&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
------- |