EPA-AA-TEB 71-33
Effectiveness of the General Motors' Retrofit Device
on a Fleet of Twenty-five 1962-1964 Passenger Vehicles
April 1971
Henry L. Gompf
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Programs
Bureau of Mobile Source Pollution Control
-------
Purpose of Test Program
With increasing local and national concern about emissions
from pre-1968, uncontrolled, passenger vehicles, the Air
Pollution Control Office under took a project to evaluate
the emission reduction effectiveness of a commercially
available retrofit control device. It was desired to com-
pare the emissions of vehicles as they exist on the road
to the emissions resulting with a retrofit device installed,
with a normal tuneup, and with both the tuneup and retrofit
device. With data compiled in this manner it was hoped
that a statistical evaluation would lead to a prediction of
the impact on mass emissions of legislation in a given
community, locale, or state once its vehicle population was
determined.
The test program was initiated in February 1971 at the
Federal Laboratory in Los Angeles, California. Lab personnel
were supplied under contract by the California Air Resources
Board. This report will evaluate the test data compiled
for the first 25 vehicles. It is planned to collect data
on 85 additional automobiles in the remaining phase of
testing. While this report will indicate trends in the
testing to date it will not be able to answer the statistical
question mentioned previously. It will, however, indicate
some reasonable expectations of the emission reduction
effectiveness of tuneups and installation of retrofit devices,
Device Evaluated
The General Motors' retrofit device was employed in the
testing of all the cars. "The control consists of increased
idle speed, leaner idle mixture, and retarded ignition
timing. A thermostatic vacuum switch provides engine cooling
protection with the retarded ignition."!
The control system requires increasing idle speed to 600 rpm
in drive for cars with automatic transmissions and 700 rpm
for cars with manual transmissions. Idle mixture is set at
a lean level of 14:1 air/fuel ratio. This is equivalent to
about 1.5 percent idle carbon monoxide and can be set either
with an exhaust gas analyzer or by a speed drop method
allowing a 40 rpm drop for two and four barrel carburetion,
and 20 rpm drop for one barrel carburetion. The specific
manufacturer's ignition timing is set and the vacuum advance
is made inoperative during normal operation. Full vacuum
SAE paper, "Exhaust Emission Control for Used Cars", G. W.
Niepoth, G. P. Ransom, J. H. Currie, presented at Inter-
national Automotive Engineering Congress, January 11-15,
1971.
-------
- 2 -
is restored when engine coolant temperatures exceed 205°F
through the use of a thermostatic vacuum switch.
There are five kits available; all are the same in function
but differ in hose sizes or lack the thermostatic vacuum
switch in the case of air cooled engine applications. The
kit seems to fit all domestic passenger vehicles manufactured
from 1955 to 1967 with the exception of the relatively
limited population of those engines which utilize a distributor
without centrifugal advance.
The kit is sold at a retail price of about $10.00; the air
cooled engine model is somewhat less expensive. Installation
time for one mechanic is less than an hour. In commercial
use it would appear that the installed cost to the customer
would be less than $20.00. It is anticipated that no
maintenance of the installation would be necessary, although
periodic checking of idle speed and mixture might be
recommended.
A comprehensive tuneup was performed on each vehicle. This
tuneup includes the replacement of spark plugs, points,
condenser, rotor, distributor cap, ignition wires and air
filter. Miscellaneous minor replacements are also allowed
if necessary. The car is set to manufacturer's specifications.
Idle mixture on the first 25 vehicles was set at the lean
level mentioned previously. Subsequent setting will be to
.best manifold vacuum at idle. The parts' cost for this tune-
up is about $25.00 while a mechanics labor charge is in the
vicinity of $15.00. Thus the tuneup cost to the customer
is about twice the cost of the retrofit system.
Vehicles Tested
Passenger vehicles were supplied to the Federal Laboratory
by Olson Laboratories, Inc. The first 25 cars were all
1962 to 1964 models with automatic transmissions. A list
of vehicles and their mechanical characteristics appears
in Table I of this report. These cars are all normally
operated passenger vehicles. They were not acquired from
fleets or used car lots. Cars were rejected that appeared
to suffer from gross mechanical defects which would jeopardize
their probability of completing the testing sequence. It
was further required that leak-free exhaust systems be
present or installed to insure the validity of emission
test results.
The 25 cars tested consisted of fifteen 1964 models, eight
1963 models and two 1962 models. Thirteen were General
Motors' cars, six Fords, four Chryslers, and two American
Motors. Twenty of the vehicles had eight cylinder engines
-------
- 3 -
while five were six cylinder models. Cubic inch displace-
ment ranged from 194 CID to 425 CID. Carburetion included
one, two, and four barrel carburetors. The average mileage
of the first 25 vehicles as they arrived at the laboratory
for testing was about 68/000 miles according to the
vehicles' odometers. Mileage ranged from a low of 39,000
miles to a high of 122,600 miles. Vehicle inertia weight
ranged from 3000 to 5000 pounds.
Test Procedure
When a test vehicle was received in the laboratory the
exhaust system was inspected for tightness and vehicle
characteristics noted. No adjustments to the engine were
allowed at this time. The vehicle was then tested according
to the 1972 Federal emission test procedure as described in
the November 10, 1970, Federal Register. After the "as
received" testing was completed, a visual inspection was
conducted. This included checking belts, hoses, wires,
exhaust systems, and air intake systems for good condition.
A pre-turieup inspection was then conducted to determine the
mechanical condition of the engine. This inspection
included checking of ignition system, air/fuel ratios and
manifold vacuum at various engine speeds and conditions.
The GM retrofit kit was then installed. A second 1972 FTP
was then performed. After the "as received with retrofit"
testing was completed the retrofit kit was de-activated and
the vehicle tuned to manufacturer's specifications as
previously described. After a "tuned" 1972 FTP the retrofit
kit was re-activated with necessary idle and mixture settings
being made and a "tuned with retrofit" 1972 FTP was performed.
Thus each car was tested in four different configurations.
a) Emission tests
The constant volume sampling technique was employed
to obtain bag samples during the emission driving
cycle, LA 4-S4. These samples were analyzed by non-
dispersive infrared equipment for carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide, and nitric oxide. Hydrocarbons
were measured by a flame ionization detector.
Saltzman analysis of oxides of nitrogen were made
on cars number 16 through 25. It is felt that the
data obtained on oxides of nitrogen is questionable
as NDIR analysis can measure nitric oxide concentrations
only thus missing any conversion of nitric oxide to
nitrogen dioxide which occurs prior to bag analysis.
The modification of the Saltzman technique employed
for these tests was questionable and the data should
not be relied on. This analysis has been improved
in further testing.
-------
- 4 -
b) Fuel consumption
The quantity of fuel used during the driving cycle
was measured in each test configuration. Indolene
30, the specified test fuel, was contained in
portable tanks. The tanks were weighed immediately
prior to and after the 1972 FTP was completed. The
difference was recorded as a measure of the fuel
consumption.
c) Vacuum advance monitoring
Since retarding ignition timing could cause engine
overheating thus re-establishing vacuum advance,
vacuum was monitored during the 1972 FTP. It was
noted whether or not the thermostatic switch
controlling vacuum advance was activated during "as
received with retrofit" and "tuned with retrofit"
testing.
d) Performance evaluation
After completion of each 1972 FTP the test driver
took the car on a short drive in the vicinity of
the laboratory. He made a subjective evaluation of
the performance of the vehicle in each test
configuration. Because of the necessity of stringent
scheduling requirements and the lack of quantitative
data in this testing, performance evaluations will
not be conducted in the phase II testing of 85
vehicles.
Emission Test Results
Complete emission data for each vehicle in each configuration
appears in appendices 1, 2, 3, and 4. Table II summarizes
this emission data. Hydrocarbon emissions are reduced by
28 percent with "retrofit", 23 percent with "tuneup", and
31 percent with "tuneup with retrofit". Carbon monoxide
emissions are similarly reduced 21 percent, 24 percent and
21 percent respectively. NDIR-NO data indicated 4 percent,
2 percent and 1.6 percent reductions. Saltzmah analysis
resulted in 19 percent, 5 percent, and 21 percent reductions
in oxides of nitrogen. Also in appendices 5, 6, and 7 the
percent reductions over baseline or "as received" for each
individual vehicle is tabulated. It should be noted that
the oxides of.nitrogen data is presented to indicate possible
trends only. None of the data, Saltzman or NDIR-NO, should
be reviewed as absolutethe techniques employed in each is
questionable. Figures 1 to 3 show the relative mass emissions
-------
- 5 -
of each car in each configuration. Figures 4 and 5 show the
approximate hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emission distri-
butions as well as the arithmetic means for each configuration.
As is expected the "as received" configuration shows the
broadest distribution band for each pollutant. The other
three configurations are quite similar and more test points
would be needed to accurately differentiate their distributions,
No distribution of oxides of nitrogen is presented as
conversion of NO to NO2 in the sample bag causes a varying
and potentially misleading distribution.
Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9 show the average mass emissions and
the average percent reduction over "as received" of each
configuration for hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen. Also the increased
effectiveness of the retrofit kit with a tuneup is depicted.
Again these figures indicate the small difference obtained
in the last three configurations when compared to the "as
received" vehicle.
It is of interest to note that 14 of the "as received"
vehicles met the 1972 hydrocarbon standard of 3.4 grams per
mile, 22 of "as received with retrofit", 20 of the "tuned"
vehicles and 22 of the "tuned with retrofit" also met the
hydrocarbon standard.
The 1972 carbon monoxide standard of 39 grams per mile was.
met by none of the "as received" cars, one of the "as
received with retrofit", four of the "tuned", and three of
the "tuned with retrofit". One car in the "as received with
retrofit" configuration met both the 1972 hydrocarbon and
carbon monoxide standard. This was car number 23, a 1962
Rambler American with a six cylinder engine. The emissions
from this car were 1.9 grams per mile (gpm) hydrocarbon
and 28.2 gpm carbon monoxide. In the "tuned" configuration
cars number 3, 11, 21 and 23 surpassed the standard. These
cars were respectively a 1964 Oldsmobile, a 1963 Dodge Dart,
a 1963 Oldsmobile, and again the 1962 Rambler mentioned
previously. Cars number 3, 14, and 23 met the standards in
the "tuned with retrofit" configuration, car number 14 being
a 1964 Ford Fairlane. For the actual emission values of all
of the cars reference is made to Appendix 1 to 4.
It is of interest to note the ranges of hydrocarbon and
carbon monoxide emissions and percent reductions obtained.
Again NOX data is ignored as results are not significant
enough to warrant evaluation. "As received" hydrocarbon
emissions varied from a low of 1.15 gpm to a high of 6.06
gpm. Carbon monoxide similarly varied from 52.68 gpm to
231.89 gpm. "As received with retrofit" hydrocarbons varied
from 0.94 gpm to 4.39 gpm. Carbon monoxide varied from
-------
- 6 -
28.17 gpm to 213.16 gpm. "Tuned" hydrocarbon emissions varied
from 0.97 to 4.30 gpm; carbon monoxide from 34.28 to 219.13
gpm. Finally the "tuned with retrofit" configuration resulted
in hydrocarbon emissions varying from 0.93 gpm to 4.49 gpm
and carbon monoxide emissions from 34.42 gpm to 215.72 gpm.
Percent effectiveness of "as received with retrofit" as
compared to "as received" showed from a 5 percent increase
to 63 percent decrease in hydrocarbons and from a 13 percent
increase to a 60 percent decrease in carbon monoxide. Hydro-
carbon and carbon monoxide reductions for the- "tuned"
configuration were from 34 percent increase to 50 percent
decrease and 6 percent increase to 64 percent decrease
respectively. For the "tuned with retrofit" configuration
as compared to "as received" hydrocarbon reductions varied
from 6 percent increase to 61 percent decrease and for
carbon monoxide from a 23 percent increase to a 56 percent
decrease. This definitively shows that there is a certain
small yet significant proportion which responds unfavorably
with respect to emissions from the installation of the retro-
fit kit.
It was desired to get an idea of the test repeatibility for
statistical purposes. Two vehicles, car numbers 17 and 20,
were arbitrarily selected for this purpose. Since there is
great difficulty in predicting the repeatibility of a given
vehicle without extensive effort this type of variation is
ignored. However, a preliminary idea of variability inherent
in the test procedure can be made from back-to-back testing
of a well-repeating vehicle. For this reason it was decided
to conduct repeatibility in the "tuned" configuration, thus
minimizing the vehicular variability. Table III compares
the actual mass emission value for the two vehicles used for
the back-to-back testing. It was not expected that NOx
emissions in this phase of the testing would repeat closely
because of the inadequacies of the testing procedure
previously noted in the report. Carbon dioxide and hydro-
carbon emissions repeat well within the + 10 percent
expected in this type of analysis. While one carbon monoxide
data set repeated quite well, the 20 percent variation of the
other set is disturbing. More repeatibility testing in the
phase II, 85 vehicle, portion of the program will be necessary
to dispel the necessary reservation created by this
unseemingly large variation.
-------
- 7 -
Fuel Consumption Results
Fuel consumption in each configuration was measured by
weighing the quantity of fuel used during the 1972 FTP.
Complete data for each configuration of each vehicle is
presented in Appendix 8. Table IV shows that the average
fuel consumption for the "as received" vehicles for the
7.5 mile driving cycle was 1.783 kilogram. In the "as
received with retrofit" test 1.807 kg. was consumed. The
best economy was displayed in the "tuned" configuration in
which an average of 1.770 kg. of Indolene 30 was consumed.
The last phase, "tuned with retrofit", had the highest
average fuel consumption rate of 1.868 kg. per test. Thus
a 1 percent penalty for just installation of retrofit kit,
and a 5 percent penalty over baseline, "as received", for
the "tuneup with retrofit" configuration. "Tuneup" alone
resulted in an average fuel saving of 1 percent over the
"as received" vehicle.
Again it is useful to consider the test variability or
repeatibility involved in this analysis. Back-to-back
testing was conducted as described under "Emission Results"
The percent differences indicated were 1 percent and
8 percent on car numbers 17 and 20 respectively.
Vacuum Advance Monitoring
It was desired to determine what proportion of the vehicles
tested had a tendency to overheat (coolant temperatures
exceeding 205°F), thus restoring full vacuum advance. Two
vehicles demonstrated short duration vacuum advance
operation in the "as received with retrofit" configuration.
Two vehicles had long duration vacuum advance operation in
the "tuned with retrofit" configuration while two others
had vacuum advance restored for a short period.
Performance Evaluation
One of the anticipated penalties of the installation of a
GM type of retrofit device is the possible introduction of
adverse driveability effects. In the subjective evaluation
of the 25 vehicles tested it was reported that .three vehicles
performed worse in the "as received" configuration. One car
was reported to suffer from the tuneup. Three cars were
worse in the "tuned with retrofit" configuration than in the
"as received" configuration. One car's driveability improved
with installation of the retrofit kit and remained in this
improved condition for the remaining evaluations. One other
car demonstrated an improvement in the "tuned with retrofit"
configuration.
-------
_ o
Statistical Evaluation of Emission Results
The emission results for the first 25 vehicles were
statistically analyzed to predict any outstanding trends
and to determine the statistical significance of the
average emission values presented in Table II. Comparing
the "as received" hydrocarbon, ca.rbon monoxide, and carbon
dioxide with those of the other three configurations as a
group confidence in excess of 99.9 percent exists that there
is a real reduction of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide
emissions as well as an increase in carbon dioxide emissions.
The confidence level of a difference in oxides of nitrogen
emissions is well below the 90 percent level. This is not
unexpected due to the inadequate analysis procedure used.
Table V indicates the statistical range of the average
emission levels. It should be noted that for this purpose
NOx emissions were not corrected for temperature and
humidity. No analysis of Saltzman NOx data was performed
as too few points to be of significance were available.
The interval calculated was found at the 90 percent
confidence level in each case. As can be seen from the
table the "as received" hydrocarbon emission range is higher
than the ranges for the other three configurations. This is
also true for the carbon monoxide emission ranges. "As
received" carbon dioxide overlaps with the "tuned" range,
but is lower than either of the other two configurations.
All four NOx ranges overlap so no significance in these
averages can be ascertained.
Of most importance is the comparison of the last three
configurations to each other. In every case, with the
exception of "tuned" and "tuned with retrofit" carbon dioxide
emissions, the ranges of all three configurations overlap.
Statistically this means that no real difference between the
last three test configurations can be predicted at this time
for any measured constituent of the vehicles' exhausts. It
is as important also to bear in mind that all of the first
25 vehicles were 1962-1964 models and newer vehicles were
not tested until the second phase. Thus even if the emission
levels of the last three configurations had varied with
statistical significance, no idea of the emission reduction
effect on a typical population could be made after this
preliminary phase of testing.
Conclusions
1. Emission Results:
Installing a retrofit kit on the "as received"
vehicle resulted in an average of 28 percent
-------
- 9 -
reduction in hydrocarbons, 21 percent reduction in
carbon monoxide, and 7 percent increase in carbon
dioxide. Tuning the "as received" vehicle to
manufacturer's specifications while maintaining
the lean idle mixture prescribed with the GM kit
resulted in averages of 23 percent reduction in
hydrocarbons, 24 percent in carbon monoxide, and
a 4 percent increase in carbon dioxide. Installing
the retrofit kit on the tuned vehicle resulted in
average reductions of 31 percent in hydrocarbons,
21 percent in carbon monoxide and a 16 percent
increase in carbon dioxide. As a result of the
statistical evaluation made, however, these varying
averages have little significance when compared to
each other, but one can predict that on the average
a magnitude of 20 percent reductions in hydrocarbon
and carbon monoxide can be expected with proper
installation of a retrofit kit or lean tuneup.
These, of course, are overall average reductions and
do not predict the effect on a given vehicle. As
was seen in this preliminary phase of testing some
vehicles are made worse polluters while others were
drastically improved by the procedures described.
2. Fuel Consumetion Results:
No statistical analysis of fuel consumption was
made. Certain trends are indicated and at least
theoretically expected. The two retrofitted
configurations resulted in slight (1 percent and
5 percent) increases in fuel consumption. The
tuneup resulted in a 1 percent fuel savings. These
differences could well be explained by the change
of idle speed with the resulting change of idle
fuel flow.
Vacuum Advance Monitoring:
Four different vehicles demonstrated a tendency to
overheat (coolant temperatures in excess of 205°F)
resulting in thermostatic cutoff of the vacuum
advance disconnect.
Performance Evaluation Results:
Three vehicles suffered adverse driveability effects
after installation of the GM retrofit kit. One car
in each of the retrofitted configurations improved in
driveability. One car suffered from the tuneup.
These results on the average indicate a nominal
tendency of the retrofit kit to decrease the drive-
ability of some of these vehicles.
-------
Table I
Retrofit Study
Test Vehicle Population
Car Model
dumber Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
63
64
64
64
64
64
63
63
63
63
64
63
64
63
64
64
62
64
64
63
64
62
64
64
Make and Model
Buick Special
Pontiac Catalina
Olds. Jetstar 88
Cadillac Sedan
Mercury Comet
Ford Galaxie
Olds. Cutlass
Plymouth Valiant
Chevrolet Nova
Chevrolet Chevy II
Dodg.e Dart
Chevrolet Impala
Chevrolet Impala
Ford Fairlane
Ford Falcon
Rambler Classic
Ford Thunderbird
Chrysler Newport
Buick Electra
Mercury Parklane
Oldsmobile 98
Plymouth Fury
Rambler American
Pontiac Tempest
Buick Riviera
Engine
Disp.
CID
300
389
330
429
260
352
330
225
194
194
225
283
283
260
260
287
390
361
401
390
394
318
195
326
425
Carb. Type
Number of
Cylinders
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8 .
6
8
8
Number-
Barrels
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-4
1-2
1-4
1-2
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-4
1-2
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-2
1-1
1-2
1-4
Trans.
Type
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Auto
Mi leage
53180
70211
64113
48745
51015
58109
83277
84779
71788
78228
89548
*122634
77700
60883
66264
76981
79010
49600
55930
75737
40003
60981
39590
63840
72775
Inertia
Weight
3500
4000
4000
5000
3000
4000
3500
3000
3000 .
3500
3000
4000
4000
3500
3500
3500
5000
4000
4500
4500
4500
3500
3000
3500
4500
Vehicle
ID Number
1K3019162
363560823
834C015418
64B136696
4322F516768
4J66X122628
824F021660
1332656497
304370109944
302350160874
7435154248
418470139467
318475250145
4R38F121217
3R17F154734
070680
4Y83Z183406
8123173499
8K1028440
4Z642550646
638C04827
3345106757
C200A22
8I4FI8608
7K1121318
* probably over 100,000 miles
-------
Table II
Mass Emission Result Summary
(average of 25 vehicles
except where noted)
Configuration
"As Rec'd."
"As Rec'd. w/
Retrofit"
% Reduction
over Baseline
"Tuned"
% Reduction
over Baseline
"Tuned w/
Retrofit"
% Reduction
over Baseline
HC
3.44 gpm
2.46 gpm
28%
2.64 gpm
23%
2.39 gpm
31%
CO
131.50 gpm
104.17 gpm
21%
100.56 gpm
24%
104.18 gpm
21%
C02
576.59 gpm
617.55 gpm
7% inc.
598. 64 gpm
4% inc.
647.17 gpm
12% inc.
NC-21'3
5.85 gpm
5.62 gpm
4%
5.74 gpm
2%
4. 91 gpm
16%
NOX2'3
5.56 gpm
4.53 gpm
19%
5 . 27 gpm
5%
4.42 gpm
21%
1 NDIR NO data reported as N02 corrected for temperature & humidity.
2 Saltzman data reported as NO2 corrected for temperature & humidity.
Saltzman analysis on no more than 11 vehicles
3 NOX data should not be considered accurate as discusses in report.
-------
Table III
Comparison of Repeatibility Tests Conducted
Car Number HC
FB-17 1.87
1.88
% difference -1%
FB-20 2.09
1.97
% difference + 6%
CO
70.66
56.41
+20%
92.47
93.22
-1%
C02
750.26
786.49
-5%
797.25
755.67
+ 5%
NO 2 gpm-1-
5.80
3.34
+ 42%
4.96
7.09
-43%
NOX gpi
6.71
5.82
+ 13%
4.81
4.96
-3%
1 NDIR NO data reported as N02 corrected for temperature & humidity.
2 Saltzman data reported as N02 corrected for temperature & humidity,
-------
Table IV ;
Fuel Consumption Summary
Configuration Kilograms of fuel
"As Rec'd." Average 1.783 kg.
"Rec'd. w/Retro" 1.807 kg.
% Increase over
"As Rec'd." 1% increase
"Tuned" 1.770 kg.
% Increase over "
"As Rec'd." 1% decrease
"Tuned w/
Retrofit" 1.868 kg.
% Increase
over "As Rec'd." 5% increase
-------
Table V
As Rec'd.
As Rec'd.
with Retro.
Tuned
Tuned
with Retro.
Statistical Range of Average Emission
Values (calculated at the 90%
confidence level)
HC gpm CO gpm CO2 gpm
3.25-3.62 125.30-137.70 558.98-594.21
2.28-2.64 97.97-110.38 599.90-635.12
2.46-2.82 94.36-106.76 581.03-616.25
2.21-2.57
97.98-110.39 629.60-664.82
NO2 gpmx
5.71-6.91
5.49-6.69
5.59-6.79
4.83-6.03
1 NDIR NO data as N02/ not corrected for temperature & humidity.
-------
APPENDIX
-------
Table
Baseline Emissions
r Number
FB-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Average
HC gpm
3.19
3.07
2.46
2.35
4.38
3.91
3.08
1.73
2.38
3.22
1.15
4.95
4.38
2.28
2.99
4.66
3.77
3.54
5.80
2.26
1.90
4.49
2.85
5.05
6.06
3.44 gpm
CO gpm
116.00
169.60
59.65
149.49
104.20
167.28
153.51
70.17
105.18
117.44
48.98
172.76
112.31
52.68
117.76
204.76
197.31
180.39
175.10
110.09
85.03
125.84
69.59
190.44
231.89
131. 50 gpm
CO 2 gpm
529.04
571.24
568.62
737.29
479.13
574.79
574.98
469.77
458.91
460.26
461.00
506.25
528.67
580.35
541.79
450.25
668.80
692.58
558.91
736.40
727.32
459.04
443.44
933.39
702.62
576.59
NO2 gpml
7.31
2.00
5.47
5.66
5.12
6.98
3.74
6.43
7.63
2.25
7.03
6.40
8.17
8.99
8.72
4.34
2.93
4.83
4.95
6.11
7.21
7.42
5.70
3.64
7.13
gpm 5.85 gpm
NOx gpm^
3.40
5.86
5.23
5.56
5.96
7.83
4.66
6.01
5.56 g
1 NDIR NO data reported as N02 corrected for temperature & humidity.
2 Saltzman data reported as N02 corrected for temperature & humidity,
-------
Table 2
Retrofit Alone
Car Number
FB-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Average
HC gpm
1.94
1.81
1.96
1.80
4.39
4.11
2.51
1.48
2.35
2.28
0.94
2.85
2.31
2.13
2.81
3.73
2.69
2.86
3.16
2.15
1.57
2.53
1.89
1.88
3.37
2.46 gpm
CO gpm
96.59
89.66
42.18
110.32
51.44
188.55
139.28
72.14
80.00
119.56
41.31
131.39
107.63
";42.86
101.16
213.16
155.88
139.34
122.49
98.45
75.20
78.84
28.17
87.01
191.76
104.17 gp
CO2 gpm
634.17
648.81
707.30
729.46
575.46
649.37
574.47
584.18
537.84
523.51
639.43
559.39
605.95
654.61
576.66
486.32
655.10
612.66
627.25
742.13
844.94
507.42
460.60
627.45
674.26
m 617.55
NO 2 gpm
4.77
2.97
4.31
5.04
5.78
6.01
4.58
7.77
7.26
6.43
5.72
6.72
6.40
7.14
6.55
4.37
4.69
4.79
2.81
6.20
;7.07
5:75
5.83
5.94
;5.59
gpm 5.62
.1 NOx gpm^
.
«-
, :
;----
..""
''".""'
:'- .
;'
' _.-.__
,
,; _.*__
_
-
'-'.
1.33
:3.74
5.79
5.04
3.84
5.73
6.12
"4.87
4.31
gpm 4.53 g
1 NDIR NO data reported as N02 corrected for temperature & humidity.
2 Saltxman data reported as NO2 corrected for temperature & humidity.
-------
Car Number HC gpm
Table 3
Tune-up Alone
CO gpm
CO2 gpm NO2 gpm-'-
NO
X
FB-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Average
2.08
2.52
1.76
2.36
4.13
4.10
3.73
1.37
2.18
2.61
0.97
3.15
2.44
2.33
2.99
3.37
1.87
2.25
4.30
2.09
2.55
2.26
1.87
2.53
4.18
2.64 gpm
100.13
128.42
34.28
114.77
84.34
165.63
163.18
56.05
81.49
112.33
38.04
126.15
101.39
50.18
100.16
194.49
70.66
122.85
119.50
92.47
38.44
70.06
34.29
95.57
219.13
100.56 gpm
641.62
639.41
724.03
735.60
518.61
597.33 .
579.36
493.15
495.01
504.87
498.22
487.55
605.97
616.26
498.12
423.88
750.26
663.39
632.74
797.25
724.82
532.40
479.61
630.86
695.75
598.64 gpm
4.59
6.18
4.67
6.40
2.88
8.23
1.20
6.88
8.54
6.88
6.39
4.64
7.10
6.89
5.68
2.73
5.80
2.07
2.78
4.96
8.43
7.80
6.49
7.25
8.04
5.74 gpm
5.00
1.02
6.71
'3.06
4.81
6.42
8.85
7.17
5.07
4.56
5.27 gpm
1 . NDIR NO data reported as N02 corrected for temperature & humidity.
2 Saltzman data reported as NO2 corrected for temperature & humidity,
-------
Table
Tune-up & Retrofit
Car Number
FB-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Average
HC gpm
1.71
2.29
1.31
1.83
4.34
3.38
3.28
1.23
2.25
2.42
0.93
4.49
1.88
1.89
2.81
3.30
1.99
2.47
3.19
1.89
1.81
1.83
1.59
1.95
3.73
2.39 gpm
CO gpm
103.31
148.59
34.85
120.77
88.91
149.85
188.70
60.68
76.87
129.28
50.45
137.42
97.99
34.42
83.70
20.4.24
126.88
135.79
114.96
87.88
42.18
56.31 |
"30.89
83.95
215.72
104.18 gpm
CO2 gpm
614.79
741.02
792.91
793.12
526.28
630.62
756.56
631.62
525.47
549.61
602.70
551.84
641.03
666.65
526.24
499.66
716.02
753.68
645.00
728.32
750.05
560.00
516.54
729.43
730.17
647.17
NO 2 gpm1
3.52
6.58
6.18
1.72
5.53
6.47
7.52
1.80
2.19
4.74
2.15
4.93
6.88
4.73
5.50
3.39
5.74
5.11
5.59
3.56
6.60
4.26
6.28
6.59
5.13
gpm 4.91 gpm
NOX gpm2
.
'
:
7.67
2.65
4.71
3.35
3.14
3.25
4.11
4.18
7.41
4.13
4.06
4.42 g
1 NDIR NO data reported as N02 corrected for temperature & humidity.
2 Saltzman data reported as N02 corrected for temperature & humidity,
-------
Table
Retrofit-% Reduc'tion
over Baseline
Car Number
FB-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 .
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HC
39%
41
20
23
0
* 5
19
14
1
29
18
42
47
7
6
20
29
19
46
5
17
44
34
63
44
CO
17%
47
29
26
51
*13
9
* 3
24
* 2
16
24
4
19
14
* 4
21
23
30
11
12
37
60
54
17
CO 2
*20%
*14
*24
1
*20
*13
0
*25
*17
*14
*39
*10
*15
*13
* 6
* 8
2
12
*12
* 1
*16
*11
* 4
33
4
N021
35%
* 49
21
11
* 13
14
* 22
* 21
5
*186
19
* 5
22
* 21
25
* 1
* 60
0
43
* 1
2
23
* 2
* 63
22
NOX2
____
- _
*10%
1
4
31
4.
22
* 5
28
Average
25%
21%
* 9%
9%
1 NDIR NO data - corrected
2 Saltzman data
* indicates increase
-------
Table
Tuneup-% Reduction
over Baseline
Car Number
. FB-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HC
35%
18
28
0
6
* 5
*21
21
8
19
16
36
44
* 2
0
28
50
36
26
8
*34
50
34
50
31
CO
14%
24
43
23
19
1
* 6
20
23
4
22
27
10
5
15
5
64
32
32
16
55
44
51
50
6
C02
*21%
*12
*27
0
* 8
* 4
* 1
* 5
* 8
*10
* 8
4
*14
* 6
8
6
*12
4
*13
* 8
0
*16
* 8
32
1
NO21
37%
*209
15
* 13
44
* 18
68
* 7
* 12
*206
9
28
13
23
35
37
* 98
57
* 44
19
* 17
* 5
* 14
* 99
* 13
NOX2
.
10%
8
*15
*48
8
* 9
24
Average
19%
24%
* 5%
* 15%
3%
1 NDIR NO data - corrected
2 Saltzman data - corrected
* indicates increase
-------
Table
Tuneup & Retrofit-% Reduction
over Baseline
Car Number
FB-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HC
40%
25
47
22
1
14
* 6
29
5
25
19
9
57
17
6
29
47
30
45
16
5
60
44
61
38
CO
11%
12
42
19
15
10
*23
14
27
*10
* 3
20
13
35
29
0
36
25
34
20
50
55
56
56
7
C02
*16%
*29
*39
* 7
*10
*10
*32
*34
*15
*19
*31
* 9
*21
*15
3
*11
* 7
* 9
*15
1
* 3
*22
*16
22
* 4
N021
52%
*229
* 13
70
* 8
7
*101
72
71
*111
69
23
16
47
37
22
* 95
* 6
* 13
42
8
43
* .10
* 81
28
NOX2
- '-
.
1%
46
38
26
30
5
11
32
Average
28%
22%
*14%
2%
24%
.1 NDIR: NO data - corrected
2 Saltzman data - corrected
* indicates increase
-------
Table 8
Fuel Consumption
(measured during 1972 FTP)
--.... - ;
Car Number
FB-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
{
"As Rec'd"
1.571 kg
1.725
1.535
2.211
1.567
1.968
1.973
1.301
1.563
1.605
1.246
1.865
1.707
1.665
1.864
1.649
2.198
2.045
2.086
2.070
1.852
1.725
1.326
1.811
2.445
"Rec'd w/
Retrofit"
1.708 kg
1.915
1.901
1.585
2.053
1.881
1.490
1.575
1.622
1.434
1.752
1.707
1.620
1.572
1.825
2.098
2.011
2.103
2.144
2.236
1.578
1.324
1.775
2.458
"Tuned"
1.713 kg
2.046
1.648
2.311
1.376
1.897
1.936
1.354
1.503
1.518
1.336
1.726
1.726
1.623
1.525
1.670
2.002
2.046
1.855
2.073
2.070
. 1.569 .
1.261
1.884
2.583
"Tuned w/
Retrofit"
1.702 kg
2.278
1.748
2.436
1.792
1.967
2.094
1.523
1.632
1. 623
1.528
1.929
1.799
1.683
1.617
1.834
2.068
2.018
1.907
2.093
2.310
1.563
1.277
1.862
2.409
Average
1.783 kg.
1.807 kg.
1.770 kg.
1.868 kg.
------- |