1
51.7
68.5
After
M-
62.6
70.3
60.3
66.7
61.4
68.3
87.5
72.1
64.4
57.8
76.9
65.9
cr
30.1
43.8
37.3
29.5
33.7
36.2
49.9
47.4
30.5
23.6
43.3
39.3
%
Reduction
35.0
28.8
48.2
40.7
42.5
33.7
29.9
47.9
39.9
46.7
34.1
47.4
Oxides of Nitrogen (gm/mile)
Before
H-
2.3
2.0
3.7
3.4
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.5
4.0
3.5
3.3
2.9
cr
1.9
1.3
1.8
1.7
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.8
1.9
1.4
1.8
1.7
After
H-
2.3
1.9
4.1
3.4
3.3
2.7
2.5
3.0
4.7
3.7
3.5
3.3
cr
1.6
1.4
1.9
1.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
1.5
2.0
1.3
1.9
1.4
%
Deduction
0.0
5.0
-10.8
0.0
-9.1
3.6
3.8
-20.0
-17.5
-5.7
-6.1
-13.8
-------
were higher because of a few very high emitters. The high emitters also raised
the means but not enough to result in statistically significant differences.
The serviced vehicle fleet emission means for HC in Phase I and CO in Phase II
were still not equivalent even after combining the California and Michigan
fleets. However, the total vehicle fleets were equivalent when California
and Michigan vehicles were combined. Therefore, the remainder of this section
discusses only the combined California and Michigan fleets in each Phase.
Emission reductions for Idle were 19$ for HC and 19$ for CO in Phase I
compared to 24$ for HC and 14$ for CO in Phase II. L.S.S. emission reduc-
tions were 20$ for HC and l6$ for CO in Phase I compared to 33$ for HC
and 22$ for CO in Phase II. Idle was equally effective as L.S.S. in Phase I.
In Phase II, L.S.S. was 1.4 times more effective in reducing HC emissions and
1.6 times more effective in reducing CO emissions as Idle. Neither regime
made a significant change in NO emission.
X
For the serviced vehicle fleet, Idle achieved HC emission reduct-*->ns of 45$
in both Phase I and Phase II. During Phase I, Idle achieved a ^ reduction
in CO emissions compared to 34$ in Phase II. L.S.S. achieved 42$ HC emission
reduction in Phase I compared to 58$ in Phase II. L.S.S. achieved 34$ CO
emission reduction in Phase I compared to 47$ in Phase II. During Phase I,
Idle and L.S.S. were equally effective in reducing HC emissions but Idle was
1.3 times more effective in reducing CO emissions than L.S.S. During Phase II,
L.S.S. was 1.3 times more effective in reducing HC and 1.4 times more effec-
tive in reducing CO emissions than Idle.
The emission reductions were tested by the covariance analysis which provides
a statistical measure of emission reduction shown on each vehicle. This
analysis permits selection of the test regime which provides the statistically
largest emission reduction. The covariance test, shown in Table 1-3> indi-
cated that Idle and L.S.S. were equally effective in reducing emissions in
Phase I but that L.S.S. provided statistically greater emission reductions
of HC and CO in Phase II for the total vehicle fleet. For the serviced
vehicle fleet, Idle and L.S.S. were statistically equally effective in reducing
emissions except that L.S.S. was statistically more effective in reducing
CO than Idle in Phase II. Neither Idle nor L.S.S. resulted in statistically
significant changes in NO emissions.
1.4.2 Effectiveness Index
The emission reductions achieved by Idle and L.S.S. were applied to the
effectiveness model. The results of the effectiveness model are shown in
Table 1-4 for the combined California and Michigan fleets in each Phase.
The model provided a method of calculating annual reductions of total emis-
sions by accounting for distributions of vehicle make, emission reductions,
and mileage accumulation, and vehicle age. The model is described in detail
in paragraph 2.3.3.4 and the results discussed in detail in paragraph 3.2.5.
The first year (1973) effectiveness for L.S.S. was 10$ lower in Phase I but
65$ greater in Phase II than Idle. Idle effectiveness decreased slightly
(10$) from Phase I to Phase II while L.S.S. effectiveness increased over 100$.
1-8
-------
Table 1-3
TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE OF EMISSION REDUCTION
95% Level of Significance
Vehicle Fleet
All Vehicles
All Serviced Vehicles
Phase I
HC
B
B
CO
B
B
NO
X
N
N
Phase II
HC
L
B
CO
L
L
NO
X
N
N
B Indicates both regimes provided statistically significant but equal
reduction
L Indicates Loaded Steady State provided statistically greater emission
reduction than Idle
N Indicates neither regime provided statistically significant emission
reduction
Table 1-4
FIRST YEAR EFFECTIVENESS INDEX - 1975 CVS DATA
Equal Pollutant Weighting - Tons Per Year Reduction
Vehicle Fleet
All Vehicles
Phase I
Idle
17,500
L.S.S.
16,000
Phase II
Idle
19,400
L.S.S.
32,900
The increased effectiveness in Phase II for the L.S.S. regime was due to very
large emission reductions in the California fleet achieved because of correct
interpretation of the diagnostic information contained in the pattern of HC
and CO failures during the L.S.S. inspection test.
lA.3 Emission Reductions as a Function of Failure Rate
The California and Michigan data were combined for each phase and rejection
limits were applied to the respective inspection test data to fail from 10$
to 50$ of the Phase I and Phase II vehicle fleets. The rejection limits were
based on KEYMODE rejection values suggested by the Clayton Manufacturing Co.
for controlled and uncontrolled vehicles. Figure 1-1 presents this data.
In Phase I, Idle and L.S.S. were equally effective in reducing HC emissions
from uncontrolled vehicles and CO emissions from controlled vehicles. Idle
was slightly more effective in reducing HC emissions from controlled vehicles
and CO emission from uncontrolled vehicles than L.S.S. Reductions by both
Idle and L.S.S. were not much higher at 50% rejection than at 30% rejection.
1-9
-------
CALIFORNIA AND MICHIGAN 1975 CVS DATA
PHASE I
4.0
CONTROLLED
VEHICLES
UNCONTROLLED
VEHICLES
3.0
d £
D
111
DC
o
o
2.0
1.0
— J> -=-0-
30
20
10
— O
10
20 30 40 50
REJECTION RATE (%)
IDLE
LSS
60
10 20 30 40 50
REJECTION RATE 1%)
60
PHASE II
H
O
O
HI
DC
UJ
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
30
O 20
10
CONTROLLED
VEHICLES
10 20 30 40 50
REJECTION RATE (%)
60
UNCONTROLLED
VEHICLES
10 20 30 40 50
REJECTION RATE (%)
• 60
Figure 1-1. Effectiveness as a Function of Rejection Rate
1-10
-------
In Phase II, L.S.S. was nearly twice as effective as Idle in reducing CO emis-
sions from uncontrolled vehicles and HC emissions from controlled vehicles.
L.S.S. was 15% to 20% more effective than Idle in reducing HC emissions from
uncontrolled vehicl'es. L.S.S. was marginally more effective than Idle in
reducing CO emissions from controlled vehicles above 30% rejection rate. The
HC and CO emission reductions from both Idle and L.S.S. were not improved much
by rejection rates higher than 30%.
1.4.4 Effectiveness of Repairing Idle Only Failures
Idle and L.S.S. PVIM were evaluated to determine if they were equally effec-
tive in reducing emissions from vehicles which had emission failures only
at idle. This analysis provided a basis of evaluating the cost effectiveness
of correcting idle malfunctions only. L.S.S. vehicles were evaluated using
the three L.S.S. modes. Idle vehicles were evaluated using Idle and the two
cruise modes of the L.S.S. The results of this analysis are presented in
Table 1-5 in terms of grams per mile reductions for the total fleet. These
emission reductions can be compared to the emission reductions shown in
Table 1-1.
Table 1-5
EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM CORRECTING IDLE FAILURES ONLY
1975 CVS DATA (Grams Per Mile)
Vehicle
Fleet
Idle
L.S.S.
Phase I
HC
0.45
0.70
CO
5.23
8.38
NO
X
-0.02
-0.02
2
5.66
9.06
Phase II
HC
0.40
0.60
CO
6.64
8.83
NO
X
-0.04
-0.03
2
7.00
9.40
L.S.S. was 50$ more effective than Idle in reducing HC and CO emissions in
both Phase I and Phase II. Idle and L.S.S. were equally ineffective in
changing NOX emissions. Correcting vehicles with idle only inspection fail-
ures contributed 40$ of the HC and CO emission reductions achieved by Idle
in Phase I. Correcting vehicles with idle only inspection failures contributed
54$ of the HC and 70$ of the CO emission reductions achieved by Phase I L.S.S.
During Phase II 29$ of the HC and 52$ of the CO emission reductions for Idle
and 22$ of the HC and 44$ of the CO emission reductions for L.S.S. were
achieved by repairing vehicles with only idle emission failures.
1.5 RESULTS OF MAINTENANCE ANALYSIS
Idle and L.S.S. vehicles were reviewed to establish the reasons for emission
failure, the maintenance which would have brought them into compliance,
the maintenance actually performed, the incidence of unnecessary or excessive
repairs, and the incidence of vehicles which were not repairable. Differences
in initial fleets and garage performance were summarized for Phase I and II.
1-11
-------
1.5.1 Modal Failures
Table 1-6 presents the modal distribution of L.S.S. failed vehicles. Sixty
seven (67%) percent of the failed Phase I and 567=, of the failed Phase II L.S.S.
vehicles failed only at idle. Idle plus cruise mode failures occurred for 18%
of the Phase I and 36% of the Phase II L.S.S. vehicles. Cruise mode only
failures occurred for 15% of the Phase I and 8% of the Phase II L.S.S. vehicles.
An Idle inspection would therefore have failed 85% of the Phase I and 92% of
the Phase II vehicles which had failed the L.S.S. inspection test. Cruise mode
failures indicating potentially high excess emissions occurred on 33% of the
Phase I and 44% of the failed Phase II L.S.S. vehicles. The majority of failures
in both Phases and for all modes were for CO or HC plus CO.
Table 1-6
MODAL FAILURE OF L.S.S. VEHICLES
Percent of Failed Vehicles Before Service
Vehicle
Fleet
All Vehicles
Idle Only
Phase I
67%
Phase II
56%
Idle and Cruise
Phase I
18%
Phase II
36%
Cruise Only
Phase I
15%
Phase II
Off
O/a
Approximately 63% of the failed Idle vehicles failed at idle for CO only in
both Phases. Approximately 73% of the failed Idle vehicles failed CO and HC
plus CO in both Phases.
1.5.2 Diagnosis of Failed Vehicles
The minimum amount of work which should have resulted in the failed vehicles
passing their inspection test are summarized in Figures 1-2 and 1-3 for Phases
I and II respectively. Approximately 80% of the Idle vehicles could have been
corrected with only an idle mixture and timing adjustment. Seventy (70%)
percent of the failed L.S.S. Phase I and 54% of the failed Phase II vehicles
could have been repaired with only idle mixture and timing adjustments. Many
of the idle plus cruise failures represent idle mixture richness carried into
the low cruise mode.
True ignition failures were rare in all test fleets; averaging 4% for Idle
and 8% for L.S.S. Ignition repairs were performed for many cases of marginal
HC failure, particularly in Phase I, which were actually due to other factors
such as carburetion, valves or vacuum leaks. The criteria for ignition mis-
fire was HC emissions greater than 1500 ppm HC. If a lower emission level had be
been used, more ignition failures would have been diagnosed.
Carburetor repair was required by 9% of the failed Phase I and 6% of the failed
Phase II Idle vehicles. Carburetor repair was required by 15% of the Phase I
and 29% of the failed Phase II L.S.S. vehicles. The emission reductions of CO
would, therefore, be expected to be greater for L.S.S. in Phase II than in Phase
I and greater than Idle in either Phase.
1-12
-------
LOADED
STEADY
STATE
PHASE 1
CALIFORNIA
AND
MICHIGAN
R
MINOR ADJUSTMENT ONLY
P
R
CARBURETOR REPAIR
P
R
IGNITION REPAIR
P
R
CARBURETOR AND IGNITION REPAIR
P
R
OTHER (1)
P
I I
W///M
f
}
W//////////////A
\
W////A
J
I I I I I
20 40 60 80
PERCENT OF FAILED VEHICLES
100
IDLE
PHASE I
CALIFORNIA
AND
MICHIGAN
R
MINOR ADJUSTMENT ONLY
P
R
CARBURETOR REPAIR
P
R
IGNITION REPAIR
P
R
CARBURETOR AND IGNITION REPAIR
P
R
OTHER (1)
P
1
W//////////////A
J
)
H
1 1 1 1 1
0 20 40 60 80
PERCENT OF FAILED VEHICLES
(1) OTHER WORK INCLUDED VALVE REGRIND, ENGINE OVERHAUL AND HEAD GASKET LEAKS WHICH
WERE NOT PERFORMED DUE TO COST LIMITATIONS.
100
REPAIRS REQUIRED PER MAINTENANCE ANALYSIS
REPAIRS ACTUALLY PERFORMED BY GARAGES
Figure 1-2. Companion of Repairs Required and Repairs Performed
to Pan the Emission Inspection Tests - Phase I
1-13
-------
LOADED
STEADY
STATE
PHASE II
CALIFORNIA
AND
MICHIGAN
R
MINOR ADJUSTMENT ONLY
P
R
CARBURETOR REPAIR
P
R
IGNITION REPAIR
P
R
CARBURETOR AND IGNITION REPAIR
P
R
OTHER <1)
P
I
'//////////////////A
|
W/M
i
m
f]
i i i i i
0 20 40 60 80 100
PERCENT OF FAILED VEHICLES
IDLE
PHASE II
CALIFORNIA
AND
MICHIGAN
R
MINOR ADJUSTMENT ONLY
P
R
CARBURETOR REPAIR
P
R
IGNITION REPAIR
p
R
CARBURETOR AND IGNITION REPAIR
P
R
OTHER (1)
P
W////////////M,
T^^l
m
T^
1
7//////////A
///////////A
i.
J
1 1
0 20 40
1
.11 ...J
1 1 I
60 80 100
PERCENT OF FAILED VEHICLES
(1) OTHER WORK INCLUDED VALVE REGRIND, ENGINE OVERHAUL AND HEAD GASKET LEAKS WHICH
WERE NOT PERFORMED DUE TO COST LIMITATIONS,
REPAIRS REQUIRED PER MAINTENANCE ANALYSIS
REPAIRS ACTUALLY PERFORMED BY GARAGES
Figure 1-3. Comparison of Repairs Required and Repairs Performed
to Pass the Emission Inspection Tests - Phase II
1-14
-------
1.5.3 Repair Action Summary
The actual work performed by the service centers is also shown in Figures 1-2
and 1-3. Both Idle and L.S.S. service centers performed more extensive work,
particularly ignition repair, than diagnosed as necessary to achieve compliance.
During Phase I, 52% of the failed Idle vehicles and only 22% of the failed
L.S.S. vehicles received idle adjustment and or minor parts replacement.
During Phase II, 50% of the failed Idle and 52% of the failed L.S.S. vehicles
received Idle adjustments.
Ignition repairs were performed much more frequently by Idle service centers
in both Phases and L.S.S. service centers in Phase I than required by the
emission malfunctions of the vehicles. During Phase II, L.S.S. service centers
performed fewer ignition repairs than Idle service centers in either Phase or
the L.S.S. service centers in Phase II.
Carburetor repairs'were not performed on any Phase I Idle vehicles although 10%
had been diagnosed as requiring them. In Phase II, Idle garages performed con-
siderably more carburetor and carburetor plus ignition repair than actually
required. In Phase I, L.S.S. service centers performed twice as much carburetor
repair than required, but during Phase II performed only slightly more work than
diagnosed as required.
Various major mechanical repairs which had been diagnosed as being required to
pass the vehicles were not performed because of program cost restrictions.
1.5.4 Excess Repairs
Both Idle and L.S.S. garages tended to perform excess repairs. The excess
repairs were predominately replacement of ignition components which appeared
to be in "poor or bad" condition but which did not result in ignition misfire.
The incidence of excess L.S.S. repairs in Phase II (23%) were less than one-
half of that occurring in Phase I (65%). Excess repairs for Idle were not
significantly different in Phase I (48%) and Phase II (42%). The improved
L.S.S. performance was attributed to correct application of the diagnostic
information in the L.S.S. test by the Phase II garages.
Even during Phase II, however, the excessive repairs (primarily electrical)
occurred to 28% of the serviced Idle vehicles and 17% of the L.S.S. vehicles.
This was due in part to the past experience of mechanics who practice preven-
tive maintenance (replacement) of the electrical system rather than emission
failure maintenance. It was also likely that instructions did not adequately
distinguish ignition misfire from other malfunctions which cause moderately
high HC emissions such as lean mixtures, rich mixture, oil consumption (blow-
by) or valve leaks.
Unnecessary carburetor replacements were made on 13% of the Phase I L.S.S.
vehicles but only 4% of the Phase II L.S.S. vehicles. Excessive carburetor
replacements were performed on only 4% of the Idle vehicles in Phase I and
12% in Phase II. Since the Idle garages did not have cruise mode data, they
were not concerned that the problems might include main system failures.
Idle adjustments were sufficient to solve most CO emission failures at idle.
1-15
-------
1.6 RESULTS OF COST ANALYSIS
This section summarizes the cost analyses performed during the Short Cycle
project. The analysis addresses inspection cost and maintenance cost
separately.
1.6.1 Inspection Program Costs
The inspection program costs were derived from a previous Northrop Corporation
study for the California Air Resources Board (reference 1) as shown in
Table 1-7. L.S.S. in a state-operated system was estimated to be approxi-
mately 64% more expensive to install than Idle but not significantly more
expensive to operate.
Table 1-7
INSPECTION PROGRAM COSTS
Cost per Vehicle*
Statewide Investment Cost
California
Michigan
Statewide Operating Cost
California
Michigan
Idle
$ 1.16
$12,084,000.00
6,646,000.00
$ 9,978,000.00
5,500,000.00
L.S.S.
$ 1.35
$19,830,000.00
10,907,000.00
$10,919,000.00
5,995,000.00
*Investment cost amortized for 10 years at 6% interest per year
1.6.2 Vehicle Maintenance Cost
Table 1-8 presents the average cost for repairing Idle and L.S.S. vehicles
which failed the initial inspection test. The average cost per serviced
Idle vehicle was approximately $27 in Phase I and $31 in Phase II. The
average cost per serviced L.S.S. vehicle was approximately $37 in Phase I
and $31 in Phase II. Idle cost increased in Phase II because of more exten-
sive repair actions required in California. L.S.S. cost decreased in Phase
II because fewer excessive repairs were performed in Michigan. An average
of approximately $10 per serviced vehicle was identified as excessive cost
for Idle in both Phases and for L.S.S. in Phase I. In Phase II, L S S
excess repair cost was reduced to an average of approximately $4 per'serviced
vehicle.
Table 1-9 presents the average cost of performing various typical classes of
vehicle maintenance. In general, the average cost of performing a given
repair was lower for L.S.S. than for Idle. The average serviced vehicle
cost in Phase I was higher for L.S.S. than for Idle because the service
centers performed each type of repair more frequently than did Idle. In
Phase II, the L.S.S. service centers generally performed only those repairs
1-16
-------
Table 1-8
AVERAGE SERVICE COST
Dollars Per Vehicle
Vehicle Fleet
Cost as Incurred
All Vehicles
Serviced Vehicles
Less Excess Cost
All Vehicles
Serviced Vehicles
Phase I
Idle
8.27
26.78
5.49
17.77
L. S.S.
11.38
36.81
8.08
26.07
Phase II
Idle
11.37
31.14
7.04
21.11
L.S.S.
10.76
31.03
9.40
27.11
Table 1-9
AVERAGE COST FOR SERVICE EVENT - ACTUAL COST
Dollars Per Serviced Vehicle
Vehicle Fleet
All Serviced Vehicles
Phase I
Phase II
Minor
Adjustments
Idle
11.43
12.64
L.S.S.
12.18
9.48
Minor
Parts
Replacement
Idle
7.62
6.33
L.S.S.
5.66
6.09
Ignition
Repair
Idle
29.38
24.15
L.S.S.
25.14
22.87
Carburetor
Repair
Idle
8.50
38.62
L.S.S.
25.57
36.62
suggested by the diagnostic information of the L.S.S. test and, therefore,
achieved lower serviced vehicle cost as well as lower service event cost
than idle.
Table 1-10 presents the average cost of correcting those vehicles with only
idle emission failures. These vehicles represented approximately 60% of the
failed vehicles. During Phase I, Idle repair cost was $29 per serviced vehicle
compared to $32.50 for L.S.S. During Phase II, Idle repair cost was $27 per
serviced vehicle compared to $17 for L.S.S. The cost for repairing Idle
vehicles in both Phases was approximately equal to the cost of an ignition
tuneup as shown in Table 1-9. The cost of L.S.S. in Phase I was higher than
the average cost of ignition repair, reflecting the large number of excessive
repairs in L.S.S. The cost of L.S.S. in Phase II, however, was approximately
equal to the sum of replacement of minor parts and labor for minor engine
adjustments for L.S.S. as shown in Table 1-9. The diagnostic information
1-17
-------
of the L.S.S. test, when correctly utilized, limited repair effort and
resulting cost to ±he malfunctioning idle system components and adjustments,
Table 1-10
AVERAGE REPAIR COST OF CORRECTING IDLE ONLY FAILURES
Dollars Per Serviced Vehicle
Vehicle Fleet
All Vehicles
Idle
L.S.S.
All Serviced Vehicles
Idle
L.S.S.
Phase I
4.89
7.32
29.13
35.20
Phase II
5.24
3.43
27.13
17.71
Figures 1-4 and 1-5 present the average repair cost as a function of failure
rate for Phase I and Phase II respectively. During Phase I, Idle was less
expensive than L.S.S. at all rejection rates. During Phase II, L.S.S. was
more costly for controlled vehicles than Idle at all rejection rates but
slightly less costly for uncontrolled vehicles.
1.6.3 Total Program Cost
Table 1-11 presents the total annual program cost for statewide implementation
of Idle and L.S.S. The data represent the sum of California and Michigan
costs for Phase I and Phase II. The total program cost is based on the
inspection program cost (Table 1-7) and the maintenance cost (Table 1-9).
The total program cost was determined by multiplying the cost of inspection
and repair averaged over all vehicles in each state's test fleet by the
corresponding vehicle population. The privately owned vehicle population
in California and Michigan was estimated to be 10 million vehicles and 5.5
million vehicles respectively.
Table 1-11
FIRST YEAR TOTAL PROGRAM COST - COMBINED STATES
Millions of Dollars
Cost Element
Inspection
Maintenance
Total
Phase I
Idle
18
126
144
J_f« O • O *
21
165
186
Phase II
Idle
18
169
187
Lie O « O •
21
185
206
Capital cost amortized over 10 years at 67» interest
1-18
-------
CALIFORNIA AND MICHIGAN PHASE I
CONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
oc
cc
s
8
o
70
_ 60
H 50
UJ
O
UJ
O
40
30
20
10
I
I
I
10 20 30 40
REJECTION RATE (%)
50
60
O
I
UJ
Q
HI
O
>
cc
UJ
CO
cc
UJ
Q.
5
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
REJECTION RATE (%)
60
co
UJ
_J
o
I
UJ
1C
UJ
Q.
SO
40
30
20
10
— — O-
10 20 30 40
REJECTION RATE <<
50
60
60
50
12 40
_l
o
I
S 30
20
8 10
CJ
10
20
30
4O
50
60
REJECTION RATE (%)
Fifure 1-4. Average Vehicle Repair Costs - Phase I
1-19
-------
CALIFORNIA AND MICHIGAN PHASE II
CONTROLLED
70
60
d M
i
UJ
D 40
UJ
u
UNCONTROLLED
cc
UJ
CO
cc
30
20
8
10
IDLE
LSS
I
I
I
10 20 30 40
REJECTION RATE I
50
60
£
UJ
-J
y
i
UJ
O
UJ
o
cc
UJ
in
cc
UJ
a.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
O
I
I
I
I
10 20 30 40 50
REJECTION RATE (%)
60
CONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
u>
UJ
0
I
UJ
_J
cc
UJ
Q.
i
o
/u
60
50
40
30
20
10
n
—
—
—
—
- ^^^crs^^0
i i i i i
10 20 30 40 50
REJECTION RATE (%)
60
70
60
<2 50
v>
UJ
i «
UJ
30
CC
UJ
Q.
o
20
10
I
I
10 20 30 40 50
REJECTION RATE (%)
60
Figure 1-5. Average Vehicle Repair Costs - Phase II
1-20
-------
As shown in Table 1-11, the cost of inspection, assuming 10 year amortization
of capital costs, was approximately 10% of the total program cost. L.S.S.
was found to be 30% more costly during Phase I but only 10% more costly during
Phase II than Idle. Total annual cost for Idle was estimated to be $144
million in Phase I and $187 million in Phase II. Total annual cost for L.S.S.
was estimated to be $186 million in Phase I and $206 million in Phase II.
The differences in total program cost between Phase I and Phase II was due
to differences in vehicle owner cost of repair.
Table 1-12 summarizes the average annual vehicle owner cost based on the
average of California and Michigan maintenance cost. The owner of a passing
vehicle would pay only the cost of inspection, which was estimated to be
under $1.50 per year if performed at a high-volume state owned inspection
facility. The owner of a failed vehicle would pay the cost of inspection,
plus the cost of corrective maintenance. Thus, the owner of a failed Idle
regime vehicle would pay approximately $28 based on Phase I and $32 based
on Phase II. The owner of a failed L.S.S. regime vehicle would pay approxi-
mately $38 based on Phase I and $32 based on Phase II. During Phase II, the
vehicle owner cost was essentially the same for both Idle and L.S.S. vehicles.
Table 1-12
ANNUAL VEHICLE OWNER COST - COMBINED STATES
Dollars Per Vehicle
Cost Element
Passed Vehicle
Failed Vehicle
Phase I
Idle
1.16
27.94
J_i« O * O«
1.35
38.16
Phase II
Idle
1.16
32.30
L.S.S.
1.35
32.38
1.7 RESULTS OF THE COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
This section summarizes the results of the cost effectiveness analysis and
combines the results of Section 1.4 (Effectivenss) and 1.6 (Cost). Cost
effectiveness has been calculated in two ways: 1) Fleet Cost Effectiveness
which addresses only the cost effectiveness of the test fleet and
2) Cost Effectiveness Index which combines the Effectiveness Index and Total
Program Costs. The Fleet Cost Effectiveness was calculated in terms of
emission reduction (grams per mile) per maintenance cost for various failure
rates and for those vehicles with only idle failures. The Cost Effectiveness
Index was calculated in terms of annual pounds of emission reduction per
dollar of program cost.
1.7.1 Fleet Cost Effectiveness
Table 1-13 presents the cost effectiveness of correcting only those vehicles
with idle emission failures. These vehicles represent the largest group of
both Idle and L.S.S. regime vehicles, L.S.S. was more cost effective than
Idle in correcting vehicles with only idle malfunctions in both Phases of
the .program. During Phase I, L.S.S. was approximately 40% more cost effec-
tive than Idle. During Phase II, L.S.S. was twice as cost effective as
1-21
-------
Idle. This indicates that the diagnostic information conveyed by the L.S.S
test can significantly improve the service industries ability to correct
simple failures at low cost.
Table 1-13
COST EFFECTIVENESS OF CORRECTING IDLE FAILURES ONLY
Gram Per Mile Reduction Per Dollar
Vehicle Fleet
Idle
L.S.S.
Phase I
1.14
1.24
Phase II
1.34
2.74
Effectiveness values from Table 1-5.
Cost values from Table 1-10 for All Vehicles.
Figure 1-6 presents the cost effectiveness of emission reduction at rejection
rates from 10% to 50%. In Phase I, Idle was found to be more cost effective
than L.S.S. at all rejection rates for correcting HC and CO emission failures
on uncontrolled vehicles and HC emission failures on controlled vehicles.
Idle and L.S.S. were equally cost effective in repairing CO emission failures
on controlled vehicles. In Phase II, L.S.S. was more.cost effective than
Idle at all rejection rates for correcting HC and CO emission failures on
uncontrolled vehicles and HC emission failures of controlled vehicles. Idle
and L.S.S. were equally cost effective in repairing CO emission failures on
controlled vehicles. The improved L.S.S. performance in Phase II resulted
from the higher emission reductions and lower repair cost achieved by using
the L.S.S. diagnostic information.
1.7.2 Cost Effectiveness Index
Table 1-14 presents the cost effectiveness index based on the Effectiveness
Index (Table 1-9) and the Total Program Cost (Table 1-11). Data are presented
for inspection and repair cost separately. Idle was more cost effective in
Phase I than L.S.S. However, in Phase II L.S.S. is more cost effective
than Idle. The cost effectiveness of Idle did not change appreciably between
Phases. The cost effectiveness of L.S.S., however, increased from Phase I
to Phase II. This increase was due to higher emission reductions at low
average repair cost. The improved L.S.S. performance was due to the correct
use of the L.S.S. diagnostic data by the L.S.S. service centers.
1.8 RESULTS OF THE RELATABILITY ANALYSIS
This section presents the results of the correlation analysis performed on
each of the short emission inspection tests relative to the 1975 CVS test
procedure. In addition, this section discusses the relatability of Idle
and the Loaded Steady State to the 1975 CVS test procedure in terms of the
number of commission errors.
1-22
-------
DC
<
§
CC
UJ
s
5
O
UJ
»
<
I
0.
0.4
0.3
8 2
CALIFORNIA AND MICHIGAN 1975 CVS DATA
SERVICE COSTS ONLY
CONTROLLED UNCONTROLLED
IDLE
LSS
I I
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
10 20 30 40 50 60
REJECTION RATE {%)
I I
I
I
10 20 30 40 50 60
REJECTION RATE (%)
CONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
cc
<
O
D
CC
ui
C3
UJ
1
0.
0.4
0.3
O
0.2
0.1
8 2
I I
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
10 20 30 40 50 60
REJECTION RATE (%)
I I
1 I
10 20 30 40 50
REJECTION RATE (%)
60
Figure 1-6. Cost Effectiveness at a Function of Rejection Rate
1-23
-------
Table 1-14
FIRST YEAR TOTAL PROGRAM COST EFFECTIVENESS - COMBINED STATES
Annual Pounds Reduction Per Dollar
Cost Element
Inspection
Maintenance
Total
Phase I
Idle
195
28
24
Ltm O • O •
153
19
17
Phase II
Idle
216
23
21
Li* O • D •
313
36
32
Effectiveness values from Table 1-4.
Cost values from Table 1-11.
1.8.1 Short Test Correlation to 1975 CVS
The various short emission inspection tests listed on page 1-4 were correlated
to 1975 CVS data for before-service. Combined Phase I and II data were used
since maintenance effects would not affect the correlations of the before-
service fleet emissions. The various steady state speeds were correlated
singly and in combination utilizing a stepwise multiple linear regression.
The correlation analysis methodology is described in paragraph 2.3.6.
The short mass emission inspection tests generally provided better correlation
than volumetric short emission inspection tests for HC, CO and NOX. The 1972
CVS test and the 1975 CVS test were highly correlated in all cases (greater
than 0.95). The most highly correlated short emission inspection test was
either the EPA Short Cycle or the multiple regression of the mass emission
steady state speed data. Volumetric emission inspection tests generally
ranked between 5th and 22nd best out of the 22 inspection tests which were
ranked relative to the 1975 CVS. Idle was consistently least correlated with
correlation coefficients between 0.6 and 0.8 for HC; 0.5 and 0.6 for CO and
less than 0.1 for NOX. The L.S.S. (three steady state speeds corresponding to KEY
MODE) showed correlation coefficients of 0.8 to 0.9 for HC and CO; and about
0.7 for NOX. L.S.S. generally, although not always, ranked lower than the
7-mode and volumetric emission multiple regression of the steady state speed
volumetric data. The numerical difference in correlation coefficient was,
however, less than 0.1
The multiple regression analysis indicated that inclusion of more than four
speeds gained negligible improvement in correlation coefficient. Hence a three
or possibly four speed steady state volumetric test will provide nearly as good
a correlation with 1975 CVS emission data as can be expected without a mass
test.
1.8.2 Errors of Commission
Errors of commission occurred when a short emission inspection test failed a
vehicle which would have passed the 1975 CVS test with the rejection limits
of the respective tests set to fail the same fraction of a vehicle population.
1-24
-------
The analysis consisted of calculating predicted 1975 CVS emission values for
each vehicle using the regression coefficients developed from the test program.
The predicted 1975 CVS emissions were then ranked and the highest 10% to 507°
decile groups of the controlled and uncontrolled vehicles were examined to
determine if the actual 1975 CVS value was greater or less than the predicted
1975 value corresponding to the rejection limit for each decile group. If the
actual 1975 CVS value was greater than the predicted 1975 CVS value the vehicle
represented a valid failure. If the actual 1975 CVS value was less than the
predicted 1975 CVS value, the vehicle represented an error of commission.
The analysis indicated that Idle and L.S.S. generally provided the same
number of errors of commission. At rejection rates between 30% and 40% of
the total population, errors of commission become greater than 10% of all
the inspected vehicles. Commission errors for CO were higher for uncontrolled
vehicles than controlled. Commission errors for HC were about the same for
controlled and uncontrolled vehicles.
Numerical correlation to the 1975 CVS test was not satisfactory for determining
pass-fail decisions on individual vehicles for either the Idle inspection or
the L.S.S. test.
An alternate definition of commission and omission errors could be proposed
based upon the ability of the regime to identify correctable engine system
malfunctions or maladjustments independent of CVS emission levels. Using
malfunction detection rather than emission measurement as a goal, L.S.S.
was found to commit fewer errors of commission than Idle. Idle did not generally
commit commission errors but did commit omission errors on vehicles with low
idle emissions but excessive power mode emmissions.
1.9 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
This section summarizes the principle conclusions resulting from each of the
analyses described above.
1.9.1 Effectiveness Analysis
(1.1) Idle inspection and maintenance provided 22% HC and 16% CO
emission reduction and no significant change in NOX for the
total fleet immediately after maintenance. Degradation was
not considered.
(1.2) Phase I Loaded Steady State (L.S.S.) inspection and maintenance
provided 20% HC and 16% CO emission reductions and no signifi-
cant change in NOX for the total fleet immediately after mainte-
nance. Degradation was not considered.
(1.3) Phase II L.S.S. inspection and maintenance (based on the "KEY
MODE Emission Evaluation System") provided 33% HC and 22% CO
emission reductions and no significant change in NOX for the
total fleet immediately after maintenance. Degradation was
not considered.
1-25
-------
(1.4) Phase II L.S.S. was 50% more effective in reducing HC emissions
and 38% more effective in reducing CO emissions than either Idle
or Phase -I L.S.S. PVIM.
(1.5) Idle and Phase I L.S.S. were statistically equal in reducing
emissions for all fleets and at all rejection rates.
(1.6) Phase II L.S.S. provided statistically significant greater emis-
sion reductions of HC and CO than Idle PVIM.
(1.7) Phase II L.S.S. provided greater emission reductions than Idle
at all rejection rates.
(1.8) Phase II L.S.S. provided greater emission reductions than Idle
on vehicles which failed only idle emission limits.
1.9.2 Maintenance Analysis
(2.1) Marginal ignition systems which did not result in ignition mis-
fire were frequently repaired by garages for "preventive main-
tenance" because of erratic oscilloscope patterns.
(2.2) Most excess repairs were for unncessary ignition component
replacement for both the Idle and L.S.S. fleets in this program.
(2.3) Excessive carburetor repairs were performed on L.S.S. vehicles
more frequently than on Idle vehicles but defective carburetors
were not replaced on Idle vehicles in some cases because the
vehicle passed Idle rejection limits.
(2.4) Present repair industry diagnosis and repair procedures did not
clearly distinguish the need for minor adjustment from repair
and replacement actions. Clear understanding of and proper use
of modal failure data provided by the L.S.S. regime permitted
the repair facilities to achieve greater emission reduction
effectiveness and cost effectiveness than using present repair
industry diagnosis even when aided by idle emission measure-
ments .
1.9.3 Cost Analysis
(3.1) Average repair cost for servicing failed Idle vehicles was $26
for uncontrolled vehicles and $28 for controlled vehicles in
Phase I. Average repair cost for servicing failed Idle vehicles
in Phase II was $36 for uncontrolled vehicles and $22 for con-
trolled vehicles.
(3.2) Average repair cost for servicing failed Phase I L.S.S. vehicles
was $39 for uncontrolled vehicles and $32 for controlled vehicles
(3.3) Average repair cost for servicing failed Phase II L.S.S.
vehicles was $34 for uncontrolled vehicles and $25 for con-
trolled vehicles.
1-26
-------
(3.4) An approximate average of $10 excessive cost was incurred in
repairing failed Idle and Phase I L.S.S. vehicles.
(3.5) An approximate average of $4 excessive cost was incurred in
repairing failed Phase II L.S.S. vehicles.
(3.6) Average inspection cost including 10 year amortization of
equipment and facilities and annual operation were $1.16
per vehicle for Idle and $1.35 for Loaded Steady State.
1.9.4 Cost Effectiveness Analysis
(4.1) Idle was more cost effective in reducing emissions than Phase I
L.S.S.
(4.2) Phase II L.S.S. was more cost effective than Idle or Phase I
L.S.S. in reducing emissions.
(4.3) L.S.S. was more cost effective than Idle in reducing emissions
of vehicles with only idle inspection failures in both Phases.
(4.4) Diagnostic assistance provided by the L.S.S. test can provide
more cast effective repair of emission related engine mal-
functions than present industry diagnosis.
1.9.5 Relatability Analysis
(5.1) Neither Idle nor L.S.S. provide sufficiently good numerical
correlation to CVS tests to satisfactorily estimate CVS
emission levels on individual vehicles.
(5.2) L.S.S. provided better correlation to 1975 CVS and 1972 CVS
tests than Idle.
(5.3) Idle and L.S.S. provided approximately the same number of errors
of commission for HC and CO emissions based on numerical corre-
lation.
(5.4) The 1972 CVS and 1975 CVS test procedure were nearly perfectly
correlated with each other based upon calculating the 1972 CVS
data from the first two bags of the 1975 CVS test.
(5.5) The 9-mode Federal EPA Short CVS test was the short emission
inspection test which was best correlated to the 1972 CVS and
1975 CVS tests.
(5.6) The Idle test was generally the short emission inspection test
which least correlated with the 1972 CVS and 1975 CVS tests.
1-27
-------
SECTION 2
TEST PROGRAM METHODOLOGY
This section describes the organization of the Study, vehicle procurement, test-
ing procedures, data reduction, and analysis techniques.
2.1 STUDY TEAM
The "Short Cycle1' study team was comprised of Olson Laboratories and the Environ-
mental Systems Department of Northrop Corporation's Electro-Mechanical Division
as shown in Figure 2-1. The team members were supported by other departments
of Northrop which provided data recording, processing, and analysis. Olson-Horiba,
Inc., provided HC and CO NDIR gas analyzers for use by the participating garages.
Olson Engineering Services developed vehicle selection lists from Michigan and
California vehicle registration data, formulated vehicle procurement procedures,
prepared detailed test and data control procedures, and provided program admin-
istration.
The Testing Services Division of Olson Laboratories was responsible for all
vehicle testing functions. These functions included vehicle procurement, emission
testing, data recording and verification.
The data analysis function was provided by the Northrop Environmental Systems
Department. This function included generation of data forms and computer format,
development of computer programs, and the performance of computer and manual
analyses. Additional functions performed by this group were the generation of
study results and preparation of the Phase.1 and Final Reports.
The independent garages, under supervision of Olson's Engineering Services, con-
ducted vehicle maintenance appropriate to each test regime. KEY MODE garage
training was provided by Clayton Manufacturing Company during Phase II.
The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Mobile Source Pollution Control
provided policy guidance and program direction. EPA also directed changes in
inspection test rejection limits and loaded steady state (L.S.S.) maintenance
and training procedures for Phase II. EPA also participated as a member of the
technical review board which reviewed and approved technical progress of the
•project and organization of the Final Report.
2.2 INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS
This section discusses program operation. Included are a description of the
test fleets utilized in both phases of the study, description of the procedures
used to prepare and test each vehicle, and tables showing the emission values
selected to pass or fail a vehicle. Figure 2-2 indicates the vehicle flow path
during this test program. A discussion of the procedures used to service Idle
2-1
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
OLSON
LABORATORIES
TECHNICAL
REVIEW
BOARD
PROJECT ENGINEER
SERVICE CENTERS
INSTRUMENTATION
OLSON-HORIBA
OLSON
TESTING
SERVICES
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
NORTHROP
ENVIRONMENTAL
SYSTEMS
TEST CENTER
WESTERN
OPERATIONS
TEST CENTER
EASTERN
OPERATIONS
DATA
ANALYSIS
Figure 2-1. Short Cycle Project Orgmization
-------
PASS
ro
PASS
PASS
SERVICE CENTER
PERFORM MINOR
REPAIRS AND
ADJUSTMENTS
-RETEST-
COMPLETE
TEST
PROCEDURE
FAIL
DIAGNOSIS
SERVICE
PROCEDURE
FAILURE
MAJOR WORK
REQUIRED
REJECT
*
•RESERVICEi
FROM
VEHICLE
OWNERS
1
SERVICE CENTER
PERFORM CORRECT
MAINTENANCE
PROCEDURES
SECOND
RETEST
COMPLETE
TEST
PROCEDURE
TO
VEHICLE
OWNERS
FAIL
REJECT
INITIAL
VEHICLE
SCREENING
Figure 2-2. Short Cycle Project Vehicle Flow
-------
and L.S.S. test regime vehicles which failed to pass their respective emission
test concludes this section.
2.2.1 Vehicle Procurement
Vehicle procurement activities included determination of the vehicle population
in the states of California and Michigan, identification of required vehicles,
acquisition of privately owned vehicles, and scheduling of the vehicles during
the test program.
Both Phase I and II involved testing two groups of 150 vehicles, one each in
California and Michigan. Each group was further divided into two groups com-
prising 75 pairs of essentially identical vehicles. One vehicle of each pair
was assigned to the Idle test fleet and the other vehicle was assigned to the
L.S.S. test fleet. In this manner, the vehicles assigned to the Idle and
L.S£. regime test fleets were kept as identical as possible. However, the ve-
hicles were not necessarily identical in mechanical condition or emission charac-
teristics .
The 75 vehicles in the test fleet for each state were selected proportionately
to vehicle registration data in each state. R. H. Donnelly and R. L. Polk pro-
vided registration data by make and model year for vehicles 10 years old or
less. Vehicles older than 10 years were grouped as a single entry. This class-
ification of older than 10 years (pre-1962 model year vehicles) was taken as
representative of the vehicle population of 1957 to 1961 in Michigan. The data
for California, however, were modified slightly to take advantage of the 15 year
classification data developed during previous Northrop/Olson studies for the
State of California Air Resources Board (Reference l).
Table 2-1 depicts the percentage mix.of vehicles by age for both states. The
Michigan population comprised considerably larger proportions of newer vehicles.
This differential between states might be expected to affect the fleets' average
emissions since there are fewer older vehicles in the Michigan population. This
difference, however, is counterbalanced by the two year earlier introduction of
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide control systems in California. Therefore, the
fraction of exhaust emission controlled vehicles was approximately the same in
each state (50.0 percent in California, ij-7.6 percent in Michigan). The model
years were then grouped as shown to provide larger sample cells and to reflect
changes in emission control devices.
These combinations of vehicle makes and model years were referred to as "year-
make" groups and are tabulated for the California and Michigan test fleets in
Tables 2-2 and 2-3 respectively. Whenever a year-make group contained less than
1.5 vehicles, that year-make group was assigned a zero value. The remaining
year-make groups were then progressively adjusted so that each year-make group
and the totals for each vehicle make and model year group were multiples of
two. This algorithm resulted in 75 pairs (150 vehicles) representing the ve-
hicle population in each state. Similar vehicle fleets were procured and tested
for both phases of the study.
Vehicles were obtained by contacting owners of vehicle makes and model years
required to satisfy Tables 2-2 and 2-3. The vehicles actually procured were
to be matched pairs in the following parameters.
2-k
-------
Table 2-1
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION BY MODEL YEAR
GROUP
1
2
3
k
5
Model Year
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
196l & prior
(1957-1961)
Percent of Total Vehicle Population
CALIFORNIA
7-3/0
7-9
9-6
9.1
8.4
8.9
10.2
7-9
6.8
5-3
18.6
MICHIGAN
6.8$
12.9
14.5
13-4
11.0
10.9
10.6
7.2
5-4
3-5
3.8
Year group
Make
Mileage (within 10,000 miles)
Exhaust emission control system
Engine displacement (within 50 CID)
Weight (within 500 Ibs.)
In the event that a vehicle could not be matched with its identical pair, and
a different pair in the same year-model group could not be obtained, limited
types of substitution were permitted (e.g., manual for automatic transmission,
station wagon for sedan of same make).
Each vehicle utilized was given a preliminary inspection to ensure that it was
properly equipped with the required emission control device and was in accept-
able mechanical condition for the test program. Adequate mechanical condition
was defined to be that which allowed the vehicle to complete the test sequence,
did not affect exhaust gas dilution, and would not have caused a breakdown during
the various emission tests. Vehicle conditions which affected safety (i.e.,
tires) or test accuracy (i.e., leaking exhaust pipe) were cause for either rejec-
tion of the vehicle or correction at the discretion of Olson Laboratories.
2.2.2 Emission Testing
The testing functions encompass all activites related to completion of the test-
ing program. These functions include vehicle preparation, installation of the
vehicle on the dynamometer, instrument calibration, dynamometer test sequence,
data reduction and quality audit. Each of these functions was performed every
time a vehicle was tested.
2-5
-------
Table 2-2
CALIFORNIA VEHICLE POPULATION*
YEAR-MAKE GROUPS
MAKE
Buick
Cadillac
Chevrolet
Chrysler
Dodge
Ford
Mercury
Oldsmobile
Plymouth
Pontiac
AMC
Import
Volkswagen
TOTAL
70-71
2
0
k
0
2
6
0
0
0
2
0
k
k
2h
68-69
2
2
6
0
2
k
0
2
2
2
2
^
1*
32
66-67
0
2
1*
0
2
6
2
•2
2
2
0
2
h
26
62-65
2
0
12
2
2
8
2
2
2
^
2
0
4
te
57-61
2
0
6
0
0
6
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
26
Total
8
^
32
2
8
30
6
8
8
10
6
10
18
150
*This population distribution was utilized for both the Phase I and Phase II
fleets.
2-6
-------
Table 2-3
MICHIGAN VEHICLE POPULATION*
YEAR-MAKE GROUPS
VEHICLE MAKE
Buick
Cadillac
Chevrolet
Chrysler
Dodge
Ford
Mercury
Oldsmobile
Plymouth
Pontiac
AMC
Import
Volkswagen
TOTAL
70-71
2
2
6
0
2
8
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
30
68-69
if
0
8
2
2
8
2
4
2
if
2
2
2
te
66-67
2
2
6
0
2
6
2
2
2
If
2
0
2
32
62-65
If
0
10
2
2
8
2
if
If
if
0
0
0
ifO
57-61
0
0
if
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
TOTAL
12
if
3^
if
8
32
8
12
10
lif
if
2
6
150
* This population distribution was utilized for both the Phase I and Phase II
fleets.
2-7
-------
Before being tested, each vehicle was cold soaked 12 hours in a building
with temperatures maintained between 65°F and 86 F. After cold soaking,the
vehicle was placed on the dynamometer, fastened and blocked. The fuel line
was connected to a container of Indolene 30 and a cooling fan was placed in
front of the radiator. All instruments were then calibrated at a zero and
span point and placed in a sampling mode. The dynamometer was set for the
correct inertia weight and power absorption prior to vehicle installation
with a non-test vehicle.
Testing was performed according to the applicable Federal Register for 1972
and 1975 CVS tests and the hot start 7-Mcde. In the case of the steady state
tests including KEY MODE and Idle, the commonly accepted procedures were used.
During the tests, instrument deflections and pertinent test data were entered
on raw data sheets. In addition to the initial calibration, the CVS instru-
ments were calibrated at a zero and span point before each bag measurement.
Vehicle exhausts were simultaneously monitored using the NDIR 7-Mode bench
and the CVS instrument bench during the steady state and 7-Mode tests. Fuel
measurements were made using a 0-5 pound scale, initial readings being taken
after engine start-up at the time the "place in gear" mark appeared on the
CVS driver's aid. The final measurement was taken at the "end of test" mark.
Each emission measurement performed during the two hour test sequence is
described below:
1972 EPA CVS Driving Schedule from a Cold Start (reference 2) - This is a 23-
minute cold start test with CVS bag measurement taken for the cold phase and
the hot phase. Separate background air bags were used for each phase. During
the hot test phase, the sample bags from the previous cold portion were
analyzed. Fuel consumption measurements were taken during this test beginning
when the transmission was placed in gear and ending at the "end of test" mark.
1972 EPA CVS Driving Schedule from a Hot Start - The CVS Hot Start is a repeat
of the first 505 seconds of the 23-minute cold start driving cycle. The hot
start is performed after a 10-minute hot soak on the dynamometer immediately
following the CVS cold start. The 1972 cold start, the hot soak and the 1972
hot start comprise the 1975 CVS Cold Start test (reference 3).
Federal EPA Short Cycle Test - The EPA Short Cycle is a 9-Mode CVS test, 125
seconds long, with composite accelerations representative of the 1972 CVS
procedure. A sample bag was used and the same background concentrations as
previously measured during the 1972 CVS hot start was assumed. The mass
emissions were calculated using the following equation:
where:
m = mass emissions in grams per mile
a = cycle trip length (.7536 mile)
d = density of exhaust component
2-8
-------
c = measured concentration in "bag
V = total CVS volume
This equation is similar to the calculation for one test phase of the 1975
CVS procedure.
Loaded Steady State Test fL.S.S.) - The L.S.S. inspection test utilized the
KEY MODE inspection test (reference 4). Simultaneous measurements were
made using the 7-mode instruments and the CVS mass measurement instruments.
The continuous sample tap from the CVS was used to obtain a mass per unit
time value. Idle measurements were taken with automatic transmissions in
gear. The L.S.S. test was run immediately after the CVS sample bag from the
EPA Short Cycle was analyzed. It was also necessary to change the power
absorption unit to the horsepower values shown in Table 2-k. Three instru-
ment readings were taken 30 seconds after the vehicle had reached each speed.
These values were then averaged to obtain the final value recorded for each mode.
Table 2-4
HORSEPOWER VALUES FOR LOADED STEADY STATE TEST
VEHICLE
WEIGHT (LBS)
Under 2800
2800 - 3800
Over 3800
LOW CRUISE
SPEED (MPH)
23
30
33
LOAD (HP)
5
9
11
HIGH CRUISE
SPEED (MPH)
37
^5
1*9
LOAD (HP)
ll*
23
29
Steady-State Tests _ The power absorption unit was reset so that the horsepower
at 50 mph corresponded to road load for the vehicle's weight. CVS readings
were taken simultaneously with the 7-mode bench. Emissions were recorded at zero
(transmission in neutral) 10, 20, 30, ko, 50 and 60 mph. Three readings were
again taken at each speed and averaged to arrive at the composite value for
that speed.
Idle Test - The zero mph speed of the steady state test (transmission in neutral)
was utilized for the Idle Test. The engine was not tested at any off-idle
condition.
The volumetric measurements for the Idle, L.S.S. and Steady State speeds were
used directly in emission averages and statistical analyses in concentration
units. The CVS measurements were converted to mass emissions per minute using
the following formula:
mph = V •rpm-c•d
mph = mass emissions in grams per minute
V = CVS volume per revolution of sample pump
o
2-9
-------
rpm = revolutions per minute of sample pump
c = instantaneous exhaust concentration
d = density of exhaust component
7-Mode Hot Start - The last two complete cycles of the standard 7-Mode (ref-
erence 5) test were run with the power absorption unit set at 10 hp at 50 miles
per hour. During the 7-Modes, CVS bag samples and NDIR concentration measure-
ments were recorded. The CVS background air sample was recorded. The 7-Mode
CVS mass emissions were calculated in the same manner as for the Federal EPA
Short Cycle. The cycle trip length was 1.683 miles for two 7-Mode cycles. The
volumetric data were converted to grams per mile using the calculation procedure
found in the referenced Federal Register.
2.2.3 Vehicle Maintenance
The following paragraphs describe the maintenance procedure for vehicles
failing the Idle and L.S.S. inspection test limits. Vehicles which failed
the initial inspection test were dispatched to one of the participating garages
for the first service (see Figure 2-2). Vehicles were retested after service,
and, if found to pass the second inspection test, were returned to their owners.
During Phase I, those vehicles which failed the second inspection test were
sent back to the repair facility for second service if the mechanical failure
was identified as being correctable. During Phase II, the additional service
was performed by OLI mechanic technicians. Each vehicle which received the
second service was subjected to a third emission test sequence. If the vehicle
failed the third emission test, no additional servicing was performed and it
was exited from the test system as failing the emission limits.
The vehicles which were diagnosed as requiring valve regrind, rings, or other
major mechanical work were exited from the program and returned to their
owners without repair, but an estimate of the repair was generated.
The inspection test failure limits used in this program are shown in Table
2-5. The limits were intended to fail 50% to 60% of the test vehicle popu-
lation of the California and Michigan fleet. The rejection limits selected
originally were developed for the California ARE report (reference 1). The
Michigan limits were modified during Phase II because the Michigan vehicles
exhibited higher idle emissions than California vehicles and consequently
failed more frequently. The original failure limits also resulted in fewer
controlled vehicles failing the Idle inspection. This resulted in more
controlled vehicles in the L.S.S. service fleet than in the Idle fleet.
During Phase II the limits were revised, based upon emission data from
Phase I, to fail 50% to 60% of the controlled and uncontrolled vehicles
of each fleet.
2.2.3.1 Vehicle Service Centers - Vehicle service centers were selected to
represent typical repair facilities in each state. Each center was required
to have oscilloscopes and infrared hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide meters.
2-10
-------
TABLE 2-5. EMISSION INSPECTION FAILURE LIMITS
TEST
T.nrATTriTJ
CALIFORNIA
PHASE I
CALIFORNIA
PHASE II
MICHIGAN
PHASE I
MICHIGAN
PHASE II
TEST
•D'DnPTT'nTTTJF
L.S.S.
L.S.S.
L.S.S.
Idle
L.S.S.
L.S.S.
L.S.S.
Idle
L.S.S.
L.S.S.
L.S.S.
Idle
L.S.S.
L.S.S.
L.S.S.
Idle
\8">nF
Hi Cruise
Lo Cruise
Idle
Idle
Hi Cruise
Lo Cruise
Idle
Idle
Hi Cruise
Lo Cruise
Idle
Idle
Hi Cruise
Lo Cruise
Idle
Idle
TINflflNTRn
HO
550 ppm
550 ppm
800 ppm
700 ppm
500 ppm
500 ppm
850 ppm
700 ppm
550 ppm
550 ppm
800 ppm
700 ppm
550 ppm
550 ppm
800 ppm
700 ppm
iED*
CO
3.5%
4.5%
7.0%
6.0%
3-250
4.00
7-00
7.00
3.5%
4.5%
8.5%
8.5%
3-50
4-50
6.00
7-50
ATP
HP
300 ppm
300 ppm
300 ppm
250 ppm
300 ppm
300 ppm
300 ppm
250 ppm
300 ppm
300 ppm
300 ppm
250 ppm
300 ppm
300 ppm
300 ppm
250 ppm
nnNTKf]
PTTMP
ffl
2.5%
2.5%
4.0%
4.0%
2.50
3.00
4.00
3-00
2.5%
2.5%
4.0%
4.0%
2.50
3-00
4.00
3-50
LLED
ENGINE
VtC
300 ppm
300 ppm
400 ppm
350 ppm
300 ppm
300 ppm
350 ppm
300 ppm
300 ppm
300 ppm
400 ppm
350 ppm
300 ppm
300 ppm
400 ppm
350 ppm
MOD
rn
2.5%
2.5%
5.0%
5.0%
2.50
3.00
4.00
3.00
2.5%
2.5%
5.0%
6.0%
2.50
3-00
5-00
5-00
#Includes crankcase devices.
-------
California service centers were Class A State licensed garages which had par-
ticipated in the ARE study. The Class A license specified minimum equipment
complement and the Class A mechanic's license required a written examination.
Michigan service centers were commercial service stations or general garages
with aMlity to perform major ignition and carburetor repairs. The Idle regime
and L.S.S. regime service centers received only Idle regime vehicles and L.S.S.
regime vehicles, respectively.
Service managers, owners and mechanics of participating service centers were
asked to attend a four-hour indoctrination meeting in their respective city.
The meetings included a briefing regarding the program objectives, the role of
the service centers, the test procedures performed by Olson Laboratories, a
demonstration of the inspection test, the data recording and billing procedures.
Idle and L.S.S. regime mechanics were given briefings on separate days.
Questions regarding training and supervision of garages during Phase I were
subsequently raised following excessive repair costs and ineffective repairs
during Phase I. As a result, all garages in the program were changed before
the start of Phase II with the intention of starting Phase II with previously
unbiased garages. Mechanic training and maintenance procedures were altered
as indicated below for the L.S.S. Test.
2.2.3.2 Idle Service Procedure - The Idle maintenance procedure required that
the service center inspect the vehicle for emissions of HC and CO with an KDIR
exhaust gas analyzer. If these values were greater than the established limit,
the vehicle was subjected to minor timing and carburetor idle circuit adjust-
ments. If this was not effective in reducing emission to within the prescribed
limits, the garage was to initiate additional diagnosis and repair as deemed
necessary. Garages were not constrained as to the type of work they could
perform, except that no work should be performed if it would exceed $100 total
value or involve major work such as valve regrind, rings, or other engine
repairs. Any adjustment or repair which succeeded in reducing the emissions
to the emission standard should terminate the service cycle. This procedure
encouraged the garages to achieve the specified limits with a minimum of effort.
The garages were provided a standard data sheet, shown in Appendix A-l, on
which to record inspection test results and the work performed. The Idle
service procedure was not changed from Phase I to Phase II.
2.2.3.3 L.S.S. Service Procedure - L.S.S. service centers received a KEY
MODE Truth Chart with each vehicle. During Phase I, the L.S.S. garages were
initially instructed to attempt adjustments prior to ignition or carburetor
repairs in an attempt to minimize emissions. They were, however, instructed
to perform the diagnosis and repair actions recommended by the KEY MODE pro-
cedure for the failure modes indicated. The L.S.S. rejection limits at idle
were provided for use in final adjustments.
These instructions were believed to have caused some confusion among the service
centers resulting in some excess repair costs. In addition, some instances of
ineffective repairs occurred possibly due to the mechanics terminating mainte-
nance actions when idle readings were within specified limits. After kofy of
the Phase I Michigan vehicles had been repaired, the Michigan L.S.S. garages were
reiMtructed by Clayton personnel emphasizing the use of the Truth Charts in
diagnosis.
2-12
-------
During Phase II, the data forms for the L.S.S. test and the maintenance proce-
dures were altered to conform with those recommended by Clayton for KEY MODE.
Garages were instructed by Clayton representatives to perform work indicated
by the Truth Charts and to use the exhaust gas analyzer only as a final adjust-
ment aid. The Clayton Truth Charts and data sheets are shown in Appendix A-2.
These instructions encouraged the garages to perform the most effective repair.
During both program phases, the garages were instructed not to exceed $100
repair cost without first obtaining OLI authorization. A few vehicles were
repaired at costs in excess of $100, generally for carburetor or carburetor and
ignition repairs. This instruction, however, also resulted in non-repair of
some particularly expensive carburetors or rebuilding of carburetors instead
of replacing them with new carburetors.
2.3 DATA ANALYSIS
Five general analyses were applied to the data for each regime: (l) effective-
ness; (2) maintenance action; (3) cost; (k) cost effectiveness; and (5) relat-
ability. The detailed discussion of the analysis methodology is contained in
the following section. Each analysis was applied to Phase I and II separately
except for relatabillty which considers only the combined Phases. During, the
analysis, the data were analyzed at a failure rate of approximately 30$ obtained
by using level V rejection limits (Table 2-6) for all L.S.S. vehicles and the
particular idle values which failed the same number of vehicles as for L.S.S.
2.3.1 Data Acquisition
Figure 2-3 shows the steps of data analyses. As seen in Figure 2-3, original
data forms received a quality audit to ensure completeness and to flag obvious
errors such as data inversion. Suspect data were compared to strip charts from
the test bench to correct any deficiencies. Approved data forms were sent to
keypunching and then tested by an error check routine to flag widely variant
emission measurements (those approximately beyond the 2-sigma values for the
distribution). Those data were reevaluated to ascertain if the vehicle was in
fact a very high or low emitter or if errors existed within the data. After
any necessary corrections, a computer listing of the complete data set was
generated to provide a permanent magnetic tape record for future use.
2.3.2 Fleet Emission Statistics
The emission data were processed to compute the mean value, minimum value, max-
imum value, and standard deviation of the mean for each subfleet in the program.
These were computed for each state, test regime, pollutant and test phase. In
addition, data were characterized by the following vehicle parameters:
• Make
• Model year
• Emission control system
• Accumulated mileage
• Vehicle weight
• Engine size
2-13
-------
Table 2-6
REJECT LEVELS FOR LOADED STEADY STATjE TEST*
CONTROLLED VEHICLES
I*
II*
III*
IV*
JL.
V*
VI
IDLE
HC CO
290 3-0
350 b.O
koo 5.0
500 6.0
600 7-0
TOO 8.0
LOW CRUISE
HC CO
2^0 2.5
300 3-0
350 3-25
boo 3.75
U50 U.25
500 ^. 75
HIGH CRUISE
HC CO
220 2.0
300 2.5
350 2.75
koo 3.25
^50 3-75
500 4.25
UNCONTROLLED VEHICLES
I*
II*
III*
IV*
V*
VI*
VII
IDLE
HC CO
700 5-5
800 7.0
900 7-5
1000 8.0
1200 9.0
1300 9-5
1500 11.0
LOW CRUISE
HC CO
lj-50 k.O
550 i*.5
600 5.0
700 5.25
900 5.5
1000 6.0
1200 7.0
HIGH CRUISE
HC CO
4 50 3-0
550 3-5
600 k.o
700 4.25
900 1^.5
1000 5.0
1200 6.0
* Suggested Clayton KEY MODE rejection levels
2-14
-------
EVALUATION AND
VERIFICATION OF
ORIGINAL DATA
FORMS
fc
KEY PUNCH
TEST DATA
k.
~w
ERROR CHECK
ROUTINE
L- OUT-OF-TOLE RANGE
MEASUREMENTS
OUTPUT
DATA LISTS
1— BEFORE SERVICE
U AFTER FIRST SER
U AFTER SECONDS!
>— BEFORE-AFTER SE
DIFFERENCE
^
VICE
:RVICE
ERVICE
GENERATE
DATA TAPE
1- PERMANENT DAT/
RECORD
ro
GENERATE
SUMMARY
REPORT
k-
- MEANS, STANDARD
DEVIATIONS
-BEFORE&AFTER
SERVICE
•-CHARACTERISTICS
BY VEHICLETYPE,
ENGINE
DISPLACEMENT,
YEAR, ETC.
r
COMPUTE t AND f
RATIOS FOR
EQUIVALENCE OF
FLEET
CHARACTERISTICS
COMPUTE
CONFIDENCE
INTERVALS FOR
POPULATION MEAN
EMISSIONS
>
COMPUTE EMISSION
REDUCTIONS FOR
+
TEST EMISSION
REDUCTIONS
BY COVARIANCE
ANALYSIS
COMPUTE
EFFECTIVENESS
INDEX
EFFECTIVENESS
ANALYSIS
UFLEET EMISSIONS
k-REJECTION RATES
<- IDLE FAILURE
w
W
-+
DETERMINE
MODAL FAILURES
w
W
DIAGNOSE
REASON FOR
INSPECTION
FAILURE
-
EVALUATE
GARAGE
REPAIR ACTION
->
DETERMINE
UNJUSTIFIED
REPAIR ACTION
k.
W
EVALUATE
FAILED-EXITED
VEHICLES
DETERMINE
INSPECTION
PROGRAM COST
DETERMINE
REPAIR COST
DETERMINE
COST
DETERMINE
SAVINGS
w
w
DETERMINE
TOTAL
PROGRAM COST
^-FLEET AVERAGE
[-DISTRIBUTION
\— BY REJECTION RATE
"—BY SERVICE EVENT
MAINTENANCE
ANALYSIS
COST
ANALYSIS
COST
EFFECTIVENESS
ANALYSIS
REUSABILITY
ANALYSIS
Figure 2-3. Data Analysis Flow Chart
-------
Averages were calculated for before service, after first service, and after
second service. The following basic subfleets were considered:
• All vehicles (serviced plus unserviced)
• Serviced vehicles only
• Controlled vehicles only
• Uncontrolled vehicles only
The t-test and F-test were applied to the 1975 CVS emission data to establish
if test fleets were statistically equivalent prior to maintenance and if the
reductions achieved were statistically significant. The t-test for equivalence
of sample means was applicable to groups of unequal sample size and variance
and had the following form:
*1 - *2
t =
«/.
nl °2
where: X-, and x_ are the mean of the first and second sample
s and Sp are the standard deviations of the first and second sample
n. and n_ are the sample size of the first and second sample
The t-test determines whether the means are statistically identical or not, tak-
ing into consideration the number of data points and their distribution. Associ-
ated with the t-test is a probability of occurrence. The t-test analyses per-
formed for this study can be interpreted to mean that population means are statis-
tically equal at a 95% level of significance when the t-test is satisfied.
The F-test for equivalence of sample variances (standard deviation squared) was
also performed on the various test fleets. The test statistics are*.
F = si2
where s, and s2 are the standard deviation of the first and second sample
The F-test determines whether the sample variance or scatter about the mean is
equivalent. The F-test can establish if the test samples are composed of vehicles
with widely different emission characteristics even if the means are statistically
equal. The F -test is also interpreted as the equivalence of variances at a 95%
significance level if the F-test is satisfied. The F-test implicitly considers
sample size since that is involved in calculating the two standard deviations.
The t-test and F-test were applied to all vehicles, serviced vehicles, controlled
vehicles and uncontrolled vehicles to establish equivalences of all three pollu-
tants in terms of the following groups:
2-16
-------
• Idle and Loaded Steady State
• California and Michigan
• Phase I and Phase II
Demonstrating equivalence of Idle and L.S.S. fleets prior to maintenance pro-
vides assurance that sample sizes were sufficiently large so that representative
samples were selected. The determination of whether one regime was statistically
superior to the other was based on the analysis of covariance which is discussed
in paragraph 2.3.3. The analysis of covariance is valid even if the t-test and
F-test are not satisfied.
Demonstrating that the emission characteristics are similar in California and
Michigan and during Phase I and Phase II does not affect the evaluation of Idle
and L.S.S. emission reductions. The information, however, is useful in inter-
preting different emission reductions or cost results.
2.3.3 Effectiveness Analysis
The effectiveness of the Idle and L.S.S. regimes was defined by the emission
reductions achieved. In addition to the emission reductions, statistical tests
were performed to ensure that the Idle and L.S.S. test fleets were statistically
equivalent, that statistically significant reductions were achieved, that one
regime was more effective- than the other and to predict expected statewide emis-
sion reductions.
2.3.3.1 Fleet Emission Reductions - The Effectiveness Analysis began with cal-
culations of the emission reductions achieved by maintenance. Emission reduc-
tions were determined for the following four test fleets at an inspection test
failure rate of approximately 30$:'
• All vehicles
• Serviced vehicles only
• Controlled vehicles
• Uncontrolled vehicles
These emission reductions were determined for first service data and second
service data in terms of percent reductions and gram per mile reductions. The
emission reductions were tested in two ways: (l) t-test of mean emissions
before and after maintenance, and (2) analysis of covariance of emission reduc-
tions .
The t-test was utilized to establish if a statistically significant difference
in emission levels was achieved by maintenance. The t-test utilized was the
same as previously discussed in paragraph 2.3.2. The F-test was not applied
in this case since the emission reduction is expressed in terms of the change
in mean value. Maintenance actions could, however, alter (reduce) the sample
variance of emission even though the mean values before and after maintenance
were statistically identical. This change would be manifested in small and
statistically insignificant emission reductions.
2-17
-------
Since both Idle and'L.S.S. PVIM could, create significant emission reductions,
a more sensitive tool was required to select the regime which provided the
greatest emission reduction. This tool was the analysis of covariance. The
analysis of covariance is useful in establishing if several different treat-
ments result in statistically equivalent effects, taking into consideration
differences in initial conditions. For analysis, there were two treatments,
Idle and L.S.S. PVIM, and the effect is the resulting emission reduction for
each pollutant. The covariance statistic is tested by the following F ratio
assuming completely randomized design (reference 6):
1 1
SS - SS / (r - 1)
YT YE
F =
1
SS / (N - r - 1)
YE
where:
F = The calculated F-ratio is compared to a tabulated F-value to determine
if Idle and L.S.S. result in the same effect (reduction)
SSYE = ^um of S1uares of after service within group deviations (SSyE) minus
the quantity: Sum of products of before and after service within
group deviation (SPg) divided by the sum of squares of before service
wi thin-group deviation (SS^). Within group deviation is calculated
using the separate Idle mean values and L.S.S. mean values
Sum of square of after service total deviation (SSYQI) minus the
quantity: Sum of products of before and after services total devia-
tions (SPT) divided by the sum of squares of before service total
deviation (SS^) . Total deviation is calculated using the combined
Idle and L.S.S. mean values
N-r-1 = The degrees of freedom within groups where r is the number of treat-
ments, i.e., Idle and L.S.S.; and N is the total number of vehicles
in both groups
r-1 = The degree of freedom among groups
The analysis of covariance, therefore, establishes if there is statistically
significant difference in the effects of the treatments, i.e., emission reduc-
tions achieved by Idle and L.S.S. The level of significance desired for the
test determines the reference value of F which is obtained from statistical
tables for the given degrees of freedom and significance level. All analysis
of covariance tests were performed at the 95$> level of significance.
If the F-ratio calculated from the covariance analysis was less than the corre-
sponding reference F-value, then Idle and L.S.S. were equally effective in re-
ducing emissions. If the calculated F-ratio was greater than the reference
F-value, then the Idle and L.S.S. were not equally effective. Scheffer
2-18
-------
(S-method) was used to establish which regime was greater in effect, i.e.,
emission reduction. The appropriate statistic is given below and is discussed
in Guenther's, The Analysis of Variance (reference 6).
2
£ <
J=i
i
N-r-1
G"p O
•'jy j " — ^ c
f £ °4 * (?
1 -i 1 n-i ^ ,
.X .
1
V .j)2
SSYE
L =
2
'L =
where:
j = 1 is Idle
= 2 is L.S.S.
X. . = before service mean of test regime j
J
Y.. = after service mean of test regime j
J
n. = number of vehicles in test regime j
0
SP^, SS.._,. SSrL = defined for covariance analysis
.Ei ACi IJi
N-r-1, r-1 = defined for covariance analysis
L2 2
If the calculated value of ^— > S , the two test regimes in comparison pro-
L
vide statistically different emission reductions. Then the Idle is superior to
L.S.S. if L is negative and L.S.S. is superior to Idle if L is positive.
2.3.3-2 Emission Reductions as a Function of Inspection Test Rejection Rate - The
effectiveness analysis included assessment of emission reductions at rejec-
tion rates from 10$ to 50$ of the population. The purpose of this analysis
was to show how much incremental emission reduction was achieved as larger and
larger percentages of vehicles were failed and sent for maintenance. The ex-
pectation, of course, is that the greatest increment of reduction is achieved
by servicing the worst 10$ of the vehicles, with service to each subsequent
10$ group providing progressively less emission reduction.
This analysis was performed by using the three Loaded Steady State (L.S.S.)
modes shown in Table 2-6. The six L.S.S. limits were applied to the L.S.S.
vehicle fleets for each rejection rate. The HC and CO idle limits of the
L.S.S. test were applied to the Idle vehicle fleets. A vehicle was rejected
if any pollutant in any applicable mode exceeded the indicated values.
2-19
-------
The values in Table 2-6, marked with an asterisk (*) are Clayton Manufacturing
Company recommended KEY MODE limits. They were intended to reject from 30%
to 60% of the controlled vehicles and 20% to 70% of the uncontrolled vehicles.
In this program, these limits tended to reject more vehicles than desired.
Therefore, the rejection limits identified as level VI for controlled vehicles
and level VII for uncontrolled vehicles were established by OLI to provide a
rejection rate between 10% and 20% of inspected vehicles.
2.3.3.3. Emission Reductions Achieved by Correcting Idle Only Failure -
If most of the vehicles require idle system maintenance only, then the
emission reductions achieved by Idle and L.S.S. might be equal. The addi-
tional information available to L.S.S. garages, however, might enable them
to provide the emission reductions at less cost than the Idle garages.
Therefore, in order to test this hypothesis, the Idle and L.S.S. test fleets
were examined to select only those vehicles which had failed the emission
test only at idle. The L.S.S. vehicles with power mode failures were ex-
cluded. The Idle Mode vehicles which would have failed any of L.S.S. cruise
modes, had they been an L.S.S. vehicle, were also excluded. The average
emission reductions of HC, CO and NO were determined for these failed
x
vehicles. The emission reductions were then available for use in the cost
effective analysis as described in paragraph 2.3.6.
2.3.3.11-. Effectiveness Index - Effectiveness of the Idle and L.S.S. test
regimes was measured using an index which combines the effects of exhaust
emission reduction, vehicle population, model-year distribution, average
vehicle miles driven, and anticipated inspection failure rates. This effec-
tiveness index was applied to the 1975 CVS test data generated from the 600
vehicles involved in this program. The resulting effectiveness indices were
then used to evaluate total program effectiveness of Idle and L.S.S. The
effective index is presented below:
3
MOE = £ C . P . Kn. Wn (Y) . D (Y) . M (Y)
n=l
where:
MOE = measure of effectiveness, in tons of pollutants per year
P = total vehicle population
D (Y) = vehicle distribution by vehicle age
M (Y) = vehicle average miles driven per year, by vehicle age
Kri = Pr°Portional pollutant weighing factor (n=l,2,3)
2-20
-------
wn (Y) = magnitude of change for each pollutant in grams/mile by vehicle
age as a function of model year
Y = number of model years encompassed (15 years)
C = conversion factor, grams to tons (l.l x 10 )
n = index of pollutants, 1=HC, 2=CO, 3=NO
Each of the above parameters is described in the following paragraphs.
Vehicle Population, P
The factor P represents the total beginning population of vehicles for which
the MOE is being computed. In this study, MOE's are computed based on 1971
California and Michigan populations, which were 10,000,000 vehicles and
5,500,000 vehicles respectively.
Vehicle Distribution by Model Year, D(Y)
The vehicle distribution by model-year are taken from Table 2-1 shown on page
2-5 for both California and Michigan. They are assumed to be constant and
equivalent throughout the program year.
Vehicle Average Miles Driven, M(Y)
The amount of emissions prevented from entering the atmosphere is dependent
on the age of the vehicle in the population and the associated vehicle miles
driven per year. Based on data generated during the California Air Resources
Board Study, Table 2-7 shows the average miles driven annually for vehicle
age category (reference 1). The data in this table were derived only for
vehicles registered in California since this study did not provide for a
survey of typical driving profiles in Michigan. The data were, however, used
for the Michigan analysis.
Weighting of Emission Pollutants, K
Overall program effectiveness should be related to total air pollution reduction.
Since, however, considerable technical discussion centers on the relative im-
portance of the pollutants, simple summation of mass emissions reduction may
not be applicable to all regions. Therefore, this report presents each pollu-
tant separately as well as the two feasible pollutant weighting methods shown
below:
algebraic sum
AHC + AGO + AND
X
weighted algebraic sum
.6 (AHC) + .1 (AGO) + .
The algebraic sum is the most straightforward scheme. This simply creates an
overall effectiveness index which is directly proportional to the cumulative
increases or decreases exhibited by the three pollutants. The equal weighting
2-21
-------
Table 2-7
AVERAGE MILES DRIVEN ANNUALLY
Vehicle Age in Years
Under 1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-9
9-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-1^
14-15
15 and over
Average Miles Driven
Annually
13,200
12,000
11,000
9,600
9,400
8,700
8,600
8,100
7,300
7,000
5,700
4,900
4,300
4,300
4,300
4,300
philosophy emphasizes any reductions in CO, however, since this pollutant consti-
tutues the greatest mass of emissions and emission reductions. The equal weight-
ing method is also presented in a normalized form to enable direct comparison
with the weighted sum.
The weighted sum was selected arbitrarily by Olson/Northrop with concurrence
from the EPA Project Officer. The weighting factor is derived from the 1970-
1971 Federal emission standards and provides a method of weighting each pollu-
tant inversely proportional to its emission standards. In other words, the
weighting implies that a ton reduction of HC or NO is much more important than a
ton reduction of CO. The calculation procedure is shown in Table 2-8. It may
be summarized as follows:
• determine total permitted emissions by summing emission standards
• determine proportion of total emissions represented by each pollutant
• calculate reciprocal (inverse) of proportion
• sum the inverse proportions
• divide each inverse proportion by the sum of the inverse proportionsto
obtain normalized factors
Emission Changes, Wn (Y), Due to Maintenance
This factor accounts for changes in emission resulting from maintenance
actions. This factor is developed for each pollutant, each model year
group and each test regime. It represents reductions (or increases) in
1975 CVS emissions averaged over both serviced and unserviced vehicles.
2-22
-------
Table 2-8
CALCULATION OF POLLUTANT WEIGHTING FACTORS
Identify Standard
HC 2.2 grams per mile
CO 23.0 grams per mile
NO* ^.0 grams per mile
Sum Permitted Emissions
T = HC + CO + NO 29.2 grams per mile
Calculate Proportion of Total
HC
T 0.075
CO
T 0.788
NO
T 0.137
Calculate Inverse Proportions
T
—— = hr-
HC n° 13-3
T
HC=C° 1.3
T
NO " n° 7-3
Sum Inverse Proportions
S= he + co + no 21.9
Calculate Normalized Inverse Proportions
he
2 0.6l
co
If 0.06
no
T 0.33
Round Off Weighting Factors
Kco
Kno
^Assumed NO emission levels of k grams per mile
x
2-23
-------
2.3-4 Maintenance Analysis
After all cars were repaired and retested, an evaluation was made to determine
whether the garages had properly identified malfunctioning systems and per-
formed the minimum work to meet emission limits; or whether they had performed
unnecessary, excessive or ineffective repair actions This section outlines
the methodology for evaluating service center repair action, excessive or un-
justified repair service, failed and exited vehicles, and an OLI project staff
diagnosis of the failed vehicles. The maintenance analysis was performed on
Phase I and Phase II data separately for the vehicles failing the 30/0 rejec-
tion level.
2.3.4.1 Modal Failure Analysis - The modal failure analysis provided a means
of identifying the frequency of failures for different modes and pollutants.
The modal failure characteristics of the Idle and L.S.S. vehicles were estab-
lished from the respective emission inspection test data. This analysis is
presented in graphical form showing the percent of the failing vehicles which
failed for HC and/or CO at idle for the Idle vehicles; and HC and/or CO in
combinations of idle and power modes for the L.S.S. vehicles. Controlled
vehicles were treated separately from uncontrolled vehicles. The reader is
reminded that the rejection limits used here were different than those actually
used to fail vehicles 'in the test program. The analysis provided a means of
evaluating the repairs required to correct-the emission failures.
2.3.4.2 Diagnosis of Failed Vehicles - Every vehicle which failed its first
emission inspection test was diagnosed to determine the repair action which
would have resulted in the vehicle passing its emission test. This analysis
was conducted after the conclusion of program testing independently of the
actual diagnosis and repair actions performed on the vehicles. All of the
emission data available from the test program (idle, L.S.S., and 7-Mode)
was used for this diagnosis. This analysis was performed on Phase I and Phase
II separately and for uncontrolled and controlled vehicles separately.
This analysis identified the number of failed vehicles in each fleet which re-
quired the following general types of repair work:
• idle adjustment only (mixture, speed, timing)
• ignition repair (replacement of plugs, points, condensor, distributor
advance mechanisms, wiring and associated adjustments)
• carburetiion repair (rebuild or replace the carburetor, PCV service)
• ignition plus carburetion repair
• major mechanical repair (repair or replacement of valves, and/or rings)
Since only emission inspection test data were available for this analysis, more
detailed diagnosis was not possible. The results of this analysis are presented
in Section 3.4.
2-24
-------
2.3-^3 Service Center Repair Action - An, analysis was conducted to determine
whether the service center diagnosis and repair actions had reflected correct
repair action. Figure 2-4 shows the inspection test and repair action sequence.
If the vehicle passed the inspection tests after service, the repair action was
evaluated as being correctly repaired. If the vehicle failed the inspection
test after service it was diagnosed by OLI and received a second repair ser-
vice. Vehicles which required major mechanical repair (valve grinds and over-
hauls) were exited as failing vehicles. Following the second ~ervice and in-
spection test, the vehicles were passed or failed and exited from the system
in a similar manner to the first service and inspection test without further
diagnosis or repair.
If the vehicle had passed the inspection tests after service, it was judged as
having a correct diagnosis as well as correct repair, although it may also
have received some unjustified (excessive) repair service. If it failed, the
vehicle was judged as having incorrect repair service. No positive engineering
judgments were made on incorrect diagnosis conducted by the service center or
by the OLI mechanics. The second emission inspection failure could have been
due to either incorrect diagnosis of a subtle malfunction or an improperly
executed repair.
Idle garages were to conduct minor tune-up related adjustments such as timing,
dwell, and idle mixture and speed adjustments and minor repair items such as
PCV, exhaust control systems, and filter services. If this step did not correct
the high emission levels, the repair center was directed to repair and/or ser-
vice the ignition or carburetion systems in accordance with the sequence of
steps shown in Table 2-9.
Table 2-9. SUGGESTED REPAIR ACTION FOR IDLE AND
LOADED STEADY STATE INSPECTION TESTS*
Emission Data*
CO High
HC Normal
CO Normal
HC High
CO High
HC High
CO Low
HC High
Step
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Suggested Repair Action
Minor tune -up adjustment and repair
Carburetor service (repair or replace)
Minor tune -up adjustment and repair
Electrical tune-up
Minor tune -up adjustment and repair
Electrical and/or carburetor service
Minor tune -up adjustment and repair
Carburetor service (repair or replace)
* Idle emission data only supplied to Idle inspection service centers. Idle,
low cruise, and high cruise emission data supplied to L.S.S. inspection centers.
At the beginning of Phase I, L.S.S. garages were instructed to follow Table
2-'9 in the same manner as the Idle garages; except that the KEY MODE Charts
and booklet nhown in Appendix A-2 were to be used in establishing the most
-------
BASELINE INSPECTION
TEST
FAIL BASELINE
INSPECTION TEST
PASS BASELINE
INSPECTION TEST
EXIT SYSTEM
FIRST REPAIR
SERVICE
INSPECTION
TEST
PASS INSPECTION TEST
CORRECT REPAIR
EXIT SYSTEM PASSING
FAIL INSPECTION TEST
INCORRECT REPAIR
FAIL INSPECTION TEST
INCORRECT REPAIR
EXIT SYSTEM FAILING
FAIL INSPECTION TEST
DIAGNOSED AS REQUIRING
MAJOR MECHANICAL SERVICE
EXIT SYSTEM FAILING
SECOND REPAIR
SERVICE
*
INSPECTION
TEST
PASS INSPECTION TEST
CORRECT REPAIR
EXIT SYSTEM PASSING
FAIL INSPECTION TEST
INCORRECT REPAIR
EXIT SYSTEM FAILING
FAIL INSPECTION TEST
DIAGNOSED AS REQUIRING
MAJOR MECHANICAL SERVICE
EXIT SYSTEM FAILING
T
FifHra 2-4. Service Center Rape* Amlysis
-------
likely cause of emission failure. The L.S.S. procedure would, therefore,
tend to concentrate diagnostic and repair effort on those items which had a
high probability of failure.
During Phase II, the L.S.S. garages were specifically instructed to follow only
the KEY MODE Truth Charts and booklet. In most instances of modal failures
which included a power mode failure, the vehicles were serviced by step 2 in
Table 2-9 with the minor adjustments being performed after completing the main
repair effort. For vehicles with Idle failures only, the Truth Charts direct
the L.S.S. garages to follow the same repair sequence as shown in Table 2-9-
The service center repair action analysis also summarized the repair actions
actually conducted by the garages. Repair invoices and the data sheets provided
to the garages were used to separate costs into the following five categories:
• minor adjustments (adjustments to the carburetor and-distributor
such as idle mixture, rpm, timing, and dwell)
• minor repair (replacement of parts such as filters, PCV valve,
heat riser, vacuum lines, gaskets, hoses, etc.)
• ignition repairs (replacement of plugs, points, condenser, dis-
tributor advance mechanisms, wiring, and the
associated adjustments)
• carburetion repair (rebuild or replace the carburetor)
• major mechanical repair (repair or replacement of items such as
rings and valves)
The service center repair action analysis was presented and discussed for first
service. Data is available in paragraph 3-^- to derive the information for second
service. The data is presented separately for Phase I and Phase II and for con-
trolled and uncontrolled vehicles separately.
Q.^.k.k Unjustified Repair Action - An evaluation of unjustified repair action
was conducted by examining the inspection test results and the repair invoices.
Generally, if carburetor related excess emission (high CO and moderately high
HC, less than 1500 ppm) were evident from the inspection test data, minor car-
buretion and ignition adjustments were justified. However, if ignition misfire
(hydrocarbons in excess of 1500 ppm) was clearly not indicated by the inspection
test,! eplgcement of ignition parts was judged to be an unjustified repair action,
If the analysis showed that carburetor idle adjustment should have corrected
high CO emissions and the carburetor had been overhauled or replaced, the repair
action was evaluated as unjustified. Tables 2-10 and 2-11 present the criteria
for judging excessive repairs for Idle and L.S.S. respectively.-
From the results of the analysis, repairs which appeared to be ineffective,
excessive and unjustified, were identified and tabulated. The costs associated
with the excess repairs were deducted resulting in revised cost and cost effec-
tiveness indices. The possible impact of inadequate training and experience are
discussed in Paragraph 3-^- along with a revised maintenance procedure expected
to reduce unnecessary repairs.
2-27
-------
Table 2-10
PROPER REPAIR ACTION, IDLE MODE
Emission Data
CO
HC
CO
High,
High,
High,
HC
CO
HC
Normal
Normal
High
Allowab le
Repair Action
Adjustment, minor item replacement,
repair, emission control repair
Adjustment ,
ment
Adjustment,
replacement
electrical
electrical
tune -up,
tune -up,
carburetor
minor
item
carburetor
replace -
repair
or
Table 2-11
PROPER REPAIR ACTION, LOADED STEADY STATE
-------
The two major categories of cost (inspection and repair) associated with imple-
mentation of a PVIM program were derived by different means. Inspection program
costs, described in paragraph 2.3.5-1, were based on those derived by purely
analytical means as part of a previous Northrop/Olson study performed for the
California Air Resources Board (Reference l). Costs resulting from repair actions
were derived from actual repair cost data on the cars tested during the Short
Cycle Project in California and Michigan as described in paragraph 2.3.5.2.
Total program costs, the combination of inspection and maintenance costs, are
described in paragraph 2.3.5.3.
2.3.5.1 Inspection Cost Analysis - Inspection costs were defined as the costs
associated with establishing and operating a network of vehicle inspection
centers sufficient for a practical program of mandatory annual emissions tests
for all light duty vehicles. The two alternative inspection programs (idle and
L.S.S.) under evaluation involved an extremely large number of fixed and vari-
able cost items. To facilitate cost analysis of the alternatives, a linear
life-cycle cost (LSS) model was developed during the previous California ARE
study (Reference l). This LCC model identified and quantified the various pro-
gram cost categories involved for each of four program alternatives including
Idle and KEY MODE. The LCC model assured that the required resources were
systematically considered, assisted in the analytical process, facilitated data
acquisition and mathematical computation, and identified areas of critical re-
source requirements.
The California ARE inspection program cost analysis considered implementation
and operation of a state or single contractor operated inspection station
network throughout California. The useful lifetime of the inspection station
network was assumed to be 10 years with 5 year useful life of instrumentation.
This network was sized to accommodate the expected California vehicle popula-
tion assuming annual growth and accounting for the regional distribution of
vehicles.
The LCC model's resulting inspection cost for Idle and KEY MODE was determined
for the first year of the program. The estimated costs occurring in 1973 were
taken to be the average cost applicable to the Short Cycle Project analysis.
This total cost was then divided by the projected number of vehicles in 1973
to arrive at an average cost per vehicle for: l) inspection system implemen-
tation and investment costs and 2) inspection system operating costs. These
per-vehicle costs were then used to estimate the cost of an inspection program
in Michigan.
The LCC model was composed of three major submodels corresponding to the three
major program phases: l) research and development, 2) acquisition and invest-
ment, and 3) operation and maintenance. The model had the form indicated below:
Y
LCC = H (°RD + °IW + KenCOP )
n=l n'
where:
LCC = total program cost for expected duration
n = index of years in life-cycle duration
2-29
-------
Y = expected number of years in life cycle
Q
RD = program research and development expenditures, in dollars
p
INV = facility acquisition and investment expenditures, in dollars
Ke = escalation factor applied for year n
C = operation and maintenance expenditures, in dollars
In the following paragraphs th'e major categories are further defined:
P
Program Research and Development Costs ( RD) - The research and development
category included all costs necessary to conceive, design, develop, and docu-
ment a total program capable of satisfying the identified goals and objectives.
For each of the program alternatives evaluated,this cost category identified
and quantified the expenditures necessary to finalize the concept to the point
of implementation. Specific equipment, personnel, facilities, support manage-
ment procedures, and other considerations were costed to assure complete cover-
age of resources. Most, if not all, of the hardware needed to implement the
alternative programs was off-the-shelf equipment and, therefore, no research
and development costs were required for that purpose. Potential additions or
modifications to existing procedures of equipment were also included under this
category to assure adequate funds for planning prior to selection and imple-
mentation .
rt
Facility Acquisition and Investment Costs ( INV) - The acquisition and invest-
ment category included all the resources and costs incurred in the process of
initial program implementation. The resource elements included site acquisi-
tion, facilities, instrumentation, and manpower. Associated functional ele-
ments included facility certification, and personnel indoctrination and training.
This category included expenditures that were non-R&D or nonrecurring.
/-t
Operation and Maintenance Costs ( OP) - Operation and maintenance cost elements
included personnel salaries, wages, and benefits. On-going personnel training
and upgrading programs were included to assure continuing satisfactory operation.
The maintenance of inspection equipment, purchase of tools and supplies, and
program administration costs were also included.
2.3-5.2 Maintenance Cost Analysis - The owner of a vehicle that fails to satisfy
the inspection test requirements will incur repair costs to bring the vehicle's
emission levels within the established standard. Offsetting this cost would be
any savings resulting from these repair actions. The principle savings would
probably be decreased fuel consumption due to the greater engine efficiency
achieved through FVTM. Fuel savings are discussed below. The routine main-
tenance which all vehicles require for good operation may be deferred by the
owner for any vehicle which fails the inspection test and is serviced to
achieve compliance. This savings is difficult to quantitize and would be
applied equally to Idle and L. S. S. Therefore this savings will not be in-
cluded in the Idle or L. S. S. cost analysis of the Short Cycle Project.
In order to establish maintenance costs, a record of garage repair charges was
kept for all serviced vehicles in the test program. Costs were segregated
2-30
-------
according to program phase, test regime, and the five types of repair actions
described in paragraph 2.3.^.3. Vehicles with major mechanical failures were
exited without repair and the as^iciated costs were estimated from prevailing
charges for the type of repairs required. The maintenance costs were analyzed
and presented for first service and second service, and included the average
cost for each type of service action, the average cost per vehicle for the
serviced fleet, and the average cost per vehicle for the total vehicle fleet.
Cost analysis for the two phases are presented separately and in combination.
As part of the maintenance action analysis, certain repair actions were identi-
fied as being excessive. In these cases, the garage had performed repair work
in excess of that indicated by the inspection test results. Those costs which
could be identified as excessive were deducted from the actual cost calcula-
tions resulting in revised costs per vehicle. Maintenance cost was determined
as a function of inspection test rejection rate-for the same vehicles included
in the effectiveness analysis described in paragraph 2.3.3.2. Maintenance costs
were determined for those Idle and L. S. S. vehicles which did not fail cruise
modes as described in paragraph 2.3.3-3 (the analysis of Emission Reductions
Achieved by Correcting Only Idle System Malfunctions).
Fuel savings were estimated on the basis of measurements made during the simu-
lated 7-1/2 mile 1972 CVS dynamometer test runs on the dynamometer before and
after repair. Annual fuel savings were calculated from measured fuel con-
sumption W, based on 10,000 miles per year of driving and a price of kO$ per
gallon as shown below:
where:
C = AW . M . K . C
s e
C = fuel savings in dollars per year
s
AW = change in fuel consumption (pounds of fuel per mile)
M = miles driven per year = 10,000 miles (estimate)
K = gallons per pound fuel; constant =
C = cost of gasoline per gallon = $0.^0 (estimate)
o
These data show considerable inconsistencies, wherein fuel consumption does not
always decrease with decreased emissions. It is believed that the resolution
of the measurement technique was not great enough to accurately detect small
changes in fuel consumption. Therefore, the maintenance cost analysis is pre-
sented -without including these fuel savings.
2.3-5-S Total Program Cost - The results of the inspection program cost anal-
ysis and maintenance program cost analysis were combined to give the total
program cost of Idle and L.S.S. PVIM. Costs are presented in total dollars
and per vehicle. The total program cost is presented for Phase I and Phase II
separately. The total program cost is combined with the effectiveness analysis
in the cost effectiveness analysis as described below.
2-31
-------
2.3.6 Cost Effectiveness of Inspection and. Maintenance
This section relates the effectiveness measures described in paragraph oo
for each inspection and maintenance regime (idle and L.S.S.) with the cost
analyses, described in paragraph 2.3.5, for each regime. The cost effective-
ness analysis quantified in a single index the benefits obtained per unit cost.
As such, the cost effectiveness was able to make a better selection between
the two alternatives than just examining either cost or effectiveness alone.
The cost effectiveness analysis was presented in two formats: 1) fleet average
cost effectiveness and 2) the cost effectiveness index. Fleet average cost
effectiveness considered emission reductions and maintenance cost. The fleet
cost effectiveness was presented for several inspection test failure rates and
for those vehicles which failed only idle emission levels (the analysis of
Effectiveness of Correcting Idle Only Failures). The fleet average cost effec-
tiveness was presented using emission reductions and repair cost distributed
over all repaired vehicles in terms of emission reductions per repair cost
(gram per mile per dollar).
The cost effectiveness index combined the results of the effectiveness index
and total program cost for California and Michigan. The cost effectiveness
index combined all three pollutants according to the pollutant weighting
factors of the effectiveness index. The cost effectiveness index permitted
selection of the regime which was most cost effective at approximately a 30%
failure rate. Both actual repair costs and corrected repair costs (less
excess repairs) were presented. The cost effectiveness analysis was presented
in terms of annual emission reduction per net inspection and maintenance cost
(tons per year per dollar).
2.3.7 Relatability Analysis
This subsection describes the procedures used to evaluate results of various
short emission inspection tests against those obtained by using both the 1972
and 1975 CVS tests. The concept of relatability may be understood by realiz-
ing the statistics developed in this paragraph deal with measuring how well
any given short test might do in passing and failing the same vehicles which
would have passed and failed the 1975 CVS test. Emission data obtained from
the short tests were correlated against measurements taken by the CVS pro-
cedure. Regression coefficients, correlation coefficients, estimate of errors,
and confidence limits were computed for each short test with respect to the
CVS tests. Analyses were also conducted to determine the impact of expected
errors of commission caused by the Idle and L.S.S. tests.
2.3.7.1 Correlation and Regression Analysis - Ma thematic relatability was de-
fined by the regression coefficients. The regression coefficients described a
line representing a best fit through the set of paired short test and CVS
sample points. That is, given a short test measurement, the regression co-
efficients permit calculation of the most likely CVS measurement to be expected.
A least squares linear regression equation of the form y = a + bx was used.
The CVS measurements, y, may be "predicted"'given the short test measurements,
x, and a knowledge that when x is zero, y will be equal to some constant "a".
As x varies, y will vary by an amount proportional to b. Thus, the appropriate
regression equation will enable prediction of an expected value of the CVS pro-
cedure emissions from a measured short test emission value.
2-32
-------
For the multiple steady state speeds, such as KEY MODE, more than one inde-
pendent variable was involved. A standard stepwise multiple linear regression
computer program was used which generated an equation of the form:
y =
The program selected the optimum regression equation, i.e., the equation which
included as many steady state speeds (independent variables) as possible so
that more reliable expected CVS values could be computed (predicted). At the
same time, the program determined those speeds which did not significantly con-
tribute to predicting accurate CVS values and did not include them. At every
stage of the regression, the process examined the variables incorporated into
the model in the previous stage. A variable which may have been the best single
variable at an earlier stage may not now be significant due to the relationships
between it and other variables inserted into the regression equation. The
partial F criterion* for each variable in the regression at every stage of cal-
culation was evaluated and compared with a preselected percentage point of the
appropriate F distribution (90$ significance level). Any variable whose con-
tribution was no longer significant was removed from the model even if it had
previously been incorporated.
The correlation coefficient, also known as the coefficient of multiple regres-
sion (MR), indicated how much of the variations in short test values were also
present in the CVS procedure values. For example, if a correlation coefficient
was computed at 0.8, this indicates that (0.8)2 x 100$, or 6k%, of the vari-
ations exhibited by the given short test measurements were explainable in terms
of similar variations in the CVS measurements. When estimating the correlation
coefficient for the total population, some allowance must be made to account
for the random variations in vehicles. Therefore a 95$ confidence band (z),
in percent of MR, was computed for each correlation coefficient. The correla-
tion coefficient plus or minus Z percent of MR indicated quality of the pre-
diction of the CVS value from the inspection test measurements .
An important qualifier of the regression equation was the confidence which may
be placed in the coefficients of the equation. For example, if the intercept
"a" was computed to be 2.7, the degree that "a" varied about its computed
value because of the imperfect association between the variables should be
known. The same type of information concerning the slope "b" of the regres-
sion equation was also desirable. For purposes of this study, it was con-
sidered satisfactory to know the ranges in which a and b will fall in at least
90 percent of the cases (90 percent confidence interval). The confidence
intervals AL and BL presented in the Appendix represent the percentage vari-
ation above or below the estimated mean value for a and b, respectively.
*Partial F criterion: Utilizes the value of the partial F-ratio. If this
value is less than the preselected F value, the variable will be rejected
from the regression equation. For a more complete description of the Least
Squares Method of curve fitting, the reader may refer to Statistical Analysis
by Ya-Lun Chou, Holt, Rinehardt and Winston, New York, 1969, or other texts
on statistical analysis.
2-33
-------
Another qualifier computed for the regression equation was the standard error
of the estimated equation, SE, the square root of S2. SE is, an unbiased esti-
mator of the population standard deviation of regression and measures the
variability between the individually computed predicted CVS values (using the
regression equation) and associated actual CVS values.
In conducting the regression analysis for short emission test regimes, it was
assumed that a linear relationship existed between the two variables. To
perform the test for linearity of regression, the technique of analysis of
variance was used. The F-ratio was calculated using the mean square error due
to regression (MSR) and the SE of estimate. This parameter (p; was also tabu-
lated in Appendix C containing regression equations. In this study, an F-ratio
significance level of 0.95 was chosen. If the calculated value of F exceeds the
critical value 3-92, then the hypothesis of non-linearity is rejected, that is,
the variables exhibit a linear relationship. Confidence bands of the predicted
CVS test values were calculated from the regression equations.
The confidence bands shown in Figure 2-5 are non-linear (hyperbolic) because
the greater number of data points clustered about the mean allows assignment
of a smaller band for a given confidence than at the ends of the distribution.
The 90$ confidence band is interpreted to mean that no more than 10$ of the
predicted (or actual) data points will fall beyond the 90$ confidence band.
Assuming that the data is normally distributed, equal chances exist that any
one predicted CVS measurement will be either above or below the actual CVS
value; or above the upper or below the lower confidence bands. Three pairs of
confidence bands are shown: l) the 90$ confidence band of a single measure-
ment, 2) the 90$ confidence band of a fleet mean and 3) "the 95$ confidence
band of a fleet mean.
The regression and correlation analysis was performed on combined Phase I and
Phase II data for the vehicle fleets in California and Michigan separately
and in combination.
2.3.7-2 Errors of Commission Analysis - An error of commission was defined as
failing a vehicle and performing maintenance on the basis of a short emission
inspection test when it actually would have passed an equivalent limit if
tested by the 1972 or 1975 CVS procedure. Errors of commission are undesirable
in that they subject a vehicle to unnecessary maintenance thereby resulting in
minimal emission reductions. The following paragraphs describe the analytical
approach used to evaluate commission errors at failure rates from 10$ to 50$
for the Idle and L.S.S. PVIM regimes.
The "predicted" CVS values were computed using the appropriate short emission
inspection test vs CVS test regression equation. The vehicles were ranked by
predicted CVS value in order from highest to lowest emitter and partitioned
into decile groups, each representing 10$ of the fleet, from the highest
emitter down to the fiftieth percentile. The predicted CVS emission level
corresponding to L-0.01 gram per mile was then selected as the rejection limit
for that decile group where L was the predicted CVS emission level of the
lowest emitter in that decile group. The numerical value of L-0.01 was then
assigned as the equivalent actual CVS emissions, for the purpose of determining
errors of commission.
For the vehicles with predicted CVS emissions greater than L-0.01, commission
errors were those in which the actual CVS emission value was less than L-0.01
-------
REGRESSION LINE:
PREDICTED CVS
VS ACTUAL CVS
LOWER BOUNDS
(MEAN)
90%
95%
"90 "96
Figurt 2-5. Conf idwtM Bands of Predicted CVS Emmion Ltwk
ACTUAL CVS EMISSIONS
2-35
-------
for the rejection rerte being evaluated; i.e., any vehicle which was in the group
which required service while in fact it exhibited true CVS emissions less than
the mean predicted CVS value. At each percentile, commission errors were tabu-
lated as a percentage of the total vehicles inspected. Figure 2-6 illustrates
the process. Commission errors (CE) are shown in the upper left hand quadrant.
Valid failed (VF) are shown in the upper right hand quadrant. The vehicles
above the horizontal line are all failed vehicles according to the predicted
CVS data.
The procedure was followed separately for each state, for HC and CO emissions,
for the Idle and L.S.S. PVIM regimes and for controlled and uncontrolled
vehicles. 1975 CVS data are described in the results. 1972 CVS data are not
discussed but data are presented in Appendix C.
Regression Line
Predicted CVS
vs Actual CVS
Comission Errors
Valid Fails
Omission Errors
Valid Passes
Actual CVS Emission Level
Figure 2-6. Errors of Commission Analysis
2-36
-------
SECTION 3
PROGRAM RESULTS
This section presents and interprets the data generated during this project.
Subsections are included for the following topics:
• Test Fleet Statistics
• Emission Reductions from Inspection and Maintenance
• Maintenance Requirements and Actions
• Cost of Inspection and Maintenance
• Cost Effectiveness of Inspection and Maintenance
• Correlation and Relatability of Inspection Tests to
Federal Test Procedures
Data are presented for Phase I and Phase II separately, except for the Corre-
lation and Relatability Analysis which is presented only for the combined
Phase I and Phase II data.
This section is organized so that results and interpretation are grouped to-
gether in order to distinguish differences between:
• Idle and Loaded.'Steady State (L.S.S.)
• California and Michigan
• Phase I and Phase II
This organization provides a single topic in each paragraph. Some effects are
dependent on more than one of the above factors. Therefore, some results are
presented in more than one paragraph. Although creating some redundancy, this
organization permits complete interpretation for each of the above factors.
3-1 TEST FLEET STATISTICS
This subsection describes the test fleet composition and inspection failure rates,
and generally discusses several vehicle parameters which influence emissions
levels. The average emission data in terms of 1975 Federal CVS procedures are
presented for the Idle and L.S.S. test fleets. Statistical equivalence of the
Idle and L.S.S. test fleet emission was determined using the t-test and F-test.
3-1
-------
3.1.1 Test Fleet Vehicle Composition
Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show the number of vehicles in each major subfleet dis-
cussed, in this report. Each Idle and L.S.S. fleet in Phase I and II contain
75 vehicles except for the Phase I Idle and L.S.S. fleets in Michigan which
contained 7^ vehicles. The data for the missing vehicles were discarded due
to verified test errors.
The Idle and L.S.S. fleets were then divided into controlled and uncontrolled
vehicles "based upon mechanical inspection of the vehicle. In California the
controlled vehicle subfleet generally included 1966 to 1971 model year vehicles.
In Michigan the controlled vehicle subfleet generally included 1968 to 1971
model years. This was not always true, however, since some controlled 1966 -
1967 model year vehicles were found in Michigan and some uncontrolled 1966 -
1967 model year vehicles were found in California.
Failure limits were set to fail about 50$ of each Idle and L.S.S. fleet during
Phase I. During Phase II the limits were further adjusted to fail 50-60$ of
each controlled and uncontrolled vehicle subfleet. Table 3-1 presents the
failure rate in percent for each controlled and uncontrolled vehicle subfleet.
Phase I failure rates were generally lower than Phase II. Idle failure rates
were generally lower than L.S.S. failure rates in California, but higher than
L.S.S. failure rates in Michigan. During Phase II in California, more than
60/o of the Idle and L.S.S. fleets were failed. This resulted from tighter
rejection limits coupled with higher average emission levels than during Phase
I. The analysis of effectiveness, cost, and cost effectiveness were presented
for failure rates from 10$ to 50$. Because a failure rate of approximately 30$
was determined as optimum, the report generally discusses a 30$ failure rate
as discussed in Paragraph 2.5.
3.1.2 Dependence of Emissions on Vehicle Parameters
Several vehicle parameters were believed to influence emission levels: age,
accumulated miles, weight, engine size, emission control, and manufacturer.
These parameters, if not held constant for Idle and L.S.S., might confuse or
influence the analysis of Idle and L.S.S. differences. The Idle and L.S.S.
test fleets were selected so that differences in vehicles due to age, manu-
facturer and emission control system were minimized. The remaining factors
(weight, miles, and engine size) were controlled as much as possible by the
matching criteria for Idle and L.S.S. test fleets described in Paragraph 2.2.1.
After the test program the emission levels were analyzed to determine if they
were, in fact, dependent upon these factors. All of the data for Phase I and
Phase II were combined because these factors should be independent of the
inspection and maintenance regime and location.
Table 3-2 summarized the before and after service emission level trends.
Detailed emission tables are contained in Appendix B-l of the report. The
results may be summarized as follows for fleet average emission data before
service:
• No trend in emissions appeared dependent upon vehicle make except
that HC emissions were higher for the general class of "Imports"
than for domestic makes. Imports generally use it-cylinder engines
3-2
-------
Figure 3-1. Dlitrlbutlon of Ten Fleets - Phase I (30% Rejection Rate)
1
CONTROLLED
35
1
l~
FAILED
7
1
1
IDLE MODE
75
1
PASSED
28
UNCONTROLLED
40
1
FAILED
15
|
CALIFORNIA
160
PASSED
25
i
LOADED
STEADY STATE
75
CONTROLLED
38
1
r~^
FAILED
PASSED
30
UNCONTROLLED
37
1
1
FAILED
13
|
PASSED
24
CONTROLLED
36
FAILED
10
1
IDLE MODE
74
PASSED
26
UNCONTROLLED
38
FAILED
14
MICHIGAN
148
PASSED
24
I
1
LOADED
STEADY STATE
74
1
1 1
CONTROLLED UNCONTROLLED
34 40
1 1
1 1 1
FAILED PASSED FAILED PASSED
8 26 17 23
Figure 3-2. Distribution of Ten Fleets - Phiie II 130% Rejection Rate)
1
CONTROLLED
36
1
IDLE MODE
75
1
I
UNCONTROLLED
40
1
CALIFORNIA
150
1
1
CONTROLLED
37
1
LOADED
STEADY STATE
75
1
1
UNCONTROLLED
38
1
CONTROLLED
35
1
IDLE MODE
76
1
1
UNCONTROLLED
40
1
MICHIGAN
ISO
1
1
CONTROLLED
36
1
LOADED
STEADY STATE
75
1
1
UNCONTROLLED
39
1 1 1 1
FAILED
8
PASSED
27
FAILED
19
PASSED
21
1 1 1
g
PASSED
28
20
1 1 1
PASSED
16
FAILED
10
PASSED
25
I
FAILED
13
1
PASSED
1
FAILED
11
1
PASSED
|
FAILED
12
1
PASSED
-------
Table 3-1
INSPECTION TEST FAILURE RATES
Percent of Inspected Vehicles
p
B
N
s
i
s
s
ra
H
CQ
i
1
a
•^.
6
CO
PHASE I
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
PHASE II
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
PHASE I
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
PHASE II
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
California
Idle
20
40
31
49
65
57
20
38
29
23
48
36
L.S.S.
53
46
49
51
76
64
21
35
28
24
53
39
Michigan
Idle
43
41
42
57
60
59
28
37
32
29
33
31
L.S.S.
38
49
44
50
59
55
27
^3
34
31
31
31
Combined
Idle
31
41
36
53
63
58
24
37
31
26
40
33
L.S.S.
46
47
47
51
68
59
22
39
31
27
42
35
3-4
-------
Table 3-2
GENERAL TRENDS IN MASS EMISSIONS
PARAMETERS
Vehicle Age
Accumulated Mileage
Vehicle Make
Emission Control
Vehicle Weight
BEFORE SERVICE
HC
SI
I
Nl
2
I
CO
I
I
N
2
I
NOX
D
D
N
2
I
AFTER SERVICE
HC
I
I
N
3
I
CO
I
I
N
3
I
NOX
D
SD
N
3
I
I = increasing emissions with increased value of parameter
D = decreasing emissions with increased value of parameter
N = no trend in emissions with increased value of parameter
S = sight trend in emissions with increased value of parameter, i.e., SI = slight
increase '
1 = imports tended to have higher emissions of HC than domestics
2 = crankcase only had highest HC and CO and lowest NOX. Air injected vehicles
had higher HC than engine modification vehicles but equal CO and NOX
3 = crankcase only had highest HC and CO and lowest NOX. Air injected vehicles
had equal HC and equal or lower CO and NOX than engine modification vehicles.
3-5
-------
while domestic makes use 6 and 8-cylinder engines almost
exclusively. There were also considerable differences in
HC and CO emissions between vehicles manufactured by dif-
ferent divisions of a single manufacturer.
• Increased mileage exhibited a consistent trend to increase
HC and CO emissions. This result would be expected and
represents wear and deterioration. NO tended to decrease
slightly with increased mileage.
• Increased vehicle age (represented by model year) exhibited a
consistent trend to increase HC and CO emissions and decrease
NO emissions. These trends are consistent with those for
increased mileage. Increased mileage and age are mutually
related variables.
• Increased vehicle weight exhibited a consistent trend to
increase HC, CO and NO •
' x
• Engine size was not evaluated since it is related to vehicle
weight and cannot be isolated as an independent variable.
• Exhaust emissions of HC and CO were slightly higher for crank-
case device 'equipped vehicles than uncontrolled vehicles and
considerably higher than exhaust emission controlled vehicles.
NO emissions were higher for controlled vehicles than un-
controlled and crankcase controlled vehicles.
• Vehicles equipped with air injection systems (found predom-
inately in California) had higher emissions of HC than engine
modification systems but generally equal emissions of CO and
NO .
x
The above trends were also apparent after maintenance independent of PVIM
procedures. Both maintenance procedures reduced scatter in the data making the
trends more apparent.
Based upon these results, it was determined to group totally uncontrolled
vehicles and crankcase device equipped vehicles into one class termed "Un-
controlled Vehicles". In a similar manner, the air injection system equipped
vehicles and engine modification device equipped vehicles were grouped into one
class termed "Controlled Vehicles". Since no dependence of emissions on vehicle
make was determined, the effectiveness index grouped vehicles only by vehicle
age. Because the emissions did depend upon age, weight, and mileage, vehicle
procurement practices in the future should minimize differences in these factors
by matching vehicles as was done in this project.
3.1.3 Test Fleet Emission Levels
This paragraph presents summary emission data for before service, after service,
and after second service for each of the following groups:
3-6
-------
• All vehicles - Table 3-3
• Serviced vehicles only - Table 3-4
• Controlled vehicles only - Table 3-5
• Uncontrolled vehicles only - Table 3-6
These tables contain data for Phase I and II separately. Tables 3-3» 3-5> and
3-6 reflect approximately an overall 30$ failure rate, although the actual
failure rates are shown in Table 3-1 for each subfleet.
Table 3-3 presents the emission levels for all vehicles in the Idle and L.S.S.
fleets. In general, the emissions in Michigan and California are similar,
although Phase II emissions tended to be higher than Phase I emissions in both
Michigan and California. The standard deviation of emissions before maintenance
tended to equal or exceed the mean value for HC and CO. After maintenance, the
standard deviation vas considerably less than the after service mean. Second
service resulted in slightly lower mean emissions than first service.
Table 3-4 presents the emission levels for the serviced vehicles only. Combined
Phase I emissions were generally lower than combined Phase II before maintenance.
Standard deviations of HC were equal to the mean value before service while
standard deviations of CO and NOX were generally 50-70$ of mean emissions. After
service, the standard deviation of HC emission generally was reduced to 50-70$
of the mean while standard deviations of CO and NOX were not changed appreciably.
Second service provided large emission reduction only for the Phase II Idle
fleet in Michigan where HC emissions were reduced from 9-6 grams per mile after
first service to 7«1 grams per mile after second service. The reduction was
attributable to additional maintenance on uncontrolled Idle vehicles.
Table 3-5 shows the emission levels of controlled vehicles only. Controlled
vehicles exhibited similar emission levels in California and Michigan although
Phase II emission means tended to be higher than in Phase I. Standard devia-
tions tended to be about half of the mean value both before and after mainte-
nance. Second service was not effective in reducing emissions more than first
service in any case. Typical before service emission levels of controlled
vehicles were 4.5 to 5-0 grams per mile for HC, 60 grams per mile for CO and
4.0 to 4.5 grams per mile NOX. California NOX data for Phase I were unusually
low (3 grams per mile).
Table 3-6 shows the emission levels of uncontrolled vehicles only. Uncontrolled
vehicles in California had slightly lower emissions than in Michigan for Phase I
while in Phase II, emission levels in Michigan were lower than in California.
Overall, the mean emissions before service were 8.0 grams per mile for HC, 90
grams per mile for CO and 3-0 grams per mile for NOX in Phase I. In Phase II,
mean emissions before service were 10 to 11 grams per mile HC, 110 to 115 grams
per mile CO, and 3-0 grams per mile NOX. NOX data in California during both
phases were lower than in Michigan. Before service standard deviations of HC
were generally less than the mean value during Phase I and equal to the mean in
Phase II. Standard deviations of CO and NOX were generally 50 - 60$ of the mean
before and after service. Second service was effective in creating additional
emission reduction only for Phase II HC emissions of the Michigan Idle fleet.
3-7
-------
Table 3-3
EMISSION LEVELS FOR ALL VEHICLES
1975 CVS Data
PHASE I
California
Idle
L«o • S •
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined.
Idle
L.S.S.
PHASE II
California
Idle
L.S .S «
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
Wo.
of
Cars
150
75
75
148
74
74
298
149
149
150
75
75
150
75
75
300
150
150
HYDROCARBONS (gin/mile)
Before
M
5.9
6.3
6.7
6.6
6.3
6.4
7-9
8.8
8.6
6.7
8.2
7.8
a
5-7
5-1
5.5
5-5
5.6
5-3
8.4
11.7
9.2
7.0
8.8
9-7
After Service
First
H
5.0
5.0
5.2
5-3
5-1
5-1
6.0
5-2
7.2
5-2
6.6
5-2
cr
3-9
3-6
3-5
3-1
3-7
3.4
4.7
2.5
7-7
2.2
6.4
2.4
Second
M
5-0
5.0
5-2
5.3
5-1
5-1
6.0
5-2
6.4
5.1
6.2
5.2
cr
3-9
3-6
3-5
3.1
3-7
3-2
4.7
2.5
4.4
2.2
4.6
2.4
CARBON MONOXIDE (m/mile)
Before
I*
65.3
72.2
84.6
78.0
74.9
75-0
93-0
96.2
86.2
85.8
89.6
91.0
a
43-7
44.6
55-9
49.1
50.9
46.8
51.4
66.1
42.9
41.8
47-3
55-4
After Service
First
M
55-5
65.6
66.9
62.0
6l.l
63.8
80.2
71.3
73-7
72.2
76.9
71-7
cr
34.5
42.0
35.0
34.7
35.1
38.4
41.6
39-0
39-4
36.1
40.5
37-4
Second
/*
55-5
64.2
66.4
61.9
60.9
63.1
80.0
70.7
73.7
71.0
76.9
70.8
cr
34.5
39-7
34.8
34.8
35-0
37.2
4l.8
39.1
39.1
36.1
40.5
37-5
OXIDES OF NITROGEN fern/mile)
Before
M
2.6
2.6
4.0
4.2
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.1
4.1
4.0
3-7
3.5
0"
1.5
1-5
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.7
1-7
After Servl ce
First
/"•
2.6
2,6
4.1
4.1
3-3
3.3
3.3
3-3
4.3
4.0
3.8
3.6
cr
1.4
1.5
2.0
1-9
1.9
1.9
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
1.6
Second
M
2.6
2.6
4.1
4.2
3-3
3.4
3.1
3-3
4.3
4.0
3.8
3-6
(7
1.4
1.5
2.0
1-9
1.9
1.8
1.6
1-5
1.7
1.5
1.7
1-5
(JO
co
-------
Table 3-4
EMISSION LEVELS FOR SERVICED VEHICLES ONLY
1975 CVS Data
PHASE I
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S • S •
Combined
Idle
Jj*D *D •
PHASE II
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L • O • D •
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
No.
of
Cars
^3
22
21
50
24
26
93
k6
47
55
26
29
44
22
22
99
48
51
HYDROCA
Before
V
8.5
10.0
9-2
10.3
8.9
10.2
13-2
15-5
14.3
10.3
13-7
13-3
a
7-4
6.1
7.1
7-5
7-1
6.9
12.5
16.8
1^-5
11.9
13-3
15.0
^ONS (gm/mile)
After
First
M
5.4
5.4
4.4
6.5
^.9
6.0
7.7
6.2
9.6
5.2
8.6
5.8
a
2.3
2.9
1.6
4.2
2.0
3-7
7.2
3-3
12.9
2.1
10.1
2.9
Service
Second
M
5.4
5-3
4.4
6.5
4.9
5-9
7-8
6.2
7-1
4.8
7-5
5-6
CT
2.3
2.8
1-7
4.2
2.0
3-6
7.2
3-3
5-6
2.1
6.5
2.9
CARBON MONOXIDE (ran/mile)
Before
M
96.3
98.7
116.4
112.4
106.8
106.3
124.9
138.3
107.1
108.4
116.7
125.4
a
46.0
49-8
77-2
50.1
64.3
49.9
60.0
82.3
38.9
4o.i
51-7
68.5
After Sei
First
. V-
62.6
75-1
61.9
67.0
62.2
70.6
87.9
73-7
64.5
61.8
77-2
68.6
a
30.1
50-3
38.2
29.0
34.2
39-6
49.5
47.0
31-9
25-3
43.5
39-2
'vice
Second
H
62.6
70.3
60.3
66.7
6l.4
68.3
87-5
72.1
64.4
57.8
76.9
65.9
a
30.1
43.8
37-3
29-5
33.7
36.2
49.9
47.4
30.5
23.6
43-3
39-3
OXIDES OF 1
Before
M
2.3
2.0
3-7
3-4
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.5
4.0
3.5
3.3
2.9
a
1.9
1.3
1.8
1.7
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.8
1.9
1.4
1.8
1.7
^TROGEN fern/mile )
After ,
First
V-
2.3
1-9
4.1
3.4
3.2
2.7
2.5
3.0
^•7
3-7
3.5
3-3
a
1.6
1.4
2.0
1.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
1.5
2.0
1.4
1.9
1.5
pervice
Second
^ o
2.3 1.6
1.9 1.4
4.1 1.9
3.4 1.4
3-3 2.0
2.7 1.6
2.5 1.2
3.0 1.5
4.7 2.0
3.7 1.3
3-5 1-9
3.3 1.4
U)
-------
Table 3-5
EMISSION LEVELS FOR CONTROLLED VEHICLES ONLY
1975 CVS Data
PHASE I
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
PHASE II
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L»S »S .
No.
of
Car
73
35
38
70
36
34
1*3
71
72
72
35
37
71
35
36
1*3
70
73
HYDROCARBONS (gm/mile)
Before
P
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.1
5-7
5-2
4.6
4.7
5-1
a
5-0
3.6
2.0
2.1
3.8
3-0
1.5
5.8
3-1
2.2
2.4
4.4
After Service
First
f*
3.*
3.6
3-8
4.0
3-6
3-8
3-9
3.8
4.7
4.3
4.3
4.1
a
2.0
1.6
1.6
1-5
1.8
1.6
1.3
1.3
2.8
1.9
2.2
1.7
Second
M
3-4
3.6
3-9
4.0
3.6
3.8
3-9
3.8
4.7
4.1
4.3
4.0
a
2.0
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.8
1.6
1.3
1.3
2.8
1.8
2.2
1.6
CARBON
Before
, M
53.4
59-7
65.3
59-7
59-4
59-7
63.5
66.8
62.3
70.5
62.9
68.6
a
33.2
34.3
40.5
48.2
37.3
4l.l
33.0
40.9
32.3
40.4
32.4
40.4
VIONOXIDE (ran/mile)
After Service
First
\i
47-7
55-9
52.7
45.8
50.3
51.1
56.8
54.8
51.5
62.4
54.1
58.5
a
28.1
36.7
37.4
26.0
33.0
32.3
31.1
29.7
29.2
40.9
30.1
35.6
Secc
H
47-7
55-9
51.7
45.8
49-7
51-1
56.7
54.8
51-5
60.8
54.1
57.8
>nd
CT
28.1
36.7
36.6
26.0
32.5
32.3
31.2
29.7
29.2
39.7
30.1
34.9
OXIDES OF NITROGEN (sin/mile)
Before
H
2.8
2.9
5-0
5-2
3.9
4.0
4.3
3.7
4.7
4.4
4.5
4.0
a
1.3
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.9
2.0
1.4
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.6
After Service
First Second
^
2.7
2.8
5.0
5-1
3.9
3-9
4.3
3-8
5.2
4.3
4.7
4.0
a
1-3
1.6
2.0
1.7
2.0
2.0
1.4
1.5
1.7
1-5
1.6
1.5
V-
2.7
2.8
5.0
5.1
3-9
3-9
4,3
3.8
5.2
4.3
4.7
4.0
a
1.3
1.6
1.9
1.7
2.0
2.0
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.4
1.6
1.5
H
O
-------
Table 3-6
EMISSION LEVELS FOR UNCONTROLLED VEHICLES ONLY
1975 CVS Data
Vehicle
Fleet
PHASE I
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
PHASE II
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
No.
of
Cars
77
40
37
78
38
40
155
78
77
78
40
38
79
40
39
157
80
77
Hydrocarbons (gm/mile)
Before
u
7.2
8.1
8.7
8.4
7.9
8.2
11.2
11.9
11.5
8.7
11.4
10.3
cr
6.0
5.8
6.9
6.7
6.4
6.2
10.5
14.9
11.5
9.1
10.9
12.3
After Service
First
H
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
7.9
6.6
9.4
6.1
8.6
6.3
CT
4.6
4.5
3.7
4.5
4.1
5.7
2.7
9.8
2.1
8.0
2.4
Second
H
6.4
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.3
7.9
6.6
8.0
6.0
8.0
6.3
-------
Based on the sample sizes and variances (standard deviation squared), Figures
3_3} 3_4 and 3-5 present 95% confidence intervals about the before and after-
second-service HC, CO and NOX mean emissions when Phase I and II data were
projected to a large (state) population. The purpose here was to graphically
bound the population means which might be expected to occur in a large scale
inspection and maintenance program.
In the case of HL.S.S.) and
Phase II (KL.S.S.)
Combined states controlled vehicles in Phase I (I>L.S.S.)
California uncontrolled vehicles and all vehicles in
Phase II (KL.S.S.)
Michigan controlled vehicles and all vehicles in
Phase II (I>L.S.S.)
Combined states all vehicles in Phase II (KL.S.S.)
3-12
-------
CALIFORNIA AND MICHIGAN 1975 CVS DATA
PHASE 1
ALL
VEHICLES
PHASE II
PHASE 1
SERVICED
VEHICLES
ONLY
PHASE II
PHASE 1
CONTROLLED
VEHICLES
ONLY
PHASE II
PHASE 1
UNCONTROLLED
VEHICLES
ONLY
PHASE II
C
^^^^^^^^ B
1 ™"A| 1 1 1
-" "I_ • —
— • , _• ,'*"
••A
^•1 A
^•B A
1 1 1 1 1
-- ^^^'
1 1 1 1 1 1 X
1 2 4 6 8 10 12 1
MEAN EMISSIONS - HC (GM/MILE)
B - BEFORE SERVICE
A - AFTER SERVICE
Fiflura 3-3.16% Confidence Intermit of HC Before and After Service Fleet Meent
3-13
-------
CALIFORNIA AND MICHIGAN 1975 CVS DATA
PHASE I
ALL
VEHICLES
PHASE II
PHASE I
SERVICED
VEHICLES
ONLY
PHASE II
PHASE I
CONTROLLED
VEHICLES
ONLY
PHASE II
PHASE I
UNCONTROLLED
VEHICLES
ONLY
PHASE II
-IDLE
- LSS
-IDLE
- LSS
-IDLE
- LSS.
-IDLE
- LSS
-IDLE
- LSS
-IDLE
- LSS
-IDLE
- LSS
-IDLE
- LSS
0 20
B - BEFORE SERVICE
A - AFTER SERVICE
J L
_L
_L
40 60 80
MEAN EMISSIONS - CO (GM/MILE)
100
120
Ffeir* 3-4. W% ConfMMC« Interval* of CO Mora and After S«rvic« Flwt Muni
3-14
140
-------
PHASE I
ALL
VEHICLES
PHASE II
-IDLE
-LSS
- IDLE
- LSS
CALIF
SERVICED
VEHICLES
ONLY
PHASE I
— IDLE
- LSS
— IDLE
— LSS
CALIF
CONTROLLED
VEHICLES
ONLY
PHASE II
PHASE I
UNCONTROLLED
VEHICLES
ONLY
PHASE I
- IDLE
-LSS
— IDLE
- LSS
-IDLE
-LSS
— IDLE
- LSS
CALIFORNIA AND MICHIGAN 1975 CVS DATA
A AFTER SERVICE
B BEFORE SERVICE
I
B
A
I B
I A
B
• A.
I B
I A
|B
I A
I
234
MEAN EMISSIONS - NOX (GM/MILE)
Figure 3-5. 95% Confidence Intervals of NOX Before and After Service Fleet Means
3-15
-------
• CO Michigan serviced vehicles and uncontrolled vehicles in Phase I
(I >L.S.S.)
California uncontrolled vehicles and all vehicles in Phase II
(KL.S.S.)
Combined states serviced vehicles and all vehicles in Phase II
(KL.S.S.)
• NO California serviced vehicles (KL.S.S.) and controlled vehicles
X (I>L.S.S.) in Phase I.
In general, the fleet with higher variance contained a few more high emitters
than the comparison fleet. Because of this, the fleet with the higher variance
had a higher potential reduction than the comparison fleet and a larger emis-
sion reduction could be expected even if the mean values were equivalent.
The emission reductions generally followed the above trends since fleets with
higher variance achieved the higher emission reduction.
3.1.4.2 Equivalence of California and Michigan - The Idle and L.S.S. fleets
in California were compared with their counterparts in Michigan. This analysis
does not affect the evaluation of PVIM regime effectiveness. It does, however,
establish if emission levels of in-service vehicles were different in Cali-
fornia and Michigan.
Mean emission levels before service of HC and CO were found to be statistically
equivalent in California and Michigan during Phase I and Phase II except as
follows:
• HC Phase II L.S.S. California controlled vehicle emissions were
lower than in Michigan.
• CO Phase I Idle California uncontrolled vehicles were lower than
in Michigan resulting in all vehicles also being lower.
• CO Phase II L.S.S. California serviced vehicles and uncontrolled
vehicles emissions higher than in Michigan.
• N0x Phases I and II California emissions were lower than in Michigan.
Variances in emission levels before service were found not to be statistically
equivalent. During Phase I, California variances of HC were greater than in
Michigan while California CO variances were less than in Michigan. During
Phase II, California variances of HC and CO emissions were greater than in
Michigan.
The above results suggest that emission reductions in Phase I might be fairly
uniform but that in Phase II, greater reductions of HC and CO could be
expected in California than in Michigan. These results were obtained as
shown in Section 3«2.
3.1-^.3 Equivalence of Phase I and Phase II - The test data for Idle and L.S.S.
test fleets in California and Michigan were examined to determine if there
were statistically significant differences in Phase I and Phase JI emission
3-16
-------
data. In California, Phase II emission levels were kofi higher for HC and CO
and 30$ higher for NOX and statistically unequal while CO and NOX means were
not equivalent. In Michigan, Phase I and Phase II emission means were
statistically equivalent for HC, CO and NO •
Variance of HC and CO were generally not statistically equivalent between
Phase I and Phase II. Phase II variances were usually higher than in Phase I
and were greater than the mean value in many cases. NOX variances were
generally statistically equivalent.
Because of these differences, larger emission reductions o.f HC and CO would be
expected during Phase II than Phase I in California, while in Michigan the
emissions reductions in Phase I and Phase II should be equivalent. These
results did occur, as shown in section 3.2.
3-17
-------
3-2 EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
This subsection describes the emission reductions obtained from Idle and L.S.S.
PVTM. Tests of statistical significance were applied to determine if the
reductions are statistically significant, and if so, which regime was statis-
tically superior in reducing emissions. Emission reductions for inspection
test failure rates of 10$ to 50$ were determined. Emission reductions achieved
by correcting only idle emission failures are discussed. The effectiveness
index for the first year concludes Section 3-2.
3.2.1 Test Fleet Emission Reductions
This paragraph presents the test fleet emission reductions in grams per mile
and percent derived from Tables 3-3 through 3'6- These reductions represent
approximately a 30$ failure rate for each test fleet,as shown in Table 3-1-
Data is presented for the following groups:
All vehicles - Table 3-7
Service vehicles only - Table 3-8
Uncontrolled vehicles only - Table 3~9
Controlled vehicles only - Table 3~10
Table 3-7 presents emission reductions for all vehicles. Emission reductions
were generally higher during Phase II than Phase I in California but equal for
both Phases in Michigan. Reductions for the Idle fleet were around l.U grams
per mile HC and 13 grpms per mile CO. Reductions for the L.S.S. fleet were
1.3 grams per mile HC and 10 to 15 grams per mile CO in Phase I. During
Phase II, L.S.S. reductions were 3-6 grams per mile HC and 26 grains per mile
CO in California. The increase in effectiveness in California was due in
part to improved garage performance and higher before—service emissions of
the vehicles. In Michigan, the L.S.S. before—service emissions and emission
reductions were not significantly different in Phase I and II.
Table 3-8 shows the emission reductions for the serviced vehicles only.
Typical reductions for Idle and Phase I L.S.S. were k-.O to 5.0 grams per mile
HC, and 30 to 50 grams per mile CO. These reductions represented kO% to 50$
reductions of HC and CO for the serviced vehicles. Average reductions for
Phase II L.S.S. were 7-7 grams per mile HC and 60 grams per mile CO.
Table 3-9 presents emission reductions for controlled vehicles only. These
vehicles exhibited relatively low reductions due to fairly small reductions on
each serviced vehicle and the lower overall failure rates for controlled
vehicles. Typical reductions were 1.0 gram per mile HC and 10 to 15 grams
per mile CO for both Idle and L.S.S. These reductions represent 10$ to 20$
reductions of HC and CO in the total controlled vehicle fleet and 30$ to 40$
reductions for the serviced controlled vehicle fleet.
3-18
-------
Table 3-7
EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR ALL VEHICLES
1975 CVS Data
Vehicle
Fleet
PHASE I
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
PHASE II
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
No.
of
Cars
150
75
75
148
74
74
298
149
149
150
75
75
150
75
75
300
150
150
Hydrocarbons
Service Action
First
gtn/mi
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.9
3.6
1.4
1.5
1.6
2.6
%
15.3
20.6
22.4
20.0
19.0
20.3
24.1
40.9
16.3
22.4
19.5
33.3
Second
gm/mi
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.9
3.6
2.2
1.6
1.6
2.6
%
15.3
20.6
22.4
20.0
19.0
20.3
24.1
40.9
25.6
23.9
24.4
33.3
Carbon Monoxide
Service Action
First
gm/mi
9.8
6.6
17.7
16.0
13.8
11.2
12.8
24.9
12.5
13.6
12.7
19.3
%
15.0
9.1
20.9
20.5
18.4
14.9
13.8
25.9
14.5
15.9
14.2
21.2
Second
gm/mi
9.8
8.0
18.1
16.1
14.0
11.9
13.0
25.5
12.5
14.8
12.7
20.2
%
15.0
11.1
21.5
20.6
18.7
15.9
14.0
26.5
14.5
17.2
14.2
22.2
Oxides of Nitrogen
Service Action
First
gm/mi
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
-0.2
-0.2
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
70
0.0
o.o'
-2.5
2.4
0.0
2.9
2.9
-6.5
-4.9
0.0
-2.7
-2.9
Second
gm/mi
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
-0.2
-0.2
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
%
0.0
0.0
.-2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
-6.5
-4.9
0.0
-2.7
-2.9
-------
Table 3-8
EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR SERVICED VEHICLES ONLY
1975 CVS Data
Vehicle
Fleet
PHASE I
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
PHASE II
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
No.
of
Cars
43
22
21
50
24
26
93
46
47
55
26
29
44
22
22
99
48
51
Hydrocarbons
Service Action
First
gm/mi
3.1
4.6
4.8
3.8
4.0
4.2
5.5
9.3
4.7
5.1
.5.1
7.5
%
36.5
46.0
52.2
36.9
44.9
41.2
41.7
60.0
32.9
49.5
37.2
56.4
Second
gm/mi
3.1
4.7
4.8
3.8
4.0
4.3
5.4
9.3
7.2
5.5
6.2
7.7
%
36.5
47.0
52.2
36.9
44.9
42.2
40.9
60.0
50.3
53.4
45.3
57.9
Carbon Monoxide
Service Action
First
gm/mi
33.7
23.6
54.5
45.4
44.6
35.7
37.0
64.6
42.6
46.6
39.5
56.8
%
35.0
23.9
46.8
40.4
41.8
33.6
29.6
46.7
39.8
43.0
33.8
56.8
Second
gm/mi
33.7
28.4
56.1
45.7
45.4
38.0
37.4
66.2
42.7
50.6
39.8
59.5
%
35.0
28.8
48.2
40.7
42.5
35.7
29.9
47.9
39.9
46.7
34.1
47.4
Oxides of Nitrogen
Service Action
First
gm/mi
0.0
0.1
-0.4
0.0
-0.2
0.1
0.1
-0.5
-0.7
-0.2
-0.2
-0.4
%
0.0
5.0
-10.8
0.0
-6.7
3.6
3.8
-20.0
-17.5
-5.7
-6.1
-13.8
Second
gm/mi
0.0
0.1
-0.4
0.0
-0.3
0.1
0.1
-0.5
-0.7
-0.2
-0.2
-0.4
%
0.0
5.0
-10.8
0.0
-9.1
3.6
3.8
-20.0
-17.5
-5.7
-6.1
-13.8
-------
Table 3-9
EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR CONTROLLED VEHICLES ONLY
1975 CVS Data
Vehicle
Fleet
PHASE I
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
PHASE II
California
Idle
L» S • S •
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
No.
of
Cars
73
35
38
70
36
34
143
71
72
72
35
37
71
35
36
143
70
73
Hydrocarbons
Service Action
First
gm/mi
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.2
1.9
0.5
0.3
0.4
1.0
%
22.7
20.0
17.4
13.0
20.0
15.6
4.9
33.3
9.6
6.5
8.5
19.6
Second
gm/mi
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.2
1.9
0.5
0.5
0.4
1.1
%
22.7
20.0
15.2
13.0
20.0
15.6
4.9
33.3
9.6
10.9
8.5
21.6
Carbon Monoxide
Service Action
First
gm/mi
5.7
3.8
12.6
13.9
9.1
8.6
6.7
12.0
10.8
8.1
8.8
10.1
7.
10.7
6.4
19.3
23.3
15.3
14.4
11.8
18.0
16.5
11.5
14.0
14.7
Second
gm/mi
5.7
3.8
13.6
13.9
9.7
8.6
6.8
12.0
10.8
9.7
8.8
10.8
%
10.7
6.4
22.9
23.3
16.3
14.4
10.7
18.0
16.5
13.8
14.0
15.7
Oxides of Nitrogen
Service Action
First
gm/mi
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.5
0.1
0.2
0.0
7=
3.6
3.4
0.0
1.9
0.0
2.5
0.0
2.7
-10.6
2.3
-4.4
0.0
Second
gm/mi
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
-0.5
0.1
0.2
0.0
%
3.6
3.4
0.0
1.9
0.0
2.5
0.0
-2.7
-10.6
2.3
-4.4
0.0
I
NJ
-------
TABLE 3-10
EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR UNCONTROLLED VEHICLES ONLY
1975 CVS Data
Vehicle
Fleet
PHASE I
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
PHASE II
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
No.
of
Cars
77
40
37
78
38
40
155
78
77
78
40
38
79
40
39
157
80
77
Hydrocarbons
Service Action
First
gtn/mi
0.8
1.7
2.3
2.0
1.5
1.8
3.3
5.3
2.1
2.6
2.8
4.0
%
11.1
21.0
26.4
23.8
19.0
22.0
29.5
44.5
18.3
30.0
24.6
38.8
Second
gm/mi
0.8
1.8
2.3
2.1
1.5
1.9
3.3
5.3
3.5
2.7
3.4
4.0
%
11.1
22.2
26.4
25.0
19.0
23.2
29.5
44.5
30.4
31.0
29.8
38.8
Carbon Monoxide
Service Action
First
gm/mi
13.6
9.4
22.5
17.7
17.9
13.7
18.3
37.6
13.9
18.7
16.1
28.1
%
17.9
11.1
21.9
18.9
19.0
15.3
15.4
30.1
13.0
18.7
14.2
25.0
Second
gm/mi
13.6
12.1
22.5
17.9
17.9
15.2
18.4
38.8
14.0
19.6
16.2
29.1
%
17.9
14.3
21.9
19.1
19.0
17.0
15.9
31.1
13.1
19.6
14.3
25.9
Oxides of Nitrogen
Service Action
First
gm/mi
0.0
0.0
-0.2
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.1
-0.4
0.0
-D.r
0.0
-0.3
%
0.0
0.0
-6.7
0.0
-3.7
0.0
3.8
-16.7
0.0
-2.8
0.0
-10.0
Second
gm/mi
0.0
0.0
-0.2
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
0.1
-0.4
-0.1
-0.2
0.0
-0.3
%
0.0
0.0
-6.7
0.0
-3.7
-3.6
3.8
-16.7
-2.9
-5.6
0.0
-10.0
ro
i-o
-------
Table 3-10 presents the emission reductions for uncontrolled vehicles only.
Typical reductions were 2.0 to 3-0 grams per mile HC and 20 to 30 grams per
mile CO. These reductions represented 10$ to 30$ reductions of HC and CO for
the total uncontrolled vehicle fleet and 40$ to 60$ reductions of HC and CO
for the serviced uncontrolled vehicle fleet. The uncontrolled vehicles were
also responsible for the increase in NOX emissions from the California L.S.S.
fleet in Phase II. The increase accompanied the unusually large reductions
of HC and CO.
3-2.2 Tests of Significance of Emission Reduction
This paragraph addresses the statistical significance of the emission reduc-
tions presented in the preceding section. The t-test was applied at the 90$
significance level to determine if significant differences existed in the
before and after—service emission data mean values. If significant difference
existed, the analysis of covariance was applied at the 90$ significance level
to determine whether Idle of L.S.S. provided statistically greater emission
reductions. The results of this analysis were presented for reductions
obtained from first service data in Table 3-11. The following paragraphs
discuss the results of these analyses.
3-2.2.1 Significant Differences in Idle and L.S.S. Emission Reductions
Both Idle and L.S.S. resulted in statistically significant reductions of HC
and CO for the serviced vehicles and no statistically significant increase
in NOX. For the other three groups, however, Idle did not achieve statis-
tically significant emission reductions in all cases. These were predominately
in the Michigan test fleets. L.S.S. also did not always achieve statistically
significant reductions in the controlled vehicle test fleets.
When subjected to the analysis of covariance, Idle achieved statistically
larger reductions of HC than L.S.S. for serviced vehicles in Michigan during
Phase I. L.S.S, achieved statistically larger emission reduction than Idle
in several California cases during Phase II. In some cases, the covariance
analysis established that Idle and L.S.S. were equally effective, i.e., had
equal reductions; but the t-test indicated that only one achieved statis-
tically significant emission reductions. In these cases, the regime which
provided the statistically significant reduction was indicated. In cases
where neither Idle nor L.S.S. statistically changed the mean value, the
result of the covariance analysis was ignored.
The effectiveness of second service was examined by the t-test and analysis of
covariance for those cases in which first service did not reduce emissions with
statistical significance. Second service did not result in statistically sig-
nificant changes from first service emission levels. However, the following
statistically insignificant emission reductions after first service became
statistically significant reductions after second service:
Phase I
California L.S.S. - CO: serviced cars
Michigan L.S.S. - HC: uncontrolled cars
3-23
-------
Table 3-11
TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER FIRST SERVICE
95% Level of Confidence
1975 CVS Data
Vehicle Fleet
*A11 Vehicles
Phase I
Phase II
Serviced Vehicles Only
Phase I
Phase II
*Controlled Vehicles Only
Phase I
Phase II
*Uncontrolled Vehicles Only
Phase I
Phase II
California
HC
1
B
B
B
N
1
N
B
CO
N
L
i
L
N
N
N
L
NO
X
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Michigan
HC
B
1
I
1
i
N
i
1
CO
B
B
B
B
N
N
B
1
NO
X
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Combined
HC
B
L
B
L
B
1
«
B
L
CO
B
L
B
L
N
i
B
L
NO
X
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
*Approximately 30% of test fleets failed. Analysis of covariance statistically compen-
sated for different means, variances, and sample sizes.
"I" indicates Idle provided statistically greater emission reduction than L. S.S.
"L" indicates L.S.S. provided statistically greater emission reduction than Idle.
"N" indicates neither Idle nor L.S.S. provided a statistically significant emis-
sion reduction or increase.
"B" indicates both Idle and L.S.S. provided statistically significant and equal
emission reduction.
"i" indicates Idle provided a statistically significant emission reduction but
L.S.S. did not.
"1" indicates L.S.S. provided a statistically significant emission reduction but
Idle did not.
3-24
-------
Phase II
Michigan Idle - HC: all cars, uncontrolled cars, serviced cars
Michigan L.S.S. - CO: controlled
The results of the analysis of covariance after second service are shown in
Table 3-12. Second service provides statistically greater reductions of HC
and CO for L.S.S. than for Idle in several additional cases. Again, Idle
results in statistically greatest emission reductions only for HC in Phase I.
Also note that Idle and L.S.S. were statistically equally effective on emis-
sion controlled vehicles in both states and on all groups in Michigan.
3.2.2.2 Significant Differences in Emission Reductions in California and
Michigan
The principle distinction between California and Michigan was that L.S.S. was
statistically superior to Idle in Calif ornia" but in Michigan Idle and L.S.S.
were equally effective in reducing emissions. A secondary distinction was
that California emission reduction for both Idle and L.S.S. were larger than
in Michigan. Both factors were related to the before-service emission
profiles of Michigan and California. In California, there were more high
emitting vehicles than in Michigan as shown by the F-test of variance. The
high emitters provided the reductions required to show large reductions on
the total fleet. Becaus_e of differences in bef ore-service emissions and
emission reductions in California and Michigan, data for the two states have
been combined to compare Idle and L.S.S.
3.2.2.3 Significant Differences in Emission Reductions Between Phase I
and Phase II
During Phase I, Idle and L.S.S. were always statistically equally effective
in reducing emissions. During Phase II, L.S.S. was statistically more effec-
tive in reducing HC and CO in several situations than was Idle. The reason
for this difference must, in part, be the improved instructions provided the
L.S.S. garages prior to Phase II. In California, during Phase II the emis-
sions levels were considerably higher for HC and CO, which provided both L.S.S.
and Idle a better opportunity to reduce emissions. Both Idle and L.S.S. did
provide better emission reductions in California during Phase II than during
Phase I. The L.S.S. reductions, however, were statistically superior than
Idle. Because of differences in the L.S.S. procedure and before service
emission levels, the two phases have been treated separately.
3.2.3. Emission Reductions as a Function of Inspection Test Rejection Rate
Emissions reductions as a function of rejection (failure) rate for hydrocarbons
and carbon monoxide are shown in Figures 3-6 and 3~7- Failure rates were
developed for the controlled and the uncontrolled fleets in each phase.
Controlled and uncontrolled vehicles were treated separately because dif-
ferent fleet emissions existed and, therefore, different rejection limits
were used. The future application of the data to fleets in which the
3-25
-------
Table 3-12
TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER SECOND SERVICE
95% Level of Confidence
1975 CVS Data
Vehicle Fleet
*A11 Vehicles
Phase I
Phase II
Serviced Vehicles Only
Phase I
Phase II
*Controlled Vehicles Only
Phase I
Phase II
*Uncontrolled Vehicles Only
Phase I
Phase II
California
HC
1
B
B
B
N
1
N
B
CO
N
L
i
L
N
1
N
L
NO
X
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Michigan
HC
B
B
I
B
i
N
B
B
CO
B
B
B
B
N
N
B
1
NO
X
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Combined
HC
B
L
B
B
B
1
B
L
CO
B
L
B
L
N
B
B
L
NO
X
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
*Approximately 30% of test fleets failed. Analysis of covariance statistically compen-
sated for different means, variances, and sample sizes.
"I" indicates Idle provided statistically greater emission reduction than L.S.S.
"L" indicates L.S.S. provided statistically greater emission reduction than Idle.
"N" indicates neither Idle nor L.S.S. provided a statistically significant emission
reduction or increase.
"B" indicates both Idle and L.S.S. provided statistically significant and equal
emission reduction.
"i" indicates Idle provided a statistically significant emission reduction but
L.S.S. did not.
"1" indicates L.S.S. provided a statistically significant emission reduction but
Idle did not.
3-26
-------
CALIFORNIA AND MICHIGAN 1975 CVS DATA
=f o
5 i
o
Q
O
1 o
5 O
Q
111
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
30
20
10
0
40
O 30
20
10
0
40
CONTROLLED
VEHICLES
UNCONTROLLED
VEHICLES
I O
UJ CJ
30
20
10 —
. —O
I I I I
IDLE
LSS
I I I
10 20 30 40 50
REJECTION RATE (%)
60
10 20 30 40 50
REJECTION RATE (%)
60
Figure 3-6. Effectiveness as a Function of Rejection Rate -- Phase I
3-27
-------
CALIFORNIA AND MICHIGAN 1975 CVS DATA
CONTROLLED
VEHICLES
4.0
3.0
2.0 I
1.0
o
o
111
(E
i °
£ o
2 o
111 O 20\
10
• IDLE
• LSS
— O O-
UNCONTROLLED
VEHICLES
10 20 30 40 50
REJECTION RATE (%)
60
20 30 40 50
REJECTION RATE (%)
80
Figur* 3-7. Eftetivrww t» a Function of R«j«ction Rat* -Phat« II
3-28
-------
fraction of uncontrolled vehicles is reduced is enhanced by this procedure.
Emission reductions were calculated for each set of emission levels shown
in Table 2-6 and plotted as a function of the resulting rejection rate. A
vehicle included in a given rejected population on a CO plot may be included
because it failed an HC limit and vice versa for a vehicle included in an
HC plot.
In Phase I, Idle and L.S.S. were essentially equally effective in reducing HC
and CO at all rejection rates. In Phase II;L.S.S. achieved higher reductions
of HC and CO than Idle except that they were equally effective in reducing
CO emissions from controlled vehicles at less than 30$ rejection rate.
Statistical significance of reductions was not evaluated. In general, 70$
to 80$ of the emission reductions achieved at 50$ to 60$ rejection rates were
achieved at a 30$ rejection rate.
3.2.4. Effectiveness of Correcting Idle Only Emission Failures
Most vehicles in the L.S.S. fleets failed emission inspection orly because of
idle failures. Very few Idle vehicles would have failed L.S.S. cruise modes
if they had been in the L.S.S. fleet. Therefore, Idle and L.S.S. might
logically be expected to show similar effectiveness since the malfunctions
detected and corrected by each regime would be the same. L.S.S., because of
its improved diagnostic information, mav be expected to provide these emis-
sion reductions at lower cost than Idle .since the L.S.S. garages would know
that the malfunction was purely idle system-related while the Idle garage
would not-i The Idle gardes, therefore, may attempt more extensive repair
than was actually required to correct the idle system malfuction.
The analysis of idle only failures represented in Table 3-13, was performed
by determining emission reductions for those Idle vehicles which failed the
Idle Mode inspection and would not have failed any cruise modes of the L.S.S.
test. Those L.S.S. vehicles which failed the idle portion of the L.S.S.
without failing any cruise mode were analyzed to determine their emission
reductions.
L.S.S. was more effective than Idle in reducing HC and CO emissions in both
Phase I and Phase II. In Phase I, L.S.S. achieved approximately 50$ greater
reductions of HC and 60$ greater reductions of CO than did Idle. In Phase II,
L.S.S. achieved approximately 50$ greater reductions of HC and 33$ greater
reductions of CO than did Idle. Neither Idle nor L.S.S. changed NOX signifi-
cantly.
The emission reductions on serviced vehicles with idle only inspection fail-
ures are presented in Table 3-1^• The CO emission reductions achieved by
L.S.S. were 25$ greater than Idle in both Phases-and the HC emission reduc-
tions achieved by L.S.S. were 20$ greater in Phase I and 60$ greater in
Phase II than the reductions achieved by Idle. Idle vehicles failing only
at idle experienced an average emission reduction of 2 to 3 grams per mile
HC and 33 grams per mile CO. L.S.S. vehicles failing only at idle experienced
an average emission reduction of 3-3 grams per mile HC and hk grams per CO.
Table 3-15 compares the fleet average emission reduction achieved by vehicles
with idle only, emission failures and the reductions achieved by servicing
3-29
-------
Table 3-13
FLEET EMISSION REDUCTION FROM CORRECTING IDLE ONLY FAILURES
(1975 CVS Grams per Mile)
Vehicle
Fleet
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
Phase I
HC
0.46
0.54
0.44
0.86
0.45
0.70
CO
3.63
4.06
6.82
12.70
5.23
8.38
NOX
0.01
0.07
-0.05
-0.04
-0.02
-0.02
Sum
4.10
4.67
7.21
13.52
5.66
9.06
Phase II
HC
0.36
0.52
0/44
0.67
0.40
0.60
CO
3.80
7.17
9.47
10.49
6.64
8.83
NOX
0.04
-0.03
-0.11
-0.03
-0.04
-0.03
Sum
4.20
7.66
9.80
11.13
7.00
9.40
Table 3-14
SERVICED VEHICLE EMISSION REDUCTION FROM
CORRECTING IDLE ONLY FAILURES
(1975 CVS Grams per Mile)
Vehicle
Fleet
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
Phase I
HC
2.88
.3.40
2.73
3.36
2.81
3.38
CO
22.68
25.37
42.32
49.46
32.50
40.13
NOX
0.06
0.43
-0.29
-0.14
-0.12
0.08
Sum
25.62
29.20
44.76
52.68
35.19
43.43
Phase II
HC
2.06
3.23
2.04
3.13
2.05
3.17
CO
21.94
44.82
44.41
49.16
34.34
47.30
NOX
0.23
-0.21
-0.53
-0.12
-0.19
-0.16
Sum
24.23
47.84
45.92
52.17
36.20
50.31
3-30
-------
Table 3-15
RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF CORRECTING IDLE ONLY FAILURES*
PERCENT OF FLEET AVERAGE EMISSION REDUCTION
Vehicle
Fleet
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
Phase I
HC
51%
42%
29%
66%
38%
54%
CO
37%
51%
38%
79%
37%
70%
NOX
-
50%
-
Phase II
HC
19%
14%
20%
- 42%
29%
23%
CO
29%
28%
73%
71%
52%
44%
NOX
40%
15%
55%
40%
33%
*Emission reductions shown in Table 3-13 divided by emission reductions shown
in Table 3-7 multiplied by 100%
-Indicates value in Table 3-7 is zero.,
3-31
-------
all vehicles. The relative effectiveness of servicing only vehicles with idle
inspection failures depends upon the number of vehicles with cruise failures.
Fleets composed primarily of idle failures, like Michigan Phase II, show rela-
tively high effectiveness for the idle failures (70$), while fleets with more
cruise problems, like California Phase II, show relatively poor effectiveness
for the idle failures (20$).
3.2.5 Effectiveness Index
To provide a single measure of emission reduction effectiveness, the three
pollutants were weighted and combined in a linear mode]/ described more fully
in Paragraph 2'.3.3-^> This model utilized the gram per mile and percent
emission reductions developed for each model year group in the preceding
discussion, and combined these reductions using appropriate weighting factors
to account for the difference in annual mileage accumulation and distribution
of ages within the total vehicle populations of California and Michigan.
This index provided a means of calculating tons per year of emissions pre-
vented from entering the atmosphere by inspection and maintenance. The
index assumed that the inspection program was in effect, that the emission
reductions achieved in this study were uniform throughout all of California
and Michigan, and that degradation of emission reductions did not occur. Ko
attempt was made to extrapolate these predictions into the future since the
behavior of future vehicles on the road and in an inspection and maintenance
program could not be accurately forecast. Tables 3-l6 and 3-17 present the
emission reductions (Wh) used in the effectiveness model.
The results of the effectiveness index are presented separately for each
pollutant using the following pollutant weighting factors :
HC = 1.00 CO = 1.00 NOY = 1.00
J\.
EC = 0.33 CO = 0.33 NOX = 0.33
HC = 0.60 CO = 0.10 NOx =0.30
The first set of weighting factors .represented the direct sum of the emission
reductions in tons per year. The last two sets of weighting factors did not
reflect a true value of tons per year emission reduction. The last set of
factors provided a measure of emission reduction effectiveness which did not
weight carbon monoxide as heavily as the direct sum. Therefore, this weighting
factor provided an index more appropriate for a region where photochemical
products are considered a more significant problem than carbon monoxide.
Since carbon monoxide has the largest mass, as well as a high percent reduc-
tion, the effect of the carbon monoxide emission reductions tended to dominate
the reductions of hydrocarbons or increases of oxides of nitrogen. The
development of the weighting factors is discussed in paragraph 2.3.3.4.
Table 3-18 presents the results of the effectiveness index in terms of tons
per year and percent reductions based on an approximate 30$ rejection rate.
Reductions are shown for each pollutant and their weighted sum. In Phase I,
Idle was slightly more effective in reducing emissions than L.S.S. In
Phase II, L.S.S. was more effective than Idle in reducing emissions. and in
3-32
-------
Table 3-16
EFFECTIVENESS INDEX INPUT DATA
Grams Per Mile Reduction - 1975 CVS Data
Vehicle
Fleet
PHASE I
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
PHASE II
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
1970-1971
HC
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.4
1.2
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.7
CO
4.4
1.9
10.7
5.7
7.9
4.0
10.2
8.2
9.5
3.7
9.7
5.8
NOX
0.0
-0.1
-0.3
0.2
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
0,0
-0.3
0.3
-0.2
0.2
1968-1969
HC
0.1
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.2
2.7
0.5
0.6
0.4
1.6
CO
2.3
2.4
15.7
10.6
9.9
6.9
7.2
13.2
11.4
14.0
9.5
13.6
NOX
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.5
-0.1
-0.3
0.0
1966-1967
HC
4.0
2.5
0.7
1.7
2.3
2.1
3.3
1.5
1.0
0.7
2.0
1.0
CO
21.0
9.5
8.8
29.3
14.5
19.7
13.0
23.4
7.4
18.0
9.9
20.6
NOX
-0.4
0.1
-0.2
0.1
-0.3
0.1
0.0
-0.3
-0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
1962-1965
HC
0.4
1.7
4.0
3.0
2.1
2.4
2.8
8.0
6.2
4.7
4.5
6.4
CO
10.2
21.1
37.5
22.1
22.8
21.6
15.4
41.1
22.1
23.8
18.6
32.8
NOX
0.2
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
0.0
-0.1
0.2
-0.1
0.0
-0.3
0.1
-0.2
1956-1961
HC
0.1
1.7
_
0.1
1.3
2.2
1.6
_
1.9
1.2
CO
12.1
-1.7
_
9.5
-0.7
19.3
'34.3
_
15.5
27.0
NOX
0.0
-0.1
_
0.0
0.0
0.0
^0.6
_
-0.1
-0.5
-------
Table 3-17
EFFECTIVENESS INDEX INPUT DATA
Percent Reductions - 1975 CVS Data
Vehicle
Fleet
PHASE I
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
PHASE II
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
L.S.S.
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
1970-1971
HC
3.6
0.0
9.1
5.4
8.1
2.9
11.4
26.7
15.9
4.7
12.5
15.9
CO
10.4
4.5
18.2
12.0
15.4
8.9
21.2
18.9
16.1
5.5
17.9
10.2
NOX
0.0
-3.2
-5.7
3.7
-2.4
-2.3
-4.9
0.0
-6.7
6.8
-4.5
4.8
1968-1969
HC
2.6
9.8
22.2
13.0
14.3
11.4
4.8
39.7
--
8.8
12.5
7.8
28.0
CO
4.4
3.9
22.3
18.0
15.9
11.4
11.8
17.2
18.0
19.2
15.3
18,2
NOV
A
6.9
6.7
0.0
0.0
2.6
2.3
0.0
0.0
-10.4
-2.3
-6.3
0.0
1966-1967
HC
43.0
29.0
11.5
21.0
30.3
25.0
36.7
25.0
11.2
10.0
22.5
15.4
CO
27.7
13.6
10.6
27.3
18.1
22.1
12.6
26.6
6.7
17.8
9.3
21.6
NOX
-16.7
3.8
-6.5
2.8
-10.7
3.2
0.0
-10.0
-3.1
0.0
-3.2
-5.9
1962-1965
HC
7.0
23.0
36.7
29.4
25.9
27.3
28.0
53.0
42.5
43.9
36.6
49.2
CO
15.7
20.4
30.8
21.6
25.0
21.0
12.6
31.1
19.5
22.7
15.8
27.5
NOX
6.9
-5.0
-7.4
-7.1
0.0
-4.2
7.4
-3.7
0.0
-9.0
3.1
-6.7
1956-1961
HC
1.2
21.2
_
1.1
18.1
17.7
20.8
—
16.5
17.1
CO
12.4
-2.5
-
10.0
-1.1
16.4
28.7
—
14.3
25.3
NOX
0.0
-4.0
_
0.0
0.0
0.0
-30.0
_
-4.0
-19.2
u>
W
-------
Table 3-18
FIRST YEAR EFFECTIVENESS INDEX -_ 1975 CVS DATA
30% Rejection Rate "
1973
Emission
Reduction
HC
% Reduction
3
Tons/year x 10
CO
% Reduction
3
Tons/year x 10
% Reduction
3
Tons/year x 10
Tons/year x 10
1:1:1
3
Tons/year x 10
0.33:0.33:0.31
3
Tons/year x 10
0.6:0.1:0.3
California
Phase I
Idle
7.3%
87
9.1%
914
0.3%
2.7
1004
334
144
L.S.S.
10.4%
116
6.3%
817
-0.2%
-2.7
930
310
152
Phase II
Idle
12 . 9%
169
9.6%
1218
0.6%
1.0
1388
463
224
L.S.S.
23.5%
344
15 . 9%
2335
-3.8%
-14.0
2665
888
436
Michigan
Phase I
Idle
14.2%
57
14.8%
702
-3.2%
-6.5
753
251
103
L.S.S.
11.7%
50
13.7%
622
-0.1%
1.1
673
224
92
Phase II
Idle
13.4%
76
11.1%
490
-4.0%
-9.9
557
186
92
L.S.S.
12 . 2%
57
11.5%
565
-0.7%
-0.8
621
207
90
Combined
Phase I
Idle
9.7%
144
11 . 1%
1616
-0.9%
-2.9
1757
586
247
L.S.S.
10.9%
166
8.9%
1439
-1.3%
-0.3
1603
534
144
Phase II
Idle
13.1%
245
10.1%
1708
-1.0%
-3.4
1945
648
316
L.S.S.
19.5%
401
14.3%
2900
-2.7%
-4.5
3286
1095
526
U)
I
-------
California was nearly twice as effective as Idle. Percent reductions were
typically 10$ to 15$ for HC and CO by Idle and L.S.S. Phase II L.S.S. emis-
sion reductions of HC in California were 2^$ due to a relatively high number
of ignition failures compared to the other fleets.
3.3 INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE ANALYSIS
The results of the inspection and maintenance analysis included the following
sections:
Modal failure analysis which identified the frequency of inspection
test failures by mode.
Diagnosis of the failed vehicles indicating the minimum required
repair action.
Repair action summary and service actually performed.
Unjustified repair actions which were ineffective in reducing
emissions.
An engineering evaluation of the failing vehicles which were exited.
3.3.1 Inspection Test Modal Failures
Table 3-19 shows the incidence of L.S.S. and Idle inspection test failures
including the number of L.S.S. vehicles which failed only idle, low and/or
high cruise modes, and those which failed any of the cruise modes plus. ;
idle. The total number of vehicles are shown by phase, emission control
class, and state. The table is further categorized by the pollutant such as
CO or HC (only), both HC and CO. The table shows the incidence of Idle fail-
ures only at idle since the vehicles were failed and sent to maintenance
only for idle failures.
The percent of failed L.S.S. vehicles failing the L.S.S. test because of
each pollutant can be calculated from data in Table 3-19- In Michigan for
Phase I, 88$ of the failed controlled vehicles and 71$ of failed uncontrolled
vehicles failed only because of idle emissions. In Phase II, 82$ of the
failed controlled vehicles and 67$ of the failed uncontrolled vehicles failed
due to idle only. In California, 75$ of the failed controlled vehicles but
only U6$ of the failed uncontrolled vehicles failed only due to idle in
Phase I. During Phase II in California 56$ of the failed controlled vehicles
and only 35$ of the failed uncontrolled vehicles failed due to idle only.
Figure 3-8 summarizes the overall Phase I and Phase II Idle and L.S.S. PVTM
modal failures. In both Phases, the large majority of failed vehicles had
CO related failures in both Idle and L.S.S. regimes. In addition, the L.S.S.
regime experienced almost entirely idle or idle plus cruise mode failures.
The Idle failure distribution was not significantly different between Phases.
The L.S.S. fleet, however, experienced more cruise failures, particularly
for CO during Phase II than Phase I. The incidence of only cruise mode
failure however was lower in Phase II (7$) than in Phase I (15$) and occured
3-36
-------
Table 3-19
DISTRIBUTION OF INSPECTION TEST MODAL FAILURES
(Numbers of Failed Vehicles at 30$ Rejection Ra'te)
Vehicle
Fleet
PHASE I
California
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Michigan ,
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Combined
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
PHASE II
California
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Michigan
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Combined
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Comb ined
Idle
HC
1
3
4
2
6
8
3
9
12
1
6
7
1
6
7
2
12
14
CO
4
10
14
7
'7
14
11
17
28
7
11
18
9
5
14
16
16
32
HC
CO
2
2
4
1
1
2
3
3
6
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
4
4
Total
Idle-
7
15
22
10
14
24
17
29
46
8
19
27
10
13
23
18
32
50
Loaded Steady State
Idle Only
HC
1
2
3
0
0
0
1
2
3
1
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
2
CO
4
3
7
5
12
17
9
15
24
4
7
11
7
7
14
11
14
25
HC
CO
1
1
2
2
0
2
3
1
4
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
1
2
Cruise
Only
HC
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
3
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
CO
0
3
3
1
0
1
1
3
4
0
2
2
1
0
1
1
2
3
HC
CO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Idle Plus
Cruise
HC
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
4
0
1
1
2
3
5
CO
1
2
3
0
0
0
1
2
3
1
7
8
1
3
4
2
10
12
HC
CO
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
2
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
1
2
Total
Li« D • D •
8
13
21
8
17
25
16
30
46
9
20
29
11
12
23
20
32
52
3-37
-------
60
50
40
til
LSS VEHICLES
Q
LU
30
u. 20
O
10
IDLE
ONLY
CRUISE
ONLY
IDLE
PLUS
CRUISE
1
CO HC
CO
HC
CO HC
CO
HC
CO HC
CO
HC
IDLE VEHICLES
70
60
CO
"j 50
O
I
m
ni 40
D
111
- 30
20
10
IDLE
ONLY
CO HC
CO
HC
NOTES: 1. CO = FAILED CO INSPECTION LIMIT ONLY
HC = FAILED HC INSPECTION LIMIT ONLY
CO, HC = FAILED CO AND HC LIMITS
PHASE I
PHASE II
Figure 3-8. Inspection Test Modal Failures
3-38
-------
almost entirely for uncontrolled vehicles. A large number of the idle plus
cruise mode failures were idle plus low cruise caused by excessively rich idle
adjustment. The L.S.S. fleets in both Phases had a total of 20% EC only emis-
sion failures for all modes. Many of these failures, however, were due to
carburetion problems rather than ignition system component failure.
The Idle vehicles exhibited approximately 63$ failure for CO only, 27$ failures
for HC only and 10% failure for combinations of HC and CO. Most of the Idle
failures were also due to carburetion or incorrect idle adjustment.
3.3.2 Diagnosis of' Failed Vehicles
A diagnosis of failed vehicles was conducted to determine what type of repair
service was required to pass the vehicle. This analysis was conducted inde-
pendently of the garage diagnosis and repair service actually performed. All
exhaust emission and garage diagnostic test data on each car were used during
this evaluation. The emission levels generally determined what type of repair
was needed to correct the failure. Generally, if HC levels exceeded 1500 ppm,
ignition misfire was evident. If HC levels were less than 1500 ppm, the prob-
lem was not considered an ignition problem. Using these criteria, the main-
tenance was .divided into carburetion, ignition, and other types of service
(valve regrind, overhaul, vacuum leaks). Carburetor service was divided into
idle adjustment and carburetor repair or replacement.
Table 3-20 presents the number of vehicles requiring each class of maintenance.
Figure 3-9 is a bar chart summary for the Phase I and Phase II data. For the
combined L.S.S. and Idle fleet which failed the initial inspection test, 7^-$
in Phase I and 67% in Phase II would have required only an idle adjustment to
pass the inspection test. This shows that if a correct diagnosis and idle
adjustment had been conducted, about 70$ of all failed vehicles would have
passed their respective inspection test without any further repair. In
general, idle adjustments were sufficient for more Idle vehicles than L.S.S.
vehicles.
In the Idle fleet, 78$ of the Phase I and 80$ of the Phase II failed vehicles
required only an idle adjustment. Nearly all controlled vehicles (97$) in the
Idle fleet required only idle adjustment. The uncontrolled fleet required
only idle adjustment in order to pass 69$ of both the failed Phase I and
Phase II vehicles. Carburetor repairs in addition to idle adjustment were
required by 1^$ of uncontrolled Idle vehicles in both Phases and none of
the controlled vehicles. Ignition system repairs were required by only k%
of the Idle vehicles in both Phases. The distribution of service require-
ments for Idle was relatively uniform in both States and during both Phases
suggesting that Idle emission reduction effectiveness should not Vary signi-
ficantly during the program. This result was experienced, as discussed earlier.
In the L.S.S. fleet 70% of the Phase I and 54% of the Phase II .failed vehicles
required only an idle adjustment. More extensive repairs were required
because of the additional failure modes provided by the L.S.S. inspection
test. Eighty-one (81%) percent of the failed Phase I controlled L.S.S.
vehicles and 70% of the failed Phase II controlled vehicles required only
an idle adjustment. The uncontrolled L.S.S. fleet required only an idle
adjustment in order -to pass 63% of the failed Phase I and 44% of the failed
3-39
-------
Table 3-20
DIAGNOSIS OF REPAIRED VEHICLES (30% REJECTION RATE)
Vehicle
Fleet
PHASE I
California
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Michigan
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Comb ined
Combined
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Comb ined
PHASE II
California
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Michigan
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Comb ined
Combined
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Comb ined
Total
Failed
Vehicles
Idle
7
15
22
10
14
24
17
29
46
8
19
27
10
13
23
18
32
50
L.S.S.
8
13
21
8
17
25
16
30
46
9
20
29
11
12
23
20
32
52
Number of Failed Vehicles Requiring
Idle
Adjustment
Only
Idle
6
11
17
10
9
19
16
20
36
8
13
21
10
9
19
18
22
40
Li* O • D *
6
7
13
7
12
19
13
19
32
5
6
11
9
8
17
14
14
28
Carburetor
Repair
Plus Idle
Adjustment
Idle
0
3
3
0
1
1
0
4
4
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
3
3
L.S.S.
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
4
6
2
9
11
2
2
4
4
11
15
Ignition
Repair
Plus Idle
Adjustment
Idle
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
J-i» O • O •
1
2
3
0
1
1
1
3
4
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
2
3
Carburetor
& Ignition
Repair
Plus Idle
Adjustment.
Idle
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J_i* o • D •
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
Mechanical
Repairs
Idle
0
1
1
0
3
3
0
4
4
0
3
3
0
2
2
0
5
5
i-i« O • U •
0
2
2
0
1
1
0
3
3
1
4
5
0
1
1
1
5
6
-------
LOADED
STEADY
STATE
VEHICLES
IDLE ADJUSTMENT ONLY
CARBURETOR REPAIR
IGNITION REPAIR
CARBURETOR AND
IGNITION REPAIR
OTHER (1)
IDLE
VEHICLES
IDLE ADJUSTMENT ONLY
CARBURETOR REPAIR
IGNITION REPAIR
CARBURETOR AND
IGNITION REPAIR
OTHER (1)
LOADED
STEADY
STATE
AND
IDLE
VEHICLES
IDLE ADJUSTMENT ONLY
CARBURETOR REPAIR
IGNITION REPAIR
CARBURETOR AND
IGNITION REPAIR
OTHER (1)
20 40 60 80
PERCENT OF FAILED VEHICLES
REQUIRING MAINTENANCE
100
(1) OTHER SERVICES INCLUDED VALVE REGRIND, ENGINE OVERHAUL,
LEAKING HEAD GASKETS AND VACUUM LEAKS
PHASE I
PHASE II
Figure 3-9. Failed Vehicle Diagnosis
3-41
-------
Phase II vehicles. Carburetor repairs in addition to idle adjustment were
required by 13$ of the failed Phase I vehicles and 29% of the failed Phase II
vehicles. Nearly 35$ of the failed uncontrolled L.S.S. vehicles in Phase II
required carburetor repairs compared to only 13$ in Phase I. Ignition system
repairs were required by approximately 10$ of the Phase I and 6$ of the Phase: II
L.S.S. vehicles. The L.S.S. failed vehicles had considerably different
service requirements in California during Phase I and Phase II. In Michigan,
however, the service requirements were relatively uniform. During Phase I the
California L.S.S. fleet had considerably lower emissions and simpler service
requirements than the Phase II California L.S.S. Fleet. This would suggest
that the potential emission reduction shown by L.S.S. in Phase I would be
less than that achieved during Phase II in California. This result was
achieved as shown in paragraph 3-2.1.
Major mechanical repairs such as rings and valves were required by approxi-
mately 10$ of the Idle and L.S.S. fleets. These vehicles received at least
idle adjustments and in some cases ignition and carburetion system repair
in an attempt to reduce emissions. Because the project did not allow major
mechanical repairs, these vehicles generally were exited failing their
inspection test without receiving the repair actually required.
3-3-3 Repair Action Summary
Each vehicle that failed its initial inspection test received repair service
at a commercial service center. After service it was retested and either
passed or failed the emission inspection. If the vehicle failed again and
was diagnosed as repairable, it was sent out for a second repair service and
retested a second time.
Table 3-21 identifies whether the repair actions that the failed vehicles
received were correct or incorrect. The table lists the fleets by inspection
regime, location, phase, and emission control class. Figure 3-10 summarizes
Table 3-21 by type of inspection and test location. About 89$ of the failed
Idle vehicles and 8l$ of the failed L.S.S. vehicles passed the inspection
test after maintenance. This shows that both the L.S.S. and Idle service
centers had similar capabilities in achieving compliance with the inspection
test. Considerable excess cost however, was incurred in achieving compliance
as will be discussed in paragraphs 3-3-^ and 3-^-2.2.
Correct diagnosis and repair, that is achieving compliance without excess
effort and expense occurred for 54% of the Phase I and 52% of the Phase II
failed Idle vehicles. Phase I L.S.S., in which service centers typically
attempted to diagnose and repair without interpreting the modal failure data,
had only 33% correct repair. Phase II L.S.S., in which the modal test data
was more correctly interpreted by the service centers, achieved 62% correct
repair. The Idle service centers achieved essentially equal performance in
both Phases although California service centers had more correct repairs
than the Michigan service centers. This could be due to previous experience
in emission oriented diagnosis and repair acquired during the California
Northrop/ARB'study and from State licensing requirements.
The performance of the Idle garages did not change significantly from Phase I
to Phase II. The performance of the L.S.S. garages, however, was better during
3-42
-------
Table 3-21
REPAIR ACTION SUMMARY
(30$ Rejection Rate)
Vehicle Fleet
Phase I
California
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Michigan
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Combined
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Phase II
California
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Michigan
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Combined
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Total
Failed
Vehicles
Idle
7
15
22
10
14
24
17
29
46
8
19
27
10
13
23
18
32
50
L.S.S.
8
13
21
8
17
25
16
30
46
9
20
29
11
12
23
20
32
52
Number of Failed Vehicles Receiving
Correct
Repairs
Pass Test
Idle
3
11
14
3
8
11
6
19
25
6
11
17
6
3
9
12
14
26
L.S.S.
7
5
12
1
2
3
8
7
15
5
10
15
9
8
17
14
18
32
Incorrect
Repairs
Fail Test
Idle
1
0
1
2
0
2
3
0
3
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
3
3
L.S.S.
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
3
3
1
1
2
1
4
5
Mechanical
Rejects
Fail Test
Idle
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
4
4
0
2
2
0
6
6
L.S.S.
0
3
3
2
1
3
2
4
6
0
5
5
0
1
1
0
6
6
Excessive
Repairs
Pass Test
Idle
3
4
7
5
4
9
8
8
16
2
3
5
4
6
10
6
9
15
L.S.S.
1
5
6
5
12
17
6
17
23
4
2
6
1
2
3
5
4
9
U)
I
£
-------
PHASE I
IDLE
FLEET
CORRECT REPAIR. PASS
EXCESSIVE REPAIR, PASS
INCORRECT REPAIR, FAIL
MAJOR MECH, FAIL
PHASE I
LSS
FLEET
CORRECT REPAIR, PASS
EXCESSIVE REPAIR, PASS
INCORRECT REPAIR, FAIL
MAJOR MECH, FAIL
PHASE II
IDLE
FLEET
CORRECT REPAIR, PASS
EXCESSIVE REPAIR, PASS
INCORRECT REPAIR, FAIL
MAJOR MECH, FAIL
J I
PHASE II
LSS
FLEET
CORRECT REPAIR. PASS
EXCESSIVE REPAIR, PASS
INCORRECT REPAIR. FAIL
MAJOR MECH, EXIT FAIL
NOTE: MAJOR MECHANICAL INCLUDED VALVE REGRIND,
ENGINE OVERHAUL AND LEAKING HEAD GASKETS
20 40 60 80
PERCENT OF SERVICED VEHICLES
10C
Fifure 3-10. Repair Action Summary of Serviced Vehicle*
3-44
-------
Phase II than during Phase I since more vehicles received correct repair and
passed without excessive repairs. More L.S.S. vehicles were exited failing
after improper repair during Phase II than Phase I. This was due to one
vehicle which received an incorrect idle adjustment and two vehicles which
had carburetors rebuilt rather than replacement carburetors installed.
Most of the major mechanical failures were identified, and the vehicles exited
from the test program after the first service (about 12% of the failed
vehicles). In this case, the service center conducted some carburetor and/or
ignition service in an attempt to lower the emission levels during the first
service. They also diagnosed and commented on the condition of the engine
with remarks such as "burned valves" and "needs overhaul." Some vehicles
were diagnosed as major mechanical during the second service. In these cases,
the major mechanical problems were incorrectly diagnosed by the service center
during the first service and the vehicles had received additional repair work
in a second attempt to lower emission levels.
Table 3-22 categorizes the service actions actually performed on the serviced
vehicles. Data is presented for inspection regime, location, phase and emis-
.sion control class. The table categorizes the repairs into idle adjustment
carburetion and/or ignition repair plus idle and major mechanical repair. No
major mechanical repairs were conducted on the serviced vehicles. In some
cases, more than one type of repair was performed on a vehicle. These vehicles
were categorized by the most appropriate category. Minor parts replacement,
such as PC valves, filters, etc., were included in the minor adjustment
category. Carburetor work included rebuilding and replacement of carburetors.
Ignition work included ignition system components and associated labor. Each
serviced vehicle was counted only once. Table 3"22 may be compared to Table
3-21 showing the service actions required.
Except for the Phase I L.S.S. fleet, approximately 50$ of the serviced Idle
and L.S.S. vehicles received only idle adjustments and minor parts replace-
ment. In the Phase I L.S.S. fleet, only 22$ of the serviced vehicles received
only idle adjustments. Most L.S.S. vehicles in Phase I received ignition
repair (48$) or carburetor plus ignition repair (24$). The incidence of
carburetor replacement was relatively low, averaging 5$ to 10$ of the serviced
vehicles, except that no carburetors were replaced in the Phase I Idle fleet
while 40$ of the serviced L.S.S. vehicles in Phase II had carburetors replace-
ments . Ignition system repair was performed on nearly half of both the Phase I
Idle and L.S.S. serviced vehicles. Ignition system repair was performed on
approximately one-third of the serviced Phase II Idle vehicles and only 13$
of the L.S.S. vehicles. Both ignition and carburetor repairs were performed
more frequently on uncontrolled than controlled vehicles.
The decrease in ignition system repair in the Michigan L.S.S. fleet from
in Phase I to 9$ in Phase II indicates that the proper use of diagnostic data
from the Loaded Steady State test can avoid unneeded and excessive repairs.
The increase in carburetor repair in the California L.S.S. fleet from 10$
in Phase I to 40$ in Phase II reflects the ability of the Loaded Steady State
test to identify the faulty carburetors correctly.
3-45
-------
Table 3-22
SERVICE EVENT SUMMARY (30% REJECTION RATE)
Vehicle
Fleet
PHASE I
California
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Comb ined
Michigan
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Combined
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
PHASE II
California
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Comb ined
Michigan
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Comb ined
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Comb ined
Total
Failed
Vehicles
Idle
7
15
22
10
14
24
17
29
46
8
19
27
10
13
23
18
32
50
J-i* O • O •
- 8
13
21
8
17
25
16
30
46
9
20
29
11
12
23
20
32
52
Number of Failed Vehicles Receiving
Idle
Adjustment
Only
Idle
3
9
12
5
7
12
8
16
24
6
9
15
6
4
10
12
13
25
L.S.S.
5
4
9
0
1
1
5
5
10
4
6
10
8
9
17
12
15
~27
Carburetor
Repair
Plus Idle
Ad j ustment
Idle
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
5
0
1
1
1
5
6
L.S.S.
2
0
2
0
1
1
2
1
3
1
10
11
1
1
2
2
11
13
Ignition
Repair
Plus Idle
Adjustment
Idle
4
6
10
5
7
12
9
13
22
1
3
4
4
8
12
5
11
16
L.S.S.
1
4
5
6
11
17
7
15
22
2
3
5
2
0
2
4
3
7
Carburetor
& Ignition
Repair
Plus Idle
Adjustment
Idle
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
3
3
L.S.S.
0
5
5
2
4
6
2
9
11
2
1
3
0
2
2
2
3
5
Other
Mechanical
Repairs
Idle
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JL« O « b •
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
t-O
I
-------
3-3-^ Unjustified Repair Action Analysis
As discussed in the previous section, the service centers provided a fair
rate of correct diagnosis and repair actions in terms of vehicles passing the
second inspection test. However, in several cases the service centers con-
ducted maintenance actions which were in excess of what was actually required
to reduce emission levels to pass the inspection test.
Figure 3-11 summarizes the unjustified repairs identified in Table 3-23
separately for Phase I and II. Idle fleet excess repairs were slightly
lower in Phase II (^3$) than in Phase I (Vf$). L.S.S. fleet excess repairs,
however, decreased significantly from Phase I (65$) to Phase II (23$). The
largest source of excess repairs for L.S.S. was in Michigan during Phase I
where an 84$ excess repair rate was experienced compared to ^3$ in California.
During Phase II, L.S.S. experienced similar excess repair rates in California
and Michigan (24$ and 22% respectively).
Electrical tune-up repair was evaluated as being the most prominent excess
repair action by both Idle and L.S.S. garages. In this group, spark plug
replacement was the most common excessive component because HC emission
levels were not high enough to be ignition misfire. Excess electrical tune-
up was received by 39$ of the total failed Idle fleet and 50$ of the failed
L.S.S. fleet during Phase I. During Phase II, excess electrical tune-ups
were received by 28$ and 17$ for the Idle and L.S.S. fleets. The improved
L.S.S. garage performance during Phase II may be partially attributed to
improved training as discussed below.
The excess repairs in the Phase I Michigan L.S.S. fleet may in part be
attributable to the initial instruction received by the repair centers.
OLI staff provided the initial L.S.S. instruction for Phase I in Michigan
while Clayton Manufacturing Company personnel provided the initial instruc-
tion for the California group. Half-way through Phase I, Clayton reinstructed
the -Michigan garages on KEY MODE diagnosis and repair. During Phase II,
Clayton personnel conducted the KEY MODE instruction to a completely new
group of service centers in both California and Michigan. The Phase II
instruction was, therefore, probably more correct in stressing the minimum
effort to reduce emission, particularly in Michigan as shown by the large
decrease in excess repairs (85$ to 22$).
Excess ignition system occurred frequently for both Idle and L.S.S. garages.
Part of the answer to this high excess electrical tune-up rate may be attrib-
utable to past experience and normal practice of the mechanics where spark
plugs and other electrical components (rotors, caps, wires and condensers)
are often replaced for preventive maintenance or maximum performance.
The excess electrical tune-up rate may also be due to the assumption by
mechanics that only ignition misfire can cause excessively high HC emis-
sion. It is likely that the initial instructions were not adequate for
the mechanic to distinguish ignition misfire from other malfunctions which
cause moderately high hydrocarbons such as lean mixtures (lean misfire) or
excessively rich mixture (incomplete combustion), and high oil consumption
(high blowby).
3-47
-------
PHASE 1
LSS
FLEET
PHASE II
LSS
FLEET
PHASE 1
IDLE
FLEET
PHASE II
IDLE
FLEET
TOTAL EXCESS REPAIR
MINOR ADJUSTMENT
MINOR PARTS
IGNITION REPAIR
CARBURETOR REPAIR
TOTAL EXCESS REPAIR
MINOR ADJUSTMENT
MINOR PARTS
IGNITION REPAIR
CARBURETOR REPAIR
TOTAL EXCESS REPAIR
MINOR ADJUSTMENT
MINOR PARTS
IGNITION REPAIR
CARBURETOR REPAIR
TOTAL EXCESS REPAIR
MINOR ADJUSTMENT
MINOR PARTS
IGNITION REPAIR
CARBURETOR REPAIR
I
_l
I I I |
?
I I I I
I
I
II I I
I
I
_J
I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 10
PERCENT OF SERVICED VEHICLES
Figure 3-11. Unjustified Repair Actions
3-48
-------
Table 3-23
SUMMARY OF UNJUSTIFIED REPAIR
(30$ Rejection Rate)
Vehicle Fleet
Phase I
California
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Michigan
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Combined
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Phase II
California
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Michigan
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Combined
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Total
Failed
Vehicles
Idle
7
15
22
10
14
24
17
29
46
8
19
27
10
13
23
18
32
50
L.S.S.
8
13
21
8
17
25
16
30
46
9
20
29
11
12
23
20
32
52
Number of Vehicles Receiving Unjustified
Minor
Adjustment
Idle
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
L.S.S.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
Minor Parts
Replacements
Idle
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L.S.S.
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ignition
Repair
Idle
3
4
7
4
7
11
7
11
18
1
4
5
4
5
9
5
9
14
L.S.S.
1
5
6
5
12
17
6
17
23
4
1
5
1
3
4
5
4
9
Carburetor
Repair
Idle
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
1
3
4
1
1
2
2
4
6
L.S.S.
1
1
2
2
2
4
3
3
6
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
1
2
Total
Idle
3
4
7
4
9
13
7
13
20
1
7
9
5
7
12
7
14
21
L.S.S.
2
7
9
7
14
21
9
21
30
5
2
7
2
3
5
7
5
12
-p-
VO
-------
Excess carburetor service was not generally as much of a problem as was
excess electrical repairs. Excess carburetor repairs generally occurred on
less than 15$ of the serviced vehicles. The few excess carburetor repairs
could, however, have a big impact on excess costs.
Excess carburetor replacement or overhaul was performed on 13$ of the serviced
vehicles in the Phase I L.S.S. group but only on k% in Phase II. In these
cases, the service center had complete truth chart diagnostic information
which clearly identified an idle mixture failure only. The truth chart showed
that low and high cruise modes of operation were normal and, therefore, that
the carburetor main circuits were operating properly. The idle failure prob-
lem could have been solved by a correct idle mixture adjustment. The
reduced excess repair rate in Phase II again probably reflects the more
complete initial instructions. However, the L.S.S. garages neglected^ to
replace some faulty carburetors. Excess carburetor replacement or overhaul
in the Idle fleet was performed on !(•$ and 12$ of the serviced cars in Phase I
and II respectively.
3.3.5 Failed and Exited Vehicles
The Repair Action gi.imma.ry in paragraph 3.^.3 showed that several vehicles
failed the inspection tests but were exited from the test program. This
section summarizes the reasons for this action. Generally, the vehicles
in this class can be divided into two groups:
1. Those vehicles which were diagnosed and repaired incorrectly
by the repair center.
2. Those vehicles which were diagnosed as requiring major mechanical
repair such as valve regrind and engine overhaul.
In both groups the failing vehicle may have been exited after the first or
second service. In two cases, the cars were exited before the after service
inspection tests were conducted.
Table 3-2^ summarizes the various causes that resulted in vehicles not passing
the inspection standard. The general causes for failure were carburetion and
ignition (both of which are usually repairable), and major mechanical (not
repairable due to program restrictions on cost). Ten percent (10$) of the
failed vehicles were exited from the program failing their inspection tests
in Phase I compared to 13$ in Phase II.
Two cars were diagnosed as having induction distribution problems. In this
case, lean misfire was diagnosed due to some cylinder probably being lean due
to poor mixture distribution and unheated manifolds. Both of these failures
occurred at idle and may or may not be correctable by adjustment or carburetor
replacement. They were not corrected in this program by either action.
Carburetor idle maladjustment caused 6 vehicles to fail and exit; k L.S.S.;
2 Idle. In this case, the idle CO was extremely high with corresponding
high HC. All of the cars in this group could have been corrected and passed
the inspection test if they had been properly adjusted. Four of these vehicles
3-50
-------
Table 3-24
SUMMARY OF .FAILED AND EXITED VEHICLES
Vehicle Fleet
Phase I
California
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Michigan
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Combined
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Phase II
California
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Michigan
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Combined
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Total
Failed
Vehicles
Idle
7
15
22
10
14
24
17
29
46
8
19
27
10
13
23
18
32
50
L.S.S.
8
13
21
8
17
25
16
30
46
9
20
29
11
12
23
20
32
52
Number of Vehicles Exited and Failing Because Of
Improper
Idle
Adjustment
Idle
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
L.S.S.
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
Improper
Ignition
Repair
Idle
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
L.S.S.
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Improper
Carburetor
Repair
Idle
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L.S.S.
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
Major
Mechanical
Failure
Idle
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
4
4
L.S.S.
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
0
2
2
0
1
1
0
3
3
Total
Idle
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
3
3
0
4
4
0
4
4
0
8
8
L.S.S.
0
2
2
2
2
4
2
4
6
0
2
2
1
2
3
1
4
5
-------
had received idle adjustments during second service which were entirely too
lean causing lean misfires. These vehicles were exited because the program
did not provide for third service.
Four cars should have had their carburetors replaced: 3 L.S.S. and 1 Idle.
In the L.S.S. group the cars had failed the low or high cruise modes. The
carburetors were either rebuilt incorrectly by the service center or replaced
with faulty commercially rebuilt carburetors. The service centers during
Phase I were allowed to replace or rebuild carburetors at their discretion.
The service centers during Phase II were instructed to replace faulty car-
buretors with new carburetors because several rebuilt carburetors continued
to have excessive emissions in Phase I. Some carburetors which should have
been replaced were either very expensive (^ barrel) or oversized for smaller
displacement engines in the older vehicles. These carburetors were rebuilt
by the mechanics and some of them continued to fail.
The one Idle vehicle which failed because of faulty carburetion had failed
the inspection test marginally. At the service center, the vehicle had
.passed marginally. L.S.S. data on this vehicle (which the service center
did not have) indicated carburetor repair or replacement was required because
of power mode failures.
Only one car was diagnosed as exiting and failing due to ignition misfire.
In this case the car still had ignition misfire after service. It appears
this failure .should have been corrected. Two cars were diagnosed as failing
hydrocarbon limits at idle (CO levels were normal). Both cars were GM vehicles
which were originally equipped with full vacuum advance at idle causing the
basic timing to advance to about 20° before top center. Experience has shown
that with normal idle CO these vehicles still have relatively high idle HC.
When the vacuum advance was disconnected (at idle) the idle hydrocarbons
dropped considerably. During the test, however; the vacuum advance was con-
nected as originally equipped. Therefore, these two vehicles could not pass
the low limits in this program.
The service centers usually conducted correct diagnosis of major mechanical
failures, but repaired other systems in hopes of attaining some emission
reduction. Two cars were diagnosed as requiring head gasket replacement.
This failure caused cylinder(s) to leak unburned fuel or combustion products
to other cylinders causing excess emissions. Valve regrind was required on
5 vehicles where one or two cylinders had low compression. Seven (7) Vehicles
were diagnosed as requiring a complete engine overhaul (rings plus valve
regrind).
In summary, almost half of the failed and exited vehicles could have been
repaired, often by applying good adjustment techniques. It was apparent
from this analysis that the mechanics should have received more complete
instructions in idle adjustment techniques for attaining low emissions and
maintaining good idle performance while still avoiding lean misfire. Those
vehicles which could not be repaired without very high cost or which were
not repairable due to inherent design (poor induction distribution) constituted
2$ of all vehicles or 7$ of the failed vehicles.
3-52
-------
3«3«6 Revised Maintenance Procedure Recommendation
In the Short Cycle Project the procedures for diagnosis and maintenance action
were inadequate in some respects. These were discussed in the preceding anal-
ysis where the diagnosis of the failed vehicles identified different required
repair actions than those actually performed on the vehicles. Many vehicles
received unjustified or excessive repairs. These observations indicated
that the mechanic was not always sure of the minimum correct repair action
to lower the vehicle's emissions.
The KEY MODE procedure stressed repair function in accordance with the -results
of the "truth chart" diagnostic data. Final adjustments were then conducted
following the repair action. The Idle inspection procedures stressed the
minor adjustments as a first step. If the minor adjustment step did not
cure the problem, repair actions (electrical or carburetion) were conducted
as required by the idle emission (only) information supplied to the garage.
3.3.6.1 Suggested Procedure - In view of the problems outlined in Section 3.3,
it appears that the maintenance procedures used in future programs might best
be applied to the failing vehicles if the following general steps are used:
Inspection
Data
Diagnosis by
Service Center
Step 1
Minor Adjustment
and Repair Only
Step 2
Tune-up
and Adjustment
Ignition and/or
Carburetion
Repair
3-53
-------
After receiving the inspection data, the mechanic would conduct the diagnosis
and determine whether the vehicle should receive only minor adjustment (and
minor repair) such as'idle mixture, timing and dwell or whether it should
receive a major tune-up (ignition and/or carburetion) including final ad-
justments .
The diagnostic data may indicate that only idle mixture adjustment would be
required to pass the inspection test. During the minor adjustment (Step l),
the mechanic would adjust the applicable items to manufacturers specifica-
tions. He would then readjust the idle mixture and speed. If the diagnostic
data indicated an ignition misfire, the mechanic would repair or replace
ignition components to correct the misfire (Step 2). Following the repair
function, the mechanic would then conduct the applicable minor adjustments.
Similarly, if the diagnostic data indicated power mode carburetion problems
the mechanic would replace or repair the carburetor (Step 2) and then^con-
duct the applicable minor adjustments.
This approach should minimize the excess repairs by conducting only the adjust-
ments necessary-to pass the inspection test. Table 3-25 shows the suggested
procedure which follows the above approach.
3.3.6.2 Implementation Philosophy - To implement this approach, a set of
general criteria to aid the garage mechanic in diagnosis and repair is re-
quired. He must accurately determine and carry through the repair action.
The criteria in Table 3-25 readily point out gross tune-up malfunctions.
Generally, gross tune-up malfunctions are very prominent when reviewing in-
spection data. For example, continuous ignition misfire at idle or light
loads at higher speeds will show hydrocarbon levels of at least 1500 ppm or
greater. Malfunctioning carburetor main circuits generally show very high
CO levels when compared to normal carburetors (i.e., they are definitely
"broken"). Plugged air bleeds, and inoperative or leaking power valves are
common causes of carburetor malfunctions. Correct diagnosis will definitely
determine whether the carburetor must be repaired or whether it only re-
quires an idle mixture adjustment.
Successful implementation must include comprehensive mechanic training in
accurate diagnosis with the aid of osciloscopes and HC/CO infrared gas
analyzers. The mechanic already understands basic tune-up but generally
lacks experience and techniques for accurate diagnosis and repair for low
emissions. Appropriate training should emphasize "hands on training."
Past experience has shown that instructor demonstrations followed by mechanic
participation is the most effective technique in presenting diagnosis and
adjustment techniques.
3-b COST ANALYSIS
This section presents the results of the analysis of inspection program and
vehicle maintenance costs of servicing failed vehicles described in paragraph
2.3.5. The maintenance cost analysis included fuel savings calculated from
fuel consumption measured during the 1972 CVS test. Paragraph 3.3.1 presents
inspection program costs. Paragraph 3-^.2 presents maintenance costs including
3-54
-------
Table 3-25
SUGGESTED DIAGNOSIS AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE
Diagnosis at Service Center
• Connect scope and calibrate HC/CO instrument.
• Check CO and HC at 2500 rpm neutral with air filter installed.
• Measure total advance.
• Check idle CO and HC with air filter installed.
• Measure basic timing and dwell, check scope pattern for misfire.'
• Remove air filter and recheck 2500 rpm and idle emissions.
• Conduct "power balance" test (weak cylinders).
• Diagnose for:
Dirty air filter (replace if CO with filter is more than 1$
higher than without filter).
Main carburetor circuit malfunction (power valve or incorrect fuel
bowl levels).
Vacuum leaks.
High idle emissions.
Ignition misfire (plugs or wires).
Malfunctioning advance systems, incorrect dwell and basic
timing.
High blowby, rings, or valve regrind.
Dispatch Vehicle for Repair Service
• Step 1, minor adjustment and repair only.
• Step 2, tune-up and adjustment.
3-55
-------
Table 3-25 (Continued)
SUGGESTED DIAGNOSIS AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE
Step 1 - Minor Adjustment and Minor Repair (only)
• Conduct minor repairs.
• Set dwell to specifications.
• Reset basic timing to specifications.
• Check PCV system.
• Adjust idle CO and speed simultaneously to prescribed levels.
• Install air cleaner element (new if diagnosis requires) and re-
check emission levels.
Step 2 - Tune-Up (ignition)
• Install points, plugs, condenser, and/or plug wires to correct
ignition misfire.
• Repair other diagnosed malfunctioning items such as PCV, vacuum
advance control systems.
• Complete ignition tune-up step by conducting the minor adjust-
ments outlined in Step 1.
Step 2 - Tune-Up (Carburetion)
• Remove carburetor and repair or replace (as per program instructions)
• Reinstall and check CO emissions in the main circuit (2500 RPM un-
loaded or high cruise road load).
• Compare carburetor main circuit CO emissions to the initial diagnostic
data. If emissions are within limits, proceed. If not, rediagnose
and repair as described in the program.
• Complete carburetor tune-up step by conducting the minor adjustments
outlined in Step 1.
3-56
-------
an anlysis of excess repair costs derived from the maintenance analysis con-
ducted in Section 3-3- Paragraph 3«^-3 summarizes total inspection and main-
tenance program costs.
3-^-l Inspection Program Costs
The inspection program costs for California and Michigan are presented in
Table 3~26. Investment costs were about 68$ higher for L.L.S. than Idle.
Operating costs for the two regimes were very close. These estimates were
based on a state operated inspection program in California inspecting all
passenger vehicles once each year. Although total costs appear fairly high,
the cost per vehicle is relatively low, approximately $2.21 for Idle and
$3.07 for L.S.S. This fee in the first year would pay for capital equipment,
facilities, and program start-up costs as well as first year operation.
Thereafter, an annual charge of about $1.00 toor both Idle and L.S.S. would
pay for operating and maintenance costs subject to inflationary rises. If
the capital investment costs were amortized at 6% for 10 years (state bonds),
the annual cost during the 10 years would be reduced to $1.16 for Idle and
$1.35 for L.S.S. This fee could be collected as part of the vehicle regis-
tration and licensing process and is relatively small in comparison to both
the maintenance cost and the present annual vehicle registration/fees charged
in most states.
It should be emphasized that an economic evaluation of inspection programs
was not part of this study and that the cost per vehicle developed for a
previous California PVIM study (Reference l) was applied to Michigan. Several
assumptions utilized in the California study may not be valid in Michigan;
therefore, the cost estimate in California may be lower than that which
would be experienced in Michigan. The three principal assumptions were
that: (l) the test centers would operate at uniform efficiency during all
parts of the year with a steady waiting line of vehicle; and (2) that failed
vehicles would not be retested after service.
The first assumption may be invalid due to winter storms in which vehicle
owners are unable to reach the inspection center. As many as 20$ of the test
days may be lost in this manner. Therefore, additional inspection centers
would have to be built and staffed to account for those vehicles that were
not tested during those 20$ of operating days. This would result in
approximately a 25$ increase in operating and capital investment costs.
The second assumption was that retest after maintenance would not be required.
Additional cost would depend upon the rejection rate experienced if retest
vas required. At a hypothetical 50$ rejection rate, a 50$ increase in test
capacity, i.e., investment and operation would be required. The compounding
of these two factors would nearly double costs raising the first year cost
per vehicle in Michigan to $i)-.l4 for Idle and $5.76 for L.S.S. The corres-
ponding cost, assuming capital costs are amortized for 10 years, would be
$2.18 for Idle and $2.53 for L.S.S. However, if a program was conducted at
a rejection rate of 20$, a 20$ increase in test capacity would be required.
The compounding of additional capacity for weather downtime and retest
(1.25 x 1.20) would then represent a 50$ increase in cost over the California
3-57
-------
Table 3-2$
INSPECTION PROGRAM COSTS ^
State or Single Contractor Operated.
COST
ELEMENT
INVESTMENT COSTS
Present Cost
Amortized - 10 Years at 6%
Cost per Vehicle ^
Amortized - 10 Years at 6$*
OPERATING COSTS
Total First Year
Cost per Vehicle
TOTAL INVESTMENT AND
OPERATING COST
Total First Year
Cost per Vehicle-
Total Amortized
0
Cost per Vehicle-
CALIFORNIA2
Idle
$12,084,000
$ 1,610,000
$1.21
$ .16
$ 9,978,000
$1.00
$22,062,000
$2.21
$11,588,000
$1.16
L.S.S.
$19,830,000
$ 2,642,000
$1.98
$ .26
$10,919,000
$1.09
$30,749,000
$3.07
$13,561,000
$1.35
MICHIGAN3
Idle
$ 6,646,000
$ 885,000
$1.21
$ .16
$ 5,500,000
$1.00
$12,146,000
$2.21
$ 6,385,000
$1.16
L.S.S.
$10,907,000
$ 1,453,000
$1.98
$ .26
$ 5,995,000
$1.09
$16,902,000
$3.07
$ 7,448,000
$1.35
1. Retest after maintenance not included.
2v Reference 1.
3v Assumes 5.5 million vehicles in Michigan based on 1971 vehicle registration
data.
3-58
-------
study. This would result in initial cost per vehicle, of $2.32 for Idle, and
$4.6l for L.S.S. or an amortized cost per vehicle of $1.74 for Idle and $2-5^
for L.S.S.
3.^.2 Maintenance Cost Analysis
Maintenance costs were analyzed to identify primary cost elements, cost of
additional service, and the cost of excessive (unjustified) repair actions.
3.4.2.1 Average Serviced Vehicle Costs
Table 3~27 presents a summary of average total service costs for each phase
of the Short Cycle Project showing the actual repair cost for the serviced
vehicles and the cost less excessive repair costs. Phase I and II serviced
vehicle costs agreed well for the Idle fleets in both cities and the L.S.S.
fleet in California. The Michigan L.S.S. fleet, however, experienced con-
siderably lower cost during Phase II than Phase I. From Table 3~27> it can
be seen that Idle service was least costly in all situations except Phase II,
Michigan, in which L.S.S. was least costly. Average repair costs were $29
for Idle and $34 for L.S.S. The highest total service repair cost was $4l.C-4
per serviced L.S.S. vehicle during Phase I in Michigan. The lowest cost per
serviced vehicle ($22.34) was in the Michigan L.S.S. fleet during Phase II.
Costs for repairing controlled vehicles were typically $7 to $8 less than
for uncontrolled vehicles. Table 3-28 shows the corresponding fleet average
service repair costs.
Figures 3-12 and 3-13 show the percent frequency of repair cost for Phase II
only. Phase II only was selected because of the excess maintenance occurring
in Phase I. The plots show the percent of serviced vehicles with service
costs in $10 increments. Figure 3-12 (California) may be considered represen-
tative of realistic cost distributions in a program which has fairly high
emission levels coupled with stringent standards. Figure 3-13 (Michigan)
may be considered representative of a program with primarily idle failures.
In California, Figure 3-12 shows that theTmost common repair'cost for both
Idle and L.S.S. was between $10 and $20 which was incurred by 48% of vehicle
owners in the Idle program and 28% of the vehicle owners in the L.S.S^ program.
Idle and L.S.S. experienced repair costs in excess of $60 for 12% and 23% of
the vehicle owners respectively. Approximately 75% of the Idle vehicles were
repaired for less than $40, compared to 68% of the L.S.S. vehicles. Idle
and L.S.S. exhibited similar cost distributions on uncontrolled vehicles,
however, for controlled vehicles, the maximum Idle maintenance cost was below
$40 while 10% of the L.S.S. costs exceeded $100.
In Michigan, Figure 3-13 shows that the most common repair cost was between
$20 and $30 for the Idle vehicles and was incurred by 40% of the vehicle
owners in the Idle program. The most common repair cost was between $10 and
$20 for the L.S.S. vehicle and was incurred by 48% of the vehicle owners
in the L.S.S. program. Ninety-six percent (96%) of the L.S.S. vehicles were
repaired for less than $40 compared to 88% of the Idle vehicles. Idle and
L.S.S. repair cost distributions were similar for controlled vehicles although
L.S.S. tended to have a lower cost distribution than Idle for uncontrolled
vehicles.
3-59
-------
Table 3-27
SERVICE COST AVERAGED OVER SERVICED VEHICLES ONLY - ALL SERVICE ACTIONS
(30$ Rejection Rate)
Cost /Phase
COSTS AS INCURRED
Phase I
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Comb ined
Phase II
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
LESS EXCESS COSTS
Phase I
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Phase II
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
California *
Idle
28.12
25.30
26.20
19.58
37.81
32.41
18.58
16.94
17.46
13.56
24.77
21.45
L.S.S.
20. 97
38.42
31.77
33.52
39.90
37.92
18.38
33.81
27.93
25.30
35.29
32.19
Michigan
Idle
28.16
26.69
27.30
24.77
33.43
29.66
19.02
17.35
18.05
19.77
21.44
20.71
L.S.S.
43.81
39.73
41.04
18.40
25.96
22.34
25.60
23.99
24.51
17.58
23.56
20.70
Combined
Idle
28.16
25.97
26.78
22.46
36.03
31.14
18.84
17.14
17.77
17.01
23.42
21.11
L.S.S.
32.39
39.16
36.81
25.20
34.67
31.03
21.99
28.25
26.07
20.74
30.89
27.11
3.4.2.2 Excess Repair Costs
Tables 3-28 and 3-29 present the estimated costs for repair actions which were
expected to be effective in reducing emissions. Work was identified as exces-
sive if it would not have been expected to reduce emissions. The criteria for
excess repairs is described more fully an paragraph 2.3.4.
In general, Idle and L.S.S. exhibited considerable excessive repair costs.
For the combined phases 33$ of the average repair cost for Idle was excessive,
while 19% of the average repair cost for L.S.S. was excessive. Table 3-29
presents the percent of total service cost judged as excessive. The results
of the combined phases and states are typical of results achieved in each
Idle regime subfleet. L.S.S. excess repair cost was 26$ in Phase I compared
to 11$ in Phase II.
3-60
-------
Table 3-28
SERVICE COST AVERAGED OVER ALL VEHICLES - ALL SERVICE ACTIONS
(30$ Rejection Rate)
Cost/Phase
COST AS INCURRED
Phase I
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Phase II
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
LESS EXCESS COST
Phase I
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Phase II
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
California
Idle
5.62
9.49
7.68
4.48
18.31
11.86
3.72
6.35
5.12
3.10
11.77
7.72
L.S.S.
4.41
13.50
8.90
8.15
21.00
14.66
3.87
11.87
7.12
6.15
18.58
12.45
Michigan
Idle
7.82
9.83
8.85
7.08
10.87
9.10
5.28
6.39
5.85
5.65
6.97
6.35
L.S.S.
10.31
16.88
13.86
5.62
7.99
6.85
6.02
10.20
8.28
5.37
7.25
6.35
Combined
Idle
6.72
9.66
8.27
5.78
14.59
11.37
4.50
6.37
5.49
4.38
9.37
7.04
L.S.S.
7.36
15.19
11.38
6.89
14.50
10.76
4.95
11.04
8.00
5.76
12.92
9.40
Table 3-29
PERCENT OF REPAIR COST WHICH WAS EXCESSIVE
(30$ Rejection Rate)
Vehicle Fleet
Phase I
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
Phase II
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Combined
California
Idle
33.9
33.0
33.3
30.8
35.7
34.9
Key Mode
12.3
12.0
12.1
24.5
11.5
15.1
Michigan
Idle
32.5
35.0
33.9
20.2
35.9
30.2
Key Mode
41.6
40.0
40.3
4.4
9.2
7.3
Combined
Idle
33.2
34.0
33.6
25.5
35.8
32.6
Key Mode
27.0
26.0
26.2
14.5
10.4
11.2
3-61
-------
IDLE
100
80
ffl
_i
y eo
UJ
i "
20
UNCONTROLLED
n i
PHASE II DATA
CALIFORNIA
100
80
O 60
I
S 40
20
20 40 60 80 100 120
DOLLARS
LSS
UNCONTROLLED
20 40 60 80 100 120
DOLLARS
1UU
80
CO
o 60
I
8!
IL 40
O
a?
20
0
CONTROLLED
—
—
^_
-n , , ,
IUU
80
CO
J 60
I
Ul
if 40
u.
O
20
0
CONTROLLED
-
—
—
. n n i n
20 40 60 80 100 120
DOLLARS
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DOLLARS
100
80
o
I
in
O
20
TOTAL
Jl— I
20 40 60 80 100 120
DOLLARS
100
80
CO
u 60
I
UJ
S40
20
TOTAL
J\
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
DOLLARS
Figure 3-12. Distribution of Average Repair Cost Per Repaired Vehicle
3-62
-------
1 PHASE II DATA
MICHIGAN
IDUE LSS
80
M '
3"
z
$
!«°
o
*
20
A
UNCONTROLLED
-
-
"[Si n,,.
IUU
80
-
tj 60
u.
O
*
20
UNCONTROLLED
—
—
if]
h n n i i
0 20 40 80 jW 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 12
80
S3
3"
:KOF VE
» 8 *
CONTROLLED
—
— «— i
^
1 1 1 1 1
80
I-
1"
ao
A
CONTROLLED
—
—
1 ll 1 1 1
0 20 40 66 80 100 120 0 » 40 60 80 100 12<
100
80
M
ft 40
*
20
.0
TOTAL
Ij
_| 1
— ' i 1— i n t—i i
80
u ao
y. 40
o
20
O
TOTAL
_r
I
=^
iLn H-I i i
20 40 80 80 100 120
DOLLARS
Fi8Hn3-13.
0 20 40 80 «0 100 120.
DOLLARS
3-63
-------
In California, the rate of excess repair by L.S.S. was one-half less than "by
Idle in both Phases, except for a 25$ excess repair cost for controlled
vehicles during Phase H. This excess cost was caused by excessive ignition
system repair. In Michigan, L.S.S. showed one-third less excess repair cost
than Idle in Phase II. In Phase I, the Michigan L.S.S. fleet had slightly
higher excess cost than Idle due almost entirely to excessive ignition repairs.
This analysis shows that L.S.S. data generally enable the L.S.S. garages to
diagnose and repair malfunctions better than Idle. The adjusted repair cost,
however, was still higher for L.S.S. than for Idle because a fairly high
excess cost was assigned to Idle. The criteria of 1500 ppm HC for ignition
failure and the OLI staff judgment that relatively simple adjustments would
pass the idle inspection were responsible for this excess cost being assigned
to Idle as well as L.jS.S.
3.4.2.3 Repair Cost as a Function of Inspection Test Rejection Rate
Average vehicle repair costs were calculated using the actual costs and
costs deleting excess repairs for several rejection rates. The analysis
was performed on Phase I and Phase II data separately. Average repair
costs were calculated for those vehicles identified as failing the recom-
mended L.S.S. rejection limits that were used in the analysis of Emission
Reduction as a Function of Inspection Test Rejection Rate and presented
in paragraph 3.2.3. These costs, therefore, were based on the same vehicles
as the effectiveness analysis and provided cost data for the analysis of
Cost Effectiveness as a Function of Inspection Test Rejection Rate.
Figures 3-14 and 3-15 present the actual repair costs for Phase I and
Phase II respectively. Costs were calculated for both controlled and
uncontrolled vehicles. Costs for all vehicles as well as only the ser-
viced vehicles were calculated. The total repair costs for the vehicles
included in each rejected population were used in this analysis, whether
they were associated with an HC or CO failure.
In Phase I (Figure 3-14), Idle was less costly than L.S.S. at all rejec-
tion rates for both controlled and uncontrolled vehicles. There was no
difference between Idle repair costs for controlled or uncontrolled vehicles.
L.S.S. was slightly less costly for controlled vehicles than uncontrolled
vehicles. The highest repair costs per serviced vehicle occurred at the
lowest rejection rate and decreased with increasing rejection rate. Idle
repair costs decreased faster than L.S.S. costs as the rejection rate of
controlled vehicles increased.
In Phase II (Figure 3-15), Idle service costs were about 20% less than L.S.S.
service costs for controlled vehicles at all rejection rates. L.S.S. service
costs were slightly less than Idle service costs for uncontrolled vehicles
at rejection rates greater than 25% and slightly higher than Idle at rejec-
tion rates less than 20%. Repair costs for both controlled and uncontrolled
vehicles were closer for Idle and L.S.S. in Phase II than in Phase I. Idle
service costs were about the same for controlled vehicles in each Phase
but considerably higher for controlled vehicles during Phase II than during
Phase I. L.S.S. service costs were slightly lower in Phase II than in Phase'I
for both controlled and uncontrolled vehicles.
3-64
-------
iCQWTMOLUO
M.WOMMA AND MICHIGAN PHAM I
, UNCONTPIOLLf O
1 1
'»• •«
-
IREJECTIOIN RATE"(%) V
((Ill,
i REJECTION RATE (%);'
1
ft Hi- 30 '40
' REJECTION RATE (%)
|
C
I I
I I
10 » 30 40 00 00
REJECTION RATE (%) '
! Figure 3-14. Average Vehicle Repair Costs — Phase I
3-65
-------
CALIFORNIA AND MICHIGAN PHASE II
CONTROLLED
70
60
Q 40
uj
O
CO
cc
£ 20
fc
O
° 10
--_o
--- "
I
I
I
I
10 20 30 40 50
REJECTION RATE (%)
60
O
I
UI
Q
UJ
cc
UJ
CO
tr
UJ
Q.
8
•UNCONTROLLED
70
60
50
30
20
10
I
I
10 20 30 40 50
REJECTION RATE (%)
60
CONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
70
60
IS 50
o
I
£ 40
DC 30
UJ
o.
O 20
10
I
I
10 20 30 40 50
REJECTION RATE (%)
60
70
60
£ 50
M
UI
1 *
UI
cc
UJ
0.
I-
30
20
10
0
I
I
10 20 30 40 50
REJECTION RATE (%)
60
Figure 3-15. Average Vehicle Repair Cost - Phase II
3-66
-------
CALIFORNIA AND MICHIGAN PHASE I
CONTROLLED
UNCONTROLLED
SO
40
ui
I 30
UJ
O
c
IDLE
LSS
tc.
UJ
a.
20
10
y
x
UJ
Q
UJ
y
E
UI
CO
oc
UI
Q.
Id 20 30 40
REJECTION RATE (%)
50
10
20 30 40
REJECTION RATE (%)
50
eo
50
v> 40
in ^"
y
I
ui
> 30
c
UI
«• 20
8
10
CO
y
I
oc
UI
Q.
I-
60
50
40
30
20
10
10 20 30 40
REJECTION RATE (%)
50
10 20 30 40
REJECTION RATE (%)
50
Figure 3-16. Average Vehicle Repair Costs Less Excess Repairs - Phase I
3-67
-------
CALIFORNIA AND MICHIGAN PHASE II
CONTROLLED
10
___ (OLE
I
I I
10 20 30 40
REJECTION RATE (%)
.BO
,UNCONTROLLED
10 20 30 40
REJECTION RATE (%)
'm
i
I
20
10 20 30 40
REJECTION RATE (%)
60
i Mi
$
_J
<
'40
30
20
19 20 30 40
REJECTION RATE (%)
•0
Figure 3-17. Average Vehicle Repair Costs Less Excess Repairs - Phase II
3-68
-------
Figure 3-16 and 3-17 present the average vehicle repair costs after deleting
excess repairs. Deletion of excess repair costs generally benefited Idle
more than L.S.S. because more repairs were determined to be excessive for
Idle than L.S.S.
In Phase I (Figure 3-16), deletion of excess costs reduced the average L.S.S.
serviced vehicle repair cost 40% to 50% for controlled vehicles and about
40% for uncontrolled vehicles. Deletion of excess costs reduced the average
serviced vehicle Idle repair cost about 30% at the 10% rejection rate and
about 10% near a 50% rejection rate. Idle, therefore, was still less costly
than L.S.S. at all rejection rates for HC and CO. Average serviced vehicle
repair costs at approximately the 10% rejection rate were about 50% greater
than at approximately the 50% rejection rate.
In Phase II (Figure 3-17), deletion of excess costs reduced the average L.S.S.
serviced vehicle repair cost 40% to 50% for controlled vehicles but only
slightly for uncontrolled vehicles. Deletion of excess costs reduced the
average Idle serviced vehicle repair cost about 30% at about 10% rejection
and 10% at about 50% rejection for controlled vehicles and 40% to 60% for
uncontrolled vehicles. Average serviced vehicle repair costs were slightly
lower for Idle than for L.S.S. on controlled vehicles but considerably lower
on uncontrolled vehicles. Except for the uncontrolled L.S.S. vehicles,
average serviced vehicle repair costs were 10% to 20% higher at approximately
a 10% rejection rate than a 50% rejection rate.
^.k.2.k Average Repair Cost for Service Actions
Table 3~30 presents the average cost of performing each category of service
action. The average costs were determined, for each phase, each state and
controlled and uncontrolled vehicles. The repair categories are defined in
paragraph 2.^.k. The service action cost was based on the actual first
service repair cost. Estimated major mechanical repairs were based on list
prices for parts, pay rate of $10 per hour, and average labor-hour rates from
Chilton's flat rate manual.
In general, average repair cost for each service action was less for L.S.S.
than for Idle. L.S.S. was 10% to 20% less expensive than Idle during car-
buretor repair in California. During Phase I, L.S.S. was 10% to 20% less
expensive than Idle for ignition repairs in both California and Michigan
and for ca'rburetor repairs in Michigan. L.S.S. generally achieved lower
costs on each service event. During Phase I particularly, the service events
were undertaken more frequently, i.e., excessively, resulting in the higher-
cost per serviced vehicle. During Phase II, the California vehicles exhibited
more severe carburetor malfunctions thereby increasing both Idle and L.S.S.
costs for carburetor repairs.
Average re.pair cost experienced was $10 to $12 for minor adjustments, $5
to $8 for minor parts, $20 to $30 for ignition repairs and typically $35
for carburetor repairs. The highest average Phase I or II costs for service
events were experienced by Idle regime vehicles for carburetor repairs. The
lowest average Phase I or II costs for service events were experienced by
L.S.S. Major mechanical repairs were not performed, however, costs were
estimated. Three types of repairs were evaluated rather than the test regime
because of the.cost of repair was dependent on the type of vehicle identified
3-69
-------
Table 3-30
AVERAGE COST FOR SERVICE EVENT
Service Event
Minor Adjustments
Controlled
Uncontrolled
All
Minor Parts
Controlled
Uncontrolled
All
Ignition
Controlled
Uncontrolled
All
Carburetor
Controlled
Uncontrolled
All
California
Phase I
Idle
8.25
10.81
10.00
8.74
10.78
10.13
30.28
29.06
29.45
N.P.
N.P.
N.P.
L.S.S.
8.50
14.31
12.10
4.18
5.16
4.79
38.90
21.14
27.91
26.33
30.70
29.04
Phase II
Idle
10.40
12.32
11.75
8.42
8.27
8.31
22.80
26.59
25.47
25.40
39.54
35.35
L.S.S.
7.90
10.42
9.64
4.11
6.97
6.08
23.43
20.34
21.30
41.40
40.54
40.81
Michigan
Phase I
Idle
13.18
12.74
12.92
6.70
5.51
6.06
27.20
30.86
29.34
N.P.
8.50
8.50
L.S.S.
12.48
14.85
14.09
6.68
5.98
6.20
27.97
25.10
26.02
27.50
19.36
21.96
Phase II
Idle
12.78
14.52
13.76
5.96
3.47
4.55
21.46
23.85
22.81
N.P.
45.35
25.63
L.S.S.
9.50
9.17
9.33
5.80
6.30
6.06
18.63
28.35
23.70
20.00
26.41
23.34
Combined
Phase I
Idle
11.07
11.65
11.43
7.38
7.77
7.62
28.57
29.96
29.38
N.P.
8.50
8.50
L.S.S.
9.38
13.58
12.18
5.77
5.59
5.66
29.18
23.62
25.14
26.92
25.03
25.57
Phase II
Idle
11.59
13.20
12.64
6.53
6.17
6.33
21.73
25.02
24.15
25.40
40.27
38.62
L.S.S.
8.83
9.90
9.48
5.10
6.75
6.09
21.83
23.77
22.87
36.05
36.77
36.62
Estimated Major Mechanical
Leaking Head Gasket 149.33
Valve Regrind 119.88
Rings and Valves 290.71
N.P. = work not performed
-------
rather than the regime. Average repair costs were estimated at $150 for
head gasket, $120 for valve regrind and $300 for overhaul including valve
regrind and piston ring replacement.
The analysis indicated that L.S.S. enable mechanics to be more selective
than Idle in making repairs when the service requirements of the vehicles
were similar. Both lower cost for each service event as well as lower
average serviced vehicle cost were achieved in Michigan during Phase II by
L.S.S. when Idle and L.S.S. failures were predominately due to idle malad-
justments or malfunctions. In the other cases where individual service event
costs were lower for L.S.S. than for Idle, but the average serviced vehicle
cost was higher; L.S.S. garages performed each type of work more frequently
than the Idle garages. If the L.S.S. garages were more sensitive to performing
minimum work, as during Phase II in Michigan, lower serviced vehicle cost
should result. L.S.S. service cost should be expected to be higher than
Idle only when the types of malfunctions occurring require extensive carburetor
repair because of L.S.S. cruise mode failures such as occurred in Phase II.
3.4.2.5 Average Repair Cost for Correcting Idle Malfunctions Only
The average repair cost was determined for only those vehicles which did not
have cruise mode failures indicated by L.S.S. data. Table 3~31 presents
the average repair cost for idle failures only using costs actually experienced
and the cost deleting excess repairs. Table 3-31 indicates that L.S.S. was
less expensive than Idle in performing repairs to correct malfunctions which
did not result in cruise mode failures. L.S.S. provided this lower cost in
every case except Michigan, Phase I, where the very high excess repair
rate occurred. After correcting for excess repairs, the cost of Idle and
L.S.S. were generally about $17 per vehicle. This was more than the cost of
minor adjustments but slightly less than the cost of minor adjustment plus
minor parts as shown in Table 3-30. Table 3-31 also contains the fleet
average repair costs corresponding to the serviced vehicle average.
3A.3 Total Program Costs
The inspection cost and maintenance cost were combined in order to determine
the estimated total cost of conducting Idle and L.S.S. FVIM programs in
California and Michigan. The analyses also permitted assessment of the
average vehicle owner cost. The inspection cost was taken from Table 3~26.
The average maintenance cost per vehicle was taken from Table 3~28 and
multiplied by the vehicle population in each state.
Table 3-32 presents the total program costs for each Phase and for each state
separately and added together. The inspection program cost was not dependent
on maintenance practice, therefore the same inspection program cost was
assigned to both phases. The maintenance cost was shown to vary, however,
reflecting the different average maintenance costs in each Phase. The inspec-
tion cost represents a relatively small part of the total program cost even
after deducting excess repair cost. The inspection cost would represent
a larger proportion of the total cost if the program was operated at a lower
rejection rate. Total costs were higher in California than in Michigan
reflecting the larger vehicle population in California. Total costs were
lower during Phase II than Phase I except for the California L.S.S. fleet
which had the large number of high emitters during Phase II.
3-71
-------
Idle was generally less eostly than L.S.S. During Phase II in Michigan,
however, L.S.S. was less costly than Idle due to the low repair cost.
Excess repair costs totalling about $*tO million in Phase I were incurred
Table 3-31
AVERAGE REPAIR COST OF CORRECTING IDLE ONLY FAILURES
(Dollars Per Vehicle)
Vehicle
Fleet
Serviced Vehicle
California
Idle
Ll+ O • Q»
Michigan
Idle
J-i* O • D •
Combined
Idle
Ju» O • D •
All Vehicles
California
Idle
L. o . o.
Michigan
Idle
J-t« O • O«
Combined
Idle
L.S.S.
Phase I
Actual
Cost
28.39
26.67
29.81
40.61
29.13
35.20
4.54
4.27
5.23
6.59
4.89
7.32
Less Excess
Cost
18.31
20.85
16.86
19.12
17.56
19.79
2.93
3.34
2.96
3.10
2.95
4.12
Phase II
Actual
Cost
24.12
21.27
29.58
15.20
27.13
17.71
4.18
3.40
6.31
2.43
5.25
3.42
Less Excess
Cost
14.14
18.75
18.70
14.94
16.66
16.52
2.45
3.00
3.99
2.39
3.22
3.19
by both the Idle and L.S.S. regimes. In Phase II, total excess repair costs
for the Idle and L.S.S. regimes averaged about $60 million and $20 million
respectively.
The vehicle owner costs were also presented in Table 3~32. The costs permitted
evaluation of cost recovery in a self supporting program. The first year
costs for a passed vehicle were between $2 and $3 if all investment costs were
paid the first year. Thereafter, or if the investment cost was distributed
over many years, the inspection costs for a passed vehicle were $l.l6 for Idle
and $1.35 for L.S.S.
3-72
-------
Table 3-32
FIRST YEAR TOTAL PROGRAM COST (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
30$ Rejection Rate
C*r\G t*
UOS L
Element
Inspection (PVI)
First Year Capital
Capital Amortized
Maintenance (M)
Actual Cost
Less Excess Cost
Total Program (PVIM)
First Year Capital
Actual Cost
Less Excess Cost
Capital Amortized
Actual Cost
Less Excess Cost
Vehicle Owner Cost*
Passed Vehicle
Failed Vehicle
Actual Cost
Less Excess Cost
California
Phase I
Idle
22
12
77
51
99
73
89
63
1.16
27.36
18.62
L.S.S.
31
14
89
78
120
109
103
92
1.35
33.12
29.28
Phase II
Idle
22
12
119
77
141
99
121
89
1.16
28.46
19.21
L.S.S.
31
14
147
125
178
156
161
139
1.35
42.39
25.86
Michigan
Phase I
Idle
12
6
49
32
61
44
54
38
1.16
33.57
22.61
L.S.S.
17
7
76
46
93
63
83
53
1.35
39.27
33.54
Phase II
Idle
12
6
50
35
62
47
56
41
1.16
30.82
21.87
L.S.S.
17
7
38
35
55
52
45
42
1.35
23.69
22.05
Combined
Phase I
Idle
40
18
126
83
166
128
144
101
1.16
27.94
18.93
L.S.S.
48
21
165
124
213
172
186
145
1.35
38.16
27.42
Phase II
Idle
40
18
169
112
209
152
187
130
1.16
32.30
22.27
L.S.S.
48
21
185
160
233
208
206
181
1.35
32.38
28.46
*Vehicle owner cost in dollars per year
-------
The owner of a failed vehicle would pay both the inspection fee and the cost
of repairs. For the average failed Idle regime vehicle, the owner's total
cost was $28 in Phase I and $32 in Phase II. For the average failed L.S.S.
regime vehicle, the owners total cost was $38 in Phase I and $32 in Phase II.
Owner costs were lower in Michigan than in California, except for the Phase I
L.S.S. fleet due to the high excess cost in*Michigan. After deducting the
excess repair costs the average failed vehicle cost was $18 to $22 for Idle
and $27 to $29 for L.S.S.
The owner of a failed and subsequently serviced vehicle could expect some
fuel savings due to the adjustments and repairs required to lower emissions.
L.S.S. exhibited greater annual fuel savings ($31) than Idle ($9) in Phase II.
Idle did not exhibit greater savings than L.S.S. in either California or
Michigan. In California, however, both Idle and L.S.S. incurred negative
fuel savings on controlled vehicles. The fuel savings for L.S.S. were con-
sistent with the large emission reductions experienced Curing Phase II.
3-5 COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
This section presents the results of the cost effectiveness analysis which
combines the emission reductions determined in the Effectiveness Analysis
(Section 3.2) and the Cost Analysis (Section 3-^)- The specific methodology
is described in paragraph 2.3.6. Cost effectiveness is presented in terms
of the cost effectiveness index, as a function of Inspection Test Rejection
Rate, and for the Correction of Idle Malfunctions Only.
3.5.1 Cost Effectiveness Index
The cost effectiveness index (shown in Table 3-33) combines the annual emission
reductions of the effectiveness index and the annual total program cost to give
statewide first year cost effectiveness in terms of pounds of emission reduc-
tion per dollar of cost. The effectiveness data from Table 3~l8 calculated
for equal weighting of pollutants were utilized. The cost data from Table 3-32
were utilized for only inspection costs, only maintenance costs, only mainte-
nance cost deleting excess repair, and the sum of inspection and maintenance
costs with and without excess repairs deleted.
For the total program cost using amortized capital and actual repair cost;
Idle was 41% more cost effective in reducing emission than L.S.S. during
Phase I. L.S.S. was 52% more cost effective in reducing emissions during
Phase II. In Phase I, Idle was always more cost effective than L.S.S.
In Phase II, L.S.S. was more cost effective than Idle, except in Michigan
where Idle was more cost effective if only inspection cost was used.
Idle cost effectiveness did not change significantly between Phases.
L.S.S., however, was nearly twice as cost effective in Phase II as during
Phase I. The change in L.S.S. cost effectiveness was due to improved
emission reduction in California and lower average repair cost in Michigan
compared to Phase I results. The improved L.S.S. performance was related
to correct instruction in the application of the diagnostic information of
the modal failure data during Phase II.
3-74
-------
Table 3-33
FIRST YEAR PROGRAM COST EFFECTIVENESS - 1975 CVS Data
30% Failure Rate
Annual Pounds Reduction Per Dollar
Cost Element
Inspection (PVI)
First Year Capital
Amortized Capital
Maintenance Cost (M)
Actual Cost
Less Excess Cost
Total Program Cost (PVIM)
First Year Capital
Actual Cost
Less Excess Cost
Amortized Capital
Actual Cost
Less Excess Cost
California
Phase I
Idle
91
167
26
39
20
28
23
32
L.S.S.
60
133
21
24
16
17
18
20
Phase II
Idle
126
231
23
36
20
28
23
31
L.S.S.
172
381
36
43
30
34
33
38
Michigan
Phase I
Idle
125
251
31
47
25
34
28
40
L.S.S.
79
192
18
29
14
21
16
25
Phase II
Idle
93
185
22
32
18
24
20
27
L.S.S.
73
177
33
35
23
24
28
30
Combined
Phase I
Idle
88
195
28
42
21
27
24
35
L.S.S.
67
153
19
26
15
19
17
22
Phase II
Idle
97
216
23
35
19
26
21
30
L.S.S.
137
313
36
41
28
32
32
36
Effectiveness Values from Table 3-18 (Tons Per Year - Equal Pollutant Weighting).
Cost Values from Table 3-32.
W
Ul
-------
3'5«2 Cost Effectiveness as a Function of inspection Test Rejection Rate
The fleet average cost effectiveness of Idle and L.S.S. was calculated by
dividing the average emission reductions of HC and CO by the average vehicle
repair cost. The analysis utilized actual repair cost and repair cost
deleting excess repairs and was based on combined California and Michigan
data for each Phase. Figures 3-18 and 3-19 present the cost effectiveness
of HC and CO emission reductions'.
In Phase I (Figure 3-18), maximum cost effectiveness generally occurred at
the lowest rejection rate. Minimum cost effectiveness generally occurred
at the highest rejection rate. Idle was more cost effective than L.S.S. at
all rejection rates for HC and CO. Both Idle and L.S.S. were more cost
effective in reducing CO than HC. Idle was more cost effective in reducing
HC and CO emissions from uncontrolled vehicles than controlled vehicles.
L.S.S. was slightly more cost effective for HC on uncontrolled than controlled
vehicles but essentially equally cost effective for CO on uncontrolled and
controlled vehicles. After deleting excess repair costs, Idle was still
more cost effective than L.S.S. at all rejection rates for HC and CO.
In Phase II (Figure 3-19), cost effectivenss also tended to be highest at
lower rejection rates. L.S.S., however, was more cost effective than Idle
at all rejection rates for HC and CO on uncontrolled vehicles and for HC on
controlled vehicles. Idle was marginally more cost effective for CO on con-
trolled vehicles. L.S.S. cost effectiveness was more dependent on rejection
rate than Idle. Idle and L.S.S. were over twice as cost effective in reducing
HC on uncontrolled vehicles than controlled vehicles. Idle was equally cost
effective in reducing CO on controlled and uncontrolled vehicles. L.S.S.
was 507» more cost effective in reducing CO from uncontrolled than controlled
vehicles. After deleting excess repair costs, L.S.S. was more cost effective
than Idle in reducing HC and CO emissions from controlled vehicles and CO
emissions from uncontrolled vehicles. Idle was slightly more cost effective
than L.S.S. for HC emissions from..uncontrolled vehicles.
3.5.3 Cost Effectiveness of Correcting Idle Malfunctions Only
This paragraph combines the emission reductions and repair cost determine
for those vehicles which failed only idle mode test values. The L.S.S.
data recorded for both Idle regime vehicles and L.S.S. regime vehicles
was used to select those vehicles in each fleet which were known to'have
failing emissions only at idle. The emission reductions from Idle and L.S.S.
would be expected to be less for-the L.S.S. vehicles, however, because the
L.S.S. garages would be certain the failure was only due to idle adjustment.
Table 3-34 presents the results of'the cost effectiveness of correcting idle
emission failures only. The results were calculated by summing the HC, CO
and NO gram per mile emission reductions and dividing by the sum of the
cost or repair for the same vehicles. The resulting .index provided cost
effectiveness in terms of grams per mile per service cost dollar. Data are
presented for each Phase using actual repair cost and repair cost deleting
excess repairs. The actual repair;cost should be used to interpret the
relative .diagnostic capability of Idle and L.S.S. The repair cost less
excess repairs represents the ideal situation where both Idle and L.S.S.
garages make the best use of the information available to them.
3-76
-------
CALIFORNIA AND MICHIGAN 1»7i CVS DATA
MRVICff COtTB ONLY
CONTROLLED UNCONTROLLED
0.4
1
0.2
f
5
*
if *
4
HI
f
— — — IDLi
II I I 1
30 4t W
REJECTION RATE (%)
0.4
6.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.4
OJ
0.2
0.1
'- tf
4
I I I I I
10
REJECTION RATE (%)
Fiaure 3-18. Cost Effectiveness as a Function of Failure Rate - Phase I
3-77
-------
0.4
0.3
1s
3 °'2
O
oc
IK 0.1
I
0
0.4
cc
g x
oc
S o.
o
8
Ul
m _ .
85 8
3
CONTROLLED
CALIFORNIA AND MICHIGAN 1975 CVS DATA
SERVICE COSTS ONLY
UNCONTROLLED
J I
I
OJB -
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
3
2
1
0
0.8
0.6
0.4
•—O «_
J I
I I
102030405060 01020304050
REJECTION RATE (%) REJECTION RATE (%)
Figure 3-19. Cost Effectiveness as a Function of Failure Rate - Phase II
60
late
3-78
-------
L.S.S. was found to be more cost effective than Idle in all cases for repair-
ing vehicles with only idle malfunctions. In Phase I, L.S.S. was 10% more cost
effective than Idle. In Phase II, L.S.S. was 110% more cost effective than
Idle in repairing vehicles with only idle emission failures. Idle cost
Table 3-34
FLEET COST EFFECTIVENESS OF CORRECTING IDLE ONLY FAILURES
Grams Per Mile Per Dollar
Vehicle
Fleet
California
Idle
L.S.S.
Michigan
Idle
Li. Q • O •
Combined
Idle
Ll* L>« O •
Phase I
Actual
0.90
1.09
1.38
2.05
1.16
1.24
Less Excess
1.40
1.42
2.44
4.36
1.92
2.20
Phase II
Actual
1.00
2.25
1.55
4.58
1.33
2.75
Less Excess
1.71
2.55
2.46
4.66
2.17
2.95
Effectiveness Values from Table 3-13.
Cost Values from Table 3-31 for All Vehicles.
effectiveness improved slightly from Phase I to Phase II. L.S.S. cost effec-
tiveness in Phase II was 120$ greater than in Phase I. This improvement was
due to much lower L.S.S. repair cost- incurred on these vehicles during Phase II
compared to Phase I. After deducting excess repairs, L.S.S. in Phase II was
more cost effective than Idle.
3-6 RELATIBILITY ANALYSIS
This section presents the results of the correlation analysis of the 21
candidate inspection tests relative to the 1972 and 1975 CVS test procedures
and the errors of commission resulting from Idle and L.S.S. inspections.
These analyses are presented for the combined Phase I and Phase II test
fleets sii '.e the larger sample sizes provide greater confidence in the
conclusions and changes in the maintenance procedures would not affect the
reliability criteria used for the analysis .
3.6.1 Correlation and Regression Results
This paragraph presents regression and correlation coefficients of the various
short emission inspection tests relative to the 1975 CVS test. The discussion
is limited to before service data only. Complete regression tables of 1975
CVS data, before and after service, are shown in Appendix C.
3-79
-------
Each of the short inspection tests was correlated to the 1972 CVS and 1975
CVS test using a linear regression of the form:
n
y = a + £b x
where y = 1972 or 1975 CVS in grams per mile
a = intercept of regression
b. = coefficients of independent variables
x. = emission values of short inspection test in concentration units
n = number of separate modes
In case of multiple regression, i.e., the steady state tests like L.S.S. this
equation considers each speed as follows:
y = a + b^ + b2x2 + b^
where b.. , b?, b_ = the Idle, Low Cruise, and High Cruise coefficients
x,, x?, x_ = the Idle, Low Cruise, and High Cruise emission
values in concentration units
In general, the mass (CVS) tests related considerably better to the 1975 CVS
data than did any volumetric tests. Tables 3-35 to 3-37 rank the 1972 CVS
and 10 common short tests with respect to how well they correlate with the
1975 CVS test (before service data) for California, Michigan and the combined
states respectively. Each Idle and L.S.S. fleet contained 150 vehicles.
With no exceptions, the best correlation occurred between the 1972 and 1975
CVS mass tests. The EPA Short CVS Test and the mass emission multiple step-
wise regression shared second best relatability. Of the 22 emission tests
whose correlation coefficients were ranked, the 6 mass tests generally ranked
in the upper quarter while the volumetric tests generally did not rank
in the upper half of the groups. Volumetric L.S.S. was ranked llth and
9th best correlation for HC in California and Michigan respectively.
Volumetric L.S.S. was ranked llth and 10th best correlated for CO in
California and Michigan respectively. Volumetric L.S.S. was 9th and 5th
best correlated for NOX in California and Michigan respectively. Idle
correlation ranked 22nd best for HC and CO in both California and Michigan.
Idle NOX correlation ranked 21st best in California and 19th best in Michigan.
Two volumetric tests which generally ranked higher than L.S.S. for HC and CO
were the hot start 7-Mode and the multiple stepwise regression of steady
state speeds. If all the inspection tests performed had been listed, some
3-80
-------
Table 3-35
RANKING OF SHORT INSPECTION TEST
CORRELATION TO 1975 CVS TEST
300 California Vehicles
LO
I
00
Short Test
Mass Tests
1972 CVS
EPA Short
7 -Mode
L.S.S.
Best 1 Speed
Step Combined
Volumetric Tests
7 -Mode
L.S.S.
Best 1 Speed
Step Combined
Idle
HC
California Cars
0.995
0.965
0.937
0.966
(30) 0.931
0.965
0.773
0.824
(40) 0.804
0.818
0.513
Rank
1
4
5
2
6
3
17
11
14
13
22
CO
California Cars
0.976
0.892
0.859
0.891
(40) 0.823
0^892
0.852
0.775
(40) 0.734
0.778
0.534
Rank
1
3
5
4
7
2
6
11
14
10
22
NO*
California Cars
0.979
0.844
0.785
0.742
(50) 0.740
0.766
0.577
0.680
(50) 0.646
0.669
0.038
Rank
1
2
3
5
6
4
14
9
11
10
21
Numbers in parentheses are the best correlated single speeds
-------
Table 3-36
RANKING OF SHORT INSPECTION TEST
CORRELATION TO 1975 CVS TEST
300 Michigan Vehicles
00
1SJ
Short Test
Mass Tests
1972 CVS
EPA Short
7 -Mode
L.S.S.
Best 1 Speed
Step Combined
! Volumetric Tests
; 7 -Mode
L.S.S.
Best 1 Speed
Step Combined
Idle
HC
Michigan Cars
0.987
0.932
0.920
0.933
(40) 0.886
0.916
0.883
0.877
(60) 0.869
0.894
0.747
Rank
1
2
4
3
7
5
8
9
10
6
22
CO
Michigan Cars
0.963
0.852
0.855
0.854
(20) 0.782
0.872
0.808
0.768
(40) 0.714
0.808
0.548
Rank
1
5
3
4
8
2
7
10
13
6
22
NOX
Michigan Cars
0.978
0.799
0.545
0.757
(60) 0.709
0.730
0.779
0.757
(60) 0.638
0.653
0.168
Rank
1
2
14
4
7
6
3
5
10
9
19
Numbers in parentheses are the best correlated single speeds
-------
Table 3-37
RANKING OF SHORT INSPECTION TEST
CORRELATION TO 1975 CVS TEST
Combined States
Short Test
Mass Tests
1972 CVS
EPA Short
7 -Mode
L.S.S.
Best 1 Speed
Step Combined
Volumetric Tests
7 -Mode
L.S.S.
Best 1 Speed
Step Combined
Idle
HC
All Cars
0.991
0.949
0.929
0.951
(30) 0.892
0.936
0.819
0.812
(40) 0.798
0.821
0.602
Rank
1
3
5
2
6
4
12
13
14
11
22
CO
All Cars
0.970
0.874
0.856
0.873
(40) 0.796
0.883
0.832
0.766
(40) 0.717
0.785
0.536
Rank
1
3
5
4
7
2
6
11
13
9
22
NOX
All Cars
0.980
0.833
0.643
0.752
(50) 0.699
0.731
0.628
0.726
(60) 0.626
0.655
0.058
Rank
1
2
10
3
6
4
11
5
12
9
20
Numbers in parentheses are the best 'correlated single speeds
00
-------
single constant speed mass tests would have ranked higher than some of the
volumetric tests. Rank of correlation of the short inspection tests relative
to the 1975 CVS test was generally similar for HC, CO and NO emissions.
Typically, the single best correlated constant speed tests did not relate as
well as any of the other tests considered. The single constant speed of kO mph
was best related for CO and HC while 60 mph was best related for NO . In no
case was the best single speed more closely related to the 1975 CVS than the
L.S.S. test. In every case, the best single speed was more correlated than
Idle.
Figures 3-20 to 3-22 depict the degree of improvement achieved in correlation
between multiple constant speed tests and the 1975 CVS test as various speeds
are sequentially incorporated into the multiple linear regression equation.
In considering the L.S.S. test, the Low Cruise measurement provided the
greatest relatability to the 1975 CVS, followed by the idle and lastly by the
High Cruise measurements. This observation agrees with that regarding the
constant speed tests (best correlation at 40 mph). The data show that, in
general, addition or deletion of the least correlated mode (typically High
Cruise) has a relatively small impact on how strongly the L.S.S. test is
related to the 1975 CVS test. In most cases for HC and CO, the complete
L.S.S. test related to the CVS as well as did a different combination of three
constant speed tests. For NO the L.S.S. test related to the CVS better than
a different combination of three speeds. This occurred because of the higher
dynamometer load used for the L.S.S. test.
When the volumetric constant speed tests were subjected to the same analysis
as above, it was generally found that only small improvements in relatability
were gained by incorporating more than four separate speeds (regardless of
the specific speeds) into the multiple regression equation. Figures 3-20
to 3-22 show the improved correlation from incorporating additional speeds
and indicate which speed was selected. The results show that the gain on
correlation coefficient after the second speed is added is small. Although
it may be enough to change the rank of the multiple regression, the true
improvement in standard error or correlation coefficient would be small.
Tables 3-38 to 3-i(O present the actual regression, correlation coefficients
and standard error for several common short inspection tests relative to
the 1975 test. As expected, the 1972 CVS and 1975 CVS tests are highly
correlated to each other. The slope, b, of the regression line is very
close to unity in all cases (representing nearly a one-to-one relationship).
When the characteristics derived for the sample vehicles were projected to a
larger population, the 90$ confidence interval for a and b were on the order
of ±10-50$ of the average value. In addition, the 90$ confidence interval
of the expected population correlation coefficient was only ±0-2$ of the
average value.
Since standard errors (SE) are in absolute values rather than percentages,
they will be proportionately larger for HC and NO and larger still for CO.
X
The 1972 CVS and 1975 CVS tests replicated each other very closely because
they were calculated from the same test data. Therefore, it was not necessary
3-84
-------
300 CALIFORNIA VEHICLES
STEADY STATE SPEEDS TO 1976 CVS
ft
1.0
K
1 M
s
5
5
^
Ul
c
8 °-8
u.
O
ill
0
-------
!
» i
1.0
o.t &-** —
LO
VOLUMETRIC TESTS
MASS TESTS
3rd 4th Sth •* 7*
VARIABLES ADDED
HC
300 MICHIGAN VEHICLES
STEADY STATE SPEEDS TO 1975 CVS
1.0 —
lit 2nd 3«d 4th Bth 6th. 7th
VARIABLES ADDED
CO
1.0
OJB
LSS
20 o
0.6
'40 0 20 30 10 °o
I I I I I
1st 2nd 3rd 4th Sth 6th -7th
VARIAtLES ADDED
NO*
Figure 3-21. Dependence of Correlation on Number of Steady State Speeds - Michigan
-------
COMBINED STATES
STEADY STATE SPEEDS TO 1975 CVS
1.Q
2
5
Z OJ»
O
•—
V 5
oo jj
c
" 0.8
Q
Z
»!
o
I °-7
0.6
VOLUMETRIC TESTS
— MASS TESTS
-
LSS
.OX x- —
,/ ^^ 50 60 40 20 10
— *--^o
30
0 60^ 30 20 50 ,Q
-
-
I I I I I
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
—
—
20 J^"""o" 30 50" To
, S 60
<-/ „ 60 60 30 ,0
/ S^ ^"
f f
LO
-
1 1 1 1 1
1.0
05
03
0.6
—
iHI LO
n X~ LSS
-°Xm ID
l-^o" 40 0 20 30 1°
50^
r
L°^ „ 50 30 20 10
—
I I I I I
1«. 2nd 3rd :4th 5th 6th 7th
VARIABLES ADDED
HC
1«t 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
VARIABLES ADDED
CO
lit 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
VARIABLES ADDED
NOK
Figure 3-22. Dependence of Correlation on Number of Steady State Speeds - All Vehicles
-------
Table 3-38
SELECTED REGRESSION EQUATIONS AND COEFFICIENTS
1975 CVS Before Service Data
California Vehicles Only
Inspection
Test
Vol. 7-Mode Hot
HC
CO
NO
X
Idle
HC
CO
NO
X
ij« Q • O •
HC
CO
NO
X
EPA Short
HC
CO
NO
X
1972 CVS
HC
CO
NO
X
Intercept
(a)
2.3923
20.2859
1.5528
4.7249
39.5000
2.8447
1.6976
28.8946
0.5871
0.8550
26.5726
0.7265
-0.4154
-2.9559
0.0907
Idle
0.9340
1.1027
0.3492
0.0050
9.5787
0.0003
0.0015
4.6394
-0.0004
1.1919
1.0568
0.9129
0.9647
0.9150
0.9738
LO
0.0011
8.1215
0.0006
MR
0.7728
0.8523
0.5765
0.5026
0.5335
0.0375
0.8236
0.7751
0.6803
0.9646
0.8918
0.8439
0.9951
0.9760
0.9794
SE
(gr/mi)
5.220
28.106
1.299
7.110
45.443
1.589
4.680
34.064
1.170
2.169
24.309
0.853
0.816
11.704
0.321
to perform a relatability analysis between the short tests and both CVS tests.
The 1975 CVS test has, therefore, been selected as the standard for comparison.
In summary, the tables showed that the Idle Mode test was not as well related
to the 1975 test as was -the L.S.S. test. In addition, the L.S.S. test
exhibited greater consistency of correlation coefficients (MR) within sub-
fleets. As was expected, correlation of Idle to 1975 CVS for NO measurements
was very low. The Idle test exhibited considerable larger standard error
(dispersion of points about the regression line) than the L.S.S. test for
every pollutant. The L.S.S. was among the best correlated volumetric tests
and the numerical difference in standard error between L.S.S. and the other
highly ranked volumetric tests was small.
3-88
-------
Table 3-39
SELECTED REGRESSION EQUATIONS AND COEFFICIENTS
1975 CVS Before Service Data
Michigan Vehicles Only
Inspection
Test
Vol. 7 -Mode Hot
HC
CO
NO
X
Idle
HC
CO
NO
X
u« u • D .
HC
CO
NO
X
EPA Short
HC
CO
NO
X
1972 CVS
HC
CO
NO
X
Intercept
(a)
2.4726
22.4287
1.2022
2.9411
37.3501
3.2293
2.7488
26.3030
0.7652
1.2955
29.4849
1.3678
-0.3368
0.4609
0.2276
Idle
-------
Table 3-40
SELECTED REGRESSION EQUATIONS AND COEFFICIENTS
1975 CVS Before Service Data
Combined States
Inspection
Test
Vol. 7-Mode Hot
HC
CO
NO
X
Idle
HC
CO
NO
X
Lt» D • O .
HC
CO
NO
X
EPA Short
HC
CO
NO
X
1972 CVS
HC
CO
-NO
X
Intercept
(a)
2.4402
21.5273
1.5716
4.0103
39.0298
3.5665
2.7010
27.6412
0.6863
1.0422
27.8139
0.9690
-0.3959
-1.4310
0.1158
Idle
0.8939
1.1121
0.4845
0.0060
8.9689
-0.0007
0.0018
5.2628
-0.0005
1.1191
1.0250
0.8755
0.9485
0.8871
0.9900
LO
0.0018
6.8602
0.0006
MR
0.8195
0.8325
0.6278
0.6019
0.5359
0.0580
0.8120
0.7665
0.7258
0.9490
0.8743
0.8336
0.9912
0.9696
0.9802
SE
(gr/mi)
4.367
28.100
1.387
6.085
42.827
1.779
4.455
32.632
1.228
2.403
24.626
0.984
0.997
12.402
0.353
• there is 90$ confidence that the actual 1975
CVS emissions of a vehicle will be within plus
or minus 80$ of the value predicted by Idle
test data.
• there is 90$ confidence that the actual 1975
CVS emissions of a vehicle will be within plus
or minus 60$ to 70$ of the value predicted by
L.S.S. test data.
The above results suggest that neither Idle nor L.S.S. were statistically
good predictors of 1975 CVS emissions from individual vehicles. In the
case of fleet (more than 30 vehicles) emissions, however; Idle and L.S.S.
3-90
-------
•OK CONFIDENCE MNO
OF A SINGLE VEHICLE
24
ui
I-
(O
o
UJ 16
u
5
0 12
IS
n
I 12 16
1 ...--..
1975 CVS PREDICTED HC EMISSIONS (GM/MILE)
24
ML NCI
iMblMMttMTM-
3-91
-------
32
90% CONFIDENCE BANDS
OF A SINGLE VEHICLE
• 12 16
1975 CVS PREDICTED HC EMISSIONS (GM/MILE)
Fifura 3-24. HC Confidence Band of Predicted 1175 CVS Emtetion* Loaded Steedy Stato
Intpection Ten - Phew I and II Uncontroltod VehidM t-
3-92
-------
CONFIDENCE BAND
OF A SINGLE VEHICLE
4 « •
1975 CVS PREDICTED HC EMISSIONS (GM/MILE)
H|M« ML HC CmfUMiM Ban* of PrMKctad 1076 CV1 EmWom Mb I
ftmm I ** II Centtvltad
3-93
-------
90% CONFIDENCE BAND
OF A SINGLE VEHICLE
90% CONFIDENCE BAND
THE FLEET
Fifyre 3-26. HC ConfM
468
1975 CVS PREDICTED HC EMISSIONS (GM/MILE)
d« of Predicted 1178 CVt Ein '• • '
Impwtiafi TMt - NMM I ml II ContralM VtMcfaa
3-94
-------
200
90% CONFIDENCE BAND
OF A SINGLE VEHICLE
ISO —
90% CONFIDENCE BAND
OF THE FLEET
1BO —
= 140 —
.5
O
UI
o
in
u
120
100 —
80 —
40
40
60
Figure 3-27.
BO 100 120
1975 CVS PREDICTED HC EMISSIONS (GM/MILE)
140
100
•f Pi«dkt^ 1976 CVS EmWom Mto In^irtlon T«t -
3-95
-------
200
180—
160 —
- 140
5
2
CO
o
i
o
o
o
(O
u
90% CONFIDENCE BAND
OF A SINGLE VEHICLE
90% CONFIDENCE BAND
OF THE FLEET
120
40
80 100 120
1975 CVS PREDICTED CO EMISSIONS (GM/MILE)
Figure 3-28. CO Confidence Bands of Predicted 1975 CVS Emissions Loaded Steady State
Inspection Test - Phase I and II Uncontrolled Vehicles
V96
-------
90% CONFIDENCE BAND
OF-A SINGLE VEHICLE
90% CONFIDENCE BAND
OF THE FLEET
60
80
100
120
1975 CVS PREDICTED CO EMISSIONS (GM/MILE)
Figure 3-29. CO Confidence Bands of Predicted 1975 CVS Emissions Idle Inspection Test
Phase I and II Controlled Vehicles
3-97
-------
90% CONFIDENCE BAND
OF A SINGLE VEHICLE
90% CONFIDENCE BAND
OF THE FLEET
20
40 60 80
1975 CVS PREDICTED CO EMISSIONS (GM/MILE)
100
120
Figure 3-30. CO Confidence Bands of Predicted 1975 CVS Emissions Loaded Steady State
Inspection Test - Phase I and II Controlled Vehicles
3-98
-------
were both fairly good predictors of fleet 1975 CVS emission levels. Referring
again to Figure 3-23 for Idle HC Emissions corresponding to a predicted 1975
CVS mean value of 12 grams per mile, there is 90$ confidence the actual 1975
CVS fleet mean value was 10 to 13 grams per mile. For L.S.S. HC emissions,
see Figure 3-24, corresponding to a predicted 1975 CVS fleet mean of 12 grams
per mile, there is 90$ confidence that the actual 1975 CVS fleet mean value
was 11 to 13 grams per mile. In general, there was 90% confidence that the
actual 1975 CVS fleet emission mean value was within plus or minus 20$ of the
1975 CVS value predicted from both Idle and L.S.S. data.
The above analysis combined all vehicles. If separate correlations had been
performed for different weight classes or if data had been adjusted for
vehicle weight, a higher correlation might have been found.
3.6.2 Errors of Commission
Table 3-^1 presents commission errors as a percentage of the.total fleet
when given proportions of each fleet are failed. For example, it is seen
that at the 10$ rejection rate for the California Idle Mode fleet 3$ of all
the controlled vehicles inspected were committed to unnecessary maintenance.
As the rejection rate increased, the percentage of commission errors increased
proport ionally.
If commission errors of up to 10$ of the fleet were acceptable, a failure
rate no higher than between 20$ and 30$ of the total fleet would be accepted
for HC. Similarly failure rate of between 30$ and k&$> of the total fleet
would be acceptable for CO. In most cases, the uncontrolled vehicles
exhibited larger fractions of commission errors than controlled vehicles
for CO. This occurred due to the typically larger variance in the uncontrolled
sample T>opulation.
The analysis shows that Idle and L.S.S. tests were essentially equal in the
amount of commission errors caused. This was expected because of the
similarity in the correlation coefficients and standard error of the tests.
It was apparent, however, that there are fewer commission errors for CO than
for HC measurements. For every commission error which occurs, an omission
error also occurs. Omissions are caused when a vehicle which would have
failed the 1975 test was passed because it showed low emissions on the short
test. The result is that overall effectiveness in emission reduction is
lower than would be the case if the 1975 CVS test were used. Since both
Idle and L.S.S. have similar errors of commission, the lost effectiveness
from errors of omission would also be similar.
An alternate definition of commission and omission errors can be proposed based
upon the ability of the regime to identify correctable engine system malfunc-
tions or maladjustments independent of CVS emission levels. Using malfunc-
tion detection rather than emission measurement as a goal, errors of commis-
sion and omission could be redefined as follows:
• errors of commission occur when the short inspection
test fails vehicles that need no repair or cannot be
repaired at reasonable cost;
3-99
-------
U)
§
Table 3-4l
ANALYSIS OP ERRORS OF COMMISSION
Percent of All Inspected Vehicles
RR
10$
| 20$
1 30$
o
g kVfo
50$
1C*
y 20$
i 30$
| kVfo
° 50$
CALIFORNIA
Idle
CUT
3^3
798
11 13 12
11 16 Ik
13 26 20
111
1 k 3
687
11 11 11
lit- 18 16
L.S.S.
CUT
132
787
15 12 13
12 15 13
19 19 19
000
3 k 3
5 5 5
978
12 9 10
MICHIGAN
Idle
CUT
it- 0 2
7^5
10 10 10 .
13 13 13
20 15 17
0 it- 2
063
it- 10 7
10 16 13
111- 25 20
L.S.S.
CUT
301
9 i 5
10 8 9
16 9 12
19 Ik 16
ill
333
k k k
7 11 9
11 13 12
COMBINED STATES
Idle
CUT
k 2 3
767
11 11 11
12 Ik 13
16 21 19
132
153
5 9 7
11 lit- 12
lit- 21 18
L.S .S .
CUT
212
8 5 6
12 10 11
lit- 12 13
19 16 17
111
333
5 5 5
899
12 11 11
C = Controlled Vehicles
U = Uncontrolled Vehicles
T = Combined Controlled and Uncontrolled Vehicles
RR = Percent of Vehicle Population Rejected by Inspection Test
-------
• errors of omission occur when the short inspection test
-does not fail vehicles that can be repaired at reasonable
cost
Using the above definition, L.S.S. was found to commit few errors of comis-
sion or omission compared to Idle when the service centers correctly utilized
the diagnostic data available from the L.S.S. modal failures. Idle did not
generally commit commission errors but did commit large numbers of omission
errors because of low idle emissions but excessive power mode emissions.
3-101
-------
REFERENCES
1. Final Report - "Mandatory Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance,"
Volume III, California Air Resources Board Contract ARB 1522, 30 May
1971, by the Northrop Corporation, Environmental Systems Department.
2. Federal Register, Volume 35, Number 219, pp. 17288-17313.
3. Federal Register, Volume 36, Number 128, pp. 12657-12663.
4. Cline, E. L. and L. Tinkham, "A Realistic Vehicle Emission Inspection
System," APCA Paper 68-152, Clayton Manufacturing Company, El Monte,,
California.
5. Federal Register, Volume 33, Number 108, pp. 8304-8324.
6. Guenther, William. The Analysis of Variance; Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1964.
3-102
-------
SECTION k
APPENDICES
The three sections of the appendix consist of general information, 1975 CVS
vehicle emission summary tables, and tables of short test regression and
correlation coefficients. The regression and correlation summaries present
data for Phase I and II combined. Emission summaries are presented separately
for Phase I and II data.
k.I APPENDIX A. TEST PROCEDURES
These procedures were supplied to the repair garages and provided the written
instructions by which they inspected and repaired failing vehicles in the
Idle and L.S.S. fleets.
k.2 APPENDIX B. VEHICLE EMISSION SUMMARY TABLES
The following tables present before service and after second service 1975
CVS emission data separately for Phase I and II. The tables present the
number of vehicles, mean value, standard deviation, minimum value and maxi-
mum value for HC, CO and NOX. Data are presented for the following vehicle
parameters: age, mileage, make, control device, engine size and weight.
M APPENDIX C. SHORT TEST REGRESSION AND CORRELATION SUMMARIES
The computer routine generated two types of regression program outputs:
simple regression analysis (treating only one short test); and multiple
stepwise regression analysis (treating more than one short test). The
following paragraphs describe the data presented in each output. In the
case of simple regression calculations, the two variables comprise the
dependent (CVS) variable and the independent (short test) variable. In the
case of multiple regressions, varying numbers of short test values comprise
the independent variables and the CVS values comprise the dependent variable.
Reading across the summary tables from left to right, the following statistics
are presented:
Name of Test - identifies each test which the 1972 and 1975 CVS
tests were correlated and regressed against. The abbreviations
for each of the tests are given in Table k-1.
Z^ - gives the expected plus and minus confidence band at 90$
significance for the correlation coefficient (MR) in percent
based on the sample size used (150 vehicles) if the coefficient
were projected to a large (statewide) population. This
statistic has no meaning for the multiple regressions and
therefore are shown as zero. Z$ is calculated from:
Z = | In 1-MR
4-1
-------
Table k-I - SHORT TEST ABBREVIATIONS
EPA = Federal short cycle test - CVS bag mean value
M7MODE = 7-Mode hot start test - CVS bag mean value
KMIDLE = Multiple regression of three L.S.S. test modes r CVS diluted
continuous measurement
MOOMPH = 0 mph - CVS diluted continuous measurement
MLOMPH = 10 mph - CVS diluted continuous measurement
M20MPH = 20 mph - CVS diluted continuous measurement
M30MPH = 30 mph - CVS diluted continuous measurement
MOOMPH = to mph - CVS diluted continuous measurement
M50MPH = 50 mph - CVS diluted continuous measurement
M60MPH = 60 mph - CVS diluted continuous measurement
M-OMPH = Multiple regression of steady states test -
CVS diluted continuous measurement
V7MODE = 7 Mode hot start test - NDIR continuous measurement
KVMTDL = Multiple regression of three L.S.S. test modes
NDIR continuous measurement
VOOMPH = 0 mph - HDIR continuous measurement
V10MPH = 10 mph - NDIR continuous measurement
V20MPH = 20 mph - NDIR continuous measurement
V30MPH = 30 mph - NDIR continuous measurement
VOOMPH = to mph - NDIR continuous measurement
V50MPH = 50 mph - NDIR continuous measurement
V60MPH = 60 mph - NDIR continuous measurement
V-OMPH = Multiple regression of steady states test - NDIR
continuous measurement
NOTES: (l) The first 11 tests determine emissions in mass units
of either grams per mile or grams per min.
(2) The last 10 tests determine emissions in concentration
units of either ppm or percent.
4-2
-------
A - intercept of the simple regression line, i.e. the value
which would be predicted for the dependent variable (CVS
test) if the independent variable (short test) were
measured at zero.
Bl thru B7 - slope of the regression line between the
dependent and independent variable(s), i.e. the ratio
of the dependent to independent variable(s). Only Bl
is necessary for the simple regression. For multiple
regressions, Bl represents 0 mph, and B2 thru BT
represent 10 thru 60 mph respectively. For L.S.S.
Bl, 2, and 3 are associated with Idle, Low Cruise, and
High Cruise respectively. The value will be shown as
zero if the variable exhibits little or no correlation
with the CVS values .
and BI/$ - shows the expected plus and minus confidence
band at 90% significance for the A and B parameters respect-
ively based on the sample size used. These statistics have
no meaning for the multiple regressions and therefore are
shown as zero. AI$ and BI$ are calculated from:
AL = | In 1-A BL = i In 1-B
1+B 1+B
F - The F-ratio value which was computed to test the
hypothesis that the slope of the regression line was non-
zero, i.e. that there in fact existed a relationship between
the short test values and the CVS values . High F-ratios
indicate significant relatability between the tests. The
F-ratio value is also used by the stepwise multiple regress-
ion program to determine if a newly added variable provides
a significant increase in correlation. The F-ratio value is
calculated from:
F = MSR
where MSR is the mean square due to regression
ie. MSR = b Ps3^ y± -Sxi zyi |
and SE is defined below
SE - the standard error of the estimated regression shows the
""closeness" of the relationship between the two variables.
The smaller the standard error, the more accurate the predic-
tions of the dependent (CVS) values based on the short test
and the regression equation. In other words, actual values of
the dependent variable become closer to the regression line as
the standard error decreases . The standard error is calculated
from:
SE2
=_L. S [~y, - (a + bx )|
n-2 i=l x x
4-3
-------
MR - coefficient of (multiple) regression; synonymous with the
correlation coefficient. This parameter shows how well the
dependent and independent variables are related. The square
of the MR (times 100%) indicates that percentage of the
dependent variable's variation which is explainable by
variations in the independent variable. MR is calculated from:
MR = S^ - x) (y± - y)
~1
4-4
-------
APPENDIX A-l
IDLE REPAIR FACILITY PACKET
This package contains the following information regard-
ing the IDLE TEST PROCEDURES:
1) Introductory Letter
2) IDLE EMISSIONS, ADJUSTMENT, AND REPAIR PROCEDURES
3) Sample Repair Reports
A-l
-------
500 E. ORAMGETHORPE AVENUE, ANAHEIM, CALIF. 92801
TELEPHONE: (714) 871-3920, TELEX: 65-5417
October 20, 1971
Dear Sir:
On behalf of Olson Laboratories, I welcome you as a
participating service center in this program to reduce
automotive air pollution. You are participating in a test
program to determine the best way to reduce exhaust emissions
from automobiles presently on the road. It is well known that
a properly tuned engine emits less unburned gasoline and carbon
monoxide than an out-of-tune engine. This means that the
automobile repair industry has an important roll in helping to
reduce air pollution.
During this program, two methods of identifying and
correcting maladjusted and malfunctioning cars will be compared.
You will participate as an IDLE MODE GARAGE using your diagnostic
equipment and skill plus an additional tool, the Olson-Horiba
Mexa 300 EC/CO instrument, to identify and repair malfunctioning
vehicles. Olson Laboratories will use the Federal new-car emission
test procedure to determine how much the emissions of HC and CO
were reduced.
Briefly summarizing your part in the program, the following
points should be kept in mind:
1) The Olson-Horiba Hexa 300 EC/CO instrument, your
diagnostic equipment and the enclosed pamphlet should
be used in adjustment and repair actions.
2) Adjust or repair the vehicles as you normally would
so that emissions are equal or less than the appropriate
standard. Major overhauls such as ring and valve jobs
are not to be performed without prior authorization
from Olson Laboratories. Attempt all adjustments before
replacement or repair action is taken.
3) Cost should be itemized on an invoice and accompany the
repaired car when returned to Olson Laboratories.
A-2
-------
October 20, 1971
Page 2
4) Blank repair action fosms will be given to you which
should be filled out by the mechanic working on the
vehicle.
5) 10-15 cars will be assigned to your garage through
December 20.
6) Vehicles will be picked up and delivered by Olson
Laboratories' employees.
Sincerely yours,
Richard R. Carlson
Project Engineer
A-3
-------
IDLE EMISSION,TEST, ADJUSTMENT, AND REPAIR PROCEDURE
FOR
PARTICIPATING GARAGES
The following test, adjustment, and repair procedure is
recommended to bring the vehicle within prescribed emission
levels. Only those adjustments or, repair actions required to
correct Idle emissions are to be performed. Use attached data
sheet to record emission measurements.
A. PRE-TEST
Prepare vehicle and equipment for test.
1. Test Equipment - Service, warm-up, and calibrate
Olson-Horiba Mexa 300 HC/CO test equipment per
manufacturer's specifications.
2. Test Vehicle - Verify engine is at normal operating
temperature (warm-up as required).
3. Hook-Up - Insert probe in exhaust pipe (opposite side
of heat riser if dual exhaust), hook-up tachometer per
manufacturer's instructions.
B. -TEST
1. Idle RPM - Perform HC/CO and PPM measurements and
compare to Idle Test Standards.
2- 2500 RPM - Operate engine in neutral at 2500 RPM to
clean out engine.
3. Idle RPM - Operate engine at Idle RPM (in drive if
automatic transmission), record measurements.
4. Compare - Idle RPM emissions to test standards and
record manufacturer's specified RPM; if HC or CO is
high, adjust per Step C. If HC and CO are within
limits return vehicle to Olson Laboratories, Inc.
C. ADJUST
Perform engine adjustments for HC/CO.
Note: When any adjustment step brings emissions within
limits STOP procedure at that point and re-test
per Step B.
A-k
-------
Adjustment Procedure
1. RPM - Adjust (if required) to manufacturer's specifications;
recheck HC and CO and record.
2. HC - Check timing per manufacturer's procedure and record.
If timing is not at manufacturer's specification, adjust
as required; re-adjust RPM, if required; re-check HC/CO
and record.
3. CO
(a) Adjust Idle mixture to manufacturer's specification.
Where no specifications are available use: 2.0 to
5.0% CO for uncontrolled vehicles and 1.0 to 4.0%
CO for controlled vehicles. Re-adjust RPM, if
required.
Note: When adjusting Idle CO, attempt to reduce
CO to lowest possible value, consistent with
good Idle quality. Avoid a rough Idle condition,
side to side unbalance or increase in HC
(HC increase indicates a lean idle misfire).
If CO/HC emissions cannot be reduced to within
limits, while maintaining acceptable Idle
quality; diagnose and repair (Step D) vehicle as
required. ONLY those repairs necessary to bring
Idle HC/CO within limits are to be accomplished.
(b) After adjustment, enrichen mixture slightly to avoid
too lean a condition. Recheck HC/CO and record.
D. REPAIR
Diagnose and repair engine; when repair is complete re-test
per Step B.
1. Diagnose Engine.
2. Repair malfunction per manufacturer's specifications.
3. Re-test per Step B, record measurements.
4. If emission limits cannot be achieved within the following
repair constraints imposed by Olson Laboratories, contact
Olson Laboratories immediately for disposition of vehicle.
A-5
-------
L HINTS
5-igh HC - Indications are caused by ignition misfires, advanced ignition
t"i.~.Tng7 exhaust valve leakage, and over-lean mixtures. Ignition misfires can
be diagnosed by use of the oscilloscope. Timing problems by use of timing
light. Valve failure is indicated by cylinder balance testing with compression
test verification. Lean misfire is caused by too lean Idle mixture setting or
r.anifoid vacuum leaks.
High CO - Can be caused by abnormally restricted air cleaner, stuck or
partially closed choke or carburetor Idle circuit failure. Rough or erratic
Idle can be caused by PCV valve malfunction. Idle HC/CO failure/malfunction
Truth Table can be used as a guide to identifying failures.
MALFUNCTION TRUTH TABLE
Malfunction
PCV Valve Dirty/
Restricted
Air Cleaner Dirty/
Restricted
•
Choke Stuck
Partially Closed
Carburetor Idle
Circuit Malfunction
Intake Manifold
Leak
Ignition Timing
Advanced
Leaky Exhaust
Valves
Ignition System
Misfire
HC
High
X
X
X
X
X
Very High
X
X
X
CO
High
X
X
X
Very High
X
X
Rough
Idle
X
X
X
X
X
A-6
-------
OLSON LAiaORATOiHES. IKC.
A Suiiiii'isa'y cl Norihrop Corf.Cfa! on
IDLE INSPECTION DATA SHEET
Car Number: License Number: Test Date:
Q Engine Mod. n Air Injection D R/T.
MINOR ADJUSTMENTS: IDLE RPM IDLE TIMING IDLE DWELL IDLE CO IDLE HC
FACTORY:
STEP B: AS RECEIVED:
STEP C: RESET:
STEP D: Repair vehicle using Helpful Hints in Repair Facility Packet. Indicate repairs
performed on invoice. After repairs are completed, retsst vehicle for HC and CO.
Readjust idle adjustment if required. The HC and CO readings must be lower than
the factory limits indicated for Idle CO and HC..
FINAL IDLE ADJUSTMENT: IDLE RPM TIMING DWELL MIXTURE (CO) HC
REMARKS:
A-7
500 East QrRngelhorpe Avenue • Anaheim.California 92801 • Telephone 7i4 671-3920 • Telex 65-5417
-------
APPENDIX A-2
KEY MODE REPAIR FACILITY PACKET
This package contains the following information regard-
ing the KEY MODE TEST PROCEDURES:
1) Introductory Letter
2) Clayton Manufacturing Co. KEY MODE TRUTH CHART
BOOKLET
3) Sample Key Mode Report Cards
4) Sample Repair Reports
A-8
-------
is®ft Laboratories,
500 E. ORANGETHORPE- AVENUE. ANAHEIM. CALIF. 92801
TELEPHONE: (714) 871-3920. TELEX: 65-5417
October 25, 1971
Dear Sir:
On behalf of Olson Laboratories, I welcome you as a participating
service center in this program to reduce automotive air pollution. You
are participating in a test program to determine the best way to reduce
exhaust emissions from automobiles -presently on the road. It is well
knov/n that a properly tuned engine emits less unburned gasoline and
carbon monoxide than an out of tune engine. This means that the auto-
mobile repair industry has an important role in helping to reduce air
pollution.
During this program, two methods of identifying and correcting
maladjusted and malfunctioning cars will be compared. You will participate
as a KEY MODE GARAGE using your diagnostic equipment and skill plus the
additional tools of Clayton Key Mode Truth Charts and an Olson-Horiba
r'exa-300 HC/CO instrument, to identify and repair malfunctioning vehicles.
Olson Laboratories will use the Federal new-car emission test procedure
to determine how much the emissions of HC and CO were reduced.
Briefly summarizing our part in this program, the following points
should be kept in mind:
1) The Key Mode Truth Charts which will be sent to you with
each car, and the enclosed pamphlet should direct your
repair actions.
2) The Olson-Horiba Mexa-300 HC/CO instrument, which will be
loaned to you for this program, should be used to help make
adjustments and repairs.
3) Adjust or repair vehicles as directed by the Key Mode Truth
Charts so that emissions are minimized except that major
overhauls such as ring and valve jobs are not to be performed
without prior authorization from Olson Laboratories. Attempt
all adjustments before replacement or repair action is taken.
4) Costs should be itemized on an invoice and accompany the
repaired car when returned to Olson Laboratories. Two
copies of the invoice should be sent.
A-9
-------
5) Blank repair action forms will be given to you which should
be filled out by the mechanic working on the vehicle. The
repair action form will carry the failure limits for CO and
HC which should not be exceeded.
6) 10-15 cars will be assigned to your garage through December 20th.
7) Vehicles will be picked up and delivered by Olson Laboratories'
employees.
Sincerely yours,
Richard R. Carlson
Project Engineer
(714) 871-5000
Extension 1087 or 427
RRC/jm A_10
-------
REVISED KEY T£)DE TEST, ADJUST! S!iT, AITD REPAIR PROCEDURE
FOR
PARTICIPATING GAPAGES
The following test, adjustment, and repair procedure is recommended to bring t*e
vehicle within prescribed emission levels. Only those adjustments or repair
actions suggested by the Clayton Truth Charts are to be performed. Do not attempt
to nake repairs which are not called for by the Truth Charts. Use attached data
sheet to record emission measurements.
A. Examine Truth Charts when vehicle is received.
1. If Truth Table indicates an idle failure for HC or CO,
proceed with' remaining procedure beginning with step B.
2. If Truth Tables indicate a failure for HC or CO in either
LO Cruise and/or HI Cruise, perform the work suggested
Toy the Truth Tables. Then proceed with step B.
B. Pre-Test
Prepare vehicle and equipment for test.
1. Test Equipment - Service, warm-up, and calibrate Olson-
Horiba Mexa-300 HC/CO test equipment per manufacturer's
specifications.
2. Test Vehicle - Verify engine is at normal operating temperature
(warm-up as required).
A-ll
-------
3. Hook-up - Insert probe in exhaust pipe (Opposite side of
heat riser if dual exhaust), hook-up tachometer per manu-
facturer's instructions.
C. Test
1. Operate engine in neutral at 2500 RPM to clean out engine
2. Idle RPM - Operate engine at Idle KPM (in drive if automatic
transmission), record measurements.
3. Compare - Idle RPM emissions to test standards and record
manufacturer's specified RPM,timing and dwell. If Idle EC
or CO is high, adjust per step D.
D. Adjust
Perform engine timing, dwell and RPM adjustments and measure HC/CO.
Dwell and timing should be at manufacturer's specifications. RPM
may be as much as 50 RPM greater than specifications.
NOTE: When any adjustment step brings emissions within limits STOP
procedure at that point and retest per step C.
A-12
-------
BS LABORATORIES, iKC.
A Sut-s.liai^ otMo'i :ropCo't'cration
INITIAL KEY MODE DATA SHEET
KEY MODE REPORT CARD
CAR NUMBER
YEAR
CONTROLLED
- CO -
CARBON
MONOXIDE
- HC -
UNBURNED
HYDROCARBON
IDLE
3-C$
290ppm
LOW
CRUISE
2.5$
2toppm
HIGH
CRUISE
2.0^
220ppm
= REJECT
After final repair or adjustment, insure that the following adjustments
are within manufacturer's specification.
IDLE RPM IDLE TIMING IDLE DWELL IDLE CO. IDLE HC
F/ CTORY i i i i i i i i it i i • i i • i i
SPEC. MM Mil TDC I I I I i I Mil
RESET i
LJ _ [ Mil M I J
COMMENTS:
A-13
-------
REVISED KEY MODE DATA SHEET
CLAYTON KEY MODE TRUTH CHART
Uncontrolled
CAR NUMBER
YEAR
LICENSE
IDLE
LOW
CRUISE
HIGH
CRUISE
- CO -
CARBON
MONOXIDE
5.5*'
- HC -
UN13URIIED
HYDROCARBO/I
TObppm
This vehicle was tested by Olson Laboratories and failed the
Clayton Key Mode emission test during the modes indicated by a
Check (\*s) . The actual values measured have been written in each
box. The values which a properely functioning car would have
are printed in each box. Use the Clayton pamphlet by finding
a sample truth chart checked like this one and perform the work
suggested. Attempt adjustments first. Record test results- on
the Garage Repair Report and your invoice. After filial repair
insure that basic idle adjustments are within manufacturer s
specification and that emission values at idle are within the
limits written on the Garage Repair Report.
-------
TRUTH CHARTS
(For Use In Conjunction With The Inspection Report Card Of
The Key Mode Emission Evaluation And Repair System)
IMPORTANT: Read the Introduction and Chart Usage before
attempting to use the Truth Charts.
INTRODUCTION
The Key Mode System operates the engine in carefully selected modes that have
been found to most reliably cause emission related engine malfunctions to occur.
Abnormal gas content indicates the presence of a malfunction. The mode or modes
in which they occur are indications of the type of malfunctions or maladjustments.
The Truth Charts are designed as an aid to mechanics in determining the type of
malfunction that is causing unnecessarily high exhaust emission. They will
direct the mechanic's attention to the mode of engine operation in which the
fault exists, and indicate the malfunctioning system that needs repair or
adjustment.
mechanic must understand the fundamental causes of unnecessarily high Carbon
Monoxide (CO) and Hydrocarbons (HC) if he is to be effective in repairing engines
to reduce exhaust emissions. Engine exhaust emission is a new parameter to
practically all mechanics.
The fundamental difference between causes of high CO and high HC is as follows:
CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)
CO is a result of incomplete combustion. That is, the gas must be
subjected to combustion in order to form CO. If the mixture is too
rich, there is "insufficient Oxygen (02) to complete the combustion,
thus large amounts of CO result instead of the optimum condition of
Carbon Dioxide (C02) formation. There will always be at least a
small amount of CO in the exhaust because perfect combustion is not
to be expected. Abnormally high CO can only be due to excessively
rich Air/ Fuel mixture.
A-15
-------
INTRODUCTION (Cont'd)
HYDROCARBON (Gasoline, is essentially 100% Hydrocarbon)
A modest amount'of HC will always be present in the exhaust gas.
This is a result of both incomplete combustion and fuel at the
flame boundries that has not been fully subjected to combustion.
When CO is normal and grossly high HC is present, an abnormal
amount of raw fuel is escaping from the combustion chamber without
being subjected to combustion. This is generally due to .ignition
misfire or leaking exhaust valves. Moderate rise in HC can result
from early ignition timing, preignition causing abnormal flame
propagation, or Air/Fuel mixture being too lean to consistently
support combustion.
High HC and CO may exist in any one mode of engine operation, any
combination of two modes or in all modes. A basic knowledge of these
patterns and their meaning is important.
TRUTH CHART USAGE
The master Truth Charts, pages 8 to 14, show reject patterns resulting trom
various types of malfunction or maladjustment. When a test report is received
on a vehicle, its reject boxes (i^) act as a repair guideline for the servicing
agency by comparing it to a similar master Truth Chart. The mechanic will
quickly learn to diagnose without the example cards if he remembers the funda-
mental difference between causes of high CO and HC, and understands the engine
operating conditions represented by the Idle, Low Cruise, and High Cruise
boxes of the Report Card.
The Idle Mode, as its name implies, is with normally closed throttle, thus the
engine is operating at or near the conditions where basic engine adjustments
are made. The high intake manifold vacuum at idle or at higher free-running
engine speeds result in a relatively low compression pressure in which the
spark plug fires.
A-l6
-------
TRUTH CHART USAGE (Cont'd)
The High Cruise Mode tests the engine at a point where the intake manifold
vacuum is down, thus compression pressure is up. The air flow through the
carburetor has increased so that the main jet system of the carburetor is in
full operation. Speed and vacuum signals have changed the ignition advance.
In other words, it provides dynamic test data to expose malfunctioning engine
systems that are not responding properly to the signals from increase in speed
and air flow.
The Low Cruise Mode is in the transition range of speed and power between Idle
and High Cruise. As a general statement, the carburetor is blending the idle
and main jet fuel supply. Also, with only a modest ignition advance due to
speed, the vacuum advance is at or approaching maximum. Compression pressures
have increased .moderately from idle conditions. Engines that "stumble" or
otherwise malfunction as they come off idle, are most likely to be exposed at
this "mid-power, mid-speed" point.
NOTE: The Key Mode Truth Chart can be used with all internal
combustion gasoline engines. For simplicity, the numbers
have been iett out ot the Truth Charts. Make repair based
on those boxes which have been checked (y1).
A-17
-------
EXAMPLE REPORT CARDS
(Pages 5 and 6)
The two following example Report Cards are similar to the Report Card
that will be received from the inspecting agency.
The upper numbers in each box of the Report Card indicate the "Sensible
Maximum" values for that type of vehicle when it is in good repair and
adjustment. These values are intended as guidelines for the repairing
agency.
The lower numbers are the actual values derived from dynamic test of
the vehicle.
*
The actual values used for reject of the vehicle are not printed on the
Report Card, but are usually considerably higher than the "Sensible
Maximum." Repair must be made based only on the rejects (vO.
Example Report Card - Page 5
Note the "Sensible Maximum" in the upper half of each box, and
*-Vto 1 airnar an*-na1 fralllAQ flf- f-bp hnffnnl.
_.._ ___o.--. — _ -... _ . ..... .
For repair of this vehicle, the mechanic would find that the
second example on Truth Chart #2 matches his Report Card, and
would repair accordingly.
Example Report Card - Page 6
Note the "Sensible Maximum" in the upper half of each box.
These values are lower than in the previous Report Card because
this is an emission control vehicle and is capable of lower
emissions when in proper operating order.
Also, note that the Idle CO is higher than the "Sensible
Maximum," but is not rejected. This is because it was not
high enough to be rejected by the actual reject values of the
inspecting agency.
For repair of this vehicle, the mechanic would find that the
second example on Truth Chart #6 matches his Report Card, and
would repair accordingly.
A-18
-------
TYPICAL REPORT CARD
NON-EXHAUST EMISSION CONTROLLED
NAME:
VEHICLE:
-CO-
CARBON
MONOXIDE
-HC-
UNBURNED
HYDROCARBON
IDLE
MAX 5.5%
,2.^
MAX
700 PPM
412
LOW
CRUISE
MAX 3.5%
2.4
MAX
450 PPM
?£?
HIGH
CRUISE
MAX 3%
7,t
V
MAX
450 PPM
4<>5
= REJECT
A-19
-------
TYPICAL REPORT CARD
EXHAUST EMISSION CONTROLLED
NAME:
VEHICLE:
-CO-
CARBON
MONOXIDE
— HC—
UNBURNED
HYDROCARBON
IDLE
MAX 3%
3.f
MAX
290 PPM
/*9*
S
LOW
CRUISE
MAX 2.5%
.6
MAX
240 PPM
/3FO
^
HIGH
CRUISE
MAX 2%
, &
MAX
220 PPM
/«£""*
*"
= REJECT
A-20
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE
Basic problems involved ONLY with
carburetor misadjustments or
malfunctions.
Refer to these Charts for assistance in diagnosing
problems where one or more of the top three boxes
has been checked with a reject (y).
A-21
-------
CHART #1
CO
HC
IDLE
y
LOV
CRUISE
HIGH
CHUISE
ABNORMALLY HIGH IDLE CO
CO
HC
IDLE
y
LOW
CRUISE
y
HIGH
CRUISE
ABNORMALLY HIGH IDLE CO CARRYING OVER TO LOW CRUISE
USUAL CAUSE
1. Gross error in carburetor idle air fuel mixture adjustment.
2. Rarely high idle CO carries over into Low Cruise, as shown
SERVICE STEPS
1. Inspect the PCV system to insure it is clean and operating
correctly. A PCV system malfunction can cause erratic idle
operation.
2. Make basic engine idle adjustments of ignition dwell and
timing, idle speed and air fuel ratio.
CAUTION: After making the basic idle adjustment,
accelerate the engine at least three times
and let it return to idle. Observe the
stability and repeatability of idle
condition.
3. In rare cases that idle adjustments cannot be made correctly,
due to excessive amounts of varnish or foreign deposits in the
carburetor idle passages, it may be necessary to replace or
repair the carburetor.
A-22
-------
CHART #2
CO
HC.
IDLE
LOW
CKUISE
y
HIGH
CKUISE
ABNORMALLY HIGH CO AT LOW CRUISE
CO
HC
IDLE
LOW
CRUISE
HIGR
CKUISE
y
ABNORMALLY HIGH CO AT HIGH CRUISE
CO
HC
IDLE
Lav
CHUISE
V
HIGH
CKUISE
V
ABNORMALLY HIGH CO AT LOW AMD HIGH CRUISE
USUAL CAUSE
The most common cause is a main -system carburetor malfunction.
This .problem cannot be corrected by an Idle adjustment only.
SERVICE STEPS
1. Check carburetor air cleaner for abnormal restriction.
2. Check to see that choke is not stuck partially closed.
3. If the air cleaner and choke are satisfactory, remove the
carburetor and replace or repair according to factory
specifications.
NOTE: If carburetor rebuild is undertaken, refer to
the carburetor check sheet, page 17 of this
manual.
ALWAYS MAKE THE BASIC IDLE ADJUSTMENTS OF IGNITION DWELL AND TIMING,
IDLE SPEED AND AIR FUEL RATIO, TO COMPLETE THE REPAIR.
A-23
-------
CHART #3
CO
HG
IDLE
y
LOW
CRUISE
HIGH
CRUISE
/
ABNORMALLY HIGH CO AT IDLE AND HIGH 'CRUISE
CO
HC
IDLE
y
LOW
CRUISE
y
HIGH
CRUISE
y
ABNORMALLY HIGH CO IN ALL MODES OF OFERATI ON
USUAL CAUSE
A combination of a malfunctioning carburetor main system and a
maladjusted idle air fuel.ratio.
SERVICE STEPS
1. Refer to Chart #2. The main system malfunction should
obviously be corrected'first.
2. Idle CO will be corrected when basic adjustments are made.
ALWAYS MAKE THE BASIC IDLE ADJUSTMENTS OF IGNITION DWELL AND TIMING,
IDLE SPEED AND AIR FUEL RATIO, TO COMPLETE THE REPAIR.
-------
UNBURNED HYDROCARBON
Basic problems involved ONLY with ignition
misfires, vacuum leaks, valve leaks, ignition
timing, or any condition which will permit raw
fuel to escape into the exhaust pipe without
being subjected to combustion.
Refer to these charts for assistance in diagnosing
problems where one or more of the bottom three boxes
has been checked with a reject
A-25
-------
CHART #4
CO
HC
IDLE
y
LOW
CRUISE
HIGH
CKUISE
ABNORMALLY HIGH HC AT IDLE
CO
HC
IDLE
y
LOW
CRUISE
y
HIGH
CRUISE
ABNORMALLY HIGH HC AT IDLE CARRYING OVER TO LOW CRUISE
USUAL CAUSES
1. Vacuum leaks into the intake manifold causing a lean mixture and
subsequent misfire in some cylinders.
2. Idle circuits on 2 and 4 barrel carburetors highly imbalanced or
adjusted too lean.
3. Intermittent ignition misfire is possible but not probable.
4. Grossly advanced basic ignition timing.
5. Modest compression leak through one or more exhaust valves.
SERVICE STEPS
1. Note idle CO on Report Card and determine that idle is not adjusted
too lean (less than 1.0% CO).
2. Ignition misfire at idle and not in the power modes is uncommon;
however, simplicity of oscilloscope check-out suggests this be
observed next.
3. Determine that basic ignition timing is not grossly advanced.
4. -Check for balanced idle adjustments if 2 or 4 barrel carburetor.
5. Check for vacuum leaks into the intake manifold.
6. If above steps do not locate the source of trouble, make a cylinder
compression check. Burned exhaust valves can cause up to four times
normal HC at Idle, with little increase in the Cruise modes.
ALWAYS MAKE THE BASIC IDLE ADJUSTMENTS OF IGNITION DWELL AND TIMING, IDLE
SPEED AND AIR FUEL RATIO, TO COMPLETE THE REPAIR.
A-26
-------
CHART #5
CO
HC
IDLE
LOW
CHUISE
y
HIGH.
CRUISE
ABNORMALLY HIGH HC AT LOW CRUISE
CO
HC.
IDLE.
LOW
CRUISE
HIGR
CRUISE
y
ABNORMALLY HIGH HC AT HIGH CRUISE
CO
•HC
IDLE
La-/
CRUISE
/
HIGH
CHUISE
/
ABNORMALLY HIGH HC AT LOW AND HIGH CRUISE
USUAL CAUSES
Ignition misfire under higher compression pressures of power operation,
due to a failure of an ignition system component.
gERVICES STEPS
1. Probably, the most common problem is a faulty spark plug; however,
this should not be a conclusion without proper examination.
2. Check out the ignition system with a scope and associated instruments.
If the scope does not clearly show a faulty spark plug, observe for
the following:
a. Faulty ignition cables.
b. Point arcing. *•
c. Cross fire, due 'to cracked or carbon tracked cap
or rotor.
d. If above steps do not locate the source of trouble,
refer to "Ignition Check Sheet," page 18, for added
assistance.
ALWAYS MAKE THE BASIC ADJUSTMENTS OF IGNITION DWELL AND TIMING, IDLE SPEED
AND AIR FUEL RATIO, TO COMPLETE THE REPAIR.
A-27
-------
CHART #6
CO
HC
IDLE
y
LOW
CRUISE
HIGH
CRUISE
y
ABNORMALLY HIGH HC AT IDLE AND HIGH CRUISE
CO
HC
IDLE
y
LOW
CRUISE
y
HIGH
CRUISE
y
ABNORMALLY HIGH HC IN ALL MODES OF OPERATION
USUAL CAUSES
The most probable "cause is ignition misfire as described on
Chart #5.
SERVICE STEPS
1. Refer to Chart #5 and repair accordingly.
2. In RARE cases, it maybe necessary to refer also to
Chart #4 when repair, as prescribed by Chart #5, does
not bring Idle Hydrocarbons within a reasonable limit.
ALWAYS MAKE THE BASIC IDLE ADJUSTMENTS .OF IGNITION DWELL AND TIMING
IDLE SPEED AND AIR "FUEL RATIO, TO COMPLETE THE REPAIR.
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AND HYDROCARBON
Combinations of CO and HC Problems
Rejects in upper and lower boxes are simply combi-
nations of problems causing abnormally high CO and
those causing abnormally high HC. They are to be
treated as separate and independent problems.
Repairs will be based on a combination of a CO chart
which matches the checks in the upper row of boxes,
and a HC chart which matches the checks in the lower
row of boxes.
NOTE: As a quick reference, a master wall
chart has been included on the
following page. This will be an aid
in quickly finding the proper Truth
Chart(s) and page number(s) for
given reject situations.
A-29
-------
CARBURETOR CHECK SHEET
NOTE: In rebuilding a carburetor, the following
defects must be looked for. If one or more
of these defects is not observed or cannot
be corrected, it is suggested that the
carburetor be discarded and replaced accord-
ing to manufacturers recommendations.
1. Check for faulty power enrichening valve.
2. Check to be sure that all vacuum passages controlling the
power enrichening valve are open and unobstructed.
3. Observe for loose main jet(s) and/or power enrichening
valve.
4. Check for pitted or cracked main jet seat of seat gasket.
5. Check for worn jets and/or metering rods. A slight amount
of wear can cause a grossly higher CO reading.
6. Examine the float for abnormal damage or leaks.
7. Check for a damaged or loose float valve.
8. Check the venturi cluster and cluster gasket for damage or
cracks.
9. Thoroughly inspect the entire body of the carburetor for
cracks and to see that all lead plugs are securely in place.
A-30
-------
IGNITION CHECK SHEET
NOTE: Below are guidelines as .to problems to look for
that can cause ignition misfires and high hydro-
carbons. In most cases, the problem can be
traced to one of -"hese areas and should be done
so by proper diagnosis, not by repairing and
replacing until the problem has been corrected.
This list is prepared in order with the most commonly occurring
problems listed at the top, and the least common toward the bottom.
1. Spark plugs.
2. Spark plug cables and coil cable resistance.
3. Excessive point resistance or arcing.
4. Distributor cap and rotor cracks and carbon tracks.
5. Moisture inside the distributor cap or on the cables.
6. Extremely incorrect dwell angle or point gap.
7. Low coil output voltage.
8. Low primary voltage supplied to the coil.
9. Loose wire connections such as distributor plate ground
or coil to point wire connections.
A-31
-------
APPENDIX B
1975 CVS EMISSION DATA
B-l: Phase I Data
B-2: Phase II Data
B 1-1
-------
CAL IDLE BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
YEAR CLASS
NO.
YEAR CARS
57-1 11.
62-5
66-7
68-9
70-1
22.
CUM
16.
12.
75.
MILE NO.
10K CARS
XI
J X2
' X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
Xll
X12
CUM
1.
7.
12.
8.
9.
11.
5.
7.
6.
5.
3.
2.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
8.4
5.7
9.3
3.8
2.8
5.9
SDEV
7.7
1.3
9.5
2.5
1.4
5.7
MIN
3.2
3.0
1.5
1.2
O.S
0.9
MAX
30.1
10.4
30.9
12.2
5.5
30.9
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
4.4
4.9
2.9
4.0
7. 7
4.0
5.8
6.0
6.0
9.2
15.0
16.7
5.9
SDEV
0.0
1.7
1.3
3.5
9.6
1.5
1.8
2.5
3.1
3,5
12.7
19.0
5.7
MIN
4.4
2.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
l.C
3.8
3.2
3.4
4.5
5.7
3.2
0.9
MAX
4.4
6.8
5.0
12.2
30.9
6.1
8.4
10.4
12.0
13.4
29.5
30.1
30.9
CARBON MONOXIDE
NITROGEN OXIDES
MAX
30.1
10.4
30.9
12.2
5.5
30.9
MEAN
97.7
64.8
75.8
52.1
42.2
65.3
SDEV
71.8
33.0
37.9
30.9
32.8
43.7
MIN
29.3
13.0
15.8
13.1
9.5
9.5
MAX
217.4
135.4
134.7
120.9
108.0
217.4
MEAN
1.5
2.9
2.4
2.9
2.7
2.6
SDEV
0.9
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.5
MIN
0.4
0.6
0.7
1.0
1.0
0.4
MAX
3.2
6.5
6.5
6.0
6.4
6.5
10K CLASS
CARBON
MEAN SDEV
30.5 0.0
63.0 32.1
39.4 25.7
50.0 25.5
76.2 68.0
59.2 38.1
72.6 31.0
65.9 22.5
64.7 42.8
113.2 70.4
121.2 51.5
76.2 39.3
65.3 43.7
MONOXIDE
MIN
30.5
26.6
9.5
13.1
i 15.8
17.1
41.5
38.3
13.0
41.1
84.6
48.5
9.5
NITROGEN
MAX
30.5
108.0-
88.3
95.2
217.4
122.0
118.4
96.7
134.7
211.9
180.1
104.0
217.4
MEAN
1.8
2.8
3.6
2.3
2.0
2'.8
2.5
1.8
2.1
3.1
1.8
2.3
2.6
SDEV
0.0
1.2
1.6
0.8
1.6
1.4
2.3
1.3
0.8
2.2
1.2
0.3
1.5
OXIDES
MIN
1.8
1.5
1.6
1.0
C.5
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.4
2.1
0.4
MAX
1.8
4.4
6.4
3.6
5.1
5.5
6.5
4.0
3.2
6.5
2.6
2.5
6.5
-------
CAL IDLE BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
VEH. NO.
MAKE CARS
AMC
CHRY
DODG
PLYM
FORD
MERC
BJIC
CADI
CHEV
OLDS
PCNT
IMPT
VW
CUM
w
3.
1.
4.
4.
15.
3.
4.
2.
16.
4.
5.
5.
9.
75.
EMIS NO.
CTRL CARS
N.C. *2.
3d.
10.
C.D.
A.I.
E.M.
CUM
25.
75.
MAKE
CLASS
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
4.1
4.5
3.8
9.0
4.7
3.3
7.6
4. 4
6.5
10.7
4.5
3.5
7.5
5.9
SDEV
2.2
0.0
0.3
4.4
1.7
1.5
^3.6
2.4
6.5
13.1
1.9
3.0
9.6
5.7
MIN
1.6
4.5
3/6
4.4
1.6
1.7
4.3
2.7
2.2
1.5
2.6
1.2
0.9
0.9
MAX
5.5
4.5
4.1
13.4
7.9
4.7
11.7
6.1
29.5
30.1
7.2
8.4
30.9
30.9
CTRL
MEAN
39.3
41.1
30.4
52.2
71.4
31.5
140.9
91.0
67.0
67.8
71.8
51.2
60.2
65.3
CARBON MONOXIDE
SDEV
37.7
0.0
7.4
18.3
46.9
19.7
50.2
43.9
39.5
38.5
40.1
44.6
45.2
43.7
MIN
17.1
41.1
23.3
30.5
12.4
13.0
95.2
60.0
26.6
15.8
39.8
9.9
9.5
9.5
MAX
82.7
41.1
37.3
75.0
217.4
52.1
211.9
122.0
180.1
104.0
128.9
118.4
134.7
217.4
CLASS
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.0
7.4
5.2
4.1
5.9
SDEV
2.0
6.0
8.6
2.7
5.7
MIN
1.6
2.8
1.2
0.9
0.9
MAX
4.4
30.9
29.5
12.2
30.9
MEAN
23.8
78.6
48.2
55.4
65.3
CARBON MONOXIDE
SDEV
9.5
49.0
29.8
34.8
43.7
MIN
17.1
13.0
9.9
9.5
9.5
MAX
30.5
217.4
96.7
134.7
217.4
NITROGEN
MEAN
3.2
3.4
3^3
3.4
3.2
2.5
1.7
2.4
2.5
2.8
3.1
1.5
1.2
2.6
NI
MEAN
2.1
2.4
2.4
3.0
2.6
SDEV
2.0
0.0
1.0
2.1
2.1
0.8
0.9
1.7
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.7
1.5
TROGEN
SDEV
0.4
1.6
0.9
1.4
1.5
OXIDES
MIN
1.8
3.4
2.0
1.8
0.5
1.6
0.6
1.2
0.4
1.7
2.0
0.7
0.6
0.4
OXIDES
MIN
1.8
0.4
1.1
0.8
0.4
MAX
5.5
3.4
4.3
6.5
6.5
3.2
2.7
3.6
4.4
4.4
4.3
2.3
2.5
6.5
MAX
2.4
6.5
3.9
6.4
6.5
-------
CAL IDLE BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CIO
100"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
15.
7.
17.
27.
9.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
5.8
4.7
5.0
7.0
5.4
5.9
SDEV
7.8
1.6
2.1
7.1
3.2
5.7
WIN
0.9
3.2
1.6
1.5
1.7
0.9
MAX-
30.9
7.9
9.8
30.1
11.7
30.9
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
54.0
60.3
53.3
63.6
97.2
65.3
SDEV
43.5
70.9
39.0
29.8
57.1
43.7
MIN
9.5
13.0
17.1
15.8
36.1
9.5
MAX
134.7
217.4
180.1
128.9
211.9
217.4
NITROGEN
MEAN
1.4
2.4
2.7
3.2
2.6
2.6
SDEV
0.8
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.7
1.5
OXIDES
MIN
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.6
0.4
MAX
3.0
5.5
6.5
6.5
6.4
6.5
IK* CLASS
w
1— •
1
C
«T
IK*
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
;UM
NO.
CARS
0.
13.
24.
30.
3.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
0
5
4
7
4
5
.0
.9
.2
.4
.7
.9
SDEV
0.0
7.0
2.0
6.7
1.3
5.7
M
9999
0
1
1
I
0
IN
MAX
.0-9999.0
.9
.2
.7
.7
.9
30.9
9.3
30.1
6.1
30.9
CARBON i
MEAN
0
62
52
76
77
65
.0
.3
.3
.3
.5
.3
SDEV
0.0
55.2
38.4
39.2
38.8
43.7
MIN
)99.0-
9.5
13.0
24.8
50.6
9.5
NITROGEN OXIDES
MAX
999.0
217.4
180.1
211.9
122.0
217.4
MEAN
o.o
1.6
2.6
3.0
3.3
2.6
SDEV
0.0
1.2
1.3
1.5
2.0
1.5
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
0.5
0.4
C.6
1.2
0.4
5.5
6.5
6.5
5.1
6.5
-------
CAL IDLE SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
NO.
YtAR CARS
57-1 11.
62-5
66,-7
68-9
70-1
22.
CUM
16.
12.
75.
MILE NO.
10K CARS
XI
» X2
rx3
" X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
Xll
X12
CUM
1.
7.
12.
8.
8.
11.
5.
7,
6.
5.
3.
2.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
8.3
5.3
5.3
3.7
2.7
5.0
SDEV
7.7
1.7
3.5
2.5
1.3
3.9
MIN
3.2
3.0
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.9
MAX
30.1
10.4
13.4
12.2
5.5
30.1
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
4.4
4.9
2. 7
3.8
5.1
3.6
4.7
5.8
4.9
8. 8
6.1
16.7
5.0
SDEV
0.0
1.7
1.1
3.5
3.3
1.3
1.1
2.4
1.0
3.7
3.3
19.0
3.9
MIN
4.4
2.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.6
3.8
3.2
3.4
4.5
2.9
3.2
0.9
MAX
4.4
6.8
4.3
12.2
12.0
6.2
6. 6
10.4
5.7
13.4
9.5
30.1
30.1
YEAR CLASS
CARBON MONOXIDE
NITROGEN OXIDES
MAX
30.1
10.4
13.4
12.2
5.5
30.1
MEAN
65.6
54.6
54.8
49.8
37.8
55.5
SDEV
55.8
21.7
27.7
30.4
28.2
34.5
MIN
29.3
13.0
8.4
13.1
9.5
8.4
MAX
211.9
98.8
101.5
120.9
108.0
211.9
MEAN
1.5
2.7
2.3
2.7
2.7
2.6
SDEV
0.9
1.4
1.7
1.0
1.5
1.4
MIN
0.4
0.6
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.4
MAX
3.2
5,9
6.5
4.4
6.4
6.5
10K CLASS
CARBON MONOXIDE NITROGEN OXIDES
MEAN SDEV MIN MAX MEAN SDEV MIN MAX
30.5 0.0 30.5 30.5 1.3 0.0 1.8 1.8
63.0 32.1 26.6 108.0 2.8 1.2 1.5 4.4
36.4 23.0 9.5 88.3 3.2 1.4 1.6 6.4
43.5 17.8 13.1 67.6 2.3 0.7 1.6 3.6
53.7 37.2 15.8 132.6 2.2 1.6 0.4 5.1
54.5 32.7 17.1 120.9 2.8 1.5 1.2 6.3
48.9 29.1 8.4 89.4 2.4 1.2 1.2 4.3
68.0 19.9 45.2 96.7 1.7 0.9 0.6 3.1
43.9 25.4 13.0 82.7 2.7 1.8 0.5 5.9
89.7 70.3 41.1 211.9 3.0 2.2 0.6 6.5
96.6 36.3 59.2 131.7 1.6 1.0 0.6 2.6
76.2 39.3 48.5 104.0 2.3 0.3 2.1 2.5
55.5 34.5 8.4 211.9 2.6 1.4 0.4 6.5
-------
CAL IDLE SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
VEH.
MAKE
AMC
CHRY
DODG
PLYM
FORD
MERC
BUIC
CADI
CHEV
OLDS
PONT
IMPT
W VW
MCUM
o\
EMIS
CTRL
N.C.
c.o.
A.I .
E.M.
CUM
NO.
CARS
3.
1.
4.
4.
15.
3.
4.
2.
16.
4.
5.
5,
9,
75,
NO.
CARS
2.
38.
10.
25.
75.
MAKE
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.8
4.5
3.8
8.9
4.3
3.3
6. 7
4.4
4. 7
10.7
4.6
2.5
4.8
5,0
SDEV
2,0
0.0
0.3
4.5
1.5
1.5
3.5
2.5
2.0
13.1
2.1
1.4
3.9
3.9
MIN
1.6
4.5
3.6
4.4
1.6
1.7
4.2
2.7
2.2
1.5
2.6
1.2
0.9
0.9
MAX
5.5
4.5
4.1
13.4
7.5
4.7
11.7
6.2
9.5
30.1
7.8
4.0
12.0
30.1
CTRL
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.0
6.5
2.5
3.3
5.0
SDEV
2.0
4.7
1.2
2.1
3.9
MIN
1.6
2.8
1.2
O.S
0.9
MAX
4.4
30,1
4.6
12.2
30.1
CLASS
CARBON
MEAN
40.3
41.1
30.4
39.5
60.4
31.5
121.2
80.7
61.0
67.8
58.6
24.3
45.5
55.5
CLASS
SDEV
36.8
0.0
7.4
14.6
29.7
19.7
64.5
29.4
27.8
38.5
24.4
19.0
27.6
34.5
CARBON
MEAN
23.8
64.3
44.7
48.9
55.5
SDEV
9.5
38.2
26.9
29.0
34.5
MONOXIDE
MIN
17.1
41.1
23.3
24.1
12.4
13.0
67.6
60.0
26.6
15.8
39.8
8.4
9.5
8.4
MONOXIDE
MIN
17.1
8.4
9.9
9.5
8.4
MAX
82.7
41.1
37.3
54.8
132.6
52.1
211.9
101.5
131.7
104.0
99.4
46.8
94.6
211.9
MAX
30.5
211.9
96.7
120.9
211.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
1.8
3.4
3.3
4.3
3.1
2.5
1.4
2.9
2.4
2.8
3.3
1.9
1.5
2.6
NI
MEAN
2.1
2.4
2.6
2.8
2.6
SDEV
0.6
0.0
1.0
2.3
1.9
0.'8
0,5
1.0
0.9
1.1
0.9
0.4
0.9
1.4
TROGEN
SDEV
0,4
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.4
OXIDES
MIN
1.2
3.4
2.0
1.8
0.4
1.6
0.6
2.2
0.6
1.7
2.0
1.6
0.5
0.4
OXIDES
MIN
1.8
0.4
1.1
0.5
0.4
MAX
2.4
3.4
4.3
6.5
6.4
3.2
1.8
3.6
4.4
4.4
4.3
2.5
2.9
6.5
MAX
2.4
6.5
6.3
6.4
6.5
-------
CAL IDLE SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CID
100"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
cut^
NO.
CARS
15.
7.
17.
27.
9,
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.8
4.5
4.8
5.9
5.0
5.0
SDEV
3.3
1.4
2.0
5.5
3.0
3.9
MIN
O.S
3.2
1.6
1.5
1.7
0.9
MAX
12.0
7.5
9.5
30.1
11.7
30.1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
36.2
48.7
58. 0
56.1
86.2
55.5
SDEV
26.2
39.9
28.2
26.0
54.8
34.5
MIN
8.4
13.0
17.1
15.8
36.1
8.4
MAX
94.6
132.6
131.7
108.0
211.9
211.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
1.7
1.8
2.7
3.2
2.5
2.6
SDEV
0.8
0.9
1,4
1.3
1.7
1.4
OXIDES
MIN
0.5
0.4
0.6
1.5
0.6
0.4
MAX
3.0
3.2
6.3
6.5
6.4
6.5
1K# CLASS
WT
IK*
X2
WX3
^ X4
-^J X5
X6
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
18.
24.
30.
3.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
0.0
4.2
4.0
6.3
4.7
5.C
SDEV
0.0
3.0
1.9
5.3
1.8
3.9
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
0.9
1.2
1.7
2.7
0.9
12.0
9.5
30.1
6.2
30.1
CARBON 1
MEAN
0.0
43.0
47.8
67.6
70.7
55.5
SDEV
0.0
32.5
29.9
36.5
27.1
34.5
MIN
J99.0-
8.4
13.0
24.1
50.6
8.4
NITROGEN OXIDES
MAX
999.0
132.6
131.7
211.9
101.5
211.9
MEAN
0.0
1.6
2.7
3.0
3.6
2.6
SDEV MIN
MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
0.8 0.4
1.3 0.6
1.5 0.6
1.4 2.2
1.4 0.4
3.0
6.3
6.5
5.1
6.5
-------
CAL K.M. BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
NO.
YEAR CARS
57-1 12.
62-5
66-7
68-9
70-1
CUM
20.
14.
17.
12.
75.
MILE NO.
10K CARS
XI
* X2
f X3
» X4
X5
X6
X7
X9
X9
X10
Xll
X12
CUM
I.
6.
8.
4.
7.
16.
8.
10.
7.
5.
1.
2.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
7.9
7.4
8.6
4.1
3.0
6.3
SDEV
5.3
4.5
3.0
1.3
0.9
5.1
MIN
3. 1
1.9
2.1
1.3
1.7
1.3
MAX
19.9
21.4
28.3
8.2
4.3
'28.3
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
2.9
4.0
2.7
4.2
5.3
5.8
9.1
8.0
8.9
9.5
7.7
2.5
6.3
SDEV
0.0
2.6
0.6
2.1
0.7
3.5
7.5
7.4
4.9
8.1
0.0
0.9
5.1
MIN
2.9
1.7
1.7
1-3
4.3
1.7
3.0
3. 1
3.3
4.2
7.7
1.9
1.3
MAX
2.9
(3.9
3.6
6.4
6.4
14.9
21.4
28.3
15. t>
23.8
7.7
3.1
28.3
YEAR CLASS
CARBON MONOXIDE
NITROGEN OXIDES
MAX
19.9
21.4
28.3
8.2
4.3
'28.3
MEAN
66.8
103.6
70.1
62.1
41.8
72.2
SDEV
31.3
56.5
32.5
35.7
28.5
44.6
MIN
28.0
22.4
25.1
17.4
7.1
7.1
MAX
125.0
232.5
137.4
147.4
96.2
232.5
MEAN
2.5
2.0
2.6
3.0
3.1
2.6
SDEV
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.8
1.6
1.4
MIN
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.9
0.8
0.2
. MAX
4.0
4.7
4.6
6.5
6.1
6.5
10K CLASS
CARBON
MEAN SDEV
18.2 0.0
44.7 35.5
34.1 16.6
67.6 44.1
84.1 29.3
77.2 40.3
78.9 29.2
75.3 34.0
102.1 85.5
99.3 47.6
96.0 0.0
32.« 6.8
72.2 44.6
MONOXIDE
MIN
18.2
18.0
7.1
20.4
58.0
17.4
49.9
25.1
22.4
54.8
96.0
28.0
7.1
NITROGEN
MAX
18.2
112.3
62.7
118.8
143.6
147.4
125.0
150.2
232.5
171.9
96.0
37.7
232.5
MEAN
1.9
2.2
3.6
2.3
3.4
2.0
2.7
3.0
2.3
2.1
2.5
2.9
2.6
SDEV
0.0
1.3
1.7
2.1
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
0.0
1.3
1.4
OXIDES
MIN
1.9
1.1
1.5
0.8
2.0
0.2
1.1
0.4
0.3
1.0
2.5
2.0
0.2
MAX
1.9
4.6
6.5
5.3
5.5
5.3
4.6
4.6
4.0
3.6
2.5
3.8
6.5
-------
CAL K.M. BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
VEH.
MAKE
AMC
CHRY
DODG
PLYM
FORD
MERC
B'JIC
CADI
CHEV
OLDS
PQNT
IMPT
VW
CUM
EMIS
CTRL
N.C.
C.O.
A.I.
E.M.
CUM
NO.
CARS
3.
1.
4.
4.
15.
3.
5.
2.
15.
4.
5.
5.
9.
75.
NO.
CARS
3.
34.
12.
26.
75.
MAKE
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
4.7
7.9
3.7
3.5
5.9
9.7
6.5
17.4
8. 1
5.3
6.0
3.0
5.1
6.3
SDEV
2.7
0.0
1.6
0.9
4.3
12.3
2.8
15.5
5.5
2.5
2.6
1.7
4.0
5.1
MIN
1.7
7.9
2.7
2.3
2.3
1.9
4.2
6.4
2.5
2.1
3.6
1.3
1.7
1.3
MAX "
7.0
7.9
6.0
4.3
19.9
23.8
10.8
28.3
21.4
8.2
10.3
4.9
14.9
28.3
CTRL
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
8.9
8.0
5.6
4.0
6.3
SDEV
9.5
5.6
6.1
1.5
5.1
MIN
2.6
1.9
1.3
1.7
1.3
MAX
19.9
28.3
23.8
8.2
28.3
CLASS
CARBON
MEAN
72.7
171.9
51.2
41.8
68.2
53.6
120.5
89.8
90.4
49.9
105.2
23.5
53.8
72.2
CLASS
SDEV
44.7
0.0
24.5
16.7
31.5
21.8
26.6
41.1
52.8
31.3
62.5
13.2
29.6
44.6
CARBON
MEAN
48.8
88.1
61.9
58.7
72.2
SDEV
13.7
51.5
41.3
31.4
44.6
MONOXIDE
MIN
33.8
171.9
30. d
17.4
25.4
37.7
87.6
60.7
18.2
22.4
55.9
7.1
18.6
7.1
MONOXIDE
MIN
33.1
22.4
7.1
17.4
7.1
MAX
121.6
171.9
85.8
54.8
137.4
78.5
147.4
118.8
232.5
90.7
213.9
43.7
111.8
232.5
MAX
58.5
232.5
137.4
147.4
232.5
MEAN
1.7
1.5
3.7
3.1
3.1
2.6
1.6
3.3
2.5
2.2
2.7
3.5
1.5
2.6
MEAN
2.9
2.2
2.6
3.1
2.6
NITROGEN
SDEV
1.0
0.0
1.2
0.8
1.4
1.2
0.6
1.8
1.7
0.6
1.4
2.1
0.8
1.4
NITROGEN
SDEV
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.4
OXIDES
MIN
1.0
1.5
2.4
2.4
0.6
2.0
0.8
2.1
0.2
1.5
1.3
0.9
0.3
0.2
OXIDES
MIN
1.5
0.2
0.6
0.8
0.2
MAX
2.8
1.5
5.3
4.0
5.5
4.0
2.4
4.6
6,5
2.9
4.6
6.1
2.8
6.5
MAX
3.6
4.7
6.1
6.5
6.5
-------
CAL K.M. BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CIO
100"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
15.
7.
17.
25.
11.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
4.3
5.6
7.1
5.6
9.6
6.3
SDEV
3.3
4.7
4.9
3,7
8.5
5,1
WIN
1.3
1.9
1.7
2.1
2.3
1.3
MAX
14.9
15.6
21.4
19.9
28.3
28.3
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
41.9
69.4
92.3
64.9
100.6
72.2
SDEV
27.9
45.8
48.8
40.2
40.2
44.6
MIN
7.1
28.0
33.1
17.4
25.4
7.1
MAX
111.8
143.6
232.5
213.9
171.9
232.5
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.4
2.5
2.1
3.1
2.6
2.6
SDEV
1.7
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.4
OXIDES
MIN
0.3
1.0
0.2
1.2
0.8
0.2
MAX
6.1
4.0
4.2
6.5
5.5
6.5
WT
1K#
X2
w X3
^ X4
5 X5
X6
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
16.
29.
27.
3.
75.
MEAN
0.0
5,1
4i 7
7.8
14.2
6.3
HYDROCARBON
SDEV MIN
IK!
* CLASS
CARBON MONOXIDE
MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
4.2 1.7
2.8 1.3
5.6 2.3
12.3 6.4
5.1 1.3
15.6
15.0
23.8
23.3
28.3
MEAN'
0.0
45.7
69.8
88.1
92.4
72.2
SDEV
0.0
27.4
47.9
44.3
29.4
44.6
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
7.1
18,2
17.4
60.7
7.1
111.8
232.5
213.9
118.8
232.5
NITROGEN OXIDES
MEAN
0.0
2.6
2.5
2.6
3.8
2.6
SDEV MIN
MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
1.6 0.3
1.4 0.3
1.3 0.2
1.5 2.1
1.4 0.2
6.1
6.5
5.5
4.7
6.5
-------
CAL K.M. SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
YEAR CLASS
NO.
YEAR CARS
57-1 12.
62-5 20.
66-7 14.
6U-9 17.
70-1 12.
CUM 75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
6.2
5.7
6.1
3.7
3.0
5.0
SDEV
3.4
2.0
6.6
1.7
0.9
3.6
WIN
3.1
1.9
2.1
1.3
1.7
1.3
MAX
14.5
8.8
28.3
8.2
4.3
28.3
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
68.5
82.5
60.6
59.7
39.9
64.2
SDEV
43.5
41.9
29.1
41.7
29.0
39.7
MIN
28.0
22.4
25.1
17.4
7.1
7.1
MAX
182.5
171.9
137.4
147.4
96.2
182.5
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.6
2.1
2.5
2.8
3.2
2.6
SDEV
1.5
1.1
1.3
1.7
1.6
1.5
OXIDES
MIN
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.4
MAX
5.9
4.7
4.6
6.5
6.1
6.5
10K CLASS
MILE
10K
XI
w X2
V-X3
£ X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
Xll
X12
CUM
NO.
CARS
1.
6.
8.
4.
7.
16.
8.
10.
7.
5.
1.
2.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
2.9
3.5
2.7
4.2
4.9
5.3
5.2
7.2
5.6
5.2
5.9
2.5
5.0
SDEV
0.0
1.7
0.6
2.1
1.0
3.3
2.8
7.6
1.7
2.3
0.0
0.9
3.6
MIN
2.9
1.7
1.7
1.3
3.0
1.7
2.1
3. 1
3.3
2.1
5.9
1.9
1.3
MAX
2.9
6.4
3.6
6.4
5.9
14.5
10.8
28.3
7.9
7.9
5.9
3.1
28.3
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
18.2
39.0
31.4
67.6
76.8
74.3
72.8
65.5
69.9
93.4
55.5
32.3
64.2
SDEV
0.0
21.5
16.4
44.1
37.2
47.3
40.6
24.5
45.5
52.3
0.0
6.8
39.7
MIN
18.2
18.6
7.1
20.4
24.0
17.4
34.7
25.1
22.4
49.4
55.5
28.0
7.1
t
MAX
18.2
74.6
62.7
118.8
143.6
182.5
145.3
107.1
159.2
171.9
55.5
37.7
182.5
NITROGEN
MEAN
1.9
2.0
3.7
2.3
3.2
2.2
2.6
3.0
1.9
1.9
3.2
2.9
2.6
SDEV
0.0
1.3
1.7
2.1
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.0
1.3
1.5
OXIDES
.MIN
1.9
0.9
1.5
0.8
2.0
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
1.0
3.2
2,0
0.4
MAX
1.9
4.6
6.5
5.3
5.5
5.3
5.9
4.6
4.0
3.6
3.2
3.8
6.5
-------
CAL K.M. SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
MAKE CLASS
VEH.
MAKE
AMC
CHRY
DQDG
PLYM
FQPD
MERC
BUIC
CADI
CHEV
OLDS
PONT
IMPT
W VW
H- CUM
NO.
CARS
3.
1,
4.
4.
15.
3.
5.
2.
15.
4.
5.
5.
9.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
4.7
7.9
3.7
3.5
4.9
2.4
6, 5
17.4
5.5
5.3
4.6
3.0
3.5
5.0
SDEV
2.7
0.0
1.6
0.9
1.8
0.8
2.3
15.5
3.1
2.5
1.1
1.7
1.3
3.6
MIN
1.7
7.9
2.7
2.3
2.3
1.9
4.3
6.4
2.5
2.1
3.3
1.3
1.7
1.3
MAX
7.0
7.9
6.0
4.3
7.8
3.3
10.8
28.3
14.5
8.2
5.9
4.9
5.4
28.3
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
72.7
171.9
51.2
41.8
63.9
43.9
120.5
89.8
71.0
49/9
88.7
23.5
39.4
64.2
SDEV
44.7
0.0
24.5
16.7
31.0
5.9
26.6
41.1
47.0
31.3
33.6
13.2
15.0
39.7
MIN
33.8
171.9
30.8
17.4
25.4
37.7
87.6
60.7
18.2
22.4
55.9
7.1
18.6
7.1
MAX
121.6
171.9
85.8
54.8
137.4
49.4
147.4
118.8
182.5
90.7
145.3
43.7
58.7
182.5
NITROGEN
MEAN
1.7
1.5
3.7
3.1
3.3
2.3
1.6
3.3
2.5
2.2
2.1
3.5
1.5
2.6
SDEV
1.0
0.0
1.2
0.8
1.6
1.5
0.6
1.8
1.6
0.6
1.1
2.1
0.9
1.5
OXIDES
MIN
1.0
1.5
2.4
2.4
0.6
1.1
0.8
2.1
0.4
1.5
1.3
0.9
0.6
0.4
MAX
2.8
1.5
5.3
4.0
5.9
-4.0
'2.4
4.6
6.5
2.9
3.9
6.1
3.4
6.5
N)
EMIS NO.
CTRL CARS
N.C,
C.D.
A.I,
E.M,
CUM
3.
34.
12.
26.
75.
CTRL CLASS
HYDROCARBON
MEAN SDEV MIN
4.9 2.7 2.6
6.4 4.6 1.9
3.6 1.9 1.3
3.7 1.5 1.7
5.0 3.6 1.3
CARBON MONOXIDE
NITROGEN OXIDES
MAX
7.8
28.3
6.7
8.2
28.3
MEAN
49.2
74.9
54.9
56.3
64.2
SDEV
14.2
42.4
39.5
36.2
39.7
MIN
33.1
22.4
7.1
17.4
7.1
MAX
59.8
182.5
137.4
147.4
182.5
MEAN
3.6
2.2
2.5
2.9
2.6
SDEV
2.2
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.5
MIN
1.5
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.4
MAX
5.9
4,7
6.1
6.5
6.5
-------
CAL K.M. SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CIO
100"
XI
X2
X3
X*
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
15.
7.
17.
25.
11.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.3
4.1
5.4
4.7
7.5
5.0
SDEV
1,4
1.6
2.9
2.0
7.4
3.6
MIN
1.3
1.9
1.7
2.1
2.1
1.3
MAX
5.4
7.0
14.5
8.8
28.3
28.3
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
33.2
66.5
79.1
55.2
102.4
64.2
SDEV
15.5
46.2
43.7
23.7
45.0
39.7
MIN
7.1
28.0
33.1
17.4
25.4
7.1
MAX
58.7
143.6
182.5
97.6
171.9
182.5
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.4
2.3
2.2
3.1
2.3
2.6
SDEV
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.5
OXIDES
MIN
0.6
1.0
0.4
1.3
0.8
0.4
MAX
6.1
4.0
4.2
6.5
5.5
6.5
CLASS
WT
1K#
X2
1 X3
1 X4
i y c
' X6
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
16.
29.
27.
3.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
0.0
3.5
4.0
5.8
14.2
5.0
SDEV
0.0
1.3
1.6
2.8
12.3
3.6
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
1.7
1.3
2.1
6.4
1.3
5.4
7.9
14.5
28.3
28.3
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
0.0
36.3
61.8
80.2
92.4
64.2
SDEV
0.0
15.8
38.2
43.2
29.4
39.7
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
7.1
18.2
17.4
60.7
7.1
53.7
159.2,
182.5
118. 8
182.5
NITROGEN OXIDES
MEAN
0.0
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.8
2.6
SDEV
0.0
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.5
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
0.6
0.4
0.5
2.1
0.4
6.1
6.5
5.9
4.7
6.5
-------
MI. IDLE BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
YEAR CLASS
NO.
YEAR CARS
57-1 3.
62-5 19.
66-7 16.
68-9 21.
70-1 15.
CUM 74.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
10.7
10.9
6.1
4.5
4.4
6.7
SDEV
8.0
8.5
2.3
2.0
1.8
5.5
MIN
6.0
3.2
2.7
0.9
1.6
0.9
MAX
20.0
32.4
11.2
9.4
7.8
32,4
CARBON MONOXIDE NITROGEN OXIDES
MEAN
84.5
121.6
83.4
70.3
58.8
84.6
SDEV
9.2
81.8
27.7
40.0
41.0
55.9
MIN
78.8
56.0
17.9
19.8
7.9
7.9
MAX
95.1
375.0
132.8
176.9
144.0
375.0
MEAN
4.9
2.7
3.1
4.7
5.3
4.0
SDEV
3.6
1.5
1.4
1.8
2.0
2.0
MIN
2.2
0.5
0.9
1.0
1.5
0.5
MAX
8.9
5.2
5.9
6.8
7.9
8.9
10K CLASS
MILE
10K
XI
W X2
t- X3
M X4
* X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
Xll
X12
CUM
NO.
CARS
6.
8.
6.
12,
14.
10.
6.
4.
5.
2.
0.
1.
74.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
2.8
6.8
5.2
5.0
5.8.
6.6
6.4
6.9
16;5
6.5
0.0
25.7
6.7
SDEV
0.9
5.5
1.1
2.5
2.8
3.7
3.2
4,0
12.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
5.5
MIN
1.6
2.7
4.0
0.9
2.7
3.3
2.4
3.2
6. 1
6.1
MAX
4.2
20.0
6.3
9.4
11.2
16.0
10.3
12.6
32.4
6.8
9999,0-9999.0
25.7
0.9
25.7
32.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
29.2
77.1
79.6
84.6
79,6
87.7
117.3
104.4
107.8
114.7
0.0
90.1
84.6
SDEV MIN MAX
12.3 7.9 39.8
34.6 27.2 120.5
53.9 24.5 176.9
40.1 19.8 144.0
19.4 38.1 105.0
77.3 26.8 299.8
130.7 17.9 375.0
43.7 56.0 142.6
35.4 56.4 149.9
6.8 109.9 119,5
0.0 9999,0-9999.0
0.0 90.1 90,1
55.9 7.9 375.0
NITROGEN OXIDES
MEAN
6.5
4.5
4.8
3.7
3.6
3.7
3.4
3.9
2.4
3.3
0.0
4.3
4.0
SDEV
0,7
1.9
2.4
2.0
1.4
1.9
2.3
3.5
1.9
1.7
0,0
0,0
2.0
MIN
5.4
2.2
1.7
1.0
0.9
0.5
1.7
1.1
0.8
2.1
MAX
7.5
7.1
7.9
6.8
5.5
6.7
6.6
8.9
5.2
4.4
9999.0-9999.0
4.3
0.5
4.3
8.9
-------
MI. IDLE BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
MAKE CLASS
VEH.
MAKE
AMC
CHRY
000 G
PLYM
FORD
MERC
BUIC
CAOJ
CHEV
OLDS
PONT
IMPT
VW
• CUM
NO.
CARS
2.
2.
4.
5.
16.
3.
6.
2.
17.
6.
7.
1.
3.
74.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.1
6.3
5.8
3.8
6.2
4.9
9.5
6.2
9.3
5.6
6.2
3.2
4.9
6.7
SDEV .
0.6
4.4
4.5
1.8
3.2
1.1
11.3
2.5
7.6
2.7
2.0
0.0
5.5
5.5
MIN
2.7
3.2
1.6
1.7
2.7
4.0
3.1
4.4
2.7
3.3
3.1
3.2
0.9
0.9
MAX
3.6
9.4
10.9
5.7
16.0
6.2
32.4
8.0
27.0
10.3
8,7
3.2
11.2
32.4
CARBON 'MONOXIDE
MEAN
46.7
80.5
39.0
69.1
101.3
66.6
103.7
98.5
78.7
123.8
81.0
59.9
51.1
84.6
SDEV
12.1
34.7
38.6
49.8
65.5
26.1
39.3
29.6
29.2
125.7
33.5
0.0
46.8
55.9
MIN
38.1
56.0
7.9
19.8
24.0
39.9
39.8
77.6
24.5
39.6
26.8
59.9
21.2
7.9
MAX
55.3
105.0
94.2
142.6
299.8
92.0
149.9
119.5
140.2
375.0
132.8
59.9
105.0
375.0
NITROGEN
MEAN
3.6
3.5
6.3
4.7
3.6
5.9
3.5
6.2
4.0
3.7
3.6
1.0
1.9
4.0
SDEV
1.1
3.5
1.0
1.7
2.4
1.6
2.3
2.5
1.4
1.9
2.0
0.0
0.9
2.0
OXIDES
MIN
2.8
1.1
5.1
2.2
0.5
4.1
0.8
4.4
1.8
1.7
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.5
MAX
4.3
6.0
7.5
6.8
8.9
7.1
6.6
7.9
6.6
6.0
6.7
1.0
2.5
8.9
CTRL CLASS
EMIS NO.
CTRL CARS
N.C. 7.
C.O. 31.
A.I. 2.
E.M. 34.
CUM 74.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
13.0
7.8
5.6
4.5
6.7
SDEV
10.4
5.6
2.2
2.0
5.5
MIN
4.3
2.7
4.0
0.9
0.9
MAX
32.4
27.0
7.2
9.4
32.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
124.2
97.9
63.9
65.4
84.6
SDEV
81.8
58.0
5.0
41.7
55.9
MIN
69.5
24.0
60.3
7.9
7.9
MAX
299.8
375.0
67.4
176.9
375.0
NITROGEN
MEAN
3.2
3.0
5.2
4.9
4.0
SDEV
2.9
1.4
0.1
1.9
2.0
OXIDES
MIN
0.5
0.9
5.2
1.0
0.5
MAX
8.9
6.3
5.3
7.9
8.9
-------
MI. IDLE BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CID
100"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
4.
6.
17.
37.
10.
7*.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
4.5
6.8
7.0
6.4
8.2
6.7
SDEV
4.6
4. 3
4.4
5.3
3.6
5.5
MIN
0.9
2.9
2.7
1.6
4.0
0.9
MAX
11.2
16.0
20.0
27.0
32.4
32.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
53.3
105.7
91.0
30.6
88.2
84.6
SDEV
38.4
96.7
34.0
61.7
38.4
55.9
MIN
21.2
37.4
24.0
7.9
26.8
7.9
MAX
105.0
299.8
144.0
375.0
149.9
375,0
NITROGEN
MEAN
1.7
4.0
3.3
4.4
4.6
4.0
SDEV
0.8
3.1
1-3
1.9
2*5
2.0
OXIDES
MIN
0.9
0.5
1.5
0.9
0.8
0,5
MAX
2.5
8.9
6.3
7.5
7.9
8.9
1K# CLASS
WT
1K#
X2
W X3
V X4
ot X5
,X6
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
12.
16.
43.
3.
74.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
0.0
5.7
5.4
7.6
6.0
6.7
SDEV
0.0
4.2
2.2
6.6
1.8
5.5
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
0.9
2.4
1.6
4.4
0.9
16.0
10.9
32.4
3.0
32,4
CARBON I
MEAN
0.0
91.5
70.7
86.4
104.0
84.6
SDEV
0.0
78.2
25.7
58.8
23.0
55.9
MIN
J99.0-
21.2
24.5
7.9
77.6
7.9
NITROGEN OXIDES
MAX
999.0
299.8
105.9
375.0
119.5
375.0
MEAN
0.0
3.2
4.0
4.1
5.7
4.0
SDEV
MIN
MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
2.7
1.6
1.9
2.0
2.0
0.5
1.7
0.8
4.4
0,5
8.9
6.6
7.5
7.9
8.9
-------
MI. IDLE SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
YEAR CLASS
NO.
YEAR CARS
57-1 3.
62-5 19.
66-7 16.
68-9 21.
70-1 15.
CUM" 74.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
10.7
6.9
5.4
3.5
4.0
5.2
SDEV
8.0
5,0
1.7
1.4
1.6
3.5
MIN
6.0
2.7
2.7
0.9
1.6
0.9
MAX
20.0
25.7
8.3
6.8
7.0
25.7
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
84.5
84.1
74.6
-54.6
48.1
66.4
SDEV
9.2
27.6
28.8
39.9
32.0
34.8
MIN
78.8
14.0
17.9
17.3
7.9
7.9
MAX
95.1
140.1
140.9
176.9
122.9
176.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
4.9
2.9
3.3
4.7
5.6
4.1
SDEV
3.6
1.4
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.0
OXIDES
MIN
2.2
C.9
1.2
1.0
1.6
0.9
MAX
8.9
5.5
5.9
7.0
7.9
8.9
10K CLASS
MILE NO.
10K CARS
XI 6.
X2 8.
1 X3 6.
| X4 12.
X5 14.
X6 10.
X7 6.
X8 4.
X9 5.
X10 2^
Xll 0.
X12 1.
CUM 74.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
2.8
6.5
4.5
3.6
4.8
4.8
5.4
5.1
7.3
6.5
0.0
25.7
5.2
SDEV
0.9
5.6
1.4
1.5
1.8
1.9
2.6
1.8
1.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
3.5
MIN
1.6
2.7
2.7
0.9
2.7
2m~t(
2.4
3.2
6.1
6.1
MAX
4.2
20.0
6.8
6.4
8.3
7.6
9.3
7.1
8.9
6.8
9999.0-9999.0
25.7
0.9
25.7
25.7
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
29.2
67.5
71.7
58.9
67.7
53.1
66.3
81.5
107.7
114. 7
0.0
90.1
66.4
SDEV
12.3
33.2
59.7
31.2
23.2
28.6
33.7
19.1
34.1
6.8
0.0
0.0
34.8
MIN
7.9
27.2
22.9
19.8
22.5
14.0
17.9
56.0
59.6
109.9
MAX
39.8
120.5
176.9
122.9
101.7
95.7
103.9
100.0
140.9
119.5
9999.0-9999.0
90.1
7.9
90.1
176.9
NITROGEN OXIDES
MEAN
6.5
4.9
4,6
3.6
4.0
4.1
3.5
3.6
2.5
3.3
0.0
4.3
4.1
SDEV
0.7
2.2
2.4
2-0
1.6
1.6
2.2
3.6
1.6
1.7
0.0
0.0
2.0
MIN
5.4
2.2
1.1
1.0
1.2
2.3
1.7
1.1
0.9
2.1
MAX
7.5
7.8
7.9
6.8
7.0
6.7
6.6
8.9
4.8
4.4
9999.0-9999.0
4.3
0.9
4.3
8.9
-------
MI. IDLE SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
w
M
I—1
00
VEH.
MAKE
AMC
CHRY
DODG
PLYM
FORD
MERC
BUIC
CADI
CHEV
OLDS
PONT
IMPT
VW
CUM
EMIS
CTRL
N.C.
C.D.
A.I.
E.M.
CUM
NO.
CARS
2.
2.
4.
5.
16.
3.
6.
2.
17.
6.
7.
1.
3.
74.
NO.
CARS
7.
31.
2.
34.
74.
MAKE
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.1
3.4
4.1
3.5
5.2
4.0
5.2
4.8
7.1
4.2
5.9
3.2
3.5
5.2
SDEV
0.6
0-4
2.8
1.5
2.1
0.4
2.2
0.6
6,2
1.3
1.8
0.0
3.0
3.5
MIN
2.7
3.2
1.6
1.7
2.7
3.6
3.0
4.4
2.7
3.3
2.S
3.2
0.9
0.9
MAX
3.6
3.7
8.0
5.3
9.3
4.5
8.9
5.2
25.7
6.6
8.7
3.2
6.8
25.7
CTRL
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
7.8
6. 1
2.8
3.9
5.2
SDEV
5.7
4.1
0.2
1.7
3.5
MIN
2.7
2.7
2.7
0.9
0.9
MAX
20.0
25.7
2.9
8.0
25.7
CLASS
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
46.7
39.2
33.8
58.8
78.8
48.2
93.9
71.9
67.2
60.0
73.4
59.9
40. 8
66.4
CLASS
SDEV
12.1
23.8
28.9
33.5
42.3
17.3
35.5
8.0
31.0
19.0
42.2
0.0
28.9
34,8
MIN
38.1
22.3
7.9
19.8
14.0
36.6
39.8
66.2
17.3
37.8
22.5
59.9
21.2
7.9
MAX
55.3
56.0
73.6
91.1
176.9
68.0
140.1
77.6
120.5
83.8
140.9
59.9
74.0
176.9
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
81.9
79.9
22.8
53.4
66.4
SOEV
37.8
24.4
7.7
37.0
34.8
MIN
14.0
24.0
17.3
7.9
7.9
MAX
140 -.1
140.9
28.2
176.9
176.9
MEAN
3.6
3.5
6.2
4.3
3.8
6.4
3.6
6.4
3.9
4.4
4.2
1.0
2.0
4.1
M EAN
4.0
3.0
4.9
5.1
4.1
NITROGEN
SDEV
1.1
3.5
1.3
2.1
2.3
0.7
2.2
2.1
1.3
2.4
2.3
0.0
0.7
2.0
NITROGEN
SDEV
2.6
1.4
0.7
2.0
2.0
OXIDES
MIN
2.8
1.1
4.5
2.1
1.5
5.7
1.5
4.9
1.8
1.7
0.9
1.0
1.2
0.9
OXIDES
MIN
1.5
0,9
4.4
1.0
0.9
MAX
4.3
6.0
7.5
6.8
8.9
7.1
6.6
7.9
6.4
7.8
7.0
1.0
2.5
8.9
MAX
8.9
6.3
5.4
7.9
8.9
-------
MI. IDLE SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CIO
100"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
4.
6.
17.
37.
10.
74.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.4
4.5
6.1
5.0
5.3
5.2
SDEV
2.4
1.8
4.1
3.9
1.6
3.5
MIN
0.9
2.7
2.7
1.6
3.5
0.9
MAX
6.8
7.3
20.0
25.7
8.9
25.7
CARBDN MONOXIDE
MEAN
45.5
56.4
79.9
62.0
74.1
66.4
SDEV
25.5
27.8
28.4
37.8
35.8
34.8
MIN
21.2
14.0
24.0
7.9
26.8
7.9
MAX
74.0
88.4
122.9
176.9
140.1
176.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
1.7
4.8
3.2
4.4
5.1
4,1
SDEV
0.7
2.7
1.4
1.9
2.5
2.0
OXIDES
MIN
1.0
2.2
1.6
0.9
1,5
0.9
MAX
2.5
8.9
6.3
7.5
7.9
8.9
1K# CLASS
WT
1K#
X2
W X3
V X4
5 X5
X6
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
12,
16.
43.
3.
74.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
0.0
4.2
4.4
5.8
4.4
5.2
SDEV
0.0
2.0
1.7
4.3
0.9
3.5
MIN
MAX
9999.0-S999.0
0.9
2.4
1.6
3.5
0.9
7.3
9.3
25.7
5.2
25.7
CARBON 1
MEAN
0.0
59.0
59.7
71.4
60.5
66.4
SDEV
0.0
34.2
28.7
37.8
20.5
34.8
MIN
J99.0-
14.0
22.5
7.9
37.8
7.9
NITROGEN OXIDES
MAX
999.0
122.9
105.9
176.9
77.6
176.9
MEAN
0.0
3.6
4.1
4.1
6.9
4.1
SDEV MIN
MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
2.6 1.0
1.8 1.7
1.9 0.9
1.7 4.9
2.0 0.9
8.9
7.0
7,5
7.9
8.9
-------
MI. K.M. BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
HYDROCARBON
YEAR GLASS
CARBON MONOXIDE
NITROGEN OXIDES
YEAR
57-1
62-5
66-7
68-9
70-1
CUM
CARS
1 3.
20.
15.
21.
15.
74.
MEAN
4.5
10.2
8.1
4.6
3.7
6. 6
SDEV
1.5
8.5
3.6
1.9
1.2
5.5
MIN
3.3
3.5
2. 1
2. 1
1.7
1.7
MAX
6.3
30.4
14.0
9.8
6. e>
30.4
MEAN
53.2
102.4
107.2
59.0
47.6
78.0
SDEV
3.9
50.2
55.9
35.1
28.8
49.1
MIN
50.1
44.9
30.3
10.3
7.6
7.6
MAX
57.7
219.9
258.2
152.1
93.3
258.2
MEAN
2.4
2.8
3.6
5.3
5.4
4.2
SDEV
1.2
1.2
1.7
2.1
1.1
1.9
MIN
1.3
0.4
1.0
1.5
2.8
0.4
MAX
3.7
4.9
7,4
9.7
6.9
9.7
10K CLASS
MILE
10K
XI
w X2
V X3
g X4
X5
X6
X7
X3
X9
X10
Xll
X12
CUM
NO.
CARS
4.
10.
10.
7.
13.
10.
6.
5.
5.
1.
1.
2.
74.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
2.7
4.0
4.0
7.5
6.1
8.8
8.0
9.7
11.0
4.7
6.7
3.6
6.6
SDEV
1.3
1.2
1.8
3.4
3.0
6.6
3.7
11.6
10.6
0.0
0.0
7.5
5.5
MIN
1.7
2.4
2.1
4.6
3. 1
4.0
4.7
3.5
3.7
4.7
6.7
3.3
1.7
MAX
4.4
6.6
8.4
14.0
12.6
25.6
15.1
30.4
29.7
4.7
6.7
13.9
30.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
25.0
50.5
54.3
105.8
83.1
93.1
94.9
86.0
92.0
49.8
97.5
131.0
78.0
SDEV
22.6
24.3
29.7
45.5
60.4
36.0
64.5
62.5
19.7
0.0
0.0
114.4
49.1
MIN
7.6
30.4
10.3
52.6
22.0
48.6
30.3
44.9
66.9
49.8
97.5
50.1
7.6
MAX
58.1
93.3
107.4
159.1
258.2
146.8
219.9
193.1
109.9
49.8
57.5
211.9
258.2
NITROGEN
MEAN
6.0
4.7
5.7
4.8
3.6
3.7
3.7
4.2
2.9
2.2
2.6
0.9
4.2
SDEV
0.7
1.7
1,3
1.9
1.3
2.2
1.9
3.1
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.6
1.9
OXIDES
MIN
5.1
1.5
3.8
2.7
2.0
1.0
0.5
1.8
2.2
2.2
2.6
0.4
0.4
MAX
6.9
6,9
7.7
7.4
5.9
7.9
5.8
9.7
4.0
2.2
2.6
1.3
9.7
-------
MI. K.M. BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
MAKE CLASS
VEH.
MAKE
AMC
CHRY
DODG
PLYM
FORD
MERC
BUIC
CADI
CHEV
OLDS
PONT
IMPT
w VW
^ CUM
tsj
NO.
CARS
2.
2.
4.
5.
16.
3.
6.
2.
17.
6.
7.
1,
3.
74.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
2.6
2.9
4.6
6.6
7.7
5.0
5.1
4.6
7.5
7.4
8.2
3.1
6.0
6.6
SDEV
0.6
1.1
2.6
4.8
6.8
0.7
1.4
1.5
6.4
3.2
8.0
0.0
6.1
5.5
MIN
2.1
2.1
1.7
1.7
3.1
4.3
3.1
3.5
3.2
3.9
3.5
3.1
2.4
1.7
MAX
3.0
3.7
7.9
14.0
30.4
5.6
6.8
5.7
29.7
12.6
25.6
3.1
13.1
30.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
36.7
38.6
62.9
74.5
95.9
67.6
80.9
97.3
82.2
93.1
61.8
38.7
49.9
78.0
SOEV
21.7
40.0
31.7
59.1
74.4
48.0
25.1
9.6
45.3
39.0
23.5
0.0
25.0
49.1
MIN
21.4
10.3
20.1
7.6
14.2
38.6
57.5
90.5
32.0
36.3
30.3
38.7
34.8
7.6
MAX
52.0
66.9
92.9
159.1
258.2
123.1
127.2
104.0
211.9
152.1
86.0
38.7
78.8
258.2
NITROGEN
MEAN
4.3
4.5
5.7
5.0
4.1
4.4
5.0
4.2
3.4
4.1
5.0
2.3
2.0
4.2
SDEV
0.7
2.9
1.7
3.0
2.1
2,3
2.6
0.5
1.7
1.1
1.3
0.0
0.7
1.9
OXIDES
MIN
3.8
2.4
3.4
2.2
0.5
2.0
1.0
3.9
0.4
2.6
3.4
2.3
1.5
0.4
MAX
4.7
6.5
7.4
9.7
7.4
6.6
7.9
4.6
6.9
5.7
6.6
2.3
2.6
9.7
EMIS NO.
CTRL CARS
N.C. 9.
C.D.
A.I.
E.M.
CUM
31.
3.
31.
74.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN SDEV MIN
6.0 3.2 3-3
9.1 7.3 2.1
5.5 3.0 3.0
4.5 2.1 1.7
6.6 5.5 1.7
CTRL CLASS
CARBON MONOXIDE
NITROGEN OXIDES
MAX
13.9
30.4
8.8
10.9
30.4
MEAN
83.8
96.3
52.3
60.4
78.0
SDEV
52.5
42.9
30.7
49.8
49.1
MIN
49.8
22.0
21.4
7.6
7.6
MAX
211.9
219.9
82.8
258.2
258. 2
MEAN
2.4
3.5
4.8
5.3
4.2
SDEV
1.1
1.8
0.9
1.8
1.9
MIN
0.4
0.5
4.0
1.5
0.4
MAX
3.7
7.9
5.7
9.7
9.7
-------
MI. K.M. BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CID
100"
XI
X2
X3
X*
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
4.
7.
16.
39.
8.
74.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
5.3
4.8
8.0
7.0
4.6
6.6
SDEV
5.2
0.9
7.2
5.6
1.0
5.5
WIN
2.4
4.0
2.1
1.7
3.5
1.7
MAX
13.1
6.6
30.4
29.7
6.2
30.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
47.1
62.8
90.5
30.3
70.3
78.0
SDEV
21.2
22.2
67.7
48.5
27.1
49.1
MIN
34.8
30.4
14.2
7.6
36.8
7.6
MAX
78.8
88.6
219.9
258.2
104.0
258.2
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.1
2.8
3.2
4.8
5.2
4.2
SDEV
0.6
1.0
1.8
1.9
1.3
1.9
OXIDES
MIN
1.5
2.1
0.4
1.0
3.4
0.4
MAX
2.8
5.0
6.9
9.7
6.6
9.7
IK* CLASS
WT
1K#
X2
W X3
V X4
to x5
IsJ
X6
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
10.
17.
43.
4.
74.
MEAN
0.0
4.3
7.2
7.1
4.3
6. 6
HYDROCARBON
SDEV MIN
CARBON MONOXIDE
MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
3.1 2.4
4.2 2.1
6.4 1.7
0.9 3.5
5.5 1.7
13.1
15.1
30.4
5.7
30.4
MEAN
0.0
48.4
92.6
78.9
79.9
78.0
SDEV
0.0
21.2
59.8
48.9
27.1
49. 1"
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
22.0
14.2
7.6
41.2
7.6
88.6
219.9
258.2
104.0
258.2
NITROGEN OXIDES
MEAN
0.0
2.8
3.8
4.6
4.7
4.2
SDEV
0.0
1.4
1.9
2.0
0.8
1.9
MIN
MAX
9999,0-9999.0
1.5
0.4
1.0
3*9
0.4
5.9
6.9
9.7
5.7
9.7
-------
MI. K.M. SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE I DATA
NO.
HYDROCARBON
ALL CARS
YEAR CLASS
CARBON MONOXIDE
NITROGEN OXIDES
YEAR CARS,
57-1 3*
62-5 20.
66-7 15.
68-9 21.
70-1 15.
CUM 74.
MEAN
4.5
7.2
6.4
4.0
3.5
5.3
SDEV
1.5
4.6
2.6
1.2
1.0
3.1
MIN
3.3
2. I
2. 1
1.9
1.7
1.7
MAX
6.3
20.1
12.9
6.3
5.2
20,1
MEAN
53.2
ao. 3
77.9
48.4
41.9
61.9
SDEV
3.9
41.3
31.2
26.7
22.8
34.8
\MIN
sb.i
23.5
30V3
10/B
7.6
7.6
MAX
57.7
219.9
136.3
143.4
83.6
219.9
MEAN
2.4
3.0
3.5
5.3
5.2
4.2
SDEV
1.2
1.2
1.5
2-1
1.1
1.9
MIN
1.3
0.5
1.0
1.2
2.8
0.5
MAX
3.7
5.1
5.9
9.7
6.9
9.7
10K CLASS
MILE
. 10K
i xi
»' X2
V X3
1/4 "4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
Xll
X12
CUM
NO.
CARS
4.
10.
10.
7.
13.
10.
6.
5.
5.
1.
1.
2.
74,
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
2.7
3.8
4.0
6.3
4.7
6.8
7.3
4.5
5.6
4.7
6.7
11.7
5.3
SDEV
1.3
1.0
1.8
3.0
2.0
3.3
4.3
1.6
1.4
0.0
0.0
11.9
3.1
MIN
1.7
2.4
2.1
4.6
l.S
4.0
2.1
2.5
3.7
4.7
6.7
3.3
1.7
MAX
4.4
5.2
8.4
12.9
8.2
15.5
15.1
6.2
7.0
4.7
6. I
20.1
20 .1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
25.0
42.0
54.3
73.8
57.3
79.9
82.6
59.3
71.3
49.8
97.5
80.2
61.9
SDEV
22.6
11.7
29.7
33.9
34.5
27.2
71.2
26.8
6.1
0.0
0.0
42.5
44.8
MIN
7.6
30.4
10,3
45,6
22.0
43.8
23.5
28.3
62.8
49.8
97.5
50.1
7.6
MAX
58.1
69.2
107.4
143.4
136.3
127.2
219.9
90.1
76.8
49.8
97.5
110.2
219.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
6.0
4.4
5.7
5.1
3.1
3.9
3.7
4.8
2.6
2.2
2.6
1.4
4.2
SDEV
0.7
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.2
1.8
2.8
0,7
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.9
OXIDES
MIN
5.1
1.5
3.8
3.6
1.2
1.0
0.5
3.1
1.7
2.2
2.6
1.3
0.5
MAX
6.9
6.6
7.7
7.4
5.9
7.9
5.0
9.7
3.6
2.2
2.6
1.5
9.7
-------
MI. K.M. SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
VEH. NO.
MAKE CARS
W
AMC
CHRY
DODG
PLYM
FORD
MERC
BUIC
CADI
CHEV
OLDS
PONT
IMPT
CUM
2.
2.
4.
5.
16.
3.
6.
2.
74.
EMIS NO.
CTRL CARS
N.C. 9:
C.D.
A. I.
E.M.
CUM
31.
3.
31.
74.
MAKE
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
2.6
2.9
3.3
6.4
5.7
5.1
5. 1
4.2
5.8
5.2
6.3
1.9
4.2
5.3
SDEV
0.6
1.1
1.7
4.4
3.1
0.7
1.4
2.0
3.9
1.0-
4.5
0.0
2.8
3.1
MIN
2.1
2. 1
1.7
1.7
2.5
4.3
3.1
2.8
3.2
3.9
2.1
1.9
2.4
1.7
MAX
3.0
3.7
5.2
12.9
15.1
5.7
6.8
5.7
20.1
6.7
15.5
1.9
7.4
20. i
CTRL
HYDROCARBON
HEAN
6.2
6.4
3.7
4.1
5.3
SDEV
5.5
3.2
0.3
1.6
3.1
MIN
2. 1
2. 1
3.0
1.7
1.7
MAX
20.1
15.5
4.6
7.8
20.1
CLASS
CARBON
MEAN
36.7
38.6
40.0
59.6
74.6
62.5
80.9
78.8
59.4
71.4
48. 1
23.8
49.6
61.9
CLASS
SDEV
21.7
40.0
21.1
38.1
54.8
39.1
25.1
35.7
21.8
21.6
17,9
0.0
24.4
34.8
CARBON
MEAN
59.8
80.2
36.4
46.7
61.9
SDEV
28.1
36.8
15.7
26.7
34.8
MONOXIDE
MIN
21.4
10.3
20.1
7.6
14.2
38.6
57.5
53.5
32.0
36.3
30.3
23.3
34.3
7.6
MONOXIDE
MIN
23.5
22.0
21.4
7.6
7.6
MAX
52.0
66.9
58.9
107.4
219.9
107.7
127.2
104.0
110.2
97.5
77.5
23.8
77.7
219.9
MAX
110.2
219.9
52.6
143.4
219.9
MEAN
4.3
4.5
5.6
5.4
4.2
4.4
5.0
4.1
3.5
3.7
5.0
1.2
1.9
4.2
MEAN
2.6
3.6
4.5
5.2
4.2
NITROGEN
SDEV
0.7
2.9
0.8
2.8
2.0
2.3
2.6
0.7
1.5
1.0
1.3
0.0
0.8
1.9
NITROGEN
SDEV
1.1
1.6
0.5
1.8
1.9
OXIDES
MIN
3.8
2.4
4.3
2.2
0.5
2.1
1.0
3.6
1.3
2.6
3.1
1.2
1.3
0.5
OXIDES
MIN
1.3
0.5
4.0
1.2
0.5
MAX
4.7
6.5
6.2
9.7
7.*
6.6
7.9
4.6
5.8
5.7
6.6
1.2
2.8
9,7
MAX
4.3
7.9
4.8
9.7
9.7
-------
MI. K.M. SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CID
100"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
4.
7.
16.
39.
8.
74.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3. 6
4.0
6.4
5.4
4.5
5.3
SDEV
2.6
1.5
4.9
2.7
1.1
3.1
MIN
1.9
2.1
2. 1
1.7
2.8
1.7
MAX
7.4
6.6
20.1
15.5
6.2
20.1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
43.1
44.4-
73,8
60.5
65.7
61.9
SDEV
23.7
22.2
51.7
28.9
26.3
34.8
MIN
23.8
23.5
14.2
7.6
36.8
7.6
MAX
77.7
88.6
219.9
143.4
104.0
219.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
1.7
3.1
3.3
4.3
5.2
4.2
SDEV
0.7
1.1
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.9
OXIDES
MIN
1.2
2.1
0.5
1,0
3.4
0.5
MAX
2.8
5.0
0.9
9.7
6.6
9.7
10
en
CLASS
WT
1K#
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
10.
17.
43.
4.
74.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
0.0
4.0
6.6
5.2
4.1
5.3
SDEV
0.0
1.8
5.1
2.2
1.2
3.1
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
1.9
2. 1
1.7
2.8
1.7
7.4
20.1
15.5
5.7
20.1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
0.0
44.3
68.6
62.5
70.6
61.9
SDEV
0.0
22.8
52.6
27.9
28.5
34.8
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
22.0
14.2
7.6
41.2
7.6
88.6
219.9
143.4
104.0
219.9
NITROGEN .OXIDES
MEAN
0.0
2.7
3.8
4.6
4.6
4.2
SDEV
0.0
1.5
1.7
1.9
0.8
1.9
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
1.2
0.5
1.0
3.6
0.5
5.9
6.9
9.7
5.7
9,7
-------
ALL IDLE BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
YEAR CLASS
NO.
YEAR CARS
57-1 14.
62-5 41.
66-7 30.
68-9 37.
70-1 27.
CUM 149.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
8.9
8.1
7.6
4.2
3.7
6.3
SDEV
7.5
6.4
6.3
2,3
1.8
5.6
MIN
3.2
3.0
1.5
0.9
0.9
0.9
MAX
30. 1
32.4
30.9
12.2
7.8
32.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
94.9
91.1
79.9
62.4
51.4
74.9
SDEV
63.3
66.4
32.5
37.0
37.8
50.9
MIN
29.3
13.0
15.8
13.1
7.9
7.9
MAX
217.4
375.0
134.7
176.9
14f .0
375.0
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.2
2.8
2.8
3.9
4.2
3.3
SDEV
2.2
1.5
1.5
1.8
2.2
1.9
OXIDES
MIN
0.4
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.0
0.4
MAX
8.9
6.5
6.5
6.8
7.9
8.9
10K CLASS
MILE
10K
XI
W X2
V X3
£ X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
Xll
X12
CUM
NO.
CARS
7.
15.
18.
20.
22.
21.
11.
11.
11.
7.
3.
3.
149.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.0
5.9
3.7
4.6
6.5
5-. 3
6.2
6.3
10.7
8.4
15.0
19.7
6.3
SDEV
1.0
4.1
1.7
2.9
6.0
3.0
2.5
3.0
9.7
3.2
12.7
14.4
5.6
MIN
1.6
2.6
0, S
0.9
1.5
1.6
2.4
3.2
3.4
4.5
5.7
3.2
0.9
MAX
4.4
20.0
6.8
12.2
30.9
16-0
10,3
12.6
32.4
13.4
29.5
30.1
32.4
'CARB'ON MONOXIDE
MEAN
29.4
70.5
52.8
70.8
78.4
72.8
97.0
79.9
34.3
113.6
121.2
80.8
74.9
SDEV
11.3
33.1
40.8
38.4
42.1
60.2
97.3
35.4
43.9
57.6
51.5
28.9
50.9
MIN
7.9
26.6
9.5
13.1
15.8
17.1
17.9
38.3
13.0
41.1
84.6
48.5
7.9
MAX
39.8
120.5
176.9
144.0
217.4
299.8
375.0
142.6
149.9
211.9
180.1
104.0
375.0
NITROGEN
MEAN
5.8
3.7
4.0
3.1
3.0
3.2
3.0
2.6
2.'2
3.1
1.8
2.9
3.3
SDEV
1.9
1.7
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.7
2.2
2.4
1.4
1.9
1.2
1,2
1*9
OXIDES
MIN
1.8
1.5
1.6
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
0,4
2.1
0.4
MAX
7.5
7.1
7.9
6.8
5.5
6.7
6.6
8.9
5.2
6.5
2.6
4.3
8.9
-------
ALL IDLE BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
MAKE CLASS
VEH.
MAKE
AMC
CHRY
DODG
PLYM
FORD
MERC
BUIC
CADI
CHEV
OLOS
PONT
IMPT
Vto
CUM
NO.
CARS
5.
3.*
8.
9.
31.
6.
10.
4.
33.
10.
12.
6.
12.
1*9.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.7
5.7
4.8
6. 1
5.5
4.1
8.7
5.3
7.9
7.6
5.5
3.5
6.9
6.3
SDEV
1.7
3.3
3.1
4.1
2,6
1.5
8.7
2.3
7.1
8.3
2.1
2.7
8.6
5.6
MIN
1.6
3.2
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
3, 1
2.7
2.2
1.5
2.6
1.2
0.9
0.5
MAX
5.5
9.4
10.9
13.4
16.0
6.2
32.4
8.0
29.5
30.1
3.7
8.4
30.9
32.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
42.2
67.4
34.7
61.6
86.8
49.0
118.6
94.8
73.0
101.4
77.2
52.7
57.9
74.9
SOEV
27.6
33.5
26.1
38.0
58.3
28.2
45.5
30.9
34.5
100.6
34.9
40.1
43.6
50.9
MIN
17.1
41.1
7.9
19.8
12.4
13.0
39.8
60.0
24.5
15.8
26.8
9.9
9.5
7.9
MAX
82.7
105.0
94,2
142.6
299.8
92.0
211.9
122.0
180.1
375.0
132.8
118.4
134.7
375.0
NITROGEN
MEAN
3.4
3.5
4.8
4.1
3.4
4.2
2.8
4.3
3.3
3.3
3.4
1.4
1.4
3.J
SDEV
1.5
2.5
1.8
1.9
2.2
2-2
2.0
2 ,,8
1.4
1.6
1.6
0.6
0.8
1.9
OXIDES
MIN
1.8
1.1
2.0
1.8
0.5
1,6
0.6
1.2
0.4
1.7
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.4
MAX
5.5
6.0
7.5
>6.P
8.9
7.1
6.6
7.9
6.6
6.0
6.7
2.3
2.5
8.9
CTRL CLASS
EMIS NO,
CTRL CARS
N.C. 9.
C.O. 69.
A. I. 12.
E.M. 59.
CUM 149.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
10.8
7.6
5.3
4.4
6.3
SDEV
10.1
5.8
7.8
2.3
5.6
MIN
1.6
2.7
1.2
0.9
0.9
MAX
32.4
30.9
29,5
12.2
32.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
101,9
87.3
50.8
61.2
74.9
SDEV
83.6
53.7
27.7
36.9
50.9
MIN
17.1
13.0
9.9
7.9
7.9
MAX
299.3
375.0
96.7
170.9
375.0
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.9
2,7
2.9
4.1
3.3
SDEV
2.6
1.6
1.4
2.0
1.9
OXIDES
MIN
0.5
0.4
1.1
0.8
0.4
MAX
8.9
6.5
5.3
7.9
8.9
-------
ALL IDLE BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CID
100"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
19.
13.
34.
64.
19.
149.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
5. 5
5.7
6.0
6.7
6.8
6.3
SDEV
7,1
3.4
3.5
6.1
6.6
5.6
MIN
0.9
2.9
l.fc
1.5
1.7
0.9
MAX
30.9
16.0
20.0
30.1
32.4
32.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
53.8
81.2
77.1
73.4
92.4
74.9
SDEV
41.4
83.5
38.7
51.1
47.0.
50.9
MIN
9.5
13.0
17.1
7.9
26.8
7.9
MAX
134.7
299.8
180.1
375.0
211.9
375.0
NITROGEN
MEAN
1.5
3.1
3.0
3.9
3.7
3.3
SDEV
0.8
2.5
1.4
1.8
2.3
1.9
OXIDES
MIN
0.6
C.5
0.4
0,9
0.6
0.4
MAX
3.0
8.9
6.5
7.5
7,9
8.9
CLASS
WT
1K#
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
30.
40.
73.
6.
149.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
O.C
5.8
4.6
7.5
5.4
6.3
SDEV
0.0
6.0
2.2
6.6
1.8
5.6
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
0.9
1.2
1.6
2.7
0.9
30.9
10.9
32.4
8.0
32.4
CARBON i
MEAN
0.0
74.0
59.6
82.3
90.8
74.9
SDEV
0.0
65.7
34.8
51.5
32.0
50.9
MIN
J99.0-
9.5
13.0
7.9
50.6
7.9
NITROGEN OXIDES
MAX
999.0
299.8
180.1
375.0
122.0
375.0
MEAN
0.0
2.3
3.2
3.6
4.5
3.3
SDEV
0.0
2.1
1.6
1.8
2.2
1.9
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
0.5
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.4
8.9
6.6
7.5
7.9
8.9
-------
ALL IDLE SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
YEAR CLASS
YEAR
57-1
62-5
66-7
68-9
70-1
CUM
NO.
CARS
14.
41.
30.
37.
27.
149.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
8.8
6.0
5.3
3.6
3.4
5. 1
SDEV
7.5
3.6
2.6
1.9
1.6
3.7
MIN
3.2
2.7
1.5
0.9
0.9
0.9
MAX
30.1
25.7
13.4
12.2
7.0
30.1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
85.4
68.3
65.4
52.5
43.5
60.9
SDEV
49.1
28.5
29.6
35.7
30.3
35.0
MIN
29.3
13.0
8.4
13.1
7.9
7.9
MAX
211.9
140.1
140.9
176.9
122.9
211.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.2
2.8
3.1
3.8
4.3
3.3
SDEV
2.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.3
1.9
OXIDES
MIN
0.4
6.6
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.4
MAX
8.9
5.9
6.5
7.0
7.9
8.9
10K CLASS
MILE
10K
XI
' X2
1 X3
> X4
' X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
Xll
X12
CUM
NO.
CARS
7.
15.
18.
20.
22.
21.
11.
11,
11.
7,
3.
3.
149.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.0
5.8
3.3
3.7
4.9
4.3
5.1
5.6
6.0
8.1
6. 1
19.7
5.1
SDEV
1.0
4.2
1.5
2.4
2.4
1.7
2.0
2.1
1.7
3.2
3,3
14.4
3.7
MIN
1.6
2.6
0.9
0.9
1.5
1.6
2.4
3.2
.3,4
4.5
2.9
3.2
0.9
MAX
4.4
20.0
6.8
12.2
12.0
7.6
9.3
10.4
8.9
13.4
9.5
30.1
30.1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
29.4
65.4
48.2
52.7
62.6
53.8
58.4
72.9
72.9
96.9
96.6
80.8
60.9
SDEV
11.3
31.6
41.0
27.2
29.0
30.0
31.4
19.8
43.6
58.7
36.3
28.9
35.0
MIN
7.9
26.6
9.5
13.1
15.8
14.0
8.4
45.2
13.0
41.1
59.2
48.5
7.9
MAX
39.8
120.5
176.9
122.9
132.6
120.9
103.9
100.0
140.9
211.9
131.7
104.0
211.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
5.8
3.9
3.7
3.1
3.4
3.4
3.0
2.4
2.6
3.1
1.6
2.9
3.3
SDEV
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.8
2.3
1.6
1.9
1.0
1.2
1.9
OXIDES
MIN
1.8
1.5
1.6
1.0
0.4
1.2
1.2
0.6'
0.5
0.6
0.6
2.1
0.4
MAX
7.5
7.8
7.9
6.8
7.0
6.7
6.6
8.9
5,9
6.5
2.6
4.3
8.9
-------
ALL IDLE SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
MAKE CLASS
VEH.
MAKE
AMC
CHRV
OOOG
PLYN
fORD
MERC
SUIC
CAOI
CHEV
OLOS
PONT
IMPT
VM
CUM
MC.
CARS
5.
S.
1.
1.
SI.
4.
10.
4.
33.
10.
12.
6.
12.
149.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.6
3.8
4.0
5.9
4.8
3.7
5.8
4.6
5.9
6.8
5.4
2.6
4.4
5. 1
SDEV
1.5
0.6
1.9
4.1
1.8
1.1
2.8
1.5
4.8
8.3
2.0
1.3
3.6
3.7
MIN
1.6
3.2
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
3.0
2.7
2.2
1.5
2.6
1.2
0.9
0.9
MAX
5.5
4.5
a.o
13.4
9.3
4.7
11.7
6.2
25.7
30.1
8.7
4.0
12.0
30.1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
42.9
39.8
32.1
50.2
69.9
39.8
104.8
76.3
64.2
63.1
t>7.2
30.2
44.3
60.9
SDEV
26.9
16.9
19.6
27.3
37.3
18.9
47.8
18.3
29.2
26.7
35.3
22.4
26.6
35.0
MIN
17.1
22.3
7.9
19.8
12.4
13.0
39.8
60.0
17.3
15.8
22.5
8.4
9.5
7.9
MAX
82.7
56.0
73.6
91.1
176.9
68.0
211.9
101.5
131.7
104.0
140.9
59.9
94.6
211.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.5
3.5
4.7
4.3
3.4
4.5
2.7
4.7
3.1
3.8
3.8
1.8
1.6
3.3
SDEV
1.2
2.5
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.3
2.0
2.5
1.3
2.1
1.8
0.5
0.8
1.9
OXIDES
MIN
1.2
1.1
2.0
1.8
0.4
1.6
0.6
2.2
0.6
1.7
0.9
1.0
0.5
0.4
MAX
4.3
6.0
7.5
6.8
8.9
7.1
6.6
7.9
6.4
7.8
7.0
2.5
2.9
8.9
CTRL CLASS
EMIS
CTKL
N.C.
C.D.
A.I .
E.M.
CUM
NO.
CARS
».
69.
12.
59.
149.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
6.7
6.3
2.6
3.9
5. I
SDEV
5.4
4.4
1.1
1.9
3.7
MIN
1. 6
2. 7
1.2
0.9
0.9
MAX
20.0
30.1
4,6
12.2
30.1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
69.0
71.3
41.0
51.5
60.9
SDEV
41.7
33.4
25.9
33.6
35.0
MIN
14.0
8.4
9.9
7.9
7.9
MAX
140.1
211.9
96.7
176.9
211.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
3.6
2.7
3.0
4.1
3.3
SDEV
2.4
1.5
1.7
2.1
1.9
OXIDES
MIN
1.5
0.4
1.1
0.5
0.4
MAX
8.9
6.5
6.3
7.9
8.9
-------
ALL IDLE SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CIO
100"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
19.
13.
34.
64.
19.
149.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3. 7
4.5
5.4
5.4
5.2
5.1
SDEV
3.1
1.6
3.2
4.7
2.3
3.7
MIN
0.9
2.7
1.6
1.5
1.7
0.9
MAX
12.0
7.5
20.0
30.1
11.7
30.1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
3t».2
52.2
69.0
59.5
79.8
60.9
SOEV
25.6
33.7
30.0
33.3
44.9
35.0
MIN
8.4
13.0
17.1
7.9
26.8
7.9
MAX
94.6
132.6
131.7
176.9
211.9
211.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
1.7
3.2
3.0
3.9
3.9
3.3
SDEV
0.8
2.4
1.4
1.8
2.5
1.9
OXIDES
MIN
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.4
MAX
3.0
8.9
6.3
7.5
7.9
8.9
IK* CLASS
WT
1K#
X2
X3
X<*
X5
X6
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
30.
40.
73.
6.
149.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
0.0
4.2
4.2
6.0
4.5
5.1
SDEV
0.0
2.6
1.8
4.7
1.3
3.7
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
0.9
1.2
1.6
2.7
0.9
12.0
9.5
30.1
6.2
30.1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
0.0
49.4
52.5
69.8
65.6
60.9
SDEV
0.0
33.5
29.6
37.1
22.2
35.0
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
8.4
13.0
7.9
37.8
7.9
132.6
131.7
211.9
101.5
211.9
NITROGEN OXIOfcS
VEAN
0.0
2.4
3.2
3.6
5.2
3.3
SDEV
0.0
2.0
1.7
1.8
2.3
1.9
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
0.4
0.6
0.6
2.2
0.4
8.9
7.0
7.5
7.9
8.9
-------
ALL K.M. BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
YfcAR CLASS
YEAR
.57-1
62-5
66-7
68-9
70-1
CUM
NO.
CARS
15.
40.
29.
38.
27.
149.
HYDROCAR30N
MEAN
7.2
8.8
8.4
4.4
3.4
6.4
SDEV
4.9
6.9
6.0
1.9
1.1
5.3
MIN
3. 1
1.9
2. 1
1.3
1.7
1.3
MAX
19.9
30.4
28.3
9.8
6.6
30.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
64. 1
103.0
89.3
60.4
45,0
75.0
SDEV
28,3
52.8
49.1
34.9
28.3
46.8
MIN
26.0
22.4
25.1
10.3
7.1
7.1
MAX
125.0
232.5
256.2
1 52 . 1
96.2
256.2
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.5
2.4
3.1
4.3
4.4
3.4
SDEV
1.2
1.2
1.6
2.2
1.8
1.9
OXIDES
MIN
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.9
0.8
0.2
MAX
4.0
4.9
7.4
9.7
6.9
9.7
10K CLASS
MILE
10K
XI
W X2
i- X3
w X4
^ X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
Xll
X12
CUM
NO.
CARS
5.
16,
18.
11.
20.
26.
14.
15.
12.
6,
2.
4.
149.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
2.7
4.0
3.4
6.3
5.8
6.9
8.6
8.6
9.8
8.7
7.2
5.6
6.4
SDEV
1.1
1.8
1.5
3.4
2.4
5.1
6.0
8.6
7.4
7.6
0.7
5.6
5.3
MIN
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.3
3. 1
1.7
3.0
3.1
3.3
4.2
6.7
1.9
1.3
MAX
4.4
8.9
8.4
14.0
12.6
25.6
21.4
30.4
29.7
23.8
7.7
13.9
30.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
23.6
48.4
45.3
91.9
83.4
83.3
85.8
78.8
97.9
91.0
96.7
dl.9
75. G
SDEV
19.8
28.0
26.2
46.9
50.8
38.8
46.1
43.5
64.5
47.1
1.1
37.1
46.8
MIN
7.6
18.6
7.1
20.4
22.0
17.4
30.3
25.1
22.4
49.8
96.0
28.0
7.1
MAX
58,1
112.3
107.4
159.1
256.2
147.4
219.9
193.1
232.5
171.9
S7.5
211.9
258.2
NITROGEN
MEAN
5.2
3.7
4.8
3.9
3.5
2.7
3.1
3.4
2.5
2.1
2.5
1.9
3.4
SDEV
1.9
1.9
1.8
2.3
1.3
1.9
1.5
2.1
1.2
0.9
0.1
1.4
1.9
CXIDES
MIN
1.9
1.1
1.5
0.8
2.0
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.3
1.0
2.5
0.4
0.2
MAX
6.9
6.9
7.7
7.4
5.9
7.9
5.6
9.7
4.0
3.6
2.6
3.8
9-7
-------
ALL K.M. BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
MAKE CLASS
td
I-1
i
VEH.
MAKE
AMC
CHRY
OODG
PLYM
FORD
MERC
BUIC
CADI
CHEV
OLDS
PONT
.IMPT
VW
CUM
NO.
CARS
5.
3.
8.
9.
31.
- 6.
11.
4.
32.
10.
12.
6.
12.
149.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.8
4.5
4.1
5.2
6.9
7.3
5.7
11.0
7.8
6.6
7.3
3.0
5.3
6.4
SDEV
2.3
3,.0
2.0
3.8
5.7
8.2
2.2
11.7
5.9
3,0
6.2
1.6
4.3
5.3
MIN
1.7
2.1
1.7
1.7
2.3
1.9
3.1
3.5
2.5
2.1
3.5
1.3
1.7
1.3
MAX
7.0
7.9
7.9
14.0
30.4
23.8
10.8
28.3
29.7
12.6
25.6
4.9
14.9
30.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
58.3
83.0
57.0
60,0
82.5
60.6
98.9
93.5
86.0
75.8
79.9
26.1
52.9
75.0
SDEV
38.8
82.0
27.0
46.4
58.6
34.3
32.0
24.7
48.3
40.8
47.1
13.3
27.4
46.8
MIN
21.4
10.3
20.1
7.6
14.2
37.7
57.5
60.7
18.2
22.4
30.3
7.1
18.6
7.1
MAX
121.6
171.9
92.9
159.1
258.2
123.1
147.4
118.8
232.5
152.1
213.9
43.7
111.8
258.2
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.7
3.5
4.7
4.2
3.7
3.5
3.5
3.8
3.0
3.3
4.1
3.3
1.6
3.4
SDEV
1.6
2.7
1.7
2.4
1.8
1.9
2.6
1.2
1.7
1.3
1.7
2.0
0.8
1.9
OXJDES
MIN
1.0
1.5
2.4
2.2
0.5
2.0
0.8
2.1
0.2
1.5
1.3
0.9
0.3
0.2
MAX
4.7
6.5
7.4
9.7
7.4
6.6
7.9
4.6
6.9
5:.7
6.6
6.1
2.8
9.7
CTRL CLASS
EMIS NO.
CTRL CARS
N.C. 12.
C.D. 65.
A.I. 15.
E.M. 57.
CUM 149.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
6.8
8.5
5.6
4.2
6.4
SDEV
5,1
6.4
5.5
1.9
5.3
MIN
2.6
1.9
1.3
1.7
1.3
MAX
19.9
30.4
23.8
10.9
30.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
75.0
92.0
59.9
59.6
75.0
SDEV
47.9
47.4
38.6
42.1
46.8
MIN
33.1
22.0
7,1
7.6
7.1
MAX
211.9
232.5
137.4
258.2
258.2
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.5
2.9
3.1
4.3
3.4
SDEV
1.1
1.6
1.6
2.0
1.9
OXIDES
MIN
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.8
0.2
MAX
3.7
7.9
6.1
9.7
9.7
-------
ALL K.M. BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CID
100"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
19.
14.
33.
64.
19.
149.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
4.5
5.2
7.5
6.4
7.5
6.4
SDEV
3.6
3.3
6.1
5.0
6.9
5.3
MIN
1.3
1.9
1.7
1.7
2.3
1.3
MAX
14.9
15.6
30.4
29.7
28.3
30.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
43.0
66.1
91.4
74.3
87.8
75.0
SDEV
26.2
34.8
57.8
45.7
37.7
46.8
MIN
7.1
28.0
14.2
7.6
25.4
7.1
MAX
111.8
143.6
232.5
258.2
171.9
258.2
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.3
2.7
2.6
4.1
3.7
3.4
SDEV
1.5
1.1
1.6
1.9
1.9
1.9
OXIDES
MIN
0.3
1.0
0.2
1.0
0.8
0.2
MAX
6.1
5.0
6.9
9.7
6.6
9.7
IrtT
IK*
X2
w X3
^ X4
w X5
•!•*
X6
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
26.
46.
70.
7.
149.
MEAN
0.0
5.0
5.6
7.3
8.5
A. 4
HYDROCARBON
SDEV MIN
IKj
MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
3.8
3.5
6.1
8.9
5.3
1.7
1.3
1.7
3.5
1.3
15.6
15.1
30.4
28.3
30.4
* CLASS
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN- SDEV MIN
0.0
46.8
78.3
32.4
85.2
75.0
MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999,0
24.8
53.1
47.0
26.5
46.8
7.1
14.2
7.6
41.2
7.1
111.8
232.5
258.2
118.8
258.2
NITROGEN OXIDES
MEAN
0.0
2.7
3.0
3.8
4.3
3.4
SDEV
0.0
1.5
1.7
2.0
1.1
1.9
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
0.3
0.3
0.2
2.1
0.2
6.1
6.9
9.7
5.7
9.7
-------
ALL K.M. SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
YEAR CLASS
NO.
YEAR CARS
57-1 15.
62-5 40.
66-7 29.
63-9 38.
70-1 27.
CUM 149.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
5.9
6.4
6.3
3.S
3.3
5. 1
SDEV
3.1
3.6
4.8
1.5
1,0
3.3
MIN
3.1
1.9
2.1
1.3
1.7
1.3
MAX
14.5
20.1
28.3
8.2
5.2
28.3
CARSON MONOXIDE
MEAN
65.4
81.4
69.6
.53.5
41.0
63.1
SDEV
39.1
41.1
30.9
34.2
25.2
37.2
MIN
28.0
22.4
25.1
10.3
7.1
7.1
MAX
182.5
219.9
137.4
147.4
96.2
219.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.5
2.5
3.0
4.2
4.3
3.4
SDEV
1.4
1.2
1.5
2.3
1,7
1.8
OXIDES
MIN
0,5
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.4
MAX
5.9
5.1
5.9
9.7
6.9
9.7
10K CLASS
MILE
10K
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
Xll
XI 2
CUM
NO.
CARS
5.
16.
18.
11.
20.
26.
14.
15.
12.
6.
2.
4.
149.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
2.7
3.7
3.4
5.b
4.7
5.9
6.1
6.3
5.6
5.1
6.3
7. 1
5.1
SDEV
1.1
1.2
1.5
2.8
1.7
3.4
3.5
6.3
1.5
2.1
0.6
8.7
3.3
MIN
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.9
1.7
2. 1
2.5
3.3
2. 1
5.9
1.9
1.3
MAX
4.4
6.4
3.4
12.9
' 3.2
15.5
15.1
28.3
7.9
7.9
6.7
20.1
28.3
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
23.6
40.9
44. 1
71.5
64.1
76.4
77.0
63.4
70.5
86.2
76.5
56.5
63.1
SDEV
19.8
15.4
26.8
35.8
35.8
40.2
53.5
24.5
33.8
50.1
29.7
36.9
37.2
MIN
7.6
18.6
7.1
20.4
22.0
17.4
23.5
25.1
22.4
49.4
55.5
28.0
7.1
MAX
58.1
74.6
107.4
143.4
143.6
182.5
219.9
107.1
159.2
171.9
97.5
110.2
219.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
5.2
3.5
4.3
4.1
3.1
2.9
3.1
3.6
2.2
2.0
2.9
2.2
3.4
SDEV
1.9
1.8
1.8
2.1
1.3
1.9
1.7
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.4
1.1
1,8
OXIDES
.MIN
1,9
0.9
1.5
0.8
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
1.0
2.6
1,3
0.4
MAX
6.9
6.6
7.7
7.4
5.9
7.9
5.9
9.7
4,0
3.6
3.2
3.8
9.7
-------
ALL K.M. SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 1 DATA
ALL CARS
MAKE CLASS
VEH.
MAKE
AMC
CHRY
DODG
PLYM
FORD
MERC
BUIC
CADI
CHEV
OLDS
PONT
IMPT
W VW
»T CUM
NO.
CARS
5.
3.
8.
9.
31.
6.
11.
4.
32.
10.
12.
6.
12.
149.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.8
4.5
3.5
5. 1
5.3
3. 7
5.7
10.8
5.7
5.3
5.6
2.8
3.7
5.1
SDEV
2.3
3.0
1.5
3.5
2.6
1.6
2.2
11.8
3.5
1.6
3.5
1.6
1.7
3.3
MIN
1.7
2.1
1.7
1.7
2.3
1.9
3. 1
2.8
2.5
2.1
2.1
1.3
1.7
1.3
MAX
7.0
7.9
6.0
12.9
13.1
5.7
10.8
28.3
20.1
8.2
15.5
4.9
7.4
28.3
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
58,3
83.0
45.6
51.7
69.4
53.2
98.9
84.3
64.9
62.8
65.0
23.6
41.9
63.1
SDEV
38.8
82.0
22.0
30.3
44.5
27.0
32.0
32.1
35.7
26.6
32.0
11.8
17.1
37.2
MIN.
21.4
10.3
20.1
7.6
14.2
37.7
57.5
53.5
18.2
22.4
30.3
7.1
18.6
7,1
MAX
121.6
171.9
85.3
107.4
219.9
107.7
147.4
118.3
182.5
97.5
145.3
43.7
77.7
219,9
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.7
3.5
4.6
4.4
3.3
3.4
3.5
3,7
3.0
3.1
3.8
3.1
1.6
3.4
SDEV
1.6
2.7
1.4
2.3
1.8
2.1
2.6
1.2
1.6
1.1
1.9
2.1
0.8
1.8
OXIDES
MIN
1.0
1.5
2.4
2.2
0.5
1.1
0.8
2.1
0.4
1.5
1.3
0.9
0.6
0.4
MAX
4.7
6.5
6.2
9.7
7.4
6.6
7.9
4.6
6.5
5.7
6 .6
6.1
3.4
9.7
Ov
EMIS NO.
CTRL CARS
N.C. 12.
C.O. 65.
A.I. 15.
E.M. 57.
CUM 149.
CTRL CLASS
HYDROCARBON
MEAN SDEV MIN
5.9 4.9 2.1
6.4 3.9 1.9
3.6 1.7 1.3
3.9 1.5 1.7
5.1 3.3 1.3
CARBON MONOXIDE
NITROGEN OXIUES
MAX
20.1
28.3
6.7
8.2
23.3
MEAN
57.2
77.4
51.2
51.1
63.1
SOEV
25.2
39,6
36.3
31.5
37.2
MIN
23.5
22.0
7.1
7.6
7.1
MAX
110.2
219.9
137.4
147.4
219.9
MEAN
2.9
2.9
2,9
4.1
3.4
SDEV
1.4
1.6
1.6
2.0
1.8
N| I N
1.3
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.4
MAX
5.9
7.9
6.1
9.7
9.7
-------
ALL K.M. SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE I DATA
CARS
100" CLASS
CIO
100"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
19.
14.
33.
64.
19.
149,
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.4
4.0
5.9
5.1
6.2
5.1
SDEV
1.6
1.5
3.9
2.4
5.8
3.3
MIN
1.3
1.9
1.7
1.7
2.1
1.3
MAX
7.4'
7.0
20.1
15.5
28.3
28.3
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
35.3
55.4
77.5
58.4
36.9
63.1
SDEV
17.2
36.7
47.0
27.0
41.7
37.2
MIN
7.1
23.5
14.2
7.6
25.4
7.1
MAX
77.7
143.6
219.9
143.4
171.9
219.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.2
2.7.
2.7
4.1
3.5
3.4
SDEV
1.6
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.0
1.8
OXIDES
MIN
0.6
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.8
0.4
MAX
6.1
5.0
6.9
9.7
6.6
9.7
1K# CLASS
WT
1K#
X2
w X3
V X4
<3 X5
X6
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
26.
46.
70.
7.
149.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
0.0
3.7
5.0
5.4
8.4
5.1
SDEV
0.0
1.5
3.6
2.5
8.9
3.3
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
1.7
1.3
1.7
2.8
1.3
7.4
20.1
15.5
28.3
28.3
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
U.O
39.4
64.3
69.3
79.9
63.1
SOEV
0.0
18.8
43.6
35.4
28.8
37.2
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
7.1
14.2
7.6
41.2
7.1
88.6
219.9
182.5
118.8
219.9
NITROGEN OXIDES
MEAN
o.o
2.5
3.0
3.8
4.3
3.4
SDEV
0.0
1.6
1.6
2.0
1.1
1.8
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999,0
0.6
0.4
0.'5
2,1
0.4
6.1
6.9
9.7
5.7
9.7
-------
CAL IDLE BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
YEAR
57-1
62-5
66-7
68-9
70-1
CUM
MILE
10K
XI
W X2
N> X3
H- ' X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
Xll
X12
CUM
NO.
CARS
12.
21.
14.
16.
12.
75.
NO.
CARS
1.
5.
8.
,3.
5.
10.
8.
9.
4.
9.
6.
2.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
12.4
10.0
9.0
4.2
3.5
7.9
SDEV
13.8
4,8
12.0
1.5
1.0
8.4
MIN
3.4
3.9
3.3
1.5
2.6
1.5
MAX
45.8
22.1
49.9
7.6
5.9
49.9
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
5.1
6.5
9.0
4.5
5.6
9.8
8.5
6.0
5.1
8.1
14.9
9. 1
7.9
SDEV
0.0
3.1
16.6
2.8
2.6
12.8
5.6
3.9
1.2
3.3
12.5
3.1
8.4
MIN
5.1
2.8
1.5
2.6
3.4
3.3
4.6
3.3
3.4
3.0
3.9
6.9
1.5
MAX
5.1
9.1
49.9
11.1
9.7
45.8
20.8
15.8
5.9
12.4
36.7
11.3
49.9
YEAR CLASS
CARBON MONOXIDE
NITROGEN OXIDES
MAX
45.8
22.1
49.9
7.6
5.9
49.9
MEAN
117.5
122.5
103.0
60.9
48.2
93.0
SDEV
60.8
43.0
49.8
24.5
28.5
51.4
MIN
40.9
53.7
41.5
24.7
21.1
21.1
MAX
244.6
228.4
232.0
102.7
114,2
244.6
MEAN
2.2
2.7
3.1
4.8
4.1
3.4
SDEV
1.2
1.5
1.3
1.6
1.2
1.7
MIN
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.9
2.9
0.7
MAX
4.1
5.9
4.9
7.9
6.3
7.9
10K CLASS
CARBON
MEAN SDEV
104.0 0.0
92.9 47.8
70.6 70.3
51.0 25.6
80.7 34.8
92.9 58.9
106.5 50.7
95.8 56.2
79.3 43.3
117.3 43.2
127.8 46.6
123.7 21.8
93.0 51.4
MONOXIDE
MIN
104.0
37.6
21.1
21.9
40.0
51.3
59.9
41.5
40.9
24.7
53.7
108.2
21.1
NITROGEN
MAX
104.0
143.2
232.0
86.6
114.2
244.6
209.1
228.4
136.5
169.7
179.0
139.1
244.6
MEAN
2.7
3.6
3.4
4.4
5.3
3.9
2.8
3.0
2.9
2.6
2.2
3.2
3.4
SDEV
0.0
1.7
1.2
0.9
1.5
2.4
1.6
1.4
0.9
1.3
1.7
1.1
1.7
OXIDES
MIN
2.7
1.6
0.7
2.9
3.8
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.7
1.0
0.7
2.4
0.7
MAX
2.7
6.3
4.6
5.6
7.7
7.9
5.4
4.9
3.7
5.3
4.6
4.0
7.9
-------
CAL IDLE BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
MAKE CLASS
w
to
1
VEH.
MAKE
AMC
CHRY
DQDG
PLYM
FORD
MERC
BUIC
CADI
CHEV
OLDS
PONT
IMPT
VW
•CUM
NO.
CARS
3.
1.
4.
4.
15.
3.
4.
2.
16.
4.
5.
5.
9.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
5.2
6.9
5.5
5.0
8.7
11.6
5.3
4.3
9.9
6.8
6.4
12.3
6.1
7.9
SDEV
2.0
0,0
4.1
1.6
10.9
8.2
2.0
1.3
7.7
3.0
2.7
21.1
6.2
8.4
MIN
3.9
6. 9
2.8
4.C
2.8
5.0
3,5
3.4
3.5
3.4
4.3
1.5
2.2
1.5
MAX
7.6
6.9
11.7
7.4
45.8
20.3
8.0
5.2
36.7
9.7
11.1
49.9
22.1
49.9
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
84.8
139.1
78.9
86.8
97.0
158.3
75.2
82.7
107.4
106.4
96.8
72.4
59.2
93.0
SDEV
27.0
0.0
56.8
32.3
66.5
51.8
19.0
60.4
35.5
41.5
50.4
89.4
32.9
51.4
MIN
53.7
139.1
41.5
58.8
27.1
105.6
51.2
40.0
37.6
48.5
21.9
26.6
21.1
21.1
MAX
102.7
139.1
163.4
133.2
244.6
209.1
93.7
125.4
179.0
137.0
149.9
232.0
131.2
244.6
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.3
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.3
1.3
3.9
5.5
3.4
3.7
4.3
3.3
2.5
3.4
SDEV
0.5
0.0
1.0
1.4
2.0
0.8
0.9
3.1
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.7
OXIDES
MIN
1.8
4.0
3.3
2.6
0.7
0.7
2.9
3.3
0.8
2.2
1.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
MAX
2.7
4.0
5.3
5.9
7.9
2.2
5.1
7.7
6.3
5.6
5.6
4.6
4.3
7.9
CTRL CLASS
EMIS NO.
CTRL CARS
N.C. 0.
C.D.
A.I .
E.M.
CUM
40.
7.
28.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN SDEV MIN MAX MEAN
0.0 0.0 9999.0-9999.0 0.0
11.2 10.5 3.4 49.9 118.9
4.6 2.2 1.5 ' 8.5 87.7
4.0 1.2 2.2 7.6 57.4
7.9 8.4 1.5 49.9 93.0
CARBON MONOXIDE
NITROGEN OXIOES
SDEV MIN MAX MEAN
0.0 9999.0-9999.0 0.0
50.9 40.9 244.6 2.6
46.7 27.8 149.9 4.0
26.4 21.1 114.2 4.4
51.4 21.1 244.6 3.4
SDEV MIN MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
1.4 0.7 5.9
1.9 2.1 7.7
1.3 1.9 7.9
1.7 0.7 7.9
-------
CAL IDLE BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CID
100"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
11.
14.
11.
32.
7.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
5.5
8.5
12.8
7.5
4.6
7.9
SDEV
5.7
12.2
9.4
7.4
0.9
8.4
MIN
2.2
l.£
4.3
2.8
3.4
1.5
MAX
22.1
49.9
36.7
45.8
5.4
49.9
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
54.3
89.4
129.5
100.7
68.6
93.0
SDEV
31.5
53.2
59.3
44.1
37.9
51.4
MIN
21.1
27.1
57.4
32.8
21.9
21.1
MAX
131.2
232.0
228.4
244.6
125.4
244.6
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.6
2.9
2.4
3.9
4.7
3.4
SDEV
1.2
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.7
OXIDES
MIN
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.1
2.7
0.7
MAX
4.3
6.2
4.9
7.9
7.7
7.9
CLASS
WT
1K#
X2
»'X3
K, 'X4
w X5
X6
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
20.
18.
35.
2.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
0.0
7.8
7.7
8.3
4.3
7.9
SDEV
0.0
10.9
4.8
8.7
1.3
8.4
. MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
1.5
2.8
3.0
3.4
1.5
49.9
20.8
45.8
5.2
49.9
CARBON 1
MEAN
0.0
72.9
103.1
99.8
82.7
93.0
SDEV
0.0
52.8
53.3
48.1
60.4
51.4
MIN
99.0
24.7
21.1
21.9
40.0
21.1
NITROGEN OXIDES
MAX
999.0
232.0
228.4
244.6
125.4
244.6
MEAN
0.0
2.8
2.6
3.9
5.5
3.4
SDEV MIN
MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
1.6 0.7
1.0 0.7
1.6 0.8
3.1 3.3
1.7 0.7
6.2
4.9
7.9
7.7
7.9
-------
CAL IDLE SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
YEAR CLASS
YEAR
57-1
62-5
66-7
68-9
70-1
CUM
NO.
CARS
12.
21.
14.
16.
.12.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
10.2
7.2
5.7
4.0
3.1
6.0
SDEV
9.9
2.1
2.1
1.1
0.7
4.7
MIN
3.4
3.9
3.3
1.5
1.9
1.5
MAX
34.0
11.3
9.7
5.4
4.3
34.0
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
98.2
107.1
90.0
53*7
38.0
80.0
SDEV
45.7
37.3
35.2
18.2
19.8
41.8
MIN
40.9
53.1
41.5
20.0
21.1
20.0
MAX
208.6
194.2
149.9
89.1
86.6
208.6
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.2
2.5
3.1
4.8
4.3
3.3
SDEV
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.6
1.2
1.6
OXIDES
MIN
1.0
0.9
1.8
1.4
2.9
0.9
MAX
4.1
5.9
4.9
7.9
6.3
7.9
MILE
10K
XI
or X2
f :X3
*• X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
Xll
X12
CUM
NO.
CARS
1.
5.
8.
8.
5.
10.
8.
9.
4.
9.
6.
2.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
5.1
9.7
3.3
3.8
5.0
5.8
5.5
5.5
5.1
7.0
10.7
9.1
6.0
SDEV
0.0
10.2
1.4
1.5
2.7
2.2
1.8
2.5
1.2
1.9
11.6
3.1
4.7
MIN
5.1
2.8
1.5
1.9
3.2
3.3
4.0
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.9
6.9
1.5
MAX
5.1
27.4
5.7
6.4
9.7
9.4
9.7
10.9
5.9
9.7
34.0
11.3
34.0
10K CLASS
CARBON
MEAN SDEV
104.0 0.0
82.0 41.3
42.2 22.9
44.6 23.6
66.6 32.0
84.7 49.7
82.3 25.6
89.1 42.7
79.3 43.3
108.1 44.5
103.0 43.1
123.7 21.8
80.0 41.8
MONOXIDE
MIN
104.0
37.6
21.1
21.9
40.0
51.3
55.5
41.5
40.9
20.0
53.1
108.2
20.0
NITROGEN
MAX
104.0
143.2
86.6
77.8
111.6
208.6
136.1
177.9
136.5
194.2
149.9
139.1
208.6
MEAN
2.7
3.3
3.7
4.1
5.6
3.9
2.7
3.1
2.9
2.3
2.4
3.2
3.3
SDEV
0.0
1.9
0.7
0.8
1.3
2.4
1.4
1.4
0.9
0.9
1.4
1.1
1.6
OXIDES
MIN
2.7
1.6
2.3
2.9
4.2
1.0
1.4
0.9
1.7
1.0
1.0
2.4
0.9
MAX
2.7
6.3
4.6
5.3
7.7
7.9
5,4
4.9
3.7
3.5
4.6
4.0
7.9
-------
CAL IDLE SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
VEH.
MAKE
AMC
CHPY
DODG
PLYM
FORD
MtRC
BUIC
CADI
CKfcV
OLDS
PC1NT
I«PT
W V*
N» CUM
EMIS
CTPL
N ..C .
C . 0 .
A.I .
E . K .
cut-'
NO.
CARS
3.
1
i. •
4.
4.
15.
3.
4.
2.
16.
4.
5.
5.
9.
7i.
NO.
CARS
0.
40 .
7.
23.
75.
MAKE
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
4. 3
fc.9
5.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
4.7
4.3
8.7
11.4
5.5
3.3
4.0
6.0
SDEV
0.4
0.0
3.2
1.6
2.4
1.1
1.1
1.3
7.2
11 .0
0.8
1 .7
1.6
4.7
MIN
3.9
6.9
2.6
4.C
2.8
5.0
3.5
3.4
3.2
3.4
4. 3
1.5
1.9
1.5
MAX
4.8
6.9
9.7
7.4
10.9
7.1
5.7
5.2
34.0
27.4
6.4
5.7
6.9
34.0
CTRL
HYDKOCAR3CN
Mf.AN
.0.0
7.9
4.6
3.7
6.0
SDtV
0.0
5.7
2.2
0.9
4.7
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
3.4
1.5
1.9
1. 5
34.0
8.5
5.t
34.0
CLASS
CARBON
MEAN
69.2
139.1
86.6
84.3
85.8
106.4
76.0
82.7
92.6
92.0
93.5
32.2
46.6
30.0
CLASS
CAR
MEAN
0.0
100.5
37.7
49.0
80. 0
SDEV
24.9
0.0
72.0
34.0
51.1
13.1
20.2
60.4
32.6
37.2
51.8
10.2
21.4
41.8
SON
SDEV
0.0
39.3
46.7
20.8
41.8
MONOXIDE
MIN
53.7
139.1
41.5
58.8
27.1
93.8
51.2
40.0
37.6
48.5
21.9
21.5
20.0
20.0
MONOXIDE
MIN
MAX
97.9
139.1
194.2
133.2
208.6
119.9
97.1
125.4
145.8
136.1
149.9
46.7
74.1
208.6
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
40.9
27.8
20.0
20. J
208.6
149.9
89.1
208.6
NI
MEAN
2.5
4.0
3.1
4.1
3.4
1.7
3.6
5.5
3.5
3.6
4.0
3.7
2.4
3.3
NI
MEAN
0.0
2.5
4."0
4.4
3.3
TROGEN
SDEV
0.6
0.0
1.3
1.3
2.0
0.6
1.4
3.1
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.6
TROGEN
SDEV
OXIDES
MIN
1.8
4.0
1.4
2.6
0.9
1.0
1.7
3.3
1.0
2.2
1.7
2.3
1.0
0.9
OXIDES
MIN
MAX
3.0
4.0
4.6
5.9
7.9
2.2
5.1
7.7
6.3
5.6
5.5
4.6
4.3
7.9
MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
1.2
1.9
1.3
1.6
C.9
2.1
1.4
0.9
5.9
7.7
7.9
7.9
-------
GAL IDLE. SECTND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
100'
CLASS
no
100"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
CUW
NO.
CARS
11.
14.
11.
32.
7.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.1,
5.0
9.5
6.4
A. 6
6.0
SDEV
1.6
2.1
8.4
4.5
0.9
4.7
MIN
1.9
1.5
4.3
2.8
3.4
1.5
MAX
6.9
9. 1
34. u
27.4
5.4
34.0
CARBON MONOXIDE
M.EAN
42.5
71.3
102.6
91.5
68.6
80.0
SDEV
21.2
35.8
35.3
43.8
37.9
41.8
MIN
20.0
27.1
57.4
32.8
21.9
20.0
MAX
74.1
143.2
177.9
208.6
125.4
2C6.6
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.6
3.1
2.4
3.7
4.7
3.3
SDEV
1.1
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.6
OXICES
MIN
1.0
1,0
0.9
1,3
2.7
0.9
MAX
4.3
6.2
4.9
7,9
7.7
7.9
CLASS
wT
IK *
X2
W X3
tjo X.4
o\ X5
Xfc
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
20.
18.
35.
2.
75.
MEAN
0.0
4.3
5.3
7.2
4.3
6.0
HYDROCAR3CN
SOEV MIN
CARBON 1
MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
1.9 1.5
2.3 2.8
6.3 3 .0
1.3 3.4
4.7 1.5
8.0
10.9
34.0
5.2
34.0
MEAN
0.0
54.3
87.0
91.0
82.7
80.0
SDEV
0.0
2K.8
38.9
43.9
60.4
41.8
MIN
299.0-
20.0
21.1
21.9
40.0
20.0
NITROGEN OXIDES
MAX
999.0
119.9
177.9
208.6
125.4
208.6
MEAN
0.0
2.9
2.7
3.8
5.5
3.3
SDEV
MIN
MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
1.5
1.0
1.6
3.1
1.6
1.0
0.9
1.0
3.3
0.9
6.2
4.9
7.9
7.7
7.9
-------
CAL K.M. 9eFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
YEAR CLASS
YEAK
57-1
62-b
66-7
61!— 9
70-1
CUM
NO.
CARS
11.
22.
14.
Id.
12.
75.
HYUROC AR3UN
MEAN
7. 7
1 i. 1
6.0
6.8
<+. 5
G.8
SOFV
4 .9
18.7
3.9
8.0
3.0
11.7
MIN
3.4
4.3
2. 1
2.2
1.7
1.7
MAX
22.0
79.4
14.9
3'3.7
11.9
79.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
119.6
132.3
88. 1
77.4
43.4
96.2
SDEV
70.9
81.3
42.4
42.8
28.0
66.1
MIN
49.6
28.1
40. 5
13.7
5.6
5.6
MAX
289.7
387.1
177.5
196.1
97.5
387.1
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.0
2.7
3.1
3.7
3.9
3.1
SDEV
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.7
CXIDES
MIN
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.8
2.2
0.3
MAX
3.7
5.0
5.8
8.8
7.8
8.8
10K CLASS
MILE
10K
XI
W X 2
cjj X3
-J X*T
X5
Xt
X7
X8
X9
X10
Xll
X12
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
4.
7.
5.
15.
9.
6.
11.
9 .
5.
3.
1.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
0.0
5.2
5.7
6.0
5.6
8.2
12.8
12.7
10.4
14.4
8.2
7.7
8.8
SDEV
0.0
3.2
4.0
3.6
3.0
6.4
12.0
22.4
13.4
19.2
6.1
0.0
11.7
MIN
9999.0-9
2.1
2.4
3.0
1.7
2.2
2.1
2.8
3.6
5.0
3.4
7.7
1.7
MAX
399. C
9.2
13.3
11.9
14.9
22.0
35.7
79.4
45.8
46.8
15. 0
7.7
79.4
CARBDN MONOXIDE
MEAN
0.0
57.9
78. 1
47. 1
90.2
111.6
122.3
97.6
132.6
89.9
103.0
87.9
96.2
SDEV
0.0
38.8
70.5
30.6
37.2
92.1
90.1
41.5
104.7
45.9
4S.5
0.0
66.1
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
18.2
25.7
t>. 6
22.8
13.7
40.5
35.2
53.0
51.5
49.6
87.9
5.6
111.1
220.4
82.0
177.5
289.7
291.7
189.6
387.1
158.3
144.3
87.9
387.1
MTROGEN OXIDES
MEAN:
0.0
2.3
4.7
3,1
3.0
2.9
2.4
3.5
2.3
3.3
1.8
3.7
3.1
SDEV
0.0
1.1
1.9
1.0
1.2
2.7
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.0
1.7
MIN
MAX
9^99.0-9999.0
1.2
2.5
1.8
1.0
0.3
0.4
1.6
0.4
1.6
0.8
3.7
0.3
3.5
7.8
4.1
5.4
8.8
4.7
5.9
4.3
4.4
2.7
3.7
8.8
-------
CAL K.M. BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
w
txJ
1
oo
VEH.
MAKE
AMC
CHRY
DGDG
PLYM
FORD
MERC
BJIC
CADI
CHEV
OLDS
PJNT
IMPT
VW
CUM
EMIS
CTRL
N.C.
C.D.
A.I.
E.M.
CUM
NO.
CARS
3.
1.
4.
4.
15.
3.
4.
2.
16.
4.
5.
5.
9.
75.
NO.
CARS
0.
38.
8.
29.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
7.3
13.8
4.3
9.7
5.4
30.6
5.9
3.2
7.1
16.6
14.3
13. 1
5.7
8.8
SDEV
3.4
0.0
1.9
5.0
2.1
42.3
1.7
0.6
5,3
21.6
17-7
13.7
4.0
11.7
MIN
4.3
13.8
2.7
4.3
2.4
6.0
4.4
2.8
3.0
2. 1
4.7
2.1
1.7
1.7
MAKE
MAX
11.0
13.3
7.1
14.9
9.2
79.4
7.5
3.7
22.0
48.6
45.8
35.7
15.0
79.4
CTRL
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
0.0
11.9
7.6
5. 1
8.8
SDEV
0.0
14.9
11.4
3.1
11.7
MIN
MAX
9999. 0-5999.0
3,4
2. 1
1.7
1.7
79.4
35.7
14.9
79.4
CLASS
CARBON
MEAN
133.6
220.4
59.2
176.6
82.0
118.1
120.0
55. b
85.4
102.3
153.9
60.1
70.2
96.2
CLASS
SOEV
60.3
0.0
36.1
82.4
46.3
68.6
33.0
7.2
60.9
50.3
132.5
s5.3
28,2
66.1
CARBON
MEAN
0.0
124.9
66.5
66.9
96.2
SOEV
0.0
73.5
22.3
45.0
66.1
MONOXIDE
MIN
74.6
220.4
13.7
104.5
25.7
53.0
91.4
50.5
30.9
40.5
57.3
5.6
22.8
5.6
MONOXIDE
MIN
MAX
196.1
220.4
101.5
291.7
173.0
189.6
167.3
60.7
289.7
158.3
387.1
169.3
115.0
387.1
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
28.1
40.5
5.6
5.6
387.1
108.1
196.1
387.1
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.0
2.5
4.7
1.8
3.6
2.6
2.4
5.8
3.5
3.8
1.9
2.4
2.1
3.1
NI
MEAN
0.0
2.4
3.9
3.7
3.1
SDEV
1.9
0.0
1.1
1.4
2.3
2.0
1.0
0.0
1.3
0.4
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.7
TROGEN
SDEV
0.0
1.4
1.6
1.8
1.7
OXIDES
MIN
0.8
2.5
3.8
0.4
1.0
1.2
0.9
5.8
0.3
3.6
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.3
OXIOES
MIN
MAX
4.1
2.5
6.4
3.4
8.8
4.9
3.2
5.9
5.2
4.4
2.6
3.4
3.9
8.8
MAX
9999,0-9999.0
0.3
2.1
0.8
0.3
5.0
5.9
8.8
8.8
-------
CAL K.M. BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CIO
100"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
11.
13.
10.
34.
7.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
6.0
7.9
12.6
8.2
13.0
8.8
SDEV
4.2
8.3
23.5
8.0
16.2
11.7
WIN
1. 7
2.2
2.7
2.1
2.3
1. 7
MAX
15.0
35.7
79.4
45.8
48.8
79.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
59.6
77.8
84.4
115. a
109.6
96.2
SDEV
34.6
40.2
54.5
79.2
62.7
66.1
MIN
5.6
29.4
13.7
25.7
50.5.
5.6
MAX
115.0
169.3
189.6
387.1
220.4
387.1
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.3
2.9
2.9
3.3
3^-8
3.1
SDEV
0.9
1.9
1.1
1.9
1.6
1.7
OXIDES
MIN
0.8
0.6
1.1
0.3
1.8
0.3
MAX
3.9
7.8
4.5
8.8
5.9
8.8
IK* CLASS
«MT
1K#
X2
to X3
>o X4
I
<° X5
X6
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
20.
21.
32.
2.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
0.0
7.6
8.7
10. 1
3.2
8.8
SDEV
0.0
7.7
16.3
10.7
0.6
11.7
MIN
MAX
9999.C-S999.0
1.7
2.4
2.1
2.8
1.7
35.7
79.4
48.8
3.7
79.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
0.0
73.4
79.0
124.4
55.6
96.2
SDEV
0.0
48.6
48.2
77.6
7.2
66.1
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
5.6
13.7
30.9
50.5
5.6
196.1
189.6
387.1
60.7
387.1
NITROGEN OXIDES
MEAN
0.0
2.4
3.2
3.2
5.8
3.1
SDEV
0.0
1.6
1.3
1.8
0.0
1.7
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
0.6
0.9
0.3
5.8
0.3
7.8
5.4
e.e
5.9
6.6
-------
CAL K.M. SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
YEAR CLASS
Y t A R
57-1
62-5
66-7
68-9
70-1
CUM
NO.
CARS
11.
22.
14.
16.
12.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
6. 1
7.1
4.5
4. 1
3.3
5.2
SOEV
2.1
3.1
1.4
1.5
1.0
2.5
MIN
3.2
4.3
2. 1
2.2
1.7
1.7
MAX
10.3
17.1
7.1
8.0
4.8
17.1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
85.3
91.2
64. 7
64.2
35.2
70.7
SDEV
38.1
46.0
20.7
32.2
22.0
39.1
MIN
34.2
23.1
36.9
13.7
8.8
8.8
MAX
173.0
241.8
108.1
122.7
91.4
241.8
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.6
2.8
3.4
3.7
3.9
3.3
SDEV
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.8
1.4
1.5
OXIDES
MIN
1.0
1.0
1.2
i.e
2.2
1.0
MAX
5.3
6.1
5.8
8.8
6.7
6.8
10K CLASS
MILE
10*
XI
a X2
o X3
-1 x*
X5
X6
X7
X3
X9
X10
Xll
X12
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
4.
7.
5.
15.
9.
6.
11.
9.
5.
3.
1.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
0.0
4. 3
4.8
3.2
4.5
5.4
5.0
6. 0
5.9
6. 1
7. 1
7.7
5. 2
SDEV
0.0
2.0
2.4
0.4
1.2
2.4
2.2
3.9
3.0
1.0
4.9
0.0
2.5
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
2. 1
2.4
2.6
1.7
2.2
2. 1
2.8
3.2
5.0
3.4
7.7
1.7
6.2
8.1
3.6
6.2
ID. 3
6.8
17.1
12.5
7.3
12.7
7.7
17.1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
0.0
51.5
"62.6
31.2
70.3
65.5
61.3
83.4
100.7
80.3
58.4
87.9
70.7
SDEV
0.0
27.7
46.6
22.8
29.3
33.5
20.2
35.8
65.4
30.4
18.2
0.0
39.1
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
18.2
21.7
8.8
22. b
13.7
33.9
34.-+
34.2
51.5
46.2
87.9
8.3
85.6
133.9
69.1
118.8
122.2
79.6
148.5
241.3
115.5
79.3
87.9
241.8
NITROGEN OXIDES
MEAN
0.0
2.7
4.6
3.1
3.4
3.3
2.8
3.7
2.7
2.8
2.5
3.7
3.3
SDEV
0.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.3
2.4
1.1
1.8
1.3
1.1
0.6
0.0
1.5
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
1.2
3.0
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.8
1.9
3.7
1.0
3.5
6.7
4.1
5.4
8.8
4.3
6.1
4.7
4.2
3.0
3.7
8.8
-------
CAL K.M. SECCNO SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
VtH.
>JIAK E
AMC
CH3Y
DOOG
PLYM
FORD
MERC
BUIC
CADI
CHEV
OLDS
PONT
I MPT
vw
CUM
EMIS
CTRL
N.C.
C.D.
A.I.
F.M.
CUM
NO.
CARS
3.
1.
\ .
4.
15.
3.
4.
2 .
16.
4.
5.
5.
9.
75.
NO.
CARS
0.
38.
8.
29.
75.
HYDRO CAkdilN
•y EAM
5.0
8. 1
4.3
5.2
4.7
9.6
5. 3
3.2
5.2
6.3
6.8
3.3
4. 8
5.2
SDEV
0.3
0.0
i.y
0.9
1.7
6.5
1.2
O.S
1.8
2.8
3.3
2.1
3.2
2.5
MIN
4.3
8.1
2.7
4.3
2.4
5.6
4.4
2.6
3.C
2. 1
4.7
2. 1
1.7
1.7
MAKE
.1AX
5.9
8.1
7,1
6.3
8.3
17.1
7.1
3.7
10.3
8.0
12.5
7.1
12.7
17.1
CTRL
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
0.0.
6.6
•3.4
3.9
5.2
SDEV
0.0
2.7
1.0
1.4
2.5
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
3.2
2. 1
1. 7
1.7
17.1
4.7
8.0
17.1
CLASS
CARBON
MEAN
90.1
133.9
5*. I
72. to
66.2
94. J
98.9
55.6
62.6
90.4
113.0
38.2
51.9
70,7
CLASS
MONOXIDE
SDEV VIN
27.3
0.0
36. 1
25.5
41.8
49.2
14.7
7.2
23.6
36.3
79.6
31.2
19.9
39. I
CARBON
MEAN
0.0
86.1
62.4
52.7
70.7
SDEV
0.0
41.4
25.1
30.9
39.1
73.4
133.9
13.7
44.2
19.9
53.0
82.7
50.5
30.9
40.5
38.2
8.3
22.3
8.8
MONOXIDE
MIN
MAX
122.2
133.9
101.5
104.5
173.0
143.5
115.5
60.7
101.9
122.7
241.8
89.3
79.6
241.8
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
28.1
33.9
8.8
8. a
241.8
1C8.1
122.7
241.8
NI
MEAN-
2.3
3.J
4.7
3.7
3.6
2.8
2.8
5.8
3.7
3.2
2.1
2.6
2.3
3.3
NI
MEAN
0.0
2.8
3.9
3.8
3.3
TROGEN
SDEV
1.6
0.0
1.1
1.5
2.0
2.2
0.4
0.0
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.8
1.5
TKOGEN
SDEV
OXIDES
MIN
1.0
3.0
3.8
1.7
1.0
1.2
2.3
5.8
2.0
1.9
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.0
OXIDES
MIN
MAX
4.1
3.0
6.4
5.3
8.8
5.4
3.2
5.9
6.1
3.7
2.8
3.4
3.9
8.8
MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
1.3
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.0
2.1
1.8
1.0
6.1
5.9
8.8
8.8
-------
CAL K.M. SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CID
100"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
11.
L3.
10.
34.
7.
. 75.
HYDROCARBON
MtAN
4.4
4.6
6. 1
5.4
5.7
5.2
SDEV
3.0
1.6
4.0
2.2
2.2
2.5
WIN
1. 7
2.2
2.7
2.1
2.8
1.7
MAX
12.7
7.1
17.1
12.5
8.1
17.1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
44.9
65.4
67. 1
79.7
32.0
70.7
SDEV
23.7
33.5
36.6
43.2
39.0
39.1
WIN
8.8
21.7
13.7
19.9
38.2
8.8
MAX
79.6
122.2
148.5
241.8
133.9
241.8
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.4
3.0
3.3
3.6
3.5
3.3
SDEV
0.8
1.7
1.1
1.6
1.7
1.5
OXIDES
MIN
1.3 .
1.0
1.8
1.0
1.8
1.0
MAX
3.9
6.7
5.3
6.8
5.9
8.8
IK* CLASS
/IT
1K#
X2
1 X3
1 X4
; xs
X6
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
20.
21.
32.
2.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
0.0
4.4
5.2
5.9
3.2
5.2
SDEV
0.0
2.5
3.0
2.1
0.6
2.5
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
1.7
2.4
2.1
2.8
1.7
12.7
17.1
12.5
3.7
17.1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
0.0
52.6
62.4
83.3
55.6
70.7
SOEV
0.0
28.8
34.5
42.2
7.2
39.1
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
8.3
13.7
30.9
50.5
8.8
118.6
148.5
241.8
60.7
241.3
NITROGEN OXIDES
MEAN
0.0
2.6
3.5
3.4
5.8
3.3
SDEV MIN
MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
1.3 1.0
1.1 1.0
1.7 1.0
0.0 5.3
1.5 1.0
6.7
5.4-
8.8
5.9
8.8
-------
MI. IDLE BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
YEAK CLASS
YEAR
57-1
62-5
66-7
63-9
70-1
CUV
Nil.
CARS
3.
20.
16.
21.
15.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
7.6
14.6
8.9
5.-. 7
4.4
8.6
SDbV
4.8
15.1
4.8
3.5
2.1
9.2
WIN
3.7
4.0
3.4
2. 1
1.6
1.6
MAX
12.9
5.3.0
22.4
17.1
10.9
53.0
CARBON MQNUXIDt
MEAN
71.4
113.4
110.6
63.3
59.1
86.2
SDEV
27.9
41.4
35.7
35.0
28.7
42.9
MIN
46.7
53.8
34.8
16.8
16.9
16.8
MAX
101.7
200.3
162.1
157.5
114.6
200.3
NITROGEN
MEAN
4.0
3.7
3.2
4.8
4.5
4.1
SDEV
0.5
1.8
1.3
1.5
i.4
1.6
OXIDES
MIN
3.5
1.1
1.3
1.1
2.3
1.1
MAX
4.4
7.3
5.2
7.8
7.4
7.8
10K CLASS
MILE
10K
XI
1 X2
' X3
j X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
XIO
Xll
X12
CUM
NO.
CARS
6.
7.
10.
7.
8.
13.
9.
6.
5.
2.
2.
0.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.8
3.6
5.9
6.9
8. 1
11.9
11.6
7.9
11.3
23. 7
6.9
0.0
8.6
SDEV
0.9
1.3
2.9
5.2
4.9
12.8
15.4
3.5
6.4
24.9
1.6
0.0
9.2
MIN
2.7
1.6
2.6
2. 1
2.9
3.2
3.4
4.0
6.3
6.0
5.7
MAX
5.2
5.0
,10.9
17.1
17.0
53.0
52.2
13.4
22.4
41.3
8.1
9999. 0-9999.0
1.6
53.0
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
44.9
48.7
76.1
79.1
106.4
100.9
84.9
89.3
132.4
133. 0
74.4
0.0
86.2
SDEV
20.6
23.0
45.6
34.9
56.7
35.8
24.2
16.0
45.5
95.1
29.1
0.0
42.9
MIN
16.9
19.5
16.8
33.2
37.8
36.7
34.8
76.1
62.1
65.7
53.3
MAX
62.9
77.7
157.5
130.6
167.7
151.4
120.6
118.8
170.7
200.3
95.0
9999.0-9999.0
16.8
200.3
NITROGEN OXIDES
MEAN
5.0
5.4
4.8
3.8
3.5
4.0
3.6
3.7
2.7
2.7
5.9
0.0
4.1
SDEV
1.0
1.8
1.5
1.8
1.0
1.7
1.1
1.9
1.5
2.1
1.9
0.0
1.6
MIN
3.4
2.9
2.3
1.1
2.4
1.2
2.2
1.3
1.1
1.3
4.6
MAX
5.9
7.8
7.2
5.5
5.5
6.5
5.1
6.8
4.9
4.2
7.3
9999.0-9999.0
1.1
7.8
-------
MI. IDLE BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
MAKE CLASS
VEH.
MAKE
AMC
CHRY
DODG
PLYM
FOFD
MERC
BUIC
CAOI
CHEV
OLDS
PONT
I MPT
V/J
CUM
NO.
CARS
2.
2.
4.
5.
16.
4.
6.
2.
17.
6.
7.
1.
3.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
8. 6
25.9
3. 6
5.7
6.0
6. fa
6. 7
3.9
11.5
14. 3
8.1
6.3
5.5
8.6
SDEV
3.2
21. 8
0.3
2 .4
3.1
4.7
2.5
3.3
11. a
19.3
3.2
0.0
4.4
9.2
MIN
6.4
10.4
3.2
3.0
2. 7
3. I
2.6
1.. 6
2.7
4.0
5.0
6.3
2. 1
1.6
MAX
10.9
41.3
4.0
9.t
12.5
13.4
9.6
6.3
53.0
52.2
12.6
6.3
10.4
53.0
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
88.2
i78.9
62.3
75.2
76.5
73.9
100. a
84.8
86.9
91.6
98.7
102.7
63. 7
86.2
SDEV
16.5
30.2
20.9
47.7
48.8
45.0
56.3
86.9
32.2
39.7
32.4
0.0
31.0
42.9
MI "4
76.5
157.5
40.0
20.8
19.5
22.0
16.4
23.4
16.9
58.3
62.1
102. 7
33.2
16.8
MAX
99.3
200.3
84. 6
151.4
170.7
118.8
167.7
146.2
149.3
167.1
155.9
102. f
95.2
200.3
NITROGEN
MEAN
4.2
2.7
4.8
4.1
4.3
4.3
4.1
2.4
4.2
3.5
5.0
1.1
2.8
4 . 1
SDEV
1.4
2.0
1.4
1.4
1.5
2.0
1.6
2.3
1.6
1.2
2.1
0.0
U4
1.6
OXIDES
MIN
3.3
1.3
2.9
2.2
1.2
2.2
1.8
1.8
2.3
2.1
1.1
.1.1
1.3
1.1
MAX
5.2
4.1
5.8
5.5
7.4
6.1
6.3
5.0
7.3
5.5
7.3
1.1
3.9
7.8
EM IS NO. HYDROCARBON
CTRL CARS MEAN SDEV MIN
N.C. 3. 5.6 1.7 3.7
C.D. 37, 12.0 11.9 2.1
A.I . 2. 9.3 11.0 1.6
E.M. 33. 5.0 2.3 2.6
CUM 75. 8.6 9.2 1.6
;TRL CLASS
CAK30N MONOXIDE
NIT»CGEN OXIDES
MAX
7.1
53.0
17.1
10.9
53.0
MEAN
71.9
109.9
32. 3
64. 1
86.2
SDEV
23.3
40. 1
13.3
32.3
42.9
MIN
46.7
33.2
23.4
16.3
16.8
MAX
103.2
200.3
42.2
157.5
200.3
MEAN
3.3
3.6
5.2
4.7
4.1
SDEV
1.0
1.6
0.4
1.5
1.6
MIN
2.2
1.1
5.0
1.1
1.1
MAX
4.2
7.3
5.5
7.8
7.8
-------
MI. IDLE BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CIO
1JO"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
3.
7.
19.
38.
8.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
5.5
4.8
8.7
9.2
9.9
8.6
SOEV
4.4
1.6
5.2
10.9
12.9
9.2
MEN
2. 1
2.7
2.8
2.t
1.6
1.6
MAX
10.4
7.1
22.4
53.0
41.3
53.0
CARBON MONOXIDb
MEAN
63.7
72.7
66.7
85.7
107.6
66.2
SDEV
31.0
30.3
41.7
42.4
59.5
42.9
MIM
33.2
19.5
34. U
16.8
23.4
16.8
MAX
95.2
103.2
170.7
167.1
200.3
200.3
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.8
2.9
4.0
t.~3
3.9
4.1
SDEV
1.4
1,1
1.4
1.6
2.2
1.6
OXIDES
MIN
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.1
1,3
1.1
MAX
3.9
4.5
6.8
7.8
7.4
7.8
CLASS
wT
IK*
X2
W X3
? X4
K X5
Xb
CU1"
NO.
CARS
0.
8.
25.
38.
3.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
0.0
4.9
8.6
9. 5
6. I
8.6
SDEV
0.0
2.3
9.5
10.0
4,4
9.2
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
2. 1
2.9
2.6
1.6
1.6
10.4
52.2
53.0
10.4
53.0
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
0.0
62.5
83.5
92.0
100.0
86.2
SDEV
0.0
33.7
39.7
44. 5
66.9
42.9
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
19.5
34,8
16.3
23.4
16.8
103.2
170.7
200.3
146.2
200.3
NITROGEN OXIDES
MEAN
0.0
2.9
3.7
4.6
4.1
4.1
SDEV
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.7
2.0
1.6
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.8
1.1
4.7
5.8
7.8
5.4
7.8
-------
MI. IDLE SECTND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
YEAR CLASS
NO.
YtAR CARS
57- I 3 .
62-5 20.
66-7 16.
68-9 21.
70-1 15.
CUM 75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
7.6
8.4
7.9
5.2
3.7
6.4
SDEV
4.3
5.6
4.6
3.5
1.0
4.4
MIN
3.7
3.2
3.4
2. 1
1.6
1.6
MAX
12.9
29.7
22.4
17.1
5.4
29.7
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
71.4
91,3
103.2
51.9
49.6
73.7
SDEV
27.9
36.1
35.3
32.9
23.4
39.1
MIN
46.7
32.0
34.8
16.8-
16.9
16.8
MAX
101.7
167.7
162.1
157.5
90,8
167.7
NITROGEN
MEAN
4.0
3.7
3.3
5.3
4.8
4.3
SDEV
0.5
1,5
1.3
1.6
1.7
1.7
OXIDES
MIN
3.5
1.1
1.6
2.2
2.3
1.1
MAX
4.4
6.8
5.2
9.2
8.4
9.2
10 K CLASS
MILE,
10K
XI
a X2
0 X3
-1 X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
Xll
X12
CUM
NO.
CARS
6.
7.
10.
7.
8.
13.
9.
6.
•5.
2.
2.
0.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.8
3.5
5.0
5.9
6.0
8.8
6.8
7. 1
10.1
7.4
6.4
0.0
6.4
SOEV
0.9
1.2
2.4
5.1
2.4
6.8
3,4
3.3
7.4
1.9
0.9
0.0
4.4
MIN
2.7
1.6
2.6
2. 1
2.9
3.2
3.4
4.0
3.2
6.0
5.7
MAX
5.2
5.0
10.4
17.1
9.6
29.7
13.7
13.4
22.4
8.7
7.0
9999.C-9999.0
1.6
29.7
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
44.9
43.1
61.2
67.5
89.7
80.6
75.1
87.1
104.7
99.6
92.1
0.0
73.7
SDEV
20.6
21.9
45.2
24.1
46.9
44.9
28.1
15.9
57.1
47.9
4.1
0.0
39.1
MIN MAX
16.9 62.9
19.5 77.7
16.8 157.5
33.2 98,4
37.8 167.7
20.1 151.4
34.8 120.6
76.1 118.8
32.0 162.1
65.7 133.5
89.2 95.0
9999.0-9999.0
16.8 167.7
NITROGEN OXIDES
MEAN
5.0
5.6
5.2
4.0
3,7
4.3
3.7
3.7
3.0
4.0
5.1
0.0
4.3
SDEV
1.0
2.1
1.8
1.6
0.8
2.0
1.1
1.8
1.7
0.3
0.7
0.0
1.7
MIN
3.4
2.9
2.3
2.1
2.9
1.2
2.5
1.6
1.1
3.8
4.6
MAX
5.9
9.2
8.4
5.6
5.5
7.8
5.4
6.8
4.9
4.2
5.6
9999.0-9999.0
1.1
9.2
-------
. IDLE SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
MAKE CLASS
VtH.
MAKE
AMC
CHRY
OO'.MO
PLY \t
Fn-sD
M f P C
3U!C
CAIil
CHEV
OLDS
PUNT
I MPT
v ^
CUM
NO.
CARS
2.
2.
4.
^ •
16.
4.
6.
2.
17.
6.
7.
1.
3.
75.
HYOKQCAPHCN
MEAN
ti.O
9.6
3. 6
5.7
5. 1
6.2
6. 1
3.9
3. 1
6. 1
9.2
3.7
3.9
6. 4
SDEV
2,4
1.2
0.3
2.4
2.1
4.9
2.5
3.3
5.1
3.3
9 .4
0.0
1.9
4.4
MIN
6.4
8.7
3.2
3.C
2.7
3.1
2.6
1.6
2. 7
4.0
3. 5
3.7
2. 1
1.6
MAX
9.7
10.4
4.0
9.4
9.0
13.4
9.6
6. 3
22.4
13.7
29. 7
3. 7
5.8
29.7
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
59.9
145.5
62.3
75.2
64.5
64.2
96.6
84.8
75.2
79.3
65. 1
63.8
59.4
73.7
SDEV
56.4
17.0
20.9
47.7
36.9
40.5
58.0
36.9
32.0
17.5
45.9
0.0
24.6
39. 1
MIN
20.1
133.5
40.0
20.8
19.5
22.0
16.3
23.4
16.9
58.3
29.9
63.8
33.2
16.8
MAX
99.8
157.5
84.6
151.4
150.1
118.8
167.7
146.2
120.6
99.7
155.9
63.8
82.1
167.7
NITROGEN
MEAN
4.7
3.9
4.8
4.1
4.7
4.5
4.3
3.4
4.2
3.4
5.2
2.2
3.0
4.3
SDEV
0.8
0.2
1.4
1.4
1.7
1,7
1.8
2.3
1.5
1.2
2.9
0.0
1.2
1.7
OXIDES
MIN
4.1
3.8
2.9
2.2
1.2
3.0
1,8
1.8
2.3
2.1
1.1
2.2
1.6
1.1
MAX
5.2
4.1
5.8
5,5
7.8
6.1
6.4
5.0
7.2
5.5
9.2
2.2
3.9
9.2
CTRL CLASS
EM IS NO.
CTRL CARS
N.C . 3.
C . D . 37.
A.I. 2.
E.M. 33.
CUM 75.
HYJRJCARilON
MEAN
4.8
3.2
9. 3
4.4
6.4
SDEV
1.2
5.1
11.0
1.3
4.4
MIN
3.7
2.1
l.fc
2.6
1.6
MAX
6.0
29.7
17.1
10.4
29.7
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
58.9
95.9
32.8
52.6
73.7
SDEV
10.6
36.4
13.3
29.7
39.1
MIN
46.7
32.0
23.4
16.3
16.8
MAX
65.7
167.7
42.2
157.5
1&7.7
NITROGEN
MFAM
3.6
3.5
5.2
5.1
4.3
SDEV
0.5
1.4
0.4
1.7
1.7
OXIDES
MIN
3.1
1.1
5.0
2.2
1.1
MAX
4.2
6.8
5.5
9.2
9.2
-------
MI . IDLE SEC'IND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
HYDROCARBON
CARBON MONOXIDE
NITROGEN OXIDES
100"
XI
X?.
X J
<4
xs
CUV
CAPS
3.
7.
19.
33.
a.
75.
MEAN
3.9
4,0
7.7
6. 7
5.4
6. 4
SDFV
1.9
1.0
5.1
4.7
2.o
4.t
v [ N
2. 1
2. 7
2.8
?.6
1.6
1.6
'4AX
5.3
5. 9
22.4
29.7
9.6
29.7
MEAN
59.4
61.6
71.0
73.6
96.3
73.7
i>DEV
24.6
22.2
34. /
41.6
49, 1
39. 1
MIN
33,2
19.5
20.1
1.6.8
23.4
16.8
MAX
82.1
84.6
140.3
162.1
167.7
167.7
MEAN
3,0
3.2
4.2
4.6
4..f
4.3
SDEV
1,2
0.7
1.4
1.8
2.0
1.7
MIN
1.6
2.2
1.2
1.1
1.8
1.1
MAX
3.9
4.5
6.8
9.2
7.4
9.2
IK* CLASS
*'l
IK n
X2
W X3
? X4
Kxs
X6
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
3 .
26.
3d.
3.
75.
HYDROCARBON
f'EAN
0.0
3,7
6.9
6.9
4.6
fc. 4
SOEV
0.0
1.2
3.7
5.2
2.6
4 .4
MIN
MAX
9999. 0-9999.0
2.1
2.9
? . 6
1.6
l.fc
5. a
17.1
29,7
6.3
29.7
CARBON
MEAN
0.0
51.1
76.7
75.4
85.9
73. 1
SOEV
0.0
20.7
37.8
41.0
61.5
39. 1
MIN
>99.0-
19.5
20.1
16.3
23.4
16,8
NITROGEN OXIDES
MAX
999.0
82.1
162.1
167.7
146.2
167.7
MEAN
0.0
3.2
3.9
4.8
4.1
4.3
SDEV MN
MAX.
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
1.0 1.6
1,6 1.1
1.7 2.1
2.1 1,8
1.7 1.1
4.7
7.8
9.2
5.6
9.2
-------
. K.M. BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
YEAR CLASS
NO.
YEAR CARS
57-1 3.
62-5 20.
6o-7 16.
68-9 21.
70-1 15.
CU X3
', X4
X5
X6
X7
XB
X9
X10
Xll
X12
CUM
NO.
CARS
3.
3.
3.
12.
9.
11.
11.
9.
4.
3.
3.
0.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.3
3. 1
5.7
5.2
4. 4
6.9
7.4
4.8
23.5
7.9
7.2
0.0
6. 7
SDEV
1.1
0.5
2.3
2.8
1.7
2.9
3.4
0.9
25.3
4.3
1.5
0.0
7.0
VIN
2.8
2.6
3.5
?.5
2.8
3.6
3.3
3. 6
4.0
i>.0
5.7
MAX
5.0
3.4
10.;.
12.5
7.5
11.9
13.1
&r\
• U
60.1
13. t
8.6
9999. 0-9999.0
2. 5
60. 1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
56. t
72.4
89.1
78.2
63.3
94.7
99.9
72.3
103.4
129.6
100.3
0.0
85. a
SDEV
51.4
42.0
28.5
57.9
28.8
30.0
38.4
28.6
35.3
75.9
25.5
0.0
41.8
MIN MAX
25.1 115.8
34.3 117.5
53.4 153.3
16.1 229.9
9.1 101.0
57.4 160.3
37.8 159.8
38.6 102.5
78.7 155.7
76.4 216.5
71.3 118.9
9999.0-9999.0
9.1 229.9
NITROGEN OXIDES
MEAN
4.8
2.9
4.2
4.2
4.6
3.7
3.9
3.8
3.7
2.6
4.0
0 .0
4.0
SOEV
1.4
0.2
1.7
1.3
1,7
1.8
1,9
1,5
0.9
1.5
0.1
0.0
1.5
MIN
3.8
2.7
0.9
2.1
2.6
1,8
1.3
1.6
3.0
0.9
3.9
MAX
6.4
3.2
6.5
6.9
7.6
6.7
8.4
6.4
5.0
3.8
4.1
9999.0-9999.0
0.9
8.4
-------
MI. K.M. BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
MAKE CLASS
VEH.
MAKE
AMC
CHRY
DODG
PLYM
FORP
MERC
BUIC
CADI
CMEV
OLDS
PGNT
IMP!
W Vki
M CUM
NO.
CARS
2.
2.
4.
5.
16.
4.
6.
2.
17.
6.
7.
1.
3.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
4.2
5.0
5.8
5.2
4.7
5.6
8.8
5.7
9.4
5.7
9.4
3.2
3. 7
6.7
sotv
0.3
1.9
3.3
2.2
2.1
2.9
3.9
1.2
13.4,
1.2
5.5
0.0
1.0
7.0
MIN
4.0
3.6.
2.8
3.4
2.5
3.6
3.3
4.8
3.5
4.0
3.5
3.2
2.8
2.5
MAX
4.4
6.3
10.5
8.3
9.5
9.8
12.5
6.5
60.1
7.2
20.5
3.2
4.7
60.1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
68.0
70.6
81.1
89.4
66.4
80.2
145.1
80.7
83.1
107.2
94*7
76.0
60.1
85.8
SOEV
15.2
33.0
54.6
33.3
30.4
36.2
47.9
6,0
48.9
25.4
39.4
0.0
6.3
41.8
MIN
57.2
47.3
25.1
49.5
9.1
37.8
95.8
76,4
16.1
78.0
29.2
76.0
53.1
9.1
MAX
78.7
93.9
153.3
117.5
115.8
118.6
229.9
84.9
216.5
141.0
155.7
76.0
65.4
229.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
3.7
4.9
4.6
5.0
3.8
3.5
3.1
5.3
3.6
3.5
5.3
3.6
2.6
4.0
SDEV
0.5
2.7
2.1
1.6
1.0
1.3
0.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.7
0.0
0.2
1.5
OXIDES
MIN
3.3
3.0
2.4
3.2
2.1
1.8
2.4
4.2
0.9
0.9
3.5
3.6
2.4
0.9
MAX
4.1
6.9
6.5
7.6
5.8
4.9
4.5
6.5
6.4
5.6
3.4
3.6
2.7
8.4
CTRL CLASS
EMIS
CTRL
N.C.
C.D.
A.I.
E.M.
CUM
NO.
CARS
6.
33.
1.
35.
7S.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
5. 7
9.2
6.1
4.5
6.7
SOEV
2.2
9.3
0.0
2.2
7.0
MIN
3.8
3.6
6. 1
2.5
2.5
MAX
9.8
60. 1
6.1
12. D
60.1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
77.3
104.1
87.2
70.1
85.8
SDEV
32.9
38.2
0.0
40.9
41.8
MIN
36.6
42.7
87.2
9.1
9.1
MAX
113.6
216.5
87.2
229.9
229.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
3.6
.3.6
*2.3
4.4
4.0
SDEV
1.8
1.5
0.0
1.4
1.5
OXIDES
MIN
1.8
G.9
2.3
2.1
0.9
MAX
6.4
8.4
2.3
7.6
8.4
-------
MI. K.M. [BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CID
100"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
CUM
NO.
CAHS
3.
7.
19.
38.
8.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.7
5.9
5.3
7.5
7.1
6.7
SOEV
1.0
3.2
3.2
9.4
3.2
7.0
MINI
2. a
2.6
2.5
2.0
4.0
2. 5
MAX
4.7
10.5
13.4
60.1
12. 5
60. 1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
60.1
89.0
78.7
d3.9
119.2
85.8
SDEV
6.3
40.6
46.6
36.5
51.5
41.8
M1N
53.1
34.3
25.1
9.1
76.4
«.l
MAX
65.4
153.3
216.5
160.2
229.9
229.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.6
3.1
3.9
4.3
3.8
4.0
SOEV
0.2
1.0
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
OXIDES
MIN
2.4
1.3
0.9
0.9
2.3
0.9
MAX
2.7
5.1
6.5
8.4
6.5
8.4
IK* CLASS
WT
1K#
X2
W X3
V X4
£} X5
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
8.
26.
38.
3.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
0.0
4.4
5.3
0. 2
6. 5
6. 7
SDEV
0.0
2.4
2.7
9.3
1.7
7.0
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
2.6
2.5
2.8
4.8
2. 5
9.8
13.4
60.1
8.3
60.1
CARBON !>
MEAN
0.0
71.8
80.2
92.5
87.3
85.8
SDEV
0.0
27.1
45.3
42.9
12.3
41.8
34.3
25.1
9.1
76.4
9.1
NITROGEN OXIDES
MAX
999.0
118. to
216.5
229.9
100.7
229.9
M EAN
0.0
2.3
3.6
4.3
4.9
4.0
SDEV MIN
MAX
0..0 9999. 0-^999.0
0.6 1.8
1.5 0.9
1.5 1.3
1.3 4.0
1.5 0.9
3.6
6.5
8.4
6.5
8.4
-------
MI. K.M. SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
YEAR CLASS
YEAR
57-1
62-5
66-7
6
-------
MI. K.M. SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
V E. H .
MAKif
AMC
CHKY
DC D i
PLYM
FCRO
MERC
EUIC
CADI
CHf-V
OLDS
PONT
I MPT
1 V^
'CUM
NG.
CARS
2.
2.
4.
5.
16.
4.
61 .
2.
17.
6.
7.
1.
3.
75.
MAK
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.8
5.0
4. 3
5.2
4.5
3.6
7.7
5.7
5.4
5.1
6.0
2. 5
4. 1
5'. 1
STEV
0.9
1.9
1.1
2.2
2.0
0.9
4.0
1.2
2.0
1.1
2.5
0.0
1.1
2.2
WIN
3.2
3.6
2. S
3.4
2.5
2.7
2.0
4.8
3.5
3. 9
3.5
2.5
2.8
2.0
MAX
4.4
6. J
5.5
8.8
9.5
4.3
12.5
6.5
11.1
6.4
10. 1
2.5
4.7
12.5
E CLASS
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
3D. 7
70.6
55.4
89.4
60.5
54.9
123.0
80.7
59.7
102.7
o5.8
40.8
60.4
71.0
SDEV
0.8
33.0
26.1
33.3
31.6
35.8
64.4
6.0
24. 1
29. 1
25.4
0.0
6.7
36.1
WIN
56.1
47.3
25.1
49.5
9.1
17.3
35.5
76.4
16.1
72.4
29.2
40.8
53.1
9.1
MAX
57.2
93.9
88.5
117.5
115.8
100.3
229.9
84.9
95.8
141.0
106.0
40.8
66.2
229.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
3.6
4.9
5.0
5.0
3.8
3.9
3.0
5.3
4.1
3.2
4.8
3.6
2.4
4.0
SDEV
0.7
2.7
1.9
1.6
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.7
0.0
0.2
1.5
OXIDES
WIN
3.1
3.0
2.«r
3.2
2.1
3.3
1.8
4.2
1.3
0.9
3.3
3.6
2.1
0.9
MAX
4.1
6.9
6.5
7.6
6.0
4.9
4.5
6.5
7.0
5.6
8.4
3.6
2.6
8.4
CTRL CLASS
EMIS NO.
CTRL CAPS
N.C . 6.
C.D. 33.
A.I. 1 .
E.M. 35.
CUM 75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
4.5
6. 3
4. 8
4. 1
5. 1
SDEV
1.2
2.1
0.0
1.9
2.2
MIN
2.7
3.2
4.8
2.0
2.0
MAX
5.8
11.5
4.8
12.5
12.5
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
60.4
84.0
45.2
61.3
71.0
SDEV
33.4
28.4
0.0
40.2
36.1
MIN
17.3
41.7
45.2
9. 1
9.1
MAX
102.5
149.4
45.2
229.9
229.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
3.8
3.7
3.7
4.3
4.0
SDEV
1.6
1.5
0.0
1.5
1.5
OXIDES
MIN
2.4
0.9
3.7
2.1
0.9
MAX
6.4
8.4
3.7
7.6
8.4
-------
XI. K..M. SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CID
130"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
3.
7.
19.
38.
8.
75.
HYDROCAR8JN
MEAN
4. 1
3.9
5.0
5.1
7. 1
5.1
SDFV
1.1
1.4
2.2
1.9
3.2
2.2
MIN
2. a
2. 5
2.5
2.0
4.0
2.0
MAX
4.7
5.8
' 11.1
10.1
12.5
12.5
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
60.4
54.8
58.3
71.0
119.2
71.0
SDEV
6.7
30.2
19.3
33.7
51.5
36.1
MIN
53.1
17.3
25.1
9.1
76.4
9.1
MAX
66.2
102.5
93.2
141.0
229.9
229.9
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.4
3.5
4.2
4.2
3.3
4.0
SDEV
0.2
1.0
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.5
OXIDES
MIN
2.1
2.4
1.3
0.9
2.3
0.9
MAX
2.6
5.1
6.5
8.4
6.5
8.4
CLASS
WT
IK*
X2
d X3
^ X4
£ X5
X&
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
8.
26.
38.
'i.
75.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
0.0
3.7
4.3
5.8
6.5
5.1
SDEV
0.0
1.3
1.1
2.6
1.7
2.2
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
2. 5
2.5
2.0
4.8
2.0
5.8
7.2
12.5
8.3
12.5
CARBON !>
MEAN
0.0
56.5
63.7
77.7
87.3
71.0
SDEV
0.0
26.5
30.2
41.3
12.3
36.1
MIN
199.0-
17.3
15.0
9.1
76.4
9.1
NITROGEN OXIDES
MAX
999.0
102.5
141.0
229.9
100.7
229.9
MEAN
O.J
2.9
3.8
4.3
4.9
4.0
SOEV
MIN
MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
0.5
1,4
1.5
1.3
1.5
2.1
0.9
1.3
4.0
0.9
3.6
6.5
8.4
6.5
8.4
-------
ALL IDLE BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
YEAR CLASS
YEAR
57-1
62- '3
56-7
t>d-9
70-1
CUf
NO.
CARS
15.
41.
30.
37.
27.
150.
HYDROCARBON
M EA N
11. 5
12.3
8.9
5.1
4.0
8.2
SOF.V
12.6
11.2
8.7
2.9
1.7
8 .8
MIN
3.4
3.9
3.3
1. 5
1.6
1.5
MAX
45.8
53.0
49.9
17.1
10.9
53.0
CAR-BON MONOXIDE
MEAN
108.3
118.0
107.0
62.2
54.2
89.6
SOEV
58.2
42.0
42.2
30.5
28.6
47.3
WIN
40.9
53.7
34.6
16.8
16.9
16.8
PAX
244.6
228.4
232.0
157.5
114.6
244.6
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.5
3.2
3,1
4.8
4.4
3.7
SDEV
1.4
1-7
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.7
OXIDES
MIN
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.1
2.3
0.7
MAX
4.4
7.3
5.2
7.9
,7.4
7.9
10 < CLASS
MILc
10K
XI
' X2
' x:i
I x<+
X5
X6
X7
xs
X9
X10
Xll
XI, 2
ClT'
NO.
CARS
7.
12.
13.
15.
13.
23.
17.
15.
9.
11.
3.
2.
150.
HYDROCARBON
w EA N
4.0
4. 8
7.3
5. fc
7. 1
10.9
10. 1
6.9
8. 5
11.0
12.9
9. 1
•j. 2
SDEV
0.9
2.6
11.0
4.1
4.2
12.5
11.6
3.7
5.6
10.5
11.2
3.1
& . 0
M I N
2. 7
l.fc
1. 5
2. 1
2.9
3. 2
3.4
3.3
3.4
3.0
3.9
6.9
1.5
MAX
5.2
9.1
49.9
17.1
17.0
53.0
52.2
15. jj
22.4
41.3
36.7
11.3
53.0
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
53.4
67.1
73.6
64.1
90.5
97.5
95.1
93.2
103.8
120. 1
114.5
123.7
89.6
SDEV
29.2
40.5
56. 1
32.6
49.5
46.2
39.3
43.7
50.2
49.4
47.8
21.8
47.3
MIN
16.9
lc .5
16.8
21.9
37.8
36.7
34.8
41.5
40.9
24.7
53.7
108.2
16. 6
MAX
104.0
143.2
23^.0
130.6
167.7
244.6
209.1
228.4
170.7
20 C. 5
179.0
139.1
244.6
NT, -OGEN
MEAN
4.6
4.6
4.2
4. 1
4.2
3.9
3.2
3.2
2.3
2.6
3.1
3.2
3.7
SDEV
1.3
1.9
1.5
1.4
1.5
2.0
1.4
1.6
1.2
r.3
2.3
1.1
1.7
OXIDES
MIN
2.7
1.6
O./
l.l
2.4
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.1
1.0
0.7
2.4
0.7
MAX
5.9
7.8
7.2
5.6
7.7
7.9
5.4
6.8
4.9
5.3
7.3
4.0
7.9
-------
ALL IDLE BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
VEH.
MAKE
AMC
CHRY
DODG
PLYM
FORD
MERC
BUIC
CADI
CHEV
OLDS
PJNT
IMPT
VW
CUM
EM IS
CTRL
N.C.
C.D.
A.I.
E.M.
CUM
NO.
CARS
5.
3.
8.
9.
31.
7.
10.
4.
33.
10.
12.
6.
12.
150.
NO.
CARS
3.
77.
9.
61.
150.
MAKE
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
6.6
19.5
4.6
5.4
7.3
8.9
6. 1
4. 1
10.7
11.3
7.4
11.3
6. 0
8.2
SDEV
2.9
18.9
2.9
2.0
7.9
6.3
2.3
2.1
9.9
15.0
3.0
19.0
5.6
8.8
MIN
3,9
6.9
2.8
3.0
2.7
3.1
2.6
1.6
2.7
3.4
4.3
1.5
2. 1
1.5
MAX
10.9
41.3
11.7
9.4
45.8
20.8
9.6
6.3
53.0
52.2
12.6
49.. 9
22.1
53.0
CTRL
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
5.6
11.6
5. 7
4.5
8. 2
SDEV
1 .7
11.1
4.8
1.9
8.3
MIN
3. ?
2.1
1.5
2.2
1.5
MAX
7.1
53.0
17.1
10.9
53.0
CLASS
CARBON
MEAN
86. 1
165.6
70.6
80.3
86.4
110.0
90.5
83.8
96.9
97.5
97.9
77.5
60.4
89.6
CLASS
SDEV
20.9
31.4
40.6
39.6
58.0
62.8
45.7
61. 1
34.9
38.8
38.7
80.9
31.1
47.3
CARBON
MEAN
71.9
114. b
75.5
61.0
89.6
SDEV
28.8
46.0
47.3
29.7
47.3
MONOXIDE
MIN
53.7
139.1
40.0
20.8
19.5
22.0
16.3
23.4
16.9
48.5
21.9
26.6
21.1
16.8
MONOXIDE
MIN
46.7
33.2
23.4
16.8
16.8
MAX
102.7
200.3
163.4
151.4
244.6
209.1
167.7
146.2
179.0
167.1
155.9
232.0
131.2
244.6
MAX
103.2
244.6
149.9
157.5
244.6
M
MEAN
3.1
3.1
4.t
4.0
3.3
3.0
4.0
4.4
3.3
3.6
4.7
2.9
2.6
3.7
NI
MEAN
3.3
3.0
4". 3
4.6
3.7
TROGEN
SDEV
1.3
1.6
1.2
1.3
1.8
2.2
1.3
2.5
1.6
1.3
1.9
1.7
1.2
1.7
TROGEN
SDEV
1,0
1.6
1.7
1.4
1.7
OXIDES
MIN
1.8
1.3
2.9
2.2
0.7
0.7
1.8
1.8
0.8
2.1
l.l
0.7
0.7
0.7
OXIDES
MIN
2.2
0.7
2.1
1,1
0.7
MAX
5.2
4.1
5.8
5.9
7.9
6.1
6.3
7.7
7.3
5.6
7.8
4.6
4.3
7.9
MAX
4.2
7.3
7.7
7.9
7,9
-------
ALL IDLt BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CV1> TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CID
100"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
14.
21.
*0.
70.
15.
150.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
5.5
7.3
10.2
8. 4
7.4
8. 2
SDEV
5.3
10. 1
7.2
9.4
9.6
a. a
MIN
2. 1
1.5
2.8
2.6
1.6
1.5
MAX
22.1
49.9
36.7
53.0
41.3
53.0
CARSON MONOXIDE.
MEAN
56.3
83.8
102.4
92.3
89.4
89.6
SOEV
30.5
50.4
52.2
43.5
52.8
47.3
tf I N
21.1
IS. 5
34. a
16.6
21.9
16.8
MAX
131.2
232.0
223. 4
244.6
200.3
244.6
Nl
MEAN
2.7
2.9
3.4
4.2
4.2
3.7
[TROGEN
SDEV
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
OXIDES
MIN
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.1
1.3
0.7
MAX
4.3
6.2
6.8
7.9
7.7
7.9
HYDROCARBON
MEAN SOEV MIN MAX
0.0 0.0 9999.0-9999.0
7.0 9.4 1.5 49.9
6.2 7.9 2.8 52.2
8.9 9.4 2.6 53.0
5.4 3.3 1.6 10.4
8.2 8.8 l.b 53.0
CLASS
CARBON MONOXIDE
MTROGEN OXIDES
MEAN
0.0
70.0
91.5
95.7
93.1
89.6
SDEV
0.0
47.7
46.2
46. 1
56.9
47.3
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
19.5
21.1
16.8
23.4
16.8
232.0
228.4
244.6
146.2
244.6
MEAM
0.0
2.9
3.3
4.3
4.6
3. J
SDEV
0.0
1.5
1.3
1.7
2.2
1.7
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
0.7
0.7
0.8
1.8
0.7
6.2
5.8
7.9
7.7
7.9
-------
ALL IDLE SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
YEAR CLASS
YEAR
57-1
62-5
66-7
68-9
70-1
CUM
NO.
CARS
15.
41.
30.
37.
27.
150.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
9.6
7.8
6.9
4.7
3.5
6.2
SDEV
9.0
<*.l
3.6
2.8
0.9
" 4 .e>
WIN
3.4
3.2
3.3
1.5
1.6
1.5
MAX
34.0
29.7
22.4
17.1
5.4
34.0
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
92. d
99.4
97.1
32.7
44.5
76.9
SDEV
43.3
37.2
35.3
27.2
22.3
40.5
MIN
40.9
32.0
34.8
16.8
16.9
16.8
MAX
208.6
194.2
162.1
157.5
90.8
208.6
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.6
3.1
3.2
5.1
4.6
3.8
SDEV
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.6
1.5
1.7
OXIDES
MIN
1.0
0.9
1.6
1.4
2.3
0.9
MAX
4.4
6.8
5.2
9.2
8.4
9.2
10 K CLASS
WILE
10K
XI
w X2
? X3
M X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
XII
X12
CUM
NO.
CARS
7.
12.
13.
15.
13.
23.
17.
1*5.
9.
11.
8.
2.
150.
HYDROCARBCN
M EA N
4.0
6. 1
4.3
4.8
5.6
7.5
6.2
6. 1
7.9
7.0
9.6
9. 1
6.2
SOEV
0.9
7.0
2.1
3.6
2.5
5.5
2.8
2.8
5.9
1.8
10.0
3.1
4.6
MIN
2.7
1.6
1.5
1.9
2.9
3.2
3.4
3. 3
3.2
3.5
3.9
6.S
1.5
MAX
5.2
27.4
10.
-------
ALL IDLE SECCND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
MAKE CLASS
VEH.
MAKE
AMC.
CHRY
DODO
PLYM
FORD
MEPC
BLI.IC
CADI
ChEV
OLDS
PONT
I MPT
w V/J
^CUM
NT.
CARS
5.
3.
8 .
9.
31.
7.
10.
4.
33.
10.
12.
6.
12.
150.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
5.8
8.7
4.3
5.4
5.3
6. 1
5.5
4. 1
8.4
8.2
7.6
3.4
4.0
6.2
SDEV
2.4
1.8
2.2
2.0
2.2
3.5
2.1
2.1
6.1
7.5
7.2
1.5
1 .6
4.6
MIN
3.9
6.9
2. 8
3.0
2.7
3.1
2.6
l.e
2.7
3.4
3.5
1.5
1.9
1.5
MAX
9.7
10.4
9.7
9.4
10.9
13.4
9.6
6.3
34.0
27.4
29.7
5.7
6.9
34.0
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
65.5
143.4
74.4
79.2
74.3
d2.3
88.5
83.8
83.6
84.4
76.9
37.5
49.8
76.9
SDEV
33.6
12.6
50.8
40.0
44.9
37.3
46.0
61. 1
33.0
25.9
48.4
15.8
21.8
40.5
MIN
20.1
133.5
40.0
20.8
19.5
22.0
16.8
23.4
16.9
48.5
21.9
21.5
20.0
16.8
MAX
99.8
157.5
194.2
151.4
208.6
119. 9
167.7
146.2
145.8
136.1
155.9
63.8
82.1
208.6
NITROGEN
MEAN
3.3
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.3
4.0
4.4
3.9
3.5
4.7
3.4
2.5
3.8
SDEV
1.3
0.2
1.5
1.3
1.9
2.0
1.6
2.5
1.6
1.2
2.4
1.1
1.0
1.7
OXIDES
MIN
1.8
3.8
1.4
2.2
0.9
1.0
1.7
1.8
1.0
2.1
1.1
2.2
1.0
0.9
MAX
5.2
4.1
5.8
5.9
7.9
6.1
6.4
7.7
7.2
5.6
9.2
4.6
4.3
9.2
tsj
to
CTRL CLASS
EM IS NO.
CTRL CARS
N.C. 3.
C.D. 77.
A.I. 9.
E.M . 61.
CUM 150.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
4.8
8. 1
5.7
4.1
6.2
SOEV
1 .2
5.4
4.8
1-.5
4.6
MIN
3.7
2.1
1.5
1.9
1.5
MAX
6.0
34.0
17.1
10.4
34.0
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
58.9
98.3
75.5
S0.9
76.9
SDEV
10.6
37.8
47.3
25.8
40.5
MIN
46. 7
32.0
23.4
16.8
16.8
MAX
65.7
2C8.0
149.9
157.5
208.6
NITROGEN
MEAN
3.6
3.0
4.3
4.8
3.8
SDEV
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.7
OXIDES
MIN
3.1
0.9
2.1
1.4
0.9
MAX
4.2
o . 3
7.7
9.2
9.2
-------
ALL IDLE SECCND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
C. 1 0
100"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
1*.
21.
50.
70.
lb>.
150.
HYCRTCAR80M
MEAN
3.8
4.7
3.4
6.5
5.0
6.2
SOLV
1.6
1.8
6.4
4.6
2.0
4.6
MIN
1.9
1.5
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.5
MAX
6.9
9.1
34.0
29.7
9.6
34.0
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
46.1
68.1
32.6
81.8
63.4
76.9
SDEV
22.2
31.7
37.7
43.4
45.0
40.5
MIN
20.0
19.5
20.1
16.8
21.9
16.8
MAX
82.1
143.2
177.9
208.6
167.7
203.6
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.7
3.1
3.6
4.2
4.5
3.3
SDEV
1.1
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
OXIDES
MIN
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.8
0,9
MAX
4.3
6.2
6.8
9.2
7.7
9.2
1K# CLASS
WT
IK*
X2
WX3
'i"' X4
o X5
X6
CUM
Nu.
CARS
0.
23.
44.
73.
5.
150.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
0.0
4. 1
6.5
7.0
4.5
6.2
SDEV
0.0
1.7
3.2
5.8
2.0
4.6
MIN
MAX
9999.0-5999.0
1.5
2.8
2.6
l.c
1.5
8.0
17.1
34.0
6.3
34.0
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
0.0
53.4
80.9
32.9
34.6
76. -y
SDEV
0.0
26.4
38.1
42.9
52.9
40.5
MIN
MAX
9999.0— J999.0
19.5
20.1
16,8
23.4
16.8
119.9
177.9
208.0
146.2
203.6
NITROGEN OXIDES
MEAN
0.0
3.0
3.4
4.3
4.7
3.8
SDEV
0.0
1.3
1.5
1.7
2.3
1.7
MIN
MAX
9999.0-9999.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.8
0.9
6.2
7.8
9.2
7.7
9.2
-------
ALL K.vi. BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
YEAR CLASS
YEAR
57-1
62-^
66-7
66-9
'70-1
CUM
NO.
CARS
14.
42.
30.
37.
27.
150.
HYDROCARDOM
MEAN
f.O
13.0
6.5
5.7
4. 4
7.8
SDEV
4.6
15.9
3.3
5.6
2.3
9.7
MIN
3.4
3.6
2.1
2.2
1.7
1. 7
MAX
22.0
79.4
14.9
35.7
11.9
79.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
106.9
119.2
95.2
74.9
56.6
91.0
SDEV
68.6
66.7
35.7
44.3
31.8
55.4
MIN
38.6
28.1
40.5
9.1
5.6
5.6
MAX
289.7
387.1
177.5
229.9
117.5
387.1
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.6
3.0
3.4
4.1
4.2
3.5
SDEV
1.7
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.7
OXIDES
MIN
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.8
2.2
0.3
MAX
6.4
5.8
3.4
8.8
7.8
8.8
10K CLASS
MILE
10K
XI
=> X2
J X3
* X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
Xll
X12
CUM
NO.
CARS
3.
7.
15.
17.
23.
20.
17.
20.
13.
3.
6.
1.
150.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
3.8
4.3
5 . 7
"3.4
5.2
7. 5
9.2
9. 2
1.4.5
12.0
7.7
7. 7
7.8
SDEV
1.1
2.5
3.1
3.0
2.7
4.7
7.7
16.8
17.9
15.1
4.0
0.0
9.7
MIN
2. a
2. 1
2.4
2.5
1.7
2.2
2. 1
2. 8
2.6
5.0
3.4
7.7
1. ~l
MAX
5.0
9.2
13.8
12.5
14.9
22.0
35.7
79.4
60.1
48.8
15.0
7. 7
79.*
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
56.4
64.1
84.0
69.1
80.9
102.3
107.3
86.2
123.6
104.7
101.6
87.9
91.0
SDEV
51.4
37.4
53.9
52.5
36.3
64.2
59.8
37.7
83.4
57.2
34.7
0.0
55.4
MIN
25. 1
18.2
25.7
5.6
9.1
13.7
37.3
35.2
53.0
51.5
49.6
87.9
5.6
MAX
115.8
117.5
220.4
229.9
177.5
289.7
291.7
189.6
387.1
216.5
144.3
87.9
387.1
NITROGEN
M E AN
4.8
2.3
4.4
3.9
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.6
2.7
3.1
2.9
3.7
3.5
SDEV
1.4
0.8
1.7
1.3
1.6
'2.2
1.9
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.4
0.0
1.7
OXIDES
MIN
3.8
1.2
0.9
1.8
1.0
0.3
o.*»
1.6
0.4
0.9
0.3
3.7
0.3
MAX
6.4
3.5
7.8
6.9
7.6
8.8
8.4
6.4
5.0
4.4
4.1
3.7
8.8
-------
ALL K.M. BEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
VEH.
MAKE
AMC
CHRY
DODG
PLYM
FORD
MERC
BUIC
CADI
CHEV
OLDS
PONT
NO.
CARS
5.
3.
8.
9.
31.
7.
10.
4.
33.
10.
12.
6.
i?.
150.
EM1S NO.
CTRL CARS
N.C.
C.D.
A.I.
E.M.
CUM
6.
71.
9.
64.
150.
MAKE
CLASS
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
6. 1
7.9
5.0
7.2
5.0
16.3
7.7
4.5
8,3
10.0
11.5
11.5
5.2
7.8
SDEV
3.0
5.3
2.6
4.1
2.1
27.9
3.4
1.6
10.2
13.7
11.7
12.9
3.5
9.7
MIN
4.0
3.6
2.7
3.4
2.4
3.6
3.3
2.8
3.C
2.1
3. 5
2.1
1.7
1.7
MAX
11.0
13.8
10.5
14.9
9.5
79.4
12.5
6.5
60.1
48.8
45.8
35.7
15.0
79.4
CTRL
MEAN
107.4
120.5
70.2
128.2
74.0
96.5
135.1
68.4
84.2
105.2
119.3
62.8
67.7
91.0
CARBON
SDEV
56.5
89.6
44.4
72.2
39.1
51.3
42.5
15.5
54.2
34.7
90.3
58.8
24.6
55.4
MONOXIDE
MIN
57.2
47.3
13.7
49.5
9.1
37.8
91.4
50.5
16.1
40.5
29.2
5.6
22.8
5.6
MAX
196.1
220.4
153.3
291.7
173.0
189.6
229.9
84.9
289.7
158.3
387.1
169.3
115.0
387.1
CLASS
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
5.7
10. 7
7.4
4.8
7.8
SDEV
2.2
12.8
10.7
2.6
9.7
MIN
3.8
3.4
2.1
1.7
1.7
MAX
9.6
79.4
35.7
14.9
79.4
MEAN
77.3
115.2
68.8
68.6
91.0
CARBON
SOEV
32.9
60.3
22.0
42.5
55.4
MONOXIDE
MIN
38.6
28.1
40.5
5.6
5.6
MAX
118.6
387.1
1G8.1
229.9
387.1
MEAN
2.6
4.1
4.7
3.6
3.7
3.1
2.8
5.6
3.6
3.6
3.9
2.6
2.2
3.5
MEAN
3.6
3.0
3.7
4.1
3.5
NITROGEN
SDEV
1.6
2.4
1.6
2.2
1.7
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.4
2.2
1.1
0.8
1.7
NITROGEN
SDEV
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
CXIDES
MIN
0.8
2.5
2.4
0.4
1.0
1.2
C.9
4.2
0.3
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.3
OXIDES
MIN
1.8
C.3
2.1
0.8
0.3
MAX
4.1
6.9
6.5
7.6
8.8
4.9
4.5
6.5
6.4
5.6
8.4
3.6
3.9
8.8
MAX
6.4
8.4
5.9
8.8
8.8
-------
ALL K.M. UEFORE SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CID
100"
XI
X2
X3
X4
X5
CUM
NO.
CARS
1*.
•20.
29.
72.
15.
150.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
5.5
7.2
0.2
7.8
9.8
7.8
SDEV
3.8
7.3
14.0
8,7
11.3
9.7
MIN
1. 7
2.2
2.5
2. 1
2.8
1.7
MAX
15.0
35.7
79.4
60.1
.48. tt
79.4
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
59.7
81.7
80.7
99.0
114.7
91.0
SDEV
30.5
39.7
48.5
62.2
55.1
55.4
MIN
5.6
29.4
13.7
9.1
50. 5
5.6
MAX
115.0
169.3
216.5.
387.1
229.9
387.1
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.3
3.0
3.5
3.8
3.3
3.5
SDEV
0.8
1.6
1.5
1.8
1.5
1.7
OXIDES
MIN
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.3
1.8
0.3
MAX
3.9
7.8
6.5
8.8
6.5
8.8
WT
1K#
X2
X3
Cx)
w X5
X6
CUM
NO.
CARS
0.
28.
47.
70.
5.
150.
MEAN
0.0
6.7
£>. 8
9. 1
5.2
7.8
HYOROI
SDEV
0.0
6.7
11 .1
10.0
2,2
9.7
MIN
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
1.7
2.4
2. 1
2.8
1.7
IK
MAX
99.0
35.7
79.4
63.1
3.3
79.4
it CLASS
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN SOEV MIN
0.0
73.0
79. /
107.1
74.6
91.0
MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
43.1
46.1
62.8
19,8
55.4
5.6
13.7
9.1
50.5
5.6
196.1
216.5
387.1
100.7
387. 1
NITROGEN
MEAN SDEV
0.0
2.5
3.5
3.8
5.3
3.5
OXIDES
MIN
MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
1.4
1.4
1.7
1.1
1.7
0,6
C.9
0.3
4.0
0.3
7.8
6.5
8.8
6.5
8.8
-------
ALL K.M. SEC1ND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
YEAR CLASS
YEAR
57-1
62-5
66- 7
6b-9
70-1
CU^
NO.
CARS
14.
42.
30.
37.
27.
150.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
5.6
6. 6
5.5
4.1
2.7
5.2
SDEV
2.0
2.7
2.1
1 .9
1.3
2.4
MJM
3.2
2.7
2. 1
2. C
1. 7
1.7
MAX
10.3
17.1
li.l
12. p
8.5
17.1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
79.9
86.4
74.6
61.3
50.8
70. 8
SDEV
37.9
40.8
23.2
39.2
31.7
37.5
MIN
34.?
17.3
36.9
9.1
8.3
8.6
MAX
173.0
241.8
125.2
229.9
117.5
241.3
Ml
^EAN
3.1
3.2
3.6
4.1
4.0
3.6
:TKOGEN
SDEV
1.7
1.3
1.6
1.7
1.3
1.5
OXIDES
MIN
1.0
0.9
1.2
1.8
2.1
C.9
MAX
6.4
6.1
8.4
8.8
6.7
6.8
10K CLASS
MILE
10K
XI
d X2
^ X3
* X4
X5
Xfa
X7
X8
X9
X10
Xll
X12
CUM
NO.
CARS
3.
7.
15.
17.
23.
20.
17.
20.
13.
8.
6.
1.
150.
HYDROCARBON
VEAN
3.8
4.0
4.6
4. 5
4. 4
5.1
6.2
5.5
£.0
5. 7
7. 1
7.7
5.2
SDEV
1.1
1.6
1.7
2.6
1.2
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
1.0
3.3
0.0
2 .4
MIN
2.H
2.1
2.4
2.5
1.7
2.2
2.0
2.8
3.2
4.7
3.4
7. 7
1. 7
MAX
'5.0
6.2
8.1
12.5
6.3
10.3
11. "j
17.1
12.5
7.3
12.7
7.7
17.1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
5b.<+
60.6
65. 1
53.9
66.6
68.8
71.4
78.4
39.2
79.3
79.3
37.9
70.3
SDEV
51.4
33.1
39.5
54.1
27.8
31.5
29.3
32.4
57.4
24.5
30.3
0.0
37.5
MIN
25.1
18.2
15.0
8.8
9,1
13.7
33.9
34.4
34.2
51.5
46.2
87. 9
8.3
MAX
115.8
117.5
141.0
229.9
118.8
125.2
149.4
148.5
241.8
115.5
118.9
87.9
241.3
NITROGEN
MEAN
4.8
2.7
4.3
4.1
3.8
3.5
3.4
3.7
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.7
3.6
SDEV
1.4
0,8
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.4
0.9
0.9
0.0
1.5
GXIDES
MIN
3.8
1.2
C.9
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.6
1.0
1.8
1.9
3.7
0.9
MAX
6.4
3.5
6.7
7.0
7.6
8.8
8.4
6.4
5.0
4.2
4.1
3.7
8.8
-------
ALL K.M. SECCNO SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
MAKE CLASS
VEH.
MAKE
AMC
CHRY
DODG
PLYM
FDkD
MERC
BUIC
C 4 L; I
CHtV
OLOS
PONT
II^PT
Vi<
CUM
NO.
CARS
5 .
3.
3.
9.
31.
1 .
10.
4 ,
33.
11.
12.
0 .
12.
150.
HYDROCARBON
K'EAN
4. 5
6. 0
4. 3
5.2
4.6
6. 3
6. 7
4. 5
5. 3
5. b
6.3
3.2
4. 7
5.2
SDEV
1.0
2.3
1.4
1.6
1 .8
4.9
3.3
1.6
1.9
1 .9
2.8
1 .9
2 .3
2.4
M I N
3.2
3.6
2.7
3.4
2.4
2. 7
2.0
2.3
3.0
2. 1
3. 5
2. 1
1.7
1.7
MAX
5.9
3.1
7.1
3. a
9.5
17.1
12.5
o.5
11.1
3.0
12.5
7.1
12.7
17.1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
76.7
91.7
57.3
di.9
63.3
71.7
113.4
68. 1
61.1
97.8
35.5
38.6
54.0
70.3
SDEV
26.9
43.
-------
ALL K.M. SECOND SERVICE
1975 CVS TEST
- PHASE 2 DATA
ALL CARS
100" CLASS
CIO
1JO"
XI
X.C
X3
X-+
X5
CUM
N.I.
CARS
!•+.
20.
29.
72.
1-5.
150.
HYDROCARBON
MEAN
4. 3
4.4
5.4
5.2
6.5
5.2
SOEV
2.7
1.6
2.9
2.0
2.7
2.4
MIN
1.7
2.2
'2.5
2.0
2,8
1.7
MAX
12. 7
7.1
17.1
12.5
12.5
17.1
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN
48.2
61.7
61.3
75.1
101.3
70.8
SDEV
22.0
32.0
26.3
38.4
48.5
37.5
MIN
8.8
17.3
13.7
9,1
38.2
8.8
MAX
79.6
122*2
148.5
241.8
229.9
241.8
NITROGEN
MEAN
2.4
3.2
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.6
$r cy
0,7
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.5
OXIDES
MIN
1.3
1.0
1.3
0.9
1.8
0.9
MAX
3.9
6.7
6.5
8.8
6.5
8.8
IK* CLASS
•.NT NO.
IK* CARS
X?
" X3
^ X4
^ X6
CU'4
0.
28.
47.
70.
5.
150.
MEAN
0.0
4.2
4.7
5.9
5.2
5.2
HYDROCARBON
SDEV MIN MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.4
1.7
2.4
2.0
2.8
1.7
12.7
17.1
12.5
8,3
17.1
CARSON MONOXIDE
MEAN
0.0
53.7
63.1
82.6
74.6
70.8
SDEV MIN MAX
0.0 9999.0-9999.0
8.8 118.8
148.5
241.8
27
31
41
19.8
37.5
12.7
9.1
50.5
6.3
100.7
241,8
NITRUGEN OXIDES
MEAN
0.0
2.6
3.7
3.9
5,3
3.6
S^EV MIN MAX
U.O 9999.0-9999.0
1.2
1.3
1.6
1.1
1.5
1.0
0.9
1.0
4.0
0.9
6.7
6.5
8.8
6.5
8.8
-------
APPENDIX C
REGRESSION TABLES
C-l: 1975 CVS Data as Dependent Variable
C-2: 1972 CVS Data as Dependent Variable
C 1-1
-------
EPA
MH7MOD
MKK STEP
M-OMPH
M10MPH
M20MPH
H30MPH
H40MPH
M50HPH
M60MPH
M-OMSTFP
VH7MOD
VKM STEP
V-OMPH
0 V10MPH
,_, V20MPH
t^, V30MPH
V40MPH
V50MPH
V60KPH
V-OMSTF.P
72 CVS
Z%
1.
1.
0.
4.
8.
2.
1.
2.
3o
3.
0.
5,
0.
16.
8.
6.
5.
5.
5.
6.
0,
0.
A
0.0550
0.4085
1.3321
2.
-------
EPA
MH7M 1U
PKM STtP
M-0«PH
H10WPH
M20"Pt-
M30"PH
M40MPH
M50'-'PM
M60MPH
M-OMSTFP
VHTVOn
VKM STEP
V-OMPH
>o V10MPH
M V20MPH
i- V30MPH
V40MPH
V50MPH
V60MPH
V-OMSTEP
72 CVS
Zf
'.„
b.
0,
ft a.
•jfc .
3?,
U.
7.
o ,
7.
o.
12.
0.
301,
714,.
63.
17.
14.
10.
11.
0.
0.
A
0.7265
O.f>;?48
1.0720
2,7H52
2.tftSO
2.42S6
1.7697
1.3537
1.1-586
1.0*06
0..9343
1,5528
0.5871
2.H447
2.3758
2.5't84
1.7599
1.6733
0.9128
0.8280
O.B279
0.0907
PI
0.^1129
0.5«i77
-0.2)13
3,7/96
3, e^.7i
2. 7336
1.7158
0 . 89," 1
0.4P6&
0,30X2
i.a?2s
0,3'i92
-0.000"V
' 0,0(103
0.0001
0.001.!
0. Oi'U o
0,0010
0.0011
0., 0009
0.0001
0.9738
P2
0.0
0.0
0.2275
0,0
0.0
0.0
C. 0
0.0
0,0
0.0
-1.3197
0.0
0.0007
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0002
0.0
B3
0.0
OoO
0.211M
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0. 0
0,0
0.0
0. 3949
0.0
0. 0006
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.0010
0.0
fH
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2777
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0006
0.0
85
0.0
0..0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1312
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0002
0.0
B6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1418
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0005
0,0
17
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1494
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0003
0.0
ALi
22.
32.
0.
6.
7.
8.
11.
14.
16.
19.
0.
15.
0.
7.
7.
10.
14.
14.
28.
35.
0.
72.
BIS
6.
8.
0.
61.
50.
30.
14.
10.
9.
9.
0.
14".
0.
262.
621.
57.
17.
15.
12.
13.
0.
2.
t
737.351
479.088
121.084
7.667
11.307
31.592
155.260
303.514
361.425
347.632
59.072
148.368
85.007
0.419
0.075
8.937
94. 724
120.266
213.937
180.207
33.S10
6999. 742
SE MR
0.853 0.8439
0. 985 0. 7852
1.069 0.7423
1.570 0.1584
1.561 0.1912
1.512 0.3096
1.290 0.5853
1.119 0.7103
1.069 0.7403
1.080 0.7338
1.034 0.7656
1.299 0.5765
1.170 0.6803
1.589 0.0375
1.590 0.0158
1.567 0.1706
1.385 0.4911
1.342 0.5362
1.213 0.6464
1.255 0.6139
1.194 0.6691
0.321 0.9794
ALL CAL. BEFORE SERVICE
NCX
REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
-------
EPA
MH7MOO
MKM STPP
M-Of °H
H10f'?i-i
M?0,"!PH
M30MPH
M40-IPH
M50WPH
M60V.PF
M-OMSJEP
VH7Mno
VK<1 SI tP
V-OMPH
V10MPH
V20MPH
V30MPH
V40MPH
V50MPH
V60MPH
V-QMSTFP
72 CVS
Z*
2.
3.
0.
10.
8,
6.
5.
4.
5.
7.
0.
3.
0.
14.
13.
10.
17,
7.
8.
9.
0.
0.
A
26.5726
23.0808
29.3447
37.6123
37.5538
37.53
48.6085
£2, 7290
29,1147
20.2859
28.6946
39,5000
4?., 9713
42.6438
65.4974
47.1607
52.4144
52,5765
32.3497
-2*9559
Bl
1.0563
0,9562
1.3392
2.H319
Z.TiVi
2.6S70
2.TH62
1.7765
1,2590
0. P530
0,948b
1.1027
4.6294
S.57H7
'} . 6 r 1 4
12->0?5 j
6,3*0*
17.070ft
IS.SJS?
16. 6' 87
3. 29fl^
0.9150
R2
0.0
0.0
0.6025
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0. 0
-0.120H
0.0
7,5269
0, 0
0.0
0,0
O.'O
0.0
0,0
0.0
-1.41HW
0.0
63
0.0
0.0
0.5411
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6663
0.0
0.1215
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.9109
0. 0
04
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.3899
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7542
0.0
85
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4019
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3299
0.0
B6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1698
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0427
0.0
B7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.2900
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7887
0.0
ALZ
14.
19.
0.
17.
16.
13.
10.
8.
8.
8.
0.
23.
0.
20.
17.
15.
8.
10.
9.
10.
0.
74.
BLZ
5.
6.
0.
12.
11.
8.
7.
7.
8.
9.
0.
6.
0.
16.
15.
12.
18.
9.
11.
11.
•0.
2.
F
1157.618
842.385
380.804
213.928
252.517
432.556
553.886
626.538
506.062
350.440
163. 146
.790. 922
• 148.435
118.542
132.772
199.140
93.047
348. 363
258. 843
219. 542
63.966
5981. OB6
SE
24.309
27.465
24.454
40. 992
39.529
34.314
31.777
30.503
32. 708
36.422
24.492
28.106
34. 064
45.443
44.686
41.597
46.901
36.466
39.304
40.769
34.100
11.704
MR
0.8918
0. 8595
0.8912
0. 6464
0.6773
0.7695
0. 8063
0.8232
0. 7933
0.7351
0. 8924
0. 8523
0.7751
0.5335
0.5552
0.6329
0.4878
0.7344
0. 6818
0.6513
0. 7780
0. 9760
ALL CAL. BEFORH SERVICE
ca
SEGRfcSSION SUMMARY TABLE
-------
EPA
MH7MOO
MKM STEP
M-OMPH
M10MPH
f*20K'PH
M30MPH
M40MPH
M50MPH
M60MPH
M-Of'STEP
VH7MOD
VK?1 STEP
V-O^PH
V 10M°H
V20*»PH
V30MPH
V40MPH
V50fP/H
V60MPH
V-O^STFP
72 CVS
Z£
1.
,'» ,
0,
H.
6.
4.
3.
3.
4,
T.
0,
3.
0,
6.
•5.
4.
i .
».
3 *
\ .
C.
0,
A
1.2"55
0.4747
0.0616
2.5BC3
2.4985
2.6829
2.8916
2.3008
2.2859
2,, 3073
l,3K3t3
2,4726
2.7488
2.9411
2.RS56
3.0687
3.272*
3.4276
3,7006
3.8210
2.9074
-0,3 '.68
81
1,0.183
0.8S36
1.5M31
2. 40^3
2 . 8 '. • S 0
2.7126
2 » I'l 1 5
2,1259
1.766.S
1,5015
1.5222
0.8586
0,0042
0,0076
0.0092
0,0098
0.0102
0.0114
0.0117
0.0130
0.0(132
0. s;'7r
B2
0.0
0.0
1.0274
C.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0. S415
0.0
0.0029
0.0
0.0
C.O
0-0
0,0
0.0
0.0
-0.0018
0,0
83
0.0
0.0
0,4033
0,0
0.0
0. 0
0,0
0.0
0,0
0.0
-0,6568
0, 0
On 0049
0.. 0
0.0
Oa 0
0,0
0,0
0™0
0.0
0,0009
0.0
84
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 ,3526
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0032
0,0
85
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9234
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.0017
0.0
B6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.2233
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.0017
0.0
87
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4206
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0110
0.0
ALX
26.
82.
0.
27.
24.
19.
15.
18.
21.
24.
0.
16.
0.
20.
18.
15.
14.
12.
11.
10.
0.
49.
BL?
4.
4.
0.
10.
8.
7.
6.
5.
6.
8.
0.
5.
0.
9.
7.
7.
7.
6.
6.
6.
0.
2.
f
1992.386
1636.107
656.337
269. 536
409.917
609.395
876.987
1077.280
700,497
507.818
216.256
1045.793
326.251
373.246
548.818
636.889
643. 634
813.369
822.396
913. 147
166.574
11117.074
SE MR
2.513 0.9331
2.735 0.9202
2.527 0.9328
5.055 0.6904
4.525 0.7620
3.995 0. 8204
3.510 0.8647
3.244 0.8857
3.808 0.8384
4.240 0.7948
2.830 0.9161
3.282 0.8828
3.370 0.8769
4.647 0.7468
4.136 0.8060
3.936 0.8263
3.922 0.8276
3. 609 0. 8563
3.595 0.8575
3.457 0.8690
3.150 0.8949
1.125 0.9869
ALL MI. BEFORE S6RVICE
HC
DEGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
-------
EPA
, MH7MOD
' MKM STFP
M-OMPH
M10MPH
M20I*PH
M30MPH
M40MPH
M50MPH
M60MPH
M-OMSTEP
VH7MOD
VKM STEP
V-OMPH
'VIOMPH
V20<"IPH
' V30MPH
V40MPH
V50MPH
V60HPH
V-OWSTEP
72 CVS
1%
3.
3.
0.
8.
7.
5,
5.
6.
8.
13.
0.
4.
0.
14.
35.
il.
a.
7.
10.
14.
0.
1 .
A
29.4349
24.1673
?8.1')80
37.0057
38,4149
41.4712
48.9838
54.4268
53.9107
59.7825
30.2830
22.4287
26.3032
37.3501
71.7823
43.3835
51.1698
52.8759
55.0596
60.0641
28,2487
n.4609
Bl
0.9869
1.0210
1. 3541
2.2142
2.1*43
2.1498
1.9749
1.6241
" 1,3123
• 0.6552
0.5627
T 1.1282
; 5.4242
5 8.6881
" 2.4606
11.8445
14.7575
19.3958
i9.5356
17.9174
"3.2490
- 0.8570
E2
0.0
0.0
0.9677
C.O
0. 0
0.0
c.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3564
0.0
11.5993
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
c.o
B3
0. 0
0,0
0., 357-3
0.0
0,0
0. 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5299
0.0
5.6597
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4,0363
0.0
F4
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2756
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.20-H
0.0
B5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5399
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.6936
0.0
86
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0143
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.4594
0.0
B7
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3186
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AL2
14.
18.
0.
16.
14.
11.
8.
7.
9.
9.
0.
23.
0.
21.
8.
13.
9.
8.
9.
9.
0.
569.
8L?
6.
6.
0.
10.
9.
8.
8,
8.
11.
14.
0.
7.
0.
15.
33.
11.
10.
10.
12.
15.
0.
3.
F
786.899
803.259
264.019
263. 802
346.546
460.563
445.388
416.845
249.144
141,921
132.151
557.802
140.573
127.169
26.406
256.934
276. 180
306.978
212.322
126.437
91.455
3773.417
SE
24.927
24. 741
24.891
34.670
32.361
29.823
30.126
30.723
35.133
39.199
23.533
28.073
30* 662
39.876
45,684
34. 884
34.293
33.405
36.383
39.910
28.307
12.859
MR
0. 8524
0.8548
0. 8540
0.6865
0. 7344
0.7802
0. 7751
0. 7647
0.6760
0. 5693
0.8725
0. 8083
0. 7676
0.5482
0.2862
0.6817
0. 6948
0.7135
0. 6463
0.5471
0.8084
0. 9629
ALL MI. BEFra.E .SI:RVICf CC
REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
-------
EPA
HH7MDL)
MKM STFP
H-OMPH
H10MPH
M20MPH
M30MPH
M4DMPH
M50MPH
M60MPH
M-O^STEP
VH7MOD
VKM STEP
V-OMPH
0 V10MPH
T" V2CMPH
^ V30MPH
V40MPH
V50MPH
V60MPH
V-OWSTHP
72 CVS
Z*
•5.
I'l.
0.
92..
185,
36.
42.
11.
8.
7.
0.
5.
0.
65.
152.
52.
20.
12.
11.
10.
0.
0.
A
1.3678
2.5662
1.5028
3.8771
4.0638
3.3732
3.6626
2.2382
1.5214
1,2007
1.0381
1.2022
0.6804
3.2293
3.PS22
3,5795
2.8925
2.1046
1.5308
1.1421
0.9524
0.2276
HI
0.8023
0.2915
-0.7910
4.2583
-0.1484
" 3.2162
0.4137
i 0.8277
- 0.6282
0.4218
3.4079
* 0.7137
; 0.0014
, 0.0095
* 0.0013
0.0018
0.0016
' 0.0014
0.0013
0.0012
0.0043
0.979°
t'<2
0.0
0, 0
0.4:151
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0.0
o.04fir>
0.0
0.0008
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
-0.0003
0.0
b3
0.0
0.0
C.2051
0. C
0. 0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0.0
r. o
0.1 73 >>
0.0
0.0007
0.0
0, 0
0,0
0. 0
0. 0
0,0
0.0
-0.0004
0,0
34
0.0
0,0
0,0'
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
-0.0 lob
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0002
0,0
65
0,0
0,0
0,0
o.n
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1V2Z
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0004
0.0
36
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1'i^?
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0001
0,0
B7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2t«2c:
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0009
0.0
At*
16.
10.
0.
6.
5.
8.
6.
12.
19.
25.
0.
21.
0.
16.
7.
3.
10.
14.
23.
33.
0.
38.
BL *
7.
15.
0.
bl.
334.
33.
38.
13.
10.
10.
0.
8.
0.
58.
133.
47.
20.
14.
13.
12.
0.
2.
f-
522.424
125.262
131.721
4.360
0.259
26,114
19. 564
176.422
271.464
298.619
47.229
455.497
131.559
8.452
1.625
13.125
71.570
151.425
181. 888
203.143
30.845
6638.391
SE MR
1.073 0.7990
1.495 0.5453
1.169 0.7572
1.770 0.1205
1.783 0.0296
1.710 0.2847
1.727 0.2490
1.412 0.6111
1.288 0.6917
1.258 0.7087
1.232 0.7299
1.119 0.7785
1.169 0.7570
1.758 0.1666
1.779 0.0739
1.745 0.2061
1.600 0.4413
1.451 0.5818
1.404 0.6169
1.373 0.6380
1.364 0.6533
0.368 0.9784
MI. BfTFnpE SFRVICF
NOX
•'.EGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
-------
EPA
MH7MOD
MKM STEP
M-OMPH
M10MPH
M20MPH
M30MPH
H40MPH
M50MPH
M60*PH
M-OMSTEP
VH7MOD
VKM STE"
V-OPPH
0 V10MPH
^ V20MPH
» V30MPH
V40MPH
V50MPH
V60MPH
V-OMSTCP
72 CVS
ZX
I.
1.
0.
4.
6.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
0.
3.
0.
8.
r
1 «
4,,
A.
3.
4.
tt.
0.
0,
A
1.0422
0.4170
1.1424
2.6687
4.1315
2.4957
2.4645
2.0897
2.2177
2.0707
1.1557
2.4402
2.7010
4,0103
3.0206
2.
-------
EPA
MH7MOP
MKM STPP
H-0MPH
'MIOHPH
M20MPH
M30"PH
M40MPH
M50VPH
M60MPH
M-OMSTEP
VH7MOD
VKN| STEP
V-OMPH
n V10MPH
t-> V20f*PH
i V3QMPH
V40MPH
V50MPH
V60MPH
V-OMSTHP
72 CVS
Z?
2.
2.
0.
7.
6.
4.
4.
3.
5.
6.
0.
3.
0.
10.
18.
7.
10.
•5.
7.
8,
0.
0.
A
27.8139
24.0515
28.24*6
39.0395
39.0978
40.0599
45.6908
50.2526
51.5716
56.4639
29.5017
21.5273
27.6412
39.0298
64.3400
42.9932
63.0722
50.774?
54.9864
56.9636
30.3757
-1.4310
31
1.0250
0.9805
1.4033
2.3R33
2.3715
2.3615
2.1747
1.7034
1.2705
0.8469
0.7494
1.1121
5.2628
8.9689
4.1569
11.9389
H.2792
17.6654
{6.523=
16.793C
"3.1827
0.8R73
32
0.0
0.0
0.736R
0.0
C.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1061
0.0
8.8230
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
-0.1236
0.0
E3
0. 0
0.0
0.4663
0. 0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.591°
0,0
6. 8fr02
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.. 0
3.8759
0.0
B4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3J13
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0860
0.0
35
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.46U'
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.2670
0.0
66
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1133
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3761
0.0
37
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3110
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
'0.0
0.0
3.7547
0.0
AL*
10.
13.
0.
11.
10.
a.
6.
5.
6.
6.
0.
16.
0.
14.
7.
10.
6.
6.
6.
6.
0.
119.
BL*
4.
4.
0.
8.
7.
6.
5.
5.
6.
6.
0.
5.
0.
11.
18.
8.
11.
7.
8.
9.
0.
2.
f
1932.866
1629.323
633.540
435.743
552.301
857. 638
985. 297
1027.500
727.017
469, 799
298. 141
1346.227
282.071
240.121
93.438
447.660
244.710
632.900
451.752
336.686
135.119
9345.379
SE MR
24.626 0.8743
26. 252 0. 8557
24.794 0.8729
38.554 0,6499
36.545 0.6935
32.480 0.7681
31.142 0.7894
30. 734 0. 7955
34.046 0.7413
37.933 0.6639
23.935 0.8830
28.100 0.8325
32. 632 0. 7665
42. 827 0.5359
47.163 0.3681
38.333 0.6549
42.710 0.5395
35.326 0.7176
38.258 0.6566
40.549 0.6008
31.599 0.7848
12.420 0.9696
iLL CARS BEFORE SERVICE CO
REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
-------
EPA
MH7HOD
MKM STEP
M-OM»H
M10MPH
H20MPH
M30MPH
M40KPH
H50WPH
H60MPH
M-OMSTEP
VH7MOD
VKM STEP
V-OMPH
V10MPH
V20MPH
V30MPH
V40MPH
V50MPH
V60MPH
V-ONSTFP
72 CVS
It
3.
7.
0.
49.
227.
22.
19.
6.
6.
6.
0.
7.
0.
62.
35.
57.
14.
10.
8.
7.
0.
0.
A
0.9690
1.6491
1.2968
3.3053
3.4515
2.8455
2.8889
1.6896
1.3318
1.1581
1.0221
1.5716
0«6363
3.5663
3.5303
3.1604
2.3115
1.8872
1.1576
0.8933
1.0774
0,1158
81
0.8755
0.39BO
-0.5628
4.7358
0.2439
3.2(330
0.7567
0..9125
0.5633
0.3387
2.0t42
0.4S45
-0,0005
-0.0007
-O.OOO't
0,0011
O.CC16
0.0012
0.0013
0.0011
-o.ono^
0, 9<-00
62
0.0
0.0
0.5243
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
'C. 033t
0.0
Or 0009
0.0
0.0
0.0
C. 0
0.0
C. 0
0.0
-0.0002
c.o
63
0.0
0.0
0.1S65
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6321
0.0
0. 0006
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.0007
0.0
B4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0348
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0005
0.0
85
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3093
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0003
0.0
86
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0807
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0003
0.0
B7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2040
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0006
0.0
ALZ
14.
11.
0.
4.
4.
6.
5.
10.
13.
16.
0.
12.
0.
5.
5.
6.
9.
11.
19.
27.
0.
46.
BLZ
5.
8.
0.
44.
197.
21.
18.
8.
7.
7.
0.
9.
0.
120.
203.
50.
14.
11.
9.
9.
0.
1.
F
1356.928
420.265
2~58. 107
15.149
0.741
'64.981
90.624
442.838
569.965
564. 706
96. 774
387.766
220.399
2.009
0.696
11.425
146.517
253.314
371.609
383.410
63.384
14569.871
SE MR
0. 984 0. 8336
1.365 0.6431
1.176 0.7523
1^760 0. 1574
1.781 0.0352
1.692 0.3135
1.660 0.3633
1.324 0.6690
1.274 0.6992
1.277 0.6975
1.222 0.7311
1.387 0.6278
1.228 0.7258
1.779 0.0580
1.781 0.0342
1.765 0.1371
1.596 0.4442
1.493 0.5461
1.398 0.6197
1.390 0.6257
1.353 0.6552
0.353 0.9802
ALL CARS 8FFORE SERVICE
MCX
REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
-------
EPA
MH7M10
HK1 jTEP
H-OMPh
M10MPH
M20MPH
M30MPH
H40MPH
H50HPH
M60"4PH
M-OWSTEP
VH7MQD
VKM STEP
V-OMPH
V20MPH
V30MPH
V40MPH
V50KPH
V60MPH
V-OMSTEP
75 CVS
1%
1.
2.
0.
4.
9.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
0.
6.
0.
18.
9.
6.
5.
5.
5.
7.
0.
0.
A
1.4417
0.9825
1.3855
3.4824
5.3363
3.040%
2.5662
2.4400
2.7365
2.4238
1.7678
3.027?
2.3616
5.481-?
3.807$
3.2759
2.8597
2.969f
3. 577^
4.4503
2.7530"
0.5044
Bl
1.2122
0,9625
1.2813
2.7543
1.6124
3.3077
3.0830
2.7433
2.1358
1.9405
1.1327
0.9457
0.0012
0.0049
0.0105
0.0142
0.0171
0.0192
0.0198
0.0191
Ui"inJ09
1.0264
32
0.0
0.0
1.4985
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.0631
0.0
0.0183
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.0019
0.0
83
0.0
0.0
0.3045
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7647
0.0
0.0012
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,003fl
0.0
B4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.4781
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0067
0.0
65
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
-0.1082
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0103
0.0
66
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9H44
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.0051
0.0
B7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1046
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Q.O
0.0
0.0
0.0037
0.0
ALS
23.
43.
0.
17.
13.
14.
15.
19.
20.
22.
0.
23.
0.
16.
21.
21.
22.
21.
18.
15.
0.
22.
BL*
3.
4.
0.
7.
11.
5.
4.
5.
6.
6.
0.
8.
0.
18.
11.
9.
8.
8.
3.
9.
0.
F
2822. 756
1753.428
1056.493
570.344
241.829
1351.419
1699. 791
1218. 747
769.347
857.251
445.913
403.802
184.976
86.971
218.919
369.000
488.757
501.713
441.735
349.281
76.352
1.29981.746
SE MR
2.622 0.9511
3.233 0.9245
2. 488 0. 9563
4. 970 0. 81 04
6.303 0.6693
3.606 0.9052
3.276 0.9224
3.760 0.8964
4.483 0.8490
4. 309 0. 8614
2.507 0. 9563
5.528 0.7585
"5.020 0.8076
7.464 0.4753
6.441 0.6508
5.670 0.7438
5.221 0.7882
5.179 0.7921
5.385 0.7728
5.756 0.7346
5. 094 0. 8042
0.842 0.9951
ALL CAL. BFFflkF SERVICE
HC
REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
-------
FPA
MH7MOO
MK* STEP
M-OMPH
N10MPH.
N20MPH
K30MPH
M40PPH
M50MPH
M60MPH
M-OMSTFP
VH7Mnn
VKM STEP
, V-OKPH
n V10MPH
M V20MPH
i> V30MPH
V40MPH
V50MPH
V60MPH
V-OMSTEP
75 CVS
1%
4.
5.
0.
11.
10.
a.
7.
6.
7.
8.
0.
5.
0.
18.
17.
13.
20.
9.
11,
12n
0.
0.
A
38.4301
34.3068
39.4297
48.9265
49.2214
50.0827
54. 6496
57.8168
59.8563
63.641?
40™? 648
31.7729
42,419R
53.4740
55.9211
55.3210
77.1756
59.4194
64. 12CO
64.2972
46.3126
7.4668
Bl
1.0368
0. 9495
1.4326
2.7998
2,6.310
2.5746
2.3003
1.7293
1.2425
0.8*01
O..C044
1.0906
4.3081
0.8612
9. 1«568
11.4315
6, OS 2-5
16.3565
1 '3. 052 6
16,1786
2.382R
1.0410
B2
0.0
0.0
0.4690
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.5827
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
-0.9227
*•. .-\
B3
0.0
0.0
0.5959
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0.5590
0.0
3.7755
0.0
0.0
o. n
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.8807
0. 0
B4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0»0
0.6927
0.0
85
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3156
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7974
0.0
B6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2211
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8839
0.0
B7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3138
0.0
0.0
OiO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.5935
0.0
AL«
13.
16.
0.
15.
14.
12.
10.
8.
8.
8.
0.
18.
0.
17.
14.
13.
8.
9.
9.
9.
0.
30.
BLX
7.
7.
0.
13.
12.
10.
9.
9.
9.
10.
0.
8.
0.
19.
17.
14.
20.
11.
12.
13.
0.
2.
F
612. 887
530.294
227.402
166.930
188.734
284.827
337.580
386.171
348. 179
266.217
101.138
495. 703
92.488
81.175
95.068
139.789
68.734
229.644
135.840
160. 473
39.473
5981.086
SE MR
32.777 0.8203
34.372 0.8001
31.629 0.8351
45.878 0.5992
44.839 0.6227
40.976 0.6991
39.239 0.7288
37.820 0.7513
38.916 0.7340
41.646 0.6869
32.978 0.8212
35.113 0.7903
41.309 0.6956
50.802 0.4627
49.896 0.4918
47.279 0.5651
51.657 0.4329
43.066 0.6597
44.973 0.6198
46.200 0.5916
41.496 0.6973
12.484 0.9760
ALL CAL. BEF-OP.f SEP.VICE
CO
REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
-------
EPA
MH7MOO
HKM STEP
H-OMPH
M10MPH
M20MPH
M30MPH
M40MPH
M50PPH
M60MPH
M-O^STEP
VH7MOO
VKM STEP
V-OMPH
V10MPH
V20MPH
V30MPH
V40MPH
V50MPH
V60MPH
V-OMSTEP
75 CVS
Z?
5.
6.
0.
83.
65.
32.
13.
9.
a.
R.
0.
14.
0.
560.
1355.
62.
18.
' 15.
11.
12.
0.
0,
A
0.8066
0.7135
1.1526
2.7940
2.6821
2.4076
1.8038
1.4258
1.7.218
1,1066
0«c;ci55
1.6205
0.7452
2.8547
2.8718
2.5225
1.7897
1.7047
0.9863
0,9034
0.9093
0.0285
Bl
0.8729
0.5322
-O.TI66
2.9873
3.3796
- 27T737
1.6411
0.6474
' 0.4647
0.2890
. 1.202J!
" 0.3277
;- o.ooo7
0.0002
" 0.0001
0.0012
0.001-3
: 0.0009
0.0011
0.0009
-o.nooi
0.9850
E2
0.0
0.0
0,, 13'U
0,0
0,0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0,0
— 1 1 7 0 ?> f '
0.0
0,0006
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0001
0.0
P3
0,0
0.0
0, .7166
0. 0
0.0
0.0
U. 0
0.0
0.0
1). 0
K>:322
0.0
0.0006
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.0007
0,0
>A
0..0
0.0
0,0
0,0
O.d
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.n
O.^ol'O
n.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0005
0.0
&5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0790-
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0002
0.0
R6
0.0
0.0
n,o
0,0
0.0
0,0
0.0
D.CI
0.0
0.0
0., 179H
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0005
0.0
67
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0. 147 r>
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0003
0.0
AL*
22.
31.
0.
6.
7.
9.
11.
14.
16.
19.
0.
15.
0.
7.
8.
10.
14.
14.
27.
33.
0.
232.
BL?
7.
9.
0.
78.
50.
30.
15.
11.
10.
10.
0,
15.
0.
487.
1177.
55.
19.
16.
13.
14.
0.
2.
f
538.503
371.907
89.959
4.689
fl.459
32.219
133. 760
238.113
291.142
282.776
47.364
121.398
66.993
0. 121
0.021
9.'401
R4.067
106.396
180.432
154.017
28.097
6999.746
SE MR
0.955 0.8023
1.067 0.7451
1.161 0.6906
1.587 0.1245
1.577 0. 1661
1.519 0.3124
1.329 0.5566
1.192 0.6664
1.138 0. 7030
1.146 0.6978
1.106 0.7292
1.348 0.5380
1.239 0.6359
1.599 0.0202
1.599 0.0084
1.575 0.1749
1.413 0.4691
1.373 0.5129
1.262 0.6141
1.299 0.5837
1.249 0.6344
0. 323 0. 9794
ALL CAL. BEFDRF SERVICE
NOX
PEGRESS JON SUMMARY TABLE
-------
EPA
MH7MOC-
MKM STEP
M-ONPH
M10HPH
M20MPH
M30MPH
M40MPH
K50NPH
I«60MPH
M-OM.STP.P
VH7HOO
VKM STEP
V-OMPH
0 V10MPH
1
*• V30MPH
V40MPH
V50KPM
V60HPH
V-OMSTFP
75 CVS
2%
3.
3.
0.
9»
7.
5.
4.
3.
4.
5.
0»
4,
0,
7.
6.
5.
5,
4.
4.
4.
0.
0.
A
2,1'671
1..3326
1.6262
3,4344
3.3914
3.6063
3.7162
3.0744
3,0r92
3.0475
2..143*
3.317P
3.4785
3,8397
3.7576
3 .9 ^66
4.1453
4.25BS
4,5078
4.6276
3.R532
0.5634
BI
1.0472
0.902?
1.502."'
2.4441
2. '.070
2.7117
2.2107
2.1S!Ort
1.P.T40
1 . £ '; 7 ':
1.6<,0.>
O.P726
0. 0039
0.0077
0.0093
0. 009"?
0.0103
0.0117
0.0121
0.013*-:
0,1102?
1.0500
f'2
0.0
0.0
1.1033
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0.0
-1 . 034/L
0,0
0,0056
0,. 0
0.0
0,0
0«0
0.0
0.0
0,0
-0.001P
0,0
FO
0.0
0,0
0. 4425
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,. 0
0.0
-0., 9422
0.0
0.0025
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0., 0
84
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0,0
1,1 d03
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,0
0..0
0., 0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0025
0,0
35
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
1 .2342
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.0024
0.0
B6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0,0
B7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.O
0.0
0.0
0 . 274S
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0114
0.0
AL*
21.
39.
0.
22.
20.
16.
14.
16.
18.
20.
0.
15.
0.
17.
16.
14.
13.
11.
10.
10.
0.
30.
BLX
5.
6.
0.
11.
9.
a.
7.
6.
7.
8.
0.
6.
0.
10.
8.
8.
8.
7.
7.
6.
0.
2.
F
1064.429
950.255
436. 440
227.654
319.903
433.455
606.730
825.060
600.930
445.219
175.096
729. 153
257.473
293. 845
421.420
475.193
434.288
627. 772
669.340
739. 007
169.211
11117.078
SE
3.468
3.623
3.194
5.589
5.154
4.736
4.257
3.820
4.271
4.698
3. 492
3.995
3.917
5.266
4.775
4.606
4.579
4.208
4.117
3.976
3.791
1.197
MR
0. 8845
0. 8732
0.9037
0.6593
0.7207
0. 7709
0. 81 98
0. 8579
0. 31 85
0. 7750
0. 9849
0.8434
0.8511
0.7058
0. 7664
0.7850
0. 7878
0. 8244
0.8327
0. 3450
0. 8622
0. 9869
MI. BtFORE SERVICE
HC
REGKcSSION SUMMAPY TABLE
-------
EPA
MH7MOD
MKM STEP
M-OMPH
M10MPH
M20MPH
M30MPH
M40MPH
H50MPH
M60MPH
M-OMSTEP
VH7MOD
VKM STEP
V-OMPH
n V10MPH
^ V20MPH
w V30MPH
V40MPH
V50HPH
V60MPH
V-OJ'.STEP
75 CVS
ZZ
6.
6.
0.
11.
10,
«.
a.
s*.
12.
L5.
0.
•7.
0.
IS.
43.
12,
11,
11.
13.
17.
0,
I.
t\
43«9?28
38.4060
42.5430
51.3211
52.4713
55.4236
63.1263
68.8739
68.2000
72,7948
43 , 7490
36.8901
41.2223
52.4353
85.7863
57,4934
65.3064
67.4571
69.5356
73.9662
43.6620
6.5625
HI
0.9682
1.0070
1.3247
2.1717
2.1635
2.1227
1.9337
1.5670
1.2739
0.8698
0.5232
1.1090
5.2343
8.3756
2.3396
11.6417
14.4320
18.6641
18.7800
17.5514
2, 3S7S
1»0*120
P2
0.0
0.0
0, 9399
0*0
0.0
0,0
0,0
C, 0
0.0
0.0
0, 3755
0.0
11,2576
0.0
' 0. 0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0,032-3
Or.0
R3
0.0
0.0
0., 3673
0,, 0
0.0 .
0.0
0,,0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0. 5645
0.0
5.8011
0.0
n. o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
V. 4924
0.0
K4
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3245
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
1.4577
0.0
B5
0,0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4228
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.8439
0.0
B6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.0831
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
5.6637
0.0
87
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4321
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6793
0.0
ALZ
13.
16.
0.
14.
13.
10.
8.
7.
9.
8.
0.
19.
0.
18.
3.
12.
9.
8.
9.
3.
0.
44.
ftLS
9.
9.
0.
13.
12.
10.
11.
11.
14.
16.
0.
10.
0.
19.
40.
13.
13.
13.
15.
18.
0.
3.
F
367.584
381.322
123.700
165.830
210.209
262.585
248.335
224.395
153.268
107.018
53.679
296.030
73.935
84.082
19.441
163.311
170.614
176.391
130.359
8/. 164
39.131
3773.417
SE MR
35.780 0.7443
35.415 0.7503
35.739 0.7470
42.889 0.5992
40.966 0.6444
38.998 0.6856
39.505 0.6754
40.403 0.6567
43.484 0.5841
45.912 0.5153
34.818 0.7656
37.880 0.7071
40.005 0.6679
47.276 0.4703
51.977 0.2422
43.006 0,5963
42.668 0.6047
42.407 0.6111
44.637 0.5529
47.086 0.4770
38.813 0.6969
14.448 0.9629
ALL Ml. BEFORF SERVICE CO
REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
-------
EPA
MH7MGO
MKM STEP
M-OMPH
M10VPH
M20MPH
M30MPH
M40MPH
M50MPH
M6CMPH
H-OMST6"
VH7MOD
VKH STEP
V-OMPH
0 V10MPH
to V20M3H
Ch V30*PH
V40MPH
V50*PH
V601PH
V-CMSTEP
75 CVS
1%
6.
14.
0.
If) 3.
343,
40.
46,
13.
<3.
9.
0.
7.
0.
65.
162.
55,
22,
14.
12.
11.
0.
0.
A
1. 1639
2,4522
1. iQ'lj
3. .7 '+61
3.9100
3.2838
3. 5645
2.2258
1.-5374
1.2191
1.0702
1.2147
0.7375
3.0810
3.7437
3.4602
2.8281
2,1063
1.5405
1.1746
0.9310
-0.0559
,672
.5,488
0.130
21. 073
16.257
139.351
213.576
239.445
3S.600
343.650
105.042
8.459
1.428
11.481
59.642
120.181
149.171
165.596
24.876
6633.391
SE
1.164
1.507
1.239
1. 770
1.730
1.721
1.734
1.468
1.357
1.325
1.311
1.207
1.241
1. 756
I. 776
1.747
1.625
1.502
1.452
1.426
1.422
0.368
MK
0.7563
0.5332
0. 72 03
0. 1079
0,0209
0.2578
0,2282
0.5658
0.6474
0.6679
0.6849
0.7354
0.7193
0.1667
0.0693
0.1932
0.4095
0.5374
0.5789
0.5990
0.6125
0.9784
ALL »T. BEFORt SERVICE
NOX
DEGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
-------
PPA
MH7VJD
MKM STEP
Nl — jj ^ P [-J
Min-iPH
P>20«PH
rOOMPH
M40«PH
M50MPH
M60"IPH
M-01STEP
VH7Mnn
VK1 jTEP
V-OMPH
VIO^PH
V20«PH
V30HPH
V40MPH
V50M°H
V60MPH
V-OMSTFP
75 CVS
ZH
1.
2.
0.
4.
6.
3.
2.
2.
3.
3.
0.
3.
0.
9.
6.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
0.
0.
A
1.7653
1,1260
1.7909
3.3929
4.9629
3.2579
3.1946
2.7554
2.8547
2.6970
1,7523
3.1778
3,4138
4.645-5
3.8125
3.7579
3.7S96
3.9233
4.3240
4.6696
3.6731
0.5474
81
1.1344
0.9361
1.3833
2. 6364
1.3893
3.0352
2.6094
2.44S6
1.9848
1.7494
1.171?
0.9072
C. OC15
0.0060
0,009*
0.0114
0.012'+
0.0139
O.C14!
O.C15-?
0.001'*
1.0362
B2
C.O
0.0
1-239C
0,0
0.0
C.O
0.0
C.O
0. 0
0.0
0,0123
0.0
0. 0110
0.0
0. 0
0, 0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
H3
0.0
0.0
0,3667
0. 0
C.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0. 0210
0.0
0.0015
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0,0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0007
0,0
J4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
C.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5.? 04
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0030
0.0
85
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5oUt5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0031.
0.0
H6
0.0
0.0
0.0
O-.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.40 18
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-O.JOl'i
0.0
87
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2510
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.oorto
0.0
ALZ
16,
29.
0.
14.
10.
11.
11.
12.
14.
15.
0.
13.
0.
11.
13.
12.
12.
11.
9.
9.
0.
IP.
BL?
3.
3.
0.
6.
8.
4.
4.
4.
5.
5.
0.
5.
0.
10.
7.
b.
6.
6.
6.
6.
0.
F
3302.018
2607. 792
1337.063
750.940
47 i. 556
1491.668
1807.626
1923.699
1361. 279
1219. 308
449.948
102S.652
345.087
233.349
575. 994
756.779
825.021
931.642
892.211
869.886
175.532
1.34190.090
SE MR
3.114 0.9204
3.435 0.9022
2.865 0.933?
5.298 0.7467
5.940 0.6662
4.256 0.8453
3.966 0.8672
3.874 0.8738
4.406 0. 8330
4. 563 0. fll 96
3.180 0.9177
4.824 0.7957
4.817 0.7971
6.539 0.5710
5.680 0.7010
5.287 0.7479
5.158 0.7620
4.975 0.7809
5.040 0.7743
5.079 0.7703
4. 795 0. 8003
1.043 0.9914
ALL CARS BPFOP-P SERVICE
HC
KF.GfU->SION SUMMARY TABLE
-------
EPA
, HH7^0D
' MKM STEP
K-OMPH
M10WPH
M20**PH
MSOI^PH
M40MPH
M50V.PH
M60MPH
M-OMSTEP
vi>7 V20MPH
H
VSO^.'H
V60MPH
V-OVSTEP
75 CVS
zx
4.
4.
0.
8.
7.
6.
5.
5.
6,,
8.
0.
4.
0.
13.
22,
9.
13.
7.
9.
10.
0.
0.
A
40.9140
36.8020
40.0402
51.4793
51.6831
52,9642
58.8359
63.3915
64.3356
66.5715
41.5290
34.4961
41.7041
53,2663
77.2910
56.3730
76,0291
64.2945
69.1401
69.9156
44,7936
7.1992
81
1.006-3
.0.9698
^.4612
2.365'f
2.345H
"2.3176
2.1140
•1.6494
'1.2439
0.0471
0.7724
"1,0965
5.CS54
8.532^
"3, 9663
11.^.76
~f.r,21^
16. flO 5-1
15. 'JO?,.:
It , ? 44 ,'
2.767?
i , o1^-:
,B2
0. 0
0.0
0.6363
0.0
C.O
C. 0
0. 0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,1 72H
0, C
7. 99R6
0,0
0.0
C.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-C.1520
0.0
Q3
0.0
0.0
0.5039
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0.0
0.5500
0.0
7.2511
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
C, 0
4,2573
0.0
84
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3316
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6575
0.0
B5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3400
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
6.1244
0.0
86
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0936
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5193
0.0
B?
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3754
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0592
0.0
ALZ
9.
11.
0.
10.
9.
8.
6.
6.
6.
6.
0.
13.
0.
12.
7.
9.
5.
6.
6.
6.
0.
25.
BL*
5.
6.
0.
10.
9.
7.
7.
7.
8.
9.
0.
6.
0.
13.
20.
10.
13.
9.
10.
11.
0.
2.
F
961.301
893.734
333.904
313.688
387.707
541.267
579.803
588.940
470.472
349. 005
145.015
772. 109
166.073
165.828
68.703
302.476
171.277
387.660
299. 504
235.135
76.499
9345.379
SE
34. 290
35.059
33.875
44. 743
43.144
40.126
39.463
39.311
41.436
44. 019
33. 776
36.584
40. 945
49.026
52.486
45.144
48.852
43.145
45.219
46.938
40.335
13.572
MR
0.7857
0. 7746
0. 7923
0. 5903
0.6278
0.6899
0.7022
0.7050
0. 6642
0.6077
0. 7953
0.7512
0. 6754
0.4666
0.3215
0.5802
0.4725
0.6278
0.5783
0.5319
0.6898
0. 9696
ALL CARS BEFORE SERVICE
CO
REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
-------
EPA
MH7MOD
HKH STEP
fl-OMPH
M1OMW
M20MPH
H30MPH
M40.MPH
M50NPH
H60MPH
M-OMSTEP
VH7MTD
V*t* STEP
V-fOIPH
jVJtftMPH
, V20MPH
, V30MPH
V40HPH
V50MPH
V60MPH
V-OMSTEP
75 CVS
~ ~ ZX ~
4.
8.
15.
58.
230.
24.
20.
7.
6.
6.
0.
8.
0.
60.
48.
5.6.
15.
11.
8.
8.
0.
0.
..... A
1.0297
1.6422
8T ~
0.8256
0.3616
1.342 r -0.5 080
3.2500
3. '3700
2.7928
2.8477
1.7331
1.3724
1.1993
1.0698
1.6035
0.7960
3.4825
3.4453
3.0763
2.2959
1.9013
1.2064
0.9597
1.1258
0.0209
3.9779
0.2384
3.1295
0.7039
0.8483
0.5311
0.3396
1.3782
0.4555-
-0.0007
-0.0007
-0.0003
0.0011
0.0015
0.0011
0.0012
0.0011
-0.0007
0.9704
~ 82
0.0
0.0
0.4716
0.0
O.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 05 82
0.0
0.0008
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.0002
0.0
~83~"
0.0
0.0
0.1529
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7390
0.0
0. 0006
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-O.OOO5
0.0
B4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0296
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0004
0.0
B5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 .
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2305
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0002
0.0
B6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0962
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0003
0.0
B7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1996
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0006
0.0
ALZ
14.
11.
0.
4.
4.
6.
5.
10.
13.
16.
0.
12.
0.
5.
5.
6.
9.
11.
19.
26.
0.
255.
BL*
5.
9.
0.
52.
200.
22.
19.
9.
8.
8.
0.
9.
0.
121.
214.
49.
15.
11.
9.
9.
0.
1.
F
1016.449
377.659
201.818
10. 827
0.723
59.767
78.599
•388.459
474. 503
477.757
78.393
328. 654
178.801
1.959
0.627
11.833
129.892
218.764
319.238
327.690
53.359
14569. 871
SE MR
1.073 0.7940
1.380 0.6228
1.244 0.7105
1.748 0.1336
1.763 0.0348
1.682 0.3019
1.658 0.3413
1.373 0.6282
1.316 0.6658
1.314 0.6670
1.276 0.6942
1.416 0.5962
1.281 0.6889
1.761 0.0572
1.763 0.0324
1.747 0.1395
1.599 0.4230
1.509 0.5182
1.424 0.5906
1.417 0.5956
1.387 0.6226
0.350 0.9802
ALL CARS BFFfJRt SERVICE
NOX
REGRESSION SUMMARY TABLE
------- |