79-5
Technical Report
Evaluation of Restorative Maintenance Retesting
of Passenger Cars in Detroit
January, 1979
by
Gary T. Jones
Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
ABSTRACT
This report describes the results of an exhaust emission testing program
in which twenty-seven vehicles received prescribed sequences of testing,
corrective maintenance, and retesting at different time intervals. The
purpose of this program was to study the effects of age and mileage on
emission levels, control system durability and ultimate restorability.
The vehicles involved were twenty-one 1976 and six 1977 model year
vehicles manufactured by Chrysler, Ford and General Motors. Fourteen
vehicles received one retesting sequence approximately one year after
the original test sequence. Thirteen vehicles received two retesting
sequences at time intervals of approximately twelve months and eighteen
months after the original tests. Each test point in the sequences
consisted of a 1975 FTP, Highway Fuel Economy Test and three short cycle
tests (Federal Three-Mode, Two-Speed Idle and Federal Short Cycle).
Representatives of the three automobile manufacturers assisted in the
inspection and maintenance activities.
The results show a deterioration in the average emission levels of the
retested vehicles in their "as-received" condition. These levels were
reduced to close to the original lowest levels achieved through restora-
tive maintenance. As the mileage increased on these vehicles, the
average emission levels of the "tuned-up" vehicles was slightly greater
for HC and CO, and slightly lower for NOx.
-------
-2-
Background
During the period of September 1976 to August 1977, a prescribed sequence
of emission and fuel economy tests and corrective maintenance were
performed on one-hundred 1975 and 1976 and thirty 1977 model year
passenger cars in Detroit (Reference 1). The purpose of these two
programs was to investigate the effects of various types of emission
control malperformance on exhaust emissions and fuel economy. This type
of effort is known as "Restorative Maintenance Evaluation". Twenty-one
of the 1976 model year vehicles were procured and retested after approx-
imately one year of in-use service. The testing sequence used in the
original program was again employed. This retesting allowed the collec-
tion of data on vehicles with thorough inspection histories. After
approximately six more months of in-use service, thirteen of these
twenty-one 1976 model year vehicles again underwent retesting using the
testing sequence from the original program. During this same period,
six 1977 model year vehicles were retested for the first time after
approximately one year of in-use service. There were three basic pur-
poses behind these retesting efforts:
1. To determine the extent and nature of modifications which occurred
to the vehicles since they were inspected and tested in the previ-
ous program(s).
2. To examine the effects of vehicle deterioration on exhaust emis-
sions and fuel economy.
3. To evaluate vehicle restorability in terms of the baseline emission
data established in the previous testing.
Vehicle Acquisition
Of the one hundred 1975 and 1976 model year vehicles tested in the
original program, 73 were available for testing. The remainder were
lost due to the following reasons:
1. Owner could not be found (3 vehicles)
2. Car sold, wrecked or repossessed (14 vehicles)
3. Owner declined to participate (6 vehicles)
4. Owner was not sure at the time (4 vehicles)
Of the 73 willing owners, six Chryslers were disqualified because they
had undergone major powertrain work or had received extensive damage.
From the remaining 67, seven cars of each manufacturer were selected and
tested. These vehicles averaged 28,600 miles, an average of 18,000
miles greater than when they were tested originally. More procurement
problems were encountered in obtaining 15 of these 21 1976 vehicles for
the second retest approximately 6 months later. Although 5 Fords and 5
Chryslers were obtained, only 3 1976 GM cars could be reprocured. Of
the previous seven, two were disqualified for mechanical reasons. One
-------
-3-
of the owners could not be contacted and another did not wish to have
his car tested. Thus, a total of only 13 1976 vehicles underwent the
second retest.
Of the 30 1977 model year vehicles originally tested, 9 were rejected as
candidates for retesting for the following reasons:
1. Vehicle had undergone major mechanical work which could possibly
affect emissions (6 vehicles)
2. Vehicle was sold (2 vehicles)
3. Owner was not sure at the time (1 vehicle)
From the remaining 21 vehicles, 6 were selected to undergo retests.
This total was comprised of 2 vehicles from each of the three manufac-
turers. Although those with the highest mileage were favored, the
subsample was generally chosen to represent the original fleet in terms
of average emission levels, make, model, engine size and state of tune.
Testing Procedures
All vehicles involved in the retesting underwent the first test sequence
in their "as-received" condition. The test sequence consisted of a 1975
FTP, a Highway Fuel Economy Test and three short cycles (Federal Three-
Mode, Federal Short Cycle, and Two-Speed idle). The vehicles were then
examined for any maladjustments, disablements, or emission component
failures. The criteria for those determinations were the same as those
used in the original program. If a vehicle passed the Federal Standards
in its "as-received" condition and no maladjustments or disablements
were found, it was returned to the owner. If any maladjustments or
disablements were found, they were corrected and the vehicle received a
second test. For 1977 model year vehicles, all maladjustments, including
idle parameter adjustments were corrected in preparation for the second
test. The 1976 model year vehicles received correction of all maladjust-
ments except idle parameter adjustments which were not corrected until
before the third test. If a 1977 model year vehicle failed the second
test, it received a major tune-up plus the replacement of any defective
emission components and was then tested a third and final time. If a
1976 model year vehicle failed the second test and had idle parameter
maladjustments, it received correction of these and was then tested a
third time. If it failed the second test and had no idle maladjustments,
or failed the third test, it received a major tune-up plus the replace-
ment of any defective emission components before undergoing the fourth
and final test. A flow chart which graphically demonstrates this
procedure is attached as Figure 1.
Inspection Results
Three of the twenty-one 1976 model year vehicles involved in the first
retest were not able to pass Federal standards as a result of all mainte-
-------
-4-
nance steps of the original test sequence. Each of these again failed
when returned for the second retest. Of the remaining eighteen vehicles,
half failed their "as received" test in the first retest. Of these nine
vehicles, eight had received emission-related maintenance, primarily
performed by the vehicle owner, and all eight exhibited some form of
maladjustment or disablement action. Of the nine vehicles which passed
the initial retest, only two were found with maladjustments or disable-
ments. In both cases, the ignition timing had been retarded beyond our
2 degree tolerance. Although six of the vehicles which passed had
received emission-related maintenance, only one had maintenance performed
by the owner. The inspections performed at the first retest revealed a
high level of defective parts. The temperature sensor for the heated
air inlet door on four Chrysler vehicles was the most prevalent defect
although two choke timer switches were also replaced. The choke pull-
off was inoperative on two Fords and a Pontiac vehicle was found to have
a broken EGR exhaust gas backpressure transducer.
Of the thirteen 1976 model year vehicles which were retested a second
time, four had received maladjustments since the first retest. Of these
four vehicles, two had only timing maladjusted, one had timing and idle
mixture maladjustments, and one had a choke maladjustment. According to
the owner questionnaire of these four vehicles, two claimed no mainte-
nance was performed since the first test and two had "tune-ups", one
performed by the owner and one performed by an independent garage. Two
of these four vehicles had received maladjustments between the original
test and the first retest. The emission component inspection revealed
one Ford vehicle with a defective choke pull-off which had been replaced
in the first retest, one defective choke timer on a Chrysler vehicle
which was operating properly in the first retest, one inoperative
backpressure transducer on a Ford, and one GM vehicle with a leaky
vacuum break diaphragm.
Only two of the six 1977 model year vehicles exhibited maladjustments;
one idle mixture maladjustment and one choke maladjustment. According
to the owners questionnaire, neither vehicle had received maintenance
since the original testing. Two of the vehicles had defective heated
air door sensors and one had a leaky EGR valve diaphragm.
Test Results
Table 1 displays the average emission results of the entire one hundred
1975/1976 model year fleet and the thirty 1977 model year fleet in the
original test. Attached as Figure 2 are the average emission levels of
the twenty-one retested vehicles for both the original test and the
retest. Although most of these vehicles had passed the halfway point in
their "useful life", these results indicate that original ultimate
emission levels were approached by only a correction of maladjustments
and disablements. When comparing the retest results with those of the
original test, there has clearly been a great deal of degradation, even
to the point of being worse than when first tested. Moreover, one of
-------
-5-
the vehicles had such high HC values before tuneup that the results
without this vehicle have been indicated in the HC bar charts. The
unusually high results presented in the CO charts are due to a vehicle
that was included in the sample because of its high mileage since the
original test. It is not truly representative of that manufacturer's
portion of the fleet since it was his only vehicle at the Detroit site
in the original testing that was ultimately unable to pass. Although
this vehicle never met its CO standard, the CO emissions were reduced
from 47 gm/mile to 27 gm/mile when a special test was conducted with a
new carburetor. The bar charts graphically demonstrate the improvement
in the average emission levels of these twenty-one vehicles following
corrective actions and a major tune-up. The average HC of all twenty-
one vehicles increased 272% between the original test and the retest.
The average CO increased 166% and the average NOx increased 17%.
Approximately six months after these vehicles were retested, thirteen of
the twenty-one were procured to undergo a second retest. Their emission
history from the original test through the second retest is shown in
Figure 3. Again, the unusual results in the HC chart are due to the
same vehicle which was retested earlier and cleaned up dramatically with
a tuneup. There seems to be a sparkplug fouling problem with this
vehicle. A possible cause may be a bent distributor shaft as suggested
by variance which was found in the air gap between the armature and the
magnetic pickup in the distributor. Unfortunately, the owner wanted his
car back before it could be examined further. Another problem was found
with a vehicle which never met NOx standards even though it has been in
three Restorative Maintenance programs. In an attempt to determine the
cause of this problem, the EGR valve was removed and released to the
manufacturer who performed flow checks on it. These tests showed that
its flow characteristics were within specifications. The timing advance
mechanisms were also within specifications. The NOx emission level was
never reduced enough to meet standards which made this the only 1976
model Ford vehicle to ultimately fail its Standards. The bar charts in
Figure 3 demonstrate the "sawtooth effect" of the average emissions of
the thirteen vehicles which have now been in three Restorative Mainte-
nance programs. Between the first and second retest, the average HC and
CO emissions increased 285% and 121%, respectively. The NOx emissions
showed a decrease of 10%.
Figure 4 shows the average emission levels of each pollutant in the
original and the retest sequences for the retested 1977 model year
vehicles. These vehicles fared slightly better than the 1976 models
with increases of 113% and 151% for HC and CO respectively. The NOx
emission showed a decrease of 13%. Although average HC and CO both
increased, only CO was above Federal Standards when the vehicles were
tested in "as-received" condition. Only two of the 1977 model year
vehicles exhibited maladjustments or disablements and this could account
for the difference in comparison with the 1976 model year vehicles.
-------
-6-
Attached as Figure 5 are charts showing the percentage of each fleet
that met Federal Standards after each test sequence in both the original
test and the retests. The "sawtooth" effect is again evident in these
charts. Of special consideration are the low percentages of passing
vehicles in the "as received" condition in the retests since these low
percentages are from groups of vehicles which were showing much higher
passing percentages approximately 6-12 months prior to retesting.
Average emissions of vehicles from both model years were reduced with
correction of maladjustments, disablements, and a major tune-up. As a
general observation, there was little, if any, change in average fuel
economy on the vehicles in the "final test" condition. Test results on
individual vehicles are attached as an appendix.
Conclusions
Relative to the useful life of a vehicle and the time between scheduled
maintenance actions, these vehicles show a relatively rapid deteriora-
tion in exhaust emission levels. Most of this deterioration seems to be
caused by the following reasons, ranked in order of descending signifi-
cance:
1. Maladjustments and/or disablements which have occurred to the
subject vehicles in relatively short time intervals. The malad-
justment having the most impact is overly rich idle mixture.
Timing and choke maladjustments can also produce significant
increases in emissions. The most common disablement which has been
found to cause the greatest increase in emission levels is plugged
or rerouted vacuum lines, particularly those in the EGR or air
injection systems.
2. Inadequate or improper maintenance. This area gains importance as
the mileage of the vehicle increases. Many of the defective parts
found were neither expensive nor difficult to replace, yet the
defective items remained within the emission control systems of the
vehicle. This is probably because neither driveability nor per-
formance were noticeably affected.
3. Actual general deterioration of the engine and the emission control
systems through accumulated mileage and time. This is shown by the
ultimate HC and CO levels in each of the test series. Although the
average values were brought down to acceptable levels, they were
never reduced to the final test averages of the preceding test
program(s).
References
1. J.T. White, "An Evaluation of Restorative Maintenance on Exhaust
Emissions from In-Use Automobiles", SAE Paper 780082, March, 1978.
-------
-7-
Restorative Maintenance Retesting
Figure 1
Flow Diagram
<
1976
L
ANY MALADJUSTMENTS OR
DISABLEMENTS?
(NOT INCLUDING IDLE
ADJUSTMENTS)
CORRECT MALAD-
JUSTMENTS/DIS-
ABLEMENTS (EXCEPT
IDLE ADJUSTMENTS;
1977
A.
ANY MALADJUSTMENTS OR
DISABLEMENTS?
INCLUDING IDLE
ADJUSTMENTT.
FAIL
Vehicle
Model Year
Testtf Maintenance performed prior to teat
1977 1 None.
2 All maladjustments and disablements
corrected including idle speed and
mixture.
3 Major tune-up and the replacement
of defective parts.
Vehicle
Model Year
Test* Maintenance performed prior to test
1976
1 None.
2 Maladjustments and disablements corrected
except for idle speed nnJ idle mixture.
3 Idle apeuil nnd mixture adjusted to
manufacturer's specifications.
it M.ijor tune-up nnd the replacement of
defective parts.
-------
Restorative Maintenance Retesting
. Table 1
Fleet Average Emissions of the
Entire Original Test Fleets
100 1975 & 1976 Model Year
Vehicles Tested in Detroit
From Sept.1976 to May 1977
30 1977 Model Year
Vehicles Tested in Detroit
From May 1977 to Aug. 1977
Average Odometer
Average HC (gm/mi)
Average CO (gm/mi)
Average NOX( gm/mi)
Average MPG on FTP
Average MPG on HFET
Percent Meeting Standards
8,676 miles
Initial Final
1.32. . .85 '
19.14
2.54
14.0
20.1
.50%
Federal Standards:
6.62
2.36 '
14.4
20.2
87%
1975/76
1 .. 1977
•2,400 miles
Initial '
1.29
20.30
1.59
12.5 ' .
. 18,9
' ' 44% '
HC/. CO NOx '
1.5 15. 3.1"). ;. .
1.5 15 2.OJallvalueSare
Final
.71
9.90
1.56 .
13,7
19,0
80%'
.in grams
I
oo
NOTE: These averages are from the entire original test fleets. It is from these fleets
that the subject vehicles were chosen for retesting. •
-------
-9-
Restorative Maintenance Retesting
Figure 2
Fleet Average Emission Levels of
21 1976 Me del Year Vehicles in Detroit
4.0
3.5'
3.0
2.5
2.0-
W
t>0
LA-
.5-
25
3.66
1.59
H
I
HC
1.5;
SECOND
>
1.01
g
M
H
,97
FOURTH
... .
H
to
M
r--.
J . j'
. ... •.
SECOND
2.91
• * •'
§
M
H
Fed
Stai
1.21
FOURTH
20-
a,15
to
60
10-
*RETEST
ORIGINAL
I .. . TEST
•Dotted lines represent average emission levels vlthouc Vehicle f532i
4. On
3.0-
0)
^l
(0
s
60
2.0-
1.0
0 J
25,8
....
E-t
M
24.5
• * •
i
o
o
ttj
to
c
9 1
§
M
H
:o
•
99
. /
FOURra I
I • •
24.4
H
to
<&
(-1
23.0
SECOND
'
^
10.3
• * •
§
M
Fed
'Sta
'Q Q
FOURTH '•
\
era.'
idai
NO
1 ^'
** ORIGINAL . **RETEST
• **l)otted Hnca represent average CO emission levels without Vehicle £6284
2.66
2.42o iP.2.44
H
en
M
Iu
r
SECOND *
c
Q
C£.
t-
2.2/
FOURTH
t-
;:
2.32
a
7.
O
UJ
2.36
c
ef
X
2.25
0
vr-
\Federal
Standard
ORIGINAL
TEST _RETES7_
Average ~
Odometer:10,537 28,644
(miles)
Dates of
T<-.stinc:9/76-5/77 1/78-3/78
1976 Federal Sland.irds
HC = 1.5 p.rnms/milc
CO "15 gran:s/inlle
JJOX* 3.1 crams/mile
ORtClNAI.
TEST
IIKTKST
-------
-10-
Restorative Maintenance Retesting
. Figure 3
Fleet Average Emission Levels of
13 1976 Model Year Vehicles in Detroit
HC
5.0
4.0
33.0
6
«2.0
60
1.0
0 -*-
ORIGINAL
TEST
1.40
01
1.43
92
.98
S3
.99
f?4
$i.
3.79
#3
1.12
04
4.31
01
/, 17
n
3 no
. Vo
' • • • •
03
]
•
1.28
04.
*FIRST
RETEST
*SECOND
RETEST
Fedcra.X nl.S grac
Standard mile
*Dottcd lines represent average cnlsslon leveln without Vehicle
25
20
15-
g 10
M
5 -
22.6
ORIGINAL
TEST
FIRST
RETEST
20.4
81
Zl.l
*2
7.3
13
7.3
#4
#1
20.8
n
9.0
03
8.7
04
19.2
i7l
18.4
n
13.2
S3
A
11.2
I? 4
.Federal ^15 Rrrnns
lSj£.andard mile
SECOND
RETEST
X
u
r-l
CO
to
4.0 i
*
3.0
r
i
I
12.0
'l.O
0
2.42
f.. .11
03
04
ORIGINAL
TEST
Average Cdoir.crtcr: 9,849
(..ilc-s)
Dntes of Tc:.tiiit~ : 10/76-4/77
2.72
2 39
2.44
03
2.40
04
,Federal _3.1 gram;
Standard mile
FIRST
RETEST
1/78-3/78
02
03
04
SKCOMI)
RF.TEST
36,358
8/7S-10/78
-------
-11-
Restorative Maintenance Retesting
Figure 4
Fleet Average Zmission Levels of
6 1977 Model;.Year Vehic.les in Detroit
HC
4)
rH
1-1
6
m
i
co
2.0
1.5
1.0
.5
.83
tfl
.64 .60
SZ
03
ORIGINAL
TEST
/V , , "1-5 grams/mile
7 Standard
1.28
n
1.07
If 2
.87
#3
RETKST
CO
t-i
"B
(0
M
60
20
15
10
2.0 r
X 1.5
-------
-12-
Restorative Maintenance Retesting
Figure 5
Percentage of Vehicles
Passing Federal Standards
21 1976 Model Year Vehicles
100%
V)
•c
"g
(9
jj
W
01
01
rt
50%
25%
0%
48%
#1
52%
f-2
76%
£3
85%
#4
/. ">"/
HJA
*1
• '
38%
92
57%
i?3.
76%
.04
ORIGINAL
TEST
REXEST
13 1976 Model Year Vehicles
100%
"92%~
a
•0
75%i
o
25%.
54% 54%
fl
92
85%
#3
fA
ORIGINAL
TEST
FIRST
RETEST
77%
38% 38%
n
$2
62%
#3
04
77%
54%
n i
v 1
62%
f?2
69%
?3
S4
SECOND
RETEST
6 1977 Model Year Vehicles
100%
100% 100%
01
•o
«
§
75%
50%-
in
25%-
0%
50%
(r'l ?2 if 3
83%
67%
50%
02 #3
ORIGINAL
TEST
RETEST
-------
Appendix
-------
RESTORATIVE MAIHT™AHCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF :• .' RESULTS
Vehicle No.
Site Q"?
Vin
Odometer
lake
est il
/
3
I
.
/
Podo«
Date
11/9*
2/l/Tg
.
.... .
1m
>
FTP
11C
.<=!*
/.03
/J5"
Model
(gn/mi
CO
Cfl£
*M5-
5772
..
7.3^
.A&*
\
) "
NOxc
3.3%
3.0^
3.05"
2.1T2
fn
MT(
!_ FTP
12.09
/U7
/7.D3
1*7 0 li
1 /( Cj
HFET
O *l LL/
^•^» lO
as.%?
22.13
23J0
CID
1 11C
(ppm)
- .
400
25-
3r
^as*
ICO
(%)
.HO
• \1
.01
»
Trans ^ Carb | v Inertia Wt. ^COO
Comments
CAf5 OK
*
- : •- . - . . [-
CAPS °K
cA<*i> Ok.
Federal Standards HC CO I-IOxc
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1
1977/78 1.5 15 2.0
-------
RESTORATIVE MAIHT^HAHCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF . T RESULTS
Vehicl
Make
T
•M
7*
*~-
3
.
— -
3.
../_'
(0 /
J
Af3
MTff
FTP HFET
\L%
17.63
/B.oi
I?, tf
1775
1^1
21.42
HC CO HOxc
2XHB
2-Z.g2
Z^.Z^
2M7
22.7
22.15
*7,*2
CID
in
F* fl £-1 (~(o-& \&O r—4 :> OdometerO Jf I2-/ -52 6yS / /«2/<3 /
/ 1
, 2.2-iT" Trans ^ Carb /V Inertia Ut. ^^O^O
I11C ICO
(ppm) (%)
2-b'O
^'t
. ._
117
3*>
^
\$$
5T6
6.
|.2
>5
3.S"
.01
,02.
•
f
.^
Comments
CAP5 Trt\SSHfe-
/ft^ilfJCa ~&
"Tll^l^Cy AdlwST/r/)
IDt£ iVliyT0^ Ap^.
CAps ynSSMO
H.Aj) . 5eMoO. ptsre«-T>ve
-•^-^;: : .:.
cAfSnVSSKr
J ~"
.
fe^i^cL^ to(M - ' '
• '
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1 ;.
1977/78 1.5 15 2.O
-------
RESTORATIVE MAIHTBjjAHCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF '£Jt RESULTS
Vehicle No.
Site Q"7
Make _Q.O£fae-.._ _.. Model O\C.vaer
,1 ITO-D~i~^*l™4 \ ' Ml
CID
Yin X $2.
,34>Q
Odometer
Trans
Carb
Inertia We.
! Test. _// „ JDate_
FTP (gn?mi)
11C
CO NOxc
77.SS
MT6
FTP HFET
IHC ICO
(ppm)
!«V7
.01
Comments
CAfS
om- «> F"
AOi \JAC-
ADA. IDLE:
! / ;
7^.
M llEJ
800
IZ.
CAPS
Fvut
r.o
.01
U1NE5
ADM. TO ois-r.
G: LINt*
u»Ne. ro
! /
3.17 !
3^0 S-.Q
30 i ,02-
Federal Standards HC CO HOxc
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1
1977/78 1.5 15 2.0
-------
Vehicle No.
Make
Site
^£____
.o; j
Model
tf Date,
FTP (gm/rai)
HC
CO NOxc
5-J.-3
I4.A
2.01
2.S)
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
Q1 Vin
CID
Trans
Odometer f.i
Carb 2v Inertia Wt. 4-tTOC)
tire
FTP HFET
IM.07
20,28
IHC ICO
(ppm) (%)
3.4-
.10
Comments
,xv
1 j 2/1
6.00
SO, Z
1^.32
I3.77
3.28 3.1 2. 57m. 62
.......
620
600
MSIMG-, H-A.O.
'.2
n JB.IZU.HJ 2.4^1M.fel|2Q.o2j 80 | ,01 iff
(V\fe\»V T-V
, HJ
Se*tor
I
-4-
Fcderal Standards HC CO
1 1975/76 1.5 15
1977/78 1.5 15
HOxc
3.1
2.0
-------
RESTORATIVE MAIHTEHANCE EVALUATION
V'ehicl
Make
Test //
.1
3
H
—
e No.
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS ;
G2.'G \ (02. 5"2.iT" Odometer 32^11. /_l)4^> 7^
*
s
JM*
zlt>
^h
Model
0.sW
FTP (gm/mi)
HC CO NOxc
An
/Z.5-
-™!S
IS 4.0
Federal Standards
/.^
2.8t
2.01
*"*•*
MTG
FTP HFET
20.W
/7.Z^
\11M-
*
HC CO HOxc
Z?.3b'
CID
IHC
, 225 Tran3 A Carb jv Inertia Wt. 35"^^
ICO
.5*
1
i
Comments ,
Ofc-O 4 ^ * T* • !
f
•
I
i j g
i
ar.rj 7So
?'«:«
7.H.T?
7oO
7.3
..7.3
.o\
.01
...
HT^"^?'^? le^'-V.1^ ^"^ W<"'^
A^ucVe^ -*i«.«v iM-We* -*^.r.
/^O\» \O\£ VW»X- \***^*
^v\oior "V^^^-ot* t ycP^'"1''^" W^1^ te^i*^-
i
1
•
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1
1977/78 1.5 15 2.0
-------
RESTORATIVE MAIHjHttlAHCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OFiJiT RESULTS
;Vehicle No.'
Make
Tost..!? ._JDate_
3 !//•
*j.
oj) \f± Model
FTP (gm7mi)~
Site Q*7
Odometer37»3Q3 Qt Of
CID , 3j %* Trans A Carb 2-0 Inertia Wt.
HC
CO NOxc
2-64
1.70
37.V \'1L
I.HI.
/•83
MT6
FTP I1FET
20.35"
me ico
(ppm) (%)
330J 2.S
.60
Comments
CHofiS
OH
UONCr-
Atxj. IDLE
?' uhi:7UJP
00
I
I.
^.3S'
I.
! i l^r
LH
I S3
52. //C? |:.
sf ec
^^-p ->c- /
)..? / /••' I • I
VAVJC^V«-
Federal Standards HC CO I'.'Oxc
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1
1977/78 1.5 15 2.0
I
-------
'.'chid
.' Make
i
.T
1
est it
1
e No.
RESTORATIVE
SUMMAB
&32fc> Site O7 V
^JJate.
/o/M/
2. \iolib
3
2
-------
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
Vehicle No.
Make fov^d
.T
i
i
d>2-3*^ Site O7 yin & lflS2_l- l^33fe Odometer H^/ 6 2-^ / / |y 5~ *f ^
estj
f
/
__Date..
IM><
FTP
1IC
Model
(gm/mi
CO
.(»7l /J
I.Ob
2,8
'
. . .... .
G>^J«,
r~
NOxc
LV
1,12.
MTG
FTP 11FET
/5^*i^
/^".H3
21. ri
2|(4|
CID
me
(ppm)
20
30
/ *
. "25"0 Trans ^ Carb |v Inertia Wt. 4000
ICO
,01
,01
Comments
C*ft 0\f.
C&pi fM£6/UC*-
f&f^ V*»\vie. Dfft.ipi\r&»\ »y\ le«vK^
^j . /
i
• Federal Standards HC CO KOxc
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1
1977/78 1.5 15 2.0
O
-------
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
. V
M
T
I
i
i
i
i
1
chicle No.
ake r tot-
es t //
/ i
_*...
£i
3
if
1
-—
._
1
^t*) V
"1 '"'/
n-?8
'
(f>2-^[?> Site O"7 Vin fe
£ Model
FTP
___HC
l.tf
.Si
-H4
/.20
£T.D
(gm/ml)
CO NOxc
^•/.tt
^.H
3.1
3/vt
^,-7
'.\ ••.'.oral Standards
H.a^
£U
6.20
Ul
1.^3
r- - -
MTG
FTP HFET
u.u
12i.^\
13.61
* M i fV
• !• 1 Q
u-n
_ .
HC CO HOxc
12,42
18 .ti|
18.10
H.IS
\1.00
CID
IHC
(ppm)
2^0
»fc&S»VV75=»fcS Odometer 1\ ,8bfc,/ \ 1 , 4 <3
- 3S"l Trans ^ Carb *2.v Inertia Wt. ^CCO
ICO
Z.-7
J1 r " •
2^
&0d
.o\
.«!
,01
Comments
CtM lAStpAi V"~^M«»V \iv\e \u *•'»([• Cv*v*B \jyrj<»'S o»ico»*»»i\.c'.c).
EG'ti- ftt«.V pVefi"rC. T "'t-vv.iO^C^.V" prdTlA.Vx
^-" v'"e «--*-«^'* :
A<)'\* »*>C, wv\y.'V^^v>^out^c.r. s
C*f* «\«^^ ,
;
J
i
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1
1977/78 1.5 15 2.0 '.
I
K)
-------
RESTORATIVE MAIKKHAHCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OpOsT RESULTS
Vehicle No.
Site O7
Vin
Make /^ORO Model ^~f~lTC-
.
Test // Date
•yr
• ....
2>»*
i
i. I
I I/-2S-72
\
i
' 1
i J
H- jJ^-Tgr
/ ^-If-TB
• i — -• - -
Lfc.ia-ZW!
i ._!
FTP (gm/mi)
HC CO NOxc
/.5~5J2S.2.
/.*& ZH.M:
/.S'a 7%
3.1V-
3,^
3.^1
/,5? 2-67 f.0?
/.17 5:3
;
r ••- ••
IWl M.Z
/.^ /3.3
/.V-7 /3.f
'
1 !^ff /Jt Q
f.z^
4.07
MTS
FTP HFET
/1.7g
13,^
(3.4AV<
ToAtnft -+U-
O • i - . -. ... .
O
ADi lotff m.xruee AMD ^^
^»;or Tone, up
e^wtt,^
l^ar'Wu "' "'• "
T»WMW ~\2-°
A^\ •fi^^we,
^
•
: Federal Standards HC CO HOxc
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1 .
1977/78 1.5 15 2.0
to
-------
;.;
1
F
chid
ake
c No.
_FCXL
RESTORATIVE MAIMJEKAHCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF^3T RESULTS
£35"O Site 07 Vin <£ fj 2 57/ / 8*? / ^7 Odometer 3S?(!)£> /2%5??/|376O
3
cst If Date
/ \W>7?
1 |
3
1 £ j * 1 25
~" ""
g-8-78
FTP
HC
IX*
A5-5-
Model
(gm/mi
CO
7.£
22.^
!
1
/ Q/ !/ua«r
I « // i «>p3
1.75
/ 2 ^3
1 07
ederal Standards
ao.it
/O.2.
TORINO
)
NOxc
2.S1
2.36
2,H
2.«
2 SO
MTG
FTP HFET
an
IW
I3.Z^
12. %
^^
HC CO KOxc
i^.i/
IWO
J9.ll
18.*??
•tf
CID
me
(ppm)
35"
3t£>
35"
26
5b
, 3-^"l Trans fa Carb 2_V Inertia Wt. f^OO
•
ICO
.01
r.qo
.18
.0-7
1
Comments
CA9S ^K
UAwHttz. c^fs fASSMOr
AD3. IU6 mixruac- AHD
RepVie.ei t*»»"V> 'lo^e- TkeeoVe S«-«*w
cofawsffor-
»
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1
1977/78 1.5 15 2.0
I
N3
-------
RESTORATIVE MAIpSHAHCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OIvJtST RESULTS
M
;
I
j
chicle No..
ake ^0RC
es_M
__D.ate.
2-22-77
i
2
.
i
M?
8-Z-7B
S-7-7£
&?>£2- Site 07 Vin £G2J S 2^^440 Odometer 3 \0fo/ 21 73.\ \ 2-I4
• •••.--i
a -? ; I g<"
O . J / >o°
MTG
,_FTP HFET
Il.T
/;.7f
12.11
1 1 o /
HC CO MOxc
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1
1977/78 1.5 15 2.0
K.7
/^¥
/^./
'S
CID ,
- tfCO Trans A Carb 2. «j Inertia Wt. 5^C>0
IHC ICO
(ppm) (%)
5^)
,01
i
1
JOOO
106
10
*^
.
Comments
c-APi o.y.. j
i
1
j.
T/m-60
i
CAP.S mSiNfar
ADi TtV/lll^fr
|
1
i
I
M
-------
j Vehicle No.
£35^
RESTORATIVE MAIUXTOAHCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OlO;SX RESULTS
Site O"
Vin
Make
Model
/
CID
Trans
Odometer
A Carb 2. Inertia Wt.
OO2-/2W>t />'
Tes_t _# _Da te
FTP (gm/miF
HC
CO NOxc
T"
MTG
FTP HFET
n.tt,
I1IC ICO
(ppm) (%)
2s" I -01
Comments
CAPS o»<.
.1.
NS
Ui
I 2-1? 1/3.7?
I o U T I / Z "*fl
' t. .• / i / j>~JI
IOOO \ 3-O
o
o
/M
puut-orF. HA.D.
L,\8-l-73j Mi
/5".2, !
fM*78
2.35"
1Z.Y7
12-1
380
rv\.®(t V.
185"
e^ cVoV>e
Federal Standards HC CO
1975/76 1.5 15
1977/78 1.5 15
HOxc
3.1
2.0
^r THESE TrsTS
POT osep' |M THE
DAT>
u-E.J
-------
RESTORATIVE MAir~V,HAHCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OFW4ST RESULTS
Vehicle No.
Site
07
Yin
Odometer
4M&/3I
gf 2
•
•
.Test_J
/
"
/
i
i
! i
3-Y-7;
A/7-7S
t) Model
r~ &lftl)
FTP (gm/mi)
HC CO NOxc
.72.
8.Z
A?9
.88 i /O.I \2.$<1
. ... j .. .. !
.
MTG
FTP HFET
/A^
/0.6/
. .
" •" "]
i
i
/t^J mjL^
- .
/^./
- —
£07
/6./2.
/^.03
IH.72.
CID
. "faO Trans /\ Carb ^v" Inertia Wt.
-------
Vehicl
Make
.T
1
i
i
i
est #
_ .(,. -
e No.
j£l>)<
RESTORATIVE MAIHJKHAHCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF \^JT RESULTS .
^>370 Site Ol Vin ^P-S" 7 J>£j fl£ tS" iR/^^t Odometer HOZ27/Z^?^'/U^(.
-K
Date
V*
Jjo//^
Model
/ /
LcSft.ViVtf3 CID 2>5"O Trans ^ Carb ^ v Inertia Wt. £~O&&
FTP (gm/mi)
HC CO NOxc
,H£
X5
no,
me ico
(ppm) (%)
lf\ 0
1
1
t
1
1 o
j
26" '02-
i
(
Comments
c.P5 c,K
CAPS w» i5S ING-
Federal Standards HC CO HOxc
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1
1977/78 1.5 15 2.0
I
K)
-------
Vohicl
Make
-
Test //
L-'
r" •
; i
3.
e No.
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
62.72. Site 07 Vln 6 D ^56,02.33^1 odometer |8>~&l/ 8757
\e^>
Date
**>
j
;
Model
SeW 0«H;Ue.
FTP (gm/mi)
HC CO NOxc
1
15-2 ill
• «*o i //« /
(*) i ! i / f
' 1 1 1 V?i ^
/• 3H" II • w
i
Federal Standards
/,7Z
1,13
;
MTG
FTP HFET
;/,3d>
Ml.
HC CO KOxc
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1
1977/78 1.5 15 2.0
/SIT?
•
CID
£00
Trans /\ Carb f"V Inertia Wt. S"^5^
IHC ICO
(ppm) (%)
2s
I
.01
i
i
[
t
/OO
Z\0
,35-
i
Comments
c^ ot.
1
oo
1
Iwj \^lc. VV^vy^ofc^
f;
t
1
u
-------
'.'ehicl
:iake
e No.
Cke
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
&2.8H Site O"7 Yin \ H £ 7\/ 0, 1 M-H-0^33 Odometer 29,5 11- / 'H 3Z$
-VI
!
Test // Date
1
7L
3
t
1
3
*f
^
O / 1 /
^V / V9
2//7
Model
MoAe Cc,r\o
FTP (gm/mi)
HC CO NOxc
*07
3. If
A £3
/.«3
-^
/.2?
l.fl*
:'aderal Standards
/38.7
//7?
4lt
55,0
5-7.3
47.^
47 /
1*3
ASS-
AD?
A/*J
y.^
/.zr
/,5"Z
MTS
FTP HFET
y/.«r
//.39
/ *? /^
/ *J • iQ
12. ft
/3.7|
/3.gf
/3.^
HC CO KOxc
17 W
/7W
|e.3/
/7./S
/K7g
;^.33
/8.«tf
CID
^^O Trans /\ Carb "2.^ Inertia Wt. H'S'OO
IIIC ICO
(ppm) (%)
270
110
13
Y
^r
20
IS
fT.(9
3./
O
0
.01
.01
,01
Comments
£2,s*rT«P
r.M^oJj.
A4j '^fi DiiV^'JrC-
f^^c^f 7"^n<- «^P
CAf-$ IVvS^A/Cy
•-
/^j^ (3le irnijc-tore.
rh^o. Tu^.op
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1
1977/78 1.5 15 2.0 ..
I
K3
-------
.'chicle No.
Make
63S6
RESTORATIVE MAIlpffiHAHCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF(kiJST RESULTS
Site Ol
Odometer^ fe'M
Model
CID
3S-0
Trans
Carb
Inertia Wt.
i
!
*£
—
J^ln
FTP (gm/mi)
HC CO NOxc
.*B
— -
//• 7
,73 K.tf
—
!*..>.
/.^7
1,^
Mrs
FTP HFET
/3.°?
— — — -
12*2.
/7.H«fr
/^
,7,3
IHC ICO
(ppm) (%)
JJT
r
vr-
0.0
•I
,02.
l
L .
Comments
CM *£
CAP6 ok.
j.
^PS OK
i
OJ
c
Tederal Standards HC CO HOxc
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1
1977/78 1.5 15 2.0
-------
Vehicle No.
Make
.T
i
i
cst. i
RESTORATIVE MATJJTEHANCE EVALUATIOH , !
SUMMARY o£)iST RESULTS I
te^\ Site OH Vin 3X37 T£»n 361900 Odometer32lty^i7T/32
-------
RESTORATIVE MAIHTEHAWCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
..:liicle No.
Site O7
- - .. -_ _._-
Vin
Odometer 3$2\5 / \ 2 j
(:-::iko rc^T«'*-o-
Model
CID /4O Trans A Carb
Inertia Ut. 3OCO
Tost // Date
/
3
/
._
i
i
2//C/7S
.._
FTP (gra/mi)
1IC CO NOxc
,84
.S5"
.%>
'cclcral Standards
I7.B
4.2.
r,t
2.0&
/•?^
2.0G
MTC
FTP HFET
2o.30
7^1 *r (t
I tl o/s
HC CO HOxc
28.31
2S.^
27 OZ
IHC
(ppm)
3
/r
ICO
/, oo
.01
,ol
Comments
Co^f w^iiiks
A4- Ulei*».^-C
e^. m,.^
'
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1 . • .;•
1977/78 1.5 15 2.0 *'
I
CO
NJ
I
-------
'chicle No.
Site
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
Yin
lake TOM iCc<-. Model ^ig^orc.
CID
Trans
Odometer
Carb £ V Inertia Ut.
leatJ
/
2
I I
1 2
3
4
•>
i
Date
Vto?
4/11/7;
2/22^78
7/i3
V27
3A
FTP (gm/mi)
HC CO NOxc
.3f
,U
.7^>B
• fez.
.^
-7i
'•jderal Standards
K8
1.3
514
3.5
3,4
^.c!
M.0t
2.73
2.33
3.73
3.72
2,^8
MPff
FTP HFET
I13L
17.07
/77^
)8-,87
/7.2ST
/6.^7
HC CO l!0xc
23,19
2.Z30
23.S-6
2^,25
23.fl
Z3.8L
I1IC ICO
(ppra) (%)
7L5-
33
IL
2.a
10
^H
.01
o
0
I O
0
0
Comments
CAP3 C?*i
£•&<*. UlHE PlSCt>K»vec-Ti£-j3
C<**
A«)j -tir»un^
AJj l«--»Jw^«^
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1
1977/78 1.5 15 2.0
I
U)
o;
I
-------
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF fr RESULTS
Vehicle No.
Make
Site O~7
Vin
Model
CID
G1 A 3-1 (pOOT Odometer £3£/5_ / Z
Trans A Carb £•>/ Inertia Wt.
.T
]
j
i
i
est /•
/
—
/
- _ . .
Date
£2£77
I-IW
i
—
FTP
. JJ.Q. _
•V?
(gra/mi)
CO NOxc
^.56
— —
.«|?,2«
Zoo
1*1
-••
MFC
FTP HFET
13.17
IZ/N
1 8.8*1
t«.n
IHC ICO
(ppm) (%)
"
?LO
It
o.o
,o\
Comments
CMJ c>^
•
'
CAPS o^
te»Ky tfAD StKjo^
• • t ~. • • • - - - - - ........
- - -•- - - •-- --
4--
I
Federal Standards HC CO HOxc
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1
1977/78 1.5 15 2.0
-------
RESTORATIVE MAIIJWMAHCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OFW3T RESULTS
Vehicle No. "?M>\ Site O"? Vin SS> £ Z N) 1 -^-v Inertia Ut. H'S'^O
s
,T
)
est // Date
i
%,
-L
....
%^
1
FTP (gm/mi)
HC CO NOxc
.,*?.
• fc7
Federal Standards
2.3J
5.04-
_ . . .
;.3?
1.71
MTG
FTP HFET
/AW
11.89
_
1.
HC CO KOxc
/7.ao
18.2-S"
IHC ICO
(ppm) (%)
•
i
Comments
CA*<*
i •
i i
! i
37
.
.03
"
c/^s oy.
;
i
i
\
• ,•
i
1975/76 1.5 15 3,1
1977/78 1.5 15 2.0
-------
M
IT
.
1
f
i
ehicle No.
nke FOfl
f?st «
RESTORATIVE MAIKP-flAHCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF VJST RESULTS
7M-63 Site 07 Vin 7X1 IV IS82£? Odometer 2IMT7 1^34(72^
>D
._Date_
6//fa/7?
/
r~ • — •
. . .
7/ll/W
Model
f//oro
FTP (gin/mi)
HC CO NOxc
.9:'r
'• • •• ....
federal Standards HC CO NOxc
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1 .
1977/78 1.5 15 2.0
O'
I
-------
Vfliicl
.'• ;ike
Test 9
1 "
c No.
Date
...... .
Q>l\ohj
6//-V77
i
i
H
1
i
i
i
i
RESTORATIVE MAI'>-v!AHCE EVALUATIOIi
SUMMARY OI'V^/JT RESULTS
74*7Ai°« T^ME up
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1
1977/78 1.3 15 2.0
-------
Vehicle No.
Make O>OU
.T
est //
__Date_
/ l<>//3
3
IOJ
1
RESTORATIVE MAIHTJ^AUCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF 'Xu/' RESULTS
lt1'*?jb Site O~? Vin ^X 6^ K\ 7 AlT8 2.2 4^ Odometer 13 5o(9 / £. JC\ 0
JlC.
Model
Execr^-A
FTP (gm/mi)
HC CO NOxc
I.D^V
> Of'
^.2,
2D.|.
2,-?
-
1. 12.
'
MTG
FTP HFET
13. DC,
\2.37
I7.S|
«L«
P/ u
• ^51
CID
, HD3 Trans ^ Carb f V Inertia Ht. L[S(-&
•
IHC ICO
(ppm) (%)
Q
V)
.85"
I.-75*
.01
Comments
CAPS o*
-------
Vehicle No.
Site
RESTORATIVE MAIECTHAHCE EVALUATION
SUMMARY OFV^ST RESULTS
O"?
Vin
Odometer 2L.72& /3*/P
ake CU03
est // Date
/
2.
qt/v
J.jj9&fa
2. -j/fl/13
FTP
HC
/.^
,W
/.a*
Model
"TginTmi
CO
n.s
a.z
^\^«*. CfwXSev
)
NOxc
/.0<(
1-07.
/576 i 0.92
"T
72-7 1 ! oW
I. -:— -
1
'
.
. . ..
|
MPG
FTP HFET
/i.^r
13.18
b#i
72, 5T
».?. 22
iS.fH
/»*O *
/^*2cJ
CID
, 35"O Trans /\ Carb <{->/ Inertia Wt. S'COO
'.
I1IC ICO
(ppm) (%)
2.20
^
.3«V
< o|
10
.
. ...
.&^
••••
Comments
CAPS ot
«C*U«* tv^ C^trtev W/5l«c. c^r^Ve.
p^^v^^W^V /JH'n^:
Choke. A«^«
I
to
Federal Standards HC CO HOacc
1975/76 1.5 15 3.1
1977/78 1.5 15 2.0
------- |