78-2 FPH
Investigation ofLTurbo-Dyne
Energy Chamber (G:R:Valve ) - An Air Bleed Device
Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
April, 1978
Prepared by: F. Peter Hutchins
James M. Kranig
-------
Background
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has tested numerous air bleed
devices in the past. This EPA test of the Turbo-Dyne Energy Chamber,
(an air bleed device marketed by American Consumer, Inc., and Dan-Mar
Products, Inc.) was at the request of the Federal Trade Commission. The
installation instructions included with the devices provided to the EPA
referred to them as G:R: Valves marketed by N. C. Industries. This
program does not constitute a full test series under Section 511 of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
Advertisements for the device include the following statements: "Get up
to 7 more miles per gallon" and "Save up to 2 full gallons every 60
minutes you drive." The instruction sheet indicated that with proper
installation "...your automobile will emit lower exhaust contaminants,
which will result in instant improvement in fuel economy" (Figure 1).
This test program evaluated the performance of the subject devices on
two production vehicles to compare actual results with the advertisement
claims.
The conclusions from the EPA evaluation test can be considered to be
quantitatively valid only for the specific test vehicles used. However,
it is reasonable to extrapolate the results from the EPA test to other
types of vehicles in a directional manner, i.e., to suggest that similar
results are likely to be achieved on other types of vehicles.
Device Description
TM
The G:R: Valve is an air bleed device. It is intended to cause
enleanment of the intake fuel-air charge when the valve is open. The
device is installed in the PCV line between the PCV valve and the car-
buretor (Figure 1). Installation instructions specify replacing the PCV
valve with a new one. For vehicles not equipped with PCV valves installation
requires the use of a threaded connection in a hole tapped into the
intake manifold. The test installation is illustrated in Figures 2 and
3.
Test Vehicles
The test vehicles were: 1) a production 1970 Chevrolet equipped with a
350 cubic inch engine, three-speed automatic transmission, and H78xl5
tires, and 2) a production 1976 Chevrolet equipped with a 350 cubic inch
engine, three-speed automatic transmission, and HR78xl5 tires. These
vehicles were chosen because they represent both the non-catalyst and
catalyst equipped vehicles as well as older and newer technologies.
Detailed descriptions of the two test vehicles are provided in Appendix
A.
-------
Figure 1
FOR i/iOST CARS (Exceptions on reverse side)
1 Remove oil cicjiv.1' 10 exyosn carburetor.
5. Ideni.ly
-------
Figure 2
Device as installed in 1976 Chevrolet.
Figure 3
New PCV valve, device, and
PCV hose unit used to replace
the original PCV valve and hose.
-------
Test Program
Exhaust emission and fuel economy tests were conducted in accordance
with the 1977 Federal Test Procedure, the EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test,
and idle testing. Evaporative emissions were not measured. Each vehicle
was tested twice by each test procedure in each of the following configurations:
-Original PCV valve/no device (Baseline)
-New PCV valve/device
-Original PCV valve/device
A total of eighteen tests were run on each vehicle. The test sequence of
the various configurations was chosen to account for changes in the
vehicles with time. The test sequence for the 1970 Chevrolet was as
follows:
Configuration FTP HFET Idle
u 1- I/
baseline x x x
device/new PCV x x x
device/new PCV x x x
device old PCV x x
baseline x x x
device/old PCV x x x
device/old PCV x
The test sequence for the 1976 Chevrolet was as follows:
baseline x x x
device/new PCV x x x
device/new PCV x x x
device/old PCV x x x
baseline x x x
device/old PCV x x x
baseline x x x
I/ "x" indicates test was performed.
-------
The exhaust sampling attachment on the 1976 Chevrolet was found to be
loose in the inspection following the first baseline test. While the
test results are comparable to the other baseline tests, they are not
included in the analysis of data.
Test Results
The test results are presented in tabular form in Appendix B and in
graphic form in Figures 4 through 8. Each group of four histograms
represents the test results from the vehicle and test procedure in-
dicated. The first three columns represent the pairs of tests from the
baseline, new PCV valve with device, and original PCV valve with device,
respectively. The final column represents the mean value of the three
test pairs. Also, a statistical analysis of the data is presented in
Appendix C.
Fuel Economy
Figure 4 illustrates the fuel economy results. Use of the device does
not materially affect fuel economy. There was no significant difference
resulting from any configuration at the 90% confidence level (see Appendix
C). The only significant difference in fuel economy was between vehicles.
No configuration consistently yielded superior fuel economy values,
however slight. In many cases the variation between the two tests of a
configuration exceeded the variation of the configuration means within a
test group. The configuration consisting of the device coupled with a
new PCV valve (installation per instructions) yielded less test-to-test
variation within that configuration than the other two configurations.
The observed reduction in test-to-test variability with the device/new
PCV configuration occurred with both test vehicles. The only plausible
reason for this observation is, therefore, that the operation of new PCV
valves is more stable than older (used) PCV valves. Despite this reduction
in test-to-test variation there was no difference in the fuel economy
means for each configuration.
Emissions
Figures 5 through 8 illustrate the emission test results for HC, CO,
C09, and NOx, respectively. Analysis of the FTP and HFET results shows
that neither of the two device configurations consistently achieved
emissions below the baseline level for any of the regulated pollutants
with the possible exception of CO emissions from the 76 Chevrolet with
the device/new PCV valve. As was noted above, new PCV valves appear to
operate more consistently than used PCV valves and this would account
for the observed difference. It is clear that the effect of the configurations
varied between the two vehicles.
Analysis of the idle emissions results for each vehicle shows that the
configurations utilizing the device yielded lower HC, CO and NOx on the
1970 Chevrolet. The configuration consisting of the device and the new
-------
Miles Per Gallon
Gallons Per Hour
Figure 4
20
S.0
-
-
-
pi
-i
-]
. .
=:
I .0 J
.3
.B
.7
.B
.5:
.H
.3
.2
.1
PI
FTP, 70 Chev FTP, 76 Chev HFET, 70 Chev HFET, 76 Chev
=
-i
idle, 70
-i
~
"1
Chev idle, 76 Chev
cr a- ex 3 o* CL ix 3 cr tx ex 3 a1 tx ex 3 ov.o-0-S p4 ex ex 3
p n> re re co re re n> p re re re w re re re ^ 2 2 2 222
$ p. H. 3 ron-H-pJ ron-H-a re H- H- pi ren-n-a ren-n-pi
MOO MOO MOO MOO MOO K S S
P'^.^ S'^L^L 5"^^. 3"^^. Sa"o" reo"o"
S3H- §H- S;H- SH- CH- SOQ*
n' o' o' o' o ' n^
<2
-------
-grains per mile
-parts per million
Figure
3.0
Z.S
2.0
.5"
1 .0
0
B0 u. n
H0
30
20
10
nnnn
FTP, 70 Chev FTP, 76 Chev HFET.70 Chev HFET.76 Chev
idle,70 Chev idle,76 Chev
CT1
pi
CO
fD
H*
»3
fD
CX
(D
^
H-
O
m
*«x^
3
fD
TI
O
^
cx 3
(D fD
^ 03
H- 3
n
fD
o
n
H-
TJ
O
cr
Cu
CO
fD
H-
3
fD
CX
(I>
^
H-
O
fD
y
fD
TI
n
cr
»>
CO
fD
H-
3
fD
ex
fD
H-
0
fD
3
fD
S3
T)
O
<3
ex
fD
H-
O
fD
O
i-t
H-
OQ
TI
O
3
fD
CO
3
cr
CD
CO
fD
I-1
H-
3
fD
CX
fD
^
^j«
n
ft
3
fD
5j
'"U
n
<
ex
fD
^
H-
O
fD
O
H-
OQ
TI
O
3
fD
CO
3
-------
CO
-grams per mile
-parts per million
Figure 6
to.
H0
35
30
25
20
IS
10
5.0
0
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
ACJKJ .
H50
H00
=
_
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
V\
~1
__
a R CT n
oo
FTP,70 Chev FTP,76 Chev HFET.70 Chev HFET,76 Chev
idle,70 Chev idle,76 Chev
cr P-
Cu CD
CO <
(D H-
h-1 D
H- (D
3 ->.
fD 3
fD
k
a. g
CD fD
< {B
H- 3
n
fD
O
f-f
H-
OQ
cr* QJ
cu to
CO
O
t-{
H-
OQ
cr
CO
ro
H
H-
3
(D
fD
H-
n
fD
*«*^
3
fD
s:
QJ 3
fD fO
^ (U
H- 3
n
(D
"-^
o
h^ *
h1-
OQ
cr
Co
CO
fD
I-1
H-
3
(D
PL CU 3
(D (D fD
-------
co2
-grams per mile
Figure 7
-percent
E00
500
HB0
200
100
0
-
-
-
I
"
_
=
-
. /
.E
_
--i
.
.5
.H
.3
.2
. I
m
FTP, 70 Chev FTP, 76 Chev HFET,70 Chev HFET,76 Chev
a1 a. & 3 57*0.043 cro.o.3 o4 o* o< 9
cu ro ro ro pirororo pi ro ro fD PJ ro fo rc>
en 3 PJ en co < < tu
ft> H- H- 3 (D p. p. 3 ro H- I-1- 3 fD H- H- E3
MOO MOO (-JOO MOO
H-roro H-roro n-roro p-roro
ft>3O ro3O fD3O fD3O
roi-i roi-t roi-i roi-t'
SH- 3 o'OtO'3
pirorofD ProrofD
w < < (u en < < CD
roH-H-3 rop-H-3
H O 0 MOO
H- ro ro H- ro ro
3 -^ *^ 3 -^ -.
ro 3 o ro 3 o
ro i^ ro i-f
SJ H- SJ H-
00 TO
ITJ- !TJ' lrJ- 'rJ- Ti' TJ-
o o n o G^G^
-------
NOx
grams per mile
5.0
-parts per million
Figure 8
H.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0
"
_
-
-
-
-
-
PI
r-.
r-j
FTP, 70 Chev FTP, 76
n
E.0 j
5.0
H.0
3.0
s:
-
2.0
I .0
7(
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
_
Chev HFET,70 Chev HFET,76 Chev idle, 70 Chev idle, 76 Chev
co ro ro ro co ro ro
CO < H- H- 3 roH-H-3
MOD MOO MOO MOO
H- ro ro H- ro ro H- ro ro H- ro ro
rose roso roso roso
rot-i roi-(- roi-t ro>^
^ H- < H- si H- s: H-
OQ OQ OQ OQ
no o o
n n no
-------
11
PCV valve, as recommended in the instructions, consistently yielded the
lowest levels of these pollutants. In contrast, these same configurations
did not effect HC or CO emissions and tended to increase NOx emissions
on the 1976 Chevrolet. The statistical analysis for HC and NOx indicated
that the vehicle/ configuration interactions were significant. This
means that the various configurations had different effects on HC and
NOx levels at idle but that these effects were not consistent between
vehicles.
The CO levels varied significantly among the configurations for the FTP.
Also, there was a significant interaction between the vehicles and the
various configurations. From figure 6 it is apparent that the device
coupled with a new PCV valve yielded CO levels greater than the baseline
levels for the 1970 Chevrolet. The same configuration resulted in lower
CO emissions than baseline for the 1976 Chevrolet. Again the configurations
yielded statistically significantly different results as well as having
significantly different effects on the two vehicles.
The CO emissions from the 1976 Chevrolet exceeded the 1976 Federal
Emission Standard for the FTP in all three configurations. High levels
of CO from the baseline configuration indicate a relatively rich fuel/air
ratio. Air bleed devices are intended to enlean the fuel/air ratio.
Using an air bleed device on a vehicle with a lean mixture can cause an
increase in HC and CO emissions due to lean misfire. However, using an
air bleed device on a vehicle with a rich fuel mixture should provide
noticeable reductions in CO emissions. This is because an increase in
the proportion of air relative to fuel promotes more complete combustion
(within limits).
Despite the rich mixture of the 1976 Chevrolet, the CO emissions did not
drop in all cases with the installation of the device. CO emissions did
fall in the FTP. The CO levels for the HFET test of the device configurations
were comparable to the baseline results. This indicates that the air
bleed valve may have been closed during much of the highway cycle. The
device does not universally decrease the levels of the regulated exhaust
emissions.
Conclusions
rpTyf
-The G:R:Valve /Turbo-Dyne Energy Chamber air bleed device did not have
any statistically significant impact on the fuel economy levels of
either vehicle.
-The device did not have a consistent effect on emissions. It had a
statistically significant effect on some emission levels only when
installed in a vehicle with specific characteristics and when the vehicle
was driven in a specific manner.
-------
12
Appendix A
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1970 Chevrolet
VIN - EPA - 160
Engine
type 4 stroke. Otto Cycle, 8 cyl., ohv.
bore x stroke . 101.6mm (4.00 in.) x 88.4mm (3.48 in.)
displacement 5.74 litre (350 cu. in.)
compression ratio 9.0:1
maximum power @ rpm . . 250 bhp (3 4800 rpm
fuel metering Single, 2 barrel
fuel requirement . regular
Drive Train
transmission type . . 3 speed automatic
final drive ratio 2.75:1
Chassis
type front engine, rear wheel drive
tire size H78xl5 .
curb weight 4100 lb.
inertia weight 4500 ib.
passenger capacity ......... g
Emission Control System
basic type EM
-------
13
Appendix A (cont.)
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1976 Chevrolet Impala
VIN - IL47V61234368
Engine
type 4 stroke, Otto Cycle, 8 cyl., ohv.
bore x stroke 101.6mm (4.00 in.) x 88.4mm (3.48 in.)
displacement 5.74 litre (350 cu. in.)
compression ratio 8.5:1
maximum power @ rpm 145 hp @ 3800 rpm
fuel metering Single, 2 barrel carburetor
fuel requirement . . Unleaded regular
Drive Train
transmission type 3 speed automatic
final drive ratio 2.73:1
Chassis
type front engine-rear drive
tire size HR78xl5
curb weight 4266 Ib.
inertia weight 4500 Ib.
passenger capacity 6
Emission Control System
basic type EM/EGR/CAT
-------
Test Results^ (Grams Per Mile)
Appendix B
hevrole
Bag
Bag
Bag
t FTP
1-HC
NOx
C00
CO2
MPG
2-HC
NOx
CO-
CO2
MPG
3-HC
NOx
C00
CO2
MPG
Weighted HC
NOx
co_
CO2
MPG
Base
4.329
3.813
573.66
89.689
12.2
2.402
2.435
641.55
32.674
12.7
1.913
3.516
440.91
25.502
18.2
2.67
3.01
573
42.5
13.7
Base
4.352
3.964
579.83
90.009
12.1
2.397'
2.644
637.90
31.351
12.8
2.398
4.831
550.78
31.913
14.6
2.80
3.51
602
43.5
13.1
New PCV/
Device
3.659
3.749
569.67
79.881
12.6
2.417
2.549
635.90
34.109
12.7
2.465
4.355
538.84
37.777
14.6
2.69
3.29
596
44.5
13.2
New PCV/
Device
4.618
3.941
569.45
93.516
12.1
2.538
2.576
637.63
33.130
12.7
2.426
4.638
539.33
31.513"
14.9
2.94
3.42
597
45.1
13.1
Orig.PCV/
Device
4.494
3.687
554.93
87.183
12.6
2.278
2.648
620.79
25.100
13.3
2.227
4.385
533.51
28.628
15.2
2.72
3.34
583
38.8
13.6
Orig.PCV/
Device
3.609
4.202
578.38
81.495
12.4
2.378
2.622
647.74
31.718
12.6
2.268
4.987
560.27
30.210
14.4
2.60
3.60
609
41.6
13.0
X
4.177
3.893
570.99
86.962
12.3
2.402
2.579
636.92
31.347
12.8
2.283
4.452
527.27
31.091
15.3
2.74
3.36
593
42.7
13.3
s
0.434
0.186
8.97
5.287
0.23
0.083
0.081
8.96
3.217
0.2
0.203
0.520
43.40
4.071
1.44
0.12
0.21
13
2.3
0.3
(s/x)x
100%
10.4%
4.8%
1.6%
6.1%
1.9%
3.5%
3.1%
1.4%
10.3%
2.0%
8.9%
11.7%
8.2%
13.1%
9.4%
4.4%
6.1%
2.2%
5.4%
2.2%
-------
76 Chevrolet FTP
Bag
Bag
Bag
1-HC
NOx
CO
ccr
MPG
2-HC
NOx
CO
or
MPG
3-HC
NO
y
C°2
coz
MPG
Weighted-HC
NOx
CO
or
MPG
*
Base
2.049
2.305
600.22
51.195
12.9
0.867
0.737
619.68
26.454
13.4
0.723
1.818
548.88
15.309
15.4
1.07
1.35
596
28.5
13.8
Base
2.181
2.380
576.83
52.501
13.3
1.014
0.706
586.87
32.704
13.8
0.816
1.805
524.46
20.630
15.9
1.20
1.35
568
33.5
14.2
Base
2.162
2.604
604.43
55.759
12.7
1.111
0.764
615.38
34.335
13.2
0.893
2.115
558.67
20.673
14.9
1.27
1.51
598
35.0
13.5
New PCV/
Device
1.705
2.332
600. 94
38.592
13.3
0.921
0.724
607.17
29.026
13.5
0.786
1.786
539.19
17.623
15.6
1.05
1.35
587
27.9
14.0
New PCV/
Device
1.995
2.315
583.84
50.053
13.3
0.876
0.849
609.07
25.403
13.6
0.743
1.961
535.19
16.858
15.7
1.07
1.45
584
28.1
14.0
Orig.PCV/
Device
2.296
2.199
583.05
58.132
13.0
0.917
0.737
594.04
28.544
13.8
0.847
1.745
522.24
18.025
16.0
1.18
1.31
572
31.8
14.2
Orig.PCV/
Device
2.043
2.468
602.43
51.270
12.9
1.011
0.719
607.37
32.006
13.4
0.914
2.202
555.83
21.512
15.1
1.20
1.44
592
33.1
13.7
X
2.064
2.383
591.92
51.051
13.1
0.975
0.750
603.32
30.336
13.6
0.833
1.905
539.16
19.220
15.5
1.16
1.40
584
31.6
13.9
s
0.206
0.139
12.00
6.792
0.3
0.086
0.052
10.64
3.276
0.2
0.065
0.148
15.21
1.945
0.4
0.09
0.08
12
3.0
0.3
(s/x)x
100%
10.0%
5.8%
2.0%
13.3%
2.0%
8.9%
7.0%
1.8%
10.8%
1.7%
7.8%
7.8%
2.8%
10.1%
2.8%
7.3%
5.5%
2.0%
9.3%
2.0%
* Not included in statistical comparison.
-------
70 Chevrolet HFET
Base
HC 1.62
NOx 4.48
CO 397
CO 24.0
MPG 20.0
Base
1.68
5.17
420
26.7
19.0
New PCV/
Device
1.60
4.75
407
23.7
19.7
New PCV/
Device
1.72
4.83
406
26.3
19.6
Orig.PCV/
Device
1.69
4.97
409
26.3
19.5
76 Chevrolet HFET
HC
NOx
C00
9
CCT
MPG
HC (ppm)
NOx(ppm)
CO (%)
Cofppm)
Gal./Hr
*
Base Base
0.14 0.16
1.53 1.80
444 437
8.2 8.1
19.4 19.7
70 Chevrolet
Base
HC(ppm) 60.70
NOx (ppm) 5.146
CO (%) 0.662
C0tppm)500.74
Gal./Hr 0.828
76 Chevrolet
*
Base Base
15.53 4.15
2.007 3.297
0.526 0.573
14.03 5.27
0.606 0.635
Base
0.13
2.16
464
6.4
18.7
Steady State
Base
54.79
5.709
0.641
307.19
0.760
Steady State
Base
2.79
3.389
0.556
1.37
0.625
New PCV/
Device
0.16
1.82
4.46
7.0
19.4
New PCV/
Device
44.12
3.232
0.677
187.99
0.795
New PCV/
Device
1.43
3.626
0.567
3.33
0.635
New PCV/
Device
0.15
1.80
442
7.6
19.5
New PCV/
Device
48.54
3.819
0.683
281.17
0.800
New PCV/
Device
4.48
2.719
0.557
7.42
0.622
Orig.PCV/
Device
0.14
1.81
429
7.0
20.1
Orig.PCV/
Device
48.62
4.746
0.672
213.52
0.779
Orig.PCV/
Device
3.71
3.134
0.550
0.92
0.615
Orig.PCV/
Device
1.60
4.40
384
19.9
21.1
x
1.65
4.77
404
24.5
19.8
Orig.PCV/
Device
0.12
2.17
458
4.6
19.1
x
0.12
1.94
446
6.8
19.4
Orig.PCV/
Device x
50.55 51.22
4.248 4.483
0.677 0.669
329.95 303.43
0.800 0.794
Orig.PCV/
Device
3.42
3.922
0.562
3.19
0.628
x
3.33
3.348
0.561
3.58
0.627
s
0.05
0.29
12
2.6
0.7
s
0.02
0.18
13
1.2
0.5
s
5.79
0.903
0.015
110.95
0.023
s
1.10
0.413
0.008
2.44
0.008
(s/x)x
100%
3.1%
6.1%
3.0%
10.6%
3.6%
(s/x)x
100%
12.1%
9.1%
2.9%
18.2%
2.5%
(s/x)x
100%
11.3%
20.1%
2.3%
36.6%
2.9%
(s/x)x
100%
33.0%
12.3%
1.5%
68.1%
1.2%
-------
17
Appendix C
Analysis of Variance Tables
Sources of variation:
-Vehicles - difference due to different characteristics of each
vehicle.
-Configurations - difference due to the different configurations
(baseline, device with new PCV, and device with
original PCV).
-Vehicle/Configuration - the interaction of the two effects which
cause a synergistic effect.
-Residual - differences not due to the above (error).
Analysis of Variance Table
Sources of Sum of Degrees Mean Square Mean Minimum MSR Highest
Variation Squares of Free- (SS/DF) Square at which level
(SS) dom (DF) Ratio factor is of
(MS/ significant signif-
MS re- at 90% con- icance
sidual) fidence level
FTP-HC
vehicle 7.44
configuration 0.01
veh./config. 0.05
residual 0.05
total 7.55
1
2
2
6
11
7.44
0.005
0.025
0.025
297.60
0.20
1.00
3.78
3.46
3.46
99.5%
-
-
FTP-CO
vehicle 369.63
config. 13.67
veh./config. 49.23
residual 6.59
total 439.12
1
2
2
6
11
369.63
6.84
24.62
1.10
336.54
6.23
22.42
3.78
3.46
3.46
99.5%
95%
99.5%
FTP-CO,
vehicle 290.09 1 290.09
config. 68.17 2 34.09
veh./config. 47.16 2 23.58
residual 1413.50 6 235.58
total 1818.92 11
1.23
0.14
0.01
3.78
3.46
3.46
-------
18
FTP-NOx
vehicle 11.52
config. 0.01
veh./config. 0.04
residual 0.58
total 12.15
FTP-MPG
vehicle 1.27
config. 0.01
veh./config. 0.08
residual 0.73
total 2.09
HFET-HC
vehicle 6.82
config. 0.00
veh./config. 0.00
residual 0.02
total 6.84
HFET-CO
vehicle 939.87
config. 8.45
veh./config. 0.32
residual 32.01
total 980.65
HFET-CO 2
vehicle 5334.09
config. 181.17
veh./config. 45.16
residual 1370.50
total 6930.92
HFET-NOx
vehicle 24.20
configuration 0.02
veh./config. 0.04
residual 0.53
total 24.79
HFET-MPG
vehicle 0.57
configuration 0.65
veh./config. 0.12
residual 3.01
total 4.35
1
2
2
6
11
1
2
2
6
11
1
2
2
6
11
1
2
2
6
11
1
2
2
6
11
1
2
2
6
11
1
2
2
6
11
11.52
0.005
0.02
0.10
1.27
0.005
0.04
0.12
6.82
0.000
0.000
0.003
939.87
4.23
0.16
5.34
5334.09
90.59
22.58
228.42
24.2
0.01
0.02
0.09
0.57
0.33
0.06
0.50
115.20
0.05
0.02
10.58
0.04
0.33
2046.20
0.00
0.00
176.17
0.79
0.03
23.35
0.40
0.10
273.96
0.11
0.23
1.14
0.66
0.12
3.78
3.46
3.46
3.78
3.46
3.46
3.78
3.46
3.46
3.78
3.46
3.46
3.78
3.46
3.46
3.78
3.46
3.46
3.78
3.46
3.46
99.5%
-
97.5%
-
99.5%
-
99.5%
-
99.5%
-
99.5%
-
-
-
-------
19
Idle-EC
vehicle 6880.35 1
config. 74.10 2
veh./config. 64.66 2
residual 34.71 6
total 7053.82 11
Idle-CO
vehicle 269718.07 1
config. 15655.02 2
veh./con. 16060.58 2
residual 29868.57 6
total 331302.24 11
Idle-C02
vehicle 0.0349 1
config. 0.0004 2
veh./config. 0.0006 2
residual 0.0001 6
total 0.0360 11
Idle-NOx
vehicle 3.868 1
configuration 2.203 2
veh./config. 1.541 2
residual 1.181 6
total 8.793 11
Idle-Gal/Hr
vehicle 0.084 1
config. 0.0002 2
veh./config. 0.0001 2
residual 0.0027 6
total 0.0870 11
6880.35
37.05
32.33
5.79
269718.07
7827.51
8030.29
4978.10
0.0349
0.0002
0.0003
0.00002
3.868
1.102
0.771
0.197
0.084
0.0001
0.00005
0.0005
1189.34
6.40
5.59
54.18
1.57
1.61
2094.00
12.00
18.00
19.499
5.599
3.917
186.667
0.222
0.111
3.78
3.46
3.46
3.78
3.46
3.46
3.78
3.46
3.46
3.78
3.46
3.46
3.78
3.46
3.46
99.5%
95%
95%
99.5%
-
-
99.5%
99%
99.5%
99.5%
95%
90%
99.5%
-
-
------- |