EPA/AA/CTAB/TA/82-1
Knock Sensor
Vehicle Test Program
by
Larry C. Landman
October, 1981
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Control Technology Assessment and Characterization Branch
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
Background
This test program was designed to explore the impact of an ignition system
with spark knock sensing and spark retard on regulated emissions, fuel
economy, and power as a function of the research octane number (RON) of the
test fuel.
Currently, General Motors (GM) incorporates a spark knock sensor in a feed-
back ignition system on their turbocharged vehicles. This type of spark
timing system is well suited to turbocharged engines because of their wide
range of spark timing requirements.
GM and others are also currently producing naturally aspirated engines
equipped with knock sensors. The feedback aspect of this type of ignition
system could allow the vehicle to automatically compensate the timing for
the octane of the fuel being consumed. This technology could improve fuel
economy of vehicles in service.
It is conceivable that some vehicles incorporating a knock sensor timing
system could have lower exhaust emissions and higher fuel economy using EPA
standard test fuel (Indolene HO III) compared to operating with lower octane
commercial unleaded gasolines. The knock sensor can be integrated into a
spark timing system in a variety of fashions. This design variability
precludes any generalized conclusions about the effects of varying the fuel
octane rating.
Conclusions
Comparing the data generated using the standard test fuel (97 RON) to that
generated by using a lower octane fuel (90 RON or 91 RON), from the data
generated in this program we find:
1. A slight reduction in HC emissions on the FTP and HFET with reduced
octane (down 1.1 and 7.5% respectively),
-------
-2-
2. A statistically significant increase in CO emissions on the HFET
(up 567%) and a less significant increase in CO on the FTP cycle
(up 1.8%) going from the standard test fuel to lower octane fuel,
3. Slight increases in FTP and HFET NOx emissions resulting from the
use of lower octane fuel, and
4. Virtually no effect on fuel economy.
Based on the GM and Chrysler certification data and octane reductions from
97 to 91 RON, we find:
1. Increases in HC emissions for both the FTP and HFET. The maximum
increases were 50.9% on the FTP and about 1500% on the HFET.
2. Increases in CO emissions on both the FTP and HFET. Maximum
increases were 154% and 378% respectively.
3. Both increases and decreases in NOx emissions on the FTP and HFET.
Changes in FTP NOx emissions ranged from -19.2% to 29.5%.
4. Little effect on fuel economy. The biggest change was a 5.1%
decrease.
Test Program
This program tested a single production vehicle, a turbocharged 1980 Buick
Regal equipped with a knock, sensor. A complete description of the' test
vehicle can be found in Table 1. Testing included several test fuels with
an octane range inclusive of the majority of commercially available unleaded
gasolines. The test cycles which were performed are:
1. The 75 FTP,
-------
-3-
2. The "undipped" cold start LA-4 (a cycle with
slightly higher maximum acceleration rates than the
75 FTP, this cycle is designated "BBB" in Appendix
A, and a comparison between this cycle and the FTP
can be found in Appendix D),
3. The highway cycle (HFET), and
4. 50 MPH steady state at wide open throttle (WOT).
Five different test fuels were used:
1. Indolene HO III standard test fuel with a research
octane number (RON) of 97.00 and with motor octane
number (MON) of 86.66,
2. Indolene HO III blended with heptane to produce a' fuel
with 90.35 RON,
3. Indolene HO III blended with heptane to produce a fuel
with 82.10 RON,
4. Commercial premium unleaded, and
5. Commercial unleaded regular.
Although the octane of the commerical fuels was not measured, we have
estimated, based on survey data (17)*, that for the premium fuel the RON was
96, and 94 for the regular. Also, it is possible that the Indolene/Heptane
blends did not have the sensitivity that would be expected from typical
commercial fuels. Finally, calculating fuel economy from emission data
requires detailed analysis of the individual fuels. Therefore, the fuel
economy results of tests using the commercial fuels (Appendix A) are not
*Numbers in parentheses designate References at the end of this paper.
-------
-4-
Table 1
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
1980 TURBOCHARGED BUICK REGAL
VEHICLE SERIAL NUMBER - 4K473AH105868
Engine
type Otto Cycle, 90° V-6
bore x stroke 3.8 x 3.40 in.
displacement 3.8 Liter/ 231 CID
compression ratio 8.0:1
maximum power @ rpm 170 horsepower @ 4000 rpm
fuel metering 4 venturi open-loop
carburetor
Drive Train
transmission type 3 speed automatic*
Chassis
type 2 door sport coupe*
tire size P205/70R14*
test weight 3625 pounds
dynamometer horsepower 11.6
Emission Control System
basic type air injection
back pressure EGR
oxidation catalyst
* This information was obtained from a visual inspection; the remaining
data were obtained from GM's Application for Certification for engine family
04E4BD.
-------
-5-
accurate. Additionally, because of different hydrogen/carbon ratios, the
fuel economies of tests using the Indolene/Heptane blends (Appendix A) must
be reduced by 0.5% and 1.2% for the 90 RON and 82 RON fuels respectively.
•
It should be noted that this test vehicle, unlike vehicles used in other
studies, was not optimized (e.g., compression ratio changed) for each fuel.
The number of combinations of test cycles and fuels which were actually
performed (excluding voided tests) are detailed below in Table 2.
Table 2
Number of Tests Performed
Commercial Commercial
Test Cycle
FTP
Undipped
LA-4 N
HFET
97 RON
3
1
3
90 RON
3
2
3
82 RON
3
1
3
Regular
2
1
2
Premium
2
1
2
WOT at
50 MPH 1 01 1 0
In addition to this test program, the Certification Division of EPA's Office
of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control had requested several manufacturers
(including GM and Chrysler) to perform testing, during the spring and
summer of 1980, with both the standard test fuel and lower octane (91 RON)
fuel on several of their 1981 model year emission data vehicles equipped
with knock sensors. These additional test data have also been included in
this report.
Test Vehicle Spark Timing Control System Description
The test vehicle, a 1980 model year turbocharged 231 C.I.D. Buick Regal
(described in Table 1) was equipped with a closed-loop electronic spark
control (ESC) system that was developed by GM to meet the requirements of
detonation control by spark timing adjustments. There are three basic
components in this system:
1. Detonation Sensor
2. Turbo Control Center
3. High Energy Ignition (HEI) Distributor
-------
-6-
HOUSING
MAGNETOSTRICTIVE CORE
(HIGH NICKEL ALLOY)
The knock sensor (Figure 1) used in this vehicle is a magnetostrictive
transducer with an output voltage that is proportional to the vibration
level at the "knock fre-
quency." The sensor reacts to
all inlet manifold vibrations,
such as those caused by normal
engine cylinder firings, valve
closing, and push rod opera-
tion. These would appear as
background noise. When deto-
nation (i.e. knock) occurs,
the sensor output voltage
increases over the background
noise signal. (4)(6)
\
PERMANENT MAGNET
COIL
INNER SHELL
Fig. 1 - Detonation Sensor (6)
The turbo control center processes the sensor signal, filters the signal to
remove some of the background noise, and then provides an appropriate
command signal to the distributor to determine actual spark timing. The
electronic logic is illustrated below (Figure 2). (4)
By design, the ESC system has a maximum limit of spark retard capability.
The final centrifugal spark advance curve (Figure 3) appears below:
OETONi
SCN8O
I
j mr
U1ON
n
IIMF X
f^f^
i
•
mm^m^m t
DETONATION
CONTINUOUSLY
MONITORED
BACKGROUND
NOISE
CONTROLLER
Figure 2. Electronic Logic (4)(6)
DEGREES SPARK ADVANCE VS. E.R.P.M.
K 40
13
"
ft 10
PART THROTTLE
— AND ROAO
- LOAD RANGE
[•—WIDE OPEN THROTTLE RANGE
MAXIMUM SPARK
RETARD REQUIRED
CENTRIFUGAL
CURVE
TURBO WORST CASE DETONATION
1000 7300 3000
E.R.P.M
Figure 3. Final Centrifugal
spark advance configuration (4)
-------
-7-
This knock control system quickly retards the spark advance to limit knock
and then readvances the spark at a much slower rate. It is important to
note that this system only retards from the spark curve of the distributor
and does not advance timing to seek out knock. (6)
Summary of the Test Results
The emissions and fuel economy data generated in the previously mentioned 13
FTPs, 6 undipped LA-4s, and 13 HFETs can be found in Appendix A. Graphical
representations of these data appear in Figures 4 through 7. Two variable
linear regression analyses indicate that as the octane level of the fuel
decreased from 97 to 82 RON:
1. HC emissions decreased,
2. CO emissions decreased (except on the HFET cycle which
exhibited a small absolute increase),
3. NOx emissions increased, and
4. Fuel economy increased on the FTP and decreased on the
undipped LA-4 cycle. In order to compute fuel economy,
from the emission values, we must know the density and
hydrogen/carbon ratio of the fuel; thus, fuel economy
results for the commercial fuels were not plotted.
However, the differences among most of the measurements of HC, CO, NOx, and
MPG using the five different fuels were not significant at the 95 percent
confidence level (applying Student's t-test). The sample means which could
be distinguished at the 95 percent confidence level are:
1. For the FTP tests, the mean of the HC emissions from
using the 82 RON fuel is significantly different from the
means using the other four fuels.
2. For the undipped LA-4 tests (using as variance the
pooled estimate of the variance of the FTP and LA-4
samples), the means of the HC emissions for the RON 82
and 90 RON fuels were distinctly different from each
other and from the remaining three fuels.
-------
figure 4
H
-------
Figure 5
-------
Figure 6
NDX EM I 55 I DN5 V5 D
-------
Figure 7
FUEL ECDNDMY V5 D ~ 2!.0
x
n 20.0
7.
n 19.0
IB.0
17.0
IE.0
IS.0
-B-
=B=
HFET
FTP
Undipped
LA-4
B0
BS
90
100
RE5ERRCH DCTRNE NUMBER
-------
-12-
3. For the HFET:
a) The means of the HC emissions from using the
commercial unleaded and 82 RON fuels are distinct
from each other and from the remaining three fuels.
b) The means of the CO emissions from using the 97 RON
and 90 RON fuels are distinct from each other but
not from the other three fuels.
c) The means of the NOx emissions from using the
commercial premium fuel is distinct from using
either the 90 RON or 82 RON fuels.
Interestingly enough, fuel economy is missing from the above list. Thus,
for any given test cycle, we cannot state (with even 90 percent confidence)
that the mean of the fuel economy results with one fuel is different from
that of any other fuel.
Wide open throttle (WOT) testing indicated a loss in power associated with
reduced octane levels. Data from the WOT testing is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3
Horsepower at Wide Open Throttle at 50 MPH
Vehicle Engine Horse- Audible
Fuel Speed (MPH) Speed (RPM) Power Knock ?
RON 97 50 2900 90 No
67 Yes
71 Yes
During the spring and summer of 1980, and at the request of EPA, GM tested
five of its passenger cars and two of its light duty trucks on both 97 RON
and 91 RON fuels. (See Appendix B.) Similarly, Chrysler tested five of its
passenger cars on both 97 RON and 91 RON fuels. (See Appendix C.) The
Commerical
Unleaded
RON 82
52
50
2800
2750
-------
-13-
results of those tests are summarized in Tables 4 and 5. At the 90 percent
confidence level, the increases in CO emissions for GM's five passenger cars
are significant on both the FTP and HFET test cycles. Also, for Chrysler's
five passenger cars, the increases in HC and CO emissions on the highway
cycle are significant at the 90 percent confidence level.
In a series of letters sent to the Certification Division of EPA's Office of
Mobile Air Pollution Control, GM stated that, with respect to Buick's 1978
model year ESC system:
The electronic spark control system is designed to operate only
when engine detonation is detected. The latest design and
calibration parameters are such that engine detonation will not
occur during the Federal test procedure [when using 91 RON
fuel]. (19)
And, similarily, for their 1979 model year system, GM stated:
General Motors Corporation believes that Buick's Electronic
Spark Control will also not affect the fuel economy
representativity for 1979 [as they believed for 1978] . As
before, the ESC is designed to operate only when engine
detonation is detected. The 1979 calibrations will not produce
sufficient detonation to cause the ESC to retard the spark with
91 RON fuel during FTP conditions. (20)
Other Studies
GM conducted a study (6) in which a 4000 pound inertia weight vehicle with a
305 CID engine with a 8.4:1 compression ratio was equipped with a
closed-loop knock control system. The vehicle was then tested using a
number of fuels from 82 to 100 RON. Comparing the test results using 91 and
98 RON fuel, GM reported:
[This] vehicle did not have significant spark retard [with the
91 RON fuel] during the EPA test; therefore, no change in fuel
economy would be expected due to increasing fuel octane over 91
RON.
The performance [as measured by a zero to 60 MPH
acceleration time] was not affected greatly by a decrease from
100 to 90 RON fuel. Below 90 RON the acceleration times began
to increase markedly.
-------
.7*
PERCENTAGE INCREASE
FOR 1981 MODEL YEAR GM
TESTED AT GM
VEHICLE
I.D. F
PASSENGER
B5083
B80116
B80117
P0775
P0794
MEAN
ST.D.
TRUCKS:
COC215
COK169
MEAN
ST.D.
CARS:
36
-19
7
21
32
15
22
22
1
12
14
HC
TP
.0
.1
.4
.3
.4
.6
.4
.4
.8
.1
.6
HFET
10.7
6.7
50.9
18.8
-4.3
16.6
20.9
12.5
0.0
6.2
8.8
---• -14-
TAB]TE~~4
IN GOING FROM RON 97 TO RON
EMISSION DATA VEHICLES AND
•S EMISSION LABORATORY
CO
FTP
-
34.0
38.4
84.2
43.2
154.2
70.8
50.7
37.0
2.4
19.7
24.5
HFET
300.0
134.8
378.9
31.8
175.0
214.1
122.3
22.6
0.0
11.3
16.0
NOX
FTP
0.0
8.3
-6.7
2.7
0.0
0.9
5.4
-19.2
-1.7
-10.4
12.4
HFET
-1.
0.
0.
0.
7.
1.
3.
-14.
2.
-6.
11.
4
0
0
0
9
3
7
5
3
1
9
FTP
-2.4
1.7
-2.4
1.7
-2.0
-0.7
2.2
-1.8
-0.6
-1.2
0.8
91
TRUCKS
MPG
HFET
-1.3
1.1
-0.4
0.3
-0.9
-0.2
1.0
-3.0
4.1
0.6
5.0
COMB.
-2.0
1.5
-1.7
1.2
-1.6
"-0.5
1.7
-2.3
1.1
-0.6
2.4
FOR COMPARISON:
IN-HOUSE TEST VEHICLE: »4K473AH105868
-1.1 -7.5 1.8 566.6 2.4 4.2 0.8 -0.4 0.3
-------
TABLE 5
VEHICLE
I.D.
D250
0254-
D280
D282
F180
MEAN
ST.D.
PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN GOING FROM RON 97 TO RON 91
FOR 1981 MODEL YEAR CHRYSLER EMISSION DATA VEHICLES
TESTED AT CHRYSLER'S EMISSION LABORATORY
HC CO NOX MPG
FTP
50.9
45.0
1.6
35.0
-10.4
24.4
27.2
HFET
1566.7
54.5
53.6
43.8
20.0
43.0*
16.1*
FTP
23.7
50.0
-13.2
100.0
3.6
32.8
44.3
HFET
116.7
33.3
24.3
56.1
45.2
55.1
36.5
FTP
29.5
-13.1
-6.4
20.0
4.8
7.0
17.8
HFET
-28.1
11.1
23.3
18.6
0.0
5.0
20.5
FTP
0.6
-0.6
-1.2
-1.9
-0.7
-0.8
0.9
HFET
2.1
-3.2
-1.2
-0.8
-5.1
-1.6
2.7
COMB.
1.1
-1.5
-1.2
-1.5
-2.3
-1.1
1.3
* EXCLUDING D250
FOR COMPARISON:
IN-HOUSE TEST VEHICLE: »4K473AH105868
-1.1 -7.5 1.8 566.6 2.4
4.2
0.8 -0.4
0.3
-------
-16-
... Based on both full throttle and part throttle octane
requirements, the system can reduce the vehicle octane
requirement for trace knock levels by 8 to 10 RON.
An Exxon study (2) (18), funded by EPA, in which a GM vehicle with a 350 CID
engine was equipped with a closed-loop knock control system, reached much
the same conclusion:
Emissions and fuel economy testing using fuel that produces
trace knock on WOT accelerations does not cause spark retard on
the FTP and HFET cycles, thus not affecting fuel economy or
emissions for normal driving.
Finally, in a Department of Energy (DOE) study (14), a 1977 Volvo 242 DL
with a 2.1-liter engine equipped with a K-Jetronic fuel injection system, a
Lambda-Sond system, and a three-way catalyst which was fitted with Buick's
knock-control system was tested using 84, 92, and 101 RON fuels. The study
found that as the octane level of the fuel decreased:
1. Both FTP and HFET fuel economy increased slightly with most of the
increase coming with the change from 92 to 84 RON fuel.
2. The FTP NOx emissions had an increase of between 15 and 45 percent
going from the 101 to 92 RON fuels.
The HFET emissions were not reported in the DOE study, and the other FTP
emissions displayed no consistent trends.
These preceding studies appear to be in agreement with the data in this
report. That is:
1. As the research octane number of the fuel decreases from about 97
to 90 RON, there are only slight changes (in absolute value, not in
percent change) in fuel economy. This result is probably due to
the small amount of timing retard (both in time and in degrees)
that occurs on the EPA test cycles using approximately 90 RON
fuel.
-------
-17-
As the octane level of the fuel drops below 90 RON, the occurrence
of knock may increase on the EPA test cycles, and thus necessitate
some spark retard. Since this knock-control system has a limit
(23°) to the amount of retard from the basic spark timing curve, it
is possible that a low level of knock may be present when using 82
RON fuel. This trace knock could possibly account for the increase
in fuel economy (5) with 82 RON fuel as well as the slight increase
in HC emissions (1).
-------
-18-
REFEKENCES
1. L.C. Duke, et al., "The Relation Between Knock and Exhaust Emissions of
a Spark Ignition Engine," SAE Paper No. 700062, January 1970.
2. B.J. Kraus, et al., "Reduction of Octane Requirement by Knock Sensor
Spark Retard System," SAE Paper No. 780155, February-March 1978.
3. J. Lappington and L.A. Caron, "Chrysler Microprocessor Spark Advance
Control," SAE Paper No. 780177, February-March 1978.
4. T.F. Wallace, "Buick's Turbocharged V-6 Powertrain for 1978," SAE Paper
No. 780413, February-March 1978.
5. J.L. Bascunana and R.C. Stahman, "Impact of Gasoline Characteristics on
Fuel Economy," SAE Paper No. 780628, June 1978.
6. J.H. Currie, et al., "Energy Conservation with Increased Compression
Ratio and Electronic Knock Control," SAE Paper No. 790173, February-
March 1979.
7. R.A. Grimm, et al., "GM Micro-Computer Engine Control System," SAE Paper
No. 800053, February 1980.
8. Per Gillbrand, "Knock Detector System Controlling Turbocharger Boost
Pressure," SAE Paper No. 800833, June 1980.
9. L.B. Graiff, et al., "A Device and Technique for Determining the Octane
Requirements of Individual Cylinders of an Engine," SAE Paper No.
801353, October 1980.
10. Daisaku Sawada and Takashi Shigematsu, "Improvement of Spark Ignition
Knock Detector Performance by Learning Control," SAE Paper No. 810057,
February 1981.
-------
11. I. Glaser and J.D. Powell, "Optimal Closed-Loop Spark Control of an
Automotive Engine," SAE Paper No. 810058, February 1981.
12. G. Honig, et al., "Electronic Spark Control Systems Part I:
Microcomputer-Controlled Ignition System Part II: Bosch Knock
Control," SAE Paper No. 810059, February 1981.
13. J.E. Rydquist, "A Turbocharged Engine with Microprocessor Controlled
Boost Pressure," SAE Paper No. 810060, February 1981.
14. D.E. Koehler and W.F. Marshall, "Maximizing Efficiency of Fuel Pro-
duction and Utilization," SAE Paper No. 810062, February 1981.
15. "The Effect of Ignition Timing Modifications on Emissions and Fuel
Economy," U.S. EPA, Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control, Emis-
sion Control Technology Division, Technology Assessment and Evaluation
Branch, Paper No. 76-4 AW, October 1975.
16. R.J. Hosey and J.D. Powell, "Closed Loop, Knock Adaptive Spark Timing
Control Based on Cylinder Pressure," ASME Publication 78-WA/DSC-15.
17. "MVMA National Gasoline Survey", Summer Season - October 15, 1980,
Sampling Date - July 15, 1980.
18. United States Patent number 4,153,020, Assignee: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, May 8, 1979.
19. Letter to J.M. Marzen, Chief, Light-Duty Vehicle Certification Branch,
EPA, From D.A. Olds, Current Product Engineering, GM, letter number
ML-8G129, dated June 28, 1977.
20. Letter to J.H. Murphy, Acting Team Leader, Light-Duty Vehicle
Certification Branch, EPA, from D.A. Olds, Field Product Engineering,
GM, letter number ML-9G229, dated September 20, 1978.
-------
-20-
APPENDIX A
In-House Test Data
Due to changes in the hydrogen/carbon ratio and the density of the
fuels, the calculated fuel economy (FE):
1. Should be reduced by 0.5% for 90 RON fuel,
2. Should be reduced by 1.2% for 82 RON fuel, and
3. Is not accurate for either the commercial regular or
commercial premium unleaded fuels.
-------
TUKHO BUICK TEST DATA
PROCESSED: SEP lit i9no
jKMMdsa- Kuicui.fuiza.Hi.abi j^uy .u...^..^ . . utajy _ .
Q*IE. ItSI_NUMB£S tl£ CQ
5/30/80 803504
6/ 3/80 803506
8/ 6/80 804930
MEAN
STO. DEVIATION
MAX. 95* ERROR
0.627
0.564
0.460
O.bSO
0.064
0.155
4.780
4.566
4.215
NIQA
1.438
1.443
2.216
4.519 1.698
0.285 0.447
0.523 0.822
_._ CQ2-
532.570
523.520
511.510
522.533
10.559
19.398
E.fc
16.3
16.6
17,1
16.67
0.40
0.74
iMPftt
UltJQ
0208
0208
0002
..QpOMETEg^ ^dfcL ^QAHy,
4126.0 8.9 28.85
4166.0 8.9 28.90
4757.0 9.3 29.10
28.95
0.13
0.24
1 IW-MfH
SiIE.i_Qfi!
-IEUB
72.5
70.5
74.0
69.52
72.58
55.00
65.70
9.39
17.25
ir.o/i tii
Q2 _ .
^Q2i_£lML
0.97
0.98
0.91
0.954
0.039
0.073
• • • -
.
36603
22136
36603
DATE TEST NUMBER
5/30/80 803504' BAG 1
BAG 2
BAG 3
6/ 3/80 803506 BAG 1
HAG 2
BAG 3
8/ 6/80 804930 BAG 1
BAG 2
BAG 3
HG
2.216
0.179
0.236
2.044
0.174
0.193
1.457
0.171
0.253
FTP BAG OATA
CO
NOX
•(GRAMS/MILE)
CO?
22.457
0.0
0.588
21.4b8
0.0
0.529
19.061
0.079.
0.842
2.539
0.880
1.673
2.342
0.996
1.612
2.159
2.293
2.113
540.2
554.6
484.9
536.0
5««2.8
477.3
535.3
520.0
477.4
FE
CMPG)
15.2
16.0
18.2
15,4
16.3
18.5
15.6
17.0
18.5
-------
TURBO BUICK TEST DATA
PHOCESSEO: SEP 11, 1980
5/30/80 803505
6/ 3/80 803507
.8/ 7/80 804931
MEAN
STD. DEVIATION
MAX. 95* ERftOR
ac
0.069
0.068
0.066
0.067
0.002
0.004
CQ
NO*
0.025 1.226
0.009 1.256
0.047 1.050
0.026 1.177
0.0*18 0.110
0.034 0.203
_ CQ2_ .
374.310
369.640
354.940
366.296
10.107
18.569
-__* i
_ E£
23.7
24.0
25.0
24.23
0.68
1.25
iuor.\
UitlQ
0208
0208
0002
4147.0
4197.0
4769.0
.LOB. BAEQ.
8.9 28.85
8.9 28.90
9.3 29.05
28.93
0.10
0.19
(IN-HO)
72.5 69.52 0.97
68.5 66.59 0.96
74.2 57.9* 0.92
64.68 0.949
6.02 0.025
11.06 0.047
(GR/LB)
36603
22136
36603
DATE
5/30/80
6/ 3/80
8/ 7/80
TEST NUMBER
803505
803507
804931
HC
HFET BAG DATA
CO
NOX
dAG 1
BAG 1
BAG 1
0.069
0.068
0.066
(GRAMS/MILE)
0.025 1.226
0.009 1.256
0.047 1.050
C02
374.3
369.6
354.9
FE
-------
TUHBO BUICK TEST DATA
PROCESSED: SEP u,
fu
_QA
6/
6/
EL EQtl=97_ ¥Edlt
IL_ I£SI_tiU^aEB
6/80 803508
9/80 803509
• MEAN
STD. DEVIATION
MAX. 95* ERROR
L£i_»ftl
-------
TURBO 8UICK TEST DATA
PROCESSED: SEP u, 1980
F_UEI_PQN=<>0 YEHI'C-LI
6/10/80 803510
6/11/80 803881
8/ 8/80 805270
: i F
MEAN
STD. DEVIATION
MAX. 95* ERROR
£i_±ft£4l
H£
.0.525
0.559
0.549
O.S44
0.017
0.031
2A.tua5.afca.
CO '
_ NQ4
4.386 1,597
4.562 1.676
4.855 . 1.956
4.601 1.743
0.237 0.188
0.435 0.345
-inaAM^/MIl P\
ItlESILA k
£Q2_
517.390
520.760
509.920
516.023
5.537
10.173
jT • Ti
_EE
16.9
16.7
17.1
16.90
0.20
P. 37
IMPftl
QXdQ. fiQQbEJEB_.
0208 4239.0
0208 4281.4
0208 4812.0
r . ffp
IbE BfiBQ
8.9 28.97
8.9 29.32
8.7 29.02
29.10
0.19
0.35
1 TKI_Mftt
-IEB
71.
72.
68.
^illE*" Q2i
5~73.12~
3 77.45
9 64.27
71.61
6.72
12.34
fftD/l Ul
JQi_£&£_
0.99
1.01
0.95
0.980
0.029
0.054
*
. . ,.
36603~
36603
36603
DATE TEST NUMBER
6/10/aO 803510 BAG 1
BAG 2
BAG 3
6/11/80 803881 BAG 1
BAG 2
BAG 3
8/ 8/bO 805270 BAG 1
BAG 2
BAG 3
HC
1.851
0.173
0.198
2.029
0.171
0.190
1.865
0.172
0.280
FTP BAG DATA
CO
NOX
C02
•(GRAMS/MILE)
20.220
0.048
0.748
21.444
U.08B
0.376
21.768
0.0
1.431
2.318
1.255
1.708
2.452
1.372
1.672
2.252
1.962
1.721
— — — - — > I
525.3
539.2
469.8
530.4
537.3
481.9
525.7
525.0
469.2
FE
(MPG)
15.8
16.4
18.8
15.5
16.5
18.4
15.7
16.9
18.8
-------
TUKBO HUICK TEST DATA
PROCESSED: SEP 11, 1980
^tL-wtiU-^ttmiu^aatmtsut ufiaii-«ii_j»a IXEUJKI , UICUKU :___.
"6/TO/80 803511
6/11/80 803B82
8/ 8/80 805269
MEAN
STD. DEVIATION
MAX. 95% ERROR
~b"
0
0
0
0
0
.064
.059
.066
.062
.004
.007
_CQ__ .
0.151
0.0
0.241
tifii
1.208
1.260
1.212
0.196 1.226
0.063 0.028
0.192 0.053
CO?
365.350
364.840
368.360
366.183
1.914
3.517
______-» i
££
24.
24.
24.
24.
0.
0.
IMP
_ __Q*UQ _
3 0208
3 D208
1 0208
23
11
21
QQQMETER JH.P BARO
4260.0 8.9 28.97
4291.0 8.9 29.32
4832.0 6.7 28.93
29.07
0.21
0.39
1 TKJ-HRl
_I£I4P tiUM 1
67.8 66.17
70.3 75.88
67.8 65.84
69.30
5.70
10.47
/r.o/i 14 1
^IQX_EAC_
«NONE«
1.00
«NONE«
0.970
0.025
0.046
36603
36603
36603
DATE
6/10/80
6/11/80
8/ 8/80
TEST NUMBER
803511
803882
805269
HO
HFET BAG DATA
CO
NOX
BAG 1
BAG 1
BAG 1
0.064
0.059
0.066
(GRAMS/MILE)
0.152 1.20B
0.0 1.260
0.241 . 1.212
C02
365.4
364.8
368.4
FE
(MPG)
24.2
24.3
24,0
ro
Cn
I
-------
TUKBO BUICK TEST DATA
PROCESSEDJ SEP 11. 1980
_EL&L_PQUE2Q
___________ SiIE.i_Q2Qa_
6/12/80 803863
6/13/80 803864
•MEAN
STD. DEVIATION
MAX. 95* ER80R
0.943
0.983
0.962
0.027
0.084
CQ
10.101
9.384
1.870
1.871
533.330
529.470
9.742 1.B70 531.399
0.506 0.005 2,738
1.540 0.015 8.332
(GRAMS/MILE)- -------- >|
16.1
16.2
16.15
0.07
0.21
(MPG)
D208 4301.9 8.9 29.36 71.5 71.93 0.98 22136
0208 4309.0 8.9 29.24 71.2 74.67 0.99 36603
29.30
0.08
0.25
(IN-HG)
73.30 0.987
1.93 ^0.008
5.88^. 0.025
(GR/LB)
DATE
6/12/80
6/13/80
TEST NUMBER
HC
803863
803864
BAG 1
BAG 1
0.943
0.983
BBS BAG DATA
CO
NOX
C02
(GRAMS/MILE)
10.101 1.870
9.385 1.871
533.3
529.5
FE
-------
TUHBO BUICK TEST DATA
PROCESSED: SEP lit 1980
jw.jma—icaiui^iuaiausu* i«uujai_»H iie^Up_.-._ siiujia. __::r
"7/22/60 803878
7/23/80 804874
8/12/80 805356
MEAN
STD. DEVIATION
MAX. 95% ERftOft
n£
0.447
0.420
0.477
0.448
0.028
0.052
l<- — --
£Q
4.308
4.115
5.029
. NQ*. CQ" EE QKMQ ODOMETER IHP BARO TEMP HUM NOX F4C _D8iyE"y
1.821
1.889
1.937
4.4B3 1.882
0.481 0.058
0.884 0.106
510.150
512.610
462.460
495.073
28.269
51.934
— _ > i
17.1 0208
17.0 0208
18.8 0208
17.63
1.01
1.86
-------
TURbO BUICK TEST DATA
PrtOCESSFO: SEP lit- 1980
_EU£L_EQt£a2 V.EBIQ.E
. DilE ItSI_L!Lliia£a __ .
7/22/60 803879
7/23/80 804875
8/12/80 805357
MEAN
STD. DEVIATION
MAX. 95% ERROR
': •ftujt
._H£
0.052
0.047
0.049
0.049
0.003
0.006
QQ
NOX
0.012 1.299
0.0 1.268
0.155 1.120
0.083 1.229
0.101 0.095
0.307 0.175
1NE.RI1' u]
CQ2
369.240
357.940
353.740
360.306
8.020
14.735
--•> i
Li __3*25__
jTfr
24.0
24.8
25.0
24.60
0.53
0.97
f MPftl
QltJQ _ £
D208
0208
.0208
IIPLL
459^.9
4626.0
4873.0
HF_EJ;_
ItiE
8.7
8.7
8.7
28.94
29.06
29.05
29.0?
0.07
0.12
_!£«£
71.5
68.5
67.5
SHE8 Il2i
~~75.6.2
357.9
353.7
I
to
oo
FE
(MPG)
24.0
24.8
25.0
-------
lUKHD bUlCK ItST OATA PHOCESSFl)* SEP 11* 1980
H£ GQ NQi CO? E£ QXN.Q O.QQyEI£B ItiS. B42Q-
7/24/80 804924 0.764 9.932 2.062 530.177 16.2 D208 4637.7 8.7 29.14 71.0 68.73 0.97 36603
MEAN 0.764 9.932 2,062 530.177 16,20 29.14 68.73 0.966
j |<: (GRAMS/MILE) -> I (MPG) (IN-HG) (GR/LB)
BBB BAG OATA to
vo
DATE TEST NUMBER HC CO NOX C02 FE '
|< . (GRAMS/MILE) —; rr> I (MPG)
7/24/80 804924 BAG 1 0.764 9.932 2.062 . 530.2 16.2
-------
TURBO BUICK TEST DATA
PROCESSED: SEP 11, i9ao
t_iiIi ___ 3.625 __________ IIEEi_EIE
7/16/80 803873
7/17/80 803875
> , MEAN
•STO. DEVIATION
MAX. 95* ERROR
tiC
0.605
0.578
Q.S91
0.019
0.068
_CQ
_ NQX
5.208 1.571
4.742 1.605
4.975 1.588
0.329 0.023
1.002 6.070
— (GDAM5/MII Ft —
£02
520.150
517.730
518.939
1.732
5.270
. — — >i
££
16.7
16.8
16.75
0.07
0.21
(MPGl
0208'
0208
: QDQMEIEtL
4493.6
4527.0
» BABQ_
8.7 2R.85
8.7 28.94
28.89
0.06
0.19
(IN-HG)
72.5
73.0
69.52
73.18
0.97
0.99
22136
22136
71.35 0.978
2.59 0.011
7.88 0.034
(GR/LB)
FTP BAG DATA
DATE TEST NUMBER
7/16/80 803873 BAG 1
BAG 2
HAG 3
7/17/80 803875 BAG 1
BAG 2
BAG 3
HC
CO
NOX
C02
2.091
0.149
0.364
1.925
0.144
0.395
23.148
0.0
1.706
21.073
0.0
1.505
(GRAMS/MILE)
2.431
1.260
1.523
2.464
1.296
1.548
533.4
533.1
485.3
541.3
528.7
478.9
FE
(MPG)
15.4
16.6
18.1
15.3
16.B
18.4
-------
HUICK TtST DATA
PROCESSED: btK lit
QAIE. T_ESl_M4> fcjEti HC CO
7/16/BO H03B74
0
.070
7/17/80 803876 0.0b4
•MEAN
STD.
MAX.
DEVIATION
95* ERROR
0
0
0
1
.067
.005
.015
0.002
0.040
0.061
0.029
MQX
0.9HO
0.993
0.986
O.OOH
0.090 0.026
. ££>£_ .
1H1.200
371.910
376.554
6.564
19.973
... > 1
FE QXtJil QQQ
MFTEP- IbP BARU
23.3 D208 4515.7 8.7 2B.H4
23. rt 0208 4547.8 8.7, 29. H5
23.55
0 . .15
1.07
(MPftt
29.34
0.71
2.17
( TM-HRI
72.5
71.5
69.55
72.83
0.97
0.9^9
22136
22136
71.19 0.977
2.32 0.010
7.06 0.031
DATE
7/16/80
7/17/80
TEST NUMrtEK
HC
HFET BAG DATA
CO
NOX
C02
803874
803876
HAG 1
bAG 1
0.070
0.064
(GRAMS/MILF)
0.082 0.980
0.040 0.993
381.2
371.9
FE
(MPG)
23.2
23.8
-------
TURBO BUICK TEST DATA PROCESSED: SEP 11* 1980
__BC CQ
7/18/80 803877 1.180 11.721 1.885 544.734 15.6 0208 4565.0 8.9 29.10 70.0 70.45 0.97 36603
MEAN 1.180 11.721 1.885 544.733 15.60 29.10 70.45 0.974
j<—_ (GRAMS/MILE) • >l (MPG) (IN-HG) (GR/LB)
BBB BAG DATA dj
DATE TEST NUMBER HC CO NOx C02 FE '
« (GRAMS/MILE) :*• 1 —;->! (MPG)
7/18/80 803877 BAG 1 1.180 11.721 1.885 544.7 15.6
-------
TURBO BUICK TEST DATA
PROCESSED! SEP lit 1980
7/30/faO 804925
7/31/80 804927
MEAN
STD. DEVIATION
MAX. 95* ERROR
Lti
0
Q
0
Q
0
I
"ftKftl
.620
.576
.598
.030
.093
2A.tna5a&a
_ £Q
4.745
4.885
UQ&-
2.014
1.958
4.815 1.985
0.098 0.038
0.300 0.118
. _£0_2_
503.170
501.820
502.494
0.935
2.846
Uli__
££
17.
^17.
17.
0.
0.
IMP
36.25
Q1N.Q
3 D006
3 0006
30
01
03
f.> S
TYPf: ETP SITE; DQQ6 _'•'"'
_QiiQjiE.i£a J.UE e&ao__
4460.0 9.2 29.00
4692.0 9.2 28.88
28.94
O.OP
0.26
( TM-Hfil
_iEcie — bua_i
75.0 58.15
75.0 58.50
58.32
0.24
0.74
(RB/I H»
tJQX_£AC_
0.92
0.92
0.921
0.002
0,008
36603
36603
DATE
7/30/80
7/31/80
TEST NUMBER
804925
804927
BAG 1
BAG 2
BAG 3
BAG 1
BAG 2
BAG 3
HC
FTP BAG DATA
CO
NOX
C02
2.064
0.196
0.336
1.835
0.183
0.368
19.992
0.225
1.827
22.019
0.0
1.159
(GRAMS/MILE)
2.336
2.015
1.767
2.263
1.979
1.690
____________
528f7
514.7
461.8
524.6
513.4
462.8
FE
(MPG)
15.7
17.2
19.0
15.7
17.3
19.0
&
-------
bllICK TEST DATA
PROCESSED: SEP 11, 1980
7/30/80 804926
7/31/80 804928
MEAN
STD. DEVIATION
MAX. 95% ERROR
-b£ ______ £Q
0.079 0.077
0.081 0.089
CJQX. ______ £02
1.116 362.560
1.100 365.710
0.080 0.083 1.107 364,135
0.003 0.006 0.010 2.215
0.010 6.026 0.031 6.739
|<, -------- (GRAMS/MILE) --------- >l
.„££
24.4
24.2
24.30
0.14
0.43
(MPG)
0006
0006
4681.0
4707.0
9.2
9.2
29.02 7S.O 5H.10 0.92 36603
28.85 74.5 61.66 0.94 36603
2H.93
0.12
0.36
(IN-MG)
59.88 0.928
2.52 0.009
7.68 0.030
(GR/LB)
DATE
7/30/80
7/31/80
TEST NUMBER
80^926-
604928
HC
HFET BAG DATA
CO
to
NOX
BAG 1
BAG 1
0.079
0.081
(GRAMS/MILE)
0.077 1.116
0.089 1.100
C02
362.6
365.7
FE
(MPG)
24.4
24.2
-------
Tl/KBO BUlCK TEST DATA
PROCESSED: SEP 11. 1980
i 36,25
8/ 1/80 804929
MEAN
a _____ HC ______ QQ ______ uQi. _______
1.039
1.039
.. ____ EE _____ Q*UQ ___ QQQMEJE.B ____ itte ___ BASQ _ lEtie ___ BUM— UQ&.EA.C n
11.297 3.140 518.753 16.4 D006 4723.0 9.2 28.95 75.5 59.77 0.93 36603
11.297 2.140 518.752 16.40
(GRAMS/MILE) > I (MPG)
28.95
(iN-Hff)
59.77 0.927
(GR/LB)
DATE TEST NUMBER
8/ 1/80 804929 BAG 1
HC
KT-
flBB BAG DATA
CO
NOX
C02
. (GRAMS/MILE)
1.039 11.297 ' 2.140
518.8
FE
(MPG)
16.4
LO
Ul
I
-------
-36-
APPENDIX B
GM Test Data
-------
VEHICLE TEST DATA LOG
o
©
o
MANUFACTURE*
VEHICLE ID
SC CARLINE
CONTROL SYSTEMS
EMISSION EVAP DISPLACEMENT
GENERAL MOTORS
P077S
bV (V)FI«£f)IKD
ACTIVE YEAR MODEL YEA*
EGR/PMP/OXD/3CL/
CAN
4.9 L
1901
DATE
TEST OUOM SYST IDLE AMB
TEST U CYCLE MILtS MILES RPM TEMP
EMISSION K'ESULTS
MC CO CO^ NOX
FUEL
EVAP ECON FUEL TYPE
«-ENG FAM
3-25-80
6- 3-80
b- 3-80
6- 4-ao
6- 4-80
:l2S4At
12981
12982
18844
18845
1B846
18847
3
FTP
HFtT
FTP
HFET
FTP
HFdT
3790
3801
42S9
4270
4302.
4313
03787
03/96
U4256
04267
04299
04310
EVAP FAM
73.0
72.0
72.0
72.0
70.5
70.5
„*«
00.210
00.049
00.255
00.052
00.282
00.060
02.38
00.24
02.55
00.20
03.53
00.40
ENG
0571.
0404.
0589.
0417.
0569.
0409.
CODE: 3
00.40
00.29
00.34
00.27
00.38
00.28
01.20 15
21
14
21
15
21
.4
.9
.9
.2
.4
.6.
ETW: 4000 DYNO H.P.108.6
THANSSL3 0/DSl AXLO3.0R N/Vt 39.1
STANDARD TEST FUEL
STANDARD TEST FUEL
STANDARD TEST FUEL
STANDARD TEST FUEL
LOW OCTANE FUEL I
LOW OCTANE FUEL ^
' o
•' ©
-------
VEHICLE IEST DATA LOG
©
$
©
©
©
MANUFACTUHER
VEHICLE 10
SC CAKLINE
CONTROL SYSTEMS
EMISSION EVAP DISPLACEMENT
GENERAL MOTORS
FV (V)MONTE CARLO
ACTIVE YEAH MODEL YEAR
EGR/PMP/OXD/3CL/
CAN
3.8 L
1981 1981
DATE
TEST OUOM SYST IDLE AMd
TEST H CYCLE MILES MILES WPM TEMP
EMISSION RESULTS
HC CO C02 NOX
FUEL
EVAP ECON
FUEL TYPE
FAM:14E4NBD (TUP.BO)
b-26-
b-26-
6-24-
6-24-
6-i?6-
6-26-
-80 16611 FTP
•80 16612 HFtT
•80 18019 FTP
•80 1H020 HFET
•80 18021 FTP
•80 18022 HFET
3909 03791
3920 03801
^271
EVAP t-An:!B4-4
ENG CODEU
0<«196
73.0 00.300 02.82 046b. 00.66
73.0 00.048 00.00 0322. 00.36
72.0 00.341 02.79 0471. 00.66
71.0 00.055 00.01 0323. 00.35
.73.0 00.436 03.76 0476. 00.66
72.5 00.057 00.02 0327. 00.35
ETW: 3750 DYNO H.P.U0.6
TrtANStL3 0/DJl AXLES2.73 N/V» 37.4
01.32 18.9 STANDARD TEST FUEL
27.5 STANDARD TEST FUEL
01.44 18.6 STANDARD TEST FUEL
27.4 STANDARD TEST FUEL
18.3 LOW OCTANE FUEL
27.1- LOW OCTANE FUEL
00
0
o
©
; ©
-------
o
VEHICLE TEST DATA LOG
©
©
©
MANUFACTURE
VEHICLE IU
SC CAHLINE
CONTROL SYSTEMS
EMISSION EVAP
DISPLACEMENT
GENERAL MOTORS
BB0116
©
O
O
FV (V)EtECTRA
ACTIVE YEAR MODEL YEAR
EGR/PMP/OXD/3CL/
CAN
4.1 L
1981 1981
DATE
TEST OUOM SYST IDLE AMB
TEST # CYCLE MILES MILES RPM TEMP
EMISSION KESULTS
HC CO C02 NOX
FUtL
EVAP ECON
FUEL TYPE
EVAP
5-36-HO
6-PS-BO
16613 FTP
1661<» HFET
1H8^2 FTP
168^3 HFET
03V68
37b3 03799
11 <»
0<»1<»5
72.0
72.0
73.0
71.5
00.383 01.73 0512.
00.060 00.23 0312.
00.229 02. 38 0501.
00.06
-------
! $
VEHICLE TEST DATA LOG
0
G
O
MANllFACTUKEK
VEHICLE ID
sc CARLINE
CONTROL SYSTEMS
EMISSION EVAP DISPLACEMENT
GENEKAL MOTOKS
B80117
TEST DOOM SYST IDLE AMB
DATE TEST tl CYCLE MILES MILLS RPM TEMP
CV (VJOEVILLE/UHOUGHAM
ACTIVE YEAR MODEL YEAR
19bl
EVAP
EGR/PMP/OXO/3CL/
CAN
EMISSION RESULTS
HC CO C02 NO*
FUEL
ECON
FUEL TYPE
»-ENG FAM:UF<»AEJ
6- 5-80 17044 FTP
6- 5-80 17045 HFET
6-2t>-80 18831 FTP
6-26-80 18832 HFET
EVAP
3BJO 03828
3841 03839
40*3 04091
04102
71.0
72.0
72.0
72.0
ENG cob£:3
00.269 02.53 0523. 00.60
00.055 00.38 0346. 00.27
00.289 04.66 0532. 00.56
00.083 01.82 0344. 00.27
01.35 16.8
25.6
4250 DYNO H.P.111.3
TRANS:L4 0/DJ2 AXLE«3.23 N/VI 27.1
STANDARD TEST FUEL
STANDARD TEST FUEL
16.4 LOW OCTANE FUEL
25.5 LOW OCTANE FUEL
©
?
O
-------
©
©
MANUFACTURED
VEHICLE ID
VEHICLE TEST DATA LOG
SC CAHLlNE
CONTROL SYSTEMS
EMISSION EVAP DISPLACEMENT
GENEWAL MOTORS
P0794
bV (V)FIREBIKO
ACTIVE YEAR MODEL YEAR
EGK/PMP/OXD/3CL/
CAN
4.9 L
1981
19al
TEST ODOM SYST IDLE AMB
DATE TEST f CYCLE MILES MILES RPM TEMP
EMISSION WESULTS
HC CO CO? NOX
FUEL
EVAP ECON FUEL TYPE
©
o-ENG F*M:12S<«AbO (TUKbO)
7-23-dO 19612 HFET
7-25-bO 27366 FTP
d- 6-80 20188 FTP
8- 6-bO 20189 HFET
3810 036^7
03dl*l
40V6 0<»1J6
0^*147
F:VAP FAM:
72.0 00.070 00.04
71.0 00.278 00.72 0585.
72.0 00.368 01.83 0596.
73.0 00.067 00.11
ENG CODE:I
00.38
00.59
00.59
00.41
. 21.5
01.16 15.1
ETWt 4000 DYNO H.P.tOB.6
THANS:L3 0/0:1 AXLE13.03 N/Vt 39.1
STANDARD TEST FUEL
STANDARD TEST FUEL
14.8 LOW OCTANE FUEL
21.3 LOW OCTANE FUEL
• (D
-------
VEHICLE TEST DATA LOG
o
©
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL MOTORS
VEHICLE 10
COC215
TEST OUOM SYST IOLE AMU
DATE TEST # CYCLE MILES MILES RPM TEMP
SC CARLINE
FT (T>C10 P/U 3*10
ACTIVE YEAR MODEL YEAH
19ril 1981
EMISSION RESULTS
HC CO C02 NOX EVAP
CONTROL SYSTEMS
EMISSION EVAP DISPLACEMENT
EGR/OXO/
FUEL
ECON FUEL TYPE
CAN
S.O L
FAMS18Y4HGN (TRUCK)
EVAP FAM:lD4D-8
ENG CODE:2
©
©
©
6-30-dO
b-30-bO
7-11-80
7-11-80
V- 15-80
7-15-80
18319
18320
18716
18717
18929
1H930
FTP
HFET
FTP
HFET
FTP
HFET
3757
3768
3898
3909
3953-
3904
0378b
03799
03*30
03941
03985
03v97
72.0
72.0
73.0
73.0
72.0
73.0
00.530 05.80 0523. 02.18
00.070 01.10 0364. 03.05
00.630 06.90 Ob29. 01.93
00.090 02.00 0382. 02.80
00.710 Ott.70 0530. 01.66
00.090 01.90 0394. 02.50
ETW: 4500 DYNO H.P.116.6
TRANS:L3 0/o:l AXLE12.56 N/VJ 33.2
16.6 STANDARD TEST FUEL
23.0 STANDARD TEST FUEL
16.4 STANDARD TEST FUEL
23.0 STANDARD TEST FUEL
16.2 LOW OCTANE FUEL
22.3 LOW OCTANE FUEL
ro
I
0
0
G
> €>
f
. ©
-------
©
o
0
©
©
0
0
O
©
©
©
MANUFACTURED
VEHICLE ID
VEHICLE. TEST DATA LOG
sc CAPLINE
CONTROL SYSTEMS
EMISSION EVAP DISPLACEMENT
GENERAL MOTORS
COM69
FT (T)K10 P/U 4wD
ACTIVE YEAH MODEL YEAR
EGR/PMP/OXD/
CAN
5.0 L
19al
1961
DATE
TEST OUOM SYST IDLE «MB
TEST * CYCLE MlLtS MILES KHM TEMP
EMISSION RESULTS FUEL
HC CO C0£ NOX EVAP ECON
FUEL TYPE
«-£NG FAM: IRL^HANA
6-?6-ttO 18210 FTH
6-2d-80 18
-------
-44-
APPENDIX C
Chrysler Test Data
-------
VEHICLE TEST DATA LOG
©
a
©
©
MANUFACTURER
VEHICLE 10
SC
CARLINE
CONTROL SYSTEMS
EMISSION EVAP DISPLACEMENT
DATE
CHRYSLER
TEST OOOM SYST IDLE AMU
TEST # CYCl.E MILES MILES RPM TEMP
BV (V)NEWHORT/NEW YORK
ACTIVE YEAR MODEL YEAR
19U1 1981
EMISSION RESULTS FUEL
HC CO C02 NOX EVAP ECON
EGH/PMP/OXD/3CL/
CAN
318.
COMMENTS
5-TJ-dO
S-13-ttO
b-15-BO
16153 FTP
16159 HFET
16160 FTP
16161 HFET
EVAP FAM:BCRKF
3712 3b02 650 74. 0.110 1.56
37<;3 3B13 73. 0.012 0.06
3/V6 3btt8 670 7<*. 0.166 1.93
3607 3900 73. 0.20 0.13
ENG CODE:A-3
ETWt 4250 DYNO H.P.112.1
TRANS:L3 0/OU AXLE«2.45 N/VI 31.6
556.
36S,
550.
3-J7,
0.61
0.89
0.79
0.64
1.15 15.9 STANDARD TEST FUEL
24.3 STANDARD TEST FUEL
0.97 16.0 LOrf OCTANE FUEL
24.8 LOW OCTANE FUEL
o
©
©
o
o
o
-------
0
VEHICLE TEST DATA LOG
MANUFACTURE*
VEHICLE ID
SC CAHLINt
CONTROL SYSTEMS
EMISSION EVAP DISPLACEMENT
8V (V)OIPLOMAT
ACTIVE YEAR MODEL YEAH
1981 1981
EGH/PMP/OXD/3CL/
CAN
318.
©
DATE
TEST ODOM SYST IDLE AMH
TEST 0 CYCLE MILtS MILES RPM TEMP
EMISSION RESULTS
HC CO C02- NOX
EVAP
FUEL
ECON
COMMENTS
EVAP FAM:bCRKF
ENG CODESA-1
ETW: 387S DYNO H.P.111.5
THANSIL3 0/DJl AXLEIZ.45 N/VJ 32.1
5-24-80
5-24-80
5-28-80
16814
16815
lfoB16
16817
FTP
Hr ET
FTP
HFET
3807
381H
3dbO
3dbl
3813
J824
3867
710
710
75.
74.
80.
82.
0.109
0.022
0.158
0.034
1.98
0.21
2.97
0.28
546.
359.
370.
0.61
0.27
0.53
0.30
16.1
24.7
. \1 6 . 0
23 v9
STANDARD TEST FUEL
STANDARD TEST FUEL
LOW OCTANE FUEL
LOW OCTANE FUEL
•©
; ©
\ &
-------
VEHICLE TEST DATA LOG
CONTROL SYSTEMS
MANUFACTURER VEHICLE ID SC CARLINE EMISSION EVAP DISPLACEMENT
CHRYSLER D280 FV (VtIMPERIAL EGR/PMP/OXD/3CL/ CAN 318.
ACTIVE YEAR MODEL YEAR
©
1961 19»1
i£) TEST ODOM SYST IDLE AMB EMISSION RESULTS FUEL
DATE TEST # CYClE MILLS MILES RPM TEMP HC CO C02 NO* EVAP ECON COMMENTS
©
»-ENG FAM:BCR5.2v9F/vx EVAP FAM:BCRKG ENG coDE«A-2 ETW: 4250 OYNO H.P.ill.3
_ TRANSIL3 0/0»1 AXLE12.24 N/VI 28.7
\ ©
©
Q
7- 3-80 19157 FTP 46^3 4V4b 570 77. .127 2.04 532. .78 . 16.6 STANDARD TEST FUEL
© 7- 3-80 19158 HFE.T 4634 4759 77. .028 .70 343. .43 . 25.8 STANDARD TEST FUEL
7- 7-80 19159 FTP 4663 4789 580 76. .129 1.77 53H. .73 . 16.4 LOW OCTANE FUEL
© 7- 7-00 19160 HFtT <»b74 4BOO 75. .043 .87 346. .53 . 25.5 LOW OCTANE FUEL
-------
MANUFACTUKEH
VEHICLE ID
VEHICLE TEST DATA LOG
SC CARLlNE
CONTROL SYSTEMS
EMISSION EVAP DISPLACEMENT
DATE
CHRYSLER
TEST OOOM SYbT IDLE AMk3
TEST # CYCLE MILLS MILES HPM TEMP
cv
-------
©
o
©
MANllFACTUKER
VEHICLE 10
VEHICLE TEST DATA LOG
SC CAKLINE
CONTKOL SYSTEMS
EMISSION EVAP DISPLACEMENT
CHRYSLER
F180
BV (V)SPECIAL
ACTIVE YEAR MODEL YEAR
EGR/PMP/OXD/3CL/
CAN
318.
©
o
DATE
TEST
TEST * CYCLE
ODOM
MILtS
SrST
MILES
IDLE
KPM
AM8
TEMP
19H2 19t
EMISSION RESULTS
HC CO C0<; NOX
12
FUEL
EVAP ECON
COMMENTS
»-£NG FAM
4- 2-81
4- 2-81
4- 6-81
4- 6-81
:CCR5.2V4H4Ll
2f>058
26059
26200
26201
FTP
HFET
FTP
HFET
3864
38/6
3910
3787
3798
3832
3843
EVAP FAM:CCRKE
660 75.
71.
650 75.
74.
.182
.035
.163
.042
1.92
.42
1.99
.61
ENG CODE: A- i
660.
446.
664.
470.
.42
.37
,44
.37
I
1.17 13.4
19.6
13.3
Id. 8
ET*: 4250 OYNO H. P. 112.0
THANS:L3 0/n«l AXLEI2.94 N/V» 38.0
STANDARD TEST FUEL
STANDARD TEST FUEL
LOW OCTANE FUEL
LOW OCTANE FUEL ,
Q
©
4 ®
-------
-50-
APPENDIX D
Comparison between Undipped LA-4*
and Bags 1 and 2 of the FTP
* A description (speed versus time) of the undipped LA-4 was published in
the Federal Register of July 15, 1970 (35 FR 11357).
-------
BflSIC FTP(SOLID)
1IUM 1700 M (MM IWtBQ IKOM
UNCLIPPED FTP (POINTS NOT CONNECTED)
S*:
1MH KIN !••
V
.•
BON ntm SHH n«M
\ f \ -• A f • A
• ' '. • J '. ' ' : -
S: • •' • : .* • • •
\- • •.; '. / • ' '
inOH ~ 1M8I l»5 IKOM IJOOM IMO
BRSIC FTP(SOLIO) UNCLIPPFD FTPC'-i")
------- |