EPA-AA-TAEB-79-4B
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
February 1980
-------
Feb. 80
-2-
Addendum
A. Gasohol Waiver Decision
Since the completion of the test program described in this report, EPA
has acted to allow the use of 10% ethanol in gasoline. Future control
of this or other fuel additives is authorized under Section 211 of the
1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act.
B. Air Quality Impact of 100% Gasohol Use
Because of the net increase in HC emissions, (caused by a large increase
in evaporative HC emissions) use of gasohol produced by adding ethanol
to finished gasoline is predicted to cause slightly greater than a 3%
increase in oxident levels and a decrease in ambient CO levels of 27% in
1985, dropping to 5% by 1990 relative to ambient levels if gasohol were
not used.
These predictions are based on the assumptions that:
1. 100% of the fuel used in a given air quality region is gasohol.
This could occur if state tax incentives attract more gasohol to that
state than would otherwise be used.
2. Three-way catalyst vehicles with feedback fuel systems predominate
the market starting in 1981.
3. Gasohol production by adding ethanol to finished gasoline without
adjusting base fuel volatility continues.
4. No effort is made by auto manufacturers to improve evaporative HC
emission control to compensate for the increased volatility of gasohol.
C. Other Changes to this Report:
1. Test vehicle information has been consolidated to a single table in
Appendix C.
2. A figure summarizing the emissions data for the eleven test vehicles
(7 oxidation catalyst vehicles and 4 three-ways) is included in this
addendum.
-------
09
-------
-4-
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.
2/ Sec. 211(f)(4) of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments
-------
-5-
4. Evaporative emissions contained about 0.6 grams Ethanol and 3.3 to
5.4 grams HC (as GIL oc) with the gasohol fuels.—'
1. o j
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.
-------
-6-
The complete test procedure is 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
-------
-7-
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.
-------
-8-
FIGURE 1. COMPARISIONS OF DISTILLATION CURVES OF TEST FUELS
420
IBP
j
50
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)
-------
-9-
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
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
H Q
33 '°
i *6
1 .4
.2
0
•
•
"
•
•
•
•
1
HC 16
14
12
10
H Q
*PH Q
J2 6
o
2
.
co 2>1
1.8
1.5
1 .9
•
-
•
H
"^ .9
*i
g -6
.3
J r>
NO 25
^
23
•
^
,
'
21
O in
pL 19
17
1 1 C
V
FE
.
•
I
2346 12346 12346 12346
FUELS* FUELS FUELS FUELS
5
4
3
EVAPORATIVE HC EMISSIONS
DIURNAL
12346
FUELS
HOT SOAK
12346
FUELS
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
5
0
TOTAL HC
o
12346
FUELS
k
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
1.4
1.2
a
w > 8
<£ /•
0
.4
.2
0
1 HC
14
12
M10
g
^fl ^
•rf /*
o
r f '" 4
K 2
4 n
r 2-i
CO
1.8
1.5
gl.2
wJ
VI n
-------
FIGURE 5. AVERAGE EMISSIONS OF 7 1978-79 OXIDATION CATALYST VEHICLES.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
o
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
r 16
HC 14
12
H 10
s
•
-
CO 8
2 6
4
2
_J o
r 2.1
CO
h 1.8
1 S
"
•
S 1 2
•3 • -^
.6
.3
_i 0
r 25
NOX
*
»
-
™
23
21
o
i
^ in
iy
17
u-l 15
p.
FE
•
-
•
,
12346 12346 12346 12346
*
FUELS FUELS FUELS FUELS
N3
I
5
4
3
2
1
0
DIURNAL
EVAPORATIVE HC EMISSIONS
234
FUELS
5
4
3
a 2
1
0
HOT SOAK
234
FUELS
8
7
6
5
o 3
2
1
0
TOTAL SHED
2346
FUELS
Fuels: 1. Indolene.
2. Indolene plus 10% Ethanol
3. Commercial Gasoline
4. 90% Fuel 3 plus 10% Ethanol
6. Blended Gasohol containing
10 % Ethanol
51
CO
40
35
30
"
20
I 15
0 10
5
0
TOTAL HC
12346
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
•
H
*
C
246
133
Fuel Ratio
200 r
150
% 100
50.
246
133
Fuel Ratio
200
150
% 100
50
0
CO
til
2 4 6
133
Fuel Ratio
EVAPORATIVE HC EMISSIONS
200
150
% 100
50
0
NO,
246
133
Fuel Ratio
246
133
Fuel Ratio
246
133
Fuel Ratio
200
150
% 100
50
0
FE
246
133
Fuel Ratio
' DIURNAL 2°°
.
•
•
^
TSD
% 100
50
0
• HOT SOAK 2°°
•
••
*"] i ™
% 100
50
0
TOTAL SHED
•
•
200
150
% 100
50 -
TOTAL HC
Fuels: 1. Indolene 4. 90% Fuel 3 plus 10% Ethanol
2. Indolene plus 10% Ethanol 6. Blended Gasohol containing
3. Commercial Gasoline 10% Ethanol
2 4 6/
133
Fuel Ratio
Exhaust plus Evaporative
Emissions for 3.3 trips
per day.
-------
-14-
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
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
ANN ArfrtOR, MICHIGAN
TABLE 1
GASOHOL PHO'iMAM DATA SUMMARY
CATALYST TYPtIS: 3-WAYS
NUMBER OF VtHlCLESi
MEANS OF
FUEL
FUEL 1
FUEL 2
FUI-L 3
FUEL 4
FUEL 6
ALL TESTS
N
(19)
(21)
(M)
(21)
(25)
HC CD NOX
0.'+51 6.61 1.16
0.410 4.J9 1.26
0.535 8.20 1.25
0.490 5.51 1.33
0.665 6. -37 1.38
C02 FE DHL
470. 19.3 1.12
467. 19. (I 1.45
472. 19.1 2.51
46H. 18.8 4.04
482. 18.2 3.93
PROCESSED: DEC 15.
(REVISION A: DEC. 27,
1978
1978)
AND OX-CATS
11
HSL
1.02
1.75
1.63
2.68
2.24
TLOSS
2.14
3.20
4.15
6.72
6.17
TOTHC
15.60
17.35
21.11
24.97
27.76
BDBL
(GRAMS) -
890.
891.
900.
905.
905.
ADBL
904.
907.
919.
927.
924,
AHSL
88S.
89?.
898.
908.
905.
ODBL
13.3
1«>.3
19.4
21.5
19.3
('TEST
-4.9
1.1
-2.1
2.7
0.6
DIFFERENCES HETWEEN MEANS
FUEL f. -
FUEL J -
FUEL 4 -
FUEL 0 -
RATIOS
FUEL 2 /
FUEL 3 /
FUEL 4 /
F'JFL 6 /
FUS-L i
Kill- 1. 1
FUt-L 3
FU»-L 3
OF MfANS (*)
FUEL 1
FU-- I. 1
FUl-L 3
Hlf L 3
-."41 -2.23 0.09
O.nfi4 1.59 0.08
-.045 -2.69 0.08
0.130 -1.63 0.13
91. 61. 108.
119. 12". 107.
92. 67. 106.
1?4. H'J. HI.
-J. -0.4 0.33
2. -0.2 1.39
-4. -0.3 1.53
HI. -0.4 1.41
99. 9P. 129.
100. 9'->. 224.
9-y. 99. 161.
102. 9S. 156.
0.73
0.61
1.04
0.61
171.
160.
164.
137.
1.06
2.00
2.57
2.02
149.
193.
162.
149.
1.76
5.52
3.86
6.65
111.
U5.
118.
U2.
1.
10.
5.
5.
100.
101.
101.
101.
4.
16.
8.
5.
100.
102.
101.
101.
7.
12.
10.
7.
101.
101.
101.
10].
3.0
6.1
2.1
-0.1
122.
1*5.
111.
100.
6.0
2.9
4.8
2.7
-23.
42.
-131.
-29.
Ln
I
NOTES: 1. TOTHC IS TOTAL HC EMISSIONS (i-XHAtlST * LVAPuRaTIVE) FOR 3.3 TRIPS PER DAY.
2. FUEL DFSO-'IPTIONS-
). INDHLFNF (RVP=9.n). SOURCE: EPA MVFL LArt FUEL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
2. 909! IMJOLENE * 10% ETHANOL <°VP=9.3>. SOU.RCt.! HI-ENDED USING FUEL NO. 1 AND 200 PROOF ETHANOL AT t PA MVEL
T. COMMERCIAL OASOLTNE (RVP=10.0). SOURCE: HO ELL HYDROCARBONS (MSF'i ORDER).
t. 90t HJFL NO. .3 + 10* FTHAMOL (RVP=10.7). SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED O-.tlFR).
•'. Bi.-:;:i. m GASOHOL CONTAINING lot ETH/SMOL tr.vp = io.t»>. SOURTF: nowrn. HvoftOCARnOf1; (MSFd
-------
FNVIRONMLNTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
ANN ARBUK. MICHIGAN
Table 2.
MEANS OK ALL TESTS
FUtL
FUt^L
FUEL
FUFL
FUEL
FUEL
1
2
3
4
6
DIFFERENCES
( 9)
(10)
(16)
( 8)
( 9)
BETWEEN MEANS
FUEL ? - FUfcl. 1
FijEl. 3 - H.lr't 1
FUEL *» - KUt'L 3
FUFL 6 - FUI-L 3
HC
CO
GASOHOL PRO'iR.iM DATA SUMMARY PROCESSED: DtC 15. 1978
(REVISION A: DEC. 27, 1978)
CATALYST TYPEJ 3-«/AYS
NUMHEH OF VEHICLES: 4
NOX C<>2 Fh DHL HSL TLOSS TOTHC BOBL ADBL AHsL DURL I'TEST
•(GRAMS/MILE)-
•I (MPG) I-
•(GRAMS)'
0.?62 3.94 0.79 47*. Id.8 1.13 0.95 2.08 10.75 954. 969. 94M. 15.0 -6.4
O.P47 3.?9 n.81 <,7b. 18.j 1.38 1.81 3.19 13.49 958. 976. 959. 1»«3 !•*
0.11^ 4.«54 0.81 479. 18.7 1.96 1.48 3.45 14.6b 971. 993. 96H. 21.7 -2.9
0.114 4.26 0.85 477. 18.2 2.67 2.11 4.79 17.41 977. 1002. 979. 2b.4 2.1
0.445 5.57 0.89 48H. 17.6 2.77 2.26 5.03 21.24 977. 999. 978. 21.9 1.1
-.015 -O.oS 0.03 -<*.
0.053 0.70 0.02 1.
-.001 -0.38 0.04 -3.
0.131 0.93 0.07 9.
-0.5 0.25 0.86 1.11 2.74
-0.1 0.83 0.53 1.36 3.90
-0.5 0.71 0.63 1.34 2.76
-1.1 0.80 0.78 1.58 6.60
3. 6. 11. 3.3 7.8
17. 23. 20. 6.7 3.5
5. 9. lo. 3.7 5.1
6. 6. 10. 0.3 4.0
RATIOS OF MEANS
FUEL ? / FUi-L 1
FUEL 3 / FlJt'L 1
FUEL t / FU»-:L 3
FUEL b / FUI-L 3
94. 83. 103. 99. 98. 122. 190. 153. 125.
120. 11*. 103. 100. lOn. 174. 156. 165. 136.
100. 92. 10S. 99. 97. 136. 142. 139. 119.
142. 120. 109. 102. 94. 141. 152. 146. 145.
100. 101. 101. 122. -21.
102. 102. 10- SOURCE: BLENDED USING FUEL NO. 1 AND 200 PROOF ETHANOL AT tPA MVEL
3. COMMl-.RCIAL GASOLINE (RVP = 10.0). SOURCE: MO'-'ELL HYDROCARBONS (MSEl) ORDER).
4. 90? KUKL NO. 3 » 10% ETH^NOL (RVP=10.7). SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARhONS (MSED Oi. BLENDFO GASOHOL CONTAINING 10% ETHANOL. I-
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
ANN AHHUR, MICHIGAN
Table 3.
GASOHOL PROuR M DATA SUMMARY
PROCESSED: DEC 15. i^/e
CATALYST TYPE: OX-CATS
NUMrtFR UK VEHICLES: 7
MEANS OF
FUFL
FUKL 1
FLIt-L 2
FUKL 3
FUKL 4
FUEL 6
«LL TESTS
N
(10)
(11)
(25)
(13)
(16)
HC CO NOX
1 //~U»|^»C/|ylfl C"|
O.S59 8.14 1.38
O.S03 5.01 1.51
0.661 10.24 1.50
0.^90 6.22 1.60
0.791 7.14 1.66
C02 FF DHL
465. 19.0 1.12
46J. 19.3 1.50
46e. 19.3 2.83
46<+. 19.2 4.82
479. 18.4 ^. 59
HSL
1.06
1.71
1.72
3.00
2.22
TLOSS
2.18
3.21
4.54
7.82
6.82
TOTHC BDBL ADBL AHSL DP»L "TEST
18.37 854. 866. H5o. 12.3 -4.1
19. Sb 853. 868. H54. 15.1 1.0
^4.81 859. 877. «5H. 1H.O -1.6
29.29 865. 884. 86fl. 19.3 3.1
31.49 864. 681. 864. 17.8 0.2
DIFFEMF.NCt:S BETWEEN MEANS
FUEL ^ -
FUFL 3 -
FUEL 4 -
FJtl. fc -
KATIUS
FUEL 2 /
FUFL J /
FUEL t /
FUEL 0 /
FUK.L 1
Hit I. 1
FUEL 3
KUf-L 3
OK .1FANS (-)
FUrL 1
FUKL 1
FUKi 3
KltfL 3
-.056 -3.13 0.13
0.102 2.10 0.12
-.071 -4.02 0.11
0.130 -3.10 0.17
40. 62. 110.
118. 12o. 109.
89. M. 107.
1?0. 70. 111.
-2. -0.3 0.33
J. -0.4 1.71
-4. -0.1 1.99
11. -O.H 1.76
99. 98. 134.
101. 9H. 252.
99. 99. 170.
10^. 96. 102.
0.65
0.66
1.28
0.51
162.
162.
175.
130.
1.03
2.37
3.27
2.27
147.
209.
172.
150.
1.19 -1. 2. 4. 2.8 5.1
6.44 5. 11. 8. 5.7 2.5
4.44 6. 7. 10. 1.2 4.6
6.68 4. 4. 6. -0.2 1.8
107. 100. 100. 101. 122. -24.
135. 101. 101. 101. 146. 39.
118. 101. 101. 101. 107. -195.
127. 101. 100. 101. 94. -14.
NOTES: i. TOTHC is (OTAL HC EMISSIONS (EXHAUST » EVAPORATIVE) FOR 3.3 TRIPS PEW DAY.
F.IFL OEsc^i
1. INDiJl.F.NE (WVP=9.n). SOURCE: EPA MVfc'L L^i FUEL' IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
?. 90? INOOLENE + 10* ETHANOL («VP=9.3). SOUHCK: HLENOEO USING FUEL NU. 1 ANO 2uO PHOOF ETHANOL AT cHA MVEL
3. COMMtPCIAL GASOLINE (WVPMO.O). SOU^Cf : HO, ELL HYDROCARBONS (MSF.U ORDER).
4. 90* FUKL NO. 3 » 10% ETHANOL. (RVP=10.7). SOURCE! HOWELL HYOROCARnONS (MSEC OnfiER).
6. MLE'IJEI) ftASOHOL CONTAINING 10% ETHANOL (HVD=10.0). SOURCE: HOWF.LL HYOROCARBOf -S (MSED
(?:, CUT )K SPECIFICATIONS. NOT USED FOP VFHlCLK TESTS.)
-------
-18-
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-ORD, 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 traps*.
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 CH1 R_ (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
-------
-19-
shows that gasohol increased total hydrocarbon emissions by H 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.
-------
-20-
Appendix A.
Test Procedure
-------
-21-
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)
-------
-22-
Appendix B.
:est Fuel Data
-------
-23-
Typical Fuel Inspection Data
Analyzed Fuel 1 Fuel 2 Fuel 3 Fuel 4 Fuel 5 Fuel 6 Nat'l. Calif.
ITEM by 37 EPA EPA Howell Howell Howell Howell Avg. 2J 2j
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
-I/ 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.
-------
-24-
Appendix C.
Vehicle Specification
-------
VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
Vehicle I.D. 71S42
Vehicle Manu-
facturer Ford
Represented
Car line Thunderbird
Model Year 79
Sales Class Prototype
Inertia Class 4500
Actual HP 13.1
Tire & Rim GR 78x14
Size
Engine w
Family
Engine Dis-
placement 351 cu. in.
Configur-
ation V-8
Catalyst
Type 3-way
Carb. 2 BBL
Comp. Ratio 8.4
Ign. Timing 30 B
Timing RPM 550
Transmission Auto
8Y2-2.3-C-
122
Ford
Bobcat
Wagon
78
Cal. Light
Duty Veh.
3000
10.3
JR 78x13
'2.3 B1TR
80 R80
140 'cu- in
In-line
4
3-way
2BBL
9.0
6 B
650
Man.
4-speed
80153
GM
Sunbird
78
Cal.. Light
Duty Veh.
3000
11.4
A78 x 13
20X2CEU
151 en. in
In-line
4
3-way
2BBL
8.3
14 B
1000
Auto
48257
GM
Regal
78
Cal. Light
Duty Veh.
3500
12.2
P95/75 R14
940E2CYU
232 cu. in.
V-6
3-way
2BBL
8.0
15 B
600
Auto
8B1-302
F-97
Ford
Maverick
78
49 State
Light Duty
3500
9.7
DR 78x14
F302A1X95
302 cu. ii
V-8
OX-C
2BBL
8.4
6B
500
Auto
9E2-2.3
F-85
Ford
Pinto
79
49 State
Light Duty
2750
9.7
A 78x13
2.3A1X92
140 cu. in.
In-line
4
OX-C
2BBL
9.0
6 B
550
Man.
4-speed
88042
GM
Impala
77
49 State
Light Duty
4000
13.3
GR78xl5
910L4-42
350 cu. in.
V-8
OX-C
4BBL
8.2
6B
500
Auto
5944
GM
Regal
78
49 State
Light Duty
3500
12.2
'205/7QR14
940B2
232 cu. in
V-6
OX-C
2BBL
8.0
15 B
600
Auto
ZL44ABD
159064
Chrysler
Omni
78
49 State
Light Duty
2500
7.3
F165/75R13
P6-105-2KA
105 cu. in
In-line
4
OX-C
2BBL
8.2
15 B
900
Auto
RH4168A
206799
Chrysler
Salon
78
49 State
Light Duty
4500
12.3
F78xl5
FD-318-2CA
318 cu. in
V-8
OX-C
2BBL
8.5
16 B
750
Auto
79-FE-3
Toyota
Corolla
79
49 State
Light Duty
2500
9.0
165R13
21-C(F) M
Ul
97cu.in.
In-line
4
OX-C
2BBL
9.0
10 B
900
Man.
5-speed
-------
-26-
Appendix D.
Test Result Tables
-------
-27-
fNVIRONMFNffl.L PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VCHICLt EMISSION LABORATORY
AK'N t^BO^. MICHIGAN
•jASO-iOl.
AVtRAlih. TEST KESULTS
PROCESSED: DEC is. 1978
VEHICLE: fn°o T-RIRO
VIM: 71S42
TFST TYPE: FTC
INERTIA wi: 4500
ACTUAL HP: 13.1
-'UF.L
|<
EXHAUST -------- >| |< ---- AMBIENT --- >|l< ---- SHED ---- >l l< ----- CiNNISTEk HEIGHTS
co NO« co2 FE BAPO nun NOXFC oet HSL TLOSS T-ITHC BOBL AOBL AHSL OUBL
UN-HG) (O-Ptl'-iS
-GP.AMS-
2 ME IN r..?-"^. 1.10 1.3* 6?2. 14.2
ST . PEV fi.i-.s* 0.283 .?=.'- 1. 0.0
C./. * IS. 7 25.7 IB. 7 0.1 ".0
39.32 63. lb i..95
0.21? 5.5«ft 0.023
0.7 c.78 2.^7
l.?9 0.80 2.09
0.45 0.10 0.55
35.1 12.4 26.4
T:i. DEV 0.014 0.283 .001 4. u.l
C.... « 3.1 18.9 0.1 0.6 1.0
28.78 80.30 1.03
0.071 1.667 0.008
0.2 2.10 0.81
2.48 1.70 4.18 IS. 01 1362. 1391. 13b2. 29.0 -9.2
0.51 0.04 0.<»7 0.76 3.67 1.58 2.74 1.98 0.78
20.5 2.1 11.3 5.05 0.27 P. 11 0.20 6.83 0.0
4. 1 MEAN
1.10 1.23 623. 13.7 29.23 SI. I
1.03 1.78 1.88 3.66 15.38 1380. 1414. 136B. 34.0 7.7
3 MEAN 0.3^r. 2.17 1.16 636. 13.3 29.13 73.91 1.00 1.?5 1.97 3.23 17.35 1378. 1-07. 1368. 29.3 -9.4
5T->. DEV 0.1V3 1.172 .OT= 3. o.l 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. * 44.5 54.1 3.0 0.4 c.4 0.1 4.67 1.61 17.1 3.0 ft.8 25.74 0.24 u.12 0.12 13.12 0.0
2 "E.'N O.?7o 1.10 1.2«> 634. 13.9 29.04 7B.66 1.02 1.60 1.65 3.26 13.74 1376. 1<-07. 1370. 30.S -6.2
ST :. DEV O.U14 0.141 .1?7 <,. 0.1 0.162 0.403 0.002 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.31 1.41 1.87 7.18 U.28 9.05
C. . * 3.2 12.9 10.1 0.7 "..5 0.6 0.^1 0.17 2.2 1.3 1.7 2.22 0.10 L.13 0.52 0.92 O.I'
i MEAN O.d--0 0.90 1.1? 635. 1J.4 29.38 71.76 n.99 0.95 1.62 2.57 1?.49 1386. 1-?0. 13o6. 34.1 -0.5
NOTES:
1. FUELS ARE PRINTED IN THE ORDtR THAT THEY WE»t WUN.
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EMITTED FOR j.3 TRIPS/DAY. SNOT CORRECTED FOR ET«ANOL RESPONSE OF Fin.)
TOTHC= J.3«(HC,G/MI>»DISTANCE • D6L • 3.3«HSL
T:-E FUELS o:»ED
1. iKOOLtME (RVP=9.0). SOURCE: FPA MVEL LAe FuEL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
*. 90* l^DOLENE • 10» ETHANOL (RVP=9.3). SoU-*C=-; BLENDED USING FUEL NO. 1 4ND 200 PROOF ET-IANOL AT t»A MVEL
«. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE . SOURCE: HOK/ELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED ORDER).
-•. 90f Fi.iFl. NO. 3 » 10% ETHANiOL (RV°=10.7). 50u^CEt HOvELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED ORi>E").
o. HLENOrD GASOHOL CONTAINING 10» ETHANOL (WvP = l 0.0 ) . ^OUPCf : HOWELL HYDWOCARBON , (MSED
-------
-28-
-'U'JMr r-ll A|_ PROTECTION Ar.£NCY
MOTOP Vl.r^ICLt F.MISsIO) LABORATORY
H'-W flKon^, MlCHTGAN
GASOrtOL P&OSkAM
4Vc»».r»e. TtST i-'uSuLTS
ESi: ,JtC
147-
VEHICLE: f-'0->0 BOBCAT (3—«Ay>
<;-,?. J-c-12?
TEST TfPE:
INERTIA
3000
ACTUAL rP: in.
FUEL N
l< EXHAUST >| |< A.'HIE'Nf >| l< SHEO >l l< C. 'JNISTE* WEIGHTS > |
HC CO NOX CO? Ft. dAWO HIJM Nr*FC UBl. HSL TUOSS TOTHC 60BL A' 6L AMSL LWbL D TE i
< GRAMS/MIL?—->l C-1PG) (IN-MG) (6RAIMS
-GRAMS-
1 2 MEiN 0.2*5 2.10 0.94 399. 22.1 29.25 52.66 0.91 0.7ft 1.07 1.84 10.38 743. 753. 731. 9.6 -1
STi-. HEV O.«l 0.283 .04P 1. .i.l 0.296 • «•«• 0.046 0.45 0.13 0.58 O.J2 3.67 .,;.71 l.-l 4.(JJ ;
C. . * r.7 13.5 4.S 0.2 j.3 1.0 •««• 5.10 58.2 12.5 31.5 J.09 0.4O ...09 0.19 -.2.20 n
2 3 ME»N n.^.)7 1.57 l.
sin. OEV .1.11^ n.379 ,
C.w. * 4rt.P 2^.2
38a. 21.9 29.13 72.?9 n.99 l.o? 2.19 3.27 1-.19 740. 7S6. 733. Ib.h -7.'
1. '.1 0.108 4.002 0.018 0.48 0.28 0.72 3.92 2.00 I..91 0.41 1.1* ?.^i
0.1 0.3 0.4 5.S4 l.«4 45.0 12.a 22.1 27.65 0.27 ".12 0.06 7.41 0. •
1 1
O.HO 1.80 0.96 396. 22.2 29.16 74.70 1.00 O.nl 1.35 2.16 9.94 739. 751. 72b. 12." -10.4
2 MEAN 0.2'n 2.35 1.11 397. 22.1
ST). OEV 0.000 0.212 .021 3. U.I
C.V.* 0.1 9.0 1.9 0.7 u.6
20.80 «D.15 1.02
0.043 (1.455 0.002
0.1 0.57 0.20
1.09 1.73 2.82 13.<»9 736. 7^3. 72H. 17.^ -7.5
0.03 0.30 0.2a '1.95 0.0 n. 0 2.55 u.21 ?.•«
2.6 17.5 9.8 7.02 0.0 1.0 0.35 1.24 /)..,
4 2 MEiN 0.240 1.85 1.3? 396. 21.4 29.11 *«0.36 1.03 3.14 3.11 6.25 19.34 739. 7hO. 730. 21.0 -9.1
STO. DEV O.J 0.071 .0^4 0. u.O 0.15S 0.670 0.003 0.18 0.04 0.34 u.2o 1.00 I!. 0 0.71 0.21 i. <9
C. •. * 0.0 3.fl 4.» 0.0 'J.O 0.5 0^3 0.32 12.2 1.4 5.4 1.02 0.14 ^i.O 0.10 1.3'+ 0.>
i. MEiN 0.3J5 2.10 1.3^ 411. 2u.6
STD. DEV n.)f.\ 0.0 .04? 3. u.l
C. '. *. 6.3 0.0 3.? 0.7 0.7
29.16 71.21 fi.98
0.011 3.023 O.OU
0.0 4. 24 1.40
2.-J2 2.6* 5.59 20.02 744. 7*1. 733. 16.7
0.13 0.1? 0.25 0.02 0.71 i.71 1.41 3.14
'4.4 4.5 4.4 0.08 0.10 .-.09 0.19 ii.d4
3 2 ME^N n.^^n 2.10 1.05 411. 21.4
iTO. CEV O.O^a 0.424 .014 8. u.4
C.-. * 11.3 20.? 1.3 1.9 1.7
29.06 75.30 1.00
0.141 ^.909 0.014
0.5 J.86 1.37
2.?7 1.96 4.23 l<-.94 739. /S6. 720. 17.0 -[3.7
0.^9 0.30 0.59 2.00 1.73 ^.35 1.00 ".71 0.-9
12.8 15.2 13.9 13.39 0.23 -.31 0.14 4.1ft r,..
NOTES;
I. f'UELS A^K OPINTFO I'l THE OKOt» T«AT THEY WE^t =uN.
2. TOTMC Is THC TOTAL MVOHOCAkmiNS TMITTPO r-'O* J.3 TRIPS/.1AY. (MOT COHWtCTEO FOR ET-ANOL PESPONSE OK
TOTHC= ").3«(HC.G/MII«OISTANCE » 0=iL » 3.3»rtiL
THE FUELS user;
E (PVP=9.0). SOURCE: FPA MVEU LAH FutL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
90"i I'-OOLENE » 10* ETHANOL (RVP=9.3). SOU«CK : BLtND^D USING FUEL f'0. 1 AND Z0\t PROOF ETnAnOL AT E 'A
COMMERCIAL GASOLINE (rfvp=io.i). souoct: HJ*C;LL HYOROCAKSONS (wseu oriotR).
90* F igL NO. 3 » 10tS ETMANOL (PVP=10.7>. jOi'^CE: HO^ELL HYDROCARBONS (MSEC 0^'FW).
BLENO'ln GASOHOL CONTAlNIN'' 10"> tTMA'jOL (P Jt>*l u .0 ) . SOURCE: HQwELL HYDROCARBONS (MS£D OROE«).
-------
-29-
ENVIRONMENrAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
AvN AriBfiSt MICHIGAN
TEST RESULTS PROCESSED: DtC 15. 197'
VEHICLE: 'jM-SUNBIfcO IT-WAY) VIN: 9015) INERTIA »iT: 3000 ACTUAL HP: n.c
TEST TYPE: FTP
>l l< AMBIENT >|l< SHED >l l< CiNNISTfcR '«(--IGnTS >l
FUEL N nC CO N0» C02 FE HARO HUM Nr*FC D8L HSL TLOSS TnTHC BDPL A'm(_ AHSL OObL OTEST
|< GRAMS/MILE >l (MPG) (IN-HG) (GPftl'iS l< GRAMS >i
/L-i)
1 I ME .N 0.210 4.50 0.65 428. 2>i.4 29.41 6e.83 0.97 0.51 0.87 1.38 8.56 795. HO?. 79fc. 12.0 3.0
2 2 ^EflN 0.2JO 4.10 0.66 434. 19.4 29.04 6B.10 0.97 0.69 1.8« 2.57 12.62 812. i?7. 824. 15.1 12.1
STO. DEV 0.014 0.141 .04? 10. 0,4 0.155 7.148 0.032 0.07 0.21 0.28 1.12 5.92 -.95 5.V2 0.99 n.,, 1
C../. » S.I 3.4 6.4 2.3 2.2 0.5 ••«» 3.25 10.2 10.9 10.7 ri.92 0.73 0.60 0.72 6.36 O..i9
1 1 MEiN l.iJd 4.90 n.67 424. 20.5 29.09 74.02 1.00 0.56 0.87 1.43 9.14 BIO. H24. till. 13.9 1.2
3 2 MEAN 0.3J5 5.90 0.6« 4J8. 20.8 28.77 7^.91 1.02 0.79 1.09 1.86 12.69 823. 841. 830. 18.3 7.3
STD. DEV 0.0^1 0.141 .007 1. i,. 1 0.070 4.679 0.023 0.\7 0.0? 0.24 0.15 4.64 a.69 4.O9 0.07 O.J7
C.v. % M.3 2.4 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 5.36 2.25 21.5 6.5 12.3 1.14 0.56 n.56 O.S7 'j.3« n.JB
4 2 MEAN 0.360 6.40 0.71 416. 20.1 28.89 77.26 1.01 1.13 2.06 3.19 lb.U5 324. J-,46. 8j9. 21.9 15.1
ST'J. OEV 0.0-7 0.707 .014 3. I.. 1 0.085 3.10? 0.015 0.34 0.04 0.28 l.SQ 6.00 5.00 l.«7 u.99 i.;3
C.v. * li.7 11.0 2.0 0.7 (-.3 0.3 4.02 1.48 21.3 1.7 8.6 IT,.68 0.73 ...59 0.22 4.i2 2'.'8
6 2 ME»N O.SOO 7.40 0.76 430. 19.3 29.13 77.13 1.01 1.30 2.34 3.64 21.37 835. "55. 845. 2C.2 9.8
STD. DEV 0.071 0.283 .014 5. 0.2 0.016 l.Q60 0.009 O.n8 0.7B 0.71 0.72 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.6- l.-»l
C.v. *. l-.l 3.S l.<5 1.2 1.1 0.1 2.54 0.92 6.0 33.6 19.4 3.37 0.08 0.12 0.12 3.1f^ l'..-3
3 2 *E4N 0.2^0 5.75 0.74 423. 2u.3 29.03 77.49 1.01 0.-J4 1.16 2.10 11.95 834. r53. 840. 19.3 6.3
STO. CEV 0.0 0.071 .014 6. 0.3 0.155 2.9H2 0.1)14 0.03 0.0* 0.06 0.27 1.87 ^.35 3.M 0.4f I . >Q
C.v. * 0.0 1.2 1.9 1.5 1.4 0.5 3.H5 1.42 3.0 7.3 2.7 2.26 0.22 '-.27 0.-»3 ^.'67 2h.-4
NOTES:
1. FUELS AKc. 3RINTED IN THE OROtP THAT THFV wERii PUN.
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HvDWOCARBONS EMITTED FQW j.3 TRIPS/DAY. (NOT COPRtCTED FOR ETHANOL RESPONSE OF Fl'.'.i
TOTHC= -1.3«(HC.G/Ml)»OISTANCE - DBL « 3«J°HSL
THE FUELS 'JSfD WERE:
1. INDOLKNE IPV»a9.0). SOURCE: F.PA MVEL LAH FijEL IN USE FOR CERT IF ICATIQN TESTI'-G..
2. 90* T'DOl.ENE » 10* ETHANOL (»VP = 9.3). SOOrtCF: 9LENOFD USING FUEL '••O. I AND 20o PROOF ETHANOL AT E^A ».\lf
3. coMye^ciAi. GASOLINE i-<>.
-------
-30-
ENVIRONM£."JTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE FMISSION LABORATORY
ANN AKBO^t MICHIGAN
OASO-IOL PPOGRAM
TFST RESULTS
PHOCtSSED: OtC 15. 197
VEHICLE! '3M REGAL «2 (3-WAY)
VIM: 48257
TEST TYPE: FTo
INERTIA *T! 3500
ACTUAL HP: 12.2
FUEL
I <
EXHAUST -------- >| I < ---- AMBIENT --- >l l< ---- SHED ---- >l l< ----- CiNNISTEP *F.InHTS ---- >!
CO N0» CO? FE 8ARO HUM NOXFC DHL HSL TLOSS TOTHC 9DBL A:\KL AHSL LH'tRL OTE--T
< — GRAMS/MILF — >
UN-HGI (GRAINS
-GRAMS-
•>l
3 2 ME4N 0.390 8.35 0.19 462. 18.6 29.36 76.14 1.01 3.63 1.14 4.77 17.06 956. 475. 9i>b. 20.0 -0.3
STO. OEV 0.028 1.061 ,02« 0. 0.1 0.090 1.369 0.006 0.39 0.13 0.25 0.65 1.58 u.71 2.65 0.76 l.«6
C.j. * 1.3 12.7 14.<5 0.0 0.4 0.3 l.ftO 0.64 10.7 11.7 5.3 3.80 0.17 li.07 0.28 J.90 0. t!
4 2 ME&N 0.41,5 7.90 0.2=1 459. ld.1 29.29 70.54 n.98 5.47 1.6ft 7.14 21.95 957. 981. 9h(). 24.b 3.1
STO. OEV O.iLiS 0.283 .007 0. 0.0 0.120 3.324 0.015 0.97 0.3° 1.36 3.12 0.0 2.45 1.00 1.48 o.i;7
C.v. * <*.7 3.6 2.9 0.0 'J.I 0.4 4.71 I.b3 17.7 23.4 19.0 14.90 0.0 ».25 0.10 o.Oi 2..)2
6 2 ME4N 0.555 10.60 0.31 476. 17.3 29.12 73.86 0.99 5.59 2.08 7.66 2*.23 952. 9?3. 9bl. 21.5
STO. DEV 0.007 0.011 .014 4. U.I 0.098 1.855 0.009 0.22 0.20 0.42 1.05 0.0 0.71 1.22 U.4<-
C.v. * 1.3 • 0.1 4.6 0.9 0.8 0.3 2.51 0.86 3.9 9.5 5.4 4.02 0.0 H.07 0.13 1.97
-0.4
2 MEAN 0.430 10.05 0.27 469. IB.3 29.0? 73.91 1.00 2.91 1.42 4.34 1H.28 945. 967. 945. 21.7
5>TO. OEV 0.071 0.354 .007 1. O.I 0.091 4.103 0.019 1.35 0.08 1.27 D.55 1.00 (1.71 1.41 0.99
C. '. $ 16.4 3.5 2.f> 0.2 0.4 0.3 S.55 1.92 46.3 5.5 29.3 3.01 0.11 0.07 0.15 *.56
-0.3
1 MEAN
0.400 8.30 0.1". 470. 18.3 29.37 72.28 0.99 2.06 0.84 2.90 14.69 934. 949. 930. 15.3 -3.9
2 2 MEaN O.J15 6.35 0.24 462. ia.1 29.09 80.39 1.03 2.46 1.35 3.81 1<».73 937. V56. 9-P. 18.8 2.7
STO. OEV 0.007 0.212 .014 1. o.o 0.474 •«««« 0.061 0.33 0.07 0.25 0.26 2.35 4.06 l.CO 1.77 1.13
C.'. * i.2 3.3 5.9 0.2 .1.1 1.6 •«•« 5.90 13.2 5.2 6.7 1.75 0.25 n.43 0.11 9.4J 41. <1
1 1 M£ IN
n.3aO 7.60 0.?? 469. 1H.4 29.58 74.91 1. .00 1.77 1.12 2.89 14.13 939. v54. 934. 14.^ -5.5
NOTES:
1. FUELS AW£ PRINTED IN TH£ ORDER THAT THEY teEHt RUN.
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EMITTED FOR 3.T TRIPS/OAY. (NOT CORRECTED FOR ETnANOL RESPONSE OF FIi.)
TOTHCs i.3«(HC.G/Ml)»L>!STANi:E « DbL » 3.3««SL
THE FUELS USED WERE!
1. iNOOLt'NE (RVP=9.0). SOURCE! F.PA MVF.L L49 FUEL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
?. 90* IWOLENE « 10* ETHANOL (RVP=9.3). SOU^C-: BLENOFD USING FUEL f-iO. 1 AND 200 PROOF ETHANOL AT Er>A
1. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE (RvP=10.0). SOURCE: Hi;*FLL HYDROCARBONS (MSEC OrtOER) .
V. 90* F'JFL NO. 3 » 10% ETHANOL (RVP = 10.7). SOURCE: HO*ELL HYDROCARBONS (MSEO OROEP).
*. BLENDED GASOHOL CONTAINING 10* ETHANOL («vp=io.o>. SOUPCE: HO<*ELL HYococARfiONi IMSEO
-------
-31-
ENVlRONMENfAi PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE FM1SSION LABQPATORY
ANN fi«BO«t MICHIGAN
•jASOnOL PROGRAM
AVERAGt TEST RESULTS
PROCESSED: DEC 15.
VEHICLE: FORO MAVERIC* (OX-C)
VIN:
INERTIA
3500
ACTUAL HP;
TEST Type. FTP
FUEL
—EXHAUST > I
co NO« C02 FE
flARO HUM
—>ii< SHED >i \< CANNISTER WFIOHTS >i
Nnl <" 20.2 4.x 0.7 0.4
29.13 72.27 0.99
0.169 0.568 0.002
0.6 0.79 0.25
1.73 1.27 3.01 24.01 759. 772. 754. 12.b -5.8
0.79 0.36 1.15 4.45 7.25 P.51 4.24 1.27 3.'.,4
45.8 28.3 38.4 le.S3 0.95 1.10 0.^6 10.lu 0.0
2 *EtN O.d30 9.4Q 1.3" 539. lb.9
STO. OEV 0.001 0.283 .01* 0. 0.0
C..'. » 0.1 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.1
28.78 PU.30 1.03
0.071 1.617 0.008
0.2 2.10 O.ol
3.48 1.40 4.88 29.69 762. 777. 754. 14.7 -7.8
0.35 0.09 0.26 0.28 1.41 2.00 2.74 0.57 l.?0
10.2 6.5 5.4 0.99 0.19 0.26 0.36 3.ab 0. .
2 MEAN 0.825 4.75 1.5S 535. 15.8
STO. OEV O.uiS 0.495 .035 4. U.I
C.v. * 4.3 10.4 2.T 0.7 11.4
29.11 82.54 1.04
0.170 1.930 0.010
0.6 2.34 0.94
6.05 3.4ft 9.53 37.95 769. 783. 767. 14.3
0.35 2.23 2.57 ft.78 3.67 3.24 0.0 0.49
5.7 63.9 27.0 17.87 0.48 0.41 0.0 3.47
3 M£lN 1.570 8.20 1.55 541. 15.3
STO. OEV 0.7^8 3.470 .09S 7. ii.O
C.V. * 50.8 42.3 6.1 1.3 0.1
29.11 74.20 I.00
0.072 3.506 0.016
0.2 -.72 I.o3
6.31 1.97 8.28 51.79 771. 784. 7fcb. 12.9 -6.1
0.51 0.21 0.68 lei.74 2.52 1.91 l.ba 0.79 \..->o
8.1 10.7 8.2 3ft.19 0.33 ".24 0.21 o.lS 0.0
2 ME'N 0.7oO 7.05 1.40 550. 15.8
STtl. OEV 0.0-»? 0.636 .OHS 6. u.2
C.v. * 5.4 9.0 6.1 1.0 1.3
28.97 H2.47 1.04
0.063 4.985 0.025
0.2 b.04 2.43
2.67 1.23 3.90 26.03 759. 776. 7b5. 17.0
1.53 0.24 1.77 1.30 5.66 3.94 l.
-4.0
MOTES:
1. FUELS AKE PRINTED IN THE ORDER TuflT THEY WESE PUN.
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HYOROCARBUNS CMITTEO FOW ).3 TRIPS/DAY. (NOT CORRECTED FOR EThANOL RESPONSE (jf FI-.)
TOTHC= J.3«
-------
-32-
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VtHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
AfJN Ar<80«» MICHIGAN
'3ASOHOL PRO'lRA'f
AVERAGc. TEST RESULTS
PROCESSED: otc is. we
VEHICLE: KO«D PINTO icx-o
: 9E2-2.J-^-85
TFST TYPE: FTP
INERTIA «T: a?so
ACTUAL i-iP! 9.7
FUEL
hC
FjHAUST
CO N0» C02
FE
I < AM9I£MT > I I < SHED > I I < CaNNISTEN WEIGHTS > I
BARO HUM NOXFC DHL HSL TLOSS TOTHC BDBL Ai'HL AHSL OU8L OTEST
I < GRAMS/MILE! > I (HPG) (IN-HG) (GRAINS
-GRAMS-
-> I
1 Z MEAN O.S15 2.40 1.64 378. 2-3.1 29.25 52.66 0.91 1.07 O.Sfl 1.65 15.64 783. V92. 772. 9,2 -10.8
ST,1. DEV O.U07 0.283 .064 1. 0.1 0.296 ••••• 0.046 0.12 0.04 0.08 0.15 4.06 3.39 3.24 u . 7 1 n.78
C.tf. * i.4 11.9 3.9 n.4 11.3 1.0 ••*« 5.10 11.2 7.3 4.7 0.96 0.5? 0.43 0.42 7.e>V O./
2' 3 MEAN 0.473 i.9o 1.87 373. 22.7 29.13 72.2V 0.99 1.12 0.79 1.91 15.38 782. 7^2. 76b. 10.6 -1.5.6
ST'.i. DEV 0.0->9 0.361 .10? 3. 0.2 0.10S 4.002 0.018 0.33 0.07 0.38 1.50 1.00 2.16 10.70 1.31 11.i3
C. -. % 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 -1.27 1.40 12. Ja O.t:
1 ME IN
3.50 1.7S 378. 23.0 28.83 80.47 1.03 1.37 0.65 2.02 19.56 783. 795. 759. 12.1 -?4.1
4 2 ME4N 0.6CO 2.65 1.89 377. 22.4 29.11 80.36 1.03 2.63 0.90 3.53 20.45
STO. DEV 1.0r>7 0.636 .001 7. n.4 0.155 0.670 0.003 0.40 O.OR 0.31 1.20
f. V.4 24.0 0.1 1*9 1.6 0.5 R.83 0.32 15.1 9.4 8.8 5.88
2 M£4N 0.7ftO 2.70 1.99 397. 21.2
STil. OEV 0.028 0.566 .049 6. 0.3
C.v. «b 3.7 21.0 2.5 1.4 1.3
2 MEAN 0.6..5 3.45 1.9* 396. 22.0
STO. OEV O.OJ5 0.071 .04? 2. ';. 1
C.v.% 5.3 2.0 2.2 0.5 (1.6
29.16 71.21 0.98
0.011 3.023 0.014
0.0 4.24 1...0
29.06 75.30 1.00
0.141 2.909 0.014
0.5 3.86 1.37
1.89 1.03 2.93 24.03
0.11 0.01 0.11 1.69
6.0 0.7 3.6 2.88
1.55 0.8ft 2.42 IV.37
0.17 0.11 0.47 H.12
23.7 12.1 19.5 i/.64
785.
1.73
0.22
783.
1.22
0.16
777.
1.00
0.13
"01.
".71
'(.09
799.
2.12
".27
707.
P. 71
H.09
77tt.
1.41
0.18
775.
n.7i
0.09
770.
O.u
O.u
16.0
l.U
7.07
16. J
j.75
22.92
20.1
1 .9»
V.d^i
-6.2
0.^8
0.'.
-8.2
1.41
0.-'
-7.0
0.^5
O.'i
NOTES:
1. FUELS AWE PRINTED IN THE OROfcR THAT THEY 'VER=; PUN.
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EMITTED fOH J.3 TRIPS/OAY. (NOT CORRECTED FOR ET^aNOL RfcSPONbE OF F
TOTHC= 3.3»(HC.G/MI)«DISTANCE » OBL » 3.3»MSL
THE FUELS USED WERE:
1. INOOLtNE (HVP=9.0). SOURCE: EPA MVEL L43 FUtL IN U<5E FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
?. 9o« INOOLENE » 10^ ETHANOL (»vp=9.3). SOUKC?: BLENDED USING FUEL no* i AND 200 PROOF ETHAMOL *T
^. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE . souoct: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS . SOURCE: HQWELL HYDROCARBONS (MSEO ORoER).
-------
-33-
ENVIHONMENTAL PPOTF.CTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIOvi LABORATORY
ANN A«80S, MICHIGAN
VEHICLE: GM-IMPALA | |< AMBIENT >|l< SMEO >l l< CfiNNISTEP WEIGHTS >l
CO N0» C02 FE 8ARO HUM NO»FC DBL HSL TLOSS T'.tTMC 9DBL Ai HL AHSL 006L OTEaT
< — GRAMS/MILF — >
IGPM-JS
/L.I)
-GRAMS-
1 1
0.4:;0 6.20 1.61 603. 1*.4 39.30 6^.34 0.97 0.94 1.42 3.36 IS.36 695. 909. 8B7. 13.0 -8.1
3 1
O.J-vO 3.30 1.31 609. 13.9 39.31 70.95 0.98 0.77 1.56 3.33 15.49 978. P98. 8*4. iO.l b.O
3 2 MEAN O.S-iO 6.35 1.80 6o3. 1^.4 39.38 75.99 j.oi 1.77 1.47 3.24 lfi.95 897. 420. 8^4. 23,2 -3.1
STD. OEV (J.U14 0.212 .021 1. 0.0 0.083 6.853 0.033 0.14 0.04 0.18 '1.65 0.71 fi.O 0.0 U.I'- 0.71
C.^. * 2.8 3.3 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 S).o2 3.23 8.0 3.9 5.7 3.42 0.09 0.0 0.0 0.61 ().•'
4 2 ME»N O.*1^ 5.10 1.4« 610. 13.8 29.31 73.71 0.99 3.45 1.84 5.30 21.76 904. ~m. 907. 27.t> 2.8
STO. OEV 0.093 1.131 .001 0. 0.0 0.113 1.369 0.006 O.P3 0.04 0.27 1.91 1.00 2.00 2.b5 O.M5 1.63
C.v. » 18.6 23.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.86 O.b4 6.8 1.9 5.1 «.77 0.11 0.21 0.29 3.07 57..,7
6 3 MEAN 0.6-3 5.50 1.5? 624. 13.5 29.13 72.76 n.99 4.if, 3.03 6.18 24.22 903. "29. 903. 26.a 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 <..2B 2.92 3.7-* P.^2
C.V. » B.5 7.3 0.4 1.4 1.3 0.3 •••« 3.44 37.2 2.4 25.7 11.24 0.36 ^.46 0.33 1J.99 9*,...6
3 1 MEAN
6.80 1.76 604. 14.4 39.04 69.57 0.98 3.26 1.43 3.69 lh.53 902. ^26. 900. £4.5 -2.3
NOTES:
1. FUELS AR£ PRINTED IN TH£ OROtO THAT THEY «ESd RUN.
2. TOTHC IS T^E TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EMITTED FO* >.J TRIPS/DAY. (NOT CORR-CTEO FOB ETi^ANOL RESPONSE OK FI...)
TOTHC= .i.3»(HC.G/Ml)«OISTANCE . DHL » 3.3«HSL
THE FUELS .JSED WERE:
1. INDOLtNE (PVP=9.0). SOURCE: FPA MVEL LAB Fn£L IN U^E FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
2. 90% I-X'DOLENE » 10* ETHANOL (PVP = 9.3). SO'JrtCF: BLENDED USING FUEL '.0. 1 AND 200 PROOF ET-iANOL AT E^6 MVE>
1. COMMf,
4. 90% FjFL NO. 3 * 10* ETHANOL . SOURCE: HOwELL HYOROCAReONS (MSED Ofl.'EB).
*, BLENOtD <~iASOHOL CONTAINING 10^ ETH1NOL (RVP=lO.O>. SOURCE: HOVELL HYDROCARBONS (MSEO OR.lciK).
-------
-34-
ENVIRO.NMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VcHICLE EMISSION. LABORATORY
ANN ARSOR« MICHIGAN
OASOlOL PROGRA"
AVERAGE TEST RESULTS
PROCESSED: DEC 15. 1978
VEHICLE: ^UICK REGAL tox-c> VIN: 59*4 INERTIA «IT: 3500
TEST TYPE: FTP
ACTUAL HP: 12.2
FUEL N
|< F.XHAUST >| |< AMRIENT >| l< SHED >l l< CANNIST£K WEIGHTS >l
HC CO NOX C02 FE SARO HUM NOXFC OBL HSL TLOSS TOTHC BDBL AvBL AHSL ~DOBL DTE^T
<—GRAMS/MILF—>i . SOURCE: EPA MVEL LAB FuEL IN U
-------
-35-
ENVIPOMENTA! PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
AMN AKBOS* MICHIGAN
C-ASOnOL PROOHAM
tRf-GE TEST RESULTS
PROCESSED: DEC is. 1976
VEHICLE: CMPY. OMNI (OX-C)
VIN: ZL44AHU1C0064
TEST TYPE: FTP
INERTIA wT: 2500
1CTUAL HP: 7.J
FUEL N
l<
MC
EXHAUST -------- >| |< ---- AMBIENT --- >|l< ---- SHED ---- >l K-— -C-NNISTE& "EIGHTS
CO NOx C02 FE BARO HUM NOXFC OBL HSL TLOSS TOTHC SDBL A-JBL AHSL "OUBL
---- >l
i<—GRAMS/MILE—>i (GRAINS
-GRAMS-
2 2 MEaN 0.3ifl 8.20 1.3" 318. 2b.8 29.04 68.10 0.97 1.55 4.0* 5.61 22.42 562. 574. 57C. 12.1 8.1
STO. nEV O.r.14 0.849 .Q49 0. 0.1 0.155 7.148 0.032 0.04 1.04 1.00 ?.8Q 1.87 1.00 2.24 0.64 o«<-2
C.i.-. * ".7 10.3 3.ft 0.0 0.5 0.5 •••• 3.25 Z.I 25.6 17.8 1-S.94 0.33 fl.17 0.39 5.2« S..-4
i i MEAN
n.«*JO 12.60 1.03 322. 25.8 29.09 74.02 1.00 1.02 1.57 2.59 16. d5 557. %&8. 560.
10.4
3.2
3 ^ MEiN 0.575 19.55 l.nft 321. 25.1 28.77 79.91 1.02
STO. DEV 0.0.i4
6 2 ME4N 0.375 8.65 1.44 338. 24.3 29.13 77.13 1.01
STO. OEV 0.021 0.213 .035 1. u.l 0.016 1.960 0.009
C.v. * 5.7 2.5 2.4 0.2 0.6 0.1 2.54 0.92
2.<:>S 5.71 8.69 31.11 562. 575. 571. 13.4 9.2
0.10 0.08 0.23 0.67 2.00 1.87 0.71 0.2* !.:•&
10.3 1.4 2.6 2.17 0.36 0.33 0.12 2.11 1^.~1
3 2 ME&N 0.475 16.45 1.05 325. 2S.2 29.03 77.49 1.01
STO. OEV O.OU7 0.919 .007 1. D.I 0.155 2.9B2 0.014
C.Y. « 1.5 5.6 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.5 3.85 1.42
2.55 4.47 7.02 24.05 561. S74. 567. 12.6 6.0
0.33 0.5H 0.91 2.06 1.41 1.58 1.22 0.21 r>.:;7
13.0 13.0 13.0 7.10 0.25 0.28 0.22 !.&:> l.l7
0.-*10 12.50 1.00 331. 2o.2 29.38 71.76 0.99 1.35 1.91 3.26 17.83 558. 5-69. 5bJ. 10.•* 4.4
NOTES:
i. FUELS A*r: PRINTED IN THE ORDtR THAT THEY west HUN.
2. TOTHC Is Tut TOTAL HrOROCAfiBONS FMITTL'O f 0* 3.1 TRIPS/DAY. (NOT COJB^CTEO FOR FT^HNOL RESPONSE OF FIv.)
TOTHC= 3..1«(HC.G/MI)»OISTANCE • DHL * 3.3-HSL
THE FUELS OSEC WERE:
1. iNDOLtNE (RVP=9.0). SOURCE: F.PA MVEL LAd FljEL IN U?E FOP CERTIFICATION TESTIr.G.
1. 90» INOOLENE * 10« ETHANOL (RVP=9.3). SOURCE: BLENDED USING FUEL \'0. 1 AND 200 PROOF tTHANOL AT £' A M>/t
3. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE (RVP=10.0). SOIJRCt": HOWFLL HYDROCARBONS (MSED OHOE3) .
•.. 90'f FUEL NO. 3 • 10% ETHANOL (Rvp=io.7>. SOURCE: HO^ELL HYOROCASB^NS IMSED OH^ERI.
-. BLENOr.O GASOHOL C^NTtININt 10« ETHANOL (RvP=10.0). SOUPCE: HOWELL HYDPOCAP.BONS (MSED
-------
-36-
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION LABORATORY
ANN ArtBOK. MICHIGAN
'3ASOHQL PROGRAM
AVERAGE TEST RESULTS PROCESSED: OEC is.
VEHICLE: ^LY. SALON (ox-o VIN: RH4iGrt*2oh799 INERTIA WT: 4500 '.CTUAL *P: 12.3
TEST TYPE: FTP
I < _ EXHAUST— >l l< AMBIENT >l l< SHED >l l< C-NNISTE* *Ell
FUEL N HC CO NOX C02 FE BARO "UM NoxFC OBL HSL TLOSS TOTHC BOBL AHSL AHSL DOHL OTE->T
c—GRAMS/MILF—>i I»-PG) UN-HG> (GRAINS i<— -GRAMS-
/L-i)
1 1 MEAN 0.770 17.10 1.6S 607. 13.9 39.24 72.20 0 .-99 1.39 1.06 2.95 24. 26 744. 760. 743. 15.7 -1.0
2 1 MEAN 0.530 8.80 1.93 613. 13.6 29.04 7o,27 1.01 2.rt4 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 29.36 76.14 1.01 5.37 1.40 7.27 2^.4Q 758. 777. 760. 16.« 2.3
STO. OEV 0.007 0.0 .007 1. 0.0 0.090 1.369 0.006 0.38 0.40 0.48 0.32 0.0 0.71 2.24 0.07 l.-l
C..'. % 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.80 0.64 14.9 28.3 6.6 1.09 0.0 ".09 0.29 0.36 84.«5
4 a M£dN 0.5*0 9.90 2.14 609. 13.6 29.29 70.54 0.98 10.06 2.3812.43 32.54 765. 785. 774. 20.1 8.8
STO. OEV 0.001 0.566 .02* 1. 0.1 0.120 3.324 0.015 0.0 0.16 0.16 0.56 3.46 2.45 1.87 1.06 1.-8
C.i-. * U.2 5.7 1.3 0.2 u.5 0.4 4.71 1.53 0.0 6.8 1.3 1.72 0.45 .J.31 0.24 5.29 l-.?8
6 2 MEAN 0.7nO 11.55 2.19 634. 13.1 29.12 73.qe> . SOURCE: EPA MVEL LAB FUEL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
2. 9o* INOOLENE * lo* ETHANOL . SOU^CF; BLENDED USING FUEL MO. i AND 200 PROOF STHANOL AT E^A •
3. COMMERCIAL GASOLINE . SOURCE: MUWELL HYDROCARBONS IMSEO ORDER).
4. 90* FUFL NO. 3 * 10« ETHANOL (RVP=10.7). iOUWCE: HOwELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED OHOER).
*•. BLENDED GASOHOL CONTAINING 10* ETHANOL (»VP=10.0). SOURCE: HOViELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED
-------
-37-
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MOTOR VEHICLE ^MISSION.' LABORATORY
ANN ArtBO*. MICHIGAN
OASOHOL PROGRAM
AVERAGc TEST RESULTS
PROCESSeO: DEC 15. 197-
VEHICLE: TOY. COROLLA (OX-C) VIN: 79-FE-.* INERTIA WT: 2500 ACTUAL «P: 0.0
TEST TYPE: FTP
FUEL.N
|< EXHAUST >l l< AMBIENT >|l< SHED >l l< --CANNISTER ^EIGHTS >l
MC CO N0< C02 FE BARO HUM NOXFC DflL MSL TLOSS TOTHC BDBL AOBL AHSL DDHL DTEbT
i <—GRAMS/MILP—> i <*PG> ( IN-HGJ
-GRAMS-
• > I
XLrt)
1 1 MEAN 0.550 7.10 1.06 326. 26.2 29.24 72.28 n.99 0.. nEV 0.02H 0.142 .34(i 4. u.2 0.06-J fl.943 0.044 0.19 0.02 0.17 0.78 0.0 1.00 0.0 0.21 1.14
C.K. % 3.6 1.5 34.1 1.0 0.8 0.2 ***» 4.3C 12.4 2.0 6.6 3.20 n.O 0.07 0.0 1.72 ••»»•
NOTES;
1. FUELS A«fc" PRINTED IN THE ORDER THAT THEY WEH£ PUN.
2. TOTHC IS THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EMITTED FOW 3.3 TRIPS/DAY. (NOT CORRECTED FOR ET-ANOL RESPONSE OF FI <.)
TOTHC= <.3»(MC,G/Ml>»OISTANiCE » DBL » 3.3»ribL
THE FUELS JSEO WERE:
1. INOOLENE (RVP=9.0). SOURCE: F.PA MVEL LAb FUEL IN USE FOR CERTIFICATION TESTING.
2. 9o». INOOLENE * 10* ETHANOL (Rvp=9.3). SOU^CF: BLEMOFD USING FUEL NO. i AND 200 PROOF ETHAUOL AT EHA
J. COMMErCIAL GASOLINE (RVP = 10.0I. SOURCE: H'JWELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED ORDER).
4. 90% F JEL NO. 3 * 10% £THAf. SOURCE: HOWELL HYDROCARBONS (MSED
* US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980- 651-112/0203
------- |