79-3
Technical Report
Restorative Maintenance Retesting
of 1977 Model Year Passenger Cars in Denver
November, 1978
by
Gary T. Jones
Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Office of Air and Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Abstract
This report describes the results of a exhaust emission testing program
in which 24 relatively-new vehicles sampled in a Restorative Maintenance
Program in Denver were retested approximately one year later. The
vehicles involved were 1977 model year passenger cars certified for sale
at high altitude. Vehicles manufactured by Chrysler, Ford and General
Motors were represented equally. The vehicles were subjected to the
same sequence of inspections, maintenance and tests as used in the 1977
program. Again, representatives of the three automobile manufacturers
assisted in the inspection and maintenance activities.
The results show that average HC and CO levels from vehicles which were
tuned-up earlier had degraded to a point slightly worse than their
original levels in as-received condition. The average NOx level had
also increased but not quite past the original value. Many vehicles had
experienced maladjustment and disablements even though the owner reported
that he felt his vehicle had been maintained according to the manufacturer's
recommendations. The most frequent maladjustment was idle mixture,
followed by maladjusted ignition timing, incorrect choke settings and
disabled EGR systems. Reductions in average emission levels followed
the correction of the maladjustment and disablement actions to a point
close to those after the prior tune-up. Modest fuel economy improvements
were noted this year, probably due to the fact that the vehicles had now
overcome the "green engine" effect.
-------
Background
During the period from February to May of 1977, a prescribed sequence of
emission and fuel economy tests were performed on forty-two 1977 model
year passenger cars in Denver (Reference 1). Vehicles of this model
year were the first to actually undergo EPA certification testing under
high altitude conditions. The purpose of that program was to investi-
gate and quantify the effects of various types of emission control
malperformance on exhaust emissions and fuel economy. This type of
effort is known as a "Restorative Maintenance Evaluation." This report
concerns a program conducted in May, 1978 in which 24 of these original
42 vehicles were retested after approximately one year of in-use service.
There were three basic purposes behind this retesting:
1. To determine the extent and nature of modifications which have
occurred to the vehicles since they were inspected and tested in
the previous program.
2. To examine the effects of vehicle deterioration on exhaust emissions
and fuel economy.
3. To evaluate vehicle restorability in terms of the baseline emission
data established in the previous testing.
In both cases, the actual testing was carried out by Automotive Testing
Laboratories, Inc. under contract to EPA.
Vehicle Selection
In the original 1977 Denver Restorative Maintenance (RM) testing, the 42
vehicles were divided into a "Group A" and a "Group B". For each Group
A vehicle there was a Group B counterpart which was identical in engine
displacement, carburetor Venturis and transmission type. Matching of
vehicles was done to establish Group B as a "control group." The
"A" vehicles received a series of up to 3 tests, depending on what, if
any, disablements, maladjustments or defective emission components were
discovered. The "B" group received only one test and inspection with no
adjustments or repairs.
Of the original 42 vehicles tested last year, 6 had been sold. The
inability to contact the new owners of these vehicles reduced the number
available for testing to 36. Each of these owners was willing to parti-
cipate again. From these 36, the 24 vehicles to be involved in this
years' retesting were selected. These vehicles were selected to be a
reasonable subset of the original group with regard to engine size,
model type and mileage accumulated. GM, Ford and Chrysler were represented
with 8 vehicles each. Each fleet of 8 vehicles was made up of 4 of the
original group "A" vehicles and their original group "B" counterparts.
-------
-2-
Test Procedures
All vehicles involved in the retesting underwent the first test sequence
in their "as-received" condition. The test sequence consisted of a 1975
FTP, a Highway Fuel Economy Test and three short cycles (Federal Three
Mode, Federal Short Cycle, Two-Speed Idle). The vehicles were then
examined for any maladjustment or disablement actions and failure of any
emission components. The criteria for these determinations were the
same as used in the original program. This was the extent of the
testing and inspection for the Group B vehicles which were then returned
to their owners. If the Group A vehicles passed the first test and no
maladjustment or disablement actions were found, they were also returned
to the owners. However, if any maladjustment or disablement action was
encountered on a Group A vehicle, it was corrected and the vehicle
received a second test. If it then failed test two, the vehicle received
a major tune up along with the replacement of any defective emission
components.* It was then tested a third and final time. Upon completion
of the third test, the vehicle was returned to the owner. A flow chart
illustrating this procedure is attached. Test results on individual
vehicles are contained in the Appendix.
Inspection Results
With the aid of representatives of the three automobile manufacturers,
inspections were performed on all vehicles. Through these inspections
it was found that 92% of the test vehicles exhibited some form of mal-
adjustment and/or disablement. Of these, 50% failed Federal Standards
on their initial test. The most frequently observed problem was malad-
justed idle mixtures found on 71% of the vehicles tested. Manufacturer's
recommended procedures were used in this determination ("Propane enrichment"
on the Ford and Chrysler vehicles, and the "lean-drop" procedure on the
GM vehicles). If a .5% idle CO cutpoint was used as in low-altitude RM
programs the rate of idle mixture maladjustment would be reduced to 21%.
Ignition timing on 41% of the vehicles was advanced beyond manufacturer's
specifications. 33% had maladjusted chokes and the EGR system had been
disabled on 16%. Two vehicles (#7003 and #7108) emitted exceptionally
high amounts of HC and CO. Through inspection, the primary cause of the
high amounts of these pollutants was found to be a maladjustment on one
car and a maladjustment and disablement on the other. Vehicle #7003, a
Plymouth station wagon with a 318 cubic inch engine and a 2 barrel
carburetor, was found to have maladjusted metering rods which are located
in the main power circuit of the carburetor. This caused the vehicle to
run "rich" when it was off idle. According to the owner, this vehicle
had not received a tune-up between last years' and this years' tests,
although it had been returned to the dealer at least three times for
driveability problems. Vehicle #7108's high HC and CO emissions were
*0nly replacement of defective compoaents was allowed in preparation
for test number 3 in the original testing of these vehicles since the
mileage constraint (< 4000) was lower than any scheduled major
maintenance point.
-------
-3-
traceable to a rich idle mixture and a disconnected vacuum line which
caused the air pump to continually vent to the atmosphere. The emission-
related component which was observed to be defective most frequently was
the temperature sensor which controls the heated air door in the air
cleaner assembly. 16% of them were defective. One EGR valve had a
leaky diaphragm and one throttle stop solenoid was inoperative.
FTP Results
Attached as Table 1 is a summary of the overall results on the entire
fleet from last year along with the results from the 24 vehicles retested
this year. As this table shows, the retested Group A vehicles which met
Federal Standards fell from 100% on the final test last year to 58% on
the initial test this year. Test results on individual vehicles are
attached as an appendix.
In Group A, HC and CO were the dominant problem areas showing average
increases of 215% and 275%, respectively. The principal reason for
these large increases was vehicle #7003. Its HC and CO emissions were
so high when tested as-received that its results have been separated
from the others in Tables 1 and 2. Without these values, the average
increases would be 47% and 72%. This vehicle's Group B counterpart,
//7103 showed relatively low HC and CO emissions, but failed NOx. Of all
Group B vehicles retested, the percentage that passed federal standards
fell from 83% to 58%. The unusually high results in the HC and CO
column of the Group B vehicles tested this year (in Tables 1 and 4) are
due to vehicle #7108. The HC and CO emissions of this car's counterpart
in Group A were within Federal Standards, but it failed NOx when tested
as received. Through correction of maladjustment and disablement
actions, along with the replacement of defective emission components and
a major tune-up, Group A's final pass rate increased to 92%. The only
Group A vehicle that railed the final test was a Chevrolet Chevelle that
failed NOx with a reading of 2.22 gm/mi versus the 2.0 gm/mi standard.
This vehicle was somewhat atypical of the rest of the group because of
its high mileage (over 49,000 miles). Average fuel economy increased
slightly between the initial and final test on the Group A vehicles
while overall average fuel economy for both groups increased since last
year.
Idle Test Results
All vehicles tested underwent idle tests for HC and CO using a garage-
type instrument. 79% of all vehicles tested passed the idle test "as-
received" when typical cutpoints of 150 ppra HC and .5% CO were used.
The CO cutpoint is the same as that used in earlier Restorative/Maintenance
programs. Of those vehicles which passed the idle test, 68% met the
applicable Federal Standards for the FTP when tested "as received." Of
all vehicles tested, there was only one that passed the FTP and failfd
the idle test. 75% of Group A passed the idle test, and of these
vehicles, 67% met Federal Standards. Of the Group A vehicles which
-------
-4-
failed the idle test, 33% met Federal Standards. After maintenance,
only one Group A car failed the idle test. In Group B, 83% passed and
70% of these vehicles met Federal Standards. 17% of the Group B vehicles
failed the idle test and of these vehicles, none met Federal Standards.
Table 5 shows average emission results with regard to idle test results.
Summary
This program shows the importance that proper maintenance has in the
effort to reduce motor vehicle emissions. It reveals that many of the
1977 model year vehicles in this program failed to meet federal standards
when tested in an as-received condition. According to the owner question-
naires, 92% had been maintained in accordance to the manufacturer's
recommendations and 33% had been returned to the dealer for driveability
problems. The majority of the vehicles tested exhibited maladjustment
and disablement actions, primarily idle mixture and initial ignition
timing. After correction of these maladjustments and other maintenance
procedures, all but one Group A vehicle met 1977 Federal Standards.
References
1. J. T. White, "An Evaluation of Restorative Maintenance on Exhaust
Emissions from In-Use Automobiles," SAE Paper 780082, March, 1978.
-------
Restorative Maintenance Retesting of
1977 Model year Vehicles in Denver
Vehicle Flow Diagram
Maladjustment-
Disablement
and
Emission Component
Inspection
Any
ladjustment-
Disablement
Action Found?
Correction of
Maladj ustment-
| Disablement
Actions
;A
Test #2
\k
i
I Major tune-up
i and Defective
Fail I Emission Com-
ponent Replace-
ment
Pass
lest
' #3
-------
Table 1
Restorative Maintenance Evaluation
Retesting of 1977 GM, Ford and Chrysler
Vehicles in Denver
TEST RESULTS
Number of Vehicles
Avg. Odometer
Avg. HC (gm/mi)
Avg. CO (gm/mi)
Avg. N0xc(gm/mi)
Avg. MPG(FTP)
Avg. MPG(HFET)
- ' • - • lilUU(J «
Last Year
(Apr-May 77)
Entire
Fleet
21
1986
Initial
.71
11.85
1.98
12.9
17.4
Final
.51
7.15
1.46
12.7
17.0
These
Vehicles
12
2088
Initial Final
.54 .53
7.32 5.97
1.96 1.30
12.8 12.7
17.4 17.0
This Year
(May 78)
These
Vehicles
12
15128
Initial Final
1.67 .71
(.78)*
22.41 8.62
(10.29)*
1.70 1.41
13.2 13.4
17.3 18.1
V>LUU|
Last Year
(Apr-May 77)
Entire
Fleet
21
2628
.70
8.77
1.81
12.9
17.5
t a
This Year
(May 78)
These These
Vehicles Vehicles
12
2505
[One Test
.60
7.10
1.51
12.9
17.5
12
13490
Only]
1.77
(.80)**
22.11
(9.23)**
1.94
13.8
19.0
MET FED STDS
48%
76%
67%
100%
58%
92%
67%
83%
58%
Average HC and CO without vehicle //7003 which emitted high amounts of these pollutants
prior to major tune-up.
** Average HC and CO without vehicle //7108 which emitted high amounts of these pollutants.
-------
Table 2
Restorative Maintenance Evaluation
Retesting of 1977 Chrysler Vehicles in Denver
Number of Vehicles
Avg. Odometer
Avg. HC (gm/mi)
Avg. CO (gm/mi)
Avg. N0xc(gm/mi)
Avg. MPG(FTP)
Avg. MPG(HFET)
MET FED STDS
Last
(Apr
Entire
Chrysler
7
1353
Initial
.46
7.52
1.94
12.8
17.0
57%
Final
.45
9.40
.95
12.7
16.1
85%
Year
77)
These
Vehicles
4
1187
Initial
.41
8.14
2.21
11.9
15.9
50%
TEST RESULTS
A
This Year
(May 78)
These
Vehicles
4
13161
Final Initial Final
.40 3.43 .69
(.75)*
6.88 45.68 9.55
(9.01)*
.99 1.44 1.31
11.4 11.8 12.0
14.8 14.2 15.3
100% 50% 100%
Last
(Apr
Entire
Chrysler
7
2337
.46
6.57
1.27
12.5
16.7
100%
Year
77)
This Year
(May 78)
These These
Vehicles Vehicles
4
2207
[One Test
.35
5.39
1.15
12.1
15.9
100%
4
17772
Only]
.61
7.59
2.17
13.4
17.6
25%
* Average HC and CO without vehicle //7003 which emitted high amounts of these
pollutants prior to major tune-up.
-------
Table 3
Restorative Maintenance Evaluation
Retesting of 1977 GM Vehicles in Denver
TEST RESULTS
Number of Vehicles
Avg. Odometer
Avg. HC (gm/mi)
Avg. CO (gm/mi)
Avg. NOxc(gm/mi)
Avg. MPG(FTP)
Avg. MPG(HFET)
— — .. ULUUp K-
Last Year
(May 77)
Entire These
CM Vehicles
7
2157
Initial
.42
4.85
1.90
12.8
17.7
Final
.42
5.51
1.80
12.8
17.4
4
2448
Initial
.41
4.74
1.58
13.1
18.2
Final
.42
4.12
1.60
13.2
18.4
This Year
(May 78)
These
Vehicles
4
19967
Initial
.82
13.20
1.59
14.2
19.5
Final
.55
8.16
1.74
14.2
20.4
VjJ.UU(J JJ
Last Year This Year
(May 77) (May 78)
Entire These These
GM Vehicles Vehicles
7
2474
.68
9.88
1.98
13.0
18.1
4
2260
[One Test
.54
6.70
2.01
13.4
18.7
4
11213
Only]
.81
12.68
1.65
14.1
19.8
MET FED STDS
57%
71%
100%
100%
50%
75%
43%
50%
75%
-------
Table 4
Restorative Maintenance Evaluation
Retesting of 1977 Ford Vehicles in Denver
Number of Vehicles
Avg. Odometer
Avg. HC (gm/mi)
Avg. CO (gm/mi)
Avg. NOxc(gm/mi)
Avg. MPG(FTP)
Avg. MPG(HFET)
MET FED STDS
Entire
Ford
7
2448
Initial
1.26
23.19
2.10
13.0
17.6
29%
Last Year
(Apr 77)
Group
TEST RESULTS
—
These
Vehicles
Final
.66
6.54
1.61
13.0
17.5
71%
4
2630
Initial
.81
9.08
2.10
13.5
18.4
50%
Final
.79
6.91
1.31
13.7
18.3
100%
This Year
(May 78)
These
Vehicles
4
12256
Initial Final
.78 .89
8.37 8.16
2.09 1.18
13.9 14.3
19.3 19.2
75% 100%
-Group &-
Last Year
(May 77)
Entire
Ford
7
3072
This Year
(May 78)
These
Vehicles
4
3047
[One Test Only]
.94 .93
9.77 9.23
2.19 1.38
12.5 13.3
17.3 18.1
57% 100%
These
Vehicles
4
11486
3.90
(1.05)*
46.07
(6.84)*
2.00
13.9
19.8
75%
Average HC and CO without vehicle //7108 which emitted high amounts of these pollutants.
-------
Table 5
Group A
As Received
Passed Idle Test
Failed Idle Test
After Maintenance Passed Idle Test
Failed Idle Test
Group B
As Received
Passed Idle Test
Failed Idle Test
Group A & B Combined
As Received
Passed Idle Test
Failed Idle Test
Restorative Maintenance Evaluation
Idle Test Results of
24 1977 GM, Ford and Chrysler Vehicles
Retested in Denver
N
9
3
11
1
10
2
19
5
FTP Results
HC CO NOx
1.88
1.06
.73
.54
.71
7.07
1.27
3.46
25.32
13.69
8.42
10.80
7.31
96.15
15.8
46.7
1.50
2.31
1.34
2.22
1.89
2.21
1.70
2.27
Fuel Economy
FTP HFET
13.2
13.4
13.4
13.0
14.2
12.0
13.7
12.8
17.1
17.9
17.9
20.1
19.2
18.2
18.2
18.0
Met FTP
Standards
67%
33%
100%
0%
70%
0%
68%
20%
Idle
HC
20
193
18
153
21
761
21
420
Test
CO
.01
2.60
0.02
0.10
.02
6.03
.02
4.06
Note: FTP results are in grams/mile
Fuel economy values are in miles per gallon
Idle HC results are in ppm
Idle CO results are in mole percent
-------
APPENDIX
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
. VIN tii 29C7C/Q
ODOMETER 13
(2170)
MODEL
CID
TRANS
CARD /
INERTIA WT.
TEST |
8
/%7
1..30
;./?•
MPG
FTP
/£ 7^
/5.25T
^5". o7
HFET
/ ^/ Q O
/ O * i • '
i Q / *^
' i . ^ ^«
t (? Ci&
IHC (ppm)
JO
o
/o-
.. £>•'•'
,.
ICO (%)
1 '
o
,03
0
•
IT WAS
COMMENTS "
CAPS ° ^ / IOLt **•«*»
lOwf rn^70C2.E AOJk .
OEf^t-7"' U f IAAJD Tt "IP. Afc Ali'"' :
(Y^it/OJi'i'T 6 P VACui'JrM ArtiPt-lfr' cK- .
IDLE faflffi + \3";CAP^ B\»SV>»& :
ADJ. lOlC W'tT^ftf -J (RP*^ '
fjEftACtO VACUoPx Apippflf fc*
I
£ Of Tfvt fjM°V
-------
VEHICLE NO.
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN H-H
ODOMETER
MAKE f*L.y MODEL 5T/AW CID 3)8 TRANS A GARB ^, INERTIA WT. VS'OO
TEST «
1
Z
/
2..
i
'' \
1975 FTP (gm/nd)
DATE
3//V77
sl»lT
ftyTg
#/?
HC
;£
C.4T
/3*3
.46
CO
3.5"
I^S.ttft
2p9, ^^'
^. lO
N°xc
^/.(6
o.«
0.^
/.^r
MPG
FTP
(2.0
^ .
a-w
/2.00
•
I
HFET
/a7:^
1*1
-).og
'4^1
IHC (ppm)
0
/O
.. /r:
/
.. .
ICO (%)
o
,01
o
o
X
IS, FO
IT ^/
COMMENTS
'£&. plt^o^oa'tSu^0' 71">"lft "^S1-
jVSTSSr^ fctiji*?^ .»"•"«**', iwmt *cs .
Cy^oycc: ^oC C/1 K1^ ' W ^
1011 (fiiyT^KL AliJ.
^r^i^'Mps* •
HH?^Hw*
ft -77 /:f i? 2.0
1976 Standards 1.5 ' 15 ' 3.1
HC CO Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
700 5
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN
ODOMETER
( \}J 2.} )
MODEL
CID 31?
TRANS
CARB
INERTIA WT.
TEST #
M&TJrftlC
1-
/
2.
i
i
» - .
i
19 7 5. FTP (gra/mi)
DATE
•V/b/7?
W^?7
^7^
^/|2-
HC CO NOXC
•^H
•33
r&l
,'.'?
^.9
fc.r
^,3^
/;.9?
•%
.8^
'/,13
/.Og"
MPG
FTP
10 .7
/0, Z
//.73
. 9,7
1
I , . t . >
HFET
/¥./
/J.«
/^W
^,lg
IHC (ppm)
•2. a.
• 5"
/!
.. .8'-;
ICO (%)
, 05-2..
, « )T>'l5S/WCr/T»««l>1^v AOi.j.Ti^^HCr ^pi , i
nmub- 4- 7
05AC. p/scoA;wec-T£:£>
CAV5 tAIV.IPQj-
/e?^e /77/jrrv^e '*^)^<
OS/\C Ce-'MMCc'f r-£
TlTAJG- ADi,
-
1 G *>^
* / *
1976 Standards
i:f-
1.5
HC
if
15
CO
2.0
3.1
Nox
-------
v •
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
?00?
SITE
MODEL
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIM 55 ?.2^7E.\S 3672.
2£>0 ' ' ' TRANS
ODOMETER
A
GARB
INERTIA WT.
TEST I
Z.
1
i *'
1
1975 FTP (gra/mi)
DATE
^3/77
sfa/76.
fill-) 7%
HC
.31
•m
..tt,
CO NOXC
8. 8
li*v
-1.%
1.07
\v\
/.Ml
MPG
FTP
/o. L
12,0^
..l'..l*.
*
HFET
/V-3
\\obS
n,37
IHC (ppm)
7
O
/2-
. /f-
ICO (%)
o
,or
0
'
COMMENTS "
CftS 0*. ; (pit *ICH
Ai>i , IPL^ fVM.>ruft.(3
1 tJ L'" * "^ I\^T i ' -^1 -^
^W./P/r ^ATU^e
•
1976 Standards
/.r
1.5
HC
/r
15
CO
2.o
3,1
Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO.
7002
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN 7J 6 2/
IACT
ODOMETER
MAKE /^RO MODEL LTD CID %O TRANS A CARS ^ INERTIA WT. 5"°0°
TEST #
ugry&fy
2
/
z
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
$3
Wh,
fW*
HC CO NOXC
.64-
.78
'&*?
lt,0\
>?.$-}
7.W
10.77
*&o
.*0
.88
H.HJ.
;.n
MPG
FTP
// .73
//.07
//.IO
1
HFET
/V.i&
/5. 71
w.fel
.M..3!
IHC (ppm)
/5-0
311
.. I*-":"
ICO (%)
J. 2.
2,3
^.*8
0.0
•
COMMENTS
CARI miss/wo-^ TIM iv6-+*,t(Ai. ?vv6&cp
TW*HW* APJ. A^H I'f PWwrifO/ "** "HiT-wo
fi£AO±uyTEO ItHl? fUlXTVRC
TimjMC* -HY j ioi6 R.\CJ^ lE
\Pi,e IhiXruftE ^0^.' .
n?7 /:* if 2.0
1976 Standards 1.5 ' 15 ' 3.1
HC CO Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN 7T ;'V M
MODEL
CID
TRANS
ODOMETER Id 1 10 C 1/6 a
CARS 2^ INERTIA WT. 27 TC
;TEST I
<*r>«R
/
1
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE HC CO NOXC
T/2*M
*5/»
^W?g
fl1)
..%
e.Tfc
. .
7. it
fc.2-1
^.0-7
1.03
I.H5-
1.0^
MPG
FTP
/I.HS-
31-97
. .
IHC (ppm)
s
31
z\ :
..
ICO (%)
.0,1, .
O.O
o.a
COMMENTS
CA« lW«Mfr
IPtt P.»<^A
CAP' rMS5/A
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
VOID
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN ^uSH T *M
ODOMETER 15",
MODEL ££H»M>A
CID 30-2
TRANS
CARS
INERTIA
TEST #
£**•;**,
/
7,
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
H-/Z7/77
^3/?->
5/2-5;/^
r/^/?&
HC
.91
•st
.70
•9X
CO NOXC
// . 3" 1
7.^0
t.7^i
G.5"3
/.Ol
/.Mg
1.34-
/•/^
MPG
FTP
/ 1 .5"0
/3.17
/4.^
/^'.^
i
HFET
'4..5S-
/7.07
16. &
/^.^Z
IHC (ppm)
1 O
3-1
..!M
7^ '
,.
ICO (%)
.ox- .
O
^.o2>
o.O
COMMENTS ' ;
CAPS Otv»0tf «««, VAc.M>MeAKM;TnKU49>i9a>
IDLE . mt»'woe' ADJ , .x^oom eRtA^ AO! -
CAP& r«&Sf><»
VAtOW*e«*tA^« l*K^Di««-TtD
»c?ie R\t*» ;
APA IOUE YM»>auR.e/ ,
Ao^ HAt-^*^ 6R6A|t. |
* i
i
\
\
i
• i
1976 Standards
1.5
HC
15
CO
2.0
3.1
NOX
-------
VEHICLE NO.
7013
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN
ODOMETER f 2, °J ) *4 C 2813}
MAKE (hefc<- MODEL mONA<2 2. ' ' TRANS A CARB Z INERTIA WT. ^O^O
i •
i
TEST 1
: 2
}
1
I ;
i
i
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
$/#
5/4j/7^
^ l*iht
HC
.J-7
.60
•:.tt
./.M
CO NOXC
/.rz
2.46
*i r?o
n.ic
2.11.
/.S3
/.IS
I.3X
MPG
FTP
/3-00
/3./6 .
! ? -^
'
i
HFET
16. 6V
l-7.il
'«:^.
..!«•?»
. • - .
IHC (ppm)
^
/f
.. :i3-:-
..
ICO (!)
O
o
o-o
o.o
.
COMMENTS
CAM ak 'W-E *»<*
APJ. ifM.f fliirjvi^C
C>4>f ItMttlM^-. T»KMK^i"(«
(OWE G.>tV\
TiMiKit ACUj ^HO^f AO^
VACOf^QOCA^C. AO\.
•
1977 Af /r 2.0
1976 Standards 1.5 15 ' 3.1
HC CO Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
MODEL
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
SITE ffgVuVEFR. VIN H ^ S 7 /."/ 2^r I "lP\2~ 1 O ODOMETER 8
CID 3^'O '••
TRANS
CARS
INERTIA
TEST ft
6**r>i|«K
1
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
^r/9/77
r/w/7?
$/ii?t
HC
^°>
• f 1
,3^
CO
6'.qs*
4-H^
9.\
NOXC
/.f^
/.^fe-
/.^
MPG
,*
FTP
/3.^l
/3.0t
'3."?)
*
i
HFET
;7.35*
1 Sf.oa
1^1.02-
IHC (ppm)
/a
o
/6
. .
..
ICO (%)
o
o •
o.o
COMMENTS
Cfyps Or . **<*»«> 6ptA*. (JWAtw.!
^c.ovW C,KeA«t At)^
£Ws o^
•
1976 Standards
/.r
1.5
HC
15
CO
2.0
3.1
Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
SITE £gTA>VtTR VIN
MODEL
CID
3£O
ODOMETER \ 2-, 1°] 7
TRANS A GARB M- INERTIA WT.
TEST 1
AtfrJtfV
/
;*/
"i
•
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE HC CO NOXC
S/*>/77
5/n/^
5/J7/7i
.V6
,^
,Hfe
3.14-
^.
/.tT
a. 3 "7
/.^2-
MPG
FTP
1 3 . H3
/•i.^iv
/S',30
; '
1
HFET
iS-P.H
&$$..
../1,4g
.
IHC (ppm)
; .7.
^•3
..3^:/
ICO (%)
c>
o.o
O
COMMENTS
CAPS Ojc.
^3*T»5 0^
- ifco \OL£" apf>l
r » rfliNC. /\r.j
\oi-f Kfr»i >^5J
•
fi<«77
1976 Standards
1.5
HC
15
CO
7.0
3.1
Nox
-------
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
•SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VEHICLE NO. /UU SITE /9£~AJVETR. VIN / <- ^< <~ / f^^U > A" ^ ODOMETER M~lyoil C'/SOJ <
MAKE
C^tV MODEL CW'JH LI" CID 35"O ' ' ' ' TRANS A CARB f INERTIA WT. V£OO
TEST #
/
/
2.
3.,
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
%„
^/Ibfy
sii-fo
£ h^JB
HC
• »0
» 6*b
.%i
fij
CO NOXC
^7/0
/STil
/ v^) I ^^
1 fl ^f iJ
/.S8
/. i.
2.12
7.ZZ
MPG
FTP
/ 2 . 2-0
'3.o«f-...
/3..71- .
/3.0Z.-
1
HFET
n.w
17.10
2o^
10.0(0
IHC (ppm)
.ex.
3 a.
. . /^ -:•;
.;«
.
ICO (\)
0,0 .
0.0
O.d
o.i
COMMENTS ' !
«P. OK- .
//AD rrmp sFffico. 6^p
v/^c ADV UN£ c.oHNCt7tQy
r+A D tit/M^0^ P.£ P/£/c t_£
K77 / 3" /5" 2.0
1976 Standards 1.5 15 ' 3.1
HC CO Nox
-------
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
.SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VEHICLE NO. 7O2-O SITE ££~A»VtR VIN 3 M !>" ? *?. 7 fc / /, -iT*/3 2*- ODOMETER 7 135 (I37t)
MAKE
OU-6 MODEL Cl/li-/x.3S ciD J^S-O • • • • TRANS A CARS H INERTIA WT.4^0
.
TEST i
<*rw
'/.
£,
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
^/a/> 7
Shffa
riffr
HC CO
.v\
i.M
&°
3. 'AT
lift
7./.S-
"°XC
ill 1
.^b
/,/g
/.if
MPG
FTP
u*. ir .
/r,« .
*.n
'
HFET
•20.2,?
ZJ.Ofc
23.3'7
. . i
IHC (ppm)
. O
I2>(e
.. (3:
.
ICO (%)
.01 .
M5.
O
•
COMMENTS
CA<* ^<
^tVCS(W6r
i
i
i
>
»
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
"7
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN tiLHIC7ni 3 ?••?(-,
MODEL MOV/
CID '2-2-S
TRANS
ODOMETER fS.S^ (2.33^
CARB / INERTIA WT. 4OOC
'EST I
*f/«¥l
/
1975 FTP (qm/mi)
DATE HC CO NOXC
f/'^/r?
r//;/?&
.5-0
0,«»\
7.05-
-?,ag:
/-•i-7
-i.3f
MPG
FTP
/r. /0
P.S7-
!
HFET
/fi.fclf
T.|, fi3
IHC (ppm)
/i"
//
..-.•
ICO (%)
.03 .
o.o
-
COMMENTS '
CAPS rh ir£:.» M<»-
PCrfcT>«^ HAP.rE^P ^EAiSfR
C-^fS ^c,<,»HC»
,:l
i
• 1
'
: i
I
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
7)03
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN fttf ^S'G 7& // 95*
ODOMETER
MODEL
CID
TRANS
GARB
INERTIA WT.
TEST I
/
/
1975 FTP (gin/mi)
DATE
-a- /!£/•> 7
V///77
HC
.08
-0.11-
. .
CO NOXC
0-.*
**b
/.**
^
MPG
*•
FTP
//. (o
n/M>- .
1 .... •
HFET
>?.?,
;5",^
IHC (ppm)
O
•Z.b"
.,-.-
.
..
ICO (%)
o
,03
COMMENTS
CAPS IVliSS « N&
7~|»*;/viC- •#"&.
T I i
•
1^77
1976 Standards
/.-r
1.5
HC
15
CO
2.0
3.1
Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO.
"7/Ot>
(POPG£
MODEL
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
SITE £gTA>vgR VIN
CID
ODOMETER
(
VEAft-
TRANS ' A-
GARB
INERTIA WT.
.TEST i
WWK
/
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
"*-HblTJ
5/rJ-l
HC
.3*
.«-
CO
2. -7
^
N°XC
/JO.
3.0^
MPG
FTP
//.'o
/3-2L8-
1
i
1
HFET
'.3-.?,
// QCJ
' \O > ' O
... .
IHC (ppm)
O
s.f
...-.•
ICO (%)
o
..o/
-
COMMENTS
£^P5 fY)lSSf WCy-j lf>L\f /^IC-H"
ht£A"TEt} /Vp- T(JQE C\tSCf>tJMCc?Tt
7"»rt)iM6- -f-3 / ^G£ PtOOfe-E"^
CMOf^f ^1crD«"K' PlAUAJ \jiTf JQ
•
Hi 77
1976 Standards
1.5
HC
15
CO
7.0
3.1
Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
7/0-7
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN 55 2/.-J7C-; ! 7::-o:'v*
ODOMETER
MODEL COf.C
CID
TRANS
CARB 4"
INERTIA WT.V<0
TEST §
^STWIg.
/
1975 FTP (grn/mi)
DATE HC CO NOXC
-2/*l7?
cMig
.in
,6>7
. .
?.o
/3.0
. .«
,6r|
MPG
.•
FTP
/I. 3
tl.W'
i
1 .... .
HFET
•/£?.,
/6.?5"
IHC (ppm)
.O
l°l
...-.-
.
ICO (%)
.C?2-
./r
COMMENTS
CAPS r*te£iMCr, -ri^iNCr -»-"7
/O^t ^\CV> .
fDi-£ ^IC^H ,CAW m«si/M6-
•
-
1976 Standards
1.5
HC
IS
15
CO
2.0
3.1
Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
•7/OS
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN 7
ODOMETER 87 \O
MODEL
LTD
CID
TRANS
CARB
INERTIA
i
!
TEST #
iHfry&fc.
\
1
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE HC CO NOXC
*M->-)
^^
.Sb
/Z.HI
«t.\^
163.1?
.^H
3.\°(
MPG
^
FTP
10, 'tZ
10, H3
r
HFET
/f..^
/5-.5C.
. <
IHC (ppm)
900
/fo&
ICO (%)
5.T
10.12
COMMENTS '
CAPS r^iss/wc-,
-------
VEHICLE MO.
MAKE
"7109
SITE
MODEL
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
•SUMMARY OP TEST RESULTS
VIN "XM2-Y IQ
| tf 6 - TRANS
ODOMETER
CID
CARB
INERTIA WT. 3<»0
TEST I
M»T)WJL
/
I
•^
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
H/M/7?
5/V*
HC
/,2-3
1.^.3
CO NOXC
I/, ti
-7.^
l.ii.
!.5"t
MPG
••
FTP
l£.3fe
Z0.17
t
| ....
HFET
7.7. £1
20. IM
IHC (ppm)
!^
...!-t?
..-.-
ICO (%)
0.0 .
O-O
• .
COMMENTS
CAP& j(hi5Ci*/Q-
lOuf P-ic-H, TiyntfjOr -i^
7 tw»Mt» -v-lo j t^i t«»SfriNO
f»er IP* ^rc -^°
IOL6 R\CH
•
1976 Standards
t.r
1.5
HC
15
CO
2.0
3.1
Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
7113
SITE
MODEL
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN 7^35 fro/ .SJ'T-
30 2. ' ' '
ODOMETER 1092-1
CID
TRANS A
CARB
INERTIA WT.
TEST |
Msr)**R
! /
1975 FTP (gra/mi)
DATE
H/7V97
•r/w/,,
HC CO NOXC
l-eif
fll
•
//. tf 1
7.tfc
/.4fl
I.Cfe
MPG
FTP
13.7
'4.7S~
!
HFET
17,2 f_
20>(&%
IHC (ppm)
T-\
k\
..-.-
ICQ (%)
o.o.
c.o
COMMENTS
'<£*r^r.RitH
CHOKE 3N-U-
'
-
1^77
1976 Standards
/.r
1.5
HC
/r
15
CO
2.0
3.1
NOX
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
"7110
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN
VtAR.
ODOMETER
MODEL Gr£ I I ^
CID
TRANS
'A- CARB 2L.
INERTIA WT.
TEST It
******
1
1975 FTP (gin/mi)
DATE
Hi %f/7%
fahg
»
HC
,87
1,03
CO
I*
r.ii
NOXC
A*T
f.6g
MPG
FTP
/2,i"$*
I3.M; .
i
HFET
IL>t9.
n.iS
. .
IHC (ppm)
10
<°7
.;.'
,
ICO (%)
0.0 .
o.o
COMMENTS
tons R\cr» .
CAPS Mtft^M^ , cHt»f-6
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
.7 I I
SITE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN
ODOMETER
MODEL M°VA
CID
TRANS A
CARB
INERTIA WT.
TEST ft
ifWt&f-
/
1
DATE
3//0/7-7
*/)b
975 FTP
HC
.M 1
•6l
(gm/mi
CO
J.56
7./fc
)
NOXC
2.3Z
/.66
MI
*
FTP
/J.g'*?
/1,6z
I
1 .
'G
HFET
^.'^3,
19.60
IHC (ppm)
P
/4
,.-.-
ICO (%)
o.o
0.O
COMMENTS
CAPS r^»S£»MC»-//T/»)/^6.^-5-
//?4£ KICH-.
r//n;MG^ +6^A^"M&S'K)C>
/O^H Aicrt-
•
1976 Standards
1.5
HC
/r
15
CO
7.0
3.1
Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO.
MAKE
MODEL
SITE
U
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
VIN ID 2^72- q.3Q l^&itilCr . '
•
1976 Standards
1.5
HC
If
15
CO
2.0
3.1
Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO. "71 I
MAKE
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
SITE /?rA>Vfrfc. VIN H ^^
3
ODOMETER
MODEL
CID
TRANS
CARS
INERTIA WT.
TEST f
«»;M*
1
• -- r ;
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DATE
*A?/77
sinfo
HC
.34,
.40
CO
<*.(,?
6.^4
N°xc
A9A*
/.^
MPG
FTP
)2-.~?b
13.76
1
i
HFET
I7,.b£
/^.^
IHC (ppm)
0
....3
..-.-
ICO (%)
0.0
,01
COMMENTS "
<*P o<
<
1977
1976 Standards
1.5
HC
15
CO
2.0
3.1
Nox
-------
VEHICLE NO. 7»2.)
MAKE •
FTP
A3. 5^
/^./(a
•
i
1 . - • . *
HFET
20.1$,
Zl.^
, ,
IHC (ppm)
O
lib'
..-.-
.
ICO (%)
0.0 .
1.91.
COMMENTS
CAPS oc. j riwtA/G -3
i«n,«wv 6(£A* r*M*f>J "SitO
CAP* n\»tfciM
------- |