EPA-AA-TAEB-80-9
Evaluation of a Nissan Fast Burn Engine System (NAPS-Z)
January 1980
by
James M. Kranig
Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-2-
Background
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is interested in new technological
developments which will reduce exhaust emissions and improve fuel economy.
Because the development of the Fast Burn Engine System (NAPSZ) by the Nissan
Motor Company, Ltd., appeared to be a new technological development, the EPA
requested a vehicle for testing and evaluation at the Motor Vehicle Emission
Laboratory in Ann Arbor. Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., agreed to provide a
vehicle for evaluation and agreed that the test program would include a
variety of test conditions to enable a complete evaluation of the vehicle
characteristics. The engine concept is the result of development aimed at
meeting 0.41, 3.4 and 1.0 grams per mile for HC, CO, and NOx, respectively,
while improving fuel economy.
The Fast Burn Engine System is being developed to provide a means of reducing
NOx emission levels while maintaining or improving upon current fuel economy
and performance levels. The EPA has tested several retrofit Exhaust Gas
Recirculation (EGR) devices. However, this vehicle provided the opportunity
to test an engine concept developed as a unit to allow increased EGR levels.
The engine modifications were aimed at eliminating the common problems re-
sulting from high levels of EGR, including reduced fuel economy and perfor-
mance.
The conclusions from the EPA evaluation of the NAPS-Z can be considered to be
quantitatively valid only for the vehicle used. However, it is reasonable to
extrapolate the results from the EPA test program to other vehicles in a
directional manner. It is reasonable to suggest that similar results are
likely to be achieved where a similar engine concept is applied to other types
of vehicles.
Summary of Results
1. For the standard test conditions the vehicle met the target levels for
HC, CO, and NOx of 0.41, 3.4, and 1.0 grams per mile, respectively.
2. Fuel economy for the standard test conditions was 26.4 miles per gallon
for the FTP and 37.2 miles per gallon for the HFET. The "1979 Gas
Mileage Guide," second edition cites 23 miles per gallon as the figure
for a 1979 Datsun 510 with 5 speed manual transmission.
3. The NAPS-Z met the target emission levels for HC under all test condi-
tions (various shift speeds, inertia weights, and A/C loads), exceeded
the target for CO (3.4 gpm) under three test conditions (maximum by 12%),
and exceeded NOx (1.0 gpm) under six test conditions (maximum by 28%).
4. As the various combinations of the three test variables were run, the
range of emission results for HC was 0.22 to 0.40 gpm, for CO was 1.6 to
3.8 gpm, for NOx was 0.65 to 1.28 gpm. The range for fuel economy was
22.3 to 34.8 miles per gallon for the FTP and was 34.0 to 41.8 miles per
gallon for the HFET.
5. The effect that changing the ambient temperature from 0° to 110°F had on
HC and CO varied between the FTP and HFET cycles. Increasing the tem-
perature caused NOx to decrease and fuel economy to increase throughout
the temperature range on both cycles.
-------
-3-
Test Program
The test program employed a variety of test conditions to determine the sensi-
tivity of the vehicle to changes in the test conditions. The vehicle was
tested according to the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and the Highway Fuel
Economy Test (HFET) cycles under each of the various combinations of test
conditions as shown in Table I and Table III. Testing conducted at the EPA
Motor Vehicle Emissions Laboratory involved varying the inertia weight, the
shift speed schedule, and the air conditioner horsepower loads. The effect of
ambient air temperature changes was investigated at a facility operated by
Gulf Research in Pennsylvania.
The vehicle was tested at inertia weights of 2500, 2750 , and 3000 pounds.
This provided an indication of the sensitivity of the engine and its controls
to changes in vehicle loading. It also served to indicate the effect on
emission and fuel economy levels if the engine was used in a larger vehicle
since the engine demonstrated adequate power for such an application.
Three shift speed schedules were used which ranged from the low speed schedule
of 9/15/23/30 mph to the standard of 15/25/40/45 to the high speed schedule of
17/29/46/52 mph. This was done to indicate the sensitivity of the vehicle to
various driver characteristics and to various driving situations.
The horsepower loading applied during testing was varied among three levels.
To establish a baseline, the vehicle was tested in the standard configuration.
This included the additional 10% horsepower requirement for air conditioning
over the basic road load horsepower requirement. It was also tested without
the added 10% horsepower both with and without the A/C in operation at maximum
cooling conditions. These configurations provided an indication of the sensi-
tivity of the vehicle to various changes in road loads due to use or non-use
of the A/C as well as to any increase in coolant temperature resulting from
operation of the air conditioning system.
The ambient temperature testing was conducted to establish the sensitivity of
the vehicle to a wide range of ambient conditions. The vehicle was soaked at
and run at temperatures ranging from 0° to 110° F. These conditions were
intended to simulate the seasonal changes associated with the various geogra-
phical regions of the United States.
Normal inertia test weight for the test vehicle.
-------
z x > -> > Br ® El
-4-
Figure 1 - NAP-Z Engine
-------
-5-
Table I
Test Conditions
Variable Values
Inertia Weight 2500, 2750, and 3000 pounds
Shift Speeds 9/15/23/30, 15/25/40/45, 17/29/46/52
A/C Horsepower Load base road load, A/C not operating;
base road load +10% additional road load,
A/C not operating
base road load, A/C operating at maximum
cooling condition
Ambient Temperature 0,20,40,60,70,80,90,110°F
Vehicle Description
The basic test vehicle was a 1978 Datsun 510 three door hatchback with an
inertia weight of 2750 pounds. It was equipped with the experimental 1952
cubic centimeter Nissan Fast Burn Engine System. Power was delivered through
a five-speed manual transmission with an overdrive fifth gear with a ratio of
0.854 to 1 and a rear axle ratio of 3.545 to 1. A full description is given
in Table II.
Fast Burn Engine Concept
The engine system developed by Nissan to improve both the control of NOx
emission levels and to improve fuel economy is essentially a combination of
heavy EGR and a fast burn engine. The concept is described in detail in a
Technical Paper published by the Society of Automotive Engineers entitled "The
Fast Burn with Heavy EGR, New Approach for Low NOx and Improved Fuel Economy"
by H. Kuroda, Y. Nakajima, K. Sugihara, Y. Takagi, and S. Muranaka. A brief
summary of the SAE paper follows:
Attempts to increase the level of EGR used to control NOx emission levels
revealed that engine operating stability is the major limiting factor. There-
fore, the authors began an investigation into which combustion charac-
teristic (s) determined operating stability. Pressure readings were taken at
four locations within the combustion chamber with various EGR levels. From
this information, four types of combustion were identified. The normal burn
produced a single, sharp pressure spike at all four locations. A slow normal
burn condition was characterized by irregular pulses of a longer duration than
the normal burn. A partial burn was characterized by pressure pulses occuring
at one to three of the reading locations. The final type noted was a misfire
condition where no pressure pulses were recorded.
It was found that the normal burn condition predominated when no EGR was used.
As EGR was introduced some slow burn combustion appeared. As the EGR rate was
increased the portion of combustion of the slow burn type increased. The
engine stability limit, judged by the amount of transverse engine displace-
ment, was reached where combustion was of the normal and slow burn type and
prior to the appearance of partial burn and misfire. Further increasing of the
EGR level resulted first in the appearance of partial burn and then in the
appearance of misfire.
-------
-6-
Since it was found that the percentage of slow burn combustion determined the
level of stability of the engine, a method of increasing the burn rate was
required. Previous developmental work revealed that fast burn engines tended
to increase the NOx levels found from conventional engines. However, the
combination of a fast burn engine with high levels of EGR appeared to be
absent from the previous developmental work. A dual spark plug combustion
chamber was developed to accomplish the fast burn desired (see Figure 1).
A conventional engine was used as a baseline for comparison. It was found
that the duration of the combustion process in the fast burn engine using a
20% EGR rate was comparable to that of the conventional engine not using EGR.
The engine stability limit was reached in the fast burn engine when the EGR
rate was at about 33%. In this configuration the fast burn engine yielded
lower NOx and HC emission levels as well as an improvement in fuel economy in
comparison with the conventional engine.
Discussion of Results
General Data Analysis
From an initial examination of the results displayed in Tables III and IV and
in Figures 2 through 21, it appears that changing the test conditions noted
above did cause real changes in the emission levels and fuel economy of the
vehicle. However, to determine whether the observed differences in the re-
sults were satatistically significant, the statistical technique of analysis
of variance (ANOVA) was used. The ANOVA technique provides a means for
indicating the probability that an observed difference is due to the changing
of the subject variable(s) or whether it is due to residual testing error.
Briefly, the ANOVA technique compares the differences observed, to the
unexplained residual differences, when all but one variable is held constant.
The ANOVA technique also allows the determination of the significance of the
combined effect or interaction of two or more of the variables. This indi-
cates whether the combined variables have a synergistic effect, i.e., the
combined effect is greater than the sum of individual effects.
The resultant levels of significance are stated in terms of percents. This
confidence level indicates the probability that the observed effect is due to
the variable(s) being analyzed (see example calculations in Table XI of
Appendix D).
FTP and HFET testing was completed for 2750 and 3000 pound inertia weights for
all combinations of the three shift speeds and the three A/C horsepower loads.
The testing at 2500 pounds was not complete but included all shift speeds for
the "no A/C load" condition and all A/C loading conditions for the standard
shift speeds. The complete data set from the 2750 and 3000 pound inertia
weights was analyzed for all variables and all combinations of variables for
both the FTP and HFET. Then separate analyses were conducted for the three
inertia weights for the complete "no A/C load" and standard shift speed data
sets using the FTP data.
-------
-7-
Federal Test Procedure
Standard Test Conditions
The standard test conditions used for the NAPS-Z were 2750 pound inertia
weight, ten percent horsepower load added to the standard road load to simu-
late the A/C load, and shift speeds of 15, 25, 40, and 45 miles per hour.
Under these test conditions the average HC, CO, and NOx emission levels were
0.25, 2.8, and 0.70 grams per mile respectively. The vehicle met the 0.41,
3.4, and 1.0 grams per mile maximum levels for which it was designed. The
fuel economy was 26.4 miles per gallon.
Effect of Shift Speeds
Each of the three ANOVA tables indicate that the shift schedule was found to
significantly affect NOx emission levels and fuel economy but it did not
significantly affect CO emission levels. (The summary of results is presented
in Table III and in Figures 2 thru 6 and a summary of the ANOVA results is
presented in Table V.) The low shift speeds consistently yielded the highest
NOx levels while the standard and high shift speeds resulted in lower NOx
levels which were equivalent to each other (see Figure 5). The effect of
shift speeds on fuel economy clearly showed that an increase in shift speeds
resulted in a decrease in the fuel economy (see Figure 6).
The level of significance of the effect of shift speeds on HC emissions varied
between analyses (see Figure 2 and Table V). When the 2750 and 3000 pound
inertia weights were used for the analysis it was found that shift speed
affected the level of HC emissions at the 99% level and that the HC emissions
decreased as the shift speeds were increased. The ANOVA for the three inertia
weights at the "no A/C horsepower" condition indicated shift speed was not
significant at the 90% level. The reason for this is apparent in Figure 2 as
the relative ranking of shift speeds by resultant HC levels were different for
each inertia weight. This test-to-test variability obscured the real effect
of shift speeds found in the other analysis.
Effect of Inertia Weight
Both NOx emission and fuel economy levels were significantly affected by
inertia weight changes. NOx was found to increase as the inertia weight was
increased (see Figure 5). The fuel economy levels decreased as the inertia
weight was increased (see Figure 6).
The significance level of the effect of inertia weight on HC and CO emission
levels varied among the three ANOVA evaluations. The ANOVA performed using
the 2750 and 3000 pound inertia weights indicated that the significance level
of the effect of inertia weight on HC was below 90%. Figure 2 illustrates
that the test-to-test variability was large in comparison to slightly higher
HC emissions for the 3000 pound inertia weight. However, when all three
inertia weights were analyzed, inertia weight was found to affect HC levels at
the 95% level. Figure 2 illustrates the reason for this change in results.
The variability was substantially reduced when the A/C load and the shift
schedule were each held constant in the respective ANOVA evaluations. In both
cases HC emissions levels were higher when the inertia weight was higher.
-------
-8-
Inertia weight was found to be a significant factor in CO emission levels for
two of the three ANOVA evaluations. These were the analyses for the 2750 and
3000 pound inertia weight comparison and the three inertia weight comparison
while holding the A/C load constant. In these two cases an increase in iner-
tia weight caused an increase in CO emission levels. In contrast, when the
shift speed was held constant the effect of the inertia weight was not signi-
ficant at the 90% level. This apparent discrepancy is resolved by observing
that the results of the tests using the standard shift schedule (see Figure 3)
did not follow the trend toward higher CO resulting from higher inertia weight.
Effect of A/C Horsepower Load
The A/C horsepower load level had a significant effect on NOx emission and
fuel economy levels but had no effect on HC emission levels. The NOx levels
were essentially equivalent between the no A/C load and 10% added load condi-
tions but NOx levels increased when the A/C was operated during the test.
Fuel economy was lowest when the A/C was in operation and highest when no A/C
load was applied.
The significance of the effect of the A/C load on CO emissions was not consis-
tent between the two ANOVA evaluations. The effect was not significant for
the ANOVA using the 2750 and 3000 pound inertia weights because of the vari-
ability in results. The effect was signficant at the 99% level for the ANOVA
using the three inertia weights at standard shift speeds. CO levels were
generally lowest when the A/C was in operation and highest when no A/C load
was applied although this effect is somewhat obscured (see Figure 3) by the
interactive effect of A/C load and inertia weight.
Interactions
The combined effect of all three variables was not signficant for any of the
controlled emissions or fuel economy. The interaction of A/C loading and
shift speeds did have a significant effect on each of the above. The combined
effect on HC is not clear in Figure 2 as the effect is obscured by the inter-
action of shift speeds and inertia weights. As the A/C loading increased the
CO levels corresponding to standard shift speeds dropped relative to the other
shift speeds. NOx levels were lowest for the standard shift when no A/C load
was applied but were lowest for the high speed shift when the A/C was in
operation. The fuel economy decline due to increased shift speeds was more
drastic when the simulated A/C load was not applied than when the A/C was in
operation.
The interaction of shift speeds and inertia weight had a significant effect on
HC only. For the 2750 pound class the low shift speeds yielded the highest HC
values followed by standard and then high shift speeds. For the 3000 pound
class no such clear pattern existed (see Figure 2) which indicates a combined
effect caused a change in the ranking of the HC levels relating to shift
speeds.
The A/C loading and inertia weight changes combined to significantly affect CO
levels and fuel economy levels. The high speed shift CO levels were higher
-------
-9-
relative to CO levels associated with other shift speed for the 3000 pound
class than for the 2750 pound class. In the ANOVA analysis of the 2750 and
3000 pound weight class the effect on fuel economy was not significant at the
90% level. However, the effect was significant at the 95% level when all
inertia weights were analyzed for standard shift. The result is that the
decrease in fuel economy due to the A/C operating is less dramatic as the
inertia weight is increased.
Ambient Temperature Effects
The ambient temperature affected HC, CO, and NOx emission levels and fuel
economy at the 99% confidence level. HC and NOx levels steadily decreased as
the ambient temperature was increased (see Figures 7 and 10). The CO levels
dropped with a temperature increase from 0°F to 70°F, remained constant from
70°F to 90°F, and increased from 90°F to 110°F(see Figure 8). Fuel economy
improved as the ambient temperature increased throughout the range(see Figure
11).
The ambient temperature results from tests conducted at Gulf Research and
Development should not be compared directly to the results of tests conducted
at the Motor Vehicle Emissions Laboratory (MVEL). The dynamometer confi-
guration and the analyzers used at Gulf differ from those used at the MVEL.
No attempt was made to establish correlation between the laboratories as the
intent was to determine the relative effect of ambient temperature in es-
tablishing the characteristic response of the vehicle to temperature changes.
Highway Fuel Economy Test
Standard Conditions
The standard test conditions were the same as those used for the FTP. The
resultant average HC, CO, and NOx emission levels were 0.06, 0.3, and 1.18
grams per mile, respectively. The average fuel economy was 37.2 miles per
gallon.
Effect of Shift Speeds
Shift speeds significantly affected HC and NOx emission levels and fuel eco-
nomy levels when performing ANOVA on the 2750 and 3000 pound inertia weight
classes (see Figures 12-16). The HC results were quite low so the rounding
error had a pronounced effect on the results. Despite this effect, the ANOVA
evaluation and Figure 7 show that HC levels tended to increase as the shift
speed was increased.
The effect on NOx and fuel economy were not similarly affected by rounding.
Generally, NOx tended to be lower for the standard shift condition than for
the low and high shift conditions (see Figure 15). Fuel economy fell as the
shift speeds were increased (see Figure 16).
The ANOVA evaluation determined that the effect of shift speeds on CO levels
was not significant at the 90% level. Figure 13 appears to contradict this
conclusion as higher shift speeds seem to result in higher CO levels. How-
ever, the variability in the data was too large to support the conclusion that
this apparent effect was significant.
-------
-10-
Effect of Inertia Weight
The inertia weight was found to have no significant effect on HC and to have a
significant effect on CO, NOx, and fuel economy levels. Higher CO and NOx
emission levels resulted when the inertia weight was increased from 2750 to
3000 pounds. Fuel economy decreased when the inertia weight was increased.
Effect of A/C Horsepower Loads
A/C horsepower load significantly affected NOx and fuel economy but did not
affect HC and CO at the 90% level. The highest NOx levels resulted when the
A/C was in operation while the simulated A/C load caused only marginally
higher NOx levels than the no A/C load condition. Fuel economy was lowest
when the A/C was in operation and highest when no A/C load was applied.
Interactions
The combination of A/C loading and shift schedules affected CO, NOx, and fuel
economy. CO levels were about equal for the no A/C load and simulated A/C
load conditions when the higher shift speeds were used but the no A/C load
condition yielded noticeably lower CO levels than the A/C load conditions when
the low shift speeds were used (see Figure 13). The effect on NOx and fuel
economy were not obvious due to the effect of inertia weight (see Figures 15
and 16). The combined effect of A/C loading and inertia weight significantly
affected only CO but this effect was obscured by the effect of shift speeds
(see Figure 13).
Ambient Temperature Effects
The ambient temperature had a significant impact on HC, CO, NOx, and fuel
economy levels (see Figures 17-21). HC generally decreased from a maximum
level at 0°F to a minimum at 90°F and then rose slightly as the temperature
increased to 110°F. (The 110° values represent a single test result while the
others represent the mean of two results.) CO rose very gradually from a
minimum at 0°F to 90°F and then rose dramatically at the 110°F point. NOx
levels steadily fell as the temperature was changed from 0°F 110°F. Fuel
economy rose gradually as the temperature was increased.
Discussion Summary
The above discussion indicates that the NAPS-Z showed some sensitivity to each
of the three variables. However, the actual impact on the results due to each
variable was generally small considering the substantial range used for each
variable. This can be best realized by comparing the results from the various
test conditions at the MVEL to the standard test conditions. None of the
averages of the two replications for each test condition exceeded the targeted
HC maximum of 0.41 grams per mile for any of the conditions. The highest
average HC value (0.39) gpm represented a 56% increase over the standard
condition (0.25) gpm) while being 5% below the target level.
Average CO emission levels exceeded the target of 3.4 gpm in only three of the
twenty-three conditions (see Table III). The maximum level of 3.8 gpm ex-
-------
-11-
ceeded the standard condition (2.8 gpm) by 36% and the target by 12%. Average
NOx emission levels exceeded the target of 1.0 gpm in six of $he twenty-three
conditions. The maximum level (1.28 gpm) exceeded the standard condition
(0.70 gpm) by 83% and the target by 28%. For the FTP, the fuel economy
minimum value (22.3 mpg) was 16% below the standard condition (26.4 mpg) and
the maximum value (34.8 mpg) exceeded the standard condition by 32%. For the
HFET and fuel economy minimum value (34.0 mpg) was 9% below the standard
condition (37.2 mpg) and the maximum value (41.8 mpg) exceeded the standard
condition by 12%.
The effects of the ambient temperature on HC and CO varied between the FTP and
the HFET. The differences here are understandable as the driving cycles cause
the vehicle to operate in different ranges. Also, the FTP is a cold start
procedure where the choke is activated initially and the components are ini-
tially at the ambient temperature as compared with the HFET where all com-
ponents are in the normal operating temperature range for the duration of the
cycle.
Conclusions
1. The vehicle met the HC, CO, and NOx targets under standard test condi-
tions.
2. The vehicle met the HC target level under all test conditions. The
maximum CO and NOx levels exceeded the target levels by 12% and 28%
respectively, but the vehicle met these targets for most of the test
conditions.
3. Generally, the vehicle was somewhat sensitive to changes in shift speeds,
inertia weight, A/C loading and ambient temperature regarding HC, CO,
NOx, and fuel economy levels. Though the ranges of differences were not
large considering the widely varied test conditions.
4. Fuel economy for the FTP was 26.4 miles per gallon under standard test
conditions compared with the 23 miles per gallon fuel economy figure for
a similar production 510 vehicle with a manual 5-speed transmission
("1979 Gas Mileage Guide", second edition). This improvement of approxi-
mately 3 mpg indicates that the goal of improved fuel economy was met by
the Fast Burn Engine System.
5. The vehicle was able to adequately follow the driving schedule even when
the low shift speeds were coupled with the highest inertia weight and
highest A/C loading.
-------
-12-
Table II
TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
Chassis model year/make - 1978 Datsun 510
KHLA10-004508
Engine
type 4 stroke, Otto Cycle, 4 cyl.
ohc
bore x stroke 85 mm (3.35 in) x 86 mm (3.39 in)
displacement 1952 cc (119 cu. in.)
compression ratio 8.5 to 1
fuel metering single, 2 barrel carburetor
fuel requirement unleaded regular
Drive Train
transmission type 5 speed manual
final drive ratio 3.545 to 1 in fourth gear
3.027 to 1 in fifth gear (overdrive)
Chassis
type unitized 3
tire size 165 SRxl3 radial
curb weight 2325 pounds
inertia weight 2750 pounds
passenger capacity 4
Emission Control System
basic type Nissan Fast Burn Engine System:
fast burn, EGR, exhaust air
induction (EAI), oxidation catalyst
Accumulated Mileage
initial odometer mileage 5850 miles
final odometer mileage 9467 miles
-------
Table III
2500 IW
Summary of FTP and HFET Test Results
(grams per mile/miles per gallon)
2750 IW
3000 IW
FTP
No A/C HP
Sim A/C HP
A/C On
HFET
No A/C HP
Sim A/C HP
A/C On
Low
HC 0.26
CO 2.2
CO 251
NOx 0.8
MPG 34.8
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
C00
7
NOx
MPG
HC 0.06
CO 0.2
CO 212
NOx 1.1
MPG 41.8 .
HC
CO
co2
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
Standard
0.22
1.8
289
0.74
30.4
0.24
3.6
292
0.72
29.7
0.24
2.4
340
0.86
25.8
0.06
0.2
214
1.1
41.4
0.06
0.6
219
1.06
40.2
0.06
0.4
244
1.4
36.2
High
0.24
1.8
320
0.68
27.4
0.07
0.8
224
1.04
39.2
Low
0.34
2.7
268
0.90
32.4
0.4
3.0
296
1.09
29.4
0.38
2.6
314
1.18
27.8
0.06
0.2
224
1.2
39.6
0.06
0.3
238
1.19
37.4
0.06
0.2
245
1.4
36.2
Standard
0.26
2.8
312
0.7
28.0
0.25
2.8
332
0.7
26.4
0.3
1.8
352
0.99
24.9
0.06
0.3
236
1.23
37.6
0.06
0.3
238
1.18
37.2
0.06
0.2
248
1.36
35.8
High
0.23
2.0
335
0.73
26.2
0.25
2.5
366
0.65
23.9
0.26
1.6
388
0.98
22.7
0.06
0.6
236
1.17
37.2
0.07
0.7
256
1.39
34.4
0.06
0.4
256
1.44
34.5
Low
0.26
2.8
270
0.99
32.2
0.39
2.7
299
1.02
29.1
0.35
3.5
328
1.28
26.6
0.06
0.4
226
1.18
39.3
0.06
0.2
244
1.27
36.2
0.06
0.2
244
1.46
36.2
Standard
0.32
3.8
309
0.84
28.2
0.30
3.0
341
0.84
25.6
0.28
2.0
351
1.14
25.0
0.06
0.6
227
1.07
39.0
0.06
0.4
245
1.16
36.1
0.06
0.2
252
1.41
35.1
High
0.29
3.4
354
0.87
24.6
0.26
2.1
368
0.80
23.8
0.30
3.4
392
1.04
22.3
0.06
0.6
238
1.22
37.1
0.07
0.8
256
1.28
34.4
0.06
0.8
259
1.4
34.0
UJ
I
-------
-14-
Table IV
Summary of Results of Ambient Temperature Effects
(grams per mile/miles per gallon)
0° 20° 40° 60° 70° 80° 90° 110'
FTP
HC
CO
CO
NOx
1.58
13.88
424
1.70
1.06
9.49
397
1.32
0.74
7.84
354
1.28
0.60
6.88
348
1.22
0.44
4.84
344
1.20
0.40
5.30
337
1.01
0.34
5.00
344
0.97
0.38
7.76
312
0.89
MPG 18.6 20.2 22.6 24.2 24.8 25.2 24.8 27.0
HFET
HC
CO
co9
NOx
MPG
0.16
0.17
248
1.38
33.6
0.12
0.25
250
1.36
33.4
0.13
0.22
236
1.29
35.3
0.12
0.43
238
1.25
36.6
0.10
0.42
240
1.18
36.3
0.10
0.56
227
1.03
38.4
0.09
0.74
237
1.00
36.7 '
0.11*
4.20
231
0.71
36.7
* Represents only one test.
-------
-15-
Table V
Analysis of Variance Levels of Confidence
(A "-" indicates not significant at the 90% level.)
2750 vs. 3000 Variable
FTP
2750 vs. 3000
HFET
2500 vs. 2750
vs. 3000
AC Load
Shift Schedule
Inertia Weight
A/C & Shift
A/C & Inertia Weight
Shift & Inertia Weight
A/C & Shift & Inertia Weight
A/C Load
Shift Schedule
Inertia Weight
A/C & Shift
A/C & Inertia Weight
Shift & Inertia Weight
A/C & Shift & Inertia Weight
H£
99%
95%
95%
CO
99%
90%
95%
NOx
99%
99%
90%
MPG
99%
99%
95%
99%
99%
99%
90%
95%
99%
90%
99%
99%
95%
99%
FTP
2500 vs. 2750
vs. 3000
FTP
Ambient Temp.
Effects
Inertia Weight
A/C Load
Inertia Weight &
95%
A/C
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
95%
IW vs. Shift (No A/C HP only)
Inertia Weight 95%
Shift Schedule
Inertia Weight & Shift 90%
99%
99%
99%
99%
FTP
HFET
Temperature
Temperature (Does not
include 110°)
99%
95%
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
-------
p- T =3
RES LJ L T E5
.MS
.H0
y -3s:
JJ
^*jr^
o:
U
11 .a
LJ1
z;
Sr >20
LD
1 . 15
1 .10
.05
0
r
_
'
-
.
-
|
V
2
n
2
—
a t
-_,
—
-PJ0
g
V
8
fc
*]
in
^
LB
z
a
V
_ .
_
I
v
-
§
.. ___!
_
-
2 "7:
§
V
f^
^
^
in
-
—i
"
E:
•~
1
=3
L_f
^2
Q
i£
u . ......
5
r
^-i
-
§
w
^
§
,
• — «
-
-
3i3£
§
v
i
fc
^
in
,
"
...
1
-
L_E
S
3
^
—
~
—
~
i
1
Tl
H>
OQ
C
fD
IS5
.s
!tn£
TEI5T <:nND 1 T i DNS
MOTE: - < GH i fr BF-CEDS HRE RS SHDWM i NI F* i RST
TESTS MERC REPU !
-------
H.S0
H.00
^ 3.52
»— •»
y
^-_
3 . 120
u
2. 50
Ul
21
j^ 2.00
L£!
1 I .SB
a
I .B12
.SB
0
-
-
-
f
&
5
s
i
J~-
~
~~
SIZ!iZ3
§
s.
a:
a
|
y
in
1
F"
L..B
3
x^
i
r
r~
—
.
P
i
T
£+
3
V
§
fc.~
n
-
•~
—•
^
n
— j
ZT] T
3 7 H
^
|
x
QB
8
1
XI
in
'^n
H
E
i
"
_
RE
L.E
E
V
a:
^
pn
-
c
— 1
~
— ' t
n] LJ
L_~
&
g
s
§
T
-
.,
r
< — '
-
n
3KC
0
3
,
*s
Qt
a
|
3C
S
3
E
—
-
1 LE
»
•
I
,
:
1
i
i
i
§
V
itox
TE
NDTE -
t. i CBTCD >
EnT CDND i T
If! rt RST tSRDUP >
DNS
n
!h
^i
i
OQ
n
-------
H00
375
350
J 32S
£ 302
a 27S
a! 250
in 22S
j|= 200
Ot
in 17S
i IS0
i
I "3C
r\i
Q
v^j 102
~T t^
50
25
0
.
-
-.
-
-
.
-
-
&
3
£
§
^
^_
R:
Z
-C
^
a
tn
3 1
=1
i
X
V
tn
9
^-*
5
in
F*"
L B
a
^
r
~
•p
T
9
^
§
^.
E
u
^
— i
j
•
d
-
.— •
51
avc
9
a
y
a
a
j~
1
X
—
.
tz
-
:
--
;
Rf
L-F
"5
i
„
£
3
-i
^
""
1
c
*~
t
— • »
Z3 LJ
-
L_'
'
8
9
V
§
-f
=
-
n
F
i
_,
n
BEE
i
d
q
-*
V
*
|
5
m
—
F
r
f=
^_
U£
§
le
3
^
cr:
(
1-
H
ot
1
^
tw
c
1-1
m
*•
TE:ST
i T
OHIP-T SPEEDS ORE RE SHOWN IN f \ RST
TCHTB MERC R6TPL. ! CRTEI> >
-------
R T F- T
E:
5 T R EZ 5 LJ -L- T L-9
S5TC3Z! t_K 2~7^E?
1.30
1.20
! 1 0
Ld
r: i.0a
2 '.30
Q-
CL -60
U] .70
£ -50
in
i
*
-
•
.
™
-
-
-
.
•
X -H0 r
n
^ .30
.20
.10
0
1
..
i
§
•
1 -
r
i
[1
M
n
^1 P
H
DC
J
c
g
C
1
in
1
-:
j
1
r-i
!
j
R
1
i i
i i
! i
' i
j j
I
i
i !
j
— y
u
V
.i..
i
i
*
t
I
j
1
L.I.— -
§
v
§
1
^
F
\
\
dc
J
s
.B
1
in
L.ES
n
n
t;
.._
^
•P
V
a!
„. . .
r •(
r-i
^
i
1
• j
i
8
i —
i i
i ; i
— _L i i..
-3tnFJF:
r--
i
i
rg
~]
V '
N
tc
a
It
|
In
i
.-
L.B
7*^5
i
i
r^
;
!
1
s
^
V !
^
~
_
i
I
|
j
TEIBT criND 1 T I DNS
NOTE - < SH t F*T 6PCC&S BRC Ha SHOMN IN F* IRST OfldUP >
< HUU TESTS WERE RCPL. I CHTED >
OQ
Ln
-------
FTP T El En
RE:
L_E
."3EJ0EJ L.B
r
30 r
!
ID
5= 25
i
1
>' 20 L
2T i
n
*",-**
S
v is
u
P 10
i f §
-i. |
i
• 5.00 L i
§
0 1
"
z
3
—
In
•t:
_
i
X
J.
£
9
^
i
e
£
in
r~
r
_
§
"
„
,a
§
§
r
—
—
"~
j.
n
9
^
c
e
5IMULRT
=
—
a
1
-,
^
_,
V
a:
§
^
*_
-
...
^s
E
J
v
(L
U
51MULPT
r=
-
i (
S
— i
_
—
!
<
•
OT
l-t
(D
0>
TEST 1 T i DNS
NCTE - < SHI FT BF'eCOS BRG HS SHOWN IN f I «BT BRDUP >
< PI.U TESTS WEHC RCPt. I CRTE& >
I
N3
-------
T El iN-1 F3 EI R R T LJ R EZ El F F E: C T E5
FT
zu
5 LJ M M R R Y
m
u
z:
V
LJ
o:
LJ
CL
Ul
51
CE
o:
LD
I .
.80
.60
.HE
.20
.H0 I
0
i
N3
00
H
—1__
. i
10 221 30 HE
TEIMPEIRHTIJRE:
SE3 B0 ' 70 B0 30 !20
N I>EIL3ReE:5 F-RHRETNHE: i T
-------
EIMREIRRT LJ RE El F" F El C T 5
F T R BUM M R R Y
__^
ir
u
21
NX
LJ
_J
E
a:
LJ
Q.
Lf]
CE
a:
in
i
n
v
1H
-------
TEZMFEIRRTLJRE: E: F F E: c T 5
B U M M R R V
•jr H20
•v
,
F
H10
H00
a! 3B0
! 370
LD
r\i 3M0
a
^ 330
320
t-
i
310
3B0 1
LO
I
Tl
H-
00
C
._J ____ ___ 1 _ ...... _______ I
10 20 30
T E M P El R H T LJ
H0
i
50
a
E0
N
i _____ ..... _______ i
B0 30
F-RHRENHE:
i 10
-------
r E: M R E: R R T LJ R E: E: F~ F~ E: <
F~ T R 5 LJ M M Pi R V
-------
1 R EI R R T LJ REZ El F" F" El
-------
HFEI
T E:
RE: E5 u
UB
3C3EIJZ! L.B
• CJ f
.BE
UJ
— j
_
v~ .0S
n^
LJ
n. .0H
m
2:
n~
M—
o: .03
LT]
1
«v' .02
.^
"^
.01
0
r
"
-
-
A
9
s
§
1_
n
_j
y
K
g
|
tn
r—
s
i
"
"
^
§
s
§
"
-
J
•~1
~
^
_
s
3
V
IE
g
|
in
-
-
§
V
of
fc~
-
1
"
_
^N
1
^
n^
§
.
^
r
.-
!
M
J
W
CL
e
a;
in
i
k—
I
s
^»
^L
.
H
i i
— (
i
i
"I
0^
i i
!
i
!
t
H-
TO
C
1-1
(D
< SH « FT S
< RUL. TESTS
TE:ST CUND i T
OHE BS SHOWN 1 N F I RST
HCPU I CRTEJ> >
-------
H F~ E: T T ET 5 T
.30
LJ .60
d 1
21 .712 L
i
n:
fL * f"
' n
^ .SE
rr-
LL
cr:
HI -H0 j.
i
.30 *.
q
2i3 L 9 CT-I
V
d
. 10 L i
0 i LL
—
• —
_
X
a:
8
fc
3
^
in
r-
...
L...
2
a
V
P
g
3
^,
[^
f^i
r-
...
.~.
--•
~*
Q
-''
y
X.
6
£
y
in
M
"
^
^
—
-
5
9
v
s
g
"
•••
"
r-
_
--
Q
^
V
14»
6
{r
§
£
in
"""
_ ,
.,
t" ~
1
~
...
•-1
Li
NOTE: -
u^S
Slnx
TEI5T CDND
< SH \ F"T BPeCDE ORC OS SHOWN IN r t REST tSRDLJP >
< Rt_l_ TtSTD HEHC RCPL I CRTEI»
1 LJNS
OQ
-------
HFE:
2SE3EJ
L.K
•fi IT i
•IL-iw .
t
H ™ [ _n
~ 200 L ^
X
i 8E
Qi f" '
UJ
n. 152 .
U] IH0 .
IT 122 j.
in
"
f
j
S
!
, 100 . !!
i i
R B0 j.
a r
^ G0 L |
M0 j. ^
2B , s
0 1
II
X
ges
3tni
F
r
j
|
a
§
s:
s
.
. _
\
•F
r-pl '"tJ
^ ^]
~
t I
I i
;
1
J
i
i
s
*
§
V
3
1
i
;
i
j
j
i
i i
it; i
> i i
t. ; ! i
V
a
|
! s
,
:
i 1
' i
»
i
-•
§
V
n:
\ i
"1
i
!
(_
S
g
=q
i
i
1 J •
j
j
i
i
i
,
§
V
It
s
DC
5
[
=1
t
rf
i
i
.
r
i
i
i
1
;
: i
i ;
: ' '
1 ; !
|
t
i i
',
i H
z
V
n!
i
H-
V
H
to
|_l
*.
00
NOTE - < SM t f"T BF>CCOB RHC R& SHDWN IN ri HBT SRDtJP >
< RUU TESTS WERE RCHU I CHTCt> >
-------
HP
RE:E^
LJ
o:
in
en
Q.
.50 >
i.HZ
1.00 „
.60
X
i .HE
.20
2
\
i
sei
Jinx
L_B
Fi
..L]
Hi
L.R
NOTE -
TEST CIUND i T
TESTS -WERE BCPU I CRTED >
CJNS
Fill
V
of
n ~
i ! M
V
8
n
i
NJ
00
c
l-t
ro
Ul
-------
50
t
i
H5
i
HB j.
ID
n
£ 35 I
!
i i
j
>- * r
5~
»^n
L"* ?5
G '
UJ 20 j.
1
j
LJ 15 L
P i
113 *. §
j ^j
fr
5.00 L §
0 i
--
: c
a=
-120
^
g
^
i
d
c
in
=
_
HF
us
§
^
£C
_,
~ ,
• ["'"" "T
t_. !
,
§
IE
§
M
T
....
...
•
E:E
vi -= r
d
E
a
{j^
2
In
1
^,
—
=
r
-o
— .-i
' f
, r
§
V
^
-r
-
•J
=
E
•_>
>— .
'
Lll
§
V
§
r-
-
,
=
FB
•BF;;
!
:
1
O
2
s
a
S
£
in
j
—
i?
=
ft
j
»H
L- -.
, r
§
V
•3
—
sn
,
1
CO
O
1
I
,
\
i
>r1
t*
1 e
(D
/-*k
i(Rx
NDTE: -
TEST CnMD
< EH i F~T SPETCDB HRC 05 SHOWN IN F* i RST
TCSTS WCRE REPt- I CHTED >
T
-------
IE
.0H
.02
TEIMPEIRHT L J R El El F F" El C T 5
I H F E T 5 U M M H R Y
Ltl
21
v
LJ
IH
12 i-
rr
Ld
Q.
in
2:
nn
o:
m
i
.0B
^ . A
0
0 20 30 HE
TEZMPETRFITURE:
50 E0 70 B0 30 100
N DEIBREIEIS FRHRETMHE: i T
10
cw
c
-------
T ETM PEIRHTLJRE: EZFREKITB
H F EI T 5 U M M H R Y
CE
LJ
LJ
_J
EK
LJ
EL
in
en
o:
LD
n
3.75
3.50
3.25
3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
I .50
1.25
i .00
.75
.50
.25
0
0
_ -"9
10
20
30
H0
S3 B0
N DEER
70 80 30 100
5 F^HHREINHE: i T
10
I
U)
S3
I
00
c
l-t
n>
00
-------
TEIMREIRRTURE: E: F F* E: c T 5
250
HFEIT 5UMMHRV
£
V
y
V"
^:_
a:
LJ
D-
LJ1
CE
o:
i
a
<
2H5
2H0
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
1
200
r~ \
\
\
\
— -*
N ^ .--- \
Qr"^ \
'•y^__ — • — """" \ '^^^"-^
>^' \ / ^"^^^
\ / ^\
\ /
\ /
\ /
y
i i i i i iii i j
3 10 20 30 H0 50 B0 70 B0 90 100
10
CO
r
00
c
1-1
ro
TEIMPEIRHTURE:
N DEBREIEIS F-RHREINHE: i T
-------
XX
TEZMPEIRRTURE: E: r r E: c T
H F~ EI T 5 U M M R R Y
en
Ld
v
UI
_J
s
n:
LJ
G.
in
if
o:
LQ
i
X
n
*-
i . nnj
1.30
1 .20
i . :0
i .00
.90
.B0
.70
.B0
.S0
.H0
.30
.20
.10
0
f
|-
j.
i
i
\
I-
i
i
i
i
i
\^
i
I
!
L
i
i
1
|
j-
^
i
u
i
r
1
I
i
1 I 1 I A J I I I I 'T|
H-
TO
0 10 20 30 H0 £0 60 70 S0 90 100 110 g
n>
TEIMFEIRRTLJRE: i N DETBREZEZS F*HHRE:NHE: i T
-------
TEZMREIRRTURE: E: F~ F~ E: c
HFE:T SUMMHRY
H0
"Z.
CE
LJ 3S
^ 30
g.
1 2S
9 20
h
LJ 1S
LJ
S l0
S.00
0
0 10. 20 30- H0
TEIMPEIRRTURe
I I
B0 70
£0 B0 70 B0 90 100
N OEZEREIEIB F"RHREINHE: 1 T
i
10
Ui
I
OQ
i-t
m
-------
Appendix B
Shift Schedule
Low
Standard
High
Test Number
HC
CO
CO.
2
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO.
2
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO,
2
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO.
2
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO.
2
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO.
2
NOx
6970
6968
6873
6870
6848
6969
HFET Individual Test Results
(grams per mile/miles per gallon)
3000 Pound Inertia Weight
No A/C HP Test Number Simulated A/C HP
0.06
0.5
228
1.15
38.7
0.06
0.2
223
1.2
39.7
MPG
0.06
0.5
228
1.13
38.7
0.06
0.6
226
1.01
39
0.07
0.7
239
1.16
36.9
0.06
0.4
237
1.27
37.3
1935
2023
1934
1932
2019
2021
0.06
0.3
246
1.23
36
0.06
0.2
243
1.31
36.4
0.06
0.3
246
1.17
36
0.07
0.4
244
1.15
36.2
0.07
0.7
257
1.27
34.3
0.07
0.9
256
1.29
34.4
Test Number
6649
4879
4885
4883
6845
7038
A/C Operating
0.06
0.2
247
1.57
35.8
0.06
0.2
241
1
36
35
7
0.06
0.2
252
1.38
35.1
0.06
0.2
252
1.44
35.1
0.07
1
262
1.28
33.6
0.06
0.6
256
1.52
34.5
-------
Appendix B
HFET Individual Test Results
(grams per mile/miles per gallon)
Shift Schedule
Low
Standard
Test Number
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO,
2
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO,
2
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO.
2
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO,
2
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO,
2
NOx
3258
3260
2216
2218
2346
2344
2750 Pound Inertia Weight
MPG
No A/C HP
0.06
0.2
224
1.22
39.5
0.05
0.2
223
1.17
39.7
0.07
0.3
233
1.16
37.9
0.06
0.3
238
1.3 '
37.2
0.07
0.7
238
1.17
37.1
0.06
0.6
237
1.17
37.2
Test Number
1652
1659
1612
1613
1633
1661
Simulated A/C HP
0.06
0.3
233
1.07
38
0.06
0.3
240
1.30
36.8
0.06
0.3
236
1.17
37.5
0.05
' 0.3
239
' 1.2
37
0.07
0.7
258
' 1.4
34.2
0.07
0.7
254
1.38
34.7
Test Number
3993
3991
3544
3255
3899
3901
A/C Operating
0.06
0.2
244
1.35
36.3
0.05
0.1
246
1.44
36.0
0.06
0.1
247
1.35
35.9
0.06
0.2
248
1.36
35.7
0.06
0.5
249
1.
35.
0.06
0.4
264
1.54
33.5
.35
.5
-------
Appendix B
Shift Schedule
Low
Standard
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
Test Number
4474
4475
4873
4734
4875
4877
HFET Individual Test Results
(grains per mile/miles per gallon)
2500 Pound Inertia Weight
No A/C HP Test Number Simulated A/C HP
0.05
0.2
212
1.12
41.7
0.06
0.2
211
1.08
41.9
0.06 6911
0.2
216
1.1
41
0.06 6913
0.2
212
1.09
41.7
0.07
0.7
225
1.02
39.2
0.07
0.8
224
1.06
39.3
Test Number
A/C Operating
0.06
0.6
220
1.00
40.1
0.07
0.7
218
1.13
40.4
6923
6921
0.07
0.4
243
1.41
36.4
0.06
0.4
246
1.4
35.9
-------
FTP Individual Test Results (bag-by-bag)
(grams per mile/miles per gallon)
2750 Pound Inertia Weight
No A/C Horsepower Load
Simulated A/C_Horsepove_r_Load
Shift Schedule Test Number
Low HC 3259
CO
CO,
xox
MFC
HC 3257
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
Standard HC 2215
CO
CO,
NOx
MPG
HC 3253
CO
CO,
N'Ox
MPG
High HC 2343
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
HC 3746
CO
CO,
NOx
MFC.
Bag 1.
1.062
7.897
302.035
1.710
27.9
1.132
7.555
298.790
1.791
28.2
0.625
4.065
354.320
1.713
24.5
0.521
5.719
327.417
1.455
26.2
0.463
4.224
353.636
1.153
24.5
0.478
3.541
344.301
1.274
25.2
Bag 2
0.160
1.662
263.035
0.378
33.3
0.124
1.205
261.995
0.386
33.6
0.191
1.508
319.266
0.200
27.5
0.152
1.299
311.867
0.430
28.2
0.176
1.675
359.744
0.435
24.4
0.176
1.435
347.845
0.443
25.3 '
Bag 3
0.152
1.455
256.615
1.227
34.2
0.134
1.004
255.401
1.255
' 34.5
0.182
6.069
290.753
0.550
29.5
0.153
1.139
280.073
0.969
31.4
0.157
1.452
288.852
0.945
30.4
0.154
1.050
289.001
0.913
30.5
Composite
0.34
, 2.9
269
0.88
32.3
0.33
2.5
268
0.91
32.5
0.28
3.3
319
0.61
27.3
0.23
2.2
306
0.79
28.6
0.23
2.1
339
0.72
25.9
0.23
1.8
331
0.74
26.5
Test Number
2240
2121
1611
1614
1662
2066
Bag 1
1.225
9.849
322.12
1.922
26.0
1.229
7.319
325.78
2.008
26.0
0.642
7.120
348.60
1.174
24.5
0.709
6.836
353.41
1.194
24.2
0.528
4.713
373.90
1.584
23.2
0.532
4.935
382.95
1.244
22.6
Baa 2
0.148
1.924
292.96
0.915
29.9
0.216
1.210
295.12
0.390
29.8
0.144
1.826
341.87
0.405
25.7
0.154
1.944
347.19
0.409
25.3
0.186
1.623
388.86
0.245
22.6
0.185
2.764 .
387.45
0.386
22.6
Bag 3
0.156
2.001
276.11
1.219
31.7
0.236
1.148
279.70
1.294
31.4
0.134
1.247
292.94
0.912
30.0
0.132
1.028
294.86
0.918
29.9
0.161
1.061
311.30
0.567
28.3
0.152
1.571
322.70
0.849
27.2
Composite
0.37
3.6
294
1.21
29.5
0.43 '
2.5
297
0.97
29.3
0.24
2.8
330
0.70
26.5
0.26
2.7
334
0.71
26.2
0.25
2.1
364
0.61
24.1
0.25
2.9
369
0.69
23.7
_^___ A/C Operating
Test Number
4543
3990
3547
2345
3898
3900
Bag 1
1.375
8.284
328.624
2.177
25.6
1.254
7.549
343.503
2.289
24.7
0.971
7.611
374.995
1.624
22.7
0.953
7.085
362.66
1.542
23.6
0.767
5.460
395.258
1.470
21.8
0.579
4.663
392.099
1.543
22.1
Bag 2
0.133
1.303
312.863
. 0.615
28.1
0.124
1.183
324.835
0.648
27.1
0.140
0.489
369.294
0.577
23.9
0.120
0.321
361.061
0.633
- 24.5
0.169
0.776
416.441
0.667
21.2
0.160
0.847
40S.900
0.662
21.5
Bag 3
0.137
1.481
280.464
1.448
31.3
0.124
1.058
296.458
1.479
29.7
0.142
0.748
3] (•./• 36
1.253
27.9
0.134
0.693
313.898
.1.299
28.1
0.149
0.737
338.887
1.240
26.0
0.146
0.748
330.463
1.173
26.7
0mP°3 "
2.8
307
i 1 •
28.4
0.36
2.5
321
1.21
27.2
0.31 i
2.0 !o
0.98
24.6
0. 30
1.8
348
1.00
25.2
0.29
1.7
391
0.99
22.5
0.24
0.24
384
0.93
22.9
-------
Shift Schedule
Standard
.High
FTP Individual Test Results (bag-by-bag)
(grams per mile/miles per gallon)
3000 Pound Inertia Weight
Simulated A/C Horsepover Load
Test Number Bag 1
HC 4878
CO
CO,
NO;
MPG
HC 6967*
CO
co,
SOS
HC 6872
CO
CO,
NOx
MPG
HC 6871
CO
CO,
NOS
MFC
HC I'M?
CO
CO ,
Nv'x
MTP
Hf TOJ9
0.
6.
289.
2.
29.
0.
6.
289.
2.
29.
1.
8.
310.
1.
27.
0.
11.
306.
1.
23.
0.
/, .
352.
1.
24.
0.
12.
755
856
513
087
3
755
856
513
148
3
216
366
581
755
1
704
755
365
687
3
494
446
839
687
6
695
711
,V, 355.630
Ni'.x
1.
23.
641
5
_._ __,
Bag 2
0.139
1.791
269.395
0.433
32.6
0.132
1.396
264.216
0.401
33.2
0.155
2.374
311.717
0.374
28.1
0.155
2.387
317.585
0.380
27.6
0.208
2.330
368.164
0.429
23.8
0.224
2.251
380.607
0.499
23.0
Bag 3
0.136
1.550
258.811
1.202
33.9
0.145
2.737
263.319
1.274
33.1
0.171
1.528
273.876
0.914
32.0
0.156
1.457
281.961
1.139
31.1
0.200
1.414
321.257
0.985
27.4
0.206
1.652
310.035
1.107
28.3
Comi
posite
0.27
2
271
0
32
0
2
269
1
32
0
3
301
0,
28
0,
.8
.98
.1
.26
.9
.00
.3
.38
.4
.81
Test Number Bag 1
2122 1
7
322
T
26
2022 1
7
324
1
26
1933 1
8
362
1
.377
.719
.25
.047
.2
.237
.823
.92
.926
.0
.011
.764
.72
.561
.8 23.4
.27
4.1
317
0,
27.
0.
2.
352
0.
24.
0.
4.
356
0.
24.
.86
,3
.26
.5
,84
,9
32
.2
90
4
1931 0.
7
361.
1,
23.
2018 0.
4.
374.
1.
23.
2020 0.
4.
375.
1.
23.
.696
.490
.35
,649
.6
.476
,476
16
251
2
533
227
86
380
1
Bag 2
0.170
1 .472
297.55
0.432
29.5
0.133
1.413
296.74
0.435
29.6
0.161
1.792
349.36
0.412
25.1
0.166
1.606
350.21
0.436
25.1
0.191
1.599
388.46
0.485
22.6
0.201
1.683
390.56
0.465
22.5
Bag 3
0.175
1.320
287.47
1.440
29.5
0.139
1.170
280.52
1.365
31.4
0.144
1 .691
309.30
0.992
28.4
0.154
1.615
308.93
1.046
28.4
0.183
1.198
321.51
1.014
27.4
0.175
1.313
324 . 38
0.989
27.1
Composite
0.42
2.7
300
1 .04
29.0
0.36
2.7
298
1.00
29.2
0.33
3. 2
341
0.81
25.6
0.27
2.8
341
0.86
25.6
0.25
2.1
307
0.79
23.9
0.26
2.1
•j(<9
0.80
23.8
Test Number
6650
7784
4884
4882
6844
7037
Bag 1
1.067
8.123
336.30
2.591
25.2
1.135
15.178
344.257
."..392
23.9
0.700
6.737
363.404
1.814
23.6
0.839
8.248
363.848
2.074
23.4
0.587
7.867
379.066
1.617
22 . 5
1.012
11.346
393.059
1.985
21.3
A/C
Bag 2
0.135
1.061
319.733
0.602
27.6
0.164
1.707
353.800
0.705
24.8
0.136
0.520
362.833
0.662
24.4
0.143
0.311
369.019
0.699
24.0
0.159
1.855
412.253
0.554
21.3
0.186
1.793
41'9.449
0.709
20.5
Operating
Bag 3
0.140
1.124
292.193
1.558
30.1
0.172
1.751
3nR. 860
1.546
28.4.
0.146
1.026
316.112
1.353
27.9
0.146
1.431
312.305
0.843
28.2
0.141
2.000
335.402
1.067
26.2
0.187
1.999
344.272
1.380
25.5
Composite
0.33
2.5
316
1.27
27.6
0.37
4.5
340
1.28 !,
25.5 f
0.26
1.9
350
1.09
25.1
0.29
2.1
352
1.18
24.9
0.24
3.1
384
0.92
22.8
0.36
3.8
399
1.16
21.8
* B.lS
-------
Sliitt Schedule
Lev-
Standard
High
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MFC
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO,
NOx
MPC
FTP Individual Test Results (bag-by-bag)
(grams per mile/miles per gallon)
2500 Pound Inertia Weight
No A/C jlorsepover Load
Test Number
4477
4476
4735
4736
4874
4876
Bag 1
0.834
7.000
280.594
1.621
30.1
0.662
7:115
278.582
.1.560
30.4
0.496
5.684
310.318
1.444
27.6
0.447
5.348
314.470
1.290
27.3
0.473
4.353
330.134
1.079
26.2
0.481
4.442
336.909
1.279
25.7
Bag 2
0.123
0.674
246.646
0.338
35.7
0.131
1.355
248.513
0.327
35.3
0.159
1.086
296.975
0.413
29.6
0.143
0.556
293.679
0.396
30.1
0.189
1.325
338.203
0.397
26.0
0.179
0.4H
335.532
1.182
26.2
Bag 3
0.124
0^738
237.025
1.090
37.2
0.129
0.885
236.183
1.079
37.3
0.145
0.946
^59.749
0.935
33.9
' 0.141
0.461
256.900
0.901
34.4
• 0.163
1.137
.276.067
0.805
31.9
0.162
1.094
276.301
0.798
31.8
Composite
0.27
2.0
251
0.81
34.8
0.24
2.4
251
0.79
34.7
0.22
2.0
290
0.77
30.2
0.21
1.5
288
0.72
30.5
0.24
1.9
319
0.65
27.5
0.24
1.8
320
0.70
27.4
Test Number
6910
6912
Simulated A/C Horsepower Load
Test Number
0.552
8.780
313.242
1.616
27.0
0.627
12.423
298.817
1.419
27.7
0.156
2.662
304.354
0.341
28.7 .
0.150
1.826
299.045
0.368
29.3
0.140
1.625
266.315
0.787
32.9
0.142
0.880
262.251
0.846
33.6
0.23
3.6
296
0.73
29.3
0.25
3.7
289
0.71
30.0
6922
A/C Operating
0.563
6.816
348.420
1.383
24.6
0.583
6.204
358.552
0.800
24.0
0.140
0.919
352.104
0.581
25.1
0.155
1.473
358.720
0.639
24.5
0.160
1.162
295.118
1.073
29.8
0.159
1.585
303.814
1.239
28.9
0.23
2.2
336
0.88
26.1
. 0.24
2.5
334
0.84
25.4
-------
-42-
Appendix C
Ambient Temperature Effects Individual Test Results
(grams per mile/miles per gallon)
Ambient
Temperature °F Bag 1 Bag 2 Bag 3 Composite HFET
0°
20C
40'
HC
CO
CO-
2
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO.
2
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO.
2
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
6.92
64.98
482
2.42
13.8
5.99
60.25
487
2.61
13.9
3.73
40.83
447
2.25
16
4.40
41.91
436
2.52
16.2
0.25
0.95
430
1.14
19.4
0.29
0.62
430
0.94
19.4
0.23
1.25
400
0.7
20.8
0.27
0.77
418
0.77
19.9
0.45
2.99
364
2.5
22.6
0.53
2.54
365
2.32
22.6
0.34
1.8
340
1.64
24.3
0.44
2.26
339
1.63
24.3
1.65
14.5
423
1.76
18.6
1.51
13.27
424
1.65
18.6
0.97
9.46
394
1.27
20.3
1.16
9.52
400
1.36
20
0.14
0.18
248
1.35
33.6
0.19
0.16
248
1.41
33.6
0.11
0.34
251
1.39
33.2
0.14
0.16
248
1.33
33.6
HC
CO
C00
2
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO-
9
NOx
MPG
2.56
32.95
384
2.39
18.9
2.25
30.8
399
2.49
18.4
0.27
1.3
356
0.7
23.3
0.26
1.32
363
0.68
22.9
0.38
2.62
314
1.5
26.2
0.42
2.07
322
1.58
25.6
0.77
8.11
350
1.26
22.9
0.71
7.56
359
1.3
22.4
0.13
0.26
238
1.31
35
0.13
0.18
235
1.27
35.6
-------
-43-
Appendix C
Ambient Temperature Effects Individual Test Results
(grams per mile/miles per gallon)
Ambient
Temperature °F
60°
70°
80C
Bag 2
Composite
HFET
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
1.91
25.63
383
2.45
20.4
1.52
17.82
382
2.38
21.1
1.16
16.17
351
2.43
23
1.26
12.41
358
2.37
23
0.94
12.77
345
2.19
23.8
1.08
12.96
346
2.14
23.7
0.28
3.16
347
0.7
24.8
0.25
2.65
360
0.6
24
0.22
2.72
356
0.59
24.2
0.21
1.73
362
0.59
23.9
0.2
2.67
351
0.48
24.6
0.21
3.42
351
0.48
24.5
0.46
3.56
309 •
1.46
27.7
0.37
3,55
318
1.43
26.9
0.3
3.02
303
1.31
28.3
0.27
. 2.57
313
1.32
27.5
0.28
3.29
303
;1.22
28.3
0.31
4.60
302
1.11
28.2
0.66
7.78
344
1.26
24.4
0.54
5.99
353
1.19
24
0.43
5.55
341
1.16
25
0.44
4.14
348
1.25
24.6
0.38
4.91
337
1.03
25.3
0.42
5.69
337
0.99
25.2
0.14
0.5
238
1.25
36.7
0.11
0.36
239
1.25
26.4
0.1
0.47
239
1.16
36.5
0.1
0.34
241
1.2
36.1
0.11
0.54
226
1.05
38.6
0.09
0.57
228
1.01
38.2
-------
-44-
Appendix C
Ambient Temperature Effects Individual Test Results
(grains per mile/miles per gallon)
Ambient
Temperature °F
90°
110°
Bag 2
Composite
HFET
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO.
9
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
HC
CO
CO
NOx
MPG
0.78
8.45
343
1.86
24.4
0.78
9.12
347
1.9
24
0.81
6.86
332
1.8
25.4
0.74
7.78
321
1.69
26.1
0.2
3.28
346
0.49
24.9
0.2
3.89
368
0.55
23.4
0.23
6.6
274
0.35
30.7
0.22
6.43
347
0.47
24.4
0.25
5.15
308
1.13
27.6
0.26
4.61
326
1.17
26.2
0.45
10.97
305
1.2
27.0
0.32
10.07
303
1.13
27.4
0.33
4.84
335
0.94
25.5
0.34
5.15
352
1
24.2
0.41
7.84
294
0.88
28.4
0.35
7.69
330
0.9
25.5
0.09
0.81
234 "
1.01
37.1
0.09
0.67
240
0.99
36.3
0.11
4.20
231
0.71
36.7
-------
Shift Schedule-
Inertia Weight
Croups (8)
Appendix D
Analysis of Variance
Example: HC from FTP
Columns (c)
No A/C HP Simulated A/C HP A/C Operating
Rows (r)
Low
Standard
High
2750
3000
2750
3000
2750
3000
0.37
0.46
0.42
0.36
0.24
0.26
0.33
0.27
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.34
0.33
0.27
0.26
0.28
0.23
0.38
0.27
0.23
0.23
0.26
0.32
0.39
0.36
0.33
0.37
0.31
0.30
0.26
0.29
0.29
0.24
0.24
0.36
Tc
3.72
3.40
3.74
Tr
4.26
5.36
3.42
5.50
3.18
Total = 10.86
Note: Tc - Total of Columns
Tr - Total of Rows
Tg - Total of Groups
-------
-46-
Appendix E
T2/N = (10.86)2/36 = 3.2761
SSc = ETc2/nrg - T2/N = 0.0061
SSr = ETr2/ncg - T2/N = 0.0536
SSg = ETg2/nrc - T2/N = 0.0005
SScr = ETcr2/ng - T2N - SSc - SSr = 0.0178
SScg = ETcg2/nr - T2/N - SSc - SSg = 0.0011
SSrg = ETrg2/nc - T2/N - SSr - SSg = 0.0103
SScrg = ET2crg - T2/N - SSr - SSg - SScr - SScg - SSrg = 0.0074
SS total = Ex2 - T2/N = 0.1241
SS residual = SS total - SS (all others) = 0.0273
n = 36 (total entries)
n = 2 (// of replications)
c = 3 (# of columns)
r = 3 (# of rows)
g = 2 (// of groups)
Variable
SS
Df
MS
MSR
90%
95%
99%
c
r
g
cr
eg
rg
erg
total
residual
0.0061
0.0536
0.0005
0.0178
0.0011
0.0103
0.0074
0.1241
0.0273
2
2
1
4
2
2
4
35
18
0.0030 2.000
0.0268 17.867
0.0005
0.0045
0.0006
0.0052
0.0019
0.0015
0.333
3.000
0.400
3.467
1.267
2.465
2.465
2.86
2.115
2.465
2.465
2.115
3.27
3.27
4.12
2.64
3.27
3.27
2.64
5.27
5.27
7.42
3.91
5.27
5.27
3.91
* The level of significance is determined by finding the largest table value which is less
than the MSR calculated and is indicated here by the columns containing underlined values.
Note: ss - sum of squares
Df - degrees of freedom
ms - mean square
MSR - mean square ration (MS/MS of residual)
VS. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980- 651-112/020i
------- |