EPA-460/2-74-001
February 1974
AUTOMOBILE EXHAUST EMISSION
SURVEILLANCE-ANALYSIS
OF THE FY 72 PROGRAM
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Certification and Surveillance Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
EPA-460/2-74-001
AUTOMOBILE EXHAUST EMISSION
SURVEILLANCE-ANALYSIS
OF THE FY 72 PROGRAM
Prepared by
MarciaE. Williams, John T. White,
Lois A. Platte, Charles J. Domke
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Certification and Surveillance Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
February 1974
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplies permit - from the
Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711., or from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22151.
Publication No. EPA-460/2-74-001
11
-------
ABSTRACT
The Environmental Protection Agency has recognized that
a realistic assessment of the effectiveness of Federal air
pollution regulations requires the measurement of emissions from
production vehicles in the hands of the motoring public.
Accordingly, the Emission Factor Program has been developed to
obtain this needed information by testing fleets of consumer-
owned vehicles in six major cities.
This report summarizes the results of the FY72 Emission
Factor Program and compares these results with those obtained
in the FY71 Emission Factor Program. The report discusses the
following topics
A. The exhaust emissions of current model-year vehicles
are compared to the Federal standards.
B. The emissions from light-duty motor vehicles are
characterized by vehicle model-year.
C. The effects of the more restrictive California
emissions regulations are investigated.
D. Vehicle deterioration due to mileage accumulation
and age is examined.
This report interfaces with APTD-1544, Automobile
Exhaust Emission Surveillance - A Summary, which analyzes the
FY71 Emission Factor Program and the earlier surveillance
programs which were performed using cold-start 7-mode test
procedures.
111
-------
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND BACKGROUND 1
1.1 Summary 2
1.2 Conclusions 5
1.3 Background 7
2. EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM DESIGN 9
2.1 FY72 Test Vehicle Selection Procedure 10
2.2 FY72 Test Vehicle Handling Procedure 10
3. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 11
3.1 City Effects . 12
3.2 Emission Data and Results 13
3.3 Fuel Economy IS
3.4 Deterioration Factors 16
3.5 Comparison of Data from the FY71 Emission 17
Factor Program with Data from the FY72
Emission Factor Program
3.5.1 Mileage and Program Effects IB
3.5.2 Performance of Vehicles in Their 19
First Year of Operation
3.6 Mileage Data 20
REFERENCES . 22
TABLES 25
FIGURES 57
APPENDIX I - FY72 Emission Factor Results Based on 1-1
the 1975 Federal Test Procedure Weighting
Factors
APPENDIX II - FY71 Emission Factor Results Based on II-l
the 1972 and 1975 Federal Test
Procedure Weighting Factors
APPENDIX III - Statistical Aspects of Fuel Economy III-l
Calculations
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No,
1 Statistical Distribution of Emission 25
Data from FY72 Emission Factor Program
by City, Year, Pollutant
2 FY72 Emission Factor Program - Composite 26
Emission Levels for all Cities Excluding
Denver and Los Angeles, Cold Transient
Data
3 FY72 Emission Factor Program - Composite 27
Emission Levels for all Cities Excluding
Denver and Los Angeles, Hot Transient
Data
4 FY72 Emission Factor Program - Composite 28
Emission Levels for all Cities Excluding
Denver and Los Angeles, Cold Stabilized
Data
5 FY72 Emission Factor Program - Emission 29
Levels for Denver, Cold Transient Data
6 FY72 Emission Factor Program - Emission 30
Levels for Denver, Hot Transient Data
7 FY72 Emission Factor Program - Emission 31
Levels for Denver, Cold Stabilized Data
8 FY72 Emission Factor Program - Emission 32
Levels for Los Angeles, Cold Transient
Data
9 FY72 Emission Factor Program - Emission 33
Levels for Los Angeles, Hot Transient
Data
10 FY72 Emission Factor Program - Emission 34
Levels for Los Angeles, Cold Stabilized
Data
11 FY72 Emission Factor Program - Composite 35
Emission Levels for all Cities Excluding
Denver and Los Angeles, 1972 Federal Test
Procedure
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
Table No. Title Page No
12 'FY72 Emission Factor Program - Emission 36
Levels for Denver, 1972 Federal Test
Procedure
13 FY72 Emission Factor Program - Emission 37
Levels for Los Angeles, 1972 Federal
Test Procedure
14 FY72 Emission Factor Program - 1972 38
Federal Test Procedure Results by Inertia
Weight and Engine Displacement for all
Cities Excluding Denver and Los Angeles,
Model Year - 1966
15 FY72 Emission Factor Program - 1972 39
Federal Test Procedure Results by Inertia
Weight and Engine Displacement for all
Cities Excluding Denver and Los Angeles,
Model Year - 1967
16 FY72 Emission Factor Program - 1972 40
Federal Test Procedure Results by Inertia
Weight and Engine Displacement for all
Cities Excluding Denver and Los Angeles,
Model Year - 1968
17 FY72 Emission Factor Program - 1972 41
Federal Test Procedure Results by Inertia
Weight and Engine Displacement for all
Cities Excluding Denver and Los Angeles,
Model Year - 1969
18 FY72 Emission Factor Program - 1972 42
Federal Test Procedure Results by Inertia
Weight and Engine Displacement for all
Cities Excluding Denver and Los Angeles,
Model Year - 1970
19 FY72 Emission Factor Program - 1972 43
Federal Test Procedure Results by Inertia
Weight and Engine Displacement for all
Cities Excluding Denver and Los Angeles,
Model Year - 1971
VII
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
Table No. Title Page No,
20 FY72 Emission Factor Program - 1972 44
Federal Test Procedure Results by
Inertia Weight and Engine Displacement
for all Cities Excluding Denver and Los
Angeles, Model Year - 1972
21 FY72 Emission Factor Program - Fuel 45
Economy in Miles Per Gallon, All
Cities Except Denver and Los Angeles
22 FY72 Emission Factor Program - Fuel 46
Economy in Miles Per Gallon, Denver
23 FY72 Emission Factor Program - Fuel 47
Economy in Miles Per Gallon, Los
Angeles
24 Hydrocarbon Deterioration Factors by 48
Vehicle Model'Year
25 Carbon Monoxide Deterioration Factors by 50
Vehicle Model-Year
26 Oxides of Nitrogen Deterioration Factors by 52
Vehicle Model-Year
27 Mileage and Program Effects 54
28 Comparison of New Vehicles in the FY71 55
and FY72 Emission Factor Programs -
Mean Emission Levels
29 Comparison of New Vehicles in the FY71 56
and FY72 Emission Factor Programs -
Percent of Vehicles at or below Standards
1-1 FY72 Emission Factor Program - Composite 1-3
Emission Levels for all Cities Excluding
Denver and Los Angeles, 1975 Federal Test
Procedure
1-2 FY72 Emission Factor Program - Emission I~4
Levels for Denver, 1975 Federal Test
Procedure
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
Table No. Title . Page No.
1-3 FY72 Emission Factor Program - Emission
Levels for Los Angeles, 1975 Federal
Test Procedure
1-4 FY72 Emission Factor Program - 1975
Federal Test Procedure Results by
Inertia Weight and Engine Displacement
for All Cities Excluding Denver and
Los Angeles, Model Year - 1966
1-7
1-5 FY72 Emission Factor Program - 1975
Federal Test Procedure Results by
Inertia Weight and Engine Displacement
for all Cities Excluding Denver and
Los Angeles, Model Year - 1967
1-6 FY72 Emission Factor Program - 1975 J"8
Federal Test Procedure Results by
Inertia Weight and Engine Displacement
for all Cities Excluding Denver and
Los Angeles, Model Year - 1968
1-7 FY72 Emission Factor Program - 1975 I~9
Federal Test Procedure Results by
Inertia Weight and Engine Displacement
for all Cities Excluding Denver and
Los Angeles, Model Year - 1969
1-8 FY72 Emission Factor Program - 1975 I"10
Federal Test Procedure Results by
Inertia Weight and Engine Displacement
for all Cities Excluding Denver and
Los Angeles, Model Year - 1970
1-9 FY72 Emission Factor Program - 1975 I~11
Federal Test Procedure Results by
Inertia Weight and Engine Displacement
for all Cities Excluding Denver and
Los Angeles, Model Year - 1971
1-10 FY72 Emission Factor Program - 1975
Federal Test Procedure Results by
Inertia Weight and Engine Displacement
for all Cities Excluding Denver and
Los Angeles, Model Year - 1972
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
Table No. Title Page No.
II-l FY71 Emission Factor Program - II-3
Composite Emission Levels for all
Cities Excluding Denver and Los
Angeles, 1972 Federal Test Procedure
II-2 FY71 Emission Factor Program - Emission II-4
Levels for Denver, 1972 Federal Test
Procedure
II-3 FY71 Emission Factor Program - Emission II-5
Levels for Los Angeles, 1972 Federal
Test Procedure v
II-4 FY71 Emission Factor Program - II-6
Composite Emission Levels for all
Cities Excluding Denver and Los
Angeles, 1975 Federal Test Procedure
II-5 FY71 Emission Factor Program - Emission II-7
Levels for Denver, 1975 Federal Test
Procedure
II-6 FY71 Emission Factor Program - Emission II-8
Levels for Los Angeles, 1975 Federal Test
Procedure
II-7 FY71 Emission Factor Program - Fuel H-9
Economy in Miles Per Gallon, All Cities
Except Denver and Los Angeles
II-8 FY71 Emission Factor Program - Fuel 11-10
Economy in Miles Per Gallon, Denver
II-9 FY71 Emission Factor Program - Fuel 11-11
Economy in Miles Per Gallon, Los Angeles
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page No
1 Vehicle Selection Procedure 59
2 Vehicle Handling Procedure 60
3 FY72 Emission Factors Program - Histograms 61
of Hydrocarbon Emissions, 1972 Model-Year
Vehicles
4 FY72 Emission Factors Program - Histograms 62
of Carbon Monoxide Emissions, 1972 Model-
Year Vehicles
5 FY72 Emission Factors Program - Histograms 63
of Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions, 1972
Model-Year Vehicles
6 Statistical Distribution of Mileage, 1966 64
Model-Year Vehicles
7 Statistical Distribution of Mileage, 1967 65
Model-Year Vehicles
8 Statistical Distribution of Mileage, 1968 66
Model-Year Vehicles
9 Statistical Distribution of Mileage, 1969 67
Model-Year Vehicles
10 Statistical Distribution of Mileage, 1970 68
Model-Year Vehicles
11 Statistical Distribution of Mileage, 1971 69
Model-Year Vehicles
12 Statistical Distribution of Mileage, 1972 70
Model^Year Vehicles
XI
-------
xii
-------
1. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND BACKGROUND
The purpose of this report is to summarize information on
emissions from light-duty vehicles. State and local agencies,
Federal air pollution officials, automobile manufacturers and
concerned citizens can use this report to estimate the impact
that light-duty vehicle emissions have on air quality and to
determine conformity of vehicles to the standards under which
they were certified.
This report summarizes the findings and results of the
individual contractor reports which were prepared as part of
the FY72 EPA Emission Factor Program. More detailed information
on specific vehicle tests or the results thereof can be obtained
from the appropriate contractor's report [see references (1),
(2), (3)]. Whenever possible, results from the FY72 Emission
Factor Program are compared with the corresponding results from
the FY71 Emission Factor Program [see references (4), (5)].
The FY72 EPA Emission Factor Program consisted of exhaust
emissions tests performed on 170 1966 through 1972 model-year
in-use automobiles and light trucks (under 6000 pounds gross
weight) in each of six cities: Denver, St. Louis, Chicago,
Los Angeles, Houston, and Washington, D. C. These test locations
represent some of the nation's most populated areas as well as
the most diverse areas in terms of climate and terrain -- Los
Angeles representing the temperate, warm western part of the nation;
Denver at a mile high elevation representing mountainous
metropolitan areas; Chicago for the Great Lakes and northest
sector, typical of cities with long winter seasons; St. Louis
in the Great Plains with moderate winters; Houston in the Great
Plains with a very warm, humid climate; and Washington, D. C.,
typical of cities on the eastern seaboard.
Exhaust emissions tests were performed in accordance with
the 1975 Federal Test Procedure which allowed calculation of
grams-per-mile results with both the 1972 and 1975 Federal
Test Procedure (FTP) weighting factors. Evaporative emissions
were measured in accordance with the Sealed Housing for Evaporative
Determinations (SHED) technique described in SAE Standard J171.
Analysis of evaporative emission data from the FY72 Emission
Factor Program is not presented in this report. A separate
analysis will be prepared which analyzes evaporative emission
data collected in the FY71 and FY72 Emission Factor Programs.
-------
This analysis will examine fuel type, vehicle soak time and
other procedure parameters which can vary from vehicle to
vehicle and site to site. Before accurate comparisons can be
made between vehicles and sites, corrections must be included
to account for the effect of these parameters on evaporative
emissions.
The EPA Emission Factor Program is an on-going study which
obtains current emission data on in-use vehicles. The vehicles
tested in the program are randomly selected to represent the
national population of in-use vehicles. This on-going effort
up-dates emissions data first obtained in 1971 by the 1972/75 :
FTP and adds new data from the latest model-year. The result
of this effort is that over a period of several years, the
contribution made by light-duty vehicles to atmospheric.
pollution can be quantified. The acquisition of emission
factors on a regularly scheduled basis will assist in comparing
control strategies with control results. Also, this information
will help in the prediction of serious air pollution episodes in
densely populated areas, and quantify the urgency of the vehicle
pollution problem in comparison to the many other environmental
and energy related problems.
1.1 SUMMARY
Hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and carbon dioxide (C02) emissions were measured for
each of the 1020 vehicles tested in the FY72 Emission Factor
Program.
In an effort to assess the extent to which local climate,
terrain, driving practices and other geographical factors affect
emissions, vehicles were sampled in several cities, selected
to span the range of such factors. Only small differences were
observed in the emission levels measured in the cities included
in the survey, the notable exceptions being Denver and Los
Angeles. Significantly higher carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon
emissions and lower NOX emissions were observed in Denver than
in the other cities, presumably because of the effect of increased
altitude on enriching air-fuel ratios. For 1970-1972 model-year
vehicles, carbon monoxide emissions were significantly higher
in Los Angeles than they were in the four other cities: Chicago,
Houston, St. Louis, and Washington. A possible explanation
is that California vehicles were subject to state emission
standards which did not apply to vehicles sold in the other 49
states. 1970 California vehicles were required to meet evaporative
-------
emission standards (all vehicles were required to meet such
standards in 1971); however based on current EPA data, the
effect of evaporative controls on CO emissions cannot be
isolated.
In 1971 and 1972, California established state standards
for oxides of nitrogen. Based upon previous data on in-use
vehicles, NOX emissions have been negatively correlated with HC
and CO emissions. One possible explanation for this is that
the methods chosen by the manufacturers to control HC and CO
emissions (before NOX emissions were controlled) tended to
increase NOX emissions. Given that the HC and CO control
systems tend to increase NOX emissions, a reduction in NOX
emissions due to the imposition of an NOX standard might be
expected to result in some increase in HC and CO, especially
if the same control systems were just recalibrated.
Since the FY72 Emission Factor Program was the second year
of a major surveillance program which used the CVS test
procedure to test in-use vehicles, meaningful comparisons can
be made between the two studies. A major question of interest
focuses on the question of whether 1972 model-year in-use
vehicles had lower emissions in their first year of operation
than 1971 model-year vehicles had in their first year of operation,
The average mileage for the two model-year groups differ by at
most 111 for any of the three city breakdowns. This difference
in mileage is not statistically significant due to the high
variability associated with mileage for each model-year
group. In addition, if EPA deterioration factors are applied
to correct for the mileage differences, the correction is
less than one percent in all cases. The comparison of emissions
from 1971 and 1972 model-year vehicles is given in the following
table based on the 1972 FTP.
-------
Comparison of Mean Emission Results from
FY71 and FY72 Emission Factor Programs
(1972 FTP)
Locations
Average
Mileage
(in thou-
sands)
HC
(in gms
per mi)
CO
(in gms
per mi)
NO
xc
(in gms
per mi)
Four Cities
1971 Program: 1971
model-year vehicles
1972 Program: 1972
model-year vehicles
Percent Reduction
15.6
14.8
3.42
3.42
01
46.33
43.79
5%
4.99
4.52
91
Los Angeles
1971 Program: 1971
model-year vehicles
1972 Program: 1972
model-year vehicles
Percent Reduction
15.8
17.6
3.51
51.90
4.07 55.77
161 -7%
3.81
3.83
0%
Denver
1971 Program: 1971
model-year vehicles
1972 Program: 1972
model-year vehicles
Percent Reduction
15.2
14.1
6.73
5.61
100.04
90.42
10%
3.04
3.00
1%
The results of this table should be examined in light of
two major factors. First, vehicles sold in California were
required to meet NO emission standards in 1971 and more
stringent NOX emission standards in 1972 while vehicles sold
in other states were not required to meet any NOX standards
during these two years. Second, 1972 was the first year when
-------
national HC standards were 3.4 gm/mi and CO standards were
39 gm/mi. With the new more stringent standards, many
manufacturers completely redesigned their pollution control
systems for the 1972 model year production. These two factors
may partially explain why mean HC and CO emissions increased
in Los Angeles and decreased only slightly in the other low
altitude cities from 1971 to 1972. However, it should be noted
that due to the variability in the emission measurements, none
of the changes in HC or CO emissions between 1971 and 1972 model-
year vehicles are statistically significant at the 95% confidence
level. The reduction in NOX in the four combined cities from
1971 model-year vehicles to 1972 model-year vehicles is
statistically significant at the 951 confidence level.
1.2 CONCLUSIONS
Results of the FY72 EPA Emission Factor Program summarized
in this report reveal that:
1. Exhaust emission levels depend on a number of factors
peculiar to a specific vehicle, including its weight, its engine
displacement, and its accumulated mileage.
2. Two city effects of appreciable engineering magnitude
were observed. Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions tended
to be higher in Denver than in other cities, whereas oxides of
nitrogen tended to be lower. The observed differences are
believed to be attributable to the effect of altitude on air-fuel
ratios. For 1970-1972 model-year vehicles, carbon monoxide
emissions were significantly higher in Los Angeles than in other
low altitude cities. This observed difference may possibly be
related to the California imposed standards on evaporative
emissions starting in 1970 and California imposed standards on
NO.-, starting in 1971.
A.
3. Individual vehicles of a particular category show wide
dispersion in exhaust emissions. Consequently, two categories
of vehicles, for example populations of vehicles tested in two
different cities, may show considerable overlap of their
statistical distributions even though the mean emissions for
the two categories are appreciably different. Generalizations
with regard to make, city or other categories of interest,
therefore, are often not applicable to comparison of individual
vehicles or small subsets of vehicles drawn from the two
categories.
4. Tests of light duty vehicles tested in 1972 show a
downward trend in HC and CO emissions from 1966-1967 (pre-control
in all cities except Los Angeles) to 1972 and an increasing trend
for NOX emissions. This trend is shown by the following average
emission levels based upon the 1972 CVS Test Procedure.
-------
Emission Levels (gm/mi)
1972 CVS Test Procedure
HC CO NOXC
Four City Total
1966-1967 vehicles 9.56 106.46 3.24
1972 vehicles 3.42 43.79 4.52
Percent Reduction 641 59% ' -391
Denver
1966-1967 vehicles 13.16 152.93 2.02
1972 vehicles 5.61 90.42 3.00
Percent Reduction 57% 41% -48
O.
Los Angeles
1966-1967 vehicles 7.09 93.13 3.56
1972 vehicles 4.07 55.77 3.83
Percent Reduction 42% 40% -8%
It is important to remember that these figures reflect any
deterioration which occurred on the vehicles and therefore, these
figures should only be used to estimate the impact of various
model years on current air quality.
5. Tests of 1972 model-year light duty vehicles indicate
that the following percent of vehicles were at or below the
1972 Federal Standards for HC and CO. That is, the percentage
of 1972 vehicles which met the 1972 CVS standards were:
Pollutant Four Cities Denver Los Angeles
HC 60% 14% 57%
CO 52% 9% 31%
Both 42% 3% 29%
-------
Comparison of the FY72 Emission Factor Program with the
FY71 Emission Factor Program reveals that
6. In the four low altitude cities, HC and CO emissions
increase with increasing mileage for model years 1968-1971. In
addition to this mileage effect, a significant age or program
effect is indicated for model-years 1970-1971. An age or
program effect results when a significant difference in the
emissions of the same model-year vehicles tested in the FY71
and FY72 Emission Factor Programs occurs even though the two
groups of vehicles have been statistically corrected to the
same mileage point. Before the magnitude of the age or program
effect can be computed, it will be necessary to examine the
results from the FY73 Emission Factor Program which is currently
in progress.
1.3 BACKGROUND
The Congress, through the enactment of the Clean Air Act
of 1963 and amendments thereto, provided for a national air
pollution program to monitor and control emissions from new
motor vehicles. Administrative responsibility for the air
pollution control program is vested with the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The first nationwide standards for
exhaust emissions, together with the testing and certification
procedures were issued in 1966 and were applicable to 1968
model-year passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks sold within
the United States. Levels for maximum allowable exhaust
emissions were imposed initially on HC and CO emittants only.
Hydrocarbons were restricted to 275 parts per million concentration
and carbon monoxide was restricted to 1.5 percent . These
emittants were measured using the 7-mode cold-start test procedure.
More stringent standards on a mass equivalent basis were
introduced for 1970 and 1971 model vehicles. The Federal
standards -based on the 7-mode procedure, expressed in mass
equivalents, were 2.2 grams/mile for HC and 23 grams/mile for
CO. In 1972, a change was made to a new test procedure. This
procedure contained a new sampling method, the Constant Volume
Sampling Procedure (CVS), and a new driving sequence. At that
time the standards were again strengthened. HC was restricted
to 3.4 grams/mile and CO was restricted to 39.0 grams/mile. The
numerical increase in the standards from 1971 to 1972 reflects
the increased stringency of the testing procedures. In terms of
*
These were the standards for vehicles with engines greater than
140 cubic inches displacement. Vehicles with engines which did
not exceed 100 cubic inches displacement were restricted to
410 ppm HC and 2.3 percent CO.
7
-------
the 1972 test procedure, the 1971 standards were equivalent to
approximately 4.6 grams/mile for HC and 47 grams/mile for CO.
The first Federal Standards applicable to oxides of nitrogen
were promulgated for 1973 model-year light-duty vehicles and
were set at 3.0 grams/mile. The first Federal evaporative
emission standards were introduced for 1971 model-year
vehicles.
Under the Clean Air Act, manufacturers are required to
submit applications containing data gathered during both phases
of a two-part test program in order to qualify for certificates
of conformity. For model years 1968 through 1971, the first
phase of testing provides data, on exhaust emissions which show
the performance of the control equipment after the engine has
been broken in, but before substantial mileage has been
accumulated. These data are known as 4,000 mile emission data.
The second phase of the test program provides data on the
durability of the emission control system. These data are
known as 50,000 mile durability data. For 1968-1971 model-year
vehicles, compliance was demonstrated whenever the mean emission
level from a specified sample of emission-data prototypes of
each engine displacement, weighted according to projected
sales volume, was within the applicable standard. This mean
incorporates a deterioration factor determined from a sample
of durability-data prototypes representative of at least 701
of the manufacturer's engine displacement/transmission options.
Inherent in this method of certification is the fact that mean
values for HC or CO near the standard make it possible for 501
of certification or in-use vehicles to be above the standard
for either pollutant. (The 501 figure assumes that emissions
of prototype vehicles are normally distributed. In the case
of lognormality, less than 501 of the vehicles would be above
the standard.)
For 1972 and subsequent model-year vehicles, every vehicle
tested in the certification sample must have emissions below
the level of the applicable standard. The certification
prototypes are tested with vehicle parameter settings, e.g.
engine timing, at or near the mean of the allowable production
range. Therefore, to the extent that emissions vary within the
allowable range of parameter settings, some percentage of
production vehicles might be expected to emit pollutants above
the certified standard. At the present time, no data exist to
quantify this percentage.
-------
EPA has recognized that a realistic assessment of the
effectiveness of Federal air pollution regulations requires
the measurement of emissions from production vehicles in the
hands of the motoring public. Accordingly, a series of exhaust
emission surveillance programs has been administered by the EPA
during the past several years to obtain such definitive information.
Test fleets of consumer-owned vehicles within various major
cities were selected by make, model, engine size, transmission,
and carburetor categories in such proportion as to be repre-
sentative of the normal production vehicles sold (or projected
to be sold) for that model year in the United States.
The principal objectives of such surveillance programs
have been to establish the relationship of emissions from
in-use production vehicles to certification emission levels and
to assess the effects on emission levels resulting from the
test locale (i.e., the influence of climate, topography and
urban development), vehicle mileage accumulation and vehicle
make/model/engine differences. Using the data from the surveillance
programs, the Surveillance Branch works with the National Air
Data Branch (NADB) and the Land Use Planning Branch (LUPB)
to develop appropriate in-use vehicle emission factors from
which emission source inventories, vehicle emission control
strategies, and emergency episode pollution abatement procedures
can be developed. In addition, the data are used to model the
effect of automobile emissions under arbitrary traffic and road
network conditions in order to evaluate transportation control
systems.
2. EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM DESIGN
Since the Emission Factor Program is designed to accurately
determine emission factors from in-use vehicles, the vehicles
tested are selected at random to represent the national
distribution of vehicle miles travelled by in-use vehicles.
The vehicles selected are in customer use and are tested as
received in order to reflect differences in usage, maintenance
and repair. In order to obtain a valid statistical sample of
vehicles, the number of vehicle miles travelled by model-year
vehicle is considered. Within each model year, the vehicle
sample is selected based upon vehicle sales by vehicle make,
engine size, carburetor type and transmission type. An
important consideration in support of any program objective
is orderly accumulation, processing, and reporting of data.
Precision test equipment, well-defined procedures, rigorous
qualification, calibration and cross-check techniques were used.
Standardized data reporting procedures and flow routines were
established and quality audits, which checked and verified
each data point, were performed. In short, rigid test sample
requirements were established, individual vehicles were selected
-------
by a carefully designed procurement and selection plan,
accurate testing procedures and calibrations were established
and maintained, and all data were subjected to rigid quality
inspection and verification routines to ensure the overall
accuracy and validity of the study.
2.1 FY72 TEST VEHICLE SELECTION PROCEDURE
The objective of the test vehicle procurement task was
to obtain test vehicles in the appropriate model year, make,
carburetor, and transmission categories so that the total
sample would be representative of the nationwide vehicle
population profile. To satisfy this goal the contractors used
the selection procedure shown in Figure 1.
In each of the cities, a sample of 1966 through 1972
automobiles registered within each site boundary was obtained
from a private listing. From this listing, a subsample of
vehicles which best fit the required vehicle population profile
was selected. Introductory letters were mailed to vehicle
owners selected in the subsample and follow-up contacts were
made when necessary. After contractor procurement personnel
were sufficiently satisfied with the validity of candidate
vehicle information files, suitable vehicles were scheduled for
testing. Upon delivery of test vehicles to the laboratory, all
vehicles were inspected for compliance with established criteria
prior to final acceptance. Vehicles which were not safe to run
on the dynamometer and vehicles with faulty exhaust systems
were rejected.
2.2 FY72 TEST VEHICLE HANDLING PROCEDURE
Test vehicles were scheduled for testing at each of the
laboratories in accordance with the respective laboratory work
load and manpower capabilities. To encourage participation,
incentives were provided to each vehicle owner. Virtually all
of the participants were given fully insured loan cars while
their cars were being tested. In addition to the loan car,
each participant was given a $25 U. S. Savings Bond.
Figure 2 shows the routing of test vehicles from acceptance
through return to participants at the completion of testing.
The constant volume sampling technique by the 1975 Federal Test
Procedure was utilized for determination of exhaust emissions.
The Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determinations (SHED) technique
was performed to determine levels of evaporative hydrocarbon
losses in general accordance with SAE Technical Report J171.
10
-------
Upon completion of testing, engine diagnostic procedures were
performed (basic timing, point dwell, idle rpm and mixture).
The vehicle was then returned to the participant.
3. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The frequency distribution of exhaust emissions of current
automobiles is governed by constraints which make it unlikely
that the emission measurements will follow a normal (Gaussian)
distribution. In particular, mass emission data are necessarily
non-negative and are therefore more strictly bounded on the
low end of the distribution than on the high end of the
distribution. This fact, and the fact that errors of measurement
tend to be proportional to the concentration being measured,
combine to cause the frequency distribution of exhaust measurements
to be skewed toward the high side of the range of emission values.
Furthermore, experience as well as theoretical statistical
arguments suggest that the frequency distribution of exhaust
emissions is essentially lognormal. In other words, if the
logarithms of the emission quantities are used to compile a
frequency distribution or histogram, the resulting distribution
tends to be symmetric and is approximated by a normal distribution
with appropriate mean and standard deviation. These quantities,
computed in logarithmic units, can be transformed back to
antilogarithms, but the transformed values are not to be confused
with the mean and standard deviation computed from the original
data as expressed in grams per mile. Mean values computed from
logarithmically transformed data represent geometric means,
whereas mean values computed from the original data represent
arithmetic means.
Due to the theoretical and empirical evidence of lognormality,
geometric means and standard deviations as well as arithmetic
means and standard deviations are presented in several of the
tables of this report.
A word of explanation is in order with regard to the
geometric mean and standard deviation and their interpretation
in an emissions context. If the geometric mean is multiplied
by the geometric standard deviation, one obtains a quantity
which represents approximately the 84th percentile of the
distribution, in much the same way as one obtains this percentile
in a normal distribution by adding the standard deviation to
the mean. Similarly, by multiplying the geometric mean by the
geometric standard deviation squared, one obtains approximately
the 95th percentile of the distribution in much the same way
as one obtains this percentile in a normal distribution by
adding two standard deviations to the mean.
11
-------
The distributions of the pollutants collected in the FY72
Emission Factor Program, when examined by city and model year,
are found for the most part to be lognormally distributed,
although in some cases they are normally distributed. Table 1
shows the appropriate statistical distribution by pollutant,
city and model year. A few of the pollutant-city-model year
populations do not appear to be either lognormally or normally
distributed. For this reason the standard statistical methods,
which assume normality, are not immediately applicable to these
data. Therefore, nonparametric or "distribution free" methods
have been used, whenever possible, to analyze the data.
If the distribution were symmetrical and fifty percent
of the vehicles met the standard, the mean of all the vehicles
would also meet the standard. This relationship does not apply,
however, with a skewed distribution. If an indication of total
mean emissions is desired and the vehicle population has a
skewed distribution, the mean emission level of a group of
vehicles must be looked at independently of the percent of
these vehicles which conform to the standard. Thus, the
arithmetic means are useful in assessing the impact of groups
of vehicles on air quality. The geometric means are indicative
of central tendancy. In a lognormal distribution, the geometric
mean indicates the 50th percentile point of the distribution.
3.1 CITY EFFECTS
Two city effects are detected in the FY72 Emission Factor
data. The first effect involves Denver. Denver vehicles produced
significantly higher levels of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide
and lower nitrogen oxide emissions than the emissions which were
produced by the vehicles in the other cities. The principal
consideration distinguishing Denver is its altitude, which
affects carburetion and tends to produce excessively rich fuel
mixtures. The second city effect is associated with Los Angeles
and appears in the model years of 1970 through 1972. Carbon
monoxide emissions are significantly higher in Los Angeles
than in the model-years of 1970 through 1972. Carbon
monoxide emissions are significantly higher in Los Angeles than
they are in the four other cities Chicago, Houston, St. Louis,
and Washington. Odometer readings tend to be higher on Los
To determine the statistical form of a distribution, a null
hypothesis is formed and tested. The null hypothesis is stated
in the positive. Therefore, statistically, the null hypothesis
(for example, the distribution is normal) can be rejected but can
never be accepted. Due to the small number of observations in
each sample, more than one null hypothesis may not be rejected.
This explains why some populations can be characterized by more
than one distribution.
12
-------
Angeles vehicles than vehicles from other cities. Inasmuch as
variation in mileage could contribute to variation in emissions,
both groups were adjusted by regression analysis to a common
mileage point as a prerequisite to assessment of a city effect.
The higher carbon monoxide emissions in Los Angeles for 1970-
1972 remained significant after the adjustment was made. This
effect is thought to be related to California's emission
standards for the model years in question. In 1970, California
vehicles were required to meet state evaporative emissions
standards while vehicles from other cities did not have evaporative
standards until 1971. California vehicles were required to meet
state emissions standards on oxides of nitrogen starting in 1971
while vehicles from other cities did not have to meet N0x standards
until the 1973 model year. Therefore, in the following analyses,
Los Angeles and Denver are considered separately from the other
four cities.
3.2 EMISSION DATA AND RESULTS
The results of the FY72 Emission Factor Program are
summarized in Tables 2 through 13. For each set of tables,
Los Angeles and Denver are treated separately. Individual
tables appear for the cold transient, hot transient, and cold
stabilized portions of the Federal Test Procedure as well as the
1972 FTP result. The individual bag results are given in Tables
2 through 10 so that any users who wish to assign their own
weighting factors can do so. Results based on the 1975
weighting factors are given in Appendix I. In Appendix II,
the corresponding set of 1972 FTP tables and 1975 FTP tables,
based on the data collected in the FY71 Emission Factor Program,
are given. These data have previously been analyzed (4).
However, they are presented here for ease of comparison.
Data from the hot stabilized portion of the FTP have, in
the past, been assumed to be similar to the results from the
cold stabilized portion and therefore hot stabilized data are not
presented in this report. Nevertheless, an analysis was
performed to detect statistical differences between the hot and
cold stabilized emissions collected during the FY72 Emission
Factor Program and the FY71 Emission Factor Program. There are
large differences betwen hot and cold stabilized data for many
vehicles. However, when an average of all vehicles was
considered, no pollutant demonstrated a statistically significant
difference in both programs. Thus, the differences could be due
to the maintenance status of the vehicles or some unknown
factor. Overall, the analysis gives little indication that
would refute the assumption that vehicles produce similar
emissions under cold stabilized and hot stabilized operating
conditions.
15
-------
Tables 11 through 13 and 1-1 through 1-3, present the
1972 and 1975 results obtained in the FY72 Emission Factor
Program. These tables contain three columns with the heading
"Percent Below Level". These columns give the percentage of
vehicles with emissions which are no greater than the 1972
Federal Standards of 3.4 gm/mile for HC and 39.0 gm/mile for
CO, and the 1973 Federal Standards of 3.0 gm/mile for NO . The
HC and CO standards are applicable only to the 1972 FTP results
for 1972 model-year vehicles. These same levels are compared
to the 1975 FTP emission results and to model years other than
1972 merely to illustrate time trends.
Tables 14 through 20 give the 1972 Federal Test Procedure
results by model year, engine displacement, and inertia weight
for the combined data of Chicago, Houston, St. Louis and
Washington. Similar tables based on the 1975 FTP weighting
factors are given in Appendix I. There are tables for each of
the model years 1966 through 1972. The tables contain the
arithmetic means and standard deviations of the 1972 FTP emission
results in grams/mile . The engine displacements are broken
down into classes which represent four cylinder, six cylinder,
and small, medium, and large sized eight cylinder vehicles. The
inertia weights are those that are assigned to vehicles in the
table provided in the Federal Register. In this report, five
hundred pound increments are used to establish class boundaries
from 2000 to 5000 pounds. This classification of data by year,
CID, and inertia weight is not particularly informative for an
individual city since the number of observations per cell becomes
extremely small. Therefore, individual tables based on Los
Angeles and Denver data are not presented.
The data in Tables 14 through 20 indicate that N0x tends
to increase as inertia weight increased for all model-year
vehicles. However, no trends are clearly definable over all
model years for HC and CO. Efforts to relate HC and CO emissions
to inertia weight by using regression analysis did not result
in significant reduction of variability.
Three histograms were constructed for each of the three
pollutants, showing Denver data, Los Angeles data, and the
pooled data from the other four cities, for 1972 model-year
vehicles as shown in Figures 3 through 5. The intervals of
each histogram were chosen so that the 1972 FTP standard for
a pollutant would form one of the class boundaries. In this
way, the percent of vehicles above and below standard can be
determined easily. However, due to the fact that the lower
limit of pollutants is zero, the fixing of a class boundary
at the 1972 standard may make the first class interval shorter
than the other intervals.
14
-------
3.3 FUEL ECONOMY
The purpose of this report is not to predict fuel economy
(or fuel consumption) for individual vehicles based upon vehicle
parameters. This subject has been treated extensively in
reference (6). Also, the purpose of this report is not to
find the average mpg of a sample of vehicles for the purpose
of predicting the mpg response of a particular vehicle. This
application would treat mpg as a single response, not a ratio
quantity, and therefore, the arithmetic mean would be the
appropriate quantity to examine. This report addresses itself
to characterizing the fuel economy of groups of vehicles.
Fuel economy is inversely related to fuel consumption. For
this application, therefore, fuel consumption (gallons of gasoline
used) could have been considered directly. However, fuel
economy expressed in mpg, to represent fuel consumption, has
been proposed as an appropriate alternative in the current
literature. Based upon this definition, the data shown in
Tables 14 through 20 indicate that there are not significant
differences between the fuel economies exhibited by the different
model years in the study if the fuel economy for each model year
is averaged over all inertia weight and engine displacement groups,
From these tables, it can be seen that fuel economy is highly
dependent on inertia weight and engine displacement and that
inertia weight and engine displacement are highly correlated.
Thus, fuel economy decreases (fuel consumption increases) with
increasing inertia weight and increasing engine displacement.
Tables 21 through 23 display fuel economy by model year averaged
over a sales weighted selection of vehicles for the 1972 FTP,
the 1975 FTP and the cold transient, hot transient, and stabilized
portions of the Federal Test Procedure. It should be noted that
each model-year group of vehicles is sales-weighted separately
according to sales in each individual model year. Therefore,
changing inertia weight trends with model year confound attempts
to isolate model year differences in fuel economy due to emission
control systems. It can be noted that the results of the FY71
Emission Factor Program (Table II-7) in the four combined cities
indicate a linearly decreasing trend in fuel economy. The 1971
model-year vehicles appear to have approximately 7% poorer fuel
economy than 1966-1967 model-year vehicles. Although such a
decrease could be expected based on engineering analysis, the
measured 951 confidence intervals around the fuel economy for
a given model year (four cities combined) have a width of
approximately ten percent. The results of the FY72 Emission
Factor Program (Table 21) in the four combined cities do not
indicate the same linearly decreasing trend in fuel economy,
although 1972 model-year vehicles have approximate 5% poorer
fuel economy than 1966-1967 model-year vehicles. Again, this
difference is not statistically significant. Statistically,
the null hypothesis of no model year trends cannot be rejected.
15
-------
3.4 DETERIORATION FACTORS
A deterioration factor reflects the degree by which a
vehicle's engine and ancillary control equipment depreciate
with accumulated age and mileage resulting in changes in the
vehicle's emissions. Deterioration factors were calculated
for Denver, Los Angeles, and the four combined cities. This
analysis provided overall mileage deterioration information and
is not indicative of individual vehicle deterioration with
accumulated mileage. Linear regressions versus mileage were
performed on the pooled emissions of the FY71 and FY72 Emission
Factor Programs for each model year and for each of the three
city groups. The data collected in the two studies were combined
so that a broader range of mileages per model year would be
obtained. The resulting regression lines were used to calculate
predicted emissions at a particular mileage. The deterioration
factors were then defined as:
*
, £ _ Predicted value at X mileage
Predicted value at 4,000 miles.
The use of a linear regression model to calculate deterioration
factors is not an extremely accurate method for it masks any
trends of varying deterioration rates. For example, this
technique would conceal more rapid deterioration at the lower
mileages if such a trend occurs. The California Air Resources
Board (GARB) avoids this particular problem by performing a
regression of log emissions versus mileage which results in a
prediction curve that is exponential. The GARB technique was
not used in preparing this report because there is little
evidence that the behavior of emissions over a mileage range is
more adequately represented by an exponential curve than by a
straight line. In addition, the straight line fit is the method
the EPA uses in the Certification Program and is therefore the
method used in this report. Further analysis needs to be per-
formed by studying repetitive tests on individual vehicles to
determine the most appropriate model. At present, different
vehicles tested at different mileages are the basis for inferences
about mileage effects. Factors, such as maintenance, that
distinguish one vehicle from another confound the mileage effect
The deterioration factors for 1966-1967 model-year vehicles used
a baseline value of 50,000 miles instead of 4,000 miles due to
a lack of low mileage data on these vehicles.
16
-------
in this type of analysis. Repeated measurements of emissions
over mileage on the same in-use vehicle would eliminate these
confounding factors.
Deterioration factors for the 15,000 - 60,000 mile range
are displayed by 15,000 mile intervals in Tables 24 through
26. The 50,000 mile figure is also presented because it is the
reference deterioration value that is defined by the Federal
Register. Caution should be used in interpreting the CARB
factors used in this report. These factors were calculated
using values read from CARB regression curves. The factors,
as given in the tables, were not directly computed by CARB.
The EPA deterioration factors stated in the tables are the
best available estimates. However, a lot of variability exists
in the emission results for any given mileage point and most of
the regression equations are not statistically significant due
to this large variability. A statistically significant regression
line is one in which the slope is tested to be equal to zero and
this assumption is rejected. The statistically significant
regressions are noted in Tables 24 - 26. A deterioration factor
of 1.0 implies that the slope of the regression line of emissions
vs. mileage is zero. It should be noted that these two
possibilities are not the same. That is, a regression line can
have a best estimate slope which is non-zero and still not be
statistically significant. Also, a regression line can have very
little variability and still have a slope of zero if there is
no linear relationship between emissions and mileage.
Generally, the deterioration factors indicate that HC and
CO emissions increase with increasing mileage while NOXC either
decreases or remains constant with mileage accumulation.
However, Denver and Los Angeles deterioration values are more
erratic than are those of the other groups. Due to the large
variability of emission results which occur during vehicle
testing and vehicle-to-vehicle differences in deterioration,
the small sample sizes which result from considering just one
city group can lead to an inability to accurately determine
deterioration factors. CO emissions decrease for some model
years and increase for other years in Denver. For Los Angeles
and the four combined cities, hydrocarbon deterioration factors
are greater for the EPA data than are the hydrocarbon deterioration
factors computed from the CARB data. The opposite trend occurs
among carbon monoxide factors.
3.5 COMPARISON OF DATA FROM THE FY71 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
WITH DATA FROM THE FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
By conducting Emission Factor Programs on a yearly basis,
it is possible to isolate what happens to a given model-year
17
-------
group of vehicles as it ages and to compare different model-year
groups of vehicles at the same point in their age-mileage cycle.
3.5.1 Mileage and Program Effects
An analysis of the combined FY71 and FY72 Emission
Factor Program data was performed in order to investigate
mileage effects and program effects. These results are given
in Table 27. The data from both programs were blocked into
groups of vehicles that were subject to similar emission
standards. Consequently, the emissions were analyzed in groups
separated by the model years 1966-67, 1968-69, 1970-71.
The term "mileage effects" when used with reference to
emissions may have several connotations and may therefore be
subject to misinterpretation. Ideally, an investigation of
"mileage effects" should only be concerned with the deterioration
of emission control performance with increasing mileage.
Practically, however, a variety of factors such as the state of
engine adjustment or repair hinder any attempt to isolate this
fundamental mileage effect. Pollutant levels were established
for each vehicle in an "as received" condition regardless of its
operating condition. Consequently, in the context of this report,
mileage effects are used to describe trends other than aging
which become increasingly prominent as the vehicle accumulates
mileage or receives inadequate maintenance. Significant mileage
effects are detected among the 1968-1969 and the 1970-1971
model-year groups.
Program effects are found primarily among the 1970-1971
model-year vehicles. Program effects in this analysis are
two-fold. They are a measure of the effect of one year of aging
on vehicles since the comparison is between vehicles of the same
model year tested one year apart.. Thus, an age effect will
measure emission deterioration which can occur with increasing
age regardless of any mileage increase (such as deterioration
due to rusting of the exhaust system) as well as deterioration
due to rate of mileage accumulation. In addition to age effects,
program effects measure contractor or study design differences.
Program effects, as defined, are not a major component of
emission deterioration on older vehicles.
An analysis of deterioration due to age only was performed
on the sample of pre-controlled (1957-1967 model years) vehicles
taken in the FY71 Emission Factor Program. Although a
significant mileage effect was found, no age effect was indicated
among the 1957-1967 vehicles. These findings suggest that for
precontrolled vehicles, deterioration is a result of factors,
other than aging, such as mileage accumulation or maintenance.
18
-------
3.5.2 Performance of Vehicles in Their First Year of Operation
A major question of interest focuses on the question of
whether 1972 model-year vehicles have lower levels of emissions
in their first year of operation than the 1971 vehicles had in
their first year of operation. Table 28 displays the mean
emission levels for these two groups of vehicles.
The results of this table should be examined in light of
several factors. In Denver, where HC and CO emission levels
have been extremely high as a result of the altitude, improvements
have been made. HC emissions have been reduced 17%, and CO
emissions have been reduced 10%. NOX emission levels which have
been controlled in the state of California since the 1971 model-
year, remained unchanged and are lower than the mean NOX emissions
in other low altitude cities. Although no data are available
to isolate its cause, the increase in HC and CO emissions
observed for 1972 model-year cars in Los Angeles may possibly be
attributable to design changes made by the manufacturers in
response to changes in the Federal HC and CO standards and
California NO standards in that year. Because of the combination
of more stringent California NOX standards than in 1971, and
adoption of more stringent Federal HC and CO standards employing
new testing procedures, many manufacturers redesigned their
emission control systems for 1972 models sold in California.
In a number of cases, manufacturers switched from engine
modification as the sole means of emission control to engine
modification coupled with exhaust gas recirculation (EGR).
It is possible that the new systems introduced on the 1972
models reflected trade-offs of HC and CO control for NOX control
or simply a lack of design optimization. Yet another possibility
is that the more stringent controls employed in California
and the accompanying deterioration in vehicle driveability have
led to a greater incidence of engine maladjustment in the field
in attempts to achieve driveability improvements.
Mean HC emissions remained unchanged and mean CO emissions
were reduced by 5% when new 1972 model-year vehicles were
compared with new 1971 model-year vehicles in low altitude cities.
It is significant that NOX emissions, which were not subject to
Federal emission standards in model-year 1971 and model-year 1972,
decreased in 1972 models for the first time since emission controls
were established in 1968. Although sufficient data are not
available to determine why NOX emissions improved outside of
California in 1972 model-year vehicles, a possible explanation
is that some manufacturers chose to make one version of vehicle
to be sold in all 50 states. Thus, many vehicles sold outside of
California did, in fact, have NO controls. In 1971, California
19
-------
had less stringent NO standards than in 1972. Some manufacturers
also sold 50 state vehicles in 1971. However, the manufacturers
selling 50 state vehicles and the NOX control systems on the 50
state vehicles were not necessarily the same in 1971 and 1972.
Therefore, the magnitude of the 50 state vehicle effect could
likely be different for the two years, 1971 and 1972.
It should be pointed out that the HC emissions of in-use
1972 vehicles have mean emission levels equal to the 1972
Federal standard of 3.4 gm/mi and CO emission levels 12% above
the 1972 Federal standard of 39 gm/mi.
Table 29 examines the percentage of 1971 vehicles tested
in the FY71 Emission Factor Program and 1972 vehicles tested
in the FY72 Emission Factor Program which met the 1971 and 1972
Federal standards for HC and CO. These results substantiate
the results displayed in Table 28.
3.6 MILEAGE DATA
Although the primary purpose of the Emission Factor
Program is to obtain accurate emission factors for use in
calculating the exact contribution of light-duty vehicles to
total atmospheric pollution, the data collected in the program
can be used to characterize the mileage distribution of vehicles
by model year and age.
Data points can be plotted to show the frequency distribution
using mileage as the independent variable. If the distribution
curve were known, then it would be possible to define mathematically
the probability that a randomly selected vehicle of a given model
year and age has a given mileage. In particular, the percent
of vehicles with mileages above any given point can be calculated.
A very useful distribution curve was suggested in 1950 by Weibull
to be used in analyzing product reliability or conformity. This
system of analysis is based on the Weibull equation
t-t.
F(t) =1 - exp
3
where
F(t) = Cumulative probability from t to t
$ = Weibull slope
n = Characteristic life (63% of the distribution
is to the left of this point)
t = Random variable
t0 = Origin of the distribution.
20
-------
Figures 6 through 12 show the cumulative Weibull distributions
and the Weibull density functions,
dF(t)
JF~ '
for model years covered in the FY72 Emission Factor Program. For
model years 1966-1971, the Weibull distributions of vehicles
tested in the FY71 Emission Factor Program are also shown. These
figures can be used to' estimate the percentage of vehicles in
any model year-age-mileage grouping.
21
-------
REFERENCES
A Study of Emissions from 1966-1972 Light Duty Vehicles
in Denver, Houston, and Chicago, EPA Report APTD-1504.
A Study of Emissions from 1966-1972 Light Duty Vehicles in
Los Angeles and St. Louis, EPA Report APTD-1505.
A Study of Emissions from 1966-1972 Light Duty Vehicles in
Washington, EPA Report APTD-1506.
Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance - A Summary, 1973
EPA Report APTD-1544.
A Study of Emissions from Light Duty Vehicles in Six Cities,
1972, EPA Report APTD-1497.
Austin, Hellman, "Passenger Car Fuel Economy - Trends and
Influencing Factors", SAE, 1973. (No. 730790)
Williams, G.; Williams, M.: "An Asymptotic Multi-Sample Test
for the Equality of Functions of Individual Population
Means", submitted for publication.
22
-------
TABLES
23
-------
24
-------
TABLE 1
Statistical Distribution of Emission Data from
1966
HC
CO
NO
xc
1967
HC
CO
N0xc
1968
HC
CO
NO
xc
1969
HC
CO
N0xc
1970
HC
CO
N0xc
1971
HC
CO
N0xc
1972
HC
CO
N0xc
FY72 Emission Factor Program - by City,
Year, and Pollutant
Chicago
L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
L
N,L
N,L
L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
U
L
N
N,L
N,L
N,L
Denver
U
N,L
N,L
L
N,L
N,L
L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
L
N,L
N,L
it
B:
U =
Houston
N,L'
N
N,L
N,L
L
N,L
L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
L
L
N,L
N,L
L
N,L
L
N,L
N,L
Normal
Lognormal
Los
Angeles
U
N,L
N,L
L
N,L
N,L
L
N,L
N,L
L
N,L
N,L
U
N,L
N,L
L
N,L
N,L
L
N,L
N,L
St.
Louis
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
L
N,L
N,L
L
L
N,L
L
N,L
N,L
L
L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
Washington
L
N,L
N,L
L
N,L
N,L
L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
U
L
N,L
L
- L
N,L
N,L
N,L
N,L
Uncharacterized
25
-------
TABLE 2
FY72 EMISSION _FACTOR PROGRAM
COMPOSITE EMISSION'LEVELS FOR ALL CITIES EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
COLO TRANSIENT DATA
YEAR
1966
1967
TOTAL
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
TOTAL
M
68
72
140
Kit
86
108
120
140
S40
MEAN
MILES
(n)
71.7
67.0
69.3
57.9
SI.?
36. P
?6.4
14.8
3^.4
HYDROCA*HONS-(ikAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
42.23 29.6r>
33.55 2U.U1
37.77 25. <4<»
28. 19 24. 10
,?3.K<. 14.b9
?5.29 r'h.'*!
1H.16 9,b<;
14.89 lil.bU
21 .?.'
-------
TABLE 3
FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
COMPOSITE EMISSION LEVELS FOR ALL CITIES EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
HOT TRANSIENT DATA
fEAW
1966
1967
TOTAL
I9b3
1969
1970
1971
197?
TOTAL
N
68
72
140
34
*8
inn
l?n
]40
540
MEAN
MILFS
(K)
71.7
67.0
*9.3
57.9
SI .?
36. H
26.4
14.8
34.4
HYDKOCflKHONS-GWAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN Su
29. ?b 29. 3J
23.04 14.71
26. (16 23.13
lQ.i+4 17.33
14.?i4 ".74
is. 42 IU.YI
12.04 b./u
9.f>7 h.»3(i
U.c-f- 11. Ht
Gh.OMETwIC
MEAN SU
22. bl 1.8«
20. P2 1.53
21. ho 1.71
lb.37 1.99
U.ll . 1.53
12.90 1.66
11.11 1.47
b . 7 1 1.57
11.01 1.69
CArtBON MONOXIDE-GWAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SU
263.56 165.38
246.26 107.50
254.66 138.43
162.99 97. HI
142.14 82.15
124.88 81.26
135.77 128.12
97.50 W2.22
128.94 98.59
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SU
216. 6H 1.96
225.52 1.53
221.19 1.75
134.99 1.91
119.50 1.87
104.31 1.84
102.64 2.11
75.13 2.07
101.59 2.03
NOX-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SU
14.32 7.36
15.71 7.40
15.03 7.39
19. 4B 7.44
22.64 8.77
19.92 7.60
19.29 7.30
20.58 7.47
20.33 7.73
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SU
12.09 1.95
14.02 1.65
13. Ob 1.80
17.82 1.58
20.71 1.57
17.93 1.82
17.61 1.61
19.10 1.51
18.57 1.62
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
27
-------
TABLE 4
FY7? EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
COMPOSITE EMISSION LEVELS KOR ALL CITIES EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
COLD STABILIZED DATA
fEAR
1966
1967
TOTAL
1968
1969
1970
1971
197?
TOTAL
N
68
72
140
«4
HH
108
120
140
540
ME AM
MILF.S
(K)
71.7
67.0
69.3
57. y
51.?
16.fi
26.4
14. H
34.4
HYOROCflRhONS-GRflMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SU
3^.81 37.25
31. ?5 20.16
33. 9S 2v./3
23.16 ]'».L59
1 7. 7lj Id. o-i
17.02 U.bS
14.92 12.73
ld.7b h.rlh)
1^.99 13. 4*i
OitOMtlTWIC
MtAN SlJ
?«.9<» 1.86
27.63 l.bb
2«.2t3 1.72
1M.62 1.94
16.03 1.50
14.41 1.67
1-T-.91 1.61
9.11 1.79
13.22 1.80
CARbUN MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
375. 8« 187.14
370.39 14S.17
373.06 166.29
^b7.92 lbb.05
244. b2 149. 9b
201.16 176.38
195. lb 154.49
139. 9* 112.57
199.86 154.38
GEOMETRIC
MEAN Sl>
324.02 l.ttl
336.61 1.63
330.44 1.72
211- HS 1.96
199.30 1.99
lbO.S2 2.19
149.69 2.14
9H.61 2.46
148.81 2.28
NOX-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SU
10.20 5.69
11.02 6.05
10.62 5.67
14.04 6.8b
16.58 7.0J
13.80 6.24
13.32 5.35
13.70 5.31
14.16 b.14
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
8.5b l.bB
9.53 1.75
9.06 1.81
12.37 1.70
14. MB 1.65
12.45 1.60
12.08 1.62
12. bl 1.53
12.76 1.62
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
28
-------
TABLE 5
FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR DENVER
COLD TRANSIENT DATA
VEAR
1966
1967
TOTAL
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
TOTAL
N
17
If
15
?1
?2
27
30
35
135
MfiN
MILf-S
(K)
60.6
69.8
65.3
51. 4
46.1
31.6
1H.?
14. 1
?9.6
HYUKOCflKHONS-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SU
4^.92 31. »7
S9.t-6 31.76
S?.bl 3i.i3
3K.71 ?b.«i?
30.41 ri.SS
?h.3^ o.wi
?^.?^ 11. tb
*6.J<> i9.il9
-e9.30 19.70
GtOMETWIC
Mf!AN SU
3V.47 1.58
S3.b7 l.bH
4r>.i9 1.61
HJ.09 1.71
'
-------
TABLE 6
FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR DENVER
HOT TRANSIENT DATA
iCEAk
1966
1967
TOTAL
1968
19b9
1970
1971
1972
TOTAL
N
17
IB
35
?1
22
27
30
35
135
MEAN
MILES
(K)
bO.fr
69.8
65.3
SI. 4
4fr.i
31 .6
If.?
14.1
29.6
HYOKOCARBONS-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
29.26 20. 7b
42.50 29.26
36. OH 20.01
21.1^ b.57
16.68 3.94
17.70 5.60
17.04 4.94
15.05 4.54
17.56 5.4<;
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
2b.b9 1.61
36. U8 1.73
30.53 1.71.
2U.16 1.38
lb. 27 1.25
17.01 1.32
16.36 1.34
14.36 1.37
lb.77 1.36
CARBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
397. Id 181.85
478.86 184.64
439.19 185.27
292.38 113.39
290.76 134.24
253.12 97.02
246.33 116.60
253.64 111.80
264.43 114.17
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
362.18 1.55
446.97 1.47
403.56 1.S2
269.57 1.54
263.08 1.58
235.59 1.48
225.31 1.57
228.20 1.63
240.53 1.56
NOX-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
8.67 6.16
7.81 5.22
8.22 5.64
12.59 5.S9
12.52 5.62
14.34 t.84
11.38 5.17
13.30 6.43
12.84 5.64
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
6.52 2.32
6.33 2.00
6.42 2.13
11.58 1.51
11.15 1.6b
13.51 1.45
10.36 1.54
11.67 1.64
11.66 1.57
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
30
-------
TABLE 7
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR DENVER
COLD STABILIZED DATA
YEAR
1966
1967
TOTAL
1968
196S
1970
1971
1972
TOTAL
N
17
1H
35
?1
22
27
30
35
135
MfftN
MILES
(K)
f>0.6
69.8
65.3
SI. 4
46. 1
31.6
18.2
14.1
29.6
HYOROCARHONS-GWAMS
ARITHMETIC
ME>N bl)
37.33 26.06
54.51 42.05
46.)6 35.77
22.99 15.29
21.07 4.T3
19.39 fj.Vo
17.93 7.34
15.72 5.13
1*.95 rt.-*?
GtOMtTRIC
MtuN SO
31. b9 1.70
43.82 1.91
37.56 1.83
20.32 1.58
20.52 1.28
lo. 5J 1.34
Io.v9 1.36
1^.90 1.40
17.72 1.42
CARBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
477.58 232.03
620.65 243.65
551.16 245.52
354.68 31ft. 28
352. I/ 146.64
315.95 120.64
287.73 146. <*8
292.15 134.76
315.44 177.03
GEOMETRIC
MEAN bl)
H27.96 1.63
577.11 1.4H
499.10 1.59
281.31 1.93
316.59 1.67
296.15 1.44
254.55 1.69
259.03 1.70
277.38 1.68
NOX-GKAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
8.06 6.21
6.04 4.45
7.02 5.40
10.01 4.85
10.23 6.11
11.40 4.01
9.08 4.93
10.22 4.82
10.17 4.92
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
5.85 2.41
4.63 2.16
5.19 2.27
8.91 1.67
8.71 1.83
10.71 1.46
b.04 1.64
9.11 1.65
9.05 1.65
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
31
-------
TABLE 8
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR LOS ANGELES
COLD TRANSIENT DATA
YEAR
1966
1967
TOTAL
1968
1969
1970
1971
197?
TOTAL
M
17
18
35
21
?2
27
30
35
135
MEAN
MILES
(K)
73.0
hft.7
69.7
6S.O
49.5
40.2
32.1
17. f
37.9
MYUKOCAHBONS-hKAMS
ARITHMETIC
M£6N SO
28.90 26.00
27.12 19.19
27.99 22.01
29.84 19.12
26.37 17.32
31. «2 29. MCI
19.32 6..2t>
17. H2 18.59
24.22 20.09
GtOMETRIC
MEAN SO
23.65 1.76
22.32 l.«9
22.95 1.83
26.60 1.56
22.44 1.77
25.41 1.B3
1?. 35 1.39
1-».M4 1.66
20.29 1.71
CARBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
400.90 163.37
366. 9d 245.98
383.46 207.63
313.66 143.93
346.88 98.11
362. 98 166.69
284.33 104.99
233.43 83.60
301.62 128.65
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
361.01 1.67
309.07 1.80
333.29 1.74
284.60 1 .58
332.49 1.36
327.79 1.59
268.15 1.41
218.11 1.47
276.57 1.52
NOX-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
14.89 8.30
16.14 7.02
15.54 7.58
21.46 8.56
19.60 6.04
19.32 5.86
17.51 4.97
18.12 4.97
18.98 6.05
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
12.39 2.00
14.36 1.72
13.37 1.85
19.73 1.54
18.80 1.34
18.32 1.42
16.85 1.33
17.48 1.31
18.05 1.38
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
32
-------
TABLE 9
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR LOS ANGELES
HOT TRANSIENT OATA
-----
YEAR
1966
1967
TOTAL
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
TOTAL
N
17
IS
35
21
22
?7
TO
35
135
MF. AN
MILf-S
(K)
73.0
6f,.7
69.7
65.o
49.5
40.?
32.1
17.6
37.9
HYOriOCArtBONS-GRt'MS
flPITHMETIC
MEAN Si)
2?. 22 34.36
15.39 11.98
18.70 25.2"
21.13 lb.SU
IS. *3 13. SQ
20.40 20. IS
12.00 4.52
ll.ii* 1U.2H
IS. 46 lw.03-
otOMKTrVIC
~it"AN Sf'
14. b9 2.06
12.70 1.82
13.^2 1 . 9 j
IV. "7 l.bO
13.39 1.61
1^.13 1.84
11.30 1.41
9. IS 1.7S
12.64 1.77
CAKBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
P-iEAN SO
244.30 152.14
203.96 141.46
2^3. 5t> 14H.QO
159. HI 78.<«b
180.45 80.13
209.54 108.34
156.31 ttl.OM
113. B7 56.45
160.44 86.92
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
201.17 1.95
164.19 1.99
1«1.21 1.97
InO.dO 1.71
164.14 1.58
I«b.l9 1.67
139.72 1.61
49.46 1.74
139.12 1.74
NOX-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
15.17 7.52
17.10 7.80
16.16 7.62
21.05 6.39
20.72 6.5«
19.46 6.84
18.05 5.12
17.82 5.84
19.17 6.51
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
12.64 2.05
14.99 1.79
13.00 1.91
19.15 1.61
19.72 1.39
18.06 1.52
17.33 1.34
16.94 1.39
18.02 1.44
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
33
-------
TABLE 10
FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR LOS ANGELES
COLD STABILIZED DATA
CEAR
1966
1967
TOTAL
L96S
1969
1970
l"7l
1972
TOTAL
N
17
ia
35
21
22
27
30
35
135
MEAN
MILES
(K)
73.0
66.7
69.7
65.0
49.5
*0.2
-32.1
17.6
37.9
HYDrtOCAMBONS-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
ME AM SO
30. P7 .59.49
19.76 20.c8
25.15 43.76
?7.41 25.69
20.43 26. b8
24.51 25. OS
14.71 M.HI
12.72 10.20
19.06 21.55
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SL;
17.64 2.24
14. bb 2.10
lb.14 2.15
20.30 2.15
14.61 2.23
If. 67 1.93
13.00 1.61
8.69 2.12
13. S3 2.11
CA«BON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
340.13 197.60
291.27 182.05
315.00 1H8.57
224.37 137. H6
285.09 183.11
313.04 168.89
236.00 126.14
184.86 126.06
244.3o 152.73
GEOMETHIC
MEAN SO
284.30 1.92
233.93 2.06
257.17 1.99
179.36 2.14
225.97 2.13
265.70 1.B8
199.88 1.88
147.59 2.01
196.21 2.04
NOX-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
10.68 7.03
11.61 6.73
11.16 6.79
15.62 6.04
14.88 6.67
14.02 5.92
10.87 3.63
10.64 3.99
12.83 5.62
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
8.38 2.17
9.82 1.85
9.10 2.00
14.06 1.66
13.75 1.49
12.62 1.66
10.23 1.45
10.04 1.40
11.71 1.55
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
34
-------
TABLE 11
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
COMPOSITE EMISSION LEVELS FOR ALL CITIES EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
l»72 FTP
YEA4
19bb
H67
TOTAL
IVb-l
lHb4
1470
1471
l^7,e
TOTAL
N
68
72
140
H4
HH
10d
1?0
140
640
Mt AN
"IILFS
if.)
71.7
67.ll
69.3
= 7.9
bl .2
3d. K
?h.<-
14. M
34.4
* BtLOto
LEVEL «
HC CO NOX
0 1 47
0 j «.9
0 2
-------
TABLE 12
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR DENVER
1972 FTP
YEa^
19b6
1^67
TOTAL
l^bn
1 ^fV-l
1^70
i-m
l-*7?
TijTftL
t«;
17
1"
3b
^1
?2
?7
30
?b
US
MEAN
"ILf.S
(M
t> 0 . h
h9.H
hb.3
SI .4
4ft. |
31. e
1*.2
1^. 1
?y.f<
* UELO.
LtVtL «
iC CO NOX
0071
0 0 83
0 ... U 77
U 0 02
b u 73
1) 0 4rt
j 7 63
14 4 4V
S i+ bH
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
AfilTHMtTIC
MEAN SD
10.97 7.41
15.23 9.55
13. Ib B.73
8.23 5.22
6.86 l.bO
6.36 1.72
5.W9 2. IS
5. hi
-------
TABLE 13
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR LOS ANGELES
1972 FTP
Yr.aw
I'ihV
TUTOL
1470
T'lTAL
M
17
10
35
^ i
30
1 'b
Mf.AK!
(*.}
73.0
f-fr.7
rw.7
^5.0
411. f?
I7''.h
:>7.9
* HELO*
LEVtL «
HC CU NOX
12 h 47
2rf 11 2rt
id 9 37
14 m 19
Id 9 14
11 11 1-i
31 Id fl
b7 31 31
."JO 17
-------
INERTIA WT.
(LBS)
< 2000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2001-2500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2501-3000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3001-3500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3501-4000
HC
CO
NOX
QAS MILEAGE
4001-4500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4501-5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
>5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TOTAL
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TABLE 14
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
1972 FTP RESULTS BY INERTIA WEIGHT AND ENGINE DISPLACEMENT FOR
ALL CITIES* EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
EMISSIONS IN GM/MI - GAS MILEAGE IN MI/GAL
MODEL YEAR=1966
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT (CID)
<150
MEAN SO
N= 4
19.65 27.11
88.96 21.15
1.73 0.62
19.76 2.99
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 ,0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 4
19.65 27.11
88.96 21.15
1.73 0.62
19.76 2.99
151-250
MEAN SD
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
12.55 0.0
153.57 0.0
1.07 0.0
12.70 0.0
N= 13
8.21 5.79
95.75 44.73
2.90 1.25
16.31 2.13
N= 2
5.70 2.45
96.11 31.44
3.63 0.13
16.44 1.41
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0,0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 16 .
8.17 5.41
99.41 43.30
2.87 1.24
16.04 2.18
251-339
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 4
13.47 9.41
90.89 45.99
4.23 1.87
15.33 1.61
N= 7
7.74 2.58
72.88 42.31
3.83 1.28
13.59 1.72
N= 12
11.45 3.32
11B. 92 31.05
3.26 1.26
13.04 1.07
N= 2
8.66 0.33
125.61 12.81
2.86 0.58
11.88 1.68
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 25
10.51 4.71
102.08 40.23
3.55 1.33
13.41 1.57
340-399
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 11
9.49 . 3.57
139.17 85.89
2.33 1.62
12.23 2.99
N= 8
13.72 12.71
104.44 52.26
4.08 2.12
12.07 1.94
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
. N= 19
11.27 8.63
124.54 73.96
3.06 2.00
12.16 2.52
> 400
MEAN SD
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 2
6.75 0.47
122.82 34.75
3.12 1.45
11.96 1.47
N= 1
5.61 0.0
100.75 0.0
3.34 0.0
10.60 0.0
N= 1
11.26 0.0
232.02 0.0
1.04 0.0
9.30 0.0
N= 4
7.59 2.52
144.60 62.51
2.66 1.37
10.84 1.51
TOTAL
MEAN SD
,N= 4
19.65 27.11
88.96 21.15
1.73 0.62
19.76 2.99
N= 1
12.55 0.0
153.57 0.0
1.07 0.0
12.70 0.0
N= 17
9.45 6.86
94.60 43.61
3.21 1.47
16.07 1.99
N= 9
7.28 2.56
78.04 39.64
3.79 1.12
14.14 1.99
N= 23
10.51 3.51
128.60 62.79
2.82 1.49
12.64 2.30
N= 12
11.72 10.58
111.03 44.25
3.71 1.84
12.02 1.68
N= 1
5.61 0.0
100.75 0.0
3.34 0.0
10.60 0.0
N= 1
11.26 0.0
232.02 0.0
1.04 0.0
9.30 0.0
N= 68
10.54 8.64
109.46 53.59
3.09 1.54
13.61 2.84
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
38
-------
INERTIA WT.
(L8S)
< 2000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2001-2500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2501-3000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3001-3500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3501-4000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4001-4500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4501-5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
>5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TOTAL
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TABLE 15
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
1972 FTP RESULTS BY INERTIA WEIGHT AND ENGINE DISPLACEMENT FOR
ALL CITIES, EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
EMISSIONS IN GM/MI - GAS MILEAGE IN MI/GAL
MODEL YEAR=1967
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT (CID)
<150
MEAN 50
N= 3
6.05 3.08
62.43 10.^9
1.62 1.18
27.35 4.96
N= 1
5.85 0.0
49.42 0.0
1.54 0.0
22.60 >0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 4
6.00 2.51
59.17 10.75
1.60 0.96
25.99 4.48
151-250
MEAN SD
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 6
7.15 4.80
89.32 34.08
3.29 1.23
16.86 2.56
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 2
8.10 0.99
100.52 18.50
2.04 0.02
14.78 0.71
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 8
7.39 4.10
92.12 30.09
2.98 1.19
16.28 2.28
251-339
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 7
10.28 5.81
111.40 23.88
2.25 0.75
14.71 0.72
N= 15
9.00 3.58
105.46 44.55
3.69 1.42
13.23 1.22
N= 19
10.04 8.16
108.72 37.88
3.51 1.14
12.78 1.75
N= 2
9.12 0.86
126.86 1.92
2.71 0.49
13.15 0.07
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 43
9.67 6.16
108.86 37.13
3.33 1.26
13.24 1.57
340-399
MEAN SD
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
6.71 0.0
126.27 0.0
2.64 0.0
12.50 0.0
N= 6
6.49 0.92
97.46 49.32
3.40 1.60
12.32 1.34
N= 6
7.25 1.66
112.23 58.22
4.56 3.22
12.20 1.01
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 13
6.86 1.28
106.49 50.16
3.88 2.42
12.28 1.09
> 400
MEAN SD
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 2
7.28 1.39
79.36 4.36
6.15 1.94
13.19 0.57
N= 2
9.64 2.79
131.90 40.11
3.76 1.94
11.37 1.68
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 4
8.46 2.26
105.63 38.24
4.96 2.10
12.21 1.55
TOTAL
MEAN SD
N= 3
6.05 3.08
62.42 10.49
1.62 1.18
27.35 4.96
N= 1
5.85 0.0
49.42 0.0
1.54 0.0
22.60 0.0
N= 13
8.84 5.40
101.21 30.01
2.73 1.10
15.63 1.88
N= 16
8.86 3.50
106.76 43.35
3.62 1.40
13.18 1.18
N= 29
8.98 6.74
103.80 37.92
3.57 1.44
12.83 1.64
N= 10
8.10 1.93
119.09 46.30
4.03 2.61
12.20 1.15
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 72
8.64 5.16"
103.63 39.26
3.38 1.64
13.64 2.45
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
39
-------
INERTIA WT.
(LBS)
< 2000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2001-2500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2501-3000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3001-3500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3501-4000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4001-4500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4501-5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
>5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TOTAL
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TABLE 16
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
1972 FTP RESULTS BY INERTIA WEIGHT AND ENGINE DISPLACEMENT FOR
ALL CITIES. EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
EMISSIONS IN GM/MI - GAS MILEAGE IN MI/GAL
MODEL YEAR=1968
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT (CID)
<150
MEAN SD
N= 3
11.48 9.74
102.06 47.18
1.55 0.37
18.93 3.88
N= 1
27.03 0.0
113.87 0.0
2.03 0,0
15.90 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 4
15.37 11.13
105.01 , 38.97
1.67 0.38
18.07 2.94
151-250
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
8.21 0.0
94.61 0.0
2.14 0.0
17.20 0.0
N= 4
4.13 1.58
44.98 19.80
3.65 1.25
18.25 1.05
N= 2
10.88 7.37
112.65 19.63
5.10 1.03
13.81 2.57
N= 2
4.40 3.41
55.23 18.67
5.91 0.16
15.68 1.96
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 9
6.15 4.25
67.81 33.64
4.31 1.53
16.37 2.53
251-339
MEAN SD
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
. 0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 7
5.45 1.96
50.01 14.99
3.67 1.08
15.44 1.18
N= 14
4.82 2.04
52.12 37.33
3.92 1.24
15.48 2.48
N= 11
7.21 7.73
63.58 25.13
4.51 1.53
14.52 1.96
N= 3
8.69 3.15
95.70 47.45
5.18 2.92
12.25 1.42
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 35
6.03 4.71
59.03 32i44
4.16 1.48
14.83 2.19
340-399
MEAN SD
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 7
5.84 1.45
83.56 25.62
2.72 1.24
13.59 1.31
N= 12
7.09 4.50
85.72 36.92
4.97 1.63
12.16 1.02
N= 4
6.39 0.84
115.59 36.78
4.60 1.11
11.60 0.56
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 23
6.59 3.34
90.26 34.46
4.22 1.72
12.46 1.23
> 400
MEAN SD
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
8.78 0.0
127.01 0.0
1.19 0.0
11.50 0.0
N= 4
11.88 12.77
78.85 30.16
5.15 0.94
11.98 1.21
N= 4
6.74 2.25
136.67 88.59
3.96 2.31
10.22 2.09
N= 4
3.13 0.79
52.29 24.34
4.95 2.22
10.88 2.10
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 13
7.37 7.44
92.17 60.73
4.42 2.00
11.02 1.85
TOTAL
MEAN SO
N= 3
11.48 9.74
102.06 47.18
1.55 0.37
18.93 3.28
N= 2
17.61 13.30
104.24 13.62
2.08 0.08
16.52 0.92
N= 11
4.97 1.87
48.18 16.09
3.67 1.09
16.35 1.76
N= 24
5.79 2.91
69.46 39.06
3.55 1.44
14.53 2.26
N= 29
7.61 7.12
74.27 31.64
4.89 1.45
13.15 1.85
N= 11
7.15 2.17
117.83 59.18
4.53 1.98
11.22 1.75
N= 4
3.13 0.79
52.29 24.34
4.95 2.22
10.88 2.10
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 84
6.85 5.49
75.84 41.35
4.12 1.67
13.64 2.69
NOX CORRECTEO FOR HUMIDITY
40
-------
INERTIA WT.
(LBS)
< 2000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2001-2500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2501-3000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3001-3500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3501-4000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4001-4500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4S01-5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
>5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TOTAL
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TABLE 17
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
1972 FTP RESULTS BY INERTIA WEIGHT AND ENGINE DISPLACEMENT FOR
ALL CITIES, EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
EMISSIONS IN GM/MI - GAS MILEAGE IN MI/GAL
MODEL YEAR=1969
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT (CID)
<150
MEAN SO
N= 4
4.29 0.37
38.77 18.68
2.55 0.94
24.08 3.73
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 4
4.29 0.37
38.77 18.68
2.55 0.94
24.08 3.73
151-250
MEAN SO
N= 1
3.25 0.0
33.25 0.0
1.97 0.0
19.10 0.0
N= 1
4.55 0.0
76.69 0.0
3.69 0.0
19.90 0.0
N= 7
4.78 2.50
45.45 12.69
5.16 1.37
16.47 1.56
N= 1
5.79 0.0
112.48 0.0
1.59 0.0
15.20 0.0
N= 1
2.85 0.0
52.83 0.0
3.50 0.0
19.10 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 11
4.54 2.10
53.95 24.17
4.26 1.74
17.04 1.90
251-339
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 4
5.95 0.45
68.28 20.25
4.62 1.24
14.24 1.57
N= 11
6.08 5.36
68.20 57.99
5.75 2.13
14.11 1.46
N= 7
6.57 4.05
92.48 76.97
5.51 2.50
13.26 2.15
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 22
6.21 4.29
75.94 59.05
5.47 2.09
13.85 1.74
340-399
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 2
6.29 1.55
91.81 53.49
4.18 0.56
13.43 1.75
N= «
5.48 1.65
89.36 28.17
3.89 1.69
13.07 1.13
N= 13
5.68 2.40
83.80 33.98
4.56 1.31
12.69 0.94
N= 9
4.64 1.16
74.64 38.11
6.27 1.82
12.63 1.09
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 32
5.38 1.88
83.11 33.61
4.85 1.75
12.81 1.04
> 400
MEAN SD
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 6
7.57 6.74
103.35 47.92
4.24 1.48
11.84 1.03
N= 9
5.66 1.67
87.41 30.57
4.98 2.06
11.91 2.45
N= 3
4.02 1.21
69.64 13.49
6.93 0.40
10.73 0.29
N= 1
3.19 0.0
58.01 0.0
5.59 0.0
9.70 0.0
N= 19
5.87 4.00
88.09 35.47
5.08 1.83
11.55 1.77
TOTAL
MEAN SD
N= 5
4.08 0.56
37.67 16.36
2.44 0.85
22.89 3.87
N= 1
4.55 0.0
76.69 0.0
3.69 0.0
19.90 0.0
N= 13
5.37 1.96
59.61 27.13
4.85 1.22
15.21 1.98
N= 20
5.83 4.02
78.88 47.27
4.80 2.21
13.72 1.40
N= 27
6.23 4.03
89.25 49.56
4.69 1.72
12.79 1.62
N= 18
5.15 1.49
81.03 34.15
5.62 2.00
12.26 1.95
N= 3
4.02 1.21
69.64 13.49
6.93 0.40
10.73 0.29
N= 1
3.19 0.0
58.01 0.0
5.59 0.0
9.70 0.0
N= 88
5.54 3.14
76.73 41.94
4.88 1.90
13.45 2.53
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
41
-------
INERTIA WT.
(LBS)
< 2000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2001-2500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2501-3000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3001-3500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3501-4000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4001-4500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4501-5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
>5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TOTAL
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
i TABLE 18
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
1972 FTP RESULTS BY INERTIA WEIGHT AND ENGINE DISPLACEMENT FOR
ALL CITIESi EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
EMISSIONS IN GM/MI - GAS MILEAGE IN MI/GAL
MODEL YEAR=1970
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT (CID)
<150
MEAN SO
N= 8
2.99 0.96
34.58 15.06
3.58 0.97
23.23 2.84
N= 4
4.64 3.38
46.03 29.22
3.04 0.42
21.95 3.65
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0,0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 12
3.54 2.09
38.40 20.22
3.40 0.85
22.79 3.06
151-250
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 2
3.56 0.80
34.95 19.59
3.24 1.39
21.61 1.97
N= 13
3.76 1.23
42.54 17.38
3.97 1.37
19.13 2.64
N= 2
4.54 1.49
78.97 84.32
4.45 4.13
14.51 3.11
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 17
3.83 1.18
45.93 29.26
3.94 1.64
18.68 3.33
251-339
MEAN SD
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
3.93 0.0
39.26 0.0
3.03 0.0
14.50 0.0
N= 9
5.05 3.42
61.20 29.36
3.93 1.21
14.29 1.30
N= 11
4.60 1.22
54.07 21.98
5.69 1.64
13.36 1.04
N= 1
8.23 0.0
38.43 0.0
5.11 0.0
12.40 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 22
4.92 2.41
55.60 24.49
4.82 1.65
13.73 1.20
340-399
MEAN 50
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
6.43 0.0
114.06 0.0
2.33 0.0
14.00 0.0
N= 9
6.66 4.85
83.03 47.94
3.49 0.83
12.78 1.21
N= 17
8.55 10.07
82.43 42.61
4.12 1.96
12.37 1.61
N= 9
4.70 1.06
70.50 21.99
4.21 0.94
12.11 1.38
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 36
7.06 7.38
80.48 39.08
3.94 1.51
12.44 1.46
> 400
MEAN SD
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= . 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
13.28 0.0
168.85 0.0
1.82 0.0
9.10 0.0
N= 1
6.49 0.0
115.93 0.0
2.17 0.0
12.80 0.0
N= 14
5.57 3.10
84.18 83.96
4.21 1.36
11.00 1.53
N= 5
8.29 7.12
63.86 30.37
6.10 2.17
11.48 2.45
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 21
6.63 4.48
84.89 72.65
4.45 1.86
11.08 1.75
TOTAL
MEAN SO
N= 8
2.99 0.96
34.58 15.06
3.58 0.97
23.23 2.84
N= 6
4.28 2.70
42.34 24.93
3.10 0.71
21.83 2.95
N= 15
3.95 1.33
47.09 24.55
3.80 1.36
18.30 3.08
N= 21
6.09 4.20
77.38 46.59
3.69 1.41
13.28 2.01
N= 29
6.98 7.88
72.83 38.35
4.65 1.99
12.75 1.49
N= 24
5.36 2.53
77.14 65.31
4.25 1.18
11.45 1.55
N= b
8.29 7.12
63.86 30.37
6.10 2.17
11.48 2.45
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N=108
5.64 5.04
66.15 45.67
4.16 1.61
13.80 3.43
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
42
-------
INERTIA WT.
5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TOTAL
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TABLE 19
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
1972 FTP RESULTS BY INERTIA WEIGHT AND ENGINE DISPLACEMENT FOR
ALL CITIES, EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
EMISSIONS IN GM/MI - GAS MILEAGE IN MI/GAL
MODEL YEAR=1971
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT (CID)
<150
MEAN SO
N= 13
4.49 2.42
48.86 43.48
2.61 1.02
22.73 4.50
N= 14
3.61 1.87
48.96 26.39
2.97 1.37
21.89 3.10
N= 1
3.45 0.0
28.22 0.0
3.43 0.0
21.40 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 28
4.01 2.12
48.18 34.50
2.82 1.18
22.25 3.66
151-250
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
2.23 0.0
14.78 0.0
3.19 0.0
20.80 0.0
N= 8
2.88 0.40
45.08 20.71
4.75 1.29
19.32 1.62
N= 3
3.89 0.52
54.93 11.66
5.13 0.39
17.54 1.58
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 12
3.08 0.65
45.02 20.19
4.72 1.16
18.95 1.78
251-339
MEAN SD
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 2
3.38 0.04
47.15 9.60
2.89 0.25
13.64 2.64
N= 10
5.19 2.69
46.11 19.56
4.24 1.01
13.75 1.09
N= 1
2.56 0.0
33.94 0.0
5.09 0.0
13.60 0.0
N= 1
4.27 0.0
59.70 0.0
5.45 0.0
11.30 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 14
4.68 2.42
46.36 17.25
4.20 1.08
13.52 1.37
340-399
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
3.53 0.0
61.49 0.0
2.06 0.0
14.60 0.0
N= 9
6.85 5.45
106.19 70.45
3.18 0.85
10.69 2.15
N= 18
4.8*0 2.76
69.44 46.79
4.60 1.36
12.49 1.86
N= 8
4.55 1.33
77.21 31.35
5.42 1.12
10.93 1.27
N= 1
4.67 0.0
57.89 0.0
7.36 0.0
10.50 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 37
5.20 3.39
79.53 50.79
4.44 1.51
11.64 2.00
> 400
MEAN SD
N= 0 .
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 2
6.85 3.60
75.43 25.63
5.07 1.76
11.66 0.99
N= 15
4.05 1.56
60.65 34.90
4.94 1.33
11.56 0.88
N= 10
4.05 1.09
58.32 33.12
5.65 1.65
10.53 0.61
N= 2
3.44 0.74
62.64 20.01
4.74 0.33
10.48 0.56
N= 29
4.20 1.63
61.00 31.89
5.18 1.42
11.11 0.90
TOTAL
MEAN SD
N= 13
4.49 2.42
48.86 43.48
2.61 1.02
22.73 4.50
N= 15
3.52 1.84
46.68 26.91
2.98 1.32
21.81 2.98
N= 12
3.06 0.42
45.39 18.23
4.11 1.43
17.75 3.45
N= 22
5.69 3.95
71.89 54.12
3.93 1.11
12.65 2.90
N= 21
4.89 2.79
68.32 44.26
4.67 1.32
12.45 1.76
N= 24
4.22 1.44
66.13 33.23
5.12 1.23
11.33 1.05
N= 11
4.10 1.05
58.28 31.42
5.81 1.65
10.53 0.58
N= 2
3.44 0.74
62.64 20.01
4.74 0.33
10.48 0.56
N=120
4.41 2.49
60.42 39.45
4.24 1.57
13.77 4.01
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
43
-------
INERTIA WT.
(LBS)
< 2000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2001-2500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2501-3000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3001-3500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3501-4000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4001-4500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4501-5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
>5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TOTAL
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TABLE 20
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
1972 FTP RESULTS BY INERTIA WEIGHT AND ENGINE DISPLACEMENT FOR
ALL CITIES. EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
EMISSIONS IN GM/MI - GAS MILEAGE IN MI/GAL
MODEL YEAR=1972
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT (CID)
<150
MEAN SD
N= 4
2.96 0.75
39.87 14.10
2.97 0.43
20.28 2.02
N= 18
2.89 0.80
32.32 13.63
3.43 1.27
21.34 2.55
N= 2
2. 98 0.84
24.56 2.72
4.37 0.83
21.80 0.03
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 24
2.91 0.76
32.94 13.35
3.43 1.17
21.19 2.35
151-250
MEAN SD
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 6
2.74 0.53
41.22 18.99
5.41 1.34
17.50 1.47
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 6
2.74 0.53
41.22 18.99
5.41 1.24
17.50 1.47
251-339
MEAN 50
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
0.69 0.0
8.60 0.0
1.33 0.0
20.70 0.0
N= 7
3.41 1.13
45.17 34.12
3.40 0.96
14.74 3.15
N= 10
3.03 0.52
27.24 16.41
4.74 1.19
14.40 0.98
N= 2
3.66 0.78
37.95 13.28
4.74 0.88
12.53 0.64
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 20
3.11 0.97
33.66 24.70
4.10 1.36
14.52 2.24
340-399
MEAN SD
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 8
4.25 1.02
57.67 32.69
3.15 0.74
12.68 0.88
N= 24
3.61 1.28
52.27 29.04
4.86 1.37
11.65 1.26
N= 16
3.90 0.94
60.54 22.44
4.52 1.22
11.22 0.77
N= 1
3.35 0.0
26.73 0.0
5.33 0.0
10.70 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 49
3.81 1.13
55.33 27.37
4.48 1.35
11.64 1.14
> 400
MEAN SD
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
4.50 0.0
32.60 0.0
2.34 0.0
9.50 0.0
N= 4
3.35 1.38
43.49 11.82
5.33 1.12
11.93 1.52
N= 23
4.36 5.61
51.02 29.54
5.27 1.68
11.37 2.22
N= 10
1.82 0.76
23.12 15.93
5.36 2.01
9.78 1.04
N= 3
2.41 0.34
32.47 4.36
5.85 0.42
9.95 1.11
N= 41
3.50 4.34
41.67 26.33
5.27 1.68
10.83 1.87
TOTAL
MEAN SD
N= 4
2.96 0.75
39.87 14.10
2.97 0.43
20.28 2.02
N= 19
2.77 0.92
31.08 14.32
3.32 1.32
21.31 2.47
N= 15
3.09 0.90
40.84 25.99
4.33 1.38
16.49 3.45
N= 19
3.62 0.98
40.34 27.97
3.94 1.30
13.28 1.74
N= 30
3.58 1.24
50.14 26.64
4.91 1.29
11.74 1.26
N= 39
4.17 4.31
54.92 26.95
4.97 1.54
11.31 1.74
N= 11
1.96 0.86
23.45 15.15
5.36 1.90
9.86 1.03
N= 3
2.41 0.34
32.47 4.36
5.85 0.42
9.95 1.11
N=140
3.42 2.50
43.79 25.84
4.52 1.55
12.90 3.31
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
44
-------
TABLE 21
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
FUEL ECONOMY IN MILES PER GALLON
ALL CITIES EXCEPT DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
YEAR
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
N
68
72
84
88
108
120
140
COLD
TRANSIENT
MEAN SO
12.9 3.4
13.2 2.H
13.2 3.0
12.9 2.8
13.3 3.5
13.5 4.1
12.7 3.4
STABILIZED
MEAN SO
14.1 2.8
13.9 2.3
13.9 2.5
13.8 2.5
14.1 3.6
13.9 4.0
12.9 3.3
HOT
TRANSIENT
MEAN SD
16.0 3.<+
16.3 2.9
16.1 2.9
16.3 3.2
16.2 3.8
16.4 ^.7
15.3 3.9
1972
FTP
MEAN SO
13.6 2.8
13.6 2.4
13.6 2.7
13.4 2.5
13.8 3.4
13.8 4.0
12.9 3.3
1975
FTP
MEAN SU
14.4 2.H
14.4 2.5
14.4 2.6
14.3 2.6
14.5 3.5
14.5 4.1
13.5 3.4
45
-------
TABLE 22
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
FUEL ECONOMY IN MILES PER GALLON
DENVER
YEAR
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
N
17
18
21
22
27
30
35
COLD
TRANSIENT
MEAN SO
12.0 2.6
11.5 2.2
10.9 2.7
12.0 3.1
11.9 2.3
12.5 3.7
11.7 3.1
STABILIZED
MEAN SO
12.9 2.7
12.4 2.5
12.6 2.9
13.4 3.0
13.2 2.8
13.5 3.5
12.2 3.0
HOT
TRANSIENT
MEAN SO
15.1 3.2
14.1 2.6
14.6 2.7
15.4 3.7
15.1 2.7
15.7 4.2
14.2 3.5
1972
FTP
MEAN SD
12.5 2.5
12.0 2.2
11.8 2.7
12.8 3.0
12.6 2.5
13.1 3.6
12.1 3.0
1975
FTP
MEAN SD
1 3 . 3 2.6
12.7 2.3
12.7 2.7
13.7 3.1
13.5 2.6
13.9 3.7
12.7 3.1
46
-------
TABLE 23
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
FUEL ECONOMY IN MILES PER GALLON
LOS ANGELES
YEAK N
1966 17
19^7 18
196d 21
1969 22
1970 27
1971 30
1972 35
COLO
TRANSIENT
MEAN SO
11.9 2.5
12.0 2.6
12.2 2.0
11.4 2.5
11.8 2.6
12.4 3.3
11.2 2.7
STABILIZED
MEAN SO
12.9 1.9
13.1 2.4
13.5 1.8
12.4 2.7
12.7 2.9
12.6 3.5
11.4 2.8
HOT
TRANSIENT
MEAN SD
14.3 1.9
14.3 2.6
15.2 2.2
14.3 2.9
14.6 3.0
15.0 3.6
13.7 3.1
1972
FTP
MEAN SD
12.5 2.1
12.6 2.4
12.9 1.9
12.0 2.6
12.3 2.7
12.7 3.4
11.4 2.8
1975
FTH
MEAN SD
13.1 2.0
13.2 2.4
13.7 2.0
12.7 2.7
13.1 2.8
13.3 3.5
12.0 2.9
47
-------
TABLE 24
Hydrocarbon Deterioration Factors by Vehicle
+
Model-Year
Four
Mileages Cities
Los
Angeles Denver
*
GARB
1966-1967 Model-Year Vehicles
Statistically
Significant NO
60,000 1.03
75,000 1.06
90,000 1.10
105,000 1.14
1968
Statistically
Significant YES
15,000 1.21
30,000 1.50
45,000 1.79
50,000 1.89
60,000 2.08
1969
Statistically
Significant NO
15,000 1.00
30,000 1.00
45,000 1.00
50,000 1.00
60,000 1.00
1970
Statistically
Significant YES
15,000 1.14
30,000 1.34
45,000 1.54
50,000 1.60
60,000 1.73
YES NO
1.00 1.00
1.44 1.00
1.71 1.00
1.98 1.00
Model-Year Vehicles
NO NO
1.21 1.04
1.50 1.09
1.79 1.13
1.89 1.15
2.08 1.18
Model-Year Vehicles
NO NO
1.05 1.02
1.12 1.04
1.19 1.07
1.22 1.08
1.26 1.09
Model-Year Vehicles
NO NO
1.12 1.04
1.30 1.10
1.48 1.15
1.54 1.17
1.65 1.21
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.15
1.23
1.25
1.26
1.27
1.09
1.13
1.15
1.16
1.16
1.12
1.17
1.21
1.22
1.25
48
-------
TABLE 24 (cont'd)
Hydrocarbon Deterioration Factors by Vehicle
Model-Year
Mileages
Four
Cities
Los
Angeles
Denver
GARB
1971 Model-Year Vehicles
Statistically
Significant
15,000
30,000
45,000
50,000
60,000
YES
1.11
1.26
1.41
1.46
1.56
YES
1.07
1.17
1.27
1.31
1.37
NO
1,
1,
1,
1.
02
05
08
09
1.11
1.09
1.15
1.19
1.20
1.21
Statistically
Significant
15,000
30,000
45,000
50,000
60,000
1972 Model-Year Vehicles
YES
1.17
41
65
1
1
1
73
1.89
NO
1
1
1
1
00
00
00
00
1.00
NO
1,
1.
1,
1,
02
06
09
10
1.12
1.11
1
1.
1
22
28
28
1.32
"Exhaust Emissions from Privately Owned 1966-1972
California Automobiles - A Statistical Evaluation
of Surveillance Data." California Air Resources
Laboratory. October 19, 1973.
Baseline emissions for 1966-1967 deterioration factors
are 50,000 mile figures. For all other model-years,
baseline emissions are 4,000 mile figures.
49
-------
TABLE 25
Carbon Monoxide Deterioration Factors by
Mileages
Vehicle Model-Year*
Four Los
Cities Angeles
Denver
CARB
1966-1967 Model-Year Vehicles
Statistically
Significant
60,000
75,000
9-0,000
105,000
YES YES
1.03 1.07
1.08 1.18
1.13 1.29
1.19 1.40
YES
1.07
1.18
1.28
1.39
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1968 Model-Year Vehicles
Statistically
Significant
15,000
30,000
45,000
50,000
60,000
NO NO
1.04 1.04
1.09 1.11
1.14 1.18
1.15 1.20
1.19 1.25
NO
1.07
1.18
1.28
1.31
1.38
1.15
1.24
1.31
1.31
1.37
1969 Model-Year Vehicles
Statistically
Significant
15,000
30,000
45,000
50,000
60,000
NO NO
1.03 1.04
1.07 1.10
1.11 1.16
1.12 1.18
1.15 1.22
NO
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.98
1.21
1.30
1.40
1.42
1.48
1970 Model-Year Vehicles
Statistically
Significant
. 15,000
30,000
45,000
50,000
60,000
YES NO
1.08 1.06
1.19 1.15
1.29 1.24
1.33 1.27
1.40 1.33
NO
1.09
1.21
1.33
1.37
1.45
1.15
1.27
1.32
1.34
1.42
50
-------
TABLE 25 (cont'd)
Carbon Monoxide Deterioration Factors by
Vehicle Model-Year
Mileages
Four
Cities
Los
Angeles
Denver
GARB
1971 Model-Year Vehicles
Statistically
Significant NO
15,000 1.00
30,000 1.02
45,000 1.03
50,000 1.03
60,000 1.04
YES
1,
1,
1,
1,
12
27
43
48
1.59
NO
0.97
0.93
0.89
0.88
0.85
1.06
1.13
1
1
16
17
1.17
1972 Model-Year Vehicles
Statistically
Significant YES
15,000 1.18
30,000 1.42
45,000 1.67
50,000 1.75
60,000 1.91
NO
1
1
1
1
,09
21
,33
.37
NO
1
1
1
1
04
09
14
16
1.45
1.19
1.20
1.33
1.43
1.46
1.50
"Exhaust Emissions from Privately Owned 1966-1972
California Automobiles - A Statistical Evaluation
of Surveillance Data." California Air Resources
Laboratory. October 19, 1973.
Baseline emissions for 1966-1967 deterioration factors
are 50,000 mile figures. For all other model-years,
baseline emissions are 4,000 mile figures.
51
-------
TABLE 26
Oxides of Nitrogen Deterioration Factors by
Vehicle Model-Year
Mileages
Four
Cities
Los
Angeles
Denver
GARB
1966-1967 Model-Year Vehicles
Statistically
Significant
60,000
75,000
90,000
105,000
NO
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
NO NO
1.00 0.95 **
1.00 0.87
1.00 0.82
1.00 0.75
1968 Model-Year Vehicles
Statistically
Significant
15,000
30,000
45,000
50,000
60,000
NO
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
NO NO
0.98 1.04
0.95 1.09
0.92 1.15
0.91 1.16
0.89 1.20
1969 Model-Year Vehicles
Statistically
Significant
15,000
30,000
45,000
50,000
60,000
NO
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
YES NO
0.95 1.00
0.88 1.00
0.81 1.00
0.79 1.00
0.74 1.00
1970 Model-Year Vehicles
Statistically
Significant
15,000
30,000
45,000
50,000
60,000
NO
0.98
0.95
0.92
0.91
0.89
NO NO
0.98 1.00
0.95 1.00
0.92 1.00
0.90 1.00
0.88 1.00
52
-------
TABLE 26 (cont'd)
Oxides of Nitrogen Deterioration Factors by
Vehicle Model-Year
Mileages
Four
Cities
Los
Angeles
Denver
CARB
Statistically
Significant
15,000
30,000
45,000
50,000
60,000
1971 Model-Year Vehicles
NO
0.98
0.95
0.92
0.90
0.88
NO
1.
1,
1,
1.
00
00
00
00
1.00
NO
0.96
0.92
0.97
0.85
0.82
1,
1.
1,
1,
04
07
08
09
1.10
1972 Model-Year Vehicles
Statistically
Significant
15,000
30,000
45,000
50,000
60,000
NO
1
1
1
1
05
12
19
21
NO
1
1
1.
1
00
00
00
00
NO
1,
1,
1,
1,
08
18
23
32
1.25
1.00
1.40
03
07
10
1.11
1.13
"Exhaust Emissions from Privately Owned 1966-1972
California Automobiles - A Statistical Evaluation
of Surveillance Data." California Air Resources
Laboratory. October 19, 1973.
**
Baseline Emissions for 1966-1967 deterioration
factors are 50,000 mile figures. For all other
model-years, baseline emissions are 4,000 mile
figures.
CARB NO deterioration data are not available before
model-year 1971.
53
-------
63
TABLE 27
Mileage and Program Effects
(based upon FY71 and FY72 data from four cities)
Mileage Effects
HC
CO
NO..
Model-Year Vehicles
1957-1965 1966-1967 1968-1969 1970-1971
X XX
X X
Program Effects
HC
CO
NO
X
X
An X indicates that a test of the hypothesis of "no effects"
is rejected at the .05 level of confidence.
54
-------
64
TABLE 28
Comparison of New Vehicles in the FY71
and
FY72 Emission Factor Programs -
Mean Emission Levels
1972 FTP (grams/mi)
Four Cities Denver
Mean
HC
CO
N0xc
1971
1972
1971
1972
1971
1972
vehicles
vehicles
vehicles
vehicles
vehicles
vehicles
3.
3.
46.
43.
4.
4.
42
42
33
79
99
52
S.D.
1.47
2.50
28.29
25.84
1.79
1.55
Mean
6.
5.
100.
90.
3.
3.
73
61
04
42
04
00
S.
2.
4.
39.
35.
1.
1.
D.
10
34
72
79
55
37
Los Angeles
Mean
3.51
4.07
51.90
55.77
3.81
3,83
S.D.
0.99
4.87
22.49
25.41
1.09
1.15
1975 FTP (grams/mi)
Four Cities
Mean S.D.
Denver
Mean S.D.
Los Angeles
Mean S.D.
HC
CO
NO
1971
1972
1971
1972
1971
1972
vehicles
vehicles
vehicles
vehicles
vehicles
vehicles
3
3
39
36
5
4
.07
.02
.56
.88
.06
.55
1.36
2.22
25.62
24.04
1.84
1.59
5
4
88
80
3
3
.59
.75
.13
.36
.05
.08
1.42
2.42
35.96
32.46
1.59
1.39
3
3
42
46
3
3
.02
.56
.26
.68
.83
.81
0.79
4.24
19.91
24.06
1.10
1.21
55
-------
HC
CO
HC
CO
TABLE 29
Comparison of New Vehicles in the FY71
and FY7
2 Emission Factor Programs - Percent of
Vehicles at or Below Standards
1971 Vehicles
FY71 Emission Factor Program
Percent
Four
Cities
81
60
at or Bejow 1971
Standards
Los
Denver Angeles
10 81
5 43
1971 Vehicles
FY71 Emission Factor Program
Percent
Four
Cities
61
49
*
HC -
CO -
at or Below 1972
Standards**
Los
Denver Angeles
0 62
5 33
4 . 6 gm/mi
47.0 gm/mi
1972 Vehicles
FY72 Emission Factor Program
Percent at or Below 1972
Standards**
Four
Cities
HC 60
CO 52
Los
Denver Angeles
14 57
9 31
1972 Vehicles
FY72 Emission Factor Program
Percent
Four
Cities
HC 87
CO 61
**
HC -
CO -
at or Below 1971
Standards*
Los
Denver Angeles
43 86
11 46
3.4 gm/mi
39.0 gm/mi
(Approximate equivalents
in terms of the 1972 FTP)
56
-------
FIGURES
57
-------
58
-------
FIGURE 1
Vehicle Selection Procedure
Develop Strategy for Test
Fleet Selection, Procurement
and Logistics
I
Prepare Mailing
Materials
*Letter § Envelope
*Brochure
*Return Envelope
Design Random Vehicle
Selection Program
^Initial Elimination
*Random Selection Routine
"Other Selection Criteria
Obtain Registration List
by Test Location
*Make
*Model
"Year
*0wner
*Address
*Zip Code
j Select Initial Sample )
Send Mailing to Selected
Vehicle Owners
Follow up Mailing to
Maximize Response
*Phone Calls
*Personal Visits
*0ther
i
Set up On-Site File for
Keeping Records of
Every Vehicle
Set up Home Office File
For Keeping Records of
Every Vehicle
Quantitatively Evaluate Response
Clarify as Needed. Review for:
*Mileage, Age
*0ther
Select Test Fleet by "fitting" Test
Vehicles as Closely as Possible to
Proportions of National Vehicle
Population Characteristics Using
This Hierarchy of Criteria:
*Year *CID, Carburetion
*Make transmission
Compatible with Our Needs?
If so, list.
59
-------
FIGURE 2
Vehicle Handling Procedure
Select Test Vehicles
from Consumer Responses
Schedule for
Testing
Perform Participant
Interface
Vehicle Pretest
Inspection
Vehicle
Rejected
Return to Owner
with Explanation
Complete Agreements
Soak Area
Test
Engineering
Diagnostic Procedures
Return to
Participant
60
-------
FY72 Emission Factors Program
40
30
§10
Four Cities
p
o
'72 Fed. Std.
40
30
20
110
a.
Denver
o
'72 Fed. Std.
- ^ oo
40
3O
20
Los Angeles
'72 Fed. Std.
Hydrocarbons In Grams Per Mile
1972 Vehicles
Figure 3
61
-------
FY72 Emission Factors Program
|3G
2 20
I"
Four Cities
'72 Fed. Std.
10 10 «O 00 O>
s40
I30
o 2d
r°
Denver
'72 Fed. Std.
40
20
Los Angeles
'72 Fed. Std.
T-L
Carbon Monoxide In Grams Per Mile
1972 Vehicles
Figure 4
62
-------
FY72 Emission Factors Program
5 4C
I *>
* 20
1,0
Four Cities
s
cv
40
20
iI0
Denver
m
40
30
o 20
!»
Los Angeles
in Qin
h-. ift cl
cvj
01
mQinS
N- JS w q
K>'virf
-------
FIGURE 6
STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF MILEAGE
1966 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
0.300
0.300
CUMULATIVE DENSITY
0.400 0.500 0.600
0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
4000.1
8000.1
12000.1
16000.1
20000.1
24000.1
28000.1
32000.1
36000.1
40000.1
44000.1
48000.1
52000.1
56000.1
60000.1
64000.1
68000.1
72000.1
76000.1
80000.1
84000.1
°^v
L 88000.1
E 93000.1
A 96000.1
G 100000.I
E 104000.1
108000.1
113000.1
116000.1
130000.1
134000.1
138000.1
133000.1
136000.1
140000.1
144000.1
148000.I
152000.1
156000.1
160000.1
164000.1
168000.1
172000.1
176000.1
180000.1
184000.1
188000.1
192000.1
200000.1
0 - FY72 PROGRAM
X - FY71 PROGRAM
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION
PROBABILITY DENSITY
0.000001S 0.0000031 0.0000046 0.0000062 0.0000077 0.0000092 0.0000108 0.0000123 0.0000139 0.00001540.0000170 0.000018S
0 - FY72 PROGRAM FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
X - FY71 PROGRAM
168000.
172000.
176000,
1HOOOO,
184000,
188000,
192000,
196000,
300000,
64
-------
FIGURE 7
STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF MILEAGE
1967 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
0.100
0.200 0.300
CUMULATIVE DENSITY
0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700
0.800 0.900 1.000
4000.1
8000. l'\
12000.
1 16000.
9 20000.
6 24000.
7 28000.
32onn.
V 36000.
E 40000.
H 44000.
I 48000.
C 52000.
L 56000.
E 60000.
S 64000.
68000.
- 72000.
76000.
M 80000.
I 84000.
L 88000.
E 92000.
A 96000.
G 100000.
E 104000.
108000.
112000.
. 116000.
120000.
124000.
128000.
132000.
136000.
140000.
144000.
148000.
152000.
156000.
160000.
164000.
168000.
172000.
176000.
180000.
184000.
1U8000.
1V2000.
196000.
200000.
oV
\ *^
\ *x.
\ ^x\
o^ *^
NL ^«
XCL
^^^0
^-<
0 - FV7
X - FY7
0.0000019 0.000003
4000.1
eooo.
12000.
1 16000.
9 20000.
6 24000.
6 28000.
32000.
V 36000.
E 40000.
H 44000.
I 48000.
C 52000.
L 56000.
E 60000.
S 64000.
68000.
- 72000.
76000.
M 80000.
I 84000.
L 88000.
E 92000.
A 96000.
G 100000.
E 104000.
108000.
112000.
116000.
120000.
124000.
128000.
132000.
136000.
140000.
144000.
148000.
1S2000.
156000.
160000.
164000.
168000.
172000.
176000.
180000.
184000.
188000.
192000.
196000.
200000.
CVUt
'OJtx^
^U^X*^^
^"N^»^^ *""*._
^**""*0
""^^.
^fftf^f
^*** W^^
jS*
^ ^
]f ^--0
if ^^r^
^^
QT
Q
ff
0
0 - FY72 PROGRAM CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION
PROBABILITY DENSITY
0.0000019 0.0000038 0.0000056 0.0000075 0*0000094 0.0000113 0*0000132 0.0000150 0.0000169 0*000011*
0 - FT72 PROGRAM FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
X - FY71 PROGRAM
65
-------
FIGURE 8
STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF MILEAGE
1968 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
0.100
0.200
0.300
CUMULATIVE DENSITY
0.400 O.SOO
0.600
0.700 0.600 0.900 1.000
4000.1
8000.1
12000.1^
16000.'
20000
24000
28000
32000.
36000.
40000.
44000.
48000.
52000.
56000.
60000.
64000.
68000.
- 72000.
76000.
M UOOOO.
I 84000.
L 88000.
E 92000.
A 96000.
G 100000.
E 104000.
108000.
112000.
116000.
120000.
124000.
128000.
132000.
136000.
140000.
144000.
14BOOO.
152000.
156000.
160000.
164000.
168000.
172000.
176000.
190000.
184000.
188000.
192000.
196000.
200000.
0 - FY72 PROGRAM
X - FY71 PROGRAM
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION
PROBABILITY DENSITY
0.0000026 0.0000051 0.0000077 0.0000103 0.0000128 0.0000154 0.0000180 0.0000206 0.0000231 0.0000257
0 - FY72 PROGRAM
X - FY71 PROGRAM
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
66
-------
FIGURE 9
STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF MILEAGE
1969 MODEL TEAR VEHICLES
0*100
0.200
0.300
CUMULATIVE DENSITY
0.400 O.SOO
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
O
1
9
6
9
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
S
_
M
I
L
E
A
G
E
4000.1
8000.1-
12000. iqx.
16000.1 0XX.
20000.1 TO,
24000.1
28000.1
32000.1
36000.1
40000.1
44000.1
48000. I
S2000.I
.56000.1
60000.1
64000.1
6bOOO.I
72000.1
76000.1
'80000. 1
84000.1
88000. I
92000.1
9t>000.1
100000.1
104000.1
108000.1
112000.1
116000.1
120000.1
U4000.I
12ROOO.I
132000.1
136000.1
140000.1
144000.1
148000.1
152000.1
1S6000.I
160000.1
164000.1
168000.1
172000.1
176000. I
180000.1
184000.1
IbbUOO.I
192000.1
146000.1
200000.1
0 - FY72 PROGRAM
X - FY71 PROGRAM
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION
PROBABILITY DENSITY
0.0000028 O.OOOOOS6 0.0000084 0.0000112 0.0000139 0.0000167 0.0000195 0.0000223 0.0000251 0.0*0027*
4000.
8000.
12000.
1 16000.
9 20000.
6 24000.
9 28000.
32000.
V 36000.
E 40000.
H 44000.
I 48000.
C 52000.
L 56000.
E 60000.
S 64000.
68000.
- 72000.
76000.
M 80000.
I 84000.
L '88000.
E 92000.
A 96000.
G 100000.
E 104000.
lObOOO.
112000.
116000.
120000.
124000.
128000.
132000.
136000.
140000.
141000.
148000.
152000.
156000.
160000.
164000.
168000.
172000.
176000.
180000.
184000.
188000.
192000.
196000.
200000.
IJL^
I O^T* X-
! ^(X.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
1 .#*
I ,1T
iS
I
I ^0
1 /^
\/r
if
16
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
0 - FY73 PROGRAM FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
X - FY71 PROGRAM
,-
O /
-------
FIGURE 10
STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF MILEAGE
1970 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES I
0.100
0.200
0.300
CUMULATIVE DENSITY
0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
1
9
7
0
V
E
H
I
c
L
E
S
.
H
I
L
f.
A
G
E
4000. I X,
8000. IQ
12000.1 <
16000.1
20000.1
24000.1
28000.1
3?OOO.I
36000.1
40000.1
44000.1
48000.1
52000. I
S6000.I
60000.1
64000.1
68000. I
72000.1
76000.1
aoooo.i
84000.1
88000. I
92000.1
96000.1
100000. I
104000.1
108000.1
112000.1
116000.1
120000.1
124000.1
128000.1
132000.1
136000.1
140000.1
144000.1
146000.1
152000.1
156000.1
160000.1
164000.1
168000.1
172000.!
176000.1
1*0000. i
184000.1
1B8000.1
192000.1
146000.1
200000.1
4000.1
8000.1
12000.1
16000.1
20000.1
24000.1
28000.1
32000.1
36000.1
40000.1
44000. I
48000.1
52000.1
56000.1
60000.1
64000.1
68000
72000.1
76000.1
90000.1
84000.1
88000.1
92000.1
96000.1
100000.I
104000.1
108000.I
112000.1
116000.1
120000.1
124000.1
128000.1
132000.1
136000.1
140000.1
144000.1
148000.1
152000.1
156000.1
160000.1
164000.1
168000.1
172000.1
176000.1
180000.1
184000.1
18BOOO-.I
192000.1
196000.1
200000.1
0 - FY72 PROGRAM
X - FY71 PROGRAM
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION
PROBABILITY DENSITY
0.0000031 0.0000061 0.0000092 0.0000123 0.0000153 0.0000184 0.0000215 0.0000246 0.0000276 0.0000307
0 . FY72 PROGRAM FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
X - FY71 PROGRAM
68
-------
FIGURE 11
STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF MILEAGE
1971 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
0.100
0.200
0.300
CUMULATIVE DENSITY
0.400 0.500
0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
4000.
8000.
12000.
1 16000.
9 20000.
7 24000.
1 28000.
32000.
V 36000.
E 40000.
H 44000.
I 48000.
C 52000.
L S6000.
E 60000.
S 64000.
68000.
- 72000.
76000.
M 8'0000.
I 44000.
L 88000.
E 92000.
A 96000.
G 100000.
E 104000.
108000.
112000.
116000.
120000.
124000.
128000.
132000.
136000.
140000.
144000.
14HOOO.
1S2000.
156000.
160000.
164000.
16BOOO.
172000.
176000.
180000.
194000.
188000.
192000.
196000.
200000.
4000.
8000.
12000.
1 16000.
9 20000.
7 24000.
1 28000.
32000.
V J6000.
E 40000.
H 44000.
I 48000.
C 52000.
L 56000.
E 60000.
S 64000.
68000.
- 72000.
76000.
M 80000.
I 84000.
L 88000.
E 92000.
A 96000.
G 100000.
E 104000.
108000.
112000.
116000.
120000.
124000.
128000.
132000.
136000.
140000.
144000.
148000.
152000.
156000.
160000.
164000.
168000.
172000.
176000.
180000.
184000.
188000.
192000.
196000.
200000.
0 X.
0^_
^^-~.
0.000005
0
s*"****^
JT
f
^^
o
Cr
0 - FY72 PROGRAM CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION
X - FY71 PROGRAM
PROBABILITY DENSITY
0.0000051 0.0000102 0.0000152 0.0000203 0.0000254 0.0000305 0.0000356 0.0000*06 0.0000457 O.OOOOSOS
0 - FY72 PROGRAM FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
X - FY71 PROGRAM
69
-------
FIGURE 12
STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF MILEAGE
1972 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
CUMULATIVE DENSITY
0.400 0.500
0.600
0.700 0.800 0.900
1.000
4000.
8000.!
12000.1
16000.1
20000.1
24000.I
28000.1
32000.1
36000.1
40000.1
44000.1
48000.I
bPOOO.I
56000.1
60000.1
64000.1
68000.1
- 72000.1
76000.1
M HOOOO.l
I K4000.I
L 88000.1
E 92000.1
A 96000.1
G 100000.I
E 104000.1
108000.1
112000.1
116000.1
120000.1
124uon. 1
I2aoon.l
132000.1
136000.1
140000.1
144000.1
14H000.1
1S2000.1
lb6000.I
160000.1
164000.1
168000.1
172000.1
176000.1
1MOOOO.I
1H4000.I
19H000.1
1^2000.1
196000.1
200000.1
0 - FY72 PROGRAM
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION
PK0848IL1TY DENSITY
0.00000«9 0.0000098 0.0000147 0.0000196 0.000024% 0.0000294 0.0000342 0.0000391 0.0000*40 0.0000489
1
9
7
2
V
E
H
I
c
L
E
S
.
M
1
L
E
A
G
E
4000.1
HOOO.I
12000.1
16000.1
20000.1
2x000.1
2800U. I
32000.1
36000.1 ^.V
40000.1 £T
44000. la
48000.1
52000.1
36000.1
60000.1
64000. I
72000.1
76000.1
80000.1
R4000. 1
88000.1
92000.1
96000.1
1UOOOO.I
104000.1
108000. I
112000.1
1 16000.1
120000.1
124000.1
128000.1
132000.1
136000.1
140000.1
I4»oon.l
148000.1
152000. 1
156000.1
IbOOOO.I
1O4000. I
168000.1
1 7?000. 1
176000.1
1HOOOO.I
1A4000.I
1HOOOO.I
192000.1
196000.1
200000.1
0 - FY72 PROGRAM FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
70
-------
APPENDIX I
FY72 Emission Factor Results Based on
the 1975 Federal Test Procedure
Weighting Factors
1-1
-------
1-2
-------
TABLE I- 1
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
COMPOSITE EMISSION LEVELS FOR ALL CITIES EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
. . 1975 FTP
If. A*
I'-if.l
il'^7
|t.n«L
1
3 '-*o <
[ *rw
\'-'/:i
["'I
i f /
r ii 11
I*
>4
nH
I'irt
I'M)
)<.!>
->
Mf flN
'UI.ES
(K)
n.7
- 7 . (.
f y.:*
47,9
->1 .?
3f< . f
^'.t
!<».*
<*+ .^*
* fitLOw
LtVtL »
HC CU NUX
3 3 bO
t 3 bfl
* j bu
lb
7.0't it. 81
»,6/ b.97
b » 1 M 5.01
f.B3' d.S3
-------
TABLE I- Z
FY72 EMISSION fACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR DENVER
1975 FTP
yc A~
^^,t
TOTAL
j^f-,-1
ijv-)
1J ?H
l"7 1
'""''
].i] 'a|.
111
1 /
!
'V
^ 7
'ID
1-1
1 >b
.-( nr.
(K)
%:*
M.4
4ft. 1
il . f-
1 f--.?
14. )
<"''"
* HtLH'«
Ltvt-L »
MC Cu MM
ii I; 7 1
i 0 83
ii ii n
< 10 02
.5 T /3
4 il 41
7 7 0^
>.' ^ *'
/ DM
hYDROCAKhONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
ME AN SD
9 . V « h . f. (i
13. *2 9.4>>
11.91 n.3b
n.f9 .1.7U
5.9^ 1.2^
S.Vio (5''
S.l-y 1.74
4.7b 2."*^
5.b^ ^.33
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
H.bS 1.60
11.78 1.76
IU.1U 1.71
fr.2M l.bl
b.«3 l,2h
b.j7 . 1.30
4.S/7 1.34
4.34 l.«,5
S.20 1.41
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
123.56 54.33
157.52 51.83
141. Q3 55t03
101,43 65.83
97.85 3B.11
87.52 31.24
80.32 37.27
BO. 36 32.46
87.91 41.28
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
113.58 1.S2
149:&6 1.39
130.89 1.48
87,81 1,70
90.31 I.b3
82.39 1.43
72.93 1.57
73,45 1.57
79.79 1.56
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
2,30 1.00
1.77 ' 1.10
2.03 1.37
2.86 1.2b
2.93 1.47
3.32 1.11
2.74 1.31
3T08 1.39
2.99 U31
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SU
1.79 2.17
1.47 1.92
1.62 2.03
2.62 1.S4
2.61 1.65
3,}4 1.43
2.48 1.56
2.78 l.bO
2.72 1.56
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
LEVELS
HC 3.4 GM/MI
CO 39.0 GM/MI
NOX 3.0 GM/MI
r-4
-------
TABl,E I^ 3
;FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR LOS ANGELES
1975 FTP
YKa->
[)-,/
l-M
1 '' 7 1
n;,M
"
17
1"
1b
30
ns
Mf AN
(K)
73.0
hf. .7
*.<<. 7
hS.O
.V.I
,7.,
*. titLOW
Lt'Vtl *
rIC CO NO A
44 17 ifi
Jt Jt 37
<;' It it
JO I1* 3 d'l
3 ;y ^ v ^ ^
HYOROCAHBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MtAN 5,U
7.t6 1 1 .9b
5.3b t.tt
6.38 H.H6
5J42 b!35
ft. fit 6.45
3. SIB 1.73
3.bf) t.2t
5.10 t,S)2
GEOMETRIC
MtftN SD
4.97 2.03
4.29 1.92
4.60 1.97
b.66 1.6o
4.39 1.81
5.25 1.84
3.69 1.47
2. bo l.BO
t.05 1.84
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
bb.90 43.27
75.38 45.21
BO. 98 44.01
60.05 29.10
71.61 33.01
7b.47 38.32
59.66 26.48
46. 6fl 24.06
62.07 31,84
GEOMETRIC
MEAN so
76.30 1.74
63.01 1.89
69.15 1.81
53.06 1.70
64.43 1.63
69.91 1.65
54.73 1.52
41.16 1.67
54.56 1.6b
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MtAN SD
3.43 1.90
3.77 1.B1
3.61 1.84
4.91 l.bl
4.68 1.69
4.46 i.59
3.83 1.05
3.81 1.21
4.26 1.50
GEOMETRIC
MtAN SU
-------
INERTIA WT.
(LBS)
< 2000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2001-2500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2501-3000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3001-3500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3501-4000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4001-4500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4501-5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
>5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TOTAL
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TABLE I- 4
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
1975 FTP RESULTS BY INERTIA HEIGHT AND ENGINE DISPLACEMENT FOR
ALL CITIES. EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
EMISSIONS IN GM/MI - GAS MILEAGE IN Ml/GAL
MODEL YEAR=1966
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT (CID)
<150
MEAN SO
N= 4
19.41 27.95
84.36 24.93
1.65 0.63
20.33 3.55
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N? 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0,0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 4
19.41 27.95
84.36 24.93
1.65 0.63
20.33 3.55
151-250
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
10.91 0.0
115.25 0.0
1.46 0.0
12.90 0.0
N= 13
7.31 5.59
82.99 49.58
2.98 1.46
17.27 2.45
N= 2
5.35 2.58
88.31 34.86
3.62 0.02
17.17 1.62
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= ' 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 16
7.29 5.18
85.67 45.97
2.97 1.38
16.90 2.55
251-339
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 4
12.51 9.02
80.66 45.46
4.52 1.90
15.96 1.92
N= 7
7.03 2.34
66.40 39.33
3.82 1.30
14.52 1.74
N= 12
9.87 3.03
102.14 28.27
3.39 1.22
13.82 1.29
N= 2
7.54 0.79
103.29 12.14
2.93 0.58
12.80 2.23
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 25
9.31 4.41
88,79 35.79
3.65 1.33
14.23 1.70
34p-399
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N* 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0,0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 11
8.32 3.77
113.81 59.95
2.59 1.75
13.43 2.77
N= 8
12.79 12.23
95.44 46.04
4.15 2.24
12.38 1.38
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 19
10.20 8.44
106.07 53.93
3.24 2.07
12.96 2.21
J 400
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 -
N= 0
0.0 . 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
o.o o.o
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 2
6.38 0.11
119.69 36.72
3.07 1.56
12.38 1.68
N= 1
5.29 0.0
98.59 0.0
2.98 0.0
11.00 0.0
N= 1
10.58 0.0
223.61 0.0
0.94 0.0
9.70 0.0
N= 4
7.16 2.34
140.45 60.31
2.51 1.38
11.25 1.57
TOTAL
MEAN SO
N= 4
19.41 27.95
84.36 24.93
1.65 0.63
20.33 3.55
N= 1
10.91 0.0
115.25 0.0
1.46 0.0
12.90 0.0
N= 17
8.53 6.63
82.44 47.24
3.34 1.65
16.94 2.33
N= 9
6.66 2.34
71.27 37.49
3.78 1.13
15.04 1.98
N= 23
9.13 3.42
107.72 45.48
3.01 1.52
13.63 2.13
N= 12
10.85 10.18
100.79 39.64
3.77 1.94
12.45 1.39
N=. 1
5.29 0.0
98.59 0.0
2.98 0.0
11.00 0.0
N= 1
10.58 0.0
223.81 0.0
0,94 0.0
9,70 0.0
N= 68
9.55 8.65
95.66 45.86
3.19 1.61
14.40 2.85
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
1-6
-------
INEKTIA WT.
(LBS)
< 3000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3001-2500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2501-3000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3001-3500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3501-4000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4001-4500 .
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4501-5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
>5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TOTAL
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TABLE I- 5
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
1975 FTP RESULTS BY INERTIA WEIGHT AND ENGINE DISPLACEMENT FOR
ALL CITIES, EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
EMISSIONS IN GM/MI - GAS MILEAGE IN MI/GAL
MODEL YEAR=1967
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT _ 400
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
r N= 2
6.24 1.22
70.29 2.86
6.23 1.90
14.05 0.21
N= 2
8.34 1.99
118.02 25.30
3.83 1.76
12.24 1.61
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 4
7.29 1.81
94.16 31.23
5.03 2.04
13.08 1.49
TOTAL
MEAN SD
N= 3
5.73 2.72
61.42 9.39
1.56 1.04
27.23 5.33
N= 1
5.78 0.0
48.96 0.0
1.53 0.0
33.30 0.0
N= 13
8.38 5.72
91.47 38.77
3.78 1.01
16.39 1.94
N= 16
7.95 3.08
93.74 36.38
3.66 1.34
14.06 1.19
N= 29
8.03 6.11
90.38 33.89
3.70 1.51
13.56 1.65
N= 10
7.25 1.53
105.57 39.86
4.26 3.75
13.87 1.06
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 73
7.84 4.81
91.43 34.17
3.48 1.69
14.40 3.46
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
1-7
-------
INEKTIA WT.
(LBS)
< 2000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2001-2500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2501-3000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3001-3500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3501-4000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4001-4500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4501-5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
>sooo
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TOTAL
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TABLE I- 6
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
1975 FTP RESULTS BY INERTIA WEIGHT AND ENGINE DISPLACEMENT FOR
ALL CITIES, EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
EMISSIONS IN GM/MI - GAS MILEAGE IN MI/GAL
MODEL YEAR=1968
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT (CID)
<150
MEAN SO
N= 3
11.57 10. 24
98.12 48.43
1.44, 0.37
19.50 3.62
N= 1
19.41 0.0
119.31 0.0
1.78 0.0
16.30 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 . 0.0
0.0 0.0
. N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N = 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N = 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 4
13.53 9.23
103.42 40.94
1.52 0.35
18.59 3.20
151-250
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
7.37 0.0
91.59 0.0
2.18 0.0
17.60 0.0
N= 4
3.77 1.26
38.98 16.32
4.21 2.12
19.06 0.63
N= 2
9.21 5.15
94.76 13.64
4.91 1.82
14.90 1.69
N= 2
3.15 3.04
41.37 11.72
5.88 0.41
16.73 2.04
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
. 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 9
S.24 3.43
57.76 29.48
4.51 1.83
17.29 2.15
251-339
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 7
4.99 1.84
45.09 17.08
3.68 1.24
16.16 1.46
N= 14
4.53 1.82
43.60 30.01
4.07 1.27
16.19 2.53
N= 11
6.66 7.35
51.55 17.15
4.85 1.29
15.21 1.62
N= 3
8.56 3.46
87.58 42.74
5.61 2.57
12.95 1.22
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 35
5.64 4.49
50.17 27.15
4.37 1.45
15.54 2.13
340-399
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
.................
5.24 1.43
68.97 22.22
2.96 1.22
14.43 1.15
N= 12
6.24 4.15
71.05 30.20
5.22 1.54
12.90 0.92
N= 4
5.83 0.83
105.48 33.40
4.73 0.99
12.22 0.64
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
r N= o
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 23
5.87 3.07
76.41 30.49
4.45 1.66
13.20 1.20
> 400
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
8.26 0.0
115.52 0.0
1.19 0.0
12.00 0.0
N= 4
10.74 12.37
62.74 18.65
5.78 0.93
12.73 1.05
N= 4
5.97 1.14
113.15 57.39
3.99 1.82
10.94 1.79
N= . 4
2.64 1.04
40.15 22.76
5.09 2.47
11.42 1.75
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 13
6.59 7.08
75.36 46.01
4.67 2.05
11.68 1.62
TOTAL
MEAN SO
N= 3
11.57 10.24
98.12 48.43
1.44 0.37
19.50 3.62
N= 2
13.39 8.51
105.45 19.60
1.98 0.28
16.93 0.92
N= 11
4.55 1.69
42.87 16.26
3.87 1.53
17.10 1.90
N= 24
5.28 2.37
58.26 32.71
3.70 1.45
15.31 2.23
N= 2V
6.81 6.79
60.46 24.73
5.20 1.32
13.89 1.74
N= 11
6.63 2.13
103.39 42.46
4.70 1.75
11.90 1.56
N= 4
2.64 1.04
40.15 22.76
5.09 2.47
11.42 1.75
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 84
6.18 5.01
64.60 34.94
4.32 1.71
14.37 2.63
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
I-S
-------
INERTIA WT.
(LBS)
< 2000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2001-2500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2501-3000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3001-3500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3S01-4000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4001-4500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4501-5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
>5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TOTAL
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TABLE I- 7
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
1975 FTP RESULTS BY INERTIA WEIGHT AND ENGINE DISPLACEMENT FOR
ALL CITIES, EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
EMISSIONS IN GM/MI - GAS MILEAGE IN MI/GAL
MODEL YEAR=1969
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT (CIO)
<150
MEAN SD
N= 4
3.84 0.38
33.21 16.51
2.46 0.84
24.83 3.70
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N = 4
3.84 0.38
33.21 16.51
2.46 0.84
24.83 3.70
151-250
MEAN SD
N= 1
2.93 0.0
26.53 0.0
1.99 0.0
20.40 0.0
N= 1
4.56 0.0
69.41 0.0
3.33 0.0
20.90 0.0
N= 7
4.15 2.48
34.12 7.73
5.35 1.36
17.31 1.79
N= 1
5.32 0.0
97.77 0.0
1.50 0.0
16.00 0.0
N= 1
2.43 0.0
44.02 0.0
3.65 0.0
20.00 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 11
4.03 2.07
43.33 22.09
4.36 1.83
17.92 2.10
251-339
MEAN SD
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 4
5.08 0.40
54.22 18.67
4.81 0.99
15.33 1.60
N= 11
5.52 4.90
56.94 49.12
5.94 2.14
14.65 1.36
N= 7
5.39 2.4B
73.41 54.37
5.88 2.41
14.05 1.77
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 22
5.40 3.64
61.69 4b.9S
5.72 2.04
14.67 1.56
340-399
MEAN SD
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 2
b.34 0.71
75.69 30.95
4.47 0.23
14.30 1.20
N= 8
4.67 1.48
68.24 24.35
4.17 1.64
14.06 1.19
N= 13
4.88 2.03
68.75 29.76
4.81 1.53
13.59 1.23
N= 9
4.50 1.62
60.74 31.62
6.41 1.91
13.41 1.01
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 32
4.75 1.68
66.80 27.99
5.08 1.80
13.70 1.14
> 400
MEAN SD
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 6
5.99 4.20
86.59 37.62
4.32 1.31
12.61 0.87
N= 9
5.22 1.48
73.83 26.12
5.33 2.06
12.56 2.53
N= 3
3.09 0.51
53.15 6.96
6.95 0.31
11.43 0.06
N= 1
2.48 0.0
29.81 0.0
6.07 0.0
10.40 0.0
N= 19
4.99 2.69
72.91 30.86
5.31 1.78
12.25 1.80
TOTAL
MEAN SD
N= 5
3.66 0.52
31.88 14.61
2. 36 0.76
23.79 3.68
N= 1
4.56 0.0
69.41 0.0
3.33 0.0
20.90 0.0
N= 13
4.62 1.86
46.70 21.17
5.05 1.14
16.14 1.96
N= 20
5.17 3.69
63.50 39.81
5.01 2.20
14.57 1.33
N= 27
5.17 2.69
73.45 38.21
4.94 1.77
13.64 1.61
N= 18
4.86 1.55
67.29 28.93
5.87 2.01
12.97 2.01
N= 3
3.09 0.51
53.15 6.96
6.95 0.31
11.43 0.06
N= 1
2.48 0.0
29.81 0.0
6.07 0.0
10.40 0.0
N = 88
4.83 2.53
62.38 34.18
5.08 1.93
14.28 2.59
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
1-9
-------
INERTIA WT.
(LBS)
< 2000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2001-2500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2501-3000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3001-3500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3501-4000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4001-4500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS "ILEAGE
4501-5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
>5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TOTAL
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TABLE I- 8
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
1975 FTP RESULTS BY INERTIA WEIGHT AND ENGINE DISPLACEMENT FOR
ALL CITIES. EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
EMISSIONS IN GM/MI - GAS MILEAGE IN MI/GAL
MODEL YEAR=1970
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT (CIO)
<150
MEAN SO
N= 8
2.77 0.84
29.71 11.97
3.5? 0.97
24.09 2. til
N = 4
4.06 3.17
40.84 27.63
2.79 0.79
22.75 3.82
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 12
3.20 1.89
33.42 18.15
3.28 0.94
23.63 3.12
151-250
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 2
3.49 1.15
28.43 16.89
3.36 1.44
22.24 1.69
N= 13
3.32 1.19
33.56 13.91
4.08 1.45
19.97 2.45
N= 2
4.04 1.41
70.98 77.68
4.40 4.15
15.11 2.91
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 17
3.43 1.15
37.36 26.52
4.03 1.69
19.47 3.24
251-339
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
3.79 0.0
27.70 0.0
3.15 0.0
15.30 0.0
N= 9
4.24 2.43
45.44 18.44
4.18 1.32
15.05 0.94
N= 11
4.15 1.08
44.44 20.87
5.88 1.61
14.03 1.10
N= 1
7.49 0.0
28.44 0.0
5.14 0.0
13.00 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 22
4.32 1.82
43.36 19.02
5.03 1.66
14.43 1.15
340-399
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
b.27 0.0
109.26 0.0
2.04 0.0
13.40 0.0
N= 9
b.60 3.78
67.25 31.62
3.77 0.87
13.47 0.95
N= 17
7.16 8.45
67.25 32.19
4.44 2.04
13.17 1.73
N= 9
4.04 1.08
50.14 14.15
4.50 0.95
12.89 1.44
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 36
5.94 6.15
64.14 29.39
4.22 1.58
13.18 1.46
> 400
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
11.88 0.0
170.43 0.0
1.83 0.0
9.60 0.0
N= 1
5.56 0.0
95.79 0.0
2.35 0.0
13.70 0.0
N= 14
4.91 2.59
67.39 65.95
4.49 1.15
11.69 1.47
N= 5
7.33 6.30
47.90 23.93
6.47 2.32
12.11 2.68
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 21
5.85 3.91
69.01 60.04
4.74 1.85
11.75 1.80
TOTAL
MEAN SO
N= 8
2.77 0.84
29.71 11.97
3.52 0.97
24.09 2.81
N= 6
3.87 2.53
36.71 23.58
2.98 0.94
22.58 3.03
N= 15
3.48 1.21
38.22 23.55
3.88 1.46
18.96 3.31
N= 21
5.17 3.32
63.17 39.60
3.92 1.46
13.98 1.92
N= 29
5.97 6.59
59.58 30.34
4.91 2.01
13.50 1.56
N= 24
4.6S* 2.17
59.30 51.40
4.52 1.04
12.17 1.54
N= 5
7.33 6.30
47.90 23.93
6.47 2.32
12.11 2.68
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N = 108
4.89 4.21
53.23 36.87
4.35 1.67
14.55 3.48
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
1-10
-------
INERTIA WT.
(LBS)
< 2000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2001-2500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2501-3000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3001-3500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3501-4000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4001-4500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4501-5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
>5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TOTAL
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TABLE I- 9
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
1975 FTP RESULTS BY INERTIA WEIGHT AND ENGINE DISPLACEMENT FOR
ALL CITIES. EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
EMISSIONS IN GM/MI - GAS MILEAGE IN MI/GAL
MODEL YEAR=1971
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT (CID)
<150
MEAN SO
N= 13
4.16 2.04
46.23 41.49
2.57 0.99
23.3? 4.14
N= 14
3.16 1.55
39.46 21.28
3.12 1.36
23.20 3.34
N= 1
3.01 0.0
21.47 0.0
3.37 0.0
22.70 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 28
3.62 1.61
41.96 31.79
2.87 1.19
23.24 3.60
151-250
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
.0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
2.06 0.0
11.79 0.0
3.06 0.0
21.60 0.0
N= 8
2.66 0.40
39.94 19.34
4.77 1.32
20.17 1.43
N= 3
3.37 0.48
46.57 0.82
5.18 0.47
18.37 1.65
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
-0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 12
2.79 0.54
39.25 18.16
4.73 1.21
19.80 1.70
251-339
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 2
2.90 0.13
38.50 8.89
2.67 0.74
14.37 3.04
N= 10
4.81 2.48
40.02 20.44
4.28 0.98
14.28 1.13
N= 1
2.46 0.0
28.44 0.0
5.25 0.0
14.40 0.0
N= 1
3.79 0.0
44.45 0.0
5.52 0.0
12.30 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 14
4.30 2.24
39.30 17.52
4.21 1.14
14.14 1.37
340-399
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
2.99 0.0
48.01 0.0
2.11 0.0
15.60 0.0
N= 9
6.29 5.17
94.09 73.52
3.30 0.87
11.33 2.15
N= 18
4.20 2.14
59.40 42.22
4.62 1.30
13.16 1.90
N= 8
3.85 1.01
56.89 28.42
5.58 1.33
11.61 1.34
N= 1
4.25 0.0
55.16 0.0
7.56 0.0
10.90 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 37
4.60 3. Ob
66.88 49.49
4.52 1.54
12.30 2.04
> 400
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 2
5.11 1.67
65.10 20.34
5.12 1.80
12.32 0.92
N= 15
3.78 1.66
50.83 33.52
5.04 1.22
12.17 0.91
N= 10
3.5S 1.00
46.89 29.64
5.76 1.71
11.19 0.71
N= 2
2.88 0.50
51.74 10.18
4.65 0.14
10.64 0.35
N= 29
3.73 1.42
50.52 29.77
5.27 1.40
11.71 0.95
TOTAL
MEAN SO
N= 13
4.16 2.04
46.23 41.49
2.57 0.99
23.32 4.14
N= 15
3.08 1.52
37.62 21.72
3.12 1.31
23.09 3.22
N= 12
2.76 0.35
38.84 16.77
4.08 1.50
18.64 3.55
N= 22
5.22 3.72
63.04 54.29
4.00 1.08
13.27 2.89
N= 21
4.20 2.07
58.47 39.82
4.70 1.28
13.13 1.80
N= 24
3.81 1.41
52.59 30.68
5.24 1.23
11.98 1.08
N= 11
3.61 0.97
47.64 28.41
5.92 1.71
11.16 0.67
N= 2
2.88 0.50
51.74 10.18
4.65 0.14
10.64 0.35
N=120
3.94 2.22
51.13 37.02
4.30 1.58
14.48 4.14
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
1-11
-------
INERTIA WT.
(LBS)
< 2000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2001-2500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
2501-30QO
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3001-3500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
3501-4000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4001-4500
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
4501^5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
>5000
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TOTAL
HC
CO
NOX
GAS MILEAGE
TABLE 1-10
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
1975 FTP RESULTS BY INERTIA WEIGHT AND ENGINE DISPLACEMENT FOR
ALL CITIES, EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
EMISSIONS IN GM/MI - GAS MILEAGE IN MI/GAL
MODEL YEAR=1972
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT (CID)
<150
MEAN SD
N= 4
2.73 0.68
37.82 15.39
2.87 , 0.44
20.74 2.44
N= 18
2.46 O.b8
27.72 13.07
3.38 1.29
22.33 2.61
N= 2
2.51 0.52
20.18 3.78
4.19 0.66
22.65 0.21
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N = 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 24
2.51 0.65
28.77 13.39
3.36 1.17
22.07 2.50
151-250
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
O.U 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 6
2.40 0.38
32.51 16.75
5.54 1.15
18.30 1.21
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 6
2.40 0.38
32.51 16.75
5.54 1.15
18.30 1.21
251-339
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
0.93 0.0
7.82 0.0
1.67 0.0
21.70 0.0
N= 7
3.00 0.91
34.08 23.51
3.59 0.92
15.45 2.85
N= 10
2.75 0.48
24.11 16.56
4.70 1.22
14.99 0.87
N= 2
3.24 0.67
28.72 10.01
4.83 0.87
13.09 0.57
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 20
2.80 0.78
27.24 18.77
4.18 1.29
15.16 2.13
340-399
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 8
3.90 1.04
51.06 29.95
3.16 0.72
13.14 0.85
N= 24
3.22 0.99
46.28 26.97
4.84 1.29
12.20 1.13
N= 16
3.45 0.77
51.31 22.24
4.53 1.27
11.74 0.72
N= 1
2.76 0.0
17.04 0.0
5.38 0.0
11.40 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 49
3.40 0.93
48.11 25.70
4.48 1.32
12.17 1.04
> 400
MEAN SO
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
N= 1
4.00 0.0
26.04 0.0
2.20 0.0
9.90 0.0
N= 4
2.87 1.13
30.86 9.75
5.47 1.20
12.70 1.59
N= 23
3.82 5.04
42.27 30.52
5.36 1.81
12.07 2.37
N= 10
1.64 0.62
18.32 10.35
5.41 2.04
10.24 0.93
N= 3
2.05 0.14
23.43 3.78
6.14 0.22
10.50 0.99
N= 41
3.07 3.88
33.54 25.61
5.36 1.77
11.44 1.98
TOTAL
MEAN SD
N= 4
2.73 0.68
37.82 15.39
2.87 0.44
20.74 2.44
N= 19
2.38 0.75
26.67 13.50
3.29 1.31
22.29 2.53
N= 15
2.70 0.71
31.60 18.98
4.45 1.32
17.25 3.27
N= 19
3.30 0.94
35.56 25.90
3.92 1.31
13.80 1.77
N= 30
3.17 0.97
43.05 25.17
4.92 1.25
12.32 1.17
N= 39
3.67 3.87
45.98 27.48
5.02 1.64
11.93 1.83
N= 11
1.74 0.68
18.20 9.82
5.41 1.93
10.34 0.95
N= 3
2.05 0.14
23.43 3.78
6.14 0.22
10.50 0.99
N=140
3.02 2.22
36.88 24.04
4.55 1.59
13.54 3.40
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
1-12
-------
APPENDIX II
FY71 Emission Factor Results Based on
the 1972 and 1975 Federal Test
Procedure Weighting Factors
II-l
-------
II-2
-------
TABLE II- 1
FY71 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
COMPOSITE EMISSION LEVELS FOR ALL CITIES EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
1973 FTP
YtAK
148*!
IS/!-?
TUTAL
19b-l
U6-<
1970
H7I
TOTAL
N
67
54
121
69
72
70
*U
2--J1
MEAN
MILES
61. f-
54. fo
SH.h
4ft. 5
39.9
>>9.b
IS. 6
32.7
* etLOw
LF'VKL *
HC CO NOX
1 3 ' <»S
0 2 46
1 2 «b
22 2* 2*
15 1 J 11
31 36 *
f>l "9 11
33 32 IS
HYOROCAwtiONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAM SO
».20 b.lH
M.1V 3.61
B.75 b.ls<
O..)) b.22
t.22 I.''1*
3.^2 1.47
4.VO 4.41
GEOMETKIC
MEAN SO
8. Ob 1.61
7.S1 l.bl
7.b2 I.b7
b.10 1.75
5.07 l.hb
3.V1 1.4b
3.16 1.44
4.19 l.hb
CAKbON MONOXItlE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
103.27 43. iy
1U3.4B 47. h9
103.37 4b.0h
7B.91 bd. 9B
70.73 37.73
bb.16 2b.72
46.33 2B.29
62.22 42.81
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
94.27 1.56
94.51 1.54
94.38 I.b5
62.59 1.92
62.42 1.66
46. 6a 1.66
38.89 1.84
al.71 1.83
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
3.44 1.71
3.26 1.45
3.36 1.60
4.31 1.85
5.29 2.00
5.02 1.63
4.99 1.79
.91 1.85
GEOMETRIC
MEAN so
3.01 1.75
2.90 1.71
2.96 1.73
3.85 1.70
4.90 1.50
4.77 1.38
4.6S 1.48
4.53 1.53
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
LEVELS
HC 3.4 GM/MI
CO 39.0 GM/MI
NOX 3.0 GM/MI
II-3
-------
TABLE II- 2
FY71 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR DENVER
1972 FTP
YEAK
1966
1967
TOTAL
1968
1969
I9fo
1471
TOTAL
N
16
15
31
18
17
17
20
72
MEAN
MILES
(K)
57.1
57.6
57.3
42.1
38.9
?6.0
15.2
30.1
* riELOw
LEVEL «
HC CU NOX
0 ,0 01
0 0 07
U 0 04
0 0 B3
12 6 65
b U 59
0 5 55
4 3 65
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
10.06 3.23
10.0ft 3.03
10.06 3.09
b.74 't.Oh
7.74 "..B^
7.«5 4.23
6.73 2.10
7.74 3. as;
GEOMfTHIC
MEAN SD
S.hO 1.37
9.69 1.32
9.64 , 1.34
f.OO 1.53
6.4S) 1.89
6."»1 1.70
6.44 1.35
6.93 1.62
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
150.34 63.95
137.43 34.78
144.09 51.50
122.92 66.05
92.62 57.72
110. IB J9.76
100.04 39.72
106.40 52.00
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
137.61 1.55
132.65 1.34
135.19 1.45
109. 8a 1.60
79.72 1.72
103.44 1.45
92.16 1.54
95.63 1.59
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
2.05 1.54
1.81 0.86
1.94 1.24
2.3B 1.11
2.52 1.21
2.72 1.13
3.04 1.55
2.68 1.27
GEOMETRIC
MtAN SO
1.65 1.97
1.62 1.65
1.64 1.80
2.19 1.50
2.20 1.78
2.4H 1.59
2.73 1.59
2.40 1.61
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
LEVELS
HC 3.4 GM/MI
CO 39.0 GM/MI
NOX 3.0 GM/MI
rc/T OM PAGF
II-4
-------
TABLE II- 3
FY71 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR LOS ANGELES
1972 FTP
Yfc'AK
1966
1967
TUTAL
1968
19b9
1970
1971
TOTAL
N
16
17
33
15
17
16
21
69
Mf AM
MILES.
(M
65.7
56.4
60.9
37.3
38.1
25.2
15.8
2B.1
t HELO»
LEVEL
HC CO NOX
19 IV 38
12 'b 53
15 12 45
13 13 60
0 0 12
25 19 13
62 3J 19
2M 17 25
HYDROCARBONS GM/MJ
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
8.72 fi.64
6.22 3.5?
7.43 6.55
5.65 2.21
5.86 1.21
5.22 2.7H
3.51 0.99
4.V5 2. OS
GEOMETRIC
MEAN . SU
6.62 2.00
5.52 1.63
6.03 1.H1
5.29 1.45
5.75 1.22
4.76 1.51
3.39 1.30
4.6U 1.46
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
7B.12 3B.29
81.43 J8.01
79.83 J7.5B
76.00 J9.77
87.07 25.37
62.59 i9.45
51.90 22.49
68.72 31.88
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
r 70.25 1.61
74.56 1.52
72.43 1.56
69. 87 1.61
83.86 1.32
56.20 1.63
46.91 1.62
61.55 1.63
NOX GM/MI
AHI1HMETIC
MEAN SD
3.23 1.45
3.30 1.45
3.26 1.43
3.76 1.99
5.45 2.12
4.51 1.69
3.81 1.09
4.37 1.82
GEOMETRIC
MEAN su
2.91 1.64
2.98 1.61
2.95 1.61
3.34 1.64
5.06 1.50
4.20 1.49
3.63 1.41
4.00 1.53
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
LEVELS
HC 3.4 GM/MI
CO 39.0 GM/MI
NOX 3.0 GM/MI
II-5
-------
TABLE II- 4
FY71 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
COMPOSITE EMISSION LEVELS FOR ALL CITIES EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
1975 FTP
YEAK
1966
19b7
TOTAL
196H
11969
11970
11971
TOTAL
N
67
54
\fl
-------
TABLE II- 5
FY71 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR UENVtR
1975 FTP
YE a-t
1466
1967
TOTAL
19t>n
I4b9
H/0
1971
TOTAL
Ni
16
IS
.M
18
17
17
20
/2
Mf AN
MILFS
(K)
S7.1
S7.6
57.3
*2.1
3(5.9
26. n
15.2
30.1
* KELOw
Lh'VtL »
riC CO NOX
0 U 81
0 U BO
0 0 Hi
0 0 h3
Iri 13 65
i<; o 53
5 5 bO
H «. 63
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
AWI THMtrlC
MEAN Stl
8.7<» 7
6.H 3.SS
b.S9 1.42
6.46 2.97
GEOMETRIC
MfcAN SO
b. 32 1.3a
H.75 1.34
«.S3 1.35
h.87 1.40
b.43 1.84
S.93 1.6r>
H.42 1.29
5.8d 1.57
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
129.25 52.79
126.23 J1.55
128.76 43.11
109.20 52. 4b
76.4? 47.67
9*. 7ft 33.80
88.13 35.96
92.20 43.74
GEOMETRIC
MEAN so
119.41 1.51
124.16 1.32
121.68 1.42
99.71 1.53
65.61 1.74
89.30 1.43
80.67 1.57
82.98 1.60
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SL)
2.07 1.60
1.77 0.89
1.93 1.29
2.20 0.80
2.59 1.24
2.78 1.11
3.05 1.59
2.67 1.25
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
1.64 2.03
1.56 1.72
1.60 1.66
2.07 1.43
2.27 1.76
2.54 1.57
2.73 1.62
2.40 1.60
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
LEVELS
HC 3.4 GM/MI
CO 39.0 GM/MI
NOX 3.0 GM/MI
II-7
-------
TABLE II- 6
FY71 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR LOS ANGELES
197S FTP
YKA*
1-J67
TOTAL
l-m
TOTAL
N
16
17
33
15
17
16
,
Mt AN
(M
65.7
5b.4
(SO. 9
37.3
3H.1
25.2
15. e
2H.1
t HKLO.V
LEVt.L «
nC CO ixOA
1 * 25 '3 1
24 12 41
21 Iri 3ft
27 27 40
6 b 12
25 44 14
71 40 19
35 32 22
HYDROCAKbONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MtAN SO
7.B4 H.34
b.bS b.3b
4.71 1.87
4.V2 1.07
4.4b 2.39
3.02 0.7S
4.19 1.75
GEOMETRIC
MtAN SO
b.fll 2.03
4.bO 1.70
5.15 1.86
4.37 1.50
4.80 1.25
2.93 1.2o
3.00 1.45
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
65.16 36.59
67.1fl 36.99
66.20 36.23
62.43 37.60
68.70 22.87
50.83 26.40
42.26 19.91
Sb.15 28.25
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
56.84 1.72
59.68 1.63
58.29 I.b6
54.31 1.70
65.13 1.41
44.69 1.70
37.83 1.64
48.63 1.67
NOX GM/MI
AKI1HMETIC
MEAN SO
3.40 1.54
3.42 1.50
3.41 1.50
3.86 2.04
5.46 2. Ob
4.62 1.64
3.83 1.10
4.42 1.81
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
3.04 1.68
3. Ob 1.65
3.06 1.65
3.40 1.68
5.10 1.47
4.33 1.46
3.65 1.41
4.06 1.53
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
LEVELS
HC 3.4 GM/MI
CO 39.0 GM/MI
NUX 3.0 GM/MI
II-8
-------
TABLE II- 7
FY71 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
FUEL ECONOMY IN MILES PER GALLON
ALL CITItS tiXCEPT DENVEK AND LOS ANGELES
YEAR
1966
1967
196tt
1969
1970
1971
N
*7
54
69
72
70
PO
COLD
TRANSIENT
MEAN SO
13.0 2.8
13.3 3.2
12.6 3.1
12.6 3.1
12.6 3.?
12.4 3.8
STABILIZED
MEAN SO
14.0 2.5
13.4 3.3
13.0 3.4
13.3 2.9
13.3 3.5
12.8 4.5
HOT
TRANSIENT
MEAN SD
15.8 3.4
15.7 3.6
15.3 3.8
15.3 3.4
15.0 3.9
14.9 5.6
1972
FTP
MEAN SO
13.5 2.6
13.5 3.1
13.0 3.1
13.1 2.9
13.0 3.3
12.7 3.9
1975
FTP
MEAN ' so
14.3 2.6
14.0 3.1
13.6 3.3
13.7 2.9
13.7 3.5
13.3 4.4
II-9
-------
TABLE II- 8
FY71 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
FUEL ECONOMY IN MILES PER GALLON
DENVER
YEAR
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
N
]6
15
18
17
17
?0
COLD
TRANSIENT
MEAN SD
11.2 2.9
12.1 2.4
11.3 4.1
12.3 3.2
11.4 ?.6
10.9 2.3
STABILIZED
MEAN SD
13.6 2.6
13.1 2.5
12.6 3.5
13.8 3.0
12.9 2.7
12.0 2.4
HOT
TRANSIENT
MEAN SD.
14.7 3.0
14.2 2.5
15.0 3.4
15.5 3.1
14.2 3.3
13.5 3.2
i 1972
: FTP-
MEAN SO
12.4 2.6
12.7 2.4
12.0 3.8
13.2 3.1
12.2 2.6
11.5 2.3
1975
FTP
MEAN SD
13.4 2.6
13.2 2.4
12.9 3.5
14.0 3.0
13.0 2.7
12.2 2.5
II-10
-------
TABLE II- 9
FY71 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
FUEL ECONOMY IN MILES PER GALLON
LOS ANGELES
YEAR
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
N
16
17
15
17
16
21
COLD
TRANSIENT
MEAN SO
13.2 4.5
12.0 3.1
13.0 2.7
11.3 2.6
12.5 2.8
13.2 4.2
I
STABILIZED
MEAN SO
12.3 3.1
12.6 2.8
14.4 2.3
12.5 2.5
12.3 2.9
12.8 4.8
HOT
TRANSIENT
MEAN SO
14.7 4.1
15.1 3.5
16.9 2.5
14.9 3.3
15.1 3.5
14.7 7.5
1972
FTP
MEAN SD
12.8 3.2
12.4 2.9
13.8 2.4
11.9 2.6
12.5 2.8
13.1 4.5
1975
FTP
MEAN SD
13.1 3.3
13.2 3.0
14.8 2.4
12.8 2.6
13.] 3.0
13.5 5.0
11-11
-------
11-12
-------
APPENDIX III
Statistical Aspects of Fuel Economy
Calculatipns
III-l
-------
III-2
-------
APPENDIX III
Statistical Aspects of Fuel Economy Calculations
The carbon balance method of calculating fuel economy in
miles per gallon (mpg) is given below:
grams of carbon/gallon of fuel
"** ~ grams of carbon in exhaust/mile
2423
mpg .= .866 (gm/mile HC) + .429 (gm/mi CO) + .273 (gm/mi C07)
The grams-per-mile values for the 1972 FTP, the 1975 FTP
(a weighted fuel economy) and the individual portions of the
FTP are used to calculate the corresponding mpg figures. The
corresponding fuel consumption value of gallons per mile (gpm)
is simply 1/mpg. For purposes of developing confidence
intervals around fuel economy figures, it should be noted that
equation [1J is actually a calculation of the gallons of gasoline
used over a particular driving sequence. This is converted to
gallons per mile by dividing by the number of miles in the driving
sequence and further converted to miles per gallon by taking
the reciprocal of gallons per mile. The quantity gallons per
mile can be thought of as the fuel consumption over a standardized
representative one mile course.
It is of interest to quantify the fuel economy of a group
of vehicles. This is defined as
total miles driven
total gallons of gas used
Thus, fuel economy is a measure of amount of fuel consumed. It
turns out that with a sample of n vehicles, this quantity is the
harmonic mean of mpg values for those n vehicles since, by
definition:
III-3
-------
n where z- = miles per gallon of
1 each vehicle in the
z- sample
gallons, gallons, gallons
^ _l_ " _J_ _i_
miles, miles- ''' miles
But all vehicles are driven the same number of miles
over the Federal Test Procedure and miles, = miles, =...=miles
Therefore, i z
H m (miles)(n)
Z gallons-
i
[2]
H = total miles
total gallons
Statistically, the problem can be formulated as a problem
of estimation. Given z-^, Z2»....zn which are independent and
identically distributed random variables representing
miles per gallon, then
where .,
x. = miles driven by i vehicle,
y^ = gallons used by i vehicle over x.^ miles
III-4
-------
However, x- is not a stochastic quantity and can be
represented by the constant c. Thus,
where c can be set equal to one and y. adjusted accordingly.
The y. are independent and identically distributed random
variables (gallons of fuel consumed) with distribution function
G(y) and
- oy2
where E is the expected value and V is the variance.
The ability to compute a confidence interval around the
population equivalent of H, which is itself a function of wv
is desired. Since ?
total miles
total gallons
can be expressed as
1
n
1
Z
i
1
z
I
n
1
Z y.
i 1
1
y
is used as an estimator for -. ,
the fuel economy as defined in [2] .
The derivation of the hypothesis testing procedure is given
in reference (7) . The resulting estimator is
III-5
-------
The two-sided confidence interval is
[3]
Hn ±
Z a
y
[4]
or
a
7
_2 _
y Jn
TT- < H + Zi
y n 1-a .
y i
_
y Jn
] =
where Z_ is the 1003 percent point of a N(0,l) random variable.
It is often of interest to test a hypothesis concerning the
equality of fuel economies from two different groups of vehicles
An appropriate test of the null hypothesis to compare
- with -
is
2
I
2 2 ]
Sl h S2
n - 4 n - 4
[5]
where G is distributed as a chi-square with a level of confidence
and 1 degree of freedom. This can be extended to more than
two groups as discussed in reference [7].
The fuel economy tables given in this report present the
quantity
total miles travelled
H =
total gallons used
III-6
-------
the harmonic mean. The standard deviation reported in the fuel
economy tables is
fz
2
as derived above.
III-7
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
EPA-460/2-74-001
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance
Analysis of the FY72 Program
5. Report Date
February. 1974
6.
7. Author(s)
M. Williams, J. White, L. Platte, C. Domke
8. Performing Organization Kept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Certification § Surveillance Division
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Gram No.
1Z
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Certification and Surveillance Division
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
14.
is. s4£Rne&₯rb,
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM NTIS-35 (10-70) (Bibliographic Data Sheet based on COSATI
Guidelines to Format Standards for Scientific and Technical Reports Prepared by or for' the Federal Government,
PB-180 600).
1. Report Number. Each individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation selected by the performing
organization or provided by the sponsoring organization. Use uppercase letters and Arabic numerals only. Examples
FASEB-NS-87 and FAA-RD-68-09.
2. Leave blank.
3. Recipient's Accession Number. . Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4- Title and Subtitle. Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed promi-
nently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more
than one volume, repeat the primary tide, dd volume number and include subtitle for the specific volume.
5. Report Date, l-.ach report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected
(e.g., date of issue, date of approval, d.itr of preparation.
6. Performing Organization Code. Leave blank.
7. AuthoK*)- Give name(s) in conventional order (e.g., John K. Doc, or J.Robert Doe). List author's affiliation if it differs
from the performing organization.
8- Performing Organization Report Number. Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address, (five name, street, c ity,-state, and zip code. List no more than two levels of
an organisational hierarchy. Display i)><- name of the organization exactly as it should appear in Government indexes such
as USGROR-I-
10. Project Tosk. Work Unit Number. I'sc tin- protect, task ami work unit numbers under winch the report was prepared.
11. Controct Grant Number. Insert contrail or grant number under which report was prepared..
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address, liu Ituii- /.ip code.
13. Type of Report and Period Covered. Indicate interim, final, etc., and, if applicable, dates covered.
14- Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank;. .. .
15. Supplementory Notes. Knur information not included elsewhere but useful, such a.1: Prepared jn cooperation with ...
Translation of ... Presented at i onfcr> m e ol . . . To he published in ... Supersedes . . . Supplements
16. Abstract. Include a brief (_'00 words or less) factual summary' of the most significant information contained in the report.
If the report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis, (a). Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the
proper authorised terms that identify the major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used
as index entries for cataloging.
(b). Identifiers and Open-Ended Terms. l,'se identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use
open-ended terms written in descriptor form lor those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c). COSATI Field/Group. Field and Group assignments are to be taken from the 196^ COSATI Subject Category List.
Since the majority of documents are multid isc iplinary in nature, the primary Field/Group assignments) will be the specific
discipline, area of human endeavor, or type of physical pbject. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary
Field/Group assignments that will follow the primary posting(s).
18. Distribution Statement. Denote relcasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Re-
lease unlimited". Cite any availability to the public, with address and price.
19 & 20. Security Classification. Do not submit classified reports to the National Technical
21. Number of Pages. Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but excluding distribution
list, if any.
22. Price. Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
FORM NTIS-39 (REV. 3-721 ' USCOMM-DC M8S2-P72
-------
Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance
Analysis of .the FY72 Program
ERRATA SHEET
The following two sentences should be added to the
last paragraph on page 14.
The largest data point is not included
in each of the histograms of Figure 3.
The excluded hydrocarbon'values are 29.22
gm/mi for the four cities, 29.35 gm/mi for
Denver, and 31.0 gm/mi for Los Angeles.
Distribution graphs on bottoms of pages 64 and 65 have
correct ordinates but have been interchanged on the pages.
------- |