EPA-AA-TEB-81-24
Emission Characteristics of 1979 and 1980 California
Passenger Cars Equipped with Three-Way Catalysts
by
Gary T. Jones
Matthew M. Macocha
August 1981
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Abstract
This report presents exhaust emissions data gathered on in-use vehicles
equipped with three-way catalyst systems. The test vehicles were 1979
and 1980 passenger cars of various makes and models. Each of the 116
vehicles tested was certified to California standards. The purpose of
the program was to gather information on current systems in customer use
for projections on the ability of the three-way system to meet emission
standards of the future.
The results indicated that vehicles equipped with these systems are
capable of achieving low exhaust emission levels although high levels do
occur due to defects, deterioration or tampering with the emission
control equipment.
-------
Introduction
As exhaust emission and fuel economy standards for new motor vehicles
have become more stringent, vehicle manufacturers have developed new
technologies in order to meet these requirements. For the 1981 model
year (1980 in California), the exhaust emission standards are such that
most engines need more extensive controls in order to comply with the
regulations. A summary of recent emission standards is displayed in
Table 1. The emission control concept which most of these new vehicles
employ is the three-way catalyst. This system was first brought to the
marketplace by Volvo in 1977. The term "three-way" describes the ability
of the converter to minimize all three regulated pollutants. The
oxidation portion of the catalyst is similar to earlier models in that it
contains platinum and palladium which promotes the conversion of HC, CO,
and oxygen into carbon dioxide and water. The reduction portion of the
catalyst contains rhodium which reduces the oxides of nitrogen into
nitrogen and oxygen. In most cases, a conventional EGR valve is also
used for preliminary control of NOx.
Some three-way systems employ a . single converter which holds a
homogeneous mixture of the catalytic materials which are deposited on a
pelleted or monolithic substrate. This allows the oxidation and
reduction processes to proceed simultaneously throughout the converter.
Another technique employs the use of an oxidation catalyst downstream of
the three-way catalyst. This system is called the three-way plus
oxidation catalyst system. In this system, supplemental air is
introduced ahead of the additional catalyst. It allows even more
complete control of HC and CO emissions.
This latter technique is used in either the "dual catalyst" or "dual bed"
configuration. The dual catalyst system utilizes two separate
containers, whereas the dual bed type has the catalytic material in
separate portions of the same container.
Although vehicle manufacturers have chosen a number of physically
different configurations for the hardware, there are two basic ways to
control these three-way systems: either "open loop" or "closed loop".
Given the current and future exhaust emission standards, the closed loop
system represents the state-of-the art and is considered to be the most
effective for sizeable emission reductions without a loss of fuel
economy. The term "closed loop" refers to the feedback mechanism between
the output (exhaust) and the input (air-fuel mixture). This term will be
used to denote all systems which employ this mechanism although most
closed loop systems do operate on an open loop basis under certain
operating modes, such as warm-up or heavy load.
The primary reason for the use of a closed loop system is that the
overall effectiveness of the three-way catalyst is greatest when the
air-fuel mixture is close to ideal. "Stoichiometric" is the chemical
term used to describe the situation where all the combining elements are
in the proper proportions. For a typical gasoline, the ratio of air to
fuel is 14.7 to 1, by weight. Given the various limitations of a
conventional carburetor (e.g., fixed jet size) it is difficult to
maintain this mixture throughout the complete range of vehicle operating
-------
conditions. Thus, carburetors with the ability to precisely adjust the
air-fuel mixture were developed. Such adjustments are currently
accomplished by modulating the flow of fuel in response to a signal from
an electronic control unit. This device processes a number of inputs
such as temperatures and/or pressures but receives its primary signal
from an oxygen sensor located in the path of the exhaust gases. This
sensor produces an electrical output based on the concentration of oxygen
in the exhaust stream. Too much oxygen means a lean mixture and the
carburetor is directed to meter more fuel. Too little oxygen (rich
mixture) is followed by a signal to reduce fuel flow. This sampling
operation usually occurs many times a second.
The typical open loop system is virtually identical to earlier control
systems. The only difference is the use of a three-way rather than only
an oxidation catalyst. This technique is less expensive because it does
not require the advanced electronics of the closed loop system.
Although passenger cars equipped with three-way catalyst systems
represent only a small portion of the vehicles currently in use, the
1981-1985 model years will be responsible for approximately 60% of the
passenger car miles-traveled by mid-1985 (Reference 1). This program was
initiated to obtain data from the latest three-way catalyst vehicles.
The results are being used:
1. For assessments and projections of air quality.
2. To provide information to assist in development of Inspection/
Maintenance programs.
3. To supplement data that examines the emission characterstics of
three-way catalysts versus conventional control systems.
4. To identify weaknesses and potential failure areas in future
emission control systems so that the effectiveness of the
regulatory process can be enhanced.
Program Design
Test Locations - Although there are currently several three-way catalyst
systems available for sale in the 49 states, most manufacturers had
chosen California as the location to concentrate their initial sales.
The Los Angeles area was selected as the primary test site due to its
great density of automobiles and the fact that an independent testing
laboratory in that area was already under contract to EPA.
Automotive Environmental Systems, Inc. (AESi), of Westminster, California
conducted the testing. In two previous EPA programs, AESi had tested 450
three-way catalyst vehicles and were familiar with the procurement and
testing procedures.
Test Vehicle Selection - Vehicles on which little or no data had been
gathered in earlier three-way test programs were sought for testing.
These have been grouped by manufacturer and engine size and are displayed
in Table 2. Where possible, owners of candidate vehicles were identified
-------
on registration listings and contacted by direct mail. Solicitations
through vario.us media, such as newspaper advertising, were also
permitted. Although media solicitation is not purely random, it was
necessary due to the time lag between the purchase of a new automobile
and its appearance on a registration list.
The test vehicles were drawn from the general public in the greater Los
Angeles area. Since typical in use vehicles were sought, the contractors
were instructed to avoid vehicles which had been abused, extensively
modified or otherwise not considered to be representative of the
population. Each owner completed a questionnaire containing questions
related to the usage and maintenance of his vehicle. Although the final
test fleet demonstrates a broad range of available systems, there was no
attempt at sales-weighting.
Testing - Testing began in January, 1980 and was completed in August,
1980. Each vehicle received the Federal Test Procedure (FTP), a Highway
Fuel Economy Test (HFET) and four short cycle tests (bagged idle, 50 mph
cruise, four speed idle, and loaded two mode). Twenty-five vehicles also
received evaporative emission tests. The vehicles were tested in
"as-received" condition to gather data representative of the in-use
vehicle population. An underhood inspection of emission-related
components was also conducted to evaluate the degree of any
maladjustments, disablements, defects or deterioration. No candidate
vehicle was rejected due to any condition which would make it unsafe to
operate on the dynamometer. Fuel inspections performed on the test
vehicles did not reveal the presence of any leaded gasoline.
Re suits
There are several ways to evaluate the exhaust emission results of these
three-way systems. One is in terms of absolute levels. Another is
conformance to applicable standards. Fuel economy was examined in a
similar manner.
Table 3 presents the average exhaust emission levels, fuel economy, and
percent meeting standards for each of the engine families. The emission
levels of each group of vehicles were compared to the California
Standards under which they were certified. In comparing the HC emission
levels to the standards, a Methane Content Correction Factor (MCCF) was
applied. California regulations recognize methane as a hydrocarbon which
does not contribute to the formation of smog. Thus, they permit methane
to be excluded from the total hydrocarbons. Three-way catalyst vehicles
have been assigned a MCCF of .89. Some manufacturers have applied for
and received other values appropriate for their vehicles. The measured
value of the total HC is multiplied by the MCCF to obtain the value which
is compared to the .41 gm/mi standard. As the FTP results show, the
average emission levels of most vehicle classes in the test fleet are
reasonably close to the standards to which they were certified. As shown
in some engine families, one or two high emitters greatly increases the
overall average.
Shown in Figure 1 are graphical presentations of test results on each
category of vehicles. Within the figures are bar charts comparing FTP
-------
results to applicable standards and pie charts for describing pass/fail
outcomes. For recent 49-state vehicles tested in as-received condition,
the modes of failure have tended toward either CO in conjunction with HC
or NOx alone. Failures to meet the standards on the basis of HC level
alone have been minimal. Thus, the California HC standard of .41 gm/mi
appears to be the limiting factor in the ability of these models to meet
their standards. In terms of emission levels as well as percent meeting
standards, the AMC, Audi, VW and GM 151 engines exhibited the best
overall performance. However, each of these groups contained three or
fewer vehicles. In the GM 305 category (15 vehicles), it is interesting
to note the high average percent of standard for HC and CO in conjunction
with the high pass rate (80%). In contrast, the Ford 351 group (11
vehicles) had a low pass rate (55%), but the average percent of standards
for each of the three pollutants were under 100%. Such results indicate
that this group contained many borderline failures. Figure 2 displays
the pass/fail pie chart for the entire fleet. Included in Figure 2 is a
pie chart comparison of three-way catalyst systems versus three-way plus
oxidation catalyst vehicles. As shown, the HC failure rate is the major
difference between the two catalyst categories. The three-way plus
oxidation catalyst category shows a total of 26% of its sample failing at
least HC while the three-way category showed a total 9% HC failure rate.
Table 4 presents the average emission levels of these two types of
systems.
The technique used to analyze the air quality impact of high emitters was
to calculate their proportional contribution to the total emissions of
the fleet. This can be seen in Figure 3 which displays the emission
levels of all the 1980 model year vehicles ranked in ascending order.
Underhood Inspection - Every vehicle received an inspection of emission
related components and adjustments. Each system (e.g., induction,
carburetor, etc.) was examined for defects, maladjustments, disablements,
inadequate maintenance or misbuilds. Failures were defined by any
abnormalities in the component's physical condition and/or measured
values outside of prescribed tolerances. Shown in Table 5 is a summary
of the emission results for the test vehicles based on the outcome of the
underhood inspection. These results show that vehicles which are in
proper operating order generally produce the lowest emission levels. The
higher emission levels attained by vehicles with malfunctions are
consistent with those reported in earlier research on three-way catalyst
systems (Reference 2, 3). Reviewing the results show 60% of the vehicles
were in proper operating condition. This is much better than the 31% of
the 1975 and 1976 vehicles evaluated in the year they were new (Reference
4). An examination of the individual modes of failure revealed that the
fuel system was the largest area of malperformance (19 vehicles). This
was followed by the three-way catalyst control system (12 vehicles),
choke system (11 vehicles), and ignition system (6 vehicles). Three
vehicles had some EGR and Evaporative system malperformance. Each of the
thirty vehicles with malperformance in the fuel, three-way or choke
system failed at least one standard. Seven of the vehicles with
three-way system malperformance failed both HC and CO. An examination of
individual modes of failure reveals that obvious tampering, such as
removal of limiter caps and idle mixture maladjustment, is greatly
reduced. This may be attributed to tamper-resistant features which have
-------
been incorporated recently and are present on many of the vehicles
tested. Examples of these are sealed idle mixture adjustment and rivets
replacing screws to prevent choke adjustments. The problems which are
now predominant are either more minor, e.g. idle speed, or are
malfunctions within the three-way system. Results of the underhood
inspection on individual vehicles may be found in the appropriate report
(Reference 5).
Fuel Economy - The values for the measured fuel economy for each engine
family are listed in Table 3. Table 6 provides a comparison of these
values to those in the EPA Gas Mileage Guide. Also listed are the fuel
economy figures perceived by the owner. Both the measured values and
those perceived by the owner have been normalized as percentages of
values published in the applicable Guide. Since the HFET numbers are no
longer published in the Guide, these were obtained independently from EPA
records. Some of the entries are based on small samples because of the
subdivision of the vehicle categories by body style and transmission or
because the owners did not feel they could make a proper estimate. This
table indicates that these production vehicles did not attain the fuel
economy values achieved by the prototypes and preproduction vehicles
during the certification process. Overall, the owner's perceived city
estimate was 9% below the Guide value but was relatively close to actual
FTP test results. The average highway fuel economy as perceived by the
owner was 18% short of the Guide value while the HFET results indicated
only a 7% shortfall.
Evaporative Emissions - Table 7 displays the average evaporative emission
results by engine family. The 1980 California standard was 2 gm/test.
Twenty-five vehicles were given the evaporative test in this program.
Two engine families failed the evaporative test while eight passed.
Overall, the average emission level was 96% of the standard.
Conclusions
Based on the findings of this program, several conclusions can be made
concerning three-way catalyst control systems:
1. The three-way catalyst systems can be effective in controlling
emissions to levels below those of their predecessors.
2. Maladjustments, disablements, and defects are still present in
similar proportions to those in earlier systems although there
appears to be a shift away from problems due to tampering.
3. Because of the great degree of control, emission levels from
vehicles equipped with three-way systems appear to be more
sensitive to malfunctions.
4. There was no significant difference in the average emission
levels between the three-way and the three-way plus ox-cat
systems.
-------
References
1. J. T. White, G. T. Jones, and D. J. Niemczak, "Exhaust Emissions From
In-Use Passenger Cars Equipped With Three-Way Catalysts", SAE Paper
800823, June 1980.
2. Charles M. Urban and Robert J. Garbe, "Exhaust Emissions from
Malfunctioning Three-Way Catalyst-Equipped Automobiles", SAE Paper
800511, February 1980.
3. Thomas Cackette, Philip Lorang, and David Hughes, "The Need for
Inspection and Maintenance for Current and Future Motor Vehicles",
SAE Paper 790782, August 1979.
4. J. T. White, "An Evaluation of Restorative Maintenance on Exhaust
Emissions From In-Use Automobiles", SAE Paper 780082, February 1978.
5. Alan D. Jones, "Testing of New Technology Three-Way Catalyst Equipped
Vehicles in Los Angeles", Report for Task 1, Contract No. 68-03-2881,
August, 1980.
-------
Table 1 - Exhaust Emission Standards for Passenger Cars (grams/mile)
Federal California
HC CO NOx HC CO NOx
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.41
0.41
15
15
15
15
15
7.0
3.1
3.1
2.0
.0
.0
2.
2.
2.0
3.4(a) l.O(b)
0.9
0.9
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41(c)
A 0.41(c)
B 0.41(c)
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
3.4
7.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
l.O(d)
l.O(d)
0.7
(a) Waiver up to 7.0 gm/mi possible.
(b) Waiver up to 1.5 gm/mi possible for diesel or innovative technology.
(c) .39 gm/mi standard for hydrocarbons other than methane if methane is
actually measured.
(d) 1.5 gm/mi allowed with 100,000 mile durability.
Note: For the 1981 model year, manufacturers may choose options A or B
separately for their gasoline and diesel product lines in California.
The option chosen in 1981 must be retained for the 1982 model year.
-------
Table 2
Description of Vehicle Categories
Type of Catalyst
Control Configuration
MFR.
Chrysler
Chrysler
Chrysler
Chrvsler
Ford
Ford
Ford
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
AMC
Audi
Audi
Datsun
Datsun
Volkswagen
Model
Year
79
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
Engine Family CID
9CD-225-1-WP 225
OCB-318-4-AUP 318
OCB-225-1-ARP 225
OCB-105-2-CLP 105
5.8 UAXC 351
3.3 CQ 200
2.3 AX 140
06T4RCZ 368
06JORCZ 350
01Y4MCRZ 305
04E2MCRZ 231
04E4UCO 231
02X2NC 151
01W2PC 98
CP-5N1 258
5000 CL 131
4000 CL 97
L24/28C 168
L24/28C 146
37CL 97
Cvl.
6
8
fa
4
8
6
4
8
8
a
6
6
4
4
6
5
4
6
6
4
Fuel
System*
2V
4V
IV
2V
VV
IV
2V
4V
EFI
4V
2V
4V
2V
2V
2V
MFI
MFI
MFI
MFI
MFI
Models
Volare, Aspen
Cordoba, Mirada
LeBaron. Volare
Omni, Horizon
Ford, Lincoln
Mercury
Mustang, Fairmont
Mustang
DeVille, Fleetwood
Seville, Eldorado
Pontiac, Olds,
Chevrolet, Buick
Chevrolet, Buick
Oldsmobile
Monte Carlo *
Star fire
Chevette
Concord
Audi-5000
Audi-4000
280Z
810
Rabbit, Scirocco
Closed
Loop
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Open
Loop 3-Way
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3-Wav +
Ox Cat.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
AIR'
itu
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ECR
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
No.
Tested
4
5
3
5
11
10
1
10
13
15
14
2
1
11
2
1
1
3
1
3
Tl6
*Code for Fuel System: IV - 1 barrel carburetor, 2V - 2 barrel carburetor, 4V - 4-barrel carburetor
W - variable venturi carburetor, EFI - electronic fuel injection, MFI - mechanical fuel injection
Table 3
Average FTP Results by Vehicle Category
FTP Results
Mfg.
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
Ford
Ford
Ford
Chrysler
Chrysler
Chrysler
Chrysler
AMC
Audi
Audi
Volkswagen
Datsun
Datsun
Model Engine
Year Family
80 06T4RCZ
80 06JORCZ
80 01Y4MRCZ
minus high emitters
80 04E2MCRZ
80 04E4UCD
80 02X2NC
80 01U2PC
80 5.8 WAXC
80 3.3 GQ
minus high emitter
80 2.3 AX
80 OC8-318-4-AUP
minus high emitter
79 9CD-225-1-WP
minus high emitter
80 OCB-225-1-ARP
minus high emitter
80 OCB-105-2-CLP
80 CP-5N1
80 5000 CL
80 4000 CL
80 37CL
80 L24/28C
80 L24/28C
All 1980 vehicles
Minus high emitters
California Standards
All 1979 vehicles
Minus Uigh emitter
California Standards
CID
368
350
305
231
231
151
98
351
200
140
318
225
225
105
258
131
97
97
146
168
N
10
13
15
13
14
2
1
11
11
10
9
1
5
4
4
3
3
2
5
2
1
1
3
3
1
112
107
4
3
Avg.
Odom
8200
6700
5700
6000
4200
4200
3800
3000
5100
4300
4600
6000
5900
4600
5600
6000
5400
4500
6100
3000
9800
8300
5400
4900
10200
5300
5200
5600
6000
Ğ ( gtn/TDi )Ğ
THC*
.39
.41
.83
.25
.30
.53
.22
.22
.42
.39
.33
.52
.42
.24
.51
.53
.58
.36
.35
.32
.16
.10
.20
.24
.26
.41
.32
.41
.61
.53
.41
NMHC*
.33
.35
.74
.22
.27
.46
.20
.20
.35
.33
.28
.38
.37
.21
.54
.47
.52
.32
.31
.28
.14
.08
.18
.21
.23
.36
.27
.3y
.54
.50
-
CO
3.63
4.02
25.40
4.00
6.30
4.88
7.78
5.10
6.10
4.99
2.82
6.24
6.86
4.42
11.20
7.05
10.90
4.56
5.75
6.41
1.34
1.25
2.19
2.25
2.97
7.87
4.56
9.0
11.26
7.03
9.0
NOx
.92
.78
.58
.62
.74
.74
.66
.60
.63
.81
.84
1.14
.84
.79
.99
1.18
.83
1.06
.63
.74
.79
.36
.41
.41
1.11
.70
.71
1.0
.99
1.18
1.5
FTP
MPG
13.3
12.8
13.8
14.1
17.6
15.6
18.8
22.2
14.3
18.3
18.4
19.9
15.3
15.1
14.6
15.1
16.0
17.3
21.8
15.7
17.4
22.7
23.4
20.7
18.4
16.0
16.1
14.6
15.2-
HFET
MPG
19.6
20.4
19.5
19.9
24.1
20.8
25.9
28.4
23.8
24.3
24.4
28.5
23.6
23.4
19.1
20.1
20.0
21.7
31.6
23.0
24.3
32.8
36.9
25.2
29.7
23.2
23.4
19.1
21.0
Z meeting
standards
60
69
80
92
79
50
100
73
55
70
78
0
60
75
0
0
67
100
80
100
100
100
100
100
0
72
75
0
0
^California regulations permit methane to be excluded from the total hydrocarbons (THC) betore comparison to the
standards. In most cases the column for non-methane hydrocarbons (NMIIC) reflects the .89 correction factor assigned
to these three-way catalyst svsteras. However, tor the 06'HKCi;, 06JOKC2 and 04EUCU engine families, the factor vas
.86. For the 5.8 WAXC, 3.3 GQ, and 2.3 AX engine families, the factors were .35, .34 and .74 respectively.
-------
Table 4
Average Emission Levels of 3 Way + Oxidation Catalyse Versus 3 Way Catalyst Vehicles
Catalyst Type
FTP Results
Avg. (gm/mi) FTP HFET Z meeting
!<_ Mom THC NMHC CO NOx MPC MPC standards
3 way + ox cat
Minus high emitters
60 5500 .44
57 5800 .39
.38 5.93 .81 16.4 23.6 63
.34 4.71 .83 16.5 23.8 67
3 way catalyst
Minus high emitters
56 5600 .32
53 5500 .25
.28 6.94 .64 18.6 26.1 75
.22 4.38 .66 18.7 26.3 79
Table 5: Emission Levels versus Results of Underhood Inspection
System Inspection
3 Way
Pass
Fail
Pass
Fail
All Systems
Any System
Other
Pass
Pass
Fall
Fall
Pass
Fall
N
67
4
36
5
67
45
Avg.
Odom.
4766
7012
6335
6158
4766
6376
FTP Results (gm/mi)
HC
.30
.48
.37
2.37
.30
.60
CO
4.2
7.7
5.7
73.4
4.2
13.4
NOx
.65
.55
.87
.63
.65
.81
FTP
(MPC)
17.1
15.2
16.3
14.6
17.1
16.0
HFET
(MPC)
24.3
24.1
22.9
20.9
24.3
22.8
Overall
112 5413
.42
7.9
.72 16.7 23.8
-------
Table 6
Comparisons of Fuel Economy Estimates and
Results as a Percentage of Guide Values
Model
Year Mfr.
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
79
80
80
80
80
CM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
Ford
Ford
Ford
Chrysler
Chrysler
Chrysler
Chrysler
AMC
Datsun
VW
Engine
Family
06T4RC
06JORCZ
01Y4MCRZ
04E2MCRZ
04E4UCD
01W2PC
5.8 WAXC
3.3 GQ
2.3 AX
OCB-318-4-AUP
OCB-225-1-ARP
9CD-225-1-WP
OCB-105-2-CLP
CP-5N1
L24/28C
37 CL
(.10
368
350
305
231
231
98
351
200
140
318
225
225
105
258
146/168
97
Totals and weighted averages
(all vehicles)
7
II
10
9
2
7
9
2
1
2
1
3
4
1
4
2
75
City (.FTP)
Owner
lest
Perceived Results
yoz
95
92
87
94
84
84
97
95
93
100
106
92
100
93
92Z
951
91
97
92
87
88
91
104
95
90
111
95
94
98
96
872
Hipiiway (KFET)
Owner
lest
N Perceivud Results
7
10
9
9
2
7
9
2
1
1
1
3
4
1
4
2
dbl
78
92
83
88
33
68
82
72
75
86
98
82
83
96
82Z
94Z
88
99
92
83
89
93
98
89
96
102
96
95
97
98
90Z
Type of Catalyse
3 way
3 way
3 way
3 way
3 way
3 way
3 way
3 way
3 way
3 way
3 way
3 way
3 way
3 way
3 way
3 way
+ oxidation
+ oxidation
catalyst
catalyst
+ oxidation
catalyst
+ oxidation
+ oxidation
+ oxidation
+ oxidation
+ oxidation
catalyst
+ oxidation
catalyst
catalyst
catalyst
catalyst
catalyst
catalyst
catalyst
catalyst
catalyst
catalyst
catalyse
catalyst
91Z
932
72
82Z
93Z
Totals and weighted averages
(3 way catalyst vehicles)
36
90Z
932
35
88Z
94Z
Totals and weighted averages
(3 way + oxidation catalyst vehicles)
39
91Z
93Z
37
782
922
Table 7
1980 Model Year Vehicles
Evaporative Emissions Results by Engine Family
(1980 Evaporative Emission Standard - 2 gas/test)
Mfr.
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
Ford
Chrysler
Chrysler
Chrysler
Datsun
Overall
N
2
3
3
4
1
2
3
2
4
1^
25
Engine
Family
06T4RCZ
06JORCZ
01Y4MCRZ
04E2MCRZ
01W2PC
3.3GQ
OCB-318-4-AUP
OCB-225-1-ARP
OCB-105-2-CLP
L24/28C
CID.
368
350
305
231
98
200
318
225
105
168
Average
Odometer
14400
9500
6700
5600
7400
6200
4400
4200
6300
10240
7066
Average
Emissions
(gin/test)
3.30
.80
1.37
1.96
1.80
1.60
1.93
5.71
1.02
.57
1.91
Percent
Meeting
Standards
0
100
100
75
100
50
67
0
100
100
72
-------
1980 CM 368
1980 GM 350
200 _
100.
;
HC CO NOV
1980 GM 305
282^
200 -, !^ *S
r -;
100
HC CO NOX
NOX 202
CO 72
HC/CO 132
200 -,
100-
HC CO NO,
1980 GM 231 (04E2MCRZ)
200-,
100
HC CO NOV
1C 232
HC/CO 72
CO 72
1980 GM 231 (04E4UCD)
200 -,
100
0-
1980 GM 151
200-1
100
HC CO NO,
HC CO NO,,
1980 GM 98
200 -i
100
r i
HC CO NO,
CO/NOX 92
1980 Ford 351
200 -i
100
! = >vĞ,,
: : : I
HC CO NO,
:o 18%
iC 272
1080 Ford 200
200 -
100
1980 Ford 140
200 -i
NO,, 102 100 -ğ-
X a- -:3
HC CO N'0X HC CO NOX
Fig. 1 - FTP test results as percent of standards and pass/fail outcomes for Individual vehicle categories.
-------
1980 Chrysler 318
200-
1980 Chrysler 225
HC CO NO
1979 Chrysler 225
200 -i
100 - . --
HC CO NOS
1980 AMC 258
200-1
ion .Ğ
HC CO
1980 Audi 4000
200 -i
100 -
HC CO NOX
1980 Datsun 146/168
200 -,
100
; r .: I I
HC CO N'C)
HC/CO 20%
HC/CO 25%
200 -i
HC CO NO,
1980 Chrysler 105
HC/CO/NOX 25% 20° "1
100 - -
""I
HC CO
1980 Audi 5000
200 -i
-------
HC/CO/NOX 2%
,CO/NOx 2%
HC 2%
NOX 5%
CO 5%
HC/CO 7%
56 3-Way Catalyst
Vehicles
HC/NOX 2%
CO 3%
HC/CO 7%
8%
HC 17%
60 3-Way + Ox. Cat.
Vehicles
HC/CO/NOX
CO/NOX 1
HC/NOX
I/ ,CO 4%
All Vehicles
Fig. 2 - Pass/Fail outcomes from the FTP
-------
4.0
3.0
; 2.0
1.0
0
<
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Q
-
-
HC
1980 CA Std. _^r*>~r
^ --. ,i.". ' "" ,^,;-.-~ ^--~
' 10 20 30 4b :'a to ;'o so 90 100 I'M
Number of Vehicle* (112)
-
1910 CA Std. ^^s-
__^Ğ-Ğiğ^*'~
-Ğ*?^r^r*TrT~T,. . .
i i i i : : . i . i i
3 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100 110
180
ISO
0 1 fifi
^ 100
&
1 8
C
50
40
30
20
10
0
a
1
i
-
;
;|
/^O ^
"^ "^^^ ^^J '
\
\
' I
1
1080 CA Std. s*
10 201 3(J 4'0 5li ifl /O 80 90 100 110
Number of Vehicle* (112)
Number of Vehicle* (1(2)
Fig. 3 - Emission Levels of all 1980 vehicles ranked in ascending order.
------- |