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
                                                       n3

-------
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
                 n2    n2   n3   S   n4   u3   3    n3

-------
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
                n2   n2    u3   5   *4   i>3   n3   n3

-------
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
                n2   n2   3   n5   n*4    T3    n3

-------
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
                n2
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
                n2   u2    u3    nS   *4   n3   n3   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
                n2   n2   n3    n5    n4   n3   3   n3

-------
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

-------