EPA-AA-TEB-81-19
Evaluation of the Impact on Emissions
and Fuel Economy of Converting Two Vehicles
to Compressed Natural Gas Fuel
By Thomas J. Penninga
June 1981
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Noise and Radiation,
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Test and Evaluation Branch
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
-------
-2-
Backg round
The EPA was requested by the Department of Energy to perform testing on
two late model vehicles which had been converted with on-the-market
systems to run on compressed natural gas (CNG) . The EPA was requested to
measure vehicle emissions, fuel econony, and acceleration characteristics
of the vehicles in stock configuration, modified running on gasoline, and
modif ied-running on natural gas. The testing was run over a three week
period with triplicate tests run in each condition. This report presents
the results of the testing; but does not attempt to analyze the feasi-
bility of CNG powered vehicles in the market place.
Test Procedure
Two vehicles were supplied by the Department of Energy. These vehicles
(a 1980 Dodge Diplomat and a 1979 Chevrolet Impala) are more completely
described in the attached Vehicle Description. The vehicles were checked
against manufacturer's specifications upon arrival at the EPA Motor
Vehicle Emission Laboratory (MVEL) . Both vehicles met all specification
tolerances. Prior to delivery, the vehicle exhaust systems were leak
checked and new catalysts installed. All filters, spark plugs, PCV
valves, and the normal tune-up items were replaced. The rear brakes were
closely checked and worn components were replaced. Choke operation was
specifically checked for correct operation prior to delivery.
The basic test procedures used were the Federal Test Procedure ^?TP) and
Highway ?uel Economy Test (HFET) . The test plan called for three
?TP/H.7ET sequences for each configuration. Methane, total hydrocarbons
(HC), CO, C02, and NOx emissions were measured. Fuel economy calcula-
tions based on the HC, CO, and C02 emissions were calculated using the
standard ?TP procedure except for the actual CNG tests where carbon
balance calculations based on the vehicle emissions and the chemical
analysis of the CNG were used. There were several problems noted in the
testing which required additional testing and are detailed below.
Acceleration times from 5 to 60 mph at WOT and 30 to 60 mph at WOT were
taken using a coupled roll Clayton dynamometer. No evaporative emissions
were iaeasured.
Test Results
The results or the testing are given in Tables I through VII. These
results show several changes in emission levels for both the changes in
fuel and the changes made in equipment.
L7irst of all, these results show that the modifying of the engine to run
on CNG has a detrimental effect on the gasoline-fueled emissions of the
vehicle. For both vehicles, the modifications showed increases in HC,
HC-NM, CO and NOx ranging from 12% to 40%. The HFET results showed both
reductions and increases. The optimization of the added equipment showed
varied results in HC, but significantly increased CO and NOx on the ?TP.
The HFET data again varied. The CNG test data showed reductions in
L1C-.M, NOx, and almost total elimination of CO emissions. However,
methane emissions increased.
Acceleration test data is presented in Table VII.
-------
-3-
Conclusions
The conclusions to be drawn from the testing performed are as follows:
1. The modifications required to convert the vehicles to dual-fuel cap-
ability have a detrimental effect on HC, CO, and NOx emissions during
the FTP cycle.
2. The optimization of the conversion equipment did not return the test
vehicle's emissions to baseline values. Both vehicles would run at
higher emission levels on gasoline fuel when converted and optimized
than they would run in stock configuration.
3. The emission data taken on compressed natural gas showed greatly
reduced CO emissions and significant reductions in NOx and
non-methane hydrocarbons.
4. The methane emissions of the vehicles running on compressed natural
gas were significantly increased.
5. The acceleration data indicates a 50-60% decrease in acceleration
performance. On vehicles with marginal performance, such a con-
version might result in unsafe vehicle acceleration capabilities.
6. Both CHG systems appeared to be of good quality, were easy to use,
and were designed to allow fuel switching with a minimum of problems.
-------
Table I
Chevrolet Impala - 1979
Federal Test Procedure Results in gms/mi
Test No.
80-8557
80-8559
80-8561
Date
4/7/81
4/8/81
4/9/81
HC
.3948
.3807
.3703
Non-methane
HC
.3207
.3133
9
10
9
CO
.347
.007
.605
MPG
Gasoline
NOx Equilavent
1
1
I
.0056
.0164
.0715
14.9584
14.5398
14.7984
Miles
Per
100 SCF
N/A
W/A
N/A
Comments
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
At this point the vehicle was modified from stock configuration to modi-
fied with compressed natural gas equipment installed but running on gaso-
line.
80-8563
4/10/81 .4377
11.091 1.3173 15.5081 N/A Modified
Vehicle driveability was very poor. The EGR valve was replaced and the
carburetor was cleaned. A missing fuel filter spring was added. Further
baseline tests in the stock configuration were then run.
80-8565 4/14/81 .3947 .3438 9.065 1.8379 14.7670 N/A Baseline
80-8567 4/15/81 .3974 .3427 9.408 1.7412 14.5369 N/A Baseline
The vehicle was again modified to install the compressed natural gas
equipment but still running on gasoline.
80-8569 4/16/81 .4597' .4032 10.991 2.1052 14.6642 N/A Modified
80-8571 4/17/81 .4262 .3692 10.889 2.0473 14.7190 N/A Modified
The vehicle was optimized by the CNG system representative to run on
natural gas. A final modified-gasoline test was then run.
80-8573 4/21/81 .5061 .4405 11.584 2.1141
The vehicle was then switched to run on natural gas:
.1487
.1514
14.5894 N/A Modified
80-8762
80-8764
80-8166
4/22/81 .8313
4/23/81 .8020
4/24/81 .8124
.037
.115
.041
.9972
1.1439
1.0764
14.3
14.5
14.6
10.0
11.2
11.3
CNG
CNG
CNG
-------
-5-
Table II
Chevrolet Impala - 1979
Highway Fuel Economy Tests
MPG Miles
Non-methane Gasoline Per
Test No. Date H£ HC CO^ NOx Equilavent 100 SCF Comments
80-8558 4/7/81 .0571 - - 1.774 1.0654 19.794 N/A Baseline
80-8560 4/8/81 .0570 .0374 1.694 1.0791 19.757 N/A Baseline
80-8562 4/9/81 .0666 .0448 2.464 1.0864 19.570 N/A Baseline
At this point the vehicle was modified from stock configuration to modi-
fied with compressed natural gas equipment installed but running on gaso-
line.
80-8564 4/10/81 .0989 - - 5.475 1.930 21.1166 N/A Modified
Vehicle driveability was very poor. The EGR valve was replaced and the
carburetor was cleaned. A missing fuel filter spring was added. Further
baseline tests in the stock configuration were then run.
80-8566 4/14/81 .0375 .0215 .8170 1.7629 20.6051 N/A Baseline
80-8568 4/15/81 .0338 .0189 .6650 1.6625 21.0546 N/A Baseline
The vehicle was again modified to install the compressed natural gas
equipment but still running on gasoline.
80-8570 4/16/81 .0462. .0260 1.262 2.7075 21.0543 N/A Modified
80-8572 4/17/81 .0510 .0304 1.593 2.6639 20.981 N/A Modified
The vehicle was optimized by the CNG system representative to run on
natural gas. A final modified-gasoline test was then run.
80-8574 4/21/81 .0370 .0200 .778 2.7374 20.995 N/A Modified
The vehicle was then switched to run on natural gas:
80-8763 4/22/81 .2876 .0459 0.0 1.3809 19.9 15.4 CNG
80-8765 4/23/81 .2696 .043 0.0 1.3313 19.4 14.8 CNG
80-8175 4/24/81 .2994 . .000 0.0 1.4703 20.0 15.5 CNG
The vehicle was returned to modified-running on gasoline and a final HFET
test was run.
80-8843 .0470 .0271 1.532 2.7398 21.0886 N/A Modified
-------
-6-
Table III
Dodge Diplomat - 1980
Federal Test Procedure in guis/mi
Non-methane
Test No.
80-8538
80-8540
80-8542
80-8544
Date
4/7/81
4/8/81
4/9/81
4/10/81
HC HC
.4023
.3437 - -
.4856 .3793
.36901
CO
7
6
8
7
.3245
.2005
.0323
.5846
MPG
Gasoline
NOx Equilavent
1.
1.
1.
1.
2538
1000
1766
1228
16
16
16
16
.6138
.7375
.2075
.6668
Miles
Per
100 SCF Comments
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
At this point the vehicle was modified from stock configuration to modi-
fied with compressed natural gas equipment installed but running on gaso-
line.
80-8546 4/14/81 .47592
.3710
11.2888 2.3572 16.3241 N/A
Modified
The OSAC valve was found to have been left off during modification. The
valve was re-installed.
80-8548 4/15/81 .52962 .4201
80-8550 4/16/81 .46293 .3748
10.2828 1.5106
8.2372 1.7140
15.9259
16.2295
N/A
N/A
Modified
Modified
The vehicle was then optimized by the CNG system representative to run on
CNG but remainined running on gasoline.
0-8552 4/17/81 .25672 - - 8.9045 1.6195 16.6131
The vehicle was then switched to compressed natural gas.
80-8554 4/21/81 1.10171
80-8556 4/22/81 1.52284 .2513
80-8768 4/23/81 1.31240 .2195
.0053 1.2225 16.7
(-).0012 1.0456 17.1
.0039 1.2264 17.2
N/A
12.8
13.0
13.3
A final modified test running on gasoline was then run.
80-8841 4/24/81 .42039 .3277 10.2605 1.4196 15.6279 N/A
Modified
CNG
CNG
CNG
Modified
-------
-7-
Table IV
Dodge Diplomat
Highway Fuel Economy Test in gms/mi
Non-methane
Test No.
80-8539
80-8541
80-8543
80-8545
Date
4/7/81
4/8/81
4/9/81
4/10/81
HC HC
.2195
.02082
.02082 .0117
.0394
CO
1
1
1
.3066
.2292
.9740
.1867
MPG
Gasoline
NOx Equilavent
.7830
.7817
.8196
.8413
22
22
22
22
.9667
.7972
.3609
.8591
Miles
Per
100 SCF Comments
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
At this point the vehicle was modified from stock configuration to modi-
fied with compressed natural gas equipment installed but running on gaso-
line.
80-8547
4/14/81 .02625
.0122
1.5439 .9416 22.5938 N/A Modified
The OSAC Valve was found to have been left off during the modification.
The valve was re-installed.
80-8549 4/15/81 .02291 .0112
80-8551 4/16/81 .02000 .0118
.8694
.7652
.9349
.8086
22.9482
22.4354
N/A
N/A
Modified
Modified
The vehicle was then optimized by the CNG System Representative to run on
CNG.The vehicle was then tested on gasoline.
80-8553 4/17/81 .01518 .0087 2.3559 .5448 21.7486 N/A Modified
The vehicle was then switched to run on compressed natural gas.
80-8555 4/21/81 .39475 .000 0.0
80-8567 4/22/81 .29640 .000 0.0
80-8769 4/23/81 .51131 .0678 0.0
1..28353 22.5
.9770 23.5
1.2099 23.3
A final modified test running on gasoline was then run.
80-8769 4/24/81 .02813 .0195 1.64 .6403 22.2445
17.2
18.0
18.0
N/A
CNG
CNG
CNG
Modified
-------
A. Diplomat
Table V
Summary of HFET Results
MPG
Miles
// of
Tests HC
4 .0258
2 .0215
2 .0217
3 .4008
-16.7%
-15.9%
+1453.
+1747.
B. Impala
3 .0602
2 .0357
2 .0486
2 .0420
3 .2855
+ 36.13%
+ 17.65%
+699.72%
+579.76%
HC-NM CO
.117* 1.1741
.0115 .8173
.0141 1.998
.0226 0.0
-90.17%* -30.39%
-87.95%* +70.17%
5% -80.68%
0% +60.28%
.0411 1.9773
.0202 .7410
.0282 1.4275
.0236 1.1550
.0296 0.0
+39.60% +92.65%
+16.83% +55.87%
+^6.53% 00
+25.42% 00
NOx
.8064
.8716
.5926
1.1568
+8.09%
-26.51%
+43.45%
+95.21%
1.0770
1.7127
2.6857
2.7386
1.3942
+55.98%
+87.48%
-18.60%
-49.09%
Gasoline
Equilavant
22.746
22.707
21.997
23.1
-.17%
-3.29%
+1.56%
+5.01%
19.707
20.8299
21.010
21.0148
19.767
+ .86%
+1.02%
+5 . 10%
-6.06%
per
1000 SCF
N/A
N/A
N/A
17.73
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
15.23
Comments
Baseline
Modified
Modified and
Optimized
CNG
Modified compared
to Baseline
Optimized compared
to Baseline
CNG compared
to Baseline
CNG compared
to Optimized
Baseline
2nd Baseline
Modified
Modified and
Optimized
CNG
Modified compared
to Baseline
Optimized compared
to Baseline
CNG Compared to
Baseline
CNG Compared
to Optimized
* Only one Methane Result.
-------
-9-
Table VI
Summary of FTP Results
A. Diplomat
// of
Tests HC HC-HM CO
MPG Miles
Gasoline per
NOx Equilavant 100 SCF
4 .4002 .3793* 7.2855 1.1633 15.5564 N/A
2 .4963 .3975 9.2600 1.6123 16.0777 N/A
2 .3386 .3277 9.5825 1.5196 16.1205 N/A
3 1.3123 .2354 .0027 1.1648 17.000
+24.01% +4.8% +27.01% +39.36% -2.89%
- 15.4% -13.6%* +31.53% +30.63% -2.63%
+ 227.91% -37.94% -99.96% + .13% +2.68%
+ 287.57% -28.17% -99.97% -30.46% +5.46%
B. Impala
3 .3819
2 .3961
2 .4430
1 .5061
.3170 9.653
.3433 9.2365
.3862 10.940
.4405 11.584
13.03
1 .8152 1501 .0643 1.0725 14.4667 10.83
+11.84% +12.50% +18.44% +19.25% + .27%
+27.77% +28.31% +25.42% +21.42% - .43%
+105.81% -56.28% -99.30% -38.40% -1.26%
+ 61.07% -65.93% -99.44% -49.27% - .84%
Comments
Baseline
Modified
Modified and
Optimized
CNG
Modified Compared
Baseline
Optimized Compared
to Baseline
CNG Compared
to Baseline
CNG Compared to
Optimized
1.0312
1.7412
2.0763
2.1141
14.7655
11.652
14.6916
14.5894
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Baseline
Baseline
Modified
Modified
and Optimized
CNG
Modified Compared
to Baseline
Optimized Compared
to Baseline
CNG Compared
to Baseline
CNG Compared
to Optimized
*0nly one i-Iethane Result
-------
-10-
Run //
Vehicle
1
2
1
2
Diplomat
Diplomat
Impala
Impala
Table VII
Acceleration Test Data
Time (seconds)
5 mph - 60 mph WOT
Gasoline
CNG
20.0
20.2
13.7
13.5
30.4
29.6
20.2
20.6
Time (seconds)
30 mph - 60 mph WOT
Gasoline
CNG
16.0
16.0
9.7
9.9
25.2
25.3
15.5
16.1
-------
-11-
Method for Calculations of Fuel Economy of Compressed Natural Gas
1. An accurate CNG analysis based on a mole function basis is required.
Attached are the two analysis of the CNG used during the test project.
2. Carbon weight fraction, carbon weight fraction not counting C02, and
hydrogen weight fraction of the CNG must then be calculated. An
example is given below:
Component
Mole
Fraction
N2
C02
He
CH4
C2H6
C3H8
i-C4tilO
n-C4H10
i-C5H12
n-C5H!2
C6H14
C7H16
C8H18
Totals
0.0450
0.0043
0.0012
0.9076
0.0362
0.0039
0.0005
0.0006
0.0002
0.0001
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
1.000
Weight
Carbon
0
0.05165
0
10.90132
0.86961
0.14053
0.02402
0.02883
0.01201
0.00601
0.01441
0.00841
0.00961
12.06641
Molecular
Weight
1.26060
0.18924
0.00480
14.56065
1.08854
0.17198
0.02906
0.03487
0.01443
0.00722
0.01724
0.01002
0.01142
17.40007
Weight
Hydrogen
0
0
0
3.65933
0.21893
0.03145
0.00504
0.00605
0.00242
0.00121
0.00282
0.00161
0.00181
3.93068
Carbon weight Fraction
for Fuel
weight carbon = 0.693 = X
molecular weight
Carbon weight Fraction
for exhaust hydrocarbon = weight carbon not containing C02
(not containing fuel C02) molecular weight
Hydrogen weight Fraction = total weight of hydrogen = 0.226
of Fuel molecular weight
0.691 = Y
-------
-12-
3. Carbon Balance
grams of fuel (X) = .429 CO + .273 C02 + [Y] (HC)
mITe
HC, CO, C02 are in grains/mile from FTP analysis.
4. Fuel Density
PM (S.G.) = 14.696 X 144 X 28.967 X 453.592 (S.G.) (100)
RTAir 1545.33 X 520
= grams of fuel/ 100 SCF
5. Fuel Economy = (gms/100 SGF) (X) _
in Miles/100 SCF .429 CO + .273 C02 + (Y) HC
6. Equivalent gasoline MPG Calculations.
Using higher heating valve from CNG Analysis for 100 SCF.
Grams of fuel/ 100 SCF =/PMS.G.
Grams of Hydrogen = (grams of fuel/100 SCF) (Z) = A
rl20 produced per 100 SCF = A ((Z) 1.00797 + 15.9994)
(2) 1.00797 =B
/\ Heating Value of H20 = (B) 1059.9 BTU/lb. = C
at 60°F 4537592
Lower Heating Value = Higher Heating Value - C in BTU/100 SCF = D.
Calculate equivalent volume on a BTU- basis
of 1 gallon of gasoline = BTU of one gallon of gasoline MQO) =E
_
MPG gasoline equivalent = miles
100 SCF
-------
-13-
CAS ANALYSIS REPORT
OMPANY DATE ANALYZED RUN NO. 81-477
LCHIGAN CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY 4-16-81
_GAS_ANALYSIS_MOLE % 252§S_HEATING_VALUE__(BTy/SCF^
.^SUFFICIENT SAMPLE NO LOCATION/14.734 SAT/14.65 DRY
CALCULATED 976 987
DETERMINED
..TROGEN 4 4 DETERMINED
.ilBON DIOXIDE 1>23
0.12
:~U,MI? 90.52 SPECIFIC GRAVITY
* IriAiN r. . _ -.__._-._____.-.__
UANE 3l22 LOCATION
OPANE 0.45 ,.-.-,
BUTANE ' 0.06 CALCULATED -607
BUTANE 0.07 DETERMINED
','ENTANE ,. 0.02 DETERMINED ' -
'ENTANE 0.02
ANES (C6) 0.02 ^FUR__(EXPRESSED_AS_H2SGR/CCF
«") °:"
'ANES (C9} 0 01
' ^ ' u.ui
/r ,^^
EESIDUAL
1DECANES (C13)
.'RADECANES (C14) QTHER
)ROGEN HYDROCARBON LIQUID GAL/MCF °-20
HYDROCARBON DEW POINT (F @ PSIG) (3
AL 100.00 WATER DEW POINT (F @ PSIG) @
SAMPLE_INFORMATION
JECT CODE CYLINDER I.D. E.P.A.
-ARTMENT TRANSPORTATION SAMPLE NO 1
.ATION NOBLE GARAGE FOR E.P.A. SAMPLE POINT Auto Natural
.LD CITY DETROIT SAMPLING TIME Gas Tank
.;E MICHIGAN SAMPLE RECEIVED 4-16-81
TALLATION NO. ATMOSPHERIC TEMP. F.
.MIT NO. GAS PRESSURE (PSIG)
.MM'ION GAS TEMP. F.
TEM WELL HEAD PRESS. (PSIG)
ER FLOW MMCF/DA
.CHASER SAMPLED BY D. EILERS
HCE SAMPLING PROCEDURE
IECT GAS FUEL FOR GAS POWERED CAR % AIR
ATED TESTS % AIR NORMALIZED 0.00
DISTRIBUTION
DAVID EILERS & E. A. MORAN
REMARKS
ANALYZED BY
N. R. MCEACHERN
APPROVED BY
;ns REPORT HAS IJEEN PREPARED FOR THE PRIVATE AND EXCLUSIVE USE OF AMERICAN
-. TUR-\L RESOURCES SYSTEM COMP \NIES AND ITS DELIVERY TO ANY OTHER PERSON IS
ON THE FXPR'-'S^ UNDERST \NDING AND CONDITION THAT NO REPR ESENTAT IONS OR
'vR.\NT!'-S '-XPE'-SS OR IMPLIED, ARK CONTAINED I! Kill-: IN WITH RESPECT TO THE
CURACY OF "ANY OF THE INFORMATION SET FORTH IN SUCH REPORT."
-------
GAS ANALYSIS REPORT /3= £/*=£>
;OMPANY DATE ANALYZED RUN NO. 81-508
ICHIGAN CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY ^ 4-23-81
_GAS_ANALYSIS_MOLE_% GRgSS_HEATING_VALUE_(BTy/SCn
..SUFFICIENT SAMPLE__ JJQ LOCATION/14.734 SAT/14.65 DRY
__ _ CALCULATED 987 998
DETERMINED
:TROGEN 3-89 DETERMINED
..RBON DIOXIDE ' °'62
^E 9?:« '
11ANE 3.26 LOCATION
n'n7 CALCULATED .
° nl DETERMINED
PENTE S;S °
PENTANE 0.02
,: CANES (C6) 0.02 S^R_i!=:XERISSED_AS H2S^_GR/CCF
1>TANES (C7) O-02 »vnpnr «;mPTnP
(C8) 0 01 HYDROGEN SULFIDE
*^ v^«/ U.Ui
MANES CCQ1) n ni
^ ; °'01
TANKS fClOl
^ ^
.DECANES (Cll)
DECANES (C12) TOTAL SULFUR
.1DECANES (C13)
TRADECANES (C14) OTHER
pQPpM "" ______ _____ __ __ _ ______
HYDROCARBON LIQUID GAL/MCF 0.21
HYDROCARBON DEW POINT (F @ PSIGy '@
TAL 100.00 WATER DEW POINT (F @ PSIG) @
SAMPLE INFORMATION
» P "' "« ^- ^ W .««___ »_«.__ V.H.^.v< ._««.«._«>«..»_ _M ^H.^ ^ ^-«^M^.
OJECT CODE CYLINDER I.D.' E.P.A.
JARTMENT NOBLE TRANSPORTATION SAMPLE NO 2
JATION ANN ARBOR STATION ' SAMPLE POINT E.P.A. STAND
LD CITY DETROIT SAMPLING TIME 4-23-81 BOTTLE
\TE MICHIGAN ' SAMPLE RECEIVED
3TALLATION NO. ATMOSPHERIC TEMP. F.
U'lIT NO. GAS PRESSURE (PSIG)
.LMATION GAS TEMP. F.
sTDl WELL HEAD PRESS. (PSIG)
:n:R FLOW MMCF/DA
.CHASER SAMPLED BY E.P.A.
:RCE SAMPLING PROCEDURE
.JECT GAS QUALITY % AIR
.ATED TESTS E.P.A. TEST % AI^ NORMALIZED Q.OO
DISTRIBUTION
E. A. MORAN & DAVE EILERS
RE>L\RKS
ANALYZED BY
N. R. MCEACHERN
APPROVED BY
.'JUS REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED EOR THE PRIVATE AND EXCLUSIVE USE OF AMERICAN
TURAL RESOURCES SYSTEM COMPANIES AND ITS DELIVERY TO ANY OTHER PERSON IS
^ON THE EXPRESS UNDERST \NDINC AND CONDITION THAT NO REPR ESENTAT IONS OR
-\RRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. ARE CONTAINED HEREIN WITH RESPECT TO THE
3CURACY OE ANY OE THE INFORMATION SET FORTH IN SUCH REPORT."
-------
VLMlCLL SPECIFICATION
- DATE Of ENTRY : <«/ 6/fal
MAMUF A
MUTOKS
VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
VEHICLE ID / VER KEPHESEUTtD CAKLINE MODEL CODE DHiVt CUDE
i) bEDAN rtEAK UKIVE STk. LEFT
SOUKCE
OTHEK
AM. wTS EuUIV.
VEHICLE MOUtL ACTIVE FULL EMPTY CUHb INHTIA TEST 0/D ACTUAL
TYPE ACTUAL VtHlCLE MOUtL YEAK YEAH TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS WEIGHT CODE DYNO HP
KUNMING CHG
NUMBER
NON-CEn CHEVROLET. IMPAL.A
79
7V
HrilMAKY DURABILITY VF.HiCLE 10 OK tSblbNFD DF
ALT.
i . FULL LOAD
TIME - SPECIFICATIONS
HIM SWL 8LT PSI
MFR CONST* N M N M FT R>
kOKUHANOLcR RADIAL <*t
UlSPLACFMtNT POKE SfKOr^E »
b.'k j. / it J.<«<^
IGNITJUN K'NITION TIM. TlMlNO
TIM I Nu 1 1 I M I n(> tt IOL. KfM
FNGI.vlE SPECIFICATIONS
1ED tNi. INE tNljUvF; NO. NO. TOTAL
IP T-rH'E CONF IGJKATION CYL. CAR6S » ribLS
(Jl TO bPAHK V--3LOC* h 1 2
KPM TU'. K. CO * CO '*. CO CO IDLE IDLE
TOL. ot- C.K LUF r PK)Hi COMB. TOL. HPM TOL«
FUEL SYSTEM FUEL COMP. COAST-
MFH/MODEL INJCT? TUHBO? KATIO OOwN TM ^
NO fe*>»l '
IDLE
GEAH ENGINE FAMILY ENGINE CODE
*.A <« b(Mi buO r-AKv, PARK 9100211* 983-1 G
AXLf f^/V A/C
rJATIO ^AIK) O(;<)ML ffc'W INSlALLr.l'
UrdvE TKAIN AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
C 'Ar^CASE TKANSMISSION
EXHAUST TYPF. SYSTF" CO'JFIbUwATION CODE
EVAPORATION
SYSTEM FUEL TYPE
M I L V
YtS
WIGHT
AUTtJ
.AUTO
CANISTER
INUOLENE 30
MAIN-TAN^
CAPACITY VOLHMF.
.-TANK
CAPACITY ' voi ur-tt
SHIFT SPEED
EVAPORATIVE EMISSION
FAMILY CODE
SALES CLASS
C.XHAUST RECYCLE
CONTROL SYSTEM TYPES
OXIDATION CATALYbT
VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS
DEP^KIMLNT ENEHGY. DUEL FUEL CONVERSION VEHICLE
-------
VEHICLE
MANUFACTURER VEHlU.t lU
if PAL MUTOHb 1 Ln^G'i'b^bb^'yb
-rlCLt MUUK
f^E ACTUAL VtHlCLt. MOuEL TCAK
M-CER CHEVROLET IMPALA 74
1MAKY DURABILITY VEHlCLL ID OR iSbl
- I El)
pPL^CFMENT MORE NiKUi\L ''P
r"""ot"T "Tni" ~~7."«;
NlTIUN I (.f. IT ION TIN. TIMING Rt-T"
r'l'io ) TlMllId <> TdL. RPM luL
'.A i+ bOubuO
LF N/V A/C
TIU t-AII<) OIOMtTtR Iff.I ALLt.l-
MILL'S res bi
MAlN-TANr. AUX.-TAi
PtCITY VOLUME CAPACITY
au./,, «.j,,
EXHAUST RECYCLE Air< PUMP
bPtciF ICATION KtPO*i - - DATE
VEHICLE bPECIFICullOMS
/ VER KEPHESENTtO CaRLINE MOOEL CODE
OF ENTRY : **/ 6/bi
DRIVE CODE SOURCE
i) bECJAN PEAR URIVE STR. LEFT OTHER
n*MvE AAI. wTS EuUIV.
L ACTIVE FULL EMPTY CUKb INRTIA TEST 0/0 ACTUAL RUNNING CHG
YF.ttR TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS WEIGHT CODE UYNO HP NUMBER
bNFO OF ALT. MANUFACTURER
f'-lGI"JE T^tCIF IC/\T IONS
fjtilMt F NO INK NO. NO.
T-rPL CONF 10 JHATION CYL. CAR6S
uTT'.) SPARK V-riU'CK h 1
Tl' . «, CO «. CO ». CO CO IDLE
Or I-K LK.F r Rl'jHl COMri. TOL. RPM
PM-
upivt TRAIN AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIF
i . FULL LOAD
TIRE - SPECIFICATIONS
TIRE *. RIM S*L BLT PSI
SIZES MFR CONSTR N M N M FT RR.
GR7aXlb8 RORUHANOLER RADIAL
TOTAL FUEL SYSTEM FUEL COMP. COAST
» BbLS MFk/MUDEL INJCT? TURBO? RATIO DOWN
2 NO 64.1
IULE IOLE
TOL. GEAR ENGINE FAMILY ENGINE COOE
PARK 910o24 9B3-1 G
ICAT10NS
TM
C-'AMvCASE TRANSMISSION EVAPORATION
KAr-AU^T TYPK SYbl^f'> CONFIGURATION COOE SYSTEM FUEL TYPE
NGl.t RIGHT REAR AUTO
vi':r uHt SI-.IFI SPEED
CONTROL SYSTEM TYPES
UAlUAMON CATALYbT
VEHICIE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS
AUTO CANISTER INDOLENE 30
EVAPORATIVE EMISSION
FAMILY coot SALES CLASS
tNEHtiY, OUtL FUE.L CONVERSION VEHICLE
------- |