EPA-460/3-77-013
August 1977
EFFECT OF PRECONDITIONING
ON IN-USE VEHICLE TESTING
AND FAILURE ANALYSIS
OF EVAPORATIVE EMISSION
CONTROL SYSTEMS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
EPA-460/3-77-013
EFFECT OF PRECONDITIONING
ON IN-USE VEHICLE TESTING
AND FAILURE ANALYSIS
OF EVAPORATIVE EMISSION
CONTROL SYSTEMS
Richard R. Carlson
Olson Laboratories, Inc.
421 East Cerritos Ave.
Anaheim, California 92805
Contract No. 68-03-2412
Task Order No. 3
EPA Task Officer: Gary M. Wilson
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
August 1977
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited quantities - from the
Library Services Office (MD-35) , Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by Olson
Laboratories, Inc. , 421 East Cerritos Ave. , Anaheim, California 92805, in
fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2412, Task Order No. 3. The contents
of this report are reproduced herein as received from Olson Laboratories, Inc.
The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the
author and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an endorsement
by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-460/3-77-013
11
-------
Foreword
Assessment of vehicle emissions in the in-use vehicle population depends
upon a reliable and repeatable test procedure. This task order was initiated
to investigate the effect of various preconditioning techniques on evaporative
and exhaust emissions. This information will be useful in determining the
appropriate test procedure for use in emission-factor test programs.
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
Evaporative (SHED) and exhaust emission tests were performed on 20 late-
model catalyst-equipped vehicles to investigate the effect of three precondition-
ing procedures consisting of: 1) no preconditioning, 2) 1975 FTP driving
schedule, and 3) 10-minute road route. A failure analysis was also performed
on several vehicles which were found to either have high evaporative emissions
or evaporative emissions which were higher than similarly equipped vehicles.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreward iii
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vi
1 Introduction and Summary 1
2 Conclusions 2
3 Methodology 3
3.1 Vehicle Selection and Procurement 3
3.2 Vehicle Test Sequence 5
3.2.1 Vehicle Preconditioning 5
3.2.2 Evaporative Emission Tests 5
3.2.3 FTP Exhaust Emission Tests 12
3.2.4 Quality Assurance Procedures 12
3.3 Failure Analysis 15
3.4 Data Analysis 15
3.4.1 Data Recording and Reduction 17
3.4.2 Data Analysis and Interpretation 17
4.1 Effect of Preconditioning on Evaporative and Exhaust Emissions. 18
4.2 Analysis of Failed Evaporative Emission Control Systems .... 18
Appendix 33
-------
FIGURES
Number
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
Vehicle Flowchart
Evaporative/Exhaust Emission Test
Interior of SHED Showing Recirculating Fan and Heat Exchanger. . . .
SHED With Vehicle Inside After Hot Soak Test
Instrument System and Calibration Gases for Measuring Hydrocarbon
Concentration
Exterior of SHED Showing Recorders for Fuel and SHED Temperatures. .
Diurnal Emissions Versus Fuel Level
Diurnal Emissions Versus Air Temperature
Diurnal Emissions Versus Miles Driven
Normalized Emissions Versus Fuel Level
Normalized Emissions Versus Miles Driven
Normalized Diurnal Emissions Versus Air Temperature
Engine Compartment (1976 Ford Granada) Showing Location of Hot Soak
Evaporative Emissions
1976 Ford Carburetor Showing Passage for Choke Linkage
6
7
8
9
10
11
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
TABLES
Number
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
4-1
4-2
4-3
Vehicles Selected for Testing
Fuel Analysis Summary
Fuel Tolerances
Evaporative Emission Correlation Data
Composite Evaporative and Exhaust Emissions. . . .
Effect of Preconditioning on Evaporative Emissions
4
13
14
16
19
22
Effect of Preconditioning on Exhaust Emissions of 20 Vehicles.... 23
VI
-------
Section 1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This final report is submitted by Olson Laboratories, Inc., to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA), to document the conduct and findings of Task
Order 3 of Contract No. 68-03-2412.
This task order was originally divided into two separate parts: A) effect
of different preconditioning procedures on exhaust and evaporative emissions,
and B) failure analysis of failed evaporative emission control systems. For
Part A, 20 vehicles were each tested 3 times in accordance with the Federal
Register dated August 23, 1976, entitled Final Evaporative Emission Regulations
for Light-Duty Vehicles and Trucks (the SHED procedure). Different precondi-
tioning, however, was used prior to each of the three test sequences. Data,
in punched card format defined by the EPA, has been submitted to the EPA
Project Officer.
Of the 20 vehicles tested, 10 high emitters were to have been selected
for a failure analysis. However, all 1977 vehicles were generally within the
expected evaporative emission levels (4 grams per diurnal test and 6 grams per
hot soak test). Those vehicles which showed high emission levels were equipped
with evaporative emission controls which were not designed to control evapora-
tive emissions as measured by the SHED procedure. None of the systems exhibited
defective components which were correctible by repair or replacement with OEM
components.
In general, the 1975 Federal Test Procedure (FTP) exhaust emissions did
not significantly depend upon preconditioning prior to testing. Evaporative
emissions, however, did depend upon preconditioning with "as received" vehicles
typically showing higher evaporative emissions than either dynamometer (1975
FTP driving schedule) or road (10-minute city street route used in Emission
Factor Test Programs) preconditioning. There were no significant differences
in evaporative emissions between the dynamometer or road preconditioning.
Diurnal evaporative emissions, however, were considerably more sensitive to
lack of preconditioning than were hot soak emissions.
-1-
-------
Section 2
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions were based on this project:
o The evaporative emission control systems representative of 1978
model-year systems were within the 6 grams per test standard effective
with the 1978 model-year.
o There were no significant differences in either evaporative or
exhaust emissions at the 95 percent confidence level between dynamom-
eter (1975 FTP) and road preconditioning (10-minute road route).
o There were no significant differences in exhaust emissions at the
95 percent confidence level between no-preconditioning and either
dynamometer or road preconditioning.
o No-preconditioning did result in statistically higher evaporative
emissions at the 95 percent confidence level than either dynamometer
or road preconditioning.
o Evaporative emissions from vehicles which have not been preconditioned
were not clearly related to the quantity of fuel in the fuel tank,
or the duration and type of drive to the test laboratory.
-2-
-------
Section 3
METHODOLOGY
This section summarizes the methodology applied to vehicle procurement,
testing, and data reduction.
3.1 VEHICLE SELECTION AND PROCUREMENT
The 20 vehicles shown in Table 3-1 were selected by the Task Officer for
testing on this project. These vehicles were believed to be capable of meeting
1978 evaporative emission standards of 6 grams per test. They were consumer-
owned vehicles except that one leased vehicle (#3021) was used as a correlation
vehicle between Olson's Anaheim laboratory and the California Air Resources
Board (ARE) laboratory in El Monte, California.
The consumer-owned vehicles were obtained from prior participants (pre-
1977 model-year) and from respondents to direct mail solicitation (1977 model-
year) derived from vehicle registration listings.
The incentive package for participants included the following:
o Free fully-insured 1976 Ford Granada loan vehicle.
o Full tank of gas when participant's vehicle was returned.
o Cash or check for $15 each time the owner delivered the vehicle to
Olson. In the event of an aborted or invalid test which required
preconditioning by the owner, an additional $15 was paid.
,'.
o $50 savings bond upon completion of all testing and return of the
vehicle to its owner.
Upon initial arrival at Olson, the Vehicle Information Form, and vehicle
owner questionnaire used in the 1975 Emission Factor Test Program, were com-
pleted by the participant. The following data (shown in the Appendix) were
also recorded as part of the questionnaire when the vehicle was driven to
Olson.
o Odometer reading at start and end of drive to Olson test facility.
o Amount of fuel in tank at start of initial cold soak.
o Time of day and ambient temperature in the shade when the vehicle
was initially driven to Olson.
o Type of fuel evaporative emission controls.
-3-
-------
Table 3-1. VEHICLES SELECTED FOR TESTING
Task Order 3 - Contract 68-03-2412
VEHICLE
NUMBER
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012*
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
MODEL
YEAR
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1976
1976
1976
1976
1975
1975
1976
1976
ENGINE SIZE
Cid Cyl Carb
225 6 1
225 6 1
360 8 4
360 8 4
360 8 4
360 8 4
140 4 2
140 4 2
151 4 2
151 4 2
168 6 FI
168 6 FI
231 6 2
250 6 1
250 6 1
140 4 2
140 4 2
350 8 4
350 8 4
97 4 FI
302 8 2
ENGINE
FAMILY
CD-225-1-EP
CD-225-1-EP
CD-360-4-GP
CD-360-4-GP
CD-360-4-GP
CD-360-4-GP
710 C2
710 C2
720X 2E
720X 2E
L-280-C
L-280-C
740E 2LU
250-1CEF
250-1CEF
11 C2
11 C2
31 J43
31 J43
2
302A-1CEF
MAKE
Plymouth
Plymouth
Dodge
Chrysler
Dodge
Dodge
Vega
Vega
Astre
Astre
Datsun 280Z
Datsun 280Z
Cutlass
Maverick
Maverick
Vega
Vega
Oldsmobile
Oldsmobile
VW Beetle
Granada
*Task Officer allowed substitution of vehicle 3021 for
one Datsun 280Z.
-4-
-------
3.2 VEHICLE TEST SEQUENCE
Figure 3-1 summarizes the flow path of each vehicle during testing.
Figure 3-2 shows, in detail, the elements of the Evaporative/Exhaust Emission
Test. Separate paragraphs discuss the following elements of the test sequence:
o Vehicle preconditioning
o Evaporative emission tests
o FTP exhaust emission tests
o Quality assurance procedures
3.2.1 Vehicle Preconditioning
Vehicle preconditioning was performed as follows :
o Preconditioning for the initial test sequence was the vehicle owner's
drive to Olson. The vehicle was driven to the soak area after a
short (less than 30 minutes} engine-off period during which the
vehicle was accepted into the program. The vehicles could not
always be driven immediately into soak because of interfering with
tests in progress.
o Preconditioning for the second test sequence was the first emission
test; i.e., a 1975 FTP driving schedule. The vehicle was pushed
from the SHED into the soak area after completion of the first hot
soak test.
o Preconditioning for the third test was the 10-minute road route (see
Appendix) used for Emission Factors Test Programs. The vehicle was
driven out of the SHED after the second hot soak test, preconditioned
and driven to the soak area.
o Preconditioning for the tests performed as part of the failure
analyses was a UDDS (LA— 4) dynamometer cycle. The vehicle was
driven to the soak area.
All vehicles were in the soak area for 12 to 36 hours at temperatures
between 68°F JJ-^CT and 86°F (30°C) .
3.2.2 Evaporative Emission Tests
Evaporative emission tests were performed in accordance with 40 CFR
86.133-78 for the diurnal loss test and 40 CFR 86.138-78 for the hot soak
test. A Horiba Model V SHED, modified to include a water-chilled heat exchanger,
was used in this program. Figures 3-3 and 3-4 show the SHED. Figures 3-5
and 3-6 show the instruments for recording hydrocarbons (Scott Model 116 FID) ,
fuel temperature, and SHED temperature. Fuel temperature was measured using
Type-J thermocouples inserted through an OEM replacement test cap. The inner
and outer penetration of the cap was sealed with a quick-setting epoxy. SHED
temperatures were recorded using thermistors.
Vehicle fuel systems were initially pressure tested prior to the first
test. The pressure test consisted of applying 14 to 15 inches of water pressure
to the fuel system through the fuel tank vapor line leading into the carbon
-5-
-------
Subtask 3A
Effect of
Subtask 3B
Failure Analysis
reuunu i L iuii my
PROCURE
VEHICLE
i
COLD
SOAK
J
i
EVAPORATIVE/
EXHAUST
EMISSION TEST
i
r
COLD
SOAK
\
EVAPORATIVE/
EXHAUST
EMISSION TEST
i
ROAD PRE-
CONDITIONING
i
COLD
SOAK
i
r
EVAPORATIVE/
EXHAUST
EMISSION TEST
i
>fAI
\L\lf\
X?
l
RETU
VEHI
Nv YES
P > — *•
/
NO
RN
CLE
1
<
-*
<
SELECT
VEHICLE
i
i
PROCURE -
SELECTED
VEHICLE
1
i
PERFORM
VISUAL
INSPECTION/
PRESSURE TEST
Sm
CDETE
i
EcrX.
CTED >
1S^
NO
i
DYNO PRE-
CONDITIONING
1
HOT SOAK/
FID SNIFFER
.XABNO
SOUR
X^DETE
^s2
i
RMAL\
TF<; 3
CTWS^
YES
REPLACE/
CORRECT
DYNO PRE-
CONDITIONING
i
NOTIFY
-* KLJLCILU
OWNER
YES
CORRECT
DEFECT
j
NO .XREPAWX. YES
fc
-------
12 to 36 hour soak
PUSH
VEHICLE
INTO SHED
40 CFR 36.133-78
40 CFR 86.135-78
to 40 CFR 86.137-78
— 40 CFR 86.138-78
Figure 3-2. EVAPORATIVE/EXHAUST EMISSION TEST
(EPA Contract 68-03-2412 - Task Order 3)
-7-
-------
Figure 3-3. INTERIOR OF SHED SHOWING RECIR
FAN AND HEAT EXCHANGER
-------
Figure 3-4. SHED WITH VEHICLE INSIDE AFTER HOT SOAK TEST
-------
INSTRUMENT SYSTEM AND CALIBRATION GASES FOR
MEASURING HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION
Figure 3-5.
-------
OF SHED SHOWING
TEMPERATURES
EXTERIOR
AND SHED
-------
canister. The fuel system was deemed to be leak tight if the pressure loss in
5 minutes was less than 2 inches of water. Initially, fuel cap pressure
checks were made prior to only the first test. After one vehicle (S3006) had
be»jn tested, the fuel pressure was checked prior to each test to ensure that
no leaks developed durinq the testing due to repeated removal of the cap as
occurred with vehicle #3006.
o o
The tank fuel was drained and replaced with the chilled (53 F-58 F)
Indolenc Clear test fuel immediately prior to entering the SHED for the diurnal
test. The test fuel was analyzed to establish conformity to 40 CFR 86.133-78
specific-ations and stored under refrigeration until transfer to the vehicle.
Table 3-2 summarizes the test fuel RVP and distillation by drum number. The
initial batch of fuel (ten drums) was found to be consistently higher in RVP
than tht batch analysis indicated. It was not possible to firmly establish
whether the initial batch was actually high or whether the analytical laboratory
(Union Research) had erroneously analyzed these fuel samples.
3.2.3 FTP Exhaust Emission Tests
Exhaust emission tests were performed in accordance with 40 CFR 86.135-78
through 40 CFR 86.137-78, and 40 CFR 86.140-78. The FTP was performed within
1 hour of the end of the diurnal test and was usually initiated within 30 minutes
of the end of the diurnal test.
3.2.4 Quality Assurance Procedures
All evaporative and exhaust emission data were audited for compliance
with EPA procedures and specifications published in 40 CFR Part 86, Subpart B,
and in Sections IV through X of Exhibit C of Contract No. 68-03-2412.
Fuel was stored and transferred in accordance with procedures specified
in Section XI of Exhibit C of Contract No. 68-03-2412. A single analysis of
each drum was made prior to its use. Each drum was considered within specifica-
tion if the vendor's batch analysis, and the contractor's drum analysis agreed
with the tolerances listed in Table 3-3. The Task Officer approved testing
even though the initial batch of fuel was outside the indicated specifications
as shown previously in Table 3-2.
Vehicles with invalid tests of either exhaust or evaporative emissions
were retested. Vehicles for which the first test sequence was aborted or
invalid were returned to their owner for at least 10 calendar days. Vehicles
for which subsequent test sequences were aborted or invalid were given the
specified preconditioning (either dynamometer or road) and retested. Invalid
tests were based on the following criteria:
o Soak period (12 to 36 hours).
o Soak or test temperatures outside of 68°F to 86°F.
o Driver error.
o Excessive delays between key elements of the test sequence.
o Dynamometer or instrumentation calibration error or malfunction.
In some cases, which are documented in the test log, procedural violations
were accepted by the Task or Project Officer when they did not introduce
significant error.
-12-
-------
Table 3-2. FUEL ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Ul
I
ANALYSIS
Batch
AO
Al
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
All
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
RVP
9.0
6. 6*
9. 2
9. 5
9.5
9. 5
9. 3
9. 3
9. 4
9. 4
9. 3
8 . 9
9. 1
8. 9
9. 0
9. 0
9. 0
9. 2
IBP
89
96
90
86
85
85
85
89
85
86
88
86
92
87
93
91
90
87
5%
-
136
118
112
110
112
117
119
117
117
120
117
126
117
122
123
123
127
10%
127
154
134
130
126
128
134
136
134
134
136
137
143
135
139
138
140
127
20%
-
180
164
160
156
159
164
164
162
162
164
175
175
170
174
173
175
166
30%
-
200
190
186
185
187
191
190
190
190
191
202
302
199
200
202
201
195
40%
-
213
210
206
206
206
208
209
208
208
209
216
216
214
216
216
215
211
50%
217
224
222
218
219
218
221
221
221
221
221
227
227
224
226
226
225
221
60%
-
232
232
228
228
226
232
231
232
231
233
236
236
234
235
236
235
225
70%
-
246
245
240
241
240
243
244
244
245
244
248
248
244
247
248
247
249
80%
-
269
268
264
264
263
266
268
267
266
267
274
272
271
271
272
270
268
90%
307
316
319
312
313
320
314
316
316
317
316
338
321
325
329
331
328
328
EBP
403
386
394
389
392
390
392
391
388
386
390
390
396
396
393
391
376
391
*Laboratory erroneously analyzed this sample, attempted to repeat the analysis
but ran out of sample.
-------
Table 3-3. FUEL TOLERANCES
PROPERTY
Reid Vapor Pressure
(psi)
Distillation
IBP °F
10% °F
50% °F
90% °F
EBP °F
EPA
SPECIFICATION
8.7-9.2
75-95
120-135
200-230
300-325
<415
ASTM
REPRODUCIBILITY
0.3
9
8
6
11
9
ACCEPTANCE
RANGE*
8.4-9.5
66-104
112-143
194-236
289-336
<424
*A fuel will be considered acceptable if the Olson analysis of the drum
sample is within the EPA specification or does not differ from an
acceptable AMOCO analysis by more than the reproducibility of the
analytical method.
-14-
-------
In addition, some tests which otherwise complied with routine quality
audit procedures were rejected by the Program Manager if the results appeared
unreasonable. This occurred on two vehicles in which fuel losses appeared to
be excessive even though the fuel system was found to be pressure tight.
Regular daily, weekly, and monthly calibrations and calibration checks
were performed in accordance with the contract requirements. Daily start-ups
included propane recovery tests; analyzer span, zero, and tune recordings or
adjustments; and NO converter efficiency checks on the 100 ppm and 1,000 ppm
ranges. Weekly calibrations included the daily start-ups plus checks of all
analyzer calibration curves using ±1 percent precision gas standards. Any
point out of specification (±5 percent of point,or ±1 percent of full-scale,
whichever was less) required generating new calibration curves. The dynamometer
coastdown times were checked every 2 weeks. Monthly calibration checks included
dynamometer coastdowns, analyzer curves, and a leak check of the SHED.
In addition to tests performed at Olson, three tests on vehicle #3021
were performed at the California Air Resources Board laboratory in El Monte,
California. The preconditioning used by the ARE was slightly different than
specified in the Task Order. In spite of these differences, good correlation
was obtained between the ARE and Olson test results. Table 3-4 summarizes the
results of the correlation tests.
3.3 FAILURE ANALYSIS
The Task Order included a failure analysis (Part B) of evaporative emission
control systems with emissions which were judged to be excessive. Vehicles
were immediately selected for the failure analysis if their diurnal evaporative
emissions exceeded 4 grams per test or hot soak emissions exceeded 6 grams per
test on the third test sequence. Two other vehicles were also selected and
recalled for subsequent failure analysis when the evaporative emissions appeared
to deviate significantly from vehicles with similar emission control systems.
The failure analysis consisted of detection and diagnosis of failed or
defective components followed by corrective repair, if warranted. Two vehicles
on which corrective repairs were performed were subjected to a final Evaporative/
Exhaust Emission Test sequence described in Section 3.2. However, no vehicles
were actually detected with defective evaporative emission control systems.
Vehicles with high emissions were subjected to a "sniffer" test using a
flame ionization detector (FID) in conjunction with a visual inspection to
identify the source of the excess emissions. A visual examination of components
was made to determine the reasons for failure. The "sniffer" test consisted
of measuring hydrocarbon concentrations near suspected sources of evaporative
emissions before, immediately after, and 15 minutes after an LA-4 driving
schedule. The suspected sources included the following: fuel cap, carbon
canister, air cleaner snorkel, and base of carburetor.
3.4 DATA ANALYSIS
Data analysis for Task Order 3 included recording, reduction, and inter-
pretation of test results and descriptive information.
-15-
-------
Table 3-4. EVAPORATIVE EMISSION CORRELATION DATA
(GM/TEST)
OLSON RESULTS
PRECONDITIONING
40 Mile Freeway
1975 FTP
10-Minute Road
DIURNAL
3. 9
3.9
4. 2
HOT SOAK
12.1
11. 7
12. 7
TOTAL
16. 0
15. 6
16. 9
ARB RESULTS
PRECONDITIONING
40 Mile Freeway*
40 Mile Road and LA-4
LA-4 (1972 FTP)
40 Mile Road and LA-4
DIURNAL
9. 0
4. 9
3. 8
3. 9
HOT SOAK
13. 2
11. 2
12.4
13.2
TOTAL
22 .2
16.1
16. 2
17 . 1
*Vehicle was tested without preconditioning
several days after being delivered to the ARB
laboratory.
-16-
-------
3.4.1 Data Recording and Reduction
Test data were recorded on standard data forms used during the 1975 FY
Emission Factor Test Program. However, some modifications to the forms were
required for this Task Order to accommodate specific additional information.
In addition, data regarding idle parameter specifications and measurements
were not reported.
The test data were reduced by converting deflections and ranges to concen-
trations, and auditing the data. This function was performed by Olson's Data
Quality Assurance group. Punched card output in the format defined by EPA was
provided to the Project Officer at the end of this task.
3.4.2 Data Analysis and Interpretation
The interpretation of the data included establishing the relationship
between preconditioning and emission levels. Tests for statistically signifi-
cant differences were performed between the second emission test, which was
considered the baseline test, and the other tests to determine whether precondi-
tioning caused statistically different emissions.
The statistical test used to determine significant differences in emissions
due to preconditioning was the paired t-test. This test applies to cases
where two treatments; i.e., preconditioning, are applied to each member of a
population. In this case, each member was one of the vehicles in the test
fleet. The paired t-test was evaluated at the 95 percent confidence level and
was applied to the following comparisons of preconditioning.
o None versus 1974 FTP
o None versus road route
o 1975 FTP versus road route
In addition to statistical tests, diurnal evaporative emission data were
plotted as a function of the amount of fuel in the tank, ambient air temperature,
and distance driven prior to the first evaporative emissions test. These
plots were prepared for both the actual diurnal emission level and diurnal
data normalized by dividing the first test (no preconditioning) by the second
test (1975 FTP).
-17-
-------
Section 4
RESULTS
4.1 EFFECT OF PRECONDITIONING ON EVAPORATIVE AND EXHAUST EMISSIONS
Table 4-1 presents composite evaporative and exhaust emission data for
each vehicle. Summaries showing the average, minimum, and maximum value of
the evaporative emissions are shown in Table 4-2. Based on these results, it
can be seen that no preconditioning resulted in higher diurnal evaporative
emissions than either dynamometer or road preconditioning. These results were
significant at the 95 percent confidence level for the 1977 model-year vehicles
and for all vehicles excluding Fords. Dynamometer preconditioning did not
result in significantly different evaporative emissions at 95 percent or
higher confidence levels than did road preconditioning.
Table 4-3 summarizes cold transient and composite FTP exhaust emissions
in grams per mile. Exhaust emissions were not significantly affected by the
type of preconditioning at 95 percent confidence levels although no precondi-
tioning resulted in slightly higher HC (Bag 1) and CO (Composite) emissions
than either road or dynamometer preconditioning.
Diurnal evaporative emission data were plotted in Figures 4-1 through
4-3 for the actual diurnal emissions in grams per test and in Figures 4-4
through 4-6 for the ratio of first test divided by second test. No clear
trends were determined between any of the as-received vehicle characteristics
(fuel-level, ambient air temperature, and distance driven to the laboratory).
Four vehicles, however, were clearly higher than the other 16 in all cases.
These vehicles were not the Ford vehicles.
4.2 ANALYSIS OF FAILED EVAPORATIVE EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
Three vehicles had evaporative emissions which were significantly higher
than the other 17 vehicles. All three of these vehicles had evaporative
emissions between 15 to 20 grams per test. All of these vehicles were 1976
Fords; two were 250-CID Mavericks, and one was a 302-CID Granada. All three
vehicles had similar Carter carburetors without float chamber emission control.
The emission tests indicated high hot soak emissions. The Granada and both
Mavericks were subjected to a "sniffer" test to evaluate the source of emis-
sions. Both vehicles showed very high levels at the base of the carburetor
shortly after completing the LA-4 driving cycle. These data are presented in
the Appendix. One vehicle (the Granada with 302-CID engine) was selected for
further testing. Figure 4-7 shows the engine compartment and the location of
the area with high evaporative emissions. The air cleaner was removed
(Figure 4-8) revealing the passage in the carburetor casting for the choke
linkage. This passage allowed fuel vapors from the float chamber equalizer
vent tube to escape from the air cleaner housing. The relatively low emissions
during the diurnal heat build suggested that the carbon canister was performing
-18-
-------
Table 4-1.
EVAP CUM REPORT
COMPOSITE EVAPORATIVE AND EXHAUST EMISSIONS
CALIFORNIA
VEHICLE
NUMBER
3001
MOOtL
YEAR
1977
MAKE
CID
DODG 225
3002
1977
PLYM 225
3003
1977
DODG 360
vo
i
3004
1977
CHRY 360
3005
3006
1977
1977
CHRY 360
DOOG 360
3007
1977
CHEV 140
TEST TYPF
1S75
1975
1975
EVAP
EVAP
EVAP
1975
1975
1975
EVAP
EVAP
EVAP
1975
1975
1975
EVA?
EVAP
EVAP
1975
1975
1975
1S75
EVAP
EVAP
EVAP
EVAP
1975
1975
1975
EVAP
EVAP
EVAP
1975
1575
1975
EVAP
EVAP
EVAP
1975
1975
1975
EVAP
EVAP
FTP
FTP
FTP
TST
TST
TST
FTP
FTP
FTP
TST
TST
TST
FTP
FTP
FTP
TST
TST
TST
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
TST
TST
TST
TST
FTP
FTP
FTP
TST
TST
TST
FTP
FTP
FTP
TST
TST
TST
FTP
FTP
FTP
TST
TST
0
0
c
6
c
4
0
0
0
3
2
3
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
8
5
4
•a
1
1
1
5
3
•3
0
C
C
2
2
2
0
C
0
15
.26
.28
.29
.98
.76
.97
.30
.23
.38
.35
.10
.60
.84
.68
.84
.42
.18
.52
.83
.45
.79
.68
.33
.77
.62
.37
.82
.52
.76
.00
.58
.95
.37
.40
.42
.79
.51
.67
.66
.60
.69
.85
3.34
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GrtAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAhS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAfoS
GRAMS
2.
1 .
3.
OF
OF
OF
3.
3.
3.
OF
OF
OF
26.
23.
26.
OF
CF
OF
14.
5.
15.
10.
OF
OF
CF
OF
59.
55.
62.
OF
OF
OF
9.
7.
5.
OF
OF
OF
22.
19.
21.
OF
Of
69
41
Ob
HC
HC
HC
69
30
69
HC
HC
HC
lo
05
14
HC
HC
HC
64
60
37
59
HC
HC
HC
HC
31
05
93
HC
HC
HC
86
85
79
HC
HC
HC
62
89
96
HC
HC
(GMS/MI)
C02
375.8
5d6.8
567.7
521.0
537.0
534.3
794.1
792.4
788.6
726.0
724.7
728.4
736.5
68d.5
703.9
689.0
799.0
801. 1
793.7
480.1
483.5
459.4
N^XC
1.55
1.61
1.58
0.87
1.41
1.22
1.63
1.62
1.76
1.58
1. 72
1.69
1.68
1.35
1.24
1.28
0.80
G.y3
0.82
1.39
1.34
1.18
FUEL
ECGN
(MPo)
15.28
15.05
15.48
16.62
16.35
16.40
10.59
10.68
10.66
11. dl
12.08
11.75
11.75
11.27
11.16
11.19
10.88
10.69
11.04
17.14
17.18
17.89
TtST
NO.
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
I
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
-------
Table 4-1. COMPOSITE EVAPORATIVE AND EXHAUST EMISSIONS (Continued)
fcVAP CUM OEPORT CALIFu-NlA
VEHICLE
NUMBER
3008
H3DEL
YEAR
1977
MAKE CIO TEST TYPE
CHEV
3009
v 3010
o
i
1977
PONT
1977
PONT
151
3011
1977
DATS
168
3013
1977
BUIC
231
3014
1976
FORD 250
3015
1976
FORD
250
EVAP
1975
1975
1975
EVAP
EVAP
1975
1975
1975
EVAP
EVAP
EVAP
1S75
1975
1975
1975
EVAP
EVAP
EVAP
EVAP
1975
1-575
1975
EVAP
EVAP
EVAP
1975
1975
1975
EVAP
EVAP
EVAP
1975
1975
1975
EVAP
EVAP
EVAP
1575
1975
1975
EVAP
TST
FTP
FTP
FTP
TST
TST
TST
FTP
FTP
FTP
TST
TST
TST
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
TST
TST
TST
TST
FTP
FTP
FTP
TST
TST
TST
FTP
FTP
FTP
TST
TST
TST
FTP
FTP
FTP
TST
TST
TST
FTP
FTP
FTP
TST
c
0
0
0
4
1
1
0
0
c
2
5
f.
0
0
C
c
9
7
1
6
1
1
1
4
1
1
0
0
c
6
4
5
0
0
c
24
16
20
C
0
C
15
,9Sl
.68
.65
.53
.20
.29
.59
.37
.33
.34
.86
.31
.20
.37
.33
.31
.2*
.21
.12
.80
.98
.70
.76
.93
.15
.59
.60
.38
.39
.46
.16
.94
.56
.33
.39
.43
.80
.59
.57
.39
.37
.75
.20
G^AMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
G*AMS
GRAMS
GRAPS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GXAMS
GRAMS
OF
15.
13.
11.
OF
OF
OF
5.
4.
-------
Table 4-1.
EVAP CUM REPORT
VEHICLE
NUMBER
3016
MODEL
YEAR
1976
MAKE
CIC
CHEV 140
3017
1976
CHEV 140
i
to
301S
3019
1975
1975
OLDS 350
CLDS 350
3020
3021
1976
1976
VOLK 97
FORD 302
COMPOSITE EVAPORATIVE AND EXHAUST EMISSIONS (Continued)
CALIFORNIA
TEST TYPE
EVAP 1ST
EVAP TST
1S75 FTP
1975 FTP
1975 FTP
EVAP TST
EVAP TST
EVAP TST
1975 FTP
1975 FTP
1975 FTP
EVAP TST
EVAP TST
EVAP TST
1975 FTP
1S75 FTP
1975 FTP
EVAP TST
EVAP TST
EVAP TST
1975 FTP
1975 FTP
1975 FTP
EVAP TST
EVAP TST
EVAP TST
1975 FTP
197b FTP
1975 FTP
tVAP TST
EVAP TST
EVAP TST
1975 FTP
1975 FTP
1975 FTP
EVAP TST
6VAP TST
EVAP TST
17.69
20. 22
0.27
C.25
0.23
1.48
1.45
1.57
0.53
C.62
0.41
1.17
1.57
1.60
1.12
1.16
C.97
2.38
2.05
5.50
0.37
0.45
0.43
1.54
2.05
2.21
0.77
0.77
0.71
3.68
3.96
3.32
1.34
1.27
1.24
15.96
15.56
16.83
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
GKAMS
GRAMS
OF HC
3F HC
5.96
5.81
4.15
OF HC
OF HC
OF HC
7.00
6.86
6.02
OF HC
OF HC
OF HC
19.32
36.35
12.33
OF HC
OF HC
CF HC
3.47
3.03
3.46
OF HC
OF HC
OF HC
12.69
12.44
10.66
CF HC
UF HC
CF HC
6.42
7.52
8.c,5
OF HC
CF HC
OF HC
(GMS/fl)
CO 2
426.5
417.8
416.9
461.1
497.6
503.5
611.1
621.5
685.9
722.7
724.3
726.2
359.4
360.9
361.2
613.0
624.2
609.8
NOXC
4.55
4.57
4.47
1.47
1.66
1.69
3.60
3.75
4.54
1.34
1.21
1.23
1.14
1.21
1.44
1.52
1.50
1.42
FUEL
ECQN
(MPG)
20.32
20.75
20.93
18.73
17.39
17.26
13.76
13.01
12.53
12.17
12.15
12.11
23.25
23.18
23.34
14.15
13.87
14.15
TEST
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
-------
Table 4-2. EFFECT OF PRECONDITIONING ON EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
DESCRIPTION
All Vehicles
Number
Average
Minimum
Maximum
1977 MY
Number
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Excluding Fords
Number
Average
Minimum
Maximum
TYPE OF PRECONDITIONING
NONE
Diurnal
20
3.07
0.29
12.91
12
3.37
0.95
12.56
17
2.60
0.29
12.56
Hot
Soak
20
3.80
0.90
14.85
12
2.58
1.29
5.83
17
2.19
0.70
4.54
Comp.
20
6.88
1.17
24.81
12
5.95
2.42
15.86
17
4.80
1.17
15.86
DYNO-1975 FTP
Diurnal
20
1.92
0.35
5.57
12
1.92
0.40
5.57
17
1.66
0.35
5.57
Hot
Soak
20
3.41
0.63
15.43
12
1.87
0.89
4.79
17
1.68
0.63
4.79
Comp.
20
5.33
1.29
17.69
12
3.80
1.29
7.13
17
3.34
1.29
7.13
ROAD- 10 MINUTE ROUTE
Diurnal
20
1.99
0.34
7.27
12
1.68
0.51
3.72
17
1.60
0.34
3.72
Hot
Soak
20
3.81
0.84
19.11
12
2.00
4.54
0.93
17
1.84
0.84
4.54
Comp.
20
5.80
1.52
20.59
12
3.68
1.59
5.99
17
3.42
1.57
5.99
-------
Table 4-3. EFFECT OF PRECONDITIONING ON
EXHAUST EMISSIONS OF 20 VEHICLES
Bag 1
GM/Mile
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Composite
GM/Mile
Average
Minimum
Maximum
PRECONDITIONING
NONE
HC
1.66
0.48
3.30
0.69
0.26
1.82
CO
36.38
6.45
110.98
16.48
1.44
75.72
NO C
X
2.25
0.38
5.18
1.67
0.31
4.55
DYNO-1975 FTP
HC
1.55
0.52
3.28
0.67
0.23
1.76
CO
37.18
4.66
112.95
15.00
1.41
75.24
NO C
X
2.27
0.37
5.05
1.72
0.31
4.57
ROAD-10-MIN. ROUTE
HC
1.56
0.50
3.39
0.72
0.23
1.93
CO
36.71
7.99
124.24
15.39
1.81
87.60
NO C
X
2.33
0.44
5.98
1.77
0.33
4.47
-23-
-------
Figure 4-1. DIURNAL EMISSIONS VERSUS FUEL LEVEL
i
ISJ
18
0
20
G>
01
0
.03
13,06
09 02
05
07
04
14
5 6 7 8 9 10
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS (GRAMS HC)
11
12 13
14
-------
80 -
Figure 4-2. DIURNAL EMISSIONS VERSUS AIR TEMPERATURE
75
09
19
70
-e>
16
<£>
11
10
14
07
1
NJ
Ln
t
ERA
AIR TE
ffi
LH
17
Oi
O
55
02 08
13
50
1
1
_i
i
7 8 9 10 11 12
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS (GRAMS HC)
13
14
15
16
-------
35 L.
03
30
25
20
L9 16 06
©G 0
i
to
15
10
Figure 4-3. DIURNAL EMISSIONS VERSUS MILES DRIVEN
11
10
05
o.
.04
05
20
JL
_L
7 8 9 10 11 12
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS (GRAMS HC)
13
14
15
16
-------
Figure 4-4. NORMALIZED EMISSIONS VERSUS FUEL LEVEL
I
to
1 5
00
Cw
14
.05
20
e
17 19 03
© (J> ®
16 04 10 13 06
o © o o ®
09
0
07
08
02
0
14
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-------
35
Figure 4-5. NORMALIZED EMISSIONS VERSUS MILES DRIVEN
30
25
11
©
20
t
KJ
CO
w
9
H
19 16
09
09
01
14
15
10
15
17
10
13
20
J_
_L
1.0
3.0 4.0 5.0
NORMALIZED EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
6.0
7.0
8.0
-------
80 .
75
70
fa
g
g
65
60
55
50
Figure 4-6. NORMALIZED DIURNAL EMISSIONS VERSUS AIR TEMPERATURE
09
18
14
20
19
°
16 04
a> ©
11
0
07
0
02
05
o
08
17
13
1
J_
1.0
2.0
3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
NORMALIZED EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
7.0
8.0
-------
SUAK LOSSES
ENGINE COMPARTMENT (1976 FORD GRANADA) SHOWING
LOCATION OF HOT SOAK EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
Figure 4-7 .
-------
PASSAGE 111 CASTIi.
Figure 4-8. 1976 FORD CARBURETOR SHOWING PASSAGE FOR CHOKE
LINKAGE
-------
satisfactorily in controlling fuel tank emissions. Since this carburetor was
not designed to control carburetor evaporative emissions, there was no correc-
tive maintenance which could be performed, however, to determine whether there
were any additional vapor losses passed the gasket which seals the carburetor
and the base of the air cleaner canister. The gasket was covered with silicone
stopcock grease and a hot soak diurnal test was then performed. There was no
differences between the evaporative emissions performed with the sealing
gasket as compared to the original gasket (11.15 grams versus 12.6 grams).
Since the two Ford Mavericks were also equipped with carburetors of similar
design, they were not analyzed further.
Two vehicles (#3004 and #3010) showed relatively high diurnal emissions.
Both vehicles were recalled and their carbon canisters were replaced with OEM
equivalent units. A final evaporative emission test (Number 4 in the Appendix)
was performed on each vehicle following an LA-4 dynamometer preconditioning
and cold soak. Vehicle #3004 (Chrysler Cordoba 360 CID) showed reduced diurnal
emissions but increased in hot soak emissions. An FID sniffer test was per-
formed on this vehicle since hot soak emissions which would be detected during
the sniffer test were shown to be low. As shown in the Appendix, this vehicle's
hot soak emissions after the carbon canister replacement were lower than the
initial as-received emissions, but were higher than the hot soak emissions
after preconditioning. The reason for the high hot soak emissions could not
be determined.
The second vehicle (#3010) was a 1977 Pontiac Astre 151 CID. This vehi-
cle's emissions were not affected by installation of the new canister. Both
diurnal and hot soak emissions after the canister replacement were similar to
the dynamometer preconditioning results obtained on Test 2. The reason for
the increase in diurnal emissions could not be determined. However, it is
possible that dynamometer preconditioning did not fully purge the carbon
canister since the third emission (after road preconditioning) test was very
low.
-32-
-------
APPENDIX
-33-
-------
001 CARD LISTING
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION DATA
CAR
NO.
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
, 3010
"3011
?3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
MOD
TR:
CV!
AC,
CATE
77/C5/09
77/04/18
77/05/09
77/04/25
77/05/23
77/06/01
77/04/25
77/05/23
77/05/17
77/05/17
77/04/26
77/05/09
77/C4/20
77/05/17
77/C5/23
77/03/21
77/C5/04
77/C3/25
77/03/07
77/03/23
SIZE
A/C SIM:
MAKE
CODE
10
12
10
09
09
10
03
03
05
05
14
01
06
06
03
03
04
04
16
06
1 •
1 >
0 =
1 =
YR
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
76
76
76
76
75
75
76
76
HAKE
DGDG
PLYM
DOOG
CHRY
CH*Y
DODG
oev
CHEV
PCNT
PCNT
DATS
BUIC
FORD
FORD
CHEV
CHEV
CLOS
OLDS
VOLK
FORD
MOOL
ASPE
VOLA
MONO
CORD
NEkiP
MONO
MONZ
VEGA
ASTR
AST*
280Z
SKYL
HAVE
PAVE
VEGA
VEGA
CUTL
CUTL
SEOA
GRAN
NOD
SU
3
3
1
2
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
2
2
4
3
CID
-------
CAR
NO.
002 CARD LISTING
EMISSION CONTROL SYSTMS
FTC EM AIR EGR FT CAT TR PCV CBE FTE CCC CC CCP
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
, 3010
"3011
V3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
190
180
240
255
265
240
185
160
160
16C
170
210
190
190
160
160
20C
220
110
192
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
I
Z
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
i
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
4
1
KEY TO CODES
FTC = Fuel Tank Capacity (gals)
EM = Engine Modification (l=yes)
AIR = Air Injection (l=yes, 2=nol
EGR = Exhaust Gas Recirculation Q=yes, 2=no)
FI = Fuel Injection (l=yes, 2=no)
CAT = Oxidation Catalyst (l=yes)
TR = Termal Reactor (2=no)
PCV = Positive Crankcase Ventilation (1-installed and functioning)
CBE = Carburetor Bowl Evaporative Emission Control l=yes, 2=no, Q=not applicable)
FTE = Fuel Tank Evaporative Emission Control (l=yes)
CCC = Carbon Canister Contraction (l=open bottom, 2=closed bottom)
CC = Carbon Canister (l=all vapors enter bed, 2=running vapors bypass bed)
CCP = Carbon Canister Purges to tl-air cleaner, 2-carburetor, 3=PCV, 4-manifold)
-------
CAR
NO.
1 2 3
6A 68
003 CASC LISTING
VEHICLE USE INFORMATION
as 10
11
12 13 14 15 lo 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3006
3009
w 3010
? 3011
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3016
3019
•%f\ •">/•»
3020
3021
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
3
2
1
3
3
2
3
3
5
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
5
2
2
41444
14444
23444
23434
14444
23444
33344
42344
43244
41444
32344
33344
42344
23444
32444
13344
41444
33444
1 ^ AA A
13444
33334
1444
1444
2344
1444
4441
4144
3424
2344
2444
4243
1444
3343
1444
1444
1444
1J43
4243
3344
"3 /». A. 1
JH*> 1
3424
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
2
3
3
1
3
15
10
35
07
03
20
10
07
15
12
14
05
Ib
10
20
10
18
20
n *>
l>£
40
414444
414444
3244-«4
144444
414444
441444
333444
144444
234444
441444
144444
334444
144444
144444
144444
134444
414444
144444
-» •) A A AA
3 t*t HHn
234444
03
02
02
02
02
04
10
02
03
02
4
03
3
04
04
03
02
2
r\ i
U J
05
3
1
3
1
1
1
3
2
3
2
2
1
2
4
1
4
1
3
J.
*•
1
15 222222221
182015 222222221
15 222222221
161511 22xi222221
151712 222222221
222222221
232820 222222221
221212222
222222221
16 121212222
161115 222222221
161715 222222121
221222221
131510 122222222
20 221222^21
192114 222222221
141814 222212222
151814 222222221
•5 -a o C i Q 9"O95O391
£ j£ D 1 C £.*.£.££.£, CG. L
222222221
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
3
3
1
6
4
1
1
3
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
2
1
1
3
1
1
001
002
001
001
018
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
002
010
001
001
040
001
f\f\ 1
UU 1
001
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
3
5
2
2
5
3
5
2
3
3
2
5
4
2
5
2
1
4
2
4
3
2
2
4
4
3
2
3
3
2
3
4
2
4
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
SHELL SUPER RbG
MOBIL CLEAft
MOBIL UNLO
UNION UNLO
SHELL UNLD
EXXON UNLD
CHEVRON UNLEADtU
FIRECHIEF
TEXACO
MOBIL UNLO
TEXACO UNLEADbU
SHELL
FIRECHIEF
UNION UNLD
FEDCO
EXXON UNLD
STANDARD UNLD
CHEVRON UNLD
UNI3N 76 REG
CHEVRON UNLD
Key:
See sample questionnaire.
-------
004 tHRC LISTING
VEHICLE USE INFORMATION
CAR
NO. 25 26
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
i 3010
"3011
<3013
301*
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
000 QUO
27 23 START FINISH CHANGE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
222212
222212
222212
222212
222212
222212
222222
222212
122222
222212
222212
222212
222221
222212
222212
222212
222212
222212
222212
222212
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4764
10933
17752
04029
10252
01687
7249
C6100
03224
02354
2132
5130
16063
11139
03740
4692
35969
13501
4337
7291
4779
10943
17787
04036
10255
01707
7259
06107
03239
02366
2146
5135
16C83
11149
03760
4702
35957
13521
4339
7321
0
NGE
15
10
35
7
3
20
10
7
15
12
14
5
15
1C
20
10
2t>
20
2
30
FUEL
AMT
4
1
3
2
7
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
1
3
2
3
7
3
6
3
TIME
0745
0800
ObOC
0800
0820
1100
100C
0830
1045
0845
0925
0830
1715
1215
1205
0800
1200
090C
1215
1445
AMB
TEMP
57
£5
57
68
64
78
70
65
75
72
70
58
71
70
68
56
74
70
69
80
KEY: See sample questionnaire for Columns 25, 26, 27, and 28.
ODD Start, ODO Finish, ODO Change = Odometer readings from test vehicle prior to
first test (no-preconditioning).
FUEL AMT = Approximate quantity of tank fuel upon receipt of vehicle prior to
first test (in eights of tank).
TIME = Time of result of vehicle prior to first test (24-hour clock).
AMB TEMP = Ambient temperature in the shade when vehicle was received ( F).
-------
CAR HAKE MOD NJ.
NO. DATE CJOE YIN YR MAKE MODL SIZ CIC TR CV CYL
3001 77/05/09 10 NL45C7G137289 77 DODG ASPE 3 225 1 1 o
AC
INRT
WT
4COO
KUAu
HP
12.J
SIH JUOM
I 4779
. EVAPDRATIV6 TEST RdSULTS .
CYCLE GRAMS (HO TcST NC. RON NO. JATc
DIURNAL 1.16 1 12*5 5/lJ///
HOT SOAK 5.82 1 1245 p/ld/77
COMPOSITE 6.98 1 1245 5/10/77
DIURNAL 0.98 2 1248 3/11/77
HOT SOAK 4.79 2 1248 5/11/77
COMPOSITE 5.76 2 1248 5/11/77
u
oo
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
COMPOSITE
1.05
3.92
4.97
1254
1254
1254
5/13/77
5/13/77
5/1J/77
-------
CAR MAKE
NO. DATE CODE VIN YR MAKE MODL
3002 77/04/13 12 HP41C7G102657 77 PLYM VOLA
MCD
NO. INRT RC'Au A/C
CIO TR CV CYL AC. HT HP SIM JJOM
22b 1161 3500 12.3 1 1G<<43
. EVAPORATIVE TEST RESULTS .
CYCLE GRAMS (HO TEST NO. RUN NO. UATc
DIURNAL 1.70 1 1220 4/19/77
HOT SOAK 1.64 1 1220 4/19/77
COMPOSITE 3.35 1 1220 4/19/77
DIURKAL 1.19 2 1222 4/20/77
HOT SOAK 0.91 2 1222 4/20/77
COMPOSITE 2.10 2 1222 4/20/77
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
COMPOSITE
2.31
1.28
3.60
1227
1227
1227
4/26/77
4/2o/7f
4/
-------
CAR MAKE MOD Nu. INRT ROAu A/L
NO. DATE CODE VIN YR MAKF MOOL SI/ CIL) TR CV CYL AC HT HP olrt uuOM
3003 77/05/C9 10 WL46J7A110126 77 UODG MONO 1 360 1 4 8 1 4500 14.0 1 17787
. EVAPORATIVE TEST RESULTS .
CYCLE GRAMS (HO TEST NO. RUN N(J. DATd
GIURNAL 0.94. 1 1247 3/10/77
HOT SOAK 1.48 1 1247 V1G/77
COMPOSITE 2.42' 1 1247 5/10/77
, DIURNAL 0.80 2 1253 5/1^/77
*• HOT SOAK 1.38 2 1253 5/12/77
T COMPOSITE 2.18 2 1253 5/12/77
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
COMPOSITE
O.U5
1.67
2.52
1255
1255
1255
5/13/77
5/13/77
5/13/77
-------
CAR MAKE MOD NO. INRT RQAu A/C
NO. OATE CODE VIN YR MAKE MODI SIZ CIJ TR CV CYL AC WT HP SIM JJOM
3004 77/04/25 09 SS2257R146706 77 CHRY CORD 2 360 148 1 4500 14.0 I 4036
. EVAPORATIVE TEST RESULTS .
CYCLE GRAMS (HCI TEST NC. RUN NO. DATE
DIURNAL 4.78 1 1228 4/26/77
HOT SOAK 3.55 1 1226 4/26/77
COMPOSITE 8.33 1 1228 4//16/77
DIURNAL 4.22 2 1231 4/^7/77
HOT SOAK 1.55 2 1231 4/27/77
COMPOSITE 5.77 2 1231 4/27/77
DIURNAL 3.00 3 1234 4/28/77
HOT SOAK 1.62 3 1234 4/28/77
COMPOSITE 4.62 3 1234 4/2S/77
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
COMPOSITE
1.19
2.18
3.37
4
4
4
1282
1282
1282
6/15/77
to/15/77
fa/ii/77
-------
CAR MAKE MOD NO. INRT ROAi) A/C
NO. DATE CODE VIN Yft. MAKt MODL SIZ CID TR CV CYL AC WT HP SJrt JDOH
3005 77/05/23 09 CL41J7D113953 77 CHRY NEwP 1 360 148 1 5000 14.7 I 10255
. EVAPORATIVE TEST RESULTS .
CYCLE GRAMS (HC) TEST NO. RUN NO. DATE
DIURNAL 3.16 1 1262 5/24/77
HOT SOAK 1.84 1 1262 5/24/77
COMPOSITE 5.00 1 1262 5/24/77
DIURNAL 2.16 2 1265 5/25/77
HOT SOAK 1.42 2 12t>5 5/25/77
COMPOSITE 3.58 2 1265 5/25/77
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
COMPOSITE
1.70
2.25
3.95
1268
1268
1268
5/26/77
5/26/77
5/26/77
-------
CAR MAKE
NO. 04Tfc CODE VIN
3006 77/06/01 10 WL46J7A174297
YR MAKE MODL
77 DOOG MONJ
MOD
SIZ
1
CID TR
360 1
NO.
CV CYL
48
AC
1
INRT
WT
4500
HP
14.0
A/u
SIM DOOM
i 1707
. EVAPORATIVE TEST RESULTS .
CYCLfc GRAMS (HCI TEST NO. RUN NO. UATt
DIURNAL 1.27 1 1274 6/ 2/77
HOT SOAK 1.52 1 1274 6/ 2/77
COMPOSITE 2.79 1 1274 6/ 2//7
DIURNAL 0.69 2 1280 o/ a/77
HOT SOAK 1.82 2 1280 6/ S/77
COMPOSITE 2.51 2 1280 6/ 8/77
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
CCMPCSITE
1.22
1.45
2.67
3
3
3
1281
1281
1281
6/ 9/77
6/ 9/77
o/ 9/77
-------
CAk MAKE
NO. DATE CODb
3007 77/04/2t> 03
VIN
, 27372106656
YR MAKE MODL
77 CHEW MONZ
MOD NO. INRT ROAD A/C
S1Z CIO TR CV CYL AC hT HP SIM JUOM
4 140 524 1 3000 11.3 1 7259
. EVAPURATIVF TEST OCSULTS .
CYCLE GRAMS (HO TEST NO. RUN NJ. UATc
DIURNAL 12.55 1 1226 V26/77
HOT SOAK 3.29 1 1226 V2&/77
COMPOSITE 15.85 1 1226 V26/77
i U1URNAL 1.83 2 1232 4/^8/7?
J HOT SOAK 1.50 2 1232 4/28/77
« COMPOSITE 3.34 2 1232 4/28/7 1
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
COMPOSITE
3.44
2.55
5.99
3
3
3
1236
1236
1236
4/29/77
4/29/77
4/29/77
-------
CAR MAKE MOD NO. INRT ROAD A/C
NO. DATE CODE VIN YR MAKE MGDL SIZ CIO TR CV CYL AC fcT HP SIh OuOM
3008 77/05/23 03 1V77B7U106266 77 CHEV VEGA 4 140 4 2 4 2 2750 9.9 2 6i07
UI
i
. EVAPORATIVE TEST RESULTS .
CYCLE GRAMS (HO TEST NO. RUN NO. DATc
DIURNAL 2.90 1 1263 5/24/77
HOT SOAK 1.29 1 1263 5/24/77
COMPOSITE 4.20 1 1263 5/24/77
DIURNAL 0,40 2 1266 5/25/77
HOT SOAK 0.89 2 1266 5/25/77
CCMPQSITE 1.29 2 12b6 5/25/77
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
COMPOSITE
C.60
0.99
1.59
3
3
3
1269
1269
1269
5/2t>/77
5/26/77
5/2o/77
-------
CAR
NO.
3009
DATE
77/05/1/
MAKE
CODE
05
VIN YR MAKE MODL
2C77V7U5114U 71 PCNT 4STR
MOD
SIZ
CIO
151
TR
1
CV
2
N.J.
CYL
AC
1
WT
3000
HP
11.3
SIM
1
JUOM
. EVAPORATIVE TEST RESULTS .
CYCLE GRAMS (HO TEST NC. RUN NO. UATc
DIURNAL 1.31 1 1271 6/ 1/77
HOT SOAK 1.55 1 1271 6/ 1/77
COMPOSITE 2.86 1 1271 6/ 1/77
DIURNAL 3.76 2 1273 6V
-------
CAR MAKE MOD NO. INRT ROAO A/v.
NO. DATE CODE VIN YR MAKE MODL SIZ CIO TR CV CYL AC WT HP SIM
3010 77/05/17 05 2C77V7U510549 11 PCNT ASTR A 151 1 2 4 1 3000 11.3 1 2366
. EVAPORATIVE TEST RESULTS .
CYCLE GRAMS (HC) TEST NO. RUN NO. OATt
DIURNAL 7.67 1 1272 6/ 1/77
HOT SOAK 1.5* 1 1272 6/ 1/77
COMPOSITE 9.21 1 1272 6/ 1/77
DIURNAL 5.56 2 1275 */ 2/77
HOT SOAK 1.56 2 1275 6/ 2/77
COMPOSITE 7.12 2 1275 6/ 2/77
DIURNAL 0.51 3 1278 6/ 3/77
HCT SOAK 1.29 3 1278 6/ 3/77
COMPOSITE 1.80 3 1278 6/ 3/77
i
*>.
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
COMPOSITE
5.14
1.84
6.98
1283
1283
1283
6/15/77
6/15/77
6/15/77
-------
CAR
NO.
3011
DATE
77/04/26
MAKe
CODE
VIN
HLS30363522
YR
77
MAKE
DATS
MODL
MUD
Sli
4
CID
168
TR
1
CV
0
NO.
CYL
6
AC
1
WT
3000
KQAJ
HP
H.J
A/C
SIM
1
JDOM
2146
00
1
. EVAPORATIVE TEST RESULTS .
CYCLE GRAMS (HC) TEST NO. RUN N.I. JATc
DIURNAL 1.72 1 1230 t/Zl/lt
HOT SOAK 2.44 1 1230 4/27/7 /
COMPOSITE 4.15 1 1230 4/27/77
DIURNAL 0.70 2 1233 4/28/77
HOT SOAK 0.89 2 1233 4/28/77
COMPOSITE 1.59 2 1233 4/28/77
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
COMPOSITE
0.68
0.93
1.60
1235
1235
1235
4/29/7 ?
4/29/77
4/29/77
-------
CAR MAKE MOD NO. INRT ROAD A/C
NO. DATE CODE VIN YR MAKE MODL SI2 CIO TR CV C YL AC WT HP oIM ULtOM
3013 77/05/09 01 4B69C7L108409 77 BUIC SKYL 3 231 126 1 3500 12.3 1 5135
. EVAPORATIVE TEST RESULTS .
CYCLE GRAMS IHC) TEST NO. RUN NO. BATE
DIURNAL 1.20 1 1246 5/10/77
HOT SOAK 4.96 1 12*6 5/10/77
CCMPOS1TE 6.16 I 1246 5/10/77
DIURNAL 0.75 2 1249 5/11/77
HOT SOAK 4.18 2 1249 5/11/77
COMPOSITE 4.94 2 1249 5/11/77
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
COMPOSITE
1.02
4.53
5.56
1252
1252
1252
5/12/77
5/12/77
5/12/77
-------
CAR MAKE
NO. DATE CODE V1N
3014 77/04/20 06 F6K91L172869F
VR MAKE MOOL
76 FORD HAVE
MOD
S12
3
CID TR
250 1
CV
1
NJ.
CYL
6
AC
2
INPT
3000
ROAu
HP
10.3
A/C
SiM JOOM
<. 16JB3
. EVAPORATIVE TEST RESULTS .
CYCLE GRAMS
-------
CAri
NO.
i
Ul
MAKE HOD
DATE CODE VIN YR MAKE MODL SI2 C1D TR
7/05/17 06 F6K91L154923F 76 FORD MAVE 3 250 1
CYCLE GRAMS ( HC )
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
COMPOSITE
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
COMPOSITE
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
COMPOSITE
0.35
14.85
15.20
2.25
15.43
17.69
1.17
19.11
20.28
. EVAPORATIVE TEST RESULTS
TEST NC.
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
NO. INRT ROAu A/C
CV CYL AC MT HP SIM jUOH
161 3000 11.3 1 11149
•
RUN NO.
1258
1258
1258
1260
1260
1260
1261
1261
1261
IMTE
5/13/77
5/1B/77
5/14/77
5/20/77
5/20/77
5/20/77
5/23/77
5/23/77
5/23/77
-------
CAR MAKE MOD NO. INRT RD6U A/C
NO. DATE ODE VIN YR MAKE MODL SIZ CIO TR CV CYL AC WT HP SIM JuGM
3016 77/05/23 03 IV 77B6U126154 76 CHEV VEGA 4 140 124 1 2750 10.9 1 3760
i
u<
. EVAPOKATIVE TFST RESULTS .
CYCLE GRAMS (HO TEST NO. RUN NO. OATfc
DIURNAL 0.55 1 1264 i>/24/77
HOT SOAK 0.93 1 1264 5/24/77
COMPOSITE 1.48 1 1264 5/24/77
DIURNAL 0.66 2 1267 5/25/77
HOT SOAK 0.79 2 1267 5/25/77
COMPOSITE 1.45 2 1267 5/2W77
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
COMPOSITE
0.73
0.84
1.57
3
3
3
1270
1270
1270
5/26/77
5/^6/77
5/26/77
-------
CAR MAKE
NO. DATE CODE VIN
3017 77/03/21 03 1V15B6U225373
YR MAKE MODL
76 CHEV VEGA
MOD NO. INRT ROW) A/C
SIZ CIO TR CV CYL AC WT HP SIM OuOM
4 140 124 1 3000 11.3 1 4702
in
b>
i
. EVAPORATIVE TEST RESULTS .
CYCLE GRAMS IHC) TEST NO. RUN NU. UATE
DIURNAL 0.47 1 1204 3/22/77
HOT SOAK 0.70 1 1204 3/22/77
COMPOSITE 1.17 1 1204 3/22/77
DIURNAL 0.94 2 1206 3/23/77
HOT SOAK 0.63 2 1206 3/23/77
COMPOSITE 1.57 2 1206 3/23/77
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
COMPOSITE
0.53
1.06
1.60
3
3
3
1208
1208
1208
3/24/77
3/24/77
3/24/77
-------
CAR MAKE MCO NO. INRT R06U
NO. DATE CODE VIN YR MAKE MODL SIZ CIO TR CV CYL AC WT HP
3018 77/05/04 04 3 J57K5R15 7191 75 OLDS CUTL 2 350 148 1 4000 13. i
SIrt
1
JJOM
i
01
. EVAPORATIVE TEST RESULTS .
CYCLE GRAMS (HO TEST NO. RUN NO. DATE
DIURNAL 0.93 1 1242 5/ 5/77
HOT SOAK 1.45 1 1242 5/ 5/77
COMPOSITE 2.38 1 1242 5/ 5/77
DIURNAL 0.73 2 1243 D/ 6/77
HOT SOAK 1.32 2 1243 5/ 6/77
COMPOSITE 2.05 2 1243 5/ 6/77
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
COMPOSITE
4.06
1.44
5.50
3
3
3
1244
1244
1244
5/ 9/77
5/ y/77
5/ 9/77
-------
CAR MAKE MOD NO. INRT ROAD A/C
NO. DATE CODE VIN YR MAKE MOOL SIZ CID TR CV CYL AC WT HP SIM JUOM
3019 77/03/25 04 3K57K5R163417 75 OLDS CUTL 2 350 148 1 4000 13.
-------
CAR MAKE
NO. DATE CODE
3020 77/03/07 16
VIN
1102160836
YR
76
MAKE
VOLK
MUDL
SEDA
fOO
SIZ
CID
97
TK
4
CV
0
NO.
CYL
AC
2
KT
2000
R3AU
HP
A/I.
UUOM
i
iK
(71
I
. EVAPORATIVE TcST RESULTS .
CYCLE GRAMS (HO ^TEST NO. RUN NO. UATE
DIURNAL 1.66 1 1201 3/ tl/7/
HOT SOAK 2.02 1 1201 3/ 6/77
COMPOSITE 3.68 1 1201 3/ d/77
DIURNAL 2.30 2 1202 3/ -y/77
HOT SOAK 1.66 2 1202 3/ 9/77
CCMPOSITE 3.96 2 1202 3/ 9/77
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
COMPOSITE
1.35
1.98
3.32
3
3
3
1203
1203
1203
3/10/77
3/10/77
3/10/77
-------
CAR HAKE
NO. DATE CODE
3021 77/03/23 06
VIN
6N82F296163
YR MAKE
76 FORD
MOOL
GRAN
MOD
SIZ
3
CIO TR
302 1
NO.
CV CYL
2 8
AC
1
INRT
WT
3500
ROAD
HP
12.3
A/C
SIM ODOM
A 7321
. EVAPORATIVE TEST RESULTS .
CYCLE GRAMS (HO TEST NO. RUN NO.
DIURNAL 3.93 1 1210 3/2«/77
HOT SOAK 12.05 1 1210 3/28/77
COMPOSITE 15.98 1 1210 3/28/77
DIURNAL 3.91 2 1213 3/30/77
HOT SOAK 11.65 2 1213 3/30/77
COMPOSITE 15.56 2 1213 3/30/77
1
ui
DIURNAL
HOT SOAK
COMPOSITE
12.60
16.83
1214
1214
1214
4/ i/77
4/ 1/77
4/ 1/77
-------
10-MINUTE ROAD ROUTE
Task Order - EPA Contract No. 68-03-2412
Cerritos Avenue west to Anaheim Boulevard. Anaheim Boulevard
north to Ball Road. Ball Road east to State College Boulevard.
State College Boulevard south to Katella Boulevard. Katella
Boulevard west to Lewis Street. Lewis Street north to Cerritos
Avenue, Cerritos Avenue west to Olson facility- Total elapsed
distance is 4.5 miles.
-58-
-------
SHED TASK ORDER
FID SNIFFER TEST
VEHICLE NO.
DATE^-^ff-77 PIC
Measure HC through
FID at each 1 ocati on
before LA-4:
Fuel Cap
Inside Trunk
Carbon Canister
Carb . Air Horn
Around Base of
Air Cleaner
Cam's ter
Measure HC through
FID at each location
immediately after LA-4:
Fuel Ca.p
I'nside Trunk
Carbon Canister <
Carb. Air Horn |
Around Base of
Air Cleaner
Cani ster
<3
Measure HC through
FID at each location
15 minutes after LA-4:
Fuel Cap
Inside Trunk
Carbon Canister
Carb. AirHorn /
Around Base of
Air Cleaner
Canister ^
Def lecti ons
.f^
p //, &
If* *-"^
^ y/5. H
rj
o 3?*O
>^<0
P ^f.O
ra -^.o
1) J^, 0
5 /Q
*• **
/<^C»
S&f)
So u
/»0
Boo
SoO
3oo
Sao
/&&G
^On
^00
^^0
.S'e.o
SooO
Concentrati on
/7*3
//, 7£
3/.*ft
/£.&
(0/.6
/£o
#
42^
'?a
406
/2
/2-
/£^>
'^
/
P.SS-/
-59-
-------
VEHICLE NO.
/
SHED TASK ORDER
FID SNIFFER TEST
DATE ?_r- "*• *i
PIC
Measure HC through
FID at each 1 ocati on
before LA-4:
Fuel Cap
Inside Trunk
Carbon Canister
Carb . Ai r Horn
Around Base of
Air Cl eaner
Cani s ter
Measure HC through
FID at each 1 ocati on
immediately after LA-4:
Fue 1 Cap
Inside Trunk
Carbon Canister
Carb. Air Horn
Around Base of
Air Cleaner
Cani ster
Measure HC through
FID at each location
15 minutes after LA-4:
Fuel Cap
Ins i de Trunk
Carbon Cani ster
Carb. Ai r Horn
Around Base of
Air Cleaner
Cani s ter
Deflections
^ 4&
>?.«•
/ Mr
5T-S"
//.a
f— '
4$&
.f\
(? S
(0,0
5~<°
£.6
r.o
J4.&
_/£> G>
JO c?
/° o
/do
/^ r
/bo
/.qt*
-=r..?<9
&.4>'l*
^,37
/19* 7
/#,?£-
-------
SHED TASK ORDER
FID SNIFFER TEST
VEHICLE NO. Jo7-1*1
DATE
PIC
Measure HC through
FID at each location
before LA-4:
Fuel Cap
Inside Trunk
Carbon Canister
Carb . Air Horn
Around Base of
Air Cleaner
Canis ter
Measure HC through
FID at each location
immediately after LA-4:
Fuel Cap
Inside Trunk
Carbon Canister
Carb. Air Horn
Around Base of
Air Cleaner
Cani ster
Measure HC through
FID at each location
15 minutes after LA-4:
Fuel Cap
Inside Trunk
Carbon Canister
Carb. Air Horn
Around Base of
Air Cleaner
Canister
Def lecti ons
f&
//
/^
7G
3a&
If
t,
.
Q
/*
/x
^
-70
Range
jT£>
S'O
jro
f&
/*
/0<2
fo&
/C 0
tov
-^&z
/£C
f&t)
Wd
/& t!
/06c>
Concentration
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
1 REPORT NO.
EPA-460/3-77-013
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Effect of Preconditioning on In-Use Vehicle
Testing and Failure Analysis of Evaporative
Emission Control Systems
5. REPORT DATE
August 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Olson Laboratories, Inc.
421 East Cerritos Avenue
Anaheim, California 92805
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2412
Task Order No. 3
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Div., Ann Arbor, Mich.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Evaporative (SHED) and exhaust emission tests were performed on 20 late-
model catalyst-equipped vehicles to investigate the effect of three precondition-
ing procedures consisting of: 1) no preconditioning, 2) 1975 FTP driving
schedule, and 3) 10-minute road route. A failure analysis was also performed
on several vehicles which were found to either have high evaporative emissions
or evaporative emissions which were higher than similarly equipped vehicles.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report I
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
67
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |