EPA-AA-SDSB-8 0-2 0
Technical Report
1972/73 Light-Duty Truck Baseline
Program and NOx Emission
Standard Development
by
Larry D. Ragsdale
September 1980
NOTICE
Technical Reports do not necessarily represent final EPA decisions
or positions. They are intended to present technical analysis of
issues using data which are currently available. The purpose in
the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of
technical information and to inform the public of technical devel-
opments which may form the basis for a final EPA decision, position
or regulatory action.
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
-------
EPA-AA-SDSB-80-20
Technical Report
1972/73 Light-Duty Truck Baseline
Program and NOx Emission
Standard Development
by
Larry D. Ragsdale
September 1980
NOTICE
Technical Reports do not necessarily represent final EPA decisions
or positions. They are intended to present technical analysis of
issues using data which are currently available. The purpose in
the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of
technical information and to inform the public of technical devel-
opments which may form the basis for a final EPA decision, position
or regulatory action.
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
-------
-2-
Table of Contents
Page
I. Foreword 3
II. Summary 3
III. Introduction 4
IV. Discussion ... . \. 5
A. LDT Program Formulation ..... 5
B. Contract No. 68-03-2683 5
C. Vehicle Procurement 9
D. Maintenance and Tune-Up Procedure . 13
E. Test Equipment and Fuel 14
F. Vehicle Testing 14
G. Quality Control Procedure and Test Audit 19
H. Baseline Compilation 19
I. Standards Computation 20
V. Appendix A. 21
VI. Appendix B 46
VII. Appendix C. . 50
-------
-3-
I. Foreword
The Clean Air Act as amended in 1977 requires the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and promulgate
a more stringent oxides of nitrogen emission standard for heavy-
duty vehicles. This standard is to be at least a 75 percent
reduction from the average emission levels of uncontrolled heavy-
duty gasoline-fueled vehicles (1973 and, in some instances, 1972
model year vehicles).
The Clean Air Act specifies that the new standard apply to
vehicles having gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) over 6,000
pounds. Since vehicles having GVWR's greater than 6,000 pounds
include two EPA defined classes of vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles
(GVWR over 8,500 Ib.) and light-duty trucks (GVWR 6,001-8,500 lb.),
it was necessary to determine baseline NOx emissions for each
class.
The heavy-duty baseline was conducted by the Emission Control
Technology Division (ECTD) of EPA"s Office of Mobile Source Air
Pollution Control and Southwest Research Institute of San Antonio,
Texas. The results are reported in another ECTD technical report
soon to be released.
For the LOT baseline, ECTD set up a testing program by con-
tract to procure 1972-73 model year light-duty trucks and test them
for exhaust emissions.
The purposes of this test program were:
1) To determine the average oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emis-
sion levels (baseline) from a representative sample of 1972-73
model year LDTs in the 6,001-8,500 lb. GVWR range, and
2) To calculate a NOx value that represents a 75 percent
reduction from the baseline level.
The purpose of this report is to describe the test program,
present the emission results, and explain the methodology used to
derive the proposed NOx emission standard for the light-duty
truck class.
II. Summary
The Clean Air Act as amended in 1977 directed the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a more stringent
* The light-duty truck class includes all trucks in the 0
to 8,500 lb. GVWR range. EPA plans to propose new standards
applicable for the entire light-duty truck class.
-------
-4-
NOx emission standard 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 set standards which would require at least a 75
percent reduction in NOx emissions. The 75 percent reduction
should be measured from uncontrolled emission levels of 1972 or
1973 model year light-duty trucks and heavy-duty vehicles.
EPA developed and conducted (through contract) an emission
testing program that determined baseline NOx emission levels for
these light-duty trucks in the 6,001 to 8,5;00 Ib. GVWR range. EG£G
Automotive Research, Inc. of San Antonio,Texas was the contractor
for this program. ;
The contract (EPA No. 68-03-2683) required EG&G to procure and
test both 1969 and 1972-73 light-duty trucks over the 1979 LDT test
procedure. The 1969 trucks were tested to establish HC and CO
baseline emissions for the 1984 standards. The 1972-73 light-duty
trucks were tested to establish the NOx baseline for determining a
NOx emission standard. Both parts of the contract have been
completed. A detailed summary of EG&G's work performed for this
contract is contained in the contract final report (EPA-460/3-
80-011), entitled "Procurement and Emissions Testing of 1969 and
1972/73 Model Year Gasoline Powered Light-Duty Trucks, (6,001-8,500
Ibs. GVWR)."
The 1972-73 baseline consists of twenty-five light-duty
trucks which were tested three times for emissions. The sales-
weighted average of the actually measured NOx emissions is 3.606
g/mi. The corresponding 75 percent NOx reduction from this base-
line level is 0.9 g/mi.
Besides Federal emission tests, eighteen of the vehicles
were also tested for idle emissions using the recently finalized
idle test procedure (Subpart P of part 86, CFR 40). The average
sales-weighted idle emission levels for the 18 vehicles are shown
below.
%LDT Sales % CO HC ppm C
92.1 1.072 5,120.9
III. Introduction
This technical report describes the test program the Emission
Control Technology Division (ECTD) developed to measure oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) emissions for 1972/73 model year light-duty trucks
(LDT). This baseline is being used to set a proposed NOx emission
standard for LDTs which have gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of
8,500 Ib. or less.
-------
-5--
Th e actual test program was conducted by a contractor, EG&G
Automotive Research, Inc. of San Antonio, Texas. They were con-
tracted to procure twenty-five 1972-73 light-duty trucks, and test
each vehicle three times for emissions using the 1979 LOT Federal
Test Procedure. Also 11 of the vehicles whose engines were also
used in heavy-duty vehicles (vehicles with GVWR >8,500 Ibs.), had
their engines removed and prepared for engine dynamometer testing.
Later in the program an idle emission test was added to the test
program. Table 1 lists the vehicles tested under this program.
This report describes the baseline testing program for light-
duty trucks and includes the procurement 'and testing .activities
performed by EG&G. The final baseline emission results and
standards derived from the baseline are reported. Also included
are the idle test results for the 1972-73 LDTs which were tested.
IV. Discussion
A. LPT Baseline Program Formulation
In order to set HC, CO and NOx emission standards for light-
duty trucks, it was necessary to establish baseline .emission levels
for 1969 and 1972-73 model year LDTs. EPA decided that a testing
contractor should be selected to procure and test both 1969 and
1972/73 LDTs.
In the summer of 1977, the Standards Development and Sup-
port Branch of the Emission Control Technology Division began
work on the contract solicitation to establish the 1969 HC and
CO and the 1972/73 NOx baseline. The contract would require
the testing contractor to procure and test thirty 1969 and twenty-
five 1972/73 model year light-duty trucks (6,001-8,500 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.
B. EPA Contract No. 68-03-2683
On July 26, 1978, Contract No. 68-03-2683 Baseline Char-
acterization of Emissions from Medium-Duty Gasoline Vehicles Tested
on a Chassis Dynamometer, was awarded to EG&G Automotive Research,
Inc. (EG&G) of San Antonio, Texas. All vehicle procurement and
testing of both 1969 and 1972/73 vehicles has been completed.
Twenty-one 1969 LDTs were tested to determine the HC and CO base-
line emission levels used for setting the new 1984 HC and CO
emission standards. Twenty-five 1972-73 LDTs were tested to create
the NOx baseline. The final report for this contract (EPA-460/3-
80-011) Procurement and Emissions testing of 1969 and 1972-73 Model
Year Gasoline-Powered Light-Duty trucks (6,001-8,500 Ibs. GVHRT
details the procurement, and testing of these vehicles at EG&G.
During the course of this contract EPA amended the original con-
tract to include idle emissions tests.
-------
Table 1
Engine
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Model
Year
(72)
(72)
(72)
(72)
(72)
(72)
(72)
(73)
(73)
(73)
(73)
(73)
EG&G
Vehicle No.
612
642
637
634
629
631
644
628
632
608
474
486
Engine
CMC 350
Chev 350
Chev 350
Chev 350
Chev 350
Chev 350
Chev 350
Chev 292
Chev 250
CMC 454
CMC 454
Dodge 360
Model
1500
C-20
C-20
C-20
C-20
C-20
C-20
C-20
C-20
2500
C-20
D-200
Body
Suburban
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Mileage
90,192
77,096
97,917
99,861
84,080
91,098
87,263
48,484
76,907
70,891
51,140
42,696
Source for
Harry Pierce
San Antonio, TX
Charles Dake
Houston, TX
R.W. Dyer
Adkins, TX
Braden Oil Co.
San Antonio, TX
Elizabeth Trainor
San Antonio, TX
Bill Crouch Chrysler
Englewood, CO
James Blake ;'
Garland, TX
S.R. Sigler
El Paso, TX
Colden Ford
Golden, Colorado
H.M. Vik
San Antonio, TX
R.V. Gonzales
San Antonio, TX
Arthur Smith
Engine Used
HD Nox Baseline
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
. .... No
. No
Yes
Yes
Johnson City, TX
-------
Table 1 (Cont'd)
Engine
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Model
Year
(73)
(73)
(73).
(72)
(72)
(72)
(72)
(72)
(72)
(72)
(72)
EG&G
Vehicle No. Engine
609
627
605
630
620
624
643
641
625
635
640
Dodge 360
Dodge 360
*fc
Dodge 318
Ford 360
Ford 360
Ford 360
Ford 360
Ford 360
Ford 302
Ford 390
Ford 390
Model
Camper
7500
W-200
D-200
F-250
F-250
F-250
F-250
F-250
E-300
F-250
F-250
Body
Type
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
Van
Pick-up
Pick-up
Mileage
70,669
63,196
68,094
92,152
71,297
59,781
77,071
81,124
98,900
79,116
92,094
Engine Used
Source, for HD Kox Baseline
David Prescott
San Antonio, XX
Smith Nelson Dodge
El Paso, TX
Herb's Used Cars
San Antonio, TX
Big' Country Motors
. Denver, CO
Sidney Forster
San Antonio, TX
Paul Buhler
Garland, TX
-. Edward Rogers
Houston, TX
Charles Morrell
San Antonio, TX
H&H Motors
Garland, TX
Charles Valentine
San Antonio, TX
Michael McAdams
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No.
No
Yes
Yes
San Antonio, TX
-------
Engine
24
25
Model EG&G
Year Vehicle No.
(73)
(73).
611
639
Average Mileage = 76,614
Table 1 (Cont'd)
Engine Model
Body
Type
IHC 304
Mileage
1210 Pick-up 37,601
IHC 345 1210 Pick-up 106,634
Source
Engine Used
for HD Nox Baseline
Bruno's Auto Mart
San Antonio, TX
P. Archibeque
San Antonio, TX
Yes
No
i
oo
-------
-9-
C. Vehicle Procurement
Twenty-five 1972-73 model year light-duty trucks having gross
vehicle weights of 6,001-8,500 pounds were procured by EG&G to
be used as baseline test vehicles. Procurement of the 1972-73
LDTs began in October 1978 and was concluded on October 18, 1979.
Table 1 lists the 25 vehicles which comprise the NOx baseline. In
addition to those vehicles in Table 1, EG&G procured 7 1973
LDTs. These 7 vehicles, however, were deleted because they had NOx
controlled engines.* Model year 1972 LDTs were substituted for any
1973 LOT which had NOx controls. Three baseline vehicles were
obtained in Colorado; the remaining 22 we're purchased in Texas.
Mileage on these vehicles ranged from 37,601 to 106,634 miles with
the average baseline vehicle mileage being 76,614 miles. The 25
vehicle samples represent 94.4 percent of the 1973 LDT sales in the
6,001 to 8,500 pound class.
EG&G procured test vehicles using the following selection
criteria:
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.
3. Potential vehicles shall be inspected to ensure that they
do not consume excessive amounts of oil, that they have satisfac-
tory 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.
Vehicles were procured using the sampling plan shown in
Table 2. The sampling plan was provided to EG&G by EPA and was
constructed using sales data supplied to EPA by the vehicle manu-
facturers and by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association.
* The decision not to test certain 1973 model year LDTs was made
after the procurement process had started. Certain 1973 LDTs had
NOx-controlled engines even though the first model year for Fed-
erally-mandated NOx control was 1974. If a 1973 engine had NOx
controls, then a 1972 model year vehicle and engine of the same
configuration was substituted. See letter in Appendix C.
-------
Manufacturer
Chrysler
(Total
required 4)
Ford
(Total
required 9)
GM
(Total
required 10-11)
IHC
(Total
required 2)
Sampling
Data
Engine
225
318
360
400
300
360
390
460
302
292
350-4
454
250
304
345
392
Table
Plan and
(Sample
1973
Sales
2,800
20,000
59,000
6,500
14,500
125,300
46 , 500
2,200
29,900
15,450
169,929
42,000
7,820
6,100
13,200
5,000
566,199
-10-
2
1972-73 Sales
Size = 25)
NOx *
Controls
No
No .'
No ''.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Percent of
Market
0.5
3.5
10.4
1.1
2.6
22.1
8.2
0.4
5.3
2.7
30.0
7:.4
1.4
1.1
2.3
0.9
99.9
Sampling
Target Range
0-1
1
2-3
0-i
0-1
5-6
2
0-1
1
1
7
2
0-1
0-1
1
0-1
* If a 1973 engine has NOx controls, then a 1972 engine with the
same displacement and general configuration was procured instead.
-------
-11-
Table 3 shows that EG&G closely followed the sampling plan in
procuring the test vehicles.
These criteria were generally adhered to for vehicle selec-
tion. Later in the program to increase the vehicle procurement
rate which was lagging, it became necessary to accept vehicles
which had accumulated more than 80,000 miles. More extensive
maintenance was also required on some vehicles (carburetor rebuild,
carburetor replacement, valve replacement) to bring them into
acceptable condition for testing. The conditions which necessi-
tated major work or parts replacement were discovered usually
during pre-test inspection and maintenanceJ
EG&G used several methods to identify potential test vehicles.
Newspaper and radio advertisements, mail and telephone solicita-
tions, and direct trips to other localities were all used to obtain
test vehicles. Newspaper advertisements were placed in the San
Antonio paper and a radio commercial campaign was initiated several
times. Recipients of mail and telephone solicitations were iden-
tified from a vehicle owner's listing of'1973 LDTs purchased from
the R. L. Polk Company. This listing proved to be very inaccurate.
Later in the program, a second listing of 1972 vehicles was pur-
chased from the Wilson Publishing Company of Houston, Texas. The
Wilson list was for the San Antonio, Houston, and Dallas metro-
politan areas. Direct trips involved a Procurement Specialist
visiting El Paso, Texas; Denver, Colorado, and Dallas, Texas to
inspect and purchase test vehicles.
The method EG&G used to procure each 1972-73 LOT is shown
below. Trucks are listed by contractor vehicle number.
Vehicle Owners
Polk List Wilson List Newspaper Advertisement Trip
608 629 474 612 625
634 486 620 627
635 605 624 628
637 609 639 630
641 611 640 631
642 632
643
644 .
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 displacement, past
maintenance history, oil consumption, and the general operating
condition of the engine. Maintenance records were reviewed when
available.
-------
-12-
Table 3
1972-73 Target Versus Actual Procured Engines
Sair.pl ing . Actual
Manufacturer Engine Target Quantity Quantity Procured
Chrysler
(total
required 4)
Ford
(total
required 9)
GM
(total required
10-11)
1HC
(total
required 2)
225
318
360
400
300
302
360
390
460
250
292
350-4
454
304
345
392
0-1
; 1
2-3
0-1
0-1
1
5-6
2
0-1
0-1
1
7
2
0-1
1
0-1
o
l
3
0
0
1
5
2
0
-1
7
2
1
1
0
-------
-13-
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, distribu-
tor, and carburetor were recorded to verify that they were original
equipment. This verification was accomplished by using the appro-
priate service manuals, or by direct communication with the vehicle
manufacturers. Vehicles were checked for correct GVWR rating,
engine displacement, and mileage.
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 EG&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. Also, any defective
parts were repaired to make the vehicle ready for emission testing.
During the diagnostic evaluation the vehicle was checked for
engine oil, fuel, and coolant 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.
D. Maintenance and Tune-Up Procedure
Essential maintenance and a minor tune-up was performed on
each test vehicle before emissions testing was begun. 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 Curb Idle Speed
Dwell Angle Fast Idle Speed
Spark Plug Gap Choke
Timing
-------
-14-
Maintenance performed on each vehicle by EG&G and main-
tenance performed at EPA and SwRI before heavy-duty engine tran-
sient testing is shown in Appendix A.
E. Test Equipment and Fuel
1. Fuel
All vehicles were tested using Indolene 30 leaded test
fuel. .
';
2. Chassis Dynamometer
A Clayton ECE 50 water brake dynamometer was used for all
testing. It has automatic road load power control and an inertia
range of 1,000 to 8,875 pounds in 125-pound increments.
3. Constant Volume Sampler (CVS) and Analyzers
The equipment listed below was used for the LOT test pro-
gram:
Prior to October 1979
CVS - Scott Model 302 PDF, flow capacity approximately
325 CFM.
CO - Beckman 315B ranges 0-1000, 5000 PPM.
C02 - Beckman 315 ranges 0-2.5, 5.0%.
HC - Horiba FIA-2A ranges 0-100, 500, 1000, 5000 PPM.
NOx - Thenno-Electron 10B - ranges 0-100, 250 PPM.
After October 1979
CVS - Horiba CFV-CVS-20B flow capacity approximately
325 CFM.
CO - Horiba AIA-23AS ranges 0-100, 500, 1000, 5000 PPM.
C02 - Horiba AIA-23 ranges 0-1.5, 4.0%.
HC - Horiba FIA-23A ranges 0-100, 500, 1000, 5000 PPM.
NOx - Horiba CLA-22A ranges 0-100, 300 PPM.
F. Vehicle Testing
All 25 vehicles were tested at the EG S G facility located in
San Antonio, Texas. Testing of the 1972-73 LDTs began in December
1978 and was completed in March 1980. Vehicles were tested using
the Light-Duty Test Procedure, Title 40 Code of Federal Regula-
tions, 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 emission tests. The average of these three
tests for each vehicle are shown in Table 4. The individual test
results for each vehicle are shown in Appendix A. In addition, 18
of the 25 vehicles were tested twice using the new heavy-duty idle
-------
Table A
1973 L.D.T. BASELINE EMISSION KESUITS
10-01-30 16530:04
C>
'J
O
1
2
3
4
. 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 J
1H
19
20
21
23
24
25
VEHICLE.
CHF.V
CHEV
CHEV
CHEV
CHEV
SMC
00!)C»F
OOUOF
DODGF:
fjOOGF
FOrfO
FOWU
FORD
FOHO
FOWO
KOHO
FORD
FOflU
IHC
IHC
CiQ
3bO
3bO
3bO
350
JbO
292
250
4.4
360
360
360
318
360
'160 '
300
J60
300
302
3*0
%390
304
345
% IDT
y.Eaa SALELS
o!2
042
634
629
031
044
620
632
608
474
486
609
627
605
6JO
620
624
643
041
625
635
64Q
611
639
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
2.70
1.40
7.40
7.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
3.50
22.10
22.10
22.10
22.10
22.10
b.30
8.20
8,20
1.10
2.30
/ 7
/ 7
/ 7
/ 7
/ 7
/ 7
/ 1
/ 1
/ 2
/ 2
/ 3
/ 3
/ 3
/ 1
/ 5
/ 5
/ b
/ 5
/ 5
/ 1
/ 2
/ 2
/ 1
/ 1
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
4.286
4. 286
4.2fi6
4.P86
4.286
2.700
1.400
3.700
3.700
3.467
3,467
3.467
3.500
4,<*20
4.420
4.420
4.420
4.420
5.300
4.100
4.100
1.100
2.300
94.400
COR*.
s
4,54
4!54
4.54
4.54
4.54
4,54
2.86
1.48
3,92
3.92
3.67
1.67
3.67
3.71
4.68
4.68
4,68
4.68
4,h8
5.61
4.34
4,:j4
1.17
2.44
ion. oo
SiL£-itIQ NQU
61.537
61.456
33.411
58,465
38,197
19.494
25.584
22.652
54,4ri9
51.494
22.415
31.290
111.513
83.287
49.628
91.980
65.412
57.689
39.?/3
63.001
40.755
47.625
60.675
127. HJ5
38,164
2,794
2.790
1.517
2.654
1.734
1.162
6.648
0.808
2.018
0.879
1.149
4.095
3.059
1.8411
4.307
3.06'<
2 . 7.0 1
1.839 -
. 2.950
2.2«R
2.068
2.635
1.490
0.930
S2.30?
3
5
5
4
3
4
3
2
I
3
3
2
5
2
2
3
3
3
2
,?54
.489
.123
.461
.873
.603
.8*4
,41V
O o n
9 ^* b C
.616
.734
.700
.44]
.146
.653
.043
.133
.003
.487
.894
(25".=
iLtrMlD
0. 148
0,249
0.233
0.203
0.176
0.149
0.209
0.110
0,036
0.117
0.096
0.133
0.137
0.099
0.202
0.100
0. 124
0.181 '
(1.181
0.171
o!l30
0.029
0.071
3.606
O.V01)
PROGRAM NAME: SGWK:7140C-LUT
-------
-16-
test procedure in 40 CFR, Part 86, Subpart P. The idle test
procedure is described in Appendix B. Individual idle test
results are contained in Appendix A and summarized in Table 5.
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 EG&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.
According to Section 86.129-79 of CFR 40, .the road load horsepower
setting for a pick-up truck is determined by multiplying the
frontal area (including mirrors) by 0.58 while the road load
horsepower setting for a van is determined by multiplying the van's
frontal area (including mirrors) by 0.50. 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 road-load 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 were 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 percent
fuel tank fill included. Three hundred pounds was added to
obtain the final weight to be used for determining inertia weight
setting.
Eleven vehicles had engines removed so that the engines
could be tested as part of the heavy-duty NOx baseline. These
vehicles were retested at EG&G after the engines were reinstalled
into the vehicle chassis. The emission results for these retests
are shown in Appendix A. The effect of this retest data when
substituted for the original data is shown in Table 6. Sub-
stituting the retest data into the baseline calculation had an
insignificant effect on the baseline and on the derived standard
for NOx emissions shown below:
NOx g/mile 75% Reduction
Table 4
Original Test Data 3.61 0.90
Table 6
Retest Data Substituted 3.66 0.92
The retesting of the vehicles after engine reinstallation was
performed because additional maintenance was performed on the
engines at EPA and Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) before
engine transient cycle emission testing. This additional main-
tenance is summarized in Appendix A.
-------
^ 1 r,
Z Cut
3 0. H K
5 CHEv
"> (j C'lF.V
7 r.HtV
n>
9 C,MC
**»
10 oooc.r
11 oooOE
%
12 nODfifi
13 row;)
i'» ri)- iit,11" '"Lt.^
330 o!2 30.00 ,
33!) (,<4i! IV.i.nO ,
330 o37 .10,00 <
."ion h3<« 3'.), 00 .
3D(i oil) 3u . 00 /
?S2 o
3hO ' b'Jn 2
3'Jr! bcliJ 3.3C/
JVii 6J5 H,2(J '
3U<» oil 1 . 1 0 /
I1-
' b =
/ b =
f 5 =
f 1 =
' 1 =
f 2 =
' i. -
' ^.2 . 97.6
2V12.S 233.0
3575.5 ^b6.n
9f.'l,2 76.9
3b3H.b ' - 203.6
S523.3 <»91,H
IBS'.. 7 21. b
07-31-80
02.100 100.00
1.072
5120.9
«-' PROGRAM NAME: SG*K:71M)C-lLOT
O : '
I ''>'' ''
-------
Table 6
1973 L.D.T, BASELINE EMISSION RESULTS
10-01-80 16:33:51
J^ICLE;
i C.MC
2 CHEV
3 CHF.V
4 C.HKV
5 r.MF.V
6 C*iKV
7 CHEV
8 CHEV
9 CrtEV
10 C,MC
1 1 GVC
12 nniKiF
13 OOiJGE
14 DOOGF
15 ODO'jF
It. FORO
17 FOPIJ
IB F0*0
19 FMW
20 FOHO
21 FOWf;
22 FOWL/
23 FOWO
24 IHC
25 IHC
CU1 Jitai
3bO 612
350 »o42
3bO 637
350 «634
JbO *>629
3bO oJl
350 644
292 <>628
2bO bJ2
454 608
Ab4 0.4/4
360 »<»rt6
360 609
360 b27
318 ObOS
JbO b 3 0
360 0520
360 624
3l>0 643
360 b<»l
302 625
390 «6J5
390 »640
304 ofjij
345 639
» i n T
* LU 1
SALLS...
30.00 /
30.00 /
30.00 /
3'J.OO /
30.00 /
30.00 /
10.00 /
. 2.70 /
1.40 /
7.40 /
7.40 /
10.40 /
JO. 40 /
10,40 /
3.50 /
22.10 /
22.10 /
22.10 /
22.10 /
22.10 /
5.30 /
8.20 /
8.20 /
1.10 /
2.30 /
WITH RFTFSTS
^I'lO-j ^ u ^
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
1
5
5
5
b
5
1
2
2
1
1
r
s
s
r
r
=
=
=
s
-
=
z
=
-
r
r
r
=
-
r
=
r
«».286
4.2«6
4,?86
4. 286
4.286
4.286
4.286
2,700
1.400
3.700
3.700
3.467
3.467
3.467
3.500
4.420
4.420
4,420
4.420
4.420
5.300
4.100
4.100
1.100
2.300
uwm -.
i !
4.54
4.54
4.b4
4.54
4.54
4.54
4.54
2.86
1.48
3.92
. 3.92
1.67
1.67
3.67
3.71
4.6H
4.68
4.68
4.68
4.68. '
5.61
4.34
4.34
1.17
2.44
UQNraiQ ;
3.671
3.676
1.545
3.235
4,413
4.429
2.952
5.330
4.165
6.657
3.541
5.921
4.916
6.926
5.826
7.294
7.629
4.201
5.100
5.510
4,596
3.573
5.991
3. 400
5.259
SAL£=wiQ
0.167
0.167
0.161
0,147
0,200
0.201
0 , 1 34
0.152
0.062
f'.?6l
0.139
0.217
0.181
n . ?54
0.216
0.342
0.357
0.197
0,239
0,?58
0.25H
0.155
0.260
0.040
0.128
< ___ _ f*f\
MQ5b!iIQ SiLEzKIU tiQDirWia SaLEraiD
61.537 2.794 3.254 0.148
39.987 1.815 3.825 0.174
33.411 1.517 5.12.1 0.233
10.R61
51.0H9
19.494
8S.584
51.367
54.489
51.494
54.899
51.023
111,513
8.1.287
3H.H9
91.980
. 71.307
57.^89
39.273
63.001
40.755
52.211
73.745
54.680
3H.164
0.403
2,319
0.885
1.162
1.469
. n.308
2.018
2.152
1.874
4.095 .
3.059
1.411
4.307
3.339
2.701 ..
1.839
2.95*
2.28P
2.26R
3.203
0.637
0.930
4.07]
5.044
3. pro
4.60.1
4.P3J
2.419
2.990
3.299
3.592
3.734
2.700
5.436
2.^
2.68S
3.H64
3.874
3.964
3.043
4.452
2."58rt
3.686
2.894
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
. 0.
185
229
149
209
121 .
0.1ft
117
129
132
137
099 |
202 ?
100
126
1«1
181
186
171
1<53
112
043
071
94.400 100.00
4.892
52,334
3.663
(25*= 0.916)
PROGRAM NAME: SGW«:7140C-LDT
-------
-19-
G. Quality Control Procedure and Test Audit
All equipment used for emission testing received quality
control calibrations in accordance with the calibration guidelines
specified in the Federal Register (CFR 40, Part 86). These include
checks of the chassis dynamometer, CVS, and analytical system. The
detailed procedures EG & G followed are contained in the final
report for EPA Contract No. 68-03-2683 entitled " Procurement and
Emissions Testing of 1969 and 1973-74 Model Year Gasoline-Powered
Light-Duty Trucks (6,001-8,500 Ibs. GVWR)."
After completion of an emissions test, a test data packet was
assembled which contained the following items:
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/CC>2 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 were not 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 Proce-
dure.
H. 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/
-------
-20-
engine were then added together to yield the baseline sales-
weighted emission results. Table 4 contains the final sales-
weighted emissions results for each vehicle. Approximately 94.4%
of the sales of LDT's in the 6,000-8,500 pound range are repre-
sented in this table (and in the baseline).
In Table 4, the percent LDT sales shown in column four
were calculated by dividing the percent LDT market sales (obtained
from Table 2) by the number of engines tested for a particular
engine line. For example, the GM 350 engine line represents 30
percent of the LDT market sales, so each GM 350 tested is con-
sidered 4.286 percent (30 divided by 7), 'of the market. Column
five, corrected percent, is just the percent LDT sales adjusted to
100 percent. Multiplying the corrected percent by the actual
average emissions for each engine yields the sales-weighted emis-
sion results. These are added together to obtain the final base-
line emission results.
The final baseline sales-weighted NOx emission results from
Table 4 is 3.606 g/mile.
I. Standards Computation :
The Clean Air Act Amendments require at least a 75 percent
reduction. The final baseline NOx emission result of 3.606 g/mile
when reduced by 75 percent yields a standard of:
NOx Standard = 0.9 g/mile
-------
Appendix A
Vehicle Maintenance Summary and Emission Tests Results
Make:
' Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP:
CMC
612
1972
Suburban 1500
350
V0218TDJ
TCE162F511173
6,650 .
90192 ;
Auto
Yes
Harry Pierce, San Antonio, TX
5,000 Ib.
19.0
EG & G Maintenance
1. Tune-up.
2. Muffler, Tailpipe, and Exhaust Y-pipe replaced.
3. Battery replaced.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle
Number
612
Test
Date
1-14-80
1-15-80
1-16-80
Test
Number
17
18
19
HC Grams
Per Mile
4.008
3.478
3.526
CO Grams
Per Mile
64.058
60.095
60.458
NOx Grams
Per Mile
3.363
3.192
3.206
Idle Test Results
Test Date
9-06-79
9-06-79
9-19-79
Test Number
01
02
03
HC PPM C
19,275.765
18,592.800
17,045.217
Fuel
Economy MPG
11.11
11.00
10.93
CO Percent
4.685
4.484
2.593
-------
-22-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owrier:
Inertia Wt:
HP :
Chevrolet
642
1972
C-20
350
VQ202TRJ
CCE242A143237
7,500
77096
Auto
Yes
Charles Dake, Houston, TX
5,000 Ib.
19.0
EG & G Maintenance
1. Tune-up.
2. Exhaust pipe replaced.
3. Muffler, tailpipe replaced.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle
Number
642
Test
Date
10-30T79
10-31-79
11-01-79
Test
Number
01
02
04
HC Grams
Per Mile
4.563
4.273
3.990
CO Grams
Per Mile
66.887
63.840
53.642
NOx Grams
Per Mile
5.781 ,
5.034
5.653
Fuel
Economy MPG
12,01
11.94
11.91
Idle Test Results
Test Date
11-1-79
11-1-79
Test Number
01
02
HC PPM C
2,240.554
2,029.538
EPA Maintenance (Before HP testing)
1) Timing chain replaced
2) Cam gear replaced
3) Oil pan gasket replaced
4) Oil and filter replaced
Emission Retest Results (after engine reinstalled)
CO Percent
1.100
0.881
Vehicle
Number
642
Test
Date
02-20-80
02-21-80
03-15-80
03-27-80
Test
Number
06
07
09
10
HC Grams
Per Mile
3.798
3.887
3.310
3.719
CO Grams
Per Mile
50.011
25.663
42.850
41.425
NOx Grams
Per Mile
3.855
3.884
3.881
3.678
Fuel
Economy MPG
10.29
12.04
11.55
11.53
-------
-23-
AppendLx A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP:
Chevrolet
637
1972
C-20
350
V0422TRJ
CCE242S184011
7,500
97917 .
Auto
Yes
R.W. Dyer, Adkins, TX
5,000 Ib.
19.0
EG & G Maintenance
1.
2.
3.
Emission
Vehicle
Number
637
Tune-up.
Muffler and tailpipe replaced.
Starter replaced.
Test Results
Test
Date
8-09-79
8-10-79
8-29-79
Idle Test Result
Test
Number
04
05
06
s
HC
Per
3.
3.
3.
Grams
Mile
460
517
657
CO Grams
Per
30
32
37
Mile
.022
.555
.657
NOx Grams
Per Mile
5.207
5.287
4.875
Test Date
8-10-79
8-10-79
Test Number
03
04
HC PPM C
1,628.001
1,512.363
Fuel
Economy MPG
11.50
11.53
11.43
CO Percent
0.134
0.137
-------
-24-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP:
Chevrolet
634
1972
C-20
350
CCE242S123031
7,500 :
99861 .
Auto
Yes ;
Braden Oil Co., San Antonio, TX
5,500 Ib.
19.0
EG & G Maintenance
1. Tune-up.
2. Carburetor base gasket replaced.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle
Number
Test
Date
Test
Number
HC Grams
Per Mile
CO Grams
Per Mile
NOx Grams
Per Mile
Fuel
Economy MPG
634
7-01-79
9-14-79
9-15-79
07
08
09
8.988
2.967
3.861
74.583
38.085
62.728
4.482
4.597
4.305
Idle Test Results
Test Date
9-14-79
9-15-79
Test Number
03
04
HC PPM C
2,739.627
3,839.924
EPA Maintenance (Before HP testing)
1) Carburetor rebuilt
2) Distributor mechanical advance adjusted
3) Flywheel and starter replaced
Emission Retest Results (After engine reinstalled)
Vehicle Test Test HC Grams CO Grams NOx Grams
Number Date Number Per Mile Per Mile Per Mile
634
02-21-80
02-22-80
03-31-80
04-01-80
10
11
12
13
3.035
3.181
3.142
3.582
10.353
9.557
11.256
12.277
4.119
4.365
3.946
3.854
11.53.
11.56
11.85
CO Percent
2.888
4.917
Fuel
Economy MPG
12.11
11.98
11.86
11.81
-------
-25-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP:
EG & G Maintenance
Chevrolet
629
1972
C-20
350
V0908TRJ
CCE242F309950
6,200 .
84080
Auto i .
NO
Elizabeth Trainor, San Antonio, TX
5,000 Ib.
19.0
1. Tune-up.
2. Muffler, tailpipe, and Y-pipe replaced.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle
Number
629
Test
Date
Test
Number
09-18-79 04
10-07-79 10
10-12-79 11
HC Grams
Per Mile
7.820
8.199
8.621
CO Grams
Per Mile
38.277
37.996
38.319
NOx Grams
Per Mile
4.017
3.696
3.906
Fuel
Economy MPG
11.13
10.66
10.45
Idle Test Results
Test Date
9-18-79
9-20-79
9-20-79
Test Number
05
06
07
EPA Maintenance (Before HP testing)
HC PPM C
11,719.402
11,317,900
12,755,821
1) Water pump replaced
Emission Retest Results (After engine reinstalled)
Vehicle Test Test HC Grams CO Grams NOx Grams
Number Date Number Per Mile Per Mile . Per Mile
629
04-04-80
04-07-80
13
16
4.286
4.540
52.094
50.084
4.979
5.109
CO Percent
1.259
1.188
1.488
Fuel
Economy MPG
11.76
11.85
-------
-26-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make :
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner :
Inertia Wt:
HP:
Chevrolet
631
1972
C-20 ;
350
V0820TRJ
CCE242S107288
7,500
91098
Auto '' .
No
Bill Crouch Chrysler, Englewood, CO
5,000 Ib.
19.0
EG & G Maintenance
1.
2.
3.
Emission
Vehicle
Number
631
Tune-up.
Carburetor replaced.
Tailpipe replaced.
Test Results
Test Test HC Grams
Date Number Per Mile
2-5-80 06 3.750
2-6-80 07 4.921
2-7-80 08 4.617
CO Grams NOx Grams Fuel
Per Mile Per Mile Economy MPG
17.884 . 3.197 13.40
19.379 3.325 13.24
21.218 3.327 13.00
-------
-27-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make :
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine :
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP:
Chevrolet
644
1972
C-20
350
V0923TRJ
CCE242S120075 ;
6,200
87263
Auto '
Yes
James Blake, Garland, TX
5,000 Ib.
19.0
EG & G Maintenance
1. Tune-up. /
2. Muffler, tailpipe, and Y-exhaust pipe replaced.
3. Universal joint replaced. .
4. Adjusted lifters.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle
Number
644
Test
Date
1-17-80
1-18-80
1-19-80
Test
Number
05
06
07
HC Grams
Per Mile
3.041
2.844
2.970
CO Grams
Per Mile
25.779
26.013
24.960
NOx Grams
Per Mile
4.746
4.760
4.302
Fuel
Economy MPG
11.64
11.77
11.79
-------
-28-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt :
HP:
EG & G Maintenance
1. Tune-up.
2. Carburetor replaced.
3. Distributor replaced.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle Test Test HC Grams
Number Date Number Per Mile
628 9-11-79 02 3.430
9-12-79 03 3.202
9-13-79 04 3.143
Idle Test Results
Test Date Test Number
9-11-79 . 01
1-13-79 02
Chevrolet
628
1973
C-20
292
F1017THC
CCT243Z1 18632
6,400
48484
4 speeti manual
Yes.
S.R. Sigler, El Paso, TX
5,000 Ib.
19.0
CO Grams NOx Grams Fuel
Per Mile Per Mile Economy MPG
26.672 . 3.982 12.29
21.929 4.266 11.99 .
19.356 3.283 12.16
HC PPM C CO Percent
2,446.747 0.368
3,275.047 0.363
EPA Maintenance (Before HP testing)
1) Rocker cover gasket replaced
2) Exhaust manifold and gasket replaced
3) Distribution replaced
Emission Retest Data (after engine reinstalled)
Vehicle
Number
628
Test
Date
02-19-80
02-20-80
03-15-80
03-28-80
Test
Number
05
06
07
08
HC
Per
4.
5.
5.
6.
Grams
Mile
642
030
557
091
CO
Per
43
45
52
64
Grams
Mile
.041
.403
.627
.397
NOx
Per
4.
4.
4.
4.
Grams
Mile
281
114
367
160
Fuel
Economy
13.38
13.46
13.27
13.16
MPG
-------
-29-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP:
Chevrolet
632
1973
C-20 . . .
250
F0409TAH
CCQ243F422319
6,400 .'
76,919
3-speed manual
No
Golden Ford, Inc., Golden, CO
5,000 Ib.
19.0
EG & G Maintenance
1. Tune-up. .;
2. Muffler, exhaust manifold replaced.
3. Intake and exhaust manifold gasket replaced.
4. Distributor vacumm advance unit replaced.
5. Idle solenoid value replaced.
6. Carburetor throttle return spring replaced.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle
Number
632
Test
Date
7-06-79
7-07-79
7-08-79
Test
Number
01
02
03
HC Grams
Per Mile
4.198
4.285
4.013
CO Grams
Per Mile
53.376
56.993
53.097
NOx Grams
Per Mile
2.586
2.611
2.060
Idle Test Results
Test Date
7-08-79
1-10-79
Test Number
01
02
HC PPM C
1,662.626
1,777.884
Fuel
Economy MPG
13.99
13.76
14.77
CO Percent
0.737
0.620
-------
-30-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt :
HP:
CMC
608
1973
2300
450
T0413TRK
TCZ243F722812
6,400
70,891
Auto
Yes
H.M. Vils, San Antonio, TX
5,000 Ib.
19.0
EG & G Maintenance
1. Tune-up.
2. Transmission backdown switch replaced.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle Test
Number Date
608 09-18-79
09-21-79
10-02-79
Test
Number
08
10
11
HC Grams
Per Mile
6.870
6.801
6.299
CO Grams
Per Mile
39.294
50.213
64.974
NOx Grams
Per Mile
3.152
2.920
2.899
Fuel
Economy MPG
9.46
9.28
9.11
Idle Test Results
Test Date
9-21-79
9-21-79
Test Number
03
04
HC PPM C
6,739.597
8,136.926
CO Percent
0.653
0.881
-------
-31-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP:
Chevrolet
474
1973
C-20
454
CE459042
CCZ243F366349
6,400
51140 .
Auto
Yes :
R.V. Gonzales, San Antonio, TX
5,000 Ib.
19.0
EG & G Maintenance
1. Tune-up.
2. Replaced left exhaust manifold.
3. Replace exhaust header gaskets.
4. Replace muffler.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle
Number
474
Test
Date
01-11-80
01-12-80
01-13-80
Test
Number
17
18
19
HC Grams
Per Mile
6.830
8.111
4.875
CO Grams
Per Mile
23.296
21.271
22.679
NOx Grams
Per Mile
2.057
2.622
2.706
Fuel
Economy MPG
8.40
8.53
8.60
Idle Test Results
Test Date
7-14-79
7-15-79
Test Number
01
02
EPA Maintenance (Before HP testing)
HC PPM C
16,098.114
17,439.525
CO Percent
2.852
3.817
1) Spark plugs and wires replaced
2) Distributor vacuum advance replaced
3) Distributor mechanical weights and springs replaced
4) Carburetor rebuilt
5) Curb idle air mixture screws replaced
6) Idle solenoid replaced
Emission Retest Results (after engine reinstalled)
Vehicle Test Test HC Grams CO Grams NOx Grams Fuel
Number Date Number Per Mile Per Mile Per Mile Economy MPG
474
04-03-80
04-04-80
20
21
3.438
3.644
52.662
57.135
3.078
3.520
8.66
8.52
-------
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP:
Dodge
486
1973
D-200
360
D24BF3S136442
6,200
42696
4 speed manual
No
Arthur}B. Smith, Johnson City, TX
4,500 Ib.
19.0
EG & G Maintenance
1. Tune-up.
2. Tailpipe replaced.
3. Ignition ballast resistor replaced.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle
Number
486
Test
Date
Test
Number
09-17-79
09-20-79
10-02-79
07
08
10
HC Grams
Per Mile
4.066
4.906
5.439
CO Grams
Per Mile
22.231
34.668
36.970
NOx Grams
Per Mile
3.682
3.603
3.564
Fuel
Economy MPG
12.13
11.72
11.44
Idle Test Results
Test Date
9-20-79
9-24-79
Test Number
03
04
HC PPM C
1,094.901
1,169.503
EPA Maintenance (Before HP testing)
1) Distributor replaced
2) Ignition module replaced
Emission Retest Results (AFter engine reinstalled)
Vehicle
Number
486
Test
Date
02-07-80
02-19-80
Test
Number
11
12
HC Grams
Per Mile
6.234
5.608
CO Grams
Per Mile
52.406
49:640
NOx Grams
Per Mile
3.461
3.723
CO Percent
0.616
0.742
Fuel
Economy MPG
10.97
11.11
-------
-33-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP:
Dodge
609
1973
Camper 7500
360
3W360R4155 R6486A
W24BF35083226
8,000
70669 :
Auto '
Yes
Dave Prescott, San Antonio, TX
5,500 Ib.
19.0
EG & G Maintenance
1. Tune-up.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle Test Test
Number Date Number
609 5-11-79 04
5-13-79 05
5-15-79 06
HC Grams
Per Mile
5.265
4.503
4.980
CO Grams
Per Mile
115.502
102.002
117.036
NOx Grams
Per Mile
3.403
4.102
3.698
Fuel
Economy MPG
9.40
9.74
9.16
-------
-34-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP :
Dodge
627
1973
D200
360
3418496-7-360
W24BF3S111186
8000
63196 .
4 speed
Yes
Smith Nelson Dodge, El Paso, XX
5,500 Ib.
19.0
EG & G Maintenance
1. Tune-up.
2. Muffler, tailpipe, and Y-exhaust pipe replaced.
3. Ignition ballast resistor replaced.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle Test
Number Date
627 07-07-79
07-08-79
07-09-79
Test
Number
02
03
04
HC Grams
Per Mile
7.413
6.705
6.659
CO Grams
Per Mile
85.777
78.195
85.890
NOx Grams
Per Mile
2.683
2.687
2.731
Fuel
Economy MPG
10.37
10.55
10.43
Idle Test Results
Test Date
7-06-79
7-08-79
Test Number
01
02
HC PPM C
2,643.937
2,259.330
CO Percent
1.188
1.136
-------
-35-
Appendix A (Cont*d)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP:
EG & G Maintenance
Dodge
605
1973
D200
318
2535030-318-13
D21BE3S067142
6900
68,094.,
Auto
Yes ' :
Herb's Used Cars, San Antonio, XX
4,500 lb.
19.0
1. Tune-up.
2. Carburetor replaced.
3. Muffler and Tailpipe replaced.
4. Right exhaust manifold replaced.
Emission Test Results
Veh icle
Number
605
Test
Date
Test
Number
05-18-79 03
05-19-79 04
05-21-79 06
HC Grams
Per Mile
4.465
4.601
4.876
CO Grams
Per Mile
41.298
47.099
60.488
NOx Grams
Per Mile
5.718
5.536
5.070
Fuel
Economy MPG
10,50
10.61
10.87
Idle Test Results
Test Date
9-04-79
9-04-79
Test Number
01
02
HC PPM C
3,264.364
1,874.123
EPA Maintenance (Before HP testing)
1) Timing chain and cam gear replaced
2) Distributor replaced
3) Distributor module replaced
4) Choke spring replaced
5) Carburetor baseplate gasket replaced
Emission Retest Results (After engine reinstalled)
CO Percent
0.758
0.399
Vehicle
Number
605
Test
Date
02-23-80
02-24-80
Test
Number
07
08
HC Grams
Per Mile
5.948
5.703
CO Grams
Per Mile
41.411
34.827
NOx Grams
Per Mile
5.391
5.481
Fuel
Economy MPG
12.54
12.80
-------
-36-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP:
Ford
630
1972
.F-250
360
F2SYKNS0683 :
6200 ', '
92,152
Manual,' 4-speed
No
Big Country Motors, Denver, CO
4,500 Ib.
19.0
EG & G Maintenance
1. Tune-up.
2. Carburetor replaced.
3. Distributor replaced.
4. Tailpipe replaced.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle Test Test HC Grams
Number Date Number Per Mile
630 09-17-79 07 6.482
09-20-79 08 7.772
10-05-79 11 7.627
Idle Test Results
Test Date Test Number
9-16-79 04
9-20-79 05
9-20-79 06
CO Grams
Per Mile
87.264
100.611
88.060
HC PPM
3,641.
2,427.
2,668.
NOx Grams Fuel
Per Mile Economy MPG
2.237
2.064
2.138
C
411
230
984
12.00
11.62
12.12
CO Percent
0.426
0.473
0 499
-------
-37-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP:
Ford
620
1972
F-250
360
F25YKN01148
6200
71,297
4-speed manual
No
Sidney Forster, San Antonio, TX
5,000 Ib.
19.0
EG & G Maintenance
1. Tune-up.
2. Radiator cap replaced.
3. Tailpipe replaced.
4. Vacuum advance diaphragm replaced.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle Test
Number Date
620 09-14-79
09-15-79
Test
Number
08
09
HC Grams
Per Mile
7.105
6.564
CO Grams
Per Mile
68.130
62.694
NOx Grams
Per Mile
2.569
2.736
Fuel
Economy MPG
11.26
11.19
Idle Test Results
Test Date
9-12-79
9-14-79
9-15-79
Test Number
02
03
04
HC PPM C
2,433.020
3,999.585
4,293.877
EPA Maintenance (before HP testing)
1) Carburetor rebuilt
2) Carburetor power valve replaced
3) Choke diaphragm replaced
4) Timing chain, crank gear cam gear replaced
Emission Retest Results (after engine reinstalled)
CO Percent
0.185
0.156
0.171
Vehicle
Number
620
Test
Date
Test
Number
02-20-80 11
03-03-80 12
03-08-80 13
HC Grams
Per Mile
7.957
6.915
8.015
CO Grams
Per Mile
75.652
63.915
74.353
NOx Grams
Per Mile
2.725
2.731
2.599
Fuel
Economy MPG
11.12
11.36
11.20
-------
-38-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP:
Ford
624
1972
F-250
360
2F-KD-301-S
F25YKP45618 ;
6200
59,781.
AutO ;
Yes
Paul Bukler, Garland, TX
4,500 lb.
19.0
EG & G Maintenance
1. Tune-up.
2. Starter replaced.
3. Muffler and tailpipe replaced.
4. Rear brake shoes replaced.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle Test
Number Date
624 09-15-79
09-16-79
09-27-79
Test
Number
06
07
08
HC Grams
Per Mile
3.872
3.902
4.828
CO Grams
Per Mile
53.595
53.322
66.149
NOx Grams
Per Mile
3.802
4.109
3.681
Idle Test Results
Test Date
9-15-79
9-16-79
Test Number
03
04
HC PPM C
983.701
938.636
Fuel
Economy MPG
11.22
11.27
10.75
CO Percent
0.137
0.128
-------
-39-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP:
Ford
643
1972
F-250
360
360-72-4 J-KO-3015
F25YLM64393
6200 .
77,071
Auto
Yes
Edward Rogers, Houston, TX
5,000 Ib.
19.0
EG & G Maintenance
1. Tune-up.
2. Exhaust valves on cylinder 4 and 7 replaced.
3. Piston rings for 3 cylinders replaced. :
4. One push rod replaced.
5. Tailpipe replaced.
6. 1000 mile break-in mileage accumulation performed.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle
Number
643
Test
Date
Test
Number
12-01-79 01
12-02-79 02
12-10-79 03
HC Grams
Per Mile
4.855
4.926
5.518
CO Grams
Per Mile
40.275
41.758
35.787
NOx Grams
Per Mile
4.310
4.108
3.203
Fuel
Economy MPG
11.74
11.38
12.18
-------
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model :
Engine :
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt :
HP:
EG & G Maintenance
1. Tune-up.
2. Tailpipe replaced.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle Test Test HC Grams
Number Date Number Per Mile
641 01-25-80 13 5.603
02-01-80 14 5.359
02-05-80 15 5.568
Ford
641
1972
F-2 50
360
360-72-4-2D-KO-301S
F25YCP23691
7500 .
81,124
Auto
Yes ' .
Charles Murrell, San Antonio, TX
5,000 Ib.
19.0
CO Grams NOx Grams Fuel
Per Mile .Per Mile Economy MPG
65.833 3.721 11.36
60.966 4.113 11.18
62.205 4.057 11.41
-------
-41-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN: '
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP:
EG & G Maintenance
Ford
625
1972
F-300
302
F34GHN43332
6200
98,900
Auto
Yes
H & H Motors, Garland, TX
5,000 Ib.
18.5
1. Tune-up.
2. Carburetor replaced.
3. Muffler, tailpipe, and Y-exhaust pipe replaced.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle Test Test HC Grams
Number Date Number Per Mile
625 09-22-79 06 4.572
09-23-79 07 4.659
10-04-79 09 4.556
Idle Test Results
Test Date Test Number
9-22-79 03
9-23-79 04
CO Grams NOx Grams Fuel
Per Mile Per Mile Economy MPG
41.113 3.058 11.34
41.867 3.100 11.33
39.286 2.970 11.67
HC PPM C CO Percent
3,345.840 0.157
3,731.675 0.144
-------
-42-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:.
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP:
EG & G Maintenance
1. Tune-up.
2. Muffler replaced.
3. Tailpipe replaced.
4. Carburetor rebuilt.
Emission Test Results.
Vehicle Test
Number Date
635 09-01-79
09-05-79
Test
Number
06
08
HC Grams
Per Mile
5.294
5.330
Ford
635
1972
F-250
390
F25HKN00326
7500
79,116
Auto
Yes
C. Valentine, San Antonio, TX
5,000 Ib.
19.0
CO Grams
Per Mile
48.333
46.917
NOx Grams
Per Mile
2.064
4.201
Fuel
Economy MPG
11.16
11.13
Idle Test Results
Test Date
9-01-79
9-05-79
Test Number
04
05
EPA Maintenance (before HP testing)
HC PPM C
5,243.107
5,803.488
CO Percent
0.137
0.158
1) Timing chain, crank gear, cam gear replaced
2) Water pump replaced
3) Fuel pump replaced
Emission Retest Results (after engine reinstalled)
Vehicle Test Test HC Grams CO Grams NOx Grams
Number Date Number Per Mile Per Mile Per Mile
635
02-23-80
02-24-80
03-27-80
03-28-80
09
10
13
14
3.854
3.353
3.536
3.550
63.197
38.629
55.633
51.386
4.168
4.734
4.617
4.287
Fuel
Economy MPG
10.20
10.54
9.98
10.10
-------
-43-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make :
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP:
EG & G Maintenance
1. Tune-up.
2. Starter replaced.
3. Tailpipe replaced.
4. Alternator belt replaced.
5. Distributer replaced.
6. Carburetor rebuilt.
7. Fuel pump replaced.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle Test Test HC Grams
Number Date Number Per Mile
640 01-12-80 08 5.084
01-13-80 09 5.130
01-14-80 10 5.298
EPA Maintenance (before HD testing)
Ford
640
1972
F-250
390
D-KO-306S
F25HCP20119
7500
92,094
4-speed manual
Yes
Michael McAdaras, San Antonio, TX
5,500 Ib.
19.0
CO Grams NOx Grams Fuel
Per Mile Per Mile Economy MPG
59.060 3.022 11.50
61.440 2.975 11.54
61.525 3.012 11.29
1) Timing chain, crank gear, cam gear, replaced
2) Oil pump replaced
3) Oil and filter replaced
4) Cylinder #3 lifter replaced
Emission Retest Results (after engine reinstalled)
Vehicle Test Test
Number Date Number
640
04-05-80
04-08-80
08
11
HC Grams
Per Mile
6.056
5.925
CO Grams
Per Mile
73.794
73.696
NOx Grams
Per Mile
2.893
2.282
Fuel
Economy MPG
11.71
11.78
-------
-44-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP:
EG & G Maintenance
KIC
611
1973
1210
V-304
21744-R3
3H2COCHB64287
7200
37,601
Auto
No
Bruno's Auto Mart, San Antonio, TX
5,000 Ib.
19.0
1. Tune-up.
2. Vacuum Advance Unit replaced.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle
Number
611
Test
Date
09-25-79
09-26-79
10-14-79
Test
Number
05
06
12
HC Grams
Per Mile
5.570
5.526
5.451
CO Grams
Per Mile
124.619
126.137
132.748
NOx Grams Fuel
Per Mile Economy MPG
2.461
2.288
2.712
10.15
10.28
10.02
Idle Test Results
Test Date
9-25-79
9-26-79
Test Number
03
04
HC PPM C
1,750.239
1,899.216
EPA Maintenance (before HP testing)
1) Carburetor replaced
Emission Retest Results (after engine reinstalled)
Vehicle
Number
611
Test
Date
03-29-80
03-30-80
Test
Number
13
14
HC Grams
Per Mile
3.478
3.322
CO Grams
Per Mile
56.129
53.230
NOx Grams
Per Mile
3.699
3.673
CO Percent
0.718
0.721
Fuel
Economy MPG
10.89
11.13
-------
-45-
Appendix A (Cont'd)
Make:
Vehicle #:
Year:
. ' Model:
Engine:
Engine #:
VIN:
GVWR:
Mileage:
Transmission:
Air Condition:
Owner:
Inertia Wt:
HP:
IHC
639
1973
1210
V-345
151023R5
3H2COCHB80282
6300
106,634
Auto
No
Mr. P. Archibeque, San Antonio, XX
5,000 lb.
19.0
EG & G Maintenance
1. Tune-up.
2. Intake manifold gaskets replaced.
3. Carburetor replaced.
4. Exhaust pipe replaced.
5. Transmission valve body replaced.
Emission Test Results
Vehicle Test
Number Date
639 11-15-79
12-01-79
12-09-79
Test
Number
02
07
08
HC Grams
Per Mile
4.933
5.538
5.305
CO Grams
Per Mile
39.329
33.488
41.675
NOx Grams
Per Mile
2.772
3.185
2.724
Fuel
Economy MPG
10.66
11.07
10.29
-------
-46-
APPENDIX B
Idle Test Procedure
-------
(d) H the sampling and analysis
procedures of Subpart D or N arc used.
the required calibrations and their
frequencies arc specified in their
respective S'.ibparls.
§85.1517-83
§06.1518-83
[Reserved)
(Reserved)
$ oS.15l9-S3 CVS calibration.
If the CVS system is used lor sampling
during the idle emission test, the
calibration instructions are specified in
§ 6C.1319-C3 of Subpart N.
§86.1520-03 (Reserved)
5 PS. 1521-83 hydrocarbon analyzer
calibration. -....
(a) Initial check. (1) Follow the
manufacturers instructions for
instrument slarl-up and operation.
Adjust the analyzer to optimize
performance on the range specified in
§ 85.151] (a](l). :_
(2) Calibrate the analyzer with the
calibration gas specified in § 80.15l4(c).
(3) Adjust the electrical span network
such that the electrical span point is
correct when the analyzer reads the
calibration gas correctly. '
('} Determine that the analy.'.er
complies wish the specifications in
§r.5.1511.
(b) Periodic c.'mck. Follow steps (a)
(1). (2). and (3) ol this section as .
specified in § f!0.151C(b). Adjust or
jepnir the en.ilyzer as necessary.
. (c) If the analysis procedures of -
Subperts D or N are used, the required
calibrations. (ire specified in their
respective Subparts. ' "
; fo. 1522-33 C.'.rbon monoxide ana'yzer
calibration. .'>".-.
(a) Initial c/.'crA. (!) Follow the
manufacturers instructions for .. '. . -
instrument slart-iip and operation.
Adjust the analy/er to optimize -
performance on the range specified in
> § 60.1571[a)(1).
(2) Calibrate the analyzer \vith the
r.p.iibration J-.KS specified in § 6G.151n(c).
(3) Adjust the rlcctrical span network
r.uch that. the electrical span point is
correct when the analyzer readu the
c.r'.libration p;is correctly.
(4) Determine: that the analyzer
complies with the specifications in .
(b) 1'iTj'odic check. Follow steps (a)
( } ). (?.). and (3) of this section as
s;»jcifiL-ti by j liii.ir.10lb). Adjust or
repair the HnniyziT us necessary.
(c) If the aiKilysis procedures of
S-.ihparJ D or N arc used, the rc'quiu-d
calibrations are specified in their
e Subpofls.
§6G.1U23-B3 IReservc-cl]
§00.1524-03 Carbon dioxide analyzer
calibration.
(a) The calibration requirements for
the dilute-sample carbon dioxide
analy/er ore specified in Subparl N.
(b)The calibration requirements for
the ru.w carbon dioxide ar.alyzer are
specified in Subpart D..
(c) If another sampling ar.d analyzing
system is used that does not require
carbon dioxide (CO:) analysis, this
section may be disregarded.
§86.1525-83 [Reserved)
§86.1526-83 Calibration of other
equipment. . .
Other test equipment used for tes!in3
shall be calibrated as often as required
by the manufacturer or as necessary
according to good practice.
§86.1527-83
overview.
Idle test procedure;
(a) The idle emission test procedure is
designed to determine the raw
concentrations (in parts per million of
carbon) of hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide in the exhaust flow at idle.
The lest procedure begins with a warm
engine, required to be ot the'normal
operating temperature. (For example, the
warm-up for un engine may be a
transient dynamometer test, or for a
vehicle it may be any convenient
operation).
(b) Vcliicks. (1) If the idle test is being
performed on a vehicle, all omission
cim'.rul systems shall be-intact and
functioning.
(c) Engines. (1) If the idle lest is being
performed on an engine, the required
engine configuration is specified in
Subpart N.
§80.1523-83 [Reserved)
§86.1529-83 [Reserved)
§86.1530-03 Test sequence; general .
requirements. .
The lest sequence shown in Figure
P03-1 shows the major steps
encountered during the idle test
described by the subsequent procedures.
The average- ambient temperature of the
engine test cell (in the case'of an engine
dynamometer test) or the vehicle
environment (in the case of a vehicle
test) shall be between -20*C and 45'C
(-4'F to 113'F).
I Engine Wjrn~op
5 minute* Min.
30 seconds Kin.
6 eiinutes M.IJC.
' Engin«r Precondicioning
Fipuce P63-1 - Test Sequi
§§ 66.1531-S3S6.1536-83 [Reserved)
§86.1537-83 Idle test run. . .".' -
(a) Test run. The following steps shall
be taken for each test: . .
(1) Achieve normal engine operating
parameters'. 1 he transient emission .-
dynamometer test is an acceptable
technique to warm-up the engine to
normal operating parameters for an
engine tt:st. If the transient emission test
is not performed prior to Inc idle
emission trst. tiie engine may be
warmed-up according to § 86.1332-
03(d)(l)[ii through (iii) (applies to
gasoline-fueled engines) or § 66.1332-
H3(d)(2)(i) through (iii) (applies to diesel
engines). For a vehicle test, sufficient
vehicle operation shall lake place to
achieve normal operating parameters.
(2) Check the dcvice(s) for removing
water frorn the exhaust sample und the
sample filier(s). Remove any water from
the water trnp(s). Clean and replace the
filter(s) as necessary.
-------
recierni riegistcr / voi.
(3) Scl (lie zero ;n:d span points of tlic
HC and CO analyzers with the electrical
spanning network. It is permitted to set
the analyzer span with calibration
gases.
(J) Hook-up or attach the; sampling
system to the tailpipe of the engine or
.vehicle.
. (5) Operate the nngino at 2nOO±50
rpm for gasoline-fueled engines
(1200±50 rpm for diesel) and zero load
for a minimum of 30 seconds and a
maximum of 6 minutes.
(G) Operate the engine at curb idle for
30±5 seconds with the dynamometer off
for the engine test, or the transmission
in neutral (or park for automatic
transmissions) for the vehicle tests.
(7) Sample the exhaust (after step G)
for an additional 30±5 seconds for raw
dry-basis HC in ppm C-6 (n-hexane) and
raw dry-basis CO in percent. Thc_
highest value observed during this
sample period shall be the value
.recorded.
(b) If the CVS sampling system is
used, the following procedures apply:
(1) Warm-up the engine as specified in
(a)(l) of this section.
[?.) Precondition the engine as v^
specified in (a)(5) of this section.
(3) With the sample selector valves in
the "standby" position, connect
evacuated sample collodion bags to the
dilute exhaust and dilution air sample
collection systems.
{/,) Start the CVS (if not already on).
the sample pumps, the temperature
recorder, the engine cooling fan. the
heated hydrocarbon analysis recorder
(diesel only), and the raw Cd analyzer.
(The heat exchanger of l!;e constant
volume sampler, if used, o.iesel
hydrocarbon analyzer continuous
sample line, and filler (if applicable)
shall be preheated to their respective
operating temperatures before the test
begins. _'....
(5) Adjust the sample flow rates to the
desired flow rate and set the gas flow
measuring devices to zero.
(G) Operate the engine at the
conditions specified in (a)(G) of this
section. -
(7) liegin HC and CO bag sampling
and raw CO, sampling.
(B) Sample idle emissions long enough
to obtain a sufficient bag sample, but in
no case shorter than 00 seconds nor
longer than G minutes. Follow the
sampling and exhaust measurements
requirements of subpjrt D for the
conducting of the idle mod-js of the
gasoline or diesel steady-state test for
tin: taw CO2 measurement.
(0) As soon as possible, transfer the
itllc test exhaust and dilution air
samples to the ar.alytical system and
process the samples according to
§ ftQ.1540 obtaining a stabilized reading
of the exhaust sample on all analyzers
within 20 minutes of the end of the
sample collection phase of the test.
(10) Disconnect the exhaust tube from
the engine tailpipe(s).
(11) Th;: CVS r.i.iy be turned off. if
desired.
(c) If the raw exhaust sampling and
analysis technique specified in Subparl
D is used, the following procedures
apply:
(1) Warm-up the engine as specified in
(a)(l) of this section.
(2) Precondition the engine as
specified in (a)(5) of this section.
(3) Operate the engine at the
conditions specified in (a)(G) of this
section.
(4) Follow the sampling and exhaust
measurement requirements of subpart D
respective mode lengths for gasoline-
fueled and diesel engines apply.
(d) If the engine stalls at any time
during the test run. the test is void.
§ 8G.1538-03
§ 86.1539-33
(Reserved)
[Reserved)
§65.1540-53 Idle extiaust sample .
analysis. *
(a) Record the idle concentrations in
ppm C-C (n-hexane) for HC and percent
for CO.
(b) If the CVS_sampling system is
used, the analysis procedures for dilute
HC. CO. and COj specified in Subpart N
apply. Follow the raw CO3 analysis
procedure specified in Subpart I) for the
raw COj analyzer. The HC may be
recorded as ppm propane (ppinC-3) or
ppm carbon (ppinC).
(c) If the continuous raw exhaust
sampling technique (Subpart D) is used,
the analysis procedures for HC and CO
specified in Subpart D apply. The HC ;.
may be recorded as ppm propane -. .
(ppmCXJ) or ppm carbon (ppmC).
§86.1541-83" (Reserved) ' -
§ 85.1542-83 Information required.
(a) Genera/cfcta. The following
information shall be recorded for each
idle emission test: .
(1) Vehicle identification number for a
vehicle test.
(2) Engine identification number for nn
engine test.
(3) Engine family.
(-3) Knpino displacement.
(5) Analyzer oper.itor(s).
(G) Vehicle (engine) operator(s).
(7) Fuel identification.
(G) Date of purchase of analytical
equipment.
(P) Date of most recent analytical
assembly calibration.
(10) All pertinent instrument
information such as tuning, gain, serial
numbers, detector number, calibration
curve numbers, etc. As low; as this
information is traceable, it may bft
summnrizncl by system number or
analyzer identification numbers.
(11) I're-lest data, (i) Date and time of
day.
(ii) Test number.
" (iii) Ambient temperature (vehicle
test) or engine intake air temperature
(engine test).
(iv) Vehicle.mileage or engine hours
ar. applicable.
(12) Test data, (i) Curb idle speed
during the test. '.
(ii) Idle exhaust HC concentration.
(iii) Idle exhaust CO concentration.
(b)Jf a CVS sampling system with bag
' "analysis is used for the idle emission
testi record the additional information
specified in Subparl N as applicable. In
addition, record the raw exhaust COj
concentration during the test.
(c) If ihc raw exhaust sampling and
analysis system specified i:i Subpart D
is used, record the additional
information specified in Siibparl D as
cpplicablc. . .
§66.1543-33 (Reserved)
§ 60.1544-33 Calculations; idle exhaust
emissions. "
(a) The final idle emission test results
shall be reported as ppmC (equivalent
carbon) for hydrocarbons and percent
for carbon monoxide, both on a ciry
basis. The results shall be reported to
the same number of significant digits as
the idle standards specified in § (50.023-
10 and § 80.033-11.
(b) Convert dry-basis ppmC-6 (n-
hexane) to ppmC (equivalent carbon)
by: - : -r- : '
ppmC = (G.O) pprnC-6 ".
(c) If a CVS sampling system is used.
the following procedure shall apply:
(1) Use the procedures, as applicable.
in Subparl N to determine the dilute
xvet-basis HC in ppmC. and CO and CO-
in percent.
(2) Use the procedure, as applicable.
in Subpart D to determine the raw dry-
basis COi in percent.
(3) Convert the raw dry-basis CO/ to
raw wet-basis. An assumption that the
percent of water by volume in the raw
sample is'equal to the percent of raw
dry-basis COj minus 0.5 percent is
acceptable. For example:
10.0% dry CO,-0.5%=9.5% water
(1.00-0.095) (100% <3ry COj) = 9.05<"-J we! CO,
-------
Fct!nr;il Roy.istc:r / Vol. vi:.-t the c!i!;:te wet-La:;!-. HC .
ami CO iy dilute liry-basis valai.-n. An
iissumption that I ho percent of water by
volume in liie sample bay is 2 percent is
.icccptaljle. For example:
dilute dry MC = (di!iite wel HC) / (1.00-0.02)
(0) Calculate l!ie raw dry-basis HC
and CO v;i!ues by:
raw c!ry HO.(DK) [dilule dry HC)
taw ilry CO =(UV} [dilule dry CO)
(d) If the ra\v exhaust sampling and
analysis system specified in Subpart D
is used, the following procedure shall
apply:
- (1) Use the procedure, as applicable.
in S'.ibpart D to determine raw wet-basis
1 1C and raw drj -bar.is CO a;id C0...
(?.) Use the calculations specified in
Subpart D to determine raw dry-basis
HC.
I:!ILIN'G CODS: 6560-OI-M
-------
-50-
Appendix C
EPA's Letter to MVMA
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL' PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20400
March 21, 1979 ' OFF.CEOF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT-
Mr. Harry B. Weaver
Assistant Director, Engineering
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
300 New Center Building
Detroit;, Michigan 48202
Dear. Mr. Weaver:
Please accept ray apology for not replying to your October 30,
1978 letter earlier. It is certainly in. our interest, as much as
yours, to resolve any issues concerning the K0:c baseline as soon as
possible.
We have carefully reviewed our initial position as outlined to
you in Mr. .Gray's letter of April 23, 1978. Our Office of General
Counsel (OGC) has now advised us that considering the legislative
history concerning the intent of Congress in establishing baseline
model years, EPA does have some flexibility available in interpre-
ting the Clean Air Act Amendments in this regard.
In light of OCC's opinion and the apparent Congressional .
intent, EPA will use the following policy in developing a NOx
baseline for heavy-duty vehicles. We will test only vehicles or
engines which have. not been modified for NOx control in response to
either Federal or State NOx regulations. 1973 vehicles or engines
will be tested wherever possible. However, v.-here a 1973 vehicle or
engine has been modified for NOx control, the equivalent 1972
vehicle or engine (absent the NOx control) will be substituted.
We believe that this policy embodies the intent of Congress for
developing the NOx baseline. We also believe that it should satisfy
the concerns which you have raised.
You are correct in your understanding that we have begun the
process of baseline engine selection. Procurement of engines is
already underway based upon the above policy;
Sincerely,
Michael IV Walsh
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
------- |