EPA-AA-SDSB-87-04
Technical Report
Vehicle Test Results From a
Small Twin-Roll Electric Dynamometer
By
Glenn Thompson
F. Peter Hutchins
April 1987
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
developments 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 Sources
Office of Air and Radiation
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-2-
1. Test JProgram Objectives
The investigation of the electric chassis dynamometer
reported herein had two objectives. The first objective was to
determine the level of equivalency between emissions and fuel
economy test results obtained on a hydrokinetic power
absorbtion unit dynamometer and on the D.C. motor electric
dynamometer and to define any differences between them. The
second objective was to quantify, if possible, performance
advantages of the electric dynamometer. Specifically, it was
to investigate the changes in the measured emissions and fuel
economy resulting from changes in the shape of the dynamometer
road load force versus velocity curve.*
2. Background
The small twin-roll hydrokinetic dynamometer is
extensively used by EPA and the automotive industry to simulate
the road load experience of a vehicle during exhaust emission
and fuel economy measurements. This machine is described as a
small twin-roll hydrokinetic dynamometer because a pair of
small rollers (8.65 inches diameter) is used to transmit power
from the drive wheels of the test vehicle to the two components
of the dynamometer which simulate the total on-road power
demands placed on the engine. These two components are the
hydrokinetic power absorber and the flywheels. The power
absorber simulates the road load forces acting on the vehicle,
primarily aerodynamic drag. Flywheels, connected to the
dynamometer rollers, simulate the weight of the vehicle as this
weight resists changes in vehicle speed. On road power losses
at the tires are largely simulated on the dynamometer by the
drive axle tire losses which occur at the contact surfaces
between the tires and the dynamometer rolls and by windage
losses of the drive wheels.
Energy imparted to the dynamometer rolls by the vehicle is
converted into water born kinetic energy by the rotor of the
power absorber and dissipated as the water is decelerated in
the stator of the power absorber. The water in the power
absorber is maintained at a constant temperature by means of
heat exchanger. The amount of power dissipated is controlled
by the volume of water in the power absorber unit. Since
kinetic energy is proportional to velocity to the second power
and vehicle aerodynamic drag is closely proportional to
The D.C. motor electric dynamoteter used in this study
also allowed adjustment of the spacing between the
dynamometer rolls. Data has been collected at different
roll spacings on a very small vehicle which uses
especially small wheels and tires. These data are not
reported herein, but will be covered in a separate report.
-------
-3-
velocity '.tp the second power, the hydrokinetic dynamometer can
closely appTFoximate road loads for a generic vehicle. The
volume of water in the power absorber cannot, however, be
varied rapidly. The shape of the road load force versus
velocity curve of the power absorber cannot, therefore, be
either rapidly or accurately adjusted to tailor the curve to a
specific vehicle. While some minor dynamic control can be
performed to improve the similarity between two or more
dynamometers, the basic power absorption setting point is the
load at 50 mph and power absorbtion at other speeds is
non-adjustable.
The small twin-roll hydrokinetic dynamometer was selected
for exhaust emission testing because the dynamometer provides a
reasonable simulation of the road experience of a vehicle and
because it was available to EPA and the automotive industry in
the quantities required and at a relatively low cost. The
present installed cost of a hydrokinetic dynamometer with
mechanical flywheels is on the order of $70,000 to $80,000.
Other types of automotive dynamometers have been available
for a long time. The most prominent alternative chassis
dynamometer has been the large single-roll machine. As the
name implies, this machine uses a large single roll, typically
about 67.23 inches in diameter, which transmits power from the
vehicle to the power absorber. The power absorber of this
machine is typically a large DC motor connected to the main
electrical system through a motor-generator set. The major
advantage of this system is the wide control latitude possible
with the electric power absorption system. For example, the
power absorption may be adjusted to match the specific road
load of .the test vehicle at all speeds, or other parameters
such as the effect of wind and grade may be accurately
simulated. Typically, this machine simulates the vehicle
inertia by electrically varying the load imposed on the
vehicle, although flywheels are used on some machines. Also,
the large roll minimizes the energy losses at the tire to
dynamometer interface and allows long-term continuous operation
of a vehicle on the dynamometer, even at high speeds.
The large single-roll dynamometer is generally used as a
research machine in the automotive and petroleum industries.
They are not often used for emissions or fuel economy testing
primarily because of their high cost, typically greater than
$250,000 installed.
In the past decade a third type of dynamometer has become
available, the small twin-roll electric machine. Except for
the power absorber, this machine is structurally very similar
to the standard hydrokinetic dynamometer; a pair of small
rollers is used to transmit power to the power absorber and to
mechanical flywheels which simulate the inertia of the
vehicle. The power absorption system for this type of machine
-------
-4-
is typica.U-y an industrial DC motor which can be operated
either as a motor or as a generator by the system electronics.
The recent development of solid state electronic components
capable of directly switching the currents necessary to control
a DC motor or generator of the required size has made this
machine feasible.
The small twin-roll electric dynamometer has the same
controller flexibility as the large-roll electric machine. It
is intermediate in cost between the large-roll electric and the
hydrokinetic dynamometer, typically about $100,000 to
$120,000. The performance/cost ratio of the small-roll
electric machine makes it an attractive choice as a more
sophisticated alternative to the hydrokinetic dynamometer. In
addition these machines typically have features, such as
variable roll spacing and more finely-adjustable inertia weight
simulation, which were not available on the preceding
generation of dynamometers. Variable roll spacing could
potentially facilitate the testing of vehicles with smaller
than normal wheels and tires.
In the spring of 1983 Clayton Manufacturing Company
offered to lend a small twin-roll electric dynamometer, their
model DC-80, to EPA for a cooperative test program. This offer
was accepted and the subsequent program, described in this
report, investigated exhaust emission and fuel economy test
results obtained from vehicles tested on this electric
dynamometer.
3. Experimental Design
As was stated previously, the program had two separate
goals: to compare the electric and the hydrokinetic
dynamometers and to investigate the potential effect of the
enhanced adjustability of the electric dynamometer. This
section of the report discusses the experimental design and the
subsequent test conditions.
3.1 Comparison of the Electric and Hydrokinetic
Dynamometers
This segment of the program was a simple comparison of the
test results from the two dynamometers operating under standard
conditions. Therefore, the experimental design was
conceptually straightforward, simply conduct multiple tests on
each machine and compare the results. The only significant
questions were the choice of test vehicles, the number of tests
to be conducted, and the specific test conditions.
3.1.1 Test Vehicles
Variations in the dynamometer behavior might be different
in diverse performance ranges, or they might affect different
types of vehicles in various ways. Therefore, two diverse test
-------
-5-
vehicles ,which .. together represent the majority of vehicles
presently either in use or sold in the U.S. were selected for
testing. A 1984 Ford Escort, was chosen to be representative
of the many smaller front-engine front-wheel-drive vehicles of
the current in-use fleet. This vehicle is described in
Appendix A. A 1979 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme was selected as
representative of the traditional larger U.S. manufactured
vehicles with front engine and rear wheel drive.- This test
vehicle is described in Appendix B. These specific vehicles
were selected because extensive road and dynamometer data were
available from similar vehicles from a previous EPA test
program.[1]
3.1.2. Test Conditions
The comparison segment of this program was an examination
of the differences and similarities between the test results
obtained on the two dynamometers when used in the typical EPA
certification process. Specifically all tests for this phase
were conducted with the dynamometers adjusted to provide the
same total vehicle load at 50 mph. The electric dynamometer
was set to provide a power absorber unit (PAU) loading
proportional to the velocity squared as does the hydrokinetic
dynamometer. The usual EPA calibration tests were made on each
machine, but the load curves of the two machines were not
specifically matched for the comparison segment.
3.1.3 Number of Tests
The number of tests to be conducted on each vehicle on
each dynamometer is an important consideration in establishing
the test program. Obviously, there is always the desire to
reduce the number of tests to minimize program costs while
there is the need to maintain acceptable overall program
precision.
The intended analysis for this segment of the program was
the comparison of the mean of the results from the hydrokinetic
dynamometer to the mean of the results from the electric
machine. It was decided that emphasis would be placed on fuel
economy data, since improved fuel economy measurement accuracy
would be the most likely reason to adopt electric
dynamometers. It was further decided that the program should
have a minimum expected precision of 0.5 mpg. That is, it
would be unacceptable to have an experimental difference of 0.5
mpg and not be able to conclude that this difference was
statistically significant. A test precision of 0.2 mpg was
considered optimal.
The standard statistical test for determining the
significance of the difference between the means of two samples
is the paired statistical t-test analysis.[2] In starting the
dynamometer comparison program, it was assumed there was no
-------
-6-
reason tq^expect different sample sizes for tests performed on
the two "dynamometers, and it was also assumed there was no
reason to expect different sample standard deviations. The
minimum acceptable program size was viewed as guaranteeing
significance of results when the difference between the means
of the 2 groups would be equal to 0.5 mpg. For test sizes
which were practical, i.e., tens of tests or less, this
required a t-test value of about 2.1 for a -97.5 percent
confidence level. The previously referenced earlier test
program[l] indicated that a standard deviation of about 0.35
mpg would be achievable. This value resulted in a calculated
number of required test observations of 4.3. It was decided,
therefore, that a minimum number of 5 tests per vehicle, per
dynamometer would be required to guarantee the desired program
precision.
The value for the standard deviation used above was
somewhat pessimistic, however, since it was calculated from
tests conducted in a time period spanning many months. For
tests conducted over a shorter period of time i.e., one or two
months, a standard deviation of 0.3 mpg was considered to be
more realistic. Using this value for the standard deviation,
resulted in the projection that differences between the means
of the 2 groups should be statistically detectable at the 0.28
mpg level. It was concluded, therefore, that with 5 tests, the
program should guarantee a resolution of 0.5 mpg, and probably
would resolve to 0.3 mpg. It was also concluded that
increasing the number of tests to 6 would increase the probable
resolution to only about 0.25 mpg. Expanding the test to ten
tests per vehicle would be required to realize a resolution of
0.2 mpg.
As a result of the preceeding analysis, it was decided to
conduct 6 tests at each point. This would give a probable
precision of approximately 0.25 mpg. Even if one of the test
results was subsequently considered invalid and rejected, the
remaining 5 tests should, under worst conditions, guarantee
meeting the desired precision for the program.
3.2. The Effect of Changes in the Road Load Force Versus
Velocity Curve of the Electric Dynamometer
The main performance advantage of the electric dynamometer
is its ability to change the shape of the road load force
versus velocity curve. This capability of the electronic
dynamometer provides the potential for a better simulation of
the road experience of those vehicles for which the fixed load
versus speed curve of the hydrokinetic dynamometer does not
adequately match the road load curve. To directly measure this
potential performance benefit would necessitate measurement of
the specific road load characteristics of the test vehicles,
matching these characteristics with the electric dynamometer
and then conducting multiple tests of the vehicles on both
-------
-7-
This would be a very test-intensive program if
any significant number of vehicles was involved. It was
decided, therefore, to approach the problem by choosing a range
of dynamometer adjustments for the electric dynamometer which
might reasonably be expected to occur from road tests and to
test representative vehicles under these conditions. The
results could then be analyzed to ascertain if the observed
differences were significant. If the resulting test results
were significantly different and sensitivity coefficients were
developed for the dynamometer parameters which determine the
road load-versus-velocity curve, then the effect of exercising
the performance advantage of the electric dynamometer could be
theoretically estimated for any vehicle for which road and
dynamometer coast-down data were known.
3.2.1. Test Conditions
In the electric dynamometer under evaluation, the force
applied to the vehicle's wheels by the power absorbing unit, of
the dynamometer is expressed by the following equation:
F = A+BV+CVK,
in which:
F is the road load force exerted by the dynamometer rolls
on the driving wheels of the vehicle (the opposite is also
true; i.e., the force exerted by the wheels of the vehicle on
the surface of the roll of the dynamometer).
V is the velocity at the surface of the roll and equals
the simulated speed of the test vehicle.
A is the force coefficient independent of velocity.
B is the force coefficient dependent on velocity (usually
assumed equal to zero).
C is the windage force coefficient of the K power of
velocity.
K is the exponent of the velocity for the windage term
(adjustable from 1.0 to 3.0, but usually 2.0).
The forces exerted by the dynamometer roll on the vehicle
at the tire to roll interface and the reaction forces are
considered equal under all conditions. The parameters A, B,
and C in the equation characterize components of these forces.
In the electric dynamometer, parameters A, B and C are
controlled by the dynamometer power absorber. In the
hydrokinetic dynamometer, only parameter C can be varied,
leaving A and B fixed by the vehicle's tire losses and the
residual friction of the vehicle-dynamometer system. The basic
-------
-8-
performanq^. advantage of the electric dynamometer is,
therefore, ~rts ability to vary parameters A, B and C
independently.
The basic information desired in this portion of the study
was the sensitivity of the exhaust emissions and fuel economy
data to variations in parameters A and C for the electric
dynamometer in which parameter B was assumed to be
insignificant. This evaluation was accomplished by selecting a
standard reference condition and then varying parameters A and
C about this reference condition. The standard reference
condition for the electric dynamometer was selected where A=0
and C was equal to the value which resulted in a loading at 50
mph equal to that imposed by the hydrokinetic dynamometer.
The alternative conditions were selected as follows. In
the first alternative, the constant term (parameter A) was set
to yield 1.0 hp while parameter C was reduced to yield a
decrease of 1.0 hp at 50 mph thereby, leaving the net road load
at 50 miles per hour unchanged from the standard condition. In
the second alternative, the velocity-squared coefficient
(parameter C) was increased to yield a net increase in road
load of 1.0 hp at 50 mph with parameter A set equal to zero
(the same as in the initial or standard condition). For the
third and final alternative condition, parameter A was set to
yield 1.0 hp while maintaining parameter C at its standard
value so that the total road load at 50 mph was increased by
1.0 hp as was the case in the second alternative condition.
The test conditions are all shown generically in tabular form
in Table 1 and in graphical form in Figure 1.
Since all testing would be performed on each vehicle
without changing the flywheel (inertia) settings of the
dynamometer the effects of the changes in the road load curves
relative to the standard curve would be as follows. For the
first alternative, the effect simulated would be one of
emphasizing power requirements at low speeds while holding the
50 mph power requirement constant. Effectively, these
condition would simulate a vehicle with increased frictional
loadings and reduced aerodynamic loadings. For the second
alternative the test conditions would simulate a vehicle where
high speed powerrequirements were higher than standard; i.e.,
where aerodynamic drag was higher than normal. For the third
and last alternative, the test conditions would simulated a
vehicle with average aerodynamic drag forces but with increased
frictional loads.
3.2.2. Test Vehicles and Number of Tests
Because of their general representativeness of the in-use
vehicle fleet, the same vehicles, i.e. the Oldsmobile and the
Ford, were used for the sensitivity study segment of the
program as were used for the dynamometer comparisons. A sample
-------
-9-
Table 1
Electric Dynamometer Loadings Used In Evaluating The
Effects of Power Absorber Unit Adjustability on Test Results
Total at
Force Components 50 MPH
Test
~ j_ .1 A _ n «-»TT /TT i 2 p
Configuration A BV CV2
Standard 0 0 Std. @ 50 MPH . Std.
Alternative 1 1.0 0 (Std. <§ 50 MPH)-1 Std.
Alternative 20 0 (Std. @ 50 MPH)+1 Std. + 1
Alternative 3 1.0 0 Std. @ 50 MPH Std. + 1
-------
ELECTR C DYNO PALI LOAD VS VEHICLE SPEED
FIGURE 1
O
<
0.
D 3TD
4-
VEHICLE SPEED (MPH)
ALT 1 <•• ' ALT 2
ALT 2
-------
-11-
size of six_ tes-ts at each condition was chosen for the same
reasons presented previously in the dynamometer comparison
section. Choosing the same vehicles and selecting the standard
electric dynamometer condition as the reference in the
sensitivity analysis allowed the test data obtained at this
condition to be used for both segments of the program. This,
of course, reduced the total program cost.
4. Equpiment and Data Collection
4 .1 Test Facilities
The dynamometers used for this program were located in
test cells in the Evaluation and Development area of the MVEL.
The hydrokinetic dynamometer was a standard Clayton ECE-50
similar to the other hydrokinetic dynamometers used by EPA for
certification and evaluation testing. This dynamometer was
located in room 510. The electric dynamometer, located in room
514, was a Clayton DC-80 equipped with rolls and flywheel
assemblies meeting the same specifications as those used on the
hydrokinetic unit.
The dynamometers were in approximately the same position
in each room. Each room had similar temperature and air flow
characteristics. Each room was equipped with its own Constant
Volume Sampling System (CVS). The units were, however, similar
in operating characteristics. The same exhaust gas analyzer
system was used for all the tests. The calibration of all
auxiliary test equipment was checked prior to starting the test
program, and during the program. These precautions insured
that the conditions of the two test cells were as similar as
possible so that any observed differences in test results
should be attributable to the dynamometers.
4.2. Data Collection
With the exception of three minor variations to conserve
test time, all tests were conducted in the same manner as
specified for the official EPA certification programs. The
exceptions were: 1) to designate the test of the preceding day
as the preparatory cycle for the test of the subsequent day
(however, if a vehicle were not subjected to testing on a
preceding day, it would receive the standard preparation per
certification procedures on the day prior to testing for this
program); 2) to eliminate the need for a fuel tank heat build,
the vehicle was refueled with non-chilled fuel prior to each
test; and 3) evaporative emission tests were not performed in
this program since minor variations in the dynamometer would
not affect the results of there measurements.
The data for comparison of the two dynamometers using
standard settings and the data for evaluation of the effects of
changes in the road load versus speed curve were collected as a
-------
-12-
single data collection, element. The order in which the tests
were performed was randomized so that any systematic shifts in
either the vehicles or the dynamometers would not have a
significant influence on the results. However, care was taken
to ensure that approximately the same number of test results
were accumulated under each test configuration so that if any
vehicle or system parameter changed with time it would have
approximately the same effect on each test configuration and
should have a minimal effect on the final comparisons.
From six to eight tests were conducted for each test
configuration. The test data were reviewed, including any
operator comments, to ensure validity. Whenever conditions
occurred which might indicate a questionable test under EPA
certification guidelines, the test results were deleted. If
deletions resulted in less than five tests under any
configuration, additional tests were conducted to ensure that
at least five valid results were obtained in each
configuration. The detailed test data are shown in Appendix A
for the Ford Escort and in Appendix B for the Oldsmobile
Cutlass. The EPA test number is given for each test so that
the detailed raw data can be retrieved from the EPA data base,
if desired.
5. Data Analysis
The data analysis for the two segments of the program were
slightly different and were, therefore, treated separately.
5.1. Dynamometer Comparison
All.tests of this phase of the program were conducted with
the dynamometers adjusted to provide the same total load at 50
mph. The question to be answered in this segment of the
evaluation was the equivalency of the results from the two
dynamometers and to identify differences among the results.
For this comparison the means and standard deviations of the
exhaust emissions and fuel economy measurements were computed
for each vehicle and each dynamometer. These results are
presented in Appendices A and B and are summarized here in
Table 2 for the Ford and in Table 3 for the Oldsmobile.
A paired t-test analysis was performed on each
hydrokinetic-versus-electric dynamometer pair of tests. The
results of the t-test analyses are shown in Table 4. The
t-test values thus derived were then inspected for
statistically significant equality or difference in the results
at the 0.975 confidence level. This was done by comparing the
calculated paired statistical t-test values to reference values
which distinguish between equality or difference at the
selected confidence level for the number of tests involved
(degrees of freedom). From Table 4 it can be seen that, for
the Ford Escort, both the emissions and fuel economy results
-------
-13-
Table 2
Electric,Dynamometer Standard Settings vs. Hydrokinetic Dynamometer
' " - Test Result Means and Standard Deviations
Test Vehicle:
Dynamometer
Hydrokinetic
Electric
Hydrokinetic
Electric
Hydrokinetic
Electric
Hydrokinetic
Electric
Hydrokinetic
Electric
Ford Escort
Emissions (g/mile)
HC CO
-
X s X s
Composite FTP
0.308 0.015 3.410 0.176
0.296 0.015 3.260 0.349
Bag 1
0.675 0.031 11.306 0.916
0.680 0.048 11.218 1.900
Bag 2
0.140 0.013 0.255 0.076
0.140 0.010 0.304 0.077
Bag 3
0.343 0.038 3.443 0.426
0.298 0.040 2.820 0.630
HFET
0.063 0.005 0.183 0.138
0.064 0.009 0.230 0.062
Fuel Economy
NOx - (mpg)
-
X s X
0.693 0.023 26.29
0.664 0.039 26.38
1.078 0.058 23.78
1.054 0.038 23.94
0.630 0.024 25.93
0.588 0.051 26.20
0.520 0.045 29.25
0.522 0.039 29.10
0.288 0.046 37.29
0.266 0.021 37.33
s
0.18
0.29
0.25
0.32
0.36
0.49
0.30
0.24
0.28
0.43
-------
-14-
Table 3
Electrix^Dynamometer -Standard Settings vs. Hydrokinetic Dynamometer
~ Test Results Means and Standard Deviations
Test Vehicle:
Dynamometer
Hydrokinetic
Electric
Hydrokinetic
Electric
Hydrokinetic
Electric
Hydrokinitic
Electric
Hydrokinetic
Electric
Oldsmobile Cutlass
Emissions (g/mile)
HC CO
X s X s
Composite FTP
0.760 0.057 6.840 0.799
0.698 0.033 5.950 0.219
Bag 1
2.257 0.187 27.560 2.016
2.112 0.110 25.803 0.700
Bag 2
0.286 0.028 0.984 0.471
0.247 0.008 0.388 0.186
Bag 3
0.536 0.100 2.340 0.838
0.482 0.098 1.517 0.257
HFET
0.104 0.016 0.462 0.264
0.086 0.013 0.378 0.170
Fuel Economy
NOx - (mpg)
X s X s
4.426 0.797 19.99 0.
4.787 1.104 20.19 0.
3.783 0.738 17.49 0.
4.750 1.146 17.72 0.
4.877 0.924 20.33 0.
5.207 1.196 20.65 0.
4.057 0.615 21.63 0.
4.402 0.943 21.52 0.
2.623 0.319 26.46 0.
3.068 0.877 26.49 0.
16
18
20
13
28
26
16
26
34
41
-------
-15-
Table 4
Electric Dynamometer Standard Settings vs
Hydrokinetic Dynamometer
T-Test Statistics of Test Means
Ford Escort
Test
FTP
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
HFET
Degrees of
Freedom HC
t-Statistic
9
9
9
10
9
1.365
-0.208
0 .000
1.006
-0.306
CO
0.928
0.100
-1.062
2.007
-0.695
NOx
1.545
0.798
1.806
-0.069
0.910
MPG
-0.617
-0.915
-0.852
0.972
-0.199
Oldsmobile Cutlass
Test
Degrees of
Freedom HC
t-Statistic
CO
NOx
MPG
FTP
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
HFET
11
11
11
11
10
2.321
1. 670
0.933
0.980
2 . 119
2.630
2 .022
2 .896
2 .303
0.650
-0.683
-0.888
-0.561
-0.793
-1.168
-2. 196
-2.372
-2.634
0.941
-0.138
NOTE:
Underlined values denote statistical difference in
the test results at the 0.975 confidence level; i.e.
the absolute value is greater than 2.201 with 11
degrees of freedom, 2.228 with 10 degrees of freedom
and 2.262 with 9 degrees of freedom.
-------
-16-
obtained _^.from. the. two dynamometers were statistically
equivalent. ~": It can also be seen from Table 4 that some of the
test results were statistically different in the case of the
Oldsmobile Cutlass. The test results were statistically
different for the FTP HC and CO emissions, the Bag 2 and Bag 3
CO emissions and the Bags 1 and 2 fuel economy values.
Inspection of the emissions and fuel economy test data
from the Oldsmobile Cutlass shown in Appendix B showed that
there was a significant shift in the data with time. The shift
occurred on both dynamometers. Since the data on the Ford
Escort had been collected during the same time period, it was
concluded that the shift in the Oldsmobile Cutlass data with
time was not caused either by the dynamometers or by the sample
collection and analytical equipment. It was concluded that the
data shift was caused by a shift in the test vehicle. While
the statistically determined differences in the test results
obtained on the two dynamometers for the Oldsmobile Cutlass can
not be assigned with absolute certainly to the shift which
occurred in the test vehicle it appears probable that this is
the cause of the differences. It appears, therefore, that
emissions and fuel economy measurements made on an electric
dynamometer using standard settings would be equivalent to
those obtained from a hydrokinetic dynamometer.
In addition to the comparability of mean values,
test-to-test variability differences between the two
dynamometers are also important. Returning to Tables 2 and 3,
some observations about variability as indicated by the
standard deviations can be made. Table 2 indicates that for
the Ford vehicle, the coefficient of variation, as measured by
the standard deviation divided by the mean, was quite low for
both the hydrokinetic and electric dynamometers. Most values
were below ten percent, with several being less than one
percent. For most parameters, the results obtained on the
electric dynamometer tended to have somewhat greater
variability, but at these low levels the difference have little
significance. For the Oldsmobile (Table 3), it again appears
that the variability is similar for the two dynamometers.
Overall, the variability for both dynamometers is higher for
the Oldsmobile than for the Ford, reflecting the apparant shift
in vehicle performance with time noted above.
5.2 Sensitivity of Vehicle Test Results to Changes in
Electric Dynamometer Loading
This segment of the program investigated the effect of
varying the individual electric dynamometer PAU parameters.
There were two considerations in this evaluation. First, is
there a significant effect of relatively small changes in the
PAU control coefficients? Second, if the effect is
significant, could the effect be characterized in terms of
changes in the control parameters for the dynamometer?
-------
-17-
5.2,-P;^- - Significance of Differences from Standard
Conditions
Parameters A and C of the road load force versus velocity
equation were varied to achieve the changes in the road load
horsepower shown previously in Table 1. The effects of these
changes in parameters A and C on the total load imposed on the
test vehicle by the dynamometer are shown graphically in
Figures 2 and 3. The percentage increases in dynamometer load
relative to vehicle speed, for each of the test vehicles, are
shown in Figures 4 and 5. As can be seen from Figures 2
through 5, the effects on the dynamometer imposed loads are as
follows:
• The first optional dynamometer settings (A = 1, and
HP at 50 mph is unchanged) substantially increase
the total dynamometer load at low vehicle speeds and
reduces the increase in load to zero at 50 mph.
• The second optional dynamometer setting (A = 0 and
hp at 50 mph is increased by 1 hp) has very little
effect at low speeds but increases the 50 mph
loading by approximately 8 and 17 percent for the
Cutlass and the Escort respectively.
• The third optional dynamometer setting (A = 1 and hp
at 50 mph is increased by 1 hp) increases the
loading throughout the speed range with the largest
increase being at low speeds.
The means and standard deviations of the test results and
the t-statistics were computed as in the comparison between the
two types of dynamometers. The results are shown in Tables 5
through 12.
Inspection of Table 11 shows that for the Ford Escort,
with loading increased primarily at low speeds (first option),
the results are statistically different for NOx emissions in
the FTP, in Bag 3 of the FTP and in the HFET. Further
inspection of Table 11 shows that increased loading, primarily
at high speeds (second option) results in statistically
different HC emissions on the FTP, statistically different CO
and NOx emissions on the HFET, and statistically different fuel
economy values in Bag 1 of the FTP and in the HFET. Under the
third loading option (loading is increased through the speed
range), (see Table 11), HC emissions are statistically
different on the FTP and in Bag 1 of the FTP, CO emissions are
statistically different in the HFET and all NOx values are
statistically different.
Review of the mean test values for the Ford Escort shown
in Tables 5, 6 and 7 indicates that in all cases where the test
results were statistically different, the effects of the
-------
Q_
LJ
6
o:
LJ
.>
o
2
<
2
/—
Q
ELECTRIC DYNO TOTAL LOAD VS VEH. SPEED
FORD ESCORT FIGURE 2
6 -
5-
2 -
ir
0
D STD
20
VEHICLE SPEED
ALT 1 O
~T~
40
ALT 2
ALT 3
-------
Q_
X
LJ
O
Q.
LJ
b
o
Q
ELECTRO DYNO TOTAL LOAD VS VEH. SPEED
OLDSMOBILE CUTLASS FIGURE 3
0
D
STD
VEHICLE SPEED (MPH)
ALT 1 O ALT 2
ALT 3
-------
O
_J
o
LJ
LO
<
LJ
o:
o
•7
PERCENT DYNO LOAD INCREASE VS SPEED
FORD ESCORT FIGURE 4
0
0
20
D ALT 1
VEHICLE SPEED (MPH)
+ ALT 2
v ALT 3
-------
Q
<
O
Ci
2
LJ
(A
a
IT
PERCENT DYMO LOAD INCREASE VS SPEED
OLDSMOBILE CUTLASS FIGURE 5
0
0
D ALT 1
20
VEHICLE SPEED (
+ ALT 2
40
ALT 3
-------
-22-
Table 5
Eleetr-*c_ Dynamometer Non-Standard Settings vs. Standard Settings
Test Result Means and Standard Deviations
Test Vehicle:
Non-Standard
Dynamometer
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Ford Escort
Settings: A = 1; HP
-------
-23-
Table 6
Electric Dynamometer Non-Standard Settings
Test Result Means and Standard
Test Vehicle
Non-Standard
Dynamometer
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
: Ford Escort
Settings: A = 0; HP
HC
X s
Composite FTP
0.296 0.015
0.277 0.010
Bag 1
0.680 0.048
0.627 0.039
Bag 2
0.140 0.010
0.128 0.024
Bag 3
0.298 0.040
0.293 0.034
HFET
0.064 0.009
0.057 0.007
@ 50 mph = (Standard +
Emissions (g/mile)
CO
X s
3.260 0.349
3.252 0.195
11.218 1.900
11.997 0.725
0.304 0.077
0.240 0.086
2.820 0.630
2.363 0.417
0.230 0.062
0.110 0.051
vs. Standard Settings
Deviations
1)
Fuel Economy
NOx (mpg)
X s X s
0.664 0.039 26.38 0.29
0.710 0.039 26.45 0.38
1.054 0.038 23.94 0.32
1.050 0.050 23.47 0.33
0.588 0.051 26.20 0.49
0.645 0.039 26.58 0.50
0.522 0.039 29.10 0.24
0.580 0.055 28'. 93 0.35
0.266 0.021 37.33 0.43
0.345 0.048 36.45 0.52
-------
-24-
Table 7
Electric Dynamometer Non-Standard Settings vs. Standard Settings
Test Result Means and Standard Deviations
Test Vehicle:
Non-Standard
Dynamometer
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Ford Escort
Settings: A = 1; HP @ 50 mph = (Standard + 1)
Emissions (g/mile)
HC CO NOx
X s X s X s
Composite FTP
0.296 0.015 3.260 0.349 0.664 0.039
0.273 0.010 2.957 0.238 0.763 0.032
Bag 1
0.680 0.048 11.218 1.900 1.054 0.038
0.608 0.050 10.218 1.041 1.157 0.042
Bag 2
0.140 0.010 0.304 0.077 0.588 0.051
0.123 0.016 0.238 0.094 0.682 0.034
Bag 3
0.298 0.040 2.820 0.630 0.522 0.034
0.303 0.031 2.635 0.488 0.623 0.048
HFET
0.064 0.009 0.230 0.062 0.266 0.021
0.056 0.006 0.120 0.087 0.355 0.069
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
X s
26.38 0.29
26.20 0.21
23.94 0.32
23.65 0.41
26.20 0.49
26.00 0.49
29.10 0.24
28.90 0.22
37.33 0.43
36.83 0.64
-------
-25-
Table 8
Electric Dynamometer Non-Standard Settings vs. Standard Settings
Test Result Means and Standard Deviations
Test Vehicle:
Non-Standard
Dynamometer
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Oldsmobile Cutlass
Settings: A = 1; HP @ 50 mph = Standard
Emissions (g/mile)
HC CO NOx
X s X s X s
Composite FTP
0.698 0.033 5.950 0.219 4.787 1.104
' 0.712 0.085 6.042 1.108 4.830 1.198
Bag 1
2.112 0.110 25.803 0.700 4.250 1.146
2.118 0.314 25.188 3.343 4.216 1.207
Bag 2
0.247 0.008 0.388 0.186 5.207 1.196
0.252 0.028 0.524 0.573 5.356 1.361
Bag 3
0.482 0.098 1.517 0.257 4.402 0.943
0.516 0.087 2.036 0.562 4.314 0.878
HFET
0.086 0.013 0.378 0.170 3.068 0.877
0.088 0.016 0.352 0.176 2.802 0.577
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
X s
20.19 0.18
19.92 0.17
17.72 0.13
17.64 0.29
20.65 0.26
20.22 0.18
21.52 0.26
21.34 0.13
26.49 0.41
26.66 0.31
-------
-26-
Table 9
Electric Dynamometer Non-Standard Settings vs. Standard
••-T __ Test Result Means and Standard Deviations
Test Vehicle:
Non-Standard
Dynamometer
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Settings
Oldsmobile Cutlass
Settings: A = 0;
HC
X s
Composite FTP
0.698 0.033
0.798 0.150
Bag 1
2.112 0.110
2.508 0.646
Bag 2
0.247 0.008
0.268 0.053
Bag 3
0.482 0.098
0.503 0.095
HFET
0.086 0.013
0.101 0.025
HP @ 50 mph = (Standard + 1)
Emissions (g/mile)
CO NOx
X s X S
5.950 0.129 4.787 1.
6.832 1.634 4.413 1.
25.803 0.700 4.250 1.
27.770 4.114 3.853 1.
0.388 0.186 5.207 1.
0.818 0.722 4.817 1.
1.517 0.257 4.402 0.
2.420 1.614 4.073 0.
0.378 0.170 3.068 0.
0.621 0.429 2.827 0.
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
X s
104 20.19 0.18
211 19.85 0.32
146 17.72 0.13
175 17.43 0.26
196 20.65 0.26
388 20.40 0.41
943 21.52 0.26
917 20.98 0.30
877 26.49 0.41
361 25.19 1.18
-------
-27-
Table 10
Electric Dynamometer Non-Standard Settings vs. Standard Settings
Test Result Means and Standard Deviations
Test Vehicle
Non-Standard
Dynamometer
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
Standard
Non-Standard
: Oldsmobile Cutlass
Settings: A = 1; HP @ 50 mph = (Standard + 1)
Emissions (g/mile)
HC CO NOx
X s X s X s
Composite FTP
0.698 0.033 5.950 0.219 4.787 1.104
0.723 0.075 6.285 1.127 4.253 0.804
Bag 1
2.112 0.110 25.803 0.700 4.250 1.146
2.212 0.239 25.937 3.972 3.650 0.597
Bag 2
0.247 0.008 0.388 0.186 5.207 1.196
0.250 0.035 0.742 0.575 4.642 1.004
Bag 3
0.482 0.098 1.517 0.257 4.402 0.943
0,538 0.064 1.972 0.763 3.478 1.515
HFET
0.086 0.013 0.378 0.170 3.068 0.877
0.089 0.019 0.372 0.276 2.702 0.186
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
. X s
20.19 0.18
19.65 0.19
17.72 0.13
17.38 0.20
20.65 0.26
20.03 0.26
21.52 0'.26
20.95 0.24
26.49 0.41
25.83 0.25
-------
-28-
Table 11
Electric Dynamometer Non-Standard Settings vs
,- __ .. Standard Settings
T-Test Statistics of Test Means
Test Vehicle: Ford Escort
Non-Standard Settings: A =
Degrees of
1; HP @ 50 mph = Standard
t-Statistic
Test
Freedom
FTP 10
Bag 1 11
Bag 2 11
Bag 3 11
HFET 10
Non-Standard Settings
Degrees of
Test Freedom
FTP 9
Bag 1 9
Bag 2 9
Bag 3 10
HFET 9
Non-Standard Settings
Degrees of
Test . Freedom
FTP
Bag 1
Bag 2
Bag 3
HFET
9
9
2
2
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
1
2
2
9 1
10 -0
9 1
HC
.084
.015
.900
.067
.888
A = 0;
HC
.513
.690
.009
.233
.559
A = 1;
HC
.946
.411
.983
.242
.755
-0
-0
0
0
1
HP
0
-0
1
1
3
HP
1
1
1
0
2
CO
.167
.353
.943
.484
.476
(§50 mph
t-Stati
CO
.050
.934
.291
.480
.515
NOx
-2.358
-1. 198
-2.021
-2.261
-2 . 694
= (Standard
stic
NOx
-1.946
0. 146
-2. 115
-2. 112
-3 .424
@ 50 mph = (Standard
t-Statistic
CO
.713
.112
.251
.569
.358
NOx
-4 . 639
-4 .202
-3.673
-3.996
-2.763
MPG
0.783
1.890
0.409
0.360
-0.334
+ 1)
MPG
-0.360
2 .412
-1.290
0.977
3 .032
+ D
MPG
1.180
1.287
0.687
1.549
1.503
NOTE: Underlined values denote statistical differences in the
test results at the 0.975 confidence level; i.e. the
absolute value is greater than 2.201 with 11 degrees of
freedom, 2.228 with 10 degrees of freedom and 2.262
with 9 degrees of freedom.
-------
-29-
Table 12
Electric Dynamometer Non-Standard Settings vs
Standard Settings
T-Test Statistics of Test Means
Test Vehicle: Oldsmobile Cutlass
Non-Standard Settings: A
Degrees of
1; HP @ 50 mph = Standard
t-Statistic
Test
Freedom
FTP 9 -0
Bag 1 9-0
Bag 2 9-0
Bag 3 9-0
HFET 10 -0
Non-Standard Settings:
Degrees of
Test Freedom
FTP 10 -1
Bag 1 10 -1
Bag 2 10 -0
Bag 3 10 -0
HFET 11 -1
Non-Standard Settings:
Degrees of
Test Freedom
FTP
Bag
Bag
Bag
HFET
1
2
3
10
10
10
10
10
-0
-0
0
-1
1
HC
.366
.047
.452
.607
.200
A = 0;
HC
.592
.483
.995
.390
.297
A = 1;
HC
.994
.933
.999
.185
.000
-0
0
-0
-2
0
HP
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
HP
-0
-0
-1
-1
0
CO
.201
.444
.552
.037
.267
<§ 50
t-
CO
NOx
-0.062
0.048
-0.194
0.158
0.622
mph =. (Standard
Statistic
NOx
.310 0.558
.154 0.592
.414 0.521
.356 0.611
.515 0.669
@ 50 mph = (Standard
t-Statistic
CO
.715
.081
.433
.384
.050
0
1
0
0
1
NOx
.957
. 137
.886
.935
.002
2
0
3
1
-0
+
2
2
1
3
2
+
5
3
4
3
3
MPG
.615
.586
. 131
.350
.814
1)
MPG
.294
.390
.274
.273
.765
1)
MPG
.085
.352
.132
.870
.344
NOTE: Underlined values denote statistical differences in the
test results at the 0.975 confidence level; i.e., the
absolute value is greater than 2.201 with 11 degrees of
freedom, 2.228 with 10 degrees of freedom and 2.262
with 9 degrees of freedom.
-------
-30-
increased,^loadings were for a decrease in fuel economy, an
increase in~ NOx emissions and a decrease in HC and CO
emissions. Since an increase in dynamometer loading causes an
increase in the work performed on the test cycles, a decrease
in fuel economy is to be expected. The increase in NOx
emissions is readily understandable by tracking the factors
involved; i.e., the increased dynamometer loading caused higher
combustion temperatures and pressures which resulted in greater
NOx formation in the engine and because the measured tailpipe
emissions increased an overpowering of the reducing catalyst.
The reductions in HC and CO emissions are most probably the
result of increased oxidzing catalyst activity. Factors which
could contribute to increased catalyst activity are the higher
combustion temperatures which would lead to earlier catalyst
light off and an increase in the volume of secondary air
because of later transmission upshifts caused by the increased
loading.
A similar inspection of the t-test statistics for the
Oldsmobile Cutlass (Table 12) data showed that all differences
were confined to fuel economy. With increased loading primarily
at low speeds (first option) the FTP and Bag 2 of the FTP fuel
economy values were statistically different. With increased
loading primarily at higher speeds (second option), with the
exception of Bag 2 of the FTP all fuel economy values were
different. Finally, with increased loading throughout the
speed range, all fuel economy values were statistically
different. Inspection of the mean fuel economy values in
Tables 8, 9 and 10 shows that in all cases where the mean
results were statistically different, the fuel economy was
lower when the load imposed by the dynamometer was higher. As
with the Ford Escort, these results are to be expected because
the vehicle's engine has to perform a greater quantity of work
with increased dynamometer loading and it would be expected
that fuel consumption would increase.
Comparison of Figures 4 and 5 shows that the alternative
dynamometer settings employed resulted in considerably smaller
percentage increases in the loads imposed on the Oldsmobile
than in those imposed on the Ford. The lack of statistically
significant differences in the emissions results when the
Cutlass was tested at the selected higher loadings indicates
that either the change in loading was not sufficient to
significantly impact engine out emissions or that changes in
engine out emissions were not large enough to exceed the
catalyst's control capacity.
In addition to the overall lower impact seen on the
Oldsmobile, .the alteinative dynamometer settings affected the
various measured parameters differently on the two vehicles.
For the 16 test results on the Ford and the 11 on the
Oldsmobile which weLc statistically impacted by change in
dynamometer loading, 'here were only two parameters common to
-------
-31-
both vehicles. The two cases of overlap occurred in fuel
economy differences in Bag 1 of the FTP and in the HFET when
the dynamometer PAU setting was increased by 1 hp at 50 mph but
without any change at the 0 mph point. This should not be
unexpected because differences, or the lack thereof, in the
test results stem from a change made in one component
(dynamometer load) of a total system which consists of the test
vehicle, including all of its systems (e.g., engine size, fuel
metering, EGR, catalyst, secondary air, transmission, etc.) and
the dynamometer. Since the test results are functions of the
interactive responses of the vehicle systems to changes in
loading applied by the dynamometer and since the response
functions of the systems will vary between vehicles, it is not
surprising that the test results are different.
6. Conclusions
The first phase of this study showed that, for the Escort
(vehicle was stable throughout the test program), there is no
statistical significance in differences between the test
results obtained on the electric dynamometer when set to
standard loading conditions relative to results obtained on a
hydrokinetic chassis dynamometer. For the Cutlass, which
exhibited a drift in test results during the test program, the
statistical differences in test results are probably
attributable to the vehicle. The second phase of the study
showed that statistically different test results can be
obtained as the loading characteristics of the electric
dynamometer are altered and that the differences are test
vehicle dependent. Since the test result differences are test
vehicle dependent, a generalized statement of where differences
can be expected to occur can not be developed.
-------
-32-
References
1. "Texas Transportation Institute Track Versus
Dynamometer Study", U.S. EPA, OANR, QMS, ECTD, SDSB, M.
Reineman and G. Thompson, SDSB-82-02, January 1983.
2. Statistics for the Social Sciences, 2nd Ed., by
William L. Hays, University of Georgia; Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, Inc., New York, NY, Publishers.
-------
Appendix A
Vehicle: Ford Escort
-------
Test Vehicle Description
Manufacturer:
Model, Year:
Body Style:
Chassis Configuration:
Engine:
Fuel Metering:
Transmission:
Tires:
Inertia Weight:
Ford Motor Co.
Ford Escort, 1984
3-Door Hatchback
Front Engine, Front
1.6 liter, 4-cycle
Carburetor, 2 bbl.
Automatic
P165/80 R13
2,500 Ibs.
Wheel Drive
-------
Table A-l
Vehicle:
Test
Date
06/01/84
06/07/84
06/13/84
06/20/84
08/01/84
08/15/84
Ford Escort
Test
Number
84-4251
84-4255
84-4257
84-4706
84-4717
84-4719
Odometer
(miles)
5280
5358
5465
5600
5981
6102
Dynamometer
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
: Hydrokinetic (D208)
Dynamometer
Act.
HP
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
Ind.
HP
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
X
S
Test: F
Coast down
Time (sec. )
Veh.
12.9
13.0
12.0
12.9
13.0
12.76
0.43
Dyno.
25.0
24.8
25.3
24.8
24.6
24.90
0.26
HC
0.32
0.31
0.32
0.31
0.28
0.31
0.308
0.015
TP - Composite
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
3.38
3.44
3.08
3.50
3.47
3.59
3.410
0.176
NOx
0.70
0.66
0.70
0.73
0.69
0.68
0.693
0.023
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
26.06
26.36
26.09
26.51
26.44
26.27
26.29
0.18
Table A-2
Vehicle:
Test
Date
05/17/84
06/14/84
06/26/84
07/17/84
08/31/84
Ford Escort
Test
Number
84-4211
84-4259
84-4708
84-4712
84-6081
Odometer
(miles)
5045
5498
5705
5893
6309
Dynamometer
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
: Electric (D214)
Standard Settings
(A = 0; HP @ 50 MPH
Dynamometer
Act.
HP
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
Ind.
HP
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
X
S
Test: FTP - Composite
= Std.)
Coast down
Time (sec. )
Veh.
11.9
11.1
12.8
11.7
12.1
11.92
0.62
Dyno.
23.9
23.9
23.9
23.9
23.9
23.90
0.00
HC
0.28
0.28
0.30
0.31
0.31
0.296
0.015
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
3.44
3.02
2.93
3.13
3.78
3.260
0.349
NOx
0.64
0.72
0.63
0.64
0.69
0.664
0.039
Fuel
Economy .
(MPG)
26.06
26.42
26.43
26.17
26.80
26.38
0.29
-------
Table A-3
Vehicle:
Ford Escort
Dynamometer: Electric (D214)
Test: FTP - Composite
First Alternative Setting
(A = 1; HP @ 50 MPH = Std. )
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/18/84
06/06/84
06/15/84
07/10/84
07/19/84
08/17/84
09/11/84
Test
Number
84-4247
84-4253
84-4704
84-4710
84-4715
84-5797
84-6240
Odometer
(miles)
5115
5325
5531
5787
5933
6168
6386
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
X
S
Ind.
HP
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
Time
Veh.
_
10.9
11.2
11.0
12.2
11.7
11.9
11.48
0.53
(sec. )
Dyno.
_
23.6
23.9
23.7
23.8
24.0
23.8
23.80
0.14
Emissions
HC
0.29
0.27
0.27
0.30
0.28
0.27
0.28
0.286
0.012
(g/mile)
CO
3.95
3.15
2.63
3.22
3.47
3.20
3.46
3.297
0.401
NOx
0.75
0.72
0.84
0.67
0.68
0.73
0.74
0.733
0.056
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
25.77
26.25
26.63
26.16
26.06
26.40
26.45
26.25
0.28
-------
Table A-4
Vehicle:
Ford Escort
Dynamometer
: Electric (D214)
Second Alternative Setting
(A = 0; HP @ 50 MPH = (Std +
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/23/84
06/08/84
06/22/84
07/11/84
08/03/84
08/21/84
Test
Number
84-4234
84-4238
84-4244
84-4246
84-4977
84-4979
Odometer
(miles)
5168
5392
5665
5820
6051
6209
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Act.
HP
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
X
S
Ind.
HP
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
Test: FTP - Composite
D)
Coast down
Time
Veh.
10.1
10.7
11.2
11.1
11.0
10.7
10.80
0.40
(sec. )
Dyno.
20.6
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.68
0.04
HC
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.27
0.26
0.277
0.010
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
3.22
3.16
3.64
3.10
3.22
3.17
3.252
0.195
NOx
0.70
0.66
0.74
0.69
0.77
0.70
0.710
0.039
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
26.80
26.56
26.11
26.10
26.96
26.17
26.45
0.38
Table A-5
Vehicle:
Ford Escort
Dynamometer
: Electric (D214)
Third
(A =
Test: FTP - Composite
Alternative Setting
1; HP §
50 MPH
= (Std +
D)
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/24/84
06/12/84
06/21/84
07/12/84
08/02/84
08/29/84
Test
Number
84-4236
84-4240
84-4242
84-4973
84-4975
84-4981
Odometer
(miles)
5200
5432
5633
5853
6014
6269
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
X
S
Ind.
HP
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
Time
Veh.
10.3
10.8
9.8
12.1
10.9
11.2
10.85
0.79
(sec. )
Dyno.
20.6
20.5
20.5
20.7
20.5
20.5
20.55
0.08
HC
0.28
0.27
0.29
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.273
0.010
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
2.78
2.60
3.04
3.15
3.24
2.93
2.957
0.238
NOx
0.76
0.81
0.73
0.73
0.79
0.76
0.763
0.032
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
25.99
26.16
25.95
26.33
26.24
26.52
26.20
0.21
OJ
-------
Table A-6
Vehicle:
Test
Date
06/01/84
06/07/84
06/13/84
06/20/84
08/01/84
08/15/84
Ford Escort
Test
Number
84-4251
84-4255
84-4257
84-4706
84-4717
84-4719
Odometer
(miles)
5280
5358
5465
5600
5981
6102
Dynamometer
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
: Hydrokinetic
Dynamometer
Act.
HP
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
X
S
Ind.
HP
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
(D208)
Test: F
Coast down
Time (sec. )
Veh.
12.9
13.0
12.0
12.9
13.0
12.76
0.43
Dyno.
25.0
24.8
25.3
24.8
24.6
24.90
0.26
HC
0.66
0.73
0.69
0.67
0.64
0.66
0.675
0.031
TP - Bag 1
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
10.80
12.05
9.95
12.53
11.39
11.11
11.306
0.916
NOx
1.14
1.02
1.11
1.14
1.04
1.02
1.078
0.058
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
24.1
23.8
23.9
23.6
23.4
23.9
23.78
0.25
Table A-7
Vehicle:
Test
Date
05/17/84
06/14/84
06/26/84
07/17/84
08/31/84
Ford Escort
Test
Number
84-4211
84-4259
84-4708
84-4712
84-6081
Odometer
(miles)
5045
5498
5705
5893
6309
Dynamometer
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
: Electric (D214)
Standard Settings
(A = 0; HP § 50 MPH
Dynamometer
Act.
HP
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
X
S
Ind.
HP
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
Test: FTP - Bag 1
= Std)
Coast down
Time (sec.)
Veh.
11.9
11.1
12.8
11.7
12.1
11.92
0.62
Dyno.
23.9
23.9
23.9
23.9
23.9
23.90
0.00
HC
0.65
0.65
0..65
0.76
0.69
0.680
0.048
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
13.67
9.66
9.47
10.51
12.78
11.218
1.900
NOx
1.08
1.06
1.02
1.01
1.10
1.054
0.038
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
23.5
24.2
24.3
23.8
23.9
23.94
0.32
-------
Table A-8
Vehicle:
Ford Escort
Dynamometer: Electric (D214)
Test: FTP - Baq 1
First Alternative Setting
(A = 1; HP @ 50 MPH = Std. )
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/18/84
06/06/84
06/15/84
07/10/84
07/18/84
07/19/84
08/17/84
09/11/84
Test
Number
84-4247
84-4253
84-4704
84-4710
84-4714
84-4715
84-5797
84-6240
Odometer
(miles)
5115
5325
5531
5787
5926
5933
6168
6386
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
X
s
Ind.
HP
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
Time
Veh.
_
10.9
11.2
11.0
-
12.2
11.7
11.9
11.48
0.53
(sec. )
Dyno.
_
23.6
23.9
23.7
-
23.8
24.0
23.8
23.80
0.14
Emissions
HC
0.71
0.61
0.60
0.64
0.57
0.61
0.63
0.66
0.629
0.043
(g/mile)
CO
14.61
10.71
9.91
11.64
10.27
11.93
10.98
12.35
11.550
1.489
NOx
1.13
1.04
1.31
1.07
1.10
1.05
1.10
1.04
1.105
0.089
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
23.0
24.1
24.0
23.6
23.7
23.3
23.4
23.4
23.56
0.37
Ln
-------
Table A-9
Vehicle:
Ford Escort
Dynamometer
: Electric (D214)
Second Alternative Setting
(A = 0; HP @ 50 MPH = (Std +
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/23/84
06/08/84
06/22/84
07/11/84
08/03/84
08/21/84
Test
Number
84-4234
84-4238
84-4244
84-4246
84-4977
84-4979
Odometer
(miles)
5168
5392
5665
5820
6051
6209
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Test: FTP - Baq 1
D)
Coast down
Act.
HP
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
X
S
Ind.
HP
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
Time
Veh.
10.1
10.7
11.2
11.1
11.0
10.7
10.80
0.40
(sec. )
Dyno.
20.6
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.68
0.04
HC
0.62
0.60
0.70
0.62
0.59
0.63
0.627
0.039
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
12.29
11.75
13.34
11.64
11.39
11.57
11.997
0.725
NOx
1.09
0.96
1.08
1.04
1.04
1.09
1.050
0.050
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
23.5
23.7
23.0
23.5
23.9
23.2
23.47
0.33
Table A-10
Vehicle:
Ford Escort
Dynamometer
: Electric (D214)
Third
(A =
Test: FTP - Bag 1
Alternative Setting
1; HP @
50 MPH
= (Std +
D)
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/24/84
06/12/84
06/21/84
07/12/84
08/02/84
08/29/84
Test
Number
84-4236
84-4240
84-4242
84-4973
84-4975
84-4981
Odometer
(miles)
5200
5432
5633
5853
6014
6269
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Act.
HP
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
X
S
Ind.
HP
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
Coast down
Time
Veh.
10.3
10.8
9.8
12.1
10.9
11.2
10.85
0.79
(sec. )
Dyno.
20.6
20.5
20.5
20.7
20.5
20.5
20.55
0.08
HC
0.61
0.59
0.70
0.59
0.61
0.55
0.608
0..050
Emissions
{g/mile)
CO
10.41
8.75
9.95
10.49
11.92
9.79
10.218
1.041
NOx
1.22
1.19
1.13
1.11
1.13
1.16
1.157
0.042
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
23.5
24.3
23.7
23.9
23.3
23.2
23.65
0.41
-------
Table A-ll
Vehicle:
Test
Date
06/01/84
06/07/84
06/13/84
06/20/84
08/01/84
08/15/84
Ford Escort
Test Odometer
Number (miles)
84-4251
84-4255
84-4257
84-4706
84-4717
84-4719
5280
5358
5465
5600
5981
6102
Dynamometer; Hydrokinetic (D208)
Dynamometer
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Act.
HP
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
X
S
Ind.
HP
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
Table
Coast down
Time (sec. )
Veh.
12.9
13.0
12.0
12.9
13.0
12.76
0.43
A-12
Dyno.
25.0
24.8
25.3
24.8
24.6
24.90
0.26
Test: FTP
Em
(
HC
0.15
0.16
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.140
0.013
- Bag 2
lissions
g/mile)
CO
0.27
0.28
0.28
0.14
0.20
0.36
0.255
0.076
NOx
0.65
0.61
0.62
0.67
0.62
0.61
0.630
0.024
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
25.6
25.9
25.6
26.4
26.4
26.0
25.93
0.36
Vehicle: Ford Escort
Dynamometer: Electric (D214)
Test: FTP - Bag 2
Standard Settings
(A = 0; HP @ 50 MPH
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/17/84
06/14/84
06/26/84
07/17/84
08/31/84
Test
Number
84-4211
84-4259
84-4708
84-4712
84-6081
Odometer
(miles)
5045
5498
5705
5893
6309
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
= Std.)
Coast down
Act.
HP
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
X
S
Ind.
HP
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
Time
Veh.
11.9
11.1
12.8
11.7
12.1
11.92
0.62
(sec. )
Dyno.
23.9
23.9
23.9
23.9
23.9
23.90
0.00
Emissions
HC
0.15
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.13
0.140
0.010
(g/mile)
CO
0.26
0.29
0.43
0.31
0.23
0.304
0.077
NOx
0.55
0.66
0.54
0.57
0.62
0.588
0.051
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
25.7
26.2
26.1
26.0
27.0
26.20
0.49
-------
Table A-13
Vehicle:
Ford Escort
Dynamometer: Electric (D214)
Test: FTP - Bag 2
First Alternative Setting
(A = 1; HP @ 50 MPH = Std. )
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/18/84
06/06/84
06/15/84
07/10/84
07/18/84
07/19/84
08/17/84
09/11/84
Test
Number
84-4247
84-4253
84-4704
84-4710
84-4714
84-4715
84-5797
84-6240
Odometer
(miles)
5115
5325
5531
5787
5926
5933
6168
6386
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
X
S
Ind.
HP
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
Time
Veh.
_
10.9
11.2
11.0
-
12.2
11.7
11.9
11.48
0.53
(sec. )
Dyno.
_
23.6
23.9
23.7
-
23.8
24.0
23.8
23.80
0.14
Emissions
HC
0.14
0.15
0.13
0.16
0.12
0.13
0.11
0.12
0.133
0.017
(g/mile)
CO
0.34
0.29
0.13
0.40
0.18
0.27
0.17
0.28
0.258
0.092
NOx
0.69
0.69
0.74
0.60
0.5.9
0.60
0.63
0.65
0.649
0.054
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
25.8
25.8
26.4
25.9
26.2
25.9
26.4
26.5
26.11
0.30
00
-------
Table A-14
Vehicle:
Ford Escort
Dynamometer
: Electric (D214)
Second Alternative Setting
(A = 0; HP @ 50 MPH = (Std +
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/23/84
06/08/84
06/22/84
07/11/84
08/03/84
08/21/84
Vehicle:
Test
Number
84-4234
84-4238
84-4244
84-4246
84-4977
84-4979
Ford Escort
Odometer
(miles)
5168
5392
5665
5820
6051
6209
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Dynamometer
Act.
HP
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
X
S
Test: FTP - Bag 2
D)
Coast down
Ind. Time
HP Veh.
5.4 10.1
5.4 10.7
5.4 11.2
5.4 11.1
5.4 11.0
5.4 10.7
10.80
0.40
Table A-15
(sec. )
Dyno.
20.6
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.68
0.04
: Electric (D214)
Third
(A =
HC
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.17
0.10
0.11
0.128
0.024
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
0.21
0.27
0.21
0.40
0.18
0.17
0.240
0.086
NOx
0.63
0.61
0.67
0.64
0.71
0.61
0.645
0.039
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
27.1
26.6
26.3
25.9
27.2
26.4
26.58
0.50
Test: FTP - Bag 2
Alternative Setting
1; HP @ 50 MPH
= (Std +
D>
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/24/84
06/12/84
06/21/84
07/12/84
08/02/84
08/29/84
Test
Number
84-4236
84-4240
84-4242
84-4973
84-4975
84-4981
Odometer
(miles)
5200
5432
5633
5853
6014
6269
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
X
S
Ind. Time
HP Veh.
5.4 10.3
5.4 10.8
5.4 9.8
5.4 12.1
5.4 10.9
5.4 11.2
10.85
0.79
(sec. )
Dyno.
20.6
20.5
20.5
20.7
20.5
20.5
20.55
0.08
HC
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.10
0.11
0.123
0.016
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
0.21
0.33
0.37
0.23
0.14
0.15
0.238
0.094
NOx
0.65
0.74
0.66
0.66
0.70
0.68
0.682
0.034
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
25.8
25.5
25.6
26.1
26.2
26.8
26.00
0.48
-------
Table A-16
Vehicle:
Ford Escort
Dynamometer
: Hydrokinetic (D208)
Test: FTP - Bag 3
Dynamometer
Test
Date
06/01/84
06/07/84
06/13/84
06/20/84
08/01/84
08/15/84
Vehicle:
Test
Number
84-4251
84-4255
84-4257
84-4706
84-4717
84-4719
Ford Escort
Odometer
(miles)
5280
5358
5465
5600
5981
6102
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Dynamometer
Coast down
Act.
HP
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
X
S
Ind. Time
HP Veh.
4.2 12.9
4.2 13.0
4.2 12.0
4.2
4.2 12.9
4.2 13.0
12.76
0.43
Table A-17
(sec. )
Dyno.
25.0
24.8
25.3
-
24.8
24.6
24.90
0.26
: Electric (D214)
Emissions
HC
0.37
0.29
0.36
0.36
0.30
0.38
0.343
0.038
(g/mile)
CO
3.70
2.93
3.19
3.11
3.71
4.02
3.443
0.426
NOx
0.45
0.48
0.53
0.55
0.56
0.55
0.520
0.045
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
28.8
29.7
29.3
29.4
29.2
29.1
29.25
0.30
Test: FTP - Bag 3
Standard Settings
(A =
0; HP @ 50 MPH
= Std. )
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/17/84
05/30/84
06/14/84
06/26/84
07/17/84
08/31/84
Test
Number
84-4211
84-4250
84-4259
84-4708
84-4712
84-6081
Odometer
(miles)
5045
5240
5498
5705
5893
6309
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
X
S
Ind. Time
HP Veh.
4.4 11.9
4.4
4.4 11.1
4.4 12.8
4.4 11.7
4.4 12.1
11.92
0.62
(sec. )
Dyno.
23.9
-
23.9
23.9
23.9
23.9
23.90
0.00
Emissions
HC
0.25
0.31
0.28
0.32
0.27
0.36
0.298
0.040
(g/mile)
CO
1.75
2.72
3.20
2.72
2.89
3.64
2.820
0.630
NOx
0.48
0.58
0.56
0.50
0.50
0.51
0.522
0.039
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
29.1
29.5
29.0
28.9
28.9
29.2
29.10
0.24
-------
Table A-18
Vehicle:
Ford Escort
Dynamometer: Electric (D214)
Test: FTP - Bag 3
First Alternative Setting
(A = 1; HP @ 50 MPH = Std. )
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/18/84
06/06/84
06/15/84
07/10/84
07/19/84
08/17/84
09/11/84
Test
Number
84-4247
84-4253
84-4704
84-4710
84-4715
84-5797
84-6240
Odometer
(miles)
5115
5325
5531
5787
5933
6168
6386
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
X
s
Ind.
HP
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
Time
Veh.
_
10.9
11.2
11.0
12.2
11.7
11.9
11.48
0.53
(sec. )
Dyno.
_
23.6
23.9
23.7
23.8
24.0
23.8
23.80
0.14
Emissions
HC
0.27
0.26
0.30
0.30
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.297
0.024
(g/mile)
CO
2.77
2.84
1.93
2.24
3.05
3.09
2.82
2.677
0.431
NOx
0.56
0.52
0.70
0.53
0.56
0.64
0.71
0.603
0.080
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
28.4
29.0
29.4
29.0
29.0
29.2
29.3
29.04
0.33
-------
Table A-19
Vehicle: Ford Escort
Dynamometer: Electric (D214)
Test: FTP - Bag 3
Second Alternative Setting
(A = 0; HP § 50 MPH = (Std +
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/23/84
06/08/84
06/22/84
07/11/84
08/03/84
08/21/84
Test
Number
84-4234
84-4238
84-4244
84-4246
84-4977
84-4979
Odometer
(miles)
5168
5392
5665
5820
6051
6209
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Act.
HP
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
X
S
Ind.
HP
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
D)
Coast down
Time
Veh.
10.1
10.7
11.2
11.1
11.0
10.7
10.80
0.40
(sec. )
Dyno.
20.6
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.68
0.04
HC
0.28
0.33
0.25
0.28
0.34
0.28
0.293
0.034
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
2.09
2.21
2.82
1.76
2.78
2.52
2.363
0.417
NOx
0.54
0.54
0:60
0.54
0.68
0.58
0.580
0.055
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
29.3
29.3
28.6
28.8
29.1
28.5
28.93
0.35
Table A-20
Vehicle:
Ford Escort
Dynamometer
: Electric (D214)
Third
(A =
Test: FTP - Bag 3
Alternative Setting
1; HP @
50 MPH
= (Std +
D)
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/24/84
06/12/84
06/21/84
07/12/84
08/02/84
08/29/84
Test
Number
84-4236
84-4240
84-4242
84-4973
84-4975
84-4981
Odometer
(miles)
5200
5432
5633
5853
6014
6269
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
X
S
Ind.
HP
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
Time
Veh.
10.3
10.8
9.8
12.1
10.9
11.2
10.85
0.79
(sec. )
Dyno.
20.6
20.5
20.5
20.7
20.5
20.5
20.55
0.08
HC
0.31
0.26
0.27
0.32
0.34
0.32
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
1.90
2.25
2.91
3.15
2.57
3.03
0.303 2.635
0.031
0.488
NOx
0.64
Q.66
0.56
0.59
0.69
0.60
0.623
0.048
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
28.7
29.2
28.6
28.9
29.0
29.0
28.90
0.22
KJ
-------
Table A-21
Vehicle:
Ford Escort
Dynamometer
: Hydrokinetic (D208)
Test : HFET
Dynamometer
Test
Date
06/01/84
06/07/84
06/13/84
06/20/84
08/01/84
08/15/84
Vehicle:
Test
Numbe r
84-4252
84-4256
84-4258
84-4707
84-4718
84-4720
Ford Escort
Odometer
(miles)
5292
5369
5476
5611
5992
6113
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Dynamometer
Coast down
Act.
HP
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
X
S
Ind. Time
HP Veh.
4.2 12.9
4.2 13.0
4.2 12.0
4.2
4.2 12.9
4.2 13.0
12.76
0.43
Table A-22
(sec. )
Dyno.
25.0
24.8
25.3
-
24.8
24.6
24.90
0.26
: Electric (D214)
HC
0.061
0.064
0.061
0.067
0.054
0.069
0.063
0.005
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
0.08
0.17
0.44
0.16
0.05
0.20
0.183
0.138
NOx
0.28
0.25
0.27
0.27
0.38
0.28
0.288
0.046
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
37.21
37.34
37.44
37.19
37.70
36.87
37.29
0.28
Test : HFET
Standard Settings
(A =
0; HP @ 50 MPH
= Std.)
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/30/84
06/14/84
06/26/84
07/17/84
08/16/84
Test
Number
84-4249
84-4259
84-4709
84-4713
84-5776
Odometer
(miles)
5251
5498
5712
5904
6146
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
X
S
Ind. Time
HP Veh.
4.4
4.4 11.1
4.4 12.8
4.4 11.7
4.4
11.92
0.62
(sec. )
Dyno.
_
23.9
23.9
23.9
-
23.90
0.00
HC
0.063
0.055
0.063
0.079
0.060
0.064
0.009
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
0.23
0.19
0.15
0.28
0.30
0.230
0.062
NOx
0.25
0.28
0.24
0.27
0.29
0.266
0.021
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
37.49
37.82
37.51
37.15
36.70
37.33
0.43
U)
-------
Table A-23
Vehicle:
Ford Escort
Dynamometer: Electric (D214)
Test : HFET
First Alternative Setting
(A = 1; HP § 50 MPH = Std. )
Dynamometer
Test
Date
06/06/84
06/15/84
07/10/84
07/19/84
08/17/84
09/11/84
09/12/84
Test
Number
84-4253
84-4705
84-4711
84-4716
84-5798
84-6241
84-6265
Odometer
(miles)
5336
5564
5798
5945
6180
6398
6420
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
X
S
Ind.
HP
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
Time
Veh.
10.9
11.2
11.0
12.2
11.7
11.9
-
11.48
0.53
(sec. )
Dyno.
23.6
23.9
23.7
23.8
24.0
23.8
-
23.80
0.14
Emissions
HC
0.064
0.058
0.060
0.052
0.051
0.057
0.054
0.057
0.005
(g/mile)
CO
0.12
0.08
0.12
0.20
0.06
0.38
0.07
0.147
0.113
NOx
0.28
0.38
0.26
0.31
0.37
0.33
0.39
0.331
0.051
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
37.83
38.34
37.52
37.34
36.76
37.14
37.06
37.43
0.53
-------
Table A-24
Vehicle: Ford Escort
Dynamometer; Electric (D214)
Test: HFET
Second Alternative Setting
(A = 0; HP @ 50 MPH = (Std +
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/23/84
06/08/84
06/22/84
07/11/84
08/03/84
08/21/84
Vehicle:
Test
Number
84-4235
84-4239
84-4245
84-4972
84-4978
84-4980
Ford Escort
Odometer
(miles)
5178
5404
5676
5831
6058
6221
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Dynamometer
Coast down
Act.
HP
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
X
s
Ind. Time
HP Veh.
5.4 10.1
5.4 10.7
5.4 11.2
5.4 11.1
5.4 11.0
5.4 10.7
10.80
0.40
Table A-25
(sec. )
Dyno.
20.6
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.7
20.68
0.04
: Electric (D214)
Third
(A =
D)
Emissions
HC
0.060
0.058
0.061
0.064
0.048
0.049
0.057
0.007
(g/mile)
CO
0.18
0.09
0.14
0.14
0.05
0.06
0.110
0.051
NOx
0.30
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.43
0.37
0.345
0.048
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
37.19
36.60
36.73
36.43
36.02
35.72
36.45
0.52
Test : HFET
Alternative Setting
1; HP @ 50 MPH
= (Std +
D)
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/24/84
06/12/84
06/21/84
08/02/84
08/29/84
09/07/84
Test
Number
84-4237
84-4241
84-4243
84-4976
84-4982
84-6177
Odometer
(miles)
5211
5443
5644
6025
6280
6357
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
X
S
Ind. Time
HP Veh.
5.4 10.3
5.4 10.8
5.4 9.8
5.4 10.9
5.4 11.2
5.4
10.60
0.55
(sec. )
Dyno.
20.6
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.52
0.05
Emissions
HC
0.053
0.066
0.060
0.050
0.051
0.056
0.056
0.006
(g/mile)
CO
0.07
0.28
0.11
0.04
0.07
0.15
0.120
0.087
NOx
0.36
0.30
0.29
0.48
0.33
0.37
0.355
0.069
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
38.02
36.85
36.59
36.16
36.45
36.89
36.83
0.64
en
-------
Appendix B
Vehicle: Oldsmobile Cutlass
-------
Test Vehicle Description
Manufacturer:
Model, Year:
Body Style:
Chassis Configuration:
Engine:
Fuel Metering:
Transmission:
Tires:
Inertia Weight:
General Motors Corporation
Oldsmobile Cutlass, 1975
4-Door Sedan
Front Engine, Rear Wheel Drive
3.8 liter, V-6
Carburetor, 2 bbl.
Automatic
P195/75 R14
3,500 Ibs.
-------
Table B-l
Vehicle:
Test
Date
06/07/84
06/12/84
06/19/84
06/27/84
07/11/84
08/07/84
8/24/84
Oldsmobile
Test
Number
. 84-3917
84-4662
84-4664
84-4670
84-4672
84-4998
84-5002
Cutlass
Odometer
(miles)
38681
38759
38819
39029
39154
39342
39500
Dynamometer
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
: Hydrokinetic (D208)
Test: FTP - Composite
Dynamometer
Coast down
Act.
HP
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
Ind.
HP
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
X
S
Time
Veh.
11.6
11.7
11.9
12.4
12.2
12.4
12.1
12.04
0.32
(sec. )
Dyno.
17.5
17.5
17.6
17.4
17.6
16.9
17.0
17.36
0.29
HC
0.84
0.79
0.80
0.75
0.74
0.74
0.66
0.760
0.057
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
7.88
7.02
6.61
6.85
7.26
6.99
5.27
6.840
0.799
NOx
3.62
3.87
3.95
4.11
4.41.
5.21
5.81
4.426
0.797
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
19.70
20.04
20.11
20.15
19.98
20.05
19.87
19.99
0.16
Table B-2
Vehicle:
Oldsmobile
Cutlass
Dynamometer
: Electric
Standard
(A
(D214)
Settings
= 0; HP @ 50 MPH
Test: FTP Composite
= Std.)
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/24/84
06/22/84
07/17/84
08/08/84
08/29/84
09/12/84
Test
Number
84-3915
84-4666
84-4994
84-5000
84-6050
84-6263
Odometer
(miles)
38613
38954
39193
39374
39550
39715
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
12.2
12.2
12.0
12.2
12.2
12.2
Ind.
HP
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
X
S
Time
Veh.
11.8
12.2
12.4
12.1
12.0
12.2
12.12
0.20
(sec. )
Dyno.
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.30
0.00
HC
0.72
0.74
0.68
0.66
0.72
0.67
0.698
0.033
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
6.07
6.04
6.18
6.00
5.85
5.56
5.950
0.219
NOx
3.67
3.91
4.15
4.80
5.74
6.45
4.787
1.104
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
19.89
20.21
20.35
20.09
20.23
20.35
20.19
0.18
-------
Table B-3
Vehicle: Oldsmobile Cutlass
Dynamometer:
Electric (D214)
First Alternative Setting
(A = 1; HP § 50 MPH = Std. )
Dynamometer
Test: FTP - Composite
Test
Date
06/08/84
06/26/84
07/18/84
08/30/84
09/04/84
Test
Number
84-3919
84-4668
84-4996
84-6067
84-6116
Odometer
(miles)
38714
38994
39224
39582
39626
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Act.
HP
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
X
S
Ind.
HP
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
Coastdown
Time (sec. )
Veh.
11.9
12.0
12.1
12.3
12.1
12.08
0.15
Dyno.
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.30
0.00
Emissions
(g/mile)
HC
0.81
0.80
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.712
0.085
CO
6.97
7.15
5.46
6.16
4.47
6.042
1.108
NOx
3.47
4.02
4.57
5.72
6.37
4.830
1.198
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
19.91
19.81
19.99
19.72
20.15
19.92
0.17
-------
Table B-4
Vehicle: Oldsmobile Cutlass
Dynamometer:
Electric (D214)
Second Alternative Setting
(A = 0; HP @ 50 MPH = (Std. + 1))
Dynamometer
Test: FTP - Composite
Test
Date
05/11/84
06/13/84
07/05/84
07/25/84
08/17/84
09/07/84
Test
Number
84-3943
84-3949
84-3955
84-3959
84-3963
84-6175
Odometer
(miles)
38349
38792
39082
39272
39421
39665
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
X
S
Ind.
HP
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
Table
Time (sec.)
Veh.
11.5
11.6
11.5
11.8
-
11.5
11.58
0.13
B-5
Dyno.
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
-
16.1
16.02
0.05
Emissions
(g/mile)
HC
0.91
0.74
1.04
0.67
0.78
0.65
0.798
0.150
CO
9.47
6.71
8.03
5.51
6.04
5.23
6.832
1.634
NOx
3.15
3.33
3.84
4.69
5.16
6.31
4.413
1,211
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
19.25
19.98
19.93'
20.12
19.75
20.05
19.85
0.32
Vehicle: Oldsmobile Cutlass
Dynamometer:
Electric (D214)
Third Alternative Setting
(A = 0; HP @ 50 MPH = (Std. +
Dynamometer
Test: FTP - Composite
D)
Test
Date
05/22/84
06/14/84
16/15/84
07/10/84
07/26/84
08/23/84
Test
Number
84-3947
84-3951
84-3953
84-3957
84-3961
84-5978
Odometer
(miles)
38549
38823
38863
39122
39303
39468
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Act.
HP
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
X
S
Ind.
HP
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
Coast down
Time (sec. )
Veh.
11.3
11.4
11.4
11.6
11.8
11.5
11.50
0.18
Dyno.
16.0
15.9
15.9
15.9
16.0
16.0
15.95
0.06
Emissions
(g/mile)
HC
0.80
0.84
0.66
0.74
0.66
0.69
0.732
0.075
CO
7.64
6.77
4.54
7.06
5.49
6.21
6.285
1.127
Fuel
Economy
NOx
3.54
3.61
3.71
4.21
4.98
5.47
4.253
0.804
(MPG)
19.30
19.74
19.87
19.64
19.63
19.71
19.65
0.19
OJ
-------
Table B-6
Vehicle:
Oldsmobile
Cutlass
Dynamometer
: Hydrokinetic (D208)
Test: FTP - Baa 1
Dynamometer
Test
Date
06/07/84
06/12/84
06/19/84
06/27/84
07/11/84
08/07/84
08/24/84
Test
Number
84-3917
84-4662
84-4664
84-4670
84-4672
84-4998
84-5002
Odometer
(miles)
38681
38759
38819
39029
39154
39342
39500
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
X
S
Ind.
HP
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
Time
Veh.
11.6
11.7
11.9
12.4
12.2
12.4
12.1
12.04
0.32
(sec. )
Dyno.
17.5
17.5
17.6
17.4
17.6
16.9
17.0
17.36
0.29
HC
2.47
2.33
2.27
2.24
2.27
2.35
1.87
2.257
0.187
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
29.28
27.41
26.90
27.75
28.86
29.22
23.50
27.560
2.016
NOx
3.10
3.32
3.37
3.48
3.66
4.36
5.19
3.783
0.738
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
17.1
17.5
17.7
17.7
17.4
17.5
17.5
17.49
0.20
Table B-7
Vehicle:
Oldsmobile
Cutlass
Dynamometer
: Electric
Standard
(A =
(D214)
Settings
0; HP @ 50 MPH
Test: FTP - Bag 1
= Std.)
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/24/84
06/22/84
07/17/84
08/08/84
08/29/84
09/12/84
Test
Number
84-3915
84-4666
84-4994
84-5000
84-6050
84-6263
Odometer
(miles)
38613
38954
39193
39374
39550
39715
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
12.2
12.2
12.0
12.2
12.2
12.2
X
S
Ind.
HP
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
Time
Veh.
11.8
12.2
12.4
12.1
12.0
12.2
12.12
0.20
(sec.)
Dyno.
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.30
0.00
HC
2.19
2.19
2.19
2.08
2.11
1.91
2.112
0.110
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
25.41
25.90
27.11
25.63
25.70
25.07
25.803
0.700
NOx
3.26
3.40
3.53
4.06
5.11
6.14
4.250
1.146
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
17.8
17.9
17.8
17.6
17.6
17.6
17.72
0.13
-------
Vehicle: Oldsmobile Cutlass
Dynamometer:
Table B-8
Electric (D214)
First Alternative Setting
(A = 1; HP @ 50 MPH = Std.)
Dynamometer
Test: FTP - Bag 1
Test
Date
06/08/84
06/26/84
07/18/84
08/30/84
09/04/84
Test
Number
84-3919
84-4668
84-4996
84-6067
84-6116
Odometer
(miles)
38714
38994
39224
39582
39626 '
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Act.
HP
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
X
S
Ind.
HP
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
Coast down
Time (sec.)
Veh.
11.9
12.0
12.1
12.3
12.1
12.08
0.15
Dyno.
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.30
0.00
Emissions
(g/mile)
HC
2.32
2.57
1.93
1.94
1.83
2.118
0.314
CO
28.00
27.90
23.54
26.35
20.15
25.188
3.343
NOx
3.00
3.40
3.73
5.10
5.85
4.216
1.207
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
17.7
17.6
17.7
17.2
18.0
17.64
0.29
V
en
-------
Table B-9
Vehicle: Oldsmobile Cutlass
Dynamometer:
Electric (D214)
Second Alternative Setting
(A = 0; HP @ 50 MPH = (Std. +1))
Test; FTP - Bag 1
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/11/84
06/13/84
07/05/84
07/25/84
08/17/84
09/07/84
Vehicle :
Test
Number
84-3943
84-3949
84-3955
84-3959
84-3963
84-6175
Oldsmobile
Odometer
(miles)
38349
38792
39082
39272
39421
39665
Cutlass
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Dynamometer
Coast down
Act.
HP
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
X
S
Ind. Time
HP Veh.
11.1 11.5
11.1 11.6
11.1 11.5
11.1 11.8
11.1
11.1 11.5
11.58
0.13
Table B-10
(sec. )
Dyno.
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
-
16.1
16.02
0.05
: Electric (D214)
Third
(A =
HC
2.61
2.30
3.64
1.97
2.68
1.85
2.508
0.646
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
33.70
26.93
31.85
24.23
26.32
23.59
27.770
4.114
NOx
2.77
2.97
3.18
3.93
4.36
5.91
3.853
1.175
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
17.2
17.5
17.6
17.8
17.1
17.4
17.43
0.26
Test: FTP - Bag 1
Alternative Setting
1; HP @ 50 MPH
= (Std.
+D)
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/22/84
06/14/84
06/15/84
07/10/84
07/26/84
08/23/84
Test
Number
84-3947
84-3951
84-3953
84-3957
84-3961
84-5978
Odometer
(miles)
38549
38823
38863
39122
39303
39468
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
X
S
Ind. Time
HP Veh.
11.1 11.3
11.1 11.4
11.1 11.4
11.1 11.6
11.1 11.8
11.1 11.5
11.50
0.18
(sec. )
Dyno.
16.0
15.9
15.9
15.9
16.0
16.0
15.95
0.06
HC
2.43
2.47
2.00
2.36
1.91
2.10
2.212
0.239
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
30.39
25.28
19.26
28.78
24.23
27.68
25.937
3.972
NOx
3.14
3.18
3.36
3.43
4.22
4.57
3.650
0.597
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
17.2
17.6
17.6
17.4
17.4
17.1
17.38
0.20
-------
Table B-ll
Vehicle:
Test
Date
06/07/84
06/12/84
06/19/84
06/27/84
07/11/84
08/07/84
08/24/84
Vehicle :
Oldsmobile
Test
Number
84-3917
84-4662
84-4664
84-4670
84-4672
84-4998
84-5002
Oldsmobile
Cutlass
Odometer
(miles)
38681
38759
38817
39029
39154
39342
39500
Cutlass
Dynamometer
•
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Dynamometer
: Hydrokinetic (D208)
Dynamometer
Test: FTP - Bag 2
Coast down
Act
HP
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
Ind. Time
HP Veh.
10.1 11.6
10.1 11.7
10.1 11.9
10.1 12.4
10.1 12.2
10.1 12.4
10.1 12.1
X 12.04
S 0.32
Table B-12
(sec. )
Dyno.
17.5
17.5
17.6
17.4
17.6
16.9
17.0
17.36
0.29
: Electric (D214)
HC
0.33
0.30
0.27
0.28
0.30
0.28
0.24
0.286
0.028
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
1.54
1.05
0.73
1.15
1.40
0.90
0.12
0.984
0.471
NOx
3.99
4.25
4.25
4.49
4.88
5.82
6.46
4.877
0.924
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
20.0
20.3
20.5
20.5
20.4
20.4
20.2
20.33
0.28
Test: FTP - Bag 2
Standard Settings
(A = 0; HP @ 50 MPH
Test
Date
05/24/84
06/22/84
07/17/84
08/08/84
08/29/84
09/12/84
Test
Number
84-3915
84-4666
84-4994
84-5000
84-6050
84-6263
Odometer
(miles)
38613
38954
39193
39374
39550
39715
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Dynamometer
= Std.)
Coast down
Act
HP
12.2
12.2
12.0
12.2
12.2
12.2
Ind. Time
HP Veh.
10.1 11.8
10.1 12.2
10.1 12.4
10.1 12.1
10.1 12.0
10.1 12.2
X 12.12
S 0.20
(sec. )
Dyno.
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.30
0.00
HC
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.23
0.25
0.247
0.008
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
0.53
0.52
0.46
0.51
0.21
0.10
0.388
0.186
NOx
3.88
4.21
4.58
5.37
6.38
6.82
5.207
1.196
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
20.2
20.6
20.7
20.6
20.9
20.9
20.65
0.26
-------
Vehicle: Oldsmobile Cutlass
Dynamometer;
Table B-13
Electric (D214)
First Alternative Setting
(A = 1; HP @ 50 MPH = Std.)
Dynamometer
Test: FTP - Bag 2
Test
Date
06/08/84
06/26/84
07/18/84
08/30/84
09/04/84
Test
Number
84-3919
84-4668
84-4996
84-6067
84-6116
Odometer
(miles)
38714
38994
39224
39582
39626
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Act.
HP
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
X
S
Ind.
HP
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
Coast down
Time (sec. )
Veh.
11.9
12.0
12.1
12.3
12.1
12.08
0.15
Dyno.
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.30
0.00
Emissions
(g/mile)
HC
0.28
0.28
0.22
0.23
0.25
0.252
0.028
CO
0.89
1.34
0.09
0.30
0.00
0.524
0.573
NOx
3.77
4.40
5.16
6.41
7.04
5.356
1.361
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
20.1
20.1
20.3
20.1
20.5
20.22
0.18
00
-------
Table B-14
Vehicle: Oldsmobile Cutlass
Dynamometer: Electric (D214)
Test: FTP - Bag 2
Second Alternative Setting
(A = 0; HP @ 50 MPH = (Std. +1))
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/11/84
06/13/84
07/05/84
07/25/84
08/17/84
09/07/84
Test
Number
84-3943
84-3949
84-3955
84-3959
84-3963
84-6175
Odometer
(miles)
38349
38792
39082
39272
39421
39665
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
X
S
Ind.
HP
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
Table
Time
Veh.
11.5
11.6
11.5
11.8
-
11.5
11.58
0.13
B-15
(sec.)
Dyno.
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
-
16.1
16.02
0.05
Emissions
HC
0.36
0.29
0.27
0.22
0.22
0.25
0.268
0.053
(g/mile)
CO
1.92
1.20
1.15
0.18
0.36
0.10
0.818
0.722
NOx
3.33
3.52
4.18
5.23
5.75
6.89
4.817
1.388
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
19.6
20.6
20.5
20.6
20.4
20.7
20.40
0.41
Vehicle: Oldsmobile Cutlass
Dynamometer:
Electric (D214)
Third Alternative Setting
(A = 1; HP @ 50 MPH = (Std. +1))
Test:. FTP - Bag 2
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/22/84
06/14/84
06/15/84
07/10/84
07/26/84
08/23/84
Test
Number
84-3947
84-3951
84-3953
84-3957
84-3961
84-5978
Odometer
(miles)
38549
38823
38863
39122
39303
39468
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Act.
HP
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
X
S
Ind.
HP
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
Coast down
Time (sec. )
Veh.
11.3
11.4
11.4
11.6
11.8
11.5
11.50
0.18
Dyno.
16.0
15.9
15.9
15.9
16.0
16.0
15.95
0.06
Emissions
(g/mile)
HC
0.28
0.30
0.22
0.26
0.22
0.22
0.250
0.035
CO
0.99
1.73
0.38
0.83
0.19
0.33
0.742
0.575
NOx
3.76
3.80
3.91
4.70
5.57
6.11
4.642
1.004
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
19.6
20.0
20.3
20.0
20.0
20.3
20.03
0.26
-------
Table B-16
Vehicle:
Test
Date
06/07/84
06/12/84
06/19/84
06/27/84
07/11/84
08/07/84
08/24/84
Vehicle:
Oldsmobile
Test
Number
84-3917
84-4662
84-4664
84-4670
84-4672
84-4998
84-5002
Oldsmobile
Cutlass
Odometer
(miles)
38681
38759
38819
39029
39154
39342
39500
Cutlass
Dynamometer
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Dynamometer
: Hydrokinetic (D208)
Dynamometer
Test: FTP - Bag 3
Coast down
Act
HP
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
Ind. Time
HP Veh.
10.1 11.6
10.1 11.7
10.1 11.9
10.1 12.4
10.1 12.2
10.1 12.4
10.1 12.1
X 12.04
S 0.32
Table B-17
(sec. )
Dyno.
17.5
17.5
17.6
17.4
17.6
16.9
17.0
17.36
0.29
: Electric (D214)
HC
0.58
0.57
0.70
0.52
0.43
0.40
0.55
0.536
0.100
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
3.86
2.91
2.45
1.99
2.08
1.78
1.31
2.340
0.838
NOx
3.33
3.56
3.83
3.85
4.08
4.70
5.05
4.057
0.615
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
21.6
21.9
21.7
21.6
21.5
21.7
21.4
21.63
0.16
Test: FTP - Bag 3
Standard Settings
(A = 0; HP @ 50 MPH
Test
Date
05/24/84
06/22/84
07/17/84
08/08/84
08/29/84
09/12/84
Test
Number
84-3915
84-4666
84-4994
84-5000
84-6050
84-6263
Odometer
(miles)
38613
38954
39193
39374
39550
39715
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Dynamometer
= Std.)
Coast down
Act
HP
12.2
12.2
12.0
12.2
12.2
12.2
Ind. Time
HP Veh.
10.1 11.8
10.1 12.2
10.1 12.4
10.1 12.1
10.1 12.0
10.1 12.2
(sec. )
Dyno.
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
HC
0.51
0.56
0.35
0.37
0.58
0.52
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
1.93
1.47
1.24
1.63
1.57
1.26
NOx
3.58
3.72
3.81
4.28
5.02
6.00
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
21.2
21.7
21.9
21.3
21.4
21.6
X
S
12.12 17.30
0.20 0.00
0.482 1.517
0.098 0.257
4.402 21.52
0.943 0.26
-------
Table B-18
Vehicle: Oldsmobile Cutlass
Dynamometer:
Electric (D214)
First Alternative Setting
(A = 1; HP @ 50 MPH = Std.)
Dynamometer
Test: FTP - Bag 3
Test
Date
06/08/84
06/26/84
07/18/84
08/30/84
09/04/84
Test
Number
84-3919
84-4668
84-4996
84-6067
84-6116
Odometer
(miles)
38714
38994
39224
39582
39626
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Act.
HP
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
X
S
Ind.
HP
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
Coast down
Time (sec. )
Veh.
11.9
12.0
12.1
12.3
12.1
12.08
0.15
Dyno.
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.30
0.00
Emissions
(g/mile)
HC
0.66
0.44
0.49
0.46
0.53
0.516
0.087
CO
2.58
2.45
1.93
2.07
1.15
2.036
0.562
NOx
3.28
3.79
4.13
4.88
5.49
4.314
0.878
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
21.4
21.2
21.4
21.2
21.5
21.34
0.13
-------
Table B-19
Vehicle: Oldsmobile Cutlass
Dynamometer;
Electric (D214)
Second Alternative Setting
(A = 0; HP @ 50 MPH = (Std.
Dynamometer
Test: FTP - Bag 3
+D)
Test
Date
05/11/84
06/13/84
07/05/84
07/25/84
08/17/84
09/07/84
Test
Number
84-3943
84-3949
84-3955
84-3959
84-3963
84-6175
Odometer
(miles)
38349
38792
39082
39272
39421
39665
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
X
S
Ind.
HP
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
Time
Veh.
11.5
11.6
11.5
11.8
-
11.5
11.58
0.13
(sec. )
Dyno.
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
-
16.1
16.02
0.05
HC
0.65
0.43
0.55
0.52
0.38
0.49
0.503
0.095
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
5.43
1.97
3.02
1.52
1.44
1.14
2.420
1.614
NOx
3.09
3.25
3.71
4.24
4.63
5.52
4.073
0.917
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
20.4
21.1
21.0
21.2
21.0
21.2
20.98 .
0.30
Table B-20
Vehicle:
Oldsmobile
Cutlass
Dynamometer
: Electric (D214)
Third
(A =
Test: FTP - Bag 3
Alternative Setting
1; HP §
50 MPH
= (Std.
+D)
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/22/84
06/14/84
06/15/84
07/10/84
07/26/84
08/23/84
Test
Number
84-3947
84-3951
84-3953
84-3957
84-3961
84-5978
Odometer
(miles)
38549
38823
38863
39122
39303
39468
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
X
S
Ind.
HP
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
11.1
Time
Veh.
11.3
11.4
11.4
11.6
11.8
11.5
11.50
0.18
(sec. )
Dyno.
16.0
15.9
15.9
15.9
16.0
16.0
15.95
0.06
HC
0.57
0.63
0.50
0.44
0.55
0.54
0.538
0.064
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
3.07
2.40
1.30
2.42
1.42
1.22
1.972
0.763
NOx
3.44
3.59
3.60
3.88
4.43
4.93
3.478
1.515
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
20.5
21.1
21.2
20.9
21.0
21.0
20.95
0.24
-------
Table B-21
Vehicle:
Oldsmobile
Cutlass
Dynamometer
: Hydrokinetic (D208)
Test : HFET
Dynamometer
Test
Date
06/07/84
06/12/84
06/19/84
06/27/84
07/11/84
08/07/84
Test
Number
84-3918
84-4663
84-4665
84-4671
84-4993
84-4999
Odometer
(miles)
38701
38770
38918
39039
39164
39353
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
Ind.
HP
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
X
s
Time
Veh.
11.6
11.7
11.9
12.4
12.2
12.4
12.03
0.35
(sec. )
Dyno.
17.5
17.5
17.6
17.4
17.6
16.9
17.42
0.26
HC
0.126
0.093
0.089
0.091
0.101
0.122
0.104
0.016
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
0.79
0.26
0.26
0.20
0.50
0.76
0.462
0.264
NOx
2.45
2.43
2.41
2.56
2.64
3.25
2.623
0.319
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
26.42
26.57
26.74
26.82
26.31
25.89
26.46
0.34
Table B-22
Vehicle:
Oldsmobile
Cutlass
Dynamometer
: Electric
Standard
(A
(D214)
Settings
. = 0; HP @ 50 MPH
Test : HFET
= Std.)
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/24/84
06/22/84
07/17/84
08/08/84
08/29/84
09/12/84
Test
Number
84-3916
84-4667
84-4995
84-5001
84-6051
84-6264
Odometer
(miles)
38645
38955
39203
39385
39561
39726
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
Ind.
HP
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
X
s
Time
Veh.
11.8
12.2
12.4
12.1
12.0
12.2
12.12
0.20
(sec. )
Dyno.
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.30
0.00
HC
0.098
0.093
0.086
0.096
0.066
0.076
0.086
0.013
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
0.60
0.27
0.40
0.54
0.15
0.31
0.378
0.170
NOx
2.62
2.48
2.40
2.85
3.34
4.72
3.068
0.877
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
26.30
27.14
26.80
25.99
26.36
26.34
26.49
0.41
-------
Table B-23
Vehicle: Oldsmobile Cutlass
Dynamometer:
Electric (D214)
First Alternative Setting
(A = 1; HP @ 50 MPH = Std. )
Dynamometer
Test: HFET
Test
Date
05/23/84
06/08/84
06/26/84
07/18/84
08/30/84
09/04/84
Test
Number
84-3914
84-3920
84-4669
84-4997
84-6068
84-6117
Odometer
(miles)
38592
38730
39004
39325
39593
39637
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Act.
HP
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
X
S
Ind.
HP
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
10.1
Coast down
Time (sec. )
Veh.
_
11.9
12.0
12.1
12.3
12.1
12.08
0.15
Dyno.
_
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.30
0.00
Emissions
(g/mile)
HC
0.099
0.109
0.096
0.076
0.077
0.068
0.088
0.016
CO
0.44
0.61
0.42
0.19
0.32
0.13
0.352
0.176
NOx
2.36
2.40
2.42
2.62
3.24
3.77
2.802
0.577
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
27.20
26.69
26.79
26.51
26.33
26.44
26.66
0.31
-------
Table B-24
Vehicle: Oldsmobile Cutlass
Dynamometer:
Electric (D214)
Second Alternative Setting
(A = 0; HP @ 50 MPH = (Std.
Dynamometer
Test : HFET
Test
Date
05/11/84
05/18/84
06/13/84
07/05/84
07/25/84
08/17/84
09/07/84
Vehicle:
Test
Number
84-3944
84-3946
84-3950
84-3956
84-3960
84-3964
84-6176
Oldsmobile
Odometer
(miles)
38449
38520
38802
39093
39282
39432
39676
Cutlass
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Dynamometer
Coast down
Act.
HP
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
X
S
Ind. Time
HP Veh.
11.1 11.5
11.1
11.1 11.6
11.1 11.5
11.1 11.8
11.1
11.1 11.5
11.58
0.13
Table B-25
(sec. )
Dyno.
16.0
-
16.0
16.0
16.0
-
16.1
16.02
0.05
: Electric (D214)
Third
(A =
HC
0.129
0.120
0.098
0.124
0.079
0.095
0.060
0.101
0.025
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
0.94
1.06
0.48
1.10
0.15
0.58
0.04
0.621
0.429
NOx
2.47
2.79
2.41
2.55
3.14
3.18
3.25
2.827
0.361
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
25.35
25.26
26.31
25.70
22.65
25.32
25.19
25.19
1.18
Test: HFET
Alternative Setting
1; HP @ 50 MPH
= (Std.
+D)
Dynamometer
Test
Date
05/22/84
06/14/84
06/15/84
07/10/84
07/26/84
08/23/84
Test
Number
84-3948
84-3952
84-3954
84-3958
84-3962
84-5977
Odometer
(miles)
38660
38842
38874
39132
39314
39479
Roll
Spacing
(in.)
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
Coast down
Act.
HP
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
X
S
Ind. Time
HP Veh.
11.1 11.3
11.1 11.4
11.1 11.4
11.1 11.6
11.1 11.8
11.1 11.5
11.50
0.18
(sec. )
Dyno.
16.0
15.9
15.9
15.9
16.0
16.0
15.95
0.06
HC
0.122
0.092
0.085
0.091
0.075
0.068
0.089
0.019
Emissions
(g/mile)
CO
0.90
0.32
0.13
0.40
0.29
0.19
0.372
0.276
NOx
2,. 64
2.58
2.61
2.60
2.71
3.07
2.702
0.186
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
25.50
26.25
25.89
25.79
25.88
25.67
25.83
0.25
------- |