&EPA
              United States
              Environmental Protection
              Agency
               Motor Vehicle Emission Lab
               2565 Plymouth Road
               Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Correlation
Program  Report
                       METFAC

               AUDIT AND CORRELATION REPORT

-------
                                                    EPA-AA-EOD-81-1
                   METFac

        Audit and Correlation Report
                     By

                Carl Paulina
              Maryanne  Matichuk

                January,  1981
              Correlation Group
           Testing Programs Branch
       Engineering Operations Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
         Ann Arbor, Michigan  48105

-------
                                 ABSTRACT
The Mobile Emission Test Facility  (METFac)  is  a  completely  self-contained
automotive emissions  laboratory which allows  the Agency to  conduct  the
federal  auto  emission test  anywhere in  the nation.   The  laboratory  is
capable  of determining  the exhaust  emissions  and urban and highway  fuel
economy  of light  duty vehicles  in accordance  with  a  variety of  driving
cycles and procedures incuding the Federal Test Procedure.

The  total facility  consists  of  these  major  components:   a  Dynamometer
Van, which contains  a chassis dynamometer,  a constant volume  sampler  and
a  heating-ventilating-air  conditioning system  with humidity  control;  a
Mobile Laboratory which  contains a  complete exhaust  gas analysis  system
along with a  real-time data  acquisition  and control computer capable  of
doing bag or modal  analysis;  and, an inflatable  Soak  Tent  in which  test
vehicles are  stored under controlled temperature conditions.
                                   -2-

-------
 Audit Summary

 The audit  performed  on the  Mobile  Emission  Testing Facility (METFac)  on
 September  25,  1980 indicated that  the facility had  four  Federal  Register
 violations.   Since  September  25th,  these  problem  areas  have  been  cor-
 rected and verified  and,   therefore,  METFac  is  capable of satisfying  all
 Federal Register requirements  for certification emission testing.

 Correlation  Summary

 METFac's  personnel  and  measurement  hardware  are  capable   of   producing
 emission  results  and  coefficients  of  variation "equivalent"  to  MVEL's
 "family" of  testing sites.  The  repeatability  of METFac  is  a very  impor-
 tant factor  which should  be  commended,  as this  is one of  the prime  goals
 in emission  testing.   Should the raw  data be processed by MTS we  would be
 completely confident  in the final results.

 Barring  computer  malfunctions  and  humidity  control  problems  METFac,  at
 present, fits  within the  MVEL "family"  of  test sites.  METFac has  estab-
 lished that  it has the same measurement  capabilities as any EOD  site.

                                    TABLE  1
                                    L«d COXCF.LATION SUMMAMV     PHOCESSEOI OCT It, 1980


                                 VIN vCZ-.i!          l«iEMfl» «t *£•,<>   ACTUAL «P  B.»

                                  MC   CO  NOA . COZ  ft  HMO   MUM  N«FC  ubL «SL  TtOSS
                                              >| (HHUI IIN-nO) (CHAINS   U--- 4              J    Mr.AN        1.117 II./J !.<•* JVI. 2Kb 2H.92  <>3.21 O.b7
                       blANUAHU DtV.  .0200 0.2b2 .Ool  I. 0.1 0.0   3.0/6 .011
                       C.V.»        1.4   2.1  2.b 0.1 0.3  0.0  7.12 \.il


i   EPA-HtlFAC         tt    MCAN        l.lll 11.M3 2.b/ J1*?. 21.1 2><.01  SI.H4 O.VO
                       sr«:IUAHU UtV.  .U202 O.Jb? .(Ion  b. O.o U.d'.i ll.       -o.   ^.   3.  I. -2.   o.  2o.  «.
    C.V.* IS ThE COEFfItltHt OF Vn-lATIUH. lilU. OEV./MEAN «IUOI.
    D1FF.» IS TnE OlFftHtNtt yF Tnt MtANi UtT-ttN IMt *f* ANU EPA LAttS. IMFH-EPA/EMA »IOOI.      	^^ _.  .


 If an  offset  is  observed  on  any  specific  vehicle  between METFac in  its
 present  configuration and  EOD,  it  would  likely  be  a vehicle  emission
 difference between facilities as  opposed to  an emission  measurement  dif-
 ference.   As  can  be  seen  above  in  Table   1,  the mean value  percent
 differences  and  coefficients  of  variation  for  vehicle  emissions  during
 this program demonstrate excellent correlation.

 The reason  for METFac's "equivalence"  to EOD  sites is  tied  to  the  time
 and energy  expended to  duplicate  the calibration procedures  described  in
 this report.   Using METFac's  present  calibration techniques,  also used  by
 EOD,  will minimize  any changes which could be  experienced  in the  facility
                                       -3-

-------
measurements  from  relocating.   This will  require  METFac  to  construct a
master coastdown timer  equivalent to  EOD's  for dynamometer  calibrations
(this  is  discussed  in  the audit  section of  this report).   We  further
recommend, a  series  of  correlation tests be run on METFac after it does
move to determine if any problems occur after relocating.

We  would   like  to  thank  the  METFac  personnel for  their  patience   and
cooperation throughout the correlation and audit process.
                                    -4-

-------
                                  PART I

                               AUDIT REPORT
At  the  request  of  Gary  Wilson  of  Manufacturers  Operational  Division
(MOD), C.  Paulina,  M.  Matichuk, and  K.  Reese-MacQueen of  the Office of
Air Noise  and  Radiation, Engineering  Operations  Division (EOD), Testing
Programs Branch, Correlation Group  performed  an audit of Mobile Emission
Testing Facility (METFac)  on  September 25, 1980 while  it was located at
the Ann Arbor laboratory.  The  purpose of  the  audit  was to obtain a  com-
prehensive and objective overview  of the  facility  in  the following areas:

    1)  compliance with Federal Register  test  procedure  requirements,

    2)  differences in testing  practices between  EPA's  Ann Arbor labora-
        tory and MOD's  METFac,  and,

    3)  capability  of  the  facility  to  perform  pre-1978  and  post-1978
        Federal Test Procedures.

With  these  three objectives in mind, the  main areas  examined  were  the
usage of  the hardware;  the  audit emission test;  and documentation  con-
cerning calibrations, procedures,  maintenance schedules,  etc.  A specific
break-down of these areas includes:

    A.  LFE calibration
    B.  CVS calibrations
    C.  Test fuel analysis
    D.  Test fuel storage and handling
    E.  Test cell and soak tent air handling
    F.  Barometric pressure measurement
    G.  Dynamometer calibration
    H.  CVS verification equipment and procedures
    I.  FID optimization procedures
    J.  Emission analyzer curves
    K.  Analyzer - interference checks
    L.  Zero air N£ purity
    M.  NOx analyzer operational parameters
    N.  On-board  computer   and  computer   programs   used   for  emission
        calculations
    0.  Test procedures
    P.  Peripheral equipment calibrations
    Q.  QC Test Void procedure
    R.  Calibration Gas Naming and NBS Traceability
Discussion

After  reviewing  the material  collected  during the  audit,  the  following
points were  either in direct  violation  of the Federal  Register or  were
suspected of unsound engineering practices.
                                    -5-

-------
    Federal Register Violations;

    1)  Fuel cart out of calibration
    2)  Incorrect  emission   test   driving  distance   due   to   computer
        malfunction
    3)  Strip chart recorder for  emission test  analysis  out  of  calibration
    4)  CVS static pressure checks  not performed

    Engineering Practices:

    1)  Inspection scale out of calibration
    2)  Fuel storage and fuel transfer for testing
    3)  Unestablished maintenance schedule

A detailed  discussion of these  deficiencies and  discrepancies is in  the
pages to follow.
Hardware

The  following  MVEL services were utilized  by  METFac:   fuel for  testing,
gas  cylinders,  and  technical  support  from  other   factions   of   EOD,
including the  Calibrations  & Maintenance Group,  the Electronics  Support
Team, and Craft Services.  These support services will  have  to be assumed
by METFac personnel on the road.

Most hardware problems have  since been  corrected.  While METFac  possesses
all  equipment  necessary  for  a  valid  Federal  Test Procedure   (FTP)
sequence, it must  be pointed out that METFac  would  not pass an EOD  audit
for  a certification valid  test  if they were "on the  road."  This is  due
to the fact that METFac  either does  not have  all of the necessary equip-
ment, that the equipment they do have is not  functioning correctly,  or is
not  calibrated.   These   areas  will   be   discussed   in   the   following
paragraphs.

The  Federal  Register  states in  Sec.   86.142-79(f)  that  "The  following
information shall  be  recorded with  respect to  each  test"  .  .   . "Gross
vehicle  weight  rating,  Inertia  weight  class,  Actual  curb  weight at  zero
miles" .  .  .  "Idle rpm."  METFac has a two-pad  scale  on which a vehicle
is weighed during  the inspection period; but the scale  was  not calibrated
at the time of the audit.  We recommend that METFac use a  scale  to verify
the  vehicle weight to insure the  vehicles  in use  were not under-loaded
during  the  vehicle   certification   emission  test.    To  satisfy  Federal
Register requirements, the facility  also needs a calibrated  timing  light,
tachometer,  and idle CO measurement  device  (Sec. 86.126-78)  to verify the
parameters  in  the manufacturers'   recommended  operating  mode.   Again,
METFac could use the instruments available  in  Ann Arbor's  inspection area
while they are located here.

The  facility has  no  means of measuring the evaporative emissions from  a
vehicle  using  a  sealed  housing  [Sec.  86.107-78]  comparable  to that  of
EPA-Ann  Arbor.    According  to  Sec.   86.106-78(a(l))  of   the   Federal
                                    -6-

-------
Register,  "unless  the  evaporative  emission  test  is  waived  by  the
Administrator  under Sec.  86.078-26,  all  gasoline-fueled  vehicles  must
undergo both tests" ("both" meaning  evaporative emission test and exhaust
emission  test).   Tests have  shown  that  the hydrocarbon emissions  of a
complete FTP are  about  twice that of  an  enclosure (SHED)  test.  Studies
have also  determined  that  hydrocarbons are  a  major contributor in smog.
With these facts  in mind, we  feel that knowing what a stationary vehicle
emits is just  as  relevant as  an exhaust emission test when assessing the
environmental impact of a vehicle.

The  dynamometer  has the capability  of testing  vehicles  with  equivalent
inertia weights  between  5625 Ib.  and  1750 Ib. in  125  Ib.  increments  as
required  for MY80 vehicles  [Sec.  86.129-80].  METFac  has the  ability  to
test at  any  weight  and horsepower setting within these limits  satisfying
the  Federal  Register  requirements.  In addition,   they have  adopted the
dynamometer calibration procedures published by the  Ann  Arbor  facility.
Aside from using the  calibration  procedures,  METFac  also used a special
piece of EOD's equipment to perform  coastdowns.  This apparatus will pro-
duce  integrated   speed  counts,   torque  counts, and delta  time  during a
dynamometer  coastdown between   55 and  45  mph  required  in  EPA TP-202
(Dynamometer   Calibration   -   Frictional   Horsepower).    This  procedure
enables  the  user to evaluate a wide range of horsepower  values  for any
inertia  weight within  the  dynamometer's  limits.   At  such  a  time when
METFac leaves the Ann Arbor facility,  it is  suggested that  integrators  be
purchased  to maintain good correlation  with  EOD.  The integrators are not
required by  the  Federal  Register, but  they  are  necessary to perform EPA
TP-202.
Test Procedures

METFac utilizes a  soak  tent  to  allow  the vehicles to stabilize for  12  to
36 hours  prior  to emission testing required by Sec.  86.132-78(b).   While
located  in  Ann Arbor,  METFac  has not  set up  the tent,  they have  used
available  space  inside  the  Ann  Arbor  facility.    We  have  no  way  of
assessing the capabilities of the tent until such a time when  the  tent  is
set up.

When using  50  gallon drums for fuel  storage,  the temperature at which  a
fuel is  stored can  potentially result  in a problem.   If  the fuel  drums
are not maintained  below  60°F,  a  pressure build will result.  The  higher
storage  temperature will  also  cause  separation  and  loss  of the  fuel's
"light  end" hydrocarbons  when  the pressurized  drum is  opened,  this  in
turn could affect emission test results.

The test  fuel,  when METFac  is  "on the  road,"  is stored in fifty  gallon
drums  which will  be  supplied by  a  contractor under  Federal  Register
specifications.   METFac intends  to  use  storage  and  handling  procedures
documented  in  their  contractual  "Scope  of  Work" manual.   We feel  this
document meets Federal  Register requirements  as long  as all test  fuel  is
treated  as  if  it were  for  evaporative  emission testing,  specifically,
fuel to be stored at 50°-60°F prior to testing.
                                    -7-

-------
At the time of the audit, METFac's fuel cart was inactive, so METFac used
the Ann Arbor Laboratory's fuel and fuel  carts.  Before METFac relocates,
they  should  attempt  to  minimize  the  storage  temperature  and subsequent
possible transfer  problems.   Part of this  could be  resolved by drafting
and  following a  specific fuel  transfer  procedure  which  in  turn would
reduce the chances of producing fuel influenced test  results.

The analyzing equipment the lab uses is the same or better than that uti-
lized  by  EPA Ann  Arbor  laboratory.   The  system hardware  performs very
well.  When  their  on-board computer is operational,  their  facility pro-
duces  results comparable  to EOD,  but the computer  exhibited  problems
throughout the audit  and correlation tests.

First  of all, METFac did not use the actual distance  for  the audit test
due  to a malfunction  which  locked the computer  into using  the nominal
distance of 7.5 miles  for the results.  This is a direct violation of the
Federal Register  as  stated  in  Sec. 86.142-78(p),  "The  driving distance
for  each  of  the three  phases  of  the test, calculated  from  the measured
roll  of shaft revolutions."   Secondly,  the  computer  was giving erroneous
humidity readings  (wet-bulb,  dry-bulb)  which  in turn produced faulty NOx
values.  A sling  psychrometer was used as  a  back-up to  the  computer in
this  case.   The  software problem  was  apparently repaired and a  simulated
cold  start test was  run  on  October  23,  1980 to check the validity of the
humidity readings.   The  test  results  showed improvement,  but the nominal
distance  was  still   used  instead  of actual distance.   Also  in  the
October 23rd  test,   a  discrepancy was  noticed between  the  strip chart
analysis [Sec. 86.142-79(i)] and the values produced by the on-board com-
puter.  In some cases, the percent error  between strip chart  and computer
was  over  fifty  percent  (NOx in  particular).   This  leads us to believe
that  either  the  strip chart recorder  (six channel) was  not calibrated
correctly on  certain channels,  or  that once  again  the computer software
was  malfunctioning.   The audit  test run  on September 25 was re-examined
and  the  same conflict  (Soltec  recorder versus computer  record  for ana-
lyzer  outputs)  was  seen.  This was  a  result  of lack  calibration  on the
Soltec recorder.   However,  it must be  stated  that   the  fact  that METFac
has  independent recordings  and  readouts enable us  to verify  the validity
of the computer  calculations  when malfunctions did  occur.   The operation
of METFac is not dependent on their on-board computer.
Documentation

For  the most  part,  documentation was  complete in  the areas  that were
examined.   But  there were  areas  lacking in  sufficient background.  The
categories  that were deficient  concern  the  void test procedure,  calibra-
tions,  and an  established maintenance  schedule.    These  areas  will  be
discussed in the following pages.
Void Test Procedures

At this time, METFac has not done enough testing to really show that they
have  a  void  procedure  that  will  effectively  invalidate   any   faulty
                                    -8-

-------
emission  test.   This  is  critical  to  the  nature  of  emission testing.
Either a structured test void criteria or  a  historically established void
test  record  documents the  credibility of  a  facility's  quality control
program.
Calibrations

Until only  recently,  METFac had never  done a calibration  on their  fuel
cart.   A  calibration was  done with  the  aid  of  the  Calibration  and
Maintenance Group  at  EPA's Ann Arbor  laboratory  to correct the malfunc-
tion in  the temperature controls and  the  fuel dispensing volume.  Along
with the  fuel  storage problem,  this adds another  possible  area of error
in previous test results using the  METFac fuel  cart.

The METFac  PDP-CVS  had  never had a static  pressure  check at the vehicle
tailpipe   connection.    Section  86.109-78(b(D&c(D)   of   the  Federal
Register states that  .  .  .  "Static  pressure variations  of the tailpipe(s)
of  the  vehicle  shall remain within  ^_  5  inches  of  water   (1.2  kPa) of
static  pressure variations  measured  during a dynamometer  driving cycle
with no  connection  to the tailpipe(s)."  This piece  of information  is a
parameter  that  should be known to  insure  that the vehicle  is  not being
adversely  affected  during  an  emission  test.  We  consider  this  lack of
documentation as a  violation of the Federal Register requirement.  Also,
there has never been  a  static  pressure check  between the mixing point of
the  dilution  air  and  at  the  exhaust  sample.   This  is not  a Federal
Register  requirement, but this check  should  be performed  and  should be
less  than  1"  ^O  pressure below  ambient at maximum CVS  flowrate to
insure that the filter is operating correctly.

Other than these  outstanding  areas,   all  other  calibrations  are  either
performed using EPA published procedures, manufacturer's  recommended  pro-
cedures,  or  METFac  procedures  that  are   comparable   to   standard  EOD
procedures.
Maintenance

To  date,  METFac  does  not  have  a  formalized  overall facility  equipment
maintenance program.  This is vital to the performance of the facility.

A prime example of  this  shortcoming deals with  the  dynamometer.   Prior  to
the  installment  of the  new dynamometer  in  July,   METFac  was not  imple-
menting their preventative  maintenance  schedule for their  old dynamometer
on  a regular  basis.   Part of  the  EPA  Ann  Arbor  schedule  includes  a
monthly greasing  of couplings  and flywheel clutches  to eliminate  fric-
tional  impairments.  We  cannot predict the  possible  effects on  vehicles
tested  and  thus it enters  a possible variable difference  in correlation
assessment.

At  the  moment,  an  interim  schedule  is  being  used  while  the  permanent
maintenance schedule is being drafted and published.
                                    -9-

-------
                                 PART  II
                         METFac  Correlation Report
The  Correlation  Group first  began  their efforts  at  evaluating the  cor-
relation between  Environmental  Protection Agency, Motor Vehicle Emission
Laboratory,  Engineering  Operations  Division  (EOD)  and  METFac   in May
1980.  We  initially planned to  use  two vehicles.   We wanted to have  both
a "street" vehicle  and  a repeatable vehicle with a "baseline" data  base
built up  for comparison of emission results.   METFac personnel arranged
for  us  to use  Emission  Control  Technology Division's  Volvo  repeatable
vehicle.  This was  advantageous because  the  Volvo not only was a  repeat-
able vehicle, but had a four cylinder engine, and used 2250  lb.  inertia
weight.    The trend  in  motor vehicles  being toward  smaller  engines and
lower inertia weight, this is a fairly "typical"  vehicle than a larger  6
or 8 cylinder vehicle.  The vehicles to be used  then were:

    1977 Chevrolet Nova     6 cylinder      3500#IW
    1978 Volvo              4 cylinder      2250#IW

METFac had no dyno  calibrations for the  complete  range of  inertia  weights
contained  in their  dynamometer.  The technicians  on METFac had  been  occu-
pied with  facility  organization,  equipment  fixes,  and generally  tracing
through the  facility  assorted "bugs,"  safety hazards and oversights.  It
has  taken  the  people working on it three  years   to  resolve  most  design
errors,   oversights,  and  lack of coherent  hardware,  software  or  opera-
tional documentation.

What METFac did was  to  calibrate  the dynamometer  for the  inertia  weights
and  horsepower  of  the  vehicles we  were  going   to  use in  the program.
METFac used  the  criteria published in  the  Federal Register to establish
the indicated power absorbtion  unit (PAU) load necessary for the specific
inertia weight and actual horsepower of each  vehicle to be  used.

In the  past  we have  discovered that  constant  volume  sampler (CVS) and
laminar flow element  (LFE) calibrations  are a possible  source  of correla-
tion  differences   just   from  data  handling  and   curve  fit   program
differences.   METFac already uses EOD procedures  for  data handling of LFE
and CVS calibration data.

We did  not try to  project  possible flow measurement differences  in CVS
calibrations, since  METFac  uses a propane bomb  weight injection  verifi-
cation technique and  EOD  prefers  the use of critical flow orifices  (CFO)
for CVS verification.  Because  of past  experience,  we are  aware of  a one
to two percent difference between  these two techniques, when  results are
compared on  the  same CVS.  We  decided  to take  a first  look  at what the
measured emission differences before anticipating  problems.

The initial  program was  planned as  a set of six  hot tests consisting of
bags 1  and 2 of  the  Federal  Test Procedure(FTP)  (hot  LA-4s)  on  METFac,
followed  the  next day with  six hot LA-4s  on an EOD dyno and then to
                                   -10-

-------
repeat  the  sequence  for each  vehicle.   This  would provide  an A-B,  A-B
sequence on two  vehicles.   This was expected  to be a  large  enough sample
group to give  a  statistical confidence in any  offset observed.   We needed
a  large enough  sampling to  be able  to  discount  vehicle and/or  ambient
condition  shifts  by  comparing   the   first   A-B  sequences,  second  A-B
sequence and  total A-B  sequences  on each vehicle,  if necessary.   It  was
decided not  to run  cold start tests  because  a  valid  cold start  is  much
more variable  and  time consuming.

Table 2 contains  a  test results  summary  for  the  Nova.   Although  on  the
Nova there  was a  statistically significant offset  on every  emission  but
hydrocarbon, the Nova vehicle exhibited extreme  variability  on  HC, CO and
gave a  NOx  mean  value percent difference which did not agree at  all with
those seen on  the  Volvo  except in sign, as can be  seen comparing Tables 2
and  3.    We  used   the   same   driver  for  all  tests  and  considered  the
vehicle's variability beyond  what  we would  expect from driver influence.

                                  TABLE 2
   IAS
   EPA-HETFAC


NOVA TESTS
N
II
12
MEAN
STANDARD DEV.
C.v.t
HCAN
STANDARD OEV.
C.V.t
DIFF. *
I
,A(J COWHELAMON SUMMARY PHOCESStDI FEB III I9HI
-
V1N 1X»7 INERTIA WT JbOO ACTUAL HP II. t
MC
0.303
.1132
24.5
0.342
*b7.3
-5.
CO NOX C02 FE BAND HUM NXFC DM. MM. TLOS1
...0/H|.......»| IMPGI UN-HOI (DRAINS |«...|ORAM»I— »|
3.79 l,(6 «J8. 19.9 28.96 90.32 0.90
1.206 .110 10. 0.9 0.069 4.512 
-------
                                   TABLE  3
                                   LAH COHftELATION SUMMARY    PROCESSED! JUL 22. 1980


                MtTFACNf-MO        VIM VCi">2          IHEUTIA NT 22SII  ACTUAL «!> 8.8


   LAX              N               MC   Co  NtU CO'f  Ft  4«»O  HUM  HtFC DHL  «SL TLOS5

                                |<..,...^/M|	 — >| iMPli) (IN-HOI IbrfAINS    K---IGHAMSI—H
                                                        /L'll
   CPA      .       12    "FAN        I.If./ I2.2»> 2.49 :i<)9. 21.0 29.Qi, HV.96 O.H9
                      MANU'tfl) OfV.  .02J" 0..1SH . Ool a. 0.1 0.0i3 2.7S". .010
                      C.V.t        2.2  2.V  2.J 0.6 0.:> O.ld  S.bl !.!<•


   EPA-NETfAC        12    »> AN        |.(inn 11.Ji ^.29 370. 22.« 24.'n2 3<-.OI O.a»
                      SIAMDAHi} DtV.  .illol O.J->« .121 2. 0.1 0.06% 9.113 .030
                      C.v.t        I.*  3.?  l.b 0.0 O.i. 0.22 20.DO 3.60
                      UIFF« t       -*,  -«. -Z3. -6.  h. -o.  -j^. -6.
   C.U.» IS THE CltFMCItNT Uf V«P1«IIOU. ISTU. OtV./ME«N *10CI|.
   Dirr.r is THE omt-itstL u^ T"t M^ANS HSI.etN TML MFM >NIJ F.PA L«HS. (MFR-EHA/EPA »100I.

First,  all  the  coefficients of  variation on METFac sites  were comparable
to those on EOD sites, except  for humidity and NOx.   METFac  had a major
humidity level  shift  from  the  first  set   of  tests  on the  Volvo  to  the
last.   The  recorded  humidity  levels  shifted  from  42  grains/lb.  to  25
grains/lb.   Since humidity  will  have a direct effect  on NOx  (both emis-
sion  and calculated  result),  this could  have  been  the  reason  for  the
larger NOx coefficient of  variation  on  METFac  than EOD.   Overall METFac
seemed to exhibit  good test  repeatability, a  prime requirement  in emis-
sion  testing.    The  fact that METFac had a  different dynamometer calibra-
tion  procedure, an older  model dynamometer              , and a consistently
lower  C02  and   NOx  emissions  implied  that  METFac  dynamometer  loaded  the
Volvo  less  than EOD  dynamometers.   NOx also exhibited  a much  larger  off-
set  than the  other  emissions.   This  led  us to  think  that there  was  an
additional  problem  with  NOx  measurement  or  calculation  which  was  inde-
pendent  of  any factors  which  would  affect  all  emissions,   i.e.   CVS,
dynamometer,  or ambient  condition  influence.   Finally,  we   found   that
METFac used nominal  distances  for each phase of  the  LA-4.   This  was  a
problem  which had  to be  corrected both  to eliminate  a  possible correla-
tion variable  and satisfy a 1978 Federal Register  requirement.

After  the  first set  of correlation tests,  METFac relocated to an off-site
location in  Ypsilanti,  Michigan.   A  member  of  the  Correlation Group
accompanied METFac  to  run x-y  plots on  their dyno  to  check  the power
absorbtion  unit load (PAD) versus front roll  speed of METFac's dyno  and
to observe  their soak tent  in use.  Originally, we  had planned to  include
their  soak  tent conditions  in  the  assessment  of METFac  as  an emission
testing  facility.   Continual  use of the  soak tent did  not  prove  practical
throughout  the  correlation  program due to  space  problems  at  EOD and  pri-
marily,  a  lack of travel  funds for METFac.   We were  unable to include  any
assessment  of their "on road"  vehicle soak  capabilities.

With respect to dyno  loading, the  emission numbers  appeared to indicate a
loading  difference.   In  addition, we  also became  aware the  Clayton  dyno
used  by METFac operated on  different load  cell  voltages  than  the  new
                                     -12-

-------
Clayton  dynos  equipped with  ARLC.   We  were  unaware  of  this difference
when we  made  the x~y  plots  on METFac and discovered  the difference too
late to  rerun  comparably  scaled  x-y plots on METFac's dynamometer.  This
prevented us  from making direct  comparisons  of x-y plots  of METFac PAU
load vs.  speed curves against equivalent  plots on  an EOD dyno.

METFac was  considering replacing their  dynamometer with a  new  one and
decided  to go  ahead  after they returned  from Ypsilanti.  The  replacement
consisted of  installing  a  new  set of  weights and  rolls  with  125 Ib.
increment capability in the  old  frame and installing automatic road load
control  (ARLC).  This  period  was  also used to investigate the problem of
not being able  to correctly  read the dyno rear  roll counts to calculate
actual distances traveled.

The new dyno with ARLC made it possible to use EOD's 99 point  (33  inertia
weights  with  3  horsepower  settings per  weight)  calibration  procedures,
TP-202 Dynamometer Calibration -  Frictional Horsepower (with EOD's Master
Coastdown timer) and TP-207 Dynamometer Calibration-RLPC  Electronics.  We
believe  that   duplicating calibration techniques  eliminates  a  possible
correlation variable.  In this case it was necessary to modify TP-202 and
the computer  calculations which  accompany it, because METFac's dyno does
not have as  large  an inertia weight  selection  capability   as  EOD and
METFac's trim wheel is 1750 Ibs.  as opposed to  1000  Ibs.  on the EOD.  The
reason for  the weight differences  is  space  limitations  in METFac's test
cell.   We do  not  believe this to  be  of any major consequence.   It was
also necessary for METFac to  install a magnetic pick-up on the front roll
to  supply EOD's  Master Coastdown Timer with  a  frequency  input for  front
roll speed.   METFac  personnel  did an  outstanding  job of  learning  the new
dyno calibration  procedures  and  overcoming a multitude of minor setbacks
in  trying  to  implement  the  procedures.   Besides  the basic  problem of
becoming acquainted  and  competent at  performing a new and involved  cali-
bration  procedure, there were a number  of calibration  test equipment
trial runs necessary before we were able  to  come  up with a complete dyno
calibration.   One  thing  which  was  evident was   that  their dyno  does
exhibit  a higher  frictional horsepower variability  than EOD dynos.   For  a
while it appeared  that it could be a  result  of electrical signal drifts
which seemed  to occur between the  numerous  electronic calibrations per-
formed by  METFac  personnel.   However,  the  signals seemed  to stabilize
when we began to monitor  them  from  day to day.  We  suspect that when sig-
nal drifts  did occur they were the result of equipment  power shut  downs
in-between  calibration checks.   Plots  of dyno  load  cell  output versus
dyno speed  indicated  that the ARLC circuit in  METFac  was not the source
of  the variability, as the plots  were comparable to  the same  plots run on
EOD  dynos.    However,  frictional  horsepower  calibration  printouts  con-
tinued to exhibit  a  larger variability in dyno  frictional horsepower than
MVEL.

After  all  the  recalibrations, the variabilities  showed  up  consistently
enough,  at  a  few  specific  inertia weights  to  indicate  that  it  was the
result  of  dynamometer hardware,  such  as rolls,   clutch,  bearings,  or
inertia-weight  assemblies;  not the electronics.   While   these variabili-
ties are greater  than  those  in EOD's  dynos,  they are not large enough or
predictable enough  to  either noticeably  affect the  correlation vehicle's
                                   -13-

-------
emissions or to be  quantified  with  diagnostic equipment at our disposal.
We were unable  to  assess what  effect reversing the  dyno  for front wheel
drive vehicles has  on the dyno  calibration.

During  the  same period METFac  discovered  that  their CVS  PDF pressure
measurement  taps were  not located as the Federal Register required.  In
Sec.  86.119-78(a)(2)  the  Register  states  -  "pump  pressures  should  be
measured at taps on the  pump  rather  than at  the  external  piping  on the
pump inlet and outlet.   Pressure taps that  are mounted at the top center
and bottom center of  the pump  drive headplate  are exposed  to the actual
pump  cavity  pressures,   and  therefore,  reflect   the   absolute  pressure
differentials."  With the relocation of the  pressure taps a new CVS cali-
bration was  needed.  EOD prefers to have their  LFEs  calibrated against an
NBS traceable  independent  primary  such  as  a  critical  flow nozzle (CFN).
Calibrating an LFE  against  a master LFE,  which is traceable  to NBS, may
not agree exactly  with an equivalent calibration  using an NBS traceable
CFN.  To try and standardize all flow measurements within our lab EOD has
all  their  LFE's calibrated  by the  same  company  using  a  NBS  traceable
CFN.  METFac  had  already had  their LFE  calibrated  by the  same company
which  EOD  uses.    METFac"s use  of the  same  calibration  company  in
conjunction with EOD  data handling procedures, again,  eliminated  a pos-
sible correlation variable.

METFac had been supplied with  a 30° elbow  to  use  with their LFE because
of  physical  obstructions prohibiting a straight  run  into  the  CVS.   The
recommended  SAE  practice for  flow  calibrations suggest  that there  be a
distance of  ten diameters between  the  flow  element outlet  and  the CVS
inlet as  a flow  straightener   section.   We  found  the flow  element had
slightly less  than  10 diameters length before the  30°  elbow,  so METFac
personnel modified  their CVS piping to allow  hooking  up  the LFE without
using  the  elbow.   METFac  personnel continually  made  every  effort  to
eliminate any  possible  correlation difference  with  EOD  and  to be  tech-
nically correct.

After the CVS  recalibration, we began a comparison  of the  two  CVS  cali-
bration verification techniques, propane bomb weight versus critical flow
orifice (CFO)  injections  on both METFac and a  EOD  site.   The reason for
comparison was to try and establish and quantify any possible flow calcu-
lation  differences  which might be covered  up because  of the use  of the
two different verification techniques employed  by EOD  and METFac.  We ran
propanes for two weeks  because of incorrect  results due  to a  calculator
program error.  When the  calculation problem was resolved we were able to
get an  agreement  between the  two  techniques within the  expected  one to
two percent.   Comparison of EOD results against METFac results indicated
the flow calculations on each  site to be equivalent.

Finally,  while the dyno  and   CVS  calibrations  and  verifications  were
taking place METFac appeared to resolve their  humidity control  deviations
and  rear  dyno  roll count  problems.   We   did  not  devote  much  time  to
analyzer curve  differences, because METFac  uses both  gases  named  at the
EOD Master Naming  Station and  employs  a  least squares fit curve genera-
tion  programs  equivalent to EOD's.   In fact,  METFac  repeats all points
                                   -14-

-------
when  generating an  analyzer  curve  to  verify  repeatability,  EOD  only
repeats the  first  gas  concentration making METFac a little more thorough
than  EOD  in  this  respect.   We  do not  consider  use  of a  gas blending
device technically inferior  to  the use of discrete cylinders,  therefore,
we considered EOD and METFac already equivalent  in this respect.

After the above mentioned efforts  and changes, we began  a second correla-
tion  program.  We  chose to continue  using the Volvo  because   of  its
exhibited repeatability and  it would  remain a common "yard stick"  between
our first series of  tests and the final  series following the  previously
discussed  facility modifications.   Because  the  vehicle seemed  to  give
extremely stable  results at each  test  site  we  felt  running  three  hot
tests (consisting of bags one and  two of the FTP  sequence (hot  LA-4) fol-
lowed by  three  hot tests of only  bag one  of  the  FTP sequence  (hot 505))
would be  a  sufficient  indicator  of each site's  measurement capabilities.
Again, we preferred to run  a complete  set  on  METFac  followed  by a set on
a  EOD site  and concluded with  a set on  METFac to try  and  "window"  any
possible vehicle and/or ambient condition  shifts or effects.   The  two bag
hot LA-4 tests were for comparison  with the first correlation tests.  The
three additional one  bag hot  505  tests  results  would  be used with  the
first bag results  of the hot  LA-4 tests to enlarge our sample group to
eighteen  tests  total  and  increase  our  statistical  confidence  in  this
final set  of correlation tests.   Again,  the use  of hot tests only  was
because our  main  concern is with  measurement capabilities,  not possible
specific vehicle changes and variabilities.  We  believe any  vehicle  is
much more repeatable when warmed up than from  cold start  to cold start.

For the  final set, we tried to  choose the most  "typical" site from our
lab.  By comparing the most recent vehicle crosscheck with sample analy-
sis crosscheck  (SAC)  reports chose dyno  four  as the most  "typical"  in
terms of dyno loading  coupled  with site analyzer gas naming comparisons.
Choosing a site which appeared in  the middle  of the EOD "family"  of test
sites maximized the probability  that would get  as  valid a comparison of
METFac to the EOD lab as  a whole as possible.

Once  the  tests  were  run  we planned to  generate  confidence  intervals  at
the  90% confidence  level  on  the emission  results.    If the  intervals
appeared too wide we planned to run more tests to add to our sample group
and   hopefully  reduce   the confidence   interval  widths.    Should  any
particular emission  appear   to  have  too  large  an  offset  we  planned  to
investigate  and  use  diagnostics  to determine the reason.  As  it turned
out,  as can  be  seen in Table 4,  we felt  that  there was only one emission
with much cause for concern, NOx.
                                   -15-

-------
                                     TABLE 4
                  P»E-NOA/KECALC
    LAB
    EPA
                                      LAN CUMHELtTlUN SUMMARY
                                                          PHUCESSEUI
                                                                    2«. lv»u
                        MEAN
                        StANUAHO OEV.
                        C.V.4
                                   VIN VC242          IHtwTU WT Za'SO   ACTUAL Hp b.H


                                   HC  CO  MH CO*  >E  M«MU  MUM  N«C  DHL  hSL rLOSS
                                                >| (M
           1.I1/ 11.73 2.1.9 391. 21. S ?d.yZ
           .02ua O.i'ia .061  1. O.I 0.0
            1.4  2.1  2.S 0.1 0.3  0.0
 /I '«!
<>3.21 O.BJ
J.07S .nil
 7.12 1.27
                                                                   —-H,K»HSI—»
C.v.%
DIFF. »
                                   1.111 11.43 3.23 3V7. 21.1 24.01. 10U.OI I. IS
                              UEW.  .02n2 0.307 .311  S. 0.6 1>.2<>2 22. -77 . U4
                                    2.S  3.1  V.6 l.J 2.9  0.83  22.<>7 ••••
                                    -0.   2.  30.  I. -<:.  0.  131.  32.
    c.v.» is IHC cotrncitNi or VAHUTION. tsro. otv./MEAN >tooi.
         i!) THE oifFtntNCt UF THE MEANS RETXCEN THE HFH ANU EPA LABS. IHFN-EPA/EPA •ioo>.
Attachment  C  contains  our complete   Labcor   results   corresponding  to
Table  4 Labcor  results.   The NOx mean value  offset between METFac  and EOD
was  30% on  the hot LA-4  tests  and 43% on  the hot  505  comparisons.   The
calculated  statistics  on the  hot  LA-4's  indicated  that  at  a  90%  confi-
dence  level  the two sets  of tests  exhibited  at least  a  22% NOx offset on
LA-4s  and  39%  minimum  offset  on  the  hot 505 tests.    All  of  the  other
emission mean  values' percent difference  site  to  site were what we  would
consider exactly  equivalent  to EOD's  "family" of test  sites.

Examination  of the  results  showed  that the  humidity difference  recorded
between METFac  and EOD  was  extremely high and  the NOx  correction  factors
(K^)  were  about  as  much  different  from  EOD  NOx correction  factors  as
the  NOx  values  themselves   (Table  4).   When the  humidity  and correction
factors  for METFac were  investigated  they  were  found  to  be erroneous.
The  test packs showed  that  the temperature  traces for  test  cell wet and
dry  bulb  temperatures  were completely different  from  those  recorded  on
the METFac computer print out.
                                      -16-

-------
                                   TABLE 5





                                   l«rt COXKELATION SUMMAHY    PHOCESSEOI OCt II. I9B|)


                •H.tfACI.I-10         VIM VC2"..!      .   INEHI1A MT te"iU   ACIUAL »P  «.»

                 X              nC  CO  'lU* . CU2  » L X«x0  HUH  N»FC  uoL "51.  TLOSS
                                               UI IM-nbt iCu
  EPA              J   MIAN        l.llr II. M ?.-.» JV|.  OtV.  .U2l)» 0.<>. £l.| *«.tll  bl.HI. O.VU
                     SFA^JUAHO UtV*  .U^Ocf O.jbf .Oo**  b.  U.o U.^'tif ll.^2tt .U<*<*
                     C.V.*        2.3  J.I Z.b  I.J  100).
The test  cell wet/dry bulb  temperature traces  proved to be  accurate when
checked against a sling  psychrometer, and  as  can be  seen  in Table  5 the
recalculated  values exhibit  good  correlation.   The  complete results are
contained  in  Attachment  D.   After  we  recalculated  the  NOx values and
re-determined 90% confidence intervals,  they indicated at  most  a 7.5% NOx
offset on hot 505 tests.   On the  hot LA-4 tests  we  were  only  89% confi-
dent  that a  real  difference exists.   If  there is a  difference  it  would
not be greater than  6.6% at the 90% confidence  level.

As Table  5 shows, NOx  is still the  emission with the largest  mean value
offset, but 3% on  two  bag hot LA-4s and  7% on hot 505 tests  are both off-
sets  which could  be  seen between two  sites  in  EOD's  "family"  of test
sites.  NOx  is  influenced by  vehicle  loading  as is C02,  however,  the
fact  that the humidity  levels  and correction  factors  are  different,  at
present,  prevent drawing any conclusions  as to how much  of the  NOx offset
is the  result of  loading differences between  facilities.  Because of the
higher C02 and  NOx  levels on METFac  we  suspect that  some of the present
offset  is due  to  loading differences.   We  do  not at present  have  diag-
nostic equipment capable of  quantifying  this possible loading difference,
but at  least  a portion of  the  NOX offset  is  a  result of humidity control
and/or  software  measurement  and  calculations  problems  which  can  be
eliminated.

At this time  we felt that  the  only "problem" was  NOx offset  and that the
problem was  the result  of METFac's  computer mis-reading the wet  and dry
bulb  temperatures.  The  temperature  strip  chart  recordings  indicate that
the  wet  and  dry  bulb  thermocouples  in  the  test  cell  were   in  fact
registering  correctly and when  these values were  used to  recalculate the
NOx results much better correlation was  achieved  as can  be seen comparing
Tables 4, 5,  and  6.  METFac did  resolve this  humidity recording error.
We verified  the  fix by  running  a simulated FTP  on  the Volvo  during  an
audit of  the  facility and compared the results  to the correlation program
results in Table 6.
                                    -17-

-------
                                     TABLE 6
  LAB
  CPA
                                    LAB COHHELATION SUMMARY
                                                        PROCESSED! OCT 2». 1»80
                      MF»N
                      STANOAKU OEX.
                      C.V.I
                                 VIN VC2»2          INEMTIA *T 2250   ACTUAL HP (t.B


                                 HC   CU  NO* C02  ft  HtxO  HUH  NXFC OBL  HSL TLOSS
|<	G/M1-	...>l (MPOI (IM-HC.) (UHMNS
                        /LWI
1.117 II.(3 2.-.V 3*1. 21.5 28.V2 <>3.21 0.67
.U20b U.2?2 .Obi  I. 0.1 0.0   3.07* .Oil
 l.V  2.1  2.S O.I 0.3  0.0   7.12 1.27
                                                                <—(GKSMSI—>
  tP»-MtTFAC
                      MK«N        1.111 11.V) 2.S7 397. 21.1 2V.01  51.M4 0.40
                      SIANDAMJ OEtf.  ,02a2 0.3t>7 .064  S. 0.6 0.2*t2 11.42H .0".".
                      C.V.t         2.b  3.1  2.S l.J 2.V  II.03  22.01 4.06
                      Ulff. *       -0.   2.  3.  1. -2.   0.   20.   "..
  MEtFAC-COMPUTEH CnEC  1
                      HtlN
                      SlA-JU«r<0
                      C.V.*
                      U1FF. *
1.122 I2.«<> 2.SI 379. 22.2 24.20 27.76 0.82
.0   o.o  .0    o.  o.o o.o   o.o  .0
 0.0  0.0  0.0 0.0  0.0  0.0   U.O 0.0
  0.   6.  I. -3.  3.   I.  -36. -6.
  C.V.t IS THE COtFflCItwT OF VAHIAT10N. I bit). OEV./MEAN •1001.
  01FF.» IS THE OlFttKtNCt OF THE MtANi Btt.EEN IHt MFM AND EPA LABS. (MFM-E>>A/tPA >100).
The  complete  comparison  is contained in Attachment E.   The results indeed
indicated that  the  30% to  40% calculation  offset on  NOx  observed  was no
longer  there.   However,  humidity control  appears  to remain a  problem and
examination  of  the  test  package  also  indicated  variable discrepancies
between strip chart  recordings of  analyzer outputs  and  computer  record-
ings  of  analyzer  outputs.   This was  due  to  lack of  calibration  on the
strip chart record which has  been corrected.

On the  final  audit test  the computer seemed to  lock itself into  1975 FTP
calculations.   These  calculations again used nominal  distances  traveled
in each portion of the  FTP,  instead  of actual  distance  calculated  from
rear  roll  revolutions as  required  by  the  Federal  Register.    This  is   a
problem which can  and  will be fixed.   Throughout  this  year METFac's  com-
puter  and terminal has repeatedly malfunctioned  and caused problems.  We
consider this  and humidity control  to  be  the least  dependable aspect of
the  facility.   The actual  computer  software is largely  undocumented.   The
computer hardware  has had problems  with  both  program tape  reading and
final  outputs.   The malfunctions  appear  to  be  resolved  at   the   time of
this writing  and as  was stated in  the audit  section METFac  has  indepen-
dent recordings  and readouts  which  has  enabled  us to verify  the  validity
of the  computer  calculations  whenever a malfunction was  suspected.
                                      -18-

-------
                                                  LAB CORRELATION SUMMARY
                                                         PROCESStO:  FEB lit  1981
                     NOVA TESTS
                       VIN 1X27
                        INERTIA WT 3500    ACTUAL HP 11.2
LAB
                                              HC    CO   NOX  C02   FE  BAWQ   HUM   NXFC  OBL   HSL  TLOSS
EPA
12     MEAN
       STANDARD DEV,
       C.V.%
           [	>| (MPG) UN-HG) (GRAINS
                                    /LH)
0.383  3.75 1.26 438.  19.9 28.96  50.32 0.90
.1132 1.206 .110  10.   0.5 0.069  4.512 .017
 29.5  32.2  8.7  H.3   2.5  0.24   8.97 1.85
                                                                                          l<-—(GRAMS)—> I
EPA-METFAC
       MEAN
       STANDARD DEV,
       C.V.%
       DIFF. *
0.362  2.98 1.23 398. 21.9 28.94  50.67 0.90
.2079 2.267 .045   5.  0.3 0.305  6.565 .025
 57.3  76.1  3.7  1.3  1.4  1.05  12.96 2.78
  -5.  -21.  -3.  -9.  10.  -0.     1.   0.
                                                                                                                              O
                                                                                                                              sa
                                                                                                                              M
                                                                                                                              O   >
                                                                                                                              a   H
C.V.* IS THE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION. (STD. DEV./MEAN «100).
DIFF.* IS THE DIFFERENCE OF THE MEANS BETWEEN THE MFR AND EPA LABS. (MFR-EPA/EPA »100),
                                                                                                                              2
                                                                                                                              O

-------
                                           LAB  COWHELATION  SUMMARY  -  TEST  DATA
                                                                       PKOCESSEDI FEB  11i  1981

UABJ EPA
* DATE

I
jOiS-OB-80
05-08-80
J05-08-80
'05-08-80
J05-08-80
05-08-80
OS- 13-80
05-13-80
05-13-80
05-14-80
05-14-80
105-K4-80









VEH» NOVA TESTS
TESTNO

802488
802484
602489
802485
802486
802487
802491
802492
802493
802494
802495
802490


TYPE

HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT


HC

0.480
0.390
0.370
0.360
0.570
O.b60
0.270
0.430
0.380
0.330
0.230
0.230


CO

4.50
3.00
3.70
3.00
5.20
5.40
2.70
4.90
4.70
3.90
2.00
2.00

NOX

1.08
1.20
1.16
1.21
1.21
1.15
1.39
1.38
1.36
1.41
1.27
1.34


C02

429.
439.
432.
436.
435.
466.
440.
438.
437.
439.
424.
436.
-

FE DRIVER

20.3 3<»797
19.9 34797
20.2 34797
20.1 34797
19.9 34797
18.6 34797
19.9 34797
19.8 34797
19.9 34797
19.9 34797
20.7 34797
20.2 34797
f MUfi \
IMKOI



VINI U27
DYNO

D005
0005
0005
0005
0005
0005
0005
uoos
0005
0005
0005
0005


ODOM

25315.0
25280.0
25324.0
25268.0
25297.0
25306.0
25508.0
25516.0
25524.0
25532.0
25541.0
25500.0


IHP BARO

9.0 28.90
9.0 28.92
9.0 28.90
9.0 28.91
9.0 24.90
9.0 28.90
9.1 29.00
9.1 29.00
9.0 29.00
9.0 29.03
9.0 29.03
9.0 29.00
1 T M Mf" 1
"


INEPTIA WTI 3500 ACTUAL HPI 11.2
HUM NXFC

41.02 O.H6
51.41 0.90
41.02 0.66
51.81 0.90
52.30 0.90
49.29 0.89
51.75 0.90
52.56 0.90
52.56 0.90
52.82 0.91
54.70 0.91
52.56 0.90
(ADA t KJC.
1 wKA IPO
/LB)
OBL HSL TLOSS













1 *••• t ftDAM^t ••«»•* 1
| %"•" 1 O" Arlw 1 ™»» ^ |
   MEAN
   STANDARD DEV.
   C.V.%
0.383  3.75 1.26 438. 19.9
.1132 1.206 .110  10.  0.5
 29.5  32.2  8.7  2.3  2.5
28.96  50.32 0.90
0.069  4.512 .017
  0.2    9.0  1.9
                                                        BAG DATA
DATE   TESTNO TYPE OVNO SITE  HC
jOS-08-80
^OS-OB-80
,05-08-80
305-08-80
105-08-80
105-08-80
-• 05- 13-80
505-13-80
05-13-80
05-14-80
•05-14-80
05-14-80
802488
802484
802489
802485
802486
802487
802491
802492
802493
802494
802495
802490
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
0005
0005
0005
0005
0005
0005
D005
0005
OOOb
DOOS
0005
0005
A003
AU03
ft003
AU03
AU03
A003
4003
A003
A003
A003
A003
A003
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.293
.361
.201
.258
.362
.308
.1/4
.237
.258
.152
.113
.169
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0.
0.
0,
0,
>660
.423
.520
.446
.776
.799
.369
.611
.498
.502
.340
,287
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
   MEAN
   STANDARD DEV.
   C.V.%
        0.240 0.519 0.0
        0.081 0.164 0.0
         33.7  91.6   0.0
CO
2.36
2.56
2.02
2.68
3.61
3.37
2.03
2.70
3.43
1.69
0.59
1.83

2.41
0.86
35.5
2
6.43
3.41
5.20
3.30
6.66
7.26
3.36
6.86
5.95
5.98
3.38
2.23

5.00
1.75
35.0
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(ALL
0.0
0.0
0.
NOX
1.26
1.52
1.39
1.43
1.4tt
1.45
l.6«»
1.71
1.64
1.7b
1.56
l.Stt
G/MI)
1.S3
0.14
0 9.2
2
0.91
0.89
0.94
1.00
0.95
0.67
1.15
.07
.09
.10
.00
.12

1.01
0.10
9.6
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
C02
426.
438.
428.
439.
430.
428.
441.
443.
437.
439.
423.
431.

434.
7.
1.5
2
433.
441.
43b.
434.
439.
501.
440.
433.
437.
438.
425.
441.

441.
19.
4.4
3
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

0.
0.
0.0
FE
20. to
20.0
20.6
20.0
20.3
20.4
19. V
19.8
20.0
20.0
20.9
20.4
l<—
20.2
0.3
1.7
2
19.9
19.8
19.9
20.1
19.6
17.2
19.9
19.9
19.8
19.7
20.6
19.9
(MPG)-
19.7
o.a
4.2
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
— >l
0.0
0.0
0.0

-------
LAB CORRtLATION SUMMARY - TEST DATA
PROCESSED! FEB lit 1981

iABl EPA-METFAC
DATE TESTNO
95-13-80
35-13-80
35-13-80
35-13-80
35-13-80
355-13-80
•35-16-80
05-16-80
35-16-80
>5» 16-80
55-16-80
95-J6-80


MEAN
10101
10102
10103
10104
10105
10106
10201
10202
10203
10204
10205
10206
TYPE
HOT
HOT
MOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HC
0.587
0.531
0.755
0.554
0.462
0.358
0.183
0.186
0.151
0.235
0.1 90
0.158
VEHI NOVA TESTS
CO NOX COH
4.22 1.19 402.
4.24
7.95
5.22
4.31
3.18
0.97
1.25
O.B8
1.82
0.99
0.72
.17 399.
.19 393.
.22 395.
.20 401.
.23 397.
.20 395.
.25 412.
.33 393.
.21 396.
.25 399.
.28 399.
| <- 	 	 (G/MI ) 	 > 1




STANDARD DEV.
C.V.?
OIFF
b
> .*



0.362
.2079
57.3
-5.

2.98 1.23 39B.
2. .267 .045 5.
76.1 3.7 1.3
-21. -3. -9.


FE ORIVE.R
21.6
21.8
21.7
21.9
21.7
22.0
22.3
21.4
22.4
22.2
22.1
22.1
IMPG)

21.9
0.3
1.4
10.
34797
34797
34797
34797
34797
34797
34797
34797
34797
34797
34797
34797






VINI
1X27
OYNO OOOM
D401
1)401
U401
U401
0401
1)401
0401
0401
0401
0401
0401
0401






0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0







IMP CJAHO
9.1 28.66
9.1 28.67
9.1 28.64
V.l 28.65
9.1 28.63
9.1 28.63
9.1 29.24
9.1 29.23
9.1 29.23
9.1 29.24
9.1 29.23
V.I 29.21
(IN-HG)

28.94
0.305
1.1
-0.
INERTIA WTl 3500 ACTUAL HP! 11.2
HUM NXFC D8L HSL TLOSS
51.36 0.90
56.50 0.92
59.72 0.93
58.99 0.93
56.50 0.92
56.50 0.92
45.99 0.88
46.53 0.88
45.16 0.88
43.49 0.87
43.21 0.87
44.05 0.87
(GRAINS l<— (GRAMS)— >l
/LH)
50.67 0.90
6.565 .025
13.0 2.8
1. 0.
             HAG OATA
DATE TESTNO TYPE
35-13-80 10101 HOT
)5- 13-80 10102 HOT
15-13-80 10103 HOT
35-13-80 10104 HOT
15-13-80 10105 HOT
35-13-80 10106 HOT
35-16-80 10201 HOT
35-16-80 10202 HOT
J5-16-80 10203 HOT
iS-16-80 10204 HOT
iS-16-80 10205 HOT
15-16-80 10206 HOT

. MEAN
STANDARD OEV.
C.V.*
, • OIFF. C
DYNO
0401
0401
D4U1
0401
0401
0401
0401
0401
0401
0401
040 1
040 1





SITE
A401
A401
A401
A401
A401
A401
A4U1
A401
AU09
A401
A401
A401





HC
0.430
0.318
0.448
0.365
0.245
0.173
0.166
0.140
0.119
0,175
0.129
0.114

0.235
0.124
52.5
-2.
2
0.732
0.726
1.040
0.728
0.663
0.529
0.199
0.228
0.180
0.290
0.246
0.199

0.480
0.292
60.8
-8.
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0*
CO
2.57
2.71
4.61
3.34
2.35
0.98
0.80
0.89
0.60
1.55
0.36
0.28

1.75
1.36
77.5
-27.
2
5.74
5.65
11.04
6.96
6.11
5.21
1.13
1.5B
1.13
2.07
1.57
1.13

4.11
3.16
77.0
-IB.
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.u
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(ALL
0.0
0.0
0.
0
NOX
1.23
1.32
1.35
1.31
1.29
1.33
1.34
1.42
1.45
1.33
1.39
1.07
G/MI)
1.32
0.10
0 7.4
o -1*.
2
U.93
0.89
0.89
0.96
0.93
0.94
1.08
1.09
1.21
1.10
1.12
1.16

1.02
0.11
11.0
2.
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
C02
412.
411.
407.
403.
403.
411.
400.
407.
405.
405.
406.
405.

406.
4.
0.9
-6.
2
392.
387.
380.
388.
399.
384.
390.
417.
383.
388.
392.
393.

391.
10.
2.5
-11.
3
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

0.
0.
0.0
0.
FE
21.2
21.2
21.3
21.6
21.7
21.4
22.0
21.6
21.8
21.7
21.7
21.8
l<—
21.6
O.J
1.2
7.
2
22.1
22.3
22.2
22.2
21.6
22.6
22.6
21.2
23.1
22.7
22,5
22.5
(MPG) —
22.3
0.5
2.3
13.
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
">l
0.0
OeO
0.0
0*

-------
                                                   LAB CORRELATION SUMMARY
                                                          PROCESSED;  JUL  zz,  i9ao
EPA

MtU-.<
M

12

;nP-HO VIN VC242 INEWTIA WT 22^0
HC CO NOA, C02 FE HA^O HUM

/LH)
MffAN 1.047 12.26 2.99 399. 21.0 29.0'» 49.96
STANDARD DF.V. .0232* 0.350 .06V 2. 0.1 0.0b3 2.7S<»
C.V.* 2.2 2.9 2.3 0.6 0.5 O.la 5. SI

ACTUAL HP 8.8
NxFC DHL HSL
1 f ___ ( f^W AMQ 1
0.89
.010
!.!<•


TLOSS


EPA-METFAC
12     *FAN            l.OOb 11.31 2.29 376.  22.4  29.02   34.01  0.84
       STAWDfi^O DtV.   .olcil 0.3t>» .12M   2.   0.1  0.065   9.113  .030
       C.v.t             l.B   3.2  b.6  0.6   0.4   0.22   26.BO  3.60
       01FF< 6           -4.   -M. -23.  -6.    6.   -0.    -32.   -6.
c.v.x is THE COEFFICIENT 0
                                                                                                                             M
                                                                                                                             O
                                                                                                      O


                                                                                                      O

                                                                                                      H
                                                                                                      W
                                                                                                      w
                                                                                                      H
                                                                                                                                 H
                                                                                                                                 >
                                                                                                                                 O

-------
                                                CO^KtLLATION SUM'-i/vs-y -  TEST DATA
                                                                 MkOCtSSED:  JUL  22.  1980

LAPS EPA
DATE
05-14-80
05-14-80
05-14-80
05-1 4-80
oS-14-^n
05-14-nn
05-19-80
05-19-ttO
05-19-80
OS-19-80
05-19-BO
05-19-80

MEAN

TESVJO
803277
803278
803279
803?*0
8032H1
803282
803283
8032^4
8032h5
80328^>
*032*7
8032HH


STANDARD OK
C.V.
*

rvHE
H'- T
HOf
HOT
HOT
HMT
HOT
rt-ir
H'lT
HOT
H.-U
HOT
ri'H


V.


HC
l.oso
1 .070
.0/0
.OfcO
.060
.090
,0<«0
.030
.040
! .020
1.010
1 .030
I < 	
1 .047
. oi.it
<;.2
v f . H : M
CO
12.M)
12.b()
U.50
l^.SO
12.411
12.30
I2.b'i
It:. 3<>
12. 10
11.70
1 i.tn
11.70
	 (G/-I
12.26
0.35(1
2.^
K-TFACHH-,.
'!'>* CO?
?.H7 390.
2.97 3 VS.
2.90 401.
2,-yj j>*b.
2.92 'lv f .
3.01 402.
3. Ob <*02.
J.03 3 vi.
3.07 397.
2 . Vo 400 .
3.06 Jvrt.
T.05 401.
D—.-_>,

-OoV 2.
2.3 0.*>
'
t'
21
21
2D
21
21
20
20
21
21
21
21
21
(M
21
.)
i)

E 1
.0
.2
.9
.2
.1
. <•)
.4
.1
.1
.0
. 1
.0
KG
.0
. 1
.S

>*IVt*
34797
347*7
34 7*7
3 4 7 ^ 7
347V/
347V7
347 v 7
34 7 v"7
34 797
34797
347*7
3 4 7 •* 7




V 1 rj :
Or-iu (
UUOb
UOOo
OOOb
TJOb"
UOL'b
OOOb
'JO lib
OOOb
OOOb'
DUOb
U005
L>00b




VC242
Jt.'OM
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.n
0 .0




INt'WTlA WT! 22bO ACTUAL HP: ft. 8
MP
to. 7
6.7
6.7
6.7
0.7
O. 7
6.7
6. f
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7




**UO
29.03
2V. 03
29.04
29.04
2^.04
29.H4
29.0 '•
29.'i<*
29.04
29.04
2V. 04
2V. 04
lh-Hb)
29.04
O.ObJ
0.2
HUM
43.43
S3.05
51 .62
51.62
4«.62
49.99
4f;.78
50.2*
b?.46
4H.94
50.26
52.45
(GKAlNS
49.96
2.7b4
S.5
NXFC UBL HSL TLOSb
0.87
0.91
0.90
0.90 :
0.89
O.H9
0.83
0.90
0.90
C.89
0.90
0.90
1 < 	 (GWAMS) 	 >l
0.89
.010
1.1
                                                             DATA
DATE   TESTNO TYPP UtS'O SITE  HC
05-14-80
05-14-80
05-14-80
05-14-80
05-14-80
05-19-80
Ob-l9-8n
05-19-80
05-19-80
05-19-80
05-19-80
803277
803278
803279
803280
803?hl
803282
803283
803284
803265
803286
803287
803288
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
0005
&005
UOOb
0005
U-JOS
[JO 05
OOOb
0005
Oooa
OOOb
OOOb
D005
A003
AOOJ
A003
A003
A003
A003
A003
AU03
A003
A003
A003
A003
1.112
1.133
1.110
1.137
1.146
.121
.094
.110
.ns
.097
.111
0
1
1
0
l
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
t
•
.'
»
%
t
.
.
.
.
009
033
S>9«
031
95rf
9nO
9ba
942
936
94O
U
0
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CO
11.81
12. 1^
1 .9<4
06
b7
H 7
82
14
93

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
(ALL
DOX
3
u
n
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
G/MI
97
10
03
00
06
21
24
20
2B
16
22
22
)
2
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.

65
*6
85
til
H7
90
96
96
95
89
98
97

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0

                                                    C02
                                                                                 386.
                                                                                 3H2.
                                                                                 3H6.
                                                                                 382.
                                                                                 3H9.
                                                                                 3*6.
                                                                                 384.
                                                                                 3H2.
                                                                                 388.
                                                                                 3*5.
                                                                                 386.
                                                         •.11.
                                                         407.
                                                         414.
                                                         409.
                                                         410.
                                                         415.
                                                         416.
                                                         412.
                                                         410.
                                                         412.
                                                         410.
                                                         416.
   MEAN
   STANDARD OEV.
   C.V.%
1.119 0.983 0.0    11.bl  12.bb
0.017 0.033 0.0     0.2b   0.4*
  l.S   3.4   0.0    2.2    3.»
0.0  4.15 1.91 0.0  385. 412.
0.0  0.10 0.05 0.0    2.   3.
 0.0  2.3  2.7  0.0  0.6  0.7
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

0.
0.
0.0
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
1 <
21
0
0
.7
.9
.7
.9
. V
.6
.7
* 9
.9
.7
.M
.6
20,
20,
20,
20,
20,
20,
20,
20.
20,
20,
20,
20,
.4
.6
.3
,5
,b
.3
,2
.4
.5
.5
.5
.3
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0.
— 
-------
                                                CO~*L'LAT10N SUMMARY - TEST OATA
                                                                                       PKOCESSfcO: JUL 22.  1980

LAB: EPA-METFAC
DATE
05-15-80
05-15-HO
05-15-80
05-15-80
05-15-H'l
Ob-15-HO
05-20-MO
05-PO-rlO
Ob-20-80
05-?0-an
05-20-10
05-20-80


MEAN
TESTfiO
20 01
2d 02
20 03
20 04
20 OS
20 06
2020 I
20202
20203
20204
20?05
202u6



T VPF.
HIlT
MrlT
HllT
nor
r-MI
rtri f
i-ifiT
M'lT
nni
HIT
HOT
M'lT



STANDARD DFV.
C.V.
OIFF
•i
. *


vt.H: MFTFACHP-MH VIN: VC242
HC CO 'IOX
0.9Hb II.
I .OQV I I .
(l.9'yb II.
0.97M II.
I . 0 i"i n II.
(I.V^T I I .
O.-yVJ U.
I .000 I U.
I . (if.'s 1 1) .
I .0) 1 10.
1 .02b 1 1.
1 .03* 10.


1.006 11.
. 0 1 * 1 0.3
I .a 3
-4.
63 2.29
79 2.4J
67 2.40
63 V 2.'>4
bb 2.46
11 2.12
v't 2.1o
91 2.15
H 9 2.20
06 2.20
^b 2.21
r / f • T i

31 2.29
SH .12b
.2 5.6
8. -23.
CU2 Kt ()>•
J74. ^2.4
377. 22.3 1
if*. 22.4 :
372. 22.5 ;
376. 22.3 .
.179. cV.2
373. 22. b .
376. .±2.4 I
.179. 22.3 1
.i7b. ^2.5 :
37o. 22.4 :
3/6. 22.4 ;
1 t t^-jf \

3/6. 22.4
2. 0. 1
0.6 0.4
-6. 6.
<1VE» OYfJO 0')OM
J4797 U401 0.
14 7*7 (140 1 0 .
i"*/97 !J401 0.
J47v7 !.)4()1 0.
)<4 7v7 u<»0 1 . 0.
J47V7 1)4?) 1 0.
i47v7 i)4i) 1 0 .
i47*7 !>4'Jl 0.
»4/97 U401 0.
j<4 y-yy o«*oi 0.
l^ZV? 0401 0.
t.797 0401 0.







0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0






IMP
7.5
7.5
Y.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5






,APO
29.09
29.08
29.08
29.08
29. OH
29. OH
26.97
2H.V7
28.95
28 • 46
?8.9:>
i?«.9<»
/ T fj_M(^ \
\ 1 1 J rt vj /
29.02
0.065
0.2
-0.
INERTIA WT: 2250 ACTUAL HP: 8.8
HUM
44.60
42.36
40.94
41.51
<*3.21
43.49
2b.09
25.90
25.90
25.09
25.25
24.77
i C t/ A T M^
/LH)
34.01
9.113
26.8
-32.
NXFC DriL HSL TLOSS
0.88
0.87
0.86
0.86
0.87
0.87
0.61
O.HI
0.81
0.81
0.81
O.bl
1 £•_•  1
1 ^— — — IVJ.TiAdJ/ ^^^^ 1
0.84
.030
3.6
-6.
                                                         fclAfi DATA
DATE
TESTMO
                   OVNO SITt
05-15-80
05-15-80
05-15-80
05-15-80
05-15-HP
05-15-80
05-20-80
05-20-80
05-20-80
05-20-80
05-20-80
05-20-80
20101
20102
20103
20104
20105
20106
20201
20202
20203
20204
20205
20206
HOT
nor
HOT
HOT
MOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT
it
0401
0*1) 1
0401
0401
04 01
04jJ 1
r;«»o i
0401
O'tO 1
0^01
0401
e«*0
AnO
A<«0
/v<*0
A40
A<*0
A40
AtO
A-tO
AtO
A40
A40
I



[







.051
.053
.Ob3
.034
.O^rt
.07^.
.0"*"!
.042
.009
.Obb
.051
.07-3
0*924
0*967
0*9t»O
0.-927
0.971
0«923
0.-9>*7
0 < 9 6 1
0.9-)4
0*986
1.001
1 .003
0 .0
0.0
0 . U
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
C
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
lo
10
10
10
0
.3*
.35
.31
.25
.2b
.M
.b7
.65
.73
.70
.70
.63

11
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
1 1
11
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

89'
20
01
98
90
90
62
20
07
07
Jtt
23

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.u
.u
.0
.0
N(
3.
3.
3.
3.
3,
3.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
)X
.23
,44
.40
.46
.43
.23
.98
,09
.03
.07
.Oo
,11
2
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1
43
50
47
44
52
bO
33
34
34
39
41
38
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
                                                           (ALL G/MI
                                                    C02
                                                                                 366.
                                                                                 369.
                                                                                 368.
                                                                                 368.
                                                                                 368.
                                                                                 371.
                                                                                 365.
                                                                                 366.
                                                                                 366.
                                                                                 367.
                                                                                 367.
                                                                                 368.
                                                                               382.
                                                                               384.
                                                                               382.
                                                                               376.
                                                                               384.
                                                                               3S5.
                                                                               3aO.
                                                                               384.
                                                                               391.
                                                                               382.
                                                                               384.
                                                                               383.
   MEAN
   STANDARD OEV.
   C.V.%
   DIPF. *,
1.0b4 0*962 0.0   10.97 H.o2
0.013 0*029 O.o    0.33  0.41
  1.3   3.0   0.0   3.0   3.5
  -o.   -2.    0.   -7.   -8.
                                                      0.0  3.21  1.42  0.0   367.  383.
                                                      0.0  0.18  0.07  0.0     2.    3.
                                                      0.0   5.6   4.7   0.0   0.4   0.9
                                                        0. -23.  -26.    0.   -5.   -7.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
22.
22.
22.
22.
22.
22.
22.
22.
22.
22.
22.
22.
e
7
7
7
7
e>
9
9
9
V
V
y
22.
21.
22.
22.
21.
21.
22.
21.
21.
22.
22.
22.
0
4
0
3
9
8
1
9
6
1
0
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
l<— (K.PG) 	 >
0.
0.
0.0
0.
22.
0.
0.
5

1
5
.
22.
0.
0.
8
0
2
a
.
u.
0.
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
.

-------
C.V.* IS TMF COFFFlCltMT  Oh  VArtI AT If'M. (S To. DtV./HtAN *H>0).
DIFF. * IS  THE  DlFHtKfhNCfc OF  Tnh *iEflNb HE I *(ttN  TMt  MF-< flNO EMA LAB.  
-------
                                                   LAH COMPEL A.T ION  SUMMAHY  - COMMKNTS
                                    -no              VIM



803277     FIRST HOT STAWT-DYUO ->  MUFAC COkWcLATION




803?78     SECO.NP MOT SI A* \ -uY.'JU •»  MKUAC Cu'-'-vtt-AT ION




«03?79     THlkl) HOT STA^T-OfNll S  MtTFoC




8032>JO     FOURTH HOT SlAkT-jyNO S  M^.TFa




803?H1     FIFTH HOT STAMT-DYNU S  MfcTFAC




803?H?     SIXIH HOT STA^T-fiYNO S  MK TFflC




8033H3     2ND  SFT-1ST i-iOT  STftwT-fJrNi) S -..giF/iC COPw




8032H^»     2ND  SfT-2nl) ttul  STA^JT-OYNO S v£TFaC CORM




803785     2ND  SFT-3WO HOT  SI A* I-UY'MO S -tfFaC




803PB6     2ND  Sf. T-4TM HOT  STA^T  -UYNO b '-itTFAC




803287     2ND  SF.T-STM HOT  STA^l-OYNO <=> MtTFaC




803238     2NO  SE f-oTH HOT  STAKT  OfNO 5 v.iiirFaC CoRW
                                                                                       v»T
ACTUAL

-------
                                                   LAH COKHELATJON SUMMARY
                                  PkOCESSEU: NUV
LAB
                     PKE-NOX/KECALC
VIN
                                         INERTIA  WT  22SO
ACTUAL
                                               HC
                       CO   NOX   CO?    KE
                                  HUM   NXKC  DHL   HSL   TLOSS
EPA
                              MEAN
                              STANOAHO  DE.V
                              C.V.%
|<	G/MI	>l (MPO) (IN-HO) (CHAINS
                                    /I X)
1.117 11.73 2.49 391. 21.5 28.92  43.21 0.87
.02UU 0.2b2 .061   1.  0.1 0.0    3.076 .Oil
  1.9   2.1  2.5  0.1  0.3  0.0    7.12 1.27
                                                                                             	(6KAMS)	
EPA-METFAC
,v,tAN
STANDARD OEV.
C.V.%
UiFF. *
1.111 11.93 3.23 397. 21.1 29.01 100.01 1.1S
,02«2 0.3b7 .311   5.  0.6 0.242 22.«»77 .134
  2.5   3.1  9.6  l.J  2.9  O.d3  22.47 «««•
  -0.    2.  30.   1.  -2.   0.   131.  32.
                                                                                                                             N>
                                                                                                                             3
                                                                                                                             PC
                                                                                                                             o
                                                                                                                             H
                                                                                                                                 H
                                                                                                                                 g
C.V.* IS THE COEFFICIENT OF  VARIATION.  (STO.  OEV./MEAN «100).
OIFF.* IS THE DIFFERENCE OF  THE  MEANS BETWEEN THE  MFH AND EPA LABS. (MFR-EPA/EPA «100>.
                                                                               50   H
                                                                                I
                                                                               a   n
                                                                               o
                                                                                                                             n
                                                                                                                             25
                                                                                                                             M
                                                                                                                             O
                                                                                                                             2!

-------
                                                 CORRELATION
                                                                     - resi DATA
  B:  EPA
                                :  PRE-NOX/RECALC
                                   V1N: VC242
WT: 225r>    ACTUAL
                                                     a. a
  OATE   TESTNO   TrPE  HC    CO   NOX  C02   FE DKIVER DYNO  OOOM   IHP  RoR.0   HUM   NXFC  UBL   HSL  TLOSS
J9-30-80  606224
J'9-30-80  806225
i9-30-80  806226
                  MOT
                  HOT
l.UO 12.00 2.44 391. 21.4 347<>7 OUOt  9445.0
1.100 11.70 2.S6 J91. 21.5 347V7 0004  9460.0
1.110 11.50 2.48 390. 21.5 34797 0004  9475.0
X	(O/MI)	>| (M^GJ
        6.9 28.S2  41.65 0.06
        to.9 28.92  46.75 0.«8
        6.9 28.92  41.22 0.86
           (IN-HG) (CHAINS
                     /LH)
     MEAN
     STANDARD DfV.
     C.V.*
                       1.117  11.73  2.49 391.  21.5
                       .0206  0.252  .061   1.   0.1
                         1.9    2.1   2.5  0.1   U.3
                                                   28.92
                                                   U.O
                                                     0.0
                   43.21 U.B7
                   3.076 .Oil
                     7.1  1.3
                                                          RAG DATA
  DftTE   TESTNO TYPE DYNO SITE  Mf.
                                                  CO
                                                                   NOX
                                                           C02
J39-30-80 806224 HOT
Q9-30-BO 806225 HOT
bsi-30-80 806226 HOT
                     U004  AOU2  1.223 1.071  0.0
                     0004  AU02  1.174 1.033  0.0
                     0004  A002  1.143 1.075  0.0
                          11.41 12.58  0.0  3.36 1.59 0.0  370. 410,
                          11.21 12.23  0.0  3.54 1.64 0.0  373. 40B,
                          11.07 11.66  0.0  3.43 1.60 0.0  371. 407.
                                     (ALL G/MI>
                                0. 22.7 20.5  0.0
                                0. 22.b 20.6  0.0
                                0. 22.* 20.7  0.0
                                   I <— (Mpfi) — -> I
     MEAN
     STANDARD
     C.V.*
             DEV,
        1.180 l.OoO 0.0   11.23 12.22
        0.040 0.02J 0.0    0.17  0.36
          3.4   2.2   0.0   1.5   2.9
0.0  3.44 1.61 0.0  371. 408.
0.0  0.0V 0.03 0.0    2.   2.
 0.0  2.6  1.6  0.0  0.4  0.4
   0. 22.6 20.6  0.0
   0.  0.1  0.1  0.0
  0.0  0.<>  0.5  0.0
    C.V.% IS THE COEFFICIENT OF VAHIATION. (STO. OEV.A'.EAN «100>.
    OIFF. * IS THE DIFFERENCE OF THE MtANS BETWEEN THE MFR ANO EPA LAB.  (MFH-EPA/EPA «UOO).
    NOTE: THE COMMENTS PEKTINENT TO THESE TESTS ARE LOCATED IN THE LAST  TABLE OF THIS APPENDIX.

-------
                                         LA* CORRELATION SUMMARY - TLST DATA
PKOf.EbStO: NUV £*, 1980
f_ _ 	
LAB: EPA-METFAC

DATE TESTNO

9-26-80 20301
9-26-80 20302
! 9-26-ttO 20303
lltt-02-80 20401
lffi-02-80 20402
lffl-02-80 20403

MEAN
STANDARD DEV
C.V.*
OIFF. %
VEH: PHE-NOX/RECALC

TYPE

HOT
H<">T
HOT
HOT
HOT
HOT


•



HC

1.164
1.096
1.107
1.119
1.095
1.086

1.111
.0282
2.5
-0.

CO

12.36
12.22
12.09
11.91
11.55

NOX

2.89
2.92
3.33
3.25
3.28
11.44 3.74

11.93
0.367
3.1
2.
3.23
.311
9.6
30.

C02

400.
403.
400.
392.
391.
J93.

397.
5.
1.3
1.

FE 0

20.0
20.9
21.1
21.5
21.6
21.5
1 MOfc \
\ Mro )
21.1
0.6
2.9
-2.

WIVE^

34797
34797
34797
34797
34797
34797





VIN

DYNO

0401
D401
0401
0401
0401
0401





: VC242

ODOM

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0





INtMlA WT: 225i) ACTUAL HHI 8.8

IHP

7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0






6ARO

29.23
29.23
29. 2J
28.78
28.79
28.79

29.01
0.242
0.8
0.

HUM

74.57
70.66
109.50
107.84
109.72
127.79
t C^ fJ A T W^
\ O " M 1 
0.
0.
0.0
0.
22.
0.
1.
-2
J
<*
6
•
20
0
1
-
.3
.3
.<*
1.
0.
0.
0.
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
.
C.V.% IS THE COEFFICIENT OF VArtlATlON. (STO. DEV./.lEAN «100).
OIFF. % IS THE OlFKErfENCt OF THE MEANS BETWEEN THE MFK  ANO EPA LAB.  (MFH-EPA/EPA  «100).
NOTE! THE COMMENTS PERTINENT TO THESE  TESTS ARE LOCATED IN THE LAST  TABLE OF THIS APPENDIX.

-------
                                                UAH  CORRELATION SUMMARY  -  COMMENTS
                          PKt-NOX/HECALC
                                            VIN
                                    INERTIA *T 22bO
                    ACTUAt  .-M  H.fl
B06224

«0t>225

806226

METFAC
METFAC
METFAC
METFAC
ht'TFAC
METFAC
COHHELATION USING VOLVO KEPCA
CORRELATION USING VOLVO fcEPCA
COKKELATION USING VOLVO HEPCA
COrtHtLATION USING VOLVO PtPCA —  TEST
COrtKELATION USING VOLVO HEPCA
COKXELATION USING VOLVO WEPCA
- TEST »lt FIRST SET
- TEST »2. FIRST SET
- TEST *3. FIRST SET
       «1.SECUNO SET
- TEST «<2tSECOND SET
 TEST K3.SECONO SET
020301
020302
020303
Or-0401
020402
020<»03

-------
LAB
                                                              I I UN
                                                                                           NOV 24, 1980
                     PrtE-NOX/HECALC
                       VIN VC2*2
                                                                      INERTIA *T 22*0
ACTUAL
                                                      H.M
                        HC
            NOA  CO?   FE  bflWO   MUM   NAfC  DHL   MSL   TLOSS
EPA
                             MEAN
                             STANDARD OEV.
                             C.V.%
                                                                        (IN-HG)
1.182 11.28 3.43 370. 22.7 23. V-?
.0293 0.211 .061   2.  0.1 O.OJA
  2.&   1.9  1.8  0.5  0.3  0.12
                                                         *l.l)3 O.b6
                                                         3.147 .011
                                                           /.t>7 1.29
EPft-METFAC
12     MEAN            1.147 11.43 4.9i) 376. 22.3 29.01 112.58 1.23
       STANDARD OEV.   .0497 0.25d .614   4.  0.3 0.234 21.905 .1*6
       C.V.%             4.3   2.3 12.5  1.2  1.2  O.e»3  19.46 ««««
       DIFF. %           -3.    1.  43.   2.  -2.   0.   174.  43.
c.v.» is THE COEFFICIENT OF VAWIATION.  .
UIFF.16 IS THE OIFKERENCE OF THE MEANS BETWEEN  THE MFH ANfi  EPA  LABS.  (MFH-EPA/EPA  «100).
                                                                                                                             N3
                                                                                                                             CO
                                                                                                                             w
                                                                                                                             H
                                                                                                                             PS
                                                                                                                             o
                                                                                                                             H
                                                                                                                              o
                                                                                                                              £
                                                                                                                              o
                                                                                                                              £
                                                                                                                              M

                                                                                                                              §

-------
                                             LAB COKkELATlON SUMMARY -  TEST DATA
                                                                        PhOCEaSEO: NOV 2<», 19HO
LAB: EPA
      VEH:  PHE-NOA/HECALC
VINJ VC242
INERTIA  WT:  2250
ACTUAL
6.8
  OiTE   TtSTNO   TYPE  HC
       CO   NOX  CO?.   FE OHIVEH UYNO  DOOM
           IMP  RARO
                                                          HUM
    UXFC  OBL   HSL  TLOSS
09-30-60
09-3U-80
09-30-60
09-30-60
09-30-80
09-30-80
806224-]
806225-i
606226-1
606227-]
606226-1
606229-1
I BHH
I BM*
I BBb
I fan*
1 bBH
1 BRB
1.223
1.174
1.143
1.161
1.186
1.200
i <-__.
11.41
11.21
11.07
11.19
11.14
11.64
.— — (r. /i.
3.36
J.54
3.43
3.43
3.40
3.41
 1
22.7
22.5
22.6
22.7
22.7
22.6
(MPr.i
34797
34797
347S>7
347*7
34797
34797
OOUH
0004
0004
U004
0004
0004
9445.0
9U60.0
9475.0
9490.0
9500.0
9510.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
i
28.92
?8.92
28.92
28.92
28.92
28.92
I TM-Ht;i
41.65
46.75
41.22
39.96
37.89
36. 11
ir-un IN<
O.B6
0.88
0.86
0.86
U.85
0.85
; I ^ _-_ (r.w/.M^l ---> 1
                                                                                    /LH)
     MEAN
     STANDARD DEV.
     C.V.%
1.1B2 11.^8 3.43 370. 22.7
.0293 0.211 .061   2.  0.1
  2.S   1.9  l.tt  O.S  0.5
                28.92  41.03 0.86
                0.034  3.147 .011
                  0.1    7.7  1.3

-------
LAB COHHSLATIUN SUMMAPY - TEST DA
                                                                                                    : MOV 2<.t

.Ao: EPA-METFAC
DATE
9-26-60
9-26-80
.9-26-80
;9-26-bO
;9-2o-80
-9-4!6-80
ilU-62-80
,40-02-80
J10-02-60
30-02-80
UO-02-BO
80^02-bO
TESTNO
20301-1
20302-1
20303-1
20304-1
20305-1
20306-1
20401-1
20402-1
20403-1
20404-1
20405-1
20406-1
TYPE
b*H
BRrt
t)HH
BHfl
BR9
bHH
BHM
BB-i
BOri
b«H
BBH
B«B
HC
1.28U
1.1H4
1.186
1.102
1.106
1.109
1.124
1.124
1.129
1.138
1.140
1.13/
VtH : f
CO
11.85
11.69
11.58
11.57
11.42
11.76
11.42
11.18
11.11
11.17
11.14
11.26

NOX
4.10
4.19
4.16
6.10
4.87
4.84
4.61
4.57
5.36
5.41
5.38
5.23

C02
383.
364.
378.
3/7.
375.
371.
371.
370.
377.
378.
374.
375.
|< 	 (0/MI) 	 >|







;ALC

FE ORIVER
21.9
21.8
22.2
22.2
22.4
22.6
22.6
22.7
22.3
22.2
22.4
22.4
(MPG)

34797
34797
34797
34797
34797
34/97
34797
34797
34797
34797
34797
34797


v IN:
VC242
o*uo ono'i
0401
0401
0401
0401
0401
0401
0<«01
0401
0401
0401
0401
0401


0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0



IhP
7.0
7.0
7.0
/.O
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.U
7.0
/.O
7.0



HAttO
29.23
29.23
29. P3
29. 23
29.23
29.23
23.78
28.79
26.79
28. 78
26.79
28.79
(IN-MG)

iNtkTiA WT: 225u ACTUAL HP: 8. a
HUM NXFC DBL HSL TLOSS
74.57 1.00
70.66 0.98
109.^0 1.19
145. 6<* 1.50
110.76 1.20
110.76 1.20
107.84 1.18
109.72 1.19
127.79 1.J3
127.91 1.33
127.91 1.33
127.91 1.33
(GHAlNS |<— (GPAMS)— >|
/Ld)
MEAN              1.14/ 11.43 4.90 376. 22.3
bTABOARD OEV.     .0497 0.258 .614   4.  0.3
C.V.*               ^.J   2.3 12.5  1.2  1.2
IHFF. %             -3.    1.  43.   2.  -2.
                             29.01  112.58  1.^3
                             0.239  21.905  .146
                               0.8    19.5  11.9
                               0.    174.   <»3.

-------
CORRELATION SUMMARY  -  COMUt -/Tb

PKL-NOX/RECALC VIN VC242
806224
B06.225
806226
806227 METFAC HC-V8.5 NOX-62.7 CO-447.0 C02-9944.6 »2. FIwST SET
METFAC COWWELATION USING VOLVO *EPCA — TEST #3. FI(?ST SET
METFAC COWkELATION USIUG VOLVO KrEPCA — TEST f*^. FIRST SET
METFAC CORRELATION USING VOLVO HEPCA — TEST it's, FI^ST SET .
METFAC CORRELATION USING VOLVO KEPCA — TESTobt FIPST SET
METFAC CORRELATION USING VOLVO fEPCA — TEST »1. SECOND SET
METFAC CORRELATION USING VOLVO REPCA — TEST <»2. SECOND SET
METFAC CORRELATION USING VOLVO REPCA — TEST «3. SECOND SET
METFAC CORRELATION USINo VOLVO REPCA — TEST »»<•• SECOND SET
METFAC CORRELATION USING VOLVO XEPCA — TEST OS. SECOND SET
METFAC CORRELATION USING VOLVO PEPCA — TEST Wb.SECONO SET
BAG CROSS-CHECK ON A002 MC=151.B3 PPM, CO=S76.5 PPM
NOX=119.77 PPM, C02=1.217 *

INERTIA *T 2250 ACTUAL HP a.a






020301
020302
020303
02030^
020305
02030IS
020^01
020^02
020403
020404
020405
020406
020406
020406

-------
                                                    LAd CORRELATION SUMMARY
                                                          PROCESSED:  OCT IN i960
LAR
EPA

Mc.TFAC(>l-rtO
N
3
Mr. AN
STAMOAKO DEV.
c.v.%
VIN VC2<»2 INEHTIA
hC CO NOX C02 FE 8A>«0

1.117 11.73 2.49 391. 21. b 28.92
.020.4 0.2b2 .Obi 1. U.I 0.0
1.9 2.1 2.b 0.1 0.3 0.0
WT 22bO ACTUAL
HUM NXFC UbL
) (GHAINS l< —
XLH)
43.21 O.b7
3.076 .011
7.12 1.27
riP 8.8
HSL TLOSS
-(GHAMS)— >l
EPA-METFAC
b     HtAN             1.111 11.93  2.S7  397. 21.1 29.01  $!.«<»  0.90
      STANDARD  UEV.   ,u2tJ2 0.3b7  .Ob'*    b.  O.b 0.2*»2 11.^28  .O^**

      C.V.%              2.3   3.1  2.b   1.3  2.9  O.a3  22.04  4.H6
      L>1FK«  *            -0.    2.    3*    1.  -2.   0.    20.    ««.
N)
O
O-
C.V.* IS ThE  COEFUCIENT OF  VAr,IATIOU. (STL). OEV./'tEAN  «100).

DIFF.%  IS TrtE OIF^tKt.^lCt. OF  Trlt  MtANb BEFrttEN THt MFr< AND  EPA  LABS. (MFH-EPA/EPA  *100) .
                                                                                                                                §
                                                                                                                                H

                                                                                                                                ?
                                                                                                                                o
                                                                                                                                Crt
                                                                                                                                H


                                                                                                                                §
                                                                                                            H


                                                                                                            O
                                                                                                                                tt
                                                                                                                                M
                                                                                                                                O
                                                                                                                                a

-------
                                              LA" COMPILATION  SUMMARY  - TEST DATA
                                                                                                           :  OCT 17, 1980
LAB: EPA
                                                           VIM: vc<;42
                                                              iNtHTlA wT: 2250    ACTUAL  HJ>1   B.8
  0«TE   TtSTNO   TvPE  riC     LO    NOX   CO<->   Ft UrUVcrt DYNO  Ui)OM
                                                                            bflHO   HUM   NXFC   OBL    *bL  TUOSS
09-:iO-80 806224
09-30-dO 80622b
09-30-80 806226
                  HOT
1.140 12.00 2.4<»  3*1. ^1.4
1.100 11. 10 2.56  3V1. rfl.S
1.11U 11.bo 2.4b  390. 21.b
!<---	(0/Ml)--	>l (M^U)
                                                         DOO
                                  6.9 2J.92  46.75 O.bH
                                  0.9 2H.S/2  ^1.22 0.06
                                     (lu-nfi) (OxA INS
                                               /Lri)
     MEAN  .
     STANDARD OEV.
     C.V.%
l.ll/ 11.73 2.^Si
      0.2h? .Ohl
        2.1  2.5
                                         jvl.  21. b
                                           1.   0.1
                                          0.1   0.3
                                      2H.92  43.21 0.87
                                      0.0    3.076 .011
                                        0.0    7.1   1.3
                                                               DATA
  DATE   TESTNO TYf'F OTNU biT£
                                                   CO
                                                                    NO.T
                                                                                    C02
                                                                             FE
09-30-00 80622^ HOf
09-30-bO 80622b HOT
09-30-BO 80622b MOT
                          A002
                     UUU<« AU02
                     U(J(J<+ AU02
1.071 0.0   11.41  12.5a   0.0   3.36 1.59 0.0  370. 410,
1«OJ3 0.0   11.21  12.23   0.0   3.54 1.64 0.0  3/3. 408,
l«0/b 0.0   11.07  11.do   0.0   3.43 1.60 0.0  371. 407,
                        (ALL G/Ml)
                                                                         0.  22.7 20.5  0.0
                                                                         0.  22.b 20.6  0.0
                                                                         0.  22.6 20.7  0.0
     MtAN
     STANDARD OEV.
     C.V.*
                               l.loo  1<()60  0.0    11.23 12.22
                               0.040  0.023  0.0     O.I/  0.36
                                 3.4   2.2    0.0    l.b   2.v
                                        0.0  3.44 1.61 0.0  371. 40«i
                                        0.0  0.0^ 0.03 0.0    2.    2.
                                         0.0  2.6  1.6  0.0  0.4   0.4
                                                           0.  22.6 20.6  0.0
                                                           0.   0.1  0.1  0.0
                                                         0.0   0,t  0.5  0.0
    C.V.% IS THE COEFFICIENT 0^ VARIATION.(STU.  OEtf./KE«N »100).
    CUFF. * IS THE DlFffcHtNCE UK THt  MttNS  hEf»£EN THt MFr( ANU EPA LAB.  (MFR-EHA/EHA «100).
    NOTE: THE COMMENTS HErUlNENT TO THESE TESTS  Ahf£ LOCATED IN THE LAST  TAtlLE  OF THIS APPENDIX.

-------


LAb: EPA-wETKAC
DflTE TESTf^O
9-26-bO 20301
9-26-bO 20302
9-^o-bO 20303
10-02-HO 20401
10-02-bO 20402
10-02-00 20403










LAb

Vtn: METFACGl-oO
TYPE
hoT
rliH
HO T
HOT
HOT
HOT
riC
I .164
1 .096
1 . H>/
1.119
1 .O^b
1 .UHb
CO
12.36
12.22
1^.09
11.91
1 1.55
1 1 .44
NOX
2.46
2.bJ
2.f>0
2.e>3
2.t>l
2.59
|< 	 (f,/Mj ) 	

MEAN
STANDARD OEV
C . V . '*
D1FF. *,


•



1.111
.l)2«*
2.3
-0.

11.93
U.Jo/
3.1
2.

2.57
.Ob4
2.5
3«
CO2
4UO.
140 J.
400.
392.
391.
393.
	 > 1

397.
5.
1.3
1.
FE
^0.
20.
21.
21.
£\ .
21.
40 1
5 34797 L>4ul
i>)

1
6
9
•

VC242
JI>OM IMP
0.0 7.0
0.0 1.0
0.0 7.0
0.0 7.0
0.0 7.0
o.o r.o








P*OCEbSED: OCT 17. 1980

INEKTIA WT: 2250 ACTUAL MPI 8.8
HflP.0
29.23
29.23
29.23
2M.78
2W.79
26.79
{ IN-MG)

29.01
0.242
0.0
0.
HUM
3H.01
41.99
46.01
66.00
b2.00
57.03
((ihfi INS
/La)
51.84
1 1 .42f)
22.0
20.
NXFC DHL MbL TLOSS
0.85
0.67
0.08
0.96
0.94
0.92
, 1 <---(G^AMi>)---> 1

0.90
.044
4.9
4.
                                                        BAG DATA
OATE   TESTNO TYPE DYNU SITE  nC
9-26-80
9-26-80
9-26-00
10-02-80
10-02-bO
10-02-eO
20301
20302
20303
20401
20402
20403
HOT
HOT
rluT
MOT
MOT
nOT
04 ul
D40J
D401
0401
i>4(Ji
U401
A401
A4U1
ft-»U 1
AH01
A401
A-*U1
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
.280
. Ia4
.106
. 1*4
.124
.129
1
1
1
1
1
1
«05b
.015
^034
« 1 13
.069
.04/
0
0
0
0
0
U
•
»
•
•
•
•
0
0
U
0
0
0
co
11. M3
11. b9
11. Sri
11.42
11.10
11.11
2
12.
12.
12.
12.
11.
11.

H3
70
5b
31
09
74

0
0
0
0
U
0
3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
OX
.49
.63
.65
.73
.60
.71

1
1
1
1
1
1
2
.51
.52
.63
.b2
.64
.57
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
C02
3«3.
3M4.
J/b.
371.
370.
377.
2
417.
420.
421.
412.
411.
407.
                                                           (ALL G/MI)
                                                                   FE
                                                               0. 21.9 20.2  0.0
                                                               0. 21.8 20.0  0.0
                                                               0. 22.2 20.0  0.0
                                                               0. 22.0 20.4  0.0
                                                               0. 22.7 20.5  0.0
                                                               0. 22.3 20.7  0.0
                                                                  K--(MPG)	>l
   MEAN
   STANDARD OEV.
   C.V.%
   OIFF. *,
1.171 1.0^0 0.0   11.47 12.35
0.061 0.034 0.0    0.29  0.44
  5.2   3.3   0.0   2.5   J.b
  -1.   -0.    0.    2.    1.
0.0  3.64 1.58 0.0  377. 415.
0.0  O.Ob 0.06 0.0    b.   6.
 0.0  2.3  3.6  0.0  1.5  1.3
  0.   6.  -2.   0.   2.   2.
 0. 22.3 20.3  0.0
 0.  0.4  0.3  0.0
0.0  l.b  1.4  0.0
 0.  -2.  -1.   0*
  C.V.% IS THf COEFFICIENT OK VAKl AT JON. (ST'J. OEV./MEAN «100).
  UIFF. * IS Trit DlFl-tKtNCE UF TMh MtANS HETwtEN THt. MFX ANU EPA LAfa. (MFR-EPA/EPA »100).
  NOTE: THE COMMENTS PtKTiNENT TU THESE TESTS A^E LOCATED IN THE LAST TABLE OF THIS APPENDIX.

-------
                                                  LAH  CORRELATION SUMMARY - COMMENTS
                                                    VIN
                                                                             IHE'RTIA  *T  2250
                                                                                         ACTUAL
                                8.b
806224

806325

806226

METFAC
METFAC
METFAC
METFAC
Mt.TFAC
METFAC
CORRELATION USING  VOLVO HEPCA — TtST
CORRELATION. USlNlJ  VOLVO HEPCA — TtST
CORRELATION llSIhO  VOLVO KF.PCA — TtST
CORRELATION IISINO  VOLVO REHCA — TtST
CORRELATION ifilwO  VOLVO Rr>CA -- TtST
CORRELATION USlNO  VOLVO REPCA — TEST '
»1. FIRST SET
«2. FI-
-------
                                                   LAb CORRELATION SUMMARY
                                                          PROCESSED:  OCT 17t 1980
LAW
                     MtTFACGl-ttO
                                              ViN
                                                iNtkTIA  WT  22bO    ACTUAL HP  8.8
 HC    CO   NOX  C02   Ft
                                                          HUM   NXFC  UBL   HSL  TLOSS
EPA
                              MtAN
                              STANDARD  OEV.
                              C.V.t
                                                                        (IN-HO) (GRAINS
                                                                     l<	(GRAMS)—->l
      u. to 3.<»3 370.
 02*3 0.211 .061   2.
  2.5   1.9  1.6  0.5
                                               0.1  0.03*  3.147 tGll
                                               O.S   0.12   7.67 1.29
EPA-METFAC
12     MEAN
       STfl.NDAWO DtV.
       C.V.%
       UIFF. %
l.l«»V 11.<»3 3.6S 376. 22.3 29.01  52.76 O.V1
.U<.V7 0.258 .060   <».  0.3 0.?39  8.662 .033
  4.3   2.3  2.2  l.
-------
                                                   COwrftLMIU*. SU«Mtwr - ItSt DATA
                                                                                                  HWOCESStO:  OCT  17. 19«0
LAB: e>A


  OATt   TESTNO
                              VtMl
                                                            VIN:


                                                Ft OKIVtK OVNO  01)0*
                                                                                      INtwTlA Wit ?2bO     ACTUAL HHI  8.8
      nC    CO    ul)X
                                                            HUM   NXFC  DHL    HSL  TLOSS
09-30-ttO
09-30-80
09-30-bO B0fi22f>-
09-3u-eO 80*227-
09-30-tiO B06228-
09-30-80
faHrl

HRrl
end
btio
1.223 11.Ul 3.3b  370.
1.17* 11.21 3.:><»  3/3.  22.S 3*797
1.1<»3 11.07 3.*3  3?1.
l.lhl 11.19 3.*3  37u.
1 .180 11 . l«« 3.*0  3/0.
l.£0o ll.b* 3.'«1  3b7.
I <-.	(1,/Ml)	> I
                                                                                    41.65 0.86
                                                                V^bO.O
                                                          000*
                                                          0004
                                                          0004  9SOO.O
fo.9 2B.92
6.9 28.92
6.9 28.92
           41.22  0.86
           39.96  0.86
6.9 2b.92  37.89  O.iJS
6.9 2H.92  3n.71  O.B5
   ( lN-H(j) (0>'ft INS
             XL")
                                                                                               l<	(r.^flMS)	>l
     Mt.AN
     STANDAWD UFV.
     C.V.*
                        1.1H2 11.2B 3.n3 370.  22.7
                        .U<:9J 0*211 .Obi    2.   0.1
                          2.d   1.9  l.b   O.b   U.S
                                                          2B.93  <*1.03  O.U6
                                                          0.03<>  3.U/  .011
                                                            0.1    7.7   1.3

-------
                                        LAd COSHELAT10N  SUMMARY  -  TEST  DATA
                                                                        PHOCESSEDi OCT 17, 1980

LAB: EPA-METFAC
DATE
9-26-BO
9-26-HO
9-2&-OO
9-20-80
9-20-faO
9-26-80
10-02-an
io-02-ao
10-02-BO
10-02-rtO
10-02-BO
io-02-ao

TESTNO TYPE nC
20301-1 rtHrj
20302-1 BRM
20303-1 0*rt
20304-1' e>Md
2030b-l b*'l
20306-1 b»H
20401-1 bHo
20402-1 bMb
20403-1 b^H
.*0d
. 1M4
.18o
. Ldd
.100
. 109
.124
. 1 2*
. 12-*
20404-1 bHrt 1 . 1 3o
20405- 1 b'lrf 1.140
20406-1 b^rf I.i3/

Vtfi: METFAC&l-WO
CO
U.H5
11.69
11. bH
1 1 .S7
11.42
11.76
1 1 .42
11. 1M
11.11
11.17
11.14
11.26
NOX
3.49
3.t>3
3. ob
3.b2
3.59
3. 6U
3.73
3.66
3.71
3.HU
3. /I
3.6J

C02
303.
3tJ4.
3 78.
377.
3 /b.
371.
371.
3/0.
3/7.
37 H.
3/4.
3/b.

t-t L
21.9
21.8
22.2
<;<;.2
^2.4
22.6
2<:.b
^2. 7
22.3
22.2
22.4
22.4
( M^f,
WIN:
VC242 INEHTIA WT: 2250 ACTUAL HIM B.»
)HIVt« OYNO OOOM IMH BArtO
34797 0401
347-^7 0401
34797 D401
34797 0401
34797 1)401
347v7 O^Ol
34 /v 7 D401
3<« /97 0401
34/97 OtOl
347-* 7 0401
347-y/ 0401
34/97 D401

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
/.O
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0

29.23
29.23
29.23
29.23
29.23
29.23
«?tt.7d
2b. 79
2«.79
28.7rt
2«.79
2h.79
( Tlu-Hfi 1
HUM
38.01
41.99
4O.01
46.03
46.03
bO.Ol
66.00
62.00
b7.03
59.99
5^.99
59.99

NXKC OBL HSL TLOSS
0.85
O.M7
0.88
O.H9
O.r»9
O.M9
0.96
0.94
O.V2
0.93
O.S2
0.93
• 1 < «p^*» | fXDA MS) •«•> 1
                                                                               /Lot
MEAN
STANDARD OEV.
C.V.%
DIFF. *
1.14/ 11.43 3.6I> j/6. 22.3
.U49/ 0.2bH .OBO   4.  0.3
  4.J   2.3  2.2  1.2  1.2
  -3.    1.   7.   2.  -2.
29.01  52.76 0.91
0.239  H.662 .033
  O.d   16.4  3.7
  0.    29.   b.

-------
LAB CORRELATION  SUMMARY  -  COMMENTS

806224
806225
806226
806227
806228
806229
METFAC
METFAC
METFAC
METFAC
METFAC
METFAC
KETFAC
METFAC
METFAC
METFAC
METFAC
METFAC








METFAC HC-98.5
METFAC HC-99.0
METFAC HC-101.3
CORRELATION
CORRELATION
CORRELATION
CORRELATION
CORRELAT ION
CORRELATION
CORRELATION
CORRELATION
CORRELATION
CORRELATION
COKwELATION
CORRELATION
tJAG CROSS-CHECK ON


USING
USING
USINO
USING
USING
USING
USING
UblNG
USINo
USING
USING
USING
A00£


MtTFh



NOA-62
NOA-67

CGl-tfO














V1N



.7 CO-447.0 C02-994<».6
.9 CO-443.0 C02-9897.5
NOK-66.7 CO-466.5
VOLVO
VOLVO
VOLVO
VOLVO
VOLVO
VOLVO
VOLVO
VOLVO
VOLVO
VOLVO
VOLVO
VOLVO
ML' = 1
NOA =
REPCA -
«EPCA -
REPCA -
HtPCA -
KtPLA -
KEPCA -
HEPCA -
KEl-CA -
REPCA —
rtfc^CA -
KtPCA -
NtPCA -
bl.eJ3 P
119.77
- TtST
- TEST
- TtST
- fcST
- TEST
- TtSI
- ItST
- TEST
TEST
- TEST
- ItST
- FtST
PH. Co
C02-9BOH.3
»l
»2
»3
MW
»5
ao.
si
*2
»J.
n't
»3
SO
= 57
PPM, CO2=
» FIwST
« F i*>sr
. FIRST
» FIRST
, FlHST
FIRST
.SECOND
.SECOND
SECONO
.SECOND
.SECOND
.SECOND
3.S PPM
1.217 if,

VC2*2



(PPM)
(PP^-1)

-------
                                                  LA8 CORRELATION SUMMARY
                                                  PROCESSED: OCT 2*, i9so
LAB
                     MtTfACG1-80
                VIM
                        INERTIA WT 2250
ACTUAL HP  «.B
                 HC
       CO   NOX  C02   FE  HARD   HUM   NXFC  OBL   HSL  TLOSS
EPA
                             MEAN
                             STANDARD UEV.
                             C.V.*
                |<	G/MI	>! (MPG) (IN-HG) (GRAINS
                                                    /LH)
                1.117 11.73 2.** 391. 21.b 28.92  43.21 0.67
                .02Ub 0.2^2 .Obi   1.  0.1 0.0    3.076 .011
                  1.9   2.1  2.5  0.1  0.3  0.0    7.12 1.27
                                                                                           I <—-(GHAMS)	>!
EPA-METFAC
MKAN            1.111 11.93 2.57 397. 21.1 29.01  51.84 0.90
STANDARD DEV.   ,02a2 0.3b7 .Obt   5.  0.6 0.2H2 11.^28 .044
C.V.*             2.5   3.1  2.5  l.J  2.9  0.83  22.04 4.06
L)IFr« *           -u.    2.   3.   1.  -2.   0.    20.   4.
                                                                                                                           O
                                                                                                                           H
METFAC-COMPUTER CMEC
MEAN
STANOAkO OEV.
C.V.%
DIFF* %
1.122 12.44 2.51 379. 22.2 29.20  27.76 0.82
.0    0.0   .0     0.  0.0 0.0    0.0   .0
  0.0   0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0    0.0  0.0
   0.    6.   1.  -3.   3.   1.   -36.  -6.
                                                                                                                           8
                                                                                                                               H
                                                                                                                               53
                                                                                                                           H   a
                                                                                                                           O   H
C.V.% IS THE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION.  (bTO. DEV./MEAN «100).
01FF.» IS THE 01FCEKENCE OF THE MbANS bETnEEN THE MFW AND EPA LABS.  (MFH-EPA/EPA MOO).
                                                                                              O
                                                                                              PC

-------
                                             LAH COKWE.LATION SUMMAWY - TEST DATA
                                                                          PROCESSED: UCT 24.
liAb: EPA
        VEH! METFACGl-ftO
                                                          VIN: VC242
                                  INERTIA WT: 2250    ACTUAL HPJ  8.6
  DATE   TESTNO   TYPE  HC    cu   NOX  C02   FE DRIVER DYNO  OOOM   IMP  HARD   HUM   NXFC  OBL   HSL  TUOSS
09-30-ttO 806224   MOT
59-30-BO 806225   HOT
»;9-30-ttO 806226   MOT
  1.140 12.00 2.44 391. 21.4 34797 0004  9445.0
  1.1UU 11.70 2.56 391. 21.5 34797 0004  9460.0
  l.llu 11.50 2.4b 390. 21.5 34797 0004  9475.0
  X	—(G/MI)	>l  (MPb)
                     6.9 28.92  41.65 0.86
                     6.9 28.92  46.75 0.88
                     6.9 28.92  41.22 0.86
                        (IN-HG)(GRAINS     l<	(GRAMS)—->l
                                  /L8)
     MEAN
     STANDARD DEV.
     C.V.%
  l.ll/ 11.73 2.49 391. 21.5
  .0106 0.252 .061    1.  U.I
    1.9   2.1  2.5  0.1  0.3
                         28.92
                         0.0
                           0.0
43.21 0.87
3.076 .011
  7.1  1.3
                                                          HAG DATA
  DATE   TESTNO TYPE OYNO SITE  MC
                             CO
                  NOX
                                                             C02
»9-30-80 806224 MOT
(9-30-ttO 806225 HOT
>9-30-bO 806226 HOT
D004 AU02 1.223 1.071 O.U
0004 AU02 1.174 1«033 O.U
D004 AU02 1.143 1.075 O.U
11.41 12.56  0.0  3.36 1.59 0.0  370. 410.
11.21 12.23  0.0  3.54 1.64 0.0  373. 408.
11.07 11.86  0.0  3.43 1.60 0.0  371. 407.
           (ALL G/MI)
             0. 22.7 20.5  0.0
             0. 22.5 20.6  0.0
             0. 22.6 20.7  0.0
                |<—(MPG)	>|
     MEAN
     STANDARD DEV.
     C.V.*
          1.180 1*O^U O.U   11.2J 12.22
          0.040 0.02J O.U    0.17  O.J6
            3.4   2.
-------
                                             I. Ad
                                                                     - Tt!ST DATA
                                                                        PROCESSED: OCT 24, 1980
_AB:  EPA-METFAC
      VtH:  METFACGl-HO
VIM:  VC242
INERTIA wT:  2250    ACTUAL MPI  8.8
  DATE   TESTNO    TYPE  HC    co   NOX  co?   FE
                                 DlfNO  ODOM   IMP  BARO   MUM   NXKC  D8L   MSL  TLOSS
9-26-80
9-26-80
9-26-80
SO-02-80
ro-02-eo
50-02-80
"
20301
20302
20303
20401
20402
20403

MOT 1.16«»
MOT 1.0*0
MOT
MOT
MOT
MOT

.in/
.11*
.0*3
.080

12.36
12.22
12.09
11.91
11.55
11.44
2.46
2.53
2.60
2.63
2.61
2.59

400.
4U3.
400.
3*2.
3*1.
3*3.

20.0
20.*
21.1
21.5
21.6
21.5
(MPT,
347*7
347*7
347*7
347*7
347*7
347*7

0401
0401
U401
0401
0401
0401

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0

29.23
29.23
29.23
28.78
28.79
28.7*
i rw-Hf,>
38.01
41.99
40.01
66.00
62.00
57.03
ffiwa IN<
0.85
0.87
0.88
0.96
0.94
0.92
; l<..-{r,t?i






kMM-.->l
                                                                                   /LH)
     MEAN
     STANDARD DEV.
     C . V . *
     DIFF. %
1.111 11.93 2.57 3*7. 21.1
.0282 0.367 .064   5.  0.6
  2.S   J.I  2.5  1.3  2.9
  -0*    2.   3«   1.  -2.
                29.01  51.84 0.90
                0.242 11.428 .044
                  0.8   22.0  4.9
                  0.     20.   4.
                                                          BAG DATA
DATE TESTNO
9-26-ttO 20301
9-26-80 20302
9-26-ttO 20303
10-02-80 20401
10-02-80 20402
10-02-80 20403

MEAN
TYPE
MOT
MOT
MOT
MOT
MOT
MOT


DYNO
0401
0401
D401
0401
0401
0401


STANDARD OEV.
C.V.%
' UIFF. *




SITE
AH01
A<«01
A4U1
A<*01
A401
A<*01

]
MC
.280
. 184
. 186
.124
.124
.12*

.171
O.Ool


S.2
-1.
2
l.OSo
1.013
1.034
1.113
1.069
1.047

1
0.
0.
0.0
0.
22.
0.
1.
-2
3
it
6
•
20.
0.
1.
-I
3
3
4
.
0.
0.
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
.
   "C.V.%  IS  TME COEFFlCltNT  OF  VAKIATION.(STO.  DEV./w£AN *100).
    OIFF.  %  IS  TME  DIFFERENCE OF TME  MEANS  BETWEEN TME MFH ANi) EPA LAR.  (MFR-EPA/EMA «100).
   -NOTE:  TME COMMENTS  PtKTiNENT TO TMESE TESTS  AHE LOCATED IN TME LAST  TA&LE OF TMIS APPENDIX.

-------
                                              LAd C-'JKWtLATION SUMMARY - TtSl IJAtA               P^OCtSSKU: OCI 2<».  I9n0


 LAB:  METFAC-COMPUTE» CHEC    VtM: METFACGl-rtO             VIN: VC.J42                INEHTIA «T: 2250    ACTUAL HP!   0.8


I  DATE    TESTNO   TYPE  MC    co   NOX  CD?   Ft owivtw DYNO  OOOM   IMP  b/\*o   HUM   NXFC  ObL   HSL   TLOSS


 10-22-80   20501   HOT  1.122 12.44 2.51 379. 22.2 34797 0401     0.0  7.0 29.20  27.76 0.82
                        |<	(G/rtI)	>| (MHO)                       UN-HG) (GRAINS      l<	(GHAMS)-—>l
                                                                                     /Lfl)



      MEAN              1.122 12.44 2.51 379. 22.2                         29.20  27.76 0.82
      STANDARD OEV.     .0    0.0   .0     0.  0.0                         0.0    0.0   .0
      C.V.%               0.0   0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0                           0.0     0.0  0.0
      DIFF. %              0»    6.   1.  -3.   3.                           1.   -36.  -6.



                                                           BAG DATA


   DATE    TESTNO TYPE OYNO SITE  HC     2     J    CO     2     3   NOX   2    3   C02   2    3    FE   2    3
  0-22-80   20501  HOT   0401 A*01 1.149 1.096 O.U   ll.feb 13.17  0.0  3.b5 1.55 0.0  353. 404.   0. 23.7 20.7  0.0
                                                             ULL G/MI)                           l<—(MP— >l



      MEAN                      1.149 1.096 0.0   11.65 13.17  0.0  3.55 1.55 0.0  353. 404.   0. 23.7 20.7  0.0
      STANDARD OEV.              0.0   0«0   O.U    0.0   0.0   0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0    0.   0.   0.  0.0  0*0  0.0
      C.V.%                       0.0   O.U   0.0   0.0   0.0   0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
      DIFF. %                     -3.    3.    0.    4.    H.    0.   3.  -4.   0.  -5.  -1.   0.   5.   0.   0.



     C.V.% IS THE COEFFiCItNf OF VflKlATIO-M. (STO. OEV./*£AN «100).
     01FF. % IS 7ME  OlFKEHtNCE OF THE MEANS BETWEEN THE MFK AND £?A LAB. (MFR-EPA/CPA «100).
     NOTE: THE COMMENTS PILKTINENT TO Triese TESTS AHE LOCATED IN THE LAST TABLE OF THIS APPENDIX.

-------
                                                    CU**ELATION  SUMM&RY  - COMMENTS
806224

806225

806226

METFAC
METFAC
METFAC
METFAC
METFAC
METFAC
METFAC
                                                   VIN  VC2<»2
CORRELATION USING VOLVO »EPCA — TEST »1, FI^ST SET
CORRELATION USING VOLVO WE^CA — TtST »<». FlKST SET
CORRELATION USING VOLVO WF.^CA — TEST »3. FIRST St T
CORRELATION USING VOLVO wE^CA — TEST «1•SECOND SET
CORRELATION USING VOLVO *EPCA — TEST »2.SECOND SET
CORRELATION USING VOLVO REPCA-- TEST #3,SECOND SET
CORRELATION — COLD START TO VERIFY ON-60ARO COMPUTER
                                                                    INERTIA WT 2250
                    ACTUAL HP  8.8
020301
020302
020303
020401
020402
020403
020501

-------
                                                   LAfl
                                                                   SUMMAWY
                                                                                         : uCi
LAB
                     MtTFACGl-BO
                       VIN VC242
                        IMEKT1A wT 2250
                    ACTUAL HP
                                               MC
                              CO
                                   NOX  C02
FE  BAWO
                                                         MUM
                                        NXt- C  0«L
                                                                            MSL  TLOSS
EPA
                              MKAN
                              STANDARD OEV,
                              C.V.%
                                   l	>l (MPG) (IN-HG)     1.9   l.tt  0.5  0.5   0.12    7.67 1.29
                                                                                             	(GHAMS)	
EPA-METFAC
12     MEAfJ            1.1«.7  11.43 3.b5 376. 22.3 2^.01   52.76  0.91
       STANUAKU UliV.   .0<»y/  0.25« .080   4.  0.3 0.239   «.6b2  .033
       C.V.*             4.3   2.3  2.2   1.2  1.2   O.U3   16.42  3.67
       UIFT. *           -J.     1.   V.   2.  -2.    0.     2V.    i.
METFAC-COMPUTtR CMEC    1
       MtAN
       STANDARD OEV
       C.V.%
       OIFF4 *
1.149 11.bS 3.55 353. 23.7 29.20  27.76 O.t»2
.0    0.0   .0     0.  0.0 0.0    0.0   .0
  0.0   0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0    0.0  0.0
  •3.    3.   A.  >S.   S.   I.   -32.  -5
c.v.% is THE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION.  (STO.  OEV./MEAN «ioo>.
DIFF.% IS THE DIFFEHENCE OF THE  MEANS BETWEEN THt  MFH ANO EHA LABS. (MFR-E^A/EPA «100).
                                                                                                                              O
                                                                                                                              Ul
                                                                                                                              O

                                                                                                                              I
                                                                                                                              H
                                                                                                                              O
                                                                                                                              70
                                                                                                                              X
                                                                                                                              n
                                                                                                                              re
                                                                                                                              w
                                                                                                                              o
                                                                                                                              7*

-------
                                             LArt COKKtLATlON SUMMARY - TEST DATA
                                                                  PHOCESSED:  OCT  24.  1980
LAB: EPA
Vtn:  METFACGl-rtO
                                                     VIN: VC242
  1NEKTIA
                                                                 2250
ACTUAL HP:  8.8
  DATE   TESTNO   TYPE  HC
Co   NO*  co2
                                         Ft UKIVEH OYNO  DOOM
                                        IHP
HUM   NXfC  OBU   HSL  TLOSS
09-30-80
09-30-80
09-30-80
09-30-80
09-30-80
09-30-ttO
B06224-1
806225-1
806226-1
806227-1
806228-1
806229-1
HHH
BRB
BRB
tJf)H
bflrt
BHd
1.223
1 . i /«*
1 . 14J
1.161
1.186
1.206
1 <---.
11.41 3.36
11.21 3.54
11.07 3.43
11.19 3.43
11.14 3.40
11.64 3.41
370.
373.
371.
370.
370.
367.
22.7
22.5
22.6
22.7
22.7
22.8
(MPT, >
34797
34797
34797
347v7
34797
34797
0004
0004
0004
0004
0004
0004
9445.0
9460.0
9475.0
9490.0
9500.0
9510.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
28.92
28.92
28.92
2H.92
28.92
28.92
( tN-HG)
41.65
4b.75
41 .22
39.96
37.89
38.71
 1
MEAN
STANDARD OEV.
C.V.%
                       1.182 11.28 3.43 370. 22.7
                       .029J 0.211 .061   2.  0.1
                         2.3   1.9  1.8  0.5  0.5
                                                                                   /LB)
                                             28.92  41.03 0.86
                                             0.034  3.147 .011
                                               0.1    7.7  1.3

-------
                                            CORRELATION SUMMARY - TEST DATA
                                                                        PKOCESSfcD: (JCT 24. 1980

_AB: EPA-METFAC
DATE
9-26-80
9-26-80
9-26-80
9-26-80
9-26-80
9-26-80
10-02-80
10-02-80
10-02-dO
10-02-80
10-02-80
10-02-UO
TESTNO
20301-
20302-
20303-
20304-
20305-
20306-
20401-1
20402-1
20403-1
20404-1
20405-1
20406-1
TYPE
bHB
bfltt
dPrt
bHB
bRd
bRri
bRd
tmti
b8tt
ttfld
tJRd
bBd
HC
1 .280
1.184
1. 180
1.102
1.100
1.109
1.124
1.124
1.12V
1.13B
1.140
1.137
VtH! METFACG1-80
CO
11. *5
11.69
11.58
11.57
11.42
11.76
1 1 .42
11. la
11.11
11.17
11.14
11.26
NOX
3.49
3.63
3.65
3.62
3.59
3.60
3.73
3.6O
3.71
3.80
3.71
3.63
CO?
3B3.
384.
378.
377.
3/5.
371.
371.
370.
377.
378.
37<*.
375.
1 < — 	 	 (d/Ml ) -— — > |







F£ DRIVER
21.9 34797
21.8 34797
22.2 34797
22.2 34797
22.4 34797
22.6 34797
22. *> 347*7
22.7 347*7
22.3 34797
22.2 34797
*2.4 34797
22.4 34797
(MPG)

VIN: VC242
OYNO
0401
0401
0401
0401
0401
D401
0401
0401
0401
0401
0401
0401


OOOM
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
"

IHP
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0


HARO
29.23
29.23
29.23
29.23
29.23
29.23
28.78
28.79
2B.79
28.78
28.79
28.79
(IN-HG)

INERTIA wTl 2250 ACTUAL HP! 6.6
HUM NXFC
38.01 0.85
41.99 0.87
46.01 0.88
48.03 0.89
48.03 0.89
50.01 0.89
6*. 00 0.96
62.00 0.94
57.03 0.92
59.99 0.93
55.99 0.92
59.99 0.93
(CHAINS
/L8)
DBL HSL TLOSS












|<-.. (GRAMS)— >l

MEAN
STANDARD OEV.
C.V.%
OIFF. ft
1.147 11.43 3.65 376. 22.3
.0497 0.258 .080   4.  0.3
  4.3   2.3  2.2  1.2  1.2
  -3.    1.   7t   2.  -2.
29.01  52.76 0.91
0.239  6.662 .033
  0.8   16.4  3.7
  0.    29.   5.

-------
                                             LAtt  CUWWELA7IUN  SU^MA^Y  -  TtiiT  DATA               HkOCtSSED: UCT 24 t 19dO
LAB: METFAC-COMPUTER CMEC    VtH: METFACG1-HO              VIM:  VC242               INEHTIA »T:  2350    ACTUAL rtP»  8.8


  DATE   TESTNO   TYPE  HC    CO   NOX   C02    f£  D«IVtH  OVNO   DOOM   IHP  BARO   HUM   NXFC  D8L   HSL  TLOSS


10-^2-80  20501-1 B0U  1.14V 11.65 3.5S  353. 23.7 34797  0401      0.0  7.0  29.20  27.76 0.82
                       |<—„	(O/MIJ	>l (MPG)                        (IN-HG) (GRAINS     l<	(GHAMS)"—>l
                                                                                    /LB)



     MEAN              1.14V ll.ftS 3.55  3i>3. 23.7                         29.20  27.76 O.tt2
   . STANDARD DEV.     .0    0.0   .0     0.   0.0                         0.0    0.0   .0
     C.V.S6               0.0   0.0  0.0  0.0   0.0                           0.0    0.0  0.0
     OIFF. «             -3.    3.   4«  -5.    b.                           1.   -32.  -5.

-------
                                                     CO^rVfLATION SUMMAWY - COMMENTS
                          MtTFACGl-HO
                                                   VIN VC2<»2
806224

806225

606226

H06227

806228

606229
          METFAC HC-96.5 NOX-62.7  CO-
                                                       (PPM)
          METFflC HC-99.0 NOA-67.9  CO-443.0 C02-^tJ97.i> (PPM)

          METFAC HC-101.J NUA-66.7 CO-466.S C02-9808.J (PHM)
METFAC CORRELATION
METFAC
METFAC
               ION
       CORRELATION
METFAC CORRELATION
METFAC CORRELATION
MfcTTAC CORRELATION
METFAC CORRELATION
METFAC CORRELATION
M!£TFAC CORRELATION
Mc7.-A.C .CORRELATION
                   USING  VOLVO  RtHCA  — TEST
                   USING  VOLVO  REHCA  — TEST
                   USING  VOLVI)
                   USING  VDuVO
                   USING  VOLVO
                   USING  VOLVO
                   USING  VULVO
                   USING  VOLVO
                   USING  VOLVO
                   USING  VuLVO
           , ^IHST SET
           . F Msr SET
   TEST X3. FIRST SET
   ItSI »4, FI*ST SET
   TEST «b. FI^ST SET
   TtST«o, FIRST SET
           .SECOND SET
           .StCONO SET
                                         TtST
                                         TEST
                                     — TEST «J,bECONU SET
METFAC CORRELATION USING VOLVO
— TtST
— TEST
•SECOND SET
.SECOND SET
METFAC
               ION
                   USING VOLVO  REPCA  — TEST »6.SECOND SET
BAG CROSS-CHECK ON AQO<;    «c=ii>i««»3  PPM,  co=b7t>.s PPM
                           NO*sllV.77 PPM, C02=1.217 t,
METFAC CORRELATION — COLO STAKT  TO VtHIFY ON-BOA^O COMPUTE*
                                                                           INERTIA *T 2250
                                                         ACTUAL HP  8.8
                          020301
                          020302
                          02030J
                                                                          02030S
                          020401
                          020402
020405
020406
020406
020406
020501

-------