76-1 TCA
        Passenger Car Fuel Economy -
       Dynamometer vs. Track vs. Road
                 August 1975
 Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
    Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
       Environmental Protection Agency

-------
 Introduction

     This report examines the relationship between passenger car fuel
economy as reported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
using dynamometer equipment and the fuel economy production cars achieve
when driven on the same EPA city and highway test cycles on a test track
and in actual traffic in over the road operation.  During the design of
this test program efforts were made to select particular vehicles and
test conditions that would best respond to a variety of concerns ex-
pressed regarding EPA's fuel economy measurement and reporting programs.
In addition to the test results some discussion is provided to clarify
aspects of EPA test procedures which some reports indicate have been
misunderstood.

Background

     Since the Fall of 1971, vehicle evaluation reports prepared by the
Emission Control Technology Division (ECTD) of EPA's Motor Vehicle
Emission Laboratory (MVEL) have routinely covered fuel economy in
addition to exhaust emissions as measured by dynamometer tests.  The
constant volume exhaust sampling procedure and measurement of essentially
all of the carbon containing compounds in the vehicle exhaust enables
fuel economy to be accurately determined by a "carbon balance" cal-
culation.  Determination of the total carbon content of the exhaust
through the measurement of unburned hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide
(CO), and carbon dioxide (CCL), allows calculation of the amount of fuel
used since the fuel burned by the engine is essentially the only source
of carbon in the exhaust.

     While not as easy for the layman to comprehend as a volumetric or
gravimetric fuel measurement method, the carbon balance technique is a
scientifically valid and widely accepted technique which has been supported
by engineers from the automotive industry and government alike

     Besides accurate fuel measurement, a representative schedule of
vehicle speed vs. time is necessary for the generation of meaningful
fuel economy information.  A schedule representing urban driving often
referred to as the "LA-4" or simply the "city" cycle is used by EPA to
assess the fuel economy and emission characteristics of vehicles in
areas of high population density where traffic is often heavy and air
pollution is a problem.  The major characteristics of the urban cycle
are shown below:
   B. H. Simpson, "Improving the Measurement of Chassis Dynamometer
Fuel Economy," SAE Paper No. 750002, February 1975.

(2)
   T. C. Austin and K. H. Hellman, "Passenger Car Fuel Economy -
Trends and Influencing Factors" SAE Paper No. 730790, September 1973.

-------
                                Table 1
                        EPA Urban Cycle (LA4)

avg. .speed    maximum speed   stopping frequency   % time at idle   length
 19.6 mph
(31.5 kph)
 56.7  mph
(91.2  kph)
 2.4 per mile
(1.5 per km)
 19.1         7.46  miles
(19.1)       (12.46  miles)
     Department of Transportation statistics indicate that 55% of the
passenger car miles driven in the U.S. are accumulated in urban areas.
Since passenger cars generally produce poorer fuel economy during trips
of short length and high stopping frequency the fuel economy achieved
during urban driving is significantly poorer than the economy that can
be achieved during travel in non-urban areas.  The poorer economy of
urban driving and the large fraction of total mileage driven in urban
areas results in about 65% of the fuel consumed by passenger cars being
consumed in city-suburban driving according to EPA calculations.  Since
the average motorist burns the majority of his fuel in urban driving it
was felt that the value of fuel economy achieved during operation on the
EPA urban driving cycle would be of considerable interest to the public.
EPA began to publish urban fuel economy results generated during the new
car certification program with the 1973 model year.  Beginning with the
1974 model year the fuel economy test results were published in a "Gas
Mileage Guide for Car Buyers."

     Criticism of this early fuel economy testing and reporting by EPA
stressed the facts that the test data reported by EPA did not cover all
of the available car models and that no economy values were available
for customers who were interested in fuel economy ratings during non-
urban driving conditions.  Both of these valid criticisms were accom-
modated with the reporting program for 1975 model vehicles.

     An increased level of vehicle testing, and extrapolation of certain
test results to vehicles which differed from the specific car tested by
only sheet metal changes or body differences, increased the coverage to
100% on a car line basis.  To accommodate the requests for the addition
of a non-urban driving cycle a program was undertaken in the spring of
1974 to develop a new cycle after a review of the literature revealed
that a driving cycle representative of customer driving in non-urban
areas was not available from other sources.  The cycle developed was

-------
based on a quasi-chase car approach and is covered in detail in a
report entitled "Passenger Car Fuel Economy During Non-Urban Driving"
which is available from the Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
of ECTD.  The major characteristics of the EPA Highway Cycle are shown
in Table 2.

                           Table 2

                     EPA Non-Urban "Highway" Cycle

avg. speed   maximum speed   stopping frequency   %_ time at idle   length

 48.2 mph       59.9 mph       .098 per mile        less than 1%    10.2 miles
(77.6 kph)     (96.4 kph)     (.06 per km)         (less than 1%)  (16.5 km)

Test Program

     The dynamometer vs. track vs. road test program was designed to
provide data to answer three different questions:

     1.  Is the fuel economy of production automobiles the same as that
of -the pre-production cars certified by EPA?

     2.  Does the EPA Highway Cycle driven on a test track produce the
same results as when the cycle is driven on a chassis dynamometer?

     3.  Does the EPA Highway Cycle produce fuel economy values which
drivers can reasonably expect to achieve during highway trips?

     To answer these questions the following tests were conducted on
each vehicle:

     1.  EPA Highway Cycle run on a chassis dynamometer
     2.  EPA Highway Cycle run on a test track
     3.  Over the road trip on expressways and two lane highways.

     Since additional information could be obtained with little additional
effort the following testing was also done:

     4.  Steady speed cruising on a chassis dynamometer
     5.  Steady speed cruising_on a _test track
     &' J?EA_Urban Cycle (LA4). on a. chassis dynamometer
     7.  EPA Urban Cycle on a_. test track.

-------
     Dynamometer tests were carried out in accordance with the procedures
for the testing of light duty vehicles which appear in the Federal
Register (CFR 40, Part 85).  Fuel economy was determined with both
carbon balance and volumetric techniques.

     For all dynamometer tests the road load was set to the same value
used during the certification testing of the same model.  Except for the
Volkswagen Rabbit, road load was set in accordance with the standard
table in the Federal Register in which road load is a function of-inertia
weight.  The Rabbit was set to a slightly lower road load than that in
the table based on data from tests run by Volkswagen according to an
optional road load determination procedure provided by the Federal
regulations.

     Track tests were run at the Transportation Research Center of Ohio
on the 7.5 mile oval track.  Testing was restricted to periods when wind
gusts were below 15 mph and the track surface was dry. Corrections were
made for fuel temperature using standard SAE formulas.

     Road tests were run between the EPA Ann Arbor, Michigan test
facility and the Transportation Research Center test track.  The trip
distance was about 150 miles and the roads consisted of expressways,
two-lane highways and two or four lane streets through several small
towns encountered enroute.  Figures 1 and 2 are typical sections of the
two-lane highways and expressways covered during the road trip.  Drivers
were instructed to obey the 55 mph speed limit and use no special
techniques to improve gas mileage (e.g. coasting with engine off, engine
off at stop lights, low speed cruising).  The average speed over this
route was 48-52 mph for all tests.

Test Vehicle Descriptions

     The vehicles used in the test program were selected to cover a
broad range of vehicle weight classes and two of the models were specifi-
cally selected because they have generated a higher than average number
of customer complaints concerning gas mileage.  All the vehicles were
1975 models with at least 4000 miles of service accumulated.  The vehicles,
their inertia weight, engine size and transmission type were:

     1.  Ford Granada, 3500 IW, 250 CID, Automatic 3-speed
     2.  Pontiac Firebird, 4000 IW, 250 CID, Manual 3-speed
     3.  Chevrolet Chevelle, 4500 IW, 350 CID, Automatic 3-speed
     4.  Ford Pinto, 3000-IW, 140 CID, Manual 4-speed
     5.  Lincoln Continental, 5500 IW, 460 CID, Automatic 3-speed
     6.  Volkswagen Rabbit, 2250 IW, 90 CID, Manual 4-speed

-------
  Figure 1 - Typical Expressway Segment of Road Trip
Figure 2 - Typical 2-Lane Highway Segment of Road Trip

-------
     The Ford Granada and Pinto were non-catalyst versions while the
other cars all used catalytic control systems.  More detailed descrip-
tions of each vehicle appear in Appendix 1.

     Each vehicle was obtained without the assistance of any vehicle
manufacturer to eliminate any possibility that a test vehicle might not
be representative of a typical production car.  Each car was a rental or
lease car and presumably prior mileage was accumulated by the general
public under rental agreements.

     Prior to initiation of the testing each vehicle was checked for air
cleaner condition, spark timing and vacuum leaks.  One vacuum leak and
one plugged air filter were identified and corrected before testing. In
order to obtain an accurate speed indication for the track tests each
vehicle was equipped with a 5th wheel.  Fuel measurement was obtained
with the Ford/CMP volumetric flow meter which was loaned to EPA for
evaluation by the Ford Motor Company.

     To follow the driving cycles on the test track each car was equipped
with a portable strip chart recorder which was loaded with chart paper
printed with the driving cycles.  A pickup on the 5th wheel was connected
to the strip chart recorder and the driver modulated the vehicle speed
so as to keep the recorder pen on the speed vs. time trace of the driving
cycle.  The recorder pen also left a permanent record of the actual
drive to permit detection of any deviations.

     Figures 3 and 4 show typical instrumentation installations used
during the test program.

Test Results

     Highway test results are summarized in Table 1.  The first column
shows the Highway Cycle fuel economy reported for the car in the EPA Gas
Mileage Guide for New Car Buyers or "Buyers Guide".  The second column
lists the actual test results for the certification car that had the
same transmission as the test car used in this program.  (The Buyer's
Guide values result from a salesweighting of the mileage produced by the
various transmissions available).

     The third column of Table 1 shows the results achieved on each of
the test cars used for this program.  Only one car was more than 9%
different from its counterpart which was tested earlier by EPA and used
to develop the Buyers Guide fuel economy values.

-------
                                                        Fuel Meter Readout
                                                           & Control Box
                                                       Strip Chart
         Temperature
         Readout
Volumetric Fuel
    Meter
                                                                 Fuel & Power
                                                                 Hookup Lines
 5th Wheel
Speedometer
                  Figure 3 - Typical Instrumentation Installation
                                                                            r
                                                     _   Fuel & Power Hookup
                                                                 Lines
                  Figure 4 - Typical Instrumentation Installation

-------
                                   8
                                Table 1

                         Highway Fuel Economy

Ford Granada, 250 CID
Pontiac Firebird, 250 CID
Chevrolet Chevelle,350 CID
Ford Pinto, 140 CID

Buyer '
Guide
18
21
18
26
Dynamometer
s Certification
Car
17.8
23.2
17.5
28.4

Test
Car
18.9
25.3
18.7
27.6
Test
Track
Test
Car
16.5
23.8
17.7
25.5
Road
Trip
Test
Car
18.6
25.0
19.2
26.9
Lincoln Continental,
  460 CID
15
Volkswagen Rabbit, 90 CID
38
15.1
39.6
15.5   16.2   16.2
34.5   33.7   37.7
     The fourth column shows data for the same test car run on a test
track using the same driving cycle.  The dynamometer results agreed with
the track test results within 4.9% on the average.  The largest difference
was 12.7% and only one car had track test results more than 7.6% different
from dynamometer results.  This is an indication of how accurately the
chassis dynamometer can represent on-the-road conditions. The results
are especially encouraging considering that the normal test to test
variability problems were not eliminated through the running of numerous
tests.  The difference between the track and dyno is slight and some of
the difference may be explained by surface roughness of the particular
track we used.

     The last column of the table shows the fuel economy achieved by
each of the test cars during a 150 mile trip between the Ann Arbor
laboratory and the test track used in the program.  Drivers were in-
structed to obey the 55 mph speed limit but no attempts were made to
maximize economy by using any special driving techniques.  The average
speeds of the trips ranged from 48-52 mph.  This was very close to the
48 mph average speed of the EPA Highway Driving Cycle.  The roads

-------
                                 9
covered were a mix of expressways and two lane highways and several
small towns were encountered along the route.  Every car was able to
meet or exceed the Highway Fuel Economy listed in the Buyer's Guide,
with one car being as much as 19% better than the value listed in the
Guide.

                                Table 2

             Carbon Balance vs Volumetric Fuel Measurement


                                 Ratio of Carbon Balance to Volumetric
Hot Highway
1975 FTP '72 FTP Cycle
Ford Granada .99 .99 .96
Pontiac Firebird .98 .98 .96
Chevrolet Chevelle 1.04 1.07 1.04
Ford Pinto 1.01 1.02 1.02
Lincoln Continental .95 .97 .97
Volkswagen Rabbit 1.03 1.04 1.07
Overall Average
Average
.98
.97
1.05
1.02
.96
1.05
1.01
     Figures 5 through 10 summarize the bulk of the data graphically.
Triangular points are dynamometer test results, circular points are
track test data, and the diamond shaped points are data from the road
trip.  The dashed lines connect the steady speed cruise test results run
on the track and the solid lines connect the steady speed results from
the dynamometer tests.   Reasonable agreement between track and dynamometer
results is evident for each vehicle.

-------
  40
  30
S  20
  10
           Hot
         '72 FTP0
          10
                20
                                                  FUEL  ECONOMY  VS.  SPEED

                                                                  40
                               Steady Speed
                       I
                                  I
                                        I
                     30
                                       60
                           40    50
                             MPH
                  Figure 5 - Pontlac Firebird
                                            70
                                                  80'
                                                                  30
                                                               S  20
                                                               -4
                                                               Z
                                                                  10
                                                                                                          Steady
                                                                                                          Speed
                                                                                A Hot
                                                                                «y"72
                                                                                  FTP
                                                                                           EPA /_0  \    > .
                                                                                         Highway   Road     ~* >.
                                                                                          Cycle    Trip         x
                                                                                      I
                                                                                            I
                                                                                                       J_
                                                                         10
                                                                               20
                                                                                     30
                                                                                                       60
                                                                                            40    50
                                                                                              MPH
                                                                                   Figure 6 - Ford Granada
                                                                                                             70

                                                                                                                   80
  40
  30
 3 20
  10
  40
<=  30
   20
   10
          10
         10
                                  I
                                        I
                20
                      30
                                       60
                           40    50
                             MPH
                     Figure 7 - Ford Pinto
                                             70
                                              1
                20
                      30
                                       60
                            40     50
                             MPH
                  Figure 9 - Volkswagen Rabbit
                                             70
                                                  80
                                                   80
                                                                  40 -
                                                                  30
                                                                  20
                                                                  10
                                                                                                         Steady
                                                                                                          Spued
                                                                          10
                                                                  40 -
                                                                  30
                                                                 
-------
                                 12
     3.  During actual road trips the fuel economy achieved was within
10% of the EPA Highway Cycle dynamometer fuel economy results for each
car.  Every car achieved results equal to or in excess of its "Buyers
Guide" rating.

     However, during the course of the test program it was noted that
significant fuel economy penalties occurred when highway speeds went
above the 55 miles per hour speed limit, especially for small cars.

     4.  Based on previous studies of non-urban driving patterns and the
results of this test program, it is concluded that the procedure used by
EPA for the determination of non-urban fuel economy produces results
that are representative of what drivers can expect during highway
driving, if travel is not constrained by heavy traffic, the 55 mph speed
limit is obeyed, and weather and road conditions are favorable.

Additional Discussion

     During the course of the test program some analysis was done to
determine the possible cause of the complaints voiced by some drivers
about the highway fuel economy of some 1975 models.  Assuming the
vehicle is in a proper state of tune, it was concluded that four factors
could be having a significant effect:

     1.  Mileage driven in congested traffic conditions or urban areas
most likely will be included in the driver's calculation since the only
computational method available to the typical driver is to monitor
mileage between refuelings and to record the amount of fuel dispensed
during refueling.

     2.  The trips taken may be so short that the cold start and warmup
effect is significant.

     3.  The 55 mph speed limit may have been exceeded often and for
long periods of time.

     4.  Seasonal and weather factors may have been ignored or at least
not understood.

     An example of how the first factor can affect mileage is cited
below:

          A driver travels from a point in City A to a point in City B,
          a distance of 100 miles, in the Ford Pinto test car used for
          this program. Starting with a full tank of gas he leaves his

-------
                                    11
     Table 2 shows the agreement between carbon balance fuel economy and
volumetric fuel economy achieved during the dynamometer tests. The
overall average difference between the carbon balance and volumetric
fuel measurement was 1% with the carbon balance yielding the higher
results.

     Detailed fuel economy and emissions results appear in the Appendix.
It was not determined until after the test vehicles were returned that
one vehicle failed to meet the applicable CO emission standard by a
substantial margin and another vehicle failed to meet the NOx standard.
The reason for the failures could not be determined but they would not
necessarily have influenced the economy results.

Summary and Conclusions

     1.  For dynamometer tests on the six production vehicles tested,
the average difference in Highway Cycle fuel economy from the pre-
production cars tested in the EPA certification program was only 1.5%.
The maximum deviation for any one car was 12.9% low for the Volkswagen
Rabbit.  All other test cars were within 10% of the certification car
results.  This may not be outside the range of difference that could be
expected from vehicle to.vehicle differences.

     2.  The average fuel economy the test cars achieved when driving
the EPA Highway Cycle on a test track was 5% lower than achieved during
dynamometer tests.  No trend with vehicle weight was apparent, as. the
two vehicles with track  fuel economy closest to dynamometer fuel
economy were the Volkswagen Rabbit (2250 inertia weight) and the Lincoln
Continental (5500 inertia weight).  A 5% agreement between track and
dynamometer results is especially encouraging in view of the limited
number of tests run and the fact that the test track had a rather rough
surface (which would reduce fuel economy) and no attempt was made to
establish specific road load information for all of the test cars. The
standard look-up table horsepower is representative for most vehicles,
but some streamlined or poorly shaped vehicles can have actual road
load horsepower requirements that are sufficiently different from the
standard values to cause a measurable difference in fuel economy.
Provisions in the EPA procedures already allow for determination of
specific road load data for test cars to be used in setting the dyna-
mometer.  Programs are currently underway to develop procedures for
determining vehicle-specific road load information for all vehicles
tested.

-------
looV-
                                   FIGURE  11 - EFFECT  OF TRIP LENGTH ON  COLD-START

                                                CITY FUEL ECONOMY
                   Pre-Emission

                   Controlled Vehicles
            XD A 1973 Vehicles
                                      ill    l	L
                                      7   8    9   10


                                   Trip  Length - Miles
11
12   13   14   15   16   17   18
               50
          (0
         o
          u
          v
          7)

          4)
               30
               20
              10
                                         Volkswagen Rabbit
                                Lincoln Continental
                                                                  Chevrolet Chevelle
                     10    20     30    40    50    60    70

                                  miles/hour          ,
     80
                     Figure  12 - Steady State Fuel Economy vs. Speed

-------
                                    13
          home in City A and drives 10 miles through the city before
          getting on the highway.  Entering City B he drives 10 miles
          before pulling into a gas station where he fills the tank.

          Based on the results published in the Buyer's Guide the driver
          expects to get 26 mpg.  But his car takes 4.2 gallons to fill
          it up indicating only 23.8 miles per gallon, 8.5% less than he
          expected.  What's wrong?

          The driver forgot to consider the 20 miles of urban operation
          between fill-ups.  Even if the car did get 26 mpg on the
          highway the lower fuel economy achieved during the relatively
          urban portions of the trip would be enough to pull the average
          down to 23.8.  The correct formula for mileage estimation for
          this case would be:
                 2
                18          26
                                  23-8
          where :

          o  .2 is the fraction of urban operation,
          o  18 is the Urban Cycle fuel economy (from the Buyer's Guide),
          o  .8 is the fraction of highway operation
          o  26 is the Highway Cycle fuel economy  (from the Buyer's Guide).

     An example of how the second factor, short trips, can affect fuel
economy is apparent from inspection of Figure 11.  Only on trips beyond
20 miles in length can the effects of warmup be ignored. The EPA Highway
Cycle is a hot start test which means it will accurately predict only
long trips.  However, it will still rank cars correctly for shorter
trips.

     The effect of excessive speed on highway fuel economy can be estimated
from the steady speed cruising data which was generated during the test
program.  As shown in Figure 12 the reduction in fuel economy at speeds
in excess of 55 mph was significant for all six vehicles.  The smaller
cars tended to be most affected by higher speeds.  For example, the
Volkswagen Rabbit had 30% better fuel economy at 55 mph than at 70 mph
while the Chevrolet Chevelle was 14% better at 55 than at 70.

-------
                                  15
     An additional factor which can significantly affect fuel economy is
ambient temperature.  The EPA dynamometer tests are run at about 77 F.
A fuel economy loss of about 2% for every 10 F drop in temperature can
be anticipated. For this reason drivers who keep accurate records of
their economy will notice a pronounced drop in mileage during winter
weather unless a change in their driving pattern masks this effect.

     Recognizing that the differences between drivers and usage patterns
can result in substantial differences in fuel economy for a given model
of car, it seems desirable for EPA to report more than one fuel economy
rating for each model.  The present city and highway cycles allow the
customer to rank cars based on the type of driving which he does most.
If it appears however that the average motorist will expect to achieve
the "highway" rating regardless of the speed at which he drives and
regardless of the amount of urban operation mixed with his highway
driving, then it can be anticipated that some dissatisfaction with the
entire fuel economy program will result.  In this situation it would
seem desirable to stress the composite city/highway number in the
Buyer's Guide and in advertising and point out to the customer that
strictly city driving can be expected to produce lower results while
strictly highway driving at legal speed  limits should produce better
results.

-------
       Appendix 1




Test Vehicle Descriptions

-------
                        TEST VEHICLE  DESCRIPTION
            Chassis model year/make  -  1975 Chevelle Malibu,  2 door
            Emission  control  system  -  EGR,  quick heat intake manifold, catalyst
Engine
type	V8
bore x stroke	4.00 x 3.48 in./102  x 88 mm
displacement  	  350 CID/5700 cc
compression ratio   	  .  8.20:1
maximum power @ rpm	145 hp/108 kW (§  3800 rpm
fuel metering	2 barrel
fuel requirement	91 RON

Drive Train

transmission type   	  automatic
final drive ratio	2.73

Chassis

type	front engine,  rear drive, body  frame
tire size	G 78-14
curb weight   	
inertia weight  	  4500
passenger capacity  	  4

Emission Control System

basic type	EGR/EFE/CAT
mileage accumulated on system .  .  .  11420

-------
                        TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
            Chassis model year/make -  1975 VW Rabbit,  4  Door
            Emission control system -  EGR, air injection, catalyst
Engine

                                    4 cyl.  OHC
type . 	
bore x stroke	3.012 x 3.149 in./77  x  80  mm
displacement .I!!!'.'.!!'.'.  90 CID/1500  cc
compression ratio   	  8.0:1
maximum power g rpm	™ SAE hp/52 kW <§  5800  rpm
fuel metering	2 Barrel
fuel requirement	91 RON

Drive Train

transmission type   	  4 speed manual
final drive ratio	390

Chassis
                                    transverse front engine, front drive,
type	unitized body
tire size	155 SR-13
curb weight  	
inertia weight 	  2250
passenger capacity  	  .  .  4

Emission Control System

basic type	EM/EGR/AIR/CAT
mileage accumulated on system .  .  .  6254

-------
                        TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION

            Chassis model year/make -   1975  Ford  Pinto Runabout
            Emission control system -   EGR,. .air injection
Engine
type	  4  cyl.  OHC
bore x stroke	 . .  3.78  x  3.13  in./96  x 80 mm
displacement 	  140 CID/2300 cc
compression ratio  	  8.4:1
maximum power @ rpm	85 hp/63  kW  @ 4800  rpm
fuel metering	2  Stage,  2 Barrel
fuel requirement	91 RON

Drive Train

transmission type  	  4  speed manual
final drive ratio	3-18

Chassis

type 	  front engine, rear  drive, unitized body
tire size	BR 78-13
curb weight	
inertia weight 	  3000
passenger capacity 	 . .  4

Emission Control System

basic type	EGR/AIR
mileage accumulated on system  .  .   7500

-------
                        TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION

            Chassis model year/make -1975 Firebird,  2  Door
            Emission control system - EGR ,quick heat intake manifold, catalyst
Engine
type	in line 6  cyl.
bore x stroke	3.88 x 3.53  in./99  x  90  mm
displacement 	  250 CID/4100 cc
compression ratio  	  8.22:1
maximum power @ rpm	105 hP/78  kw @  380° rPm
fuel metering	* Barrel
fuel requirement	91 RON

Drive Train

transmission type  	  3 speed manual
final drive ratio	3.08

Chassis

type 	  front engine, rear  drive,  unitized body
tire size	F 78-14
curb weight  	
inertia weight 	  4000
passenger capacity 	 .  .  4

Emission Control System

basic type	EGR/EFE/CAT
mileage accumulated on system  .  .  3700

-------
                        TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION

            Chassis model year/make -  1975 Ford Granada,  2  Door
            Emission control system -  EGR, air injection.
Engine
type  .	in line 6 cyl.
bore x stroke	3.68 x 3.91 in./93  x  99  mm
displacement  	  250 CID/4100 cc
compression ratio   	  8.0:1
maximum power @ rpm	86 hp/64 kW @ 3000  rpm
fuel metering  	  .....  1 Barrel
fuel requirement	.91 RON

Drive Train

transmission  type   	  automatic
final drive ratio	3.00

Chassis

type  	 	  front engine,  rear  drive,  unitized body
tire size	DR 78-14
curb weight   	
inertia weight 	  3500
passenger capacity  	  .  .  4

Emission Control System

basic type	EGR/AIR
mileage accumulated on system .  .  .  12675

-------
                        TEST  VEHICLE  DESCRIPTION
             Chassis model year/make  -   1975 Lincoln Continental,  4 Door
             Emission  control  system  -  EGR, air injection, catalyst
Engine
type	V8.
bore  x stroke	4.36 x 3.85 in./Ill  x  98 mm
displacement  	  460 CID/7500 cc
compression ratio   	  8.0:1
maximum power @ rpm	253 hp/188 kW @  4400 rpm
fuel  metering	  ....  4 barrel
fuel  requirement	91 RON

Drive Train

transmission type   	  automatic
final drive ratio	2.75

Chassis

type	front engine,  rear drive, body  frame
tire  size	230 x 15 R
curb  weight   	
inertia weight  	  550°
passenger capacity  	  .  . .6

Emission Control System

basic type	EGR/AIR/CAT
mileage accumulated on system .  .  .  8375

-------
                                                          Appendix 2 - Fuel Economy  Results  (MFC)


.
: Ford Granada
: 250 CID, no cat,
A-3
• i •
Guide: 14 city/18 highway

i
! Pontlac Firebird
1 250 CID, M-3
i

• Guide: 16 city/21 highway

j Chevrolet Chevelle
! 350 CID, A-3
j
i
• i
! Guide: 13 city/18 highway

i Ford Pinto
I 140 CID, no cat,
! M-4
l
i
' Guide: 18 city/26 highway

j Lincoln Continenal
i 460 CID, A-3
1
j
< Guide: 10/15

VW Rabbit
i 90 CID, M-4


'; Guide: 24 city/38 highway




Mfr Cert
EPA Cert
Dyno C.B.
Dyno Vol.
Track
Road
Mfr Cert
EPA Cert
Dyno C.B.
Dyno Vol
Track
Road '
Mfr Cert
EPA Cert
Dyno C.B.
Dyno Vol
Track
Road
Mrf Cert
EPA Cert
Dyno C.B.
Dyno Vol
Track
Kond
Mrf Cert
EPA Cert
Dyno C.B.
Dyno Vol
Track
Road
Mfr Cert
EPA Cert
Dyno C.B.
Dvno "ol
Track
Road


•75 FTP
14.0
14.5
13.0
13.1


14.6
15.3
17.0
17.3


None
13.3
14.0
13.4


17.5
17.7
17.8
17.6


9.3
9.6
9.3
9.8


23.4
24.8
24.4
?3.«



Hot
•72 FTP


14.0
14.1
12.5



17.4
17.8
16.4



14.6
13.7
13.1



18.9
18.6
16.6



10.2
10.5
10.3



26.1
25.n
24.0



11WC
18.5
17.8
18.2
18.9
16.5

22.1
23.2
24.4
25.3
23.8

None
17.5
19.4
18.7
17.7

28.2
28.4
28.1
27.6
25.5

14.1
15.1
15.0
15.5
16.2

35.8
39.6
36.9
34 . 5
33.7

Road Trip
mpg @
Avg. Speed





18.6 @ 50.2





25.0 @ 51.9





19.2 @ 50.4





26.9 @ 48.3





16.2 @ 49.9





37.7 @ 49.2

Gal/Hr.
0 mph


.628
.586




.706
.664




.698
.690




.426
.485




1.008
1.018




.383
.353




15 mph


13.8
14.3




19.5
20.1




19.0
18.1




18.4 2nd
18.9




14.2
14.3
14.2



31.1
31.6
31.1



30 mph


19.5
20.2
17.9
19.9


31.4
32.0
29.4



20.5
20.0
17.6



37.5 4th
33.2
31.1 4tl



17.6
17.6
17.6
18.0


49.8 4tli
49.7
45.5 4tll



45 mph


19.1
20.8
19.4
19.6


27.7
28.4
27.8



20.5
20.1
18.9



31.8
30.8
28.2



17.3
17.3
18.1
18.1


41.8
41.6
38.4 .
	


60 mph


17.4
19.5
16.6
17.3
*

22.3
23.6
23.8



18.2
18.0
17.4



28.9
26.7
24.2



15.5
15.8
16.4
16.4


32.2
31.2
29.2



70 mph




14.5





20.7





16.1





20.8





14.9





24.8



8(Lmph




10.2





17.9





13.9





17.5





13.2





21.6


Test ,u
Weight*
3500
3500
3500
3500
3800
3700
4000
4000
4000
4000
4030
4060
4500
4500
4500
4500
4380
4300
3000
3000
3000
3000
3040
3040
5500
5500
5500
5500
5610
5610
2250
2250
2250
2250
2430
2430
Legend?  Mfr Cert = certification car results based on manufacturer's .test  (carbon  balance)
         EPA Cert = certification car results based on EPA test (carbon balance)
         Dyno C.B. = dynamometer carbon balance test results of production  car used in test  program
         Dyno Vol  - dynamometer volumetric fuel meter results of production car used in test program
         Track •» track test, results (volumetric fuel meter)
                       Aol- T*o<3ii1t-a (\It\ 1 l
                                               fllf»l
^Dynamometer Test weight duplicated
 the value used during certification
 testing but track and road test
 weight depended on the particular
 drivers and equipment used.

-------
                                                 Table A-l

                                             Vehicle Emissions
                                               Ford Granada
                                                                                            Fuel  Economy MPG
                                                                                        Carbon
Test No.
16-1269
16-1271
16-1269
16-1270
16-1272*
16-1370
16-1369
16-1273
16-1371
Test
75 FTP
Hot 72 FTP
Hwy
Hwy
Idle
15
30
45
60
Gear
D
D
D
D
P
D
D
D
D
HC gm/mi
.76
.60
.34
.37
.15
.43
.18
.18
.21
CO gm/mi '
11.7
5.8
3.0
2.6
.44
2.3
2.0
2.1
2.3
C02 gm/mi
664
622
483
483
92
640
451
460
507
NOx gm/mi
3.40
3.25
4.44
3.38
.06
1.03
1.33
2.04
4.43
Balance
13.0
14.0
18.1
18.2
.628
13.8
19.5
19.1
17.4
Volumetric
13.1
14.1
18.5
18.9
.586
14.3
20.2
20.8
19.5
*  Idle Gm/Min, Gal/Hr

-------
                                                Table A-2

                                            Vehicle Emissions
                                            Pontiac Firebird
                                                                                          Fuel Economy MPG
                                                                                      Carbon
Test No.
16-1274
16-1275
16-1274
16-1276
16-1277*
16-1372
16-1373
16-1278
16-1374
Test
75 FTP
Hot 72 FTP
Hwy
Hwy
Idle
15
30
45
60
Gear
all
all
all
all
N
2
3
3
3
HC gm/mi
.55
.21
.04
.03
.02
.11
.06
.03
.03
CO gm/mi
8.1
4.1
.4
.13
.01
.12
.07
.03
.03
CO? gm/mi
509
504
364
363
104
453
282
320
398
NOx gm/mi
2.01
2.12
2.54
2.50
.03
.22
.36
1.11
3.74
Balance
17.0
17.4
24.3
24.4
.706
19.5
31.4
27.7
22.3
Volumetric
17.3
17.8
25.2
25.3
.664
20.1
32.0
28.4
23.6
*  Idle Gms/Min,  Gal/Hr

-------
                                                 Table A-3

                                             Vehicle Emissions
                                            Chevrolet Chevelle
                                                                                           Fuel Economy MPG
                                                                                       Carbon
Test No.
15-1384
16-1383
16-1384
16-1385
16-1386
16-1387
16-1388
16-1389
16-1390
Test
75 FTP
Hot 72 FTP
Hwy
Hwy
Idle
15
30
45
60
Gear
D
D
D
D
P
D
D
D
D
HC gm/mi
.33
.20
.05
.05
.02
.09
.08
.06
.03
CO gm/mi
5.6
3.4
.5
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
C02 gm/mi
626
601
445
465
103
465
433
432
487
NOx gm/mi
2.00
1.71
2.24
2.36
.04
.43
.30
1.11
3.34
Balance
14.0
14.6
19.9
19.0
.698
19.0
20.5
20.5
18.2
Volumetric
13.4
13.7
18.8
18.7
.690
18.1
20.0
20.1
18.0
*  Idle Gms/Min, Gal/Hr

-------
                                                 Table A-4

                                             Vehicle Emissions
                                                Ford Pinto
                                                                                          Fuel Economy MPG
                                                                                      Carbon
Test No.
16-1342
16-1343
16-1344
16-1345
16-1346*
16-1347
16-1348
15-1668
16-1349
16-1350
Test
75 FTP
Hot 72 FTP
Hwy
Hwy
Idle
15
30
30
45
60
Gear
all
all
all
all
N
2
3
4
4
4
HC gm/mi
.96
.51
.28
.26
.06
.20
.22
.19
.26
.24
CO gm/mi
15.6
10.9
2.4
2.3
3.4
7.6
3.4
5.4
1.6
1.7
C02 gm/mi
470
451
318
304
57
468
308
227
276
304
NOx gm/mi
2.04
2.01
2.40
2.23
.02
.44
.99
.60
1.04
3.46
Balance
17.8
18.9
27.5
28.7
.426
18.4
28.3
37.5
31.8
28.9
Volumetric
17.6
18.6
27.1
28.1
.486
18.9
27.9
33.2
30.8
26.7
*  Idle Gms/Min,  Gal/Hr

-------
                                                 Table A-5

                                             Vehicle Emissions
                                            Lincoln Continental
                                                                                           Fuel Economy MPG
                                                                                       Carbon
Test No.
15-1351
15-1352
16-1353
16-1354
16-1355*
16-1356
16-1357
16-1358
16-1359
Test
FTP
72 Hot FTP
Hwy
Hwy
Idle
15 MPH
30 MPH
45 MPG
60 MPH
Gear
D
D
D
D
P
D
D
, D
D
HC gm/mi
1.65
1.01
0.34
0.38
0.20
0.96
0.35
0.30
0.20
CO gm/mi
52.7
32.7
6.0
5.6
7.9
35.4
8.73
3.71
4.24
CO? gm/mi
864
818
580
579
136
568
489
507
565
NOx gm/mi
1.90
1.80
2.98
3.04
0.04
0.24
0.85
1.45
3.70
Balance
9.3
10.2
15.0
15.1
1.008
14.2
17.6
17.3
15.5
Volumetric
9.8
10.5
15.5
15.4
1.018
14.3
17.6
17.3
15.8
*  Idle Gms/Min, Gal/Hr

-------
                                                Table A-6

                                            Vehicle Emissions
                                                VW Rabbit
                                                                                          Fuel Economy MPG
                                                                                      Carbon
Test No.
15-1607
15-1608
15-1607
15-1608
16-1609*
16-1610
16-1611
16-1612
16-1613
16-1614
Test
FTP
72 Hot FTP
Hwy
Hwy
Idle
15 MPH
30 MPH
30 MPH
45 MPH
60 MPH
Gear
All
All
All
All
N
2nd
3rd
4th
4th
4th
HC gm/mi
0.68
0.22
0.07
0.60
0.01
0.21
0.08
0.11
0.07
0.02
CO gm/mi
5.6
1.8
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
CO? gm/mi
353
337
245
234
57
285
241
178
212
275
NOx gm/mi
0.68
0.71
0.77
0.68
0.03
0.36
0.41
0.62
0.65
0.57
Balance
24.4
26.1
36.1
37.1
0.383
31.1
36.8
49.8
41.8
32.2
Volumetric
23.8
25.0
34.8
34.1
0.353
31.6
37.0
49.7
41.6
31.2
*  Idle Gms/Min,  Gal/Hr

-------