-------
Table 1-79. Comparison of Multiple Constituent Results for 151 to 259 CID Group;
by Manufacturer; All Three Cities; Predicted Population; Bounded Errors of
Commission Method (E set at 5 percent) (Continued)
Short Test
Federal 3 -Mode
(continued)
Manufacturer
Chrysler
AMC
others
others
.
Test Mode
idle-in-drive
idle - in - neut ral
/M
best(DI
idle-in-drive
idle -in -neut ral
bestfb)
idle-in-drive
idle - in - ne ut ral
best(b)
idle-in-drive
idle -in -neut ral
(b)
best1 '
Number
of
Vehicles
7
12
9
7
Parameter, %
Ec
14.3
14.3
14.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
E
0
14.3
14.3
14.3
41.7
66.7
41.7
33.3
44.4
33.3
42.9
57. 1
42.9
FF
71.4
71.4
71.4
41.7
16.7
41.7
33.3
22.2
33.3
28.6
14.3
28.6
STE
.833
.833
.833
.500
.200
.500
.500
.333
.500
.400
.200
.400
STRR
1.000
1.000
1.000
.500
.200
.500
.500
.333
.500
.400
.200
.400
(a)
(b)
This category includes
1 Datsun and 1 VW
Best individual modes are HC
and CO in drive and NOx at
high speed.
-------
Table 1-80. Comparison of HC Results for 260 CID and Greater Group;
by Manufacturer; All Three Cities; Predicted Population; Bounded Errors of
Commission Melhod (E set at 5 percent)
Short Test
Federal Short Cycle
Federal 3-Mode
Manufacturer
all
GM
Ford
Chrysler
AMC
Datsun
Toyota
VW
Honda
others
all
GM
Ford
Chrysler
AMC
Test Mode
idle-in-drlve
Ldle-in-neutral
idle-in-drive
idle- in-neutral
idle-in-drive
idle-in-neutral
idle-in-drive
idle -in-neutral
idle-in-drive
idle -in-neutral
Number
of
Vehicles
151
74
42
29
6
151
74
42
29
6
Parameter, %
E
5.0
4.0
2.8
4.0
0
5.0
5.0
4.0
4,2
3.9
5.1
5.9
6.2
0.0
0,0
E
o
12.5
8.9
11.4
20.3 '
0
18.3
19.6
14.4
15.9
20.6
21.2
29.2
31.1
0.0
0.0
FF
20.4
21.8
18.0
40.5
0
14.6
13.3
16.3
14.8
8.8
8.3
31.6
29.7
0.0
r\ n
w . vy
STE
.620
.710
.612
.666
0
.444
.404
.531
.482
.299
.281
.520
.488
0
A
\J
STRR
.772
.840
.707
.731
0
.596
.556
.661
.619
.432
.454
.617
.590
0
0
00
-------
1.3.11.3.2 Carbon Monoxide Emission
As shown in Table 1-81, on the Federal Short Cycle, the STE
values of all manufacturers were reasonably well grouped, with Chrysler
the highest at STE = 0.920. Ford (1.028) slightly exceeded an STRR value
of one.
On the Federal Three-Mode (idle in drive test mode), Chrysler
again had the highest STE value (0.937) and GM had the lowest (0. 631). Both
Ford (1.058) and Chrysler (1.041) slightly exceeded an STRR value of one.
1.3.11.3.3 Oxides of Nitrogen Emission
In terms of STE value on the Federal Short Cycle (Table 1-82),
AMC had the highest value (0.942) and Ford the lowest (0.385). Both AMC
(1.1 59) and Chrysler (2. 554) exceed an STRR value of one.
On the Federal Three-Mode ST, the high speed test mode was
superior for the fleet average. In this test mode, Chrysler had the highest
STE value (0.479), AMC the lowest (0.86); GM (0.288) and Ford (0.335) were
near the fleet average value of 0. 343. Only Chrysler (1.488) had an STRR
value in excess of one.
1.3.11.3.4 Multiple Constituent Tests
As shown in Table 1-83, on the Federal Short Cycle all manu-
facturers were reasonably close to the fleet average STE value of 0.904.
All manufacturers except Chrysler exceeded an STRR value of one and AMC
had an STRR value of 2.0.
On the Federal Three-Mode ST (idle in drive test mode), all
manufacturers except AMC were closely grouped in STE value near the fleet
average (0.721); AMC recorded an STE value of one. No manufacturer
exceeded an STRR value of one.
1-149
-------
Table 1-81. Comparison of CO Results for 260 CID and Greater Group;
by Manufacturer; All Three Cities; Predicted Population; Bounded Errors of
Commission Method (E set at 5 percent)
Short Test
Federal Short Cycle
Federal 3-Mode
Manuf actur e r
all
CM
Ford
Chrysler
AMC
Datsun
Toyota
VW
Honda
others
all
GM
Ford
Chrysler
AMC
Test Mode
idle-in-drive
tdle-in-neutral
idle-in-drive
idle -in-neutral
idle-in-drive
idle - in -neutral
idle-in-drive
idle-in-neutral
idle-in-drive
idle-in-neutral
Number
of
Vehicles
151
74
42
29
6
151
74
42
29
6
Parameter, %
E
c
5.0
5.2
10.1
2.0
0.4
5.0
5.0
3.0
3.5
13.0
10.2
8.6
8.9
.2
.4
E
o
13.0
12.2
8.4
6.6
0
17.8
18.8
20. 1
21.2
9.4
11.6
5.2
5.5
0.0
0.0
FF
44.2
38.1
52.0
76.4
0
42. 1
41.3
34.4
33.3
52.1
49.8
77.8
77.4
0.0
0.0
STE
.773
.758
.861
.920
0
.703
.687
.631
.611
.847
.811
.937
.934
0
0
STRR
.860
.861
1.028
.945
0
.790
.770
.686
,675
1.058
.977
1.041
1.041
0
0
(Jl
o
-------
Table 1-82. Comparison of NO% Results for 260 CID and Greater Group;
by Manufacturer; All Three Cities; Predicted Population; Bounded Errors of
Commission Method (E set at 5 percent)
Short Test
Federal Short Cycle
Federal 3-Mode
Manufacturer
all
GM
Ford
Chrysler
AMC
Datsun
Toyota
VW
Honda
others
all
GM
Ford
Chrysler
AMC
Test Mode
high
low
high
low
high
low
high
low
high
low
Number
of
Vehicles
151
74
42
29
6
151
74
42
29
6
Parameter, %
E
c
5.0
1.1
0.6
20.9
9.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
1.0
3.0
.2
12.2
28.2
0.0
2.8
E
o
11.5
10.9
23.5
2.1
2.4
16.3
19.4
15.3
17.6
25.4
35.4
6.3
2. 1
34.9
33.4
FF
13.3
10.7
14.7
10.0
38.9
8.5
5.4
6.2
3.9
12.8
2.8
5.8
10.0
3.3
4.8
STE
.536
.495
.385
.827
.942
.343
.218
.288
. 181
.335
.073
.479
.826
.086
.126
STRR
.738
.546
.401
2.554
1.159
.544
.419
.474
.228
.414
.078
1.488
3.157
.086
.199
I
h-^
Ul
-------
Table 1-83. Comparison of Multiple Constituent Results for 260 CID and Greater Group;
by Manufacturer; All Three Cities; Predicted Population; Bonded Errors of
Commission Method (E set at 5 percent)
Short Test
Federal Short Cycle
Federal 3-Mode
Manufacturer
all
GM
Ford
Chrysler
AMC
Datsun
Toyota
VW
Honda
others
all
GM
Ford
Test Mode
idle-in-drive
idle -in-neutral
best
idle-in-drive
idle -in-neutral
best(a)
idle-in-drive
idle -in-neutral
best
Number
of
Vehicles
151
74
42
29
6
151
74
42
Parameter, %
EC
8.0
4.1
14.3
3.5
33.3
6.0
5.3
4.0
4.0
1.3
0.0
11.9
14.3
11.9
E
o
6.6
4. 1
7.1
13.8
0.0
19.2
17.9
19.9
17.6
17.6
23. '0
19.0
16.7
16.7
FF
62.3
59.5
64.3
72.4
33.3
49.7
51.0
49.0
46.0
46.0
40.5
52.4
54.8
54.8
STE
.904
.937
.901
.840
1.00
.721
.740
.711
.723
.723
.638
.734
.766
.766
STRR
1.020
1.000
1.101
.881
2.000
.808
.817
.769
.786
.744
.638
.900
.966
.933
ro
(a)
Best individual modes are HC in drive, CO in drive, and NO at high speed
-------
Table 1-83. Comparison of Multiple Constituent Results for 260 CID and Greater Group;
by Manufacturer; All Three Cities; Predicted Population; Bonded Errors of
Commission Method (E set at 5 percent) (Continued)
c
Short Test
Federal 3-Mode
(continued)
Manufacturer
Chrysler
AMC
Test Mode
idle -in -drive
idle -in -neutral
best
idle-in-drive
idle-in-neutral
best
Number
of
Vehicles
29
6
Parameter, %
E
c
3.4
3.4
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
E
o
20.7
17.2
13.8
33.3
33.3
33.3
FF
65.5
69.0
72.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
STE
.760
.800
.840
0
0
0
STRR
.799
.840
.879
0
0
0
Ul
(a)
Best individual modes are HC and
CO in drive, and NOX at high speed.
-------
1.3.12 Comparison of Short Test Cut-Points
1.3.12.1 By City
Table 1-84 summarizes the variation of FSC cut-point value
for each emission constituent required to result in a 5 percent E rate in
each individual city and for the pooled 300-vehicle fleet. The pooled fleet
values were those used in the contingency table analyses of Sections 1.2.1
through 1.2.10. The cut-spoint values for all three pollutants are very
similar for Chicago and Houston; Phoenix cut-points are higher in each case,
with a corresponding impact on the pooled fleet average.
Table 1-85 summarizes similar cut-point values for the Federal
Three-Mode ST (idle in drive for HC and CO, and high speed mode for NO ).
In contrast to the Federal Short Cycle, here the HC and CO cut-points for
Phoenix are lower than the pooled fleet average and the Chicago cut-points are
much higher.
1.3.12.2 By Engine Displacement Group
Table 1-86 summarizes the variation of FSC cut-point value
for each emission constituent required to result in a 5 percent E rate for
each individual CID group and for the pooled 300-vehicle fleet. The CID
group values shown were those used in the contingency table analyses of
Section 1.2.11. As can be noted, the CO cut-point for the 150 CID and less
group is considerably higher than the pooled fleet average. Thus, in the
analyses made using pooled fleet cut-points (Sections 1.2.1 through 1.2.10),
the small vehicle class should have been and was consistently identified as
having a high E value and correspondingly high STRR values.
Table 1-87 summarizes similar cut-point values for the
Federal Three-Mode ST (idle in drive for HC and CO, and high speed mode
for NO ). Here both CO and NO cut-points for the 150 CID and less group
Jt. J£
are higher than fleet average values. Again, in the analyses of Sections
1.2.1 through 1.2.10, this CID group was consistently identified with high
E and STRR values because of these cut-point distribution characteristics.
1-154
-------
Table 1-84. Comparison of Federal Short Cycle
Cut-Points by City (E set at 5 percent)
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
No. of
Vehicles
300
100
100
100
ST Cut Points and Standard Errors
(gm/mi)
HC
CP
1.32
1.24
1.24
1.44
SE
0. 145
0.283
0. 181
0.267
CO
CP
8.40
7.99
7.49
9.48
SE
0.866
A . 240
1.327
1.916
NO
X
CP
2.62
2.54
2.56
2.77
SE
0.219
0.355
0.360
0.412
(a)
(b)
CP = cut point.
SE = standard error.
1-155
-------
Table 1-85. Comparison of Federal Three-Mode
Cut-Points by City (Ec set at 5 percent)
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
No. of
Vehicles
300
100
100
100
ST Cut-Points and Standard Errors
(ppm) (a)
HC
CP
26
78
27
31
CO
CP
7,081
10, 145
6, 175
5,494
SE
1, 251
2, 627
2,432
1, 510
NOX
CP
2,265
2,026
2',172
2,439
SE
243
410
393(e)
379
(a)
(b)
Idle in drive test mode
(c)
(d)
(e)
High speed test mode
Cut-point
Standard error
The best mode for NOX for Houston was found to be the low speed
mode. The cut-point and standard error for NOX low speed are
1500 ppm and 372 ppm, respectively.
1-156
-------
Table 1-86. Comparison of Federal Short Cycle Cut-Points
by Engine Displacement (Ec set at 5 percent)
Engine
Displacement
Group
All
150 CID and
Less
151 to 259 CID
260 CID and
Greater
No. of
Vehicles
300
95
54
151
ST Cut-Points and Standard Errors
(gm/mi)
HC
CP
1.32
1.28
1.27
1.35
SE^
0.145
0.234
0.464
0. 192
CO
CP
8.40
13.10
6.24
5.61
SE
0.866
1.920
1. 124
0.821
NOX
CP
2.62
2.37
2.62
2.78
SE
0.219
0.439
0.440
0.285
(a)
(b)
CP = cut point.
SE = standard error.
1-157
-------
Table 1-87. Comparison of Federal Three-Mode Cut-Points
by Engine Displacement (E set at 5 percent)
Engine
Displacement
Group
All Three
Cities
150 CID and
Less
151 to 259 CID
260 CID and
Greater
No. of
Vehicles
300
95
54
151
ST Cut -Points and Standard Errors
(ppm)
HC
. »
cp(c>
184
219
213
151
/ j \
SEV
26
57
79
26
co(a)
CP
7,081
18, 382
7,063
2,655
SE
1, 251
5, 863
2,488
607
NO (b)
X
CP
2,265
2,805
(e)
1,985
1,986
SE
243
665
/ \
446
252
(a)
(b).
(c)
(d)
(e)
Idle in drive test mode
High speed test mode
Cut-point
Standard error
The best mode for NOX on this engine displacement was found to
be the low speed mode. The cut-point and standard error for the
low speed NOX are 1396 ppm and 423 ppm, respectively.
1-158
-------
1.3.13 Effect of Cut-Point Selection Method on STE.
Values
As discussed in Sections 1.3.1 through 1.3.11 and elsewhere,
the use of cut-points based on pooled fleet characteristics can result in
higher than average rejection ratios (STRRs) for the smaller cars with
small engines, particularly for CO amd NO pollutants. Since it might prove
jC
beneficial, for instance, to select cut-points as a function of engine size
(i.e., CID group) to minimize such potential inequities, an analysis was made
whereby each of the three CID-groups was tested with cut-points selected to
result in a 5 percent E rate for each CID-group, rather than 5 percent for
the pooled fleet irrespective of CID group. These results are compared with
the results of Sections 1. 3.1 through 1.3.4 in Table 1-88 for the Federal Short
Cycle and in Table 1-89 for the Federal Three-Mode.
In the case of the Federal Short Cycle, use of the CID-grouping
for cut-point selection resulted in very minor improvements in the STE value
for HC, CO, and multiple constituents and a very slight decrease in NO
jf,
STE value. In the case of the Federal Three-Mode, HC, CO, and NO (high
3C
speed only) STE values were slightly improved and the multiple constituents
and NO (low speed only) STE values were slightly decreased. The use of
CID-grouped cut-points would have the advantage of avoiding possible
inequities associated with excessive ST failures of small vehicles.
1-159
-------
Table 1-88. Federal Short Cycle STE Comparison;
5 Percent EC Fleet Average vs 5 Percent EC
for Each of Three CID Groups
Pollutant
HC
CO
NO
X
Multiple , .
Constituents
Short Test Effectiveness (STE)*a*
5% Ec Fleet
Average
0.589
0.690
0.604
0.821
5% for Each of Three
CID Groups(b)
0.592
0.711
0.573
0.847
(a)
STE =
%FF
(b).
%Eo + %FF
'150 CID and less
151 to 259 CID
260 and greater CID
(c)Car fails if any of the HC, CO, or
exceed cut-points for each pollutant.
measurements
1-160
-------
Table 1-89. Federal Three-Mode STE Comparison;
5 Percent Ec Fleet Average vs 5 Percent E
for Each of Three CID Groups
Pollutant and
Test Mode
HC Idle in Drive
Idle in Neutral
C° Idle in Drive
Idle in Neutral
NO
xHigh Speed
Low Speed
Multiple Constituents
Idle in Drive
Idle in Neutral
Best Combination
Short Test Effectiveness (STE)^
5% Ec Fleet
Average
0.375
0.338
0. 562
0. 524
0.310
0. 301
0.704
0. 597
0.663
5% for Each of Three
CID Groups(b)
0. 383
0.339
0.605
0.557
0.341
0.291
0.653
0. 592
0.648
(a)
(b)
'STE =
%FF
(c)
%Eo + %FF
150 CID and less
151 to 259 CID
260 and greater CID
Car fails if any of HC, CO, or NO measurements exceed
cut-points for each pollutant. x
1-161
-------
2. INTRODUCTION
2. 1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
With regard to compliance by vehicles and engines in actual
use with the certification emission standards established for a vehicle at
the time of its manufacture, the Clean Air Act of 1970 stipulates in
Section 207(b):
"If the Administrator determines that
(i) there are available testing methods and procedures to
ascertain whether, when in actual use throughout its
useful life each vehicle and engine to which
regulations .... apply complies with the emission
standards of such regulations,
(ii) such methods and procedures are in accordance with
good engineering practices, and
(iii) such methods and procedures are reasonably capable of
being correlated with tests conducted under section 206(a)(l),
then - -
(1) he shall establish such methods and procedures
by regulation, and
(2) at such time as he determines that inspection
facilities or equipment are available for purposes
of carrying out testing methods and procedures
established under paragraph (1), he shall pre-
scribe regulations which shall require manufac-
turers to warrant the emission control device or
system of each new motor vehicle or new motor
vehicle engine . . . for its useful life."
Thus, there are the essential requirements of "availability," "conformance
with good engineering practices," and "reasonable correlation with certifica-
tion test procedures" which must be met prior to the promulgation of regu-
lations which impose the in-use warranty provisions of Section 207(b) upon
the motor vehicle manufacturers.
2-1
-------
The states of New York and New Jersey have developed short
emission tests for potential use in inspection/maintenance (I/M) programs in
their areas. The Clayton Manufacturing Company also developed a short
test procedure for use in I/M programs. More recently, the EPA has devel-
oped short tests similar to those of New-York, New Jersey, and Clayton.
Thus, there are a number of tests "available" to determine the exhaust emis-
sions of in-use vehicles; these test methods and procedures "conform with
good engineering practices" in that they utilize well-recognized emission-
measurement equipment and techniques.
These tests are "short" in duration (approximately 3 to 5 min-
utes) in order to (a) minimize the inconvenience of the motoring public (and
thereby maximize cooperation), and (b) minimize capital costs of inspection
stations by maximizing the number of vehicles a given facility could test.
They have been structured for "simplicity" in order to (a) reduce the poten-
Ca
tial for procedural errors, and (b) to reduce test costs. As a result, all
such tests require that the vehicle be tested in a "hot" condition; i. e. , at its
normal operating temperature.
There remains the requirement to demonstrate "reasonable
correlation with certification test procedures;" i.e., with the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) used in the certification of new motor vehicles. An initial
evaluation of the degree of "correlation" between five short tests (STs) and
the FTP was previously conducted (Ref. 1) utilizing test data from a 40-car
catalyst-equipped experimental vehicle fleet and a 147-car in-use 1974
model year vehicle fleet. Based on the results of that evaluation, two of
the five STs were selected by EPA for further test and evaluation in a
three-city, 300-car, 1975 model year vehicle fleet. The present study was
performed, therefore, to analyze the resultant emission data from the short
tests and FTP tests of this 300-car fleet to determine the degree of *
"correlation" between the ST and FTP test results. The same computational
and statistical analysis techniques developed in the initial evaluation (Ref. 1)
were used in the present study.
2-2
-------
2.2 STUDY SCOPE
The basis for the analyses was ST and FTP data from three
100-vehicle fleets located in the following cities:
Chicago, Illinois
Houston, Texas
Pho.enix, Arizona
Each of the 1975 model year vehicles was tested by the FTP
and the following STs:
Federal Short Cycle
Federal Three Mode
For the undiluted exhaust type test (Federal Three Mode), garage-type instru-
ments were used to record HC and CO measurements. Garage-type instru-
ments were used to simulate the working environment of a typical automotive
garage or a large-scale vehicle testing station. All the NO readings were
X.
made with laboratory analyzers due to the unavailability of an appropriate
garage-type NO instrument.
X,
2.3 METHOD OF APPROACH
The primary thrust of the work performed under this contract
was statistical in nature. Two complementing methods were employed to
assess Section 207(b) correlation --a conventional correlation analysis and
a contingency table analysis. The conventional correlation analysis addresses
the question of direct relatability between the ST and the FTP by examining
the relationships present in the data. The results are of great usefulness in
indicating the extent to which each ST tends to track the FTP. The con-
tingency table analysis addresses the relatability of ST and FTP on a pass-
or-fail level. Each data point is examined, and a determination is made as
to whether the auto passed or failed the FTP and passed or failed the ST.
Thus, errors of commission (E ), errors of omission (E ), correct passes
by each test (PP), and correct fails by each test (FF) are identified. Hence,
the technique allows for the study of the tradeoffs between errors and correct
identifications.
2-3
-------
The conventional correlation analysis, being purely an
analysis of the data, does not permit policy decision as a variable or param-
eter. Contingency table analysis, on the other hand, permits the integration
of policy decision in that it provides for the determination of the ST pass/fail
cut-points. One important method reflecting impact to policy is that of the
method of bounded errors of commission. In this scheme, limits are set on
the maximum permissible percentage of errors of commission, and the ST
cut-points are selected to yield minimum errors of omission within this
constraint. This analysis permits a direct answer to the question, "For a
given permissible level of errors of commission, what level of errors of
omission is associated with a given test, and with what impact on air quality
(inferred from the percentage of FF and E vehicles)?"
These two methods of analysis, each representing different
interpretations of Section 207(b) correlation, were applied to both the full
300-vehicle fleet and to each 100-vehicle city fleet.
2-4
-------
3. TEST CHARACTERISTICS AND FLEET COMPOSITION
In this program, two short tests (STs) and the 1975 Federal
Test Procedure (FTP) were performed on three 100-vehicle test fleets.
This section defines the two STs and describes the composition of the test
fleets.
3. 1 SHORT TESTS
3.1.1 General
Two classes of STs were involved, and these may be cate-
gorized as (1) modal or volumetric and (2) as driving trace or CVS. Both
sets of nomenclature are used in this report, depending upon the aspect of
the test structure that is pertinent to the discussion. In the modal tests, the
test technician operates the vehicle on a dynamometer at a fixed vehicle
speed and dynamometer load, or at idle. The vehicle tailpipe exhaust is
sampled directly, and the concentration of each pollutant is measured and
recorded in percent, or in parts per million, of the undiluted exhaust. One
modal ST was used, the Federal Three Mode. The Federal Three Mode ST
has high-speed, low-speed, and idle modes. The idle mode can be conducted
in two ways, (1) idle with transmission in drive (automatic transmission
only), or (2) idle in neutral (automatic and manual transmissions).
For the second class of ST, the test technician drives the; car
on the dynamometer in accordance with a prescribed driving pattern on a
driving trace. The vehicle exhaust is diluted by the constant volume sam-
pling (CVS) procedure, and a single sample bag of diluted exhaust is collected
for the whole ST. The dilute sample is analyzed and the results usually
expressed in grams per mile. This procedure requires the same equipment,
sampling procedure, and analytical equipment as the Federal Test Procedure
(FTP) used in the certification of new vehicles. The difference is that the
driving trace for the ST is much shorter and simpler. The CVS-type ST
used was the Federal Short Cycle.
3-1
-------
Both classes of ST involved approximately two or three minutes
of driving time on the dynamometer, and both STs were performed with the
engine at its normal operating temperature; i.e., hot tests.
The HC and CO content of the exhaust gas in the volumetric
tests was measured by garage instruments, a lower-cost, lower-accuracy
and precision instrument of the type currently in use by many automotive
service stations for routine diagnostic work. The structure of each test is
given below.
3.1.2 Short Test Definition
3.1.2.1
Federal Three Mode
The Federal Three Mode uses dynamometer loadings simulating
the average power that occurs at the appropriate speeds in the FTP where
the vehicle is accelerating (decelerations are not included). The speed and
dynamometer loadings for the high-speed, low-speed, and idle test modes
are shown below.
Vehicle
Weight
Class, Ib
Up to
2500
2501 to
3500
3501 to
4500
Above
4500
Transmission
In lower gear
for 30-mph
test (3rd gear)
Drive or
high gear
Drive or
high gear
Drive or
high gear
High Speed
Mode
Speed,
mph
50
50
50
50
Load,
hp
21
26
31
36
Low Speed
Mode
Speed,
mph
30
30
30
30
Load,
hp
9
12
15
18
Idle Mode
Automatic
transmission
in neutral
3-2
-------
3.1.2.2 Federal Short Cycle
The Federal Short Cycle was derived from the FTP.
Accelerations and decelerations are representative of those encountered in
the FTP, and average speed is nearly the same as the three-bag FTP driving
cycle (21.70 mph and 21.27 mph, respectively).
This is a nine-mode, 125-sec CVS test that follows the driving
>[s
schedule shown below and plotted in Figure 57 in the Appendix.
Mode Time in Mode, sec
0 - 16 mph acceleration 6
16-29 mph acceleration 23
29 mph cruise 10
29 - 37 mph acceleration 18
37 - 42 mph acceleration 4. 5
42 - 37 mph deceleration 2.5
37 - 20 mph deceleration 32
20-0 mph deceleration 7. 5
Idle 21.5
125.0
The test does not include engine startup or shutdown. The dynamometer
loadings follow the procedure as required for the FTP.
3.2 TEST FLEET COMPOSITION
3.2.1 Types of Cars
All 300 vehicles were 1975 model year vehicles representing
a typical cross-section of that model year with regard to manufacturer
(domestic and foreign), vehicle size (weight), engine size (displacement: and
number of cylinders), fuel system type, transmission type, and emission
control system type. Tables 1 through 13 in the Appendix list cross-
tabulations of specific features of the vehicle fleet in the following context.
Figure and table numbers refer to figures and tables contained in the
Appendix.
3-3
-------
Table
Cross-Tabulation Feature Number*
No. of cylinders vs engine displacement 1
Inertia test weight ys engine displacement 2
Emission control system vs engine displacement 3
Inertia test weight vs emission control system 4
Fuel system vs emission control system 5
Fuel system vs inertia test weight 6
Fuel system vs engine displacement 7
Transmission vs engine displacement 8
Transmission vs inertia test weight 9
Manufacturer vs engine displacement (all 3 cities) 10
Manufacturer vs engine displacement (Chicago) 11
Manufacturer vs engine displacement (Houston) 12
Manufacturer vs engine displacement (Phoenix) 13
Engine displacement was subdivided into three sizes:
a. 150 cubic inches displacement (CID) or less
b. 151 to 259 CID
c. 260 or more CID
Inertia test weight breakdown was limited to four categories:
a. 2500 Ib or less
b. 2501 Ib to 3500 Ib
c. 3501 Ib to 4500 Ib
d. 4501 Ib or greater
Emission control system description was limited to the use
or non-use of oxidation catalysts and/or secondary air injection.
Fuel system type description refers to the use of either
carburetion or fuel injection.
Table numbers refer to tables contained in the Appendix.
3-4
-------
Transmission type refers to use of manual versus automatic
transmissions.
3.2.2 Prior Use
At the time of receipt of these vehicles by the testing
laboratory (Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc.), the odometer readings
ranged from less than 100 to 44, 000, with an average of 8, 390. Specific
vehicle use patterns, in terms of city driving vs highway driving, were not
quantified. The type and extent of vehicle and emission system maintenance
were similarly undefined. It was assumed that the use and state-of-
maintenance characteristics of this large test sample (300 vehicles from
three different locations) would be adequately representative of the 1975
model year vehicle population.
3-5
-------
4. STATISTICAL SCREENING AND CORRELATION ANALYSES
4. 1 DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY
In studying the degree of correlation that exists between a
particular short test (ST) and the Federal Test Procedure (FTP), a major
concern is the variability in the correlation with vehicle population charac-
teristics. That is, it is important to know which classes of vehicles, if any,
show inadequate ST/FTP correlations. Thus, correlations on individual
groupings of the data were assessed. In addition to assessing differences
in correlation, differences in group means and standard deviation were also
reviewed. Thus, in presenting the results of the analyses, means, standard
deviations, and correlation coefficients were computed for each group of
interest. Statistical tests of significance were performed as discussed
below.
4.1.1 Conventional Correlation Analysis
A conventional correlation analysis includes the calculation
of the sample correlation coefficient r, and an a-percent confidence interval
for the population correlation coefficient p, on paired observations. Letting
(x., y.)i = l, , N denote the observations, r is defined by
N
(x. - Mx)(y. - My)
* = - s-s (4-
x y
where M , S and M , S are the mean and standard deviation of the
xx Y y
observations x. and y., respectively. An a-percent confidence interval is
given by (r-, r+), where the probability that the interval covers p is cc/100.
For the 95 percent interval used in this study
4-1
-------
(**—}
\ N/NVT /
r± = tanhfzi A'7U } (4-2)
where z = 1/2 ln(l + r/l-r), (Fisher's Z statistic, Ref. 2).
The sample correlation coefficient is used as the prime
quantitative measure of relatability. The closer r is to 1, the better the
relation. A lack of relationship is indicated by r = 0. Negative r indicates
an inverse relation between the observations, i. e. , if one observation is
high, the other is low, and vice versa. The confidence interval is viewed
as reflecting the sensitivity of the calculations to the data. The wider the
interval, the less predictable is the correlation coefficient and, hence,
the relatability.
4.1.2 Statistical Tests of Significance
The ST/FTP correlation was classified as statistically
deficient if the 95 percent confidence interval, given by equation (4-2), con-
tains the value zero. Statistically, the computed value of r cannot be dis-
tinguished from zero due to the existing variability in the data.
To test for statistical differences in group means, a classical
F-test for equality of group means was performed (Ref. 3). Both the com-
puted F-value and the level of significance were reported. The level of
significance can be interpreted as the probability of making an error when
deciding to reject the hypothesis of equality.
To test for statistical differences in group standard devia-
tions, Bartlett's test for homogeneity of group variances was performed,
(Ref. 3). Both the computed statistic and the corresponding level of signifi-
cance were reported.
Tables* 20a, 20b, and 21 provide excellent examples to
illustrate the procedure. Table 20a shows the FTP means and standard
deviations for each pollutant on each city group. In examining these means
and standard deviations, differences in the values from group to group are
*
Table numbers refer to tables contained in the Appendix.
4-2
-------
quite noticeable. The results of F-tests and Bartlett's tests are shown in
Table 20b (note that the significance tests were also performed on the
logarithms of the FTP data). Thus, the differences in mean CO would be
attributed to statistical variations, unless one is willing to accept a 20 per-
cent chance of error in attributing the differences to differences in the cities.
However, significant differences in variance do occur for HC and CO, and
these differences can be attributed to systematic differences in the data from
Chicago, Houston, and Phoenix. These findings are repeated with varying
levels of significance for an analysis of the logarithms of the data.
Table 21 shows the ST/FTP constituent correlation coefficients
for both STs using the pooled fleet of 300 vehicles. The coefficients were
computed for each constituent and the logarithm of each constituent. The
NO correlation for the Federal Three-Mode idle in neutral (0. 11) and in
x
drive (0. 12) are statistically deficient and are noted as .deficient with an
asterisk. All the other coefficients in Table 21 are statistically significant,
which means that they are statistically distinguishable from zero with 95 per-
cent confidence. Whether the significant coefficients are high enough to be
of practical value is a judgmental matter.
4.2 RESULTS FOR ALL THREE CITIES COMBINED
Preliminary analyses were made of the ST data. Means and
variances were tested for homogeneity between cities and between engine
displacement groups. Tables 14 and 15 give the results for the Federal
Short Cycle by city and engine displacement, respectively. The Federal
Three-Mode results are shown in Tables 16 and 17 for city and engine dis-
>,
placement grouping, respectively.
The effect of vehicle mileage was also investigated. The
vehicles were grouped into those with 4000 miles or less and those with
more than 4000 miles. Tables 18 and 19 show significant differences
between the groups in their FTP means and standard deviation, and their
ST/FTP correlation coefficients, respectively.
4-3
-------
The results of an analysis of city effects are given in
Tables 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. The differences in mean and standard deviations
are addressed in Table 20, whereas the correlation coefficients are reported
in Tables 21 through 24 for the pooled fleet (300 vehicles) and the individual
city fleets (100 vehicles each).
An analysis to determine the effects of engine displacement,
inertia test weight, emission control system, fuel system, transmission
type, and manufacturer was performed on the pooled fleet of 300 vehicles.
The table numbers for both STs correspond to the following statistics
spectrum:
For the Effects of
Engine Displacement
Inertia Test Weight
Emission Control System
Fuel System
Transmission Type
Manufacturer
Table Number
FTP Mean and
Standard Deviations
25a
27a
29a
31a
33a
35a
Tests of
Significance
25b
27b
29b
31b
33b
35b
ST/FTP
Correlation
Coefficients
26
28
30
32
34
36
Additionally the ST/FTP correlation coefficients on each
manufacturer's vehicles within an engine displacement group were computed.
These results for both STs are shown in Tables 37, 38, and 39 for the 150
CID and less, 151 to 259 CID, and 260 CID and greater engine groups,
respectively.
4.3 RESULTS FOR INDIVIDUAL, CITY FLEETS
An analysis to determine the effects of engine displacement,
inertia test weight, emission control system, fuel system, transmission
type, and manufacturer was performed on the individual city fleets of
4-4
-------
100 vehicles each. The Chicago fleet numbers, for both STs, correspond
to the following statistics spectrum:
For the Effects of
Engine Displacement
Inertia Test Weight
Emission Control System
Fuel System
Transmission Type
Manufacturer
Table Number
FTP Mean and
Standard Deviations
40a
42 a
44 a
46a
48a
50a
Tests of
Significance
40b
42b
44b
46b
48b
50b
ST/FTP
Correlation
Coefficients
41
43
45
47
49
51
For the Houston fleet the Table correspondence is:
For the Effects of
Engine Displacement
Inertia Test Weight
Emission Control System
Fuel System
Transmission Type
Manufacturer
Table Number
FTP Mean and
Standard Deviations
52a
54 a
56a
58a
60a
62a
Tests of
Significance
52b
54b
56b
58b
60b
62b
ST/FTP
Correlation
Coefficients
53
55
57
59
61
63
4-5
-------
For Phoenix the table number correspondence is given by:
For the Effects of
Engine Displacement
Inertia Test Weight
Emission Control System
Fuel System
Transmission Type
Manufacturer
Table Number
FTP Mean and
Standard Deviations
64 a
66a
68a
70a
72a
74a
Tests of
Significance
64b
66b
68b
7 Ob
72b
74b
ST/FTP
Correlation
Coefficients
65
67
69
71
73
75
4.4
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The HC Federal Short Cycle/FTP correlation coefficient
varies considerably between cities. It is 0.88 in Chicago, 0.91 in Houston,
and 0.45 in Phoenix. This non-uniformity in the values of the correlation
coefficient has been attributed in part to city differences in the FTP measure-
ments. Vehicles 5520 and 5524 in Phoenix had extraordinarily high (relative
to remaining data) HC accumulation in bag 1 of the FTP, which is the cold
start portion of the FTP. This resulted in a high FTP composite. These
vehicles had comparatively low Federal Short Cycle readings for the high
FTP values. Although these vehicles were identified as having anomalous
readings, they were not discarded for any of the subsequent analyses.
4-6
-------
5. CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSES
5. 1 DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY
The contingency table analysis technique was used to establish
the short test (ST) pass-fail levels for each pollutant. The contingency table
is defined in Table 133*, along with its associated parameters. A pictorial
demonstration of its application to a given data set is shown in Figure 58.
It can be seen that, for a given data set, part of the analysis is concerned
with the criteria used to select the ST cut-points. In this regard, the
bounded errors of commission method was used extensively to establish
trends for the variations in E , E , FF, and PP. In this method, the ST
cut-points are selected to minimize E while holding the E below a speci-
fied level. It thus permits a direct answer to the question, "For a given
permissible level of E , what level of E is associated with the ST, and
with what impact on air quality (inferred from number of FF and E vehi-
cles)? " This method is illustrated in Figure 59. The policy decision is
the maximum allowable E .
c
The Federal Test Procedure (FTP) levels used throughout
the analyses were 1. 5 grams/mile for HC, 15. 0 grams/mile for CO, and
3. 10 grams/mile for NO .
With regard to procedural technique, a bivariate normal or
log-normal distribution model was fitted to a particular data set by incor-
porating the correlation coefficient, mean values, and standard deviations
of the data set. The bivariate normal distribution is shown in Figure 60.
The mathematical format of the log-normal distribution is identical to that
shown in Figure 60 except the statistics and variables are in terms of the
natural logarithm of the measurements. Figure 61 shows the pertinent
probability equations used for predicting the table entries.
Table numbers refer to tables contained in the Appendix.
5-1
-------
The ST cut-points were determined by using the model as
determined from the data and by solving the equation in Figure 62. Once
the cut-points have been established, the predicted table entries for each
pollutant can be computed using the formulas shown in Figure_ 61.
Also determined in,the contingency table analysis were the
short test effectiveness and the short test rejection ratio. ST effectiveness
is defined as:
em t, ,. C^TP % FF for the short test
ST effectiveness = STE =
% FTP failures in same population (5-1)
% FF
% FF + % E
o
Thus, on this basis, the ST is always less effective than the FTP, in pro-
portion to the percent of errors of omission (E ) associated with a given
ST, and the short test effectiveness (STE) value is a relative measure of
the impact on air quality from ST implementation.
The short test rejection ratio (STRR), is defined as:
% E + % FF
STRR = % E' + % FF <5-2>
The denominator of this ratio (% E + % FF) represents the percent of the
vehicle population actually failing the FTP. The numerator (% E + % FF)
represents the percent of the- vehicle population failing the short test. Thus,
the resultant ratio (STRR) is an indication to flag those situations where the
implementation of a short test or test mode could result in a greater number
of vehicles being failed than should be failed based upon FTP standards.
Whereas the STE value is a measure of the relative impact of the use of
the ST on air quality, the short test rejection ratio (STRR) value (which
5-2
-------
includes consideration of those E vehicles incorrectly identified by the ST
as failing the FTP) can be considered a relative measure of the "fairness"
of the ST to the vehicle manufacturer or vehicle size or class. For exam-
ple, only when the STRR value exceeds one would the manufacturer be
required to implement warranty procedures on a greater number of vehi-
cles than he should have based upon the observed FTP failure rate.
In addition to analyzing each pollutant individually, an analy-
sis was made for three-constituent tests, using the contingency table
approach. In a three-constituent test, a car fails the ST if any of its HC,
CO, and NO measurements exceed the previously determined cut-points.
5C
This test is applicable to the Federal Short Cycle and the individual modes
of the Federal Three-Mode. A car fails the ST if any one of the modes
fails on its three-constituent tests. A model for predicting population
results was not available; hence the actual data was used along with pre-
established cut-points to count the number of vehicles in each cell of the
contingency table.
The computational procedure followed in determining the
three constituent tests is shown in Figure 63. Note that the cut-point
selection policy is applied at the pollutant level and not at the multiple-
constituent test level. For example, the percent E is bounded for indi-
c
vidual pollutants in the method of bounded errors of commission, and this
bound can possibly be exceeded on a three-constituent test. In forming the
three-constituent test contingency table, the following definitions apply:
Correctly passed (PP): Car passes the ST and the FTP
Correctly failed (FF): Car fails the ST and the FTP
Error of commission (E ): Car fails the ST and passes the FTP
C
Error of omission (E ): Car passes the ST and fails the FTP
where FTP or ST failure occurs if any one of the test constituents exceeds
its respective cut-points. A car is counted once in forming the table and
falls into one, and only one, of the above categories.
5-3
-------
The "best" three-constituent test was formed by selecting
those individual test modes for HC, CO, and NOX for which the correlation
coefficient was maximum. A typical example might by HC and CO at idle and
NO at the high speed mode.
5. 2 VARIANCE ESTIMATES
5. 2. 1 Short Test Cut-Points
The problem of estimating the ST cut-point, for a fixed FTP
level, is analogous to estimating the quantiles of a distribution function
(Ref. 4). Thus, the large sample standard deviation is given by
dp(y)
dy
v:
JL_ /v(PF -
N
y = LS (5-3)
where
PF = probability of passing the FTP
p(y) = probability of an error of commission for ST cut-point
set at value y
Y = upper bound on probability of errors of commission
N = sample size or number of cars in the data set
LS = true cut-point for the population
As PF, p(y), and LS . are unknown, they can only be approximated from the
data. LS is, of course, approximated by the cut-point estimated from the
data. PF is estimated on the percent passed by FTP divided by 100, p(y)
is taken to be the locus of E versus cut-point and dp(y)/dy|LS is taken
as the derivative of the E versus cut-point curve evaluated at the cut-point
of interest (LS ). Equation (5-3) will be used to discuss variability of the
predicted population.
5-4
-------
For a fixed FTP level, the standard deviation of the estimated
cut-point can be independently controlled by increasing the sample size.
Once the sample size is fixed, this standard deviation varies inversely with
the magnitude of the derivative of the E versus cut-point curve. Thus, in
c
regions where the curve is steep, the variability of the predictions will be
less than in regions where the curve is flat. Figure 64 illustrates the eflect
of the cut-point uncertainty on the other computed quantities of E and FF.
It shows that the uncertainty in the predicted results increases with decreasing
errors of commission bounds.
Standard deviations were calculated for each ST cut-point com-
puted and are displayed herein as necessary.
5. 2. 2 Three-Constituent Test Percentages
For fixed ST and FTP cut-points, the cell counts in a 2 x 2
contingency table are binomially distributed when the observations are
independent (Ref. 5). Since the ST cut-points are computed from data prior
to forming the contingency table, there is statistical dependence between the
ST cut-points and the resulting table. Hence, the binomial distribution will
be an approximation to the true distribution. Thus, the approximate standard
deviation is
X - (5-4,
where
X = cell count in percent
N = total table count
This procedure was used to calculate the standard error of the
estimates for the three-constituent test results reported herewithin. Table
104 in the Appendix lists the standard errors as a function of sample size
and cell percentage.
5-5
-------
5.3 SPECIFIC ANALYSES AND THEIR RESULTS
5.3.1 Analyses with Short Test Cut-Points Based
Upon 300 Cars
Usingthe 300 car data set, ST cut-points for HC, CO, and
NO were determined for various rates of commission errors. The differ-
x
ences between various stratum within the data set were assessed by predic-
ting the contingency entries for the strata using the above pre-established
cut-points . The effects of varying engine displacement, inertia test weight,
emission controls, carburetion, transmission, and manufacturer were
investigated in this manner.
The results are presented in graphical and tabular form in
the Appendix and are referenced in the discussions to follow. The results
are presented first by individual constituent, followed by the results of multi-
ple'constituent tests, and, finally, the results indicating the effects of engine
displacement, inertia weight, emission systems, carburetion, transmission,
and manufacturer are given.
5.3.1.1 Hydrocarbon Emissions
The variation of E , E , and FF as a function of HC cut-
c' o
point was determined for each ST. The results for the pooled fleet, using
the Federal Short Cycle and the Federal Three-Mode, are shown graphically
in Figures 1 and 17 to indicate the general nature of the trade-offs available.
Shown in Figures 4, 7, and 10 are the Federal Short Cycle
results for each individual city fleet (100 vehicles each). The corresponding
Federal Three-Mode results are displayed in Figures 20, 23, and 26. Note,
however, that the cut-points used in these figures were determined by using
the pooled fleet of 300 vehicles.
Table 76 summarizes the results for both STs for the pooled
fleet and individual city fleets at the specific E analysis value of 5 percent.
This value was used in the analysis to set HC ST cut-points based on the total
pooled fleet population. These same numerical cut-points were then used
5-6
-------
in subsequent contingency analyses on an individual city and test mode
basis. As a consequence, the resultant actual E values for the individual
cities or test modes vary from the 5 percent E value for the pooled fleet
c
due to differences in observed emission characteristics between the pooled
fleet and the individual city fleets. Also shown in Table 76 are the effective-
ness values (STE).
5.3.1.2- ' Carbon Monoxide Emission \i
The variation of E , E , and FF for the pooled fleet as a
function of CO cut-point are shown for the Federal Short Cycle and the
Federal Three-Mode in Figures 2 and 18, respectively. The individual city
fleet results are shown in Figures 5, 8, and 11 for the Federal Short Cycle
and Figures 21, 24, and 27 for the Federal Three-Mode. Table 77 sum-
marizes the results for both STs for the pooled fleet and individual city fleets
at the E analysis value of 5 percent.
5.3.1.3 Oxides of Nitrogen Emission
The pooled fleet variations of E , E and FF as a function
r co
of NO cut-point are shown in Figures 3 and 19 for the Federal Short Cycle
X.
and the Federal Three-Mode, respectively. The results for the individual
city fleets are shown in Figures 6, 9, and 12 for the Federal Short Cycle and
Figures 22, 25 and 28 for the Federal Three-Mode. Table 78 summarizes
the results for both ST for the pooled fleet and individual city fleets at the
E analysis value of 5 percent.
5.3.1.4 Multiple Constituent Tests
The variation of actual E , E , and FF as a function of
c o
predicted E are shown for the three-constituent Federal Short Cycle in
Figures 13, 14, 15, and 16 for the pooled fleet and individual city fleets,
respectively. The corresponding Federal Three-Mode idle in drive mode
and best mode three-constituent results are shown in Figures 29, 30, 31,
and 32 for the pooled fleet and individual city fleets respectively. The best
5-7
-------
mode refers to the combination of the best individual test modes: the
idle-in-drive for HC and CO discrimination and the high speed for NO .
/..'... • jt
Table 79 shows the three-constituent results,for both ST for the pooled and
individual city fleets at the E analysis value of 5 percent.
• . .;'•,.• ' • • - C • ' •
5. 3. 1. 5 Effects of Vehicle Characteristics
The variation of E , E , and FF with engine displacement,
inertia test weight, emission control system, fuel system, transmission
and manufacturer were individually determined for the E analysis value of
5 percent. The results are presented for both ST in Tables 80 through 103
and correspond to the following constituent spectrum:
For the Effects of
Engine Displacement
Inertia Test Weight
Emission Control System
Fuel System
Transmission Type
Manufacturer
Constituent Table Number
HC
84
80
88
92
96
100
CO
85
81
89
93
97
101
NOX
86
82
90
94
98
102
Three
Constituents
87
83
91
95
99
103
5.3.1.6 Comparison of Short Test Cut-Points
Table 105 summarizes the variation of the Federal Short
Cycle cut-point value for each emission constituent required to result in a
5 percent E rate in each individual city for the pooled 300-vehicle fleet.
Table 106 summarizes similar cut-point variations for the Federal Three-
Mode ST (idle in drive for HC and CO, and high speed in NO ).
5.3.2
Analyses with Short Test Cut-Points Based Upon
Engine Displacement
An additional contingency table analysis was made wherein
the ST cut-points were determined for each CID class and were based on a
5-8
-------
5 percent E rate for the CID class alone, not the pooled 300-vehicle fleet
as in the results presented in Section 5. 3. 1. The results of this investiga-
tion are reported below.
5.3. 2. 1
150 CID and Less Displacement Group
Tables 107 through 110 present the results of this analysis
for both ST while showing the variation in E , E and FF by manufacturer.
Tables 121 through 124 show the variation in E , E and FF by city. The
analysis was made for an E value of 5 percent and the tables correspond to
c
the following constituent spectrum;
For the Effects of
Manufacturer
City
Constituent Table Number
HC
107
121
CO
108
122
NOX
109
123
Three
Constituents
110
124
5.3.2.2
151 to 259 CID Group
Tables 111 through 114 show the variation in E , E , and FF
by manufacturer for both ST while Tables 125 through 128 show the results
by city. The following correspondence shows the table numbers for the
constituent spectrum:
For the Effects of
Manufacturer
City
Constituent Table Number
HC
111
125
CO
112
126
NOX
113
127
Three
Constituents
114
128
5-9
-------
5.3.2.3
260 and Greater CID Group
Tables 115 through 118 and Tables 129 through 132 show the
and FF for both ST as a function of manufacturer and
city according to the following correspondence:
variation of E , E
c o
For the Effects of
Manufacturer
City
Constituent Table Number
HC
115
129
CO
116
130
NOX
117
131
Three
Constituents
118
132
5.3.2.4 Comparison of Short Test Cut-Points
Tables 119 and 120 summarize the variation of cut-point
value for each emission constituent required to result in a 5 percent E rate
in individual displacement group and for the pooled 300-vehicle fleet for the
Federal Short Cycle and the Federal Three-Mode, respectively.
5-10
-------
6. 207(b) IMPLEMENTATION SIMULATION ANALYSES
6. 1 OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH
The objective of this effort was to assess the effectiveness
of a 207(b) program in reducing total emissions from light-duty vehicles
as characterized by the data collected on the 300 1975 model year cars.
Engineering judgment was to be used where firm data was lacking.
A computer program was developed which follows the logical
->'< *
flow chart shown in Figure 65.' The purpose of the computer program was
to simulate the implementation of a 207(b) program on a specific fleet of
vehicles, the "controlled fleet", and compare the emission results to an
uncontrolled fleet, originally identical, which deteriorates without the
influence of a mandatory 207(b) program. The comparison was made over a
50,000 mile period for each fleet, and the effectiveness of the 207(b) program
was assessed annually.
The two simulated fleets were each divided into three mutually
exclusive groups based upon engine displacement: 150 CTD and less, 151 to
259 CID, and 260 CID and greater. Existing 300-car data was used to estab-
lish a distribution model for the emission values of the three regulated
pollutants at the mean mileage for each displacement group. This distribu-
tion model was then used to stochastically generate the two identical fleets
of vehicles with statistical attributes similar to the 300-car data set.
The controlled fleet was aged under the influence of a manda-
tory inspection/maintenance program which included an annual inspection of
each vehicle, mandatory maintenance of those vehicles failing the inspection,
and simulated deterioration based on mileage accumulation models. The
uncontrolled fleet was aged using deterioration models based on mileage
accumulation. The deterioration models all assumed linear deterioration
with accumulated mileage.
Figure and table numbers refer to tables and figures contained in the
Appendix.
6-1
-------
The existing 300-car data set was used to establish the
short test (ST) inspection pass-fail levels. 'Two methodologies in selecting
the levels were examined. The first method, designated the 207(b) approach,
established pass-fail levels for each engine displacement group at a 5 per-
cent error of commission rate for each pollutant. The second method
designated the I/M approach, established, for each pollutant, a single pass-
fail level which applied to all groups. The I/M pass-fail levels were deter-
mined using a 33 percent total failure rate with a three constituent test.
Because of uncertainties in the areas of deterioration rates'
and maintenance effectiveness, a limited sensitivity analysis was performed
by using several different maintenance models and by varying many of the
program input parameters. This provided visibility into the variability of
the results and identified the most sensitive components of the analysis
program. ,
6.2 PROGRAM COMPONENTS
In the sections below, the following components of the simu-
lation (see Figure 65) are dis.cussed:
6.2.1 Initializations (of vehicle mix, mileage, etc.)
6. 2. 2 Generation of Fleets (vehicles to be tracked)
6. 2. 3 Emission Inspection Model—
6. 2. 4 Vehicle Maintenance Models •
6. 2. 5 Mileage Accumulation and Deterioration Model
6.2.6 207(b) Effectiveness Calculations
6. 2. 1 Initializations
. Given the (distributional parameters of the 300-car data, the
use-in deterioration factors from the Emission Factors Program (EFP)
were applied to these parameters to establish a distribution of fleet emis-r
sions at the average mileage equivalent to the first inspection point (e. g. ,
17, 500 miles). Linear deterioration was used to accomplish this
initialization.
6-2
-------
6. 2. 2 Generation of Fleets
The adjusted distribution model from the initialization com-
ponent was used to stochastically generate a fleet of vehicles (e. g. , 3000
cars). A tri-variate log-normal probability distribution model was used to
produce, for each vehicle, values of the HC, CO, and NOX emission rates in
grams/miles. The values represent the emission rates that would be mea-
sured by a Federal Test Procedure (FTP) on the particular vehicle. The
statistical properties of the simulated fleet and the 300-car data set were
quite similar. This set of simulated vehicles was tracked simultaneously
with and without the influence of a mandatory inspection/maintenance
program.
6. 2. 3 Emission Inspection Model
6.2.3.1 General
The model is composed of two components which are executed
sequentially for each vehicle of the controlled fleet. The first component,
measurement, consists of generating the ST measurements, given the emis-
sion rates which characterize the vehicle. Once the measurements for HC,
CO, and NO have been noted, the second component is entered which is
designated as the inspection component. The inspection component consists
of determining whether the vehicle passes or fails the ST and classifies the
vehicle as an FF, E , E , or PP.
6. 2. 3. 2 Measurement Component
The ST measurements for the three regulated pollutants of
each vehicle were generated stochastically using a conditional tri-variate
log-normal probability model, the parameters of which were determined
from the original 300-car data. Thus, given the FTP emission rates which
characterize the vehicle, three ST emission values (one per pollutant) were
generated to simulate the effects of the measurement procedure and testing
equipment. In this manner, the statistical properties inherent in the 300-car
6-3
-------
data were approximated by the model and data generated which was
characteristic of the observed 300-car ST/FTP data. The pertinent mathe-
matical equations are contained in "An introduction to Multivariate Statistical
Analysis, " by T. W. Anderson, (Ref. 6).
6. 2. 3. 3 Inspection Component
The ST measurement generated in the above component and
the FTP emission rates are used to classify the vehicle. The vehicle fails
the ST inspection and the FTP inspection if any one of the three pollutant
measurements exceed their respective ST cut-points. The vehicle is thus
classified according to the following:
Type Inspection Results
PP Passes ST and FTP
FF Fails ST and FTP
E Fails ST, passes FTP
E Passes ST, fails FTP
This classification, the FTP emission rates, and the ST measurements are
considered as pertinent data for the various alternative maintenance models,
and, hence, were carried through to the vehicle maintenance model and the
deterioration model.
6. 2. 4 Vehicle Maintenance Models
6. 2. 4. 1 General
The results of the inspection model were used to select a
maintenance policy for each vehicle individually. The general philosophy
of the maintenance model was to perform corrective maintenance on all
those vehicles failing the ST by adjusting the FTP failure rates on each
emission in accordance with some pre-established rules or methods. If a
vehicle passes the ST, no such maintenance action was taken. Specifically,
if the vehicle is classified as an E or FF vehicle, the FTP emission rates
6-4
-------
are adjusted to reflect the effect of corrective maintenance. If the vehicle
is classified as a PP or E vehicle, the FTP emission rates are left undis-
turbed. Several methods of adjusting the FTP values were investigated
and are discussed in the following sections.
6.2.4.2 Version 1; HC and CO Coupled with a
Lower Bound
For vehicles failing the ST, the following checks and adjust-
ments were made in the order presented:
a. NOX Check and Adjustment. If NOX exceeded the federal
standard of 3. 1 grams per mile, then the vehicle's FTP
rate of NOX emission was adjusted to 3. 1 grams per mile.
If NO was below 3. 1 grams per mile, then the vehicle's
FTP rate of NOY emission was undisturbed.
J^,
b. CO Check and Adjustments. If CO exceeded the federal
standard of 15.0 grams /per mile, then the FTP CO rate
of emission was adjusted to 15. 0 grams per mile, and the
FTP HC rate of emission was adjusted as follows:
/ C° A-\
HC ,. = MAX 1/2 HC _ ; HC . , x ^ * J (6-1)
adj I std old CO . , / v
\ old/
where
HC ,. = adjusted value of HC
HC , = HC federal standard, 1. 5 grams per mile
HC , , = HC before adjustment
CO ,. = adjusted value of CO which is 15. 0 grams mile
adj
CO , , = CO before adjustment
After these adjustments, the vehicle was checked to see if
HC exceeded its federal standard.
If CO was below its standard, then the vehicle was checked
for HC failing its standard.
6-5
-------
c. HC Check and Adjustments. If HC exceeded the federal
standard of 1. 5 grams per mile, then HC was adjusted to.
1.5 grams per mile, and CO was adjusted in accordance
with Equation (6-1) where HC and CO have been interchanged.
If HC was below its standard, then HC and CO were left
undisturbed.
The adjustment of NOX is independent of the values of HC and
CO. However, when either CO or HC is adjusted the other, is adjusted with
the same percentage reduction. This naturally couples the maintenance of
CO and HC. In any event the adjusted values are not allowed to be less than
one-half the value of their respective standard.
6.2.4.3 Version 2: HC, CO, and NOX Independently
Adjusted to the FTP Standard
For vehicles failing the ST, each pollutant was checked
individually. Those pollutants exceeding their respective FTP standard
were adjusted to their FTP standard. If a pollutant was below its standard,
it was left undisturbed. Thus pollutants not exceeding their standard were
not affected by those pollutants which did exceed their standards.
6.2.4.4 Version 3: HC, CO, and NOx Independently
Adjusted to the Short Test Standard
For vehicles failing the ST, each pollutant was checked
individually. Those pollutants exceeding their respective ST standard and
their FTP standard (FF vehicles), were adjusted to an FTP value in grams
per mile equivalent to their ST standard. Those pollutants exceeding their
respective ST standard, but falling below their FTP standard (Ec vehicles),
were adjusted to their FTP standard. If a pollutant was below its ST
standard, it was left undisturbed and these pollutants were not affected by
those pollutants failing their ST standards.
6. 2. 4. 5 Overview of Maintenance Models
Maintenance options and adjustment procedures used in each
version of the maintenance model, are shown in Table 134 of the Appendix.
6-6
-------
6. 2. 5 Mileage Accumulation and Deterioration Model
6, 2. 5. 1 General
In this model the general effects of age and wear were
simulated by deteriorating the emission rates from their value at the last
inspection and maintenance point to the next I/M point. Several alternative
deterioration concepts are available to be incorporated into such a model.
Three of these important deterioration types are discussed below.
6. 2. 5. 2 Deterioration Based Upon Certification Data
The deterioration factors estimated from the certification
program represent somewhat optimal conditions with respect to maintenance,
driving habits, and time span of mileage accumulation. The maintenance is,
of course, performed promptly in accordance with the manufacturers' speci-
fications and is most likely of the highest quality. The driving of the dura-
bility vehicles is performed by professional drivers who probably inflict
less abuse on the engine than the average driver. The mileage is accumu-
lated in a somewhat optimal manner. Typically, the vehicle would be
operated approximately four hours at a time, twice a day. The total
elapsed time is typically on the order of three months, thus eliminating
age and seasonal effects.
Hence, deterioration based on certification data may not be
representative of typical deterioration within the population of in-use
vehicles and is probably not representative of any large segment of the
in-use vehicle population. However, it can be interpreted as an idealized
extreme.
6. 2. 5. 3 Deterioration Based Upon Emission Factors
Program Data
The deterioration factors estimated from the Emission
Factors Program (EFP) represent typical deterioration of vehicles owned
and operated by the public. Maintenance habits, driving characteristics,
6-7
-------
and time span of mileage accumulation are all quite .variable from vehicle
to vehicle and are difficult effects to isolate. Thus, the deterioration rates
are interpreted as being based on the average of maintenance habits, driving
characteristics, and time span of mileage accumulation. No attempt has
been made to iso'late the effects upon deterioration of these and other impor-
tant variables. Thus, these deterioration rates were taken as representative
of voluntary maintenance on in-use vehicles.
6. 2. 5.4 Deterioration Based Upon Near-Term Effects
of Maintenance
The disadvantage common to the two above types of deteriora-
tion is that they are long-term, in effect and apply over a large range in
mileage, i.e., 50,000 miles. However, maintenance requirements are
considerably more frequent, which suggests the presence of a short-term
and possibly more rapid deterioration effect. In fact, studies (Refs. 7 and 8)
have shown that the effect of maintenance is short-lived, six months to a
year, with respect to emission reductions. This is an important effect
which would support an optimistic position on inspection and maintenance.
6. 2. 5. 5 Specific Models Employed
6.2.5.5.1 Uncontrolled Fleet
Deterioration effects on this fleet are based upon linear
models with mileage accumulation. The-vehicles are classified into two
groups:
a. Vehicles passing the FTP
b. Vehicles failing the FTP
Certification deterioration factors were applied to vehicles in group a, and
EFP factors were applied to vehicles in group b. The actual values of the
deterioration factors are shown in Table 135.
6-8
-------
6.2.5.5.2 Controlled Fleet
Deterioration effects on this fleet are based upon piecewise
linear models with mileage accumulation. The vehicles are classified into
four groups (E , E , PP, and FF vehicles), with the following deterioration
rates:
a. PP Vehicles. Certification rates as shown in Table 135.
b. EQ Vehicles. EFP rates as shown in Table 135.
c. EC Vehicles. Certification rates shown in Table 135.
Deterioration occurs after the maintenance adjustments.
d. FF Vehicles. A maintenance effectiveness period is
specified as an input to the simulation program. This
period is the number of months (less than or equal to 12)
required for the emissions to return to their value just
prior to maintenance. After this period, if less than 12
months, the emissions are deteriorated according to the
EFP rates as shown in Table 135. This situation is dis-
played in Figure 66. ;
6. 2. 6 207(b) Effectiveness Calculations
Program effectiveness was based upon total mass of pollutants
emitted since the inception of the program, reported annually. For each
pollutant the total grams emitted for each vehicle were calculated for the
average mileage accumulations shown in Table 136. The total mass for
each fleet is calculated by summing over each vehicle within the respective
fleets. The effectiveness is then expressible as a percent, change relative to
the uncontrolled fleet.
6. 2. 7 Overview of Simulation Models
The initial values of the emission rates are established
stochastically for each vehicle in the simulated fleets. Beyond this, the
changes in emission rates of individual vehicles in the uncontrolled fleet are
purely deterministic. However, the changes in emission rates and the
sequence of events causing these changes are inherently stochastic for
individual vehicles in the controlled fleet. This is due entirely to the
stochastic behavior of the inspection model.
6-9
-------
If a vehicle has been classified as an E or FF, then at least
one pollutant exceeded its standard. Since the combined effects of mainte-
nance and deterioration over one year leave the year's end emission value
greater than or equal to the year's beginning emission value, a vehicle
classified as an E or FF the previous year will be an E or FF the following
year. For example, an FF one year will be an FF or E the following year
and the probability of each is determined by the inspection model.
If a vehicle has been classified as an E or PP vehicle, then
all of its emission rates were below the standards. An E vehicle, because
c
of the maintenance method, will become an E or FF in the following year
regardless of the rate of deterioration. A PP vehicle may be a PP, E , FF,
or E vehicle the following year, depending on the rate of deterioration. If
deterioration is rapid enough so that the vehicle fails the FTP in the follow-
ing year, then the vehicle will be an FF or E . However, if deterioration is
not enough to fail the vehicle on the FTP, then the vehicle will be an E or
PP vehicle the following year.
These patterns, summarized in Figure 67, may not be real-
istic and should be further investigated with data from other sources such
as Reference 8.
6. 3 SIMULATION SCENARIOS AND RESULTS
6. 3. 1 General
With each case or scenario treated, many input parameters
remained unchanged. For the current set of analyses these inputs were:
a. Mileage driving schedule as given in Table 136.
b. The 1975 FTP standards which were 1.5 g/mi HC, 15. 0 g/mi
CO, and 3. 1 g/mi NOx
c. Number of simulated vehicles in each fleet which was
3000 each.
d. The number of engine displacement groups which was three.
e. The vehicle mix which was 31. 7 percent 150 CID and less,
18 percent 151 to 259 CID, and 50. 3 percent 260 CID and
greater.
6-10
-------
f. Starting seed for the simulation.
g. Deterioration rates are given in Table 135.
• h. Means and covariance matrices for the logarithm of FTP
emissions for each engine group.
i. Means and covariance matrices for the logarithm of ST
emissions for each engine group. The ST was formed
using the best three constituent test of the Federal Three-
Mode, i.e. , HC and CO idle in drive, NOX at the high speed,
(the 151 to 259 CID group used NOX at the low speed).
j. Cross-covariance matrices between the FTP and ST for
each engine group.
These inputs generated an initial fleet with the characteristics
shown in Table 137. The means and standard deviations shown in Table 137
have been corrected to reflect a sample with average mileage of 17, 500
miles. Below are presented the individual cases which were simulated along
with the additional inputs required and the results obtained.
6. 3.2 Specific Scenarios and Their Results
6. 3. 2. 1 Introduction
As previously indicated analyses were conducted to assess the
effectiveness of a 207(b) program which establishes ST cut-points on the
basis of engine family and an I/M program which establishes for the entire
fleet a single, ST cut-point for each pollutant. Each of these analyses
included an analysis using each of the three maintenance models for three
different maintenance effectiveness periods. The results, presented below,
are grouped according to the type of program being simulated.
6. 3. 2. 2 Simulation of 207(b) Programs
Shown in Table 138 are the ST cut-points used in the 207(b)
analyses. The cut-points were computed from the 300-car data set by using
a 5 percent E rate for each individual pollutant on each engine classification.
For each version of the maintenance model analyzed, three maintenance
effectiveness periods were used: 12 months, 9 months, and 6 months.
6-11
-------
Tables 139 through 141 show the results of the 207(b) analyses. The FTP
values equivalent to the ST cut-points are shown in Table 142. These rates
were used in.maintenance model version 3 as the levels to which emissions
were reduced for maintained vehicles. The program efficiences were calcu-
lated by accumulating and comparing the total emissions from each fleet
beginning at the first inspection point. Hence these efficiencies do not
represent the full 50, 000 miles of operation since the emission during the
first year of the fleet population's life was not included in this computation.
6. 3. 2. 3 Simulation of I/M Programs
Shown in Table 143 are the ST cut-points used in the I/M
analyses. The cut-points were computed so that 33. 33 percent of the original
300 vehicles would fail the ST. For each version of the three maintenance
models analyzed, three maintenance effectiveness periods were used;
12 months, 9 months, and 6 months. Tables 144 through 146 show the results
of the I/M analyses. The FTP values equivalent to the ST cut-points are
shown in Table 147. These rates were used in maintenance model version 3
as the levels to which emissions were reduced for the maintained vehicles.
The program efficiencies were calculated as explained above for the 207(b)
analyses.
6.4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The superiority of the 207(b) approach or the I/M approach
cannot be determined from this set of analyses. Due to the method of
selecting the I/M ST cut-points, (i.e. , a 33. 33 percent total ST failure rate),
the error of commission rate for the I/M program is predicted at 2 percent
for each pollutant on the total fleet. The 207(b) program, with a 5 percent
E rate, produces higher ST total failures, 42.4 percent. This difference in
c
total failures and in E rate, alone, will shown 207(b) to be more effective
than I/M. This is substantiated by comparing the results shown in Tables
139 through 141 to the results shown in Tables 144 through 146. At a given
E rate it is unclear which approach would be more effective.
6-12
-------
For a 207(b) program the effects of the maintenance model
and the period of effective maintenance are readily compared. These effects
are discussed below for each pollutant.
HC. For a fixed period of effective maintenance, verision 3 of the
maintenance model had the lowest efficiencies with the efficiency
of version 1 and 2 being equal. The phenomenon is thought to be
due to the fact that the vehicles are maintained to lower FTP levels
in versions 1 and 2 than in version 3.
CO. For a fixed period of effective maintenance, version 1 had the
highest efficiencies, and version 3 had the lowest efficiencies. The
differences in the efficiency using version 2 and version 3 were less
than 1 percent. Version 1 uses a coupled scheme for maintaining
HC and CO, thus CO can benefit from improvements in HC which
will produce higher CO efficiencies than an independent method of
adjustment. The difference in efficiencies between versions 2 and
3 are attributed to the difference in the FTP values to which the
vehicles were maintained.
NOX. For a fixed period of maintenance effectiveness, version 3
showed lower efficiencies than version 1 and 2 which are identical.
Again this is attributed to the lower FTP maintenance levels in
version 1 and 2.
For a fixed version of maintenance, program efficiencies
decrease with decreasing periods of maintenance effectiveness for each
pollutant. Intuitively, the quicker the erosion of maintenance, the less the
impact of maintenance.
For a fixed maintenance effectiveness period and a fixed
maintenance version, the efficiency of the program increases as the dura-
tion of the program increases. Although this behavior is expected, it has
several important consequences. The earlier the program can be insti-
tuted, the greater the resulting benefit on air quality and the higher will be
the program efficiency at 50, 000 miles. Since emissions on controlled
vehicles cannot be reduced to zero, the maximum program efficiency is less
than 100 percent and can be approximated by allowing program duration to
increase beyond the 50, 000 mile limit. This maximum will still be dependent
upon the time at which the program is established.
6-13
-------
. The behavior observed for 207(b) is likewise found in the I/M
results, Tables 144 to 146. The only exception occurs for CO.- For a fixed
value of the maintenance effectiveness period, version 1 is highest and
version 3 is lowest, as shown in the 207(b) results. However, the maximum
difference between the CO efficiencies of version 2 and 3 is 4;9 percent,
and the differences are consistent above about 2 percent. This is most
likely due to the inverse relationship in the CO ST standard of the 207(b)
simulation and the I/M simulation^ Notice that for the 207(b) simulation the
CO ST standards, in FTP units as shown in Table 142, decrease with
increasing engine size. For the I/M simulation the CO ST standards,
Table 147, increase with increasing engine size. This difference, taken
with the fact that the 260 CID and greater engine class accounts for 50 per-
cent of the total fleet, offers an explanation.
The following general comments are offered to aid the inter-
preter of these results and, hopefully, increase their utility. Program
impact on air quality can be meaningfully measured on an annual basis or on
a cumulative basis. The cumulative impact should probably be measured
over the total life of the vehicle up to 50, 000 miles. The efficiencies pre-
sented herein have been computed over the 17, 500 to 50, 000 mile segment of
the fleet population's life. Thus the percent improvement in air quality on a
cumulative basis will be lower than the above calculated efficiencies (with
estimates running approximately 50 percent lower).
In any simulation, the interpreter of the results must realize
that the .properties and general behavior observed in the results are directly
attributable to the simulator. Since simulation is based primarily on belief
and secondarily on fact, the degree to which the results can be extrapolated
is dependent upon the interpreter's belief in the underlying models used to
construct the simulator. Sensitivity analyses can be used to increase the
diversity of beliefs or models and hence reflect the sensitivity of the results
to these underlying models.
6-14
-------
A limited attempt at a sensitivity analysis was made during
this study through the use of three models of maintenance and three periods
of the effectiveness of maintenance. Although this provided a much needed
diversity in models, there are many other different approaches to mainte-
nance and deterioration which could be represented. One deficiency
inherent in all three models of maintenance examined in the present analy-
sis is that an E vehicle always is an FF or E vehicle the following year.
This deficiency is traceable to the deterministic approach employed which
can perhaps be eliminated through the use of stochastic maintenance models.
6-15
-------
REFERENCES
1. "Federal Test Procedure and Short Test Correlation Analyses,"
Report No. EPA-460/3-76-011, The Aerospace Corporation,
El Segundo, California, April 1976.
2. T. W. Anderson, Multivariate Statistical Analysis, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. , New York (1958).
3. K. A. Brownlee, Statistical Theory and Methodology - In Science
and Engineering, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York (1965).
4. H. Cramer, Mathematical Methods of Statistics, Princeton University
Press, New Jersey (1971).
5. C. R. Rao, Linear Statistical Interference and Its Applications,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York (1965).
6. High Altitude Vehicular Emission Control Program - Volume III,
TRW, Redondo Beach, California and Automotive Testing Laboratories,
Denver, Colorado, June 1975.
7. Degradation Effects on Motor Vehicle Exhaust Emission, Olson
Laboratories, Inc., Anaheim"Calif., March 1976.
R-l
-------
APPENDIX
TABLES AND FIGURES
-------
TABLES
1. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Number of Cylinders • * .
and Engine Displacement - All Three Cities 1
2. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Inertia Test Weight
and Engine Displacement - All Three Cities 1
3. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Engine Displacement
and Emission Control System Type — All Three Cities 2
4. . Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Inertia Test Weight and
Emission Control System Type - All Three Cities 2
5. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Fuel System and
Emission Control System Type. — All Three Cities 3
6. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Inertia Test Weight
and Fuel System Type - All Three Cities 3
7. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Engine Displacement
and Fuel System Type - All Three Cities 4
8. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Engine Displacement
and Transmission Type - All Three Cities 4
9. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Inertia Test Weight
and Transmission Type - All Three Cities 5
10. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Manufacturer and
Engine Displacement — All Three Cities 5
11. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Manufacturer and
Engine Displacement — Chicago 6
12. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Manufacturer and
Engine Displacement — Houston 7
13. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Manufacturer and
Engine Displacement — Phoenix 8
-------
TABLES (Continued)
14a. Federal Short Cycle — Means and Standard
14b.
15a.
15b.
I6a.
I6b.
17a.
17b.
18a.
18b.
19.
20a.
20b.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25a.
25b.
Deviations by City . .
Associated Tests of Significance
Federal Short Cycle — Means and Standard Deviations
by Engine Displacement - All Three Cities
Associated Tests of Significance
Federal Three Mode - Means and Standard
Deviations by City ' .
Associated Tests of Significance
Federal Three-Mode - Means and Standard Deviations
by Engine - All Three Cities
Associated Tests of Significance
FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Mileage
Group - All Three Cities
Associated Tests of Significance
Correlation Coefficient Summary by Accumulated
Mileage - All Three Cities
FTP Means and Standard Deviations - by City
Associated Tests of Significance
Correlation Coefficient Summary - All Three Cities
Correlation Coefficient Summary — Chicago
Correlation Coefficient Summary — Houston
Correlation Coefficient Summary - Phoenix
FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Engine
Displacement — All Three Cities
Associated Tests of Significance
9
9
10
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
11
-------
TABLES (Continued)
26. Correlation Coefficient Summary by Engine
Displacement — All Three Cities 21
27a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Inertia
Test Weight - All Three Cities 22
27b. Associated Tests of Significance 22
28. Correlation Coefficient Summary by Inertia Test
Weight Group - All Three Cities 23
29a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Emission
Control System Type - All Three Cities 24
29b. Associated Tests of Significance 24
30. Correlation Coefficient Summary by Emission
Control System Type - All Three Cities 25
3 la. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Fuel System
Type - All Three Cities 26
31b. Associated Tests of Significance 26
32. Correlation Coefficient Summary by Fuel System
Type - All Three Cities 27
33a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Transmission
Type - All Three Cities 28
33b. Associated Tests of Significance 28
34. Correlation Coefficient Summary by Transmission
Type - All Three Cities 29
35a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Manufacturer —
All Three Cities 30
35b. Associated Tests of Significance 30
36. Correlation Coefficient Summary by Manufacturer -
All Three Cities 31
111
-------
TABLES (Contiriue'd)
37. Correlation Coefficient Summary for 150 CID '. •- <: '•
• •' and Less by Manufacturer — All Three Citifes . .-.' . .-J 32
38. Correlation Coefficient Summary for IS*, to 259 CID .',,
by Manufacturer — All Three Cities :•*.'.. r.'.. '.' >'.-••". ;. •/( 33
39-.-' Correlation Coefficient Summary for 2,60. CID and ...!.-•• .:•-..:'
Greater by Manufacturer — All Three Cities 34
40a. Means and Standard. Deviations by Engine
Displacement — Chicago 35
40b. Associated Tests of Significance • 35
41. Correlation Coefficient Summary by Engine
Displacement - Chicago 36
42a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Inertia
Test Weight - Chicago 37
42b. Associated Tests of Significance 37
43. Correlation Coefficient Summary by Inertia Test
Weight Group - Chicago ' 38
44a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by'Emission
Control System Type - Chicago 39
44b. Associated Tests of Significance 39
45.' Correlation Coefficient Summary by Emission
Control System Type - Chicago 40
.'..-..• •"•(">' - . ,
46a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Fuel
System Type — Chicago 41
46b. Associated Tests of Significance 41
47. Correlation Coefficient Summary by Fuel
System Type - Chicago 42
-------
TABLES (Continued)
48a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Transmission Type - Chicago 43
48b. Associated Tests of Significance 43
49. Correlation Coefficient Summary by Transmission
Type — Chicago 44
50a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Manufacturer - Chicago 45
50b. Associated Tests of Significance 45
51. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Manufacturer — Chicago 46
52a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Engine
Displacement - Houston ; 47
5Zb. Associated Tests of Significance 47
53. Correlation Coefficient Summary by Engine
Displacement - Houston 48
54a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Inertia Test Weight - Houston 49
54b. Associated Tests of Significance 49
55. Correlation Coefficient Summary by Inertia
Test Weight Group - Houston 50
56a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Emission
Control System Type - Houston 51
56b. Associated Tests of Significance 51
57. Correlation Coefficient Summary by Emission
Control System Type - Houston . . . 52
-------
TAB-LJE'S' (Continued)
58a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by - " ' '•' "• ' • ' " '|
FuelSystem Type - Houston ......:." ."•.'-": ...... . .".'." ;. 53
58b. Associated Tests of Significance .... :T . . .' .' . . .J;.' 53
59. Correlation Coefficient Summary by Fuel'; •' •'"'"';*'
'' - System Type - Houston. : . ::..;...... : . '•.-; ;' '. 54
60a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Transmission Type — Houston 55
60b. Associated Tests of Significance 55
61. Correlation Coefficient Summary by .
Transmission Type — Houston . 56
62a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Manufacturer — Houston ..'..... 57
62b. Associated Tests of Significance 57
63. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Manufacturer - Houston . . . 58
64a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Engine
Displacement — Phoenix 59
64b. Associated Tests of Significance ; . 59
65. Correlation Coefficient Summary by Engine
Displacement - Phoenix 60
66a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Inertia Test Weight - Phoenix ; 61
66b. Associated Tests of Significance .' .'-.' . : 61
67. Correlation Coefficient Summary by Inertia
Test Weight Group - Phoenix . . . ; 62
68a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Emission
Control System — Phoenix 63
68b. Associated Tests of Significance 63
VI
-------
TABLES (Continued)
69. Correlation Coefficient Summary by Emission ., . , ,
Control System Type - Phoenix • 64
70a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Fuel
System Type — Phoenix 65
70b. Associated Tests of Significance*. .... ; .r 65
71. Correlation Coefficient Summary by Fuel
System Type - Phoenix 66
72a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Transmission Type - Phoenix . . .• 67
72b. Associated Tests of Significance 67
73. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Transmission Type — Phoenix . 68
74a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Manufacturer - Phoenix . 69
74b. Associated Tests of Significance 69
75. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Manufacturer — Phoenix . . . . 70
76. Comparison of ST HC Results by City - Predicted
Population, Bounded Errors of Commission
Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) . . 71
77. Comparison of ST CO Results by City - Predicted
Population, Bounded Errors of Commission
Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 72
78. Comparison of ST NOX Results by City - Predicted
Population, Bounded Errors of Commission
Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 73
79. Comparison of ST Multiple Constituent Results by
City - Actual Population, Bounded Errors of
Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 74
VII
-------
TABLES (Continued)
80. Comparison of ST HC Results by Inertia Weight -
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded
Errors of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 75
81. Comparison of ST CO Results by Inertia Weight -
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded
Errors of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) ...... 76
82. Comparison of ST NOX Results by Inertia Weight -
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded
Errors of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 77
83. Comparison of ST Multiple Constituent Results of
Inertia Weight - Actual Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Ec Set at 5 Percent) 78
84. Comparison of ST HC Results by Displacement -
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded
Errors of Commission Method (E., Set at 5 Percent) 79
v*
85. Comparison of ST CO Results by Displacement -
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded
Errors of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 80
86. Comparison of ST NOX Results by Displacement -
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded
Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent) 81
87. Comparison of ST Multiple Constituent Results by
Displacement — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Ec Set at 5 Percent) . 82
88. Comparison of ST HC Results by Emission Controls
Type — Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded
Errors of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 83
89. Comparison of ST CO Results by Emission Controls
Type - Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded
Errors of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 84
Vlll
-------
, TABLES (C ontinued)
90. Comparison of ST NOX Results by Emission Controls
Type — Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded
Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent) ....... 85
91. Comparison of ST Multiple Constituent Results by
Emission Controls Type — Predicted Population,
Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission ;,•
Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 86
92. Comparison of ST HC Results by Fuel System Type -
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors
of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 87
93. Comparison of ST CO Results by Fuel System Type -
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors
of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 88
.94. Comparison of ST NOX Results by Fuel System Type -
Predicted Population, Three. Cities, Bounded Errors
of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 89
95. Comparison of ST Multiple Constituent Results by
Fuel System Type - Predicted Population, Three
Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Ec Set at 5 Percent) 90
96. . Comparison of ST HC Results by Transmission Type —
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors
of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 91
97. Comparison of ST CO Results by Transmission Type —
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors
of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 92
98. Comparison of ST NOX Results by Transmission Type —
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors
of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 93
99. Comparison of ST Multiple Constituent Results by
Transmission Type — Predicted Population, Three
Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Ec Set at 5 Percent) ; 94
IX
-------
TABLES (Continued)
100. Comparison of ST HC Results by Manufacturer -
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded
Errors of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 95
101. Comparison of ST CO Results by Manufacturer -
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded
Errors of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) ...... 96
102. Comparison of ST NOX Results by Manufacturer —
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded
Errors of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 97
103. Comparison of ST Multiple Constituent Results by
Manufacturer - Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(E_ Set at 5 Percent) 98
\_.
104. Estimated Standard Errors for Contingency Table
Percentages in Multiple Constituent Test Results 99
105. Comparison of Federal Short Cycle Cut-Points by
City (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 99
106. Comparison of Federal Three-Mode Cut-Points by
City (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 100
107. Comparison of HC Results for CID = 150 and Less,
by Manufacturer — Predicted Population, Three
Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Ec Set at 5 Percent) 101
108. Comparison of CO Results for CID = 150 and Less,
by Manufacturer — Predicted Population, Three
Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Ec Set at 5 Percent) 102
109. Comparison of NOX Results for CID = 150 and Less,
by Manufacturer - Predicted Population, Three
Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Ec Se.t at 5 Percent) 103
110. Comparison of Multiple Constituent Results for
CID =150 and Less, by Manufacturer - Predicted
Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of
Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 104
-------
TABLES (Continued)
111. Comparison of HC Results for CID = 151 to 259,
by Manufacturer — Predicted Population, Three
Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Ec Set at 5 Percent) 105
112. Comparison of CO Results for CID = 151 to 259,
by Manufacturer — Predicted Population, Three
Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Ec Set at 5 Percent) 106
113. Comparison of NOX Results for CID = 151 to 259,
by Manufacturer — Predicted Population, Three
Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Ec Set at 5 Percent) 107
114. Comparison of Multiple Constituents Results for
CID = 151 to 259, by Manufacturer - Predicted
Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of
Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 108
115. Comparison of HC Results for CID = 260 and
Greater, by Manufacturer — Predicted Population,
Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission
Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 109
116. Comparison of CO Results for CID = 260 and
Greater, by Manufacturer — Predicted Population,
Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission
Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 110
117. Comparison of NOX Results for CID = 260 and
Greater, by Manufacturer — Predicted Population,
Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission
Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) Ill
118. Comparison of Multiple Constituent Results for
CID = 260 or Greater, by Manufacturer - Predicted
Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of
Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 112
119. Comparison of Federal Short Cycle Cut-Points by
Engine Displacement (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 113
-------
TABLES, (Continued)
120. Comparison of Federal Three-Mode Cut-Points
by Engine Displacement (Ec Set at 5 Percent) ..... ....... 114
121. Comparison of HC Results for CID = 150 and Less,
by City - Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Ec Set at 5 Percent) ......... ....... ......... ,.-.... H5
122. Comparison of CO Results for CID = 150 and Less,
by City — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Ec Set at 5 Percent) . . . . ....................... 116
123. Comparison of NOX Results for CID = 150 and Less,
by City - Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Ec Set at 5 Percent) . . . . ..... ................... 117
124. Comparison of Multiple Constituent Results for
CID =150 and Less, by City - Predicted Population,
Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission
Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) . ............. ..... .... 118
125. Comparison of HC Results for CID = 151 to 259, by
City - Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded
Errors of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) ...... 119
126. Comparison of CO Results for CID = 151 to 259, by
City — Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded
Errors of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) ...... 120
127. Comparison of NOX Results for CID = 151 to 259, by
City - Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded
Errors of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) ...... 121
128. Comparison of Multiple Constituent Results for
CID = 151 to 259, by City - Predicted Population,
Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission
Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) ........... . . ......... 122
129. Comparison of HC Results for GID . = 260 and Greater,
by City - Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded
Errors of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) ...... 123
XII
-------
TABLES (Continued)
130. Comparison of CO Results for CID = 260 and Greater
by City - Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded
Errors of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 124
131. Comparison of NOX Results for CID = 260 and Greater,
by City - Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded
Errors of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) 125
132. Comparison of Multiple Constituent Results for
CID = 260 and Greater, by City - Predicted
Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent) . . . •.
Contingency Table
Maintenance Options and Adjustment Procedures for
Each Version of the Maintenance Model
Average Deterioration Rates Used in 207(b)
Effectiveness Simulation
Annual Mileage Accumulations Used in 207(b)
Effectiveness Simulation
Initial Simulated Fleet Statistics
207(b) ST Cut- Points for Each Engine Family
207(b) Program Efficiencies with Maintenance
Version 1
207(b) Program Efficiencies with Maintenance
Version 2
207(b) Program Efficiencies with Maintenance
Version 3
FTP Values Equivalent to 207(b) ST Cut- Points
I/M ST Cut- Points for Each Engine Family
I/M Program Efficiencies with Maintenance
126
127
128
128
129
129
130
, . 131
132
133
134
134
Version 1 135
Xlll
-------
TABLES (Continued)
145. I/M Program Efficiencies with Maintenance
Version 2 ...'...........•••••• 136
146. I/M Program Efficiencies with Maintenance . .
Version 3 . V ... . ^ ...... \ 137
147. FTP Values Equivalent to I/M ST Cut-Points ........... 138
xiv
-------
FIGURES.
1. Variation of EC, EQ, and FF with HC Cut-point;
All Three Cities; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method . 139
2. Variation of EC, EQ, with FF with CO Cut-point;
All Three Cities; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method 139
3. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
All Three Cities; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method 140
4. Variation of EC, EQ, and FF with HC Cut-point;
Chicago; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method 140
5. Variation of EC, EQ, and FF with CO Cut-point;
Chicago; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method . 141
6. Variation of EC, EQ, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
Chicago; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded Errors of
Commission Method 141
7. Variation of Ec, EQ, and FF with HC Cut-point;
Houston; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method 142
8. Variation of EC, EQ, and FF with CO Cut-point;
Houston; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method 142
9. Variation of EC, E and FF with NOX Cut-point;
Houston; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method 143
10. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with HC Cut-point;
Phoenix; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded Errors .
of Commission Method 143
11. Variation of Ec, EQ, and FF with CO Cut-point;
Phoenix; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method 144
xv
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
12. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF'with NOX Cut-point;
Phoenix; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method . . 144
13. Variation of Actual EC, EQ, and FF with Predicted
Ec; Federal Short Cycle; All Three Cities 145
14. Variation of Actual Ec, Eo, and FF with Predicted
Ec; Federal Short Cycle; Chicago 145
15. Variation of Actual Ec, E0, and FF with Predicted
Ec; Federal Short Cycle, Houston 146
16. Variation of Actual Ec, Eo, and FF with Predicted
Ec; Federal Short Cycle; Phoenix 146
17. Variation of EC, EQ, and FF with HC Cut-point;
All Three Cities; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method 147
18. Variation of EC, E , and FF with CO Cut-point;
All Three Cities; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method 148
19. Variation of EC, EQ, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
All Three Cities; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method 149
20. Variation of EC, EO, and FF with HC Cut-point;
Chicago; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method 149
21. Variation of EC, EQ, and FF with CO Cut-point;
Chicago; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method 150
22. Variation of EC, EQ, and FF with NO Cut-point;
Chicago; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded Errors
of .Commission Method 151
23. Variation of EC, EQ, arid FF with HC Cut-point;
Houston; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method • 151
xvi
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
24. Variation of Ec, E^, and FF with CO Cut-point;
Houston; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method 152
25. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
Houston; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method 153
26. Variation of EC, EQ, and FF with HC Cut-point;
Phoenix; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method 153
27. Variation of EC, EQ, and FF with CO Cut-point;
Phoenix; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method 154
28. Variation of EC, EQ, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
Phoenix; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method 155
29. Variation of Actual EC, EQ, and FF with Predicted
Ec; Federal Three-Mode; All Three Cities 156
30. Variation of Actual Ec, Eo, and FF with Predicted
Ec; Federal Three-Mode; Chicago 157
31. Variation of Actual EC, EQ, and FF with Predicted
Ec; Federal Three-Mode; Houston 158
32. Variation of Actual EC, EQ, and FF with Predicted
Ec; Federal Three-Mode; Phoenix 159
33. Variation of EC, E^ and FF with HC Cut-point;
150 CID and Less; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method 160
34. Variation of EC, EQ, and FF with CO Cut-point;
150 CID and Less; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method 160
35. Variation of EC, E . and FF with NOX Cut-point;
150 CID and Less; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method ; 161
xvii
-------
FIGURES. (Continued)
36. Variation of EC, E , and FF with HC Cut-point;
151 to 259 CID; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method 161
37. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with CO Cut-point;
151 to 259 CID; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method . 162
38. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
151 to 259 CID; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method 162
39. . Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with HC Cut-point;
260 CID and Greater; Federal Short Cycle;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method 163
40. Variation of EC, EQ, and FF with CO Cut-point;
260 CID and Greater; Federal Short Cycle;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method 163
41. Variation of EC, EQ, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
260 CID and Greater; Federal Short Cycle;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method 164
42. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with Predicted
Ec; Federal Short Cycle; All Three Cities;
Engine Displacement 150 CID and Less 165
43. Variation of Actual Ec, Eo, and FF with Predicted
Ec; Federal Short Cycle; All Three Cities; Engine
Displacement 1 5 1 to 259 CID 165
44. Variation of Actual Ec, Eo, and FF with Predicted
Ec; Federal Short Cycle; All Three Cities; Engine
Displacement 260 CID and Greater ' . . . . 166
45. Variation of EC, E^ and FF with HC Cut-point;
150 CID and Less; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method 16?
46. Variation of EC, EQ, and FF with CO Cut-point;
150 CID and Less; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method . 16?
XVlll
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
47. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
150 CID and Less; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method ...................... 168
48. Variation of EC, E , and FF with HC Cut-point;
151 to 259 CID; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method ....................... 168
49. Variation of EC, EQ, and FF with CO Cut-point;
151 to 259 CID; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method ................ ...... 169
50. Variation of EC, Eo, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
151 to 259 CID; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method ...................... 170
51. Variation of EC, EQ, and FF with HC Cut-point;
260 CID and Greater; Federal Three-Mode;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method ............... . 170
52. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with CO Cut- point;
260 CID and Greater; Federal Three- Mode;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method ................ 171
53. Variation of EC, EQ, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
260 CID and Greater; Federal Three-Mode;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method ................ 171
54. Variation of Actual EC, EQ, and FF with Predicted
Ec; Federal Three-Mode; All Three Cities; Engine
Displacement 150 CID and Less ..................... 172
55. Variation of Actual EC, EQ, and FF with Predicted
E ; Federal Three-Mode; All Three Cities; Engine
Displacement 151 to 259 CID ....................... 173
56. Variation of Actual EC, EQ, and FF with Predicted
Ec; Federal Three- Mode; All Three Cities; Engine
Displacement 260 CID and Greater ................... 174
57. Federal Short Cycle Test Driving Schedules ............ 175
58. Contingency Table Representation ................... 176
59. Bounded Errors of Commission Method ............... 177
xix
-------
FIGURES, (Continued)
60. Parametric Model . . .: .-.-..•."•'. .. .... .,-.... . _•...-.- . . 178
r . • • - . ,
61. Probability Equations . . . ,./. ... . .: -.. 178
62. Equations for ST Cut-Poiht..Determination , >... . . . 179
63:. Computation Flow Chart ,. . . , .•.-. ...-. .... 180
64. Typical Variability of Predicted Population Results 181
65. Logical Flow Chart for 207(b) Effectiveness Estimation 182
66. Piecewise Linear Deterioration for FF Vehicles
Shown Over Two-Year Period .....'.. . . : 183
67. Vehicle Classification Properties of the 207(b)
Effectiveness Simulator 184
xx
-------
Table 1. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by
Number of Cylinders and Engine Displacement— All Three Cities
(a)
No. of
Cylinders
4
6
8
Engine Displacement
150 CID(b)
or Less
95
0
0
151 to
259 CID
0
54
0
260 CID or
Greater
0
0
151
(a)
(b)
300 vehicles total
CID = cubic inch displacement
Table 2. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by
Inertia Test Weight and Engine Displacement— All Three Cities
Inertia Test
Weight Group
db)
2500 or
Less
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
4501 or
Greater
Engine Displacement
150 CID(a)
or Less
49
46
0
0
95
151 to
259 CID
1
46
7
0
54
260 CID or
Greater
0
27
91
33
151
Total Number
of Vehicles
50
119
98
33
300
(a)
CID = cubic inch displacement
-------
Table 3» Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by
Engine Displacement and Emission Control System Type — All Three Cities
: ( V
; 150 or Less
151 to 259
260 or More
. Catalyst(b)
Yes
(c)
Secondary Airv '
Yes
15
14
60
89
No
15
'"• 23
89
127
•• No •••
Secondary Air
Yes
50
7
2
59
...No
15
10
0
25
Total Number
of -Vehicles
95
54
151
300
(a)
(b)
(c)
CID = cubic inch displacement
Oxidation catalyst
Secondary air injection system
Table 4. Cros.s Tabulation of Vehicles by
Inertia Test Weight and Emission Control System Type — All Three Cities
Inertia Test
Weight Group
db)
2500 or Less
2501 to 3500 •
3501 to 4500
. Greater than 4501
Catalyst(a)
Yes
Secondary Air* '
Yes
10
35
33
11
89
No
3
44
58
22
127
No
Secondary Air
Yes
23
29
7
0
•.. 59
No
14
11
0
0
25
Total Number
of Vehicles
50
119
98.
33
300
(a)
(b)
Oxidation catalyst
Secondary air injection system
-------
Table 5.. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by
Fuel System and Emission Control System Type — All Three Cities
Fuel System Type
Fuel Injection
Carburetion
Ye
Seconda
Yes .
1
88
89
Catalys
s
ry Air '
No
3
124
127
5t(a) ,
Nc
Seconda
Yes
11
48
59
>
ry Air
No
15
10
25
Tnf a 1 "NT-ii T-rtVic* t*
of Vehicles
30
270
300
(a)
(b)
Oxidation catalyst
Secondary air injection system
Table 6. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by
Inertia Test Weight and Fuel System Type — All Three Cities
Inertia Test
Weight Group
(lb)
0 to 2500
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
4501 or Greater
Fuel System Type
Fuel
Injection
19
7
4
0
30
Carburetion
31
112
94
33
270
Total Number
of Vehicles
50
119
98
33
300
-------
Table 7. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by
Engine Displacement and Fuel System Type — All Three Cities
CID(a) Group
150 or Less
151 to 259
260 or More
Fuel System Type.
Injection
24
6
0
30
Carburetion
71
48
151
270
Total Number
of Vehicles
95
54"
151
300
(a)
CID = cubic inch displacement
Table 8. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by
Engine Displacement and Transmission Type — All Three Cities
CID(a) Group
150 or Less
151 to 259
260 or More
Transmission Type
Automatic
33
45
151
229
Manual
62
9
0
71
Total Number
of Vehicles
95
54
151
300
(a)
CID = cubic inch displacement
-------
Table 9. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by
Inertia Test Weight and Transmission Type — All Three Cities
Inertia Test
Weight Group
(lb)
0 to 2500
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
4501 or Greater
Transmission Type
Automatic
10
88
' 98
33
229
Manual
40
' .' 31
1 •'*'• 0,
0
71
Total Number
of Vehicles
50
119
98
33
300
Table 10. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by
Manufacturer and Engine Displacement— All Three Cities
Manufacturer
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors
Da t sun
Toyota
VW, Audi,
Porsche
Honda
Others
Engine Displacement
150 CID(a)
or Less
12
6
0
0
8
9
21
6
33
95
151 to
259 CID
13
13
7
12
1
0
1
0
7
54
260 CID
or Greater
74
42
29
6
0
0
0
0
0
151
Total Number
of Vehicles
99
61
36.
18
• 9
9
22
6
40
300
(a)
CID = cubic inch displacement
-------
Table 1U Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by
Manufacturer arid Engine Displacement— Chicago
Manufacturer
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors
Da t sun
Toyota
VW, Audi,
Porsche
Honda
Others
Engine Displacement
150 CID(a)
or Less
4
2
0
0
2
3
7
2
12
32
1 151 to
259 CID
5
4
3
4
1
0
0
0
2
19
260 CID
or Greater
24
14
9
2
0
0 .
0
0
0
49
Total Number
of Vehicles
33
20
12
6
3
3
7
2
14
100
(a)
CID = cubic inch displacement
-------
Table 12. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by
Manufacturer and Engine Displacement — Houston
Manufacturer
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors
Datsun
Toyota
VW, Audi,
Porsche
Honda
Others
Engine Displacement
150 CID(a)
or Less
4
2
0
0
3
3
8
2
11
33
151 to
259 CID
4
5
2
4
0
0
0
0
1
16
260 CID
or Greater
25
14
10
2
0
0
0
0
0
51
Total Number
of Vehicles
33
21
12
6
3
3
8
2
12
100
(a)
CID = cubic inch displacement
-------
Table 13. Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by
Manufacturer and Engine Displacement — Phoenix
Manufacturer
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors
Datsun
Toyota
VW, Audi,
Porsche
Honda
Others
-
Engine Displacement
150 CID(a)
or Less
4
2
0
0
3
3
6
2
10
30
151 to
259 CID
4
4
2
4
0
0
1
0
4
19
260 CID
or Greater
25
14
10
2
0
0
0
0
0
51
Total Number
of Vehicles
33
20
12
6
3
3
7
2
14
100
(a)
CID = cubic inch displacement
-------
Table 14a. Federal Short Cycle — Means and
Standard Deviations by City
City
Chicago
Hou s to n
Phoenix
No. of
Vehicles
100
100
100
Emission (gm/mi)
HC
Mean
0.854
1. 194
0.934
SD(a)
0. 739
1.204
0.919
CO
Mean
13. 16
17.84
14.62
SD
15. 52
25.69
18.21
NOX
Mean
1..761
1.796
1.818
SD
0.831
0.882
0.940
(a)
SD = standard deviation
Table 14b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
X
Log1()(HC)
Log1()(CO)
Log1()(NOx)
Equality of Means
F-Value(a)
3. 33
1.39
0. 11
2.51
0. 10
0.02
Level of
Significance
0.04
0.25
0.90
0.08
0.90
0.98
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
23.6
27. 1
1. 52
0.48
0.98
1.59
Level of
Significance
0
0
0.47
0.79
0.62
0.45
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 2, 297
-------
Table 15a. Federal Short Cycle.—Means "and Standard Deviations by
Engine Displacement—All Three Cities
CID(a) :
Less than 150
150 to 260 , :
Greater than 260
No, of
Vehicles
• • 95 ,
54
151 >
Emission "(grri /mi)"" r"
HC
Mean
0.978
0.781
1.080
SD(b>,
1.020
0.665
1.041
CO
Mean
11.97
12. 33
18.27
SD '
11.80
18.76
24. 30
1 NOX
Mean
l;454
1.845
1.985
'" SD
0.754
0.899
0.895
(a)
(b)
CID = cubic inch displacement
SD = standard deviation
Table 15b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
Log10(HC)
Log1Q(CO)
Log1()(NOx)
Equality of Means
F-Value(a)
1.87
3. 53 '
11.4
1.29
1.61
13.1
Level of
Significance
0. 16
0.03
0
0.28
0. 20
0
; Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
13.9
51.3.
3.67
2.37
49. 1
, 6. 37
;Level of
Significance
0
0
0. 16
0.31
0
0.04
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 2, 297
10
-------
Table I6a. Federal Three-Mode — Means and
Standard Deviations by City
Test
Mode
High Speed
Low Speed
Idle in Drive
Idle in Neutral
City
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
No. of
Vehicles
100
100
78
75
76
100
Emission (ppm)
HC
Mean
61
40
53
57
45
59
114
104
115
112
114
99
SD(a)
72
46
34
47
43
47
116
125
91
121
151
90
CO
Mean
4439
2345
2864
4036
2784
2442
16015
16687
15324
14049
14018
12546
SD
7907
6202
5571
7116
6427
,5099
22949
21182
21155
20671
18592
19169
NO
X
Mean
1131
1288
1540
649
793
963
160
149
159
74
68
73
SD
549
714
781
485
587
697
226
163
114
79
43
33
(a)
SD = standard deviation
-------
Table I6b. Associated Tests of Significance
Test
Mode
High Speed
Low Speed
Idle in Drive
Idle in Neutral
Emission
HC
CO
NO
Lof (HC)
Log^(CO)
Log1Q(NOx)
HC
CO
NO
Lof (HC)
LogJ^(CO)
Log1Q(NOx)
HC
CO
NO
Lof (HC)
Log "(CO)
Log^NOJ
HC
CO
NO
Log* (HC)
Log|g(CO>
Log10(NOx)
Equality of Means
F-Value(a)
3.87
2.70
9.00
12.4
9.81
7.56
2.71
1.79
6.99
6.61
4.21
6.19
0.23
0.07
0.09
2.63
0. 14
1.72
0.44
0. 19
0. 32
1.07
0. 59
1.85
Level of
Significance
0.02
0.07
0
0
0
0
0.07
0. 17
0
0
0.02
0
0.80
0.93
0.92
0.07
0.87
0. 18
0.65
0.82
0.73
0. 34
0. 55
0. 16
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
57.7
13. 1
12.5
3.0
8. 11
0.06
0.88
10.9
12.7
2.64
10. 3
0. 14
7.61
0.68
33.7
9.77
7.33
9.22
25. 3
1.29
82.2
14. 5
8.62
22.3
Level of
Significance
0
0
0
0.22
0.02
0.97
0.64
0
0
0.27
0.01
0.93
0.02
0.71
0
0.01
0.03
0.01
0
0. 55
0
0
0.01
0
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 2, 297
12
-------
Table 17a. Federal Three-Mode — Means and Standard Deviations by
Engine Displacement — All Three Cities
Test
Mode
High Speed,
Low Speed
Idle in Drive
Idle in Neutral
(a)
CIDia; Group
Less than 150
150 to 260
Greater than 260
Less than 150
150 to 260
Greater than 260
Less than 150
150 to 260
Greater than 260
Less than 150
150 to 260
Greater than 260
No. of
Vehicles
95
54
151
95
54
151
33
45
151
95
54
151
Emission (ppm)
HC
Mean
58
47
49
60
61
47
148
120
100
109
105
108
SD(b>
41
40
64
44
60
40
155
104
100
134
106
122
CO
Mean
4602
1633
2911
3521
2722
2945
19619
18828
14625
12620
15180
15530
SD
7875
4000
6480
4488
7479
6798
24106
25125
20117
18820
22000
18950
NOX
Mean
1511
1160
1257
834
813
778
125
198
151
68
95
66
SD
856
598
610
562
693
606
94
151
191
33
100
41
u>
(a)
(b)
CID = cubic inch displacement
SD = standard deviation
-------
Table 17b. Associated Tests of Significance
Test
Mode
High Speed
Low Speed
Idle in Drive
Idle in Neutral
Emission
HC
CO
NOX
Log (HC)
Logj0(CO)
Log1Q(NOx)
HC
CO
NO
Lof (HC)
LogJgfCO)
Log1QNOx)
HC
CO
NO
Lof (HC)
Logjg(CO)
Log10(NOx)
HC
CO
NO
Lof (HC)
Loglg(CO)
Log10(NOx)
Equality of Means
F-Value(a)
0.94
3.80
5.64
2.58
11.9
2. 30
3.20
0. 36
0.26
3.28
9.66
0.20
2.76
0.95
1.95
2.95
3.08
4.58
0.02
0. 30
5.82
0. 30
2.61
4.68
Level of
Significance
0. 39
0.02
-0-
0.08
-0-
0. 10
0.04
0.70
0.77
0.04
-0-
0.82
0.07
0. 39
0. 15
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.98
0. 74
-0-
0. 74
0.08
0.01
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
28.7
26.3
16.3
1.87
2.74
8.99
15.8
22.8
3. 11
1. 55
5. 53
2. 14
12.6
4. 18
21.0
2. 19
4.76
0.48
3.68
2. 15
1 14.0
2. 35.
11.8
6. 30
Level of
Significance
-0-
-0-
-0-
0. 40
0.26
0.01
-0-
-0-
0.21
0.46
0.06
0. 34
-0-
0. 13
-0-
0. 34
0.09
0. 79
0. 16
0. 34
-0-
0. 31
-0-
0.86
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 2, 297
14
-------
Table 18a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Mileage Group — All Three Cities
Mileage
Group (a)
4000 Miles or Less
Greater than
4000 Miles
No. of
Vehicles
70
230
FTp(t>) Emission
(gm/mi)
HC
Mean
1.09
1.45
SD
0.657
1. 141
CO
Mean
18.66
25.71
SD
14.80
26.85
NOX
Mean
2. 11
2.48
SD
0.801
1.005
(a)
(b)
(c)
Number of accumulated miles on vehicles tested
Federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 18b. Associated Tests of Significance
HC
CO
NO
X
Log1Q (HC)
Log1Q (CO)
Log,» (NO )
1U X
Equality of Means
F-Value*a)
6.29
4.42
8.08
7.59
1.89
7.01
Level of
Significance
0.01
0.04
-0-
0.01
0. 17
0.01
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
26.0
29.8
4.97
0. 385
5.60
0.398
Level of
Significance
1 -0-
-0-
0.03
0.54
0.02
0. 53
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 1, 298
15
-------
Table 19. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Accumulated Mileage — All Three Cities
Short
Test
Federal
Short
Cycle
Federal
Three-
Mode
Mileage
Group*3-)
4000 or
less
Greater
than 4000
4000 or
less
Greater
than 4000
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
70
230
70
7.0
48
70
230
230
181
230
ST/FTP*b) Correlation Coefficients *c)
HC
0.91
0.76
0.13*
0.29
0.80
0.37
0.33
0.52
0. 54
0.45
CO
0.80
0.90
0. 16*
0.31
0.61
0.55
0.37
0.54
0.67
0.71
NO
X
0.79
0.82
0.36
0.40
-0.08*
0.02*
0. 54
0.49
0.23
0. 14*
Log
(HC)
0.85
0.78
0.21
0.33
0.51
0.37
0. 34
0.46
0.69
0.63
Log
(CO)
0.82
0.82
0. 17
0.21
0.68
0. 54
0.24
0.38
0.75
0.70
Log
(N0x)
0.84
0.82
0.42
0.47
-0. 30
0. 12
0. 59
0. 57
0.31
0,27
(a)
(b)
(c)
Number of accumulated miles on vehicles tested
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level
except where indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 20a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations —by City
City
Chicago.
Houston
Phoenix
No. of
Vehicles
100
100
100
FTp(a) Emission (gm/mi)
HC
Mean
1.283
1.534
1.288
SD
0.834
1.335
0.930
CO
Mean
21.665
27.598
22.934
SD
17. 145
32.812
21.378
NO
X
Mean
2.375
2.446
2.357
SD
0.896
1.050
0.974
(a)
(b)
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 20b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
X
Log1() (HC)
Log1Q (CO)
Log1Q (N0x)
Equality of Means
F- Value (a)
1.841
1.602
0.234
0.941
0. 185
0. 135
Level of
Significance
0. 160
0.203
0.792
0.392
0.831
0.874
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
25. 162
44.224
2.506
5.423
12.967
2.333
Approximate Level
of Significance
0.0
0.0
0.287
0.067
0.002
0.313
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 2, 297
17
-------
Table 21. Correlation Coefficient Summary —All Three Cities
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-
Mode
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
300
300
300
300
229
ST/FTP^a) Correlation Coefficients ^b)
HC
0.78
0.31
0.47
0.45
0.58
CO
0.89
0.33
0.46
0.69
0.67
NO
X
0.81
0.52
0.48
-i,
0. 11""
0. 12*
Log
(HC)
0.80
0.31
0.43
0.58
0.66
Log
(CO)
0.82
0.22
0.35
0.67
0.74
Log
(N0x)
0.82
0. 56
0.55
0.23
0.27
(a)
(b)
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence
level except where indicated by an asterisk
Table 22. Correlation Coefficient Summary — Chicago
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-
Mode
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
100
100
100
100
78
ST/FTP(a) Correlation Coefficients^'
HC
0.88
0.12*
0.38
0.42
0.52
CO
0.82
0.31
0. 52
0.52
0.50
NO
X
0.81
0.43
0.40
0.03V
0.01*
Log
(HC)
0.81
0.33
0.45
0. 50
0. 54
Log
(CO)
0.80
0. 34
0. 39
0. 57
0.63
Log
(N0x)
0. 85
0. 51
0.47
0.27
0.22*
(a)
(b)
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
'correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence
level except where indicated by an asterisk
18
-------
Table 23. Correlation Coefficient Summary — Houston
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal .
Three-
Mode
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. -of
Vehicles
100
<
100
100
100
75
ST/FTP(a) Correlation Coefficient (b)
HC
0.91
0.66
0. 76
0. 47
0.60
CO
0.97
0.45
0.53
0.79
0.76
NO
X
0.78
0.44
0.41
0. 34
0. 36
Log
(HC)
0.88
0.42
0.58
0.67
0. 76
Log
(CO).
0.87
0. 19*
0.33
0.68
0. 79 •
Log
(N0x)
0.81
0.52
0.56
0. 3Z
0. 46
(a)
(b)
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence
level except where indicated by an asterisk
Table 24. Correlation Coefficient Summary — Phoenix ,
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three -
Mode
•Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
100
100
100
100
76
ST/F.TP(a) Correlation Coefficient (b>
HC
0.45
0.25
0.28
0.44
0.71
CO
0.76
0.32
0.41
0.80
0.81
NO
X
0.85
0.73
0.66
0.03*
*
-0.05
Log
(HC)
0.73
0.27
0.34
0.61
0.75'
Log
(CO)
0.79
0.20
0.36
0.74
0.78
Log
(N0x)
0.82
0.73
0.66
0.08*
0.03*
(a)
(b)
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence
level except where indicated by an asterisk
19
-------
Table 25a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Engine Displacement — All Three Cities
^a)
Group
150 and
Less
151 to
259
260 and
Greater
No. of
Vehicles
95
54
151
. FTP* ' Emission (gm/mi)
HC
Mean
1.327
1.271
1.429
SD(C)
0.712
1.021
1.241
CO
Mean
16.789
21.718
29.484
SD
11.065
19.348
30.744
NO
x
Mean
2.095
2.428
2.568
SD
0.939
0.838
0.999
(a)
(b)
(c)
CID = cubic inch displacement
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 25b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
X
Log1Q (HC)
Log1() (CO)
Log,n (NO )
1 U X
Equality of Means
F-Value(a)
0.547
8.373
7.235
0.319
2.832
10.133
Level of
Significance
0.579
0.0
0.001
0.727
0.061
0.0
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
31.651
97.662
2.336
3.277
25.554
10.476
Approximate Level
of Significance
0.0
0.0
0.313
0. 196
0.0
0.006
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 2, 297
20
-------
Table 26. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Engine Displacement — All Three Cities
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
CID(a) Group
150 or Less
151 to 259
260 or More
150 or Less
151 to 259
260 or More
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
95
54
151
95
95
95
33
54
54
54
45
151
151
151
151
ST/FTP(6)
Correlation Coefficients
HC
0.71
0.53
0.89
0.25
0.41
0.45
0.75
0.25*
0.36
0.38
0.78
0. 34
0.62
0.49
0.60
CO
0.63
0.90
0.92
0.40
0. 36
0.63
0.43
0.34
0.72
0.65
0.66
0.43
0.47
0.82
0.80
NO
X
0.82
0.83
0.79
0.61
0.63
0.06*
0. 30*
0. 59
0.74
0.04*
0.13*
0. 58
0. 36
0.24
0. 10*
Log(HC)
0.81
0.74
0.82
0. 35
0.45
0.48
0.57
0.23*
0.41
0.49
0.7.3
0. 30
0.44
0.65
0.69
Log(CO)
0.-76
0.84
0.86
0. 19*
0. 35
0. 55
0. 54
-0.03*
0.27
0.58
0.75
0. 37
0.46
0.79
0.80
Log(NOx)
0.83
0.84
0.78
0.68
0.71
0.20
0.41
0.45
0.71
0.22*
0.28*
0.60
0.42
0. 30
0.23
CID = cubic inch displacement
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level except where
indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 27a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Inertia Test Weight— All Three Cities
Inertia Test
Weight Group
(lb)
2500 and Less
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
Greater than
4500
No. of
Vehicles
50
119
98
33
, FTP(a
(8m
HC
Mean.
1. 382
1 . 29 1
1. 309
1.799
-SD
1.020
0.921
1. 191
1. 107
Emission
/mi)
CO
Mean
15.071
20.909
25.859
43.753
SD
10.563
22. 370
24.066
37.019
NO
X
Mean
1.868
2.486
2. 557
2. 365
SD
0.763
1.043
0.944
0.829
(a)
(b)
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 27b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
X
Log1()(HC)
Log1()(CO)
Log1()(NOx)
Equality of Means
F-Value(a*
2. 162
10.996
6.498
3. 101
8.225
8. 305
Level of
Significance
0.093
' 0.0
0.0
0.027
0.0
0.0
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
7. 324
58.248
7. 384
0.413
8.787
7. 120
Approximate
Level of
Significance
0.064
0.0
0.062
0.938
0.033
0.070
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 3, 296
22
-------
Table 28. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Inertia Test Weight Group — All Three Cities
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Inertia Test
Weight Group
db)
0 to 2500
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
4501 or More
0 to 2500
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
4501 or More
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
50
119
98
33
50
50
50
10
119
119
119
88
98
98
98
98
33
33
33
33
ST/FTP(a) ,
Correlation Coefficients^ '
HC
0.49
0.76
0.92
0.73
0.20*
0.33
0.32
0. 37*
0.41
0.55
0.49
0.66
0.36
0.5-1
0.42
0.53
0.28*
0.48
0.56
0.64
CO
0.73
0.86
0.91
0.88
0.53
0.42
0.56
0.05*
0. 50
0.61
0.59
0. 58
0.28
0.45
0.86
0.86
0.29*
0. 35
0.75
0.76
NO
X
0.76
0.81
0.81
0.77
0.54
0.50
0.08'1'
0. 33*
0.62
0.64
0.09*
0. 18*
0.54
0.33
0.20
0.05*
0. 53
0.30*
0.30*
0. 10*
Log(HC)
0.74
0.83
0.87
0.63
0.39
0.49
0. 51
0.58*
0. 30
0.46
0. 57
0.72
0.33
0.41
0.58
0.63
0.34*
0.47
0.64
0.71
Log (CO)
0.71
0.82
0.88
0.81
0.46
0. 36
0.47
-0. 13*
0.20
0.45
0.70
0.81
0.32
0.40
0.80
0.80
0.26*
0.39
0.62
0.72
Log(NOx)
0.78
0.84
0.80
0.81
0.64
0.68
0. 18*
0.40*
0.61
0.66
0.31
0. 31
0.57
0.44
0.24
0. 14*
0.60
0.43
0.36
0.31*
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level except where
indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 29a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Emission Control System Type — All Three Cities
Catalyst
Yes
Yes
No
No
Secondary
Air Injection
Yes
No
Yes
No
No. of
Vehicles
89
127
59
25
FTp(a) Emission
(gm/mi)
HC
Mean
1. 118
1.498
1.284
1.799
SD
1. 144
.1.078
0.641
1.241
CO
Mean
17.493
34.025
15.213
17. 767
SD.
18.083
31. 538
7,607
11.844
NO
X
Mean
2.670
2.283
2.246
2. 312
SD
1. 150
0.832
0.998
0.700
(a)
(b)
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 29b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
X
Log1()(HC)
Log1Q(CO)
Log10(NOx)
Equality of Means
-F-Value(a)
3. 905
13. 533
3. 539
7. 873
11. 755
2.252
Level of
Significance
0.009
0.0
0.015
0.0
0.0
0.082
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
23.895
130.884
15. 31.1
7.838
27. 375
13.093
Approximate
Level of
Significance
0.0
0.0
0.002
0.051
0.0
0.005
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 3, 296
24
-------
Table 30. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Emission Control System Type — All Three Cities
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Catalyst/Air(a)
Yes/Yes
Yes /No
No/Yes
No /No
Yes/Yes
Yes /No
No /Yes
No /No
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
89
127
59
25
89
89
89
76
127
127
127
117
59
59
59
24
25
25
25
12
ST/FTP(b)
Correlation Coefficients
HC
0.94
0.84
0.74
0. 32*
0.73
0.59
0.25
0.46
0. 13*
0.50
0.56,
0.62
0. 34
0.36
0.40
0.85
-0.01*
0. 16*
0.31*
0.86
CO
0.86
0.92
0. 54
0.86
0. 39
0. 54
0.80
0.77
0. 35
0.51
0.65
0.67
0.40
0.52
0.50
0.40*
0.39*
-0.02*
0.69
0.88
NO
X
0.83
0.77
0.86
0.90
0.65
0.60
0.05*
-0.05*
0.48
0.47
0. 12*
0.22
0.65
0.74
0.29
0.55
0.28*
0.47
0.40
0.51*
Log(HC)
0.85
0.82
0.78
0.54
0. 38
0.42
0. 35
0.40
0.23
0.46
0.71
0.75
0.41
0.42
0.41
0.58
0.15*
0.36*
0.42
0.77
Log(CO)
0.83
0.87
0.75
0. 76
0.62
0.66
0.76
0.82
0.22
0.41
0.68
0.72
0.41
0. 39
0.40
0. 58
0. 32*
0. 12*
0.76
0.70
Log(NOx)
0.83
0.76
0.90
0.89
0.70
0. 59
0. 13*
0. 15*
0. 51
0. 55
0.22
0.26
0.70
0.77
0. 50
0.62
0.08*
0.41
0.46
0.51*
ts)
(Jl
(a)
(b)
Secondary air injection system
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level except where
indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 3la. F-TP Means and Standard Deviations by:
Fuel System Type - All Three Cities
Fuel System
Type
Fuel Injection
Carburetion
No. of
Vehicles
30
270
FTp(a) Emission
(gm/mi)
HC
Mean
1.598
1.344
SD
1.224
1.038
CO
Mean
17. 158
24.833
SD
12.181
25.650
NOX
Mean
2.036
2.433
SD
0.647
0.995
(a)
(b)
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 31b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
N0x
Log1Q (HC)
Log1Q (CO)
L°glO (NO*>
Equality of Means
F- Value (a)
1 . 452
2.614
4 . 534
2.336
1.706
2 . 892
Level of
Significance
0.229
0. 107
0.034
0.128
0. 193
0.090
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
1.550
19.842
7.740
0.043
1.469
3.600
Approximate
Level of
Significance .
0.216
0.0
0.006
0.837
0.228
0.059
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 1, 298
26
-------
Table 32. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Fuel System Type — All Three Cities
Short
Test
Federal
Short
Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Fuel
•System Type
Fuel Injection
Carburetion
Fuel Injection
Carburetion
Test
Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
- No. of
Vehicles
30
270
30
30
30
11
270
270
270
218
ST/FTP(a)
Correlation Coefficients
HC
0.45
0.82
0.11*
0.22*
0.36
0.80
0.32
0.50
0.46
0.58
CO
0.79
0.89
0.47
0.11 *
0.61
0. 54*
0.34
0.49
0.70
0.69
NOX
0.62
0.82
0.63
0.33*
-0.20*
-0.07*
0.53
0.49
0.13
0.11*
Log (HC)
0.78
0.81
0.35*
0.38
0.51
0.64
0.29
0.43
0.58
0.66
Log (CO)
0.90
0.82
0.52
0.45
0.75
0.58*
0.23
0.37
0.68
0.76
Log (NOX)
0.57
0.84
0.59
0.42
-0. 19*
-0.01*
0.57
0.57
0.27
0.27
ts)
^a'ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
(b)
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level except where indicated
by an asterisk
-------
Table 33a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Transmission Type - All Three Cities
Transmission
Type
Automatic
Manual
No. of
Vehicles
229
71
FTp(a) Emission
(gm/mi)
HC
Mean
1.345
1.442
SD
1.086
0.967
CO
Mean
26.301
16.854
SD
26.979
13.142
NOX
Mean
2.513
2.005
SD
0.983
0.834
(a)
(b)
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 33b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
X
Log1() (HC)
Log1() (CO)
Log1() (N0x)
Equality of Means
F- Value (a*
0.045
8.096
15.558
2.052
4.379
17.961
Level of
Significance
0.502
0.005
-0-
0. 153
0.037
-0-
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
1.399
41.861
2.729
0.758
11.922
0.992
Approximate
Level of
Significance
0.238
-0-
0.099
0.385
0.001
0.321
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 1, 298
28
-------
Table 34. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Transmission Type —All Three Cities
Short
Test
Federal
Short
Cycle
Federal
Three -Mode
Transmis sion
Type
Automatic
Manual
Automatic
Manual
Test
Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
229
71
229
229
229
229
71
71
71
ST/FTP(a) .
Correlation Coefficients
HC
0.87
0.42
0.31
0.48
0.49
0.58
0.28
0.42
0.33
--
CO
0.91
0.66
0.33
0.48
0.71
0.67
0.50
0.56
0.67
--
NOX
0.80
0.82
0.57
0.49
0.11*
0. 12*
0.65
0.56
0.09*
--
Log (HC)
0.83
0.72
0.29
0:41
0.60
0.66
0.33
0.47
0.48
--
Log (CO)
0.85
0.75
0.27
0.39
0.70
0.74
0.14*
0.40
0.60
--
Log (NOX)
0.81
0.82
0.57
0.55
0.23
0.27
0.72
0.71
0.33
--
to
sO
(a)
(b)
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level except where indicated
by an asterisk
-------
Table 35a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Manufacturer — All Three Cities
Manufacturer
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors
Others
No. of
Vehicles
99
61
36
18
86
FTp(a) Emission
(gm/mi)
: HC
. Mean
1.378
r.245
1.726
1.052
1.361
SD
1. 180
1.003
1.248
0.583
0.911
CO
Mean
26. 165
22.550
45.648
13.076
15,990
SD
24.772
26. 106
36.359
9.466
10.254
NOX
Mean
2.400
2.742
2.352
2.764
2.076
SD
0.956
1.045
0.811
0.696
0.957
(a)
(b)
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 35b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
X
Logjg (HC)
Log1() (CO)
Log1Q (N0x)
Equality of Means
F- Value (a)
1.649
11.747
5.204
2.238
8.926
7.087
Level of
Significance
0.162
0.0
0.001
0.065
0.0
0.0
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
16.848
108.921
5.456
3.529
21.243
19.122
App r oximate
Level of
Significance
0.002
0.0
0.249
0.479
0.0
0.001
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 4, 295
30
-------
Table 36. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Manufacturer —All Three Cities
Short
Test
Federal
Short
Cycle
Federal
Three-
Mode
Manu-
facturer
General
Motors
Ford
Chrysler
Ame rican
Motors
Others
General
Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Others
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
99
61
36
18
86
99
99
99
92
61
61
61
55
36
36
36
36
18
18
18
16
86
86
86
30
ST/FTP(a) Correlation Coefficients^'
HC
0.90
0.94
0.81
0.94
0. 51
0.35
0.61
0. 50
0.55
0.33
0.40
0.42
0.63
0.48
0.60
0.54
0. 56
;*{
0.23
0.58
0. 56
0.81
0.21*
0. 31
0.33
0.82
CO
0.90
0.96
0.94
0.91
0.65
0.29
0.65
0.70
0.73
0.43
0.53
0.85
0. 84
0.57
0.64
0.65
0.68
0. 68
0.60
0.84
0.84
0.47
0.49
0. 53
0. 32"
NO
X
0.92
0.78
0.77
0.93
0.85
0.42
0.55
0. 17*
0.28
0.65
0.67
-0. 10*
-0.25*
0.65
0. 58
0.09*
-0.12*
0.72
0.39*
0.24*
0.29*
0.64
0.69
0. 11*
0.60
Log
(HC)
0.88
0.87
0.72
0.97
0.77
0.34
0.53
0.73
0.77
0.26
0.35
0. 50
0. 55
0. 30*
0.39
0.44
0.42
*
0.23
0. 59
0. 76
0.90
0. 34
0.42
0.41
0. 58
Log
(CO)
0.88
0.85
0.90
0.90
0.76
0.30
0. 55
0. 75
0.81
0.38
0. 51
0.69
0.73
0.21*
0. 27*
0.57
0.63
0.80
0.78
0.91
0.85
0.47
0. 46
0. 50
0.48
Log
(N0x)
0.91
0.77
0.69
0.95
0.84
0.50
0.60
0.33
0.32
0.66
0.58
-0.01*
-0.09*
0.53
0.64
0.26*
0.12*
0. 51
0.38*
0.26*
0.37*
0.69
0.73
0.25
0.58
(a)
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence
level except where indicated by an asterisk
31
-------
Table 37. Correlation Coefficient Summary for 150 CID
Manufacturer — All Three Cities
(a)
and Less by
Short
Test
Federal
Short
Cycle
Federal
Three -
Mode
Manu-
facturer
General
Motors
Ford
Datsun
Toyota
VW, Audi,
Porsche
Honda
Others
General
Motors
Ford
Datsun
Toyota
VW, Audi,
Porsche
Honda
Other
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
12
6
8
9
21
6
33
12
12
6
12
6
6
3
6
8
8
2
8
9
9
2
9
21
21
5
21
6
6
0
6
33
33
15
33
ST/FTp'b' Correlation Coefficients'0 '
HC
0.84
0.95
0.95
0.88
0.88
0.20*
0.74
0.25"
0.61
0.88
0. 30"
-0.17*
-0.22*
-0.81"
0.86
0.53"
0.61*
...
0.40"
0.69
0.87
....
0.66*
0.20*
0.53
0.77"
0.60
0.89
0.23*
0.94
0. 15"
0.25
0. 84
0. 37
CO
0.89
0.83
0.93
0. 50 ""
0.71
-0.21*
0.48
0. 15*
0.70
0.96
0.66
0.55*
0.76*
0.93"
0.07"
0.93
0.93
...
0.42"
-0.07"
-0. 17"
0.42"
0. 59
0.43"
0. 10"
0.53
0.29*
-0.26*
0. 35*
0. 47
0. 51
0. 44
0. 41
NO
X
0.94
0.35"
0.89
0.82
0.49
0.74*
0.91
0.84
0.32*
0.04*
0. 19"
0.17*
0.61*
0.74*
0.31*
-0.49*
0.72
...
-0.07*
0. 56"
0.81
0.00*
0.77
0.66
0.77*
0.24"
0.66*
0.24*
0.62"
0.61
0.6M
0. 55
0. 57
Log
(HC)
0.87
0.94
0.98
0.84
0.81
0. 15*
0.80
0.46"
0.68
0.92
0.67
-0. 10*
-0. 16*
0.89"
0.60*
0.76
0.77
...
0.70*
0. 53"
0.84
0.28*
0. 41 "
0.60
0.71*
0.64
0. 82
0. 18"
0. 90
0.20*
0.27 '
0. 51
0. 56
Log
(CO)
0.89
0.95
0.92
0. 52*
0.68
-0. 18*
0.85
0.05"
0.67
0.93
0.80
0.79*
0.91
1.0*
0. 56*
0.91
0.95
...
0.74
-0. 13*
-0.25*
0. 33*
0. 53
0. 42"
-0.23*
0. 33*
0. 30"
-0.22*
0. 43"
0. 53
0. 49
0. 71
0. 59
Log
(N0x)
0.93
0.46
0.87
0.80
0.67
0.66*
0.94
0. 81
0. 54"
0.02*
0. 14"
0.26*
0. 55*
0. 55*
0.04*
-0. 50*
0.68
...
0.05*
0. 50"
0.79
-0. 02
0.78
0. 78
0.67'
0. 31*
0. 56*
0. 18
-0. 17
0.60
0. 71
0. 44
0. 55
(b)
(c)
CID = cubic inch displacement
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification tost procedure--
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence
level except where indicated by an asterisk
32
-------
Table 38. Correlation Coefficient Summary for 151 to 259 CID
Manufacturer —All Three Cities
(a)
by
Short
Test
Federal
Short
Cycle
Federal
Three-
Mode
Manu-
facturer
General
Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Other
General
Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Other*
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
13
13
7
12
9
13
13
12
13
13
13
10
13
7
7
7
7
12
12
10
12
9
9
6
9
ST/FTP(b) Correlation Coefficients (c)
HC
0.93
0.92
0.80
0.88
0. 18*
0.13*
0.50*
0.79
0.82
0.79
0.79
0.21*
0.73
0.70*
0.71*
0.89
0.87
0.03*
0.35*
0.65
0.27*
0. 13"'
0.07*
0.68"
0.02*
CO
0.98
0.93
0.94
0.89
0.90
-0.40*
0.87
0.60
0.58
0.91
0.91
0.55*
0.88
0.09*
0. 18*
0.89
0.85
0.60
0.15*
0.86
0.89
0.08*
0.86
0.93
0.92
NO
X
0.90
k
0.44*
0.95
0.92
0.90
0.05*
0. 81
-0. 12*
-0.09*
0.67
0.70
-0.08*
-0.35*
0.74*
0.94
0.09*
0. 18*
0.69
0. 49'"
0.32*
0.26*
0.72
0.78
0.85
0.78
Log
(HC.)
0.90
0.84
0.71
0.90
0.67
-O.Ol"'
0.57
0.84
0.68
0.37*
0. 46*
0.31*
0.42*
0. 54*
0. 53*
0.85
0.78
0.13*
0.40"°
0.61*
0.29*
0.26'"
0.24*
0.46*
0. 17*
Log
(CO)
0.94
0.89
0.73
0.84
0.91
-0.48*
0.38*
0.80
0.41""
0.36*
0.41*
0.73
0.61
0. 18*
0.25*
0. 49""
0.44*
0.38*
0. 10*
0.67
0.81*
0.50*
0.85
0.93
0.89
Log
(N0x)
0.94
0. 57
0.92
0.95
0.87
0.03*
0.77
0. 22*
0.23*
0.67
0.71*
-0.09*
-0.32*
0. 54*
0.90*
0.25*
0.38*
0.43*
0.56*
0.46*
o. 29"
0. 58*
0. 54*
0.72*
0.68
(b)
(c),
CID = cubic inch displacement
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence
level except where indicated by an asterisk
"Other" category includes one Datsun and one Porsche
33
-------
Table 39. Correlation Coefficient Summary for 260 CID*a' and
Greater by Manufacturer —All Three Cities
Short
Test
Federal
Short
Cycle
Federal
Three-
Mode
Manu-
facturer
General
Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Gene ral
Motors
Ford
Chrysler
Ame rican
Motors
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
74
42
29
6
74
74
74
74
42
42
42
42
29
29
29
29
6
6
6
6
ST/FTP(b) Correlation Coefficients (c)
HC
0.91
0.95
0.80
0.86
0.37
0.71
0. 59
0.51
0.20*
0.40
0.64
0.37
0.46
0.58
0.59
0. 54
0. if"
-0.02*
0. 36""
0.42"
CO
0.88
0.97
0.94
0.54*
0.40
0.63
0.79
0.84
0. 38
0.67
0.84
0.85
0.55
0.64
0.74
0.72
0. 30"
0. 43'"
0.36*
0.36*
NO
X
0.92
0.88
0.78
0.95
0. 56
0.68
0. 37
0.42
0.65
0.73
-0. 19*
o.of'
0.62
0. 52
-0. 16'"
0.06"
0.93
:'(
0. 33
0.82
0.66*
Log
(HC)
0.90
0.88
0.71
0.89
0.37
0. 52
0.80
0.75
0.17*
0. 35
0. 59
0. 50
0.26*
0. 34*
0. 40
0.41
0.07"
-0. 10*
0.33*
0 . 4 1 "
Log
(CO)
0.87
0. 82
0.91
0. 38*
0.42
0. 57
0,83
0. 80
0. 38
0.60
0.74
0.76
*
0. 11
0. 20*
0.72
0.67
0.60"
0.69*
0.68*
0.68*
Log
(N0x)
0.90
0. 87
0.73
0.96
0. 59
0. 70
0.40
0.43
0.66
0.64
0.03*
*
0. 11
0. 53
0.64
0.05*
0.20*
0.96
0.33*
0.73*
0.62*
(a)
(b)
(O
CID - cubic inch displacement
ST/FTP - short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level
except where indicated by an asterisk
34
-------
Table 40a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Engine Displacement — Chicago
CID(a)
150 and
Less :
151 to
259
260 and
Greater
No. of
Vehicles
32
19
49
FTp(b) Emissions (gm/mi)
HC
Mean
1.346
1.071
1.324
(r )
SDIC'
0.469
0.421
1.098
CO
Mean
17.089
-:
19. 333
25.557
SD
7.928
12.558
21.794
NO
X
Mean
2.241
2.294
2.494
SD
0.883
0.698
0.969
(a)
(b)
(c)
CID = cubic inch displacement
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 40b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
X
Log1Q (HC)
Log10 (CO)
Log1Q (N0x)
Equality of Means
F- Value (a)
0. 764
2.664
0.868
1.745
0.692
0. 845
Level of
Significance
0.469
0.075
0.423
0. 180
0.503
0.433
-Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
34.475
32.790
2.537
13.481
10.203
1.867
Approximate Level
of Significance
0.0
0.0
0.287
0.001
0.007
0.399
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 2, 97
35
-------
OO
Table 41. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Engine Displacement— Chicago
Short
Test
Federal
Short
Cycle
Federal
Three-
Mode
CID(a)
Group
150 or
less
151 to
259
260 or
more
150 or
less
151 to
259
260 or
more
Test Mode
High speed • •
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
32
19
49
32
32
32
11
19
19
19
18
49
49
49
49
ST/FTP^b) Correlation Coefficients (c)
HC
0.84
0.82
0.91
0.43
0.59
0.31*
0.55*
0.25*
0.36*
0.64
0.71
0.06*
0.43
0.55
0.61
CO
0.77
0.86
0.84
0.51
0.44
0.58
0.52*
0.32*
0.67
0.74
0.71
0.35
0.52
0.76
0.80
NO
X
0.90
0.79
0.76
0.41
0.45
0.12*
-0.03*
0.31*
0.66
0.02*
0.20*
0.57
0.33
0.09*
-0.01*
Log
(HC)
0.75
0.81
0.84
0.40
0.59 .
0.45
0.44*
0.22*
0. 19*
0.55 '
0.64
0.32
0.46
0.50
0.55
Log
(CO)
0. 73
0.90
.0.83
0.24*
0.17*
0.51
:0.27*
0.31*
0.43*
0,62
.0.70
0.44
0.52
0.69
0.73
Log
(N0x)
.0.92
0.81
0.81
0*49
•0.56
J0.29*
-0.04*
0.38*
0.65
:o.n*
;0.28*
0.62
0.39
0.35
0.29
(a)
(b)
(c)
CID = cubic inch displacement
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level
except where indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 42a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Inertia Test Weight— Chicago
Inertia Test
Weight Group
db)
2500 and Less
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
Greater than
4500
No. of
Vehicles
15
43
30
12
(a)
FTPV 'Emission
(gm/mi)
HC
Mean
1.35
1. 11
1.49
1. 31
Ch\
SD(b)
0.463
0. 527
1.270
0.653
CO
Mean
15. 1
17.4
27.9
29.4
SD
7. 11
12. 3
27.9
20.2
NO
X
Mean
2.11
2.44
2.46
2.26
SD
0.786
0.914
0.943
0.865
(a)
(b)
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 42b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
X
Log1()(HC)
Log1()(CO)
Log10(NOx)
Equality of Means
F-Value^
1.33
4. 13
0.67
1. 11
4.55
0.69
Level of
Significance
0.269
0.008
0. 572
0. 349
0.005
0. 558
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
35. 1
25.2
0.657
5.56
3. 30
0. 346
App roximate
Level of
Significance
0.0
0.0
0.887
0. 142
0. 358
0.953
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 3, 96
37
-------
Table 43. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Inertia Test Weight Group - Chicago
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Inertia Test
Weight Group
(lb)
0 to 2500
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
Test Mode
4501 and more
0 to 2500
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
450 1 and mor
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
5 High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
15
43
30
12
15
15
15
4
43
43
43
32
30
30
30
30
12
12
12
12
ST/FTP(a) . .
Correlation Coefficient
HC
0.80
0.87
0.93
0.77
0.27*
0.51
0. 14*
-0.77*
0.46
0. 52
0.61
0.79
0.01*
0.38
0. 54
0.59
0.62
0 . 54*
0. 19*
0.43*
co
0.64
0.83
0.88
0.67
0. 17*
0. 32*
0.45*
0.28*
0. 34
0.55
0.63
0.66
0. 28*
0.66
0.82
0.83
0.47*
0.42*
0. 50*
0.64
NO
X
0.91
0.78
0.77
0.90
0.26*
0.40*
-0.01*
-0.46*
0. 50
0.40
0.05*
0.33*
0.61
0.40
-0. 17*
-0.22
0.58
0. 50*
0.60
0. 56*
Log(HC)
0. 70
0.83
0.88
0.67
0. 13*
0.48*
0.22*
-0. 69*
0.41
0.44
0.66
0.75
0.26*
0.46*
0.46
0.49
0.67'
0. 56*
0. 33*
0. 54*
Log(CO)
0.71
0.84
0.81
0.78
0..08*
0 . 0 3*
0. 39*
-0.09*
0;4'1
0.48
0.77
0.83
0. 20*
0. 38
0.66
0.65
0.55*
0.58
0.53*
0.65
Log(NOx)
0.94
0.84
0.77
0.95
0. 37*
0. 53
0.22*
-0. 38*
0.56
0.49
0. 26*
0. 33*
0.61
0.46
0.01*
-0. 07*
0.65
0.49*
0.79
0.76
OJ
00
(a)
(b)
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level except where
indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 44a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Emission Control System Type — Chicago
Catalyst
Yes
Yes
No
No
Secondary
Air
Injection
Yes
No
Yes
No
No of
Vehicles
30
44
17
9
/a\
FTPV ' Emission
(gm/mi)
HC
Mean
1. 139
1.293
1.364
1.563
SD
1.005
0.875
0.475
0.455
CO
Mean
19.995
25.528
14.749
21.408
SD
16.407
20.473
7.024
10.773
NO
X
Mean
2.612
2.229
2.450
2. 158
SD
1.074
0.778
0.964
0.489
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 44b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
Log1Q (HC)
Log1Q (CO)
Log.- (NO )
lu x
Equality of Means
— (a>
0.686
1.805
1.320
2.404
1.639
0.775
Level of
Significance
0. 563
0. 151
0.272
0.072
0. 185
0. 511
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
13.783
20.971
7.994
8.931
4. 109
3.943
App r oximate
Level of
Significance
0.004
0.0
0.051
0.034
0.261
0.279
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 3, 96
39
-------
Table 45. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Emission Control System Type — Chicago
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Catalyst/Air(a)
Yes/Yes
Yes /No
No /Yes
No/No
Yes/Yes
Yes /No
No /Yes
No /No
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
30
44
17
9
30
30
30
27
44
44
44
42
17
17
17
5
9
9
9
4
ST/FTP(b) ,.
Correlation Coefficients
HC
0.91
0.86
0.91
0.81
0.30*
0. 14*
0.23*
0.47
0.03*
0.52
0.46
0. 59
0.52
0.68
0.75
0.88
-0. 10*
0. 36*
0.75
0.88*
co
0. 76
0.85
0.92
0.82
0.49*
0. 51
0.64
0. 58
0. 32
0. 56
0.48
0.60
0.48*
0.72
0. 54
0. 38*
0. 36*
-0.07*
0.85
0.82*
NO
X
0.80
0.77
0.94
0.70
0.60
0.69
-0.05*
-0. 11*
0.44
0. 36
0. 10*
0.20*
0. 56
0.69
0. 18*
0.25*
0.04*
0.68
-0.04*
-0. 74*
Log(HC)
0.85
0.82
0.77
0.86
0. 36
0. 34*
0.24*
0.21*
0.20*
0.41
0. 55
0.66
0.43
0.65
0.65
0.84*
-0.03*
0.47*
0.79
0.75*
Log(CO)
0.81
0.86
0.94
0.84
0.70
0.61
0.80
0.87
0. 31
0.47
0. 51
0. 56
0. 32*
0 . 44*
0.53
-0. 13*
0.23*
-0.05*
0.90
0.96
Log(NOx)
0.83
0.86
0.93
0. 74
0.64
0.61
0. 16*
-0.04*
0. 50
0.48
0. 38
0.42
0.70
0.73
0.43*
0. 50*
0.01*
0.60*
0. 14*
-0.68*
(a)
(b)
(c)
Secondary air injection system
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level except where
indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 56a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Fuel System Type — Chicago
Fuel Injection
Yes
No
No. of
Vehicles
10
90
FTp(a) Emission
(gm/mi)
HC
Mean
1.588
1.249
SD
0.448
0. 862
CO
Mean
15. 506
22. 349
SD-
7.991
17.770
NOX
Mean
2. 378
2. 375
SD
0.600
0.925
(a)
(b)
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 46b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
X
Log (HC)
Log1Q (CO)
Log1() (N0x)
Equality of Means
F-Value(a)
1.492
1.440
0.0
4. 340
0.900
0. 163
Level of
Significance
0.225
0.233
. 0.991
0 . 040
0. 345
0.687
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
4.967
6.930
2.433
6.518
1.627
3.785
Approximate
Level of
Significance
0.029
0.010
0. 126
0.012
0.211
0.056
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 1, 98
41
-------
Table 47. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Fuel System Type — Chicago
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Fuel
Injection
Yes
No
Yes
No
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Los speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
10
90
10
10
10
4
90
90
90
74
ST/FTP(a) .
Correlation Coefficients
HC
0.79
0.88
-0.07*
0.03*
0.91
0.95*
0. 11*
0.39
0.40
0.51
CO
0.82
0.82
0.01*
0. 31*
0.83
0.90*
0. 32
0. 53
0.54
0. 53
NO
X
0.75
0.81
0.52*
0. 15*
-0.64
-0.99
0.44
0.40
0.05*
0.02*
Log(HC)
0.81
0.80
0.08*
0. 17*
0.86
0.81*
0.30
0.43
0.48
0. 52
Log(CO)
0.81
0.81
0.05*
0.20*
0.76
0.64*
0. 38
0.43
0.59
0.67
Log(NOx)
0.67
0.86
0. 36*
0. 10*
-0.73
-0.96
0.52
0.49
0.29
0.23
ro
(a)
(b)
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level except where
indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 48a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Transmission Type — Chicago
Transmission
Type
Automatic
Manual
No. of
Vehicles
78
22
FTp(a) Emission
(gm/mi)
HC
Mean
1.280
1.294
SD
0.919
0.430
CO
Mean
23.547
14.992
SD
18.689
6.732
NOX
Mean
2.408
2.258
SD
0.920
0.812
(a)
(b)
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 48b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
Log1Q (HC)
Log1Q (CO)
Log1() (N0x)
Equality of Means
F-Value(a)
0.005
4.420
0.481
1. 197
2. 561
0.474
Level of
Significance
0.946
0.038
0.490
0.277
0. 113
0.493
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
13.933
22.660
0.486
8.333
7.601
0.158
Approximate
Level of
Significance
0.0
0.0
0.489
0.004
0.006
0.693
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 1, 98
43
-------
Table 49- Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Transmission Type — Chicago
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Transmission
Type
Automatic
Manual
Automatic
Manual
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
78
22
78
78
78
78
22
22
22
ST/FTP(a) „.
Correlation Coefficients
HC
0.89
0.82
0.09*
0.35
0.50
0.52
0. 57
0.73
0.31
CO
0.82
0.84
0. 30
0.53
0. 55
0.50
0.61
0.69
0.48
NO
X
0.80
0.89
0.47
0. 38
0.01*
0.01*
0.57
0. 54
0. 18*
Log(HC)
0.83
0.70
0. 31
0.41
0.48
0. 54
0.43
0. 74
0.56
Log(CO)
0.82
0.85
0. 37
0.46
0.61
0.63
0. 39*
0. 34*
.0.54
Log(NOx)
0.84
0.90
0.49
0.42
0. 18*
0.22*
0.75
0.74
0.59
(a)
(b)
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients, are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level except where
indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 50a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Manufacturer — Chicago
Manu-
facturer
General
Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Others
No. of
Vehicles
33
20
12
6
29
FTp(a) Emission (gm/mi)
HC
Mean
1.319
1.230
1.091
1.053
1.406
SD
0.980
1. 148
0.621
0. 524
0.472
CO
Mean
26.071
19.618
25.013
19.017
17.224
SD
22.743
12.710
19.604
13.519
10. 115
NO
X
Mean
2.249
2.707
2.243
2.497
2.319
SD
0.967
0.958
0.631
0.592
0.902
(a)
(b)
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 50b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
X
Log.Q (HC)
.Log1() (CO)
Log10(NOx)
Equality of Means
F - Value ^
0.455
1.266
0.973
1.377
0.488
1. 125
Level of
Significance
0.768
0.289
0.426
0.248
0.744
0.349
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
22.706
21.250
4.059
10. 189
9.744
5.762
Approximate Level
of Significance
0.0
0.0
0.416
0.043
0.051
0.233
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 4, 95
45
-------
Table 51. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Manufacturer — Chicago
Short
Test
Federal
Sho rt •
Cycle-
Federal
Three- .
Mode
Manu-
facturer
General
Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Others
General
Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Others
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
33
20
12
6
29
33
33
33
31
20
20
20
19
12
12
12
12
6
6
6
6
29
29
29
10
ST/FTP(a) Correlation Coefficients^'
HC
0.91
0.96
0.74
0.94
0.80
*
0.04
0.58
0.51
0.61
0.38*
0.02*
0.38'"
0.61
;•.
-0.29""
-0.37'"
•f
0.33
,..
0. 30""
0. 50*
0. 54*
0.90
0.92
•''
0. 34
0. 57
0. 40
0.70
CO
0.88
0.75
0.88
0.93
0.86
' *
0. 34
0.60
0.57
0.71
0.52
0.80
0.70
0.84
&
0.35
-0. 10'
0. 39"
jj^
0.47
0.64*
o:63*
0.89
0.84
sis
0. 19
0.77
0. 56
0. 33"
NO
X
0.95
0.84
*
0.43
0.96
0. 89
0.51
0.50
A
0. 13
0.37
0.64
0.75
A
-0.38
-0.15*
*
0.23
*
0. 54
-0.31""
*
-0.43
0.96
0.06*
-0.38*
0.26*
0.42
0.61
0. 12*
0.08*
Log
(HC)
0.89
0.87
0.66
0.97
0.78
*
0.30
0.52
0.65
0.73
0.35*
-0. 10*
*
0.43
0. 55
...
0. 16""
0. 10
-0.04'"
,t»
-0.04""
0. 54*
0.51*
0.90
0.92
.,
0.32'"
0.58
0.47
0. 43!"
Log
(CO)
0.88
0.82
0.83
0.97
0. 85 .
0.48
0.62
0.69
0.77
0.45
0.60
0.62
0.77
-i
0. 36"
*
0.04
0. 34'"
0,
0.33""
0.68*
0.71*
0. 88
0.74*
..-
0. 19'"
0.43
0.59
0.21*
Log
(NO )
0.95
0.86
...
0.41'"
0,96
0.91
0. 53
0. 57
0.43
0. 53
0.69
0.65
-0.42""
*
-0. 17
A
0.41
0.61
-0.26'"
0-
-0. 39'"
0.95
-0. 16*
-0. 37*
0.23*
0. 51
0.65
0. 31*
0.09*
(a)
(b)
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent program confidence
level except where indicated by an asterisk
46
-------
Table 52a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Engine Displacement — Houston
CID(a)
1 50 and,
Less
151 to
259
260 and
Greater
No. of
Vehicles
33
16
51
FTp(b) Emission (gm/mi)
HC
Mean
1.518
1.227
1.640
(c)
SD(C)
0.903
0. 842
1.659
CO
Mean
18.930
22.014
34.959
SD
13.750
26.480
41.052
NO
X
Mean
2.044
2.469
2.700
SD
0.941
0.754
1. 129
(a)
(b)
(c)
CID = cubic inch displacement
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 52b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
X
Log (HC)
Log1Q (CO)
Log,- (NO )
1U X
Equality of Means
F- Value (a)
0.580
2.761
4. 154
0.549
0.264
5.380
Level of
Significance
0.562
0.068
0.019
0.579
0.768
0.006
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
17.919
36.282
3.762
1.577
13.801
5.741
Approximate Level
of Significance
0.0
0.0
0. 158
0.461
0.001
0.060
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 2, 97
47
-------
Table 53. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Engine Displacement — Houston
Short
Test
Federal
Short
Cycle
Federal
Three -
Mode
CID(a)
Group
150 or
less
151 to
259
260 or
more
150 or
less
151 to
259
260 or
more
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
33
16
51
33
33
33
11
16
16
16
13
51
51
51
51
ST/FTP*b) Correlation Coefficients (c)
HC
0.90
0.94
0.94
•Jf
0.29"
0, 53
0.61
0.92
-0. 14*
0.86
0.82
0.90
0.75
0.83
0.40
0.57
CO
0.82
0.96
0.98
0.33*
0.38
0.79
0.45*
-0.31*
0.95
0.68
0.75
0.65
0. 59
0.84
0.76
NO
X
0.78
0. 56
0.79
0.61
0.66
0.42
0.85
0.32*
0.56
*
0.34
0.57
0. 54
0.31
0.35
0.31
Log
(HC)
0.86
0.83
0.90
0.46
0.56
0.63
0. 76
;|c
-0. 11
0.66
0. 58
0.79
0.46
0. 58
0.70
0.77
Log
(CO)
0.77
0.78
0.92
0.03*
0.37
0. 40
0.48*
-0.61
0.11*
0.33
0.66
0.48
0.48
0.86
0. 85
Log
(N0x)
0.88
0.65
0.73
0.76
0.79
0.45
0.85
0. 19*
0.65
0.47*
0.64
0.59
0.39
0.34
0.34
oo
(a),
(b)
(c)
CID = cubic inch displacement
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level
except where indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 54a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Inertia Test Weight —Houston
Inertia
Test
Weight
Group
2500 and
less
2501 to
3500
3501 to
4500
Greater
than 4500
No. of
Vehicles
19
38
33
10
FTp(a) Emission (grn/mi)
HC
Mean
1.437
1. 531
1.385
2.219
(b)
SD1D'
0.777
1. 330
1. 523
1. 500
CO
Mean
17. 143
25.795
26.318
58. 541
SD
12.383
32.411
29.035
53.905
NO
X
Mean
1.818
2.477
2.822
2.286
SD
0.785
1. 149
1.010
0.680
(a)
(b)
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 54b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
X
Log1() (HC)
Log1() (CO)
Log1() (N0x)
Equality of Means
F-Value(a)
1.051
3.995
4. 120
1.582
1.849
5.490
Level of
Significance
0.374
0.010
0.009
0.199
0. 143
0.002
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
9.076
26.544
5.481
2.303
8.080
7. 163
Approximate Level
of Significance
0.031
0.0
0. 148
0.522
0.048
0.072
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 3, 96
49
-------
Table 55. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Inertia Test Weight Group —Houston
Short
Test
Federal
Short
Cycle
Federal
rT>L.
Mode
Inertia
Test
Weight
Group
0 to 2500
2501 to
3500
3501 to
4500
4501 or
more
0 to 2500
2501 to
3500
3501 to
4500
4501 or
more
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
19
38
33
10
19
19
19
3
38
38
38
29
33
33
33
33
10
10
10
10
ST/FTP(a) Correlation Coefficients (b)
HC
0.94
0. 88
0.94
0.93
0.47
0.81
0.82
1.00
0.66
0.75
0. 52
0.70
0.87
0.85
0.25*
0.43
0.49*
0.66
0.62*
0.75
CO
0.87
0.95
0.98
0.98
0.58
0.57
0.67
-0.90*
0.70
0.64
0.68
0.62
0.42
0.44
0.93
0.91
0.69
0.55*
0.85
0.85
NO
X
0.89
0.73
0. 81
0. 53*
0.65
j.
0.44'"
0.54
0.99*
0.57
0.68
0. 31*
0. 33*
0.45
.1.
0. 12'"
0.41
0. 37
0.21*
0. 14*
0.33*
0.27*
Log
(HC)
0.82
0.89
0. 88
0.90
0.57
0.72
0.76
1.00
0.32*
0.56
0.60
0.77
0.52
0. 57
0.65
0. 76
0.42""
0.61*
0.79
0.82
Log
(CO)
0.70
0.85
0.90
0.96
0.45*
.'.
0.33""
0.26*
-0.91*
0.04*
0.45
0.63
0.82
0.35
0. 35
0.82
0. 81
0.49*
0.41*
0.90
0.91
Log
(N0x)
0.92
0.72
0.80
0.57*
0. 84
0.79
0. 52
1.00
0.47
0.69
0. 50
0. 56
0.54
-I*
0.31""
0.39
0. 35
0.45*
0.32*
0. 19*
0. 12*
(b)
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence le\
except where indicated by an asterisk
el
50
-------
Table 56a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Emission Control System Type — Houston
Catalyst
Yes
Yes
No
No
Secondary
Air
Injection
Yes
No
Yes
No
No. of
Vehicles
^ 27
41
22
10
FTp(a) Emission (gm/mi)
HC
Mean
1. 185
1.800
1.383
1.713
SD
-------
Table 57. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Emission Control System Type —Houston
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Catalyst/
Air(a)
Yes/Yes
Yes/No
-No/Yes
No/No
Yes/Yes
Yes/No
No/Yes
No /No
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
27
41
22
10
27
27
27
24
41
41
41
38
22
22
22
9
10
10
10
4
ST/FTP(b) Correlation Coefficients^
HC
0.97
0. 91
0. 94
0.98
0. 94
0. 94
0. 14*
-0.40*
0. 56
0.76
0. 59
0.68
0.33*
0.32*
0. 40*
0.92
0. 55*
0.86
0.80
0. 70*
CO
0. 90
0. 98
0. 87
0.91
0. 41
0. 57
0.79
0.82
0. 64
0.63
0.75
0.69
0. 56
0. 64
0.64
0.76
0.93
-0. 01*
0.90
0. 56*
NO
X
0. 84
0.70
0.75
0.94
0. 78
0. 64
0. 09*
0. 17*
0. 27*
0.36
0. 52
0. 54
0. 61
0.74
0. 62
0. 84
-0.09*
0. 11*
0. 62*
0. 43*
Log
(HC)
0.80
0.93
0.83
0.98
0.48
0. 55
0.35*
0.48
0.46
0. 64
0.79
0.83
0.52
0.52
0. 50
0.78
0.49*
0.74
0. 69
0. 63*
Log
(CO)
0.87 .
0.90
0.90
0.72
0. 52
0.56
0.62
0.76
0.49
0. 55
0.76
0..81
0. 50
0.43
0. 51
0.78
0. 68
0. 25*
0.75
0.41*
Log
(NOX)
0. 89
0..66
0. 84
0.91
0. 81
0. 67
0. 10*:
0.48
0. 35
0. 55
0.37
0/44
0.66
0.80
0.75
0.76
-0. 19*
-0.02*
0. 53*
0. 27*.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Secondary air injection system
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level
except where indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 58a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Fuel System Type — Houston
Fuel
System Type
Fuel injection
Carburetion
No. of
Vehicles
10...
90
FTp(a) Emissions (gm/mi)
HC
Mean SD(b)
1.652 0.937
1.520 1.375
CO
Mean
20. 900
28.343
SD
14. 022
34. 236
NOX
Mean SD
2.032 0.489
2.493 1.09
(a)
(b)
FTP = federal emissions certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 58b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
X
Log1Q (HC)
Log.Q (CO)
L°g10 (N°x}
Equality of Means
F-Value(a)
0. 087
0.461
1.744
0.840
0. 026
0. 727
Level of
Significance
0.769
0.499
0. 190
0. 362
0. 872
0.369
Homogeneity
of Variance
Bartlett
Test
1.961
8. 275
6.916
0. 800
2. 568
4.641
Approximate
Level of
Significance
0. 169
0. 005
0. 010
0.380
0. 116
0. 034
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 1, 98
53
-------
Table 59. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Fuel System Type — Houston
Short
Test
Federal
Short
Cycle
Federal
Three -
Mode
Fuel
System
Type
Fuel
injection
Carburetion
Fuel
injection
Carburetion
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in
neutral
Idle in
drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in
neutral
Idle in
drive
No. of
Vehicles
10
90
10
10
10
3
90
90
90
72
ST/FTP(a) Correlation Coefficients (t>)
HC
0.97
0.91
0.51*
0.82
0.86
0.99*
0.67
0.77
0.45
0.60
CO
0.76
0.97
0.77
0.0*
0.77
0.47*
0.45
0.61
0.81
0.76
NO
X
0.53*
0.78
0.48*
-0.08*
0. 14*
0.57*
0.46
0.44
0.35
0. 36
Log
(HC)
0.95
0.88
0.64
0.72
0.83
*
1.00
0.39
0.57
0.65
0.76
Log
(CO)
0.92
0. 87
0.77
0.32*
0. 82
5JC
0.58
0. 19*
0.36
0.68
0. 80
Log
(N0x)
0.40*
0.82
0. 35*
0.02*
0.08*
0.48*
0. 54
0.61
0. 34
0. 46
(a)
(b)
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation Coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level
except where indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 60a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Transmission Type —Houston
Trans-
mission
Type
Automatic
Manual
No. of
Vehicles
75
25
FTp(a) Emission (gm/mi)
HC
Mean SD(b)
1.514 1.477
1.591 0.786
CO
Mean
30.718
18.239
SD
36.511
14.461
NO
X
Mean SD
2.607 1.094
1.965 0.735
(a)
(b)
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 60b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
X
Log1Q (HC)
Log1Q (CO)
Log,n (NO )
1 v X
Equality of Means
F- Value (a)
0.061
2.760
7.457
1.872
0.547
6.764
Level of
Significance
0.805
0., 100
0.008
0. 174
0.461
0.011
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
11.357
21.790
4.934
3.070
7.249
0. 143
Approximate Level
of Significance
0.001
0.0
0.028
0.082
0.008
0.707
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 1, 98
55
-------
Table 61. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Transmission Type — Houston
Short
Test
Federal
Short
Cycle
Federal
Three-
Mode
Trans-
mission
Type
Automatic
Manual
Automatic
Manual
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in
neutral
Idle in
drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in
neutral
Idle in
drive
No. of
Vehicles
75
25
75
75
75
75
25
25
25
__
ST/FTP*a) Correlation Coefficients (b)
HC
0.91
0.93
0.69
0.79
0.44
0.60
0.40
0.72
0.73
__
CO
0.97
0.91
0.47
0.60
0. 84
0.76
*
0.24
0.31*
0.80
._
NO
X
0. 78
0.72
0.55
0.45
0.34
0.36
0.49
0.46
0.48
__
Log
(HC)
0.89
0.86
0.39
0.55
0.67
0.76
0. 51
0.68
0.65
__
Log
(CO)
0.89
0.72
0.31
0.40
0.75
0.79
*(*
-0. 17
0. 34*
0. 55
__
Log
(N0x)
0.80
0. 82
0.60
0.62
0. 31
0.46
0. 52
0.63
0. 58
__
(Jl
(a)
(b)
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level
except where indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 62a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Manufacturer — Houston
Manu-
facturer
General
Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Others
No. of
Vehicles
33
21
12
6
28
FTp(a) Emission (gm/mi)
HC
Mean
1.581
1.227
2.325
1. 142
1.453
SD
1.616
1.037
1.790
0.737
0.916
CO
Mean
26.897
23. 531
70. 437
10.377
16.806
SD
29.390
34.954
46.412
5.661
10.936
NO
X
Mean
2.530
3.004
2. 136
2.852
1.976
SD
0.980
1.278
0.583
0.613
0.964
(a)
(b)
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 62b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
X
Log,Q (HC)
Log1Q (CO)
Log,-. (NO )
1 U x
Equality of Means
F- Value (a)
1.529
8.228
3.809
1.767
5.984
4.330
Level of
Significance
0.200
0.0
0.007
0. 142
0.0
0.003
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Te.st
15.656
49.453
9.348
3. 128
13.365
10.286
Approximate Level
of Significance
0.004
0.0
0.060
0.553
0.012
0.041
Degrees of freedom are 4, 95
57
-------
Table 63. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Manufacturer — Houston
Short
Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three -Mode
Manufacturer
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors
Others
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors
Others
Test
Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
33
21
12
6
28
33
33
33
30
21
21
21
19
12
12
12
12
6
6
6
5
28
28
28
9
ST/FTP(a) (b)
Correlation Coefficients
HC
0.94
0.93
0.92
0.98
0.91
0.85
0.88
0.42
0.48
0.02*
0.72
0.39*
0.68
0.66
0.79
0.62
0.69
-0.68*
0.77*
0.82
0.86*
0.33*
0.54
0.59
0.92
CO
0.97
'0.98
0.98
0.90
0.79
0.52
0.81
0.78
0.73
0.70
0.88
0.85
0.85
0.73
0.75
0.78
0.78
0.82
0.79*
0.77*
0.69*
0.58
0.32*
0.60
0.09*
NOX
0.90
0.66
0.57*
0.97
0.90
0.20*
0.51
0.50
0.51
0.66
0.69
0. 12*
-0.08*
0.34*
0.53*
0.58
0.59
0.55*
0.06*
0. 18*
0.41*
0.71
0.73
0.48
0.92
Log (HC)
0.92
0.88
0.95
0.97
0.84
0.52
0.69
0.75
0.81
0.02*
0.43*
0.50
0. 56
0.64
0.70
0.79
0.75
-0.70*
0.61*
0.87
0.89
0.50
0.58
0.58
0.77
Log (CO)
0.90
0.92
0.95
0.96
0.73
0.30*
0.55
0.79
0.84
0.20
0.34
0.62
0.67
0.39*
0.61
0.73
0.86
0.94
0.94
0.93
0.91
0.48
0.37*
0.21*
0. 16*
Log (NOX)
0.86
0.62
0.59
0.96
0.91
0.31*
0.58
0.52
0.56
0.68
0.57
0. 19*
0.13*
0.34*
0.75
0.58
0.55*
0.27*
0.27*
0.23*
0.48*
0.81
0.80
0.52
0.90
(J\
oo
(a)
(b)
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation Coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level except where
indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 64a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Engine Displacement — Phoenix
CID(a) Group
1 50 and Less
151 to 259
260 and
Greater
No. of
Vehicles
30
19
51
FTp( ) Emission
(gm/mi)
HC
Mean
1.095
1.509
1.319
SD
0.641
1.482
0.802
CO
Mean
14.112
23.853
27.782
SD
10.407
18.668
25.410
NOX
Mean
1.995
2.527
2.508
SD
1.005
1.037
0.889
(a)
(b)
(c)
CID = cubic inch displacement
FTP = federal emission test certification procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 64b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HG
CO
NO
X
Log1() (HC)
Log1Q (CO)
Log1() (N0x)
Equality of Means
F- Value (a)
1.213
4. 128
3.106
1.098
3.552
5.030
Level of
Significance
0.302
0.019
0.049
0.338
0.033
0.008
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
19.320
23.415
0.897
0.522
3.645
5.804
Approximate
Level of
Significance
0.0
0.0
0.643
0.773
0.167
0.058
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 2, 97.
59
-------
Table 65. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Engine Displacement — Phoenix
Short
Test
Federal
Short
Cycle
Federal
Three -Mode
CID(a) Group
150 or less
151 to 259
260 or more
150 or less
151 to 259
260 or more
Test
Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
30
19
51
30
30
30
11
19
19
19
14
51
51
51
51
ST/FTp(b)
Correlation Coefficients
HC
0.42
0.33*
0.70
0.23*
0.29*
0.34*
0.65
0.36*
0.27*
0.13*
0.80
0.16*
0.28
0.71
0.76
CO
0.36
0.93
0.82
0.52
0.18*
0.74
0.46*
0.60
0.62
0.76
0.86
0.31
0.43
0.87
0.87
NOX 1
0.80
0.95
0.83
0.85
0.82
-0.18*
-0.21*
0.81
0.87
0.14*
-0.14*
0.75
0.49
0.22*
-0.02*
Log (HC)
0.83
0.67
0.70
0.29*
0.33*
0.38
0.56*
0.44*
0.43*
0.41*
0.76
0. 15*
0.28
0.80
0.83
Log (CO)
0.75
0.88
0.84
0.34*
0,40
0.67 .
0.83
0.21*
0,30*
0.82
0.91
0.27*
0.46
0.77 •
0.80
Log (NOX)
0.72
0.95
0.80
0.87
0.87
-0.06*
0.11*
0.77
0.80
0.22*
-0.04*
0.68
0.51
0.21*
-0.01*
(a)
(b)
(c)
CID = cubic inch displacement
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level except where
indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 66a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Inertia Test Weight — Phoenix
Inertia Test
Weight Group
(Ib)
2500 or less
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
Greater than
4500
No. of
Vehicles
16
38
35
11
FTp(a) Emission
(gm/mi)
HC
Mean
1.344
1.262
1.081
1.957
SD
1.571
0.723
0.631
0.964
CO
Mean
12.578
19.983
23.642
45.946
SD
11.013
18.245
20.792
29.192
NOX
Mean
1.701
2.544
2.392
2.557
SD
0.704
1.094
0.847
0.947
'FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
^ 'SD = standard deviation
Table 66b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
X
Log'(HC)
Log1Q (CO)
Log10(NOx)
Equality of M^eans
F- Value (a)
2.629
6.759
3.274
3.039
5.976
3.779
.Level of
Significance
0.055
0.0
0.024
0.033
0.001
0.013
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
24.023
11.845
4.677
5.758
0.679
4.388
Approximate
Level of
Significance
0.0
0.009
0.206
0.131
0.882
0.232
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 3, 96
61
-------
Table 67. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Inertia Test Weight Group — Phoenix
Short
Test
Federal
Short
Cycle
Federal
Three -Mode
Inertia Test
Weight Group
(Ib)
0 to 2500
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
4501 or more
0 to 2500
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
4501 or more
Test
Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
16
38
35
11
16
16
16
3
38
38
38
27
35
35
35
35
11
11
11
11
ST/FTP(a) (b) ;
Correlation Coefficients '
HC
0.21*
0.52
0.86
0.28*
0. 15*
0.13*
0. 15*
0.99*
0.56
0.64
0.49
0.71
0.29*
0.29*
0.82
0.82
-0.03*
0.08*
0.38*
0.52*
CO
0.57
0.71
0.83
0.68
0.68
0.17*
0.80
0.55*
0.56
0.70
0.80
0.82
0.41
0.43
0.82
0.84
0.01*
0.09*
0.76
0.81
NOX
0.44*
0.91
0.86
0.80
0.85
0.89
0.02*
0.80*
0.80
0.79
0.03*
-0.25*
0.72
0.53
0.35
0.20*
0.76
0.36*
0.04*
-0.24*
Log (HC)
0.72
~0.82
0.84
0.22*
0.43*
0.41*
0.50
i.oo(c)
0.37
0.47
0.50
0.66 .
0.20*
0.25*
0.79
0.83
-0.03*
-0.16*
0 . 51 *
0.68
Log (CO)
0.74
0.81
0.87
0.70
0.66
0.49*
6.72:
0.67*
0.33.
0.49
0.75
0.84;
0.32*
0.43
0.86
0.88
-0.0*
0.25*
0.42*
0.62
Log (NOX)
0.48*
0.94
0.83
0.74
0.84
0.90
0*
0.83*
0.82
0.83
0.14*
-0.08*
0.69
0.54
0.33*
0.17*
0.66
.0.47*
0.18*
-0. 10*
(a)
(b)
(c)
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level except.where
indicated by an asterisk
Only two data points used
-------
Table 68a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Emission Control System — Phoenix
Catalyst
Yes
Yes
No
No
Secondary
Air Injection
Yes
No
Yes
No
No. of
Vehicles
32
42
20
6
FTp(a) Emission
(gm/mi)
HC
Mean
1.043
1.417
1.108
2.300
SD
0.802
0.816
0.425
2.263
CO
Mean
17.739
31.434
16.200
13.612
SD
22.571
23.288
8.267
10.871
NO
Mean
2.545
2.282
2.189
2.448
SD
0.996
0.919
1.049
1.054
(a)
(b)
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 68b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
N0x
Log1Q (HC)
Log1Q (CO)
Log1() (N0x)
Equality of Means
F- Value (a)
3.930
4.271
0.693
4.040
4.647
0.757
Level of
Significance
0.011
0.007
0.559
0.009
0.005
0.521
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
32.607
23.411
0.577
6.122
5.881
1.530
Approximate
Level of
Significance
0.0
0.0
0.906
0. 115
0.128
0.687
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 3, 96
63
-------
Table 69. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Emission Control System Type — Phoenix
Short
Test
Federal
Short
Cycle
Federal
Three -Mode
Catalyst/ Air(a)
Yes/Yes
Yes/No
No/Yes
No /No
Yes/Yes
Yes /No
No/Yes
No/No
Test
Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
32
42
20
6
32
32
32
25
42
42
42
37
20
20
20
10
6
6
6
4
ST/FTP(b) . .
( C 1
Correlation Coefficients
HC
0.92
0.62
0.51
-0.70*
0.54
0.61
0.73
0.87
0.20*
0.25*
0.63
0.66
0.36*
0.34*
0. 13*
0.55*
-0.29*
-0. 56*
-0.92
0.54*
CO
0.93
0.75
0.22*
0.83
0.47
0.54
0.96
0.96
0.31
0.44
0.73
0.73
0.38*
0.38*
0.45
0.57*
-0.21*
0.07*
0.58*
0.38*
NOX
0.86
0.82
0.92
0.94
0.79
0.71
0. 17*
-0.21*
0.68
0.62
-0. 13*
-0.17*
0.79
0.86
0.05*
0.41*
0.70*
0.86
0.48*
0.41*
Log (HC)
0.90
0.66
0.80
-0.71*
0.41
0.51
0.62
0.79
0.22*
0.37
0.80
0.78
0.29*
0.16*
0.03*
0. 35*
-0.16*
-0.58*
-0.93
0 . 57 *
Log (CO)
0.81
0.84
0.62
0.75*
0.71
0.81
0.87
0.87
0. 12*
0.34
0.71
0.74
0.48
0.39*
0.35*
0.86
-0. 17*
0.20*
0 . 62 *
0.36*
Log (NOX)
0.81
0.75
0.95
0.97
0.84
0.65
0.18*
-0.22*
0.66
0.62
-0. 13*
-0.20*
0.77
0.80
0.23*
0.57*
0.70*
0.86
0.63*
0.57*
(a)
(b)
(c)
Secondary air injection system
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level except where
indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 70a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Fuel System Type — Phoenix
Fuel
Injection
Yes
No
No. of
Vehicles
10
90
FTp(a) Emission
(gin /mi)
HC
Mean
1.527
1.262
SD(b)
1.934
0.760
CO
Mean
15.068
23.809
SD
13.934
21.932
NO
X
Mean
1.700
2.431
SD
0.703
0.975
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
* ' SD = standard deviation
Table 70b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
Log1()(HC)
Log1Q(CO)
Log10(NOx)
Equality of Means
F-Value(a)
0.731
1. 512
5. 304
0.027
2.858
5.903
Level of
Significance
0.395
0.222
0.023
0.869
0.094
0.017
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
23. 128
2.646
1.470
2.098
0. 165
0. 150
Approximate
Level of
Significance
0.0
0. 110
0.234
0. 155
0.690
0.704
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 1, 98
65
-------
Table 71. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Fuel System Type - Phoenix
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Fuel
System Type
Fuel
Injection
Carburetion
Fuel
Injection
Carburetion
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
10
90
10
10
10
4
90
90
90
72
ST/FTP(a*
Correlation Coefficients
HC
0.24*
0. 58
0.05*
0.01*
-0.05*
0. 73
0. 32
0. 36
0.62
0.71
CO
0.88
0.76
0.60*
0. 13*
0.68
-0. 18*
0. 34
0.42
0.81
0.82
NOX
0. 50*
0.86
0.83
0.75
-0. 11
0. 09*
0.72
0.64
0. 10*
-0.07*
Log (HC)
0.67
0. 75
0.28*
0. 19*
0.22*
0. 36*
0.27
0. 36
0.67
0.77
Log (CO)
0.90
0.80
0. 55*
0. 53*
0.70
0.64*
0.21
0. 38
0.75
0. 79
Log (N0x)
0. 50*
0.83
0.79
0.71
-0. 15*
0.26*
0.71
0.64
0. 14*
0.01*
(a)
(b)
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level except where
indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 72a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Transmission Type — Phoenix
Transmission
Type
Automatic
Manual
No. of
Vehicles
76
24
(a)
FTPV ' Emission
(grri/mi)
HC
Mean
1.246
1.423
SD(b)
0.725
1.409
CO
Mean
24.771
17. 118
SD
22. 564
16. 143
NOX
Mean
2. 529
1.813
SD
0.931
0.921
(a)
(b)
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 72b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
X
Log1()(HC)
Log1()(CO)
Log1()(NOx)
Equality of Means
F- Value (a)
0. 661
2. 370
10.848
0.001
2. Ill
15. 789
Level of
Significance
0.418
0. 127
0.001
0.978
0. 149
0.0
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
18. 597
3.480
0.004
2.91
0.680
2. 108
Approximate
Level of
Significance
0.0
0.064
0.948
0.091
0.413
0. 150
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 1, 98
67
-------
Table 73. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Transmission Type - Phoenix
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Transmission
Type
Automatic
Manual
Automatic
Manual
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle Vi neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
76
24
76
76
76
76
24
24
24
--
ST/FTP(a)
Correlation Coefficients
HC
0.72
0. 19*
0.24
0.29
0.65
0.71
0.29*
0.29*
0. 18*
CO
0.82
0.53
0.26
0.38
0.81
0.81
0.73
0.73
0.75
----
NO
X
0.83
0.89
0. 74
0.64
0. 13*
0.05*
0.89
0.77
-0. 12*
-- —
Log (HC)
0.76
0.67
0.25
0. 35
0.71
0. 75
0. 32*
0. 32*
0. 38*
Log (CO)
0.82
0.74
0.20*
0. 36
0.75
0.78
0.41
0. 53
0.68
Log (N0x)
0.80
0.79
0.69
0.62
0. 16*
0.03*
0.88
0.85
-0.05*
00
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level except where
indicated by an asterisk
-------
Table 74a. FTP Means and Standard Deviations by
Manufacturer — Phoenix
Manufacturer
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Others
No. of
Vehicles
33
20
12
6
29
FTp(a) Emission
(gm/mi)
HC
Mean
1.233
1.280
1.761
0.962
1.228
.SD
0. 790
0.853
0.732
0. 563
1.208
CO
Mean
25.527
24.451
41.495
9.833
13.969
SD
22.299
26.279
22.679
5. 113
9.749
NO
X
Mean
2.423
2. 502
2.678
2.945
1.929
SD
0.929
0.820
1.084
0.886
0.990
(a)
(b)
FTP = federal emission certification test procedure
SD = standard deviation
Table 74b. Associated Tests of Significance
Emission
HC
CO
NO
Log1()(HC)
Log1()(CO)
Log1()(NOx)
Equality of Means
F- Value (a)
1.019
4.918
2. 579
2.092
4.778
3.898
Level of
Significance
0.402
0.001
0.042
0.088
0.002
0.006
Homogeneity of Variance
Bartlett
Test
9.349
32.471
1. 340
6. 138
3.495
7.844
Approximate
Level of
Significance
0.060
0.0
0.862
0.204
C.496
0.108
(a)
Degrees of freedom are 4, 95
69
-------
Table 75. Correlation Coefficient Summary by
Manufacturer - Phoenix
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Manufacturer
General
Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors Company
Others
General
Motors
Ford
Chrysler
AMC
Others
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
High speed
Low speed
Idle in neutral
Idle in drive
No. of
Vehicles
33
20
12
6
29
33
33
33
31
20
20
20
17
12
12
12
12
6
6
6
5
29
29
29
11
ST/FTP(a)
Correlation Coefficients* '
HC
0.80
0.94
-0.01*
0.95
0. 17*
0.25*
0. 32*
0.75
0.83
0.60
0.64
0.78
0.85
-0.05*
-0.09*
0. 19*
0. 13*
0.69*
0.89
0.96
0.99
0. 13*
0. 13*
0.05*
0.68
CO
0.82
0.97
0.72
0.89
0. 34*
0.40
0. 59
0.77
0.77
0.41*
0.49
0.96
0.96
0. 30*
0.22*
0.66
0.72
0.45*
0.87
0.96
1.00
0.63
0. 34*
0.62
0. 32*
NO
X
0.93
0.95
0.94
0.91
0.78
0.60
0.67
-0.02*
-0.22*
0.87
0.73
-0.26*
-0.47*
0.91
0.59
0. 36*
0. 34*
0.82
0.77*
0.28*
-0. 38*
0.82
0.86
0.04*
0. 59*
Log (HC)
0.85
0.88
0.01*
0.98
0. 73
0.23*
0.42
0.84
0.84
0.44*
0. 52
0.66
0.74
0.03*
0.02*
0.38*
0. 30*
0.59*
0.95
0.96
1.00
0.26*
0.26*
0.23*
0 . 54*
Log (CO)
0.87
0.85
0.86
0.88
0.73
0.20*
0. 56
0.80
0.83
0. 58
0.67
0.79
0.80
0. 31*
0.27*
0.62
0.66
0.73*
0.90
0.98
0.97
0.61
0.55
0.61
0.79
Log (N0x)
0.90
0.91
0.90
0.95
0. 72
0.61
0.66
-0.04*
-0.28*
0.82
0.62
-0.27*
-0. 52
0.88
0.60
0.44*
0. 37*
0.88
0.80*
0.46*
-0. 33*
0.83
0.84
0.09*
0.68
(a)
(b)
ST/FTP = short test/federal emission certification test procedure
Correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level except where indicated
by an asterisk
-------
Table 76. Comparison of ST HC Results by City —
Predicted Population, Bounded Errors of Commission Method-
(E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Test Mode
^igh speed
Low speed
die in drive
die in neutral
•Jigh speed
LiOw speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
[die in drive
Idle in neutral
riigh speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
[die in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
300
100
100
100
300
100
100
100
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
4.2
4.0
6. 3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
8.4
6.9
8. 1
7. 5
1. 3
1. 3
2.2
3.2
5.8
7. 5
4. 3
3.6
Eo
13.0
12.7
11.4
13.6
26.2
24. 1
19. 8
21.0
20. 6
19.5
16.9
18.4
33.7
31.0
23.6
24. 1
24.0
21.8
18.8
20. 3
FF
18.7
15.8
25.5
15.3
5.4
7. 5
11.9
10.7
7. 5
8. 5
11. 5
10.0
3. 3
6.0
13. 3
12.8
4.9
7. 1
10. 1
8.5
STE
0. 589
0. 554
0.691
0. 530
0. 172
0.237
0. 375
0. 338
0.266
0. 303
0.405
0. 352
0.088
0. 161
0. 360
0. 348
0. 171
0.246
0. 349
0.296
(a)
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
71
-------
Table 77. Comparison of ST CO Results by City—
Predicted Population, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
"ederal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Test Mode
High speed
Lx>w speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Lo\v speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
300
100
100
100
300
100
100
100
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
4.6
4. 1
5.9
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.4
5.8
6.9
6.8
3.7
4.4
4.5
4. 5
4. 5
3.8
3.8
3.7
Eo
16.7
19.0
14.4
16.9
44.4
40.7
24.4
26.6
40.9
37.9
26. 3
28.0
48.6
43.4
24. 5
27. 5
43.6
41.2
23.4
25. 1
FF
37. 1
37.6
39. 1
35. 1
10.6
14.4
31.4
29.3
15.7
18.7
30.8
29. 1
8.2
13.7
34.4
31. 7
8. 3
10.7
28.6
26. 8
STE(a)
0.690
0.664
0.731
0.676
0. 193
0.261
0. 562
0. 524
0.277
0. 330
0. 539
0. 509
0. 145
0.239
0. 584
0. 536
0. 160
0.206
0. 551
0. 517
(a)
% FF for short test
(„, . ^ _,, .. 70 t t tor snore test
Short Test Effectiveness = fl FTP failures in same population
72
-------
Table 78. Comparison of ST NOX Results by City —
Predicted Population, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(E Set at 5 Percent)
c
Short Test
Federal '
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
[die in drive
[die in neutral
rfigh speed
Low speed
[die in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
[die in drive
[die in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
[die in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
300
100
100
100
300
100
100
100
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
4.2
4.4
6.4
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.2
3. 1
5.4
5.7
4.2
4. 5
3.8
4.9
6.8
7. 1
5.2
2.9
Eo
8.4
7. 5
10. 3
7.2
14.6
14.8
17.6
18.4
15.6
16. 1
16. 5
16.4
17.7
16.7
18.4
19.7
9.4
10.7
18.0
19.2
FF
12.8
12. 1
13. 3
13.0
6.6
6.4
3. 5
2.8
4.0
3. 5
3. 1
3. 1
5.9
6.9
5.2
3.9
10.8
9. 5
2.2
1.0
STE(a)
0.604
0.618
0. 562
0.645
0. 310
0. 301
0. 167
0. 130
0.204
0. 177
0. 159
0. 158
0.249
0.291
0. 22 1
0. 166
0. 535
0.471
0. 108
0.049
(a!
Short Test Effectiveness =
FF for short test
FTP failures in same population
73
-------
Table 79. Comparison of ST Multiple Constituent Results by City—
Actual Population, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Ec Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
(hi
Best' '
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
No. of
Vehicles
300
100
100
100
300
100
100
100
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
7.0
10.0
4.0
7.0
3. 3
6.3
6. 3
4.7
4. 3
5.0
10.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
8.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
Eo
11.7
12.0
1 1.0
12.0
42. 7
37.0
19. 3
26. 3
22.0
44.0
36.0
23.0
28.0
26.0
46.0
40.0
15.0
24.0
18.0
38.0
35.0
20.0
27.0
22.0
FF
53.7
54.0
55.0
52.0
22.7
28. 3
46.0
39.0
43. 3
22.0
30.0
43.0
38.0
40.0
20.0
26.0
51.0
42.0
48.0
26.0
29.0
44.0
37.0
42.0
STE(a)
0.821
0.818
0. 833
0. 813
0. 348
0.429
0. 704
0. 597
0. 663
0. 333
0.455
0. 652
0. 576
0.606
0. 303
0. 394
0. 773
0. 636
0. 727
0.406
0.453
0.688
0. 578
0. 656
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
(b)
% FTP failures in same population
Best mode is: HC and CO at idle in drive
NO at high speed
74
-------
Table 80. Comparison of ST HC Results by Inertia Weight —
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission" Method
(Ec Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Inertia Test
Weight Group
Ub)
All
0 to 2500
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
4501 and greater
All
0 to 2500
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
4501 and greater
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
300
50
119
98
33
300
50
119
98
33
Parameter
(percent)
. Ec
5.0
3. 5
4. 5
4. 5
8. 3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
9.5
7. 5
4.4
4.2
4. 5
5. 5
6.6
5. 5
5.6
4. 5
4.2
5.0
0.0
1. 1
2. 3
3.9
Eo
13.0
19.0
il.4
9. 3
21.1
26. 1
24. 1
19. 8
21.0
22.0
21.5
24.0
25.0
24. 6
21.3
16. 3
19.0
22. 3
22. 1
18. 5
18.7
60.6
43.8
30. 6
29.4
FF
18.7
14.4
17.6
18.7
28. 6
5.4
7. 5
11.9
10.7
11.0
12.0
9.8
8.9
4.4
7.6
12.7
10.0
5. 3
5. 5
9.5
9. 3
0.01
5.9
19. 1
20. 3
STE(a)
0. 589
0.431
0.606
0. 667
0. 575
0. 172
0.237
0. 375
0.338
0. 340
0. 357
0.293
0.265
0. 151
0.264
0.439
0. 344
0. 192
0. 200
0. 340
0. 333
0.000
0. 119
0. 385
0.408
(a)
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
75
-------
Table 81. Comparison of ST CO Results by Inertia Weight-
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Ec Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Inertia Test
Weight Group
(lb)
All
0 to 2500
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
4501 and greater
All
0 to 2500
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
4501 and greater
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
300
50
119
98
33
300
50
119
98
33
Parameter
(percent)
EC
5.0
13. 1
4.6
3. 1
2. 3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
12.6
14. Z
14.6
14. 5
4.2
3.9
5.6
5.8
2.8
3.2
2.0
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.0
6. 1
Eo '
16.7
10.7
16.5
16.0
22. 3
44.4
40.7
12.4
26.6
19.5
21.0
15.8
17.8
42.7
37. 1
19.3
22.4
48.7
45.8
27.9
30.0
63.4
59.2
40.2
12. 3
FF
... .
37. 1
26.9
32.6
40.8
53. 1
10.6
14.4
31.4
29.3
18.0
'16.7
22.0
20.0
7. 3
12.7
31.0
28.2
10.4
13.8
31.8
30. 1
14.0
18.2
41.7
65.5
STE(a>
0.690
0.715
0.663
0.718
0.705
0. 193
0.261
0. 562
0. 524
0.483
0.443
0. 583
0. 528
0. 146
0.255
0.617
0. 557
0. 175
0.231
0. 53*3
0. 500
0. 181
0. 235
0.509 .
0.838
(a)
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
Vo t' if tailures in same population
76
-------
Table 82. Comparison of ST NOX Results by Inertia "Weight —
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Er Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Th ree-Mode
Inertia Test'.
Weight Group
(lb)
All
0 to 2500
Z501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
4501 and greater
All
0 to 2500
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
4501 and greater
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idl'e in d rive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in d rive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
300
50
119
98
33
300
50
119
98
33
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
0.8
4. 5
5.9
5. 1
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
13.2
3.9
0.0
4. 3
4.2
5.4
5.9
3.4
2.6
3.9
6.2
1.4
1. 3
1.6
4.7
0.01
Eo..
8.4
4.0
9. 1
9. 5
7. 8
14.6
14.8
17.2
18.4
2.4
4.0
5. 3
5.0
16. 3
13.9
19.2
23. 5
18.7
19. 3
20.9
22.8
16.6
17.0
16.0
18.7
FF
12.8
1. 3
14. 7
14. 3
11.0
6.6
6.4
3/5
2.8
3.0
1. 3
0.0
0.4
7. 5
10.0
4. 7
1.00
5. 1
4.6
2.9
1.0
2. 1
1. 8
2.9
0:02
STE(a)
0.604
0.251
0. 618
0.602
0. 585
0. 310
0. 301
0. 167
0. 130
0. 552
0.250
0.000
0.066
0.315
0.417
0. 195
0. 157
0.214
0. 191
0. 124
0.044
0. 114
0.095
0. 152
0.000
(a)
Short Test Effectiveness =
FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
77
-------
Table 83. Comparison of ST Multiple Constituent Results by Inertia Weight
Actual Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(E_ Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Inertia Test
Weight Group
(lb)
All
0 to 2500
2501 to 3500
3501 'to 4500
4501 and greater
All
0 to 2500
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
4501 and greater
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(b>
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
High speed
Low speed
Idle in d rive
Idle in neutral
Best
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Be3t '
No. of
Vehicles
300
50
119
98
33
300
119
98
33
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
7.0
10.0
6,7
6. 1
6. 1
3. 3
6. 3
6. 3
4.7
4. 3
16.0
26.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
1. 7
3.4
7.6 ,
5.0
4.2
0.0
2.0
5. 1
2.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Eo
11.7
6.0
16.0
10.2
9. 1
42.7
37.0
19. 3
26. 3
22.0
20.0
18.0
14.0
14.0
12.0
42.0
35. 3
15.0
26.0
17.6
51.0
43.9
25. 5
33.7
30.6
54.5
51.5
24.2
24.2
27.2
FF
53.7
40.0
49.6
60.2
69.7
3. 3
28. 3
46.0
39.0
43. 3
26.0
28.0
32.0
32.0
34.0
23. 5
30.2
50.4
40.0
48.0
19.4
26. 5
44.9
36. 7
39.8
24.2
27. 3
54.6
54. 5
51.5
STE(a)
0.821
0.870
0.756
0.855
0.885
0.072
0.433
0.704
0. 597
0.663
0. 565
0.609
0.696
0.696
0.739
0. 359
0.461
0. 771
0. 606
0.732
0.276
0. 376
0.637
0. 521
0. 565
0. 307
0. 346
0. 693
0.692
0.654
(a)
(b)
Short Test Effectiveness =;
7o FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
Best mode is: HC and CO at idle in drive
at high speed
78
-------
Table 84. Comparison of ST HC Results by Displacement —
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Ec Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
CID(a) Group
All
. 0 to 1 50
151 to 259
260 and greater
All
0 to 150
151 to 259
260 and greateT
Test Mode
~"
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed '
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
300
95
54
151
300
95
54
151
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
4.6
4.6
5. 3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
7. 3
7.0
7. 1
5.7
4.9
7.9
7. 1
6.8
3.6
2-9.
3.2
4. 1
Eo
13.0
13. 5
14.4
12. 1
26. 1
24. 1
19.8
21.0
25. 3
22.0
19.6
22.7
23.6
19. 1
16.9
18. 5
28. 3
27.2
21.2
20.9
FF
18.7
18.6
12.8
20.8
5. 4
7. 5
11.9
10.7
20.0
10. 1
12.6
9.4
3.6
8.2
10. 3
8.8
4. 3
5. 5
11.7
12.0
STE(b)
0. 589
0. 579
0.471
0.632
0. 172
0.237
0. 375
0. 338
0.258
0. 315
0. 319
0.293
0. 133
0. 300
0. 380
0. 323
0. 133
0. 168
0. 356
0. 366
(a)
(b)
CID = cubic inch displacement
Short Test Effectiveness = $?
% FF for short test
-------
Table 85. Comparison of ST CO Results by Displacement —
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Ec Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
CID(a) Group
All
0 to 1 50
1 5 1 to 2 59
260 and greater
All
0 to 150
151 to 2 59
260 and greater
Test Mode
iigh speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
.d\e in neutral
-ligh speed
Low speed
[die in d rive
[die in neutral
High speed
Low speed
[die in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
300
95
54
151
300
95
54
151
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
12. 5
2. 7
2.7
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
11.0
10.4
12. 5
12. 1
3.9
3. 7
5.0
6.2
2.4
2. 5
1. 8
1.7
Eo
16.7
10.2
20. 5
18.6
44.4
40.7
12.4
26.6
31.6
27. 8
16.2
19.0
53.4
47.9
24.7
29.2
48. 5
45.4
28.8
30. 3
FF
37. 1
34. 5
35.0
38. 5
10.6
i4.4
31.4
29. 3
13. 1
17.0
28.6
25.8
5. 1
11. 1
34.8
30.2
10.2
13.4
31.1
29. 8
STE(b)
0.690
0. 773
0.631
0.674
0. 193
0.261
0. 562
0. 524
0.293
0. 379
0.639
0. 576
0.087
0. 188
0. 585
0. 508
0. 174
0.228
0. 519
0.496
(a)
(b)
CID = cubic inch displacement
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
80
-------
Table 86. Comparison of ST NOX Results by Displacement —
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Ec Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
CID(a) Group
All
0 to 150
151 to 259
260 and greater
All
0 to 150
1 5 I "to 2 59
260 and greater
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of-
Vehicles
300
95
54
151
300
95
54
151
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
3. 1
5.0
6.7
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
9.9
4.7
1.2
1.0
2.8
3. 5
10. 1
10. 3
2.8
4.6
6. 5
3. 3
Eo
8.4
7. 3
7. 5
9.9
14.6
14.8
17.2
18.4
6.5
9.2
14.6
14.0
17.0
12.6
14.4
15.4
18.8
19.7
20.7
21.9
FF
12.8
8.2
12..5
14.9
6.6
6.4
3. 5
2.8
9.0
5.0
1.0
0.2
3. 1
7.4
5.6
4. 5
6.0
5. 1
4.0
2.8
STE(b)
0.604
0. 530
0.626
0.600
0. 310
0.301
0. 167
0. 130
0. 578
0. 355
0.062
0.016
0. 154
0. 372
0.280
0.228
0.242
0.206
0. 163
0. 115
(a)
(b)
CID = cubic inch displacement
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
81
-------
Tabl 87. Comparison of ST Multiple Constituent Results by Displacement —
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(Ec Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
CID(a) Group
All
0 to 150
1 5 1 to 2 59
260 and greater
AH
0 to 150
151 to 259
260 and greater
Test Mode
iigh speed
L.OW speed
Idle in drive
die in neutral
Best
Bigh speed
Los speed
[die in drive
[die in neutral
Best
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
-------
Table 88. Comparison of ST HC Results by Emission Controls Type —
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Emission
Controls
Catalyst/Air(a)
All
Yes/Yes
Yes/No
No/Yes
No /No
All
Yes/Yes
Yes/No
No /Yes
No /No
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
300
89
127
59
25
300
89
127
59
25
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
3.2
4.5'
7.5
4.7
: 5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.7
.4.5
• 3'. 5
3.5
3.4
2.8
4.6
5.5
7. 1
8.0
5.4
' 3,5
8.8
9.3
6.8
5.3
Eo
13.0
8.6
14.7
10.7
34.0
26. 1
'24. 1
19.8
21.0
15.9
15.6
17.0
17.2
33.0
30.4
'18.3
18.6
21.2
20.3
20. 1
24.5
40. 1
32. 1
35.3
37.2
FF
18.7
11.4
. 22.3
18.9
20.4
'5.4
7.5
11.9
10.7
3.6
3. 8
3.0
2.7
3.9
6.6
18.6
18.4
8.4
9.3
9.5
5. 1
14.3
22.3
19. 1
17.2
STE(b)
0.589
0.570
0.602
0.639
0.376
0/172
0.237
0.. 375
0.338
0.183
0. 197
0. 149
0. 136
0.106
0. 179
0.504
0.498
0.285
0.315
0.321
0. 172
0.263
0.410
0.352
0.316
(a)
(b)
Secondary air injection system
Short Test Effectiveness =
FF for short test
%-FTP failures in same population
83
-------
Table 89. Comparison of ST;CO Results by Emission Controls Type —
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission' Method
(E ;Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal'
Three-Mode
Emission
Controls;
Catalyst/ Air'a)
All
Yes/Yes
Yes/No
No/Yes
No /No
All
Yes/Yes
Yes/No
No /Yes
No /No
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
idle in neutral
Hfcgh speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle In neutral
High speed
Low, speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
300
89
127
59
25
300
89
127
59
25
', Parameter
(percent)
•' Ec :
5.0;
'4.8i
2.1
17.0
8.1
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
2. 1
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.1
1.6
2.8
3.2
7.6
9.6
15.0
13.3
7.4
15.3
10.7
9.2
Eo '
16.7
14.3
20.0
7.3
15.1
44.4
40.7
12.4
26.6
31. 1
27.2
22.0
24.2
59.2
56.0
30.1
32.0
27.6
25.9
16.5
22. 1
34.3
30. 8
13.6
13.3
FF
37. 1
25.6
46.7
34. 1
33.8
10.6
14.4
31.4
29.3
10.4
14.2
20. 1
18.0
8.8
12.7
39.3
37.9
13.9
15.5
25.0
19.3
14.5
18.0
35.2
35.4
. sra^'
.0.690
. 0.642
0.700
0.823
0.691
0.193
0.261
0.562
0.524
0.250
0.344
0.478
0.425
0. 129
0. 185
0.566
0.543
6.334
0.375
0.602
0.467
0.298
0.369
0.721
0.725
(b)
Short Test Effectiveness = -a
% FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
84
-------
Table 90. Comparison of ST NOX Results by Emission Controls Type —
Predicted Population, Three'Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test.
• Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Emission
Controls
Catalyst/Air(a)
All
Yes/Yes
Yes/No
.No/Yes
No /No
All
Yes/Yes
Yes/No
No/Yes
No /No
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
300
89
127
59
25
300
89
127
59
25
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
3.8
7.2
1.4
3.9
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.9
1.3
4.7
4.2
5.4,
8. 1
8.7
6.7
6.6
3.6
0.5
0.03
12.9
•6.2
2.8
4.9
Eo
8.4
14.8
6.3
8.8
4.2
14.6
14.8
17.2
18.4
21.8
25.6
25.6
27.6
11.5
9.6
12.8
13.5
9.3
10.0
17. 1
19.6
11.3
10.5
10.4
10.7
FF
12.8
20^6
9J6
9.6
9.7
6:6
6.4
3.5
2.8
8.6
4.8
4.8
2:7
4.4
6.3
3. 1
2.4
9. 1
8.3
113
0.04
2.6
3.4
3.6
3.2
STE
0.604
0.582
0.602
0.522
0.696
0.310
0.301
0. 167
0. 130
0.283
0. 158
0. 157
0.090
0.279
0.395
0. 195
0. 153
0.495
0.451
0.068
0.002
0. 188
0.244
0.256
0.230
(a)
(b)
Secondary air injection system
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
85
-------
Table 91. Comparison of ST Multiple Constituent Results by
Emission Controls Type— Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Teet
Federal
Short Cy •
Federal
Three-Mode
Emission
Controls
Catalyst/Air(a)
All
Yes/Yes
Yes/No
No/Yes
No /No
All
Yes/Yes
Yes/No
No/Yes
No /No
Test Mode
iigh speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(C)
riigh speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(C>
No. of
Vehicles
300
89
121
59
25
300
89
127
59
25
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
7.0
10.1
3.9
5. 1
16.0
3.3
6.3
6.3
4.7
4.3
1. 12
5.6
3.4
t.l
3.4
1.0
2.4
6.3
3.9
2.4
6.8
10.2
8.5
6.8
8/5
16.0
20.0
12.0
16. 0
8. 0 '
Eo
11.7
13.5
13.4
8.5
4.0
42.7
37.0
19.3
26.3
22.0
38.2
38.2
30.3
36.0
30.3
52.0
43.3
13.4
19.7
18.9
32.2
30.5
18.6
30.5
20.3
36.0
16.0
12.0
16. 0
12. 0
FF
53.7
43.8
59.8
54.2
56.0
3.3
28.3
46.0
39.0
43.3
19. 1
19. 1
27.0
21.3
27.0
21.3
30.0
59.8
53.5
54.3
30.5
32.2
44. 1
32.2
42.4
24.0
44.0
48.0
44. 0
48. 0
STE(b)
0. 821
0.764
0. 816
0. 864
0.933
0.072
0. 433
0.704
0. 597
0. 663
0. 333
0. 333
0. 471
0. 372
0. 471
0. 291
0.40P
0. 817
0.731
0. 742
0. 486
0.514
0.703
0. 514
0. 676
0.400
0. 733
0. 800
0. 733
0. 800
(b).
(c)
Secondary air injection system
'Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
70 FTP failures in-same population
Best mode is: HC and CO at idle in drive; NOX at high speed
-------
Table 92. Comparison of ST HC Results by Fuel System Type —
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Th ree-Mode
Fuel
System Type
All •
Fuel Injection
Carburetion
All
Fuel Injection
Carburetion
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
rligh speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
300
30
270
300
30
Z70
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
3.3
5.2
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10.7
11.9
7.0
6.2
4.3
4.3
4.8
4.9
Eo
13.0
20.7
12.3
26.1
24. 1
19.8
21.0
26.0
24.0
24.8
26.5
26. 1
24.2
19.3
20.4
FF
18.7
20.7
18.4
5.4
7.5
11.9
10.7
15.3
17.4
16.6
14.9
4.4
6.4
11.3
10.2
STE(a)
0.589
0.501
0.600
0. 172
0.237
0.375
0.338 •
0.370
0.420
0.401
0.360
0.145
0.209
0.370
0.334
(a)
Short test effectiveness =
% FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
-------
Table 93. Comparison of ST CO, Results by.Fuel,System Type —...
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors, of Commission Jvlethod
(E Set,at .5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Fuel
System Type
All (
Fuel Injection
Carburetion
All
Fuel Injection
Carburetion .'
Test Mode ,
High speed
Low speed
!dle in drive
!dle' in neutral
High speed
Low speed
[die in drive
Idle in neutral
-ligh speed
Low speed
[die in drive
[die in neutral
.;No. of
Vehicles
300
30
. 270
300
30
270
Parameter
: (percent) ;
Ec
5.0
8.9
. 4.4
5.0
5.0
5.0 ,
5.0
9.3
12.2
13.2'
10.7
4.'1
4.1 ;
4. 1
4.3
Eo
16.7
5. .8 ...
17.4
44.4
40.7
12.4
26.6
23.3
22. 1
9.6
12.0
46.3
42.5
25.8
28.0
.. FF
37. 1
38. 1
37.3
10.6
14.4
31.4
29.3
20.6
21.8
34.3
32.0
9. '8
13.7
31.2
29.2
STE(a>
0.690
: 0.868
0.682
0. 193
0.261 • .
0.562
0.524
0.470
0.495
0.781
0.728
0. 175
0.244
0.458
0.511
'Short Test Effectiveness =•
% FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
88
-------
Table 94. Comparison of ST NOX Results by Fuel System Type —
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Fuel
System Type
All
Fuel Injection
Carburetion
All
Fuel Injection
Carburetion
•-
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
300
30
270
300
30
270
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
2.2
5. 1
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.3
6.9
0.16
5.3
4.6
4.& .
5.5
4.6
Eo
8.4
6.1
8.4
14.6
14.8
17.2
18.4
2.9
5.6
7.7
7. 5
15.7
15.7
18.3
19.4
FF
12.8
1.6
14.2
6.6
6.4
3.5
2.8
2. 1
2. 1
0.01
0. 18
6.8
6.9
4.2
3. 1
STE(a)
0.604
0.201
0.629
0.310
0.301
0. 167
0. 130
0.426
0.271
0.001
0.024
0.301
0.305
0. 187
0. 137
(a)
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
89
-------
Table 95. Comparison of ST Multiple Constituent Re suits;b>y
Fuel System Type — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission'Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
• Fuel '
System Type-
All
Fuel Injection
Carburetion .
All
Fuel Injection
Carburetion
Test Mode
'.
,
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(b)
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
No. ,of
.Vehicles
300
• 30
270
300
30
270
t
' Parameter
(percent)
Ec
7.0
10.0 :
6.7
3.3
6.3
6.3
4.7
4.3
16.7
23.3
13.3
16.7
13.3.
1.8
4.4
5.6
3.3
3.3
Eo
11.7
6.7
12. 2
42.7
37.0
19.3
26.3
2Z.O
30.0
23.3
10.0
13.3
6.7
44.0
38.5
20.4
27.8
23.7
. FF .. .
53.7
' 4.6.7
5'4.4
3.3
28.3
46.0
39.0
43.3
23.3
30.0 .
43.3
40.0
46.7
22.6
28. 1
46.3
38.9
43.0
'.STE(a)
0. 821
0. 876
0.816
0.072 .
0. 433
0.704
0. 597
0. 663
0. 437
0. 563
0. 812
0.751
0.875 '
0. 339
0. 422
0. 694
0. 583
0. 645
(a)
Short Test Effectiveness = •
FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
' 'Best mode is: HC and CO at idle in drive
NO at high speed
90
-------
Table 96. Comparison of ST HC Results by Transmission Type-
Predicted Population, Three Cities-, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Transmission
Type
All
Automatic
Manual
All
Automatic
Manual
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
'Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles'
300
229
71
300
229
71
Parameter
(percent)
- Ec
5.0
5. 1
4.8
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.8
4.9
4.9
6.5
5.6
5.4
5.6
Eo
13.0
11.4
18.9
26.1
24.1
19.8
21.0
24.0
23.7
18.2
19.8
27.7
25.7
25.6
25.3
FF
18.7
19.0
17.4
5.4
7.5
11.9
10.7
4.5
6.6
12.2
10.6
8.6
10.6
10.7
10.9
STE(a)
0.589
0.624
0.481
0.172
0.237
0.375
0..338
0. 150
0.217
0.401
0.348
0.236
0.292
0.296
0.301
(a).,, _ „,, . % FF for short test
* Short Test Effectiveness = ... ~TT-, t -i '• TT
% FTP failures in same population
91
-------
Table 97. Comparison of ST CO Results by Transmission Type
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
.Transmission
Type
All
Automatic
Manual
All
Automatic
Manual
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
300
229
71
300
229
71
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
3.4
12.2
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.6
10.8
10.1
10.8
10.7
Eo
16.7
18. 1
10.8
44.4
40.7
12.4
26.6
47.6
44.5
26.1
28.7
32.4
26.2
18.3
18.4
FF
37. 1
38..0
32.8
10.6
14.4
31.4
29.3
10. 1
13.4
32.7
30.2
11.2
17.4
25.4
25.3
STE(a)
0.690
0.678
0.752
0.193
0.261
0.562
0.524
0. 175
0.231
0.556
0.512
0.257
0.399
0..582
0.578
(a),
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
92
-------
Table 98. Comparison of ST NOX Results by Transmission Type—
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Transmission
Type
All
Automatic
Manual
All
Automatic
Manual
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
3'00
229
71
300
229
71
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
5.6
1.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.4
4.4
7.3
5. 1
10.6
6.0
1.0
4. 1
Eo
8.4
9.4
6.3
14.6
14.8
17.2
18.4
18.0
17.3
19.2
20.9
4.2
6.0
11.9
10.2
FF
12.8
14.7
3.2
6.6
6.4
3.5
2.8
6.0
6.8
4.8
3.2
7.7
6.0
1.0
1.7
STE(a)
0.604
0.610
0.334
0.310
0.301
0. 167
0. 130
0.251
0.28'1
0.200
0. 132
0.647
0.496
0.006
0. 145
(a)0, . _ . „,. .. % FF for short test
Short Test Effectiveness = ^ FTp failurgs to same pc^tion
93
-------
Table 99. Comparison of ST Multiple Constituent Results by
Transmission Type — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal.
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Transmission
Type
All
Automatic
Manual
All
Automatic
Manual
Test- Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(b>
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(b)
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
0. 821
0.813
0. 870
0.072
0.433
0.704
0. 597
0. 663
0.319
0.419
0.706
0. 575
0. 650
0.472
0. 500
0. 694
0. 694
0.722
'Short Test Effectiveness = •
% FF for-short test
(b)
% FTP failures-in same population
Best mode is: HC and CO at idle in drive
NO at high speed
94
-------
Table 100. Comparison of ST HC Results by Manufacturer —
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Manufacturer
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Other
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Other
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed'
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
300
99
61
36
18
86
300
99
61
36
18
86
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
3.9
3.8
3.6
0.4
5. 1
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3. 1
2.9
4. 5
5.2
4. 1
4. 1
2. 3
3.6
2.4
2.0
3.7
7.8
6.0
4. 5
5. 1
3.9
8.6
8.9
6. 1
4.6
Eo
13.0
10. 1
9.0
20.7
11.3
15.0
26.2
24. 1
19.8
21.0
27. 1
24.4
15.2 •
15.9
22. 1
21. 3
20. 3
19.8
40. 8
40.2
36.4
29. 1
16.7
13. 5
14.6
16. 3
23.6
21.6
22, 5
25.8
FF
18.7
21.0
16.2
36.5
10.9
17.9
5.4
7. 5
11.9
10.7
4.0
6.7
15.9
15.2
3. 1
4.0
4.9
5. 5
5. 4
5.9
20.8
17.6
3.0
6. 1
7. 5
5.8
9.4
11.3
10.5
7. 1
STE(a)
0. 589
0.676
0.642
0.638
0. 491
0. 544
0. 172
0.237
0. 375
0. 338
0. 129
0.215
0. 511
0. 489
0. 123
0. 157
0. 195
0.217
0. 1 16
0. 129
0. 364
0. 377
0. 150
0. 312
0.340
0.263
0.285
0. 343
0. 318
0.216
(a).
Short Test Effectiveness =
FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
95
-------
Table 101. Comparison of ST CO Results by Manufacturer —
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Teat
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three -Mode
Manufacturer
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Other
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Othe r '
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
300
99
61
36
18
86
300
99
61
36
18
86
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
2.4
4.8
0.2
1.2
14.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.5
1.4
2.0
2.6
3.0
3.9
4.2
3. 1
1. 5
0.4
9. 5
10. 1
0. 4
0.0
2. 5
1.0
8.7
10.9
12.7
12. 1
Eo
16.7
18.2 .
14.4
28. 1
14.7
8.9
44. 4
40. 7
24. 4
26.6
51.3
45.0
26.7
28.9
45. 0
'37.7
28.3
31.7
69.0
76. 3
8.2
8.4
23.7
41.9
14.2
14. 3
24.9
22.9
16.6
20. 3
FF
37. 1
35.8
39.4
52. 5
15.3
33. 3
10.6
14.4
31.4
29.3
5. 1
11.8
31. 1
28.9
11.2
18.6
29.3
26.0
11.9
5.6
71.8
71.7
6.3
0.0
15. 7
15.6
17. 2
19.3
25.6
21.9
STE(a)
0.690
0.663
0.732
0.652
0. 510
0.790
0. 193
0.261
0. 562
0. 524
0.091
0.208
0.538
0. 500
0.200
0. 330
0. 509
0. 451
0. 148
0.069
0. 898
0.'896
0. 210
0
0. 525
0. 522
0. 409
0.457
0.607
0.519
•(a)
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
96
-------
Table 102. Comparison of ST NOX Results by Manufacturer —
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Manufacturer
All
General Moto.rs
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Other
All
General Motors
Ford
Chr.ys ler
Ame rican
Motors
Other
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in d rive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
300
99
61
36
18
86
300
• 99
61
36
18
86
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
1.6
3. 5
23.6
14.5
2.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5. 0
4.2
2. 8
9.6
5.2
1. 4
0. 4
4.9
0.0
7. 1
22.4
4.8
2. 5
0.2
4.2
14.3
6.2
7. 5
5.4
0. 7
1.0
Eo
8.4
8.8
16. 1
2.9
1.4
7.9
14.6
14.8
17.6
18.4
15. 5
15. 3
14. 9
16.6
23.7
28. 1
28. 3
36.6
10.6
4.0
14.9
15. 1
28.7
24.0
17. 8
24.0
7.6
7.9
14.6
14. 0
FF
12.8
11.4
13.9
13.3
30. 1
7.6
6.6
6.4
3. 5
2.8
4.6
4.9
5. 2
3. 5
6. 3
2.0
1.8
0.0
5.7
12. 3
.I-4
1.2
2.7
5.2
13.7
5. 3
6.6
7.6
1.0
0.3
STE(a)
0.604
0. 564
0.463
0. 817
0.957
0.492
0. 310
0. 302
0. 168
0. 130
0.229
0.243
0.259
0. 175
0.210
0.065
0.059
0
. 0. 349
0.755
0.085
0.076
0.087
0. 177
0. 434
0. 181
0.467
0. 489
0.062
0.020
)_, „ _,, .. To FF for short test
'Short Test Effectiveness = % FTP faiiures in same population
9?
-------
Table 103. Comparison of ST Multiple Constituent Results by Manufacturer —
Predicted Population, Three Cities, Bounded Errors of Commission Method
(E Set at 5 Percent)
c
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Th ree -Mode
Manufacturer
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors
Other
All
General Motors
Ford
C h r y s 1 c r
American
Moto rs
Other
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(b)
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Bestfb)
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(b)
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best161
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best'6'"
I ligh speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(bl -.
No. of
Vehicles
300
99
61
36
18
86
300
99
61
36
18
86
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
7.0
2.0
8.2
8. 3
16.7
9-3
3. 3
6. 3
6. 3
4.7
4. 3
1.0
1.0
7. 1
1.0
1.0
0.0
4.9
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
5.6
5.6
5.6
0. 0
0.0
5.6
5.6
0.0
10.5
17.4
9. 5
10. 5
10. 5
Eo
11.7
8. 1
19.7
22.2
5.6
7.0 '
42.7
37.0
19.3
26. 3
22.0
48. 5
41. 4
13. 1
20.2
20.2
45.9
44. 3
32. 8
37.7
31.2
58. 3
41. 7
19.4
19.4
19.4
50.0
44. 4
27. 8
50. 0
44. 4
25.6
23. 3
15. 1
23. 3
14. 0
FF
53.7
57.6
45.9
63.9
61. 1
48.8
22. 7
28. 3
46.0
39.0
43. 3
17.2
24. 2
52. 5
45. 5
45. 5
19.7
21.3
32. 8
27.9
34. 4
27. 8
44. 4
66.7
66.7
66.7
16.7
22. 2
38. 9
16.7
22.2
30. 2 .
32.6
40.7
32.6
41. 9
STE(a)
0. 821
0. 877
0. 700
0. 742
0.916
0. 875
0. 347
0. 433
0. 704
0. 597
0.665
0. 262
0. 369
0. 800
0. 693
0.693
0. 300
0. i25
0. 500
0. 425
0. 524
0. 323
0.516
0. 775
0. 775
0. 775
0. 250
0.408
0. 581
0.250
0. 408
0. 541
0. 58i
0.729
0. 583
0. 749
(a)_. _ cr ,. % FF for short test
Short lest Lucrtiveness = TT.—,^~.. -.—r: : -.
"(i FTP failures in same popul
(h)
ation
Bc-st mode is: HC and CO al idle in drive; NO at high speed
98
-------
Table 104. Estimated Standard Errors for Contingency Table Percentages
in Multiple Constituent Test Results
No. of
Vehicles
300
151
100
95
54
Estimated Percentage
5
1.26
1.77
2.18
2.24
2.97
10
1.73
2.44
3.00
3.08
4.08
20
2.31
3.26
4.00
4. 10
5.44
30 or 70
2.65
3.73
4.58
4.70
6.24
40 or 60
2.82
3.99
4.90
5.03
6.67
50
2.89
4.07
5.00
5.13
6.80
Table 105. Comparison of Federal Short Cycle
Cut-Points by City (E Set at 5 Percent)
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
No. of
Vehicles
300
100
100
100
ST Cut Points and Standard Errors
(gm/mi)
HC
CP
1.32
1.24
1.24
1.44
SE
0. 145
0.283
0. 181
0. 267
CO
CP
8.40
7.99
7.49
9.48
SE
0.866
1. 240
1.327
1.916
NO
X
CP
2.62
2.54
2.56
2.77
SE
0.219
0.355
0.360
Oo412
(a)
(b)
CP = cut point
SE = standard error
99
-------
Table 106. Comparison of Federal Three-Mode Cut-Points by City
(E Set at 5 Percent)
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
No. of
Vehicles
300
100
100
100
ST Cut-Points and Standard Errors
(ppm) (*)
HC Idle in Drive
CP
184
241
132
174
SE •
26
78
27
31
CO Idle in Drive
CP
7,081
10, 145
6, 175
5,494
SE
1, 251
2, 627
2,432
1, 510
NO High Speed
3t
CP
2,265
2,026
2,172(d)
2,439
SE
243
410
393(d)
379
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
ppm = parts per million
CP = cut point
SE = standard error
The best mode for NOX for Houston was found to be the low speed mode.
The cut point and standard error for NOX low speed are 1500 ppm and
372 ppm, respectively
100
-------
Table 107. Comparison of HC Results for CID = 150 and Less,
by Manufacturer — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E • Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Manufacturer
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors
Datsun
Toyota
VW, Porsche,
Audi
Honda
Others
All
General Motors
Ford
Datsun
Toyota
VW, Porsche,
Audi
Honda
Others
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
95
1Z
6
8
9
21
6
33
95
12
6
8
9
21
6
33
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
2.9
2. 1
3.9
0.3
2.7
4.9
7.2
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.65
0. 30
11.3
10. 2
0.8
1.2
3. 3
5. 2
10.7
10.6
5.4
0.9
2.6
4.0
2.8
1. 5
8. 1
5.8
4.2
4.6
0.0
0.07
2.9
5.6
5. 4
4. 5
4.2
3.7
Eo
13.0
13.4
5.4
6'. 7
31. 5
18.9
7.4
10. 3
25.9
24. 0
21.9
23.4
31.8
30.6
14. 4
13.6
19. Z
19.2
13. 3
12. 5
22. 3
19.0
30. 3
44.9
33. 5
15.9
37. 8
40.2
24.6
21.9
23.4
22. 3
8.2
8.2
2.6
1. 5
25.6
25.6
21.9
25. 1
FF
19. 1
20. 5
13.9
41.7
11.8
17.7
0.8
19.4
6.2
8. 1
10.2
8.7
2. 1
3. 3
19.5
20. 3
0. 1
0. 1
6.0
6.7
26. 1
29.4
18. 1
3.6
9.9
27. 5
5. 5
3. 1
12.0
14.6
13. 1
14.2
0.0
0.02
5.6
6.6
4. 1
4. 1
7.8
4.7
STE(b)
0. 595
0.605
0.720
0.862
0.273
0.484
0.098
0.653
0. 193
0. 252
0.318
0. 271
0.062
0.097
0. 575
0. 599
0.005
0.005
0.311
0. 349
0. 539
0.607
0. 374
0.074
0.228 '
0.633
0. 127
0.072
0. 328
0.400
0. 359
0. 389
0
0.002
0.683
0.815
0. 138
0. 138
0.263
0. 158
(a),
CID = cubic inch displacement
(b),
Short Test Effectiveness =
FF for short test
%FTP failures in same population
101
-------
Table 108. Comparison of CO Results for CID^ .= 150 and.Less,
by Manufacturer .— Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three -Mode
.Manufacturer
All -
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors
Datsun
Toyota
VW, Audi,
Porsche
Honda
Others
All
General Motors
Ford
Datsun
Toyota
VW, Audi,
Porsche
Honda
Others
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
95
12
6
8
9
21
6
33
95
12
6
8
9
21
6
33
• Parameter"
(percent)
Ec
5.0
0. 1
0.0
0.4
3. 7
4.9
0:0
6.8
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0. 8
0.05
6.7
6.6
0.0
0.0
0. 1
0.06
0.0
0.0
10.9
4.0
0.03
7. 1
4.7
3.9
5. 1
5.6
8.4
8.9
q.o
1.3
0.0
0.0
2. 5
4.6
2. 8
2. .9
E0
19.4
36.9
23.8
33. 1
25.6
24. 5
Q.O
10.7
38. 0
34.7
26.4
28.8
75. 1
68.4
15.4
15. 7
25.6
25.6
25.6
25.6
40.9
32. 3
14. 7
39.5
34.2
32. 5
21.6
29.0
30.7
33. 5
30. 0
31.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
<2.6
29.7
26.5
30.0
FF
25.4
40. 5
1.8
19.8
8.6
23.4
0.0
30.8
6.7
10.0
18.4
16.0
2. 3
9.0
64. 1
63.8
o.'o
0.0
0.05
0.03
6.0
14.6
38.2
13. 3
0.01
1.7
12.6
5.2
17.2
14.4
18. 3
16.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.9
11.8
15.0
11.5
STE
-------
Table 109. Comparison of NOX Results for CID^a' = 150 and Less,
by Manufacturer — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (Ec Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three -Mode
Manufacturer
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors
Datsun
Toyota
VW, Audi,
Porsche
Honda
Others
All
General Motors
Ford
Datsun
Toyota
VW, Audi,
Porsche
Honda
Others
Test Mode
High speed
I_»ow speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
95.
12
6
8
9
21
6
33
95
12
6
8
9
21
6
33
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
3.9
19.2
2.9
0.7
1.2
0.0
1.7
5.0
5. 0
5.0
5.0
9.9
11.0
18.0
4. 7
0.8
0.01
1. 3
0.07
27.2
0.9
0.0
0.01
0.34
3.8
1.0
0.8
0.6
10.3
5.3
25.7
0.7
0.8
0.06
10.5
2.4
2.4
2.0
0.2
Eo
5.8
2.2
5.8
10.8
35.9
1. 1
0. 1
3.8
9.0
9.0
12.6
13.2
2.7
5.9
10.3
10.7
12. 5
12.9
11.2
12. 5
23.8
21.0
26.7
26.7
57.0
21.7
52.6
58.2
0.9
0. 3
0.8
0.6
0. 1
0.01
0. 1
0. 1
9.8
8.6
10.4
11.9
FF
9.8
8.8
7. 1
14.7
28.6
0.2
0.0
8.8
6.5
5.2
2.9
1.0
8.3
5.2
0.7
0.31
0.4
0.04
1.7
0.01
2.8
4.4
0.0
0.0
6.6
37.7
6.7
1. 1
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.03 '
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
4.0
2.2
0.2
STE
0.628
0.800
0.550
0. 577
0. 443
0. 154
0
0.698
0. 419
0. 366
0. 187
0.070
0.755
0. 468
0.064
0.028
0.031
0.003
0. 132
0
0. 105
0. 173
0
0
0. 104
0.635
0. 113
0.019
0. 308
0.750
0. 333
0. 500
0.231
0
0
0
0.222
0.318
0. 175
0.017
(b)
CID = cubic inch displacement'
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
103
-------
Table 110. Comparison of Multiple Constituent Results for CJXr' = 150
and Less, by Manufacturer —Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission. Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three -Mode
Manufacturer
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors
Datsun
Toyota
VW, Audi,
Porsche
Honda
Othe rs '
All
General Motors
Ford
Datsun
Toyota
VW, Audi,
Porsche
Honda
Others
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(c)
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(c)
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(c)
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(c)
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(c)
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(c)
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(c)
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(c)
No. of
Vehicles
95
12
6
8
. 9
21
6
33
95
12
6
8
9
21
6
33
Parameter [
(percent)
Ec
1. 1
0.0
0.0
12.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
8.4
6.3
5. 3
5.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
0.0
8. 3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
12:5
12. 5
12.5
12. 5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.5
19.0
14. 3
14. 3
9.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
6. 1
3.0
3.0
3.0
Eo
13.7
25.0
33.3
0.0
22.2'
9.5
16.7
9. 1
38.9
36.8
27.4
35.8
28.4
50.0
58.3
0.0
16.7
16.7
66.7
66.7
50.0
50.0
50.0
37. 5
37. 5
37. 5
50.0
25.0
55.6
33.3
55.6
55.6
55.6
33. 3 '
19.0
14. 3
14. 3
14. 3
16.7
16.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.3
39.4
36.4
51. 5
36.4
FF
44^2
50; 0
33.3
62i 5
55.6
38. 1
0.0
48.5
18.9
21.0
30. 5
22. 1
29.5
25.0
16.7
75.0
58. 3
58. 3
0.0
0.0
16.7
16.. 7
16.7
25.0
25.0
25.0
12.5
37. 5
0.0
44. 4
22. 2
22. 2
22.2
14. 3
28.6
33.3
33. 3
33.3
0.0
0.0
16.7
16.7
16.7
24.2
6. 1
21,2
6. 1
21.2
STE(b)
0.763
0.667
0. 500
1.00
0.715
0.800
0
0.842
0. 327
0. 363
0. 527
0. 382
0.509
0. 333
0.223
1.00
0.777
0. 777
0
0
0.250
0.250
0.250
0. 400
0.400
0.400
0.200
0.600
0
0. 571
Q. 285
0.285
0.285
0.300
0.601
0. 700
0.700
0.700
0
0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0. 421
0. 134
0. 368
0. 106
0. 368
'
CID = cubic inch displacement
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short .test
(c!
% FTP failures in same population
Best mode is: HC.and CO at idle in drive; NO at high speed
104
-------
Table 111. Comparison of HC Results for CID^* = 151 to 259,
by Manufacturer —Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
c
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three -Mode
Manufacturer
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors
Others, ,
Others (c)
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Others
Others (c)
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
54
13
13
7
12
7
. 9
54
13
13
7
12
7
9
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
1.8
6.0
1. 5
1.9
4.9
3.6
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
3.9
6. 5
8.4
6.9
6.4
1.0
0. 44
0.03
0.0
6.8
3.2
15.0
3.0
5.3
4. 1
6.2
16.0
3. 1
3. 1
6.6
10. 3
1.7
1.7
Eo
14.0
13. 1
5. 3
14.5
16.9
0,7
21. 1
23.6
21. 3
18.8
20.0
30.3
22.7
9:4
14.4
12. 3
11.6
15. 1
15.5
18.3
19.2
5.6
7.7
28.0
32. 5
27. 3
28.2
9.2
6.2
8. 3
9.2
26.6
24.2
31. 1
31. 5
FF
13. 3
18.6
10.8
4.6
21.0
9. 1
12.0
3.7
6.0
8.4
7.2
1.4
9.0
22. 3
17.3
3.8
4.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.02
13. 5
11.6
9.8
5.4
5.6
4.7
0.6
3.7
1.5
0.7
6.5
8.8
2.0
1.6
STE
0.487
0. 587
0.671
0.241
0. 554
0. 576
0.363
0. 136
0.220
. 0. 309
0.265
0.045
0.284
0.703
0.546
0.236
0.280
0.062
0.061
0.052
0.001
0.707
0.601
0.259
0, 143
0. 170
0. 143
0. 061
0. 374
0. 153
0.071
0. 196
0.267
0.060
0.048
(a),
(b).
(c)
CID = cubic inch displacement
'Short Test Effectiveness =
FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
Includes one Datsurr, one VW
105
-------
Table 112. Comparison of CO Results for CID(a) =,151 to 259,
by Manufacturer —Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three -Mode
1
Manufacturer
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Others.
Others (c)
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Others
Others (C)
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
54
13
13
7
12
7
9
54
13
13
7
12
7
9
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
0.5
8.7
2.6
4. 1
4.6
5. 5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.04
1.0
7.4
9.0
6.2
6.1
1. 5
1.7
0.07
•0.27
15.3
12. 3
1.8
0.07
5.3
1. 1
1. 4
0.7
0.8
0.03
2.0
2.6
1.0
0. 1
Eo
14.6
20.4
6.4.
30.8
16.4
5.6
7.8
51.9
45.0
24.6
32.3
64.5
59. 4
14. 1
30.8
36.9
35. 5
36.2
41. 1
67.7
66.3
13.6
3. 1
44.6
50.8
26. 1
30. 3
44.2
19.3
24. 5
35.5
43.9
20.2
25.0
35.0
FF
41.0
44. 1
38.6
38.3
34.5
48.4
47.9
6.5
14.0
34. 8
27. 1
0.0
7. 4
50.4
33.6
16.4
17.7
.20.4
15. 5
0.38
K7
55. 5
68. 5
6.2
0. 12
24.8
20.6
9.8
34.7
29.5
18.4
11.8
35. 5
30.7
20.7
STE
-------
Table 113. Comparison of NOX Results for CID(a) = 151 to 259,
by Manufacturer — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)^
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three -Mode
Manufacturer
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Others
Others
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Others
Others(c)
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
54
13
13
7
12
7
9
54
13
13
7
12
7
9
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
0.5
6.2
5.0
13.6
0.6
0.6
5.0
5.0
5.0
5. 0
5.8
8.4
9.8
13. 1
2.9
1.5
0.03
0.0
7. 4
7.0
0. 12
0. 3
2.0
5.2
6.2
0.8
2.0
0.4
0. 1
0.0
4. 8
1.3
0.04
0.0
Eo
7.5
10.8
8.4
6.9
1.7
7. 5
7.6
15. 4
11.1
16.7
17. 5
20. 1
7.7
16. 7
15. 7
9.0
9.9
10.9
10.9
20.7
6.2
34.0
33.4
20.0
17.6
20. 1
26.7
9.0
10. 1
9.9
10. 5
7.8
10. 1
11. 3
11.5
FF
12.5
11.0
4.7
27.4
26.0
3.0
.3.9
4.6
8.9
3. 3
2.5
1.8
14.2
5. 1
6. 7
4. 1
3. 2
0.0
0.0
13. 5
28.0
0.2
1.0
7.7
8.2
7. 5
0.9
1. 5
0.4
0.6
0.0
3.7
1.4
0.2
0.0
STE
0.625
0. 505
0. 359
0.799
0.939
0.286
0. 339
0.230
0.445
0. 165
0. 125
0.082
0. 648
0.234 '
0. 299
0. 313
0. 244
0
0
0. 395
0.819
0. 006
0.029
0. 278
0. 318
0.272
0.033
0. 143
0.038
0.057
0
0. 322
0. 122
- 0.017
0
(a)
(b)
CID = cubic inch displacement
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
(O
Includes one Datsun, one VW
107
-------
(a) _
Table 114. Comparison, of Multiple Constituents Results for CID
259, by Manufacturer —Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
= 151
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three -Mode
Manufacturer
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Others
Others'0'
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Othe rs
Others (c)
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(d)
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(d)
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(d)
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(d)
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(d)
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(d) •
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(d)
No. of
Vehicles
54
13
13
7
12
7
9
54
13
13
7
12
7
9
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.3
28.6
22.2
1.8
3. 7
5.6
3.7
1.8
0.0
0.0
15.4
13. 1
7.7
0.0
7.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14. 3
14. 3
14. 3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11. 1
11. 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Eo
13.0
15.4
0.0
57. 1
8.3
0.0
0.0
55.6
35.2
20. 1
35.2
22.2
61.5
23. 1
0.0
15.7
15.4
30.8
15.4
30.8
30.8
23. 1
71.4
57. 1
14. 3
14. 3
14.3
58.3
58. 3
41.7
66.7
41. 7
71.4
42.9
42.9
57. 1
42.9
66.7
33.3
33.3
44.4
33.3
FF
55.6
53.9
46.2
28.6
75.0
71.43
66.7
13.0
33.3
44.4
33. 3
46. 3
7.7
46. 1
69.2
6.2
53.8
15.4
30. 8
15.4
15. 4
23. 1
14.3
28.6
71.4
71.4
71.4
25.0
25.0
41.7
16.7
41.7
0.0
28.6
28.6
14.3
28.6
0.0
33.3
33. 3
22.2
33.3
STE
0.812
0.779
1.00
0.334
0.900
1.00
1.00
0. 190
0.486
0.648
0.486
0.676
0. Ill
0.666
1.00
0. 283
0. 777
0. 333
0.667
0. 333
0. 333
0. 500
0. 167
0.334
0. 833
0..833
0.833
0.300
0. 3*00
0. 500
0.200
0. 500
0
0.400
0. 400
0.200
0. 400
0
0. 500
0. 500
0. 333
0. 500
(a)
(b)
CID = cubic inch displacement
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
(c)
(d)
Includes one Datsun, one VW
Bost mode is: HC and CO at
idle in drive; NOx at high speed
108
-------
Table 115. Comparison of HC Results for CID = 260 and Greater,
by Manufacturer — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (JH Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Manufacturer
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors.'
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speedv
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
151
74
42
29
6
151
74
42
29
• 6
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
4.0
2.8
4.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.8
4.7
4.0
4.2
5. 1
5. 2
3.9
5. 1
4.2
4. 3
5.9
6.2
0.0 '
0.0
0.0
0.0
Eo
12.5
8.9
1.1 . 4
20. 3
0.0
27.0
24.7
18. 3
19.6
24.7
22. 1
14. 4
15.9
26.0
23.8
20.6
21.2
41.8
39.7
29.2
31.1
0.0 '
0.0
0.0
0.0
FF
20.4
21.8
18.0
40. 5
0.0
5.6
8.0
14.6
13. 3
6.0
8.6
16.3
14.8
3.4
5.7
8.8
8.3
8.7
10. 8
31.6
29.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
STE
0.620
0.710
0.612
0.666'
--
0. 172
0.245
0. 444
0. 404
0. 195
0.280
0. 531
0.482
0. 116
0. 193
0.299
0. 281
0. 172
0.214
0. 520
0. 488
--
--
(b)
CID = cubic inch displacement
% FF for short test
l_. . „ „,, .. 70 r J lor snuri icai
Short Test Effectiveness - ~ r-**-.-, c—~, : ;—r:—
% FTP failures in same population
109
-------
Table 116. Comparison of CO Results for CILVa' = 260 and Greater,
by Manufacturer — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three -Mode
Manufacturer
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed •
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
151
74
42
29
6
151
74
42
29
6
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
5.2
10. 1
2.0
0.4
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.4
3.6
3.0
3. 5
7.7
8.6
13.0
10.2
3.8
1.4
8.6
8.9
0.0
0.2
0.2
0:4
Eo
13.0
12.2
8.4
6.6
0.0
41.4
38.0
17.8
18.8
40. 7
34.7
20. 1
21.2
35.2
22.9
9.4
11.6
58.6
70.2
5. 2
5. 5
0.06
0.0
0.0
0.0
FF
44.2
38. 1
52.0
76.4
0.0
17.4
21.9
42. 1
41.3
12. 3
18. 5
34. 4
33. 3
25. 1
37.5
52. 1
49.8
24.6
14.4
77.8
77.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
STE(b>
0.773
0.758
0.861
0.920
--
0.296
0. 366
0.703
0.687
0.232
0. 348
0.631
0.611
0.416
0.621
0.847
0. 81 1
0.296
0. 170
0.937
0. 934
--
--
(b)
CID = cubic inch displacement
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
110
-------
Table 117. Comparison of NOX Results for CID^a' = 260 and Greater,
by Manufacturer — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Teat
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three -Mode
Manufacturer
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
Ame rican
Motors
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
Ame rican
Motors
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
151
74
42
29
6
151
74
42
29
6
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
1. 1
0.6
20.9
9.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
1.0
6. 5
4.3
3.0
0.2
0.. 01
0.2
12.2
28.2
4.0
4.7
0.0
2.8
0.6
0. I
Eo
11.5
10.9
23.5
2. 1
2.4
16.3
19.4
21. 5
20.8
15. 3
17.6
16.3
17.2 .
25.4
35.4
45. 3
45.0
6. 3
2. 1
11.4
10.8
34.9
33. 4
30.6
38.6
FF
13.3
10.7
14.7
10.0
38.9
8. 5
5. 4
3.2
4.0
6.2
3.9
5. 3
4. 3
12.8
2.8
0.0
0.2
5.8
10. 0
0. 7
1.3
3.3
4.8
7.6
2.7
STE(b)
0. .536
0.495
0.385
0.827
0.942
0. 343
0.218
0. 130
0. 161
0.288
0. 181
0. 245
0.200
0. 335
0.073
0
0.004
0.479
0.826
0.058
0. 107
0.086
0. 126
0. 199
0.065
(a)
(b)
CID = cubic inch displacement
Short Test Effectiveness =
FF for short test
failures in same population
ill
-------
Table 118. Comparison of Multiple Constituent Results for CID^a' = 260
or Greater, by Manufacturer —Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
Manufacturer
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
All
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American
Motors
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(c)'
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(c) .
No. of
Vehicles
151
74
42
29
6
151
74
42
29
6
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
8.0
4. 1
14.3
3. 5
33.3
2.6
2.6
6.0
5. 3
4.0
0.0
1.3
4.0
1.3
0.0
7. 1
7. 1
11.9
14. 3
11.9
0.0
0.0
3. 4
3.4
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Eo
6.6
4. 1
7. 1
13.8
0.0
24. 5
33.8
19.2
17.9
19.9
43.2
39.2
17.6
17.6
23.0
35.7
23.8
19.0
16.7
16.7
31.0
34. 5
20.7
17.2
13. 8
33. 3
33. 3
33.3
33. 3
33. 3
FF
62.3
59.5
64. 3
72.4
33. 3
10.0
2.6
49.7
51.0
49.0
20. 3
24. 3
46. 0
46.0
40. 5
35.7
47.6
52. 4
54. 8
54. 8
55.2
51.7
65. 5
69.0
72. -4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
STE
0.904
0.937
0.901
0.840
1.00
0.290
0.071
0. 721
0. 740
0. 71 1
0. 320
0. 383
0. 723
0.723
0.638
0. 500
0.667
0.734
0.766
0.766
0.640
01600
0.760
0.800
0.840
0
0
0
0
0
(b)
CID = cubic inch displacement
Short Test Effectiveness =
(c)
% FF for short test
%FTP failures in same population
Best mode- is: HC.and CO at
idle in drive; NOX at hi^h spe
112
-------
Table 119. Comparison of Federal Short Cycle Cut-Points
by Engine Displacement (E Set at 5 Percent)
Engine
Displacement
Group
All
150 CID and
Less
151 to 259 CID
260 CID and
Greater
No. of
Vehicles
300
95
54
151
ST Cut-Points and Standard Errors
(gm/mi)
HC
CP
1.32
1.28
1.27
1.35
SE
-------
Table 120. Comparison of Federal Three-Mode Cut-Points
by Engine Displacement^' (E Set at 5 Percent)
Engine
Displacement
Group
All Three
Cities
150 CID and
Less
151 to 259 CID
260 CID and
Greater
No. of
Vehicles
300
95
54
151
ST Cut-Points and Standard Errors
(ppm)
HC(b)
Cp(d)
184
219
213
151
SE
26
57
79
26
co(b>
CP
7,081
18, 382
7, 063
2,655
SE
1, 251
5, 863
2,488
607
NO (c)
X
CP
2,265
2, 805
l,985(f)
1,986
SE
243
665
446(f)
252
(al
'Engine cubic inch displacement = CID
(b)
(c)
Tested at idle in drive
Tested at high speed
(d)CP = cut point
(e)
v 'SE = standard error
'f'Best NOX mode is at low speed. CP and SE for the low speed NOX
are 1396 ppm and 423 ppm, respectively
114
-------
Table 121. Comparison of HC Results for CID = 150 and Less,
by City — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
95
32
33
30
95
32
33
30
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
4. 8
4.4
5.3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
9.9
6.8
9.5
10.0
1.2
1.7
2.0
2.4
4.7
6.3
3. 1
2.4
Eo
13.0
15.7
12.9
8.6
25.9
24. I
22.0
23. 5
20.7
18.9
18. 1
19.6
35.9
32. 5
26.7
29.0
19.3
18.0
19.2
20. 1
FF
19. 1
16.3
27.0
14. 1
6.2
8. 1
10.2
8.7
11.4
13. 1
13.9
12. 5
4.'0
7.4
13.2
10.8
3. 3
4-. 6
3.4
2. 5
STE(b)
0. 595
0. 509
0.677
0.621
0. 193
0.252
0.317
0.270
0.355
0.409
0.434
0.389
0. 100
0. 185
0.331
0. 271
0. 146
0.204
0. 150
0.111
(a)
(b)
CID = cubic inch displacement
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
115
-------
Table 122. Comparison of CO Results for CID^ = 150 and Less,
by City — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
L*ow. speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
95
32
.33
30
95
32
33
30
Parameter '
(percent)
Ec
5.0
3.0
4.7
7.2
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
7.3
7.7
6. 1
5.4
4.7
5.4
6.6
3. 1
2. 5
2.7
2.4
Eo
19.4
27.7
20.6
13.3
38.0
34.7
26.4
28.8
41.7
40.0
29.4
31. 1
44.7
38.3
31.0
33.8
29. 1
29. 1
21.0
23.7
FF
25.4
23.8
30. 1
20.3
6.7
10.0
18.4
16.0
9.9
11.5
22. 2
20. 5
6.0
12.4
20.0
17.2
4. 5
4. 5
12.6
9.9
STE
0.567
0.462
0. 594
0.604
0. 150
0.224
0.411
0.357
0. 192
0.223
0.430
0.397
0. 118
0.245
0.392
0. 337
0. 134
0. 134
0.375
0.295
(b)
1 CID = cubic inch displacement
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
116
-------
Table 123. Comparison of NOX Results for CID = 150 and Less,
by City — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in. drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
95
32
33
30
95
32
33
30
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
2.9
3.6
7.4
5. 0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.7
0.9
0. 1
2. 1
3.8
5. 0
3.0
1. 3
4.6
7. 7
8.4
10.4
Eo
5.8
5.0
5. 5
5.9
9.0
9.0
12.6
13.2
15.8
15.4
16.5
15.9
8.8
7.9
9.7
12.0
4. 8
2. 8
11.8
12. 1
FF
9.8
12.3
10. 5
7.5
6. 5
5.2
2.9
1.0
0. 8
1. 1
0.03
0. 7
7. 1
5.2
6.2
1 . 0
8.8
10.6
1.6
1. 3
STE
0.628
0.711
0.656
0.559
0.419
0. 366
0. 187
0.070
0.048
0.067
0.002
0.042
0.447
0. 397
0. 390
0.077
0.647
0.791
0. 119-
0.097
' CID = cubic inch'displacement
(b) „.. . % FF for short test
'Short Test Effectiveness = % FTp failures Jn same pOpuiation
117
-------
Table-124. Comparison of Multiple Constituent Results for CIDV ' = 150
and Less, by City — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three -Mode
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
-------
Table 125. Comparison of HC Results for CID = 151 to 259,
by City — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
54
19
16
19
54
19
16
19
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
8.3
3.8
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
8.8
6.3
6.6
5.8
0.0
1.0
2.8
2.8
6.3
10. 1
5.7
5.9
Eo
14. 0
4.4
11.6
20. 1
23.6
21.3
18.8
20.0
14. 1
15.2
10.0
11.8
37.3
25.9
19.4
21.5
25.0
21. 5
25.5
26.0
FF
13.3
11.0
15.3
15. 1
3.7
6.0
8.4
7.2
3.5
2.4
7.6
5.8
0.0
1.1
7.6
5.5
10.2
13.7
9.7
9.2
STE
0.487
0.714
0. 569
0.429
0. 136
0.220
0.309
0.265
0. 199
0. 136
0.432
0.330
0
0.041
0.281
0.204
0.290
0. 389
0.276
0.261
(a)
(b)
CID = cubic inch displacement
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
119
-------
Table 126. Comparison of CO Results for CID = 151 to 259,
by City— Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E^ Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
54
19
16
19
54
19
16
19
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
3. 1
6.6
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.4
3.7
7.9
7.4
8.2
6.2
6.0
6.0
3.8
5.0
1.7
1.3
Eo
14.6
14.0
16.0
12.7
51.9
45.0
24.7
32.4
47.3
40.6
18.4
24.0
57.9
48.8
30.3
41.0
50.4
44.8
24.2
30.0
FF
41.0
40. 5
34.9
48. 1
6.5 .
14. 1
34.8
27. 1
7.2
13.9
38. S
32.9
1. 5
12.8
29.7
19.0
10.4
16.0
36.6
30.8
STE(b)
0.737
0.743
0.686
0.791
0.111
0.239
0. 585
0.456
0. 132
0.255
0.677
0. 578
0.025
0.208
0.495
0. 317
0. 171
0.263
0.602
0. 507
(a)
(b)
CID = cubic inch displacement
% FF for short test
„. „,, . 7o FF for short test
Short Test Effectiveness = % FTP failures in same population
120
-------
Table 127. Comparison of NOX Results for CID*^ = 151 to 259,
by City — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
54
19
16
19
54
19
16
19
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
3.4
10.3
2.4
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.8
1.4
8. 2
12. 1
1.6
6.9
0.6
0.4
5.2
6.9
2.7
0.3
Eo
7.5
6.8
10.8
5. 5
15.4
11.1
16.7
17.5
13.3
11.4
11.5
11.3
18.8
11.1
19.2
19.7
11.7
9.2
22.9
25.0
FF
12.5
7. 1
9.4
19.8
4.6
8.9
3.3
2. 5
0.7
2.6
2. 5
2.7
1.3
9.3
0.9
0.4
13.6
16. 1
2.4
0.3
ST£(b)
0.625
0. 511
0.465
0.783
0.230
0.445
0. 165
0. 125
0.050
0. 186
0. 179
0. 193
0.065
0.456
0.045
0.020
0.538
0.636
0.095
0.012
(a)
(b)
CID = cubic inch displacement
Short Test Effectiveness =
FF for short test
% FTP failures in same population
121
-------
Table 128. Comparison of-Multiple Constituent Results for CILr' - 151 to 259,
by City — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
•
•Federal
Three -Mode
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
AH
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
0.810
0.834
0.727
0.858
0. 190
0.486
0.648
0.486
0.676
0. 166
0.417
0.834
0. 583
0.750
0
0.363
0.637
0. 363
0.727
0. 357
0.643
0. 500
0. 500
0. 571
(a)
(b)
(c)
CID = cubic inch displacement
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for,short test.
, FTP failures in same population
Best mode is: HC and CO at idle in drive; NO at high speed
122
-------
Table 129. Comparison of HC Results for CLEr' = 260 and Greater,
by City — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
151
49
51
51
151
49
51
51
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
3.7 '
3.8
7.4 •
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.8
6.6
7. 1
6.4 .
1. 7
1.8
2.4
4. 3
6.8
6.8
4.0
2.4
Eo
12.5
12.2
10.2
14.0
27.0
24.7
18.3
19.6
22.3
19.9
18. 1
19.8
33. 1
30.7
21.9
21.2
26. 1
24.4
13. 1
16.9
FF
20.4
17.0
27.9
16.6
5.7
8.0
14.6
13.3
6.2
8.6
11.0
9.3
S.O
7.4
16.2
16. .9
4. 5
6.2
17^6
13.7
STE(b)
0.620
0.582
0.732
0. 542
0. 174
0.245
0.444
0.404
0.218
0.302
0.378
0.320
0. 131
0. 194
0.425
0.444
0. 147
0.203
0. 573
0.448
CID = cubic inch displacement
(b)c
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
'% FTP failures in same population
123
-------
Table 130. Comparison of CO Results for CLLr' = 260 and Greater,
by City — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles
151
49
51
51
151
49
51
51
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
5.2
4. 1
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
7.4
6.3
5.8
6. 1
1. 7
3. 1
3.8
3.0
5.6
4.6
5.9
6.4
Eo
13.0
15.0
9.3
14.8
41.4
38.0
17.8
18.8
33.2
32.0
21.4
22.9
47.8
42.9
16.8
17.8
43.0
38.8
16.5
17.0
FF
44.2
44.5
45.9
43.0
17.4
20.9
42. 1
41.3
26.3
27.4
38. 1
36.5
11.5
16.6
45.6
45.3
14.8
19.0
41.4
40.9
STE
0.773
0.748
0.832
0.744
0.296
0.355
0.703
0.687
0.442
0.461
0.640
0.615
0. 194
0.279
0.731
0.718
0. 256
0. 329
0.715
0.706
CID = cubic inch displacement
(b).,, _ .-,,. .. % FF for short test
'Short Test Effectless = % FTP /ailures in same pop.llation
124
-------
Table 131. Comparison of NOX Results for CID^ = 260 and Greater,
by City — Predicted Population, Thr.ee Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
r
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in. drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
No. of
Vehicles .
151
49
• 51
51
151
49
51
51
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
5.0
5.2
4.. 2
5.7
5. 0
5. 0
5.0
5. 0
.6
3.2
4.4
3.2
2.8
3.7
4. 3
5.9
8.8
8.2
5. 2
3. 5
t
Eo
11.5
9.5
16.3
8.8
16.3
19.4
21.5
20.8
24.4
19.9
20.0
20.2
22.3
24.5
24.7
23. 1
10.0
13.6
20.3
19.7
FF
13.3
13.8
13.0
12.9
8. 5
5.4
3.2
4.0
2. 2
3.4
3.2
3.0
7. 1
4.9
4.7
6.2
11.7
8. 1
1.4
2.0
STE(b)
0. 536
0. 592
0.44>4
0. 594
0. 342
. 0.218
0. 130
0. 161
0.083
0. 146
0. 138
0. 129
0. 241
0: 167
0. 160
0. 212
' 0.539
0.373
0.065
0.092
•
CID = cubic incn displacement
(b)
Short Test Effectiveness =
% FF for short test
% FTP failures in samo population
125
-------
Table 132. Comparison of Multiple Constituent Results for CID^a' = 260 and Greater,
by City — Predicted Population, Three Cities,
Bounded Errors of Commission Method (E Set at 5 Percent)
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-Mode
City
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
All
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Test Mode
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best'c)
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(c)
High speed
Low speed
Idle in drive
Idle in neutral
Best(c>
No. of
Vehicles
151
49
51
51
151
49
51
51
Parameter
(percent)
Ec
8.0
10. 2
7.8
5.9
2.0
2.7
6.0
5. 3
4.0
4. 1
4. 1
4. 1
6. 1
4. 1
0.0
2. 0
7.8.
3.9
3.9
2.0
2.0
5.9
5.9
3.9
Eo
6.6
10.2
3.9
5.9
38.4
33.8
19.2
17.9
19.9
38.8
34.7
28.6
28.6
34.7
39.2
37.3
9.8
7.8
11.8
37.3
29.4
19.6
17.7
13.7
FF
62.3
63.3
60.8
62.8
30. 5
35. 1
49.7
51.0
49.0
34.7
38.8
44.9
44.9
38.8
25. 5
27. 5
54.9
56.9
52.9
31.4
39.2
49.0
51.0
54.9
STE % FTP failures in same population
Best mode is: HC and CO at idle in drive; NO at high speed
126
-------
Table 133. Contingency Table
True = FTP
Pass
Fail
Total
D O
h X
co
Pass
a + b
Fail
c + d
Total
a + c
b + d
n = a + b
+ c + d
a = number of correctly passed vehicles (PP)
b = number of errors of omission (E )
v o'
c = number of errors of commission (E )
c
d = number of correctly failed vehicles (FF)
Sensitivity = a/(a + c)
Specificity = b/(b + d)
False positive error = b/(a + b)
False negative error = c/(c + d)
ad - be
Correlation index =
[(a + b)(a + c)(b + d)(c + d)]
1/2
127
-------
Table 134. Maintenance Options and Adjustment Procedures
for Each Version of the Maintenance Model
Options and Procedures
HC, CO, NO Adjusted Independently
X
NO Adjustment Independent
KC and CO Adjustment Coupled
Emission Values Adjusted to
FTP Standard
Emission Values Adjusted to
Equivalent ST Standard
Version of
Maintenance Model
1
X
X
2
X
X
3
X
X
Table 135. Average Deterioration Rates Used in
207(b) Effectiveness Simulation
Data Source
Certification^'
EFP
-------
Table 136. Annual Mileage Accumulations Used in
207(b) Effectiveness Simulation
Age of
Vehicles
In Years
1
2
3
4(b)
Number of
Years In
Program
0
1
2
3
-------
Table 138. 207(b) ST(a) Cut-Points for Each Engine Family
CID(b)
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and G.reater
Cut-Points ' in PPM
HC
219
213
151
CO
18, 332
7, 062
2, 655
NOX
2, 805
1, 395
1,986
(a)
(b)
(c)
The ST was defined from the Federal Three-Mode with HC and CO
idle in drive, and NOx in high speed (low speed NOX was used for
151 to 259 CID group)
CID - cubic inch displacement
Cut-points were computed from 300 car data using a 5 percent E
rate on each pollutant for each engine class
130
-------
Table 139. 207(b) Program Efficiencies with
Maintenance Version 1
Maintenance
Period of
Effectiveness
12
9
6
Number of
Years
Since The
1 st Inspection
1
2
3 U)
1
2
3 (a)
1
2
3 (a)
Estimated Program
Efficiencies in Percent
Cumulative
HC
22. 7
31.6
34. 6
19.5
26. 7
30. 0
14. 6
19. 8
23. 3
CO
32. 4
39. 0
42. 5
26.2
31.9
36. 1
18. 7
23.0
27. 6
NOX
2.05
1. 81
2. 00
1.25
1. 04
1.29
0.46
0.22
0. 50
(a)
Not a full year. Program ended at 50, 000 miles
131
-------
Table 140. 207(b) Program Efficiencies with
Maintenance Version 2
Maintenance
Period of
Effectiveness
12
9
6
Number of
Years
Since The
1st Inspection
1
2
3(a)
1
2
3(a)
1
2
3(a)
Estimated Program
Efficiencies in Percent
Cumulative
HC
22. 7
31. 6
34. 6
19.5
26. 7
30. 0
14.6
19. 8
23. 3
CO
29. 7
35.9
39. 1
24.2
29.4
33.0
17. 3
21.2
25. 1
NOX
2.05
1.81
2. 00
1.25
1. 04
1.29
0.46
0.22
0. 50
(a)
Not a full year. Program ended at 50, 000 miles
132
-------
Table 141. 207(b) Program Efficiencies -with
Maintenance Version 3
Maintenance
Period of
Effectivenes s
12
9
6
Number of
Years
Since The
1st Inspection
1
2
3(a)
1
2
3 (a)
1
2 '
3(a)
Estimated Program
Efficiencies in Percent
Cumulative
HC
21. 1
30.0
32.9
18. 4
25. 4
28. 5
13. 8
18. 9 :
22. 1
CO
29. 0
35. 2
38. 3
23. 6
28. 9
32. 3
17. 0
20. 8
24. 6
NOX
1.78
1. 53
1.70
1.05
0.82
1.05
0. 32
0.08
0. 33
(a)
Not a full year. Program ended at 50, 000 miles
133
-------
Table 142. FTP Values Equivalent to 207(b) ST Cut-Points
CID
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Equivalent ST Cut-Points - Grams /Mile
HC
1. 574
1.633
1.809"
CO
18.084
16.66 •
15. 0
NOX
3. 100
3. 100
( 3.262
Table 143. I/M
Cut-Points for Each Engine Family
CID(b)
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Cut-Points^ in PPM
HC
269
269
269
CO
17105
17105
17105
NOX
2823
2823
2823
(a)
(b)
(c)
The ST was defined from the Federal Three-Mode with HC and CO
idle in drive, and NOX at high speed
CID = cubic inch displacement
Cut-points were computed from the 300 car data set using a
33. 33 percent total failure rate on 300 cars
134
-------
Table 144. I/M Program Efficiencies with
Maintenance Version 1
Maintenance
Period of
Effectiveness
12
9
6
Number of
Years
Since The
1 st Inspection
1
2
3(a)
1
2
3 1 a)
1
2
3(a)
Estimated Program
Efficiencies in Percent
Cumulative
HC
16.4
24. 0
27.0
14. 1
20. 1
23.2
10. 5
14. 8
18. 1
CO
24. 3
30. 3
33. 8
19.5
24. 5
28. 5
13.8
17.6
21. 8
NOX
1.59
1.58
1.78
1.04
1.03
1.28
0.50
0.45
0.73
(a).
Not a full year. Program ended at 50, 000 miles
135
-------
Table 145. I/M Program Efficiencies with
Maintenance Version 2
Maintenance
Period of
Effectiveness
12
9
6
Number
Years
Since The
1 st Inspection
1
2
3(a)
1
2
3(a)
1
2
3 (a)
Estimated Program
Efficiencies in Percent
Cumulative
HC
16.4
24. 0
27.0
14. 1
20. 1
23.2
10. 5
14. 8
18. 1
CO
22.2
27.7
30.8
18.0
22.5
25.9
12. 8
16.2
19.7
NOX
1.59
1.58
1.78
1.04
1.03
1.28
0. 50
0.45
0.73
(a)
Not a full year. Program ended at 50, 000 miles
136
-------
Table 146. I/M Program Efficiencies \yith
Maintenance Version 3
Maintenance
Period of
Effectiveness
12
9
6
Number of
Years
Since The
1st Inspection
1
2
3(a)
1
2
3(a)
1
2
3(a)
Estimated Program
Efficiencies in Percent
Cumulative
HC
14.3
21.2
23. 7
12. 5
17.9
20. 3
9.4
13. 3
15.7
CO
18.4
23.6
26. 1
15. 1
19.3
22.0
10.9
14.0
16.8
NOX
1.04
0.99
1. 13
0.63
0.58
0.76
0.23
0. 15
0.34
(a)
Not a full year. Program ended at 50, 000 miles
137
-------
Table 147. FTP Values Equivalent to
I/M ST Cut-Points
CID
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Equivalent ST Cut-Points - Grams/Mile
HC
1. 71
1. 84
2. 69
CO
17.66
21. 82
32. 51
NOX
3. 10
3.79
4. 06
138
-------
o
O
OS
50
40
30
20
10
0
Eo
FF
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
HC CUT-POINT, gm/mi
2.4 2.6
Figure 1. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with HC Cut-point;
All Three Cities; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method
o
o
50
40
30
20
10
4.0 8.0 12.0 16 20
CO CUT-POINT, gm/mi
24 26
Figure 2. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with CO Cut-point;
All Three Cities; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded
Errors of .Commission Method
139
-------
I 30
c
_°20
"o
- 10
o
Q_
Eo
_______ cp
0
2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8
IMOY CUT-POINT, gm/mi
A
Figure 3. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
All Three Cities; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method
Ec
Eo
FF
1.4 1.6. 1.8 2.0
HC CUT-POINT, gm/mi
2.2 2.4 2.6
Figure 4. Variation of Ec, EQJl and FF with HC Cut-point;
Chicago, Federal Short Cycle, Bounded Errors
of Commission Method
140
-------
o
50
40
30
20
10
C
-Eo
— FF
I
0 4.0 8.0 12.Q 16.0 20.Q 24.0 28.0
CO CUT-POINT, gm/mi
Figure 5. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with CO Cut-point;
Chicago; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method
Ec
0
FF
3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8
NO CUT-POINT, gm/mi
A
Figure 6. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
Chicago; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded Errors
of .Commission Method
141
-------
o_
40
30
20
10
0
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
HC CUT-POINT, gm/mi
Figure 7. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with HC Cut-point;
Houston; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method
--- FF
4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0
CO CUT-POINT, gm/mi
Figure 8. Variation of Ec, EQ, and FF with CO Cut-point;
Houston; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method
142
-------
0
FF
3.6 3.8
NO CUT-POINT, gm/mi
A
Figure 9. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
Houston; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method
o
30 r-
20
10
o
LU
Q_
FF
0
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
HC CUT-POINT, gm/mi
2.4 2.6
Figure 10. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with HC Cut-point;
Phoenix; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method
143
-------
Q
- and FF with NOX Cut-point;
Phoenix; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded Errors
of Commission Method
144
-------
15
10
o '
oo
H
10
201-
15
o
10
0 o
o
0 O
o
10
in
60r
°40
o
t-Lj
Q_
20
2468
PREDICTED PERCENT E
10
Figure 13. Variation of Actual Ec, E , and FF
with Predicted Ec; Federal Short Cycle;
All Three Cities
O
C£
LU
Q-
60
'40
20
FF
— /
2 4 68
PREDICTED PERCENT E.
10
Figure 14. Variation of Actual Ec, EQ, and FF
with Predicted Ec; Federal Short Cycle;
Chicago
-------
15
- 10
LlJ
CJ
OL
I 5
o
0
0
10
O
o;
60
'40
20
F£-^-—
4 6 8
PREDICTED PERCENT E.
10
Figure 15. Variation of Actual Ec, EQ, and FF
with Predicted Ec; Federal Short Cycle;
Houston
10
o
<
Ofroo-
o
o
10
-------
O
"b
O
LU
Q_
HIGH SPEED
LOW SPEED
IDLE IN DRIVE
IDLE IN NEUTRAL
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 70,0
HC CUT-POINT, ppm
Figure 17. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with HC Cut-point;
All Three Cities; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method
147
-------
o
"u
o
UJ
Q_
60
50
40
30
20
10
FF
H - HIGH SPEED
L - LOW SPEED
D - IDLE IN DRIVE
N - IDLE IN NEUTRAL
40,000 80,000 120,000
CO CUT-POINT, ppm
Figure 18. Variation of Ec, EQ, and FF with CO Cut-point;
All Three Cities; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method
148
-------
o
UJ
Q_
30
20
H - HIGH SPEED
L - LOW SPEED
D - IDLE IN DRIVE
N - IDLE IN NEUTRAL
FF
N
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
NO CUT-POINT, ppm
A
Figure 19. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
All Three Cities; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method
o
UJ
Q_
HIGH SPEED
LOW SPEED
IDLE JN DRIVE
OLE IN NEUTRAL
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
HC CUT-POINT, ppm
Figure 20. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with HC Cut-point;
Chicago; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method
149
-------
o
o
UJ
a.
FF
H - HIGH SPEED
L - LOW SPEED
D - IDLE IN DRIVE
N - IDLE IN NEUTRAL
40,000 80,000 120,000
CO CUT-POINT, ppm
Figure 21. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with CO Cut-point;
Chicago; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method
150
-------
o
a:
30
20
10
0
FF
H - HIGH SPEED
L - LOW SPEED
D - IDLE IN DRIVE
N - IDLE IN NEUTRAL
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
NO CUT-POINT, ppm
Figure 22. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with NOx Cut-point;
Chicago; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method
pp
o
o;
H - HIGH SPEED
L - LOW SPEED
D - IDLE IN DRIVE
N - IDLE IN NEUTRAL
200 300 400 500
HC CUT-POINT, ppm
Figure 23. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with HC Cut-point;
Houston; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method
151
-------
UJ
UJ
UJ
O
UJ
ex.
60 i-
50
40
30
//
IT
,i
0
0
Ec
Eo
FF
H - HIGH SPEED
L - LOW SPEED
D - IDLE IN DRIVE
N - IDLE IN NEUTRAL
~3
40,000 80,000 120,000
CO CUT-POINT, ppm
Figure 24. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with CO Cut-point;
Houston; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method
152
-------
o
LU
0-
" Eo
FF
.H - HIGH SPEED
L - LOW SPEED
D - IDLE IN DRIVE
N - IDLE IN NEUTRAL
L
H
30
20
10
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
NO CUT-POINT, ppm
A
Figure 25. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
Houston; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method
o
LLJ
0-
40
I 30
j°
;o 20
*
10
0
r
Ec
0
FF
N-w
H -
L -
D -
N -
HIGH SPEED
LOW SPEED
IDLE IN DRIVE
IDLE IN NEUTRAL
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
HC CUT-POINT, ppm
Figure 26. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with HC Cut-Point;
Phoenix; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method
153
-------
o
o
LLJ
Q_
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
H
H - HIGH SPEED
L - LOW SPEED
D - IDLE IN DRIVE
N - IDLE IN NEUTRAL
0
40,000 80,000 120,000
CO CUT-POINT, ppm
Figure 27. Variation of Ec, EQ, and FF with CO Cut-point;
Phoenix; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method
154
-------
Ul
Ul
o
OS!
30
20
10
0
H
L
D
N
HIGH SPEED
LOW SPEED
IDLE IN DRIVE
IDLE IN NEUTRAL
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
NO CUT-POINT, ppm
A
Figure 28. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
Phoenix; Federal Three-Mode; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method
-------
O
o;
UJ
Q_
15
10
o DRIVE MODE
A BEST MODE
RANGE OF VARIATION
- DRIVE MODE
^ BEST MODE
A
vl/
10
O
or
o DRIVE MODE
60•- v BEST MODE
40
20
FF
• DRIVE MODE
A BEST MODE
I
I
4 6
PREDICTED PERCENT E.
10
Figure 29. Variation of Actual Ec, Eo, and FF
with Predicted Ec; Federal Three-Mode;
All Three Cities
156
-------
Q_
—I
<
20
15
10
o DRIVE MODE
A BEST MODE
RANGE OF VARIATION
- DRIVE MODE
rt BEST MODE
o
I
t
10
p40 -
o
C£
UJ
Q_
O
<
o DRIVE MODE
v BEST MODE
FF
• DRIVE MODE
A BEST MODE
0
4 6,
PREDICTED PERCENT E
Figure 30. Variation of Actual Ec, EQ, and FF
with Predicted Ec; Federal Three-Mode;
Chicago
157
-------
15 -
10 -
UJ
Q_
o DRIVE MODE
A BEST MODE
RANGE OF VARIATION
- - DRIVE MODE
- BEST MODE
1'
<
(
;
i ^ i
<
' t
\
i
i
(
)
t
\
i
i
\
> (
» ^
k L
f \
(
>
/
\
i
i
f
* >
> (
1 t
'
\
i
b
V
O
UJ
Q_
O
80
60
40
20
10
:0 FF
o DRIVE MODE • DRIVE MODE
v BEST MODE A BEST MODE
1
4 6
PREDICTED PERCENT E
Figure 31. Variation of Actual Ec, Eo, and FF
with Predicted Ec; Federal Three-Mode;
Houston
10
158
-------
o
DC
O
-------
o
40
30
20
10
0
FF
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
HC CUT-POINT, gm/mi
2.2 2.4
Figure 33. Variation of Ec, E0, and FF with HC Cut-point;
150 CID and Less; Federal Short Cycle;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
FF
14 16 20
CO CUT-POINT, gm/mi
Figure 34. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with CO Cut-point;'
150 CID and Less; Federal Short Cycle;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
160
-------
30
20
,10
' 0
c
0
1.8 2.0 2.2
NO
x
2.6 3.0
CUT-POINT, gm/mi
3.6
Figure 35. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
150 CID and Less; Federal Short Cycle;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
o
LU
Q_
30
20
10
0
0
FF
0.8 1.0 1.2
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
HC CUT-POINT, gm/mi
2.2 2.4 2.6
Figure 36. Variation of Ec, EQ, and FF with HC Cut-point;
151 to 259 CID; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method
161
-------
o
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
FF
0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10 12
CO CUT-POINT, gm/mi
14 16
Figure 37. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with CO Cut-point;
151 to 259 CID; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method
0
FF
NO CUT-POINT, gm/mi
A
Figure 38. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
151 to 259 CID; Federal Short Cycle; Bounded
Errors of Commission Method
162
-------
Q
<
30
FF
10
0
I
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
HC CUT-POINT, gm/mi
Figure 39. Variation of Ec, EQ, and FF with HC Cut-point;
260 CID and Greater, Federal Short Cycle;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
o
LLJ
Q_
60
50
40
30
20
10
FF
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
CO CUT-POINT, gm/mi
Figure 40. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with CO Cut-point;
260 CID and Greater; Federal Short Cycle;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
163
-------
30
20
o
ex.
10
0
2.0
0
FF
2.4 2.8 3.2
NO CUT-POINT, gm/mi
3.6
4.0
Figure 41. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
260 CID and Greater; Federal Short Cycle;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
-------
15
10
CtL
i
10
10
a:
o
6
6
10
Ul
60I-
Q
^
,o40
o
en.
20
246
PREDICTED PERCENT E.
10
o
a:
<
I—
<
60
'40
20
FF -- —
2468
PREDICTED PERCENT E
10
Figure 42. Variation of Actual Ec, Eo, and FF
with Predicted EC, Federal Short Cycle;
All Three Cities; Engine Displacement
150 CID and Less
Figure 43. Variation of Actual Ec, Eo, and FF
with Predicted Ec, Federal Short Cycle;
All Three Cities; Engine Displacement
151 to 259 CID
-------
o
01
LiJ
Q_
I
<
15
10
OM>
0
10
60
40
20
FF .- —
2 4 6.8
PREDICTED PERCENT E.
10
Figure 44. Variation of Actual Ec, EQ, and FF
with Predicted Ec; Federal Short Cycle;
All Three Cities; Engine Displacement
260 CID and Greater
166
-------
u_
o
<
LU°
0
LU
1—
§
Qi
LkJ
0-
40
30
20
10
n
—
H ->--'
,;XXL
- \L x
^^.
1^
Ec
Eo
FF
H - HIGH SPEED
L - LOW SPEED
D - IDLE IN DRIVE
N - IDLE IN NEUTRAL
N
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
HC CUT-POINT, ppm
Figure 45. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with HC Cut-point;
150 CID and Less; Federal Three-Mode;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
H - HIGH SPEED
L - LOW SPEED
D - IDLE IN DRIVE
N - IDLE IN NEUTRAL
o
a:
20,000 40,000 60,000
CO CUT-POINT, ppm
80,000 100,000
Figure 46. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with CO Cut-point;
150 CID and Less; Federal Three-Mode;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
167
-------
o
Qi
r
Ec
E
0
FF
H
L
D
N
HIGH SPEED
LOW SPEED
IDLE IN DRIVE
IDLE IN NEUTRAL
H
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
NO CUT-POINT, ppm
A
Figure 47. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
150 CID and Less Federal Three-Mode;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
o
a:
30
20
10
0
E
Eo
FF
H - HIGH SPEED
L - LOW SPEED
D - IDLE IN DRIVE
N - IDLE IN NEUTRAL
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
HC CUT-POINT, ppm
Figure 48. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with HC Cut-point;
151 to 259 CID;'Federal Three-Mode;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
168
-------
LU
UJ
UJ
O
CX.
60 r~
E
FF
H -
N -
HIGH SPEED
LOW SPEED
IDLE IN DRIVE
IDLE IN NEUTRAL
H
_- N
~-~ - " D
D
N
1
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
CO CUT-POINT, ppm
Figure 49. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with CO Cut-point;
151 to 259 CID; Federal Three-Mode;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
169
-------
o
o;
H - HIGH SPEED
L - LOW SPEED
D - IDLE IN DRIVE
N - IDLE IN NEUTRAL
0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200
NO CUT-POINT, ppm
, A'
Figure 50. Variation of Ec, EQ, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
151 to 259 CID; Federal Three-Mode;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
UJ
a;
UJ
D-
40
30
20
10
0
EC
-Eo
— FF
/L
H
L
D
N
HIGH SPEED
LOW SPEED
IDLE IN DRIVE
IDLE IN NEUTRAL
40. 80 ,120 160 200 240 280 320 360
HC CUT-POINT, ppm
Figure 51. Variation of Ec, EQ, and FF with HC Cut-point;
260 CID and Greater, Federal Three-Mode;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
170
-------
H - HIGH SPEED
L - LOW SPEED
D - IDLE IN DRIVE
N - IDLE IN NEUTRAL
0 2000 6000 10,000 14,000
CO CUT-POINT, ppm
18,000
Figure 52. Variation of Ec, EQ, and FF with CO Cut-point;
260 CID and Greater; Federal Three-Mode;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
o
LU
D-
FF
H - HIGH SPEED
L - LOW SPEED
D - IDLE IN DRIVE
N - IDLE IN NEUTRAL
400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200
N0v CUT-POINT, ppm
A
Figure 53. Variation of Ec, Eo, and FF with NOX Cut-point;
260 CID and Greater; Federal Three-Mode;
Bounded Errors of Commission Method
171
-------
15
10
oc.
Q.
C_3
o DRIVE MODE
A BEST MODE
RANGE OF VARIATION
- DRIVE MODE
~ BEST MODE
11
T
51
o o
10
o
LU
Q-
__l
<
80
60
40
20
o
o DRIVE MODE
v BEST MODE
FF
DRIVE MODE
> BEST MODE
468
PREDICTED PERCENT E_
10
Figure 54, Variation of Actual Ec, Eo, and FF
with Predicted Ec; Federal Three-Mode;
All Three Cities; Engine Displacement
150 CID and Less
172
-------
15
10
o
o
-------
15
10
UJ
Q_
o DRIVE MODE
A BEST MODE
RANGE OF VARIATION
- DRIVE MODE
~ BEST MODE
I
10
O
o
<
80
60
40
20
o
o DRIVE MODE
A BEST MODE
FF
DRIVE MODE
BEST MODE
I
4 6
PREDICTED PERCENT E,
10
Figure 56. Variation of Actual Ec, EQ, and FF
with Predicted Ec; Federal Three-Mode;
All Three Cities; Engine Displacement
260 CID and Greater
174
-------
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE
0 20
40 60 80
TIME, sec
100
Figure 57. Federal Short Cycle Test
Driving Schedules
175
-------
FF, CORRECTLY
FAIlfD VEHIClfS
E , ERROR OF
COMMISSION
ST CUT-POINT
to
PP, CORRECTLY
PASSED VEHICLES
Q_
t
E , ERROR OF
OMISSION
FTP MEASUREMENT
Figure 58. Contingency Table Representation
:17.6
-------
MINIMIZE EQ SUBJECT TO EC < /%
CO
NOT TO
EXCEED /%
ST •
CUT-POINT *
• _ •
MINIMIZE
FTP MEASUREMENT
Figure 59. Bounded Errors of Commission Method
177
-------
BIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
'X, -AA2
1
D(Xr X2) -
WHERE
/z2
277- CTj 0*2
POPULATION MEANS
POPULATION STANDARD DEVIATIONS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
FTP MEASUREMENT
ST MEASUREMENT
Figure 60. Parametric Model
PROBABILITY OF ERROR OF COMMISSION
Ci
0
Pr { Xj < Cr X2 > C2 } = D (Xr X
PROBABILITY OF ERROR OF OMISSION
+00 G£
Pr{ X^Cj. X2C1,X2>C2( - f
Cl C2
WHERE C, = FTP STANDARD
C2 = ST CUT-POINT
Figure 61. Probability Equations
178
-------
Bounded Errors of Commission: Solve for
Cl ,r\
y
I I D(XI(
where
Cj = FTP Standard
C2 = ST Cut-Point
•y = Maximum allowable probability of an error of
commission
D(. , . ) = Statistical model as determined by the data
Figure 62. Equations for ST Cut-Point
Determination
179
-------
START
1
Determine ST
cut-points for
HC. CO. and NO
n.
Set
Policy
1
Write Results of
Contingency Table
Analysis for
HC. CO. and NO
Determine
3-Constituent
Test Results
for each Mode,
Write Results
YES
Determine
Best
3-Constituent
Test
Determine
Test Results
Write Results
NO
FINISH
FINISH
Figure 63. Computation Flow Chart
180
-------
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
I
ERROR BAR INDICATES PLUS AND MINUS ONE
STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE ESTIMATE
o
FF
»
lx A
s
S -L
I 234567
HC FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE, gm/mi
Figure 64. Typical Variability of Predicted Population Results
181
-------
r
INPUT
DATA
INITIALIZE
VEHICLE MIX,
AVE. MILEAGE
ETC.
GENERATE
VEHICLES
TO BE
TRACKED
UPDATE
CONTROLLED
FLEET
(I/M)
UPDATE
UNCONTROLLED
FLEET
(NON-I/M)
I/M MILEAGE
ACCUMULATION
AND
DETERIORATION
MODEL
CALCULATE
207(b)
EFFECTIVENESS
'OUTPUT
RESULTS
/
VEHICLE
MAINTENANCE
MODEL
EMISSION
INSPECTION
MODEL
NON-I/M
MILEAGE
ACCUMULATION
AND
DETERIORATION
MODEL
CORRECT
RESULTS
TO
50,000 MILES.
C
STOP
Figure 65. Logical Flow Chart for 207(b) Effectiveness Estimation
182
-------
40-
oo
UJ
o
4->
c
I 204.
'c
OH
10-.
O - Original emission rate
& - After application of I/M program
Rapid deterioration
cancelling maintenance
in 9 months
-—- — EFP deterioration
Adjustment due
to Maintenance
Maintenance
Effectiveness
Period
Maintenance
Effectiveness
Period
—I 1 1—
10 12 14
Months
16
18
20
22
24
Figure 66. Piecewise Linear Deterioration for FF Vehicles
Shown Over Two-Year Period
-------
Current Year's
Classification
Possible Classifications
Next Year(a'
FF
E
o
E
c
PP
E , FF
o
E , FF
o
E , FF
o
PP, E , E , FF
c o
(a)
The probability of each classification is determined by
the inspection model based upon the 300-car data
Figure 67. Vehicle Classification Properties of the
207(b) Effectiveness Simulator
184
-------
GLOSSARY
CID cubic inch displacement
CO carbon monoxide
CVS constant volume sampling
E error of commission
c
EFP Emission Factors Program
E error of ommision
o
FF vehicles failed by both the ST and the FTP
FTP Federal Test Procedure
HC hydrocarbon
I/M inspection and maintenance
NO oxides of nitrogen
x
PP vehicles passed by both the ST and the FTP
ST short test
STE short test effectiveness
STRR short test rejection ratio
207(b) reference to section 207(b) of the 1970 Clean Air Act
GL-1
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-460/3-76-010a
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Short Test Correlation Analyses on 300
1975 Model Year Cars
Volume I
5. REPORT DATE
October 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
M. G. Hinton and John C. Thacker
ATR-77(7356)-l
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
The Mobile Systems Group
Environment & Energy Conservation Division
The Aerospace Corporation
El Segundo, California 90245
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-0417
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
A series of statistical analyses was performed to determine the degree of
"correlation" that exists between two specific short tests (STs) and the Federal
Emission Certification Test Procedure (FTP) for new vehicles. This work was
performed to determine if "reasonable correlation with certification test
procedures" exists; this is a condition precedent to the promulgation of
regulations that impose the in-use warranty provisions of Sec. 207(b) of the
Clean Air Act of 1970 upon the motor vehicle manufacturers.
The basis for the analyses was ST and FTP test data from three 100-vehicle
fleets located in (a) Chicago, Illinois, (b) Houston, Texas, and (c) Phoenix,
Arizona. Each of the vehicles in these fleets was tested by the FTP, the
Federal Short Cycle, and the Federal 3-Mode. Two different statistical
analysis methods •were used to assess "correlation" -- a conventional
correlation analysis, and a contingency table analysis.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATl Field/Group
Air Pollution
Emission Testing
Short Test Procedures
Test Correlations
Air Pollution Control
Conventional Corre-
lation Analysis
Contingency Table
Analysis
13 B
14 B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
439
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., date of issue, date of
approvcl, date of preparation, etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J. Robert Doe, etc.). List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hirearchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use.the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Leave blank.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with, Translation of. Presented at conference of,
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the report contains a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus Of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COS ATI FIELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COS ATI Subject Category List. Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be specific discipline, area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group assignments that will follow
the primary posting(s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." Cite any availability to
the public, with address and price.
19. & 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or thc-Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73) (Revcru)
-------