-------
I. Major differences in the emission factors which ar
-------
II. How MOBILE2 differs from MOBILE1-
MOBILE2 operates in a manner similar .to MOBILE1. MOBILE2 was designed to
maintain input/output sequences that as much as possible are like the
previous model. MOBILE2 has several new options, thus most of the
differences between MOBILE2 and MOBILE1 are the result of. inclusion of
additional options.
A. Diagnostic Messages - all input data are checked against allowable
limits
1. Errors which terminate the program
a. Under all situations where the program terminates, MOBILE2
will write out an.appropriate message
b. Examples
1) "Value of flag" out of -bounds for flag
"name of flag"
2) "Region code" out of bounds for region
2. Warnings indicate, MOBILE2 has automatically changed an input
parameter to avoid, inaccurate output results
a. They do not terminate the program
b. Examples
1) "Value of Speed" Speed reduced to 55 mph, Maximum
2) Equation "equation number" zeroes all idle
coefficient (and total) for region="region #",
vehicle type="vehicle type :'/", and
pollutant="pollutant #".
-------
2. Options that are obsolete
a. Use of heavy-duty power/cid correction factor. (However,
the MOBILEl information data requirements are retained to
maintain input compatibility with MOBILE.!. 'If the flag
for this option is set, MOBILE2 will ignore all associated
information).
b. Input of three average speeds. (MOBILEl required under
one option the input of an average speed for the. three
different sequences in the FTP. MOBILE2 no longer
analyzes bag information for the speed correction factor).
3. Options that are unavailable but could easily be reinstated.
a. Free format (list-directed) reads
b. Unformatted output "
C. Internally MOBILE2 has the following diffeneces from MOBILEl
1. Maximum number of equations 'is 15 instead of 10
2. Maximua calendar year for calculated emission factors is 2020
instead of 1995
3. More relevant documentation in the program
A. Modular design - more subprograms and block data
5. Size of MOBILE2 about the same as MOBILEl
-------
III. KOBILE1 versus MOBILE2 emission factors (graphics)
A. LDGV's (Non-methane HC, CO and NOx plots)
1. FTP conditions (calendar years 1975 thru 2000)
2. Speed affects (5 to 55 mph calendar year 1987)
i
3. Teaperature affects (0" to 100°F calendar year 1987)
B. All vehicles combined (Non-methane KC, CO and NOx plots)
1. FTP conditions (calendar years 1975 thru 2000)
2. Speed affects. (5 to 55 niph calendar year 1987)
3. Temperature affects (0° to 100°T calendar year 1987)
-------
2) MOBILE2 basic temperature correction factor equations
3) MOBILE2 basic speed correction factor equations
A) A set of composite emission results for calendar
years 1982 and 1987 (individual vehicle types and all
vehicles combined) versus speed.
5) Another set of composite emission results versus
temperature.
b. Tables
1) Emission results by vehicle type for several calendar
years by various combinations of temperature, speed
and percent of VMT in cold/hot starts.
2) Emission results by different vehicle types for
several calendar years by various combinations of air
conditioning, extra load and trailer towing usage
patterns.
-------
MOBILE! VS. MOBILE2: LDGV CO
100
1975
1980
1985 1990
CRLENDRR TERR
1995
2000
-------
MOBILE1 VS. HOBILE2: LDGV NON-MTH HC
10
8
I
o
Calendar Year 1987
MOBILE2
MOBILE1
10 \S 20 25 30 35 U 0 45 50 55 60
SPEED fMI/HR)
-------
MOBILE1 VS. MOBILES: LDGV NOX
Calender Year 1987
MOBILE2
MOBILE1
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
SPEED (HI/HR)
45 50 .55 60
-------
MOBILE1 V5. MOBILE2: LDGV CO
100
90
80
70
60
50
\
k \
30
20
10
0
\
\
\
\
\
Calendar Year 1987
MOBILE2
MOBILE1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RMBIENT TEMPERRTURE (DEC FflHR)
-------
MOBILE1 VS. MOBILES: RLL NON-KTH HC
30
25 .
20
o
z: 1 0
0
1975
MOBILE1
MOBILE2
1980
1985 1990
CRLENDRR TERR
1995
2000
-------
Cosparison of MOBILE1 and MOBILE2 (Fleetwide)
(Start I/M 1/1/83, Evaluate 1/1/880
Base Credit (%) With Training (%)
Stringency (%) Ml. *M2 ' Ml *M2
10 21 31 37 32
20 ' 24 35 ' 44 35
EC 30 ' 28 37 48 38
40 30 39 51 4-0
50 . 31 39 55 40.
10 ' '18 28 41 30
20 25 33 49 36
CO 30 29 36 54 40 .
- 40 . 33 38 ..57 42'
50 - 36 40 ' 58 42
* Uses sisple idle test/50% identification rate for 1981+ vehicles.
-------
HOBILE2
15o Mechanic Training
Start I/M 1/1/83
Evaluate 1/1/88
1987 I/M Benefits.(Fleetvide)
1981 Identification Rate
Pre-1981
Stringency
0
10
20
30
40 '
50
0
(no test)
EC CO
o o
18 . 14
22 20
25 23
27 25
27 26
1
50%
(sisple idle)
HC _CO
'12 14
31 28
35 33
37 36 .
39 38
39 40
987 I/M Benefits
702
(2 speed idle)
(2 mode loaded)
EC CO
15 19 '
33 34
37 39
40 42
41 44
41 ' 46
(Sub-Fleet Basis)
Pre-1981 ';.--
Stringency
10
20
20
40
50 .'
EC
32
39
43
46
46
CO
27
37
43
47
50
Contribution to
Pre-1'981
1981 +
Identification
Rate
50%
70%
90%
Non-I/M Inventory
HC CO
58%- 53%
42% ' 47%
90%
(3 stage idle)
EC ' CO
17 25
. . 36 40
40 45
42 48
44 50
44 ' 52
1981+ .
HC CO
29 29
35 41
41 53
'
-------
MOBILE2
Incremental Benefits Due to MT
Pre-1981
Stringency
10
20
30
40
50
Stringency
10
20
' 30
40
50
Start I/M 1/1/83
Evaluate 1/1/88
1987 I/M Benefits (Fleetvide)
1981+ Identification Rate
0 ' 50% 70%
(no test) (sircple idle) (2 speed idle)
(2 aode loaded)
HC _CO HC CO EC GO
13 1-2 1 2
12 0 3 ' 1 3
13-1 4 '1 4
1 '3 ' 1 4 2 41
121 2 2 2
1987 I/M Benefits (Sub-Fleet Basis)
Pre-1981
Identification
HC CO P^te
"'O 4 - . 50%
05 70%
26 90%
2 6
24. .
Contribution to Non-I/M Inventory
EC _CO
Pre-1981 - 58% 53%
1981+ ' 42% . 47%
90%
(3 stage idle)
EC _CO
0 2
0 2
1 3
1 3
I 2
1981 +
EC CO
0 0
0 0
-------
hOBILEl VS. MOB1LE2: RLL NOX
30
25
20
x
o
10
MOBILE1
MOBILE2
0
1975
1980
1985 1990
CRLENDRR
1995
2000
-------
MOBILE1 VS. MOBILE2: RLL NON-HTH HC
10
9 .
8
21
O
-o -5
01
\
\
Calender Year 1987
MOBILE2
MOBILE1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 4-5. 50. 55 60
SPEED (MI/HR)
-------
MOBILE1 VS. MOBILES: RLL NOX
Calendar Year 1987
MOBILE2
MOBILE 1-
X
o
10 15 20 25 30 35 li 0
SPEED (Ml/HP,)
45 50
55
SO
-------
HOBILE1 VS. MOBILES: RLL CO
100
Calendar Year 1987
90 .
80 .
70
60
50
140
30
20
10
0
MOBILE2
MOBILEl
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 ' 50 55.. 60
SPEED (MI/HR)
-------
MOBILE1 VS. MOBILES: RLL NON-HTH HC
10
8
u 5 _
0
Calendar Year 1987
M03ILE2
MOBILE1
I
0 10 20 30 UO 50 60 70 80 90 100
RHBIENT TEHPERRTURE (DEC FRHR)
-------
MOBILE1 VS. MOBILES: RLL CO
100
90 .
80
70
60
50
o
0 U-0
30
\
\
\
20 .
10 .
0
\
Calendar Year 1987
MOBILE2
>50BILE1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 "70 80 - 90 100
RMB IE NT TEMPEBRTURE (DEC FRHR)
-------
MOBILE1 .VS. MOBILES: RLl NOX
Calendar Year 1987
MOBILE2
MOBILE1
X
o
10 20 30 UO 50 60 70 80
RMBIENT TEMPERRTURE (DEC FRHR)
SO
100
-------
MOBILE1 VS. HOBILE2: RLL CO
100
90
Calendar Year 1987
MOBILE2
MOBILE1
0
30 MO 50 60
RMBIEHT TEMPERRTURE iDEG FfiHR)
70 80 ,30 100
-------
hOBILE-1 VS. MOBILES: RLL NOX
Calendar \'ear 1987
MOBILE2
MOBILE1
1 ^,_ ,. - ~ HT"']!!"''- -
20 30 140 50 60 70 80
RMBIENT TEMPERRTURE (DEC FRHR)
90 100
-------
AOi-t
REGISTRATION MIX AND ANNUAL
MILEAGE ACCUMULATION FOR
LOW ALTITUDE 49-STATE
3HT DUTY GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES
MODEL . ANNUAL
YEAR REGISTRATION MILES
INDEX** MI-X* TRAVELED*
1 0.072 14400.
2 0.101 13900.
3 0.092 13400.
4 0.071 12800. '
5 0.092 12300.
6 0.103 11800.
7 0;089 11200.
8 0.071 10700.
9 0.066 10200.
10 0.059 9600.
11 0.048 9100.
' 12 0.035 ' - 8600.
13 0.030 8000.
14 0.023 7500.
15 0.015 7000.
16 0.010 6400.
17 0.005 5900.
18 0.003 5400.
19 0.002 4900.
20+ 0.015 4300.
DEFAULT INFORMATION THAT MAY BE ALTERED"BY .THB'MOSILE2'
USER WITH INFORMATION ABOUT THE LOCAL AREA.
--*THE INDICES REFER'TO THE MOST RECENT MODEL YEAR
VEHICLES IN ANY GIVEN CALENDAR YEAR. INDEX 1 REFERENCE:
THE NEWEST MODEL YEAR VEHICLES AND INDEX 20+ REFERENCES
THE OLDEST MODEL YEAR VEHICLES.
DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1980
-------
DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1980
TADLE 1.1.0
FLEET SALES FRACTION* FOR
LOW ALTITUDE 49-STATE
LIGHT DUTY GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES
MODEL
YEARS FRACTION
PRE-1975 1.000
1975 0.990
1976 0.997
1977 0.995
1970 0.991
1979 0.972
1900 0.966
1901 0.953
1902 0.925
1903 0.911
1904 0.905
1905 0.806
1906 0.062
1907 0.035
1900 0.824
.1909 0.013
1990 0.803
1991+ 0.000
THE ESTIMATED FRACTION OF THE LIGHT-DUTY
VEHICLE FLEET WHICH IS GASOLINE-POWERED.
DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1900
-------
TABLE 1.1.9
CUMULATIVE MILEAGE FOR
LOW ALTITUDE 48-STATE
LIGHT DUTY GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES
MODEL YEAR JANUARY 1 FLEET
INDEX* CUMULATIVE MILEAGE
1 1800.
2 10784.
3 24809.
4 38331.
5 51284.
B 63709.
7 75631.
8 . 86984.
9 ^ 97809.
10 108131.
11 117884.
12 127109.
13 ' 135631.
14 143964.
15 151609.
16 1587 St.
17 165284.
18 - 171309.
19 176833.
20+ 181855.
*THE INDICES REFER TO THE MOST RECENT I/.ODEL YEAR
VEHICLES IN ANY GIVEN1 CALENDAR YEAR. INDE-X 1 REFERENCES
THE NEWEST MODEL YEAR VEHICLES AND INDEX 20+ REFERENCES
THE OLDEST MODEL YEAR VEHICLES.
DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1980
-------
TABLL 1.1.10
EXAMPLE TRAVEL WEIGHTING FACTOR CALCULATION FOR
LOW ALTITUDE ^9-STATE
LIGHT DUTY GASOLINE-POWERED VEHICLES
JANUARY I, 1985
MODEL (A) (B) '
YEAR FLEET SALES
INDEX* REGISTRATION' FRACTION1
1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
n
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
13
20+
0.021*
0. 101
0.032
0.071
0.092
0.103
0.089
0.071
0.066
0.059
0.01*8
0.035
0.030
0.023
o . o 5
0.010
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.015
0.886
0.905
0.911
0.325
0-953
0.366
o.S-72
0.991
0.395
0.9S7
0.938
1 .000
1 .000
1 .000
1 .000
. 1 .000
1 .000
1 .000
1 .000
1 .000
S'JMl:
(C=A*B/SUM1)
VEHICLE TYPE ,
(A*B) REGISTRATION
0.021
0.091
0.081*
0.065
0.087
0.099
0.086
.0.0/1
0.066
0.059
0.0^8
0.035'
0.030
0.023
0.015
C.010
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.015
0.515
0.023
0 . 1 00
0.092
0.072
0.095
0.108
0.03;
0.077
0.072
O.Ooi*
0.052
0.038
0.033
0.025
0.016
0.01 1.
0.006
0.003
0;002
0.016
(D)
*,NNUAL MILEAGE
ACCUMULATION
ui40o.
U275.
13775.
13250.
12675-
12175.
11650.
11075.
10575.
10050.
3^75-
8375.
8^50.
7S75-
7375-
6850.
6275.
5775-
5275-
' V750.
- SUM2:
(C*D/S'JM2)
TRAVEL
(CAD) FRACTIONS
335.3
1^25.3
1263-7
9^8.8
1209.8
1313. ^
1053.5
8514.14
758.2
6^7-5
14914.2
3^*2.5
277-2
156.0
121 .0
7A.1
37-7
15-8
3-3
75-8
11507-9
0.029
0.121*
0.110
0.082
0.105
0.115
0.036
0.071*
0.066
0.056
0.01*3
0.030
0.021*
0.017
0.011
0.006
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.007
ftTH'E INDICES.REFER TO THE MOST RECENT MODEL YEAR
VEHICLES IK ANY GIVEN1 CALENDAR YEAR. IN'DEX 1 REFERENCES
THE NEWEST. MODEL YEAR VEHICLES AND INDEX 20+ REFERENCES
THE OLDEST MODEL YEAR VEHICLES.
WHERE
A
B
D
= REGISTRATION MIX FROM TABLE 1.1.7, NEWEST MODEL YEAR ADJUSTED TO JAN 1
= FLEET SALES FRACTION FROM TABLE 1.1.8
= SALES WEIGHTED ANNUAL MILEAGE ACCUMULATION1 RATE FROM TABLE 1.1-7,
ADJUSTED TO JANUARY 1 .
D (1) = ANNUAL Ml LES (1)
D(MYI)= .25* (ANNUAL MILES (MY I)) + . 75* (ANNUAL Ml LES (MY I - 1) ) , MYi=2 20+
DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1980
-------
A COMPARISON OF MOBILE1 to M03ILE2
1981 and Later Models - Without I/M
° Both analyses used a similar methodology in that they divided the fleet
into different categories of vehicles. The categories are delineated on
the basis of vehicle operating condition. The emissions performance of
each category of vehicles is described by an equation which describes
the emissions produced by the vehicles in a category over tiroe. The
categories are then weighted together to give fleet emission factors.
0 The analyses differ significantly, however, in that they delinate very
different categories of- vehicles.
c MOBILE1, although a good estimate at the time it was produced (1978),
was based on some assumptions that have since proven wrong. It was also
based on very limited data (9 Volvos).
0 MOBILE2 incorporates new assumptions, based on. the best information
currently on hand, and is based on a sizeable data 'base obtained from
representative "New Technology" vehicles actually on the road.
- (92) 1980 California X-Body's
- (97) 1979 Ford 351 CID engine family
- (29) Miscellaneous Foreign and Domestic Fuel-Injected vehicles (1979)
0 The major phenomenon observed in the data," and subsequently modeled in
M02ILZ2, was the presence of a small group of vehicles which had
suffered a loss o-f computer control of the engine and were thereafter
producing average emissions 12*00% of the CO standard and over 900% of
the RC standard. These vehicles were low mileage vehicles, and even
though they made up only 5% of the fleet's population, they contributed
50% of the fleet's overall CO emissions' and over 35% of the fleet's KC
emissions.
0 MOBILE2 delineated a category mace up of these kinds of vehicles and
named it the "Primary" category. The size of the Primary category,
(i.e. the incidence of vehicles with a loss of computer control) is
expected to increase as the fleet ages. This assumption of an increas-
ing incidence is based partly on limited data of higher mileage New
Technology vehicles (the Volvos) as well as on the engineering argument
that the system will continue to fail and not be repaired as components
age and as vehicle owners have less desire to correctly maintain their
vehicle. Tampering and improper maintenance will also contribute to the
incidence of this phenomenon.
0 Graph's 1-3 illustrate the concepts discussed above. Note that the
misfueling phenomenon is also modeled by delineating a "Misfueling
category (a static 8% of the fleet). The remainder of the vehicles in
the fleet are represented by the Secondary category: generally
well-maintained vehicles and- vehicles with a problem which does not lead
to the Primary category (i.e., does not lead to a full,loss of computer
control).
-------
0 A similar approach was used for tfOx. The significant phenomena
accounted for were EGR failure, raisiueling, and the NOx effects of what
happens when a vehicle enters the HC/CO Prinary category.
HI Pre 1981 Models With -I/M
0 A simulation program was used at EPA to develop I/M benefits in MOBILE2 as
was done for MOBILE1.
0 The simulation tracks a fleet of cars by model year through 19 years of
experience with specified I/M.programs. Percent benefits to be applied to
emissions factors are produced in a form usable by MOBILE2.
°, M03ILZ2 contains the fixed benefits which are indexed by stringency, age
of vehicles, age at first inspection, pollutant, technology, and presence
or absence of mechanic training.
0 Both simulations started with samples of cars from Emission Factors.
c More cars were available for MOBILE2 simulation
MOBILE1 MOBILE2
Tech I 180 model years 1973-74 2678 model years 1968-74
Tech II 587 model year 1975 2456 model years 1975-79
0 >iCBILEl assumed all cars entered I/M program at one year of age. MOBILE2
considers age of vehicle when I/M starts.
0 M03ILE1 and MOBILE2 both determine cutpoints at initial inspection to
obtain desired failure rate and keep same cutpoints year to year allowing
failure, rate to vary.
6 MOBILE1 treats HC and CO completely independently. In MOBILE2, both FTP HC
and CO are affected by any repair and relationships between FTP and idle
include both HC and CO for predictive purposes.
0 MOBTLEl (without MT) assumes after maintenance idle score is equal- to
cutpoint if specific pollutant was failed. MOBILE2 predicts after
maintenance mean idle score from mean mileage and both HC and CO
cutpoints. Prediction is based on analysis of data from Portland and New
Jersey I/M programs.
0 MOBILE1 predicts after maintenance FTP from cutpoint by specific pollu-
tant. Prediction based on data from cars which were not actually in I/M
program. MOBILE2 predicts after maintenance mean FTP from mean mileage,
mean idle scores (both HC and CO) and idle test failure mode. Prediction'
based on analysis of Portland Study data from cars after actual I/M field
repairs. ' ' .
-------
MOBILE1 fleet FTP deterioration following maintenance is parallel to nonl/M
case. In MOBILE2, fleet FTP deteriorates so as to reach non-I/M case at
fixed mileage increicent.' -The mileage increment was determined . through
analysis of Portland Study data from cars after ' actual I/H repairs. In
general, M03ILE2 reflects a greater rate of 'deterioration following main-
tenance .
Mileage Increment to Reach Non-I/M Case
. (MOBILE2)
HC CO.
Tech I (pre 1975) 7,400 40,000
Tech II (1975-79) 27,000 57,200
0 M03ILE1 assumes idle HC deteriorates as an exact function of FTP HC. Idle-
CO function of FTP CO. Relationships based on data from non-I/M cars. In
MOBILE2, each idle emission is a function of FTP HC, FT? CO, mileage and
C3D plus random variation. These relationships based on analysis of
Portland Study data. ' -
0 In MOBILE!, mechanic training yields after maintenance FTP levels equal to
new car standards.(unless already below standards). In MOBILE2, these FT?
levels are a function of mileage based on Portland Mechanic Training
Study. Levels are equal to or slightly below levels already being achieved
in Portland without training (due to Portland's tight idle outpoints) and
generally above new car standards. Difference between trained and
untrained levels after re.pairs will be larger in programs with looser
outpoints.
It 1981 and Later Models - With I/M
0 MOBILE!1s I/M benefits for the 1981-and-later fleet were based on data
from a group of 1975-76 California vehicles. These vehicles represented
the most advanced technology' vehicles for which data were available at
the time_ .MOBILE1 was d_eveloped. Tney were not, however, Three-Way
catalyst vehicles (i.e. they were not really representative).
0 MOBILE2's I/M benefits for _CO are based on the ability of the various
I/M short tests to identify Primary category vehicles. HC benefits are
based on the identification of Primary category vehicles' and the
identification of vehicles with s.evere ignition and misfire problems.
0 These benefits are calculated using the same model used to determine
emission factors without I/M. That is, a percentage of the vehicles in
the Primary category are assumed to be identified in an I/M program,
repaired, and thereafter to adopt the emissions performance of either
the Secondary or Misfueling categories.
-------
°'The benefits associated with the' identification of vehicles with
ignition/misfire problems are modeled by lowering, the slope of the
emission factor equations which describe the HC emissions performance of
the various categories of the fleet.
0 The percentage of Primary category vehicles identified by an I/M program
is mainly a function of which I/M test is used amd secondarily a
function of what cutpoint is used. That is, some tests are assumed to
be more capable of identifying Primary category vehicles and are
therefore assigned more benefit if they are used (e.g. 2500 rpm/Idle vs.
Idle).
e The percentage of Primary category vehicles identified by a given I/M
short test is known as the Identification Rate. The Identification
Sates developed for the various short tests are based on data from the
Priaary category . vehicles found among th-e representative in-use fleet
described earlier. -
0 The Identification Rate therefore replaces Stringency Factor as the key
variable for 1981-and-later vehicles.
0 Actual I/M failure rates of lS81-and-later vehicles are expected to be
EO higher than 10 percent in the first year of an I/M program started on
Jaauary 1, 19'83. The failure rate should be lower in all subsequent
vesrs.
-------
128"
isa
^ £8
RICH rR!LU?l£
RISJ'USLED
JL
S 2:86eS 43588 63383 . 82-388 . 182869
16889 38898 55899 -..-. 78392 58888 .
-------
HJSfUZLED
DTHE3
-------
INCREASE IN RICH FRILURES HiTH RGE
100
in
uj 80
60
o
c
Ul
o
s
Ul
0.
20
NO I/H
20000 UOOOO 60000
MJLERGE
80000 100000
-------
HOBILE1 YS MOBILE2i XREDUCTIONS FROM 1/1/88 NO I/H LEVELS
80
75
70
65
60
55
o
-45
535
25
20
15
10
5
0
PPIOGRRM STRRTUP 1/1/83
HC
PRE-1981 MODEL TERRS
MOBILE2-HT
HOBILE2-NO HT
HOBILE1-MT
MOB I LEI -NO MT
10
20
30
STRINCENCT
50
-------
MOBILE1 VS MOB1LE2I ^REDUCTIONS FROH 1/1/88 HO I/M LEVELS
80
75 L
70
55
SO
55
50
PROCRRM STRRTUP 1/1/83
CO
PRE-1981 MODEL TERRS
£35
25
20
15
10
5
0
MOB I LE 1 -MT
-NO MT
10
SO
STRINCENCT
50
-------
KOB1LE1 YS HOBILE2» ^REDUCTIONS FROM 1/1/88 HO I/M LEVELS
80
75
70
65
60
55
z50
o
-US
35
25
20
15
10
5
0
PROGRflH STRRTUP 1/1/83
HC
1981* MODEL TERRS
,l>'--'
KOBILE1-MT
MOB1LE2-2-SPEED UNLORDED
HOBILE2-1DLE JEST
KOBILE1-HO MT
10
20
30
STRIHGENCT
-------
MOBILE! YS MOBILE2i ^REDUCTIONS FROM 1/1/88 HO I/M LEVELS
80
75
65
60
55
25
20
15
PROGRRM STRRTUP 1/1/83
70 CO
19B1* MODEL TERRS
ILE1-MT
^._ HOBILEE-2-SPEED UNLORDED
Uj93
C30
X
MOBILES-IDLE TEST.
MOBILE1-NO MT
10
5
10 20 30 40 50
STRINGENCT
-------
K06ILE1 V3 MDBILE21 ^REDUCTIONS FROM 1/1/88 HO I/M LEVELS
80
75
70
85
60
55
50
5TRBTUP 1/1/83
HC
TOTflL FLEET
(TECH IY«2-SPEED IDLE)
.1**'
LE1-HT
MOBILE2-MT
^====gs^
HOBILE2-HO MT
MOBILEl-lfD «T
20
15
10
5
0
10
20
30
3TBIHOEHCT
50
-------
MOBILE1 YS MDBILE2i XREDUCTIONS FROM 1/1/88 NO I/H LEVELS
80
75
70
85
BO
55
50
£35
25
20
15
10
5
0
PROGRRH STRRTUP 1/1/83
CO
TOTflL FLEET
(TECH IVt 2-SPEED IDLE)
MOBILE1-MT
HOBILE1-NO HT
10
20
30
STRINCENCT
50
-------
100
H 80
o
BS
e:
o
60
£ 20
co
I/M REDUCES THE NUMBER OF PRIMARY CATEGORY VEHICLES
NO J/H
J/H
20000 UOOOO SOOOO
MJLERGE
80000
100000
-------
60
70
60
40
20
10
0
. , .< ,< A A '*/>.*>.*.
/\/\/VVVv *****
HO I/M
I/M
6 8 10 12 U
MILEROE C/10.000J
16
18 20
-------