79-4A
Gasohol Test Program
by
Richard Lawrence
Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
December, 1978
-------
Introduction
A request for a waiver to permit use of 10% Ethanol in gasoline ("gasohol")
is being considered by EPA-Mobile Source Enforcement Division (MSED).
The Emission Control Technology Division (ECTD) in Ann Arbor, MI was
requested to assist MSED by testing ten vehicles on two gasoline fuels
and three gasohol fuels. In addition, ECTD directed Southwest Research
Institute (a contractor laboratory) to test three vehicles on the five
fuels plus other fuels containing MTBE and TEA. EPA-ORD was requested
to provide more extensive emission data on two test vehicles.
The Administrator's decision must be made within 180 days of receipt of _/
the application for waiver otherwise the waiver is automatically granted.
The decision date for this waiver is December 16, 1978. Testing support
from MSAPC was requested on September 28, 1978. Vehicles and fuel were
acquired and vehicle tests began October 16 and were completed on Novem-
ber 20. Because of the limited time available, duplicate tests of each
vehicle/fuel combination were planned with retesting for void tests to
be done only on a time available basis.
Summary
Eleven vehicles (4 three-way systems and 7 oxidation catalyst systems)
were tested on five fuels. A summer grade gasoline was selected as the
base fuel and was used both before and after testing on the two commercial
gasohols. Indolene and a gasohol fuel containing Indolene and Ethanol
were the other two fuels. All gasohol fuels used in this program
.contained 10 percent Ethanol (by volume). Duplicate tests were planned
on four fuels and four tests were planned on the base fuel.
The test procedure was similar to the standard FTP test normally run on
certification vehicles. Some deviations from this procedure were
required in order to acquire additional data, such as cannister weights.
Also, void test criteria were adjusted when appropriate and when engi-
neering judgement could be used to verify the integrity of the results.
In the following list comparisons of each gasohol fuel are made with the
appropriate base fuel:
1. Gasohol fuels increased evaporative HC emissions an average of 49
to 62% on the eleven vehicles tested.
2. The two mixed gasohol fuels (gasoline mixed with 10% Ethanol)
decreased exhaust HC by about 9% on all vehicles. The blended
gasohol fuel (gasoline blended with 10% Ethanol for correct vola-
tility) increased exhaust HC by an average of 24% on all vehicles.
3. Total HC (evap. & exhaust) for 3.3 trips per day increased 11 to 32
percent with the gasohol fuels.
_!/ Methyl tertiary butyl ether and tertiary butyl alcohol are other
fuel additives for which waivers have been requested.
21 Sec. 211(f)(4) of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments
-------
-2-
4. Evaporative emissions contained about 0.6 grams Ethanol and 3.3 to
5.4 grams HC (as CHn QC) with the gasohol fuels.''
J.. o_>
5. CO emissions decreased 20 to 34 percent with the gasohol fuels.
6. NOx emissions increased 6 to 11 percent with the gasohol fuels.
7. Fuel economy (by carbon balance) decreased 1 to 5 percent with the
gasohol fuels.
8. Driveability complaints increased with the gasohol fuels.
9. Three-way catalyst systems were not appreciably different from
oxidation catalyst systems in exhaust and evaporative emission
sensitivity to gasohol fuels.
10. It is not known if a gasoline fuel containing 10 percent Ethanol
can be commercially blended to match distillation characteristics
of a gasoline fuel containing no Ethanol.
11. It is not known if a "blended" gasohol with volatility characteristics
similar to a gasoline would give driveability or evaporative emission
levels similar to the gasoline.
Test Procedure
The test procedure agreed upon for the ECTD program was to test each
vehicle twice on each fuel using the standard FTP with SHED procedure as
used for certification tests. Some modifications were necessary to
allow for cannister weights to be taken before and after the Diurnal
Breathing Loss (DEL) test and after the Hot Soak (HS) test.
Void test criteria normally applied to certification tests were waived
for some tests where engineering judgment could be used to verify that
the test results were valid for the purpose of this program. Typical
examples of this include tests where a heat build for diurnal emissions
might be one degree (F) out of tolerance or tests where an exhaust
emission analyzer might respan 3-4 percent low when the tolerance is
+2 percent.
Some portions of the FTP were made more restrictive to provide more
repeatable SHED results.
-The overnight soak tolerance of 12-36 hours was adjusted to 12-24
hours.
-Two preconditioning driving cycles with a one hour hot soak between
them and refueling prior to each cycle were required each time the
fuel type was changed. <
3/ Ethanol was measured during 12 Diurnal and 10 Hot Soak Tests.
~~ The HC reported here corresponds to those tests and is corrected
for Ethanol response to the FID.
-------
3
The complete test procedure ±s shown in Appendix A. Six.vehicles could
be run each day using two SHED and two chassis dynamometers. The vehicles
were separated into two groups. The first group followed the fuel
sequence of 1,2,3,4,5,3 with duplicate tests each time. The second
group followed the fuel sequence of 3,4,5,3. and then fuels 1 and 2 if
time permitted. Nearly all vehicles did receive duplicate tests on all
fuels.
Fuels
Five fuels were chosen for comparison as follows:
Fuel 1: Indolene
Fuel 2: 90% Indolene (same fuel batch as fuel no. 1) plus 10% Ethanol
Fuel 3: Summer grade gasoline (SG)
Fuel 4: 90% Fuel 3 plus 10% Ethanol
Fuel 5: Blended gasohol containing 10% Ethanol and approximating the
RVP and distillation characteristics of fuel no. 3
The reason for running Fuels 1 and 2 was to show the changes in emissions
which result when the certification fuel is combined with Ethanol thus
increasing fuel volatility.
Fuel 3 was selected as a base fuel which might be representative of
National average summer grade fuel.
Fuel 4 shows the effect on emissions when Ethanol is added to Fuel 3 as
might be done by a fuel retailer or distributor. Fuel 4 volatility is
higher than Fuel 3.
Fuel 5 was to be a gasohol blend with RVP and distillation curve similar
to Fuel 3. It is not known if this fuel is representative of what a
commercial gasohol would be if it were blended by the refiner to meet
market requirements. Because Ethanol significantly alters the distillation
curve it was difficult to blend a gasohol fuel to meet the distillation
curve of a gasoline fuel.
All fuels were ordered by MSED from Howell Hydrocarbons. However,
because of time constraints EPA-ECTD started testing on in-house Indolene
(Fuel 1) and blended Fuel 2 using Fuel 1 and locally purchased Ethanol.
Fuels 3,4, and 5 were supplied by Howell Hydrocarbons. Fuel 5 was found
to be out of tolerance and was not used. It was replaced by Howell
Hydrocarbons and the replacement was designated Fuel 6.
A fuel sample was drawn from a fuel cart each time the cart was refueled.
Since the fuel cart capacity is 50 gallons there is at least one fuel
sample for every 55 gallon drum of fuel supplied by MSED. About half of
-------
-4-
these samples have been analyzed by EPA-MVEL, Ethyl Corporation, or
Petroleum Specialities, Inc. Typical fuel inspection data is included
in Appendix B. Figure 1 shows typical distillation data of the five
fuels used at EPA-MVEL.
By comparing Fuel 2 with Fuel 1 or Fuel 4 with Fuel 3 the increase in
volatility caused by the addition of 10% Ethanol can be seen. Fuel 6
compared with Fuel 3 illustrates the difficulty encountered in trying to
blend a "gasohol" to the same distillation curve as a typical gasoline.
A comparison of volatility characteristics of the two gasolines used in
this program with D.O.E. fuel survey inspection data for typical summer
grade gasoline and for Southern California gasoline is shown in Figure
2.
Vehicles
All vehicles were supplied by the vehicle manufacturers. Ten 1978 and
1979 vehicles were to be run. To ensure completion of,ten vehicles in
the required time eleven were requested from manufacturers. All eleven
were received and all completed the test sequence.
All eleven vehicles were catalyst equipped - 4 With three-way catalysts
and 7 with oxidation catalysts. The vehicles included four from Ford (2
three-way catalysts and 2 oxidation catalysts); four from GM (2 three-
way catalysts and 2 oxidation catalysts); two from Chrysler; and 1 from
Toyota. Vehicle information sheets are included in Appendix C.
Data and Discussion
The data has been summarized and emissions on each gasoline and gasohol
fuel are shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5. The total hydrocarbon exhaust
plus evaporative emissions for 3.3 trips per day are designated "TOTHC".
DEL, HSL, and TLOSS are the diurnal, hot soak, and total evaporative
emissions, respectively.
Emissions and fuel economy for Indolene with 10 percent Ethanol are
compared with Indolene and the two "commercial" gasohols are compared
with the SG base fuel (Fuel 3) for all vehicles (Figure 6). The gasohol
fuels increased both diurnal and hot soak evaporative emissions by 29 to
71 percent. Total evaporative emissions increased by 49 to 62 percent
on gasohol fuels. Total HC emissions (evap. plus exhaust) increased by
11 to 32 percent on gasohol fuels. CO emissions decreased 20 to 34
percent and fuel economy decreased 1 to 5 percent on gasohol. NOx
Increased 6 to 11 percent on gasohol fuels.
Evaporative emissions with Fuel 6 (blended gasohol) were slightly lower
than with Fuel 4 but HC and CO exhaust emissions were higher on Fuel 6
than on Fuel 4. The total HC (exhaust plus evap) for 3.3 trips per day
were higher. Fuel 4/3 showed an 18 percent increase and Fuel 6/3 showed
a 32 percent increase in total HC emissions.
-------
-5-
FIGURE 1. COMPARISIONS OF DISTILLATION CURVES OF TEST FUELS
420
Fuel #2
Fuel #4
80
60
40
20
0
-t-
IBP 10 20 30 40 50 60
.. % RECOVERED
70
80
90
EP
Fuels: 1. Indolene (RVP=9.0) 4. 90% Fuel 3 + 10% Ethanol (RVP=10.7)
2. Indolene + 10% Ethanol (RVP=9.2) 6. Blended Gasohol containing
3. Commercial Gasoline (RVP=10.0) 10% Ethanol (RVP=10.0)
-------
-6-
FIGURE 2. COMPARISONS OF TEST FUELS WITH NATIONAL
AVERAGE DATA
So. Calif. S.G.G.
Nat'l Avg S.G.G.
..IBP 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 EP
% RECOVERED
Fuels: (Fuel 1.) Indolene (RVP=9.0)
(Fuel 3.) MSED Test Fuel (RVP=10.0)
DOE Nat'l Avg. Summer Grade Gasoline (RVP=9.8)
DOE Southern California Summer Grade Gasoline (RVP=8.4)
-------
FIGURE 3. AVERAGE EMISSIONS OF 11 1978-79 CATALYST VEHICLES.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
o
1.6 p
1.4
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
-
*
-
-
^
-
1
16 r 9. 1 i- >«; r
14
12
10
s 8
1 6
2
_
CO
1.8
1.5
1 9
f
""* Q
1 -6
.3
i /->
NO
X
23
-
"
^MM
21
C5 i n
& 19
17
_l 1 *
FE
.
.
i
2346 12346 12346 12346
FUELS* FUELS FUELS FUELS
EVAPORATIVE HC EMISSIONS
o
5
4
3
2
1
0
DIURNAL
12346
FUELS
O
5
4
3
2
1
0
HOT SOAK
12346
FUELS
8
7
6
5
4
2
1
0
TOTAL SHED
12346
FUELS
Fuels: 1. Indolene
2. Indolene plus 10% Ethanol
3. Commercial Gasoline
4. 90% Fuel 3+10% Ethanol
6. Blended Gasohol containing
10% Ethanol
40
35
30
25
% 20
| 15
10
o
5
0
**
TOTAL HC
**
12346
FUELS
Exhaust plus Evaporative
Emissions for 3.3 trips
per day.
-------
FIGURE 4. AVERAGE EMISSIONS OF 4 1978-79 THREE-WAY CATALYST VEHICLES
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
1.6 p
1.4
1.2
Ml.O
a
w .8
^E y»
O
.4
.2
0
-
"
-
i
2
16 P 2.Tr
HC
14
12
H10
s
w 8
§
o
^
2
t n
CO
. 1.8'
l.S
Si- 27
w?
S o'
3 *
.3
i »
.
'
m
"
346 12346
FUELS * FUELS
5
4
3
1
o 2
1
n
r
EVAPORATIVE HC EMISSIONS
DIURNAL 5
4
3
i
rt\
1
-i n
HOT SOAK 8
6
r-n 1 4
p O
2
J n
-
m
'
25 r
NOy
23
21
0
MP«»
S 19
17
_I 1C
FE
.
.
" ^^
"
.
i
12346 12346
FUELS FUELS
TOTAL SHED 40
35
30
1C
p
| 20
i 15
« 10
5
-i n
**
TOTAL HC
.
I
1
12346
FUELS
12346
FUELS
12346
FUELS
i
oo
I
Fuels: 1. Indolene
2. Indolene plus 10% Ethanol
3. Commercial Gasoline
4. 90% Fuel 3 plus 10% Ethanol
6. Blended Gasohol containing
ICjfcthanol
**
12346
' FUELS
Exhaust plus Evaporative
Emissions for 3.3 trips
per day
-------
FIGURE 5. AVERAGE EMISSIONS OF 7 1978-79 OXIDATION CATALYST VEHICLES.
1.6
1.4
1.2
M 1.0
2
*"» Q
to °
S . 6
.4
.2
0
.
-
-
-
-
.
-
5 t-
4
3
2
o 2
1
n
.
-
1
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
16 r 2.1r 25 r
HC u
12
M 10
S3
to O
3 6
4
2
I n
1.8
1 =.
.
*
gl.2
<2 * -^
.6
3
i n
NOX
. , 23
.
21
i
s 19
17
1 1C
FE
.
»
*
.MM^W
1
u ... . . ±j _. _ _.
2346 12346 12346 12346
*
FUELS FUELS FUELS FUELS
EVAPORATIVE HC EMISSIONS
DIURNAL 5 r- HOT SOAK R ,. T°TAL SHED 40 ^ TOTAL HC**
4
3
5
o 2
1
-1. r>
7
.
6
-
5
§ ^
o 3
2
1
-i n
.
.
-
.
-
T;
30
a 25
<;
^ 20
§ 15
0 10
5
-40
.
r
.
.
|
FUELS
I:
Fuels: 1. Indolene
FUELS FUELS
4. 90% Fuel 3 plus 10% Ethanol
vo
i
**
2. Indolene plus 10% Ethanol 5. Blended Gasohol containing
3. Commercial Gasoline
10 % Ethanol
FUELS
Exhaust plus Evaporative
Emissions for 3.3 trips
per day..
-------
FIGURE 6. RATIOS OF AVERAGE EMISSIONS OF 11 1978-79 CATALYST VEHICLES.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
200
150
100
50
n '
r HC 20°
150
% 100
50
..,.._ n
CO 20°
150
% 100
r~ so
I n
r NOV 200
A
k
MMM
150
% 100
50
n
°246 "246 u 2 4 6 "-
FE
>
b
246
133 133 133 133
Fuel Ratio* Fuel Ratio Fuel Ratio Fuel Ratio
o
EVAPORATIVE HC EMISSIONS
200
150
100
50
0
DIURNAL
»
200
150
% 100
50
O
HOT SOAK 2°°
.
150
% 100
50
n
TOTAL SI
iED 20°
150
% 100
50
0
246 246 246
133 133 133
Fuel Ratio Fuel Ratio Fuel Ratio
**
TOTAL HC
2
I
Fuel
4 6
3 3
Ratio
Fuels: 1. Indolene
2. Indolene plus 10% Ethanol
3. Commercial Gasoline
4. 90% Fuel 3 plus 10% Ethanol
6. Blended Gasohol containing
10% Ethanol
**
Exhaust plus Evaporative-
Emissions for 3.3 trips
per day.
-------
-11-
The fuel inspection data shows that gasohol fuels blended by adding
Ethanol to a base gasoline are more volatile than the base fuel. The
increased RVP and front end volatility of gasohol would be expected to
increase diurnal and hot soak losses, respectively. The oxygen present
in alcohol causes leaner operation and would be expected to decrease
exhaust HC and CO, unless other fuel characteristic changes such as
density, viscosity, or .volatility were dominant.
Vehicle emission data supports the above relationships:
1. Higher RVP gave higher diurnal losses.
2. Increased front end volatility (up to 50% point) increased hot
soak losses.
3. Gasohol generally gave lower HC and CO exhaust emissions than
gasoline.
One exception was Fuel 6 - a blended gasohol. Driveability was poor
with stumbling, hesitation and backfiring during acceleration on some
vehicles. The HC emissions were 24% higher on this gasohol than on the
base fuel. CO emissions were 20% lower but this is not as great as the
34% decrease in CO emissions seen with the other two gasohols.
The mean emissions, fuel ecnomy, and cannister weights were determined
for each vehicle on each fuel. These tables are presented in appendix
D. Note that the fuels are shown in the order run in these tables.
Summaries showing the average of vehicle means for all vehicles; for the
TWC vehicles; and for the oxidation catalyst vehicles are shown in
Tables 1,2, and 3, respectively. Here the means for the five fuels, the
difference between selected fuels and ratios of the means of selected
fuels is given.
The emissions and fuel economy data in these tables was presented in
Figures 3,4, and 5. The last 5 columns of each table contain cannister
weight data (grams):
BDBL = before diurnal test
ADBL = after diurnal test
AHSL = after hot soak test
DDBL = A diurnal (ADBL-BDBL)
DTEST = A test (AHSL-BDBL)
Cannister weights could not be measured before the hot soak test without
interfering with the test.
The cannister weight gains during the diurnal breathing loss tests
(DDBL) are related to the Reid Vapor Pressures of the fuels. The cannister
weights before the diurnal test (BDBL) (which is after a 12-24 hour
soak) are fuel related but it is not clear which fuel parameter(s) exert
. the strongest influence.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
ANN ArtHOR, MICHIGAN
Table 1.
GASOHOL PHO'iRAM
DATA SUMMARY
CATALYST TYPES: 3-WAYS
NUMBER OF VEHICLES:
MEANS OF
FUEL
FUEL i
FUEL 2
FUEL 3
FUEL 4
FUEL 6
ALL TESTS
N
(19)
(21)
(41)
(21)
(25)
HC
0.451
0.410
0.535
0.490
0.665
CO
NOX
(GRAMS/MILE)-
6.61
4.J9
8.20
5.51
6.b7
1.16
1.26
1.25
1.33
1.38
CC2 FE
470. 19.3
467. 19.0
472. 19.1
46H. IB. 8
482. 18.2
DHL
1.12
1.45
2.51
4.04
3.93
AND OX-CATS
11
HSL TLOSS
1.02 2.14
1.75 3.20
1.63 4.15
2.68 6.72
2.24 6.17
TOTHC
15.60
17.35
21.11
24.97
27.76
PROCESSED! DEC 15. 1978
(REVISION A: DEC. 27, 1978)
BDBL ADBL AHSL DD8L ((TEST
(GRAMS) -
890.
891.
900.
905.
905.
904.
907.
919.
927.
924,
885. 13.3 -4.9
t>93. 16.3 1.1
898. 19.^ -2.1
908. 21.5 2.7
905. 19.3 0,6
DIFFERENCES HETWEEN MEANS
FUEL 2 -
FUEL 3 -
FUEL 4 -
FUEL 6 -
RATIOS
FUEL 2 /
FUFL 3 /
FUEL 4 /
FUEL 6 /
pUt!L 1
FUl-L 1
FUhL 3
FUhL 3
OF MfANS (*>
FUKL 1
FUU. 1
FUtL 3
FUI-'L 3
-.041
O.n8<»
-.045
0.130
91.
119.
92.
124.
-a. 23
I.b9
-3. 69
-1.63
66.
12*.
67.
80.
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.13
108.
107.
106.
111.
-3. -0.4
2. -0.2
-4. -0.3
10. -0.9
99. 9P.
100. 9o.
99. 99.
102. 95.
0.33
1.39
1.53
1.41
129.
224.
161.
156.
0.73 1.06
0.61 2.00
1.04 2.57
0.61 2.02
171. 149.
160. 193.
164. 162.
137. 149.
1.76
5.52
3.86
6.65
111.
135.
118.
132.
1.
10.
5.
5.
100.
101.
101.
101.
4.
16.
8.
5.
100.
102.
101.
101.
7. 3.0 6.0
12. 6.1 2.9
10. 2.1 4.8
7. -0.1 2.7
101. 122. -23.
101. 145. 42.
101. 111. -131.
101. 100. -29.
NOTES: i. TOTHC is TOTAL HC EMISSIONS (KXHAUST » EVAPORATIVE) FOR 3.3 TRIPS PER DAY.
2. FUEL DESCHIPTIONS-
1. INDDLFNE (RVP=9.0). SOUWCEt EPA MVEL LAW FUEL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
2. 90? INDOLENE 10% ETHANOL (OVP=9.3). SOURCES BLENDED USING FUEL NO. 1 AND 2(10 PROOF ETHANOL AT KPA MVEL
3. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE (RVP=IO.O). SOURCE: no^ELL HYDWOCARBONS
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL P
MOTOR VEHICLE EM
ANN
ROJE
^Bl
WC
ECTION AGENCY
ON LABORATORY
Table 2.
GASOHOL PROGRAM DATA SUMMARY
CATALYST TYPE: 3-rtAYS
NUMHER OF VEHICLES S 4
MEANS OF fttL TESTS
FUEL N
FUKL 1 (9)
FUEL 2 (10)
FUEL 3 (16)
FUEL 4 ( 8)
FUEL 6 ( 9)
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS
FUEL 2 - FUtL 1
FUEL 3 - RlKL 1
FUEL 4 - FUtL 3
FUEL 6 - FUKL 3
RATIOS OF MEANS (*)
FUEL 2 / FUKL 1
FUEL 3 / FlJh'L 1
FUEL 4 / FUITL 3
FUEL 6 / FUKL 3
HC CO
0.?62 3.94
0.?*7 3.29
0.31* 4.64
0.314 4.26
0.445 5.57
-.015 -0.65
0.053 0.70
-.001 -0.38
0.131 0.93
94. 83.
120. lltt.
100. 92.
142. 12U.
NOX
MILE)-
0.79
n.ei
0.81
0.85
0.89
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.07
103.
103.
105.
109.
C02 FK DHL
47*. ia.a 1.13
475. lb.3 1.38
479. 18.7 1.96
477. 18.2 2.67
48H. 17.6 2.77
-t. -0.5 0.25
1. -0.1 0.83
-3. -0.5 0.71
9. -1.1 0.80
99. 98. 122.
100. lOfl. 174.
99. 97. 136.
102. 94. 141.
HSL
0.95
1.81
1.48
2.11
2.26
0.86
0.53
0.63
0.78
190.
156.
142.
152.
TLOSS
2.08
3.19
3.45
4.79
5.03
1.11
1.36
1.34
1.58
153.
165.
139.
146.
TOTHC
10.75
13.4V
14.65
17.41
21.24
2.74
3.90
2.76
6.60
125.
136.
119.
145.
PROCESSED* DEC 15. 1978
(REVISION A: DEC. 27, 1978)
BDBL ADBL AHSL OOBL UTEST
(GRAMS) -
954.
958.
971.
977.
977.
3.
17.
5.
6.
100.
102.
101.
101.
969.
976.
993.
1002.
999.
6.
23.
9.
6.
101.
102.
101.
101.
948. 15.0 -6.4
959. 18.3 1.4
96H. 21.7 -2.9
979. 25.4 2.1
978. 21.9 1.1
11. 3.3 7.8
20. 6.7 3.5
10. 3.7 5.1
10. 0.3 4.0
101. 122. -21.
102. J4S. 46.
101. 117. -72.
101. 101. -38.
NOTF.SJ 1. TOTHC IS TOTAL HC EMISSIONS (EXHAt)ST « EVAPORATIVE) FOR 3.3 TRIPS PER DAY.
. SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED ORDER).
(5. OUT OF SPECIFICATIONS. NOT USED FOH VEHICLE TESTS.)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION' AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
ANN AR8UR, MICHIGAN
Table 3.
GASOHOL PROGRAM DATA
SUMMARY
PROCESSED! DEC 15. 1978
CATALYST TYPE: OX-CATS
NUMrtER OF VEHICLES: 7
MEANS OF
FUFL
FUKL 1
FUKL 2
FUFL 3
FUKL 4
FUEL 6
ALL TESTS
N
(10)
(11)
(25)
(13)
(16)
HC
0.559
0.503
0.661
0.^90
0.791
CO NOX
-(GRAMS/MILE)
8.14 1.38
5.01 l.Sl
10.24 1.50
b.dZ 1.60
7.14 1.66
C02
465.
463.
46b.
464.
479.
FF
(MPG) |
19.6
19.3
19.3
19.2
18.^
DHL
HSL
TLOSS
TOTHC BDBL ADBL AHSL OD«L
1.12
1.50
2.83
4.82
4.59
1.06
1.71
1.72
3.00
2.22
2.18
3.21
4.54
7.82
6.82
18.37
19.56
24.81
29.29
31.49
854. 866. 850. 12.3
853. 868. 854. 15.1
859. 877. 858. 1H.O
865. 884. 868. 19.3
864. 881. 864. 17.8
KTEST
-4.1
1.0
-1.6
3.1
0.2
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS
FUEL 2 -
FUFL 3 -
FUEL 4 -
FUEL 6 -
RATIOS
FUEL ' /
K'OTKS: 1
2
FUKL 1
FUf-L 1
FUFL 3
KUtL 3
OF ilFANS (%)
FUf.L 1
FUKL 1
FUKL 3
KUfrL 3
. TOTHC IS TOTAL HC
-.056
0.102
-.071
0.130
90.
118.
89.
1?0.
-3.13 0.13
2.10 0.12
-4.02 0.11
-3.10 0.17
62. 110.
12t>. 109.
61. 107.
70. 111.
EMISSIONS (EXHAUST
. FJFL DESCRIPTIONS- -
1. INDOLENE (RVP=9.0).
?. 90* 1NOOLENE » 10*
3. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE
-2.
3.
-4.
11.
99.
101.
99.
102.
-0.3
-0.4
-0.1
-O.H
98.
98.
99.
96.
» EVAPORATIVE)
SOURCE: EPA MVEL
ETHANOL (RVP=9.3).
(HVP=10.0). SOURCE
LAU FUEL
SOURCE:
: HOvF.LL
0.38
1.71
1.99
1.76
134.
252.
170.
lt>2.
FOR
0.65
0.66
1.28
0.51
162.
162.
175.
130.
1.03
2.37
3.27
2.27
147.
209.
172.
150.
3.3 TRIPS PER
1.19
6.44
4.49
6.68
107.
135.
118.
127.
DAY.
-1. 2. 4. £.8
5. 11. 8. 5.7
6. 7. 10. 1.2
4. 4. 6. -0.2
100. 100. 101. 122.
101. 101. 101. 146.
101. 101. 101. 107.
101. 100. 101. 99.
IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
8LENOED USING FUEL NO. 1 AND 2. SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS JMSEO OKDER).
BLENDED GASOHOL CONTAINING 10% ETHANOL . SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED
OUT OF SPECIFICATIONS. NOT USED FOR VEHICLE TESTS.)
-------
-15-
Vehicle operation on the FTP causes a net decrease in cannister weight
from after the diurnal test to after the hot soak test (AHSL-ADBL).
This indicates that the cannister is purging during the test and that
there was plenty of cannister capacity available during the hot soak
test. High hot soak losses then imply that the evaporative emission
control systems do not effectively trap hot soak emissions on these
vehicles. This is an important consideration since hot soak losses are
more significant than diurnal losses from an air quality viewpoint.
This is because there is only one diurnal per day but an average of 3.3
hot soaks per day per vehicle in "real world" use.
SHED Alcohol Data
Ethanol measurements were made on some evaporative emissions tests.
Capability for Ethanol measurement did not exist at EPA-MVEL at the
start of this program. The Laboratory Branch, in conjunction with
EPA-OKD, was able to provide a gas chromatograph and procedure capable
of measuring SHED Ethanol concentrations in time to obtain data part way
through the program.
Ethanol emissions from gasohol fuels 4 and 6 for the diurnal and hot
soak test ranged from .1 to.6 grams for each test. The average diurnal
emissions were 0.26 grams Ethanol on 12 tests and the average hot soak
emissions were 0.33 grams Ethanol on 10 tests. This amounts to 0.6
grams Ethanol for a complete test or 1.35 grams Ethanol for 3.3 trips*.
Correcting the SHED FID for response to Ethanol would result in a decrease
in SHED HC of about 5 percent for the gasohol fuels. The Ethanol present
as determined by the GC would then have to be added to the SHED HC to
arrive at the total evaporative HC plus Ethanol emissions. This can not
be done directly since HC. is given in grams of CH.. - (MW=13.85) and
Ethanol is given in grams of C-H OH (MW=46). The reported HC emissions
(evaporative and exhaust) are not corrected for Ethanol response of the
FID nor for measured Ethanol in the sample.
Driveability
Driveability experiments were not run. However, drivers were requested
to note any driveability comments on the test data sheets. These
comments indicate a slight degradation in driveability on some vehicles
on Fuels 2, 3, and 4. A more severe degradation in driveability on Fuel
6 was noted, with occurrences of backfiring and poor acceleration on
several vehicles.
Conclusion
The purpose of this test program was to evaluate the effect on emissions
(evaporative and exhaust) that the use of gasohol would have. The data
*3.3 trips per day = DEL X 1.0 + HSL X 3.3
-------
shows that gasohol increased total hydrocarbon emissions by 11 to 32
percent and NOx emissions by 6 to 11 percent while decreasing CO emissions
by 20 to 34 percent on the eleven 1978 and 1979 vehicles tested.
Driveability on the blended gasohol (Fuel 6) degraded to the extent that
if commercial fuel like Fuel 6 were used it is likely that persons using
this fuel would either stop using it or would have their vehicles adjusted
to compensate for the different fuel. This would most likely be an air-
fuel ratio (A/F) adjustment towards richer operation. Once properly
adjusted for gasohol fuel the vehicle exhaust emissions might be expected
to be similar to emissions from a vehicle correctly adjusted for and
running on gasoline, but evaporative emissions would remain high.
However, if a vehicle adjusted for gasohol were then operated on gasoline
a rich A/F ratio would result and would likely cause a marked increase
in HC and CO emissions while not affecting driveability.
Driveability comments on Indolene plus 10 percent Ethanol compared with
Indolene and on S.G. plus 10 percent Ethanol compared with S.G. indicated
that the driveability was the same in some cases and slightly degraded
(hard to start and stalling when cold) in other cases. Thus these
"mixed" gasohols did not pose the driveability problem that the "blended"
gasohol did.
It is not known if a decreased volatility gasohol could be blended which
would not cause an increase in evaporative emissions or degradation in
driveability on in-use vehicles. The "blended" gasohol (Fuel 6) used in
this program did result in increased evaporative emissions over Fuel 3
even though its RVP and distillation curve were adjusted close to that
of Fuel 3.
Other considerations regarding the use of Ethanol in gasoline, such as
emission system deterioration, fuel system compatability, or cost of
production were beyond the scope of this program and were not addressed.
-------
Appendix A.
Test Procedure
-------
A-l
Gasohol Test Sequence
1. Drain and refuel to 20% tank capacity.
2. Run 1 LA-4 cycle.
a. Check idle CO and RPM first time on each fuel.
3. Hot soak one hour (key off to key on).
4. Drain and refuel to 40% tank capacity.
5. Run 1 LA-4 cycle.
6. Soak 12-24 hours @ 68-86F (key off to key on).
7. Run 1 FTP with SHED: '
a. Drain and refuel to 40% tank capacity (leave fuel cap off).
b. Move vehicle to SHED.
c. Weigh cannister.
d. Check cannister lines.
e. Perform 1 hour diurnal heat build. (Fuel cap on @ 60°F.)
f. Immediately after heat build:
-Remove heat blanket
-Weigh cannister
-Reinstall cannister & check cannister lines.
g. Run 3 bag FTP emissions test within 15-60 minutes of end of
diurnal test.
h. Run 1 hour hot soak immediately following emissions test.
i. Weigh cannister immediately following hot soak test.
8. Precondition for next test:
a. If within 24 hours of FTP key off go to step 4.
b. If longer than 24 hours since FTP key off go to step 1.
c. If changing fuel type go to step 1.
9. Two tests for each fuel type with following sequence:
1,2,3,4,6,3 for group 1 vehicles.
3,4,6,3,1,2 for group 2 vehicles.
(6 fuel runs X 2 tests each X 11 vehicles = 132 tests)
-------
Appendix B.
Test Fuel Data
-------
B-l
Typical Fuel Inspection Data
Analyzed Fuel 1 Fuel 2 Fuel 3 Fuel 4 Fuel 5 Fuel 6 Nat'l. Calif.
ITEM by I/ EPA EPA Howell Howell Howell Howell Avg. 2/ 2/
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
API Gravity H-3,4,5,6
Sp. Gr. C
R.O.N. E-l, 2, 3, 4
H-5,6
M.O.N. H-3,4,5,6
Ole. % E-l
H-3,4,5,6
Aro. % E-l
H-3,4,5,6
RVP, PS I M-l-6 '
Dist., F, 3/
IBP
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
EP
-
98.0
-
2.5
24.0
9.0
87
128
162
194
215
229
240
253
274
313
383
-
100.5
-
_
_
9.2
94
130
147
156
179
220
234
245
265
309
386
57.5
0.749
92.0
82.6
16.5
28.5
10.0
89
119
142
167
196
227
255
287
321
360
417
56.5
0.753
95.4
84.2
16.6
28.9
10.7
86
118
132
144
154
201
243
272
314
355
413
61.0
0.735
95.5
88.1
0.4
23.0
7.9
107
126
136
145
152
205
232
260
295
321
337
52.6
0.769
96.4
88.6
17.6
34.6
10.0
94
126
139
150
162
242
280
311
335
370
408
59.3
.742
92.9
83.9
7.2-'
30. 8-'
9.8
89
121
146
171
221
266
-
333
410
57.7
.7.
93.2
84.7
_
_
8.4
94
126
147
168
216
275
-
344
413
JL/ H = Howell Hydrocarbons, Ethyl = Ethyl Cord, M = EPA-MVEL, D = D.O.E. Fuel Survey,
C = Calculated value.
2) D.O.E. Fuel Survey, Summer, 1977.
_3_/ Fuels 1-6 were analyzed by EPA.
4/ MVMA Fuel Survey, Summer, 1977.
-------
Appendix C.
Vehicle Specification Sheets
-------
-£.
TI-^F 17: P7: -»PIY CllKh INRTIA 0/0 ACTUAL TlKE ^ «IM SWL MLT PSI
TYPE ACTUAL VFHiri.F MOOEI. vfAK Y'.AP TANK TA IK WFIOHT CLASS CDE DYNO HP SIZES MFW CONSTR N M N M FT Rrt
"LT. MANUFACTURER
T-"IMD 79 /Q ^*SOO P 2 13.1
HF,'1M/>«Y DHWftMlLITY VtHICI.E IPENT IF 1C.-(T IUN OH ASSIGNF.n OF (IF APPLICABLE)
HOOK
KATEO
STPOKE HP
tMC.IMF
TYPt
tMC.INE
CONK IGURAT ION
NO. NO. TOTAL NO. FUEL SYSTEM FUEL COMP. COAST-
CYL CARHS BARRELS MFR/MODEL INJECTION RATIO DOWN TM
351. E .
IGNITION ISMITIOCJ TIM.
TIMIN'3 1 T If ING 2 TOL.
"TTO SPARK
0« 01
02
FDBK CAK8
NO
TO|.. GKAR
* co
|> f T
«, r-o % Co
:
-------
REO'IESTOR I > : t7*-ir. TEST » 79-5638 ,\
NAME: s. 't
VEHICLE SHFCI^ICATIOH »i-;»>ukr -ITF.STMO GEM)- DATE OF EuTWY : 10/lb/7»
'-E SPFCIFICATIOMS
MANUFACTURER VEHICLE ID / VER REHWFSKNTEiJ r/.PUHE MODEL CODE DRIVE C>>l)E SuURCE
FORD 8Y?-a..l-C-l?3 2 HOUCAT V.nb'JH WAGON WEAK IJKIVt ST^. LEFT MANUFACTURER
DKIVe AM. "IS TIRE - SPECIFICATIONS
VEHICLF. t'OUEL ACT FULL EMPTY CU*b INRT1A 0/0 ACTUAL TIxK S, RIM SWL BLT PSI
TYPF ACTUAL VEntCLF MODEL YEAR YKAR TANK TA *K wEIOMT CLASS CDE OYNO HP SIZES MFR CONSTR H M N M Fl RR
NOM-CER PO-JCAT 7H 7B 36'«>P. 3000P 1 10.3 BR/HX13
DURABILITY VKHICLE IDENTIFICATION OW ASSIGNED OF (IF APPLICABLE) ALT. MANUFACTURER
MGINt SPECIFICATIONS
RATED ENGINE ENGINE NO. NO. TOTAL NO. . FUEL SYSTEM FUEL COMP. COAST-
DISPLACEM»-;MT HOSE STPOKE HP TYPE CUMKI..UKATION cfL CAK^S BARRELS MFR/MOHEI. INJECTION RATIO DOWN TM
140. E 3.t> F. 3.1 E va MTTO SPARK I'-I-LIN;-- 4 i 2 HOLLEYbSon NO 9.0
IGNITION IGNITION TIM. TIMING HPM TIM. «., to * co * Co co IDLE IDLE IDLE
TIMIM. 1 TI"INt. 2 TOL. N.PM TOL. GF1R LF H WlonT COM.(. TOL. KPM TOLi GEA« ENGINE FAMILY ENGINE CODE
bO NEUTHAL F2.341TH80XR80 8-2P-K10
TRAIN AMU CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
AXLE N/V A/C C'
-------
. . < I i'. I 1
OAIF NOV 2<>. 197*
P SPECIFICATION KEP.JKT - / VE« KEPHK.Sh NTt'.i ONLINE MO(>EL CODE ' D»IVF Ci'Ot SOURCE
GENFP.4L MOTORS -(01S3 . 0 SUNBIRD SFDAN WtA« URIVE STu. LEFT MANUFArTUHER
Df
TOL. tin
*. f. CO
1R LI-I-T
> ru
rfl-'-,rlT
* CO
CO
TOL.
IDLE
RPM
IDLE
IOL.
IDLK
GEAP
DRIVt
ENGINE FAMILY
20X2CEU
ENGINF CODE
aXLF.
RATIO
N/V
OOOMh f( .'<
A/C
INSTALLED
TrtAlM HMD COi-dHOL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
C'lAf.f.CASE TRANSMISSION
E"fAUST PYPF ^r.STEM COl-JF IGURATIOrg C(JDE
SYSTEM
FUEL TYPE
2.V3
MIL-
CAPACITY VULliMF
YF'j
AHA.-T^NK
CAPACITY VOI UMf
AUTO
SHIFT SMEEU
Ml) uOT >Hjf r MANUALLY
L SYSTEM TYPFS
CANISTER
EVAPORATIVE EMISSION
FAMILY CODE
IND UNLEADED. 91 OCT
SALES CLASS
cftlif Lictrr
CLt S>'LCIF1CATION COMMENTS
-------
REPORT TIME 16!19:*0
DATE MOV 2*« 1Q78
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (STANDARD) - OATt OF ENTRY : n/29/v8
VtHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
MANUFACTURER VFHir.I.E ID / VER REPRESENTEJ CELINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CODE SOURCE
GENERAL MOTORS 48257 0 REGAL SEDAN RtAR DRIVE STM. LEFT MANUFACTURER
DRIVE AXL X1S URE - SPECIFICATIONS
VEHICLE MODEL ACT FULL EMPIY CURB INRTIA 0/D ACTUAL TIKE «. RIM SWL RLT PSI
TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL YEAR YtAR TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS CDE DYNO HP SIZES MFk CONSTR N M N M FT RR
NON-CER ^uICK-PEGuL 78 78 3500 12.2
HRIMARY DURAHILITY VKHICl.E IDENTIFICATION OR ASSIGNED OF (IF APPLICABLE) ALT. MANUFACTURER
ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS
RATED ENGINE ENGINE NO. NO. TOTAL NO. FUEL SYSTEM FUEL COMP. COAST-
DISPLACEMENT ROR*. STROKE HP TYPE CONFIGURATION CYL CARBS BARRELS MFR/MOOEL INJECTION RATIO DOWN TM
3flOO. M . . i.iTTO SPARK V-HLUCK 612 .
IGNITION IGNITION TIM. TIMING RPM TIM. % CO % CO % Co CO IDLE IDLE IDLE
TIMING 1 TIMING 2 TOL. RPM TOL. GF.4R LEFT MlpHT COMH. TOL. RPM lOLi GEAR ENGINE FAMILY ENGINE CODE
1SB ftOO DDRIVE 600 DRIVE 940E2CYU
URIVF. TRAIN AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
_»*«**«_»«««
AXLE N/V A/C CHANKCASE TRANSMISSION EVAPORATION
RATIO RATIO ODOMETFR INSTALLED EXHAUST TYPE SYSTEM CONFIGURATION CODE SYSTEM FUEL TYPE
2.73 . MILKS YES SINGLE RIGHT REAR AUTO CANISTER IND UNLEADED. 100 OCT
MAIN-TANK AUX.-TANK EVAPORAIIVE EMISSION
CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY VOLUME SHIFT SPEED FAMILY coot SALES CLASS
18.1G 7.?G 00 NOT SHIFT MANUALLY CALIF. LIGHT DUTY VEH
CONTkOL SYSTEM TYPES
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS
-------
VF.HlCLt SPECIFICATION HE^uHT -(TESTNQ GEN)- DATE OK ENTRY : 10/16/7H
VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
MANUFACTURE VEHICLE ID / VER REPRESENTED c.«PL!Mt MODEL CODE DRIVE CUOE SOURCE
___»»*-»*-»-»*»<*»»«-» -»-»_-»»__»-»-_-»----»----» *» _»_- - «»--W_-_»~»v___»-» _-*_-_**_<.» «-----»*-**----B«_.--_»-_*»BW«»_-_-.»-»«»-» »-»«_»-_«-».»
FORO 8H1-302-F-97 5 MAVERICK SEDAN ' REAK DRIVE STK. LEFT MANUFACTURER
AAL *TS TIR£ - SPECIFICATIONS
VEHICLE MODEL ACT FULL FMPIY CUKB INRTIA 0/D ACTUAL TIH£ f, RIM . SWL 8LT PSI
TYPE .".CTUAL VEHICLE MODEL YEAR YEAR TANK fArJK WEI'iHT CLASS CDE DYNO HP SIZES MFR CONSTR N M N M FT RR
' ' NON-CER MAVFRICK-F-'X 78 7H 3129P 3500P 1 9.7 DR/8X14
PRIMARY DURABILITY VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION OH ASSIGNED OF (IF APPLICABLE) ALT. MANUFACTURER
i:>A . FOKD
SPECIFICATIONS
r.t RATE!) ENfilNE C.NG1NE NO. NO. TOTAL NO. FUEL SYSTEM FUEL COMP. COAST-
t'OISPLACEMrlNT HWt . STROKE HP TYPE CONC" I(,OKATION CYl. " CARbS BARRELS MFR/MOUEL INJECTION RATIO DOWN TM
____________ _______ _______ _____ _______________ ____ _____ _________ ___________ _________ _____ _______ . "j
102. E 4. F 3. E 133 OTTO SPARK V-ULOCK 8 1 2 CARBURETOR NO 6.4
IGNITION 1'iHlTION TIM. TIMING RPM TiM. % CO /> CO * CO CO IDLE IDLE IOLt )
TIMINo 1 TIMING 2 TOL. RPM TOL.. GEAR LEFT Ki^riT COM4. TOL. RPM TOL. GEAR ENGINE FAMILY ENGINE CODE
nH ^00 .. N bOO SO OPIVt F302AIX95 6-11M-R17 O
TRAIN ANL» CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
N/V A/C Ci-iAMKCflSE TRANSMISSION EVAPORATION
RATIO RATIO ODOMLTFR INSTALLfD EXHAUST TYPE SYSTEM CONFIGURATION CODE SYSTEM FUEL TYPE
_»*»-»» V _-»_._.«» _>..«..»^^_* ^IH^«.^__v-._- ^.^-B->^~-_-.B.--B^**_-_c->~ --__._--._ ._,*.-»«*-._»---»---»- ^«> V«M ^ -.-^^--^-K -»^^«*^-»-»^-»«»-"^^«»-»-»»---_-»»-»
2.47 34. MH.cS YES ' CLOSED A-3 CctjISTER 1ND UNLEADED. 100 OCT
MAIN-TANK AOX.-IANK EVAPORATIVE EMISSION
CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY VOLUME SHIFT S*JEFO FAMILY CODE SALES CLASS
16. G 6./«r, 00 i>OT ^MIFT M^NU4LLY 49 SIATE LIGHT DUTY VtH
CUNfrtOL SYSTEM TYPES
AIR INJECTION CATALYTIC REACTOR EXMSUST PECYCLE
VEHICLE S^-tCIFICAFlON COMMENTS
GASOHOL PROJECT
ANAL./1>ST VALin. TEST V.fcl. 10./DATft I-A1 ^/(.KRT. (PRELIM. ) CERT./TEST VALID. TEST VALID./CERT. (OFF. J
-------
i «
'" A
MANUFACTURER,
FORD
VEHICLE '
TYPE ACTUAL VEHlCLF
NON-CER PIMTO
PR I M
/F1-2.3-4ASA
DISPLACEMENT RORt.
14J. E 3.H F
IGNITION IGNITION, TIM
TIMING 1 TIMING 2 TOL
*R
AXLE N/V
RATIO RA1IO OOOMtfFK
2.73 40. MILcS
MAIN-TANK
CAPACITY VOLUME
11.76 4. 76
MHAUST RECYCLE
ANftL./U.ST VALID.
. : VEHICLE
VEHICLE ID
9E2-P.3-F-85
MODEL
MOn*EL YEAH
79
AHY OURAHILITY
RATED
STROKE HP
3.1 t 92
. TIMING RPM
( RT. (HRKLIM. )
^02 B
3.9rt CANISTER INU UN| t-DED* 100 OCT
O
EVAPORATIVE EMISSION
FAMILY COOE SALES CLASS
t!A 8-1-VARO 49 STATE LIOHT DUTY VEH
.;>
j;
y
;.
LErtT./TEST ViL.ID. TtST VALiL). /CERT. (OFF. )
-------
DATE NOV 27 t 1978
*
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (STANDARD) - DATE OF ENTRY « 11/27/78
VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
MANUFACTURER VEHICLE ID / VER REPRESENTED rARLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CODE SOURCE
...«.___«*.»____** *__V.»«.W_M «.*»_.»-» «. .«..». . . ____._... *»««.«_<»_._____*» ._».
GENERAL MOTORS 880*2 0 IMPALA SEDAN RF.AR DRIVE ST". LEFT MANUFACTURER
DRIVE AXL WTS TIRE - SPECIFICATIONS
VEHICLE MODEL ACT FULL EMPTY CURB INRTIA 0/D ACTUAL TIPE t. RIM SWL BLT PSI
TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL YEAR YEAR TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS CDE DYNO HP SIZES MFR CONSTR N M N M FT RR
NON-CER IMPALA 77 77 4000P 13.3 GR78/15
PRIMARY DURABILITY VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION OR ASSIGNED OF (IF APPLICABLE) ALT. MANUFACTURER
ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS
RATED ENGINE ENGINE NO. NO. TOTAL NO. FUEL SYSTEM FUEL COMP. COAST-
DISPLACEMENT BORE STROKE HP TYPE CONFIGURATION CYL CARflS BARRELS MFR/MODEL INJECTION RATIO DOwN TM
350. E . . OTTO SPARK V-BLOCK 8 1 *
IGNITION IGNITION TIM. TIMING RPM TIM. « CO % CO % CO CO IDLE IDLE IDLE
TIMING 1 TIMING 2 TOL. RPM TOL. GEAR LEFT RIfiHT COMT. TOL. RPM TOL. GEAR ENGINE FAMILY ENGINE CODE
68 500 DURIVE 500 ORIVt 910L
-------
DATE NOV 27» 1978
VFHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (STANDARD) - DATE OF ENTRY : 11/27/78
VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
MANUFACTURER VEHICLE ID / VER REPRESENTED CARLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CoDE SOUWCF
______________________ ___________________ ___________________ __________ _______________________ ______________
GENFRAL MOTORS 5944 0 REGAL SEDAN RtA« DRIVE STH. LEFT MANUFACTURER
(" DRIVE AXL WTS TIRE - SPECIFICATIONS
VEHICLE MODEL ACT FULL EMPTY CURB INRTIA 0/0 ACTUAL TIKF & RIM SWL HLT PSI
TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL YEAR YEAR TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS CDE OYNO HP bIZES MFH CONSTR N M N M FT RH
NON-CER HUICK REGAL 78 78 3500P 13.2 P205/70R14
( PRIMARY DURABILITY VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION OR ASSIGNED OF (IF APPLICABLE) ALT. MANUFACTURER
ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS
RATED ENGINE ENGINE NO. NO. TOTAL NO. FUEL SYSTEM FUEL COMP. COAST-
DISPLACEMENT BORE STROKE HP TYPE CONFIGURATION CYL CARflS BARRELS MFR/MODEL INJECTION. RATIO DOWN TM
3900. M . . OTTO SPARK V-BLOCK 612 .
IGNITION IGNITION TIM. TIMING KPM TIM. % CO * CO % CO CO IDLE IDLE IDLt
TIMING 1 TIMING 2 TOL. RPM TOL. GEAR LEFT «Ir,HT COMB. TOL. RPM TOL. GEAR ENGINE FAMILY ENGINE CODE
600 DDRIVE 550 DRIVt 9<»OB2
ORIVE TRAIN AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
AXLE N/V A/C CKANKCASE TRANSMISSION EVAPORATION
RATIO RATIO ODOMETER INSTALLED EXHAUST TYPE SYSTEM CONFIGURATION CODE SYSTEM FUEL TYPE
2.41 . MILES YES SINGLE RIGHT REA* AUTO C^ANKCASE 1ND UNLEADED, 100 OCT
MAIN-TANK AIIX.-TANK EVAPORATIVE EMISSION
CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY VOLUME SHIFT SPEED FAMILY CODE SALES CLASS
18.1G 7.2G DO NOT SHIFT MANUALLY 49 STATE LIGHT DUTY VEH
CONTROL SYSTEM TYPES
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS
4880 0
-------
DATE NOV 27t 1978
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (STANDARD) - DATE OF ENTRY : 11/27/78
VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
MANUFACTURER VEHICLE ID / VER REPRESENTED CARLINE MODEL CODE' DRIVE CODE SOURCE
CHRYSLER ZL44ABD159064 0 OMNI SEDAN FRONT DRIVE STR. LEFT MANUFACTURER
DRIVE AXL WfS TIRE - SPECIFICATIONS
VEHICLE MODEL ACT FULL EMPTY CURB INRTIA 0/D ACTUAL TIKE 1 RIM SWL BLT PSI
TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL YEAR YEAR TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS CDE D*NO HP SIZES MFH CONSTR N M N M FT RR
NON-CER OMNI 78 78 2500P 7.3 P165/75R13
PRIMARY OURAHILITY VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION OR ASSIGNED OF (IF APPLICABLE* ALT. MANUFACTURER
ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS
RATED . ENGINE ENGINE NO. NO. TOTAL NO. FUEL SYSTEM FUEL COMP. COAST-
DISPLACEMENT BORE STROKE HP TYPE CONFIGURATION CYL CARBS BARRELS MFR/MOOEL INJECTION RATIO DOWN TM
105. E . . OTTO SPARK IN-LINF 4 1
IGNITION IGNITION TIM. TIMING RPM TIM. % CO % CO * CO CO IDLE IDLE IDLE
TIMING 1 TIMING 2 TOL. RPM TOL. GEAR LEFT RIGHT COMri. TOL. RPM TOL. GEAR ENGINE FAMILY ENGINE CODE
«* «»« .« .»»» M«« »»_*« »»* »»». «.» MHflB «,« «» !*..», *««»»,* ***«
15B 2 900 100 NNEUTRAL 900 100 NEUTRAL FG-lOb-2-KA
DRIVE TRAIN AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
AXLE N/V A/C CRANKCASE TRANSMISSION EVAPORATION
RATIO RATIO ODOMETER INSTALLED EXHAUST TYPE SYSTEM CONFIGURATION CODE bYSTEM FUEL TYPE
. MILES YES SINGLE RIGHT RFAR AUTO CANISTER 1NO UN'_E/\DED, 100 OCT
MAIN-T4NK AUX.-TANK EVAPORATIVE EMISSION
CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY VOLUME SHIFT SPEED FAMILY CODE SALES CLASS
13.OG 5.2G DO NOT SHIFT MANUALLY
CONTROL SYSTEM TYPES
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS
<<86H 0
-------
UAIE KlOV 2t» 197B
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (STANDARD) - DATE OF ENTRY « 11/27/78
VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
MANUFACTURER VEHICLE 10 / VER REPRFStNTEU CARLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CODE SOURCE
CHRYSLER RH41G8«?06799 0 SALON SEDAN REAR ORlVE STH. LEFT MANUFACTURER"
DRIVE AXL WTS TIRE - SPECIFICATIONS
VEHICLE MODEL ACT FULL EMPTY CURB INRTIA 0/D ACTUAL TIKE &, RIM SWL BLT PSI
TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL YEAR YtAR TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS CDE DYNO HP SIZES MFH CONSTR N M N M FT RH
NON-CER PLYMOUTH-SALON 78 ?a ^SOOP 12.3 F7«/is
PRIMARY DURABILITY VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION OR ASSIGNED DF (IF APPLICABLE) ftLT. MANUFACTURER
ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS
RATED , ENGINE ENGINE NO. NO. TOTAL NO. FUEL SYSTEM FUEL COMP. COAST-
DISPLACEMENT BORE STROKE Hp TYPE CONFIGURATION CYL CAR8S BARRELS MFR/MODEL INJECTION RATIO DOWN TM
31». . . OTTO SPARK V-aLOCK 81 .
% % %
IGNITION KiNITION TIM. TIMING RPM TIM. % CO * CO % CO CO IDLE IDLE IDLE
TIMING 1 TIMING 2 TOL. RPM TOL. GEAR LF.FT KIr,HT COMB. TOL. RPM TOL. GEAH ENGINE FAMILY ENGINE CODE
16B 2 750 100 NNEUTRAL 750 100 NEUTRAL FD-318-2-CA
URIVE TRAIN AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
AXLE N/V A/C CHANKCASE TRANSMISSION EVAPORATION
RATIO RATIO ODOMETER INSTALLFD EXHAUST TYPE SYSTEM. CONFIGURATION CODE SYSTEM FUEL TYPE
MILtS YES SINGLE RIGHT REAH AUTO GLISTER INO UN|. FADED, 100 OCT
MAIN-TANK AUX.-TANK EVAPORATIVE EMISSION
CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY VOLUME SHIFT SPEED FAMILY CODE SALES CLASS
?5.5G 10.2G DO NOT SHIFT MANUALLY
CONTROL SYSTEM TYPES
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS
-------
1 > ' \IS.',--> IL->f M
NAME: S. .J
Vf.HlCLE SPECIFICATION RtHORr -(TESfNO GEN)- DATE OF ENTRY : 6/26/7«
- VfcHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
MANUFACTURER VEHICLE 10 / VER REPREstNTEu CARLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CODE SOURCE
TOYOTA 79-FF.-3 1 COROLLA SEDAN REAR DRIVE STK. LEFT MANUFACTURER
DKIVE AXL WTS TIKE - SPECIFICATIONS
VEHICLE MODEL ACT FULL ErtHTY CURB INRTIA 0/D ACTUAL TIKE 8. RIM SWL BLT PSI
TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL YEAR YtAR TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS CDE OYNO HP SIZES MFR CONSTR N M N M FT RR
CERT EM COROLLA LH S*5 79 79 109hP 2309P 2SOOP 2 09.0 165R13
PRIMARY DURABILITY VEHICLE IOENI IFICATION OR ASSIGNED OF (IF APPLICABLE) ALT. MANUFACTURER
7«i-FO-2
ENGINE. SPECIFICATIONS
RATED ENGINE tNGINE NO. NO. TOTAL NO. FUEL SYSTEM FUEL COMP. COAST-
DISPLaCEMKNT HORE STROKE HP TYPE CUMK1C.URATION CYL CAR8S BARRELS MFR/MODEL INJECTION RATIO DOWN TM
96.VE 3.Jt>E 2.76E 07b OTTO SPARK IN-LIN? OA 01 02 AlSAN NO 9.0
IGNITION ISNITION TIM. TIMING RPM TIM. % co * cu * co co IDLE IDLE IDLE
TIMING 1 TIMING 2 TOL. RPM TOL. GEAR LE.*- T HldHT COMd. TOL. RPM TOLi GEAR EI4GINE FAMILY ENGINE CODE
10B 900 NNt'DTRAL 1.0 .5 flSO 150 NEUTRAL 21-C(F) FMb-NL
DRIVE TRAIN AMD CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
AXLF N/V A/C CHANKCASf- TRANSMISSION EVAPORATION
RATIO RATIO OnOMr.TFK INSTALLED FXHAUST TYPE SYSTEM CONFIGURATION CODE bYSTEM FUEL TYPE
V_V *«* W»W«V» «**_. «._*__* « «. «» M..4fl» *«««* «. _««_» WBVVA»0**V»««B«*_«BW
3.73 51.J MILCS NO SINGLE LEFT REAR CL TRACE
ANAL./TFST VALlLi. TEST VALID. /DATA OATA/CERT. (PRKLIM. ) CEKT./TEST VALID. TEST VALID. /CERT. (OFF. )
-------
Appendix D.
Test Result Tables
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHlCLt EMISSION LABORATORY
ANN A*60rt. MICHIGAN
SASOnOL PROGRAM
AVERAGE TEST RESULTS
PROCESSED: DF.C IB. me
VEHICLE: FOPD T-RIRO O-WAYJ
VIN: 71S42
TFST TYPE: FTP
INERTIA WT: 4500
ACTUAL HP: 13.1
-UEL N
HC
EXHAUST
CO NOx C02
._>( |< AMBIENT>| l<SHED>l l< CiNNISTEH WEIGHTS- >l
FE BARO nun NOXFC DBt HSL TLOSS TOTHC BOBL ADSL AHSL DDBL OTEsT
|<-._6RAMS/MILF.~- >
(MPG) (IN-HG) (GFsI'-iS
XL*)
-GRAMS-
1 2 ME4N n.2£5 1.10 1.3* 622. 14.2 29.32 63.1b f..95 1.?9 0.80 2.09 9.51 1337. 1359. 1326. 21.4 -11.3
STO. DEV O.OJ5 0.283 .2=^ 1. 0.0 0.212 5.54fl 0.023 0.45 0.10 0.55 0.07 0.71 0.0 2.24 0.57 3.S9
C.V. * IS.7 2S.7 lfl.7 0.1 0.0 0.7 e.78 2.47 35.1 12.4 26.4 0.70 0.05 n.O 0.17 2.64 0.0
2 3 ME.1N 0.2J7 1.13 1.1" 615. 13.9 29.10 72.32 C.99 1.30 1.82 3.11 1?..<*1 1342. 1366. 1340. 23.7 -2.0
STH. DEV 0.021 0.231 .015 4. C.I 0.135 0.407 0.002 0.75 0.34 1.01 2.14 1?.79 1-.05 9.28 2.05 7.»1
C.i'. * 10.1 20.4 1.3 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.56 0.18 57.7 18.6 32.6 17.26 p.95 1.03 0.69 6.66 0.0
3 2 MEAN 0.2dO 1.50 1.17 617. 14.3 28.78 80.30 1.03 2.48 1.70 4.18 IS.01 1362. 1391. 1352. 29.0 -9.2
ST[). DEV 0.014 0.283 .001 4. u.l 0.071 1.6t>7 0.008 0.51 0.04 0.47 (,.76 3.67 1.58 2.74 1.98 0.78
C.^'. % 5.1 18.9 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.2 2.10 0.81 20.5 2.1 11.3 5.05 0.27 0.11 0.20 6.83 0.0
4 1 MEAN 0.300 1.10 1.23 623. 13.7 29.23 81.13 J.03 1.78 1.88 3.66 15.38 1380. 1414. 1388. 34.0 7.7
6 3 MEAN 0.390 2.17 1.16 636. 13.3 29.13 73.91 1.00 l.?5 1.97 3.23 17.35 1378. 1"07. 1368. 29.3 -9.4
ST."). DEV 0.1V3 1.172 .03? 3. 0.1 0.026 3.453 0.016 O.?l 0.08 0.22 4.47 3.27 1.63 1.63 3.85 2.50
C.v. * 49.5 54.1 3.0 0.4 0.4 0.1 4.67 1.61 17.1 3.8 6.8 25.74 0.24 0.12 0.12 13.12 0.0
3 2 MEAN 0.270 1.10 1.2«> 634. 13.9 29.04 78.66 1.02 1.60 1.65 3.36 13.74 1376. 14Q7. 1370. 30.8 -6.2
STil. OEV 0.014 0.141 .127 4. C.I 0.162 0.4Q3 0.002 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.31 1.41 1.87 7.18 0.23 <9.oS
C..'. * 5.2 12.9 10.1 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.51 0.17 2.2 1.3 1.7 2.22 0.10 r-.13 0.52 0.92 0.0
4 1 MEAN
0.250 0.90 1.12 635. 13.4 29.38 71.76 n.99 0.95 1.62 2.57 12.49 1386. 1*20. 13b6. 34.1 -0.5
NOTES: i
1. FUELS ARE PRINTED IN THE ORDER THAT THEY WERE WUN. ;
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EMITTED FOR J.3 TRIPS/DAY. (NOT CORRECTED FOR ETHANOL RESPONSE OF FID.) ;
TOTH.C= 3.3»(HC,G/MI>«D1STANCE « DBL 3.3«HSL j
THE FUELS USED WERE:
1. INDOLENE (RVP=9.01. SOURCE: F.PA MVEL LAB FuEL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING. :
2. 9o« IMDOLENE » 10*. ETHANOL
-------
PROTECTION
MOTOP VtnlCLt EMISblOj LABORATORY
ANN flKBIQ, MICHIGAN
GASOrtQL
«VE»lC»c. TtST BtSuLTS PROCESSED: i)tC '7. 197*
VEHICLE: FQJO BOBCAT (3-«AY) VIN: SYi-?. J-C-12? INERTIA 4J: 3000 ACTUAL fP'. lu.3
TEST
|< -EXHAUST >| |< AMBIENT->( l< SHED >l l< C-'-NNISTEM WEIGHTS >l
FUEL N HC CO NOX C02 FE BARO HUM NrxFC DBl. HSL TLOSS TOTHC 80BL A'^BL AHSL "OUbL OTE^T
|< GRAMS/MILE >l (MPG) (IN-HG) (GRAINS l< GRAMS >l
/LB)
1 Z MEAN 0.2-5 2.10 0.94 399. 22.1 29.25 52.66 n.91 0.76 1.07 1.84 10.38 743. 753. 731. 9.6 -12.4
STu. PEV 0.0>.12 0.06 7.41 O.'.i
1 1 MEiN O.UO 1.80 0.96 396. 22.2 29.16 7».70 1.00 O.rtl 1.35 2.16 9.94 739. 751. 72h. 12.- -10.4
3 2 MEAN 0.270 2.35 1.11 397. 22.1 28.80 «0.15 1.02 1.09 1.73 2.82 13.49 736. 753. 728. 17.2 -7.5
ST-). OEV 0.000 0.212 .021 3. U.I 0.043 0.455 0.002 O.T3 0.30 0.28 0.95 0.0 0.0 2.55 n.21 2.-8
C.V. % 0.1 9.0 1.9 0.7 u.6 0.1 0.57 0.20 2.6 17.5 9.8 7.02 0.0 0.0 0.35 1.24 o.o
* 2 MEAN 0.240 1.85 1.3? 396. 21.4 29.11 80.36 J.03 3.(4 3.11 6.25 19.34 739. 7hO. 730. 21.0 -9.1
STO. DEV O.U 0.071 .064 0. 0.0 0.155 0.670 0.003 O.T8 0.04 0.34 0.20 1.00 0.0 0.71 0.24 n.»9
C. . * 0.0 3.A tt.f* 0.0 0.0 0.5 u..-)3 0.32 12.2 1.4 5.4 1.02 0.14 :>.0 0.10 1.3-* O.-i
6 2 MEAN 0.335 2.10 1.3? 411. 20.6 29.16 71.21 0.98 2.^2 2.66 5.59 20.02 744. 761. 733. 16.7 -11.1
STD. DEV O.)21 0.0 .04? 3. u.l 0.011 3.023 0.014 0.13 0.12 0.25 0.02 0.71 .09 0.19 O.d4 0."
3 2 M£4N 0.250 2.10 l.O^ 411. 21.4 29.06 75.30 1.00 2.?7 1.96 4.23 1-.94 739. VS6. 72O. 17.0 -13.7
STO. CEV O.Orja 0.424 .01» fl. H.4 0.141 2.909 0.014 0.?9 0.30 0.59 2.00 1.73 2.35 1.00 0.71 0.^9
C.». * 11.3 20.2 1.3 1.9 1.7 0.5 3.86 1.37 12.8 15.2 13.9 13.39 0.23 'J.31 0.14 4.if, o.,.
NOTES:
1. FUELS A*e: PRINTFO IN THE onotP T^AT THEY WEPE OUN.
2. TOTHC IS T«E TOTAL HYOHOCAKHDNS FMlTTFn KO^ J.3 TRIPS/DAY. (NOT CORRECTED FOR ET.hANOL RESPONSE OF Fl-'.)
TOThC= 3.3«(HC.G/MI)«OISTANCE OsIL » 3.3'rtSL
TriE FUELS USED WERE:
1. INOOLKNE (PVP=9.0). SOURCE: EPA MVEL LA8 FutL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
2. 90. jOl'^CE: HO*ELL HYDWOCARtsUNS (MSEO O^ifP).
6. BLEMOEf) GASOHOL CDNTAlNIN'- lO* tTHA'jOL (? SOURCE: HOwELL HYOMOCAH90NS (MSED
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VfHlCuE EMISSION LABORATORY
A;MN AnBO*. MICHIGAN
TEST RESULTS P&OCESSED: OtC IS- 197*
VEHICLE: OM-SUN8IHO n-rtAY) VIN: S015) INERTIA wT: 3000 ACTUAL HP: 11.4
TEST TYPE: FTP
_.._ . '< --EXHAUST >| |< AMBIENT >ll< SHED >l l< CiNNISU* WFlGnTS >l
FUEL N rtl- CO NOX C02 FE HARQ HUM NfXFC OBL HSL TLOSS TnTHC BDBL A"«L AHSL "OObL DTEV-T
<GPAMS/MILE>i (MPG> UN-HGJ IOPAI-IS i< GSAMS-
l 1 ME -N 0.210 4.50 0.65 428. 2u.4 29.41 6e.«3 0.97 0.61 0.87 1.38 H.56 795. if)7. 79B. 12.0 3.0
2 2 ME&N 0.2JO 4.10 O..ft6 434. 19.4 29.04 6».lo 0.97 0.69 1.88 2.57 12.62 812. *?7. 824. 15.i (2.1
STO. OEV n.0i4 0.141 .04? 10. 0.4 0.155 7.148 0.032 0.07 0.21 0.28 1.12 5.9? -.95 5.92 0.99 o.yl
c«'« * <=«! 3.4 6.4 2.3 2.2 0.5 . « 3.25 10.2 10.9 10.7 H.92 0.73 0.60 0.72 6.36 O..i9
1 1 »EiN 0.2.10 4.90 0.67 424. 2».S 29.09 74.02 1.00 0.56 0.87 1.43 9.14 fllO. i-24. 811. 13.9 1.2
3 2 MEAN 0.335 5.90 0.6<» 4J8. 20.8 28.77 7'».91 1.02 0.79 1.09 1.88 12.69 823. 841. 8^0. 18.3 7.3
STO. DEV O.Osfl 0.141 .007 1. C.I 0.070 4.679 0.023 0.17 0.07 0.24 0.15 4.64 *.69 4.69 0.07 O.J7
C.i/. % b.3 . 2.4 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 S.fl6 2.25 21.5 6.5 12.8 1.14 0.56 fi.56 0.57 u.3« n.-8
4 2 MEAN 0.360 6.4Q 0.71 416. 20.1 28.89 77.26 1.01 1.13 2.06 3.19 16.85 824. . r,46. 859. 21.9 15.1
ST'J. OEV 0.0-57 0.707 .014 3. (,.1 0.085 3.107 0.015 0.?4 0.04 0.28 1.80 6.00 5,00 1.87 u.99 <..<3
C. 430. 19.3 29.13 77.13 1.01 1.10 2.34 3.64 21.37 835. "55. 845. 20.2 9.8
STO. DEV 0.071 0.283 .014 5. 0.2 0.016 l.a*,0 0.009 O.n8 0.7fi 0.71 ft.72 0.71 UOO 1.00 0.64 l.-l
C.v. * 14.1 3.8 l.Q 1.2 1.1 0.1 2.54 0.92 6.0 33.6 19.4 3.37 0.08 a.12 0.12 J.lh l!..-3
3 2 ME4N 0.290 5.75 0.74 428. 2i>.3 29.03 77.<.9 1.01 0."J4 1.16 2.10 11.95 H34. r53. 840. 19.3 6.3
STO. CEV 0.0 0.071 .014 6. 0.3 0.155 2.9H2 0.014 0.03 0.0« 0.06 .1.27 1.87 ^.35 3.hi 0.49 I .'0
C../. * 0.0 1.2 l.i 1.5 1.4 .0.5 3.45 1.42 3.0 7.3 2.7 2.26 0.22 ';.27 0.-3 2.S7 2t-.-4
NOTES:
l. FUELS AHt PRINTED IN THE OROC.R THAT THFY wERri PUN.
2. TOTHC Ib THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS FMITTEO FOR j.3 T»IPS/OAY. (NOT CORRtCTED FOR ETnANOL RESPONSE OF FIlD
TOTHC= 3.3«(HC,G/MI)«OISTANCE * OBL » 3.3°HSL .
THE FUELS USED HERE: . ... .
1. INOOLENE (RV"»9.0). SOURCE: FPA MVFL LAH FuEL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
2. 90* I^DOl.ENE * 10» ETHANOL (OVP=9.3). SOUHCF: BLENDED USING FUEL NO. 1 AND 20(> PROOF ETHANOL AT E'-'A i
3. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE . SOURCE: HOWFLL HYDROCARBONS
-------
Al PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VKnlCLE. FMISSION LABORATORY
ANN AkdO*« MICHIGAN
PROGRAM
AVERAOt TFST RESULTS PWOCtSStU: utC 15.
VEHICLE: >iM REGAL »2 O-WAY) VIN: 48257 INERTIA «T: 3500 . ACTUAL HP:
TEST TYPE: KTo
l< EXHAUST >| |< A.-8IENT >|l< SHED >l l< iC.'.NNISTEK KF.l'.HTS >l
FuEt- N -i IIM-HGI (GRAINS i< GRAMS-
/LH)
3 2 MEAN 0.3->0 8.35 1.19 462. 18.6 29.36 76.14 1.01 3.63 1.14 4.77 17.06 956. 975. 9bb. 20.0 -0.3
STO. OEV 0.028 1.061 .028 0. 0.1 0.090 1.369 0.006 0..39 0.13 0.25 n.65 1.58 n.71 2.65 0.7b I."6
c">' * '-3 12-7 14.9 0.0 0.4 0.3 1.80 0.64 10.7 11.7 5.3 3.80 0.17 o.07 0.28 J.90 0...
4 2 MEaN 0.41,5 7.90 n.2<^ 459. l*.l 29.29 70.54 0.98 5.47 1.66 7.14 21.95 957. 981.. 960. 8 0.99 £.(16 0.84 2.90 14.69 934. V49. 930. 15.3 -3.9
2 2 MEaN O.J15 6.35 0.?4 462. la.I 29.09 80.39 1.03 2.46 1.35 3.81 1«.73 937. 956. 9-P. 18.a 2.7
STO. OEV 0.01.7 0.212 .014 1. u.Q 0.474 »««». 0.061 0.33 0.07 0.25 0.26 2.35 4.06 1.00 1.77 l.U
c- ' * 2.2 3.3 5.9 n.2 .1.1 1.6 « 5.90 13.2 5.2 6.7 1.75 0.2S n.43 0.11 i.4j 41.,1
1 1 MEiN O.JaO 7.60 0.?? 469. lh.4 . 29.58 74.91 1.00 1.77 1.12 2.89 14.13 939. V54. 934. |4.^ -5.5
NOTES:
1. ^UELS AH£ PRINTED IN TH£ ORDtR THAT THEY wEHt RUN.
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EMITTED FOP J.l TRIPS/OAY. (NOT COHRiLCTEO FOR ETHANOL RtSPONit OF Fl..)
TOTHC= 1.3*(HC.G/««I)»OISTANl.E * 0«L » 3.3««SL
THE FUELS USED WERE?
1. iNOOLi'NE «JVP=9.0I. SOURCE: FPA MVTL LKS FUtL IN U?E FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
?. 90% INOOLENE « 10* ETHANOL (RVP«9.3). SOUrtC-; BLENOFO USING FUEL t.O. 1 AND 200 PROOF tTHANOL AT E^A MVI
?. COMMERCIAL .GASOLINE (Rvp=io.o>. SOURCF. : ^>;<«FLL HYDROCARBONS IMSEO OROERI.
4. 90» F'JFL NO. 3 * 104 ETHAMOL IPVP»10.7)\ SOlwCE: NOVELL HYOROCARaoNS (MSEC OHOEP) .
*. BLENOtO GASCHOL CONTAlNINu 10* ETHANOL (WvPslO.O). SOURCE I HOrfELL HYDROCARBON} (MSEC
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE FMISSION LABORATORY
AfoN ARBORt MICHIGAN
GASOHOL PROGRAM
AVERAGE TEST RESULTS
VEHICLE: FORD MAVERICK 1
1 2 ME&N
STT. OEV
C.v. 91
2 2 MEAN
STD. DEV
C.V. %
2 2 ME4N
STO. DEV
C.v. ft
4 2 ME4N
STO. DEV
C.v. *
6 3 MEAN
STO. DEV
C.v. %
3 2 ME4N
STD. OEV
C.v. *
0.660
0.uS7
8.6
0.7JO
0.099
13.6
O.d3n
0.001
0.1
0.825
0.035
0.3
1.570
0.7*8
50.8
0.7dO
0.0-»2
5.0
5.05
1.061
21.0
3.50
0.707
20.2
9.00
0.283
3.0
4.75
0.495
10.4
8.20
3.070
02.3
7.05
0.636
9.0
1.3ft 507.
.00? U.
3.1 1.6
1.06 535.
.071 0.
O.rt 0.7
1.3« 539.
.010 0.
1.0 0.0
1.55 535.
.035 4.
2.3 0.7
1.55 541.
.095 7.
6.1 1.3
1.00 550.
.085 6.
6.1 1.0
... » I
FE
(MPG)
lb.9
0.2
1.3
15.8
O.o
lb.9
0.0
0.1
15.8
0.1
0.0
15.3
0.0
0.1
15.8
u.2
1.3
1 <-. AMPIE'MT > \
flARO HUM NnxFC
(1N-HG)
29.32
0.212
0.7
29.13
0.169
0.6
28.78
0.071
0.2
29.11
0.170
0.6
29.11
0.072
0.2
28.97
0.063
0.2
(GRAINS
/LH)
63.15
5.548
8.78
72.27
0.568
0.79
80.30
1.617
2.10
82.54
1.930
2.30
70.20
3.506
..72
82.07
0.985
6.00
0.95
0.023
2.07
0.99
0.002
0.25
1.03
0.008
O.ttl
1.04
0.010
0.94
1.00
0.016
1.03
1.04
0.025
2.03
INERTIA vn :
FTP
l< SHED >l
OflL HSL TLOSS TOTHC
0.35 0.75 1.10 19.10
0.10 0.0 0.10 1.62
28.3 0.0 9.0 «.47
1.73 1.27 3.01 20.01
0.79 0.36 I. IS 0.05
05.8 28.3 38.0 Id. 53
3.o8 1.40 4.88 28.69
0.35 0.09 0.26 0.28
10.2 6.5 5.4 0.99
6.05 3.4R 9.53 37.95
0.35 2.23 2.57 6.78
5.7 63.9 27.0 17.87
6.31 1.97 8.28 51.79
0.51 0.21 0.68 16.74
8.1 10.7 8.2 36.19
2.67 1.23 3.90 26.03
1.53 0.24 1.77 1.30
57.2 19.5 05.3 5.00
3500
1 «
BOBL
703.
10.89
1.47
759.
7.25
0.95
762.
1.41
0.19
769.
3.67
0.08
771.
2.52
0.33
759.
5.66
0.75
PROCESSED: DEC is. 1973
ACTUAL HP: 9.7
.CaNNi;
A08L
755.
10.44
1.38
772.
o.Sl
1.10
777.
2.00
0.26
783.
3.24
0.41
780.
1.91
0.20
776.
3.94
0.51
;TER ws
AHSL
733.
7.91
1.08
750.
o.2o
0.56
754.
2.74
0.36
767.
0.0
0.0
765.
o'.zi
755.
1.22
0.16
:IOHTS-
OOBL
12.5
0.02
3.39
12.6
1.27
10.10
10.7
0.57
3.85
14.3
0.09
3.07
12.9
0.79
6.15
17,0
1.70
9.98
.-_->)
OTEST
.9.6
2.97
.5.8
3.U4
O.u
-7.8
1.20
O.il
-1.8
O.U
-6.1
l.nO
0.0
-0.0
0.^4
NOTES:
1. FUELS AKE PRINTED IN THE ORDER THAT THEY wERc RUN.
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS FMITTED FOR ).3 TRIPS/DAY. (NOT CORRECTED FOR EThANOL RESPONSE OF Fli;.)
TOTHC= 3.3«(HC,G/MI)«UISTANCE » DBL 3.3«HSL
THE FUELS USEC WERE:
1. INOOLENE . souRct: HO«FLL HYDROCARBONS IMSED ORDER).
o. 90* FUEL NO. 3 » 10% ETHANOL (Rvp=io.7>. SOURCE: HO^ELL HYDROCARBONS
-------
VEHICLE: FORD PINTO l |< A«9IENT >ll< SHED >l l<- CaNNISTER WEIGHTS >l
HC CO NO.x C02 FE BARO HUM NOXFC DHL HSL TLOSS TOTHC BDBL Ar;HL AHSL OUBL DTEST
i<GRAMS/MILE->i IIN-HOI(GRAINS
-GRAMS-
1 2 MEAN 0.515 2.40 1.64 378. 23.1 29.25 52.66 0.91 1.07 0.58 1.65 15.64 783. 792. 772. 9,2 -10.8
STil. DEV 0.007 0.283 .064 1. o.l 0.296 »«««« 0.046 0.12 0.04 0.08 0.15 4.06 3.39 3.24 0.71 0.78
C.V. * 1.4 11.8 3.9 0.4 0.3 1.0 «»« 5.10 11.2 7.3 4.7 0.96 0.52 0.43 0.42 7.69 Q.J
2 3 MEAN 0.473 1.90 1.87 373. 22.7 29.13 72.29 0.99 1.12 0.79 1.91 15.38 782. 7=2. 766. 10.6 -15.6
STO. DEV 0.0b9 0.361 .10= 3. 0.2 0.108 4.002 0.018 0.33 0.07 0.38 1.50 1.00 2.16 10.70 1.31 11.23
C.-'. 9i 12.4 19.0 5.* 0.7 0.9 0.4 5.54 1.64 29.6 8.5 20.2 9.76 0.13 0.27 1.40 12.J5 O.C
3- 1 MElN 0.650 3.50 1.79 378. 23.0 28.83 80.47 1.03 1.37 0.65 2.02 19.56 783. 795. 759. 12.1 -24.1
4 2 MEAN 0.6CO 2.65 1.89 377. 22.4 29.11 80.36 1.03 2.63 0.90 3.53 2o.45 785. hfll. 778. 16.0 -6.2
STO. DEV O.OS7 0.636 .001 7. 0.4 0.155 0.670 0.003 0.40 0.08 0.31 1.20 1.73 'i.7l l.M 1.13 0.28
C.V. * 9.4 24.0 0.1 1.'9 1.6 0.5 0.83 0.32 15.1 9.4 8.8 5.88 0.22 0.09 0.18 7.07 Q.u
6 2 MEAN 0.760 2.70 1.99 397. 21.2 29.16 71.21 0.98 1.89 1.03 2.93 24.03 783. 799. 775. 16.3 -8.2
STO. DEV 0.028 0.566 .049 6. 0.3 0.011 3.023 0.014 O.ll 0.01 0.11 0.69 1.22 2.12 0.71 3.75 1.41
C.V. % 3.7 21.0 2.5 1.4 1.3 0.0 4.24 1.40 6.0 0.7 3.6 2.88 0.16 0.27 0.09 22.92 0.'<
3 2 MEAN 0.605 3.45 1.9ft 396. 22.0 29.06 75.30 1.00 1.55 0.88 2.42 19.37 777. 797. 770. 20.1 -7.0
STO. OEV O.OJ5 0.071 .04? 2. 0.1 0.141 2.909 0.014 0.37 0.11 0.47 0.12 1.00 0.71 0.0 1.9B 0.*5
C.V. % 5.8 2.0 2.2 0.5 0.6 0*5 3.86 1.37 23.7 12.1 19.5 0.64 0.13 0.09 0.0 V.aS 0.»
NOTES:
1. FUELS ARE PRINTED IN THE ORDER THAT THEY WERc PUN.
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EMITTED FOB J.3 TRIPS/DAY. (NOT CORRECTED FOR ET*ANOL RESPONSE OF Flit.)
TOTHC= 3.3«(HC,G/MI)«DISTANCE * 08L » 3.3»HSL
THE FUELS USED WERE:
1. INOOLENE (HVP=9.0). SOURCE: EPA MVEL L48 FUEL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
a. 909S HOOLENE 10* ETHANOL (OVP=9.3). SOUrtCr: BLENDED USING FUEL NO. 1 AND 200 PROOF ETHANOL AT E^A MVE
3. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE (RVP=10.0). SOUTt: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS (MSEO ORDER).
4. 90* F'.JEL NO. 3 10* ETHANOL (RVP=10.7). SOURCE: HOwELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED ORUER) .
6. BLENDED GASOHOL CONTAININO 10* ETHANOL . SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS (MSEO ORDER).
-------
VEHICLE: GM-IMPALA (Ox-C)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
ANN AHBOfi. MICHIGAN
GASOHOL PROGRAM
AVERAGE TEST RESULTS
PROCESSED: DEC is. 1973
VIN: 8HU42 INERTIA HT: <,ooo ACTUAL HP: 13..1
TEST TYPE: FTP
FUEL N
X EXHAUST >l l< AMBIENT >ll< SHED >l l< CflNNISTEP WEIGHTS >l
HC CO NOX C02 FE BARO HUM NOXFC DBL MSL TLOSS TOTHC BDBL A! HL AHSL DOBL OTEST
KGRAMS/MILE>l (MPG) (IN-HG) (GRAINS
X-
-GRAMS-
1 1 MEAN 0.400 6.20 1.61 603. 14.4 29.20 69.34 0.97 0.94 1.42 2.36 15.36 895. 909. 887. 13.6 -8.1
2 I MEAN 0.390 3.30 1.31 609. 13.9 29.21 70.95 0.98 0.77 1.56 2.33 15.49 878. P98. 8B4. 20.1 6.0
3 2 MEAN 0.500 6.35 U80 &03. 14.4 29.38 75.99 1.01 1.77 1.47 3.24 18.95
c-rn ncu « nlA A 31D noi I iin AnoiA Ac"* n nl-a n ii ft A/, A to n AC
MEAN 0.500 6.35 I'.KO 6o3. 14.4 29.38 75.99 1.01 1.77 1.47 3.24 18.95 897. <*20. 894. 23.2 -3.1
STO. DEV 0.014 0.212 .021 I. 0.0 0.083 6.853 0.033 0.14 0.04 0.18. 0.65 0.71 0.0 0;u O.I* 0.71
C.V. % 2.fl 3.3 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 9.02 3.23 8.X( 2.9 5.7 3.42 0.08 0.0 0.0 0.61 0."
4 2 ME«N 0.*95 5.10 l.4« 610. 13.8 29.31 73.71 0.99 3.45 1.84 5.30 21.76 90<». ^32. 90?. 27.6 2.8
STO. DEV 0.092 1.131 .001 0. 0.0 0.113 1.369 0.006 0.?3 0.04 0.27 l,.9l 1.00 2.00 2.65 0.85 1.63
C.V. % 18.6 22.2 0.0 0^0 0.1 0.4 1,86 0.64 6.8 1.9 < 5.1 f.77 0.11 0.21 0.29 3.07 57.u7
6 3 MEAN 0.543 ,5.50 1.5? 624. 13.5 29.13 72.76 n.99 4.16 2.03 6.18 24.22 902. "*29. 903. 26.8 0.4
STO. OEV 0.0*6 0.400 .00»> 9. 0.2 0.081 7,461 0.034 1.55 O.OS 1.59 2.72 3.21 4.28 2.92 3.74 p.u2
C.V. <* 8.5 7.3 0.4 1.4 1.3 0.3 »*« 3.44 37.2 2.4 25.7 11.24 0.36 ".46 0.32 13.V9 96."6
3 1 M£AN
0.470 6.80 1.76 604. 14.4 29.04 69.57 0.98 2.26 1.43 3.69 lh.53 902. <*26. 900. 24.5 -2.3
NOTES l
1. FUELS ARE PRINTED IN THE ORDtP THAT THEY WERt RUN.
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EMITTED FOR J.3 TRIPS/DAY. (NOT CORRECTED FOR ETH&NOL RESPONSE OF Fin.}
TOTHC= 3.3*(HC.G/MI)«01STANCE DBL » 3.3«HSL
THE FUELS USED WERE:
1. INOOLENE (RVP=9.0). SOURCE! EPA MVEL LAO FUEL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION
2. 90% INOOLENE » 10* ETHANOL <9vp=9.3>. SOU^CF: BLENDED USIMG FUEL MO. i AND 200 PROOF ETHANOL AT E^A MVEI
3. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE (RvP=10.0). SOURCi: HOxELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED ORDER).
4. 90% FuEL NO. 3 « 10% ETHANOL (RVP=10.7>. SOURCE: HOwELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED OKO£R).
6. BLENDED GASOHOL CONTAINING 10* ETHANOL (RVP=10.0>. SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS (MSEO ORo£f<>.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
ANN AK80R. MICHIGAN
GASOHOL PROGRA"
AVERAGE TEST RESULTS
PROCESSED: DEC is. 1978
VEHICLEI BlUCK REGAL (OX-C)
VIN: 594* INERTIA WT: 3500 ACTUAL HP: 12.2
TEST TYPE: FTP
FUEL N
|<...F.XHAUST >| |< AMBIENT >|l< SHED ->l l< -CiNNIST£H WrlGHTS >l
HC CO NOX C02 FE BARO HUM NOXFC 08L HSL TLOSS TOTHC 80RL A08L AHSL "DO«L DTEsT
I<GRAHS/MILF->i . SOURCE! EPA MVEL LAB fyEL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING. -.,.
2. 90« INDOLENE * 10* ETHANOL (RVP=9.3). SOURCE: BLENDED USING FUEL NO. 1 AND 200 PROOF ETHANOL AT EPA MVE
3. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE (RVP=10.0). SOURCE: HOwELL HYDROCARBONS (MSEC ORDER).
4. 90t FUEL NO. 3 » 10% ETHANOL (RVP = 10.7). SOUKCE: HO £R>.
6. BLENDED GASOHOL CONTAINING 10* ETHANOL
-------
ENVIROMMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
ANN AHBOR« MICHIGAN
GASOHOL PROGRAM
AVERAGE TEST RESULTS
PROCESSED: DEC 15. 1978
FUEL N
VEHICLE: CHRY. OMNI (OX-C)
MC CO NOx C03
VIN: i
FE BARO
L44Artulc«064
TEST TYPE:
AMBIENT >|
HUM NOXFC
FTP
INERTIA
|< SHED- >l
OBL HSL TLOSS
WT: 2500
TOTHC Sn9L
ACTUAL HP; 7.3
AOBL
STER
AHSL
WEIGHTS >i
DUBL DTEST
l<GRAMS/MILE->i HN-HG) (GRAINS
-GRAMS-
Z 2 MEAN 0.300 8.20 1.3* 318. 25.8 29.04 68.10 0.97 1.55 4.0* 5.61 22.42 562. 574. 570. 12.1 8.1
STQ. n£V 0.014 0.849 .049 0. 0.1 0.155 7.148 0.032 0.()4 1.04 1.00 3.80 1.87 1.00 2.24 0.64 o.*2
C.v. % 4.7 10.3 3.ft 0.0 0.5 0.5 3.25 2.7 25.6 17.8 16.94 0.33 0.17 0.39 5.28 <5.^4
1 I MEAN Qi*«30 12.60 1.03 322. 25.8 29.09 74.02 1.00 1.02 1.57 2.59 16.d5 557. 568. 560. 10.4 3.2
'«*"»'
6.1
3 2 MEAN 0.575 19.55 l.Ofr 321. 25.1 28.77 79.91 1.02 2.70 5.24 7.95 34.17 561. 575. 567. 13.t>
STO. OEV 0.021 0.778 .042 2. 0.3 0.070 4.679 0.023 0.64 0.15 0.49 0.47 1.22 1.41 0.0 0.35 I.u6
C.v. * 3.7 4.0 4.0 0.7 1.1 0.2 5.86 2.25 23.8 2.8 6.2 1.37 0.22 0.25 .0.0 2.61 17.S3
4 2 MEAN 0.340 10.35 1.34 324. 25.1 29.10 76.55 1.01 3.4910.1013.59 4S.24 563. 57B. 574. !<..« n.3
STO. DEV 0.042 1.909 .07] 7. 0.3 0.212 2.104 0.010 0.^5 0.44 0.69 r,.6l 2.35 2.00 1.07 0.28 0.35
C.v. * 12.5 18.4 5.3 2.2 1.1 0.7 2.75.1.00 7.1 4.3 5.0 1.34 0.42 C.35 0.33 1.91 1.14
6 2 MEAN 0.375 8.65 1.44 338. 2*.3 29.13 77.13 1.01 2.15 5.73 8.69 31.11 562. 575. 571. 13.4 9.2
STO. OEV 0.021 0.213 .035 1. 0.1 0-Olh 1.960 0.009 0.10 0.08 0.23 0.67 2.00 1.87 0.71 0.28 1.S6
C.V. * 5.7 2.5 2.4 0.2 0.6 0.1 2.54 0.92 10.3 1.4 2.6 2.17 0.36 0.33 0.12 2.11 !'.->!
3 2 MEAN . SOURCE: HO^ELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED OK^EP).
*. BLENUtD GASOHOL CONTAINING 10* ETHANOL (RvPrlO.O). SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED OROEH).
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
ANN ARBORt MICHIGAN
OASOHOL PROGRAM
AVERAGE TEST RESULTS
PROCESSED: DEC 15. 197
VEHICLE.1 ^LY. SALON (OX-C)
pHilorta206799
TEST TYPE: FTP
INERTIA WT! 4500
ACTUAL HP: 12.3
FUEL N
)<-... EXHAUST >l |< AMRIENT >ll< SHED >l l< C-NNISTER WEIGHTS >l
HC CO NOX C02 FE BARO nUM NoxFC 08L HSL TLOSS TOTHC BORL ADSL AHSL, DDBL DTEST
<GRAMS/MILF.->| (VPG) (IN-HG) (GRAINS
/LH)
-GRAMS-
\ I MEAN
I). 77Q 17.10 1.6S 6Q7. 13.9 29.24 72.28 0.99 1 . «9 1.06 2.95 24.26 744. 76&. 743. 15.7 -1.0
2 1 MEAN O.S30 8.80 1.93 613. 13.6 29.04 76.27 J.01 2.34 1.61 4.45 21.24 742. 762. 754. 19.d 11.2
3 2 MEAN 0.765 17.10 l.«5 609. 13.9
STO. OEV 0.007 0.0 .007 1. 0.0
C.w. IS 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1
29.36 76.14 1.01
0.090 1.369 0.006
0.3 1.80 0.64
5.87 1.40 7.27 Z*.<*0 758. 777.
0.18 0.40 0.48 0.32 0.0 0.71
14.9 28.3 6.6 1.09 0.0 0.09
760i;., J«.«IO 2.3
2.2fr.s 0.07 f \ .-1
0.29 0.36 84. MS
4. 2 MEAN 0.5*0 9.90 2.14 609. 13.6
STO. OEV 0.001 0.566 .0?.* 1. 0.1
C.v. * 0.2 5.7 1.3 0.2 0.5
29.29 70.54 Q.98 10.06 2.3812.43 33.54 765. 785.
0.120 3.32<» 0.015 0.0 0.16 0.16 0.56 3.46 2.45
0.* <«.71 1.53 0.0 6.8 1.3 1.72 0.45 0.31
T.Tftif- O. 1 30 8.8
1.87.-1.06 M.-8
0.24 5.29 l~./8
6 2 MEAN 0.7hO 11.55 2.19 634. 13.1
STO. OEV 0.071 1.344 .07] 2. 0.1
C.V. * 9.3 11.6 3.2 0.3 1.1
29.12 73.<36 1.99
0.098 1.855 0.009
0.3 2.51 0.86
9.?8 l.86ll.l* 34. !6 763. 782.
0.65 0.03 0.68 1.14 1.73 0.0
7.0 1.5 6.1 3.33 .0.23 0.0
767. 18. 8. . . 3.5
.0.0 .,1.00 rl..i6
0.0 5.66 29. £8
3 2 MEAN 0.960 21.25 1.63 618. 13.5
STO. DEV 0.014 0.778 .021 1. U.I
C.V. % 1.6 3.7 1.3 0.1 ".5
29.02 73.91 1.00
0.091 4.103 0.019
0.3 5.55 1.92
5.-J5 1.45 7.40 31.91 754. 775.
0.59 0.16 0.74 0.76 2.45 0.71
9.9 10.7 10.0 2.38 0.32 0.09
'757*K;, 40>. 7 3,2
0. 71.. ,#.55 2."0
0.09 12.30 9?.ti3
NOTES: >!-' .-.>£ ?:,'
1. FUELS ARE PRINTED IN THE ORDER THAT THEY WERE PUN. .; -...; :: >
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EMITTED FOR .i.3 TRIHS/OAY. (NOT CORRECTED FOR EThANOL RESPQNSt ,OF Flo.)
TOTHC= J.3«(HC,GXMI)«OISTANCE * DBL » 3.3»HsL ;,, '. V-.i. L'-
THE FUELS USED WERE:
1. INOOLENE (9VP=<).0). SOUHCE: EPA MVEL L48 fUEL IN USE F0j;>'} t
2. 90* liNOOLENE » 10T ETMANOL (PVP=9.3) . SOU^Cr! BLENDED USING FUEL NO. 1 AND 200 PROOF ,iTH/»«iOL AT
3. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE (WVP=10.0). SOURCt: Hu*ELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED ORDER). ' - "...
4. 90* FUEL NO. 3 10« ETHANOL (RVP=10.7>. SOURCE: HO-vELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED OROER). .","n_-c.-
«>. BLENDED GASOHOL CONTAINING 10* ETHANOL (»VP=IO.O>. SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS IMSEO
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
ANN ArlBlXt MICHIGAN
GASOHOL PROGRAM
AVERAGt TEST RESULTS
PROCESSED* DEC 15. 1978
VEHICLE: TOY. COROLLA (OX-C) VlNt 79-F£-.< INERTIA WT: 2500 ACTUAL HP; Q.O
TEST TYPE: FTP
FUEL N
|< ^.--.-EXHAUST >l l< ArtfllENT >ll< SHED >l l< CANNISTER WEIGHTS >l
.MC CO NOx C02 FE BARO HUM NfixFC DBL HSL TLOSS TOTHC 80RL A06L AHSL DOBL DTEST
I<-.-GRAMS/HILE>i IMPGI(IN-HGI(GRAINS
AH)
-GRAMS-
1 1 ME-1N 0.550 7.10 1.0ft 336. 36.2 29.24 72.2B 0.99 0.98 0.60 1.58 16.53 1427. 1435. 1423. 8.1 -3.5
' * c . '". *
2 1 MEAN 0.570 4.90 1.36 326. 25.5 29.04 76.27 1.01 0.92 0.67 1.59 17.28 1425. 1435. 1422. 10.4 -2.4
3 2 MEAN 0.775 8.85 1.27 336. 25.2 29.32 73..J5 0.99 1.39 0.89 2.28 23.50 1426. 1*38. 1425. 11.6 -1.5
STO. OEV SO.05 0.99 3.04 22.91 1425. 1440. 1424. 15.1 -0.3
STO. OEV,-0'iOS7>0.0 ,014 I. u.l 0.112 1.641 0.008 0.12 0.11 0.23 0.96 0.0 0.0 1.00 O.S7 n.->2
C.V.1* '.d.6' 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 2.28 0.77 5.9 10.7 7.4 A.18 0.0 0.0 0.07 3.75 n.n
6 2 MEAN O.dOO 6.70 1.47 338. 24.3 29.07 74.69 1.00 l.fll 1.20 3.01 25.60 1422. 1434. 1420. 12.7 -1.6
STO. OEV 0.001 0.283 .014 3. 0.2 0.112 0.188 0.001 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.0 1.00 0.0 1.71 O.o7
C.V. % '. 0.1 4.2 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.25 0.10 5.5 5.3 1.2 n.22 0.0 0.07 0.0 5.57 n.O
- \ ' , .
3 2 MEAN 0.730 9.30 1.01 339. 24.9 29.07 79.67 1.02 1.53 1.03 2.57 24.23 1421. 1433. 1421. 12.3 0.3
STO. OEV ,0'^>028'0.142 .34ft 4. 0.2 0.069 8.943 0.044 0.19 0.02 0.17 0.78 0.0 1.00 0.0 0.21 1..14
C.v. % '.'io3.6- 1.5 34.1 1.0 0.8 0.2 ««* 4.30 12.4 2.0 6.6 3.20 0.0 0.07 0.0 1.72 »
NOTES:
1. FUELS ARE PRINTED IN THE ORDER THAT THEY WEWE PUN.
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EMITTED FQH 3.3 TRIPS/DAY. (NOT CORRECTED FOR ET.-ANOL RESPONSE OF Flc.l
TOTHC^" ->.'3»(HC,G/MI)»OISTANCE « DBL » 3.3»niL
THE FUELS USED WERE:
1. INOOLENE (RVP=9.0). SOURCE: F.PA MVEL LAB FUEL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
2. 9o*. INOOLENE « 10* ETHANOL (Rvp=9.3i. source: BLENOFD USING FUEL NO. i AND 200 PROOF ETHANOL AT EPA
3. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE (RVP=10.0). SOURCE: H-JWELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED ORDER).
4. 90% FUEL NO. 3 10* ETHANOL (RVP=10.7). 50u«CE: HOwELL HYDROCARBONS (MSEO OR'.'ER) .
6. BLENOEO GASOHOL CONTAINING 10* ETHANOL (RVP=IO.O). SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS IMSED UROEK».
------- |