HDV-78-08
Technical Report
August, 1978
Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Consumption of a
Heavy-Duty Gasoline Powered Vehicle Over
Various Driving Cycles
361 Cubic Inch 1966 Ford F-600
by
Richard Nash
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.
Standards Development and Support Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Office of Air and Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Abstract
This report contains the results of exhaust emission tests on one
precontrolled heavy-duty gasoline truck. These tests were run on a
chassis dynamometer over various driving cycles developed under the
CAPE-21 cycle generation program. This effort is a continuation of the
test program which initially examined a 1977 CMC truck; it was designed
to answer some questions which developed during that testing.
This test sequence was designed to investigate in more detail the effect
of various driving cycles upon vehicle emissions and fuel consumption.
For this reason, road load drag force was not varied as in the previous
experiment. For each driving cycle three tests were run with the
vehicle in a fully warmed-up condition. Also, for this test sequence,
several new cycles were generated which had not been run during the
previous test sequence on the CMC truck. (See Technical Support Report
for Regulatory Action, Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Consumption of a
Heavy-Duty Gasoline Powered Vehicle over Various Driving Cycles, 427
Cubic Inch 1977 California CMC 6500, June 1978). The final phase was a
sequence of four tests to investigate cold and warm start effects.
Much higher levels of HC and NOx were observed (5.8 and 2.4 times,
respectively) than for the controlled truck previously tested. CO
emissions and fuel consumption were about the same. As would be expected,
cold starting doubled HC and CO, increased fuel consumption by one third
and slightly decreased NOx. Warm starts (one hour soak) had very
little effect on emissions or fuel consumption.
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Table of Figures 1
I. Objectives 2
II. Summary of Results 2
III. Description of Experiment 3
A. Vehicle 3
B. Equipment, Test Procedures 3
C. Road Load 3
D. Driving Cycles 4
E. Test Matrix 6
IV, Results 8
Appendix A: Raw Test Results A-l
Appendix B: Driving Cycle Identification B-l
-------
-1-
Table of Figures
No. Title Page
1 Road Load Force (chart) 4
2 Road Load Force (graph) 5
3 Driving Cycles 7
4 Summary of Results 9
5 Results 10
6 Cold and Warm Start Ratios 12
7 HC Emissions as a Function of Warm-Up 13
8 CO Emissions as a Function of Warm-Up 14
9 NOx Emissions as a Function of Warm-Up 15
10 Fuel Consumption as a Function of Warm-Up 16
-------
-2-
I. Objectives
The test program had the following objectives:
1. Obtain a rough comparison of the emissions from an uncontrolled
heavy-duty truck to the previously tested 1977 California vehicle.
2. Determine if the variability observed in earlier tests also occurred
with an uncontrolled truck. It was desired to expand this investi-
gation to include new driving cycles , and also driving cycles
which passed different statistical criteria.
3. Characterize the effect of cold starting on emissions and fuel con-
sumption.
II. Summary of Results
1. The uncontrolled truck exhibited exhaust emission levels higher
than the 1977 California controlled vehicle. This was expected;
approximate differences are as follows:
HC 480% higher
CO 29 % higher
NOx 140% higher
Fuel 9 % lower
2. Emission variability was observed from cycles representing the same
category of operation. This variability was greatest for CO and,
in several instances, the variability was quite large. Most of the
other variations can probably be explained as inherent to the test
procedure or the peculiarities of the test vehicle. In general,
the magnitude of the variation appears to be about the same as that
for the previously tested 1977 GM California truck.
3. As would be expected, HC, CO, and fuel consumption were higher for
the cold start tests; NOx was lower. Average changes were:
HC 90% higher
CO 150% higher
NOx 20% lower
Fuel 30% higher
Warm start tests, including engine starting, were about the same as
for a hot engine, with the engine idling.
-------
-3-
III. Description of Experiment
A. Vehicle
The test vehicle was a 1966 Ford F-600, affectionately known as the EPA
"pie wagon". This vehicle has an empty mass of 4920 kilograms and a
rated GVW of 10,000 kilograms. It is powered by an eight cylinder
gasoline engine with 5.9 litres displacement. The transmission is a
manual five speed with two speed axle; tires are 8.25 by 20.
This truck has been extensively used by EPA for a wide variety of short
term test programs. It is relatively good mechanical condition with
only twenty-seven thousand kilometres on the chassis. (The engine has
significantly less service, as it was rebuilt during one or more of the
test programs.)
B. Equipment, Test Procedures
This test program was carried out using the- same equipment as for the
1977 GM California truck. As this was an abbreviated test sequence,
engine operating parameters were not recorded and neither the HFID or
dilute C0_ continuous analyzer were used. With the exception of the
large roll dynamometer and large CVS, the truck was tested in a manner
similar to light-duty vehicles.
C. Road Load
The dynamometer was adjusted to give the road load force indicated in
Figures 1 and 2. This actual dynamometer drag force has been compared
with a theoretical drag force derived from empirical relationships. As
with the previously tested 1977 GM California truck, the dynamometer
underloads the truck at low speeds and overloads it slightly at high
speeds. This is not a serious problem. The purpose of this experiment
was not to determine precise emission values, only the relative variation
between the driving cycles and a rough comparison to the previous vehicle.
Further, due to the transient nature of the test cycles, inertia will be
the predominant factor contributing to the work done, not the road load
force.
All tests were run simulating less than full load.
-------
-4-
Figure 1
Road Load Force
Actual
Speed Dynamometer Theoretical
24 km/h 764 N 1412 N
34 1191 1536
43 1439 1692
53 1777 1892
63 2058 2132
72 2550 2413
82 2896 2733
Mass: 8750 kg
Source: Study of Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles,
May 1976, p. 30, EPA-460/3-76-012 (9.3 m frontal
area assumed)
D. Driving Cycles
Driving cycles for this experiment were developed from actual in-use
data collected and analyzed under the CAPE-21 project. In-use vehicles
were instrumented in New York City and Los Angeles. Data was collected
for freeway and non-freeway operation; it was later organized into sepa-
rate data matrices. The combination of two cities and two types of
driving gives four operation categories.
For each category of operation, a data matrix was compiled. This matrix
contains information concerning speed, rate of change, and frequency of
ocqurance. (Several other parameters relating to engine operation were
also included in the data matrix; however, these are of no concern
here.) Since the data logger operated every 0.864 seconds, the data
matrix also reflected that time basis. Driving cycles were generated
using computer programs developed under the CAPE-21 project.
In addition to operational category (e.g. New York-Freeway), driving
cycles are divided into four types. (Not all types were used in the
testing for this report. Their inclusion in this discussion is simply
to describe the cycle generation process.) These types represent the
method used in generation, and not the category of truck operation:
1. Non-Interpolated; These cycles were generated using the 0.864
second time basis which was assumed to be one second. That is, the
computer-generated speed versus time sequence should have been
plotted into drivers traces with 0.864 seconds between each data
point. However, for convenience, it was decided to assume that the
in-use data was collected on a 1.0 second basis, and to generate
driver's traces accordingly. The result of this technique is to
slightly "stretch out" the acceleration and deceleration ramps.
(Non-interpolated cycles were not used in this program.)
-------
1000 -
Figure 2
Road Load Force
z
I
0)
a
o
oo
p
2000 .
Theoretical^
Actual Dynamometer
i
20
I
40
i
60
80
-------
-6-
2. Interpolated: These cycles are like those above, except that the
results have been interpolated. The 0.864 second based speed
versus time listing was converted to a 1.0 second basis by linear
interpolation. The result of this process is to very slightly
shave some of the "peaks and valleys" out of the original cycle.
It is thought that this very minor deviation is of no significance.
3. Hand Generated; An attempt was made to "hand generate", without
the aid of a computer, two driving cycles from the Los Angeles Non-
Freeway input matrix. This was done to achieve the best possible
match to the input data speed distribution.
4. Speed Screened: These cycles are interpolated cycles subject to an
additional statistical test. The computer program was modified to
ensure that cycles generated would more accurately reflect the
speed distribution of the data matrix. Original cycles, both
interpolated and non-interpolated, were accepted on the basis of
percentage acceleration, deceleration, cruise and idle. Speed
distribution was not considered. This modification insures that
the resulting cycles are more representative of the input data.
All driving cycles were "manufactured" into a speed versus time graph
used during the test. (This process was carried out using a minicomputer
and strip chart recorder.) The vehicle driver would use this graph as a
guide when running the test.
The different driving cycles are described in Figure 3. Cycles 41 to 46
were used on the previous test program in Non-Interpolated form. In
Figures 4 and 5 they are refered to as "Interpolated/Original."
E. Test Matrix
For the first part of the test program, the vehicle was operated on all
the driving cycles indicated in Figure 3, except cycles 53 and 54.
Three back-to-back runs were made for each cycle. All tests began with
the engine fully warmed up and idling. This phase of the test program
was to investigate the emission characteristics of the various cycles.
Several months after the initial phase, it was decided to investigate
the effect of engine temperature on emissions. In the meantime, one
cycle (nominal 5 minutes) from each category had been selected as most
closely approximating the input data (cycles 31, 32, 53, and 54). These
cycles were used in a brief experiment to determine the difference
between cold, warm, and hot engine emissions. The following test sequence
was employed:
-------
Figure 3
Driving Cycles
No. Description
20 LA Non-Fwy
21 LA Non-Fwy
22 LA Non-Fwy
23 NY Non-Fwy
24 NY Non-Fwy
25 NY Non-Fwy
26 NY Fwy
27 NY Fwy
28 LA Fwy
29 LA Fwy
30 LA Fwy
31* NY Fwy
32* NY Non-Fwy
33 NY Non-Fwy
34 NY Non-Fwy
35 NY Non-Fwy
36 NY Non-Fwy
37 NY Non-Fwy
38 No Cycle
39 NY Non-Fwy
40 NY Non-Fwy
41 NY Non-Fwy
42 NY Non-Fwy
43 NY Non-Fwy
44 NY Fwy
45 NY Fwy
46 „ NY Fwy
53*^ LA Fwy
54* LA Non-Fwy
Length
3.63 km
3.75
3.69
1.86
1.68
1.70
6.68
6.37
10.76
10.90
10.73
3.36
0.85
1.00
0.92
0.93
0.80
1.03
0.97
0.97
0.87
0.93
0.87
3.43
3.40
3.36
5.38
1.85
Time
544s
544
544
544
515
537
544
525
530
538
529
279
254
273
259
285
254
285
302
299
260
285
285
289
285
214
267
285
Idle
31%
28.1
31.6
49.4
49.3
49.4
14.5
13.5
2.1
- 2.2
2.1
15.4
60.2
48.0
50.1
52.3
49.6
49.8
50.3
50.2
50.8
52.6
53.0
14.9
14.7
15.3
2.6
28.6
Average Speed
34.9 km/h
34.5
Notes
35.8
,3
,1
24.
23.
22.4
51.7
50.5
74.6
74.8
74.6
51.3
30.4
25.3
26.0
24.7
22.6
25.9
23.2
23.5
24.4
24.9
23.3
50.2
50.3
52.2
74.5
32.9
Interpolated
Interpolated
Interpolated
Interpolated
Interpolated
Interpolated
Interpolated
Interpolated
Interpolated
Interpolated
Interpolated
Speed screened.
Speed screened.
Speed screened.
Speed screened.
Speed screened.
Speed screened.
Speed screened.
No cycle.
Hand generated.
Hand generated.
Interpolated 01.
Interpolated 02.
Interpolated 03.
Interpolated 04.
Interpolated 05.
Interpolated 06.
Interpolated
Interpolated 08.
All cycles are interpolated to a 1.0 second time basis.
Average speed does not include idle time.
2
Not included in original testing, added for cold, hot, warm start sequence.
* Cycle tentatively selected as most representative, used in cold, hot, warm start sequence.
-------
-8-
1. Overnight soak at room temperature. The dynamometer was
warmed up by motoring the vehicle in neutral at 50 km/h for 15
minutes.
2. Cold start sequence. The vehicle was started as in a light-
duty certification test. The manual choke was pulled out for
starting, then pushed in halfway after 30 seconds. As soon as
the vehicle would run smoothly, about the end of the first
acceleration the choke was turned off completely. Three
driving cycles were run "back to back".
3. Hot sequence. After the third test in the cold start sequence,
the engine was allowed to idle for 60 seconds. Three additional
driving cycles were run. (It was assumed that the vehicle was
now fully warmed; the averages for these three runs would be
the stabilized emission and fuel consumption levels.)
4. Hot soak. For one hour the vehicle was not driven and the
auxiliary cooling fan was turned off. This was to simulate a
"lunch stop" during the truck's day.
5. Warm start sequence. The vehicle was started and driven for
three additional cycles. The choke was not used.
IV. Results
For the various cycle categories, the following average emission and
fuel consumption values were observed:
g/km 1/100 km
Category HC CO NOx Fuel
NY - NF 21.0 177 11.3 66
LA - NF 13.2 122 10.9 51
NY - FWY 8.7 94 11.0 45
LA - FWY 3.5 50 14.1 38
AVERAGE 11.6 110 11.8 50
This table does not reflect any of the results from the cold, hot, warm
test sequence. Only the originally planned testing on cycles 20 through
46, see Figure 3, is included.
The results are fully listed by cycle category, cycle number and test
run in Figure 4 and 5 and the Appendix.
-------
-9-
Figure 4
Summary of Results
Emissions
Category Type Cycles
NY Non-Fwy Interpolated/
Original
Interpolated
Sp . Screened
Hand Generated
NY Fwy Interpolated/
Original
Interpolated
Sp. Screened
HC
21.
19.
20.
23.
8.
7.
12.
61
63
75
16
79
18
99
CO
182.
156.
193.
152.
90.
87.
121.
g/km
Fuel
NOx litre/100 km
3
4
2
0
0
6
6
10.
8.
12.
12.
12.
9.
10.
65
79
43
77
39
58
81
63.
57.
72.
62.
42.
38.
68.
2
0
8
8
7
2
9
LA Non-Fwy Interpolated 13.15 121.5 10.93 51.1
LA Fwy Interpolated 3.51 49.6 14.14 38.0
Results presented are the average
for all runs of the same type and
category driving cycle.
-------
-10-
Category
NY Non-Fwy
NY Fwy
LA Non-Fwy
LA Fwy
Figure 5
Results
Emissions g/km
Type Cycles
Interpolated/
Original
Interpolated
Sp. Screened
No.
41
42
43
Ave
23
24
25
Ave
32
33
34
35
36
37
Ave
Hand Generated 39
Interpolated/
Original
Interpolated
Sp . Screened
Interpolated
Interpolated
40
Ave
44
45
46
Ave
26
26
27
Ave
31
20
21
22
Ave
28
29
30
Ave
HC
21.
22.
20.
21.
19.
20.
18.
19.
21.
22.
21.
18.
19.
20.
20.
22.
24.
23.
9.
7.
9.
8.
6.
7.
6.
7.
12.
15.
10.
13.
13.
3.
3.
3.
3.
87
49
47
61
64
91
33
63
13
58
99
89
42
51
75
28
04
16
52
54
31
79
99
59
97
18
99
47
55
43
15
69
52
33
51
CO
165.
184.
197.
182.
182.
144.
142.
156.
230.
187.
208.
156.
184.
191.
193.
152.
151.
152.
88.
80.
100.
90.
68.
75.
119.
87.
121.
138.
92.
133.
121.
56.
44.
47.
49.
•
9
1
0
3
8
5
0
4
5
3
4
9
9
0
2
8
1
0
3
9
9
0
3
1
4
6
6
5
7
3
5
6
3
9
6
NOx
10.
12.
9.
10.
11.
9.
5.
8.
12.
13.
12.
14.
10.
9.
12.
12.
13.
12.
12.
13.
11.
12.
5.
14.
8.
9.
10.
9.
11.
12.
10.
14.
14.
13.
14.
Fuel
litre/100 km
16
34
45
65
30
27
80
79
81
78
99
83
32
83
43
53
01
77
13
39
66
39
59
44
70
58
81
40
02
38
93
18
31
92
14
60.
69.
59.
63.
67.
58.
45.
57.
86.
75.
75.
67.
67.
65.
72.
61.
63.
62.
42.
43.
42.
42.
25.
45.
44.
38.
68.
50.
47.
55.
51.
38.
37.
38.
38.
8
6
3
2
7
4
0
0
3
1
5
4
7
0
8
7
8
8
6
2
4
7
5
1
0
2
9
4
6
4
1
1
7
3
0
Each run is the average of three replicate tests. "Original" cycles were
used on the previous test sequence in Non-Interpolated form.
-------
-11-
Results of this experiment can be compared, on a rather loose basis, to
those observed for the 1977 GM California truck. Direct comparison is
not strictly possible because of the slightly different inertia and road
load settings. (For half load, GM truck was tested at 7000 kg inertia;
this test sequence was run at 8750 kg with correspondingly higher road
load.) Even with these discrepancies, it is readily apparent that the
uncontrolled vehicle has much higher emissions.
g/km 1/100 km
HC CO NOx Fuel
1977 California 2.0 101 4.9 55
Uncontrolled 11.6 110 11.8 50
Change +480% +9% +140% -9%
The higher fuel consumption for the 1977 California vehicle is probably
due to the numerically higher axel (7.17 vs. 5.57) the larger engine
(7.0 vs. 5.9 litre) and its automatic transmission.
As with the 1977 CMC California truck, different driving cycles from the
same category gave different emission and fuel consumption values. This
testing confirmed earlier conclusions; no theory is available to explain
this variability.
The second part of the test program addressed the impact of cold and
warm starting on emissions and fuel economy. Results are contained in
Figures 6 to 10. Generally, all pollutants and fuel consumption increase
with a cold start. (The base condition is a test with the engine warmed
up and idling at the start.) The one exception to this rule are cold
start NOx emissions, which tend to be lower. Effects of "warm" (as
opposed to "cold") starting are much less pronounced and may be a result
of test variability. Choke procedure can contribute greatly to the
overall variability on cold starts.
Figure 6 lists cold and warm start ratios. This ratio is obtained by
dividing the results of the first cycle in the appropriate sequence
(cold or warm) by the average of the three hot cycles. It gives the
relative impact of a cold or warm start in comparison to a fully warmed-
up and idling engine. Figures 7 through 10 give a sequential history
and also portray the differences between the cycle categories. Some
idea of cycle variability can be gleaned from these graphs.
-------
-12-
Figure 6
Cold and Warm Start Ratios
No.
32
54
31
53
Category
NY - NF
LA - NF
NY - FWY
LA - FWY
AVERAGES
Start
Temp.
Cold
Warm
Cold
Warm
Cold
Warm
Cold
Warm
Cold
Warm
HC
1.03
0.80
2.72
1.04
1.75
1.07
2.21
1.16
1.93
1.02
CO
1.24
1.33
1.79
0.94
4.18
0.76
2.64
1.09
2.46
1.03
NOx
1.67
0.96
0.96
1.16
0.12
0.98
0.58
1.08
0.83
1.05
Fuel
1.45
1.19
1.33
1.05
1.18
0.90
1.26
1.12
1.31
1.07
Results are comparisons to the average of
three "hot" tests with engine idling at the
start. "Cold" and "Warm" refer to the first
cycle of the cold and warm sequences.
-------
-13-
Figure 7
HC Emissions as a Function of Warm-up
60
CO
§
•H
CO
I
u
a
40-
20.
I
4
6
Run No.
NY - Non-Fwy
LA - Non-Fwy
O NY Fwy
LA Fwy
L
\
O,
A,
I I
Cold Start
Warm Start
-------
0)
c
o
•H
CO
CO
•H
-14-
Flgure 8
CO Emissions as a Function of Warm-up
300-
200
f NY Non-Fwy
^ LA Non-Fwy
O NY Fwy
.A LA Fwy
100 _
I I I
2
6
Run No.
L
Cold Start
1 s T
L
Warm Start
-------
-15-
Figure 9
NOx Emissions as a Function of Warm-up
20
• NY Non-Fwy
Jt LA Non-Fwy
O NY Fwy
£* LA Fwy
oo
i
CO
a
o
•H
CO
CO
•H
B
w
10 _
t
i i
i r
6
Run No.
Cold Start
ii
8
L
Warm Start
-------
-16-
Figure 10
Fuel Consumption as a Function of Warm-up
Jl
o
o
I
o
•H
O.
w
o
o
0)
80-
60 _
40 ,
A
\
A*
• •
• NY Non-Fwy
^ LA Non-Fwy
O NY Fwy
A LA Fwy
I
246
Run No.
Cold Start
Warm Start
-------
No.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
26
27
APPENDIX A
Raw Test Results
Run
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
HC
17.07
14.39
14.94
15.47
10.46
10.20
10.97
10.55
13.59
14.19
12.50
13.43
19.60
19.90
19.42
19.64
21.02
22.16
19.57
20.91
20.16
18.80
16.03
18.33
8.91
6.07
6.00
6.99
8.06
7.13
7.59
7.59
8.41
6.36
6.14
6.97
g/km
CO
139.9
132.1
143.6
138.5
85.3
85.6
105.2
92.7
128.2
141.7
130.5
133.3
181.0
184.4
183.0
182.8
135.4
186.7
111.4
144.5
149.0
148.9
128.1
142.0
77.2
63.2
64.4
68.3
77.0
68.6
79.7
75.1
135.9
119.3
102.9
119.4
NOx
8.81
9.65
9.74
9.40
12.27
11.03
9.76
11.02
12.21
12.29
12.64
12.38
11.34
11.45
11.10
11.30
9.58
9.24
8.98
9.27
6.24
5.99
5.19
5.80
6.28
4.95
5.54
5.59
13.47
15.48
14.37
14.44
8.19
8.31
9.60
8.70
litre/100 km
Fuel
50.0
50.0
51.1
50.4
49.3
46.1
47.5
47.6
55.3
56.2
54.8
55.4
68.1
67.6
67.4
67.7
58.9
62.8
53.4
58.4
49.1
46.0
40.0
45.0
29.0
22.8
24.6
25.5
44.1
46.2
45.0
45.1
45.4
43.2
43.3
44.0
-------
A-2
No.
10 28
11 29
12 30
13 31
14 32
15 33
16 34
17 35
18 36
19 37
Run
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
HC
3.93
3.62
3.53
3.69
3.78
3.51
3.27
3.52
3.63
3.35
3.01
3.33
14.28
12.71
11.98
12.99
20.45
20.38
22.57
21.13
25.20
21.61
20.94
22.58
24.05
20.49
21.42
21.99
17.85
19.42
19.39
18.89
18.63
19.31
20.32
19.42
23.88
19.40
18.25
20.51
g/km
CO
56.7
48.1
52.9
56.6
44.0
45.4
43.5
44.3
51.1
45.3
47.3
47.9
122.9
122.0
119.8
121.6
210.6
235.6
245.3
230.5
194.5
186.4
181.0
187.3
201.0
214.2
210.0
208.4
137.9
175.7
157.2
156.9
186.1
183.0
185.5
184.9
208.5
194.3
170.3
191.0
NOx
14.17
14.35
14.03
14.18
14.62
13.92
14.39
14.31
12.66
14.39
14.72
13.92
9.85
11.22
11.36
10.81
13.38
12.34
12.70
12.81
15.44
12.52
13.37
12.78
13.25
13.06
12.67
12.99
15.38
13.61
15.50
14.83
10.06
10.11
10.78
10.32
8.73
10.46
10.29
9.83
litre/100
Fuel
39.7
37.5
37.2
38.1
38.4
37.0
37.8
37.7
37.4
38.5
39.0
38.3
65.6
71.2
70.0
68.9
84.1
,84.8
90.1
86.3
81.4
69.8
74.0
75.1
76.3
75.7
74.6
75.5
66.3
67.2
68.6
67.4
70.9
63.3
66.0
66.7
65.5
66.8
62.6
65.0
-------
A-3
No. Cyc:
38
20 39
21 40
22 41
23 42
24 43
25 44
26 45
27 46
Run
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
1
2
3
Ave
HC
_ _ _
22.16
21.77
22.91
22.28
22.98
24.21
24.92
24.04
20.55
21.45
23.60
21.87
22.64
19.77
25.06
22.49
21.67
19.65
20.10
20.47
9.91
8.84
9.80
9.52
8.42
7.23
6.98
7.54
7.83
10.48
9.63
9.31
g/km
CO
No Cycle
156.2
145.6
156.6
152.8
157.8
147.2
148.4
151.1
186.0
158.4
153.2
165.9
189.0
183.7
179.5
184.1
192.9
173.0
225.1
197.0
95.6
87.7
81.5
88.3
84.6
82.3
75.7
80.9
88.7
104.9
109.2
100.9
NOx
- - -
12.11
12.85
12.62
12.53
12.12
12.79
14.10
13.01
8.82
10.32
11.35
10.16
11.98
13.86
11.18
12.34
8.78
11.54
8.01
9.45
12.97
10.83
12.60
12.13
13.04
12.83
14.31
13.39
10.47
12.46
12.05
11.66
litre/100
Fuel
60.2
62.1
62.7
61.7
62.6
62.5
66.4
63.8
62.2
57.8
62.4
60.8
69.9
72.9
66.0
69.6
56.7
59.0
62.2
59.3
46.4
40.4
41.1
42.6
43.2
41.8
44.7
43.2
37.7
44.8
44.6
42.4
-------
A-4
No. Cyc]
28 32
29 54
30 31
31 53
Run
1 C
2
3
4 H
5 H
6 H
7 W
8
9
Ave Hot
1 C
2
3
4 H
5 H
6 H
7 W
8
9
Ave Hot
1 C
2
3
4 H
5 H
6 H
7 W
8
9
Ave Hot
1 C
2
3
4 H
5 H
6 H
7 W
8
9
Ave Hot
HC
30.0
26.1
17.3
34.5
29.1
24.1
23.4
21.5
22.2
29.2
40.5
18.2
15.8
14.4
15.4
15.0
15.5
13.0
10.0
14.9
15.2
11.2
9.4
9.4
8.9
7.7
9.3
8.3
8.1
8.7
9.5
5.3
4.6
4.5
4.4
3.9
5.0
4.4
4.1
4.3
g/km
CO
113
116
117
104
92
78
121
107
115
91
117
113
112
92
113
91
93
109
98
99
284
40
32
61
74
69
52
69
72
68
195
126
77
73
76
74
81
76
69
74
NOx
25.4
18.4
17.3
16.2
15.4
14.1
14.6
13.4
13.6
15.2
7.8
9.1
8.8
8.8
7.7
7.8
9.4
8.4
8.0
8.1
1.4
10.5
10.9
11.6
12.1
11.1
11.4
12.0
12.1
11.6
6.2
9.3
11.2
11.0
10.8
10.0
11.4
10.7
10.6
10.6
litre/101
Fuel
73.0
60.1
60.6
54.8
49.7
46.1
59.9
54.5
56.8
50.2
52.1
43.9
42.1
39.8
41.1
36.4
41.2
42.8
39.5
39.1
42.9
37.7
35.9
35.4
38.5
35.7
33.0
37.6
38.6
36.5
46.5
41.9
39.3
38.1
37.7
35.0
41.1
37.9
36.0
36.8
-------
APPENDIX B
Driving Cycle Identification
Code No. Identification No.
20 213 884 237 5
21 252 141 511
22 214 709 248 5
23 155 897 487
24 212 824 238 1
25 104 940 581
26 448 526 301
27 211 317 052 7
28 131 162 575 9
29 814 877 133
30 168 565 423
31 203 708 236 5
32 212 012 741 3
33 211 373 494 3
34 210 952 317 5
35 202 167 539 7
36 213 923 722 9
37 213 153 035 7
38 No cycle
39 WYSOR I
40 WYSOR II
41 123 667 645 7
42 179 960 930 5
43 104 736 920 3
44 741 286 985
45 209 279 083 3
46 137 610 363
------- |