EPA/AA/CTAB/88-01
Technical Report
Evaluation of a Porous Silicon Carbide Resistive
Start Catalyst on a MethanoI-Fueled Vehicle
by
Robert I. Bruetsch
January 1988
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.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Mobile Sources
Emission Control Technology Division
Control Technology and Applications Branch
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
April 7, 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Exemption From Peer and Administrative Review
FROM:
TO:
Karl H. Hellman, Chief
Control Technology and Applications Branch
Charles L. Gray, Jr., Director
Emission Control Technology Division
The attached report entitled "Evaluation of a Porous
Silicon Carbide Resistive Start Catalyst on a Methanol-Fueled
Vehicle," (EPA/AA/CTAB/88-01) describes chassis dynamometer
testing of the Fogarty porous ceramic quick lightoff catalyst
with and without a main catalyst of the MlOO VW Rabbit.
Since this report is concerned only with the presentation
of data and its analysis and does not involve matters of policy
or regulations, your concurrence is requested to waive
administrative review according to the policy outlined in your
directive of April 22, 1982.
Approved:
Date:
Charles L. "ray. Jr., Dir., ECTD
Attachment
-------
Table of Contents
Page
I. Background 1
II. Resistive Start Catalyst and Power Supply 1
III. Test Vehicle and Fuel 5
IV. Vehicle Test Evaluation Configurations 5
V. Bag One and Composite FTP Emissions 7
VI. Discussion of Test Results 11
VII. Conclusions and Recommendations 14
VI11 .References 17
IX. Appendix A-1
-------
I. Background
One of the major problems with methanol utilization as an
automotive fuel is the incomplete combustion of methanol in the
form of formaldehyde emissions during vehicle cold start and
warmup.[1]* A variety of strategies have been devised to
address this problem and are currently under investigation,
most notably the use of a start catalyst.
A start catalyst, particularly one that can be heated
quickly, is seen as an improvement since most engines and
emission control systems are optimized to reduce emissions at
their normal operating temperatures, but do not work as well
during cold start and warmup. Experimentation with the
technique of heating a catalyst prior to the start of an engine
so that the catalytic reactions can become self-sustaining
almost immediately, is also desirable for gasoline-fueled
vehicles which often have high cold-start emissions of carbon
monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons.[2] Further reductions in
oxidants may require lowering these cold-start emissions from
gasoline-fueled vehicles.
Recently, resistive heaters have been evaluated as diesel
particulate filters and regeneration devices at MVEL.[3] These
devices have taken the form of porous silicon carbide and other
conductive ceramics or materials that have been treated or
metallized to make them more conductive. One such material
which has demonstrated the ability to be quickly and uniformly
heatable is the Coloroll (formerly Fogarty) porous silicon
carbide filter element. During the course of testing these
elements in a diesel particle control application, it was
suggested that one of these Coloroll elements be incorporated
into a resistive start catalyst (RSC) for evaluation on a
methanol-fueled vehicle. It was decided to catalyze an element
and take advantage of the quick heatup capability of this
material in order to optimize the Coloroll element/heater as a
resistive start catalyst.
11. Resistive Start Catalyst and Power Supply
The Coloroll porous ceramic resistive start catalyst, as
it was evaluated in this test program, is shown in Figure 1.
The desired operation of this device is to take advantage of
the small mass of catalyzed ceramic in order to minimize the
power requirement to heat the element to the operating
temperature (over 1000 F for best results prior to the engine
being started). Actuji filter temperature measurements were
made by the material supplier only. Thermocoupling was not
attempted with this material to avoid the creation of hot spots
and non-uniform current density. The material supplier
indicated that 1000°F to 1200°F filter temperatures were
observed at the current densities applied in this test
program. Once at the operating temperature, the RSC would
continue to be powered for
Numbers in brackets denote references listed at the end of
the paper.
-------
Figure 1
Ceramic Resistive Start Catalyst
(Coloroll Catalyzed Porous SiC Element)
smnojcss srm, FXTETRICAL LEADS
I
to
I
SOLID CERAMIC INSU1ATORS-
-------
-3-
the first few minutes of vehicle operation in order to assist
in the combustion of methanol in the exhaust stream and convert
fuel that has not been completely combusted in the combustion
chambers. Formaldehyde emissions would, in theory, be reduced
since there would be more heat in the exhaust at the catalyst
to complete the reaction from methanol to carbon dioxide and
water vapor while the engine was still warming up.
The Coloroll RSC consists of a container roughly 14 inches
long and 6 inches in diameter placed in the exhaust system
about 2 feet downstream of the exhaust manifold. Exhaust flows
in one end of the container, but is restricted from exiting the
opposite end by any means other than through the Coloroll
filter element, the inside diameter of which is open at one
end. The filter is placed in a spring loaded (20-25 kg)
assembly between two stainless steel electrical leads which are
in turn sandwiched between two solid ceramic insulators. The
spring is required to maintain good electrical contact due to
the different thermal expansion coefficients of the ceramic and
metal components. Stainless steel electrical leads were used
to protect against oxidation from exposure to methanol
exhaust. Unfortunately, the other metal components: electrical
wiring, internal terminals, and the container itself, were not
made of stainless steel and had to be sandblasted after every
few tests to avoid electrical shortcircuiting and corrosion of
current carrying metal surfaces.
The Coloroll heater element chosen for testing was
nickel-chrome metal flame sprayed on the ends for improved
electrical contact and was coated with 9:1 platinum:rhodium
catalyst. Thin mats of stainless steel wool were used as
intermediates between the ceramic and metal surfaces to further
improve electrical contacts. The catalyst density was unknown,
but believed to be minimal since the element is a hollow
cylinder with a volume of only 6.1 in3 (99 cm3) and very
few sites on the fiber for catalyst materials to adhere. Most
of the heater element volume is inaccessible to catalyst
washcoat due to its tightly packed fiber structure. The fiber
material is rated at roughly 90 percent porosity, but
approximately one-third of this void volume is inside the
hollow fibers. Assuming a catalyst density of 80 g/ft3, the
total amount of precious metals contained on the Coloroll RSC
heater element would be on the order of about 0.3 grams. The
system causes approximately 10 inches H20 backpressure in the
exhaust stream on the engine. Other properties of these porous
elements are listed below:
Power density 10-1600 W/cm3
Normal power range 10-300 W/cm3
Power dissipation 0.01-0.75 W/cm2
Heater response t ime milliseconds
Heat up time 30-45 seconds (600-1000 watts)
Heat transfer:
Surface/Volume 400-750 cm2/cm3
Operating temperatures Up to 1000°C
Material density 0.4-0.6 g/cm3
-------
-4-
The Coloroll RSC element was designed to take no more than
a maximum of 40A at 25V (a maximum power input of 1.00 KW).
Periodic element resistance checks were made. The heated
electrical resistance across Coloroll RSC elements is typically
0.5-0.6 ohms. Element deterioration and/or failure is usually
characterized by a large change in electrical resistance. A
low reading (e.g., 0.1 ohm) usually indicates element failure
due to cracking, chipping, or other element deterioration which
contributes to current short circuiting or channeling. A high
resistance (e.g., 5 ohms) indicates bad electrical contacts in
the form of flame-spray deterioration, element pitting, or
power supply wire terminal failure. No element failures were
experienced during this test program, though, the RSC container
was cleaned between most tests to retard the occurrence of
corrosion in the container.
The Coloroll power controller consists of a thyrlstor
controller, a three terminal temperature controller with a
K-type thermocouple for sensing outlet gas temperature, and a 5
KVA transformer for voltage output of either 25V or 50V, all
contained in a 26" x 18" power supply box. The power
controller is a single-phase unit capable of being operated at
220/240 volts (a.c.), and frequencies of 50 or 60 Hz. The
primary voltage is fed to the transformer via a • 25-amp
thyristor. the thyristor is fitted with a current limiter and
this controls current applied to the heater. The current limit
is controlled by a dial indicator on the front of the power
supply box. The temperature controller controls the
temperature of the outlet flow from the Coloroll RSC assembly
to the set temperature on the dial indicator. Opposite the
thyristor inside the power supply box are two 2.5 KVA
transformers. Power can be obtained in one of two modes, 1) 50
volts @ 100 A = 5 KVA (connected in series); or 2) 25 volts @
200 A = 5 KVA (connected in parallel). Through all testing,
power was obtained with the transformer in mode 2.
The power supplied to the Coloroll RSC was monitored by
two Fluke 8600A multimeters, one monitoring volts and the other
monitoring amps. Since the amount of power supplied to the
start catalyst system is critical, these meters were monitored
throughout each test sequence and were checked frequently with
hand-held Fluke meters.
The unit is fitted with an external isolation plug as a
safety shutoff device. At the completion of a cold start
(defined as first 195 seconds of vehicle warmup), the power
unit is shut off, and the RSC temperature is allowed to
fluctuate subject to the exhaust temperatures experienced
throughout the remainder of the test cycle.
-------
-5-
III. Test Vehicle and Fuel
The test vehicle used in the evaluation of the ceramic
resistive start catalyst is a 1981 Volkswagen Rabbit Sedan
(Vehicle Identification No. VWFB0179BV183756). This vehicle is
equipped with a continuous (K-Jetronic) fuel injection system
on a 97-cubic inch, in-line 4-cyUnder engine.[4] Vehicle
inertia weight is 2,500 Ibs. and the transmission is a
three-speed automatic.
The vehicle is fueled with neat metHanoi (M100) from
Howell Hydrocarbons, Inc., San Antonio, TX. Vehicle exhaust
flow ranges from roughly 8-12 scfm at idle to about 30 scfm at
60 MPH. Stabilized exhaust gas temperatures range from about
225°F at idle to about 700°F at 60 MPH at the inlet of the test
device. The rated horsepower of the engine is 52 HP and the
actual dynamometer horsepower setting used is 7.7 HP.
IV. Vehicle Test Evaluation Configurations
As mentioned, the purpose of this test program was to put
a heated mass of catalyzed material in the exhaust of a
methanoI-fueled vehicle to reduce vehicle cold start emissions,
particularly formaldehyde, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.
Unlike a previously tested metal monolith, the Coloroll RSC
requires relatively little energy to heatup (about 0.01 kW-hr)
to operating temperatures, but dissipates this energy quite
rapidly after power to the unit is shut off.[5] Therefore,
rather than heat the RSC for several minutes before vehicle
cold start, shut off the power, and run a cold start test
sequence, an alternate procedure was devised. The Coloroll RSC
was heated for 45 seconds prior to cold start, which is
generally the time required for the unit to reach a stabilized
operational temperature with nominal power supplied. Since it
is believed that the relatively cold exhaust temperatures
during vehicle warmup would cool the Coloroll RSC filters
rather quickly, the unit was kept powered throughout the first
195 seconds of vehicle operation. On the FTP, it was decided
to keep the unit powered until the vehicle reached 4th gear on
the highest acceleration in Bag 1, i.e., for the first 195
seconds of. the test. [6] The Coloroll RSC was evaluated at two
different power settings to characterize the emissions
conversion efficiencies of Bag 1 and composite FTP emissions.
Details of the power supplied and the fuel energy equivalent
are listed in Table 1. This table shows that the heated
resistance of the Coloroll RSC was roughly 0.6 ohms and that
the fuel energy equivalent consumed is minimal, 0.38 ounces (11
mi) of methanoI.
Prior to heating the RSC, however, baseline vehicle tests
were run without the RSC, and with the RSC installed but not
heated. The data from these tests allowed us to characterize
the vehicle's engine-out emission levels and determine the
effect of just the catalyst on the Coloroll RSC.
-------
-6-
Table 1
Porous Ceramic RSC Power Requirements
Voltage
Current
Time*
Power
Energy consumed
Low Heat
20 volts
30 amps
4 minutes
600 watts
144,000 Joules
Hiqh Heat
25 volts
40 amps
4 minutes
1000 watts
240,000 Joules
M100 energy equivalent
RSC-out exhaust gas
temperature at start
of test
(0.040 kw-hr)
.002 ga11ons
200°F
(0.067 kw-hr)
.004 ga11ons
290°F
Includes 45-second heat-up time, i.e., RSC is powered
through first 195 seconds of Bag 1.
-------
-7-
After the vehicle and RSC "catalyst" emissions were
defined, tests were conducted with the Coloroll RSC powered at
both predetermined power settings. Continuous RSC outlet
temperature readings were recorded on all test sequences.
Unlike tests with other RSCs, the power sequencing was not
determined by the achievement of a certain exhaust gas
temperature, e.g., 650°F, but it was desired to observe the
effect of the heated RSC in the system on exhaust gas
temperature as the vehicle warmed up.[7]
Subsequent to observing the effects of the heated Coloroll
RSC on exhaust emissions in Bag 1 and over the composite FTP
test, it was decided to evaluate additional vehicle test
configurations. Although significant reductions were achieved
in HC, CO, NOx and HCHO emissions (54 to 79 percent) it became
apparent that incremental increases in catalyst content may be
more beneficial than incremental additions of heat to the
relatively small mass of the Coloroll RSC. The emissions
reductions observed were not as large as had been achieved from
some unheated catalysts or a heated metal mono!ith.[8,9,10] It
was recognized, however, that other RSCs evaluated are much
larger in mass and probably have more 'total catalytical ly
active material on them.[11] Therefore, it was decided to test
the Coloroll RSC in series with an unaged main underbody
catalyst with known catalyst loading and emission
characteristics on the test vehicle. The "low heat" power
sequence in Table 1 was not tested in the "RSC plus main
catalyst" test sequences since the RSC-only tests had shown
better emissions results with no heat than with low heat.
The main catalyst used was characterized in SAE Paper No.
872052, "Catalysts for Methanol Vehicles," and was evaluated on
the same M100 VW Rabbit test vehicle. [10] This catalyst is
applied to a honeycomb-type monolith 4 inches in diameter, 6
inches long, and is loaded with 80 g/ft3 catalyst density at
a 5:1 platinum to rhodium ratio, i.e., roughly 3.5 grams of
platinum group metals. Baseline "main catalyst only" tests
were run (without the RSC) to compare with the published
results, but little change in catalyst conversion efficiencies
were observed from the previous test program. The M100 VW
Rabbit exhaust emissions baseline had increased since this test
program, however, with 83 and 64 percent increases in HC and
HCHO FTP emissions, respectively.
V. Bag 1 and Composite FTP Emissions
The M100 VW Rabbit emission test results for Bag 1 and
Composite FTP tests for each vehicle configuration are listed
in Tables 2 and 4, respectively. The percent reduction of Bag
1 and composite FTP emissions from the vehicle (engine-out)
baseline emissions as a measure of catalyst and RSC efficiency
are listed in Tables 3 and 5, respectively.
The results show that electrically heated ceramic
resistive start catalysts have the potential to reduce HC, CO
-------
-8-
Table 2
Bag 1 Emissions—Various Configurations
M100 VW Rabbit
HC NOx C02 CO HCHO
Configuration (g/ml) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (mg/ml)
Base I i ne
RSC/no heat
RSC/low heat
RSC/high heat
CAT/no RSC
CAT/RSC/no heat
CAT/RSC/high heat
1.76
0.80
0.60
0.37
0.48
0.32
0.15
2.30
0.98
1.13
1 .05
1.06
0.72
0.77
312
318
321
304
318
322
317
7.88
3.96
4.08
3.33
1.89
2.10
1.77
413
171
299
110
59
19
12
Table 3
Percent Reduction of Bag 1 Emissions from Baseline
M100 VW Rabbit
Conf igurat ion
RSC/no heat
RSC/low heat
RSC/high heat
CAT/no RSC
CAT/RSC/no heat
CAT/RSC/high heat
HC
(%)
55
66
79
73
82
91
NOx
(%)
57
51
54
54
69
67
C02
(%)
-2
-3
3
-2
-3
-2
CO
(%)
50
48
58
76
73
78
HCHO
(%)
59
28
73
86
95
97
-------
-9-
Table 4
FTP Emissions—Various Configurations
M100 VW Rabbit
Configuration
HC NOx C02 CO HCHO
(g/rnl) (g/mi) (g/ml) (g/mi) (mg/ml)
Base I i ne
RSC/no heat
RSC/low heat
RSC/high heat
CAT/no RSC
CAT/RSC/no heat
CAT/RSC/high heat
1.03
0.35
0.38
0.22
0.12
0.10
0.06
1.79
0.83
0.90
0.79
0.80
0.59
0.56
291
298
297
257
301
303
296
6.28
. 1.90
* • ^
2.37
1.73
0.41
0.41
0.37
313
109
208
84
15
5
4
Table 5
Percent Reduction of FTP Emissions from Baseline
M100 VW Rabbit
Conf igurat ion
RSC/no heat
RSC/low heat
RSC/high heat
CAT/no RSC
CAT/RSC/no heat
CAT/RSC/high heat
HC
(%)
66
63
79
88
90
94
NOx
(%)
54
50
56
55
67
69
C02
(%)
-2
-2
12
-3
-4
-2
CO
(%)
70
62
72
93
93
94
HCHO
(%)
65
34
73
95
98
99
-------
-10-
and HCHO FTP emissions substantially particularly when used in
tandem with a standard main catalyst.[6,12] The data (Table 5)
shows 94 percent reductions for HC and CO and 99 percent
reduction of HCHO emissions with the heated RSC in connection
with the main catalyst. Without the main catalyst, heated RSC
conversion efficiencies over the FTP are 79 percent for HC, 72
percent for CO and 73 percent for HCHO.
The Bag 1 emissions reductions (Table 2) are quite similar
to the FTP reductions with the exception of CO conversion
efficiencies. The similar Bag 1 conversion efficiencies were
expected since all the additional heat was supplied at the
beginning of Bag 1. The increased CO emissions in Bag 1 may
have been a result of test to test variability. Without modal
analysis it is not directly quantifiable, but it appears that
most of the emissions reduction improvements occurred where
they were desired to occur, during vehicle wartnup in the first
third or so of Bag 1.
As previously mentioned, the "RSC/low heat" test
configuration was not tested when the main catalyst was added
due to the poor conversion efficiencies obtained with this
power setting. Apparently, the low heat setting may have
actually produced more favorable conditions for formaldehyde
formation rather than increasing HCHO conversion (Table 4).
Formaldehyde conversion efficiencies were twice as large with
the RSC unheated than with the low heat setting though HC, CO,
and NOx conversion efficiencies were quite similar for the no
heat and low heat configurations.
The RSC/high heat configuration showed an improvement to
73 percent HCHO conversion efficiency with absolute levels of
84 mg/mi . This is an 8 percent improvement over the RSC/no
heat FTP HCHO conversion efficiency, and a 14 percent
improvement in Bag 1. HC and CO reductions were also improved,
but NOx efficiency remained roughly equivalent to the RSC/no
heat configuration.
Since the main catalyst used was one optimized for low
aldehyde emissions, the HCHO conversion efficiencies for all
tests involving the main catalyst (with or without the RSC)
were quite high. Adding the RSC decreased HCHO emissions
further, from 15 to 5 mg/mi, with conversion efficiencies as
high as 98 percent. with heat added to the RSC, formaldehyde
emissions are decreased to 4 mg/mi (99 percent conversion
efficiency). These are equivalent to gasoline engine
formaldehyde levels.
Perhaps the most significant result of the test program is
the achievement of 0.06 g/mi HC emissions over the FTP with the
heated resistive start catalyst and a main catalyst. This is
half the HC emissions (0.12 g.mi) achieved with just the main
catalyst. This test configuration also produced the lowest
formaldehyde emissions over the FTP as mentioned above.
-------
-11-
VI. Discussion of Test Results
Without a main catalyst, the heated RSC only achieved 0.22
g/ml HC and 84 mg/mi formaldehyde over the FTP. Since these
results are not overwhelming compared to other catalysts, the
test conditions were reexamined to determine why better results
were not obtained. It was observed that the low mass of the
heater element and the cooling effect of the M100 vehicle
exhaust gas during warmup operation represent two test
conditions which may lessen the effectiveness of this silicon
carbide RSC heater element.
The exhaust gas temperature data shpw extreme temperature
transients on the surface of the Coloroll RSC heater element
particularly during vehicle cold starts. These temperature vs.
time data consist of a series of stripchart recordings made
during each test sequence and exist as a separate body of
data. [13] In the 45 seconds prior to vehicle cold start, the
heated Coloroll RSC achieves temperatures in excess of 1000°F.
Exhaust gas temperatures at the inlet to the Coloroll RSC at
cold start are approximately 75°F (room temperature) and may
only reach 200-250°F after 150 seconds (idle segment in Bag
1). This large temperature differential between the incoming
exhaust flow and the Coloroll RSC heater element may make the
silicon carbide filter less responsive to HCHO and HC
conversion by making it operate in a lower than optimum
temperature regime. At the highest acceleration in Bag 1 (at
the end of the RSC heating period), RSC-out exhaust gas
temperatures reached 930°F with the RSC heated and 820°F with
the RSC unheated. This marginal difference indicates that, at
the power settings used, the catalyst on the RSC may be doing
most of the work rather than heat added to the system. Also,
the difference between inlet and outlet temperatures averaged
roughly 325°F while 1000 watts were applied compared to nearly
290°F with the RSC unheated. Adding more heat or catalyzed
mass to the RSC element may reduce the effect of the
temperature transients by not allowing the element to cool as
rapidly during cold starts.
Tables 6 and 7 show the exhaust emissions and conversion
efficiencies of the Coloroll RSC compared to another RSC and
unheated methanol catalyst configurations, respectively. The
unheated three-way catalyst represents the best catalyst tested
in the Low-Aldehyde ^ethanol Catalyst Test Program at MVEL.
This "unheated" cat.Hyst at 12Pt:Rh and a 40 g/ft3 PGM
loading achieved the highest overall emissions conversion
efficiencies in the •• -it i re test program. These tables show
that the best configuration for all pollutants is the Coloroll
RSC plus main catalyst configuration.
The CTAB MXX Emission Test Calculation Program was run for
all the FTPs performed in this RSC evaluation program. [14]
These calculated results; including estimated methanol
emissions, other measured emissions, and gasoline equivalent
fuel economy, are listed with the actual lab test data in the
-------
-12-
Table 6
Comparison of Emissions of Coloroll RSC and
Other Methano
Colorol 1
RSC + CAT
Unheated TWC
12Pt:Rh(40)
Camet Metal
Monolith
Coloroll RSC
(heated)
Bag 1
FTP
Bag 1
FTP
Bag 1
FTP
Bag 1
FTP
Comparison of
of the
Colorol I
RSC + CAT
Unheated TWC
12Pt:Rh(40)
Camet Metal
Mono I ith
Coloroll RSC
(heated)
I Catalysts
HC
(g/mi)
0.15
0.06
0.11
0.12
0.07
0.37
0.22
Table 7
Percent Emi
On M100 VW Rabb
NOx
(g/mi)
0.77
0.56
0.62
0.88
0.70
1.05
0.79
ssions
CO
(g/mi)
1.77
.,.. 0-37
0.69
2.19
0.61
3.33
1.73
it
HCHO
(mg/mi)
12
4
12
12
14
110
84
Reductions
Coloroll RSC and Other Methanol Cata
Bag 1
FTP
Bag 1
FTP
Bag 1
FTP
Bag 1
FTP
HC
91
94
89
94
94
79
79
NOx
67
69
65
58
59
54
56
CO
78
94
89
80
90
58
72
lysts
HCHO
97
99
95
93
96
73
73
-------
-13-
Appendix.[15] A list of test numbers versus vehicle test
configuration is also included to match up these results to the
values listed in Tables 2 and 4. These calculated data
indicate the achievement of 0.007 g/mi HC are possible with the
CAT/RSC/hlgh heat configuration with 4 mg/mi HCHO and 0.16 g/mi
CH3OH (tests 880194, 880195).
A potential disadvantage of using these silicon carbide
heater elements in the RSC application may be the poor thermal
shock resistance of the material which, is generally defined in
terms of the material's .modulus of elasticity, flexural
strength, and coefficient of thermal expansion.[16]
Thermal shock results from rapid exhaust temperature
changes which produce temperature gradients within the
material. If all the portions of the material changed
temperature simultaneously, there would be no problem.
Unfortunately, thinner sections and corners tend to assume the
temperature of the surroundings faster than thicker sections or
flat areas. These relatively uniform porous SIC elements are
not as bad as some metals which at the surface may become very
hot while deep interior portions are still cold. However,
rapid increases to and decreases from operating temperatures
cause non-uniform dimensional changes. These strains produce
stresses which can produce distortion or fracture.[17]
The tendency for thermal fatigue to occur depends upon the
magnitude and frequency of the thermal changes, the shape and
restraint of the structure, and the physical properties of the
composite material from which the filter structure is made.
For both thermal shock and thermal fatigue resistance, it is
desirable that the thermal conductivity of the material be high
enough to minimize strain-causing temperature differentials.
Silicon carbide has higher thermal conductivity than cordierite
or other ceramics, but it is not as high as most metals. A low
modulus of elasticity will result in lower stresses for a given
strain produced by a given temperature differential. SiC,
unfortunately, has a higher modulus of elasticity than other
ceramics and most metals. A low-value coefficient of thermal
expansion is preferred, as this results in low values of strain
and stress for a given temperature gradient. SiC has a higher
linear thermal expansion coefficient than other ceramics, but
it is., lower than most metals. Ductility, tensile strength, and
fatigue strength should all be good, the better to resist
permanent damage. Thermal shock is frequently more of a
problem in ceramics than in metals because of the poorer
thermal conductivity and almost complete lack of ductiIity.[18]
Thermal shock tests were not performed on this RSC heater
element. Such tests may be performed by heating an element to
various predetermined temperatures, quenching it in a water
bath of known temperature, and observing physical properties
such as whether mechanical failure or fracture occurs. Since
this was not a material development program, only temperature
versus time traces of inlet and outlet RSC the temperatures
were recorded during the cold-start FTP RSC evaluation tests.
-------
-14-
VII. Cone I us i ons and Recommendati ons
Information obtained from this test evaluation program
which may shed light on the commercial feasibility of using
resistive start catalysts for the reduction of cold start
emissions of HCHO and HC from methanol and gasoline-fueled
vehicles. A few of the more significant findings of this study
are Iisted below.
1. The achievement of 0.06 g/mi HC emissions over the
Federal Test Procedure with the heated resistive start catalyst
and a main catalyst is significant in terms of possible oxidant
control. With just the heated RSC, 0.22 g/mi HC was obtained.
2. Maximum formaldehyde emissions conversion
efficiencies were obtained with FTP emissions as low as 4 mg/mi
with the heated resistive start catalyst and a main catalyst.
HCHO conversion efficiency with the heated RSC only are 73
percent.
3. The Coloroll RSC requires minimal external energy to
operate at the power settings utilized in this test program.
Fuel energy equivalent power consumption at the highest power
setting was 0.004 gal (0.5 oz.) of methanol.
4. Bag 1 emissions conversion efficiencies mirrored
composite FTP emissions conversion efficiencies, particularly
for HC and HCHO. This trend indicates that more benefit may
have been derived from the additional heat on the catalyst at
the beginning of Bag 1 than from the presence of the RSC
throughout the FTP.
5. No electrical contact problems were experienced
throughout the test program with the use of 316 Stainless Steel
electrical leads, thin stainless steel wool matting
intermediates between the ceramic heater element and the
electrical leads, and nickel-chrome flamespray applied to the
ends of the ceramic element.
6. Thermal instability may be a problem with silicon
carbide heater elements in the resistive start catalyst
application. Temperature differentials between the RSC heater
element and the exhaust gases during a vehicle cold start cause
the RSC system effectiveness to be decreased and may cause
shortcircuiting or element failure with repeated use.
7. Formaldehyde emissions were lower with the Coloroll
RSC unheated than with only 600 watts applied during the first
few minutes of Bag 1. The low heat setting may have actually
produced more favorable conditions for HCHO production rather
than increased formaldehyde conversion.
-------
-15-
8. The Coloroll catalyst loading and the actual heater
element (substrate) mass are both quite small. Although the
smaller substrate mass requires less energy to heat and may
cost less to produce, it also provides less active surface area
for the catalyst materials, is more prone to large temperature
transients and therefore produces less than optimum gains in
methanol exhaust conversion efficiencies.
9. The M100 VW Rabbit baseline emissions have increased
considerably since the last vehicle test program. FTP
emissions of 0.96/6.54/1.79/0.252 g/mi previously characterized
for HC/CO/NOx/HCHO, were rebaselined at 1.76/7.90/2.30/0.413
g/mi in the RSC test program.
The results of this test program do not show greatly
improved emissions from those obtained in previous test
programs, including the metal monolith resistive start catalyst
evaluation or the tests performed on low-aldehyde unheated
catalysts. However, a few areas of improvement have been
identified which may help to optimize the porous silicon
carbide resistive start catalyst and improve its emissions
conversion characteristics.
1. Although the material supplier may not recommend
exceeding the rated current loading of the heater elements,
additional tests could be performed at 50 amps. At roughly 30
volts, this would be a total of 1500 kW (0.10 kw-hr for a 4
minute heating period) or a fuel energy equivalent of 0.006
gal. This additional heat might reduce the severity of element
temperature transients and characterize whether additional heat
is or is not more beneficial than higher catalyst loadings.
2. The addition of a second heated filter may be of
more benefit than just adding additional heat, and may maintain
heater element durability longer by not operating outside the
rated power range of the material. Also, the additional
element would double the effective catalyst surface area with
only a small increase in exhaust backpressure.
3. Extending the heating period of the Coloroll RSC
through most of Bag 1 may improve emissions conversion
efficiencies until the vehicle and engine are fully warm with
marginal power penalties.
4. Improved surface area for catalyst materials or the
application of low temperature catalysts might make the
Coloroll RSC more effective as a start catalyst.
5. Increasing the mass of the heater element may
increase heat transfer to methanol exhaust, reduce element
temperature transients, increase heater element durability, and
improve effective catalyst surface area.
6. The Coloroll RSC should be rebuilt with all internal
metal surfaces exposed to methanol exhaust made of stainless
steel to prohibit corrosion, particularly to current carrying
components.
-------
-16-
7. In the absense of a modal analyzer,
recording of CO, C02, and 02 with a Sun Analyzer
more of an Indication of llghtoff and other useful
in the evaluation of resistive start catalysts.
continuous
wouId gIve
parameters
An "optimized" Coloroll resistive start catalyst, one
containing some or all of the above recommendations, may have
the potential to be a more efficient and cost-effective HC and
HCHO catalyst than other heated or unheated methanol and
gasoline-fueled vehicle catalysts if the thermal stability of
the heater element can be improved within the constraints of
the material.
-------
-17-
VIII. References
1. Mov I nq America .to Met Hanoi. Gray, C. L., Jr. and J.
Alson, Univ. of Mich. Press, Ann Arbor, Ml, 1985.
2. "Carbon Monoxide and Non-FTP Ambient Temperature,"
Bruetsch, R. I., EPA/AA/CTAB/TA/81-7, February 1981.
3. "Evaluation of a Resistively Heated Conductive
Ceramic Fiber Diesel Particulate Filter," Bruetsch, R. I.,
EPA/AA/CTAB/87-04, June 1987.
4. VoIkswagen Service Manual: Rabbi t/ScIrocco/Jet ta
1980-82. Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 82-70737, Robert
Bent ley, Inc., 1987.
5. Evaluation of an Electrically Heatable Metal
Monolith Catalytic Converter, Memorandum, Blair, D. M., EPA,
CTAB, September 1987.
6. 1975 Federal Test Procedure, Code of Federal
Regulations. Title 40, Part 86. Appendix I (a), Urban
Dynamometer Driving Schedule.
7. Quick Light Catalyst Test Plan, Memorandum,
Bruetsch, R. I., and J. D. Murrell, EPA, CTAB, March 1987.
8. "Low Mileage Catalyst Evaluation With a Methanol-
Fueled Rabbit - Second Interim Report," Wagner, R. and L.
Landman, EPA-AA-CTAB-84/03, June 1984.
9. Evaluation of Catalyst for Methanol-Fueled Vehicles
Using a Volkswagen Rabbit Test Vehicle, ASME Joint Conference
on the Introduction and Development of Methanol as an
Automotive Fuel, Columbus, OH, June 1986.
10. "Catalysts for Methanol Vehicles," Piotrowski, G.
K., and J. D. Murrell, SAE Paper 872052, International Fuels
and Lubricants Meeting and Exposition, Toronto, Ontario,
November, 1987.
11. Letter from Richard Cornell son, Garnet, Hiram, OH to
Jonathon Adier, EPA, Ann Arbor, Ml, June 16, 1987.
12. Formaldehyde Measurement In Vehicle Exhaust at MVEL,
Gilkey, R. L., OAR, QMS, EOD, Ann Arbor, Ml, 1981.
13. Exhaust temperature data recordings made during
vehicle testing of an M100 VW Rabbit with and without a
resistive start catalyst, Bulifant, E. and R. Moss, U.S. EPA,
Test and Evaluation Branch, October 1987 through January 1988.
-------
-18-
VI11. References (cont'd)
14. "Proposed Emission Standards and Test Procedures for
MetHanoi-Fueled Vehicles," Draft Regulation, U.S. EPA 1986.
15. "Calculations of Emissions and Fuel Economy When
Using Alternate Fuels, EPA 460/3-83-009, Urban, C. M.,
Southwest Research Institute, March 1983.
16. Properties of Ceramics and Metals, presented by K.
Matsudo, NGK Insulators, Ltd., Southfield, Ml, March 1987.
17. Materials Science In Engineering. Keyser, C. A.,
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 73-8783G, C. E. Merrill
Publishing Co., Columbus, OH, 2nd Edition, 1974.
18. Elements of Material Science, Van Vlack, Library of
Congress Catalog Card No. 59-7551, Addison-Wesley Publishing
Co., Inc., 2nd Edition, April 1967.
-------
A-l
IX. APPENDIX
-------
REQUESTOR 10: 22136
NAME: E. BULIFANT
REPORT TIME: 14:10:56
DATE: OC1 13. 1987
TEST J> 8B019S
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (TESTNO GEN) - DATE OF ENTRV i 6/22/82
VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
MANUFACTURER
SOURCE
VOLKSWAGEN VWFB0179BV 183756 0
VEHICLE
TYPE
MODEL
ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL YEAR
ACTIVE
YEAR
DRIVE
HULL
TANK
AXL NTS
EMPTY
TANK
CURB
WEIGHT
SEDAN
INERTIA
CLASS
FRONT DRIVE STR .
EQUIV<
TEST
WEIGHT H.P. METHOD
LEFT
ETW
C.D.
VEH
MANUFACTURER
O/O
CODE
ACTUAL
OYNO HP
RUNNING CHG
NUMBER
NON-CER RABBIT 81 Bl
ASSIGNED DF OR DURABILITY VEHICLE ID
2822P 2500P
2500P
NO ENTRV
ALT. MANUFACTURER
ODOMETER
CORRECTION TIRE & RIM
INITIAL FACTOR SIZES
7.7
TIRE - SPECIFICATIONS
SWL BLT PSI TO
MFR CONSTR N M N M FT RR OP
I55SRI3
ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS
DISPLACEMENT' BORE
96.9E 3.01E
IGNITION IGNITION TIM.
TIMING 1 TIMING 2 TOL.
STROKE
3.40E
RATED
HP
52
TIMING RPM
RPM TOL.
ENGINE
TYPE
OTTO SPARK
TIMING
GEAR
ENGINE
CONFIGURATION
IN-LINE _
% CO % CO %CO
LEFT RIGHT COMB
NO.
CYL.
4
CO
TOL.
NO.
CARBS
IDLE
RPM
TOTAL
BBLS
IDLE
TOL.
FUEL SYSTEM FUEL
MFR/MODEL 1NJ
IDLE
GEAR
YES
ENGINE
. 37C
TURBO/ SUPER COMP. COAST
CHARGER. COOL ING RATIO ON TM
NONE 0.0
FAMILY ENGINE CODE
DRIVE TRAIN AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
AXLE N/V A/C
RATIO RATIO ODOMETEH INSTALLED EXHAUST TYPE
CRANKCASE TRANSMISSION SHIFT INOIC. EVAPORATION
SYSTEM CONFIG MODIF CODE 'LIGHT SYSTEM
0.0
0.0
MAIN-TANK
CAPACITY VOLUME
SINGLE LEFT REAR CLOSED A-3
SHIFT SPEED
-NO ENTRY
FUEL TYPE
CRANKCASE METHANOL
AUX.-TANK
CAPACITY VOLUME
EVAPORATIVE EMISSION
FAMILY CODE
10. OG
4.0G
SALES CLASS
NO SALES CLASS SPECIFIED
CONTROL. SYSTEM TYPES
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS
• SEE COMMENTS
9855 0
-------
A-3
Hethanol Volkswagen Test Vehicle Specifications
and Changes To Accommodate Hethanol Fuel
Vehicle Item
PCY:
Ignition:
Distributor
Spark Plugs
Transmission:
Type
• Torque Converter Ratio
Stall Speed
Gear Ratios:
1
2
3
Axle
Fuel Tank:
Material
Coating
Seams and n ttings
Cap
Fuel
Specification/Change
PCV valve with calibrated
plunger-no orifice.
Reduced:maximum centrifu-
gal advance and modified
vacuum advance/retard
characteristics.
Bosch W260T2
Production 1981 automatic
3-speed.
2.44
2000-2200 RPN
2.55
1.45
1.00
3.57
Steel
Phosphated Steel
Brazed
European neck and locking cap.
Neat Metha-nol (M100)
-------
A-4
Htthanol Volkswagen Test Vehicle Specifications
and Changes To Accommodate Hethanol Fuel
Vehicle Itea
Engine:
01splacement
Bore
Stroke
Compression Ratio
Valvetrain
Basic Engine
Fuel System:
Type
Fuel Pump
Accumulator Max Pressure
Fuel Filter
Fuel Distributor
A1r Sensor
Fuel Injectors
Cold Start Injectors
Fuel Injection Wiring
Idle Setting
Specification/Change
1.6 liter
7.95 CM
8.00 cm
12.5:1
Overhead camshaft
GTI basic engine - European
high performance engine to
withstand higher loads • U.S.
cylinder head.
Bosch CIS fuel Injection with
Lambda feedback control, cali-
brated for Hethanol operation.
*.
Life rated 1 year for Hethanol;
Improved Insulation on wiring
exposed to fuel.
3.0 Bar
One-way check valve deleted
because of fuel Incompati-
bility.
5.0-5.3 bar system pressure,
calibration optimized for
Methanol, material changes for
fuel compatibility.
Modified airflow charac-
teristics.
Material changes for fuel
compatibility, plastic screen
replaced by metal screen.
2 Injectors, valves pulse for 8
seconds after start when below
zero degrees centMgrade.
Modified for cold start pulse
function and to accommodate
relays and thermo switch.
Specific to Methanol
calibration.
-------
COMPOSITE TEST RESULTS FROM 2660S-MXX
TEST B
NUMBER A
S
875030 3
875031 3
875032 3
880189 3
880190 3
880191 3
880192 3
880193 3
880194 3
880195 3
%
OF.
METH
100. 1
100. 1
100.
100.
too.
too.
too.
100.
100.
100.
MILES
1.112
1.062
.074
.019
.082
.060
0.977
.034
.086
.066
< CURRENT TEST RESULTS >
H C CO C02 • NOX
0.325
0.357
0.358
0.. 376
0.220
0.894
1.157
0.120
0.058
0.063
1.639
1.738
2.323
2.369
1.566
6.392
6.163
0.407
0.373
0.460
299.07
296.84
297 . 25
297.31
283.26
290.40
292.20
300.76
296.24
292.24
0.815
0.798
0.859
0.903
0.791
1.754
1.829
0.796
0.565
0.542
<
H C
0.038
0.042
0.042
0.044
0.026
0.105
0. 136
0.014
0.007
0.008
PROPOSED TEST CALCULATIONS (GRAMS/MILE) >
C 0 C02 NOX OMHCE CH30H HCHO
1.639
1.736
2.324
2.369
1.566
6.392
6.163
0.407
0.373
0.460
299. 19
296.96
297.12
297.40
283.44
290.65
292.40
301 . 10
296.25
292.38
0.813
0.798
0.859
0.903
0.791
1.754
1.830
0.796
0.565
0.542
0.463
0.509
0.524
0.583
0.325
1.296
1.649
0.162
0.077
0.087
0.883
0.970
0.973
1.022
O.S98
2.430
3.145
0.327
O.IS8
0.173
0.09083
O.I02S6
0.13031
0.207SO
o. oases
0.29924
0.32725
0.01461
0.00418
0.01061
METH-
ANOL FACTOR
M P G
13.66 2.0IOS
13.65 2. 0105
13.60 2.0105
13.57 2.0105
14.33 2.0105
13.49 2.0105
13.38 2.0105
13.61 2.0105
13.84 2.0105
14. O2 2.0105
GAS
EQUIV NOTE
M 9 G
27.27 C75
27.44 C7S
27.34 C7S
27.29 C7S
26.62 C7S
27.13 C75
26.91 C75
27.36 C7S
27.83 C75
28.16 C7S
Ol
-------
BAG BY BAG TEST RESULTS FROM 2660S-MXX
TEST B
NUMBER A
875030 1
875030 2
87S030 3
875031 1
875031 2
875031 3
875032 1
875032 2
875032 3
880189 1
880)89 2
880)89 3
880)90 )
880190 7
6BOI9U 3
880191 1
880191 2
880191 3
880)92 )
880)92 2
880192 3
880)93 1
880193 2
880193 3
880194 1
880194 2
880)94 3
880195 1
880195 2
880195 3
%
OF.
METH
100.
100.
100.
too.
100.
100.
100.
too.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100 .
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
too.
100.
100.
100.
MILES
3.61)
3.888
3.6)3
3.544
3.92)
3.597
3.589
3.896
3.589
3.569
3.868
3.582
3 ^9C,
1 h t •<
J VJ i
3 .59 1
3.888
3.581
3.558
3.85)
3.568
3.58)
3.878
3.575
3.584
3,907
3.595
3.582
3.89)
3.593
< CURRENT TEST RESULTS >
H C CO C02 NOX
2.902
0.724
0.812
3.010
0.818
0.976
2.700
0.888
1 . 101
2. 128
) .097
1 .378
1 344
• si;
,i -jj;
4.878
2.976
2.820
7.7)1
3.658
2.8)4
) .709
0.029
0.224
0.552
0.060
0.239
0.561
0.041
0.334
13. 129
4.440
3.876
12.801
4.971
4.425
16.622
6.755
6. 118
14.545
7.472
6.847
1 1 956
4 ?? 1
4. IbO
28.812
23.868
20.203
27.502
22.829
19.365
6.769
0.0
0.216
6.346
0.0
0. 120
7.870
0.0
0.089
1151 .32
1184.35
988.77
1124.00
1180.57
983.71
1)37. )0
1181.10
973.50
1144.93
1168.49
969. 1 1
1093 . 72
1 119 84
931 . 33
1 102.97
1 154.4)
950.13
1)25. 12
1 143. 14
946.66
1 1 39 . 1 1
1186.37
993.29
1138.54
1177.00
972.61
1135.88
1)5). 45
957.55
3.580
2.499
3.641
3.411
2.535
3.469
3.571
2.7)9
3.817
4.0)8
2.675
4.074
3 788
2. 438
3. 260
7.944
5. 193
7.888
8.503
5.420
7.874
3.805
2.327
3.453
2.756
1.764
2.255
2.7)5
1.623
2.213 .
<---
H C
0.342
0.085
0.096
0.354
0.096
0.115
0.318
0. 105
0.130
0.251
0. 129
0. 162
0. 158
0.063
0.110
0.574
0.350
0.332
0.907
0.431
0.331
0.201
0.004
0.027
0.065
0.007
0.028
0.066
0.005
0.040
PROPOSED TEST CALCULATIONS (GRAMS/BAG
C 0 C02 NOX OMHCE CH30H
1 3 . 1 29
4.440
3.876
12.801
4.971
4.425
16.624
6.756
6.118
14.545
7.473
6.847
1 ) .956
4.221
4. 150
28.812
23.868
20.202
27. 502
22.829
19.365
6.769
0.0
0.216
6.346
0.0
0. 120
7.870
0.0
0.089
1151.73
1184.64
989.58
1124.99
1180.48
984.75
1137.63
1180. 11
973.03
1 145.43
1)68.78
969.49
1094.22
1)20.78
931 .65
1 104. ) 6
1155.53
950.61
1 125.06
1)44.03
947.65
1139.66
1188.05
994.40
1138.32
1177. 14
972.63
1136.03
1152.09
958. 16
3.581
2.499
3.642
3.411
2.535
3.469
.3.572
2.719
3.817
4.018
2.675
4.075
3. 789
2.438
3. 260
7.945
5. 194
7.889
8.505
5.420
7.874
3.806
2.328
3.453
2.757
1.765
2.255
2.715
1.623
2.213
3.992
1.082
1.178
4.176
1.215
1.405
3.832
1.357
1.603
3.250
1 .759
2.072
1 .925
0.832
) .353
6.941
4.37)
4.087
10.720
5.295
4.075
2.312
0.046
0.299
0.736
0.084
0.316
0.7B4
0.063
0.445
7.888
1.973
2.209
8.182
2.226
2.655
7.341
2.417
2.995
S.786
2.984
3.746
3.657
1 .463
2.535
13.257
8.092
7.667
20.954
9.945
7.649
4.648
0.086
0.616
1.505
0.169
0.653
1.528
0.118
0.913
) >
HCHO NOTE
0.50856 C75
0.30717 C75
0.27253 C7S
0.60386 C75
0.33593 C75
0.30282 C75
0.72576 C75
0.44516 C75
0.38275 C75
1.06892 C75
0.72968 C75
0.623)3 C75
0.39510 C75
0.29198 C75
0.31487 C75
1.35509 C75
1.11752 C75
0.94071 C7S
1.59823 C75
1.20743 C75
0.93256 C75
0.21152 C75
0.01120 C7S
0.01189 C75
0.04199 C7S
0.00686 C75
0.41125 C75
0.12267 C75
0.01476 C75
0.02071 C7S
a\
-------
BAG BV BAG TEST RESULTS FROM 2660S-MXX
TEST B % < CURRENT TEST RESULTS >
PROPOSED TEST CALCULATIONS (GRAMS/MI ) >
NUMBER A
B75030 1
875030 2
675030 3
875031 1
875031 2
875031 3
875032 1
875032 2
875032 3
880 189 1
880189 2
880189 3
880)90 1
880190 2
880190 3
880191 1
880191 2
880191 3
880192 1
880192 2
880192 3
880193 1
880193 2
880193 3
i
880194 1
880194 2
880194 3
880195 1
880195 2
880195 3
OF.
UCTU •
Mt in
too.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
too.
too.
100.
too.
100.
1
100.
100.
100.
100.
100,
100.
too.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
too.
100.
MILES
3.611
3.888
3.613
3.544
3.921
3.597
3.589
3.896
3.589
3.569
3.868
3.582
3.b95
3.894
3.593
3.591
3.888
3.581
3.558
3.851
3.568
3.581
3.878
3.575
3.584
3.907
3.595
3. 582
3.891
3.593
H C
0.804
0.186
0.225
0.849
0.209
0.271
0.752
0.228
0.307
0.596
0.284
0.385
0.374
0. 138
0.259
1 .358
0.765
0.787
2. 167
0.950
0.789
0.477
0.007
0.063
0. 154
0.015
0.066
0. 157
0.011
0.093
CO
3.636
1.142
1.073
3.612
1.268
1.230
4.631
1.734
1.705
4.075
1 .932
1.912
3.326
1 .084
1.155
8.023
6.139
5.642
7.730
5.928
5.427
1.890
0.0
0.060
1.771
0.0
% 0.033
2. 197
0.0
0.025
C02
318.84
304.62
273.67
317. 15
301.09
273.48
316.83
303. 16
271.25
320.80
302.09
270.55
304.23
287.58
259.21
307. 15
296.92
265.33
316.22
296.84
265.32
318. 10
305.92
277.84
317.67
301 .25
270.54
317.11
295.93
266.51
NOX
0.991
0.643
1.008
0.962
0.647
0.964
0.995
0.698
1.064
1. 126
0.692
1 . 137
1 .054
0.626
0.907
2.212
1.336
2.203
2.390
1 .407
2.207
1.063
0.600
0.966
0.769
0.451
0.627
0.758 .
0.417
0.616
H C
0.095
0.022
0.026
0. 100
0.025
0.032
0.089
0.027
0.036
0.070
0.033
0.045
0.044
0.016
0.031
0.160
0.090
0.093
0.255
0.112
0.093
0.056
0.001
0.007
0.018
0.002
0.008
0.018
0.001
0.011
C 0
3.636
1. 142
1.073
3.612
1.268
1.230
4.632
1.734
1.705
4.075
1 .932
1.912
3.326
1.084
1.155
8.023
6 . 1 39
5.642
7.730
5.928
5.427
1.890
0.0
0.060
1.771
0.0
0.033
2. 197
0.0
0.025
C02
318.95
304 . 69
273.90
317.43
301.07
273.77
316.98
302.90
271. 12
320.94
302. 17
270.66
304.37
287.82
259.30
307.48
297.20
265 . 46
316.21
297.07
265.60
318.25
306.36
278.15
317.61
301.29
270.55
317. 15
296.09
266.67
NOX
0.992
0.643
1.008
0.963
0.647
.0.964
0.995
0.698
1.064
1 . 126
0.692
1.138
1 .054
0.626
0.907
2.213
1.336
2.203
2.390
1.407
2.207
1.063
0.600
0.966
0.769
0.452
0.627
0.758
0.417
0.616
OMHCE
1 . 106
0.278
0.326
1 . 178
0.310
0.391
1.068
0.348
0.447
0.911
0.455
0.579
0.535
0.214
0.377
1.933
1.124
1.141
3.013
1.375
1.142
0.646
0.012
0.084
0.205
0.021
0.088
0.219
0.016
0. 124
CH30H
2. 184
0.507
0.611
, 2.309
O.S68
0.738
2.045
0.620
0.834
1.621
0.772
1.046
1.017
0.376
0.705
. 3.692
2.081
2.141
5.889
2.582
2.144
1.298
0.022
0.172
0.420
0.043
0.182
0.426
0.030
0.2S4
HCHO NOTE
0.14084 C75
0.07901 C7S
0.07543 C76
0.17039 C75
0.08568 C7S
0.08419 C7B
0.20222 C75
0.11426 C7S
0.10665 C7S
0.29950 C75
0.18865 C75
0.17396 C75
0. 10990 C7S
0.07498 C75
0.08783 C75
0.37736 C75
0.28743 C75
0,26270 C75
0.44919 C75
0.31354 C75
0.26137 C75
0.05907 C7S
O.OO289 C75
0.00333 C7S
0.01172 C75
0. 0
-------
A-8
Test Number Configuration
875030 RSC/no heat
875031 RSC/no heat
875032 RSC/no heat
875033 RSC/low'heat
880189 RSC/low heat
880190 RSC/high heat
880191 Baseline
880192 Baseline
880193 CAT/no RSC
880194 CAT/RSC/high heat
881095 CAT/RSC/high heat
Missing CAT/RSC/no heat
-------
OVNO SITE:D209
TEST * 875030
| 1981 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALVSIS I
PROCESSEDi 13i37i24
OCT 26. 1987
MFR.
CODE VEHICLE l.D. VERSION EVAP
690 VWFB0179BVI837S6 0 N
MFR. ALT.
REP. RUN. RETEST H.P. PARTIC- REASON FOR
INITIAL CHG. CODE ACHP METH ULATES CONFIRMATION
N
/ TEST
EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD)
/ TeST PROCEDURE
CVS 76-LATER
CURB DRV AXLE
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE
10-20-87 EMPTV
AXLE
MEASURE
/ ---
»\
IGNITION TIMING --- /
12 RPM GEAR
t ,„ * co / IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME
IDLE HIGH SPEED RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED
23 0.0
/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS /
BARO WET AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS
-HG BULB TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE
29.05 58.0 75.5 F 33.4 45.10 0.876B 27C
/ OVNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS /
DVNO ACTUAL DVNO TIRE ODOMETER SVSTEM
TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES
10-21-87 13 D209 2500 5.6 45.00 17233.8 N/A
BAG 1 3.611
SITE *A203
HC-FID
NOX-CIUH
CO2
CO
MtlMANE.
HC - NM
BAG 2 3.888
SITE *A203
HC-FID
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
BAG 3 3.613
SITE JA203
HC-FID
NOX-CHEM
CO2
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
MILES
5.812 KM 8420.
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
14
IT)
1 .•
\ II
Ib
MILES
METER >• CONC.
89. a'/ 66.90
',4 h S/ 'n ?\i
ii I M 'S 0.827
14 J 'V, 1 4'2 . 17
S.I' 2.55
6.258 KM 9066.
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
14
15
22 .
IB
IS
MILES
METER/ CONC.
17.0V, 12.58
21 .9^f 10.97
53. T S/f 0.510
7.3"''' 28.07
4.0/^ 2.00
5.814 KM 8423.
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
14
IS
22
18
15
METER/ CONC.
27.3^ 20.25
54. a/ 27.40
73.3/y, 0.714
10.8-O 41.92
4.4/ 2.20
ROLL REVS.
BACKGROUND
RANGE METER
14 5.0
15 0.8
22 4.1
18 0 .0
15 3.4
ROLL REVS.
BACKGROUND
RANGE METER
14 4.7
IS 0.0
22 4.0
IB 0.0
15 3.4
ROLL REVS.
BACKGROUND
RANGE METER
14 3.6
IS 0.1
22 4.0
IB 0.0
15 3.4
SAMPLE
/• CONC.
' / 3 . 69
// 0.40
S/S °-036
•^S 0.0
' 1 .70
SAMPLE
* CONC .
* 3 47
^f 0.0
^y^ o!o
' 1 .70 ^
SAMPLE
/ CONC .
'/• 2 . 66
<& 0.05
'/ 0.035
's o.o
•S 1 .70
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
63.44 PPM
26.92 PPM
0.793 %
142. 17 PPM
0.96 PPM
62.48 PPM
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
9.25 PPM
10.97 PPM
0.476 %
28.07 PPM
0.37 PPM
8.88 PPM
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
17.73 PPM
27.35 PPM
0.681 %
41 .92 PPM
0.59 PPM
17.14 PPM
VMIX=
CMS
2.
3.
1151.
13.
0.
2.
VMIX=
CMS
0.
2.
1184.
4.
0.
0.
VMIX=
CMS
0.
3.
988.
3.
0.
0.
280 1 . 0
MASS
.
90
58
32
13
04
86
4798.0
MASS
.
72
50
35
44
03
70
2804.0
MASS
.
81
64
77
88
03
78
CU.FT. DILUTION
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI CMS/KM
0 . 804 0 . 499
0.991 0.616
318.810 • 198.099
3.636 2.259
0.012 0.008
0.791 0.492
CU.FT. DILUTION
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI CMS/KM
0.186 0.116
0.643 0.399
304.589 189.263
1.142 0.710
0.007 0.005
0.179 0.111
CU.FT. DILUTION
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI CMS/KM
0.225 0.1.40
1.008 0.676
273.703 170.071
1.073 0.667
0.008 0.005
0.217 0.13S
FACTOR «
AUX.
FIELDI
too
MPG
12.6
FACTOR •
AUX.
FIEL01
MPG
13.4
FACTOR *
AUX.
FIELOI
MPG
• 14.9
16.801
AUX. AUX.
FIELD2 CODE
S.I40
KPL L/IOOKM
6.35
26.052
AUX. AUX.
FIELD2 CODE
1.816
18.7
KPL L/IOOKM
5.70
•
18.607
AUX. AUX.
FIELD2 CODE
2.754
17.5
KPL L/IOOKM
6.34
15.8
WEIGHTED VALUES HC NM-HC CO C02 NOX
. GRAMS/MILE 0.325 0.316 1.64 299. 0.82
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.32466 0.31626 1.6392 299.05 0.8151
GRAMS/KM 0.202 0.197 1.02 186. 0.506
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.20173 0.19652 1.0185 185.82 0.50650
COMMENTS: VW METHANOL RABBIT FOGARTV UNIT «1 TEST NO HEAT
FUEL ECONOMV
MPG
13.6
I3.60S7
KPL
S.8
5.7779
L/IOOKM
17.3
17.3073
THE FUEL ECONOMV VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS.
9855 0
DVNO SITE.0209 TEST 87-8030
-------
ilVNU SITE:0209
TEST I B75031
| 1981 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSEDs ISiSOt39
OCT 26. 1987
MFR.
CODE VEHICLE I.O. VERSION. EVAP
590 VWFBOI79BV183756 ' 0 N
MFR.
REP.
INITIAL
RUN.
CHC.
RETEST
CODE
ACHP
ALT.
H.P. PARTIC- REASON,FOR
METH ULATES CONFIRM
N
/ JEST TYPE —
EXPERIMENTAL (ECTO)
•TEST PROCEDURE
CURB DRV AXLE AXLE
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE
10-21-87 EMPTY
/ IGNITION TIMING /
*l 02 RPM GEAR
IDLE
% co -----
HIGH SPEED
r >
/ • , AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS
BARO DEW ,AMB TEMP » REL S.HUM. NOX J V CVS
/•HG (POINT TEMP JkrfTlT HUM I GR/LB FACTOj^ALDEHYDES RGE
^29.23' 41.3 73.5 0 31.3. 39.27 0.8562 27C
/ '-- DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS -/
DYNO ACTUAL OVNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM
TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES
10-22-87 09 D209 2500 5.6 45.00 17248.9 N/A
;—' -COASTOOWN TIME
ACTUAL ADJUSTED
0.0
BAG 1 3.544
SITE *A203
HC-F1O
NOX-CHEM
CO2
CD
wt IIIANL
HC NM
BAG 2 3.921
SITE »A203
HC-FID
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
BAG 3 3.597
SITE 0A203
HC-FIO
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
MILES
5.703 KM 8262.
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
14
15
) {
\ II
I'j
MILES
METER CONC.
9\.3S 68.87
53.0 / 26 .50
U\ .8 * 0 . 805
1 .1 3 ^ 137.63
!> . 2 ~" 2 . 60
6.309 KM 9141 .
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
14
15
22
18
15
MILES
METER CONC.
18. 6|^ 13.77
22.6 S 11 .32
53. 4 if; 0.507
8. 1
-------
DVNO SITE:0709
TEST * 875032
1981 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS I PROCESSEDi 13i5li39
OCT 26. I9B7
MFR.
CODE VEHICLE I.D. VERSION EVAP
590 VWFB017'JBV 183756 0 N
CURB DRV AXLE AXLE
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE
10-22-87 EMPTY
MFR.
REP.
INITIAL
RUN.
CMG.
RETEST
CODE ACHP
ALT.
H.P.
METH
PARTIC- H
ULATES CO
/ ---
IGNITION TIMING /
J>2 RPM GEAR
CONFIRMATION
N
/—— * CO /
IDLE HIGH SPEED
/ JEST TYPE —
EXPERIMENTAL (ECTO)
/ TEST PROCEDURE
CVS 76-LATER
IDLE SOAK COASTOOWN TIME
RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED
21 0.0
/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS .-/
BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS
"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE
29.IB 47.0 73.0 D 39.6 49.01 0.6912 27C
/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS /
DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE UDOMETER SYSTEM
TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES
10-23-87 08 D209 2500 5.6 45.00 17264.0 N/A
BAG 1 3.589
SITE *A203
HC-FID
NOX-CHFM
Ml.'
(.()
Mt IMANt
HC-NM
BAG 2 3.896
SITE *A203
HC-FID
NOX-CHEM
CO 2
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
BAG 3 3.589
SITE «A203
HC-FID
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
MILES
5.777 KM 8369.
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
14
IS
III
I'j
MILES
METER ^ CONC .
83.4 -^, 6 ? . 4 3
',1 •*/, .'h ''>
" i 1 ' (i « .' 1
•).' H •<^lb 1 . 76
b . / ' 2 .85
6.269 KM 9083.
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
14
15'
22
18
IS
MILES
METER CONC.
19. 9^ 14.74
23.4-O 11.72
53.7^0- 0.510
11. I/., 43.52
4.4^ 2 . 20
5.776 KM 8368.
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
14
15
22
18
15
METER y CONC.
36.3/<\X26.97
56. 6X/- 28.29
72.4-O' 0.704
16. BO' 66.30
4.6-^ 2.30
ROLL REVS.
•BACKGROUND
RANGE METER
14 4.9
1'. 0.7
i .' 45
IH 0.5
15 4.0
ROLL REVS.
BACKGROUND
RANGE METER
14 4.9
15 0. 1
22 4.5
18 0.3
15 4.0
ROLL REVS.
BACKGROUND
RANGE METER
14 4.3
15 0.4
22 4.4
18 0.1
15 3.8
SAMPLE
S* CONC.
'S' 3-62
/ 0.35
' S 0.040
~^S \ .89
•^ 2.00
SAMPLE
^s CONC.
^ 3.62
/./• 0.05
'^S 0.040
s/ '-13
^ 2.00.
SAMPLE
XCONC.
-' 3. 18
S'S 0.20
^X^ 0-039
^^r 0. 38
^ 1.90
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
59.04 PPM
26.42 PPM
0.784 %
179.99 PPM
0.98 PPM
58.06 PPM
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
1 1 . 26 PPM
11.67 PPM
0.472 %
42.43 PPM
0.28 PPM
10.98 PPM
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
23.96 PPM
28. 10 PPM
0.668 %
65.94 PPM
0.50 PPM
23.46 PPM
VMIXs 2801.0
MASS
GMS.
2.70
3.57
1 137. 10
16.62
0.05
2.66
VMIX= 4828.0
MASS
. GMS.
0.89
2.72
1181 . 10
6.76
0.02
0.87
VMIX= 2814.0
MASS
GMS.
1.10
3.82
973.50
6.12
0.02
1.08
CU.FT.
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI
0.752 ,
0.995
316. 792
4.631
0.012
0.740
CU.FT.
DILUTION
GMS /KM
0.467
0.618
196.846
2.878
o.ooa
0.460
DILUTION
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI
0.228
0.698
303.185
1.734
0.006
O.222
CU.FT.
CMS/KM
0.142
0.434
188.390
1.077
0.003
0.138
DILUTION
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI
0.307
1.063
271.246
1.705
0.006
0.300
GMS /KM
0.191
0.661
168.545
1.059
0.004
0.187
FACTOR «.
AUX,
FIELD1
100
MPG
15.856
AUX.
FIELD2
7.333
KPL
12.6 5.36
FACTOR P
AUX.
FIELO1
MPG
13.4
FACTOR *
AUX.
FIELOI
MPG
25.963
AUX.
FIELD2
2.613
AUX.
CODE
L/100KM
18.7
AUX.
CODE
KPL L/100KM
6.71
18.774
AUX.
FIEL02
3.852
17.5
AUX.
CODE
KPL L/100KM
1S.O 6.37
15.7
WEIGHTED VALUES HC NM-HC CO C02 NOX
GRAMS/MILE 0.358 0.350 2.32 297. 0.86 '
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.35758 0.35033 2.3232 297.26 0.8591
GRAMS/KM 0.222 0.218 1.44 185. 0.534
BEFORE ROUNDING 0.22219 0.21768 1.4436 184.70 0.53384
COMMENTS: VW METHANOL RABBIT »3 FOGARTV UNIT NO HEAT
FUEL ECONOMY
MPG
13.6
13.6430
KPL
5.B
5.7864
L/100KM
17.3
17.2818
f-UEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS.
9855
DYNO SITEi0209 TEST 87-6032
-------
OVNO SITEi0209
TEST * 875033
I 1981 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS I PROCESSED! 08i29t35
OCT 28. 1987
MFR.
REP.
INITIAL
RUN.
CHG.
RETEST
CODE
ALT.
H.P.
ACHP METH
PARTIC-
ULATES
N
REASON FOR
CONFIRMATION
MFR.
CODE VEHICLE I.D. VERSION EVAP
590 VWFBOI79BV183756 0 N
CURB DRV AXLE AXLE / IGNITION TIMING /
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE *| 02 RPM GEAR
10-26-87 EMPTY
/ .. TeST
EXPERIMENTAL (ECTO)
..PROCEDURE
/ * co /
IDLE HIGH SPEED
IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME
RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL AQJUSTED
0 0.0
/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS /
BARO WET AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS
•HG BULB TEMP UNIT ' HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE
28.85 59.5 74.9 F 39.8 53.22 0.9071 27C
/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS /
DYNO ACTUAL OVNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM
TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES
10-27-87 13 D209 2500 5.6 45.00 17283.0 N/A
BAG I -3.573 MILES 5.750 KM 8331
SITE JIA203
MC-F I O
NO*- CULM
CU2
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGF
22
IB
IS
ROLL REVS.
BACKGROUND SAMPLE
n 11
i. '
», .'
B/
40
5.
H
I
l>
J
6
. 2
fONt RANGt
iu
3!
0
I7I
2
f,
2b
am
.33
.60
I4
IS
22
IB
IS
Mi I I
4
0
4
0
3
H
s
. 4
1
.0
.5
SECS. VMIX=
IPL
E
CONC.
3
0
0
0
1
.32
.20
.036
.0
.75
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
47. 14 PPM
31 .09 PPM
0.776 %
171.33 PPM
0.96 PPM
46. 18 PPM
CMS
2.
4.
1121.
15.
0.
2.
2790.0
MASS
CU.FT. DILUTION
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI GMS/KM
IS
26
84
76
04
10
0.601
1 . 193
313.967
4.411
0.012
0.589
0
0
195
2
0
0
.373
.741
.090
.741
.008
.366
FACTOR •
AUX.
FIELD!
MPG
12.
16.104
AUX.
AUX
»
FIELD2 CODE
8 6
KPL 1
.42
L
L/tOOKM*
18.4
BAG 2 3.891 MILES 6.263 KM 9073. ROLL REVS.
— SECS. VMIX- 4829.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR • 26.138
SITE *A203
HC-FID
" NOX-CHEM
CO2
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE METER
14
IS
22
18
15
WEIGHTED VALUES
GHAMS/MILE
BEFORE ROUNDING
GRAMS/KM
BEFORE ROUNDING
23.2
26.7
S3. 3
12. 1
4.0
HC
0.435
0.43484
0.270
0.27019
E BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED
CONC. RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS
17. 19
13.37
0.506
47. 14
2-.00
14
IS
22
18
IS
4.6
0.0
4.0
0.0
3.4
3.40
0.0
0.035-
0.0
1.70
13.93 PPM
13.37 PPM
0.472 *
47. 14 PPM
0.37 PPM
13.56 PPM
MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX.
CMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM FIELDI FIELD2 CODE
1. 10
3.17
1181.81
7.51
0.03
1.07
0.282
0.815
303.700
1.929
0.007
0.275
0.175
0.506
158.711
1.198
OtOOS
0.171
MPG
13.4
KPL
5.69
L/100KM
17.8
K>
NM-HC
0.425
0.42512
0.264
0.26415
CO
3.12 '
3. I 167
I .94
1.9366
CO2
309.
308.61
192.
191.76
NOX
1.00
0.9958
0.619
0.61877
FUEL ECONOMY
MPG
13.1
13.0588
KPL
9.6
5.5519
L/100KM
18.0
18.0117
COMMENTS:^W-MeTHANOL RABBIT *4 FO
NOT A VALID TEST
TY UNIT W/HEAT STALL • 1265
VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS:
tffs
9855 0
DVNO SITE:0209 TEST 87-5033
-------
OVNO SITE:0209
TEST t 680169
1981 LIGHT DUTV VEHICLE ANALVSIS I . PROCESSED: 13:18! 18
NOV 2. 1987
MFR.
CODE VEHICLE I.D. VERSION EVAP
590 VWFB0179BV183756 0 N
MFR.
REP.
INITIAL
RUN.
CHG.
RETEST
CODE
ALT.
H.P.
ACHP UETH
PARTIC- R
ULATES L(l
CURB DRV AXLE AXLE / ---
WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE t\
EMPTY
PREP DATE
10-27-87
V -/- AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS /
BARO/DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS
"HGv/POINT TEMPVUNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHVOES RGE
29.02 46.5 74.0 0 37.5 48.35 0.8887 27C
/ OVNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS /
DYNO ACTUAL OVNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM
TEST DATE HR SITE 1W SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES
10-28-87 IS 0209 2500 5.6 45.00 17290.4 N/A
IGNITION TIMING --- /
»2 RPM GEAR
REASON FOR
LOMFIRMATION
N
._ % co
IDLE HIGH SPEED
/ TEST TVPE —
EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD)
/ TBST PROCEDURE
CVS 7S-LATER
IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME
RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED
25 0.0
BAG 1 3.569 MILES 5.743 KM 8321. ROLL REVS.
SITE SA203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC.
HC-FID 14 f.1,.6 4'J 73 14 4.5 , 3.32
NOX-CMFM 15 I.I 4. JO IH 15 0 1 / 0.35
.C02 ' s: ni /' . o b.".. 22 4. 2 i 0.037
CO I b .1 / / / I i / . 7 8 18 0 .0 / 0.0
METHANE 15 t>.2^' 2.60 15 3.4' 1.70
HC-NM
BAG 2 3.868 MILES 6.225 KM 9018. ROLL REVS.
SITE «A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC.
HC-FIO 14 22. 8// 16.90 14 4.1^ 3.03
NOX-CHEM 15
C02 22
CO IB
METHANE 15
HC-NM
BAG 3 3.582 MILES
23. 2/
53. I'/
12.2 /
4.0-/
11.62 IS
0.504 22
47.54 18
2.00 15
0.1 ''
4. I"
O.I <
3.6'
0.05
0.036
0.38
1.80
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
46.61 PPM
29.86 PPM
0.790 %
157.78 PPM
1.01 PPM
45.60 PPM
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
13.98 PPM
11.57 PPM
0.469 %
47. 18 PPM
0.27 PPM
13.72 PPM
5.764 KM
8351. ROLL
REVS.
SECS.
SITE 4>A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE
HC-FID 14
NOX-CHEM 15
C02 22
CO IB
METHANE 15
HC-NM
WEIGHTED VALUES
GRAMS/MILE
BEFORE ROUNDING
GRAMS /KM
BEFORE ROUNDING
METER
43. 8/ /
60.5 f
71. 9«- ,
18.7 /
4 . 3|^-
CONC. RANGE METER CONC.
32.58 14
30.24 15
,0.699 22
74.18 18
2.15 15
3.7 *
0.3 -^
4. 1 .
0. 1 •/,
3.5-^
2.73
0.15
0.036
0.38
1.75
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
29.99 PPM
30.09 PPM
0.665 %
73.83 PPM
0.49 PPM
29.50 PPM
HC
0.376
0.37586
0.234
0.23354
COMMENTS: VW METHANOL RABBIT
NM-HC
0.369
0.36862
0.229
0.22905
f\ FOGARTV
CO
2.37
2.3687
1 .47
1.4718
W/HEAT
THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT
C02
297
297
IBS
184
FUEL
NOX
0.90
VMIX= 2796.0 CU.FT. DILUTION
MASS EMISSIONS
GMS. GMS/MI CMS/KM
2.13 0.596 0.371
4.02 1 . 126 0. 700
1144.93 320.613 199.344
14.55 4.076 2.532
0.05 0.013 0.008
2.08 0.584 0.363
VMIX= 4804.0 CU.FT. DILUTION
MASS EMISSIONS
GMS. GMS/MI GMS /KM
I. 10 0.284 0.176
2.68
1168.49
7.47
0.02
1.08
VMIX- 2813.0
MASS
GMS.
1.38
4.07
969 . 1 1
6.85
0.02
1.36
0.692
302. 109
1.932
0.005
0.278
CU.Ff.
0.430
187.722
1.200
0.003
0.173
DILUTION
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI
0.385
1.138
270.573
1 .912
0.006
0.37B
FUEL ECONOMY
.32 O.9034
0.561
GMS /KM
0.239.
0.707
168.127
1.188
0.004
0.235
MPG
13.6
13.6369
FACTOR « I5.B44
AUX. AUX. AUX.
FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE
100 10.817
MPG KPL L/IOOKM
12.5 5.32 18.8
FACTOR = 26.242
AUX. AUX.' AUX.
FIELD1 FIEL02 CODE
4.301
MPG KPL. L/IOOKM
13. 5 5.72
FACTOR * 18.878
AUX. AUX. AUX.
FIELD1 FIEL02 CODE
6.270
MPG KPL L/
15.0 6.37
KPL L/IOOKM
5.8 17.3
6.7837 17.2897
17.5
100KM
15.7
.75 0.56137
VA
PROPERTU4| F
•«
y
IK
.„• &f'-
ran
ww\
rj>' W/l
ED
UL AT IONS
P
9?
•
U)
9B55 0
DYNO SITE:0209 TEST 88-0189
-------
OVNO SITE:0209
TEST * 880190
| 1981 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSEDi 12t38t10
NOV 9, 1987
MFR.
REP.
INITIAL
RUN.
CHG.
RETEST
CODE
ALT.
H.P.
ACHP METH
PARTIC- R
ULATES CO
MFR.
CODE VEHICLE 1.0. VERSION EVAP
690 VWFB0179BVI837S6 0 N
CURB DRV AXLE AXLE / IGNITION TIMING /
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE #1 02 RPM GEAR
11-03-87 EMPTV
/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS /
BARO DEW AMB TEMP * REL S.HUM NOX CVS
"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE
28.82 47.5 73.0 D 40.3 50.59 0.8971 27C
/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS /
DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM
TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (Ml) MILES
11-04-87 09 O209 2500 5.6 45.00 17314.0 N/A
CONFIRMATION
N
% co
IDLE HIGH SPEED
/ TEST
EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD)
/ TEST PROCEDURE
CVS 75-LATER
IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME
RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED
21 0.0
BAG 1 3.595
SITE *A203
HC-FID
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
BAG 2 3.894
SITE *A203
HC-FID
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
BAG 3 3.593
SITE TA203
HC-FIO
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
MILES
5.786 KM
8383
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
14
15
2?
IB
15
MILES
METER
43 . T^,
Sh 8 «"^
/a ^'^s'
31.2 •'*\/4
5.5 '
6.267 KM
CONC.
32.51
27 .89
0. 78
28 . 19
2.75
9080
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
14
15
22
16
15
MILES
METER s
\*.*'S
21 .3^.
51.3 's
27.5<>
4.3'
5.783 KM
CONC.
'10.21
10.67
. ROLL REVS.
BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE METER -
14 4.9'O
15 ° ?->
1 22 4.2-^X
18 0.0^-
15 3.7^
. ROLL REVS.
CONC.
3.62
0.35
' 0.037
0.0
1.85
BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE METER ^
14 4-7>O>
15 0.4>S
0.486 22 4.1'TX
26.72
2.15
^^78
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
14
IS
22
16
IS
WEIGHTED VALUES
. GRAMS/MILE
BEFORE ROUNDING
GRAMS/KM
BEFORE ROUNDING
METER-
31. 4^
48.5/<
70. 1 'S
46.5^
4.7^
HC
0.220
0.21984
0.137
0. 13660
CONC.
23.31
24.25
16 O.O-O'
15 3.7/^
. ROLL REVS.
CONC.
3.47
0.20
' 0.036
0.0
1.85
BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE METER ,
14 4.0^
15 0.3-^
0.680 22 4.1'^
45.23
2.35
16 0.0 •*>
15 3.7X^
NM-HC CO
0.
0.
0.
0.
211 1.57
21125 1.5659
131 0.97
13126 0.9730
CONC.
2.95
0. 15
0.036
' 0.0
1.85
C02
283
283
176
175
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
29. 10 PPM
27.56 PPM
0.746 %
128. 19 PPM
1.01 PPM
28.09 PPM
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
6.86 PPM
10.47 PPM
0.451 *
26.72 PPM
0.37 PPM
6. SO PPM
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
20.50 PPM
24.11 PPM
0.646 %
45.23 PPM
0.60 PPM
19.91 PPM
NOX
0.79
.23 0.7912
0.492
.99 0.49165
VMIX-
GMS
1 .
3.
1093.
1 1 .
0.
1 .
VMIX=
GMS
0.
2.
1119.
4.
0.
0.
VMIX=
GMS
0.
3.
931.
4.
0.
o.
2829.0
MASS
34
79
72
96
05
30
4791 .0
MASS
_
54
44
84
22
03
SI
2783.0
MASS
93
26
33
15
03
90
CU.FT.
DILUTION
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI
0.374
1.054
304. 199
3.325
0.013
0.361
CU.FT.
GMS /KM
0.232
0.655
189.020
2.066
0.008
0.224
DILUTION
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI
0. 138
0.626
287.554
1.084
0.007
0.131
CU.FT.
GMS /KM
0.086
0.389
178.678
0.673
0.005
0.081
DILUTION
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI
0.259
0.907
259. 187
1. 155
0.008
0.252
FUEL ECONOMY
GMS /KM
0.161
0.584
161.051
0.718
0.005
0.156
MPG
14.4
14.3875
FACTOR
AUX.
FIELD1
100
Ml
i:
FACTOR
AUX.
FIEL01
Ml
1-
FACTOR
AUX.
FIELD1
Ml
1!
KPL
6. 1
8. 1
18.812
AUX. AUX.
FIEL02 CODE
3.955
KPL L/IOOKM
13.3 6.64 17.7
27.369
AUX. AUX.
FIELD2 CODE
1.729
KPL L/IOOKM
14.2 6.04 16.6
19.505
AUX. AUX.
FIELD2 CODE
3.205
, KPL L/IOOKM
IS.7 6.69 15.0
L/IOOKM
16.4
16.3617
COMMENTS: VW METHANOL RABBIT 91 FOGARTY UNIT W/HEAT 3 FALSE STARTS BEFORE EXCELL
FOGARTY UNIT INSTALLED AFTER LA-4 PREP
THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS.
9855
DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 88-0190
-------
OYNO SITEi0209
TEST » 880191
| 1981 LIGHT DUTV VEHICLE ANALVSIS | PROCESSED! 12l17iS9
DEC 1. 19B7
MFR.
REP.
INITIAL
RUN.
CHC.
RETEST
CODE
ALT.
H.P.
ACHP METH
PARTI C- R
ULATES CC
MFR.
CODE VEHICLE I.D. VERSION EVAP
590 VWFB0179BV183756 ON
CURB DRV AXLE AXLE / IGNITION TIMING /
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE t\ »^ RPM GEAR
11-23-87 EMPTY
/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS /
BARO WET AMB TEMP ft REL S.HUM NOX CVS
"HG BULB TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE
29.26 59.8 75.5 F 39.0 52.45 0.9042 27C
/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS /
DVNO ACTUAL DVNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM
TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES
11-24-87 08 0209 2500 5.6 45.00 17352.5 N/A
CONFIRMATION
N
% co
IOL6 HIGH SPEED
/ TeST TYPE —
EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD)
/ TEST PROCEDURE
CVS 75-LATER
IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME
RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED
24 0.0
BAG 1 3.591 MILES
5.779 KM 8373. ROLL REVS.
SITE J>A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE
HC-FID 16
NOX-CHEM 17
C02 ' 22
CO 4 18
METHANE 15
HC-NM
BAG 2 3.888 MILES
METER CONC. RANGE METER /CONC.
36.1/108.02 16 1.1 / 3.30
22. 9'/ 57.46 17 0.2^V 0 . SO
79 7 ^ 0.782 22 4.0/ 0.036
67. 3/ 306.95 IB O.O/ JO.O
5.2^ 2.60 15 3.7 ^^"^1.85
6.256 KM 9064. ROLL REVS.
SITE *A203 . EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE
HC-FIO 14
NOX-CHEM 15
C02 22
CO IB
METHANE 15
HC-NM
BAG 3 3.581 MILES
METER / CONC. RANGE METER / CONC.
55.9^ 41.67 14 6.0<. 4.43
43. 7-^ s- 21.86 15 0.2X/ 0.10
51.9^ 0.494 22 4 . 2 / 0.038
35. 7/ 148156 18 O.O/ 0.0
4.2 S 2.10 15 3.7.x-- — 1.85
5.763 KM 8349. ROLL REVS.
SITE J>A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE
HC-FID 14
NOX-CHEM 17
C02 22
CO 18
METHANE 15
HC-NM
WEIGHTED VALUES
GRAMS/MILE
BEFORE ROUNDING
GRAMS/KM
BEFORE ROUNDING
METER / CONC. RANGE METER / CONC.
86.0 , 64.40 14 6.3 j 4.65
22.3/V 55.95 17 O.O-^/ 0.0
69.4-^ 0.673 22 4-2/x 0.038
49.2-X i.12.84 18 O.O^ .^-O.O
4.6^^ 2.30 15 3.7—*'^ 1.85
HC NM-HC CO C02
O.B94 0.886 6.39 290
0.89402 0.88632 6.3925 290
0.556 0.551 3.97 180
0.55552 0.55073 3.9721 .180
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
104.92 PPM
56.98 PPM
0.748 ft
306.95 PPM
0.87 PPM
104.06 PPM
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
37.40 PPM
21.76 PPM
0.457 ft
148.56 PPM
0.32 PPM
37.08 PPM
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
59.99 PPM
55.95 PPM
0.637 ft
212.84 PPM
0.55 PPM
59.44 PPM
NOX
1.75
.41 1.7537
1.090
.45 1.08973
VMIX= 28.
1
CMS.
4.88
7.94
1102.97
28.81
0.04
4.84
VMIX> 48
1
CMS.
2.98
5.19
1154.41
23.87
0.03
2.95
VMIX= 28
1
CMS.
2.82
7.89
950.13
20.20
0.03
2.79
FUEL E
2847.0 CU.FT. DILUTION
MASS EMISSIONS
GMS/MI
1.358
.212
CMS/KM
O.B44
1.375
190.845
4.985
0.007
0.837
DILUTION
2
307.135
8.023
0.011
1.347
4873.0 CU.FT.
MASS EMISSIONS
GMS/MI CMS/KM
0.766 0.476
1.336 0.830
296.955 184.519
6.140 3.815
0.007 0.004
0.759 0.472
2879.0 CU.FT. DILUTION
MASS EMISSIONS
GMS/MI CMS/KM
0.788 0.489
2.203 1.369
265.337 164.873
5.642 3.508
0.007 0.004
0.780 0.485
MPG
)MV 13.6
13.5936
FACTOR • 16.277
AUX. AUX. AUX.
FIEL01 FIELO2 CODE
100 13.468
MPG KPL L/IOOKM
12.7 5.40 18.5
FACTOR - 26.130
AUX. AUX. AUX.
FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE
6.491
MPG KPL L/IOOKM
13.3 6.66 17.7
FACTOR • 19.123
AUX. AUX. AUX.
FIEL01 FIEL02 CODE
0.246
MPG KPL L/IOOKM
14.9 6.33 IS.8
Ul
KPL
5.8
5.7853
L/IOOKM
17.3
17.2851
COMMENTSi VW METHANOL RABBIT BASELINE TEST »1
BGI FALSE START BG 2 STALL 645 SEC BG 3 STALL 400 SEC
THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS.
9855 0
OVNO SITEi0209 TEST 88-0191
-------
OVNO SITE:0209
TEST J> 8801S2
I 1981 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS I PROCESSED! !2i18iOS
DEC I. 1987
MFR.
CODE VEHICLE I.D. VERSION EVAP
590 VWFBOI79BV183756 0 N
CURB DRV AXLE AXLE /
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE t\
11-24-87 EMPTY
MFR.
REP.
INITIAL
RUN.
CHG.
RETEST
CODE
ALT.
H.P.
ACHP METH
PARTIC-
ULATES
N
REASON FOR
CONFIRMATION
IGNITION TIMING —/
«2 RPM GEAR
/ * co /
IDLE HIGH SPEED
/ Te$T TYPE /
EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD)
/ TEST PROCEDURE /
CVS 75-LATER
IDLE SOAK COASTOOWN TIME
RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED
27 0.0
/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS /
BARO WET AMB TEMP * REL S.HUM NOX CVS
"HG BULB TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE
29.05 59.0 75.7 F 36.1 49.13 0.8916 27C
/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS /
DVNO ACTUAL DVNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM
TEST DATE HR SITE IN SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES
11-25-87 12 0209 2500 5.6 45.00 17367.5 N/A
BAG 1 3.558
SITE JA203
HC-FIO
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
ME THANE
HC-NM
BAG 2 3.851 .
SITE »A203
HC-FID
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
BAG 3 3.568
SITE J-A203
HC-FID
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
MILES
5.726 KM 8296
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
16
17
7 .•
II)
It.
MILES
METER/. CONC.
51 .4>\XI53.B1
2? 6^ 56.70
' « 4 -^, f ) / 2
VJ ',''^65 . 23
5.5*^ 2. 75
6. 198 KM 8979
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
14
15
22
18
IS
MILES
METER/ CONC.
67. *' 50.63
47.1^ 23.55
. ROLL
REVS.
BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE
16
1 7
5 2?
IB
15
. ROLL
METER^.
1 . 3**/
0 . 3 ^
4 \^y
o.o/y
3.8 /
•j
REVS.
CONC.
3.90
0.75
" 0.037
f 0.0
1.90
BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE
14
15
52. 0-**^, 0.495 22
34.6-O143.53
4.4**^ 2.20
5.742 KM 8319
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
14
17
22
18
IS
WEIGHTED VALUES
GRAMS/MILE
BEFORE ROUNDING
GRAMS/KM
BEFORE ROUNDING
METER ^ CONC.
87.6-O 65.61
23. I*/ 57.96
18
IS
. ROLL
METER -^
5.S r^r
0.6^
4.3XX,
0.0*\x*
S.*^
REVS .
CONC.
4.36
0.30
0.039
0.0
1.95 .
BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE
14
17
70.5'^ 0.685 22
48. 2-^207. 91
4.8.X' 2.40
18
15
HC NM-HC
1.157 1.
1.15708 1.
0.719 0.
0.71897 0.
149
14896
714
71393
METER /
6 6 \ ^
0.1-^
4.4*0'
oio-v
4.0-^
CO
6. 16
6.1626
3.83
3.6293
CONC.
4.88
0.25
0.040
0.0
2.00
CO2
292.
292.
182.
181.
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
150.14 PPM
55.99 PPM
0.690 *
265.23 PPM
0.96 PPM
149. 18 PPM
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
46.44 PPM
23.27 PPM
0.457 *
143.53 PPM
0.32 PPM
46.12 PPM
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
60.99 PPM
57.72 PPM
0.647 %
207.91 PPM
0.51 PPM
60.48 PPM
NOX
1.83
19 1.6293
1.137
56 1.13670
VMIX=
3145
.0 CU.FT.
DILUTION
MASS EMISSIONS
CMS.
7.
8.
1 125.
27.
0.
7.
VMIX =
71
50
12
50
05 .
66
4824
GMS/MI
2. 167
2.390
316.211
7.729
0.014
2. 153
.0 CU.FT.
CMS/KM
1.347
1.485
196.485
4.803
0.009
1 .338
DILUTION
MASS EMISSIONS
CMS .
3.
5.
1143.
22.
0.
3.
VMIX=
66
42
14
83
03
63
2825
GMS/MI
0.950
1.407
296.839
5.928
0.007
0.943
.0 CU.FT.
CMS /KM
0.590
0.874
184.448
3.683
0.004
0.586
DILUTION
MASS EMISSIONS
CMS
2.
7.
946.
19.
0.
2.
81
87
66
37
02
79
GMS/MI
0.789
2.207
265.321
5.427
0.007
0.782
FUEL ECONOMY
CMS /KM
0.490
1.3-71
164.863
3.372
0.004
0.486
MPG
13.5
13.4835
FACTOR
AUX.
FIELD1
100
Ml
i:
FACTOR
AUX.
FIELD!
Ml
i:
'
FACTOR
AUX.
FIELO1
Ml
1'
KPL
5.7
5.7
17.462
AUX. AUX.
FIELD2 CODE
14.377
KPL L/IOOKM
12.3 5.22 19.2
26.059
AUX. AUX.
FIELD2 CODE
7.084
KPL L/IOOKM
13.3 5.66 17.7
• 18.824
AUX. AUX.
FIELD2 CODE
9.341
G KPL L/tOOKM
1.9 6.33 15.8
L/IOOKM
17.5
17.4963
COMMENTS: VW RABBIT BASELINE 2 -6 FALSE STARTS BAG 1 STALL • 960 SEC BAG 2
METHANOL STALL • 20 SEC BAG 3
THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS.
9855 0
OVNO SITE:D209 TEST 88-0192
-------
OVNO SITEi0209
TEST t BBOI93
I 1881 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS I PROCESSEOi II117.40
DEC 0. 1987
MFR.
CODE VEHICLE 1.0. VERSION EVAP
590 VWFBOI79BVI837S6 0 N
CURB DRV AXLE AXLE /
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE *1
12-03-87 EMPTY
MFR.
REP.
INITIAL
•
RUN.
CHG.
RETEST
CODE
ALT.
H.P.
ACHP METH
PART I C-
ULATES
N
REASON FOR
CONFIRMATION
IGNITION TIMING /
*2 RPM GEAR
/ TEST TYPE /
EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD)
/ TEST PROCEDURE /
CVS 75-LATER
, % co / IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME
IDLE HIGH SPEED RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED
0 0.0
/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS /
BARO WET AMB TEMP « REL S.HUM NOX CVS
"HG BULB TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE
29.00 59.0 77.8 F 31.3 45.78 O.B792 27C
/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS /
DVNO ACTUAL OVNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM
TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES
12-04-87 09 0209 2500 5.6 45.00 17386.4 N/A
BAG t 3.581
SITE 4A203
HC-FID
NOX-CHEM
C02 '
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
BAG 2 3.878
SITE JA203
HC-FID
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
BAG 3 3.575
SITE *A203
HC-FID
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
MILES
5.763 KM
• 8349. ROLL REVS.
EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE
16
17
22
18
15
MILES
METER ,-
13.8-^
1 1 .3>/
82. 2 /
18. \S ,
6.e y
6.240 KM
CONC. RANGE METER ., CONC.
41 .32 16 1.7 5.09
28.37 17 0.2// 0.50
0.808 22 4. B/ 0.043
71.68 18 0.0 'y' 0.0
3.40 15 5. 8/ 2.90
9041 . ROLL REVS.
EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE
14
15
22
16
15
MILES
METER ^
T .*/•
20. BY
54. 8<^
0 . 0/ /
6. iy
5.754 KM
CONC. RANGE METER s~ CONC .
5.84 14 7-7./ 5.69
10.42 15 0.3/ 0.15
0.523 22- 4. B/ 0.043
0.0 16 0.0X. 0.0
3.05 - 15 5.B/ 2.90
8336. ROLL REVS.
EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE
14
15
22
16
15
WEIGHTED VALUES
GRAMS/MILE
BEFORE ROUNDING
GRAMS/KM
BEFORE ROUNDING
METER
13 . 7""^
47. 9/
69. 4//
2.2//
T.2S
HC
0. 120
0. 1 1952
0.074
0.07426
CONC. RANGE METER S CONC.
10.14 14 B.O' 5.91
23.95 15 0.2y 0.10
0.673 22 4.9^/0.044
*2.I5 16 O.Qi/ 0.0
3.60 15 6.4/ 3.20
NM-HC CO C02
0.113 0.41 301
0.11281 0.4067 300
0.070 0.25 187
0.07010 0.2527 186
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
36.53 PPM
27.90 PPM
0.768 %
7 1 . 68 PPM
0.68 PPM
35.86 PPM
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
0.37 PPM
10.27 PPM
0.481 «
0 . 0 PPM
. 0.26 PPM
0.11 PPM
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
4.52 PPM
23.86 PPM
0.631 %
2.15 PPM
0.56 PPM
3.96 PPM
NOX
0.80
.77 0.7956
0 . 494
.89 0.49439
VMIX«
CMS
1.
3.
1139.
6.
0.
1.
VMIX*
CMS
0.
2.
1186.
0.
0.
0.
VMIX»
CMS
0.
3.
993.
0.
0.
0.
FUEL
2864.0
MASS
CU.FT.
DILUTION
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI
71
81
1 1
77
03
68
4758. 0
MASS
f
03
33
37
0
02
01
3039.0
MASS
22
45
29
22
03
20
0.477
1.063
318. 113
1.890
0.009
0.468
CU.FT.
CMS/KM
0.296
0.660
197.667
1.175
0.006
0.291
DILUTION
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI
0.007
0.600
305.952
0.0
0.005
0.002
CU.FT.
CMS /KM
0.005
0.373
190. 110
0.0
0.003
0.001
DILUTION
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI
0.063
0.966
277.824
0.060
0.008
0.055
ECONOMY
CMS/KM
0.039
0.600.
172.632
0.037
0.005
0.034
MPG
13.6
13.6320
FACTOR -
AUX.
FIELOI
100
MPG
12.
FACTOR »
. AUX.
FIELDI
MPG
13.
FACTOR •
AUX.
FIELOI
MPG
14.
KPL
5.8
16.346
AUX. AUX.
FIELD2 CODE
2.094
KPL L/IOOKM
8 5.43 18
25.591
AUX. AUX.
FIELD2 CODE
.072
.4
KPL L/IOOKM
5 5.72 17
I
19.874
AUX. AUX.
FIELO2 CODE
.116
.5
KPL L/IOOKM
B 6.29 15
L/IOOKM
17.3
.9
5.7968 17.2506
l-»
^)
COMMENTSi VW METHANOL RABBIT «l CATALYST BASELINE
ONE FALSE START 2 STALLS • START OF TEST BAG 3 HAD A LONG CRANK
THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS.
9855 0
DVNO SITE.0209 TEST 88-0193
-------
OVNO SITE:0209
TEST * 880194
| 1981 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSEOi Mi17i45
DEC 9, 1987
MFR.
CODE VEHICLE 1.0. VERSION EVAP
590 VWFB0179BV183756 0 N
CURB DRV AXLE AXLE /
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE »1
12-07-87 EMPTY
MFR.
REP.
INITIAL
RUN.
CHG.
RETEST
CODE
ALT.
H.P.
ACHP UETH
PART 1C- R
ULATES CO
IGNITION TIMING —/
*2 RPM GEAR
CONFIRMATION
N
/ * CO 1
IDLE HIGH SPEED
/ TEST TYPE —
EXPERIMENTAL (ECTO)
/ TEST PROCEDURE
CVS 76-LATER
IDLE SOAK COASTOOWN TIME
RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED
22 0.0
/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS /
BARO WET AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS
"HG BULB TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE
29.05 60.1 75.5 F 40.1 54.37 0.9116 27C
/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS /
DYNO ACTUAL DVNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM
TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES
12-08-87 14 O209 2500 S.6 45.00 17405.5 N/A
BAG 1 3.584
SITE «A203
HC-FIO
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
BAG 2 3.907
SITE OA203
HC-FID
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
BAG 3 3.595
SITE *A203
HC-FID
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
MILES
5.768 KM
8356
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
14
15
22
IB
15
MILES
METER y
1 \ .$'
40 . \/s
03 .<;>/
17 .5/ y
6.0/
6.288 KM
CONC.
15.56
20.06
. ROLL
REVS.
BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE
14
15
METER -
5.0^
0 "I"'/
0.822 22 4.3^
69. 19
3.00
9110
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
14
15
22
16
15
MILES
METER
7 .0-/V^
15. 1 -*^
53.9^
o.oS/
4.8 (-/
5.785 KM
CONC.
5.17
7.56
18
15
. ROLL
0 . \'sf
3.8/^
REVS.
CONC.
3.69
0. 10
•0.039
0.38
1 .90
BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE
14
IS
0.514 22
0.0
2.40
.
8381
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
14
IS
22
16
15
WEIGHTED VALUES
GRAMS/MILE
BEFORE ROUNDING
GRAMS/KM
BEFORE ROUNDING
METER y
12.8^
12.2/s'
71. 7^^
i .sS'l
5.0 /
V
HC
0.058
0.05782
0.036
0.03593
CONC.
9.47
16. 12
16
15
. ROLL
METER
6.2-: .
0.2/
0 .or I
3.8 J
REVS.
CONC.
4.58
0. 10
0.041
0.0
1.90
BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE
14
IS
0.697 22
1.37
2.50
16
15
NM-HC
0.
0.
0.
0.
046
04617
029
02869
METER y
6.2^
0. 2-Vx/
4.5/
O.K.
3.8 y
CO
0.37
0.3733
0.23
0.2320
CONC.
X4.58
0. 10
0.041
0. 10
1.90
C02
296
296
184
184
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
12.09 PPM
19.97 PPM
0.786 X
68.84 PPM
1.22 PPM
10.87 PPM
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
0.77 PPM
7.47 PPM
0.475 ft
0.0 PPM
0.57 PPM
0. 19 PPM
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
5.13 PPM
16.02 PPM
0.658 ft
1 . 28 PPM
0.70 PPM
4.43 PPM
NOX
0.56
.24 0.5649
0 . 35 1
.07 0.35102
VMIX- 2796.0 CU.FT.
MASS
CMS.
0.55
2.76
1138.54
6.35
0.06
0.50
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI
0.154
0. 769
317.C88
1.771
0.016
0. 138
VMIX= 4785.0 CU.FT.
MASS
CMS.
0.06
1.76
1177.00
0.0
0.05
0.02
VMIX« 2851.0
MASS
CMS.
0.24
2.26
972.61
0.12
0.03
0.21
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI
U.UIS
0.452
301.236
0.0
0.011
O.004
CU.FT.
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI
0.066
0.627
270.577
0,033
0.009
0.057
DILUTION
GMS/KM
0.096
0.478
197.402
1 . 100
0.010
0.086
DILUTION
GMS/KM
0.010
0.281
187.179
0.0
0.007
0.002
DILUTION
GMS/KM
0.041 "..
0 . 390 '
168. 129
0.021
0.006
0.036
MPG
FUEL ECONOMY 13
13
.9
.8736
FACTOR
AUX.
FIELDI
100
Ml
1!
FACTOR
AUX.
FIELDI
Ml
i;
FACTOR
AUX.
.FIELDI
Ml
1!
KPL
5.9
5.81
16.126
. AUX. AUX.
FIELD2 CODE
.430
KPL L/IOOKM
1 5.45 18.3
26.047
AUX. AUX.
FIELD2 CODE
.046
KPL L/IOOKM
13.7 5.81 17.2
19.193
AUX. AUX.
FIELO2 CODE
.1.17
KPL L/IOOKM
2 6.46 15.5
L/IOOKM
17.0
16.9608
00
COMMENTS: VW METHANOL RABBIT I STALL 2O SEX 8AG 3
*1 BASELINE CAT 1 QUICK LIGHT OFF CAT HEAT APPLIED
THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS.
9855 0
DVNO SITE«020» TEST HB-O194
-------
OVNO SITE:0209
TEST * 880195
I 1981 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS I PROCESSED: 14i2ti30
DEC IS. 1987
MFR.
CODE VEHICLE 1.0. VERSION EVAP
690 VWFB0179BV183756 0 N
CURB DRV AXLE AXLE
PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE
12-08-87 EMPTY
MFR.
REP.
INITIAL
RUN.
CHG.
RETEST
CODE
ALT.
H.P.
ACHP METH
PARTIC-
ULATES
N
REASON FOR
CONFIRMATION
/ ---
IGNITION TIMING /
«2 RPM GEAR
/ % CO /
IDLE HIGH SPEED
/ TEST
EXPERIMENTAL (ECTO)
/ TEST PROCEDURE
CVS 76-LATER
IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME
RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED
22 0.0
/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS /
BARO WET AMB TEMP X REL S.HUM NOX CVS
"HG BULB TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE
2B.74 S9.7 75.8 F 38.3 52.93 0.9060 27C
/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS /
DVNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM
TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES
12-09-87 13 0209 2500 5.6 45.00 17420.6 N/A
BAG 1 3.582
SITE «A203
HC-FID
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
BAG 2 3.891
SITE J-A203
HC-FID
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
BAG 3 3.593
SITE *A203
HC-FIO
NOX-CHEM
C02
CO
METHANE
HC-NM
MILES
5.764 KM
8351
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
14
15
22
16
15
MILES
METER
21 .V/
3^ (K ^
B 1 M '/'
b •) 4
O 4 ^
6.263 KM
CONC.
15.56
19 51
. ROLL REVS.
BACKGROUND SAMPLE
RANGE METER ^/ CONC.
14 5. Y/J 3.
15 0 YS 0.
U auo 12 4 J / 0.
B3 .bB
3.20
9073
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
14
15
22
16
15
MILES
METER
§.&/•
14. 1^
53.4^
' 0.0'
4 . 6 s"
5.783 KM
CONC.
4.80
7.06
16 0.0^ 0.
15 3.7^ 1.
. ROLL REVS.
BACKGROUND SAMPLE
77
15
039
0
85
RANGE METER/ CONC.
14 ^.tr/ 4.
15 0.1/V 0.
0.509 22 4.3V 0.
0.0
2.30
8378
EXHAUST SAMPLE
RANGE
14
15
22
16
15
WEIGHTED VALUES
GRAMS/MILE
BEFORE ROUNDING
GRAMS /KM
BEFORE ROUNDING
METER /
16.0-V
33.1^
72.9V
1.0'
4.9 /"
HC
0.063
0.06325
0.039
0.03930
CONC.
11.84
16.57
16 0.0' 0.
15 3. 6^*^ 1.
. ROLL REVS.
BACKGROUND SAMPLE
43
OS
039
0
80
RANGE METER/ CONC.
14 6.3 / 4.
15 0.4->^ 0.
0.710 22 4.5/ 0.
^•0.98
2.45
16 O.O'^-O.
15 3.6^ 1.
NM-HC CO
0.051 0.46
0.
0.
0.
05091 0.4596
032 0.29
03163 0.2855
65
20
041
0
80
C02
292
292
182
181
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
12.02 PPM
19.37 PPM
0.768 %
83.58 PPM
1 .46 PPM
10.55 PPM
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
0.54 PPM
7.02 PPM
0.471 %
0 . 0 PPM
0.57 PPM
• -0.03 PPM
SECS.
CORRECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
7.44 PPM
16.38 PPM
0.671 %
0.98 PPM
0.7S PPM
6.69 PPM
NOX
0.54
.22 0.5417
0.337
.58 0.33659
VMIX*>
GMS
0.
2.
1 135.
7.
0.
0.
VMIXa
GMS
0.
1.
1151.
0.
0.
-0.
VMIXa
GMS
0.
2.
957.
0.
0.
0.
2856.0
MASS
_
56
72
88
87
07
49
4714.0
MASS
04
62
45
0
04
00
2754.0
MASS
33
21
55
09
03
30
CU.FT.
DILUTION
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI
0.157
0.758
317. 133
2. 197
0.019
0.137
CU.FT.
GMS/KM
0.097
0.471
197.057
1 .365
0.012
0.085
DILUTION
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI
0.011
0.417
295.900
0.0
0.011
-0.001
CU.FT.
GMS/KM
0.007
0.259
183.864
0.0
0.007
-0.000
DILUTION
EMISSIONS
GMS/MI
0.093
0.616
266.485
0.025
0.009
0.084
FUEL ECONOMY
GMS/KM
0.058
0.383
165.586
0.015
0.006
0.052
MPG
14. 1
14.0556
FACTOR
AUX.
FIELDI
too
Mf
13
FACTOR
AUX.
FIELOI
Ml
I!
FACTOR
AUX.
FIELOI
Ml
1!
KPL
6.0
5.91
16.460
AUX. AUX.
FIELD2 CODE
1.220
KPL L/100KM
B 5.45 18.3
26.307
AUX. AUX.
FIELD2 CODE
.094
KPL L/100KM
13.9 5.91 16.9
18.848
AUX. AUX.
FIELD2 CODE
.218
KPL L/100KM
IS.4 6.SB 15.2
L/100KM
16.8
16.7865
COMMENTS! VW METHANOL RABBIT *2 CAT BASELINE
BAG I
1 MIN WARM UP 2 NO START 1 FALSE'START
& QUICK LIGHT OFF CAT W/HEAT
THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS.
9855 0
OVNO SITEi0209 TEST 88-0195
------- |