EPA-AA-SDSB-89-01
Technical Report
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission
Conversion Factors II
1962-2000
By
Paul A. Machiele
October, 1988
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-
I. Introduction
MOBILE4 is a computer program that generates in-use
emission factors by calendar year, ambient temperature and
driving situation in units of grams per mile (g/mi) for all
vehicle classes, which are then used to determine emissions
inventories in various localities. Because urban areas are
modelled almost exclusively, urban emission factors are desired
and generated here. Since heavy-duty engine testing provides
emissions in terms of grams per brake horsepower-hour
(g/BHP-hr), brake horsepower-hour per mile (BHP-hr/mi)
conversion factors are needed to convert the brake-specific
emission levels into the necessary mile-specific (g/mi) units,
as illustrated below:
Emission Factor = Emission Test Data x Conversion Factor
g = g x BHP-hr
mi BHP-hr mi
This technical report outlines the methodology used to
determine these conversion factors, as well as providing the
conversion factors for heavy-duty gasoline and diesel engines
for the model years 1962 through 2000 (see Table 1). Since
this report is for the most part an update of the previous
conversion factor analysis performed for MOBILES, also shown
are the conversion factors as calculated in that analysis.[1]
As can be seen, there is a distinct decrease in the diesel
fleet average conversion factors for recent and future years
over and above that which was predicted in the MOBILES
conversion factor analysis. Although fuel ' density, fuel
economy, and other differences also have an effect, the largest
part of this decrease is attributable to greater sales growth
in the lighter diesel classes than had previously been
predicted. A similar decrease in conversion factors can also
be seen in the gasoline fleet since there is a smaller fraction
of gasoline vehicles in the heavier classes than had been
predicted. Overall, the heavy-duty fleet is probably not
getting that much lighter, but the dieselization of the fleet
has caused both diesel and gasoline fleet average conversion
factors to decrease. The steadiness of the conversion factor
values in future years is attributable to very small non-engine
related fuel economy improvements, and to the near ing of
maximum market penetration of diesel vehicles in the lighter
classes.
The BHP-hr/mi conversion factors were calculated from
brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC), fuel density, and fuel
economy (all of which can be measured), because it is difficult
to measure BHP-hr/mi directly. The equation used was:
CF (BHP-hr/mi) = P (Ib/gal) / (BSFC (Ib/BHP-hr) * FE (mi/gal))
-------
-3-
Table 1
Fleet-Average
Conversion Factors (BHP-hr/mi)
Year
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1989
2000
Gasoline
MOBILES MOBILE4
1.29
1.31
1.32
1.33
1.35
1.36
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.34
1.31
1.28
1.20
1.12
1.08
1.05
1.01
0.98
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.95
0.94
0.94
.0.93
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92,
0.92
1.55
1.54
1.54
1.53
1.52
1.52
1.50
1.48
1.45
1.45
1.44
1.42
1.42
1.31
1.24
1.07
1.06
1.02
0.96
0.94
0.91
0.88
0.91
0.90
0.89
0.90
0.90
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0 .89
0.89
0.89
0.88
0.88
Diesel
MOBILES
2.74
2.74
2.73
2.72
2.76
2.82
2.88
2.94
3.00
3.08
3.15
3.19
3.23
3.27
3.23
3.19
3.07
2.95
2.84
2. 72
2.60
2.56
2.51
2.47
2.43
2.38
2.38
2.37
2.36
2.35
2.34
2.33
2.33
2.32
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
MOBILE 4
2.85
2.86
2.87
2.89
2.90
2.96
3.00
3.07
3.10
3. 16
3.20
3.19
3.21
3.15
3.18
3.25
3.19
3.00
2.72
2.70
2.38
2.28
2.41
2.20
2.21
2. 17
2.13
2. 10
2 . 07
2.05
2.03
2.03
2.03
2.04
2.04
2.04
2.04
2.04
2.03
-------
-4-
The emission conversion factors were first calculated by
gross vehicle weight (GVW) class for both gasoline and diesel
powered vehicles, as both BSFC and fuel economy vary with gross
vehicle weight and fuel type. Diesel and gasoline
fleet-average conversion factors were then calculated using the
appropriate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) weighting of the
class-specific conversion factors. Gasoline and diesel
fleet-average conversion factors were derived separately
because MOBILE4 treats them separately.
Estimates of historic BSFC and fuel economy figures were
limited to 1982 and earlier model years due to our dependence
for in-use fuel economy estimates on the U.S. Census Bureau's
Truck In-use Survey (TIUS), which is taken every five years.
Thus, historic class-specific conversion factors for the years
1982 and earlier may be calculated using the equation given
above. Future (i.e., post-1982) conversion factors will not be
affected by changes in BSFC, as any decrease in BSFC will be
cancelled out by a corresponding increase in fuel economy. As
fuel density changes little over time and can be assumed
constant, the only factors affecting future heavy-duty vehicle
conversion factors are future non-engine-related fuel economy
improvements. Future class-specific conversion factors are
thus estimated by reducing the 1982 conversion factors in
proportion to the projected increase in fuel economy due to
non-engine-related factors. For this reason, historic and
future conversion factors are calculated separately; the former
using the above equation, and the latter using projected
non-engine-related fuel economy improvements applied to the
1982 conversion factors.
This report begins with a description of the fuel
densities, engine BSFCs, and vehicle fuel economies used to
calculate the historic class-specific conversion factors.
Following this discussion, future non-engine-related fuel
economy improvements are analyzed and their application to
historic class-specific conversion factors described. The
VMT-weighting methodology used to obtain the diesel and
gasoline fleet-average conversion factors is then presented and
each factor used in the VMT weighting process described.
II. Historic Class-Specific Conversion Factors
As in the previous conversion factors analysis, historic
class-specific conversion factors were calculated using three
basic parameters: fuel density, brake-specific fuel
consumption, and fuel economy, as detailed above. However, for
the previous analysis, historic data was limited by the 1977
TIUS, and as a result historic conversion factors ended at
1977. For this analysis the 1982 TIUS is the source for
historical fuel economy estimates, and thus, historical
conversion factors end with 1982. The methods used to
determine the fuel density, brake specific fuel consumption,
and fuel economy are detailed in the following paragraphs.
-------
-5-
A. Fuel Density
The gasoline and diesel fuel densities used in the
calculation of historic conversion factors were 6.09 and 7.11
pounds (Ibs) per gallon, respectively. The value for gasoline,
as seen in Table 2, was taken from an average over the 1982 to
1985 period of both summer and winter fuel density data
presented in the NIPER gasoline surveys.[2] The diesel fuel
density also shown in Table 2 was taken from an average over
the same period of data presented in the MVMA fuel surveys. [3]
The values used are very similar to those used in the past for
MOBILES.[1] The fuel density values are not changed for each
year even though the necessary information exists to do so,
since both MOBILE4 and this conversion factor analysis are
model year specific, while the changes in fuel density are a
calendar year phenomenon. It may be possible to take the
calendar year changes in fuel density into account with more
extensive programming, but the benefits of incorporating these
small changes (a less than one percent increase in accuracy)
are outweighed by the complexity of the task to perform such
work.
B. Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption
The class-specific gasoline and diesel BSFCs for the 1962
to 1977 period were taken directly from the conversion factor
analysis done for MOBILES.[1] Since manufacturers are no
longer required to provide this information as part of the
engine certification process, more recent engine BSFC data was
not readily available. As a result, the major manufacturers
were contacted by phone in June, 1987, and asked to provide
information on the BSFCs of their current (1987) models. The
manufacturers provided the necessary information, but many of
them also asked that the individual engine data not be
presented in this report. As a result, it is not shown here.
The BSFC information was then sales weighted to achieve
class-specific BSFC values for 1987. These values in turn were
used in conjunction with the 1977 and previous values to
interpolate the values for the 1978 to 1982 period. Changes in
BSFC were apparently rather small over this period, indicating
little improvement in heavy-duty engine efficiency.
BSFC values for transit buses were obtained by assuming
that the majority of buses in the past used Detroit Diesel
Allison (DDA) 6V-71N engines, which have been progressively
replaced with the DDA 6V-92TA engines. Some of EPA's in-house
test data over the bus central business district cycle revealed
that the 6V-71N engine obtained a BSFC of 0.557 Ib/BHP-hr,
while the 6V-92TA obtained approximately 0.47 Ib/BHP-hr over
the same cycle. By using estimates of annual sales of these
two engines provided by DDA, the model year specific BSFCs for
the class could be estimated. The BSFC values for commercial
buses utilized the same methodology with the exception that the
-------
-6-
Table 2
Historical Fuel Density (Ib/gal) [2,3]
Year
82
83
84
85
Gasoline
6. 107
6.093
6.083
6.085
Diesel
7.098
7. 131
7. 102
7. 114
Average 6.09 7.11
MOBILES 6.16 7.07
-------
-7-
transient cycle was chosen to be more representative for this
class of bus. This resulted in somewhat lower BSFCs since the
6V-71N has a BSFC of approximately 0.529 Ib/BHP-hr over the
transient cycle, and the 6V-92TA a BSFC of approximately 0.46
Ib/BHP-hr over the transient cycle. The BSFC values for the
school buses were calculated by sales weighting the class
specific truck data based on the class specific sales of school
buses from MVMA sales data.[4] The BSFC values for all classes
for the years 1962 through 1987 are shown in Table 3.
C. Fuel Economy
The model year specific fuel economies for all truck
classes except for Class 2B were obtained by smoothing the data
in the analysis of the 1982 TIUS done by Energy and
Environmental Analysis Inc. (EEA).[5] The 1982 TIUS did not
distinguish Class 2B from Class 2 as a whole. Only Class 2B
fuel economy is pertinent to heavy-duty vehicle emissions, as
Class 2A vehicles are treated as light-duty trucks by EPA
regulations, and in MOBILE4. In order to estimate Class 2B
fuel economy it was assumed, as in the MOBILES conversion
factor analysis, that Class 2B fuel economy is 10 percent less
than Class 2A fuel economy due to increased vehicle size.
Diesel and gasoline fuel economies were determined separately
by assuming that the ratio of Class 2B diesel BSFC to gasoline
BSFC also represents the ratio of their fuel economies.
Commercial and school bus fuel economies were taken from
the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) Highway Statistics.[ 6]
These are fleet values instead of model year specific values,
but they represent the best data available, and these values do
not change significantly with time. As a result, they are
thought to be fairly representative of the model year fuel
economies. Transit bus values were then estimated as 85.8
percent of the commercial bus value, based on 1978 through 1983
data from the American Public Transit Association (APTA) fact
book.[7] The transit and commercial bus fleet fuel economies
were divided into gasoline and diesel by assuming that the
Class 8A truck diesel advantage factors were applicable. The
school bus fuel economies from the FHA data were broken up into
gasoline and diesel by assuming that the diesel buses obtain 30
percent better fuel economy than their gasoline counterparts.
'This assumption was based on a review of 1980 through 1982
diesel advantage factors for Class 5 through Class 7 trucks,
the engines of which make up the school bus market. All of
these fuel economies are shown in Table 4.
The fuel economies presented in EEA's analysis of the TIUS
are national fuel economies (i.e., the result of a combination
of rural and urban driving).[5] MOBILE4, however, is primarily
used to model urban emissions, and as a result requires urban
fuel economy values. The conversion factor analysis done for
MOBILES looked at this issue. Although some information
-------
-8-
Table 3
Historic BSFC (Ib/BHP-hr)
Year
DIESEL
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83**
84**
85**
86**
87**
Class2B
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
Class3-5
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
Class6
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.49
.49
.48
.47
.47
.46
.46
.46
.45
.45
.45
.45
.45
.45
.45
.45
.45
.45
.45
Class7
.49
.49
.49
.49
.49
.48
.48
.48
.47
.47
.47
.46
.46
.46
.46
.45
.45
.45
.45
.44
.44
.44
.44
.44
.44
.44
ClassSA
.49
.49
.49
.49
.49
.48
.48
.47
.47
.46
.46
.46
.45
.45
.44
.43
.43
.43
.43
.42
.42
.42
.41
.41
.41
.41
ClassSB
.49
.49
.49
.49
.49
.48
.48
.47
.47
.46
.46
.46
.45
.45
.44
.43
.43
.43
.42
.42
.42
.41
.41
.40
.40
.39
Transit
.557
.557
.557
.557
.557
.557
.557
.557
.557
.557
.557
.557
.557
.557
.553
.548
.544
.540
.535
.525
.515
.505
.498
.492
.485
.479
Commercial
.529
.529
.529
.529
.529
.529
.529
.529
.529
.529
.529
.529
.529
.529
.526
.522
.519
.515
.512
.503
.496
.488
.482
.477
.472
.467
School
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
.452
.452
.450
.448
.447
.446
.445
.446
.445
.445
.444
GASOLINE
62-78
79
80
81
82
83**
84**
85**
86**
87**
.70
.70
.69
.69
.68
.64
.63
.63
.62
.62
.70
.70
.69
.69
.68
.64
.63
.63
.62
.62
.70
.70
.70
.69
.69
.69
.68
.67
.66
.66
.70
.70
.70
.69
.69
.68
.67
.66
.65
.65
.70
.70
.69
.69
.68
.66
.64
.64
.63
.63
.70
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
.70
.70
.70
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
.70
.70
.70
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
.70
.699
.697
.694
.691
.686
.678
.670
.664
.660
No Sales
Used only to determine the 1978-1982 values
-------
-9-
Table 4
FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
DIESEL VEHICLES
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
13.98
14.26
6.45
6.45
6.45
6.45
6.45
6.45
6.45
6.45
6.45
6.45
6.45
6.45
6.94
7.42
7.91
*
*
*
*
*
*
5.80
5.80
5.80
5.80
5.80
5.80
5.80
5.80
5.80
5.80
5.80
5.80
6.06
6.33
6.60
6.86
7.13
7.40
7.67
7.93
8.20
GASOLINE VEHICLES
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.06
9.28
9.49
9.71
9.92
10.14
10.35
10.57
10.78
11.00
6.43
6.43
6.43
6.43
6.43
6.43
6.43
6.43
6.43
6.43
6.43
6.43
6.45
6.47
6.49
6.51
6.53
6.55
6.57
6.59
6.61
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.65
5.60
5.61
5.66
5.73
5.83
5.99
6.22
6.50
Class?
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.57
5.56
5.60
5.74
6.04
6.55
7.01
7.25
7.37
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.60
4.61
4.63
4.67
4.80
4.97
5.10
5.16
5.15
ClassSA
5.10
5.10
5.10
5.10
5.10
5.10
5.10
5.10
5.10
5.10
5.10
5.10
5.09
5.10
5.12
5.20
5.29
5.36
5.40
5.45
5.48
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.37
4.49
4.41
4.73
4.86
4.98
5.10
5.22
5.35
ClassSB
4.72
4.72
4.72
4.72
4.72
4.72
4.72
4.72
4.72
4.72
4.72
4.72
4.75
4.79
4.82
4.86
4.92
5.00
5.08
5.20
5.37
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.50
3.64
3.79
*
*
*
*
*
*
4.27
4.27
4.27
4.27
4.27
4.27
4.20
4.02
3.98
4.06
3.82
4.07
4.31
4.15
4.38
4.34
4.32
4.35
4.33
4.27
4.26
3.55
3.55
3.55
3.55
3.55
3.55
3.41
3.34
3.31
3.38
3.18
3.39
3.70
3.66
3.77
3.95
3.98
4.04
4.08
4.
4.
4.97
4.97
4.97
4.97
4.97
4.97
89
69
4.62
4.73
4.45
4.74
5.03
4.84
5.11
07
04
07
04
98
5.
5.
5.
5.
4.
4.96
4.13
4.13
4.13
4.13
4.13
4.13
,06
.89
.85
.93
.70
.94
4.31
4.26
4.40
4.61
4.64
4.71
4.76
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
9.54
9.55
9.56
9.90
9.88
9.87
08
08
08
08
08
08
6.99
00
00
00
37
36
36
7.31
7.34
34
35
35
62
60
7.59
No Sales
-------
-10-
suggested that urban fuel economy should be lower than rural
fuel economy, other information suggested that due to lower
vehicle loads in urban areas, the fuel economy in an urban area
may be very similar to that in a rural area. Because of this,
and the fact that reliable data on this topic was limited, it
was decided that the nationwide fuel economy values available
from the TIUS adequately represented the urban fuel economy.
Since no further work in this area has been done, this analysis
for MOBILE4 also will assume that the TIUS fuel economy values
are representative of urban driving.
Fuel economy values estimated using the 1977 TIUS and used
in the MOBILE3 conversion factor analysis are shown in Table
A-l. With the obvious exception of buses, the historical fuel
economies estimated by the 1982 TIUS and used in this analysis
tend to be significantly lower. (Bus fuel economy in both
analyses was not determined using the TIUS, and as a result is
not subject to the same influences as truck fuel economies.)
By 1982, however, the historical estimates from the 1982 TIUS
compare fairly well with the predictions based on the 1977 TIUS
as found in the MOBILES analysis. This seems to suggest that
contrary to EPA's assumption, the fuel economy of a given model
year fleet does change significantly over time. At present
there is not enough information to support this, but it should
be considered in any further conversion factor analyses.
Incorporation of such an effect will, however, require
modification of MOBILE4 in order to incorporate calendar year
changes.
D. Summary of Historic Conversion Factors
In summary, historic class-specific conversion factors
were based on: fuel densities from NIPER and MVMA fuel
surveys,[2,3] BSFCs from the MOBILES conversion factor analysis
and manufacturer informational] and fuel economies from the
1982 TIUS for trucks and the FHA Highway Statistics for
buses.[5,6] These gasoline and diesel class-specific
conversion factors are listed in Tables 5 and 6. The
class-specific conversion factors are then used as the basis
for the prediction of future class-specific conversion factors,
as described below.
The historic values were determined in the same manner as
the pre-1978 conversion factors in the MOBILES analysis and
shown in Table A-l, but vary due to differences in the fuel
density, BSFC, and fuel economy inputs discussed earlier. In
particular, the pre-1978 diesel class specific conversion
factors in this analysis tend to be significantly higher than
in the previous analysis due to differences in historic fuel
economy estimates.
-------
TABLE 5
DIESEL CLASS-SPECIFIC CONVERSION FACTORS (BHP-hr/mi)
MODEL
YEAR
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
2000
CLASS 2B
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.942
0.923
0.923
0.922
0.921
0.919
0.919
0.919
0.919
0.919
0.919
0.919
0.919
0.919
0.919
0.919
0.919
0.919
0.919
0.919
CLASS 3
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.009
1.879
1.762
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
CLASS 4
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.009
1.879
1.762
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
CLASS 5
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.161
2.009
1.879
1.762
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
CLASS 6
2.452
2.452
2.452
2.452
2.452
2.452
2.452
2.502
2.502
2.554
2.608
2.608
2.551
2.442
2.342
2.303
2.216
2.135
2.060
1.992
1.927
1.911
1.892
1.877
1.865
1.865
1.865
1.865
1.865
1.865
1.865
1.865
1.865
1.865
1.865
1.865
1.865
1.865
1.865
CLASS 7
2.591
2.591
2.591
2.591
2.591
2.645
2.645
2.645
2.701
2.701
2.701
2.760
2.775
2.780
2.760
2.753
2.616
2.412
2.254
2.229
2.193
2.176
2.159
2.143
2.127
2.127
2.127
2.127
2.127
2.127
2.127
2.127
2.127
2.127
2.127
2.127
2.127
2.127
2.127
CLASS 8A
2.845
2.845
2.845
2.845
2.845
2.904
2.904
2.966
2.966
3.031
3.031
3.031
3.104
3.098
3.156
3.180
3.126
3.085
3.062
3.106
3.089
3.059
3.035
3.010
2.987
2.987
2.987
2.987
2.987
2.987
2.987
2.987
2.987
2.987
2.987
2.987
2.987
2.987
2.987
CLASS 8B
3.074
3.074
3.074
3.074
3.074
3.138
3.138
3.205
3.205
3.275
3.275
3.275
3.326
3.299
3.353
3.402
3.361
3.307
3.332
3.255
3.152
3.150
3.141
3.138
3.129
3.129
3.129
3.129
3.129
3.129
3.129
3.129
3.129
3.129
3.129
3.129
3.129
3.129
3.129
TRANSIT
2.989
2.989
2.989
2.989
2.989
2.989
3.113
3.175
3.207
3.144
3.342
3.136
2.962
3.076
2.935
2.990
3.025
3.027
3.069
3.172
3.241
3.241
3.241
3.241
3.241
3.241
3.241
3.241
3.241
3.241
3.241
3.241
3.241
3.241
3.241
3.241
3.241
3.241
3.241
COMMERCIAL
2.704
2.704
2.704
2.704
2.704
2.704
2.812
2.866
2.909
2.842
3.020
2.836
2.672
2.777
2.645
2.687
2.718
2.723
2.755
2.838
2.890
2.890
2.890
2.890
2.890
2.890
2.890
2.890
2.890
2.890
. 2.890
2.890
2.890
2.890
2.890
2.890
2.890
2.890
2.890
SCHOOL
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.653
1.603
1.610
1.615
1.615
1.615
1.615
1.615
1.615
1.615
1.615
1.615
1.615
1.615
1.615
1.615
1.615
1.615
1.615
1.615
1.615
1.615
-------
TABLE 6
GASOLINE CLASS-SPECIFIC CONVERSION FACTORS (BHP-hr/mi)
MODEL
YEAR
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
2000
CLASS 2B
0.960
0.960
0.960
0.960
0.960
0.960
0.960
0.960
0.960
0.960
0.960
0.960
0.938
0.917
0.896
0.877
0.858
0.841
0.835
0.819
0.814
0.813
0.813
0.811
0.809
0.809
0.809
0.809
0.809
0.809
0.809
0.809
0.809
0.809
0.809
0.809
0.809
0.809
0.809
CLASS 3
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
] .353
1.353
1.353
1.349
1.345
1.341
1.336
1.332
1.328
1.343
1.339
1.355
1.354
1.353
1.350
1.346
1.346
1.346
1.346
1.346
1.346
1.346
1.346
1.346
1.346
1.346
1.346
1.346
1.346
1.346
CLASS 4
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.349
1.345
1.341
1.336
1.332
1.328
1.343
1.339
1.355
1.354
1.353
1.351
1.348
1 . 348
1.348
1.348
1.348
1.348
1.348
1.348
1.348
1.348
1.348
1.348
1.348
1.348
1.348
CLASS 5
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.349
1.345
1.341
1.336
1.332
1.328
1.343
1.339
1.355
1.353
1.351
1.347
1.342
1.342
1.342
1.342
1.342
1.342
1.342
1.342
1.342
1.342
1.342
1.342
1.342
1.342
1.342
CLASS 6
1.513
1.513
1.513
1.513
1.513
1.513
1.513
1.513
1.513
1.513
1.513
1.513
1.540
1.554
1.551
1.537
1.518
1.492
1.452
1.419
1.358
1.347
1.337
1.327
1.317
1.317
1.317
1.317
1.317
1.317
1.317
1.317
1.317
1.317
1.317
1.317
1.317
1.317
1.317
CLASS 7
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.891
1.887
1.879
1.863
1.813
1.751
1.706
1.710
1.714
1.702
1.692
1.680
1.668
1.668
1.668
1.668
1.668
1.668
1.668
1.668
1.668
1.668
1.668
1.668
1.668
1.668
1.668
CLASS 8A
2.052
2.052
2.052
2.052
2.052
2.052
2.052
2.052
2.052
2.052
2.052
2.052
1.991
1.938
1.973
1.839
1.790
1.747
1.731
1.691
1.674
1.662
1.651
1.639
1.627
1.627
1.627
1.627
1.627
1.627
1.627
1.627
1.627
1.627
1.627
1.627
1.627
1.627
1.627
CLASS 8B
2.597
2.597
2.597
2.597
2.597
2.597
2.597
2.597
2.597
2.597
2.597
2.597
2.486
2.390
2.296
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
TRANSIT
2.451
2.451
2.451
2.451
2.451
2.451
2.552
2.603
2.629
2.577
2.739
2.571
2.351
2.381
2.306
2.204
2.192
2.153
2.127
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
COMMERCIAL
2.106
2.106
2.106
2.106
2.106
2.106
2.189
2.231
2.265
2.212
2.352
2.208
2.015
2.042
1.977
1.886
1.879
1.847
1.828
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
' 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
SCHOOL
1.229
1.229
1.229
1.229
1.229
1.229
1.245
1.243
1.243
1.243
1.180
1.182
1.182
1.190
1.185
1.185
1.184
1.185
1.147
1.155
1.161
1.161
1.161
1.161
1.161
1.161
1.161
1.161
1.161
1.161
1.161
1.161
1.161
1.161
1.161
1.161
1.161
1.161
1.161
to
I
-------
-13-
One other difference between the MOBILES conversion factor
analysis and this analysis is that conversion factors for the
period of 1978-1982 are now derived using historic data whereas
previous estimates were predicted from the available data (in a
manner similar to that used in the following section for
post-82 conversion factors). As shown in Table 7, the 1982
TIUS typically resulted in much greater increases in non-engine
related fuel economy improvements for the 1977 to 1982 period
than had been predicted by the MOBILES conversion factor
analysis. The result of this is that by 1982, the class
specific conversion factors found in Tables 5 and 6 compare
fairly well (depending on vehicle class) with those predicted
in the MOBILES conversion factor analysis shown in Table A-2.
(Due to differences in the method used to estimate fuel
economy, as discussed earlier, this does not hold true for
buses.)
III. Future Class Specific Conversion Factors
Post-1982 class-specific gasoline and diesel conversion
factors (see Tables 5 and 6) were estimated using 1982
class-specific conversion factors and projected future
non-engine-related fuel economy improvements. Engine-related
fuel economy improvements affect both BSFC and fuel economy
(BSFC decreases as fuel economy increases) and, thus, do not
affect the conversion factor. Future conversion factors are
calculated by dividing the historic conversion factor by 1.0
plus the non-engine-related fuel economy improvement (as a
fraction) that is predicted to occur between the 1982 base year
and the year in question.
A. Future Non-Engine Related Fuel Economy Developments
For the MOBILES conversion factor analysis several fairly
detailed studies of future non-engine-related fuel economy
improvements were conducted and submitted to EPA. Most of the
information used economicXand cost/benefit analysis to project
the penetration of the fuel-economy improving devices into the
future. The data and estimates were reviewed and those which
seemed reasonable were used. Non-engine related fuel economy
improvements accepted for the analysis included the use of
weight reduction, radial tires, aerodynamic add-on devices,
drivetrain lubricants, improved fan drives, overdrive,
electronic transmission control, and speed control devices.
Since that time little new information has become
available on which to base new estimates. Some new information
was available concerning the use of radial tires and
aerodynamic devices, but it was of sufficient detail only to
show that the values used in the MOBILES analysis were
reasonable.[8,9]. Some information on the penetration of fuel
economy improvement devices from a survey performed by the
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute
-------
-14-
Table 7
Percent Increase in Non-Engine-Related
Fuel Economy From 1977 to 1982
(Ratio of 1982 to 1977 conversion factors)
MOBILES MOBILE4*
Gas Diesel
7.2 NA
1.4 NA
1.4 NA
1.4 NA
11.6 16.3
8.0 20.3
9.0 2.9
NA 7.3
NA -8.4
NA -7.5
2.0 NA
Assumes BSFC estimates are accurate
Class
2B
3
4
5
6
7
8A
8B
Transit
Commercial
School
Gas
2.9
NA
NA
NA
2.3
2.1
1.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
Diesel
3.4
NA
NA
NA
0.3
0.4
0.4
6.0
0.4
0.4
0.4
-------
-15-
(UMTRI) was provided by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
Association (MVMA) and the Engine Manufacturers Association
(EMA) in a meeting held March 7, 1988.[10] Unfortunately, it
was not in a form which enabled it to be incorporated into this
analysis. UMTRI subsequently provided the information to EPA
in a more usable form.[11] However, due to the small effect
expected to result from its incorporation, and a number of
questions as to how it should be used, it has not been
incorporated into the new conversion factor analysis at this
time.
One such question involves how well a vehicle owner's
perception of his vehicle's design reflects reality when it is
often based on sales promotions. For example, even though a
vehicle is marketed as being aerodynamic, how aerodynamic it
really is when compared to other vehicles is not addressed. A
number of truck owners responded affirmatively to the question
of whether their vehicle had an aerodynamic cab design even
though their trucks were from the pre-1980 period, a period
known for non-aerodynamic designs. A second question involves
how well the effectiveness of a vehicle owner's fuel saving
device compares with the effectiveness attributed to that
device by independent research when the designs can be
significantly different. For some categories such as radial
tires, the difference is probably rather small, but for
aerodynamic devices, or fuel efficient lubricants, the
difference can be extremely large. A third question involves
how gasoline vehicles should be treated since only diesel
vehicles were surveyed. Diesel vehicles tend to accumulate
more miles in a given year, and are driven more in line-haul
applications. As a result, the use of fuel saving devices
tends to be more cost effective for them than for gasoline
vehicles. A fourth question is how to project the penetration
rates into the future where they are applied. In addition to
other problems associated with extrapolations, the drop in fuel
prices in late 1985 caused the fuel economy devices to be less
cost effective and therefore less likely to be utilized. An
additional difficulty with incorporating the information is how
to treat fuel saving devices which appear to be a calendar year
phenomena rather than a model year phenomena. MOBILE4
currently has the capacity to treat only model-year specific
changes. The time required to make the necessary changes to
incorporate calendar year effects as well goes beyond the
required deadline for completion of MOBILE4.
As a result of the difficulties with incorporating the
UMTRI information, the penetration rates and fuel economy
improvements assumed in the MOBILES conversion factor analysis
were accepted for use in MOBILE4. The penetration rates
determined in the NIPER survey are typically slightly higher
than the MOBILES projections, however, this seems logical since
only diesel vehicles were surveyed, and the MOBILES penetration
rates are for both gasoline and diesel vehicles. As a result
-------
-16-
the differences between the UMTRI data and the information used
in the MOBILE3 analysis may be smaller than would appear. The
UMTRI information limited to those devices incorporated in the
MOBILE3 analysis is summarized in Appendix B.
Due to the drastic change in the fuel price structure
which occurred late in 1985, many of the fuel economy
improvements are no longer economically attractive for many of
the vehicle applications. As a result, the projections of
device penetration into the truck market beyond 1986 are no
longer valid. For this reason, the MOBILES projections were
only used for the 1982 to 1986 time frame, and no
non-engine-related fuel economy improvements were assumed
beyond 1986. As this approach was presented at the MOBILE4
workshop held in Ann Arbor on November 10, 1987, and no data
other than the UMTRI survey was forthcoming to show otherwise,
no non-engine-related fuel economy improvements are projected
beyond 1986.
The estimates of fuel economy improvements here as for
MOBILES were derived according to GVW class (Classes Ilb-IV or
light heavy-duty vehicles (LHDVs), Classes Vl-VIIIa or medium
heavy-duty vehicles (MHDVs), and Class VHIb or heavy
heavy-duty vehicles (HHDVs)) as specific improvements will
affect each class differently. These improvements are all
detailed and referenced in Tables 8 through 10, and the net
fuel economy improvements shown in Table 11. Although the
market penetration rates of the fuel economy improvement
devices in Tables 8 through 10 were assumed to affect the fleet
as a whole, improvement devices were assumed to be applied
first in the long-range applications of each class where they
would be most economically attractive, then the short-range,
and then the local applications. As a result of differences in
the distribution of gasoline and diesel vehicles in long-range,
short-range, and local usage categories, the overall fuel
economy improvements as seen in Table 11 are different for
gasoline vehicles than for diesel vehicles. Explanations of
the selection of the penetration rates and associated fuel
economy improvements associated with each device exist in the
MOBILES conversion factor analysis and are not repeated here.[l]
B. Application of Non-Enqine-Related Fuel Economy
Improvements
Since a fuel economy saving device will typically be
applied where it is most cost effective, the above
non-engine-related fuel economy improvements were applied first
in the high-mileage, long-range applications, second in the
short-range applications, and last of all in the lowest
mileage, local applications. The breakdown of trucks into
these usage categories as seen in Table 12 is based on data in
the 1982 TIUS.C5] Since the estimates of fleet penetration
were not fuel specific, the only differences between the net
-------
-17-
Table 8
Class IIB-IVLight Heavy-Duty Vehicles
Future Non-Enqine Related Fuel Economy
Weight Reduction
Source !
1 FE Imprv.
MOBILE3C1] 6.6
MOBILE4 6.6
Radials 8. Advanced Radials
Source
MOBILES [1]
MOBILE 4
MOBILE3[1]
MOBILE 4
Aerodynamics
Aerodynamics
Source
% FE Imprv.
1982
50
50
1982
1.4 (radial) 55
1.4 55
0.0 (adv. rad) 0
0.0 0
(add-on) None
(body)
% FE Imprv.
MOBILE3[1] 0
MOBILE4 0
Drivetrain Lubricants
Source
MOBILE3C1]
MOBILE4
% FE Imprv.
1.5
1.5
1982
0
0
1982
0
0
% Penetration
1983
1984
50 50
50 50
% Penetration
1983
58
58
0
0
%
1983
0
0
%
1983
7
7
1984
61
61
0
0
Penetration
1984
0
0
Penetration
1984
13
13
Improvements
(cumulative)
1985
50
50
(cumulat
1985
64
64
0
0
(cumulat
1985
1986
50
50
ive)
1986
67
67
0
0
ive)
1986
0 0
0 0
(cumulative)
1985
20
20
1986
27
27
2000
50
50
2000
90
67
0
0
2000
0
0
2000
100
27
Accessories (None)
-------
-18-
Table 8 (cont'd)
Class IIB-IVLight Heavy-Duty Vehicles (cont'd)
Future Non-Engine Related Fuel Economy
Improvements
Automatic Overdrive
% Penetration
Source
% FE Imprv.
MOBILE3[1] 5.0
MOBILE4 5.0
Manual Overdrive
Source
MOBILE3U]
MOBILE4
Electronic
Source
MOBILE3[1]
MOBILE4
% FE Imprv.
5.0
5.0
Transmission
% FE Imprv.
0.0
1982
0
0
1982
10
10
Control
1982
0
0
1983
3
3
%
1983
12
12
%
1983
0
0
1984
6
6
Penetration
1984
14
14
Penetration
1984
0
0
(cumulative)
1985
1986
10 13
10 13
(cumulative)
1985
1986
16 18
16 18
(cumulative)
1985
0
0
1986
0
0
2000
48
13
2000
40
18
2000
0
0
-------
-19-
Table 9
Class Vl-VIIIa Medium Heavy-Duty^
Future Non-Enqine Related Fuel Economy
Vehicles
Improvements
Weight Reduction (none)
Radials
Source %
FE Imprv.
MOBILES [1] 3.2
MOBILE4 3.2
Advanced Radials
Source %
MOBILE3[1]
MOBILE4
Aerodynamics
Aerodynamics
Source %
FE Imprv .
6.0
6.0
(body) - none
(add-on)
FE Imprv.
MOBILE3[1] 2.5
MOBILE4 2.5
Drivetrain Lubricants
Source %
MOBILES [1]
MOBILE4
Fan Drives
Source %
MOBILE3[1]
MOBILE4
Speed Control
Source %
MOBILES [1]
MOBILE4
FE Imprv.
1.5
1.5
FE Imprv .
5.3
5.3
FE Imprv .
6.0
6.0
1982
14
14
1982
0
0
1982
5
5
1982
0
0
1982
50
50
1982
0
0
% Penetration
1983 1984
14 14
14 14
% Penetration
1983 1984
1 2
1 2
% Penetration
1983 1984
5 6
5 6
% Penetration
1983 1984
7 13
7 13
% Penetration
1983 1984
60 70
60 70
% Penetration
1983 1984
1 2
1 2
(cumulative)
1985 1986
14 14
14 14
(cumulative)
1985 1986
3 4
3 4
(cumulative)
1985 1986
6 7
6 7
(cumulative)
1985 1986
20 27
20 27
(cumulative)
1985 1986
80 90
80 90
(cumulative)
1985 1986
3 4
3 4
2000
0
14
2000
30
4
2000
20
7
2000
100
27
2000
100
90
2000
15
4
-------
Class VI
-20-
Table 10
lib Heavy Heavy-Duty Vehicles
Future Non-Engine Related Fuel Economy
Weight Reduction (none)
Radials
Source %
FE Imprv .
MOBILE3[1] 6.8
MOBILE4 6.8
Advanced Radials
Source %
MOBILE3[1]
MOBILE 4
Aerodynamics
Aerodynamics
Source %
FE Imprv.
10.2
10.2
(body) - none
(add-on)
FE Imprv .
MOBILE3[1] 2.5
MOBILE4 2.5
Drivetrain Lubricants
Source %
MOBILE3C1]
MOBILE 4
Fan Drives
Source %
MOBILE3[1]
MOBILE4
Speed Control
Source %
MOBILES [1]
MOBILE 4
FE Imprv.
1.5
1.5
FE Imprv .
6.8
6.8
FE Imprv.
5.0
5.0
1982
65
65
1982
1 .7
1.7
1982
22
22
1982
0
0
1982
98
98
1982
8
8
% Penetration
1983 1984
62 58
62 58
% Penetration
1983 1984
5 10
5 10
% Penetration
1983 1984
24 27
24 27
% Penetration
1983 1984
7 13
7 13
% Penetration
1983 1984
98 99
98 99
% Penetration
1983 1984
10 11
10 11
Improvements
(cumulative)
1985
1986
54 50
54 50
(cumulative)
1985
1986
15 20
15 20
(cumulative)
1985
1986
29 32
29 32
(cumulative)
1985
1986
20 27
20 27
(cumulative)
1985
1986
99 100
99 100
(cumulative)
1985
13
13
1986
14
14
2000
0
50
2000
70
20
2000
58
32
2000
100
27
2000
100
100
2000
50
14
-------
TABLE 11
ANNUAL FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENTS (RELATIVE TO 1982)
YEAR CLASS 2B CLASS 3 CLASS 4 CLASS 5 CLASS 6 CLASS 7 CLASS 8A CLASS 8B TRANSIT COMMERCIAL SCHOOL
DIESEL
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
2000
1.00092
1.00182
1.00279
1.00456
1.00456
1.00456
1.00456
1.00456
1.00456
1.00456
1.00456
1.00456
1.00456
1.00456
1.00456
1.00456
1.00456
1.00456
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.00823
1.01838
1.02669
1.03338
1.03338
1.03338
1.03338
1.03338
1.03338
1.03338
1.03338
1.03338
1.03338
1.03338
1.03338
1.03338
1.03338
1.03338
1.00770
1.01541
1.02318
1.03091
1.03091
1.03091
1.03091
1.03091
1.03091
1.03091
1.03091
1.03091
1.03091
1.03091
1.03091
1.03091
1.03091
1.03091
1.00975
1.01788
1.02615
1.03428
1.03428
1.03428
1.03428
1.03428
1.03428
1.03428
1.03428
1.03428
1.03428
1.03428
1.03428
1.03428
1.03428
1.03428
1.00085
1.00354
1.00462
1.00735
1.00735
1.00735
1.00735
1.00735
1.00735
1.00735
1.00735
1.00735
1.00735
1.00735
1.00735
1.00735
1.00735
1.00735
GASOLINE
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
2000
1.00087
1.00171
1.00367
1.00684
1.00684
1.00684
1.00684
1.00684
1.00684
1.00684
1.00684
1.00684
1.00684
1.00684
1.00684
1.00684
1.00684
1.00684
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.00086
.00170
.00339
.00643
.00643
.00643
.00643
.00643
.00643
.00643
.00643
.00643
.00643
.00643
.00643
.00643
.00643
.00643
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.00087
.00172
.00308
.00547
.00547
.00547
.00547
.00547
.00547
.00547
.00547
.00547
.00547
.00547
.00547
.00547
.00547
.00547
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.00112
.00319
.00614
.00986
.00986
.00986
.00986
.00986
.00986
.00986
.00986
.00986
.00986
.00986
.00986
.00986
.00986
.00986
1.00838
1.01598
1.02353
1.03073
1.03073
1.03073
1.03073
1.03073
1.03073
1.03073
1.03073
1.03073
1.03073
1.03073
1.03073
1.03073
1.03073
1.03073
1.00681
1.01294
1.02041
1.02774
1.02774
1.02774
1.02774
1.02774
1.02774
1.02774
1.02774
1.02774
1.02774
1.02774
1.02774
1.02774
1.02774
1.02774
1.00695
1.01400
1.02115
1.02875
1.02875
1.02875
1.02875
1.02875
1.02875
1.02875
1.02875
1.02875
1.02875
1.02875
1.02875
1.02875
1.02875
1.02875
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
-22-
Table 12
1982 TIUS Vehicle Stock and VMT
By Class, Range, and Fuel Type
Diesel
Gasoline
Vehicle Class
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Class 5
Class 6
Class 7
Class 8A
Class 8B
Stock
Avg VMT
Stock
Avg VMT
Local
Short
Long
Local
Short
Long
Local
Short
Long
Local
Short
Long
Local
Short
Long
Local
Short
Long
Local
Short
Long
Local
Short
Long
19573
3383
2126
7817
1781
379
3000
569
0
3914
1458
307
41270
20527
3826
113119
41889
11493
142493
58534
44179
247518
231957
253282
13077
30387
29853
15482
36298
53414
16558
28662
NA
16752
34487
30582
17489
28009
46970
19643
34705
52420
19163
41006
79133
30802
56621
87750
8802070
1362678
412753
45922
7393
543
147078
25239
5536
256128
28325
3356
718706
95819
14052
103120
18553
2599
67339
7504
1700
6662
1610
521
10834
13805
13178
5596
\ 13439
6472
7090
13669
8101
6420
13256
12803
8214
15151
15565
10746
18763
23129
8599
16934
11093
12953
25380
95892
-------
-23-
fuel economy improvements for gasoline and diesel vehicles
arises from the different weighting of the individual fuel
economy improvements due to different long-range, short-range,
and local distributions of gasoline and diesel vehicles.
If the percent of the fleet affected was less than the
percent of vehicles used for long-range transport, then only
long-range vehicles were credited with fuel economy
improvements. The percent of fleet affected had to be greater
than both the combined long-range and short-range vehicle use
fractions in order to credit any fuel economy improvement to
the urban (local) vehicles. The overall effect of a given
technology is dependent on the degree that the technology is
applied throughout the class and on the breakdown of the class
between the various use categories. The computer program used
to perform these calculations is shown in Appendix C.
After all of the future non-engine-related fuel economy
improvements are calculated for each class and time period,
they are applied to the most recent historic class-specific
(1982) conversion factor to yield future class-specific
conversion factors. Some of the fuel economy improvements
discussed had already penetrated a portion of the fleet by
1982, and their increasing benefits were realized as a larger
percent of the fleet incorporated those improvements in later
model years. This 1982 baseline penetration was subtracted
from the penetration of each future year to obtain the net
percent improvement from 1982 to the year in question. These
future class-specific conversion factors are shown along with
the historic values in Tables 5 and 6. For reference, the
MOBILES values are shown in Table A-2. As can be seen, the
differences in future class specific conversion factors between
the MOBILES and MOBILE4 analyses are typically fairly small.
IV. Fleet-Average Conversion Factors
Fleet-average conversion factors were calculated by VMT
weighting the class-specific conversion factors. The VMT
weighting factor for each class was determined by normalizing
the product of: 1) the HDV sales fraction, 2) the diesel or
gasoline sales fraction, 3) the annual VMT per vehicle, and 4)
the urban travel fraction. The resulting diesel and gasoline
VMT-weighting factors are listed in Tables 13 and 14. The
individual factors that make up the VMT weighting factor are
discussed in the paragraphs below.
A. Sales Fractions
Historical class-specific truck sales figures for the 1962
to 1971 timeframe were calculated from the sales fractions used
in the MOBILES conversion factors analysis and an estimate of
the entire fleetwide truck sales from the MVMA fact book.[12]
For the 1972 to 1986 timeframe, the MVMA fact sheets were
-------
TABLE 13
DIESEL VMT WEIGHTING FACTORS
YEAR CLASS 2B
62
63 0.
64 0.
65 0.
66 0.
67 0.
68 0.
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77 0.
78
79 0.
80 0.
81 0.
82 0.
83 0.
84 0.
85 0.
86 0.
87 0.
88 0.
89 0.
90 0.
91 0.
92 0.
93 0.
94 0.
95 0.
96 0.
97 0.
98 0.
99 0.
2000 0.
0
.000298
,000281
,000534
,000956
000583
000302
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
001142
0
038501
118076
166079
279754
340036
278909
359162
345845
360157
373600
386721
399826
406272
413538
411888
410507
408283
408190
409439
410069
411282
412563
CLASS 3
0.001857
0.001955
0.001983
0.001960
0.001866
0.001695
0.001048
0.000492
0.000097
0.000376
0.001082
0.001109
0.000178
0.000880
0.000890
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CLASS 4
0.006265
0.006603
0.006572
0.006448
0.006187
0.005770
0.003499
0.001600
0.000335
0.000350
0.000209
0.000196
0.000177
0.000316
0.000002
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CLASS 5
0.029096
0.030574
0.028644
0.025693
0.023233
0.020407
0.014995
0.007377
0.001551
0.001196
0.000688
0.000732
0.000433
0.000525
0.000170
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CLASS 6
0.059262
0.074583
0.078960
0.076819
0.079105
0.080735
0.072603
0.064548
0.058239
0.043095
0.026896
0.028316
0.032625
0.041553
0.054580
0.052112
0.045888
0.049611
0.035671
0.043903
0.025049
0.023077
0.025132
0.025226
0.016942
0.026149
0.026481
0.026723
0.026816
0.027334
0.027707
0.028121
0.028482
0.028687
0.028563
0.028844
0.029189
0.029544
0.030087
CLASS 7
0.288106
0.250074
0.215354
0.188052
0.166828
0.148593
0.135289
0.121463
0.110512
0.109401
0.090385
0.087184
0.072546
0.108279
0.085276
0.100055
0.117802
0.116016
0.174960
0.143025
0.185028
0.149811
0.149432
0.156651
0.166952
0.176706
0.179669
0.182468
0.184817
0.185261
0.184945
0.187778
0.189331
0.188937
0.188955
0.187976
0.187136
0.185162
0.183749
CLASS 8A
0.056916
0.058430
0.058719
0.059259
0.054712
0.050608
0.048928
0.046530
0.044494
0.044928
0.049568
0.053043
0.053362
0.053745
0.062639
0.067025
0.061700
0.053913
0.041751
0.039112
0.029118
0.060202
0.063873
0.060630
0.083013
0.051024
0.049775
0.049151
0.048092
0.047459
0.046719
0.046790
0.046877
0.046888
0.047005
0.046862
0.046684
0.046522
0.046196
CLASS 8B
0.433105
0.470605
0.504553
0.538508
0.564296
0.593169
0.641956
0.680810
0.727843
0.716442
0.749545
0.752974
0.730991
0.581230
0.649996
0.723383
'0.697124
0.675116
0.518107
0.503144
0.390423
0.329455
0.422003
0.337899
0.306912
0.310679
0.294812
0.280237
0.266575
0.260521
0.254793
0.252939
0.253071
0.255623
0.256155
0.256428
0.256509
0.257152
0.257247
TRANSIT
0.102715
0.087329
0.086106
0.084195
0.084051
0.081145
0.066947
0.063071
0.046619
0.068596
0.067097
0.062592
0.089289
0.173583
0.119146
0.045608
0.061664
0.052130
0.087514
0.080496
0.064281
0.071731
0.042274
0.037123
0.047108
0.043951
0.043514
0.042241
0.040978
0.040270
0.039642
0.039538
0.038608
0.038458
0.038396
0.037602
0.037614
0.037639
0.037687
COMMERCIAL SCHOOL
0.022674
0.019544
0.018825
0.018528
0.018760
0.017292
0.014427
0.014105
0.010304
0.015611
0.014524
0.013850
0.020393
0.039884
0.027297
0.010626
0.015381
0.012963
0.018687
0.016865
0.014142
0.015285
0.009160
0.008378
0.010202
0.009665
0.009569
0.009245
0.009160
0.009001
0.008634
0.008611
0.008591
0.008558
0.008319
0.008328
0.008331
0.008336
0.008347
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.000045
0.000438
0.001747
0.005229
0.007371
0.012201
0.010398
0.009212
0.014928
0.023022
0.021665
0.022576
0.023211
0.023734
0.023879
0.024020
0.024331
0.024528
0.024562
0.024411
0.024516
0.024464
0.024359
0.024120
I
to
.p-
I
-------
TABLE 14
GASOLINE VMT WEIGHTING FACTORS
YEAR CLASS 2B
62 0.
63 0.
64 0.
65 0.
66 0.
67 0.
68 0.
69 0.
70 0.
71 0.
72 0.
73 0.
74 0.
75 0.
76 0.
77 0.
78 0.
79 0.
80 0.
81 0.
82 0.
83 0.
84 0.
85 0.
86 0.
87 0.
88 0.
89 0.
90 0.
91 0.
92 0.
93 0.
94 0.
95 0.
96 0.
97 0.
98 0.
99 0.
2000 0.
084704
094014
105457
116464
138557
135989
154827
175493
195991
196513
192881
224874
234297
357016
409473
649578
651758
683093
794112
805366
862236
894882
867980
880005
886304
881406
884543
886511
888117
888427
889070
890468
891933
893674
895312
896593
897280
898241
898844
CLASS 3
0.019007
0.018488
0.018080
0.017485
0.015221
0.013409
0.013048
0.012866
0.011357
0.043598
0.122343
0.101750
0.019508
0.051386
0.107640
0.046816
0.051236
0.029579
0.009218
0.000556
0
0
0
0.024472
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CLASS 4
0.057896
0.056286
0.054385
0.052400
0.046251
0.041699
0.039422
0.037710
0.035418
0.036727
0.021419
0.016300
0.017550
0.016731
0.000220
0.005082
0.009031
0.003989
0.000042
0.000033
0.000021
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CLASS 5
0.296950
0.288189
0.282254
0.274245
0.241192
0.213045
0.201771
0.192051
0.180033
0.138186
0.077660
0.067018
0.047243
0.030592
0.020512
0.007271
0.005816
0.005145
0.003479
0.004084
0.002756
0.001928
0.008223
0.006260
0.009106
0.009063
0.009021
0.008983
0.008950
0.008962
0.008967
0.008994
0.008895
0.008926
0.008806
0.008801
0.008673
0.008662
0.008529
CLASS 6
0.258296
0.250137
0.246712
0.244112
0.265965
0.293627
0.301649
0.312592
0.321358
0.338954
0.373808
0.387429
0.472006
0.370605
0.331035
0.220045
0.206740
0.193553
0.091797
0.100729
0.040117
0.034206
0.031890
0.019374
0.018660
0.023061
0.021805
0.020853
0.019858
0.019595
0.019350
0.018765
0.018288
0.017940
0.017559
0.017593
0.017789
0.017972
0.018257
CLASS 7
0.089215
0.086321
0.086043
0.085580
0.091582
0.099727
0.106938
0.116054
0.124531
0.117825
0.091790
0.081510
0.069016
0.058600
0.041806
0.030924
0.035991
0.045587
0.062725
0.060668
0.070993
0.051175
0.071845
0.059063
0.073662
0.077695
0.077691
0.078123
0.078533
0.079254
0.079614
0.079414
0.079098
0.078179
0.077417
0.076467
0.076067
0.075123
0.074368
CLASS 8A
0.008790
0.009960
0.011445
0.012909
0.015694
0.018955
0.022077
0.025928
0.029962
0.028507
0.029358
0.027387
0.026355
0.013915
0.011488
0.007820
0.007277
0.007229
0.004381
0.003948
0.002088
0.001388
0.001904
0.001120
0.001229
0.000456
0.000246
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CLASS 8B
0.110036
0.117392
0.122425
0.122826
0.113609
0.106574
0.089531
0.068340
0.041503
0.041946
0.042843
0.047901
0.056166
0.029876
0.019029
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TRANSIT COMMERCIAL SCHOOL
0.026182
0.021901
0.021059
0.019333
0.017085
0.014703
0.009465
0.006480
0.002770
0.004172
0.003984
0.004143
0.007129
0.010033
0.007993
0.001818
0.002719
0.001724
0.001525
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.005779
0.004901
0.004604
0.004254
0.003813
0.003133
0.002040
0.001449
0.000612
0.000949
0.000862
0.000916
0.001628
0.002305
0.001831
0.000423
0.000678
0.000428
0.000325
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.043140
0.052407
0.047530
0.050386
0.051025
0.059133
0.059226
0.051031
0.056460
0.052617
0.043046
0.040765
0.049096
0.058935
0.048968
0.030218
0.028749
0.029667
0.032390
0.024612
0.021786
0.016418
0.018156
0.009702
0.011035
0.008316
0.006690
0.005528
0.004540
0.003759
0.002995
0.002357
0.001784
0.001279
0.000904
0.000544
0.000189
0
0
-------
-26-
relied on for the class-specific sales of all trucks sold
domestically in the U.S., with the exception of Class 2B, Class
8A, and Class 8B.[4] For Classes 8A and 8B, the MVMA fact
sheets were relied on for the total Class 8 sales, but this was
broken up into Class 8A and 8B by using the sales information
in the EEA conversion factors report, and the Department of
Energy's 13th Periodical Report[13,14] (for the years where
data was available) to determine the ratio of Class 8B to Class
8 Sales. Class 2B sales were taken from the 13th Periodical
Report, as that was the most recent source for strictly-Class
2B new vehicle registrations. (Class 2B new vehicle
registrations were assumed to be representative of Class 2B
domestic sales.)
Historical transit bus sales were taken from the APTA
Transit Fact Book.[7] Commercial bus sales were assumed to be
82 percent of transit bus sales based on fleet registrations.
School bus sales were taken from the MVMA fact sheets in
similar fashion as the truck sales. Since the 1962 to 1971
values for school buses were not included in the MOBILES work,
and were not available in our MVMA fact sheets, they were
estimated based on the size of the school bus fleet given in
the FHA Highway Statistics.[6]
Future class sales were determined by taking the
historical sales and projecting them forward in a manner
similar to that used in the MOBILES analysis. Class 2B was
projected using the 13th Periodical Report.[14] Classes 3 and
4 sales had gone to zero by 1982. As no information was found
to suggest otherwise, the sales for these classes was assumed
to remain zero. Class 5 sales had been projected to go to zero
in the MOBILES analysis. However, recent history has shown
this not to be true. As a result of no available precedent for
projecting Class 5 sales, the additive two percent increase per
year in sales which had been assumed for Class 6 in the EEA
conversion factor analysis was assumed for this analysis to be
representative of Class 5 as well.[13] The future sales
projections which were used in the MOBILES analysis for Classes
6 and 7 were used here as well, with the exception that new
starting points were selected based on the sales information
available for recent years. Class 8A was projected using a
historically based fraction of 9.38 percent of the total of
Classes 7 and 8, while Class 8B was projected using the 13th
periodical report,[14] with the exception that the values were
modified downward to account for differences seen in the
historical data between registrations from the 13th Periodical
Report and MVMA sales. Transit and commercial bus sales were
projected assuming an additive two percent increase every
year. School bus sales were projected using an extrapolation
of the historical data.
-------
-27-
Once all of these model year specific class-specific sales
were estimated, the corresponding sales fractions could be
determined. Historical fractions no longer match those
presented in the MOBILES conversion factors report and shown in
Table A-l due to the addition of the two classes of school
buses and commercial buses. The resulting sales and sales
fractions are listed in Tables 15 and 16, respectively.
Comparison of these sales fractions with the estimates made by
MOBILES and shown in Table A-3 demonstrate the trend toward the
lighter truck classes seen in recent years.
B. Diesel Fractions and Gasoline Fractions
The 1962 to 1982 diesel sales fractions used to calculate
the VMT-weighting factors are identical to those used in the
MOBILES conversion factor analysis, and were based on factory
sales by U.S. domestic manufacturers and exports from Canada to
the U.S.. The gasoline fractions are simply 1.0 minus the
diesel fraction. For the 1983 to 1986 time frame, the MVMA
fact sheets used for determining the total class sales were
used with the exception that once again estimates for Class 2B
relied on the 13th Periodical Report.[4,14]
Future diesel penetration rates into the individual
classes were projected from the sales information as described
above. With the exception of Class 6, all of the truck classes
were assumed to have the same diesel penetrations in the year
1997 as in the MOBILES analysis. This assumption was not
practical for Class 6 due to the much higher dieselization of
this class in recent years than had been assumed in the MOBILES
analysis. Instead, since the sales data as seen in Table 15
showed that Class 7 vehicles may be replacing Class 6 vehicles,
the 1997 penetration for Class 7 was also assumed for Class 6.
Transit and commercial buses were assumed to remain all diesel,
as they have already been completely diesel for a number of
years, and this is not expected to change. Neither EEA nor the
MOBILES conversion factor analysis had projected school bus
sales. Historical MVMA sales data showed that in the span of
just 10 years since diesel engines entered the school bus
market, they have already reached nearly 70 percent
penetration. As a result, by extrapolating this historical
data, school bus sales were projected to become 100 percent
diesel by 1999, Both historical and future diesel penetrations
for trucks and buses are shown in Table 17. Once again, the
MOBILES diesel penetrations are shown in Tables A-l and A-3. A
comparison of the two shows little difference in all but Class
6 trucks, where a greater future diesel penetration is now
projected.
-------
Table 15
Total Annual Sales
Year ClassZB ClassS Class4 ClassS
ClassSB Transit Commercial School
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
2000
21
25
26
31
39
32
39
45
42
49
61
77
71
90
110
280
290
280
302
274
321
419
464
588
465
484
504
523
543
556
570
583
597
610
630
647
664
681
699
7.3
7.6
7.0
7.4
6.8
5.1
5.1
5.0
3.7
16.3
57.8
52.6
8.9
19.5
43.4
30.1
34.0
17.4
4.8
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.2
23.2
20.9
22.3
20.5
15.5
15.4
14.8
11.4
13.6
10.1
8.4
8.0
6.3
0.1
3.2
6.0
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
118.6
123.4
112.4
119.2
110.7
81.8
81.9
78.0
60.4
53.5
38.0
35.8
22.3
12.0
8.6
4.8
4.0
3.1
1.9
1.9
1.3
1.1
5.5
5.1
5.7
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.23
7.4
83.6
89.3
83.7
91.8
104.9
96.3
104.5
110.0
94.7
111.1
149.1
169.3
183.5
120.4
120.5
132.2
128.8
113.4
51.2
51.4
23.1
24.8
30.7
27.4
18.2
26.5
27.0
27.5
28.0
29.0
30.0
30.8
31.5
32.3
33.0
34.0
35.3
36.5
38.0
33.7
36.0
33.7
36.9
38.3
32.3
35.7
38.2
33.5
37.1
37.1
38.6
31.1
23.8
21.7
31.5
41.0
45.1
54.4
44.2
53.2
50.8
75.6
82.2
78.0
87.5
92.0
96.5
101.0
105.0
108.5
112.5
116.0
118.5
122.0
124.0
126.5
128.0
130.0
5.1
6.5
7.1
8.9
9.7
8.5
10.0
11.3
10.4
11.8
15.7
18.1
17.7
9.1
12.3
17.3
18.0
17.2
10.4
9.4
6.35
15.2
23.4
23.6
28.4
18.6
19.0
19.4
19.7
20.3
20.9
21.5
22.1
22.8
23.5
24.0
24.5
24.9
25.4
38.5
49.0
53.6
67.6
73.2
64.3
75.3
85.0
78.4
88.9
114.6
136.5
139.5
61.6
87.2
130.0
143.0
153.5
93.5
89.6
64.2
66.1
123.0
105.7
84.7
92.3
91.4
90.5
89.7
91.4
93.2
95.0
97.7
101.3
104.9
107.6
110.3
113.0
115.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
3.0
3.1
2.5
2.2
2.2
1.4
2.4
2.9
3.2
4.8
5.3
4.7
2.4
3.8
3.4
4.6
4.1
3.0
4.1
3.4
3.3
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4 7
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.2
2.0
2.4
2.6
4.1
4.5
4.0
2.1
3.5
3.2
3.6
3.2
2.5
3.2
2.8
2.7
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.8
3 9
24.0
31.0
26.0
30.0
32.0
31.0
33.0
29.0
27.0
29.0
30.0
31.0
33.0
32.9
29.1
28.9
28.7
27.3
28.5
21.0
22.3
21.4
26.9
27.8
32.3
30.3
31.0
31.7
32.5
33.2
33.9
34.5
35.1
35.6
36.1
36.7
37.1
37.6
38.0
OO
I
-------
Table 16
TRUCK SALES FRACTIONS
Year
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
2000
ClassZB
.059
.063
.069
.074
.089
.087
.096
.107
.116
.118
.117
.134
.136
.233
.249
.423
.414
.420
.544
.549
.646
.692
.614
.664
.647
.644
.648
.652
.656
.655
.655
.654
.653
.652
.653
.655
.655
.657
.658
Class3 Class4 ClassS
No
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
.020
.019
.019
.018
.016
.014
.013
.012
.010
.039
.112
.092
.017
.015
.098
.045
.049
.026
.009
.000
Sales
.000
.000
.022
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
Sales
.062
.059
.056
.053
.047
.042
.038
.035
.031
.033
.019
.015
.015
.016
.000
.005
.009
.004
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
No Sales
No Sales
No Sales
No Sales
No Sales
No Sales
No Sales
No Sales
No Sales
No Sales
No Sales
No Sales
No Sales
No Sales
No Sales
No Sales
.330
.312
.300
.283
.251
.220
.203
.186
.666
.129
.073
.063
.043
.031
.019
.007
.006
.005
.003
.004
.003
.002
.007
.006
.008
.008
.008
.008
.007
.007
.007
.007
.007
.007
.007
.007
.007
.007
.007
Class6 Class? ClassSA ClassSB Transit Commercial
.233
.226
.223
.218
.238
.259
.259
.262
.260
.268
.288
.295
.350
.312
.273
.199
.184
.170
.092
.103
.046
.041
.041
.031
.025
-.035
.035
.034
.034
.034
.034
.034
.034
.034
.034
.034
.035
.035
.036
.094
.091
.090
.088
.087
.087
.088
.091
.092
.090
.072
.067
.059
.062
.049
.048
.059
.068
.098
.089
.107
.084
.100
.093
.109
.116
.118
.120
.122
.124
.125
.126
.127
.127
.127
.125
.125
.123
.122
.014
.016
.019
.021
.022
.023
.025
.027
.029
.028
.030
.032
.034
.024
.028
.026
.026
.026
.019
.019
.013
.025
.031
.027
.039
.025
.024
.024
.024
.024
.024
.024
.024
.024
.024
.024
.024
.024
.024
.107
.124
.143
.161
.166
.173
.186
.202
.215
.214
.221
.238
.266
.160
.197
.196
.204
.230
.169
.180
.129
.109
.163
.119
.118
.123
.118
.113
.108
.108
.107
.107
.107
.108
.109
.109
.109
.109
.109
.007
.007
.007
.007
.007
.007
.006
.005
.004
.006
.006
.006
.009
.014
.011
.004
.005
.005
.008
.008
.006
.007
.005
.004
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
.004
.004
.006
.006
.006
.006
.006
.005
.004
.004
.003
.005
.005
.005
.008
.012
.009
.003
.005
.005
.007
.006
.005
.005
.004
.003
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
.004
School
.067
.078
.069
.071
.073
.084
.082
.069
.074
.071
.058
.054
.063
.085
.066
.044
.041
.041
.051
.042
.045
.035
.036
.031
.045
.040
.040
.040
.039
.039
.039
.039
.038
.038
.037
.037
.037
.036
.036
-------
-30-
Table 17
Diesel Sales Fractions
Year ClassZB Class3-5
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
2000
0
.001
.001
.002
.003
.002
.001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.001
0
.041
.081
.122
.162
.184
.198
.216
.232
.250
.260
.270
.280
.290
.300
.300
.300
.300
.300
.300
.300
.300
.300
.014
.018
.022
.026
.029
.031
.022
.012
.003
.003
.003
.004
.004
.005
.003
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Class6
.042
.063
.084
.105
.100
.094
.088
.082
.076
.054
.031
.034
.038
.041
.071
.100
.106
.174
.242
.309
.377
.399
.493
.579
.527
.590
.610
.626
.642
.656
.668
.679
.688
.695
.699
.700
.700
.700
.700
Class7
.421
.436
.442
.447
.413
.379
.364
.348
.333
.341
.348
.382
.415
.449
.514
.578
.615
.606
.598
.589
.580
.617
.589
.627
.617
.635
.646
.655
.662
.670
.677
.684
.689
.694
.698
.700
.700
.700
.700
ClassSA
.600
.616
.624
.632
.583
.535
.514
.492
.470
.482
.492
.540
.586
.634
.726
.770
.794
.818
.841
.865
.889
.962
.962
.973
.981
.989
.994
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
ClassSB
.547
.595
.642
.690
.721
.751
.809
.867
.925
.923
.923
.921
.920
.920
.960
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Transit Commercial School
.547
.595
.642
.690
.721
.751
.809
.867
.925
.923
.923
.921
.920
.914
.919
.943
.943
.965
.979
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1,
1.
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
.547
.595
.642
.690
.721
.751
.809
.867
.925
.923
.923
.921
.920
.914
.919
.943
.943
.965
.979
1.0
1.
1.
1.
1.
1,
1.
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1
I,
1
1
1
1
1.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.001
.011
.051
.116
.291
.316
.342
.350
.589
.690
.745
.794
.830
.861
.886
.910
.929
.946
.961
.972
.983
.994
1.0
1.0
-------
-31-
C. Annual Vehicle Miles Travelled
EEA's analysis of the 1982 TIUS provided class-specific,
fuel-specific annual VMTs per vehicle for long-range,
short-range, and local applications individually as seen in
Table 12.[5] These values represent the 1982 calendar year VMT
per vehicle of the vehicles surveyed in the analysis. Since it
is known that diesel penetration affects the average annual VMT
per vehicle, the EEA calendar-year values were converted to
model year specific VMT per vehicle values using the model year
specific diesel penetrations developed in the previous
section. An example of this conversion (for Class 2B for the
1986 model year) follows.
To begin this calculation, the Class 2B vehicle stock and
VMT per vehicle values were taken from the 1982 TIUS.
Vehicle
Range
Local
Short
Long
Total
TIUS
Diesel
Stock
19573
3383
2126
25082
TIUS
Gas
Stock
TIUS
Total
Stock
TIUS TIUS
Diesel Diesel/Gas
Distribution VMT/Vehicle
8802070 8821643
1362678 1366061
412753 414879
10577501 10602583
0.7804
0.1349
0.0847
1.0000
13077/10834
30387/13805
29853/13178
The diesel sales fraction for 1986 Class 2B trucks was
then taken from Table 16 and multiplied by the total TIUS stock
to determine the number of vehicles (out of a fleet the size of
the TIUS fleet) that should be diesel for the 1986 model year.
To determine the breakdown of these vehicles among the local,
short-range, and long-range categories, it was then assumed
that gasoline vehicles switch over to diesel among these
categories in the ratio in which diesel vehicles already
existed in those categories until the long-range application
became completely diesel. At that time, those that would have
been added to the long-range category were added to the
short-range category until it was completely diesel. Any
additional diesel vehicles beyond this were all added into the
local category. From this, the number of additional diesels
(or fewer gasoline trucks) over and above that determined in
the TIUS can be calculated, as well as the remaining gasoline
trucks.
1986 Total
Diesel
Stock
Local
Short
Long
Total
2459799
Additional
Diesel
Stock
1900053
328443
206221
2434717
Net
Gasoline
Stock
6902017
1034235
206532
8142784
-------
-32-
At this point, these fuel specific and range specific
vehicle stocks were multiplied by the corresponding annual VMTs
(also shown in Table 12). Diesel vehicles which had been
gasoline were assumed to have the annual VMT of the gasoline
vehicles which they replaced, so that switching fuels did not
increase the total VMT of the vehicle class.
Local
Short
Long
Total
1986 Diesel
Fleet VMT
(Billions)
20.841
4.637
2.781
28.259
1986 Gasoline
Fleet VMT
(Billions)
74.776
14.278
2.722
91.776
At this point, by merely dividing the total VMT for all
vehicle ranges by the corresponding model year specific vehicle
stocks, estimates of the Class 2B 1986 model year diesel and
gasoline average annual VMTs could be determined.
Local
Short
Long
Avg
1986 Diesel
Avg Annual
VMT/Veh
10857
13974
13348
11488
1986 Gasoline
Avg Annual
VMT/Veh
10834
13805
13178
11271
As a result of this analysis, the average annual VMT for
an entire class (gas and diesel) remains constant while they
change for both gasoline and diesel vehicles individually.
This is reasonable, since a trend to more diesel vehicles
should not cause a greater number of miles to be driven by an
entire fleet. A similar analysis was then performed for all
vehicle classes for all model years of concern.
The TIUS information did not include buses, so an
equivalent annual VMT per bus had to be determined. The value
for transit buses was obtained from data in the APTA transit
fact book,[7] while the values for the commercial and school
buses were obtained from the FHA Highway Statistics.[ 6] These
values, however, may not be entirely appropriate for inclusion
into a data base that consists mostly of trucks, since the life
expectancy of a bus is typically longer than that of a truck.
Lifetime VMT per vehicle is actually a more appropriate measure
of a vehicle's contribution to a model year's lifetime
emissions. This is true because the conversion factors are
determined by model year and apply throughout the entire life
of that model year's vehicles. When vehicles' lives are the
same in terms of years, the two approaches (annual and lifetime
VMT) yield the same results. But since the lives of buses (in
-------
-33-
years) are longer than other heavy-duty vehicles, the annual
approach would underestimate their contribution to their model
year's fleet-wide lifetime emissions. Thus, an equivalent
annual bus VMT was estimated by multiplying the average annual
Class 8B VMT per vehicle of 57,136 miles by the ratio of
lifetime bus VMT to lifetime Class 8B VMT. Due to a lack of
any other means of estimating the lifetime VMT of the buses, an
estimate was determined by dividing the annual fleet VMTs by
the corresponding new bus sales over a range of 9 to 19 years
for the different bus classes. This was done for all three bus
classes as shown in Tables 18 through 20. The resulting annual
VMT per vehicle values for both trucks and buses for all model
years can be seen in Tables 21 and 22. The annual VMT per
vehicle estimates made for MOBILES are shown in Tables A-l and
A-3. Overall the new estimates are probably not that much
different from MOBILES's, but individual classes may vary
significantly.
D. Urban Travel Fractions
The MOBILES conversion factor analysis utilized TIUS data
similar to that used above for the annual VMT per vehicle
calculations to determine class-specific, fuel-specific, model
year specific urban travel fractions. The model year specific,
range-specific fleet VMTs calculated in the example above were
reweighted based on the assumption that only 85 percent of a
vehicle's VMT is in its primary use category; the remaining 15
percent being split equally between the other two categories.
The fraction of VMT which was local was then assumed to be the
urban travel fraction.
Although this method is still possible using the data from
the 1982 -TIUS, more accurate information has since become
available. The, University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute (UMTRI) performed a survey supplemental to the 1982
TIUS in which they contacted 8000 truck owners and traced four
days of operation on maps to determine actual truck usage
patterns. The fraction of vehicle miles for each class within
the boundaries of urban areas with populations of 50,000 or
more was assumed to be the urban travel fraction for that
class. They did not survey class 2B trucks. As a result, the
values for Class 3-5 straight trucks will be used as a
surrogate for Class 2B. They also did not survey buses.
Therefore, transit buses were assumed to be entirely urban.
Commercial and school bus urban travel fractions were taken
from an average of FHA data.[6]
The urban travel fractions obtained from the UMTRI data
are likely to be much more accurate for those vehicle classes
surveyed than the values obtained from the TIUS, since no
assumptions as to the percent of travel in a vehicle's primary
use category, or as to what constituted urban travel had to be
made. Unfortunately, this method provided only 1985 calendar
-------
-34-
Table 18
Transit Bus Annual VMT per Vehicle
Year
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Fleet VMT
(Millions)
1526.0
1508.2
1478.3
1409.3
1375.5
1308.0
1370.4
1431.0
1526.0
1581.4
1623.3
1630.5
1633.6
1677.2
1684.6
1668.8
1677.8
1621.9
1771.3
New Sales
2500
2228
2230
1424
2514
2904
3200
4818
5261
4745
2437
3805
3440
4572
4059
2962
4081
3444
3296
Total/Avg 29503.9 63920
HHDT Estimated Lifetime VMT [1]
Ratio
HHDT Annual VMT
Corrected Transit Annual VMT/Vehicle
VMT/Sales
610400
676930
662915
989677
547136
450413
428250
297011
290059
333277
666106
428515
474884
366842
415028
563403
411125
470935
537409
461561
600000
0.77
57136
44000
Transit data taken from Reference 7.
-------
-35-
Table 19
Commercial Bus Annual VMT per Vehicle
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
Fleet VMT
(Millions)
1122.0
1317.6
1313.7
1454.5
1491.4
1822.8
1855.4
1908.2
1970.2
New Sales
4472
4033
2145
3501
3199
3612
3166
2458
3224
Total/Avg 14255.8 29810
HHDT Estimated Lifetime VMT [l]
HHDT Annual VMT
Corrected Transit Annual VMT/Vehicle
VMT/Sales
250894
326705
612448
415452
466208
504651
586039
776322
611104
478222
600000
Ratio 0.797
57136
45500
Bus data taken from Reference 6.
-------
-36-
Table 20
School Bus Annual VMT per Vehicle
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
Fleet VMT
(Millions)
2500
2862
2950
2991
2980
2900
2875
3062
3098
New Sales
32921
29129
28915
28645
27273
28532
21017
22270
21356
Total/Avg 26218 240058
HHDT Estimated Lifetime VMT [1]
HHDT Annual VMT
Corrected Transit Annual VMT/Vehicle
VMT/Sales
75939
98253
102023
104416
109266
101640
136794
137494
145065
109215
600000
Ratio 0.182
57136
10400
Bus data taken from Reference 6.
-------
Table 21
ANNUAL VMT PER VEHICLE (In Thousands)
DIESEL TRUCKS
Year
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
ClassZB
NS
16.8
16.8
16.8
15.7
16.8
16.8
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
16.8
NS
11.7
11.6
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
Class3
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.6
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
*TC*
Class4
18.5
18.5
17.4
16.0
15.2
14.7
17.4
18.5
18.5
18.5
18.5
18.5
18.5
18.5
18.5
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
MO
ClassS
22.1
22.1
20.4
18.6
17.5
17.0
20.4
22.1
22.1
22.1
22.1
22.1
22.1
22.1
22.1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
M
Tram
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
45.5 10.4
-------
Table 22
ANNUAL VMT PER VEHICLE
(In Thousands)
GASOLINE TRUCKS
Year
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
?nnn
Class2B
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
i 1 1
Class3
8.7
8.6
8.6
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.9
R Q
Class4
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
R ^
ClassS
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7 S
Class6
9.6
9.3
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.4
9.7
9.7
9.6
9.6
9.2
9.1
9.1
8.9
8.9
8.6
8.3
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
fl 7
Class?
15.7
15.5
15.4
15.3
15.9
16.4
16.6
16.9
17.0
16.9
16.9
16.4
15.8
15.2
13.8
12.2
12.0
12.1
12.1
12.1
12.2
12.0
12.1
12.0
12.0
12.0
11.9
11.9
11.8
11.8
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
11 fi
ClassSA
19.9
19.3
18.9
18.6
20.5
22.0
22.6
23.1
23.6
23.4
23.1
21.9
20.4
18.5
12.9
9.4
9.2
8.8
8.8
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
MS
ClassSB
57.7
57.5
57.4
57.2
57.0
56.8
56.3
55.2
52.6
52.7
52.7
52.9
53.0
53.0
47.2
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Transit
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0 '
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0 .
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44 n
Commercial
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
4^ 5
School
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.7
10 4
00
I
-------
-39-
year urban travel fractions, and could not easily be used to
determine model year specific values. As a result, although it
is a more accurate measurement of the actual urban travel
fraction than was assumed from the TIUS data, it still has
inherent inaccuracies due to model year specific effects which
cannot be accounted for. But since the model -year to model
year variation tended to be rather small, the accuracy of
measurement is thought to be of greater importance. The urban
travel fractions for both gasoline and diesel vehicles are
shown in Table 23. The urban travel fractions estimated by
MOBILES and shown in Tables A-l and A-3 tended to be
significantly lower for diesel vehicles and significantly
greater for gasoline vehicles. Although this difference is
significant, it has only a small affect on the fleet weighted
conversion factors since gasoline and diesel vehicles are
weighted separately.
V. Summary of Results
The fleet-average emission conversion factors (in units of
BHP-hr/mi) used in MOBILE4 are listed in Table 1. MOBILE4
class-specific conversion factors are listed in Tables 5 and
6. The non-engine-related fuel economy improvements detailed
in Tables 8 through 10, and summarized in Table 11, were
applied to the 1982 class-specific conversion factors to
develop the post-1982 class-specific conversion factors. The
past and future class-specific conversion factors were weighted
by urban vehicle miles travelled to calculate the fleet average
conversion factors. The weighting factors used are detailed in
Tables 13 and 14. Figure 1 illustrates the comparison between
the MOBILES and MOBILE4 historic and future gasoline and diesel
fleet average conversion factors.
The projected future fleet-average conversion factors show
a steady decrease as time goes on due to increased fuel
economy. Diesel conversion factors decrease more rapidly than
gasoline conversion factors. Current MOBILE4 fleet average
conversion factors are lower than those projected by MOBILES.
This arises mainly due to the fact that Class 2B diesel sales
have increased, and gasoline sales in the heavier classes have
decreased, causing heavier weighting of vehicles with lower
conversion factors.
VII. Recommendations
The future gasoline and diesel conversion factors
presented here are based on estimates and projections. There
are several areas where the present degree of uncertainty is
fairly high and where further data could significantly reduce
the uncertainty of the results.
-------
-40-
Table 23
Urban Travel Fractions [10]
Vehicle Class
Class 2B
Class 3
Class 4
Class 5
Class 6
Class 7
Class 8A
Class 8B
Transit
Commercial
School
Gasoline
0.45
0 .44
0 . 44
0.44
0 .31
0.46
0.25
0.08
1.00
0.26
0.34
Diesel
0. 64
0.45
0.45
0 . 45
0.53
0.51
0.42
0.26
1.00
0.26
0.34
-------
a:
i
I
a.
o
o
2
O
UJ
z
o
o
3.4
1.2
1
0.8
60
M4 DIESEL
FIGURE 1
FLEET AVERAGE CONVERSION FACTORS
H-B-B-*! U D D CHI
70
+ M3 DIESEL
80
MODEL YEAR
90
M4 GAS
2000
M3 G/6
-------
-42-
The most important area of concern is fuel economy.
Better documented data on current urban fuel economy is needed,
since the TIUS only addresses nationwide fuel economy and the
accuracy of the submittals by surveyees is unknown. Equally
important is the need for further information on the effects of
future technology on urban fuel economy improvements. This is
the main factor in projecting future conversion factors,
assuming fuel density will not change significantly in the next
25 years. The urban fuel economy impact of technological
developments in areas such as radial tires, lubrication,
aerodynamic drag reduction, and speed control are not well
known and the penetration of these technologies into the
heavy-duty vehicle market is quite dependent on future fuel
prices and manufacturers' marketing strategies. Any new data
in these areas will be very useful in improving future
projections of the emission conversion factors.
In addition, as was mentioned earlier, any future
conversion factor work should attempt to address the question
of whether the fuel economy of a given model year fleet remains
essentially constant with time as is assumed in this analysis.
The 1982 TIUS resulted in significantly lower fuel economy
estimates for pre-1978 vehicles than had the 1977 TIUS
suggesting that this assumption may not be correct.
A second important area for further study is the
estimation of the urban VMT fraction for the various classes of
heavy-duty vehicles. The TIUS information used in the MOBILES
analysis yields only a surrogate for urban VMT fraction. On
the other hand, the UMTRI information used in this analysis is
not model-year specific. Information with the accuracy of the
UMTRI data, yet with the capability to be made model year
specific, as with the TIUS data, would provide the optimum
information.
-------
-43-
References
1. "Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission Conversion Factors
1962-1997," Mahlon C. Smith, IV, EPA-AA-SDSB-84-1, August, 1984.
2. "Motor Gasolines, Summer 1982, Winter 1982-83,
Summer 1983, Winter 1983-84, Summer 1984, Winter 1984-85,
Summer 1985, Winter 1985-86," Cheryl L. Dickson, Paul W.
Woodward, National Institute for Petroluem and Energy Research
(NIPER), for the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S.
Department of Energy, August 1986.
3. "MVMA National Diesel Fuel Survey," Summer Season
Report, July 1982, 1983,1984, 1985.
4. "Factory Sales - Trucks and Buses by Make and
G.V.W," Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the U.S., 12
months 1975 through 12 months 1986.
5. "Analysis of the 1982 Truck Inventory and Use
Survey," Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., for the U.S.
EPA, December 1986.
6. "Highway Statistics," Federal Highway
Administration, 1968 - 1984.
7. Transit Fact Book, American Public Transit
Association, May 1985.
8. "Radial Truck Tire Trends," Lloyd C. Cooper,
Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., SAE paper No. 851463, August
1985.
9. "Comparison of On-Road and Wind-Tunnel Tests for
Tractor-Trailer Aerodynamic Devices, and Fuel Savings
Predictions," Jeffrey W. Saunders, et.al., SAE paper No. 850286.
10. Presentation Made by the Engine Manufacturers
Association, and Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association to the
Emission Control Technology Division of the Environmental
Protection Agency on March 7, 1988.
11. Letter from Daniel Blower, Research Associate,
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, to
Paul Machiele, Mechanical Engineer, SDSB/ECTD/EPA, April 19,
1988.
12. "Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures," Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers Association, 1964 through 1987.
-------
-44-
References (cont'd)
13. Historical and Projected Emissions Conversion Factor
and Fuel Economy for Heavy-Duty Trucks 1962-2002, prepared for
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association by Energy and
Environmental Analysis, Inc., 1655 N. Fort Mayer Drive,
Arlington, Virginia 22209, December 1983.
14. "The Motor Fuel Consumption Model; 13th Periodical
Report," Prepared for Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., by
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., May 26, 1987.
-------
-45-
Appendix A
MOBILES Data
-------
Table A-l
MOBILES Pre-1978 Data
Vehicle
Class
2B
2B
2B
2B
2B
2B
2B
3-5
3-5
3-5
3-5
3-5
3-5
3-5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Year
1962
1965
1967
1970
1972
1975
1977
1962
1965
1967
1970
1972
1975
1977
1962
1965
1967
1970
1972
1975
1977
1962
1965
1965
1970
1972
1975
1977
Gas
Annual
VMT
11614
11614
11614
11614
11614
11614
11614
9832
9832
9832
9832
9832
9832
9832
9734
9734
9734
9734
9734
9734
9734
11223
11223
11223
11223
11223
11223
11223
Diesel
Annual
VMT
11614
11614
11614
11614
11614
11614
11614
18883
18883
18883
18883
18883
18883
18883
22187
22187
22187
22187
22187
22187
22187
25883
25883
25883
25883
25883
25883
25883
Gas
Urban
Fraction
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
Diesel
Urban
Fraction
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.56
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.43
0.43
0.35
0.35
0.34
0.33
0.33
0.35
0.38
Gas
Fuel
Economy
10.12
10.12
10.12
10.12
10.12
10.12
10.12
7.60
7.42
7.36
7.22
7.11
7.40
7.63
6.37
6.13
5.95
5.75
5.60
5.50
5.60
5.62
5.50
5.37
5.23
5.15
5.05
5.10
Diesel
Fuel
Economy
13.12
13.12
13.12
13.12
13.12
13.12
13.12
8.11
8.11
8.11
8.11
8.11
8.11
8.11
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.40
6.60
6.60
6.60
6.60
6.60
6.70
6.93
Gas
BSFC
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0,7
0.7
Diesel
BSFC
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.49
0.47
0.46
0.45
0.49
0.49
0.48
0.47
0.47
0.46
0.45
Sales
Fraction
0.06400
0.08020
0.09560
0.12620
0.13200
0.28000
0.34800
0.44630
0.38160
0.30530
0.22490
0.21600
0.10600
0.07100
0.25170
0.23490
0.28660
0.28320
0.30400
0.33500
0.24500
0.10150
0.09430
0.09600
0.09980
0.07600
0.06700
0.05900
Diesel
Fraction
0.0000
0.0020
0.0030
0.0010
0.0000
0.0000
0.0010
0.0139
0.0255
0.0306
0.0031
0.0028
0.0047
0.0000
0.0420
0.1050
0.0940
0.0760
0.0310
0.0410
0.1000
0.4310
0.4470
0.3790
0.3330
0.3480
0.4490
0.5780
Gasoline
Conversion
Factor
0.870
0.870
0.870
0.870
0.870
0.870
0.870
0.870
1.158
1.180
1.198
1.219
1.238
1.190
1.154
1.129
1.382
1.438
1.480
1.531
1.572
1.601
1.572
1.564
1.567
1.601
1.640
1.683
Diesel
Conversion
Factor
0.998
0.998
0.998
0.998
0.998
0.998
0.998
0.998
1.710
1.710
1.710
1.710
1.710
1.710
1.710
1.710
1.714
1.714
1.714
1.749
1.824
1.864
1.871
1.860
2.187
2.187
2.232
2.280
-------
Table A-l continued
Vehicle
Class
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Bus
Bus
Bus
Bus
Bus
Bus
Bus
Year
1962
1965
1967
1970
1972
1975
1977
1962
1965
1967
1970
1972
1975
1977
Gas
Annual
VMT
18413
16997
16997
16247
16763
16660
15560
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Diesel
Annual
VMT
46853
50694
58094
55155
66971
66172
55785
45000
45000
45000
45000
45000
45000
45000
Gas
Urban
Fraction
0.54
0.59
0.59
0.60
0.62
0.63
0.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
Diesel
Urban
Fraction
0.23
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Gas
Fuel
Economy
4.57
4.43
4.35
4.20
4.10
4.05
4.15
3.68
3.68
3.68
3.68
3.68
3.68
3.68
Diesel
Fuel
Economy
6.15
6.04
4.96
4.88
4.82
4.82
4.91
3.68
3.68
3.68
3.68
3.68
3.68
3.68
Gas
BSFC
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Diesel
BSFC
0.49
0.49
0.48
0.47
0.46
0.45
0.43
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
Sales Diesel
Fraction Fraction
0.13140 0.5530
0.19580 0.6850
0.21630 0.7310
0.26570 0.8440
0.26600 0.8820
0.19800 0.8940
0.27300 0.9610
0.00600 1.0000
0.00600 1.0000
0.00600 1.0000
0.00600 1.0000
0.00600 1.0000
0.00600 1.0000
0.00449 1.0000
Gasoline
Conversion
Factor
1.710
1.743
1.726
1.710
1.927
1.987
2.024
2.096
2.147
2.174
2.122
2.072
2.392
2.392
Diesel
Conversion
Factor
2.280
2.295
2.268
2.198
2 . 802
2.864
2.970
3.083
3.190
3.260
3.350
3.296
4.004
4.004
-------
-48-
Table A-2
MOBILE3 Post-1977 Class Specific Conversion Factors
Class 1982 1987 1992 1997
Diesel
2B-5 0.970 0.964 0.944 0.922
6 1.865 1.776 1.765 1.746
7 2.260 2.154 2.141 2.115
8A 3.002 2.863 2.849 2.811
8B 3.190 3.385 3.106 3.048
Bus 3.989 3.802 3.782 3.733
Gasoline
2B-5 0.845 0.840 0.823 0.804
6 1.536 1.484 1.456 1.427
7 1.690 1.634 1.613 1.569
8A 2.083 2.012 1.958 1.926
-------
-49-
Table A-3
MOBILE3 Post-1977 Input Data
Vehicle
Class
2B-5
2B-5
2B-5
2B-5
2B-5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8A
8A
8A
8A
8A
8B
8B
8B
8B
8B
BUS
BUS
BUS
BUS
BUS
Year
1977
1982
1987
1992
1997
1977
1982
1987
1992
1997
1977
1982
1987
1992
1997
1977
1982
1987
1992
1997
1977
1982
1987
1992
1997
1977
1982
1987
1992
1997
Gas
VMT
11614
11614
11614
11614
11614
9734
9734
9734
9734
9734
11223
11223
11223
11223
11223
15560
15560
15560
15560
15560
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Diesel
VMT
11614
11614
11614
11614
11614
22188
19115
18826
18826
18545
25883
25697
25250
24634
23488
29950
27037
27037
26393
25779
62500
62500
62500
62500
62500
45000
45000
45000
45000
45000
Gas
Urban
Fraction
0.069
0.687
0.697
0.703
0.710
0.660
0.687
0.743
0.779
0.829
0.630
0.681
0.723
0.735
0.775
0.630
0.728
0.850
0.850
0.850
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Diesel
Urban
Fraction
0.630
0.633
0.633
0.633
0.633
0.428
0.447
0.452
0.456
0.473
0.377
0.385
0.387
0.392
0.396
0.358
0.359
0.359
0.366
0.394
0. 176
0. 176
0. 176
0. 176
0.176
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Sales
Fraction
0.419
0.666
0.600
0.580
0.576
0.245
0.050
0.049
0.048
0.050
0.059
0.116
0.168
0.168
0.165
0.032
0.014
0.014
0.017
0 . 017
0.241
0.140
0.161
0.180
0.184
0.004
0.011
0.008
0.008
0.008
Diesel
Fraction
0.000
0.162
0.250
0.300
0.300
0.100
0.377
0.430
0. 500
0.550
0.578
0.580
0.600
0.650
0.700
0.770
0.889
0.875
0.941
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1 .000
1 .000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
-------
-50-
Appendix B
UMTRI Survey of
Percent Penetration of Fuel
Economy Improvement Devices
Into Diesel Fleet by Model Year[ll]
Model Aero Body Aero Add-on Radial Tires Variable Fan Governor
Year
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
MHDT
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
8.2
5.1
5.9
15.8
10.6
14.8
15.4
15.5
HHDT
5.4
5.1
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.7
2.3
4.9
2.3
6.2
7.5
10.1
12.8
19.9
28.2
MHDT
6.9
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
1.4
1.8
4.2
5.7
6.3
1.9
6.0
HHDT
10.1
0.0
10.4
1.7
2.1
6.5
5.0
5.7
9.7
8.5
9.6
9.3
13.5
22.2
29.1
25.4
MHDT
32.0
22.7
27.0
29.5
36.5
39.9
47.2
36.4
51.4
41.0
48.6
44.1
50.4
45.4
57.3
58.5
HHDT
48.0
26.3
27.1
25.8
41.1
43.2
39.4
46.5
57.7
53.9
60.1
57.0
64.5
65.9
74.4
77.4
MHDT
10.9
11.3
6.9
29.3
14.9
12.2
20.2
14.0
25.7
28.6
28.6
36.7
32.2
28.9
32.3
26.9
HHDT
15.5
10.9
12.0
5.0
12.2
15.7
15.5
14.7
26.0
33.6
43.4
42.6
56.9
46.8
62.6
58.9
MHDT
19.4
20.7
21.5
11.2
18.8
17.1
22.5
19.0
22.0
22.8
30.3
24.2
28.8
23.2
29.5
27.7
HHDT
28.9
21.2
29.8
12.3
23.6
22.1
19.6
17.3
22.1
19.5
23.2
20.6
22.8
30.5
33.9
32.0
-------
-51-
Appendix C:
Computer Program Used to
Calculate the Future Non-Engine
Related Fuel Economy Improvements
-------
-52-
THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT CALCULATES FUEL ECONOMY
IMPROVEMENTS TO BE USED IN CALCULATING^ FUTUftE
CONVERSION-FACTORS FOR EMISSIONS UN G/BHP-HR)"
INPUT FILES ARE "8=. . . DIES2B. DAT
DIE56.DAT
»
t_-
DIE5EB.DAT f
"OR DIESEL FUEL. ECONOMY IMPROVEMENTS
AND ...GAS2B.DAT r-
GA33.DAT
GAS4.DAT L.
GAS5.DAT t
BAS6.DAT
GAS7.DAT |T
GASSA.DAT
~0~ GASOLINE FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENTS r
CUTFUT -ILES ARE :'7=. . . DIES2B. OUT. DIES6. OUT. . . . FOR DIESEL
"7=. . .GAS2B.OUT.GAS3.OUT.... FOR GA30LINE
VFUF:B=TH£ FRACTION OF VEHICLES CLASSIFIED FOR EACH >viv
-:FE"-=T'r;E -RACT. OF VEH. CLASSIFIED -OR EACH MY AS SHORT RANGE
.-=P=THE -RACT, OF VEH. CLASSIFIED FOR EACH MY AS LONG RANGE
:-EPFEI=THE PERCENT FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENT ASSUMED TO -i
VEHICLE FOR THE IMPROVEMENT TYPE IN QUESTION
='FLAF^=THE ". OF THE FLEET AFFECTED BY THE IMPROVEMENT TYPE
(PENETRATION INTO THE MARKET)
IMP=THE BASE YEAR PENETRATION INTO THE MARKET OF THE
IMPROVEMENT TYPE
DESCR=THE DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPROVEMENT TYPE
ITYPE=THE INTEGER IDENTIFYING THE IMPROVEMENT TYPE
VMTFUR=WEIGHTED VEHICLE FRACTION URBAN TO ACCOUNT FOR OPERATION
OUTSIDE OF ITS PRIMARY USE AREA
v'MTFSR=WEIGHTED VEHICLE FRACTION FOR SHORT RANGE
VMTFLR=WEIGHTED VEHICLE FRACTION FOR LONG RANGE
FRACTION OF VEHICLES URBAM NITH PRIMARY USE _OCAL
.'=~RACTION DF VEHICLES URBAN WITH PRIMARY USE SHORT FANGS
Z=--'ACTION OF VEHICLES URBAN WITH PRIMARY USE LONG RANGE
U::-FAFF = THE '; OF "HE URBAN VEHICLES WHICH ARE AFFECTED B^ AN
iMRROVEMENT TYPE
-^ASP^THE PERCENT OF THE SHORT RANGE FLEET WHICH ARE AFFECTED
Bv AN IMPROVEMENT TYPE
PFAURB=THE X OF URBAN VEHICLES WHICH HAVE THEIR PRIMARY USE
IN URBAN AREAS WHICH ARE AFFECTED BY THE IMPROVEMENT
TYPE
TTLFEI=THE FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENT TO THE CLASS DUE TO AN
INDIVIDUAL. IMPROVEMENT TYPE
TOTFEI=THE FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENT TO THE CLASS DUE TO AN
INDIVIDUAL IMPROVEMENT TYPE
DIFF=THE DIFFERENCE IN THE FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENT OF EACH
IMPROVEMENT TYPE BETWEEN THE CURRENT YEAR AMD ~HE
PREVIOUS YEAR
:'IF3UM=THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SUM Cf THE FUEL ECONOMY
IMPROVEMENT FOR ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENT TYPES FOR
THE CURRENT YEAR, AND THE PREVIOUS YEAR .
rtEAL^S IMP
INTEGER*'! YEAR
-------
-53-
INI7IALI-2E-EVERYTHING TO ZERO
DO 13 IYEAR=i,4
DIF3UM(IYEAR>=0.0
DO 14 ITYPE=.1. ,11
TOTFEJ (I YEAR, I TYPE>=0,0
DIF-dYEAR. ITYPE'-=';.C '
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
>
*
C
-:FASR=O. o
-'FAURB='J, 0
"ORMAT >.' ' "'EAR '-'RJRB VFSR
P-A3R PFAUR3 UP^AF- "TLFEI
FLR RF
it
t
;-EAD .IN "HE DA~A FRGr-1 THE DATS '-IL^
;'.' EAD ( 5 , * . ENEi=l500 .' YEAR - I YEAR , VFURE , Vr£R . vFLn , PERFEI , F FLAFF ,
If*iP, DE3CR, ITY-E
,'JEIEriT ""HE VEHICLE FRACTIONS Tj ACCOUNT FOR OTHER THnN
PRIMARY USE
VMTFUR-, S5*VFUPB+. 075*VF5R+. 075*VFLR
VMTF3R=. S5*YFSR+. 075*vFURB+. 075*VFLR
VMTFLR=. 85*VFLR+. 075*VFURB+. 075*VFSR
DETERMINE THE FRACTIONS OF URBAN VEHICLES FROM EACH SUBCLASS
X = . S5*VFURB/VMTFLJR
Y=, 075*VfrSR/VMTFUR
!= 075*VFLR/VMTFUR
DETERMINE THE i=ERCEMT DF THE URBAN -LEE^ AFFECTED BY "HE
FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENT IF QNL ; LONS RANGE VEHICLES ARE
AFFECTED
IF ''PILAFF. LE- VFLR L'pFA^~ = -:rLAFF* . 073 ''VMTFL'F
IF (PFLAFF.LE. VFLRi 30 ^~ >'
DETERMINE THE PERCEN" uF THE URBAN FLEET AFFECTED E^ THE FUEL
ECONOMY IMPROVEMENT IF ONL : LONG AND SHORT RANGE VEHICLES ARE
AFFECTED
PFA3R=RFLAFF-VFLR
jp :PFASR. LE. VFSR) UPFAPF = ZJ-p--AER*.C'75/VMTFUR
IF '^ASR.LE. vFSR> GO TO 1 0
DETERMINE THE PERCENT OF THE URBAN FLEET AFFECTED BY THE FUEL
ECONOMY IMPROVEMENT IF LONE *AN£E 5HOP.T RANSE AND LOCAL.
VEHICLES ARE AFFECTED ' -
=!FAURB=FFASR-VF£R
:B* . S5/VMTFUR
DETERMINE THE FUEL ECCNOMV IMPROVEMENT TO THE ENTIRE CLASS
-------
-54-
i U I hti riY-tHK, i I YKt> =KtKh-ti*UPFttFF
i»
L,-
C DETERMINE THE FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENT CALCULATED FOR THE
C - BASE YEAR--. - -
C
DO 15 ITYPE=i,11
DIFF(1,ITYPE)=TOTFEI(1,ITYPE)
13 CONTINUE
C DETERMINE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENT
C FOP THE CLASS, YEAR AND IMPROVEMENT TYPE IN QUESTION. AND THAT
C QF THE PREVIOUS VEAR
DO .1.6 IYEAR=2,3
DC 17 ITYPE=1, 1 I
IF (TOTFEI (IYEAR, I TYPE) .EG,0.0) DIFF(I YEAR, I TYPE)=0.0
IF (TOTFEI (I YEAR, I TYPE) .EQ.0.0) GO TO 17
DIFF(IYEAR, ITYPE)=TDTFEI(I YEAR, I TYPE)-TOTFEI (I YEAR-1,ITYPE)
17 CONTINUE
16 CONTINUE
C DETERMINE THE DIF-ERENCE BETWEEN THE TOTAL FUEL ECONOMY
C IMPROVEMENT FOR THE CLASS RESULTING "ROM ALL OF THE FUEL
C ECONOMY IMPROVEMENT TYPES FOR: THE '/EAR IN QUESTION, AND
C THAT OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR-
DO 13 IYEAR=1,5
DIF5UM(IYEAR)=0.0
DO 19 ITYPE=i,11
DIF3UM(IYEAR)=DIFSUM(I YEAR)+DIFF(IYEAR, ITYPE)
19 CONTINUE
18 CONTINUE
r
WRITE(6,220)YEAR,VFURB,VFSR,VFLR,PERFEI,PFLAFF,VFLR,PFASR,
1 PFAURB,UPFAFF,TTLFEI,IMP
GO TO 5
220 FORMAT(1X,A4, IX, 1 OF?.2,AS)
100 FORMAT(IX,A4. IX, I4.5F6. 1 , 6X, A3, 14)
500 WR I TE (is, 300) D I FSUM ( 1 ) , DI FSUM (2) , DI FSUM 3) , DI FSUM < 4) , DI FSUM (5)
300 FORMAT(5F12.3)
600 WRITE(7,300)DIFSUM'1),DIFSUMC2),DIFSUM(3),DIFSUM(4),DIFSUM(5)
STOP
END
-------
-55-
19S2-
19S2
1983
1933
19S3
; OQ--
19B4
1984
1 984
i 984-
1 9 H r"'
1935
1985
1985
1986
1 986
i CgA
1 936
- i
i
'T*
^
"?'
.
"r
-
~
4
.,1
i
H-
=r
~
-73T<>
73 . 0
^8 . 0
78 . 0
73 . 0
.' :^J ---'
73 a 0
73 . 0
73. 0
79. O
78 a 0
73. 0
73. 0
78 . 0
78 . 0
73. 0
73 0
~7 ~ ;--,
l-3hr
13.
13.
1 "^
13.
i '
-L ' a
^ T"
1 _' .
i ->
1 ~^*
I --' a
"i T
i -J! a
1 "T
1 "^
i -T
1 ~\
: "T
I^.,_
T-J
5
5
5
nr
«.J
cr
cr
t_j
5
5
D
D
cr
5
5
^'
5
=;
t=r
-8v
a.
8.
3.
8.
3.
3.
8.
3.
3.
3.
g _
8.
3.
8.
8.
8.
3.
-5-
5
c;
cr
wJ
5
5
5
cr
D
^i
D
cr
~
cr
cr
cr
5
5
-5-.-
1 .
1.
wJ .
=.
1
.L
cr
_J
i ,
-i
.4. *
cr
~
.L a
-i
rr
zr
.L a
~Q~~
4
5
0
0
4
^
0
o
4
!_'
r>
( ^
4
,j
i")
(";
4
-tO
55
7
~T
< ^"1
J. ^i.
53
1 3
6 .
14
61
20
'i T)
-i /
64
'"?"7
13
1 p
.i. ~7
.xr --
.0
.0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
o
. 0
. 0
. 0
o
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
'-.}
a :'J
- ±OvO-
55.0
0 . 0
0 . 0
1 0 . 0
55 . 0
" 0 . 0
0 . 0
1 0 . 0
55 . 0
0 . 0
0 . 0
1 0 . 0
55 . 0
0 . 0
0 . 0
1 0 . 0
55.0
- 'MANODFT
'RADIAL'
' DRVLUB '
'AUTODR'
' MANODR '
'RADIAL '
'DRVLUB'
'AUTODR'
' MANODR '
' RAD I AL '
- DRVLUB '
" AUTODR "
' MANODR '
'RADIAL'
'DRVLUB'
'AUTODR'
" MANODR '
' RAD I AL '
-6
8
T*
5
Q
8
~?
C]
6
8
r"*.
- ,
6
8
2
cr
6
3
-------
-56-
1982 1
1982 1
19S2 1
: C/pv "i
1 983 ^
1 983 2
1953 1
\ rj ~, "T ~
1983 2
1933 2
19S4 3
1934 3
1984 3
1 984 3
1954 T
T 9 p 4 ;";
1985 4
1985 4
1985 4
:;~. ~. rr .-^
1985 -
:. T" - ZI ' "
1 ""/ "~: -ZZ- -11=
1986 5
1986 5
1986 5
1986 5
1986 5
62,
62 .
62.
rZ'oi! a
JZ: jl. a
ii-^ u
62*
O*l B
-"j-ii! B
O.uli -
69.
69.
69.
IT- T
69,
69.
74.
74,
74,
'" ;~.
:'-i.
"T4.
-' ..". a
/ 1 .
71.
/ 1 .
71 .
71.
9
9
w
9
9
o
9
r^j
9
9
6
6
6
6
£.
6
j.
1_
i
_|.
1
j.
»
5
5
5
er
5
31.
31.
1'' i i*
''
~'j^ »
~T-"^
_'i*i .
32 .
j>*i .
"T O
J^C X
lii o
_:.O .
26 .
26 .
j^-iiT-
x^^i *
..^ ji. .
22.
^--^ B
.^i*l a
j^ j^' ,
24.
24.
24.
24.
24.
24.
b
8
8
S
i
j.
1
1
|
1
|
4
4
4
^
4
4-
rr
cr
_i
~
5
_.
"7
7
~7
7
~7
7
5. 3
cr -r
5.3
5 . 3
3.0
5.0
5 . 0
5 . 0
5.0
5 . 0
4 . 0
4 . 0
4 . 0
4.0
4. 0
4 . 0
3 . 4
3. 4
3 . 4
"T .-1
3. 4
3.4
._;: , £2
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
^
_,.
5 ,
6,
j^! *
~T
1 .
6.
5 .
6.
.hi .
3 .
6 .
i
.j .
'iw .
2.
T
^ a
j.
6 -
3
j^. »
~r
a .
1
4.
6.
5.
5
0
~T
0
rr.
o
5
o
"T
V
5
0
0
5
"T
0
5
O
o
cr
0
~
5
0
o
5
0
T
5.0
1 4 . 0
50 . 0
/i . V
5 . 0
14.0
7 . 0
1.0
60. 0
4 . 0
6. 0
1 4 . 0
-"T1 t">
1 3 . 0
70 . 0
t O
6. 0
1 4 . 0
"T i'"1;
20 . ''.'
5 . 0
30 . 0
~T f"\
1 4 . 0
4.0
27.0
5. 0
90 . 0
5. 0
14.0
50 . O
4'. 0
'5.0
14.0
0 . 0
0 . 0
50 . 0
4 . 0
5.0
14.0
0 . 0
0 . 0
50 . o
4.0
5.0
14.0
0 . 0
'-' m '-'
4.0
50. 0
5. 0
14.0
0 . 0
0 . 0
4.0
50.0
' AERO '
'RADIAL '
' FANDRV '
'SPEEDC '
' AERO '
"RADIAL '
' DRVLUB '
' ADVRAD '
' FANDRV '
-SPEEDC'
' AERO '
' RAD I AL '
' ADVRAD '
' DRVLUB '
' FANDRV '
' SPEEDC '
' AERO '
' RAD I AL '
ADVRAD '
' DRVLUB '
'SPEEDC'
' FANDRV "
'AERO '
' RAD I AL -
'ADVRAD'
'DRVLUB'
'SPEEDC'
'FANDRV
4
3
10
i 1
4
a
2
w
10
11
4
3
9
_.~'m
10
11
4
8
9
2
J. J.
10
4
8
9
2
11
10
-------
-57-
1982
1 982
1982
L9S3
1 983
1983
1983
1983
1933
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
i 994
1985
1985
1985
1 °85
1985
1 985
1986
1 986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1 67.
1 67.
1 67,
2 67,
-~ A *7
2 67 ,
2 67 ,
2 67 .
"' L, T
Z 67.
3 6 7 .
3 67.
3 67.
3 6 7 J
3 67,
4 67 .
4 67 .
4 67.
" 67 .,
.1 ~ ~^
.; ^ ~T
rr A "7
b 67 .
5 67 .
5 67.
5 67.
5 67.
9
Q
O
9
9
9
-~
~
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
~
"
-
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
25.2
- =; -
25. 2
-~~! C" "?.
25.2
25.2
25. 2
25. 2
'T ^ "T>
'T- ^% '"?
25. 2
!*i!O 2
.ji^O ji.
._:.' rTj - ^'
25. 2
25. 2
25. 2
25. 2
_^_ ^ n j^|
25. 2
25. 2
25. 2
~ =: -^
25. 2
25. 2
25. 2
25. 2
25. 2
6.
<£j
.4
6 .
6.
O .
6.
6
o
O .
(~)
CT
T
o
Cj
{"}
T;
::~
0
~r
5
0
o
. 1
(")
~T
5. O
1 4 . O
~ D i" j
4. 0
5 . 0
14.0
7 . O
1 M
60 . '0
4 = 0
C a '-*
14.0
.^i . 'J
\ ~7t ;"i
~0. 0
4 . 0
LJ . i.'
14.0
l"':
20. v
5. 0
30 . 0
" T , '
14.0
4.0
27 r-,
5.0
90 . 0
5.0
14.0
4. 0
~i ^ -. j
14.0
0 . 0
0 . 0
50 . 0
4= 0
D . U
14.0
0 . 0
0 . 0
ET ;"-| f'l
4 . 0
5. 0
14.0
1 ,) a '-._'
0 . 0
4. 0
50.0
"" '""'I
1 4 . 0
0 . 0
'") O
4 . 0
50.0
' AERO '
' RADIAL '
'SPEEDC '
' AERO '
'RADIAL'
'DRVLUB'
' ADVRAD '
'FANDRV '
'SPEEDC'
'AERO'
'RADIAL'
' ADVRAD '
' DRVLUB '
' FANDRV '
'SPEEDC '
' AERO '
'RADIAL'
' ADVRAD '
' DRVLUB '
' SPEEDC '
' FANDRV '
'AERO '
'RADIAL'
' ADVRAD '
' DRVLUB '
'SPEEDC'
' FANDRV '
4
3
10
1 1
4
8
^_
o
10
11
.u.
g
w
-1
1 0
11
4
8
9
^
11
10
4
8
Q
7.
11
10
-------
-58-
1 OP -7.
19S2
1982
'"T-982
.;. 'T tf -'
1983
19S3
19S3
19 S3
19S3
- L984
::934
1984
1984
i 984
9S4
1935
": '^R^
1935
i 935
1935
1985
\ 9Sdj
1936
1936
1936
1966
1986
i_
j
i
"*:
^
2
_^
~
-T
~T
"T
"7
?
4
iL
4
4
4
4
TJ
cr
tj
5
c:
5
60.
60 .
60 .
60.
i_~
o-3 .
il T
A "^
63 .
63 .
63 .
63.
63.
63 .
63.
,-- ~^
64.
64.
64,
64.
~T
/-I -^r
ol. s- '
^ '
X_ _'
21.
21.
-"^ *
.^i .
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21 .
21 .
-i
21 .
21.
21 .
21.
21.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
1
1
-|
1
~
-J
T
"T
~T
"T
~T
T
T
_,.
-T
T
1
1
1
4
_i_
i
i
9
9
9
9
9
9
16.0
16.0 '
16.0
16.0
14.8
14.3
14. S
14.8
14.6
14. S
14. S
14.S
14,8
14. 8
14. S
14. S
14.6
14.6
14.6
14. 6
14.6
14.o
14.5
1.4.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
n c-
,L_ O
3.0
O . _!'
6 . 0
.-' . r~:
3 i")
i ^
x . %_'
6 . 0
D . -
~,. 0
2.5
3. 0
6. 0
t cr
± . -_l
D . 3
6. 0
^ . ^-:
t">
6 . U
1 . 5
6.0
5.3
^1 i '
3 . 0
6. 0
< =r
.L . %
6. 0
5. 3
5.0
1 4 . 0
^o . o
4.0
~~1 '"'i
14.0
~7 , 0
1 . O
60 . 0
4 . 0
i. 0
1 4 . 0
2. 0
13.0
70. 0
4.0
6. 0
14.0
2O, O
5 . o
80 . 0
7. 0
14.0
4.0
27.0
5 . '0
90. 0
5.0
1 4 . 0
50 . 0
4". 0
5.0
14.0
0 . 0
0 . 0
50 . 0
4.0
D . O
14.0
0 . 0
0 . 0
50 . 0
4. 0
5 . 0
14.0
0 . 0
o . o
4.0
50.0
5. 0
1 4 . 0
0 . 0
0 . 0
4.0
50 . o
' AERO '
'RADIAL'
FANDRV '
' SPEEDC '
- AERD '
'RADIAL'
'DRVLUB'
' ADVRAD '
' FANDRV '
' SPEEDC '
' AERO '
'RADIAL'
' ADVRAD '
DRVLUB '
' FANDRV '
" ; p' p" PT Pi P '
' AERO '
'RADIAL '
' ADVRAD "
' DRVLUB '
- SPEEDC '
'FANDRV
' AERO '
'RADIAL'
'ADVRAD'
' DRVLUB '
- SPEEDC '
1 FANDRV '
4.
3
10
11
4
S
JV
9
10
11
^
g
w
.^_
10
i i
4
o
Q
11
10
4
8
Q
^_
11
10
-------
-59-
1982
1982
1 ^fe^
1982
1982
.1983
1983
1933
1983
1 983
1983
1984
1984
1934
1984
1984
1984
1985
1985
1985
L9S5
1935
- 955
l^Ss
1 9S6
1956
1 v'.:' ^ w
1986
1986
1
1
i
1
i
^
2
^
2
.-
^
~r
T
-r
-r;
T
~T
4
4
4
4
-i
i
~
"
_.
~2
:r
5
34
34
T >1
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
"T /I
34
34
34
T^i
34
34
34
34
34
«.'
'
~~
m j
'
'
_'
T
'
'
n _'
Tj
'T
'
' -
"T
"T
;
-7
. 3
_'
- ;
T
T*
3
~
"T
'
l
31
31
3.1
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
"? 1
31
31
31
o i
31
31
31
31
31
31
.5
.5
5
.5
.5
.5
.5
. 5
O
.5
.5
. 5
c*.
. %_J
.5
cr
. D
.5
%^
. 5
.5
. 5
. 5
. 3
cr
c;
cr.
.5
.5
34.2
34.2
34 °
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34 . 2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34.2
34. 2
34.2
34.2
34.2
2.5
6.8
1O *?
» v £z~
6.8
5.0
2.5
6.8
10.2
6.8
5 . 0
1.5
2.5
6.8
10.2
6.8
5.0
1.5
2.5
6.8
1 0 . 2
6. 8
5. 0
1.5
2.5
6.8
10.2
6. 8
5 . 0
1.5
22 . 0
65.0
i 7
l~m /
98.0
8.0
24.0
62.0
5 . 0
93.0 '
1 0 . 0
7.0
27.0
58.0
1 0 . 0
99. 0
11.0
1 3 . 0
29.0
54. 0
15.0
99.0
13.0
20. 0
32 . 0
50 . 0
20. 0
1 00 . 0
14.0
27.0
22.0
65.0
i 7
»~i i
98.0
8. 0
22.0
65 . 0
1.7
98.0
8 . 0
0 . 0
22 . 0
65.0
1.7
98.0
8.0
0 . 0
22 . 0
65.0
1.7
98.0
8.0
0 . 0
22 . 0
65.0
1.7
98.0
8 . 0
0 . 0
' AERO '
'RADIAL'
' /\TMJD/VT^ '
'FANDRV
'SPEEDC'
' AERO '
'RADIAL'
' ADVRAD
' FANDRV '
'SPEEDC'
'DRVLUB'
' AERO '
'RADIAL'
' ADVRAD '
' FANDRV
' SPEEDC '
'DRVLUB'
' AERO '
'RADIAL '
' ADVRAD '
FANDRV '
' SPEEDC '
'DRVLUB'
' AERO '
'RADIAL '
' ADVRAD '
' FANDRV '
'SPEEDC'
'DRVLUB'
4
8
-9-
10
11
4
8
9
10
11
^
4
3
9
10
11
2
4
3
9
10
11
^
4
3
9
10
11
2
-------
-60-
1-7 OJL. -
1982
1983
1983
1983
1983
1 984
1984
1984
1984
1985
1985
1 985
1985
1 986
1986
1986
19 £6
1
2
2
2
^
~T
-r
~
~
4
4
4
4
~
5
Z-
ot «-
84.
84.
84.
84.
34 .
84.
84.
84.
84.
34.
34.
34.
84.
34.
34.
34.
84.
JL i-i-ro -' . '.' J-.-«;> - 1 W V t~vf~\.'
^
4
4
4
4
Zi
5
5
cr
6
6
^
6
3
8
3
8
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
1^.1
1 ^
A +-
12.
12.
.1. -L_
12.
i "">
12.
12.
12.
12.
: .- _
8
7
7
7
~T
7
7
7
-7
7
i
~
i
7
-?
*r
T
3. 0
2.9
2.9
2.9
2. 9
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2. 7
-ii. /
Z. . 7
2.7
2.5
._j c_.
2.5
2.5
1.
1.
5.
cr
I .
I .
t
5.
5.
1.
1.
5.
5.
1.
1
-L
5.
5.
1.
4
5
0
0
4
cr
o
o
4
5
0
O
4
5
0
0
4
55.
7.
* «
i o
53 .
13.
6.0
14.
61.
20.
1 0 .
16.
64.
27.
13.
18.
6 / .
0
o
o
o
Q
o
M
o
0
o
0
o
o
0
!.. .'
o
55 . 0.
0 . 0
0 . 0
1 0 . 0
55 . 0
"0 . 0
0 . 0
1 0 . 0
55 . 0
0 . 0
0 . 0
1 0 . 0
55 . 0
0 . 0
0 . 0
1 0 . 0
55 . 0
rTHTVtTUIT
'RADIAL'
'DRVLUB'
' AUTODR '
' MANODR '
'RADIAL'
' DRVLUB '
' AUTODR '
"MANODR
'RADIAL
'DRVLUB'
' AUTODR '
'MANODR'
'RADIAL '
' DRVLUB '
' AUTODR
'MANODR'
'RADIAL'
^r
8
2
5
6
3
2
=r
6
8
^
5
6
8
2
5
6
8
-------
1 QPT
L - - "
1982
1983
1983
1 983
1983
1 984
1984
1984
1984
1985
1985
1 9SCi
1985
1986
1986
1986
1986
1
--
1
*">
."}
^l
- \
Tf
T
"7
-T
4
4
.-T
4
5
~^>
5
5
84
^^~-«-
84.
84.
84.
34.
84.
84.
84.
84.
84.
84.
84.
84.
84.
34.
84.
84.
34.
-}
i-}
**?
.-i
^
^i.
^
^
'TI
oi.'
.L.
^
^
r-_
- i
.-.
~\
(
14
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
14.
/j
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1 4-
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1 .4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1. 4
1 .4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1 4
1.4
- -D »-0
1.4
1 .5
5. 0
5. 0
1 . 4
^ cr
->. . _ '
5.0
5.0
1.4
-i CT"
1 . _'
5 . 0
5.0
1.4
1.5
5.0
5.0
1. 4
1 CL. tj
i *i*-W *i*
55 . 0
7 '")
3 . 0
1 2 . 0
58 . 0
13.0
6.0
14.0
61.0
20 . 0
1 0 . 0
16.0
64 . 0
27. 0
13.0
1 3 . 0
67. 0
10 o
±'X/ W X*^
55.0
u . O
0 . 0
1 0 . 0
55 . 0
'0 . 0
0 . 0
i 0 . 0
55 . 0
0 . 0
0 . 0
1 0 . 0
55 . 0
0 . 0
0 . 0
1 0 . 0
=,*=; ("i
' wj . -
-' MANODR '-
"J FrTr^W/^^I \
-'RADIAL'
'DRVLUB '
' AUTODR '
'MANDDR'
RADIAL"
' DRVLUE '
' AUTODR '
- MANODR '
'RADIAL'
' DRVLUB '
' AUTODR '
' MANODR '
'RADIAL'
' DRVLUB '
' AUTODR '
' MANODR '
-RADIAL'
6
e
T»
5
6
^3
^
5
/
a
3
r-\
5
6
8
2
!£'
6
8
-------
-62-
1992
V9B2
1993
1983
1993
1983
1934
1984
1984
1984
1985
1985
1985
1985
1986
1986
1986
1986
- 1 -
1-
o
<*}
.-}
. .
.3
T
4
4
4
4
D
5
t=T
. -
----- 82,
-.32. .
92.
32.
32.
32.
32 .
82.
r^ --"i
O^ .
82.
32.
82.
32.
32.
32.
32.
32.
bi- .
7-
7
7
-T
/
-7
/
"7
"7
7
/
~7
7
/
/
"7
-7
7
~7
-7
5,4
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
.2-
.-.2
*-\
i^
m .*!.
*?
J-J
.h_
*i_
-}
* +
m +L
*-\
o
ji-
J-^
,
rfL-
J^
^
'n
^i-
"T1
^~
O
T 1
--^anr~ i
3.1
3. 1
3. 1
3. 1
"T 1
-' A
3. 1
3. 1
3. 1
3. 1
3. 1
3. 1
-T -4
-' . 1
-' . 1
3. 1
3. 1
--' . .L
^ H
^-.
-1.
1.
5.
c:
i.
i.
5.
5.
1.
1.
5.
CT
x
1.
1.
5 .
tj .
1 .
0
4
5
0
0
4
5
0
o
4
5
0
o
4
5
0
o
4
to.o
55.0
7.0
3. 0
12.0
58 . 0
13.0
6. 0
1 4 . 0
61.0
20. 0
1 0 . 0
16.0
64 . 0
27.0
13.0
1 8 . 0
67. 0
tOvO-
55.0
0 . 0
0 . 0
1 0 . 0
55 . 0
"0 . 0
0 . 0
1 0 . 0
55 . 0
0 . 0
0 . 0
1 0 . 0
55 . 0
0 . 0
0 . 0
1 0 . 0
55. 0
' MANODR '
'RADIAL'
'DRVLUB'
' AUTQDR '
' MANODR "
'RADIAL'
' DRVLUB '
' AUTODR '
' MANODR '
'RADIAL'
' DRVLUB '
'AUTODR '
' MANODR
'RADIAL
' DRVLUB '
'AUTODR'
' MANODR '
'RADIAL'
-6-
8
*-l
jL.
5
6
8
O
5
6
8
/-j
5
6
3
7>
5
A
8
-------
-63-
S3.2 14.8 2.0 2.5 5.0 5.0 'AERO' 4
BZ.2 14,3 2.0' 3.0 l^.O 14.0 'RADIAL' 8
53.2 14.3 2.0 5.3 50.0 50.0 ' FANDRV" 1'
33,2 14=3 2.0 -, 0 4,0 4,0 ' EF'EEDC ' i:
,~: *4. / : .''-. m 1 -~"- ' ."""* : a -. .- "'"': :. '-^r".*""'1! '' ' ^i'
84.7 13.7 1.6 3.U 14.0 14.0 'RADIAL' 8
64=7 13.7 LCD 1,5 7,0 0,0 'DRVLLJB' 2
13,7 1.6 i.0 1.0 0,0 ' ADVRAD ' 9
13. "r 1.6 5.3 60=0 50.0 ' FANDRv ' 1?
1,9 6.0 2.0 0.0 "ADVRAD
i.c- 1,5 j.3.0 ').0 ' DRVLUB
1.9 5.3 70,0 50.0 -ANDRV
-.935 -i- 55.2 13.4 1.4 2.5 A.^.; 5.0 'AERC'
19S5 - 35.2 13.4 1,4 3.0 14.. 0 1.4.0 "RADIAL
1995 -'- 55.2 13,4 i :, 4 ;i.O 3... 0 0.0 'ADVRAD
1936 5 34.3 13.,- 1.6 3.0 i 4. 0 14.0 'RADIAL 5
1996 5 94.7 13.7 l.o 6.0 4.0 0.0 'ADVRAD' 9
19S6 5 84," 13.7 1.6 1.5 27,0 0.0 'DRVLLJB' 2
19S6 5 34.7 13.7 l.'b 6.0 5.0 4.0 'SPEEDC' 11
1966 5 34.7 13.7 1.6 5.3 90.0 50.0 'FANDRV 10
-------
-64-
1-982--
1982
19S3
1933
L933
1983
L 984
1984
i 984
1984
9:=;5
955
935
985
936
956
986
1936
1^~
1
.-i
~^
2
-
-T
-r
-T
T
4
4
4
4
5
sr
g
-^38^
88.
38.
38.
38.
38.
38.
83.
38.
38,
33.
33.
S3 .
38.
88.
38.
38.
SB.
6 -
6
f^
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
o
^"i
C
A
6
A
: :
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
i O
i o .
I ij m
1 0 .
i O D
10.
1 0 .
1 0 .
1 0 .
! O
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
j
i
1
1
J.
1
1
i-.-3 -
1.3
1 . 3
1 . 3
1.3
j. -'
1 . 3
1.3
1 .3
j. . _>
1 . 3
1 .3
1 -
1.3
1 . 3
1.3
i "^
1 "^
c^
w
1.
-4
5.
5.
i
1
c^
5.
i
i .
tr;
tj .
1 .
.L
i> .
_; .
!.
-0
4
5
0
0
4
5
0
o
4
cr;
o
o
4
b
0
4
-l-O^-ljr
55 . 0
7 ("i
3 . O
12.0
58 . 0
1 ~^" -" "1
6 . O
14.0
61. 0
20.0
1 0 . 0
16.0
64 . 0
2 7 . O
13.0
18.0
A ~7 (':
1-Q-r-O
55 . 0
O . (')
!") . ("i
1 0 . 0
55 . 0
"0 . 0
0 . 0
1 0 . 0
55.0
0 . 0
("! . O
1 U . '-_'
55 . 0
0 . 0
0 . 0
1 '-J . '_'
55.0
'-MANQBR-'--"
'RADIAL '
' DRVLUB '
' AUTODR '
' MANODR '
'RADIAL '
'DRVLUB'
' AUTODR '
' MANODR '
'RADIAL'
' DRVLUB '
' AUTDDR '
' MANQDR '
'RADIAL '
- DRVLUB '
'AUTODR'
' MANODR '
'RADIAL '
-6-
8
-?
i
'\z
^1
er
6
9
^
5
6
3
_i!
5
=..
d-
-------
-65-
1 982
1 982
1 982
1 952
= w p T
1983
\ 9 3 3
1983
i 953
1983
P34
19S4
1 op 4
1984
!:. 9 8 4
1984
1985
{ 9RF
9~~
1933
wp~
:. 985
.:. ""X i CD
1986
1986
1986
1936
1986
i
1_
j_
;
2
-
.-'
-
-i
-T
-T
-r-
4
4
4
/!
4
zr
r^:
1
Ej
5
5
9S.4
98. 4
93.4
98. "
OCJ T
99 , 7
09 . 7
99. 7
~?'~? * '
99 . 7
100. 0
100. 0
i 00 . 0
100 . 0
1 00 . 0
100. 0
1 00 . 0
1 Of) . i")
1 00 . 0
' OO , O
j. ;'-/l *.' il ''
LOO. 0
100. 0
100. 0
1 00 . 0
1OO . (')
100. 0
100. 0
1.6 0 . 0 2 . 5
1.6 0.0 3 . 0
1 . 6 0 . 0 5 . 3
1.6 0 . 0 6 . 0
O . ' '-- a '-' 4 =
0 .3 0 . 0 3 . 0
0 .3 0.0 1.5
0 . 3 0 . 0 6 . 0
0 .3 0.0 5.3
0 .3 0 . 0 6 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0 2.5
0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 0
0 , 0 0 . 0 6 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0 1.5
0 , 0 0 . 0 5.3
0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0 2.5
'") . O O O T. i")
'-.j , "_.' .__/ . '._; 1 Cl>
0 . 0 0 . 0 6. (;
C . 0 0 . 0 5.3
0 . 0 J . 0 2.5
0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 0
O . O O . O 1.5
0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0 5.3
5 . 0
14.0
50 0
4 , 0
cr
_; . '_-'
14,0
7 . 0
1.0
60 . 0
*J- ! "
6 . 0
14.0
2 . 0
I ~"\ !'~":
T O B O
4.0
O . '--;
1 4 i O
20,. C
~ !'"'-
HO :.~;
7 . 0
14.0
4.0
27 . 0
5.0
90 . 0
5 . 0
1 4 . 0
50 . 0
4-. o
5 . 0
14.0
0 . 0
0 3 0
50 * 0
4. 0
5. 0
14.0
o . o
0 . 0
50 , 0
.-1
"? 3 '---:
cr ,-"j
1 4 . 0
'.-,''.;
4 . '0
50 . 0
5.0
14.0
0 . 0
0 . 0
4.0
50 . 0
' AERO '
'RADIAL
' FANDRV '
' 3PEEDC "
' AERO '
'RADIAL
' DRVLUB '
' ADVRAD "
'FANDRV
' SPEEDC '
'AERO'
' RAD I AL
' ADVRAD '
' DRVLUB '
' P ANDRV '
' SPEEDC '
'AERC'
'RADIAL. '
' ADVRAD '
'DRVLUB'
'3PEEDC'
' FANDRV '
'AERO'
'RADIAL
' ADVRAD '
'DRVLUB'
'SPEEDC'
' FANDRV '
4
8
10
-; ^
4
8
\
;~«
10
i 1
-^ j.
4
a
: i
j^.
1 o
11
4
H
9
2
11
1 o
J.
3
9
<-n
11
10
-------
-66-
1982 1
1982 1
1932 1
j.952 I
i w;~ "T 7
19E13 2
.L ~r' o ~
1 C-C-T ->
i QS- 7
:9S3 2
i ~!54 3
1 9S4 3
1984 3
1934 3
1934 3
L9S4 3
I '? 8 5 4
1935 4
; '7* 'p ~; -Lf-
1 985 4
1935 4
1985 4
1986 3
1936 5
1986 5
1985 5
1 986 5
1986 5
1 00 . 0
100,0
100. 0
100. 0
1 0 O = !. ";
1 0 0 . 0
1 00 . 0
i OO. r.
1 0 0 . 0
1 OO -i O
1 00 . 0
1 00 . 0
1 00 . 0
"> OO . ("'
100. 0
100. 0
i oo . o
100. 0
1 00 . 0
100.0
1 00. 0
100. 0
1. 00. 0
100,0
1 00 . 0
l oo . o
1 oo ., o
1 00 . 'j
0 . O 0 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0
0 - 0 0 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0
O . O (") . (")
0 . 0 0 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0
O , O O . ("i
0 , 0 0 0
'-..- O *J . '_
0 . '0 0 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 0
O . O O . (")
O . (") O . ("i
("» . 0 (j . 0
2. 5
3 . 0
nr -r
6 . 0
2 iH*
3. 0
i <=r
A. O
: B O
.- ' - ~:
3 O
6 . 0
-1 r.-
~ 3
6 . O
2.5
3 . 0
£r - . '-'
1.5
6.0
5.3
2. 5
3. 0
6. 0
1 . 5
6 . 0
5.3
5 . 0
14.0
50 . 0
4. 0
5 . 0
14.0
'" . 0
1 . 0
6 0 . 0
4. 0
i. 0
14.0
2 . 0
70 . 0
4. 0
6. 0
14.0
~> O
20 . 0
5. 0
80 . 0
~7 . '->
14.0
4.0
27 . 0
5. 0
90 . 0
5.0
14.0-
50 . 0
4 , 0
5.0
14.0
0 . 0
0 . 0
50 . 0
4. 0
5. 0
1 4 . 0
0 . 0
(") . O
50.0
4. 0
cr f"\
1 4 . 0
O . i")
0 . 0
4 . 0
50 . 0
5 . 0
1 4 . 0
0 . 0
0 . 0
4 . 0
50 . 0
' AERO '
'RADIAL '
' FANDRV '
'SPEEDC'
' AERO '
'RADIAL'
' DRVLUB '
ADVRAD
' FANDRV '
' SPEEDC'
' AERC '
'RADIAL'
'ADVRAD'
' DRVLUB '
'FANDRV '
'SPEEDC'
'AERO'
'RADIAL '
' ADVRAD '
'DRVLUB'
' SPEEDC '
' FANDRV '
'AERO'
'RADIAL'
' ADVRAD '
' DRVLUB '
' SPEEDC '
' FANDRV '
4
3
10
-i -;
4
8
.-'
9
10
11
4
3
-
-
10
1 )
4
~,
9
j2.
11
10
4
8
9
-
1 1
10
------- |