EPA-AA-EOD/TPB-86/2
Technical Report
1986 Transport Canada Correlation Program
November 1985 - Februa'ry 1986
Douglas DeVries
NOTICE
Technical reports do not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or
positions. Their publication or distribution does not constitute any
endorsement of equipment or instrumentation that may have been evaluated.
They are intended to present technical analysis of issues using data which are
currently available. . The purpose in the release of such reports is to
facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of
technical developments which may form the basis for improvements in emissions
measurement.
Testing Programs Branch
Engineering Operations Division
Office of Mobile Sources
Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
Background
This test program was initiated in response to Transport Canada's request
to determine .the degree of correlation in exhaust emissions and fuel
consumption .measurement between Environment Canada, EPA, Ford, GM and two
Chrysler facilities (Chelsea Proving Grounds and Highland Park). In Canada,
testing took place at the Environment Canada Emissions Test Laboratory, a
facility operated by the Ontario Provincial Government in Toronto. The
Canadian Government is adopting U.S. emission levels for the 1988 MY
vehicles. They feel correlating with EPA and manufacturers' laboratories is
critical to establishing the credibility of their test facility.
The Environment Canada facility was recently shut down for approximately
one month. During that time, dynamometers were moved to new pit locations and
gas bottle plumbing was rearranged. It has been their experience that such
changes can have an effect on test results once testing resumes. Their desire
was to collect correlation data at several test facilities. Therefore, the
correlation program included dynamometer tests at Environment Canada's
facility, EPA and manufacturers' laboratories, and gas bottle analysis on
EPA's master bench.
Program Design
The test sequence consisted of one cold start FTP, one HFET and three
coastdowns from 55-45 mph. An LA-4 served as the preconditioning for the
following day of testing. This sequence was to be performed three times at
each laboratory.
The test vehicle was a 1984 Buick Century station wagon calibrated to
Canadian standards. It was equipped with a 2.5 liter engine using throttle
body fuel injection. The emission control system was an open loop type
without a catalytic converter. The vehicle was not equipped to measure drive
wheel torque or volumetric fuel consumption.
The actual testing schedule was:
11/01/85 - 11/22/85* ' Environment Canada D002
11/11/85 - 11/28/85* Environment Canada D001
12/08/.85 - 12/14/85 Chrysler Proving Grounds
12/15/85 - 12/21/85 Chrysler Highland Park
1/05/86 - 1/11/86 Ford
1/12/86 - 1/18/86 EPA
1/19/86 - 1/25/86 GM
2/20/86 - 2/28/86 Environment Canada D002
Environment Canada conducted only two tests on dynamometer D002 to
conclude the program. These were added to the first set because both sets of
data were similar, for a total of five tests on dynamometer D002.
*lnstead of conducting three tests in three days on a particular
dynamometer, Environment Canada used the most recent in-house tests conducted
on the respective dynamometers. Since tests were not conducted daily, the
test dates overlap and several weeks were required to obtain three emission
tests on each dynamometer.
-------
Results
The following tests results and observations were obtained from this
correlation program.
1. Environment Canada measured 11.9% higher FTP HC, 28.9% higher FTP CO
and 6.1% higher FTP C02 on dynamometer D001.
2. Environment Canada measured 9.7% higher FTP HC, 33.6% higher FTP CO;
and 8.4% higher FTP C02 on dynamometer D002.
3. Both Environment Canada dynamometer sites exhibited significant
differences in HFET fuel economy, -6.4% and -8.0%, for D001 and D002,
respectively.
4. The Chrysler Chelsea Proving Grounds facility exhibited fuel economy
differences of -3.7% and -5.2% for the FTP and HFET, respectively.
5. The Chrysler Highland Park laboratory exhibited offsets in FTP and
HFET fuel economy of .-4.1% and -5.5%, respectively.
Discussion
Table 1 is a summary of the FTP and HFET emission and fuel economy data
obtained at EPA and participating laboratories in chronological order.
Due to miscommunication, we conducted two tests with a heat build prior to
the FTP. Since this was not performed at the other participating facilities,
it was decided to conduct two more tests without the heat build so that we
would have comparable results with the other participants. The test results
labeled EPA w/heat build are those tests that were performed with a heat build
prior to the FTP. These tests are not included in the total mean in Table 1.
EPA tests were also conducted on different dynamometers. The tests with the
heat build were conducted on dynamometer D005 and those without the heat build
were conducted on dynamometer D003.
Tables A-l and A-2, in the appendix, are in the standard output format of
the EPA LABCOR computer program which calculates the mean, standard deviation,
coefficient of variation, and the percent difference of sample means. Percent
difference results are based on the mean of the tests in the first row, which
is the grand mean of EPA tests without the heat build.
Only those testing laboratories that exhibited statistically significant
differences, in percent, using a t-test at the 95% confidence levels, are
summarized in Table 2.
The gas bottle analysis is summarized in Table 3.
-------
Table 1
1986 Transport Canada Correlation Program
Emission and Fuel Economy Results
Test Lab N
Envm't Canada 5
D002
Envm't Canada 3
D001
Chrysler 3
Proving Grounds
Chrysler 4
Highland Park
Ford 3
EPA D003 2
GM 3
Total 23
EPA w/Heat 2
Build D005
HC
X
s
X
s
X
s
X
s
X
s
X
s
X
s
X
s
X
s
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
55
05
58
02
44
04
48
04
28
02
41
05
46
01
47
10
45
03
CO
9.
1.
9.
0.
7.
0.
6.
0.
6.
0.
7.
0.
7.
0.
7.
1.
10
0.
-g/m
27
39
37
29
36
36
58
39
29
12
27
96
55
45
88
50
.2
18
r ijr —
NO*
.
. 1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
.37
.10
.27
.11
.28
.05
.26
.07
.32
.05
.24
.01
.27
.03
.30
.08
.37
.03
CO?
377
7.6
369
9.7
361
1.8
364
3.4
355
3.8
348
4.9
351
3.1
363
11.0
349
. 0.7
FE
nrEi
FE
MPG
22
0
22
0
23
0
23
0
24
0
24
0
24
0
23
0
24
0
.4
.4
.8
.6
.5
.1
.4
.2
.1
.3
.4
.4
.1
.2
.4
.8
.1
.1
35.4
1.2
36.6
0.6
36.5
0.2
36.4
0.1
37.7
6.4
38.5
0.4
37.6
0.3
36.7
1.1
37.1
0.4
1192c
-------
Table 2
1986 Transport Canada Correlation Program
Significant Percent Differences*
Test Lab
Envm't Canada
D002
Envm't Canada
D001
Chrysler 3
Proving Grounds
Ford
EPA w/Heat
Build D005
HC CO CO? MPG
+9.7 +33.6 +8.4 -8.4
+11.9 +28.9 +6.1 -6.4
-9.3
+ 40.3
MPG
-8.0
-HFET
Coastdowns
-4.2
-3.1
-3.1
Percent Difference = (MFR - EPA w/o Heat Build) x 100
EPA w/o Heat Build
N = Number of Tests
*Based on 95% Conficdence Level
-------
Table 3
1986 Transport Canada Correlation Program
Gas Bottle Analysis
Gas.
HC
CO
NOV
C02
Cylinder
Number
S11253
S10829
S10130
S10097
S10930
S12647
S12451
S12305
S12616
S12618
Environment
Canada Cone.(ppm)
17.12
43.26
51.21
307.79
1547.59
.1670.65
28.49
70.58
0.523%
1.530%
Master Bench
EPA Cone.(ppm)
17.28
43.70
51.84
310.55
1548.20
1670.10
30.26
71.29
0.516%
1.532%
% Difference
-0.95
-1.00
-1.21
-0.89
-0.04
+0.03
-5.86
-1.00
+ 0.83
-0.14
% Difference = Environment Canada - EPA x 100
EPA
1192c
-------
Emission and Fuel Economy Results - Figures A-l - A-7 of the appendix
present composite results for emissions and fuel economy. These figures are
GM "tri-plots". This method of data presentation shows individual test values
along the vertical leg of each triangle and plots the mean of the data at the
intersection of the other two legs of the triangle. All GM tri-plots display
a plus and minus band around the mean of the two EPA tests without the heat
build. With, the exception of the +_ 3.0 percent bands around the fuel economy
means, the control chart limits on Figures A-l - A-4 and A-7 are somewhat
arbitrary and are based on engineering judgment and historical observations of
actual emissions data.
Several observations can be made by examining these data. Both
Environment Canada dynamometer sites exhibited significant percent differences
in FTP HC, CO and CC>2 and HFET Fuel economy as shown in Table 2. Since this
vehicle complies with Canadian standards, the emission levels to be measured
for this program are much higher then what we normally expect. Because the
absolute levels are high, a 9.7% offset in FTP HC with this vehicle is easier
to prove than differences obtained from a program that uses a vehicle that
meets U.S. emissions standards. The Environment Canada facility was the only
one that showed significant percent differences in more than one constituent.
Both Chrysler facilities exhibited fuel economy offsets of over -3%. Although
Chrysler's Highland Park facility demonstrated offsets of -4.1% and -5.5% for
FTP and HFET, respectively, and Chrysler's Chelsea Proving Grounds facility
exhibited FTP and HFET fuel economy offsets of -3.7% and -5.2%, respectively,
these percent differences are not significant at the 95% confidence level.
These offsets do not coincide with Chrysler's FTP and HFET paired data percent
differences which ranges between +2% to +3% over a longer time period.
EPA's tests with the heat build exhibited a significant difference in FTP
CO of +40%. Some of this difference is due to loading the canister. These
EPA results with the heat build are included in the report because we thought
it would be interesting to show what effect the diurnal has on emission
results. Relative to the EPA tests without the diurnal heat build, these
tests also demonstrated HFET fuel economy offsets of -3.6%. Although the fuel
economy difference is above -3%, it is within the variability we see with the
Volvo REPCA (our cross check vehicle) between these two dynamometer sites.
Gas Analysis - Ten working standards from Environment Canada were analyzed
in the EPA gas standards laboratory. Table 3 summarizes the results of this
analysis. Environment Canada exhibited small negative offsets in 8 out of the
10 gas bottle analyses. Overall, there is good correlation between gas
concentration measurements, with the exception of the low concentration of
NOX (30 ppm).
-------
Summary
The Environment Canada laboratory demonstrated 'statistically significant
offsets in emissions and fuel economy. These offsets could be a result of how
the data were generated because they did not run three consecutive tests.
Instead, they selected the three most recent emission tests with this
vehicle. Also, Environment Canada's offsets may be attributed to calibration
differences resulting from modifications that were done to the laboratory.
The two Chrysler facilities, Highland Park and the Chelsea Proving Grounds,
demonstrated fuel economy offsets .of over -3%. However, they were not
statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Ford and GM
demonstrated reasonable correlation with EPA despite the variability of the
vehicle.
Recommendations for Future Work
1. Future programs can be more effective if the test vehicle is more
repeatable. Also, the vehicle should be equipped with a drive wheel
torque meter and a fuel meter.
2. Better coordination is needed to shorten the time frame of the
program and make the data more relevant.
3. The Environment Canada laboratory should examine their quality
control diagnostics as a first step to investigate the offsets seen
in this program.
-------
H
c
G
H
/
n
l
1.7
ENVIRONHENT OF CANADA CORRELATION "86 FIGURE
BUICK CENTURY S/M UEH.184-086
1.6-
1.5-
1.4-
-"---
1.3-
1.2
EPA EPA/H E/CAN E/CAN CHRYS CHRYS FORD GM/UEL
D893 DBOS .DQ91 DB02 H/PRK CHELS DRBN SITE 4
n«3
-------
ENVIRONMENT OF CANADA CORRELATION
BUICK CENTURY S/H UEH. #84-996
86
FIGURE A-2
15
13-
c
0
G
H
/
n
i
11-
>
7-
._—«J
EPA EPA/H E/CAN E/CAN CHRY3 CHRY8 FORD GN/MEL
D803 DOBS D991 D992 H/PRK CHELS DRBN SITE 4
n»2 n»2 n«3 «»S n«4 u»3 ««3 n»3
-------
N
0
X
G
N
/
n
i
ENVIRONMENT OF CANADA CORRELATION '86 FIGURE A
BUICK CENTURY S/H UEH.§84-986
1.3
1.4-
1.3-
1.2-
1.1-
CPA
JlfiW
EPA EPA/H E/CAN E/CAN CHRYS CHRYS FORD GH/UEL
0883 D889 D88 1 D802 H/PRK CHELS DRBN SITE 4
n«2 n«2 u«3 «»5 «*4 i>«3 n«3 n«3
-------
c
0
2
G
H
/
H
I
390
ENVIRONMENT OF CANADA CORRELATION '86
BUICK CENTURY S/H UEH.184-996
FIGURE A-4
389-
379-
369-
359-
348
EPA EPA/H E/CAN E/CAN CHRYS CHRYS FORD GM/UEL
D893 D995 . D991 D892 H/PRK CHELS DRBN SITE 4
n«2 n«2 ««3 n«5 n*4 T»«3 n«3
-------
p
G
F
T
P
ENVIRONMENT OF CANADA CORRELATION '86 FIGURE A-S
BUICK CENTURY 3/M MEN.184-096
26
25-
24-
23-
22-
21
.&.QEJ1DU
EPft
*[>
*K
EPA
D803
n«2
EPA/H E/CAN E/CAH CHRYS CHRYS FORD GH/UEL
D805 D881 D802 H/PRK CHELS DRBN SITE 4
-------
42
ENUIROHHENT OF CANADA CORRELATION
BUICK CENTURY S/H UEH. 184-096
86
FIGURE A-G
48-
H
M
F
E
H
P
G
38-
36-
JIEfl
J>
34-
32
EPA EPA/H E/CAN E/CAN CHRYS CHRYS FORD GN/MEL
D883 D885 DB91 D80 2 H/PRK CHELS DR8N SITE 4
n«2 u»2 u»3 n«S «*4 n«3 n«3 i>«3
-------
c
0
A
S
T
D
0
H
H
T
I
H
E
S
E
C
18
ENVIRONMENT OF CANADA CORRELATION "86 FIGURE A-?
BUICK CENTURY S/H MEN.•84-886
17.5-
17-
16.5-
16-
15.5
EPA EPA/H E/CAN E/CAH CHRYS CHRY8 FORD GH/UEL
D983 D885 D091 DB82 H/PRK CHELS DRBN SITE 4
n«2 n«2 n«3 n»5 n«4 n«3 ««3 n«3
-------
LAB
TABLE A-l
PRJ: TRANSPORT CANADA CORR. LAB CORRELATION SUMMARY PROCESSED: MAY 20, 1986
TEST PROCEDURE: FTP VIN: 84-006
INERTIA WT: 3250 ACTUAL HP 7.6
CH4
HC CO NOX C02 FE BARO SHUM NXFC CDT DB EVAP/AUXILIARY FIELD OPTION
> | (MPG) (IN-HG) (G/LB)
BAG DATA NOT USED
EPA
EPA W/HEAT BUILD
ENVM'T CAN DOO1
ENVM'T CAN D002
CHRYS CHELSEA-PG
CHRYS HLAND PARK
FORD .
GENERAL MOTORS
MEAN 0.0 1.410 7.27 1.24 348. 24.4 29.20 50.5 0.897 0.0
STD. DEV. 0.0 .0523 0.955 .014 4.9 0.4 0.21 1.53 0.006 0.0
C.V.% 0.0 3.7 13.1 1.1 1.4 1.7 0.73 3.0 0.662 0.0
MEAN 0.042 1.451 10.21 1.37 349. 24.1 29.14 50.2 0.896 0.0
STD. DEV. .0007 .0269 0.184 .028 0.7 0.1 0.311 0.54 0.002 0.0
C.V.% 1.7 1.9 1.8 2.1 0.2 0.3 1.07 1.1 0.231 0.0
DIFF. % 0.0 2.9 40.3 10.5 0.3 -1.4 -0.2 -0.6 -0.1 0.0
MEAN 0.0 1.577 9.37 1.27 369. 22.8 29.89 51.0 0.899 0.0
STD. DEV. 0.0 .0197 0.286 .108 9.7 0.6 0.270 3.00 0.011 0.0
C.V.% 0.0 1.3 3.1 8.5 2.6 2.5 0.90 5.9 1.268 0.0
DIFF.X 0.0 11.9 28.9 2.3 6.1-6.4 2.4 1.0 0.2 0.0
MEAN 0.0 1.547 9.72 1.37 377. 22.4 29.62 53.2 0.907 0.0
.STD. DEV. 0.0 .0529 1.386 .098 7.6 0.4 0.332 4.70 0.018 0.0
C.V.% 0.0 3.4 14.3 7.2 2.0 1.9 1.12 8.8 1.989 0.0
DIFF. % 0.0 9.7 33.6 10.4 8.4 -8.4 1.5 5.3 1.2 0.0
MEAN 0.0 1.442 7.36 1.28 361. 23.5 28.94 50.2 0.896 0.0
STD. DEV. 0.0 .0404 0.356 .049 1.8 0.1 0.026 5.23 0.020 0.0
C.V.% 0.0 2.8 4.8 3.8 0.5 0.4 0.09 10.4 2.232 0.0
DIFF. % 0.0 2.2 1.2 3.5 3.9 -3.7 -0.9 -0.6 -0.1 0.0
MEAN 0.0 1.477 6.58 1.26 364. 23.4 29.48 43.0 O.H71 0.0
STD. DEV. 0.0 .0396 0.399 .070 3.4 0.2 0.148 11.9 0.044 0.0
C.V.% 0.0 2.7 6.1 5.5 0.9 0.8 0.50 27.7 5.046 0.0
DIFF. % 0.0 4.8 -9.5 2.0 4.7 -4.1 1.0-14.8 -2.9 0.0
MEAN 1.249 1.279 6.29 1.32 355. 24.1 29.44 32.6 0.834 0.0
STD. DEV. .0168 .0168 0.122 .045 3.8 0.3 0.122 0.88 0.003 0.0
C.V.% 1.3 1.3 1.9 3.4 1.1 1.1 0.42 2.7 0.338 0.0
DIFF. % 0.0 19.3 -13.6 6.7 2.1 -1.4 0.8-35.4 -7.0 0.0
MEAN 0.0 1.456 7.55 1.27 351. 24.1 28.87 49.1 0.892 0.0
STD. DEV. 0.0 .0097 0.450 .025 3.1 0.2 0.315 0.77 0.003 0.0
C.V.% 0.0 0.7 6.0 2.0 0.9 0.7 1.09 1.6 0.332 0.0
DIFF. % 0.0 3.3 3.7 2.7 1.0 -1.1 -1.1 -2.7 -0.6 0.0
74
0.
0
76
0.
0
2
75
0.
0
1
80
1 .
1
7
75
1 .
2
0
0
0
0
0
74
1 .
1
-1
75
0.
0
0
.8
21
.3
.6
06
. 1
.3
.8
60
.8
.2
.2
19
.5
.2
.0
73
.3
.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
22
.7
.2
.2
29
.4
.4
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
.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
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
0.0
o'.o
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
0.0
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
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
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)
-------
LAB
TARLE A-2
PRJ: TRANSPORT CANADA CORR. LAB CORRELATION SUMMARY PROCESSED: MAY 20, 1986
TEST PROCEDURE: HFET VIN: 84-006
INERTIA WT: 3250 ACTUAL HP 7.6
CH4
HC CO NOX C02 FE BARO SHUM NXFC CDT DB EVAP/AUXILIARY FIELD OPTION
G/MI >| (MPG)(IN-HG)(G/LB)
BAG DATA NOT USED
EPA
MEAN 0.0 0.707 2.13 1.30 225. 38.5 29.21 50.6 0.897 16.90 74.1 0.0
STD. DEV. 0.0 .0148 0.117 .023 2.6 0.4 0.19 1.70 0.007 0.16 0.42 0.0
C.V.% 0.0 2.1 5.5 1.8 1.1 1.1 0.65 3.4 0.730 0.92 0.6 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
EPA W/HEAT BUILD
MEAN 0.0 0.704 2.70 1.40 233. 37.1 29.16 51.6 0.901 16.37 77.8 0.0
STD. DEV. 0.0 .0177 0.631 .001 1.4 0.4 0.297 0.42 0.002 0.01 2.40 0.0
C.V.% 0.0 2.5 23.4 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.02 0.8 0.203 0.1 3.1 0.0
DIFF. % 0.0 -0.4 26.5 7.6 3.6 -3.6 -0.2 2.0 0.4 -3.1 5.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ENVM'T CAN D001
MEAN 0.0 0.756 3.26 1.23 235. 36.6 29.88 50.1 0.895 16.20 79.4 0.0
STD. DEV. 0.0 .0044 0.333 .223 3.9 0.6 0.270 6.59 0.025 0.37 1.04 0.0
C.V.% 0.0 0.6 10.2 18.1 1.6 1.5 0.90 13.2 2.746 2.3 1.3 0.0
DIFF. % 0.0 6.9 52.8 -5.2 4.5 -4.9 2.3 -1.1 -0.2 -4.2 7.2 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ENVM'T CAN 0002
MEAN 0.0 0.779 4.01 1.31 243. 35.4 29.62 50.8 0.898 16.91 83.4 0.0
STD. DEV. 0.0 .0231 1.664 .096 7.8 1.2 0.3.35 4.82 0.018 0.18 1.18 0.0
C.V.% 0.0 3.0 41.5 7.3 3.2 3.4 1.13 9.5 2.010 1.1 1.4 0.0
DIFF. % 0.0 10.1 88.1 1.0 8.1 -8.0 1.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 12.5 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHRYS CHELSEA-PG
MEAN 0.0 0.729 2.75 1.44 237. 36.5 28.93 45.7 0.879 16.38 76.0 0.0
STD. DEV. 0.0 .0180 0.307 .032 2.3 0.2 0.026 2.08 0.008 0.28 2.65 0.0
C.V.% 0.0 2.5 11.1 2.2 1.0 0.5 0.09 4.6 0.858 1.7 3.5 0.0
DIFF. % 0.0 3.1 29.1 10.7 5.3 -5.2 -1.0 -9.7 -2.0 -3.1 2.6 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHRYS HLAND PARK
MEAN 0.0 0.736 3.02 1.30 236. 36.4 29.48 39.8 0.858 16.48 0.0 0.0
STD. DEV. 0.0 .0142 0.553 .057 0.9 0.1 0.161 7.47 0.026 0.26 0.0 0.0
C.V.% 0.0 1.9 18.3 4.4 0.4 0.3 0.55 18.8 3.006 1.6 0.0 0.0
DIFF. % 0.0 4.0 41.8 0.3 5.2 -5.5 1.0-21.4 -4.3 -2.5 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
FORD
MEAN 0.0 0.658 2.49 1.44 229. 37.7 29.47 33.2 0.836 16.96 75.4 0.0
STD. DEV. 0.0 .0011 0.132 .007 2.0 0.4 0.081 0.15 0.001 0.19 0.78 0.0
C.V.% 0.0 .0.2 5.3 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.27 0.5 0.067 1.1 1.0 0.0
DIFF. % 0.0 -7.0 16.9 11.2 2.1 -2.2 0.9-34.4 -6.8 0.4 1.8 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
GENERAL MOTORS 3 MEAN 0.0 0.751 4.15 1.32 227. 37.6 28.89 50.4 0.896 16.75 75.0 0.0
STD. DEV. 0.0 .0108 1.338 .012 0.8 0.3 0.300 0.93 0.004 0.05 0.0 0.0
C.V.% 0.0 1.4 32.3 0.9 0.4 0.8 1.04 1.8 0.398 0.3 0.0 0.0
DIFF. % 0.0 6.1 94.5 1.9 0.9 -2.2 -1.1 -0.4 -0.1 -0.9 1.2 0.0
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).
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
A \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
June 18, 1986
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: 1986 Transport Canada Correlation Program
FROM: Douglas H. DeVries, Engineer
Correlation and Engineering Services
TO: Eldert Bontekoe, Team Leader
Certification Branch Group
THRU: Martin Reineman, Manager
Correlation and Engineering Services
Attached is a report based on the Transport Canada Correlation Program
which was conducted during November 1985 through February 1986.
This program was initiated at Transport Canada's request to determine the
degree of correlation in exhaust emissions and fuel consumption measurement
between Environment Canada, EPA, Ford, GM and two Chrysler facilities (Chelsea
Proving Grounds and Highland Park). The major findings of this program were
the following:
1. Environment Canada exhibited FTP HC and CO differences of +11.9% and
+28.9% respectively, on their dynamometer D001.
2. Environment Canada exhibited FTP HC and CO difference of +9.7% and
+33.6% respectively^ on their dynamometer D002.
3. Environment Canada demonstrated fuel economy offsets of -6.4% and
-8.0% for their dynamometer sites DdOl and D002, respectively.
4. The Chrysler Chelsea Proving Grounds facility exhibited fuel economy
differences of -3.7% and -5.2% for the FTP and HFET, respectively.
5. The Chrysler Highland Park Laboratory exhibited offsets in FTP and
HFET fuel economy of -4.1% and -5.5%, respectively.
Please contact me if you have any questions concerning this report.
cc: R. Lawrence J.T. White
D. Paulsell J. Carpenter
P. Reece D. Danyko
J. Marzen D. Perkins
D. Garter
1330c
------- |