EPA-460/3-73-005
           TECHNICAL EVALUATION
             OF EMISSION CONTROL
                        APPROACHES
                    AND  ECONOMICS
          OF EMISSION  REDUCTION
                     REQUIREMENTS
                      FOR VEHICLES
                     BETWEEN 6,000
           AND 14,000 POUNDS GVW
       U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
          Office of Air and Water Programs
       Office of Mobile  Source Air Pollution Control
          Emission Control Technology Division
            Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

-------
                                      EPA-460/3-73-005
        TECHNICAL EVALUATION


OF EMISSION CONTROL APPROACHES


              AND ECONOMICS


        OF EMISSION REDUCTION


              REQUIREMENTS


        FOR VEHICLES BETWEEN


    6,000  AND 14,000 POUNDS GVW

                     Prepared by

                L. Bogdan, A. Burke, H. Reif

                  Calspan Corporation
                 Buffalo, New York 14221



                 Contract No. 68-01-0463


                  EPA Project Officer:

                   Robert E. Maxwell



                     Prepared for

          U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              Office of Air and Water Programs
           Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
              Emission Control Technology Division
                Ann Arbor, Michigan  48105

                    November 1973

-------
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 Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711, or from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Spring-
field, Virginia  22151.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by Cal-
span Corporation, Buffalo, New York, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-01-
0463.  The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from
the Calspan Corporation.  The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed
are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental
Protection Agency.  Mention of company or product names is not to be con-
sidered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
                   Publication No. EPA-460/3-73-005
                                    fi

-------
                              ABSTRACT


                                                            \
           An account is presented of a two-part study concerned with the

reduction of emissions from the group of vehicles populating the 6, 000-

14,000 pound GVW range.  In the technical evaluation study,  state-of-the-art

control technology is utilized to synthesize control system strategies and to

estimate their  control effectiveness when applied to this class of vehicles.

The economic analysis study develops the  relationships between the different

control strategies and the costs associated with their  implementation.



           A description is given of a computer program developed to

assess the impact on emissions and to evaluate implementation costs of the

several control strategies.  Numerical results are presented.
                                  111

-------
                              FOREWORD

            This report was prepared by Calspan Corporation, Buffalo,
New York under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Contract No.
68-01-0463. The work was administered under the direction of the Office
of Air Programs, Characterization and Control Development Branch,
Division of  Emission Control Technology, Mr. Robert E. Maxwell,  Project
Officer.

            This is the project final technical report which describes and
summarizes the results of studies conducted during the period from
October  1972 through May 1973 and concerned with (A) technical evaluation
of emission control approaches and (B)  economics of emission reduction
requirements for  vehicles between 6,000 and  14,000 pounds GVW.

            Part A effort was performed by the Vehicle Systems Department
with the  Part B  studies conducted by the Operations Research Department.
Acknowledgement is made of the contributions of D. T.Kunkel who assisted
with the  vehicle characterization task and G. M. Niesyty who participated
in the economic analyses and C. Groenewoud who was responsible for
writing the  computer program.

            A special note of acknowledgement is due to L.H. Lindgren, of
the firm  of  Rath and Strong, Inc. ,  for his contributions to lead time estimates
and cost analysis  in a consulting capacity.
                                 IV

-------
                          ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

            The project staff wishes to acknowledge the valuable assistance
rendered by the following  organizations in providing information,
documentation and data required in the conduct of this program.

            Chrysler Corporation,  Detroit, Michigan
            Cummins Engine Company, Columbus, Indiana
            Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan
            General Motors Corporation, Warren, Michigan
            International Harvester Company,  Fort Wayne, Indiana
            Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, Detroit, Michigan
            Perkins Engines, Inc., Farmington, Michigan
            Recreational Vehicle  Institute, Inc.,Des Plaines, Illinois
            Wilbur Smith and Associates, Columbia, South Carolina

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                Page No.

      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                      ES-1
1.0   INTRODUCTION                                             1-1
2.0   PART A.  TECHNICAL ANALYSIS                            2-1
      2.1   Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations            2-1
      2.2   Methodology                                           2-2
      2.3   Vehicle Characterization                               2-6
           2.3.1    Types and Grouping                            2-6
           2.3.2    Engines, Drivetrains and GVW Ranges          2-11
           2.3.3    Sales                                          2-20
           2.3.4    Usage                                         2-26
      2.4   Representative Vehicle/Engine Combinations            2-37
           2.4. 1    Selection                                      2-37
           2.4.2    Emission Controls                             2-39
           2.4.3    Baseline Emissions                            2-39
      2.5   Validation of GVW Limits                               2-51
      2.6   Emission Reduction Potential                           2-55
           2.6. 1    General Approaches for Reducing
                    Medium Duty Truck Emissions                 2-55
           2.6.2    Conventional Gasoline Engines                  2-60
           2.6.3    Alternative Engines                            2-88
      2.7   Emission Control Strategies                            2-104
           2.7.1    Conventional Gasoline Engines                  2-105
           2.7.2    Alternative Engines                            2-109

-------
                                                                Page No.
           2.7.3  Computer Simulation of Medium Duty
                   Emission Control Strategies                      2-109
           2.7.4  Results of Computer Study                       2-114
           2.7.5  Control Strategy Evaluation                      2-129
3.0   PARTS.  ECONOMIC ANALYSIS                             3-1
      3.1  Introduction and Summary                               3-1
      3.2  Conclusions                                            3-3
      3.3  Sales Projections                                       3-5
           3.3.1  Introduction                                     3-5
           3.3.2  Projections for 6-10, 000 Ibs.  GVW Vehicles      3-5
           3.3.3  Sales Projections for 10-14,000 Ibs. GVW
                   Vehicles                                        3-15
           3.3.4  Recreational Vehicles                            3-17
           3.3.5  Engines Used in 6-14, 000 Ibs. GVW Vehicles     3-18
      3.4  Cost Estimates                                         3-21
           3.4.1  Introduction                                     3-21
           3.4.2  Emission Control Devices                        3-21
           3.4.3  Incremental Diesel  Engine Costs                 3-30
      3.5  Emission Control System Costs                         3-36
           3.5.1  Sticker Prices of Emission Control Systems
                   and Diesel Engines                               3-36
           3.5.2  Maintenance Costs of Emission Control
                   Systems and Diesel Engines                      3-38
           3.5.3  Incremental Fuel Costs of Emission Control
                   Systems and Diesel Engines                      3-42
           3.5.4  Total Costs                                      3-42
      3.6  Emission Control System Lead Times                   3-47
                                   Vll!

-------
                                                                Page No.
      3.7  System Comparisons                                    3-50
           3.7.1   Certification Costs                               3-63
           3.7.2   Consumer Costs                                 3-67
4.0   REFERENCES                                                4-1
                                   IX

-------
                              APPENDICES
Appendix A-l     Comparison of Specifications for Engines Used in LDV
                  and HDV Applications

Appendix A-Z     A Summary of Exhaust Emissions From Medium Duty
                  Vehicles, 6,000 - 14, 000 Pounds  GVW

Appendix A-3     Evaporative Emissions

Appendix A-4     Identification and Description of Emission Control
                  Components

Appendix A-5     Supporting Emissions Data for the Evaluation of the
                  Emission Reduction Factors

Appendix A-6     Supporting Data for  the Determination of the Fuel
                  Penalty Factor

Appendix A-7     Analytical Method for Predicting the Effect of Vehicle
                  Weight on Emissions

Appendix A-8     Detailed Description of the Medium Duty Truck
                  Emissions and Cost Program (AMTEC)

Appendix A-9     Graphical Summary of Baseline Emissions Data
                  vs. Inertia Weight
Appendix B-l
Catalytic Converter Cost and Production Lead
Time
                                    .x

-------
                           LIST OF FIGURES


Figure

No.                               Title                          Page No.


2..1       Program Information Flow Chart                       2-4


2.2       Major Types of Body Styles (6, 000-14, 000 Ib GVW)      2-8


2.3       Relationship Between Tire Diameter,  Axle Ratio


          and GVW for Medium Duty Vehicles                     2-21


2.4       Medium  Duty Vehicle Sales                              2-27


2.5       Truck Survey in Three Cities-Statistical Summary       2-34


2.7       Regression Lines of HC Emissions on Inertia Weight


          for Trucks and Trucks/Motor Homes Combined          2-48


2.8       Regression Line  of CO Emissions on Inertia Weight


          for Trucks and Trucks/Motor Homes Combined          2-49


2.9       Regression Lines of NO Emissions on Inertia Weight
                                 3C

          for Trucks and Trucks/Motor Homes Combined          2-50


2.10      Effect of NO Emissions Level on Fuel Penalty          2-69
                      x

2.11      Baseline Fuel Economy (MPG) for Medium Duty


          Trucks                                                2-71


2. 12      Effect of EGR on Cylinder Combustion Parameters       2-74


2.13      Comparison of Predicted and Measured Emissions


          as a Function of Vehicle Inertia Weight                 2-86


2. 14      Conversion Factor Between Engine and Vehicle


          Emissions                                             2-93


2.15      Comparison of Diesel and Gasoline Engine HC


          Emissions for Medium Duty  Trucks                     2-94


2. 16      Comparison of Diesel and Gasoline Engine CO


          Emissions for Medium Duty  Trucks                     2-95


2. 17      Comparison of Diesel and Gasoline Engine NO           2-96
                                                      X

          Emissions for Medium Duty  Trucks
                                  XI

-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont. )

Figure
No.                             Title                            Page No.

2. 18      Baseline Diesel Emissions                              2-97

2.19      Annual HC Emissions as Functions of Control            2-118

          Strategy - Conventional Engines Gasoline

          Only - MDV

2.20      Annual CO Emissions as Functions of Control            2-119

          Strategy - Conventional Engines Only  - MDV
2.21      Annual NO  Emissions as Functions of Control           2-120
                    x
          Strategy - Conventional Gasoline Engines Only - MDV

2.22      Annual HC Emissions as Functions of Control Strategy-  2-121

          Conventional Engines and Diesels (w/EGR)  - MDV

2.23      Annual CO Emissions as Functions of Control            2-122

          Strategy - Conventional Engines and Diesels

          (w/EGR) - MDV

2.24      Annual NO  Emissions as Functions of Control           2-123
                    x
          Strategy - Conventional Engines and Diesel

          (w/EGR) - MDV

2.25      Annual Fuel Penalty as a Function of Control            2-125

          Strategy - Conventional Gasoline Engines Only - MDV

2.26      Annual Fuel Advantage Using Conventional Engine/       2-127

          Diesel Mix Rather Than Conventional Engines Only-

          MDV

2.27      Reference Annual Fuel Consumption for MDV -           2-128

          Conventional Engines - No Add-On Control  Systems
                                   Xll

-------
                            LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No.                        Title                           Page No.
   3. 1        U.S.  Sales of Trucks and Buses                       3-6
   3.2        U.S.  Sales of 6-10, 000 Ibs.  GVW Trucks              3-7
   3.3        % 6-10, 000 Ibs.  GVW Trucks Sales of Total U.S.
              Sales of Trucks and Buses                             3-9
   3.4        Estimated U.S. Sales of  6-10,000  Ibs. GVW Trucks    3-10
   3. 5        % U. S.  Sales  of Pickup Trucks of Total Sales  of
              6-10,000  Ibs. GVW Trucks                            3-12
   3.6        Projected Sales of Pickup Trucks                      3-13
   3.7        Projected Sales of Van/Panel Trucks                  3-13
   3.8        Projected Sales of Multistop  Vans                      3-14
   3.9        Projected Sales of Chassis and Platform Trucks        3-14
   3.10       U.S.  Sales of 10-14,000  Ibs.  GVW Trucks             3-16
   3.11       Catalytic  Converter Cost                              3-27
   3. 12       Catalytic  Converter and Thermal Reactor Cost
              Estimates                                            3-28
   3. 13       Estimated Costs of Current Spark  Ignition Engines     3-31
   3. 14       Estimated Costs of Diesel Engines                    3-33
   3. 15       Incremental Diesel Engine Costs                      3-34
   3. 16       Estimated System Lead Times                         3-48
   B. 1        Production Lead Time Schedules for Catalyst  and
              Substrate Suppliers                                    B-2
   B.2        Production Lead Time Schedules for Catalytic
              Converter                                            B-3
                                    Xlll

-------
                           LIST OF TABLES

Table No.                     Title                              Page  No.
   2.1        Vehicle Grouping                                    2-9
   2.2        Vehicle -Engine -Drivetrain Characterization -
              1973 Models                                        2-12
   2.3        Factory Sales of Trucks and Buses by GVW          2-23
   2.4        Annual U.S. Domestic Factory Sales                 2-24
   2.5        Projected  1973 Sales of Medium Duty
              Truck Engines                                      2-26
   2.6        Average Daily Truck Usage in 11 Urban Areas        2-30
   2.7        Distribution by Body Type and Trip Purpose         2-32
   2.7a       Group Representative Vehicle  -Engine
              Combinations, Physical Characterization            2-38
   2.7b       Group Representative Vehicle  - Engine
              Combinations, Emission Control Devices            2-40
   2.8        Emission Control Devices Presently Used            2-41
   2.9        Group Representative Vehicle  - Engine
              Combinations, Exhaust Emission Levels             2-43
   2.10       Emission Control Systems  for Conventional
              Gasoline I.C. Engines                               2-57
   2.11       Control System Configurations                       2-58
   2. 12       Pollution,  Cost and  Fuel Consumption
              Characteristics of Alternative Automotive
              Propulsion Systems                                 2-59
   2. 13       Engine Emissions at Low Mileage                    2-62
   2. 14       Summary of Emission Control System Reduction
              Factors                                            2-68
                                   xiv

-------
Table No.                      Title                             Page No.
   2.15       Summary of Emission Control System Fuel
              Penalty Factors                                    2-73
   2. 16       Summary of Medium Duty Truck Emission
              Control System Effectiveness Data                  2-76
   2. 17       Summary of Engine  Dynamometer Emission
              Control System Effectiveness Data                  2-77
   2.18       Bag Emissions Data from Light Duty and
              Medium Duty Vehicles                              2-79
   2.19       Urban Driving Cycle Characterization Data          2-83
   2.20       Road and Engine  Horsepowers for Acceleration
              and Cruise  Modes                  •                2-84
   2.21       Engine Emission Characteristics                   2-91
   2.22       Summary of Emissions From Diesel Engines        2-98
              Equipped with NOX Control Systems
   2.23       Emissions Data for Vehicles Using CVCC           2-103
              Engines
   2.24       Summary of Required Input Information for          2-112
              AMTEC Program
   2.25       Summary of Computer Runs                        2-115
                                   xv

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES

Table No.                          Title                           Page No.
   3. 1        Percent of U. S.  Sales of Trucks by Body Types         3-11
   3.2        Percent of Sales of 10-14,000 Ibs. GVW Vehicles
              by Body Type                                          3-17
   3.3        Sales of Recreational Vehicles                         3-18
   3.4        Engines in 6-14,000 Ibs. GVW Vehicles  Based on
              1973 Manufacturers' Sales Projections                 3-20
   3.5        Emission Control Devices                              3-22
   3.6        Sticker Prices of Emission Control Systems            3-37
   3.7        Sticker Prices of Diesel Engine Systems                3-39
   3.8        Incremental Maintenance Costs (50, 000 Mi. )            3-40
   3.9        Incremental Diesel Maintenance Costs (50,000 Mi0 )     3-41
   3.10       Incremental Fuel Costs (50, 000 Mi. )                    3-43
   3.11       Diesel Operating Costs (50, 000 Mi. )                    3-44
   3.12       Total System Cost (50, 000 Mi. )                         3-45
   3.13       Diesel Engine Total System Cost  (50, 000 Mi. )           3-46
   3. 14       Emission Control System Comparison V8-350
              Engine  (50, 000 Mi. )                                   3-51
   3. 15       Emission Control System Comparison -  Diesel 350
              CID (50,000 Mi.)                                      3-52
   3. 16       System Comparison V8-350 Engine                     3-54
   3. 17       Improved Carburetion Effectiveness  and Costs -
              350  CID Engine (50, 000 Mi. )                           3-55
   3. 18       Thermal Reactor Effectiveness and Costs -
              350  CID Engine (50, 000 Mi. )                           3-56
   3. 19       Catalytic Converter Effectiveness and Costs -
              350  CID Engine (50, 000 Mi. )                           3-57
   3.20       Diesel Engine Effectiveness and Costs -
              350  CID Engine (50, 000 Mi. )                           3-58
   3021       Alternative Emission Control Approaches               3-59
   3.22       Effectiveness and Costs of Emission Control
              Approaches                                            3-61
   3.23       Certification Fleet Requirements 6,000-10,000
              Ibs. GVW                                              3-65
   3.24       Certification Fleet Requirements 10,000-14,000
              Ibs. GVW                                              3-66

                                   xvi

-------
                        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY









                    Contents                               Page No.





1.0  INTRODUCTION                                        ES-1



2.0  PART A.  TECHNICAL ANALYSIS                       ES-3



     1.    Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations       ES-3



     2.    Supporting Discussion                             ES-5



           a.    Methodology                                 ES-5



           b.    Vehicle Characterization                     ES-6



           c.    Baseline Emissions                          ES-9



           d.    Weight Limits                               ES-H



           e.    Emission Control Approaches                ES-13



           f.     Emission Control Strategies                  ES-16



3.0  PARTS.  ECONOMIC ANALYSIS                        ES-19



     1.    Summary and Conclusions                         ES-19



     2.    Supporting Discussion                             ES-21



           a.    Emission Control Systems and



                 System Effectiveness                        ES-21



           b.    Sales Projections                            ES-21



           c.    Costs                                       ES-23



           d.    Lead Times                                 ES-24
                                 ES-i

-------
1.0         INTRODUCTION








            This program was concerned with a research study devoted to



a technical evaluation of emission control approaches and the economics



of emission reduction requirements for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight



(GVW) between  6,000 and 14,000 pounds.  For convenience, this category



of vehicles herein is referred to as medium duty vehicles (MDV).








            The objective of the technical analysis was an evaluation of



emission control approaches and reduction levels applicable to the MDV.



A methodology was adopted  that included:  identification and characterization



of vehicles in the MDV group, selection of  representative 1973 model year



vehicle/engine combinations and the determination of their baseline emission



levels, selection of control  techniques and alternative engine concepts



providing emission reductions together with engineering  estimates of the



levels of these reductions and the identification of lead times and vehicle



performance penalties associated with the different levels of emission



reduction considered feasible.   The assumption was made that the extensive



control technology in existence for light duty vehicles (LDV) could be



effectively  adapted to the MDV.








            A succinct account of the technical analysis study is included



in Section II of this summary.








            Relationships among the various reduction levels possible and



their implementation costs  for representative MDV vehicle/engine



combinations were developed and analyzed  under  the economic analysis portion



of the project.  Estimated sticker prices for the selected emission control



approaches were estimated  together with related  maintenance costs and
                                   ES-1

-------
combined into overall costs which include incremental fuel costs.  These



costs are then related to the emission reduction effectiveness of the different



control strategies to determine  the cost effectiveness of each.







            Section III of this summary is a concise account  of the results



of the economic study.
                                    ES-2

-------
2.0         PART A.   TECHNICAL ANALYSIS








      1.    Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations








            Medium duty vehicles are fitted with engine and drivetrain  compon-



ents often identical  to, or derivatives of, those used in light duty vehicles.   The



MDV category is  dominated in population by the pickup-type truck whose



dual-purpose function imparts to this weight category, a usage and operating



character not unlike the LDV  category.  Motor homes, with an appreciable



share of current MDV annual  sales,  represent a unique exception.








            Eight emission control systems are postulated for the MDV



category.   These systems are derived from technology developed for the



LDV group  and the  projected reduction factors, fuel penalties and vehicle



performance effects are estimated with  reference  to test data from light



duty vehicles.   Three categories of control approaches were formulated:



catalytic converter, thermal reactor and fuel control (carbure tion/induction).



These are generic designations  and other control devices are included  in



the  implementation  strategies for each.








            Using an  equivalent  1975  CVS-CH Federal Test Procedure,



baseline emission data are determined from a sample of late model MDV



and  show that vehicle weight is  the principal factor influencing emissions.








            Computer simulation is employed to predict emission reductions



and  associated  fuel  penalties in  implementing different control strategies



derived from a combination of control approaches  and alternative engines



with lead times estimated for each.  This  analysis does not incorporate



any  effects  of durability of control systems on emissions.
                                   ES-3

-------
           Subject to the qualifications noted in the report,  the following



conclusions and recommendations are  appropriate:








      •    Exhaust emissions (mass per mile basis) from late



           model MDV are principally weight dependent,



           increasing with weight.





      •    A vehicle  mix utilizing catalyst equipped



           conventional engines and pre-chamber type,



           turbocharged diesel engines with EGR provides



           the most effective control strategy for HC and



           CO emissions.





      •    The above-cited control  strategy also achieves the



           best fuel economy.





      •    A vehicle  population comprised solely of conventional



           engines  equipped  with reducing catalysts achieves



           the most effective control over NOV emissions.
                                             ^-






      •    It is recommended that emission standards for



           medium duty trucks apply  to a GVW range bounded



           by 6, 000 and 10, 000 Ib.  limits.
                                  ES-4

-------
      2.     Supporting Discussion






            a.    Methodology








            The technical approach employed in meeting the program



objectives was consistent with explicit procedural details  specified by EPA



in the statement of work.  Task-type items, requiring continual review and



updating throughout the project, are discussed below.








            An initial task required  identifying the vehicle types comprising



the 6,000-14,000 Ib. GVW category according to sales, ranges of GVW,



engines, drivetrains, usage and other identifying characteristics.  From



these data vehicle groups were formed  to aid in validating appropriate GVW



limits for the MDV.  For each such group,  a representative vehicle/engine /



drivetrain was selected,  the current model year emission controls specified



and baseline emissions determined.  Emission data, measured according



to an equivalent 1975 Federal  Test Procedure, were supplied by EPA.  The



group-representative approach proved fruitless as the available emissions



data for MDV did permit discrimination among any of the vehicle/engine /



drivetrain combinations selected.  Rather,  the principal disciminant factor



found was vehicle test, or inertia,  weight.








            Using emission control technology from the light duty vehicle



field, likely control systems were formulated for the MDV category with



estimates made for each of reduction factors, vehicle  performance penalties



and implementation lead  times.  A computer program  was developed to



calculate annual mass  emissions and costs  associated  with implementing



the individual control strategies in medium duty  vehicles.
                                   ES-5

-------
            b.    Vehicle Characterization


            As indicated above, the planned procedure involved the grouping

of MDV vehicles on the basis of data on usage, sales and vehicle physical

characteristics. Such usage factors as load weight,  trips per day, daily

mileage,  route  followed,  etc. were felt to significantly affect emissions.

Usage  data of this type were generally very sketchy,  out of date and often

completely nonexistent or inapplicable.  Consequently,  vehicle groups were

formed using judgment and practical considerations based on the limited

data available.  The resultant grouping is shown in the  table below.

                            Vehicle Grouping


               Group    -                Body Style or Type

            Pickup/Camper              Pickup
                                         Camper Special

           Van/Passenger Van          Van
                                         Passenger Van

            Multi-Stop Van               Multi-Stop Van

            Chassis                      Cab Chassis
                                         Cowl Chassis
                                         Bare Chassis

            Motor Home Chassis          Motor Home  Chassis


            Manufacturers' data on vehicle engines, transmissions and axle

ratios  for the different models were collected for the 1973 model year MDV.

A summary of these data, arranged according to the vehicle groupings

selected,  appears in Table 2.2  of the report (page 2-12).  A number of

significant facts emerge from this compilation.  First,  all vehicles in the

pickup/camper  and van/passenger van groups have GVW specifications
                                  ES-6

-------
within the  range from 6, 000 to 10, 000 Ibs.  Second, all models of the other
three groups (except for a single, isolated model) have GVW specifications
either between 6, 000 to 10, 000 Ibs.  or 10, 000 Ibs. and above (i. e.,  only
one model overlaps the  10, 000 Ib. GVW level).  Third,  the data show that
only one model also overlaps the 6, 000 Ib. GVW level.  Therefore the
6, 000 and  10, 000 Ib. GVW levels are distinct demarcation lines among
vehicles with reference to GVW.

            The  same basic engine families are generally used in the LDV
and MDV groups.  Most MDV  engines have direct light duty  counterparts
and, with few exceptions,  are internally identical.  Medium duty engines
for the  1973 model year are equipped with fewer add-on emission control
devices and rated at slightly higher horsepower levels than their LDV
counterparts.  Intermediate eight-cylinder engines (330-360 CID) are
overwhelmingly popular for the  MDV group with the 350 and 360 CID engines
dominant.   Six-cylinder engines are a minor factor.   It therefore follows
the horsepower-to-weight ratio  will be lower for medium duty vehicles so
that the engines  will be  operated at relatively higher loading than in  the LDV.

            Vehicle populations  and population trends  derived from sales
data are important in establishing the impact on total  pollutant emissions
attributable to specific  groups of vehicles.  Using the conventional GVW
groupings  of the truck industry, sales data show that the 6, 000-10,000 Ib.
group is by far the most populous if the LDV group (< 6, 000 Ibs. GVW) is
excluded.  While this group has exhibited an unbroken trend of increased
sales for the past decade, the sales  of the 10,000-14,000 Ib. GVW group
have  remained static at a  much  lower level during most of this period.   A
strong sales surge in this latter group, considered substantially  attributable
to motor home sales, has occurred since 1970 (Table 2.3, page 2-23 and
                                   ES-7

-------
Table 2.4, page 2-24).  The importance of the recreational vehicles

(campers and motor homes) is highlighted by the estimate that they

accounted for approximately 40% of the MDV sales"" in 1972.  On the other

hand, the dominant popularity of the pickup truck is demonstrated by a
                                           51'
share in excess of 55% of annual MDV sales'" over a period  of years.


           As noted earlier, usage  data on MDV are  very limited and often

not relevant  to specific needs of this program.  Specific deficiencies

encountered  are tabulated below:


      •    classification by inappropriate GVW  ranges

      •    use of population samples  not typical of the national
           distribution of vehicles

      •    obsolete  information based on a nonexistent vehicle

           mix

      •    fragmentary information on daily usage by vehicle
           type


Analysis of the more pertinent data shows consensus  that  all truck types  under

10, 000 Ibs. GVW  (which includes light duty trucks as  well) are urban

oriented and  act and  operate in traffic much  like a typical passenger

automobile.  These  trucks  are found to operate without load for approximately

30% of the time.   Pickup-type vehicles and their variants,  are used pre-
dominantly for nonwork related purposes.  In general, the available usage

data on vehicles in the  6, 000-1 0, 000 Ib. and 1 0,  000-14, 000 Ib. GVW ranges

did not provide any basis for discriminating  between the two in establishing

weight limits for the MDV category.
 •cln this context,  the 6, 000-14, 000 Ibs. GVW range.
                                   ES-8

-------
            c.     Baseline Emissions

            Emissions data for HC, CO and NOX from over one hundred
late  model vehicles with a GVW between 6, 000 and 14, 000 Ibs. were supplied
by EPA.  These data originated from three  sources, an in-house EPA effort
and  two different EPA  contractors.  The test procedure employed was the
basic 1975 CVS-CH Federal Test Procedure developed for the LDV with the
only variations  associated with the determination of vehicle  inertia weight
and  road load horsepower. Inertia weight,  rounded to  the nearest 500 Ibs.,
is obtained  by the addition to vehicle curb weight of 500-lb.  increments
(maximum of 1, 500 Ibs. )  according to a  schedule based on payload capacity.
Road load horsepower  is given as a linear function of inertia weight, varying
from 17. 7 hp.  at 5, 000 Ibs. to 65. 8 hp.  at 10, 000 Ibs.   These procedural
details do not necessarily represent the  test procedures EPA may ultimately
specify for  the MDV category.

            A review of these emissions data showed that:  (a) a number of
older models were included in the sampling (1965-1969), (b) some vehicles
were tested in an "as  received" condition while others  were tested after the
engine dwell, timing and idle speed were adjusted to specifications, (c) the
bulk of the data was concentrated at an inertia weight of 5, 000-5, 500 Ibs. ,
(d) data at the higher inertia weights (8, 000-10, 000 Ibs. ) were primarily from
motor homes,  (e) some vehicles with very low mileage ("green engines")
were sampled,  (f) data were included on 1973 California vehicles which were
equipped with EGR systems and (g) the data showed a wide scatter at any
given inertia weight.

            The  scatter in the emissions data precluded any discrimination
among different vehicle engine combinations.  This finding does not imply,
                                   ES-9

-------
however, that such differences do not exist.  A plot of the data as a function


of inertia weight did show an increase of emissions with weight for each of


the three pollutants.





            A series  of linear regressions were performed on various


subsets of the data with  mass emissions per mile regressed on inertia


weight.  Because of the  poorly distributed inertia weights,  it was necessary


to use a data sample  that included all 1970-1973 vehicles, both tuned  and


untuned,  to extend the range  of inertia weights encompassed.  California


vehicles and those with green engines were excluded.   Results of this


analysis on a sample size of 89 vehicles indicated that the inclusion of


emissions data for only  nine  motor homes increased the slope of the


regression lines significantly (compared to trucks -only data) for CO and


NO  emissions.  Consequently,  a regression analysis was made for only
   J\.

the truck data.  Results are given below.






             Regression Equations -  Trucks Only (76  Points)
                         =   0.526 Iw  +  2.38


                         =   7-°9  Iw  + 19.8


                 MNOX  =   i- °2  xw  +  1.61
                             Mj^  =  grams /mile of pollutant i


                             Iw  =  inertia weight, thousands of Ibs .




Because of the small sample size and narrow inertia weight range available


for motor homes, the emissions data were averaged.
                                   ES-10

-------
              Average Emissions - Motor Homes (9 Points)

HC
gm/mi
7.82

CO
gm/mi
125.71

NOX
gm/mi
13.07
Mean Test
Weight
Ibs.
8,400
            Subsequent to completion of work on this project, the Project



Officer supplied emissions data on additional MDV as well as instructions



for broadening the original data base and  requested that a regression analysis



be performed for the combined truck and  motor home data.  The resultant



equations are listed below.







      Regression Equations -  Trucks and Motor Homes (135 Points)
                               =    0.555 Iw  + 1.94



                       MCO   =   H.20  Iw  - 8. 19



                       MNOX  =    1-35  Iw  - 0.56







These equations were generated after the completion of the project and were



not used in the analysis.
            d.     Weight Limits






            A choice of GVW limits was based on four factors associated



with the vehicles  included in the medium duty category;  population, physical



characteristics, usage and emissions.   The  motor home was readily isolated



as a unique member of this  group  in terms of usage and emissions.
                                   ES-11

-------
            The selection of 6, 000 Ibs. GVW as a lower limit for the MDV
category is clearly defensible.  This GVW level has  been shown to be a
natural dividing line at which certain LDV models reach  maximum weight
ratings and many MDV models have  minimum  ratings. Such a  line of
demarcation is important in avoiding the  necessity of certification  of given
vehicle models by two different procedures and according to two different
standards.  An alternate possibility, the  extension of the GVW  range of the
LDV category does not seem reasonable because of the demonstrated dependence
of the MDV emissions on weight.  Hence a complex revision of LDV standards
would be implied.

            Two  possibilities are likely for an upper GVW limit;  10, 000 Ibs.
and 14,000 Ibs.  Based  solely on GVW ranges  of vehicles,  the  10,000 Ib.
limit is preferable since only one current year model overlaps this level.
Limited-scope usage data provide no basis  for discrimination.   On the  other
hand, sales data for the 6, 000-10, 000 Ib. GVW group and the similarity of
vehicle characteristics  and usage of this  group with  that  of  the  LDV category
favor the  10, 000 Ib. GVW limit.  Also, the choice of the larger weight limit
would bring very few additional  trucks under control.  Therefore,  despite
a lack of preponderant evidence favoring  a specific weight limit,  the 10, 000 Ib.
GVW figure is recommended as the  upper weight limit for the MDV category.
            Motor home population is not as stratified by weight as  it is for
 trucks.  Sales and sales projections  show a high popularity of the 10, 000-14, 000
 Ib. GVW group.  Consequently, the limits for motor homes are recommended
 to range from 6, 000 to  14, 000 Ibs. GVW.
                                  ES-12

-------
            e .    Emission Control Approaches


            Reduction of exhaust emissions from medium duty vehicles may
be realized by (1) modifications of the conventional gasoline engine and/or
exhaust gas after-treatment and (2) the use of alternate,  low-emissions
engines.


            Emission control systems evaluated for MDV applications were
chosen from those  developed and,  to a reasonable extent, tested in LDV
applications.   These systems offer a wide range of reduction potential and
permit a cost-effective  analysis to be made.  The systems components
include:  engine modifications (EM°), electronic ignition (El), fast choke (FC),
improved carburetion (1C), further improved carburetion (FIC), exhaust
manifold air injection (Al), quick-heat intake  (QHI), exhaust gas recirculation
(EGR), oxidizing catalyst (OC), reducing catalyst (RC), air injection ahead of
catalyst (CAI), controlled air injection (AI/CAI), electronic fuel injection and
control (EFIC), three-way catalyst (RC/OC), lean thermal reactor (LTR),
rich termal reactor  (RTR) and  improved quick heat manifold (IQHI).  From
this  group of techniques/devices,  a total of eight control systems  was
identified as shown in the accompanying tabulation.  For each system the
emission reductions for HC,  CO and NOV have been estimated (Table 2. 14,
                                        X
page 2-68) together with the corresponding fuel penalties (Table 2. 15, page
2-73).
                                  ES-13

-------
             Emission Control Systems for Conventional



                          Gasoline Engines
Numbe r                              System^3-)




                     EM° (b>




   1                 EM° + El + FC + AI + EGR




   2                 EM° + El + 1C + QHI + AI + EGR




   3                 EM° + El + 1C + QHI + EGR + AI + OC




   4                 EM° + El + 1C + QHI + EGR + RC + AI/CAI + OC




   5                 EM° + El + EFIC + EGR + RC /OC




   6                 EM° + El + 1C + QHI + EGR + LTR




   7                 EM° + El + FC + EGR + AI + RTR




   8                 EM° + El + FIG + IQHI + AI + EGR
   (a)  Components are described in Appendix A-4.




   (b)  Modifications corresponding to 1972 model year engines,
                               ES-14

-------
            Estimates of emission reduction were made primarily from the
experience  and data for these  systems in light duty applications. . There
are substantial differences between the LDV and MDV classes that affect
the control  of emissions.  First, the horsepower-to-weight ratio of the
LDV class is relatively high and sensibly independent of vehicle weight.  In
the MDV class, this  ratio tends to decrease with vehicle weight so that the
engine operates at a higher  power loading.  Second, the MDV class uses
higher numerical axle ratios resulting in higher engine  speeds  at a given
vehicle velocity.

            Of the  alternative  engines,  only the lightweight diesel and the
prechamber,  stratified-charge (CVCC) engine are considered the most
promising at present for the MDV class. The advanced lightweight diesel
engine is visualized as being turbocharged and using a prechamber design.
It is judged to be approximately 25% heavier and larger than comparable
gasoline engines but with much lower baseline emissions and fuel consumption.
This study presumed that the emission and  fuel consumption characteristics
of the contemplated lightweight diesel would be the same as those of current
heavy duty diesels of this  type.

            Estimated baseline emission data for diesel-equipped MDV are
shown in Figure  2. 18 (page  2-97).  Since diesel engine emissions data are
available  only from engine dynamometer tests, an improvised conversion of
these data to driving cycle (gm/mile) results was necessary.  Baseline emission
levels for HC and  CO for  the lightweight diesel engine appear to be low enough.
that no further control will be necessary.   Reduction of NOX levels by about
one half is feasible with only a small fuel penalty with the addition of EGR.
                                  ES-15

-------
            The Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion (CVCC) engine
recently developed by Honda is a modification of the basic, spark-ignition,
gasoline engine.  A variety of the stratified-charge engine,  it demonstrates
the low emissions of this type engine.  A number of vehicles equipped with
4-cylinder and 8-cylinder CVCC  engines have satisfied HC and CO  standards
for 1975 without any external control devices.  Low levels of NOX were also
achieved without EGR.  Because  of very limited emissions data, and no
durability data on CVCC engines  of a horsepower range useful for MDV
applications,  further design and developmental  testing of the V-8 engines
is necessary.  Continued promising results will make the CVCC engine an
attractive alternative candidate for medium duty vehicles.

            f.    Emission Control Strategies

            From the eight emission control systems  (identified in  a previous
tabulation) and their associated lead times, three basic control strategies
were selected for analysis of effectiveness to illustrate the range of choices
possible using conventional gasoline engines.  These three involve  the use
of: (1) improved means of fuel control (systems numbered 2 and 8),
(2) catalytic converters (systems numbered 3, 4 and 5) and thermal reactors
(systems numbered 6 and  7).

            In implementing these strategies, lead time considerations
dictate that, in some cases, a combination of two strategies is used.  This
is illustrated  by the following combinations that were  investigated.
                                  ES-16

-------
                         Fuel Control Strategy


                Control System No.       Model Years Used

                 (A)   2                    1975 onward

                 (B)   2                    1975-1977
                       8                    1978 onward

                        Thermal Reactor Strategy

                       2                    1975-1976
                       6                    1977 onward

                      Catalytic Converter Strategy

                       2                    1975-1976
                       3                    1977-1978
                       5                    1979 onward


            Fuel control strategy  (A) represents a minimum approach to

emission reduction with a mean reduction of approximately 40% in each of

the three principal pollutant from 1972 baseline levels.  The catalytic

converter strategy corresponds to the most stringent control schedule and

accomplishes this at a relatively small fuel penalty.  Because of its high

fuel penalty, the rich thermal reactor (system no. 7) was not considered

a viable  approach and hence was disregarded in the analysis.


            A computer  program was developed to calculate  total annual

emissions and related costs for the medium duty vehicle category during

the time period 1970-1990 for each of the above listed strategies.   This

program divided the MDV category into trucks and motor homes, each with

two weight groupings (6,  000-1 0, 000 Ibs . and 1 0, 000-14, 000 Ibs .).  Vehicles

of each model year were characterized by engine type and control system

used.  For each vehicle/engine/control system, emissions,  fuel consumption

                                 ES-17

-------
and initial/operating costs were determined.  Baseline emissions and fuel



consumption data for each model year vehicle/engine combination were



entered into the program together with factors which described the  impact



on each by the individual control strategies.   The analysis did not include



a consideration of control system durability.  Data on annual vehicle mileage



was also entered according to vehicle type (truck or motor home) as well



as model year.   Using sales data (projected and actual) and vehicle scrappage



rage, the vehicle mix on the road in any year was calculated  by the program.







            Computer runs were made for two different MDV populations.



One which consisted only of conventional gasoline engines  and, the other,



which used  a mix of conventional and diesel engines.  In all cases the



conventional gasoline  was a 350 CID V-8 and the  diesel was taken to be an



equivalent engine (turbocharged,  prechamber, with EGR and  with the  same



displacement).








            With the homogeneous population of conventional engines,  the



strategy based on catalytic converters represented the greatest reduction



of all pollutants by a significant margin during the 1980's (Figures 2.19-2.21,



pages 2-118 to 2-120).  The corresponding fuel penalty,  however,  was only



slightly higher than that of the most economical strategy,  the fuel control



strategy (B) (Figure 2.25, page 2-125).  If diesels are introduced to produce



a heterogeneous  engine mix,  the catalytic converter strategy still provides



the greatest emissions reductions but now the fuel control strategy  (B) is only



slightly less effective (Figures 2.22-2.24, pages  2-121 to 2-123).   Some



loss of NOX control, relative to the case of using  conventional engines only,



is experienced.  On the other hand,  a sizable savings in fuel  consumption



occurs with diesel  engines  replacing gasoline engines (Figure 2.26, page



2-127).
                                  ES-18

-------
3.0         PART B.  ECONOMIC ANALYSIS








      1.    Summary and Conclusions








            The purpose  of this study was to develop and analyze  the  .



relationships  between different emission control levels and the cost-of-



ownership of  representative 6, 000 - 14, 000 Ibs. GVW vehicle/engine types



equipped with various engine-emission control systems.  The costs  considered



are the incremental costs incurred from the employment of the emission control



systems.   The base line  is the 1972  spark ignition engine.








            The study encompassed eight emission control  systems for use



with existing  spark ignition engines and the introduction of  a new  family  of



diesel engines.   The former can be classified into three broad categories:



improved carburetion (fuel control),  thermal reactors and catalytic converters.



The categories, however, are not mutually exclusive.  For example, improved



carburetion features are also  used with thermal reactors and catalytic converters,



The diesel engines considered in the  study are new or modified designs of



present engines with matched  torque  converters and  automatic transmissions.








            Estimated lead times for the spark  ignition engine emission  control



systems range from 2-5  years.  Lead times of  8-10  years  would  be  needed to



reach full production  for a new family of diesel engines.  This lead time could



be reduced to about 5 years if the  objective was to develop  one diesel engine



which could have widespread applicability in medium duty vehicles.








            The use of improved carburetion for emission control of spark



ignition engines together with  the introduction of diesel engines appears  as  the



best control strategy  for medium duty vehicles.   This approach would reduce
                                  ES-19

-------
annual emissions of HC,  CO and NOX by 77,  81 and 64 per cent, respectively



by 1989.  This reduction is relative to 1972 base line engines.  The 15 year



cost of this approach is  $2 billion.








            A small further improvement particularly in NOX emission



reductions can be achieved by a mix of diesel and standard gasoline engines



where the latter are equipped with catalytic converter systems.  The  15 year



cost of this approach is  considerably higher,  $3.4 billion.








            Diesel engines equipped with EGR result in significant emission



reductions and at the same time provide good fuel economy.   Fuel savings



more than offset the higher initial price of such engines.







            The improved carburetion and catalytic converter approaches



are the systems of choice in the absence of diesel engines.  Implementation



of the former systems will result in the reduction of all pollutants by  about



60 per cent by 1989 at a total cost of $3. 7 billion.  The latter systems will



reduce  emission levels of HC by 79, CO by 72 and NOX by 83 per cent by



1989.  The  cost incurred, however,  is $5.3 billion.








            Lean thermal reactor and improved carburetion  result in  about



equal effectiveness.  The former costs  more, primarily because of the higher



fuel penalty associated with it.








            A detailed comparison of  the effectiveness, costs and lead times



of the considered  systems is contained in Section 3.7 commencing on  page



3-50.
                                   ES-20

-------
            The cost per mile of vehicle operation attributable  to pollution



control systems  is generally less  than $.01 per mile.  The potential impact



of this cost on lease  charges is, therefore, not considered significant.







            Precise estimates of certification costs cannot be made until



the requirements,  engine families and vehicle  types are firmly defined.  A



crude, preliminary analysis indicates,  however,  that the potential impact of



certification costs could represent a significant cost,  particularly for the



smaller manufacturers.







      2.    Supporting Discussion






            a.    Emission Control Systems and System Effectiveness







            The emission control systems and their estimated effectiveness



considered in the economic analysis represent inputs  from the  Part A



Technical  Analysis.







            b.    Sales Projections







            Sales projections formed the  basis for estimating the total-costs



and reductions in emissions which could be achieved by implementing the



emission control systems.







            The vehicles within  the 6,000-14,000 Ibs. GVW range fall into



two clearly demarcated weight categories; 6, 000-10, 000 Ibs. and 10, 000-



14, 000 Ibs.  In recent years,  the former have accounted for 20-24 per cent of



all U.S. sales of trucks  and buses, the latter for less than 2 percent.
                                   ES-21

-------
            Sales projections for vehicles in the 6, 000-10, 000 Ibs. GVW class
were made both in total and as a function of body type:  pickup, van/panel,
multistop van and chassis.  In 1971, sales  of this class of vehicles consisted
of about 500, 000 units.  This number is estimated to increase to 650, 000 units
by 1976 and slightly more than 800,000 units  by 1980.  Pickup trucks represent
between 50 and 60 per cent of the vehicles  in this class.

            Between 1958 and 1970, annual sales of 1 0, 000-14, 000 Ibs. GVW
vehicles fluctuated between 5,000 and 15,000 units.   Sales rose sharply,
thereafter,  principally attributable to the popularity of motor homes.  The
rate of increase in annual sales between 1970 and 1972  (from 7, 000 to 45, 000)
is not estimated to be  sustained.  Rather,  a more moderate increase is postulated
resulting in annual sales  of about 80, 000-100, 000 units by 1980.

            Vehicles in the  10-14, 000 Ibs.  GVW category consist primarily
of multistop and chassis  body types.  No pickups or van/panel trucks of
this  weight are manufactured.

            Sales projections for 6, 000-14, 000 Ibs.  GVW vehicles  are
presented in Section 3. 3  of the report.

            All the body types noted in the  previous paragraphs can be and
are used  as recreational  vehicles.  The latter can be divided into two
categories:  truck campers and motor homes.  According  to "Recreational
Vehicles  Facts and Trends", the annual sales of truck campers rose from
61,000 units in 1967 to 107,200 in  1971.  Comparable sales for motor homes
are 9,  050 and 57, 200.
                                  ES-22

-------
            c.    Costs

            The cost measure used for system comparison is the sum of the
initial sticker price of the emission control systems, incremental maintenance
and fuel costs for the specified  number of miles.  Costs are estimated for three
representative engine families:  16-300 CID, V8-350 CID and V8-454 CID.
Anticipated low and high cost estimates were developed for all systems.

            The sticker prices of emission control systems for spark ignition
engines range from about $100 to $300.   The first system incorporates
improved carburetion and  electronic ignition; the second  oxidizing and
reducing converters.  The estimated incremental sticker prices of diesel
engines is $400-$800 depending  on engine size.

            Incremental maintenance costs associated with spark ignition
engines range from about $10 to $300-$400 (based on 50, 000 miles of travel).
The  relatively low  costs of some systems result from cost savings obtained
through the use of electronic ignition.  The high cost systems are those which
require periodic replacement of oxidizing and/or reducing catalytic converters.
            The emission control systems of spark ignition engines cause
fuel penalties ranging from 3 to 25 per cent compared to 1972 baseline
engines.  In contrast, diesel engines  result in significant fuel savings because
of their lower fuel consumption.  Anticipated  incremental fuel costs for spark
ignition engines range from $90 to $1, 000 based on 50, 000 miles of operation
and a fuel cost of $0.45 per gallon.  Fuel cost savings with diesel  engines
vary between $650 and $1,400 depending on  engine size.
                                  ES-23

-------
            Total incremental costs (i.e.,  sticker price + incremental



maintenance + incremental fuel) for spark  ignition engines vary between



$350 and $1, 500 based on 50, 000 miles of travel.  In comparison,  diesel



engines show cost savings of $300-$700.  The higher initial sticker prices



of diesels is more than offset by their fuel economy.







            Emission control system  costs are developed in Section 3.5 of



the report.







      d.     Lead Times
            The estimated lead times are predicated on a sequential



progression of activities culminating in initial production.  The emission



control systems considered are presently in various stages of development.



Their current status is considered in determining the lead times.







            Improved carburetion together with  electronic ignition could be



achieved in 2 years. Systems employing catalytic converters  and  thermal



reactors require lead times of 4 to 5 years.   A  major lead time  category



here is the  construction of new plant facilities and associated tooling.  As



noted earlier, achievement of production of a family of diesel  engines would



require 8-10 years.  The production of one engine with wide applicabilility,



such as a 350 CID diesel engine, given the necessary priority, could be



achieved in about 5  years.  Lead time requirements  are presented in



Section 3.6 of the  report.
                                  ES-24

-------
1.0         INTRODUCTION







            In the furtherance of improved air quality, it is prudent to



require that motor vehicles utilize available control technology to achieve



a reduction of pollutant emissions to the lowest cost effective levels.  This



desirable condition can be  achieved by the promulgation  of the appropriate



emission standards  for new vehicles by the Environmental Protection



Agency.







            The present study, concerned with a technical  evaluation of



emission control approaches and the economics of emission reduction,



has focussed on that category of vehicles with a gross vehicle weight



(GVW) in the range from 6, 000 to 14,000 Ibs.  In the interests of a concise



notation,  this category of vehicle is arbitrarily referred to as a medium



duty vehicle (MDV) in this  report to differentiate it from the well-established



light duty (LDV) and heavy  duty vehicle (HDV) designations.







            In assessing the advanced control technology that may be



adapted to the medium duty vehicle to reduce emissions, it is necessary



to identify specific control  approaches, determine their  developmental



status  and estimate  their expected  effectiveness  in the intended application



and service.  With the different control approaches attaining production



status  at different dates, a variety of control strategies  can be  postulated



as a function of emission reduction capability, time  and  attendant costs



which include system initial costs and those related  to added maintenance



and operational expenses.  From this data base, the objectives of



achieving a reduction of emissions  from the MDV by an amount that is



•within  the capability  of the  state-of-the-art technology and is  also cost



effective can be achieved.  This report describes the studies  conducted in



interests  of meeting  these  objectives.





                                   1-1

-------
            Program effort was conducted along two separate technical
disciplines: technical  analysis and economic analysis.  The objective of the
technical analysis was to conduct a technical evaluation of emission control
approaches and emission reduction levels  applicable to medium duty vehicles
in the range from 6, 000 to 14, 000 pounds GVW.  This  objective was to be
achieved by adopting a methodology that involved:  an identification and
characterization of the vehicles comprising this weight group,  the selection
of current model year vehicle/engine combinations best representative of
this population together with the establishment of their baseline emission
data,  the  selection of  emission control techniques  and  advanced engine
concepts for purposes of achieving emission reductions and the estimation
of the reductions thereby feasible, the identification of the  levels of emission
control possible as a function of lead time and vehicle  performance  penalties
and, finally, a discussion of the optimum levels of emission reduction
possible considering performance penalties and lead times.  This study
relied on the presumption that further emission reductions could be achieved
in the medium duty category of vehicles by adapting to them the extensive
emission control technology/devices/components that have been developed
for light duty vehicles.  A  purely analytical evaluation of the efficacy of the
LDV control technology in these vehicles is feasible because of the  common-
ality of engines/drivetrains in both the LDV and MDV vehicles.

            Results of the technical  analysis portion of the program are
presented in Part A of this report.

            The economic analysis,  Part B of the  study, was designed to
develop and analyze the relationships between different emission control
levels and their associated implementation costs for representative vehicle-
engine  types which comprise the medium duty class of vehicles.
                                   1-2

-------
            Initially, the sticker prices and maintenance costs of the devices
which comprise the postulated emission control systems are estimated.
These are then combined into system costs.   The latter also include  the cost
of incremental fuel penalties or savings which are incurred with the systems.
The  resultant costs are then compared with system effectiveness for
various emission control strategies.   The comparison is made both in terms
of individual vehicle emissions and for aggregations of the  total population
of medium duty vehicles.

            The results of the study are presented in Part  B of this study
which commences with Section  3.0.
                                   1-3

-------
2.0         PART A:  TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
      2- 1   Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

            A survey of  the literature related to motor vehicles that
populate the 6, 000  to 14, 000 pound GVW range shows that their engine and
drivetrain components are usually identical to, or direct derivatives  of,
light duty vehicles.  The pickup truck dominates  this group in number and,
being a dual-purpose vehicle,  gives this class of vehicles a usage and
operating character similar to the light duty vehicle.  A singular exception
is the motor home whose current popularity gives it an appreciable share
of the annual sales in this  GVW range.

            Adapting emission control  technology as developed for the
light duty vehicle, a number of emission control  systems are postulated as
appropriate for medium duty vehicles.  Emission reduction factors, fuel
penalties  and effects on  vehicle performance are estimated on the basis  of
experimental results obtained  with light duty vehicles.   Three general
categories of emission control approaches are identified:  the catalytic
converter,  the thermal reactor and the improved fuel control  (carburetion/
induction).

            Baseline emission data are developed for the medium duty vehicle
group using  test data provided from a sample of  late model medium duty
vehicles subjected to an equivalent 1975 Federal Test Procedure. These data
show that the dominant factor  affecting emissions is the vehicle weight.

            Emission control strategies are devised by combining emission
control systems and alternative engines with the  projected lead time data
associated with each.  A computer simulation procedure is used to predict
the consequences in terms of emission reductions achieved and fuel penalties
                                   2-1

-------
incurred with the implementation of each of these control strategies.


Durability of emission control systems is not included as a part of this


analysis.





            The results of the technical analysis study support the


following  conclusions and recommendations (subject to the limitations noted


in the text of this report).





      •     Exhaust emissions from late  model vehicles in the


            6, 000-14, 000 Ib. GVW category are primarily a


            function of weight.





      •     The most effective control  strategy for HC and CO


            emissions visualizes the medium duty vehicle


            category using a mix of conventional engines


            equipped with catalysts and diesel engines (pre-


            chamber, turbocharged, with EGR).





      •     The best fuel economy  is achieved with the control


            strategy cited above.





      •     The most effective control  strategy for NO
                                                     5C

            emissions visualizes the medium duty vehicle


            category using conventional engines equipped with


            catalysts.





      •     In setting emission standards for medium duty


            trucks, it is recommended that the GVW limits


            be set at a minimum of 6, 000 Ibs. and a maximum


            of 10, 000 Ibs.


                                   2-2

-------
      2. 2   Methodology

            The technical approach or methodology followed in the conduct
 of this  project was generally consistent with the explicit procedural outline
.specified by EPA in the contractural statement of work.  A succinct
 summary of this outline is provided in the block diagram of Figure 2. 1 where
 the individual blocks are serially numbered to indicate a chronological
 sequence of execution.  In practice, it was found necessary to iterate to
 some extent as new or additional information required revision of tentative
 judgments or conclusions arrived at in an earlier stage of the project.

            The initial task involved the identification of the types of vehicles
 comprising the 6, 000 - 14, 000 pound GVW category in terms  of population,
 sales,  usage,  ranges of GVW,  engines, drivetrains and  other unique
 characteristics.   With these data accumulated, vehicle groups were formulated
 for the purpose of validating/recommending the GVW limits for the new
 category of medium duty vehicles.  For each group thus identified, a
 representive vehicle/engine/drivetrain combination was selected to best
 reflect all ordinary combinations within that group.  For each representative
 combination, the  current model year emission controls were  enumerated
 and the associated baseline emission levels determined.  These emission
 data, which were measured using a test procedure  equivalent to the 1975
 Federal Test Procedure (FTP) for light duty vehicles, were  supplied by
 EPA.

            Drawing upon the state-of-the-art of emission control technology
 as developed for light duty vehicles,  a number of likely control system
 combinations was selected as potentially applicable to medium duty vehicles.
 For each such combination identified, estimates were to be made concerning
 emission reduction factors, effects on vehicle performance and lead times
 required for implementation.

            Emissions data available for medium duty trucks  did not permit
 discrimination among the group of vehicle/engine/drivetrain combinations

                                     2-3

-------
                                                                                     DESCRIBE EMISSION CONTROLS AND
                                                                                    EMISSION LEVELS FOR CURRENT VEAR
IDENTIFY VEHICLE TYPES
IN 6-1 4 K GVW CLASS


DETERMINE OPTIMUM
GROUPING OF VEHICLES

-------
selected.  The principal discriminant factor was found to be vehicle inertia



(test) weight so that the operation indicated in block number 11 (Figure 2. 1)



was  not required.  Using lead time data as the determining factor, various



implementation strategies were defined corresponding to the most stringent



schedule of emission reduction as well as  lesser intermediate levels.  Based



on differing objectives, "best" control approaches to emissions reduction



were considered.  In performing this  task a computer program was employed



to calculate the estimated annual emissions and costs in applying  the various



control strategies  to the medium duty class of vehicles.








            The succeeding sections of this report discuss in detail  the



findings,  the results and the conclusions of the  studies conducted  in the



application of the above methodology  in the furtherance  of the  objectives of



the program.
                                   2-5

-------
2. 3  VEHICLE CHARACTERIZATION

      2. 3. 1  Types and Grouping

           A study of the manufacturer's truck sales handbooks and the
statistical summaries* published by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
Association (MVMA.)  shows that the entire population of motor vehicles
comprising the 6, 000 - 14, 000 GVW category may be classified as trucks
designed to transport cargo and persons for personal,  business and
recreational  purposes.  The listing given below characterizes this category
of vehicles according to body style.

             Truck Vehicle Types (6,000-14,000 Ibs.  GVW)

               Pickup              .  Cab chassis
               Passenger Van        Cowl chassis
               Panel                  Bare chassis
               Van                   Motor Home chassis
               Multi-Stop Van        Camper Special

           In terms  of basic vehicle structures  there  exist only seven
varieties  rather than the ten tabulated above.  The pickup and the camper
special are identical  except the latter designation indicates the use of  a
heavy duty suspension to accommodate a camper unit.   This unit is either
built  permanently upon the vehicle or else a "slide-in" demountable camper
body  is used.  For recreational purposes, the pickup may also be equipped
with a portable cover to provide an all-weather protective enclosure over
the bed of the truck.  Similarly the van and passenger  van share a common
body  structure except that in  the latter, passenger seats replace the nominal
cargo space  and windows are added in the body side  panels.  Only one model

*Annual issues of "Motor Truck Facts"
                                  2-6

-------
of the entire passenger van line qualifies for classification as a heavy duty
vehicle (see Section 1. 0 for qualifications).  This sole exception is the
15-passenger van (Model B-300) made by the Dodge Division of Chrysler
Corporation. The panel truck is not a popular body style and sales  in
recent years have decreased to  an insignificant level*.  Motor homes are
classified into three distinct  categories:  conventional,  van version,  and
chopped-van. The conventional  type is built upon a bare heavy-duty truck
chassis.  The van version converts the nominal interior cargo space of a
van into living quarters whereas the chopped-van type is built directly on
the aft frame section of a van truck  retaining the  forward section as the
driver compartment.  Figure 2.2 illustrates the basic body styles of the
6, 000 -  14, 000 Ib. GVW group of vehicles.

            As indicated in Section 2. 2  (Methodology), the initial intent
was to group the vehicles on  the basis of information  on usage,  sales  and
vehicle physical  characteristics (weight, engine,  drivetrain, etc.).   Usage,
interpreted to include such factors as weight of load,  trips per  day, daily
mileage, etc. was considered especially significant in its effect on emissions.
While an attempt was  made to pursue this approach early in the program,
a lack of definitive usage data for this category of vehicles (see Section
2. 3. 4 for a discussion of available usage information) necessitated adoption
of a different strategy.  Instead, vehicle groups were formed on the basis
of judgment and  pragmatic considerations using the limited information
available.   The validity of the selections was then tested by checking for
inconsistencies as additional data were obtained or developed.   There was
no subsequent need to change this grouping which is tabulated on the following
page.
^Domestic factory sales:  1970 - 777, 1971 - 181; Source: MVMA
                                   2-7

-------
                PICKUP
                                                          VAN
           MULTI-STOP VAN
CAB CHASSIS
           COWL CHASSIS
                                                    BARE CHASSIS
NOTE:   ONLY TYPES PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED AS HEAVY DUTY ARE CONSIDERED
        (REF. CMC 1972 TRUCK MANUAL).
        Figure 2.2 MAJOR TYPES OF BODY STYLES (6,000 - 14,000 LB GVW)
                                    2-8

-------
                              TABLE 2. 1
                            Vehicle Grouping
                                       Body Style Included
            Pickup/Camper       .     Pickup
                                       Camper Special
            Van/Passenger Van         Van
                                       Passenger Van
            Multi-Stop Van             Multi-Step Van
            Chassis                    Cab Chassis
                                       Cowl Chassis
                                       Bare Chassis
            Motor Home Chassis        Motor Home Chassis
            A brief, qualitative explanation for the rationale underlying
these selections  is presented below.   Specific,  quantified information is
contained in the three succeeding sections  (2.3.2  - 2.3.4).

            Pickup/Camper Group: Sales data show the pickup is an extremely
popular vehicle which has dominated sales of trucks with a GVW of 10, 000
Ibs.  and less.  Its  primary use appears to be about equally divided between
personal and business functions and it tends  to be operated in a manner
similar to that of the passenger automobile.  With the addition of a camper
unit, the pickup also assumes the  role of a recreational vehicle.  This
feature , however,  does not create a single-purpose vehicle and hence the
camper version is  included in the  pickup group.

            Van/Passenger Van(/Panel) Group:  This group essentially consists
of only the forward control van which is principally used in the wholesale and
retail trade with a  GVW range that does not exceed 10, 000 Ibs.  The panel truck
is included primarily because it needs to be  accounted  for in the presentation
of sales of medium duty trucks in  previous years  (Section 2. 3. 3).   U.  S.
domestic  sales data for the 12-month period ending December 31,  1972,
(MVMA FS-20) show that no panel trucks with a GVW over 6, 000 Ibs. were
                                  2-9

-------
produced.  The passenger van category,  as cited earlier,  includes only
one model of one manufacturer.

           Multi-Stop Van: Multi-stop,  or step vans, comprise a unique
vehicle group characterized by ownership and usage that is entirely com-
mercial.   The principal usage patterns are also unique reflecting a
stop-idle-go type of delivery and pick-up service on fixed  routes (home
milk delivery, for  example) or variable  routes (parcel delivery).   This
group of vehicles appears to be concentrated in urban  areas and especially
the central business districts of large metropolitan areas  (New York City
is one  identifiable example, Reference 2).

           Chassis:  Vehicles in the chassis group are manufactured and
sold without bodies.  Specialized body builders complete the manufacture
of the vehicle by constructing the body portion  in accord with the intended
functional  usage.  Cab chassis types are generally fitted with a box-style
body while the cowl chassis is usually bodied as a bus. Bare chassis units
are often of the forward-control variety  and are converted into multi-stop
van configurations.  This group,  at its upper GVW end, includes vehicle
types whose GVW limits  range well above  16, 000 Ibs.  Because of the many
special use vehicles that originate from  these general chassis types,  a
concise statement concerning usage is not  feasible.  Broadly stated, the
uses are commercial,  industrial and agricultural.

            Motor Home  Chassis: The motor home chassis is purchased by
specialized manufacturers who complete the construction of the motor home.
As a result of the popularity of this type vehicle, some of  the major man-
ufacturers (Ford and GM,  for  example), contrary to prior  practice, are
now producing the entire vehicle themselves.   The separate classification
of this group  is unequivocal.  As a group,  they are unique, single-purpose
vehicles probably operated near rated GVW.  Their principal usage is for
vacation/week-end trips.  Vacation trips may consist  of one or two extended
trips (1,000  - 2, 000 miles) while week-end trips,  averaging several hundred

                                  2-10

-------
miles each, may be highly variable in number.  The motor home is operated
infrequently in urban areas and probably is unused for much of the year.

           2. 3. 2  Engines,  Drivetrains and GVW Ranges

           An important part of vehicle characterization is the identification
of the engines, transmissions and axle ratios that are employed in the
6, 000 - 14, 000 GVW range of trucks.  In general, all of these parameters
tend to be loosely correlated with vehicle gross weight,  that is,  the engine
displacement and numerical axle  ratio will usually increase with weight.
All of these factors would also be expected to impact on the emissions of
the vehicle.

           Using the manufacturer's truck sales handbooks for 1973,  the
following data were gathered for each of the  major manufacturers vehicle
models in the 6, 000 - 14, 000 Ib.  GVW range: model designation, body
type, axles, GVW, GCW (curb weight), engine (number  of cylinders and
CID), type transmission and numerical axle  ratio.  A summary  of this
information is  given in Table 2. 2 where the vehicles are arranged by the
groups identified in the  previous section.

           A number of significant and interesting  observations can be
made from this compilation.  One relates to the GVW specifications.  All
of the vehicles included within the pick up/camper and van/passenger van
groups have GVW ranges totally contained within the range from 6, 000 to
10, 000 Ibs. Also, in the case of the remaining three groups (multi-stop
vans, chassis and motor home chassis) all of the  models,  with but a single
exception,  have GVW ranges either between  6, 000 - 10,000 Ibs. or above
10,000 Ibs.  The lone exception is the Chevy/GMC P30/P35 model with a
                              *
7, 600 to 14, 000 Ib. GVW range.  On the other hand, a number of models
are shown with ranges  that exceed,  or overlap, the 14, 000 Ib. level from
below.  Considering the 6, 000 Ib.  level from below, one finds that there
are a number of vehicles with a maximum GVW of 6, 000 Ibs.  but, again,
# MVMA sales data for the past two years fail to show any sales of GM
  vehicles with a GVW rating in the 10, 000-14, 000 Ib. range despite
  the availability of this  model.

                                 2-11

-------
                                                TABLE 2.2

                   VEHICLE-ENGINE-DRIVETRAIN CHARACTERIZATION - 1973 MODELS


                                             GROUP 1:  PICK UP/CAMPER
t\>

i—>
ts)
Vehicle
Dodge D-200



Dodge D-300



Dodge W-200



Dodge W-300



Ford F-250


Ford F-250

Chevy/GMC
C20/C25




Type Axles GVW
Pickup 4x2 6.2- 9.0
and Camper
Special

Pickup 4x2 6.6-10.0



Pickup 4x4 6. 5-8. 0



Pickup 4x4 8.5-10.0



Pickup 4x2 6. 2-8. 1


Pickup 4x4 6. 5-7. 7


Pickup 4x2 6.4-8.2




GCW Engine
3245-4011 6-225
8-318
8-360
8-400
3795-5240 6-225
8-318
8-360
8-400
3810-4555 6-225
8-318
8-360
8-400
4320-5335 6-225
8-318
8-360
8-400
3520-3940 6-300
8-360
8-390
3965-4385 6-300
8-360

4014-4916 6-250
6-292
8-307
8-350
8-454
HP
110
150
180
200
110
150
180
200
110
150
180
200
110
150
180
200
114
148
161/153
114
148

100
120
130
155
240
Tram
M3
A3
A3
A3
M3
M3
M3
A3
M3
M3
A3
A3
M3
M3
M3
A3
(M3)
(M3)
(A3)
M4
(A3)

(M3)
(M3)
(M3)
(A3)
(A3)
3. Axle
4. 10
4. 10
4. 10
4. 10
4. 56
4.56
4. 10
4. 10
4. 10
4. 10
4. 10
4. 10
4.88
4.88
4.88
4.88
(4.10)
(3.73)
(3.73)
4. 10
4. 10

(4.10)
(4.10)
(4.10)
(4.10)
(3.21)

-------
       CROUP 1. (continued)
t\>
i
Vehicle
Chevy/GMC
C30/C35




Chevy/GMC
K20/K25



I-H- 1210







I-H 1310







Type Axles GVW GCW Engine

Pickup 4x2 6.6-10.0 4313 4921 6-250
6-292
4340-5048 8-307
8-350
8-454

Pickup 4x4 6.8-8.2 4313-4438 6-250
6-292
4448-4573 8-307
8-350
Pickup 4x2 6.3-8.2 3510-4050 6-258
8-304
8-345
8-392
4x4 6.3-7.7 3820-4305 6.258
8-304
8-345
8-392
Pickup 4x2 7.0-10-0 3715-4155 6-258
8-304
8-345
8-392
4x4 7.0-10.0 6-258
4375 8-304
8-345
8-392
HP

100
120
130
155
240

100
120
130
155
113
137
144
179
113
137
144
179
113
137
144
179
113
137
144
179
Trans.

(M3)
(M3)
(M3)
(M3)
(A3)

(M3)
(M3)
(M3)
(A3)
(M4).
(M3)
(M3)
(A3)
(M4)
(M3)
(M3)
(M3)
(M5)
(M4)
(M4)
(A3)
(M4)
(M4)
(M4)
(M4)
Axle

(4. 10)
(4.10)
(4.10)
(3.73)
(3.73)

(4.56)
4.56
4.56
(4.10)
4. 10
4. 10
3.73
3.73
4. 10
4. 10
4. 10
4. 10
4.87
4.87
4.30
4.30
4.87
4.87
4.87
4.87
      Ford E-300
Camper

Special    4x2
                                             8.3
3655
8-302
139
                                                                                              A3
                                        3. 73

-------
GROUP 2: VAN/PASSENGER VAN
Vehicle
Dodge B-300

Ford E-300
Chevy/GMC
G30/G35

Chevy/GMC
P20/P25


Chevy/GMC
P30/P35



I-H
Type Axles
Pass. Van
Van 4x2

Van 4x2
Van 4x2

Multi-Stop
Van 4x2


Multi-Stop
Van 4x2



Multi-Stop
Chassis 4x2
GVW GCW engine
6.2-7.7 4035-4210
6.2-8.2 3695-3985 6-225
8-318
8-360
6.0-8.3 3845-4015 6-300
8-302
6.2-7.9 3886-4046 6-250
6.2-8.3 4052-4212 8-350
GROUP 3: MULTI-STOP VAN
6.8-8.0 4701-5578 6-250
6-292
4849-5676 8-307
8-350
7.6-14.0 4870-6010 6-250
6-292
5018-6158 8-307
8-350
8-454
10.0-14.0 6-258
8-345
n±~
110
150
180
118
139
100
155

100
120
130
155
100
120
130
155
250
113
144
J. X CL110 *
A3
A3
A3
(M3)
(A3)
(M3)
(A3)

(M3)
(M3)
(M3)
(A3)
M4
A3
M4
(A3)
(A3)
(M4)
(M3)
J-^rt-Xt-
4. 10
4. 10
4. 10
(4.10)
(3.73)
4. 56
(4. 10)

(4.56)
(4. 56)
(4.56)
(4. 56)
(4.56)
(4. 10)
(4.10)
(4.10)
(4.10)
4. 56
4. 87

-------
                                        GROUP 4: CHASSIS
Vehicle
                  Type
Axles
GVW
                                                HP
Trans.
                                                          Axles
Dodge D-200




Dodge D-300




Dodge W-200



Dodge W-300




Dodge MB300

Dodge CB300
(P400)

Ford F-250





Cab
Chassis 4x2 6.2-9.0 3245-4040
and Platform


Cab
Chassis 4x2 6.6-10.0 3795-5240



Platform 4x4 8.5-10.0



Cab
Chassis 4x4 8.5-10.0 4320-5335
and Platform


Cab
Chassis 4x2 8.2-9.0 3714-3826
Bare
Chassis 4x2 13.6-17.4 4025-4080

Cab
Chassis 4x2 6.2-8.1 3520-3940


4x4 6.5-7.7 3965-4385


6-225
8-318
8-360
8-400

6-225
8-318
8-360
8-400
6-225
8-318
8-360
8-400

6-225
8-318
8-360
8-400

8-360

6-225
8-318
8-360
6-300
8-360
8-390
6-300
8-360

110
150
180
200

110
150
180
200
110
150
180
200

110
150
180
200

180

110
150
180
114
148
161/153
114
148

M3
A3
A3
A3

M3
M3
M3
A3
M3
M3
A3
A3

M3
M3
M3
A3

A3

A3
A3
A3
(M3)
(M3)
M4/A3
M4
(M4)

4. 10
4. 10
4. 10
4. 10

4.56
4.56
4. 10
4. 10
4. 10
4. 10
4. 10
4. 10

4.88
4.88
4.88
4.88

4. 10

4. 10
4. 10
4. 10
(4.10)
(3.73)
(3.73)
4. 10
4. 10

-------
GROUP 4:  (Continued)
Vehicle           Type
Axles
GVW
GCW
                                                 HP
                                                 Trans.
Axle
Ford F350



Ford P350

Ford P400

Ford P500

Ford F500

Chevy/GMC
C20/C25




Chevy/GMC
C30/C35




Chevy/GMC
K20/K25



Cab
Chassis 4x2


Bare
Chassis 4x2
Bare
Chassis 4x2
Bare
Chasis 4x2
Cab 4x2
Chassis
Cab
Chassis 4x2




Cab
Chassis 4x2




Cab
Chassis , 4x4




6.6-10.0 3740-5010 6-300
8-360
8-390

6.1-8.0 2615-2770 6-300

7.0-10.0 3100 6-300

10.0-15.0 3805-3905 6-300
14.0-19.2 6-300
4960-5090 8-330

6.4-8.2 3619-4392 6-250
6-292
3754-4527 8-307
8-350
8-454

6.6-10.0 3778-4401 6-250
6-292
3905-4528 8-307
8-350
8-454

6.8-8.2 3918 6-250
6-292
4043 8-307
8-350

114
148
161/153

114

114

126
114
137

100
120
130
155
240

100
120
130
155
240

100
120
130
155

(M4)
(M4)
M4/A3

(M3)

(M3)

(M3)
(M4)
(M4)

(M3)
(M3)
(M3)
(A3)
(A3)

(M3)
(M3)
(M3)
(M3)
(A3)

(M3)
(M3)
(M3)
(A3)

(4.56)
(4.10)
(3.73

(4.56)

(4. 56)

(6.2)
(6.2)
(5.83)

(4.10)
(4. 10)
(4.10)
(3.73)
(3.73)

(4.10)
(4.10)
(4.10)
(3.73)
(3.73)

4.56
4. 56
4.56
(4.10)

-------
     GROUP 4:  (Continued)

     Vehicle           Type
Axles
GVW
                         GCW
Engine
HP
N)
I
Trans.
Axle
I-H 1210 Cab
Chassis 4x2



4x4



I-H-1310 Cab
Chassis 4x2



I-H-1310 Cab
Chassis 4x4



I-H -15 10 Cab
Chassis 4x2




Dodge M300/ Motor Home
R300 Chassis 4x2


6.3-8.2 3510-4050 6-258
8-304
8-345
8-392
6.3-7.7 3820-4305 6-258
8-304
8-345
8-392

7.0-10.0 3715-4155 6-258
8-304
8-345
8-392

7.0-10.0 4375 6-258
8-304
8-345
8-392

, 13.8-15.0 4620-4685 6-258
8-304
8-345
8-392
GROUP 5: MOTOR HOME GRASSES

11.0 3575-3820 8-318
8-440

113
137
144
179
113
137
144
179

113
137
144
179

113
137
144
179

113
137
144
179


160
240

(M4)
(M3)
(M3)
(A3)
(M5)
(M4)
(M4)
(A3)

(M5)
(M4)
(M4) .
(A3)

(M4)
(M4)
(M4)
(M4)

(M5)
(M4)
(M4)
(M4)


A3
A3

4. 10
4. 10
3.73
3.73
4.87
4.87
4.30
4.30

4.87
4.87
4.30
4.30

4.87
4.87
4.87
4.87

5. 57
5.57
4.87
4. 87


4.88
4.56

-------
ro
i
oo
      GROUP 5:  (Continued)


      Vehicle           Type
      I-H
           Axles
GVW
               GCW
Engine
HP
Motor Home

Chassis    4x2
                                             10.0-14.0
                            8-392
           179
Trans.
          A3
Axle
Dodge M400/
R400

Dodge R500

Ford M400


Ford M450


FordMSOO

Chevy/GMC
P30/P35


Motor Home
Chassis 4x2

Motor Home
Chassis 4x2
Motor Home
Chassis 4x2

Motor Home
Chassis 4x2

Motor home
Chassis 4x2

Motor Home
Chassis 4x2


13.0 8-318
13-440

8-440

8.0-10.0 3450-3550 8-360
8-390

11.0 4135-4225 8-360
8-390

12.0-15.0 4135-4225 8-390


7.6-11.8 3229-3348 8-350
8-454

160
240

240

148
153

148
153

153


155
250

A3
A3

A3

A3
A3

A3
A3

A3


A3
A3

4.88
4.56

4. 56

(4.10)
(4.10)

(4.33)
(4.33)

(5.29)


(4.10)
(4.10)
          4.87
      Note:  1.  Data included in (  ) are estimated


            2.  The Dodge 440 CID engine replaced the 413 CID on 1/1/73.


            3.  GVW is in thousands of pounds. GCW  is in pounds.

-------
only one model that exceeds it (the Chevy/GMC K10/K15 with, a 4, 900 to
6,200 Ib. GVW range).  Thus the 6,000 and 10,000 Ib.  levels represent
clear dividing lines between vehicles according to gross vehicle weight.

            The second point also relates to weight; the gross curb weight
(GCW) of the vehicle.  Vehicle curb weights are seen to be below 5, 000 Ibs.
for the majority of the vehicles shown in Table 2.2.  Thus, if EPA ultimately
follows the current LDV certification practice 'of adding an incremental
payload to the vehicle curb weight to specify an inertia (test) weight, a
large fraction of the vehicles would be tested within a 6, 000-lb.  limit
assuming weight increments of 500 to 1, 500 Ibs.   Test weights  for medium
duty vehicles would thereby overlap the test weight range of light duty
vehicles to a large extent.

            Automobile manufacturers generally use the same basic
engine families in both light duty vehicles and medium duty trucks as
identified in Table  2.2.  Engine  families are defined as comprising engines
which share a common engine block casting and an identical cylinder
arrangement, bore spacing and deck height.  Within an engine family,
engines may have different displacements resulting from, different bore
and/or  stroke dimensions.   Horsepower ratings of engines with identical
displacement may vary due to changes in carburetion,  compression  ratio,
cam design, etc.  A comparison between engines used in passenger  cars
and medium duty trucks for each of the major manufacturers is  given in
Appendix A-l.  In general, most of the engines identified in Table 2. 2
have direct counterparts in the light-duty vehicles.  Except for a few cases,
these engines are identical internally with the same camshafts,  heads and
compression ratios.  For  the 1973 model year, the medium-duty engines
are equipped with fewer external control devices for emissions and are rated
at slightly higher horsepower levels.

            Transmission  and axle ratio information presented in Table 2.2
represents  the most popular (by sales)  combination for each vehicle.model
                                   2-19

-------
and engine combination.  In cases where such data were not provided by
the manufacturer,  an estimate was made based on a comparison with other
comparable models.  Axle-ratio options for the medium-duty trucks over-
lap those available for light-duty vehicles to a small degree.  Reflecting
higher vehicle weights, the MDV generally use a higher ratio axle.

            There appears to be a trend toward the use of automatic
transmissions in vehicles which use the larger CID engine options.  Motor
home units are all equipped with automatic transmissions to promote ease
of driving.  Large CID engines are common in motor home applications
and reflect the need for additional power to achieve acceptable performance
•with the high GVW ranges of these vehicles.

            A vehicle parameter found to be useful by the manufacturers
is the ratio N/V (engine rpm per vehicle mile per hour).  Other factors
being equal for a given vehicle, it would be anticipated that a significant
change  in this  ratio would have a pronounced effect on baseline emissions
(as well as vehicle performance).  Comparable information is presented
in Figure 2.3 which graphically shows the relationship among tire diameter,
axle ratio and  GVW.  As indicated in the figure,  dividing the axle ratio by
the tire diameter  gives a number proportional to N/V.  A rectangle is
drawn bounding the available tire diameter and axle ratio combinations
within a given  GVW range.  The variation  in engine revolutions per mile
within any one weight group can be substantial (about 38% in  the 6, 000 -
10,000  Ib. GVW range).  Significant is  the  fact that the  6, 000 - 10, 000 Ib.
grouping is fully isolated from both the 11, 000 - 15, 000 Ib. and 14, 000 -
16, 000  Ib. groups which show some overlap in the tire diameter  - axle
ratio combinations used.

            2.3.3  Sales

            Sales  data are required in establishing  vehicle populations and
population trends  which in turn impact  on total pollutant emissions which

                                    2-20

-------
tSJ

I
            40
            38
         O  36
.  34
            32
            30
            28
                                       567


                                            NUMERICAL AXLE RATIO
                                                                                   --40
                                                                                            -- 38
                                                                                         33
                                                                                         m

                                                                                    -36  P
                                                                                         0
--34
                                                                                  •\- - 34
       NOTE:    BASED ON 1973 FORD MODELS.
                         Figure 2.3    RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TIRE DIAMETER, AXLE RATIO, AND GVW

                                     FOR MEDIUM DUTY VEHICLES

-------
can be attributable to these particular groups of vehicles both now and in
the immediate future.  A summary of factory sales for the past decade
is given in Table 2. 3 according to GVW.   These data provide a perspective
and overview of the relative ranking of the 6, 000 -  10, 000 Ib.  GVW and
10,000 - 14,000 GVW vehicle categories compared with the entire spectrum
of motor vehicles classified as trucks and buses.  The 6, 000 - 10, 000 Ib.
GVW group is by far the most  populous if the light-duty group of trucks is
excluded.  There has been an essentially unbroken upward trend in the
sales of this weight class  of vehicle.  While the sales in the 10, 000 - 14, 000
GVW group remained static, and at a very small fraction of the 6, 000 -
10, 000 GVW group, for a  period of eight years, a strong surge in sales
has taken place in since 1970.   This effect is considered to be  directly
related to the rapid increase in motor home sales in this period of time.

            A further breakdown of sales by body style and GVW for 1967 -
1972 is presented in  Table 2.4.  A  summary of sales of recreational vehicles
is also included.   Probably the most striking feature of these  data is the
popularity of the  pickup truck which has accounted for well over 55% of
the total annual sales of the  two weight groups included in Table 2. 4.  The
market share of the multi-stop and chassis groups has been substantially
stable while the van group has captured a steadily rising share of the sales
(3% in 1967 to 14% in 1972).

            Sales data for recreational vehicles are shown over the same
period of time. These figures  represent considerable rounding off since
they are the sums of similarly rounded monthly data.  Truck campers have
registered a steady growth in sales.  On the other hand, motor home sales
have doubled over the previous year in both 1971 and 1972.  A  further
breakdown of motor home sales by type is given below.

                   Conventional      Van       Chopped Van
           1971        37,795        9,457          12,732
           1972        64,600       23,800          28,400
                                  2-22

-------
N)
UO
                                                Table 2.3

                               Factory Sales of Trucks and Buses by G.V.W.
Total
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
6,000 .
& Less
677,804
836, 129
919,663
1,058,211
1,020, 158
899,986
1, 136,059
1, 121,222
950,252
1, 196,544
1,414,551
6,001-
10,000
213, 050
246,650
250,204
294, 178
296,957
289,835
385,803
405, 108
401,592
444,052
539,052
10,001-
14,000
8,503
5,679
5,804
5,020
7,485
5,207
4,646
7, 161
7,353
16, 007
43,989
14, 001-
16, 000
27,495
28,450
24,234
25,751
21,286
16,499
17,495
13,491
9,979
14,871
9,945
16,001-
19,500
142, 163
145,298
142,277
144,449
125,473
88,213
79,436
78, 105
59,205
58,042
28,080
19,501-
26,000
93, 138
109,570
104,499
109,625
124,361
123,934
141,264
147,405
124,554
132, 197
182,058
26,001-
33,000
35, 153
32, 186
29,613
39,968
44,337
37,960
41,814
33,304
38,451
36,441
42,213
Over
33, 000
42,862
58, 746
64, 159
74,603
91,027
77,828
89,561
117, 383
101,054
110,735
141, 127
Total
1,240, 168
1,462,708
1,540,453
1,751,805
1,731,084
1,539,462
1,896,078
1,923, 179
1,692,440
2, 053, 146
2,446,807
           Source: MVMA

-------
                        TABLE 2.4       ANNUAL U. S. DOMESTIC FACTORY SALES*1)

                                   6,000-10, 000 LBS. AND 10,000-14,000 LBS. GVW VEHICLES


      Body Style             1973(3)       1972         1971         1970         1969        1968         1967
Pic kup / C ampe r
(6K-10K)
Van/Pass. Van*/panel
(6K-10K)
Multi-Stop (6K-10K)
(10K-14K)*2)
>
ro
i
ro Chassis (6K-10K) 1
*" (Cab, Cowl, Bare)
(10K-14K) J

Totals*4)
355, 129
48.4%
75,727
10.3%
) 150,993
\ 20.6%
I

151, 316
7 o i.ojn
L \J . O /o

733, 165
345, 117
59.2%
83,614
14.3%
23,339
4.0%
41,528
7.1%
87,432
15.0%
2,370
0.5%
583,400
273,406
59.4%
64, 048
13.9%
33,612
7.3%
16, 007
3.5%
72,966
15.8%
NA
--
460,039
215,431
57.4%
46, 048
12.3%
32,431
8.6%
3,376
0.9%
74,221
19.8%
3,977
1.1%
375,484
247,466
64.9%
13,771
3.6%
38, 126
10.0%
4, 183
1.1%
74,978
1 9. 7%
2,978
0.8%
381,502
256,566
70. 1%
8,087
2.2%
27, 141
7.4%
1,915
0.5%
69,682
19.0%
2,661
0.7%
366, 052
173,700
64. 5%
7,379
2.7%
25,969
9.6%
2,582
1.0%
59,768
22.2%
NA
--
269,398
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES*5)
Truck Camper
Motor Home


110,000
116, 800
107,200
57,200
95,900
30,300
92,500
23, 100
79,500
13,200
61,600
9,050
   Note: Motor Homes are included in the multi-stop and chassis groups
(1)  MVMA FS-20 Summary Sheets
(2)  These data are inferred
(3)  Manufacturer's estimates (pickup/cab chassis data in some cases split 0.78/0.22)
(4)  Subject to error due to multiple listing of a vehicle on FS-20
(5)  "Recreational Vehicle Facts and Trends"

-------
These data dramatically emphasize the importance of the truck/camper
and motor home in the current sales of medium-duty trucks.   Since the
majority of the campers and essentially all of the motor homes have a
GVW  in the 6,000 - 14,000 Ib.  range,  it is  seen that in 1972 40% of the
medium-duty truck sales were accounted  for by the recreational vehicle.
This figure may be high since some of the demountable camper units may
have been purchased for retrofitting to other than new trucks.  Nevertheless,
even discounting for this  possibility, the percentage will still be high.

           Sales  projections for 1973  represent the  sum of the manufacturers'
own estimates and combine data from  Chrysler,  Ford, General Motors,
and International Harvester (no data were provided by Ford for motor
home chassis sales projections).  In a number of cases,  the sales
projections supplied by a company were for models which included both
pickup and chassis-type body styles.   In these cases, the composite sales
data were apportioned as follows:  pickup 78% and chassis 22%0   This  ratio
appeared to be consistent with  similar data from  other manufacturers  whose
sales were given by individual  body style.  This mix is probably not constant
from  one company's sales to another and may account for the  rather low
share of the  market assigned to pickups for 1973  (see Table 2. 4).

           Manufacturers  projected sales for their medium-duty truck
engines for 1973 were obtained and are summarized in Table 2. 5.  The
data are aggregated according  to four  general classifications:  (1) sixes,
(2) small eights,  (3) intermediate  eights, and (4)  large eights.  While
sales data for individual  engine families for each manufacturer were fur-
nished, the format of Table 2. 5 is used to preserve the confidential nature
of these data in accord with the manufacturers' requests.
                                  2-25

-------
                               TABLE 2. 5
          Projected 1973 Sales of Medium Duty Truck Engines
            Engine Classification          CID          Sales
            Sixes                        225-300        44,000
            Small Eights                302-318       100,000
            Intermediate Eights          330-360       498, 000
            Large Eights                390-454       100,000

            Intermediate-sized eight cylinder  engines are seen to be the
most popular for the medium duty truck group by a large margin.  The
bulk of the sales in this engine group are attributable to the 350 and 360
CID  engines made by General Motors and Ford,  respectively.  Six-cylinder
engines are seen to be  a minor factor.

     A graphical summary of vehicle sales, past and future, is  shown in
Figure 2.4.  Separate sales curves are given  for all vehicles in the range
of 6, 000 - 10, 000 Ibs.  GVW and 10, 000 - 14, 000 GVW. A rapid  upturn
in sales has taken place in  both weight  categories  starting in 1970.  A
composite curve of sales of all motor homes is also presented and  exhibits
a rapid rise starting in  1970.  Sales projections through 1980 are based on
an extrapolation methodology which is discussed in Section 3. 0 of this report.
Projections for motor home sales are especially hazardous because of a
limited history of sales and the fact that we are currently in a  rapidly
expanding market for these vehicles.  A leveling-off of sales is estimated
after 1974.  Motor home sales and sales of vehicles in the 10,000 - 14,000
Ib. GVW category are felt to be highly  correlated  since the  former is
considered to dominate the latter.

            2. 3. 4 Usage

            Emissions  levels generated by a vehicle are affected by the
type of usage to which a vehicle is subjected.  Factors such as load carried,
                                   2-26

-------
     800
     700
     600
co
Q
CO


O
co
O

I
LU
     500
     400
     300
     200
     100
ESTIMATED


ACTUAL
                            HOMES 6-14 K
                                                      VEHICLES 10-14 K-LB GVW
       1962    64    66    68     70     72     74    76    78    80
                   Figure 2.4  MEDIUM DUTY VEHICLE SALES
                                    2-27

-------
trips per day,  daily mileage,  route followed, etc.  are all important elements
in the emissions equation.  In isolating vehicle types  or vehicle subgroups
which may have unique emissions characteristics and in validating a range
of weights by which to characterize a medium-duty category of controlled
vehicle, information on vehicle usage is a useful input.

            A review of readily available literature, References 1-5,  showed
that data on the usage of vehicles in the 6, 000 - 14, 000 Ib. GVW range are
quite limited and often not directly relevant to these immediate  needs.  The
following specific deficiencies were noted:

                     vehicle classification by nonuseful GVW ranges; ie.  ,
                     under  10, 000  Ibs. , 10, 000 - 20, 000 Ibs. , etc.
                    use of vehicle population samples unique to  specific
                    urban areas and atypical of the national average.
                    dated information (in one case a decade old) based on
                    a non-current mix of vehicles
                    limited information on daily usage by vehicle type.

A summary of the more useful findings follows.

            Reference  4 is an extensive compilation of statistical survey
data related to truck usage.  A few significant conclusions,  pertinent to
this program,  are drawn from that report.  The study finds  that the majority
of motor trucks are used within an area in the immediate proximity of
their home base of operations.  Typically,  only 2% of all trucks  regularly
travel more than 200 miles from the point of trip origin.  Nearly 73% of
all light truck movements are local as contrasted with 20% for heavy units.
"Light trucks" are defined in Ref.  4 (and in most vehicular  surveys) as
including 2-axle,  4-tire trucks with payload capacities  of one-half to one
and one-half tons and with a GVW less than 10,000  Ibs.  The principal
findings are that motor truck usage,  like passenger car usage,  tends to
concentrate in urban areas  and that there is a clear difference between
light trucks and heavy trucks (GVW >  10, 000  Ibs. ) in their usage.  Light

                                   2-28

-------
trucks are predominantly urban oriented.  Based on statistics obtained by
pooling survey data from 11 urban areas, the light truck accounted for (on
an average daily usage basis) 72% of all truck trips, 65% of all truck miles,
and 96% of all trucks employed for personal use.  Of the total daily one-way
trips made by light trucks, 27% were made without load.  Of  the trips with
load,  cargo was transported on 45% of the  light truck trips and 28% of the
trips were used to carry tools and goods related to a service  function.   The
light truck was found to average  28 miles and 5. 9  trips per day.   Table
2. 6 (from Ref. 4) summarizes these data and provides comparable figures
for a medium-heavy truck class.

            Reference 5 is a summary of a recently completed field survey
of commercial vehicles in the state of California.   One of the groups of
vehicles surveyed was  the "dual-purpose"  variety as exemplified by the
following types:

                       pickups (including those equipped with campers,
                       covers, and shells)
                       station wagons
                       small vans (including panel type and those used as
                       house cars, mobile shops,  etc.)
                       truck campers (body permanently installed)
                       motor homes, mobile homes and trailer coaches

            Random sampling techniques were employed at 39 different
locations in the state to stratify the samples  geographically and functionally.
Data were collected over a period of  several months,  over seven days  of
the week and during 20 hours of the day. A total of 4, 938 vehicles were
included in the survey (the dual-use fleet in the state is approximated as
2. 5 x 10 ).  The following synopsized features characterized the  results:

                       Pickups represent  the largest  single group of dual-
                       use vehicles.  Coupled with camper variations,  they
                       represent over half of the  sample population.
                       Approximately one-fourth  of all pickups are equipped
                                  2-29

-------
                                                                         Table 2.6

                                           AVERAGE DAILY  TRUCK  USAGE IN 11  URBAN AREAS'
TRUCK
CLASS
LIGHT £ 10,000 LB
MEDIUM-HEAVY >10,000 LB
TOTAL
TRUCKS
MAKING TRIPS
NUMBER _&
72.989 71.8
28.691 28.2
101.680 100.0
DAILY TRIPS
NUMBER %
608.606 67.7
289.810 32.3
898.410 100.0
DAILY
TRUCK-MILES
NUMBER %
2,075,660 65.3
1,104,742 34.7
3,180,402 100.0
DAILY MILEAGE
PER TRUCK PER TRIP
28.4 3.4
36.5 3.8
31.3 3.5
DAILY
TRIPS
PER TRUCK1
8.3
10.1
8.8
INJ
I
OO
o
                  REF. 4.
                 These values are for trucks making trips on a typical weekday. When related to all trucks registered in the urban area, the average is 5.9 trips per day,
          since a proportion of the registered trucks are idle on any given day.

          NOTE:  The values are summations of trip values for the 11 areas shown in source.

          SOURCE:   Comprehensive transportation studies by Wilbur Smith and Associates in Albuquerque, New Mexico;  Baltimore, Maryland; Baton Rouge,
                     Louisiana; Columbia, South  Carolina; Lewiston, Maine; Little Rock, Arkansas; Manchester, New Hampshire; Monroe, Louisiana; Richmond, Virginia;
                     Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

-------
                     with some sort of enclosure (camper,  shell, canopy,
                     etc. ).
                     Panel and van trucks represented only 8% of the sample.
                     Over 85% of the vehicles were in the weight range
                     between 3, 000 and 6, 000 Ibs.  Less than one-half
                     percent weighed over 8, 000 Ibs.
                     Approximately 30% of the vehicles carried no load
                     (this figure agrees remarkably well with the 21%
                     found by the Wilbur Smith study, Reference 4).

Usage data (trip purpose) was collected under four different headings:
commuting (home-to-work),  business (work related),  personal business
and personal (nonbusiness).   Table 2. 7  summarizes the  results for each of
several body types.  Of special interest is  the fact that the  pickup with an
equipped camper is used very frequently (49. 5% of the time) for  home-to-
work trips. Also,  the  specialized nature of use of the van and panel types
is demonstrated by the very high percentage of the trips that are work
related.

           In summarizing the results  of these two reports, note must be
made of the fact that  trucks under 6, 000 Ibs.  GVW dilute all of the data.
Despite this, it is clear that all trucks with a GVW limit of 10, 000 Ibs.
and less  are urban oriented and act and operate in traffic very much like
the typical passenger automobile.  Both references agree that this group
of light truck operates  without load about 30% of the time.   Pickup vehicles,
and their variants, are predominantly used for nonwork related purposes.

            The Ethyl Corporation report (Ref. 3) presents  the results of a
three-city survey* using trucks instrumented to record a time history
of engine load (manifold pressure) and engine revolutions.  Unfortunately,
the entire GVW range of trucks was included within a small total sample
of vehicles.  Consequently the number of vehicles within the GVW range
considered in this program was small and  the number of different vehicle
*Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco
                                  2-31

-------
I
OJ
                                                    Table 2.7

                                   Distribution by Body Type and Trip Purpose
                 Body Type
Pickup


Pickup with Camper Shell


Pickup with Equipped Camper


Motor Home


Station Wagon


Panel

Van


Other



All Body Types - Percent


               - Number

Percent Distribution
Home-to- Work-
Work Related
29.7
34.4
49.5
28.3
21.8
17.2
1.0
18.5
27.4
1,350
35.3
17.5
2.9
1.7
12.7
65.6
90.2
70.4
26.6
1,309 1,
by Trip Purposes
Personal
Business
18.5
18. 1
15.4
25.0
28.4
9.3
2.0
7.4
20.8
023
Personal
Non- Business
16.4
29.9
32.2
45.0
37. 1
7.9
6.9
3.7
25.2
1,245
All Trip
Percent
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
_
Purposes
Number
2,022
331
382
60
1,699
302
102
27
-
4,925
       Source:  Reference 5

-------
types correspondingly few.  Further detractions to the utility of the data
result from the fact that only fleet-owned vehicles were involved and the
data are quite old (vehicle models  sampled ranged from 1948 to 1962).
Despite these limitations the report does present data on  such parameters
as mean speed,  daily mileage,  route type and load.

           An analysis of usage was made using tabulated data from
Reference 3 with the objective of determining if there existed a basis for
differentiating among the following GVW groups of trucks: ^6, 000 Ibs. ,
6, 000 - 10, 000 Ibs. , 10, 000 - 14, 000 Ibs.  and 14, 000 - 16, 000 Ibs.  To
achieve a reasonably-sized sample, the data for all three cities were
pooled despite a demonstrated difference in vehicle usage among these
cities.  Comparisons among these groups were made for  each of the
following parameters:  engine displacement, miles/day,  percent total
engine revolutions in idle, percent total engine revolutions in cruising
mode, average mph and horsepower per 1, 000 Ib. load.   Other operating
modes besides idle and cruise were evaluated in the original study, but
these two were selected since the largest fractions of the total vehicle
operating time were spent in these two modes.  For each GVW group and
parameter the mean and standard deviation of the mean were calculated.
The results, shown in Figure 2. 5, plot the means and a vertical  bar
(associated with each mean) whose length represents an interval  equal  to
two standard deviations of the mean.  This type of presentation is inter-
preted as follows.  If, by drawing  a single line parallel to the horizontal
axis, all four vertical bars (within any one parameter group) can be
intercepted,  then  in a  statistical sense, there is no basis for judging that
any one GVW group differs from another.  Stated conversely, the samples
comprising  each of the four  GVW groups-are said to originate from the
same sample population.   Thus, reference to Figure 2. 5  shows that there
is no basis for separation of vehicles  by GVW within  the set the data
analyzed except for the last  parameter, hp/lK#,  which does show statis-
tically significant differences.  Since  engines of the same approximate
mean displacement (hence horsepower) were used in  all vehicles

                                  2-33

-------
                                          STATISTICAL SUMMARY
ENGINE DISPL. (IN.3)     MILES/DAY
IDLE
% CRUISING
AVG. MPH
HP/K-LB
320

280
240

200

160
tSJ
1
OO
4^
120
80


40
n



'I1'








•

° ' 0 ^
160

140
Jl20

100

80

60
40


20










'hi




	 1 	 ' 	 1 	 1 	 1
t (O O '














16-

14-
12-

10-

8-

6-
. 4-


2-









































40-

35
30

25

20

15
.10


5-















	 1 i 	 1 	 1 	 1— 	 1
t 
-------
irrespective of GVW group, these differences are not unexpected.  While
this finding is  also not unexpected, it does verify the fact that engines
used in medium duty trucks are operated at a heavier loading than those
used in light duty cars or trucks,,  This condition obviously will need to be
considered when emission controls and their effectiveness and durability in
medium duty vehicles are being analyzed.

            An analysis was made also of the relation between vehicle loaded
weight and vehicle GVW (as given in Ref. 3 )  for vehicles up to  16,000 Ibs.
The data showed that all these vehicles, on the average, operated fully
loaded,  i.e., at GVW ratings.   This  result is not consistent with the
Wilbur Smith study (Ref. 4) which found that "light" urban trucks operate
empty 50% of the time and, when loaded,  carry an average load of 600 Ibs.
This same study (Ref. 4)  also reports that 70% of all trucks are single
operations (individually owned).  Several factors may explain these dif-
ferences:  (1) the Ethyl study, because it required the use of instrumented
trucks,  was forced to rely on a sample that was entirely "fleet" operated,
(2) it may  be inferred that the loaded weight given referred  only to the
value when the vehicle was operated with maximum load (i. e. ,  no-load or part
                             >fc
load situations were not noted),  and (3) differences in test locale.   Data
in Ref.  4 were obtained in medium-sized urban areas (see footnote to
Table 2. 6) whereas the Ethyl study was conducted within very large metro-
politan areas.

            Reference 2 is a separate Wilbur Smith report on the CAPE-21
program which to date has produced no new data but rather  assembled
and processed existing data on truck usage in the New York City and Los
Angeles areas.  All of these data are for vehicles classified only by
number of axles and rear tires.  For New York City,  only 20% of the sample
of vehicles analyzed were within the 6, 000 - 14, 000 GVW range.  While  data
on number of daily  trips,  mean velocity and trip length  were determined,
these figures are unidentifiable with vehicle body types. The  Los Angeles
 * Explicit  information concerning the determination of vehicle loaded
   weight is not given in Reference 3.

                                    2-35

-------
data are even less useful since the survey started with vehicles with an
empty weight of 6,000 Ibs,  As shown in Table 2.2,  it is only the rare
vehicle in the 6, 000 - 14, 000 Ib. GVW group that has an empty weight
over 6, 000 Ibs.  Consequently these references did not provide useful
data.
                                   2-36

-------
      2.4   Representative Vehicle/Engine Combinations

            2.4.1  Selection

            The selection of vehicle/engine/drivetrain combinations repre-
sentative of each of the five major groups identified in Table 2. 1  (pickup/
camper, van/passenger van,  multi-stop, chassis and  motor home chassis)
was performed in accord with the methodology discussed in Section 2.2. A
number of  considerations entered into the selection process.  These included
the extensiveness of usage  of a particular combination, possible effects of
different combinations  on emissions, the need to adequately represent the
GVW  spectrum within any one group and the impact of these selections  on
the economic analysis (Part B).

            In the selection process the data summarized in Table 2.2
were  extensively used.  This tabulation identified the  vehicles according
to make, model, axles, GVW range,  GCW range, engine CID, horsepower,
transmission and axle ratio.   This  table, as initially published in a project
progress report  (Reference 6), included the manufacturer's 1973 sales
projections for each engine/drivetrain combination shown.   Omission of this
information in Table 2.2  is for proprietary reasons.  The resultant list of
group representative vehicle/engine/drivetrain combinations that were chosen
is given in Table 2.7a.  This listing as well as that of Table 2. 1  (vehicle grouping)
were  subject to the approval  of the  EPA Project Officer.

            This listing is  broadly representative on several counts:  (1) the
largest-selling models and engines are included, (2) the range of engine
displacements is adequately represented, (3)  a wide GVW range is  encom-
passed  by the models selected and (4) all major manufacturers of medium
duty trucks are represented.

            In the multi-stop group, the selection of the Chev. /GMC P30/P35
model with a small six engine (in a high GVW vehicle) was  based on a desire
                                  2-37

-------
I
00
oo
                  TABLE 2.7a   GROUP REPRESENTATIVE VEHICLE-ENGINE COMBINATIONS:.
Physical Characterization - 1973 Models
GROUP
Pickup/ Camper
Van/Pass. Van
Multi-Stop
Chassis
MAKE
Chev./GMC
I-H
Ford
Chev/GMC
Chev./GMC
Ford
Ford
MODEL
C20/C25
1210
E300
P30/P35
C20/C25
F350
F500
AXLES
4x2
4x2
4x2
4x2
4x2
4x2
4x2
ENGINE
V8-350
V8-345
V8-302
16-250
V8-454
V8-360
V8-330
HP
155
144
139
100
240
148
137
TRANS.
A3
M3
A3
M4
A3
M4
M4
AXLE RATIO
4. 10
3.73
3.73
4.56
3.73
4. 10
5.83
     Motor Home

        Chassis
Dodge
M300/R400
4x2
V8-318
160
A3
4. 88

-------
to include a combination which might exhibit an unique emissions  level due
to a high engine loading.

            2.4.2  Emission Controls
            Emission controls,  either incorporated as engine modifications
or installed as add-on devices,  were identified by reference to the
manufacturers' certification handbooks submitted to EPA.  Controls installed
on 1973 models of the group  representative vehicle/engine combinations
(Table 2. 7a) are shown in Table 2. 7b.  All vehicles include crankcase emission
controls,  however,  only  those vehicles marketed in the State of California
are equipped with evaporative emission control systems.  While all engines
incorporate some types of modifications for exhaust emission control, since
they generally are derivatives of light duty engines, EGR or air  injection is
only used on some engines sold  in California.   This strategy is necessary to
meet the combined HC +  NOX standard  of 16 gm/bhp/hr adopted by California
for 1973 models.  A narrative-type  description of the various control systems/
devices, which are  only identified by their acronyms in Table 2. 7b,  is given
in Table 2.8.

            2.4.3  Baseline  Emissions

            In assessing  the  emission reductions  possible by the addition
of new or additional  control devices to  medium duty vehicles, it  is necessary
to define baseline emission data for each representative vehicle/engine com-
bination as  a  reference.

            To measure the necessary  emissions data,  EPA chose to test
this  category of vehicles using the basic 1975 Federal  Test Procedure de-
veloped for light duty vehicles.  In view of the usage data described in this
report for the medium duty vehicle, the use of the LA-4 driving  cycle for
emissions determinations is justifiable and reasonable.  The only ^variations
to the 1975  FTP are found in the determination of the vehicle inertia weight
and road load horsepower.
                                   2-39

-------
         TABLE  2,7b   GROUP REPRESENTATIVE VEHICLE-ENGINE COMBINATIONS;
                                          Emission Control Devices - 1973 Models
    GROUP
MAKE
                                   MODEL
ENGINE
EMISSION CONTROLS*
Motor Home
Dodge
             M300/R400
V8-318
                                                               PCV
                           CAN
                     EM
                                                          NOTES
Pickup/ Camper
Van/Pass. Van
Multi-Stop
^ Chassis
O
Chev. /CMC
I-H
Ford
Chev. /CMC
Chev. /CMC
Ford
Ford
C20/C25
1210
E300
P30/P35
C20/C25
F350
F500
V8-350
V8-345
V8-302
16-250
V8-454
V8-360
V8-330
Crankcase
PCV
PCV
PCV
PCV
PCV
PCV
PCV
Evaporative
GMECS
CAN
CC
- -
GMECS
CC
CC
Exhaust
CCS 1
EM, EGR, 1 4 6
TLD
IMCO 1
CCS 2
CCS, AI 1 3
IMCO, EGR 1 4
IMCO 1
1  5 .
                   *  See Table 2.8 for description of Emission Controls.
                   Notes:  1   Evaporative Controls only on California vehicles with fuel tanks ^ 50 gals.
                           2   This engine not sold  in California
                           3   Air Injection (AI) only on California vehicles
                           4   Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) only on California vehicles
                           5   Electronic Ignition on California vehicles, otherwise optional
                           6   Throttle Limiting Device (TLD) only on California vehicles

-------
                             TABLE 2.8 - EMISSIONS  CONTROL DEVICES PRESENTLY  USED
       Abbreviation
         System Name
                System Description
          PCV
          AI
          EGR
t\>
i
Positive Crankcase Ventilation
System


Air Injection System
Exhaust Gas Recirculation System
          TLD          Throttle Limiting Device
          GMECS       General Motors Evaporative Control
                        System
          CC            Carbon Canister
          CAN          CANister evaporative control
          EM           ^Engine Modifications
          CCS           Controlled Combustion System
          IMCO         IMproved COmbustlon System
A  system which supplies fresh air to the crankcase through
the air filter and directs the blow-by gases into the intake
manifold  through a spring-loaded metering valve.

A  system consisting of an engine-driven air pump
which supplies fresh air to nozzles located in the exhaust
ports, completing combustion of hydrocarbons externally.
The systems usually incorporate some flow control devices
for better driveability.

A  system which controls oxides of nitrogen (NO )  emissions
by recirculating a portion of the exhaust gases back into the
intake manifold.  The plumbing consists of fixed orifices or
vacuum-controlled valves.

A  system to limit the  rate of closure of the throttle to pre-
vent excessively high  manifold vacuum during deceleration.

All of these systems are evaporative emissions control
systems consisting  basically of a charcoal or carbon filled
canister into which  the hydro-carbon vapors from the gas
tank and carburetor are directed.  They are stored here
until the engine is started at which time they are purged
into the intake manifold.

These systems consist mainly of  modifications and recali-
brations made on basically unchanged pre-emission control
engines.  The  carburetor and  choke  are modified, the spark
advance  curve is altered,  the  compression ratio is lowered,
the head design is altered,  a system to pre-heat intake air
is installed, the camshaft profile is  altered, etc.

-------
            Inertia weight rounded to the nearest 500 Ibs.  is obtained by the

 addition of a weight increment to the vehicle GCW based on the vehicle payload

 capacity.  The weight increment is determined from the following schedule.

            Payload (GVW - GCW)        Weight Increment

                  2000 Ibs.                      500 Ibs.

            2001  Ibs. - 4000 Ibs.               1000 Ibs.

                  4001 Ibs.                     1500 Ibs.

            Road load horsepower is based on the vehicle inertia weight (Iw) and
                                                                   *
 given by the following linear equation where I  is in units of pounds.

                  Road load horsepower = 0. 0096 I   - 30. 3

            Emissions data provided by EPA were from three sources: (1) an

EPA in-house  program,  (2) Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) and (3) Auto-

motive Engineering Systems, Inc. (AESI).  Data on  a total of 122 vehicles  were

received.  A tabulation of these emissions data is given in Appendix A-2.  In

the appendix,  the information is identified according to source, vehicle make,

model year, body type,  GVW, GCW,  inertia weight, engine  and the average

emissions  in grams per mile for HC,  CO, CO  and  NO  .  In addition,  the  number
                                             Cj       x.
of tests averaged and the state  of tune of the vehicle are noted.  During the early

stages of these experimental programs,  the vehicles were tested in an "as-
received"  condition,  however the later groups of vehicles were tested  with the

engine dwell,  timing and idle adjusted to specifications.  Subsequent to the

submittal of the draft of this report some additional emissions data were supplied

by EPA.  Usage of these new data in performing additional analyses requested

by the Project Officer is discussed in  a later  part of this section.


            A summary of the baseline emissions data for the selected group

representative vehicle/engine combinations is shown in Table 2.9.  It  can  be seen

that for two of the categories there were no test data at all while for some others

only few test points were available.  Even to accumulate  these meager totals it

was necessary to use data from untuned and older vehicles.
*
  The procedural details employed in collecting these emissions
  data do not necessarily represent the final test procedures that
  may be specified by EPA for the  medium duty category of vehicles.

                                   2-42

-------
TABLE 2.9
GROUP  REPRESENTATIVE VEHICLE-ENGINE COMBINATIONS:
Exhaust Emission Levels - Equivalent 1975 FTP
GROUP MAKE
Pickup/Camper Chev./GMC
I-H
Van/Pass. Van Ford
Multi-Stop Chev/GMC
i
^ Chassis Chev./GMC
Ford
Ford
Motor Home Dodge
MODEL
C20/C25
1210
E300
P30/P35
C20/C25
F350
F500
M300/R400
ENGINE
V8-350
V8-345
V8-302
16-250
V8-454
V8-360
V8-330
V8-318
GVW
RANGE
6200-
10000
6100-
7500
6050-
7600
10,000

10,000 -
11,000
TEST WGT.
RANGE
5000-
7500
5000-
6500
5000-
6500
8200

8,000
9,000
MEAN EMISSION LEVELS (g/mi) NOTES
HC CO NO
4.57 40.57 7.81 1
5. 62 66. 12 5. 06 4
5..8S 54.69 5.82 ^
*
12.85 116.28 6.93 3
*
8.84 142.29 13.23 5
               No Test Data Available on These Engines
            Notes:   1  Twelve vehicles (1-1970, 4-1971, 7-1972), average of 26 tests (25 CO)
                    2  Eight vehicles (2-1971, 2-1972, 4-1973),  average of 16 tests
                    3  One vehicle (1971), average of two tests
                    4  Two  vehicles  (1-1971, 1-1972), average of two tests
                    5  Three vehicles (1-1970,  1-1972, 1-1973), average of eight tests

-------
A decision was  made to exclude all data from  vehicles older than the 1970
models in forming baseline averages.

            A review of the emissions data in Table 2. 9 and all the other test
data available on  the medium duty trucks indicated that differences between engine/
vehicle combinations could not be ascertained.  The  large scatter in the emis-
sions data whether due to vehicle state of engine adjustment, vehicle-mileage,
vehicle age or other factors,  did not permit such discrimination to be made.
This statement, however, should not be interpreted to imply that no such
differences exist.  The data do tend to support the observation that vehicle
emissions increase with  the test weight  (or inertia weight) of the vehicle.
The  limited data shown in Table 2. 9 agree superficially with this contention,
the chassis and motor home chassis vehicles showing, on the average,  in-
creased emissions with test weights in the 8, 000^9, 000 Ib. range.

            As a consequence of this situation, the methodology based on
engine/vehicle combinations  could not be pursued further.  Rather,  the emis-
sions data were reviewed to ascertain what differentiation among vehicles
was  possible.

            In making use of  the emissions data base  given in Appendix A-2,
the following decisions were  made:
                     use only data from tuned 1972-1973 model vehicles
                      if possible
                     if necessary to use data  from untuned vehicles, then
                     include  1970 and 1971 models only
                     exclude data from low-mileage, unstabilized (green
                     engine)  vehicles.
A serious  limitation of the data base is the concentration of the data at a
test  weight of 5, 000 to 5, 500 Ibs.  Where data at higher test weights exist,
they are almost entirely from motor homes.  No data are available at a
test  weight exceeding 10, 000  Ibs.
                                    2-44

-------
            A series of linear regressions were performed on various subsets


of the data with, mass emissions per mile regressed on inertia weight.  A


simple linear regression analysis was performed on the emissions data for


all tuned 1972/1 973 trucks and motor homes.  A total of 40 test vehicles was


available that met these criteria,  32 trucks and 8 motor homes.  This sample


of vehicles  spanned the range  of test weights from 4,500  Ibs. to 8, 500 Ibs. with


the motor homes concentrated at the upper end.  Using the regression equations


thus determined, emissions data were calculated  at a test weight of 10, 000 Ibs.


and compared with emissions  actually measured from a few untuned and older


trucks at this weight.  The calculated emissions were found to be very much


larger, especially  for CO and NO  levels, than  the measured results.  Because
                                 X

of the poorly distributed inertia weights,  it was necessary to use a data sample


that included all 1970-1973 vehicles, both tuned and untuned, to extend the


range of inertia weights encompassed.  Results of this analysis on  a sample


size of 85 vehicles indicated that the inclusion of emissions  data for only nine


motor homes,  increased the slope of the  regression lines significantly upward

                                                         *
(compared to trucks-only data) for CO and NO  emissions.   Consequently, a
                                             X

regression  analysis was made for only the truck data,  Results are given below.



            Regression Equations  - Trucks Only (76 Points)



                 MHC  =   0.526 I   +  2. 38
                                   w

                 M
                   CO  =   7.09  I    4-19.8
                                   w

                 M
                   NO  =   1.02  I    +  1.61
                      x           w

                           M.  =  grams/mile of pollutant i


                           I    =  inertia weight, thousands of Ibs.
                            w               to




The motor homes  appear to require separate consideration.  Because of the small


data base for motor homes (only 9 samples ), a limited test weight range (7, 500 -
  It should be noted that 7 of the 9 motor homes were tested at 8500 Ib.

  Iw or more; there were only four trucks at this same Iw included in

  this  data set.


                                   2-45

-------
 9,000 Ibs. ) and a wide scatter in the emissions data, a regression analysis

 was not considered justifiable.   Consequently a simple average of these data


 was taken as the most reasonable treatment of the data that could be made.


 These  results are shown below:


             AVERAGE EMISSIONS-MO TOR HOMES (9 SAMPLES)



        HC          CO          NOX   .     Average Test Weight

       gm/mi       gm/mi       gm/mi       	Ibs.	
        7.82        125.71        13.07             8,400



             For purposes of comparison, a second set of regression equations

 was  determined per request of the Project Officer utilizing a different data


 base as specified by EPA.  This data base was determined in accordance with

 the following specific  instructions:
       a     use all 1970 - 1973 trucks and motor homes, tuned
                         *
             and untuned,   excluding 1973 California (AESI)

             vehicles and EPA vehicle #49 (see Appendix A-2).
             treat all EPA vehicles tested at more than one inertia

                                                             **
             weight as  a separate vehicle at each weight tested
             treat all vehicles tested twice (in both tuned and


             untuned condition) as separate vehicles (four SWRI


             and nine AESI vehicles).
 *
   There appears to be no significant difference in measured emissions

   from the tuned vs. untuned vehicles for this particular data set.


** Although not shown in Appendix A-2, the first eleven EPA vehicles

   were each tested at four different inertia weights.



                                    2-46

-------
       •     use emission data (from 13 additional medium duty

             vehicles (1971 - 1973) provided by EPA  (not shown
             in Appendix A-2).


 The regression equations for this data set are given below:
       REGRESSION EQUATIONS-TRUCKS AND MOTOR HOMES
                          (135 samples)
MHC =
Mco =
M.T_ =
NO
X
0.5551 +
w
11. 20 I
w
1. 35 I
w
1. 94
8. 19
0.56

             A plot of the two sets of regression lines for HC, CO and NO
                                                                       X
 emissions  for trucks alone and trucks/motor homes combined is  shown in

 Figures 2.7 through  2.9.  Included for the trucks/motor homes regression
                                          >'
-------
    18
00

cc
o
X
    16
    14
    12
    10
                              A-A   REGRESSION LINE FOR TRUCK (76 POINTS)
                              C-C   REGRESSION LINE FOR TRUCKS AND
                                    MOTOR HOMES (135 POINTS)
                           B-B.D-D   95% CONFIDENCE BOUNDS ON REGRESSION
                                    LINE C-C
                              678
                              Iw - INERTIA WGT., K-LB
                                                 10
      Figure 2.7
REGRESSION LINES OF HC EMISSIONS ON INERTIA WEIGHT
FOR TRUCKS AND TRUCKS/MOTOR HOMES COMBINED
                                   2-48

-------
                                                      /
                                                       /'
                                                       >c
2  100
                                               x
     50
     40
                    .--,-X-r-

30
20
10
0
• X i
:..X---..! 	 --• 	 •"
	 b^ : :
	 [ 	 j. 	 I 	 \-
	 -^L
                FOR
£rREGRESS,ON UNE FOR TRUCKS ,76 POINTS,

«   KoR«^,j?r ;;;EKION
     95% CONFIDENCE BOUNDS ON REGRESSION
                        B-B.D-D
                                C-C
                                                          10
                            TW
                              - INERTIA WGT., K-LB
                                2-49

-------
    18
   16
   14
   12
d  10

w
cc
CJ

 X
o
                              A-A

                              C-C


                           B-B,D-D
REGRESSION LINE FOR TRUCKS (76 POINTS)
REGRESSION LINE FOR TRUCKS AND
MOTOR HOMES (135 POINTS)

95% CONFIDENCE BOUNDS ON REGRESSION
LINE C-C
                             6         7         8

                             Iw - INERTIA WGT., K-LB
                                10
     Figure 2.9  REGRESSION LINES OF NOX EMISSIONS ON INERTIA WEIGHT
               FOR TRUCKS AND TRUCKS/MOTOR HOMES COMBINED
                                   2-50

-------
      2. 5   Validation of GVW Limits








            The results of the studies  concerned with vehicle mechanical



aspects, usage, sales and emissions,  which have been discussed in the



preceding   sections of this report, provide a basis  upon which a selection



of suitable GVW limits for a  controlled category of  medium duty vehicle



can be considered.







            This project was initiated  with two explicit assumptions (as



incorporated in its statement of work): (1) an equivalent 1975 FTP would



be used in measuring exhaust emissions from the MDV  group and   (2)



emission control technology from the LDV category was directly adaptable



to the MDV group and an analytical prediction of potential emissions



reduction thereby possible was feasible.  Implicit in these assumptions



is the appropriateness of the LA-4 driving cycle in  reflecting usage of the



MDV and the similarity in engines/transmissions/axle ratios between the



LDV and MDV.  In selecting  limits therefore, every effort should be made



to insure that the validity of these assumptions is reinforced to the maximum



extent  consistent with other  restraints.








            A basis for  making judgments  on  the GVW limits exists in terms



of the following four aspects  of the vehicles included in  the medium duty



category:  population, physical characteristics,  usage and emissions.  A



simplification among the vehicle types included in this category is  readily



made.  Usage information and emissions  data both identify the motor home



as a unique member of the medium duty group of vehicles.  Since it must



be accorded special consideration, its role in influencing GVW limits for



the general group of medium duty vehicles can be considered minimal.
                                   2-51

-------
            Consider the lower limit of the GVW range of a medium duty
category.  One  possibility admits  of the extension of the  light duty class
of vehicle to include a GVW range in excess  of the  present limit of  6,000
Ibs.   Two factors rule strongly against this approach.  First, the 6,000 Ib.
level of GVW has been shown earlier to be a sort of ^watershed level at
which certain vehicle models reach their maximum weight ratings and
others begin with their minimum ratings.  In the case of 1973 models,
only one model  vehicle, in fact,  was found to violate  the  6, 000 Ib. GVW
"barrier".  This factor is important in the certification process if  given
models  of vehicles are to avoid certification under two different procedures.
Once this barrier is broached,  the next reasonable limit is 10,000  Ibs.
Second,  the emissions  data are seen to be a  function  of vehicle  weight.  Thus
major revisions to emission standards applicable to this  "expanded" LDV
category would  be required.  Both these considerations would appear to
offer serious disadvantages to any alteration of the weight limits  of the
light duty vehicle category.  Consequently, it is concluded that  the  lower
limit of the medium duty class of vehicle should be set at 6,000 Ibs. GVW.

            Factors affecting the selection of an upper GVW limit do not
provide a basis  that leads clearly to a  single choice.   Looked at from the
standpoint of GVW ranges of individual models, two alternatives appear to
be reasonable;  10,000 Ibs. and 14,000 Ibs.  Based on 1973 models,  only
one vehicle model spans  the 10,000 Ib.  level while several broach the
14, 000 Ib. limit.

            Usage data, with the limited scope, do not lead to any
discrimination between trucks in the 6, 000 to 10,000 Ib.  group  and  those
in the 10,000 to 14,000 Ib. group.  On the other hand, dual-purpose
                                  2-52

-------
        *
vehicles ,  such as pickups, vans, passenger vans, are entirely located
within the 6,000 - 10,000 Ib. GVW range.  Dual-purpose  vehicles would
obviously be used and operated much more like passenger cars than purely
commercial vehicles.  It would also be granted that the 6,000  -  10,000 Ib.
GVW vehicle is more closely  akin the LDV than is the 10,000 - 14,000 Ib.
vehicle.

            Sales data clearly show the preponderant domination of the
6,000  - 10,000 Ib.  group.   While sales in the  10,000 - 14,000 Ib. group
have shown large increases in the last several years, the evidence
attributes this  growth to motor homes  alone.  Thus a relatively small
number of  additional trucks would be included if the upper GVW limit
were extended  to 14,000 Ibs.

            The evidence is felt to favor the choice of 10, 000 Ibs.  GVW
as an upper limit for the medium duty  group of vehicles.  An important
advantage accruing from this limit is the flexibility afforded in setting
emission standards.  Because of  this relatively restricted GVW range, it
becomes feasible to consider setting a single numerical standard for each
pollutant for this class vehicle.  For example, the standards could be set
based  on the emissions performance achievable by vehicles at the upper
end of the GVW range with  the presumption that the lighter vehicles would
at least meet,  or improve upon, these  values.

            Clearly, there  is no compelling evidence why the GVW limit
should not  be set at 14,000 Ibs.  One result would be that vehicles less
like those in the LDV category would be  included and a graduated or,
* Currently classified in the heavy duty category
                                   2-53

-------
possibly, a two-tier emission standard would be required because of the
extended weight range.  Very few emission data points are presently
available upon which an assessment of emission levels could be made for
vehicles in the 10, 000 - 14, 000 GVW range.

            The population of motor homes is less stratified by weight than
it is for trucks.  Sales data and projections indicate a popularity of the
10, 000  - 14, 000 Ibs. GVW motor home that cannot be ignored.  Accordingly
the GVW limits for motor homes should include the range from 6, 000 to
14, 000  Ibs. Because the motor home (1) is not used in urban areas  or
central business  districts  (2) is driven only  about 5,000 miles per year
(RVI publications) as compared with  10,000 miles  per year for medium
duty trucks (Reference 1)  and (3) exists in considerably fewer numbers
than the medium  duty truck, a less demanding  emission control strategy
may be considered.   For example, a single emission standard could  be
used for all motor homes  irrespective of weight over the 6, 000 - 14, 000
Ib.  range.   This  standard would need to be set  to accommodate the
vehicles at the high  end of the GVW range.
                                  2-54

-------
      2. 6   Emission Reduction Potential






            There are two essentially different approaches that can be followed



to reduce exhaust emissions from medium duty trucks.  One approach involves



modifications of the conventional gasoline engine and/or treatment of its ex-



haust products using one of a number of emission control systems.  The



second approach  is to  replace the conventional gasoline engine with another



power plant, such as the diesel or three-valve carbureted pre-chamber



(CVCC) engine, which has lower baseline emissions and may or may not re-



quire an emission control system in order to meet  specified emissions standards.



Each of these approaches to reducing emissions from medium duty trucks is



discussed in the following  sections.






            2.6.1  General Approaches for Reducing Medium Duty Truck



                   Emissions






                   2.6. 1.  1   Reduction of Emissions from Conventional



                             Gasoline Engines






            The HC and CO exhaust emissions from the conventional  gasoline



engine used in most medium duty trucks have  been  significantly reduced over



the past five years by  a series of engine modifications including timing changes,



carburetor A/F ratio changes (leaning),  cylinder piston and  head  shape changes,



and a compression ratio reduction.   These modifications have also occurred



in truck engines because essentially the same engines  are used in trucks as



passenger cars for which federal emissions standards have been progressively



tightened since 1968.  The baseline engines  for the present truck  study are



those used in 1972-73  trucks  outside of California (i. e. , no EGR). The cor-



responding baseline emissions are those from trucks using the baseline engines.



Correlations of the baseline emissions as a  function of truck inertia weight



have been previously discussed in Section 2.4. 3.  Emissions control systems






                                    2-55

-------
(further engine modifications and exhaust gas treatment devices) are applied



to the baseline engines and their effectiveness referred to the baseline emissions,






            The emissions  control systems to be evaluated for medium duty



truck applications are listed in Table 2. 10.  The various components  in the



control systems for gasoline engines  are  identified and described briefly in



Appendix A-4.  The systems chosen for the most part have been developed and



tested to a reasonable extent for light duty vehicle applications.  They offer



as a group the capability of achieving a wide range  of emissions  reductions.



This was necessary in the present study because emissions standards for



medium duty trucks have not been set and it was desired to investigate in de-



tail the emissions reductions/cost tradeoffs of a cross-section of control sys-



tems.  In later sections, the emissions reductions  that can be expected using



each of these  systems on conventional gasoline engines are studied as well as



the effects of  the control system on fuel consumption and vehicle driveability.






                   2.6.  1.2  Alternative  engines






            The exhaust emissions from medium duty trucks can also be re-



duced by replacing the conventional gasoline I. C. engine with a power plant



with lower baseline emissions.  As indicated in Table 2. 12,  a variety of



power plants are being developed which could be considered for use in MDV.



These power plants vary widely in their status-of-development and cost, size,



and fuel consumption relative to the gasoline engine which they would  replace.



In the present study, the only alternative  power plants considered were the



light weight diesel and the three-valve carbureted pre-chamber (CVCC) engines.



Both of these  engines  have  attractive  HC  and CO emissions and fuel economy



characteristics.   In addition, the NO  emissions of each can be reduced to a
                                    X


relatively low level (   1-1.5 gm/mi)  using  EGR.  The gas turbine engine was



not included because in  its  present design it has a high NO  emission  level



(3-4 gm/mi) and poor fuel  economy at part-load conditions which are  regularly





                                   2-56

-------
     Table  2. 10:  Emission Control System s for Conventional

                  Gasoline I. C. Engines
Number
                  System
                       EM'
   2

   3

   4

   5

   6

   7

   8
EM° + El + FC + AI + EGR

EM° + El + 1C + QHI + AI + EGR

EM° + El + 1C + QHI + EGR + AI + OC

EM° + El + 1C + QHI + EGR + RC + AI/CAI + OC

EM° + El + EFIC  + EGR + RC/OC

EM° + El + 1C +QHI  + EGR + LTR

EM° + El + FC + EGR + AI + RTR

EM° + El + FIG + IQHI + AI + EGR
  (a)  1972 engine modifications included in the baseline engine
      configuration
  Component Identification

  El    - Electronic Ignition

  FC    - Fast Choke

  QHI   - Quick Heat Intake

  AI    - Exhaust Manifold
         Air  Injection

  EGR  - Exhaust Gas Recircu-
         lation

  1C    - Improved Carburetion

  CAI   - Air  Injection Ahead of
         Catalyst

  OC    - Oxidizing Catalyst

  RC    - Reducing Catalyst
          AI/CAI  - Controlled Air Injection

          EFIC    - Electronic Fuel Injection
                     and Control

          RC/OC  - Three-way Catalyst

          LTR    - Lean Thermal Reactor

          RTR    - Rich Thermal Reactor

          FIC     - Further Improved Carburetion

          IQHI    - Improved Quick Heat Intake
                              2-57

-------
Table 2. 11: Control
Code
Letter
A
B
C
D

1-6,
V-8,
V-8,
V-8,
Engine
CID 250
CID 318
CID 360
CID 454
System Configurations
Control Combinations
1-8
1-8
1-8
1-6,8
Reactor Volumes and Configurations
      Catalytic Reactors

Engine
A
B
C
D
No. of Oxid.
Catalyst
1
1
1
2
Total Vol.
of OC (in 3)
150*
225
225
300
No. of
RC
1
2
2
2
Total Vol. in
RC (in 3)
*
200
250
250
300
      All catalysts used with low lead gas  (  < . 05 gm/gal)
      and they must be replaced every 25, 000 miles.
      Thermal Reactors
Engine
No. of Reactors
Total Vol.  (in  )
A
B
C
D
      1
      2
      2
Not applicable
    200
    240
    270
                                                       ,**
* Pellet, noble metal type (about 2/3 this  size if monolith used).
**Reactor volume is 75% of CID.  This could vary between 70% and
  100% of CID depending on design.
                                   2-58

-------
            Table Z. 1Z:  Pollution, Cost, and Fuel Consumption Characteristics of
                         Alternative Automotive Propulsion Systems
Propulsion System
Pollution
Cost
                                           NO
                                              x
Fuel
Consumption   Ref
6
1
1
6
1
1
10
1
3
1
1. 25
1.Z5
1
1. 1Z
.9-1.1
8
10
34, 35
Spark Ignition
  w/o  controls
  with  controls
  CVCC (w/o controls)

Diesel (pre-chmaber)
  w/o EGR
  with EGR

Rankine Cycle

Gas Turbine

Stirling

a - relative to 1976 Emission Standards
b - relative to the conventional gasoline engine
c - numbers refer to list of references (Section 4.0)
d - w/o controls refers to  reference 197Z vehicles
e - present designs, advanced versions will have NO  emissions closer to 1976 standards
3
3
1
1
25
. Z5
. 7
. 5
1
. 1
6
3.0
4e
8e
. 5
1. 5-Z
1.5-2
2-3
1. 5-Z. 5
1. 5-Z
.65
.65
1. 25-1. 5
1. 0-1. 5
.67
Z7
Z7
40
40
40
                                         Z-59

-------
encountered in urban driving.   Reduction of the NOX emissions from the gas



turbine requires significant modifications of the combustor design.






            2. 6. 2  Conventional Gasoline Engines






            In this section the potential for reducing HC, CO,  NOX emissions



from  medium duty trucks using the various control systems listed in Table



2. 10 is discussed in detail.  Methods are presented for determining the exhaust



emissions from trucks using specified control systems.  This can be done



once the baseline emissions from the truck and the following information char-



acterizing the effectiveness of the control system are known:






      1.    Mean reduction factors.





      2.    Standard deviation of the reduced emissions when the



            system is used on a large number of trucks.





      3.    Mean deterioration factor between 4, 000 and 50, 000



            miles.






Information concerning the effect of the control system  on vehicle driveability



and fuel consumption is also needed to assess the influence of the control



system on the truck operation.  The information needed to  characterize the



control systems  is available for light duty vehicles (GVW less than 6,000 Ibs)



but very little is available pertinent to medium  duty trucks (GVW between



6, 000 and 14, 000 Ibs).  Hence light duty vehicle data must  necessarily be used



extensively in characterizing  the various control systems used on medium duty



trucks.






            The following general approach  was taken in adapting the light



duty vehicle results to medium duty trucks.   First, the control effectiveness



(fractional reduction in HC, CO,  NOX emissions relative to a baseline level)
                                    2-60

-------
of each system when used on standard-sized passenger cars (4500-5000 Ibs)
was determined from emissions data obtained by the automobile industry and
their  suppliers during the course of emission control system development and
evaluation programs for LDV.  Second, it was assumed that for each system
the same  effectiveness could be achieved  for MDV applications after the  system
had been suitably developed to meet the specific needs/conditions of the truck
applications.  Third, when the  limited truck chassis dynamometer and engine
emissions mapping data permitted, the reasonableness of the predicted MDV
control system effectiveness factors was  assessed.   The important topic of the
differences  between the control of emissions from light duty and medium duty
vehicles is  discussed in considerable length in Section  2. 6. 2. 4-5.

                   2. 6. 2. 1   Emission System Control Effectiveness Factors

            As stated previously, it was assumed that the control effectiveness
information available for passenger cars  could be adapted to truck applications
when  expressed in terms of a reduction factor.  As  in the case of the trucks,
the baseline engine/vehicle  configuration  used for light duty vehicles in the
present study was that  of 1972  (outside California).  The corresponding base-
              •J*
line emissions  (gm/mi)  are:

                             HC  -  1. 7 ±  . 63
                             CO  -  16. 5 ± 6
                            NOX  -  4 ± 1

where the uncertainity  is effectively the standard deviation.  This means that
the emissions of 68% of the  cars fall within the range indicated or that 95%
                                                   o- 'Jf
                                                   *T* 1"
fall within the average  ± 2 IT. The baseline  emissions for HC and CO were
obtained from the 1972 light duty  vehicle certification results given in Refer-
ence (8),  while the NOX baseline emission level was taken from the GM
production audit results listed in  Table 2. 13.
  * All emissions results given in this report are for the  1975 CVS-CH test
    procedure.   1972 CVS-C data are converted to 1975 CVS-CH results as
    follows:  1975 HC = 1972 HC/1. 13; 1975 CO = 1972 CO/1. 39; 1975 NO =
    1972 NO.
 ** Based on 25  randomly selected GM,  Ford and Chrysler vehicles having
    inertia weights of 4000 - 5000 pounds.

                                    2-61

-------
               Table 2. 13  Engine Emissions at Low Mileage;

                           Mean and Standard Deviation
GM 1972 production^
audit

Best GM division
1972 production

Potential'  '
best engine emissions,
lean carburetion
              (e\
Potential bestv '
engine emissions,
rich carburetion
                                          Emissions in grams/mile

                                   HC                CO              NQX

                              mean  (S. D. )      mean  (S. D.)     mean  (S. D. )
1.7  (0.64)
1.2  (0.32)
1    (0. 15)
1. 5
22  (8.3)
16  (6.2)
10  (3)
25
4  ( 1)
                                            (c)
4  (  1)
                                            (c)
   2. 5
                                         1. 5
 (a)
   1972 CVS-C test procedure
 ^3656 vehicles tested


 ^'California 7-mode test emissions multiplied by 2

 ' 'Standard-size car,  with quick heat manifold,  improved
   carburetor,  quick acting choke, and EGR


 ^e'Same as (d) and with air injection injection into the exhaust
   manifold
                                     2-62

-------
            Reduction factors are determined by dividing the vehicle emissions

 obtained with a given control system by the mean baseline value.  The reduction

 factor  R  is defined as:


                    R  = X  +_ Y

                                                 •J*
                                                 i-
 The quantity X is the mean reduction factor and Y  is the uncertainity in the

 reduction  factor due to the statistical variation in the emissions data.  Y  can

 be considered as a rough approximation of the standard deviation.  In many

 cases, these was not a sufficient set of data to calculate a true standard

 deviation.  The emission using  the j   control system can then be expressed

 as:
            EM      =   X  (EM)°       i  =  HC, CO,  NO
                 11                        x
            (SD) J.    =   Y  (EM)!

•where

                     =   mean emission of the i   pollutant using system  j

            (SD)     =   standard deviation of the emissions for the i   pollutant

                        and j   system

It will be assumed that  X, Y  are the same for trucks and cars independent
of truck weight.  (EM)°  for the trucks will, of course, vary with weight as

shown in Figures 2.7-9.
            In estimating controlled truck emissions, it is also necessary to

estimate deterioration factors for each system.   This is difficult to do even

for cars for those systems which have been tested in a  large number of vehicles.

Since there are no data available for the durability of control systems used on

medium duty trucks, the deterioration of each system will be rated qualitatively
* The interval about the mean which included all the data except extreme
  outliers was determined by scanning a compiled list of typical emissions
  data for each control system.  Y  was then calculated by dividing one-half
  that interval by the reference baseline value.

                                    2-63

-------
as low, medium,  or high, where each category is defined as  follows:



            low         -          10% or less



            medium     -          10  - 30%



            high        -          30% or greater



It is assumed that the assigned deterioration would occur  over 50, 000 miles in



the case of mechanical components and 25,000 miles in the case of catalysts.






            The effectiveness  of each of the control systems considered for



conventional gasoline  engines  is discussed individually in  the following para-



graphs.  The components  listed for each system are  identified and described



briefly in Appendix A-4.  The emissions data used to determine the  reduction



factor R are referenced and in most cases typical support data are included in



tabular form in Appendix A-5.




System o:  EM° (baseline)



            The baseline system is that  used in most 1972 vehicles outside  of



California.  It consists  entirely of engine modifications such  as spark timing,



carburetor A/F ratio, and compression ratio changes.  The emissions from

                                                                 (Q\

this  system were determined from the 1972 LDV certification data   and the



GM  1972 production audit emissions data given in Table 2. 13.  The reduction



factors are:

                   HC              CO          NOy



              R = 1 + . 375        1 + . 375      1 + .20



Certification data indicate this system has very low deterioration.




System 1;  EM° + El + FC + AI + EGR

                                                       *

            This emission control system is essentially  that used on most 1973



passenger cars.  Its control effectiveness was  determined from the 1973  LDV


                 (9)
certification data   .  The reduction factors are:



                   HC             CO          NO^



              R = 1.35jf.30      l+_.23      .64^.10



This system should show  low  (less than  10%) deterioration.
* El is not standard equipment on most 1973  LDV but this will not have a


  significant effect on low mileage emissions.




                                  2-64

-------
System Z: EM°  + El + 1C + QHI + AI + EGR
             This control system is essentially that which will likely be  used
in LDV in 1975 (outside of California) now that interium standards have been
set by EPA.   The control effectiveness for this  system has been determined
using the GM and Ford data given in References (10, 11).  Sample emissions
data for  this system are given in Table A-5. 1.
                    HC             CO         NOX
               R =  . 65 + . 15     . 55 +_ . 15     . 6 -f . 1
This system should show low  deterioration.

System 3: EM° + El + 1C +  QHI + AI + PC + EGR
             This control system is that which was being developed to meet the
original  LDV 1975  emissions  standards.  Using Ford and GM pre-certifica-
tion       data (Table A-5. 2), the reduction factors for this system were
found to  be:
                    HC              CO          NOX
               R =  . 18 _+ . 05      . 15 + . 03     . 6 -f . 10
The LDV pre-certification data ^    for this system has been analyzed by
EPA^41^  and it was found that the average 50, 000 mile  deterioration
factors were 1.5,  1.5, 1.1  for HC, CO,  NO  emissions respectively.

System 4; EM° + El + 1C +  QHI + EGR + AI/CAI + RC + PC
             This is the control system being developed to meet the  . 4 gm/mi
NOx standard.  There  is relatively little data  available for this system and no
fleet testing  has  been done.  Using the GM data  '^' given in Table A-5. 3,  the
following reduction factors are estimated:
                    HC              CO           NOX
               R =  .18-f.05      .lSjf.03     . 075 +_ . 05
At the present time, this is a  high deterioration system for NOX emissions,
but before it can be put into production this rapid deterioration for NOX would
have to be drastically improved.

System 5; EM° + El + EFIC + EGR  + RC/OC
             This is the most advanced prototype catalyst  system being considered
for gasoline  engines and is in a relatively  early stage of development.  Very
limited emissions data are available for this system but considerable development

                                  2-65

-------
work is currently in progress.  A projection of the .limited test results
(Table A-5.4) indicated that the following system effectiveness can be attained:
                   HC               CO         NOy
              R=.18+.03       .15 + .-25    . 075+_.025
The deterioration of this system depends  on both the catalyst and C>2 sensor
durability.  Achieving low deterioration for this system will require considerable
development work.

System 6:  EM° + El + 1C + QHI +  EGR  + LTR
            This is  the system developed by the Ethyl Corporation and is termed
a "Lean Thermal Reactor".  It is  described in detail in Reference (16).  Per-
tinent emissions data for  the LTR system are given in Table A-5. 5.  The esti-
mated reduction factors are:
                   HC               CO           NOy
              R=.50+_.07       .35^.05     . 375 +_ . 05
Durability data  given in Reference (16)  indicates that the deterioration of this
system is low.
System 7:  EM° + El + FC + EGR + AI + RTR
            This is  the thermal reactor system developed by Dupont    ,  Esso, and
    (13)
GM     and is termed the "Rich Thermal  Reactor".  Typical emissions data using
this system are given in Table A-5. 6.  The estimated  reduction factors  are:
                   HC               CO          NOX
              R=.08 + .02       . 35+_.09     . 17 + . 03
This should be a low deterioration system
System 8:  EM° + El + FIG + IQHI + AI  + EGR
            This is  a system using advanced carburetion and intake air heating
for which the atomized liquid fuel  behaves almost as a gaseous fuel and the need
for choke operation during engine  warmup is eliminated.  Both Ford and GM
are developing such advanced,  non-catalytic low emissions systems.   Emissions
data taken from References (10, 11) for this type of system are given  in Table
A-5. 7.  The estimated (projected) reduction factors are:

                                   2-66

-------
              HC                    CO                   NOy
         R=.40±.07           .30±.05             .35 ± . 05
The projected NOX emissions reduction has been taken essentially equal to that
already achieved by the LTR system.  This should be a low deterioration system.

            The reduction factor information for all the systems considered is
summarized in Table 2. 14.  Note that even though all of these reduction factors
were  developed from LDV emissions data,  it is assumed that comparable
systems in each case can be developed for truck applications with the stated
control effectiveness and durability.  This will undoubtedly require further
development and in some cases new,  but similar, components.  This topic is
discussed in greater detail in Section 2. 6. 2. 5. 2.

                   2. 6. 2. 2   The Effect of Control Systems on Fuel Consumption

            The effect of each of the emissions control systems on truck fuel
consumption was also investigated.  The same sources of data  used to estimate
the emission reduction factors were surveyed to estimate the effect of the con-
trol systems on fuel consumption.   In general, as indicated in Figure 2. 10, the
fuel penalty associated with the emissions  control system increase as the level
of NOX emission is reduced.  However, the magnitude of the  penalty at a given
NOX value is effected by the control method used to reduce NOX.  The various
methods are given below ranked in order of increasing fuel penalty.

                   1.   Reducing catalyst
                   2.   Lean carburetion
                   3.   EGR
                   4.   Rich carburetion

            There are two methods which are commonly  used to determine the
fuel economy for a given vehicle/engine/control  system combination.  One
involves actual road testing of the  vehicle over a specified driving route and
                           (19)
the second involves the use     of vehicle mass  emissions (CO.,, CO) ob-
                                     2-67

-------
                        Table 2. 14 Summary of Emission Control System Reduction Factors
                                                   Reduction Factors
                                                                   (2)
i
o^
oo
No.

 0

 1.


 2.


 3.



 4.



 5.


 6.


 7.


 8.
                    EM
                       ,(1)
EM° + El + FC +
AI + EGR

EM° + El + 1C +
QHI + AI + EGR

EM° + El + 1C +
QHI + EGR + AI
+ OC

EM° + El + 1C +
QHI + EGR + RC
+ AI/CAI + OC

EM° + El + EFIC
+ EGR + RC/OC

EM° + El + 1C +
QHI + EGR + LTR

EM° + El + FC +
EGR + AI + RTR

EM° + El + FIC +
IQHI + AI + EGR
   HC1_4>

 1 ± .375

1.35 ± . 30


. 65 ± . 15


. 18 ± .05



. 18 ± .05



. 18 ± .03


.50 ±.09


.08 ±.02


.40 ±.07
    ccf4)

 1 ±.375

 1.0 ± . 23


 . 55 ± . 15


 . 15 ± . 03



 . 15 ± .03



.15 ±.025


 . 35 ± .05


 . 35 ± .09


 .30 ±.05
   1 ± . 20

  . 6 ± . 10


  . 6 ± . 10


  . 6 ± . 10



,075 ±.05



 075±.035


 .375 ±.05


 . 17 ± .03


 . 35 ± .05
   System
Deterioration

     L

     L
                                                                                                   (3)
 M (HC.CO)
 L (NO  )
      x

 M (HC.CO)
 H (NOX)


     H


     L


    L/M
                   (1)  Baseline engine - 1972                          #
                   (2)  System effectiveness at low mileage (£4000 miles)
                   (3)  Deterioration of present systems; L= 10%, M = 10 -  30%,  H=30%
                   (4)  All emissions data taken using or corrected to 1975 CVS-CH test procedure
                     * Based on LDV prototype systems, see pg.  2-63 for explanation.

-------
NOX CHANGED BY VARYING  FUEL, EGR AND SECONDARY AIR METERING

                                                      (REF. 21)
                 1.5
                 1.0
NOx-GM/MI.
(DETERMINED ON
   CVS TEST)   0.5
                  0
                    0        10         20        30         40
           FUEL ECONOMY  - % LOSS  FROM BASELINE  CVS
                                                (REF. 20)
                            o
                            O ITR
                            • IT"
                            < ITR
                            a
                            A
                            n
                            cf
                            0
R.
ft.
R*
R*
in.
IS.
T*.
Tff.
cm
f.»
,„
'*"
C(p
'.R
',*>
r.»
f-»
"Wfl
F-»<
f Mr
[inr
MJ1"1
»tcr
n'.o
f '.'.0
i'C/f/
IM'JM
MrV-.,'H| '.
ros-ufj C
p(/vt'*'. | C
C»fv) C
I [»;'Tjf r S^TtM) N
«w) T
/>w 1 C
•) f*T crwv C
f H VM ' v( H J
'
r
If -f rPf
oi 1IR
J* ">r''r/
9Ht»*t
'f
I ' - StjO

                              BIB.fCP. HC/CO Cil COWV
                              |fO«0"«AIIUUU H'OBI" VIM I
    [OR . K/CO CAT COW
    "MODIFIED M«> (iFo«T'vtH)
X  mR.[CRICHR»SLE»)
+  «/COC
-------
tained from a standard chassis dynamometer emissions test.  The fuel eco-
nomy experienced with a given vehicle varies significantly depending on the
type of driving (city, suburban, highway,  etc. ) of interest.   In the present
study, the fuel economy results discussed correspond to city/suburban driving
appropriate to the LA-4 driving cycle.  It is assumed that the incremental
effect (fuel penalty) of the control  system can be determined equally well
using the road test and chassis dynamometer approaches.

            The format for expressing the fuel penalty factor FP is similar
to that used for the  reduction factors R - namely:

                   (FP). = A.  ±a.
                       J    J    J
                                                          tVi
where             A. = average fuel penalty {%) using the j  system
                   a-  = scatter of the fuel penalty data (%) for the
                        .th
                        j   system.
"a" is essentially the S. D. of  the fuel economy data (MPG).   As in the case of
emissions, the baseline for fuel economy was taken to be 1972 model trucks.
                            o
The baseline fuel economy Fe (miles per gallon on the LA-4 driving cycle)
was calculated from the (CO7,CO) emission  data for 1972-73 trucks given
                                                (19)          °           .
in Reference (18) using the following  relationship    between Fe, (CO } , (CO)

                   F°e  =          236°
                          .429 (CO) + . 272CC02)
                    o
where             Fe^MPG;(COj,  (CO2)~gm/mi

                           o
As  shown in Figure 2. 11,  Fe is a function of both vehicle inertia weight and
engine CID.  The fuel economy for a given vehicle/engine/control  system
combination can be expressed as:

                   Fe = Fe/1  + FP
                                    2-70

-------
      13
tSJ
1
                                              Iw - INERTIA WT, K-LB
                       Figure 2.11   BASELINE FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)  FOR MEDIUM DUTY VEHICLES

-------
            Fuel penalty information for the various control systems con-
sidered is summarized in Table 2.15.  Indicated in the table are the sources
of the data used to estimate the fuel penalty for each system.  Typical data
are given in Appendix A6.  As in the case of emissions reduction factors
R, it is assumed that the fuel penalty factor FP determined using LDV data
is also applicable for trucks independent of inertia weight.

                   2. 6. 2. 3   Effect of Emissions Control on Truck
                             Driveability and Engine Selection

            In addition to the fuel penalty which was discussed in the previous
section, the use of emissions control systems  on conventional gasoline
engines can lead to other undesireable side-effects on vehicle operation.
These other side effects which  are often grouped together and called drive-
ability problems include surge  and hestitation during acceleration,  rough
idle or  stall when the engine is  cold,  and reduced vehicle performance (ex.
rate of  acceleration or maximum speed). The major source of these drive-
ability problems is the control  means taken to  reduce the NOX emissions.
These include EGR ,  retarded timing, and very lean carbureter A/F ratios.
The result is less efficient and rougher combustion especially at high engine
RPM.   These effects are shown in Figure 2. 12 which was taken from Reference (21).
Note that the  average peak pressure is reduced by  about 15% using 10% EGR
and that the cycle-to-cycle torque variation increases significantly with both
% EGR  and  leaner A /F ratios.  Hence in order to maintain a desired engine
smoothness and response  it becomes necessary to  operate at richer carbu-
reter settings when EGR  is  used.  This results in reduced fuel economy.
Driveability problems associated with cold engine operation are less basic
and are presently being minimized using quick heat air induction systems
and programmed spark advance. It  can  be expected that driveability problems
due to the use of EGR will decrease  as more sophisticated carbureters are
developed.

            The effect of EGR and the other means of controlling NO.X emis-
                                  2-72

-------
              Table 2. 15  Summary of Emission Control System

                          Fuel Penalty Factors
No.

 0

 1.


 2.


 3.


 4.


 5.


 6.


 7.


 8.
EM'
      System

    ,(1)
Fuel Penalty

Factor (2)(%)
Sources/Tables
                                                                  (3)
EM°  + El + FC
+ AI + EGR

EM°  + El + 1C + QHI
+ AI + EGR

EM°  + El + 1C + QHI
+ EGR + AI + OC

EM° + El + 1C + EGR
+ RC  + AI/CAI + OC

EM° + El + EFIC +
EGR + RC/OC

EM° + El + 1C + QHI
+ EGR + LTR

EM° + El + FC + EGR
+ AI + RTR

EM° + El + FIC  + IQHI
+ AI + EGR
7
5
8
12
3
8
25
3
± 3
± 2
± 2
± 2
± 2
± 2
± 5
± 2
                Reference (9)
                Reference (10, 11, 13)
                Reference (10, 11),  Table A6. 1
                Reference (2)
                Reference (15)
                Reference (16),  Table A6. 2
                Reference (13),  Table A5. 6
                Reference (10, 11)
      (1)  Baseline engine - 1972 (baseline fuel economy)

      (2)  Fuel penalty in urban driving (LA-4 driving cycle)

      (3)  Tables found in Appendixes A5.A6.
                                    2-73

-------
ENGINE SPEED:  2000 RPM - BRAKE MEAN EFFECTIVE PRESSURE:  42.7 PSI - IGNITION TIMING:  40° BTDC
 Pmax-pSI
     427
     356
     284
     214
           A.
           A..
            I
                   W/0 EGR
                       \
\
    10%
 °  15%
 A  20%
    I	I
           12   14  16   18
              A/F RATIO
CRANK ANGLE AT
PmaxATDC-DEG'
                   12   14   16   18
                       A/F RATIO
                                                      CRANK ANGLE AT
28
26

24

22
20

18
16

14

_
15% EGR
0
/
o
0/ W/O EGR
/ o*"~°
o o

- /
y
./
i i i i
                           28
                           26
                           24
                           22
                           20
                           18
                           16
                           14
                                                      (REF. 21)
                                                                A/F = 13.0
                                                               I
                                                                      I
                                                                         I	I
                                  0   5  10  15  20
                                    EGR RATIO
          ENGINE SPEED:  2000 RPM  - TORQUE:  26 FT.-LB. - IGNITION TIMING:  40° BTDC
             16
             14
             12
    TORQUE
  VARIATION 10
     RATE
       %      8
              6
              4
              2
              0
                   11
          12
                                             15%  10%
                                             EGR  EGR
                                       5%   WITHOUT
                                       EGR
                                  EGR
                          I
                                  I
      13
 14       15
A/F  RATIO
16
17
18
          Figure 2.12   EFFECT OF EGR ON CYLINDER COMBUSTION PARAMETERS
                                           2-74

-------
sions on driveability will likely be more serious for trucks than LDV because
the lower power-to-weight ratio of trucks  and their driveline characteristics
(gear and axle ratios) result in engine operation at high loads and engine
RPM a greater fraction of the time.  Hence a reduction in maximum horse-
power and the occurrence of rough combustion at high RPM are more  notice-
able in MDV than in light duty vehicles.  As  a result it is likely that larger
engines will be used in trucks than in the past and that it will be more dif-
ficult to attain the desired emissions reductions and at the same  time  main-
tain good  vehicle  driveability.

                   2.6.2.4   Emission Control System Characteristics
                             (Data) for Medium Duty Tr.ucks

            As noted previously,  the emission reduction and fuel penalty
factors defined in the  two previous sections were evaluated using  light duty
vehicle data.  This was unavoidable because only very limited medium duty
data were available.   In this section, the available MDV data are  summarized
and their  compatibility with the emissions reduction and fuel penalty factor
predictions assessed.

            Emission  control system data  pertinent to MDV with  gasoline
                                                         / 1 Q\
engines are available  from two sources.  EPA/Ann Arbor    tested two
trucks which were retrofitted with EGR and an oxidizing catalyst; Southwest
Research Institute (SWRlr   has  performed a series of engine dynamometer
tests on two V-8, heavy duty, gasoline engines fitted with various control
systems including EGR, air  injection, and an oxidizing catalyst.   These two
sets of data are summarized in Tables 2.16-17 for comparison with the pre-
viously determined emission reduction and fuel penalty factors.

            In Table 2.16, composite emissions data for HC, CO, NOX are
shown for the pick-up truck and the stake truck tested at inertia weights
between 5500 and 7000 Ibs.  Also shown are data for a light duty Ford F-100
truck having a 1975 prototype emissions  control system tested  at 4500 Ibs.

                                   2-75

-------
                 TABLE 2.16



SUMMARY OF MEDIUM DUTY TRUCK EMISSION



   CONTROL SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS DATA
                                                                Fuel
Truck
Inertia
Weight
Control
System
Pick-up(1972) 5500 none
Pick-up(1972) 5500 EGR+OC(1)
Pick-up(1972) 6500 none
Pick-up(1972) 6500 EGR+OC^
Stake(1972) 7000 none
Stake(1972) 7000 EGR+OC*2)
F-100(1975)(3) 4500 EGR+OC+AJ
(1) 60 in volume, retrofit
(2) 180 in volume, retrofit
(3) 1975 prototype Ford System
(4) Reduction factors calculated from
(5) All emissions in gm/mi using 1975
Data
Source
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
baseline
CVS-CH
HC<5) RHC
3.23
. 35 . 108
2.92
.50 .171
7.99
1.20 .15
.20 .117®
emissions (1972
test procedure
co'5' Rco
44
3.29 .075
39.6
7.. 25 .181
81.9
10.99 .134
1.39 .085
LDV)
NO*5'
X
6.43
2.91
6.58
4. 02
7.49
4.16
2. 56
Penalty
NO MPG FP(%)
11.2
.454 10.25 9.0
10.0
.625 8.85 I3-0
10.2
.55 8.7 17
.63 10.8 10

-------
                                                   TABLE 2. 17

                              SUMMARY OF ENGINE DYNAMOMETER EMISSION
                                   CONTROL  SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS DATA
         Engine
                                                        Emissions (gm/bhp-hr)
      .  .  Control
Source    System
HC.
                                                           R
HC    CO
                     R
CO   NO
                                                                                    bsfc   Fuel
                                                                                    Ib/hp- Penalty
                                                                               NO    hr    FP(%)
r\>
i
V-8, 350 CID

V-8, 350 CID

V-8, 361 CID

V-8, 361 CID
                     (2)
                              SWRI     none
                       8.82
              31.4
                   10.85
                             SWRI     none
                      13.0
              35.4
                   11.00
                   . 620
                             SWRI     EGR+OC+AI   2.22    .25    18.6   .59     6.23  .58    .667     7.5
                   .733
                             SWRI     EGR+OC+AI   1.31   .104   19.2   .54     4.09 -39    .831    11.2
         (1)  Data taken from Reference (22)
         (2)  350 CID engine designated as 2-3 in Reference (22)

         (3)  361 CID engine designated as 1-3 in Reference (22)

-------
For each truck,  the  emission reduction and penalty factors are shown in the
table.  It is encouraging that in most instances the factors fall within the
ranges given  in Tables 2.14.  It is also of interest to compare the composite
emissions and bag data for the retrofitted trucks tested at .EPA and the cor-
responding emissions data for the light duty truck equipped with the 1975
prototype control system.  Such data are shown in Table 2. 18. Note that in
general the trends of the emissions from bag-to-bag are very similar for
the retrofitted medium duty trucks and the "factory equipped" light duty
truck indicating that  the behavior of the catalyst in cold as compared to hot
starts and hot transient operation is essentially unchanged over the weight
range. This  again offers encouragement that the reduction factors obtained
from LDV data are applicable for medium duty vehicles.  It also shows for
MDV as for LDV the dominance of the engine warmup HC and CO emissions
on the composite vehicle emissions for the 1975 CVS-CH test procedure.

                                                               (22)
            The  engine dynamometer emissions data from SWRI     are
summarized in Table 2.17.  The engines were tested using the 23-mode cycle
with the composite cycle emissions given in terms of gm/bhp-hr.  The ef-
fective emissions reduction factors for each pollutant were determined by
dividing the controlled and uncontrolled composite cycle emissions values.
The reduction factors for the HC and NOX are in reasonable agreement with
those  given in Table  2.14, but the reduction in CO emissions is much smaller
than would be expected with the use of a catalytic reactor.

            Fuel penalty factor results are also shown in Tables  2. 16-17.
As  in  the  case of the reduction factors,  the fuel penalty results from the
truck  tests are in reasonable agreement with the values  obtained from LDV
data.
                   2.6.2.5 Differences Between Controlling Emissions
                            from Light Duty and Medium- Duty Vehicles
            The preceding considerations of reducing emissions from medium
                                    2-78

-------
BAG EMISSIONS DATAX
       TABLE 2.18
FROM LIGHT DUTY AND MEDIUM DUTY VEHICLES




Vehicle
1973 Chev(Z)
1975 Chev
1975 Plym
1975 Buick
1975 F-100
1972 Stake truck
1972 Stake truck
1972 Stake truck
1972 Stake truck
1972 Stake truck
1972 Chev Pickup
1972 Chev Pickup
1972 Chev Pickup
1972 Chev Pickup
(1) Low mileage;



Inertia Control
Weight System
4500 System 1
4500 System 3
4500 System 3
4500 System 3
4500 System 3
5500 EGR + OC(3)
6000 EGR + OC(3)
6500 EGR + OC*3'
7000 EGR + OC*3)
7000 None
5500 None
5500 EGR + OC<4)
(4)
6500 EGR + OC*
6500 None



Composite
Emissions (gm/mi)

HC
2.75
.38
.38
.34
.20
.97
1. 13
1.11
1.2
7.7
3.3
. 34
.51
3.0
Date received from EPA

CO
24. 1
1.86
4. 11
2.27
1.39
7.75
11.0
11.5
11.7
82.0
47.o
2.9
7.2
41.0


NO
X
2.7
2.2
2.80
1.47
2.56
3.5
4.5
4.36
4. 1
7.6
6.0
2.9
.4.0
6.7


Bag #1

Bag #3



Bag #2

Emission (gm/mi)

HC
3.6
1.00
1.39
.87
. 35
2.2
2.69
2.66
2.90
8.6
4. 3
.82
1.20
6.7

(2) This data taken at Calspan

CO NO
X
30.0 3.25
7.53 3.26
16.2 3.19
9.08 2.08
7.47 2.82
25.0 4.0
29.0 5.1
35.0 5.3
35.0 4.8
88.0 8.6
62.0 7.2
11.5 3.86
2.3 4.85
5.7 7.87
HC
2.9
.38
. 15
.23
.33
.66
.85
.72
.80
6.8
2.8
.25
.46
3.0
(3) Retrofit; OC Vol
(4) Retrofit; OC Vol

CO
27.6
1.93
1.80
.90
.65
5.4
8.6
8.84
9.1
75.0
29.0
1.2
-
3.3
= 60 in3
= 180 in*

NO
X
3.07
2.49
3.0
1.47
3.02
4.6
5.8
6.25
5.2
8.54
7.6
3.72
-
8.5
HC
2.65
. 15
. 10
.09
. 10
.645
.68
.70
.69
7.8
3.2
.19
.25
2.9



CO NO
X
22.3 1.96
.09 1.66
.57 2.54
.30 1.23
.16 2.21
. 2.06 2.76
5.0 3.8
5.55 2.94
3. 50 3. 20
82.0 7.5
52.0 4.6
. 38 2. 09
.76 2.67
39. 5.2



-------
duty trucks have rested heavily on experience and data from control systems
on light duty vehicles.   There are,  however, differences in controlling emis-
sions from  vehicles in the two weight classes which should be considered.
These differences are mainly due to the fact that the power-to-weight ratio of
light duty vehicles does not change  significantly with weight.  For medium duty
trucks, however, the power-to-weight ratio tends to decrease as the GVW
increases.  This occurs for the most part because the same size (CID) engines
are used in both standard-sized cars and  medium duty trucks.  When the en-
gine is used in a MDV,  it  operates  at a higher load which on the average results
in higher  emissions with increasing vehicle weight (see Figures 2. 7-9). As shown
by the pre-control surveillance data for LDV given in Reference (39),  this is
not the case for LDV except for NO  emissions since the emissions  levels found
                          r         x
for HC and CO did not vary systematically with vehicle weight up to  5500 pounds.
An analytical method for estimating the increase in baseline emissions with
weight for MDV has been developed.  The method is  described in some detail in
Appendix  A7 with only the basic approach and numerical results being given in
the main body of the  report (Section 2. 6. 2. 5. 1).  The effect of the increased
engine load on the design and operation of the various control systems is  then
discussed qualitatively in Section 2. 6. 2. 5. 2.

                  2.6.2.5.1   Incremental Effect of Vehicle Weight
                              on Baseline Emissions

             As shown in Figures 2.7-9,  the baseline emissions of MDV increase
with vehicle inertia weight.   This increase in emissions is usually attributed
to the higher engine HP required to propel the heavier vehicle.  A simple
analytical method was  developed to predict the effect of vehicle weight on
emissions (gm/hr) as a function of load (HP) and engine RPM, vehicle char-
acteristics (weight, frontal area, drag coefficient,  rolling resistance,  axle
ratio, etc. ),  and driving cycle (average speed, percent time in acceleration
and cruise,  etc. ).  The method, which does not attempt to account for the
effect of cold starts  or  driving transients,  is described in Appendix A7.  It is
assumed  that most of the  incremental emissions beyond that  for a standard
                                    2-80

-------
size LDV with the same engine are due to the increased horsepower required


to accelerate  the vehicle and to maintain cruise velocity.   Hence only the


incremental and not the baseline LDV emissions are calculated.




           Four vehicle classes are considered in the  analysis - pick-up


truck, van, stop-van, and passenger car.  For each vehicle class, the


mean horsepower required in acceleration and  cruise driving modes  is cal-


culated from the  following equation.



      (HP) road  = -i-   .0668 WV ^-     +     .0039  CD  AF  ~V3~~
                                       dt
                                        +    V W  (K  + K2 V)
      where
             W  =  Vehicle weight (Ibs)



      C   , A   =  Drag coeeficient and front area (ft ) of the vehicle



             V  =  Speed (mph)


       d V
      —-—     =  Acceleration (mph/sec)



      ——3—    =  Average of the velocity cubed



      K^  , K£   =  Constants in the rolling resistance equation


The constants associated with each class of vehicles  are given below.
Vehicle
Pick-up Truck
Van
Stop-Van
Passenger Car
CD
.5
.65
.65
.45
AF (ft2)
29
34
44
21
Kl
. 015
. 015
. 014
. 017
K2
. 00026
. 00026
. 00022
. 000334
            In order to caluculate the mean horsepower in the acceleration


and cruise modes appropriate to the LA-4 driving cycles, one requires values


for the following quantities.


                   V  = average velocity in the mode


                 d V  = average acceleration  in the mode

                  dt

                                    2-81

-------
                 V    =   average of the velocity cubed in the mode

Such information is  conveniently summarized in ref (23).  In the present
work,  the 5-city composite results were used as they compare closest with
the LA-4 cycle.  Distribution of total time in mode, acceleration,  and velocity
mode data are given in Appendix A7.  The driving cycle inputs needed to
calculate the mean horsepower and incremental emissions are summarized
in Table 2.19.

      Eq. (I) was evaluated for the four vehicle classes and a range of vehicle
weight.  The results are shown in Table 2. 20.  As expected the required mean
horsepower for both acceleration and cruise modes increases with vehicle
weight.  The engine RPM for the  two  operating modes of interest were also
determined.   It was found that
                                                Eng.  RPM
	Mode	Velocity	Car	Truck	
  Acceleration              26            1450             1970
   Cruise                    37            1300             1770

Now one can proceed to calculate the  incremental emissions from the engine
emission mapping data.

           It was assumed that all the vehicles were powered by a V-8,
350 CID engine.  Engine dynamometer emissions data for that engine are
given in Reference (22)  (designated as 2-3 in that report). Unfortunately, the
test cycle included only 1200 and  2300 RPM as shown in Figures A-7. 2-4.  Inter-
mediate RPM were  faired in  following the general shape of two bounding data
curves.  The general approach taken  was to calculate the difference  between
the emissions  from a truck of weight  I   and a reference  passenger car  of
weight 4500 having the same  engine.  The average emissions  from the re-
ference  passenger car for the LA-4 driving cycle are well know  from emis-
sions tests.  It is assumed that the trucks are tested on the same LA-4 driving
cycle.  Hence the total cycle time is  23 minutes and the length of the. route is
7. 5 miles.  Now the incremental  emissions from a truck can be  written as
                                     2-82

-------
                              TABLE 2. 19
        URBAN DRIVING CYCLE CHARACTERIZATION
                                 Total Time in Mode
Mode
Idle
Cruise
Acceleration
Deceleration
5-City
Composite
12.9
31.8
29.1
26.2
N.Y.C.
17.5
26. 5
29. 1
27.0
LA-4
13.6
27. 3
31.7
27. 5
                      Average Velocity     Average Acceleration   _
                        V  (mph)           dv/dt (mph/sec)        V
Acceleration
Cruise
26
37
.8
0
25,000
76,700
(1)    Data obtained from Ref (23)

(2)    Average conditions are for the 5-city composite
                                  2-83

-------
                      TABLE .2.20
            ROAD AND ENGINE HORSEPOWERS
         FOR ACCELERATION AND CRUISE MODES
 Acceleration Mode
    Cruise Mode
W Pick-Up
4500 18.6
(24.8)
6000 23.9
(31.9)
8000 31.0
(41.2)
10000 38.1
(50.5)
12000 45.2
(60.2)
52. 3
(69.5)
HP
Van
19.9
(26. 5)
25.2
(33.4)
32.4
(43.0)
39.5
(52.5)
46.6
(61.8)
53.7
(71.5)
Stop- Van
20.6
(27.2)
25.8
(34.2)
32.7
(43.4)
39.7
(52.7)
46.6
(61.8)
53.5
(71)
Pick-Up
15. 3
(16.9)
17.8
(19.8)
21. 1
(23.4)
24.5
(27.2)
27.8
(30.8)
31.0
(34.4)
HP
Van
19.5
(21.6)
22
(24.4)
25. 3
(26.0)
28.6
(31.7)
31.9
(34.4)
35.2
(39.2)
Stop-Van
22. 3
(24.8)
24. 5
(27.3)
27. 5
(30.5)
30.4
(33.6)
33.4
(37.2)
36.4
(40. 5)
Top number     = road horsepower
Bottom number  ~ engine horsepower

Values for 4500 passenger car
     Acceleration Mode
           18.5
           (24.7)
Cruise Mode
   14.0
  (15.5)
                           2-84

-------
                                       .  / gmE )    ~|
                                          V   h*7450° I
                                                    carl
E   (gm/mi)  =[/gmE     ]      _  / gm E |     /  23
                           'truck "  \    hr /4500  [  60  (% time in mode
                                                         7.5 mi
                   E = HC, CO,  NO                                   (2)
                                  .X
 Equation (2) is applied for both the acceleration and the cruise mode.
GmE/hr are obtained from Figures A-7. 2-4 using the appropriate values of HP
 and engine RPM.   Table A-7. 2 shows a typical set of calculations for the van-
 truck.

            The computed emissions results are compared with the medium
 duty truck baseline correlations as a function of inertia weight in Figure 2. 13.
 In the case of HC and NO  the prediction procedure does reasonably well in
                        .X
 accounting for the effect of vehicle weight and in giving a reasonable estimate
 of the initial value at I. = 4500 Ibs.   In the case of CO,  however,  both the
 trend with weight and the initial value are much less than was found exper-
 imentally.  These large discrepancies are probably due to the importance
 of the cold start and the fact that the mean horsepower  approach does not
 account for time spent near rated  horsepower where the  specific  emissions
 (gm/bhp-hr) are very high.  As might be expected the  averaging approach
 works best for NO  emissions which vary smoothly with HP.
                  x
                   2.6.2.5.2  Differences in the design and operation
                               of Emissions Control Systems in Trucks
                               and Cars.
            As noted previously a key assumption in the present study wac
that the same emission reduction effectiveness could be achieved with a given
control system in a medium duty truck  as in a light duty vehicle.  In addition,
satisfactory system durability and vehicle driveability are required in the
truck.  There  are, however, several reasons why it might prove to be dif-
ficult to attain these  goals for certain truck/engine/control system combina-
tions.   These differences between the design and operation of emissions  con-
trol systems in medium duty trucks  and passenger cars are considered in this
section.

                                    2-85

-------
                                             !„ INERTIA WT. K LB
            *•  <
           VAN-TRUCK
           V-8, 350 CID
8 60
        PflEDICTEO INITIAL VALUE - 8.6 jm/ml

                          I^NCRTIA WT. K4.B
                                                               •         a
                                                                   l^-INERTIA WT. K-L8
    Figure 2.13   COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED EMISSIONS AS A FUNCTION
                 OF VEHICLE INERTIA WEIGHT
                                              2-86

-------
            As discussed in the  previous  section,  it is common practice for
many MDV  to operate at much lower power-to-weight ratios than for passenger
cars.  Hence when used in a truck an engine operates at a greater fraction of
its  rated horsepower than in a car.  The increase  in engine load  (HP) was
calculated as a function of vehicle weight and shape in the previous section.
In addition,  at a given vehicle  speed,  the engine RPM is higher for a truck
than a passenger car because the axle ratio used in trucks is considerably
higher.  The higher axle ratio is needed to partially compensate for the lower
power-to-weight ratio.  Hence,  in general,  a given engine  operates at a higher
load (HP) and higher speed (RPM) when it is used in a truck than  in a car.  These
differences  in engine operating conditions can have important consequences in
applying the various  control systems  to medium duty trucks.

            Consider first the  effect of higher engine RPM.  This could make
it more difficult to maintain acceptable driveability when using EGR,  retarded
spark timing, and lean carburetor settings to reduce NO   and lead to  the  use
                                                      .X
of larger engines (greater CID) in medium duty trucks than is  the current
practice. Acceptable driveability could also be maintained by using richer
carburetion but this would result in an additional fuel penalty.  Both of these
approaches  to solving the driveability problem would lead to higher operating
costs.  Improved fuel systems (carbureters,  fuel injection,  etc.) and  more
sophisticated control of proportional EGR systems hopsfully will  minimize
driveability problem in trucks with reduced NO emissions and not require
either of the above remedies.

            Engines in trucks also operate at higher horsepower than those  in
care for a given type of driving.  This can have important consequences  relative
to the durability of catalytic converters, because it results in higher pollutant
flow rates and exhaust gas temperatures than would be experienced in a light
duty vehicle. The higher  heat load to the catalytic converter would occur
both during  part-to-full throttle  and motoring (deceleration) modes of engine
operation.   It is likely that the higher catalyst operating temperature  will at
least compensate for the reduced gas residence time and, as a result, the

                                   2-87

-------
conversion efficiency  of the converter in the MDV will be at least as high as
in a LDV.  However, it can be expected that to attain the  required system dura-
bility and to optimize the conversion, efficiency (achieve minimum emissions)
                              (24)
considerable development work    beyond that done for LDV will be necessary.
In that work, various combinations of converter volume,  location, catalyst
loading,  and cross-sectional flow area would be tested.  In addition,  more
elaborate catalyst protection schemes than those found necessary for LDV will
probably be needed for MDV because in the latter case the catalysts will operate
at a higher average  temperature.

            2. 6. 3 Alternative Engines

            The exhaust emissions from medium duty trucks can be reduced
by replacing the conventional gasoline engine by an alternative engine having
lower baseline emissions.  As indicated in Table 2. 12, a number of such
power plants are being developed which can be  considered for future use in
MDV.  At the present time, none of these alternative engines is developed to
the point that mass production is possible within the next  several year even
though several of them are attractive possibilities to at least share the MDV
engine market with the conventional gasoline engine within ten  years.  The
most promising of the alternative engines are the light weight diesel and the
three-valve carbureted pre-chamber (CVCC) engine.  Development work on
both of these engines is proceeding rapidly at the present time and it appears
likely they could be  in limited production in 5 or 6 years.  The emissions and
fuel consumption characteristics of these  engines are discussed  in the following
sections.

                   2. 6. 3. 1  Diesel Engines

            At the present time diesel engines  are used in the majority of
heavy trucks (GVW>20,000 Ibs) because they have better  durability, lower

                                    2-88

-------
maintanence costs, and superior fuel economy than the conventional gasoline
engine.  Diesel engines are, however, significantly heavier,  larger,  and
initially more costly than the comparable gasoline  engine of the same horse-
power.  It is these latter disadvantages which have precluded the extensive
use of the diesel engine in medium duty trucks at the present time.  Work is
presently underway, mostly in Europe and Japan, to develop  a light weight
diesel engine that would be suitable for both light duty and medium duty truck
applications.  The approach being taken is to tradeoff some of the extreme
durability (up to 500, 000 miles before overhaul) for reductions in weight,
size, and inital cost.  In all probability,  the advanced light weight diesel would
be turbo charged and be of the pre-chamber design.  It would still be
slightly (25%) heavier  and larger than the comparable gasoline engine, but
would have  significantly lower baseline emissions and fuel consumption. It
is assumed in the present study that the emission and fuel consumption char-
acteristics  of the light weight diesel will be comparable to those of the present
heavy duty versions of the same type (example, turbocharged pre-chamber  or
naturally aspirated direct injection).  Considerable data are available for the
heavy duty diesel engines presently being used on heavy duty trucks.

                             2.6.3. 1. 1    Emissions and Fuel Consumption
                                          Characteristics of Diesel Engines

            Most of the  emissions data pertinent to diesel enigneshave been
obtained on the  engine dynamometer because for heavy duty vehicles,  the
emissions standards are set for the  engine alone rather than for the vehicle/
engine combinationas  in the case of light duty vehicles.  The  only chassis
dynamometer (LA-4) emissions data  (gm/mi)  available for a vehicle using  a
diesel engine is that given in Reference (25) for the Mercedes 220 D which  uses
a 4-cylinder, naturally aspirated,  pre-chamber engine.  As expected the
emissions levels for that vehicle with the diesel engine were  much  lower than
the corresponding emissions for the vehicle with a gasoline engine, but no
                                     2-89

-------
direct use was made of those data in the present program because of the size
and type of the diesel engine used.  Hence in the present work engine dynamo-
meter emissions data are used and a method developed to convert them to driving
cycle emissions (gm/mi) for a truck of specified weight and shape.

           Engine dynamometer  emissions data for diesels of various types
are summarized in References (26, 27).  The engines were tested using several
test cycles (7, 9, 13, 23 - mode test procedures).  All the data used herein were
obtained using either the  13 or 23 - mode test procedures which were  found in
Reference (28) to  yield equivalent results.   The composite cycle  emissions data
are reported (26,27) as gm/bhp-hr while the specific mass emissions for each
steady-state  mode are given as gm/hr for specified load (HP) and engine RPM.
Composite cycle emissions data for uncontrolled diesel and gasoline engines
are summarized in Table  2.21 using results reported in References (22,26-28).
Average baseline  values for the HC, CO, NOX emissions from a  conventional
gasoline engine,  a turbocharged direct injection diesel  and a turbocharged pre-
chamber diesel are given  at the bottom of Table 2. 21 in terms of gm/bhp-hr.
It is clear that the baseline HC and CO emissions for the diesel engines  are
much lower than for  the gasoline  engine.  It is  also of interest to note that the
baseline NOX emissions from the  pre-chamber diesel are also significantly
lower than for the gasoline engine.

           In order  to compare the diesel emissions with those  previously
estimated for the  gasoline engine  with and without emission controls,  it .is
necessary to convert engine dynamometer emissions results (gm/bhp-hr) to
driving cycle results (gm/mi).  This can be done in an approximate manner by
defining an average horsepower HP and average velocity V for the driving
cycle.  Then one  can write;
           Emissions (gm/mi) = (C. F. ) Emissions (gm/bhp-hr)
where                       C. F.  = ~HP/V

                                   2-90

-------
              TABLE 2. 21
ENGINE EMISSIONS CHARACTERISTICS

          Emissions  - gm/bhp-hr
(1)
                                                Fuel
                                            Consumption
Engine
(2)
gasoline-22
gasoline-23
gasoline-2-3

gasoline- 1-3
Diesel-16 p
'i'
Diesel- 18
Diesel-19
Diesel-A
Diesel-B
*
Diesel-G
-,-
Diesel-H'
Diesel-I p
Source
B/M
B/M
(28)
(28)
SWRI<22>

(77\
swRr~~;
B/M

B/M
B/M
B/M
B/M
B/M

B/M
B/M
(28)
(28)
\ *-^ /
(28)
(26)
(26)
(26)
(26)
\ *-* *-* /
(26)
HC
7.
8.
8.

13.


2.
3.
1.
3.
3.

2.
•
67
30
73

34
28

34
26
9
1
1

6
3
Average
gasoline
Dies el- Df
V
Diesel-IDI p
(1) 13/23 -
(2) engine








8
2.

•

68

29
CO
33
41
29

32
1

3
5
10
4
3

4
2
.4
.6
.6

. 3
. H

.74
.21
.0
.2
.9

. 9
. 3
NO
9.
9.
10.

11.
4.

12.
7.
8.
6.
17.

11.
6.
X
6
6
3

7
8

6
7
7
7
8

7
1
Ib/bhp-hr
. 649
. 575
. 631

. 733
. 432

.421
. 502
_
„
„

-
-
Values
37
4

1
.5
. 11

.71
9.
13.

5.
6
8

5
. 647
.421

. 432
• mode test procedure
designation in source reference
* turbocharged
p pre-chamber
B/M Bureau
of Mines; SWRI
- Southwest
Research
Institute
( ) reference
                   2-91

-------
can be used as the conversion factor between the two sets of emissions data.



The average horsepower can be calculated using the engine load results of



Appendix A-7 and the driving mode data of Table 2. 19 in the relation:
                   HP =  . 318  (HP) cruise + .291 (HP) acceleration





The balance  (£40%) of the driving time is  spent in idle and deceleration modes



which are assumed to be accounted for in the original averaging of-the 13-mode



engine cycle data.  V was taken to be 26 mph.  The conversion factor C. F.



calculated as a function of vehicle inertia weight for pick-up trucks and stop-



vans is shown in Figure 2. 14.   Using C. F.  and  the average engine emissions



data at the bottom of Table 2. 21,  driving  cycle emissions  (gm/mi) for HC,



CO, NO  were calculated and the results  are shown in Figures 2. 15-17 for
       2£


medium  duty trucks.  Figures 2.  15-17 show both the effect of  weight on emis-



sions and the large reduction in baseline HC and CO emissions which could be



achieved by replacing the conventional gasoline  engine with the turbocharged,



pre-chamber diesel.   The absolute magnitude of the predicted  gasoline engine



emissions are in reasonable, but certainly not exact,  agreement with the  ex-



perimental results for MDV given in Figures 2.7-9.  Hence in estimating base-



line emissions^results of Figures 2.7-9 are ratioed by the appropriate factor



obtained by dividing the predicted emissions for the different engines types



given in  Figures 2. 15-17.  Estimated baseline emissions for diesel engine-



powered MDV are given in Figure 2. 18.






            The baseline CO and HC emissions for the turbocharged,  pre-



chamber diesel are  sufficiently low that is is reasonable to assert that it will



not be necessary to  reduce them further.  Hence the only emission control con-



sidered for the diesel was a further reduction of NOX.  As shown by the data



given in  Table 2. 22,  NOX emissions can be reduced in the diesel engine using



EGR just as  they can in the gasoline engine.  Note also that the fuel penalty



for using EGR in the diesel engine is  smaller than in the gasoline engine.   For
                                    2-92

-------
                                           	STOP VAN
                                                 PICKUP
        0.5
                             8        10       12
                              Iw - INERTIA WT,  K-LB
Figure 2.14  CONVERSION FACTOR BETWEEN ENGINE AND VEHICLE EMISSIONS
                               2-93

-------
     10
  O)
  o"
                                        TURBOCHARGED
                                           -P-TURBOCHARGED
                             8        10        12
                            Iw - INERTIA WT, K-LB
14
16
Figure 2.15  COMPARISON OF DIESEL AND GASOLINE ENGINE HC EMISSIONS
           FOR MEDIUM DUTY TRUCKS
                               2-94

-------
    E
    o>


    o"
    O
                                                      	STOP VAN



                                                            PICKUP
                                   GASOLINE ENG NE V-8
                             DIESEL-DI -TURBOCHARGED
                                 8        10        12


                                  -INERTIA WT, K-LB
Figure 2.16 COMPARISON OF DIESEL AND GASOLINE CO EMISSIONS FOR MEDIUM

          DUTY TRUCKS
                                  2-95

-------
       20
        15
     I
                          STOP VAN
                          PICKUP
                                  DIESEL-DI-TURBOCHARGEDX.
                                      - DIESEL-IDIP-TURBOCHARGED
                                 8        10       12

                               Iw -INERTIA WT, K-LB
14
16
Figure 2.17  COMPARISON OF DIESEL AND GASOLINE ENGINE NO.. EMISSIONS FOR
           MEDIUM DUTY TRUCKS
                                    2-96

-------
                                           	 DI DIESEL-TURBOCHARGED

                                           	IDI DIESEL - TURBOCHARGED
i
vO
-J
                                                I  - INERTIA WT, K-LB
                                                 W
                                  Figure 2.18  BASELINE DIESEL EMISSIONS (gm/mi)

-------
                       TABLE 2.22


     SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL ENGINES

        EQUIPPED WITH NO  CONTROL SYSTEMS
                           x


                                    (2)
                     Emissions Data

Engine
IDI-P-turboch
IDI-P-turboch

IDI-P-turboch


DI
DI
DI
Control
System
none
5° injection adv,
10% EGR
5 injection adv,
10% EGR,
inter cooling
none
10% EGR
15% EGR .
gm/bhp-hr
HC
. 26
. 29

.64


4.41
4. 12
3.79
CO
1.
1.

1.


5.
5.
6.
09
58

68


93
68
05
NO
X
4.
2.

2,


7.
5.
5.
93
78

44


41
95
30
Peak
Smoke (%)
6.
10

6.


12.
10.
10.
9


5


5
1
1
Ib/bhp-hr
bsfc
.422
.443

.430


. 504
. 510
. 520
        Emission Reduction and Fuel Penalty Factors
Engine
IDI-P-turboch

DI
Control
System
10% EGR
10% EGR,
inter cooling
10% EGR
Re due tion_F actors (R
HC
1. 1
2.4
.93
CO
1.45
1.54
.96
N0x
. 562
.495
.80
)
(FP)
Fuel Penalty Factor
1.04
1.02
1.01
(1)    Data from Ref (27)



(2)    13/23 - mode test procedure
                           2-98

-------
a turbocharged, pre-chamber diesel, the appropriate emission reduction and
fuel penalty factors are:

                   RNOX='57'  FP=4%

            Fuel consumption data (bsfc) for the gasoline and diesel engines
are also given in Table Z. Zl.  Note that the fuel consumption of the diesel
engine is significantly less (about 35%)  than that for the gasoline engine.  Hence,
the estimated baseline fuel consumption of the diesel engine is given by:

            (Fe°)       _ (bsfc) diesel       _'
                 diesel   (bsfc) gasoline          gasoline
   o
(Fe) gasoline was given previously as a function of vehicle weight in Figure
Z. 11.

                              2. 6. 3. 1. Z  Odor and Particulate Emissions
                                         from Diesel Engines

            In discussing the exhaust emissions from diesel engines, it is
necessary to consider the odor and particulate (smoke) emissions in addition
to the gaseous  HC, CO, NO  emissions.  It is clear from the previous section
that as far as the gaseous emissions  are concerned, the diesel engine is an
attractive power plant.  Unfortunately part  of this attractiveness is  reduced
by possible difficulties associated with odor and particulate emissions which
are peculiar to the diesel.   Less information is available  concerning these
latter diesel pollutants than for HC, CO,  NO .  The smoke and odor pollutants
                                            5C
are easily perceived by the public even at quite low concentrations,  so their
control is critical for public acceptance of diesels for light and medium duty
truck applications.  It was concluded from the SWRI emissions tests    of
the Mercedes ZZO D that the odor and smoke emissions of that vehicle were
objectionable and needed to be reduced.
                                    Z-99

-------
            Reducing the odor of the exhaust gases from the diesel is not a


simple problem as it is even difficult to identify, let alone measure the concen-


tration of, the odor causing species. • This problem is discussed in some detail


in Reference (29).   There seems  to be little assurance from the information in


the literature that a solution to the diesel odor problem is close as its  origin


is not even well understood.




            Reducing the particulate (smoke) emissions from the diesel engine


is fortunately more straight forward than that of reducing odor emissions.   In


the case of particulate emissions, the concentration of the pollutant is  easily

                                                     3
measured and  expressed in quantitative terms  (mgm/ft ) and its origin in the


combustion process is reasonably well understood.  Smoke (carbon particles)


results  when more fuel than can be  burnt is injected into  the cylinders  and,


hence, becomes a problem only at lugging and high  engine loads.  Current


federal  smoke emission standards for heavy duty engines are expressed in terms


of exhaust gas stream  opacity for various engine operating modes.  For extensive


urban use of diesels,  it would seem that a reasonable minimum smoke standard


would be  that the exhaust not be visible at any engine operating mode.  Studies

               (30)
have been made     which indicate that this requires the  particulate concentration

                             3
be always less than 7 mgm/ft , which corresponds  to a smoke meter reading


of about 10% opacity.   This is considerably more restrictive than the present


standard  of 15-20%,  but available diesel emission data     indicate it can probably

                                                 (3 1, 32)
be met without great difficulty.  It should be noted   '    that the use of EGR


and injection retarding to reduce NO   emissions aggravates the smoke problem.


It is also of interest to compare the particulate emission (gm/mi) of gasoline


and diesel engines for the LA-4 driving cycle.  Typical gasoline engine parti-


culate emissions     are:





                       .05 gm/mi - non-leaded fuel


                       .20 gm/mi - leaded fuel




                                   2-100

-------
Using the conversion factor (C. F. ) of about . 5 to relate driving cycle and engine



dynamometer emissions, the gasoline engine particulate emissions become





                   . 1 gm/bhp-hr  -  non-leaded fuel



                   .4 gm/bhp-hr  -  leaded fuel





for the engine dynamometer tests.  This compares with values of . 2-. 6



gm/bhp-hr given in Reference (27)  for diesel engines.  Hence on a total



particulate emissions basis,  diesel engines are comparable to gasoline engines



using leaded fuels.






                   2.6.3.2   Three-Valve Carbureted Pre-Chamber  (CVCC)



                             Engines






            A recent  modification    by Honda to the spark ignition gasoline



engine termed the CVCC (Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion) or three-



valve carbureted pre-chamber  (stratified charge) engine has proven to have



much lower baseline emissions than the conventional gasoline  engine.   Emissions



tests   '    have been made  on Honda modified vehicles using both 4-cylinder



and 8-cylinder engines.   As indicated in Table 2. 23, all the vehicles  tested



satisfied the 1975 standards for HC and CO without exhaust treatment devices.



The NOX emissions from the CVCC-powered vehicles  without  EGR were  quite



low being between . 7 and 1. 5 gm/mi depending on engine CID.  In addition, the



fuel economy data indicate  that there is little, if any,  fuel penalty associated



with the CVCC modification of the gasoline engine.






            The CVCC engines  tested were modified versions  of standard (pro-



duction type),  passenger car  engines with only the head, timing gear train,



and fuel system  modified to accept the pre-chamber arrangement for  the ini-



tiation of combustion.  Work thus far on the CVCC  engine  concept has shown



no reason why it cannot  be  user! on intermediate  to  large V-8 engines suitable



for medium duty trucks. Initially    it was thought that the CVCC concept was






                                   2-101

-------
                                                     (35)
only applicable to small engines but more recent work    on a 350 CID, V-8


engine indicates this is probably not the case.  50, 000 mile durability tests


have been made on 4-cylinder,  CVCC engines, but as yet the 8-cylinder version


has not been durability.tested.  It can be expected that design and development


testing work to adapt the CVCC concept to large V-8 engines will be pushed


rapidly in the next couple of years.  If the outcome of those efforts continues


to look promising, then it seems likely that the CVCC engine will become a


major alternative power  plant for medium duty vehicles.
                                     2-102

-------
I
t—'
o
                                                TABLE 2. 23

                          EMISSIONS DATA FOR VEHICLES USING CVCC ENGINES
Engine
1975 CVS-CH Emissions
Average level (gm/mi)

Source

Ref (34)

Ref (34)

Ref (34)
Ref (35)

Cylinders

4

4

4
8

CID

125

125

125
350
Vehicle
Weight(lbs)
(2)
2000 v '
(3)
2000 v '
(2)
3000 v '
4500 ^

HC

. 18

. 24

. 28
. 22

CO

2. 12

1. 75

3. 08
2.95

NO
X

.89

.65

1.56
1. 22

MPG

22. 1

21. 3

19.4
11. 0
       (1)     No EGR or exhaust gas treatment

       (2)     Low mileage

       (3)     50,000 mile durability test

-------
      2. 7   Emission Control Strategies

            The preceding sections of this report have identified eight
different emission control systems which are likely candidates for use in
medium duty vehicles to reduce exhaust emissions.  Estimates have been
made of their effectiveness in emission reduction,  effects on fuel economy
and vehicle performance. In addition, the capabilities of two  alternative
engines to the conventional gasoline engine have  been similarly evaluated.
From this selection of possible control systems, a wide  range of control
strategies can be hypothesized by taking into account the lead  times
required to bring these systems into the production stage.

            The problem can be reduced to tractable proportions by
focussing on a few strategies which may be taken as representative of
the range of choices that is possible.  Considering only conventional
gasoline engines, the eight applicable control systems reduce  to three
basic approaches: (1) the use of improved fuel control (carburetion  or
fuel injection),  (2) the use of catalytic converters  and (3) the use of
thermal reactors. Another  factor is the alternative engine which can be
shown entering production at appropriate times and in differing quantities
to achieve a mix of vehicles equipped with different types of engines.

            To evaluate the impact of different control strategies,  a
computer program has been devised to evaluate the projected  annual
emissions from medium duty vehicles through 1990 assuming  implementation
of a number of selected control strategies. A description of the computer
program is included in a subsequent section.  Specific examples of
several representative control strategies that were subjected  to analysis
on the computer  are described below. Project constraints on time and
                                  2-104

-------
funds limited the number of possibilities that could be investigated to a
total of six.

            2.7.1  Conventional Gasoline Engines
            A listing of the add-on emission control systems and their
associated reduction factors is given in Table 2.10.  To provide a  simple,
inclusive method for ranking each system according to its control
effectiveness,  a mean  overall reduction factor for each system has been
computed.   This  mean factor, obtained by  averaging the individual
pollutant factors, is  substantially the same regardless whether the HC +
CO + NO  or the  HC  + NO  factors are averaged.   The usefulness  of
        xx
these mean factors lies in correlating  the control systems with lead time
information to program a decreasing emissions schedule.  A summary of the
mean reduction factors,  the year of  system  availability and the relative
ranking in  effectiveness of  each control system is given below.
               CONTROL SYSTEM REDUCTION FACTORS
Mean Reduction Factor

No.
0
1.
Control
System
EM°
EM° + El + FC
Control Year
HC+CO+NO
X
1.0
0.98
HC+NO
X
1.0
0.98
Rank
0
8
Available
1972
1975
    -  + AI + EGR
 2.    EM° + El + 1C + QHI    0. 60
      + AI + EGR
 3.    EM  + El + 1C + QHI
      + EGR + AI + OC
0.31
              0.62
0.39
                      1975
1977
                                  2-105

-------
                          Mean Reduction Factor
No.
Control
System
HC+CO+NO
HC+NO
                                                x
Control Year
Rank   Available
 4.    EM  + El + 1C + QHI    0. 14
      + EGR + RC + AI/CAI
      + OC

 5.    EM° + El + EFIC       0. 14

      + EGR + RC/OC

 6.    EM° + El + 1C + QHI    0.41

      + EGR + LTR

 7.    EM°+ El + FC         0.20

      + EGR + AI + RTR

 8.    EM° + El + FIG + IQHI  0.35
      + AI + EGR
                                 0. 14
                                 0. 14
                                 0.44
                                 0. 13
                                 0.38
                                       1978
                                       1979
                                       1977
                                       1977
                                       1978
            Fuel control systems are identified by numbers 2 and 8,
catalytic systems by numbers  3, 4 and 5, and thermal reactors by numbers
6 and 7.  In combining these systems into a time-sequenced control scheme,

the practical, economic realities must be recognized.  For example,  it
would not be conceivable to consider specifying the use of a thermal reactor
for one model year of vehicles and then to schedule a changeover to a
catalytic converter system for the following model year.


                   2.7.1.1   Catalytic Converter Approach


            Tabular data in the preceding section show that catalytic

converters  are potentially the  most effective devices in achieving the
                                   2-106

-------
lowest possible emissions among the set of devices that have been analyzed.

Consequently,  the most stringent emissions reductions will be realized using

the catalytic approach.  The following schedule represents a realistic
                                       *
maximum emissions reduction strategy.



      Control System No.               Model Years in Effect


            2                              1975, 1976

            3                              1977, 1978

            5                              1979, onward



            This implementation strategy is representative not only of the

most stringent control schedule but also probably the most desirable in a

practical sense. It represents an evolutionary implementation of a catalytic

system that results in an ultimate system that not  only is highly effective

in reducing emissions but accomplishes this at a very small cost in fuel

economy.  Thus other control strategies using catalytic devices were not

considered useful.



                   2.7.1.2   Fuel Systems/Reactor Approach



            As indicated by the heading of this section, the use of improved

fuel control systems and thermal reactors in an emission reduction

implementation scheme is possible in combination or singly.  Of the  two

reactor systems listed, the rich thermal reactor can be disregarded as a

viable approach.  While a high level of emission reduction has been

predicted for the rich reactor, the fuel penalty inherent with this system

is just too costly and unacceptable in view  of recognized need to conserve

the supply of fossil fuels.
*  Note that the "catalytic converter approach" utilizes a non-catalytic
   system (#2) as the first stage of the implementation scheme.

                                  2-107

-------
            Two fuel control strategies were selected for computer


evaluation:



                             STRATEGY I



      Control System No.                   Model Years in Effect



            2                                   1975 onward



                             STRATEGY II



            2                                   1975 - 1977


            8                                   1978 onward





            Strategy I represents a minimum approach to control with an


average emission reduction of approximately 40% in each of the three


major pollutants  from the  1972 baseline levels.  Strategy II follows that


of I through 1978 when advanced  carburetion and quick-heat induction


systems  are introduced with additional reductions achieved in HC, CO


and NO  together with improved  fuel economy.
       5C




            Only  one reasonable  strategy appears to exist for a combined


fuel control/reactor approach.





      Control System No.                   Model Years in Effect



            2                                   1975, 1976


            6                                   1977 onward





While system 6  does not represent an improvement in either emissions


reduction or fuel economy relative to system 8,  it is an available alternative


that needs to be assessed on the  basis of cost effectiveness.
                                  2-108

-------
            Z.I.2  Alternative Engines

            The discussion of alternative engines in Section 2. 6. 3 has made
clear that at this time the lightweight dies el engine is the only new engine
that can be  realistically projected for use in medium duty vehicles. For
this application,  the use of a turbocharged, pre-chamber type of a high-
rpm diesel  equipped with EGR is envisioned.  Sufficient information exists
on this type of engine, both in terms of its exhaust emissions performance
and fuel economy as well as costs,  to  permit a meaningful evaluation of its
potential role as  a  low emissions power plant for the medium duty vehicle.

            The three-valve, stratified-charge  engine concept appears to
offer  the possibility of converting the conventional gasoline engine into
a low-polluting power plant without the  use  of add-on control systems.
Emissions performance data on  engines of a size (CID) required for
medium duty vehicle  applications exist on only one, makeshift engine.  Data
on engine durability,  costs and other important factors just are not
available upon which  an analysis  can be made currently.

            Diesel  engines are projected as being in limited quantity
production by 1978 and full-scale production by 1980.  Two computer runs
were  made  using a mix of diesels and conventional gasoline engines equipped
with  (1) the most stringent control system  based on the catalytic converter
approach and £)the fuel control  system approach.

            2.7.3   Computer Simulation of Medium Duty Emission
                    Control  Strategies

            As discussed in the previous  sections, there are various  control
strategies that could  be used to reduce  emissions from medium duty vehicle.
                                   2.- 1 09

-------
In order to quantitatively assess the costs and benefits of the various


strategies over a period of years, it is necessary to calculate the total


yearly HC, CO, NO  emissions (tons/yr) from all the medium duty
                   J\.

vehicles on the road as  well as the  dollar costs  (initial, operating,


maintenance) associated with the emissions reduction in a given year.


In any particular year,  the MDV on the road represent a mix of vehicle


ages, weight and body shapes,  engine types, and emission control systems.


The calculation of the total emissions and costs each year using a specified


control strategy is straight forward,  but cumbersome, because of the


large amount of input data required to describe  the medium duty vehicles

                                                  $
in operation. Hence a computer program (AMTEC)  was written to


calculate the emissions  and costs pertinent to various control strategies.


A detailed description of the program along with a Fortran listing is given


in Appendix A-8.  In this section, only the general approach taken in making


the calculations, the required input information, and the primary program


output quantities are discussed.  Results obtained using AMTEC are


presented in the next section.





           In developing the  program,  the medium duty vehicles were


divided into categories or  groups according to vehicle weight and use (ex.


6,000 - 10,000 Ib. trucks,  10,000 - 14,0001b.  motor homes).  The


vehicles in each group were then characterized  by model year,  engine type,


and emissions control system. For example, one might have a 1977


6, 000 - 10, 000 Ib. truck with  a dies el engine  equipped with EGR. Next it


was necessary to characterize each vehicle/engine/control system


combination  in terms of emissions, fuel consumption, and initial and


operating costs.  In the case  of emissions, the uncontrolled emissions
* Analysis of Medium (duty) Truck Emissions (and) Costs
                                   2-1.10

-------
for each model year vehicle/engine combination were input along with the
reduction factors for a series of emission control systems which might be
used with the engines.  The baseline fuel consumption of each vehicle/
engine combination was also input along with the fuel penalty associated
with each of the emission control systems.  It was assumed that the
baseline fuel economy depended only on the vehicle/engine combination and
not the model year.   The costs (initial, operating, and maintenance)  were
input according to engine type and control system.  The costs were taken
to be independent of model year and vehicle group depending only on engine
type and control system.  In addition to characterizing the vehicle/engine/
control system combinations, it  was necessary to characterize the vehicle
operation such as  the maintenance program,  miles traveled per year, and
scrapage rate.  Vehicle operation was characterized for each vehicle
group.

           The number of vehicles of each category that are on the road
in any given year depends on the sales in previous years and the scrappage
rate.  The sales for each year are described in terms of vehicle group,
fraction of vehicles in each group having each engine type, and the control
system used on each engine type.  Vehicle  sales data was used going back
to 1950 and projected to 1990.  A summary of the input information
required for  AMTEC is given in  Table 2.24.  Most of the information needed
was generated during the present medium duty truck emissions study and
thus is documented in this report. When information from other sources
is used,  the source is noted in Table 2.24.

           The time period considered in the present study -was 1970 - 1990.
The primary AMTEC output quantities, which are listed below, are
calculated for each year of that period.
                                 2 , U1

-------
                              TABLE 2.24
            SUMMARY OF REQUIRED INPUT INFORMATION
                      FOR THE AMTEC PROGRAM
     Input Information
1.    Sales for each year for each
     vehicle group (1950 - 1990)
     Source
19.50-1972, Reference (38)
1973-1990, P.R/1* (Figures 3.5-10)
 2e   Fraction of engine types for each   1950-1972,  Reference (38)
     year and vehicle group             1973-1990,  C.S.
 3.   Baseline fuel economy (MPG)
     for each vehicle group and
     engine type
      P. R. (Figure 2. 11)
 4.   Miles traveled per year for each   Reference (37)
     vehicle group  and vehicle age
 5.   Baseline H. C. , CO, NO
                            x
     emissions for each vehicle
     group and model year for each
     engine type
1950-1972, Reference
1973-1990, P. R. (Figure 2.7-9)
 6.   Fraction of vehicles of a given     Reference (36)
     age remaining on the road for
     each vehicle group.
 (1)   P. R. - Present report
 (2)   C.S. - Specified emission control strategies
 (3)   The same trend with model year of pre-controlled emissions was
      assumed for MDV as  was found in Reference (39)  for LDV.
                                  2-112

-------
10.
 Table 2.24 (cont'd. )
     Input Information
 7.  Emission reduction factors
     for HC,  CO, NO  for each
     combination of engine type
     and control system

 8.  Fraction of engines of each
     type equipped with a given
     control system in each model
     year

 9.  Fuel penalty factors for each
     engine and control system
     combination
     Fuel factors relating baseline
     fuel economy of various
     alternative  engines to the
     conventional gasoline engine

11.   Incremental cost (initial and
     maintenance) for each engine
     and control system combination
                                              Source
                                               P.R.    (Tables 2. 14, 2.22)
                                               C.S.
                                               P.R.   (Tables 2. 15, 2.22)
P.R.    (Table 2. 22)
                                               P. R.   (Tables 3. 6-9)
                                   2-113

-------
      (1)    Total HC,  CO, NO  emissions (tons/year)
                              x
      (2)    Total gasoline and diesel fuel consumed (gal/year)
      (3)    Incremental fuel consumed due to the use of emission
            control systems and alternative engines (gal/year)
      (4)    Incremental costs due to the use of emission control
            systems and alternative engines (dollars/year)

            As indicated in Appendix A-8,  the contribution to the total
emissions,  fuel consumption,  and costs of the vehicles in each vehicle
group is determined for each year by summing the contributions of the
vehicles in  that group from  all model years.  Then the contributions  of the
different vehicle groups are added to obtain the total emissions,  fuel
consumption, and costs for  the year  of interest.  AMTEC results for
various control strategies are presented in the next section.

            2.7.4  Results of Computer Study

            This section will discuss only  those results of the computer
program study which involve emissions and fuel economy.  A total of seven
different runs (designated as Cases  I through VII) was processed and the
results obtained for  these specific situations are summarized herein.

            Table 2.25 contains a listing of the seven test cases  together
with the general emission control approach used, the control systems
involved and the year of their  introduction into  production vehicles.   Two
types of runs were made; one  type in which all  vehicles used only conventional
engines (Cases  I-V)  and the other,  in which a specific mix of conventional
and diesel engines was considered.  Attention is called to the fact that the
                                   '2-114

-------
                             TABLE 2.25



                   SUMMARY OF COMPUTER RUNS
A.   Conventional Gasoline Engines Only
Case No. Control Approach
I None (1972 reference)
II Fuel Control
III Fuel Control

IV Thermal Reactor

V Catalytic Converter


B. Conventional Gasoline Engines and
VI Fuel Control

VII Catalytic Converter


Contro1 ***
System No.
None
2
2
8
2
6
2
3
5
**
Diesels (w/EGR)
2
8
2
3
5
Year
1972
1975
1975
1978
1975
1977
1975
1977
1979

1975
1978
1975
1977
1979
*   In all cases the conventional engine was a 350 CID V-8



**  The Diesel was taken to be equivalent to the 350 CID V-8



    (same CID,  turbocharged,   pre-chamber,  w/EGR)



*** See Table 2.10 for description - these systems are  used



    only on conventional engines
                                  2-115

-------
conventional engine,  in all cases, was assumed to be a 350 CID V-8.  Also

the diesel, in all cases, was assumed to be a lightweight,  turbocharged,
                                3
pre-chamber engine with a  350 in  displacement and equipped with EGR.  An

assumed schedule of the chronological sequence and the quantity of diesel

engine introduction into the MDV population is outlined in the following table.
         ASSUMED SCHEDULE OF INTRODUCTION OF DIESEL
                   ENGINES FOR COMPUTER STUDY-
          PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL VEHICLE ANNUAL SALES

                 Trucks-GVW, Ibs.            Motor Homes-GVW, Ibs.

Year      6,000-10,000    10,000-14,000    6,000-10,000    10,000-14,000
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
5
10
25
25
25
10
20
35
50
65
5
10
25
50
50
10
20
35
65
65
1990           25                65                50               65


The computer program has a built in capability to divide the MDV category

of vehicles into four groups according to GVW range and truck/motor  home

type.   The results  presented in this report pertain to the composite results

only and include the entire range of GVW from 6,000 to 14, 000 Ibs.  for

all MDV vehicles.


           Annual emissions data for an MDV population using only con-

ventional engines and subjected to the four emission control implementation

strategies shown in Table 2.25  are  graphically illustrated in Figure 2. 19

-------
through 2.21.  A separate presentation is made for HC, CO and NO  and on



each plot a reference emission curve is shown corresponding to a situation



where the emissions of all new vehicles are maintained at 1972 baseline



levels.   The upward curvature of the reference trace merely  reflects the



increasing number of vehicles on the road in accord with the projected



sales. Emission curves corresponding to the different control strategies



will tend to curve  upward (sooner or later depending upon degree of



emission reduction) for the same reason.








            The graphical data show that the  relative effectiveness (in order



of rank)  of the  four emission control strategies remains the same for all



three pollutants.  Case II, fuel control (system No.  2), is least effective



while Case V,  catalytic conversion (systems No. 2, 3 and 5) is the most



effective.  The two intermediate levels of effectiveness are substantially



equivalent and  correspond to the lean thermal reactor approach (Case IV)



and the improved fuel control approach (Case III).







            Similar data are graphically  shown in Figures 2.22 through



2.24 for  the  situation where a mix of conventional and diesel engines is



used in the MDV category of vehicles. Note  that only the two implementation



control strategies found to be most effective  in the  previous computer runs



are used here.   These two are the catalytic converter approach (here



designated as Case VII) and the improved fuel control approach (designated



Case  VI).  These control strategies  are applied only  to the conventional



engines.  Diesel engines are assumed to be equipped only with  an EGR



system.








            It is instructive to compare the HC, CO and NO  emission plots



for the two conditions corresponding to conventional engines only and
                                  2-117

-------
C/J

o
o
oo
O
X
              1972  74   76   78   80   82   84    86   88   90
    0.2
    0.1
  Figure 2.19  ANNUAL HC EMISSIONS AS FUNCTIONS OF CONTROL STRATEGY
             CONVENTIONAL GASOLINE ENGINES ONLY -- MDV
                                  2-118

-------
CO
CO

O
O
O
                                                       CASE CONTROL
                                                            SYSTEM NO.
             1972   74   76   78   80   82    84   86   88   90

                                 YEAR
  Figure 2.20 ANNUAL CO EMISSIONS AS FUNCTIONS OF CONTROL STRATEGY
            CONVENTIONAL GASOLINE ENGINES ONLY -- MDV
                                 2-119

-------
                                                     CASE  CONTROL
                                                     Mft ...SYSTEM NO.
                                                     NO.
oo

O

LL.
O
V)
Z
O
              •\yj2  74  76   78   80  &2   84   86   88   90
    0.2
    0.1
 Figure 2.21  ANNUAL NOX EMISSIONS AS FUNCTIONS OF CONTROL STRATEGY
           CONVENTIONAL GASOLINE ENGINES ONLY - MDV
                                 2-120

-------
     0.9 r
O
CO
2
O
O
I
              1972  74   76   78   80   82   84   86   88   90
    0.1
  Figure 2.22  ANNUAL HC EMISSIONS AS FUNCTIONS OF CONTROL STRATEGY
            CONVENTIONAL ENGINES AND DIESELS (W/EGR) -- MDV
                                 2-121

-------
                                                      ^AOC  CONTROL
                                                      CASE  SYSTEM NO.
6O

O
O
CO
O
O
                       76   78    80   82   84   86   88   90
 Figure 2.23  ANNUAL CO EMISSIONS AS FUNCTIONS OF CONTROL STRATEGY
            CONVENTIONAL ENGINES AND DIESELS (W/EGR) -- MDV
                                   2-122

-------
                                                        CONTROL
                                                   CASE... SYSTEM NO.
                                                   NO.
            1972 74   76   78   80   82   84  86   88   90
Figure 2.24  ANNUAL NOX EMISSIONS AS FUNCTIONS OF CONTROL STRATEGY
          CONVENTIONAL ENGINES AND DIESELS (W/EGR) -- MDV
                                2-123

-------
conventional/diesel engines.  Because of the very low inherent HC and CO

emissions of the diesel engine, it is seen that the combined use of

controlled conventional engines and' diesels results in lower emissions of

these two pollutants than if only controlled conventional engines are used.

On the other hand, a homogeneous population of conventional engines

equipped -with catalytic converters produces lower NO  emissions than a

heterogeneous population of similarly controlled conventional engines and

EGR equipped diesels.  The reason for this result is that the NO  emissions
                                                              5C
from a diesel engine with EGR  are higher than those of an equivalent

conventional engine fitted with a catalytic converter system (reducing).


            A note of interest is the  observation  that the  improved fuel

control strategy (comprising control systems No. 2 and 8)  is rendered

more effective in achieving lower total annual emissions for each of the

three pollutants (especially HC and CO) if the heterogeneous engine mix

is used.   In fact the difference in effectiveness compared with  the

catalytic converter approach becomes  rather small.  This  fact could be

highly significant if the catalytic  approach should become unworkable due

to developmental obstacles or possible durability problems related to the

heavier engine loading of the MDV group.

            Figure 2.25 presents a graphical summary of the fuel penalties

associated with each of the four control strategies used with the medium

duty vehicle group in the situation when only conventional gasoline engines

are considered..  The ordinate shows the  percentage  of the  total annual

fuel consumed which is attributable  to the use of the  emission control systems.
NOTE: To avoid confusion in dates, it should be observed that the
        introduction of control systems occurs at the beginning of
        a. designated year while annual emissions are computed
        over the entire  period of the designated year.
                                    2-124

-------
o
o
cc
I-

o
o

o
m
D

CO
<

cc
<
LLJ
a.

O
o
o

_l
111
o
72    74
                                                                CASE
76    78
                                    80     82


                                  YEAR
84
86    88
90
                                             CONTROL

                                             SYSTEM NO.
                                                                        2,6
                                                                       2,3,5




                                                                       2,8
 Figure 2.25  ANNUAL FUEL PENALTY AS A FUNCTION OF CONTROL STRATEGY

            CONVENTIONAL GASOLINE ENGINES ONLY -- MDV
                                   2-125

-------
Those systems which produce the greatest reductions in emissions are
also seen to be the ones incurring the smallest fuel penalties.  The sharp
break observed in the trace, associated with the  catalytic control system is
explainable by the transition from a system (No. 3) with poor economy to
one (No. 5) with a very low. fuel penalty.  It should be noted that the
catalytic system requires the use of lead-free gasoline.

            Fuel data corresponding to the heterogeneous engine mix
situation is shown in Figure 2. 26.  In this case  we see that a saving in
fuel consumption actually occurs when diesels,  with their excellent fuel
economy, are partially substituted for conventional engines equipped
with control systems.  The ordinate shows the percentage of  fuel conserved.
This value was calculated as follows.  First the total  annual  quantity of
fuel consumed by the medium duty vehicle group was identified (from the
computer printout) for the case of conventional engines only when
equipped with each of the control systems identified in Figure 2.26.
Similar fuel data was identified for the case of the  conventional engine/
diesel engine mix with the same control systems.   Subtracting the
corresponding set of figures for each year and dividing this difference by
the larger base figure gave the percentage value for the fuel  conserved.
Because the two control strategies  considered have substantially equivalent
fuel penalties when used  with conventional engines,  the fuel savings
attributable to the use of diesels was found to be almost identical for the
two cases.  Hence only a single  curve is shown  in Figure 2. 26.  While
these percentage values may appear small, the  quantity of fuel involved  is
large.  For purposes of reference, the annual fuel consumption for the
medium duty vehicle group equipped with  conventional engines and operating
at 1972 baseline fuel economy is shown in Figure 2.27.
                                   2-126

-------
      10
    v>
    uj  7

    O
    -  6
    CQ


    in  5
    oc
    111
    V)

    O
    O
    01

    £  3

    5?
     CONTROL

CASE SYSTEM NO.
NO.
             1972   74     76    78    80    82    84    86     88     90

                                       YEAR
Figure 2.26  ANNUAL FUEL ADVANTAGE USING CONVENTIONAL ENGINE/DIESEL

           MIX RATHER THAN CONVENTIONAL ENGINES ONLY -- MDV
                                  2-127

-------
              1972   74    76     78    80    82    84    86    88    90
Figure 2.27  REFERENCE ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION FOR MDV -- CONVENTIONAL
          GASOLINE ENGINES -- NO ADD-ON CONTROL SYSTEMS
                                 2-128

-------
            The emissions  projections show that a sizeable impact on the
total annual emissions attributable to the 6,000-14,000 Ib. GVW group of
vehicles can be achieved in a rather short span of time.  Using some of
the more effective control  strategies,  a reduction in emissions of about
40% is predicted by 1980 over the reference situation where all the future
production vehicles are  presumed to maintain 1972  emission levels.

            2.7.5  Control Strategy Evaluation

            In a situation where a number of alternative approaches in
attacking a  problem exist,  the normal tendency is to attempt an optimized
solution.  This is a desirable objective and may be  feasible if the  specific
criteria for optimization are identified.   Reduction  of the emissions emitted
by a class or category of vehicles  involves many factors which are
interdependent and interact.  For example, such factors as level of
emissions control, fuel  penalty, costs and vehicle performance are
inter-related.  While each  factor may be assigned a "weighting" index to
facilitate analysis, such a  choice of weighting indexes is completely
arbitrary unless circumstances provide a realistic  basis for such an
assessment. It is therefore more meaningful to discuss a possible "best"
approach to emission control of the medium duty vehicle rather than an
optimum approach.

            The present discussion of a  "best" control strategy is presented
in the context of the data and information developed in this study. ' This
study has perforce relied on  estimated or extrapolated data in situations
where experimental information either did not exist or was not available.
Also, the computer study was of a lesser  scope  than would have been
desirable.   Since  costs  of implementation were not a part of this study
                                   2-129

-------
(cost analysis is included in Part B, Section 3. 0),  this important factor


is excluded here.





            The results of the computer study provide a rather clear and


unambiguous evaluation of the several control strategies which were


considered appropriate to the medium duty vehicle.  Solely from the


standpoint of emission reduction, the control strategy based on the use


of catalytic converters with conventional engines is demonstrably superior


for HC,  CO and NO .   The fuel penalty is  only slightly higher than  the most
                   ?C

economical (but less effectual) system evaluated.





            Further reduction of HC and CO emissions is  achieved  if a


portion of the medium duty vehicle  engines equipped with catalysts  is


replaced with dies els  which incorporate an EGR  system.  In addition,  a


"bonus"  is realized by a substantial savings in the quantity of fuel that


is consumed.  On the  other hand, the introduction  of the diesel does incur


a lesser control of NO .
                      x




            The use of the diesel engine as a part of the control strategy


places the improved fuel control approach  as an excellent alternative to


the catalytic converter route. While the emission reduction is somewhat


poorer, a fuel "bonus" is  realized and the  durability will undoubtedly be


superior to the  catalytic converters.





            The "best" control strategy, defined as achieving a high


reduction of emissions combined with a low fuel penalty, is that utilizing


a blend of conventional engines equipped with catalysts and diesel engines


equipped with EGR.  A likely alternative choice is that wherein the improved


fuel system approach  is substituted for catalysts.
                                  2-130

-------
           Diesels are usually associated with exhaust smoke and odor.



While the pre-chamber diesel achieves better control over these exhaust



characteristics,  the possibility exists that concentrations of large numbers



of diesels in  urban areas may create objectionable problems with regard



to smoke and odor.
                                   2-131

-------
3.0         ECONOMIC ANALYSIS PART B

     3.1    Introduction and Summary

            The purpose of the study is to develop and analyze the relation-
ships between different control levels and the cost-of-owncrship of representative
6-14,000 Ibs. GVW vehicle-engine types equipped with various engine-emission
control systems.  The time span of interest is 1972-1080.  The term cost-of-
ownership is defined as the cost to the final vehicle user.  The economic
analysis is part of the preceding study program which entailed a technical
evaluation of emission control approaches and an assessment of emission limits
for 6-14,000 Ibs. GVW vehicles.

            Projected sales of the various types of vehicles which comprise
the 6-14,000 Ibs. GVW vehicle population are developed in section 3.3.  The
vehicles within this GVW range are divided into two iveight categories;
6-10,000 Ibs. and 10-14,000 Ibs.  The vehicles in the first category predominate.
In recent years they have represented 20-24 percent of all U.S. sales of
trucks  and buses.  Sales of the  10-14,000  Ibs. vehicles  have generally accounted
for  less than 2 percent of total U.S. sales.

            The derivation of the costs of the proposed emission control
devices is described in section 3.4.  Diesel engine costs are also included
in this section.  The cost estimates are incremental costs relative to the
1972 spark ignition engines.  Because of the uncertainties associated with a
number of the devices, cost bounds are developed representing low, anticipated
and high cost estimates.

            Emission control system costs are synthesized in section 3.5.
Eight systems for use with spark ignition engines and two diesel engine
systems are considered.  Separate costs are first shox\m  for each of the
three major cost categories:  initial or sticker prices, incremental
maintenance and operating costs.  These costs are then combined into total
costs representative of 50,000 miles or 5 years of vehicle operation.
                                      3-1

-------
            The resultant costs vary widely.  The systems which employ
catalytic converters to control pollutants have the highest costs.  Diesel
engines, despite their relatively high initial cost, offer long term savings
relative to the baseline engine because of their lower fuel consumption.
              t
            The emission control alternatives considered are presently in
varying stages of development.  Estimated lead times for the systems are
discussed in section 3.6.  They vary from about 2 to 5 years for systems
designed for use with spark ignition engines.  The development of a domestic
family of diesel engines is estimated to require 8-10 years.  The production of one
diesel engine with relatively wide applicability to medium duty vehicles could
be achieved sooner, by 1978 or 1979.

            The costs and effectiveness of the systems are examined in
section 3.7.  Three approaches or control strategies are delineated for
conventional gasoline engines.  These are defined according to their major
emission control device.  They are improved carburetion, thermal reactor, and
catalytic converter.  The strategies are not mutually exclusive.  For example,
improved carburetion features are also used with thermal reactors and
catalytic converters.
            The greatest reduction of pollutant emissions is achieved with
catalytic converters.  The cost incurred, however, is high.  A mix of diesel
powered vehicles, equipped with ECR and spark ignition powered vehicles with
improved carburetion provides almost the same level of emission control at
significantly lower costs.  The latter combination appears as the "best"
approach based on the analysis performed.
                                      3-2

-------
            A gross estimate of the potential impact of certification costs
is made in section 3.7.1.  The final section discusses the potential impact
of the costs of emission control systems on the lease costs of such vehicles.

     3.2    Conclusions

            The conclusions of the study are:

            1.   The use of improved carburetion for emission control of
                 spark ignition engines together with the introduction of
                 diesel engines appears as the best control strategy for
                 medium duty vehicles.  This approach would reduce annual
                 emissions of HC, CO and NO., by 77, 81 and 64 percent (com-
                 pared to 1972 baseline), respectively by 1989.  The 15 year
                 cost of this approach is $2 billion.

            2.   A small, further improvement in NO  emission reductions can
                                                   A
                 be obtained by a mix of diesel and standard gasoline engines
                 where the latter are equipped with catalytic converter
                 systems.  The 15 year cost of this approach is considerably
                 higher, $3.4 billion.

            3.   Diesel engines equipped with EGR result in significant
                 emission reductions and at the same time provide good fuel
                 economy.  Fuel savings more than off-set the higher initial
                 price of such engines.

            4.   The improved carburetion and catalytic converter approaches
                 are the systems of choice in the absence of diesel engines.
                 Implementation of the former systems will result in the
                 reduction of all pollutants by about 60 percent by 1989 at a
                 total cost of $3.7 billion.  The latter systems will reduce
                 emission levels of HC by 79, CO by 72 and NO  by 83 percent
                                                             A
                 by 1989.  The cost incurred, however, is $5.3 billion.
                                       3-3

-------
5.   Lean thermal reactor and improved carburetion strategies
     result in about equal effectiveness.  The former costs
     more, primarily because of the higher fuel penalty
     associated with it.

6.   Precise estimates of certification costs cannot be made
     until the requirements, engine families and vehicle types
     are firmly defined.  A preliminary analysis indicates,
     however, that the potential impact of certification costs
     could be significant, particularly for the smaller manu-
     facturers .

7.   The cost per mile of operation of pollution control systems
     is generally less than $.01 per mile.  The potential impact
     of this cost on lease charges is, therefore, not considered
     significant.
                           3-4

-------
     3.3    Sales Projections for 6-14,000 GVW Vehicles

     3.3.1  Introduction

            The vehicles within this GVW range fall into two clearly demarked
weight cateogries; 6-10,000 Ibs. and 10-14,000 Ibs.  The vehicles in the
6-10,000 Ibs. GVW category predominate.  In recent years they have accounted
for 20-24 percent of all U.S. sales of trucks and buses.  Sales of vehicles
in the 10-14,000 Ibs. GVW category have always represented less than 2 percent
of total sales, and in many years less than one half of one percent.

            In recognition of this sharp distinction, sales projections are
made separately for the two weight categories of vehicles.  All data employed,
unless noted otherwise, are obtained from information published by the Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the U.S., Inc.

     3.3.2  Sales Projections for 6-10,000 Ibs. GVW Vehicles

            Total U.S. sales of trucks and buses are shown in Figure 3.1.
A least square curve is fitted to the data and extended to 1980.  The broken
lines represent + 1  ^*" values.  Computation was done as follows:
                                 (T ^
Annual sales are estimated to increase from 2.5 million in 1973 to 3.1 million
in 1980.

            Comparable data  for 6-10,000  Ibs. GVW vehicles are shown in
Figure 3.2.  Visual inspection shows that a straight line may not provide the
best indicator of future sales.  The most recent data  (1972) indicates a
sharp rise in the sales of these vehicles.  Thus, the  straight line projection
would tend to underestimate  future sales  if this trend continues.  An
alternative projection was,  therefore, made which takes this recent trend into
account.
                                      3-5

-------
   3400
   3200
   3000
   2800
s
o
-  2600
co
LLJ
V)


03
08
CO
*
u
CO
Ul
CO

CO

=5
   2400
   2000
1800
1600
0  1400
   1200
   1000
    800
                                                                                         10-
              58     60     62     64      66     68     70     72     74      76     78     80



                                              YEARS



                   Figure 3.1   U.S. SALES OF TRUCKS AND BUSES
                                             3-6

-------
    800
    700
    600
5"
o
CO
GO
O
o

to
CO
li
o
D
cc
CO
LU
CO

CO
    500
400
300
    200
    100
              58     60     62     64     66      68     70     72     74     76     78    80


                                          YEARS



                   Figure 3.2   U.S. SALES OF 6-10,000 LBS GVW TRUCKS
                                            3-7

-------
            Initially, the percent of 6-10,000 Ibs. GVW truck sales of total
truck sales were computed and projected through 1980 (Figure 3.3).  Next, the
percentages from this regression line were multiplied by corresponding values
from the regression line in Figure 3.1 for each year.  The resultant values
are plotted in Figure 3.4.  They form the parabolic curve.  The straight line
in Figure 3.4 is the regression line from Figure 3.2.  The two projections
compare very closely until 1972 where they begin to diverge.

            The two lines bound our estimate of sales of 6-10,000 Ibs. GVW
vehicles for the 1973-1980 time frame.  The combined U.S. manufacturers'
estimate of 1973 sales for this category of vehicles is about 565,000 units.
The parabolic projection yields an estimate of 540,000 units, the straight
line projection about 527,000 units.

   3.3.2.1  Sales Projections by Body Types

            Four body styles are included in the study:  Pickups, Van/Panel
trucks, Multistop vans, and Cab/Cowl/Base Chassis and Platform trucks.
Together they account for more than 90 percent of the vehicles in the 6-10,000
Ibs. GVW weight category.  The remainder consists of passenger and special
purpose vehicles which are outside the scope of the study.

            Existing data do not permit a separate breakout of recreational
vehicles.  In fact, all body styles are used for this purpose.  Recreational
vehicles are discussed separately in Section 3.3.4.

            The percent of sales of 6-10,000 Ibs. GVW trucks by body types is
shown in Table 3.1 for the years 1966-1971.
                                      3-8

-------
                                                                  80
Figure 3.3  % 6-10,000 LBS GVW TRUCK SALES OF TOTAL U.S. SALES
          OF TRUCKS AND BUSES

-------
   800
   700
§

B  600
Vi
CO
§
o
   500
CO
V)
*
u
D
cc
I-

O  400
CO
CO

CO  .
   300
CO
LLJ
   200
   100
             58     60     62     64     66    68     70     72    74     76    78     80


                                         YEARS
          Figure 3.4  ESTIMATED U.S. SALES OF 6-10,000 LBS GVW TRUCKS
                                          3-10

-------
          Table S01   Percent  of U.S. Sales of Trucks by Body Types
          Year     Pickup     Van/Panel     Multistop Van    Chassis
                                                            26.4
                                                            21.4
                                                            19.0
                                                            21.1
                                                            21.7
                                                            15.3
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
64.2
64.3
69.9
63.9
56.0
57.5
1.0
3.0
2.0
3.8
12.4
13.5
8.0
9.0
7.0
9.7
8.5
7.1
            The fraction of vehicles in this weight category which are pickups
has declined in recent years.  The projection for this body style as a percent
of total sales in this weight category is shown in Figure 3.5.   The resultant
sales projections are presented in Figure 3.6.  They are computed by
multiplying the percentages in Figure 3.5 by the two sales projections shown
in Figure 3.4.  Although the number of pickup trucks as a percent of total
sales is expected to decline slightly, the number of units sold is shown to
increase, reaching sales of 400,000-450,000 units by 1980.

            The sales of the other body types are estimated on the basis of
the following factors.
                     Body Type

                     Van/Panel
                     Multistop
                     Chassis
% of Sales of
6-10,000 Ibs. CVW Vehicles
            14
             8
            18
The resultant sales projections, computed as indicated above, are shown in
Figures 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9.
                                      3-11

-------
00
u

oc
I-
Q.
D

U
a.
LL
O
u
IT
     80
     70
     60
     50
     40
     30
     20
     10
             66     68
                        70
72    74    76    78
                                                       80
                           YEARS
Figure 3.5  % U.S. SALES OF PICKUP TRUCKS OF TOTAL SALES
          OF 6-10,000 LBS GVW TRUCKS
                            3-12

-------
     600 i
_    500
t/t

b
o
o
00
tt.



X.

O

a.
O
2
     400
     300
     200
     100
              73     74    75    76    77    78    79    80



                           YEARS




   Figure 3.6  PROJECTED SALES OF PICKUP TRUCKS





     120
~    110
§
o
     100
V)
X.
O


cc
I-
<
0.


<
>
o
              73     74     75    76     77     78    79    80



                           YEARS





   Figure 3.7  PROJECTED SALES OF VAN/PANEL TRUCKS
                           3-13

-------
 §
 o
 1—

 z


 CO

 o


 cc.
 \-

 a.


 CO
  O


  O
      73    74    75    76    77    78     79    80




                       YEARS



Figure 3.8  PROJECTED SALES OF MULTISTOP VANS
      150
              73    74     75     76    77    78    79    80



                               YEARS





Figure 3.9  PROJECTED SALES OF CHASSIS AND PLATFORM TRUCKS
                           3-14

-------
            Shifts in preference for a particular body type, particularly in
its application as a recreational vehicle can alter the relative percentages
and sales projections.  The latter three body types, Van/Panel, Multistop and
Chassis appear most sensitive in this respect and the sales projections must
be considered accordingly.

     3.3.3  Sales Projections for 10-14,000 GVW Vehicles

            Sales of these vehicles for 1958-1972 are shown in Figure 3.10.
Historically, these vehicles have comprised only a very small percentage,
less than 2 percent, of total U.S. sales of trucks and .buses.  The past two
years, however, have witnessed a relatively large growth of sales of vehicles
in this category, with 1972 sales amounting to about 45,000 units.  This
increase is believed attributable largely to the growing popularity of
recreational vehicles, particularly of motor homes.

            The sales projections shown by the broken lines in Figure 3.10,  are
based on percentages of total U.S. sales of trucks and buses.  The three
projections represent sales of vehicles in this weight categories amounting
to 2, 4 and 6 percent, respectively, of total sales shown in Figure 3.1. Our
best estimate is that the 4 and 6 percent lines bound projected sales for the
1973-1980 period.  Manufacturers' estimates place sales of vehicles in this
category at about 100,000 units in 1973.  This represents 4 percent of the
estimated total sales of all trucks and buses.

   3.3.3.1  Sales Projections by Body Types

            Vehicles in the 10-14,000 Ibs. GVW category consist primarily of
two body types -- multistop van and chassis.  No pickups or van/panel trucks
of this weight are manufactured.  The proportion of the two body types sold
between 1966 and 1970 is shown in Table 3.2.
                                     3-15

-------
   200
-5  180
b
§
1—
Z  160
O
^>
T-
6
^
CO
O

cc
00
LU
CO

CO
   140
   120
   100
    80
    60
   40
   20
            58     60     62    64     66     68    70     72    74    76     78     80
                                       YEARS
             Figure 3.10  U.S. SALES OF 10-14,000 LBS GVW TRUCKS

-------
              Table  3.2 Percent of Sales of 10-14,000 Ibs. GVW
                            Vehicles by Body Type

               Year          Multistop Van          Chassis
               1966              43.5                 55.3
               1967              51.2                 48.2
               1968              42.7                 57.0
               1969              59.9                 39.7
               1970              46.7                 53.1

            No trend is discernible.   A 50-50 split between these body types
appears a reasonable estimate.  Both body types are used for recreational vehicles.
The relative proportions of each type used for this purpose are not known.

     3.3.4  Recreational Vehicles

            All the body types noted in the previous sections can be and are
used as recreational vehicles.  Recreational vehicles can be divided into two
general categories -- truck campers and motor homes.  Truck campers represent
numerically the larger  of the two categories.  They consist of camper bodies
mounted on pickup or chassis trucks.  Such vehicles are frequently multi-
purpose in use.  They may be employed for personal transportation or commercial
use and converted to recreational vehicles when desired.  Motor homes
generally are used only as recreational vehicles.  In the past, they have
been fabricated by motor home manufacturers on chassis purchased from
automobile manufacturers.

            Recent sales of recreational vehicles are shown in Table 3.3. The
sales data base used is from "Recreational Vehicles Facts and Trends".
 1971 data will not be available until June 1973.
                                     3-17

-------
                 Table 3.3  Sales of Recreational Vehicles
Year
Truck Camper
Motor Home
Total
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
61,600
79,500
92,500
95,900
107,200
9,050
13, 00
23,100
30,300
57,200
70,650
92,700
115,600
125,200
164,400
% of 6-14,000 GVW
Vehicle Sales
       23.9
       23.7
       28.0
       30.6
       33.4
All of the vehicles are in the 6-14,000 Ibs. GVW range.  Past and projected
future sales of such vehicles are included in the sales projections contained
in the previous sections.

            One third of all vehicles in the 6-14,000 Ibs.  GVW range were used,
at least partly, as recreational vehicles in 1971.  Sales of such vehicles
more than doubled between 1967 and 1971 demonstrating their increasing
popularity.  This trend is expected to continue over the next few years.
Beyond that, their sales will be strongly influenced by the state of the
economy, and more specifically by the development of new recreational areas
and facilities to meet the demands of these types of vehicles.

     3.3.5  Engines Used in 6-14,000 Ibs. GVW Vehicles

            Engine data for the vehicles is based on manufacturers'  sales
projections for 1973.  Engines are divided into the following 5 categories
for this analysis:

                         16   225-250 CID
                         16   250-300 CID
                         V8   300-320 CID
                         V8   330-360 CID
                         V8   390-500 CID

All major manufacturers produce engines in each of the V8 categories.
Additionally, each manufacturer offers at least one 16 engine option.
                                     3-18

-------
            The manufacturers' sales projections do not permit a clear-out
categorization by body type.  Consequently, the totals represent more valid
bases for comparison than the numbers shown for the individual body types.
The data are shown in Table 3.4.

            The V8-330-360 CID engine predominates  in 6-10,000 Ibs.  GVW  vehicles,
This is due largely to its extensive use in pickup and chassis trucks.  Van/
Panel and multistop vans are  frequently sold with smaller engines as well.

            The distribution of engines  in the 10-14,000 Ibs.  GVW vehicles  is
somewhat different.  The largest V8 is the most common engine due to its
extensive use in motor homes.  The second engine in order of usage is the
small V8 300-320 CID.
                                     3-19

-------
                           Table 3.4  Engines  in  6-14,000  Ibs. GVW Vehicles  Based  on
                                      1973 Manufacturers'  Sales  Projections
                                      ,. 16  225-249
                                            16 250-300
V8 300-320
V8 330-360
V8 390-500
to
o
6-10,000 Ibs GVW Vehicles
Pickup and Chassis
Van/Panel Trucks
Multistop Vans
Motor Homes
     Subtotals
        10-14,000  Ibs. GVW Vehicles
        Chassis
        Multistop  Vans
        Motor Homes
             Subtotals
        GRAND TOTALS
9,680
2,000
1,000
2,680
250
2,000
2,250 .
4,930
23,982
2,591
1,000
37,573
4,478
4,700
9,178
36,751
62,630
23,320
85,950
1,200
2,000
22,870
26,070
112,020
346,247
24,000
3,000
373,247
4,754
12,850
17,604
390,851
62,797
3,850
66,647
200
5,000
28,130
33,330
99,977

-------
3.4         Cost Estimates

     3.4.1  Introduction

            Incremental sticker prices and maintenance costs of the emission
control devices employed with the spark ignition engine are developed in this
section.  Additionally, incremental costs associated with diesel engines are
presented.  The cost baseline is the 1972 spark ignition engine incorporating
engine modifications but without add-on devices.

            Firm cost information concerning emission control devices presently
in use on light duty vehicles is not readily available.  The cost increment
resulting from the addition of these devices is included in the total current
automobile prices.

            The devices proposed for use on medium duty vehicles include some
which are similar to those presently employed on light duty vehicles as well
as others which are in various stages of development.  Consequently, the cost
estimates presented in this section are preliminary and must be reexamined as
further information becomes available.

            The approach taken has been to establish a consistent set of costs;
particularly with respect to the relative cost differences between systems.
Because of the uncertainties associated with the costs of a number of the
devices,  cost bounds are developed indicative of low (L), projected anticipated
(A), and high (H) costs.

     3.4.2  Emission Control Devices

            The emission control devices employed in the eight systems are
listed in Table 3.5.  Costs of the devices are described in the sections
following.
                                      3-21

-------
                      Table 3.5  Emission Control Devices
Device
Electronic ignition
Fast choke
Quick heat intake manifold
Improved carburetion
Advanced carburetion
Electronic fuel injection and control
Exhaust gas recirculation r
Air injection at exhaust ports
Variable air injection
Oxidizing catalytic converter
Reducing catalytic converter
Three-way catalytic converter with 0_  sensor
Lean thermal reactor
Rich thermal reactor
Oxidizing catalyst bypass system
Evaporative control
Emission test
Designation
El
FC
QHI
1C
FIC
EFIC
EfiR
AI
AI/CAI
OC
RC
OC/RC+OS
LTR
RTR
OCBP
EC
ET
                                     3-22

-------
   3.4.2.1  Electronic Ignition (El)

            Chrysler Corporation, in 1972, offered electronic ignition as an
optional feature at a cost of $34.  The introduction of this feature as a
standard item should reduce its cost to the customer.  It is estimated that
savings will be in the order to 25-50 percent resulting in the following
costs:  (L) = $15, A = $20, H = $25.

            Although electronic ignition is expected to have a higher initial
cost, net savings in maintenance costs are anticipated.  Distributor points
do not have to be replaced and less frequent checks of timing and spark plug
wires will have to be made.  The maintenance cost savings resulting from
electronic ignition together with the use of unleaded gas are estimated to
amount to $60 over 50,000 miles.  ^ The part of the savings attributable to the
unleaded gas cannot be readily identified.

   3.4.2.2  Fast Choke (FC)
            This item is estimated to cost $5 for light duty vehicles by a
number of reference sources.   '   '     There is no evidence that the same
device cannot be used on medium duty vehicles.  This cost is, therefore, used
here.  There are no incremental maintenance costs with the fast choke.

   3.4.2.3  Quick Heat Intake Manifold (QHI)

            The cost of this device is estimated to be the same, $5, as that of
the fast choke  (FC) noted in the previous Section 3.4.2.2.

   3.4.2.4  Improved Carburetion  (1C)

            Improved carburetion provides for altitude compensation and better
air/fuel ratio  control.  We estimate the incremental costs of these modifications
to be L = $5, A = $10 and H = $15.
                                     3-23

-------
            Reference'(5)  indicates an incremental maintenance cost of $15 over
50,000 miles for these features, which cost is used here.

   3.4.2.5  Advanced Carburetion (FIC)

            This device is not sufficiently defined to provide a basis for an
independent cost estimate.  In the absence of data, the cost assigned to
advanced carburetion is 3 times the cost of the improved carburetor (1C), $45,
both for the initial sticker price and the maintenance cost.

   3.4.2.6  Electronic Fuel Injection and Control  (EFIC)

            Reference (2) indicates an initial cost of $98 for this device.
Telcons with Volkswagen of America    and Bendix    provided estimates of
$100-$200 for this device.  The latter, however, apparently do not account
for credits for items which are replaced by this device.  The costs employed
are L = $75, A = $100, and H = $125.
            Nozzles are estimated to require replacement every 50,000 miles.
                          (2)
Nozzle costs are $2 each.     Assuming one hour of labor at $12/hr. is required
for nozzle replacement, this yields a cost of $24 for 16 and $28 for V8 engines,

   3.4.2.7  Exhaust Gas Recirculation (ERG)

                                           (8)
            Discussion with Ford Motor Co.    indicated that essentially the
same device is used on all present engines.  It is assumed that the same
device can be used on medium duty vehicles.  Estimated costs in References
                                                         (9)
(2), (3) and (4) provide  a range $25-$47.  Another report    shows a cost of
$7.40.  The costs used in this study are L = $20, A = $30 and H = $40.
            Maintenance EGR costs are based on Reference (9).   They consist of
a filter change every 10,000 miles equivalent to an oil filter change.  This
cost is estimated to be $4.

                                      3-24

-------
   3.4.2.8  Air Injection  (AI)

            References (2),  (3) and (4) show a range of $29-$46 for air injection
with an average cost of $38.  There may be a small variation in the size of
air pumps required for the different size engines.  We do not believe that
this change will have a significant impact on costs.  We assume that the $38
cost is for a V8 engine.   The cost of air injection for the 16 engine
is estimated to be $36.

            There is no existing data for AI maintenance costs.  It is
assumed that some maintenance and parts are required every 25,000 miles
and that one half hour of  labor is required for this maintenance action.
Costs of $9 and $10, respectively, are included for 16 and V8 engines.
  3.4.2.9   Variable Air Injection (AI/CAI)

            This device is similar to that described in Section 3.4.2.8 except
for the addition of 1 valve costed at $1.  This results in a cost of $39 for
V8 engines and $37 for 16 engines.  The maintenance cost is assumed to be the
same as that for AI.

  3.4.2.10  Oxidizing, Reducing and Three-Way Catalytic Converters (OC,RC,OC/RC)

            We cannot discern any differences between the two types of converters
which should result in differences in costs between the two, assuming that
both are the same size.  This conclusion is supported by the Aerospace Corp.
report    in which it is stated that the manufacture of noble and base metal
catalysts would result in the same costs.

            Experiments are in progress in which large volume catalytic
converters (catalyst bed = engine CID) are tested on medium duty vehicles.
Estimated converter costs as a function of catalyst bed volume, based on
verbal data obtained from U.O.P.   ' is shown in Figure 3.11.
                                     3-25

-------
 $ 120
  100
   80
   60
00
8
   40
   20
                        WCRPC = CSP - WHOLESALE COST; INITIAL STICKER PRICE

                      PRPCBj - REPLACEMENT COST OF CATALYST BED (INSTALLED)

                    CRPCj - REPLACEMENT COST OF COMPLETE CONVERTER (INSTALLED)
                 50
100          150         200

    CATALYST BED VOL. IN3
250
                       Figure 3.11  CATALYTIC CONVERTER COST
                                   3-26

-------
            The UOP data provided the basis for estimating the replacement
cost (installed) for catalytic converters, labeled CRPCj in Fig.  3.11.   This
cost was assumed to include 1/2 hour of labor at $12/hr.  Thus, the replace-
ment cost of the converter itself is CRPCj-$6.  The wholesale cost (WCRPC) is
estimated to be .7(CRPC -$6).  Automobile manufacturers will undoubtedly pay
less than WCRPC but will incur additional costs for receiving, installation
and inspection.  Thus, the initial sticker price CSP is assumed to be the
same as the wholesale price.

            It is estimated that 75% of the catalytic converter cost is for
the catalyst bed and the remainder for the container.  Thus, the cost to the
customer for a replacement of the catalyst bed (PRPCB.) is .75 (CRPCT-$6) + $6
again assuming that this maintenance action involves one half hour of labor.

            The three-way catalyst additionally includes an 0- sensor with
an initial cost of $7.  The sensor must be replaced every 25,000 miles at an
estimated cost of $13 which includes 1/2 hour of labor.

  3.4.2.11  Lean and Rich Thermal Reactors (LTR § RTR)

            Thermal reactors are estimated to cost 75% of the cost of
comparably sized catalytic converters and are assumed to last the life of the
vehicle.

            A comparison of thermal reactor and catalytic converter sticker
price costs derived herein with other published source costs is shown in
Fig. 3,12. The other source data do not specify the specific engine size for
which the devices are intended.  The Calspan data is based on a 350 CID engine.

  3.4.2.12  Oxidizing Catalyst Bypass

            This device includes a thermocouple, a valve, a solenoid and some
pipes.  The estimated sticker prices of this device are L = $5, A = $10 and
H = $15.
                                     3-27

-------
    $140
     130
     120
     110
     100
      90
      80
   v>  70
   O
   u
      60
      50
      40
     30
     20
     10




<
«
<
	 J
>
<
	 	 M
^

	


k. 	
*


,
>
»
i 	 ^

'



(o
uu








-- -
<
1







>

>
t.
'" 	
)
\

CALSPAN EST
ST ESTIMATES
ENGLEHARD, E
NAS, RTI & SR

	


\
^
<





MATES)
350 Cl
SSO, AE
ESTIM/l

>


!
•
>





3 ENGIIN
ROSPAC
TES






(

	
<






k


>

> 	
>









<
<

c
i



^ 	 	 ,
E, DUPONT, ETHYL CO

•




•

>




RP.;




















k







            HC
              CO
DUAL
 BED
LTR
                        RTR
                    CATALYTIC CONVERTER/THERMAL REACTOR
 LOW
GRADE
Figure 3.12   CATALYTIC CONVERTER & THERMAL REACTOR COST ESTIMATES-
           350 CID ENGINE
                                  3-28

-------
            The annual maintenance and inspection cost of this device based
on 10,000 miles/year travel is $5.  '

  3.4.2.13  Evaporative Control

            The evaporative control system consists of a domed tank vapor
separator and carbon canister.  The sticker price   •* is L = $13, A = $14
and H = $15.  The carbon canister is estimated to require replacement after
25,000 miles at a cost of $12.50.

  3.4.2.14  Emission Test

            The emission test end-of-assembly line costs are assumed to be the
same as the current California procedure (i.e. 2% CVS, 25% 7-Mode and 75% idle
and functional checks).  These costs   ' are included as L =$6, A =$7 and H =$8.

            Recurring inspection and test costs are $3 per year.
                                     3-29

-------
     3.4.3  Incremental Diesel Engine Costs

            The use of diesel engines is considered to meet emission standards,
The differences between the initial purchase price of the diesel vs. the
baseline spark ignition engines represent a part of the cost of meeting the
standard.

            Initially, the cost of a baseline spark ignition engine must be
determined.  The difficulty here is to establish the cost for any one
particular engine.  Once this is accomplished, the determination of the costs
of other engines is straightforward.  This is because manufacturers quote
price differentials for different sized engines.  For example, the vehicle
base price may include a small V8.  Alternative prices are quoted for the
same vehicle powered by a smaller 16 or larger V8 engines.

            The cost differences associated with different engine sizes are
independent of vehicle type.  Discussions with truck dealers have shown that
the cost difference between a small and large V8 is the same for a pick-up
truck as for a Van; although the base sticker prices of the two vehicles may
differ significantly.

            An initial engine cost was derived as follows.  We selected the
 smallest and next largest 16 engines which are installed in trucks in the
 6-14,000 Ibs. GVW category.  The difference in costs between the engines
 was then divided by their difference in HP.  This cost/HP was then used to
 compute the cost of the smaller 16.

            The resultant costs for engines with displacements from 225-500
 in  are presented in Figure 3.13.

            The discussion following on diesel engines is based largely on
 discussions held with Mr. Neville Hartwell, Perkins Engine Co., on
 March 16, 1973.
                                     3-30

-------
  $1000i
    900
    800
    700
o

V)


O

o


111
o

E
Q.
    600
500
400
    300
    200
     100
                   100
                          200
300
                                                       400
                                    16-*-
                                           -*-V8
                                 ENGINE CID
                                                               500
   Figure 3.13  ESTIMATED COSTS OF CURRENT SPARK IGNITION ENGINES
                                 .3- 31

-------
           Generally, current diesel engines are not designed for medium
duty vehicles.  New or modified designs of present engines with matched
torque converters and automatic transmissions would have to be developed
to meet the requirements of the medium duty vehicles.  Lead times of 8-10
years would be needed to reach full production for a family of engines.
This lead time could be reduced to about 5 years if the objective was to
develop one engine which may have widespread applicability in medium duty
vehicles.

           These "new" diesel engines, if produced within present production
capacities are estimated to cost twice as much as spark ignition engines with
comparable CID's.  Expanded production, i.e. equivalent to that of the current
spark ignition engines, could result in a cost reduction of 25-30 percent.

           Diesel engine costs, based on the premises of existing and
expanded production facilities are shown in Figure 3.14.

           Figure 3.15 shows the differences between the costs of spark
ignition engines shown in Figure 3.13 and the high and low diesel engine costs
presented in Figure 3.14.  The middle line in Fig. 3.15 is based on the
midpoints of the high and low diesel engine costs in Figure 3.14.  For
example, the incremental, anticipated sticker price for a 350 CID diesel
engine is $355.

  3.4.3.1  Other Diesel Engine Associated Costs

           The only emission control device considered with the diesel
engine is EGR.  Its cost is assumed to be the same as that for the spark
ignition engines, i.e. L = $20, A = $30, and 11 = $40.  Additionally, a $100
incremental cost is charged to all diesel powered vehicles to cover structural
changes and improved brakes which may be required because of the higher
weight of diesel engines.  Finally, the cost of power steering, $125, is
added to all diesel powered vehicles with engine displacements of less than
                                    3-32

-------
$ 1500
 1400
 1300
 1200
 nor
 1000
  900
  800
  700
  600
  500
  400
  300
  200
  100
                              COSTS BASED ON
                              PRESENT PRODUCTION
                              FACILITIES
                                                        COSTS BASED ON
                                                        EXPANDED PRODUCTION
                                                        FACILITIES
                 100
200
   300

ENGINE CID
400
500
                   Figure3.14 ESTIMATED COSTS OF DIESEL ENGINES
                                   3-3.3

-------
  S 600
   500
   400

-------
350 cu. in.  It is assumed that all vehicles, gasoline or diesel, equipped
with 350 CID or larger engines, normally would be delivered with power
steering.

            Historically, diesel engines have exhibited lower maintenance
costs than comparable gasoline engines.  The new type diesel engines we are
considering represent an unknown item.  Consequently, we assign no maintenance
cost savings to the diesel engine compared to the baseline spark ignition
engine.  This represents a conservative approach biased in favor of the spark
ignition engine.  The diesel.engine, as a new concept, however, is the
challenger in this case.  Its credibility as a substitute engine will be
enhanced if it can be proved to be more cost-effective despite this bias.

            The only incremental maintenance cost shown for the diesel engine
is that associated with its EGR.  This cost is the same as the EGR maintenance
cost described in Section 3.4.2.7.
                                      3-35

-------
     3.5    Emission Control System Costs

            Eight emission control systems for use with spark ignition engines
are developed and described in the Part A Technical Analysis.  The costs of
these systems and the incremental costs incurred with diesel engines are
presented in this section.

            Separate costs are first shown for each of the three major cost
categories considered.

                 1.  Initial or sticker prices to customers
                 2.  Incremental maintenance costs
                 3.  Incremental operating costs.

The last category reflects changes in fuel consumption resulting from the
implementation of the systems.  The costs are based on the cost factors
described in the preceding Section 3.4,  The total costs are the sum of the
three costs based on 50,000 miles or 5 years of vehicle usage.*

            Costs are shown for three representative engine sizes employed in
medium duty vehicles.  They are:  16-300 CID,  V8-350 CID and V8-454 CID.


     3.5.1  Sticker Prices of Emission Control Systems and Diesel Engines

            Estimated sticker price increases for the eight emission control
systems are shown in Table 3.6, Low (L), projected anticipated (A) and high (H)
costs are indicated for each system.  The initial sticker prices range from
about $100 to $400; the higher cost systems are those which include catalytic
converters.
 Certification  costs  are  not  included.   These costs  are  highly  uncertain  at  this
 time  and may vary considerably between  manufacturers.   This problem is addressed
 in  Section  3.7.1.
                                     3-36

-------
                                  TABLE 3.6




                  STICKER PRICES OF EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS






SYS. NO.       SYSTEM                        16-300      V8-350     V8-454

1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8

L
A
H
L
A
H
L
A
H
L
A
H
L
A
11
L
A
H
L
A
H
L
A
H
EI+FC+AI+EGR+EC+ET $ 95
112
129
EI+AI+EGR+IC+QHI+EC+ET 100
122
144
EI+AI+EGR+IC+QHI+OCBP+ 154
OC+EC+ET 195
237
EI+EGR+IOqHI+OC+RC+ 204
' OCBP+AI/CAT+EC+ET 259
306
EI+EGR+OC/RC+EFIC+EC+ET 185
241
298
EI+EGR+IC+QHI+LTR+EC+ET 106
139
172
EI+FC+AI+EGR+RTR+EC+ET 137
165
193
EI+AI+EGR+QHI+FIC+EC+ET 110
142
174
$ 97
114
131
102
124
146
161
204
253
236
295
356
190
248
307
111
145
180
144
173
203
112
144
176
$ 97
114
131
102
124
146
171
219
268
255
325
396
200
263
327
120
159
197
153
186
220
112
144
176
                                     3-37

-------
            Control systems Nos. 1, 2 and 8 are insensitive to engine
displacement.  In the remaining systems, the relatively large  variations in
costs both as a function of engine displacement and between low and high
costs are due to the assumptions made concerning the sizes of the catalytic
converters and thermal reactors.  The values employed are shown below:

            OR, RC 5 OC/RC    L = 40% CID    A = 60% CID    H = 80% CID
            LTR $ RTR         L = 50% CID    A = 70% CID    H = 90% CID
System Nos. 3 and 5 use one OC or OC/RC, respectively, for both the 16 and V8
engine configurations.  System No. 4 includes one OC and one RC for the 16
engine.  The V8 engines have one OC and 2 RC's, one in each bank.

            The incremental sticker prices incurred with diesel engines are
shown in Table 3.7.  The major portion of the costs consists of the initial
higher price of diesel engines compared to current spark ignition engines.
The apparent cost discrepancy between the 16-300 and V8 engines is due to the
fact that power steering is included as mandatory with the diesel 16 whereas
the larger gasoline engines are assumed to be already provided with power
steering.

     3.5.2  Maintenance Costs of Emission Control Systems and Diesel Engines

            These costs are shown in Tables 3.8 and 3.9.  They are incremental
costs computed for 50,000 miles or five years of vehicle operation.

            The 5 year incremental maintenance costs are relatively low for  the
systems  which do not  use catalytic converters.  Two types of maintenance  costs
are shown  for the three catalytic converter systems, Nos. 3, 4 and 5.  The
first cost includes one replacement of  the entire catalytic converter(s) ; the
second replacement of the catalyst bed(s) only.  Either choice has a
significant impact on maintenance costs involving substantial costs to the
customer.
                                      3-38

-------
                                  TABLE 3.7

                   STICKER PRICES OF DIESEL ENGINE SYSTEMS

                                                   ENGINE SIZE
SYSTEM
 ADIESEL ENGINE
 A DIESEL ENGINE COST+EGR+ET+MISC.

L
A
H
L
A
H
300^ in3
$ 431
532
633
451
562
673
350 in3
$ 341
462
573
361
492
613
454 in3
$ 436
602
733
456
632
773
1.  300 in  Engine included Power Steering Cost ($125)
2.  Emission Test (ET) cost is (L)$6, (A)$7, (H)$8
3.  MISC includes $100 cost increment for added weight  and design
                                     3-39

-------
                                  TABLE 3.8

                  INCREMENTAL MAINTENANCE COSTS  (50,000 MI.)
SYS. NO.
SYSTEM
16-300
V8-350
V8-454

1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8
L
A
H
L
A
I!
L
A
H
L
A
H
L
A
H
L
A
H
L
A
H
L
A
EI+FC+AI+EGR+
EC+ET

EI+AI+ECR+IC+
QHI+EC+ET

EI+AI+EGR+IC+
QHI+OC+EC+ET
+OCBP
EI+EGR-t-IC+QHI +
OC+RC+AI/CAI+
EC+ET+OCBP
EI+EGR+OC/RC+
EFIC+EC+ET

EI+EGR+IC+QHI
LTR+EC+ET

EI+FC+AI+EGR
+RTR+EC+ET

EI+AI+EGR+QHI
EC+ET+FIC
$ 9
9
9
24
24
24
124/106.5
146.5/121.5
166.5/136
199/164
244/194
274/224
111.5/94
134/109
154/124
15
15
15
9
9
9
54
54
$ 10
10
10
25
25
25
132.5/112.5
157.5/130
180/147.5
250/202.5
300/237.5
345/272.5
- 1 23/103
148/120.5
170.5/138
15
15
15
10
10
10
55
55
$ 10
10
10
25
25
25
147.5/122.5
177.5/145.5
207.5/170
280/225
340/270.5
400/317.5
138/113
168/135.5
198/160.5
15
15
15
10
10
10
55
55
Note:  With 1 replacement of converter(s)/with 1 replacement of converter
       element(s).
                                     3-40

-------
                                    TABLE  3.9

                     DIESEL  MAINT.  COSTS  (50,000 MI.)
DIESEL
   ET
         TOTAL
DIESEL W EGR
   EGR
   ET
         TOTAL
                             $  LOW
 J_5
 15
20
II
35
             $ ANTICIPATED
J_5
15
20
ii
35
                  $ HIGH
!§.
15
20
II
35
                                      3-41

-------
            The incremental diesel engine maintenance costs are relatively
small.  In fact, they will be probably considerably lower than indicated.
Present experience shows that diesel engines are inherently more reliable  and
require less maintenance than comparable gasoline engines.  This factor is not
considered in the determination of the diesel engine maintenance costs.

     3.5.3  Incremental Fuel Costs of Emission Control Systems and Diesel
            Engines

            Incremental fuel costs incurred due to emission control systems
are listed in Table 3.10.  Baseline fuel consumptions are based on representative
inertial weights of vehicles in which the various size engines may be installed.
Fuel savings resulting from the use of diesel engines are contained in Table
3.11.  All fuels are estimated to cost $0.45 per gallon.  Inquiries addressed
to local dealers indicated no significant differences in retail prices be-
tween gasoline and diesel fuels.

     3.5.4  Total Costs

            The total system costs shown in Tables 3.12 and 3.13 are the sum of:

     STICKER PRICE + INCREMENTAL MAINT. COST •»• INCREMENTAL FUEL COST

The total costs are for 50,000 miles of vehicle operation.  They include one
replacement of catalytic converters for those systems which employ these
devices.

            A range of inertial weights is included here to correspond to  the
engine sizes considered.  Note that different inertial weights are used in the
analysis conducted with the AMTEC model.
                                      3-42

-------
                                  TABLE  3.10

                       INCREMENTAL FUEL COSTS  (50,000  MI.)
                                               ENGINES
TESTED INERTIAL WEIGHT
BASELINE FUEL USAGE  (MPG)
SYSTEM NUMBER
L
A
II

L
A
I!

L
A
H

L
A
H

L
A
11

L
A
I!

L
A
II

L
A
H
  0

 -4
 -7
•10

 -3.
 -5
 -7

-10
-12
•14

-10
-12
-14

 -1
 -3
 -5

 -6
 -8
-10

-20
-25
-30

 -1
 _ •?
 -5
16-300
6000 Ibs.
11.5
$ 80
147
217
- 59
102
147
217
266
317
217
266
317
20
59
102
123
168
217
489
651
837
20
59
102
V8-350
9000 Ibs
7.3
$ 123
225>
333
90
156
225
333
408
486
333
408
486
30
90
156
189
258
333
750
999
1284
30
90
156
  V8-454

11,000 Ibs.
   5.5

 $ 168
   307
   454

   123
   213-
   307

   454
   556
   663

   454
   556
   663

    41
   123
   213

   258
   352
   454

  1023
  1362
  1751

    41
   123
   213
                                      3-43

-------
                                  TABLE 3.11
                      DIESEL OPERATING COST -  (50,000 MI.)
DIESEL WITHOUT EGR
   BASELINE FUEL USAGE (MPG)
   DIESEL

DIESEL WITH EGR
   BASELINE FUEL USAGE (MPG)
   DIESEL
                                    300 in3
 17.3
$-656
   17
$-634
350 in'

   11
$-1037
  10.7
 $-979
454 in'

   8.3
$-1380
   8.1
$-1313
Note :

  - = Savings
                                     3-44

-------
                                  TABLE 3.12

                       TOTAL SYSTEM COST - (50,000 MI.)

                                                  ENGINES
INERTIAL WEIGHT
SYSTEM NUMBER
L
A
H
L
A
H
L
A
H
L
A
H
L
A
H
L
A
H
L
A
H
L
A
(I
16-300
6000 LBS.
$ 184
268
355
183
248
315
495/478
608/583
721/691
620/585
769/719
897/847
317/229
434/409
554/524
244
322
404
635
825
1039
184
255
330
V8-350
9000 LBS.
$ 230
349
474
217
305
396
627/607
770/742
919/887
819/772
1003/941
1187/1115
343/323
486/459
634/601
315
418
528
904
1182
1497
197
289
387
V8-454
11,000 LBS
$ 275
431
595
250
362
478
773/748
953/921
1139/1101
989/934
1221/1152
1459/1377
379/354
554/522
738/701
393
525
666
1186
1558
1981
208
322
444
Note:  With 1 replacement of converter(s)/with 1 replacement of converter
       element(s).
                                   .  3-45

-------
                                   TABLE  3.13
                        DIESEL ENGINE  TOTAL SYSTEM COSTS
                                  (50,000 MI.)

                                            ENGINE SIZES

                            300 in3            350 in'3           454 in'3
                           L $ - 210             $-681              $-929
Diesel                     A   - 109              -560               -763
                           H   -   8              -449               -632

                           L   - 148              -583               -822
Diesel with  EGR            A   -  37              -452               -646
                           H      74              -331               -505
Note:
  - = Savings
                                      3-46

-------
3.6         Emission Control System Lead Times

            Estimated lead times for the eight emission control systems are
shown in Figure 3.16. The lead time categories considered are:

                1.  Initial design
                2.  Prototype development
                3.  Prototype test and evaluation
                4.  Certification
                5.  Design review
                6.  Production facility planning, construction and tooling
                7.  Preproduction
                8.  Initial production

            The presented lead times are predicated on a sequential progression
of activities culminating in the initial production of a system.  For example,
it is assumed that work on new production facilities (where required) is not
initiated until after system certification.  An earlier decision to proceed
together with the attendent commitment of necessary funds could result in
appreciably reducing some of the indicated lead times.  This is particularly
true with regard to the systems which include catalytic converters on thermal
reactors.

            The eight emission control systems are presently in varying stages
of development.  For example, development of system No. 1 is essentially
complete.  In contrast, the advanced carburetion system employed in System  No. 8
is best designated as a concept at this time.

            Most systems require the development of more than one new device.
It is assumed that parallel efforts are conducted in these instances and the
time periods shown reflect that device deemed to have the longest lead time.
                                     3-47

-------
SYSTEM NO.   1
                 1
                 234
P     7
                         10
                              34
             45
                                                   45
                                      1.   SYSTEM DESIGN
                                      2.   PROTOTYPE DEV.
                                      3.   PROTOTYPE TEST & EVAL.
                                      4.   CERTIFICATION
                                      5.   DESIGN REVIEW
                                      6.   PROD. FAC. & TOOL.
                                      7.   PREPRODUCTION
                                      8.   INITIAL PRODUCTION
         20
30          40
    MONTHS
50
                                                                                       60
70
                                   Figure 3.16  ESTIMATED SYSTEM LEAD TIMES

-------
            The devices which are believed to require the longest lead times
are the catalytic converters -- approximately 24 months.  A detailed discussion
of the derivation of this lead time is contained in Appendix B.

            Generally 2 1/2 to 4 months are allocated for prototype test and
evaluation, 6 months for certification and 1-2 months for design review
at which time the decision to proceed with production is made.

            Lead time category No. 6, concerned with production facilities
and tooling varies considerably between the systems.  The required activities
may vary here from minor to major production line changes to the construction
of entirely new facilities.  The time allocated for these activities vary
from 6 months to 2 years.

            Three months are allotted for preproduction and one additional
month reach initial mass production.

            Systems Nos. 1 and 2 could become available within 2 years.  For
example, General Motors and Chrysler Corporation indicate lead times of
25-28 months for carburetors similar to the improved carburetors included in
Systems Nos. 1 and 2.      Systems employing catalytic converters (3, 4 and 5)
are shown to have lead times of 4-6 years; thermal reactor systems about
4 years.

            Discussions with Perkins Engine Co. personnel indicated that
large-scale production of a family of diesel engines could not be achieved
before 1980-1982.  Production of one engine with wide applicability, such as a
350 Gin diesel engine, given the necessary priority, may be possible by
1978-1979.
                                      3-49

-------
     3.7    System Comparison

            Table 3.14 lists the emission control systems and their estimated
effectiveness (i.e. emission reduction) ranked in the order of ascending costs.
The comparison is for a V8-350 CID spark ignition engine.

            Based on effectiveness, cost and lead times, systems Nos.  1, 4 and
7 do not appear to offer any benefits which cannot be achieved with other
systems more efficiently and economically.  System No. 2 is cheaper and more
effective than No. 1 and becomes available at approximately the same time.
System No. 5 matches the effectiveness of No. 4 at less than one half its cost.
The difference in lead times between the systems  is less than 1 year.
System No. 7 is characterized by high costs due mainly to the large fuel
penalty associated with it.  System No. 5 can provide approximately the same
benefits at a much lower cost, albeit one year later.

            Comparable data for the two diesel engine configurations,  system
No. ID with out EGR and No. 2D with EGR, are presented in Table 3.15.   Both
systems offer more than 90% reductions in HC and CO, but only 42-67 reductions
of baseline NO  emissions.  The total costs of both diesel engine systems
              A
are significantly lower than that of the baseline engine and provide significant
fuel savings.  It must be recognized, however, that large-scale production of
a family of diesel engines for medium duty vehicles is 8-10 years in the future.

            As described in the introductory section 3.1, the emission control
systems considered offer basically three choices or routes for the reduction
of emissions.  These are designated as:  1.  improved carburetion, 2.   catalytic
converters and 3.  thermal reactors.  This represents somewhat of an oversimpli-
fication since the improved carburetion (1C) of system No. 2 appears in systems
No. 3 and 6 as well.  The latter two systems also include an oxidizing catalytic
converter and a thermal reactor,respectively.
                                     3-50

-------
                                              TABLE 3.14


                          EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM COMPARISON: V8-350 ENGINE

                                     (   9000 Ibs. inertial weight)


                     AVERAGE

SYS. NO.        EMISSION REDUCTION        TOTAL COSTS (SO,000 MI.)       A FUEL USED (GAL.)
% % % RANGE ANTICIPATED

8
2
1
6
5
3
4
7
HC
60
35
-30
50
82
82
82
92
CO
70
45
5
65
85
85
85
65
NOX
65
40
35
62
90
40
90
83
L
197
. 217
230
315
323
343
607
627
772
819
904
H
387
396
474
528
601*
634^
887*
919"
1115*
1187
1497
A
289
305
349
418
459*
486
7702
ioor
1182
RANGE
L-ll
67-347
200-500
273-740
420-740
67-347
740-1080
740-1080
1667-2853
ANTICIPATED
A
200
347
500
573
200
907
907
2220
            1 .
             with one (1) replacement of catalyst element

            2
             with one (1) replacement of complete converter

-------
                                  TABLE 3.15

              EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM COMPARISON - DIESEL 350 CID

                          (9000 Ibs. inertial weight)



SYS. NO.         EMISSION REDUCTION         TOTAL COST         FUEL SAVINGS
                 %        %      %         (50,000 mi)           GALLONS
                 HC      CO     NOX


   ID            96      95      42           $-560                2304


   2D            96      95      67           $-452                2176



   Note:

   - = Savings
                                     3-52

-------
            Emission control through improved carburetion can be achieved
largely using existing production facilities.  The other two choices will
require extensive capital expenditures for new production facilities for the
manufacture of catalytic converters and thermal reactors.

            The three approaches are outlined in Table 3.16.  All are initiated
with the introduction of system No. 2 which can be made available within 2
years.  The improved carburetion and thermal reactor approaches result in
approximately equal effectiveness.  The use of catalytic, converters potentially
offer the greatest reduction of pollutant emissions.  The most advanced
catalytic converter system (No. 5) emits about one half of the HC and CO and
one third of NO  of the best postulated advanced carburetion system (No. 8).
               J\

            Tables 3.17, 3.18, 3.19 and 3.20 show the effectiveness and costs
of the various approaches considered.  The data are presented for a 350 CID
engine for each of the 4 major vehicle categories.  Effectiveness is expressed
in terms of grams/mile of residual emissions.  The costs are for 50,000 miles
of operation and include the initial sticker price, incremental maintenance
and fuel costs.

            The diesel engine appears to offer the best long term solution of
the emission problem.  It provides the best control of HC and CO emissions of
the systems considered.  Its control of NO  emissions is roughly comparable to
what can be achieved with the best "improved carburetion" systems but not as
good as the most advanced catalytic converter system No. 5.

            Diesel engines provide economy in operations far superior to any
of the other alternatives considered.  Their cost advantage derives from
their significantly lower fuel consumption which more than off-sets the
higher initial sticker prices of diesel-powered vehicles.

            The various emission control approaches described earlier were
examined with the AMTEC model.  The cases considered are listed in Table 3.21.
                                     3-53

-------
I
on
                                                    TABLE 3.16

                                         System Comparison V8 - 350 Engine


      Lead Time        Improved  Carburetion        Catalytic Converter         Thermal Reactor
       (Years)         Sys.       %  Reduction        Sys.     % Reduction         Sys.% Reduction
                               HC  CO  NO                  HC CO NO                 HC  CO   NO
                                         XX                           3


        1              (2)     35  45  40           (2)     35  45  40           (2) 35  45   40
                        (8)     60   70   65            (3)   82  85  40            (6) 50  65  62

                                                    (5)    82  84  90

-------
                                  TABLE 3.17

         IMPROVED CARBURETION EFFECTIVENESS AND COSTS - 350 CID ENGINE

                                (50,000 MILES)
  VEHICLE
   TYPE
INERT IAI, WT.
   LBS.
 RESIDUAL EMISSIONS GM/MI
 HC        CO         N0%,
                      TOTAL  COSTS
                     .(ANTICIPATED)
System No. 2
  Truck
  Truck
  Motor Home
  Motor Home
    6,000
   10,000
    8,000
   12,000
 3.5
 4.9
 5.3
12.5
 33.0
 49.5
 56.7
110.0
 4.6
 7.1
 7.2
16.2
$ 266
  323
  297
  354
System No. 8
  Truck
  Truck
  Motor Home
  Motor Home
    6,000
   10,000
    8,000
   12,000
 2.1
 3.0
 3.2
 7.7
 18.0
 27.0
 30.9
 60.0
 2.7
 4.1
 4.2
 9.5
  268
  301
  286
  320
Note:
  Trucks  are  assumed  to  be  lightly  loaded.  The inertial weights of the motor
  homes are selected  at  the midpoints of the 6-10,000 and  10-14,000 Ibs.
  GVW  categories.
                                      3-55

-------
                                  TABLE 3.18

           THERMAL REACTOR EFFECTIVENESS AND COSTS - 350 CID ENGINE

                                (50,000 MILES)
  VEHICLE
   TYPE
INERTIAL WT.
   LBS.
 RESIDUAL EMISSIONS GM/MI
 HC        CO         NO.,
                      TOTAL COSTS
                     (ANTICIPATED)
System No.  2
  Truck
  Truck
  Motor Home
  Motor Home
   6,000
  10,000
   8,000
  12,000
 3.5
 4.9
 5.3
12.5
 33.0
 49.5
 56.7
110.0
 4.6
 7.1
 7.2
16.2
$ 266
  323
  297
  354
System No.  6
  Truck
  Truck
  Motor Home
  Motor Home
   6,000
  10,000
   8,000
  12,000
 2.7
 3.8
 4.1
 9.7
 21.0
 31.5
 36.1
 70.0
 2.9
 4.5
 4.6
10.3
  353
  447
  404
  500
  Note:
     Ibid Table 3.17.
                                    3-56

-------
                                  TABLE 3.19

         CATALYTIC CONVERTER EFFECTIVENESS AND COSTS - 350 CID ENGINE

                                (50,000 MILES)
  VEHICLE
   TYPE

System No. 2
System No. 3
  Truck
  Truck
  Motor Home
  Motor Home
System No. 5

  Truck
  Truck
  Motor Home
  Motor Home
INERTIAL WT.
   LBS.
RESIDUAL EMISSIONS GM/MI
HC        CO         NO,,
   6,000
  10,000
   8,000
  12,000
   6,000
  10,000
   8,000
  12,000
TOTAL COSTS
(ANTICIPATED)
Truck
Truck
Motor Home
Motor Home
6,000
10,000
8,000
12,000
3.5
4.9
5.3
12.5
33.0
49.5
56.7
110.0
4.6
7.1
7.2
16.2
$ 266
323
297
354
Notes: For systems Nos. 3
       Ibid Table 3.17
1.0
1.4
1.5
3.5
9.0
13.5
15.5
30.0
4.6
7.1
7.2
16.2
582/610
701/729
646/674
769/797
1.0
1.4
1.5
3.5
9.6
14.4
16.5
32.0
.8
1.2
1.2
2.7
438/465
471/498
456/483
490/517
                With one replacement of the catalyst element/
                With one replacement of catalytic converter.
                                     3-57

-------
                                  TABLE 3.20

            DIESEL ENGINE EFFECTIVENESS AND COSTS - 350 CID ENGINE

                                  (50,000 MI.)
Diesel #1
  Truck
  Truck
  Motor Home
  Motor Home
                   INERTIAL WT.
                      LBS.
 6,000
10,000
 8,000
12,000
                 RESIDUAL EMISSIONS GM/MI
                 HC        CO         NOX
,2
,3
,3
,7
2.7
4.1
4.4
8.3
 4.4
 6.7
 6.7
15.3
                                TOTAL  COSTS
                                (ANTICIPATED)
$-290
 -669
 -507
 -908
Diesel #2
  Truck
  Truck
  Motor Home
  Motor Home
 6,000
10,000
 8,000
12,000
,2
 3
,3
,7
2.7
4.1
4.4
8.3
 2,5
 3.8
 3.8
 8.7
 -211
 -576
 -411
 -800
  Note:
     Ibid Table 3.17.
                                     3-58

-------
Run No.

   I
   II

   III

   IV


   V


   VI
               TABLE 3.21

ALTERNATIVE EMISSION CONTROL APPROACHES


                           System No.
                               2    • '
                               8
                               2
                               6
                               2
                               3
                              . 5

                               2
                               8
                         Diesel + EGR
                               2
                               3
                               5
                         Diesel * EGR
Year Introduced

     1975

     1975
     1978

     1975
     1977

     1975
     1977
     1978

     1975
     1978
     1978

     1975
     1977
     1978 :
  : .  1978
   Phase-in of Diesel Engines (% of Annual Sales)                        ••

   Trucks 6000 Ibs. GVW:   5%-1978, 10%-1979, 25%-1980-1989

   Trucks 10,000 Ibs. GVW: 10%-1978, 20%-1979, 35%-1980, 50%-1981, 65%-1981-1989

   Motor Homes 8000 Ibs. GVW:  5%-1978, 10%-1979, 25%-1980, 50%-1981-1989
                                                                   'v
   Motor Homes 12,000 Ibs. GVW:   10%-1978, 20%-1979, 35%-1980, 50%-1981,
                                 65%-1982-1989
                                     3-59

-------
The results are presented in Table 3.22.   The data shown for each approach
include:
            1.  Omission reductions in specified years as a percent of
                baseline emissions
            2.  Fuel penalty/(savings) expressed as a percent of the baseline
                fuel consumption
            3.  Total annual low and high costs; and
            4.  Anticipated costs over the 15 year period.

            Baseline emissions are the quantities of pollutants which would
be emitted in the absence of control systems.  The greater effectiveness of
the systems over the years result from the fact that vehicles equipped with
control devices comprise an increasing segment of the total medium duty
vehicle population.  The 1989 emission reduction percentages are very close
to the greatest reductions that can be achieved with the systems.

            The annual costs are successively higher for each of the four
years  considered for the approaches which utilize gasoline engines equipped
with emission control systems.  Approaches which include diesel engines show
declining costs in the years following the introduction of these engines.
The declining costs are due to the considerably greater*fuel economy of these
engines.

            The annual costs are close to their levelling off points by 1989
for the specified mix of vehicles.  This is indicated by the fact that emission
reductions are almost equal to the greatest reduction possible with the
control systems.

            The approaches which use only gasoline engines with emission
control systems result in fuel penalties ranging from 3-8 percent.  The
inclusion of diesel engines result in fuel savings of 6-7 percent.  These
percentages are relative to the fuel consumption which would have occurred if
the vehicle population had been equipped with the baseline gasoline engine
without emission control systems throughout the period.
                                     3-60

-------
                                               TABLE 3.22

                    Effectiveness  and Annual Costs of  Emission  Control Approaches
                                     1975
                                                1980
1985
1989
Sys. No. 2
Emission Reductions HC/CO/NO  (%)
Fuel Penalty/(Savings) (%)  X
Costs Low - High ($M)

Sys. Nos. 2 & 8
Emission Reductions HC/CO/NO  (%)
Fuel Penalty/(Savings) (%)  X
Costs Low - High ($M)

Sys. Nos. 2 & 6
Emission Reductions HC/CO/NO  (%)
Fuel Penalty/(Savings) (%)  X.
Costs Low - High ($M)

Sys. Nos. 2, 3, & 5
Emission Reductions HC/CO/NO  (%)
Fuel Penalty/(Savings) (%)  X
Costs Low - High ($M)

Sys. Nos. 2 & 8, with Diesel + EGR
Emission Reductions HC/CO/NO  (%)
Fuel Penalty/(Savings) (%)  X
Costs Low - High ($M)

Sys. Nos. 2, 3 & 5 with Diesel + EGR
Emission Reductions HC/CO/NO  (%)
Fuel Penalty/(Savings) (%)  X
Costs Low - High ($M)
4/5/11
1
88-123
4/5/11
1
88-123
4/5/11
1
88-123
4/5/11
1
88-123
4/5/11
1
88-123
4/5/11
1
88-123
23/27/27
3
189-253
30/36/36
3
181-259
28/36/38
5
238-337
42/45/40
4
286-423
33/38/36
0
184-294
; 43/46/38
2
; 269-425
31/40/36
5
290-384
50/59/55
3
249-352
43/56/55
7
394-541
69/72/71
4
359-530
64/69/56
(A)
59-161
75/76/62
(4)
141-291
. 34/44/39
5
363/478
57/67/62
3
297-418
48/63/61
8
506-689
79/72/83
3
409-605
77/81/64
(7)
(49)-39
36/88/72
(6)
32-172
                                                                                   Total Anticipated
                                                                                   Costs, 1975-1989
                                                                                   $ Billions
                                                                                        3.991
                                                                                        3.683
                                                                                        5.338
                                                                                        5.417
                                                                                        2.042
                                                                                        3.400
Note:  ( ) denote savings            .                        '
       Total costs for systems Nos. 3 and 5 include replacement of the entire catalytic converter(s)
       every 25,000 miles.
       Percent emission reductions are  relative to 1972 base  line  engine.

-------
            The total anticipated incremental costs incurred over the 15 year
period by implementing the alternative approaches are shown in the last
column.  These costs range from about $2 billion to $5.4 billion.

            The "best" approach depends largely on the extent to which the
pollutant emissions must be reduced, particularly NO .  Systems Nos. 2 and 8
provide about a 60 percent reduction of emissions by 1989 with a fuel penalty
of about 3 percent.  Further reductions, without introducing diescl engines,
requires the use of catalytic converters.  The cost of this approach, system
Nos. 2, 3 and 5, increases the total cost by about 50 percent - $3.7 vs. 5.4
billion.

            The introduction of diesel engines equipped with EGR, in addition
to equipping the gasoline engines with system Nos. 2 and 8 offers about an
80 percent reduction of HC and CO and a 64 percent reduction of NO  by 1989.
                                                                  x
This reduction is achieved at the relatively low cost of $2 billion.
Concurrently annual fuel savings of about 7 percent are obtained.

            Combining catalytic converter systems on'gasoline engines with
diesel-powered vehicle? provides slightly greater emission reductions.  The
cost of this approach is $3.4 billion.

            We conclude from the above analysis that the introduction of
diesel engines together with improved carburetion on gasoline engines provides
the most cost-effective approach.  It is noted that this approach following
its implementation results in no additional costs above the baseline engines.
As shown in Table 3.22, the annual cost of this approach is about $0 by 1989.
Greater proportions of diesel engines in the vehicle mix than assumed here
would result in negative costs, i.e. savings.
                                      3-62

-------
     3.7.1  Certification Costs

            It is not possible to specify a certification fleet and estimate
certification costs without precise specification and knowledge of
certification standards, engine-emission control system combinations as well
as other variables which may impact on the pollutant emissions.  In the absence
of such data, a crude estimate of certification fleet costs is made based on
LDV experience.  A set of conditions, as they may apply to medium duty
vehicles, is then postulated and certification fleet requirements and costs
established.

            General Motor's emission test fleet for light duty vehicles in
                                                          (14)
1972 included 19 durability and 72 emission test vehicles.      Total sales
of such vehicles were about 5.5 million.      Information provided by F.PA^  •*
reflecting primarily G.M. experience indicated a manufacturers' certification
fleet cost of $3.41 per vehicle produced.  This yields a total cost of $18.8
million and a cost of about $.2 million per test vehicle.

             There  is  a  high degree of uncertainty  associated  with  these  costs.
 Initially,  the  costs  of durability and  emission data vehicles may  be drastically
 different with  the former displaying higher  costs.  Additionally,  the  lack  of
 data did not permit  addressing  cost  differentials  based  on manufacturer's  size
 and  available facilities.

             The total number of vehicles produced  in  the 6-14,000  Ibs. GVW
 range  is only about 5 percent of the number  of light  duty vehicles.  The costs
 of certification fleets can, therefore, become a significant  sticker price
 cost factor, particularly for the smaller manufacturers  and  for vehicle  types
 which  are produced in relatively small  quantities.
                                       3-63

-------
   3.7.1.1  Example

            The 6,000-14,000 Ibs. CVW vehicles are divided into two weight
classes:  6,000-10,000 Ihs. GV1V and 10,000-14,000 Ibs. GVW.  There are five
engine families within each weight class.  LDV certification procedures are
assumed applicable to the medium duty vehicles.

            The resultant categorizations are shown in Tables 3.23 and 3.24.
The percent of sales of engines with given CID's are based on manufacturers'
1973 sales projections.

            One control system, designated A, is used on all vehicles in the
6-10,000 Ibs. GVW class.  Two emission control systems, designated as A and B,
are employed on the vehicles in the 10-14,000 Ibs. GVW range.

            The resultant numbers of required durability and emission test
fleet vehicles are shown at the bottom  of Tables 3.23 and 3.24.  A maximum of
four "B" vehicles are permitted per engine family.  "C" vehicles are selected
only when an engine-emission system combination is not represented by an "A"
or "B" vehicle.

            The total postulated test fleet consists of 15 durability and 38
emission test vehicles.  This represents about 65 percent of GM's LDV emission
fleet.  This results in a certification cost of about  $10 million based on the
previously extrapolated cost of $.2 million per test vehicle.

            A significant cost would be incurred by each manufacturer producing
the types and weight ranges of vehicles considered.  Even assuming that the above
cost is high by a factor of two, a manufacturer whose total sales were 50,000
units would have an average cost of about $100 per vehicle sold.
                                      3-64

-------
                                  TABLE 3.23

                       CERTIFICATION FLEET REQUIREMENTS

                            6,000 - 10,000 GVW



ENG. FAM.    CID       EM. CONT.     % SALES     BODY TYPE
CERTIFICATION FLEET
D     A     B     C
16-1 225-249 A



16-2 250-300 A



V8(3)-l 300-320 A



V8(3)-2 330-360 A



V8(4) 390-400 A


100 P
V/P
MS
CM/MM
100 P
V/P
MS
CH/MH
100 P
V/P
MS
CH/MH
100 P
V/P
MS
CH/MH
100 P
CH/MH
TOTALS
1 1
1 1

1
1 1 1
1
1

1 1 1
1
1
1
1 2


1
1 2
1
5 10 9
   Based on 1974 LDV certification procedures
                                      3-65

-------
                                TABLE 3.24




                     CERTIFICATION FLEET REQUIREMENTS




                         10,000 - 14,000 Ibs. GVW
;NG. FAM.

16.1

16-2

V8(3)-l

V8(3)-2

V8(4)

CID

225-249
225-249
250-300
250-300
300-320
300-320
330-360
330-360
390-500
390-500
EM. CONT
SYS.
Al
Bl
Al
Bl
Al
Bl
Al
Bl
Al
B,
SALES

10
90
50
50
9
91
28
72
15
85
BODY
TYPE
MS
CM/MI I
MS
CH/MI!
MS
CH/MH
MS
CH/MH
MS
CM/MU
CERTIFICATION
D
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A

2
1
1

2

2

2
B
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

                                        TOTAL
10    10
Based on 1974 LDV certification procedures.
                                   3-66

-------
            The preceding data are believed to be indicative  of the  magnitudes
of certification costs which may be encountered.  As noted in the introductory
paragraph of section 3.7.1, the development of precise estimates requires
specific information which is not presently available.  Nevertheless,  the
sample analysis demonstrates that certification costs for medium duty  vehicles
could have a significant impact on the total system costs; particularly for
the smaller manufacturers.

            One final qualification is in order.  The majority of the  vehicles
which would be certified in the MDV class are presently certified using the
Heavy Duty engine procedure.  A more precise analysis of MDV  certification
costs would have to consider the cost increment associated with MDV  certifica-
tion over present Heavy Duty certification costs.

      3.7.2 Consumer Costs

            The most expensive system considered results in a $.02 incremental
cost increase per mile based on 50,000 miles of travel.  For  most of the
systems, the cost increase due to the addition of emission control devices
is in the order of $.005 to $.01 per mile.  The use of diesel engines  results
in lower costs than are incurred with the baseline engines.

            Discussions with local truck leasing agencies indicated  that the
additional costs of emission control devices would have little or no direct
impact on consumer prices.  The current pricing structure is  such that a class
of vehicles which are leased at a given price include vehicles whose sticker
prices may vary considerably.  A similar situation is also encountered in light
duty vehicle rentals where full-sized, low-priced vehicles are leased at the
same rates as some models of the medium-priced.

            No direct relationship between sticker prices and operating costs
versus leasing rates were found.  The latter are a function of many  factors
important among which are demand and competition.  Based on the available
                                      3-67

-------
evidence it is concluded that the addition of emission control  devices  on
medium duty vehicles will not impact significantly on the  user  or leasing
costs of these vehicles.

            Time and data restrictions did not permit alternative investiga-
tions of the impact of emission control systems on consumer costs.
                                      3-68

-------
4. 0      REFERENCES
         References for Part A

1.       1967  Census  of Transportation - Vol II:  Truck Inventory and
         Uses,  U.S. Department of Commerce, July 1970.

2.       Preparation of Data Necessary for the Development of a
         Heavy Duty Truck Driving Cycle for Use in Emissions Testing
         Programs.  Wilbur Smith and Assoc. (Interim Report) Aug.  1972.

3.       Survey of Truck and Bus Operating Modes in Several Cities,
         Ethyl Corporation, Final Report  GR 63-24, June 1963.

4.       Motor Trucks  in the Metropolis, Wilbur Smith and Associates
         (Commissioned by the Automobile Manufacturers Association)
         Aug. 1969.

5.       Zettel, R. M.   and  Mohr, E. A.  Commercial Vehicle  Taxation
         in California,  Institute of Transporation and Traffic  Engineering,
         University of California, Feb.  1972.

6.       Task Progress Report, Contract No. 68-01-0463,  Calspan
         Corporation, March 28,  1973.
x
7.       Mikus, T. and Heywood, J. B.   The Automobile Gas  Turbine and
         Notric  Oxide Emissions, 1971 Inter Society Energy Conversion
         Conference, Paper No. 719012.
                                 4-1

-------
 8.        Federal Certification Light Duty Vehicle Test Results for the



          1972 Model Year







 9.        Federal Certification Light Duty Vehicle Test Results for the



          1973 Model Year







10.        General Motors Request for Suspension of 1975  Federal Emissions



          Standards   (Vol I,  II, III), March 1973







11.        Submission Upon Remand (Vo. I,  II), Ford Motor Company,



          March  1973







12.        Technical Appendix, Administrator's Decision,  Envivonmental



          Protection Agency, April 1973.







13.        General Motors Request for Suspension of 1975  Federal Emissions



          Standards (Vol. I,  II), April  1972.







14.        Rivard, J.  G.  Closed-Loop Electronic Fuel Injection Control



          of the Internal-Combustion Engine, SAE Paper 73000L--, Jan. 1973.







15.        Zechnall, R. ; Baumann, G. ; and  Eisele, H.   Closed-Loop Exhaust



          Emission Control System with Electronic Fuel Injection,



          SAE Paper  730566, May 1973.







16.        Hirschler,  D. A.; Adams, W. E. ; Marsee, F. J.   Lean Mixtures,



          Low Emissions and Energy Conservation,  Paper presented at the



          National Petroleum Refiners Association Meeting, April 1973.
                                  4-2

-------
17.     Lang, R. J.  A Well-Mixed Thermal Reactor System for Automotive



        Emission Control,  SAE Paper 710608,  June 1971.







18.     Medium Duty Truck Emissions Data, Environmental Protection



        Agency,  Ann Arbor







19.     Fuel Economy and Emission Control, Environmental Protection



        Agency, Nov.  1972.







20.     Hinton,  M. G. ; lura,  T; Mcltzer,  J. ; Somers,  J.H.  Gasoline



        Lead Additive and Cost Effects of Potential  1975-76 Emissions



        Control Systems,  SAE Paper 730014, Jan.  1973.







21.     Campau, R. M.  Low Emission Concept Vehicles,  IIEC 1971



        Report, SAE  SP-361.







22.     Springer, K.  J.  Baseline Characterization and Emissions Control



        Technology  Assessment of HD Gasoline Engines, Final Report



        For Contract EHS 70-110,  Nov. 1972.







23.     Vehicle Operations Survey  (Vol. I,  II)  Scott Research Laboratories,



        Inc., December 1971.







24.     International Harvester Co. , Application for Suspension of the



        1975 Federal Light Duty Emission Standards,  March 1973.







25.     Springer, K.  J.   Emissions from a Gasoline and Diesel Powered



        Mercedes  220 Passenger Car,  Final Report for Contract No.  CPA



        70-44,  June 1971.
                                 4-3

-------
26.   Marshall, W.F. and Fleming, R.D.; Diesel Emissions Re-
      inventoried,  Bureau of Mines Report RI 7530.

27.   Marshall, W.F. and Hurn, R.W. ; Modifying Diesel Engine
      Operating Parameters to Reduce Emissions,  Bureau of Mines
      Report RI 7579.

28.   Bureau of Mines,  Characterization and Control of Emissions
      from Heavy Duty Diesel and Gasoline Fueled Engines, Draft
      of Final Report on EPA-IAG-0129 (D),  Oct.  1972.

29.   Spindt, R.S., Barnes,  G.J.,  Somers, J.H.;   The Characterization
      of Odor Components in Diesel Exhaust Gas,  SAE Paper 710605
      June 1971.

30.   Dodd, A.E.,  and Wallin, J. C.,  The Subjective Assessment of
      Exhaust Smoke  from Diesel-Engined Road V  hides, Motor
      Industry Research Association Report No. 1971/10, Nov. 1971.

31.   Bascom,  R.C.,  Broering,  L. C. ,  Wulfhorst, D. E. ; Design Factors
      that Affect Diesel Emissions,  SAE Paper 710484,  Also published
      in SP-365, July  1971.

32.   Walder, C.J.; Reduction of Emissions from Diesel Engines,
      SAE Paper 730214, Jan. 1973.

33.   Norbye, J.P. and Dunne, J. ;  Honda's New CVCC Car Engine
      Meets '75 Emission Standards Now,  Popular  Science, April  1973.
                                 4-4

-------
34.   Austin, T.C. ,  An Evaluation of Three Honda Compound Vortex
      Controlled Combustion (CVCC) Powered Vehicles,  Dec. 1972.


35.   Technical Report on Honda CVCC System, Honda Motor Co. ,
      May 1973.


36.   Private Communication from M. G.  Hinton,  Aerospace Corporation


37.   Tingley, D. and Johnson,  J.H.; The Development of a Computer
      Model for the Prediction of the U.S. Truck  and Bus Population,
      Fuel Usage,  and Air  Pollution Contribution.  4th Annual Pittsburgh
      Conference on Modeling and Simulation,  April 1973.


38.   Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association Publications

                                                         0
39.   Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance - A Summary prepared by
      Calspan Corporation  for the Environmental Protection Agency,  Div.  of
      Certification and Surveillance,  Ann Arbor, March 1973.


40.   National Academy of  Science,  Committee on Vehicle Emissions,
      Panel #4,  Alternative Power Systems.


41.   Fett,  C. E. ,  Catalyst Deterioration Factors, EPA Memo,  June 1973.
                                   4-5

-------
                          REFERENCES PART B
1.  Ford Motor Company, Submission Upon Demand, Ford's Application for
    Suspension of 1975 Motor Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards,  Vol. I,
    March 5,  1973.

2.  Data developed by L. Lindgren,  Rath and Strong Associates.

3.  Report by the Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions of the National
    Academy of Sciences, 15 February 1973.

4.  An Assessment of the Effects of Lead Additives in Gasoline on Emission
    Control Systems which might be used to meet the 1975-1976 Motor Vehicle
    Emission Standards, Final Report, Aerospace  Corp. , 15 Nov. 1971.

5.  Ford Motor Co. , Response to National Academy of Sciences Committee
    on Motor Vehicle Emissions, October 13, 1972.

6.  Telcom with G. Storbeck,  Volkswagen of America,  14 May 1973.

70  Telcom with J.  Rivard,  Bendix Corporation, 15 May 1973.

8.  Telcom with John Mapleback, Ford Motor Co. , 8 March 1973.

9.  Effect of Lead Antiknocks  on the Performance and Costs of Advanced
    Emission Control Systems,  E. I. Dupont de Nemours  & Co. , Inc. ,
    July 1971.

10. Telcom with Charles Bailey, Universal Oil Products,  9 March 1973.

11. Letter to John P. DeKaney from Fred W. Bowditch, 22 Dec. 1972,
    Subject:  GM Cost Information on Advanced Emission Control Systems
    under Development.

12. Information provided by R. Kruse,  EPA, Ann Arbor,  Michigan.

13. Final Report, Assessment  of Domestic Automotive Industry Production
    Lead Time for 1975/1976 Model Years,  Aerospace Corp. ,  15 December
    1972.

14. Telcom with Mr. Feiton, General Motors Corp. ,  April  1973.
                                    4-6

-------
         APPENDIX  A-l
COMPARISON OF SPECIFICATIONS
 FOR ENGINES USED IN LDV AND
       HDV APPLICATIONS
              A-l

-------
            The same basic  engine families are generally used by the automo-
bile manufacturers in their passenger cars and light duty vehicles (under
6, 000 Ibs GVW) and in their medium duty trucks (6, 000-14, 000 Ibs GVW).
Engine families are designated by the manufacturers as comprised of those
engines that share a common engine block casting; identical cylinder arrange-
ment, bore spacing and  deck height.  Engines classified within a  given family
may have different displacements resulting from changes in bore and/or stroke
dimensions. Similarly, horsepower ratings of engines with a given displace-
ment may be found to  differ  because of changes in carburetion, compression
ratio, camshaft lift and/or duration,  etc.

            Tables A-l. 1 through A-1.4 provide a comparison of the engines
used by Chrysler, Ford, General Motors and International Harvester in their
light duty and medium duty vehicles.  These data were culled from information
submitted by each manufacturer to EPA  in their LD and HD Gasoline Engine
Certification Books  on  1973 models.   Within any one family, all  of the  light
duty engines are included whereas,  in the heavy duty families,  only those
engines used in vehicles with GVW ratings between 6,000 and  14,000 Ibs are
listed.  A listing of the  emission control devices used on each is  given as well.

            Generally, the heavy duty engines are equipped with fewer external
emission control devices and are rated at a slightly higher power output.
Close scrutiny of the detailed specification  sheets in the source documents
showed  that, with few exceptions, the LD and HD engines were identical in-
ternally (same camshafts, heads and  compression ratios).  Such  internal
differences as  were noted were relatively minor.  One example would be a
difference in exhaust valve material.

            Emission  controls used on the heavy duty engines are seen to be
taken directly from their light duty  counterparts.  Engine modifications and
                                    A-3

-------
positive crankcase ventilation systems are used by all engines listed.  Those
heavy duty engines sold in California are equipped with EGR and evaporative
control systems to comply with the 1973 standards  for that state.

            Emission control devices are identified only by their acronyms in
Tables  A-l. 1 through A - 1. 4.  Table A-1.5  identifies these acronyms according
to their meaning and provides a  brief description of the purpose and functioning
of the control devices.
                                   A-4

-------
                     TABLE A-l. 1
ENGINE -COMPARATIVE DATA
              1973  Chrysler  Corp.  Light  Duty  Engines vs  Chrysler Corp. Heavy Duty Engines
Engine Family
RG
(I
tt
U
it
ti
U
U
B
11
II
RB
it
it
ii
U
ii
Engine Type
I 6
ii
ii
V 8
II
tl
It
tl
V 8
It
It
V 3
11
U
ii
U
U
Displacement
198
225
n
318
It
3UO
360
It
UOO
II
fl
1.13
UUO
n
n
n
n
Carhuretion
1 - 1 BBL
1 - 1 BBL
II
1 - 2 BBL
(1
1 - h BBL
1 - 2 3KL
ii
1 - 2 BBL
n
1 - U BBL
1 - h EBL
1 - k BBL
n
it
it
ii
light Duty
HP £ tPM
95 @ UOOO
98 @ UOOO
105 @ Uooo
150 e 3600
170 @ Uooo
2UO © tiSOO
163 e Uooo
170 e Uooo
175 @ 36oo
185 c«- 3600
260 Si U800

208 t 3600
213 ® 3600
215 £' 3600
220 £ 3600
280 ft U800
Control Devices
PCV,OSAC,EGR,CAN
PCV,OSAC,EGR,
CAN,AI .
n
?CV,eSAC,TinC,
E3R,CAN
it
PCV,OSAC,TIDC,
EGR,CAN
°CV,OSAC,TIDC,
5GR,CAN,AI
ti
PCV,03AC,TIDC,
EGR,CAN
n
PCV,OSAC,TIBC,
SOP., CAN

PCV,OSAC,TIDC,
EOR,CAN,AI
ti
it
n
?CV,OSAC,THX;,
ST,R,CAN
Heavy Duty
HP ® RPM

110 <£ UOOO

150 £ UOOO
160 e Uooo

160 
-------
                 TABLE  A-1.2
ENGINE COMPARATIVE  DATA
                   1973 Ford  Light Duty Engines vs  Ford Heavy Duty Engines
Engine Family
2UO-300
ti
it
H
it
n
302
330-361-391
360-390
II
*|
tt
Engine Type
I 6
"
ti
it
n
1!
V 8
V 8
V 8
it
n
n
Displacement
2liO
it
300
n
ii
it
302
330
360
M
390
n
Carburetion
1 - 1 BBL
ii
1 - 1 BBL
n
it
M
1 - 2 BBL
1 - 2 BBL
1 - 2 BBL
11
1 - 2 BBL
n
Light Duty
HP @ R?M
95 ® 3800
99 © 3800




1UO e UOOO

152 © UOOO
153 @ UOOO
162 £' UOOO

Control Devices
PCV,TCS,EGR,CC
ti




PCV,SDV,EGR,CC

PCV,SDV,EGR,CC
n
PCV,SDV,EGR,CC

Heavy Duty
HP g RPH


11U © 3UOO
117 @ 3600
118 @ 3UOO
126 @ 3UOO
139 @ 3600
137 ® 3200
1U8 @ 3800

153 ® 3UOO
161 @ 3600
Control Devices


. IMCO,PCV,CC
it
n
it
IMCO,?CV,CC
IKCO,PCV,CC
IMCO,?CV,EGR,CC

IKCO,?CV,EGR,CC
it
Note


C
C
C
A,C
C
A,C
B,C

B,C
II
NOTES:   A - The 126 HP, 300 cu  in six and the 330 cu in V-8 are available only in the F-500 and heavier trucks.
           The GVW ratings of  the F-500 start at 1UOOO#.
        B - The heavy duty versions of the 360 and 390 cu in V-8's have exhaust gas recirculation systems in
           California only.
        C - Heavy duty versions of these engines have  carbon canister (CC)  evaporative controls in California
           only, on fuel systems with a total'capacity  of 50 gallons or less.

-------
                        TABLE A-l. 3   ENGINE COMPARATIVE DATA

             1973  Chevrolet (CMC)  Light Duty Engines vs  Chevrolet  (OMC) Heavy  Duty Engines
Sngine Family
io2*i in**
112**
10U*i- 113**
:t
If
M
II
II
II
II
II
105** 115**
II
II
II
Sngine Type
I 6
I 6
V 8
n
»
n
n
ii
n
u
ii
V 8
11
»
it
Displacement
250
292
30?
350
II
II
It
II
tt
It
100
li$k
n
n
n
Carburetion
1 - 1 3BL
1 - 1 BBL
1 - 2 BEL
1 - 2 BBL
n
1 - I BBL
If
II
It
II
1 - 2 BEL
I - I EBL'
n
n
it
Light Duty
HP @ RPK
100 e 3600

115 e 3600
H5 e Ijcoe

155 £ hOOO
175 e 14000
190 e Moo
2u5 e 5200
250 E 5200
150 6 3200
215 e Uooo
2Lo e Uooo
2L5 
-------
                                  TABLE A-1.4   ENGINE COMPARATIVE DATA


              1973   International Harvester Light Duty Engines  vs International Harvester Heavy Duty Engines
Engine Family
6 - 256
V - 30h
V - 315
V - 392
Engine Tyoe
I 6
V 8
V 8
v e
Displacement
258.1114
303.68
3LA.96
390.89
Carburetion •
1 - 1 3BL
1 - 2 BPL
1 - 2 BBL
1 - h BBL
light Duty
HP @ R?M
iho <£ 3800
193 @ hhOO
197 £ UCOO
253 @ h200
Control Devices
PCV,AI,EGR,SCS,CC
PCV,AI,EGR,SC3,CC
^V.AI^GR.SCSjCC
PCV,AI,EGR,SCS,CC
Heavy Duty
H° @ R°K

193 
-------
    TABLE A-1.5
             - SUMMARY OF  EMISSIONS CONTROL DEVICES PRESENTLY  USED
Abbreviation
         Syst em Name
                    System Description
   PCV
   AI
   EGR
   TCS
   SDV
   OS AC
   TIDC
   GMECS

   cc
   CAN
   EM
   CCS
   IMCO
Positive Crankcase Ventilation
System
Air Injection System
Exhaust Gas Recirculation System
Transmission Controlled Spark
Spark Delay Valve
Orifice Spark Advance Control
Thermostatic Ignition Distributor
  vacuum Control

General Motors Evaporative Control"^
System                             \
Carbon Canister
CANister evaporative control
  \
 j
Engine Modifications
Controlled Combustion System
IMproved CObustion System
 \
)
      A system which supplies fresh air to the crankcase through
      the  air filter and directs the blow-by gases into the intake
      manifold through a spring-loaded metering valve.

      A system consisting of an engine-driven air pump
      which supplies  fresh air to nozzles located in the
      exhaust ports,  completing combustion of hydrocarbons
      externally.  The  systems usually incorporate some flow
      control devices for better driveability.

      A system which controls oxides of nitrogen (NOX )
      emissions by recirculating a portion of the exhaust gases
      back into the intake manifold.  The plumbing consists
      of fixed orifices or vacuum-controlled valves.

      All  of these systems are ignition modifications to
      control spark advance under various speed or
      load conditions.
All of these systems are evaporative emissions control
systems consisting basically of a charcoal or carbon
filled canister into which the evaporated hydro carbons
from the gas tank and carburetor are directed.   They
are held here until the engine is started at which time they
are purged into the intake manifold

These  systems,  used on heavy duty engines, consist
mainly of modifications and recalibrations made on basically
unchanged pre-emission controls engines.  The carburetor
and choke are modified,  the spark advance  curve is altered,
the compression  ratio is lowered, the head design is
altered,  a system to pre-heat intake air is  installed, the
camshaft profile  is altered, etc.

-------
          APPENDIX A-2


      A SUMMARY OF EXHAUST
EMISSIONS DATA FROM MEDIUM DUTY
VEHICLES  6,000 - 14,000 POUNDS GVW
                A-ll

-------
            This appendix simply presents a tabular summary of the exhaust
emissions data for motor vehicles in the nominal 6, 000 - 14, 000 pound GVW
range.  These data were measured by EPA and its  two contractors, Southwest
Research Institute (SWRI)  and Automotive Engineering Systems,  Inc. (AESI),
using an equivalent 1975 Federal Test Procedure.  The only deviations from
the 1975 FTP occurred in the determination of vehicle inertia weight and
vehicle road load horsepower.

            Inertia weight was obtained by adding an incremental weight to the
curb weight of the vehicle  and rounding this sum to the nearest 500 Ibs.   The
incremental weight to be added was established by reference to the following
table.
      Incremental Weight (Ibs)
                500
               1000
               1500
Vehicle Payload Capacity (GVW-GCW)
            2000 Ibs
           2000-4000 Ibs
            4000 Ibs
            With the inertia weight established,  the corresponding road load
horsepower to be used for that vehicle was calculable from the following
relation.

               Road load HP  = 0. 0096 (inertia weight Ibs)  - 30. 3
            The attached sheets itemize the data by the test organizations
vehicle number; vehicle model year; vehicle make, model, year and body type;
GVW,  GCW and inertia weight,  engine displacement and number of cylinders;
averaged emissions for  HC, CO,  CCK and NOX in grams per mile; number of
                                    A-13

-------
tests averaged and whether the engine had been tuned prior to the test.

            Data for  122 vehicles are listed and of this total 12 are motor
homes.  The preponderant body type vehicle sampled was the pickup/camper.
Approximately 75% of these vehicles were 1970 and later models. Excluding
motor  homes,  approximately 55% of all vehicles were tested at an inertia
weight of 5000 and 5500 pounds and only 6%  in the range  above 8000 pounds.

            Vehicles  numbered 1  through 67 were tested by EPA as a part of
an in-house study. Vehicles numbered 200  through 245 were tested by SWRI
while those coded 1A through 45A (the letter A was arbitrarily added to
differentiate from the EPA group of vehicles) were tested by AESI.

            Generally all 1972 and 1973 model vehicles were tested after the
engine had been "tuned".   In the earlier stages of the test programs, the
tuning  only involved setting the idle rpm to specifications.   Later, the  tuning
procedure was extended to include adjustment of the initial  timing and the
dwell angle.
                                   A-14

-------
EPA
Vehicle
No.
1
2
3
4
5

6
7
8
9
10

11
i 12
£ 13
P 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24

25
26
27
Year
72
66
71
68
71

72
72
72
72
70

72
72
71
69
71
70
67
72
72
71
69

71
65
69

71
71
68
Make
Chev.
Dodge
AMC
Dodge
I-H

Ford
Chev
Ford
Dodge
Dodge

Chev
Ford
Dodge
Ford
Chev
Ford
Ford
Chev
Ford
Chev
CMC

Chev
Chev
Ford

Ford
Ford
Ford
Model
C-20
D-100
J4000
B300
-

F-350
P-35
E-300
D-300
-

C-35
F-250
D-300
E-300
C-30
E-300
F-350
C-20
F-250
C-30
Sierra
Grande
C-20
C-20
F-250

E-300
E-300
F-250
Body
Type
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Van
Multi-
Stop
Van
Van
Van
Pickup
Motor
Home
Stake
Pickup
N/A
Van
N/A
Van
N/A
Pickup
Pickup
Van
Pickup

Pickup
Pickup
Motor
Home
Van
Van
Pickup
GVW
7,500
5,200
7,000
7,700
6, 100

10, 000
10,000
6,050
9,000
10,000

10,000
6,900
10,000
6,800
10,000
6,500
10,000
10,000
6,900
10, 000
7,500

6,200
7,500
6, 100

7,600
6,050
7,500
GCW
4,385
3,620
4,265
5,565
4,295

6,620
6,760
4, 110
5, 185
8,645

5,395
4,460
5,575
4, 170
5,580
4,235
6,630
6,770
4,120
6, 820
4,730

4,920
4,325
6,315

5,840
4,340
4,620
Inertia
Wgt.
5,000
4,000
4,265
6,500
5,000

7,500
7,500
4,500
6,000
9,000

7,500
5,000
6,000
4,500
6,000
4,500
7,000
7,500
4,500
7,500
5,000

5,500
5,000
7,000

6,500
5,000
5,000
Engine
350-8
225-6
360-8
318-8
232-6

300-6
350-8
240-6
400-8
318-8

350-8
360-8
318-8
240-6
350-8
240-6
300-6
350-8
300-6
350-8
396-8

350-8
250-6
360-8

302-8
302-8
240-6
Av.
HC
3. 14
3.05
6.05
5.52
4.02

2.89
3.86
2.76
3.58
9.32

2.43
4.43
4.83
6.87
6.13
4.55
6.48
5.32
2.50
5.19
6.95

5.97
7.69
8.06

9.35
6.94
8.49
Emissions, gm/mile
CO
19.32
49.92
24.44
56.02
65.18

43.67
65.46
28.78
57.44
158.98

29.82
26.46
58.52
14.65
79.32
39.32
65.75
47.26
29.57
61.39
83.64

37.05
70.49
116.06

59.00
73.95
94.47
C02
875.88
591.11
945.76
697.69
698.50

955.35
1144.03
682.94
851.52
1082.03

1240.35
842.47
952.37
560.53
767.81
627.09
872.67
976.68
631.80
1058.20
734.11

757.78
532.08
934.45

786.11
695.26
569. 85
NOX
4.88
5.70
7.66
9.43
5.63

10.77
9.32
5.40
5.91
14.85

9.02
12.63
9.99
5.38
9.45
6.67
15.97
12.04
10.95
12.44
7.03

8.56
8.99
15.82

15.55
6.58
6.53
No. of
Tests
2
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
2
4

2
4
4
2
4
4
2
4
4
4
Z

2
2
3

2
2
2
Eng.
Tuned
No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No

No
No
No

-------
Vehicle
No.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
> 41
-42
*• ,,
cr 43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56*

57*
Year
70
70
66
68
72
66
71
71
69
72
65
71
71
71
71
72



72
72
72
70
69
70
72
71
69
73

73
Make
Chev
Ford
Chev
CMC
Dodge
Chev
Ford
Chev
Ford
Ford
Chev
Ford
Chev
Chev
Chev
Ford
Chev
Chev
Chev
Ford
Chev
Ford
CMC
Chev
CMC
Dodge
Ford
Chev
Chev

Chev
Model
C-20
F-250
C-20
C-25
B-300
C-20
N/A
C-30
F-250
F-250
C-20
F-250
C-20
C-20
C-20
F-250
C-30
C-30
C-20
F-700
C-20
F-250
C-35
C-20
C-35
D-300
F-350
C-20


C-20
Body
Type
Pickup
Camper
Pickup
N/A
Van
Pickup
Camper
Camper
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Camper
Pickup
Pickup



N/A
Pickup
Pickup
N/A
Pickup
N/A
N/A
Van
Pickup
Camper
Special
Pickup
GVW
7,500
6,900
7,500
7,500
7,000
7,500
6,900
9,000
6,900
8, 100
7,500
7,500
6,400
6,700
6,400
7,800



23,500
6,200
7,500
14,000
7,500
14,000
10, 000
10,000
7,500
9,000

8,200
GCW
4,900
7,150
4,405
5, 125
4, 160
4,500
4,920
4,198
4,600
4,675
4,650
5,100
4,880
4,600
4,275
. 4,715



8,950
4,540
4,495
8, 180
4,540
8,175
5,200
7,320
4,540
5,170

5,545
Inertia
Wgt.
5,500
5,500
5,000
5,500
4,500
5,000
5,500
4,500
5, 000
5,000
5,000
5,500
5,000
5,000
4,500
5,000



10,000
5,000
5,500
10,000
5,500
10,000
6,500
8,500
5,000
6,500

7, 000
Engine
350-8
360-8
283-8
327-8
360-8
250-6
360-8-
400-8
360-8
360-8
283-8
360-8
307-8
350-8
307-8
390-8



361-8
350-8
250-6
350-8
350-8
350-8
318-8
300-6
307-8
350-8

454-8
Av.
HC
4.97
5.65
13.00
7.65
3.91
9.86
8.17
4.10
12.45
6.35
-
8.06
6.41
4.06
4.21
3.38



6.01
3.20
5.23
6.85
9.70
7.53
4.61
6.64
6.20
1.63

1.68
, Emissions, gm/mile
CO
36.06
78.05
114.47
99.21
31.01
65.94
111.56
43.82
106.61
75.28
-
98.39
48.78
78.23
41.72
38.76



75.80
24.19
32.49
86.66
152.15
83.61
24.41
119.87
31.39
28. 96

11.07
C02
801.89
790.79
609.73
735.49
734.86
669.98
670.72
910.68
710.96
728.02
-
760.73
737.17
713.24
690.36
794.52



1185.69
684.49
737.25
966.76
639.87
986.91
806.88
759.81
641. 15
1000. 18

998.32
NOX
12.77
10.19
6.33
10.75
7.60
13.19
7.01
11.01
6.94
7.97
-
5.67
10.06
6.12
7.80
10.14



16.38
7.03
2.78
13.02
5.48
13.01
8.80
9.01
7.22
5.87

10.53
No. of
Tests
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
4
1
2
2
2
4
4



2
2
2**
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

2
Eng.
Tuned
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No



No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes

Yes
!:Green Engine

-------
Vehicle
No.
58

59
60
61*
62*
t 63*

64
65
66*
Year
69

73
73
73
73
73

73
73
73
Make
Chev

Ford
Chev
Chev
Chev
Chev

IHC
Chev
Chev
Model
C-20

F-250
C-20
C-20
C-20
C-20

1510
P-30
P-30
Body
Type
Dump-
Bed
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup

Chassis
St. Van
Earth
GVW
10,000

6,200
6,400
6,800
6,400
6,400

14,000
8,200
11,000
Inertia
GCW Wgt.
7,500

5,000
5,500
5,500
5,000
5,000

8, 000
7,000
8,500
Av. Emissions, gm/mile
Engine
350-8

360-8
454-8
350-8
250-6
292-6

345-8
350-8
454-8
HC
8.18

3.51
1.58
2.03
3.30
3.21
1.28
6.79
2.52
3.61
CO
94.33

50.60
31.18
12.47
33.47
57.59
31.70
67.43
40.51
51.91
C02
759.31

760.87
1091.85
829.63
710.89
1041.36
740.60
931.81
968.25
1202.20
NOX
8.54

4.67
4.69
6.62
3.68
2.50
2.32
4.59
7.18
9.85
No. of
Tests
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Eng.
Tuned
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Mtr.Home
67
73
Ford
F-250
Pickup
6,200
5, 000
360-8
3.91
31.43
763.70
5.73
2
Yes
Start of more extensive tune-up checks    *Green Engine

-------
SWRI
Vehicle
No. Year
200
201
202
203
204
205

206
207

208

209
>
^ 210
£ 211
212
213
214
215
216

217
218

219
220
221

222

223
70
69
66
68
71
73

71
66

72

73

70
70
70
72
72
70
69

73
72

73
70
72

72

72
Make
Ford
Chev
Chev
Chev
Chev
Dodge

I-H
I-H

I-H

Ford

Chev
Chev
Dodge
Ford
Ford
CMC
Dodge

Chev
Chev

Chev
Ford
Ford

Dodge

CMC
Model
F-250
C-20
C-20
C-20
C-20
N/A

1210
Metro
Van-1200
1210

E-300

C-30
C-20
D-200
E-300
E-300
C-25
D-27

C-20
C-20

C-30
F-350
E-300

C-300

C-35
Body
Type
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Motor
Home
Pickup
Panel

Pickup

Van

Pickup
-P ic kup
Pickup
Van
Van
Pickup
Motor
Home
Pickup
Pickup

Van
Stake
Motor
Home
Stake

Wrecker
GVW
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
11,000

6, 100
8, 000

7,500

7,000

8,000
6,200
7,500
7,000
7,000
6,200
12,000

6,400
6,200

6,400
10,000
8,300

10, 000

9,000
GCW
4,020
4,430
4,260
4,390
4,400
7,730

4,450
5,900

4,710

4,260

4,990
5,990
4,300
4,450
4,080
4,360
9,820

4,900
4,340

4, 040
6,000
6,580

5,350

5,590
Inertia
Wgt.
5,000
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,000
8,000

5,000
7,000

5,500

5,500

6,000
6,500
5,500
5,500
5,000
5, 000
11,000

5,500
5,000

5,000
7,500
7,500

7,500

7,500
Engine
240-6
292-6
327-8
327-8
350-8
318-8

345-8
266-6

304-8

302-8

292-6
250-6
318-8
302-8
302-8
292-6
318-8

454-8
350-8

350-8
300-6
302-8

318-8

350-8
AV.
HC
9.69
6.18
39.07
19.70
3.48
. 8.97

6.02
18.50

4.72
4.35
5.82
5.30
7.11
6.35
5.59
4.24
5.84
5.86
6.02

5.13
5.34
7.01
5.23
4.01
5.55

8.24
8.00
9.95
Emissions, gm/mile
CO
139.06
68.39
122.61
236.05
24.20
126.39

64.91
170.41

41.37
59.76
38.40
31.87
76.53
91.58
37.40
68.51
40.75
53.20
88.72

70.52
40.52
49.46
45. 10
72.78
72.23

77.66
79.97
82. 11
CC-2
502.33
508. 11
648.45
532.02
717.08
1008.05

617.20
702.84

677.79
734.00
629.83
706.37
655.10
659.79
604.05
774.11
628.82
593.33
757.98

860.91
634.38
636.89
820.52
855.51
818. 19

846.14
793.44
523.44
NOX
5.93
4.81
4.88
2.75
6.82
12.88

4.13
5.56

8.47
5.14
4.73
3.80
7.21
8.40
5.29
4.13
3.53
7.37
6.34

4.26
4.97
4.82
4.04
11.45
7.26

6.77
5.13
7.03
No. of
Tests
2
2
2
2
2
2

2
2

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
2
2
. 2

2
2
2 '
Eng.
Tuned
No
No
No
No
No
Yes

No
No

No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

No
Yes
Yes

-------
Vehicle
No.
224
225
226
227

228
229

230
231
232
233
234
> 235
i236
>£k
» 237
238

239
240
241
242
243

244
245
Year
70
67
67
72

72
67

67
65
71
68
68
72
66
69
73

71
73
72

72


72
Make
Ford
Ford
Ford
I-H

Chev
I-H

Chev
Ford
Ford
Chev
Ford
CMC
Ford
Ford
Ford

Chev
I-H
Ford

Winne-
Bago

Champ-
Model
F-250
F-250
F-250
1210

C-20
1200

C-20
F-350
F-350
C-20
F-250
P-35
F-250
F-250
E-300

C-20
1310
F250

D22


(Dodge)
Body
Type
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Travel-
All
Pickup
Crewcab
Pickup
Pickup
Platform
Platform
Pickup
Pickup
Van
P ic kup
Pickup
Econo.
Panel P. U
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup

Motor
Home

Motor
GVW
6, 100
6, 100
6, 100
7,500

6,200
7,300

7,500
10,000
10,000
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
6, 100
8,300
•
6,200
10,000
6,900

13, 000


11, 000
GCW
5,000
5,100
5,100
5,380

4,800
4,820

6,000
7, 120
7,210
4,190
4,490
6,960
5,100
4,500
4,340

4,500







Inertia
Wgt.
5,500
6,000
6,000
6,500

5,500
6,000

6,500
8,200
8,200
5,000
5,500
7,500
6,000
5,000
5,500

5,000
7,500
6,000

8,500


8,500
Engine
360-8
240-6
240-6
345-8

350-8
241-6

250-6
240-6
360-8
307-8
240-6
292-6
240-6
360-8
302-8

350-8
304-8
300-6

413-8


318-8
Av.
HC
9.90
10.23
13.42
5.22

'3.19
13.68

12.16
20.95
12.85
11.00
7.56
5.35
10.97
8.04
6.21

5.63
10.88
6.30

13.96


8.23
Emissions, gm/mile
CO
126.58
146.27
145.05
67.33

56.82
128.98

118.45
182.82
116.28
135.10
78.97
79.61
140.10
103.50
47.22

50.27
131.80
112.03

139.45


141.49
CC-2
855.21
707.96
719.13
613.69

527.89
844.30

611.02
630.76
749.96
482.41
477.71
788.42
519.29
582.09
566.46

656.20
859.84
737.09

1131. 14


996.29
NOX
4.00
2.66
2.30
5.98

7.46
3.50

6.00
5.27
6.93
1.22
5.67
7.22
1.78
2.81
5.69

5.01
3.16
8. 12

14.92


11.96
No. of
Tests
2
2
2
2

2
2

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

2
2
• 2

2


2
Eng.
Tuned
No
No
No
Yes

Yes
No

No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes

No-
Yes
Yes

Yes


Yes
Note: Blank spaces or those marked "N'/A" signify that no information was  furnished.

-------
AESI
Vehicle
No.
1A

3A

5A

7A

10A

11A

13A

|27A
t
35A

39A

40A

43A

44A

45A


Year
72

73

73

72

72

72

72

72

73

73

73

72

72

72


Make
Ford

Chev

Ford

Ford

Ford

Chev

Chev

Dodge

Ford

Dodge

Dodge

I-H

Ford

I-H


Model
F-250

G30

Econol.

F-250

Econol.

C-20

C-20



F-250

Surveyor

Surveyor

1510

Condor

Winne-
Bago

Body
Type GVW
Pickup

Van

Van

Pickup

Van

Pickup





Pickup

Motor 11,000
Home
Motor 11,000
Home
Box 14,000
Van
Motor 15,000
Home
Motor
Home 13,000

Inertia
GCW Wgt.
4,500

4,500

4,500

5,000

4, 500

5,500

5, 000

5,000

5,000

8,500

8,500

6,000

8,500


8,500

Engine
300-6

350-8

302-8

360-8

302-8

350-8

350-8

360-8

360-8

413-8

413-8

345-8

390-8


304-8

Av.
HC
3.77
2.98
4.57
2.27
4.31
3.05
'6.23
5.13
6.09
5.83
4.05
3.47
5.36
5.41
5.85
3.95
3.91
4.47
6.97
6.42
10.49
7.30
7.46
5.58
7.45
5.34

12.61
5.29
Emissions, gm/mile
CO
47. 84
32.33
47.26
23.26
85.31
31.46
55.40
44.18
91.68
84.73
40.34
29.90
62.37
34.08
118.16
68.37
53.89
97. 15
123.13
109.46
196.56
231.95
54.06
51.69
89.54
82.86

47.50
68.66
C02
567.36
562. 13
651.80
728.21
648.00
711.00
745.00
728. 00
635.00
665.00
855.00
829.00
642.00
674.00
734.00
745.00
778.89
804.94
1079. 16
1145.59
1251.17
1113.84
771.92
874.88
1082.22
1253.81

1124.63
1188.56
NOX
8.48
6.75
4.00
4.52
4.55
3.90
7.36
6.35
3.50
3.39
9.91
10.02
6.85
8.13
7.76
8.60
4.90
4.57
13.06
13.02
16.98
9.63
8.44
7.02
15.74
15.58

17.61
17.51
No. of
Tests
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
•2
2
2
2
2

2
2
Eng.
Tuned
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes

No
Yes

-------
     APPENDIX A-3
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
           A-15

-------
          -  In earbufetted, gasoline-fueled motor vehicles, the venting of fuel
vapors into  the atmosphere from the carburetor and the fuel tank constitutes
a significant source of HC emissions in the absence of any control devices.
It has been  estimated that evaporative losses account for  approximately 20%
of the total  HC emissions from an  uncontrolled (pre-1968) light duty vehicle.
This factor  would obviously increase greatly in the situtation where the exhaust
emissions were systematically decreased while no control was  exercised over
the evaporative sources.  This is precisely the situation that exists and will
continue to  obtain for at least the near future for  the medium duty vehicle.  At
present there are no contemplated Federal standards for  evaporative  emissions
for any motor vehicles other than the light duty group.  Only the state of
California has imposed evaporative emissions standards for heavy duty vehicles
commencing with the 1973 models.  While the evaporative emissions have not
been controlled for medium duty trucks (except in California, as noted), this
class of vehicle has benefitted, insofar as exhaust emission controls are con-
cerned,  from the progress made in the light duty class of vehicle via  the shar-
ing of many common engines.

            The progress in exhaust emission control for MDV  can be quantified.
Mean hydrocarbon emission from a sample of 585 pre-control light duty
vehicles (1957-1967 model  years) were found to be 8. 94 grams /mile (1975
     (2)
FTP)   .  On the other hand,  the mean level of HC emissions for an MDV at
an inertia weight of 4500 Ibs, corresponding to a full-size passenger car, is
given as 4. 7 grams/mile in Figure 2. 7 (Section 2. 4. 3)  of this report.  Thus
even comparing LDV with MDV, a significant reduction of exhaust emission of
HC has been identified.  As a consequence,  the need for evaporative controls
for the medium duty class of vehicle is evident.
                                    A-17

-------
            Evaporative controls can virtually eliminate HC vapors  emitted


from the carburetor and fuel tank.  Probably the most effective .method  of


control is through the use of cannisters of activated charcoal to trap and store


the fuel vapors.  Activated charcoal has strong affinity for HC and can store

                                                                             (3)
(on a recycle basis) 30-35 grams per  100 grams  charcoal without breakthrough.


Typically,  a vehicle system will use 700-800 grams of activated charcoal.




            The evaporative control system is so designed that during vehicle


operation,  the  tank and carburetor vapors are inducted into the engine  and


burned.  During nonoperative periods, the vapors are stored in the  charcoal-


filled cannisters.  When the engine  is restarted,  filtered air is used to purge


the cannisters  of vapors which are metered into the vehicle intake manifold  and


subsequently burned in the engine.




            The problem  in evaporative control is simply one of routing all


of the vapors into a trap or cannister.   Trapping of fuel tank vapors is relatively


straightforward since all vents  and  aperatures are readily identified and con-


trolled.  The tank filler pipe is sealed by using a low pressure filler cap


( ~2 psi).  A relief valve allows air to enter the tank as the fuel is consumed.




            Vapors emanating from the carburetor are much more difficult to

                                                                       (4)
contain because of the many leak sources associated with this component.


Fortunately, this problem is not serious during vehicle  operation since the


interior of the  carburetor is usually at a slightly reduced pressure  (relative


to atmospheric) so that the vapors are inducted into the  engine and burned.


Tests reported in Reference 4 show that for one particular vehicle,  carburetor


losses represented 83% of the total  evaporative losses (vehicle not operating).
* crankcase  storage of vapors is feasible but less effective




                                    A-18

-------
            Tests to measure evaporative emissions follow a procedure (SAE

Procedure J171)  that is known as the SHED (Sealed Housing for Evaporative
                           *               —      —          —
Determinations)  technique.   Briefly,  two types of vapor losses are measured

while the vehicle is enclosed in the SHED, those associated with the diurnal

soak and with the hot soak. The former involves losses that occur over a one-

hour period while the fuel in the tank is raised in temperature in accord with

a specified  schedule.  The latter involves losses,  again over a one-hour

period, while the vehicle cools following completion of a complete 1975  FTP

(CVS-CH) test.

            Using SHED techniques, the evaporative losses for 125 non-con-

trolled vehicles tested in Los Angeles were found to average 37. 4 grams per
test.    All LDV models, subsequent to the 1971 model, are required to meet
                                                              *
a standard of 2 grams HC per  test (by a different test technique)  .


            There does not appear to be any reason by medium duty vehicles

cannot meet the evaporative emission standards being imposed on light duty

vehicles through  the simple expedient of adapting the same control techniques.

No untoward mechanical problems are visualized.  Fuel tank designs with a

dead volume (to permit thermal expansion of fuel without forcing the liquid

fuel into the vapor storage device),  patterned after LDV tanks, would be required.


            Concern with the possibility of creating a flammable mixture

within the engine compartment as the  result of the release of vapors from

evaporative controls because of extreme underhood temperatures and high fuel

volatility led to a series of investigative measurements several years ago at

GM.     These measurements  showed that the HC concentrations were several
* Current EPA certification procedures specify a vapor-trap technique (Federal
  Register,  Vol.  37,  No. 221, Nov.  15,  1972) which results in lower numerical
  values of evaporative emissions than the SHED method because of an inability
  to trap all the vapors from all sources.


                                   A-19

-------
times lower than the lean flammability limit.  In general the engine compartment



concentrations were comparable for the same vehicle whether tested with or



without evaporative controls.  These data are circa 1969.  Such tests would



probably need to be repeated in MDV in case thermal reactors would be used



for exhaust emission control.  The underhood temperatures would be much



higher in such a situtation.  If a potentially dangerous  condition were to be



found, appropriate design changes would need to be made.






           In summary, therefore, it appears that evaporative emission con-



trols can be readily adapted to medium  duty vehicles.   The fact that  all heavy



duty trucks (1973 models with fuel tank capacity^ 50 gals.  ) being  sold in



California are required to have evaporative controls, would substantiate the



validity of the foregoing conclusions.
                                    A-20

-------
REFERENCES

1.    "The Automobile and Air Pollution - A Program for Progress,  Part II",
      U.S. Department of Commerce, December 1967.

2.    McAdams,  H. T. , et al, "Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance -
      A Summary", Calspan Corporation,  no number, December 1972.

3.    Patterson,  D. J. and Henein, N. A. ,  "Emissions from Combustion Engines
      and Their Control", Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
      797T

4.    Martens, S. W.  and Thurston, K.W. , "Measurement of Total Evaporative
      Emissions",  SAE Paper 680 125.

5.    Martens, S. W.  , "Evaporative Emission Measurements with the Shed -
      A Second Progress Report", SAE Paper 690502.
                                   A-21

-------
              APPENDIX A-4



  IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF



EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM COMPONENTS
                    A-23

-------
            The emissions control systems evaluated in Section 2. 6 for
medium duty truck applications are listed  in Table 2.10.    The various
components in the control systems are identified and described briefly
in this Appendix.

            El - Electronic Ignition

            A breakerless  ignition system consisting of a rotor, magnetic
pick up coil, and electronic switch assembly.  It appears all manufacturers
will use electronic ignition systems to improve the durability of emission
control systems.

            FC - Fast Choke

            An electric assist fast choke to reduce the time period in which
the engine is running fuel rich during engine warm-up.  There will be a
continuing series of carburetor/choke modifications to reduce emissions
when the engine is cold.  FC is intended to represent the first generation
of such modifications which will or have appeared on 1973-74 cars.

            QHI - Quick Heat Intake
            Quick heat intake manifold using hot exhaust gases to vaporize
the fuel to minimize choke  time during engine warm-up.  Rapid  warm-up
is accomplished by maximizing the available heat energy and minimizing
the thermal inertia of the hot spot in the intake manifold.
                                  A-25

-------
            AI - Exhaust Manifold Air Injection

            Air injection into the cylinder exhaust ports of the engine.  This
includes an air pump, distribution manifold, and exhaust port liners, but
does not include a lined,  insulated exhaust manifold.

            EGR  - Exhaust Gas R ecirculation

            A portion (5-10%) of the hot exhaust gas is mixed with intake air
in the carburetor downstream of the throttle plate.  This includes provision
for an opening into the carburetor from the exhaust crossover passage and
an EGR valve. Complex controlled EGR systems are evolving to tailor the
EGR flow to engine operating conditions to improve its effectiveness and to
reduce its determental effect on fuel economy and driveability.  EGR is
part of most of the control systems.  It is  assumed that as the overall
emissions control system becomes more developed and efficient,  so will
the associated EGR  component in it.

            1C - Improved Carburetion

            Various carburetor improvements  are being developed for use
with the 1975-76 catalyst systems. It has  been found that both to protect
the catalyst from over heating and to insure rapid warm-up and  good
conversion efficiency it is necessary to control the  A/F ratio more closely
than possible with standard (1971-73) carburetors.  This has led to the
following carburetor improvements:  (1) altitude and temperature
compensation and (2)  more flexibility in the control of A/F mixture for
various engine operating modes.   Component 1C means the inclusion of
these carburetor developments in the control system.
                                   A-26

-------
            CAI - Air Injection Ahead of Catalyst


            Air injection ahead of the oxidizing catalyst to provide a lean
mixture into the catalyst.  This includes an air pump which is  driven at an
RPM proportional to that of the engine.


            OC - Oxidizing Catalyst


            This catalyst (noble or base metal) converts CO and HC to
CO  and HO.  It can be either a pellet or monolith type.  Estimated
   L^      £*
catalyst volumes for various engine CID are given in Table 2. 11.   These
volumes are larger than presently being tested in passenger  cars but it
is felt this increased volume is  needed for  truck applications.  Since at
present required catalyst volume  is determined purely by cut-and-try,
it is difficult to estimate volumes required for  various trucks/loads .


            RC - Reducing  Catalyst


            The reducing catalyst converts NO  to CO  and H?O and must
                                              x

operate in a  slightly rich environment.  Technology for reducing catalysts
is not nearly as well developed as for oxidizing catalysts.  If the A/F

ratio is too rich,  then a significant fraction of the NO  is converted to
                                                    X.
ammonia (NH ) which is subsequently oxidized back to NO  in the ozidizing
             •j                                           X
catalyst.  Hence,  the A/F ratio must be controlled within a rather narrow

range to maintain good NO  conversion efficiency in the  reducing catalyst.
                          X
There is very limited information available on which to base a selection of

reducing catalyst  volume as a function of engine CID.  Early work would

seem to  indicate it should be slightly larger than the oxidizing catalyst.

The  reducing catalyst is placed nearer the  engine than the oxidizing

catalyst  and often is in a separate container,  but not necessarily.

                                   A-27

-------
                    - Controlled Air Injection
            When using a dual catalyst system (Figure A-4. 1) such as
system 4,  it is necessary to inject controlled amounts of air  both into  the
exhaust ports and ahead of the oxidizing catalyst.  AI/CAI includes the
AI and CAI components as well as a means of controlling the  fraction of
the air to be injected at each location.

            EFIC - Electronic Fuel Injection and Control

            This system includes injection of fuel into each cylinder intake
port with a complex electronic control system (Fig, A-4. 2),  which senses
engine RPM,  inlet air temperature and pressure, and exhaust oxygen
concentration.  There is a feed back loop by which the fuel injection is
regulated based on desired exhaust O  concentration.  This is an advanced
system requiring development of hardware, the control  logic and the O
sensor.

            RC/OC - Three-way Catalyst

            This single catalyst simultaneously converts NO  ,CO,  and HC
to CO  and HO.  Engine operation must be maintained very near
stoichiometric (14.5 +_ . 1) to attain good conversion efficiency (80-90%)
for all three pollutants.  The NO  conversion efficiency is especially
sensitive to A/F ratio.  EFIC with feedback and an O  sensor is needed
to achieve  the A/F ratio control required.
                                  A-28

-------
            LTR -  Lean Thermal Reactor





            This is a manifold thermal reactor used in conjunction with


lean carburetor operation.  In that case the engine CO and HC emissions


are reasonably low and can be combusted efficiently in the reactor.  Since


the heat release is quite low, it is necessary that the reactor have good


insulation to minimize heat loss.  Excellent control of the A/F ratio at all


engine operating modes is required so that the carburetor should be at least


as sophisticated as the 1C system.  NO  emissions are kept low  by lean
                                      ?c

engine operation and further reduced by EGR.





            RTR  - Rich Thermal  Reactor





            This exhaust manifold reactor is used with rich carburetion.


Relatively high HC and CO engine emissions result in high and rapid heat


release in the reactor.  The high operating temperatures (2000 F or higher)


result in high efficiency for the burning of the HC and CO.  NO  emissions
                                                             X

are kept low by operating the engine rich and using EGR to reducing NO
                                                                     X

further.





            FIG - Further Improved Carburetion





            Advanced carburetor  systems are being developed which


further improve fuel atomization  and A/F ratio control over the  complete


range of engine operating conditions.  The objective is to develop a system


which permits liquid fuel operation  approaching that possible with a
gaseous fuel.  Examples of advanced carburetor developments are the


                     sted

                     r(10)
Dresserator device tested by Ford     and IFC (Integrated fuel control)
being developed by GM





                                  A-29

-------
           IQHI - Improved Quick Heat Intake







           Improved quick heat intake represents  a further improvement



of the QHI system.  It would be used with the FIG fuel system to further



reduce cold engine emissions.
                                 A-30

-------
                IMPROVED CARBURETION AND CHOKE
                ALTITUDE AND TEMPERATURE
                COMPENSATION
    QUICK HEAT MANIFOLD
  AIR CONTROL
  VALVE
AIR
INJECTION
PUMP
EXHAUST GAS
RECIRCULATION
                                             MODIFIED
                                             SPARK
                                             TIMING
                                                              HC-CO OXIDIZING
                                                              CONVERTER
                                                    NOX REDUCING
                                                    CONVERTER
                                                    (EACH SIDE)
             ELECTRONIC IGNITION
            Figure A-4.1  DUAL CATALYST EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM
                                      A-31

-------
 AIR-
FUEL
AIR FLOW
 METER
                                      EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION
                                                  IGNITION
                                    I    '
ENGINE
                                             \  / \! / \  / \! /
                                              \/ \/  \'  \/
                                                  M1-   v   v
                                                    AA
                                                 INJECTION
                                                    I
                               <* IGNITION     FUEL QUANTITY ON-OFF
                                             1     A     K
                                RPM
                         AIR QUANTITY
                                                ELECTRONIC
                                               CONTROL UNIT

              THROTTLE POSITION
                                    i
                                    I
                                    I
             [TRANSMISSION LEVEL]	1
                                                    A/F
                                                                                 3 WAY CATALYST
                                                                       OXYGEN
                                                                       SENSOR
                                                                                    CATALYST
                                                               IGNITION SWITCH



                                                               COOLANT TEMP.
                                                                                 EXHAUST
                                                                                 GAS
                       Figure A-4.2   ELECTRONIC FUEL INJECTION AND CONTROL SYSTEM

-------
                    APPENDIX A-5



       SUPPORTING EMISSIONS DATA FOR THE



EVALUATION OF THE EMISSION REDUCTION FACTORS
                         A-33

-------
                                             TABLE A-5. 1
                             SUPPORTING EMISSIONS DATA FOR SYSTEM 2
u>
                                                     1975 CVS-CH Emissions
                                                           gm /mi
Source
Ref (11 ),

Ref (11 ),

Ref (12),

Ref (12),

Ref (10),

Control
System
1C + QHI
+ EGR
1C + QHI
+ EGR
1C + QHI
+ EGR
1C + QHI
+ EGR
1C + QHI
+ AI + EGR
Test Number of
Weight HC CO NOX Tests
5000 1.32 8.35 2.62 16

5000 1.42 9.67 2.2 11

5000 1.24 12.54 1.89 16

4500 1.03 8.43 1.75 4

4500 .90 11.4 2.3 3


-------
I
oo
                                               TABLE A-5. 2


                              SUPPORTING EMISSIONS DATA FOR SYSTEM 3
                             AVERAGE 1975 CVS - CH EMISSIONS

                                       (gm/mi)
                                                                              Number of

      Source                 HC             CO           NO                Vehicles (c)
                                                              x
      Ref ( 12  )*             . 32             1.90           1.95                   10
      Ref ( 12 )(b)            .32             2.73          2.25
                (a)       GM light duty vehicles

                (b)       Ford light duty vehicles

                (c)       Individual vehicles in pre-certification fleet.

                         (test weight 4500 - 5500 Ibs. )

-------
I
OJ
-vj
                                              TABLE A-5. 3

                              SUPPORTING EMISSIONS DATA FOR SYSTEM 4

                                               (Reference 13 )

            ADVANCED DUAL CATALYST SYSTEMS - OXIDIZING AND REDUCING CATALYSTS

Car
Vega

Chev.

Chev.

Chev.

Temp.

Olds.

Eng.
Displ.
140

350

350

350

250

455

*
Mileage
on Catalyst
0-100
R-100
0-100
R-25
0-463
R-167
0-35
R-45
0-30
R-30
0-1659
R-612
System Description 1975 CVS-CH Emissions (gm/mi)

A. I. E.G.R. I.C. Q.H.I. HC CO NO
x
x x x x .24 1.2 .4

x x x x .69 3.5 .5

x x x .24 1.7 .2

x x x .44 3.2 .2

x x x x .40 3.5 .7

x x x .36 2.7 .4

                            0 -  Oxidizing Catalyst Mileage

                            R -  Reducing Catalyst Mileage

-------
oo
                                             TABLEA-5.4



                             SUPPORTING EMISSIONS DATA FOR SYSTEM 5



                                             (Reference 15)






                                                      Results of 80 Tests



              CVS Emissions                   Average (gm/mi)            Range (gm/mi)





                    HC                            .15                      .1-.25







                    CO                           2.17                     1.1-3.3







                    NO                            .21                      .1-3.5
              (a)  Data for 1. 5-2 liter engines

-------
                             TABLE A-5. 5
            SUPPORTING EMISSIONS DATA FOR SYSTEM 6
                             (Reference 1 6)
                                     HC
Modified Cars Make A
Series 1  Modifications

   Range

   Typical Values


Modified Cars Make B
Series 1  Modifications
                      (1)
                      (2)
   With Low HC-CO Settings

                      **
Series 2 Modifications

   With Low HC-CO Settings

   With Low NO  Settings
                                  0.5-0.8

                                    0.7
0.7
0.3
0.6
            1975 CVS-CH
         Emissions, gm/mile

             CO         NOX
             5-8

             5.5
6.4
3.6
7.0
          1.1-1.9
            1.5
                                                            2.2
                                                            2. 3

                                                            1.4
(1)  400 CID,  4000-lb test weight

(2)  360 CID,  4500-lb test weight
 Series  1  Modifications

3-V high-velocity carburetor
Improved carb. air preheat
Modulated EGR
Exhaust port liners
Exhaust reactor
Ignition vacuum-advance regulation
        Series  2  Modifications

        Series  1  plus:
          Starting sequence device
          Quick-heat intake manifold
                                  A-39

-------
                           TABLE  A-5.6
            SUPPORTING EMISSIONS DATA FOR SYSTEM 7

                            (Reference 1 3)

                                   1975  CVS - CH Emissions
                                   Average levels (gm/mi)

Manifold Reactor
Fuel
Economy
EGR HC CO NOX Loss
Dupont
Yes     ,09     7.2      .80      25%
II  EC Package A
Yes     .22     3.9      .62      24%
GM Modified Dupont
No
.15     5.8     .78      28%
GM Emiss.  Research No. 1    No
        .12     7.5      .77      32%
GM Small Volume
No
.18     4.3     .60      38%
GM Sand Insulated
Yes     .18      3.9      .70     24%
GM Ceramic
No
.10     8.4     .86
GM Inboard Reactor
Yes     .11      3.3      .80
                         31%
                                A-40

-------
                      TABLE A-5.7




      SUPPORTING EMISSIONS DATA FOR SYSTEM 8
                                     1975 CVS -  CH Emissions



                                     Average Levels (gm/mi)
Source
Ref. ( 11 )
Ref ( 12 )
Ref ( 12 )
Control
System
FIC «»
1C + IQHI + EGR(b)
1C + IQHI + EGR(b)
HC
.75
.49
.43
CO
4.20
4.27
3.86
N0x
2.00
2.24
1.86
Number of
Tests
7
2
2
(a)     Ford data




(b)     GM data

-------
                 APPENDIX A-6




          SUPPORTING DATA FOR THE



DETERMINATION OF THE FUEL PENALTY FACTOR
                       A-43

-------
                            TABLE A-6. 1

               FUEL ECONOMY DATA FOR SYSTEM 3
(a)
                 Vehicle       % Change in         Method
Manufacturer    Weight (Ibs)   Fuel Economy       of Test     Reference
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
GM
Chrysler

4700
5760
4950
4500
4500
4500

-14.8 road(d)
-20 6 road
-1.5 road
' +25 CVS-CH
-6.5 CVS-CH
+7.0 CVS-CH
(e)
A \ / 107/1 \
(ID
(ID
.(ID
(b)
(b)
(b)

(a) 1975 pre-certification fleets, catalytic systems.
(b) Change
in fuel economy
calculated using 1973 certification

      results and EPA emissions tests of 1975 prototypes of the same

      class of vehicle .

(c)    Change in fuel economy (MPG) from 1973; average over a

      number of vehicles.

(d)    City/suburban driving schedule.

(e)    -14. 8%, +25% not included in calculation of the average.
                                  A-45

-------
                             TABLE A-6. 2
               FUEL ECONOMY DATA  FOR SYSTEM 6
                                                     (4)
Cars Make A:

   Non-Modified 1970

   Lean Reactor Mod. 1970

   Non-Modified 1973

   As Received

   Without EGR Cut-Off
(3)
Fuel Economy, mpg

City
Route
11. 5
10.6
11. 3
10.7
City +
Expressway
(1) Route' 2)
14.9
13.5
14.3
13.4

Average
13.2
12. 1
12.8
12. 1

Loss
%

8. 3
3.0
8. 3
Cars  Make B:

   Non-Modified 1971

   Lean Reactor Mod. 1971

   Low HC-CO Settings

   Low NO   Settings

   Non-Modified 1973
            11. 1


            11. 1
            10.8

            10. 3
16.7


14.7
14.4
14.1
13.9


12.9     7.2
12.6     9.4
12.2    12.2
(1).   Average speed 23.4mph, 20 2 stops per mile, 27.7-mile loop,
      multiple tests averaged.

(2)    Average speed 36.7 mph, 0.36 stops per mile,  18.4-mile loop,
      multiple tests averaged.
(3)    Supplementary data:
      Fuel economy during 20, 000 miles  of consumer-tupe usage by
      California ARE was 11. 34 mph, with air conditioner in normal use.

(4)    Reference ( 16 ).
                                  A-46

-------
                APPENDIX A-7



ANALYTICAL, METHOD FOR PREDICTING THE



 EFFECT OF VEHICLE WEIGHT ON EMISSIONS
                     A-47

-------
            In this appendix an analytical method is developed to predict


the effect of vehicle inertia weight on emissions starting from knowledge


of the engine emissions (gm/hr) as a function of load (HP)  and  engine


RPM, vehicle characteristics (weight,  frontal area, drag coefficient,


rolling resistance, axle ratio,  etc.). an
-------
(HP) road -
-  I .
                            0668  WV -—  + .0039  C   A    V3
     +  VW (K   +  K.,  V)
                                                i
where



      W         =  Vehicle weight (Ibs. )

                                                    2
      C   A     =•  Drag coefficient and front area (ft ) of the vehicle
       D,  F


      V          E Speed (mph)


      dV         = Acceleration (mph/sec)

      dt




      V          - Average of the velocity cubed
      K  , K      =• Constants in the rolling resistance equation
       1   C*
Equation (1) was evaluated for four vehicles of interest in the present


program.  The four cases and the associated constants are given below:
Case
1
2
3
4
Vehicle
Pick-up Truck
Van
Stop-Van
Passenger Car
CD
. 5
.65
.65
.45
AF (ft2)
29
34
44
21
Kl
. 015
. 015
. 014
. 017
K2
. 00026
. 00026
. 00022
. 000334
The vehicle frontal areas were obtained from reference to manufacturer's


sketches of vehicle shapes.
                                  A-50

-------
           It is desired to calculate a mean horsepower for both
acceleration and cruise modes appropriate to the LA-4 driving cycle.  In
order to do this, one requires
            V
            dV
            dt
            V-
average  velocity in the mode

average  acceleration in the mode

average  of the velocity cubed in the mode
Such information is  conveniently summarized in Reference (23).  For the
present work, the 5-city composite results are used as they compare quite
closely to the LA-4  cycle.  Distribution of total time in mode categories
data are given below while acceleration and velocity mode data is given
in Figures A-2. 1 and Table A-7. 1.
 % Total time, idle
 % Total time, cruise
 % Total time, acceleration
 % Total time, deceleration
5-City
Composite
12.87
31.83
29.08
26.23
N. Y.C.
17.45
26.49
29. 12
26.95
LA-4
13. 56
27.25
31.73
27.49
                                   A-51

-------
                                                  TABLE A-7. 1



           COMPACTED NORMALIZED TOTAL TIME MATRIX FOR 5-CITY COMPOSITE (Reference 23)



       Initail


       Speed,                               FINAL SPEED,  MPH


       MPH     0       5      10     15 .    20     25     30     35     40     45     50     55     60     65






         0     13.060  0.582  0.559  0.668  1.025   1.891  2.631  2.314  1.321   0.501   0.140  0.052  0.018  0.010



         5      0.577  0.746  0.283  0.253  0.299   0.442  0.506  0.427  0.236   0.092   0.028  0.012  0.006  0.002



        10      0.419  0.287  0.768  0.345  0.422   0.546  0.519  0.381  0.141   0.051   0.021  0.013  0.007  0.005



        15      0.505  0.207  0.303  0.941  0.509   0.589  0.542  0.425  0.244   0.091   0.031  0.023  0.018  0.027



        20      0.943  0.286  0.298  0.401  1.633   0.878  0.641  0.357  0.167   0.059   0.030  0.023  0.015  0.008



        25      1.829  0.454  0.395  0.465  0.725   3.518  1.246  0.541  0.224.  0.083   0.037  0,031  0.024  0.020



        30      2.419  0.488  0.441  0.471  0.560   1.136  5.463  1.228  0.354   0.119   0.048  0.038  0.022  0.024


«        35      2.142  0.394  0.349  0.380  0.311   0.493  1.103  5.255  0.857   0.228   0.066  0.030  0.014  0.017
Ul


        40      1.267  0.204  0.158  0.182  0.152   0.193  0.318  0.775  3.450   0.483   0.145  0.063  0.028  0.019



        45      0.477  0.087  0.064  0.074  0.065   0.072  0.114  0.214  0.443   2.027   0.340  0.134  0.054  0.015



        50      0.160  0.026  0.031  0.022  0.027   0.034  0.035  0.059  0.128   0.319   1.535  0.330  0.107  0.040



        55      0.085  0.012  0.013  0.011  0.013   0.018  0.023  0.032  0.061   0.109   0.319  1.806  0.324  0.107



        60      0.043  0.013  0.006  0.005  0.006   0.007  0.010  0.020  0.020   0.053   0.109  0.323  2.069  0.292



        65      0.037  0.014  0.005  0.001  0.002   0.001  0.002  0.008  0.010   0.016   0.031  0.098  0.284  2.291




                      NORMALIZED MODE MATRIX SUMMARY




                             Percent Idle          =      13. 060



                             Percent Cruise       =      31.502



                             Percent Acceleration  =      29.158



                             Percent Deceleration  =      26. 303

-------
Using the speed-matrix data given in Table A-7. 1,  one finds for cruise
conditions (look at the diagonal of the matrix) that
           V  =  37 (mph)

           V3 =  76,700  (mph)3
The average speed for acceleration is taken to be equal to the average
overall speed (26 mph) for the 5-city composite cycle.  From Figure A-7. 1
the corresponding mean  acceleration is  . 8 mph/sec.  Fortunately the
            dV.
product  V   /dt   does  not changemuch as  V changes. The velocity data
for the average cruise and acceleraton conditions can be summarized as
below:
                                           dV,
Mode
Acceleration
Cruise
V1 (mph)
26
37
dt (mph/sec) ^.3
.8 25,000
0 76,700
Now that all the input quantities are known, Equation (1) can be evaluated
for a range of vehicle weights.  The results are shown in Table A-7. 2.
Note that the horsepower values calculated are those required at  the road,
and not at the engine.  In order to get the engine horsepower,  some assump-
tion must be  made regarding the  driveline efficiency.   In the present work,
the following values were assumed:
                                  A-53

-------
                     TABLE A-7. 2
           ROAD AND ENGINE HORSEPOWERS
       FOR ACCELERATION AND CRUISE MODES
Acceleration Mode
Cruise Mode
W Pick-Up
4500 18.6
(24.8)
6000 23.9
(31.9)
8000 31,0
(41.2)
10000 38.1
(50.5)
12000 45.2
(60.2)
52. 3
(69.5)
Top number =
Bottom number =
Values for 4500 Ib
HP
Van
19.9
(26.5)
25.2
(33.4)
32.4
(43.0)
39.5
(52.5)
46.6
(61.8)
53.7
(71.5)
road
Stop-Van
20.6
(27.2)
25.8
(34.2)
32.7
(43.4)
39.7
(52.7)
46.6
(61.8)
53. 5
(71)
hor sepower
Pick-Up
15.3
(16.9)
17.8
(19.8)
21. 1
(23.4)
24.5
(27.2)
27.8
(30.8)
31.0
(34.4)

HP
Van
19.5
<2U6)
22
(24.4)
25. 3
(26.0)
28. 6
(31.7)
31.9
(34.4)
35. 2
(39.2)

Stop-Van
22. 3
(24.8)
24. 5
(27.3)
27. 5
(30.5)
30.4
(33.6)
33.4
(37.2)
36.4
(40.5)

engine horsepower
. passenger car
Acceleration Mode
18. 5
(24.7)




Cruise Mode
14. 0
(15.5)




                          A-54

-------
     Mode             Type of Transmission	Driveline Efficiency (
Acceleration
(2nd gear)
Cruise
(3rd gear)
Manual
Automatic
Manual
Automatic
87%
75%
98%
90%
The engine horsepower values are shown in (  ) below the road horsepower



values in Table A-7. 2.







The engine RPM is related to the wheel RPM by the simple relation




           Eng.  RPM =   (Wheel RPM) (GR)




•where




           GR  =  (AX R)  (Trans. GR)




           wheel  RPM =  11.7  V,  Wheel rad.  =  1. 2*




For the two modes of interest, the following axle and gear ratios were



used.



                          Car                       Truck
Mode
Acceleration
C rui s e
The corresponding
Mode
Acceleration
Cruise
Ax R
3.0
3.0
engine RPM
Velocity
26
37
Trans. GR Ax R
1.6 4.1
1 4. 1
are given below:
Eng. RPM
Car
1450
1300
Trans. GR
1.6
1
Truck
1970
1770
Now one is ready to proceed to calculate the emissions.




                                   A-55

-------
            It is assumed that all the vehicles of interest are powered by a


V-8,  350 CID engine and have an automatic transmission. Engine dynamometer


emissions  data for this engine are given in Reference (22) (designated as 2-3


in that report).  Unfortunately, the test cycle included only 1200 and 2300


RPM as shown in  Figures A-7.2-4.  Intermediate RPM were faired in


following the general shape of two bounding data curves.  The general


approach was to calculate the difference  between the emissions from a


truck of weight  I    and a reference passenger car of weight 4500 having


the same engine.  The  emissions from the reference passenger car for the


LA-4 driving cycle are well known from  emissions tests.  It is assumed


that the trucks are tested in the  same LA-4 driving cycle. Hence the total


cycle time is 23 minutes and the length of the route is 7. 5 miles.  Now the


incremental emissions from  a truck can  be written as
            E  =  HC,   CO,  NO
                                                car  J       7.5 mi.



                                                                      (2)
Equation (2) is applied for both the acceleration and the cruise mode.


GM  E/hr is obtained from Figures A-7. 2-4 using the appropriate values


of HP and Eng.  RPM.  Table A-7. 3 shows a typical set of calculations for


the Van-truck.





            The computed results are compared with the previous  baseline


correlation as a function of vehicle weight in Figures A-7. 5-7.  In the case


of HC and NO  the prediction procedure does surprisingly well  both in
             X*

accounting for the  effect of vehicle weight and in giving a reasonable estimate


of the initial value at I   =  4500 Ibs.  In the case of CO,  both the trend
                      w
                                   A-56

-------
                 TABLE A-7. 3
EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS FOR A VAN TRUCK
         Engine - 8 cylinders -  350 CID
               Acceleration Mode
I
w
4500
car
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000



HP
26. 5
24. 5
33.4
43. 0
52. 5
61.8
71. 5
(E) xv-
A
(E) ^
CO
215
190
275
365
550
860
1200
gm/hr

gm/mi
Eng. RPM
A
CO
3.2
2. 83
4. 1
5.45
8.2 1
12.8 1
18.0



= 1900
HC
49
48
50
64
08
76
228



A
HC
.73
.715
.745
.95
1.60
2. 53
3. 38



NO
X
210
180
310
490
670
770
860



A
NO
X
3. 14
2.69
4.63
7. 3
10.0
11.5
12.8



                 Cruise Mode
I
w
4500
car
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000

HP
21
15
24
26
31
34
39
A.
.6
. 5
.4
.0
.7
.4
.2
E =
CO
150
120
165
175
260
300
400
(A E)
Eng. RPM = 1400
A A
CO HC HC
2.
1.
2.
2.
4.
4.
6.
42
93
66
82
2
85
4
accel +
73
67
75
75
82
88
100
(A E)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.08
.0
.13
. 13
.23
.32
.61
NO
X
160
100
185
210
285
330
415
A
NO
X
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
58
61
98
38
6
35
7
cruise
                      A-57

-------
with I   and initial value are much less than the previous prediction.  The



large discrepancies in the CO results are probably due to cold start effects



and the fact that the mean horsepower approach does not account for time



spent near rated horsepower where the specific emissions are very high.
                                  A-58

-------
                                                                   - 0.40
                                                                   - 0.35
                                                                   - 0.30
                                                                   - 0.25
                                                                   - 0.20
                                                                   - 0.15
                                                                   - 0.10
                                                              LU

                                                              I-


                                                              cc

                                                              H

                                                              O
                                                                           tr
                                                                           LLJ
                                                                           u
                                                                           u
    100
      10               1               0.1             0.01



PERCENT OF ACCELERATIONS AT A FASTER RATE THAN SHOWN
Figure A7.1   DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS OF 5-CITY-COMPOSITE ACCELERATIONS

            AT VARIOUS INSTANTANEOUS SPEEDS
                                  A-.59

-------
   350
   300
   250
I  200

o"
X
   150
   100
    50
                    20
40
    60

HORSEPOWER
80
                                  100
120
                             Figure A-7.2  HC ENGINE EMISSIONS (EXPERIMENTAL)

-------
  1500
  1000
D)

o"
u
   500
                        20
   40


HORSEPOWER
                    Figure A-7.3  CO ENGINE EMISSIONS (EXPERIMENTAL)

-------
  1500
  1000
en
   500
                                                                          	 2300 RPM
                                                                                1200 RPM
                         20
40                  60
    HORSEPOWER
80
100
                             Figure A-7.4  NOX ENGINE EMISSIONS (EXPERIMENTAL)

-------
         -TRUCK
       8. 350 CID
                            IW-INERTIA WT, K-LB


Figure A-7.5  COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED HC EMISSIONS AS A
           FUNCTION OF VEHICLE INERTIA WEIGHT

-------
  100
   90
   80
   70
E
en



8  60
   50
   40
   30
   20
VAN-TRUCK

V-8. 350 CID
             PREDICTED INITIAL VALUE
                                               10



                                         IW-INERTIA WT, K-LB
                                            12
                                                          14
16
             Figure A-7.6 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED CO EMISSIONS AS A


                        FUNCTION OF VEHICLE INERTIA WEIGHT

-------
  0>
                                                               12
                           IW-INERTIA WT, K-LB
Figure A-7.7  COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED NOX EMISSIONS AS A
           FUNCTION OF VEHICLE INERTIA WEIGHT
                                   A-65

-------
            APPENDIX A-8



DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEDIUM



   DUTY TRUCK EMISSIONS AND COST



          PROGRAM (AMTEC)
                  A-67

-------
           As discussed in Section 2. 7. 3, a computer program (AMTEC)
was written to analyze the costs and benefits of various  control  strategies
for reducing medium duty truck emissions.  In this appendix the computer
program is described in detail and the input information used in typical
calculations documented.  A Fortran listing of the program is also included.

           The medium duty truck population consists of vehicles of
various ages, weights and shapes, engine types and emission control
systems.   For the  purposes  of calculation, the medium duty vehicles  are
divided into  m categories (groups)  with each group being delineated by
weight/and or usage.  In  the present calculations, four groups (m =  4)

            (1)     6, 000 - 10, 000 Ib trucks
           (2)    10, 000 - 14, 000 Ib trucks
           (3)     6, 000 - 10, 000 Ib motor homes
           (4)    10, 000 - 14, 000 Ib motor homes

were considered.  In order to further characterize vehicles within each
group, it is necessary to specify the type  of engine and, if any, the emission
control system used.  Type of engine designates general classes  such as
conventional gasoline, diesel, CVCC, etc.  Differences in engine size
(CID),  if included in the vehicle  characterization,  would be accounted for
by introducing additional  vehicle groups.  For example, 6,000 - 10, 000 Ib
trucks with V-8, 360 CID engines and 6, 000 - 10, 000 Ib trucks with V-8,
                                   A-69

-------
454  CID engines would be treated as separate vehicle groups.  Hence the


program has the flexibility to consider different engines and sizes as well


as different control systems.




            The exhaust emissions can be  expressed in terms of the


baseline emissions for the vehicle /engine  combination and the effectiveness


of the control system used.  Hence for the Jtn  pollutant (HC, CO, NO  )


the emissions (gm/mi) from a vehicle in group N can be written as




            TEM J (N.Yr I, k.)  RJ  (k., i)


where


            TEMJ (N,YrI,.k) = emissions (gm/mi) of the Jth


            pollutant from a vehicle of group  N of model year


            Yrl having engine type k



                                                            f-K
            R J (k , i) =  emission reduction factor for the  J


            pollutant using the  i   control system on engine


            type k



                       fH
The emissions of the  J  pollutant for all the vehicles of group N  during


the year Yr can be calculated by summing over the model years  from


1950 to the year Yr..   Thus
            emJ  (N, Yr) = K.      SALE (N,  Yrl) FREM (N,  Yr - Yrl)
                                Yrl =  1950
                                   FRE (N, Yr I,  k ) TRAV (N, Yr  - Yr I)
                                    1
                                   TEMJ (N, "fir I,  k ) RJ (k , i
                                   A-70

-------
where
            SALE (N,  Yrl) = Sales of the Nth group of vehicles in
                             the model year  Yrl
            FREM (N, Yr -Yr I) = Fraction of vehicles in group N
                             remaining on the road after  (Yr -Yr I)
                             years


            FRE (N,  Yr I, k )  =  Fraction of sales of vehicles in group
                             N in model  year Yr I having engine
                             type k


            TRAV (N, Yr  - Yr I) = miles traveled per year by vehicles
                             in group N  of age (Yr - Yr I)
            K  = conversion factor for emissions in grams  to emissions
            in tons.
The total emission of the  J   pollutant in the year  Yr  is then obtained
by adding up the contributions of all the groups  N.  Thus

                             m
where
            EMTJ (Yr)  =         emJ (N, Yr)
                            N=l
            EMTJ (Yr) =   total emission of the  Jth pollutant from all
                           the medium duty vehicles  on the road in
                           year Yr.

                  m   =   number of vehicle groups  considered.
                                  A-71

-------
           The fuel consumed in the year Yr is computed for each vehicle

group and engine type using the expression

                                Yr
           KFUN (N, Yr, k ) =  £" SALE (N.Yrl)FREM (N.Yr -Yrl)
                                Yrl
where
                                   D
                                   0
FRE  (N, Yrl, k ) TRAV (N,  Yr - Yr
          MPG (N, k )
1  +  FP (k
,„]
           KFUN (N, Yr, k ) =      fuel consumed by the vehicles in the
                                     f H
                                    Ncn  group in the year  Yr having engine

                                    type  k
           M PG (N, k )
Fuel economy (miles per  gallon) of

vehicles  in  N   group having engine

type k
           FP (k, i)
Fuel penalty for the i   control system

used on engine type  k
The total fuel consumed in year  Yr by engines of type k  is
           KFU  (Yr, k)  =      Z    KFUN (N, Yr, k)
                               N=l
The incremental fuel consumed by the engine type  k  due to the use of

control systems and/or alternator engines is calculated from
                                  A-72

-------
           A KFUN  (N, Yr,  k)  =  KFUN (N, Yr, k)


                              Yr
                              *••

                              2.  (SALE)(FREM) (FRE)     ~    (FF(k))
                              YJ.T                        jyiJrVj




where


           ^ KFUN  (N, Yr,  k)  =  incremental fuel consumed due to


                                   emission control by the vehicles in


                                   group  N  with engine type  k





              FF (k) =  fuel  factor relating  baseline fuel economy of the


                        alternate  engine  k  and the conventional gasoline


                        engine.





The incremental fuel consumed in year Yr  by engines of type  k is


given by



                                m

           A KFU (Yr, k) =   ^  KFUN (N, Yr, k)


                               N  =  1


where




           A KFU (Yr, k) =  incremental fuel consumed in the year Yr


                              by engines  of  type  k  due to emission


                              control strategies





            The incremental  costs associated with a  specified emission


control strategy,  both the use of control systems and alternative engines,


can be calculated from the following relation:
                                  A-73

-------
                          .  m
            COST (Yr) =    £   A KFU(Yr, k) GASCST (k)
                           k = 1
                             m    n
                                      S(N, Yr) FRE (N, Yr, k) 1C (k, i)

                           N=l k = 1

                            m   Yr   n r"
                          + <   £   <; IS (N, Yrl) FREM (N,  Yr-YrI)

                           N=l  Yrl  k=l
                                =1950                           T
                                          FRE (N,YrI,k)MC (k,i)J

where

            COST (Yr)  =  total incremental  cost in the year Yr associated

                           with emission  reduction
            GASCST(k)  2   cost ($/gal) of the fuel for  engines of type k


            1C (k, i)     =   incremental initial cost of  engine type  k with

                            control system i


            MC (k, i)    ~.   incremental maintenance cost of engine type  k

                            with control system  i


The maintenance cost  MC  is made up of two parts:


            MC =  (MC), + (MCL
                        1         Z

where

            (MC)   r   annual maintenance  cost independent of mileage
            (MC)   -  catalyst maintenance cost dependent on mileage
                                   A-74

-------
           Selected input data needed to obtain the results discussed in
Section 2. 7. 4 are listed in the Tables A-8. 1 with the sources for the data
indicated.  The remainder of the input data required is given elsewhere in
the report as  summarized in Table 2.24.

           A typical output  from  the AMTEC program  is shown in Table
A-8. 2.  Graphical presentations of a series of computer runs (Table 2. 25)
are given in Figures  2. 19-25.
                                   A-75

-------
 N=l
SALES
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
19oO
1961
1962
1963
1964
19t5
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
I960
1961
1962
1983
1984
1985
1986
1967
1968
1989
FOR EACH YEAR BY VEHICLE TYPE
266000.
260000.
235000.
222000.
187000.
213000.
209000.
160000.
127000.
176000.
183000.
180000.
213000.
246000.
250000.
289000.
292000.
281000.
373000.
383000.
372000.
397000.
451JOO.
459000.
490000.
535000.
569000.
608000.
649000.
689000.
733000.
773000.
813000.
853000.
893000.
933000.
973000.
1013000.
1053000.
1093000.
89000.
99000.
50000.
47000.
39000.
47000.
40000.
37000.
14000.
14000.
12000.
11000.
9000.
6000.
6000.
5000.
8000.
5000.
5000.
t>000.
t>000.
6000.
6000.
6000.
6000.
6000.
6JOO.
6000.
6000.
600U.
6000.
6000.
6000.
6000.
6000.
6000.
6000.
6000.
c.000.
6000.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5000.
6000.
9JOO.
13000.
22000.
29000.
47000.
80000.
42000.
80000.
80000.
81000.
80000.
81000.
81JOO.
82000.
82000.
82000.
62000.
82000.
82000.
82000.
62000.
82000.
82000.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1CCO.
10CO.
10000.
38CCO.
94000.
97000.
101000.
104000.
108000.
112000.
116000.
119000.
123000.
127000.
131000.
135000.
139000.
143000.
147000.
151000.
155000.
TABLE A-8. 1  Input Sales Data
              A-76

-------
FREM
TRAV
                    N=l
AGE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Ref







0.994
0.974
0.961
0.940
0.909
0.872
0.83ti
0.791
0. 745
0.686
0.625
0.558
0.487
0.403
0.325
0.243
0.163
0.080
0.0
0.0
0.0
(36)






AGE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

11000.
10800.
10700.
10500.
10300.
10000.
9800.
9600.
9500.
9200.
9000.
8700.
8500.
8300.
8100.
790U.
7700.
7400.
7100.
6800.
6300.
5900.
5300.
4800.
4200.
3400.
2400.
0.
0.

11000.
10800.
10700.
10500.
10300.
10000.
9800.
9600.
9500.
9200.
9000.
8700.
8500.
8300.
8100.
7^00.
7700.
7400.
7100.
6800.
6300.
5900.
5300.
4800.
4200.
3400.
2400.
0.
0.

5500.
5400.
5300.
5200.
5100.
5000.
4900.
4800.
4700.
4600.
4500.
4300.
4200.
4100.
4000.
3900.
3800.
3700.
3500.
3400.
3100.
2900.
2600.
2400.
2100.
1700.
1200.
0.
0.

550C.
54CO.
5300.
5200.
5100.
5000.
4900.
4800.
4700.
4600.
4500.
4300.
4200.
4100.
4000.
3900.
3800.
3700.
3500.
3400.
3100.
29GO.
26CO.
240C.
2100.
1700.
1200.
C.
0.
                                 Ref (37)
 TABLE A-8. 1 (cont)  Input Vehicle Operation Data
                         A-77

-------
               Control

               System      ,          ?                                                                        fl)         (21
                0          l          2          3          45          6          78         9(         10
         THREE INITIAL COST  LEVELS  (ROW»tLOWtNOMINAL,AND HIGH FOR EACH  CONTROL SYSTEM (COL.)
               0.0      97.00     102.00    161.00.   236.00     190.00     111.00    144.30    112.00     341.03     361.00
               0.0     114.0_0_  .  124.00    204.00    295.00     248.00     145.00    173.00    144.00     462.03     492.00
               0.0     131.00     146.00    253.00    356.00     307.00     180.00    203.00    176.00     573.00     613.30
        _IHAEg LEVELS OF FIXED  MAINTENANCE COST FOR EACH CONTROL SYSTEM
               0.0       3.00       3.00      8.00      8.00      3.00       3.00      3.00      3.00      3.00       3.00
               0.0       3«00       3.00      8.00      8.00      3.00       3.00      3.00      3.00      3.03       3,30
               0.6   "   3/66   "    3.00      8.00      8.00      3.00       3.00      3.00      3.00      3.00       3.00
         THREE LEVELS OF VARIABLEiREPLACEMENT) MAINTENANCE COST FOR  EACH  CONTROL SYTEM.  REPLACE EVERV25033.  MILES
               0.0      22.50     22.50    105.00    222.50     121.50      12.50     22.50     22.50      3.0       O.D
        	0.0	22.50     22.50    1.30.00    272.50     146.50      12.5.0     22.50     22.50      0.0       0.0
>              0.0      22.50     22.50    152.50    317.50     169.00      12.50     22.53     22.50      3.0       0.6
1         THREE LEVELS OF VARIABLEiPART IAL  SUBSTITUTION) MAINTENANCE  COST  FOR  EACH COMTROL SYSTEM. SUBSTITUTE EV ER Y.25000.  MILES
3o              0.0      22.50     22.50     85.00    175.00     101.50      12.53     22.50     22.50      0.0       0.0
               0.0      22.50     22.50    102.50    210.00     119.00      12.50     22.50     22.50      0.0       0.0
               0.0      22.50     22.50    120.00    245.00     136.50      12.50     22.50     22.50      3.0       0.0
         THREE LEVELS OF VARI A8LE( REPLACEMENT ) MAINTENANCE COST FOR  EACH  CO_NTRpL_SYSTJ:M. REPLACE FV E* Y.I 333_3 . Jl.l L r S    	    _
               0.0      -8.00     -5.00     -5.00     -5.00     -8.00      -5.00     -3.00      1.03      0.0       4.00
               0«0      -.8.0.0.     -5.00     -5.00     -5.00     -8.00      -5.00     -8.00      1.00      0.0       4.30
               0.0      -8.00     -5.00     -5.00     -5.00     -8.00      -5.00-     -8.00      1.00      0.0       4.00

                           (1)    Baseline Diesel

                           (2)    Diesel  with EGR


                                                TABLE A-8.1 (Cont.)  Summary  of Input  Cost Data

-------
-vl
xD
YEAR
1970
1971
1972
1973
197*
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
193*
1985
1986
1937
1988
1989



(1)
HC
0.43286
0.4221E
O..4179t
0.41916
0.4253E
0.4176E
0.4119E
0.4074E
U.3680E
0.3682E
0.3465E
0.3229E
0.2976E
0.2742E
0.2531E
0.2342E
0.2173E
0.2029E
0.1909E
0.1807E



06
06
06
06
06
06
"06
06
06
06
06
Ob
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06



(1)
CO
0.4456E
0.4432E
0.4456E
0.4525E
0.4644E
0.45-fOE
0.4453E
0.4370E
0.4124E
0.3672E
0.3611E
0.3335E
0.3054E
0.2791E
0.2554E
0.2344E
0.2158E
0.2002E
0.1869E
0.1763E
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
NO
07 0.2891E
07 0.3083E
07 0.3385E
07 . 0.3742E
07 0.4142E
0? 0.4279E
07 0.4422E
07 0.4565E
07 0.44S9E
07 0.4433E
07 0.4364E
07 0.4294E
07 0.4228E
07 0.4170E
07 0.4121E
07 0.4081E
07 0.4049E
07 0.4032E
07 C.4032E
07 0.4048E
tons /year
gal/year
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
C6
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
C6
06
06
06
06


(2)
GAS
0.3276E 10
0.3460E 10
0.3783E 10
0.4108E 10
0.4482E
0.4926E
0.!>386E
0.5861E
0.6286E
0.6668E
0.6912E
0.7126E
C.7323E
0.7524E
C.7730E
0. 7940E
0.8151E
0.6369E
0.8593E
0.8823E


10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10


(2)
DEL GAS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.369BE
0.7457E
0.1135E
0.1343E
0.1538E
0.1683E
0.1817E
0.1941E
0.20b!>E
0.2180E
0.2290E
0.2390E
0.2484E
0.2567E
0.2646E



08
08
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09


(2)
DIESEL DEL
0.3 0 .
0.0 0.
0.0 0.
0.0 0.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3300E
0. 1011E
0.2681C
0.45SOE
0.6649E
0.8707E
0.1075E
0.1276E
O.l474h
0.1668E
0.18b6E
0.2037E


0.
0.
0.
0.
08 -0.
39 -0.
09 -0.
09 -0.
09 -0.
09 -0.
10 -0.
10 -0.
10 -0.
10 -0.
10 -0.
10 -0.


(2)
DIESEL
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
1677E
514U
13t)3F
2333F
33BOI-:
4426t
5465E
6487P
7495E
8473E
94->6P
1036E






08
08
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
10


(3) (3)
LOw CIST COST
0.0 D.O
0.0 3.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
O.S790E
6.1068F
0.1265E
0.1573E
0.1&97E
0.1838E
0.1682E
0.1444E
0. 1158F.
O.HM3F
0.5891E
0. 3084F
0.3517E
-0.?318F
-0.4853E



08
39
39
09
39
09
09
39
09
08
08
08
07
39
08


3.3
0.1056C
0.1272E
3.1499E
0.1951E
3.2114E
(J.2400E
0.2267H
3.2028E
0.1723H
3.1417F
0.1115r-
0.8157C
0.5246E
3.240'tE
-0.2850E



09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
0?
03
08
08
07


(3)
HICOST
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1234E 09
0.1477E 09
0.1732E 09
0.2324P 09
0.2560F 09
0.2937E 09
0.2822E 09
0.2580F 09
0.22S3E 09
0.1926E 09
0.1605F. 09
0.1285E 09
0.9746E 08
0.67?OF 38
0.3R64E 08


dollars /year
                                                    TABLE A-8.2  Typical Output From AMTEC Program

-------
       FORTRAN IV G LEVEL  21
                         MAIN
                                                        DATE = 73151
14/15/42
                                                                                      PAGE  0001
I
00
o
        0001
        0002
        0003
        0004
0005
OJ06
0007
0008
OC09
0010
0011
0012
0013
0014
0015
0016
0017
0018
0019
0020
0021
0022
0023
0024
0025
0026
0027
0028
0029
0030
0031
0032
003"5;''
0034
0035
0036
0037
003d
0039
0040
0041
0042

C043
0044
0045
0046
0047
0048
0049
Oo50
0051
     DATA GMPTON/907200.0/
     DATA THOUS/1000.0/
     REAL MPG(5,10)
     DIMENSION SALES(40,10 ItREMVI40),EM(4,5,10,40),FRE(40,5,10 It
    *          TRAV(10,40),FRA(5, 11,401,REMP<4,5,11) ,TEM(4,40),
    *          IND(10,40),RPLMC(3,ll)tSUBMC(3 til ItFF( 101, FUEL (511
    *          FUPENU1I ,TOC(3),TOTCST(3,40I,OSTI( 3,11) ,F I XMC( 3,11) ,
    *          GASCSTO) ,DSLCST(3),COSTI(3,ll),RPL10!3,ll),JNOl10, 40),
    *LEM(4)
1000 FORMAT18F10.0)
1001 FORMATI5UO)
1002 FORHAT(I10,2F10.0)
1003 FORMAT!4A4)
1004 FORMAT!11F6.0)
     READ(5tlOOU NCASE
     READ(5,1003HLEM(L),L = 1,4)
     READ (5, 10011 NTtNE.NC
     READ(5,1001) IYR,JYR,LYR,IYRC,IYRO
     READ (5,1002) MCRS.DISTIO,01ST25
     MYR=JYR-IYR*1
     NYft=LYR-IYR*1
     DO 2 JK=1,NYR
   2 READtS,10001 (SALES(Jft,ITI,IT=l,NT)
     OU 92 JR=1,NYR
     DO 92 IT=1,NT
  92 SALES!JR,m=SAL£SUR,m*THOUS
     WRITE16.502)
 502 FOHMAT12X,'SALES FOR  EACH YEAR  BY VEHICLE TYPE')
     DO 902 JR=l,NYR
     KR=IYR+JR-1
 902 HR(TE(6,'V002) KR , ( SAL ES( JR , I T) , I T=l , NT )
4002 FORMAT(2X,I5t10F10.0)
     JXRP=1
     JXR=IYRD-IYR
     IF(JXR.Eg.O) GU TO 703
     DO 933 JR=ltJXR
     DO 933 IT=1,NT
     FRE( JR,1 , ID = 1.0
     DO 933 IE=2,NE
 933 FRE(JR,IE,IT)=0.0
     JXRP=JXR*1
 703 DO 3 JT=1,NT
     DO 3 JR=JXRP,NYR
   3 REAO(5,10001 (FRE(JR,IE,JT),IE=1,NE)
     DO 803 IT=1,NT
     wRITE(6,503l IT
 503 FURMAT12X,'DISTRIBUTION OF  ENGINE TYPES BY MODEL YEAR FOR  VEHICLES
    * OF TYPE',13)
     DO 903 JR=1,NYR
     KR=IYR+JR-1
 903 WKITE(6,4003) KR,(FRE(JR , I E , IT ) ,IE=l,NtI
4003 FORMAT12X,I5f10F6.2)
 803 CONTINUE
     00 4 IE=1,NE
   4 READ (5,1000) (MPG11E , IT I,IT = l,NT)
     WRITE(6|504)
 504 FURMAT12X,'GASOLINE CONSUMPTION (MPG) FOR EACH  ENGINE (ROMS)  AMD F
    *OR EACH VEHICLE TYPE  (COLS.)')
                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                                  l-t
                                            3

                                            F
                                            t_l.
                                            CO
                                            rt-
                                            !-*•
                                            3
                                            OQ
                                                                                                                                  H
                                                                                                                                  W
                                                                                                                                  O

-------
      FORTRAN  IV  G  LEVEL   21
                                      MAIN
                                                        DATE » 73151
                                                                14/15/42
                                                                                                        PAGE 0002
i
00
0052
0053
0054
0055
0056
0057
0058
0059
0060
C061

0062
0063
0064
0065
0066
0067
0068
0069
0070
0071
0072

0073
0074
0075
0076
0077
007a
0079
0080
0031

0082
0063
0084
0085V
0066
0087
0088
OC89
C090
0091

0092
OJ93
0094
0095
0096
0097
0098
0099

0100
01U1
0102
0103
0104
     00 804 IE=1,NE
 804 HRITE(6,4004) (MPG(IE,ITI,IT=l,NT)
4004 FORMAT(2X,IOF7.2)
     00 5 JR=1,NYR
   5 READ(5,1000) (TRAV4 U
    *SED ON VEHICLE TYPES (COLS.) BY MODEL YEAR1)
     DO 706 JR=1,NYK
     KR=IYR»JR-1
 706 HRITE(6,4006» KR,(EMIL,IE,IT , JR>,IT=1,NT)
4006 FORMAT(2X,I5,IOF6.1)
 806 CONTINUE
 906 CONTINUE
     READ(5,1000) (REMV(JR),JR=1,NYRI
     WRITE16.507)
 507 FORMAT(2X,'FRACTION OF VEHICLES STILL OPERATINGtAS A FUNCTION OF A
    *GE't/i2X,« AGE ')
     DO 907 JR=1,NYR
     HRITEI6.4007) JR,  REMV(JR)
4007 FORMAT(2X,I5,F7.3)
 907 CONTINUE
     DO 8 L=l,3
     DO 8 IC=1,NC
   8 REAO(5,1000» {REMPIL,IE,1C),IE=1,NEI
     DO 908 L=l,3
     KKITE(6,50BI LEM(L)
 508 FORMAT(2X,'REMAINING«tA4,'EMISSION (FRACTION) WHEN USINS CONTROL D
    *EVICE  (ROW) ON EACH ENGINE TYPE (COLS.)')
     DO 808 IC=l,NC
 808 WRITEI6,40081 (REMPtL,IE, 1C),IE=11NE)
4008 FORMATI2X.10F8.2)
 908 CONTINUE
     DO 10 JJ=1,3
  10 READ(5,1000) (COST I(JJ11C ItIC=1,NC)
     HKITE(6,510I
 510 FURMATI2X,'THREE  INITIAL COST LEVELS (ROW),LOW,NOHINALtAND HIGH FO
    *R EACH CONTROL SYSTEM (COL.) ')
     00 910 JJ=1,3
 910 WRITE(6,4010) (COST I(JJ,1C),IC-1,NCI
4010 FORMAT(2XillF10.2>
     DO 11  JJ=lt3
  11 READ(5,10001 (FIXMCIJJ.1C)»IC=l,NCI

-------
      FORTRAN  IV (i LEVEL  21
                                      MAIN
                                           OATE = 73151
14/15/42
                                                                                                          PAGE  0003
oo
N)
0105
0106

0107
0108
0109
QUO
0111
0112
0113

0114
0115
0116
0117
0118
0119
0120

0121
0122
0123
0124
0125
0126
0127

0128
0129
0130
0131
0132
0133
013*
0135
0136
01 *7
0138

0139
0141)
0141
0142
0143

0144
0145
0146
0147
0148

0149
0150
0151
0152
0153
0154
0155
     WRlTE(6t511l
 511 FORMATI2X,'THREE LEVELS OF FIXED MAINTENANCE COST FOR EACH CONTROL
    * SYSTEM')
     DO 911 JJ=1,3
 911 HRITE<6,4011) (FIXMCIJJ,IC),IC=1,NC)
4011 FORMAT(2X,11F10.21
     DO 12 JJ=1,3
  12 READ15,10001 (RPLMCIJJ.1C),IC=1,NC)
     WRITEI6.512I DIST25
 512 FORMAH2X,'THREE LEVELS OF VARIABLE(REPLACEMENT) MAINTENANCE COST
    *FOR EACH CONTROL SYTEM. REPLACE EVERY',F6.0,• MILES')
     DO 912 JJ=lt3
 912 MRITE(6>4012) (RPLMC(JJ,1C),IC=1,NC)
4012 FORMAT(2X,11F10.2»
     DO 13 JJ=1,3
  13 READ(5,1000) (SUBMC(JJ , 1C)>IC= li NC )
     WRITEI6.513) OIST25
 513 FORMAT(2X,'THREE LEVELS OF VARIABLE(PARTIAL SUBSTITUTION I MAINTENA
    *NCE COST FOR EACH CONTROL SYSTEM. SUBSTITUTE EVERY',F6.0f' MILES')
     DO 913 JJ = U3
 913 WRITEI6,40131 (SUBMC(JJ,1C)tIC=l,NC)
4013 FORMAT(2X,11F10.2I
     00 14 JJ=1,3
  14 READ «5i10001(RPL10«JJ,1C)tIC=1tNC»
     WRITEC6.514) D1ST10
 514 FOKMATJ2X,'THREE LEVELS OF VARIABLE(REPLACEMENT) MAINTENANCE COST
    *FOR EACH CONTROL SYSTEM. REPLACE EVERY',F6.0t« MILES')
     DO 914 JJ=lt3
 914 KRITE(6,4014) (RPL10(JJ11C)t IC=ltNC)
4014 FORMAT(2X,11F10.2I
     READ(StlOOO) ,4054)
4054 FORMAT(2X,'FUEL PENALTY (GAIN,IF NEGATIVE) FOR USING EACH CONTROL
    *SYSTEM'I
     WRITE(6,954) (FUPEN(IC),IC=1,NC)
 954 FURMAT!2X,UF6.2>
     REAOI5.1000I (FF(IEI,IE=1,NE)
     HRITE(6,40551
4055 FORMAT(2X,'FUEL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS BY VEHICLE TYPE'I
     WRITE(6,1955> I FF( IE ) , I E=1 ,NEI
1955 FORMAT(2X,10F6.2)

-------
      FHKTAAN  IV G LEVEL  21
                                      MAIN
                                                        DATE - 73151
                                                                14/15/42
                                                                                                        PAGE 0004
oo
oo
0156
0157
015a
0159
0160
0161
0162
0163
0164
0165
0166
0167
0168
0169
0170
0171
0172
0173
0174
0175
0176
0177
0178
0179
0180
0181
0182
0133
0184
0185
0186
0187
0188
0189
0190
0191
0191:
0193
0194
0195
0196
0197
0198
0199
0200
0201
0202
0203
0204
0205

0206
0207
0208
0209
0210
0211
     HRITE<6,520I
 520 FORMATJ2X,'VEHICLE POPULATION BY YEAR1I
     DO 20 JR=1,NYR .
     ONROAD=0.0
     JXRZ=IYR*JR-1
     DO 19 IT=liNT
     DO 19 J=1,JR
     1AGE=JR-J+1
  19 UNRUAD=ONROAD*SALESCJ,ITI*REMV(IAGEI
     ONROAD=r!NROAD/THOUS
     WRITE(6,4020) JXRZ.ONROAD
4020 FORMAT(2X,UO,F10.0»
  20 CONTINUE
     DO 26 IT=1,NT
     0=0.0
     DU=0.0
     DO 25 IAGE=lfNYR
     D=D+TRAV(IT,IAGE)
     DO=DO+TRAV(IT,IAGE)
     J=D/DIST25
     K=OD/DIST10
     IF(J.EQ.O) GO TO 22
     INDI1T,IAGE)=1
     0=U-J*OIST25
     GO TO 23
  22 INDIIT,IAGE)=0
  23 IFIK.EQ.OI GO TO 24
     JN01IT,IAGEI=1
     DO=00-K*OIST10
     GO TO 25
  24 JND
-------
FOKTRAN IV 6 LEVEL  21
                                            MAIN
                                         DATE = 73151
U/15/42
                                                                                                        PAGE 0005
>
I
00
 0212
 0213
 0214
 0215
 0216
 0217
 0218
 0219
 0220
 0221
 0222
 0223
 022*

 0225
 0226
 0227
 0228
 0229
 0230
 0231
 0232
 0233
 0234
 0235
 0236
 0237
 0238
 0239
 0240
 0241
 0242
 0243
 0244
 0245
 0246
 0247,.
 0248''
 0249
 0250
 0251
 0252
 0253
 0254
 0255
 0256
 0257
 02.58
 0259
 0260
 0261
 0262
 0263
 0264
 0265
 0266
 0267
 0268
   DO 400 JR=MYR,NYR
   00 70 L=l,3
   SUMIC=0.0
   DO 60 IC=1,NC
   SUMIE=0.0
   DO 50 IE=1,N£
   SUMJR=0.0
   DO 40 J=1,JR
   IAGE=JR-J+1
   SUMIT=0.0
   DO 30 IT=1,NT
30 SUM! T=SUMIT+SALES(J,IT»*REMV(IAGE)
40 SUMJR=SUMJR+SUMIT*FRA(IE,IC, Jl
  **FRE(J,IE,IT)
50 SUMIE=SUMIE*REMP(L,IE,IC)*SUMJR
60 SUMIC=SUMIC+SUMIE
70 TEH(L,JR1=SUMIC/GHPTON
80 CONTINUE
   FUG=0.0
   FUO=0.0
   DFUG=0.0
   DFUD=0.0
   DO 130 IE=1,NE
   JF=FUEL( IEI
   SUMITA=0.0
   SUMITB=3.0
   DO 120 IT=1,NT
   SUMJA=0.0
   SUHJB=0.0
   00 L10 J=1,JR
                                                             *EM(L,IE,IT,J)*TRAV( IT,I AGE)
                        A=SALEStJ,IT)*REMV(IAGE)*FRElJ,IE,IT)*T«AV(IT,IAGE»/MPG(IE,ITI
                        SUMICA=0.0
                        SUMICB=0.0
                        DO 100 IC=1,NC
                        SUMICA=SUMICA*A*FRA(IE,IC,JI*«1.0*FUPEN( ICM
                    100 SUM1CB=SUMIC8*A*FRA( I E , 1C , J> /FF ( IE )
                        SUMJA=SUMJA+SUMICA
                    110 SUMJB=SUMJB+SUMICa
                        SUMITA=SUMITA+SUMJA
                    120 SUHITB=SUM1TB+SUMJ8
                        GO TO <124,126I,JF
                    124 FUG=FUG»SUMITA
                        DFUG=DFUG*SUMIT8
                        GO TO 130
                    126 FUD=FUD*SUMITA
                        DFUO=DFUO*SUMITB
                    130 CONTINUE
                        DFUG=FUG-DFUG
                        DFJD=FUD-DFUD
                        00 350 JJ=1.3
                        DO 150 J=l,3
                    ISO TOC(J)=0.0
                        DO 230 IC=1,NC
                        SUMIE=0.0
                        DO 220 IE=1,NE
                        SUMIT=O.O
                        DO 210 IT=1,NT

-------
FORTRAN iv o LEVEL  21
                                       MAIN
                                                         DATE = 73151
                                                                              14/15/42
                                                                                                   PAGE 0006
























i>
i
oo
(J1
0269
0270
0271
0272
0273
0274
027b
0276
0277
0278
0279
0280
0<:8l
0282
0283
0284
0285
0286
0287
02B8
0289
0290
0291
0292
0293
0294
0295
                     JR
                       = SALESU,ITI*FREU,IE,1TI*FRA(IE,IC,J»
               210 SUMIT=SUMIT+SUMJ
               220 SUMIE=SUMIE*SUMIT
                   OSTt (JJi ICI=SUM1E*COSTI(JJ,IC)
               230 TOC(JJ)=TOC( JJI+OSTK JJtIC)
                   DU 330 J=ltJR
                   IAGE=JR-J»1
                   SJMIC=0.0
                   00 320 IC=1,NC
                   SUH1T=0.0
                   DO 310 IT=1,NT
                   SUMIE = 0.0      ,•
                   UO 300 IE=1,NE
               300 SUMl E = SUMie«-SALES(Jt !T)*FREIJf IE, IT)*FRA(IE, 1C , J I*REMV( I AGE )
                   A=FIXMC( JJt IC)*INDUT,IAGEI*(RPLMC(JJiiC)*MCRS*SUBHCUJ,IC)*
                  *ll-MCRS) H-JND(IT,IAGE)*RPL10(JJtlC)
               310 SUMIT=SUHIT+SUMIE*A
               320 SUMIC=SUMIC+SUMIT
               330 TOTCST( JJ,JRI=DFUG*GASCST(JJ)*DFUD*DSLCST(JJ)+TOCUJ»*SJMIC
               350 CONTINUE
                   JX=JR-1*IYR
                   WRITE (6t 2001) JXt (TEM(L,JRI ,L = 1,3) t FUG, 0 FUG, FUD, DFUDt ( T3TCSTC J Jt JR
                  *l,JJ=l,3t
              2001 FORMATdXtUf 10E12.4)
               400 CONTINUE
               410 COiNTINUE
                   STOP
                   END

-------
              APPENDIX A-9

   GRAPHICAL SUMMARY OF BASELINE
EMISSIONS DATA VERSUS INERTIA WEIGHT
                    A-87

-------
           MDV BASELINE HC EMISSIONS vs INERTIA WEIGHT
              (MEASURED ON MODIFIED 1975 LDV FTP)
15


14


13


12


11


10


 9


 8


 7


 6


 5


 4


 3


 2


 1


 0
 135 DATA POINTS - ALL 1970-73
 TRUCKS AND MOTOR HOMES
 (EXCLUDING 1973 CALIF.
 VEHICLES) (INCLUDING BOTH
. TUNED & UNTUNED VEHICLES)
 NOTE: THE LINES CONNECT DATA
       POINTS FROM THE SAME
       VEHICLE TESTED AT
       SEVERAL Iw's.
                                                      10
                                         ( •) - TRUCK
                                         (X ) - MOTOR HOME
                                                        10
        Figure A-9.1   INERTIA WEIGHT (1000 LBS)
                          A-89

-------
  MDV BASELINE CO EMISSIONS vs INERTIA WEIGHT
     (MEASURED ON MODIFIED 1975 LDV FTP)
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
^ 110
O inn
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0









































1
1
(
\
1

fl





























i


A,





1 1



I I
35 DATA POINTS - ALL 1970-73
FRUCKS AND MOTOR HOMES
EXCLUDING 1973 CALIF.
/EHICLES) (INCLUDING BOTH
FUNED & UNTUNED VEHICLES)
JOTE: THE LINES CONNECT DAT/
POINTS FROM THE SAME
VEHICLE TESTED AT
SEVERAL Iw's.



















fc=







*






















>— <


•
•


/
"™S





















y
/



u



w.
^—




















/
*






•

"-S
— ^— •


















f
/*










^_
^

















/
h
-1




-^<





saw
==<




















.



> 	 '





L2
^
























— —





— — *
^























^

U."-"





s
























(
=-1





• '
V
























£





j.**
5»-
1










\




















'
^



I
/

^^
-=































1
s
1 —


/
.1

^
i! —































/
— —
i
/




























,








'
\ 	
**



/




















,












/<





>




( .

























'^
8

&"


««
S





























/


^*
7**


^














/
'























/
/

















f

£t


S~





^


/
1









I
I
1




















^


/







' ) - TRUCK

I
1
1 1'
•nJ





















^
^


'








(X) -MOTOR HOME














t


1






















}


.






















































^ 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure A-9.2   INERTIA WEIGHT (1000 LBS)

                 A-90

-------
                   MDV BASELINE NOX EMISSIONS vs INERTIA WEIGHT
                       (MEASURED ON MODIFIED 1975 LDV  FTP)
£M
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
:3
2
1
0






































1:
T
(E
V
T
N



















— i
<









^.











35 DATA POINTS - ALL 1970-73
RUCKS AND MOTOR HOMES
EXCLUDING 1973 CALIF.
EHICLES) (INCLUDING BOTH
UNED & UNTUNED VEHICLES)
OTE: THE LINES CONNECT DATA
POINTS FROM THE SAME
VEHICLE TESTED AT
SEVERAL Iw's.
s



















I
•jc
T


























• •

^
3^
























•5

^

«"
)
1^
^




















'



*
| /




s"

























^


/
m

•
























---.
^
t
	 f



























*»_

1

r



























-^
^




























>
^
^
— ••"



























^

/
>v




















^



j— _

/


'
r"






























N


*• <
/*


s*
^






























i
{

/
i




. —





























/
/6

^
/*





" "





























^^M

/
^





.^
*

















:



\







••«.
^
/-j
~*





^*











( •




I



1







^—^
>~~







q



























.
.-—






r^






















\
\




— —
— -



1


>























1U
\
;







1-J





























-------
APPENDIX B-l

            Catalytic Converter Cost and Production Lead Time

            Introduction and Summary

            Schedules submitted to the EPA and Aerospace Corporation by catalyst
and substrate suppliers are shown in Figure B.I.  The operations considered in
estimating the lead times are design, engineering, construction of new
facilities, installation of equipment, and production build up.

            The corresponding sets of data from the catalyst and substrate
suppliers are found to be in agreement.  It can readily be seen that the lead
times estimated to be required by the various substrate suppliers vary in a
range from 12 to 24 months while catalyst suppliers vary from 20 to 24 months.
The differences in lead time may be due to varying degrees of optimism in
estimating the facility construction and equipment schedule.  From Figure B.I,
and allowing for the fact that production catalysts must be available at the
manufacturers plant in advance of first vehicle production, the automotive
manufacturer lead time requirement would be expected to be approximately
2 years.

            In general, the agreement in catalytic converter production mile-
stones among various automotive manufacturers is good.  Among all the
automotive manufacturers represented the overall lead time requirement ranges
from 24 to 28 months.  This is due primarily to the fact that the converter
represents a new technology, and involves a source of supply that the
automotive industry is unfamiliar with in high-volume production.  Thus, the
lead time requirement includes the uncertainties associated with new vendor
associations.  The overall production lead time schedules for the major
automobile manufacturers are shown in Figure B.2.  It could be concluded that
there are no gross inconsistencies among or between the lead time specifications
of the suppliers and manufacturers.
                                      B-l

-------
      CATALYST SUPPLIERS
           ENGLE HARD
w
           OXY-CATALYST
           MATTHEY BISHOP
           W.R. GRACE
           MONSANTO
      SUBSTRATE SUPPLIERS
           CORNING GLASS
            REYNOLDS
           KAISER
MT NO. 1
MT NO. 2
P
(PELLET)
(MONOLITH)
PRODUCTS
X (ALC» °\
CONSTRUCTION & INSTALLATION UP*""

''ENGIN.8' CONSTRUCTION & INSTALLATION UP*"1"

DiNGIN.* CONSTRUCTION & INSTALLATION I^CKOU?

"IS81 CONSTRUCTION & INSTALLATION CHECKOUT

DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION ft INSTALLATION C^ECKOU?
D|NG3|N& CONSTRUCTION & INSTALLATION CHECKOUT

DESIGN & rflNTRUCTION ft INSTALLATION STARTUP &
ENGIN. OUIMIHUCIIUIM & IIMblALLMIIUlM CHECKOUT

D|wi?i')fi8' CONSTRUCTION & INSTALLATION rwprTfnnT
CiMullM. l^riCUIVLIU 1

•NG^N & CONSTRUCTION

IN'GIN & CONSTRUCTION & INSTALLATION CHECKOUT

DESIGN & CONTRUCTION 8, INSTALLATION STARTUP &
ENGIN. CONTRUCTION & INSTALLATION CHECKOUT

DESIGN ft CONSTRUCTION & INSTALLATION S^CKOUT
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | | 1 1 1 1
2 46 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
MONTHS
               Figure B.1 PRODUCTION LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR CATALYST AND SUBSTRATE SUPPLIERS

-------
AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURE
AMERICAN
CHRYSLER
FORD
G. M.
VOLVO
VOLKSWAGEN
CO
F
C
F
A C D E
F
A B C D E
F
A B E
F
AC D E
F
B D

                                    8    10    12    14     16    18    20    22     24    26    28

                                            MONTHS
A -  PRODUCTION DESIGN & PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

B -  TOOLING AND FACILITIES PROGRAM APPROVAL

C -  FACILITIES AND LONG LEAD TIME PARTS/EQUIPMENT

D -  DURABILITY AND CERTIFICATION TESTS

E -  VEHICLE PILOT PART PROGRAM

F -  START VEHICLE PRODUCTION
            Figure B.2  PRODUCTION LEAD TIME SCHEDULES FOR CATALYTIC CONVERTERS
                        (DATA SUPPLIED BY AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS)

-------
            One of the most pressing issues concerning catalytic converters is
the use and supply of noble metals.  Those considered are platinum and
palladium at a cost of $130/troy ounce and $40/troy ounce respectively.  The
estimated usage of platinum per converter runs anywhere from 0.03-0.1 troy
ounce, i.e. a cost of $4-$13.  The final price of a complete converter package
may range from $10 to $50 for light duty vehicles.  This price would depend
on many factors; the amount of noble metal used, substrate, and the final
configuration of the converter.

            To date Ford Motor Company is the only automotive manufacturer
that has made a commitment to a catalyst supplier.  Their contract  with
Engelhard Industry for supplying catalyst has provided financial backing of
up to $4.9 million for facilities and equipment.  Ford also has made purchase
commitments with American Lava.  The lead time for the development of these
supplier facilities is about 24 months.

            Discussion

            Catalytic converters primarily consist of a catalytic material
such as a base or noble metal or some combination of the two.  Noble metals
seem to be the choice since performance is much better although the cost is
considerably higher.  The noble metals being considered are platinum and
palladium which are applied on an inert support material (substrate) either
chemically or mechanically.  The support consists of alumina in the form of
pellets or a honeycomb mononithic structure.  Almost all monoliths being
considered are composed of material such that the noble metal will not adhere.
Thus, it must be coated (washed) with Al_0_.  The catalyst coated substrate
is then canned in a stainless steel casing and placed in the exhaust system
so that the exhaust flow is directed through the catalyst bed.

            As of now there is no single producer of a complete catalytic
converter package.  At most there exist a few firms which will make their own
substrate and plate it with the necessary noble or base metal catalyst but
                                     B-4

-------
even these firms will not produce canisters or can the product.  Thus, in
estimating the lead time and cost to the auto manufacturer and consumer each
component of the converter must be considered separately.

            Generally the substrate is produced by one manufacturer; it is then
passed onto a catalyst manufacturer who plates the substrate who in turn passes
the finished catalyst to the auto company.  Some auto firms are planning to do
their own cannister production while others are seeking cannister producers.

            Before considering the cost of the catalytic material and its
applications the type of substrate to be used must first be resolved.
Basically the substrate considered is of two types, pellet or beads and
monolithic.  Each have different characteristics as to cost, performance,
durability and replacement.

            Pellets, in general, are considerably cheaper and replacement is
a much simpler process.  The raw material for alumina pellet support is very
plentiful.  Reynolds has stated that they alone could supply the entire
automotive industry with alumina support for 20 years without a dent in their
reserves.  Their current production is several hundred thousand tons per year
with present facilities.  However, in order to supply the auto industries
Reynolds says that additional production facilities would have to be
constructed, and that such an undertaking would require at least a 3 year
committment to purchase from auto manufacturers.

            The plant, which solely produces alumina support, would require a
total lead time of about 18 months before full production is under way with
preliminary engineering and construction taking 3 and 12 months respectively.
Approximately 3 additional months would be needed for plant start-up and
check out.  With such a plant operating at full capacity they could supply
14 mil pounds per year at a cost of $0.41/lb. F.O.B.  This will supply
enough support material for about 2,000,000 converters based on an estimate of
5-6 Ibs. per converter.  Capital investment would run $4-5 million.
                                      B-5

-------
            Kaiser Chemicals is also considering productions of alumina
pellet substrate, however not much information is available.  They have spent
over $1 million of their own money without getting any contracts to supply.
Should an agreement be made with any auto or catalyst manufacturer, a new plant
would be required.  It would take approximately 24 months to get full
production out of the plant.  Twenty-one months will be needed for engineering,
design and construction and an additional 3 months start-up.

            Monoliths considered fall into two basic designs, round and oval.
All but one auto firm prefer round which has been quoted as being cheaper by
a factor of up to 2.

            Some producers namely American Lava Company, hereafter called
Alco, and Corning Class have spent considerable time and money developing
monolithic substrates for converters.

            Alco, a subsidiary company of 3M, has contacted all domestic auto
manufacturing and catalyst suppliers but as yet (9/1/72) has not made any
contractual agreement to supply catalytic substrate.  They have made an
agreement with Ford in June '72 for the scale up of production facilities to
meet a portion of Ford's substrate requirements for 1975 model vehicles.
This agreement guarantees that if Ford should cancel their order they would
reimburse Alco for all non-recoverable expenditures.

            Alco's production capabilities are in discrete production units
called "modules" with each module having the capacity to produce 1.5 million
units per year under a normal 2 shift, 5 day week basis.  This could be
increased to 2.25 million units using 3 shifts.  Two such units are presently
covered by a contract with Ford.  The first, started in Jan. '72 is still
under construction and due to be completed in the first quarter of '73.  The
second is in the planning stage and will not be completed until the 1st
quarter of '74.  These two modules alone could supply all of Ford's needs for
1975.  Additional modules would be required to supply other auto manufacturers.
                                     B-6

-------
            With their present Chattanooga plant, Alco would set up 4 such
modules with a capacity of 6-9 million units and only a warehouse would be
needed for raw material storage.  This is the only critical lead time item
mentioned.  Construction must be started by 10/72 to meet their planned
schedule of completion in Sept. '73.  Should demand increase, additional
modules could be installed in other 3M plants located outside Chattanooga.

            According to Alco's Manufacturing Scale-up for Substrates, they
could reach a production level of 4.5 million units a year by July '73, only
18 months after program initiation of Jan. '72.  Thus, Ford's requirements of
3 million units a year could be met in considerably less time than the present
agreement schedule provides.  Twenty-six months is the indicated requirement
for the Alco goal of 9 million units by March, 1974.  Alco claims that
March '73 was the latest they could accept on order from General Motors to
build substrate in quantity.  This suggests that Alco could double the number
of Modules from 2 to 4 in a matter of 12 months.  They also claim that by
March '75 production could reach 30 million units a year and no new construction
of a plant would be needed.  Should orders exceed this amount, new facilities
would then be needed.

            Basic component values were quoted at $5 for the ceramic substrate
and $8 for the platinum.  However, Matthey-Bishop, a catalyst manufacturer,
has  received cost quotes from Alco of $2.81 per round substrates and almost
double for oval configurations.  It is Alco's estimate that a complete
monolithic converter should cost no more than $40-$50 for light duty vehicles.

            Corning Glass is considering supplying only monolith substrate.
As yet they have not made any contractual committments with catalyst platers
or auto manufacturers.  They are currently operating a pilot production
facility with a monthly output of 1500-3000 units.  With added equipment,
they expect a production capacity of 30,000 or more per month by June  '73.
There seems to be no lead time problem with vendor-parts.  Also, raw materials
are available at any time in carload lots.  Cost for round configurations is
estimated to be $2.54 per unit and slightly higher for oval.

                                     B-7

-------
            A number of catalyst manufacturers have already been contacted by
auto firms.  Monsanto has originally only considered a pellet type base metal
catalyst but has since then been encouraged to use noble metal as well.  They
have no plans to manufacture substrate or canisters.  The substrate would be
purchased from Kaiser and/or Reynolds and canister production would be handled
by auto manufacturers themselves.  They foresee no difficulties in acquiring
noble metal.  Monsanto has established good relations with Russia and has
already requested permission from the State Department to investigate a noble
metal deal with them.

            Monsanto has no existing facilities that could be modified for
catalyst production.  Thus, construction of a new plant would be needed but a
firm commitment to purchase would be required before any detail design and
construction is started.  The anticipated production would be 10-50 mil
pounds of plated substrate per year enough for 2-10 mil converters.

            Since this would be a major undertaking for Monsanto the total
estimated expenditure is of the order of several million dollars.  They have
indicated that a lead time of 24 months from the date of site selection until
full production is under way.  Site evaluation, design and construction would
take 21 months with an additional 3 months needed for plant checkout and
start-up.  This lead time schedule is in reasonable agreement with Reynolds
and Kaiser.  Also, it is compatible with the 18 month lead time required of
their noble metal supplies.  No schedules compression has been considered as
yet.

            Even though most catalyst manufacturers could produce both Pellet
and Monolith type converters, pellet catalyst are favored by some primarily
because of their lower cost, durability and the low cost of replacement which
would run between $20-$30.  For example, Oxy-Catalyst maintains that they
would need 0.03 to 0.04 troy ounce of platinum per converter with the pellet
type costing approximately $10 whereas their monolith would run anywhere from
$40-$50.

                                      B-8

-------
            Oxy-Catalyst, like other catalyst manufacturers, would require a
commitment from auto firms before any new facilities are built.  Their schedule
lead time for a new plant is 20 months.  Sixteen months would be needed for
design, engineering and construction; another 4 months for plant shakedown.
This schedule is applicable to both pellet and monolith type catalysts and is
based on a start date of Sept. 1, 1972; however, a decision with respect to
catalyst type must be made by Dec. 1972.  Thus, completion would be around
May 197-1 with a capacity of 15-20 million pounds of Pellet-type catalyst.
They could compress their schedule by 3 months with a cost increase of up to
10 percent.  If monoliths are the choice, Alco and/or Corning would probably
be the supplier with a delivery date of March 1974.  Thus, storage would be
necessary for a couple of months.  However, pellet suppliers lead time would
correlate very well.

            Though pellets are cheaper, they do not perform as well as
monoliths.  Matthey-Biship is considering supplying plated monolith-type
converters at an estimated cost of $15-$18.  This includes the substrate,
Al-O, wash coat as well as a noble metal coating (0.04 ounce of platinum and
a proprietary amount of other non-noble metals).  They do not intend to
package the converter, but are willing to give aid, without cost, to the
canister manufacturer.  It has been estimated by Matthcy-Bishop that packaging
may run from $0.50 to $0.60 per unit.

            Should Matthey-Bishop get a contract to produce a catalyst, they
would need to build a new facility.  The lead time would be about 21 months;
design and contracting should take 3 months.  Construction and installation of
equipment is estimated to take 14 months; the remaining 4 months is needed for
start-up and shakedown.  The new facility would have an output of 1.8 mil.
units a year and cost around $4 million.

            Since plant expansion is rather simple, capacity could be further
increased, however, notification must be received by April 1973.  Orders for
substrate would have to be placed before this date.  Their lead time correlates
very well with American Lava, a potential substrates supplier.
                                     B-9

-------
            Several catalyst manufacturers are considering producing their
own substrate.  Universal Oil Product and W. R. Grace Co. are both considering
producing pellet substrate and then adding their catalytic material.  Grace
has the capacity with slight modification to existing equipment to produce
15-20 mil. pounds of pellet substrate a year.  Since this would not be enough
to supply any one auto firm, they would have to contact outside pellet suppliers.

            Grace has already made plans to produce a monolith but as yet has
not made any contractual agreements with the auto firms.  They may make some
agreement with outside monolith suppliers if their monoliths are not accepted.

            Following the receipt of a contract or purchase order, Grace
would build either a pellet of monolith catalyst plant at a cost of $5-15
million.  The scheduled lead time given for the plants are 24 mos. for pellet
and 22 mos. for monolith.  Engineering and design would cover 3 mos.
Construction of the pellet plant is estimated to take 18 months whereas the
monolith would take 16 months.  The remaining 3 mos. would involve plant
shakedown and checkout.

            No scheduled compression is possible for their monolith plant;
however, the pellet catalyst lead time could be compressed by 3-6 months at
a $0.10 - 0.05 per pound cost increase.

            Universal Oil Products is considering an output of 5 million units
a year regardless of which catalyst is chosen.  They prefer a monolith and
could supply it at a cost of $10-12.  Nexv facilities have already been
planned; however, a final decision by G. M. on whether to order pellet or
monolith is being awaited before construction beings.  There is an estimate
of 20 months before shipment could commence which would be around June 1974.
                                     B-10

-------
                                  REFERENCES
1.    Trip Report - Reynolds Metals Company, Production Lead-Time Study, from
     M.  G. Hinton/W.  U. Roessler, Aerospace Corp., 30 August 1972.

2.    Trip Report - Kaiser Chemicals, Production Lead-Time Study, from
     0.  Hamberg, Aerospace Corp., 27 September 1972.

3.    Trip Report - American Lava Corporation, Production Lead-Time Study,
     from F.  P.  Hutchins, EPA, 1 September 1972.

4.    Trip Report Corning Glass Works, Production Lead-Time Study, from
     L.  Forrest/W. Smalley, Aerospace Corp., 11 September 1972.

5.    Trip Report - Monsanto Company, Production Lead-Time Study, from
     W.  U. Roessler,  Aerospace Corp., 15 September 1972.

6.    Trip Report - Oxy-Catalyst, Inc. Production Lead-Time Study, from
     W.  U. Roessler/M,  G. Hinton, Aerospace Corp., 6 September 1972.

7.    Trip Report - Matthey-Bishop, Production Lead-Time Study, from
     W.  U. Roessler,  Aerospace Corp., 16 October 1972.

8.    Trip Report - W. R. Grace Company, Production Lead-Time Study, from
     M.  G. Hinton/W.  U. Roessler, Aerospace Corp., 31 August 1972.

9.    Trip Report - Universal Oil Products, Production Lead-Time Study,
     30 August 1972.

10.  Aerospace Report No. ATR-73-7322)-!; 28 July 1972.
                                     B-ll

-------