SDSB-79-2.O
Technical Report
1969 Light-Duty Truck Baseline Program
and
1983 Emission Standards Development
by
Larry D. Ragsdale
July 1979
Standards Development and Support Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Table of Contents
I. Foreword i
II. Summary 1
III. Introduction 2
IV. Discussion
A. LDT Program Formulation 2
B. Contract No. 68-03-2683 5
1. Vehicle Procurement 8
2. Identification of Potential Test 13
Vehicles
3. Maintenance and Tune-Up Procedure 14
4. Vehicle Testing 17
5. Test Equipment and Fuel 17
6. Audit Procedure 17
C. Baseline Compilation 37
D. Standards Computation 39
V. Appendix 44
-------
-1-
I. FOREWORD
The Clean Air Act as amended in 1977 requires the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and promulgate revised
hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) emission standards for
1983 model year heavy-duty vehicles. These revised standards are
to reflect at least a 90 percent reduction from the average emis-
sion levels of uncontrolled heavy-duty gasoline-fueled vehicles
(1969 model year).
Under a separate test program, EPA measured uncontrolled HC
and CO emission levels from heavy-duty vehicles with gross vehicle
weight ratings (GVWR) greater than 8,500 pounds. The description
and results of this test program are reported in the EPA technical
report "1969 Heavy-Duty Engine Baseline Program and 1983 Emission
Standards Development." The baseline emission levels (uncontrolled
levels) of the vehicles constituting the remainder of the heavy-
duty vehicle classl_/ (those vehicles from 6,001 to 8,500 pounds
(GVWR) also have to be determined.
In response to this need, the Emission Control Technology
Division (ECTD) of EPA's Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution
Control initiated a testing program to procure and emission test
1969 model year vehicles in the 6,001 to 8,500 pound GVWR range.
The primary purposes of this test program were:
1) to determine the HC and CO emission levels from a repre-
sentative sample of vehicles in the 6,001 to 8,500 pound GVWR
range;
2) to derive average baseline HC and CO levels of the test
sample; and
3) to calculate HC and CO values that represent 90 percent
reductions from the baseline levels.
The HC and CO values that represent 90 percent reductions
would be the emission standards that will be proposed for the
light-duty truck class effective in the 1983 model year.^/
The purpose of this report is to describe the test program,
present the emission results, and explain the methodology used to
derive the proposed 1983 HC and CO emission standards for the
light-duty truck class.
\J EPA has established a "subclass" of heavy-duty vehicles which
includes those vehicles from 6,001 to 8,500 pounds GVWR. This
class of vehicles is referred to as light-duty trucks.
2J The light-duty truck class includes all trucks in the 0 to
8,500 pound GVWR range. EPA plans to propose these new standards
for the entire light-duty truck class.
-------
-1-
II. Summary
The Clean Air Act as amended in 1977, directed the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop more stringent
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emission standards for heavy-duty
engines used in heavy-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks in the
6,000 to 8,500 Ib. GVWR range (hereafter called light-duty trucks).
This Congressional mandate required that EPA prescribe standards
which by 1983 would require 90 percent reductions in HC and CO
emissions. The 90 percent reductions were to be measured from
uncontrolled (1969) emission levels.
To comply with the above Congressional requirement, EPA
developed and conducted (through contract) an emission testing
program that determined baseline emission levels (for HC and CO)
for those light-duty trucks in the 6,000 to 8,500 Ib. GVWR range.
The EPA testing contractor was E G & G Automotive Research, Inc. of
San Antonio, Texas and commenced in July, 1978.
The contract called for E G & G to procure and test both
1969 and 1972-73 vehicles for emissions on the 1979 light-duty
truck test procedure. (The testing of the 1972-73 vehicles is part
of another testing program and was combined with the testing of the
1969 vehicles for expediency and cost savings.) The 1969 baseline
portion of the contract has been completed. Eighteen 1969 light-
duty trucks, which represents 83.1 percent of all light-duty trucks
(6,001 to 8,500 Ibs. GVWR) sold were tested. Each vehicle was
tested three times for emissions.
Based on the results of these emission tests, the sales-
weighted average of the actually measured emissions are:
HC CO
8.06 g/mile 102.29 g/mile
The corresponding 90 percent reductions from these levels are:
HC CO
0.8 g/mile 10 g/mile
The above values represent the 1983 proposed emission stan-
dards for those light-duty trucks in the 6,000 to 8,500 Ib. GVWR
range. These standards appear in EPA's recent Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on July 12,
1979 (44 FR 40 7849). In this NPRM, EPA also proposes that these
same standards apply to light-duty trucks under 6,000 Ibs. GVWR as
well.
-------
-2-
III. Introduction
This technical report describes the test program the Emission
Control Technology Division (ECTD) developed to measure hydrocar-
bons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions for 1969 light-duty
trucks (LDT). This baseline is being used to set 1983 proposed
emission standards for light-duty trucks which have gross vehicle
weight ratings (GVWR) of 8,500 pounds or less.
The actual test program was conducted by a contractor. E G &
G Automotive Research, Incorporated of San Antonio, Texas was
selected to perform the testing work in July, 1978. They were
contracted to procure and test for emissions, 30 1969 LDTs and 25
1972-73 LDTs. The 1969 vehicles were tested to determine HC and CO
levels for establishing the mandated 90% reduction for the 1983
emission standards. Table 1 lists the vehicles tested to construct
the 1969 LDT baseline. The 1972-73 vehicles are currently being
tested to determine the oxides of nitrogen (NOx) levels in order to
set a 75% reduction for a 1985 NOx emission standard.
The contractor was also required to remove and prepare certain
of the engines for dynamometer tests. These engines are found in
heavy-duty vehicles (8,500 pounds GVWR and above) and were tested
for inclusion in the heavy-duty engine baseline.
This report describes the baseline program formulation for the
light-duty truck Contract No. 68-03-2683, the procurement and
testing activities performed by E G & G, and the final baseline
emission results and standards derived from that baseline.
IV. Discussion
A. LDT Baseline Program Formulation
The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1977 require that HC
and CO emissions from heavy-duty vehicles be reduced by 90% from
1969 measured levels for 1983 model year vehicles and that NOx
emissions be reduced by 75% from 1973 measured levels for 1985
model year vehicles. EPA has established a "subclass" of heavy-
duty vehicles, which includes those vehicles from 6,001 to 8,500
Ibs. GVWR, which conform to the current light-duty truck defini-
tion in 40 CFR §86.079-2. In order to set emission standards for
this subclass for 1983 and 1985 model years, it is necessary
to establish baselines for 1969 and 1973 model year light-duty
trucks. EPA considers the entire LDT class to include 0<8,500
pounds GVWR trucks and is proposing to apply the new standards to
the whole LDT weight class.
EPA in establishing the light-duty truck subclass required
that these vehicles be tested for emissions on the applicable
light-duty truck test procedure. Since the baselines were to
-------
Table 1
1969 LDT Baseline
Baseline
Engine No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
EG&G
Vehicle No. Engine Mileage
418
444
428
404
421
473
425
491
610
613
Dodge 318 37,300
Dodge 318 51,400
Dodge 225 59,200
Dodge 225 43,500
Ford 360 81,400
Ford 360 75,800
Ford 360 87,300
Ford 360 88,200
Ford 360 61,200
Ford 360 85,300
Model
D-200
D-200
P-200
P-200
F-250
F-250
F-250
F-250
F-250
F-250
Body Type
Pick-up
Pick-up
Postal Van
Postal Van
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Source
J. W. Stanley
San Antonio, Texas
V. R. Lutes
San Antonio, Texas
Garcia Furniture
San Antonio, Texas
F. Stanish
San Antonio, Texas
D. Woollett
San Antonio, Texas
G. Tatom
San Antonio, Texas
R. Pfluger
San Antonio, Texas
B. Hooper
San Antonio, Texas
B. A. Knapp
San Antonio, Texas
R. Ferber
Date Procured
8-24-78
9-11-78
12-11-78
11-16-78
CO
1
10-3-78
1-5-79
11-16-78
1-19-79
4-5-79
4-12-79
San Antonio, Texas
-------
Table 1 (Cont'd)
1969 LDT Baseline
Baseline
Engine No.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
EG&G
Vehicle No.
618
607
441
419
450
427
602
601
Engine
Ford 302
Chev 307
Chev 250
Chev 350
Chev 350
Chev 350
CMC 350
IHC 345
Mileage
107,300
84,200
68,900
68,900
67,500
78,800
77,100
102,300
Model
E-300
C-20
C-20
C-20
C-20
C-20
2500
1200D
Body Type
Van
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Source
R. Gomez
San Antonio, Texas
A. Rangnow
Evero, Texas
P. Lindelow
San Antonio, Texas
W. Cornet t
San Antonio, Texas
S. Smith
San Antonio, Texas
W. Fuchs
San Antonio, Texas
M. Doyle
San Antonio, Texas
V. Leos, Jr.
Date Procured
4-18-79
3-8-79
11-1-78
9-28-78 (
4>
1
12-16-78
12-14-78
1-29-79
1-26-79
San Antonio, Texas
-------
-5-
be established using the existing 1979 light-duty truck chassis
test procedure, EPA decided that a testing contractor could be
utilized for the baseline program.
In the summer of 1977, the Standards Development and Support
Branch of the Emission Control Technology Division began work on
the contract solicitation to establish the 1969 HC and CO and the
1973 NOx baseline. The contract would require the testing con-
tractor to procure and test thirty 1969 model year and twenty-five
1973 model year light-duty trucks (6,001 to 8,500 Ibs. GVWR). The
trucks would be tested on the 1979 light-duty truck emission test
procedure. The contract solicitation (Request for Proposal No. CI
77-0329) was made available to bidders on December 8, 1977.
The contract solicitation included a sampling plan for 1969
model year LDTs which the contractor would use for vehicle pro-
curement. The sampling plan, Table 2, was based on initial engine
sales data supplied by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturer's Association
(MVMA). This sampling plan, however, was revised when more com-
plete engine sales data were received from the vehicle manufac-
turers. The sampling plan required revision because 6,000-10,000
pound GVWR vehicles rather than 6,000-8,500 pound GVWR vehicles
were included in the sales data. EPA was unable to obtain 6,000-
8,500 GVWR sales data in time to include it in the contract solici-
tation. The revised sampling plan and sales data are shown in
Table 3. Although thirty engines were initially included in the
proposed test sample , the number of vehicle/engines ultimately
tested for the baseline would be based primarily on the trend of
the emission results, time, and the availability of the vehicles.
The sampling target ranges, which are shown in Table 3, were
obtained by multiplying the percent of market sales by 25 and then
rounding off.
B. Contract No. 68-03-2683
On July 26, 1978, Contract No. 68-03-2683, Baseline Character-
ization of Emissions from Medium-Duty Gasoline Vehicles Tested on a
Chassis Dynamometer, was awarded to E G & G Automotive Research,
Inc. (E G & G) of San Antonio, Texas. The contract originally
defined work as:
The contractor shall procure and test thirty 1969, and
twenty-five 1973 model year gasoline medium-duty trucks.
These vehicles will be "tuned-up" to manufacturer's specifica-
tions and will be tested three times over the 1979 light-duty
truck test procedure. (in addition, the 1969 model year
vehicles shall be tested three times "as received.") Upon
completion of all testing, the engine shall be removed and
delivered to EPA, or EPA's contractor for testing.
Vehicles will be tested under the light-duty test proce-
-------
-6-
Table 2
1969 Engine Targets
6,000
- 10,000 Pound GVW Breakdown by Manufacturer
Manufacturer Percent of Sales
Dodge
IHC
Ford
Chev/GMC
Manufacturer
Dodge
IHC
Ford
Chev/GMC
No. of
Engines
0-2
2-3
1-2
0-1
0-1
1-2
0-2
1-3
4-8
0-2
6-10
2-4
2-4
0-1
11.2%
5.1%
39.3%
44.0%
Percent of
Mfr's Engines
"20%
~80
61%
18
7
14%
5
17
57
8
61%
21
17
2
Number of Engines
in a Sample of 30
Engine
225
318
V304
V345
V266
240
300
302
360
390
307
250
350-4bbl
396
3.4
1.5
11.8
13.2
Some Possible Models
D200, W200, P200
D200, W200
1200, 1300
1200, 1300
1200, 1300
E300
F250
E300
F250
F250
CE209, CE310
CCS209, CS310
CS209
C20, P20
* From Research and Stats Department, Motor Vehicle Manufacturer's
Association.
-------
-7-
Table 3
Final
Manufacturer
Chrysler
(5.5%)
Ford
(42.8%)
General Motors
(48.0%)
IHC
3.2%)
Sampling
Based on
Engine
318
225
360
302
240
390
300
307
250
350-4
292
396
V304
V345
V392
Plan and 1969 Sales
Sample
Sales
12,000
8,000
88,700
26,000
21,600
12,900
7,600
104,200
34,400
28,500
6,000
3,000
8,610
2,600
400
Size of 25
Percent
Market
3.3
2.2
24.2
7.1
5.9
3.5
2.1
28.4
9.4
7.8
1.6
0.8
2.4
0.7
0.1
Data
of Sampling
Target Range
1
1
Total 2
6
2
1-2
1-2
1
Total 11
7
2-3
2
0-1
0-1
Total 11
1
(any engine)
366,350
99.8
-------
-8-
dure, Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 86, Subpart
B, as applicable to 1979 model year light-duty trucks.
Evaporative emissions will not be measured, the vehicle will
not undergo a diurnal heat build, and a highway fuel economy
test will not be run.
Each 1969 vehicle shall be tested three times in "as received"
condition. (1973 vehicles will not be tested prior to adjust-
ment .)
The original Scope of Work is contained in the Appendix.
The original contract has since been changed, however, through
technical direction and is presently being modified to incorporate
the technical directions. These changes were initiated to facili-
tate an increased vehicle test completion rate. The changes are
listed below:
1) 1969 model year vehicles shall not be tested in "as
received" condition, but rather shall receive three emission
tests, after being tuned-up.
2) Only certain engines designated by the Project Officer
shall be removed from the vehicle and prepared for testing on
an engine dynamometer.
3) Idle emission tests shall be conducted on all test
vehicles.
The period of performance for this contract is 24 months, and
the testing of 1973 vehicles is currently underway.
1. Vehicle Procurement
Vehicles were procured initially using the sampling plan in
Table 2. Starting in March 1979, the revised sampling plan, Table
3, was utilized. A total of 25 1969 model year vehicles were
procured by E G & G. This total includes two vehicles which had to
be rejected due to mechanical problems which were discovered during
pre-test preparation. The total of available test vehicles is 23;
18 of these vehicles have been tested and comprise the LDT base-
line. Table 4 is a summary of vehicles procured by E G & G.
Procurement of the proper test vehicles was a critical element
of the light-duty truck baseline program. Vehicles were selected
based upon the criteria listed below:
1) Vehicles must be trucks or vans, rated by the manufac-
turer at 6,001 to 8,500 Ibs. GVWR;
2) No emission controlled vehicles shall be included as
evidenced by an emission control sticker or external emission
control equipment;
-------
-9-
Table 4
Vehicles Procured by EG & G
VEHICLE
I.D. NO.
69P200-
225-01-
kok
69D200-
318-01-
413
69C20-
350-01-
419
69F250-
360-01
421
69F250-
390-OJ
424
69F250-
360-02-
425
69F250-
360-03-
426
INITIAL
CONTACT
(DATE)
11-9-78
8-22-73
9-20-78
9-15-78
10-25-78
10-25-78
12-5-78
VEHICLE/
ENGINE
1969 Dodge
(P-200)
225 CIO
7200 GVW
1969 Dodge
(D-200)
318 CIO
7EOO
-------
-10-
Table 4 (Cont'd)
Vehicles Procured by EG & G
VEHICLE
1.0. NO.
69F250-
360-06-
610
6SF250-
360-07-
6)3
692500-
250-02-
614
6SC20-
292-01-
617
69E300-
302-01-
618
69F250-
307-02-
621
69E300-
302-02-
622
INITIAL
CONTACT
(DATE)
4-5-79
4-12-79
4-13-79
11-78
4-18-79
11-17-78
-
VEHICLE/
ENGINE
1969 Ford
(F-250)
360 CID
6100 GVW
1969 Ford
(F-250)
360 CIO
6900 GVW
1969 CMC
(2500)
250 CID
7500 GVW
1969 Chev
(C-20)
292 CIO
7500 GVW
1969 Ford
(E-300)
302 CIO
(,200 GVYV
1969 Chev.
(C-20)
307 CID
7500 GVW
1969 Ford
(E-300)
302 CID
GVW
OWNER'S NAME
Brett A. Knapp
Ralph Feber
Dean Hancs
Fel ix A. Sul temeler
Rudy Gomez "'»
James C. Brads haw
John Pcrackez
EG C G-AR
INSPECTION
(DATE)
4-5-79
4-12-79
-------
-11-
Table 4 (Cont'M)
Vehicles Procured by EG & G
VEHICLE
i.D. NO.
69)2000-
345-01-
601
692500-
350-04-
602
69C20-
307-01-
607
69C20-
250-03-
623
INITIAL
CONTACT
(DATE)
1-23-79
1-24-79
11-22-78
11-6-78
VEHICLE/
ENGINE
1969 IH
(1200 D)
345 CID
7500 GVW
1969 CMC
(2500)
350 CID
7500 GVW "
1969 Chev
(C-20)
307 CID
7500 GVW
1969 Chev
(C-20)
250 CIO
7500 GVW
1969 Ford
F-250
390 CID
OWNER'S NAME
Victorlano Leos, Jr.
Hike Doyle
August Rang now
Robert Kuhn
"-
R. Nell Jenkins
EG t, G-AR
INSPECTION
(DATE)
1 -24-79
1-26-79
2-14-79
5-18-79
2-14-79
VEHICLE
PURCHASE
STATUS
(DATE)
1-26-79
1-29-79
3-8-79
5-24-79
f.
Pending
PRE-TEST
PREP.
(DATE)
2-3-79
2-20-79
3-14-79
6-1-79
\S REC'D
EMISSIONS
(DATE)
Deleted
per
EPA
Deleted
per
EPA
Deleted
per
EPA
Deleted
per
EPA
ENGINE
TUNE-UP
(DATE)
3-16-79
3-16-79
3-19-79
In
Process
EMISSIONS
TEST
(DATE)
4-17-79
4-17-79
4-12-79
ENGINE
REMOVED
(DATE)
Pending
EPA
Decision
Pending
EPA
Decision
Pending
EPA
Decision
X
ENGINE
SHIPPED
(DATE)
ENGINE
RETURN
(DATE)
VEHICLE
DISPOSED
(DATE)
'
-------
-12-
Table 4 (Cont'd)
Vehicles Procured by EG & G
VEHICLE
I.D. NO.
69C20-
350-02-
427
69P200-
225-02-
'128
69C20-
250-01-
441
69D200-
318-02-
444
6SC20-
350-03-
450
69F250-
360-04-
473
69F25Q-
360-05-
491
INITIAL
CONTACT
(DATE)
10-10-78
12-7-78
10-31-78
8-31-78
12-11-78
1-5-79
1-17-79
VEHICLE/
ENGINE
1969 Chev
(C-20)
350 CID
7500 GVW
1969 Dodge
(P-200)
225 CID
7500 GVW
1969 Chev
(C-20)
250 CID
7500 GVW
1969 Dodge
(D-200)
318 CID
1500 6YVV
1969 Chev
(C-20)
350 CID
7500 GVW
1969 Ford
(F-250) '
360 CID
6900 GVW
1969 Ford
(F-250)
360 CIO
7500 GVW
OWNER'S NAME
Wm. Gene Fuchs
Garcia Furniture
Pat Llndelow
Victor R. Lutes
Steve Smith
Glenn Tatom
Bil ly D. Hooper
EG 6 G-AR
INSPECTION
(DATE)
10-19-78
12-7-78
10-31-78
9-5-78
12-l'»-78
1-5-79
1-17:79
VEHICLE
PURCHASE
STATUS
(DATE)
12-l'i-78
12-11-78
11-1-78
9-11-78
«w
12-16-78
1-5-79
1-19-79
PRE-TEST
PREP.
(DATE)
2-28-79
12-29-78
12-5-78
9-14-78
12-28-78
1-12-79
2-2-75*
\S REC'D
EMISSIONS
(DATE)
Deleted
per
EPA
1-24-79
12-27-78
11-10-78
1-12-79
1-25-79
Deleted
per
EPA
ENGINE
TUNE-UP
(DATE)
3-19-79
1-25-79
J-5-79
11-14-78
1-16-79
1 -29-79
3-16-79
EMISSION:
TEST
(DATE)
4-26-79
2-28-79
1-25-79
12-6-78
2-1-79
2-2-79
4-17-79
ENGINE
REMOVED
(DATE)
Pending
EPA
Decision
Pending
EPA
Decision
Pending
EPA
Decision
Released
by
EPA
'ending
EPA
Decision
Pending
EPA
Dec rs Ion
Pending
EPA
Decision
ENGINE
SHIPPED
(DATE)
ENGINE
RETURN
(DATE)
VEHICLE
DISPOSED
(DATE)
12-29-78
-------
-13-
3) Potential vehicles shall be inspected to ensure that they
do not consume excessive amounts of oil, that they have
satisfactory cylinder compression, that they have original
carburetors and distributors, and that they have not undergone
a major engine overhaul;
4) Every effort must be made to secure low-mileage vehicles
(under 80,000 miles) which will not need extensive engine
repairs;
5) Higher mileage vehicles, or vehicles requiring more than
a minor tune-up may be used if the contractor demonstrates to
the Project Officer that the desired test vehicles cannot
otherwise be obtained.
2. Identification of Potential Test Vehicles
Finding suitable test vehicles was a significant problem for
the contractor. E G & G's approach to vehicle identification was
to purchase a list of 1969 light-duty trucks from the R.L. Polk
Company. This list was the basis of a letter campaign. It was
believed that this method would be the most successful; however,
it failed. Only about 10% of the 3,000 letters mailed ever re-
ceived responses. E G & G found that newspaper and radio adver-
tisements produced the most responses from vehicle owners. This
method accounted for most of the vehicles which were later pro-
cured.
Once a vehicle was identified as being a potential test
vehicle, the selection procedure began. EG&G's vehicle selection
procedure consisted of initial screening, physical inspection,
vehicle purchase, and diagnostic evaluation.
Initial screening consisted of questioning the vehicle
owners as to the vehicle make and GVWR, mileage, engine displace-
ment, past maintenance history, oil consumption, and the general
operating condition of the engine. Maintenance records were
reviewed when available.
If the initial screening was satisfactory, then a physical
inspection of the vehicle was conducted. During this inspection,
the general condition of the vehicle and engine were noted, and the
vehicle was driven to determine its mechanical condition. Perti-
nent part numbers for identification of the engine block, distri-
butor, and carburetor were recorded to verify that they were
original eqipment. This verification was accomplished by using the
appropriate service manuals, or by direct communication with the
vehicle manufacturers. Vehicles were checked for correct GVWR
rating, engine displacement, and mileage.
-------
-14-
When a vehicle had passed the initial screening and the
physical inspection satisfactorily, the vehicle was purchased by
Jack King Leasing, 5625 San Pedro Street, San Antonio, Texas. The
vehicle was then leased to E G & G for a fixed fee for a period of
one year.
The final phase of vehicle selection was a diagnostic evalu-
ation. At this time any part numbers which could not be verified
during the initial inspection were checked. Any minor non-emission-
related defects were repaired to make the vehicle ready for "as
received" emission tests.
During the diagnostic evaluation the vehicle was checked for
engine oil, fuel, and coolent leaks. A cylinder compression and
leak-down test were performed. The transmission, rear axle,
engine, electrical system and braking system were inspected.
The whole exhaust system was inspected for leaks. Two vehicles, as
mentioned earlier, were rejected after diagnostic evaluation when
it was determined that a major overhaul would be required before
the vehicles could be tested.
3. Maintenance and Tune-Up Procedure
Essential maintenance and a minor tune-up was performed on
each test vehicle before emissions testing was begun. Table 5
is a summary of the maintenance each vehicle received at E G & G.
A tune-up included replacement of the parts listed below:
Spark Plugs Distributor Point Set
Distributor Condenser Distributor Cap
Distributor Rotor Air Filter Element
PCV Valve Ignition Wire Set
Carburetor Fuel Filter
The tune-ups were performed according to recommended tune-up
procedures detailed in the manufacturer's service manuals. The
distributors were checked on a distributor machine and adjusted as
close as possible to original specifications for centrifugal and
vacuum advance. The following items were adjusted and set to
manufacturer's specifications:
Distributor point gap
Dwell Angle
Spark plug gap
Curb idle speed
Fast idle speed
Choke
Timing
4. Vehicle Testing
-------
-15-
Table 5
LPT Baseline Maintenance Summary
1.
2.
Engine
Dodge 318
Dodge 225
3. Dodge 225
4. Dodge 225
5. Ford 360
6. Ford 360
13. Chev 250
14. Chev 350
15. Chev 350
Vehicle No,
418
444
428
404
421
473
Maintenance
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Ford 360
Ford 360
Ford 360
Ford 360
Ford 302
Chev 307
425
491
610
613
618
607
441
419
450
Tune-up; Right Exhaust.
Tune-up; Water Pump Replaced
with Rebuilt Unit.
Tune-up; Replaced Exhaust
Manifold and Gaskets; Carburetor
replaced with OEM Model.
Tune-up; Replaced Ignition Coil;
Replaced Exhaust Manifold and
Gaskets.
Tune-up; Belt Replaced; Left
Exhaust Manifold Replaced.
Tune-up; Carburetor Rebuilt;
Alternator Belt Replaced.
Tune-up; Replace Belts, Hoses,
Heat Riser Valve.
Tune-up; Vacuum Advance Unit
Replaced.
Tune-up; Vacuum Advance Unit
Replaced.
Tune-up; Starter Rebuilt.
Tune-up.
Tune-up; Vacuum Advance Unit
Replaced.
Tune-up; Exhaust Manifold
Replaced; Water Pump Replaced with
Rebuilt Water Pump; Distributor
Replaced.
Tune-up.
Tune-up.
-------
-16-
Table 5 (Cont'd)
LPT Baseline Maintenance Summary
Engine Vehicle No. Maintenance
16. Chev 350 427 Tune-up; Distributor Replaced;
Exhaust Valve on Cylinder Number 5
Replaced; Left Exhaust Manifold
Replaced.
17. CMC 350 602 Tune-up; Carburetor Replaced
18. IHC 345 601 Tune-up; Water Pump Belt Re-
placed.
-------
-17-
Vehicle Testing
The vehicles were tested at E G & G using the light-duty test
procedure, Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 86, Subpart
B, as applicable to 1979 model year light-duty trucks. Evaporative
emissions were not measured, and highway fuel economy tests were
not conducted. Each vehicle was required to have three valid
"after tune-up" emission tests.
The 1979 light-duty truck test procedure requires that
road load horsepower settings for the dynamometer be a function of
vehicle frontal area. ECTD instructed E G & G to use an approxi-
mation for frontal area, rather than calculate frontal area for
each vehicle individually. The frontal area approximation used was
33 square feet for a pick-up truck, and 37 square feet for a van.
This frontal area approximation resulted in an actual road load
horsepower setting of 19.0 hp for a pick-up truck and 18.5 hp for a
van. EPA allowed this approximation to save time and reduce
contract expense. The frontal area approximations which were used,
were averages of frontal area measurements performed on pick-ups
and vans by EPA personnel. The approximations yield roadload hp
settings close to those used for emissions certification testing of
LDT's in the 6,000 - 8,500 pound GVWR range for 1979 (19.0-21.5
hp).
Inertia weight settings for the test vehicles was determined
by the loaded vehicle weight technique of the EPA test procedure.
The vehicle's curb weight was used with the weight of a 40% fuel
tank fill included. Three hundred pounds was added to obtain the
final weight to be used for determining inertia weight setting.
The test results for each "after tune-up" emission test are
contained in Table 6. Table 7 compares the actual engine/vehicles
tested to the final sampling plan. The reason more engines are
tested for some engine lines than is necessary is because the
sampling plan was revised after the procurement process was already
in process.
5. Test Equipment and Fuel
A Clayton model ECE50 chassis dynamometer was used for vehicle
preconditioning and for the FTP emissions test. A Scott Model 302
CVS was used for the constant volume sampling system. Hydrocarbons
were analyzed on a Horiba model F1A-2A FID. The carbon monoxide
and carbon dioxide emissions were analyzed on Bechman model 315B
analyzers. A Thermoelectron 10A unit was used to analyze oxides of
nitrogen. Test fuel used for baseline emission tests was Indolene
30.
6. Audit Procedure
After completion of an emissions test, a test data packet was
assembled which contained the following items:
-------
-18-
Table 6
Summary of Emissions Tests
Road load HP:
Manufacturer/
Engine CID
Dodge 318
Inertia Weight
Vehicle
Number Condition
418 As received *
As received *
As received *
As received *
As received *
After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
Mean
(Ibs):
Test
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
19.0
4500 GVW: 7500
HC Grams
Per Mile
8.132
7.899
7.309
5.819
6.918
8.170
7.532
7.865
7.856
CO Grams
Per Mile
68.057
60.574
63.582
33.347
64.681
84.800
99.605
73.524
85.976
NOx Grams
Per Mile
5.249
5.821
5.096
9.060.
5.692
4.283
4.483
4.295
4.354
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
12.39
12.28
12.47
11.90
12.46
11.83
11.48
12.13
11.81
Note: Tests 01 through 05 run on Indolene HO clear unleaded fuel.
* These tests were not used to determine baseline emissions.
-------
-19-
Table 6 (cont'd)
Summary of Emissions Tests
Road load HP:
Inertia Weight
Manufacturer/ Vehicle
Engine CID Number Condition
Dodge 318 444 As received *
As received *
As received *
As received *
As received *
As received *
As received *
After maintenance *
After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
Mean
(Ibs):
Test
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
18.5
4500 GVW:
HC Grams
Per Mile
9.061
17.434
15.685
17.250
14.826
16.622
12.130
void
void
11.052
10.243
13.145
11.480
7500
CO Grams
Per Mile
132.649
115.248
107.980
118.717
97.101
106.254
93.953
test
test
95.092
102.993
109.602
102.562
NOx Grams
Per Mile
4.146
4.510
4.807
4.271
4.062
4.047
5.929
5.236
2.918
3.601
3.918
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
12.09
12.60
13.00
12.67
13.59
12.97
13.78
13.57
13.17
13.04
13.26
* These tests were not used to determine baseline emissions.
-------
-20-
Table 6 (cont'd)
Summary of Emissions Tests
Road load HP:
Manufacturer/
Engine CID
Dodge 225
Inertia Weight
Vehicle
Number Condition
428 As received *
As received *
As received *
After maintenance
After maintenance *
After maintenance *
After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
(Ibs):
Test
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
18.5
5500 GVW:
HC Grams
Per Mile
3.646
3.409
3.571
6.787
void
void
6.807
8.600
7.545
7500
CO Grams
Per Mile
29.952
28.879
27.456
57.422
test
test
65.002
77.193
68.016
NOx Grams
Per Mile
9.154
9.843
9.921
6.564
4.711
5.489
6.263
Fuel
EC onomy
(mpg)
13.44
13.38
13.94
12.95
14.92
12.76
13.37
Mean
7.651
70.070
5.488
13.68
These tests were not used to determine baseline emissions.
-------
-21-
Table 6 (cont'd)
Summary of Emissions Tests
Road load HP: 19.0
Inertia Weight (Ibs): 5500 GVW: 7200
Manufacturer/ Vehicle
Engine CID Number Condition
Dodge 225 404 As received *
As received *
As received *
As received *
As received *
After maintenance *
After maintenance *
After maintenance *
After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance *
After maintenance
Mean
Test
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
HC Grams
Per Mile
void
4.586
void
5.075
5.294
void
void
void
5.980
5.729
void
5.499
5.736
CO Grams NOx Grams
Per Mile Per Mile
test
167.100 4.070
test
225.782 3.568
224.276 2.871
test
test
test
164.222 2.362
157.625 2.282
test
152.791 2.328
158.213 2.328
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
11.26
9.51
9.42
11.82
11.98
11.94
11.94
* These tests were not used to determine baseline emissions.
-------
-22-
Table 6 (cont'd)
Summary of Emissions Tests
Road load HP: 19.0
Inertia Weight (Ibs): 5000 GVW: 7500
Manufacturer/
Engine CID
Ford 360
Vehicle
Number Condition
421 As received *
As received *
As received *
After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
Test
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06
HC Grams
Per Mile
8.813
8.929
9.687
7.741
9.075
7.074
CO Grams
Per Mile
98.800
96.830
101.743
64.094
65.626
52.408
NOx Grams
Per Mile
2.933
3.286
3.175
2.387
3.073
3.253
Fuel
Economy
(.mpg)
11.70
11.36
11.24
12.40
12.10
12.66
Mean 7.963
* These tests were not used to determine the baseline emissions.
60.709
2.904
12.39
-------
-23-
Table 6 (cont'd)
Summary of Emissions Tests
Roadload HP: 19.0
Inertia Weight (Ibs): 4500 GVW: 6900
Manufacturer/
Engine CID
Ford 360
Vehicle
Number Condition
473 As received *
As received *
As received *
After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
Test
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06
HC Grams
Per Mile
8.652
9.173
9.035
11.412
10.327
10.251
CO Grams
Per Mile
218.441
219.106
228.785
232.942
215.766
210.464
NOx Grams
Per Mile
1.738
1.841
1.824
1.596
1.582
1.842
Fuel
EC onomy
(mpg)
9.72
9.53
9.17
9.60
9.92
10.00
Mean
10.663
219.724
1.673
9.84
* These tests were not used to determine the baseline emissions.
-------
-24-
Table 6 (cont'd)
Summary of Emissions Tests
Roadload HP: 19.0
Inertia Weight (Ibs): 4500 GVW: 6200
Manufacturer/
Engine CID
Ford 360
Vehicle
Number Condition
425 As received *
As received *
As received *
After maintenance
After maintenance *
After maintenance
After maintenance
Test
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
HC Grams
Per Mile
3.316
5.988
4.076
2.775
void
2.864
3.200
CO Grams
Per Mile
35.018
41.268
38.146
39.874
test
42.591
51.202
NOx Grams
Per Mile
3.078
3.268
3.660
2.831
2.401
3.070
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
8.92
8.49
8.20
7.55
7.78
7.56
Mean
2.946
44.556
2.767
7.61
* These tests were not used to determine the baseline emissions.
-------
-25-
Table 6 (cont'd)
Summary of Emissions Tests
Roadload HP: 19.0
Inertia Weight (Ibs): 5000 GVW: 7500
Manufacturer/
Engine CID
Ford 360
Vehicle
Number Condition
491 After
After
After
After
maintenance
maintenance *
maintenance
maintenance
Test
Number
01
02
03
04
HC Grams
Per Mile
7.390
void
6.671
6.847
CO Grams
Per Mile
65.409
test
62.716
63.229
NOx Grams
Per Mile
5.479
5.028
4.654
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
11.36
11.79
11.68
Mean
6.969
63.785
5.054
11.61
* These tests were not used to determine the baseline emissions.
-------
-26-
Table 6 (cont'd)
Summary of Emissions Tests
Road load HP: 19.0
Inertia Weight (Ibs): 5000 GVW: 6100
Manufacturer/
Engine CID
Ford 360
Vehicle
Number Condition
610 After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
Test
Number
01
02
04
HC Grams
Per Mile
11.504
11.333
12.163
CO Grams
Per Mile
178.555
205.661
225.254
NOx Grams
Per Mile
3.017
2.293
1.617
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
9.96
9.60
9.30
Mean
11.667
203.157
2.309
9.62
-------
-27-
Table 6 (cont'd)
Summary of Emissions Tests
Road load HP: 19.0
Inertia Weight (Ibs):
Manufacturer/
Engine CID
Ford 360
Vehicle
Number Condition
613 After
After
After
maintenance
maintenance
maintenance
Test
Number
04
07
09
5000 GVW: 6900
HC Grams
Per Mile
6
4
4
.273
.615
.644
CO Grams
Per Mile
116
62
53
.373
.553
.238
NOx
Per
3
5
5
Grams
Mile
.819
.149
.954
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
10.47
10.75
10.90
Mean
5.177
77.388
4.974
10.71
-------
-28-
Table 6 (cont'd)
Summary of Emissions Tests
Road load HP: 19.0
Inertia Weight (Ibs):
Manufacturer/
Engine CID
Ford 302
Vehicle
Number Condition
618 After
After
After
After
maintenance
maintenance
maintenance
maintenance
Test
Number
01
02
03
04
5000 GVW: 6200
HC Grams
Per Mile
6
5
7
13
.052
.450
.431
.039
CO Grams
Per Mile
92.026
94.274
169.053
211.704
NOx
Per
2
2
1
1
Grams
Mile
.335
.269
.162
.165
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
11.20
11.17
10.17
9.44
Mean
7.993
141.764
1.733
10.50
-------
-29-
Table 6 (cont'd)
Summary of Emissions Tests
Road load HP: 19.0
Inertia Weight (Ibs): 4500 GVW: 7500
Manufacturer/
Engine CID
Chev 307
Vehicle
Number Condition
607 After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
Test
Number
01
02
03
HC Grams
Per Mile
9.056
8.957
9.319
CO Grams
Per Mile
94.916
97.057
94.639
NOx Grams
Per Mile
3.413
3.571
3.869
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
12.31
12.37
13.60
Mean
9.111
95.537
3.618
12.76
-------
-30-
Table 6 (cont'd)
Summary of Emissions Tests
Roadload HP: 19.0
Inertia Weight (Ibs):
Manufacturer/
Engine CID
Chev 250
Vehicle
Number Condition
441 As received *
As received *
As received *
As received *
After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
Test
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
4500 GVW: 7500
HC Grams
Per Mile
4.330
4.062
4.564
4.736
4.408
3.979
CO Grams
Per Mile
53.879
49.023
57.477
65.135
51.752
54.906
NOx Grams
Per Mile
5.613
6.098
5.015
4.437
4.706
4.496
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
13.60
13.92
13.62
13.37
13.69
13.58
Mean
4.374
57.264
4.546
13.55
These tests were not used to determine baseline emissions.
-------
-31-
Table 6 (cont'd)
Summary of Emissions Tests
Road load HP: 19.0
Inertia Weight (Ibs): 4500 GVW: 7500
Manufacturer/
Engine CID
Chev 350
Vehicle
Number Condition
419 As received *
As received *
As received *
After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
Test
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06
HC Grams
Per Mile
8.473
7.204
7.498
7.855
7.702
7.745
CO Grams
Per Mile
150.943
144.308
142.156
148.609
147.679
151.781
NOx Grams
Per Mile
1.956
2.454
2.722
2.053
2.128
2.240
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
11.80
11.99
12.06
12.08
12.12
11.81
Mean
7.769
149.356
2.140
12.00
* These tests were not used to determine baseline emissions.
-------
-32-
Table 6 (cont'd)
Summary of Emissions Tests
Road load HP: 19.0
Inertia Weight (Ibs): 4500 GVW: 7500
Manufacturer/
Engine CID
Chev 350
Vehicle
Number Condition
450 As received *
As received *
As received *
As received *
After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
Test
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
HC Grams
Per Mile
void
38.704
38.562
41.509
14.385
14.655
12.492
CO Grams
Per Mile
test
133.384
135.833
144.730
81.131
79.595
110.452
NOx Grams
Per Mile
4.192
4.945
4.591
3.698
3.341
3.128
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
10.15
10.15
9.59
11.55
11.61
11.33
Mean
13.844
90.393
3.389
11.50
These tests were not used to determine baseline emissions.
-------
-33-
Table 6 (cont'd)
Summary of Emissions Tests
Road load HP: 19.0
Inertia Weight (Ibs): 4500 GVW: 7500
Manufacturer/
Engine CID
Chev 350
Vehicle
Number
427
Condition
After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
Test
Number
05
06
07
HC Grams
Per Mile
7.595
6.803
7.165
CO Grams
Per Mile
102.262
100.067
98.833
NOx Grams
Per Mile
2.807
2.699
2.948
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
11.40
11.72
11.15
Mean
7.183
100.387
2.818
11.46
-------
-34-
Table 6 (cont'd)
Summary of Emissions Tests
Road load HP:
Inertia Weight (Ibs):
Manufacturer/ Vehicle
Engine CID Number Condition
CMC 350 602 After maintenance *
After maintenance
After maintenance *
After maintenance *
After maintenance
After maintenance *
After maintenance
Test
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
19.0
4500 GVW: 7500
HC Grams
Per Mile
void
8.933
void
void
8.557
void
8.378
CO Grams NOx Grams
Per Mile Per Mile
test
110.895 2.802
test
test
102.058 3.343
test
106.936 3.319
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
'
10.87
11.46
11.29
Mean 8.623
* -These tests were not used to determine baseline emissions.
106.630
3.155
11.21
-------
-35-
Table 6 (cont'd)
Summary of Emissions Tests
Road Load HP:
Inertia Weight
Manufacturer/ Vehicle
Engine CID Number Condition
IHC 345 601 After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
After maintenance
(Ibs):
-
Test
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
19.0
5000 GVW: 7500
HC Grams
Per Mile
19.138
void
void
void
void
void
11.558
void
void
void
13.530
CO Grams NOx Grams
Per Mile Per Mile
167.662 1.854
test
test
test
test
test
129.915 2.063
test
test
test
170.184 1.958
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
10.25
10.80
9.50
Mean
14.742
155.92
1.958
10.18
-------
-36-
Table 7
Sampling Plan vs. Baseline Engines Tested
Manufacturer
Chrysler
Total
Ford
Total
General Motors
Total
IHC
Total
Engine
318
225
360
302
240
390
300
307
250
350-4
292
396
V304
V345
V392
Sampling
Target Range
Sample size of 25)
1
1
(2)
6
2
1-2
1-2
1
(11)
7
2-3
2
0-1
0-1
(11)
1 (any engine
ii
it
(1)
Actual
Procured
2
2
4
6
2
0
0
0
8
2
3
4
1
0
10
) 1
~T
Actual
Tested
2
_2
4
6
1
0
0
_0
7
1
1
4
0
_0
6
0
1
_0
1
-------
-37-
1). Wet bulb-dry bulb temperature trace.
2) Emission results input data tape.
3) Driver's trace - FTP.
4) Test vehicle refueling record.
5) CVS temperature trace.
6) Bag emissions analysis trace.
7) CVS-PDP test data sheet.
8) Driver's FTP check list.
9) Quality control audit sheets.
10) Non-evaporative hot LA-4 precondition checklist.
11) Preconditioning driver's trace.
12) CVS operator's test preparation report.
13) Emission results summary sheet.
The quality control audit consisted of checking the non-evap-
orative LA-4 precondition check list (item 10 above) and precondi-
tion driver's trace, the driver's FTP check list, the FTP driver's
trace, the CO/C02 instrument traces, and the HC/NOx instrument
traces for errors. Using the quality control audit sheets, the
quality control technican inspected each item on every operator
check list for completeness and accuracy of the particular entry.
Errors of omission or misentries were resolved by questioning the
individual responsible for the particular data pack item. If any
errors or omissions weren's resolved, the test was voided.
Test parameters such as cell temperature, driver's trace speed
tolerances, test duration, analyzer calibrations, etc. were checked
to ensure that the parameters were within the proper tolerances, as
specified in the Federal Register Light-Duty Truck Test Procedure.
7. Baseline Compilation
Audited test data packets were sent to the Project Officer,
who compiled the baseline emissions results. Each vehicle's
average emission results (the average of three tests) were multi-
plied by the corrected sales-weighting factor to obtain sales-
weighted emissions. The sales-weighted emissions for each vehicle/
engine were then added together to yield the baseline sales-
weighted emission results. Table 8 contains the final sales-
weighted emissions results for each vehicle. Approximately 83% of
the sales of LDT's in the 6,000-8,500 pound range are represented
in this table (and in the baseline).
In Table 8, the percent LOT sales shown in column four
were calculated by dividing the percent LOT market sales (obtained
from Table 3) by the number of engines tested for a particular
engine line. For example, the Dodge 318 engine line represents 3.3
percent of the LOT market sales, so each of the Dodge 318"s tested
is considered 1.65% of the market. Column five, corrected percent,
is just the percent LOT sales adjusted to 100%. Multiplying the
corrected percent by the actual average emissions for each engine
-------
Table 8
1969 L.O.T. BASELINE EMISSION
07-06-79 16:'
1
2
3
4
c
tl
I
fi
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Irf
tfLZLC^
DODGF
GOOGE
ChtV
F030
CHEV
CHEV
FOSD
FOi'D
POOGK
'ooooe
G«C
CricV
InC
FOrtO
FORD
FO^D
FORD
C1Q
318
318
350
360
250
350
360
36C
225
225
350
350
307
345
360
302
360
360
X&t
Vlrt
444
419
421
441
450
473
425
42H
427
602
607
601
491
618
610
613
*> 1 O 7
o L J I
1 .6S
1.65
1.95
4.03
9.40
1.95
4.03
4.03
1.10
1.10
1.95
1.95
28.40
0.70
4.03
7.10
4.03
4.03
i __
1.99
1.99
2.35
4 . tt5
11.31
2.35
4.85
4.85
1.32
1.32
2.35
2.35
34.1rt
0.84
4.85
8.S5
4.*5
4.65
tyo-M*" u.1 T n *
7.HS6
11.480
7.767
7.9t>3
4.374
13.*44
10.663
2.946
7.651
5.736
7.188
8.623
9.111
14.742
6.909
7.993
11. 60 7
5.177
^ A 1 P ~ -^ T 0
0.156
0.228
O.lb2
0.386
0.495
0.325
0.517
0.143
0. 101
0.076
0.169
0.202
3.114
0.124
0.338
0.683
0.566
0.2r>i
isGiiriilLl
85.976
102.562
149.356
J60.709
57.264
90.393
219.724
44.556
70.070
15H.213
100. 3H7
106.630
95.537
155.920
63.7h5
141.764
203.157
77.388
1.70ft
2.037
3.506
2.945 .
6.479
2.122
10.658
2.161
0.928
2.095
2.356
2.503
32.658
1.314
3.094
12.115
9.B55
3.754
4.354
3.918
2.140
2.904
4.546
3.389
1.673
2.7t>7
5.486
2.32B
2.R1S
3.155
3.618
1.95t>
5.054
1.733
2.309
4.974
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
' 0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
oa6
078
050
141
514
OHO
oai
134
073
031 w
1
066
07*
237
016
245
148
112
241
d3.08 100.00
.058 g/mile
102.286
3<408 g/mile
-------
-39-
yields the weighted emission results. These are added together to
obtain the final baseline emission results.
The sales data used for sales weighting was obtained from the
vehicle manufacturers and MVMA. The manufacturers and MVMA were
asked to furnish to EPA the sales figures for 1969 truck engines
according to engine size and by GVWR of the vehicles in which the
engines were placed.
The final baseline sales weighted emissions results from Table
8 are listed below.
HC CO
8.06 g/mi 102.29 g/mi
D. Standards Computation
The Clean Air Act Amendments require at least a 90% reduction
in HC and CO emissions as measured from a 1969 model year baseline.
The final baseline sales weighted emissions results of 8.06 g/mile
for HC, and 102.29 g/mile for CO, when reduced by 90% yield the
following values:
HC CO
0.81 g/mi 10 g/mi
While the original sample size was chosen to be 30 1969
vehicles, only 18 vehicles were tested to produce the final base-
line emissions results. These final results were used to set the
final proposed standards. ECTD decided to use the 18 vehicles,
based upon the trend of the emission results, the percent of market
sales represented by the 18 vehicles tested, and the high correla-
tion with past emissions data on 1969 vehicles. Tables 9 and 10
show the final sales weighted emissions for HC and CO as a function
of vehicles tested. It is apparent that after testing 18 engines
the final emission results were stable. In ECTD's judgment, these
plots indicate that additional test vehiles would not significantly
alter the final emission standards. Another consideration was that
the baseline using 18 vehicles represented 83.1% of the total
light-duty truck sales for the 6,001 to 8,500 Ib GVWR subclass.
ECTD also determined that there was a close correlation
between the baseline emission results and other test programs for
1969 light-duty trucks. Table 11 shows emission results for 12
1969 LDT's tested under other programs. These vehicles were
selected because the inertia weights and road load horsepowers used
were close to current values used for 1979 LDT certification
emissions testing. A comparison of the final baseline results to
the average of the 12 vehicles in Table 11 is shown below:
-------
Table 9
LOT SRLES-WEIGHTED BRSELINE
EMISSIONS HC(GRRMS/MI)
o
2X0
4.CO
6.G3
8.CD Vim 12.C3
NO. CF BIGINES
14.03
-------
Table 10
1
CO-
CS
§
3
R
g
CO
Tt
of0-
tHS4-
o
o
o
3
S"
LOT SRLES-NEIGHTED BRSELINE
EMISSIONS CCHGRRMS/MI)
I « 1 ( ;
2.0Q 4.00 G.C-9 8.CO 12.33
NO. OF ENGINES
-------
Table -11.
Estimated 1Q6Q Light Duty Truck Baseline
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Manufacturer
General Motors
General Motors
Ford
Ford-
Dodge
General Motors
Ford
Ford
General Motors
Ford
General Motors
General Motors
Engine
350 in3
350 in3
360 in3
390 in3
383 in3
292 in3
360 in3
240 in3
396 in3
360 in3
350 in3
307 in3
(6,000 - 8,500 GVWR)
Inertia Road Load
5000 Ibs
5000 Ibs
4500 Ibs
5000 Ibs
5000 Ibs
5500 Ibs
5000 Ibs
4500 Ibs
5000 Ibs
5000 Ibs
5500 Ibs
5000 Ibs
Average
Metric (g%n)
17.9 hp.
17.9 hp
13.1 hp
17.9 hp
17.9 hp
22.7 hp
17.9 hp
21.8 hp
21.1 hp
21.1 hp
22.7 hp
17.9 hp
19.2
Emissions g/mile
HC CO
4.94
9.00
4.53
4.31
8.54
6.18
8.04
6.89
7.07
12.49
9.73
6.22
7.33
4.55
89.24
113.60
56.00
54.48
149.00
68.39
103.50
114.97
83.44
106.46
152.73
31.49
93.61
58.17
NOx
7.03
5.08
4.14
8.46
9.12
4.81
2.81
5.40
7.06
6.96-
5.49
7.24
6.13
3.81
Sources: A Study of- Baseline Emissions on 6,000-14,000 Pound Gross Vehicle Weight Trucks,
June 1973, Automotive Environmental Systems, Inc., APTD-1572. (Vehicles 1 to 5)
Baseline Emissions on 6,000 to 14,000 Pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Trucks, June, 1973,
Southwest Research Institute, APTD-1571 (Vehicles 6 and 7)
Medium Duty Baseline Tests, Environmental Protection Agency, Unpublished (Vehicles 8 to 12)
-------
-43-
1969 LDT Final Baseline Results
Table 11 (avg. of 12 vehicles)
HC
8.06 g/mile
7.33 g/mile
CO
102.19 g/mile
93.61 g/mile
This data further supports ECTD's judgment to terminate its
baseline test program at 18 vehicles.
While the vehicle emissions results from Table 11 correlate
well, the vehicles were not included in the baseline because they
were tested in an "as received" condition (i.e., no tune-up was
performed before testing). Also, the roadload horsepowers and
vehicle inertia weights used for the tests were not in exact
compliance with the current 1979 light-duty test procedure.
-------
-44-
APPENDIX
-------
-45-
Scopi1. uf'.'ork
The contractor shall procv.ro and test thirty 1969 and twenty-five
1973 iv.odel year gasoline in^aiuivi-duty trucks. These vehicles will be
"tunod--up" to n:a:v..:;7ac.turcr:'.-, specificati or.r, nnd will bo. tested three
tines over the 1979 light-duty truck test procedure. (In addition, the
1969 model yc-..--
-------
-46-
requiring more than a minor tune-up, v-ay In; urjcd if the contractor
demonstrates to the Project Officer that the desired vehicles cannot be
obtained.
Test Seguenee
Testing of 1969 vehicles raust be half completed before 1973 vehicle
testing can begin.
Test Procedure^
Vehicles will bo. tested under the light-duty test procedure, Title
40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 86, Subpart E, as applicable to
1979 model year light-duty trucks. Evaporative emissions will not be
measured, the vehicle will not undergo a diurnal heat build, and a
highway fuel economy test will not be run.
Each 1959 vehicle shall be tested three times in "as-received"
condition. (1973 vehicles will not be tested prior to adjustment.)
Vehicle Adjustment
Each vehicle shall receive a "minor tune-up" replacing filters, PCV
valves and ignition parts as necessary. The carburetor, distributor and
valves (mechanical tappets) may be adjusted. Manufacturers tune-up
specifications (idle speed, mixture, timing, valve lash, etc.) must be
met.
If the manufacturers specifications (including compression) cannot
be met \7ith a minor tune-up then additional repairs nay be authorized by
the Project Officer. The type of repairs will be deterroined-by the
individual engine's condition as indicated by standard diagnostic
techniques. For any repairs performed, extreme care must be taken to
insure that original specifications are maintained. Any repairs more
extensive than a minor tune-up must be approved by the Project Officer
in advance.
Engines requiring more than a minor tune-up may require a break-in
(by accumulating a minimum of 1000 miles prior to further emission
testing) as determined by the Project Officer.
After adjustment (or repair), all vehicles shall receive 3 emission
tests as previously described.
Engine Removal/Shipment /Delivery Rate^
After completion of all chassis testing, the contractor shall
remove the engine from the vehicle. Engines shall be shipped to EPA or
EPA's contractor as specified by the Project Officer. The contractor
shall ship from two to four engies per month as directed by the Project
Officer.
-------
SCO-OP, of: Work - Pa-.'.o 3 ,_
-------------------- -47-
Engines shall be; shipped in such a r.ianacr that they can be. removed
using n forklif.t or overhead crane. Trio contractor shall take precautions
to prevent: pilferage of engine parts.
(Previous references to Advisory Circular 22A are deleted.)
Other requircmsnts:
1. Engines shall be shipped on a stand. See Drawing #1 for a
suggested stand; others nay be used if they permit mounting to the
dynamometer.
2. Mounting of gasoline engines shall bo 27 and 3/4 inches, as
measured from the bedplate to the center of the driveshaft mounting
point.
3. Engines shall be equipped with a flywheel and bell-housing.
4. A driveshaft adapter plate shall be installed and shall confrom
to the driveshaft flange in Drawing //3.
5. Oil pressure shall terminate in a 1/4 inch female pipe fitting
(N.P.T.).
6. All water inlets shall terminate into a single 2 and 1/4
inches O.D. inlet connection.
7. -All water outlets shall terminate into a single 2 and 1/4
inches O.D. outlet connection.
8. Fuel inlet connection, shall terminate in a 1/2 inch female pipe
fitting (N.P.T.).
9. Thermocouples for engine coolant and oil shall be a mininium of
8 feet long and terminate in an iron-constantine male J plug (Honeywell
No. 728096-1 or equivalent).
10. An exhasut system and muffler shall be supplied. This system
shall be of the same of the same general size and type as on the vehicle.
(Exception: For vehicles with dual exhausts, a single system shall be
supplied.) The system shall clear the dynamometer. -See Drawing's 2 and
2-A.
11. The engine drain cocks shall be operable.
Engine Return
-Engines will be tested as quickly as practicable. Upon completion
of engine testing they will be made available to the contractor or
common carrier, as specified by the contractor. In no case will an
engine be retained longer than 6 months.
-------
c of V.'ork - rape 4
Infprrri_t:i_qn_ to he; Svibmi tf g_d
Veiiicle and Engine description
Test data, raw and final
Descriptions of tune-up and repairs made.
Format for these submissions shall be specified by the Project Officer
within two months after contract award. A partial data list follows:
Idle RPM (as received/adjusted)
Timing (as received/adjusted)
Dwell (as received/adjusted)
Idle Emissions HC, .CO, NOx (as received/adjusted)
Barometric pressure
Ambient temperature
Analyzer calibration curves
CVS Test data, recorded for each segment:
Inlet air temperature average for wet
and dry bulbs
CVS inlet temperature, PDF only
Background and Sample bag concentrations of
11C, CO, C07 and NOx including zero and span
readings and gas concentrations
Distance travelled by segment
. Calculated emissions in grams,
grams /-km and grams /kg fuel for
each segment
Inertia weight
Road Load
-------
19G9 Miifi^S-l-niriT FLEET
6001-8500 In:.;. CV'WR Breakdown by Manufacturer
Mfr.
Dodge
IHC
Ford
Chev/GMC
Mfr.
Dodge
IHC
Ford
Chev/GMC
// of
Engines
0-2
2-3
1-2
0-1
0-1
1-2
0-2
1-3
4-8
0-2
6-10
2-4
2-4
0-1
% of MOV Sales
11.2%
5.1
39.3
44.0
.% of Mfr.'s
MDV En ruins s
^20%
-v80
61%
18
7
14%
5'
17
57
8
61%
21
17
2
Number of Engines
in a snv.in.le of 30
3.4
1.5
11.8
13.2
Engine
225
318
V304
V345
V266
240
300
302
360
390
307
250
350-4bbl
396
-------
SMALL H.D. ENGINE STAND
2VJ-0.
B-^
B
1 -o
r- a _ji_
r- 6'/a *H H»
V^
1 3/15"
C = 3
1
c
^^*^*»..
A
ELJl
2<
T
»
:=t -I3"
-.-IT -II
V
KZ~
c
^r
A
C \
\ L
!t"!
? r~"f
) i:"i:.-3 prrrj c.sr
'
Vi". ntLG"-*.
n 3" h=J
i
23
t
t
Vi"
29
Vi"
4
i
OVz"
!
«< Vi t
j__
(J
i
?
|
1
I
£
3" j
'a.
?^
:
}
s
|
1
. {
t
1
t
\
\
X (
C
\
-i
1
I
1
«
1
t
i
|
-*' A
--.5 *j1
i VI ,,..
!_l_Bll
' ri '' ""^ »;
i !
"i ?W
, i - " -
T
J
rv..
k._
\ lOPVIE'.Y | | | SiDEV!,7.V '[
j^Efj p^Tj K^fj 2fy-
(Bottom Log o~.
Lees Top Flango)
C
5Vt" [-s1 7" f{
i-n
I
I
2
51
^9
0" r>
' \*> 7" *\ SVz"
r\
I
.. . m.i. - . - .... . . .!-.. ..- ]
-v
I I.
"
.j L
i
S "
-i /
l
t \
1 %" 1 3/16"
'.V
._ ,1 .. ~
i .
-irf !
a
n
3" GVi"
1 ! -
A 3" a-,r!e with 2Vz"
x 1 3/16" T-c:ot. ?-p!,ices
only, fcoliorr cl slants
B Z\"2 " x 1 3/J3" sic: x
in cr-c'i l.;g. bo',h
cr.iis. 3-!...g:; er.ch
end
C 3" G'.:s::-l (v,::-::i-J)
to si:;jpOiJ 7-slot
p!i::c3
f.Iat'l. "C" ci'iOinnoJ. Vi" THK.
8" HiGM; T-f!3l P.:J!O is
V;" T: ;:c, v.-c-:.'o'J on. r-s:c;5
cw 1 "/]:3" >.:do. WILD STL.
Kola: Not to Sc:!o
o
-------
Note
1. Bed Plate "T-slots' -2" wide at bottom. 1"
wirte at top. lull length of bed plate.
2. Drive shaft guard - 24" long x 7Vi" wide.
3. Accelerator Actuator Stand - 7" x 27Vi";
Height adjustable from 40W. rr.in.
4. Exhaust Pipc(s) must bo at an angle that
v/ill c'ear dfivo sh.ifl guaro4. accelerator
actuator stand. Dynamometer base, and
torque arm.
5. Drive shaft lenrjlln - 23" rr.in. - 23" max.
6. Dyno test coll no. 4 is identical to No. 3
except engine control boom is on tho
opposite side.
7. Overhead exhaust stack not shewn.
8"
10"
1 0Vi
iovy
1
10'
8"
f
--.
\
i
U
I
23-
Ko'.o 6.
\. Engino
.... 55"..
!
Note 1.
P-
"
_.
]
U
i
-V'
/ >..
9
\
«-.>
Control Eocrr.
|)
/
',
,<
____(
J! .
*
"i
Dyno No. 3 j
. i
!
1
;
! '
i!
Note 2.
...
Note 4. |j
ii
5
;»
»«,
7
i
Ul
t
V
'
F'
'
l
;
i i
i
i
fiol to Scaio
Gaso!in.3 Dyno
No. 3 & 4
FOPViEVv'
Plrr.i-'ir,.
-------
GASOLINE DYNO TEST CELL NO 3 & 4
SIDE VIEW
Note
1. C/L of Drive Shaft - 27" above Bed Plato.
2 Accelerator Actuator Stand can be on
ei'her end o! engine.
3. Drive shall guard is only 12" long when
clutch bell housing is aff ixed lo engine
(with or without clutch).
4. Overhead exhaust slacks fitted with (2)
exhaust ports to connect to3111.D. Marmon
clamps.
12"
O
Note 4.
j
| ENGINE COhfTROL
j ' BOOM . j
I
" r~ ^
Nol°1- _ . ] DYNO TEST
NO\Q
T?
'^T C-LJATT- f } I
49"
42'
27"
8"
- C/L -
DRIVE
SHAFT
~T
-92"-
CELL TCo. 3 a 4
DYNO
55" -
240"-
ii; SHAFT i i !
JIJ3U,,) |
IL
Ji
24" »J
92"
31"
I
VJl
to
Not to Scale
Drawing # 2 - A
-------
'-53-
DYI--!A.V,OM!iTL-:n DRIVE SHAiT SOU" PATTERN
4- W Dia.
.J_
.10"
/ V /
ii±±-
Section A - A
Drawing # 3
Gasoline Engine
------- |