EPA/AA/CTAB/TA/83-2
                         A STUDY OF  THE  RELATIONSHIP
                          BETWEEN EXHAUST  EMISSIONS
                              AND FUEL ECONOMY
                                     by

                               Jensen P.  Cheng
                              Larry C. Landman
                              Robert D. Wagner
                                  May,  1983
                                   NOTICE

Technical  Reports  do  not  necessarily  represent  final  EPA  decisions  or
positions.  They  are  intended  to present technical analysis  of  issues using
data which  are currently  available.  The  purpose in the  release of  such
reports is to facilitate the exchange of technical  information and to  inform
the public of  technical developments which  may form  the  basis for a final
EPA decision, position or regulatory action.
                                 prepared  by
                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                     Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
                          Office of Mobile Sources
                    Emission Control Technology Division
          Control  Technology  Assessment and  Characterization  Branch
                             2565 Plymouth Road
                         Ann Arbor, Michigan  48105

-------
                                                        EPA/AA/CTAB/TA/83-2
                         A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP
                          BETWEEN EXHAUST EMISSIONS
                              AND FUEL ECONOMY
                                     by

                               Jensen P.  Cheng
                              Larry C. Landman
                              Robert D. Wagner
                                  May,  1983
                                   NOTICE

Technical  Reports  do  not   necessarily   represent  final  EPA  decisions  or
positions.  They  are  intended to present technical analysis  of issues using
data which  are currently  available.  The  purpose in the  release of  such
reports is to facilitate the  exchange  of  technical  information and to inform
the public  of  technical developments  which  may form  the  basis for  a final
EPA decision, position or regulatory action.
                                 prepared by
                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                     Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
                          Office of Mobile Sources
                    Emission Control Technology Division
          Control Technology Assessment  and  Characterization Branch
                             2565 Plymouth Road
                         Ann Arbor, Michigan  48105

-------
                                     CONTENTS
                                                                     Page
I.     Summary	       1-1

II.    Background	       II-l


III.   Fleet Level Effects

       A.    Fuel Economy of 1974 and Newer Vehicles
             Compared to Uncontrolled Vehicles 	       III-l

       B.    Fuel Economy of 1975 and Newer Vehicles
             Compared to Previous Year Vehicles	       III-7

       C.    Fuel Economy of Federal versus California
             Vehicles	 .       III-8

       D.    The Relationship Between Emission Standards
             or Levels and In-use Fuel Economy 	       111-20

IV.    Data Analysis	       IV-1


       A.    Two Variable Linear Regressions 	       IV-6

       B.    Two Variable Linear Regressions with
             Stratification by Model Year	       IV-11

       C.    Stepwise Backward Regression Analysis 	       IV-29

       D.    Residual Analysis 	       IV-34

-------
                                                                     Page
       E.    Subconfiguration-Matched Data Analysis   	       IV-39

       F.    Special Engine Over Time Trends	       IV-43

       G.    Sensitivity Coefficient Study 	       IV-53

       H.    Data Stratification by Emission Control System.  .       IV-55

       I.    Is There a "Knee" in the Relationship between
             Tailpipe Emissions and Fuel Economy?  ......       IV-69

V.     Individual Manufacturer Discussions

       A.    General Motors	       V-l
       B.    Ford	       V-36
       C.    Chrysler	       V-53
       D.    Toyota	       V-65
       E.    Nissan	       V-73
       F.    Honda	       V-87
       G.    Volkswagen	       V-96
       H.    Toyo Kogyo	       V-104
       I.    American Motors	       V-112

VI.    Appendixes

       1.    Prediction of Federal Test Procedure
             Results from Hot Emissions Data	        1-1

       2.    Calculation Methodology for Fuel
             Economy Change Allocation	        2-1

       3.    Variability Estimates for Emissions
             and Economy over the FTP	        3-1

-------
                                                              Page
4.    Two Variable Linear Regression Plots
      of Emissions versus Economy 	        4-1

5.    Results from Stepwise Backward Regression of
      Vehicle Parameters and Emissions versus Fuel
      Economy	•	        5-1

6.    Residual and Ratio Regressions	        6-1

7,    Plots of Emissions and Fuel Economy
      from Special Engines over Time	        7-1

8.    Multicollinearity Discussion  	        8-1

9.    Plots of Ton-Miles per Gallon versus
      Emissions by Emission Control System  	        9-1

10.   Plots of Ton-Miles per Gallon versus
      Emissions by Emission Control System
      and Transmission Type	       10-1

11.   Adjusted Fuel Economy versus Emissions
      by Emission Control System and
      Transmission Type	       11-1

-------
                                  SECTION I
I.  Summary

This  report  contains  analyses  of  the  fuel  economy/emissions  relationships
for  1981  model  year  and  earlier  vehicles.   The  1981  model  year  Federal
emission  standards  are  the  most  stringent  Federal  standards  to  date.   "A
Study of the Relationship Between  Exhaust  Emissions  and Fuel Economy" is the
title for this report.   However,  this does not mean  that  these are the only
two  important  variables.   The   relationship  between  the  fuel  economy  and
exhaust emissions  does  not  exist  in  isolation,  but rather is  intertwined
with  many  other vehicle  characteristics.   These  associated characteristics
include, but  are not  limited  to;  driveability,  performance, costs,  octane
requirement,  production  lead  time,  and fuel  economy/exhaust   emissions
control  technology.    Ideally,   an  examination  of   fuel  economy/exhaust
emissions  relationships  would  include  quantification  of  the   concurrent
interactions  with  these  other   vehicle   characteristics.   Unfortunately,
neither this report  nor any other  reports available to  EPA have  identified
data allowing such quantificaton.

This report is briefly  summarized  as follows:  First,  the background for the
report  was  reviewed,  including  past   EPA  reports  on  fuel economy  and
emissions.   Second,   a  literature search identified  other  reports  which'
addressed  fuel  economy  and emissions.   Third,  the  1981  car  fleet  was
examined and its fuel economy/emissions  performance assessed.

The  historical  fuel  economy and  emission standards  trends show an  overall
trend of  increasing  fuel economy  and decreasing emissions  over time.   This
is  not  meant  to imply  that the  reduction  in  emissions  is necessarily  a
causal  factor  in the fuel economy rise.   Many other  vehicle characteristics
including weight  and engine displacement  were also  changing over  this  same
time period.

An  important observation to  make and the  major  conclusion of this  study  is
that  the  twin  goals  mandated  by  Congress  for  the  early 1980's   have
essentially  been met.   Fuel economy  has  been   improved  substantially  and
emissions have been greatly reduced.
                                    1-1

-------
                                  SECTION II

II. Background

This  report  has  been prepared  to examine  the relationship  between  exhaust
emissions  and   fuel  economy  of  automobiles.    This   report  treats   the
relationship  between emissions  and  fuel  economy  in  more  detail  than  any
previous EPA work.  This subject is of considerable interest to  EPA due  to  the
importance of any  changes  in fuel economy on cost  to  the consumer of  various
emission standards.   The Congress  of  the United States  is also interested  in
the relationship between exhaust  emissions  and  fuel economy.  The interest  of
the Congress  is  expressed  in Section  203(a)  of the Provisions  of Public  Law
95-95 which do not amend the Clean Air Act.  The Congressional interest  in  the
subject was an important consideration in the  decision  to conduct this study.

"Emission control reduces fuel economy."  Is it true or  false?   This  cliche  is
typical  of  many  statements  which are  made in  reference to  an  interaction
between   vehicle  emissions  and  fuel   economy.    Three   very  noticeable
shortcomings are evident in  this  cliche.   First,  the  vehicle(s) for  which  the
emission/fuel  economy  relationship   is  being  cited  is  not  defined.   Many
automobile  design parameters can affect  a  vehicle's   emissions  and/or fuel
economy.  Secondly,  the  implied  comparison made in the  example  statement does
not  identify  the basis  for  comparison.  Gain,  loss,  reduction,  improvement,
better  and  worse mean nothing without  a clearly stated basis  of  comparison.
Finally,  the  type  of emission control system is not  stated.  During  the time
period  through which  new vehicles have been subject to emission  standards,  the
type  of pollutants,  the  pollutant levels  and  the  test  procedures  have  all
changed.   In  addition,  the  State of  California has  its  own  set  of  emission
standards, which differ from the Federal standards.
                                     II-l

-------
EPA has  studied and  reported extensively  on both  vehicle  fuel  economy and
exhaust emissions.  Several  of  these reports have addressed  the relationship
between  fuel  economy  and emission  standards.   Prior to  a  review of  some
conclusions from  these reports, a brief  discussion  of  fuel economy will  be
presented.

Fuel economy of automobiles  is  often expressed  in  terms of miles  per  gallon
(MPG).  Many methods are used to generate mpg values.  EPA has developed test
procedures which  measure a  vehicle's  mileage over  an "urban"  driving  cycle
and a "non-urban" or  "highway"  driving  cycle.  Exhaust gas is  monitored  as  a
vehicle  is  operated  over  these cycles  and  the fuel  economy  is  calculated
using the carbon balance method  discussed below.

To calculate fuel economy, in miles  per gallon  (MPG), from an  emission  test,
the following equation applies:

    Miles _   gins carbon/gal of  fuel	
    Gallon    gms carbon in exhaust/mile

The carbon in the fuel is:
    grams Cfuel    = grams fuel  x
                     gallon
                     molecular wt. C
                     molecular wt. fuel
                   = (2798) x (.866)
                   = 2423
where:

    2798 is a density typical of test gasoline,  in grams/gallon;   and

    .866 is typical of the weight fraction of carbon in the fuel.
                                      II-2

-------
The carbon  in the exhaust  is contained  in the  unburned fuel  hydrocarbons

(HC),  carbon monoxide (CO),  and carbon dioxide  (CO™),  as follows:


    grams CHf,  =   gm HC  x  molecular wt.  C
                            molecular wt.  HC

                   gm HC  x  (.866)


    grams GCO  =   gm CO  x  molecular wt.  C
                            molecular wt.  CO

                   gm CO  x  (.429)

    grams C    =   gm C02 x  molecular wt.  C
             2              molecular wt.  C02

                   gm C02 x  (.273)

So we have:

    Miles  =       	     2423	
    Gallon         (.866gmHC + .429gmCO + .273gmC02)/miles

or

    MPG    =       	2423 x miles traveled
                   .866gmHC  + .429gmCO + .273gmC02
following amounts of  carbon compounds:   HC, 9  grams;   CO, 124 grams;   CO-,
Example:  In a 10-mile test, a  car's  exhaust emission measurements show  the

following ai

3641 grams.


Using the above equation,  the fuel economy is:


    MPG  =      	2423 x  10	
                .866(9) + .429(124) +  .273(3641)

              	24,230           =  23.0 MPG

              7.8 + 53.1 + 993.7
                                      II-3

-------
The measured  fuel  economies  observed over  these  two driving cycles  are  the
urban  mileage  (MPG )  and   the   highway   mileage   (MPG ).    The  MPG   and
MPG,   can be  used  to  calculate  a  composite  mileage  (MPG  )  by  means of  a
weighted harmonic averaging technique.

Suppose a motorist takes the following three trips:

                       200 miles,  using 15.0 gallons;
                       100 miles,  using  9.4 gallons;
                       140 miles,  using 11.8 gallons.
The fuel economies of these three  trips are:

                        200 miles
                        15.0 gal.
                        100 miles
                        9.4 gal.
                        140 miles
13.3 MPG;

10.6 MPG;

11.9 MPG.
                        11.8 gal.

If he merely averages the individual trip MPG's he gets:

    (13.3 + 10.6 + 11.9)/3 = 11.9 MPG

But  this  is  incorrect.   the motorist  traveled  440 miles  and  used  36.2
gallons, so his overall fuel economy was:

    440/36.2   = 12.2 MPG

To get  the correct  fuel economy  for  multiple  trips,  the following  equation
must be used:

                        Miles     total miles traveled
                        Gallon     total gallons used
                                      II-4

-------
If the  individual  trip lengths  and  fuel economy  values  are  known,  but  the
gallons used are not known> the proper equation is:
                          miles..  + miles?  + ... +
                   MPG
                          miles..    miles^          miles,,
                                            4-4-
                                            T . . .  i
where miles   = length of  trip "x";  MPG   = gas  mileage to  trip  "x";   and
           X.                             X
N  = number of trips.

For  a number  of  test  trips  of  the  same length,  the  above  equation  is
equivalent to:
                                           miles   x  N
                 MPG =  	-	-	
where miles   =  the standard test length and N   =  the number of  tests.

The above equation simplifies to:
                         N/SumN
which is  the harmonic average of the MPGs from the tests.

To  calculate  the  composite  MPG  from  known  city  and  highway  MPG's,   the
apportionment  of  total  mileage  between city  and  highway driving  must  be
used.   If a motorist drives 55%  of  his mileage  in  the city  and  45% on  the
highway,  his composite fuel economy is:
                                     II-5

-------
              MPG =                 t0tal
                      .55(total miles)     .45(total miles)
                          City MPG            Highway MPG


                              	1	
                              T55~      ~    T?5~
                              MPGC           MPGR


In  addition  to  the  carbon  balance  method,  fuel  economy  can  also  be

calculated from vehicle speed and fuel consumption rate, as follows.


                        Miles   =  Miles/Hour
                        Gallon     Gallons/Hour


But fuel  consumption rate  is related  to  the engine  power  output  (not  the

power rating) by the expression:


                        Gallons     Hp   Ibs fuel     Gals
                         Hours         X   HP-Hr    x  Ib


So fuel economy is:

                   Miles   _  (Mi/Hr)     (Ibs/gal)
                   Gallon  ~   (HP)    x  (Ib/HP-Hr)

or
                                MPH x Df
                   MPG
                                HP  x SFC

Where  Df  is  fuel  density,   pounds   per   gallon  (approximately  6.2  for

gasoline); and


SFC is specific fuel consumption, pounds per hour per horsepower output.


SFC  is   a   commonly-used  engineering  term  directly  related   to   engine

efficiency.   The  more  efficient an engine  is,  the  less  fuel  it needs  to

deliver a given power output.   For  a typical gasoline fuel, the relationship

between SFC and engine efficiency is approximately:
                        SFC  =          13'5
                                     Efficiency

    (An efficiency of 13.5% corresponds to an SFC of 1.0 Ib/HP-Hr)
                                      II-6

-------
Substituting,

                        MPH x Df         MPH x 6.2 x Eff.
       MPG  =
                     HP x 13.5/Eff.         HP x 13.5
So we see that fuel economy  is  a  function of speed  (MPH),  engine  load (HP),
and engine efficiency according to:
                        MPG  =  .46     -  x Efficiency

for a typical gasoline fuel.

Example:  An  intermediate size car  requires an  engine  output  of  26  HP  to
cruise at 50 MPH.  The engine efficiency  for this condition is  22.0%  (SFC =
0.614).  Using the above equation,  the fuel economy is:

                        MPG = .46  x 50/26 x 22 = 19.5 MPG
To cruise at 70 MPH,  the  same  car  requires  51 HP, and  the  engine efficiency
is 25.4% (SFC = 0.532).  The fuel economy is:

                        MPG = .46 x 70/51 x 25.4 = 16.0 MPG
Also, note  that  the  instantaneous fuel economy  of  any automobile  can range
from zero to infinity.  Examples are a vehicle stopped  with an idling engine
(zero MPG) and a vehicle coasting with the engine stopped (infinite MPG).

The  remainder  of  this  section  lists   some  conclusions  which  have  been
presented in  previous EPA reports.   The  reader  will  notice that  some  fuel
economy  estimates  for  the  same  subject  group of  automobiles  are  different
between  reports.   This  is a function of  the dynamic process  of estimation.
As  time  has passed,  the  data available  to EPA have  changed,  and  analysis
technqiues have been improved.
                                      II-7

-------
An early EPA report* contained the following conclusions:
     Vehicle  weight  is  the  single most important  parameter affecting
     urban  fuel  economy; a  5000 pound  vehicle  demonstrates  50%  lower
     fuel economy than a 2500 pound vehicle.

     The  fuel  economy  loss  for   1973  vehicles,   compared  to  uncon-
     trolled  (pre  '68)  vehicles,  is  less  than  7%.  The  average  fuel
     economy  loss  due to  emission control  for  all  controlled  (68-73)
     vehicles is 7.7%.

     Data on  172 1970 and 1971 GM  cars  did not demonstrate  any effect
     on fuel economy of reduced compression ratio.

     The Diesel and  stratified charge engines show  better  fuel  economy
     than  the  conventional   engine  with   the  Diesel  showing  a  fuel
     economy improvement of more than 70%.


A year  later, in  October 1973, another EPA report**  stated the  following
concerning emissions/fuel economy relationships:


     The  sales  weighted  average  fuel  economy  loss due  to  emission
     controls  (including  reduction  in  compression  ratio)   for  1973
     vehicles, compared  to uncontrolled  (pre-1968)  vehicles,  is 10.1%.
     However, vehicles  less  than 3,500  pounds show an average  3%  gain
     (attributable  to carburetor  changes  made  to  control  emissions)
     while vehicles  heavier   than 3,500 pounds  show losses  up  to  18%.
     The size of these losses, however,  is  highly  dependent on the  type
     of control systems the manufacturer  has chosen to use.

     The reduction in  compression  ratio  employed by most  manufacturers
     to  enable  their  vehicles to  operate  on  91  octane   gasoline  has
     resulted in a 3.5% fuel  economy loss.
*    Fuel Economy and  Emission  Control,  U. S.  Environmental  Protection
     Agency, Office of  Air  and  Water Programs, Mobile  Source  Pollution
     Control Program,  November 1972.

**   A Report on Automobile Fuel Economy,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection
     Agency, Office of  Air  and  Water Programs, Office  of  Mobile  Source
     Air Pollution Control,  October 1973.
                                     H-8

-------
By  the  1975  model year,  catalytic  converter  equipped vehicles  were

being produced in  sizeable numbers.   In  the Fall of  that year,  the EPA
again reported on  automotive  fuel economy.  This report*  presented the
following conclusions:
     There is  no simple or  inherent  relationship between  fuel economy
     and  the  emissions standards  that  new cars  are required  to  meet;
     especially misleading is  the  contention  that  fuel  economy always
     becomes  poorer as  emissions   standards  are  made  more  stringent.
     With the  use  of  catalyst technology, the  average  fuel  economy of
     1975  cars  is  nearly 24%  better  than  the  1974 models,  although
     their emissions are  lower  than the 1974's.   In fact,  fuel economy
     of  the  1975 fs is as  good  as  cars  built before emission controls
     were introduced.

     There is  no guarantee of  superior  fuel economy  through  the use of
     catalytic converters.   1975  cars using  catalysts  can give excel-
     lent or poor  fuel economy, depending  on  the  manufacturer's overall
     design.   Cars  which  do  not use  catalysts  can  also  give excellent
     or poor economy, again depending on the overall design.
At the beginning of  1975,  EPA published a report which  was  an overview
of the technical  status of automobile emission control.**   The chapter
of  this   report  which  covered  fuel  economy contained the  following
discussion on the effects of emission standards:
     The  net  effect on  fuel  economy  of  a given  emission  standard
     depends  on  the combination of  control  techniques used  to achieve
     compliance.  Analysis  of  EPA certification data has  clearly shown
     that  the  fuel economy  performance  of nominally  identical  cars
     (e.g.   same  weight,   engine   size,  axle  ratio,  etc.)   can  be
     significantly different while the emissions are nearly the same.
*    Factors   Affecting   Automotive    Fuel   Economy,   U.S.   Environmental
     Protection  Agency,  Office of  Air and Waste  Management,  Mobile  Source
     Air Pollution Control, Emission Control Technology
     Division, September 1975.

**   Automobile  Emission Control -  The Technical  Status  and  Outlook  as of
     December  1974,  A  Report  to  the  Administrator,  U.S.  Environmental
     Protection  Agency,  Mobile  Source Pollution  Control  Program,  Emission
     Control Technology Division, January 1975.
                                     II-9

-------
     The difference in fuel economy  is  the result of  the  difference  in
     the  usage  of  fuel  efficient  control  technology.   At  a  fixed
     emission level  fuel economy  is  a  function  of the  usage of  fuel
     efficient control technology.

     Erroneous conclusions about  emission  control and fuel  economy  can
     result  from  ignoring   differences   in  the   control   technology
     available  and  looking  at  the effect  of  different   levels   of
     emission control using a particular  control system.  With a  fixed
     emission control system  fuel economy  is  a  function of  the  degree
     of emission control required.  When alternative control approaches
     are not considered, changes in emission  level  can only  be achieved
     by  altering   basic engine  calibrations  such  as  spark  timing.
     Since minimum emissions  and maximum  fuel economy are  usually  not
     simultaneously achieved,  lower emission levels  with a given  system
     result in degraded  fuel economy.

     Besides  looking at emission  control  system/emission  level/fuel
     economy relationships with the control system held constant or  the
     emission levels held constant, it is  also possible  to consider  the
     fuel  economy  level  held constant.   With a fixed level of fuel
     economy the degree  of  emission control  achievable  depends on  the
     type  of control  technology  used.  For  example,  the  change   in
     emission  level   from  uncontrolled  to  the  1975  Federal  Interim
     levels  (1.5,  15,   3.1)  has  been  accomplished  at  a  fixed fuel
     economy  level  by  selection  of  lean  engine  calibrations   and
     catalytic exhaust treatment systems.

     The three underlined statements above are three different ways  of
     looking  at  control  system/emission   level/fuel economy  relation-
     ships.  Each  statement  is a  two-dimensional analysis  of a  three
     dimensional problem,  however.  Unless one  fully understands  the
     three dimensional  aspects of the  tradeoffs involved,  it is pos-
     sible  to be  misled about  the  expected impact  of  a  particular
     emission standard.   Since   there is  no fixed  relationship between
     fuel economy and emission standards,   it  is impossible to  guarantee
     a change in fuel economy  by a change  in.emission standards.


Every  year  since  1975   EPA   authors  have  written  Society  of   Automotive
Engineers  (SAE) papers  that  discuss the  current  status and trends  in  fuel
economy  and, more  importantly for  this   report,  discuss  estimates  of  the
various  reasons  why  the fuel  economy  of  one group  of vehicles  might be
different  from the fuel  economy of another group.   Some of the differences
have been attributed to  emissions or to  emission  standards  in the past.
                                      11-10

-------
A summary of these reports is shown below.
Previous Reports That Contain Fuel Economy and Emissions Discussions
Year
SAE Paper
                   Title
1978
780036
Light Duty Automotive Fuel Economy..
     Trends Through 1978
1979
790225
Light Duty Automotive Fuel Economy..
     Trends Through 1979
1980
800853
Passenger Car and Light Truck Fuel
     Economy Trends through 1980
1981
810386
Light Duty Automotive Fuel Economy.
     Trends through 1981
1982
820300
Light Duty Automotive Fuel Economy.
     Trends through 1982
1983
830544
Light Duty Automotive Fuel Economy.
     Trends thru 1983
 This  section  has  only  touched upon some highlights from previous EPA  technical
 reports   which   addressed  the  emissions  versus  fuel  economy  issue.    The
 following bibliography is provided to assist those  readers  who wish  to obtain
 the reports which were reviewed  in preparation of  this  section.
                                      11-11

-------
Bibliography
1.    Automobile  Emission  Control -  A Technology  Assessment As  Of December,
      1971,   U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Mobile  Source Pollution
      Control Program, Office of Air Programs, January 1, 1972.

2.    Fuel Economy and Emission Control,  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
      Office  of  Air  and   Water  Programs,  Mobile  Source   Pollution  Control
      Program, November, 1972.

3.    A  Report  on  Automobile  Fuel   Economy,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection
      Agency,  Office  of  Air and  Water Programs,  Office  of  Mobile  Source Air
      Pollution Control, October,  1973.

4.    Automobile Emission Control - The Development  Status  As of April 1974, A
      Report  to  the  Administrator,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
      Mobile  Source   Pollution  Control  Program,  Emission  Control  Technology
      Division, April, 1974.

5.    Automobile  Emission  Control -  The  Technical  Status  and  Outlook as  of
      December  1974,  A Report  to the Administrator,  U.S.  Environmental  Pro-
      tection  Agency,  Mobile  Source  Pollution   Control   Program,  Emission
      Control Technology Division, January, 1975.

6.    Tradeoffs Associated  With Possible  Auto Emission Standards, A Report  to
      the  Administrator,  U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Mobile  Source
      Pollution   Control   Program,    Emission   Control   Technology   Division,
      February, 1975.

7.    Factors Affecting Automobile Fuel Economy, U.S.  Environmental  Protection
      Agency,  Office  of  Air and Waste Management, Mobile  Source Air Pollution
      Control, Emission Control Technology Division, September, 1975.
                                      11-12

-------
8.    Automobile Emission Control -  The  Current Status and Development  Trends
      as  of  March  1976,  A  Report   to  the Administrator,  U.S.  Environmental
      Protection Agency, Office of Mobile  Source Air Pollution  Control,  Tech-
      nology  Assessment  and  Evaluation Branch,  Emission  Control  Technology
      Division, April, 1976.

9.    Automobile Emission Control -  The Development  Status,  Trends, and  Out-
      look as  of December  1976,  A Report  to  the Administrator,  U.S.  Environ-
      mental  Protection  Agency,  Office  of Air  and  Waste  Management,  Mobile
      Source  Air  Pollution  Control,  Emission  Control  Technology  Division,
      April,  1977.
                                      11-13

-------
                                 SECTION III
III.     Fleet Level Effects

III A.   Fuel  Economy  of 1974  and Newer  Vehicles  Compared  to  Uncontrolled
.Vehicles

The  summary of most  fuel economy/emission  relationships  studies  is  repre-
sented  in  a  figure  like that  shown  in figure  III.A-1.   In general,  those
that  claim fuel economy  penalties  for  controlling  emissions have  estimates
in  the  region labeled  A.    In region  A,  for  each and  every  percentage
reduction  there  is  a   penalty and  the  percentage  value  of  the  penalty
increases  as  the  stringency  increases.   EPA can fairly be said  to  have  made
estimates  like  those shown  in B in the  past  -  a small effect - it could  go
either  way.   Almost  nobody  can  be  found  that espouses  the  relationship
labeled as C  in the figure.

In  order  to  investigate this issue with  some  data, SAE  paper 810386* was
studied.  The  nominal emission  standards in figure  4 of that reference  were
transformed to  percent  reductions  from  an uncontrolled base of  8.7  HC,  87.0
CO,  3.5  NOx.   The base,  nominal emissions standards and percent  reductions
are  shown  in  table III.A-1,  along with  the  constant-weight-mix  fuel economy
ratio.   The  term  "nominal  emission standard"  is used  to  denote   the  most
typical emission  requirement, and  is used  to account for  those cases where
waivers  (1981  Federal)  or  optional  standards  (California)  make  a  single
triplet of values not precisely correct.

The  analysis  is based  on each  model year's  total fuel  economy change  from
the  pre-emission  control level and total emission  standards  change,  also
from  the  pre-control  level.   The data   in  table  III.A-1  are   presented
graphically in figure  III.A-2 through  figure III.A-4.  It should be pointed
out  that  these figures  are at  a  constant weight  mix,   so that  the  im-
provement in fuel economy due to reduced weight  cars  takin3  a larger
    J.A. Foster, J.D.  Murrell,  and S.L.  Loos,  SAE Paper 810386,  "Light Duty
    Automotive Fuel Economy....Trends through 1981",  U.S.  EPA.
                                    III-l

-------
                            Figure III. A-l

             Concepts of Changes in Fuel Economy with

             Changes in Stringency of Emission Standards
o
(_>
UJ
a
UJ
o
oc
o
o
CD

a
UJ
a
    o
    o
    o
    CO
o
o
UJ
UJ
20.00
40.00        60.00

STRINGENCY
                                                      80.00
1QO.QQ
          EXPRESSED flS PERCENT REDUCTION FROM UNCONTROLLED
                         III-2

-------
                                   Table III.  A-l

                            Percent Emission Reductions

and


Fuel Economy Ratios Compared to Uncontrolled Emissions


and
Fuel Economy


(Nominal Emissions Standards)

Year
pre
1974
1974
1975
1975
1976
1976
1977
1977
1978
1978
1979
1979
1980
1980
1981
1981

Fed or Gal
- control
Fed***
Gal***
Fed
Gal
Fed
Gal
Fed
Gal
Fed
Gal
Fed
Gal
Fed
Gal
Fed
Gal
HC Standard
(% Red)
8.7 (0%)
3.0 (66%)
2.9 (67%)
1.5 (83%)
0.9 (90%)
1.5 (83%)
0.9 (90%)
1.5 (83%)
0.41 (95%)
1.5 (83%)
0.41 (95%)
1.5 (83%)
0.41 (95%)
0.41 (95%)
0.41 (95%)
0.41 (95%)
0.39* (95%)
CO Standard
(% Red)
87 (0%)
28. (68%)
28 (68%)
15 (83%)
9.0 (90%)
15 (83%)
9.0 (90%)
15 (83%)
9.0 (90%)
15 (83%)
9.0 (90%)
15 (83%)
9.0 (90%)
7.0 (92%)
9.0 (90%)
3.4 (96%)
7.0 (92%)
NOx Standard
(% Red)
3.5 (0%)
3.1 (11%)
2.1 (40%)
3.1 (11%)
2.0 (43%)
3.1 (11%)
2.0 (43%)
2.0 (43%)
1.5 (57%)
2.0 (43%)
1.5 (57%)
2.0 (43%)
1.5 (57%)
2.0 (43%)
1.0 (71%)
1.0 (71%)
0.7 (80%)

MPG Ratio**
1.00
1.00
0.94
1.14
1.07
1.26
1.12
1.30
1.14
1.30
1.14
1.28
1.17
1.32
1.26
1.43
1.39
*   0.39 NMHC treated equal to 0.41  THC  for  this study
**  From SAE paper 810386,  page 13,  figure 4
*** Approximate 1975 FTP equivalent
                                    III-3

-------
                     Figure  III. A-2
       Fuel Economy of  the Federal and California Fleets
       Divided by the Fuel Economy of Uncontrolled Vehicles
                 Versus  Stringency of the HC Standard
            FIXED   WEIGHT MIX
           POLLUTflNT:  HC
     <=>
     C3
     CM*
o
z
a
UJ
a
UJ
o
cc
03
a
UJ
a
     C3
     CD
     OJ ..
     C3
     CO
o
o
UJ
_
UJ
u_
     a
     o
                                          : 77F, 78F
                                          \ 79F
                                          . 76F
                                           75F
                  74F
. 76C
• 75C
8 IF
80C
80F
80C
79C
77C,
                                                                   8C
                  74C
                  68.00
                              76.00        84.GO
                              STRINGENCY
  92.00
    100.00
         EXPRESSED  RS  PERCENT REDUCTION FROM UNCONTROLLED
                        III-4

-------
                      Figure III.  A-3

        Fuel Economy of the Federal and- California

        Fleets Divided by the Fuel Economy  of  Uncontrolled

        Vehicles Versus Stringency of the CO Standard
            FIXED   WEIGHT MIX
           POLLUTflNT:   CO
     CM
z:
o

o
0
LU
LU
O
LU
O
tn
o

2:


>-
CQ

Q
LU
a
     C3
     CD
     CN . .
     a
     CD
o
o
LU
                                                               8 IF
                                           ,77F, 78F    •  81C

                                          /79F         •  80F

                                          : 76F      -80C

                                                    .79C

                                                    !77C,  78C
                                          . 75C
                      74F
                      74C
                  S3.QQ
                              76.00       84.QD

                              STRINGENCY
32.CQ
100.00
         EXPRESSED flS PERCENT REDUCTION FROM  UNCONTROLLED
                        III-5

-------
           •  "         Figure  III. A-4-

       Fuel Economy  of the Federal and California Fleets

       Divided  by  the  Fuel Economy of Uncontrolled Vehicle;

               Versus  Stringency of the NOx Standard
            FIXED   WEIGHT MIX
           POLLUTflNT:  NOX
o

o

LU

_J
LU
ZD
U.

a
LU
_l

O
oc
O
CJ
CO

a
U-l
a
     C3
     CO
     C3
     OJ
     CO

     CD
o
CJ
LU
LU
     C3
     C3
-76F


.75F



 74F
              : ffl, 78F

              ' 79F

                      .79C

              . 76C    :77C, 78C
              . 75C
                                                   81F
                                                   80C
                                                        81C
                                74C
       00
0.CG
                40.00        60.00
                STRINGENCY
                                                      80.00
100.00
         EXPRESSED flS PERCENT REDUCTION  FROM UNCONTROLLED
                         III-6

-------
fraction  of  the fleet  is  not  shown.   Something else  other  than weight  is
responsible  for  the trends.   The  figures  show that since  1975  there  have
been no combinations of emissions standards  that have caused  fuel economy to
fall below the line.   There is not much of  a  trend for HC and  CO,  but  that
could  be  because  they  both  fall  between  about  66%  and   95%  in  percent
reduction space.  For NOx there is a wider  spread,  from 11% reduction to 80%
reduction, but  there does  not seem to  be a  consistant  trend  here  either.
One thing is clear,  however,  if there  is a trend such as A (figure  III  A-l)
in  the  data  it  is  not  showing  up  at  the  constant  weight  level  of
aggregation.   If anything,  the data seem  to reflect a  trend more  like  the
"C" example.
III.  B. Fuel Economy  of  1975 and Newer  Vehicles Compared to Previous  Year
      Vehicles

Another way  of  associating fuel economy  changes  with emission standards  is
to compare each model  year's  fuel  economy and emission standards with  those
of the preceding year.  This has been done using two methods.

The  first  method  considers  the   Federal  and  California  vehicle  fleets
separately and considers  fuel economy of  these fleets  on a  constant weight
basis..  The  constant  weight basis  is the  1978 model  year  weight  mix of  the
Federal fleet.  Referring to the emission standards  given earlier in  table
III.A-l for  the various  model years, this approach assigns (for example) a
35% reduction in  the  49-States NOx  standard  for  1977 (2.0 grams/mile)  com-
pared  to  1976 (3.1 grams/mile),  and a  50% reduction in  the 49-States NOx
standard for  1981 (1.0 grams/mile)  compared  to  1980 (2.0 grams/mile).  The
weight-normalized  fuel economy  changes  for  the  49-States  and  California
fleets can then be linked to  the emission standards changes of the same  two
subfleets.

The  second  method treats year-to-year  changes in emission  standards  as a
value equal  to  the  49-States change weighted 90%  and the California change
weighted  10%.   This  yields  an  emission  change   representing  a  pooled
50-States value.  The  corresponding 50-States year-to-year  changes  in  fuel
economy  are   determined   using  a   different analytical  technique than the
                                     III-7

-------
weight-normalization used  above.   This technique  isolates the  fuel  economy
change due  to  factors other  than  changes in weight  mix,  changes  in engine
mix within the weight classes, and changes in  transmission mix shifts within
discrete weight/engine combinations.   The method is described more fully in
appendix 2  of  this  report.  Suffice it to say  here that  the  resulting fuel
economy  change,  dubbed  "system  optimization",  provides  a  better  estimate
(than  weight-normalized)  of  the  fuel economy  change due  only  to  emission
standards  and  the  emission  control  technology  employed  to  meet  those
standards.

Table  III.B-1  gives  the   results  of  these   two  methods  of  year-to-year
analysis.    Using   either   method,   this  table   shows   that   along   with
year-to-year changes  in  emission  standards which have always  been downward,
fuel economy changes  have  always  been upward  (with the single  exception of
1979, when  fuel economy  dropped  in response to  factors  other  than emissions
standards,  which  were unchanged  from  1978).   Figures III.B-1,  III.B-2,  and
III.B-3 illustrate the data from table III.B-1.

In general  it  should be noted that  the   fuel economy  went up in some  years
when the year-to-year change  in a given   emissions  standard was  zero.  These
are plotted on the figures  as zero percent reductions.   Figure III.B-1  shows
that fuel economy tended to go up when no change was made  in  the HC emission
requirements.  As in  the case where  the   comparison was  made  to  uncontrolled
vehicles  as  a base,  figures  III.B-1,   III.B-2,   and   III.B-3   indicate  no
penalty  for  changes  made from one year to the  next even when  these  changes
are substantial reductions  in emissions.   In fact  the  resulting  fuel  economy
effects are shown to be positive,  not negative.

III.  C.  Fuel Economy of Federal versus  California Vehicles

There  is yet another  method of analysis  that  can be applied  to  the certifi-
cation  data.   Within a   given  model year,   the   system  optimization  fuel
economy  difference  between the  49-States  and  California fleets  can  be com-
pared,  along  with   the  differences  in   49-States  and  California  emission
standards.   This would indicate, at a fixed  point in time, the  fuel  economy
effects  of  two levels of emission standards.   If one assumes that at a given
                                    III-8

-------
                                   Table III. B-l

                       Changes  in Emission Standards  and  Fleet
                  Fuel  Economy  Compared  to the  Previous Year  Values

         	Method 1	                          	Method 2	
(Federal and California Fleets Separately)  (Federal and California Fleets Combined)
Year
  Change in    Weight-Normal
Emission Std.   FE Change**
Change in 50-State
   Emission Std.
  50-States
System Optim.
 FE Change***

74-75



75-76


76-77

77-78
78-79


79-80


80-81


Fed

Cal


No

Fed
Cal

No
No

Fed

Cal
Fed

Cal

HC,
CO,
HC,
CO,
NOx,
Change

NOx,
HC,
NOx,
Change
Change

HC,
CO,
NOx,
CO,
NOx,
CO,
NOx,
-50%
-46%
-69%
-68%
-5%


-35%
-54%
-25%
Fed,

Cal,


Fed,
Cal,
Fed,
Cal,

+14%

+14%


+11%
+5%
+3%
+2%

(1.

(1-


(1.
(1-
(1.
(1-

14)

14)


11)
05)
03)
02)

No Change


-73%
-53%
-33%
-51%
-50%
-22%
-30%
Fed,
Cal,
Fed,
Cal,

Fed,
Cal,


-2%
+3%
+3%
+8%

+8%
+10%


(0.
(!•
(1.
(1.

(1.
(1.


98)
03)
03)
08)

08)
10)


HC,
CO,
-52%
-48%
NOx, -0.


No

HC,
NOx

No
No

HC,
CO,
NOx

CO,
NOx



Change

-5.
5%




4%
, -34%

Change
Change





+11.5% (1.12)



+ 8.8% (1.09)


+ 2.8% (1.03)

+ 0.5% (1.01)
- 2.3%* (0.98)

-66%
-48%
, -3.

3%

-48%
+ 2.6% (1.03)


+ 2.7% (1.03)
, -48%



*   More  than  half  of   this   change  in  FE  was  due  to  test   procedure  changes
    (dynamometer loading) made  to restore  the rigor  of  the 1975 procedure - See SAE
    790225, Appendix C.  The net system optimization change  independent of this test
    procedure effect is estimated at -1.0%.
**  Calculated values from figure 4 of SAE Paper 810386,  page 13.
*** From SAE Paper 800853, page 36.

                                    III-9

-------
                       Figure III. B-l
                 %  Change in Fuel Economy Versus
                   % Change in HC Standard
                        from Previous Year
            POLLUTRNT:   HC
     CD
     CD
     CD'
     oo
     CM
     OJ
cc
oc
LU
ID
ZD
O
UJ
cc
Q_
O

u_


o

o

UJ

UJ

u_
UJ
CD
     CD
     CD
     CD
     CD

     CO
CD
0
oi - -
 I
     CD
     CD
                                              X= System Optimization
                                              • = Weight - Normal
                75C
                            75F
                        X '75
                                                      76
                  80
               (No change)
              • 80C,  81F


              .76C

              * 77F,  79C

           78X ?3F,~ 73C


           79v 79F
                                            •+•
      -80.00
                   -60.00
                          -40.00
-20.00
0.00
20.00
            X CHflNGE  IN  EMISSION STflNDflHD FROM PREVIOUS YEflR
                          111-10

-------
                       Figure  III.  B-2

                     % Change  in Fuel Economy Versus

                       % Change in  CO Standard

                         from  Previous Year
            POLLUTflNT:   CO
     CD



     CO
     CM
     OJ
cc

-------
                      Figure III  B-3

                      Change in Fuel Economy Versus

                       % Change in  NOx Standard

                         From Previous Year
            POLLUTflNT:   NOX
cc
a:
LU
cn
13
o
LU
or
a_
a
cc
o

o

LU

_J
LU

U_

•z.


LU


o:
     O
     o

     OJ -.
     CN
C3
C3
     o
     a

     cd
C3


 I
     C3
     O
                       81F
                                       •81C

                                     . 80C
                           X     77FX
               (No  change)
                                               75C-   • 75F


                                                    X  75

                                                     ' 76F


                                                    X  76
                                                     . 76C


                                               80  x . 79C, 80F



                                              	X 78

                                                      N78F, 78C
                                                   79* 79F
      -80.00
              -SO.OO
                               -40.00
                                       -20.00
0.00
20.00
            V. CHflNGE  IN EMISSION STRNDflRD FROM PREVIOUS YEflR
                            111-12

-------
point in time, roughly the  same  emission  control  and  fuel economy technology
is  available  to  the Federal  (49-States)  and  California  fleets,  then  the
technological capability  could  be  said to  be  the same.   This  is  probably
roughly  the  case,  but  it  must  be  pointed  out  that  the emission  control
technology  used  in California, in  a  given year  in  some  cases  is  more
sophisticated, due  to the  use  of  California as  a proving  ground for  the
newer  technology.   The  results  of  using  this  method  are  given  in  table
III.C-1.  Figures III.C-1,  III.C-2  and III.C-3  illustrate  the  data of  table
III.C-1.

Looking at table III.C-1 and  figures  III.C-1 through  III.C-3 it  can be  seen
that  the nature  of the relationship  has  changed.   Comparing 49-States  to
California for the  same year generally  shows  California  to be more  stringent
in emissions and lower in fuel economy.

From  table  III.  C-l the Federal vs.  California data appear  at first to  be
five equations in four unknowns:

              -73h - 40c -25n + k = -11.8f
              -73h - 40c -25n + k = -11.If
              -73h - 40c -25n + k = -10.If
               -Oh + 29c -50n + k =  -4.6f
and            -Oh +106c -30n + k =  -1.7f

where: h, c,  and n = % change in  HC,  CO, and NOx  coefficients  respectively
f= % change fuel economy and k = constant.
At second glance, however, the first  three equations have no  possible  unique
solutions for h, c, and n, since  the  right  sides of the three equations are
unequal.  Also,  the constant  terms (k) have no  basis  in reality, since the
FE  change due  to  no emissions  changes must   be  zero  (treating  emission
differences  as   the  sole  source   of  FE  change).   Interpreting  the  -11.8,
-11.1, and -10.1 figures as random variances around the  true A FE  that comes
from  a  combined -73%AHC, -40% A CO,  and  -25% A NOx,  we  can average  them
and construct 3  equations.   Setting k  =  0,  there are now  3  equations in 3
unknowns.
                                  111-13

-------
                                     Table III. C-l

                            Federal vs. California Emissions
                                           and
                        Fuel Economy (System Optimization Method)

                     Difference in Emission                System  Optimization
Year                        Standard                           FE  Difference*
*From SAE paper 800853, page 50,
 and SAE paper 810386, page 12
1977                        HC,   -73%
                            CO,   -40%                           -11.8%  (0.88)
                           NOx,   -25%

1978                        HC,   -73%
                            CO,   -40%                           -11.1%  (0.89)
                           NOx,   -25%

1979                        HC,   -73%
                            CO,   -40%                           -10.1%  (0.90)
                           NOx,   -25%

1980                        HC,   "same"
                            CO,   +29%                             -4.6%  (0.95)
                           NOx,   -50%

1981                        HC,  "same"
                            CO,  +106%                             -1.7%  (0.98)
                           NOx,   -30%
                                     111-14

-------
                          Figure III.  C-l



        % Difference in Fuel Economy  Versus  % Difference

        in HC  Li  .idard for the California  Fleet Compared

        to th3  Fo-eral Fleet in the Same Model Year
            POLLUTflNT:   HC
o


'cr
o_
o
t—
en
en
o
o
LU
UJ
o
LU
CJ
cc
UJ
Q_
     CD
     CD




      I
     oo
      I
     CN


      I
     CO


      I
                (No Difference)
                                                         CD
                                                             81
                                                             80
O   79



-------
                          Figure III.  C-2

        % Difference in Fuel  Economy Versus % Difference
        in CO Standard for  the California Fleet  Compared
        to the Federal Fleet  in the Same Model Year
            POLLUTflNT:   CO
     CD
CC
fvl
O-
o
UJ
en
en
>-
o
z
a
UJ
UJ
UJ
CD
UJ
C_J
oc
UJ
Q_
     CD
     C3
     C3
      i
     00
      I
     C3
     O
     OJ
      I
                  (No  Difference)
                                                            O 81
                                   O 80
O 79
O 78
O 77
      -60.00
                   -20.00
                  20.00
60.00
100.00
140.00
        7.  CHflNGE IN EM IS.  STRNDflRD  ( CflLIF  VS FED )  IN THE SflME  YEflR
                             111-16

-------
                     Figure III. C-3

   % Difference in Fuel Economy Versus  % Difference
   in NOx  Standard for the California Fleet Compared
   to the  Federal Fleet in the Same Model Year
            POLLUTflNT:  NOX
o
•—I
I—
-
o
o
C_>
UJ
_l
UJ
UJ


-------
              -73h  -40c -25n = -11.Of
                    +29c -50n =  -4.6f
                   +106c -30n =  -1.7f
The solution to this system is:

         h = 0.110246, c = 0.011964, n = 0.098939

         (all decimals are necessary)
11.0 = 11.8 + 11.1 + 10.1
So the dependence of % A FE on % A X, where X = HC,  CO,  NOx is:

    % A FE = .110246 (% A HC) + .011964 (% A CO) + .098939 (% A NOx)

Note  that  all  coefficients  are  positive,  meaning  that  if  any  emission
standard  goes   down   (tighter  control),   FE   also   goes  down  (suffers  a
penalty).

In the ballpark  sense, FE responds at  1/10  sensitivity  to HC and NOx changes
(lowering either standard by 50% would penalize fuel  economy by  5%),  but is
less  sensitive  to  CO  (lowering the CO  standard  by  50%  would penalize  FE by
.012 x 50 = 0.6%).

The previous equation can be used  to  calculate  a  fuel economy  difference for
sets  of standards which may be of particular interest:

    1.   Base      0.41 HC, 3.4 CO, 1.0 NOx

    2.   "80"      0.41 HC, 7.0 CO, 2.0 NOx

    3.   "Hybrid"  0.41 HC, 7.0 CO, 1.5 NOx

The HC change  for all cases is zero.  For Base versus  "80" or Hybrid the CO
                                  111-18

-------
change is (7.0 - 3.4)/3.4 = 1.058824 (105.8824%).  The NOx changes are
1.0000(100%) and 0.5(50%).

"80" vs. Base = 0.110246(0) + 0.011964(105.8824) + 0.098939(100)

"80" vs. Base = 0 + 1.266770 + 9.8939 = +11.2%

Hybrid vs. Base = 0 + 0.922320 + 4.946950 = +6.2%

Note that this  is  the only fuel economy relationship quantified.   The  other
positive trends could also have been quantified.

As a check  on the accuracy of  the  equation relating Federal and  California
fuel economy in the same model year  for more  general  application,  the change
in fuel  economy from  the  1980  to the 1981  Federal standards was  compared.
In.the previous calculations,  this would be the negative of  "80" vs. Base  or
a  predicted  loss  of  11.2%  fuel  economy  for  this   change   in  emission
standards.  This compares poorly with the 2.7%  increase  in fuel  economy  from
1980 to  1981  due  to system optimization (from  table  III.B-1),  both in  sign
and   in  magnitude,   and   leads   to   the   conclusion  that   while   the
California/Federal  relationship  for prior  years may  be quantifiable,   that
relationship has little utility when one  attempts to predict changes due  to
differences in Federal or 49-State emission standards.

In summary, California vehicles have achieved  less fuel economy than  their
Federal counterparts in recent years.  The difference has been declining and
is now 1.7% less.
                                    II.I-19

-------
III.  D.    The Relationship Between Emission Standards or Levels  and  In-use
            Fuel Economy

III.  D.I   Background

For the  past  four years EPA  and DOE have  analyzed  differences between  EPA
test fuel economy and "on-road" fuel economy of in-use cars.   The  purpose of
that work was to measure fuel economy shortfall, that is,  the  offset between
"on-road" fuel economy and fuel economy as measured on EPA tests.   The fleet
shortfalls reported in  the  404  Report*  are typical of  the results  of  these
early analyses;
              Model Year      Road Shortfall (vs.  EPA Composite MPG)
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
- 6.9%
-12.4%
-19.2%
-19.6%
-19.2%
-16.1%
Note that  the  shortfall  increases with time  (model  year) through  1977,  after
which  it  decreases.   Before  attempting  to   relate  this  trend  to  possible
emissions  influences,  however,  we must  consider the matter  of vehicle  tech-
nology.

Since  model  year 1978,  manufacturers  have introduced  changes  both in  engine
technologies and in drivetrains that result in a much less homogeneous mix  of
technologies  in the  U.S.  fleet.   Recent analysis  disaggregates  the  large
sample of  in-use vehicles in  the  current  data base (model years 1978  to  1980)
into  technology-specific subgroups to consider  the  shortfall  for each  tech-
nology subgroup.
    EPA,  "Passenger  Car  Fuel  Economy:  EPA and Road", Report  EPA-460/3-80-010,
    September, 1980.
                                       111-20

-------
For  the  purposes of this  discussion,  the following  technologies  are  defined
as "conventional" technologies.

     0 Front engine, rear wheel drive vehicles

     0 Spark ignition (S.I.) gasoline engines

     ° Carburetor for fuel metering

     0 Automatic transmissions

The  1974-78   vehicles   studied   in  early  analyses   employed  predominantly
conventional technologies.  "Alternative" technologies are defined as follows:


     0 Gasoline fuel-injection for fuel metering

     0 Front engine, front-wheel drive vehicles

     0 Diesel engines

     0 Manual transmissions

A  contractor  working  for  both  EPA   and  DOE   has   recently  performed   a
statistical analysis of  the current  in—use  data  base  to study shortfall  for
technology-specific subgroups of vehicles.   The results of this analysis  sug-
gest that vehicles utilizing some  of  these  alternative technologies  had  lower
shortfall than conventional technology vehicles.

The objective of this discussion is  to examine  the engineering  principles  that
govern the  MPG performance of alternative  technologies on the EPA  test  pro-
cedure and under in-use conditions.   The results  can be used to interpret  the
observed shortfalls of alternative technologies.   The discussion examines  each
of  the  four   technologies in  comparison  to  their  conventional  technology
counterpart.  Thus, manual transmissions are compared to automatics, fuel  in-
                                       111-21

-------
jected S.I. engines to carburetted S.I. engines, front-wheel  drive  vehicles to
rear-wheel drive vehicles and Diesel engines to  carburetted S.I.  engines.  The
synergy  between  multiple  alternative  technologies  is  not   examined  in  this
analysis, although  it  may be that  vehicles with  combinations  of  these  tech-
nologies will  exhibit greater  reductions  in  shortfall than will any  single
application of technology.

Differences in  shortfall of  the four  technologies  in  comparison to  conven-
tional technologies are associated with responses  to the following  performance
factors:

    0    The response  of the technology  to the EPA test  procedure  (FTP  and
         HFET).  The EPA fuel economy is measured  over  fixed  driving  cycles on
         a  dynamometer  and  the  technology's   response  to the  EPA procedure
         will affect the shortfall.

    °    The in-use maintenance  characteristics  of the technology.  The  state
         of tune of the vehicle  is an important contributor to  shortfall.

    0    The response  of the technology  to non-FTP driving  conditions.   The
         effects of cold  ambient temperatures, extended idling and   different
         driving cycles are also important contributors to   shortfall.

Manual Transmissions

Earlier  studies  on shortfall showed that  between  model years  1974 and  1977,
shortfall  for manuals  started at a  level  on  par with  automatic  transmissions
in  1974 and  increased  to approximately  10 percent  above the  shortfall  for
automatics  by 1977.  EPA* explained  that manual  transmission  shift  points were
variable  in the hands  of the user, whereas   the  automatic was  calibrated  to
shift  at  preprogrammed  points.   It  was   also suggested  that  vehicle  owners
drove,  on  the  average,  more aggressively than on  the EPA  cycle,  i.e.,  the
shifts are  generally at higher engine speed/load points thus  leading to  higher
     Ibid.
                                        111-22

-------
shortfall  for manual  transmission equipped  vehicles in  comparison  to  those
equipped with automatic transmissions.

New  analyses by  Ford,  GM,  and  DOE  contractors,  with  much  larger  and  more
recent data  bases  show  the  reverse to be true, i.e., manuals  have less short-
fall   than automatic transmissions.   The data bases included  vehicles  from
model  years   1978  through  1980.   While  the earlier  results  may be  suspect
because of the small  sample of vehicles with manual  transmissions  in  the  data
base,  there  may be  two technological  reasons  behind this  change:    (i)  EPA
changed  the  manual transmission  shift points  during the FTP  for model  year
1979 and  succeeding  years.   In previous  years, manufacturers were  allowed to
specify  shift points  and  patterns  which were often unrealistic,  but  which
tended to maximize fuel economy on the  FTP.   EPA  changed the test requirements
to restore the  rigor  of the 1975  procedure,  and  appears to have  succeeded in
reducing shortfall for  vehicles equipped  with manual  transmissions.    However,
automatic  transmissions  were  unaffected  by  this  ruling,  leading   to   one
explanation  for  the  observed change  in  relative  shortfall.   (ii)   As  fuel
economy  became  more  important,   manufacturers  optimized  shift  points   for
automatic  transmissions so  that   upshifts  occured as  early  as possible  and
downshifts were  delayed during the FTP  cycle.   Torque  converter  lock-up  was
also calibrated  for  maximum  effectiveness  on  the  FTP,  i.e.,  the lock-up  is
engaged more  frequently on  the test  than in "real-world"  driving.  This  may
have led  to  an  increase  in shortfall  for newer automatics  in comparison  to
automatic  transmission  equipped  vehicles  of earlier  years.   This,  in turn,
provides a second  explanation for the  observed changes  in  relative shortfall
between manual and automatic transmissions.

Fuel Injection

EPA's Emission Factors  program annually  tests  a  large  sample  of vehicles  on
the FTP and  checks these vehicles for  maladjustments and mistuning.  EPA  has
noted  that  carburetor  idle  mixture  and  choke  maladjustments  are  the  most
common malperformances  in  these  vehicles  and  that the  adjustments were pre-
dominantly richer  than  the manufacturers'  recommendations,  leading  to  fuel
economy  reductions  as  large  as  10   percent  depending  upon  the  degree   of
maladjustment.
                                    111-23

-------
Fuel injection  systems  could be  expected to  have lower  shortfall than  car-
buretted vehicles primarily because most  users  are less likely to  tamper  with
fuel injection systems than carburetted vehicles,  for two  reasons.   One  reason
for  tampering  and  maladjustment  is  customer  dissatisfaction   with  drive-
ability,  and it  is  generally  conceded  that  fuel  injection  vehicles  offer
superior  driveability in  comparison  to  carburetted  vehicles.    The  second
reason for a possible relatively  low  level of maladjustments in  fuel  injected
vehicles is  user  unfamiliarity with the system, leading to  reduced tampering.
However, these differences could  diminish for MY  1981,  because the choke  and
idle mixture will be much less easy to adjust in use.

Fuel  injected  vehicles  also  should  have  lower  shortfall  than  carburetted
vehicles  because,  at low  ambient  temperatures  and during  transients,   fuel
injected vehicles need less enrichment than  carburetted vehicles.    A  Canadian
study* found that fuel injected  vehicles showed smaller   decreases in fuel
economy at cold ambients in comparison to carburetted  vehicles.    This  is  the
result of fuel being delivered to the  intake  ports, rather  than  to the  intake
manifold as  in  carburetted  vehicles  where  excess fuel  is required to  ensure
adequate  evaporation  and transport   of  fuel  to  the  cylinders.    The  precise
delivery of  fuel possible in  fuel injected vehicles  also reduces the  need  for
enrichment  during  transient  operation.   Operation  at ambient   temperatures
below  those  encoutered  on  the FTP, and  rapid accelerations and  decelerations
not encountered on the FTP,  are  important causes of shortfall.

Front-Wheel Drive

On  the  chassis  dynamometer, FWD  vehicles are penalized relative  to  rear wheel
drive  (RWD)  vehicles, regardless  of  whether the  power  absorption unit  (PAU)
setting  on  the  dyamometer  is determined  by coastdown techniques  or by EPA's
"cookbook" method.  To a large extent  it  is  believed  that  this is  because  the
FWD vehicle  places a greater load on  the  driven wheels  than  a  RWD  vehicle.
For  example, a  FWD vehicle  with  a  60/40  weight distribution will  have  33
percent more load on the driving wheels than
    N.  Ostrouchov,  "Effects of.  Cold  Weather on Motor  Vehicle Emissions  and
    Fuel Consumption - II", SAE Paper 790229,  1979.

                                  Ul-24

-------
a  RWD vehicle  with a  55/45  weight   distribution.   These distributions  are
nominal  values  for  each  type.   The  additional load  on  the driving  wheels
increases  the  tire  rolling  resistance,  and   hence,  the  actual  horsepower
required to drive the vehicle on the chassis dynamometer.

If the  EPA "cookbook" technique  is  used to determine  the PAU setting,  these
losses are uncompensated as  the  present  formula does not  differentiate between
RWD and  FWD vehicles.   Although coastdown  techniques  correct this  situation
somewhat, the FWD vehicle  is still penalized.   This  is  because the PAU setting
is determined for tractive effort at  50 mph  during the  coastdown procedure.
At speeds  below  50  mph the FWD  vehicle  must still  overcome a greater  load  on
the  dynamometer   than  an  equivalent   RWD  vehicle.    This  is  because  rolling
resistance is the dominant force at low  speeds,  while aerodynamic  drag is more
important at  high speeds.   Since about  75  percent   of  the mileage in  the  EPA
test is accumulated below  50 mph,  the  FWD  vehicle suffers a net  fuel  economy
penalty  in  the  FTP compared to  the  RWD vehicle;  this  would  translate   into
decreased shortfall for FWD vehicles in comparison to RWD  vehicles.

A  second,  possibly minor,  effect  which could reduce  the shortfall  of  FWD
vehicles relative to RWD vehicles  is  the influence  of the  cooling fan  during
the FTP test.  Since the vehicle is stationary  during  the  test, cooling  air  is
provided by  an  external fan.  This  fan  operates at  constant   speed and  does
not provide adequate cooling air at higher vehicle  speeds.   Most  FWD  vehicles
have electric fans  which  are  controlled thermostatically;   these  fans  remain
on during much of the FTP, because of  the inadequate  external cooling,  unlike
the real world situation.  The electrical power  absorbed by the cooling  fan  is
supplied by  the  engine  through the alternator.  This power requirement  lowers
the fuel  economy on  the  FTP  relative  to  "on-road"  conditions,   resulting  in
decreased  shortfall for  FWD  vehicles.   RWD  vehicles,   a majority  of  which
employ  engine  driven fans,  do  not  have  this  difference in operating mode
between FTP  and  "on-road"  conditions.  While  the effect of  the cooling fan  is
believed not  as   significant as  the  effect  of  tire  loading,   the  cooling fan
does make  a  contribution  to shortfall  reduction of  FWD  vehicles   relative  to
RWD vehicles.
                                        111-25

-------
Diesel
Diesel engines differ markedly from spark ignition (gasoline)  engines  in their
fuel  delivery  systems and  the  type of  combustion  employed.  These  principal
technological differences could account  for  decreased shortfall  in  comparison
to spark ignition engines.  The reasons are  as follows:

    (1)  The fuel injection  system  in  the Diesel engine is  factory  calibrated
         to tight tolerances and sealed  at the factory. Spark  ignition engines
         on the  other hand, have  carburetors where  the  user  can adjust  the
         idle  air/fuel  ratio  and  the  choke.  As  detailed earlier,  EPA  has
         found that a large majority of  spark ignition engines  are maladjusted
         to richer  air/fuel  ratios,  leading  to  increased shortfall.   Diesels
         on the other hand,  are rarely  maladjusted.

    (2)  In Diesel  engines,  the fuel  is injected directly  into  the  cylinder
         head,  unlike  carburetted  S.I.  engines  where  fuel   is   generally
         distributed  via  an intake manifold  to  the  individual cylinders.  At
         low ambient  temperatures, Diesel engines  need very little  enrichment
         in comparison co an S.I. engine, where extra fuel is  needed  to ensure
         adequate vaporization and transport  of fuel  to the  cylinders.

    (3)  Diesel  engines  are less sensitive  to transient and  non-FTP  driving
         modes  than carburetted S.I.  vehicles in  that the fuel consumption
         changes  are  less  dramatic.   This  is due  to  two   reasons:   (a)  the
         Diesel  consumes  very  little  fuel  at idle  in comparison to an  S.I.
         engine  (up  to  70  percent less).   Thus,  extended  idling,  common  in
         inner city driving, has a much  smaller impact on the  fuel consumption
         of  Diesels  than  of S.I.  engines;   (b)  transient   operation  such  as
         sharp  accelerations and  decelerations  not  encountered  on  the .FTP
         increase fuel consumption  dramatically for  an S.I.  engine but  not  as
         much  for a Diesel engine.  A carburetted  S.I. engine  has  very  poor
         transient  air/fuel ratio control and  requires special devices  such  as
         acceleration  enrichment  pumps  and  deceleration   fuel  shutoffs  to
                                      I11-26

-------
    control the transient  air/fuel  ratio.   Diesels, on the other  hand,  use an
    accurate  system  of  fuel  metering  where   transient  operation  does  not
    disturb the combustion process as much.

The combined  effect of reduced  tampering,  lower enrichment at  cold  ambients,
and decreased sensitivity  to variations  in  driving  cycle  should reduce  the
shortfall for Diesel engines in comparison to S.I. engines.

III. D. 2.    Technology-specific In-use Data

Against the background above, which theorizes why some advanced technologies
should have  lower  shortfall  behavior,  we can  now  examine  what  actual   data
reveal.

Figure III.D-1  shows  the  shortfall  characteristics  of  a number of  vehicle
technologies  expressed  as  the  ratio of  road gallons  per mile  to EPA  55/45
gallons per mile,  plotted against the EPA 55/45 MPG  (this  ratio  is the  same as
EPA MPG/Road MPG).

The slanted   lines  are regression  lines  for  three  technology  subclasses  of
vehicles:  all are  rear wheel drive, carbureted  (gasoline) cars.   The  topmost
line,   labeled  "Automatic"  consists almost  completely of  standard (non-lockup
or  overdrive)  automatics,  while the  "Manual" line  represents  just that.   The
band  around  the  Manual  line  is  the  95%  confidence  interval.  The  95%
confidence interval for Automatics is  within the width of the  line.

The line labeled  "Auto-lockup and/or  0/D" has been  added to the chart on  the
basis of  a recent finding*  that automatic overdrive  gives  a shortfall   between
that of manuals and standard automatics.   The assumptions that  this line  has
a  slope  parallel  to the other two lines, and that  it also  represents  lockup
automatics, whether or not overdriven, are our own  assumptions.
*   South, "1978 to 1980 Ford On-Road Fuel Economy",  SAE Paper
    810383, February 1981.
                                       111-27

-------
                                                                Figure III.  D-l
i
to
CO
       Impact of
       Technology
       on Shortfall
       1S78-1980 CARS
                         I D/M/RWD

                  ®C/A/FWD2
                                     15
20
             I             I
            30           35
EPA Composite MPG

-------
The  spots  and  vertical  bands  on  the figure  require additional  explanation.
Each spot represents a particular  technology, and  the  vertical  bands   span the
95%  confidence  intervals.   For some  technologies,  these intervals  are  large
because the sample sizes are small.  The technology descriptions  are:
         Fuel System:
FI  = Fuel injected gasoline
 C = Carbureted gasoline
 D = Diesel
         Transmission:
 A
 M
Automatic
Manual
         Drive:
 FWD = Front
 RWD = Rear
The subscripts for some groups designate two inherently different subsets of a
given  technology.  This becomes  obvious  when looking at  table III.D-1, which
gives the number of cars,  and model types,  included in each spot.
                                        111-29

-------
                                TABLE  III. D-l
                        EXPLANATION OF  FIGURE  III. D-l
Technology Group

  (1) FI/A/FWD1
  (2) FI/A/RWD
  (3) D/A/FWD
  (4) D/A/RWD
  (5) D/M/RWD
  (6) C/M/FWD2
  (7) C/A/FWD1
  (8) FI/A/FWD2
  (9) C/A/FWD2
 (10) FI/M/FWD
 (11) C/M/FWD1
 (12) D/M/FWD
 (13) C/M/ FWD1
No. Cars

     8
    14
     2
   191
    40
    90
    26
     5
    83
    73
   184
    72
   411
             Models Included
All Eldorados
13 Sevilles + 1 BMW
Toronados
Half GM, rest Mercedes & Peugeots
39 Peugeots, 1 Mercedes
Fiestas & Japanese, all 1978 models
All GM:  Rlvieras,  etc.
Rabbits & Foxes
78-79 Japanese, Omnis, 1980 X-cars
Rabbits, Foxes, Sciroccos
Same as (6) plus Omnis, all 1979's
Rabbits & Dashers
1980 model Fiestas
                                        111-30

-------
Interpretation

The following can be gleaned from figure III.D-1 and table III.D-1:

    the behavior of the eight Eldorados in set (1) is anomalous.

0   Fuel injection makes no significant difference in shortfall,  compared
    to carbureted versions of similar vehicles.

0   The high shortfall for the 90 cars in set (6) can be attributed to
    the 1978 test procedure, not to the cars themselves; nearly 600 of
    the same types of cars (but 1979-80 models)  included in sets  (11)
    and (13) show no such high average shortfall.  For all three  sets,
    (6), (11) and (13), average road MPG is consistently about 30;
    they were rated by the 1978 test at about 36, and by the 1979-80
    test at about 31.

0   Rear wheel drive Diesels have essentially the same shortfall  as
    RWD manual gasoline cars.

0   Transmission type makes no significant difference in shortfall  for
    front wheel drive cars.

0   The location of set (12),  the VW front wheel drive Diesels, on  the map
    would appear to be due to their front wheel  drive rather than
    their "Dieselity".

0   The bottom line for all of this is that these data suggest four
    distinguishable technology groupings,  each with its own shortfall
    algorithm:

    Front wheel drives,                     1/R  = 1.02/E

    RWD Manuals and Diesels,                 1/R  = 0.70/E + 0.016
                                         111-31

-------
    RWD Automatics, lockup or 0/D,           1/R = 0.77/E + 0.016
                     (gasoline)

    RWD Std. automatic (gasoline)           1/R = 0.85/E + 0.016

           where R = Road MPG and
                 E = EPA 55/45 MPG

Implication

When unique  shortfall  behaviors of specific  technology strata are  accounted
for, time  trends  in aggregated fleet shortfalls  can  result from  time  changes
in the mix of  the  various  technologies.   As  an example, this  type  of  analysis
was  done  for  Chrysler  Corporation,   who has  changed  from  almost  entirely
"conventional"   vehicle  technology  in  1975  to  almost  entirely  "advanced"
vehicle technology  in  1981.   Table  III.D-2  shows the results.  In  the  earlier
years,   we  would  expect  increasing shortfall  for  the conventional  part  of
Chrysler's fleet  simply  because the shortfall algorithm for these  vehicles  is
MPG dependent,  and  overall fleet MPG is  increasing.   In fact, the  calculated
shortfall  for  conventional  vehicles  continues  to worsen through  1981.   As
advanced technologies  increase  to significant market penetrations  in the  later
years,  however, their  lower  shortfall  characteristic  influences overall  fleet
behavior more and more, and aggregate fleet  shortfall  decreases.

Understanding  now the significant  role  of  vehicle technology changes in  the
shaping of  time  trends in fuel economy  shortfall, let  us compare  technology
specific calculated  shortfalls  for  the entire fleet of manufacturers with  the
latest observed shortfalls, in table III.D-3.
                                          111-32

-------
                                    Table III. D-2
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
EPA
MPG
14.7
15.9
15.7
17.8
19.8
20.0
25.6
Example of Variation in Calculated,
In-Use FE Shortfall (Chrysler Corp
Technology-Specific
. Domestic Fleet)
Shortfall for
RWD. Automatics % Use of Advanced
(Conventional Technology) Technology *
- 7.7%
- 9.2%
- 9.0%
-11.0%
-12.4%
-12.3%
-14.3%
3%
6%
8%
12%
24%
88%
96%
Fleet
Shortfall
- 7.6%
- 9.0%
- 8.9%
-10.3%
-10.7%
- 5.5%
- 5.1%
(*)  Manual or lockup transmissions,  overdrive,  front  wheel drive.
                                            111-33

-------
                               Table III. D-3

               Similarity Between Observed fleet Shortfall and
         Calculated Technology-Specific Shortfall (All Manufacturers)
 Model        Observed        Calculated Technology        Federal
 Year      Fleet Shortfall1   Specific  Fleet Shortfall    Emission Stds.'
1975 -8.9%
1976 -9.4%
1977 -15.4%
1978 -15.0%
1979 -10.2%
1980 - 3.1%^4^
1981 	
-7.2%
-9.6%
-10.6%
-11.7%
-11.5%
-10.4%
- 9.7%
1.5/15/3.1
1.5/15/3.1
1.5/15/2.0
1.5/15/2.0
1.5/15/2.0
.41/7/2.0
.41/3.4/1.0
(1)   From Contractor  analysis  (EEA), January 1981 (unpublished)

(2)   Calculated using only  technology-specific shortfall behavior,
     no model year dependence  assumed.

(3)   HC/CO/NOx grams  per mile.

(4)   Sample size much smaller  than  prior model years.
                                       111-34

-------
Note  the  parallel increasing/decreasing  trends  for  the  observations  and  the
calculations.  Three  "step changes"  in observed  shortfall  are not  fully  ex-
plained satisfactorily  by  the  technology-specific theory: the  six  percent  in-
crease in shortfall from 1976  to  1977,  the five percent  decrease from 1978 to
1979, and the seven percent decrease from 1979 to 1980.

Taking the  second of these first,  there was no  change  in  emission  standards
between  1978 and 1979,  so the  five  percent   shortfall decrease  cannot  be
related to emissions effects.  As mentioned earlier,  loopholes  in the EPA test
procedures.were closed  in 1979, and we  attribute  this improvement in  shortfall
to the test procedure.

The 1976 to  1977  shortfall increase came  simultaneously  with a tightening  of
the NOx standard  from 3.1  to 2.0  grams  per mile,  and could be  concluded  to  be
an adverse by-product of the more stringent NOx  standard.

In the case  of  the 1979 to 1980  improvement  in  observed  shortfall,  there  was
at the same  time  a tightening  of  the  HC and CO  (but not  NOx) standards,  so  it
could  be concluded  in this  case  that  reduced  shortfall  is a  beneficial
by-product of the more stringent HC and/or CO  standards.

The  HC/CO  conclusion  relationship  is  less  strong  than   the  NOx  conclusion,
because 1980 data used for this study represented a much smaller sample size.

A  test  case for the  premise  that  tighter NOx  control  adversely  affects
shortfall will be the in-use data from  1981 model  cars, as 1981 NOx is cut  in
half from the 1980 level.   If  a relationship  exists between shortfall  and  the
NOx standard change, it should certainly appear in  1981  cars.   Unfortunately,
there are no 1981 in-use fuel economy  data currently available;
                                       111-35

-------
                                  SECTION  IV

IV.   Data Analysis

The computer data  bases  used to  support  the  analyses for this  document  were
derived  from two  EPA sources;  the   Emission Factors  data  base,  and  the
Certification Division data base  which includes tests performed  by  EPA and by
the  individual  manufacturers.   From  these  sources,  three   data  bases  were
generated  for  use  in this  study.   The  data  bases  in  this study  will  be
referenced as  the EF, CERT/EPA and  CERT/MFR  data bases  respectively.   They
only include data  for vehicles tested under  the  1975 Federal Test  Procedure
(FTP) and the EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test Procedure (HFET).

Certification records used  to  create the  CERT/EPA  and  CERT/MFR data  bases
were gathered  from  five  certification  data  bases.  These include  VEHSUM,
CERTESTSUM, and DFRSLTS, which  are part  of the MICRO Information System,  and
files 1200D and 1202D-MFR  (as they appeared on  February  7, 1981).   The VEHSUM
file contains  vehicle descriptions   taken  from  the  vehicle   identification
sheet.    CERTESTSUM   includes  emission   test   results- and   other   pertinent
information  from  the test data  sheet.   Engine  family deterioration  factors
came  from   DFRSLTS.    1200D  included   bag   data  and   1202D-MFR   included
information on whether tests  were performed at high altitude  or not.

The data in CERTESTSUM  comes from  two   sources;   a) tests  run at  the  EPA
emissions  laboratory  and   b)   tests   performed   at    the  manufacturers'
facilities.   The   CERT/EPA  data   base,  which  was  created   specifically  to
support  this report,  is  a compilation of  selected information from the  five
Certification Division  data  bases discussed  above,  but  only  for  vehicles
which were tested  at EPA.  Likewise,  the CERT/MFR data base was limited  to
vehicles tested at  the manufacturers' facilities.   The  information  selected
for inclusion in the CERT/EPA and CERT/MFR files is discussed below.
                                    IV-1

-------
From the file VEHSUM, all vehicles with a Car Line Code* of  less  than  50,000
were selected,  except  those whose Sales  Class*  was  Both Trucks,   California
Trucks, or Federal Trucks.  The object was to select  only light duty vehicles.

The test results used  from  CERTESTUM were restricted to those  gathered  under
the FTP and   the  HFET.   Tests with Certification Test Dispositions*  of  VOID,
NEWTEST  and  ZEROMILE  were  not  included in  the CERT/EPA  and CERT/MFR  data
bases.  For  the  FTP,  the  Test  Types*  included   were  emission  data  tests,
durability tests, and fuel  economy tests.  For   the  highway  fuel  economy test
procedure,  only emission data tests and fuel  economy  tests  were used.

The resulting data set from CERTESTSUM was then  joined to  the  resulting   data
set from the VEHSUM  files.  They were matched by  Internal  Vehicle Number* and
by Version Number*.  In  order  to  eliminate duplicate test results  in the new
data  bases,   carryover  data  were  assigned   to   a  single  model  year  which
corresponds to the last model year the data were  used.

Using  information from  the certification data  files 1200D and   1202D-MFR,
high altitude  tests  were removed,  and bag data  for  the  EPA tests  were  added
to the  new data  base.   Bag  data were not available  for  manufacturers'  tests.
This  data  base was  then segregated  into  the CERT/EPA  and  EF files.   Table
IV-1 lists the  field names  which were included  in the CERT/EPA and EF  files.
The CERT/MFR file was  identical to the CERT/EPA  file except  that  the  CERT/MFR
file did not contain bag emissions data.

Combined fuel  economy  values  were  calculated for each vehicle  which  had both
FTP  and HFET data.  The objective was to calculate a  combined  fuel economy
value   for  each  vehicle configuration   for  which  both  urban  and  highway
miles/gallon  (mPg)  data  were available.  A  method  was  selected  to achieve
    These  are field names for  the data base.   Explanations  of  these  terms
    can  be  found  in  the August  28,   1980  letter  from Robert  E.  Maxwell,
    Director,  Certification Division  of EPA,  to  light-duty  motor  vehicle
    manufacturers.  This  letter  transmitted  the  Supplement  to  the Application
    Format  for Certification of Light-Duty Motor Vehicles,  1981 Model Year.
                                     IVT2

-------
                                        Table IV-1
                      Information Contained  in the Data Bases Used for This Studv
DATA BASE VARIABLES (FIELDS) SUMMARY
DATA BASF CERT-EPA
YEAR
Bl.HC (BAG 1 HO
Bl.CO (BAG 1 CO)
Bl.NOX (BAG 1 NOX)
B2.HC (BAG 2 HO
B2.CO (BAG 2 CO)
B2.NOX (BAG 2 NOX)
B3.CO (BAG 3 CO)
B3.NOX (BAG 3 NOX)
FTPHC (FTP HO
FTPCO (FTP CO)
FTPNOX (FTP NOX)
HHPG (HWY MPG)
CMPG (COMR MPG)
FEHC (HWY HO
FECO (HWY CO)
FENOX (HWY NOX)
SITE (TEST SITE)
VEH. (VEH. NO.)
TEST (TEST SE(J.)
FTPBP (FTP riARO. P.)
OOOMtMILE
FEBP (HWY BARO. P.)
MAKE (MAKE OF AUTO)
MFR«MFG(MANUF . )
MDYR»MYR(MODEL YEAR)
MODL'MOL (MODEL)
VTRN.TRAN(TRANSM)
»BBL'CARB<* OF B8L.)
XCYL (* OF CYLIN.)
VNRT'INER( INERTIA WT.)
AOHP'HP (ACTUAL DYNO HP)
AIR.1NJIAIK INJECTED?)
CATA (CATALYST)
THER (THERMAL REACTOR)
ENKM'ENFY (ENG FAMILY)
EGR
75-
7V
X
X
X
X
x •
X
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X




X


X
X
X
X
X
X
X



X

80
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
X
X
X
X
X




X


X
X
X
11
A
X
X
X
X



X

HS
81 79 IV
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X




X


X
X
X
V
X
A
A
X



X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
A
X
A
A
'x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
X
A
A

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
X
X
A
X
A
X
X
X
X
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
A
A
A
A
X

( "x" MEANS THE VARIABLE
FMISSION FACTORS 
-------
                                Table IV-1 (con't)





DATA SASE VARIARLESIFIELDSI  SUMMARY  <  "x" MEANS THE  VAPIAHLE  is AVAILABLE  )
DATA BASE
<-
«SITF
YEAR
MAL.DISPIMAL ADJ UISP)
AXLft»Axr>A(AXLE PATIO)
MODI (ENG MODIFICATION)
PCV
TIMING
INT« ( INTERNAL NO. )
VRSN ( VERSION)
VID (VEH. IOENT.)
CLIN (CAR LINE)
OVOR (OVERDRIVE)
BOKE
STRK (STROKE)
RTHP (RATED HP)
ETYP (ENG. TYPE)
**CRB (MO. OF CAr<8S)
FIN (FUEL INJ.)
CMPR (COMP. RATIO)
N/VR ( N/V RATIO)
ECS1 (EM CONT SYS 1 )
ECS? (EM CONT SYS ?)
ECS3 (EM CONT SYS 3)
ECS4. (EM CONT SYS u)
ECSS (EM CONT SYS 5>
FTYP ( FUEL TYPE )
SACL (SALES CLASS)
VSS (SHIFT SPEED CODE)
ENCD (ENG COUE)
UFV1 (DURA FAC VEH)
TRBO (TURBOCHARGED)
VTYP (VEH TYPE)
RCNO (RUNNING CHANGE »)
CRCD (CRITICAL CODE)
TNUM (TEST NUMHER)
TTYP (TEST TYPE)
WCHG (RUNNING CHANGF)
TPRO (TEST PROCEDURE)
RTST (RETEST CODE)
AOHP (ACTUAL OYNO HP)
CTD (CERT TEST DISP.)
FEU (F.E. TEST OISM
TAYR (TEST ACTIVE YP)
ETW (EOUIV TEST WT)
CdKT-EPA EMISSION FACTORS (EF)
75-
79

A



X
X
X
X
X
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
X
A
A
X
X
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
80

X



X
X
X
X
A
X
X
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
X
A
X
X
A
X
X
X
HS . LA'JiV KMSF
81 79 79 78 n fb fS f* /J 12 /9 11
XXXXXX XX
X X X X X x.
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
X
X
X
X
x •
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
                              IV-4

-------
this, while  simultaneously attempting  to avoid  combining  city and  highway
data for different configurations  of  the same vehicle.  The  last four digits
of the city and highway test numbers were compared.  Those  test  numbers  which
were within  — 3,  for  vehicles having  the  same  internal  vehicle number  and
version number, were used in calculating the combined fuel  economy value.
This method of "pairing" city and highway  tests allows more  than one combined
fuel economy value  to  be generated for vehicles which had  more than one  set
of paired tests.

EPA's  emission  factors data  base  included data  on vehicles  from 1972  thru
1981.  The EF data  base,  which  was also created specifically to  support  this
report, included  information  selected  from EPA's  emission factors data  base.
Table  IV-1  lists  the  field  names which  were included  in  the EF  file.
Again, only  FTPs and  HFETs  were used.   Other tests such  as inspection  and
maintenance tests and steady state tests were  not  used.
                                    IV-5

-------
IV. A. Two Variable Linear Regressions


This was the initial  step  in a series of plotting  and  regression exercises.
Three large data bases (CERT/EPA,  CERT/MFR and EF) were used in this work.
First, two dimensional scatter  plots  of fuel economy and  emissions for each
of the following were generated.


    1)   UMPG* versus FTPHC**
    2)   UMPG  versus FTPCO**
    3)   UMPG  versus FTPNOx**
    4)   UMPG  versus FEHC***
    5)   UMPG  versus FECO***
    6)   UMPG  versus FENOx***
    7)   HMPG* versus FTPHC
    8)   HMPG  versus FTPCO
    9)   HMPG  versus FTPNOx
    10)  HMPG  versus FEHC
    11)  HMPG  versus FECO
    12)  HMPG  versus FENOx
    13)  CMPG* versus FTPHC
    14)  CMPG  versus FTPCO
    15)  CMPG  versus FTPNOx
    16)  CMPG  versus FEHC
    17)  CMPG  versus FECO
    18)  CMPG  versus FENOx
*UMPG, HMPG,  and  CMPG respectively  mean  urban fuel  economy as  measured  on
the 1975 Federal  Test  Procedure (FTP), highway  fuel  economy as  measured  on
the EPA  highway  test and  composite  fuel  economy as  calculated by  EPA from
urban and highway economy respectively.
**FTPHC, FTPCO, and  FTPNOx  mean HC,  CO, and NOx  emissions,  respectively,  as
measured on the 1975 FTP.
***FEHC, FECO, and  FENOx mean  HC,  CO, and  NOx  emissions,  respectively,  as
measured on the EPA highway test.
                                   IV-6

-------
For  the  sake of  brevity,  these are  called  "the 18"  plots.   These 18  plots
were  generated  for each  of  the three  data  bases  for all the  data in  each
data  base.  A total of 54 plots were  generated.

There  was  no apparent linear  or other  relationship  between any  of the  two
variables.  Some  of the plots are included as appendix 4  to this  report.

The   various  plots  that  were  generated  were  not   totally  adequate   for
visualizing lines  or curve  shapes  because multiple points in one  spot appear
as a  number  (or x which means  10  or more points at  the  same spot) which  is
difficult  to  visually  weight compared  to  single  points.   Linear  regressions
were  performed  that corresponded  to each  of  the  plots.   A summary  of  the
regressions is presented in  table IV. A-l through table IV. A-3.

Summary

There  are  several items  of  interest  that  can  be deduced  from  these tables.
First, there  is no correlation  for any of  the  regressions  as  evidenced  by
values of r-squared which always have a  zero as  the first digit to the right
of the decimal  point.  Second,  the slopes of the  regression  lines (COEFF  in
the tables) are consistently negative except  for occasional,  positive values
for HC and CO as  measured on the highway fuel  economy test.  Negative slopes
mean  that, as  the emissions increase,  the fuel  economy decreases.  Positive
slopes mean,  as  emissions increase, fuel economy  increases.  The final item
of interest is that highway HC and CO emissions are not regulated.

No readily apparent  linear  or  other relationship  between  exhaust emissions
and  fuel  economy  is seen at this  level  of  analysis.  Clearly,  no negative
impact on  fuel economy  due  to emissions  can  be  identified  in  these  data.
There  may  be  several  reasons   for  this.  These  reasons  include  a lack  of
stratification  of  the  data and  the effects  of  other   variables  on  fuel
economy.   Other approaches used later will be improved in some  areas,  but by
necessity  the number of  data points  available  for analysis  will  be reduced
with  increasing stratification.
                                   IV-7

-------
                                                        Table IV.  A-l
Two Variable Linear  Regressions .lI
                                                                     '"" l^'tjiJ?1701'''-  the  EPA Laboratory
                             CERTIFICATION MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY
I
00

CASE TAYR XXXX XXXX XXXX
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
FILE: CERT/EPA
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DEP(Y)
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
FEB. 27, 1981
APTl 1 A I "^ mTAi
AV^ 1 UAL
1 IND(X) SIZE
FTPHC
FTPCO
FTPNOX
FEHC
FECO
FENOX
FTPHC
FTPCO
FTPNOX
FEHC
FECO
FENOX
FTPHC
FTPCO
FTPNOX
FEHC
FECO
FENOX
4605
46O5
4605
2975
2975
2975
2977
2977
2977
4123
4123
4123
2977
2977
2977
2975
2975
2975
1 !_/ 1 M L.
SIZE
5753
5753
5753
5753
5753
5753
5753
5753
5753
5753
5753
5753
5753
5753
5753
5753
5753
5753
PAGE NO.
COEFF
-o
-0
-2
3
0
- 1
-0
-0.
-3
5
0
- 1
-o
-0
-2
3
0
_ i
.5468
. 1968
. 2268
.0094
. 1799
.0281
.2919
.2683
. 1631
.6186
. 1999
.3075
.3914
. 2300
.5551
.8268
. 1933
1262
1

CONST
18.
19
21
18.
18
20.
26
27
30
26.
26.
28
21 .
22
24.
20
21
23,
,814
,627
608
204
.395
, 191
,222
,505
.389
,001
,448
,623
,464
,498
,757
,835
109
O73




R-SO STD.ERR
O
0
0
0.
0
0,
O,
0
0
0
0
O
0,
0
0
0
0.
0.
00092
. 019O7
0481 1
00803
OO280
,02363
. 000 1 2
.O1474
O4854
.01325
OO179
01942
,00033
01606
04694
.O1O32
00257
02252
5
5
5
5,
5,
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6.
6,
.7657
.7131
.6279
,6870
,7019
.6421
.7974
.7401
. 6O62
.8347
,8800
.8102
.4044
.3538
.2533
.3733
3982
3339
                                                                                                         -REMARKS
                  AcLual  size  is  less than total size in this and  subsequent computer outputs
                  due  to  the method used in construction of  the  data  base.   In general the
                  difference between actual and total size is an indicator  that not all urban
                  tests have paired highway tests and that not all highway  tests have paired
                  iu-l>;-m tests.  This difference is not an indicator that  data were ignored or
                  delete:'  '< or  any  reason .

-------
                                     Table IV. A-2
Two Variable Linear Regressions  Using Data From the Emission  Factors (In-Use) Program
          EMISSION FACTOR MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY


CASE MDYR XXXX XXXX XXXX
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
H2
1
vo1 4
15
16
17
18
FILE: 2G140-EF(ALL)
1 WADTADIEC — — *»
L VAKlAbLcD 	 >
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DEP(Y]
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
1 MAR. O2, 1981
ACTUAL TOTAL
I IND(X)
FTPHC
FTPCO
FTPNOX
FEHC
FECO
FENOX.
FTPHC
FTPCO
FTPNOX
FEHC
FECO
FENOX
FTPHC
FTPCO
FTPNOX
FEHC
FECO
FENOX
SIZE
8987
8987
8923
6615
6353
6616
6616
6616
6552
6615
6353
6616
6616
6616
6552
6615
6353
6616
SIZE
8987
8987
8987
8987
8987
8987
8987
8987
8987
8987
8987
8987
8987
8967
8987
8987
8987
8987
PAGE NO.
COEFF
-0
-O.
-O
-0
-O
-0.
-0
-o.
-1
-o
-0
-O
-o
-0
-O
-0
-0
-o
2666
. 3494
.6145
.3909
.2959
.3973
.4714
.5040
.0881
.6566
.5447
.6451
.3978
. 4333
.8058
.4816
.3797
.4815
1

CONST
16 .
16 .
17 .
16.
16.
17 .
23.
23.
25.
23.
23.
24 .
19
19
20
18
18
19
2 18
7 18
156
313
360
142
596
991
186
127
252
46O
.214
567
.312
.779
.850
.779



R-SQ STD.ERR
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
o
0
0
0
.0423O
.08816
.O5339
.00980
.01282
.02551
.0284 1
.04939
.04889
.01305
.02050
.03175
.03237
.05843
.O4297
.01 124
.01595
.02832
4 .3084
4 .2040
4 .2879
4 .3758
4 .4 133
4 . 3407
6.3O79
6.2395
6.2503
6 . 3581
6. 3977
6 . 297 1
4 .9756
4 .9082
4 .9527
5.0300
5.0691
4 .9861
                                                                                      -REMARKS

-------
                                     Table  IV.  A-3
Two Variable  Linear Regressions  Using Certification Data  From Vehicle Manufacturers
             CERTIFICATION MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS  SUMMARY

< 	 — — — — CATEGORICA
CASE TAYR XXXX XXXX XXXX
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
H 9

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DEP(Y)
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
FEB. 27,
A f* Tl 1 A 1
AC 1 U A L
1 IND(X) SIZE
FTPHC
FTPCO
FTPNOX
FEHC
FECO
FENOX
FTPHC
FTPCO
FTPNOX
FEHC
FECO
FENOX
FTPHC
FTPCO
FTPNOX
FEHC
FECO
FENOX
9786
9786
9786
5O72
5072
5072
5O87
5087
5O87
5710
5710
57 10
5087
5087
5087
5072
5072
5072
1981
T nT A 1
1 U 1 A L
SIZE
10425
10425
1O425
1O425
1O425
10425
10425
10425
10425
10425
10425
10425
10425
1O425
10425
10425
10425.
10425
PAGE NO.
COEFF
-2
-0.
-o.
1 .
-0.
-0.
-2 .
-0.
-2
1
-o.
-0.
-2 .
-0.
-2.
1 .
-0.
-O.
4196
2674
9418
3907
.3842
6959
2697
4437
6842
6638
1514
8867
1O1 1
3692
133.2
6749
7912
7872
1

CONST
20.
20.
20.
19.
19.
20.
28 .
29.
30.
27 .
27 .
28.
23.
24 .
24 .
22 .
22 .
23.
134
344
260
324
476
328
391
544
645
361
641
646
169
046
845
218
429
363



R-SO STD.ERR
0
0
0
0
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
,O1 156
.O2429
.00654
.00079
. OOO 1 2
.009 1O
.00787
.03971
.03305
.OOO74
.00129
.00858
.00951
.03874
.02941
.00093
.00042
.00952
5 . 5O06
5.4650
"> . 5 1 45
5 .63 12
5.633O
5.6077
7 .3664
7 .2472
7.2723
7 .4021
7 .4000
7 . 3730
6 .2012
6. 109O
6. 1386
6.2289
6 .2305
6.2021
                                                                                          -REMARKS

-------
IV. B.   Two Variable Linear Regressions with Stratification by Model Year

Various stratifications of the data analyzed  in  section  IV.  A of this report
could  be  done.  Intuitively,the  stratification  of choice  appears to  be by
emission  control  system;  however,  data  base limitations  would  not  permit
this  stratification  without  greatly reducing  the  available data  or  without
modifying  the  available  data.    The  stratification  chosen  was  by  vehicle
model  year  (or   for   certification  data  by  test  active  year).    This
stratification was accomplished  with minor  losses of data.   Stratification
by emission  control  system was  accomplished later  by  data  modification (see
section IV. H).

Plots  were  generated for  each of the  three  data  bases for  each of  the 18
emission versus fuel economy relationships for  each  model year.  Again,  no
linear or other relationships  between  fuel economy and  emissions were seen.
Those plots were not reproduced for inclusion in this  report.

Linear regressions  were again run  using  the  18  emission  and  fuel  economy
variables  for  each  of  the  3 data bases stratified  by model year.   The
results of  these  regressions are presented here  in   table  IV.  B-l  through
table  IV.  B-3.  In  the following  discussion  of  these  results,  only  cases
where sample size ("actual size"   in the  tables) was greater  than or equal to
25 are considered.

Correlation

Of the  126  cases  (144  minus  18   cases with  less  than 25  data  points)  gen-
erated for  the CERT/EPA  data  base, r-squared did not  exceed  0.100  in  any
case.

A  total  of  135  cases  were  generated  for the Emission  Factors data  base.
r-squared exceeded 0.100 in 9 of these  cases.  The range  of  r-squared  was
from  0.12  to  0.24  for those 9  cases.    The  emission  variable was  CO  as
measured  on  the 1975  FTP in  each case.   The fuel economy variables  were
urban  fuel  economy  for model years  1966 through  1971 and  model year  1978,
                                    IV-11

-------
                                                    Table IV. B-l

             Two Variable  Linear Regression Results  Using Data From the EPA Laboyauor^Stratified by Model  Year

                           CERTIFICATION MICRO DATABASE DATA  REGRESSION RUNS  SUMMARY
                             FILE:  CERT/EPA
FEB.  27.  1981
CASE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
M 23
< 24
M 25
M 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
TAYR XXX
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
75
76
77
78
79
BO
81
82
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
75
76
                         VARIABLES 	>             ACTUAL
CASE TAYR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DEP(Y) IND(X)
                                                              TOTAL
                                                                     PAGE  NO.
                 COEFF
                        CONST
                                R-j
                                      STD.ERR
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
HMPG
MM^lC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FTPHC
iiiiU£
77
699
1021
1010
730
597
459
12
77
699
1021
101O
73O
597
459
12
77
699
1021
1010
730
597
459
12
53
499
602
654
470
399
291
7
53
499
6O2
654
470
399
291
7
53
499
602
654
470
399
291
7
53
^lAg
79
712
1270
1264
970
804
638
16
79
712
1270
1264
97O
804
638
16
79
712
1270
1264
970
8O4
638
16
79
712
1270
1264
970
804
638
16
79
712
1270
1264
970
8O4
638
16
79
712
1270
1264
970
804
638
16
79
•drift
-0.
2
3.
2.
1 .
1 .
-9.
14
-O
0.
0
0
-0
-o
_ 4
0
-2
-o
- 1
-2
-0
0
2
5
_ 4
5
4
5.
8.
17
-8.
29
-0
0.
O
0.
0.
0.
-0.
2 .
-0.
0.
-0.
-0.
0.
0.
1 .
1 1 .
0.
*
9647
4851
1 122
5999
. 294 1
.9355
.433O
.6460
.2156
. 1560
.8463
.5813
. 237O
. 1216
.0629
.3123
. 1416
.2024
.5465
.3144
. 1435
.6743
.2990
. 2000
.O659
.' 7056
.4349
.5106
,0557
.4420
3948
4920
5268
9041
244 1
4111
2103
4229
,8565
0213
2926
3374
5603
4961
8466
1203
8915
5760
7283
••fT
14 .
15 .
15 .
16
18 .
20
24
22
15
16
16
17
20
21
24
24
18
17
19
21
19
20
21
22
15
16
16
17
18,
19
22.
23
15.
16.
16.
17 .
19
20.
22.
24.
15.
16.
17 .
18.
17 ,
20.
21 .
21 .
21 .
mm
887
413
216
465
,598
,245
. 485
.572
.574
,099
.851
.847
. 744
. 120
.692
.973
.260
.432
. 1 15
. 155
.275
.680
.075
.751
O33
.028
,4 14
, 174
405
.584
942
.741
,413
177
.721
,356
152
430
902
569
455
375
900
589
929
442
572
875
366
•50
O.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
o
0.
0
0.
0
0
o
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
o.
o
0
0.
0.
0
0.
0
0
0.
o.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
0
o
0.
0.
o:
0.
0,
0.
0.
(•
O0413
02918
04 12O
O1702
OO488
,00393
.O155O
,36566
,02694
,01 1 16
, 00004
. 00002
.02657
.00950
.O4405
.O2966
.084O7
.O0056
.01587
.02502
.0
. 00004
.01375
. 146O8
,OO 139
06505
.03163
,01904
05812
,03709
00524
40186
01979
06846
.01049
01789
00535
O0198
01522
08247
. 003 1 1
00331
00661
00356
:01073
00024
01386
69915
0000 1
••".50
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
1
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
1
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
1
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
1
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
1
4
.5
5
5
5
5
6
0
7
•
. 5903
.O591
. 1O99
.7337
. 3140
.2231
. 1586
.3838
.5375
. 1059
.2184
.7831
. 2558
.2085
.0686
.7115
.4023
. 1332
. 1770
.7 103
.327O
. 2333
. 1640
.6O56
.9253
.8766
.0628
.5784
. 3372
.2256
.O643
. 1835
.8798
.8677
. 1 178
.5817
.4847
. 32OO
.0338
. 4658
.921 1
.0351
. 1278
.6223
.4698
.3246
.0380
.8393
.4875
•143
                                                      -REMARKS

-------
                                      Table IV. B-l (con't)
Two Variable Linear Regression. Results Usinfr DataJFrqm the EPA Laboratory Stratified  by Model.  Year
CERTIFICATION MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY
FILE: CERT/EPA
^ f*t-rr-f^r\nt/**i wAnfAoir-r -»
CASE
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
,_! 73
!< 74
M75
U> 76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
9O
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
*s 	 ^ A 1 ClJlJK I UMU VMr*lMDI_C3 '
TAYR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DEP(Y)
77
78
79
80
81
82
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
75
76
77
78
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
. HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
FEB. 27, 1981
A PTH A 1 Tr»T A I
H \j 1 UM l_
IND(X) SIZE
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
603
655
470
399
291
7
53
499
603
655
470
399
291
7
53
499
603
655
470
399
291
7
55
512
851
908
71O
606
47O
1 1
' 55
512
851
90S
710
606
470
1 1
55
512
851
908
71O
606
47O
1 1
53
499
603
655
1 <_/ 1 M l_
SIZE
1270
1264
970
804
638
16
79
712
1270
1264
970
804
638
16
79
712
1270
1264
970
804-
638
16
79
. 712
1270
1264
97O
804
638
16
79
712
127O
1264
970
804
638
16
79
7 12
127O
1264
970
804
638
16
79
712
1270
1264
PAGE NO.
COEFF
4 .8582
4 .2126
2 .201 1
5.0576
- 16. 1820
9.9569
-0. 1755
0.5201
0.3837
0.6078
-0.3200
-O. 76O9
-1 . 1599
-1 .8525
-2 .0638
-0. 1682
-2.2369
-2.7885
-0.8743
-O. 1912
1 .3128
-10.525O
1 . 1857
9. 2636
9.584 1
9.5990
12. 1710
17.8260
-9.3569
32.7580
-0.2885
1 .4 175
0.3728
0.6196
0. 181G
-0.2046
-1 .0284
8. 2762
-0.2163
0.7796
-0. 246O
-0. 7263
1 .5880
0.3283
2 . 1895
19. 5270
-O. 8800
4 .5425
4 .0372
3 . 3158
2

CONST
21 .
22.
25.
27 .
34 .
37 .
22.
21 .
23.
24 .
28.
31 .
33 .
42 .
24 .
24
27
28
28
29
30
44
21
22
23
24
25
28
32
38
21
22
24
24
26
29
32
38
21
22
24
25
24
28
3O
34
17
16
17
18
381
748
750
689
987
4 13
365
228
726
557
850
O7O
956
504
.957
.552
.089
.860
.046
. 146
.796
.478
. 101
.401
. 340
. 450
.411
.259
.298
.221
.589
.707
. 178
.848
.621
.320
.322
. 293
.729
.458
.980
.584
. 176
.931
.725
.413
.667
.897
.363
.617


R-SO S
0.
0.
0.
0.
O.
O.
0.
O.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0
O
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
0
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
04336
02490
00658
00442
O2569
04686
00685
O527 1
00032
00098
02317
02G91
02918
20755
02988
.000.16
.01323
.021 19
.00178
.00019
.00262
. 16395
.00075
.08063
.064 17
.03365
.O6635
.02318
.00386
.05394
.00257
.07868
.O1O98
.O2264
.OO221
.0
.01693
. 19722
.O0075
.00846
.O0060
. 00004
. 0213O
.OO095
.01028
. 26174
.O0202
.06662
.04617
.021 16


iTD.ERR < 	 REMARKS 	
7.0975
7 . 1732
7 .5346
7 .0481
7 .97O3
3 . 2960
7 .4619
7 . 1O89
7 .2553
7.2606
7 .4715
6 .9680
7 .9560
3.0054
7 .3748
7 .3034
7 .2083
7 . 1868
7 .5528
7 .0631
8.O64 1
3.0869
7 .3875
7 .O145
7 . 3233
7 .3608
7 .0808
7. 1825
7 .7928
4 .0747
7 . 3807
7 .O220
7 .5286
7 . 4026
7 .3200
7 . 2672
7 .74 15
3.7535
7 .3874
7 . 2846
7.5679
7 .4877
7 . 2496
7 . 2638
7 .7677
3 .5995
5.7843
5.5949
5.7076
6 . 1368

-------
                                                O-.L
Two Variable Linear  Regression Results Using Data From  the  EPA  Laboratory Stratified by Model Year
               CERTIFICATION MICRO DATABASE DATA  REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY

CASE
101
102
1O3
1O4
105
1O6
107
108
109
1 1O
1 1 1
1 12
1 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
120
121
122
123
yi24
1 125
£126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144

FILE: CERT/EPA
v/AniADirrc ^
TAYR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DEP(Y)
79
8O
81
82
75
76
77
78
79
80 :
81
82
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
FEB. 27, 1981
A P Tl 1 A 1 TOT A 1
AVj 1 U A L
IND(X) SIZE
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FENOX '
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
470
399
291
7
53
499
603
655
470
399
291
7
53
499
6O3
655
470
399
291
7
53
499
602
654
470
399
291
7
53
499
602
654
470
399
291
7
53
499
602
654
470
399
291
7
1 W 1 M l_
SIZE
970
804
638
16
79
712
1270
1264
970
804
638
16
79
712
127O
1264
970
804
638
16
79
712
1270
1264
97O
804
638
16
79
712
1270
1264
97O
804
638
16
79
712
1270
1264
970
804
638
16
PAGE NO.
COEFF
1
2
-18
12
-0
0
0
0
-0
-0
- 1
-0
- 1
-0
- 1
-2
-O
-0
1
O
-0
6
5
6
9
17
-1O
27
-0
1
0
0
0
0
_ 4
1
-o
0
-0
-0
0
0
1
10
7048
94 16
0520
2850
2475
3728
4982
3507
2609
7270
1704
8932
8013
3706
6855
3144
2981
4040
5035
8689
3822
9418
5638
7633
6356
7050
5730
9580
4927
0796
2655
4461
2 196
3307
0222
4628
2959
4637
5462
4346
9950
1765
9572
8230
3

CONST
21
22
29
27
18
17
19
20
23
25
28
29
20
19
21
23
22
24
24
29
17
18
18
19
20
22
26
28
17
18
19
19
21
23
26
29
17
18
20
2 1
20
23
24
26
253
876
567
499
561
542
208
128
735
641
164
846
3O7
768
863
595
513
048
868
249
268
356
783
656
956
586
353
695
725
558
21 1
935
883
481
275
529
809
658
390
095
4 17
393
832
96-1



R-SO STD.ERR
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00592
OO217
O461 1
23732
02276
04309
00084
00045
02306
03562
04285
00161
O38O7
00001
01 159
020O2
00031
00123
00495
O0372
00013
O73O3
03854
02366
06592
03149
00681
24686
01254
07406
00961
01738
00462
0010O
O1773
O2952
00230
00474
00486
0022G
O1 175
00043
01214
4 1776
6 . 1583
5.8601
6.5661
1 .6164
5 . 7239
5.6650
5.8416
6.2014
6. 1049
5.761O
6.5773
1 .8494
5 .6789
5 . 791 1
5.8101
6 . 1404
6. 1756
5.8629
6.7062
1 .847.4
5.7898
5.5756
5.7339
6 . 12G9
5. 9695
5. 7734
6 . 7000
1 .6062
5.7537
5. 5726
5.8196
6. 1466
6. 1623
5.8635
6.6630
1 .8233
5.7835
5.7774
5.8335
6. 1937
6. 1402
5.8652
6 .6820
1 .4 123
                                                                                           -REMARKS

-------
                                       I hi.
Two Variable  Linear Regression  Results Using Data From  Lhe Emission Factors
'Tin-Use) Program  Stratilled by Model Year
         EMISSION FACTOR MICRO  DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY
FILE: 2614D-EF(ALL)
^A-rr-^i-M-^t^Ai \*»I-»TADICO x.
CASE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
M 23
f 24
£25
^26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4 t
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
 1 UAL
i IND(X) SIZE
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
1O2
212
235
260
294
343
391
211
63
994
2133
1264
834
1448
201
102
212
235
260
294
343
391
2 1 1
63
994
2133
1264
834
1448
201
102
212
235
260
294
343
391
21 1
63
980
21 14
1233
834
1448
2O1
3
987
1869
1264
834
1 VJ 1 M l_
SIZE
102
212
235
260
294
343
391
21 1
63
994
2133
1264
834
1448
201
102
212
235
26O
294
343
391
21 1
63
994
2 133
1264
834
1448
201
102
212
235
260
294
343
391
211
63
994
2133
1264
834
1448
201
63
994
2 133
1264
834
PAGE NO.
COEFF
-0.
-o.
-0.
-o.
-o.
-O.
-o.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-o.
-0.
-0.
- 1 .
-0.
-0
-0
-o
-O
-o
-o
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-o
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-o
-o
-0
-0
-0
0
-o
-0
-0
-0
1
-o
-0
-0
-o
2918
1442
1293
1391
2646
3583
2828
4029
6192
2O71
7144
2820
3606
3888
2391
2913
.3144
.2903
. 3650
. 5069
.4967
.3908
. 3 193
.2076
.2173
. 1808
.4038
.5933
.3283
. 3402
.4006
. 1553
. 3354
.3272
.4140
.8092
.8385
. 1970
.6904
.2195
.2542
.3222
. 7974
.5890
. 1929
.8516
.244 1
.6931
.2297
.3847
1

CONST
14 .
15.
15.
15.
15.
16.
15.
15.
12.
14 .
14 .
16
17
18
19
17
17
16
16
17
17
16
15
13
15
15
17
18
18
19
14
14
15
15
16
18
17
14
14
14
14
16
18
18
19
19
14
15
16
17
802
212
130
033
780
464
185
325
913
771
.730
.553
.787
.269
.601
.412
.248
.395
.854
.743
.823
. 148
. 447
.566
.007
.025
.071
.695
. 379
. 324
.656
.526
.735
.807
. 130
.263
.675
. 424
. 47 1
.876
. 559
.727
.622
.791
. 261
. 102
. 504
.029
. 130
. 286


R-SQ STD.ERR
0.00746
O.O6997
0.06823
0.03326
0.07501
0.02524
0.03304
O. 04529
0.00030
O.O3153
0.00102
0.02057
O. 05827
O.O0653
0.07 153
0. 21332
O. 23857
0. 18895
0. 19260
0.22261
O. 13749
0.09519
0.07490
0.01825
O.O4222
O. 01855
O.O5447
0. 13132
0.02 138
0.03827
O.O0050
0.00681
0.05245
0.04661
O. 034 70
0.08123
0.09672
0.00490
O.O3815
0.00430
O . 00009
O. 00828
O.O5698
0.01509
O. 00 192
O. 88572
0.00895
0 . 000 1 9
O.OO3 16
0.02289
3 .O236
3 . 2868
2.9439
3.0975
3.9029
4 .9243
4 . 72O7
4 .2832
4 .3164
4 .0396
3. 72 16
4 . 2895
4 . 4 195
4 . 4996
3.2484
2 .69 18
2 .9739
2 .7466
2 .8308
3 . 5780
4 .6321
4 .5665
4 .2 163
4 .2775
4 .0172
3.6888
4 . 2 146
4 . 2446
4 . 4659
3. 3060
3 .0341
3. 3965
2 .9688
3.0761
3 .9870
4 . 7808
4 .5627
4 .3729
4 . 2339
4 . 1000
3.7321
4 .3313
4 .4225
4 .4802
3.3680
O. 7 122
4 .0827
3.7228
4 . 3274
4 .5017
                                                                                       -REMARKS

-------
Table
B-2 (conU)
Two Variable Linear Regression
Results Using Data
(In-Use) Program Stratified
From the Emission Factors
by Model Year
EMISSION FACTOR MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY

CASE
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
6O
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
M70
< 71
1 72
L_i ' ^
ON 73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
1OO

FILE: 2614D-EF(ALL)
i MAR. O2. 1981
ArriiAi TnTAi
MDYR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DEP(Y) IND(X) SIZE
79
8O
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
74
75
76
77
78
79
8O
74
75
76
77
78
79
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
FEHC
FEHC
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
1447
2O1
3
963
1828
1240
819
1325
165
3
987
1869
1264
834
1448
2O 1
3
987
1869
1264
834
1448
201
3
987
1869
1264
834
1448
201
3
973
1850
1233
834
1448
201
3
987
1869
1264
834
1447
201
3
963
1828
1240
819
1325
SIZE
1448
2O 1
63
994
2133
1264
834
1448
2O1
63
994
2133
1264
834
1448
201
63
994
2133
1264
834
1448
201
63
994
2133
1264
834
1448
201
63
994
2133
1264
834
1448
201
63
994
2133
1264
834
1448
201
63
994
2133
1264
834
1448
PAGE NO.
COEFF
0. 1417
-1 . 7874
1 .9628
-0.2447
-0. 1301
-0. 1500
-0.2883
-0.3354
-O.4582
-3.7610
-O. 1383
-0. 7454
-O. 1 192
-0.4624
-0. 1463
0.2491
2.6777
-0.2417
-0. 2236
-0.4066
-0.5008
-O.3570
-1 .6618
3.0168
-0.2556
-0. 2842
-0.5214
-0.8199
-0.4065
-O.4 164
-8.9538
-O.38O2
-0. 2849
-0.6128
- 1 .3355
-O.9813
-0.6484
3.3498
-0. 3849
-0.3363
-0.4913
-0.6259
0.2500
-2.7121
2.9064
-0.4289
-0.2940
-0. 3546
-0.6501
-0.5770.
2

CONST
17 .
19.
17 .
14 .
15.
16.
17 .
18.
19.
25.
14.
15.
16 .
18
18
18
26
20
2 1
23
25
25
28
21
21
21
24
26
25
28
41
2 1
21
24
26
26
28
27
20.
21
23
24
25
28
25
20
21 .
23.
24 .
814
243
574
642
100
144
262
233
.491
.548
.752
.231
. 291
163
. 138
.683
.222
.840
.312
.550
. 324
.616
. 744
.960
. 124
.599
. 134
.574
.883
.336
.970
.275
.709
. 1O3
.942
.793
.807
.023
.567
.098
.031
.692
. 163
. 3O6
.247
.841
. 158
O65
837

R-SO 5
O.OO025
0.044 19
0.99530
0.01606
0.00358
O. 00263
0.01232
0.01056
0.04126
0. 73873
O.OO332
O.O0123
0.00226
0.04446
0.00175
0.00469
0.89085
O. O2 156
0.00526
0.02135
0.05433
O. 00242
O.O5895
0.92521
0.02929
0.02188
0.04533
0. 12121
0.01438
0.02627
0.99640
O.0064 1
O. 00541
0.01492
0.07726
O. 01837
O.OO994
0.98589
O.01 109
0.00225
0.00721
0.02929
0.00034
0.04662
0.74220
0.02457
0.00897
0.00732
0.03018

;TC
4 .
3 .
0.
4 .
3.
4 .
4 .
4 .
3
1
4
3
4 .
4
4
3
1
5
5
6
6
6
4
0
5
5
5
6
6
4
0
5
5
6
6
6
4
0
5
5
6
6
6
4
1
5
5
6
6


<
5154
2959
1445
1010
7397
3546
5057
5880
.3081
0769
.0942
.7209
. 3294
.4,517
.5104
.3633
. 1935
. 7453
. 2945
.069O
.3703
.8081
.8313
.9880
. 7226
.2501
.9942
. 14O9
.7672
.9145
. 2166
. 8O78
.3060
.1175
. 2926
.7535
.9555
4291
. 7760
.3026
. 1 127
.4541
.8168
.8629
.8342
.7862
.3232
. 1556
4327
^^5 . 8 0^^^^^^^) 1 3 £^^^^^^_8 9 1 i
                                          REMARKS

-------
                                 IVi
Two Variable Linear Regression  Results  Using Data From the Emission,
(In-Use) Program Stratified by Model Year
EMISSION FACTOR MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY

CASE
101
102
103
104
105
106
1O7
108
109
1O
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 18
119
120
121
122
M123
•fl24
M25
^126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
14O
14 1
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
15O
<— — /"'ATC/"*nDTr*AI
FILE: 2614D-EF(ALL]
WHMIAOICC" ^_
MDYR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DEP(Y)
80
74
75
76
77
78
79
8O
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
74
75
76
77
78
79
8O
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
MAR. 02, 1981
A^TIIAI -r r\T A t
AC 1 UAL
IND(X) SIZE
FECO
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
165
3
987
1869
1264
834
1448
201
3
987
1869
1264
834
1448
201
3
987
1869
1264
834
1448
201
3
973
1850
1233
834
1448
201
3
987
1869
1264
834
1447
201
3
963
1828
124O
819
1325
165
3
987
1869
1264
834
1448
201
1 U 1 Al_
SIZE
201
63
994
2133
1264
834
1448
201
63
994
2133
1264
834
1448
201
63
994
2133
1264
834
1448
2O1
63
994
2133
1264
834
1448
201
63
994
2133
1264
834
1448
201
63
994
2133
1264
834
1448
20 1
63
994
2133
1264
834
1448
201
PAGE NO.
COEFF
-O.7032
-7.4836
-0. 1622
-0.9794
-0.2565
-O.8178
-O. 2986
-0.3762
1 .6364
-0.2286
-O. 1913
-0.3274
-0.4125
-0.3919
- 1 .3962
2.2141
-0.2401
-0.2562
-0. 4509
-0.6791
-0.3629
-O. 37 17
-6. 1825
-0.295O
-0. 1888
-0.4187
-0.9788
-0.7179
-0.3536
2.3516
-0.2931
-O. 1560
-0.3147
-0.4677
0. 1745
-2 . 1030
2 . 3047
-0.3064
-O. 1851
-0.2166
-0.4O78
-0.4188
-0.5400
-4.9750
-O. 1506
-0.8366
-O. 1642
-0.5806
-O. 194 1
0. 1526
3

CONST
28
39
20
21
23
26
25
27
2 1
17
17
19
20
20
22
18
17
17
19
21
21
22
32
17
17
19
21
2 1
22
21
16
17
18
19
2O
22
20
16
17
18
19
20
22
3O
16
17
18
21
20
21
751
582
781
224
378
279
809
992
746
013
502
083
501
942
840
191
276
780
637
542
104
518
343
262
694
376
590
665
638
992
700
245
620
947
474
448
340
882
314
64 1
976
992
759
440
948
427
842
058
899
970


R-SO STC
O.O4442
O. 99474
0.00228
0.00104
0.00524
O.O6722
0 . OO3 1 9
0 . 00005
0.66758
0.02976
O.O06O2
0.02 135
O.O5842
0.00488
O.0700O
1 . 00000
0.03990
0.02779
0.05230
0. 13181
0.01923
0.0352 1
0.9533 1
0.00597
O. 00371
O.O1077
0.06577
0.01649
0.00497
0.97502
0.00993
0.00076
0.00457
0.02593
0.00028
0.047 16
0.93649
O.O1936
O.O0556
O.OO422
O.O1887
O. 01215
0.04432
O. 88217
0.003O3
O.001 19
O. 00331
0.05370
0.00226
O. 00 136
4
0
5
5
6
6
6
4
1
4
4
4
5
5
3
0
4
4
4
4
5
3
0
4
4
4
5
5
3
0
4
4
4
5
5
3
0
4
4
4
5
5
3
0
4
4
4
5
5
3

DC nn * 	

8852
2620
8O17
3058
1 187
3267
8055
9802
4703
6O48
2344
8863
0488
2497
703O
2005
5806
1878
8084
8480
21 17
7717
551 1
6692
2486
9315
0290
219O
83O3
4031
6516
2456
9280
1351
2636
7482
6427
6684
2639
9607
1330
3373
7555
8754
6678
2447
931 1
0614
2566
8373
                                                                              REMARKS

-------
Two Variable Linear Degression Results Using Data From Vehicle Manufacturers Stratified
by Model Yea
r





CERTIFICATION MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY

CASE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1O
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
M23
| 24
£25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
4 1
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
<•" __ fATPfTIDTf^AI
FILE: CERT/MFR
WAClTADire11 -^
*• 	 l^Alt
-------
Two Variable  Linear Regression Results  Using Dafca From Vehicle  Manufacturers  Stratified by Model  Year
                    CERTIFICATION MICRO DATABASE  DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY

CASE
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
, 73
74
. 75
) 76
77
78
79
8O
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

-------
                                       Table IV* Br-3  (con'c)




Two Variable  ^ineap Regression Results Using Data From Vehicle Manufacturers  Stratified by Model Year
                 CERTIFICATION MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY

CASE
101
102
103
1O4
105
1O6
107
1O8
109
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 15
1 16
1 17
1 18
1 19
120
M121
<122
1 A « n
^
O124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
4 OC
1 35
136
137
138
1 39
140
4 A i
141
4 ,i xx
142
143
144
<— — __.-._ f^ATC^nDT/~'AI
FILE: CERT/MFR
FEB
. 27,
	 CAIbuUKICAL VHKlMDLt:^ 	 > AUIUAL
TAYR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DEP(Y) IND(X) SIZE
79
80
81
82
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
75
76
77
78
79
80
8 t
82
75
76
77
78
79
8O
8 1
82
75
76
77
78
79
8O
8 1
82
75
76
77
78
79
80
8 1
82
CMPQ
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPCO
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FECO
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
FENOX
1300
13O4
972
11
3
4
576
917
13OO
1304
972
11
3
4
576
917
1300
1304
972
11
3
4
572
908
1298
1304
972
11
3
4
572
908
1298
1304
972
1 1
3
4
572
908
1298
1304
972
1 1
1981
TOTAL
SIZE
1690
1567
4290
555
3
7
966
1347
169O
1567
4290
555
3
7
966
1347
1690
1567
4290
555
3
7
966
1347
1690
1567
4290
555
3
7
966
1347
1690
1567
4290
555
3
7
966
1347
1690
1567
4290
555
PAGE NO
COEFF
O
- 1 1
-19
17
1
0
0
0
-0
-o
-1
0
-62
1
-o
0
1
-O
1
5
38
12
8
8
4
1
-0
55
3
2
0
0
0
-0.
-0.
1 .
-17 .
0.
-0.
0.
1 .
0.
3.
6.
.8291
.4400
.6080
.3590
.5477
6074
1 158
.5059
1251
582O
1774
3191
7980
4783
7438
3314
O099
4021
3861
9561
8300
3980
8059
1960
3929
2078
3053
0210
7926
12 19
3085
5490
3629
3753
6275
1443
1350
8853
3869
7642
9813
7800
0217
9892
3

CONST
21
25
29
27
9
20
18
20
22
24
27
29
194
2O
19
2O
2O
23
24
26
7
20
18
19
2O
23
25
28
12
20
19
19
21
23.
25.
29.
71 .
21 .
20.
19.
18.
22 .
24.
28.
.079
.901
.684
.018
898
047
988
.228
287
857
958
389
O7O
370
822
082
141
641
743
806
934
230
528
719
998
133
580
452
594
576
279
981
456
206
941
636
501
1O1
36O
345
421
278
197
178


R-SQ STD.ERR
0.00175
0.02684
O.O4799
0. 24498
O. 97957
0.91677
O.OO37B
0.00085
O.O0684
0.02282
O.O4003
0.01731
O.823O7
0. 18673
0 . OOOO2
0.00035
O. 00620
0.00133
0.00310
0.09251
0.94776
0. 76946
0.05102
0.02987
O.O1282
0 . 000 1 0
0.0
0. 1 1288
O. 89239
0.95431
0.00843
0.02616
0 . 0002 1
0 . 00002
0.01 172
0.02O45
5. 2374
5.3866
6.6151
2.0283
1 .8261
O.9975
6.5479
6 . 0800
5.2240
5.3978
6.6427
2 .3140
5. 374O
3 . 1 180
6.5602
6.0815
5.2257
5.4568
6.7693
2.2237
2 .92OO
1 .6601
6.4O47
5.9831
5.2119
5.4601
6 .7798
2 . 1986
4.1910
0.7390
6 .5469
5 .9946
5.2451
5.4604.
6 . 7399
2 . 31O3
0.04 185 12 . <5Of">
0.09473
0.00242
0.00792
0.05550
O.OO857
0.02082
0. 1 1781
3. 2896
6 . 5667
6.0504
5.0980
5.437O
6.7089
2. 1925
                                                                                              -REMARKS

-------
highway  fuel  economy for  model year  1978, and  composite  fuel  economy  for
1978.  These  values  of  r-squared  are  considered to  represent  very weak,  if
any, correlation.   The  six cases  between  1966  and 1971  are  consistent  and
could be  further investigated;  however,  they are  for vehicles  that  are  so
old that they are no longer of much importance.

R-squared was over 0.100 (.175 was the actual  value,  see case number 8) once
for  the  93  cases  in  the  CERT/MFR data  base.    This case  was  urban  fuel
economy  as  the  dependent  variable  and  HC emissions  from  the  FTP  as  the
independent variable  for the  1982 model year.  This  can be found  on  table
IV. B-3 line 8.  TAYR corresponds  to model year.

Slopes of the Regression Lines

The slopes  of the  regression lines for  all  ten  cases for  which r-squared
exceeded 0.100 were all negative.

Even though there was little  or  no correlation for the regression lines, the
slopes of  the  other regression  lines  were  investigated.   The  purpose  of
looking at the  slopes  was  to  see  if  there  was any consistency in the signs
of the slopes between the  3 data bases.  The  results are  shown  in table IV.
B-4.  There  are two  things  of  interest  in this  table.   First,  the  in-use
data base almost always  shows  negative slopes  for  the emissions/fuel economy
relationships.   Malfunctions  and  maladjustments could possibly  explain the
negative slopes for HC and CO.   This speculation is not based  on the results
of an analysis,  however.   An  explanation for  a  negative NOx slope  could  be
the  impact of   vehicle  weight  on  NOx  and  fuel  economy.   This  was  not
confirmed and is also speculative.

Second,   there  was some  consistency  between the CERT/EPA and CERT/MFR  data
bases in terms of the numbers  of cases with positive slopes.
                                   IV-21

-------
Slopes of the Regression Lines for 1981 and 1982  Model  Year Vehicles

The  1981  and  1982  model  years  are  of particular  interest  in  this  study
because 3-way  catalyst  technology is extensively used in these model  years
and because  3-way  catalyst technology at  this  point in  time  appears  to  be
the  technology  most  vehicle  manufacturers  will  use   to   meet   .emission
requirements in the near future.
                                                                     «r
It  is  sufficiently  important  to  repeat  that the   correlation   for  tue
regression lines was very weak or non-existent;  however, as can be  seen from
Table IV.  B-5,  the slopes of  the regression lines   for  the 1981  model  year
are  surprisingly consistent  between  the  CERT/EPA and  CERT/MFR data  bases.
The slopes for the regressions of  1982  model  year data are provided  for the
few cases for which slopes are available.

Summary

Stratification of  the data  bases by  model year did  not  provide  any  real
improvements in correlation  between  emissions and fuel economy.  Consistent
directional  trends for the slopes of the  regression lines between  the  1981
EPA and manufacturer data bases are evident.
                                     IV-22

-------
                      Table IV. B-4
Direction of the Regression Lines  for  the Three Data Bases
Dependent
Variable
UMPG


UMPG


UMPG


< UMPG
I
M
U)
UMPG


UMPG


HMPG


HMPG


Stratified by Model Year
Independent 	 Data Base 	 Number of
Variable CERT/ CERT/ Cases with
EPA EF MFR + Slope
FTPHC x 5
x 0
x 3
FTPCO x 3
x 0
x 2
FTPNOx x 2
x 1
x 4
FEHC x 5
x 1
x 4
FECO x 5
x 0
x 3
FENOx x 4
x 1
x 4
FTPHC x 6
x 0
x 3
FTPCO x 3
x 0
x 2
Total Number
of Cases
7
15
6
7
15
6
7
15
6
7
6
5
7
6
.5
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5

-------
                  Table IV. B-4 (con't)




Direction of the Regression Lines for the Three Data Bases
Dependent
Variable
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
M
1
£ HMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
CMPG
Stratified by Model Year
Independent 	 Data Base 	 Number of
Variable CERT/ CERT/ Cases with
EPA EF MFR + Slope
FTPNOx x 1
x 0
x 3
FEHC x 6
x 1
x 4
FECO x 4
x 0
x 2
FENOx x 4
x 0
x 4
FTPHC x 5
x 0
x 3
FTPCO x 3
x 0
x 2
FTPNOx x 1
x 0
x 3
FEHC x 5
x 1
x 4
Total Number
of Cases
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
7
6
5

-------
                                               Table IV. B-4  (con't)
i
(0
Ul
                             Direction of the Regression Lines for the Three Data  Bases
Dependent
Variable

CMPG


CMPG


Stratified
Independent 	 Data
Variable CERT/
EPA
FECO x


FENOx x


by Model Year
Base 	
CERT/
EF MFR

x
X

X
X
Number of
Cases with
+ Slope
5
0
3
4
1
4
Total Number
of Cases

7
6
5
7
6
5

-------
                        Table IV. B-5




Slopes of the Regression Lines for the 1981 & 1982 Model Year

Dependent
Variable
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
UMPG
HMPG

Independent Data Base~ Slope
Variable CERT/ CERT/ for '81 MY for '82 MY
EPA EF MFR
FTPHC x - 9.43
x -13.45 -23.25
FTPCO x - 1.06
x 	
x - 0.45 - 0.33
FTPNOx x 2.30
x 	
x 0.30 5.72
FEHC x - 8.39
x 	
x - 0.59
FECO x - 0.86
x 	
x - 0.52
FENOx x 1.89
x 	
x 2.84
FTPHC x -16.18
x 	
x -19.26

-------
I
to
                                                  Table  IV.  B-5 (con't)



                              Slopes of the Regression Lines for the 1981 & 1982 Model Year

Dependent
Variable
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
HMPG
CMPG

Independent Data Base ~ — Slope
Variable CERT/ CERT/ for '81 MY for '82 MY
EPA EF MFR
FTPCO x - 1.16
x 	
x - 1.30
FTPNOx x 1.31
x 	
x 1.32
FEHC x - 9.36
x 	
x 0.59
FECO x - 1.03
x 	
x - 0.81
FENOx x 2.19
x 	
x 3.40
FTPHC x -18.05
x 	
x -19.61

-------

-------
IV.  C.  Stepwise Backward Regression Analysis

Stepwise backward regression  analysis  was investigated as another  approach to
see if  there  was any fuel economy/emissions  relationship  and if so,  what its
nature might be.

The process basically  involves  starting out with a multiple  linear regression
of MPG as a function of  several variables.  Then the  least  important variable
as  determined  by   the  partial  correlation  coefficient  is  dropped  and  the
analysis repeated  and the  next least  important  variable dropped,  and  so on
until all of  the coefficients  are  at  least 0.1.   The process can  be started
with a large  number of  variables, the relatively more important  variables can
be identified and the less important ones discarded for further analysis.

The independent  variables  that were chosen to start  out  the  process were:
N/V ratio,  road  load horsepower, displacement, weight, rated  horsepower,  and
the six emission values.   The dependent variables were  the three fuel economy
values.

The 1981 CERT/EPA  data  base was analyzed as  a  unit,   then stratified  by manu-
facturer  and  transmission  type.    In  contrast  to   the  low  values  of  the
correlation coefficient found in cases using the single independent variables
discussed earlier,   the  R-squared  values  obtained with  this  approach  were
substantially higher, typically in the 0.7 to 0.9  range.

We  must  be  aware  that   this   procedure  can  indicate  that  a variable  is
statistically insignificant for any of several reasons  which  include:
       1.    The variable may actually be virtually unrelated to fuel economy.

       2.    The effects  of the  variable  may be  partially masked  by one  or
             more  other  variables.   For instance,  the  effects of  differences
             in  rated  horsepower may  be obscured by related  changes in  com-
                                     IV-2 9

-------
             pression  ratio  or  displacement.   Similarly,  variations  in  N/V
             ratio  could  be hidden  by  axle  ratio  differences.   Appendix  8
             includes  a  discussion of collinearity (i.e., to determine whether
             the  variables are  truly independent  of one another).   Emissions
             did  not appear  to  be collinear to any other  variable.

       3.     The  variable may  strongly  influence  fuel economy;  however,  that
             influence may  be  hidden if the  range  (i.e.  variations) of  that
             variable  is  very  small.   For   example,  the following summary
             indicates that  the least significant variable in determining  the
             urban  fuel  economy for  the  1981  Ford vehicles with manual  trans-
             missions  was  the   reciprocal  of  the  test  weight  (i.e. ETWM1).
             However,  an  examination of  those test  vehicles  indicated  that
             there  were  only  two  weight  ranges.   The  3000  to  3125   pound
             vehicles  were offered with  140 and 200  C.I.D. engines, while  the
             2375 to  2500  pound  cars were  offered only  with  a  98  C.I.D.
             engine.   Similarly, ETWM1 is also the  least  significant  variable
             for   Nissan's  urban  fuel  economy,  and,   again,   the  maximum
             variation of the test weight is  only 125 pounds within each basic
             engine.   Thus,   in both of  those  cases,  a  variable (i.e.  ETWM1)
             was  indicated  to  be  the  least  significant when,  in actuality,
             ETWM1  is  one of the most important variables  in determining  urban
             fuel economy.

In reviewing the results  of this analysis,  it was determined  that  the HC  and
CO  highway  emissions   (FEHC   and  FECO  respectively)  were   consistently,
statistically  insignificant variables,   and   thus  could be  omitted  when we
perform a  multiple linear  regression  of  each  of   MPG  , MPG,,  and  MPG  as
a function  of  the  remaining variables.  Results of  those regressions (except
those which  were stratified by manufacturer) are in  appendix 5.   Compression
ratio  and   axle  ratio  do  not  appear   in  these  results  because   they  were
eliminated on the basis  of partial correlation  in earlier results.
Summary tables that describe the results  of  the process are  shown below.
                                       IV-30

-------
                                                          Table  IV.  C-l

                                               SUMMARY OF STEPWISE BACKWARD ANALYSIS
                                                 FOR URBAN MPG FOR MODEL YEAR 1981
          Level of
          Stratification:
                        Order in which the variables
                        were dropped:
<3
I
OJ
All Data
Conventional Automatic  FEHC
   Trans. (CA)
Conventional Manual
   Trans (CM)
Lockup Auto.
   Trans. (LA)
All Chrysler

All Ford
All GM
All Honda
All Nissan
All Toyota
Ford/CA
GM/CA
Ford/CM
GM/ LA
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FENOX
FTPCO
FTPCO
FEHC
ETWM1
FEHC
FEHC
VDHP
ETWM1
FEHC
FECO
FTPCO
FECO
FTPCO
DISP
FTPHC
FTPHC
DISP
FECO
FTPNOX
RTHP
FECO
FEHC
RTHP
DISP
FTPHC
FENOX
FECO
FTPHC
RTHP
FECO
FTPHC
FTPNOX
DISP
FTPCO
FEHC

VDHP
FTPHC
FTPNOX
DISP
RTHP
FTPNOX
FEHC
FENOX
FTPNOX
DISP
RTHP
VDHP
NSVR

FENOX
FENOX
VDHP
VDHP
VDHP
FEHC
FECO
VDHP
ETWM1
FEHC
VDHP
NSVR


FECO

FECO FENOX

NSVR
VDHP FECO

FTPNOX NSVR
VDHP FECO
FTPHC VDHP
FTPCO FTPHC



FTPCO FTPHC
                                                                                                                     FTPCO
                                                                                                                     FENOX

-------
                                                       Table  IV.  C-2

                                           SUMMARY  OF  STEPWISE  BACKWARD ANALYSIS
                                            FOR HIGHWAY MPG FOR MODEL  YEAR 1981
Level of
Stratification:
Order in which the variables
were dropped:






M
U>
ro









All Data
Coventional Automatic
Trans. (CA)
Convent! onan Manual
Trans (CM)
Lockup Auto.
Trans. (LA)
All Chrysler
All Ford
All GM
All Honda
All Nissan
All Toyota
Ford/CA
GM/CA
Ford /CM
GM/LA
FECO
FENOX

FENOX

RTHP
FTP CO
VDHP
FECO
FEHC
FEHC
FTPNOX
FTPHC
NSVR
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC
FEHC

FECO

FEHC
DISP
FEHC
FENOX
ETWM1
ETWM1
FEHC
FTPCO
FTPNOX
NSVR
RTHP
FENOX
FECO

FEHC

FTPCO
FENOX
FTPHC
FTPCO
FTPNOX
FTPNOX
• ETWM1
FEHC
FENOX
DISP
FTPCO

FTPHC



FECO
FTPNOX
FTPCO
FEHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FTPHC
FECO
DISP
FTPCO
FECO

FTPNOX FTPCO



FTPHC
FEHC VDHP FTPHC
FECO
FTPHC
VDHP FECO FTPCO DISP
FECO DISP VDHP

FENOX
FEHC FECO FTPCO
FECO FENOX
FTPHC

-------
                                                            Table  IV. C-3

                                                  SUMMARY OF STEPWISE  BACKWARD ANALYSIS
                                                  FOR COMBINED MPG FOR MODEL YEAR 1981
U>
         Level of
         Stratification:
Order in which the variables
were dropped:
All Data
Conventional Automatic
Trans. (CA)
Conventional Manual
Trans. (CM)
Lockup Auto.
Trans. (LA)
All Chrysler
All Ford
All GM
All Honda
All Nissan
All Toyota
Ford/CA
GM/CA
Ford/ CM
GM/LA
FECO
FEHC

FECO

FEHC

FTPNOX
FTPHC
FTPCO
FEHC
FTPNOX
RTHP
FEHC
FECO
FEHC
RTHP
VDHP
FENOX

FEHC

FECO

FENOX
FTPCO
FECO
DISP
ETWMI
FEHC
FTPHC
NSVR
ETWMI
FEHC
FEHC
FTPHC

DISP

FTPCO

DISP
RTHP
VDHP
ETWMI
FECO
FTPNOX
VDHP
DISP
DISP
FECO
FENOX
FTPCO

VDHP

RTHP

FTPCO
FEHC
FTPHC
FTPNOX
DISP
DISP
FTPCO
FENOX

FTPCO

FECO

FENOX

VDHP

FEHC
FECO
FENOX
VDHP
FEHC
FTPCO
FECO
FEHC

FTPHC

FTPNOX VDHP





VDHP FTPHC

FTPNOX
FTPHC
FTPHC VDHP


FTPNOX-- •

FENOX

-------
IV.  D.  Residual Analysis

Another analytical approach  that was used  was a  residual  analysis based  on
multiple independent variable regression equations.  Briefly, the   approach is
as  follows.   Get  a  regression  equation for  MPG  as  a  function  of  several
different variables,  but not emissions.  Compute the  residuals  by using  the
equation  to   predict  the  actual  data.   The  residuals  are  the  differences
between,  or  the  ratios of,  the  predicted and  actual  MPG data.   Plot  and
regress .hese  residuals versus  emissions to  see if any  relationships can be
seen.   Ii this  way  most of  the  fuel  economy important  variables  can  be
"accounted for" and what is left can be explored to see if there  is a  residual
fuel  economy/emissions  relationship.  The  data  base  utilized here  was  the
CERT/EPA base for the 1981 model year (less  Diesels).

The  form  of  the  basic multiple  regression  equation  to use  was  considered
next.  Rather  than specify just one form it was  decided  to  use 3  forms  since
it was  not known if the  form  of the basic MPG  equation would  influence  the
result.  We  looked for  equations that were published  and that had reasonable
 2            2
R   values  (R   values  of  about  0.9   were   considered   desirable).   Three
equation  forms were  selected;   they  are called  the  Murrell  1975,  Bascunana
1979, and Cheng 1981 equations.

The  Murrell   1975  equation  came  from  SAE  paper 750958,  entitled  "Factors
Affecting  Fuel  Economy"  by J. Dillard  Murrell.   The  equation  contains  5
variables:   (CID   x   N/V~'8),    ETW,   (RTHP/ETW),   (RTHP/CID),   and   (CMPR°'4
-1)/(CMPR°'4).

The Bascunana  1979 equation  came from  SAE paper  790654 by Jose L.   Bascunana,
entitled  "Derivation and  Discussion of  a Regression Model for  Estimating  the
Fuel  Economy  of  Automobiles".    The  1979  Bascunana  equation   contains   as
independent variables:  ETW,  displacement, and N/V ratio.  In contrast to many
other  equations,  the  1979 Bascunana equation  involves a  product of  variables
instead of a sum.
                                    IV-34

-------
The  1981  Cheng  equation  was  developed  in  this  study  as  an  adjunct to  the
sttpwise backward regression analysis study  discussed  in section  IV.  C of this
report.

The general functional forms of the equations are shown below.

                     Functional Forms  of  the  MPG Equations

Equation                               Form

1975 Murrell*                MPG = A(CID x N/V)~°'8   + B(ETW)~°'67
                             +  C(RTHP/ETW)   +  D(RTHP/CID)
                             +  E(CMPR°'4 -1)/CMPR°*4   + F

1979 Bascunana*              MPG = A[(ETW)3 (DISP)b (N/V)°]

1981 Cheng                   MPG = ACETW"1) + B(VDHP) + C(DISP)  + D(RTHP)
                             + E(N/V)  + F

For  the data bases that  they  were derived  from  with  the  specific  constants
listed in the references an estimate of the "goodness of fit"  is shown  below:
                    2
                   R  as an Indication of "Goodness of Fit"
Equation
1975 Murrell
1975 Murrell
1979 Bascunana
1981 Cheng
1981 Cheng
1981 Cheng
(Type of MPG)
(urban)
(highway)
(composite)
(urban)
(highway)
(composite)
R2 (original ref)
0.89
0.87
0.95
0.90
0.86
0.90
*   Equivalent test weight  (ETW)  was  substituted for inertia weight which was
    the original variable in the Murrell and Bascunana  equations.
                                    IV-35

-------
For  the  1975  Murrell   and  the  1979  Bascunana  equations  it  was  thought
inappropriate  to  use   them  with  their  originally   determined  coefficient
values.   Instead,   the   functional  forms  were  kept   the  same  and   new
coefficients were  derived  using the MY  1981  data  base used in this  report.
The results are shown in the table below.

                 Updated Coefficients  Using MY 1981 Data Base

                             1975 Murrell Equation
Coefficients

Coeff .
A
B
C
D
E
F

Original
urban highway composite
7,909 19,930 N.A.
2,824 2,876 N.A.
-66.82 5.839 N.A.
0.1224 -2.259 N.A.
34.76 39.37 N.A.
-19.74 -25.24 N.A.
R2
Updated
urban
7,501
5,764
-47.36
-5.025
16.20
-17.03
0.90
highway
29,878
3,956
227.2
-16.80
-1.843
-10.69
0.88
composite
14,989
5,602
36.28
-10.09
-1.700
-8.915
0.91
1979 Bascunana Equation
Coefficients

Coeff.
A
a
b
c

Original
urban highway composite
N.A. N.A. 37,246
N.A. N.A. -0.4653
N.A. N.A. -0.4031
N.A. N.A. -0.4150
R2

urban
141,482
-0.8659
-0.1889
-0.2403
0.90
Updated
highway
959,401
-0.7840
-0.3301
-0.6450
0.88

composite
436,918
-0.8831
-0.2323
-0.4086
0.90
                                    IV-36

-------
                              1981 Cheng Equation
                                 Coefficients

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.

urban
70,077
0.2908
-0.0044
-0.0291
-0.1047
4.0439
R2 = 0.90
highway
80,599
-0.4058
-0.0301
-0.0271
-0.4356
34.546
0.86
composite
77,444
0.0458
-0.0084
-0.0366
-0.2187
13.560
0.90
Using the updated  coefficients,  and the  original  functional forms for  all  3
equations, a residual analysis was  carried out.  Two forms  of   residuals  were
studied,  actual MPG  minus  predicted  MPG,  (called  the  delta-residual),  and
actual  MPG  divided  by   predicted  MPG,   (called  the  ratio-residual).    The
residuals  were  scatter  plotted  against  the  six  emission  variables.    The
initial  stratification was based .on  all  the  1981 data  implying 108  scatter
plots (3 fuel  economy dependent  variables x  3 equations   x  2  residuals  per
dependent variable  x  6  variables).  The  plots did not  suggest any linear  or
other relationship between the residuals of fuel economy and emissions.

Upon examining  the results of the 108  plots,  linear regressions were  performed
                                        2
for  all  the   plots,  and  all  the  r    terms   were   so  small  as  to   be
insignificant.   The regression  results  are  presented   in  appendix  6.    The
                 2
largest  of the  r  values,  0.042,  was  for  the ratio-residual of  combined  fuel
economy  (MPG )   regressed  against urban  NOx  (FTPNOX).   This  result  implies
that only 4.2%  of  the variability in  the  percentage  by  which  the actual  MPG
differs  from  the  MPG   predicted by  the  1979 Bascunana  equation  could  be
explained as a  linear  function  of the urban  NOx;  the remaining 95.8% was  not
                                                           2
related  to  FTPNOX.  Since most  (58 out  of 108) of  the r  values  were  less
                       2
than 1%  (the  average  r   was  only 1.1%),  only a small proportion of the total
variation of any of the 18 residuals can  be explained by a  linear function  of
the 6 emission variables.
                                    IV-37

-------
Another  way  to  consider  this  type  of  information  is  to  forget  residual
                                  2
analysis and  use  improvement in R   and  standard error  as  an indicators  that

emissions do or do not relate  to fuel economy-.  The following data  illustrate

multiple  regressions  using  the Cheng  equation  with  and  without  the  six
emissions as independent  variables.
Dependent

Variable

UMPG

HMPG

CMPG
—Without Emissions—
          Standard
 R2     Error(SE)
.898
.864
.897
1.760
2.776
2.064
—With Emissions—    -Change in:—
         Standard
 R2    Error(SE)       R2    SE
                                                 +.005   +.059

                                                 +.003   +.103

                                                 +.005   -.038
.903
.867
.902
1.819
2.879
2.026
These  data indicate  that inclusion  or exclusion  of  the  urban  and  highway

emissions  in  the Cheng  equation makes  virtually  no  difference.   It  can  be

concluded  that  for  the  1981 EPA  certification data  base,  exhaust  emissions

have essentially no identifiable relationship to fuel  economy after accounting

for  variability  in fuel  economy  due  to  vehicle  design  parameters.   This

conclusion  is  restricted  to the  1981  EPA  certification  data  base  due  to

somewhat limited  ranges  for  emissions  (these are  expanded in  section IV.  H)

and collinearity of variables in the Cheng equation  (see appendix 8).
                                    IV-38

-------
Section IV.  E.    Subconfiguration - Matched Data Analysis

Another analysis method was  to  restrict  the study to the  1981  CERT/EPA data
base and then stratify by the following ten (10) parameters:

    1.   Manufacturer
    2.   Engine Family
    3.   Displacement
    4.   Vehicle I.D.
    5.   Transmission
    6.   ETW
    7.   Dynamometer Horsepower
    8.   Axle Ratio
    9.   N/V
    10.  Compression Ratio

The  purpose  of  such a  stratification  was  to  identify,   as  closely  as
possible, the effect of engine calibration on emissions and fuel  economy  for
each  vehicle  that  was  tested  at  the  EPA  laboratory  in  more  than  one
configuration.  Also this tended to eliminate test variability which was  due
to either  differences  among  the test  vehicles  or to  differences among  the
vehicle testing laboratories.  The disadvantage of such a  stratification  was
that only 27  such  vehicles were  identified, each  of  which was tested at  EPA
in at least two (2) versions.

In examining  the  results  the following relationships between the urban fuel
economy (MPG ) and the regulated emissions  were  seen.

    1.   For FTPHC:
         a.   MPG  increased as FTPHC decreased,  in  18  of  the 27 cases,
                                   IV-39

-------
         b.    MPG  decreased  as  FTPHC decreased, in 8 of the 27 cases, and
                 u                                                   '
         c.    MPG  remained  unchanged  in one  (1) of the 27 cases.
    2.   For FTPCO:
         a.   MPG  increased  as  FTPCO  decreased, in 23 of the 27 cases, and

         b.   MPG  decreased  as  FTPCO  decreased,  in  four  (4)  of  the 27
              cases.
    3.   For FTPNOX:
         a.   MPG  increased  as FTPNOX  decreased,  in  nine  (9)  if  the 27
              cases,  and

         b.   MPG  decreased as  FTPNOX decreased, in 18 of the 27 cases.

The following chart  illustrates the  seven  (7)  combinations  of outcomes  that
we found in examining those 27 groups of  data.
    As  MPG   increases,   the  level   of   the  corresponding  emissions  were
observed to:


Outcome 1
Outcome 2
Outcome 3
Outcome A
Outcome 5
Outcome 6
Outcome 7

Number of
Occurrences
10
7
5
2
1
1
1


FTPHC
Decreases
Decreases
Increases
Increases
Increases
Decreases
Unchanged


FTPCO
Decreases
Decreases
Decreases
Increases
Increases
Increases
Decreases


FTPNOX
Increases
Decreases
Increases
Increases
Decreases
Increases
Decreases
                                    IV-40

-------
Thus, from this rather limited set of data  (shown  in table IV. E-l), we can
infer  that  decreasing the  level  of  the  FTPHC or  FTPCO emissions  is not
usually detrimental  to MPG  .   But decreasing  the  level of FTPNOX emissions
usually accompanies a decrease in MPG  .
                                    IV-41

-------
                                                                         Table IV. E-l
t

UEfi
FORD
FORO
FORD
FORO
FORO
FORD
FORO
FORO
FOHD
FORO
FORO
FORD
FORD
FORO
FURD
FORO
FORO
FORO
FORD
FORD
FORD
88

vin
1E2-1.6-F-441
1E2-1.6-F-441
1K2-2.3-C-2B5
1K2-2.3-C-285
1K2-2.3-C-2BS
1K2-2.3-C-2B5
1K2-2.3-C-28S
1K2-2.3-G-286
1K2-2.3-G-286
1K2-2.3-G-286
1K2-2.3-G-2B6
1K2-2.3-G-286
1Z2-2.3-C-290
122-2. 3-C-290
1Z2-2.3-C-290
1S1-4.2-F-345
1S1-4.2-F-345
1A1-5.8W-G-259
1A1-5.8W-G-259
1A1-5.8H-G-259
1AI-5.8W-G-2S9
COMQ79
COM079
V
E
B
1

3
4
5
S
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
2
i

UQUE
6.4
6.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
8.9
8.9
B.9
11.0
11.0
12.6
12.6
12.6
12.6
18:*

CLUE
98.0
98.0
140.0
140.0
140.0
140.0
140.0
140.0
140.0
140.0
140.0
140.0
140.0
140.0
140.0
255.0
255.0
351.0
351.0
351.0
351.0
131:8
$
L
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
8
B
8
8
8
B
8
C B F
R B I
a L 2
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 2 N
1 §N
COMP.
BallQ
B.8
8.8
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
8.2
8.2
8.3
6.3
8.3
8.3
gig
AXLE

T
R
BAIIfl UlY H.
3.59
3.59
3.08
3. 08
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
3. OB
3.08
3.45
3. 45
3.45
3.08
3. OB
2.73
2.73
2.73
2.73
§:iU
43.0
43.0
43.0
43.0
43.0
43.0
43.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
37.0
37.0
37.0
28. 0
28. 0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
3H
J£ • O
M4
M4
M4
M4
M4
M4
M4
M4
M4
M4
M4
M4
MS
MS
MS
L4
L4
L4
L4
L4
L4
b3
EMISSION
CONTROL
SISIEU 	
EGR.PMP.OXD.RED
EGR.PMP.OXD.RED
EGR.PMP.OXD.3CL
EGR.PMP.OX0.3CL
EGR.PMP.OXD.3CL
EGR.PMP.OX0.3CL
EGR.PMP.OXD. 3CL
EGR.PMP.OXD.3CL
EGR.PMP.OXD.3CL
EGR.PMP.OXD. 3CL
EGR.PMP.OXD.3CL
EGR.PMP.OXD.3CL
EGR.PMP.OXO
EGR.PMP.OXD
EGR.PMP.OXO
EGR.PMP.OXD.RED
EGR.PMP.OXO. RED
EGR.PMP.OX0.3CL
EGR.PMP.OXD.3CL
EGR.PMP.OX0.3CL
EGR.PMP.OXD.3CL
i§B:WP:85B:3a

irsTg
80534B
806864
806678
806574
807680
807366
807453
805808
805901
806116
606183
80637S
805831
B06191
80630S
B05B84
806720
805919
806204
806299
806572
mm

E.m_
2375
2375
3125
3125
3125
3125
3125
31 ^5
3125
3125
3125
3125
3125
3125
3125
3750
3750
4500
4500
4500
4500
388

UtiEfi
27.9
27.3
21.3
21.4
21.4
22.1
22.2
22.9
23.0
23.3
23.2
23.0
21.2
20.0
20.6
18.1
17.0
13.8
13.9
13.6
13.7
18:*
GM
GM
                  GM
                  GM
                  GM

                  GM
                  GM

                  JRT
                  JRT
                  SAAB
                  SAAB
                                                                                                                         UEHC CIPCQ EJEH04
                         P0288
                         P0288
       C09023
       COB023
       COB023

       CA7403-A
       CA74Q3-A

       XJ52/16
       XJS2/16
                  JKT    XJ52/1S
                  JHT    XJ52/1S
                  JRT    XJ52/15
                  JRT    XJ52/15
       668
       668
                  TOYOTA 81-FE-4
                  TOYOTA 81-FE-4

                  TOYOTA 81-FE-17
                  TOYOTA 81-FE-17

                  TOYOTA fll-FE-13
                  TOYOTA 81-FE-13
1
1
1
2
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
2
3
0
1
11:1
10.3
10.3
10.3
14.5
14.5
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
9.2
9.2
7.8
7.8
10.2
10.2
11.5
11.5
265.0
265.0
268. S
268.5
268.5
367.0
367.0
258.0
256.0
258.0
258.0
258.0
258.0
111:1
88.6
88.6
108.0
108.0
144.4
144.4
i
8
B
8
8
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
fi
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
8:3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.2
8.
B.
8.
B.
8.
8.
?:i
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
§:J1 31:8 t3 i8B:Mp;8!B:3Eh
2.41 30.2 L3 EGR.PMP.OX0.3CL
2.41 30.2 L3 EGR.PMP.-OX0.3CL
2.41 30.2 L3 EGR.PMP.OXD.3CL
3.08 38.2 A3 EGR.PMP.OXD.3CL
3.08 38.2 A3 EGR.PMP.OXD.3CL
3.07 40.6 A3 3CL
3.07 40.6 A3 3CL
3.07 40.6 A3 PMP.3CL
3.07 40.6 A3 PMP.3CL
3.07 40.6 A3 PMP.3CL
3.07 40.6 A3 PMP.3CL
3.89 43.7 MS EGR.3CL
3.89 43.7 MS EGR.3CL
3.31 51.7 K4 EGR.PLS.OXD
3.31 si.7 M4 EGR.PLS.OXO
3.73 55.6 A3 EGR.PMP.3CL.OTR
3.73 55.6 A3 EGR.PMP.3CL.OTR
3.58 34.5 A4 EGR.PMP.3WY.OTR
3.58 34.5 A4 EGR.PMP.3WY.OTR
R03041
804167
803482
803S69
805865
606869
807294
806388
806429
806478
806524
80666
-------
Section IV.  F.  Special Engine Over Time Trends

In an attempt  to examine  the  question of fuel economy versus  emission  stan-
dards, a  review of five  major  engine displacement groupings  was  undertaken
to  see the  effects  on  fuel  economy  with  increasingly  stringent  Federal
emission  standards.   The model  years selected (1979,  1980,  and  1981)  were
chosen  because  these  three  years have  three  different  sets  of  emission
                                                            •»
standards  and  represent  the  most  recent  automotive and  emission  control
technology.  The engine  groupings  chosen represented high production volume
designs that in turn represent the trend for future automotive  applications.

The objective was to match up, within the limits of the test data  which were
used  to  generate the  EPA fuel  economy  label values,*  similar  vehicles  of
differing  model  year,  and  see how fuel  economy  varied with   differing
emission  levels.  The  matching was to  incorporate as many possible vehicle
and powerplant design  parameters as  the data base was capable of  providing,
in  order   to  eliminate  to  the  maximum  extent  possible  the  influence  of
vehicle and  power  plant design  differences.   This was  not always  possible,
due to the variability of product offerings from  model year  to model  year.
In  every  case,  however,   the   closest  possible  matching was  arrived  at
utilizing  the  EPA Test  Car List  data base.  The power  plant  and vehicle
design parameters considered for matching are noted below:

Powerplant Design Parameters

         Swept Volume (displacement)
         Induction System (carburetor design i.e.,  2 barrel, 4  barrel, etc.)
         Compression Ratio
         Manufacturer's Rated  Power Output
         Emission Control System
*  EPA Test Car List,  Second Edition 1979,  Second Edition 1980, and Second
   Edition 1981.
                                   IV-43

-------
Vehicle Design Parameters

    Weight
    Transmission Type
    Axle Ratio
    N/V Ratio
    Road Load Horsepower (RLHP)

By  "walking  through"  the  noted model  years and  matching  the  above  noted
parameters to the maximum extent possible within a  given engine  displacement
grouping, data  were compiled  to  address the fuel  economy  versus  emissions
question.  The following five  tables  are the results of  this  "walk through"
procedure.   After  carefully  reviewing  the  tables  and  their  associated
graphs,  it  becomes  apparent  that no  readily discernible  trend is  evident
with respect to fuel economy versus emissions since  there are  instances when
fuel economy increases  accompany  both increases  and decreases in  emissions.
These data are all plotted and included in this document as appendix 7.

Looking at the  data for various engine families, some  tentative conclusions
can be arrived at.

Ford 2.3 L Powerplant (Table IV. F-l)

For automatic  transmission equipped vehicles, the  slight  increase in  fuel
economy  is  of  the  magnitude  expected  with  a  decrease  in  RLHP   with
progressing model  years.   For manual transmission  vehicles,  an increase  in
fuel economy  was  noted with  decreasing  emissions, which  coincided with  a
major change in emission control technology.

Chrysler 1.7 L Powerplant (Table IV.  F-2)

For automatic transmission equipped vehicles, there was no  consistent  change
in  fuel  economy,  either city or highway, as emissions  decreased.  As  the
emissions decreased each year from 1979 to 1981,  the fuel  economy dropped  in
1980 and then increased in 1981.
                                    iy-44

-------
                                                                   Table IV.  F-l
           MY
Wt    Trana   Ax|t--/N/V
js
UT
79
80
81
79
80
81
3000
3000
3000
3000
3125
3125
A3-1
A3-1
A3-1
M4-i
M4-1
M4-i
3.08/43.0
3.Q8/43.0
3.08/43.0
3.08/43.0
3..Q8/43.0
3.Q8/43.0
Calif
80
80
3000
3125
A3-1
M4-1
3.08/43.0
3. 08/43.0
RLIIP
                            10.2
                             9.7
                                             8,
                                            10,
                                            10,
                                            10.4
                                             8.0
                                            10.2
                                                           Ford 2.3 Liter Powerplant

                                                        MY 79 - 140 C.I.D. 2  bbl carb.,
                                                                9.0 C.R.  92 BMP Manf.  Rating

                                                        Automatic Transmission Vehicles  - EGR/OXD

                                                        Manual Transmission Vehicles - EGR/PMP/OXD

                                                        MY 80 - 140 C.I.D., 2 bbl carb., 9.0 C.R.
                                                                92 BHP Manf.  Rating
                                                                EGR/PMP/OXD

                                                        MY 80 (Calif) - 140 C.I.D. 2 bbl carb.,
                                                                9.0 C.R. 92 BHP Manf. Rating,
                                                                EGR/PMP/OXD/3CL

                                                        MY 81 - 140 C.I.D., 2 bbl carb., 9.0 C.R.
                                                                92 BHP Manf. Rating, EGR/PMP/OXD/3CL

                                                                     .  Emissions

I1C
,41
,178
,101
,91
.22
.267
.282
.296
City
CO
7.80
3.09
1.96
4.70
1.76
1.75
3.58
3.96
Highway
NOx
1.48
1.33
.41
1.46
1.40
.46
.44
.63
HC
.05
.033
.014
.16
.065
.045
.034
.026
CO
.50
.10
.01
.20
.02
.14
.04
.27
NOx
2.18
2.26
.18
2.15
2.45
.18
.40
.49
City
                                                            20.5
                                                            20.9
                                                            21.5
                                                            20.8
                                                            21.3
                                                            22.6
                                                                                        21.1
                                                                                        20.0
                                                                                                  F.E.
llwy

29.
29.
30.
32.
33,
31.7
                                                                      31.5
                                                                      31.1
                                                                                                                            Comb
                    23.7
                    23.9
                    24.8
                    24.8
                    25.4
                    26.0
                    24.8
                    23.8

-------
                                                                     Table IV. F-2

                                                             Chrysler 1.7 Liter Powerplant

                                                          MY 79 -  105 C.I.D.,  2  bbl carb.,
                                                                   8.2 C.R., 75 BMP Hanf.  Rating,
                                                                   EGR/PLS/OXD

                                                          MY 80 -  105 C.I.D.,  2  bbl carb., 8.2 C.R.,
                                                                   65 BI1P  Mnnf. Rating, EGR/PMP/OXD


                                                          MY 80 (Calif) - 105 C.I.D., 2 bbl, 8.2 C.R.,
                                                                   65 BI1P  Manf. Rating, EGR/PMP/OXD/3CL

                                                          MY 81 -  105 C.I.D.,  2  bbl. carb., 8.2 C.R.,
                                                                   65 BHP  Manf. Rating, ECR/PMP/OXD/3CL
H
                                                                          Emissions
                                                                                                                     F.E.

MY
79
80
81
80
81
79
81

Wt
2500
2500
2500
2625
2625
2500
2500

Trans
A3-1
A3-1
A3-1
M4-1
M4-1
M4-2
M4-2

Axle/N/V
3.48/53.4
3.48/53.4
3.48/53.3
3.37/50.2
3.37/50.4
3.37/49.3
3.13/47.9

RLHP
6.6
7.1
6.9
7.4
6.9
7.4
7.4

HC
.26
.178
.147
.180
.125
.36
.144
City
CO
7.2
3.32
2.07
2.39
1.28
11.70
1.65
Highway
NOx
1.36
1.21
.79
1.00
.63
1.60
.67
HC
.04
.011
.015
.014
.018
.04
.015
CO
.90
.11
.07
.12
.01
.70
.04
NOx
2.84
1.89
.69
1.13
.54
4.41
.49
City
24.0
23.8
24.5
23.3
26.4
26.4
26.9
Hwy
32.7
31.2
34.2
33.3
39.4
37.8
41.2
Comb
27.3
26.6
28.1
26.9
31.0
30.6
31.9
             Calif
             80
             80
2500   A3-1
2500   M4-1
3.48/53.4
3.37/50.2
7.1
6.7
.168
.204
1.86
3.38
.86
.61
.010
.020
.06
.10
.68
.70
23.0
24.4
31.9
38.0
26.3
29.1

-------
For  manual  transmission  vehicles,  fuel  economy  increased  as  emissions
decreased.   Thus  both  the   automatic   and   manual   transmission  equipped
vehicles  exhibited   fuel   economy   increases   which  coincided  with   the
incorporation of more advanced emission control technology.

General Motors 1.6 L Powerplant (Table IV. F-3)

There were  two  versions  of tb*e GM  1.6 L  engine reviewed, the base  or  stan-
dard  engine  and  an  optional  H.O.  (high output)  version.   Fuel  economy
results with  respect  to emissions  differed markedly  between these  two  ver-
sions of  the  engine.   For  the standard  engine with  automatic  transmission,
there was a significant  increase in fuel  economy  with  decreasing emissions.
For  the  manual transmission  equipped version  of  the standard engine  there
was  a  decrease  in  fuel  economy  between   1979 and  1980,   only  partly
attributable  to  increased  road  load  horsepower.    Again,   there   was  an
increase  in fuel  economy   coinciding  with the utilization  of  an  advanced
emission control  system.   For the  H.O.  version of the engine,  a  different
set  of  results  emerged.    Both   the  automatic  transmission   and  manual
transmission versions of  this engine exhibited noticeable declines in  fuel
economy with  decreasing  emission levels.  It  is  not  obvious from  the  data
available why the fuel economy versus emissions relation  is so different for
the standard and high output versions of  this  powerplant.

General Motors 2.5 L Powerplant (Table IV. F-4)

For  both  vehicles equipped with  either   automatic or manual  transmissions,
the  significant drops  in   fuel  economy   appear to be  associated  with  the
engine  being  used  to  power   front-wheel  drive  (FWD)  vehicles  instead  of
rear-wheel drive (RWD) vehicles.  This drop in  tested fuel economy might not
be indicative of a real difference  in the in-use  fuel  economies.  (There  is
evidence  to  the  effect that rear-drive  vehicles have   larger  offsets  of
actual in-use fuel economy  versus dynamometer fuel economy test results  than
do front-drive vehicles.*)   The slight drop in fuel economy for the RWD

* - Neil South, "1978 to 1980 Ford  On-Road Fuel Economy," SAE Paper 810383,
    February 1981.
 -  Schneider,  et  al.,  "In-Use Fuel  Economy  of 1980  Passenger  Cars,"   SAE
    Paper 810384,  February  1981.
 -  Section III. D of  this  report.
                                    IV-47

-------
 I
:p-
co
                                                                           Table IV. F-3

                                                                   General Motors 1.6 Liter Powerplant

                                                                 MY 79 - 98 C.I.D., 2 bbl carb., 8.6 C.R.,
                                                                         70 BI1P Hanf. Rating, EGR/OXD
                                                                         74 BIIP H.O. Hanf. Rating, EGR/OXD

                                                                 MY 80 - 98 C.I.D., 2 bbl carb., 8.6 C.R.,
                                                                         70 BHP Manf. Rating, EGR/PLS/OXD
                                                                         74 BHP il.O. Manf. Rating, EGR/PLS/OXD

                                                                 MY 80 (Calif) - 98 C.I.D., 2 bbl carb., 8.6 C.R.,
                                                                         70 BHP Manf. Rating, EGR/PLS/3CL

                                                                 MY 81 - 98 C.I.D., 2 bbl carb., 8.6 C.R.,
                                                                         70 BHP Manf. Rating, EGR/PLS/3CL

                                                                                  Emissions
                                                                                                                          F.E.

MY
79 Std
80 Std
81 Std
79 110
80 HO
79 Std
80 Std
81 Std
79 110
80 HO
Calif
80
80

WE
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2250
2375

2500
2375

Trans
A3-1
A3-1
A3-1
A3-1
A3-1
M4-1
M4-1
M4-1
M4-1
M4-1

A3-1
M4-1

Axle/N/V
3.70/56.5
3.70/56.5
3.70/56.5
3.70/56.5
3.70/56.5
3.70/56.5
3.70/56.5
3.70/56.5
3.70/56.5
3.70/56.7

3.70/56,7
3.70/56.5

RLI1P
9.2
9.8
9.8
9.2
9.8
9.2
9.8
9.8
9.2
8.9

8.9
8.9

HC
.43
.188
.178
.89
.206
.55
.163
.176
.67
.234

.123
.171
City
CO
9.00
3.01
3.68
11.80
2.96
8.25
4.47
3.06
8.30
3.70

1.99
5.00

NOx
1.47
1.39
.28
1.11
1.41
1.46
1.05
.47
.71
1.31

.40
.12

HC
.03
.026
.106
.07
.041
.05
.026
.021
.06
.041

.020
.040
Highway
CO
1.57
.38
3.24
.90
.03
.55
.46
.67
.70
.23

.55
.63

NOx
.78
1.25
.04
1.76
1.47
1.85
1.41
'.15
1.28
1.66

.03
.04

City
23.3
26.1
25.8
26.4
23.0
28.3
24.7
27.4
28.4
26.3

24.7
26.0

11 wy
25.8
31.0
32.3
34.7
28.3
39.1
33.2
36.3
38.8
36.4

30.6
37.2

Comb
24.3
28.1
28.4
29.8
25.1
32.3
27.9
30.8
32.3
30.1

27.0
30.1

-------
                                                        Table IV.  F-4
Calif

80
80'
3000
3000
                                                CM Corp. 2.5 Liter L-4 Powerplant

                                             MY 79 - 151 C.I.D., 2 bbl carb.,  8.1 C.R.,
                                                     90 BIIP Manf. Rating, EGR/OXD

                                             MY 80 - 151 C.I.D., 2 bbl carb.,  8.2 C.R.,
                                                     90 BIIP Manf. Rating, EGR/OXD/PLS

                                             MY 80 (Calif)-151 C.I.D., 2 bbl carb., 8.1 C.R.
                                                     90 BIIP Manf. Rating, EGR/3CL

                                             MY 81 - 151 C.I.D., 2 bbl carb.,  8.1 C.R.,
                                                     90 BIIP Manf. Rating, EGR/PMP/OXD/3CL

                                                                      Emissions
A3-1/FWD
M4-2/FWD
2.84/35.7
3.34/38.2
7.3
7.3
.300
.328
4.49
3.33
.33
.94
.025
.019
.32
.12
                                                                                                 .75
22.3
23.8
                                                                                                                 F.E.

MY
79
80
80
81
81
79
80
80
81

Wt
3000
3125
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000

Trans
A3-1/RWD
A3-1/RWD
A3-1/FWD
A3-1/FWD
A3-1/FWD
M4-1/RWD
M4-2/FWD
M4-2/FWD
M4-2/FWD

Axle/N/V
2.73/39.9
2.73/39.9
2.84/35.7
2.53/35.7
2.53/35.7
2.73/39.9
3.34/38.6
3.34/38.6
3.32/38.0

RLHP
8.3
8.2
7.3
7.3
7.3
8.3
7.3
7.3
7.3

HC
.39
.163
.223
.113
.135
.46
.192
.254
.175
City
CO
7.20
2.96
2.17
1.15
1.77
6.50
2.84
3.89
1.0.1
Highway
NOx
1.54
1.37
1.21
.66
.52
.99
1.55
1.42
.68
HC
.06
.027
.040
.035
.035
.05
.023
.027
.027
CO
.60
.34
.40
.46
.80
1.10
.19
.19
.18
NOx
1.63
1.23
1.16
.31
.29
1.08
1.45
1.35
.15
City
24.3
24.2
21.1
22.1
21.8
23.7
22.9
22.1
21.6
Hwy
32.5
31.6
31.9
32.5
31.5
37.4
34.1
34.6
35.0
Comb
27.4
27.1
24.9
25.8
25.3
28.4
26.9
26.4
26.1
33.8
35.9
26.3
28.1

-------
vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions (from 1979  to  1980)  is of the
magnitude expected  with a  125  pound increase in test weight.   There  is  a
slight  drop in  fuel  economy  for  the  FWD vehicles  equipped  with  manual
transmissions from  1980 to  1981.   For  the  automatic  transmission  equipped
FWD vehicles,  the increase  (from  1980  to  1981)  coincides with  the use  of
more  advanced  emission  control technology  on  the 1981  models.   However,
since  the  cylinder  heads  also  underwent substantial  design changes  during
those  three years,  it  is known that  other  factors are probably  influencing
the fuel economy, too.
General Motors 3.8 L Powerplant (Table IV.  F-5)

For automatic  transmission  equipped vehicles, the  increase  in fuel  economy
appears  to be  attributable  primarily to  the  usage of  a  lock-up  torque
converter  on  MY 81  vehicles.   For manual  transmission  vehicles the  slight
decrease  in  fuel  economy   between  1979  and  1980  appears  to  be  partly
attributable to an  increase  in test weight and  rear  axle ratio.  Again,  an
increase in fuel economy coinciding with the  adoption of  an  advanced control
system can be seen.

Summary

After reviewing the  comparisons, the  only apparent  trend  (with  the  exception
of a  2.1%  drop in fuel economy associated with  the 2.5  L vehicles  equipped
with manual transmissions) is  an  increase  in fuel  economy  from the 1980  to
the  1981  model  year,  which  coincides  with  the   replacement  of  oxidizing
catalyst  systems  with  more  sophisticated  3-way  catalyst  systems.    The
average  increase   in   combined   fuel  economy   (MPG  )   that   accompanied
replacing  an  open-loop oxidation  catalyst  system  with  a closed-loop  3-way
catalyst system was  5.3%.  However, since this "trend" includes  increases  in
fuel  economy  as  small as  1.1%,   we   tested  this   trend  by  comparing  1980
Federal  test   vehicles  with  similar   1980  California  vehicles.   The  1980
Federal vehicles were all equipped  with oxidation catalyst systems while the
California vehicles were all equipped  with  3-way  catalyst  systems.
                                    IV-50

-------
MY
Trans   Axle/N/V
79
80
81
79
80
81
3500
3500
3750
3500
3625
3625
A3-1
A3-1
L3-1
M3-1
M3-1
M3-1
2.41/32.7
2.41/32.7
2.41/32.8
2.93/39.8
3.08/41.8
3.08/42.9
Calif.
80
80
3625
3375
A3-1
M4-1
2.41/32.7
2.93/43.3
RLIIP
                                 12,
                                 10.
                                 10,
                                 12.
                                 H,
                                 11.3
                                 11.2
                                  9.0
                                                       Table  IV. F-5

                                               CM Corp.  3.8 Liter V-6 Powerplant

                                             MY 79 -  231  C.I.D., 2 bbl carb., 8.0 C.R.,
                                                     115  BHP Manf. Rating, EGR/OXD/OTR

                                             MY 80 -  231  C.I.D., 2 bbl carb., 8.0 C.R.,
                                                     115  BHP Manf. Rating, EGR/PMP/OXD

                                             MY 80 (Calif)  - 231 C.l.D. 2 bbl carb.,  8.0 C.R.,
                                                     115  BHP Manf. Rating, EGR/PMP/3CL

                                             MY 81 -  231  C.I.D., 2 bbl carb., 8.0 C.R.,
                                                     110  BHP Manf. Rating, EGR/PMP/3CL

                                                           Emissions
tic
.62
,295
.221
.62
.312
.229
.205
.244
City
CO
5.20
4.20
2.70
7.40
2.96
3.23
2.62
4.97
NOx
1.19
1.32
.50
1.44
.79
.74
.55
.50
1IC
.07.
.056
.029
.04
.039
.017
.050
.029
Highway
CO NOx
.60
.18
.31
.20
.17
.03
.43
.38
1.56
1.17
.17
1.54
.80
.64
.08
.59
                                                 City

                                                 19.5
                                                 19.6
                                                 20.7
                                                 17.5
                                                 16.2
                                                                                  16.8
                                                                                  19.7
                                                                                  15.8
                                                                                            F.E.
                                             Hwy

                                             25.0
                                             26.8
                                             30.1
                                             26.0
                                             23.7
                                             26.8
                                                                      26.8
                                                                      26.3
                                             Comb

                                             21.6
                                             22.3
                                             24.1
                                             20.5
                                             18.9
                                             20.2
                                                                      22.4
                                                                      19.3
Federal
80  3375  M4-1
        2.93/42.8
 9.0
.3<«4    4.63
1.23
.040   .50
1.26
14.9
24.9
                                                                                18.2

-------
The ten  (10)  comparisons  between similar 1980 MY  Federal vehicles and  1980
MY  California vehicles  (detailed  in  the  previous 5  tables)  indicate  an
increase in  fuel  economy with the  addition of a  3-way,  closed-loop  system
occurred in  7  out of the  10  cases.  The average  increase  in fuel economy,
for the  10 cases,  which accompanied the utilization of  a closed-loop 3-way
catalyst system was 2.6%.

Thus,   there  appears  to  be a  trend indicating  a  slight increase  in  fuel
economy  when an  open-loop oxidizing  catalyst  system is  replaced  with  a
closed-loop  3-way  catalyst system.  However,  since the  amount  of  data  is
limited and the absolute value of  the  fuel  economy improvement is not large
relative to  test  variability,  all that  can be said is that,  based on  this
engines over  time  study,  there appears  to  be no  identifiable fuel  economy
penalty which can be  attributed  to  changes  in the Federal emission standard
between 1979  and 1981.
                                    IV-52

-------
 IV.  G.  Sensitivity Coefficient Study

 In  yet  another  way  to  investigate  fuel  economy/emissions  relationships  a
 sensitivity analysis was undertaken.  A sensitivity coefficient can  be  thought
 of as  sort of a  normalized derivative,  and  is usually  expressed as  percent
 change  in  the  dependent variable per percent  change in  independent  variable.
 Suppose there  are  two  points  a   and  b,  with  FE ,   FE. .  and  if  for  this
                                                     a     b
 example the.pollutant  is HC,  then we have  HC and HC, .
                                             3.        0
               Let FE = (FE  + FE )-r2,  HC = (HC  + HC,)-f 2,
               and  AFE  = FE,  - FE  , AHC = HC,  - HC  .
                            b    a'          b    a

.Then the  sensitivity,   call  it  SFEHC,  is  equal  to  A FE/FE-5-AHC/HC .
 Besides  giving an  indication of  the  magnitude  of the effect,  the  algebraic
 sign of  the sensitivity coefficient can contain useful information.   Since  the
 quantities   FE  and  emissions  are  positive,  the  sign  of   the   sensitivity
 coefficient   is  determined  by  the  signs  of  the  deltas.    Four cases  are
 possible, and they  are  shown below:
                               AEmissions
        AFE
      AFE > 0
      AFE < 0
AEmissions > 0 AEmissions < 0
S > 0
S < 0
S < 0
S > 0
 Two  cases  are possible for the sensitivity coefficient.  Either it is positive
 or  negative.  If  it is  positive  then whenever  fuel  economy  goes up,  so do
 emissions,  and vice versa.   If  the sensitivity coefficient  is negative, then
 then when  fuel economy goes  up, emissions go down, and  vice  versa.

 What was done was  to  search the  CERT/EPA  data base  (for 1975 to  1982 model
 years)  for multiple tests  of the same vehicle.   From the multiple  tests  the
 maximum number of  sensitivity coefficients were determined.
                                     IV-53

-------
The results are shown below:
       Variables
          for
  MPG
Pollutant
           No. of Tests       Sensitivity Coefficient
                N        Mean      Max       Min      Sigma
MPG Urban    HC Urban
               1026     +0.001     31.8     -12.8     1.62
MPG Urban    CO Urban
MPG Urban    NOx Urban
               1027     -0.079
                    6.5     - 8.7     0.75
               1027     -0.132     10.5     -16.6     1.38
MPG Hwy
HC Hwy
432     -0.035
3.9     -19.3     1.09
MPG Hwy
CO Hwy
432     -0.060
0.9     - 3.5     0.35
MPG Hwy
NOx Hwy
432     -0.071
8.7     -15.2     1.48
The average sensitivity coefficients are small and  the  standard  deviations are
large.   This  means that  for all practical  purposes,  the average  sensitivity
coefficient  is  neither positive  nor negative,  it  is  zero,  meaning  that  as
often  as  fuel  economy  goes  up when  emissions  go  up,  the  opposite  case
happens.   If anything,  the fact  that 5  out  of  the  6  average  sensitivity
coefficients  were negative  would  lead one  to suspect  that  the  relationship
hinted  at was  one of  "emissions  down-fuel economy up".   However,  what  is
concluded  is that the  sensitivity coefficient  study  did  not  discover  any
relationship  between fuel economy and emissions.  If anything, given the  data
in  the  above table,   it  almost  appears  as if  the  results might  be  from
independent parameters, i.e. two independent parameters  randomly  varying.
                                    IV-54

-------
Section IV.   H.   Data Stratification By Emission Control System

As a  first step  in  the analysis,  each  of the  three fuel  economies  (UMPG,
HMPG, and  CMPG)  were plotted against  each of the  three  regulated  emissions
(FTPHC, FTPCO,  and  FTPNOX)  as well as against  the three emissions  from  the
highway  test  cycle  (FEHC,  FECO,  and  FENOX).   The  data  examined were
restricted to:

    1.   Test data generated at EPA's  laboratory  (the CERT/EPA data  base)  to
         eliminate any possible variation due to differences in laboratories,

    2.   Spark-ignition vehicles (i.e., no Diesels),

    3.   1979  through  1981  model year   vehicles,   in  order  to make  the
         analysis more relevant to present and future vehicles, and

    4.   Non-durability vehicles,  since  durability vehicles  with test data
         up to 50,000 miles and  without  any matching highway  test data were
         of limited usefulness in this analysis.

However, this first set of 18 graphs  (see  appendix 4  for  similar  graphs) did
not  indicate  any relationship between fuel economy  and  exhaust emissions.
This  result  was  expected since  regressions of  fuel economy against each
emission produced very small  values   of  r-squared.   (See  section  IV. A.)
Since  the  highway  fuel economy  (HMPG)  had  a  weaker relationship  to the
regulated  emissions  (FTPHC,  FTPCO, FTPNOX)  than did  either  the urban fuel
economy (UMPG) or the combined fuel economy (CMPG), subsequent analyses were
restricted to trying to relate UMPG or CMPG to FTPHC,  FTPCO,  or FTPNOX.
The next  step  was to stratify  the  data by  the  emission control technology
employed.  The  following  eight  (8)  emission control systems were identified
which are representative of a majority  of  the systems that are currently in
use as well as the ones  which will be used  in the near future:
                                    IV-55

-------
                       Emission Control Technologies

Fuel
Injected
System 1
System 2
System 3
System 4
System 5
System 6
System 7
System 8
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes

EGR?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Ox
Cat?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
3 Way
Cat?
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

3CL?
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Air
Pump?
No
No
Yes
Y/N*
Y/N
Yes
Y/N
Y/N
Pulsating
Air Sys?
Yes
No
No
Y/N
Y/N
No
Y/N
Y/N
*   Y/N means either Yes or No.
    (Note:  While  the  above eight systems are  non-overlapping,  they do  not
    represent all technologies.)
Stratifying the  data  by emission control technologies  increased the number
of  graphs  by  a  factor  of  8   and  accordingly  decreased  the  amount   of
variation.  These  graphs  showed  a slight tendency for an  increase in fuel
economy with  a  decrease  in emission  levels;  however, since that  tendency
might  have  been  a result of  ETW  or  transmission  differences,  further
analysis was carried out.   Since it was possible that much  of  this variation
was  due  to  differences in the  test  weight  (ETW)  of  the  vehicles,  fuel
economy results  were plotted against  the emissions  and  stratified by both
ETW and emission control  technologies.   However,  this approach produced  too
many graphs, most  of which lacked a sufficient number  of  points upon which
to make a statistically sound analysis.

In  order  to incorporate both  ETW and  the  emission  control  technology  but
still  have  enough data  per graph to analyze,  the data were stratified   by
only the  technology  and then a new variable was  plotted.   The new  variable
was fuel  economy multiplied by ETW and divided by 2000 (i.e. ton-miles  per
gallon).  This  new variable  was plotted against  each of  the  three  urban
emission  results.   This  ton miles  per  gallon variable  is  essentially a
measure of efficiency for the vehicle.   By using
                                    IV-56

-------
this variable, we were able  to  reduce much of the variation  in  fuel economy
caused only by differences in ETW.   Stratifying  by control  system produced a
set of  48  graphs.  The  graphs  for UMPG vs  FTPNOX  are presented  in figures
IV. H-l  through  IV. H-8.   The  remaining  40 graphs  are  in appendix 9.   An
additional  set  of 48 graphs was  created  by plotting  gallons per  ton-mile
(i.e., the reciprocal of ton-miles per gallon) against  each of the regulated
emissions.  These graphs suggested that  these variables,  which are a measure
of efficiency, are  independen:  of the emission  results.   If  we  assume  that
each   of   these   data   poirts   represents  vehicles   having   acceptable
driveability,  then  there  is  little  difference among  the  groups  in  the
minimal levels of FTPHC and  FTPCO  attainable.  However,.for FTPNOX,  the  fuel
injected, 3-way,  closed-loop vehicles attain 1/3 to 1/2 the emissions of  the
carbureted, 3-way vehicles,  which  attain about  1/2 to  2/3  of the emissions
of the carbureted vehicles without a 3-way catalyst.

A fifth set of 138 graphs related  fuel consumption per  ton  (i.e.  gallons  per
ton-mile)  for the  urban and  combined  test cycles  to  each of  the  three
regulated emissions and stratified by transmission class  (CA,  CM,  and LA) as
well as by control system.  A similar set of 132 graphs (see  appendix 10  for
the graphs which  contain  at  least 12 points), relating ton-miles  per gallon
to each of the three regulated  emissions and also stratified  by  transmission
class,  was  generated.   This sixth analysis had  six  fewer graphs  than  the
fifth  analysis  because  the  sixth analysis  did  not  include   any test  data
prior to the 1980 model year while the fifth analysis additionally used  1979
data.  These two analyses confirmed the conclusions drawn from the third  and
fourth  sets  of graphs;  that is, the  efficiency  of  the vehicle (as  measured
in ton-miles per gallon) appears to be independent of  the  emission results.

To assist in  analyzing the  graphs  of ton-miles  per  gallons versus the urban
emissions, the upper and lower  ranges on each graph  were sketched in.   (see
appendix  10).  These curves were drawn  by visual  inspection and  are  not
                                    IV-57

-------
            SCATTER PLOT   <1>  SYSITOBU  CASES=TAYft:(79-81)
                       N=  1B4  OUT OF 245  M.UTE.S.2K  VS. 3.FTPNOX
            UTE.S.2K
             55.000   *
                                                          Figure IV. H-l
             50.000   *
                                                    Urban Ton-Milea per Gallon versus
                                                            FTP NOx Emissions

                                                           Emission Control  System 1
             45.000   *
             40.000   +
        «      *  «
                 «
       «   •   *  «
Ln
00
             35.000
             30.000
»    »   «
                   2     «
                    * »
>      «  2  «2                 ft * *
3  »2  «*  »     2  *   **2    *
                                                     «    ft
                                                       *
                           «   •«  «  «23
                        «•              «  «2 2  ft

                                      «   « 0«
                                                                                                                 2«
             25.000
             20.000
             15.000   »
             10.000   *
                       4
                    0.
                                         .50000
                                                              1.0000
                                           l.bOOO
                                                                                                        2.0000    FTPNOX

-------
           N=  162 OUT OF 22V  41.UTE.S.2K VS. 3.FTPNOX
UTE.S.2K
 55.000    *
                                    Figure IV. H-2
 50.000    *
                              Urban Ton-Hlle* per Gallort veraus
                                     FTP NOx EmiasionB

                                   Emission Control System 2
 45.000
 40.000    +
  35.000
  30.000    «
                  «»»« 2*    «  «
»»    « o
                                                                                 2  *   *    »   *»
                                                                        «   2*  2   2 **    2  *
                                                                        2   2°  °      «»«
                                                                        3  2°  '2
                                                                                    «   • o   o
                «     «

               0    «
                                                                            00

                                                                             «   »
  25.000    »
  20.000   *
  15.000   *
  10.000
         0.                   .50000               1.0000               1.5000               2.0000    FTPNOX
                   .25000               .75000               1.2500               1.7500               2.2500

-------
         SCATTER PLOT  <3> SYS1T08I3   CASES = TAYR«<79-81)
                    N= 501 OUT  OF  661   41.UTE.S.2K  VS. 3.FTPNOX
         UTE.S.2K
          55.000   »
                                                                Figure IV. H-3
          50.000
                                                            Urban Ton Miles per Gallon veraus
                                                                  FTP NOx Emissions
                                                                 Emission Control System 3
          45.000   *
          40.000
I
o>
o
          35.000   »
          30.000   »
          25.000   *
                                                                                               2 *
                                 00 0      *          1
                           0        000 00     2  * *
              0  0    00  00 0      0  02 00002** 2*  *
          0  00          2     02* »2«3 * 2 3 «23 *
       20 2*  »2  •   2»»  22»2«» « •« 23 « 2   »   3*
     >  00    000   000 f  00g 0  0  300 000  22*3
      00    0    00  30  3  0000  03 3   22 2  "34 22*22*4    0  •    0
     >    0      00202***4**  *  3*2342 *3*3  00202  2 **          *  *
      0    00   22***2«  «23»23242»«3233»«*J2   *   «»   ** •  **
           0 00  030  22222 02225*****    *    *  *2** *       *    •
          20  00 0 0   0300 2*  2** 0000002 2   *   *       *
       0      02 2    *   00 0   2*3     00 0 0 320
          0   0     22**  *  *  000    0000 0       0
             00       2    *        00   0  0
                  200    00   0  0    0    0     0
                    ?             0       ? 0
                   0     00,
            00              0
          20.000   »
          15.000
          10.000   *

                 0.
.500
^^     1.0000      ^^     1.5000       ^^   2.00
••O  ^M   ••  !.••    ••    IBl.TMi   ••
                                                                                                       00
                                                                       FTP
TPNOX

-------
                       N= 176 OUT  OF  243  41.UTE.S.2K  VS.  3.FTPNOX
            UTE.S.2K
             55.000   »
                                                                             Figure IV. 11-4
50.000    «
                                                                                     Urban Ton Miles per Gallon versus
                                                                                           tie NUx Emission!?


                                                                                          Emission Control System 4
             45.000   »
             40.000   *
I
ON
             35.000   *
             30.0UO
                                                  «       o

                                                    2
                               «   «.  ««»««    » 2
                               2  « »3«««2 « *    ««
                              «  » 2  ** £»««««    o
                           22242«6 433  * •»
                           a   « ^^>0 oo   »
                         ••   2 3 » » 2* °3 2 *
                        2* 2° 22 ° ««2 °2   *    *
                       «     oo   ^°4 »«» o «  o
             25.000
             20.000   +
             15.000
             10.000   +
                       4

                    0.
.50000
                               .25000
                                       .75000
                                                              1.0000
                                                                       l.SOOO
                                                                         1.2500
                                                               2.0000    FTPNOX
                                                    1.7500

-------
SCATTER PLOT   <5> SYS1T0885   CASES=TAYK:<79-81)
            N= 129 OUT OF  164   41.UTE.S.2K VS.  3.FTPNOX'
UTE.S.2K
 55.000    *
                                                          Figure IV. H-S
 50.000
                                                      Urban Ton-Miles per Gallon versus
                                                             FTP NOx Emissions

                                                           Emission Control System 5
 45.000    »
 40.000
 35.000
30.000    «•
                      2«

                     0*00
                                            «    «•    a
                   2  »
003 0   00    0  0   0

  P    0  00  00    ?0
              3
            2      «
                                                  »    «
                                                   » «»
                                                    «  «»
                                              »»    2 2
 25.000    +
 20.000
 15.000
                                     00

                                     0
 10.000

                            ^^^*
                                 00
                                        .7
                                                          _   _  2

-------
              UTE.S.2K
               5S.OOO
                         N= 65 OUT  OF 88  M.UTK.S.2K  VS.  3.FTPNOX
                                                       Figure IV. H-6
               50.000
                                                   Urban Ton-Miles per Gallon versus
                                                           r'TP NOx Emissions

                                                         Emission Control System 6
               45.000   *
               40.000   »
I
ON
U>
               35.000
               30.000
                                      «
                                    o
                                    «   «
                                       o
«« »  3      «
 oo  oo      o
o o£o      »   oo
  « oo    «   o
 Oi»  O     »
2<>« o  o   o
      oo       «
               25.000
               20.000   »
               15.000   »
               10.000   »
                      0.                   .50000               1.0000                1.5000                2.0000    FTPNOX
                                 •25000               .75000               1.2500               1.7500               2.2500

-------
SCATTER PLOT   <7> SYS1T08I7   CASES=TAYRI<79-81)
            N= 145 OUT OF 203   41.UTE.S.2K VS.  3.FTPNOX
UTE.S.2K
 55.000    »
                                                                           Figure IV. H-7
50.000    *
                                                                        Urban Ton-Miles per Gallon versus
                                                                               FTP NOx Emissions

                                                                             Emission Control System 7
 45.000
 40.000    *
 35.000    +
 30.000
         *    ««2 °?3222  « •«    »
               2    «3»     « 2 ««2

         *   *  •  52 2"**2  • •  «
                                                 «   «
              o  *
             « ««
                              »   »
                              «   «     •
                                     »«
 25.000
 20.000   «•
 15.000   *
 10.000   *
                                                                                                      UUMl
                                                                                                      frff
                                                                                                          ox
                                                                                                          on

-------
SCATTEH PLOT   <8> SvSlTUBIH  CASES=TAYRS(79-81)
            N=  55 OUT OF 7t)  <• 1 .UTF. .S.2K  VS. 3.FTPNOX
UTE.S.2K
 55.000    *
                                                                         Figure  IV. H-8
 50.000
                                                                     Urban Ton-Miles per Gallon versus
                                                                            FTP NOx Emissions

                                                                           Emission Control  System 8
 45.000    *
 40.000
 35.000    *
  2
  « «

«  •     »
• «    ««  «
  30.000
  25.000   «    «     2
  20.000   *
                                              »      o
                                                 o
  15.000
  10.000
         0.                   .50000               1.0000               1.5000               2.0000    FTPNOX
                    .?5000               .75000                1.2500               1.7SOO               2.2500

-------
meant to  represent  a specific functional  relationship  between fuel  economy
and emissions;  they are meant only  to  indicate upper  and  lower bounds  for
any  such  functional relationship  that  may  exist.    The  plots  were  then
compared  to  determine whether a  given system  yielded  superior  performance
(i.e. higher ton-miles per gallon at every level of a given  emission).   (See
figure  Toyota  -1 in section V.  D.  for  an  idealized  relationship  between
systems.)  The  only  such instance  we detected  was that  system  number  1
produced  higher  ton-mile per gallon results at given  emission levels  than
did system number 3.  It may be possible  that  relationship resulted from the
smaller parasitic horsepower loss of the pulsating air  system  compared  to an
air pump system.

There  is an  obvious problem,  however,  in  using  ton-miles   per  gallon  to
analyze  the  data;  that  is,  the  weight  of  the  vehicle is  not  the  only
variable  which  is  changing.   To compensate  for the diversity in  engines,
tires,  axles,  et cetera,  the test  data were  examined in  each of  the  24
groupings  obtained   by  stratifying  by  the  8  emission  control  technology
systems  and  by  the 3 transmission classes.   Within each of  the 24  groups,
the mean  (average)  of each of the following:   1/ETW, dynamometer horsepower
(VDHP),  engine  displacement  (DISP),  rated horsepower (RTHP),  and  N/V  ratio
(NSVR) were  calculated.   We  then used  the 1981 Cheng Equation (see  section
IV.  D.) to  obtain  an  "adjusted"  fuel economy described by  the  following
equation:

    Adjusted MPG = Actual MPG + A [  mean (ETW"1) -  actual     "

                 + B  [ mean (VDHP) - actual (VDHP)]

                 + C  [ mean (DISP) - actual (DISP)]

                 + D  [ mean (RTHP) - actual (RTHP)]

                 + E  [mean (NSVR) - actual (NSVR)]
                                    3-V-&6'

-------
These "adjusted  MPG"  values are  actually  the measured fuel  economy  results
plus (or minus)  a correction factor,  predicted  by the 1981  Cheng  Equation,
which approximate the expected results if all  the  tests within each of those
24 groups had  been performed on vehicles of  the same test weight, the  same
VDHP,  the  same  engine  size and  power, and  the  same  N/V  ratio.   We  then
plotted  these  adjusted  MPG  values  against  the  corresponding  regulated
emissions.   (See  appendix  11.)   Care should  be  taken   in  evaluating  the
results of this  procedure.   (See  the discussion on collinearity  in appendix
8.)

In examining the  plots of adjusted  UMPG versus FTPNOX,  it was  found  that  20
graphs  each  contained  at  least   12  points.    A   (two  variable)   linear
regression analysis was  performed for each of those 20  sets of data.  The
analyses  indicated  that  10  sets  of  data  displayed  a  tendency  for  the
adjusted UMPG to decrease as the NOx emissions decreased.   The  other  10  sets
displayed the opposite (i.e., the tendency for the adjusted UMPG  to increase
as  the  NOx  emissions decreased).   A  similar analysis  was  performed  with
graphs of adjusted  CMPG  versus  FTPNOX.  In 19 cases, with at least  12  data
points, 11 exhibited a tendency for  decreases  in adjusted  CMPG  as the FTPNOX
decreased, while  the remaining 8  exhibited the opposite tendency.   Thus, the
results from this approach tend to imply that  decreasing  the  level  of FTPNOX
emissions has no consistent effect on fuel  economy.

A visual inspection of the 48 graphs of adjusted  fuel economy  versus  FTPNOX
exhibited  some  patterns  which  corresponded  to  figure   Toyota-1  (section
V.D.).  Specifically,  it was found  that  carbureted  vehicles equipped with
3-way catalysts  (system  numbers 4,  5, and 6)  produced  higher  adjusted  fuel
economy  (both  urban  and  combined)  results   than did carbureted  vehicles
equipped with air  pumps  but  without 3-way catalysts, for  every transmission
grouping.   This  visual  analysis also supported  the  conclusion made  earlier
in  this  section  that,  among carbureted  vehicles without 3-way catalysts,
those vehicles equipped with pulsating air systems (system number 1)  produce
higher fuel  economies  than  similar  vehicles  equipped with air  pumps  (system
number 3).
                                    IV-67

-------
Another  stratification used  was  to  divide  the  data based  on  the  FTPHC
values.  Using only the FTPHC  test  values  not exceeding 0.60 grams  per mile
we grouped the data as follows:

    1.    HC up to (i.e. less than) 0.20 g/mi
    2.    HC at least 0.20, but less than 0.30 g/mi
    3.    HC at least 0.30, but less than 0.40 g/mi
    4.    HC at least 0.40, but less than 0.50 g/mi,  and
    5.    HC at least 0.50, but less than 0.60 g/mi.
In  this  last  stratification,  the  attempt  was  to stratify  by  both  the  8
emission control  technology  systems and the  5 FTPHC ranges,  and then,  for
each  of  those  40 groups, plot  urban  ton-miles  per gallon  versus  FTPNOX.
Linear  regression analysis  was  performed  on each  of   those  40  groups  of
data.  Of  the 26 sets  of  data containing at  least  12  points,  the  analysis
indicated that  10 sets  of data displayed a  tendency for decreasing  vehicle
efficiency with decreasing FTPNOX, and  the remaining 16  displayed a  tendency
for increasing vehicle efficiency with decreasing  FTPNOX.
                                    IV-68

-------
Section IV.  I.  Is There a "Knee" in the Relationship between Tailpipe
                 Emissions and Fuel Economy?
We will refer to a graph as possessing a "knee" (or "tolerance point") if:
    1.   To the right of the knee, the graph is almost horizontal, and
    2.   To the left of the knee, the graph is angled downward sharply.
An idealized sketch of such a graph is:
Since many  manufacturers have alluded  to  the existence of  such a curve  in
relating fuel  economy  to emissions (usually FTPNOX), the  graphical  analyses
in  Section   IV.   H.   were  investigated   for   the  existence  of   such   a
relationship.   While   such  a  "knee"  curve might  exist,  its existence was
hidden  by  the  variation among the  test vehicles (i.e., differences  in  ETW,
VDHP, DISP,  RTHP,  and  NSVR).  However,  since  the  graphs  of  "Adjusted"  fuel
economy  versus FTPNOX  were designed  specifically  to  compensate  for  those
vehicle differences, those 48 graphs were re-examined.
                                    19-69

-------
There  were  several  graphs  for  which  could  be  inferred,  from  a  visual
inspection, that decreasing the FTPNOX emissions had a  significant  effect  on
the  fuel  economy.   These  particular  graphs   each   seemed  to  possess   a
"tolerance point"  with  the following property:  for  FTPNOX  emissions  higher
than that  point,  the  adjusted fuel economy was  unaffected by variations  in
the FTPNOX level;  however, for FTPNOX emission  below that  tolerance  point,
the  adjusted  fuel  economy  exhibited  a  significant   deterioration  with
decreasing FTPNOX  levels.  The  groups  for which these tolerance  points  were
found are:

    1.   Carbureted vehicles  with lockup  automatic  transmissions  (LA) and
         oxidizing catalyst  systems  exhibited  a tolerance  point  at 1.0 NOx
         for the adjusted UMPG graphs.  However, this pattern  did not  appear
         on the adjusted CMPG graphs  for  these groups.

    2.   For  carbureted vehicles  equipped with an  oxidation  catalyst,   a
         3-way,  closed-loop  system  (i.e.,  system  number  4),  and  with   a
         manual  transmission  (CM),   a  tolerance  point   of  0.8  g/mi  NOx
         appeared for both the adjusted UMPG  and  adjusted  CMPG.

    3.   For  fuel injected  vehicles  with EGR  and  3-way  catalysts  (i.e.,
         system number  8), equipped with  other  than  a lockup  transmission
         (i.e., either  CA or CM),  the adjusted UMPG  exhibited  a  tolerance
         point at  0.4  g/mi NOx.  This same  tolerance point  (i.e.  0.4  g/mi
         NOx) also appeared for the adjusted CMPG for only  the manual  trans-
         mission.

These  groups  represent  a very  small  proportion  of  the  total  number  of
emission control/transmission combinations.  Tolerance points were not found
for  the  majority of the combinations.   It is  interesting  to  note that the
above  three   tolerance  values  approximately  coincided  with   actual  NOx
emission  standards  (1.0, 0.7,  and 0.4  g/mi).   However, in  order for a  test
to pass the applicable emission standard, its FTPNOX level multiplied  by the
appropriate  deterioration  factor  (DF)  must not  exceed  the standard.  Since
the  data  used in  this  section  represented low  mileage  data only,  directly
relating these data to existing or future standards is  not straightforward.
                                   IV-70

-------
                                  SECTION V.
V.  Individual Manufacturer Discussions
V. A. General Motors


1.  GM  Statements  Concerning  the  Relationship  between  Emissions  and  Fuel

    Economy


In a  paper titled  "Automotive Fuel Economy  Review,"* GM  said  that  emission
standards penalized fuel economy in the following manner.


    While we  are  meeting the  1980  Fuel Economy Standards,  which is
    20  miles  per  gallon,  we  also  have  to  overcome   a  penalty
    estimated at up to  5 percent  imposed  by the increased stringency
    of  the  1980  emission  standards.   In 1981,  when the  corporate
    average  fuel  economy  must  be  22  MPG,  another  increase  in
    emission  controls  severity  imposes  an   estimated   3  percent
    penalty on fuel economy  as compared with  1979.   Introduction of
    the  new  GM C-4  Emissions  Control  System  in  1981 will  prevent
    this loss from being larger.

    In  the  preceeding  years,  compromises  in  spark  and  carburetor
    settings  for  emission  control had  reduced GM's new car  average
    fuel economy  to 12.0  miles per gallons (mpg) in  1974.   Adoption
    of a new  emission control system made possible engine  operating
    improvements that brought  average fuel economy  up  to  15.3  mpg in
    1975.  The reason was  that the use of the  oxidizing  catalyst to
    remove most  of the hydrocarbons  (HC) and carbon monoxide  (CO)
    after  the exhaust  gases  have left  the  engine   enabled  us  to
    recalibrate the ignition and carburetion nearer to their  optimum
    settings.  Each year thereafter has seen further  increase  in our
    fuel  economy,   so  the  GM  sales-weighted   average  for  1980  is
    estimated at  21.4  mpg,  an improvement  of more  than  78%  since
    1974.

    Improved basic engine efficiency also is constantly being  sought
    in  research   programs.    Engine   efficiency  will  be  further
    improved  by  increasing  use of  electronic engine  controls,  to
    decrease  emissions  and  offset much of  the fuel economy  penalty
    resulting from emission control.

    It has  been  a well established  fact  .that  the  Diesel  engine  is
    superior  to  the  gasoline  engine   in  fuel   economy,  and  GM
    introduced  the Diesel  engine as  an  option  for   its  full  size
    Oldsmobile in 1978.  For a comparable  performance,  the Diesel
    Earl  K.   Werner,   General  Motors,  "Automotive  Fuel   Economy
    Review",   Society   of   Plastics  Engineers  National   Technical
    Conferences, November 7, 1979, pages 2,  5,  6 &  8.
                                     V-l

-------
    gives  upwards  of  25  percent  better  fuel  economy  than  the
    gasoline engine,  and  if we can  overcome the negative  effect  of
    tightening emission standards, we  expect to apply the  Diesel  to
    a greater number of our vehicles, further improving our CAFE.

In  a  September 22,  1980   letter*  to  the  Administrator  of the  Environmental

Protection  Agency, General Motors included a  chart  which among  other  things

provided   information  on   the  effects  of emission  standards  on fuel  economy.

This information can be found in tables GM-1 and GM-2.


Six CO waiver applications  from GM were decided between September 5,  1979 and
March 3, 1981.  Fuel economy was one of  the  criteria for granting  a  CO waiver,

yet GM  did not make  an issue of  fuel  economy  in their  first  four CO  waiver
applications.  However, in  their fifth and  sixth CO waiver  requests  (1.8/2.0 L

and 1.6L engines), GM claimed the following:


    Compliance with the 3.4 gpm CO standard  as  compared to  a  7.0  gpm
    CO  standard  has  the  potential  of  adversely  affecting   fuel
    economy   in   the   range  of   2  to  5   percent,   citing   engine
    calibration changes ("retuning")  as one of the principal causes.

    To further substantiate its position, General Motors  embarked  on
    an  engineering  development and test program  in which a  "J"  car
    1.8L engine was  calibrated to meet  the  3.4 gpm CO standard  and
    then  recalibrated  to  meet   a  7.0  gpm  CO  standard.   Exhaust
    emissions and  fuel economy were  measured under both  conditions
    and  driveabilty  was  compared.  The  results  of  these  tests  have
    been presented to  EPA  for  the  public record.  These  results show
    that  a fuel  economy  penalty  of  1  mpg  would exist  in the  EPA
    label value if the waiver were denied.

    To  further  substantiate the  fuel  economy  penalty,  we have  now
    completed  an  investigation involving  a matched  pairs study  of
    federal  gasoline  passenger cars  comparing  the fuel  consumption
    improvement from  1980  to  1981 of  those  passenger cars  granted
    the  CO waiver to  the  fuel consumption improvement from  1980  to
    1981 of  those  [Federal gasoline]  passenger cars not  granted  the
    CO  waiver.  This  study  was  based  on  the  premise  that  any
    improvement in fuel consumption  between  the CO  and non-CO  waiver
    groups  could   be  attributed  to  the CO  waiver.   The  following
    parameters  were   matched:  engine   displacement,   test  weight,
    transmission,  axle ratio  and dynamometer  horsepower  setting.
    The results are shown  in [table GM-3]:**
 *   Letter  and  enclosures to the  Honorable  Douglas M. Costle,  Administrator,
    U.S.  Environmental   Protection  Agency  from   Dr.   Betsy  Ancker-Johnson,
    General Motors, dated September 22, 1980.
 **  Letter  and  attachment to  Mr.  D.M.  Costle (Administrator, EPA),  from T.  M.
    Fisher  (GM), dated December 8, 1980.

                                    V-2

-------
                                                                              Table GM-L
 I
OJ
       GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
                                                            LIGHT DUTY (PASSENGER CAR) GASOLINE ENGINES
                                                                                                                 Issued:  October 1,  1980
                EFFECTS  Of  EXHAUST AND EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS ON HARDWARE,  FUEL ECONOMY,  FUEL CONSUMPTION, AND  ADDITIONAL-FIRST-COST TO CONSUMER

        NOTE:  The data  in  this table ate baaed on tests of current CM hardware designed to comply with light duty (passenger car) gasoline emission and fuel
              economy standards.  Hardware utilized In this effort has  an effect on performance  In both areas, although Installed primarily for Its contribution
              to either emission control or fuel economy.   Since  the "state of the art" In this  effort has changed rapidly, It should be noted that the hardware
              and cost  estimates represent current technology adjusted  to reflect 1981 economic  levels and new 1981 average dealer discounts.  As a result. It
              should be expected that future versions of this table may not be the same as shown here.  This table will be updated periodically.
           Standards
         HC/CU/NO«/Evap,
       Applicable/
Most Probable Hardware^
           Increased Fuel
  Fuel     Consumed In    Gasoline
Economy    Vehicle Life   Vehicle
  Loss,    Billions      First Costa.  ^
Percent2 of Gallons^     Add'lTotal
        1.5/15/2.0/6.0
        1979  Federal
Oxld. Conv.,  ECR or BPEGR,   Baseline   Baseline
        .41/7.0/2.0/6.0  Oxld. Conv., AIR or PAIR,       3         1.0
        1980 Federal     BPEGR

        .41/9.0/1.0/2.0  CCC Sys. (Single Bed),         2-3     Included
        1980 California  AIR, BPEGR                              Above
        .41/3.4/1.0/2.0  CCC Sys. (Dual-Bed), AIR,   Minimum
        1981 and Later   BPEGR, EST, ISC               of 1
        Federal
        .41/3.4/.41/2.0  CCC Sya. (Dual-Bed), AIR,
        Research         BPECR, EST, ISC, and T
        Objective
                                                                  2.1
                         Baseline  185




                            60     245


                           475*    6605





                           540*    725»




                            7        »
Remarks

For each set of future standards,  the tabulated results are
based on comparlaons between vehicles meeting the 1.5/15/2.O/
6.0 standards and comparable vehicles equipped with hardware
designed to meet the future standards.
                                                                         Dual-bed CCC systems and EST 'received limited use In
                                                                         California In 1980 to gain field experience with these advanced
                                                                         technologies.  Additional vapor storage capacity and Improved
                                                                         fuel system seals were required to meet the 1980 California
                                                                         evaporative standard (same as the 1981 Federal standard).

                                                                         In general, a dual bed CCC system la necessary to provide the
                                                                         Improved CO control necessary to meet a 3.4 g/mlle standard.
                                                                         A limited number of engine fsmllles have been granted a waiver
                                                                         to a 7.0 g/mlle CO standard for 1981-82.

                                                                         Meaningful assessments of fuel economy and additional first
                                                                         cost cannot bo made since control systems have not been dora-
                                                                         onntrated to meet these standards through the complete EPA
                                                                         50,000-mile certification durability requirements, selective
                                                                         enforcement audit and In-use surveillance requirements.
       'Hardware Deflnltonsi   (a)  EGR  -  Exhaust Gas Reclrculatlon, (b) BPECR - Back Pressure ECR, (c) AIR - Air Injection Reactor,  (d)  PAIR - Pulse Air
       Injection Reactor,  (e)  CCC  System - Computer Command Control System, (f) Single-Bed " 3-Way Catalyst, (g) Dual-Bed - 3-Way Catalyst plus Oxidation
       Catalyst, (h)  EST • Electronic  Spark Timing, and (1) ISC - Idle Speed Control.  Other electronic engine controls Day be Included It emission control
       or fuel economy  benefits  are  demonstrated.

       *Fiu-l Economy!  The use of  a  dlesel engine of comparable performance In place of a gasoline-fueled engine, may Increase the  fuel economy of that vehicle
       by nbout 25-30Z.  Refer to  other  side  for dlesel Information.

       Jfucl Consumption!   Based on  emission  certification and fuel economy teats, a fuel economy penalty of 3Z has been determined for 1980 vehicles and IX
       estimated fur  1981-1985 vehicles  to project the Increase In total fuel consumed during the life of 1980 through 1985 vehicles, In comparison to vehicles
       meeting the future  fuel economy standards.  Total  fuel consumed was calculated using the General Motors fuel consumption model.   These fuel economy
       pcn,iIlies result In an  Increase In total fuel consumed of 3.1 billion gallons of fuel during the life of 1980-1985 vehicles.

        Hardware Costsi  On-going  production  costs of  1979 gasoline vehicle exhaust emission control systems waa $165, In comparison to uncontrolled vehicle
       costs;  evaporative  emission controls cost an additional $20 for a total gasoline vehicle baseline cost of $185.  Additional  first costs of future
       systems are estimated on  the  basis of  system definitions as of August, 1980.  For vehicles equipped with a CCC system,  the oxygen sensor may have to  be
       changed during the  useful life  of the  vehicle, at  an additional maintenance cost.
                t
       ^California 1980 Hardware Costi  The cost data shown are cslculated on the basis of high volume production and therefore are conservative estimates.
       Compared to 1981 and Late/  Federal, 1980 California costa Include compliance testing.

        Future Cost Trends! Based on  projections of potential reductlona of electronic component costs, first cost to the consumer Is  expected to decreaae
       in later years from the value given In the table.

       ARC 185
       9/15/80

-------
                                                                       Table CM-2
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
                                                       LIGHT DUTY (PASSENGER CAR) DIESEL ENGINES
                                                                                                                               lasued:  October 1. 1980
               ESTIMATED EFFECTS OF EXHAUST AND EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS ON POTENTIAL HARDWARE,  AND ADDITIONAL-FIRST-COST TO CONSUMER

NOTEi  The projections In this table are based on tests of current CM experimental  hardware  and advanced  research on control concepts which may have
potential for  compliance with future emission and fuel economy standards*.   NO ADVANCED  HARDWARE BEYOND  1982 FEDERAL HAS DEMONSTRATED AN ABILITY TO
ACHIEVE FUTURE STANDARDS.   The control hardware listed below represents GH's best ESTIMATE of  the TYPE and EXTENT of the hardware that will be necessary
to approach future standards, and should not be Interpreted to mean that the needed technology Is available.  This table will be updated periodically to
reflect changes In the "state of the art."
  Event
 1979
 Federal
1980
Federal
1982
California
1984
Federal
Standards
IIC CO
1.5
IS
2
5
NOx
.0
PART-
ICULATES

Applicable/Host
Baseline
Probable
Uncontrolled
Hardware?
Engine
Diesel
First
Add'l
Base-
line
Vehicle
Cost i3
Total
Base-
line
0.41  3.4 2.0
     Isle)
1981          0.41  3.4 1.0*
Federal       "Waived to l.S
1982          0.41  3.4  1.0*    0.6
Federal       *Walved to l.S
              O.S4  7.0  1.2
              0.41 3.4  1.0*
                                 0.6
                                 0.6
                                        'F.I. Timing, EGR
                                         F.I. Tilling, HOD-EGR
                                         F.I. Timing, HOD-EGR
                           F.I. Timing, analog
                           electronic control of
                           EGR and TCC engagement
                           Digital electronic control
                           of ECR, F.I. Timing, rich
                           fuel llmlter and TCC engage-
                           ment.   Modified F.I. Pump.
                                                                               SO
                                                                                        SO
 SO       SO





 SO       50


Undetermined3






Undetermined
                                                                                                  Remarks
                                                                                                  Same engine marketable nationwide In 1979.
1980 California dlesel engine certified to l.S  NOx
standard with 100,000 mile ~---6111ty requirement
(See Footnote 1).

•Waived to l.S NOx Is available for 1981-84 with EPA
approval.  GH S.7 L dlcsel granted waiver to l.S NOx
for 1981-82.
Redesign of EGR system offsets potential hardware cost
Increase of more stringent NOx standard.

First application of purttculate requirement.  No'
specific additional hardware deemed necessary for
compliance.

NOx standard for turbocharged engines - l.S gpm NOx at
100,000 miles.  NOx standards were set by CARB  emer-
gency action and are subject to confirmation at public
hearing.  O.S7 IIC standard reflecta adjustment  for low
evap. allowance.1'5  This system would be required to
meet 1983 Federal Standards w/o NOx waiver.

Compliance required 198
-------
                                  Table GM-3 .

                          Percent Improvement in Fuel
                  Consumption of 1981 Federal Passenger Cars
                   Compared to 1980 Federal Passenger Cars**
Classification
Average Adjusted
 GPM Improvement
Between 1980 and 1981
% Improvement
  From 1980
   to 1981
  Number of
 Combination
Groups Matched
All Federal

Passenger Car

Engines
     .0012
     2.6%
       28
CO Waiver-

Engines
     .0022
     4.7%
       10
Non-CO Waiver

Engines
     .0007
     1.4%
       18
Difference

Between the CO

Waiver Engines

and the Non-CO

Waiver Engines
     .0015
     3.2%*
*   A 95%  confidence  interval was calculated  for  the difference  of
    two  means  with   common  unknown  variances.    The   confidence
    interval ranges from -1.5% to 7.9%.

    These data  clearly  indicate that  those  vehicles  granted the  CO
    waiver  exhibit a   3.2%   increase  in  fuel  economy  over  those
    vehicles without the CO waiver.  This finding compared  favorably
    with  both  the National  Research Council's  estimate  of  2  to 5
    percent and with our  experience  on the  "J"  car test program  as
    well.
**  Retyped for clarity.
                                    V-5

-------
    Coincidentally,  as  part  of  a  new application  being  submitted
    today  for  a  1982  CO  waiver  on  the  1.6L  Chevrolet  Chevette
    engine,  we  have   conducted   a  test   program  similar  to   that
    conducted on the "J"  car as described above.  The data  from the
    Chevette testing  also confirms  a  fuel  economy penalty on  the
    order of 1 mpg for a car complying  with a 3.4 gpm CO  standard  as
    compared to a car complying with a 7.0 gpm  standard.   These  data
    are enclosed in the attachment [table  GM-4].

    All of  these  data  consistently show  that,  without a  waiver,  the
    "J"  car 1.8/2.0  liter  engine  family will  achieve  lower   fuel
    economy  levels  than  it  could have achieved were a  relaxed  CO
    standard in effect.  Based upon our best estimates, we  believe a
    fuel economy penalty of the magnitude  of 1  mpg  on the EPA label
    will cause  a significant number of  potential  buyers to either
    purchase a  competing  model  of vehicle, or  to withdraw  from  the
    new  car  market  place until  better fuel economy  is -achieved  to
    help offset the cost of the new car.  In either case,  the effect
    is one of lost sales to  General Motors.
In a report to EPA,  GM said "a 0.4 g/mi NOx standard would worsen  fuel  economy

and driveability of gasoline engines, and, at present levels of  technology,  it

would eliminate the fuel-efficient Diesel..."*


Automotive News  said "GM also  stressed that averaging  and  lowering emission

standards may improve fuel economy."**
*   General Motors,  "1979-1980  Report  of General Motors  On Advanced  Emission
    Control System Development Progress," February,  1981,  Vol.  1,  page  9.
**  Automotive News,  April 6,  1981,  page 49.
                                     V-6

-------
                                     Table GM-4


                                     ATTACHMENT

               COMPARISON OF  EMISSION AND FUEL ECONOMY RESULTS FOR
            DEVELOPMENT DATA  CARS  EQUIPPED WITH 1.6 LITER ENGINES AND
                   CALIBRATED TO 3.4 AND  7.0 G/MI CO STANDARDS


                            Car Calibrated to        Car Calibrated to
                            3.4 g/mi Standard*       7.0 g/mi Standard**
                          Test. 1    last 2   Avg.     Test: 1  Test. 2.   Avg.

        • Automatic Transmission: Equipped:  Cars: (II035A: and IIQ35S)

Emissions (FTP) g/mi

     HC.                     .087     .077     .082      .154     .195   .174
     CO                      .90     1.21     1.06      3.06     4.01   3.54-
     NOx                     .32.      .29      .30       ..28      .33    .30

Fuel Economy mpg

     City                   22.9     23.2    23.05      24.0     23.7  23.35
     Highway                27.3     27.9    27.60      30.0     30.2.  30.10
     Composite              —       —    24.90       —       —   26.31

                          Car Calibrated  to                Car Calibrated to
                   __.	3.4 g/mi Standard*	      7.0 g/jai Standard**
                   Test 1 Test Z Test 3 Test 4 Avg.   Test 1 Test 2. Test. 3   Avg.

         Four-Speed Manual  Transmission Equipped  Cars (IT033A. and IT033B)

  Emissions (FTP) g/mi

       HC           .075    .084   .077   .084   .080    .137   .115   .118   .123
       CO             .99    1.12.    .42,    .84    .84   2.26   1.94   1.86   2.02
       NOx            .31     .33    .24    .26    .28     .52.    .36    .35    .41

  Fuel Economy mpg

       City        24.9    25.2.   25.1   25.3  25.13    26.4   26.0   26.1  26-. Id-
       Highway      31.5    33.3   33.. 6.    —   33.63.   34.9   -34.5   34.6:  34.66.
       Composite      —     —     —     —   2S.35    —     —     —   29.40.


  Notes:

   * Calibrated using deterioration factors (HC - 1.419,  CO - 1.590  and  NOx -
     1.285) developed on certification durability car 1110.

  ** Calibrated using deterioration factors (HC - 1.679,  CO - 1.490  and  NOx -
     1.248) developed on certification durability car 1104.
                                      V-7

-------
2.  New  Technology  or  Developments  which  Could  Provide  a  Change  in  the

Relationship Between Emissions  and Fuel- Economy  as  Compared to  1981  Vehicles
or GM's Estimates


A.  The  first  device  discussed  is GM's  detonation sensor  system,  which  was

described  in  Society  of  Automotive Engineers  Paper  //790173,  titled  "Energy
Conservation with  Increased  Compression Ratio  and  Electronic Knock  Control".

The following GM  discussion  provides;  a)  insight into  the  circumstances  which
led to the development of  this  system,  b) how  it operates, and  c)  test data

for two vehicles calibrated  to meet 0.41 HC, 3.4  CO  and 1.0 NOx, one  with  the

detonation sensor system, and the other, without.


    Spark  Knock  Control  has been  the  focus of  extensive  research
    over  the  years by  both  oil  companies  and  engine  manufacturers.
    Efforts  to  improve  the  fuel  economy  and  performance  of  spark
    ignited gasoline engines have  been  hindered by the  occurence of
    knock  which   can  be  affected  by  such   variables as   engine
    tolerances,   fuels,   and  vehicle operating  conditions.   In  the
    past,  spark knock  control has been achieved  by  the use  of  fuel
    additives, fuel  blends,  or engine  design  modifications  such as
    combustion chamber design,  cooling  system  design,  or  retard of
    ignition  timing.   Currently,  spark  retard  is  utilized  in  many
    production  engines  to  reduce  the  tendency  for  knock  under
    adverse  driving  conditions  such as  heavy  load,  high  ambient
    temperature,   or  low  humidity.  Accordingly,   the  engine  may
    operate with  reduced  efficiency  under  less  adverse  conditions
    when  retard  is not required  to  control  knock.   With the advent
    of catalytic converters  necessitating the use of unleaded fuels,
    the  engine  designer has  limited  the  compression  ratio  so  that
    the  engine  octane  requirement  is  satisfied   by  the  current
    available unleaded fuels.

    Historically,  raising the  compression  ratio  of  an engine  has
    improved  efficiency.   However,  there  has been  some concern,  in
    addition  to   the  concern  for  higher  octane  requirement  that
    efficiency might not be  improved when  higher compression  ratio
    engines were  recalibrated  to  meet  emission  constraints.  As  a
    result, a study (1)*  was recently  completed  at  General  Motors
    which  indicated  that with  catalytic  converter  emission  control
    systems,  the  traditional efficiency gains  were  possible at  the
    current  Federal  Exhaust  Emission   Standards,  (1.5   g/mi  HC,  15
    g/mi CO,  2.0 g/mi  NOx) when raising compression ratio  from 8.3:1
    to 9.2:1.
    References are listed by the number in parentheses at  the end of
    the excerpts.

-------
    This gain was  accompanied  by an increase in  octane requirement,
    however, which  could not  be satisfied with  91 Research  Octane
    Number  (RON)  unleaded  fuel.   Published  information  from  the
    petroleum  industry  indicated  that  substantial  energy  losses
    occurred in  the refinery  when  producing  higher octane  unleaded
    fuel.  As a result,  the energy  losses  in  the  refinery  for  making
    the  higher   octane   fuels  offset  the   efficiency   gains  in  the
    vehicle.  Consequently,  the conclusion of  this  study was  that
    there did not  appear to be an  incentive  for  increasing  unleaded
    fuel octane  levels  to  allow for  the  use of higher  compression
    ratio engines with a catalytic converter emission control system.

    This paper will describe an  electronic  closed loop  knock control
    system  that  may   satisfy  the  octane  requirements   of   more
    efficient   higher   compression   ratio   engines,    at   current
    (1.5/15.0/2.0)  and  1981 exhaust emissions levels  (.41/3.4/1.0),
    with 91 octane fuel.

    A  knock control  system (2) is currently being  offered by  the
    Buick Motor  Division of General Motors  on  the Turbocharged  V-6
    engine.  The  scope  of  the  paper will,  therefore,   be  limited  to
    the  application   of   the  knock  control   system   to   higher
    compression ratio engines.

CLOSED LOOP KNOCK CONTROL (CLKC) SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

    The knock control  system  was  designed  for  use on engines  with
    electronic  ignition.   It  includes   a  detonation   sensor   or
    accelerometer, electronic controller and modified distributor.

    The detonation  sensor,  is  mounted  on the intake manifold  of  the
    engine.  The  location  of  the  sensor  is carefully selected  to
    insure  that  the knock vibration will  be  transmitted  as  equally
    as possible from all cylinders.

    If no  knock  is present, the  normal ignition timing,  determined
    by the  basic  timing,  centrifugal advance, and vacuum  advance  is
    passed  directly  to  the  distributor.   When  knock  occurs,   the
    detonation signal is  larger  than the background noise level  and
    a  retard  command  is   generated   that  is  proportional   to   the
    intensity of knock encountered.

    The  retard  command  is  used  to produce  a delayed or  retarded
    ignition  pulse to  the  distributor.   The  distributor  ignition
    module has been modified  to accept the retarded ignition  pulse.
    When knock is reduced to desired levels,  the  controller  restores
    the spark advance at a  predetermined rate until  the normal spark
    values  are  re-established.  It  is important  to note that   the
    system  only  retards  and   does  not advance  timing to seek  out
    knock.

-------
It can  be  noted that  the  spark is  retarded rapidly  to  control
knock and  then readvanced  slowly.  This  is a  feature used  to
maintain smooth vehicle operation during  knock control.   More
rapid changes   in  spark timing  can  cause  uneven  engine  power
resulting in surge which is  observed  by  the driver  as a  jerky
forward motion  in  the vehicle.  Throughout  the  acceleration,  the
spark advance  is retarded  and readvanced while  the system  seeks
to maintain  a  commercial  knock  level.   In this  example,  the
maximum  retard for  this  condition  was  11°  during  the  test.
The  operation  of   the  knock  control system  is  dependent on  the
occurrence of  knock.   That  is,  a knocking  cycle  must occur  to
trigger  the  control system  and generate  retard.   These  "knock
control" cycles, which occur  just  prior  to control, may be  heard
as random trace to light  knock in the engine during  the  control
mode.  It should,  therefore,  be emphasized that the  system does
not  eliminate   detonation, but  controls the knock  to  commercial
levels.   More  sensitive control of detonation below  these  levels
can  produce  a  "false  retard"  condition  when  retard  occurs
without knock  in the  engine.  False retard  should be' avoided  as
it can result in a  loss of vehicle performance and  fuel economy.

The  maximum spark retard   available  using  the  knock  control
system  is  determined  by  the  physical  characteristics  of  the
distributor and vehicle  driveability.   For  example,  the  maximum
retard  is  physically  limited  by  arcing   or  crossfire  in  the
distributor  cap which  can  result in  a spark  occurring in  the
wrong cylinder.

Likewise, large changes in spark retard  could also  contribute  to
the  surge  problem  described earlier.   The  final  vehicle  spark
calibration  with   a  knock  control  system must,  therefore,  be
evaluated under the most severe knocking conditions  expected,  to
insure that  the system  has sufficient  retard  capacity to  control
knock while maintaining driveability.

FUEL ECONOMY POTENTIAL AT .41/3.4/1.0  EMISSION STANDARDS  -  Two
vehicles  (4000 Ib.  inertia   weight)  with  305   CID  engines  and
3-way catalyst emission control systems were built  to determine
the  fuel  economy  advantage  of  a  higher compression  ratio  and a
closed loop knock  control at the  1981  Federal emission standards
of  .41/3.4/1.0.  The  engines were  built  with  8.4:1  and  9.2:1
compression ratios, respectively,  and  calibrated within the same
percent  loss  (approximately  1%)   from best  fuel  economy  spark
timing.   Both   vehicles  were  equipped  with closed  loop  knock
control systems allowing the  vehicles  to be  calibrated without a
knock constraint.   Fuel economy gains were  therefore determined
for  the  effect of compression   ratio  at  equivalent  emission
levels.   Rear axle   ratios  were  selected   to   equalize  the
performance of  the cars.
                                 V-10

-------
Emission   Results   -  Emission   targets   of   .25/2.57.60   were
established  to  allow for emission control  system deterioration,
vehicle variability,  and test variability.  These  targets  would
not  necessarily  assure  that  these  vehicles  would  meet  the
Federal  Standards   at  50,000  miles, however,  since  durability
testing  was  not  run  as  part  of  this  program.   Figure  13
illustrates  that  the  exhaust emission  goals   for  hydrocarbons,
carbon  monoxide,  and  oxides  of  nitrogen  were  met  with  each
vehicle.   In  general,   the   higher  compression  ratio   engine
required more  EGR  for NOx  control  and  more spark  retard  during
cold start operation for HC control.

FUEL ECONOMY RESULTS -  Figure 14 shows  the comparison of  fuel
economy on the EPA  city  (5)  and highway  (6)  schedules for  the
8.4 CR and 9.2 CR vehicles.   The  9.2 CR vehicle exhibited  a 3.7%
advantage  in fuel economy on  the  EPA city test and 5.3% gain  on
the EPA highway  test.   The  overall fuel economy  improvement  for
the composite  55/45  test was  4.3%.  These results  were  obtained
from the average of  four  tests on each vehicle and were all  run
with 91 RON fuel.

The fuel economy tests on  the 9.2 CR vehicle were  then run with
clear  Indolene test  fuel  (RON 98).   This  resulted  in a  small
gain in fuel economy on  both  the city and highway  tests  (Figure
24) and the  overall  gain  for  the  change  in compression ratio was
5.9%.  The reason for  this  difference appears  to be  due to  the
reduction  in spark  retard  required to  control  knock with  the
higher octane fuel on the 9.2  CR vehicles.

Figure  15  illustrates the  spark  retard generated  by the  9.2:1
compression  ratio engine on 91 and  98  RON  fuels during one  of
the more severe portions of the EPA  city  test.  The frequency  of
occurrence of  knock  and  amount  of  retard  required  to control
knock was  greater with 91 RON fuel.   The increased retard  had  a
minimal effect on the EPA fuel economy results as  the spark was
not retarded over the majority of  operating  conditions.  The 8.4
CR vehicle did not  have  significant spark retard during the EPA
test; therefore, no  change  in  fuel economy would  be expected due
to increasing fuel octane over 91 RON.
                                 Vrll

-------
305-4
CLOSED LOOP CARBURETOR
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROC.
              AVG. 4 TESTS
4000* I.W., 10.8 HP
3-WAY CONVERTER - EGR
91 RON FUEL
                              TAILPIPE (GMS/MII
C.R.
8.4:1
9.2:1
TARGET
AXLE
2.41:1
2.28: 1

STANDARD
HC
.25
.22
.25
.41
CO
2.5
2.4
2.5
3.4
NOx
.52
.63
.CO
1.0
 Fig.  13 - The exhaust emissions  of Che 8.4  CR
 and  9.2 CR vehicles  met the  target levels; for
 the  1981 Federal  standards
       305-4
       CLOSED LOOP CARBURETOR
4000* I.W.. 10.8 H.P.
3 WAY CONVERTER-EGR
                   AVERAGING OF 4 TESTS


FUEL

(CHEVRON 91)
98 BON
IINOOLENE
CLEAR)
COMPRESSION RATIO
REAR AXLE RATIO
EPA FUEL ECONOMY
CITY
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE 55/45
CITY
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
8.4:1
2.4:1

16.1
22.7
18.5

_
-
9.2:1
2.28:1

16.7
23.9
19.3
16.9
24.4
19.6


\ GAIN
3.7
5.3
4.3
5.0
7.5
5.9
 Fig. 14  -  The 9.2 CR vehicle exhibited  a  4.3%
 gain in  fuel economy on  the EPA composite 55/45
 test
                      VEHICLE SPEED
                     CHEVRON SI RON
RETARD
    10"
                   MOOLENE CLEAR M RON
 Fig.  15 - The amount of  retard encountered  by
 the  9.2 CR vehicle on  the EPA City test was
 reduced when fuel octane was increased from 91
 RON  to  98 RON
                       V-12

-------
The  following  references are  for  the  preceding quotations  from SAE  paper
number 790173.

REFERENCES*

1.  J.J. Gumbleton,  G.W. Niepoth,  and  J.H.  Currie,  "Effect  of  Energy and
    Emission Constraints  on Compression  Ratio",  Paper  760826 presented  at
    SAE, October 1976.

2.  T.F. Wallace,  "Buick's  Turbocharged  V-6  Powertrain  for  1978",   Paper
    780413  presented at SAE, March 1978.

5.  R.E. Kruse  and  T.A.  Huls,  "Development of  the Federal  Urban Driving
    Schedule",  Paper 730553  presented at SAE, May 1973.

6.  T.C. Austin, K.H. Hellman and C.D. Paulsell,  "Passenger Car Fuel Economy
    During  Non-Urban Driving",  Paper 740592 presented  at  SAE, August 1974.
    Only  those  references which  were  cited  in  the previous  excerpts  were
    included in this  listing.  The  original  reference  numbers  were used for
    this document.
                                     'Yrl3

-------
B.  Another area,  which affects  the  relationship between  fuel economy  and

emissions,  is  combustion  chamber  design.   GM  described  development  work

concerning combustion chambers  in the Society  of Automotive Engineers  Paper

#800920,  titled  "The Attributes  of  Fast Burning  Rates in  Engines."   The
following excerpts from  this  paper provide insights into combustion  chamber

design  and  its   effect  on   the  relationship  between  emissions  and  fuel

economy.  The references cited by GM are listed at the  end of  the excerpts.


    THE CONCEPT  OF BURNING THE MIXTURE in a  spark ignition  engine
    relatively fast   is  increasingly  making  its  way  into   engine
    designs  throughout  the world.   Fast  burning is  certainly  not
    new,  with  the higher  efficiency  or  output  and  fuel   octane
    advantages  being  known   for  decades.   In  fact,   some  of  the
    engines of the 1920's (1) incorporated combustion-chamber  design
    features promoting fast  burning.

    In  the  past, fast burning  was curtailed, due  to  adverse  noise
    and mechanical failures  caused by  too great  a rate  of pressure
    development,  particularly as  compression  ratios were increased.
    With  the  introduction  of  exhaust  gas recirculation  (EGR)  for
    oxides of nitrogen control  in the early 70's and the  lowering  of
    compression ratios in the mid 70's, the pendulum swung  the  other
    way, and burning  rates  decreased sharply.   The current movement
    toward  fast  burning  represents  an effort  to  reestablish,  at
    least to some  degree,  the Crates of combustion that once  existed
    in engines.          """

    ENGINE EFFICIENCY AND EMISSIONS -

    Tuttle and Toepel (10)  diagnosed and compared combustion in the
    two different  combustion  chambers  shown  in  Fig.  8.   The  wedge
    chamber, with  its off-set  spark plug and resulting  long  flame
    travel  distance,  promotes / relatively long  burning  times.   In
    contrast,  the  compact  open chamber,  with  a  more  central  spark
    plug,  would  be  expected  to   produce  faster  burning.    Each
    combustion chamber  was  instrumented  extensively,  including  the
    incorporation  of  cylinder  pressure instrumentation  (14-16)  to
    diagnose heat release and flame motion (17).  Testing followed  a
   • statistical  experimental  design involving selected  combinations
    of  engine  speed,  fuel  input,  air-fuel ratio, EGR rate and  spark
    timing.
                                     V-14

-------
          WEDGE  CHAMBER
            OPEN  CHAMBER

      Fig.  8 - Experimental sCudy combustion
               chambers (10)
    35
    34
O   33
2
UJ

S2   32
li.
UJ
    31
£   30
I
UJ
    29
                  MBT
" SPEED - 1900 r / min

 - A If RATIO -16:1
                                        -g/kg
                                OPEN'
             INPUT-23.0 mg /cycle   v.'EDGE	
            i	i	i	i	i	i
                  8          16
                     EGR.%
                                  24
     Fig.  9 - Efficiency - NOX tradeoff  (10)

                     V-15

-------
Experimental  results  showed  that  the  open chamber  did  indeed
have faster burning, as made evident by  shorter  combustion times
and reduced spark-advance values at MET.  Net  thermal  efficiency
of both chambers is shown in  Fig.  9  for various amounts  of  EGR,
with  engine  speed,  air-fuel  ratio,  and  fuel  input  constant.
Concentrating first on  the  curves  denoted MBT,  which  represents
optimum timing  data,  the  open, or  faster  burning  chamber,  is
seen to exhibit higher  efficiencies.   Starting with no EGR,  the
efficiency  at  first increases  with  the addition  of  EGR.   This
behavior is  due  to both the  higher  specific-heat ratio  and  the
reduced throttling of  the more dilute mixture.

Another important advantage of  the faster burning  chamber is  its
greater tolerance  to  dilution.  As shown,  EGR rates  as  high  as
28% can  be accommodated with  the  open  chamber, versus  22%  for
the   wedge   chamber,   before   the    efficiency   drops   off
significantly.  This  capability  of  going  to  greater  dilution
with fast  burning has  also  been found  (18)  to occur when  the
dilution gas is air rather than EGR.

Also  shown  in Fig.  9 are   lines  of  constant  NO   emissions.
Movement  vertically  downward  from  the  MBT   line   represents
increasing  spark  retard  from  optimum  timing.  Evident  is  the
familiar reduction  in NO  with  either spark retard or  higher  EGR
rate.  A comparison of  the condition at  points A and B shows  the
same  trend  uncovered   earlier  using  the  engine  simulation  -
namely, that faster burning produces higher NO emissions.  Note,
however,  that by  adding  a  slight  amount  of EGR to  the  open
chamber  (point  C), its efficiency advantage  can be  maintained
while matching  the lower NO  value  of  the  slower burning  wedge
chamber.  This behavior is  very significant since it  shows  that
the judicious selection of spark timing  and EGR  rate can  lead  to
both higher  efficiency  and  lower NO emissions in the  fast-burn
chamber.

Kuroda  et  al.  (11),   in  going from   single  ignition  to  dual
ignition in  the same  combustion chamber and introducing  varying
amounts of  EGR for  oxides  of nitrogen (NOx) control,  also found
that fast  burning could achieve both higher  efficiency and lower
NOx.   Likewise,  Thring   (13),  going  from  one  up  to  four  spark
plugs  to  increase burning  rate in a  given combustion  chamber,
found   the   dual   improvement  with   faster   burning.    As   an
additional  part  of  his studies,  Thring used  alternate  design
approaches  to achieve the same  burning  rate, as  indicated by  the
time  in  crank-angle  degrees   to  go  from  burning  10%  of  the
mixture  to burning 90% of   the mixture.   Included  among  these
approaches  were different combinations  of  four  spark  plugs,  the
use of  ordinary  or extended electrode  spark plugs,  and  the  use
of a shrouded intake valve  to  create fluid  motions conductive  to
faster flame speeds and therefore faster burning  rates.
                                 Vrl6.

-------
An   important   finding   was  that  engine   efficiency  and  NOx
emissions were  not  unique functions of  the  burning rate.  While
both  of  these  parameters  increased  as  the  burning  time  was
reduced,  their  magnitudes at a given burning  time depended upon
the  approach  taken  to achieve that particular  burning time.   To
modify  slightly  a  former  advertising  slogan,   "It's   not  how
short you make  it, but how you make it short that  is important."

With regard  to  hydrocarbons,  the data of Tuttle  and Toepel (10)
shown  in  Fig.  10  indicate no  significant  influence  of burning
rate  on the  hydrocarbon emissions  index (grams  of  the  HC  per
kilogram of fuel).  The  data  do  show,  however,  that operation at
low EGR rates and retarded  spark  timing  is  an effective means to
lower  HC  emissions,  primarily  due  to  the  resulting  higher
exhaust   temperatures   demonstrated  earlier   with   the  engine
simulation.

There  are  two  factors  associated with  the  formation of hydro-
carbons.   First,  as  thermal  efficiency increases with  faster
burning,  the   exhaust  temperature  generally  decreases.   This
leads  to   lower  HC   oxidation  rates  and  therefore  higher  HC
concentrations  in the  exhaust port.    In  fact,   Mayo  (12)  has
found  an  almost  linear  variation  of  HC  concentration  with
burning  time.   For  a  given  engine  load,   however,   the  higher
efficiency  for  the  faster  burning means that  less  total  mass
flow  is  required  through  the  engine,  which  may  more  than
compensate for  the  higher HC concentration and lead  to  lower HC
emissions expressed on a  mass per unit  time,  or per vehicle mile
traveled  basis.  These  conflicting trends  make it  difficult  to
establish a general rule  regarding  the  effect  of  burning rate on
HC emissions.   For example, Kuroda  et al. (11)  have found the HC
emissions on  a mass  per unit time  basis to be  lower  for  fast
burning at a  given  EGR rate, while  Thring  (13) has  reported  no
change in HC emissions at low loads and  higher  HC  emissions with
increased burning at high loads.

As  a  sidelight,   the  data of   Figs.   9  and  10  illustrate  a
dichotomy regarding  engine calibration  factors.   That  is,  high
efficiency   considerations   dictate  that   optimum •  timing   be
established with  moderate EGR rates.  Low  HC  emissions,  on  the
other hand,  favor low EGR  rates  and  retarded  timing, while  low
NO emissions favor high EGR rates and retarded  timing.  Managing
these  conflicting goals  represents  a   formidable  challenge  in
engine  calibration.   Adding  to   the difficulty of engine  cali-
bration is  the need to  provide good   vehicle driveability  by
minimizing the  cyclic variability of engine  power.

SIMULATION STUDIES OF  BURNING ENHANCEMENT APPROACHES  -  Lienesch
(3)  has used  the  engine simulation discussed earlier  to examine
the  two  approaches   to   faster   burning  rates.   Starting  with
measurements of turbulence  in  the wedge-shaped chamber  shown  in
Fig.  16  as   a  baseline  condition,  the  turbulence  level  was

                                  V-17

-------
o
z
UJ
o
u.
u.
UJ
tr
HI
I
35



34



33



32



31



30



29
           OPEN •
           WEDGE.
SPUD    - 1900r/min
A/F RATIO • 16:1
FUEL INPUT- n.O ng/cycle
                    EIHC — g/kg

                 J	|	I
                  8
                            16


                        EGR. %
                                    24
                      32
        Fig.  LO -  Efficiency -  hydrocarbons

                    tradeoff (10)

-------
                        IGNITION POINT
     WEDGE  CHAMBER
                         IGNITION POINT
EXTREME  OPEN  CHAMBER


    Fig.  16 - Combustion chambers of
             analytical study (3)
              v-19

-------
increased  analytically  by  50%,  as  might  be  accomplished
experimentally  (35)  with  a   shrouded  valve.   Use   of   a
correlation  of burning  velocity  with  turbulence  developed
experimentally  by  Groff  and  Matekunas   (35)   allowed  the
resulting engine performance to be predicted.

As an  alternative  to  this fluid-motions  approach,  a  second
chamber was  envisioned in  which the cylinder head and  piston
crown  both  have  concave spherical  shapes  and  the  ignition
point is located  in the  center of the  chamber.  While  such a
shape is not practical  to  manufacture, its  extreme  openness
represents  an upper  limit  to  the  geometric approaches  for
increasing fuel burning rates.

The  performance  of the  standard wedge, increased  turbulence
wedge,   and   extreme  open chamber  was  analyzed for  a  light
acceleration  condition  involving  a  stoichiometric  air-fuel
ratio,   10%  nominal  EGR and MET timing.  Results are  given  in
Table 1 for  near-equal NO exhaust  concentrations,  achieved  by
adding 1 to 3% of additional EGR to the fast-burn cases.

Starting with  the standard wedge  chamber  and  increasing  the
turbulence  level  resulted  in  a reduction  of  the  combustion
duration from  43  to 32 crank-angle degrees.  However,  in  the
case of the extreme  open  chamber,  the  duration  was  even
shorter, namely 27  degrees.  These  variations  resulted in a
slight  improvement  in efficiency for  the  increased turbulence
case and  an even greater improvement  in  efficiency  in going
to the extreme open combustion chamber.

The  reason  for this higher efficiency  is  linked to  the heat
transfer.   Because  the high-temperature burned  gases  in  the
extreme open chamber  do  not contact the  chamber wall  during
most  of  the combustion  process,   the heat losses  in  this
chamber  are  significantly  lower.   In  contrast,  the  wall
contact  of   the flame  in  the  wedge  chamber plus the  higher
film  coefficient   (due  to   the  higher  pressure  term   in  the
Woschni  (6)  correlation)  for  the  faster   burn  case  caused
greater heat-transfer  losses.   Had an  additional  increase  in
the  film coefficient  been made  to  account for  the  higher
turbulence  of  this case,  these heat  losses would have been
even greater.  These heat-loss  considerations account  for  the
slightly higher  exhaust  gas temperature  of the extreme open
chamber  in  spite  of its higher efficiency and more  complete
expansion.
                                 •VT20.

-------
                         Table I - Simulation Results-
      Parameter
Combustion Duration
Peak Burning Rate
Peak Heat-Transfer Rate
Indicated Thermal Eff.
Exhaust Nitric Oxide
Exhaust Temperature
Standard
  Wedge
iCase l;

    43
  13.2
   3.8
  34.6
  1530
  1130
Increased
Turbulence
 (Case 2)

     32
   18.0
    4.3
   35.1
   1530
   1115
Extreme
  Open
I Case 3)

    27
  25.3
   3.3
  37.0  -
  1520
  1135
Units

  °CA
mg/°GA
J/°CA
   ppra
    K
     Retyped for clarity
                                    Vr-21

-------
While these results  show  the technique of  increasing  frontal
areas to be more  effective than that of  increasing  the  turb-
ulence level, generalizations  should  not  be drawn.  First  of
all, the heat-transfer model in the engine simulation is  not
sophisticated  enough  to  account  for   details   of   chamber
geometry and  fluid  motions.   Furthermore,  the  heat-transfer
correlation (6) may  not  be applicable for engine  designs  far
removed  from   conventional   practice.    In   addition,   the
ignition delay computation procedure in the engine simulation
does not  account  for  swirl  effects,  thereby  underestimating
the influence of  swirl on the overall time of  the combustion
event.    Finally,   as  mentioned  before,   the   extreme   open
chamber  design  represents  an  upper-limit  case which   is
impractical to  manufacture  for  many  reasons.   Within  these
constraints,  the  study  does  indicate  that  there may  be  a
limit  to  the  optimum  amount  of   turbulence,   after  which
excessive heat losses cause a drop in efficiency.

Some evidence  of  this situation is  indicated  by  the  experi-
mental data of Thring  (13) discussed earlier.  To  review,  the
NOx and indicated specific fuel consumption were not a unique
function of  combustion duration.   When  the  same  combustion
duration was  obtained,  in one case  with  increased swirl  and
in  the  other case with  multiple spark  plugs,  the  increased
swirl led  to greater  heat losses,  which produced lower  NOx
but lower indicated efficiency as well.

CONTEMPORARY ENGINE DESIGNS

The fast-burn approach to engine combustion is  rapidly  being
adopted in  new  engine designs throughout  the  world.   A  small
sample of some of these new  designs  is illustrated in  Fig.  18
[and 19].

In figure 18, a cross-section  of  the General Motors 2.8  L  V-6
engine  designed  by  Chevrolet  (39),  shows  the  chamber  to  be
somewhat open with a near-central spark plug location.

Another geometric approach to fast  burn  is shown  in Fig.  19,
where the  original  shallow cavity of a flat-topped piston  in
a wedge-shaped chamber was redistributed  to provide an offset
cavity.  The original compression ratio was maintained.   This
offset   cavity   provides  a  large  frontal   area   to   the
propagating flame while improving the fuel  octane  requirement
by  providing more   effective  cooling  of  the  end  gas.   In
experimental studies  (17)  with this piston, the  attributes  of
fast burning  were realized.   This piston-cavity approach  has
been employed in  the turbocharged versions  of  the  Pontiac  4.9
L V-8 engine (40,  41).
                                 VT22

-------
Fig.  13 - General Motors 2.8 L V-6
         combustion chamber (39)
                    SPARK PLUG
                    ELECTRODES
   Fig. 19 -  Experimental modified wedge
             chamber (17)
                V-23

-------
SUMMARY

Fast burning  in  engines has  been  shown to  have a number  of
attractive attributes.  Among these advantages is  an  improved
tradeoff between  efficiency  and tfOx  emissions  and a  greater
tolerance  to  dilution,  either  with  EGR or  with  excess  air.
Resulting from the combined effect of  these  two  traits is the
potential for  simultaneously  achieving higher efficiency  and
lower NOx emissions.

Fast  burning   also  reduces  the cyclic  variation  of  engine
power, which,  can  improve vehicle driveability.   Furthermore,
the greater resistance to knock with  faster  burning can allow
the  fuel  economy  advantages  associated  with higher  compres-
sion ratios to be realized.

A  number  of  different  combustion chamber  design  techniques
exist for  accomplishing  fast  burning.  These techniques  fall
into  the  two  categories  of  altering the  combustion-chamber
shape and  affecting  the fluid motions  in  the chamber.   Com-
bining  these   different  techniques   into  an  "optimum"  com-
bustion  chamber  design, while  still  recognizing  all  of  the
important  constraints,   offers  a  challenge  as  well  as  an
opportunity for the engine designer.

Finally,  the   growing  number  of  new  engines  throughout  the
world  incorporating  fast  burning  attests  to the  merits  of
this concept.
                                 •VT24

-------
    References*

1.  J. C.  G.  Hempson,  "The Automobile  Engine,  1920-1950," Paper  760605,  pre-
    sented at SAE West Coast Meeting, San Francisco, August 1976.

3.  J. H.  Lienesch,  "Engine Simulation  Identifies  Optimal Combustion  Chamber
    Design."  Presented at Seventeenth FISITA International Congress, Hamburg,
    West Germany, May 1980.

6.  G. Woschni,  "A Universally  Applicable Equation  for the Instantaneous  Heat
    Transfer  Coefficient   in  the  Internal  Combustion  Engine."    SAE   Trans-
    actions, Vol. 76, 1967, pp.  3065-3083.

10. J. H.  Tuttle and  R.  R. Toepel,  "Increased Burning  Rates  Offer Improved
    Fuel Economy-NOx Emissions  Trade-Offs in Spark Ignition  Engines."   Paper
    790388,  presented  at   SAE  Automotive  Engineering  Congress,  Detroit,
    February 1979.

11. H. Kuroda, J. Nakajima, K.  Sugihara,  Y.  Takagi  and S. Muranaka, "The  Fast
    Burn with Heavy EGR, New Approach for Low NOx and Improved Fuel Economy."
    SAE Transactions, Vol.  87,  1978,  pp.  1-15.

12. J. Mayo,  "The Effect  of  Engine  Design  Parameters on  Combustion  Rate  in
    Spark-Ignited Engines."  SAE Transactions, Vol.  84, 1975,  pp. 869-888.

13. R. H.  Thring, "The  Effect  of Varying Combustion  Rate  in  Spark   Ignited
    Engines."  Paper  70-387  [sic],  presented  at   SAE  Automotive   Engineering
    Congress, Detroit,  February  1979.

14. D.  R.  Lancaster,  R.   B.  Krieger  and  J.  H.  Lienesch,  "Measurement  and
    Analysis of Pressure Data."   SAE  Transactions, Vol. 84,  1975, pp. 155-172.

15. R. V.  Fisher and J. P. Macey,  "Digital Data Acquistion  with  Emphasis  on
    Measuring  Pressure  Synchronously   with  Crank   Angle."   Paper   750028,
    presented at  SAE  Automotive  Engineering Congress,  Detroit, February  1975.

16. M.  B.   Young  and  J.   H.  Lienesch,  "An  Engine   Diagnostic   Package
    (EDPAC)-Software   for  Analyzing  Cylinder   Pressure-Time  Data."    Paper
    780967,  presented  at  SAE  International  Fuels  and   Lubricants  Meeting,
    Toronto, November 1978.

17. J. N.  Mattavi,  E. G.  Groff,  J.  H.  Lienesch,  F.  A.  Matekunas and  R. N.
    Noyes, "Engine Improvements Through  Combustion  Modeling."  Proceedings  of
    Symposium at  General Motors Research  Laboratories  on Combustion Modeling
    in Reciprocating Engines, J.  N.  Mattavi and C.  A. Amann, Editors,  Plenum
    Press, New York-London, 1980,  pp. 537-587.

18. A. A.  Quader, "Effects  of Spark Location and Combustion Duration on Nitric
    Oxide  and  Hydrocarbon  Emissions."   SAE  Transactions,  Vol.  82,  1973,  pp.
    617-627.
    Only  those  references  which were  cited  in the  previous  excerpts  were
    included in  this  listing.  The  original  reference numbers  were  used for
    this document.
                                      YT25

-------
34. D. R.  Lancaster,  "Effects of  Engine  Variables on  Turbulence  in  a  Spark
    Ignition Engine."   SAE Transactions, Vol.  85, 1976,  pp. 671-688.

35. E.  G.  Groff  and  F.  A.  Matekunas,  "The  Nature  of  Turbulent   Flame
    Propagation  in   a   Homogeneous  Spark-Ignited  Engine,"   Paper  800133,
    presented at SAE Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit, February 1980.

39. D. A.  Martens,  "The  General  Motors 2.8 Liter  60°  V-6 Engine Designed  by
    Chevrolet."  Paper  790697,  presented  at   SAE  Passenger   Car  Meeting,
    Dearborn, June  1979.

40. "Automotive Industries."   October  1979, p. 87.

41. "Automotive Design and Development." May 1980,  pp. 16-17.
                                     V-26

-------
C.  In a SAE Paper  (#800794)  titled "Controlling Engine Load by  Means  of Late

Intake-Valve Closing",  General  Motors  described  a technique  of reducing  an

engine's  pumping losses  in  order  to  improve  thermal  efficiency,  with  the

accompanying benefit  of  considerably  reduced NOx emissions.  Pumping  losses

are defined as the power required  to pump  the  fuel-air  mixture  into  and out of

the  cylinder  during  the  intake  and  exhaust  strokes.   Pumping losses  were

reduced  by  "delaying  intake-valve  closing  (with  respect .to  a  conventional

intake-valve  closing)   as  a  method of  controlling  the  engine  load  without
incurring  the usual part-load  throttling losses."   The  following  excerpts more

fully describe the concepts and the results.


CONCEPT
    The  late  intake-valve-closing  (LIVC)  engine is  an engine  with
    the  power output  regulated  by  controlling the  crankangle  at
    which the intake valve closes.  An  LIVC  engine  operating  at  part
    load is  depicted  in Fig.  2.   As  in the  case of a  conventional
    engine,   the  intake valve  opens just prior  to  and  remains  open
    throughout the intake stroke  of the engine.   However,  the intake
    valve also  remains  open  over   a   portion  of  the  compression
    stroke while  the piston  pushes part of  the  cylinder  charge  back
    into the  intake manifold.  After the  intake  valve closes,  the
    remainder of  the  compression  stroke,  as well  as  the  expansion
    and  exhaust   strokes,  are  similar  to  those of  a  conventional
    engine.

    An idealized  pressure-volume diagram for  an  LIVC  engine is  shown
    in Fig.  3.  For comparison, an idealized  pressure-volume  diagram
    for a conventional  engine is  also  shown.  The pumping  losses  of
    the conventional engine  operating at part load are  substantial,
    as depicted by  the shaded  area in  Fig.  3.   In  contrast,  since
    the  LIVC  engine  inducts  fresh   charge  at   near   atmospheric
    pressure  (unthrottled),   the  throttling   losses   are   nearly
    eliminated  for  all  load  conditions.   The   trapped  cylinder
    charge,   and  therefore   power  output,   is   determined   by   the
    effective  cylinder  volume  at  the  time  of  the   intake-valve
    closing  Vjvc  of  Fig.  3.    A mechanism  that  would vary the  time
    the intake valve closes  as a  function  of speed and  desired  load
    would allow the LIVC engine to  achieve the same maximum power  as
    that  of   an   equal-displacement   conventional  engine,   while
    providing lower part-load pumping  losses.
                                    V-27

-------
 a) Intake Stroke
 c) Compression
  Stroke (before
  Intake Valve
     Closes)
     b) Start of
Compression Stroke
   d) Compression
    Stroke (after
    Intake Valve
       Closes)
      Fig. 2 - Depiction  of LIVC operation
PRESSURE
                LATE INTAKE -
               VALVE CLOSING
         CONVENTIONAL
          THROTTLING
            VTDC   vivc  VBDC
              VOLUME
      'TDC
        VOLUME
'BDC
       Fig.  3 - Pressure-volume  diagrams
                     V-28

-------
EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT

    Because  of  the   exploratory  nature  of  this  investigation,  a
    variable  valve-timing  mechanism  was  not  necessary.   Rather,
    modification   of   the   test   engine   to   LIVC  operation   was
    accomplished by replacing the production camshaft with a splined
    shaft.  The splined camshaft allowed  cams  of  different dwells at
    maximum lift to  be  installed such that the intake-valve closing
    could  be   incrementally  varied.   The  timings  of  exhaust-valve
    opening and closing and  of  intake-valve opening were  the same as
    those of  the  conventional engine.  The intake-and  exhaust-valve
    opening  and closing  crankangles  for  the  various  intake-valve
    dwells  investigated  are  listed  in  Table  2.   Valve  lifts  are
    shown in  Fig.  5  for both the  conventional engine and  an engine
    with the  intake-valve  closing  delayed  80  degrees of  crankshaft
    rotation.   An  intake-valve  dwell  of  0°CA   corresponds  to  the
    conventional engine.

                        Table 2-Valve Timing

         Intake-Valve         Exhaust Valve          Intake Valve
         Dwell ( °CA)           Open	Close        Open	Close

          0 (conventional)
         60
         80
         96
88°BBDC
88°BBDC
88°BBDC
88°BBDC
52°ATDC
52 °ATDC
52 °ATDC
52°ATDC
38°BTDC
38°BTDC
38°BTDC
38°BTDC
82 °ABDC
142°ABDC
162°ABDC
178°ABDC
RESULTS
         All  specific  test  data  reported  herein  are   based   on
         integrated  pressure cards.   "Indicated"  values  represent
         power   developed   within    the   cylinder   during    the
         compression-expansion  portion  of  the  engine  cycle,   and
         "pumping" values represent  the  negative power required  for
         the  exhaust and  intake  strokes.  The  difference  between
         these two powers is termed the "net" power.

         ENGINE LOAD  CONTROL -  The power  output of  the LIVC  engine
         is controlled by the effective cylinder volume* at  the  time
         of the  intake-valve closing.  Increasing the  dwell of  the
         intake  valve at  its  maximum  lift decreases  the  cylinder
         volume  at  the  intake-valve  closing,   thus  decreasing   the
         amount of fresh charge  trapped in the cylinder.

         FUEL CONSUMPTION - The fuel-consumption characteristics  of
         the  LIVC  engine   relative   to  those  of  the  conventional
         engine were  analyzed as the additive  result  of  changes  in
         both the indicated and  pumping portions of the  engine
     The  term  "effective  cylinder  volume"  is  used  to  denote  the
     cylinder volume at which the intake valve is effectively  closed.

                                      Vr29_

-------
               EXHAUST   INTAKE
                                       - 80 °CA
                                        DELAYED
                                      CONVENTIONAL
                                    \ (0 °CA DELAYED)
        90  180  270  360  450  540  630  720
                      TDC                TDC
             CRANKSHAFT POSITION (°CA)
           Fig.  5 - Valve-lift diagram
    PMEP
    (kPa)
70


60


50


40


30


20 -


10 -


 0
                                    CONVENTIONAL
                                        ENGINE
                         LIVC
                       ENGINE
             0
          10
                            20
                          30
                    iu      f.\j      ju      40
                 FUELING LEVEL (mg/cyc!e)


          Fig.  9  "  PMEP versus  fueling  level

                               ESTIMATED VALUE
                               (NON-KNOCKING)

          36r    CONVENTIONAL        I
                 ENGINE
          35
INDICATED 34
 THERMAL
EFFICIENCY
   ID/I     33
          32 -
   LIVC
   ENGINE
                                  VALUES AT
                                  VMLUCO M I
                                  BORDERLINE KNOCK
        10     20     30
       FUELING LEVEL (nig/cycle)
                                       40
  Fig.  10  -  Indicated  thermal efficiency versus
  fueling  level
                           V-30

-------
cycle.   The  change  in  the  pumping  portion  of  the  cycle  is
presented first.  Because  the LIVC engine inducts  fresh charge
at near  atmospheric  pressure, the pumping losses of  the engine
are expected  to be  much  lower than  those of  the  conventional
engine.  Values  of  pumping mean  effective pressure  (PMEP)  for
both  the LIVC  and  conventional   engines  are  plotted  against
fueling  level  in  Fig.   9.   As   the   fueling  level  of  the
conventional  engine  is decreased  from  the  maximum value,  the
PMEP  of  the engine  continually increases.   The values  of PMEP
shown in Fig. 9 for the LIVC  engine are  essentially the  same as
those  of  the conventional  engine  operating at WOT.  Thus  the
LIVC  concept  of  load  control  can  limit  engine  "breathing"
without incurring the large throttling losses associated with a
conventional engine  operating at part  load.

Indicated thermal efficiency  is plotted  versus  fueling level in
Fig.  10  for both the LIVC and the conventional  engines.   With
the exception of the highest values  of  fueling level  in Fig.
10,  the  values  of   indicated thermal  efficiency  are not  MET
spark  timing.  At  the  highest  values  of  fueling level,  MET
timing could  not  be  attained due  to  knocking  of the  engine  on
the  97  RON  fuel.   Under   knocking  conditions,  the  indicated
thermal  efficiency  in  Fig.  10  is   that  corresponding   to
borderline  knock.   Estimated  values   of  indicated  thermal
efficiency  for  non-knocking  operation  are  represented  by  the
dashed line.  For non-knocking  operation,  the  rate  of decrease
in indicated  thermal efficiency with  decreasing fueling  level
(load) is significantly greater for the  LIVC engine.   The  cause
of the larger decrease  in  indicated thermal efficiency  for  .the
LIVC engine will be  addressed later.

Even  though the LIVC engine is at  a disadvantage when indicated
thermal  efficiencies are compared,  the  lower pumping  losses  of
this  engine result in  its  having  an advantage  when net  thermal
efficiencies  are  compared.  Net thermal  efficiency is based  on
the   indicated  output  power less  the   pumping   losses   and,
consequently,  gives  credit   for  the  lower  PMEP   of  the  LIVC
engine.  Fig.  11  is  a  plot  of  net  thermal efficiency  versus
fueling  level  and  shows  the   improvement   in   net  thermal
efficiency  of the LIVC  engine over the  conventional  engine  to
increase with decreasing fueling level.

The data  of Fig. 11 are replotted in Fig.  12  as  net specific
fuel  consumption (NSFC)   versus  net  mean  effective pressure
(NMEP).  Use  of net output (indicated less pumping  work) allows
the fuel economy of the LIVC  and  the  conventional engines  to  be
compared at  equal engine   load, where equal  engine  load  refers
to equal NMEP.  If the engine friction were  unchanged  between a
conventional engine  and one modified for LIVC operation,  then


                                V-31

-------
             36


             34


             32
     NET
   THERMAL    .
  EFFICIENCY 30


             28


             26 -


              •^
                                    ESTIMATED VALUE
                                    (NON-KNOCKING)
          LIVC
         ENGINE
         CONVENTIONAL
            ENGINE
                      I
          10      20 J   30
         FUELING LEVEL (mg/cyclc)
                          VALUES AT
                          BORDERLINE
                             KNOCK
                               	I
                                            40
  Fig.  II
  1 eve 1
- tiet  thermal  efficiency versus fueling
    NET
  SPECIFIC
    FUEL        I
CONSUMPTION 280 h
  (g/kW-h)      i
            270}-
330

320
310
-
•
; \
\
300 1- §\
290 H \;;v\

SYMBOL ENGINE
• CONVEiNTIONAL
A LIVC
A LIVC * THROTTLING


                             VALUES AT
                         BORDERLINE KNOCK
                 ' 200    400    600    800   1000
                NET MEAN EFFECTIVE PRESSURE (kPa)
        Fig.  12 -  Specific fuel  consumption

           30.0
           25.0
           20.0

     NET
   SPECIFIC
     NOx   15.0
   (g/kW-h)


           10.0
            5.0
                           SPARK TIMING FOR 1%
                         LOSS FROM MBT TORQUE
                   CONVENTIONAL
                      ENGINE
            0.0 l_\_J_
       200
                      LIVC ENGINE
                            400       600
                             NMEP (kPa)
                                                800
        Fig.  15  - Specific NQx. emissions
                    V-32

-------
the  comparison would  also  be  valid  at  equal  brake  load.   As
mentioned  earlier,  because  delayed   intake-valve  closing  is
limited  to  about  96°CA and  because  this  amount  of  delay  does
not  provide  a range  of  load   control  sufficient  for  vehicle
operation, LIVC  must be  combined with conventional throttling.
Consequently,  also  included in  Fig.  12  are  data  for  which
combinations  of  delayed  intake-valve  closing  and  conventional
throttling were  used to  regulate engine load.   These data are
indicated by   the  dashed  lines  in Fig.  12,  which  connect  data
having a  common  value of  intake-valve  dwell  The  data indicate
the  fuel  consumption when throttling  is used  to  decrease  the
load further from that achieved by unthrottled LIVC operation.

In comparison  to the conventional engine, both  the throttled and
the  unthrottled  LIVC engines exhibit  improved  fuel-consumption
characteristics  at  part   load.   Comparing  data   for   engine
operation  with  combined   LIVC   and  throttling   to   data   for
unthrottled LIVC operation  shows the  LIVC-plus-throttling method
of  load  control  has a  higher  NSFC  than  the  unthrottled  LIVC
method.  These results  indicate  that unthrottled  LIVC  should be
used to control engine  load for  loads which can be  regulated by
intake-valve  dwells  of  up  to about 96°CA.   For  lighter engine
loads, which cannot be achieved  by unthrottled LIVC operation,  a
combination  of 96°CA  of  intake-valve dwell  plus  conventional
throttling exhibits the lowest fuel consumption.

EXHAUST EMISSIONS  -  Specific  emissions of NOx are  shown  in  Fig.
15  for  both  the  conventional   and  the  LIVC  engines.    These
emissions are  based  on  net output power.   Because  NOx  emissions
are  extremely  sensitive  to spark timing near the  MBT  timing and
because MBT  spark  timing  itself is  not  always  well  defined,
emissions are  not  compared at MBT power.   Rather,  emissions  are
compared at a  spark timing which  resulted in a 1%  loss  in engine
torque  from  the  MBT output.   Emissions  are  not  shown  at  the
zero-dwell power (WOT power for  the conventional engine)  because
knocking prevented the estimation  of the  MBT value of  the engine
torque.

At equal NMEP, the NOx  emissions of the  conventional  engine can
be seen in  Fig.  15 to be  considerably  higher  than  those of  the
LIVC  engine.   At  mid-load,  the   NOx  emissions  of  the the  LIVC
engine  are   about  24%  lower than  those  of  the  conventional
engine.  The higher NOx emissions  of the  conventional engine  are
attributable  to   its  higher  peak cylinder  pressures  and,   as
calculations showed, its  higher  peak cylinder-gas  temperatures.
The  lower pumping  losses  of  the  LIVC engine allow  the  engine  to
have  a substantially  lower  peak  pressure  while  producing   the
same  part-load NMEP  as  the  conventional engine.   The measured
                                 V-33

-------
    cylinder-gas  pressures  were  input  to  a  heat-release  analysis
    [10]    which   computes   the   associated    peak    cylinder-gas
    temperature.  At mid-load,  the  peak cylinder-gas temperature  of
    the conventional engine  is  higher than that  of the LIVC  engine
    by 70 K.

    Specific emissions of unburned  hydrocarbons  (HC) .are  plotted  in
    Fig.   18.   Again,  the  emissions  measurements  correspond  to  a
   • spark timing which resulted, in  a  1%  loss  in torque from the  MET
    output.  The  HC  emissions from  the conventional engine and  from
    the LIVC engine are not too different, particularly at the lower
    engine loading.  Because  exhaust-gas temperature will  affect  HC
    cleanup in  a  vehicular  exhaust  system,  the  measured exhaust
    temperatures  are  compared  ...   Since  the   temperatures   are
    similar for the two engines, post-cylinder HC clean-up should  be
    no more  difficult  for  the  LIVC  engine  than  it  is  for  the
    conventional engine.

CONCLUSIONS

    1.   Load  Control  -  Delayed closing of  the  intake  valve  is
    limitedtoabout  96  degrees  of  crankshaft  rotation because
    greater delays  cause   large deterioration  in indicated thermal
    efficiency.   This amount of delay does  not provide a  sufficient
    range of  load control for vehicular  application.   Consequently,
    the   LIVC  concept   would   have   to   be   combined   with   a
    variable-density throttle control.

    2.   Fuel Economy -

         a.   The  LIVC  concept  of   load control  can  limit  engine
         power output without incurring the large  throttling  losses
         associated  with  a  conventional engine  operating  at  part
         load.

         b.   In  comparison  to  the efficiency of  the  conventional
         engine  with  its fixed  compression  ratio,  the  indicated
         thermal  efficiency of  the  LIVC engine at  part  load  is
         lower, and  it decreases  more rapidly with  decreasing load.
         The  lower  indicated  thermal efficiency  of  the LIVC  engine
         at part  load  results  from  a  lower  effective  compression
         ratio and a longer combustion duration.

         c.   Although the  indicated  thermal  efficiency of the  LIVC
         engine  is  lower,  the  lower  pumping  losses result   in  the
         LIVC engine's having  up  to  a  6.5%  lower net  specific  fuel
         consumption  than  the  conventional  engine  at   the  same
         light-load operation.
10. R.B. Krieger  and  G.L.  Borman,  "The Computation of Apparent  Heat
    Release for Internal Combustion Engines," ASME  Paper  66-WA/DGP4,
    1966.

                                    V-34

-------
     d.   Conversion  of a  conventional  engine  to  LIVC operation  requires
     the addition of  a control  mechanism.  Consequently,  the fuel  savings
     offered by  the LIVC  concept must  be diminished by the  losses  innerent
     in any r-uch control  device.

     e.   The  current  trend  toward  lower vehicular  power/weight  ratios
     diminishes  the fuel-economy benefit of the LIVC concept.
3.
Exhaust Emissions  -
     a.   At  spark,  timings yielding  a  1%  loss in  torque  from  the  MET
     values,  the NOx emissions  of  the  LIVC engine are considerably  lower
     than those  of  the  conventional engine.  At  mid-load, the  reduct.on is
     about 24%.
     b.
     HC emissions  of  the LIVC engine are  similar to those of  che  con-
     vene ional engine,
                    6.0 r
                    s.o
               NET
             SPECIFIC
               HC
             (g/kW-h)
                    4.0
                    LIVC
                   ENGINE
                                  SPARK TIMING FOR 1%
                                  LOSS FROM MBT TORQUE
                                  -CONVENTIONAL
                                     ENGINE
                    3.0
                       -NT
                         200  30O  400  500  600  700
                                  NMEP (kPa)
               Fig.  18 - Specific hydrocarbon emissions
                                 V-35

-------
V.  B.   Ford

1.  Ford Statements Concerning  the Relationship between  Emissions and  Fuel
    Economy

A.  High Altitude Emission Standards

    Ford states  that  they believe that the  implementation  of the  1984  high
    altitude requirements will reduce their fleet average fuel economy  by 2%
    to  7%.   Ford states  that  this loss  would result  from their  replacing
    fuel efficient configurations by less efficient ones.   Ford  claims,  "The
    1984 and Subsequent Model Years High Altitude Control Requirements  could
    regulate  out  of   existence   some  of  the  most  fuel-efficient  vehicle
    configurations  because  of   their   inability   to  simultaneously   meet
    stringent high  altitude standards and  yield  acceptable  performance."*
    However, Ford did not provide any data to back up  this claim.

B.  Effects of Reducing the NOx Standard  to 0.4 g/mi

    Ford states, "Further reducing NOx emission levels  below  1.0 g/mi could,
    in  some  cases,  without  further design and  development  of high EGR  tol-
    erance  engines,  cause power  reduction,  tip-in  stumbles,  lean sags  and
    surging.  These  conditions  can usually  be minimized  by  reducing  EGR
    rates and richer  air-fuel mixtures.  However, rich  air-fuel  operation is
    inconsistent with high fuel economy and low HC and CO  objectives."*

    Ford  further   stated  that   their   "California  cars  will   suffer   an
    additional 8% loss in fuel economy in 1983  [relative to their 1981  model
    year counterparts]  when the 0.4 NOx  emission  standard  goes  into effect
    (assuming this NOx  standard  can be met  at all); that  will lower  CAFE by
    0.2 MPG.  These  losses  will occur in spite of  the  fact that we  will be
    using sophisticated and very expensive emission  control  systems —
    "Ford Status Report," February 1981, Sections IIA6  and IIJ.
                                    V-36

-------
    including three-way  catalysts and  complex electronics  to control  fuel
    metering, spark timing, and  other  important parameters of the  engine  —
    to minimize  what otherwise would  be much larger fuel economy  losses."*

    While Ford provided no  data  to substantiate  the  above claims, they did
    submit a  summary  of  computer engine mapping  results comparing the  fuel
    economy  of  vehicles  which meet  the research  target (0.41  HC,  3.4 CO,
    0.41 NOx) versus vehicles whose emissions are  totally uncontrolled.  The
    comparisons  used engine maps of vehicles equipped with 2.3 liter and 5.0
    liter  engines.   Ford's  results  indicated  that  the  unconstrained 2.3
    liter vehicles obtained between 11% and 21% better  fuel economy than the
    controlled versions,  and  the  unconstrained 5.0  liter  version produced
    between  9%  and  12% higher  fuel  economy  than  their controlled counter-
    parts.   Ford  obtained  between  25.9  mpg  and 26.0  mpg  combined  fuel
    economy  with  their uncontrolled  2.3  liter  vehicles, and  17.8 mpg  with
    their  uncontrolled 5.0 liter vehicles.**   Unfortunately  Ford  did not
    provide any  emissions data or specifics on  those vehicles  (e.g., type  of
    transmission,  test weight,  axle  ratio,  whether  turbocharged,  whether
    closed-loop,  and whether  fuel injected or  carbureted).   Since the  Ford
    report was submitted in September 1979, the EPA technical  staff examined
    1980  model  year  Ford  vehicles  which were  used   to generate  the  fuel
    economy  label values  used by  Ford for  their  1980  model  year vehicles
    equipped with either  2.3  or 5.0 liter engines.   We found that the 2.3
    liter, 2  barrel,  manual  (both 4-  and  5-speed)  transmission,  open-loop
    vehicles  produced  28 MPG ,  and  thus  exceeded the  "best  fuel economy"
    version  in  Ford's  study.   Similarly,  the 5.0  liter,  2 barrel  or  fuel
    injected, automatic (3- and  4-speed)  transmissions, open or  closed-loop
    vehicles (with the exception of the LTD, LTD Wagon, Marquis,   and Marquis
    Wagon) all  achieved  at least 18  MPG  .***   We,  therefore,  have  doubts
    concerning the  accuracy of  Ford's  computer engine  mapping technique as
    an indicator of  EPA test results.
*   Hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on
    Interstate and  Foreign  Commerce of the House  of Representatives, March
    13 and 14, 1979.
**  "Ford 0.4 NOx Research Objective Program,"  September  1979, pages 1-2.
*** EPA/DOE 1980 Gas Mileage Guide.
                                    V-37

-------
C.  Effects of Alternate "Standards"  on Fuel Economy

    Ford has  studied the effects  on fuel  economy  of a  proposed (by  Ford)
    emissipn standard of 0.39 g/ml non-methane HC, 9.0 g/mi CO,  and  1.5 g/ml
    NOx compared to  the current standard  of  0.41 g/mi HC, 3.4  g/mi  CO,  and
    1.0 g/mi  NOx.   Ford  states,  "Based on  a preliminary  analysis,  such  a
    change starting  in the 1983 model year  could, conservatively,  provide an
    average benefit of 0.5-0.7 mpg to the fuel economy of  the  Ford fleet."*
    Since the 1983 CAFE standard  is  26.0 mpg, Ford apparently  believes that
    their proposed emission  standard will  result in a fuel economy  improve-
    ment of approximately 2% to 3%.  Ford provided neither  the  test  data  nor
    the analysis method used to predict that fuel economy  improvement.

D.  General Comments By Ford

    Ford, in  the  same report states,  "It has not been possible for  Ford  to
    separate the fuel economy penalty attributable to  emission  controls from
    the overall improvement  in  fuel  economy,  but the penalty is  believed to
    be  significant."**   Ford's statements  contradict  the computer  simula-
    tions  of  Heywood, Higgins, Watts,  and Tabaczynski which   indicate  that
    fuel economy  can be  improved while  controlling  emissions.   For  example
    simultaneously  increasing  the amount   of  EGR  and advancing  the  spark
    timing  could  increase  fuel  economy without  causing  the  NOx  to  sig-
    nificantly  increase.***  The resulting  increase  in HC  could  probably  be
    handled by  the catalyst.  See figures Ford-1  and Ford-2.

E.  General Comments by EPA's Technical Staff

    It  is  quite time consuming  to generate  test  data to analyze  since  it  is
    difficult  to  run  more   than  one  city  (FTP) test per day  on  a  given
    vehicle.  Ford eliminates this problem by running either steady-state
*    "Ford Status Report," February 1981, Section IIF.
**   Ibid., Section III B.
***  Heywood,  et.  al,  "Development  and Use of  a Cycle Simulation to  Predict
     SI Engine Efficiency and NOx Emissions,"  SAE Paper 790291,  page  18.
                                    V-38

-------
             360
             340
           0>

           u
             320
             300
                                                       40*
                                  6      8     10     12
                                  bsNO. gNO/kW-hr
  14
 16
              Figure Ford - 1*
                     - Lines of  constant percent exhaust  gas
              recycle, and constant  timing relative to MBT,  on
              a plot of brake specific  fuel  consumption versus
              brake specific nitric  oxide emissions.  Combus-
              tion duration 40°,  equivalence ratio 1.0, 1400
              rev/rain, bmep 325 kPa
               360
               340
             i? 320
               300
                                           I
                                                 JL
                                    6      8     10
                                   bsNO. qNO/kW-hr
12
14
               Figure Ford - 2
                      - Lines of constant percent exhaust gas
              recycle, and constant timing relative to MBT, on
              a plot of brake specific fuel consumption versus
              brake specific nitric oxide emissions.   Combus-
              tion duration 60°, equivalence ratio 1.0, 1400
              rev/min, bmep 325 kPa
Ibid., page 18.
                                 V-39

-------
    tests or by running what Ford calls a hot-CVS (which is a city  test with
    the vehicle already warmed-up).  Unfortunately,  it is very difficult,  if
    not  impossible,  to accurately predict  both emissions  and  fuel  economy
    results for  the  FTP cycle  based only  on  steady-state or  hot-CVS test
    results  (as  shown  in  appendix  1  of  this report).   Therefore,  Ford's
    approach might not be correct  for  actual  FTP  results.  Also, Ford makes
    a  number  of claims  but without providing any  data to  document those
    claims.

2.  New Technology or  Developments which Could Provide a Change in the Re-
    lationship between Emissions and Fuel  Economy as Compared to 1981 Vehi-
    cles or Ford's Estimates.

A.  New Engines

    1.   PROCO (PROgrammed  COmbustion)

         The  PROCO  engine   is  a direct  injection,   open  chamber stratified
         charge engine.  Fuel is injected into the combustion chamber  during
         the  compression stroke and  ignited by dual  spark plugs.   Stratifi-
         cation  is  achieved  by relatively  late  injection  timing  and  the
         swirl of incoming air, resulting  in a rich  mixture in  the  vicinity
         of the spark  plugs  and a  very lean mixture  around the  periphery  of
         the combustion chamber.

         Ford has tested PROCO  engines with displacements of 7.5, 6.6, 5.8,
         5.0, 3.3, and 2.5 liters.*  Ford has  found  that, "Because  the PROCO
         engine runs at overall lean air/fuel  ratios and the fuel charge  is
         concentrated  in the center of the  combustion chamber, thus  reducing
         fuel  contact  with  the cylinder  head and  walls,  both HC  and   CO
*  "Ford Status Report," February 1981,  Sections  IIG &  IIH,
                                    V-40

-------
         emissions are  minimized.   However, oxidation  catalysts  will  still
         be required to meet the 0.41  g/mi hydrocarbons and 3.4 g/mi  carbon
         monoxide emission standards.  The  NOx  standard of 1.0 g/mi is  also
         achievable due  to this  engine's ability  to  use  large  amounts  of
         EGR."*  Fortunately, the use  of  EGR should not lower fuel  economy,
         as Ford  explains,  "The  erroneous  notion  that  EGR  is   inherently
         detrimental to  fuel  economy comes  from the fact  that  EGR reduces
         the combustion  speed.   If  the   engine  had the  optimum  combustion
         speed  without  EGR and measures are not taken to counteract  the  com-
         bustion speed reduction effect  of EGR, then  the  fuel economy  will
         indeed suffer  from EGR.  The  combustion speed of  the PROCO engine,
         however,  is optimized  for  the 100% charge  dilution condition  with
         the aid of inlet swirl, squish,  and dual  ignition in order to  take
         full  advantage  of the  fuel economy  potential inherent  in  charge
         dilution."**

         Ford  estimates  that  the  PROCO engine, when calibrated  to meet the
         1981   statutory  emissions  standards,  will  produce  a 20-25%  fuel
         economy improvement over a carbureted, conventional gasoline  engine
         of the  same  displacement  which  was  also  calibrated to  the  1981
         standards.**

         According  to Ford,  the  major problem in  mass producing  the PROCO
         engine "revolves  around mass manufacturing of its  precision  fuel
         injection  system   which   requires   extremely  tight  tolerances.
         Pending continued  successful  development  and resolution  of  manu-
         facturing open  issues,  the PROCO  may  be  available  for  production
         use by the mid-1980's."**

         Ford  states that, "As engine power-to-vehicle weight ratios are re-
         duced, it  may  be  necessary to  turbocharge the  smaller  engine  to
         restore the required performance level.  In addition to meeting the
*   Nickol, "Automotive Powertrains  - Now and  into the  1990*s,"  SAE Paper
    801340, October 1980,  page 6.
**  Scussel, et al, "The Ford PROCO Engine Update," SAE Paper 780699, August
    1978, page 4.
                                    V-41

-------
         required  performance level, it may  be necessary to  turbocharge  in
         order  to  meet  the NOx emission control requirements.   ...Testing  to
         date  indicates that  turbocharging PROCO,  with  its  inherently fast
         combustion,  will  require  modifications to  the  current technology
         PROCO  combustion system."*  In fact Ford says,  "The  advanced  [i.e.
         turbocharged]  PROCO  is  not  expected  to   be   available  prior   to
         1990."**

         In a recent interview  with "Ward's  Engine  Update,"  Ford Chairman,
         Philip  Caldwell  indicated  that the  PROCO  engine will not  be going
         into  production.  Ford  will,  however, try  to   incorporate  some  of
         the technological  know-how they  developed  while  working   on  the
         PROCO  on  some  other  projects that will go into production.***
    2.    Stirling
         The  Stirling engine that Ford is  investigating  is  a reciprocating,
         closed  cycle,  continuous external  combustion engine with multi-fuel
         capabilities.   Ford states that, "Using gasoline,  the  Stirling has
         been projected to be capable of achieving up  to 40% better economy
         than conventional gasoline engines, although  experimental vehicles
         have fallen far  short  of this goal."****   These  projections, how-
         ever, are  not  based on  actual test data.

         Ford's  work on  the Stirling  engine had been  done  under Department
         of Energy  Contract  No.  EC-77-C-02-4396.  At  the conclusion of Task
*   "Ford Status Report,"  February  1981, Section IIH.
**  Nickol,  "Automotive Powertrains  -  Now and  into the 1990's",  SAE Paper
    801340,  October 1980,  page  10.
*** Ward's Engine Update,"  Volume 6, Number 24, December  15,  1980,  pages 5
    & 7.
****Nickol,  "Automotive  Powertrains - Now and into the 1990's," SAE Paper
    801340,  October 1980,  pages 11-12.
                                    V-42

-------
         I in  September  1978,  Ford officially  notified the Federal  govern-
         ment agencies and  private firms that  it  intended to withdraw  from
         active participation  in  the  development  of the Stirling  engine  as
         an automotive power plant.*

    3.    Gas Turbine

         Ford  is  a  subcontractor  to  AiResearch  Manufacturing  Company  of
         Arizona on  the  current  NASA/DOE  Advanced Gas  Turbine  Powertrain
         System (Contract No.  DEN  3-37).   "Ford believes  that  the  ceramic
         single shaft  turbine has the  best potential  of any  turbine  for
         attaining   low  emissions,  excellent  fuel  economy  and  reasonable
         manufacturing cost.   The  potential of  meeting  a 0.4  [g/mi]   NOx
         standard  is yet to  be  determined."*

         Ford and AiResearch believe that a 3000 pound car  powered  by  such a
         turbine could achieve  a  fuel  economy  of 42.8   MPG ;  however,   a
         vehicle is not planned to  be  available for testing until  July  1981
         and  no  test  data  is   currently  available.**    There  was   no
         speculation  as  to   when  this  engine   might   be   available   in
         automobiles.

    4.    Diesel

         Ford is currently  developing  Diesel engines;  however,  there is  no
         indication of when they will  be  available for  production.   Until
         Ford's Diesel  is ready for  production,  Ford  will purchase  Diesel
         engines from  companies such as  Bayerische  Motoren Werk AG (BMW)***
         and Toyo Kogyo (TK).****
*   "Ford Status Report," February 1981,  Section  IIH.
**  Rackley,  "Advanced Gas  Turbine Powertrain System  Development Project,"
    presented at Automotive  Technology Development Contractors Coordination
    Meeting - Dearborn, Michigan,  November 1980.
*** "Ward's Engine Update,"  Volume 6,  Number  24,  December  15,  1980, page 5.
****"Ward's Engine Update,"  Volume 6,  Number  20,  October 15, 1980, page 6.
                                     V-43

-------
        Ford's  Diesel  research has not  reached a point  at which  they can
        predict  fuel  economy and emission results.  They are  currently in-
        vestigating  turbocharging   and both  direct  and  indirect  injection
        combustion chamber configurations.*

        As  part of a  correlation program with Ford,  EPA  tested  a front-
        wheel  drive Escort  equipped  with a  manual  transmission  and  a TK
        Diesel  engine.  A  total of  two  tests  were performed  at  EPA and
        eight  tests at Ford; the average  results  of those tests  are shown
        below:

                                FTP (g/mi) _
                                                               MPG
                                                               51.4    42.4
                                                               50.8    41.7

        It  should be  pointed  out that,  at  both  test  facilities,  the NOx
        levels  are below  1.0  g/mi  and  the  total  particulate levels are
        below  0.20  g/mi.**   There  has  been  some  interest   in  the  fuel
        economy  of a  Diesel at  these emission levels.   This  vehicle was
        tested  at  an  ETW  of  2750  pounds  with  a  dynamometer  horsepower
        (VDHP)  setting  of  6.7  horsepower.   Two  similar  1981 model  year
        Diesel  vehicles with manual  transmissions were identified.   The
        following  table allows a rough comparison of these three vehicles:
              Vehicle             ETW     VDHP    MFG.,    MPG
Lab
EPA
Ford
# of
Tests
2
8
HC
.241
.213
CO
.70
.69
NOx
.74
.74
Part.
.184
.145
MPGU
37.1
36.4
         Ford  Correlation Diesel   2750    6.7     37.1    51.4      42.4
         Chevette  Diesel           2500    8.3     40.1    55.1      45.7
         VW Dasher Diesel Wagon    2625    6.9     36.0    48.0      40.6
*        Nichol,  "Automotive Powertrains  - Now  and Into  the  1990fs,"  SAE
         Paper 801230,  October 1980, pages 8-9.
**       Watson,  "Ford -  EPA 1981 Light  Duty Vehicle  Diesel Correlation",
         EPA Technical  Report No.  EPA-AA-EOD-81-3, May 1981.

                                    V-44

-------
B.  Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT)

    A truly  continuously variable  transmission  is one  which permits  ratio
    variations  completely  independent  of  vehicle  speed or  engine  output.
    Its major advantage is that  it  provides the flexibility to run an  infi-
    nite number of drive ratios  between fixed upper and lower limits.   Ford
    says that the advantages of the CVT are:

         1.   Smooth vehicle acceleration without shift impulses.
         2.   Acceleration  with   the  engine  operating  very  close  to  its
              optimum power output, thereby improving performance.
         3.   Road load engine operation  at peak efficiency consistent  with
              acceptable driveability,  thereby  improving  economy,   due  to
              CVT's ability  to  optimize  its  performance within this narrow
              range.*

    Ford states that, "To  date,  however,  some of the apparent benefits  have
    been  offset by  high  internal  frictional  losses.   Much  work remains,
    making the CVT an unlikely prospect for the mid-1980's."**

3.  The Effect  of  Known Technology which Helps  Quantify Single or Multiple
    Calibrations or Vehicle Description Changes.

A.  Automatic Overdrive Transmission (AOD)

    The AOD,  which Ford began  using  in  the 1980  model year, incorporates
    three  fuel  savings  features.   First,  the overdrive gear  (fourth gear)
    has a gear ratio of 0.67 to 1.0, thus  allowing the engine  to operate  at
*   Nichol,  "Automotive  Powertrains  - Now  and Into  the  1990's",  SAE Paper
    801230, October 1980, page 13.
**  "Ford Status Report," February 1981,  Section IIF.
                                    V-45

-------
    a  lower  speed than it would with  a similar automatic transmission which
    had  a final  gear  ratio  of only  1.0-to-l.O.   Secondly,  the  torque con-
    verter clutch directs the flow of  engine  power  to completely bypass  the
    torque converter and to  follow a  direct  mechanical path  to  the drive-
    shaft, thus  eliminating  torque  converter  losses  while  the transmission
    is in fourth gear.   Finally,  the  transmission uses a  split  torque path
    which all'ows a  portion  of the  engine power  to  bypass  the  torque con-
    verter and  follow  a mechanical path to the drive shaft,  thus eliminating
    some of  the torque converter  losses.  While none of those three  features
    is unique in the  automotive  industry, Ford claims  that the combination
    of all three "is  an industry  'first.1  Only  Ford  Motor Company offers
    this feature."*

    Ford claims, without providing  substantiating data, that  the overdrive
    gear  can  increase highway fuel  economy  (MPG,)  by up  to 6%,  that  the
    torque  converter   clutch can increase   combined   fuel  economy (MPG  )
    approximately 4%,  and that the split torque  principle  can improve MPG
    approximately 77,.**

    Ford pointed out that this system  could be improved by  incorporating an
    electronic  control system such that a  single microprocessor would
    control   both engine  and  transmission functions.   Ford  states  that,
    "Potential   benefits  from  such a   system  could  include  improved  fuel
    economy  through implementation  of  a  neutral  idle  control  strategy and
    increased transmission  shift  scheduling flexibility permitting  the best
    compromise  of shift timing to attain optimum fuel economy, emissions and
    driveability."***   However,  Ford did  not  indicate if  they  are  studying
    this possible improvement.
*   Dabich, "Ford Motor Company Automatic Overdrive Transmission," SAE Paper
800004, February 1980.
**  Nickol, "Automotive  Powertrains  - Now and  into the 1990's,"  SAE Paper
801230, October 1980,  pages  12-13.
*** Ibid.
                                    V-46

-------
B.  Weight Reductions

    Ford's Metallurgy  Department has  been investigating  the potential for
    using high  strength steels (ESS)  in place of mild  steel.   Ford  states
    that  "the  use of  higher  strength steels  allows for  reduced  weight  in
    components that are primarily used in energy absorbing applications.   An
    example  of  this is  the widespread  use of  HSS  in  sidedoor beams with
    large weight  reduction over original mild steel versions.   ...Although
    the total weight of steel in future vehicles  is somewhat uncertain,  it
    is  possible  to project that  sheet  steel  stampings  will make up  about
    forty  percent  of  future  vehicle  weights.   The overall  penetration  of
    high  strength steel  among  the  sheet  steels is now about  20%  in Ford
    vehicles; the  authors speculate that this penetration will  reach 30  to
    50% of the total automotive sheet  steel  by the end of the decade...   We
    speculatively project  the application of high strength sheet steels  per
    vehicle  to  approach   the  300   to  600  pound range  by  the  end  of the
    decade."*  Ford believes that the  use  of  high strength steels will be a
    key feature  in "achieving very significant worldwide fuel  savings."**
    Ford anticipates that  the use of high strength steels  to  replace  average
    strength steels will  result in  the savings of 100 pounds per  vehicle  by
    1985  (See  figure  Ford-3).**   See  figure  Ford-4 for overall weight re-
    duction.

C.  Reduction of Internal  Friction within the Engine

    Ford's Fuel  and.'Lubricants Department  analyzed  motored  engine  friction
    data  from  a Ford  1.6 liter  and a Dacsun  2.0  liter  engine.    Ford  found
    the  frictional losses  in  the  Ford  1.6  liter engine  were  significantly
    higher than in the Datsun 2.0 liter  engine.  Ford determined  that this
*   Magee, et.al., "Automotive Sheet Steels for the 1980's," May 1980.
**  Magee,  et.al.,  "Factors  Influencing  Automotive  Applications  of  High
    Strength Steels," August 1979.
                                     V-47

-------
                                                                                 6
      150
M
t/i
O
z
SU
BS
fr*
cn
z
w
H
es
o


I
co
a
      100
     WEIGHT
      SAVE
/
        50
                               19.75
1980
          1985
       Figure Ford - 3*
                Trends  in  strength level of HSS used in automobiles and the

                increased  weight  reduction
           Ibid.
                                          V-48

-------
                                                     Figure Ford - 4*
                             SAtES MELG'.ITED AVERAGE INERTIA TEST WEIGHT FOR ?ORD BY MODEL YEAR
                                                    PASSENGER CARS
    4500
    4000
1/1
    3500
     3000
    2500 H-
                                                                             Tentative  Programs  Under  Consideration
1974        1976        1978        1980
                                                         1982

                                                      MODEL YEAR
198"4        1986
8        1990
4-
99
         *    ''Ford Status Report," February 1981, Section IIP.

-------
    friction could be  reduced by redesigning  the piston/cylinder  interface
    and by the use of low friction oils.*

    Ford states that  their  "studies show that  reduced friction engines  in-
    corporating fast  burn/lean burn  combustion  technology  offer  potential
    for  about  a  12%  fuel  economy  improvement  over  the  original  engine.
    Although some  technological,  cost  and  lead  time  issues remain to  be
    resolved, increased usage  of  this  technology  is expected throughout  the
    mid-1980's.**

D. Reducing Parasitic Losses

    Ford found  that,  by replacing the  conventional  V-belt arrangement on a
    1978, 5.0  liter Mustang with  a  serpentine drive arrangement,  "increased
    belt  flexibility  and  improved  traction  resulted  in  a  more  efficient
    drive  system  with potential  increase  of 0.04 mpg."***   An increase  of
    0.04 mpg on that model amounts to  an increase  of 0.2%.****

    "Fans  which deactivate when  satisfactory  engine cooling  exists  offer
    potential  for  improved  on-road  fuel economy  which may,  to some  degree,
    be  reflected  on the EPA  test.  Electro-mechanically  clutched  fans  have
    been used  on  Ford vehicles such  as the Fiesta  and  Escort/Lynx  and  are
    expected to see more wide spread applications  in the future."*****

    Variable speed and  two-speed  accessory  drives are being  studied  for  use
    on  vehicles with  low power-to-weight  ratios and  relatively   heavy  ac-
    cessory  loads.   These systems will drive  air pumps,  alternators,  power
    steering pumps, and air conditioners.   For the variable speed  system,
*Willermet, "Lubrication Modes and Engine Friction - A  Comparison of Motored
Engine  Friction Data for  the 1.6L Ford  and 2.0L  Datsun Engines,"  January
1981, attachment to "Ford Status Report,"  February 1981.
**"Ford Status Report," February 1981, Section IIF.
***Cassidy, et.al.,  "Serpentine  - Extended  Life Accessory Drive,"  SAE  Paper
790699, June 1979.
****EPA/DOE 1978 Gas Mileage Guide.
*****"Ford Status Report," February 1981,  Section IIF.
                                   V-50

-------
    "[k]ey problem areas relate  to  durability,  packaging  and  optimization of
    accessory  performance."   For the  two-speed system,  "ultimate usage  is
    questionable on a cost/benefit basis."*

E. Supercharging

    Ford claims  that  supercharging  by way of  a turbocharger can  allow  that
    engine to equal the performance of a  naturally  aspirated  engine which is
    50% larger  than  the  turbocharged engine.  Also, the  turbocharged  engine
    according to Ford, can provide  approximately 9%  better  fuel economy  than
    the larger  naturally  aspirated  engine and with no  significant impact on
    emissions.**

F.  Decel/Idle Fuel Shut-Off System

    This system shuts off the fuel, and hence  the engine, when  the engine is
    warm and  would  normally  be idling.  Ford claims, without submitting  any
    supporting data,  that this  system  provides  a fuel  economy improvement of
    1% to 2%  on vehicles  equipped with either  manual or  automatic overdrive
    transmissions  when tested  on  the  FTP  cycle  excluding  the cold  start
    (Ford's HOT-CVS  test  cycle).  Vehicles equipped with conventional  auto-
    matic  transmissions  have  fuel  economy  gains  of  less  than  1%.   Ford
    states  these produce  higher HC  feedgas  levels;  however,   there  is  no
    change in HC tailpipe levels.  The problems with this  system, according
    to Ford,  are:

         1.   Without a speed  signal,  the  system gives  poor driveability  and
              potential stalls.
         2.   The  system  incurs  substantial cost  penalties for  additional
              hardware (e.g., sensors, solenoids,  etc.).***  However,  some
*"Ford Status Report," February 1981, Section IIF.
**Nickol,  "Automotive Powertrains  -  Now and  into  the  1990's,"  SAE  Paper
801340, October 1980, page 5.
***"Ford Status Report," February 1981, Section IIA3f.
                                    V-51

-------
    of that hardware would already be  present  if the vehicles were equipped
    with a closed-loop system.

    Ford states that, "These problems are expected to be resolvable and pro-
    duction incorporation is being  studied or actively  pursued for  several
    engines."*

G.  Multipoint Electronic Fuel  Injection

    Ford  currently  (1981 model year)  uses central  fuel  injection (CFI)  on
    its  fuel   injected  models.   Ford  is  working  to  develop  a  multipoint
    electronic  fuel  injection  (EFI) system  for  use  on  4-cylinder  engines.
    The multipoint EFI system  with  its four  injectors has the  potential  for
    greater control of the fuel metering than does the CFI with  only  its  two
    injectors.**  If  this potential is  realized, the multipoint  EFI  could
    result in an improvement in both emissions and fuel economy.
* Ibid., Section IIF.
**Ibid., Section IIA3.
                                    V-52

-------
V. C.  Chrysler

1.  Chrysler's Statements Concerning the Relationship between Emissions
    and Fuel Economy

In  CO  waiver hearings,  Chrysler  said  that  fuel  economy,  on  average,   is
degraded by about 2% for vehicles complying with the 3.4  g/mi CO standard,   as
compared to a 7.0 g/mi CO standard.  According  to Chrysler, the  7.0  standard
would allow the  use of richer A/F  ratios  during acceleration,  to enhance  the
catalyst's NOx reduction capability.   This  allows  the  use  of  EGR  and  spark
timing calibrations that are  more optimum for fuel economy.   The  fuel economy
benefit varies from one engine  family  to another depending  on the  degree  to
which EGR and  spark timing calibrations have  been  compromised in order to meet
the  NOx  standard.   Chrysler indicated  that,  on  average,  fuel  economy  is
expected to improve .by 2%, but this was based on  their  judgment.  They had  not
run  back-to-back tests between  vehicles  calibrated for  3.4 and  7.0 g/mi  CO
standards.*

In a historical  review on emission  controls,  Chrysler commented that  with  the
introduction  of  catalysts,

     it  became  necessary  to  remove  lead from gasoline.   The
     antiknock level of unleaded  fuel  that could be accomplished
     with existing refining  technology was and is substantially
     below  that which existed with  the lead  antiknock  compound
     present.   As a result,  lower compression  ratio had  to  be
     used with resulting loss  in  fuel economy.**
 *    Transcript  of  Proceedings,  United  States  Environmental  Protection Agency,
     In  the Matter  of:   Public Hearing  on Applications  for Waiver  of  Carbon
     Monoxide  Emission  Standards   for  Certain  Model Automobiles,  Washington,
     D.C.,  October  24, 1980.
 **   Charles M.  Heinen,  Chrysler Corp.,  "We've  Done  the  Job - What's It Worth,"
     SAE Paper 801357, October 20-23, 1980, pages 9 & 11.
                                    V-53

-------
This paper made  the case  that  lighter vehicles with  electronic engine  con-
trols and changes in

    mixture  preparation  and distribution  should result  in  exhaust
    emissions before any catalyst of 1.5 HC, 10 CO and 1.5 NOx  based
    on  vehicles  already  in existence.   These  systems  will  be  on
    vehicles  regardless  of  the  emissions  requirements  because  of
    their  fuel  economy  benefits.   Without  a  catalyst  a  moderate
    amount of  lead would  be  permissible.   The  results,  of  course,
    would be a gain of not only fuel economy, but a reduction in the
    cost of fuel with all their attendant benefits.

The author admitted that the fuel economy  loss is a highly  controversial  sub-
ject,  but  referred to a  Detroit News Editorial,  June 9, 1980,  for order  of
magnitude figures that indicated  that  leaded regular fuel would cost  6-7%  less
than unleaded fuel and improve fuel economy 5-10%.**

Table  Chrysler-1 below was included  in the SAE Paper cited above.   This infor-
mation was  taken by Chrysler  from the Annual Report  of  the Administrator  of
the Environmental Protection Agency  to the Congress of the United States,  "The
Cost of Clean Air and Clean Water,"  96th Congress, First  Session,  Document  No.
96-38, December, 1979.
                              Table Chrysler-1**
                       Fuel                                    Fuel
                   Consumption                             Consumption
Year	Penalty*	Year	Penalty*
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
* millions of
343.64
599.19
1033.89
1556.84
2346.72
3304.32
2954.63
2540.78
2077.18
1851.86
1977 dollars
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986


1587.17
1349.58
1049.19
849.61
524.89
366.24
255.02
151.95
85.44


 **  Charles  M.  Heinen,  Chrysler  Corp.,  "We've  Done  the  Job -  What's  It
     Worth,"  SAE  Paper  801357, October 20-23, 1980, pages 9 & 11.
                                     V-54

-------
In their  "Oxides of  Nitrogen  Research Plan  for Model  Year 1979," Chrysler
stated the following:

    Chrysler's   fuel  economy   improvement   plans  are  based  on
    increasingly more  stringent  emission standards which  eventually
    reached the  level of .41/3.4/1.0.  If  the  0.4 NOx  level  should
    ever be achievable, and a  standard  promulgated at  that level  our
    efforts to improve fuel economy would suffer a severe setback.**

Chrysler did  not provide test data to support  their  comments regarding  the
relationship between fuel economy and emissions.

2.  New  Technology  or  Developments which  Could  Provide  a  Change   in the
Relationship  between Emissions and Fuel Economy  as  Compared to  1981 Vehicles
or Chrysler's Estimate

The  "Progress  Report  on  Chrysler's  Efforts  to Meet  the  Federal  Emission
Standards  for HC,  CO, and  NOx  in 1981 and  Subsequent  Model  Years,"  dated
February 1981,  discussed seven development programs whose objectives  were to
improve vehicle fuel economy.  These include:

1.  Vehicle weight reduction.
2.  Power-to-weight  reduction.
3.  Drive trains.
4.  Accessory drives.
5.  Engine efficiency.
6.  Tires.
7.  Lubricants.
**  Chrysler Corporation, "Chrysler's Oxides of Nitrogen Research
    Plan, for Model Year 1979," March 14, 1979, page 7.
                                    V-55

-------
This section will discuss only the new technology being developed  by   Chrysler

in the above projects.


Chrysler began  development  efforts  on lock-up torque converters in January  of

1973 and  entered production for rear wheel drive vehicles  in the 1978  model

year.   They began  development  of lock-up  torque converters  for  front  wheel

drive vehicles  in June of 1976.  Chrysler  stated,  "at  the present time,  how-

ever, the  use  of lock-up on  front  wheel drive cars  has  been deferred due  to

unacceptable driveability at the current state of development."*   Chrysler did

not  discuss the impact on  emissions  nor quantify the  effect  on  fuel economy

for  this technology.


In  their  engine  efficiency  program,  Chrysler's   "engine  mapping  and  controls

optimization"  project seems to  be  their most significant program to improve

fuel economy and emissions.


This project's objective is  "to develop both  the hardware  and  software for

electronic control  of spark timing,  fuel/air ratio,  exhaust gas recirculation,

etc., so  that  fuel  economy is maximized while emissions constraints are met."**


     The   project  includes  chassis  dynamometer   measurement  and
     computer   simulation of  engine  speed/load   requirements  during
     EPA   Urban   and  Highway  driving   cycles.    Key   speed/load
     conditions are selected  by  analyzing  resulting histograms.  The
     engine configuration  is  then  "mapped"  (steady-state)  on  an
     engine dynamometer  at  the "key"  conditions for  emissions  and
      fuel  consumption.   From   these   data,  for   any   reasonable
     emissions constraint,  key point  operating  conditions  can  be
      found which predict  minimum fuel usage  on a hot '74 EPA cycle.
     These operating conditions are  then  incorporated in a vehicle
     and  evaluated on a chassis  dynamometer.
 *   Chrysler Corp./'Progress Report on Chryslers Efforts  to  Meet  the Federal
     Emissions  Standards  for HC,  CO,  and  NOx  in  1981  and  Subsequent  Model
     Years," February 1981,  page  F-3.
 **  Chrysler Corporation,  "Oxides  of Nitrogen Annual  Report for   Model Year
     1980," December 23,  1980, page  1-9.
                                    V-56

-------
     Engine  maps have  been  obtained,  under  a  contract  with  the
     Department  of  Transportation  (DOT),  for several  versions  of
     both  the  318  CID V8  and 225  CID slant 6 engines,  as well  as
     turbocharged 1.7 liter 4-cylinder engine.  Strategies  have  been
     obtained  for  the  base  318  CID  and 225 CID  engines. Vehicle
     tests  of   these   strategies  are  reported  in  the  section  on
     Integrated  Engine  Controls.    A  strategy for  the  turbocharged
     1.7 liter engine has also been prepared.

     Preliminary tests  on  Car 198  (360 CID)  have  been made  that
     demonstrate  the  potential  capabilities  of  the   system   and
     optimization strategies.  Tests with "optimized"  strategies  for
     spark advance and EGR were  compared against the  standard spark
     advance and EGR  control system.   The "optimum"  strategies  were
     tested  by  programming schedules  into  a microprocessor capable
     of controlling  spark  advance and EGR.  The  fuel/air  ratio  was
     maintained  around  stoichiometric  by an oxygen  sensor  feedback
     Holley 2 bbl. carburetor with  Holley electronics.  A summary of
     these tests follows [table Chrysler-2]*.
 20C
Avg. of
4 tests

Avg. of
2 tests
                              Table Chrysler-2*

                            Car  198, 360 CID Engine
                               HOT '74 EPA TEST
                 Engine Out
              Emissions (gm/mi)
               HC     CO    NOx
2.84


3.94
                     26.9   1.71
21.2
2.48   18.6
2.42   19.9
2.71


2.26


1.66
 Fuel.
Economy
  MPG

 12.3


 14.5


 14.2


 13.9
       Comments

Baseline-Mech.  spark
adv. and prod.  EGR

Schedule to improve
fuel economy

Schedule to improve HC


Schedule to improve NOx
    Control strategies have also been run on 318 and 225 CID  engines
    (Cars 373 and  535,  respectively).   These cars were modified  to
    include  three-way  catalysts and  feedback  carburetor  systems.
    Typical results for hot '74 EPA tests are as  follows:
*   Chrysler Corporation, "Application For Waiver  of  the 1981-1982 Model Year
    Carbon Monoxide (CO) Standard of 3.4 Grams Per Vehicle Mile  For Passenger
    Cars," July 3, 1979 at Vol. II,  pages B5-54,  B5-55,  & B5-57.
                                    V-57

-------
Table Chrysler-2 (con't)




 Car  373,  318  CID Engine
Strategy
As received
Minimum Fuel
Emissions
Constrained
Engine-Out
HC CO
2.7 22.6
3.0 12.5
2.6 10.9
Hot '74
NOx
1.5
3.5
2.1
EPA
HC
.3
.2
.2
Test
Tailpipe
CO
4.6
2.3
1.7
NOx Fuel Economy
1.4 15.5
2.0 18.4
1.3 17.1
Car 535, 225 CID Engine
Hot '74 EPA
Strategy
As received
Minimum Fuel
Emissions
Constrained
Engine -Out
HC CO
NOx
Not Available
3.3 13.4
3.3 13.3
4.0
3.0
test
HC
.4
.4
.3
Tailpipe
CO
7.9
3.1
3.2
NOx Fuel Economy
1.4 19.4
2.2 21.3
.7 20.8
          V-58

-------
     These  data  have  been processed  to  identify  optimum  control
     strategies for specific vehicles  with 318,  225, and 1.7  liter
     engines.  The  strategies  are  currently  being evaluated.   The
     results were presented in Volume  II of Reference 22 Sec.  B-5,
     pp.  54-57  [see  table Chrysler-2].   Since  that time,  initial
     cold start and warm-up tests  have  been  conducted on car  535.
     Preliminary results are:


                            Table Chrysler-3

                          Car 535,  225  CID Engine
                             Cold '75 EPA Test

                  Engine Out                 Tailpipe

Urban                                                     Corrected
Strategy       H£      C0_   NOx         H£     C0_     NOx Fuel Economy

Emissions      4.00   20.6  2.13        .34   3.29     .37      17.9
     This car was  built  up  with experimental  induction  and  emission
     control  systems  and does not  directly  compare  to  the 0.4  NOx
     program  cars.  The  significance  of the results, then, is  that
     we have  established that the  program  cars are achieving  fuel
     economy  comparable  to   the   optimum  values   predicted   from
     analytic evaluation of comprehensive engine data.

     It   should   be   noted   that,   informally,   the   systematic
     methodology  discussed here  has  already  had  an  evolutionary
     effect  on  our  test   philosophies and  is  expected  to  have
     increasingly   greater   impact.    Therefore,    all  of   these
     activities will  continue except for the  DOT  project which  is
     limited by contract.*
    Chrysler Corporation,  "Oxides  of  Nitrogen Annual Research Report for  Model
    Year 1979," October 25, 1979 pages 23-24.
                                    V-59

-------
In  addition to  emission  control  systems  optimization  in  engine mapping,
Chrysler's engine efficiency program also includes projects to study the   fuel
economy benefits of:

                   a)  Deceleration fuel shut-off
                   b)  Reduced engine friction
                   c)  Combustion chamber designs
                   d)  Intake manifold designs
                   e)  Turbocharged engines

The deceleration  fuel  shut-off project will  restrict  fuel flow during closed
throttle deceleration in an  attempt  to improve fuel economy.  Chrysler is now
evaluating the fuel  economy  and driveability  implications  of  this  feature,  but
did  not discuss  or provide  data  on  emissions or fuel  economy  and  did  not
indicate when this technology would be used  in production.*

For  the 1981 model  year,  Chrysler  has introduced lower  tension oil rings  in
order  to  reduce engine friction.  Chrysler  is also evaluating  other  friction
reducing  items  for  their 2.2 L engine  but  has not indicated which components
will be evaluated.   No emissions or fuel economy data  were provided.

Fast burn combustion chambers are being  evaluated  to  develop a design  "which
combines  the best possible part load  efficiencies and  dilution  tolerance  with
high  specific  power output  and reasonable  fuel  octane  requirement."*   Swirl
ports  and squish-type chambers  with reduced  flame travel distance are  among
those  being evaluated.  Chrysler  did not  indicate when  the  results  of  this
development  would be used in production, but  said  that the work  is  primarily
based  on  a 1981 2.2 L engine.   Chrysler  said that the 2.2 L engine's  combus-
tion chamber "has proven to   be a very good  one with  the  exception that  W.O.T.
output is limited by valve  shrouding  in the deep, compact  chamber design."*
Emissions  and fuel  economy data were not provided.
     Chrysler  Corp.,  "Progress  Report  on  Chrysler's  Efforts  to  Meet  the
     Federal Emissions Standards  for  HC, CO,  and NOx  in 1981  and  Subsequent
     Model Years",  February, 1981, pages  F-7 & F-8.
                                     V-60

-------
In order  to  improve the power output of  the  2.2  L engine, Chrysler has  rede-
signed  the  intake  manifold  by  reducing branch  lengths and  providing  less
restrictive flow paths.  "The result was  a large gain in mid-range to  top-end
power.  This was transformed into a low-to-mid-speed  torque benefit  through
advancing  the  camshaft timing."*  Chrysler plans  to  introduce the new  intake
manifold in the 1982 model year.

Chrysler  evaluated  the  use  of  turbocharged  engines  of  smaller  displacement
than  the  naturally  aspirated  engines which  they would  replace,  to  increase
fuel  economy   without  a   loss  in  performance.   Chrysler  concluded   that
turbocharged  small  displacement engines would not  be  a cost  effective  method
for improving fuel economy for high volume production.   No data were provided.*

Chrysler's tire test program includes  rolling  resistance tests in an  effort
to improve fuel economy.  Chrysler stated:

     The   rolling   resistance   characteristics    of   our   current
     production tires  are  evaluated  through head-to-head  coast-down
     tests   against  tires   on   competitive   domestic   and  foreign
     vehicles.
     The  rolling resistance characteristics  of   the  tires  to be
     released  for  production are optimized  by  selecting only  the
     best  for  production.   This  has  resulted  in a  five  percent
     reduction  in  vehicle  force required as reported  to the  EPA
     between  the 1980  and 1981  model  years.  Through  competition
     between  tire suppliers,  all eventually  had tires that were of
     about equal rolling resistance  and were acceptable  from other
     release standards.*

Chrysler  said  that  although  tire rolling  resistance has  improved greatly  from
1979 to the  1981 model years, they do not  feel that there  will be   any rolling
resistance improvement for the  near  future until major improvements  are  made
in  design or compounding.   Chrysler  did  not discuss  the emissions impact  of
their tire test program.
    Chrysler  Corp.,  "Progress  Report  on Chrysler's  Efforts  to  Meet  the
    Federal  Emissions  Standards for HC,  CO,  and NOx  in 1981 and  Subsequent
    Model Years," February, 1981, pages F-7 to F-10.
                                   V-61

-------
A "fuel  efficient"  lubricant  test  program included evaluations of engine  lub-
ricants  and  axle  lubricants.   Four engine oils were  tested for fuel  economy
improvements.   Of these  four,  "only one,  Sun Code  X892,  showed significant
(1.6-3.2%) fuel economy improvement potential  in the  225  CID engine."*   The
Sun  Code X892  oil  is  now  available commercially  as Sunoco  "MPG PLUS"  oil.
Chrysler  said  that  since  this  oil includes  a  friction modifier  containing
phosphorus,  durability tests  would be  required  to  determine the  effect  on
catalysts  and oxygen  sensors.   Chrysler did  not indicate  when  this oil  or
other fuel efficient oils might be  used  in production.  No  emissions data  were
provided from this testing.

Table Chrysler-4  lists fuel economy improvements associated  with the use  of
an  experimental 75W axle lubricant  as  compared to an  80W-90 rear  axle   lub-
ricant.  According  to  Chrysler "additional economy testing  of other   candidate
oils will  be limited due to the future decrease of sales  volume  of  rear wheel
drive vehicles.   It is estimated  that  no fuel  economy  improvement potential
exists  in  this  area for  the  corporate  front wheel drive vehicles;  therefore,
similar  tests were not planned.  "  Although  a fuel economy  improvement was
shown  on all four  vehicles  "the   75W oil was  considered unacceptable due to
differential  bearing  wear and  ring and  pinion gear  scoring."  The  effect on
emissions  was not discussed.

                               Table Chrysler-4
                          Axle Lubricant  Test Results
         REFERENCE OIL:  MS-5644, SAE 80W-90 FACTORY FILL
         TEST OIL:       O.S. 38623, SAE 75W
                         CONTAINS SOLUBLE FRICTION MODIFIER
              Vehicle  Type             EPA Composite Economy Effect*
           1978 "F" Body  (225)              2.0% Improvement
           1978 "F" Body  (318)              0.6% Improvement
           1979 "F" Body  (318)              1.2% Improvement
           1979 "D" Body  100                1.1% Improvement
                    *Compared  to factory-fill baseline.
     Chrysler Corp.,  "Progress Report on Chryslers Efforts  to Meet the Federal
     Emissions Standards  for  HC,  CO,  and  NOx in  1981  and  Subsequent  Model
     Years,"  February,  1981, pages F-10 & F-ll.
                                    V-62

-------
Chrysler evaluated  the  feasibility of utilizing an oxidation catalyst   system
to meet emission standards of 0.41 HC, 3.4 CO, 1.0 NOx on a vehicle with a 2.2
liter  engine.    Chrysler's data,  listed  in  table  Chrysler-5,  shows a  2 mpg
fuel economy  loss for the oxidation catalyst system on the FTP.
                               Table Chrysler-5
Tailpipe
HC CO
r, /wi-? ...
	 g/mi —
.25 2.1
.19 1.9
-24% -9.5%
-.06 -.2
NOx

.58
.83
+43%
+.25
Engine- Out
HC CO NOx
____-.«> I m •? _.._
	 g/ mi 	
2.0 11 1.80
2.2 30 0.80

Fuel
Urban

1'
26.0
24.0
-7.7%
-2.0
Economy
Hwy
mr*
34.4
33.6
-2.3%
-0.8
82 Dual Bed (DB)
Ox Cat (OC)
100 (OC-DB), %
      DB
Difference (OC-DB)
In  order  to comply with  the 1.0 g/mi. NOx  standard,  Chrysler used high  EGR
rates and rich A/F ratios.   Chrysler  said  that  this  type  of  calibration  "leads
to  unstable or inconsistant combustion which can produce undesirable vehicle
surge  and  unsatisfactory  performance under  certain operating  conditions."*
The 30 g/mi. engine-out CO  level for  the oxidation catalyst  system as  compared
to  the  11 g/mi.  CO level for  the dual bed system indicates that  it is  likely
that  the oxidation  catalyst equipped vehicle  was  operating  with richer A/F
ratios than the dual-bed equipped vehicle.  This may explain the 2 mpg loss  in
fuel  economy.   Chrysler  also  implied that  the   spark  timing and  EGR  cali-
brations  also had an adverse impact on fuel  economy, but  did not provide their
specifications.
    Chrysler Corp.,  "Progress  Report  on Chrysler's  Efforts  to  Meet  the  Federal
    Emissions  Standards  for  HC,  CO,  and  NOx in  1981  and  Subsequent  Model
    Years," February, 1981, pages A-l & A-2.
                                   V-63

-------
Chrysler's  open chamber  Diesel project  is intended  to  determine  the  feas-
ibility of using the open chamber Diesel engine in passenger cars.


    Early tests indicated  significant  potential  for improvement
    of  the  fuel economy/NOx  relationship  over  that  of a  pre-
    chamber  engine  if  fuel  injection  timing  and  rate  profile
    could be  precisely  controlled•   Electromechanical  actuators
    were developed to provide this control.

    Single  and  multicylinder tests  confirmed  indications  of  a
    superior  fuel   economy/NOx  relationship.    Fuel  economy
    benefits  of 10 to 15%  over  an  equivalent  pre-chamber Diesel
    were  observed,  along  with  some evidence  that NOx  levels
    below 1 gm/mi might be achieved.

    However,  two major problem areas were identified:

    - HC emissions are excessively high in those areas where
      NOx control is best.

    - Fuel control system  reliability is not sufficient to
      maintain a productive test program.

    An  intensive  series of  tests  involving combustion chamber
    parameters  as  well as a  variety of fuel  system components
    has  indicated  some promise  for solving these  problems.  It
    is  not  yet  possible to say,  however, that  this concept will
    achieve   the  anticipated lower  emission  levels while  re-
    taining  a substantial fuel  economy advantage.   Current de-
    velopment efforts are  directed  to  the  near term solution of
    these problems.*
     Chrysler  Corp.,  "Progress  Report  on Chrysler's  Efforts to
     Meet  the  Federal Emissions Standards for HC,  CO, and NOx in
     1981  and  Subsequent Model  Years", February, 1981, page H-2.
                                    V-64

-------
V.D.  Toyota

1.    Toyota's  Statements  Concerning  the  Relationship  Between Emissions  and
      Fuel Economy

A.    Toyota states that "strengthened  emission  standards  affect not  only fuel
      economy but also all  of  other factors  such as driveability,  performance,
      durability, cost, etc."  Toyota has been complying with the  increasingly
      stringent  emission  standards  by  trading off  the  above  factors  except
      fuel economy.  Toyota  states,  "Fuel economy cannot be sacrificed because
      it shares  a large factor in market competition."   Accordingly,  Toyota is
      "optimizing and  upgrading  emission control systems in  order  to maintain
      or improve economy, which results in increased cost of system."*

      Toyota included  graphs (which appear on the  next  page, figures Toyota-1
      and Toyota-2) which  indicate the effects  of  various  NOx standards (from
      2.0 to 0.4 g/mi) on both  fuel economy  and on costs.   These  graphs show
      that to go from  a NOx standard of 1.5 g/mile to one  of 0.4  g/mile would
      increase cost due to  the need to  employ a  more sophisticated technology;
      however,.the new technology would increase fuel economy by  as much as 10
      to 15%.**  A  15% increase  in fuel economy  for a vehicle  rated  at  25 MPG
      would result in  a savings  of  260  gallons of fuel  during the  first 50,000
      miles.  (At a fuel cost  of fcl.SS/gallon, the savings would  be $403.)  On
      the  graph, the  system  designated "p-2"  indicates   carbureted  vehicles
      equipped with oxidation catalyst systems;  "P-8-2" and "P-8-3"  indicate
      carbureted vehicles  equipped  with closed  loop  3-way  catalyst systems;
      and  "P-7"  and "P-ll"  indicate fuel  injected vehicles  with  closed-loop,
      3-way catalyst systems.***
 *"Toyota  Status  Report - Efforts to Meet the 1981 and Subsequent Model
 Year  Light-Duty  Vehicle Emission Standards and Other Statutory Requirements,"
 page  70.
 **  IBID.,  page  71.
 *** IBID.,  page  ii.
                                    V-65

-------
          20
        + 10
     o
     c
     o
     u
     0)
     (U
     3
     fc,
         -10
         -20
                   2.0
                                                         P-7 or P-ll
                                                     P-8-2^or P-S-3
          1.0   0.70.4
                                                         g/mile
                             Nox. emission...

         Figure Toyota - 1* NOx Emission VS.  Fuel Economy
     c
     0)
     a

     u
     LI
     O
     u
     •H
     ro
     4J
     ' 
-------
2.  New Technology or Developments which Could Provide a Change in the
    Relationship between Emissions  and Fuel Economy Compared to  1981  Vehicles
    or Toyota's Estimates.

A.  Combustion Chamber Redesign

    Toyota  confirmed  the general  tendency  for  fuel  economy to  improve   with
    increased EGR  rate and  advanced spark timing.   When Toyota retarded  the
    spark timing to decrease  NOx,  they found  the fuel economy  penalty was  re-
    duced  by  using a  high  turbulence  type  combustion chamber in  place  of  a
    non-squish  type  chamber.   The high  turbulence  type chamber,  which used  a
    "twist  type piston", also reduced the HC emissions.*

    Since  the  accompanying  data were  generated  by using non-FTP test cycles,
    we  cannot  directly  translate  their  results to  probable  changes in  fuel
    economy on either EPA's urban or highway test cycles.

    A  similar   calibration  (high  turbulence  combustion  chamber,  higher  com-
    pression ratio,  extension of EGR  tolerance) is being used for  compliance
    with  the  Japanese  emission standards.   Toyota plans  to  investigate  the
    feasibility of using a  similar  calibration to comply with  the U.  S.  emis-
    sion  standards.   The current  problems  are  insufficient  acceleration  per-
    formance,   higher  NOx   emissions,   and    insufficient   fuel  economy   im-
    provement.**
 *   Matsumoto.  et  al,   "The  Effects  of  Combustion Chamber  Design and  Com-
    pression  Ratio on Emissions, Fuel Economy and  Octane  Number Requirement,"
    SAE  Paper 770193, page 13.
 **  "Toyota Status  Report - Efforts  to Meet  the  1981 and Subsequent Model Year
    Light-Duty  Vehicle Emission  Standards  and Other  Statutory  Requirements,"
    page 38.
                                    V-67

-------
    Toyota  provided  emissions  and fuel  economy data  generated with  such  a
    combustion chamber design change.   Unfortunately,  Toyota did  not  detail
    the changes.   The following  data  were generated  on  a 3,000  Ib. IW vehicle
    equipped  with a five-speed  manual  transmission   and    a  2.4  liter,  4
    cylinder engine*  (the description  of this vehicle  is  similar to  that of
    the Toyota Celica):
                     Compression                                  Fuel Economy
                     Ratio          HC  (gpm)   CO  (gpm)   NOx  (gpm)   Gain  (%)
Before Modification     8.4
             0.100
             1.65
          0.55    (Baseline)
After Modification
9.0
0.104
1.65
0.56
5.5
B.  Digitally Controlled EFI

    Toyota introduced the  digitally  controlled  EFI system into the  Japanese
    market in  August  1980.  Use of  this  system,  Toyota states,  "results  in
    the  improvements  in  performance,  driveability,  fuel economy, and  relia-
    bility"  by controlling the  "amount  of fuel,  ignition  timing,  and  idle
    speed."   Toyota'  did  not  submit  any  data  to  substantiate  the  claims.
    Toyota plans  to phase  this system into the  U.S. market beginning  in the
    1983 model year.**
 *    IBID.,  pages  64-65.
 **   IBID.,  page 37.
                                    V-68

-------
C.  Single Point Injection (SPI)

    Toyota says  that they have been investigating  the basic characteristics
    and  "potentialities of  performance  and  emission  reduction  of  the SPI
    system for several years."  Toyota says that they hope to improve  the fuel
    metering accuracy over the  current conventional carburetors or EFI systems
    by using a SPI system.

    Toyota stated  that,  with the SPI  system,  they are currently  experiencing
    the following problems:

         1.  "Unbalanced distribution of A/F mixture among  the cylinders,

         2.  Large fluctuation of transient A/F ratio,  and

         3.  Insufficient startability."

    "After making  a comparison among  SPI  systems  and  current  carburetors  or
    EFI systems," Toyota says they, will decide the policy of how  to adopt the
    SPI  systems  to  their  engines.*   SPI  is,   according  to Toyota,  more ex-
    pensive  and  more fuel  efficient  than  convential carburetors,  but SPI  is
    less expensive and less fuel efficient than EFI.**
*   IBID, pages 34-36.
**  "Toyota NOx Research Program - 1979 Annual Report Period Plan,'
  September 1979, page 15.
                                    V-69

-------
3.  The Effect  of Known  Technology which  Helps  Quantify  Single or  Multiple
    Calibrations or Vehicle Description Changes

A.  Vehicle Weight Reduction Programs

    Toyota  plans  to  reduce  vehicle  weight  by  "rational   design,   minia-
    turization,  and  material substitution."   Some  models  will be  lightened,
    and others will  be  replaced  by new and lighter car  lines during  the  1980
    through 1985 model years.*

    The  lightening  of  vehicles  will  improve  fuel  economy with  no  adverse
    effect on emissions.

B.  Transmissions

    1.   Manual Transmission

    To  lower engine  speed,  Toyota  adopted wide ratio  transmissions  and its
    fuel  economy  gain  was about  2%  for  the  1981  models.   Toyota  plans  to
    review   the   current  gear   ratios  to  gain   additional   fuel   economy
    improvements   for  the 1983  models.  Toyota  did  not  state whether  they
    anticipate any effects on emissions.

    2.  Automatic Transmission

    To  lower  engine  speed and eliminate slippage  losses,  Toyota plans, for the
    1982  model year, to  equip its  Corolla  and  pickup truck  with a four-speed
    automatic transmission with overdrive  and  its  Celica  Supra  with an  auto-
    matic transmission with a  lockup torque converter.   Toyota expects a fuel
    economy improvement of 2% to 4%  with  the automatic four-speed  and an im-
    provement of 1%  to  2% with the  lockup.
     "Toyota Status Report - Efforts to Meet the 1981 and Subsequent Model Year
     Light-Duty Vehicle  Emission  Standards and Other  Statutory  Requirements,"
     pages 57-58.                    v_?()

-------
    Toyota plans to improve the lockup torque converter by allowing the lockup
    function to  operate in both  second  and  third  gears. They  anticipate an
    additional 1%  increase  in fuel economy due   to this improvement.  Toyota
    plans  to introduce  this  improved  transmission  on  its  1983  model  year
    cars.*  Toyota did not  state  whether  they anticipate any effects on emis-
    sions.

C.  Toyota currently (1981  model  year)  has a 6  cylinder, 168 CID  (gasoline)
    engine equipped with feedback EFI and 3-way catalyst  (engine family number
    BTY2.8V5HB4).  Of the 15 valid (non-void) FTP tests performed on  the seven
    certification data vehicles in that  family:

         1.  No HC emission level exceeded 0.226  g/mi  (without DF),

         2.  No CO emission level exceeded 1.42 g/mi (without  DF), and

         3.  No NOx emission level exceeded 0.32  g/mi  (without DF).

    Applying the applicable deterioration factors (HC = 1.385, C0=  1.385, and
    NOx = 1.275), we note that every FTP would meet the 0.41  HC, 3.4 CO, 0.41
    NOx  research  target level.   However,  the durability vehicle line-crossed
    by  generating  a  50,000 mile calculated  NOx value  of 0.425  g/mi,  which
    exceeds  0.41 g/mi.**  Considering how close the durability vehicle came to
    being acceptable  for  use  at the NOx  research target, it  is reasonable to
    assume that  Toyota  could  achieve  the research target using  the technology
    which  they  currently  employ on  their  1981  model  year  Celica  Supra,
    Cressida, and Cressida station wagon.   Those  models  have EPA  fuel  economy
*Ibid, page 60.
**EPA/MFR test data base as of February 10, 1981
                                    V-71

-------
   values of:*

             Car Line       Transmission        _

             Celica Supra       M5            21          29        24

             Celica Supra       A4            22          29        25

             Cressida           A4            22          29        25

             Cressida Wagon     A4            22          29        25

    If we compare  these models'  MPG  with those  of other  1981 model   year
    cars,  we see the  fleet average MPGc for  all 3,000  Ib  IW cars   is  24.85
    mpg.**   Thus, we  conclude  that Toyota  is not  suffering  a   fuel economy
    penalty  on  these models compared  to the competition  as a result  of the low
    emission levels.
*EPA/DOE 1981 Gas Mileage Guide
**  Foster, Murrell, Loos,  "Light Duty Automotive Fuel Economy ... Trends
    Through 1981,",  SAE Paper 810386, February, 1981, page 16.
                                    V-72

-------
Section V.   E.    Nissan (Datsun)


1.  Nissan Statements Concerning the Relationship between Emissions and Fuel

    Economy


This  section  summarizes  Nissan's  statements  regarding   the  relationship

between fuel economy arid emissions.


In CO  waiver hearing  testimony*,  Nissan said  that they  expected the fuel

economy of their  1981  model year vehicles to  improve about  15% to 25% over

that of  their  1979 model year  Federal vehicles.  Nissan also said that an

air pump  may be  necessary  to meet  the 3.4 CO  standard,  but  might  not be

necessary to meet a 7.0 CO  standard.   They felt  that the increased parasitic

horsepower due  to the  use of an air pump, could cause  a one  to two percent

decrease in fuel economy.


In a  status report,** dated, March  1981,  Nissan  said the  following with

respect to the relationship between emission standards and  fuel economy.


    We have  been proceeding with  our  research work on an  oxidation
    catalyst system and  on  a 3-way catalyst  system in  an effort  to
    develop  a  system  that  will meet  the 0.4  g/mile  NOx  standard.
    The results that we have  obtained  with these two systems  to date
    are  shown  in  [table  Nissan-1]   and  [table  Nissan-2]   and  in
    [figure  Nissan-1].   The  specifications  of  the   systems  that
    produced these results  are  shown  in  [table Nissan-3]  through
    [table Nissan-6].

    In  order for  the oxidation  catalyst system to clear  the 0.4
    g/mile  NOx  standard,  heavy EGR  is  required,  but   this  has  an
    adverse effect on  combustion stability.  Using  a richer  air-fuel
    ratio, to improve  combustion  stability  lowers fuel  economy  by
    more than 10%, in  comparision  with the fuel  economy that  can  be
    obtained in clearing the 1.0 g/mile NOx standard.
*   Transcript  of  Proceedings,  Environmental Protection Agency,  "In
    the matter  of;  Public Hearing on Applications for Waiver  of  the
    1981  and 1982  CO Emission  Standard  for  Light  Duty  Vehicles,"
    Washington, D.C., September 12, 1979,  pages 91 and 92.
**  "Research  and  Development  Program Status  Report for  1981  and
    Subsequent  Emission Standards";  Nissan Motor Co.,  Ltd;  March,
    1981, pages 260 and 261.
                                    V-73

-------
                Table Nissan -  1







Gxhaust Omission  and Fuel Economy




         (Ox. Cat)
System
Oxi-.Cat.














Veh.
I.D..
8D-968






YO-001




80-972


1W
Ibs
2,750






2,750




2,750


Eng .
Z20S






Z20S




Z20S


C/fl
8.5






8.5




8.5


F/E
mp(|
25.6
25.4
25.9
2 5. 'i
25.6
26.3
25. B
23.9
23.6
23.9
23.7
23.8
27.9
27.5
27.5
CVS-CII (jpm
HC
0.45
0.39
0.43
0.40
0.40
0.42
0.48
0.31
3.79
3.62
3.57
3.48
0.41
0.32
0.34
CO
5.68
3.03
3.84
3.91
3.86
3.54
2.62
4.67
28.8
31.0
34.7
35.6
4.68
4.00
3.49
NOx
0.61
0.65
0.68
0.70
0.71
0.74
0.81
0'.35
0.42
0.39
0.35
0.39
1.43
1:57
1.67
Remarks
with catalyst







w/o catalyst



with catalyst



-------
          Table Nissan - 2
Exhaust Emission  and  Fuel Economy




        (3-Way  Cat.)
System
3 Way Cat







Veh.
1.0.
YO-020







IW
Ibs
2,750







Eng .
Z20S
ECC







C/R
8.5







F/E
25.8
26.7
26.4
26.4
26.6
26.1
26.9
26.4
26.6,
'26.6
CVS-CH gpm
HC
0.19
0.20
0.20
o.iy
0.21
2.62
2.04
2.04
2.03
2.15
CO
2.26
2.08
2.87
2 .44
3.15
10.9
10.5
11.5
10.7
11.3
NOx
0.23
0.31
0.31
0.37
0.37
1.57
1.60
1.62 •
1.53
1.65
llem.irks
with catalyst



w/o catalyst





-------
                   Figure Nissan - 1



RELATIONSHIP  BETWEEN NQx AND FUEL ECONOMY IN


OXIDATION CAT. SYSTEM AND THREE WAY CAT. SYSTEM

ENGINE OUT NO*
CATAL/ST OUTNOx
OXI. CATALYST
. SYSTEM
•
o
3WAY CATALYST
SYSTEM
A ' •
A
         30r
       o 28
       Q.
      >- 26

      o

      o
      LJ 24
       UJ
       ID
       U.
         22
            I
               IW=2750Lbs
                    3Way Catalyst System
                            Oxidation Catalyst System
                   05      UO       15

                  "75 FTP NOx   (g/mile)
2JO
                       V-76

-------
                         Table Nissan - 3
                    Vehicle Specifications
 1.  Vehicle ID. No
 2.  Vehicle model
 3.  Model year
 4.  Inertia weight
 5.  Engine
 6.  Transmission
 7.  Axle  ratio
 8.  N/V ratio
 9.-Fuel metering system
8D-968
Datsun  510
Experimental  Vehicle
•2,750  Ibs
 L4,  191CID
                                     M4
                                     3.545
                                     53.3
 Carburetter
10.  Exh. emission control system     2 plug+EGR+EAI_OX.CAT.
11.  Catalyst
    (1) Type
    (2) Substrate construction
    (3) Size Cinches)  •
    (4) Location
12.  EGR
    CD Type
    (2) EGR Rate
 Oxidation Catalyst
.Monolith
 Oval  Width 6.68 in  Height 3.18 in
	leneth 5.65 in	
JJnder floor
 WT
 30% C2600 rpm x" -300mmHg-)•
                             V-77

-------
                        Table Nissan - 4
                    Vehicle Specifications
 1.  Vehicle  ID.  No.
 2.  Vehicle  model
 3.  Model year
 4.  Inertia weight
 5.  Engine
 6.  Transmission
 7.  Axle  ratio
 8.  N/V ratio
 9.  Fuel metering system
8D-972
Datsun 510
Experimental Vehicle
-2,750 Ibs
L4, 191 CID
M4
3.545
53.3
Carburetter
10.  Exh. emission control system     2  plug+EGR+EAI+OX.CAT,
11. Catalyst
    CD Type
        Substrate construction
    (3) Size (inches)
    (4) Location
12. EGR
    (1J Type
    (2) EGR Rate
 Oxdation Catalyst
.Monolith
 Oval   Width 6.68 in Height 3.18 in
	Length 5.65 in	
 Under floor
 WT
 20% (2600 rpm x -300 mmHg)
                            V-78

-------
                        Table Nissan - 5
                    Vehicle Soecifications
 1.  Vehicle ID.  No.
 2.  Vehicle model
 3.  Model year
 4.  Inertia weight
 S.  Engine
 6.  Transmission
 7.  Axle  ratio
 8.  N/V ratio
 9; Fuel metering system
YD-020
Datsun  510
Experimental Vehicle
 2,750  Ibs
 L4,  191  CID
                                     M4
                                     3.545
                                     53.3
 ECC
10. Exh. emission control system     ECC+EGR+TWC+CL
11. Catalyst
    (1) Type
    (2) Substrate construction
    (3) Size Cinches)
    (4) Location
 12. EGR
     (1)  Type
     (2)  EGR Rate'
 3 Way Catalyst
.Monolith
 Oval Width 6.68 in  Height 3.18 in
 	Length 5.65 in	
 Under floor
 VVT
 20%  (2600rpm x -300mmHg)
                             V-79

-------
                        Table Nissan - 6
                   Vehicle  Specifications
1. Vehicle  ID. No..
2. Vehicle model
 3. Model year
 4.  Inertia  weight
 5.  Engine
 6.  Transmission
 7.  Axle  ratio
 8.  N/V ratio
 9.  Fuel metering system
YD-001
Datsun 510
Experimental Vehicle
2,750 Ibs
L4, 191 CID
                                    M4
                                    3.545
                                    53.3
 Carburetter
10.  Exh.  emission control system    2 plug+EGR+EAI+OX.CAT.
11. Catalyst
    (1) Type
    (2) Substrate construction
    (3) Size  (inches)
    '4) Location
 12. EGR
     CD Type
     (2) EGR Rate
 Oxdation Catalyst
 Monolith
 Oval Width  6.68 in
 	Length 5.65 in
 Under floor
Height 3.1'
I
 VVT
 25%  (2600rpm x -300mmHg)
                            V-80

-------
    On the other hand, the 3-way catalyst system divides the work of
    reducing  NOx emissions  between EGR  and  the catalyst.   In this
    system the  NOx level  that  should be  cleared  by EGR  is 1-1.5
    g/mile,  and thus  the  necessary EGR  rate  is  not as  heavy as in
    the oxidation catalyst system which  uses  only  EGR to reduce NOx
    emissions.   Consequently,  the EGR  rate  in  the  3-way catalyst
    system has  no adverse  effect on fuel  economy.

    As [figure  Nissan-1]  shows,  however,  the  fuel economy  of  the
    3-way catalyst  system in clearing the 1.5 g/mile NOx standard is
    4% worse than  that afforded  by  the oxidation catalyst  system.
    The  reason is  that  since  the  air-fuel  ratio  in  the 3^way
    catalyst  system  is  controlled  to   the  stoichiometric air-fuel
    ratio, a  reduction in  fuel consumption  cannot be  obtained by
    making the  mixture leaner.

    Irrespective of  the durability,  driveability  and cost  of each
    system,  the fuel  economy afforded by the  3-way catalyst  system
    in clearing the HC 0.41, CO 3.4  and  NOx 0.4 g/mile standards is
    roughly equal  to  that of the  oxidation  catalyst in meeting the
    standards of HC 0.41,  CO 3.4  and  NOx  1.0 g/mile.   Even if the
    compression ratio  is  increased  or  if  improvements  are  made in
    combustion performance,  with the oxidation catalyst system there
    is no way to avoid a decrease  in  fuel economy of at least  5%.


2.  New  Technology or Developments which  Could  Provide  a Change  in  the
    Relationship between  Emissions  and Fuel  Economy  as  Compared   to  1981

    Vehicles  or Nissan's Estimates
In their  status report*  on emission  control systems,  Nissan  discussed four
areas in  which  they  were  doing  research  and development  work in  order  to

improve fuel economy.   These included:


1.  Accessory drive program;

2.  Engine efficiency improvement  program;

3.  Tire test program; and.

4.  Lubricant test program.


The following are excerpts  from Nissan's discussion of the accessory drive and

engine efficiency programs.   Nissan did not discuss the  impact on emissions as

a result of their tire and lubricant test programs.


    II.F.3 Accessory Drive Programs

*   Ibid., pages 251 to 253.

                                    V-81

-------
The  air-conditioner  compressor,  the  power  steering  pump,  the
alternator and  the water pump  are included in the category  of
engine assisted equipment.  For the 280ZX model, we  studied what
effect  the air-conditioner  compressor  and  the  power  steering
pump have on catalyst inlet  emissions and fuel  economy.

In  contrast   to  engines  without  compressors,  engines  equipped
with them showed an overall worsening of 10 to  12% for HC  and  CO
emissions, 30% for NOx and 11% for fuel economy.

II.F.4  Engine Efficiency Improvement Program

Improving  engine  efficiency  is important not  only  in achieving
better  fuel economy  but also in reducing emissions.   As a basic
step  toward  attaining   these  goals,  the  research  to  upgrade
engine  efficiency  is a  vital  part of  our  overall  research and
development activities.

In our  efforts to  improve engine  efficiency, we have carried out
basic  research  on raising  the  engine compression  ratio  and  on
lowering  the  pumping loss.  We  have  also  been proceeding with
applied research of  the engine efficiency improvement  program to
other  projects  such  as  "0.4  gpm .NOx  Research Program."   The
following is our status of this research work.

In  addition  we are  presently  making  every  effort  to develop a
new  engine which will  achieve  a  reduction in mechanical  friction
loss.

(1)  High Compression Ratio Engine

As  we explained in  our 0.4 g/mile  NOx Research Program  report
(September  1979   to  January  1981),  we   found  that  improved
combustion  by the  high compression  ratio  made  it possible  to
expand   the   region  of  stable   combustion   under   heavy  EGR
conditions  and  to  lessen partial-load  fuel  consumption  at the
equivalent  NOx  level.   At  the low  engine  speed WOT  condition,
however,  it  is  necessary   to   retard  the  ignition  timing  to
prevent engine knocking,  and  this results in lowering the  engine
torque  by  approximately  10%.

To  solve  this problem we have been making a  concerted effort to
develop the  technology needed for raising  the engine mechanical
octane  number.   These findings indicate that  when  engine   torque
and  fuel economy  are  taken into  account,  a  combustion pattern
having   a  short  heat  generation  period   and   slow   initial
combustion is effective in suppressing knocking.

The  fuel economy  level of  an experimental vehicle -mounted with
10:1 compression ratio engine is about  5%  better  than that with
8.5:1 compression ratio  engine.   However,  it  is  estimated that
this improvement in fuel economy will  be lowered  somewhat, when
the   engine  is   actually   used  on   production   vehicles  and
countermeasures   are   implemented   to  reduce   the   increased  HC
                                 V-82

-------
    emissions   and   to   compensate   for   the   deterioration   in
    driveability  due  to  the  decreased  torque  in  low engine  speed
    ranges.

Nissan has shown  a significant  improvement  in fuel economy, 27% over  the  last
three years, while achieving the required emissions  performance, for their 119
CID engine.  Most of  this improvement is attributable to the  introduction  of
new  cylinder heads  which  speed-up the  burning  rate within  the  combustion
chamber*.  The  engine  which  utilizes  the new cylinder  head is  referred to  as
the  NAPS-Z  engine.   The   new  cylinder  head  incorporates  the   following
features:

    1.   Compact hemispherical combustion chamber;
    2.   Dual spark plugs; and
    3.   Redesigned intake porting to induce swirl  and turbulence.

The net  result  of these  changes is to  improve the  burning rate of the  fuel  by
about 50%  if there is no exhaust  gas recirculation, and  about  65% with the
intake charge diluted  20% with recirculated  exhaust  gas,  as   shown  in figure
Nissan-2.   Major  improvements  in  combustion stability, with heavy  EGR,  were
made, permitting  dramatic improvements  in  both economy  and emissions*,  (see
figure Nissan-3).

An  equal  contribution,  to  improved  economy and  emissions, was  obtained  by
optimizing the  control of ignition timing, fuel-air ratio and EGR.

Basically, this was accomplished by mapping the steady-state response of
the engine,  in  terms  of  economy and emissions,  as  functions of  fuel-air ratio,
ignition timing,  and  EGR rate, at selected  speed-load  points representing the
EPA Urban Cycle.

Detailed refinements to  the engine, to improve mixture distribution,  and
to enhance performance during  cold-start and warm-up, account  for the  rest  of
the progress made by Nissan.
    The  Fast  Burn with Heavy EGR, New Approach  for Low NOx and  Improved  Fuel
    Economy;  SAE paper no.  780006.   Figures 11,  and  15, and  pages  8 and  10
    respectively
                                     V-83

-------
                   Figure Nissan - 2
  100
z
o

g
<

-------
In the case  of  the 2.8 liter  (168  CID) engine used  in the Datsun  280  series
cars,  the  same  progress  with  respect  to  emission control has taken  p.'.ace,
however, the improvement in fuel economy is small.

Nissan  employs   a  microprocessor  to control,  electronically,  the  following
parameters:
         1.  Fuel/air ratio;
         2.  Spark timing;
         3.  Exhaust gas recirculation;
         4.  Air intake at idle.
In  addition  to  emissions   standards,  heavy  emphasis  was  placed  on  drive-
ability.*  The  system is described schematically in  figure  Nissan-4.   It will
be  noted  that   this  engine  uses a  "three-way"  catalyst  for  exhaust  after
treatment,  rather  than  the  simple  oxidation catalyst  used  on  the  smaller
engines.

In  the  case  of  the' smaller  Nissan engines of 1.2, 1.4,  and  1.5  liter  capacity
(75.5,  85.0,  and 90.8  CID),  the picture is  qualitatively similar to  that  of
the 2.8 liter  engine,  i.e.,  the emissions  standards have been  met  with  no
noteworthy effect on  fuel  economy.   Nissan  has  recently announced that this
family  of  smaller  engines  will be  modified  to  incorporate  the  fast-burn
features,  found on the 119  CID engine, for  the Japanese market in 1982.
     Nissan  ECCS (Microprocessor Control  System)  Boosts Fuel  Economy  "  First
    International Automotive  Fuel Economy  Research  Conference:  Oct.  31  to Nov
    2, 1979, pages 212 to 219.
                                     V-85

-------
                                     Figure Nissan - 4
    EGR CONTROL VALVE
                                               THROTTLE CHAMBER
                                                  AIR PLOW  AIR CLEANER
                                                  METER
                                                                  POWER
                                                              TRANSISTOR-'  (   I
                                                                    IGNITION COIL!
                                     .THROTTLs VALVc
                                     (SWITCH
CRANKSHAFT
SENSOR
   u III! -T\

      WI-
                                                           THER MOSTA
                                                            HOUSING
                                VSXHAUST
                                 TEMP SENSOR
                                                         WATER TEMP SENSOR
ICRANKSHAP
                                                        rn     I—T EXHAUST TEMP
                                                    ^H*)         0 MONITOR LJGHT
                  V NEUTRAL SWITCH
                          VEHICLE SPEED SENSOR
                   Schematic of Electronic Concentrated Engine Control System
                                        V-86

-------
V.  F. Honda

1.  Honda's  Statements Concerning  the  Relationship between  Emissions  and
    Fuel Economy

Honda  stated  that a basic  characteristic  of their CVCC  engine  is low  spe-
cific  fuel consumption  (i.e.,  high  fuel economy) and low NOx  emissions  when
bench  tested.*  Honda also reported that the use of  EGR on  their  CVCC  engine
could:**

    1.   Decrease NOx emissions but increase HC emissions.
    2.   Increase fuel economy, and
    3.   Improve driveability.

Honda  controls  the  increase in  HC  emissions by  using  a catalyst.**   Thus,
with the use of EGR and a catalyst, Honda  says  that  they  are able to control
emissions without adversely affecting their fuel economy.

2.  New  Technology  or Developments  which  Could  Provide  a   Change  in  the
    Relationship  between Emissions  and Fuel  Economy  as  Compared  to  1981
    Vehicles or Honda's Estimates.

A.  New Engines

    1.   While  Honda has not  supplied EPA  with any. development  data  on  a
         three-cylinder  engine,   "Automotive News"  reports  that  Honda  is
         planning to  introduce in Japan,  during autunn of  1981,  a  small car
         powered  by   such  an  engine.   That  report  speculates  that  the
*"Honda's  NOx Research  Program  - 1979  Annual  Research Period Plan,"  March
25,  1979,  page 10.
**"Honda's Effort and Progress in Meeting  the 1981 and Subsequent Model Year
Emission Standards," March 20, 1981, page 7.
                                      V-87

-------
         new car will be based  upon the Civic but will  be smaller. *  Honda
         has neither confirmed nor denied  these reports.

    2.    Diesel Engine

         Honda is continuing to conduct basic research and to analyze avail-
         able information on Diesel engines.**  Honda has been bench testing
         a 4 cylinder, 4 cycle,  2.2  liter Diesel engine.***  They have not,
         however, provided EPA with any of their  conclusions or test results.

B.  Three-Way Catalysts

    Honda's primary candidate for a system to meet the 1983 California emis-
    sions standards  is  their stratified charge  engine  (CVCC)  equipped with
    EGR,  a  closed-loop  carburetor,  and  a  three-way  catalyst  (system  D).
    Honda has  experimented  with two other systems, one  is similar to their
    1981 models  (i.e., CVCC with  EGR,  an-  open-loop carburetor, and  oxidation
    catalyst);  the second  system uses  a conventional  engine with  EGR,  a
    closed-loop  carburetor,  and  three-way  catalyst.   However,  Honda found
    that their primary system was  superior to the other  two in driveability,
    fuel  economy,  and emissions.   This  system  has  been  tested in  a  2125
    pound car  equipped with a manual five-speed  transmission and  a  1.5 liter
    engine.  Honda  reports  that this vehicle met the research target  levels
    (0.41 HC,  3.4  CO, 0.41 NOx); however, no emission  or fuel economy  data
    was provided.
 *"Automotive News," March 23, 1981, page 30.
 **"Honda's Effort  and  Progress  in Meeting  the  1981 and Subsequent Model Year
 Emission  Standards," March 20,  1981, page 19.
 ***"Honda's Emission Control Status Report," January 13, 1978, page 0.4-15.
                                      V-88

-------
    "However,"  Honda states,  "in view of  the  urgent  need for complying with
    the  1983  California standard,  development  and  refinement  work  for  a
    modified system  (system  Dl) has  been initiated  based upon  1981 model
    production  hardware."*  Honda has  not provided EPA with a description of
    this  modified system; although, the  typical  emission results that Honda
    provided on these two systems** leads the EPA technical staff to believe
    that  their primary  system  is superior to the modified  (Dl)  system for
    emissions.   (See table Honda-1.)

    Honda states that they are  continuing to  refine  their primary system.*
    While Honda claims to have  confirmed  the  durability of their new  three-
    way  catalyst up to  50,000  miles,  they are  still  experiencing problems
    with  cars  equipped   with  the  automatic   transmissions.   Honda reports,
    "Automatic  transmission models equipped with the  system D currently fail
    the  applicable . CO  standard because  their  high gear ratio  causes the
    carburetor  secondary passages  to  frequently  operate.   A change  of the
    gear  ratio  results in a reduction  of  fuel  economy."***

    Honda's current  work on three-way  catalysts  centers on  the following
    four  projects:****

    1.    Development of  the three-way  catalyst for both  systems D  and Dl,
    2.    Evaluation of Pt/Rh  ratio,
    3.    Study  of substituting  Pd for  Pt,  and
    4.    Study  of improving catalyst durability  at elevated temperature.
*   "Honda's Effort and  Progress in Meeting  the  1981  Standards,"  March 20,
    1981, pages 37-38.
**  Ibid., Table 14.
*** Ibid., pages 44-46.
****Ibid., page 55.
                                     V-89

-------
System D
MODEL
ENGINE (1)
TRANS.
TEST WT.
(Ibs)
N/V
LA-4
Emiss.
(g/mi)

CO
HC
NOx
CIVIC
1.5
5MT
2125

41.0
1.84
0.254
0.312
System D,
CIVIC CIVIC CIVIC CIVIC ACCORD ACCORD
1.3 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8
5MT 3AT 5MT 3AT 5MT 3AT
2000 2125 2125 2125 2625 2625

50.7 60.3 43.3 58.7 48.7 56.0
2.72 2.54 2.51 3.04 3.81 4.28
0.29 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.28 0.24
0.29 0.31 0.28 0.28 0.21 0.23
                                Table Honda - 1*

                   TYPICAL EMISSION TEST RESULTS OBTAINED BY
                              USING AGED CATALYSTS
*   Ibid., Table 14.
                                      V-90

-------
3.  The Effects of  Known  Technology which Helps Quantify Single or Multiple
    Calibrations or Vehicle Description Changes

    A.   Engine Improvements

         Honda is continuing  to  study variations of their stratified charge
         combustion chamber.  Honda reports that they have evaluated  several
         such  systems.   One  type,  called a  "branched  conduit"  system,  is
         similar to Honda's CVCC system except  that the  auxiliary  combustion
         chamber is connected to the  main combustion chamber by a  relatively
         long  torch passage oriented  toward  the approximate  center  of the
         chamber.   Honda states that  this system "is able to further  reduce
         exhaust  emissions,  HC  and  NOx, in  particular,  with  no   adverse
         effect on  fuel consumption under the wide  range of engine operating
         conditions."*  Honda also reported test results from  other auxilia-
         ry  stratified  charge combustion chamber  engines  identified simply
         as  Type  1,  Type 2,  and  Type  3.   Honda did  not  describe  these
         systems in detail; however,  their  test results  indicate  that  these
         systems  can  yield   emissions  and  fuel  economy  results superior
         (during  some  operating   conditions)   to  Honda's   standard  CVCC
         engine.**  Some of  these features  have already  been incorporated
         into Honda's 1981 models.

    B.   EGR

         Incorporation  of  EGR  on  the   CVCC   system,  according   to  Honda,
         enables  them  to  increase  the  compression  ratio  and  advance the
         spark  timing,  thus resulting  in improved fuel  economy  and drive-
         ability.***  For the 1981 model year, Honda modified  the
*   S.Yagi,  et  al., "A  New Combustion System  in the Three-Valve  Statified
    Charged Engine, "SAE Paper 790439, February, 1979,  page 1.
**  "Honda's Emission  Control  Status  Report,"  January, 1978, pages 80-26  to
    80-28.
*** "Honda's Effort and Progress  in  Meeting the  1981 and  Subsequent Model
    Year Emission Standards," March 20, 1981, pages 29-32.
                                      V-91

-------
        back-pressure EGR,  that  they  used  on their 1980 California  models,
        to  allow for  more  recirculation  of  exhaust  gas;  this  increased
        capacity of  the  EGR valve was combined with an  improved  stratified
        charge  combustion  chamber  design.   Honda  states  that,  "This  EGR
        system  [combined with the aforementioned improved CVCC  engine]  con-
        tributed to improved fuel economy and driveability  by:

        1.   The  combination of  a  high EGR rate  and near  stoichiometric
             engine  operation  at high  loads,  in  order to  improve  drive-
             ability while  reducing NOx emissions,  and

        2.   The combination of  CVCC's lean combustion  characteristics and
             a  low EGR  rate at  low loads,  in order to improve  fuel  economy
             and driveability."*

    C.   Oxidation Catalyst

        Honda  reports  that, "The increase in fuel  economy and  reduction in
        NOx emissions,  achieved  through the use of the  improved  combustion
        chamber design,  are accompanied  by  an  increase in  HC emissions, the
        control of  which is done by  an improvement in  oxidation catalyst.
        Specifically,  HC conversion efficiency was improved by  2%  through
        an increase  in  the specific surface area  of substrates, that is, by
        the use of  400 cell substrates as compared  with 300 cell for 1980
        system."**

    D.   Engine Friction  Reduction

        For 1982,  Honda reports, "An  additional  fuel economy gain is sought
         by reducing mechanical  friction due to  piston  rings or  oil seals,
        and also by  controlling  idle  speed  by engine loads."***
*     Ibid. ,  page 7.
**    Ibid.,  pages 7-8.
***   Ibid.,  pages 30-32.
                                      V-92

-------
   E.    Carburetor

         Honda  hopes to  minimize  the fuel  penalty during  decelerations  by
         replacing the  throttle opener with a deceleration control device.*

   F.    Reduction of Aerodynamic Drag and Vehicle Weight

         "For some  [1982]  models,  "Honda  states,  "minor  modifications  of
         body are  made  in order  to  reduce  aerodynamic  drag  as  well  as
         vehicle  weight,  such as adopting high strength steel and plastics."*

   G.    General  Comments

         The EPA technical  staff  attempted  to  evaluate  the  effects  on
         emissions  and fuel economy of adding EGR  and an oxidation catalyst
         to Honda's CVCC engine.    The  most dramatic  change   was  with  the
         non-California version of  the 81  C.I.D.   (1.3  liter)  Civic.   The
         results  of  all tests  performed at  EPA's  laboratory  and Honda's
         laboratory, are shown on  the following chart:**
*   Ibid., pages 30-32.
**  EPA/MFR Test Data Base as of February 10,  1981.
                                     V-93

-------
             Manual 5-Speed                       Manual 4-Speed
                               Percent                             Percent
             1980      1981    Change        1980         1981      Change
HC
CO
NOx
MPG
u
MPG,
n
MPG
c
0.256
3.84
1.20
27.75

3B.40
31.71
0.182
1.18
0.75
33.56

44.65
37.78
-28.9%
-69.3%
-37.5%
+20.9%

+16.3%
+19.1%
0.220
3.08
1.21
27.30

35.65
30.52
0.189
1.35
0.80
33.33

41.93
36.72
-14.1%
-56.2%
-33.9%
+22.1%

+17.6%
+20.3%
   Thus,  Honda  was  able  to substantially reduce  emissions while at the same
   time  substantially increasing  fuel  economy.   Honda  was  also able  to
   increase  the rated horsepower  (from 55  to  60 HP)  by raising  the com-
   pression  ratio from 7.9  to 8.8.

   The changes  in fuel economy  from 1980 to 1981 with Honda's other engines
   were  less dramatic and  less consistent.  Honda's  Accord  equipped with a
   1.8 liter engine and manual 5-speed  transmission  actually lost about 3%
   in MPG from 1980 to  1981.*
          c
                                                                          i
   Using approximations  for Honda's sales-weighted fuel economy (CAFE) (the
   official  values  are  not yet  available), we found  that Honda was able to
   increase  its CAFE from 1980  to 1981 by 3% (from 30.0  to  30.9 mpg), even
   though the  average  weight  increased  by  2%.**   However,  compared  to
    similar  1981 model  year vehicles  of  all  other  manufacturers,  Honda's
   vehicles  had an  average poorer  fuel economy  (by 3  to 4%)  in  each inertia
   weight class, as shown on the following  table:
*   Ibid.
**  Foster,  Murrell,  Loos,  "Light  Duty Automotive  Fuel  Economy...  Trends
    through 1981, "SAE Paper number  810386,  February  1981,  pages  14-16.
                                      V-94

-------
                           Table Honda-2*

               Comparison of Honda's 1981 Fuel Economy
               Versus the Entire 1981  Fleet  By Weight

Inertia        Honda's      Avg. of  All           Percent Diff.
Weight         Avg. MPG     Car's MPG         (Relative to Fleet)
~    ~ "                  C            t                  ~

2000             35.81          36.96                -3.1%
2250             33.13          34.47                -3.9%
2500             28.11          29.37                -4.3%
Ibid.
                                  V-95

-------
V. G.  Volkswagen

I.    Volkswagen's Statements  Concerning  the Relationship between  Emissions
      and Fuel Economy

      A. VW Study

         Volkswagenwerk  AG   (VW)   investigated   the   impact  of   emission
         standards  on fuel  economy.   This  program  was  conducted under  a
         contract  between  VW  and  the U.S.  Department  of Transportation  -
         Transportation Systems Center.  The following  results of  that study
         were  reported by  VW in SAE  Paper  number 790230, titled  "Impact  of
         Emission Standards on Fuel Economy and Consumer Attributes."

         In  addition  to  testing  uncontrolled  vehicles,  VW  also  tested
         vehicles targeted to meet the following four standards:

                                                  Emissions (g/mi)
               Standard                 HC_                C0_         NOx

         Federal 1976                 1.5              15.         3.1
         California  1976              0.9               9.0        2.0
         Federal 1981                 0.41              3.4        1.0
         Research Goal                0.41              3.4        0.4

         Each  of  the. five  (5)  groups included  a 2250  pound  inertia weight
         Rabbit equipped with  a  1.3  liter  engine 'never sold in the U.S.)> a
         2250  and  a  2500  pound Rabbit each equipped with a 1.6 liter  engine,
         and a 3000  pound  Audi.   The  Audis used in the uncontrolled case and
         with  the 1976  standards  were equipped  with  1.6  liter,  4-cylinder
         engines;  the  ones used with the 1981 standard and the research goal
         were  equipped with  2.2  liter, 5-cylinder  engines.

         The  technologies  that the VW engineers  chose to use were:
                                       V-96

-------
         Standard                        Technology

    Uncontrolled             Carburetor
    1976 Federal             Carburetor, Oxidation Catalyst
    1976 California          Carburetor, Oxidation Catalyst
    1981 Federal             Fuel Injection, 3-Way, Closed-loop
    Research Goal  .          Fuel Injection, 3-Way, Closed-loop

    VW then tested the uncontrolled vehicles  as  well as those equipped
    with   oxidation   catalysts  and  carburetors.   VW  found  that  no
    additional modifications  were   required  of  the  catalyst  equipped
    cars  in order  to  meet  the  1976  standards.

    Before testing the fuel injected vehicles, VW set engineering goals
    for the  emissions that  were  more  stringent  than  the  standards.
    Those  more  stringent  goals were  "formulated  to ensure  that  once
    they  had  been attained  at the  end  of the development  period,  all
    the mass  production  vehicles  made  along  the same  lines will meet
    the exhaust emission  standards,  no  matter when  or  where they are
     tested within the initial 50,000 miles of their  service  life."*  VW
    chose   as  goals   for  HC  and  CO  values  that  were  one-half  the
     respective standards;  and for NOx, one-fourth of  the applicable NOx
     standard.

    The fuel  injected vehicles  then were  modified and tested until the
     emissions,  driveability,   and   fuel   economy  were   considered
     satisfactory.   As  a  criterion for  satisfactory fuel  economy,  VW
     used  the  fuel economy of  the uncontrolled version as the goal.  In
     addition  to changes in  ignition timing,  the modifications included
     in some cases adding  a  proportional EGR  system and a secondary air
     pump.
H. Getting,  "Impact  of Emission Standards  on Fuel Economy and  Consumer
Attributes," SAE Paper No. 790230,  February, 1979,  page 2.
                                  V-97

-------
        The  results  of  the  testing  indicates   that   the  Audi  vehicles
        suffered a  substantial  loss in fuel  economy  in meeting  either  the
        1981 standards  or  the research goal.   The loss was  more  than  20%
        relative to those meeting the 1976 standards.  VW  believes  that  the
        loss in fuel economy is primarily "due to  the fact that  friction in
        these engines is higher because of the fifth cylinder."*

        The three types  of  Rabbits  (1.6 liter at  2250  and 2500  pounds  and
        1.3  liter  at  2250  pounds)   exhibited two  consistent fuel  econony
        trends:

        1.   All  the  Rabbits  which  were  targeted  to  meet  the  research
             standard  suffered  a loss  in fuel economy  of between  4.2% to
             10.9%   relative   to  the  corresponding  Rabbits   which  were
             targeted  to meet the 1981 Federal standards.

        2.   All the Rabbits which were  targeted  to meet  the  1981 Federal
             standards displayed a  fuel economy improvement of  between 2.1%
             to  7.5%  relative  to   the   corresponding  Rabbits  which  were
             targeted  to meet either of the 1976 emission  standards.

        VW speculated that  the reason  the   vehicles targeted  to  meet  the
        1981  standards  exceeded the  fuel  economy  performance   of  similar
        vehicles  which met  far less  stringent standards  was  due  to  "the
        introduction of new technological features,  such  as  lambda control
        and K-Jetronic fuel  injection."*

        VW  then  studied  these   vehicles   with   respect  to   unregulated
        emissions,  noise, startability, and performance.   VW concluded that:

              1.    "[T]he emission   control   concepts  featuring  K-Jetronic
                   fuel injection and 3-way  catalysts are capable of meeting
                   the advanced standards, furnishing good fuel economy, low
                   HCN emissions,  and a  stable SO,  emission rate."**
*   Ibid., pages 5-6.
**  Ibid, page 7.
                                      V-98

-------
        2.   "[T]he  noise emissions of  modifications 13  through  16  [i.e.,
             .those  vehicles which  were  designed to  meet the  1981 Federal
             emission  standards] are  lower  than those  of  other vehicles
             meeting less  stringent exhaust emission  standards."*

        3.   The   "sophisticated  concepts  introduced   to   meet  advanced
             emission   standards are   superior  to  conventional  concepts
             regarding  their  startability and driveability."*

        4.   "[LJeaving  aside the 5-cylinder  engine,  the performance of the
             vehicles   which  meet  the   advanced   standards  is  slightly
             inferior  to that of the  others.   This  is because gradeability
             is related to maximum torque in a practically linear  function,
             and  by some  sort  of  accident  it was  the   carburetor-type
             vehicles  which always  had the highest torque.  There  is no way
             of explaining this  by  the emission control  concept."**

        Finally,  VW analyzed  the effects on the cost of the engine of  those
        vehicles  which  met  the more stringent  emission  standards.   They
        determined,  that in order to meet either the  1981 Federal  standards
        or  the  research  goal   (the  components are  the   same   for  both
        standards),  the cost  of the engine  (not  the entire vehicle)  would
        be  increased  by  between  64%  and   89%  over   the   corresponding
        uncontrolled  vehicles,   and  by  between  38%  and  56%   over the
        corresponding  vehicles meeting the 1976 Federal  standards.***

    B.  EPA Comments on the VW Study

        VW  assumed  that  a  closed-loop,  three-way  catalyst,  fuel  injected
         system was  necessary to meet  the 1981  Federal standards;  however,  a
        number of   open-loop, carbureted  vehicles  have  been  certified  as
        meeting those standards.
*   Ibid., page 8.
**  Ibid., page 9.
*** Ibid., page 11.
                                      V-99

-------
         The engineering goals  (of  1/2 the  applicable  HC and  CO standards
         and .of  1/4  the applicable  NOx  standard)  were  conservative.   The
         deterioration   factors  associated  with   the   1981   model   year,
         closed-loop,   3-way  catalyst,  fuel  injected,   gasoline  powered
         Federal vehicles  equipped  with  either  1.7 liter,  4-cylinder  VW
         engines or 2.2  liter,  5-cylinder Audi engines are all 1.000.

         Thus,  VW's  selection of  the  required  technology and engineering
         (emission)  goals  was  possibly more  conservative than  necessary.
         However, VW  did  show,  that,  for  an increase  in  cost,  the  fuel
         economy, noise, and driveability  could all be improved while at the
         same time substantially reducing  the emissions.   :

2.   New  Technology  or  Developments  which  Could  Provide  a  Change in  the
    Relationship between  Emissions  and Fuel  Economy as  Compared to  1981
    Vehicles or VW's  Estimates.

    A.   Formula E

         VW will be introducing  a  package of several features  that will be
         called "Formula E" (for Economy).  This package will consist of one
         or more (depending on the model)  of:

         1.   Signal to Shift

         VW  is  developing  an  electronic device  that  will signal the driver
         when  to  shift for  optimal  fuel   economy  at  various  speeds  and
         loads.   This   option  has been available  on VWs  in  Europe  since
         December, 1980.   It  is anticipated  that  this option  will soon be
         available on some U.S. Rabbits.*

         EPA  is currently  testing  such vehicles,  but  not enough data has
         been  generated to assess the effect  of  this  option.   However, VW
*   "Wards Engine Update," March 15, 1981,  page 6,
                                      V-100

-------
             reported   to  EPA   that,   "Experimental  results   show  that
             observing  the electronically given  shifting signals  can lead
             to  fuel savings of 6 to 10%  in the urban cycle,  depending on
             engine  and gearbox adjustment.   This is due  simply to correct
             'engine management'  and  does  not entail  any  diminuation  of
             performance.    Practical   driving   results    confirm   these
             findings."*

         2.   Automatic  Engine Shut-Off

             VW  is testing a system that will  switch off the engine during
             idling  and deceleration.   VW claims this  system will increase
             urban fuel economy.  VW  states,  "This  [system] would  mean a
             25% increase in  spark  ignition engine  efficiency and  an 18%
             increase  in Diesel  engine efficiency."**

             The engine is  restarted from kinetic  energy which was stored
             in  a spinning flywheel that  turns the  crank.  A second clutch
             disconnects   the   flywheel   when  the   car  stops  or  coasts.
             Simultaneously,  the computer shuts  off the  ignition and fuel
             flow.  When  the  driver steps  on  the  gas,   the second clutch
             recouples the  flywheel  to  the crankshaft,   fuel  is  injected,
             and the spark plugs fire.

             VW  engineer Paulus Heidemeyer  was quoted  as saying,  "Shutting
             off  the   engine  when  its   power  isn't  needed  can  cut  fuel
             consumption  by 20-25%  in  city  and   suburban  driving,  when
             frequent  stops  and  starts  are  made."*  A test  vehicle was
              reported to have yielded higher  fuel  economy on the  FTP  cycle
             and  produced  lower emissions  than a  similar  vehicle  with a
             conventional power train.*
*   "Status Report of Volkswagenwerk AG and Audi NSU,"  May 1981,  page  191.
**  Ibid., page 186.
*** Norbye, "VW's Stop/Start  21st-century  Car,"  Popular Science, July  1980,
    pages 76-77.
                                      V-101

-------
             A drawback  of this system  is  that there  is  no provision  for
            .running  accessories  while  the engine  is stopped.   Thus,   it
             might not be  suitable for cars equipped with  air  conditioning,
             power steering, or power brakes.*

        3.   Overdrive Top Gear

             VW  has  redesigned and  renamed  their  gearboxes.   The  4-speed
             manuals will  be called  "3  4- E" (i.e., 3-speed plus  an  economy
             gear),  and  the 5-speed manuals  will  be called "4  + E."   The
             gear  ratios within the  transmission  will be  changed  so  that
             the maximum speed is reached  in the next  to last  gear, with
             the top gear becoming an  economy  overdrive gear.   VW  claims,
             "In normal  operation, the savings amount to 10 to 13% on  3  + E
             gearboxes  and 5  to  6%  on  4  + E gearboxes."**   VW made  no
             predictions  for fuel  savings on either EPA's urban  or  highway
             test  cycles.

        4.   Aerodynamic Aids and Weight Reduction

             While reducing neither  aerodynamic  drag  nor weight   is  new,
             these  concepts   will  be   incorporated   in  the   Formula  E
             package.***

    B.   Combustion Chamber Redesign and Knock Sensing

        VW is  developing  a   combustion  chamber  which  provides a  higher
        compression  ratio, an  increase of 2  to  3  units.****   VW is working
        on a  knock limit sensing system in conjunction with the  development
        of high compression concepts.   By using a computer to closely match
         the  spark  advance  to  the  knock  limit,  VW  hopes   to  improve
        efficiency.*****
*Norbye,  "VW's  Stop/Start 21st-century  Car," Popular  Science,  July 1980,
pages 76-77.
**"Status Report of Volkswagenwerk AG  and Audi NSU," May 1981, page 189.
***Ibid., page 186.
****Ibid., page 168.
*****Ibid., page 161.                V-102

-------
     C.    Three-Cylinder Diesel

          VW  has  built and is testing a 1.2 liter, direct injection, Diesel
          engine  with supercharger.   VW  believes  that direct  injection
          could  possibly  provide  a "10-15% increase  in fuel  economy over
          what  is already  a miser, the swirl chamber Diesel."*  Even though
          VW  has a   1.3  liter,  4-cylinder  engine  already  available  in
          Europe, they decided to make  this  engine a 3-cylinder instead of
          4,  in order to reduce  frictional  losses.*

          VW  is  investigating the  advantages  of  a turbocharger  versus  a
          mechanically driven supercharger  versus  natural aspiration.*
*Ibid.,  page 31.
                                      V-103

-------
V. H. Toyo Kogyo (Mazda)

1.    Toyo Kogyo's  Statements  Concerning  the Relationship between Emissions
      and Fuel Economy

Toyo  Kogyo  (TK) did  not state that  there  was a  well defined  relationship
between emissions and  fuel  economy.   However,  TK did state that meeting  the
1983  California  standards  (0.41  HC,  7.0 CO, 0.4 NOx)  will  result  in a  fuel
economy penalty  even  though the emission control system  they are  developing
to meet those  standards  has  a  "potential  to reduce the fuel consumption  and
exhaust emission."*  TK  did  not  quantify  the amount of the expected loss  in
fuel  economy, nor did  they provide EPA  with  data to substantiate their  claim
of a  loss in fuel economy.

2.    New  Technology   or  Developments which Could  Provide a  Change  in  the
      Relationship  between  Emissions and Fuel  Economy as  Compared  to  1981
      Vehicles or TK's Estimates.

A.    New Engines

      1. Rotary Engine

         TK  is the only manufacturer of  automotive rotary (Wankel)  engines
          sold  in the  U.S.  TK  began  using a  3-way  catalyst  with an open-loop
         carburetor and an  air pump  on  their  rotary models  for the  1981
         model  year.   They  intend  to  use  this same  system  for  1982.   For
          1983,  TK  plans  to  use  a  closed-loop   carburetor  with  a  3-way
          catalyst,  an air  pump,  and  EGR.**   TK provided no  estimates  or test
          data  on this  new system.

          TK  reported  that they are  studying a  supercharged version  of  their
          rotary.***   Industry  sources  speculate  that  the   supercharged
          version of the twin-rotor Wankel engine will  offer more horsepower,
          greater low-end torque, and  improved fuel  economy.***  The
 *   "Mazda Status Report,"  February  1981, pages 64-65.
 **  "Mazda Status Report,"  February  1981, page 3.
 *** "Ward's Engine Update,"  Volume 6, Number 12, June 25, 1980, page 6.
                                      V-104

-------
        speculation  is that  this  vehicle would not  be available  prior to
        the 1983 model year.*

   2.   Diesel Engine

        With  the 1981  model year,  TK introduced  its  first  passenger  car
        Diesel  engine  In TK's Japanese Luce series.   This  A  cylinder,  2.2
        liter  engine is  available  only  in  TK's  Japanese  market;  however,
        industry  sources  believe  that it  is similar to  the engines that TK
        has  agreed  to  sell to Ford  in the next  year  or  so  for  the  U.S.
        market.**  TK  claims  that  this Diesel  vehicle has  a fuel economy of
        51.7 mpg when  tested  at a steady  37.5 mph**(not an EPA test cycle).

        TK reported  that work on  a direct-injection combustion  system  for
        their  Diesel  engines  is a  project, second  in importance  only to
        TK's work in turbocharging  small  engines.***

        TK has  not  provided EPA with any emissions or  fuel economy data on
        their  Diesel  powered vehicles.   Some  emission  and  fuel  economy
        results  from a  TK engine  in  a Ford vehicle are   shown  in section
        V.B, Ford.

   3.   Small  (2- and  3-Cylinder) Engines

        TK reports  that they  are  investigating  the  use of  A-,   3-,  and
        2-cylinder  engines for use in A-passenger, 2-passenger, and 2+2
        small  cars.    The engine displacements range to below  1  liter  (61
        CID).****   "Automotive News"  reports  that TK  will begin producing
        small  cars,  powered  by  a  3-cylinder engine, for  sale  in  the  U.S.
        beginning with the 1985  model year.   These cars would be sold under
        the Mazda,   Ford,  and Mercury  nameplates.   The report  predicts an
        urban  fuel  economy for these cars of between AO  to 50 mpg.**
*   "Automotive News,"  November 17,  1980,  pages  2 and AA.
**" "Ward's Engine Update,"  Volume 6,  Number  20, October  15, 1980, page 6.
*** "Ward's Engine Update,"  Volume 6,  Number  17, September  1, 1980, page 6.
****"Ward's Engine Update,"  Volume 6,  Number  17, September  1, 1980, page 6.

                                      V-105

-------
         Another report  indicates  that  this car will  be front-wheel drive,
         and that the engine displacement will  be  between 1 and 1.2  liters
         (61 to 74 CID).*  TK did not submit any data on this vehicle  to EPA.

B.  Closed-Loop Carburetor

TK plans  to employ a closed-loop  carburetor,  an air pump, EGR,  and  a dual
3-way catalyst on all of  their  passenger  cars  beginning with the 1983 model
year.**  This system has been tested by TK in a vehicle with 2250 pound test
weight and  equipped with  a  1.5 liter  engine  and  manual transmission.   TK
states that  neither the fuel economy  results  nor  the  dfiveability obtained
thus far with this system (see table TK-1) met  their goal.***

                                 Table TK-1
               Comparison of  Fuel Economy  and Emissions  of the
              Closed-Loop Test Vehicle to the Fuel  Economy and
        Emissions of a Comparable 1981 Model Year Open-Loop Vehicle.

                     HC       CO       NOx      MPG      MPG,      MPG
                                                   u        n          c

Closed-Loop
Test Vehicle***    0.22     4.0        0.31       33.4

1981 TK Data
Vehicle****        0.224    1.03       0.49       34.5          41.6      37.4
 *    "Ward's  Engine Update," Volume  7,  Number 2, January  15,  1981,  pages  1
     and  4.
 **  "Mazda Status  Report,"  February, 1981, page 3.
 *** Ibid, pages  66-67.
 ****"EPA Test  Car  List,  1981 Second  Edition."
                                      V-106

-------
    Even though  this  one  test  vehicle experienced  a  drop  in  urban fuel
    economy of  3.2%  (relative  to  its  1981 model  year  counterpart),  the
    effect  of  this system on overall fuel economy cannot be determined since
    TK did  not submit highway test data (MPG ).

    TK believes that  the loss  in fuel economy and  driveability  is,  "due to
    the insufficient controlling performance for the air/fuel ratio and EGR,
    the insufficient catalytic efficiency, the choking-up of the EGR passage
    by the  carbon and  so  forth.  And  thus,  the refinement of  the control
    system of the mixture  and  EGR,  the combustion improvement, the catalyst
    screening  and so  forth are  considered  important."* TK says they plan to
    improve those components during the 1982 model year based on  the results
    of the analysis  done during 1981.**

C.  Combustion Chamber Improvements

    TK reports:

         "We have taken an approach to mainly  accelerate combustion in the
         engine  with  the  help  of  increased  swirl   and  squish,  and have
         achieved the  excellent  results through the MSH (Masked Seat Head)
         method."

         "We  intend to continue pursuing  the  improvement of  fuel economy
         still further  by  means of modifying the combustion chamber config-
         uration in the future."***

         "In addition,  the following items will be considered,  too:

              To make the combustion chamber more compact.
              To make the compression ratio higher.
              Development of [a]DIS (Dual Induction System).
              The selection of spark plug location."****
*   "Mazda Status Report," February, 1981, page 67.
**  Ibid., page 33.
*** Ibid., page 70.
****Ibid., page 69
                                      V-107

-------
D.  Electronic-Controlled EGR

    Backpressure type EGR provides increased control over the type not using
    backpressure  to  simultaneously  reduce  NOx and   to   stabilize  drive-
    ability.  TK plans  to  develop an electronic-controlled EGR system which
    will provide greater control  accuracy  of  EGR than the backpressure type
    provides.*

3.  The Effect  of  Known Technology Which  Helps  Quantify Single or Multiple
    Calibrations or Vehicle Description Changes.

TK  plans  to gradually replace the main moving parts  of their engines (such
as  rotors  for rotary engines and connecting  rods for  conventional engines)
with  lighter weight  parts.   TK  says  that  this will  decrease  frictional
losses and  thus increase engine efficiency.**

TK  also plans on studying four other systems that can affect fuel economy:**

    1.   Using pulse air instead of an air pump,
    2.   Fuel injection,
    3.   Electronic ignition, and
    4.   Knock controller.

For the 1981 model year, TK  increased the  fuel economy  of  their  GLC and RX-7
models over the corresponding 1980 models. (See table TK-2.)
 *Ibid.,  page  69.
 **Ibid., page 33.
                                       V-108

-------
                                Table TK-2*
                Fuel Economy of 1980 and 1981 Mazda Vehicles
                      	1980	
                   MPG
                        MFC.
          MPG
         MPG
                                                  	1981	
          MPG.
         MPG
GLC
A3-Trans
MA -Trans
M5-Trans
27
30
29
34
42
39
30 ,
34
33
30
35
35
37
43
45
32
38
39
RX-7
     A3-Trans

     M5-Trans
               16
               17
24
28
19
20
19
21
24
30
21
24
TK claims  that  they improved the fuel  economy of their conventional  engine
(used in the GLC) by:**
     1.    Change in emission control system
           Although  we  had  been  using  a  single  catalyst  +  air
           injection + EGR up to the  1980 year models,  we  adopted on
           the  1981  year models a  dual catalyst  + air injection +
           EGR  so as  to improve the  fuel economy and meet  the  more
           stringent NOx standard.

     2.    Vehicle weight reduction
           By changing the GLC  to a  front wheel  drive  model,  we  were
           able to reduce the weight from 2,250 Ibs to 2,125 Ibs.
*
**
EPA/DOE Gas Mileage Guide.
"Mazda Status Report" February, 1981,  page 32,
                                       V-109

-------
     3.    Power-to weight reduction and  drivetrain programs
           The GLC engine was  increased  in piston displacement from
           86.4 CID  to  90.9 CID,  thus  having adequate power/weight
           ratio.   So,  N/V  ratio was changed  from 57.0  to  54.1 in
           top gear  and from  47.1  to 43.1 in  overtop,  thus making
           this engine a high  speed type, thereby improving the fuel
           economy.


     4.    Accessory drive program
           The cooling fan was changed to a motor driven  type, hence
           reducing the propulsion loss  of the fan.

TK says  that  the  improved fuel economy of their rotary engine  (used in  the

RX-7) resulted from:*
     1.    Engine efficiency
           We  improved   fuel   economy  and  reduced  emissions   by
           improving  the  gas  sealing,  modifying  the  engine  (the
           ignition   system  and  intake   system  in   particular),
           operating  the  engine  at  a  leaner  mixture,  making  the
           combustion  more  stable   and  optimizing  the   catalyst
           system.  In order to  optimize all three systems, we made
           studies  on reduction in  raw HC,  improvement in  thermal
           efficiency,  best  design   of   the   catalytic  converter,
           selection of a  catalyst best  suited  to  the  rotary  engine,
           reduction  in  the temperature  of the exhaust  gas  entering
           the catalyst, and adjustment of the air/fuel mixture.

     2.    Reduction in vehicle air resistance
           The shape  of  the front grille  of the  car  was  redesigned
           so as  to reduce the air  resistance  of the car body,  and
           the  load  to   be applied  to  a  chassis-dynamometer  was
           lowered  from  8.0  hp/50  MPH for 1980 to 7.1 hp/50  MPH  for
           1981.

     3.    Vehicle  weight  reduction
           We  reduced the weight  of  the car body, engine and their
           related  parts,  thereby  lowering  the  test  weight  from
           2,750  Ibs  to 2,625 Ibs.
     Ibid., page 34.
                                      V-110

-------
    The  EPA  technical staff  has  generated approximations  of TK's  sales-
    weighted  fuel economy value (the official values are not yet available),
    and  we found  that TK's fleet  average  fuel economy  increased  from 26.3
    mpg  in 1980 to 31.1  for  their 1981 models (an  increase  of 18%).*  Com-
    paring,  by  weight,  TK's  1981 vehicles  with  conventional  (not  rotary)
    engines  to the average of all  1981 model year  vehicles,  yields the fol-
    lowing table:

                                Table  TK-3**
                   Comparison of  Toyo Kogyo's  1981  Fuel
Economy Versus the
Inertia
Weight
2000
2250
2750
By
TK's
Avg.
38
34
30
Weight
MPGr
.59
.52
.75
Entire 1981 Fleet
(Excluding Rotary
Avg.
Car's
36.
34.
27.
of All
MPG,,
96
47
17
Engines)

Percent
(Relative

+4.
+0.
+13.
Diff.
to Fleet)
4%
1%
2%

     Thus TK was able to increase the fuel economy of its conventional vehi-
     cles so  that they  were more  fuel  efficient  than most  other similar
     vehicles.  TK's rotary  engine  vehicles average 24.27  MPG  compared to
     29.37 MPG  for  all 2500 pound  inertia weight cars.**   These  data are
     somewhat biased against the Mazda vehicles  since  their equivalent test
     weight  is 2625  pounds and  they are  being compared to  a  group  of vehi-
     cles which includes lighter vehicles.
*   Foster, Murrell,  Loos,  "Light Duty  Automotive Fuel  Economy  ... Trends
    through 1981,"  SAE Paper number 810386,  February  1981,  pages 14-16.
**  Ibid.
                                     V-lll

-------
V.  I.   American Motors

1.  American   Motors'   Statements   Concerning  the   Relationship   between
    Emissions and Fuel Economy

Quoting  their  latest status  report,* "American Motors  is vendor  dependent
with   regard  to   emission  control   systems.    These  include   catalytic
converters,  air  injection pumps,  ignition systems, carburetors, EGR systems,
and  electronic  control  modules."    Because   of  this  dependency,  and  the
necessity  of prior  financial  commitment to  the  vendors, AMC's  development
program  has  been  limited  in  scope  to  evaluation  of  emissions  control
components,  evaporative emissions control,  driveability, and fuel economy.

Their  emissions  control program  is  one of  evaluation  of  prototype,  vendor-
supplied,  control  hardware installed  on suitably modified  production  cars.
"Once  a  particular  emission control  strategy,  and  associated components have
been  selected,  there  is  an  inherent  relationship  between  the  achieveable
fuel  economy and the emissions standards as  a result of  the control system
constraints.   Consequently, there has been no separate reportable  effort or
data  in  the  area of  fuel economy  improvement."

With  respect to a  0.41 HC, 3.4  CO,  0.4 NOx  standard,  they stated  "AM has
been  unable  to demonstrate, even on  a  research vehicle that these standards
can be met with any control system planned for 1981  through 1983."  Work is
planned  to investigate different fuel  systems, catalyst  configurations, and
refinement of  control strategies.  Confidential  treatment was requested  for
 the details  of AMC's production vehicle development program.
     American  Motors  Corporation  Efforts  and  Progress  to  Meet  1981  and
     Subsequent Model  Year Light-Duty Vehicle Emission Standards; March, 1981.

                                       V-112

-------
General Comments

A substantial body of  test  data was provided in the status report; however,
the vehicle descriptions and  the details of the test configurations were  so
sketchy that the EPA technical  staff could not draw conclusions from the AMC
efforts.  It  is  possible to consider  the  recent (1979-1981)  history of AMC
cars with  the 258-2V engine  (table AMC-1),  as  tested by  EPA.   This is the
only passenger car engine common  to model years  1979, 1980, and 1981.   Since
1979, control of HC  and  CO  emissions has been improved significantly (up  to
66%  and 60%  respectively),  and urban fuel  economy  has improved  5  to  10%.
Some  improvement in NOx control was  observed  for  the manual transmission
cars, but  not for those with automatic transmissions.  No  major change  in
weight  occurred, other than that attributable to  the  finer test weight in-
crements used since  1980.   There is not a demonstratable adverse effect  on
fuel economy attributable to the  improvements in emission control.

In  the  case of  the  151-2V  engine,  which entered  production  in 1980,  there
have been no  changes in emissions control requirements for 1981,  because  of
waivers.  Consequently,  as  shown in  table  AMC-2, there have  been no  major
changes in  the emissions and fuel economy performance. .
                                     V-113

-------
             Table AMC-1

Eniasiona and Fuel Economy of AMC Cars
             258-2V Engine
HC EMISSIONS
Model
Year Trans. Mean Max Mi.n
1979 A3 .565 .61 .50
M4 .468 .52 .40
1980 L3 .27 .33 .25
M4 .2165 .27 .183
<19B1 L3 .193 .280 .132
£ H4 .186 .204 .171



HC EMISSIONS
Model (g/ral)
Year Trans Mean Max Mi.n
1980 A3 .201 .232 .170
M4 .255 .260 .250
1981 A3 .097
M4 .1593 .189 .124
CO EMISSIONS
(g/n)ll.
Mean Max
8.7 9.5
4.8 4.9
4.55 6.65
2.36 4.0
3.450 4.71
2.653 5.27

Emissions



Min
7.9
4.7
3.0
1.38
0.79
2.12
Table
and Fuel
151-2V


Mean
1.125
1.645
1.30
1.347
1.11
.865
AMC-2
Economy
Engine
CO EMISSIONS
(g/nU)
Mean Max
2.335 2.65
3.80 4.7
1.13
2.637 3.86
Min
2.02
2.8
—
1.31
Mean
1.505
1.18
1.59
1.787
NOx EMISSIONS
(e/ni)
Max Min
1.29 0.96
1.73 1.56
1.38 1.16
1.38 1.29
1.24 0.92
1.21 0.81

of AMC Cars

NOx EMISSIONS
(g/ml)
Max Min
1.69 1.32
1.21 1.15
—
1.90 1.70
URBAN ECONOMY
; Tost
Mean Max Min UVl^ln
20.5 21 20 3125
22 22 22 293H
20 — -- 3250 sample
22.67 2958

-------
             Appendix 1

Prediction of Federal Test Procedure
   Results  from Hot  Emissions  Data

-------
                                 Appendix 1

                    Prediction of Federal Test Procedure
                        Data from Hot Emissions Data

The  test  procedures  used   to  measure  exhaust  emissions  from  new  motor
vehicles are described  in Part  86 of the  Code of Federal Regulations.   The
Federal  Test  Procedure is  commonly  referred  to  as  the  FTP.    The  FTP
specifies  the  test fuel, driving  schedule,  vehicle  preparation,  test  site
ambient  conditions  and other details which  are  intended to  give the  test
results a high degree of scientific accuracy.

A brief discussion of the exhaust emission measurement portion of  the FTP is
required at  this  point.  The exhaust emissions of  a light-duty vehicle  are
measured while the vehicle  is operated on a chassis  dynamometer.

The vehicle exhaust gas is  collected while the vehicle is being operated on
the dynamometer.  The  exhaust gas stream is  diluted with ambient  air and a
sample of  this  dilute  mixture is collected during  each  phase for  analysis.
The dynamometer run is divided into  three  phases.  A composite gas  sample is
collected  in  a separate bag for each phase.   Bag one  contains  the sample
collected  during  the "transient"  phase  of the cold  start test which is  the
first  505  seconds   of  the  driving  schedule.   The  second  bag   sample  is
collected  from  the 505th second  of the  driving  schedule until its  end  at
1372  seconds.   This is  the "stabilized" phase of  the test.  Bag three  is
collected  from  the time the  vehicle is  restarted  following  the  ten minute
hot soak until the 505th second of the driving schedule.  The  three bags  are
sometimes  referred  to  as the cold  transient  (ct)  bag,   the  stabilized  (s)
bag, and the hot transient  (ht)  bag.

The bag  samples are  analyzed  and calculations are performed to determine  the
grams of emissions per test phase.  The  final  reported test  results are  then
computed  using  the grams per test  phase data from  the  bag samples and  the
following  equation:*

*Code of Federal Regulations,  Part 86.144-78   As of July 1, 1979.
                                     1-1

-------
Ywm = 0.43 ((Yct + Y8)/(Dct + Ds)) + 0.57((Yht + Ys)/(Dht + Ds))

Where:   Y   = Weighted mass emissions of each pollutant, i.e.,  HC,  CO, NOx
                 or C02, in grams per vehicle mile.

         Y   = Mass emissions as calculated from Bag 1,
                 in grams per test phase.

         Y.   = Mass emissions as calculated from Bag 3,
                 in grams per test phase.
         Y   = Mass emissions as calculated from Bag 2,
          s
                 in grams per test phase.
         D   = The measured driving distance during Bag 1,
                 in miles.
         D,   = The measured driving distance during Bag  3,
                 in miles.
         D   = The measured driving distance during Bag  2,
                 in miles.
The  final  value of  the measured  emissions is  obviously  a function  of the
design of the test procedure.  Emissions values determined using another test
procedure or a modified version of the FTP, may  or  may  not be  related to the
FTP emissions.

Automotive   research   and  development   programs   will   often   utilize  an
abbreviated  form  of  the  FTP.    For example,  if  a  researcher  was  only
interested in  a vehicle's  exhaust emissions,  the  portion of  the  FTP which
measures evaporative  emissions may  be  omitted.  Another  common abbreviated
form of the FTP is  called a "hot"  FTP.  The implied meaning of  a "hot" FTP is
that the 12  to 36 hour  soak  period  before the  dynamometer  run  was deleted.
Instead the  dynamometer run is started with the vehicle in  a  "warmed  up"  or
                                     1-2

-------
"hot" condition.  Elimination of the many hours long soak period  prior  to the
start of the  dynamometer  run allows many  "hot"  FTP's  to be  run in an eight
hour  working  day  compared  to  only  a  part  of  a  single  emission  test  in
accordance with the FTP.

The cold transient and stabilized phases of the dynamometer run are performed
with  a  warmed-up  vehicle.  The driving  schedule  will be  identical for  both
the "hot" FTP and  Bags  1  and 2  of  the  official FTP.  However, because  of the
difference in thermal preconditioning  between  these two  test procedures,  the
final emission values may be vastly different.

FTP  equivalent  emissions  and fuel  economy results  are  sometimes  calculated
from  steady-state  engine  data.   These calculated projections are often  (or
should be) qualified by a statement like the following:  .

    It  should  be  noted that  these  calculations  do not account
    for  the warm-up  portion of  the FTP drive cycle, the  engine
    transients, or... *

This  statement  above should  alert  users of  such data that  the  possibility
exists  that the calculated emissions and fuel economy may be different  from
actual FTP results.   SAE  paper  number  800396,  "The Exhaust Emission and  Fuel
Consumption Characteristics  of  an  Engine  During  Warmup -  A Vehicle  Study",
said  the following in reference to gasoline fueled vehicles:

    The  relative  contribution  of  pollutants emitted   during
    vehicle warmup has been  magnified because the  outstanding
    performance of contemporary catalytic converters has  nearly
    eliminated  the pollutants emitted from fully warm vehicles.
    Trella,  Thomas J.,  "Fuel  Economy Potential  of Diesel  and
    Spark Ignition - Powered Vehicles in the 1980s" SAE 810514.
                                     1-3

-------
Many vehicle components  influence the exhaust emissions  as a function of  the
vehicle s  thermal  state.  For  example,  all, or  nearly  all,  model year  1981
gasoline  fueled  light-duty  vehicles  utilize a  catalytic  converter  in  their
emission  control  system.  The  conversion  efficiency of  a catalyst  increases
with  higher   temperature.    Exhaust  emissions   are  reduced  with   greater
conversion  efficiency.   Diesel  engines in production  now  do  not  have  any
catalytic devices to treat the exhaust.

Another  design feature  of  gasoline  fueled vehicles  which  effects  exhaust
emissions as a function  of  thermal  pre-conditioning  is  the start-up enrichment
system.  This cold start enrichment and the  initial  inactivity of the catalyst
during Bag  1 of  the FTP contribute a  large  percentage  of the total CO and HC
measured in a FTP.

Emission test data from  certification  testing were analyzed to determine what,
if  any,  relationships exist  between  Bag 1  and  Bag  3  emissions.   Figure  1-1
presents a  summary of the selection criteria for  the main data base which was
analyzed.  Additionally, this figure shows  how the main data base was  divided
into ten subgroups.

Correlation matrices  were generated  for the ten data  sets  shown  in  figure
1-1.   These  matrices  are   presented  in   table   1-3  to  table  1-12.   Some
correlation coefficients (r values) have been compiled from these matrices and
listed in tables 1-1 and 1-2 for easier reference  in the following discussion.

These correlation  coefficients  could  provide some guidance  in  developing an
emission  test  procedure which  is  based on an abbreviated form of  the  FTP.
Conversely, these data may  provide  some insight  into the  relationship  between
a so-called "hot FTP" and an actual  FTP.

The data of table 1-1 seem to substantiate  the following  observations:

    1.   Bag 3 NOx correlates to  some  extent (r > .85)  to the FTP  NOx for all
         cases.  The r is greater when NOx  is not  catalytically controlled.
                                     1-4

-------
                              Figure  1-1
                        Data Base Description
     Test Active Years = 79,  80 and  81
     Sales Classes = 49 States,  50 States and California
     Vehicle Type = Certification Data  and  Fuel Economy Data
     Test Type = Certification Data  Test Emissions and Fuel Economy
     Test Procedure = Three Bag 1975 FTP
     Certification Test Disposition  = Passed Used for Certification
     Fuel Economy Disposition = Used for Fuel Economy
Active
Year =
79
Active
Year =
81
Active
Year =
80
Fuel Type = Gasoline
[Fuel Type = Diesel
     Fuel Injection = Yes
          Injection =
   ^Converter Type = Oxidation
     Converter Type = Three-way
     Converter Type = Three-way + Oxidation
                                    1-5

-------
                                                                     e I1
                                                       Correlation Coefficients (r)
                                                             1981 Active Year
   Variable
BjHC vs. FTPHC
BjCO vs. FTPCO
BjNOX vs. FTPNOx
Gasoline   Diesel
.7238       .3519
.8700       .9430
.8035       .9121
                                                  Oxidation Cat.   3-Way Cat.  3-W +O.C.    Fuel Injected (Non-Diesel)
                                                    .7357            .9162       .6705                .9129
                                                    .8719            .9120       .8309                .9339
                                                    ,8746            .7546       .6890                .8517
                                                                                                                         Not  Fuel  Injected
                                                                                                                                .6937
                                                                                                                                .8518
                                                                                                                                .7766
B3HC vs. FTPHC          .6744       .5228        .7662
B3CO vs. FTPCO          .5965       .9043        .6115
B3NOx vs. FTPNOx        .9286       .9105        .9757
                                          .5433
                                          .6260
                                          .8859
                                                                                 .6426
                                                                                 .6067
                                                                                 .8593
                                                                                                       .5322
                                                                                                       .3788
                                                                                                       .9217
                                                                                         .7133
                                                                                         .6132
                                                                                         .9130
BjHC vs. FTPHC
     vs. FTPCO
      vs. FTPNOx
Active Year 1979. All

          .6527
          .8015
          .7644
                                                         Active Year 1980. All

                                                                    .3346
                                                                    .8623
                                                                    .8661
                                                                                            Active Year  1981. All

                                                                                                       .3512
                                                                                                       .8767
                                                                                                       .7800
B3HC vs. FTPHC
B3CO vs. FTPCO
      vs. FTPNOx
          .8578
          .7789
          .9011
                                                                    .3764
                                                                    .6614
                                                                    .9353
                                                                                                       .5439
                                                                                                       .5957
                                                                                                       .9333
                                                                     Table 1-2
                                                           Correlation Coefficients  (r)
                                                                  1981 Active Year
Variable
B3HC vs.
B3CO vs. BjCO
B3NOx vs
                        Gasoline
                         .0985
                         .1927
                         .7401
Diesel
 .6457
 .8656
 .9365
Oxidation Cat.
     .1929
     .2047
     .8669
3-Way Cat.
  .2916
  .3029
  .6986
3-W +. O.C.
  .0152
  .1305
  .5192
                                                                                                    Fuel  Injected  (Hon Diesel)
                                                                                                          .2817
                                                                                                          .1081
                                                                                                          .7654
                                                                                                           Not Fuel Injected
                                                                                                             .1140
                                                                                                             .1739
                                                                                                             .6816
B3HC vs.
B3CO vs.
B3NOx vs.
          iHC
                    Active  Year  1979, All
                            .4826
                            .4342
                            .7465
                                           Active Year 1980. All
                                                 T5S52
                                                 .2616
                                                 .8485
                                                                                                                                   Active Year 1981. All
                                                                                                                                           .1927
                                                                                                                                           .2181
                                                                                                                                           .7687

-------
   Table 1-3
Active Year 1979


:CORRELATION BYST VAR=23
:ORRELATION MATRIX <79>
1= 6OO OF = 598
VARIABLE
23.DISP
24.RTHP
1 .FTPHC
2.FTPCO
3.FTPNOX
II.BtHC
12. B ICO
13.BINX
14.B2HC
1S.B2CO
16.B2NX
17.B3HC
18.B3CO
19.B3NX
51.ETW
53.ETWSDISP
54.ETWSRTHP
101.B1SB3.HC
102.B1SB3.CO
IO3.B1SB3.NX

18.B3CO
19.B3NX
51 .ETW
53.ETWSDISP
54.ETWSRTHP
1O1 .B1SB3.HC
1O2.B1SB3.CO
103.B1SB3.NX

R» .OSOO

1 . 0000
.8)33
.OO83
. 1287
. 1895
.2298
.3816
.O226
-. 1551
-.2731
.2868
-. 1010
.OO87
.O883
.9217
-.8954
- . 33O4
.0504
.0313
-.O924
23.
DISP
1 . 0000
.2366
.0244
.O127
.0788
-.3558
-. 1433
- . 0690
18.
B3CO

.24. 1-3.
TAYR:79
• .O8O1


1 .OOOO
-.0773
.O617
.0546
. 1994
.2882
-.O276
-. 1875
-.2492
. 1O29
-. 1393
-.0598
.O245
.7802
-.6837
-.7123
.2012
. 1O4I
-.0545
24.
RTHP

1 . 0000
.0373
-.0573
- .OI9O
-. 1788
.0013
-.3915
19.
B3NX

1 1-19.51.


.53.54. 1O1-


1O3 STHAT

All
=V5O>




R«> .O1OO- .1051



1.0000
.5429
.4584
.6527
.2902
.2644
.8555
.5160
.4357
.8578
.5066
.4253
-.0127
- . O4 1 2
. 105O
- . 300 1
-.0837
-. 1614
1.
FTPHC


1 . OOOO
-.7454
- . 1956
.OB74
.O6O6
-.O664
51.
ETW




1.0000
.3075
.652O
.8O15
.2566
.3858
.6516
.2O13
.52O7
.7789
.3555
. 11O1
-.1198
-.O342
-. 1287
- . O706
-. 1225
2.
FTPCO



1 . OOOO
.325O
-.O4O2
-.O321
.O546
53.
ETWSDISP





1.0000
.3764
.2494
.7644
.3654
. 1818
.8617
.3965
.2642
.9011
. 1367
-. 18O6
.O5O2
-.2125
-.0057
- . 3074
3.
FTPNOX




1 . OOOO
- .2375
-.O943
-.0068
54.
ETWSRTHP






1.0000
.6996 t.OOOO
.3179 . 18O1 1.OOOO
.3162 . O3O1 ,2244 1.OOOO
.2302 .1097 .2054 .5960
.2677 .1925 .3826 .3241
.4826 .2073 .2547 .8281
.3959 .4342 .1969 .4083
.3988 .268O .7465 .3629
.1862 .3515 -.0125 - . 20O6
-.2489 -.3691 -.O339 .O958
-.1771 -.1453 .O097 .O741
.1398 .1219 -.0731 - . 38O8
-.O118 .0181 -O388 -.O766
-.0951 -.1156 .O193 -.1161
11. 12. 13. 14.
B1HC B1CO B1NX B2HC





t.OOOO
. 192O 1.OOOO
.1338 .O171 1.OOOO
101. 102. 103.
B1SB3.HC B1SB3.CO B1SB3.NX










1.OOOO
.043O 1.OOOO
.5132 .3413 1.OOOO
.5564 . 23O3 .6336
.2803 .6232 .3997
-.2805 .2404 -.1345
.2619 -.2837 .OS41
.0912 . 1OO8 .O287
-.2631 -.2423 -.4637
-.1033 -.0328 -.1087
-.0710 -.3378 -.1391
15. 16. t7.
B2CO B2NX B3HC










-------
                                                        Table 1-4
                                                     Active Year 1980
i
c»
All
:ORREUATION MATRIX <8O>
!• 450 Of* 448
VARIABLE
23.0ISP
24.RTHP
1.FTPHC
2.FTPCI
3.FTPNOX
11.B1HC
12.B1CO
13.B1NX
14.B2HC
1S.B2CO
16.B2NX
17.B3HC
1B.B3CO
19.B3NX
S1.ETM
S3.ETWSDISP
34 . ETWSRTHP
101.B1SB3.HC
102.B1SB3 CO
103.B1SB3.NX

18.B3CO
19.B3NX
91.ETM
53.ETWSOISP
S4.ETWSRTHP
101.B1SB3.HC
I02.B1SB3.CO
I03.BISB3.NX

TAYR:8O
RP .05OO- .O925
1.0000
.7658 1.OOOO
.2401 .1327
-.0982 -.0298
.3081 .0343
- . 053S
-.0308
.2130
.3243
-.1395
.3643
.OB06
-.O972
. 2OS6
. .9115
-.9137
-.2838
-. 1815
.0901
-.0797
23.
OISP
1.0OOO
- . 1O94
-.0930
. 1199
. 1501
-.2767
-.2514
-.0387
18.
B3CO
.2118
.0915
.021O
. 1178
-. 1906
.0375
-.O234
-. 1626
-.OO25
.7441
-.6830
-.7149
O798
.0949
-.0116
24.
RTHP

1.0000
.1493
-. 1739
. 1493
-.3004
. 1233
-.4309
19.
B3NX
DO .O1OO- .1213
1.OOOO
.1789 1.OOOO
.1733 -.1929
.3346
. 1135
.0663
.4709
. 1845
.2440
.3764
.1196
.0949
. .2618
- . 2069
. 149O
-. 1566
.0657
-.0936
1.
FTPHC


1.OOOO
-.75O4
-.1526
-.1136
.07 49
-.O572
51.
ETW
.4643
.8623
-.1674
-.0832
.3812
-.2310
.3879
.6614
-.0962
-.0877
.O867
-.O674
.O388
.0340
-.O653
2.
FTPCO



1.OOOO
.3343
. 1491
-.1149
.0382
1.OOOO
- . 2603
-. 1527
.8661
.3393
-.O76S
.9305
.0179
-.1596
.9333
.27t7
- . 2698
.2163
-.3364
.1109
-.3538
3.
FTPNOX




1.OOOO
-.2433
-.0914
-.0633

1.OOOO
.6481
-.O985
-.1859
-.1914
- . 3S4O
.0892
-.OOO3
-.1671
-.O821
-.O329
-.4133
.4893
.2493
.1948
11.
B1HC





1.0OOO
.1491
.2257
53. 54. 101.
ETWSDISP ETWSRTHP B1SB3.


1.0000
-.0948
-.1723
-.O646
-.2142
.1856
.2616
-.0569
-.O379
-.0315
-.2228
.222O
.22OO
-.0161
12.
BtCO






t.OOOO
-.O370
102.
HC B1SB3.



1.OOOO
.2741 1.OOOO
-.1923 .1729 1.OOOO
.657O .3407 -.O339 1.OOOO
.0446 .3262 .1777 -.O361
-.1589 .0214 .5069 -.1621
.8485 .2938 -.O611 .7739
.1678 .2640 -.1O67 .3911
-.21O3 -.3294 .2724 -.31O8
.1193 .0975 .2319 .2683
-.2391 -.4692 -.1872 - . 35O5
.1334 -.032O -.2285 .O719
-.0927 -.1921 -.1469 -.3629
13. 14. 19. 16.
B1NX B2HC B2CO B2NX







1.OOOO
103.
CO B1SB3.NX







1.0OOO
.6O6O
.0794
.O122
-.O897
.O979
-.484O
-. 1O61
-.1019
t7.
B3HC










-------
   Table 1-
Active Year 1931
ORRELATION MATRIX <81> TAYR:81
1- 378 Oi - o,~ Rf .OSCO" . 1OO9
VARIABLE
23.DISP 1.OOOO
24.RTHP . 7S36 1 .OOOO
1.FTPHC .3455 .2078
2.FTPCO .O356 . 14OO
3.FTPNOX .2638 -.1010
11.B1HC
12.B1CO
13.B1NX
14.B2HC
15.B2CO
I6.B2NX
17.B3HC
1B.B3CO
19.B3NX
S1.ETW
53.ETWSDISP
54 . ETWSRTHP
t01.B1SB3.HC
1O2.B1SB3.CO
103.B1SB3.NX

18.B3CO
19.B3NX
51.ETW
53.ETWSDISP
54. ETWSRTHP
1O1.B1SB3.HC
1O2 B1SB3.CO
103.B1SB3.NX

. 1O06
.O213
.3072
. 1791
.OO77
.2055
.1887
.0577
.2580
.9189
-.924O
-. 1942
-. 1420
. O683
-.O744
23.
DISP
1.0000
-.0351
.O427
-.0583
-.O824
-.2785
-.3979
-.0224
18.
B3CO
.3661
. 1764
.0636
. 1O31
-.O444
-. 1784
. 1765
.0401
- . 0360
.7543
-.7003
-.6895
.0707
. 1431
.0618
24.
RTHP

1.OOOO
.2401
-.2155
.3808
- . 3065
-.0025
-.4689
19.
B3NX
RO .01OO- .1323
1.OOOO
.3119 1.0000
.3082 -.1230
.3512
. 1539
.1780
.6983
.4169
.3180
.5439
.2527
.2855
.3271
- . 2954
.O743
-.2228
-.1210
-.1130
1.
FTPHC


t .OOOO
-.7738
-. 1087
-.07 It
.0748
.O079
81.
ETW
.4890
.8767
-.09tO
.264O
.4618
-. 1317
.3301
.5957
-.0876
.0207
-.0672
-.2621
.0064
.0447
,O1 16
2. .
FTPCO



1.0000
.2738
. 1591
- . 0975
.1O27
S3.
ETWSD1SP
1.OOOO
-.3897
-.2OO5
.78OO
.2696
. 1217
.9457
.O1OO
.O126
.9333
.2563
- . 2033
.4991
- . 3469
- . 0599
-.3891
3.
FTPNOX




t.OOOO
-.2134
-. 1545
-. 1241
54.
ETWSRTHP
All

t.OOOO
. 6O33
-. 1951
.0343
-.0419
-.4541
.1927
.0664
-.2752
.0854
-.1417
-.5124
.4206
.2472-
.1342
11.
B1HC





1.0OOO
.3897
.1849
101.
B1SB3


1.0000
- . O965
.O79O
. O586
-.2483
.1701
.2181
-. 1169
-.O117
-.0819
-.3468
. 1855
.3221
.0168
12.
B1CO






1.OOOO
-.O047
1O2.
HC BtSB3.



t.OOOO
.1985 t.OOOO
-.0519 .3816
.5655 .2379
.0728 .64O7
.OO22 .3269
.7687 .2971
.3147 .1498
-.2630 -.1512
.2594 .O151
- . 2407 - . 43O7
.O759 -.1751
-.1933 -.2O01
13. 14.
BINX B2HC







1.OOOO
103.
.CO B1SB3.NX





1.000O
.1999 t.OOOO
.1732 -.O229 1.OOOO
.4736 .0397 .5031
.O587 .8038 .O256
.0636 .1984 .1210
.O533 -.14O1 -.2439
. 139O .5573 -.19OO
-.2196 -.3494 -.4779
-.3492 -.1318 -.2533
.0174 -.3594 -.0316
IS. 16. 17.
B2CO B2NX B3HC










-------
                                                        Table 1-6
                                                     Active Year 1981

                                                         Gasoline
 i
•H
O
:CORRELATION BYST VAR-23
.24, 1-3
lORRELATION MATRIX <1> TAYR:B1*
1- 335 OF- 333
VARIABLE
23.DISP
24.RTHP
1.FTPHC
2.FTPCO
3.FTPNOX
11.B1HC
12.B1CO
13.B1NX
14.B2HC
1S.B2CO
16.B2NX
I7.B3HC
18.83CO
19.B3NX
S1.ETW
S3.ETWSDISP
34.ETWSRTHP
10t.B1SB3.HC
102.B1SB3.CQ
103.B1SB3.NX

18.B3CO
1B.B3NX
51.ETW
53.ETWSDISP
S4.ETWSRTHP
1O1.B1SB3.HC
102.B1SB3.CO
103.B1SB3.NX

RO .05OO

1.0000
.8148
.2891
0691
.2344
.2234
.0939
.2807
. 17SO
-.O654
. 1S4O
.2O74
.OS75
.2290
.9304
-.9237
-.3462
-.1203
.1061
-.0643
23.
OISP
1.OOOO
.O179
.O48O
-.O5O3
-.0119
-.3232
-.4324
-.0399
18.
B3CO
• . 1072


1.OOOO
.2977
.O6S8
.O277
.3077
.0819
.12O7
.1344
.0104
-.0533
. 1316
.0072
.0621
.8295
-.7247
-.7563
.O1O1
. 105O
.0280
24.
RTHP

1.OOOO
. 1487
-.2413
. 107O
- . 2034
. 1228
-.4643
19.
B3NX
. 11-19.31.53.34. 1O1-1O3 STRAT
FTYP:(1.2.6
RO .O1OO-



1.0000
. 482O
. 1627
.7238
.3896
.1061
.7342
.3335
. 1413
.6744
.3111
. 1848
.2698
- . 2688
- . 2O39
-. 1548
-.0627
-.0718
1.
FTPHC


1.0000
-.7942
- . 3049
-.0190
. 1286
.0419
51.
ETW
.7.17)
. 1406




1.COOO
. 1336 1
.3899
.8700
.0102
.3213
.6291
. 1963
.2873
.5965
.0955
.O7S1
-.0711
-.0579
-.0962
-.0263
-.0445
2.
FTPCO



1.OOOO
.3384 1
. 1683
-.1112
.1116
S3.
ETWSDISP







.OOOO
.02 76
.1738
.8035
.2753
. 1075
.9095
. I860
. 1O92
.9286
.1525
.2453
. 1453
.2299
.1076
.3930
3.
FTPNOX




.OOOO
.O338
O1B8
.O219
-V50: 8 1*V36:( 1.2.6.7, 17),(8,9)>








I.OOOO
.4333
-.0303
.1186
.1803
-.O4S3
.0983
.OO83
.O137
.2329
-.1933
-.2210
.3271
. 1576
.O506
11.
B1HC





I.OOOO
.3517
. 1466
54. 101.
ETWSRTHP B1SB3









1.0000
.0576 1 .OOOO
.1562 .1840 I.OOOO
.2558 -.1560 .3632 I.OOOO
.2O62 .3307 .2480 -.O482
.0899 .1411 .6802 .2497
.1927 .0346 .3447 . 537O
.1636 .74O1 .293O -.1123
.0919 .2617 .1346 -.O285
-.1068 -.2652 -.1542 .OB46
-.0352 .1103 -.0883 -.1O22
.O570 -.1736 -.4228 -.1443
.2572 .1319 -.1567 -.3089
-.O714 -.1385 -.1868 .0755
12. 13. 14. IS.
B1CO B1NX B2HC B2CO






I.OOOO
-.O4O5 t.OOOO
102. 103.
HC B1SB3.CO B1SB3.NX













I.OOOO
.1932 t.OOOO
.1878 .4958
.7578 .1459
.OSS 3 .1549
-.176O -.2433
.1533 -.0732
-.2239 -.5698
.0430 -.3085
-.3830 -.0658
16. 17.
B2NX B3HC










-------
  Table 1^
Active Year 1931
Fuel Iniected (non-Diesel)
^CORRELATION
BYST VAR=
:ORRELATION MATRIX <1>
1° 88 OF- 86
VARIABLE
23.DISP
24.RTHP
1.FTPHC
2.FTPCO
3.FTPNOX
11 . BIHC
12.B1CO
13.B1NX
14.B2HC
1S.B2CO
16.B2NX
17.B3HC
18.B3CO
19.B3NX
S1.ETW
53.ETWSDISP
34 . ETWSRTHP
1O1.B1SB3.HC
102.B1SB3.CO
1O3.B1SB3.NX

18.B3CO
19.B3NX
S1.ETW
53.ETWSDISP
54.ETWSRTHP
1OI .B1SB3.HC
t02.B1SB3.CO
1O3.BISB3.NX

RO .0500

t.OOOO
.7053
.2916
.OO85
.5712
. 1622
.0496
.4862
.2419
-. 1383
.4775
.4623
.0704
.4807
.9122
-.9OO2
-.1968
-.2O82
-.O236
-.1130
23.
OISP
1.OOOO
-.2688
.O743
- . 0709
-.0564
-.3818
-.6123
. 1611
18.
B3CO
23.24. 1-3
. 11-19.51
TAYR:81*FTYP:( 1.2
= . 2O96


1.OOOO
.4620
.2146
.3415
.3958
.2339
.2993
.3149
.O592
. 1624
.3371
.0607
.4O12
.7787
-.6758
-.7724
-.O60S
. 1801
-. 1214
24.
RTHP

1.OOOO
.4461
-.4021
-. 1389
-.O392
.3188
-.4452
19.
B3NX
R» .O1OO-



t.OOOO
.6980
.O4O9
.9129
.6948
- . O6O7
.6647
.4163
.O084
.5322
.3405
. 1638
.3309
-.2881
-.3986
-.O068
-.0065
.0045
1.
FTPHC


1.OOOO
- . 7059
-.2250
-.O899
.0169
-.0293
51.
ETW
.53.54,101-
103 STRAT
°V50:81*V36:(1,2.6,7,17)»V26:Y,N>

.6.7, 17)*FIN:Y
.2732




1.0OOO
-.0770
.6589
.9339
-. 1818
.4936
.6569
-.1811
.2410
.3788
.1783
.0324
-.0348
-.2856
-.0186
.0075
-.0042
2.
FTPCO



1.0000
.3585
.2625
.0216
. 1418
S3.
ETWSDISP






1.000O
.0067
.0831
.8317
.0783
- . 3546
.7530
.05O1
-.3292
.9217
.3113
-.4736
-.0029
-.0609
.3071
- . 3936
3.
FTPNOX




1.00OO
.O187
-.2328
. 1656
54.
ETWSRTHP







1.00OO
.6720 1.OOOO
-.07 1O -.O36B 1.OOOO
.3575 .3838 -.0125 1.OOOO
.2983 .3624 -.3558 .4972 t.OOOO
-.0474 -.0598 .3629 .0495 -.3816
.2817 .1561 -.0210 .3661 .1664
.1931 .1081 -.3792 .2869 .5631
.1409 .3168 .7654 .1659 -.1574
. 22O3 .O47O .4590 .2639 -.O5O8
-.1932 -.0834 -.3964 -.1720 .1416
-.3931 -.2896 .O449 -.2549 -.1493
.2249 .0811 -.0558 -.1927 -.1231
.1133 .1979 l .3592 -.0858 -.2616
-.0119 -.O883 -.1526 -.O448 .1672
It. 12. 13. 14. IS.
BIHC B1CO BtNX B2HC B2CO





1.OOOO
. 409O 1.OOOO
.OOS3 -.1301 1.OOOO
101. 102. 103.
B1SB3.HC BISB3 CO B1SB3.NX












1.OOOO
.1329 1.OOOO
-.1737 .S13O
.5648 .0266
.3857 .4101
-.4002 -.444O
.O831 -.1294
-.0648 -.5328
.O882 -.3068
-.4113 .1393
16. 17.
B2NX B3HC










-------
   Table 1-8




Active Year 1931
Not Fuel Injected
IRREIATION MATRIX <2> TAVR :81*FTYP : ( 1 .1 ,6, T. 17)*FIN:
• 247 OF* 245 R» . O5OO- .1249 R» .01OO- .1636
VARIABLE
23.0ISP 1.0OOO
24.RTHP .9000 1.OOOO
1.FTPHC .2789 .3058 I.OOOO
2.FTPCO .0763 .O871 .3952 I.OOOO
3.FTPNOX
11.B1HC
12.B1CO
13.BINX
14.B2HC
15.B2CO
16.B2NX
17.B3HC
18.B3CO
19.B3NX
S1.ETN
53.ETWSDISP
94.ETWSRTHP
101.B1SB3.HC
102.B1SB3.CO
103.BISB3.NX

1B.B3CO
19.B3NX
91.ETW
93.ETWSDISP
S4.ETWSRTHP
tO1.B1SB3.HC
102.B1SB3.CO
1O3.B1SB3.NX

. 1337
.2692
.1005
.1835
. 1524
-.0469
.0753
.1427
.0484
.1343
.9478
-.9364
-.444O
-.OS31
. 1468
.O099
23.
OISP
I.OOOO
-. 1002
.0793
-.0104
-. 11SO
-.3412
-.4456
. 1268
18.
B3CO
.0925
.2346
.0814
.1539
.2218
.OO71
.O468
. 1918
.0779
.0798
.8556
-.8197
-.7296
-.0984
.O769
.OO78
24.
RTHP

I.OOOO
.1103
-. 1347
.O215
-.0917
.0918
-.4972
19.
B3NX
. 1043
.6937
.2779
. 1202
.7623
.3387
.0731
.7133
.2968
. 1018
.2766
-.2386
-.2270
-. 1941
-.0769
-.O268
1.
FTPHC


I.OOOO
-.8623
-.3185
-.0324
. 1598
.0923
51.
ETW
.0738 1
.3592
.8518
-.OO71
.2210
.6298
. 1689
.2400
.6132
-.O414
.1126
-.O481
-.0831
-.0385
-.0281
. 1257
a.
FTPCO



1.0000
.4457 1
.0559
-. 1538
.OO93
S3.
ETWSOISP
N
.OOOO
.0608 1
.1311
.7766
.1239
.0861
.9191
.O332
.0062
.913O
. 1269
. 1251
.OO37
.O892
.0897
.2808
3.
FTPNOX




.OOOO
.1511
.0583
.O793
54.
ETWSRTHP


.OOOO
.4199
.O696
.1249
. 1498
.0523
. 114O
.03 11
.04 37
.2604
-.2334
-.0915
.4101
. 1782
.O346
11.
B1HC





1.0000
.4126
.0679
101.
B1SB3



I.OOOO
.0355
.O422
.2253
.2006
.O211
. 1739
.O419
. 1247
- . 09O2
-.0199
.1691
.2818
.O77O
12.
B1CO






1.0000
.O042
102.
HC B1SB3.




I.OOOO
.1178 1.OOOO
-.1O93 .3491 I.OOOO
.5236 .0752 -.0172 t.OOOO
.0751 .6919 .2686 .02O6
-.OO90 .2824 .5683 .O829
.6816 .1589 -.1389 .75O2
.2329 .1594 -.O181 .O507
-.1708 -.0978 .O772 -.O6S1
.OO44 -.2253 -.1115 -.O23S
-.0963 -.5017 -.1817 -.O628
.O926 -.1754 -.3197 .0619
.1921 -.1273 .O969 -.3232
13. 14. 19. 16.
B1NX B2HC B2CO B2NX







I.OOOO
103.
CO B1SB3.NX








I.OOOO
.4560
.0076
. 1422
-. 1618
-.2081
- . 64 1 1
-.3196
.O343
17.
B3HC










-------
                                                            Table 1-9
                                                        Active Year 1981
 i
•H"
U>
Oxidation Catalyst
:CORRELATION
BYST VAR-23
.24. 1-3
.11-19.51
IORRELATION MATRIX <2> TAYR : 8 t'FTYP : < 1 . 2
1* SB Of- 56
VARIABLE
23.0ISP
24 . RTHP
1.FTPHC
2.FTPCO
3.FTPNOX
11.B1HC
12.B1CO
13.B1NX
14.B2HC
1S.B2CO
16.B2NX
I7.B3HC
18.B3CO
19.B3NX
51.ETW
S3.ETWSOISP
S4.ETWSRTHP
t01.B1SB3.HC
102.B1SB3.CO
103.B1SB3.NX

18.B3CO
19.B3NX
S1.ETW
S3.ETWSDISO
94.ETWSRTHP
101.B1SB3.HC
i
102.B1SB3.CO
103.B1SB3.NX

R» .0500-

1.OOOO
.8489
.O787
. 1642
.2161
-. 1726
. 1233
.2335
.2674
-.1408
.1788
.2745
.2743
.2097
.9588
-.9261
- . 1603
-. 1789
. 1S69
.0366
23.
DISP
t.OOOO
. 1345
.2796
- 2831
.2590
-.3380
-.4382
. 1233
18.
B3CO
.2586


1 .OOOO
-.O157
.O712
.0435
-. 14O4
.1256
. 1O11
. 1151
-. 1792
.OO75
.O98O
.O498
.O373
.8714
- . 7966
-.5923
.0814
.4559
. 1608
24.
RTHP

1.0OOO
.1923
-.2326
.2160
- . 0655
-.0610
- . 4076
19.
B3NX
RO .01OO-



1.OOOO
.3148
- . 1096
.7357
.1727
-.0622
.6550
.3078
-.1169
.7662
.3099
-.1082
.1533
.0145
.2485
-.O027
-.0675
. O588
1.
FTPHC


1.0000
-.8481
-. 1422
-. 1470
.2114
.0723
51.
ETW
.53.54.101-
1O3 STRAT
=V50:81«V36:( 1,2.6.7. 17)»V35>

,6.7.17)*ESC5:OXID
.3357




1.0000
. 1097
.2934
.8719
-.O120
.1632
.5552
. 1545
. 1685
.6115
.1186
.2090
-. 1599
.2033
. 1177
-.O024
-.0897
2.
FTPCO



1.OOOO
.2783
. 1407
- . 086O
. -.O5O4
53.
ETWSDISP






1.OOOO
-. 1O19
.O572
.8746
-.O2B4
.0126
.9603
-.0872
.1661
.9757
.2036
-.2479
.2 ISO
-.0764
-.0898
-.3116
3.
FTPNOX




1.OOOO
-.3536
-.4717
- . 2808
54.
ETWSRTHP







1.OOOO
.2920 1.OOOO
-.1269 --O842 1.OOOO
.DOS 2 .02OO .0523 1.OOOO
.2950 .2668 -.1264 .1231 1.OOOO
-.0851 .1068 .7213 -.O577 .O729
.1929 -.0959 .0156 .7950 .1929
.0359 .2047 2O28 .3118 .3427
-.0854 .0836 .8669 -.0351 .O218
-.1507 .1721 .2415 .3614 -.1114
.1797 -.0957 -.2445 -.1235 .0862
.O2B5 .0903 .1220 .3473 .1655
.5886 .3356 -.1670 -.5649 .OO73
.1741 .3489 -.0881 -.2118 -.3619
-.0595 -.1677 .0432 .1092 -.O649
11. 12. 13. 14. IS.
B1HC BtCO B1NX B2HC B2CO





1.OOOO
.5981 1.OOOO
-.1218 -.0383 1.0OOO
101. 102. • 103.
B1SB3.HC B1SB3.CO B1SB3.NX












1.OOOO
-.1115 1.OOOO
.1518 . 5O9O
.9O16 -.1075
.1619 .3444
-.2211 -.1767
.2377 .29 1O
-.O314 -.5459
-.0990 -.3215
-.3858 .1716
16. 17.
B2NX B3HC









-------
                                               Table  1-10

                                            Active  Year 1981
                                           Three-way Catalyst
CORRELATION MATRIX  <3> TAYR:81'FTYP:(1.2.6.7.17("ESC5:THHEEW

N-  119 OF- 117  R» .05OO- .18O1  RO .O1OO- .2353
VARIABLE
23.0ISP
24. RTHP
1. FTPHC
2. FTPCO
3 . FTPNOX
11.B1HC
12.B1CO
I3.B1NX
14.B2HC
15.B2CO
16.B2NX
17.B3HC
18.B3CO
19.B3NX
3). ETW
S3. ETWSDISP
34 . ETWSRTHP
101.BISB3.HC
102.B1SB3.CO
1O3.B1SB3.NX

18.B3CO
19.B3NX
91. ETW
S3. ETWSDISP
54. ETWSRTHP
10I.B1SB3.HC
1O2.B1SB3.CO
1O3.B1SB3.NX

1.0000
.7212
.3287
.3270
.4438
.2629
.3114
.3544
.1111
. 1524
.3955
.4721
.2231
. 356O
.8931
-.8932
-792
-.1354
. 1954
-.0039
23.
OtSP
1.OOOO
-.0739
.2393
- . 2040
. 1985
- . 3036
-.3942
.0482
18.
B3CO
1.00OO
.4229
.1314
. 1O63
.3894
. 1345
.1779
.2243
. 1221
-.027O
.2855
-.O124
. 1958
.8040
-.5833
-.8637
.0419
. 159O
.0393
24.
RTHP

1.OOOO
.2313
-.3796
-.O705
-.O226
.3936
-.4579
19.
B3NX
1 .OOOO
.3600
-.OO23
.9162
.4902
- . 1097
.6276
.4581
.0279
.9433
.2790
.O376
.367O
- . 2686
-.3276
.1281
-.0326
.0647
1.
FTPHC


1.OOOO
-.649O
-.4342
-.087O
.0985
. 1253
51 .
ETW
1.0000
. 285O 1
.5096
.912O
.0996
.3542
.6241
.3027
.3124
.6260
.2713
.2826
-.315O
.O176
-.0257
.0793
-.0192
2.
FTPCO



1.OOOO
.3749 1
.0888
-.2133
.1119
S3.
ETWSOISP
.OOOO
.0111
.3881
.7546
-O306
. 1031
.8616
.OO76
.O568
.8839
. 289O
.4743
.0862
.O292
.3853
.3599
3.
FTPNOX




.0000
. 1336
. 13OO
.O183
54.
ETWSRTHP
1.0000
.4999
-.O713
.3192
.3231
.O229
.2916
. 179O
.O688
.3027
- . 2390
-.3252
.4042
.0493
.O425
It.
B1HC





1.OOOO
.3136
.0686
101.
B1S83
1.OOOO
. 1714
.2359
.2744
.3735
. 1998
.3029
.3974
.2238
-.3243
-.O208
.0990
.3001
-.0776
12.
B1CO






t.OOOO
-.0993
102.
.HC B1SB3

1.0OOO
-.1278 1.OOOO
-.1126 .4902 1.OOOO
.3734 -.O093 -.0696 1 .OOOO
-.0822 .3890 .29O6 .O682
-.0185 .1999 .7306 .1628
.6986 .0480 -.0894 .6141
.3178 .1682 .2320 .2O76
- 313O -.O438 -.O866 -.4619
.0439 -.1954 -.O1S4 .1761
.O057 -.2058 -.1660 -.0462
.3673 -.0744 -.2924 .2526
-.1025 -.OO48 .121O -.3274
13. 14. 15. 16.
B1NX B2HC B2CO B2NX







1.OOOO
1O3.
.CO B1SB3.NX





1.OOOO
.4047
-.0480
.4208
-.3825
-.0986
-.5727
-.2359
. 1680
17.
B3HC










-------
                                                               Table 1-11


                                                           Active Year  1981
i
M
Un
Three-way + Oxidation Catalyst
ORRELATION MATRIX <4> TAYR:81*FTVP : (1 . 2 .6, 7. 17)*ESCS:TW.O.C
1= 158 DF- 156 R» .OSOO- .1562 RO .O1OO= .2044
VARIABLE
23.0ISP 1.0OOO
24.RTHP .8565 1.OOOO
1.FTPHC .1276 .1891 1 .OOOO
2.FTPCO -.1859 -.O942 .4354 1.00OO
3.FTPNOX . 15O9 . 1 1O3 .1478 -.O645 1 .OOOO
11.B1HC
12.B1CO
13.B1NX
14.B2HC
1S.B2CO
16.B2NX
17.B3HC
18.B3CO
19.B3NX
51.ETW
63.ETWSDISP
54.ETWSRTHP
1O1.B1SB3.HC
1O2.B1SB3.CO
103.BtSB3.NX

1B.B3CO
19.B3NX
51.ETW
53.ETWSDISP
54.ETWSRTHP
IOI.BISB3.HC
1O2.B1SB3.CO
1O3.B1SB3.NX

.3716
-.1O23
.2291
-.0816
-.2329
-.O3OO
-. 1556
-. 1253
.2O7O
.934O
-.9027
-.2887
.0432
.0594
-.0330
23.
DISP
t.OOOO
- . 2083
-. 1373
. 1476
-. 1754
-.2661
-.4796
.0241
18.
B3CO
.3618
-.0564
. 1519
.OO65
-. 1289
.0082
-.0825
-.O434
. 1263
.7903
-.7426
-.6675
.O437
-.O213
-.O437
24.
RTHP

1.OOOO
.2096
-. 1790
. 1O60
-.0954
.0480
- . 5O53
19.
B3NX
.6705
.3390
. O88O
.7813
.3458
.O954
.6426
.2598
. 1656
.1012
-.1389
- . 22O6
-.2179
- . 0968
- . 1065
1.
FTPHC


1.OOOO
-.7736
-.1199
. t651
. 1258
.0293
51.
ETW
.3146
.8309
-. 1724
.3218
.6545
. 1069
.2678
.60S 7
-. 1405
-.1815
.1956
-. 1386
-. 1247
-. 1227
-.0330
2.
FTPCO



1.000O
.3004
.O76S
-.0618
.O443
53.
ETWSOISP
.1527
.OO94
.689O
.1111
-.1195
.7961
.0094
-.1013
.8593
.1681
-.0912
.0536
-.1521
.0325
-.2001
3.
FTPNOX




1.0000
.1239
.2170
.O547
54.
ETWSRTHP
1.OOOO
.4798
.1865
. 1467
-.O011
.0264
.0152
-.0802
.1737
.3842
-.327S
-.1507
. 1826
.2708
-.0360
11.
B1HC





1.0OOO
.3636
.O373
101.
B1SB3.

t.OOOO
-.O742
.1025
.2371
.O963
.0117
.1305
-.0384
-.O846
.0987
-.O395
.0338
. 1995
-.O258
12.
8 ICO






1.OOOO
.0575
102.
HC B1SB3.


1.OOOO
-.0138 1.0000
-.1958 .4854
.2132 .1112
-.O443 .5979
-.1753 .3028
.5192 .1505
. 3O36 - . 1O87
-.1850 .0813
.113O -.1675
-.0533 -.3268
.O981 -.2308
.4294 -.1751
13. 14.
B1NX B2HC







1.0000
103.
.CO B1SB3.NX




1.OOOO
.0149 1.OOOO
.3188 .O748 1.OOOO
.5470 .0968 .4691
-.1329 .5362 -.0326
-.2468 -.O548 -.215O
.2488 .0919 .O473
-.1681 -.0605 -.1451
-.1876 -.1881 -.4868
-.3308 -.0494 -.4271
-.08OO -.3273 .O041
19. 16. 17.
B2CO B2NX B3HC









                       

-------
                                                        Jffi?
CORRELATION MATRIX  <2> TAYR:81*FTYP:(8,9)

N» 43  OF-  41  R» .050O- .3008 R» .0100- .3887
                                             Active Year  1981
                                                    Diesel
VARIABLE
23.DISP
24.RTHP
1.FTPHC
2.FTPCO
3.FTPNOX
11.B1HC
12.B1CO
13.B1NX
14.B2HC
15.B2CO
16.B2NX
17.B3HC
1B.B3CO
19.B3NX
51.ETW
53.ETWSDISP
S4.ETWSRTHP
10I.B1SB3.HC
102.B1SB3.CO
103.BISB3.NX

I8.B3CO
19.B3NX
S1.ETM
S3.ETWSDISP
S4.ETWSRTHP
I01.BISB3.HC
I02.B1SB3.CO
103.B1SB3.NX

1.00OO
.8323
.5772
.4681
.3706
. 1621
.3874
.4225
.1670
.3766
.3413
.3979
.6676
.3030
.8651
-.9667
-.5171
- . 3820
-.3793
.3886
23.
OISP
1.OOOO
.OT«77
.7620
-.9542
-.3152
-. 1633
-. 1456
.0455
18.
B3CO
1.OOOO
.3246
.5247
.4133
.2391
.5326
.4396
. 1046
.4080
.3300
.4681
.6824
.4641
.9066
-.7425
-.7642
-. 1J76
-. 1231
.0350
24.
RTHP

1.0000
.4578
-.2457
-.2425
-. 1254
- . 2O27
-.0728
19.
B3NX
1.00OO
.4O3O
-.0112
.3519
.2564
- . O408
.4320
.4022
.0605
.5228
.4690
-. 1286
.4055
- . 56O3
-. 1292
-. 1903
-.2879
.2078
1.
FTPHC


1.0OOO
-.7265
-.4359
-. 1061
-. 1252
. 1439
SI.
ETW
1.OOOO
-.2542 1
.4388
.9430
-.2172
. 3857
. 9706
-.2576
. 4OSO
.9043
- . 2080
.5968
-.3353
-.2573
.O972
. 1642
-.0595
2.
FTPCO



1.OOOO
.5435 1
.SOO6
.5134
-.4326
53.
ETWSDISP
.OOOO
. 1383 1
.2068
.9121
. 1276
.3333
.8501
.0668
.0529
.91O5
.4279
.3422
.2252
.1702
.2279
.0902
3.
FTPNOX




.OOOO
.0914 1
.0711
.0359
54.
ETWSRTHP
.OOOO
.3826
.1937
.7894
.4670
. 1015
.6457
.3269
. 1513
.2588
.0908
. 1627
.5O95
. 146O
.1646
11.
BIHC





.OOOO
.7511
.2610
101.
BISB3
1.000O
-. 1634
. 1968
. 862O
-.2362
.2459
.8656
-. 1254
.6067
-.2213
-.224O
.2147
.3502
-.1310
12.
B1CO






t.OOOO
-.2O31
1O2.
,HC B1SB3

1.OOOO
-.1612 1.OOOO
-.3156 .4787 t.OOOO
.7531 -.0853 -.3098 1 .OOOO
.0591 .6931 .3945 .O95O
.O199 .2726 .7956 -.0982
.9365 -.1583 -.3097 .7468
.4893 .1389 . 47O5 .3412
-.3786 -.1587 -.2612 -.3355
-.1839 -.O847 -.2224 - . 2O28
-.1991 .1749 .1467 -.1697
-.2588 -.1361 .1992 -.2082
.2755 -.0582 -.0697 .0846
13. 14. 15. 16.
B1NX B2HC B2CO B2NX







1.OOOO
103.
.CO B1SB3.NX





t.OOOO
.5tO4
-.OO67
.4359
-.6135
-.3675
-.2726
-.4341
. 1983
17.
B3HC










-------
    2.    Bag 1  CO correlates  to  the  FTP  CO  better than  Bag  3  CO  for  all
         cases.    The  Bag 1  CO correlation  coefficients exceed  .80  for  all
         cases  compared  to  a minimum  Bag  3  CO  r  of .38.   Bag 3  CO  appears
         useful  for prediction of  FTP emissions for Diesels only.

    3.    Model  year 1981 Diesel vehicles have very  good correlation (r > .90)
         of Bag  1 and Bag 3  to the FTP for both CO  and NOx emissions.  Bag  1
         CO and  NOx correlation  coefficients  are  slightly  greater  than  the
         corresponding  Bag 3  values.

    4.    The correlation coefficients for Bag 1 HC vs. FTP HC and Bag 3 HC  vs.
         FTP HC  range from  .33 to  greater than .91.   Active year 1981 vehicles
         equipped  with  three-way   catalysts  and/or  non-Diesel  fuel  injected
         engines appear unique from the other  subgroups, having Bag  1 HC  vs.
         FTP HC  r values which indicate reasonably good  correlation (r ^> .91).

In  summary, the   correlation  coefficients analyzed indicate  that  'accurate
prediction  of  FTP  equivalent  emissions  from  test   data which  don't   reflect
operation over  the  cold transient  phase  is doubtful. However, FTP equivalent
emissions  can  be  predicted  with  reasonable  confidence  for  some individual
pollutants and  certain  specific subgroups of vehicles.

Based on  the lack of correlation  between Bag  1 emissions and  Bag  3 emissions
shown in  table  1-2 it   can be  concluded  that there  is  effectively no  way to
predict Bag 1 emissions, even assuming that one could computer-model-calculate
Bag   3   emissions  accurately.    Even   if   one   further   assumes   that
computer-model-calculated MPG  values  are  accurate,  any  relationship   between
predicted emission levels (or emission standards) and MPG based on the use of
hot data only is probably worthless.
                                     1-17

-------
           Appendix 2

Calculation Methodology for Fuel
    Economy  Change Allocation

-------
                                 Appendix 2

                        Calculation Methodology for
                       Fuel Economy Change Allocation

The  procedure  for  computing  fleet  fuel  economy  changes  due  to  specific
factors,  such  as system  optimization and  weight mix  shifts,  involves  the
construction of matched sets of data from a base fleet  (e.g. 1978) and  a  new
fleet (e.g. 1979), and calculation of intermediate  sales-weighted  fleet fuel
economy values for  the  matched sets.  Depending  on the degree of matching,
the data  sets  being compared  include only certain known changes between  the
sets,  and hence  the  calculated intermediate  fleet MPG  values  reflect  the
fuel economy effects of only those specific  changes  in fleet makeup.

CALCULATION OF DIFFERENCES DUE  TO  SYSTEM  OPTIMIZATION:   To  determine  the
differences in fuel economy  between the 1978 and  1979 cars  due  to  system
optimization,   it  was  necessary to limit  the  comparison to nominally  ident-
ical vehicles.   For each manufacturer it was established which 1978  and 1979
models  were  identical  in  terms of  weight, displacement,  and  transmission
type..   When   this  was  established  a  new   set   of   sales   fractions  was
calculated, based on  1978  sales  estimates,  using   only those  combinations
which were carried  over from  1978  to 1979.   Two  sales-weighted  fuel economy
values  (SWMPG) were calculated  using  the equation  below.   One calculation
using  1978 model MPG  values  and  1978  carryover  sales  fractions,  and  one
using the 1979 model MPG values, also with 1978 carryover sales fractions.
         SWMPG
                  Jfi(l/MPG1)
         where fi = sales fraction for stratum ig  whose MPG is

The  difference  between the two values  reflects the  change in fuel  economy
due  to what we  have  called  system  optimization.   Since  the weights,  dis-
placements, transmissions - and their sales distributions  - are matched,  any
difference in fuel economy is  due to other factors.  The  main factors which
could  be  contributing  to such a  system  optimization  change in fuel  economy
are:
                                      2-1

-------
o   Emission control system design changes;

o   Engine design and/or calibration changes;

o   Changes in transmission efficiency, shift  scheduling,  or gear ratios;

o   Axle ratio changes;

o   Changes in test procedure which influence  fuel economy.

DIFFERENCES DUE TO TRANSMISSION MIX SHIFTS:   In  the analysis  of  fuel  economy
changes due to  system optimization,  any IW/CID/transmission  combination  not
common  to  both years was  eliminated  from  consideration,  and  the  sales
distribution of  those combinations that were carried over was  held at  the
1978 mix.   If  the  calculation is  repeated  using  only  weight/displacement
combinations   as  the   determinants   for  model  year   carryover,    those
IW/CID/transmission combinations  that are not  common to both  sets of data
are not "sifted out",   but remain in their  respective  data bases;   also, each
of the data bases retains its own sales  split between automatics and  manuals
within the carryover IW/CID combinations.

Again,, two SWMPG values  are  calculated using  the same equation,  wherein  the
first MPG  is  the  harmonic  mean  sales-weighted fuel  economy of each  manu-
facturer's 1978  models in IW/CID class  1,  and  the second  MPGi  is the fuel
economy of  his  1979 models  in  IW/CID class  i.   Both of  these SWMPG values
are based on the same  mix of the  IW/CID  classes  (the  1978 mix),   so the dif-
ference between  the  two is  due to  system optimization plus  all changes in
transmission mix.

DIFFERENCES DUE  TO  ENGINE MIX SHIFTS:   Similarly,  by sifting for  carryover
at only the weight class  level, all differences  in the IW/CID structures of
the  fleets  are  allowed  to  remain.   The difference  between the  two  SWMPG
                                      2-2

-------
values calculated on  this  basis is thus  due  to system optimization,  trans-
mission mix shifts,  and shifts in the  mix of engine displacements*.

DIFFERENCES DUE  TO WEIGHT  MIX SHIFTS:   The  bottom-line  SWMPG values  cal-
culated from the full, unperturbed data  bases,  each with its own sales  mix,
includes all of  the above  effects  plus  the  effect  of non-carryover  weight
classes  and  the  1979  redistribution  of   sales  among  carryover   weight
classes*

Table 2-1 summarizes the above  calculation methodology, and  figure  2-1 shows
a diagram  of  the relationship  between the  various calculated  SWMPG values.
Since the methodology  is  suitable for a  comparison  between any two vehicle
sets  (49-States  vs.  California,   cars  vs.  trucks,  manufacturer  X  vs.  Y,
etc.), table 2-1 and figure 2-1 are notated for the general  case rather  than
the year-to-year case.

Table  2-2  illustrates the  equations  for  separation  of  individual factors
from the combined effects discussed above.
*This also includes shifts in the mix of engine standards/systems;  Federal
vs. California and Spark vs.. Diesel.

-------
                                              Table  2-1

                            Method  for Constructing Fuel  Economy
                            Comparisons  between Two Vehicle  Groups
Configuration
Determinants

IW/CID/Trana-
aisslon Type
                      Vehicle Croup "A"
                                    Vehicle Group "B"
MFC         Sales     Fleet   MFC
Base(apgi)   Base
-------
                       Table 2-2

                       of  Specific  Facto
Percent Change In
Fuel Economy Due To:
Systems Optimization
                            Calculated By;
         x 100
Transmission Mix Shifts
                                    ^  FEBAICT\
                                     '           ' X
                                                      x 100
Engine Mix Shifts
•   FEBAIC \    .1
""  FE^IC )  ~  \
x 100
Weight Mix Shifts
               x 100
All Changes Combined
     x 100
                            2-5

-------
            Appendix 3

Variability Estimates for Emissions
     and Economy over the FTP

-------
To   Karl Hellnan
From John Foster
Re   Test to test variability
25 March, 1981
     Using, similar procedure and the same data as my sensitivity stuay
(see my memo to you of 12 March), I have looked into the differences
between multiple tests on the san;e vehicles.

     For each multiply-tested car I calculated the mean fuel economy,
L-iC, CO, and i;0x 5 for both city and highway test cycles.  I also found
the standard deviations of these 8 means, whicn are measures or their
test-to-test variability.  The 1027 vehicles were taen avera^ea to
find tiieir uiean standard deviation.  lie re are the results:
VARIABLE
l.FECITY
2-iiCCITY
3.COCITY
4.NOXCITY
5.FEHWY
6 .HCHWY
7.COiiUY
8.NGXHWY
it
1027
1027
1027
1027
432
430
361
431

ai;iL.u:i
0 .
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
o.
DIFFE;
3.
1 .
54
1.
7.
RENCE
5360
7460
.477
2800
5660
.43500
11
1.
.709
6720

.i£;u;
.46217
•OfaoGbd
1.0577
.12346
1.003S
.015156
.33817 .
.18613
(AVERAGE)
STD DLV
.4*b,o
.10265
2.0976
.13782
1.C633
.029851
.88500
.22276
     Data base  is  CERT/EPA for model years  1975 to 1982.
                                     3-1

-------
             Appendix 4

Two Variable Linear Regression Plots
     of Emissions versus Economy
(Data from all Model Years Available
 and No Stratification of  the Data)

-------
 -bLu . . ^ ,   ^ ,<. .       ('• *3>222*  2 «2  2 3 •   2   2 2**
 24.OOO   4    (4XXX1X3723 334 22*223  * 2  2 2«*  «*224 •!•* *  *
              43X868(448*52 »2>'312*3 * «*  11*»* 11*4** * *
              41X71X741BB2 2322**2 «*21 1  1  *2* * 1* *1*
          4     XXII77BK433B33  (1* 3**22**« 12* *  *• «   ••
              *(((XX(XB432(374»2*31*1*  •*  4«*2* *2   **2
              *387X7XXI(B37311(311**22*11*31*2  21* *• • •  *•
 1O.OOO   *    *8X1XXX77B24B3277B* B3331 11  3222«*2   •   2 *  *
              48XXX8(4a(7(BB7B323BB(41*41  13** 3*33* 2
             »143XXX7((4((3B7B173B4243B4**34«2»  3 * «*  **1  * *
          4    *44XXXXBX3X1(X(X(XIIB(BBB3 22* 333* *2**2 2  *«  •
               •7XXXXXX(XXXXB7X7X71((3234233*4*43**32 3****3*
               *4XXXXXXX(4X(7(B4B843B*244  3*422 **23   *  **
 18.OOO   4    237XXXXXXXX87(X7aXX8B(3 S3*2*3**322 2* *       2
              •2aaXXXBXBX9X(XX9(XB3BB2*32*2 2**2 * . **2 «2  »2
             **222BXXXBXBXXa9XXBB47  82222* 2 *  *•
          4     (89XX87XXXXXX8B8I81322B* 42 2  *
                S8BXXXXXX9XX747X7BBB *24  3* 3  4     *    *
               •378EBXXXIXX(8B83233«*3* 3  *3* «2 *         *
 12.000   4     22499BXXXXX9BaB2772B*2*     **2      **        2
               24479XXX8B97X7((23»*  2*42   **  *3        *
               *29XaaB8B(4(3222E32432** *****  2
          4      28E4773422 8421*4  *2*      ..*«**   2 *
               * 28*2* 2*23*  3 3B******»*    **•     .  .
                2*2*  *2 * 32  *                       .
 8 . OOOO   4      2* *    *223 *•
-SCATTER PLOT       M* 4SB9 OUT OP 5753   1 1 .UMFC VS. 2.FTPCO
UMPC
 4O.OOO   4  ***
                               *
                •              .
         *  * **  *       3
               2*   .     ««
             •.  *      *
 36 . OOO   *  **2*     *        *   *
            ***22**         *
           . «  >  *»2 «               •«
         4*.32.               **
            .2 <  .   .  »2   «2      .       •
            2*23*.      ...       *           .
 32.OOO   4   s 3«* > . 323      >    «•    >    .
              .2*2*2 * *     **2*  :  .   3       •
             2* 2* *2  2    *   •   *             *                                             A
         4   .*423*3* 23*2*2**     *   *         *
             3432*2 *3 2**2***  22     ««  '«         •
              42242 »B22* •**      *  *2  2*   2    .
 21.OOO   4 2  6B*e332*2*2* «    2**   2 *  *22«* »   ...
            *3i42S3S4B*3 3223.        2   * 2«*     «**  *           .
           *2S9B»S 223*3* 33*2       » 4**««2 • 33.  .
         4   7S732B*43*B*222*2*   3*  3 «* » •   **«2   «  »   *.*'•     «
            *44X8B463283*423*23*««32 * *22> *2 **3*2 .     .     .  *.               .
             489997>«43B333»3  *   2*2*3 2 23  *>*»2  .**«*  .
 24.OOO   4   9X74XX487B3242  >3*32*2«*33*23***2*3 *2* 2  *                                       .
             4BB87374B42344*342*4  *2 2234. ***2B**  22*   '
             S8(73333B9eS2S*3»  2*  2  2*4*3*»22 2*2*   >           «
         4   BBB4B48B337BS34322432 *2222** 2* 23 *•* «   «            «   «
             898B433787BS4S44S2>  ***B3  242 >3** *•  ...  2  **   .
             S97X(44BB77 733 53*3*443824*3 22222 2*  2.     3*
 20.OOO   4  *8XXX8XB777B4B42>3*442*3*4S2S423> *3>  ...4      .  >
             4e76»4KXX82S977B*4S2334*334 4*«2 « 1* *»233*  *2  >2     •
             *28B9BXXa4B5BS588233S4B4*4B42*«4*2B*2*2> »   « 2              *
         4  28BB73X8X8X2478273BSX8BB79X4Bea*4232> 232**   3* «>  .» .. >
            2479XXX7XX88B8X7X2B94BB848S74B374«34»*S3*42    3 2**» .      «•
             447BBXXXXS882*B874S42BB374623B2*22*2* 2*3**2**2*2        >
 IB.OOO   4  4BB83IXBXXX47a877XXBB943732BB >*3*32322   2**3* 2  « •«   «»     .
            4S778X974XXXB83a8(375B334S832B2* 722 *32*3**2  **  .  .    .        «     .          .
           *433977X98S79X547S7543«42232323432*«*82**> >3*2 »  2   > * 2    ...
         4  22B979X887BB86XXeX2X79a2524*3>752* **E >*2332>  2   '»>         >
            223BB59XX99928X898X85B93292332243. 2223**'    *"     *     * *      .    '
           ***3BB37B373SBX5S3B2B>58*72332 23 223*. 2* 2>  2    *                              .    .
 12.OOO   4  .. 49BB467987B5B4B9E3622**44S35 **223 3   3  2*     ...                            .
           * .22372X897X9836288475232*4*2**. 2* 2  *».  2*       «  «
              32BB57434324S8S  52B3«22232«* «*** « .2     *                   .
         4   *2*B*23*32343433342   533*32> *'  2*»           >             >        .
                » 2 222 2«23*4««  4*«««2«  2   242"
             * 2 2*22***   *  2  *
 8 . OOOO   4    ..  3* **   *«•*     .*
 4.OOOO    4
                           6.OOOO              12.OOO              18.OOO              24.OOO    PTPCO
                 3.OOOO             9.0000              15.000              21.OOO              27.OOO
                                                          4-1

-------
(SCATTER  VAR*11;3 INTERVAL***..4OIj-SCATTER  PLOT       N* 4112 OUT Or BTBS   II.UMPG »». 3.PTPNOX
UMPC
 4O.OOO   *                       *2
                                                                            DATA-BASE  IS  CERT/EPA
                          •         •*  2**  *       *           *
                      * *  *  *   2 2*                    .       *
                         •    *    *2*  2   ••    *  *•        *
                   **     *   *      **2* *   *    • ** *
                 2* ** *   *3    **2  * *2   * **  2*     *
                2*     2      «  *  '*    **  **2 2**2
                        22*     *•   * » •    •*   **          *
                      •• ••••    •••23* 3  33 •• « ««•• «
                •   *•  •••••  2  * **22* 3*24* ***** *   *         *
                      • 3 B**  * *** *2*  2 4 *23   3**  * *
              »  32*    3   «     ***3**33322S*B****23 *     •        •
           »2      * 2*33*2**  2* 24*3  4223243* 3 4*3*3*               *
           •2  ***2   24 *2 3* «*««*2*2*2*2 2 4 42*42* 4** *  •* **2   >
             •«  *4   2 42»* •  222332* 3224322*S*4242**  2 *****           >
               *232*«2  2442*  33*242422 7233**3 1443*4233* 2*   2*       *
             •33*.* 22 13 **22 22*3 44*1232373*22123 22* 2* 2   * *2     • 2  *•  «
            2 3  4*3**4 22* 222*4*3434««2B2I*I32* 233*t23* •• 22** 322**«2 *   *    2
              «*2 •*  *2*2323«*3I24t3432433222*73S*2222*2*22*  •«»***    «
             * *    2*3 *• 3**3423*B44I234I**I*34222***3* 2*3*3   .  * * *  *
            •3>**2» *2 2  4* 3 **24S(473374l*e23*(43324«*224*       *  * *
            •2*3**  **3*B**322*S*2B343SIS3*44S2S44B34*» 23 *2*    •   ** **
             »  ***2** 2233524.. 3224S 374BTB73S433B334B2*22***    * * *         »
            •22  233 2 3BBS2*  34321B14I3 SB4427BBB34II43 2*2*2 * 2  * *  2
            4 2B* 3 3*»372* 42244 (BBB3(BB*44X2>B44*242B42343*2 *2 22  *  *    *
           •3*323*2 **342*33212B*4341E242BB74((44E3323*3713**2  «*24*    *«     * *
              «.. •  22*2BB3S4S3!4B341l7BBB7BX42Xt74l437e43I4332*24*2*3» .  2*  «  »
            *3  * 3 2 •32234S32S44X732278BB7X8XSX7BXBSB8244424233222* 2   *22 '   4*
            »» *2*»*B2*432 •»  244B822BB33XSSX83BEBSX348B3.B3E3**  **• «  2 2  2 .
            *•  2B  *4*2322 42E7S2747BX3XBB84BB378BSX74SB2742232> « «     « 2    *
            *   2**22344*E33B2*B*3323«2B8XB7XXSB8X88B78B2B33223B4  »3   *> 22*  2*
               *. 2« »   2 *B**2BSS23B3B73BBXS4SE8S73434B32 4B242* * *3 2*3 * >    .
            *   ««  • «  *3*2S123> 4432X3StB2XBX2XXXB8477Ba2*4E3322»B*2  2   ....
                      .••2 2  443EBSBBB7ES4X78BXBXBBB78348B*233B*2 * 3  2*
               *       *     2 2*4*B BBX3BBB1BBBB334B43333B4.2B*2B*2 •   2**
                          ' *2B*4a34E87SS9B3BBB8B334*23B*3 23*. 42 "2  .2. ••  *..
                           **2322B223I B*7BBBB4434*SE*3B24**4232*3*233 2*>*>  *
                         •   *32 * 4B42*B2S3*3232323 2*224*B*4*2*23*2 4**.  >  2
                      *>      . 44 E 32*4*3 3***23'42B2*222 22 2*' >2   >*
                                 «" «3  3333*3 «2*.«.  2« «« «•••  ... «2 •
                                  ..  2**.*3*.  *  .    2
                              .    . .3...2*        .*
                                                                                        PTPNOX
                                                                                        3.BOOO
(SCATTER VAB«12;« INTERVAL « ( 1 O , 4B I ; ( O . O . B I > -SCATTER PLOT       M.  4O 1 2 OUT OP B7B3  I2.HMPC VS.  4 . PEHC
HMPC
 4B.OOO   *   *2*      *  ••    •*             *
           .  •• 2*         * *
           ..4......
         »  '2442 •*
           .3 224 32*.                    *
           22*42  ...             .     .                        ...
 42.OOO   + .2438*22*.                                                     ..  *
           *6S 28. .  .2*   *                       .                      ...
          .33*382* ...            .                       .         2**..
         » S42SB2*  2 «                                                        '           .
           264434. ....           .        .         .        .         ...
           32443*4* **2  *                          *       *
 3D. 000   « 4327534 »««      .......               .              ,
          .28874422*2*2  ...      ..                        ...     .             ...
            78BB4 '222   ...             2                     »     «            •   »
         «. 38X8422 >2"3*   ....           .         ...         .               .
           3878724432*22*        ...                                   .      .               .
           748BE333223 24   >  2"  « «          •            ...                   «     .
 34.0OO   •X8X78BB34433*  S2  «3  «  •    «  .2  «               ...
          .BXX4424S34. .....2*2  2.. .......    .     »2*    *    2       .4
           XBK874382 *7  ..2** 222  •    2.     ....    ..    *       ..
         * X8XX66B3B. .223****  • 2 ..2.**.   *   3    «       .           .                .   .
          37XXX48BB3* 2*42   *    *  22*** .           **     *.      .*•*
          2X8X973234.2*. 3  «*«2   J     .« «          ...        .        .         .
 30.000   «3XX8X8B7S43*22 ««2 >  32   >*'     ......   J                        .
          4X4XX94B727B2' *3 *•  3 » 2 23*..   .....  J                        .
          .XXXB8SB2 3.32*   33*  22 « 3  12 «2                 «    »         «    «
         *2XXXBE494B>>4  4 "4 322*    3*.  2 «  «          *   *     *
          48BXXX74S3 73* "4 ...32     ...»2      «   •       >'             >
          .XXXXXXX747 2  "  32*  » 2 «     •      « »                     >
 2B.OOO   +3XXXXXX48B42..4*.   »2»  •      .  *    *  ...     .                 .
          OXXXXX7373323 2*222  «   2                        *
          2XB8'BXXBB2B3.  26*3 ...   ......               ....
         +2XXXXXX7884B82.4B* 23*  ....    .2           .2**>    *
          2X8XXXXX8433B2 «2S3*3 2  >2   2>    2***>    22      . «
          373BXXXB7XSB3  2243**2 «   « 2    «        .            .  ...
 22.000   43X3XXXX48B2743822 * 2"  ••  22  >>'  ....           .
          278XXXXXB484.3. • 22*>2  .... ......                                <
          . 4XXXX3XB8923323'**   ....       .       .     *
         *«479XXXX7XB8X274 2* .2*2     •  '2* ...                                 .
          2»9XXXXXX3XBBB423**2     •      "
           2.XX7B8XS48S23.     ' 2  •     *           2«    «     '
 18.0OO   4-»34XX»8X9BBB'2.2'22» ...                       ....                       i
          '798XXX9XB2424 23   ....    .
           59XX&X635..3 2*..*         2 .                 *  .                          .
         4.28XXXXBB23* «2  •• • «  2*  *    *                  «                       .
           .4X8X82844*8* .......          >                         .            .
           37877322*2 ....                                •
 14.0OO   « S4.8S32  3      *       »           *
           2*422**  ...       .
           3« «   .
         » 2      «
                         .20000             .40000             .60000             . 8OOOO    FEHC
                .100OO             .30000              50OOO             .7OOOO             . 9OOOO
                                                     4-2

-------
(SCATTER »AR*12;I INT1RVAL•<1O,49>;S342** 2*  *3      •    • «           *•  *
          XSXSIS3S(3* *2  «2 3*  *  9    •    2   *3  * *  ****       *  *     *
          XXIS4SSSS3**2  «223   *   *   * * * *  •*•   •          «
         4XS7SX7S4SS *B*  2  **2«* *2    *••   «   • 2  •   •                   **
          XX79SBB34S3 2*  2  ««•»«•«*•     •*                    *
          I4IS3644S32*2*    2*    *    3  ••**  *•  *          2        *•
 30.OOO   +XXXXS9B744* 2*3*  221    ******        •« *  * *                                 ft
          XXXX6497BSB **B22* *2 **2    *****    •••   •*•    •
          XXIf«7BB34422»  ••*»**•*••             •            •» *
         +XX74BI4I37B **24*    *•  *•*  * *  * 2**»  2* *   *
          XX*XB*B2B2B4 *•
          XIXX444B6O 3   33
 2B.OOO   »XXXX7BB3B 44*33  2*
          XXXXBB742B*43  **2
          XXXXBBS3332223*2**
                                   2 2
                                ****2*   2**     *
                           4****     *2*     *
                             *2 *    2      **• *  •
        +XXXSSX74*4432**42»* 3   *   *2 **3**>
         XXXXB4B7B3 *34*2  23 32  »3  * *         *2*
         XXX6XB47B22**24 * *  2*   *  **• *  *• *    *
22.OOO   +XXXX94X3E 3323 3* 2 *2*2* *  *4 « 2  2  *  *•
         XXXX3B76*32233» *2     2 «   *      *    2
         XXXBSX74B*3 *  **  2**3 **«2 • « «    «*  •*
        •XXXXS6SSB*2S*2 2243* 35   • 2** * *       *
         XXXX«37I43»4*  223 2   *2*2 •*
         XXXX1B*233*3*2« 3*   **  **• *      •      »
H.OOO   »XXXX7634*24  « **2  2 »   • « 2
         XXXXXX232*2»3*»       *       *  *
         XXXB843*3  * *    *•        *  *    *
        »XX6XB43***2*   ** 2 *  *     * 2   * *•
         XXXBB3B4   » 2    « *          «  •  «
         3857522 3  32*    «  *             *
14.OOO   *S942222    * *        *
         B3**2*«*                      *
          4  »
                                                                                         PECO
                                                                                         B.OOOO
: IO. tS»- SCATTER PLOT      N. 4O4B OUT OP B7S3  I2.HMPC  VS. B . PECO
HMPC
 46.OOO   «3  *32          •
          23  2       *
          2*3 32         *
         *282*«   «       •
          B44    *2«*         *
          334**  ***    *   *        * *               *
 42.OOO   *8433«*  2 •   *    *
          XB«S2    ««         2        *    «  »
         .963  23*»«     •     «*»«                 *
         «BX232*«   *        «   « »
          XX46*     >  **>  *»   **2
          9B4B     «  *2
 38.OOO   + 8X  74 «*    2  *»  *     *    *
          X747SS  *« «22*    2«
          XX6B23  *   *3          2                                                      «
         «XXE4B22 *    ***   *   «  2  «      *    •
          XX2643*2 2   *•   **
          XX2X44 *24*    **   **
 34.OOO   +XXSXXK*223   « **      2*
          XX9XS32223**2  *  2  3**>  3*   *«  *
          XX7XX23 83 * ******2  *     «
         +XXXXX46 3*4 3  *** *****  *          2
          XXBXB63*2* *»• *« « »   2          >
          XX669B3  2> *  3*2«**>    2   >*
 30.000   »XX6X943334  »»2*  *   *»**»                 *
          XX7XXB*6S*222  **•**'** ****  *                           *
          XX4XX73 2 *« 2 «« * *      «      2»
         »XXBX9X*44 **2***« 322**  *                                *                         *
          XXBX6X2* *> *3 2* ***» >  >   > *  >             •               *
          XXXBX43*5«** *22   ***   *    *    *
 26.OOO   +XX9X7B433**  223  22   *  «*  2     *  *
          XX7XBX3 4 5**2  « 2*  «  **           « ««
          XXX9B7S222*3«   2   3* «"•?»         *
         »«XXX5S««7»3 •  3*232         2    >          >                              *
          XXXXX262344**3**    *3 2*   *2**  *              »      »              *
          XXXeX444»*»2 *2*> 2*  >  '          *         *           »
 22.00O   +XXXX65B*3233***4*2 2* 2  *                  *      >                           »
          XX5XXB6*3  2*  *   * 2   »                                      '
          XXXX94*«3232*3 2  «***  >    >
         •»XX9X974 B426 >3***   •  «   «   •
          XXX6X7*2S2 3*3*          «                              *
          XXXSBB4*4 ***2>   «  «           *
 IB.OOO   +XX6X3B* 4 2* "2
          XXKX444*   *   *  *      *    *
          XX763**  2    «  «  «
         »XXX724  *3» *   >2 *2
          XX7X2*2  **     *«*    *  «              *
          XXB43*5 * *      *
 14.OOO   «XB21 **    >                     •
          9 «»2 2*          «
          32                         •
         »«    2
          2 •»
 10.000
                         4.OOOO            B.OOOO             12.0OO             IB.OOO    FECO
                2.OOOO            6.0000             10.OOO             11.000             1«.OOO
                                                      4-3

-------
j(O.4.I>>-SCATTBR PLOT       N« 4OII OUT OP ITII  12.MMPC  V«. I.PINOX
HMPC

 *• 00°   *       .       ..  '  '      ,.'   	  "  *    .       *   '  .           DATA BASE IS CERT/EPA
               2   *        *            * 2      * * *       ••
          *     *   2*  4  ***             *     *          **                    *
                *   *   *     *    •      **2  *  2***   2*   *  *
               »2   *•*    **     •      **   **2* *   **      *      •
 42.OOO   »*2      •      2     2* «•••••    2         • «2     «*2
                **  *•     *  2*      • 2 2  *   2*2**   2**   *        2* «      *
             •*•   *    * 3*   *    » *    • »•  32      * *••    * * * *      •   2   *
          ••2*     * *••*  *     *• *      **2 *3   *  *2      2* * *
            •  «2*2    2*     • «   «    «32*2 *22 2«32««2««,   •       «
            * 2     *    •** 2 ** *.  ••**•  *• 22 *  *2  * *
 36.OOO   «••  * *  *2   * .  —2-'—*«   2  3  2**2*3 22**     *   **      *       «      •      *
           • 2  *__.*  *--2"*«   2  2* 2   4* 2*2* 2*** *2* * 2*  2 2*  2*                 •   «
            « »~ ~  « 2     32  2   ««3«*«*»4» « 2* «•    • 2»«»*     «  •  ««                «
          *•  ****** *4*  2* *3  4*** 3 3*   2   *2 »*2 *    * 23 *•* • *•  « •    •     * *           *
           **  32**3 3*2    **2**« 342 4*22**** 2****      •   2 • •   •   •
            2«* 4   » 6    »  « 3 *3 **   2»*3 • 2222**2222*  >2 •  «  « •  »•  >         «   »  •
 34.OOO   «*2*«*«2« 222  I**23*33B 243***3 4 2 32** «t 22  *3   •   •      •   ««
           »  2  233  22***  2*2T**24SI312*3122*22232  22**2*« «» « •     «    » «  •
            3** 232 22*  *32*2226*43* «««27 **I2 33 3   «••» 4*4        *       >
          »24*   *•  2*22   * **2«3424* 3*143f2**22B22*4 22 * «    • 2*  • «      »  •« *    *
           »T***3  *• *2   «  2*2*32I32I2B«434233«2*  *•   *2    «* *      •        •          2   * •
           »S * **3** •  «*222»  224*43*432*2322 3 3*2  3* « • »•   *          »•*      * •
 3O.OOO   »32**2**  *»2   *32344222B2B3343BS3B  2 3 2 • 32 3*  •«* *  *•          •                  •
           212  *44  2 3 ** 2  242223I347I*32>3*24»*3**4*3 * * 3*** 2 2 *   ***2          *    *
           •322  2*22    2*3*23*(2**222*3B3»3*  *242I**22  *« J* «  2* *          *         *
          »*43  22322****  *3  2*3> »32432244*43I234» 222   » * *2*  2  «   «2  «               «
           2t*  3*4  4 *2   24332B 3234132*333333222*2322 *2  4 *  2  •     •     •
            B22»2*2**243*22232444*74*XB3243B22** 33***» 2 4* *3 * 2 *» >       2     **
 21.OOO   »2B3  *1*3 **3*24B* 2'2626425*422224333326*  • 2*** ** 33*  «••«   * *         •
           •323*BI  2 «   *33723B33 2B44443122333 *3**222*•••*23 *  •**
           232*2**  22 S  *3 *32*4 *  4»I3*734221444223434*     *  2**    *2  *  *         •   •
          »4   42  32 33224B*432»33BBT*44T7t244*42B433S*22332»2  »•  « ••
           24*»342 >*3232*S  32>933«4«*323S33BS2I44224»*2 S2   3 3*  •  »*   • «    *
           2 3* *24322**232«23**8334«4*t447(*34B3233* 2 •»«*«  «2 2           *
 22.OOO   * 2*2 *333*3*  2>2S B473*B3*2B7I4233B«B*233B2B** I 2*  »**32> 3      «  •
           2*** 2** >*32*42S2«3*3322B**2Be3B222«43B3*223*2*3*2» 22 «*2    •      *
           *2***3*   • 234 21*2*3**  422B43B3*3*B4S34624*2*2 2 2*    ***   • «* 2  •         •
          * .  . ••  * 2 **21322*2*432C24eBSeB*Slt3I4  >S4344*34 *2«  2*'   «  >  •  2      »      •**
           •      *•   3  222*22»3*B2322»3333ltB273a23344223 *223 *2****  **«   2
              « «    2* **222 **  22  423227B46234S233**32»*2**3 ****•**«  <*  « • •       2
 It.OOO   ••             *2«3222* 24443244*2(423722*4 2* •«3* * *« 33* • «3  *        «  «  ««  •         «
                       4 »2 2BI2 23B43*324423S444B3**2222   *3**2*4    *«  **   »»        2   **   •
                    »  »2  *• 2 243>  23424232*22224 2*2242*3*2 •  2 «  2« «2     *•             •
          »        •     2*  «B> 3»24»  3 3323*2 **B331*> B>32» *2* *2>     2   « « 2 22*        •«    >
                          > 2 22*3  >*444322B3 2 2*2 42 3    3 >*•*    3  >3>    **   »            *  .
                  *    *     «3 22  *«>2  22*3***  *2 2*"** 22*  2 *                •         •
 14.OOO   *  •         •   •*       22  2***  2  22*  **2 »••*     *       *               **
                     *       ***     *•  *•    2***              •*•              *
 10.OOO
        O.                  1.0OOO             2.OOOO              3.0OOO              4.OOOO    PBNO»
                  .BOOOO              1.BOOO              2.BOOO             3.SOOO              4.BOOO
 -SCATTCP. PLOT       N*  21IB  OUT OP B7S3  13.CMPC VS.  1 . PTPHC
CMPC
 46.OOO    *     *            *
              • > 2* *
                3 •     2 « «        «        «
                «*2           «                                                               »
              •*2****  **      *
                2*32             »            **          *
              *222*2*2     * *                         •    *
               22*2**2   •»            * *         »
            ****2*2***   *                     *
              2 23*22   «*  «    «*           •  2
              •233*3*3* 2*2 «•         •     «»»«2
             24*  *34***2«-     ••    *2»   *2*2*    *
              8433.4 2«3    •     «2    ••«     ..3      >
             •3676  232 23* •     **3>          2 *4      •
              347737»«S2   • «23  «•••••          ...
            • 3B7S2* 4*4*4 2*  3  ••     *•  •• 2       •  •   •*
            •344SI74 8*2 2 2**>*  «2* 2   2«*>*  •»  • •  •••
            •325*435462 2322*  •  t •» •    22 •   2>      •    •
             »2864742>63***«*    * ••*  •••  • •  >*2 •••
             3S8S7S7462233232»«2«2   «3    2 •*  ««2 2«
             •2663674 S32»*4«*  22««4*« *•••  2*  «  »  •
              27 SB46 642332**  •••    *2«* ••• •   »      ••
              355«776B>  422*****    • 2  2« 4«« 4»         »
             2««3>7767432>33336>" «••«•«   «2« «    •
             • 62X66436*2S4**4  >  >B2222 2> 3   »«•  2      *
             • 36»974*22622322>  2 24> 3* 23* *2   • •    •
            **22XX6B6642*4643   3  «32*2S '23-32   •  •••     *           •
             2*3tf4475242443743B26»3*4>*» 3** *• ••    '      >
             "SXXXX264446S3B963363644 22  • 32  *2*2«>   •*«
               46X4SBX2&6486B7466224 2***3      *44    •  2
             •*867369463S684435723S2 *2**»    « •  ««  •       •
               358X6797923337366532  »222  22 >• '
              3345XX757738485463532**2**2«  «3  •      »
               •3S6X4*67X5636S334S   42 >*  •  •
               *23>9X797X78X72434522»* *2  2  «
                276274XX946663663422** • ••      «   •    •
               •*3625464469X*3333242 *2    2*  2
               «23S866XX«X5643>2322  2         •         *
               235397884424S3S4»3 2**2«2    •  4                                 >
                33327662S73422*2»*22 "2                      •
                •25445*23*342*2*4  «2*   *    *         •
              •  4*322*  «*2*22*******            •  •
                •3« •  2 3«22   2«                       •
                   2  •    •  «

                           . 6OOOO              1 . 2OOO _.           1 . 6OOO             2 . 4OOO    FTPHC
                 .3OOOO             .9OOOO              1.SOOO              2.1OOO              2.7OOO
                                                          4-4

-------
 -tCATTER 'LOT       N*  2111 OUT DP (7(3  13.CMPC V*.  2.PTPCO
CMPG
 4I.OOO   »   • «
                                                                                 DATA BASE  IS  CERT/EPA'
             •* * g**      •      *     *     •
                • *••                *
            •    **   •*  a  2   *                    *         *
               «   '      2                              «         «
              2* *    *                *
             • * * •               *•*                   2*
                * **    *                         *
             ** **2       •   •   •*               •
                 • 3**    *    •        *      «    *    *
              *    *•  82      *    *    *  •*                    •  *
               ** 2  3    •  *••  *     •  * *                 •
              * 2 »  2  * *          *•*            •••
            •   * 2*2** **3      *            ••*                   •*
                    *••( **3*  2** **   •    * *      •  *    * *• *      *
               2*2* «•* «J «*3    *22* *              *       *3  *   3
               243332  2   •  •«   33 «      *     **   *       * 22 •  •
               2***24**2***>   •••3*2     •   «    **«2     • •       2     2
              • •4*4 23242 2124  «•••      «••  2   >   * 2        «  ••       *
             •••(23*24*2* 2 22    2 «3 2 •«  *2  «2  *2**2  •*  *
              24«S22(*24*442*»3*222«3 **2    •« ««»2  «• 2    2 •«     « 2
             *»(2*42342*** «24***2   * 2* *2 •• «     2> 2*  *    2 2*
              •42> 32*4*3*3«*4******  3«  ••   «3 « « « • «    •••2   «  «•
              •*34(22232*27«2322> 22»*42    2>   3«« «4«  *«2 • 2*  2      •
              *373*42*23*3* *«22  «4*2*«  2 •«   *233«  3  «««•««     . J
               33*>3»  422B**3B   33 « 2« *   • • 2*2   •*•
              «•• 3(42«4(>l  3323*222' *2 » 2  >*2*2*   2««
              • 3(43 27«*2*43«*««2««»«2 «2 « ««2« •   2«  2
              ••33*2333432 232 «232(3 >2«
              ••••2643*7839  4«*2223*  **2  >2 2""222'  22*3
 •«22
>      • •     *2
                                                              2*
              2223(22*4874222433234*2223 •  • 4« * 2342E*  3  2* *•   «2«     •    *  *
            •  2 424' 325*4343*  2«2*4 3223*24(*3>*2*  4  3   2* 3*  2  2 »• •        2
             »3 S4724(3B2«((3322*24232B22(*4*6*3*2*422**2  3*23** 22 ** *  *2      2**    •• ••  •
                3442S(*4743  3433*4847*3232  224 324**4* 3*2*2** *2* **22   *   *     *  *
             **232234**2»32(23*2334>* S22>3 43  3*222*322    *2»  « « *2  ••   *2  «2 * *            *
              •22 2428*14352*6 22*4*41** >2*23 *  3**2  3*  **•* 2*2 *     2»  •      • •      •
              2»3««4**33 1*334453222 *33 2 8 22 • 32  >42 2«2>     «2 22*     «2   ••  ••
              *32 83*25(23 35*2   32*242B*322**4*  •    32*32  *   2 ** «•*   *   2*   *     •    •  •
               4 2(*2*43224*2*4433S>3324242422» *4**2  ***24*2 *  **32   «  •  «    2    •       •
               •*>337382*33254«23353322324«4«7** 33 ***2** «3« *    *2*  •     *     *
              • •**4« 33«25  242344735» 432> «45  *   «22   •     ««2      •     •
              2*«*543R333*«23733*4323 3*32**4«2* 2**2*  2 »•    * 22    •   «              •    •
              •• *2233*53452254«  432*2 222*  32** ••  *   • «   2«   » 2«                 *
                 •••32** 34*842   5*242 3*  *22 22 * *   **   •    ••     *•  •   2   «
                •••43* 4* •  22*2  3332* •  2 * 2** *•   ••   *      2
                   **   •    * 2*2222  • *  **  2* ••  •    2      •  •• «•
                 • • 2** **    2    2    2* •  •   *   *              •
               *            * * •       •
            ---+----*--••*-•»•*----*----*----*••-•*•---*----*----»----*----+----*••--*•--•«----*----+
                          4.0000              t.oooo              12.000              n.ooo    PTPCO
                 2.0000             g.oooo             10.000              14 ooo             i«.ooo
13:3 INTERVAL*<1O,4*>;IO.3.»>-SCATTER PLOT       H« 2(*S OUT  OP  5753   13.CMPC VS. 3.PTPNOX
CMPC
 4*. OOO    *                        •     •
                 •2                     •          *
                •*•**    *•     *•   *           •
                *•   «    *          »   *•*»»**
                          • •       • 2* • **•*   2     *•    *      *
                       *    *      «  2* * *  2'     ***2
                2***      *»*     *2  **                  •
              *         4*  *   2      *   2*2 ••    •  •  •
                 •2     •* 2  *     • *2**22 2*2 »    3    2    •••
            *   2« * » «       • * •••• 2«* 3 2*>  *  42  ••          2
            •    2   » «  2  *•  *•  «*3 2**   3«* 2  3*»   3   «•   * «        »
            ••  *     *322 ••   **22 4**422 • 2*   222*«*  2 *        »   »
            •  •• *2* **3«*2    * •  242  •2**323***  **2  •        »3 •*      •  •    *
            t  * »2   ••  4«>*   2  2* 22«*3 • *22*2224*2*         22***         •
              2*2 •  * 33**  ••*4«*533*«*2 255 *«S3*««  •• *  •*  **2 « *         *
              2  «3 22  »    *   22*43*2422  *2223*2>*«22  **2 >        «•    •      •
            «   »    «»•* >  2  > 42»  23*255322 «2223»32   **        »  *  *
            .   «• »2 2  22«5«3*242B242*2*43333344  3«  *   •»•• 2     >     *
             • 2      >*3«>  •**  2 23822 356*'22222****  3>32 *»              «
             2       ••*3*«*2   *2*S 3«4*•••••42B*2*3*  *  * 3     «  «•    *  *
             > 22*  •••3*234  2  •   22'2* 42222*233  •••2222422*••  •     2           •
            22'  22* 2*2 ••«23224«43*»2322B57423«2425 «  «•     2
             2  • 2    2223*3   32  322««4>2 234«8332444*222222  .    « •          »
            4«2*» • *   44 *42* •  S«54 S43 7262225*•«4«22  • ••*     2  •          •
             >3«. 2»*2>2> 2*3542*3«2232242T>44245443«  «34  «2   •••   *•      •      «*  • »
               2»   * 2*3«   »2«*23«33 3533S4344722«232443«3«•  «22>     **22   •    •
            »• •  3 2 32 *22S  •4«464««4B*46S9K44754S4*3434*3« 22**2* •*    «  *•     •   »
             2  **•  • 32«*23  > 35222434»2B433*47S449*2734B* 22> « •  •    2  *•     •    •
                24«> 3  2»3«*2344  322* 4S334644 *34892234  4»22 •            <    2
            2    "3 2»3 >6   3*242««43B44933»33BB47332*  332  »     •            •
            •   •  2 2«2 2  5*224*5*3** 64 337358363544324 2*» 33 « « «  ••  2    •       ••
                ••      *««*3   2324 24 22432634229X32444322 3>   »  »   •*•  • •  «
                  •         *>2 2»3 23*2244«97X267S7424S«23 24* «  2    3  *   *     *
                               22  244245433 84346482833242432 *2»2  3«    2      *   *
                       • •«  •  3    322»43>3>S4244*S223332«»42» 3222 22    2
                             •  2 3342474465*33425232*33  42  2  3 2« « «   «    •*    ••
                              •2*  5 4 4*655325523822 3*3423*34 2     >     ••    »   •  »
                              ••2*   33*2«524*8»3*«23««**  2 3*2   22"  *2  »   «     • * •
                          «     «•  3 2S»» «*2  3 «*2«»3«22«« 3 2«"«3    2               «
                        *         3   2 «3  «2» »2*2*   '  *   *     •»«  «2  «        •
                                      *3*****23      *2  2   »
                                   .       2«          »
            ----+•-••+-••-+----+•--•+••••+--•-*-•••*•---*•-•-*••••+••-•+•-•-+••-•+•••-*•-••*•-•-+----*
                           .800OO              1.6OOO              2.4000              3.2OOO    FTPNOX
                 .4OOOO             1.20OO             2.0000              2.8OOO              3.6OOO
                                                         4-5

-------
 (SCATTER
 UMPC
 28.ooo
         V4«*11;l  CA»E*«All INTBRVAl«10,xa> ; 1O.•I>-SCATTER PLOT
                                                                     N» till OUT Of III?  II.UMPC VS. 1.FTPHC
                                   2* 2
                                                    *2
                                                 2
                                                *•
    "" 2* *      *
•    2223  *•  32   **
   "232 * 2*   *     * *
   • 2432"23* •  « «
 •**44**22*2**3*  *24 2   *   *
 * "322423"4"32 »*2 *2* 2    *
  •323 2*2 32242*** 2*22   2 *   *
 32'634> *3S2Z2*  • " * " 3 *
  2394*222'22 2*43 22" *2   2
 *• 332   «2223«"2"2 *2   2*2
  • 732*3*  *3"3>B*  * 2*  • 22
  S422 • 3 *3 2*24*2" * **   32*
 '242286   3"3232« 322"  4***  «
  »»2422*3S*2244  3*2" * «2"  *
 • 2*3  432*4««*233 2'2" 23"   *
 232*4"22 '423«"2222 2* "  2  «*     * * *
 • S3 442*2*4   4  *3*2*3"«  * * 2*2  "2  * 2
 542*2"*6 2323   2*242 3*'«"  »   *  *• • «
• 4625*23244*2'     B"*" 3   ••*     •  *•  2
 374437249 32322*4*24  322*  • *3" "2
 38B23*232"333  *•* *2*2 «223»2«*   *
 48242*33*"22"33' *3222*2*   *  *  *  * * *
229712832*2" *«..*4*  '22*222 *2 3 ••*  •
 374B443B"3  22  «  2  " 4"22 •   •  •
 8B3774'232**433* 22  222*** 32***  "
 BS3BXI22'32B"*3"2 •••••••2 *2  ••* *»   *
• X8I88B222*B424>  "2*2*2***  • '  «.  2   22
• 7XB8997498BB3414* "333 *3 *• «2«      * *
 X777I438864433'6>23'23 • »2 3*3  «3'  2  • •
 XX4IX79848864342* 6"2" "2322' * 3"   2    * *
 XXXIX48SS44XBB  3B22 332**2* *»222222" «•   •  *
*69BX9X8*8SS4SI32S*2B 32**B»4* *2*22 2*2    2 * *
 9Xa8XXXS(4(B3S3B3643**2*S223222*(4*  "2* *• •   •  •*•  *
 BBX87X7*X7BX84B344533>24242>82"**2"   2*  •**«*«  *  *  .
• * 6XX97XXXBB383B33442422**42444B2  3*23*  2 22" "3 *2  2
 • 43XX8XXal3X34B8B2S3B*S2 34B3**24  36 * 2""  *3   *  2
  S8IXXXXX2X9B234744B22S ••• « 3  2233*23*2*3*33"*"*  "2 *  *2
 • BBXXXXXXBXB3BB4B7722233*3S2Ba3» 4333323*38233** "2*«"    22
 •*XXXXaaXXX7877332* 4*3862 4 34  6842333 2243*43 "  3  *  * *
 »3SXXXXX8X9Xa743B4X33 «35 • 4 JS523B 2323 2 * «42**3  2"   * 2*"
  *XXIXXX979XB7B88«343472374442B*73«43333243  S3** 4 * *      *
*34XXXXXXX97X27394499*44B97942"46434 492*29*6*3*22  2*2  32* 2
 *9XXXXXXXXXX9BB78B93923a42X*32*45*43»»2265*3*B332226* 2 6 3**2*
 3XXXXXXXXXXXXX783*7323B73B64747B9S3337B4B>28 2*822222*223  4**
  7X X X XX 8 XX7X3X83B 656 733468838*367 3*286362322284234 233 •« 223  22
 22aXXXXXXXBXXX27493aB938B»a232243S44B273B422423*B4»64'  22 2  2
 3*XXXXXXXXXX4B788X3B3X377379232333B4B84B 4573262232223* 2 23*2*
 2BXXXXX7XXX98B77226444B8BB34BB497S753 4533*S324«*234«*2" 43 43
 *9XXXXX9X7X9439BS3BB24642944*644*B3724*9423S24*2*3*3  36"232 *•
  24XXXXXX*aB97598448756*746X24SB3SS7983B44435 **8"**3  322* 2
  *9XXXX8Xa973S88SB363433833223B3B322423B 243*6723*23*624 2**«2
  28X39XX8*93*3323433*635334*344 34(47362*42243" 2>  833  23*23 2
   6X7X5B29229*332*"2448  "334* 27232*4326* 3 *42242*4*33822 2 '
  • 23X82423482 24226324  723" «2*2*234«" 3«2* • «2" 23 *2  2 *   2
   25635 *  *2222 2"    332 24*   2* *2   2" *  >  * 2 22 *
                                                                                 DATA BASE  IS EF
                                                           2*
                                                               • 2
                                                                 • 2 *
                                                                      2*
                                                                         6  2  *
                                                                          2*  •«
                                                                         • 2   * *
2"322*
 * •  2* *
•2*2*  3
 2»*
32"
                                                                                •  2"
                                                                               "22
                                                                               * 322 2
                                                                              •22 •»
                                                                              2 • « •
                                                                               • * *
                                                                              I 3 * • •
                                                                              » 2« «
                                                                              2«    •
                           2.OOOO
                                              4.OOOO
                                                                 •.OOOO
                                                                                              FTPHC
                                                                                              9.OOOO
(SCATTER
UMPC
 35.OOO
VAR*1I;2  INTERVALSIO.29);
 +    *3  22*62"**     •   * •           *
    • 2*33"42*2*3*3*2 »2  »    «            *
    "  32 5 *9 *2322*  2*2"   «   *     * *
 +  •  3*4433*3 *  2*2* *    »  2 »• • ••«  •  *
    22» 341S2272" *•* 3 2  "      •  ••
     • *26*32"2 24 2S*  2  *   • «3   2    * * *2
 +    *4*3* *2»22**** 23   •    *    • *2* *
      233S23"2*  • 3«2*«2  •  «« "22 •  «
     2234  *2 *6 2**23"**3*  222*  *     *    *
 *  2  *B272"*32222* 22"  «  22*»*2 3*2*   •   ••
     *  3*2«3224342*2  2*3"2"       **  • *2
     2*22 22*3" 2 42»32»*2»* «    »      2
 • *2*242* *2232* 2"  <3  2*  2  • * "*2 2 ***
    2B32  62    *2 3 «3 322 >*2   >3» 2»  »"
                                                           N* 79O9 OUT OP  4997  11.UMPG VS.  2.FTPCO
            •624B 24 2   *2 >  *4* 2 "
            BB37233 > 42»2**2*2"2 3
            433*32322222 2"  «»2  **
            SB2*7*4>2*2* **32*  *2"*
           • 2'7B424 *224 3"   333*2*2
                            2 42» »*** 2*3 "*  *   «  •
                            •  >••    32 *2>  2  *2  2
                            '    2*  "*23       *
                            • » ••• «»2***  * 2* *  2
           422243733*2*3 22  •«»  22*2 •     «   »   »  "
           43442332* 43* 4* 233*22* • » «    *4 •   "2  2 2
            4B397332422"2**2»24"    '*   *2*   2» *> '
           2SX944B233  47*""  ••»**2"3  «    «••   2    2 •  ••  •  2   •    •«
            •7XX»7344443S3*2  *B» *22 * >2223 >  •  *  **2>    " *«  "   "      >  *2*
           2XaXS9Be33B3332***32 2 3   2'25 "*»2  « 4 »Z 2    * 2    2   "  '     "
           XXX4774S2224 B7S4S323 "222  "2* 332  2 *22"*"2  2      . 2 ,,,.,.
           27XXX6>477S22*B*2B44* S   23 43 2"*«*     3"*  "2»B2  "   •   « 1
           'BBBX97X43B7437434232*«3 »3»2>«»*   <22" >  *4 2 «  2«*  ' >  *22 * '
           • 3XXXX7B*BS2BS343B2  »«• 2  •242*2*3** 62**« «•  >3 22 4 3**  2   2«  2
           333XBX3BBX43S624344B622322443"2  232    32*3*23*" •  *   "2 "       2 «
           • 29BBBXBS7B7274 ' 2242B324" " 3" *2*5* *" 32 22*3*4*32 4 *2"2 '22'      «2 >
           3S4BX8B3B74B2BS393*« 2*323 '2332   3  3   SB»'" 442*3«32* "•  •  3 *2 2
           4B9XXXB7B4B32S3BBS232*3*"3  "2*233344  22"3»  223*"  *   222     "2 «
           aXX9XBXXB4S442aSS2BB34444242S3B34*>233222  >3"*34*2  >3"   "23*3*2> '22
                                                                             •    2**
                                                                             *  2*
                                                                              2 2'   «
                                                                                 3  «
                                                                              - 22  •
           4XBXXXBBSX3SSB4443'6 • 3*4234S42S2* 3* 3  34343" 3" 24" 323  2  "2> 323* » •   «  2«   »  •*>
           3BXXXBXX8X9X9XBB3*S3B333222422>322*2>  2  32*22 >322*2"«<  "  " 2   • • *2»   •   *
           *7XX9XX88XB86B373B*65*3332SS*22 24*426*4*2*7  *S"4"26  2  * 3* 22* 2*42* *"  *2**2*  2* "
           B9X9X7XXX9XS9B98*43 44427324 7*32  '2342223*32 *3B  5222  '3243 2"2 •«•  >2*2"   *
          *6XXBXXXXXXX737B427*5B243S73322*S443B32233" 322*  2*4 3S22  2" • 22242232   "•   >3>
           SXXXXXXX7X9XS4S27SB4B74BB3BS73S43*4S262> 2*32344*2 3333SB2B4473S2423 '22  "232  3*" 22
           *7XXXXXXXXBX8X388376382»BB3*223342S222S323 >3 2*273*448B 3  ««2S2*4222 442"  3*3  5»3
           27XX7XXXBXBX79S2593B3*B3232S»SS 343* 24* 234* 2S434S* 4* 433333B'3 2 "72*2"  2  2«"3 222*
           *BSBXXX«989XX778834B2B7384«762»B49*23353333B2B22 3"»32  44 8234*3' «2*2  2222>3  '222
           '7XXX7BXB87B994BE6*433363S2S22SB832S«243B34323"24« 4*2  '3'2B234 >2'2 3«  *43« 3  ' 222
           • XXX9X8XSS5647SB4B23 338252S' 43223B3«*35 2*22*43332  >433' 2>333»3" 3*222"42> 2«2»
           *8*9XX8XX7237833B9232B4442435S3224B*43> 443242SS3*243 8442*2332' « 3*223"  '2222  2 2*
           '4XXS9XS929444S  7264B2*44*•32«3*38  343*24*3»2273 2 223*23*332 2**22*32*2*2«*23223*2 "
           448498S44B5B24 72B2*33'2 «2 2" 2 *" *2* * 222" 2 433'  «22" 3 3 2*33*3*2 3*6223'  »2»»
            354XSB7234*3322B3 3"*3»24  4»4'2» * '3 "32 52  • '2  2 2»  « •   2 •"  22*  32*"22 3
            *5S2432S*3 34"23«4»3 3"2*2 "2222*2'2  '233 ' 2' 2*     »*2 *2>2> 3        "23 2
           * 223332"222 2«* 2»  » «* •  "2  «  »*  *" " * *»    «   «  » »3   «  «    "   2"«
                                                                                      • 2
                                                                                    22*
                                                                                    '222
                                                                                    3«
                                                                                     * • *
                                                                                    2 3'
                           20.000
                                              4O.OOO
                                                                 BO.OOO
                                                                                    80.000
                                                                                             FTPCO
                                                                                             9O.OOO
                                                         4-6

-------
tt;3  INTtRVAl* ( 1C. 21 1 i   »  • 2***22>24>* 2 22* 2  *  *** **                               *
                    *  *   *23*2* ** 222*4B** **2**2*****         *          *
                       *•*  ****3*» 344* *2 ** **2 **2*  *2*  2    *  *      *   *  2
 24.OOO   +       *        *2*22*222*2*222 32  22**2 3**22**2*  •   2  *     *  *            *     *
                    *  * * ••  23222*33* 3**3* 2* 2 •  2 *  3** * 2 3*  *           *   *  *
                •       *• *   3 4B2*32 2 *22* 4* *     **2 *•   •• *   *• *  *       *
          *       ******   *34*B****2 *3**42 ** 22 **2-      * * *      **      *  *
                  •  *222**3***>* 2***22 4  2 2 * *2 ** *3 *3    222  **2'            *
                 *•  2***2 • *3**   2*** 3223*43 *** 2** * *2*   •**   *3  *2*             *
 22.OOO   *       *   *«  23*22  *32422B23*22*« 2 ***** 2  *  ***              *  *  *           >
                  •  3  4 2*3*243*7*43****42  «2 ***43 •«   * *•« *«• «  «  2   •      •» »«  • *»
                  •2*  **33*2322«4«*22 4 2 23 22*2 *****     •**»•••           i
          «       »   2   34* 2* 2«*4*2 *3*4 322*  *332 «««23«   2 3*  *  *  *     *
                 * 3   2*2*3*2143833*4*2 **2 2    **22*      *3 ******                 •*<
                    3«*2  3    24*8*442* 4 *4«23*2*»    *2 **  2    2         *        *            I
 20.000   »      •••  222322  2428 2222*222332**   *24  • **2 •*     2    *««••«•«       *  .
              *   ***322 42**42134322221  4*2* 2 **2  2  ***2* 3    **«2   *      2  * *
             * *23*B***2*4*B3*B2232>3 *2 »4 22 3  422**  «3 32*  *   *2   •  «  •  *•• • «    •
          »   • 3  «*.o.  34**42*44B44B2*4442*2 22* 3* 4242* ««3* 3»*2   *   *3       * *       «2« 2
              3332*>338434 14 2237.28284*.4443382*2*222   • 2*23 2 ••   •     «    •   « »2
              2**  222*2823*3*237332244 2854«•224*•«83*«« *2«* 3*324 ***3 **3***   *2  * 2**  «*2
 IB.OOO   '    *   2*1434124  1442144432*4*4833332*81*4*4 »B**23 2* 23* *2»3 2*  *    >»2   32   *     *
              *  2  *222I327 >• I3X3B32B423453 837*44821 *»22*  * **2 2*»  3 *2   *   *»*   *
              •2*  *•  42233*2834BB33BB3BB33»B48333*3344732 3242** 3  **  **  *2  '42  *   *   * *2*2  *
          <•    *     *2B**2B234B3BB2443444aB472 4443343432*8 3 422******    32  »*2   **2 ••**  **
                  22 3*32 •232B42324SB3233342B4BB2*32S2322B2 4*2*3* 2332 222**2 3*** *2    *  4**23
                22**  » 3*33 32BB*3B7IB*B3I7433B24»3B24243*24*  323  233**43   *  »2***
                                                                                   2
                                                                                   * 2*2**    *   2*
                                                                                   *• 2** 2 2 ** *•
                                                                                   **22 * *** 3*   *
                                                                                   •22*   *4*  * *
                                                                                   3      32   32  2*
18.OOO   •      2*2  *2**24  33B4324X2BXB7377B7323B23322244 14 *2****32***   22
             >  •••2**2*233773B4347BaiB7BB8BB3XB33332B4443B34*33* «3*23 2*3*  »  3*32
            *     3  32*24372144331878X88X148484 2422882 7323  35•38322*•*222222•3  *•
         *    *2   •  *2**B B43B4844BaaB87XBX77BB2ZB823»8233332 24**22232  3*   »*2*2 3
                    *222324824BBBB77677BBXXBaS148474B23B 2334 2*24***33  42*3*257* 2
               ** 2*  *BB3I373167B7X4X47XXBXBXBBBXB31*343*3221B4* *334»4«2**32*22  3  *2*   2**
14.OOO   *     ***   *2*  2***2B4B4XXB7XXXXX216B77BB47BB433BB283BX3BB4*322  3824*394* 22*34   2*3*2  *»2*3
                 **   *32233749X8X99B7XX1BBBBXBIXB7BS744BSB3743B7232433 3**332  322422  4*42*3*222   ** 2
                    «*3B*  32B669BXX94B7844X97BBBB4981B9BBB4B2B332B4332332483342«**3*  4*  3423  *  *  32
         »      *  2     **424B4BX8BX4XX7B7776X6743X73B2X24B42B24832*334B4>2B84B***2*22**3*3*62*B «* 4
                   «  *3**2**8B4449BB7XXBB97BXBBXX31BB4B73B4S5 6*3 33S**3>2 32*26928232****  3 *22*3*
                   232*3*  27B34BX374B8XSBBBXBXB*9BXB7B43472482S2*41B  232*1428*2226**2  *32 2623  23**
12.000   *        *   24»»423B33B427747B674X7X67B886XB*3B43B*32*2»2*4343*B*4*4*3332 222*2*  22224*  43
                 *    *2324*23B44B3BBa2884287827376X787B47434S238221B434BB246 6442 32  2*  2*33* 242223*
               *  2»»  22 2*224634738 748S*BB97BS 2763674884442222*3**424«6334*3222342*4222 *2*2  * 22 2
         «      2«*    *2 **  3*»*263824BSB37234B4B42BBB2*242*42S24**323 3333»2**3  32  »42  22*2*3*2   *
                   ••  222  234*B*3S4237873BB343484237*3*223234* 83  2«*2  3 3*« 4*243**233     *2»*   •
                 **    2  »3*«*2*7B43333» 38 *32 8*323243*23 2 32*6 3  2**22*  *  2   2*  *  2*** 22**  *2*
to.OOO   +           *   2    •* 2*2*3****342*« 3   22 2  *•  *  2**2  **3  **•  *   *2*2* 2*  **   *

       O.                  1.2OOO              2.4OOO              3.6OOO             4.BOOO     FTPNOX
                 .BOOOO              t.BOOO              3.0OOO             4.2OOO               B.4OOO
 ;     2*3 2**  *        *                                *
          •882 3**3  2   4  *    4 2* 22  *****2  *                                       *
          *  447*2  2 22* 22** *  • ** *2  * *        2**  *           *           *
          2S4** «2*   3 «2   3* «2  >  >   2  »     2         *              *
          *4S4243**2    *•* » »  **  *   * *»  *2  * 2  * *
 33.000   •37B8232222»**232  2««2 *•   3  *   2 *   *  *              *
            XXS68»4**3  *2   «   ••*   •«**  2*  *2  «   *      «
          31X63*  *«*2«2 *4* *        * *   2           *      >
          *  XB3644*    * *«*  3*2*'*    **      >
          *XX4 732322 22      •*>       «   «     **      *         >
            X7S333**  22*    «*   «  *      •» «  «      «*    »*>
 30.OOO   «*BX4443*3*   * 3* *2 2» « «    «*         *2*
          3X7482  42   **3 22*   « «  »  »        ..«««*
          *9BK742*   3  2 ** * **2*  2*   ** *    2 »   *       *
          •  X69S3483343 «2«* «««2    «   ** 3   2 4        •      .
          *88X37234***2 *•  2  2«  «        •«  2  «            «     «
            X974BB3**4« •*  «»2>   *          >       *       2  **
 27.OOO   +*XXB93S3   432  2  **   3**   ** « *       *** •
          2XXX83B4S  3* 32  * 2  2      •    *       «     *«2
          3XXBXB422S2*44 ***» «  * «  «  «2                                           *       *
          'BXXX7S74B2S  3*   •  *    ***   *                 »             «
          2XXXX7BB3433324*  **»32  *     2»*2>**«     >       >      '
          3XXX79XB634725 *2 22 3  « «•••«*    *2«3      *                      *
 24.OOO   »  XX98XBB496246****4**2  **»  >  2 > 23      •**       **         «                   »
            XXXX9XX3BB23533  2* 2 >*3*2>  <*>>       >>«>                        .
          2XXXXXBX74SX8422424      *** 3 ** *   *  2**    *  2              *    *
          *  XXXXXX943X2342*7B4*23 2* >*2*22*3  2 3   2*  *2   *2  *  *»              *
            XXXXXXXS57737*33   »32 2* 2  « «  « 3««2«*2 *«»«««              2
            XXXXXXXX4B726*42 2*   *****     **  * 2 ***2  *  *   3            2   3   *       *
 21.OOO   *3XXXXXX8X693843  22   2 *  »  *«* «  ** 3***  *  *   2***   «     »     «      » *•
          *XXXXXXX7XXXSaE2*4  24222 »  3*  «4 « *4  2  * *•>    >3>  2«2**    2*   **.
            XXXXXXXXXX98S35*323*  S* 2 2** 3S2 2 »2**22* 2***  **3 *2   22»*    »«*«*•
          «  XXXXXXXXXXB7B463443223* S»  2    *«*4  *2 4«««4.  »    »2«*  * «2« 2***     •  «   2
            XXXXXXXX77BB8344*36BX2*2342*3332»*«2 • 432««2  *«   «2   *      **    '     «»   2
            XXXXX»XBaaB4BB4438E S*4«32*2**2  22**232 « * 3  2  «  «     *2>  *         *  *  2           >
 IB.OOO   *  XXXXXXXXXX232*4B43>35«*4**2423 *2«* 22        *  *****  *3>     2      222*
            9XXXXX9BBS8444*  232**4 2 3*22*  4*2  2* 2  *2**  *22*      • •     *    **   *•*
          *XXXXXXX72SX373«43823332223*     *22**3*2"     >   2    *   «   2*  *** «   *•   ««    »   •
          »  »XXXXXXBB9334*432*>   2««   2   2* «*2« 2* 3  2*2    »3    »«»    > »*  » 2 *
            XXXXX79677S2S3222«3   2*2   «3«»««222»2**«       ««««       .     .
            *XX5B623526 52  533*   23   2 *«  2*       **«*    *  »     »*  *   *** » « *           **
 15.000   »  2256243 24   *»• «2««          »             «»          «       «»2*
          + ...-*..-- + .--. + ....^.__.«..-.«....«..--«----«--.-«.---«-...«....«....«.-..«-.. . + ....^.__.+
        O.                   .BOOOO              1.8000              2.40OO              3.20OO    FEHC
                  .4OOOO              1.200O              2.OOOO               2.BOOO              3.6OOO
                                                           4-7

-------
 -SCATTER HOT        N« BBBO OUT OP (111  1 2 . MNPC VS.  I.PECO
HMPE

 42-800   *!.2*  .  .                                                              DATA  BASE  IS  EF
           4S »  *•    •                                                            	
          «2332" ••       •        «
           35*6*2 •  •  «
           IS 32 «   ««     *
 3I.OOO   +7SB3«4«   2  •
           3666  •«  «  3  2      *
           4BB24 *  »»2* *2«*  *     »  *     *
          +684433*   4>*2*    *   *
           T42S»»3  «•   «    •«
           •87*34 ««•«  •••      •  •    •    •
 3B.OOO   »7694»  »  2*22     ««»-«*
           4BB22233  «2  • «  4   «   2
           8B2S74*  2  »«*2  2  «•««««         «
          +4X4233*3*  S***  • * *    * *  *• *
           2BB23233*3  * *• * «*»            *         *
           5753*335  »*    22*****     *   *
 13.OOO   +XB442434*  *2««* 2 *23     >  2    *     *
           Xl*4334*4    ......  «    3         *                   •
           XXB *B*3**«       2»*2           *  *
          +1X23242322   «   2     *       *  *«         *
           XXt43*4*2  2*    3   3     * *  *                         *
           7X4344 3  2*  *  *     *     2*  *     *          *2    •
 30.000   ««XX*3 22  **22*22 *•          2  «•     •    •
           XXS23432*    2    *     * ••  •*•   **   •
           XX62833**".  *2    2  * .«.        *      *    *                      *                   *
          •XX9B2423     22...... >•* "«J.     2    * *       *                 *
           XX3S*43  ******2   2**2        *      . .    .
           XXB9.623     «« 2      * •*  «       •*                 *     *
 27.000   *XX7»7« 332 «««««2 ««*   « »         2      ...       *
           XXS7S8*43  *2*   >..*...                   .      .
           XXXX7S«24*4*.*  ...                                        .
          +XXXS832*  *** «       «• «                                   >
           KXXXB42  2.4     *    2     •        2*  *     "  22-                      •
           XXXX86432**2 *  .  * *     2*2 .        *2 2                *    *
 24.OOO   +XXXXX8I4***4 .  .***. .  2 «   .....             J            t       .  .
           XXXX19S27*222   * 3 3*3*   .....                     2
           XXXXBX3BB322*23*2* «• . . 2***2  *      *        «  *•
          +XXXX8X7*33233B*3 4  * *32 >  «.2*2 ....           ....
           XXXX7S4«3S2*4 2*222 *" *2     .....3        .....           .     .
           XXXXX623*3233 **       ...   3 •  *2« 2    "••  *«         *  *2   .
 21.0OO   +XXXXX6743»24*22*    2     '222*     .22       *     *              .     .
           XXXXXB5*S262232 *333B *   .* . . . ....   >    ..22*     *    **«.         .
           XXXXXX4835334B2 .232 ...2   2  *2 2*22' «2 "   « • 2«*   *  >'
          +XXXXXX8B7 324*S33> '*' 2 2*  222     «  2*   3  * 222    ....                 .
           XXXXXXXS73B 2> 3"4.2 33* >«> 2«  2** •••••22**    *       >            .
           XXXXXB443B222*4232* >" «*  2 "  «*  2   23 ***  *2* 2  ' *              '*
 18.OOO   +XXXXXXX73B4*3 4 3***2 2 6 4*2 **  * *  3  •*  *    *3  .      .           .            .
           XXXXXXX7B4B2* '324*2  22 » « 2   *  '22    2*"      *2>    2                              .
           XXXXXXX7**3**23**32>*3* **3« *2««   .......      .. 2  *.       .  «      3 2  « *
          +XXXXXXB32*6 33*3*22  >     *  *2>*2 ...        ..... »4     . .       .  .
           XXX*XX72S22* «2 4  ... ***2   *.* ».»..2»">            ..       ..     .
           XX6X9864 3 22*222 2* 3 «*2>        «       •          ......           .
 1B . OOO   +4BB 73B.*«  2   ***. •*•••*           .
           «__..*... . «._ _..*....•.....»....*.. ..«..-.«.....*.	.»....*....».._.•.	*._..*...._ + ..__*____ +
        O.                  2O.OOO             4O.OOO              BO.OOO              50.OOO    PECO
                  10.OOO              3O.OOO             BO.OOO             7O.OOO              BO.OOO
( 1 B.42) ; IO.7.2»-SCATTER PLOT       N>  BO77  OUT OP BBB7  12.HMPG VS.  B.PENOX
MMPC
 42.OOO    «                 ......
                 .            ...       .    .            .
                            ••23***    *   *      *
          + '                 .   ..2    .*  2   **   2   *      *        *
                        *.   ..  .  ..  2  2*  *.    .2      ...      .
                          .3.2.22.2*.        *      *   *
 39.OOO    +        .       .22 3*    . 4.   .   . 2..* *2   *       ..    *
                   .     >>22  ...   *3  222 22'.'   2   .    .    «2
                   .  . . 2«  «2«3  242*2**   • *2   «2  «2 «  «        *
          *              . ».*2  3.4   25* 3*2  3*  «    ».»..      .
                         . .  2**3*4   2  2*     ...     .  ... *                 .
                      .    .22  **3  *    223*22*  ....     .     .          ..
 36.OOO    +        ».  3* •** 2«*3  *• *. .222  »2    »2 *  »        ....                ,
                  2   .     * 2* 2  33 ** 322   *2 22  «      2   «        ...
                2*2   2*   .3222  '44.    4««3 2  .2  *22     ....                   .
          *       3  222  2**   *2«4.  »34    « «   « ««2« 3*  * «
                 .2. . 2 *2   2*  242*.22     *    « 2*  * *   *
             . ..      ..  »..«4»4»  22*.  2   ....   222   •
 33.OOO    *   *2*2 *.  ***42**22  .2223*2*32 .*** *.2*** ' ***
           '    22 >  233.2>2242>3B2*2  3*22«****3  32   *  2
             > 2***2*"3 2*43... 32*32322  "3 3« «    • « 2« •
          •  ..  ..... 2 ..2222*.  S*22  *32  *      •• .......    . .2                        .
            .. . .3.****22*3"22*22 32242  «3'<.     ....*2*           «      >
           «.»2 *  2 *2»2 23* S  3   "22232  > *  ..2*  «      «            '
 3O.OOO    * 2*   2****3****.24.4  .  3**.  4 23**   2 22*3       «...      3
           .2 .  ....  344  4>3<3  32*  232"  >   22*     «**   >     *
            «2» *2** 3*2*3243342*  42**S* 22 2      *     "        »   •  ...           .  .
          + ** .2   2.3*42**2*3334 S344.  .36 2.3      « 2 2**2       2                    *    *
              .23  *2  3*44*2***.  .32522332222 ...  .....     .   .
            .... 3*.322*32 327BB234.23*23  "2*.  .....     ...    .*.              .
 27.000    • 2*3224*633 . > 222S277243232* 2* 323  "   * « 2" "  "»
           522 >632'3«2"*2S3'334>53  222"52*  2'23> 2 '2* 2  «      .....     .    .
           "2 43 2 2*34»37"22SS  534*2 22*4  3 >22" 2 "2   ....  .2.         .      .
          » 23 445 2 2.3233425332B33*  333'  222 2    ... 22* 3     ...    >>3        2 «    «  «
           34.2  33.42222.3S74XBB25BBB  246 2*2. .3   ..4.4" '.   '   ...  •    ... 2   •     >
           >232"24>3246S3S5BB237S5B44535243'*2»24 *3>» ........  2 2 « » .   ..       >  .
 2 4. OOO    4*2.3 * 2 4'3' 24.6*3245768352443 2343*  .2 *23 2 3  "3 3          *2 2" *   '   "  * '  *
             " 2*32 S23544SB79XBX6243BB274.2 S32"24 >22    33 «2> ....      .    . .  .2"
          . ... 3* 3S32375S47S6S672323445424"*S533****63 4**..    .   >'  4".     ...       . .
          •   22*2.22 6356BXXX639B7934S624344353*22223*323   "2    >3> 2"  ' 2»«*   «  2         >'
           22.*3 322233BB2X439B657B742343223542.6...3  2*2 * 2>»«2  .22'."      *    .
           2.2*2' 2633446S7B67SXX7657365.43544242343**3 '32  2.22"    "2 2*        >    ...3..
 21.OOO    + .4.23" 2.3A65S97622X5556S93X4575465 .62.2 .42*22  32*5*.*** "2    .»««.. 3  .
            '  2«235564S94BXaXXB78XX7XXX3743646*4»232323"22322*3  2*2  2" "  '22        « «  « .
               >S6233362X69BX5XX«X9XS553479S66S2367352 3*334*2 "323 2> '*3 • >2>3 «  «   >   «2 "  "
          »    .."25BX456BX9XXS3778B6X9446XX756675373623554326  "332*2  42* "3*     ...  ...     .
               2*23222*4SeXX46XX76X65X4477XX5575S56656<366*2542332*»333  22" 2     ...»       » >
             22 S"43>242 599 67X76 544B9X446 X83S37645423>552422233«3.4*«322"     ...   >  2 .  3  .
 1 8 . OOO    •*•    2* 333.227454463655XX376X9S394767664673.353233*36222242* 2232*32 2   22    * 2«"« 2 "   >
             223> .4427X345563675435XX37 44574347643*3352 >36   "2  3  2.5.      «  2   >   >  2>2 *
            . ..  2.33333X4842426X4493X254X43463.4535.33*22324 "342"  *2> 3232  *    *3 "      3. > .
          •     ...6.2.343*8652443564557656944434 a 44433">43  322 *42'224 3"3  •   2   2 «  2      .  .
                2 3>'3335244442443235364.72*233'3>255 52 22*244.  .232*  2"3""22           « • 2 "'
              »    2." 2333' "* .343322* 73  53«2«* 34»322»  2  "333 3*2*. "4  3"     «  *  «  «   «   3  .«
 15.000    *     •   ««2« * ' «»•  «•  22 23  22   ->• «2     "     2"     «      «   .....   .
          ^....*....*....«....+...-«..-.+.........*....*...-•-...+...-«..............^..._*_...*....*
       O.                  I.6OOO              3.2OOO             4.6OOO      .       6.4OOO    PENOX
                 .8OOOO             2.4OOO              4.OOOO              5.60OO              7.3OOO
                                                         4-8

-------
  •
                   32*2** 3*2   «*
 32.0OO   *    * B233   * 22       ••   •
            * **243 ***3*B»  *•    •  2*
              2*42*322 -»22  « «            «
          »  ««2 6*21 :• • 4222»2>2       *     «                                                       •
               • *3*3**- 7322*2*  *22*     *    •    •
             * 23  22 2 4* *  22> *  2    ««  •
 IB.>OO   *  *2*2222>2*2*342«» *»2**2   2
              *»S42*2**3»2233*222»    3   *      >             *             >
             * 21232*42*222  22**   »*   **•*       *    *        *
          »   *3322    4* 422B • 2     «  *      «  *  *
             2343233  ** 3424   3  *•»   2**   •» «        •             •
            •222*323 2324 2232 22*<»  «2  * 2    *    *
 2T.OOO   *  *7 41*242*33*32 *2>2**2   2*  **                    *                             *
              3t*43 <3*33*l*32 3*  2                  *                                                *
             II* 431*3* 2*  2*«2*2*«*   2*       *      *  •«                                    *
          •  4337*43377*2   »   *22**  4      •«            *     *
             2IS344434 32*** 2*2*  *••   *           *              *     *
             •BS322432233>2**32>23   *2**2  * *   *    *
 24.BOO   *  *II242332***42  *223<2   *32      2    *
             3X1123222*2334  »**3   4   *   ••>     •*•            * *
            •3IS3II 3 *32**3 * *   «  *3  «*2     2        ••             •
          * *4I7447332 ****3*  2 *••*   •*          *         *  *
             B74X7S22**3I24  43 2** *2*3   *****   *       *         *                         '
             7112X13** ->3I232  *3*22*   2        *         *
 22.OOO   * 2SXXXX72**:844S  4  *   2**    2 «•* *                                               *
             X7SXX4I23 I3423«2  2*233     *• *                *   *        *  *
             X*BBXI4I(,-,4IB2  343 «      3        3*                      •
          « *XXBXX77XX73B22B24*3334     *2 **2« «2*     *       «  «    *«  «       *
             XXEXXBXI2X7X4B«24 B*3**2*4   •   *2»*  2  *   *   >
            • B7SXXXXXI II7B7333*44**332*4  223**    «*>  *              >
 IS.SOD   »  7XXI4X7XX4B7BE34IE72334**2242*4 • «2  *   *     *     *      *                      .
              27XXXX7X9B9B7B83338322O433***   ««  2 2   2       *
              BBX9XSX8BBf.7343l334B23*  32*B*  *  222**   »**22**«   *»   •
          •  *47XXXXXIB7X47B733S232S44  232   ***22  «  **3*          •»    *• •
            • 3SXXXB8SaXXB44BS8S24 222*2B**3 «4*  3*222*2*32*  **2     * *»   >   **
             ••XXXXXXfXXXXBB7B3B4323B32B 423*22*B*>   2* *4*  •  •       « 2                  »
 I7.0OO   «  3*XXXXXXKXSX7II7B*2B4 33248 44  222*2*2*224 »22*         •«  2        •                >
             »BXXXXXXXSXXBX4B78X3*4444S44*4*»3*   «2*2  **2    « «  * **    « «• 2 «    » *   ««
              97XXXXXXXXX899BS7BB*344743**2234*32  >22  333* 2** «« •«    •«    «   2  «         •   •
          *  3XXXXIX8IXXXB82XBS7SBB273*E42 244424234*B>  *   ** ••> > 2 ««•   «  *«          *
              8XXXXXXXXXX8X8BS7BXBB4SS46242334   2  B3**222*24*>         *«     «2  *         *
             3 XXXXXXXXXXBX837S44732BB3B2 3*342*222*2*  42** *3> 22 •** «*3 3  2 «     *      • •
 14.BOO   •  *3XXXIXXXSBXXBB83B22*X3233B433  22343  «32*>  3 2*   «••     •• • *•         »*           *
             2SXXXXXex7IBBB2aiB7B44BI3(4B**3B  33232*3**   * *** **  • **2> ** «••   >        *      «
             234XXXXX>BXIX7I73BBE3*4433222222  **3*2*3* *B4 2*'* 2* 2  «   «     *
          •    BXX»XXXBXX«2B7I2 33 *3S322*B  *42*4**3  * 2* *2*«2 2     *     *     *»      •  « «
              337BXI7e7B724243234223232*3«***2*222  ««  *   *3* 3*42*    **              *
               4XEX72S3B34*B23 * **232*>  3  ""23 2  2*2      •  3* ** ••       *
 12.000   »   • 324*42*********    **•    *•  « 2    *«2 2  «  2  «•    *    *                •

        O.                    2.OOOO               4.00OO              6.OOOO              B.OOOO     FTPHC
                   I.OOOO               3.OOOO               B.OOOO              7.OOOO               9.OOOO
:  2423*3> «« >    •      •
            • * 2S32433 ** *                 **     «       *
             ***232 <23*2»2*     «     « «
          «   *234*333B***32*     »2« •       •   «
                24*B3 B**3   2*222    •*      ««  «      >
             « *B2*2*2 * 2 2*  *     *   2*« *             «
 2B.800   »  « 2 B24» *2* 2222 **«*2»  •   «>  •   «      t                                         •
                B*23B24 ***2 « *32>  > 2   4     «  22
             **>334 »*427   *6*   *  *    *   *  *    *•       *  *
          +    2*34 2**3**2*  23   *•*  2      **       *  *    *                  ,.
            ••3*423 2**3*33*  *  3 **• ••*   23* *  •          •       *
             2 32««4 3**2232*2 24   23 •     •         2*   •  2          2
 27.OOO   *  2*344S 2 223***4* 3*3**  *   »    4 •*    •        *                    •
             *4*B23«2**2 3* 3 «•  3*2** «  «  » 2            •  2
             3SS3*S**42 24 «2     ••  2> 22      •• «      *    *2       *
          »  5447*44   42*2 3224**   «   ••*       2        •           •            *             «
             B7*SS*42  3  **2***  2*  2*»    *« * *           *       » *                                   *
            2253633" >23*«4 «»2*22*  •    >  ••* **>2 *•  *•      •   2 «  •     • «
 24.BOO   »  2333*4S»I*2* •  2 2«*   «  •   «    «2 «2«   ••  *2**>     •
             37EB23 4 43«3> 2*2 S*2 ««  *  • ***  >  •*   2*       •            •
            324S224 2**2332*2 2 22»  •             «•** >   •«     •       . 2    «           •       •
          **2234BS24*«34 s****2*2*  •*•  *******          *                          «
            4BBBBSG2«32*S43*  23 *2  >2   *'   3»   «  2   •  2       » ••   «      2      «»»              *
            24BS1S3222B334 >222«2*  2>* *4«*2* * •*                           «            «        >
 22.00O   <•  XXXX9EB423*2*222*3*  ••  »2 •  2«*2  2«     2  «•      2                 «
            2SX8972'*S324B22'2*>2   •« »•  2    * * >2* **2  »   •   ••  •                             >
            •B9BBBBeB47'4»22*232> 33  22   2 *  2  •        »   2  2«          *                     •
          »  XXXX7X3B42432BB4432*4****2   *3 32 **4>   >*2  »«>2*«        »»>                >
            2BXSX7Ba2BB33*B424323>  4  *»2*3S2 *2 *•  2 ••    2"    2  **2>  •      ••
            *2BX9X7XB7S873B«S24732«  2 «2   2  «2*   •* «2*23»  >*2  >   *    ««2«2»             2  >      '
 19.5OO   * 239XXXX3B9SB2S27*2 B243222**25  >32 • 23  "23*322    2     «  •            3 «         « «,
            3 ae7X7XXXB4>933SS3222222*232»33*«*32  242    *3»* »*««32>       •              >
            *B*aX9X62643SS*2S5*5«3*2222**4«* «53«2 >2 •••••  2*»*     ••  *  «3  3 *     •      * «» ««
          « SBXXXaxe3S7S3SG623S2  33>2 32S43" *223>       3  23«22««2«     2   «2«    •    « »   2
            exX9X9X7774B43S37«2B24  «B43 3423 2"  »«3  2  >2  »3   2*«'     2>   2«   s  ..  "    «2" *  >
            5XXXXX999BSBB793aB2S3*a>3232*3>32 2>3«32*   •  2«23*3  2*2 2>>42      •*     *   •  «
 17.000   » 4XX>XSXXB>9BB6aX*2»4B*23222433«343*>«>*2*2  *2   22«  •   *23  32     «2  • ««  2  •  3»*     >
            SX7XXXXBXaX87X4S23B34222734B*2233*22*2 424>2  «332  2   4  »  »   » **2 «       «   « »     ««
           •4XX7XXXXXXX99BB449 5BS24SS>22««2«3 324«>  3<2  «    *222*»2  »*2  4* **  **•  «   »  •  . »  2
          « BX7XXXXX998X38*BB433444*4434E2373222243 •*   3*332*2*  2423*232424> 2 * 4**«   «     2     •*
            •EXXXXXXXXX77X7*8B875*4E27B332323 •33632*2*«232*••  2*334*22  3  2»«32  •••   2   « 2  »
            • 79XXXXX7X9XX56BB8»B44a26« 34***S4*>  23*38*2*4*** 23  332*  22  3  4*«32** 2*2*2**  2 • 3**   •*•
 14.BOO   » *7XXXXX79BX»8S33947*3SB*3*24«22224*32 2*223**22422<  332*  3*2*  2*>   2*2 2 2 3* •         •
            28>.XXXBX77eS6672852e*3>73 23« 2«« 2* 3422* 3B« * 3«3  **5>»3  «322  43«*2 3*2 *2 2»*2«    2 >   "
            •S9XBX9XB727S6282S*43>332S«222353S3*2*22S3»23   6  >2    24>3  •  •   •••>   «2  2     *2    2  ••
          • *S78XXXS62S*S743623*>3*82  4222>22>2  52 2 ««  *S*«*  2  >3>    2*   2  2    «   >2'3 2   «« »   2
            43524SS59284223*4B322«  *2>3   «2*«2*22*  •*»  22242*   2*  «  •«*  2*   . 2  «* •       «  .  2
             3426644553234*2  **2**»*4222*  2** •*   *2 *****      ***     ******  *    2*  *  *
 12.OOO   +   *2******2 2* *22 3*         2*  *    • »  »     2  *     *   2  *    *   2*           2*
           + ....*. ... + _... + . ...«--. . + ....*- ... + ... .4. ... + ....«....«....4.. ... + ._.. + . ... + ....«... ,*. .-.+
        O.                „ 20.000              40.000               EO.OOO               8O.OOO    FTPCO
                  10.0OO              3O.OOO               SO.OOO               7O.OOO              9O.OOO
                                                            4-9

-------
13:3
                        l I2.34.il; ( O . » . 4 I > - 5CtT Tt» HOT
                                                          M* 1013 OUT  OP 4987   11.CMPG  VS. 3.PTPNOX
                                                                          DATA BASE -IS -EF
                            »2 222*
                       • *  **2 *22**     *
                          2>3>2>22 »     2
                      •• *2**232**2 2*2*  *
                        ****22*  3 2 2**3
                   • •     «24*32* 22 32 2 3*2
                   •   • « 3**»32*2232*22 *
                   *        *42*4**3**
                    2*  *   232*>3 3 3
                   •   »***2*22 3222*322
                      « 2*2* 2*«**23***2
                    *  2* 43*3 «»  2 42
                       *««2*  *• 242  31
                    >    *»33242422232 »
                   2«**2*2   422**B2** 33
    3*2*
   23  *
•2**  * 2    ** 2
232**  *•••
2 3*3«««* «2 *•
 • * *    2** 3
 2 4*2 22*2 *2*
** •   a 32*  *
** 32    *3
                                                       * •*  *2
               ••  22 2222*** 232**3  ***2 25*  * * 22  2**   *  *       *
                  2*  2* 234332**3*l**2«24 23  ••       *     *     *2*    •
               2*  *•  3* «2*2*4*722** *32* *   23   2*2       *     *  2
                «*2« '2I322432223 4  22 5*2*24   *3«*      2           *
               *  **23»*2***3333»**2 2 3*223   *• 22  *  **  *       •*  *  *
               * 22** 4**«*4132J1*S4 >222  2 3 * **•   •   «•       *       *
              •• *2*224 **2233I333 *I*3 22    ••  « «  *»       *•
              2* 22* 22*  523*3»*S3  *3 3* 4 «•  2**   *     *  >
             « *»3**323l3*23*2tt3*3*3l*242*2   232 ****2*        2**
           » • 2*  *• 52*224 3*4*2323443223*2 3 22  «* «2 * «•  *   «« *  *
           *  *2322»2*3S 41*323352 23322424 3  *222**22*  2**«  *       2*   «   «
            •• 2«*2323333*4*545433  2**32**3   *2 2***22* *2 *2*     «   2     •
            322* 2223B4*332***34**75422*43*233« 2*42*  *  >*2**2*2
             3 **43224*412282311X*2S5»313*222*I* 44122* 23**** «23  * >  2>*   1
            **2*  44352*3472(3*52*2234133232*14*323**«232 >23 «3*  •   '22
            »*2 *4245*32I2 213624453*3154213422221242222*3  «  2*3  *2*«   3*
              3 *23 33233 22a7B74S3*444*lB*BlX342*44*322*332*»   *2*2 2«*   *2>
             «» >   **2**23273B33BaB241B741B324523*53S3 23**4  3  * 4**   22 *23 *
             *  3* **32434437*34474X27343522254 3522*5  243 3*  *2*2***3*  4  **
                                               * •

                                               * *
                                   • **
                                 • *• •
                                  2 «3
                                                                           * *
                                                                           3 •
              *»2** *3*42252(32344XIB277a474B323344B**l 52 *>3  « « «  «2*  • *
              •2   ' 3*2*24B74443a7aX1814BB7444B243B22Bl*5*4  2 *33*22  *»2 • 2 2**
               .«  « • 54«212S25«7577111X5>14753B32*4I*2253*2*3*24422**  * 2 • 4  3*** *
               *  3  34231473931115XXXXBa7X3S 2(54*15** 2*24223 *3  22*  2 2 » *2 > «
              •  •  3*22S262(335X99715XXXailBa5B4ll*3S3 35 *2*4 2*22*2  2«*2 *35 • ««
                2  *53*27544«!91X8ll7X!4X!7«3X7337t5*434*3*7!*43S2*2*  2225* 22* *2«
               *   «23 234tlXl(75BlXII397l9B9441X473275535425433254>  * *4«*   **»2 3*'
               *   *  2124*32X5XXXX5IXXXB47XXX((51*7g555523233*2 32*   2223*232  *•* **2'
                2* *«4*3*  11947S94aXX7«99XX414X7B3>31327B4B*3322234»2223*3222*23«2
               >   22 *2 94474a>474atS4aai413473Sa24B34B3Bl*4« »**2224 >2*4 3***3  22'
                   42***3Ba44a2'X*iail477177ail47113432a*42  5 2 37* *  **3*2*22* *•* '
              >*   224*4*323244aB413BIX411X134345aX453335*43>«2*2222242223****» . . ..
               •22* 2 **223233144*245723*1I14*2318215B423*42*3*  *222   322* 22** 3 *2»
                  •2 *22 «*4232233523332443SB372B B** 2*3332 34 > 2*  2** •« 2* 5  2
                    «2»**  3« *32433*4233433*3*23324»32  3 233* *  «3   22  *  * 3   *
               *        *2** 2 2*   3*3**  * * * *4 *  2* **  2*      **     *     *
                                        2
                                       *  2>*
                                        4  *2
                                        «*2- «
                                       .» 2  «
                                       2 * * •  •
                                        2*   2
                                       * 22
                                       ••23  •

                                       •    * *
3
* •
222
                         1.2OOO
                                          2.4OOO
                                                            3.1OOO
                                                                                      FTPNOX
                                                                                      S.4OOO
                                                     4-10

-------
         «  •*  2*  «
   247«(xaxXB2B8»4*3     *2*    *2*«*     *
  32BBXXtXBXI>«a2* *•  *3-   *       ***2222     •
  23IX7XXXXX*3*4*>3 23* 2«**«*«  2       •*•
  2StXXXXXXX7234« 2 3» 22*2
   8BXXXXBX73X422373 * *• *     • « ••** *32    •••   *  2
  *IXXXXXKXX3Bt*B74*«*413  2 22  •** *    2* ••         ••
 •7XXXXXXXXXtX7(BI23B24 2 *  32*2 •  22  *3*22   2*   4   3*
  2XXXXXXXXXXBX17S243B  4*  * »2«*2  **»2*2*3
   BXXXXXXXXXXXB74*3 32 3**** *  22*2** * *        *  **•*
  3tXXXXXXXXXXX7XX(*44**3*   * *  *2* «   5  «« 2*3*  *2    * *  *«
  BIXXXXXXXXXXBIX(43(3S3I3*3 *4*2*3*433*2 ••• 3* 3* *     *  2
  42SXXXXXXXXXXXX437224*24*34*B2*B* •*» 4 *3  **2*322  •* 3
 2*«BXIXXXXX>XXXI«3I6'-B 2B  3*«12*(*222***« 2  I* «• *  .*
•• B8XXXXXXXXXX8XX71J *2I43433B4244* *2*B4 3B 332*  3*       *22>
   *7XXXXXXXXXXXX88Ca 53382X7*8732* 32***4*3* 2**  » **2
  »2XXXXXXXX>XXXXXXXe iX4X78XS5XX*53 224 B3*    *4*3*  « • «*  •
 *225XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX'l«a977X*32439BB2S3 B«*3*2*334    *4*«    2 1
 * 3EBXXXXXXXXXXXXXIXBB4X7B733(4*B23B3* *2*32*2  *   *22**  ** *2*
   57XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.I84XXSaX2iaaB3*84312 «33 *   32*  2* 2>***2»
  • 3XSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.IX4X34XB7XB3B22B * 32 22*     **  • «*   2 2
   B(XXXXXXX>XXXXXXX(7B*l(37t*BB23424B2***2 «*2  *   •   *     *
   •5BXXXXXXXXXXXX4XX372X78X31432B2 §4 *  •*  *  **•          *
 **2B2eXXXXXXXXXXXXXXfX4XX8X(*SB2a3*4*2*2        *
    32<7XXXXXXXX91XXXIB31B*I*347*I» 4*« »• 2     *      *
   «• 24>7•*«*•>»          *
      *«3B  XX43*332 *2B2B  22*3  *•          « «* »    *
     22»7**72*S232 32*22 2  *2 23 22 *• •*       2          »
    ** 22B8B72  2* 2  3 *•  •**   «             *
    * «  3 2*   43**   **      *
        *   »2          * *
                                                                     N>  »7«2  OUT OF I042B
                                                                                          I t.UMPC VS.  t.FTPHC
                                                                                DATA  BASE  IS  CERT/MFR
                                                                         *•
                                                                        • 2*
                                                                     •  2
                                                                     *•*
 4.OOOO   •

        O.
                                                                                              PTPMC
                                                                                              1.8OOO
-SCATTCR PLOT
                                                          N* 9738  OUT OP  1O42E  I 1 .UMPC VS.  2.PTPCO
               2*
             «23««
              **42* * * *              *
             >2*2 2***  22
               *    **3*2*    *            *
              **    **222    *      *         *
             3 2* **322*   •  •            .        »    «
            24**3* 3 * »            *   •*• •           *
            ***2***22**         *    **  *
             224 23 223322     «2 * «     •      • «  •
             744«»22 2823     «       «2    «     «
              S422*« 3 2  •**  » *            *
             2*23*3**3283*   2  «• *         «
             •833*42*34*244  2*  *** ******         *
              4783388*8*  *   *        »      »    **
             >B82383*3342>2*32    > *2       •**» 3         <
              g*S 68842475 3*4 *2*2       *3«*  »  «*     •* « «
            23*8787844X4483*23* »•• «  « «  « 22 ** 2 «*   *•  ««
             * 3SXX35*S3XB642 52*3* *   *     2  *  » « ****•
            *«*3B89X3X7XXX8X3Sa 54 3*2*** '  > *    *•    •    3*2
            * *BX848344948B424S4*33S*3 *2**3  *    2   5 * *3**> «
              >XX8X8B9Xa8X8345*B«2*4  33t2*»   «  2 *  •
            ***8X49887axX78B72544*3*  ***2 >  22   • 2 32* *32*
            237XXXXX9X79B32B57B332233*»32 • *2*  •  >*2222> **»
            58XXXXXXXXXXI947978538B3 3 • 2*2 32 *2B* • 42*2»» 2
            21BXXXXXXXXXIIXXaXS749*833 2B 2*»*   »**2****2 **   2*t  2*  >   *«
            2B8XXXXXXXXXXX9BEXBB844 3 ***2* *3  2222***2*   2 «  «2   2»       >
            2B8XXXXXXXX8X982XS8232B4*3233B24442 *22> 33 3**32> 2>  **    > »«2
             4BXXXXXXXX»777XX*B348432B444  3223*5484** 22«* 5222*2**** 4  >*
             49>XXXXXXXXXXXaXB8B488BS3*8*32**8* 44»22223***> 4 >      •  •     *
            3BXXXXXXXXXXX«XX8X27XX8*9 493 **433*42*i  2*2*3 *22«  ***2       »*
            • 55X9XXXXXXXXXX9XX9447XBB4384227243 2232 >23« 32*2 2   >«  »3* ***« 2
             •XXXXXXXXXKXXXBXX7734X78438X4  4333*3324* *5**2332 **  *23>33  *2
             3aXXXXXXXXXXXXXX>B9BB7XX4SX582Ba2B*72X232aB«2B 39 2*»* 22244* 2
            43XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX98XXBX3BBXXBX8778434B28744 5554*3*22 2*33 22324*
            « 5X9XXXXXXXXXXX4XX8XB7X4B62X3B2S4B424B5* 44345 3242***4   223  *2*23
            S28XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX729XXX8BX582BBB734S8842843 2**33*5*4   2243 22***
             S8XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX8X7B744BX7S*4443238823»*S*43*423***»33 2 *» 2*22
            OXXXXXXXXXXXXX7XXX748BBB2X554  25322588324*8522*32 *22* 2*** **   »
             S3XX>XXXXXXaBX8XXXt7X77B4B79S339B5*B372342B4*3>*5»5» 22     22
            *S8«XXXXXXXXXXX8XXBB88XB84448823254«3454*584 242*3 2*22*2    • • •
            *37XBBXXXX8XBB787553297*9S4532*32B3***72*3* 2**2*23*»  *2> *4  2*» «
             *»33 8773B95XBB7B5B4S73234B352«4S3 222  3*42*23 3 *>  »*2*»3 **2*«*
               •  3*533335727BB354442 «832  2233***3>       3« *«   «   » 2  «
                  4233**233424B2 **2 «*«2  2 222333* * ' *** 2   ««   *>
               22 3 22 2  »2*2223*2BB *3* 2   522 2 '   **> *                 >
            2   **  44224342  **222**3 »»•>><          »
                  42*  ****2**2   .**       *
                                                                2*
                                                                 * *  *  *
                                                                22**   >
                                                                *  •*    *
                                                                .  3  «
                                                                 2 * *  *  •
 4.0000    *
        O .                  4.OOOO              6.OOOO
                 2.000O             8.OOOO
                                                                       16.OOO    FTPCO
                                                              1 4 . OOO              1 6 . OOO
                                                         4-11

-------
<(CATT*m YAH*II,-3  1 NTBII »AL • ( 4 . . 4O > ; t O . J . • » • BCATTBK PLOT     Mm 1112 OUT OF IO42B  t1.UMPC VS  3.PTPKOX
UMPC

 *° °°°   *   ^__  .         3.**.** ..                                    DATA BASE  IS  CERT/MFR
                          •  2* 3  •  2*             •«                                                 •
         +                3* 32    *2>     *         *
                          *2*3*                '  *2
                    »  • »   ••   *  2      2***
 3ft.OOO   *       **   3***22****«    *    * *
                   *  2  * 2 2  •  »**3*   •   ** «2 •
                   2 23<    »         2 « •   «2 2
         +        • *24*  2*27**  •  *•*  *     4*2   *
                   • *22***4B*2**2  **3*«        3 *****         *
                 *  *• « •  2** 42     **2  *•   * *  2   *
 32.OOO   »         B232*    223*     * ««2«  « >*2>*>  •
                 **2**43*  *344B*     «  *B •  »    2  2232
              •   « 23»24t*232*2*** • •    3» 23 2 >»2 '
         +          «»2e 3437333  *  * 22*2 ««2*2J    «2*«
              • • ••  3*28732752*22*3 ***22232  • 2222433***
                 *3 3 22332*B34S243»4*2*B 2B2  S44 4**2B2*
 2B.OOO   »   •    232**27B32XB7324*72*2* B*3*4*3 22 *3 222       2
            •  22**»«4S*BXB7BXX222*X2 2*>3*S «22423B34S23*•
             2 *2 S3432t42B4l(42**34 *33St4B*B4«**B32BB42*      *
         »   **3*C33B23XXX2 X4•S34B234*•422BBB«2224B32»«•2 •>
             •4*3 3323tllXt37B4B2***4 22B7B4B*2(B443*B3B2 *              *
             2  3422BBSBXB7BXX7B*3X3SB443*7712BB433* 32*24 2                 «   «
 24.000   »  *  *32B3B34XXXXXX»7X17X24»tlBXBXB43744B2B443*223  *2           *
          • *» 4*2t Sf.SXXXXXXXfXX3XB434aBBXBX4IOX*27S(323 34
          • *•• 2B3BBI XtXXIXXXXXBSt433S7XXttS3B742X233 4* 2               *
         »• *2422434l3ttXXXX*IXXIBXXI3l77X2BXII7ltt472*(B3 > 2
             3»2331BXIIXXlXXXBXBXBX7XX7t3*7XBB7«XXI7B4B2B«2 «•
          *>324232327*XXXXX(XX7XBBXt7IXXX4IXaX7XXXX2B74tB32*3 **
 2O.OOO   »• »  43S342BBXXXXXXXX2X2(77(XXtX(7t7XB2(BX474B3B434 «  «          •
            *4BS377IXXXXXXXXXX(*4*43I3B47XXXXIX7«7BXB747B 3232
          «*24* *44**4XX7XXIXXXXXB34IB7XXXtlXXI7XX7BB*4732E2 *      *   2      •
         *2 3BS737X3ltlXXXXXXXXXX*447XXXXXX7XXX4XX>«X7X472334** *> «**
          3  4B24(449«XXXXXXXXXXXXXX4XXXXXXXXXXaIXBXXXI«Xt4B*33 3  2*     «        •
          * *2*44BIS3XXXXXXXXXXIIBI7XSIXXXXXX4XXX«IX7BBB44 «2»*»2      *   *
 1B.OOO   *•  »*3*2BBXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXB77XXXXXX8XXXXX(XX9B432*223*>   »   *
          3 2»2BB344BXXXXXXXX4XXBXX(XX7BBXX7XXBXX4XB>B47B4** **2*             *   *
          4 *  * 232777XXXXIXXXX4XXSBBXBSBX7XXXBXX7B8.BB3432 >*4 «    «      •             •
         *4      2**4BXXXXXXXXXXXXXX77XBXXXXBaxX4XX4B743B4***»*  3*  •                  >
          3     *» 444BXXXXXXXXXXXXX7BBXE7XXXXBX3XBB4B34B2 2 2   «       «
          2    « « 2 *2«     »             •
                     •     ***3**33B7243**233 4B23  4   222»2****   2
         t              *«   «• 3  «2 34*23222*3 4B*34B2**> 3  *  •*
                     2  27743    *  *22 22*  *«3 *•  *2 •  *»  «
                      »• *    *• **  2 3  23  *   *•
                                                                                        FTPMOX
                                                                                        3.BOOO
(SCATTER ««R>12;4 IMTEH»»l«<1O.4B);(O.O.•)>-SCATTER PLOT      N* BBOB OUT OF IO42B   12.HMPC  VS. 4.FEHC
HMPC
 4B.OOO   «  • 22      •   •
           232B»22   *2  «                                            «
            34»«2*22  *
         » *3S4*3 3 *                                                                 >
           22B2B*  *•*••>               •                                     .
           42345.4  « .      ,                                        «•
 42.00O   * 244X732 22*                                                         •           .
           2SOBBS4 *                      •   *                     «                 »
           346B4S3 ***3***«                          *                  »               *
         * 2SX4B322 33*      *                *      «           *   **            *          *
           4X974B333  •     «            *      »                           *
           78854532 S   «               «                                     •      «
 It.000   » e«XXB94242* •*                         >«>»                  .  •                  .
          •S77XXS3  2*«  *  *«•     •                •  •            «        »                »
          2X34I2B3***   2 •           «•                       •               »    «       »
         «*XXXXB«42«  *  **» 2            '         *           >                      2
          2BXXXXS*S7B42*> 22****   »                >                       *• * *            *
          *X4XXB«.2 B2* 4*3* **2*  *•  •                               «
 34.000   +2XXXIX2IB3B2 2B2S' 4*2   *    »          «         *             *
          *XXXXB7XB«47 34333 >  2**    «   «     «  « «           **                •
           XXXXSS7B244 324**3    *     *2            .      .  .          ,         .
         •>2XXXt9XBBB33422B322 *«2* 2**'**2*«           *        >       «
          2XXXXXXXBBB9242*322  *   2 *     ,   ,  .        »
          *9XXXXX73*2B32*4*32«* B         •*•               •*«                  *
 3O.OOO   +3XXXXXXX9432 332*4 *  ***    *2             *  *•                  *
          BXXXXXXX944334223**    3 *3*  «...»....        •              >
          3XXXXB7S43442  ••  «2*   *2«*  « «       «       •   •        «         «
         «3XXXXX9*.B4«434 2**   442  *•* >>>*2*2*«              •   •
          BXXXXXX2XXXBB***3**3  3  **22   ••   • •     ., ,             •>.      .
          2XXXXXXX9XB23»33>4*3  *** *  *    ' **• •  *            *   •                          »
 2G.OOO   *4XIXXXXXXX93B2S3»23  *222*   2><    «     « «           «                            »
           7XXXXXXX2X74B22>2  **2   »2    *            *  »
          44XXXXXXXB442S43*222B*>*   2 *•  «         ••    2«    «       >        >
         »*XXXXXXXXXX78B7BB23243*  *  ** •    *                      * «                     <
          *BXXXXXXXXXXB34BB*4*« 32*      •**•****           *
           BBXXXXXX7BB9BB3«3 **•  *«• 2*    «    «   *2»  •    »  ««       «
 22.00O   *2BXXXXX7XXB77B222S32«*>  «   *  «       • •     *  *»»  *    ** «
           7IXXXXXXXBBXB4»3S*43322*«                .  . ,.
           2XXXXXXXXXB7BC222 22>*>     * »     •        >       *
         * 37XXXXXXX8XXB4**32*2 »2    *    *                                   •
            7XXXXX964S34 73***  3*       •    2
            4X9XX4B7X44S 24»   2                   *
 IB.000   ««4XXXX9XX2X3424  42 2 *  *                                        >
           23BX9XXX3BB3  **««•                             »         >
            3B*/9334S4«3  >2              '                    >   *
         * *SXBXBSSB2*    >    •
          •348XBB3S2 *2* •   »                                     >
           •4B4S332  *
 14.00O   » »22342    *                        *
          »» • 2 *
          22
         » «2
                                                                                        PEMC
                                                                                        .90000
                                                      4-12

-------
<1C«TTBR V»R*12;» IIITE»V»L*( 10.4B ) ; (0.9 . »-SC«TTEK HOT     M« IC7* OUT OF !O«25   I2.HMPC  VS. S.PECO
HMPC
 4S.OOO   » * «2*«                        •

         III II »J- •       "               •      .                       DATA  BASE  IS CERT/MFR
         »(4I2* •                                                 *
         4(213 2                      •  •       «
         1X4 2>                 *                 *
 42.000   »4X7B73«        »        «             «         '
         4«X3« 2*2 •**         * *   *     *     *                                 «       -
         3BX4B3** 2      * «««   «««•   2     »          •
         *(X74*34  3**3   >        • ««  2    « •         *
         3BX4(B***22 • •-«••««                     •
         EX4BB 282*22  >         •  *  «
 3B.OOO   +SX(X3*433*2*  » *•* >      *  • 2         «         *
         2XIX3I »3>*« 2 »»••«•«•••           •
         BX132** 24*3*  « 2         «   •      «•        *
         •BXXXX33X3 2  «2        « 2  «             2
         XXXX((4732432**2   2*2*2**                               »
         XXB4SX271S*        «  . «       «   • •      »
 34.OOO   »XXX377EX434»322 *22 • •  2**  •    «       •         *          »
         XXXXBIXB7 833*222 3*> 2      •••12        •            «•
         XXX37I3B343>22 »2*22*8«2*«      *                     >
         *XXXXX7BB3B3 3*« 3 2* *2  •  •  3 323    «««   3    •        »                 •>
         XXXXXX949242 334324*22** 3*    • • •   «•«    »              •
         XX7X7XX794B224*3**4***    2* «  •  *2  •• •• ••  •        ••            •
 30.OOO   «XXXXBXBEX7B 22*   *1* **2**       *     *     •>•     '         >
         XXXXXIXXBBI2B22*     *   2 « *  ••     2**2 •  •**  *
         XXXt7(4B4B73>3 2    2*  «*  ••             >                      •
         •XXXX7433I49722**2**»2**>    >2  •>• 2   « •  *2«   2
         XXXXXX*>7S2>2 22822*22  •«  •  4 • 2« 2«  «2 »  •     «2« «  •  .     .              « ..
         XXXXXX7X43*E32** *2*3 «2 22  •  •«  4   •« « «  •   *     •
 2B.OOO   «XXX«7XB7IXI4334 322  «32 32*«*4**?«   «  >             «    •        •           •  •
         XXXXX7tBB((22*322*4 2*23* *» *  •<•?  •••••••>«                       .
         XXXXXB7 14X3*222 *>2>2  2*3     *      22* •  **    *•          *»
         4XXXXXBB47I7234    2*22  222 *22>*:*2    ••<      2  *  «    «  2
         XXXXXXB1B* 3224*2 2B2*»22 ** 2***< * *   2 2         *        *
         XXXXXX>47»2222234 2*2 2  *•* 2> •• 3***2 *• >  2*      *   *  •   •                     *
 22.OOO   «XXXXXX8XBBS4*4«B2**  *22*2 « «• 2 S2   **2** «  •     *    »*   «
         XXXXtX7B7BBI7S *23 22 2  BE  3*  «*  •>    •**>*•<     .  t     «                »
         XXXX1XB«732*2B33 •  ***2*2 *>*2*        *               .    .  .
         *XXXXXt*BB7S**»«*4 *     ****3   « 2     *    *2   *»   •        . «                   «
         XXXBI42333B23*32* *2««   »«»«»««*           <               .
         XXXX743*B 3*B **2 •••*•***
 K.OOO   *XXXXXE*4*23**3 2»    «  «•      2      «            «  .     .       .
         XXXBBBB32**32 *•••*•       2 •  • •                  •            •
         XX3«3>3 >     *•»  « «      «                    «    «           «     •
         *XXXBB*2B»  «2«« >                 «  «     •
         XX3X2*.  •*•«  «*           •            «                   .
         54334 •  **3 « «           *
 M.OO'O   *22B**»***                                        *
                                                                                     PECO
                                                                                     9.OOOO
-SCATTER PLOT      N»  B(I7 OUT OP 1O43B  12.HMPG VS.  S.PECO
HMPG
 44.OOO   ***22           >
          B7*»4»    2       •
          4622*
         •XX**                       •
          97B2          * •   *
          X72«        •         *                       >
 42.OOO   »XXX2
          XX223*
          7XB33
         »XX*7233
         • 2 «3  2
            • »*2
 7X97232
 XX6275 *    *• *
•XX78B4 *2«*   **2
 XX9243***  2 * * 2
 XX3237* 3     •»
*XXXX92«2   • 2*
 XXXXBB2222*  2 *
 XX9XX3    «« *  » **   •
«XXXXX7B223**22 «  »  «
 XX7XXB4424»2  « *  3   2
 XX9XB74*3> 22 *B*2 **   *
•XXXX7B3233 3»* 383  2*  3 *
 XX>XX«*eaS23*4  **« 2*  >
 XXXXXX724S** 3* » 3**2 2*
•XXBXXX4I 3*2 3*  *  »  *  *
 XXXXXXB4   • 2**»*  222«*2 *
 XX(BBX4»2  322        *
•XXX9XX422242  3*2 2**' *3 2
 XXXXXB22934 2* 4*2*3*2** 3*
 XXXXXB3*233232*»* 4***** *
•XXXXXXSSE2 42B*B23 *•
 XXXXXX33S43422**3  2 « » 2
 XXXXXX3322423*  »   4* «2  *
+XXXIBX7 232 B*42*3 *2  2 « * • 2
 XXXXX94S2B42322*3 »*22    *   >
 XXXXX4337322 32*2 44**«2»  • *«  •
•XXXXXX429* 522«*24*23««* *  2 «
 XXXXXXX2B*32BE4** 2 ***» 2*   >   '
 XXXXXB742  23*323    >       • • •
•XXXXXX2BS*   34 « 2 «   32*   *
 XX97B7B33*2* « 2  *• «  « «  »
 XX«7B4S*3*** »* ***
•XXXSBB4 3  *««  2   «     « «  •
 XXSXBS2*** ***  2 ***        *
 XX34>  «2« »  «         «  «
»XXB3B*3**         **  *
 XX37 3« 2      »      «        »
 BBB> 5* «     «
•46*****                    *
                                       2
                                                                                     PECO
                                                                                     It.OOO
                                                    4-13

-------
OCATTER
HMPE
 4*.OOO
VAR«12;B INTERVAL*!10.4B);IO,B.3)>-SCATTER PLOT     I

 4          •    ***••       •
    •*2*   * «2      *    2**22 2      •     ••
     • 2  * » * * 2 * *     ****  *  *
 4«    ** «423 *    *        3*        *««« *•
    • 3 *22  2   *  *2  * •*  *   3   *•*
  * 2  222  23 3 * *       *  *  2  ••«
 *2     22*«*6*3  4 * «23332« • *»   *  *
 * *• * 32244  3  * ***222  34 4    **  32    *
 * 22* 4* *2222*«  **• 2*224*6  **2      »
 »*2 23*** *2    *• 23* 2*34433 «22 •* •*  *« *
 8423*2 22*2 23*8* 22 2*33  2 *2>*    **
 ***2   23   42** *2«424*  *4*3   22***
 «2**2222 *24E2332 343422*2832* 2 «3*2 ••
 322324***  42*3 27 *3*2 4  3**2 2 3* 2*
 *2 *2**4   24*44****2*2»*2* * ******  ••  *
 *42333*3*233323*2***3*243*4422**233**2  2**
 >..»>34347<535E323*22(3**43464324>2>.2>3 2 * *
 22 43*33BB*333*72323424 .33423  2*  *  2  *     *
 437343i**474.284627334433*4424232'23> **• 2**
 36(4*66444*474 64446*354*47342 44««3«   2     *
 >73*6223B*3*3*2B242322B866«332*22  2** **2 ** *
 434166 62826234288X346334833.643 22*224  •  « « « 2
 4X374622 3223*E*7(4(X449324(38*6 .32  • 2*  *2* *
 6X24B233332*24B»«(4B67374  53(«233••33*•23   * »•• •
 434262324 24336*4B63734*13471*738343 «*32 2   *
 4B3294423*XXBBX67X6(7473466>6*442*  «*2«    «
 32 3433 2  44 282*444668*4.472224*••3*  ««2   *
 46«2*964>26S3B9442437XB337633779 4333 • »*2 *   2
 6X3(XXI446S6467(6X7S78646673233733*2 *«2 *•• * *
 2XS4XSXBS7BX434BBB8B7B*B3a433«4>23 3 • •  •***
 42X(2B8B57667576B49>t((8(7>83325236 •» * *3   *» *
 37aB(6(33X73644XX5(3((I9BB3l4332*2" 3 *  *   *
 4B*B89X7BXS**BaXBBBXXXaaBB7B23 *«  *   ««  •• •
 434 24S7XSSBBXXSX7XXXXXX4XSS7B3842 2   *2        *
 *3»BBX7XX4X4I73X7XXXXXXax2477433** *•  «  •      2
 ***22Ea9SXB7SS7X88XSa4776a42B*2342*2* 8    *2   2
 43X3243BBB2XBBBSXXB78BBaa9BXBBa322424*> .  *
 4B3*7S4237XBB434XBB278XX37B4aaBB2732 2* *»     *
 2*23322336 36SEBBB5X44BX793SB34B2»2>422 2*    •
 4»..323>223»785B(X 4779 Xt>56«764 2344 >*»»2 *2
  *• 22»2 43496336466643557432*4... 3 . *   »2 2  *.
  •   .2* **3 *344a92X*B82S732*32E32 *  *   .
 42>  **«2 *233BBE7SSaaB33643BB*3B***2*    *    * .  *
 .... <*322272B44B4S2243232423222*3 .23  ...
      »        *42 2B32433423* * 2*42** . .   .    .
 4       2 * .8424234444*2*3 2 *3*   **  **2    »*
 *      * * 2*334223327334 ••  2   **2* *  ««
 .      2  « ••« «2 ««2 3 **• 2««*   ««  *
 4       2       *     2E »• .    *        *
     *            *....
        «           2 '
                                                          (121 OUT  OP 10431   12.NMPC  VS. •.»BMOX
                                                                           DATA BASE  IS  CERT/MFR
                                                                                       PENDX
                                                                                       S.3OOO

 3O.OOO   »
 22.000   *
 18.OOO   »
                   2   «
                 2* 3««
                2«  23*2
                            *«
       •**2***                   *
       2«*45  »           »          «
        3424*  *   • « ••      «      «
       * 532          *  '          *
       •232*23  »   ««    • •
      • 3*442222  •     •     >
        2S27332       «•  2  «
     2  2*47BB*2  3>     >3 ••
      22434622*«**«      t 3  2  •
       334X855 4*« •   •     «     •
      *B62a9BB>**3**  *2  *  *2  • •   *
      2924BB63S2* 3> *•   ••      3
      >237B426»22* •  22  •  •         •
     •337XXX93S433   *    2  2   *    *
     444>97XS99«34>  22 *** • ***
     34S36«XBS7*32 232 •** 2       2* •*
     2S6977XX7X>42 342*23 *>   2*2*3  ••  «
      54X»XX76697XS4432*»**2  •*  2**  *2
     *244>aX69X464 32 '22' **>*2  2  ** *  3
     235X9X9X676553343 O* 4   «  « **» 2
     >36X67aX9XXX4SB73223   «  *> •* 2**3*
     2344Be9Xe756243622> 2*4* > «« *2> 2"
     •42XXXXX9XXa7S* 222*3 «3*22*3 *2 *2***
     2*4XXXXBX9X6XB53*4323*22 4*  G**42   >2
     •452XBXX68X5*2633**2» «42**273 **  3«
      379XXXXXXX67363 3744*22 »2»37352*
      *4BXXXX6XSa9B546663533*2a4237*«2 4 2
      *22»XXXXXXXXa7557»S32544X43aB*3* 223
      5466XXXXXX665BB5aX96XS9X334 63234*42
      *29aXXXXXXXXX46344632XB2X3265*922*22
      343X9XXXXXXX7X5G43563X7235224 7* 553*
     •»554XXXX9XX6X6BB7963*6S*55*74333*S*
      2347XXXXXXXXX634257S3X6 XX  7345 24>
      3 *22675aE74X523X4373944524B4353 5322
      * • 2XX7XX7BB7BB4a4a X329*224 «2 35
      * 4396X56329X247267*23294*74 6**S**
    *    2*63256*6*3432622272 5*2 *223 3  >
      > 32S52XX37B7444334224«S22*2 « *2*3
         *B3357S5326523>  3** >  • •« •
       »*26*66332332  4 3 2«»»* *>
      *22 53*7* 33  22 *332 *•  3  *   «
          •  2*2** 2**  *2  *  •  *      :
      •  »*«•*  *•  •  2*       •
        * •  2           « * *
                                                                  3 >
                                                                 2* *
                                                                 «2
                                                                 3
                                                  2

                                                  2*
                         .4OOOO
                                           .80000
                                                                                       FTPHC
                                                                                       1.8OOO
                                                    4-14

-------
CHATTER  VAR>13;2 INTERVAL* I te, *• ) ; (0. 11 » -ICATTER PLOT      N>  BOB7  OUT OP 1O42B  1I.CMPC Y» .  2.PTPCO
CMPC
                                                                                 DATA BASE  IS  CERT./MFR
         +     *     2* •
                    * *•  *   *     •       *     *
              * *  *2 * **                  *        •
         *   * *2** *2«*  * *      *     *
            • **•• *   2               *   *           >
             • **•  •    **  *  .*            *
         *  • 2B  •  • •••    *        2
               2*322 *2* * *    «     «««    •     «
              2** 22* *       *•*           '*
         *   •* *22**2 2*2*      *         *
             •222 12*4* **2     *           *
              * 4243.24   • ••                   O«
         *   * 334231 >• 2 *32   «*2 ••       « • •*
            * *233423 22 2* »*  •*  2  •*   **«2    *      *
            «« 27434*12*33*2 2»  2 •         2 •    »
         *    2I3312(I34**23«**«*«»     *• 3 *     * 2  2*
            •*3 4344B24* *42 4*3*   * *     * *    »*
               •336 2 14 •» *4   **2 4    **  *       *
         «*2 8*3984*B342B2*442*231*        *    *        >           *  *
              887287228844*47443 4 •     •*  «       2*2  • ••2    3     •*
           *  128844*28388 ••**43»*   "23  «••«      • ••**        » «
         *   »SX28244BX44BBS34B4*3**  *• *   2* ••*• *23*3* •• 3 •« •• 2  •
              33X4844X88784*8423334*4*333*2 "22 **4*22 *2 2** ***    «*2  * *
              2843*4X8288832*28  4«3*33>* ••  3*** *  2*23*  «  *• 2 «« ••   *
         »     >X4X«I7(I3SI33433*234  •  2 *2* 33*3   2  « **» * * * *   *  *
             *2BB8XX7S3284**X7243  S3  •( 224*4* 2332 2 •'    **•   2    * *****
              •2S3S4S8BSSBB434333  3*32**33  *42 2221 *3?  2*  S2 2 ••  2     *
         *    *XS8X477SSaa4S48  384228*33*2**42 242  2 «"7   ** 2
             »3BXSX3784a833S7X«234a24*3*33*3222 2442**3»  *2*2**     *  *   >
             •2X24XIIS 978832836 S73422E * « 14 2 >   *2*   *>    * « •      «
         •    2B74BXXBXXXXSS7aB3B773434B4 2222* »3»3  « =  *4»  * * ****2» ***
              23BS38aXXXXaaa7434 4B4S33474 3**3 432*2 36    232 *  *•  «••« *
            * 3Ba*8XX8SXaXaB3B2242873**7B3 332*3327322342 **38      2312    •»      *     •
         +   27BBIBtB42>XXBBBXI72B«BI2SBBB3BX24BS443*14*3*4*  B* «***3 **  222*  «       •
              22XBXXXXBXX3X77X7B22B733*BB7342S4*2242 3*222243322***  * 2   3*33 *   «•    *
             2*3BXXB7X7XBX7BBX3324X2342E3B*3423 44**32444   *2** « B  *22* 3»***3*     '       2
         »   224B4XBXB7XB1BBBIB22BB*B*4B422*44223273 «3  33« 2*2*3    ***2  * 2*  •»
             7BBBXXXXBX7BXBBBXB4S3BB3 «448 4*43**434422B32B>*•2 23* 2 3*** ** 2>        >
            • 3B4 34334BB*B4 233«3B42**BS43* *B33* 3*73*3 B  ** 24 3   2**   •  >   23**    >
         «   2 2444B73*BBB42B*443B22B*3B4*3*432*244**«*4*232  **2****»    **3   • «   «    >
               232B437384B33B4BB«3B22*234B 2*22**234 B4  **22*B*> 2«*  *2       «     «    *
              »*3 «2**»B2BB 4223 2>332*2 *« *B2 « 2 *• *2*2  *2**  «•  2  2   «»    >
         •     4* BB4**4*3B334B3423 S2 73  *«4* »«2« 3***   *  • *  *«2*»* **3**«« *      «
               *  3 222*22B*BB22«24   22 3*»23  2*2        2  »                      •
                  42B2**3432233    >*  *3*  2 *****2*     *  *2     '     «  «    •
         *     *2 2 2 *2  2***222*3B  2*    222 2 2  **•          *    *            * «
                   **• *  *   23   *2 *  **  *   » *    •
                  **2» *  *  *  *   2   •     «
         +        2*         *         *    * *
          + - ..* + ----*... .«----».--• + ...- + ---- + ---.+..-*+.---«--. . + ....4.... + .»...*....*....*K...^....*
                           4.oooo              4.oeeo             12.000              IB.OOO    PTPCO
                 2.0000             e.oeoo              10.000              14.000              IB.OOO
-SCATTER  PLOT      N> BOB3 OUT OP 1043S   13.CMPG VS. 3.PTPNOX
CMPG
 4B.OOO   *                                  •*
                          2***    3    *    **
                           '   2  22
                                 23
                         22  >  2222*'
                  •2 »  * *  *•  2 *22
                                   2    •   »»  3   «•
                                   •           *   * 2*
                                   **2*    *«2*
                                    >** **2*  *    2*
                                   *  2   »    2
                                 2*  * ** 222*2*  *    *•  *
                                 • * •*  •» 3 *2   2*2  *242»
 »       2   »2*2B1**22*3232  *        2 32* * *2*  2     «•>   »
•  >     **   •  «24  33463*     ** 2*** 32 23 3*2**  *2232*2*** *
    «   *2**3*« 3222*232*  «    *•* «    2*3 3* 2* •  432*2*23
  ***  *  *  *• 2****32*22**  2*2  *    *2 * 2**   **••**  32  *
 2*2 232* 2***3*42 2B 2*   *2«** ***2343*32 33*2*  *  2**4* 2 * **
  3  242  *2***4B2BB3 3S***    *  2 2**  24B**3»4 »*2*»«2  22**2*  *
>    *  3  »*3 3*22*4B  >    *   «« 4  2*3*8*323*223*242 2332   >
**   *3*32B3 *22*»*332* 4*2   **  2* »S3BX2B732*«23  3  8  S32 3  « 2
 >  >2  3*S  *4237334*423432S2  4  »*38*2444B2BB33*432E2*22  **23*2 >
 >«»«   32  >32»4«* 3*2322*3**2*22222B434B 28*324422  24   3*2 **  2
       22**22*2*3423«22438222*22 226228XB2243 *B32S  43222* 33 •
      3  *4  *22344*22**B3*422*3*32224B43B384*34473323»42«*32*2>   2
      2  222 *>3*23*33 ««4*3*2*433*2 32»42375*33B23B22228*344* *
 2342   *4*2S32S2**224B33B3322*82424444*2»3233BB*S342B4B22442 * 2>
       >333233*42322S32*42**3234B24X33a43B2334S222B*33244233*233«
                4*
                   •3432  '  422B28314 24224  2»»3  482  2334433*88233*344*2***
            • 3>   *332 S*2*B4BaBBB8B 4223 3*3*27SBSS7BB4B3228S7B2*88*382 222  >  *
             * 34»*2222382334222894B*S32*432»2422aS448B32663ee2SBB433B*3 **2   «
                >*42*2 3 2S324S3S*43B28*B333 38478377842X488388443724*2244** 2*    2*
              « 22 • « 3 232242773448*2*4482 3473488X97776X87X848888943232 82*   « 3
             • 3  «»23**22S4B3929B7B84**S32*323477B4XBB794SX8324SXB8B32B43*3*2*  > »
             2*  3 2*B2333247B443B2243632343S23S7349BX43838aaX7SB4333S32* ***  *2  >
             > 2   *  **32222S8*24346*743**2464BBe44>aX2Sa949Sa32B344348««3 « *«
              »  •*•* 2*24BBB44B347433B2384BS»BB34S9S7XB4aBa4XX4B76343*  44****   2««* »
                    >3    >233324*2**8 2*222324926*3B44473B238SS43*6433232 *   *2  * *
                     3   *  >    *22*23 4*3*434323S4387BBBXB8B*24B3*3B4*232** 2*  «   •
                    *  » * >2>   >2 >• *2> 88388*2272*498348943 84743*443323 «
                        .  •    «  «    *4 3 >**344  4*23*438843 *62 322«**3* *>
               >                 2*  3**' B2B7S4a38B3443B242»*3S*2B2232   «** •     *
                                   **>  3322*  *»*6*2428S2 **2*22* *3 «*  • 2  «  *   •
                          *        ** 3 *3* 322  24    3333 4 32* *4*    *** *   * *
                                 »•  ««*• 2 2 22>  22*22 2 2 *4  12 2 *2* • *   22
                                *             2*    2    « 2   ***22 2*     *        «
                                              »   3 «3« *«         2
                                                                                              PTPNOX
                                                                                              2.7OOO
                                                          4-15

-------
               Appendix  5

Results from Stepwise Backward Regression
        of Vehicle Parameters and
      Emissions versus Fuel Economy

-------
Ul
I
               

               SELECTION OF REGRESSION  <1> TAYR:81*FTYP:(1-7,1O-17)*VTRN:(CA,CA,CA)
               ANALYSIS AT STEP 0 FOR 11.UMPG  N= 97 OUT OF 198

               SOURCE               DF   SUM OF SORS  MEAN SQUARE
               REGRESSION
               ERROR
               TOTAL
1 1
85
96
1675.5
170.04
1845.5
152.32
2.0005
                                F-STAT

                                76.138
               MULTIPLE R= .95282  R-SOR= .90786  SE= 1.4144
                    VARIABLE
                                  PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
               ANALYSIS AT STEP 1  FOR 11.UMPG  N= 97 OUT OF 198

               SOURCE               DF   SUM OF SORS  MEAN SQUARE
               REGRESSION
               ERROR
               TOTAL
1O
86
96
1675.3
170.19
1845.5
167.53
1.9789
                          F-STAT

                          84.658
               MULTIPLE R= .95278  R-SQR= .90778  SE= 1.4067
                    VARIABLE
                                  PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
                                     SIGNIF

                                      .0000
                                           SIGNIF

22
23
24.
27
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
CONSTANT
. VDHP
.DISP
. RTHP
. NSVR
. ETWM1
. FTPHC
. FTPCO
. FTPNOX
. FEHC
. FECO
. FENOX

. 12906
-.21762
-.28686
-.21535
.62636
-.05356
.O4779
-.05756
. 02906
-. 13759
-.06930
9.9789
. 14232
-.94206 -2
-.23881 -1
-.57307 -1
51554.
-1 .3776
.64247 -1
- . 54008
.96623
-.20991
-.43213
3.5123
. 11861
.45829 -2
.86502 -2
.28186 -1
6959.2
2.7860
. 14565
1 .O161
3 . 6053
. 16390
.67474
2.8411
1 . 1999
-2.0556
-2.7607
-2.0332
7 . 4080
-.49446
.44111
-.53152
.26800
-1 .2807
-.64044
.0056
.2335
.0429
.OO71
.0452
.0000
.6223
. 66O3
.5964
.7893
.2038
.5236
SIGNIF

 .OOOO
                                           SIGNIF

22
23
24
27
40.
1
2,
3,
5,
6
CONSTANT
.VDHP
.DISP
.RTHP
.NSVR
. ETWM1
.FTPHC
, FTPCO
.FTPNOX
, FECO
, FENOX

. 12702
-.21673
-.28613
-.21714
.62643
-.04783
.04441
- .06234
-. 14360
- ,07067
10.033
. 13957
-.93786 -2
-.23815 -1
-.57736 -1
51580.
-1 . 1918
.59214 -1
-.57931
-. 18692
-.44042
3.4875
. 11753
.45555 -2
.86000 -2
.27988 -1
6920.9
2.6839
. 14365
1 . 000 1
. 13891
.67039
2.8769
1. 1875
-2.0588
-2.7693
-2.0629
7.4527
-.44408
.41221
-.57926
-1 .3456
-.65696
.0051
.2383
.0425
.0069
.042 1
.0000
.6581
.6812
.5639
. 1820
.513O
                    REMAINING
                                  PARTIAL   SIGNIF

-------
                 4.FEHC
                                  .02906
           .7893
              ANALYSIS AT STEP 2 FOR 11.UMPG  N= 97 OUT OF 198

              SOURCE               OF   SUM OF SORS  MEAN SQUARE
              REGRESSION
              ERROR
              TOTAL
   9
  87
  96
1675.0
170.52
1845.5
186.11
1.96OO
              MULTIPLE R= .95268  R-SOR= .90760  SE= 1.4000
                                  F-STAT

                                  94.952
                                     SIGNIF

                                      .0000
Ul
I
                   VARIABLE
                   REMAINING

                 2.FTPCO
                 4.FEHC
                                 PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
PARTIAL   SIGNIF
 .04441
 .02306
   .6812
   .8311
                                                                              SIGNIF

22
23
24
27
40
1
3
5
6
CONSTANT
. VDHP
.DISP
. RTHP
.NSVR
. ETWM1
. FTPHC
. FTPNOX
. FECO
. FENOX

. 12087
-.22191
-.28715
- .21693
.62696
-.02547
-.05164
-. 13749
-.08255
10.075
. 13050
-.95725
-.23921
-.57734
51674.
-.49117
-.45923
-. 17522
-.50236


-2
-1
-1





3.4693
. 11490
.45095
.8555O
.27855
6884. 1
2.0670
.95214
. 13533
.65021


-2
-2
-1





2.9042
1 . 1358
-2. 1227
-2.7962
-2.0727
7.5063
-.23762
-.48231
-1.2947
-.77262
.0047
.2592
.0366
.0064
.0412
.0000
.8127
.6308
. 1988
.4418
              ANALYSIS AT STEP 3 FOR 11.UMPG  N= 97 OUT OF 198

              SOURCE               OF   SUM OF SORS  MEAN SQUARE
              REGRESSION
              ERROR
              TOTAL
   8
  88
  96
1674.9
170.63
1845.5
209.36
1.9390
              MULTIPLE R= .95265  R-SQR= .90754  SE= 1.3925
             F-STAT

             1O7.97
SIGNIF

 .0000
                   VARIABLE
                                 PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
                                             SIGNIF

22
23
24,
27
40
CONSTANT
.VDHP
.DISP
.RTHP
.NSVR
. ETWM1

. 12290
-.22127
- . 30408
-.21912
.62862
10.O19
. 13243
-.95431
-.24484
-.58214
51789.


-2
-1
-1

3.4426
. 11399
.44835
.81768
.27632
6830. 1


-2
-2
-1

2
1
-2
-2
-2
7
.9103
. 1617
. 1285
.9943
. 1067
.5824
.0046
.2485
.O361
.0036
.O380
.0000

-------
   3.FTPNOX
   5.FECO
   6.FENOX
-.05174  -.46027      .94701     -.48603      .6282
-.14141  -.17908      .13364     -1.34OO      .1837
-.O957O  -.55214      .61222     -.90187      .3696
     REMAINING

   1.FTPHC
   2.FTPCO
   4.FEHC
PARTIAL

-.02547
 .01822
 .O1694
  SIGNIF

   .8127
   .8654
   .8748
ANALYSIS AT STEP 4 FOR 11.UMPG  N= 97 OUT OF 198

SOURCE               DF   SUM OF SQRS  MEAN SQUARE
REGRESSION
ERROR
TOTAL
   7
  89
  96
1674.4
171.09
1845.5
239.20
1.9224
MULTIPLE R= .95252  R-SQR=  .90729  SE= 1.3865
     VARIABLE
                                  F-STAT

                                  124.43
                                     SIGNIF

                                      .OOOO
PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
                                                                SIGNIF

22
23
24.
27
40
5
6
CONSTANT
. VDHP
,DISP
. RTHP
.NSVR
. ETWM1
. FECO
. FENOX

. 13294
-.22466
- . 30662
- .21673
.62742
-. 14049
- . 15172
9.8343
. 14163
-.96883
-.24704
-.57556
51650.
-.17811
-.72290


-2
-1
-1



3.4068
. 11193
.44543
.81291
.27480
6794.8
. 13305
.49922


-2
-2
-1



2
1
-2
-3
-2
7
-1
-1
.8867
.2654
. 1750
.0390
.0944
.6014
.3387
.4481
.0049
.209O
.0323
.0031
.0391
.0000
. 1841
. 1511
     REMAINING

   1.FTPHC
   2.FTPCO
   3.FTPNOX
   4.FEHC
PARTIAL

-.02567
 .00570
-.05174
 .02603
  SIGNIF

   .8102
   .9575
   .6282
   .8076
ANALYSIS AT STEP 5 FOR 11.UMPG  N= 97 OUT OF 198

SOURCE               DF   SUM OF SQRS  MEAN SQUARE
REGRESSION
ERROR
TOTAL
   6
  90
  96
1671.3
174.17
1845.5
278.56
1.9352
             F-STAT

             143.94
SIGNIF

 .OOOO
MULTIPLE R= .95164  R-SQR= .90562  SE= 1.3911

-------
                   VARIABLE
                                  PARTIAL   COEFFICIENT  STD  ERROR   T-STAT
                                             SIGNIF

23,
24.
27
40
5
6
CONSTANT
.DISP
. RTHP
.NSVR
. ETWM1
. FECO
. FENOX

-.20866
-.34521
-. 17959
.65366
-. 14746
-. 17085
12.312
-.89726
-.27437
-.43938
47OO3 .
-. 18846
-.81514

-2
-1
-1



2.7970
.44330
.78630
.25370
5736.3
. 13324
.49552

-2
-2
-1



4
-2
-3
-1
8
-1
-1
.4020
.0240
.4894
.7319
. 1941
.4144
.645O
.OOOO
.0459
.0008
.0867
.OOOO
.1607
. 1O35
                    REMAINING

                 22.VDHP
                  1.FTPHC
                  2.FTPCO
                  3.FTPNOX
PARTIAL   SIGNIF
                  4.FEHC
 .13294
-.O3501
-.02421
-.07265
 .01960
   .2090
   .7418
   .8198
   .4937
   .8537
00
               ANALYSIS AT STEP 6 FOR 11.UMPG  N= 97 OUT OF 198

               SOURCE                DF    SUM OF SQRS  MEAN SQUARE
               REGRESSION
               ERROR
               TOTAL
   5
  91
  96
1667.5
178.O4
1845.5
333.50
1.9565
               MULTIPLE R= .95054  R-SOR= .90353  SE= 1.3988
                                  F-STAT

                                  17O.45
                                     SIGNIF

                                      .0000
                    VARIABLE
                                  PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
                                             SIGNIF

23.
24.
27.
40.
6.
CONSTANT
DISP
RTHP
NSVR
ETWM1
.FENOX

-.20477
-.34552
-. 19037
.65307
-.13091
12. 124
-.88948
-.27758
-.47013
47393.
-.59618

-2
-1
-1


2 . 809 1
.44570
.79029
.25415
5761 . 1
.47329

-2
-2
-1


4.
-1,
-3
-1
8
-1
.3160
.9957
.5124
.8498
.2265
.2596
.0000
.0490
.0007
.0676
.0000
.2110
                    REMAINING

                 22.VOHP
                  1 .FTPHC
                  2.FTPCO
                  3.FTPNOX
                  4.FEHC
                  5.FECO
PARTIAL   SIGNIF
  .14030
-.05265
-.05737
-.07120
-.05997
-.14746
   . 1822
   .6182
   .5870
   .5000
   .5701
   . 1607
               ANALYSIS AT STEP 7 FOR 11.UMPG  N= 97 OUT OF 198

               SOURCE               DF   SUM OF SQRS  MEAN SQUARE
                                  F-STAT
                                             SIGNIF

-------
               REGRESSION
               ERROR
               TOTAL
              4
             92
             96
1664.4
181.15
1845.5
416.09
1.9690
                                                                    211.32
               MULTIPLE R=  .94966  R-SOR=  .90185  SE=  1.4O32
                    VARIABLE
                                  PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
                                                                                .OOOO
                                                                               SIGNIF
CONSTANT
23.DISP
24.RTHP
27 .NSVR
40.ETWM1

-.26152
-.32732
-. 171 13
.64577
12.271
-. 10874 -1
-.25856 -1
-.41940 -1
45957 .
2.8156
.41841 -2
.7782O -2
.25174 -1
5665.0
4.3583
-2.5989
-3.3225
-1 .666O
8. 1124
.0000
.0109
.0013
.O991
.OOOO
                    REMAINING

                 22.VDHP
                   1.FTPHC
                   2.FTPCO
                   3.FTPNOX
                   4.FEHC
                   5.FECO
                   6.FENOX
           PARTIAL   SIGNIF
            .15534
            .O9808
            .07625
            •. 13551
            .03O18
            .09798
            .13091
   . 1371
   .3496
   .4676
   . 1953
   .7740
   .3501
   .2110
Ln
I
               REGRESSION OF  11.UMPG USING BACKWARD SELECTION
               STEP
R-SOR  STD ERROR  H VAR
                                                     VARIABLE
                                                                      PARTIAL  SIGNIF
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
.9O786
.90778
.9O760
.90754
.90729
.90562
.9O353
.90185
1 .4144
.4067
.4000
.3925
.3865
.391 1
.3988
.4032
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4

4
2
1
3
22
5
6

FEHC
FTPCO
FTPHC
FTPNOX
VDHP
FECO
FENOX
IN
OUT
OUT
OUT
OUT
OUT
OUT
OUT

.02906
.04441
-.02547
-.05174
. 13294
-. 14746
-. 13091

.7893
.6812
.8127
.6282
.2O90
. 16O7
.2110

-------
Ul
I
              SELECTION  OF  REGRESSION  <1>  TAYR:81*FTYP:(1-7.10-17)*VTRN:(CM,CM,CM)
              ANALYSIS  AT  STEP  0 FOR  11.UMPG  N=  107  OUT  OF  233

              SOURCE                DF    SUM OF SQRS  MEAN SQUARE
              REGRESSION
              ERROR
              TOTAL
 11
 95
106
3210.6
347.83
3558.4
291 .87
3.6613
                                 F-STAT      SIGNIF

                                 79.718       .OOOO
              MULTIPLE  R=  .94987. R-SQR=  .90225  SE=  1.9135
                   VARIABLE
                                 PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
              ANALYSIS AT STEP 1 FOR 11.UMPG  N= 107 OUT OF 233

              SOURCE               DF   SUM OF SQRS  MEAN SQUARE
              REGRESSION
              ERROR
              TOTAL
 10
 96
106
3210.6
347.83
3558.4
321.06
3.6232
                                 F-STAT

                                 88.613
              MULTIPLE R= .94987  R-SQR= .90225  SE= 1.9035
                   VARIABLE
                                 PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
                                            SIGNIF

22.
23,
24
27
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
CONSTANT
. VDHP
,DISP
. RTHP
. NSVR
. ETWM1
. FTPHC
. FTPCO
. FTPNOX
. FEHC
. FECO
. FENOX

. 16015
. 10123
-.42421
-.28486
.74209
.21225
-.36298
.06603
- . 00005
-.01161
.04386
7. 1304
.25523
.83965
- .73042
-. 1 1174
71856.
6.8089
-1.2555
.74025
- . 50066
-.95846
.32678


-2
-1





-2
-1

4.3368
. 16140
.84662 -2
. 15997 -1
.38578 -1
6659. 0
3.2163
.33067
1 . 1477
10.631
.84708
.76371
1 .6442
1 .5814
.99177
-4.5659
-2.8965
10.791
2. 1170
-3.7969
.64498
-.47096 -3
-.11315
.42789
. 1O34
. 1171
.3238
.0000
.0047
.OOOO
.0369
.OOO3
.5205
.9996
.9102
.6697
SIGNIF

 .OOOO
                                            SIGNIF

22
23
24
27
40
1
2
3
5
6
CONSTANT
.VDHP
.DISP
.RTHP
.NSVR
. ETWM1
.FTPHC
.FTPCO
.FTPNOX
.FECO
.FENOX

. 16206
. 10226
-.42729
-.28894
.75341
.24016
-.37663
. 06605
-.01592
.04420
7 . 1 308
.25522
.83959 -2
-.73043 -1
-.11174
71855.
6 . 808 1
-1 .2555
.74026
- .961 18 -1
.32674
4.2337
. 15861
.83359 -2
. 15774 -1
.37786 -1
6400.6
2 . 8086
.31516
1 . 1413
.61622
.75367
1 .6843
1 . 609 1
1 .0072
-4.6306
-2.9571
11.226
2.424O
-3.9835
.64859
-. 15598
.43353
.0954
. 1109
.3164
.OOOO
.OO39
.OOOO
.0172
.0001
.5182
.8764
.6656
                   REMAINING
                                 PARTIAL   SIGNIF

-------
                 4.FEHC
                                 -.OOOO5
                                            .9996
              ANALYSIS AT STEP 2 FOR 11.UMPG  N= 107 OUT OF 233

              SOURCE               DF   SUM OF SQRS  MEAN SQUARE
              REGRESSION
              ERROR
              TOTAL
   9
  97
 106
3210.5
347.91
3558.4
356.73
3.5867
              MULTIPLE R= .94986  R-SQR= .90223  SE= 1.8939
                                  F-STAT

                                  99.456
                                     SIGNIF

                                      .0000
01
I
                   VARIABLE
                   REMAINING

                 4.FEHC
                 5.FECO
                                 PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
PARTIAL   SIGNIF
-.01089
-.01592
   .9152
   .8764
                                                                              SIGNIF
CONSTANT
22 . VDHP
23.DISP
24.RTHP
27.NSVR
40.ETWM1
1 .FTPHC
2.FTPCO
3.FTPNOX
6.FENOX

. 16143
. 10440
-.44424
- .28881
.75442
.24508
-.39308
.07126
.04404
7 . 2003
.25180
.85295 -2
-.73717 -1
-.11170
71760.
6.8752
-1 .2690
.77943
.32557
4. 1891
. 15629
.82499 -2
. 15095 -1
.37595 -1
6339.4
2.7615
.30141
1 . 1078
.74983
1 .7188
1.6111
1 .0339
-4.8837
-2.971O
11.32O
2.4897
-4.2103
.70362
.43419
.0888
. 1104
.3038
.0000
.OO37
.0000
.O145
.OOO1
.4834
.6651
              ANALYSIS AT STEP 3 FOR 11.UMPG  N= 107 OUT OF 233

              SOURCE               DF   SUM OF SQRS  MEAN SQUARE
              REGRESSION
              ERROR
              TOTAL
   8
  98
 106
3209.9
348.59
3558.4
401.23
3.5571
              MULTIPLE R= .94976  R-SQR= .90204  SE= 1.8860
                          F-STAT

                          112.80
                        SIGNIF

                         .OOOO
                   VARIABLE
                                 PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
                                             SIGNIF

22.
23.
24.
27.
40.
CONSTANT
.VDHP
.DISP
RTHP
NSVR
ETWM1

. 17665
. 10418
-.44271
-.29018
.76663
6.7380
.26826
.85195
-.72905
-. 11231
72423.


-2
-1


4.0347
. 15099
.82157
. 14916
.37413
6127.4


-2
-1
-1

1 .
1 .
1.
-4.
-3.
11
6700
7766
0370
8876
0018
.819
.0981
.O787
.3023
.OOOO
.0034
.0000

-------
                  1 .FTPHC
                  2.FTPCO
                  3.FTPNOX
                    .24343    6.8272       2.7478       2.4846       .0147
                   -.39462   -1.2749       .29986      -4.2516       .0000
                    .17271    1.1618       .66930       1.7358       .0857
                    REMAINING

                  4.FEHC
                  5.FECO
                  6.FENOX
                                  PARTIAL   SIGNIF
                   -.00646
                   -.01546
                    .04404
          .9494
          .8793
          .6651
               ANALYSIS AT STEP 4 FOR  11.UMPG  N=  107 OUT OF 233

               SOURCE               DF   SUM OF SQRS  MEAN SQUARE
               REGRESSION
               ERROR
               TOTAL
                      7
                     99
                    106
       3206.0
       352.42
       3558.4
             458.00
             3.5598
               MULTIPLE R=  .94919  R-SQR=  .90096   SE=  1.8867
                                                     F-STAT

                                                     128.66
                                           SIGNIF

                                             .0000
Ul
I
                    VARIABLE
                   PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
                                                                               SIGNIF

22.
24.
27
40,
1
2
3.
CONSTANT
.VDHP
. RTHP
.NSVR
, ETWM1
.FTPHC
. FTPCO
. FTPNOX

. 16297
-.4610O
-.31861
. 77008
.23559
-.39087
.21354
8.2543
.24566
-.64389 -1
-. 12156
70630.
6.6113
-1 .2670
1 .3814
3.7618
. 14947
. 12457 -1
.36347 -1
5880.6
2.7410
.29988
.63516
2. 1942
1 .6435
-5. 1690
-3.3444
12.01 1
2.4120
-4.2252
2.1748
.03O6
. 1O34
.OOOO
.O012
.0000
.0177
.0001
.0320
                     REMAINING

                  23.DISP
                   4.FEHC
                   5.FECO
                   6.FENOX
                                   PARTIAL    SIGNIF
                    .10418
                   -.00277
                   -.026O1
                    .04351
          .3023
          .9781
          .7973
          .6673
                ANALYSIS  AT  STEP  5  FOR  11.UMPG  N=  107  OUT  OF  233

                SOURCE                DF    SUM OF SORS   MEAN SQUARE    F-STAT

                                                                     147.15
REGRESSION
ERROR
TOTAL
  6
100
106
3196.4
362.03
3558.4
532.74
3.6203
SIGNIF

 .0000
                MULTIPLE  R=  .94777   R-SQR=  .89826   SE=  1.9027

-------
                 VARIABLE
                               PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
                                             SIGNIF
CONSTANT
24.RTHP
27.NSVR
40.ETWM1
1 .FTPHC
2.FTPCO
3.FTPNOX

-.47041
- .28375
.77699
.23016
-.39295
. 20405
1 1 .346
-.66582 -1
-. 10324
66628.
6.5367
- 1 . 29O8
1 .3337
3.2852
. 12490 -1
.34888 -1
5398.2
2.7638
. 30206
.63988
3.4537
-5.3308
-2.9591
12.343
2.3651
-4.2733
2.0844
.OOO8
.0000
.0039
.0000
.0200
.0000
.0397
                 REMAINING

              22.VDHP
              23.DISP
               4.FEHC
               5.FECO
               6.FENOX
PARTIAL

 .16297
 .07818
 .03518
 .00074
 .08161
SIGNIF

 . 1034
 .4371
 .7269
 .9942
 .4172
t-n
I
            REGRESSION OF  11.UMPG USING BACKWARD SELECTION

            STEP    R-SQR  STD ERROR  H VAR       VARIABLE
                                    PARTIAL  SIGNIF
o
1
2
3
4
5
.90225
.90225
.90223
. 90204
. 90096
.89826
1.9135
1 .9035
1 .8939
1 .8860
1 .8867
1 .9027
1 1
10
9
8
7
6

4.FEHC
5.FECO
6.FENOX
23.DISP
22.VDHP
IN
OUT
OUT
OUT
OUT
OUT

- . 00005
-.O1592
.04404
.10418
.16297

.9996
.8764
.6651
.3023
. 1034

-------
              SELECTION OF REGRESSION  <1> TAYR:81*FTYP:(1-7.10-17)*VTRN:(LA,LA)
              ANALYSIS AT STEP 0 FOR  11.UMPG  N= 63 OUT OF 140

              SOURCE               OF   SUM OF SORS  MEAN SQUARE
              REGRESSION
              ERROR
              TOTAL
  11
  51
  62
312.30
26.148
338.45
28.391
.51270
              MULTIPLE R=  .96059  R-SQR=  .92274  SE=  .71603
                                  F-STAT

                                  55.376
SIGNIF

 .OOOO
                   VARIABLE

                   CONSTANT
                22.VDHP
                23.DISP
                24.RTHP
                27.NSVR
                4O.ETWM1
                  1.FTPHC
                  2.FTPCO
                  3.FTPNOX
                  4.FEHC
                  5.FECO
                  6.FENOX
PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
                                                                              SIGNIF

18428
61733
15213
19583
52819
25446
10770
45293
O8627
11779
34244
20.401
-. 12310
-.25572
-.74497
-.42972
27964.
-4.2266
.91243
2.3989
3 . 908 1
-.18839
-1 .2723


-1
-2
-1


-1




2.4956
.91935
.45633
.67774
.30132
6295.0
2.2493
. 11794
.66122
6.3194
.22239
.48881

-1
-2
-2
-1







8. 1747
-1 .3390
-5.6039
-1 .0992
-1 .4261
4.4423
-1 .8791
.77363
3.6281
.61843
-.84711
-2.6O29
.OOOO
.1865
.0000
.2768
. 1599
.OOOO
.0660
.4427
.O007
.5390
.4009
.O121
Ul
I
               ANALYSIS  AT  STEP  1  FOR  11.UMPG   N=  63 OUT OF  140

               SOURCE                DF   SUM OF SORS   MEAN SQUARE
               REGRESSION
               ERROR
               TOTAL
  10
  52
  62
312.11
26.344
338.45
31.211
.50662
               MULTIPLE  R=  .96029   R-SQR=  .92216   SE=  .71177
                    VARIABLE
                                  F-STAT

                                  61.607
                                  PARTIAL   COEFFICIENT   STD  ERROR    T-STAT
SIGNIF

 .OOOO
                                                                              SIGNIF

22
23
24
27
40
1
2
3
5
6
CONSTANT
. VDHP
.OISP
. RTHP
.NSVR
. ETWM1
. FTPHC
. FTPCO
. FTPNOX
. FECO
. FENOX

-. 17041
- .61391
-. 15655
-. 18382
.53469
-.25480
.07840
.45351
-.08973
-.33628
2O.O47
-.11162
-.2538O -1
-.76878 -2
-.39802 -1
28385.
-3.3868
.60137 -1
2.4108
-.66472 -1
-1 .2466
2.4149
.89506
.45256
.67262
.29516
6220.9
1 .7825
. 10604
.65700
. 10231
.48414

-1
-2
-2
-1






8.3015
-1.2471
-5.6081
-1 . 1430
-1.3485
4.5627
-1.9001
.56710
3.6693
-.64969
-2.5749
.0000
.2180
.OOOO
.2583
. 1833
.0000
.0630
.5731
.0006
.5187
.0129
                    REMAINING
                                  PARTIAL    SIGNIF

-------
              4.FEHC
                                .08627
                                          .5390
           ANALYSIS AT STEP 2 FOR  11.UMPG  N= 63 OUT OF  140

           SOURCE               DF   SUM OF SQRS  MEAN SQUARE
           REGRESSION
           ERROR
           TOTAL
  9
 53
 62
311.95
26.507
338.45
34.661
.50013
           MULTIPLE R=  .96004  R-SOR=  .92168  SE=  .70720
                                 F-STAT

                                 69.303
                                     SIGNIF

                                      .0000
Ui
                VARIABLE
                REMAINING

              2.FTPCO
              4.FEHC
                              PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
                               PARTIAL    SIGNIF
.07840
.04436
   .5731
   .7501
                                           SIGNIF

22.
23
24.
27
40
1
3
5
6
CONSTANT
. VDHP
.DISP
. RTHP
.NSVR
. ETWM1
. FTPHC
. FTPNOX
. FECO
. FENOX
20.072
-. 15451
-.61533
-. 16833
-. 1704O
.53064
-.24869
.44861
-.0635O
-.34716




96890
25517
82255
35907
-1
-1
-2
-1
27868.
-2
2

-1
.8986
.3734
43104
.2842


-1

2.399O
.85104
.44902
.66163
.28521
6114.4
1 .5507
.64950
.93046
.4765O

-1
-2
-2
-1



-1

8
-1
-5
-1
-1
4
-1
3

-2
.3665
. 1385
.6829
.2432
.259O
.5578
.8692
.6542
46325
.695O
.0000
.2600
.0000
.2193
.2136
.OOOO
.0671
.0006
.6451
.OO94
           ANALYSIS AT  STEP  3  FOR  11.UMPG  N= 63 OUT OF  140

           SOURCE               DF   SUM OF  SQRS  MEAN SQUARE
           REGRESSION
           ERROR
           TOTAL
  8
 54
 62
311.84
26.614
338.45
38.98O
.49286
           MULTIPLE R=  .95988  R-SQR=  .92136  SE=  .70204
F-STAT

79.089
SIGNIF

 .0000
                VARIABLE
                              PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
                                           SIGNIF

22.
23.
24
27.
40.
CONSTANT
.VDHP
DISP
RTHP
.NSVR
, ETWM1

-. 17057
-.61580
-. 16492
-. 16917
.52917
2O. 151
-. 1051 1
-.25586
-.80582
-.35708
2781 1 .


-1
-2
-1

2.3755
.82628
.44549
.65582
.28310
6068 . 5

-1
-2
-2
-1

8
-1
-5
-1
-1
4
.4828
.2720
.7433
.2287
.2613
.5828
.0000
.2088
.0000
.2245
.2126
.OOOO

-------
                   1 .FTPHC
                   3.FTPNOX
                   6.FENOX
-.25953  -3.0059      1.5221      -1.9749      .0534
 .44742   2.3702      .64472       3.6764      .0005
-.34227  -1.2370      .46212      -2.6769      .0098
                     REMAINING

                   2.FTPCO
                   4.FEHC
                   5.FECO
                                   PARTIAL   SIGNIF
 .04604
-.O3238
-.06350
   .7386
   .8144
   .6451
                ANALYSIS AT STEP 4 FOR 11.UMPG  N= 63 OUT OF 140

                SOURCE               DF   SUM OF SORS  MEAN SQUARE
                REGRESSION
                ERROR
                TOTAL
   7
  55
  62
311.09
27.358
338.45
44.442
.49743
                MULTIPLE R= .95873  R-SOR= .91917  SE= .70528
                                  F-STAT

                                  89.344
                                     SIGNIF

                                      .OOOO
Ln
I
                     VARIABLE
                                   PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
                                                                                SIGNIF

22,
23,
27
40.
1
3
6,
CONSTANT
, VDHP
DISP
,NSVR
, ETWM1
, FTPHC
. FTPNOX
, FENOX

-. 13387
-.78279
-.21140
.53510
-.27289
.451 15
-.33582
19.979
-.80730 -1
-.29464 -1
-.44230 -1
28512.
-3. 1995
2.4229
-1 .2274
2.3824
.80582
.31583
.27574
6069.6
1 .5209
.64627
.46419

-1
-2
-1




8
-1
-9
-1
4
-2
3
-2
.3864
.0018
.3291
.6041
.6975
. 1O36
.7490
.6441
.OOOO
.3208
.OOOO
. 1144
.0000
.O400
.OOO4
.0107
                     REMAINING

                  24.RTHP
                   2.FTPCO
                   4.FEHC
                   5.FECO
PARTIAL   SIGNIF
-.16492
  .06975
-.02487
-.05354
   .2245
   .6095
   .8556
   .6951
                ANALYSIS AT STEP 5 FOR 11.UMPG  N= 63 OUT OF 140

                SOURCE               DF   SUM OF SORS  MEAN SQUARE
                REGRESSION
                ERROR
                TOTAL
   6
  56
  62
310.6O
27.858
338.45
51.766
.49746
F-STAT

104.06
SIGNIF

 .OOOO
                MULTIPLE R= .95796  R-SQR= .91769  SE= .70531

-------
     VARIABLE
                   PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
                                                                              SIGNIF
CONSTANT
23.DISP
27.NSVR
40.ETWM1
1 .FTPHC
3.FTPNOX
6.FENOX

-.77842
- . 17474
.53217
-.28179
.45288
-.34509
18.660
-.29027 -1
-.34039 -1
28551 .
-3.3304
2.4539
-1.2715
1 .9853
.31281 -2
.25629 -1
6069 . 7
1 .5154
.64555
.46211
9.3992
-9.2794
-1 .3281
4.7038
-2. 1977
3.8O12
-2.7515
-OOOO
.OOOO
. 1895
.OOOO
.O321
.OOO4
.0080
     REMAINING

  22.VDHP
  24.RTHP
   2.FTPCO
   4.FEHC
   5.FECO
                   PARTIAL   SIGNIF
                                  -.13387
                                  -.12651
                                   .O1270
                                  -.05457
                                  -.08202
              .3208
              .3484
              .9253
              .6868
              .5442
I
M
~-J
ANALYSIS AT STEP 6 FOR 11.UMPG  N= 63 OUT OF 140

SOURCE               DF   SUM OF SQRS  MEAN SQUARE
REGRESSION
ERROR
TOTAL
                                     5
                                    57
                                    62
           3O9.72
           28.735
           338.45
           61.944
           .50412
MULTIPLE R= .95661  R-SQR= .91510  SE= .71002
                                                                    F-STAT

                                                                    122.87
     VARIABLE
                                  PARTIAL   COEFFICIENT   STD  ERROR   T-STAT
              SIGNIF

               .0000
                                                                SIGNIF
CONSTANT
23.DISP
40.ETWM1
1 .FTPHC
3.FTPNOX
6.FENOX

-.77173
.55091
-.24360
.47170
-.32324
18.563
-.28812 -1
23388.
-2.7841
2 . 5909
-1 . 1887
1 .9972
.31448 -2
4692.9
1 .4682
.64151
.46095
9.2945
-9. 1618
4.9838
-1 .8963
4.0388
-2.5789
.0000
.OOOO
. OOOO
.063O
.OOO2
.0125
     REMAINING

  22.VDHP
  24.RTHP
  27.NSVR
   2.FTPCO
   4.FEHC
   5.FECO
                                  PARTIAL    SIGNIF
                                  -.05804
                                  -.17631
                                  -.17474
                                   .00791
                                  -.03891
                                  -.05924
              .6652
              . 1855
              . 1895
              .9530
              .7718
              .6587
REGRESSION OF 11.UMPG USING BACKWARD SELECTION

STEP    R-SOR  STD ERROR  » VAR       VARIABLE
   O
   1
                      .92274
                      .92216
.71603
.71177
11
10
                                                       PARTIAL  SIGNIF
                                    4.FEHC
 IN
OUT
                                                        .08627
                                                                 .5390

-------
                 2   .92168   .70720        9     2.FTPCO       OUT   .07840   .5731
                 3   .92136   .70204        8     5.FECO        OUT  -.06350   .6451
                 4   .91917   .70528        7    24.RTHP        OUT  -.16492   .2245
                 5   .91769   .70531        6    22.VDHP        OUT  -.13387   .3208
                 6   .91510   .71002        5    27.NSVR        OUT  -.17474   .1895
tn
I

-------
Ul
I
                

              SELECTION OF REGRESSION  <1>  TAYR:81*FTYP:(1-7.1O-17)*VTRN:(CM,CM,CM)
              ANALYSIS AT STEP 0 FOR  12.HMPG  N=  107 OUT OF 233

              SOURCE               OF    SUM OF  SQRS  MEAN SQUARE
              REGRESSION
              ERROR
              TOTAL
 1 1
 95
106
4351.9
527.31
4879.2
395.63
5.5506
                                 F-STAT

                                 71.276
              MULTIPLE R=  .94442  R-SQR=  .89193   SE=  2.356O
                   VARIABLE
                                 PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT   STD  ERROR   T-STAT
              ANALYSIS  AT  STEP  1  FOR  12.HMPG  N=  107 OUT OF 233

              SOURCE               OF    SUM OF  SORS  MEAN  SQUARE
              REGRESSION
              ERROR
              TOTAL
 10
 96
106
4351.7
527.51
4879.2
435. 17
5.4949
                                 F-STAT

                                 79.195
              MULTIPLE  R=  .94440   R-SQR=  .89189   SE=  2.3441
                   VARIABLE
                                  PARTIAL   COEFFICIENT   STD  ERROR   T-STAT
                                     SIGNIF

                                      .OOOO
                                                                              SIGNIF

22.
23.
24,
27
40.
1
2.
3,
4 .
5.
6
CONSTANT
. VDHP
DISP
, RTHP
.NSVR
. ETWM1
. FTPHC
, FTPCO
, FTPNOX
. FEHC
FECO
. FENOX

-.41494
-.29967
-.29259
-.58100
.61891
. 15397
- .31942
. 13156
. 1 1390
- .04838
-.01944
45.357
-.88332
-.31913 -1
-.58742 -1
- . 33O49
62969.
6.0146
-1 .3376
1 .8279
14.626
- .49236
-. 17824
5.3397
. 19872
. 10424 -1
. 19697 -1
.47500 -1
8199.0
3.9601
.40714
1.4131
13.089
1 .0430
.94033
8.4942
-4.4450
-3.0615
-2.9823
-6.9577
7.6801
1.5188
-3.2854
1 .2935
1 . 1174
-.472O7
-. 18955
.0000
.0000
.OO29
.OO36
.OOOO
.0000
. 1321
.0014
. 199O
.2666
.6380
.8501
                                     SIGNIF

                                      .0000
                                                                              SIGNIF

22
23
24.
27.
40.
1 .
2.
3.
4.
5.
CONSTANT
.VDHP
.DISP
.RTHP
NSVR
ETWM1
FTPHC
FTPCO
FTPNOX
FEHC
FECO

-.42618
-.29934
-.29549
-.58082
.62449
. 15636
.-.31925
. 18277
. 11236
-.04699
45.580
-.89140
-.31874 -1
-.59107 -1
-.33036
62664.
6.0848
-1 .3371
1.6205
14.313
-.47679
5. 1817
. 19312
. 10370 -1
. 19504 -1
.47256 -1
7998.9
3.9229
. 4O508
.88966
12.919
1 .0345
8
-4
-3
-3
-6
7
1
-3
1
1

.7965
.6159
.0738
.0306
.9909
.8341
.551 1
.3007
.8214
. 1079
46089
.0000
.0000
.0028
.0031
.OOOO
.OOOO
. 1242
.0014
.0717
.2707
.6459
                   REMAINING
                                 PARTIAL   SIGNIF

-------
                  6.FENOX
                                  -.01944
                           .8501
               ANALYSIS AT STEP 2 FOR 12.HMPG  N= 107 OUT OF 233

               SOURCE               DF   SUM OF SQRS  MEAN SQUARE
               REGRESSION
               ERROR
               TOTAL
                   9
                  97
                 106
        4350.5
        528.67
        4879.2
483.39
5.4503
               MULTIPLE R= .94427  R-SQR= .89165  SE= 2.3346
                                                  F-STAT

                                                  88.691
                                             SIGNIF

                                              .0000
I
N3
00
                    VARIABLE
  REMAINING

5.FECO
6.FENOX
                                  PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
PARTIAL   SIGNIF
                                  -.04699
                                  -.01566
           .6459
           .8783
                                                                               SIGNIF
CONSTANT
22. VDHP
23.DISP
24.RTHP
27.NSVR
40.ETWM1
1 .FTPHC
2.FTPCO
3.FTPNOX
4.FEHC

-.42507
-.29601
-.30076
-.58590
.62998
. 19245
-.35965
.20775
. 10978
45.401
-.88930
-.31059 -1
-.60019 -1
-.33288
63132.
6.8456
- 1 . 4099
1.7534
10.267
5. 1460
. 19228
. 10176 -1
. 19324 -1
.46748 -1
7902. 1
3.5442
.37142
.83822
9.4380
8
-4
-3
-3
-7
7
1
-3
2
1
.8225
.6251
.0522
.1059
.1207
.9893
.9315
.7961
.0918
.0878
.OOOO
.OOOO
.0029
.0025
.OOOO
.OOOO
.0563
.OOO3
.0391
.2794
               ANALYSIS AT STEP 3 FOR  12.HMPG  N=  107 OUT OF 233

               SOURCE               DF   SUM OF SQRS  MEAN SQUARE
               REGRESSION
               ERROR
               TOTAL
                   8
                  98
                 106
        4344.1
        535.12
        4879.2
543.01
5.4604
               MULTIPLE R=  .94357  R-SQR=  .89033  SE= 2.3368
F-STAT

99.444
SIGNIF

 .0000
                    VARIABLE
                                  PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
                                                             SIGNIF
CONSTANT
22. VDHP
23.DISP
24.RTHP
27.NSVR
40.ETWM1

-.41315
-.29118
-.28220
-.59512
.65727
44.052
-.84021
-.30671 -1
-.53817 -1
-.33982
65543.
4.9989
. 18708
. 10179
. 18481
.46354
7591 .8


-1
-1
-1

8.8122
-4.4912
-3.0131
-2.9120
-7 . 3309
8.6334
.0000
.0000
.0033
.0044
.0000
.OOOO

-------
Ui
 I
to
VO
                 1.FTPHC
                 2.FTPCO
                 3.FTPNOX
 .22901   7.9291      3.4045      2.3290      .O219
-.36117  -1.4245      .37152     -3.8342      .0002
 .193O1   1.6148      .82926      1.9473      .0544
                  REMAINING

                4.FEHC
                5.FECO
                6.FENOX
PARTIAL

 .10978
 .04036
-.00460
SIGNIF

 .2794
 .6917
 .9639
             REGRESSION OF  12.HMPG USING BACKWARD  SELECTION

             STEP    R-SQR  STD  ERROR   # VAR        VARIABLE
                0    .89193    2.3560
                1    .89189    2.3441
                2    .89165    2.3346
                3    .89033    2.3368
          11
          10
           9
           8
       6.FENOX
       5.FECO
       4.FEHC
     PARTIAL  SIGNIF

 IN
OUT  -.01944   .85O1
OUT  -.04699   .6459
OUT   .10978   .2794

-------
                                                                                       St
I
OJ
o
                SELECTION OF REGRESSION  <1> TAYR:81*FTYP:(1-7.10-17)*VTRN:(LA,LA)
                ANALYSIS AT STEP 0 FOR  12.HMPG  N= 63 OUT OF  140

                SOURCE               DF   SUM OF SORS  MEAN SQUARE
                REGRESSION
                ERROR
                TOTAL
  11
  51
  62
356.91
84.263
441.17
32.446
1.6522
                                  F-STAT

                                  19.638
                MULTIPLE  R=  .89945   R-SQR=  .80900   SE=  1.2854
                      VARIABLE
PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
                 ANALYSIS  AT  STEP  1  FOR  12.HMPG  N=  63  OUT  OF  140

                 SOURCE                DF    SUM OF SORS   MEAN SQUARE
                 REGRESSION
                 ERROR
                 TOTAL
  10
  52
  62
356.89
84.288
441 . 17
35.689
1.6209
F-STAT

22.017
                 MULTIPLE  R=  .89941   R-SQR=  .80895  SE=  1.2732
                      VARIABLE
PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
           SIGNIF

            .0000
                                                                                SIGNIF
CONSTANT
22.VDHP
23.DISP
24.RTHP
27.NSVR
40.ETWM1
1 .FTPHC
2.FTPCO
3.FTPNOX
4.FEHC
5.FECO
6.FENOX

-. 17840
-.53207
.01744
-.64928
.58755
-.08297
-.04978
.42458
-.02540
.05296
- . 30684
31 .939
-.21369
-.36762 -1
. 15158 -2
-.32977
58597.
-2.4008
-.75358 -1
3.9751
-2.0584
. 15119
-2.0202
4.4799
. 16504
.81917 -2
. 12166 -1
.54091 -1
1 1 300 .
4.0378
.21172
1 . 1870
11.344
.39922
.87748
7. 1294
-1 .2948
-4.4877
. 12459
-6.0967
5. 1853
-.59458
-.35593
3.3490
-. 18144
.37872
-2.3023
.0000
.2012
-OOOO
.9013
.OOOO
.0000
.5548
.7234
.0015
.8567
.7065
.0254
SIGNIF

 .0000
                                                                                 SIGNIF

22
23
27
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
CONSTANT
. VDHP
.DISP
.NSVR
. ETWM1
.FTPHC
. FTPCO
. FTPNOX
. FEHC
. FECO
. FENOX

- . 18310
-.65045
-.66160
.58863
-.08122
-.05301
.42457
-.02643
.05396
- . 30767
31 .963
-.21688
-.36053 -1
-.32794
58450.
-2.3180
-.79355 -1
3.9637
-2. 1387
. 15387
-2.0248
4.4334
. 16149
.58383 -2
.51543 -1
11132.
3.9448
.2O729
1 . 1722
11 .218
.39486
.86837
7 . 2095
-1.3430
-6. 1753
-6.3623
5 . 2507
-.58760
-.38282
3.3815
-. 19064
.38968
-2.3317
.OOOO
. 1851
.0000
.0000
.0000
.5593
.7034
.0014
.8495
.6984
.0236
                                                           50 t
                                                         |36:
                                                     10
                                                28
                      REMAINING
                                    PARTIAL
                                              SIGNIF

-------
                  24.RTHP
                                    .O1744
                                              .9013
                ANALYSIS  AT  STEP  2  FOR  12.HMPG   N=  63  OUT  OF  140

                SOURCE                DF    SUM OF SQRS   MEAN SQUARE
               REGRESSION
               ERROR
               TOTAL
   9
  53
  62
356.83
84.347
441 . 17
39.647
1 .5915
               MULTIPLE  R=  .89934   R-SQR=  .80881   SE=  1.2615
                                  F-STAT

                                  24.913
                                     SIGNIF

                                      .0000
Ul
I
u>
                     VARIABLE
                     REMAINING
                  24.RTHP
                   4.FEHC
                                   PARTIAL   COEFFICIENT   STD  ERROR    T-STAT
                                   PARTIAL   SIGNIF
 .01891
-.02643
   .8920
   .8495
                                             SIGNIF
CONSTANT
22.VDHP
23.DISP
27.NSVR
40. ETWM1
1 .FTPHC
2.FTPCO
3.FTPNOX
5.FECO
6.FENOX

-. 19268
-.65107
-.66812
.58944
-. 12127
-.O4618
.42398
.06588
-.31065
32. 159
-.22346
- . 36O98 - 1
-.32952
58206.
-2.7719
-.62622 -1
3.9563
.87164 -1
-2.0393
4.2733
. 15632
.578O4 -2
.50407 -1
1O957.
3.1166
. 18607
1 . 1608
. 18133
.85712
7.5254
-1 .4295
-6.2448
-6.5372
5.3121
-.88939
-.33654
3 . 408 1
.48069
-2.3793
.OOOO
. 1587
.OOOO
.0000
.OOOO
.3778
.7378
.0013
.6327
.0210
                ANALYSIS  AT  STEP  3  FOR  12.HMPG  N=  63  OUT  OF  140

                SOURCE                DF    SUM OF SQRS   MEAN SQUARE
                REGRESSION
                ERROR
                TOTAL
   8
  54
  62
356.65
84.528
441 .17
44.581
1.5653
                MULTIPLE  R=  .89911   R-SQR=  .80840  SE=  1.2511
F-STAT

28.480
SIGNIF

 .OOOO
                     VARIABLE
                                   PARTIAL   COEFFICIENT   STD  ERROR    T-STAT
                                             SIGNIF

22
23
27
40
1
CONSTANT
. VDHP
.DISP
. NSVR
. ETWM1
.FTPHC

-.21757
-.65496
-.67943
.59567
-. 1S087
32. 145
-.24040
-.35686 -1
-.33299
58696.
-3.2658
4.2379
. 14677
.56029
.48935
10771.
2.7267


-2
-1


7
-1
-6
-6
5,
-1 ,
.5850
.6380
.3692
.8046
.4496
. 1977
.OOOO
. 1072
.0000
.OOOO
.0000
.2362

-------
                 3.FTPNOX
                 5.FECO
                 6.FENOX
 .42813   3.9915      1.1466      3.4813      .0010
 .05159   .62401 -1    .16437      .37965      .7057
-.30754  -2.0013      .84266     -2.3750      .0211
                   REMAINING

                24.RTHP
                 2.FTPCO
                 4.FEHC
                                 PARTIAL
                                           SIGNIF
 .02521    .8550
-.04618    .7378
-.00436    .9748
              ANALYSIS AT STEP 4 FOR 12.HMPG  N= 63 OUT OF 140

              SOURCE               OF   SUM OF SORS  MEAN SQUARE
              REGRESSION
              ERROR
              TOTAL
   7
  55
  62
356.42
84.753
441 . 17
50.917
1 .5410
              MULTIPLE R=  .89883  R-SQR=  .80789  SE= 1.2414
                                  F-STAT

                                  33.042
           SIGNIF

            .OOOO
Ul
I
OJ
NS
                   VARIABLE
PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
                                     SIGNIF

22.
23.
27.
40.
1 ,
3.
6.
CONSTANT
.VDHP
DISP
NSVR
ETWM1
, FTPHC
. FTPNOX
. FENOX

-.21164
-.65465
-.67970
.59597
-. 15507
.42824
-.32318
32.025
-.22778
-.35703 -1
-.33353
58800.
-3.1162
3.9977
-2.0693
4. 1931
. 14183
.55589 -2
.48532 -1
10683.
2.6770
1 . 1375
. 8 1 702
7,
-1 ,
-6
-6
5
-1
3
-2
.6374
.6060
.4226
.8723
.5041
. 1641
.5145
.5327
.OOOO
. 1140
.0000
.0000
.0000
.2494
.0009
.0142
                   REMAINING

                24.RTHP
                 2.FTPCO
                 4.FEHC
                 5.FECO
PARTIAL   SIGNIF

  .O2232     .8703
-.02121     .8767
  .04232     .7568
  .05159     .7057
              ANALYSIS AT STEP 5 FOR  12.HMPG  N= 63 OUT OF  140

              SOURCE           '    OF   SUM OF SORS  MEAN SQUARE
              REGRESSION
              ERROR
              TOTAL
   6
  56
  62
354.33
86.841
441 .17
59.055
1.55O7
F-STAT

38.082
SIGNIF

 .0000
              MULTIPLE R=  .89619  R-SQR=  .80316  SE=  1.2453

-------
                    VARIABLE
                                  PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
                                             SIGNIF
CONSTANT
22.VDHP
23.DISP
27.NSVR
40.ETWM1
3.FTPNOX
6.FENOX

-.22238
-.65776
-.67038
.58331
.45547
-.31 133
31.518
-.24196
-.36291 -1
-.32112
56954.
4.2732
-2.0047
4. 1837
. 14175
.55534 -2
.47497 -1
10598.
1 . 1 161
.81771
7.5336
- 1 . 7069
-6.5348
-6.7609
5.3740
3.8287
-2.4516
.OOOO
.O934
.OOOO
.0000
.0000
.0003
.0174
                    REMAINING

                 24.RTHP
                  1.FTPHC
                  2.FTPCO
                  4.FEHC
                  5.FECO
                                  PARTIAL   SIGNIF
 .00589
-.155O7
-.09332
-.01982
 .02803
.9653
.2494
.4899
.8836
.8361
Ul
I
u>
U)
               REGRESSION OF  12.HMPG USING BACKWARD  SELECTION

               STEP    R-SQR  STD  ERROR   It VAR        VARIABLE
                                    PARTIAL  SIGNIF
o
1
2
3
4
5
. 8O9OO
.80895
.80881
.80840
.80789
.80316
1 .2854
1 .2732
1 .2615
1.2511
1 .2414
1.2453
1 1
10
9
8
7
6

24
4
2
5
1

. RTHP
. FEHC
. FTPCO
. FECO
.FTPHC
IN
OUT
OUT
OUT
OUT
OUT

.01744
-.O2643
-.O4618
.05159
-. 155O7

.9013
.8495
.7378
.7057
.2494

-------
I
U)
   LEG

SELECTION OF REGRESSION  <1> TAYR:81*FTYP:(1-7,10-17)


ANALYSIS AT STEP 0 FOR 13.CMPG  N= 267 OUT OF 571

SOURCE               DF   SUM OF SQRS  MEAN SQUARE
              REGRESSION
              ERROR
              TOTAL
  1 1
 255
 266
                           9737.7
                           1046.4
                           10784.
885.24
4.1O34
                                                                   F-STAT

                                                                   215.73
              MULTIPLE  R=  .95025   R-SQR=  .90297   SE=  2.0257
                    VARIABLE
PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
               ANALYSIS AT  STEP  1  FOR 13.CMPG  N=  267  OUT  OF  571

               SOURCE                DF    SUM OF SORS   MEAN SQUARE
               REGRESSION
               ERROR
               TOTAL
  10
 256
 266
                           9737.3
                           1046.8
                           10784.
973.73
4.0889
                                  F-STAT

                                  238.14
               MULTIPLE  R=  .95023  R-SQR= .90293  SE=  2.0221
                    VARIABLE
                                  PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR    T-STAT
                                             SIGNIF

                                             0.
                                                                              SIGNIF

22.
23.
24.
27
40,
1
2
3
4
5
6
CONSTANT
VDHP
DISP
. RTHP
.NSVR
, ETWM1
. FTPHC
. FTPCO
. FTPNOX
. FEHC
. FECO
. FENOX

.04181
-. 16464
-.25403
- . 50098
.71945
. 1 1483
-. 17649
. 14693
-.02068
-.01949
-.07647
12.846
.6380O -1
-. 1O959 -1
-.33358 -1
-.2112O
76745.
3.7707
-.37671
1 .7999
-1.4159
-.60926 -1
-.64243
2.7572
.95466
.41113
.79534
.22848
4639.6
2.0428
.13157
.75878
4.2869
. 19570
.52453

-1
-2
-2
-1







4.6590
.66830
-2.6655
-4. 1942
-9.2436
16.541
1.8458
-2.8633
2.3721
-.33029
-.31132
-1.2248
.OOOO
.5045
.0082
.0000
.0000
.0000
.O661
.0045
.0184
.7414
.7558
.2218
SIGNIF

0.
                                                                               SIGNIF

22
23
24
27
40
1
2
3
4.
6
CONSTANT
.VDHP
.DISP
.RTHP
.NSVR
. ETWM1
.FTPHC
.FTPCO
.FTPNOX
.FEHC
.FENOX

.04O46
-. 16410
-.25378
-.50254
.71986
. 12391
-. 19264
. 14656
- .04244
- .O7445
12.854
.61561 -1
-.10918 -1
-.33326 -1
-.21167
76798.
3.9353
- . 39005
1 .7952
-2.2574
-.61904
2.7522
.95027
.41020
.79387
.22759
4628.2
1 .9697
.12418
.75729
3.3216
.51820

-1
-2
-2
-1






4 . 6705
.64783
-2.6616
-4. 1979
-9 . 3004
16.593
1 .9979
-3. 1410
2 . 3705
-.67962
-1 . 1946
.OOOO
.5177
.0083
.OOOO
.0000
.0000
.0468
.0019
.0185
.4974
.2334
                                                            0 :
                                                                                                      : (
                    REMAINING
                                  PARTIAL   SIGNIF

-------
                  5.FECO
                                  -.O1949
                                             .7558
               ANALYSIS AT STEP 2 FOR 13.CMPG  N= 267 OUT OF 571

               SOURCE               DF   SUM OF SORS  MEAN SQUARE
               REGRESSION
               ERROR
               TOTAL
   9
 257
 266
9735.5
1O48.5
10784.
1081.7
4.0797
               MULTIPLE R= .95O14  R-SOR=  .9O277  SE= 2.0198
                                  F-STAT

                                  265. 15
                                     SIGNIF

                                     0.
Ul
I
t_n
                    VARIABLE
                    REMAINING
                 22.VDHP
                  5.FECO
                                  PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
PARTIAL

 .04046
-.01637
  SIGNIF

   .5177
   .7935
                                             SIGNIF

23
24.
27
40
1
2
3
4
6
CONSTANT
.DISP
. RTHP
.NSVR
. ETWM1
. FTPHC
. FTPCO
. FTPNOX
. FEHC
. FENOX

-. 16016
-.26667
-.50314
.74987
. 12288
-. 19536
.14268
-.03878
-.07030
13.846
-. 10562 -1
-.34399 -1
-.20921
75482.
3.9042
-.39526
1.7349
-2.0548
-.58102
2.2845
. 40604
.77552
.22415
4154. 1
1 .9669
.12378
.75069
3.3031
.51429

-2
-2
-1






6 . 06O6
-2.6012
-4.4356
-9.3335
18. 171
1 .9850
-3. 1934
2.311O
-.62208
-1.1298
.OOOO
.0098
.0000
.OOOO
.0000
.O482
.0016
.0216
.5344
.2596
               ANALYSIS AT STEP 3 FOR  13.CMPG  N= 267 OUT OF 571

               SOURCE               DF   SUM OF SORS  MEAN SQUARE
               REGRESSION
               ERROR
               TOTAL
   8
 258
 266
9734.0
1050.1
10784.
1216.7
4.0700
               MULTIPLE R=  .95007  R-SQR=  .90263  SE= 2.0174
                                  F-STAT

                                  298.96
SIGNIF

O.
                    VARIABLE
                                  PARTIAL  COEFFICIENT  STD ERROR   T-STAT
                                                                               SIGNIF
CONSTANT
23. DISP
24. RTHP
27. NSVR
40.ETWM1
1 .FTPHC

-. 16067
-.27020
-.50351
.74958
. 1 1796
13.837
-. 10603 -1
-.34798 -1
-.20952
75470.
3.6911
2.2818
.40550 -2
.77195 -2
.22382 -1
4149. 1
1 .9345
6.0641
-2.6147
-4.5078
-9.3608
18.189
1 . 908 1
.OOOO
.0095
.0000
.0000
.OOOO
.0575

-------
                2.FTPCO
                3.FTPMOX
                6.FENOX
-.1987O  -.40134      .12324     -3.2565      .OO13
 .14910   1.7988      .74273      2.4219      .0161
-.06934  -.57330      .51353     -1.1164      .2653
                  REMAINING
               22.VDHP
                4.FEHC
                5.FECO
PARTIAL

 .03659
-.O3878
-.03725
  SIGNIF

   .5577
   .5344
   .5507
             ANALYSIS AT STEP  4  FOR  13.CMPG  N=  267 OUT OF 571

             SOURCE               DF    SUM OF  SQRS  MEAN  SQUARE
             REGRESSION
             ERROR
             TOTAL
   7
 259
 266
9728.9
1055.1
10784.
1389.8
4.0739
              MULTIPLE  R=  .94982   R-SOR=  .90216   SE=  2.0184
                                  F-STAT
                                                                   341 . 16
                                     SIGNIF

                                     O.
I
U>
                   VARIABLE
                                 PARTIAL   COEFFICIENT   STD  ERROR    T-STAT
                                                                              SIGNIF

23
24,
27
40
1
2
3
CONSTANT
.OISP
.RTHP
.NSVR
. ETWM1
, FTPHC
. FTPCO
. FTPNOX

-.17055
-.26625
-.50353
.74982
. 10722
-. 18947
. 14139
14.245
-.11 202 - 1
-.34266 -1
-.20999
74727.
3 . 3048
-.37673
1.2171
2.2534
.40213
.77084
.22389
4097.3
1 . 9042
. 12131
.52952

-2
-2
-1




6.
-2.
-4.
-9.
18
1.
-3.
2.
3213
7856
4453
3794
.238
7355
1054
2985
.OOOO
.0057
.OOOO
.OOOO
.0000
.0838
.0021
.0223
                   REMAINING

                22.VDHP
                 4.FEHC
                 5.FECO
                 6.FENOX
PARTIAL

  .02862
-.03700
-.02856
-.06934
  SIGNIF

   .6460
   .5526
   .6467
   .2653
              REGRESSION OF  13.CMPG USING BACKWARD  SELECTION

              STEP     R-SQR   STD  ERROR   H VAR       VARIABLE
                                                                     PARTIAL   SIGNIF
0
1
2
3
4
.90297
.90293
.90277
.90263
.90216
2
2
2
2
2
.0257
.0221
.0198
.0174
.0184
11
1O
9
8
7

5
22
4
6

. FECO
. VDHP
. FEHC
. FENOX
IN
OUT
OUT
OUT
OUT

-.01949
.04046
-.03878
-.06934

.7558
.5177
.5344
.2653

-------