United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Motor Vehicle Emission Lab
2565 Plymouth Rd.
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
EPA 460/3-80-007
November 1979
c/EPA
Air
Durability Demonstration of Systems
for Control of Sulfuric Acid
-------
EPA 460/3-80-007
Durability Demonstration
of Systems for Control
of Sulf uric Acid
By
Melvin N. Ingalls
Southwest Research Institute
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
Contract No. 68-03-2481
EPA Project Officer: Robert I. Bruetsch
Prepared for:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Characterization and Applications Branch
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
November, 1979
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to disseminate
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
organization - in limited quantities - from the Library, motor Vehicle Emission
Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, 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 Southwest
Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, San Antonio, Texas 78284, in fulfillment of
Contract No. 68-03-2481. The contents of this report are reproduced herein as
received from Souihwest Research Institute. 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-460/3-80-007
-------
ABSTRACT
The work described in this report involved the development testing,
optimization, and durability testing of emission control systems capable
of meeting the 1981 gaseous emission standards while maintaining low
sulfate emissions. Four emission control systems were investigated:
(1) oxidation catalyst with air modulation system, (2) high temperature
exhaust system, (3) threeway catalyst with feedback carburetor, and
(4) three way plus oxidation catalyst with air modulation system and
feedback fuel injection.
In Phase I of the project, the air modulation system and the threeway
catalyst system were selected for optimization and durability testing. In
addition to the usual gaseous emissions, nonmethane hydrocarbons, total
cyanide and ammonia were measured on both systems. The oxidation system
was operated on a test car for 24100 km (15,000 miles) and the threeway
catalyst system for 32200 km (20,000 miles), with emission tests every
8050 km (5,000 miles). The durability distance accumulation was halted
on both cars because gaseous emission levels exceeded the 1981 standards.
In Phase II of the project, a threeway plus oxidation catalyst system
was developed, optimized and tested for durability for 64,400 km (40,000
miles) . During the durability testing, emissions tests were performed
every 8050 km (5000 miles).
111
-------
FOREWORD
This project was conducted for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
by the Department of Emissions Research for Southwest Research Institute.
The project was begun in November 1976, and the laboratory work was completed
in September 1979. The project was conducted under EPA contract No. 68-03-2481
and was identified within Southwest Research Institute as Project 11-4746.
During the course of the project, several of the personnel in the Emis-
sion Control Technology Division, Office of Mobile Source Pollution Control,
Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Michigan, served as EPA Project
Officer. These persons were: Randall H. Field, John J. McFadden, Kenneth
Partymiller, Andrew W. Kaupert and Robert I. Bruetsch. Karl J. Springer,
Director, Department of Emissions Research at Southwest Research Institute,
served as Project Manager. The project was under the supervision of Melvin
N. Ingalls, Senior Research Engineer,as Project Leader. Although a number
of Department of Emissions Research personnel were involved in the project,
key personnel included C. E. Grinstead, senior technician and C. D. Suhler,
lead technician, who were responsible for installation and maintenance of
the mechanical systems; N. C. Reeh, senior technician, who fabricated much
of the necessary systems hardware; and J. T. Jack, Jr., senior technician,
and D. A. Travers, technician, who were responsible for the emissions testing.
Project Review meetings involving EPA and SwRI personnel, either at
SwRI or the EPA facility in Ann Arbor, Michigan, were held on November 23,
1976, December 10, 1976, August 23, 1977 and June 7, 1978. In addition,
frequent telephone conversations between the Project Leader at SwRI and
the EPA Project Officer insured a proper understanding by both SwRI and EPA
of the project aims, problems and accomplishments.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT
FOREWORD iv
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF TABLES ix
SUMMARY xi
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. TEST EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES 3
A. General Emission Test Procedures 3
B. Collection and Analysis of Unregulated Emissions 3
C. Durability Test Procedures 8
D. Fuels 8
III. PHASE I - INITIAL EVALUATION, OPTIMIZATION AND
DURABILITY TESTING LOW SULFATE SYSTEMS 11
III-l. EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM AND VEHICLE SELECTION 12
A. 1975 Chevrolet Nova 13
B. 1977 Plymouth Fury 13
III-2. EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION 20
A. Air Modulation System Development 20
B. High Temperature Exhaust System Development 32
C. Emission Control System Rating 40
III-3. AIR MODULATION SYSTEM-OPTIMIZATION AND DURABILITY
TESTING 43
A. Air Modulation System Optimization 43
B. Air Modulation System Durability Testing 46
III-4. THREEWAY CATALYST SYSTEM-OPTIMIZATION AND DURABILITY
TESTING 55
A. Threeway Catalyst System Optimization 55
B. Threeway Catalyst System Durability Testing 59
IV. PHASE II - OPTIMIZATION AND DURABILITY TESTING OF
THREEWAY PLUS OXIDATION CATALYST SYSTEM 69
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Confd)
IV-1. TEST VEHICLE, EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM AND TEST PLAN
A. Vehicle Selection and Description
B. Emission Control System
C. Test Organization for Phase II
IV-2. OPTIMIZATION TESTING 85
A. Tests in Stock Configuration 87
B. Tests with Maximum Air 87
C. Tests with Exhaust Manifold Air Injection 92
D. Tests to Optimize the Air Modulation System 93
IV-3. DURABILITY TESTING OF 1978 VOLVO 99
A. Distance Accumulation Chronology 99
B. Fuel and Oil Consumption 102
C. Emission Test Results 102
V. CONCLUSIONS 111
A. Ability to Produce Low Sulfate Emissions 111
B. Durability 111
C. General 112
REFERENCES 113
APPENDICES
A. Worksheets for Sulfate Control System Evaluation
B. Computer Printouts for Air Modulation System Development
Tests on a 1976 Chevrolet Impala
C. Computer Printouts for High Temperature Exhaust System
Development Tests on a 1975 Chevrolet Nova
D. Computer Printouts for Air Modulation System Optimization
and Durability Tests on the 1975 Chevrolet Nova
E. Computer Printouts for Threeway Catalyst System Optimization
and Durability Tests on the 1977 Plymouth Fury
F. Computer Printouts for Air Modulation System Optimization
for Durability Tests on a 1978 Volvo
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Emissions Collection and Analysis Equipment 4
2 Speed vs. Time Traces of FTP, HFET and CFDS Driving
Cycles 5
3 Schematic of Sulfate Sample Collection System 7
4 SwRI Durability Driving Course 9
5 Holley feedback carburetor engine system 17
6 Feedback carburetor cross-section 19
7 Air Modulation Valve 22
8 Air Modulation Valve Calibration 23
9 Manifold Vacuum as a Function of Engine Speed During
FTP Test on 1976 Impala 27
10 Cross Section of Centrifugal Clutch 30
11 Modulated Air Injection System 31
12 Air Gap Insulated Exhaust Manifolds 34
13 Conversion of Fuel Sulfur to H2SC>4 for Baseline and High
Temperature Tests on 1975 Nova 39
14 Distance Accumulation Record of 1975 Chevrolet Nova 49
15 Emissions as a Function of Distance Accumulated for a
1975 Nova with Air Modulation 51
16 Fuel Consumption and Sulfates as a Function of Distance
for a 1975 Nova with Air Modulation System 52
17 Distance Accumulation Record of 1977 Plymouth Fury 61
18 Emissions as a Function of Distance Accumulated for a
1977 Fury with 3-way Catalyst and Feedback Carburetor 65
19 Fuel Consumption and Sulfates as a Function of Distance
for a 1977 Fury with Feedback Carburetor 66
vii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
Figure Page
20 1978 Volvo 244 Test Car 72
21 Lambda-Sond System 74
22 Fuel Injection System 75
23 Air Pump Exhaust Manifold Injection 76
24 Aspirated Exhaust Manifold Injection 76
25 Air Injection System 77
26 Redesigned Centrifugal Clutch 79
27 Redesigned Air Modulation Valve 80
28 SwRI Cold Start Circuit for Volvo with Lambda-Sond 81
29 ECU Input Voltage from SwRI Circuit During Cold Start 82
30 Cold Start Circuitry for Modified Volvo Lambda-Sond
System 83
31 Air Modulation Valve Air Flow Calibration on 1978 Volvo 95
32 Distance Accumulation Record of 1978 Volvo 244DL 100
33 HC and CO Emissions from a 1978 Volvo with Lambda-Sond
plus Oxidation Catalyst and Modair as a Function of
Distance 105
34 NOX and Sulfate Emissions from a 1978 Volvo with Lambda-
Sond plus Oxidation Catalyst and Modair as a Function of
Distance 106
35 FTP Gaseous Emissions as a Function of Distance Driven
for Two Emission Control Systems on a 1978 Volvo 109
36 CFDS Sulfate Emissions as a Function of Distance Driven for
Two Emission Control Systems on 1978 Volvo 110
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Fuel Analysis 10
2 Description of Test Cars 14
3 Component Changes to 1975 Nova 15
4 Air Modulation System Development Test Sequence 24
5 Results of Air Modulation System Development Tests 25
6 Results from Insulated Manifold Tests with Pelleted
Catalyst 35
7 Results from Baseline and Tests with Port Liners and
Monolith Catalysts 37
8 Exhaust Temperature with and without Insulated Manifolds 38
9 Evaluation Scoring Criteria 41
10 Emission Control System Evaluation Ratings 42
11 FTP Test Results for Air Modulation System Installed on
1975 Nova 44
12 Maintenance Schedule for 1975 Nova 48
13 Fuel and Oil Consumption During Durability Testing
for 1975 Nova 47
14 Durability Test Results from 1975 Nova with Air
Modulation System 50
15 Unregulated Emissions from 1975 Nova with Air Modulation
System - 16100 km Test 54
16 Unregulated Emissions from 1975 Nova with Air Modulation
System - 24100 km Test 54
17 Results of Optimization Tests of Threeway Catalyst
System on a 1977 Fury 56
18 Maintenance Schedule for 1977 Fury 62
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Table Page
19 Fuel and Oil Consumption During Durability Testing
for 1977 Fury
60
20 Durability Test Results from 1977 Plymouth Fury with
Feedback Carburetor and Threeway Catalyst 64
21 Unregulated Emissions from 1977 Plymouth Fury with
Feedback Carburetor and Threeway Catalyst - 24100 km 68
22 Unregulated Emissions from 1977 Plymouth Fury with
Feedback Carburetor and Threeway Catalyst - 32200 km 68
23 Description of Phase II Test Car 71
24 Phase II Test Sequence 86
25 Test Results from 1978 "California" Volvo in Stock
Configuration 88
26 Test Results From 1978 "California" Volvo with Threeway
Catalyst plus Air Modulation Oxidation Catalyst 90
27 Mass Emissions from Cold Start Transient Phase of FTP
for Selected Tests on 1978 Volvo 91
28 FTP Test Results from 1978 "California" Volvo 94
29 Comparison of Emission on 1978 Volvo with Three Emission
Control System Configurations 98
30 Volvo Maintenance Schedule 101
31 Fuel and Oil Consumption During Durability Testing of
1978 Volvo 103
32 FTP Emissions for 1978 Volvo 244 with Air Modulation
During 64,400 Kilometer Durability Testing 104
33 CFDS Sulfate Emissions for 1978 Volvo 244 with Air
Modulation During 64,400 Kilometer Durability Testing 107
-------
SUMMARY
The objective of this project was to demonstrate the durability of two
low sulfate emission control systems capable of meeting the 1981 gaseous
emission standards. In numerical terms, the Project emission goals were
as shown below.
Test Cycle Emission Type Goal
FTP HC 0.25 g/km (0.41 g/mi.)
FTP CO 2.11 g/km (3.4 g/mi.)
FTP NOX 0.62 g/km (1.0 g/mi.)
CFDS 804= 3.11 mg/km (5.0 mg/mi.)
Initially, the project emphasis was to be on the durability testing
of developed advanced systems. However, most of the advanced systems
existed only in concept or tailored to a single engine model only. There-
fore, hardware development necessarily became a large part of the project.
Phase I
At the outset of the project it was decided that a threeway catalyst
with feedback fuel control system would be one of the systems tested for
durability. The other system would be either an oxidation catalyst with
modulated air injection and EGR, or a high temperature exhaust system
with standard air injected oxidation catalyst and EGR. Which of these
two systems would be tested for durability would depend of the results of
the evaluation testing.
The oxidation catalyst, modulated air injection system was evaluated
on a 1976 Chevrolet Impala with a 5.7 litre (350 CID) engine. The high
temperature exhaust system was evaluated on a 1975 Chevrolet Nova with
a 5.7 litre (350 CID) engine. While neither system met the project goals
during the evaluation, the modulated air injection was selected as having
the best chance of meeting the goals with further optimizaiton.
The 1975 Chevrolet Nova was to be used as the durability test vehicle.
Therefore, the air modulation system was installed on the Nova and a series
of tests run, modifying the system as necessary during the testing to
produce a system capable of meeting the project goals. The final emission
control system consisted of the following elements and changes from stock
condition:
XI
-------
• Two monolith oxidation catalysts, one in the exhaust pipe of each
cylinder bank
• Modulated air injection to catalyst
• 2.56 rear axle ratio replacing standard 3.08 ratio rear axle
" Ignition timing advanced from 6° to 9° ETC
Increased EGR
Single plane aluminum intake manifold
The emission levels for the optimized system are listed below:
Test Cycle Emission Type Value
FTP HC 0.18 g/km (0.29 g/mi.)
FTP CO 1.03 g/km (1.65 g/mi.)
FTP NOX 0.48 g/km (0.77 g/mi.)
CFDS 804= 3.85 mg/km (6.19 mg/mi.)
A 1977 Plymouth Fury was used as the test car for the threeway
catalyst system. A series of optimization tests were run during which
system hardware and settings were changed to produce a system that would
meet the project goals. The final emission control system consisted of
the following elements:
Two threeway catalysts with 5 to 1 Pt/Rd ratio. One catalyst
on the exhaust of each cylinder bank.
Experimental Holley feedback carburetor
An SwRI built open loop fuel control circuit, independent of the
fuel system main electronic control unit, for use during cold
starts
An EGR system
Shortened cold start operation of the choke, inlet air heater and
manifold heat
Orifice spark advance control (OSAC) ststem
The emission levels for the optimization system are listed below:
Test Cycle Emission Type Value
FTP HC 0.09 g/km (0.14 g/mi.)
FTP CO 1.98 gAm (3.19 g/mi.)
FTP NOX 0.43 gAm (0.69 g/mi.)
CFDS SO4 0.57 mg/km (0.92 mg/mi.)
XI1
-------
Following optimization, both systems were tested for durability
using the Durability Driving Schedule. Emission tests were performed
every 8050 km (5,000 miles). Durability testing was halted at 24100 km
(15,000) on the 1975 Nova with the air modulation system and at 32200 km
(20,000 miles) on the 1977 Fury because some of the gaseous emissions on
both systems were above the 1981 standards.
Phase II
In a continuation of the effort to meet the project goals, an air
injected oxidation catalyst was added to a stock Volvo threeway catalyst
system on a 1978 California Volvo sedan with a four cylinder engine.
Since threeway plus oxidation catalyst systems can produce large amounts
of sulfates, an air modulation scheme was included as part of the air
injection system. Considerable optimization testing was required before
the system met the project goals. The final emission control system
consisted of the following additions and changes to the stock California
Volvo threeway catalyst system.
Oxidation catalyst
Modulated air injection system
Open loop cold start fuel control circuit
A/F ratio leaner than stock setting
The emission levels for the optimized system are listed below:
Test Cycle Emission Type Value
FTP HC 0.14 g/km (0.23 g/mi.)
FTP CO 1.31 g/km (2.10 g/mi.)
FTP NOX 0.13 gAm (0.23 g/mi.)
CFDS S04= 0.04 mg/km (0.06 mg/mi.)
Following optimization, the system was tested for durability for
64,400 km (40,000 miles) using the Durability Driving Schedule. Emission
tests were performed every 8050 km (5,000 miles). At the end of the
durability testing, the HC, NOX and sulfate emissions were still within
the project goals. The CO emissions were greater than the 1981 standards
by approximately seven percent.
Emission tests with the car in stock condition at the end of the
durability testing indicated that most of the emission increases were
caused by deterioration of the air modulation system hardware. Therefore
for a system such as tested in this project to pass an 80500 km (50,000
mile) certification test, requires only more durable air modulation hardware,
Thus the project demonstrated that it is possible to meet the 1981 gaseous
emission standards while maintaining low sulfate emissions.
Xlll
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Sulfuric acid (sulfate) emissions from catalyst equipped cars have been
extensively studied by EPA for the past several years.(1-5)* At present, it
appears that automotive sulfate emissions standards are not necessary. How-
ever, with the expected extensive use of threeway plus oxidation catalyst
emission control system in 1981, there is a possibility of greatly increased
sulfate emissions due to the tendency of this system to produce larger amounts
of sulfates than current control systems.(5-7) In addition, the 1977 Amend-
ments to the Clean Air Act, as interpreted by EPA in OMSAPC Advisory Circular
76, places the burden on the manufacturers to establish that their emission
control systems, or vehicle and engine design elements, do not cause an un-
reasonable risk to public health, welfare or safety.(6) The Advisory Circular
specifically names sulfates as one of the unregulated emissions to be considered.
This study was undertaken to evaluate the low sulfate potential of several
emission control systems proposed for meeting the 1981 gaseous emissions stan-
dards and to demonstrate the durability of two of these systems. It builds
upon research in mobile source sulfate emissions conducted at Southwest Research
Institute for EPA and others since 1975.(7-11)
Initially, the project emphasis was to be on the durability testing of
developed advanced systems. However, most of the advanced systems existed only
in concept or tailored to a single engine model. Therefore, hardware develop-
ment necessarily became a large part of the project.
Objective
The objective of this project was to evaluate a variety of emission control
systems which would produce low sulfate emissions and meet the 1981 gaseous
emission standards of 0.26 g/km (0.41 g/mile) HC, 2.11 g/km (3.4 g/mile) CO, and
0.62 g/km (1.0 g/mile) NOX after 80500 km (50,000 miles). Low sulfate emissions
were defined to be below 3.1 rag/km (5 mg/mile). Following the evaluation, two
of the most promising systems were to be optimized and tested for durability.
Approach
To meet the objectives of the project, three emission control systems were
chosen from the approximately six systems proposed. These three systems were
fabricated and installed on test vehicles or, in one case, obtained already
installed from the car manufacturer. Chassis dynamometer tests over the light-
duty Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and the Congested Freeway Driving Schedule
*Superscript numbers in parentheses refer to references at the end of this report.
-------
(CFDS) were performed to evaluate the ability of the system to produce low
sulfate emissions, while meeting the 1981 gaseous emission standards. The
two most promising systems, the modulated air injection system and the three-
way catalyst system, were optimized and durability tested for approximately
32,000 km (20,000 miles). Durability distance accumulation was halted on
both cars because some FTP gaseous emissions rates were above the 1981 limits.
In Phase II of the project, a threeway plus oxidation catalyst system
with modulated air injection was chosen for use in a continued effort to meet
the project emission objectives. This system was used on a five passenger
Volvo sedan with a four-cylinder, fuel injected engine. The air modulation
system was optimized and the car driven for 64,400 km (40,000 miles) of
durability distance accumulation. The durability testing was halted at this
point because of funding limitations.
-------
II. TEST EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES
This section covers the equipment and procedures used to obtain and
analyze the gaseous exhaust emissions, exhaust sulfates, and other unregu-
lated emissions measured during both Phase I and Phase II of this project.
Also covered are the procedures for durability distance accumulation and
analysis of the fuels used during the project.
A. General Emission Test Procedures
The 1978 light-duty Federal Test Procedure (FTP) without evaporative
emissions, was followed in terms of procedure and equipment as much as
possible for all tests. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with this
test procedure. If not, it can be found in 40 CFR Part 86. The latest re-
codification was published in the Federal Register, Volume 42, Number 124,
dated June 28, 1977.
The gaseous emissions of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) were collected and analyzed using the procedures
of the light-duty FTP. The tests were performed on a Clayton chassis dyna-
mometer, model EC-50, with the vehicles manually driven. A Positive Dis-
placement Pump Constant Volume Sampler (PDP-CVS), with a nominal capacity
of 350 CFM was used. To collect the sulfate sample, the usualy CVS system
was modified by inserting a three meter long tunnel, approximately 21 cm
in diameter, between the CVS room air filter box and the entrance to the CVS
heat exchanger. Figure 1 shows various views of the test area, CVS system
and the analysis instruments for the bagged gaseous emissions.
There were three main driving cycles used during this project. The
first was the driving cycle used in the light-duty FTP, known as the LA-4
cycle or the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS). The second was
the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET) cycle. The third cycle, developed
specifically as a sulfate test cycle, is called the Congested Freeway
Driving Schedule (CFDS). The speed versus time traces of these three cycles
are shown in Figure 2.
B. Collection and Analysis of Unregulated Emissions
This section discusses the collection and analysis of exhaust sulfate,
nonmethane hydrocarbons, hydrogen cyanide and ammonia; the unregulated
emissions measured as part of this project.
Sulfate
The exhaust sulfates were collected as sulfuric acid on 47 mm Fluoropore*
*Fluoropore is a registered trademark of the Millipore Corporation.
Fluoropore filters are made of PTFE (Polytetroflucrethylene) bonded
to polyethylene net.
3
-------
General View of Test Area
Dilution Air Filter Box
and Sulfate Tunnel
Emission Analyzers for Bagged
Gaseous Emissions
Figure 1. Emissions collection and analysis equipment
-------
100
80
60
40
20
0
L e
.TRANSIENT
PHASE
STABILIZED
PHASE
100
80
60
40
20
0
1398
100
80
60
40
20
0
765
Avg. Speed
kph (mph)
Cycle
HFET 77.55(48.20)
UDDS 31.70(19.70)
CFDS 55.96(34.78)
Distance
km(mlles)
16.48(10.24)
12.07(7.50)
21.74(13.51)
Time
Seconds
765
1372
1398
Figure 2. Speed vs. time traces of FTP, HFET and CFDS driving cycles
-------
filters with 0.5 \m pore size. The samples were obtained isokinetically
using a probe centered in the 21 cm diameter tube. Figure 3 is a schematic
of the collection system.
The amount of sulfate deposited on the filter is determined by the barium
chloranilate analysis (BCA) procedure developed by EPA.d2) A complete des-
cription of this procedure as used at SwRI, can be found in Reference 8.
Briefly, it involves placing the filter in a 60/40 mixture of isopropanol
and water to place the sulfates in solution. Part of the solution is fed
through a column containing barium chloranilate, which reacts with the sulfates
forming barium sulfate and releasing chloranilic acid. The amount of chlor-
anilic acid released is measured using a UV Spectrophotometer.
Non-Methane Hydrocarbons
Over the years, there has been much discussion concerning whether or not
methane should be included in the HC emission standards since it does not
enter in the classical smog reaction. On some tests during this project, the
amount of methane in the bag samples was determined using a method developed
by EPA.(13-15) The methane is then subtracted from the total FID HC to give
the total nonmethane hydrocarbons. This procedure uses a single gas chroma-
tograph with a multiple column arrangement and dual gas sampling valves. The
timed sequence selection values allow baseline separation of air, methane,
ethylene, acetylene, propane, propylene, benzene, and toluene. For this pro-
ject, only the methane value was used. Both sample and background bags were
analyzed to determine the net hydrocarbon emission rates.
Hydrogen Cyanide (Total Cyanide)
There is a possibility of hydrogen cyanide (HCN) being produced with a
threeway catalyst system.(16) Therefore, HCN was measured in Phase I on the
1977 Fury during the durability test phase. Because the collection and
analysis procedure for HCN will also collect any cyanogen (C2N2) present, the
results are expressed as total cyanide. The complete collection and analysis
procedure can be found in Reference 17. Briefly, it involves collecting a
continuous sample of the dilute exhaust in a glass impinger filled with l.ON
potassium hydroxide. Upon completion of the test, an aliquot of the absorbing
reagent is treated with KH2PO4 and Chloramine-T. A portion of the resulting
cyanogen chloride is injected into a gas chromatograph equipped with an
electron capture detector (ECD). External CN~ standards are used to quantify
results.
Ammonia
It is possible for a threeway catalyst to produce ammonia at rich A/F
ratios. At rich A/F ratios, there is a lack of oxygen and NOX is converted
to NH3 rather than N2-^18^ For this reason, ammonia was measured on the 1977
Fury threeway catalyst car tested in Phase 1 during the durability testing.
The procedure is to pass a continuous sample of the dilute exhaust through a
glass impinger containing dilute sulfuric acid. The ammonia is collected in
the impinger as NH4+. The solution from the impinger is analyzed for ammonia
using an ion chromatograph, with the concentration being determined by com-
-------
Plow Meter
14.7 litres/min for
Isokinetic Sample
CVS
Unit
Molecular Sieve
Dryer
47 mm Fluoropore Sulfate
Collection Filter
.775 cm ID
281 m/min
10 m^/min
To
Atmosphere
Dilution
Air
Filter
Pack
Heaters
LJ.
21 cm
10.7 cm
Car
Exhaust
•46 cm
2 meters
Figure 3. Schematic of sulfate sample collection system
-------
parison to standard solutions. The complete procedure for collection and
analysis of exhaust ammonia can be found in Reference 17.
C. Durability Test Procedures
During both Phase I and Phase II of this project, the emission control
systems being evaluated were tested for durability by driving the cars on
which the systems were installed in a specified manner for a specified dis-
tance. The basic durability distance accumulation procedure is specified in
40 CFR Part 86, paragraph 86.080-26 and Appendix IV to Part 86. It is often
refered to as the "AMA driving schedule." The durability driving schedule
listed in Appendix IV of Part 86, was modified by MSAPC Advisory Circular 37,
to permit lower speeds on the last two laps of the schedule, allowing opera-
tion within the speed limit on public roads. The durability driving course
used at SwRI is shown in Figure 4. During the durability testing in both
Phase I and Phase II, the 52.3 km driving schedule was driven repeatatively
for two 8-hour shifts per day, 5 days per week. With allowance for breaks
and meals, approximately 640 km (400 miles) could be accumulated per day.
A tachograph was installed in each vehicle undergoing distance accumulation
to insure that the driving schedule was being driven correctly.
Oil level and tire pressure were checked at every shift change. All
engine and driveline system fluid levels were checked weekly. Scheduled
maintenance was performed at 12070 km (7500 miles) intervals in accordance
with the applicable vehicle service manual.
Emission tests were performed every 8050 km (5000 miles) during the
distance accumulation.
D. Fuels
Two types of fuels were used during the project. The first was a com-
mercially available unleaded regular gasoline with the sulfur level increased
to 0.03 weight percent by the addition of thiophene. This fuel was used
during the development and optimization testing in both Phase I and II and
for distance accumulation during the durability testing of Phase I. Since
considerable fuel was required for durability testing, two batches of fuel
were used. The first, designated EM-237-F, was used for development and
optimization tests in Phase I, and the first 16100 km of distance accumula-
tion on the 1977 Fury and the first 8050 km on the 1975 Nova. The second
batch, designated EM-344-F, was used for the remaining durability distance
accumulation in Phase I and all distance accumulation in Phase II.
The second fuel was a specially blended emissions test fuel, meeting
all of the specifications for the light-duty FTP. This fuel, designated
EM-274-F, was used for the final optimization tests on both cars in Phase I
It was used for all emissions tests in Phase II. An analysis of each fuel
used is presented in Table 1.
-------
Events Per Mile
55 mph Top Speed
Driving Mode
Stops
Normal Accelerations from Stop
Normal Accelerations from 20 mph
Wide-Open Throttle Accelerations
and Fast Deceleration
Idle Time
SwRI Course*
1.02
1.01
1.11
0.00
13.84 Sec.
AC No. 37
1.01
0.91
1.11
0.10
13.64 Sec.
* WOT accelerations replaced by
normal accelerations.
Light
Institute
Road
South Lap: "A" to "H" - 4.8 km (3.0 mi)
North Lap: "H" to "A" - 4.7 km (2.9 mi)
11 Laps = 52.3 km (32.5 mi)
Loop
410 N.W.
Lap
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Speed
km/hr
64
48
64
64
56
48
56
72
56
89
89
mi/hr
40
30
40
40
35
30
35
45
35
55
55
Figure 4. SwRI Durability Driving Course
-------
TABLE 1. FUEL ANALYSIS
Commercially Available
Unleaded Gasoline
R.V.P., kPa (pounds)
Gravity, g/ml (°API)
Lead, mg/litre (g/gallon)
Sulfur, weight percent
Hydrocarbon Composition, percent
62.7 (9.10)
0.739 (59.9)
1.3 (<0.005)
0.03
61.4 (8.9)
0.745 (58.4)
0.3 (0.001)
0.03
Gasoline Blended by
Howell Refinery
Property
Distillation Range, °C (°F) IBP
10 Pet
50 Pet
90 Pet
EP
Pet Recovered
Pet Residue
Development and
Evaluation
EM-237-F
32 (89)
52 (125)
103 (217)
107 (338)
211 (412)
97.9
1.3
Service
Accumulation
EM-344-F
36 (97)
54 (129)
100 (212)
164 (328)
197 (386)
97.5
1.0
Emissions
Testing
EM-274-F
32 (89)
56 (132)
106 (222)
159 (319)
201 (394)
97.6
1.0
Phosphorus, mg/litre (g/gallon)
Octane Number
57.2 (8.3)
0.751 (56.9)
0.3 (0.001)
0.03
.romatics
Olefins
saturates
gallon)
Research
Motor
26
2
70
<0. «
91
84
.4
.9
.7
0.001)
.4
.5
28
8
64
0.05
91.
83.
(0.0002)
6
2
33
0
65
0.00
97
87
.7
.9
.4
(0
.1
.6
.0000)
-------
III. PHASE I - INITIAL EVALUATION, OPTIMIZATION
AND DURABILITY TESTING OF LOW SULFATE SYSTEMS
This project conveniently divides into two phases. The first phase
includes all activities to meet the objective of the project: the selection
of emission control systems, evaluation, optimization and durability testing
of two low sulfate emission control systems. This first phase used a 1975
Chevrolet Nova and a 1977 Plymouth Fury as test cars. Because the two systems
being tested did not meet the durability goals, the durability testing was
halted. Phase II of the project involved the selection and testing of a dif-
ferent emission control system on another test vehicle. This section of the
report covers the work done under Phase I of the project.
11
-------
III-l. EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM AND VEHICLE SELECTION
The first task of the project was to consider a variety of possible
emission control systems proposed for use in meeting future emission stan-
dard and choose two or three for further evaluation. The criteria for the
initial evaluation was the possibility of meeting gaseous emissions levels
of 0.26 g/km (0.41 g/mile) HC, 2.11 g/km (3.4 g/mile) CO, and 0.93 g/km
(1.5 g/mile) NOX while maintaining low sulfate emissions. During the
course of the project, the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Air were passed,
setting the NOX limits for 1981 and beyond at 0.61 g/km (1.0 g/mile) NOX.
While the systems had already been chosen at this time, the NOX goal was
changed at that time to 0.61 g/km to conform to the new statuatory limits.
A variety of emission control systems were considered for evaluation,
including oxidation catalyst with modulated air; threeway catalyst with
feedback fuel system; lean burn system without oxidation catalyst; "start
only" catalyst systems; and high temperature exhaust systems. Of these
systems, three were chosen by EPA at the beginning of the project for
further evaluation. The three systems chosen were the oxidation catalyst
with modulated air, high temperature exhaust, and threeway catalyst with
feedback controlled carburetor. Two of these systems would be selected
for durability testing.
Initially, it was planned to obtain two new "matched" vehicles to use
as test cars for the emission control systems. However, when the systems
for evaluation were chosen it became obvious that availability of system
hardware would dictate the selection of the test cars. Thus, instead of
two "matched" cars to which systems would be fitted, each system would be
installed on a test car suited for that system. This approach not only
resulted in a better match of emission control systems and test car, but
it also conserved project funds.
The high temperature exhaust system would require exhaust port liners.
After a search of moderate effort, it was found that the Chevrolet 5.74
litre (350 in3) engine was the most readily adaptable to port liners. Since
the EPA had, from another project, a 1975 California model Chevrolet Nova
with a 5.74 litre engine equipped with lined exhaust ports, it was decided
to use this car for the high temperature exhaust system test car.
While selecting the system components for the air modulation system, it
was realized that the 1975 Nova would also be a suitable test car for that
system. Since it was believed that the 1975 Nova had accumulated only a few
thousand kilometers, and could accommodate either the high temperature exhaust
of air modulation system, it was decided to use it as one of the test cars.
12
-------
At the project inception, there were no intermediate size cars in pro-
duction with threeway catalysts and feedback fuel control systems. However,
Chrysler Corporation agreed to loan EPA a 1977 Fury, equipped with a 5.90
litre (360 in3) V8 engine and an experimental Holley feedback carburator and
fuel control system. To complete the system, two 1475 cc (90 in3) threeway
catalysts with a 5 to 1 platinum/rhodium ratio were supplied to EPA by
Engelhard Industries. Thus, the 1977 Plymouth Fury became the second test
car for the project.
A. 1975 Chevrolet Nova
The 1975 Nova test car is described in Table 2. After the car had been
delivered to SwRI, it was discovered that some of the engine systems had
been considerably modified during its use on a previous EPA project. The
changes are discussed in the final report of that project.(19) Prior to
use of the car in this study, most of the systems were returned to stock
configuration. However, some were left in the "as-received" configuration.
The system changes are listed in Table 3.
B. 1977 Plymouth Fury
A description of the 1977 Plymouth Fury is also included in Table 2.
The car was a stock 1977 Fury, except for the fuel system, catalyst, and
the fact that the EGR and OSAC systems were, while installed, purposely
not operational. An airpump was also installed, but not operational. The
air pump, EGR and OSAC system were included for possible use during optimi-
zation testing.
The feedback controlled carburetor fuel system supplied with the car
was an experimental system developed by Holley carburetor. The pictorial
schematic in Figure 5 shows the elements of the basic system. The 02 sensor,
located in the exhaust stream between the engine and the catalyst, produces
a voltage of about 800 millivolts in the absence of oxygen in the exhaust.
This voltage decreases to zero as the oxygen in the exhaust stream increases
from 0 to 1.5 percent.
The voltage signal from the sensor is the prime control input to the
electronic control unit which provides a square wave output signal of con-
stant frequency, but of variable band width depending on the 02 sensor
voltage. The ECU is designed so that at low values of oxygen in the
exhaust (highest level of sensor voltage output), the output signal band
width is the greatest. Conversely, as the oxygen concentration increases
in the exhaust and the sensor voltage decrease, the band width decreases.
This variable width output signal operates the vacuum control valve,
which serves to modulate the vacuum that is applied to the carburetor from
the vacuum storage canister. Because the "on time" of the value is a
function of 02 sensor signal, the modulated vacuum resulting from variable
"on time" is also a function of 0-
13
-------
TABLE 2. DESCRIPTION OF TEST CARS
Manufacturer Chevrolet Plymouth
Model Nova Fury
Model year 1975 1977
Vehicle Identification No. (VIN) 1X27L5L119711 RH41K7A115764
Emission family designation 11K43 N.A.
Engine displacement, litres (cu.in.) 5.74(350) 5.90(360)
No. of cylinders and configuration V8 V8
Transmission 3 speed auto. 3 speed auto.
Ignition timing 6° ETC 10° ETC
Idle rpm 600 700
Carburetor Rochester "Quadajet" Holley Model 2245
Rear axle ratio 3.08 2.45
Tires ER78-14 H78-15
Stock Emission Control System (Air pump, ox.cat.& EGR) N.A.
Inertia weight class (Ibs) 3500 4500
14
-------
TABLE 3. COMPONENT CHANGES TO 1975 NOVA
Configuration for Contract 68-03-2481
Component
1. Exhaust manifold a
2. Exhaust piping
3. Oxidation catalyst
Air injection piping
system
5. Transmission cross
member
6. Transmission control
rod
7. Ignition system
8. Choke actuator
Oil pressure sending
unit
10.
Early Fuel Evap. (EFE)
System
Contract 68-03-2161 Modifications*
Replaced with 1973 prod, nodular
iron manifold, #34622 & 364753
Removed, installed "NOX canisters"
Removed, installed Engelhard PTX-IIC
modified with air injection tube
Removed piping, reinstalled new
piping system with timer controlled
solenoid and temp, control in lines
to exhaust ports
Replaced with 1973 Impala cross-
member
Modified
Added a time controlled ignition retard
with vacuum overide (stopped vacuum
signal to dist. for 45 sec. after start)
retarding ignition at start
Replaced with Delco electric choke
with resistor added
Replaced with Cadillac unit #6464144
Disabled by wiring valve open and
removing vacuum actuator
Stock
Baseline
High Temp. Exhaust System
Reinstalled stock
manifolds
Stock manifolds
Returned to '73 manifolds,
#34622 & 364753
Reinstalled stock pipes Installed modified pipes Modified pipes
Reinstalled stock catalyst Installed 2 monolith 2 Monolith Catalysts
catalysts
Replumbed to stock Stock configuration Stock configuration
configuration
Retained
Retained
Returned to stock
configuration
Retained
Retained
Returned to stock
configuration
Retained
Retained
Stock configuration Stock configuration
Returned to stock Stock configuration Stock configuration
configuration
Replaced with stock unit Stock unit Stock unit
Stock configuration Stock configuration
-------
TABLE 3 (Cont'd). COMPONENT CHANGES TO 1975 NOVA
11. Carburetor (a) replaced with complete 49 State (a) retained (a) retained (a) retained
carburetor #7045202
(b) replaced main jets and metering (b) retained (b) retained (b) retained
rods (new rods of constant
diameter)
(c) increased size of channel restrictors (c) retained (c) retained (c) retained
(d) To eliminate lean A/F ratio (d) retained (d) retained (d) retained
excursions and minimize extremely
rich excursions, changes may have
been made to accelerator pump
actuation, strobe, nozzle diameter,
power valve orifice and actuation
vacuum
(e) Initial choke opening, cold idle (e) returned to Mfgr's (e) Mfgr. spec (e) Mfgr. spec
speed and choke time adjusted to specifications
give 4-5% CO at start
12. PCV system Installed 1.6 MM orifice in line Retained Retained Retained
13. EGR valve Installed dual diaphragm EGR valve Retained Retained Retained
14. Cylinder heads Replaced with heads with exhaust Returned to stock head Reinstalled head Port lined heads
port liners with port liners
•Vehicle originally a 1975 California Nova with 5. 74 litre engine (family LM-1);
California emission controls including single-diaphragm EGR valve, air pump and associated
plumbing and a 4261 cc pelleted cat. ; HEI ignition and automatic transmission.
-------
VACUUM CONTROL VALVE
VACUUM STORAGE CANISTER.
COLO START SENSOR
SENSOR TEMP
INDICATOR
Figure 5. Holley feedback carburetor engine system
-------
The sensor temperature indicator, the cold start sensor, and the wide-
open-throttle sensor shown in the schematic, can override the 02 sensor
signal to the ECU so that richer air/fuel ratios are provided at wide-open-
throttle and cold operating conditions.
Figure 6 shows the two systems in the carburetor that are controlled
by the modulated vacuum. The idle system is controlled by providing a
variable air bleed in parallel with the normal air bleed.
Control of the main system is accomplished by varying the fuel orifice
in parallel with the main metering jet. This construction is a refinement
of today's power enrichment system.
In operation, when a high vacuum is applied to the carburetor, it will
tend to meter lean. This is accomplished when the solenoid has a high per-
centage of "on1' time. Conversely, when the solenoid is off or operating at
a low "on" time level, the control vacuum is low and the carburetor metering
will enrichen.
18
-------
FEEDBACK CONTROLLED
IDLE AIR BLEED
CONTROL VACUUM
CONNECTION
FIXED IDLE
AIR BLEED
MAIN METERING JET
FEEDBACK CONTROLLED
MAIN SYSTEM FUEL
Figure 6. Feedback carburetor cross-section
-------
III-2. EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
This section covers the development and evaluation of two of the three
low sulfate systems chosen for evaluation. The systems evaluated were:
an oxidation catalyst with modulated air injection (referred to as the "air
modulation system") and a high temperature exhaust system. The third system,
a threeway catalyst with feedback fuel control, was selected for system opti-
mization and durability testing prior to the start of the project.
A. Air Modulation System Development
Previous studies conducted at SwRI had indicated that the amount of
air injected into the exhaust before the catalyst greatly affected the
amount of sulfate produced by the catalyst.(?) While bench tests using SO2
did not show changes in sulfate level above approximately two percent,(20,21)
theoretical considerations show that a significant reduction in sulfates
should be possible with decreases in injected air. '^2)
In order to meet the 1981 HC and CO emission standards a catalyst air
injection system may be required for an oxidation catalyst with the engine
operating at conventionsl A/F ratios. Thus, for low HC and CO emissions a
high oxygen level is required, while for low sulfate emissions a low oxygen
level is required.
In current catalyst air injection systems, the air injected is a function
of engine speed only, with the air pump output increasing as engine speed
increases. For the catalyst to have sufficient air at all operating conditions,
a great deal of excess air is produced for some operating conditions. The
purpose of an air modulation system is to tailor the air injection to provide
air only in the amount needed at any operating condition, minimizing the
excess oxygen and thus the sulfate emissions.
Investigation of HC and CO emissions from carbureted gasoline fueled
engines at various operating conditions indicate that for a given speed,
emissions generally increase with power.(23) if the amount of air injected
could be made a function of engine power, it would be possible to more
closely tailor the air injection to catalyst need.
Since intake manifold vacuum is an indication of engine power, it was
the first parameter considered for a control signal. Using a vacuum actuated
valve it should be possible to modulate the amount of air supplied to the
catalyst. Work done at G.M. Research Laboratories had shown successful air
modulation using a control valve on the inlet of the air pump.(24) it was
therefore decided that the first approach would be to try controlling the
air at the pump inlet.
20
-------
A control valve was designed and built using manifold vacuum as the
valve actuator. The valve was then tested on an air injection system.
Because of air leakage into the pump through shaft seals, etc., it was
not possible to achieve a sufficient reduction in discharge flow.
The next approach was to control the air pump discharge flow. Another
air modulation valve was built by modifying a standard G.M. air pump diver-
ter valve. Figure 7 shows the standard G.M. diverter valve and the valve
modified for air modulation. This valve was installed on the test engine
and performed in a satisfactory manner. Figure 8 shows the percent flow
versus vacuum level. The relationship of flow to manifold vacuum must,
of course, be tailored to the car chosen as a test vehicle.
Since the 1975 Nova test car on which the system was to be installed,
was not available at the time the system was ready for test, a rental car
was obtained for use in the development of the air modulation system.
Originally it was planned to use a Chevrolet Nova with a 5.74 litre (350
CID) engine to match the test car to be used for durability testing.
However, a Nova with a 5.74 litre engine was not available from rental
sources. A 1976 Chevrolet Impala with a 5.74 litre engine was chosen as
the best available alternative.
The timing and idle speed were set to specification values at the test
series shown in Table 4 run to obtain the stock condition emission levels.
The results of this test series is shown in Table 5. The FTP emissions from
the "stock" test were higher than the certification level for this car,
however it was felt that the car would be satisfactory for evaluation and
development of the air modulation system.
After the "stock" test, an air injection system, including air pump,
necessary plumbing, and exhaust manifolds with air injection ports, was
installed on the engine. The stock pelleted catalyst was removed. The
exhaust system was modified to accommodate a monolith catalyst in the
exhaust from each cylinder bank. The monolith catalysts were new stock
Ford catalysts (part no. D7AZ5E212) used with the 1977 LTD with 5.75 litre
(351 CID) engine. The car was then driven 160 km (100 miles) to season
the exhaust system.
A test series was run which was to be the baseline test with a standard
air injection system. During the testing the catalyst exit temperature,
engine rpm, intake manifold vacuum, CO before the catalyst, and 02 behind
the catalyst, were continuously recorded.
The CO emissions were reduced with the air injection system and the
CFDS sulfate level increased. However, the sulfate level was still much
lower than expected. The HC emissions were not reduced by the addition of
the air injection system. The catalyst exit temperature was recorded during
all tests and was found to be considerably higher than expected. The high
catalyst exit temperature, together with the higher than expected HC
emissions indicated an ignition system problem which was later found to be
a spark plug wire arcing to the exhaust manifold. However, at this time it
21
-------
Diaphragm
Assembly
A
Diverted Air
Outlet
Pressure
Relief Valve
Signal Line
Connection
Inlet
Outlets to
Exhaust Manifolds
Standard G.M. Air Diverter Valve
To Exhaust
Manifold
Diaphragm
Intake Manifold
Vacuum Connection
Air from
Air Pump
Dump to Atmosphere
Air Modulation Valve
Figure 7. Standard air diverter valve and air modulation valve
22
-------
2/4/77 calibration
100
NJ
CO
(0
JG
X
0
+J
c
0)
u
6 8 10 12 14
Manifold Vacuum, Inches of Mercury
16
18
20
Figure 8. Air modulation valve calibration
-------
TABLE 4. AIR MODULATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT TEST SEQUENCE
1. Precondition, LA-4
2. Soak 12 to 20 hours
3. FTP - 3 bags for gaseous emissions
4. Idle 1 minute (± 15 seconds)
(a) auto trans - drive manual - neutral
(b) place filter holder in tunnel
5. CFDS - 1 gaseous bag
1 filter sample
6. Engine off - 5 minutes
7. HFET - 1 gaseous bag
24
-------
TABLE 5. RESULTS OF AIR MODULATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT TESTS
Date
3/17/77
3/30/77
4/01/77
4/06/77
4/19/77
5/05/77
5/10/77
5/18/77
5/26/77
5/30/77
6/02/77
6/06/77
3/17/77
3/30/77
4/01/77
4/06/77
4/19/77
5/05/55
5/10/77
5/18/77
5/26/77
5/30/77
6/02/77
6/06/77
Configuration
Stock
Baseline
w/modulation
w/modulation
w/modulation
Baseline
Baseline
w/modulation
w/modulation
w/modulation
Baseline
Baseline
Stock
Baseline
w/modulation
w/modulation
w/modulation
Baseline
Baseline
w/modulation
w/modulation
w/modulation
Baseline
Baseline
Gaseous emissions g/km (g/mile)
HC
1.20(1.93)
1.14(1.84)
0.93(1.50)
0.42(0.68)
0.27(0.43)
0.14(0.23)
0.14(0.23)
0.21(0.34)
0.25(0.40)
0.36(0.58)
0.28(0.45)
0.38(0.61)
0.19(.31)
0.57(0.92)
0.50(0.80)
0.05(0.08)
0.10(0.16)
0.05(0.08)
0.08(0.13)
0.05(0.08)
0.08(0.13)
0.07(0.11)
0.11(0.18)
0.07(0.11)
CO
FTP TESTS
10.84(17.44)
1.95(3.14)
2.18(3.51)
4.34(6.98)
8.89(14.30)
0.82(1.33)
0.81(1.30)
0.95(1.53)
1.25(2.02)
3.62(5.82)
1.28(2.06)
1.02(1.64)
CFDS TESTS
5.59(8.99)
3.41(5.49)
5.54(8.91)
1.37(2.20)
5.53(8.90)
0.18(0.29)
0.17(0.27)
0.42(0.68)
2.10(3.40)
1.04(1.67)
0.19(0.31)
0.11(0.18)
NOX
2.03(3.27)
3.02(4.85)
2.41(3.88)
2.39(3.85)
1.67(2.68)
2.22(3.58)
2.06(3.31)
2.22(3.57)
1.43(2.30)
1.42(2.28)
2.09(3.36)
1.60(2.57)
1.89(3.04)
2.66(4.28)
1.85(2.98)
2.44(3.93)
1.69(2.72)
2.44(3.92)
2.07(3.33)
1.81(2.91)
1.13(1.83)
1.11(1.79)
1.47(2.37)
1.51(2.43)
gm/km
(mg/mile)
Fuel
VlOO km
(mpg)
0.16
3.
1.
1.
1.
.30
.08
.39
,52
32.57
37.27
3.72
0.60
0.53
80.49
62.29
(0.26)
(5.31)
(1.74)
(2.24)
(2.45)
(52.40)
(59.98)
(5.99)
(0.97)
(0.86)
(129.51)
(100.22)
20.34(11.
21.66(10.
19.33(12.
19.62(11,
19.26(12,
99(13.
55(13.
01(14,
18.82(12,
18.28(12,
17
17
16
60)
90)
17)
99)
21)
07)
40)
69)
50)
87)
17.54(13.41)
17.54(13.41)
(a)
Baseline configuration is with catalyst air
injection system without air modulation.
-------
was felt that an initial check of the air modulation system was more impor-
tant than an investigation of possible ignition system problems.
Following these initial tests, a total of six development tests on the
air modulation system and four additional baseline tests with standard air
injection were performed. The development testing proceeded in three steps:
1. Idle A/F adjusted to specifications, new spark plugs and first
schedule of air modulation valve prior to tests on April 1 and
April 6.
2. Cold start delay in air modulation additional EGR, and ignition
system problem corrected prior to test series on April 19.
3. In addition to those changes in (2), installation of a centri-
fugal clutch on the air pump prior to tests on May 26 and May 30.
Baseline tests with a standard air injection system were run between
steps 1 and 2, and following the completion of the development testing.
The test results from all tests are listed in Table 5.
As the first step in the system development, the air modulation valve
was inserted in the air injection system between the air pump diverter valve
and the exhaust manifold air injectors and a test series run on April 1,
1977. Following the test series, an air modulation valve leak was corrected,
new spark plugs installed, and the idle A/F ratio adjusted to specification
using the "lean drop" method. The "lean drop" method utilized the fact that
engine speed will vary with A/F ratio, at a constant throttle setting. "For
this case throttle setting is at idle (throttle closed). The idle mixture
screws are turned in all the way, then turned out, enrichening the mixture
until the engine speed no longer increases. The curb idle throttle stop is
adjusted to give an idle speed a certain amount above specification idle
speed (usually 50-100 rpm). The mixture screws are then turned in, leaning
the mixture, until the idle speed decreased to the specification valve.
During the next test on April 6, 1977, the cause of the suspected ignition
system malfunction was discovered. The number 8 spark plug was observed
arcing through the boot to the exhaust manifold. The spark plug boot was
replaced during the soak period of the FTP and testing continued. The hot
start portion of the FTP produced much lower catalyst exhaust temperatures
and HC levels. However, as can be seen from Table 5, the CO and NOX levels
were still considerably above the project goals.
Following the April 6 test, the raw exhaust gas traces were examined
to determine if the air modulation valve was correctly scheduled. The
manifold vacuum and engine speed traces from the FTP test without air
modulation, run on March 30, 1977, were read every two seconds and the
values punched on computer cards. A scatter plot of manifold vaccum and
engine speed pairs was then obtained using a computer plotter. The plot
is shown in Figure 9. The CO trace from the same test was examined and
the CO levels above 1 percent manually plotted on the graph. The CO levels
above 1 percent for the first three minutes are shown as unshaded symbols;
26
-------
5 ENGINE OPERflTION - CHEV. 350 ON FTP
o
•
M
4%
HI'
o;
I 1 1 1
v
'•', '
1 1 1 1 1 1
i'lF .' J , A*m S
I . . ' , A fyfc, ..'•
' 10
i i
,
' '
, ,;.,.>
™ , i
i i i
i . '
i
* i
IA
II I I
I I . . A
I
1 A 1 , A 1
1 ;• :
•* A
ii
A
i
,'•*
'A
• ' i ' *
1 A A
0.00 40.00 80.00 120.00 160.00 COO. 00
ENGINE SPEED RPM *10l
Figure 9 . Manifold vacuum as a function of engine speed during
FTP test on 1976 Impala
£40.00
27
-------
the remainder of the test as shaded symbols. The area of high CO was then
compared to the modulation valve schedule, Figure 8.
Examination of Figure 8 and 9 indicated that the modulation valve
schedule was satisfactory for that stage of development, but that full air
to the catalyst was needed during approximately the first three minutes of
the cold start. It also appeared that some air was needed at vacuum levels
up to 18 to 20 inches of mercury at higher engine speeds, but not at idle
speed.
To obtain full air injection during the cold start portion of the FTP,
the vacuum chamber of the modulation valve needed to be opened to the atmos-
phere during the first three minutes of the cold start. To provide air at
higher engine speeds, but not at idle, it was decided to use a centrifugal
clutch on the air pump to disengage the air pump when the engine was idling.
Step two of the development process was to install and test the cold
start hardware. The main part of the system was a solenoid valve installed
in the vacuum to the air modulation valve. A time delay relay actuated
the solenoid valve. The time delay relay was set at approximately 2-1/2
minutes. The vacuum system to the solenoid valve was plumbed in such a way
that full air was admitted to the exhaust system until the solenoid was
actuated, at which time the air injection was modulated by the manifold
vacuum signal.
Also during this step, a dual diaphragm EGR valve was installed on the
engine in an effort to reduce NOX to the project goal. The dual diaphragm
EGR valve is constructed such that for high intake manifold vacuum levels,
as would be experienced in cruising, the valve opening is less than for
low manifold vacuums obtained during accelerations. Thus, the valve is
capable of providing more recirculation on acceleration than the standard
EGR valve.
The next series of development tests was run on April 19, 1977. The
test results, listed in Table 5, showed a reduction of HC and NOX. Exami-
nation of the before catalyst CO trace revealed a need for further adjust-
ment to the idle CO level.
At that point in the development testing it was felt that another
baseline test with the standard air injection system should be run to
evaluate the effects of catalyst seasoning in sulfate emissions. The car
was first driven 161 km (100 miles) on suburban expressways as a quick
mileage accumulation, then tested on May 5 and 10, 1977 using the FTP and
CFDS test cycles. The sulfate emissions from the two CFDS tests averaged
34.92 mgAm/ which is ten times the initial baseline CFDS sulfates. It
was obvious that the lower sulfates from the initial CFDS baseline test
with standard air injection were the result of having an unseasoned cata-
lyst. Thus, the second baseline CFDS sulfate levels were used as the
standard air injection system levels.
28
-------
The third step of the development testing was to install the air pump
centrifugal clutch. The centrifugal clutch used was a modified small gaso-
line engine clutch manufactured by Mercury Clutch Division of Aspro, Inc.,
Model No. GW8-30. It was modified to have the pulley as the driving element
rather than the shaft. A cross-section sketch of the modified clutch is
shown in Figure 10.
The time delay relay actuated solenoid valve in the vacuum line to the
air modulation valve was replaced with engine coolant temperature switch
identical to the EGR vacuum signal switch that is stock equipment on the
car. This was accomplished by installing a pipe tee in the EGR switch
location and fitting an EGR switch in both ends of the tee.
The air modulation system then consisted of three additional elements
in a standard air injection system. These elements were:
• A centrifugal clutch on the air pump pulley sheave
• A manifold vacuum actuated air modulation valve
• A coolant temperature controlled switch in the vacuum line to
the air modulation valve.
Figure 11 is a sketch of the system showing the various elements.
After installing the system on the car, it was driven 161 km and tested
on May 18, 1977 using the FTP and CFDS cycles. The CFDS sulfate emissions
from this test was 3.7 mg/km. This large decrease in sulfate emissions
was taken to indicate that the air injection system did indeed have poten-
tial as a method to reduce sulfate emissions. The complete results from
these tests are also given in Table 5.
At this time, it was felt that the system was ready for the final
demonstration test series: 805 km on the AMA durability driving schedule;
a test series consisting of an FTP, CFDS, and HFET; 480 km on the AMA
durability schedule; and a repeat of the test series. This was to be done
with both the standard air injection system and the modulated air injection
system. Since the modulated air injection system was installed on the car,
it was tested first. The results of the replicate tests run on May 26 and
30, 1977 are shown in Table 5.
The sulfate levels from the CFDS were surprisingly low, being 0.60 mg/km
for the first CFDS and 0.53 mg/km for the second CFDS. This is an average
98 percent reduction in sulfates from two previous tests with the standard
air injection system.
The air modulation system was then removed from the test car. The
emission control systems were then in stock 1976 Federal configurations
except for:
29
-------
Driving Parts
Driven Parts
Bearings and Clutch Shoes
Pulley Sheave
Air Pump
Shaft
Spring
Clutch Shoes
Figure 10. Cross section of centrifugal clutch
30
-------
Air Modulation Valve
thermal vacuum switch
centrifugal clutch
(items added to standard injection system are in large print)
Figure 11. Modulated air injection system
31
-------
• a dual diaphragm EGR valve in the EGR system,-
• two monolith catalyst in place of the one pelleted catalyst, and
• a standard air injection system.
With the car in this configuration, it was driven 805 km on the AMA
durability driving schedule, then tested for sulfate and gaseous emissions.
The test series consisted of an FTP, CFDS and HFET. Following these tests,
the car was driven 483 km on the AMA. schedule and the test series repeated.
The test results are shown in Table 5.
Recall that the FTP emission level goals for this project are 0.25 g/km
HC, 2.11 g/km CO, and 0.93 g/km NOX. While no goal was set for sulfates,
it has been agreed that a practical target level was 3.11 mg/km or less.
The car without air modulation met the goal for CO only. When equipped
with air modulation, the car met the sulfate target but none of the gaseous
emissions goals.
The air modulation system had demonstrated its ability to reduce sulfate
emissions. While the gaseous goals were not met, the FTP gaseous emissions
were close enough to the goals to indicate that with additional adjustments
to the engine and air modulation system, the gaseous emission goals could
be met, while keeping the sulfates below the target of 3.11 mg/km.
It was felt that sufficient testing had been done to successfully
demonstrate the effectiveness of the air modulation system so that this
series of tests concluded the system development phase.
B. High Temperature Exhaust System Development
Theoretical analysis and laboratory tests have shown that the amount
of exhaust S02 converted to sulfate in an oxidation catalyst system decreases
as temperature increases.'^0,25) ^ increase in exhaust temperature at the
catalyst from 480° to 540°C (900°F to 1000°F) could theoretically result
in a 30 to 40 percent reduction in sulfate emissions.
Raising the catalyst inlet temperature then becomes an attractive
technique for control of sulfate emissions, particularly if the temperature
increase can be accomploshed by heat conservation techniques alone. As one
of the emission control systems to be evaluated for this project, a high
temperature exhaust system was to be designed and built. This system was
to rely on heat conservation techniques, with a target temperature increase
of 80°C (approximately 150°F).
To accomplish this objective three changes were proposed to the exhaust
system:
• Install exhaust port liners in the engine heads
• Use insulated exhaust manifolds
• Mount the catalysts as close as possible to the exhaust manifold
32
-------
Published studies indicated that by far the most effective means of
conserving exhaust heat is by the use of exhaust port liners. (19/26)
Since heads with exhaust port liners were available for a Chevrolet 5.7
litre (350 CID) engine, the 1975 Nova described in Section II was used as
the test car for the high temperature exhaust system evaluation. The in-
sulated exhaust manifold and port liners were to be tested separately and
in combination so that the contribution of each component could be evaluated.
In addition, the stock pelleted catalysts were to be replaced with monolith
catalysts, which had shown a somewhat lower sulfate storage capacity in a
previous project. ^7^
For the insulated manifolds, a decision was made against merely
insulating the stock exhaust manifolds, since it was felt that the stock
nodular cast iron manifolds would have a tendency to crack when insulated.
It was therefore decided to design and fabricate a set of exhaust manifolds
specifically for this project.
/ 'jfi \
A study of port liners by Ford Motor Company had indicated that
air gap insulation gave the lowest heat loss of several techniques evalu-
ated. It was felt that for the exhaust manifold also, air gap insulation
would give the lowest heat rejection. The insulated exhaust manifold
should also have low thermal inertia to keep the start up exhaust tempera-
ture as hot as possible.
Using these criteria, a set of welded stainless steel exhaust manifolds
were designed with a 19 cm (0.75 in) air gap. Photographs of the manifolds
are shown in Figure 12.
The manifold weldments were fabricated and installed prior to installing
the heads with exhaust port liners so that the effects of the insulated mani-
folds alone could be evaluated. To conserve badly needed time, the insulated
manifolds were evaluated with the stock exhaust pipe and pelleted catalyst,
since the exhaust system with the two monolith catalysts was still being
fabricated.
Table 6 shows the test results of the test series with the stock ex-
haust manifolds and exhaust system and series with the insulated exhaust
manifolds. The temperature data from the test series with the SwRI built
insulated exhaust manifolds indicated that these manifolds were only
marginally successful in increasing the exhaust gas temperature into the
catalyst. The FTP test with insulated manifolds showed only a 7°C(12°F)
increase over the stock manifold FTP temperature.
When the temperature traces from the two tests were compared, the
insulated manifolds were found to produce hotter exhaust gas temperatures
during the cold start 505 second portion of the FTP test. The exhaust
temperature difference between the two systems began to decrease after
505 seconds. It continued to decrease until the end .of the test, when
the exhaust temperature using stock manifolds was actually higher than
the exhaust temperature from the insulated manifolds.
33
-------
Figure 12. Air gap insulated exhaust manifolds
34
-------
TABLE 6. RESULTS FROM INSULATED MANIFOLD TESTS WITH PELLETED CATALYST
Date
c /i -i /-in
H2S04 Average
Test Gaseous Emissions qAm (q/mile) rag/km Exhaust
Type Configuration HC CO NOX (ma/mile) Temp°Cta'
CTTTD c-t-^>^b- n OT /A oc^ ID) n *,« /o -30 \ n 11 1 1 o/i\ — /ITT /DQO\ 1 7
Fuel
&/100 km(mpg)
•?fi n •? fi?i
5/13/77 CFDS Stock
6/10/77 FTP w/ins.exh.(c)
6/10/77 CFDS(d) w/ins.exh.
0.03 (0.05) 0.23 (0.37) 0.81 (1.30)
0.34 (0.55) 1.72 (2.77) 0.77 (1.24)
0.21 (0.34) 3.57 (5.74) 0.45 (0.72)
7.11 (11.44) 545 (1013) 14.05 (16.74)
479 (894) 18.87 (12.46)
14.51 (23.35) 517 <962/b) 17.06 (13.79)
00
Ln
3 average temperature at exhaust manifold exit
b left cylinder bank only (cylinders 1,3,5,7). See Note d.
insulated exhaust manifolds installed
two spark plugs misfiring during this test
-------
The CFDS tests with the SwRI insulated manifolds had a 28°C (50°F)
lower average temperature than the CFDS tests with stock manifolds. During
the CFDS tests with the insulated manifolds the numbers six and eight spark
plugs were observed arcing through the boot to the manifold. Since these
cylinders exhaust into the right hand manifold, only the left cylinder bank
exhaust temperature was used for the CFDS comparison.
The HC and CO emissions and fuel consumption from the CFDS test with
the insulated manifolds are higher, and the NOX emissions are lower than
the CFDS test with the stock exhaust system, as would be expected with the
misfiring cylinder.
From the temperature data of these two test series, it appears that
insulated manifolds give higher exhaust temperatures during cold engine
operation only. During stop and go driving, as represented by the stabi-
lized portion of the FTP, the stock cast exhaust manifolds apparently give
up some stored heat during low power and idle operation. This raises the
temperature from the stock manifolds above the temperature from the insulated
manifolds, which being less massive than the stock manifolds, have a smaller
heat storage capacity.
As was pointed out earlier, these tests were run with a stock pelleted
catalyst, rather than the monolith catalysts planned for use with the high
temperature system. Pelleted catalysts are capable of considerable sulfate
storage and subsequent release. Since no attempt was made to duplicate
the long term preconditioning, no comparison should be attempted between
the sulfate emissions of the two CFDS tests run on May 13 and June 10.
Following these tests, the stock exhaust manifolds were reinstalled
and the pelleted catalyst was replaced with two monolith catalysts , one for
each cylinder bank. The car was driven for 805 km on the AMA durability
driving schedule. It was then tested twice (June 28, and July 1, 1977)
using the development test sequence (FTP, CFDS, HFET) with 483 km durability
driving between the two test series. This test series was designated as
the baseline test. The cylinder heads with exhaust port liners were then
installed together with the exhaust manifolds supplied with the heads.
(1973 production nodular iron manifolds). The car was again driven for
805 km of durability and the test sequence repeated twice (July 20 and 22,
1977) with 483 km of durability between test sequences. The results of
these tests are shown in Table 7.
The average gaseous emissions from the two baseline FTP tests and
the average of the two FTP tests with port liners were within the project
goals as they were prior to changing the NOX goal (0.25 g/km HC, 2.11 g/km
CO, 0.93 g/km NOX). However, one of the baseline FTP tests had a NOX
level slightly above the goal level. One FTP test with port liners had
both CO and NOX levels slightly above the goals.
The exhaust temperature for all tests with port liners were higher than
the exhaust temperatures from the same test type without exhaust port liners.
CFDS tests v.ith the port liners had an average sulfate emission level approi-
mately 37 percent less than the average baseline CFDS sulfate level.
36
-------
TABLE 7. RESULTS FROM BASELINE AND TESTS WITH PORT LINERS AND MONOLITH CATALYSTS
Date
6/28/77
7/1/77
Average
6/28/77
7/1/77
Average
6/28/77
7/1/77
Average
w 7/20/77
^ 7/22/77
Average
7/20/77
7/22/77
Average
7/20/77
7/22/77
Average
Test
Type
FTP
FTP
CFDS
CFDS
FET
FET
FTP
FTP
CFDS
CFDS
FET
FET
Gaseous Emissions, g/km (g/mile)
Configuration
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
b
w/liners
w/liners
w/liners
w/liners
w/liners
w/liners
HC
0.19(0.31)
0.19(0.31)
0.19(0.31)
0.05(0.08)
0.06(0.10)
0.06(0.09)
0.04(0.06)
0.03(0.05)
0.03(0.05)
0.15(0.24)
0.18(0.29)
0.16(0.26)
0.04(0.06)
0.04(0.06)
0.04(0.06
0.02(0.03)
0.02(0.03)
0.02(0.03)
CO
1.25(2.01)
1.24(2.00)
1.24(2.00)
0.20(0.32)
0.21(0.34)
0.20(0.33)
0.13(0.21)
0.12(0.19)
0.12(0.20)
1.85(2.98)
2.25(3.62)
2.05(3.30)
0.57(0.92)
0.55(0.88)
0.56(0.90)
0.10(0.16)
0.24(0.39)
0.17(0.28)
NOX
0.77(1.24)
0.94(1.51)
0.86(1.38)
0.73(1.17)
0.87(1.40)
0.80(1.29)
0.78(1.26)
0.91(1.46)
0.84(1.36)
0.78(1.25)
0.95(1.53)
0.86(1.39)
0.82(1.32)
0.99(1.59)
0.90(1.46)
0.88(1.42)
1.05(1.69)
0.96(1.56)
H2S04
mg/km
(Vig/mi)
3.04(4.89)
0.11(0.18)
1.58(2.54)
11.52(18.54)
8.53(13.73)
10.03(16.14)
27.54(44.31)
26.18(42.12)
26.86(43.22)
1.11(1.79)
0.40(0.64)
0.76(1.22)
5.43(8.74)
7.16(11.52)
6.30(10.13)
18.66(30.02)
18.05(29.04)
18.36(29.53)
Avg . Exh.
Temp.
°C (°F)a
456(852)
445(834)
450(843)
545(1013)
520(968)
532(990)
573(1063)
573(1063)
573(1063)
526(979)
519(967)
522(973)
608(1126)
606(1123)
607(1124)
651(1204)
657(1214)
654(1209)
Fuel
V100 km(mpg)
17.54(13.41)
17.24(13.64)
17.39(13.53)
13.95(16.86)
13.44(17.50)
13.70(17.18)
12.60(18.69)
12.82(18.35)
12.71(18.52)
17.86(13.17)
18.52(12.70)
18.19(12.94)
13.81(17.03)
13.86(16.97)
13.84(17.00)
13.04(18.04)
13.26(17.74)
13.15(17.89)
Average temperature at exhaust manifold exit
DExhaust port liners installed
-------
While this is a considerable decrease in sulfate emissions, two facts
should be pointed out. The first is that the baseline CFDS sulfate emis-
sions are lower than average for a car with air injection. The EPA sulfate
baseline study showed an average of 17.7 mg/km for oxidation catalyst cars
with air injection.(5) The second fact is that even with a 37 percent
reduction, the CFDS sulfate emissions from tests with the port liners are
still somewhat above the target level of 3.1 mg/km.
The percent conversion of fuel sulfur to sulfate for the CFDS and HFET
tests listed in Table 7 are shown in Figure 13 as a function of exhaust tem-
perature. Also shown on the figure is a theoretical equilibrium curve for
two percent excess oxygen and a curve showing laboratory test results for
a catalyst with 50,000 hr"1 space velocity. Both of these curves are from
Reference 20. From the figure, it can be seen that the actual rate of
decrease in sulfate emissions with temperature is considerably less than
the theoretical equilibrium rate. From examination of the figure, it
appears that an additional exhaust temperature increase of approximately
70°C (126°F) would be required to obtain the target sulfate level. In an
attempt to reach the target sulfate levels, the insulated exhaust manifolds
were installed on the car and the test procedure repeated. The temperature
as the exit of the exhaust manifold (left side) is shown in Table 8 for the
tests with and without the insulated manifolds.
TABLE 8. EXHAUST TEMPERATURE WITH AND WITHOUT INSULATED MANIFOLDS
Date
Test Type
FTP 7/20 & 7/22 (Avg.)
FTP 8/15/77
SET 7/20 & 7/22 (Avg.)
SET 8/15/77
Configuration
w/o insulated man.
w/liners
w/insulated man.
w/liners
w/o insulated man.
w/liners
w/insulated man.
w/liners
Exhaust Manifold
Exit Temp. °C
522 (973°F)
522 (972°F)
607 (1124°F)
595 (1103°F)
It is evident that the insulated manifolds had little affect on the
exhaust temperature. This is not to say that exhaust manifolds could not
be built that would give increased exhaust temperature. However, these
test results do indicate that successful design of such manifolds requires
more time and effort than programmed under this study.
Since there was little difference in temperature with insulated mani-
folds, the test results with port liners alone were used to evaluate the
potential of the high temperature exhaust system. Development testing of
the high temperature exhaust system was therefore brought to a close.
38
-------
From
Reference 20
Theoretical Equilibrium line (with 2% excess
Bench test of monolith catalyst with 50000 hr"l
space velocity
SET
O
FET
Dates
• 6/28/77 and 7/1/77
7/20/77 and 7/22/77
100
90
80
S 70
s
3 60
13
•M
w 50
c
O
w 30
o>
20
10
!-H.r
Hii
ft!
300
400 500 600
Temperature, °C
700
800
Figure 13. Conversion of fuel sulfur to H2SO4 for baseline
and high temperature tests of 1975 Nova
39
-------
C. Emission Control System Rating
Only one of the two systems evaluated was to be tested for durability.
Therefore, some method of rating each system was needed so that the best
system was chosen for durability testing. The systems were rank ordered,
based on an assigned numerical value for each system. This numerical value
was obtained by assigning a number between one and ten for each of several
evaluation parameters, then summing the individual numbers to obtain a
single number of each system.
The parameters considered were gaseous emissions, sulfate emissions,
fuel economy, estimated durability, and estimated cost. Gaseous emissions
were based on the 1975 FTP (LA-4 cycle) , sulfate emissions on the CFDS
cycle, and fuel economy on the city and the highway cycle.
Each of the parameters considered had a different scoring criteria.
Basically, the higher the score, the more desirable (lower cost, better
durability, lower emissions, etc.) the control system. Individual para-
meter scores were multiplied by a weighting factor, indicating the rela-
tive importance of each parameter. The weighting factors were subjective,
but did serve to give more emphasis to the more important evaluation items.
The scoring criteria for each individual item is shown in Table 9.
The evaluation scores of the two systems are shown in Table 10. An
explanation of each score is contained in Appendix A. Since the air
modulation system scored highest in the evaluation, it was chosen for
further optimization and durability testing.
40
-------
TABLE 9. EVALUATION SCORING CRITERIA
Evaluation Item
1. Gaseous Emissions
2. Sulfate Emissions
3. Fuel Economy
4. Durability
5. Cost
Scoring Criteria
Weighting
Score Factor
(a) HC, CO, NOX below 0.25, 2.11 and
0.93 g/km respectively
(b) Only one of the gaseous emissions
is over the goal and it does not
exceed the goal by more than 50%
(c) More than one of the gaseous emis-
sions is over the goal
2.0
10
5
0
(a) 3.1 mg/km or less on CFDS test 10
(b) Greater than 6.2 mg/km 0
(c) Between 3.1 and 6.2 mg/km (3.226-SO mg/km)
1.5
(a) Fuel economy improved by more
(b) Fuel economy i5%
(c) Fuel economy decreased by more
than 5%
10
5
0
(a) Estimate life of system without, miles
repairs or replacement (only V50,000 x 10'
addition parts added for sulfate
control - not total system).
(a) Least cost system
(b) For other systems
10
least cost
system cost
1.0
1.0
1.0
41
-------
TABLE 10. EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM EVALUATION RATINGS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Evaluation Item
Meets gaseous
emission goals
Sulfate emissions
Fuel economy
Durability
Cost
TOTAL SCORE
Weighting
Score Factor
Air Modulation
5 2.0
10 1.5
5 1.5
5 1.0
10 1.0
Weighted
Score
System
10
15
7.5
5
10
47.5
Max. Possible
Weighted Score
(20)
(15)
(15)
(10)
(10)
(70)
High Temperature Exhaust System
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Meets gaseous
emission goals
Sulfate emissions
Fuel economy
Durability
Cost
TOTAL SCORE
10 2.0
0 1.5
5 1.5
10 1.0
3.3 1.0
20
0
7.5
10
3.3
40.8
(20)
(15)
(15)
(10)
(10)
(70)
42
-------
III-3. AIR MODULATION SYSTEM-OPTIMIZATION
AND DURABILITY TESTING
The air modulation concept was proven on the 1976 Chevrolet Impala
and chosen as one of the systems to be optimized and tested for durability.
The complete air modulation system was therefore installed on the durability
test car, the 1975 Nova described in Section II, and optimization of the
system begun.
A. Air Modulation System Optimization
Since the basic car was not designed to meet 1981 standards, consi-
derable work was required to bring the gaseous emissions within the project
goals. The steps to reaching the project goals were:
1. Installed heads with exhaust port liners
2. Reinstalled stock head without port liners
3. Installed new rear axle (changed from 3.08 to 2.56 ratio)
4. Changed timing from 6° to 8° BTC and increased EGR
5. Installed new carburetor, increased EGR
6. Installed new intake manifold and increased EGR valve orifice
to 12.8 mm
When the air modulation system was installed on the Nova, considerable
testing was required to adjust the air modulation valve. The intake mani-
fold vacuum range for the Nova was smaller than the vacuum range of the 1976
Impala on which the system was developed, necessitating a change in the size
of the valve vacuum chamber and spring.
Since the high temperature exhaust system had just completed evaluation
on the 1975 Nova, the cylinder heads with exhaust port liners were still
installed. These heads were left in place to determine if the port liners
would help reduce the CO emissions. Eleven tests were performed using the
cylinder heads with exhaust port liners. The results from the test with
the lowest overall emissions (9/30/77) are listed in Table 11. As can be
seen, the car did not meet the CO or NOX emission goals in that configuration.
On examination of test data with the stock emission control system,
it was found that the stock cylinder heads, without port liners had lower
CO emissions than the heads with liners. The reason for this difference
was not evident, but was assumed to be a function of some difference in
head geometry. It was therefore decided to reinstall the stock cylinder
heads and continue the optimization testing.
43
-------
TABLE 11. FTP TEST RESULTS FOR AIR MODULATION SYSTEM INSTALLED ON 1975 NOVA
Gaseous Emissions g/km (g/mile)
Date
9/30/77
11/3/77
11/4/77
11/29/77
11/30/77
12/12/77
12/30/77
1/16/78
1/18/78
1/31/78
Configuration
HC
CO
NO,
w/liners & air mod.
std. head w/o air mod.
std. heads & air mod.
std. head, 2.56 axle
w/air mod.
std. head, 2.56 axle
w/air mod.
increased EGR, 8°BTC
new intake manifold,
new carb., inc. EGR, 8° BTC
new intake manifold,
12.8 mm EGR, 9°BTC
new intake manifold,
12.8 mm EGR, 9°BTC
new intake manifold,
12.8 mm EGR, 9°BTC
0.19(0.31) 2.75(4.42) 0.76(1.22)
0.21(0.34) 1.86(2.99) 0.85(1.37)
0.23(0.37) 2.54(4.09) 0.79(1.27)
Fuel
a/100 km (mpg)
16.95(13.88)
16.95(13.89)
17.86(13.17)
0.20(0.32) 1.42(2.28) 0.89(1.43) 16.13(14.58)
0.22(0.35) 3.38(5.44) 0.81(1.30) 16.67(14.11)
0.18(0.29) 2.84(4.57) 0.64(1.03) 17.24(13.64)
0.28(0.45) 1.86(2.99) 0.62(1.00) 17.09(13.76)
0.19(0.31) 0.93(1.49) 0.55(0.89) 17.22(13.66)
0.19(0.31) 0.92(1.49) 0.59(0.91) 17.19(13.68)
0.19(0.31) 1.03(1.65) 0.48(0.77) 17.54(13.41)
-------
Seven cold start FTP tests were run in this configuration. The test
on 11/4/77 produced the best overall emissions. However, CO and NOX were
still above the project goals as shown in Table 11.
The third step of the optimization procedure was to change the rear
axle ratio in an effort to lower CO emissions and improve fuel economy. A
test without the air modulation system showed a reduction in CO and an im-
provement of approximately five percent in fuel economy. When a test was
run on 11/30/77 with the air modulation system installed, the CO increased
to a level above the best test with the original axle ratio. While not
realized at the time, this was the result of an intermittent carburetor
problem which would continue to hinder the optimization effort.
Since the 11/30/77 test demonstrated CO and NOX emissions above the
project goals, it was decided that additional changes were required. The
EGR valve flow area was enlarged to increase the amount of EGR. The car-
buretor accelerator pump stroke was shortened and the ignition timing
advanced to 8° BTC. This configuration constituted the forth step in the
optimization procedure.
Six tests were run in this configuration, with the idle CO set at
various A/F ratios. The best overall emissions were obtained from the
12/12/77 test. The CO and NOX emissions were still above the project
goals as shown in Table 11. However, there was a decrease in NOX compared
to previous tests.
After examining the CO traces from tests during Steps 3 and 4, it was
evident that there was an intermittent problem with the carburetor, con-
fusing the interpretation of the test results. The carburetor on the car
had undergone extensive modification during a previous EPA project. It
was felt that returning to a stock carburetor would improve the test-to-test
repeatability.
A new Rochester "Quadajet" four barrel carburetor, part number 17054703,
was installed. The amount of EGR was also increased. This configuration
was the fifth step of optimization. Three tests were run in this configu-
ration. The best emissions were obtained from the 12/30/77 test, listed in
Table 11. For the first time, both CO and NOX met the project goals, how-
ever HC was slightly above the project goal.
The last step in the optimization process was to install an aluminum
Edelbrock "Streetmaster II" single plane intake manifold in an effort to
decrease the time for the intake manifold to reach operating temperature.
The timing was also advanced to 9° BTC. The EGR valve metering rod diameter
was reduced to increase EGR. To further increase EGR, a new EGR valve
orifice, 12.5 mm in diameter, was installed to place of the 10 mm orifice
that had been used. An FTP test with this configuration was run on 1/16/78,
with a replicate test run on 1/18/78. These tests met all gaseous emission
goals with a sufficient margin for deterioration during durability testing.
45
-------
The car was driven for 320 km (200 miles) on the AMA durability route
to season the catalyst at the new exhaust oxygen level. A complete series
of tests (FTP, CFDS, FET) was then run on 1/31/78 to determine the sulfate
emissions. The CFDS sulfuric acid emissions were 3.85 mg/km (6.19 mg/mile).
This was a 62% reduction from the Nova baseline obtained during the high
temperature exhaust study (see Table 7). While the sulfate emissions were
slightly above the 3.1 mg/km project goal, it was decided that they were
low enough to proceed with the durability testing.
B. Air Modulation System Durability Testing
Following optimization of the air modulation system, the car was readied
for durability testing. During a previous EPA project, the car had been
driven 14160 km (8800 miles). By the end of optimization testing of the air
modulation system, the 1975 Nova had accumulated a total of 19630 km
(12200 miles). This represents a significant amount of use for the basic
engine systems; therefore a minor overhaul was performed to bring the engine
as close to a "zero miles" condition as possible. The overhaul consisted of
the following maintenance items.
• Remove heads and remove deposits from top of piston
• Remove deposits from head, soak head in solvent, lap valves in
seats and reinstall heads
• Clean inside of exhaust manifolds and reinstall
• Replace spark plugs and ignition wires
• Replace catalysts
• Replace manifold air injection tubes
. Change oil and oil filter
• Set timing 10° ETC and idle speed to 600 rpm
Following this minor overhaul, the car was driven for 322 km (200 miles)
on the AMA durability schedule. Two replicate test series constituting the
"zero kilometer" test were then performed.
Nova Distance Accumulation Chronology
With the zero kilometer tests on 2/28/78, the durability testing on the
1975 Nova with the air modulation system was begun. A replicate emissions,
zero kilometer, test was run on 3/2/78. Distance accumulation began on
March 9, 1978. The car was driven on the distance accumulation course
shown in Figure 4, Section II, for two 8-hour shifts per day, 5 day per week.
Approximately 640 km (400 miles) were accumulated each day. Duplicate
emission tests were performed every 8050 km, with 805 km (500 miles) of
the durability driving schedule accumulated between the first and second
test series to provide equivalent catalyst sulfate conditioning.
46
-------
Scheduled maintanance was performed every 12,070 km (7500 miles) as
specified in the 1975 Chevrolet Service Manual. A summary of the required
maintenance is shown in Table 12.
Durability distance accumulation continued until 28435 km (17673 miles),
at which time the durability testing was stopped because all FTP gaseous
emissions were at or above the project goals, with no possibility of de-
creasing as distance accumulation continued. A graphical representation
of the distance accumulation records is presented in Figure 14. The figure
shows daily distance, maintenance and emissions test points.
Nova Fuel and Oil Consumption
The average fuel and oil consumption for the interval between each
emission test is shown in Table 13. The fuel consumption is quite con-
sistent between emissions test and at the level expected from FTP and HFET
tests during the optimization. Since there were only 5 quarts (4.7 litres)
of oil added between oil changes during the 28435 km of durability testing,
the oil consumption in each interval appears somewhat erratic, depending on
when the oil was added.
TABLE 13. FUEL AND OIL CONSUMPTION DURING
DURABILITY TESTING FOR 1975 NOVA
Distance Fuel Oil Consumption
Interval, km (mile) &/100 km (mpg) VlOOO km (qt/1000 mi)
0-8050
(0-10000) 15.50(15.18) 0.261(0.444)
8050-16100
(5000-10000) 15.61(15.07) no oil added
16100-24150
(10000-15000) 15.17(15.51) 0.513(0.873)
0-24150 15.48(15.20) 0.166(0.283)
(0-15000)
However, the overall oil consumption of 0.17 H/1000 km (0.28 qts/1000 miles)
is considered somewhat better than average.
Nova Emission Rest Results
The average results from the four duplicate emission test series run
on the Nova during durability testing are listed in Table 14. These test
results are shown graphically as a function of distance accumulated in
Figures 15 and 16. As can be seen from the table and figures, all emissions
were at or within the project goals at the zero and 8050 km test points.
However, starting with the 16100 km test series, at least two, and on occa-
sion all, of the FTP gaseous emissions were above project goals.
47
-------
TABLE 12. MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE FOR 1975 NOVA
COMPLETE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
When To Perform Services
(Months or Miles, Whichever Occurs Rrst)
Every 6 Months or 7,500 Miles
At 1st Oil Chg. - Then Every 2nd
See Explanation
Every 12 Months
Every 12 Months or 15,000 Miles
Every 30,000 Miles
Every 6 Months or 7,500 Miles
Every 12 Months or 15,000 Miles
At First 6 Months or 7,500
Miles Then at 18 Month/
22,500 Mile Intervals
Every 12 Months or 15,000 Miles
Every 18 Months or 22,500 Miles
Every 22,500 Miles
Every 24 Months or 30,000 Miles
Every 30,000 Miles
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
3/
Services
(For Details, See Numbered Paragraphs)
*Chassis Lubrication
•*Fluid Levels Check
*Engine Oil Change
*0il Filter Change
Tire Rotation (Steel Belted Radial)
Rear Axle Lube Change
Air Conditioning Check
"Cooling System Check
— Coolant Change & Hose Replacement
Wheel Bearing Repack
*Auto. Trans. Fluid & Filter Change
Manual Steering Gear Check
Clutch Cross Shaft Lubrication
Owner Safety Checks
Tire and Wheel Inspection
•Exhaust System Check
•Drive Belt Check
* — Belt Replacement
Suspension and Steering Check
Brake and Power Steering Check
Drum Brake and Parking Brake Check
Throttle Linkage Check
Underbody Flush & Check
Bumper Check
Thermo. Controlled Air Cleaner Check
Carburetor Choke Check
Engine Idle Speed Adjustment
EFE Valve Check
Carburetor Mounting Torque
Fuel Filter Replacement
Vacuum Advance System & Hoses Check
PCV System Check
— PCV Valve & Filter Replacement
Idle Stop Solenoid Check
Spark Plug Wires Check
Spark Plug Replacement
Engine Timing Adjustment & Dist. Check
ECS System Check & Filter Replacement
Fuel Cap, Tank and Lines Check
Air Cleaner Element Replacement
• Also A Safety Service
* Also An Emission Control Service
48
-------
D Emission tests
O Scheduled maintenance (See Table 12)
/\ Unscheduled maintenance. (Adjusted idle CO)
30
O
•-H
•H
14-1
O
•a
td
to
D
O
0)
-P
(0
§
D
O
0)
O
c
to
25
20
15
10
March
June
Figure 14. Distance accumulation record of 1975 Chevrolet Nova.
49
-------
TABLE 14. DURABILITY TEST RESULTS FROM 1975 NOVA
WITH AIR MODULATION SYSTEM
Distance
Accumulation
Gaseous Emissions g/km (g/mile)
Ul
o
km (mile*)
300(480)
8050(5000)
16,100(10,000)
16,100(10,000)a
24,150(15,000)
24, 150(15, 000)b
300(480)
8050(5000)
16,100(10,000)
16,100(10,000)3
24,150(15,000)
24,150(15, 000)b
300(480)
8050(5000)
16,100(10,000)
16,100(10,000)
24,150(15,000)
24,150(15,000)
HC
0.20(0.32)
0.26(0.41)
0.36(0.58)
0.30(0.48)
0.35(0.56)
0.30(0.48)
0.07(0.11)
0.08(0.14)
0.11(0.18)
0.12(0.20)
0.13(0.21)
0.12(0.19)
0.05(0.08)
0.06(0.10)
0.08(0.13)
0.10(0.17)
0.10(0.15)
0.10(0.16)
After adjusting idle CO level
CO
FTP Tests
1.47(2.36)
2.09(3.36)
4.75(7.64)
0.74(1.18)
2.56(4.12)
2.52(4.06)
CFDS Tests
1.78(2.88)
0.44(0.70)
1.15(1.86)
0.05(0.08)
0.27(0.43)
1.16(1.87)
HFET Tests
0.62(1.00)
0.38(0.60)
0.11(0.18)
0.04(0.06)
1.13(0.21)
0.43(0.69)
to 0. 30 percent.
NOX
0.46(0.73)
0.48(0.78)
0.60(0.97)
0.63(1.01)
0.65(1.04)
0.50(0.80)
0.48(0.76)
0.58(0.94)
0.67(1.08)
0.73(1.17)
0.71(1.14)
0.50(0.81)
0.50(0.80)
0.70(1.12)
0.67(1.07)
0.65(1.04)
0.74(1.19)
0.50(0.80)
H2S04
mg/km
(rag/mile)
2
0
0
10
46(3.97)
40(0.65)
47(0.76)
47(16.85)
0.62(1.00)
0.75(1.21)
Fuel
VlOO km (mpg)
19.58(12.02)
18.04(13.04)
17.83(13.20)
17.22(13.66)
17.24(13.65)
17.03(13.82)
14.92(15.78)
13.58(17.35)
12.89(18.24)
13.27(17.73)
12.97(18.13)
13.64(17.25)
13.74(17.13)
12.38(19.00)
11.36(20.70)
11.42(20.61)
11.77(19.99)
12.00(19.60)
-------
X
o
3
Note: Solid symbols are after maintenance tests
1981 Federal Standard
0.5
0.4
I 0.3
\
tn
y 0.2
0.1
0
1981 Federal Standard
7
6
5
£ 4
O
u
_L
1981 Federal Standard
_L
_L
_L
_L
10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance Accumulated, thousands of kilometers
70
80
Figure 15. Emissions as a function of distance accumulated
for a 1975 Nova with air modulation
51
-------
8
7
6
5
4
3
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
Note: Solid symbols are after maintenance
i
I
10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance Accumulated, thousands of Kilometers
Figure 16. Fuel consumption and sulfates as a function of
distance for a 1975 Nova with air modulation system
70
80
52
-------
After the first 16100 km test, the high CO level seemed to indicate a
carburetor problem. Following the test series, the engine out emissions
were meausred at several speeds, including idle. The measured idle CO level
of 1.53 percent was considerably higher than the 0.30 percent idle CO set at
the start of durability testing. The reason for this change could not be
ascertained. The idle mixture screws were adjusted to give an engine out CO
of 0.30 percent at idle in drive.
A test sequence with the correct idle CO was run on April 26, 1978.
From the results, shown in Table 14 as "after maintenance", it can be seen
that the FTP CO and HC levels were considerably lower than the first test
series. The CO and NOx FTP emissions met the project goals. However, the
HC emissions from the FTP were slightly higher than the 0.25 g/km project
goal. The sulfate emissions on the CFDS tests increased from 0.47 mg/km on
April 25, 1978,to 10.47 mg/km on April 26, 1978. This magnitude of increase
could have been caused by the air modulation valve sticking at times,
allowing more than the scheduled air injection to the catalyst. The centri-
fugal clutch was also observed engaging sporadically during idle modes.
This too may have contributed to the higher than usual sulfate emissions by
providing some air injection at idle. The additional air injection could
have also helped to lower the CO emission levels. Maintenance on the cen-
trifugal clutch and air modulation valve was not scheduled until 24100 km.
At the first 24100 km test series, all FTP gaseous emissions were
above the project goals. Since 24100 km (15000 miles) was a major sche-
duled maintenance point, the scheduled maintenance was performed prior to
the second test series. There was a small decrease in all three emissions
after maintenance, but HC and CO still remained above the project goals.
Unregulated Emissions
From the outset of the project, it was planned to measure methane
(CH4), ammonia (NH3) and cyanide (HCN) as soon as all the analytical pro-
cedures were developed under another EPA project.^ ' For the Nova, these
emissions were measured at the 16100 and 24150 km test points. Tables 15
and 16 present the results of these measurements. The results are pre-
sented without comment since there are no emission standards to which the
levels can be compared,and the toxicity of the various compounds was not
researched for this project. However, a brief discussion of the relative
importance of a number of unregulated emissions is contained in Reference 27.
53
-------
TABLE 15. UNREGULATED EMISSIONS FROM 1975 NOVA
WITH AIR MODULATION SYSTEM - 16100 km TEST
Date
4/25/78
4/26/78
Test
Type
FTP
FTP(C)
Total(a>
Ammonia cyanide Methane
mg/km mg/km g/km
3.65
0.03
(b) 0.15(b) 0.14
(b> 0.06
-------
III-4. THREEWAY CATALYST SYSTEM-OPTIMIZATION
AND DURABILITY TESTING
Threeway catalyst systems have been shown to have low exhaust sulfate
emissions .'-*' ^°' Therefore, it was decided at the beginning of the project
that a threeway catalyst system should be one of the emission control systems
optimized and tested for durability. For effective operation, threeway
catalysts require a restricted A/F ratio range. Therefore, a feedback fuel
control system is required with the threeway catalyst.
Chrysler Corporation agreed to loan EPA a 1977 Fury with a 5.9 litre
(360 CID) engine with an experimental Holley feedback carburetor. It was
also equipped with an air pump and EGR valve, both disconnected from their
respective systems, but installed for possible use during optimization. The
car is described in Table 2, Section II. The Holley feedback carburetor is
also described in detail in Section II. As received from Chrysler, the car
had dummy catalysts installed on each cylinder bank exhaust pipe. Two
threeway catalysts, with 5:1 platinum to rhodium ratio and a volume of
1475cc (90 in ) each, were supplied by Engelhard Industries.
A. Threeway Catalyst System Optimization
A complete test series, consisting of an FTP, CFDS and HFET cycle was
performed on the car in the as-received condition. While the car was equipped
with an air pump and EGR valve, neither was operational during this test. The
test results from this test on March 30, 1977, are shown in Table 17- Since
the car had no catalyst installed, the FTP gaseous emissions were quite high.
The CFDS sulfate emissions were typical of a noncatalyst car. The fuel
consumption on both the FTP and HFET tests indicated that the A/F ratio was
richer than desired.
After receipt of the catalysts from Engelhard Industries, a catalyst was
installed in the exhaust system of each cylinder bank, as close as possible
to the exhaust manifold. After installing the catalysts, the main fuel
control circuit trim potentiometer and carburetor idle mixture screws were
adjusted to give engine out CO values of 0.80 percent at 80 kph (40 mph) and
during warmed up idle, as recommended by Holley.
The usual FTP, CFDS and HFET test sequence was run on 8/17/79, with engine
out CO monitored in addition to the usual bagged emissions. Sulfate emissions
were taken during the CFDS test. The emissions from each test are shown in
Table 17. The FTP gaseous HC and NOX emissions were at or below the project
goals. The CO emission level was over twice the goal level of 2.1 g/km
(3.4 g/mile). The CFDS sulfate emission level of 0.49 mg/km (0.79 mg/mile)
was below the sulfate target of 3.1 mg/km (5 mg/mile).
55
-------
TABLE 17. RESULTS OF OPTIMIZATION TESTS OF THREEWAY
CATALYST SYSTEM ON A 1977 FURY
Date
3/30/77
8/17/77
9/23/77
9/28/77
10/20/77
11/28/77
12/13/77
12/16/77
12/19/77
3/30/77
8/17/77
3/30/77
8/17/77
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
HC
.00(3
.26(0
.20(0
.16(0
.20(0
.16(0
.20(0
.08(0
.09(0
.04(1
.14(0
.88(1
Gaseous
.23)
.42)
.32)
.26)
.32)
.26)
.32)
.13)
.14)
.67)
.23)
.42)
.14(0.23)
Emissions
19.
4.
3.
2.
3.
2.
2.
1.
1.
10.
3.
8.
3.
CO
g/km
FTP
04(30.63)
45(7.
25(5.
36(3.
53(5.
61(4.
18(3.
39(2.
98(3.
15(16
26(5.
19(13
13(5.
16)
23)
79)
68)
20)
51)
24)
19)
CFDS
.33)
24)
HFET
.18)
04)
(g/mile)
Tests
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Tests
4
0
Tests
4
0
NO
.47(8
.53(0
.31(0
.39(2
.33(0
.58(0
.45(0
.54(0
.43(0
.29(6
.12(0
.06(6
.11(0
X
.80)
.85)
.50)
.23)
.54)
.93)
.72)
.87)
.69)
.90)
.19)
.53)
.18)
H2S04
mg/km
(mg/mi.) £/100
22.
17.
17.
17.
17.
17.
17.
18.
17.
1.08(1.74)
0.49(0.79)
12.
11.
Fuel
km (mpg)
81(10.31)
00(13.83)
54(13.41)
24(13.64)
72(13.27)
24(13.64)
81(13.21)
87(12.50)
50(13.44)
93(18.19)
91(19.75)
-------
An examination of the FTP data showed that almost all of the CO was
produced during the cold start transient phase of the FTP.
The rest of the optimization testing on this system was performed to
reduce the CO during the cold start transient phase of the FTP, while
maintaining the HC and NOX levels within the project goals. Thirty-eight
cold start FTP tests were run, with various adjustments and additions to the
emission control system, before all FTP gaseous emissions were within the
project goals.
The adjustments made can be divided into 5 steps:
1. Manual switching of the cold start circuit to
reduce time on cold start open loop, and changing
carburetor main jets to a leaner A/F ratio.
2. In addition to (1), manually controlling cold start
inlet air heater and manifold heat control valve.
3. In addition to (1) and (2), a separate cold start,
open loop fuel control signal generator was installed.
4. In addition to (1), (2), and (3), the EGR valve was
activated.
5. In addition to (1), (2), (3), and (4), the standard
Plymouth OSAC (orifice spark advance control) system
was installed.
To illustrate the effect of each step of the optimization testing,
results from seven of 38 tests performed are shown in Table 17.
The first step in the optimization procedure was to shorten the time the
fuel control was in open loop mdoe during a cold start. This was done by
providing a manually operated switch on the fuel control open loop circuit.
The carburetor main jets were also changed to provide a leaner A/F ratio
operating range. Ten cold start FTP tests were run during this step with
various settings of the electronic control unit closed and open loop trim
pots. The CO emission level had been reduced considerably but was still
above the project goal. Any attempt to reduce the CO further by leaning the
A/F ratio raised the NOX emissions above the goal level, as seen from the
results of the 9/28/77 test, listed in Table 17.
Testing during this time was plagued by intermittent malfunctions of
the electronic control unit (ECU) in the fuel system. After the problem was
identified, another ECU was obtained from Holley Carburetor and the next step
in the optimization testing begun.
Examination of engine out CO traces had shown that the majority of the
CO was produced during the first 210 seconds of the cold start. Since
there was considerably less CO produced during the same time period of the
FTP hot start, CO production during the cold start was obviously a function
of engine warmup. There were four systems installed on the car that were
57
-------
used during engine warmup. The systems were: (1) the feedback carburetor
cold start system, (2) carburetor choke, (3) manifold heat control system,
and (4) the inlet air heating system.
The first two of these system were checked and/or modified during
the first step in the optimization testing. During the second step of
optimization, operation of the last two systems was investigated. Both
systems were modified to allow manual operation, and the flow area for the
inlet air heating system was increased. Nine tests were run while investi-
gating the effects of these two systems. The best overall emissions were
obtained from the test on 10/20/77. The results of the test, listed in Table
17, showed almost no change from the best Step 1 results.
The fuel control for the feedback carburetor has two modes of operation,
as explained earlier. The open loop or cold start mode was understood to
be independent of the closed loop mode, so that A/F ratio in one mode could
be adjusted without affecting A/F ratio in the other mode. However, during
ECU adjustments prior to each of the tests in Steps 1 and 2, it appeared
that the open loop and closed loop circuits were not independent of each
other.
To test these observations, a test at idle conditions was run on both
open loop and closed loop modes. During this test, the control vacuum to
carburetor was recorded on a strip chart recorder using a vacuum transducer
in the control line. The oxygen sensor millivolt output (an indication of
A/F ratio) was also recorded on a strip chart. The control was run in the
closed loop mode, then switched to open loop mode. The open loop A/F ratio
only was adjusted. However, when the control was switched back to closed loop
mode, a corresponding change in the closed loop A/F ratio was observed.
After running these tests, it became obvious that a completely independent
open loop circuit was required.
A pulse generator circuit was designed and built using a Signetics 555
timer. Tests with the circuit installed constituted the third step in the
optimization procedure. While the independent open loop circuit resulted
in significantly lower CO emissions, the CO level was still not within the
project goal. The best overall emissions obtained from five tests comprising
Step 3 were from the 11/28/77 test, as shown in Table 17. Examination of the
emission results and A/F ratios indicated that this was the lowest CO level
that could be obtained without exceeding the NOX goal.
It was decided that the EGR system which was installed, but not used,
should be activated to allow a leaner A/F ratio for lower CO emission, while
maintaining NOX levels. The activation of the EGR was Step 4 of optimization.
While this improved the CO emissions, after seven cold start FTP tests with
various ECU settings, it was concluded that it was still not possible to sim-
ultaneously meet the CO and NOX goals. The best overall emission results with
the EGR system were on 12/13/77 as listed in Table 17-
At this point, it appeared that it would not be possible to meet the
project emission goals with this car. However, there was a stock Plymouth
emission control device that had not been used. This device was the standard
58
-------
Plymouth orifice spark advance control (OSAC) which was used to provide a
delay in the distributor vacuum advance signal. The fifth and last step
in the optimization process was to test the car with the addition of the
OSAC system. Emissions from the initial test with this system met the
project goals; however, there was approximately a five percent increase in
fuel consumption as demonstrated by the 12/16/77 test results shown in Table
17.
In order to recover some of the fuel economy lost with the OSAC system,
a thermally actuated valve was installed in the vacuum lines to bypass the
OSAC valve after the engine warmed up (about 2 to 3 minutes). A test with
this system was run on 12/19/77. As can be seen from Table 17 there was a
definite fuel economy improvement using the OSAC valve only during the cold
start, at the expense of a small increase in CO. Since all gaseous FTP
emissions were within the project goals and further reduction did not appear
possible within the project scope of work, this testing terminated the
optimization of the threeway catalyst system. The final emission control
system included:
• Feedback controlled carburetor
Independent open loop fuel control signal for cold starts
• Threeway catalysts
• Shortened cold start operation for choke, inlet air heater and
manifold heat
• An EGR system
. An Orifice Spark Advance Control valve
B. Threeway Catalyst System Durability Testing
At the completion of the optimization testing, the Fury had accumulated
9607 km (5971 miles). However, the threeway catalyst system had been operated
for less than 3200 km, with most of the system having less than 1200 km of
use. It was decided to use the threeway catalyst installation at 8530 km
(5300 miles) as the "zero distance" point for durability testing.
To bring the engine systems as close as possible to a zero distance
condition, the oil was changed and the spark plugs, air filter and oil
filter replaced. This was the only maintenance done prior to starting
durability testing. For purposes of maintenance schedules, these items
were counted as through they were performed at the zero distance point.
Plymouth Distance Accumulation Chronology
-Initial durability emissions testing was performed on 12/29/77. The
emissions test series is shown in Table 4, Section III-2. This test series
was counted as a 965 km (600 mile) test. The car was driven for 320 km (200
miles) on the AMA distance accumulation schedule between the two replicate
59
-------
tests. Distance accumulation started on January 4, 1978. The car was
driven on the distance accumulation course shown in Figure 4, Section II,
for two eight hour shifts per day, five days per week. Approximately
640 km (400 miles)were accumulated each day. Duplicate emission tests were
performed every 8050 km, with 805 km (500 miles) of the durability driving
schedule between the two duplicate tests, to provide equivalent catalyst
sulfate conditioning for each test. Scheduled maintenance was performed every
12,070 (7500 miles) as specified in the 1977 Plymouth Service Manual. A
summary of the required maintenance is shown in Table 18. Some unscheduled
maintenance was required. Figure 17 shows what unscheduled maintenance was
performed and indicates the accumulated distance at which it occurred. A
graphical representation of the distance accumulation records is presented in
Figure 17. The figure shows daily distance, maintenance and emissions test
points. Starting with the 8050 km (5000 mile) test point, at least one of
FTP gaseous emissions exceeded the project limit at each test point. Consid-
erable time was spent at each emission test series investigating the reasons
for the high emission levels and replacing some of the emission control
system parts. The details of these investigations are covered in the dis-
cussion of the emission test results in the next subsection.
The car accumulated 32200 km (20000 miles) on June 1, 1978. At
that time the durability testing was stopped because the CO and NOX emissions
were above the project goals, with no possibility of reduction in emission
levels as distance accumulation continued.
Fury Fuel and Oil Consumption
The average fuel and oil consumption for each interval between emission
tests is shown in Table 19. The fuel consumption is quite consistent
between emission tests at the level expected. Since there were only 4
quarts (3.8 litres) of oil added during the 32633 km (20281 miles) of distance
accumulation, the oil consumption in each interval appears somewhat erratic,
depending on when the oil was added. However, the overall oil consumption
of 1.15 £/1000 km (0.25 qt/1000 miles) is ocnsidered better than average.
TABLE 19. FUEL AND OIL CONSUMPTION DURING
DURABILITY TESTING FOR 1977 FURY
Distance
Interval Fuel Oil Consumption
km (mile) ft/IPO km (mpg) 1,/LOOO km (qt/1000 mi.)
0-8050 16,59 (14.18) 0.214 (0.364)
(0-10,000)
8050-16,100 16.60 (14.17) 0.068 (0.116)
(5000-10,000)
16,100-24,150 17.45 (13.48) 0.305 (0.519)
(10,000-15,000)
24,150-32,200 no data 0.113 (0.192)
(15,000-20,000)
Overall 16.86 (13.95) 0.145 (0.247)
60
-------
35
en
Q)
e
0
l-l
•H
c/j
•a
(0
03
0)
4J
flj
O
U
(1)
U
C
•H
Q
30
25
20
15
10
D Emis
;ion tests
O Scheduled maintenance (See Table
Unscheduled maintenance
Investigation
Replaced 02 s
vacuum amplif
EGR
L8)
of high NOX
nsor, catalyst
er. Increased
and
D
January
February
March
April
May
June
1978
Figure 17. Distance accumulation record of 1977 Plymouth Fury
-------
TABLE 18. MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE FOR 1977 FURY
LUBRICATION AND MAINTENANCE SCHEDULES
RFQIMRFP MAINTFNANP.F RFRVIHFS FOR EMISSION CONTROL AND PROPER VEHICLE PERFORMANCE
AUTOMATIC CHOKE
CARBURETOR CHOKE SHAFT
CARBURETOR AIR FILTER
COOLING SYSTEM
CRANKCASE INLET AIR CLEANER
ENGINE OIL
ENGINE OIL FILTER
FAST IDLE CAM AND PIVOT PIN
FUEL FILTER
IDLE SPEED AND AIR-FUEL MIXTURE
IGNITION CABLES
MANIFOLD HEAT CONTROL VALVE
POSITIVE CRANKCASE VENT VALVE
POSITIVE CRANKCASE VENT VALVE
SPARK PLUGS (WITHOUT CAT. CONV.)
SPf RK PLUGS (WITH CAT. CONV.)
TAPPET ADJUSTMENT 6 CYL. ENG.
USDERHOOD RUBBER AND PLASTIC
COMPONENTS (EMISSION HOSES)
VAPOR STORAGE CANISTER FILTER ELEMENT
MILEAGE INTERVALS MILEAGE IN THOUSANDS
CHECK AND ADJUST AS REQUIRED AT
APPLY SOLVENT EVERY SIX MONTHS OR
REPLACE AT
CHECK AND SERVICE AS REQUIRED EVERY 12 MONTHS OR
CLEAN AT
CHANGE EVERY SIX MONTHS OR
7.5
15
•
REPLACE AT INITIAL OIL CHANGE AND EVERY 2ND OIL CHANGE THEREAFTER
APPLY SOLVENT EVERY SIX MONTHS OR
REPLACE AT
CHECK AND ADJUST AS REQUIRED AT
•
22.5
CHECK AND REPLACE AS REQUIRED AT TIME OF SPARK PLUG REPLACEMENT
APPLY SOLVENT AT
CHECK OPERATION AND REPLACE IF NECESSARY
REPLACE AT
REPLACE AT
REPLACE AT
CHECK AND ADJUST AS REQUIRED AT
INSPECT AND REPLACE IF NECESSARY AT
REPLACE AT
•
•
•
•
30
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
c
•
37.5
4.5
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inspection and Service should also be performed anytime a malfunction is observed or suspected. Retain receipts for all vehicle emission services to
prelect your emission warranty.
RECOMMENDED MAINTENANCE SERVICES
POWER STEERING
EXHAUST SYSTEM
BRAKE MASTER CYLINDER
TRANSMISSION
BRAKE & POWER STEERING HOSES
AIR CONDITIONED CARS
BALL JOINTS, STEERING LINKAGE,
AND UNIVERSAL JOINTS
HOOD LOCK, REL. MECH. & SAFETY CATCH
DRIVE BELTS
UPPER AND LOWER CONTROL
ARM BUSHINGS
TIRES
COOLING SYSTEM
BRAKE LININGS
FRONT WHEEL BEARINGS*(1)
AUTOrVATIC TRANSMISSION— SEVERE
USAGE ONLY
BALL JOJNTS & TIE ROD ENDS
CHECK FLUID LEVEL
CHECK FOR LEAKS, MISSING OR
DAMAGED PARTS
INSPECT FLUID LEVEL
INSPECT FLUID LEVEL
CHECK FOR DETERIORATION OR LEAKS
CHECK BELTS, SIGHT GLASS &
OPERATION OF CONTROLS
INSPECT SEALS
LUBRICATE
CHECK CONDITION & TENSION
INSPECT
ROTATE
DRAIN, FLUSH & REFILL
INSPECT
INSPECT
CHANGE FLUID & FILTER, ADJUST BANDS
LUBRICATE
EVERY OIL CHANGE
EVERY 6 MONTHS
EVERY 6 MONTHS
EVERY 6 MONTHS
EVERY 6 MONTHS
EVERY 6 MONTHS
EVERY 6 MONTHS
EVERY 6 MONTHS
EVERY OIL CHANGE
EVERY OIL CHANGE
EVERY 10,000 MILES
AT 24 MONTHS OR 30,000 MILES AND
EVERY 12 MONTHS OR
15,000 MILES THEREAFTER
EVERY 15,000 MILES
EVERY 22,500 MILES
EVERY 24,000 MILES
EVERY 3 YEARS OR 30,000 MILES
'O1E. Lc::l driving conditions, or special equipment such as high performance or heavy duty options may require special service recommenoal
lfi:.;tir; '.he iron* v.heel bearings whenever the bra'te drums cr rotors are removed to inspect or service the brake system.
'!) $•- ,cre usage such as police or taxi senice involving frequent or continuous brake application: Lubricate every 9,000 miles.
ions.
62
-------
Fury Emission Test Results
The average test results from the five duplicate test series run on
the Fury during durability testing are listed in Table 20. The emissions
are shown graphically as a function of distance accumulated in Figures 18
and 19. As can be seen from the table and figures, all emissions were
within the project goals at 965 km (600 miles).
At 8050 km (500 miles) NOX was above the project goal. Some time
was spent investigating the cause of the high NOX emissions. While no
reason could be found for the high NOX, another test series was run with
NOX levels at the project goals. Both test series are shown in Table 20.
The first 16100 km (10000 miles) test produced CO and NOX levels
above the project goals. Additional testing was performed to ascertain the
cause of these high emissions. Catalyst conversion efficiency for both
CO and NOX was checked. The left cylinder bank catalyst was removed from
the car and radiographed to check for possible catalyst damage. No damage
was found. After considerable investigation, the following adjustments and
parts replacements were made:
• replaced oxygen sensor
• replaced catalyst with two Volvo catalyst
(5:1 pt/pd ratio)
• increased EGR
• richened idle A/F ratio approximately two tenths of a ratio
• adjusted vacuum amplifier to hold EGR valve closed at idle
A cold start FTP was run on the test car on April 6, 1978, with the
emissions once again within project limits. Two complete test series were
then run. These tests are listed in Table 20 as "16100 km, after maintenance"
tests.
Since 24150 km (15000 miles) was a major scheduled maintenance point, a
single test series was run before and after maintenance. The before main-
tenance FTP emissions were all above the project goal levels. Both CO and HC
emissions were approximately three times the previous (16100 km) tests. The
after maintenance HC level was again within the project goals, but CO and NOX
emissions were still not within their respective goals. Nevertheless, dis-
tance accumulation was continued until 32200 km (20,000 miles).
The HC and CO emissions changed only slightly between 24150 and the
32200 km test. HC was still within the project goals and NOX still was
higher than the goals. The CO emissions almost doubled between the after
maintenance 21150 km test and the 3200 km FTP test. It was obvious by then
that CO emissions were going to increase at a rapid rate and could not be held
even close to the project goal level. Therefore, the durability test was
halted.
63
-------
TABLE 20. DURABILITY TEST RESULTS FROM 1977 PLYMOUTH FURY
WITH FEEDBACK CARBURETOR AND THREEWAY CATALYST
Distance
Accumulation
Gaseous Emissions g/km (g/mile)
km (miles)
965(600)
8050(5000)
16,100(10,000)
16, 100(10, 000)a
24,150(15,000)
24,150(15,000)
32,200(20,000)
965(600)
8050(5000)
16,1000(10,000)
16,100(10,000)
24,150(15,000)^
h
24,150(15,000)
32,200(20,000)
965(600)
8050(5000)
16,100(10,000)
16, 100(10, 000)a
24,150(15,000)
24,150(15,000)
HC
0.22(0.36)
0.16(0.25)
0.22(0.35)
0.19(0.31)
0.59(0.95)
0.18(0.28)
0.23(0.36)
0.03(0.05)
0.02(0.04)
0.03(0.05)
0.02(0.04)
0.02(0.04)
0.03(0.05)
0.04(0.06)
0.02(0.04)
0.02(0.03)
0.02(0.03)
0.02(0.04)
0.03(0.05)
0.02(0.04)
CO
FTP Tests
1.80(2.90)
1.77(2.85)
2.66(4.28)
2.02(3.24)
6.66(10.71)
2.87(4.62)
4.79(7.70)
CFDS Tests
0.32(0.51)
0.67(1.08)
1.35(2.17)
0.58(0.94)
0.65(1.04)
1.23(1.98)
1.88(3.03)
HFET Tests
0.17(0.28)
0.36(0.58)
0.90(1.45)
0.40(0.63)
0.81(1.31)
0.87(1.40)
NOX
0.59(0.95)
0.83(1.33)
0.91(1.46)
0.64(1.02)
0.85(1.37)
1.08(1.74)
1.11(1.79)
0.73(1.18)
0.78(1.26)
1.10(1.77)
0.60(0.98)
1.01(1.63)
0.90(1.44)
1.03(1.63)
0.82(1.32)
0.84(1.36)
1.12(1.80)
0.53(0.84)
0.96(1.55)
0.78(1.25)
H2SO4
mg/km
(mg/mile)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
66(1.
43(0,
37(0.
34(0.
40(0.
42(0.
07)
69)
60)
54)
64)
68)
0.76(1.23)
Fuel
yiOO km (mpg)
17.84(13.21)
18.51(12.72)
18.52(12.70)
18.18(12.95)
18.65(12.62)
18.39(12.79)
20.56(11.56)
32,200(20,000) 0.02(0.04)
1.28(2.06)
0.84(1.37)
12.14(19.38)
11.79(19.96)
12.49(18.83)
11.70(20.10)
11.80(19.94)
11.63(20.22)
10.94(21.53)
After maintenance tests
-------
NOTE: Solid symbols are after maintenance tests
6
M
Cn
o
2
1981 Federal Standard
0.5
0.4
£ 0.3
^
tn
- 0.2
U
sc
0.1
0
1981 Federal Standard
g
^
Cn
O
U
7
6
5
4
3
1981 Federal Standard
10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance Accumulated, Thousands of Kilometers
70
Figure 18. Emissions as a function of distance accumulated for
a 1977 Fury with 3-way catalyst and feedback carburetor
80
65
-------
CO
Q
CK
U
O
-U
TO
D
co
8 r-
7 -
NOTE: Solid symbols are after maintenance tests
o
o
c
o
•H
-p
I
w
c
o
U
21 ,-
20 -
19
18
17
16
15
14
O HFET
Q Combined
& FTP
13
12
11
10
J_
I
I
10 20 30 40 50 60
Distane accumulated, thousands of kilometers
70
80
Figure 19. Fuel consumption and sulfates as a function of distance
for a 1977 Fury with feedback carburetor
66
-------
Examining Figures 18 and 19, it can be seen that the HC levels were
above the project goal at only one point, the 24,150 km before maintenance
test; after maintenance it returned to the levels of the three previous
emission tests. While the NOX emissions had been above the project goals
from 8050 kilometers onward, the increase was fairly gradual and appeared
to be leveling off. Thus, it is possible that this system installed on a
different car, with somewhat lower initial emissions, might meet the 1981
HC and NOX standards, but it is doubtful that this vehicle could ever meet
the 1981 CO standards after 80,500 km (50,000 miles) of durability distance
accumulation.
Unregulated Emissions
Emissions of ammonia, total cyanide and methane were measured during
the 24100 and 23300 km test series. These emissions are presented in
Tables 21 and 22. As was stated in the presentation of unregulated emissions
for the Nova in Section III-3B, there is little that can be said about the
absolute levels of these emissions, since there are no standards against
which they could be compared. However, a comparison of levels between the two
cars tested may be of value. FTP methane levels as a percent of the total
hydrocarbons are approximately the same for the two cars, at about 40 percent
of the total hydrocarbons. Cyanide levels of all tests form the Fury are the
same order of magnitude as those from the Nova. As would be expected from a
threeway; catalyst system, ammonia emissions from the Fury are 5 to 10 times
ammonia emissions from the Nova. The HFET tests on the Fury appear to pro-
duce the highest ammonia levels. Simply because ammonia emissions from the
Fury are an order of magnitude greater than those from the Nova, does not
imply that ammonia emissions from the Fury should be of concern. That can only
be determined by consideration of what levels might be hazardous. Such con-
sideration was not part of this project. However, Reference 27 contains a
discussion of a method for grossly estimating the importance of a number of
unregulated emissions for those interested in persuing the subject further.
67
-------
TABLE 21. UNREGULATED EMISSIONS FROM 1977 PLYMOUTH FURY
WITH FEEDBACK CARBURETOR AND THREEWAY CATALYST - 24100 km
Date
5/3/78
5/8/78
5/3/78
5/8/78
5/3/78
5/8/78
Test
Type
FTP.
FTP(C)
CFDS. .
CFDS(C)
HFET
HFET }
Ammonia
mg/km
4!3l(b)
27.93
51.24
33.90
70.53
Total
Cyanide
mg/km
S:S$
0.03
0.06
0.14
0.11
Non-Methane
Methane
g/km
0.10
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
HC
g/km
0.49
0.11
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
Total cyanide is cyanide (HCN) plus cyanogen (C2N2)
Single unweighted sample for all of FTP test
Q
Test on 5/3/78 after maintenance
TABLE 22. UNREGULATED EMISSIONS FROM 1977 PLYMOUTH FURY
WITH FEEDBACK CARBURETOR AND THREEWAY CATALYST - 32200 km
Date
5/29/78
6/1/78
Average
5/29/78
6/1/78
Average
5/29/78
6/1/78
Average
Test
Type
FTP
FTP
CFDS
CFDS
HFET
HFET
Ammonia
mg/km
25'22!b!
48.67
36.95
49.79
64.39
57.09
68.34
103.98
86.16
Total Non-Methane
Cyanide* Methane HC
mg/km g/km g/km
0^37 (b)
0.24
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.22
0.26
0.24
0.10
0.08
0.09
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.12
0.16
0.14
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
<0.01
0.01
Total cyanide is cyanide (HCN) plus cyanogen (C N )
•t 22
Single unweighted sample for all of FTP test
68
-------
IV. PHASE II - OPTIMIZATION AND DURABILITY TESTING
OF THREEWAY PLUS OXIDATION CATALYST SYSTEM
The two low sulfate emission control systems originally chosen and
tested for durability, were not able to maintain gaseous emissions within
the 1981 standards as distance accumulation progressed. In a continuation
of the effort to meet the project goals, a different emission control system
and test car were selected to undergo optimization and durability testing.
The emission control system was a threeway catalyst, plus an air injected
oxidation catalyst. The system was installed on a 1978 California Volvo
sedan with a four cylinder engine. This part of the project is designated
as Phase II.
69
-------
IV. 1. TEST VEHICLE, EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM AND TEST PLAN
Following the decision to terminate testing of the two low sulfate emis-
sion cars, a meeting was held at Ann Arbor, Michigan, between EPA and SwRI
representatives to discuss the direction the project should take. Both
emissions control systems that were undergoing tests, the threeway catalyst
with feedback carburetor, and the air modulation system demonstrated the
ability to keep sulfate emissions low. Their problem was a rapid deteriora-
tion of gaseous emissions. It was felt that a different fuel system, such as
a feedback fuel injection system, might provide less rapid deterioration.
From information provided to EPA by the automotive manufacturers, it
appeared that fuel injection and threeway plus oxidation catalysts would be
two of the approaches to meeting the 1981 Federal standards.(3D Therefore,
it was decided to change the demonstration vehicle and emission control system
to ones more closely resembling what was planned by manufacturers for 1981.
The new vehicle would be obtained, the emission control system installed and
optimized, and as much durability testing completed as the funds remaining
permitted.
A. Vehicle Selection and Description
Three considerations dominated the choice of test vehicle. The first
was the stock emission control system. A threeway catalyst with feedback
fuel control, preferably fuel injected, was desired. The second considera-
tion was vehicle size. A vehicle that would be considered medium size in
1981, capable of carrying at least five passengers, was desired. It was
judged that this size car would probably have a curb weight of approximately
1360 kg (3000 Ibs). The third consideration was fuel economy. The fuel
economy standards for 1981 require a CAFE value of 22 miles per gallon. A
manufacturer with a complete vehicle mix of large, medium and small cars
would require a medium size, five passenger car, having a fuel economy ap-
proximately equal to the CAFE standard. Therefore, the car chosen should
have a combined fuel economy of approximately 10.7 i/IOO km (22 mpg).
After consideration of several vehicles, a four-cylinder, 1978 Volvo, with
the Lambda-Sond emission control system was chosen as the best readily available
car meeting the selection considerations. A description of the car is pre-
sented in Table 23. Photographs of the car and engine compartment are shown
in Figure 20.
B. Emission Control System
The stock emission control system on the California version of the Volvo
244 is a threeway catalytst, feedback fuel injection system, named the "Lambda-
Sond" system by Volvo. The stock Lambda-Sond emission control system is shown
70
-------
TABLE 23. DESCRIPTION OF PHASE II TEST CAR
Manufacturer Volvo
Model 244DL
Model year 1978
Vehicle Identification No. (VIN) 24445L1-309507
Emission family designation 4CL/E1
Engine displacement, litres (cu.in.) 2.1(130)
No. of cylinders and configurations 14
Transmission 3 speed auto.
Ignition timing 12° ETC @ 750 rpm
Idle rpm 900 rpm
Fuel system Volvo "CI" fuel injection
Rear axle ratio 3.91
Tires 175 SR 14
Stock Emission Control System California Lambda-Sond
(threeway catalyst w/feedback fuel injection)
Inertia weight class (Ibs) 3500
71
-------
Figure 20. 1978 Volvo 244 test car
72
-------
in Figure 21. This system is used with the mechanical fuel injection system,
shown in Figure 22.
One way to reduce CO emissions from this system is to install an oxida-
tion catalyst downstream of the threeway catalyst and provide air for oxida-
tion by means of air injection between the two catalysts. This threeway
plus oxidation catalyst system was in use on the 1978 Ford Pinto in California
and was actively being investigated by a number of automobile manufacturers.
The drawback to this system is that the air injected oxidation catalyst can
produce large amounts of sulfate. However, it was demonstrated in Phase I of
this project that modulated air injection can significantly reduce the sulfate
emissions from an oxidation catalyst.
Therefore, the new system chosen to meet the project goals of a low sul-
fate system capable of meeting the 1981 gaseous emission standards was a feed-
back fuel injection system with a threeway plus modulated air injected oxida-
tion catalyst.
An additional technique was planned for evaluation on the test car. This
technique was to use the stock emission control system, but to add air injection
to the exhaust manifold only during the first minute or so of the cold start
to provide air for CO and HC oxidation in the manifold during the catalyst
warmup. Since a large part of the CO emitted occurs during the first minute
of the cold start, it is possible that this technique could work. As an example,
on the 20,000 mile test of the Fury with threeway catalyst, listed in Section
III-4, 61 percent of the CO was produced during the cold start 505 second portion
of the test.
A cold start exhaust manifold air injection system also fitted into the
modulated air injection system already planned. In fact, the 1978 California
Pinto included this feature in its emission control system. While the EPA had
suggested using reed valve exhaust manifold air injection during the cold start,
it was felt that using the air pump already installed was a more expedient method
of demonstrating this concept. Since the exhaust manifold injection system was
already part of the emission control system, to test it alone, the oxidation
catalyst is removed and the air injection to the oxidation catalyst is dumped.
to atmosphere. More importantly however, aspirator design is an art. The
aspirator connecting tubes must be properly tuned to obtain maximum airflow.
Much time and effort could be expended in developing as aspirator only to find
it produced insufficient CO control.
A sketch of the manifold air injection system is shown in Figure 23. The
technique was tested during the optimization phase using an air pump to supply
the air. At the conclusion of the project, this technique was again evaluated
using aspirated air injection often refered to as a "pulse air" system. This
system is shown in Figure 24.
The modulated air injection system was similar to the one used on the 1975
Nova in Phase 1 of this project. The details of the air injection system used
are shown in Figure 25. It consisted of the following components:
• A belt driven air pump equipped with a centrifugal clutch.
73
-------
Threeway catalyst
The ratio of oxygen
in the exhaust gases
determines the strength
. of the output signal
'; ;'• , from the
V:-' OXYGEN SENSOR
;
exhaust pipe
oxygen sensor
("lambda sond")
This signal is fed into
the ELECTRONIC MODULE
which converts the signal
and supplies a control
current to the...
electronic
module
....FREQUENCY VALVE
which influences the
fuel flow and thereby
the ratio of oxygen
in the exhaust gases
fuel distributor
Figure 21. Lambda-Sond system
74
-------
Inaction Valve
frequency valve
Idle Speed
Adjusting Screw
Throttle Plate
Air Funnel
Air-Flow Sensor F'ata
Common Intake
Manifold
Primary Circuit
Pressure Regulator
Auxiliary-air Device
Mixture Control Unit
Thermo-time Switch
controls the start valve, closes this
a certain temperature limit.
Air-Flow Sensor
Warm-up Regulator
Fuel Accumulator
Electnc fn-.-l P-..T-3
Figure 22. Fuel injection system
-------
3-way vac. solenoid
check valve
air control valve
Figure 23. Air pump exhaust manifold injection
check valves
from
air filter
11 i i i I i r
Figure 24. Aspirated exhaust manifold injection
76
-------
Air modulation valve
3 way vac.
solenoid
AIR CONTROL
VALVE
VALVE CHECK
Threeway
Catalyst
EXHAUST
MANIFOLD
Centrifugal
Clutch
Oxidation
Catalyst
Figure 25. Air injection system
-------
The standard air pump dump and relief valve controlled by
manifold vacuum.
An air control valve to switch the air from the exhaust
manifold to the oxidation catalyst. Air is directed to
the exhaust manifold as long as there is vacuum to the
valve. A solenoid valve shuts off the vacuum and vents
the control valve to atmosphere. The solenoid is accuated
by a time delay relay.
• A manifold vacuum controlled air modulation valve.
The air pump, dump valve, air control valve, and check valves were stock
1978 Pinto parts. The threeway vacuum solenoid was a standard automotive
type manufactured by Marvel-Schebler/Tillotson. The oxidation catalyst was
the same model Ford catalyst used on the 1975 Nova in Phase I. The air pump
centrifugal clutch and air modulation valve were designed and built by SwRI.
Both the centrifugal clutch and air modulation valve were redesigned for this
phase of the project. Figure 26 is a cross section of the redesigned centri-
fugal clutch and Figure 27 is a cross section of the redesigned air modula-
tion valve.
During optimization testing, various parts of the system were bypassed
or disconnected to evaluate their contribution to emission control. However,
the final system used in the durability test phase included all components
shown in Figure 25. As the optimization testing progressed, it became obvious
that additional CO control was needed during the first minute of the cold
start portion of the FTP.
Many feedback fuel systems used with threeway catalysts have an open loop
circuit which operates during the first part of the cold start while the
oxygen sensor is warming up. The Volvo, as far as could be determined, did
not have such an open loop circuit. It was reasoned that an open loop circuit,
which would provide a signal to the fuel control system to run leaner than the
stock system, would reduce the cold start CO. A simple, manually switched
system capable of providing from 0 to 800 mv to the electronic module was built
to evaluate this technique. When it proved successful, an automatic circuit
was designed and built to provide A/F ratio control during cold starts.
The circuit to generate a voltage signal to the fuel system ECU to replace
the oxygen sensor voltage signal during cold starts is shown in Figure 28. A
recorder trace of the voltage to the ECU during an actual cold start is shown
in Figure 29. The fuel system supplies more fuel when the voltage is low and
less fuel when the voltage is high. A complete schematic of all electrical
circuits added to the car is shown in Figure 30. The major elements of circuitry
and their function are:
• SwRI cold start circuit, whose function is explained above.
• Thermal switch in cooling system to cut out SwRI cold start
circuit and exhaust manifold air injection when engine is warm.
78
-------
Driving parts
Driven parts
Bearings and clutch shoes
Pulley Sheave
Spring
Clutch shoes
Figure 26. Redesigned centrifugal clutch
79
-------
from
air pump
dump to atmosphere
to catalyst
Figure 27. Redesigned air modulation valve
80
-------
time delay
relay (N.C.)
(24 seconds)
.+ 14 volts DC
6800
o>
200 yf
2.5 volt
(nominal)
5 volts
(nominal)
3300 yf
+ (0-800 mv)
180 kfi
Figure 28. SwRI cold start circuit for Volvo with Lambda-Sond
-------
-Oo SENSOR-
SWRI COLD START CIRCUIT
(65.5 SECONDS)
800 MV -
COLD START
6/13/79
CHART SPEED
12 CM/MIN
400 MV -
Figure- 29. ECU input voltage fron SwRI circuit during cold start
-------
12 volt supply
time delay +
relay
(65 se
SwRI cold start
circuit
thermal
switch
(100°F)
(shown hot)
time delay relay (54 seconds)
air injection
vacuum switching valve
exhaust manifold
air injection
stop valve (NC)
Volvo
Lambda-Sond
Electronic
Control Unit
Oxygen
Sensor
Figure 30. Cold start circuitry for modified Volvo Lambda-Sond system
-------
• Relay controlled by thermal switch to switch ECU input
from cold start circuit to oxygen sensor. Also to switch
vacuum control valve and positive shut off valve in exhaust
manifold air injection system.
• Time delay relay to switch from cold start ECU input to
oxygen sensor input. Delay shown on schematic is final
optimization value.
• Time delay relay to switch off exhaust manifold air injection.
Delay shown on schematic is final optimization value.
C. Test Organization for Phase II
The testing of the Volvo and the emission control system was divided into
two parts. The first, optimization testing, included "as-received" tests,
various baseline configuration tests, and optimization testing of the air
modulation system. The purpose of this part of the testing was to produce an
emission control system with sulfate emissions below 3.1 mg/km (5.0 mg/mile)
and gaseous emissions low enough to be within the 1981 emission standards
after 80500 km (50,000 miles). The same test procedures used in Phase I of
the project were used in Phase II.
The second part was durability testing, in which the car with emission
control system installed was driven 64400 km (40,000 miles) on the durability
driving schedule shown in Figure 4, Section II. Emission tests were performed
every 8050 km (5000 miles) using the same test procedures as were used in
Phase I. The details of each part of the system testing are covered in sections
that follow.
84
-------
IV-2. OPTIMIZATION TESTING
The modulated air system optimization for low gaseous emissions and low
sulfates took place between August 1978 and March 1979. The test plan called
for a series of baseline tests in various hardware configurations, while ac-
cumulating approximately 5950 km (3700 miles) on the car. This distance ac-
cumulation was necessary to properly age the catalyst. Experience gained with
the 1975 Nova in Phase I of this project demonstrated the need to age the
catalyst prior to optimization, so as not to be misled by extremely low CO
emissions from a green catalyst.
Since the concept of modulating the air to an oxidation catalyst had been
demonstrated in Phase I of this project, the main emphasis of the Volvo opti-
mization testing was to reduce FTP gaseous emissions to a level that would allow
the car to meet the 1981 gaseous emission standards after 80,500 km (50,000
miles) of durability testing.
The project goal was to meet emission levels of 0.25 g/km (0.41 g/mile) HC,
2.11 gAm (3.4 g/mile) CO, and 0.62 g/km (1.0 g/mile) NOX at 80,500 km (50,000
miles). Realistic deterioration factors with threeway catalyst appeared to be
1.5 for HC, 2.0 for CO and 3.0 for NOX.(30) Therefore, the gaseous emissions
goals at the end of optimization (6500 km or 4000 miles) were set at 0.17 g/km
(0.27 g/mile) HC, 1.06 g/km (1.7 g/mile) CO, and 0.21 g/km (0.33 g/mile) NOX.
The sulfate goal at 80,500 km was 3.11 g/km (5.0 g/mile) on the CFDS test.
Since sulfates usually decrease with mileage(7>29), this was the goal at 6500
km also.
The plan was to run an "as-received" test series on the car, then install
the air modulation system and begin distance accumulation. The test series
used for this and all subsequent testing is shown in Table 24. From the be-
ginning, the testing did not proceed smoothly. Higher than expected CO emis-
sions from the as-received tests, and confusion over the correct idle intake
manifold vacuum caused additional unscheduled tests and prolonged the actual
optimization testing.
Confusion over the correct idle vacuum resulted when the idle intake mani-
fold vacuum was measured at 10 inches of mercury gauge. This value is con-
siderably different from the 16 to 18 inches of mercury normally seen on carbu-
reted engines of U.S. manufacturer. Conflicting information was at first re-
ceived from Volvo of America and the local area Service Representative. The
final outcome was that 10 inches of mercury was a reasonable level of idle
vacuum for B21F Volvo engines.
Over 40 emissions tests were performed during the optimization of the
modulated air injection system. The tests were performed with the car in one
85
-------
TABLE 24. PHASE II TEST SEQUENCE
*1. Precondition, LA-4
2. Soak 12 to 20 hours
3. FTP - 3 bags for gaseous emissions
**4. Soak 1.25 to 1.5 hours hood closed
**5. Precondition first 505 seconds of LA-4
6. Idle 1 minute (± 15 seconds)
(a) auto trans - drive
(b) start additional cooling fan
(c) Place filter holder in tunnel
7. SET - 1 bag gaseous emissions
1 filter sample
8. Engine off - 5 minutes
9. HFET - 1 bag gaseous emissions
* If necessary, drain fuel tank of distance accumulation
fuel and refill with emissions test fuel.
**Steps 4 and 5 were omitted during optimization testing,
but were included for baseline and final configuration
test.
86
-------
of three hardware configurations: (1) stock; (2) maximum air to oxidation
catalyst; and (3) all or part of the air modulation system. The last hardware
category included tests with and without exhaust manifold air injection.
A. Tests in Stock Configuration
Following receipt of the car from the dealer, a complete series of emis-
sion tests (FTP, CFDS and HFET) were performed on the car in the condition
received. Several times during optimization of the modulated air system, the
vehicle was returned to stock condition and an FTP performed to obtain stock
condition emissions. The results of all stock condition FTP tests performed
during optimization are shown in Table 25. Also shown in the table are the
certification values for the 1978 Volvo 244D with B21F engine.
The as-received CO emissions were more than twice the certification value,
while the as-received NOX emissions were lower. The fact that the CO was
higher and NOX lower than certification values was taken as indicating that the
engine was controlled to a richer A/F ratio than the certification ratio. The
FTP fuel economy was also lower than the certification level,supporting the
assumption that the engine was set richer. It was decided to leave the A/F
ratio setting as received to take advantage of the extremely low NOX levels
obtained with this setting. The oxidation catalyst to be installed behind the
threeway catalyst would then be depended on to provide sufficient CO control
to meet the project CO goal. For the next four months during the optimization
procedure, there were indications that the oxidation catalyst with modulated
air injection would not be sufficient to meet the project goals with high CO
emissions in stock condition. There were also intermittent indications of
fuel system malfunction characterized by sudden, unexplainably, large increases
in CO. An attempt on September 29, 1978, to obtain the certification emis-
sion levels by leaning the A/F ratio did result in CO emissions somewhat below
the certification value. However, the NOX emissions increased to well above
the certification level, as shown in Table 25.
It was not until after a significant number of fuel system components had
been replaced by representatives of Volvo of America in January, 1979, that good
agreement was obtained between the stock FTP emissions and the certification
values. See the January 16, 1979, test results in Table 25. The stock configu-
ration tests performed in March,1979, at the end of the optimization procedure,
also were in good agreement with the certification values.
B. Tests With Maximum Air
The stock emission control system on the Volvo was converted to a threeway
plus oxidation catalyst system, as described in Section IV-1, following the
as-received emission tests. Currently, the normal operating method for three-
way plus oxidation catalyst systems is to provide the full output of the air
pump to the oxidation catalyst at all times after the first minute or so of a
cold start. It is this large amount of often unneeded air that contributes to
the high sulfate emissions of such systems. A threeway plus oxidation catalyst
with maximum air injection thus served as a baseline system for reductions in
sulfate emissions using the air modulation system.
87
-------
TABLE 25. TEST RESULTS FROM 1978 "CALIFORNIA" VOLVO
IN STOCK CONFIGURATION
Gaseous Emissions, g/km (g/mile) mg/km
Date
HC
CO
NOX (mg/mi)
FTP Tests
7/27/78
7/28/78
9/20/78
9/29/78
1/16/79
3/19/79
3/20/79
9/28/79
Cert. Value
0.24(0.39)
0.33(0.52)
0.17(0.27)
0.02(0.03)
0.18(0.30)
0.12(0.20)
0.15(0.25)
0.17(0.27)
(0.2)
3.94(6.34)
5.19(8.34)
4.13(6.64)
1.23(1.98)
2.48(3.99)
2.61(4.21)
2.25(3.62)
2.59(4.16)
(3)
0.02(0.03)
0.01(0.02)
0.06(0.09)
0.37(0.60)
0.09(0.14)
0.07(0.12)
0.05(0.08)
0.36(0.58)
(0.1)
&/100 km (mpg)
14.09(16.70)
14.25(16.51)
12.49(18.33)
11.07(21.25)
12.23(19.23)
12.32(19.09)
12.27(19.17)
11.55(20.37)
(20)
7/27/78
9/20/78
0.14(0.22)
0.10(0.17)
CFDS Tests
2.56(4.12)
2.43(3.91)
0.01(0.02)
0.07(0.11)
0.11(0.18)
0.16(0.26)
11.10(21.19)
10.34(22.75)
7/27/78
9/20/78
Cert, value
0.11(0.18)
0.10(0.16)
HFET Tests
2.12(3.42)
2.37(3.82)
0.01(0.01)
0.05(0.08)
9.45(24.65)
9.45(24.67)
(25)
88
-------
The first test of the threeway plus oxidation catalyst system with max-
imum air was run on August 29, 1978. The purpose of this test was to insure
that project gaseous emission goals could be met with maximum air injected
into the catalyst. Obviously, if the goals could not be met with maximum air,
there would be no point in trying to meet the emission goals with less air.
As can be seen from Table 26, replicate tests performed on August 29 and
30, 1978, demonstrated that the project gaseous emission goals for HC and NOX
could be met. However, CO emissions were slightly higher than goal. CFDS
tests for sulfates were not run because the catalyst was new and still storing
sulfates.
Despite the somewhat high CO emissions, catalyst and emission control
system seasoning for 4800 km (3000 miles) was begun. Maximum air injection
to the oxidation catalyst was used during the distance accumulation to com-
pletely season the catalyst at high oxygen levels.
On September 19, 1979, after completing 4800 km of durability driving, a
complete series of tests was run with maximum air to the catalyst. The test
results are presented in Table 26. The purpose of this test was to determine
sulfate emissions from the car with the addition of an air injected oxidation
catalyst. Note that sulfate emissions from the CFDS in this configuration
are approximately 130 times higher than the CFDS sulfate emissions from the
stock configuration shown in Table 25. These results once again demonstrate
the high sulfate levels that can result from threeway plus oxidation catalyst
systems. The FTP CO level from this test, while below the 1981 standard, was
still higher than the project low service goal.
Following this test, A/F ratio was set leaner and the air modulation
system activated. After an additional 800 km of durability driving, a
complete test series was run on October 10, 1978. The October 10, 1978,
test series was planned as a test of the air modulation system. However,
examination of the raw exhaust emission traces and visual inspection of the
air modulation system indicated that the air modulation components were not
functioning, so that oxidation catalyst received maximum air. Thus, this test
was used as another baseline test with maximum air.
The test results are shown in Table 26. The gaseous emissions reflect
a leaner A/F ratio with lower CO than the previous test and higher NOX,
(because A/F ratio is further away from optimum NOX reduction). The CFDS
sulfate emissions of 74.9 mg/km (120.5 mg/mile) were almost 4 times higher
than the previous test. This level is not unusual for threeway plus oxida-
tion catalyst system.(5,7) The sulfate increase was probably the result of
increased sulfate storage from the additional distance accumulation and
leaner A/F ratio. This test series was used as the final maximum air baseline
during the optimization testing.
The system was not operated with maximum air injection again until after
the conclusion of distance durability testing. The results from the maximum
air test at 65200 km (40,500 miles) are also shown in Table 27. The FTP
gaseous emissions were still below the 1981 standards. The CFDS sulfate emis-
sions decreased to 7.8 mg/km (12.5 mg/mile). This decrease with distance
89
-------
TABLE 26. TEST RESULTS FROM 1978 "CALIFORNIA" VOLVO WITH THREEWAY CATALYST
PLUS AIR INJECTED OXIDATION CATALYST
Date
8/29/78
8/30/78
9/19/78
10/10/78
9/24/79
9/19/78
10/10/78
9/24/79
9/19/78
10/10/78
9/24/79
Test
Type
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
CFDS
CFDS
CFDS
HFET
HFET
HFET
Gaseous Emissions,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HC
.16(0.
.16(0.
.01(0.
.04(0.
.18(0.
.04(0.
.00(0.
.04(0.
.04(0.
.01(0.
.02(0.
26)
26)
17)
06)
29)
06)
00)
07)
07)
02)
03)
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
CO
.48(2.
.38(2.
.74(2.
.39(2.
.52(2.
.07(0.
.01(0.
.17(0.
.05(0.
.01(0.
.06(0.
g/km (g/mile)
NOX
39)
22)
80)
24)
45)
11)
02)
28)
08)
01)
10)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.16(0.
.15(0.
.10(0.
.29(0.
.36(0.
.13(0.
.16(0.
.35(0.
.19(0.
.20(0.
.41(0.
26)
25)
17)
47)
58)
21)
26)
56)
30)
32)
67)
H2SO4
mg/km
(mg/mi) &/100 km (mpg)
12.30(19.21)
12.15(19.35)
12.37(19.01)
11.45(20.54)
11.64(20.21)
20.55(33.06) 9.98(23.58)
74.89(120.50) 9.32(25.23)
7.79(12.53) 9.74(24.16)
9.18(25.63)
9.11(25.82)
8.88(26.49)
-------
TABLE 27. MASS EMISSIONS FROM COLD START TRANSIENT PHASE
OF FTP FOR SELECTED TESTS ON 1978 VOLVO
First Bag
Emissions (grams)
fc Change with
Manifold Air
Date
9/20/78
9/21/78
Stock
Stock
Configuration
+ manifold air
HC
2.46
2.46
CO
54.47
63.90
HC
0
CO
+17.3
3/1 & 3/5/79
average
3/6/79
Ox. Cat. + open loop + MODAIR 3.56 34.33
Ox. Cat. + open loop + MODAIR
+ manifold air 2.32 30.51
-34.8
-11.1
9/28/79
9/26/79
Stock ' 3.00 43.94
Stock + aspirated manifold air 3.12 41.62
+ 4.0
-5.3
91
-------
accumulation is characteristic of sulfate emissions.(7,28,29)
C. Tests with Exhaust Manifdld Air Injection
One possible way to reduce emissions is to inject air directly into the
exhaust manifold while the catalyst is warming up to operating temperature
during a cold start. Several times during the optimization testing of the
Volvo, an evaluation of the effectiveness of cold start exhaust manifold air
injection was attempted. However, because of the previously explained numerous
problems encountered during optimization, only three sets of comparisons were
useable.
The first comparison was performed on September 20 and 21, 1978. The
first test was in stock condition. The second test was run with the air pump
discharging into the exhaust manifold during the first 60 seconds of the cold
start, then dumping to atmosphere. The remainder of the emission control
system was in stock condition. Since the cold start air injection affects
only the cold start transient phase (first bag) of the FTP, its effectiveness
should be evaluated by examination of first bag emissions.
Table 27 presents HC and CO emissions in grams for the first bag of the
FTP test, together with the percent change in emissions with manifold air
injection. As can be seen from the table, the manifold air injection test on
September 21 had higher CO emissions than the test without manifold air in-
jection on September 20. The reason for this increase is not known. One
possible explanation is that there was too much air injected, so that the
additional air quickly cooled the exhaust below the temperature required
to convert CO to CO2-
The next comparison check of manifold air injection was performed in
March, 1979. The purpose of this comparison was to determine if manifold air
injection would help the modulated air system developed for this project. In
this case, the emission control configuration consisted of the oxidation
catalyst with modulated air injection and an open loop A/F ratio control cir-
cuit for cold starts. (See Figures 25 and 30).
This configuration was tested on March 1 and 5, 1979. The average first
bag HC and CO emissions from these tests are shown in Table 27. The manifold
air injection was then installed and tested on March 6, 1979. The first bag
HC and CO mass emissions from this test are also shown in Table 27. Note that
CO is approximately 11 percent lower with the manifold air injection. The
modulated air system continusouly dumped a portion of the air pump discharge.
Thus, only part of air pump discharge was available for manifold injection.
The last investigation of exhaust manifold air injection was performed
following the durability testing. For this investigation, a reed valve aspira-
tion system, similar to Canadian Volvo model, was used. It is compared to the
stock condition test run at the completion of durability testing in Table 27.
In this case, there was a 5.3 percent reduction in CO emissions with the cold
start exhaust manifold air injection. While no detailed investigation of air
injection rates was conducted from the three sets of tests presented here, it
appears that there may be an optimum air injection rate, with higher CO
92
-------
emissions from air injection rates either higher or lower than optimum.
D. Tests to Optimize the Air Modulation System
Over twenty tests were run with various parts of the air modulation
system installed on the Volvo. However, many of them were performed to
investigate the apparent fuel system problem or merely to adjust the A/F
ratio in steps to obtain the best A/F ratio for use with the air modulation
system. Of these many tests, seven tests are presented in Table 28 to show
the evolution of the final modulated air injection system.
Prior to beginning the optimization of the air modulation system, 4830km
(3000 miles) of durability driving was accumulated. The complete air modula-
tion system was installed and functioning during the distance accumulation,
except for the threeway vacuum solenoid and air pump centrifugal clutch.
However, the air modulation valve was bypassed so that the oxidation catalyst
received the full air pump discharge.
The air modulation system was completed in early October 1978, with the
installation of the air pump centrifugal clutch. The idle CO was adjusted
richer, from 0.6 percent to 1.4 percent (with the oxygen sensor disconnected).
An FTP test was run on October 5, 1978, to check the system operation. The
results of the test are shown in Table 28. The HC emissions met the target
low mileage emission goal, but the CO and NOX did not. However, the emissions
results were encouraging,considering no system optimization had been done.
While checking the setting of the air modulation valve prior to the
October 5 test, it was found that the idle vacuum was only 10 inches of mercury
(gauge pressure). This was considerably below the usual 16 to 18 inches of
mercury seen on carbureted cars of U.S. manufacture. The investigation as to
whether or not this vacuum level was correct delayed the optimization testing
almost two months.
While in the process of checking the vacuum level with the manufacturer,
continuous CO traces from the first few tests were analyzed. When setting up
the air modulation schedule for the air modulation valve, it was assumed that
there would be CO excursions during accelerations, as there were with the two
carbureted engines on which the system was previously used. The CO traces
from the Volvo showed, however, that the Lambda-Sond system handled accelera-
tions well and that most of the CO spikes were during decelerations. The air
modulation valve required some modification to provide air during decelerations
rather than accelerations. In addition, the traces indicated that changes to
the air flow schedule were required. The final air injection versus manifold
vacuum curve for the valve is shown in Figure 31. By the end of November, 1978,
the idle vacuum had finally been determined to be correct. The air modulation
system was now ready for additional testing on the car.
During the FTP tests run on December 1, 1978, continuous CO values in-
creased two to five times after about 280 seconds into the test. A repeat
test on December 4 showed the same high CO values throughout the tests.
Checks of the idle CO and oxygen sensor did not reveal any abnormalities.
93
-------
100
C
0)
o
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Manifold Vacuum, inches of Mercury gauge
Figure 31. Air modulation valve air flow calibration
on 1978 Volvo
94
-------
Another delay in the optimization testing was then encountered,while the
help of Volvo of America was sought and received. In January 1979, under the
direction of personnel from Volvo of America, the fuel distributor and all
four fuel injectors were replaced in the course of correcting the high CO
problem. This apparently corrected a problem in the fuel system that had
existed since the car was received from the dealer.
Optimization testing resumed in late January, 1979. Tests run in early
December, 1978,had indicated that the air pump was supplying too much air to
the oxidation catalyst, resulting in higher than desired sulfate levels. By
utilizing the fact that the static pressure of the flowing exhaust gases is
normally lower than atmospheric pressure, ambient air can be drawn into the
exhaust pipe, in a manner similar to an eductor without using the air pump.
A number of tests were run in this configuration with progressively
leaner A/F ratios. The best overall gaseous emission results were from the
test on February 5, 1979, as shown in Table 28. The HC and NOX emissions
from this test met the project goals, but CO was still above the project goal.
Following this test, CO emissions were examined on a bag-by-bag basis.
Approximately 90 percent of the composite CO level was from the first bag.
From the raw exhaust CO traces, it was determined that the majority of the
first bag CO came from approximately the first minute of operation.
To reduce the CO emissions during the cold start, the open loop fuel
control circuit described in Section IV-1 was installed on the car.
The first test of this system was on February 7, 1979. The test results
are shown in Table 28. The first bag CO for this test was 32.5 grams, compared
with 42.0 grams for the first bag of the previous test on February 5. This was
a reduction of 23 percent in the first bag.
The open loop system had proven effective. However, the CO emissions were
still not within the project goals for 6500 km. An examination of the raw
exhaust oxygen trace indicated that the CO emissions would benefit from
slightly more oxygen. Therefore, the air pump was reconnected to the air
injection system, but with a large portion of the air pump discharge dumped
to the atmosphere. However, the cold start manifold air injection was not
connected. A test was run in this configuration on February 12, 1979. The
composite CO from this test was 1.23 g/km. As can be seen in Table 28, HC
and NOX were below the project goals. This was the lowest CO level achieved
during the optimization testing.
In an effort to further reduce first bag CO levels, cold start air in-
jection to the exhaust manifolds was reconnected. Tests run with this system
did not give the expected results. After considerable investigation, the
problem was found to be a leak in the diverter valve allowing air to be
injected into the exhaust manifold. A manually operated shutoff valve was
installed in the manifold air injection line to stop air leakage into the
exhaust manifold.
95
-------
TABLE 28. FTP TEST RESULTS FROM 1978 "CALIFORNIA" VOLVO
Gaseous Emissions, g/km (g/mile)
Fuel
Date
:0/5/78
12/1/78
2/5/79
2/7/79
2/12/79
3/6/79
3/12/79
Configuration
3-way + ox. + MODAIR
3-way + ox. + MODAIR
3-way + ox. + amb. MODAIRa
3-way + ox. + amb. MODAIR
+ open loop
3-way + ox. + MODAIR + open loop
3-way + ox. + MODAIR + open loop
+ manifold air
3-way + ox. + MODAIR + open loop
+ manifold air
HC
0.07
0.14
0.10
0.11
0.10
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
11)
23)
16)
18)
16)
1
1
1
1
1
CO
.16(1
.79(2
.69(2
.36(2
.23(1
.87)
.88)
.72)
-19)
.98)
0
0
0
0
0
NOX
.47(0
.21(0
.15(0
.13(0
.12(0
&/100 km
.75)
.34)
.25)
.20)
.19)
10
11
11
11
11
.72(21
.26(20
.72(20
.81(19
.08(21
(mpg)
.94)
.88)
.08)
.91)
.23)
0.11(0.18)
0.14(0.23)
1.31(2.10)
1.31(2.10)
0.15(0.24)
0.13(0.23)
11.72(20.08)
11.61(20.26)
amb. MODAIR refers to modulated air injection from ambient air (no air pump).
-------
An FTP test was run on March 6, 1979, with air to the exhaust manifold
during the first 56 seconds of the cold start. There was a reduction in the
first bag CO of approximately 10 percent. The first bag CO was reduced from
an average of 34.3 grams for the two previous tests without manifold injection
to 30.5 grams with manifold injection.
Examination of the CO traces taken during February and March seemed to
indicate some sort of intermittent fuel system malfunction. Further testing
was postponed while the fuel system was throughly cleaned and a new fuel
filter installed. A test on March 12, 1979, produced results similar to the
March 6 test. (See Table 28).
After discussing these results with the EPA, it was decided that the system
was as close to the project goals as possible without expending unreasonable
additional effort, and that the durability testing should begin. Thus, the
test on March 12, 1979, closes the optimization phase of the project. The
predurability emission goals were met for HC, NOX and sulfate. The CO emission
level was approximately 0.25 g/km higher than the goal of 1.06 g/km.
The final emission control system consisted of the stock Lambda-Sond
system, plus the items listed below:
• a monolithic oxidation catalyst after the threeway catalyst
• a modulated air injection system to the oxidation catalyst
• cold start air injection to the exhaust manifolds
• a separate open loop fuel control for cold starts.
It should be pointed out that while the FTP gaseous emissions from the
oxidation catalyst with modulated air system can be compared with the stock
system to determine improvements resulting from the new system, the sulfate
emissions should not be compared to the stock system.
It is well documented that threeway catalyst systems have low sulfate
emissions. However, when an air injected oxidation catalyst is added behind
the threeway system, tailpipe sulfate emissions can be quite high. Therefore,
sulfate emissions from the air modulation system should be compared with tests
on the air injected oxidation catalyst system without air modulation. These
tests were run on the Volvo on September 19, 1978,and October 10, 1978. A
comparison of the CFDS sulfate emissions for the stock system and air injected
system oxidation catalyst system with and without air modulation is shown in
Table 29. Since a number of changes were made in the fuel system of the car
between October 1978, and March 1979, the FTP gaseous emissions for the two
emission control system configurations are not comparable.
97
-------
TABEL 29. COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS ON 1978 VOLVO
WITH THREE EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS
U.i 1 1;
')/20/78
''/19/78
10/10/78
3/16/79
y/20/78
9/19/78
10/10/78
3/16/79
Test
Type
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
CFDS
CFDS
CFDS
CFDS
Gaseous
Configuration
Stock
Stock + ox.
Stock + ox.
Stock + ox.
Stock
Stock + ox.
Stock + ox.
Stock + ox.
cat. -
cat. -
cat. -
cat. -
cat. -
cat. -
t- Air
f Air
f MODAIR0
f Air
t- Air
t- MODAIR
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0
<0
HC
.17(0.
.10(0.
.04(0.
.10(0.
.10(0.
.04(0.
.01(<0
.01(<0
27)
17)
06)
15)
17)
06)
.02)
.02)
Emissions, g/km
CO
4.13(6
1.74(2
1.39(2
1.25(2
2.43(3
0.07(0
0.01(0
0.66(1
NOX
.64)
.80)
.24)
.24)
.91)
.11)
.02)
.06)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.06(0
.10(1
.29(0
.13(0
.07(0
.13(0
.16(0
.08(0
.09)
.17)
.47)
.22)
.11)
.21)
.26)
.14)
H2S04
mg/km
0.16(0.26)
20.55(33.06)
74.89(120.50)
0.04(0.06)
Fuel
£/100 km
12
12
11
12
10
9
9
9
.49(18.
.37(19.
.45(20.
.18(19.
.34(22.
.98(23.
.32(25.
.75(24.
83)
01)
54)
32)
75)
58)
23)
13)
en Numbers in parentheses are g/mile (mg/mile for H2SO4) except for fuel which is miles/gallons
Lambda-Sond system with oxidation catalyst with air pump
CLambda-Sond system with oxidation catalyst and modulated air from air pump
-------
IV-3. DURABILITY TESTING OF 1978 VOLVO
With the gaseous emissions from air modulation system installed on the
Volvo at a satisfactory level, the durability demonstration was begun. For
distance accumulation, the car was driven on the road course shown in Figure
4, Section II. The distance accumulation procedure as explained in Section
II was used. Emission tests were performed every 8050 km (50000 miles).
A. Distance Accumulation Chronology
Distance was being accumulated on the car throughout the optimization
phase. With the exception of the open loop fuel control circuit and the
solenoid shutoff valve in the manifold air injection line, all emission
control hardware had been installed on the car at approximately 160 km
(100 miles). Thus, the air modulation system hardware had accumulated as
much service as the other systems on the car. The idea was to produce an
optimized system at 8050 km, with emissions at a level that would allow for
some further deterioration. This was to avoid being misled by low emissions
from an unseasoned catalyst which would increase rapidly for the first few
thousand kilometers as the catalyst aged. Since the car had accumulated
approximately 8050 km (5000 miles) during optimization testing, it was
driven for only 320 km (200 miles) on the durability driving schedule to
stabilize the sulfate emissions prior to the 8050 km test series.
Following the 8050 km tests, the car was returned to stock condition
and tested twice on the FTP cycle to obtain a 8050 km stock baseline. The
air modulation system was reconnected and distance accumulation on a con-
tinuous basis begun on March 25, 1979.
A graphical representation of the distance accumulation records is
presented in Figure 32, which shows daily distance, maintenance, and
emission test points. This figure can be referred to as necessary for
clarification of the order of events.
Scheduled maintenance was performed every 12,070 km (7500 miles) as
specified in the Volvo service manual. A summary of the required main-
tenance is shown in Table 30. Unscheduled maintenance was performed as
required. Unscheduled maintenance is also shown on Figure 32.
Distance accumulation continued until September 14, 1978, when 64,400 km
(40,000miles) of service had been accumulated. At that time, distance ac-
cumulation was halted due to funding limitations.
Following the 64,400 km durability test, the air modulation system was
bypassed so that all of the air pump discharge went directly to the oxidation
99
-------
o
o
Vi
M
Q)
4J
CJ
O
U-l
o
u;
3
O
si
13
(U
3
3
U
U
(1)
U
c
en
•H
Q
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
D
O
Emission tests
Scheduled maintenance (See Table 30)
Unscheduled maintenance
A Repaired centrifugal clutch
<& Replaced all brake pads
&> Repaired centrifugal clutch
March
April
May
June
1979
July
August
September
32. Distances aocurrvula tion
of 1978 Volvo 244DI,.
-------
TABLE 30. VOLVO MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
0000
o o o o
""1 O O O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'X
jx
f
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X.
—
Op.
Ho. 'In drivers Seat
1 Check Brake Vacuum Booster Function.
2 Check Brake Pedal, operation for Leak-
age in System.
3 Check and adjust Parking Brake.
4 Check operation of Instrument Panel
Indicator Lights.
5 Check Automatic Transmission Gear
Selector.
6 Check Seat Belt and Warning Light and
Buzzer.
Exterior
"7-10 Lubricate Door, Hood and Trunk,
Hinges, Latches and Locks.
11 Check Gas Cap Seal.
On Lift
12 Check Steering gear Function.
13 Check Front End Suspension for Wear.
14 Check Front Wheel bearings.
15 Check Control arm Bushing and Strut
Attachment.
16 Check Steering Rod play.
17 Check Steering Rack for Axial play.
18 Check Front Wheel balance.
19 Check' Front Wheel bearings for noise.
20 Check Front Tire wear pattern.
21 Check Steering Rack Rubber Bellows.
22 Check Steering Rack Attachment.
23 Check Front Ball Joints.
24 Check Steering Rod ends.
25 Check Front Control Arm Bushings.
26 Check Stabilizer Bar Bushings.
27 Check Front Shock Absorbers.
28 Check Front Spring Attachment.
29 Check Brake Hoses.
30 Check Front Wheel Brakes.
31 Check Clutch play.
32 Check Transmission for leaks.
33 Change Manual Transmission oil.
34 Adjust Automatic Transmission Gear
Selector.
35 Check Brake and Fuel Lines.
36 Check Drive Shaft Bolts and Joints.
37 Check Catalytic Converter Mounting
Bolts.
38 Check Exhaust System.
39 Check Rubber Bellows on Parking
Brake Cables.
40 Check Rear Axle oil level.
41 Check rear Shock Absorbers.
42 Check Rear Suspension
43 Check Rear Tire Wear.
44 Clean Fuel Tank Filter.
45 Check for Engine Leaks.
46 Drain Engine Oil.
47 Change Engine Oil Filter.
48. Check Rear Wheel Brakes.
101
0 0 O O
0 O O 0
in O O O
r- ^ o i/)
T~ r-i T
X ,
X ;
X
xl
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
y.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ur.de--.' Hood
49 Fill Engine oil.
50 Check Brake Reservoir Level.
51 Check Clutch Reservoir Level (260 only)
52 Check Steering gear for leaks.
53 Change coolant.
54 Check Engine Coolant Freezing point.
55 Check Cooling System - Pressure Test.
56 Check Battery Level, Terminals and
Mounting.
57 Check and adjust Engine Throttle
Cable.
58 Change Air Filter.
59 Change Fuel Filter (CI System).
60 Change Chargoal Canister.
61 Check and adjust Engine Drive Belts.
62 Inspect and Clean, PCV valve.
63 Check Torque of Manifold Bolts
(B20, only).
64 Replace Spark Plugs.
65 Adjust Timing Gear Belt (B21 only).
66 Change Timing Gear Belt (240 only).
67 Adjust Valves (B21).
68-70 Adjust Valves (B27).
71 Adjust Valve Clearance (B20 only)
72 Clean E.G.R. Valve.
73 Change E.G.R. Valve.
74 Reset E.G.R. Reminder Light.
75-76 Check Throttle Switch - Adjust.
77-78 Lubricate Distributor.
79 Connect Engine Test Instrument.
80 Check Battery Test Voltage.
81 Check Battery Starting Voltage.
82 Check and Install Distributor Cap.
83-84 Check and Adjust Timing.
65 Check Distributor Centrifugal Advance.
86 Check vacuum retard.
87 Check Exhaust Gas Recirculation.
88 Adjust Idle.
89 Check Automatic Transmission Fluid
Level.
90 Check Fuel Lines for Tightness
Underhood.
91 Check Electrical Wires under Hood.
92-93 Check Function of Diverter Valve.
94-116 Check Engine CO and HC Emission.
117 Check and Adjust Throttle Wire BW 35.
118 Check and Adjust Throttle Wire BW 55.
119 Adjust Reverse Band (BW 35).
120 Check Tire Pressure.
121 Check and Adjust Headlight Alignment.
Road Test
122 Engine Performance.
123 Electrical System Operation.
124 Drive Train Operation, Noise.
125 Brakes Performance.
126 Steering and Handling Performance.
127 Suspension Noise.
128 Body Noise, Leakage
-------
catalyst after the first 56 seconds of the cold start. During this time,
the air pump discharge was routed to the exhaust manifold. The car was
driven for 500 miles on the durability driving course to season the cata-
lyst. A full test series (FTP, SET, HFET) followed the distance accumula-
tion to obtain gaseous emissions and sulfate using the full air pump capa-
city. The purpose of this test was to obtain a 64,400 km baseline CFDS test
for sulfate emissions.
For a final comparison test, the car was returned to stock condition
and an FTP test run. This test was the 64,400 km stock condition baseline
for comparison of FTP gaseous emissions.
B. Fuel and Oil Consumption
Unleaded gasoline meeting the requirements of 40 CFR, paragraph
86.113-79 was used for distance accumulation. The fuel was designated
within SwRI as EM-344-F- An analysis of the fuel is given in Table 1,
Section II. Shell 20W-50 motor oil was used throughout the distance
accumulation. Fuel and oil consumption between emission tests is listed
in Table 31. Fuel consumption is consistent but somewhat below the level
expected in the intervals between emission tests. Since only two quarts
of oil were added during the entire 64,400 km (40,000 miles) of distance
accumulation, the oil consumption appears erratic. In general, it can be
said that the car used less than a quart of oil between oil changes
(12,070 km or 7500 miles), with the oil starting at the correct capacity
after each oil change.
C. Emission Test Results
The results of all the 8050 km interval emission tests (average of
duplicate tests where appropriate) and the 8050 km and 64,400 km stock
condition tests are presented in Table 32. The emission results are also
presented graphically in Figures 33 and 34. As can be seen from the table
and figures, both HC and CO increased steadily over the 64,400 km, while
NOX, after a step increase at 24,135 km (15,000 miles) after maintenance,
remained approximately constant. The CFDS sulfate emissions, listed in
Table 33 and shown graphically in Figure 34, also remained approximately
constant during the 64,400 kilometers.
A linear regression was performed for each emission type as a function
of distance. The regression lines and equations are shown in Figures 33 and
34. Extrapolating the HC and NOX emissions to 80,400 km (50,000 miles)
using the regression equations indicated that these emissions would still
be within the 1981 Federal standards at that point. A similar extrapo-
lation of the CFDS sulfate emissions indicated that they would be within
the project goal at 80,400 km.
Thus, the emission control system appears able to meet the 1981 Federal
gaseous emission standards, except for CO, while maintaining low sulfate
levels.
102
-------
TABLE 31. FUEL AND OIL CONSUMPTION DURING
DURABILITY TESTING OF 1978 VOLVO
Distance
Interval
km (miles)
0-8050
(0-5000)
Fuel
a/100 km (mpg)
13.44(17.50)
Oil Consumption
VlOOO km
(qt/1000 mi)
no oil added
8050-16100
(5000-10000)
16100-24150
(10000-15000)
24150-32200
(15000-20000)
32200-40250
(20000-25000)
40250-48300
(25000-30000)
48300-56350
(30000-35000)
56350-64400
(35000-40000)
Overall
13.16(17.88)
13.23(17.78)
12.93(18.19)
12.87(18.28)
12.91(18.22)
12.86(18.30)
12.59(18.69)
13.00(18.09)
0.14(0.24)
no oil added
0.12(0.21)
no oil added
no oil added
no oil added
no oil added
0.03(0.05)
103
-------
TABLE 32. FTP EMISSIONS FOR 1978 VOLVO 244 WITH AIR
MODULATION DURING 64,400 KILOMETER DURABILITY TESTING
Distance
Accumulated
km (miles)
8050(5000)
Emissions g/km (g/mile)
HC
0.14(0.
CO
NOX
8050 stock baseline
22) 2.43(3.91)
0
Durability Testing of Air Modulation
8100(5035)
15,526(9649)
24,154(15,
24,212(15,
32,000(19,
40,280(25,
48,157(29,
48,238(29,
56,262(34,
64,370(40,
012)
048)a
955)
035)
930)
980 )a
967)
006)
0.10(0.
0.09(0.
0.12(0.
0.12(0.
0.14(0.
0.19(0.
0.17(0.
0.18(0.
0.19(0.
0.16(0.
16)
14)
19)
19)
23)
31)
28)
29)
31)
25)
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
.28(2
.38(2
.09(3
.27(2
.00(3
.66(2
.77(2
.71(2
.45(3
.27(3
.05)
.22)
.36)
.04)
.22)
.68)
.85)
.76)
.94)
.65)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.06(0
.10)
Fuel
Si/100 km (mpg)
12
.30(19.13)
System
.14(0
.14(0
.09(0
.38(0
.32(0
.41(0
.41(0
.43(0
.37(0
.34(0
.22)
-22)
.15)
.61)
.52)
.65)
.66)
.69)
-59)
.55)
12
12
11
12
12
11
12
12
11
11
.23(19.24)
.30(19.12)
.90(19.77)
.37(19.01)
.44(18.92)
.97(19.67)
.13(19.39)
.11(19.42)
.87(19.82)
.50(20.46)
65,900(41,000)
64,400 km stock baseline
0.17(0.27) 2.59(4.16)
0.36(0.58)
11.55(20.37)
104
-------
0.5
0.4
I 0.3
u
s
0.1
1981 Standard
HC = 0.083 +((1.737 x 10~6)x km)
r2 = 0.730
After Maintenance
^
8
1981 Standard
CO = 1.193 +((16.44 x 10 6)x km)
r2 = 0.534
_L
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance Accumulated, thousands of kilometers
80
Figure 33. HC and CO emissions from a 1978 Volvo with Lambda-Sond
plus oxidation catalyst and modair as a function of distance
105
-------
0.8
0.6
E
Cn
x 0.4
o
z
a,
0.2
1981 Federal Standard
NOX = 0.122 + ((5.01 x 10 6)x km)
r2 = 0.505
After Maintenance
Cn
£
OJ
4-)
tl
P
en
to
Q
t,
u
Project Goal
•€>-
•e-
SO." = 0.068 +((1.56 x 10~6)x km)
r2 = 0.160
-e-
10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance Accumulated, thousands of kilometers
70
80
Figure 34. NOX and sulfate emissions from a 1978 Volvo with Lambda-Sond
oxidation catalyst and modair as a function of distance
106
-------
TABLE 33. CFDS SULFATE EMISSIONS FOR 1978 VOLVO 244 WITH AIR
MODULATION DURING 64,400 KILOMETRE DURABILITY TESTING
Distance
Accumulated km, (miles) Sulfate mg/km (ing/mile)
Sulfate Baseline
5,150(3,200) 74.89(120.50)
Durability Testing of Air Modulation System
8,100(5,035) 0.04(0.06)
15,526(9,649) • 0.06(0.10)
24,154(15,012) 0.09(0.14)
24,212(15,048) 0.24(0.39)
32,000(19,955) 0.09(0.14)
40,280(25,035) 0.15(0.24)
48,157(29,930) 0.14(0.23)
48,238(29,980)( ' 0.08(0.13)
56,262(34,967) 0.25(0.41)
64,370(40,600) 0.11(0.18)
64,400 km Sulfate Baseline
65,164(40,500) 7.79(12.53)
107
-------
An examination of the stock configuration emissions in Table 32 shows
that the additional oxidation catalyst is required only for CO control.
The threeway catalyst alone is capable of meeting the 1981 standards for
HC and NOX. If gaseous emissions from the stock condition tests are plotted
as a function of distance accumulated, as shown in Figure 35, it can be seen
that the CO deterioration rate is much lower for the stock vehicle than for
the air modulation system. Thus, the increase in CO over the 64,400 kilo-
meters was almost entirely due to deterioration of the oxidation catalyst/
air modulation system.
The sulfate emission reduction seen in Figure 36 for the maximum air
injection tests agreed well with sulfate reduction seen in a previous pro-
ject using air injected oxidation catalysts.^)
108
-------
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.3
0.2
1981 Standard
D
o. i
1981 Standard
Q-
Stock
-Q
3.0
2.0
1.0
Q-
Stock
-B
1981 Standard
Line __ _
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance Accumulated, Thousands of Kilometers
Figure 35. FTP gaseous emissions as a function of distance driven
for two emission control systems on a 1978 Volvo
80
109
-------
80
70
60
50
in
o
•rH
U)
CO
w
0)
4-1
40
30
20
10
Project Goal
SwRI System Regression Line
I
10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance Accumulated, Thousands of Kilometers
70
80
Figure 36. CFDS sulfate emissions as a function of distance driven
for two emission control systems on a 1978 Volvo
110
-------
V. CONCLUSIONS
The objective of this project was to evaluate the low sulfate emission
ability of several emission control systems capable of meeting 1981 gaseous
emission standards and to test some of these systems for durability. From
the work accomplished during this project, a number of conclusions may be
derived regarding the effectiveness and durability of the tested emission
control system.
A. Ability to Produce Low Sulfate Emissions
For this project, low sulfate emissions were defined as being below
3.1 mg/km (5.0 mg/mi.). Four systems were evaluated: (1) oxidation cata-
lyst with modulated air injection and EGR: (2) high temperature exhaust
system with oxidation catalyst; (3) threeway catalyst with feedback car-
buretor; and (4) threeway plus oxidation catalyst with modulate air in-
jection and feedback fuel injection. From tests of these systems the
following conclusions were drawn:
1. Modulating the air injected into an oxidation catalyst can result
in low sulfate emissions at the expense of some increase in CO
emissions. When compared with standard air injection systems,
air modulation reduced sulfates from all three versions of air
modulation systems tested. The reductions were 98 percent for
the Chevrolet Impala , 62 percent for the Chevrolet Nova, and
99+ percent for the Volvo.
2. Increasing the temperature of exhaust gases reduced sulfate
emissions from oxidation catalysts. An increase of 75°C (134°F)
in exhaust temperature at the exhaust manifold discharge during
the CFDS test reduced sulfate emissions 37 percent with the
system tested on a 1975 Chevrolet Nova with 5. 74 litre (350 CID)
engine.
3. Threeway catalyst systems have low sulfate emissions. However,
while the two threeway systems tested could be made to meet either
the 1981 CO or 1981 NOX standard, neither system could meet both
standards at the same time.
B. Durability
The sulfate emissions remained within the project goal for all systems
during durability testing. However, none of the three systems tested for
durability were able to maintain all gaseous emissions within the 1981
standards. Examination of the durability test results produced the following
conclusions.
Ill
-------
1. It is possible to maintain low sulfate emissions for 80,500 km
(50,000 miles) with any of the three systems tested (oxidation
catalyst with modulated air injection, threeway catalyst, and
threeway plus oxidation catalyst with modulated air injection).
2. The fuel injected, threeway plus oxidation catalyst with modulated
air injection proved the most durable, maintaining all emissions
within the project goals for 56,350 km (35,000 miles).
C. General
The project demonstrated several means of obtaining low sulfate emis-
sions from emission control systems designed for the 1981 gaseous emission
standards. The most promising system tested was a threeway catalyst (5:1,
Pt:Rh) plus an oxidation catalyst with modulated air injection which was
tested for 64,400 km (40,000 miles). Thus, the project fulfilled its ob-
jective of demonstrating the effectiveness and durability of low sulfate
emission control systems for 1981 and beyond.
112
-------
REFERENCES
1. Gentel, J. E., Manary, O. J. , and Valenta, J. C., "Characterization
of Particulates and Other Nonregulated Emissions from Mobile Sources
and the Effect of Exhaust Emissions Control Devices on These Emis-
sions." EPA OAWP Publication APTD-1567, March, 1973.
2. Bradow, R. L., Carpenter, D. A., et al., "Sulfate Emissions from
Catalyst and Non-Catalyst Equipped Automobiles." SAE Paper 740528,
October, 1974.
3. Moran, J. B., "Issue Paper: Estimated Public Health Impact as a
Result of Equipping Light-Duty Motor Vehicles with Oxidation
Catalysts." EPA, January 31, 1975.
4. Bradow, R. L. and Moran, J. B., "Sulfate Emissions from Catalyst Cars:
A Review." SAE Paper 750090; February, 1975.
5. Somers, J. H. , Garbe, R., Fett, C. E., and Baines, T. M., "Automotive
Sulfate Emissions, A Baseline Study." Presented at the American
Chemical Society Meeting, San Francisco, California, August, 1976.
6. OMSAPC Advisory Circular No. 76, "Compliance With the Requirements of
Sections 202(a)(4) and 206(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act." U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Waste Management,
June 28, 1978.
7. Ingalls, M. N. and Springer, K. J., "Measurement of Sulfate and Sulfur
Dioxide in Automotive Exhaust." EPA Report No. EPA-460/3-76-015,
August 1976.
8. Dietzmann, H. E., "Protocol to Characterize Gaseous Emissions as a
Function of Fuel and Additives Composition." Final Report EPA-600/2-
75-048, September 1975.
9. Springer, K. J. and Stahman, R. C., "Diesel Car Emissions - Emphasis
on Particulate and Sulfate." SAE Paper 770254, presented at SAE
Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit, February 1977.
10. Ingalls, M. N., "Sulfate Sampling Dilution Tunnel Design and Validation."
Final Report to EPA under Task 6 of Task Contract 68-03-2196, June 1977.
11. Irish, D. C. and Stefan, R. J., "Vehicle Sulfuric Acid Level Character-
ization." SAE Paper 760037 presented at SAE Automotive Engineering
Congress, Detroit, February 1976.
12. Bradow, R. L., Carpenter, D. A., Klosterman, D., Black, F. M., and
Tejada, S., "Sulfate Emissions from Catalyst and Non-Catalyst Cars."
SAE Paper No. 740528, October 1974.
113
-------
13. Black, F- M., High, L. E., and Sigsby, J. E. "Methodology for Assignment
of a Hydrocarbon Photochemical Reactivity Index for Emissions from
Mobile Sources". EPA-650/2-75-025, 1975.
14. Black, F- M., High, L. E., and Sigsby, J. E. "A Gas Chromatographic
Method for Direct Analysis of Photochemically Nonreactive Hydro-
carbons". J. of Chromatographic Science, Vol. 14, pp. 257, 1976.
15. Black, F. M. and High, L. E. "Effect of Fuel Composition on the Flame
lonization Detection of Hydrocarbons". J. Environ. Sci. Health,
All (4 & 5), pp. 331-339, 1976.
16. Schachmann, H. P. and Laidlee, K. J., "Nitrogen Compounds Other than
NO in Automobile Exhaust Gas." J. of Air Pollution Control Assn.,
Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 52, January 1972.
17. Dietzmann, H. E. et al., "Analytical Procedures for Characterizing
Unregulated Pollutant Emissions from Motor Vehicles." EPA-600/2-
79-017. Interim report for Contract 68-02-2497, February 1979.
18. Zweidinger, R. B., Tejada, S. B., Sigsby Jr., J. B., and Bradow, R. L.,
"The Application of Ion Chromatography to the Analysis of Ammonia and
Alkyl Amines in Automotive Exhaust." Symposium on Ion Chromatographic
Analysis of Environmental Pollutants, EPA, Research Triangle Park,
N.C., April 1977.
19. Draft Final Report for Contract 68-03-2161, Gould Corp., undated.
20. Beltzer, M., Campion, R. J., Harlan, J. and Hochhauser, A. M., "The
Conversion of S02 Over Automotive Oxidation Catalyst." SAE Paper
750095, February 1975.
21. Mikkor, M., Hammerle, R. H., Truex, T., "Effects of Hydrocarbons,
Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen on Sulfuric Acid Emissions from an
Automobile Catalyst." Paper No. 43, presented at the Symposium on
Auto Emission Catalyst, American Chemical Society 170th Annual Meeting,
August 27, 1975.
22. Cohn, J. G., Mannion, W. A., Thompson, C. E., and Hansel, J. G.,
"Effect of Three Way Conversion Catalyst Operation on the Chemical
State of Automotive Sulfur Emissions." SAE Paper 750096, February
1975.
23. Springer, K. J. and Tyree, C. D., "Exhaust Emissions from Gasoline-
Powered Vehicles Above 6,000-lb Gross Vehicle Weight." Final Report
to the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract EHS 70-110 ,
April 1972.
24. Poznick, D. J., and Siewert, R. M., "Continuous Secondary Air Modulation -
Its Effect on Thermal Manifold Reactor Performance." SAE Paper 730493,
May 1973.
114
-------
25. Hammerle, R. H. and Middor, M., "Some Phenomena Which Control Sulfuric
Acid Emission from Automotive Catalysts." SAE Paper 750097, February
1975.
26. Rush, J. H., "Exhaust Port Heat Rejection in a Piston Engine - A
Preliminary Report." SAE Paper 760766, October 1976.
27- Urban, C. M. , "Regulated and Unregulated Exhaust Emissions from Malfunctioning
Non-Catlyst and Oxidation Catalyst Gasoline Automobiles," Draft Final Report
to the Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-2499, April
1979.
28. Krause, B., Boufford, R. A., Karmilovich, T., and Kayle, E. L., "Cri-
tical Factors Affecting Automotive Sulfate Emissions," SAE Paper 760091,
February 1976.
29. Hummel, J. A., "Changes in Automotive Sulfate Emissions with Extended
Mileage." U.S. EPA, Emission Control Technology Division, Ann Arbor,
Michigan. CAB-2/ASE-FY79-1, January 1979.
30. Engh, G. T., and Wallman, S., "Development of the Volvo Lambda-Sond System,"
SAE Paper 770295, February. 1977.
31. Field, Randall, Emission Control Technology Division, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Ann Arbor, MI. Telephone conversation with Melvin Ingalls,
Southwest Research Insittute, San Antonio, Texas, May 26, 1978.
115
-------
APPENDIX A
Worksheets for Sulfate
Control System Evaluation
-------
System
Sulfate Control Durability Demonstration
Control System Evaluation Sheet
Air Modulation
Evaluation Item Score
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Meets gaseous
emission goals 5
Sulfate emissions 10
Fuel economy 5
Durability 5
Cost 10
TOTAL SCORE
Weighting Weighted Max. Possible
Factor Score Weighted Score
2.0 10 (20)
1.5 15 (15)
1.5 7.5 d5)
1.0 5 dO)
1.0 10 (10)
47.5 (70)
Item
1. Meets gaseous
emission goals
2. Sulfate emissions
3. Fuel economy
4. Durability
Scoring Criteria
(a) If HC, CO, NOX below 0.25, 2.11 and 0.93 g/km
respectively, score = 10.
(b) If only one of the gaseous emissions is over
the goal and it does not exceed the goal by
more than 50%, score = 5.
(c) If more than one of the gaseous emissions
is over the goal, score = 0.
(a) If 3.1 mg/km or less on SET test score = 10.
(b) If greater than 6.2 mg/km, score = 0.
(c) Between 3.1 and 6.2 mg/km, score = 20 - (3.226 x
Sulfate emissions, mg/km)
(a) If fuel economy improved by more than 5%
score = 10.
(b) If fuel economy +5%, score = 5.
(c) If fuel economy decreased by more than
5%, score = 0.
(a) Estimate life of system without repairs or
replacement (only addition parts added for
sulfate control - not total system)
(b) Score = Miles
X 10
5. Cost
(a) This is a relative evaluation - least cost
system score = 10.
(b) For other systems:
score = least cost
system cost
x 10
A-2
-------
System: Air Modulation
1. Gaseous Emissions (FTP) g/km
HC CO N°x
Air Modulation System 0.31 2.44 1.42
Baseline 0.33 1.15 1.84
Percent Difference 6.1 112.2 22.8
'75 Nova Baseline 0.19 1.24 0.86
Estimated w/air mod. 0.18 2.63 0.66
Goals 0.25 2.11 0.93
Percent Difference -28.0% +24.6% 29.0%
Score = 5
2. Sulfate Emissions (SET) mg/km
Air Modulation System: 0.57 mg/km
Goal: 3.11 mg/km
Score = 10
3. Fuel Consumption &/100 km
FTP FET Composite
Air Modulation System 18.55 14.03 16.52
Baseline 17.54 13.36 15.66
Percent Change +5.76 +5.02 +5.4
Score = 5
4. Durability
It is estimated that system will require some maintenance in 80,000 km
(50,000 miles). To be on conservative side assume system will need to
be replaced at 40,000 km (25,000 miles)
Score = 25'000 x 10 = 5
50,000
5. Cost
a.) From other studies of automotive spare parts cost:
retail = 1.667 * wholesale
b.) Industrial discounts are approximately the same. For example
Swagelok gives 30% discount on 10,000 or more.
A-3
-------
c.) Assume manufacturer makes 15 profit on wholesale price.
d.) Assume that the air modulation valve can be combined with the
present air pump diverter valve and that the vacuum switch can
be combined with the EGR vacuum switch. Assume that these
combinations result in a 50 percent increase in the price of
the part.
e.) Cost of Air Modulation System:
Mod. Valve
Vac Switch
Clutch
Retail
8.00
5.60
16.00
Wholesale
5.07
3.57
10.00 (with
Mfgr.
Cost
4.41
3.10
8.70
Total Additional
Cost to Mfgr.
2.21
1.55
8.70
modification)
$12.46
or as a very conservative estimate this system should cost the
mfgr. less that $13.00
f.) This is the least cost system therefore score = 10.
A-4
-------
Sulfate Control Durability Demonstration
Control System Evaluation Sheet
System High Temperature Exhaust
Weighting Weighted
Evaluation Item Score Factor Score
1. Meets gaseous
emission goals 10 2.0 20
2. Sulfate emissions 0 1.5 0
3. Fuel economy 5 1.5 7.5
4. Durability 10 1.0 10
5. Cost 3.3 1.0 3.3
TOTAL SCORE , 40.8
Scoring Criteria
Item
Max Possible
Weighted Score
(20)
(15)
(15)
(10)
(10)
(70)
1. Meets gaseous
emission goals
2. Sulfate emissions
3. Fuel economy
4. Durability
(a) If HC, CO, NOX below 0.25, 2.11 and 0.93 g/km
respectively, score = 10.
(b) If only one of the gaseous emissions is over
the goal and it does not exceed the goal by
more than 50%, score = 5.
(c) If more than one of the gaseous emissions
is over the goal, score = 0.
(a) If 3.1 mg/km or less on SET test score = 10.
(b) If greater than 6.2 mgAm, score = 0.
(c) Between 3.1 and 6.2 mg/km, score = 20 - (3.226 x
Sulfate emissions, mg/km)
(a) If fuel economy improved by more than 5%
score = 10.
(b) If fuel economy +5%, score = 5.
(c) If fuel economy decreased by more than
5%, score = 0.
(a) Estimate life of system without repairs or
replacement (only addition parts added for
sulfate control - not total system)
(b) Score = Miles
50000
x 10
5. Cost
(a) This is a relative evaluation - least cost
system score = 10.
(b) For other systems:
score = least cost
system cost
x 10
A-5
-------
Gaseous Emissions (FTP)
g/km
HC
0.19
0.16
0.25
-36.0%
CO
1.24
2.05
2.11
-2.8%
NOX
0.86
0.86
0.93
-7.5%
6.30 mg/km
3 .11 mg Am
+103%
&/100 km
Baseline
w/port liners
Goals
Percent Difference
Score = 10
Sulfate Emission (SET)
w/port liners
Goal
Percent Difference
Score = 0
Fuel Economy
Baseline
High Temp System
Percent Change
Score = 5
Durability
There is no reason why properly designed portliners and manifolds
should not last 50,000 miles. Therefore score = 10.
The cost of portliners and high temperature manifolds in quantity
is unknown. However they are estimated to cost 3 times as much as
the air modulation system.
Score = 1/3 x 10 = 3.3
FTP
17.39
18.19
+4.6%
FET
12.71
13.15
+3.5%
Composite
15.28
15.92
4.2%
A-6
-------
APPENDIX B
COMPUTER PRINTOUTS
FOR
AIR MODULATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
TESTS ON A 1976 CHEVROLET IMPALA
(Tests in Chronological Order)
-------
T A b I. E
UNIT 'JO. TEST HO. 1
VEHICLE MiipF L CHFVROLET 1MPALA
BAOfiMMFR 73S.81* MM OF HG.
O*Y BULB TEMP. ?s.o DEC. c
REL. HUMIDITY b3 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
197S LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
OATE 3/17/77 MF-GR. COOF
FN(,INE 5.7H LITRE 8 CURB Wf.
-II
n Kb
CO
M
HLOWER DIF. PRESS., P?, hho.f MM
RAG
RAG
RESULTS
NO.
BLOWEH REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO?
CO?
CO?
CO?
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
so?
so?
so?
so?
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
so?
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
so?
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGKO PPM
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER
READING/SCALE
HEADING/SCALE
RFADING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
RACKRRD MFTER
RE AOING/SCALE
BACKGRO PERCENT
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
HACKRRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTHAT ION
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
PPM
H?0
1
tOb?U
?0.3/3
1.1/3
1 1
53.7/3
1333
1.7/2
.Ob
Ib.O/S
.8
-o.n/*
-n.o
-o.o/*
-o.o
15.3
0.0
8.H9
11U.85
?bb?.83
I1*. 17
U.OO
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS so?
i.?n GRAMS/KILOMETRE
10.8* GHAMS/KILOMETRE
fsb.51 GHAMS/KILOMETRE
?.03 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
u.on GRAMS/KILOMETRE
38.
39
1.1/3
11
78. 3/*
351
HFI BULB TEMP ?U.O DtG. C
AHS. HUMIDITY 13.n (,RAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl bbO.H MM. H?0
6LUWER INLET TEMP. t3 DEG. c
3
IDbHI
35.3/1
353
10.
10
7?.U/3
1.30
1.1/P
.U7
38. •»
1.0/3
l.n
-o.o/*
-0.0
-o.o/*
-0.0
33?
1.2H
37.5
0.0
2.19
SO.H8
R188.3S
10.13
0.00
CARBON NALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 50.31* LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW = ?f»?.S 3TD. CU. METRES
b8b
,5/*
1
9H.b/3
1.77
3.7/3
.Ob
89. >»
.H/3
.8
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
bf 8
1.73
88.7
0.0
15.09
57.37
13. If
0.00
-------
TABLE
I
U)
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE. NUMBER
DATE 3/17/77
MODEL 117b CHtVY IMPALA
DRIVER SR
WET BULB TEMP 18 C
SPEC. HUM. 10. (l GRAM/KG
TIME -d HRS.
SET-?
TEST WT. S177 KG.
DRY BULH TEMP 35 C
UARO. 735.3 MM HG.
TEST NO. S
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV fl
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. fS.3 PCT
MEASURED FUEL (1.00 KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIP. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
23. 2S MINUTES
bhU.4 MM. H30
hbO.f MM H30
t3 DEG. C
1123H5
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGHD PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
COS SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
COS SAMPLE PERCENT
COS BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COS BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SOS COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
COS MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SOS MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILoMETRE .11
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE 5.5S
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 3HS
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE 1.81
sos GRAMS/KILOMETRE o.oo
43.1/3
•*3
S.b/S
10
S3.3/3
537
.3/3
b
15.3/5
S.OS
1.7/2
.Ob
35.5/3
lOb.5
.3/3
.1
35
503
1.9b
105.7
O.I)
t.St
ISS.II
75Sl.bO
HI.57
0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.72
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 5U.n
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3085
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL lb.90
S02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL n.OO
HC GRAMS/MIN .18
CO GRAMS/MlN 5.3
C03 GRAMS/MIN 32b
NOX GRAMS/MIN 1.78
502 GRAMS/MIN D . Oil
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY = 15.2? LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST F.MISSIMNS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBFK
DATE 3/17/77 TIME. -n HRS. TEST NO. 2
MODEL 197S, CHEVY IMPALA SF.T-7 ENGINE 5.7 LITREO
RUN DURATION 23.29 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 52.01 KILOMETRES
CVS BLUHFH TEST VOL. ?S1.13 ACT. CU. METRES
SAMPLE
SULFATE DATA
BACKGROUND
EJ
I
FILTER NO.
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 18.50
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F H5
SAMPLE AREA SO. IN. 2R2R3.00
DILUTION FACTOR J
STAND. OEN. MICROG/ML 5.On
STAND. AKEA su. IN. pjqsh^.nn
Sfl>»,MlCROG/FILTF.H b.tH7
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F 70
AREA,BUBBLER i o.oo
DIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,BUBBLER 2 0.00
DIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. OFN. MICROG/ML 5.00
STAND. AKEA,SO. IN. 1.00
so2, MILLIG/BUBBLER i n.ooo
soe, MIILIG/BUBBLER 3 o.ono
sn?, PPM o.o
SULFATE AND S02 EMISSIONS
1 .00
7fl
n.no
1
s.nn
i.oo
0.000
1 .00
70
n.no
1
n.oo
l
5.no
l.oo
0.000
o.oon
o.o
NFT SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST S.tbl
NET H230H,MILLIGRAM/TEST 3.533
NET 302,GRAM/TEST o.ooo
NFT SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE .157
NET H2SOH,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE .Ibl
NET 302,GRAM/KILOMETRE 0.000
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 2*bl GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0311) PCT.
FUEL S02 H2SOH
.7b
n.nnn
o.on
.0012
.15
302 + H2SO-*
.OU12
.15
-------
UNIT NO. 7
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO.
CHEVY IMPALA
BAROMETER 7t0.92 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.h DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 28 PCT.
TABLE VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
« DATE 3/3(1/77 MFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE 5.7t LITRE R CURB WT. 0 KG
WET BULB TEMP It.4 DEG. C
AB3. HUMIDITY 5.R GRAMS/KG
YR.
GVM
197b
0 KG
F.XHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.,
BAG RESULTS
W
G2, B85.8 MM. H20
BAG NO.
RLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO 8ACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
502 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
S02 SAMPLE PPM
S02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
S02 BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
1
H05H7
31. 5/ 3
315
.9/ 3
9
77.0/11
3H2
.8/11
2
t9.5/ 2
2.25
l.b/ 2
.Ob
50. 5/ 3
151.5
.5/ 3
1.5
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
308
3?3
2.21
150.3
0.0
13.50
28. bO
C02 MASS GRAMS 3088.92
NOX MASS GRAMS
802 MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC l.l* GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS CO 1.95 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS C02 501.39 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS NOX 3.02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS S02 0.00 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
18.82
0.00
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl bBS.8 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. t3 DEG. C
2
b9b87
55. 7/ 2
Sb
i.n/ 3
10
21.3/13
27
.b/U
2
35. 8/ 2
1.38
1.3/ 3
.05
28. 7/ 3
8b.l
.S/ 3
1.5
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
25
1.3t
8*. 8
0.0
3.53
3.78
3213.10
1B.21*
0.00
3
"»0b29
18.2/ 3
182
b.3/ 2
b
b9.2/12
15?
l.t/13
1
t3.S/ 2
1.12
1.2/ 2
.OH
H7.3/ 3
1H1.1
.t/ 3
1.2
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
177
1H8
1.89
IfO.q
0.0
7.77
13.18
2bf7.73
17.b8
0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = ?l.bS LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW = 283.3 STD. CU. METRES
-------
r A H L F
FXHAUIU EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VFMICLt NUMBER
t> A T f j / 3 0 / 7 7
MODEL 1^7^ CHtVY 1MPM.A
DRTVfP S H
WET Rill.H f F: M P Ib C
SPFC. HUM. b.S GRAM/KG
RUN DURATION
HLOWFK) INLFT PRESS.
RLflWuh1 OIF. P*FSS.
RLOHFR INLFT TEMP.
OYNO Rf VOLUTIONS
RLO*F_* REVOLUTIONS
HLCMFR CU. CM /REV.
TIME -0 HNS.
SET 7
TEST W T. 2177 KG.
ORY 8ULH TEMP ?? C
tfAHU. 7HD.9 MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 5.7 LITRE 8
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. ?q.<» PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
?3.?7 MINUTES
7b?.(l MM. H?0
7(,?.fl MM H?0
•*t DEC. C
31ROR
1 1 ? 0 8 ?
03
I
RAT, RESULTS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
Cu
CO
CO
CO?
CO?
Co?
CO?
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
co
CO?
NOX
so?
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
SO?
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
HACKGHD METER
H A C K G FO) PPM
S A M P L K METER
SAMPLE PPM
DACKGRI) MF TEW
HACKGRO PPM
SAKPLE METER
RFAOING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
RACM;RD METER
READING/SCALE
HACKGKU PERCENT
SAMPLE METER
SAKPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
HACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRAT ION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
COCENTRATION
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPI1
PCT
PPM
PPM
GRAnS/KlLOMKTRE
>.75
58. 2b
n.no
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
so?
GRAMS/KG
GRAMS/ KG
GRAMS/M;
GRAM^/KG
G R A n n / " '".
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
FUEL
FUEL
FUEL
FUEL
FUFL
H .h^
?7.B
3111
? ) . hh
11 . no
t< A L * N C t" F 1C f (. tCl'-li
HC GRAMS/MIN .SH
CO GRAMS/MlN 3.5
cog GRAMS/MIN aho
NOX GRAMS/MIN ?.5n
so? GRAMS/MIN o.nn
Ib.bi LITRF3 PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE FXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE HAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE 3/10/77 TIME -0 MRS. TEST NO. 2
MODEL 117h CHEVY IMPALA SET 7 ENGINE -5.7 LlTREO
RUN DURATION 2=1.27 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21.93 KILOMETRES
cvs HLUWFH TEST VOL. 2t4.nb ACT. cu. METRES
to
I
SAMPLE
SUI.FATE DATA
FILTER NO. t7FH2BflO
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 11.Sh
SAMPLE TE^P. DUG. F 8t
SAMPLE AREA SO. IN. 239570.nil
DILUTION FACTOR 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 5.00
STAND. AREA SO. IN. 202281.00
SOt,MICKOG/FILTER S7.hbD
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F 70
AREA,BIJRRLER 1 0.00
OIL. FACf.,BUBBLER 1 I
AREA,HUBBLE.R P. 0.00
DIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. DF.N. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SO. IN. 1.00
302, MKLIG/BUBBLER 1 0.000
S02, .-"lILLIG/flUSBLEK 2 n.1100
SO?, PPM 0.0
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
(1.00
1
i .no
l.oo
o.ooo
l.oo
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFATE AND SO? EMISSIONS
NFT SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST 1»8.t02
NET H2SOH,MILLIGRAM/TEST 49.118
NFT S'JP,GRAM/TEST o.ooo
NFT S'JLFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE 2.207
NFT H^Sni,MILLIGRAM/KTLOMETRE 2.253
NFT S'Jg,r,RAM/KILOMETRK 0.0(10
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL ^T., 2b89 GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0320 PCT.
FUEL S02 H2SOH
.8b
0.000
0.00
.Olb2
1.R8
302 t H2SOH
.Olb2
1.88
-------
TABLE
UNIT Ml. 7
VEHIClE MOOFL
TEST MO.
CHEVY IMPALA
BAROMTTFR 7tn.9? MM OF HG.
DRY BULH TEMP. 2?.? OEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY S3 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., G?, 711.2 MM.
RAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
BLOWER RFVULUTIONS
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE H/ 1/77 MFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE 5.71 LITRE a CURB HT. o KG
HET BULB TEMP Ifa.l OEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 9.1 GRAMS/KG
YR.
GVM
197b
0 KG
H20
HC
HC
HC
HC
ro
CO
CO
CO
ro?
ro?
C02
C02
NUX
NOX
® NOX
CO NOX
SO?
S02
SO?
SO?
HC
ro
CO?
NOX
sn?
HC
CO
ro?
MOX
S02
SAMPLE MFTEH READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
HACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGWD PPM
SAKPLK METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
RACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PERCENT
SAMPLE METER Rt AD I NG/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGHD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGHD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
RACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGHD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
i
HOM5
3fl.l)/3
300
1.3/3
13
It.?/*
HB1
3.2/*
10
HH .9/2
2.00
1.7/2
.Ob
39.5/3
118.5
-H/3
1.2
-U.O/*
-0.0
-o.n/*
-o.o
289
HHb
1.95
117.5
0.0
12.b7
39.Hb
?721.b9
lb.Pl
0.00
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS S02
.93 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
2.18 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
f»7.05 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
2.Hi GRAMS/KILOMETRE
0.00 GRAMS/KILOMCTRE
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 711.2 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. H3 DEG. C
2
h97Hb
H2.b/?
•»3
1. 1/3
11
1. ?/*
5
29.9/2
1.2H
1.5/2
.05
57.7/2
57.7
1.2
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
33
q
1.19
Sb.b
0.0
2.*5
1.35
2851. 3b
13. HI
U.OO
H0b35
13.9/3
139
9.7/2
10
7H.2/*
170
5.3/*
5
HO.9/2
1.79
2.0/3
.07
37.2/3
lll.b
1.2/2
1.2
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
131
157
1.72
110.b
0.0
5.73
13.92
2HOB.9Q
15.25
0.00
CAPRON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 19.33 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FUUN = 2B2.H .9 T I). CU. METRES
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE RAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUM8FR 7
DATE 4/ 1/77
MODEL 197h CHEVY IMPALA
DRIVER HP
WET SULB TFMP lh C
SPFC. HUM. q.n GKAM/KG
TIME -tl HRR.
SET-7
TEST NT. n KG.
DRY RULH TEMP ?1 C
HARD. 737.H MM HG.
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIP. PRESS.
RtOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER EVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
?3.?e MINUTES
711.2 MM. H?0
MM H?0
711.2
to
31 3113
OEG. c
TEST NO.
ENGINE 5.
7 LITREV B
GVW
REL.
0 KG
HUM.
55.1 PCT
MEASURED FUEL (I.On KG
CD
I
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
RACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
CO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGHD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCFNTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
1.R/3
SB
1.0/3
10
530
.b/3
13
?.OS
.07
35.3/3
ins.q
.4/3
i.a
10
489
o.o
10. 8b
19. b7
39.89
0.00
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .50
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE 5.St
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 357
HDX GPAMS/KTLOMETRE l.«5
SU? r,RAMS/KILOMETRE n.on
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL H.35
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 47.9
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUFL 3MHC)
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 15.91,
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.110
HC GRAMS/MIN .47
co GRAMS/MIN 5.1
co? GRAMS/MIN 331
NOX GRAMS/MIN 1.71
SO? GRAMS/MIN n>0ri
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONO"Y = 15. 7h LITRFS PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TAhLI-
EXHAUST FMI.'iSFONS FROM SINGLE HAG SAMPLE
V F H I t; L E NUMBER 7
HAIt 4/ 1/77 1 IMF -11 HHS.
MODEL. H7K CHEVr IMPALA SET-7
PUN DURATION P3.PH MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN ?1.SR
TVS ULUUEh HST VOL. ?4H.H7 ACT. CU. METRES
TEST NO. ?
ENGINE 5.7 LITREU
KILOMETRES
I
M
o
SULFATE OA1A
FILTER MO.
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. DEU. f
SAMPLE AKEA SO. IN.
DILUTION FACTOR
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML
STAND. AREA SO. IN.
304 ,MICROt;/FILTER
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT.
SAMPLE TFMP. DCG. F
AREA.BUBBLFR i
OTL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1
AREA,BUBBLER ?
DIL. FACT.,BUBBLER ?
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML
STAND. AREA,SO. IN.
SO?, MILLIG/BUBBLER 1
SO?, MILLIG/BURBLER ?
30?, PPM
SAMPLE
t 7-FH-?H03
15. 3R
7?
. n o
1
3-». 710
l.nn
70
a. no
I
o.oo
l
l.no
i.oo
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.o
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
n.no
l
1 .00
1.00
Cl.UflO
1 iOO
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
l.nn
i.on
o.oon
o.ooo
o.o
SULFATE AND SO? EMISSIONS
NM SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST ?2.771
NFT H?so>t,MILLIGRAM/TEST ?j.asn
NFT SO?,GRAM/TEST 0.000
NET SULFAle .MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE l.O«iS
NET HPS04,MILLIGHAM/KILOMETRE 1.077
NET s"?.,GRAM/KILOMETRE o.oon
SHI FUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 5491 GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL SO? H?S04
. 77
o. n o n
o.nn
,no?b
SO? + H2S04
,007b
.18
-------
TABLE
UNIT NU. 7
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO.
CHEVY IMPALA
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1R7S LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
HATE H/ b/77 MFGR. CODE
ENRINE 5.7H LITRE 8 CURB WT.
-0
0 KG
YR. 197b
GVM 0 KG
BAROMETER 7H9.55 MM OF HG.
DHY BULB TEMP. ?U.b DEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY 32 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIP. PRESS!, 65, 73b.b MM.
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
H20
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
CO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
COS BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRD PERCENT
NUX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
SO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SO? SAMPLE PPM
SO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
SO? nACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
SO? MASS GRAMS
1
40585
13.5/ 3
135
.b/ 3
b
31.7/ 3
7t9
.!/ 3
2
Ht.3/ ?
1.97
1.7/ ?
.Ob
H7.3/ 3
1H1.9
.b/ 3
1.8
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
130
711
1.92
ItO.t
0.0
5.75
b3.bO
?703.88
17.29
0.00
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS SO?
.f? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
t.3t GRAMS/KILOMETRE
452.15 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
2.39 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
O.OII GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WET BULB TEMP 11.7 DEG. C
A8S. HUMIDITY 4.9 GRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 73b.b MM. H?0
BLOWER INLET TEMP. t? OEG. C
2
b9bot
35. 8/ 2
3b
.e/ 3
8
55.1/1?
lao
.!/ 3
2
71. fl/ 3
1.30
i.i/ 2
.07
b?.?/ ?
b?.?
.5/ 3
l.S
-D.O/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
?q
lit
l.?t
bU.8
0.0
?.17
17. t8
1?.85
n.oo
3
f 0595
?0.0/ ?
?0
b.O/ 2
b
b8.b/12
155
.8/12
1
89. t/ 3
l.b?
•*.3/ 3
.07
H0.9/ 3
l.S/ 2
1.2
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
15
1H7
l.bl
121.7
U.O
.b5
13.17
2270. 5b
1H.99
0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 19.b? LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CV3 FLOW = 285.3 STD. CU. METRES
-------
T AnlF
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 7
PATE t / t / 7 7
MOOfcL J17h CHEVY IMPALA
DRIVER BP
WET 8ULH IFMP 12 r
SPEC. MUM. S.2 GUAM/KG
PUN our;A T ION
INLET PRESS.
OIF. PRESS.
RLo.it-> INLET TEMP.
OYNO RF VOLUTIONS
PLUrtfcfV REVOLUTIONS
HLOWEK Cll. CM /REV.
TIME P. MRS.
SE 1-7
TEST WT. n KG.
DkY BULB TEMP 21 C
HARO. 7HS.b MM HG.
23.21 MINUTES
73b.h MM. H20
73h.h MM H?0
•»? OEG. C
325H7
1 l?HbS
2227
TEST NO. -n
ENGINE 5.7 LITRE 8
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 33.1 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
W
I
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METFR READING/SCALE
HC BACK15R0 PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO OACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRO PPM
CO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGHO METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
NOX RACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
302 MASS (GRAMS)
14.5X?
1H
b.2/2
b
bo.rv*
133
.B/*
1
HS.1/2
2.01
2.0/2
.07
53.8/3
Ibl.*
.5/3
1.5
9
125
1.95
lbll.1
0.0
1.13
30.80
7513.BO
St.11
0.00
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .os
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE 1.37
co2 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 338
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE 2.H»
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GPAMS/KR OF FUEL .t7
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 12.R
C02 GHAMS/KG OF FUEL 31»8
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 22.?b
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL O.nn
HC GRAMS/MIN .05
CO GRAMS/MIN 1.3
C02 GRAMS/MIN 32b
NOX GRAMS/MIN ?.ab
302 GRAMS/MIN 0.00
CARBON r.AL»NCE FUEL ECONOMY r It.S* LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 7
dd
I
DATE t/ b/77 TIME 2 HRS. TEST NO. -0
MODEL l
-------
U^IT NO. TFST NO.
VEHlClt MOOFL fHFVY IMP&LA
RAROMFTFP MS. |? ww OF HG.
DRY RULP TEMP. ?^q DFG. C
REL. HUMIDITY s? PCT.
EXHAUST F1-
03
I
RLO-FR OIF. PRFSS., G?, 7?3.<» MM.
RAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
REVOLUTIONS
SAMPLE METFR READINGXSCALE
PPM
METER READINGXSCALE
RACKGRP PPM
METER READINGXSCALE
PPM
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO?
CO?
CO?
CO?
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
so?
so?
so?
so?
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
so?
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
so?
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
SAMPLF
BACKGRD METER PEADINGXSCALE
8ACKGRO PPM
SAMPLF METFP RFADINGX3C*LE
SAMPLE PERCENT
8ACKGRD MFTFR REAPINGXSCALE
P/>C*GRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METFR READINGXSCALE
SAMPLE PPM
HACKGRD METER READINGXSCALE
RACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METFR REAPINGXSCALE
SAMPLE PPM
READINGXSCALF
RACKGRO PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
COMCEMTRAT[ON PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
fli.3/ a
H9
1013
.?/ 3
H
.07
78. n/
7R.O
-U.D/-0
-o.n
-o.nx-o
-n.n
81
150
l.lb
77.?
0.0
1.55
?717.59
11. hD
o.on
,?7 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
H.P9 GRAMj/KlLOMETRE
»37.lb GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1.K7 r-PAMS/xILOMETRE
n.nn
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATF »X19X77 MFGR. CODF -n
ENGINE 5.7* LITHE CURB WT. 0 KG
WET PULB TEMP IB.9 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY U.9 GRAMSXKG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 7?3.9 MM. H?0
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 13 DEG. C
HObbb
39.5X ?
39
B.BX ?
9
31. OX 3
73?
2.3X11
7
98. SX 3
l.Rb
H.HX 3
.07
b7.2X 2
b7.2
,9X P
.^
-o.ox-o
-0.0
-n.ox-o
-0.0
32
b85
1.80
hb.t
0.0
l^
bO.32
2501.92
10.00
o.no
YR.
GVM
n Kr,
bb.n/ 3
1.18
!.< ?
.07
37. I/ ?
37.1
.P/ 2
.8
•o.nx-o
-O.o
-n.ox-o
-O.P
i?
1.12
3b.>»
0,0
.90
3b,95
?bB0.78
9.H?
0.00
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS Cn
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MAS«> NOX
WEIGHTED MASS SO?
CARflON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = J9.?b LITRES PEH HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW s ?R).? RTP. CU.
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 7
DATE -t/lq/77
MODEL iq?b CHEVY IMPALA
DRIVER SR
WET BULB TEMP 18 C
SPEC. HUM. 10.q GRAM/KG
TIME -0 HRS.
SET-7
TEST WT. 2177 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 2H C
BARO. 737.» MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV 0
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 55.fa PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
W
I
M
Ln
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS. 723.q
BLOWER DIF. PRESS. 723.q
BLOWER INLET TEMP. «tt
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
23.27 MINUTES
MM. H20
MM H20
tt DEG. C
32830
112088
2232
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
Cba SAMPLE PERCENT
COS BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COS BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .10
co GRAMS/KILOMETRE 5.53
C02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 357
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE l.bl
S02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .8*
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL H7.q
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3091
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL If.bt
S02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
HC
CO
HC
CO
21.7/2
25
8.5/2
q
23.0/3
532
2. I/*
b
tb.7/2
a. 10
2.3/2
.08
l.f/B
l.H
18
2.03
11. b
0.0
2.11
120.11
7752. q?
3b.71
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN .Oq
CO GRAMS/MIN 5.2
C02 GRAMS/MIN 333
NOX GRAMS/MIN 1.58
S02 GRAMS/MIN 0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY = IS.bS LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLF
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 7
DATE f/19/77 TIME -0 MRS. TEST NO. 2
MODEL 197h CHEVY IMPALA SET-? ENGINE 5.7 LITREO
HUN DURATION 23.27 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN el.7* KILOMETRES
cvs HLUHFR TEST VOL. 250.21 ACT. cu. METRES
SUIFATE DATA
SAMPLE
BACKGROUND
CD
I
CTi
FILTER NO. H7-FH-280B
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. IS. 79
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F 88
SAMPLE AREA SO. IN. H9251.00
DILUTION FACTOR 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 20.00
STAND. AREA 30. IN. 153135.00
SrmMICROG/FILTER b^.321
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
SAMPLE TEMP. OEG. F 70
AREA,BUBBLEK 1 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,8URBLER 2 0.00
OIL. FACT..BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML i.oo
STAND. AREA,SO. IN. 1.00
SOS, MILLIG/BUBBLEK 1 0.000
S02, MILLIG/BUBBLEH 2 0.000
S02, PPM n.o
SULFATE AND S02 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST 32.312
NFT H2304,MILLIGRAM/TEST 32.991
NET S02,GRAM/TEST 0.000
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE l.'tab
NET H2SOH,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE 1.518
NET S02,GRAM/KILOMETRE 0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
n.ooo
i.oo
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL HT., 250R GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL S02 H2SOt
.78
0.000
0.00
.0108
1.39
802 + H2SOH
.0108
1.39
-------
INTT MO. 7
^EHICI E MODEL
1AROMF1FP 7T7. I
•)RY BUL* TFMF.
?EL. HU
T F S T M n . K
CHFVY IMPALA
MM OF H G .
?S.!t DEC. C
7) PCT.
TABLE VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
M7S LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE S/ W77 MFGR. CODF -II
ENGINE S.7t LITRE CURB WT. 0 KG
WF1 BULB TEMP 21.1 DEG. C
AB3. HUMIDITY I1*.5 GRAMS/KG
YR.
GVM
0 KG
:XHAUST
OTF. PPFSS., UP,
SUI.TS
71J .?. MM. HPO
RAG ")0.
PLO^F'J REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE MFTFR READING/SCALE
HC i A M P L E PPM
HC HACKGRD MfrTFR RF AD T NG/SC ALE
HC 4ACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE MFTFR RFADTNG/SCALF
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BAC*GRI> MF.TFR RFADTNG/SCALF
CO BACKGRD DPM
COP SAMPLE MFTER RF AD T NG/SC ALE
COP SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? RACKGRO Ml'TF.R RF A D T NG/ SC ALE
CO? BACKGRD PERCENT
fJOX SAMPLE METER RFADTNG/SCALF
D3 NOX ;i AMPLE PPM
' NOX HACKGRO MfTFR READING/SCALE
^j MOX HACKGKD PPM
SO? SAMPLE MFTFR READING/SCALE
SO? SAMPLE PPM
SO? BACKGRD MFTFR READING/SCALE
SO? BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
TO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
MOV CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? CONCFNTRAT TON PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAI1S
COP MASS GRAMS P1
NOX MASS GRAMS
SOP MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC . ] H GRAMS/KILOMFTRE
WEIGHTED MASS CO .R? GRAMS/KILOMFTRE
WEIGHTED MASS co? tpn.pn GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTFD MASS NOX 2.?? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WFTGHTFD MASS SOP n.HO GRAMS/KILOMETRE
I
t'i?7n
'i n . 3 / 2
Sll
U.I/ P
1 1
7R.3/1?
IRS
.h/1 P
1
t? . */ 2
I.R7
l.b/ 2
. nb
P4 . I/ 2
Rt . I
1.5/ P
t .5
-O.H/-I1
~o.n
-0.0/-0
-n.o
1 1
170
l.RP
RP. R
11.11
1.7R
.15.07
i 1 5 . 3 1
1. 3.7S
n.nn
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 711.2 MM. HPO
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 13 DEG. C
1 R . 3 / 5
18
11. R/ P
IP
7.P/13
7
.P/IP
n
b5.7/ 3
1. 1R
i .<;/ a
.us
th.S/ P
ff.,5
1. 7/ 2
1.7
- n . i) / - n
-O.I)
-n.il/-o
-o.n
R
b
1.13
f t.q
n.o
.57
1P..7R
o.no
2b.7/ 2
27
12. H/ 2
12
5b.b/13
5f
1.2/13
1
R9.B/ 3
1 .h7
H.3/ 3
.07
H7.5/ 2
87.5
1.7/2
1.7
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
Ib
5U
1 .b2
8h.n
o.o
H.tl
2252. ?0
It.PS
o.no
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = I7.qq LITRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW T. Pfll.H STO. CO. METRFS
PFR HUNDRED KILOMETRES
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 7
DATE 5/ 5/77
MODEL i97h CHEVY FM 7
DRIVER 3R
WET "UJLH TFMP ?1 C
SPEC. HUM. M.s GRAM/KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
TIME -n HR3.
SET 7
TEST WT. ??h7 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP ?5 C
HARD. 737.1 MM HG.
?3.?8 MINUTES
711.2 MM. H?0
MM H?0
711.?
H5
31811
OEG. C
TEST NO. ?
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV R
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 70.9 PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.on KG
??39
CD
i
CD
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METFR READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRO PPM
CO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAM3)
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
HC
CO
CO? MAS3 (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETPE .os
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .18
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 331
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE ?.»»
30? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .»b
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.7
co? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL sibs
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL ?3.?9
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY a
19.O/?
11
11.9/2
1?
1R.7/*
18
.7/*
1
•H.0/2
1.95
1.9/2
.07
39.8/3
119.»
.9/3
?.7
9
Ib
1.89
117.1
0.0
I.Ob
3.8fa
7?bO.?8
53.»1
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN .05
co GRAMS/MIN .?
CO? GRAMS/MIN 31?
NOX GRAM3/MIN ?.?9
30? GRAMS/MIN n.nn
1H.23 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
W
I
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMRER 7
DATE 5/ 5/77 TIME -0 MRS. TEST NO. 2
MODEL H7b CHEVY EM 7 SET 7 ENGINE 5.7 LITREO
RUN DURATION S3. 28 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21.1* KILOMETRES
CVS BLOWER TEST VOL. 551.30 ACT. CU. METRES
SAMPLE
SULFATE DATA
FILTER NO. *7-FH-2soi
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 13.55
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F 8b
SAMPLE AREA SQ. IN. Ib7*17.00
DILUTION FACTOR 5
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 20.00
STAND. AREA SO. IN. 177*50.HO
SO*,MICROG/FILTER 1*3.*bO
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F 70
AREA,BUBBLER 1 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,BUBBLER 2 n.OO
OIL. FACT..BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SQ. IN. 1.00
soa, MILLIG/BUBBLER i o.ooo
soa, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2 o.ooo
802, PPM 0.0
SULFATE AND 302 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET H2SO*,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET 302,GRAM/TEST
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET H2SO*,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET 302,GRAM/KILOMETRE
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 221* GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
bll.702
71*.31b
0.000
31.891
32.5b1
0.000
BACKGROUND
1 .00
70
0.00
1
1 .00
1.00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
.71
o.ono
0.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL 302 H2SO*
,233b
32.85
302 -f H2SO*
.233b
32.85
-------
•a r »HI. i e s i NO. *
HICIF MODEL LHI-VY IMPALA
TAHLF VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
|)*TE 5/10/77 MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 5.7H LITRE 8 CURB NT.
-n
n KG
YR.
GVM
117b
0 KG
CD
I
ro
o
»R(i
•>Y
:l .
XHA
*(• IE W 7 17. h? MM OF hG.
MILE FK»'F. 27. H DfK. C
HUM 1 1) I TY S? PC 1 .
I'M FMjr-SlilNS
HLOWhK OIF. PiaSb., (-?, bH7.7 MM. H?0
RAb HE.'JULTS
RAi, NO.
HC SAt-.PLE HE1EK Kh 40] MG/oCALE
HC SAr-.HLF PP«
HC fiACKGHD MflFR I'E ADI NG/SCALE
HL HACKGRU PPM
CO SAMPLE MEIER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CU FIACKGHD MEIER ME ADI NU/ 5C ALE
CO RACKGKO PPM
TO? SArtPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? RACKGHD METEH RF All I NG/SC ALE
CUP HACKiJHD PF.Hlt.HT
NOX SAMPLE METER RKAI3I NG/SC ALE
NOX SArPLE PPM
NOX HACKGWl) METER Rfc AL) I NG/SC ALE
NOX HACKGKD PPM
SO? SAMPLF METFfi READING/SCALE
So? SAMPLE PPM
SO? HACKGKD hETER Rt AL) IMG/bC AL E
SO? HACKORO PPM
HC CONCENTKA1 ION PPM
CO CONCEUTRATICN PPM
CO? COKCENTHATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRA IION PPM
S02 CONCENTKATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
i
51.H/2
51
15.0/2
IS
b3.S/*
If?
b.l/*
11
f 2.8/2
1.81
1.8/2
.07
27.3/3
81.1
.4/3
1.2
-O.O/*
-n.o
-O.O/*
-0.0
38
125
1.83
80.1
0.0
l.bl
11.13
CO? MASS GRAMS 2580.52
NOX MASS GRAMS
S02 MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC .it GKAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS CO .rtl GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS co? >4(iq.77 GKAMS/KILOMFTRE
"EIGMTFO MASS NOX t^.ns C-H AMS/K ILOf FTRE
WEIGHTED MASS so? i,.no C.KAMS/KILOKETRE
12.51
o.no
WET BULB TEMP 20.b DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.5 GRAMS/KG
BLOHER INLET PRESS., 61 b-»7.7 MM.
BLOWER INLET TEMP. »3 DEC. C
H20
2
70107
?0.
?U
3.b/«
b
1.12
1.8/2
.07
•»5.b/2
HS.b
.H/3
1.2
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
I.Ob
SH.5
0.0
.55
2.17
2SbS.07
11.11
0.00
87.7/2
28
12.
12
1.5/*
>»
88.5/3
l.bS
H.l/3
.Ob
87.3/2
87.3
l.H/2
l.H
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
17
55
1.5S
Bb.l
0.0
.75
4.88
2228.50
13.31
0.00
CAP60N hALANCE FUEL PONSl'MPTIOU = 17.55 LITHES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL LV:, hLUH = BBH.b STl). CU. METRFS
-------
r A H i. F.
FXHAUST EMISSIONS FKfM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
NUMBER
DATE 5/10X77
MODEL iq?b CHEVY
DRIVER SR
WET HUI.U TEMP 21 C
SPEC. HUM. 11.5 GRAM/KG
TIME -n MRS.
SFI-7
TES1 WF. S?h7 KG.
DRY HULB TEMP 10 C
BAKU. 737.1 MM HG.
TEST NO. B
FNGINE 5.7 LITRE S
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. "»S.S PCT
MEASURED FUEL n.UO KG
RUN DURATION
RLUWER INLET PRESS.
OIF. PRESS.
INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
P.1.3H MINUTES
bMl.t MM. H30
bb'l.t MM HSO
»3 OEG. C
3l7oq
SS35
Cd
i
to
BAU RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC fUCKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC FiACKGRI) PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READ ING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRO PPM
COS SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
COS SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? RACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
COS rtACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX UACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
NOX RACKGRD P^M
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SOS COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
COS MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SOS MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .OR
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .17
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 3Sb
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE ?.07
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE n.OO
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .HO
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.7
COS GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31hM
NOX liWAMS/KR OF FUEL sn.flb
SO? GRAMS/HG OF FUEL P.00
SB
1S.S/S
i<;
i 'i. i / *
11
3.0/*
3
13.0/S
1.10
2.0/3
.07
3b.q/3
110.7
.7/3
S.I
15
15
1.8»
108.q
0.0
1.81
3.75
7l?7.3q
15.18
(1.00
HC GRAMS/MTN .us
CO QRAMS/MIN . ?.
COS GRAHS/niN 30b
NOX GRAMS/MIN 1 . 'It
SOS GRAMS/MIN II.11(1
CARBON BALANCe FUEL ECONOMY = M.qb I.ITRFS PFH HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
T A S L F
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FMl'-l SINGLE HAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE
OATf S/lU/77
MQDI-L 117K CHEVY
RUN [HIHATIUN ?3.?R
CVS Hl.UWrH TEST VOL.
TIME -n MRS.
SET-7
MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN
251.37 ACT. nj. MtTRF
SAMPLE
Pl.RI,
sui (-
DATA
FILHR HO. t7FH-?Rin
SAMIM.E VOL. cu. FT. n.3h
SAMPI.K TEMP. DEG. F us
S4MPLF AREA SO. IN. 2n31Hn.nil
DILU1ION FACTOR ^
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML ?0.nn
STAND. AREA SO. IN. 190837.00
SOH,MICPO(;/FILTER inh-».b7B
SULFUR DIOXIDE OATA
E VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
E TEMP. OEG. F 70
HUMBLER 1 O.dO
FACf.,BUBBLER 1 1
HIIHFILER ? o.nn
F»cr.,flUB8LER ? l
DEN. MICROG/ML ?o.no
AREA,SO. IN. 1.00
MILLIG/BUBBLER 1 0.000
MILLIG/HUHRLER P o.ooo
PPM 0.0
SULFATF AND SO? EMISSIONS
CO
1
M
SAMPI.
SAMP[_
AREA,
OIL.
AREA,
OIL.
STAND
STAND
sn?.
MET
HE i
NET
NET
NET
NET
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL «T.,
SULTATEf MILLIGRAM/TEST
He?sii*, MK.LIGRAM/TFST
so?, GRAM/TEST
SULFA1E, MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
Hesn>t,MILLIi;RAM/KILOMETRE
798. lOb
n.nnn
3b.S<";
o.nnn
TEST NO.
FNT.INE 5.7
KILOMETRES
BACKGROUND
i .nn
70
o.nn
l
1 .no
l .on
o.nno
i .no
70
o.oo
l
n. nn
1
an.oo
i .00
o.ono
o.non
n.o
LITWEO
GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL SO? H2SOH
.711
o.nnn
3B. IS
SO? + H?SO-»
.8bb5
38. Ib
-------
TA9LF
UNIT NO. 7
VEHICLE MUDFL
TEST NO.
IMPALA EM 7
BAROMETER 731.31 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.8 DEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY 82 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1.175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE 5/1B/77 MFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE 5.7t LITRE 8 CURB WT. 0 KG
WET BULB TEMP 30. b DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY It.b GRAMS/KG
YH.
GVM
117b
0 KG
BLOWER DIP. PRESS.,
RAG
BAG
RESULTS
NO.
G2, 711.2 MM
RLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
C02
CO?
CO?
NOX
CO NOX
M NOX
U) NOX
S02
S02
S02
S02
HC
CO
cn?
NOX
S02
HC
CO
C02
NOX
S02
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER
READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
PPM
H?O
1
HO 7 30
12.1/2
12
1H.3/2
1H
bb.O/*
1H8
.H/*
I
10.1/3
1.70
2.1/3
.OH
Hb.3/3
138.1
.5/3
1.5
-n.o/*
-o.o
-n.o/*
-o.o
Rll
131
i.bb
137.b
n.o
3.HI
12.30
2320.2b
23.00
u.on
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS co
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS so?
.21 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.15 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
373.?! GRAMS/KILOMETRE
2.22 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
O.nn GRAMS/KILOMETRE
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 711.2 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. t3 r>EG. C
2t).b/2
?1
15.3X2
15
12. n/*
11
.7/*
1
57.1/3
i.n?
t.l/3
.Ob
31.9/2
31.1
.b/3
1.8
-O.O/*
-n.o
-o.n/*
-n.n
b
in
.ib
38.?
u.n
.HI
l.HR
2310.57
10.Ib
o.nn
3R.b/2
31
lb.b/2
17
18. b/*
100
1.8/*
2
83. 7/3
1.55
3.2/3
.ns
b3.7/2
b3.7
.8/2
.8
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-n.o
13
1.50
b3.0
0.0
1.05
8.11
2017.22
10.50
0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = lb.01 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW = 282.* STD. CU. METRES
-------
TAHLF
FXHAUSf EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NIJM8FR 9
ATE S/lfi/7?
lOPiFL 197b 1NPALA EM 1
iKIVH* SR
IFT FMILR TFMP ?o c
(PFC. HUM. 1?.9 GUAM/KG
TIME -II HRS.
SET-7
TEST WT. ??b7 KG.
DRY BULK TEMP ?S C
BARO. 739.1 MM HG.
TEST NO. 1
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV R
GVW n KG
REL. HUM. h3.3 PCT
MEASURED FUEL n.nn KG
CO
I
M
PUN DURATION ?3.?9 MINUTES
RLOWER INLET PRESS. 711.? MM. HPO
RLOWFR OIF. PRESS. 7ii.r MM H?O
PLOWtR INLET TEMP. H3 DEG. C
DYNO REVOLUTIONS 3189H
RLOHER REVOLUTIONS ll?35R
RLOWER cu. CM /REV. eeao
SAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC RACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC RACKGRO PPM
co SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
co SAMPLE PPM
CO RACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO RACKGRD PPM
CO? SAMPIE METER RFADIMG/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? RACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
CO? RACKGRD PERCENT
NUX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX RACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX RACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SOP COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
2?
.*
15
l.Bf
S.H/3
.OB
31.1/3
13.3
1.?
q
38
1.77
1?.3
0.0
1.07
S.1H
39.90
0.00
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .05
co GRAMS/KILOMETRE .•»?.
Cn? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 310
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE 1.B1
SO? GWAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .sn
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUFL H.3
co? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3ibi
MOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1R.90
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL n.nn
CARBON BALANCE FUEL FCHNOHY =
HC GRAMS/MIN .05
CO GRAMS/MIN .H
CO? GRAMS/MIN
NOX GRAMS/MIN
30? RRAMS/MIN
13.21 LITRF3 PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
1.71
n.nij
-------
TABLE
03
I
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 9
DATE 5/1H/77 TIME -0 MRS.
MODEL 117b IMPALA EM 7 SET-7
RUN DURATION S3.P9 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN SI.'
cvs BLOWER TEST VOL. 250.58 ACT. cu. METRES
SAMPLE
SULFATE DATA
FILTER NO. 47 FH SHI?
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 14.SS
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F 85
SAMPLE AREA SO. IN. 10Rqb7.00
DILUTION FACTOR 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/Ml. SO.00
STAND. AREA SO. IN. Iflbbh7.00
S04,MICROG/FILTER lib.750
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F
AREA,BUBBLER 1
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1
AREA,BUBBLER S
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER ?
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML
STAND. AREA,SO. IN.
802, MILLIG/BUBBLER 1
sos, MILLIG/BUBBLER s
SOS, PPM
SULFATE AND SOS EMISSIONS
1.00
70
0.00
1
o.on
l
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET HSS04,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET sos,GRAM/TEST
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET H2SOH,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET SOS,GRAM/KILOMETRE
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL NT., 5J58 GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
BO.ObS
81.743
0.000
B.b'H
3.717
0.000
TEST NO. 1
ENGINE S.7 LITKEU
KILOMETRES
BACKGROUND
1 .00
70
0.00
1
) .00
1.00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL SOS HSSOf
.b7
0.000
0.00
.OSb7
SOS + HSSOt
.OSb7
4.00
-------
UNIT NO. 952
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO.
CHEVY IMPALA
BAROMETER 739.1H MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.b DEC. C
PEL. HUMIDITY 37 PCT.
TABLE VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
1 DATE 5/2b/77 MFGR. CODE
ENGINE S.7H LITRE B CURB WT.
-0
0 KG
YR.
GVM
197b
n KG
WET BULB TEMP lb.1 DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 7.7 GRAMS/KG
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.,
BAG RESULTS
G2, 73b.b MM. H?0
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 73b.b MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. H3 DEC. C
03
I
to
CTi
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COS BACKGRD PERCtNT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
SO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SO? SAMPLE PPM
SO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
90? BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
90? CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
1
H0821
7b.H/2
7b
?0.5/?
?0
bS.b/*
1H7
.7/*
1
H3.0/2
l.SO
1.7/2
.Ob
»b.9/3
1*0.7
.»/3
1.?
-O.O/*
0.0
-O.O/*
0.0
5S
139
1.8*
139.7
0.0
8.58
1?.?9
CO? MASS GRAMS 257b.38
NOX MASS GRAMS
90? MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC .?5 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS CO 1.25 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS CO? H39.37 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS NOX 1.H3 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS SO? 0.00 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
18. f 5
0.00
2
70505
31.9/2
3?
17.2/2
17
51. 9/*
H9
.9/*
2
b9.1/3
1.25
1.7/2
.Ob
27.H/2
27. <»
1.?
-O.O/*
0.0
-O.O/*
0.0
Ib
Hb
1.19
?b.3
0.0
1.23
7.03
2871.53
b.Ol
0.00
3
fOSbl
HO.1/2
HO
15.0/2
15
b2.9/*
bl
2.0/*
2
92.0/3
1.72
H.5/3
.07
H5.0/2
HS.O
.8/2
.8
-O.O/*
0.0
-O.O/*
0.0
27
5fa
l.bb
HH.3
0.0
l.H
H.97
2320.SB
S.8b
0.00
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE a 5.3 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 152
DATE 5/2b/77
MODEL 117h CHEVY IMPALA
DRIVER SR
WET BULB TEMP S3 C
SPEC. HUM. 12.1 GRAM/KG
TIME -0 HRS.
SET-7
TEST WT. aab7 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 31 C
BARO. 737.1 MM HG.
TEST NO. a
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV 8
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. *5.b PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS,
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
23.21 MINUTES
711.2 MM. H20
MM H20
711.2
H3
317tlb
11231f
DEG. C
BLOWER CU. CM /REV. 2230
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
302 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .08
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE 2.10
COS GRAMS/KILOMETRE 350
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE 1.13
SOa GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .72
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 18.8
COa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3137
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 10.lt
302 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
25.3/2
25
ia.e/a
13
Bt.b/*
201
l.O/*
2
tS.S/a
a. 03
i.t/a
.05
se. a/a
ss. a
181
1.S1
57. «f
0.0
1.75
tS.lfa
?bSb.ao
at. 75
o.oo
HC GRAMS/MIN .07
CO GRAMS/MIN 2.0
COa GRAMS/MIN 321
NOX GRAMS/MIN I.Ob
302 GRAMS/MIN 0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY a 15.12 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 152
DATE s/2b/77 TIME -o MRS. TEST NO. 2
MODEL 117b CHEVY IMPALA 3ET-7 ENGINE 5.7 LITREO
RUN DURATION 23.21 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21. 8b KILOMETRES
CVS 8LOMER TEST VOL. 250.Hb ACT. CU. METRES
CD
I
NJ
oo
SAMPLE
3ULFATE DATA
FILTER NO. H7FH-2811*
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. lt.H2
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F SO
SAMPLE AREA SO. IN. b»30«KOO
DILUTION FACTOR 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 5.00
STAND. AREA SO. IN. 171881.00
SO»,MICROG/FILTER 18.70b
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F 70
AREA,BUBBLER 1 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,BUBBLER 2 0.00
OIL. FACT..BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SO. IN. 1.00
302, MILLIG/BUBBLER 1 0.000
302, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2 0.000
302, PPM 0.0
3ULFATE AND 302 EMISSIONS
NET 3ULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET H230H,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET 302,GRAM/TEST
NET 3ULFATE,HILCIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET H230H,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET 302,GRAM/KILOMETRE
12.717
13.0b5
0.000
.585
.518
0.000
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL NT., 2HHO GRAMS
SULFUR/GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL 302 H2SOH
.7b
0.000
0.00
.00*3
.Sb
S02 + H2SOH
.00*3
.5b
-------
TABLE
UNIT NO. 7
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO.
CHEVY IMPALA
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE 5/3D/77 MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 5.7* LITRE 8 CURB WT.
-0
0 KG
YR.
GVM
197b
0 KG
BAROMETER 7*0.bb MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. Z$.b DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 57 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIP. PRESS., G2, 71]. 5 MM.
BAG RESULTS
H20
BAG MO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
1 NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
kJ NOX BACKGRD PPM
302 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
S02 SAMPLE PPM
S02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
S02 BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
802 CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
1
*0b50
15.5/3
155
1.5/3
15
3b.5/3
872
.7/3
15
*2.2/2
1.85
1.9/2
.07
*0.8/3
122.*
.7/3
2.1
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
1*2
812
1.80
120. b
0.0
b.2*
71. 9b
C02 MASS GRAMS 2512. 3b
NOX MASS GRAMS
302 MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC .3b GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS CO 3.h? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS C02 *21.95 GRAMS/KILOMFTRE
WEIGHTED MASS NOX l.*2 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS 302 O.nO GRAMS/KILOMETRE
18.2*
0.00
WET BULB TEMP 19.* DEC. C
AB3. HUMIDITY 11.9 GRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 711.2 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. *3 DEG. C
Z
b9830
25.i/a
25
l.b/3
Ib
70.9/*
b9
.*/3
9
b7.b/3
1.22
1.1/2
.07
2*.5/2
2*.S
.b/3
1.8
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
11
59
1.15
28.9
o.n
.80
8.92
2770.31
5.9*
0.00
3
H0579
*5.b/2
*b
12.5/2
13
Bb.7/*
87
9. Z/*
9
87.3/3
I.b2
-------
TABLE
ro
i
OJ
O
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VF.HICLE NUMBER 7
DATE S/1C1/77
MOOEL 197b CHEVY IMPALA
DRIVER SR
WET BULB TEMP 18 C
SPKC. HUM. 10. t, GRAM/KG
TIMF -o HR9.
SET-7
TEST WT. n KG.
OHY BULB TEMP 25 C
BA.RO. 7f0.7 MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV 8
GVM 0 KG
REL. HUM. 52.5 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
RLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
23.2B MINUTES
711.2 MM. H20
711.? MM H20
t3 DEC. C
1122b3
2530
METF.R READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METF.R READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
RAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRO PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX RACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
HC
CO
HC
CO
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
302 MASS (GRAMS)
2H
13.8/2
1H
54. 5/*
12. I/*
23
H5.1/2
2.01
1.9/2
.07
bl.b/2
bl.b
1.2/2
1.2
12
93
1.95
bO.b
0.0
1.50
22.80
7510.53
?1.28
0.00
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .07
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE l.OH
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 3H3
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE 1.11
302 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.0(1
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .b3
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUFL 9.5
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 315?
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 10.15
SO2 GRAMS/KG OF FUFL O.On
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY =
HC GRAMS/MIN .Ob
CO GRAHS/MIN 1.0
coa GRAMS/MIN 32*
NOX GRAMS/MIN 1.04
S02 GRAMS/MIN 0.00
l».7b LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 7
td
LO
DATE 5/30/77 TIME -0 MRS. TEST NO. 2
MODEL n?b CHEVY IMPALA SFT-7 ENGINE 5.7 LITREO
RUN DURATION S3.28 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21.1b KILOMETRES
CVS BLOWER TEST VOL. 250.38 ACT. CU. METRES
SAMPLE
SULFATE DATA .
FILTER NO. H7FH-28SO
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 13.73
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F 81
SAMPLE AREA SO. IN. blDlb.OO
DILUTION FACTOR 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 5.On
STAND. AREA SO. IN. 19397^.00
SOt,MICR06/FILTER 15.758
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. l.Ofl
SAMPLE TEMP. OEG. F 7(1
AREA,BUBBLER 1 O.OU
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 I
AREA,BUBBLER 2 Ci.dO
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER S 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SQ. IN. 1.00
302, MILLIG/BUBBLER 1 0.000
sos, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2 o.ooo
sos, PPM o.o
SULFATE AND SOS EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET H2SOt,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET 302,GRAM/TEST
NF.T SULFATE, MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET HSSOH,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET 302,GRAM/KILOMETRE
11.H92
11.733
n.ooo
.533
0.000
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., S312 GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL 302 H2SOt
o. n n o
o.oo
.0038
.52
S02 t H3S04
.0038
.52
-------
TABLE
UNIT NO. 9S2
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 1
CHEVY IMPALA
BAROMETER 739.39 MM OF HG.
DRY BULR TEMP. 22.8 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 73 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
RLOWER DIF. PRESS., G2, 711.2 MM.
RAR RESULTS
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE (,/ 2/77 MFGR. CODE -fl
ENGINE 5.7H LITRE 8 CURB WT. n KG
WET BULB TEMP 19. <» DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 13.1 URAMS/KG
YR.
GVM
I97b
0 KG
H20
RAG NO.
RLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC RACKGRO PPM
CO SAMPLE METER RF ADTNG/3C ALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGKD MFTER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRO PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METFR RE AD TNG/SCALE
CO? BACKGHD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGHD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
SO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SO? SAMPLE PPM
SO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
SO? BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
co MASS GRAMS
i
HObSB
in.b/3
lOb
1.8/3
1R
81. I/*
371
l.H/*
t
•»?.5/?
1.87
1.5/?
.05
39.3/3
117.9
.*/3
1.2
-O.O/*
-o.n
-n.o/*
-o.n
91
3th
1.82
lib. 9
o.n
3.97
30.58
CO? MASS GRAMS ?5H7.b?
NOX MASS GRAMS
SO? MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC ,?B GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS CO 1.28 GRAMS/K I LOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS C02 "U1.7S GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS NOX 2.09 GHAMS/KILOMFTRE
WEIGHTED MASS so? n.nn GRAMS/KILOMFTRE
18. 42
n.on
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 711.2 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. t3 DF.G. C
2
b9812
22.9/2
23
l.h/3
Ih
b.S/*
b
l.l/*
3
b5.3/3
1.17
l.b/2
.Ob
«»9.3/2
H9.3
.5/3
1.5
-o.n/*
-0.0
-o.o/*
-0.0
8
3
1.12
t?.9
o.n
,b2
.•*8
2b7b.l9
12.97
0.00
3
»n735
5b.5/2
5b
If
Hl.b/*
39
2.3/*
2
83.5/3
1.5*
3.0/3
.05
fl.2/2
H9.2
.8/2
.8
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
35
i.sn
t8.5
n.o
1.9t
3.10
2101.08
7.bb
0.00
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE = 5.7 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 95?
DATE b/ a/77
MODEL 197b CHEVY IMPALA
DRIVER SR
WET 9ULB TEMP 18 C
SPEC. HUM. 10.a GRAM/KG
TIME -0 HRS.
SET-7
TEST WT. aab? KG.
DRY BULB TEMP at C
BARO. 739.9 MM HG.
TEST MO. a
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV B
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. sa.O PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
as.as MINUTES
711.a MM. Hao
711.a MM
DEC. C
3230
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
COa SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
COa SAMPLE PERCENT
tfl COa BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
I COa BACKGRD PERCENT
w NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
COa CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SOa COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
HC
CO
HC
CO
COa MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SOa MASS (PRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .11
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .19
coa GRAMS/KILOMETRE ato
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE 1.H7
SOa GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.01
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.7
COa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31b3
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 13.71
SOa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL O.Ofl
3i.3/a
31
13. a/a
it
ao.9/*
ao
a.*/*
a
tt.s/a
1.97
i.7/a
.Ob
sa.a/a
Ba.a
i.a/a
i.a
ao
17
1.91
8i. a
0.0
a. 37
t.05
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN .10
CO GRAMS/MIN .3
COa GRAMS/MIN 318
NOX GRAMS/MIN 1.39
sne GRAMS/MIN o.on
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY = It.57 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAT, SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 152
DATE b/ 2/77 Tint -0 HRS. TF3T NO. 2
MODEL 197b CHFVY IMPALA SET-7 ENGINE 5.7 LITREO
RUN DURATION P3.21 MTN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21.74 KILOMETRES
CVS BLUWFR TEST VOL. 250.h5 ACT. CU. METRES
LO
£>•
SULFATE PATA
FILTER NO.
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F
SAMPLE AREA SQ. IN.
DILUTION FACTOR
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML
STAND. AREA SO. IN.
SOH.MICROG/FILTER
SUIFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F
AREA,BUBBLER 1
DTL. FACT.,BUBBLER J
AREA,BUBBLER 2
OIL. FACT..BUBBLER 2
STAND. DEN. HlCROG/ML
STAND. AREA,SO. IN.
so2, MILLIG/BUBBLER i
302, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2
302, PPM
SAMPLE
H7FH-2B23
1H.R2
H2
259903.00
10
20.00
203708.00
2551.721
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
BACKGROUND
I .00
70
0.00
1
1 .00
1 .00
0.000
1 .00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1 .00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFATE AND S02 EMISSIONS
NFT SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST 1713.b!5
NET H2SO>», MILLIGRAM/TEST O'H.bOl
NET so2,GRAM/TEST o.ooo
NET SULFATF,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE 78.832
NFT H2SOH,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE RO.ffl?
NET S02,GRAM/KILOMETRE 0.000
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 2338 GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL S02 H2SOH
.72
o.noo
0.00
S02
.5721
HSSO*
.5721
-------
TAHLF
UNIT NO. 952
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 1
CHEVY IMPALA
BAROMETER 742.711 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY bb PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIE. PRESS., G2, b9R.5 MM.
RAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
RLOWER REVOLUTIONS
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE b/ b/77 MFGR. CODE -0
ENGINF 5.7* LITRE B CURB WT. 0 KG
WET BULB TEMP 19. f DEC. C
4BS. HUMIDITY 12.b GRAMS/KG
YR. 197b
GVM 0 KG
ro
H20
HC SAMPLE METER
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER
CO RACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLK METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER
READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER
NOX RACKGHD PPM
SO? SAMPLE METER
SO? SAMPLE PPM
SO? BACKGRD METER
SO? BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
CO? CONCENTRATION
NOX CONCENTRATION
SO? CONCENTRATION
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
S03 MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS SO?
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
PPM
11.3/3
113
1.9/3
19
hl.7/*
2H9
1.9/*
3
97.H/3
1.R3
3.9/3
.Ob
H3.8/3
131. H
.3/3
. q
-o.n/*
o.n
-o.n/*
o.n
97
232
1.78
130. b
0.0
H.27
20. b7
25ns. in
.38 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
i.ii? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
H08.77 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
j.bn GRAMS/KILOMFTRF
O.nO GRAMS/KILOMFTRE
2n.35
n.no
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl b98.5 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. t3 DEG. C
2
b9879
2b.l/2
2h
1.7/3
17
B.b/*
8
.9/*
3
b5.B/3
1.18
t.3/3
.07
2*. 5
.3/3
.9
-o.n/*
o.o
-o.n/*
o.n
11
5
1.12
23.7
o.n
.80
.Bt
2703. 3h
b.33
o.nn
89.5/2
89
13.b/2
It
59.S/*
57
3.8/*
t
HI. 1/3
I.t9
» .3/3
.07
tfl.b/2
HB.b
.9/2
.9
-O.O/*
0.0
-O.O/*
0.0
77
51
1.H3
t7.8
0.0
3.H2
t.58
2019.20
7.t5
o.nn
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE = 5.7 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TARLF
EXHAUST FMISSIflNS FROM SINGLE HAG SAMPLE
VEHICLF NUMBFR
DATE b / h / 7 7
Monri. ii'h CHEVY IMPALA
DRI VFR SR
WET RIILB TFMP iq c
SPFC. HUH. u.i GRAM/KG
TIME -n MRS.
SFT-7
TEST WT. ??b? KG.
DRY BULB TEMP ?h C
BARO. 7H?.t MM HG.
TEST NO. ?.
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV 8
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 53.0 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION
RLOWEH INLET PRESS.
RLOWFR OIF. PRESS.
RLOWER INLFT TEMP.
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
RLOWER REVOLUTIONS
RLOWER CD. CM /REV.
?3.?1 MINUTES
7M.? MM. H?0
711.? MM H?0
43 PEG. C
31HSO
1J ?5?5
RAG
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO?
CO?
CD ' CO?
1 CO?
*
.q
13
1?
1.7/*
1.9S
1.1/2
.07
81. 3/?
81.3
1. 3/?
1.3
13
in
1.B1
80.?
n.n
1.51
a.3b
73?5.bn
3?. 71
n.nn
HC GRAMS/MIN .n?
CO GRAMS/MIN .1
CO? GRAMS/MIN ?!•*
NOX GRAMS/MTN 1.11
PO? GRAM3/MIN n.nn
CARBON RALAMCE FLIEL ECONOMY = 1H.H? LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
tfl
l
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 153
DATE b/ b/77 TTMh -n HR3. TEST NO. ?
MODEL 117b CHEVY IMPALA SET-7 ENGINE 5.7 LITREO
RUN DURATION 23.29 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21.71* KILOMETRES
CVS BLOWER TEST VOL. 251.HO ACT. CU. METRES
SAMPLE
SULFATE DATA
FILTER NO. t7FH-2f?2b
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 13.I*
SAMPLE TF^IP. DEG. F 8?
SAMPLE AREA SO. IN. 17B3in.nn
DILUTION FACTOR 10
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 20.00
STAND. AREA SO. IN. 205157.00
SO<*,MICROG/FILTER 1739.278
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. cu. FT. i.nn
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F 70
AREA,BUBBLER 1 O.OP
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,BUBBLER 2 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SO. IN. 1.00
S02, MILLIG/PUBBLER 1 0.000
so2, MILLIG/RUBBLER 2 o.ooo
S02, PPM 0.0
SULFATE AND 302 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET H2SOt,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET S02,GRAM/TEST
NFT SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET H2SOH,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NFT 302,GRAM/KILOMETRE
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 231H GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
132b.233
o.ono
hi. Oil
0.000
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
o.on
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL S02 H2SO^
.72
O.OOO
0.00
bl.72
S02 + H2SOH
.ft28
bl.72
-------
APPENDIX C
COMPUTER PRINTOUTS
FOR
HIGH TEMPERATURE EXHAUST SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT TESTS ON A 1975 CHEVROLET NOVA
(Tests in Chronological Order)
-------
U.'JIT MO. S TEST NO.
VFHICLF MODEL NOVA CHFVUOLtT
RARl)Mf TFR 7M1.17 MH (IF HG.
ORv *IILH TFMP. ?5.b DFT, . c
REl. HUMIDITY bH PTT.
TAMLF VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1175 Llr,HT UUTY EMISSIONS TF.ST
HATE 5/13/77 MFCS.
ENGINE 5.7t LITRf CURB
CODE
WT.
-it
n
YR.
I. VH
1 S ;
WFT BULB TEMP ?0.b OEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 13. H GRAMS/KG
n
I
to
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.,
RAT, RESULTS
RAT, NO.
HLOWER REVOLUTIONS
G?, 711.8 MM. H?0
RLUWER INLET PRFSS., GI 711.2 MM. H?U
HLOWER IMLET TFMP. 4? OFG. C
HC
HC
HC
HC
en
en
ru
ro
CO?
CO?
COP
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
SO?
30?
SO?
so?
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
so?
HC
CO
ro?
NOX
SO?
SAMPLE MFTFW READING/SCALE
SAMPLF PPM
OACKGRD MfTF.R READING/SCALE
BACKr,RO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD MFTER READTNG/SCALE
BACKGNO PPM
SAMPLE MFTFR READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGHO MFTFR READING/SCALE
BACKfiRf) PFHCENT
MFTFR RFAOING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
flACKGHD METFR RF ADING/SC ALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METFR READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKRHD METF.H READING/SCALE
HACKGNO PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MAS3 GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
1
in.h/3
ntb
l.t/3
14
73. R/*
3?1
,5/*
1
1.7/2
.nb
52. 7/2
52.7
.7/2
. 7
-n.n/*
-n.n
-n.o/*
-n.o
3H2
1.79
52.1
n.n
•». 13
2b.77
8. 32
n. nn
20.5/P
20
1.3/3
1 3
?_ •* . t /*
27
,3/*
1
27.1/2
1. 11
1.3/2
.(15
12.1/2
12.1
.7/2
.7
-n.il/*
-o.n
-n.n/*
-u.o
25
l.nb
11.5
0.0
.b5
3. 88
2558.33
3. If
n.no
35.2/2
35
27.1/2
27
HH . 8/*
» 2
.7/*
I
3b. 7/2
I. ^7
l.b/2
.Ob
PR.b
.b/2
.b
-O.O/*
-n.o
-o.o/*
-n.o
) i
9S
1.52
?R.l
n.o
.50
3.50
2133.37
Y. H
n.nn
WEIRHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS co
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS 302
.2? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
!.<»•» GRAMS/KTLOMETRE
q? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.77 GPAMS/KILOMETRE
o.ou GHAMS/KILOMFTRE
CARBON BALANCE FUF.L CONSUMPTION = 17.?h LITRES PFR HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW = 2B3.3 STD. CU. METRES
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 1
DATE 5
MODEL 1175 NOVA CHEVY
DRIVER S'H
WET BULR TFMP JIM C
SPEC. HUM. U.l GRAM/KG
UME -0 MRS.
SET-7
TEST WT. 1R1H KG.
DRY BULB TEMP ?7 C
BARO. 7H1.? MM HG.
PUN DURATION
HLOWER INLKT F'RFSS.
BLOWER DIE. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
HYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
RLOWER CU. CM /REV.
23.3? MINUTFS
711.a MM. H?0
MM H?0
711.?
H?
31b03
112380
22?8
DEC. C
TEST NO. ?
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV 8
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. tfi.2 PCT
MEASURED FUEL n.OM KG
O
I
U>
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE MFTER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGHD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGPD METER READING/SCALE
CO? 8ACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGRU METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CD CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
HC
CO
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMR/KILOMHRE .03
CO GRAMS/KILOMFTRE .?3
co? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 3?s
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .m
SO? GRAMS/KILOMfTKE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .3?
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL ?.?
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3LK5
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 7.R5
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL fl.no
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY =
35.
35
3t.5
3H
an
I.?/*
1
f 3.0/2
1.10
l.B/2
.07
.7/2
.7
t,
?0
1.8H
H3.3
O.ll
.7?
t.qq
7133.2?
17. bl
o.on
HC GRAMS/MIN .03
CO GRAMS/MIN .?
cog GRAMS/MIN sob
NOX GRAMS/MIN ,7b
SO? GRAMS/MIN 0.00
It.05 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TAHIF
tXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLF RAG RAHPIE
VtHICLF NUMHFR 1
04TE 5/13/77 TIMF -n MRS. TEST NO. 8
MIIDFL I'm NOVA CHEVY SfcT-7 ENGINE 5.7 LITREO
HUM DURATION ??.3? MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN ai.?t KILQHETRFS
cvs HLUHLH HST V
-------
UNIT Mf). q
VEHTCI F MOOf L
TEST MM.
NOVA CHEW
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1175 Llr;HT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
('ATE b/JO/77 MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 5.7H LITRE H CURB WT.
-D
0 KG
YR.
GVM
1175
a KG
BAWOMFTFR 7M.93 MM HE HP,.
DRY HHLH TFMP. 5.1.3 [)FG. C
PEL. HUMIDITY hh PCT.
o
i
Ln
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIE.
RESULTS
PRESS., G?. bSS.B MM. H?.0
MAG NO.
HLOWER hFVtlLUT JONS
HC SAMPLE MFTFR REAOTNG/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BAC.KGHO MEIFR READING/SCALP
HC HAC.KGHO PPM
TO SAMPLE MFTFR REAOI NG/SC ALE
TO SAMPLE f'PM
TO RACKRRD MFTFR REAOTNG/SCALE
CO BACKRRD PPM
ro? SAMPLE HFTER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PFPCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKRRD PFRCENT
MOX SAMPLE METFR READING/SCALE
MOX SAMPLF PPM
NOX BACKRRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKRRD PPM
SO? SAMPLE MFTER READING/SCALE
SO? SAMPLE PPM
SO? BACKRRD MFTER READING/SCALE
SO? HACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION Pf.T
MOX CONCENTRATION PPM
Sfl? CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
TO MASS GRAMS
i
lObht
lb.5/3
Ib5
1.8/}
18
75. 8/*
331
1.5/*
13
15.2/2
2.02
2.1/2
.08
b3.0/2
b3.0
.8/2
.q
-o.n/*
-n.o
-n.o/*
-0.0
ISO
303
J .15
b2.3
0.0
b.M
27.01
CO? MASS GRAMS 27«tb.01
NOX MASS GRAMS
SO? MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC .31 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WFTRHTFD MASS CO 1.7? GkAMS/K H.OMFTRE
WFIRHTFD MASS en? 437.10 GF;AMS/KILOMFTRE
WFIGHTFO MASS NOX .77 GPAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS so? n.no GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1.55
n.no
WET BULB TEMP 18.1 OEG. C
AB3. HUMIDITY 12.1 GRAKS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRE33., Gl BBS.8 MM. H20
BLOWER INLF.T TEMP. 13 OEG. C
2
blbBl
21.1/2
2?
1.8/3
1H
43. b/*
1).
H.I/*
12
bb.b/3
1.20
1.8/2
.07
12.1/2
12.1
.7/2
.7
-o.n/*
-o.n
-o.o/*
-o.o
b
28
1.11
12.3
0.0
.H2
H.31
2738.75
3.22
0.00
3
H0b7b
53.2/2
S3
22.1/2
22
51. H/*
111
11. B/*
] 1
12.8/3
1 .71
3.b/3
.Ob
23.5/2
23.5
.5/2
.5
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
15
l.bl
23.1
0.0
1.50
8.51
2377.10
3.53
o.no
FUEL FCONllMY PY CARBON BALANCE = 5.3 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE P»G SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBFR q
OATF h/lfl/77 TIME -Cl HRS.
"OOEI 1975 NOVA CHEW EM-qSET-7
DRTVF^ RP TEST WT. IR1H KG.
WFT flMLP TFMP 19 ( DRY BULB TpMP ?h C
SPFC. HUM. in.<4 r.pAM/Kr, BAHO. 7t?.9 MM HG.
TEST NO. 8
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV 8
GVW o KG
REL. HUM. HR.f, PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.on KG
RUM
RLOWEH INI.FT PPFSS.
RLOWFP OIF. PRF.SS.
BLOWER INLFT TFMP.
HYNP WF v/OL"T IONS
71 J .8
7)1.8
"»3
-n
1)
MINUTES
MM. H?0
MM H?0
DEG. C
PLOWFP C'J. CM
o
RAG
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
cn
CO?
cn?
CO?
CO?
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO?
NOX
SO?
HC
CO
C08
NOX
SO?
"FSULTS
SAMPLE
MFTFR READING/SCALE
S A M P I. F PPM
RACKGRD MFTEH READING/SCALE
PPM
MFTER REAPING/SCALE
PPK
RACKGRD MCTFR READING/SCALE
RACKGHD PPM
SAMPLF MFTER RFAUING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
PACKGRD MFTER READING/SCALE
RACKGKO PERCENT
M^TEP REAOING/SCALE
ROM
RACKGRD MFTER RFAOING/SCALE
RACKGRD PpM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PfT
CONCENTRATION PPM
COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
HC GRAM,
-------
TABLE
O
EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMRFR 1
HATE b/lfl/77 TIME -(I HRS. TEST NO. ?
MODEL 1H75-NOVA CHEVY FM-qSFT-7 ENGINE 5.7 LITREO
RUN DURATION ?3.?7 MIN. DISTANCE ORIVFN ?1.7<* KILOMETRES
CVS RLOWFR TEST VOL. PSn.qa ACT. CU. METRES
SULFATE DATA
FILTER NO.
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F
SAMPLE ARFA SO. IN.
DILUTION FACTOR
STAND. ^EN. MICROG/ML
STAMO. AREA SO. IN.
SAMPLE
H7FH-?R28
I t . n I
Rl
SMI FUP DIOXIOE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. cu. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. OEG. F
AREA,RUR8LFR 1
DTL. FACT. , BUBBLER 1
AREA, HUMBLER 2
OTL. FACT. , BUBBLER 5
STAND. OEN. MICROG/ML
STAND. AREArSQ. IN.
so2, MILLIG/BUBBLER i
snj, MILLTG/RIJRBLFP ?.
303, PPM
5
20.00
?qqb5b.DO
i.on
70
O.on
1
0.00
}
i.oo
l.OD
o.noo
n.onn
P.O
SULFATF AND SO? EMISSIONS
NET SULFATErMILLIGRAM/TFST
NET H?SO>t,MILLIGRAM/TFST
NFT SO?, GRAM/TEST
NFT SULFATE, MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NFT H?SOH, MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET S02, GRAM/KILOMETRE
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., ?738 GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
308.851
315.337
0.000
1».?08
It.507
0.000
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
1
1 .00
1 .00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0,00
1
) .00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
.R5
n. n n n
o.nn
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL S02 H2S01*
.1031
805 + H290-*
.1031
12.15
-------
n
CD
UN i i MIJ.
VEHICLE '
q T K S> T N11. 1
L CHtVf NOVA
HARdMrTER 73H.9II MM Of HG.
DRY UHL8 IFMP. ?.? OER. C
RKL. HUMIDITY 57 P.CT.
EXHAII.S r
TABLE VEHH.LF EMISSION RESULTS
1475 LIGHT UllTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE b/?8/77 MFGR. CODE -n
FNRINE S.7H LITKF B CURB wT. 0 K1,
WET BULB TEMP ib.7 DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY q.H GRAMS/KG
YR.
HLOWER DIF. HKfrSS., 0.?, 711.5 MM. H?0
HAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
RLOWtR REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE MEIt-R READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC HACKGHO METPW "EAOING/SCALE
HC RACKGRO PFM
CO SAMPLE MtTER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO HACHG*0 METFR READING/SCALE
CO SACKGRU P»-M
CO? SAKPLt MfTER HEADING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
CO? HACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE M(;T£R READING/SCALE
NUX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRO PPM
SO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
302 SAMPLE PPM
SO? OACKGRf) METErt READING/SCALE
SO? BACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS fiRArtS
302 MASS GRAnS
77
12.7/2
13
Bb.l/*
.5/*
1
1 ."f
l.H/2
.07
b7.J/2
b7.J
.9/2
. q
-o.n/*
n.0
-o.o/*
o.n
193
l.HB
bb.3
0.0
2.89
17.12
? b 3 f . K 3
9.35
(1.00
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS tn
WElUHTED MASS CO?
^FIRhTED MASS NOx
"EIGHTEO MASS SO?
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
•His.hb GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.77 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
a.oii GKAMS/KILOMETRE
INLET PRESS.
bLOi-ER INLET TEMP.
ao.s/e
13
3b.3/*
3f
b?.S/3
1.1 J
J ,7/?
.Ob
12. »
.9
-O.IJ/*
U.ll
-tt.nx*
o.n
q
3?
I.Ob
11. b
0.0
.b7
H.87
2532. tri
a. so
0.00
?5
IS. 8/2
13
b3.ll/*
hi
.8/*
1
RS.fl/3
1.59
3.5/3
.(IS
30.7/2
30.7
.b/?
.b
-O.O/*
0.0
-O.O/*
0.0
I1*
57
1.5t
30. 5
0.0
.bl
5.05
o.ou
M 711. ? MM. HBO
H2 UEG. C
FUEL ECONOMY HY CAHhON BALANCE = S.7 KILOMETKE/LITHE
-------
TABLE.
EXHAUST FMISSIflNS FROM THREE HAG
VEHICLE NUMBER q
SAMPLE
OATE 3H/ I./77 TIME J HRS. TEST NO. I
MODEL 1H7S CHEVY NOVA FNfilNE 5.7 LITKEO
PUN DURATION b?.bO MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 17.R1* KILOMETRES
CVS iJLDrf^K TEST VOL. 33b.tl ACT. CO. METRES
SULFATE DATA
SAMPLE
HACKGRUUND
O
I
SAMPLE VOL. CU. Fl.
SAMPLE TEMP. OFT,. F
SAMPLE AREA SQ. IN.
DILUTION FACTOR
STANO. OEN. MIC.ROG/HL
STAND. ARE4 SQ. IN.
18.2?
7h
7313b.no
1
?n.on
205171.00
71.
SULFUR OIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.011
SAMPLE Tf.flp. OEG. F 70
AREA,HIIBBLER 1 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA.HUMBLER 2 0.00
OIL. FACT.,8USBLER S J
STAND. OEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SO. IN. 1.00
see, MILLIG/BUBBLER i o.ooo
SOS, MILLIG/BUBBLER 3 O.OOn
S05, PPM 0.0
SULFATE AM) SU2 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST 53.095
NET HaSOf,MILLIGRAM/TEST 54.210
NET sue,GRAM/TEST o.ooo
NET SULFATE,MILLIGKAM/KILOMETRE ?.97b
NET H2SC"*, MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE 3.03B
NET S02,GRAM/KILOMETRE 0.000
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL HT., ?327 GRAMS
1 .(10
70
0.00
1
J .UO
1 .00
0.000
l.UIJ
?n
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
n.ooo
0.0
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL SO? HPSOH
,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
.72
O.MOO
0.00
.0177
SOS + H2SOH
.0177
-------
TABLE
EXHAU3T EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 9
O
I
DATE b/28/77
MODEL 1175 CHEVY NOVA
DRIVER SR
WET BULB TEMP 17 C
SPEC. HUM. 10.0 GRAM/KG
TIME -0 HR3.
SET-7
TEST WT. 0 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 23 C
BARO. 739.1 MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV 8
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 5*.1* PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION
BLOHER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIP. PRESS.
RLOWER INLET TEMP.
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
RLOWER CU. CM /REV.
23.33 MINUTES
711.2 MM. H20
711.2 MM H20
13 DEG. C
31091
11S9H2
223»
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
HC
CO
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE
C02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE
30? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
.05
.20
32b
.73
0.00
.»8
1.1
31b5
7.07
0.00
IB.1*/?
IB
ll.H/2
11
20. 2/*
19
.87*
1
97.8/3
1.8H
f .9/3
.08
2.9/2
2.9
9
17
1.7B
39.1
0.0
1.07
t.3b
708«».23
IS. 83
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN .05
CO GRAMS/MIN .2
C02 GRAMS/MIN 30*
NOX GRAMS/MIN .bB
302 GRAMS/MIN 0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY = 13.95 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER q
n
i
DATE b/28/77 TIME -0 MRS. TEST NO. 2
MODEL 1^75 CHEVY NOVA SET-7 ENGINE 5.7 LITREO
RUN DURATION 33.33 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21.71* KILOMETRES
CVS BLOWER TEST VOL. 258.9b ACT. CU. METRES
SAMPLE
SULFATE DATA
FILTER MO. 47FH-28H7
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. lt.39
SAMPLE TEMP. DE6. F 80
SAMPLE AREA SQ. IN. SbObfO.OO
DILUTION FACTOR 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 20.00
STAND. AREA SQ. IN. 212215.00
SO»,MICROG/FILTER 339.882
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
SAMPLE TEMP. OEG. F 70
AREA,BUBBLER 1 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,flUBBLER 2 0.00
OIL. FACT..BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. OEN. MICROG/ML i.oo
STAND. AREA,SO. IN. 1.00
302, MILLIG/BUBBLER 1 0.000
so2, MILLIG/RUBBLEN 2 o.ooo
302, PPM 0.0
SULFATE AND S02 EMISSIONS
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
1
1.00
1 .00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
NET SULFATEfMILLIGRAM/TEST 2tS.271
NET H2SOf,MILLIGRAM/TEST 250.H30
NET 302,GRAM/TEST 0.000
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE 11.28f
NET H2SOt,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE 11.521
NET 302,GRAM/KILOMETRE 0.000
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 2238 GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
SULFUR IN FUEL,
FUEL 302
.0310 PCT.
H230t
.bl
o.non
o.oo
.0811
11.80
302 + H2SOH
.OBIS
11.80
-------
KXHAU8T EMISSIONS FROM SINGLF H4R SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER H
PATF h/PH/77
MODEL 1975 f"OVA CHFVY
nRlvew sw
WET HULR TEMP IB C
SPFC. HUM. JU.II (.WAN/KG
TINE -U MRS.
FET
TEST »»T. 0 KG.
ORY BULH TEMP ?s c
BAKU. 73H.h MM HG.
TEST ND. 3
ENGINE- 5.7 LITHFV R
GVW 0 KG
RF.L. HUM. fq.i PCT
MEASURED FUEL u.im KG
RUM DURATIUN
RLHWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER D1F. PRESS.
BLIMEH INLET TEMP.
DYNO RFVdLHTlONS
PLOHER REVOLUTIONS
RLO^tH CU. CM
12.75 MINUTES
7) 1 .?
711.?
f 3
23f OS
2230
MM. H?0
MM H20
OEG. C
O
I
RAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CU
C02 SAMPLE
CO? SAMPLE
METEW u± ADING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGKU MtTFR READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE KKTER RE ADI NG/SC ALF
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGHD MFTFB Rfc AO I NG/3C ALE
HACKGHO PPM
METF.R READING/SCALE
PEKCENT
CM? HACKGRD MFTER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE MEIER HEADING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX HACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX RACKGRl) PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAnS)
20
10.R/2
11
1R.7/*
18
1. I/*
1
51.1/2
?.3f
1.7/2
.fib
hl.7/?
hi. 7
1.1/2
l.R
11
It.
2.21
bO.l
n.o
.7?
2.01
12.91
o.on
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .Of
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .13
CO? GRAMS/KILOhETRF 2SF
NOX GRAMS/KHUMF1RE .7R
SO? GRANS/KILUMFTr'F O.CIC1
HC GRAMS/Kr, OF FUEL .fS
CO GfJAMS/KR liF FUEL l.»
CO? URAMS/KG OF FUEL 31bb
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 8.f2
SO? UrtAHS/KG OF FUEL (I.OH
BALANCE Fi/(-L ECfNUMY r
HC GR»MS/MIN .ob
CO GRAMS/MIN .2
CO? f.RAMS/MIN 381
NOX GHAMS/MIN l.lll
SO? GHAMS/MIN n.OI)
12.bO LITRFS PER HUMORED KILOMfTERS
-------
TAHLE
O
I
FXH4IIS1 EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE HAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE MUMREK S
DATE b/efl/77, TIME -n MRS. TEST NO. 3
MODEL 117S NOVA CHEVY FET ENGINE 5.7 L'TRFU
KUN DUKATIHN 12.7S MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN Ib. HP KILOMETRES
CVS BLCHEK TEST VOL. 137.53 ACT. CU. METRES
SULFATE DATA
FILTER NO.
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT.
SAMPLE Tf-MP. DEG. F
SAMPLE AREA S«. (N.
DILUTION FACTOR
STAND. DEN. MICRO(.:/ML
STAND. AREA SO. IN.
SOH, MICROS/FILTER
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F
APEA,HUBBLER 1
DIL. FACT.,BUHBLER 1
AREA,flUflBLER 2
DIL. FACT. ,BUBPLER i
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML
STAND. AHEA,SQ. IN.
sos, MILLIG/BUBPLER i
so?, MILLIG/BURBLER ?
305, PPM
SULFATE AND S05 EMISSIONS
SAMPLE
H7FH-2RHR
7.b2
82
l?5S7S.On
5
PU.no
1.0(1
70
0.00
1
O.DIl
1
1.00
1.00
n.ooo
o.ooo
U.O
NFT SULFATE, MILLIGRAM/TEST
NFT HSSO^, MILLIGRAM/TEST
NFT S02, GRAM/TEST
NFT SULFATE, MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET H?SOH, MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET S02, GRAM/KILOMETRE
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 1533 GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
o.ooo
27.51*2
0.000
BACKGROUND
1 .UU
7U
u.im
i
) .00
i.oo
o. o n o
i .00
70
o. no
1
0.00
1
1 .Mil
1.00
0 . 0 0 f)
0.0(10
0.0
SULFUR KM FHFL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL S02
II. (100
0.00
SOB +
31 ,P3
.IHRf
31.23
-------
UN I ! rill .
vmin F
E"9
TfM Nl). 1
NOVA CHtVY
o
I
BAHIIMf TF K 7M ? . 1 •* r
DRY HULR IEMP. r
R E L . HUMIDITY
EXH«UST EMISSIONS
RLOWEK DIF.
BAG RESULTS
or HI;.
71 PC.! .
TAMLF VEHITLF EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMSSIUKb TEST
DATE 7/ 1/77 Mj-GR. CODE -I"
FNGINF 5.7* LITPE 8 CURB NT. 0 Ki-
HE I MULFi TEMP Pcf.e F.'FG. c
AfS. HUMIPITV JS.h t
YR.
l-V*
1H7S
I.
K (-
PRESS., G?, 71J.2 MM. H?0
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE MFTFR
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC HACKGWD METFR
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METFK
CO SAMPLE PHM
CO HACKGKD MtTEH
CO BACKGKO PPM
CO? SAMPLE MFTER
Rt ADING/SCAI F
REAOING/SCALF
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
RFAOING/SCALE
1
H n? 71
b9.1/2
h9
1H. J/2
1H
88. I/*
212
.*/*
1
H3.H/2
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT 1.9?
T02 BACKGKD METtP
C02 tlACKG^u PFRCEN
NOX SAMPLE METER
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BAC"GRD METER
NUX HACKGRO PPM
S02 SAr-iPLE METER
.SO? SAc.PLfc PPM
502 BACKGRFJ MFTFR
SO? 6ACKGRU PPM
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
CO? CONCENTRATION
MOX CONCENTRATION
SO? CONCENTRATION
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS bKAMS
R02 MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS LO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOx
WEIGHTED MASS S02
READING/SCALE
r
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
RFADING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
PPM
2.0/?
.07
59.7/2
59.7
.9/2
.9
-n.ii/*
-0.11
-O.O/*
-O.U
5?
19S
l.Rb
58.9
0.0
2.51
17. h2
2h01.bt
.19 GRAMS/KI|.nMFTRE
1.2* GRAKS/KILflMETRE
H05.19 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.9H GRAMS/KILOMETRE
0.00 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
10.21
n.no
hLUKER INIFT PHFSS., (-,1 7]}.f MM. H20
R INLET TEMP. H? DE&. c
b97in
22.
23
13.5/2
13
33. 3/*
31
.7/*
1
b2.9/3
1.1?
1.9/2
.07
is.H/2
13. R
.9/2
.9
-o.n/*
-o.o
-u.n/*
-o.ci
10
59
l.Oh
13.0
0.0
.78
-».3b
3.8b
0.00
30.1/2
30
13.7/2
It
b7.3/*
bS
1.7/*
2
1.59
3.9/3
.nb
32.3/2
32.3
.7/2
.7
-n.o/*
-o.o
-o.o/*
-o.o
18
bO
1.53
31.7
0.0
.79
5.35
21H8.57
b.1*^
o.no
FUEL ECONOMY RY CAkHilN RAL4NCE = 5.S KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
n
I
FXHAUST EMFSSIONS FROM THKFt BAG
VEHlCLt NUMBf-R
SAMPLE
DATE I/ 7/77 TIMe 1 MRS. TEST Nil. 1
MODEL IT7S NUVA CHEVf EM-9 ENGINE 6.7 LITREO
RUN DURATION 31.31 M1N. DISlAMCf DRIVEN 17. R1 KILOMETRES
cvs HLOWFK TEST VOL. 33^.19 ACT. cu. METRFS
SULFATE OAT A
MO.
VOL.
cu.
F I L T F R
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
S A M P L t A R F A S u .
DILUTION FAC10K
STAND. DEW
STAN I). AREA SQ.
FT.
. F
IN.
SUI.FU« DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. cu. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F
OIL. t- ACT. ,BUhBLER 1
OIL. FACT. ,»URBLFR ?
STAND. OEM. MCPOG/ML
STANU. AfiEA,S«. IN.
so?, MILLIG/HUBHLEK i
soe, MILLIG/BUHBLER 2
so?, PPM
SAMPLE
H7-FH-?Rtq
1 1. 3M
71
?Rj 7.mi
1
20.0(1
s 01 s 19. M n
i.on
70
n.ou
i
n.nn
i
l.o o
i.nn
o.ooo
D.non
o.n
SULFATE AND so? EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NFT H3SOH,MILLIGHAM/TEST
NET S05rGRAM/TEST
NET SULFATE»MILLIf;hAM/KILOMFTRE
NET H2SOH,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET SOe,GRAM/KILOMETRE
SULFU.R BALANCE
FUEL wT.f 231R GRAMS
SULFUR,GkAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
l.SPO
1 . S M)
o.nno
,10H
.1111
n.ono
BACKGROUND
1 .0(1
70
n. on
1
1 .00
) .(id
n.non
1.IIU
70
n. tio
i
o.no
i
j .no
i.no
n.ooo
o.oon
o.o
SULFUR IN FUEL, ,ri31U PCT.
FUEL 503 HSSOH
rj. n o n
n.on
SOP + HSSOt
.OOOfa
-------
TABLE
n
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VF.HIC.LF NUMRER q
DATE ?/ 1/77
MODEL 1175 NOVA CHEVY
we T HULH TEMP
SPFC. HIJM.- I]
]H f
n GRAM/KG
TIME -|i MRS. TEST NO.
SET-7 ENGINE S,
TEST WT. 1R1H KG. GVw n
D^Y BULB TEMP ?t r. RFL. HUM,
8ARO. 7HS.7 MM HG. MEASURED
H
7 LITHEV
K G
|,P.3 PCT
FUEL n.Oll
KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER OIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER KEVOLl'T IONS
BL'IWER CU. CM /REV.
?3.?h MINUTI-S
711.2 MM. H20
711.? MM H?0
•»! DF.G. C
11878
1
MFTFH READING/SCALE
PPM
HACKGHD METFK READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPrt
SAMPLF METER HF A(J I NG/SC ALE
SAMPLE PPM
HACKGHD METER READING/SCALE
RAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
CO? SAMPLE MFTFR RFADING/SCAlE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 HACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX HACKGP.D MtTfc-R REAOING/SCALE
NOX BACKGKD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? COCEN1RATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GKAHS)
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILuNETKE .Ob
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .21
CO? PRAMS/KILOMETRE 31H
NOV GHArlS/KILn^ETKt .P7
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE O.HO
HC
CO
HC
CO
21.1/2
12.
13
21. ?/*
2fl
.]/*
0
S7.3/3
1.83
3.R/3
.Ob
•»b.7/2
Hb.7
1.?
10
19
1.7P
H5.7
0.0
1.23
t.bB
o.no
HC URAMS/KG OF FUEL .5b
CO GKAMS/KG OF FUEL 2.1
CO? GRAMS/KU OF FUFL Blbl
NIOX GRAMS/KG OF hUTL S.75
SO? GHAM5/KG OF FMCL n.nn
CARBON BAL»NCE FHF.L l-rnNUMY =
HC GRAMS/MIN .05
CO GRAMS/MIN .2
CO? GRAMS/MIN ?q?
NOX GRAMS/MIN .82
SO? UHAMS/MIN n.OO
13.H-* LITRES PfcR HHNOREO KILOMETF.RS
-------
T A H L E
FXHAU3T EMISSIONS FROM SINGI.F BAG SAMHfc
VEHTLI.f NUMRF.R 1
?/ 1/77 TIML -ri HRS. TEST tin. ?
MUDF-.L 1178 NOVA CHF.VY Sfc'T-7 ENGINE S.7 LlTl'td
RUN liUKATION P3. ?l, MIN. DISTAMCL DRIVEN Pl.SR KILOMETRES
CVS HLDhFiK TEST VOL. ?SP.31 ACT. Cll. METRFS
SU|
DATA
SAMPIF
BACKRWDUNI)
KTLfEri NO.
SAMPLL VOL. cu. FT.
SAhPLt TEMP. l;EG. F
SAMPLE AREA SO. IN.
DILUTION FACTOH
STAND. OEM. MICHOG/ML
STAND. AREA SO. IN.
S04,MICHOG/FILTFW
17FH-5H50
it.nq
Rll
R7P418.UO
1
50.00
I .00
70
0.00
1
1.00
J .00
0.000
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
n
I
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
SAMPLE TEMP. DEU. F 70
AREA,BURBLEH 1 Q.QQ
DTL. FACT.rBUNHLEtf I 1
APEA.RURBLER ? 0.00
DIL. fACT.,BUflBLFR ? 1
STAND. DEN. MICKOG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SO. IN. 1.00
S02, MILLIG/BUBhLER 1 0.000
SP8, MILLIG/HUflULER 2 0.000
sna, PPM o.o
i.oo
70
o. o u
1
0.00
1
1 .00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFATE AND SOP EMISSIONS
NFT SULFATEf MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET HaSfH, MILLIGRAM/TEST
NFT 502, GUAM/TEST
NFT SULFATE, MILLIGRAM/ KILOMETRE
NFT H3SOH, MILLIGRAM/ KILOMETRE
NfT SOg,GRAM/KII.()METRb
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., aiflli l,l)AMR SULFUR
FUEL
SULFUR, GRAMS .b8
PCT. RECOVERY
183. b?7
1R7.4P3
0.000
B.35S
R.S30
n . o o o
IN FUEL, .0310
SOP
o.noo
n.on
PCT.
HPSOt
.Obl3
q.o?
SOP + HPS04
.Ob.I 3
1.07
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 1
n
M
00
DATE 7/ 1/77
MODEL 197S NOVA CHEVY
DRIVER SR
WET BULB TEMP iq C
SPEC. HUM. 11.8 GRAM/KG
TIME -0 MRS.
FET
TEST WT. 1B1» KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 2b C
BARO. 7*2.7 MM HG.
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV 8
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. Sb.S PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
RLOWER OIF. PRESS.
RLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
12.77 MINUTES
711.8 MM. H20
711.2 MM H20
*3 DEC. C
2231
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX RACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
302 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .03
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .03
C02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 300
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .91
302 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .3b
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .»
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31bB
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 9.b3
SOS GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
18.H/2
IB
12.1/2
12
)•*.«»/*
IS
,3/*
0
52.1/2
2.tO
1.7/2
.Ob
b7.»/2
b?.«t
l.t/2
l.»
8
l»
2.35
bb.3
0.0
.57
.5b
5003.53
15.22
0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY
HC GRAMS/MIN .Of
CO GRAMS/MIN .0
C02 GRAMS/KIN 392 '
NOX GRAMS/MIN l.iq
302 GRAMS/MIN o.oo
ia.8a LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER S
O
DATE 7/ 1/77 TIME -0 HRS. TEST NO. 3
MODEL 1175 NOVA CHEVY FET ENGINE 5.7 LITREO
RUM DURATION 12.77 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN Ib.bl KILOMETRES
CVS BLOWER TEST VOL. 137.50 ACT. CU. METRES
SAMPLE
SULFATE DATA
FILTER NO. t7FH-2asi
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 7.37
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F 8t
SAMPLE AREA SO. IN. 117128.00
DILUTION FACTOR 5
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 20.00
STAND. AREA SO. IN. 20-»b11.00
SO»,MICROG/FILTER S7b.l27
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
SAMPLE TEMP. D£G. F 70
AREA,BUBBLER 1 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,BUBBLER 2 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SO. IN. 1.00
so2, MILLIG/BUBBLER i o.ooo
so?, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2 o.ooo
302, PPM 0.0
SULFATE AND S02 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET H2SOt,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET 302,GRAM/TEST
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET H230H,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET 302,GRAM/KILOMETRE
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 1580 GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
H27.850
t3b.83S
0.000
25.b38
2b.l?b
0.000
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
n.oo
i
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL S02 H230f
.tl
o.oon
o.oo
.If28
21.17
302 + H2SOf
.1*28
21.17
-------
UNIT NO. 9
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 1
NOVA CHEVROLET
TABLE VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE 7/30/77 MFRR. CODE
ENGINE 5.7t LITRE 8 CURB WT.
-0
0 KG
YR.
GVM
1 175
I) KG
n
I
NJ
O
711.5 MM. H20
BAROMETER 7H().9a MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. aa.a DEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY b9 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
RLOWER DIF. PRESS., Ga,
BAG RESULTS
PAG NO.
RLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC RACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRO PPM
COa SAMPLE MFTER READING/SCALE
COa SAMPLE PERCENT
COa BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COa RACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METF.R READING/SCALE
NOX HACKGRD PPM
SOa SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SOa SAMPLE PPM
SOe BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
SOa BACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COa CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SOa CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COa MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
SOa MASS GRAMS
bb.b/a
b?
is.b/a
Ib
bb.S/*
a??
a.s/*
8
f3.b/a
1.93
i.b/a
.Ob
b3.?/a
b3.7
i.3/a
1.3
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
S3
asH
1.88
0.0
ab3n.ba
0.00
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS COa
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS SOa
.15 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
i.BS GRAMS/KILOMETRE
tlS.bB GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.78 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
0.00 GRAMS/KILOMF.TRE
WET BULB TEMP 18.3 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 11.8 GRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 711.5 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. H3 DEG. C
a
b97b7
ao
is
b3.b/*
b3
a. a/*
7
b5.b/3
1.18
.Ob
11.9/2
11.1
1.3/8
1.3
-o.o/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
7
55
1.12
10.7
0.0
.S3
8.31
3.78
0.00
3
»0b03
as.i/a
as
i3.7/a
1H
93.O/*
95
H.7/*
5
83.7/3
1.55
3.9/3
.Ob
30.9/3
30.9
i.o/a
1.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
13
8b
l.»9
30.0
0.0
.57
7.58
2087.58
t.53
0.00
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE = 5,b KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
o
to
TABLE
DATE SO/ 7/77
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM THREE BAG
VEHICLE NUMBER 9
TIME *0000 HRS.
SAMPLE
TEST NO. 1
MODEL 11.75 NOVA CHEVROLET ENGINE 5.7 LITREO
RUN DURATION 31.32 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 17.8H KILOMETRES
cvs BLOWER TEST VOL. ssb.si ACT. cu. METRES
SAMPLE
SULFATE DATA
FILTER NO. H7FH-2852
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 18.03
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F 75
SAMPLE AREA SO. IN. 94798.00
DILUTION FACTOR I
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 5.00
STAND. AREA SO. IN. 1852bS.OO
SO*,MICROS/FILTER 25.5BH
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F ?o
AREA,BUBBLER 1 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,BUBBLER 2 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SO. IN. 1.00
so2, MILLIG/BUBBLER i o.ooo
so2, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2 o.ooo
302, PPM 0.0
SULFATE AND S02 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET H2SOH,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET 302,GRAM/TEST
NET 3ULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NF.T H2SOH,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET 302,GRAM/KILOMETRE
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL NT., 23bO GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
0.000
l.OB*
1.107
0.000
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL 302 H230t
.73
0.000
o.oo
.OObS
.88
802 + H2SOf
.00b5
.88
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 1
DATE 7/50/77 TIME -0 MRS.
MODEL 1175 NOVA CHEVROLET SET-7
DRIVER SR TEST WT. 181* KG.
WET BULB TEMP 17 C DRY BULB TEMP ?3 C
SPEC. HUM. 9.9 GRAM/KG BARO. 7»1.7 MM HG.
TEST NO. a
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV 8
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. St.* PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS. 711.2
BLOWER DIF. PRESS. 711.2
BLOWER INLET TEMP. fa
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
a3.a7 MINUTES
MM. H20
MM H20
fa DEC. C
333Sf
O
M
M
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
CO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
COS SAMPLE PERCENT
COS BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO! BACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COa CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
HC
CO
COa MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
303 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .0*
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .57
COa GRAMS/KILOMETRE 3SS
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .82
SOa GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .31
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL s.b
COa GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3151
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 8.Of
SOS GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY =
ii.s/a
19
If.a/2
If
57.8/*
57
1.5/*
a
f3.t/2
i.ia
2.0/2
.07
f8.3/2
18.3
a.0/2
a.o
7
sa
1.8b
f b.b
o.u
.89
12.78
718b.a7
18.29
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN .Of
CO GRAMS/MIN .5
coa GRAMS/MIN 309
NOX GRAMS/MIN .79
302 GRAMS/MIN 0.00
13.81 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER q
O
I
K>
U)
DATE 7/20/77 TIME -0 MRS. TEST NO. 2
MODEL 1175 NOVA CHEVROLET SET-7 ENGINE 5.7 L1TREO
RUN DURATION 23.27 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 22.31 KILOMETRES
CVS BLOWER TEST VOL. 2511.05 ACT. CU. METRES
SAMPLE
SULFATE DATA
FILTER NO. >»7FH-2BS3
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. It.lb
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F 77
SAMPLE AREA SQ. IN. 1787S1.00
DILUTION FACTOR 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 20.00
STAND. AREA SO. IN. 21'»131».00
SOt,MICROG/FILTER Ibb.IRO
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F 70
AREA,BUBBLER 1 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,BUBBLER 2 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SQ. IN. 1.00
S02, MILHG/BUB8LER 1 0.000
so2, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2 o.ooo
302, PPM 0.0
SULFATE AND S02 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET H2SO»,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET S02,GRAM/TEST
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET H2SOH,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET S02,GRAM/KILOMETRE
118.731
121. 22t
0.000
5.322
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
1
.no
.00
o.ooo
i.oo
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
0.000
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 2275 GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL 302 H2SO*
.71
0.000
0.00
802
5.b2
H2SOt
5.b2
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE
n
DATE 7/80/77 TIME -0 HRS.
MODEL 1175 NOVA CHEVROLET FET
ORTVF.R SR TEST WT. IRlf KG.
WET RULH TEMP IB c ORY BULB TEMP 2b c
SPEC. HUM. 10.f GRAM/KG BARO. 7*1.7 MM HG.
RUN DURATION 12.78 MINUTES
BLOWER INLET PRESS. 711.8 MM. H20
RLOWER DIP. PRESS. 711.2 MM H20
RLOWER INLET TEMP. f2 DEC. C
OYNO REVOLUTIONS ?f238
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS blb03
BLOWER CU. CM /REV. 2229
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV 8
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. HI.7 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
HC
CO
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
302 MASS (GRAMS)
HC
CO
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
GRAMS/KILOMETRE
C02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE
302 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
.02
.10
305
,B8
0.00
.22
i .n
31b7
1.15
0.00
lb.5/2
Ib
13.8/2
If
IS.I/*
If
l.b/*
2
53.1/2
2.f b
2.1/2
.08
b8.7/2
b8.7
1.7/2
1.7
S
12
2.to
b7.3
0.0
.35
l.bO
5015.50
If .72
0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY =
HC GRAMS/MIN .03
CO GRAMS/MIN .1
C05 GRAMS/MIN 3qs
NOX GRAMS/MIN us
SO? GRAMS/MIN 0.00
13.Of LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 9
O
to
DATE 7/20/77 TIME -o HRS. TEST NO. 3
MODEL 11.75 NOVA CHEVROLET FET ENGINE 5.7 LITREO
RUN DURATION 12.78 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN lb.71 KILOMETRES
cvs BLOWER TEST VOL. 137.si ACT. cu. METRES
SAMPLE
SULFATE DATA
FILTER NO. >»7FH-285t
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 7.3H
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F 83
SAMPLE AREA 30. IN. 8?7b5.00
DILUTION FACTOR 5
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 20.00
STAND. AREA 30. IN. 21*13'*.00
SOt,MICROG/FILTER tOI.BbO
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F ?o
AREA,BUBBLER 1 O.flO
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,BUBBLER 2 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,30. IN. 1.00
302, MILLIG/BUBBLER 1 0.000
302, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2 o.ooo
302, PPM 0.0
SULFATE AND 302 EMISSIONS
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
1
00
00
o.uoo
1.00
70
n.oo
1
0.00
1
i.no
i.oo
o.ooo
0.000
0.0
NET SULFATE, MILLIGRAM/TEST
NF.T H2SO>», MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET 302, GRAM/TEST
NET SULFATE, MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET H2S01, MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET 802, GRAM/KILOMETRE
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., IbOS GRAMS SULFUR
FUEL
SULFUR, GRAMS .50
PCT. RECOVERY
3C15.fl7
311.830
0.000
18.27b
IB.bSI
0.000
IN FUEL, .0310
S02
0.000
0.00
PCT.
H2SOH
.1020
20. tf
302 + H2S01
.1020
20.HH
-------
o
KJ
T A PI F.
ii' i r i-in. i
VFHl Cl F "i'|-i( L
TFS1 1C. )
DATE 7/??/?7
ENGINE 5.7* LITRE
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
MFGR. CODE
CURP «T.
-0
0 KG
YR-
1975
0 KG
'•/11 * F I f. P 7 M u ,
pP Y 'II11 li T F MD ,
PEL. Hli'i I DM Y
F«HAtl<5T F'M
HC-.
m
7)1.? "V. H?0
'••F 1 RHTFP" <«3.9 C'l
>• t IFHTFO "A""! rn?
"F1GHTFO MflSH MOV
"•'EIGHTH' ^SS ?n?
IB r,RAMS/KiLOMFTRE
,9S .,.._.
t..nn GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WET BULB TEMP 17.8 DEG. C
ARS. HUMIDITY 10.8 GRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 711.2 MM. HZO
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 43 DEG. C
pan
I, AT,
'•< L n .<
"C
wC
MC
HC
en
ro
ro
CO
C'l?
en?
CD?
CO?
no*
NQX
NOX
•mx
so?
so?
SO?
S'l?
HC
f.ll
rri?
Wll*
so?
HC
eo
CO?
NO*
so?
UFSMI TS
Mr>,
••Fw oF vnU'T TiT>'S
SflMf LF VF TC P
SA.«PI_F ^»'i
H/>rKr,DP .JFTFP
RA(-" ^ F t F R
H A f K G P 0 p P ''
SA».-PLF 'E'FP
PF ftPINR/SCAl F
RF AnjMr,/sc/>LE
PFAOINC/Sr ALF
fjf AOING/STALE
UFADlNp/Sr ALE
SAnPLF MFUCFNl
Hdr^^po '-'
HACKGPn ^fTF.P
"ATKG90 PP^
co>'rE'" I&AT t"M
Cn»CENTPATlnN
CPMCEMPA r ron
CPMCFMTP4T t UN
eOK'CE'iTPAT ION
MAS3 RR A '•••<»
MASS R » A ": S
MASS GRA.'S
MASS r,»AM.«
y«ss r,9A-«$
RfARIMG/Sr &UE
RFAD1NG/SCALE
(•'FADING/SCALE
PFAPJNR/Sr ALE
PPK'
PPM
PCT
PPM
PPM
1
nnbse
72. R/?
73
l^.H/2
1*
hn.i/*
?•*!
1.9/*
b
»H.9/?
2. no
1.1/2
.H5
2b.3/3
78.9
.1/3
.3
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
bl
222
1.9h
78. b
0.0
2. bB
19.78
2759.9?
11. 5b
n.oo
?
b97«;7
21. 9/?
22
1H.B/2
15
Hb.9/*
103
1.7/*
S
b5.7/3
1.18
l.t/Z
.05
13,b/2
13. fa
.1/3
.3
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
•0.0
8
9H
1.13
13.3
0.0
.b«*
1H.35
?729.9b
3.3b
0.00
3
H0b99
29.0/2
29
I*. 3/2
1*
88. H/*
91
1.5/*
3
88.3/3
l.b*
3.9/3
.fib
3B.b/2
38. b
.8/2
.B
•O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
•0.0
Ib
BH
1.59
37.9
0.0
.73
7.51
2239.55
5.57
0.00
FUEL
CAB *»'""•' PALAMCF = s.t KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
O
NJ
-J
EXHAUST FMfSSIONS FROM THREE BAG SAMPLE
1
I ATE f?i •>/->•> Tt"'F *pnriO MRS. TEST NO. 1
MmtL 19?^ NIIVA rHF.vRnLF.1 ENGINE 9.7 LITREO
PIIM |i|jpftTToM ii.i? ^TM. nisTANCE DRIVEN 17.HH KILOMETRES
CVS «l f'."Fo TFST V0| . I37.lt, ACT. CU. METRES
SHI
S6MPLF. VOL. CM. FT.
SAMPLt TF'"P. DF.f;. F
SAMPLE »RF4 s'J. TIJ.
jn.
STAMO. *QFA
SMIFUO
SA>.'P|.F VnL. CU. FT.
3A,«Pi.f TFMP. HEG. F
4UEA,Ri)fiqLER I
TTL. Firr. ,RHaqLFP 1
"IL. F AfT..!»IIP.*LER ?
STAMP). npM. vTCRnfi/ML
5T»Mr). Aof 4, so. IN.
303, MlLl.TG/HiiuuLF1? I
SO?, MJLl TR/rtUUHLF » ?
SO?, PPM
SUI.FATF AMO sn? FMISSTOMS
NET 3i'LFATF..*lTLL
'MFT H?snt, MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET Sf)3,f;RAM/TEST
"•JET SULFATE, MTU.
NET n?sn»,^TLL TI;RAM/K
•-JET Sn?. r,
SULFUR RA
FHFL «T., eth? GRAMS
SHUFHR, r;
PTT.
E
BACKGROUND
iFH.pfl^?
n.7h
71
i^so. nn
i
?o.no
i<»5.no
".t70
) .no
?n
n.oo
i
n.oo
i
1 .00
I. no
o.nnn
o.nno
n.o
7.0H7
7.1S5
0.000
METPE .315
TRF ,
-------
T « a L F
T EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAR SAMPLE
VFHTCLF
O
I
|SJ
00
Tl"F -n HRS. JEST NO, ?
CHF.vtTiLET SfcT-7 ENGINE 5.7 LITRFO
MJf: DUETTO") ?}.?? "IN. DISTANCE DRIVEN ? ?. * h KILOMETRES
cvs HI.II.-.F? TFST VOL. ?sn.t,t ATT. cu. METRES
SUIFMF n»TA
SA»1PLF VOL. CM. FT.
3AMP|_F TFMP. OFR. F
Si'-'PLF flPFA SO. IN.
DILUTION FACTOR
STANn. OFKI. MICPnr;/ML
SULFUo
SAMPLE VnL. CU. FT.
SAMPLE TFMP. OER. F
AR£A,dllPRLF_9 1
OIL. FArT.,"UP»LFR l
AR£A,RUPRLtP ?
nil. F »rT.,RURBLER ?
ST4NO. npM. "'ICROR/^'L
STAN'n. AOEA.SO. TN.
sn?, MILLTG/RUHPLFM i
sn?. MILLIG/RIIRRLEH ?
sn?, PPM
SUL^AfE JMH
FMISSIONS
NET
NFT HPSrm.MTLLTGRAM/TFST
ijf T SOP , f;9AM/Th ST
NE r SULFATE.^RL rCRAM/KjunMETPE
30?,r.PAu/K
157.555
IbO.Bbt
0.000
7.01*
7.1bl
0.000
BACKGROUND
F H m
It
SHQ
?n
KR»
?' .
1
n
n
)
1
o.
n.
?«5b
*77
.no
1
.00
.no
hn?
.00
70
.00
1
.00
1
.on
.00
ono
oon
o.n
l.on
70
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
FUEL
PHJ^S
SULFUR IN FUEL,
FUEL SO?
,71
PP T . PFCOvF py
n.ooo
n.uo
PCT.
H3SO»
,055b
7.38
802 + H?SOH
7.38
-------
1 A '> I. If
o
I
OJ
o
f'TSSinr-3 FHO** SINGLE BAG SAMPLF
VEHKLE
P4TF 7/??/77 TI"F -n HRS. TEST MO. 3
MHdFi |q77 urn/A fHEVPnLFT FET ENGINE 5.7 LITRE B
OhMvto c(R TFST "T. IRlt KG. GVW 0 KG
t.t^ RIIL^ TFWP ta C nRY Pi'LR TEMP 22 c REL, HUM. bS.1 PCT
SPEC. HHM^. n.q GRA"/KG RARO. 7HH.7 MM HG. MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RL(;.«ER
PPFSS.
12.7K MjNUTES
711.? MM. H?0
RI_l)'vF » t^LF T TFMP.
nvNii £F\/ni_uTTOM$
RLOvjER RFVOLUTTOf'S
BLr'
cn?
tvOx
so?
GOA
GO A
GRA
f.R A
T.PA
GPi
G^«
Go 4
GLA
QPfl
SAMPLF "FTFR
SAMPLE P P ' '
MACKGRO "FTFR
H Af KGRf) PP '
8AVPLF '-'ETFR
SA^1PLF PP*'
H*CKGPn "FIFO
SAMPLF METFW
3AMPLF PFRCEN
PFAOING/SCALE i?.*/?
17
f FADING/SCALE 11.S/8
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
m
37.?/*
3H
1.7/*
T
RFADIMG/SCALE s»,3/2
T
HSCKf;Rn ''FTFK HF ADI^'G /SCALE
Raj-KGRo PERCE^'
T
SA^Pl.F '-"FTFR ^FADING/SCALE
s s H»PLF PPM
HJCKfiPO "FTFW
SArKGPt1 PPM
CnivlCFNTRAT ION
CnwfEMTWAT ION
cn^!^E^|IPAT TON
CnMCFMTRAT ION
RF AHIMR/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
CnrE^TR AT inM PPM
"AS9 (GPAMS)
MASS f G H A V S 1
MASS (GRAr'S)
'•'ASS f G P » M S )
"AgS (GWA"S)
"S/K I| n''ETRf
;-"
-------
TAHI.E
FXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER s
O
CO
PME 7/??/?7 TIME -P HRS, TEST NO. 3
MOPEL 1177 MUVA CHFVPQLET FET ENGINE 5.7 LITREO
KUN. DURATION l?.7(, MIM. DISTANCt DRIVEN lb.17 KILOMETRES
cvs HL (•"".• EP TEST VOL. 137.ti ACT. cu. METRES
SAMPLE
SIILFAjE OAT/1
FILTfP "n.
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT.
ntG. F
so. IN.
DILUTION FACTOR
HEN. MICROR/ML
AREA SO. IN.
SULFIJ3 DTnXIOE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT,
SAMPl.E TFMP. nFG. F
AREA, HURRLER i
OIL. FACT. .PUHRLFR 1
Oil.. FACT. .RIIHHLF» ?
STAND. DFN. iucRnr,/ML
STAND. ASEA.SQ. IN.
so?,
so?
NET SllLFaTE,MILLTGR&M/TEST
NET H?30t,''ILL IGRAM/TEST
NET goa,GRAM/TEST
NET .lULFATE.MiLI.IGRi
NET H?so*,fMLL I C,'BAM/KILOMETRE
NET SO?.,r,RAM/KiLO'*FTRE
SULFUR RALANT.E
FUEL WT., IKbn GRAMg
SULFUR. GRAMS
PCI. RECOVERY
BACKGROUND
t7FH.?8S7
7.71
R?
81131. OH
S
?n.oo
ailbfH.on
H2H.?3b
1.00
1
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
o.ooo
0.000
0.0
IS
EST 211.181
iT SOb.BBl
0,000
ILOMETRE I7.b78
.OMETRE 18,050
0.000
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL 302 H8SOH
.51 0.000 .100?
n.oo 11. Hb
1.00
70
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
l.QD
1
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
so? + Heso1*
.100?
11. tb
-------
APPENDIX D
COMPUTER PRINTOUTS
FOR
AIR MODULATION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION AND
DURABILITY TESTS ON THE 1975 CHEVROLET NOVA
(Tests in Chronological Order)
-------
1ABI.F
IJU J ! Mi .
VF H I C I. E Mi nil
i F :; i tui. *
CHI- V Y NHV A
DATE
HAMflMFIFM 73h.?S MM I,F HI,.
DRY liniH ItMP. ?t,.h DEC. C
Mf L . HUM IpT TY Ml PCT.
FXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF. KPl ;;;;.,
HAG RESULTS
HAG NO.
K REVOLUTIONS
bHII.V MM. H20
HC
HC
HC
HC
ro
CO
CO
CO
CO?
CO?
CO?
SAMPLE MF TF-R
SAhPLE PPM
HACKGRO HF Tl-R
hACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE MF. If R
SAMPLE PPM
RACKGRD MKTFP
tlAf.KGRU PPM
SAMPLE MF fF R
SAMPLE PERtFN
HACKGRD MFTFR
RFAnIHG/SCALE
RF AI>INI;/SCALE
READING/SLAI.E
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
T
READING/SCALE
CU? HACKGRll PERCENT
NOX
NOX
flUX
NIJX
SU2
S02
SO?
so?
HC
cn
ru2
NOX
SO 2
HC
CO
C02
NOX
Si) 2
SAMPLE MF TF.R
SAhPLE PPM
BACKGRD ftF TF R
HACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
HACKGRD MLTEK'
HACKGKO PPM
CUNCENTRA f ION
C'iNCENTRrt 1 ION
CONCENTRAl ION
CUNCENTWAT ION
CUMCl'NTRAT KiU
MASS URAfIS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC
Wf IGHTfD MASS CO
REAOING/SUALE
l-(F ADING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
RKAOING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
PPM
.11 GRAMS.
2.75 GKAMS,
WEIGHED MASS CO? 31*. ID GHAMS,
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS so?
.7b GRAMS/
U.OD GKAMS,
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY IMISSIONS TEST
1/30/77 MFGH. CODE -U YR. Iq7b
I S.7* LITRE B CURB wl. I) Kb GVM II KG
WET BULK TEMP 20.0 DtG. C
AbS. HUMIDITY 12.7 GRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl K8H.7 MM. H80
BLOWER INLET TEMP. H3 DEG. c
18. 3/3
1 .85
H.3/3
.07
bb.0/2
bb.O
1.5/2
1.5
-n.o/*
-M.0
-u.n/*
-».o
581
1.80
b-F.7
fl.O
3.S5
52.Ib
2511.08
10 . 0 7
0.00
1
•H)7l)7
12.7/2 17.3/2
13 17
13.7/2 12.8/2
1* 13
27.U/3 bl.?/*
F.31 bl
be.e/3
1.11
.1)8
ll.b/g
11. b
1.3/2
1.3
-O.O/*
-o.u
-O.O/*
-O.ll
b
SH
l.Of
Id.*
0.0
2.78
0.00
21.b/2
22
10.1/2
11
55. t/*
SH
l.b/*
2
1.5b
».b/3
.07
2H.1/2
2H.1
.1/2
.1
-O.O/*
-n.o
-o.o/*
-o.o
12
so
1.50
23.3
0.0
.52
t.31
201*. 11
3.b3
0.00
FUEL ECONOMY HY CAH80N BALANCE = 5.H KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
UNIT NO. q
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. i
NOVA CHEVROLET
TABLE VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT UUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE ll/ 3/77 MFGR. CODE
ENGINE S.7H LITRE 8 CURB Wl.
-I]
0 KG
YR. 1975
GVM U KG
BAROMETER 7tO.Hl MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.3 DEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY 3U PCT.
D
u>
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.,
BAG RESULTS
G2, fa73.i MM. H20
RAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRO METER
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METEK
READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER
NOX BACKGRD PPM
302 SAMPLE METER
302 SAMPLE PPM
S02 BACKGRD METER
S02 BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
C02 CONCENTRATION
NOX CONCENTRATION
S02 CONCENTRATION
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
302 MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
HEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS S02
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
PPM
1
40705
8.5/3
85
.8/3
8
92. 9/*
471
1.5/*
5
95.1/3
1.79
3.9/3
.Ob
92.4/2
92.4
1.1/2
1.1
-o.n/*
-o.o
-o.o/*
-o.o
78
44b
1.73
91.5
0.0
3.45
39.77
2441.24
.21 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
l.Bfa GRAMS/KILOMETRE
395.90 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.85 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
0.00 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
11. tt
0.00
WET BULB TEMP 13.3 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 5.5 GRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl b?3.1 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. HS DEC. c
z
b981b
1H.S/2
It
7.1/2
7
25. O/*
S3
2.2/*
i
bO.S/3
1.07
3.7/3
.lib
lb.2/2
lb.2
.7/2
.7
-O.O/*
-o.n
-o.o/*
-o.o
B
20
1.02
IS. fa
0.0
.bO
3. Ob
0.00
3
t073b
22.7/2
23
b.9/2
7
f 7
I. !/*
I
87.2/3
I.b2
3.5/3
.05
28.0/2
28.0
.8/2
.8
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
17
HI
1.57
27.3
0.0
.71
3.91
2215.83
3.42
0.00
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE = 5.9 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
UN I 1 Nil. M TK-ST NO
Vi-HICLE MilOEL CHf.VY NOVA
BAROMFTFR ? H h . 7 1
OKY RIILH TEMP.
RF-L. HUMIDITY
•, MM
?}
•»
OF HG.
.9 DEG.
8 PCT.
C
TAHLE VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT UJTY EMISSIONS Tt3T
DATE 11 / -»/77 HFGR.
ENGINE 5.7t LITRE H CURB
WEI BULB TEMP
ABS. HUMIDITY
CODE -0
T. 0 KG
lb.7 DEG. C
8.9 GHAMS/KG
YR .
l.VM
U IUt
o
I
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
RLUWEH DIP. PRf-SS., G?, *30.3 MM.
HAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
HLOWFR REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLt METtR READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC HACKGHD MI-TER READING/SCALE
HC HACKGHD PPM
TO SAMPLF MtTEK READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO nACKlJRU MtTER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRH PPM
TO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
co? DACKGHD MFTER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRO PERCENT
NUX SAMPLE MFTER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX flACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
SO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SO? SAMPLE PPM
SU? HACKGRD MFTER RhADING/SCALE
SO? BACKGHI) PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CD CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
SO? MASS GRAMS
H?0
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS co
WEIGHTED MASS COP
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS SO?
.83 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
HII.B? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.79 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
o.oo GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1
79.
Rll
U.?/?
11
SH.3/*
HOH
.b/*
?
11.0/3
1.70
3.b/3
.Ob
bb.O/?
bb.O
.7
-o.o/*
-n.o
-u.n/*
-o.o
70
l.bS
bS.f
u.o
3.52
Hb.57
10.30
0.00
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl b98.5 MM. H?l)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. f3 DEG. C
3
1?H7?
18.
18
10
55.
SH
l.l/*
1
55.5/3
.17
3.3/3
.US
10.H/2
.5
-O.U/*
- II . U
-O.O/*
-O.I)
•51
.93
lU.f
O.U
.77
8.90
?5b3.8f
?.8H
0.00
?5
n.s/a
u
35.?/*
3?
.b/*
1
7R.H/3
l.Hf
H.0/3
.Ob
?b.O
. q
-o.o/*
-o.o
-o.o/*
-0.0
15
30
1.38
?S.?
0.0
,7b
3.08
?2S3.57
3.98
0.00
FUEL ECONOMY HY CARBON BALANCE = S.b KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
UNIT MO. EM9
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 1
NOVA CHEVROLET
BAROMETER 7H3.tb MM OF HG.
DKY BULB TEMP. S3.3 UEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY 58 PCT.
TABLE VEHICLE EMI33IUN RESULTS
1175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE 11/29/77 MFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE 5.71 LITRE 8 CURB WT. 0 KG
WET BULB TEMP 17.8 DEG. C
AbS. HUMIDITY 10.b GHAMS/KG
YR.
GVM
0 KG
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
O
BLOWER DIP. PRESS., 62, b73.1 MM. H20
RAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER
READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER
MOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER
NOX BACKGRD PPM
S02 SAMPLE METER
S02 SAMPLE PPM
S02 BACKGRD METER
S02 BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
C02 CONCENTRATION
NOX CONCENTRATION
S02 CONCENTRATION
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
S02 MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS co
WEIGHTED MASS coa
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS S02
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
PPM
i
tU81b
8b.b/2
87
b.7/2
7
b9.8/*
297
.3/*
1
9H.9/3
1.78
3.9/3
.Ob
79.5/2
79.5
1.3/2
1.3
-U.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
81
afll
1.73
78.*
0.0
3. Ml
as. at
atSS.tb
.20 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1.42 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
373. bb GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.99 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
o.oo GRAMS/KILOMETRE
11.53
0.00
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl b73.1 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP: He DEG. C
2
b9840
13.0/8
13
7.3/a
7
35. 5/*
3t
.S/*
0
57.3/3
1.01
3.9/3
.Ob
1H.2/2
It. S
i.o/a
1.0
-O.O/*
-O.D
-O.O/*
-0.0
.15
13.3
0.0
2317.71
3.34
0.00
3
40800
ai.t/a
21
7.8/2
8
31. b/*
30
.5/*
0
79.b/3
l.tb
H.a/3
.Ob
29. •»
1.0/2
1.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
If
28
l.f 0
28.5
0.0
.bt
2.52
1992.35
•K19
0.00
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE = b.2 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
UNM NO. 11
VEHICLL MUOtL
TEST NO. «
1S75 CHEVY NOVA
TABLE VEHICLE EMISSION KFSULTS
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
' DATE 11/30/77 MFGH. CODE
ENGINE 5.74 LITRE 8 CURB WT.
-0
0 KG
YH.
liVM
lH7b
U KG
BAWOMFItR 73H.H9 MM OF HP.
DRY HIILB TEMP. 23.9 DEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY 28 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIP. PRbSS., U2, bSS.O MM. H20
RAG KESULTS
HAU NO.
HLOwtR REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC HACKGRD MtTER READING/SCALE
HC HACKGHD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRU MtTEH READING/SCALE
CO HACKGRD PPM
ro? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
r.02 BACKGRl) PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NCIX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
MIX BACKGRU PPM
S02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
502 SAMPLE PPM
S02 HACKGRO MtTER READING/SCALE
S02 BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
1
HObbS
S4.S/2
95
7.7/2
8
25. 3/3
5S7
. 1/3
2
97.3/3
1.B3
4. 3/3
.07
87.0/2
87.0
1.4/2
1.4
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
88
559
1.77
85. H
O.U
3.91
49.95
C02 MASS GRAMS 250b.b5
NOX MASS GRAMS
302 MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC .22 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS co 3.38 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS C02 383. Sb GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS NOX .81 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS S02 U.OO GRAMS/KILOMETRE
10.70
U.OO
WET BULB TEMP 13.3 DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 5.3 GRAM3/KG
BLOWER INLET PRFSS.r Gl b47.7 MM. H20
SLOWER INLET TEMP. 42 OEG. C
2
b9793
lb.0/2
Ib
7.8/5
8
se.o/*
115
1 .2/*
S
59.0/3
1.0*
4.1/3
.Ob
14.5/2
1H.5
1.1/2
1.1
-o.o/*
-0.0
-o.u/*
-o.u
llu
.IS
13.5
0.0
.b?
lb.84
2387.45
2. 89
O.OU
3
4Ubll
21.1/2
21
8.1/2
8
54.O/*
52
l.b/*
2
81.7/3
1.50
3.8/3
.Ob
33.0/2
33.0
.9/2
.9
-O.O/*
-0.0
-o.o/*
-0.0
14
48
1.45
32.2
0.0
.be
4.31
20*1.41
4.01
0.00
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE = b.O KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
UNIT NO.
VEHICLE MODEL
NOVA
TEST NO. *
TABLE VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE 12/12/77 MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 5.71 LITRE H CURB WT.
-0
0 KG
YR.
GVM
1975
0 KG
BAROMETER 713.1h MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. ?5.h DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY ID PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., G2, b17.7 MM. HeO
RAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC RACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC RACKGRD PPM
co SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
co BACKGPD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
co? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
coe 8ACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
co2 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
so2 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
S02 SAMPLE PPM
S02 BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
SO? BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
1
10b89
11.7/3
117
2,2/3
22
25.7/3
59b
.1/3
2
95,5/3
1.79
1,9/3
,08
17.0/2
17.0
1.1/2
1.1
-O.O/*
-0,0
-o.o/*
-0.0
98
5bb
1.73
Ib.l
0,0
1.3b
S0,8b
C02 MASS GRAMS 2153. H8
NOX MASS GRAMS
802 MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC .18 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS CO 2.81 GRAMg/K ILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS co? 399.11 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS NOX .bl GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS 302 O.tlO GRAMJ/K ILOMETRE
b.29
0.00
WET BULB TEMP ib.7 OEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 8.3 GRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl b17.7 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 13 OEG. C
I
b98l3
2b,2/2
2b
88.7/2
29
81.5/*
81
b.9/*
7
b3.0/3
1.12
1.9/3
.OS
11.0/2
11.0
1.0/2
1.0
•O.D/*
-0.0
-o.o/*
-0,0
-0
7?
1.05
10,1
0.0
-.01
11.13
25bb.be
2.37
0.00
3
10bb2
3t.0/2
31
2f.0/2
21
33.O/*
31
b.7/*
7
B3.b/3
1.5*
H.9/3
,08
35.3/2
35.3
.9/2
.9
-O.O/*
-0.0
-o.o/*
-0.0
13
21
1.18
31.5
0.0
.57
2.17
2095.70
1.71
0.00
FUEL ECONOMY RY CARBON BALANCE 6 5.8 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
D
CO
UNIT mi. 11 1E3T NO.
vi- H i r.i t Miinri. NOVA FM-H
HAKII:H mi 7n.hs MM OF HI;.
l>Hr Hill H I I "P. 23.3 DFG. C
HFL. HUMIDITY 51 PC F .
EXHAUST F MISSIONS
DIF. PRESS., G?, b73.1 MM. H2H
HAI, KFSULT3
HAI, NO.
HLOrttH KEVOLUTION3
HC SAMPLE Ml- FFR «t AD ING/SC ALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC HACKGRO METE>< RfcADING/SCALE
HC HACKGUO PPM
m SAMPLE MhTFR READING/SCALE
TO SAMPLE PPM
Til HACKGRO METER KFADING/SCALE
TO BACKGRD PPM
rev SAMPLE MFTER READING/SCALE
ro? SAMPLE: PERCENT
CU? BACKGRO METER RFAD ING/SCALE
TO? HACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
MOX SAMPLE PPM
NUX HACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRI) PPM
SU? SAMPLE MFTER READING/SCALE
SO? SAMPLE PPM
SO? BACKGHU METER READING/SCALE
SO? BACKGHU PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CU CONCENTRATION PPM
CUP CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GHAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NUX MASS GRAMS
S02 MASS GRAMS
HC GKAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CU GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GHAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION HY CB L/100KM (MPG)
TVS FLU* STI). CU. METRES (SCf-)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM(MILES)
FUEL CONSUMPTION LITRES/1UOKM (MPG)
HEIGHTFO MASS HC GRAMS/KM (GHAMS/MlLF)
WEIGHIfO MASS CO UHAMS/Kl- I GH AMS/M 1 LF )
HASS CO? UHAMS/KM (RHAMS/MILE)
MASS NOX liH»MS/HM (GHAMS/MILF)
_ i vr, FL<>» » ?HH.a mi>. cu. MITRFS
TAHLF. VF.HICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1978 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
ACTUAL OISTANCtS USED IN CALCULATIONS
1 DATE 12/3U/77 MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 5.7* LITRE 8 CURB HT.
-0
0 KU
YR.
UVM
1975
U KG
WFT BULB TEMP 17.2 DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 10.0 GRAMS/KG
COMMENTS 1978 FTPC
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl b?3.1 MM. H20
BLOHER INLET TEMP. H2 DEG. C
1
HII77II
12. 0/ 3
120
.9/ 3
9
BH.b/11
101
.8/11
2
95. 5/ 3
1.79
3.b/ 3
.Ob
38, b/ 2
3R.b
,9/ 2
. 9
-II.O/-0
-n. n
-n.ii/-o
-11. 0
112
378
1.75
37.8
(1.0
H.9b
33.71
52.17
5.»2
o.no
.Rb ( 1 .
b.82 ( 9.
22. 7* (bBn.
.93 ( 1.
18.55 ( 12.
7b.7 (2708
5.80 ( 3.
17.09
.28
l.Hb
39b.t-b
. b?
2
b97-»7
19. I/ 2
19
10. b/ 2
11
S.H/1J
5
3.2/13
3
b2.t/ 3
1.11
3.b/ 3
.Ob
13. 2/ Z
13.?
.9/ 2
.9
-O.U/-0
-0.0
-0.il/-0
-0.0
9
2
I.Ob
12.
2138.13
3.85
0.00
.17 (
2.31 ( 3.
3bS.Ob (587.
.bb ( 1.
15. 7b ( 1*.
7b."» (2b99
5.8b ( 3.
27)
72)
38)
Ob)
93)
.if)
"}
-------
UNIT NO. fMR
VEHICLE MODFL
TEST Nd.
NOVA CHEVY
TABLE VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1978 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
ACTUAL DISTANCES USED IN CALCULATIONS
I HATE l/lb/78 MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 5.7H LITRE 8 CURB WT.
-U
0 KG
YR.
GVM
1975
U KG
BAROMI-TER 71S.lt MM OF HG.
DRY flIILH TEMP. 23.3 HER. C
Rf.L. HUMJDITY be f'CT.
EXHAUST FMTSSIOUS
HLOWER OIF. PRtSJi., G2, b?3.I MM.
MAG KFSULTS
HAG NO.
"LHHER Kt VOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC t'.ACKGRO MtTE.fi READING/SCALE
HC HACKGRD PRM
CO SAMPLE MFTER READING/SCALE
TO SAMPLE PPM
CO HACKGRp ME1FR READING/SCALE
CO HACKGRD PPM
CO? SAMPLE METFR READING/SCALE
COe SAMPLE PIKCENT
ro? tiACKGRO MF.TFR READING/SCALE
CO? HACKGRD PERCENT
MOX SAMPLE METER HEADING/SCALE
MIU SAMPLE PPM
"I0> BACKGRD MFTER READING/SCALE
NO> BACKGRD PPM
SOP SAMPLE METER Rt. AD I NG/SCALE
SO? SAMPLE PPh
SO? BACKGRO METF.R READING/SCALE
SO? RACKGKU PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
TO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
MOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C 0 MASS GRAMS
MOX MASS GRAMS
SO? MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MJLF)
NOX GRAC,S/Ki1 (GRAMS/MILE)
H?0
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CH L/100KM (MPG)
CVS FLU*. STD. CO. METRES (SCF)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KK(MILFS)
EIGHTED FUEL CONSUMPTION LITRES/10DKM
WEIGHTED MASS HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
WEIGHTED MASS CO GRAMS/KK (GRAMS/MILE)
WEIGHTED MASS CO? GRAKS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
WEIGHTED MASS NOX GRAMS/hM ( GH AMS/C'ILE)
TOTAL CVS FLOW = ?H5.1 STD. CU. h
(MPG)
ETRES
WET BULB TEMP 18.3 DEG. C
AbS. HUMIDITY 11.t C.RAM3/KG
COMMENTS 1978 FTP-C
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl b73.1 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. tl DEG. C
I
to732
8f.3/ 2
8t
12. a/ 2
12
70. 1/11
299
8.b/ll
27
97. 1/ 3
1.83
3. 1/ 3
.05
29. b/ 2
29. b
.b/ 2
.b
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-II.O/-0
-0.0
7f
2bO
1.79
29. I
0.0
3.27
23.25
2512.19
t.37
0.00
.5b (
3.9S ( b.
H3) .09 (b93.
.75 ( 1.
18. 7t ( 1?.
7b,8 (27)2
5.83 (' 3.
17.22
. 19
.93
t 0 1 . 4 )
.55
2
b9822
17. 3/ 2
17
11. 9/ 2
12
28.3/13
27
23.9/13
23
h3.?/ 3
1.13
3. 9/ 3
.Ob
11. I/ 2
11.1
.b/ 2
.b
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
b
5
1.07
10. b
0.0
,t9
.82
25R3.7S
2.72
0.00
90) .08 ( .12)
H2) . 13 ( .21)
b3) t(17.52 (b55.71)
21) ,«*3 ( .b9)
55) 17. 11 ( 13.51)
.0) 13). b (tbHB.3)
b?) b.3H ( 3.9t)
( 13. hb)
( .31)
( I.t9)
(bt5.P7)
( .89)
3
1 0 b 8 1
27. b/ 2
28
) 0.8/ 2
11
20.b/13
20
11.8/13
11
85. 3/ 3
1.58
t.2/ 3
.Ob
25. t/ 2
25. t
.7/ 2
.7
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
J8
9
1.52
2t.8
0.0
.RO
.79
2138. 9t
3.72
o.no
.It (
.13 (
3b7.3S (591.
.bt ( 1.
15.71 ( It.
7b.7 (2708
5.82 ( 3.
22)
22)
Pb)
03)
98)
.5)
b2)
-------
(in I T no. E Mq
VF HJCI E MdpFL
1 F S T Mi
NOVA C H (• V Y
1AM F VFIUCLE EMISSION RESULTS
197R LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
ACTUAL ni.siANCts USFO IN CALCULATIONS
1 OATE 1/1H/7R MFGR. CODE
tNUINF S.7t LITRE R CURB HT.
-n
0 KG
VR.
L.VM
HAHfiHF IF H 7t? . J 9 f
DRY HIILH TEMP. ;
HKL. HUMIDITY
F XHMI1T F.M I-;s IONS
PCI .
D
I
BLOWER DIP. PRFSS., GP,
RAT, RESULTS
HAT, MO.
RLOHER F,E vriLUT in'.;-;
F, 7 3 . I MM. H?0
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
r n
rn
co?
CO?
CO?
rn?
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
SO?
SO?
so?
so?
SAK.PLF
.SAKPI.F
KACKGRO
BACKGRD
SAhFLE
liACKGhO
ME TEFi
PPH
ME TF H
PPM
MF TE F*
PF"-'.
MF 1ER
SAhPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRD
BACKGRO
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
RACKGHD
FiACKGRO
SAKPLF
SAMPLE
(IACKGRH
BACKGRD
KFAI.'ING/SCALE
FU AOTUG/SCALF
RF ADTNG/SC ALF
KF- APING/SCALE
METFH READING/SCALE
PERCFl-'T
METER READING/STALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
RE AD I NG/ SI ALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
ME TFR
PPM
METEP
PPM
METER
PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PHM
SO? CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NUX MASS GRAMS
SO? MASS GkAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GKAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GKAMS/KM ( GF. AMS/M ILF )
NOX GRANS/KM (GkAMS/MlLF)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/JOOKM (MPf,)
CVS FLO* STO. CU. METRES (SCF)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM(MILFS)
FUFL COK'SUMPTInrJ L I T RF S/l MOKM (MPR)
WEIGHTED M*SS HC GR»MS/K^ (GWAnS/MlLE)
VEIGHTFO MASS CO GRAMS/KM (GWAMS/MILE)
V.E IGHTFO MASS CO? GRAHS/HH ( t-P AHS/M I L E )
MASS NOX OBAMS/K" (i.^AMS/H ILF )
Cws FIOM « ?"«.«> ">m. LU. HETBFS
WET BULB TEMP 11.1 OEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.7 GRAMS/KG
COMMENTS 1978-FTP-C
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl b73.1 MM. H?0
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 13 DEC. C
)
HflFib?
bS.3/ 2
bS
1. R/ ?
10
b?. 7/1 1
?55
.b/11
»2.bX ?
1 ,H9
1 . •»/ ?
.07
3H.7/ ?
38.7
l.l/ ?
1.1
-M.O/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-11.0
57
?H3
1 .8?
37.8
11.0
2.5?
21 .bb
1.50
0.00
.*3 (
3.7? ( 5.
H38.17 (7(15.
.77 ( 1 .
19.01 ( 1?.
7b.7 (?708
5.82 ( 3.
17.19
. 1 9
. 92
inn . 77
.57
?
b973H
lb.3/ 2
Ib
q.O/ 2
9
7.H/13
7
1.8/13
b?.2/ 3
1.11
3.3/ 3
.05
It.O/ ?
1H.O
.5/2
.5
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
8
5
I.Ob
13.5
0.0
.bl
.8?
3 C U ^ U Q
C3jj»Di f
2.77
0.00
70) .10 ( .Ib)
«f8) .13 ( .21)
02) H03.79 (bH9.70)
?H) .HH ( .70)
37) 17. 2b ( 13. b3)
.H) 131.5 C»b»».«t)
b?) b.3? ( 3.93)
( 13. b8)
( .31)
( J . *9)
(bHf.RH)
( .91)
3
H0b25
33. H/ 2
33
9. 7/ 2
10
25.1/13
21
1.8/13
85. 3/ 3
1.58
3.b/ 3
.Ob
33. O/ ?
33.0
.b/ 2
.b
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
as
21
1.53
3a.s
0,0
1.10
1.11
3.87
0.00
.11 (
.33 (
3bb.92 (510.
.bb ( 1.
15.71 ( It.
7b.b (2705
5.8b ( 3.
30)
52)
37)
Ob)
S8)
.8)
bH)
-------
TABLE
UNIT NO. EM9
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO.
NOVA CHEVY
BAROMETER 738.b3 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. ??.? DEC. c
REL. HUMIDITY 73 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF. PRESS., G?, 73b.b MM.
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO?
COS
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
197B LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
ACTUAL DISTANCES USED IN CALCULATIONS
DATE ?/?8/78 MFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE 5.74 LITRE H CURB WT. o KG
WET BULB TEMP 18.1 DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY IS.b GRAMS/KG
COMMENTS 1978 FTP-C
YR.
GVM
197b
0 KG
H20
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
CO?
CO?
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
SO?
so?
S02
SO?
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
SO? MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM (MPG)
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES (SCF)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM(MlLES)
WEIGHTED FUEL
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
TOTAL CVS
CONSUMPTION LITRES/100KM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FLOW = ?8H.S STD. CU. METRES
BLOWER INLET PRESS., 61 73b.b MM. H?0
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 43 DEG. C
40bl8
84. 3/ 2
84
1? .O/ 2
1?
7?.b/ll
315
.7/11
?
4b.4/ 2
2.08
1.7/ 2
.Ob
23. 9/ 2
?3.9
.8/2
.8
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
74
293
2.03
23.2
II. 0
3.23
25.79
280b.01
3.58
0.00
.55 (
4.41 ( 7.
479.98 (77?.
.bl (
20. 8b ( 11.
75.5 (2bbb
5.85 ( 3.
19. 5b
.21
I.b7
454.91
.44
b9b50
21. O/ 2
?1
13. S/ 2
13
17.5/13
17
l.b/13
2
72. 3/ 3
1.31
4.0/ 3
.Ob
9.3/ 2
9.3
.5/ 2
.5
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
9
IS
1.2b
8.8
0.0
.bb
2.19
297b.Sl
2.34
0.00
89) .10 ( .17)
10) .34 ( .55)
29) 4bB.bl (753.99)
98) .37 ( .59)
28) 20.04 ( 11.74)
.2) 129.4 (4571.5)
b3) b.35 ( 3.95)
( 12.03)
( !s3)
( 2.b8)
(731. 9b)
( .71)
40bl2
3b.3/ 2
3b
19. S/ 2
IS
fab. 8/12
150
.b/12
1
94. 2/ 3
1.77
3. 1/ 3
.05
17. b/ 2
17. b
.b/ 2
.b
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
19
141
1.73
17.1
0.0
.84
12.38
2384.50
2.b3
0.00
.15 (
2.13 ( 3.
409. 7b (bS9.
.45 (
17. bS ( 13.
75.5 (2bb5
5.82 ( 3.
23)
42)
30)
73)
33)
.b)
b2)
-------
TABLE
D
I-1
to
FXHAUST FM1SSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE ?/?8/7R
MODEL lc»75 MUVA CHEVY
ORIVER BP
WET BULR TEMP Jq C
SPEC. HUM. ll.i* GUAM/KG
TIMt -U HRS.
SET-7
TEST WT. 1R1"» KG.
DRY BULB TEMP ?9 C
BARD. 738.4 MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV R
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. Sb.l PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.on KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
RLOWKR OIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO RF VOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER co. CM /KEV.
83.23 MINUTES
73b.h MM. H20
MM H?0
73h.h
44
31SH3
DEG. C
SP31
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD MtTtR READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGHD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
cn
CO BACKGHD PPM
CO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METFR READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRO PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
HC
CO
HC
CO
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .07
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE 1.95
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 351
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .47
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .b5
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 17.5
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3140
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 4.?4
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL O.OU
80. q/*
187
,5/*
1
H5.9/?
2. OS
1.7/2
.Ob
.8/2
.8
13
17b
2.00
25. •»
0.0
1.57
f2.sn
7bf 1.20
1U.33
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN .07
CO GRAMS/MIN 1.8
CO? GRAMS/MIN 3?q
NOX GRAMS/MIN .*H
SO? GRAMS/MIN n.UO
CARHON BALANCC FUEL ECONOMY = 15.11* LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EM9
7
M
W
DATE 2/28/7B TIME -0 HRS. TEST NO. 2
MODEL 1R7R NOVA CHEVY SET-7 ENGINE 5.7 LITREO
RUN DURATION 53.23 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21.78 KILOMETRES
CVS BLOWCR TEST VOL. etq.7li ACT. CU. METRES
SAMPLE
SULFATE DATA
FILTER NO. H7FH-28qb
SAi-tPLE VOL. CU. FT. lb.2b
SAMPLE TEMP. OEG. F si
SAMPLE AREA SO. IN. 221530.00
DILUTION FACTOR 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 5.00
STAND. AREA SU. IN. 11VU7S.OO
SOt,MJCROG/FILTER 7b.877
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. cu. FT. i.oo
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F 70
AREA,BUBBLER 1 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,BUBBLER 2 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SO. IN. 1.00
S02, MILLIG/BUBBLER 1 0.000
305, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2 0.000
S08, PPM (l.O
SULFATE AND S02 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET H5SOH,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET sos,GRAM/TEST
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET nesot,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET 302,GRAM/KILOMETRE
•J7.575
18.571*
0.000
2.185
2.231
o.onn
BACKGROUND
1 .00
70
0.00
1
1.00
I .00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL KT., ?t3f GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL S02 HSSOt
.75
0.000
n.oo
.0159
2.11
S02 + H2SOH
.015S
2.11
-------
TABLF
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMq
D
I
DATE CVTR/7H
MODEL 1^75 NOVA CHEVY
DRIVER HP
WET HULH TEMP IB C
SPEC. HUM. 10.» GRAM/KG
TIME -o HRS.
FET FM-q
TEST WT. 1R1H KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 2b C
BARO. 738.H MM HG.
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV R
GVH 0 KG
REL. HUM. fq.7 PCT
MEASURED FUEL U.OM KG
RUN DURATION
RLUWER INLET PRESS.
PLOWEW DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TtMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
12.7b MINUTES
73b.b MM. H20
73b.h MM H20
It OEG. C
23715
b!5H5
2831
RAG Kt.SiJLTS
HC SAMPLE MfTFH READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACHGHD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRtf METER READING/SCALE
CO rtACKGRI) PPM
CO? SAMPLE METER HEADING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 HACKGRO METEH READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRU PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER RFADING/SCALE
NOX UACKGHU PPM
HC CIINCENTKATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S08 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .ns
co GRAMS/KILOMETRE .50
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 3?H
MOX GKAMS/KILOMETRE .50
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE n.dl)
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .*7
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL ». 8
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31hO
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL H.R>»
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL n.Oll
2?
13
bB.l/*
bb
l.l/*
1
55.1/2
2.58
1.7/2
.lib
3H.2/2
38.2
.8/2
.8
12
bl
2.53
37. b
0.0
.71
8.12
S3fH.SO
8.12
o.on
HC GRAMS/MIN .Ob
CO GRAMS/MIN ,b
C02 GRAMS/MIN <»ib
NOX GRAMS/MIN .bH
SO? GRAMS/MIN o.OU
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY = 13.91 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
UNIT Nil. EMS
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO.
NOVA CHEVY
BAROMETER 73H.12 KM OF HG.
DRY BULH TEMP. 20.h Ukfi. C
REL. HUMIDITY 51 PCT.
TABLE VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE 3/ 2/78 MFGR. CODE -II
ENGINE 5.7H LITRE 8 CURB WT. (J KG
WET BULH TEMP 15.b DtG. C
AUS. HUMIDITY 1.2 GRAMS/KG
YR.
bVM
117b
0 KG
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIP. PFHSS.,
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
Gd, 73b.h MM. H20
o
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
Cu
CO
CU
CO?
C02
C02
CO?
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
S02
3D 2
S02
R02
HC
CO
C02
NUX
S02
HC
CO
C02
NOX
S02
SAKPLE MKTER
SAKPLt PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRU PPM
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPK
HACKGKO ME1FR
HACKGhiO PPM
SAMPLE METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
REAOIi-jG/SCALE
READING/SCALE
SArtPuE PERCENT
BACKGSD METER
READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PERCENT
SAMPLE METER
SAf.PLE PPH
BACKGRO METER
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE MfcTER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKG^O METER
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CUNCtNTRAl ION
CONCENTRATION
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
PPM
1
•HI5B5
b?.b/2
bS
13
b5.7/*
275
5. I/*
b
tb.3/8
e.08
.07
31. fa/2
31. b
.f
-ll.fi/*
-n.u
-n.n/*
-o.o
57
251
2.02
31.3
0.0
2.tb
22.03
2717.13
H.21
0.00
21.H/2
22
13.b/e
1H
22. (I/*
21
t.b/*
t
1.31
H.2/3
.Ob
.f
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
10
Ib
1.2b
1.5
0.0
.71
2.f 1
2182.11
2.25
0.00
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 73b.b MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. <*i DEG. c
3
40512
31.5/2
31
11.8/2
12
7b.2/*
75
2.2/*
2
It.8/3
1.78
3.7/3
.Ob
21.0/2
21.0
.3/2
.3
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
21
bl
1.73
20.7
0.0
.12
b.08
5318.11
2.85
0.00
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS co
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTFC MASS S02
.11 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1.27 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
thU.|l7 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.17 GKAMS/KILOMETRE
I).DM GMMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL Kr.OUOfY BY CARBON BALANCE = 5.1 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TAHLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAT. SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DMF 3 / f / 7 R
MOPtL 1175 NI
DRIVl.R BP
WET BULB TEMP
SPFC. HUM.
TIME -ii MRS.
CHEVY SET 7
1EST WT. 1H11 KG.
- C DRY BULB T£MP ?l C
GUAM/KG BARO. 737.1 MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 5.7 LITREv R
GVW n KG
REL. HUM. 51.1 PCT
MEASURED FUEL O.UO KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
RLIHER OIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLKT TEMP.
OYNO RF.VOLUTIOf4S
PltlWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
23.28 MINUTES
73b.b MM. H?0
73b.b MM H20
13 OEG. C
O
M
cn
HAG
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO?
COS
co?
CO?
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
SOP
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
so?
RESULTS
SAMPLE
SAKPLE
METFR READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRt) METER READING/SCALE
BACKGKU PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
MFTI-R READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRI) MtTER READING/SCALE
BACKGKD PPM
SAMPLE MfcTER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRI) METER READING/SCALE
8ACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METFR READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGKU MEUR READING/SCALE
RACKGRU PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
81.0/2
21
I.1*/?
q
157
.h/*
1
15.1/2
e.ui
1.8/2
.07
28.0/2
28.0
.5/2
.5
13
117
l.lb
27. b
0.0
l.Sb
35.58
7182. b8
lO.bO
o.no
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .n?
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE I.b2
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 311
NMX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .18
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE tl.OO
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .bb
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 15.0
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3111
NOX GRAMS/KG UF FUEL 1.15
su? GRAMS/KG OF FUKL o.no
CARBON BALANCE FUFL ECONOMY =
HC GRAMS/MIN .07
CO GRAMS/MlN 1.5
CO? GRAMS/MIN 3?1
NOX GRAMS/MIN .*b
SO? GRAMS/MIN 0.00
lH.b9 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMS
D
I
DATE 3/ 2/7R TIME -0 MRS. TEST NO. 2
MODEL J-175 NOVA CHEVY SET 7 ENGINE 5.7 LlTREO
RUN DURATION 23.28 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21.95 KILOMETRES
cvs BLOWER TEST VOL. asu.os ACT. cu. METRES
SAMPLE
SUI.FATE DATA ------
KILTER NO. H7FH-28SS
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. Ib.S1*
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F 78
SAMPLE AREA SO. IN. 80917.00
DILUTION FACTOR i
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 20.00
STAND. AREA SU. IN. 170105.00
SOt,MICROG/FILTER 15.138
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. cu. FT. i.oo
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F 70
AREA, BUBBLER J 0.00
DIL. FACT., BUBBLER 1 1
AREA, BUBBLER 2 0.0(1
DIL. FACT., BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA, SO. IN. 1.00
so2, MILLIG/BUBBLER i o.uoo
so2, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2 o.ooo
S02, PPffr 0.0
SULFATE AND 302 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE, MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET H2SOt, MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET S02, GRAM/TEST
NET SULFATErMILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET H2S04, MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET S02r GRAM/KILOMETRE
58.085
51.30*
0.000
2.bf 7
2.70S
0.000
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
1
- 1 .00
1.00
o.ono
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.110
1.00
o.uoo
0.000
n.o
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 2380 GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
0.000
0.00
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL S02 H2SO*
2.b3
S02 + H2SOH
.Ollt
2.b3
-------
I MiLF
tXHAUSf EMISSIONS FRUM SINGLE
VtHILLK NUMBER EMq
D
M
03
0 A T t V ? / 7 H
MOPfcL 117S NOVA CHEVY
HP IVFR RP
WE f HULK' 1 KMP J 7 C
SPFC. HUM. 'ill.II GUAM/KG
TjMt -i
t-F.T
IEST WT. IRI«* KG.
[>RY BULB TEMP S3 C
HARD. 737.1 MM HG.
HAi; SAMPLE
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE s.7 LITREV R
GVW II KG
REL. HUM. SH.M- PCT
MEASURED FUEL n.un KG
ia.7b MINUTES
73h.b MM. H?0
73fc.b MM H?0
t3 DEG. C
?3810
PUN DURATION
BLO*ltR iNl.fcl PKES3.
RLUWtH OIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLKT TEMP.
OYNU REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /RFV.
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLF. MFTFR READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRl) METER READING/SCALE
BACKGHD PPM
SAMPLt MtTER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
MLTEH READING/SCALE
PERCENT
CO? BACKGHU METER RE AOING/SC ALE
COa HACK6RD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGRO MFTER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGHO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COe CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S03 COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO? SAMPLE
COS SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLF
HC
CO
C05 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
an. ?/?
?0
10
Ib.b/*
qa
.b/*
i
5».f /?
e.SH
I. 8/2
.117
3q.i/e
sq.i
.B/?
.8
1?
SI
a.»8
38.5
0.0
.81
13. 1H
52flS.lt
8.80
n.oo
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .05
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE ,7f
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 31b
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .50
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .Hq
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 7. •»
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 315b
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL H.q7
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN .Ob
CO GRAMS/MIN i.O
CO? GRAMS/MIN HOB
NOX GRAMg/MIN .bt
SO? GRAMS/MIN 0.0(1
CAHBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY = 13.5b LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
UNIT NO. q
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO.
CHEVY NOVA
TABLE VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE 3/3S/7B . , MFGR. CODE
ENGINE S.7t LITRE 8 CURB WT.
-0
0 KG
CVH
1«I7S
0 KG
a
BAROMETER 7HH.98 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 2-K* OEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY it PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF. PRESS., G2, 7b2.0 MM. H20
RAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOHER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER REAOING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC 8ACKGRO PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
COB SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COa BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
SOa SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SOB SAMPLE PPM
302 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
SO? BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COa CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
SOa MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS SOa
83.2/2..
83
n.b/a
12
bB.S/*
281
a.o/*
b
«»3.S/2
i.«ta
i.q/2
.07
<*o.8/2
tO. 8
1.2/2
l.a
-o.o/*
-0.0
•0.0
73
1.87
39.8
0.0
3.?1
a*. os
.18
H.58
0.00
(0.39)
?.oa GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1) GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.»f GRAMS/KILOMETRE
0.00 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WET BULB TEMP 11.1 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY a.7 GRAMS/KG
23.8/2
23.8
10.7/2
10.7
91. 3/*
bS.3/3
1.1?
3.7/3
.Ob
1.7/2
«>.7
.8/2
.8
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
14. I
8b
1.12
S.O
0.0
1.054
13.01
1.77
0.00
BLOWER INLET PRESS.,
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
3
fObOO
30.7/2
30.7
11.0/2
I 1.0
22. S/*
aa
1.7/*
a
85.3/3
1.S8
3.0/3
.05
2*. 7/2
2*. 7
.b/2
.fa
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
21.0
20
l.S*
2».2
0.0
0.920
1.73
2.78
0.00
Gl 7b?,0 MM. H30
»3 DEG. C
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE = 5.5 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EM9
O
I
NJ
O
DATE 3/PS/7H
MODEL 1175 CHEVY NOVA
DRIVER BP
WET BULB TEMP 12 C
SPFC. HUM. 2.9 GRAM/KG
TIME -o MRS.
SET-7
TEST WT. 181* KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 2b C
BARO. 7*1.9 MM HG,
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 5.7 LlTREV 8
GVM 0 KG
REL. HUM. 13.8 PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.oo KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER OIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER cu. CM /REV.
23.29 MINUTES
7b?.0 MM. H20
7b2.0 MM H20
H3 DEG. C
311b9
ll?2Bb
?2?8
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRO PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRO MEIER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGHD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRO PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
HC
CO
HC
CO
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
302 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .08
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .53
C02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 312
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .52
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .85
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 5.3
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3158
NOX GRAMS/KG UF FUEL 5.27
S02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL o.oo
22. H/?
2?
B.H/2
8
51. b/*
*9
.!/*
0
1.82
1.8/2
.07
34..1/2
3b.l
.5/2
.5
15
f 7
1.77
35.7
0.0
1.8?
11. f 7
b782.82
11.31
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN .08
CO GRAMS/MIN .5
CO? GRAMS/MIN ?
-------
TABLE
V
to
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMq
DATE 3/59/78 TIME -0 HRS. TEST NO. 2
MODEL 1975 CHEVY NOVA SET-7 ENGINE 5.7 LITREO
RUN DURATION 53.51 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21.7H KILOMETRES
CVS BLOWER TEST VOL. 250.lt ACT. CU. METRES
SAMPLE
SULFATE DATA
FILTER NO. 17FH-2899
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. lb.30
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F 80
SAMPLE AREA SO. IN. 125b2.00
DILUTION FACTOR 1
STAND. OEN. MICROG/ML 5.00
STAND. AREA SO. IN. 137tb7.00
SOt,MICROG/FlLTER
i.oo
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. cu. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F
AREA, BUBBLER 1
OIL. FACT., BUBBLER 1
AREA, BUBBLER 2
OIL. FACT., BUBBLER a
STAND. OEN. MICROG/ML
STAND. AREA, SO. IN.
SOS, MILLIG/BUBBLER 1 0.000
S02, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2 0.000
305, PPM 0.0
SULFATE AND S02 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE, MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET H2SOH, MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET 302, GRAM/TEST
NET SULFATE, MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET Hssot, MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET S02, GRAM/KILOMETRE
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 51HB GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
?.833
2.891
o.oon
.130
.133
0.000
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL S05 H2SOt
.b?
0.000
0.00
.0001
302 + H2SOH
.0009
.11
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMI
DATE 3/81/7B
MODEL 1975 CHEVY NOVA
DRIVER BP
WET BULB UMP 17 C
SPEC. HUM. 8.7 GRAM/KG
TIME -0 HRS.
FET
TEST WT. 181H KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 2b C
8ARO. 7*1.1 MM HG.
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV 8
GVM 0 KG
REL. HUM. *0.b PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOHER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
12.75 MINUTES
7b2.0 MM. H20
7b2.0 MM H20
f3 DEG. C
23Sf 1
2228
BAG
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
C02
CO?
cos
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
302
HC
CO
C02
NOX
S02
RESULTS
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
HACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.06
-------
TABLE
UNIT NO. S
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 1
CHEVY NOVA
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE 3/31/78 MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 5.71 LITRE 8 CURB WT.
-0
0 KG
YR.
GVM
1175
0 KG
BAROMETER 711.18 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.7 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY bO PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
D
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.,
BAG
BAG
RESULTS
NO.
G2, 73b.b MM
RLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
CO?
CO?
COS
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
sog
502
S02
502
HC
CO
coe
NOX
S02
HC
CO
C02
NOX
802
SAMPLE MFTER
SAMPLE PPM
UACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER
READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
PPM
H20
1
lObIS
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EM9
D
NO
DATE 3/31/7B
MODEL 1975 CHEVY NOVA
DRIVER SM
WET BULB TEMP IB C
SPEC. HUM. 9.9 GRAM/KG
TIME -U HRS.
SET-7
TEST WT. 181* KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 25 C
BARO. 7HS.O MM HG.
TEST NO. a
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV s
GVH 0 KG
REL. HUM. H9.0 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
23.29 MINUTES
73b.b MM. H20
MM H20
73fa.b
H3
37379
112*22
2229
DEG. C
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX HACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
HC
CO
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .09
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .35
C02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 321
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .bS
302 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .85
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3.5
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31bl
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL b.»2
S02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
30.0/2
30
lb.9/2
17
39. 2/*
37
1.87
2.2/2
.08
37.0/2
37.0
1.1/2
1.1
15
31
1.80
3b.l
0.0
1.88
7.b9
b970.39
If. 15
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN .08
CO GRAMS/MIN .3
C02 GRAMS/MIN 299
NOX GRAMS/MIN .bl
S02 GRAMS/MIN 0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY = 13.7t LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMI
o
to
DATE 3/31/78 TIME -0 HRS. TEST NO. 2
MODEL 1^75 CHEVY NOVA SET-7 ENGINE 5.7 LlTREO
RUN DURATION 23.21 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21.7f KILOMETRES
CVS BLOWFR TEST VOL. 250.53 ACT. CU. METRES
SAMPLE
SULFATE DATA
FILTER NO. t?FH-2102
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 15.71
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F 80
SAMPLE AREA SQ. IN. bb-H7.00
DILUTION FACTOR 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML s.oo
STAND. AREA SQ. IN. I"»b011.00
SOH,MICROG/FILTER 22.753
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. cu. FT. i.oo
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F 70
AREA,BUBBLER 1 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,BUBBLER 2 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SO. IN. 1.00
so2, MILLIG/BUBBLER i o.ooo
S02, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2 0.000
S02, PPM 0.0
SULFATE AND 302 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET H2SOH,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET 302,GRAM/TEST
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET H2SO'»,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET 302,GRAM/KILOMETRE
1H.512
IH.Slfa
o.ooo
.bbB
,b82
o.ooo
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
i.oo
70
o.oo
i
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 2205 GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL 302 H2S01
.b8
o.oon
o.oo
302 +
.OOH8
.71
,00f8
.71
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMS
to
en
DATE 3/31/7B
MODEL 1977 CHEVY NOVA
DRIVER SH
WET BULB ItMH IB C
SPEC. HUM. .10.8 GRAM/KG
TIME -0 HR3.
FET
TEST WT. 181H KG.
DRY BULB TEMP ?H C
BARO. 7HS.O MM HG.
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV B
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 55.H PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIP. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS 23RH7
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS b!513
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
18.7b MINUTES
73b.b MM. H?0
73b.b MM H20
*3 DEC. C
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC HACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO HACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRO PPM
CO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
COS SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COS 8ACKGKD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .07
co GRAMS/KILOMETRE .«»i
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 287
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .7b
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .8?
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL ».s
co? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL sibo
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 8.33
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
31.1/2
31
15.2/2
15
b7.b/*
bb
If.*/*
It
50.?/2
2.29
2.1/2
.08
57.8/2
57.8
1.7/2
1.7
19
50
2.23
Sb.f
0.0
1.23
b.78
f733.97
12.HB
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN .10
CO GRAMS/MIN .5
co? GRAMS/MIN 371
NOX GRAMS/MIN .98
SO? GRAMS/MIN 0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY = 12.3? LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
UNIT NO. EMS
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO.
CHEVROLET NOVA
TABLE VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1178 LIGHT DOTY EMISSIONS TEST
ACTUAL DISTANCES USED IN CALCULATIONS
1 DATE 1/2S/7B MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 5.71 LITRE 8 CURB WT.
-0
0 KG
YR.
GVM
117b
0 KG
BAROMETER 711.73 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.7 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 15 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.,
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
COS
D
to
G2, 73b.b MM. H20
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
S02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
S02 SAMPLE PPM
302 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
S02 BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
S02 MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY C8 L/1011KM (MPG)
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES (SCF)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM(MILES)
WEIGHTED FUEL
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
TOTAL CVS
CONSUMPTION LITRES/100KM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FLOW = 282.7 STD. CU. METRES
WET BULB TEMP 11.1 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 7.1 GRAMS/KG
COMMENTS 1178 FTPC
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 73b.b MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 13 DEG. C
1
10708
11. 7/ 2
IS
1.2/ 2
1
81.8/11
371
.b/11
2
Ib.b/ 3
1.82
3.0/ 3
.05
11. 1/ 2
11.1
.I/ 2
.1
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
87
351
1.78
11.1
0.0
3.82
31.12
2181.1?
5.80
0.00
.b7 ( 1.
5.5b ( 8.
132. b5 (bib.
1.01 ( 1.
18.13 ( 12.
7b.1 (2b1b
5.71 ( 3.
17.83
.3b
1.75
<»01.08
.bO
2
bl^SS
31. 2/ 2
31
8.8X 2
1
51.5/11
237
.1/11
0
b3.3/ 3
1.13
3. 1/ 3
.05
10. 8/ 2
10.8
.7/ 2
.7
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
23
221
1.01
10.2
0.0
1.7H
3t.b8
2510.02
2.28
0.00
07) .28 ( ,tb)
11) S.bf ( 1.07)
11) 121.03 (b77.11)
b3) .37 ( .bO)
13) 18.31 ( 12.71)
.5) 130.3 (1b02.0)
57) b.15 ( 3.82)
( 13.20)
( .58)
( 7.b1)
(b58.21)
( .17)
3
10513
15. 0/ 2
15
8.3/ 2
8
73.8/12
Ib8
.1/12
1
81. b/ 3
1.57
3.0/ 3
.05
32. b/ 2
32. b
.B/ 2
.8
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
38
IfaO
1.52
31.1
0.0
l.bS
11. Ib
2123.02
1.18
0.00
.21 (
2.1b ( 3.
3b8.88 (513.
.73 ( 1.
15.15 ( 11.
7b.O (2b85
5.7b ( 3.
*b)
Ib)
53)
17)
75)
.2)
58)
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMS
D
M
03
DATE H/25/78 TIME -0 MRS.
MODEL 1175 CHEVROLET NOVA SET-7
DRIVER JC TEST WT. 181H KG.
WET BULB TEMP 1H C DRY BULB TEMP 25 C
SPEC. HUM. 5.9 GRAM/KG BARO. 7*5.0 MM HG.
DISTANCE 21.BUB KM
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIP. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 5.7 LITRE 8
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. aq.7 PCT
MEASURED FUEL O.OU KG
FUEL 738.2 G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO 1.8bO
23.30 MINUTES
7b2.0 MM. H20
7b2.0 MM H20
»3 DEC. C
31b89
112237
2228
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGHD METER READING/SCALE
C08 BACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
HC
CO
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
302 MASS (GRAMS)
29. 5/ 2
29
10. S/ 2
10
H9.1/12
1IJ8
.2/12
0
93. 2/ 3
1.75
3. I/ 3
.05
»2.7/ 2
»2.7
.?/ 2
.7
20
103
1.70
H2.1
0.0
25.17
bSHO.tl
1H.S8
0.00
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
coa GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
S02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.19
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 12.1
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31H7
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 7.02
302 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
.11 (
1.15 (
300 (
.b7 (
0.00 (
.18)
l.Bb)
1.08)
0.00)
HC GRAMS/MIN .11
CO GRAMS/MIN 1.1
C02 GRAMS/MIN 281
NOX GRAMS/MIN .b3
302 GRAMS/MIN 0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MILES/GALLON)
TOTAL CVS FLOW = SO9.7STO. CU. METRES
ERROR lO17(l
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAR SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMS
a
N)
DATE H/25/7H 1IME -0 HR3. TEST NO. 2
MODEL 1175 CHEVROLET NOVA SET-7 ENGINE 5.7 LITREO
HUN DURATION 53.au MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21.77 KILOMETRES
CVS BLOWER TEST VOL. ?50.05 ACT. CU. METRES
SAMPLE
FH-2S22
17. bS
81
SULFATE DATA
FILTER NO.
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F
SAMPLE AREA so. IN.
DILUTION FACTOR 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 5.Oil
STAND. AREA SO. IN. 155115.00
SC)t,MICROG/FILTER 17.512
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. cu. FT. i.oo
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F ?o
AREA,BUBBLER 1 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,BUBBLER S 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 2 i
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SO. IN. 1.00
S02, MILLIG/BUbBLER 1 0.000
S02, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2 0.0110
S02, PPM 0.0
SULFATE AND S02 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET H2SOH,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET S02,GRAM/TEST
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET H2sot,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET S02,GRAM/KILOMETRE
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 2087 GRAMS
SULFUPrGRAMS
PCI. RECOVERY
10.015
10.22b
0.000
.fbO
.H70
0.000
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
1
1 .00
1.00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL 502 H2SOt
.b5
U.OOO
0.00
.0033
.52
S02 + H2SOt
.0033
.52
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EM9
O
ui
O
DATE H/25/78 TIME -0 MRS.
MODEL 1175 CHEVROLET NOVA FET EM-9
DRIVER JC TEST WT. 181H KG.
WET BULB TEMP ib C DRY BULB TEMP 27 C
SPEC. HUM. b.2 GRAM/KG BARO. 7H5.0 MM HG.
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE 5.7 LITRE 8
GVM 0 KG
REL. HUM. 27.» PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
DISTANCE Ib.b21 KM
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
FUEL 738.3 G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO 1.8bO
12.7b MINUTES
7b9.b MM. H20
7b9.b MM H20
•»H DEC. C
2*155
bl575
2229
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
302 MASS (GRAMS)
30.H/ 2
30
12.7/ 2
13
lb.1/13
15
1.3/13
1
H7.b/ 2
2.15
1.5/ 2
.05
58.5/ 2
58. 5
.B/ 2
.8
20
If
2.10
57.8
0.0
1.31
1.81
fH7.71
11.Ob
0.00
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
S02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL ,1H
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.3
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31bH
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 7.13
302 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
.08 (
.11 (
2bb (
.b? (
0.00 (
.13)
.18)
»2B)
1.07)
o.no)
HC GRAMS/MIN
CO GRAMS/MIN
C02 GRAMS/MIN
NOX GRAMS/MIN
S02 GRAMS/MIN
.10
.1
3Hb
.87
0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MILES/GALLON)
TOTAL CVS FLOW= 11H.B3TD. CU. METRES
11.3b ( 20.70)
-------
TABLE
UNIT NO. EMI
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO.
CHEVROLET NOVA
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1178 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
ACTUAL DISTANCES USED IN CALCULATIONS
DATE t/8b/78 MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 5.7* LITRE B CURB WT.
-0
0 KG
YR.
GVM
117b
U KG
H80
BAROMETER 7-*t.SB MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 81.1 DEC. .C
REL. HUMIDITY 37 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., 68, 7b8.0 MM.
BAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
RLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRO PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRO PPM
C08 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
COS BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C08 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
SOS SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
302 SAMPLE PPM
508 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
S08 BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C08 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S08 CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C08 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
808 MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
COS GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM (MPG)
CVS FLOW 3TD. CU. METRES CSCF)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM(MILES)
WET BULB TEMP 18.8 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 5.8 GRAMS/KG
COMMENTS 1178 FTPC
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 7b8.0 MM. H80
BLOWER INLET TEMP. H3 DEG. C
1
HObSb
IH.b/ 8
15
10. S/ 8
10
11.1/18
820
8.7/18
Ib
lb.1/ 3
1.88
3.b/ 3
.Ob
H1.H/ 8
H1.H
.I/ 8
.1
-o.n/-o
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
Bb
lib
1.78
HB.b
0.0
3.75
17.31
8Hb8.B7
b.08
0.00
,b5 ( l.QH)
8. IS ( H.B1)
H8b.78 (bBb.bl)
1.05 ( l.bl)
18.50 ( 18.71)
75. S (SbBl.b)
5.78 ( 3.bO)
8
b1b32
8H.i/ 8
85
10. S/ 8
10
80.5/13
80
15.1/13
15
b3.0/ 3
1.18
3.7/ 3
.Ob
18. 7/ 8
18.7
.7/ Z
.7
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
15
5
1.07
18.1
0.0
1.15
.77
8SH1.b8
2.58
0.00
.11 ( .30)
.13 ( .80)
H13.b3 (bbS.53)
.H8 ( .b7)
17. bl ( 13.30)
130.0 (HS18.0)
b.lb ( 3.83)
3
t0587
HO. I/ 8
HI
10. 7/ 8
11
88.8/13
88
11.1/13
11
83. S/ 3
1.5t
3.b/ 3
.Ob
38. 7/ 8
38.7
.?/ 8
.7
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
31
11
1 ,*1
38.1
0.0
1.37
1.01
8078.15
t.Ol
0.00
.8-» (
.17 (
351.80 (577.
.bl ( 1.
15.37 ( IS.
75.8 (8b7b
5.77 ( 3.
38)
IS)
12)
30)
.8)
51)
WEIGHTED FUEL
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
TOTAL CVS
CONSUMPTION LITRES/100KM (MpG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C08 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FLOW = 881.8 STD. CU. METRES
17.88 ( 13.bb)
.30 ( .HB)
.7* ( 1.18)
"HU.37 (HHS.BO)
.b3 ( 1.01)
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EM9
D
U)
ro
DATE H/2b/7B TIME -0 HRS.
MODEL 1175 CHEVROLET NOVA SET-7
DRIVER TJ TEST HT. 181H KG.
WET BULB TEMP 1H C DRY BULB TEMP 2* C
SPEC. HUM.. b.«» GRAM/KG BARO. 7HS.O MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 5.7 LITRE B
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 3H.3 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
DISTANCE 21.721 KM
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
FUEL 738.2 G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO l.BbO
23.21 MINUTES
7b2.0 MM. H20
7b2.0 MM H20
Ht DEG. C
315b7
112159
2230
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
COS BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX RACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
HC
CO
33. I/ 2
3t
13. 3/ Z
13
12.b/13
12
8.7/13
8
1b.8/ 3
1.82
f.b/ 3
.07
HS.H/ 2
HS.H
,S/ 2
.5
22
H
1.7b
»S.O
0.0
2.70
I.Ob
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
302 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
302 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL l.S?
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .5
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31b5
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL ?.»o
302 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
15.77
0.00
.12 (
.05 (
310 (
.73 (
0.00 (
.20)
.08)
500)
1.17)
O.QO)
HC GRAMS/MIN
CO GRAMS/MIN
co? GRAMS/MIN
NOX GRAMS/MIN
S02 GRAMS/MIN
.12
.0
210
,bB
0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MILES/GALLON)
TOTAL cvs FLOH= ao<».HSTD. cu. METRES
13.27 ( 17.73)
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE SAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EM9
o
u>
DATE */2b/7B TIME -0 HRS. TEST NO. 2
MODEL 1975 CHEVROLET NOVA SET-? ENGINE 5.7 LlTREO
RUN DURATION 23.21 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21.77 KILOMETRES
CVS BLOWER TEST VOL. 250.07 ACT. CU. METRES
SULFATE DATA
FILTER MO.
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F
SAMPLE AREA so. IN.
DILUTION FACTOR
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML
STAND. AREA 3Q. IN.
sot,MICROG/FILTER
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. f
AREA,BUBBLER 1
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1
AREA,BUOBLER 2
DIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 2
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML
STAND. AREA,SQ. IN.
302, MILLIG/BUBBLER 1
302, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2
302, PPM
SAMPLE
H7 FH-2S25
17.23
71
5SOOS.OO
5
20.00
15553S.no
379.358
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFATE AND S02 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET H2SOt,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET sue,GRAM/TEST
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET H2SOH,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET 302,GRAM/KILOMETRE
223.180
227.Bb7
0.000
10.2S2
10.»b7
0.000
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 21tO GRAMS
SULFUR/GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL 302 H2SOH
.fab
o.noo
o.oo
302
.07HS
11.23
H2SO*
.07H5
11.23
-------
TABLE
FXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
Vf.HICLE NUMBER EMS
1
w
*>.
DATE H/?b/7B TIME -0 MRS.
MODEL 1S7S CHEVROLET NOVA HFET
DRIVER TJ TEST WT. 181H KG.
NET BULB TEMP IH C DRY BULB TEMP ?» C
SPEC. HUM. b.H GRAM/KG BARO. 7HS.O MM HG.
DISTANCE lb.3Bb KM
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIP. PRESS.
RLOWER INLET TFMP.
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE s.7 LITRE B
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 3H.3 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
FUEL 738.? G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO 1.8bU
12.75 MINUTES
7b?.0 MM. H?0
7b?.U MM H?0
H3 DEG. C
£3811
b!38S
2228
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGKD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
HC
CO
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
SO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.2?
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL ,H
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31bS
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 7.b5
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL O.nn
.10 (
.0* (
2b? (
.b5 (
0.00 (
HC GRAMS/MIN
co GRAMS/MIN
CO? GRAMS/MIN
NOX GRAMS/MIN
SO? GRAMS/MIN
35.7/ ?
3b
12.I/ 2
12
S.7/13
S
5.3/13
5
2.I1*
1.7X 2
.Ob
5b.O/ ?
Sb.O
1.1/2
1.1
2b
5
2.OS
SS.l
0.0
l.bS
.bl
H37b.5S
10.58
0.00
.17)
.Ob)
13
.0
l.tlH)
0.00)
.83
o.on
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY L/1DOKM (MILES/GALLON)
TOTAL CVS FLOH= H«».7STO. CU. METRES
-------
FABLE
UNIT NO. ?h
VEHICLE MODEL
IE SI NO.
CHEVY NOVA
D
w
BAHOMFTER 732.54 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TF.MP. ' PS.h [>EG. C
KEL. HUMIDITY b4 PCI.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIP. PRKSS., G2, 7b?.0 MM.
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1978 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
ACTUAL DISTANCES USED IN CALCULATIONS
DATE 5/17/7R MFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE 5.74 LITRE 8 CURB WT. 0 KG
WET BULB TEMP 20.b DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 13.fa GRAMS/KG
COMMENTS 1178 FTPC
YR. 1975
GVM 0
H20
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO?.
CO?
CO?
CO?
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
sue
so?
so?
so?
SAMPLE METER Rt'ADI NG/SC ALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGPD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
SO? MASS GRAMS
hC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NUX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM (MPG)
CVS FLO* SFD. CU. METRES (SCF)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM(MlLES)
WEIGHTtO FUEL
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
TOTAL CVS
CONSUMPTION LITRES/1UOKM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE )
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GKAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GKAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FLOW = ?7h.4 STD. CU. METRES
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 7b2.0 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. H3 DEG. C
1
40bl7
B7.b/ 2
88
13. S/ ?
13
b9.9/u
298
1.0/11
3
41. 7/ 2
1.83
1.3/ 2
.05
42. 5/ 2
42.5
.9/ S
.9
-U.O/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
7b
279
1.79
41.7
0.0
3.?b
?4.17
2437.79
b.5b
U.OO
.5b (
4.17 ( b.
4?U.fal (b?b.
1.13 ( 1.
18.31 ( 1?.
74.5 (?b?q
5 . B 11 ( 3 .
17. ?4
.35
?.5b
318. 7b
.^5
?
bSblfl
3fa.?/ ?
3b
13. 3/ ?
13
54.5/12
121
1.3/12
2
b4.5/ 3
1.15
3.7/ 3
.Ob
10. 0/ 2
10.0
.b/ e
.b
-0.0/-0
-o.n
-0.0/-0
-0.0
24
114
1.10
9.5
0.0
1.77
Ib.BR
2572. Sb
2.55
0.00
11) .29 C .4b)
71) 2.73 ( t.HO)
7b) 41b.21 (bbl.80)
82) .41 ( .bb)
85) 17.99 ( 13.08)
.3) 127. b (4505.9)
bO) b.lB ( 3.8
-------
TAIIIF.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHILLE NUMRER 2b
Ul
en
0 A t F 5 / 1 7 / 7 H
MODEL 1175 CHFVY NOVA
DRIVER TJ
WET BULK TEMP m C
SPFC. HUM. IP. 8 GRAM/KG
TIME ?as MRS.
SET-7
TEST WT. 181H KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 27 C
BARO. 733.5 MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV R
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. H7.8 PCT
MEASURED FUEL n.un KG
DISTANCE
KM
FUEL 738.S G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO l.BbU
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PKES.H.
PLIMtH DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEKP.
DYNll REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
PLIMEH CU. CM /REV.
23.2S MINUTES
7b2.0 MM. H20
7b2.0 MM H20
f3 DEG. C
31708
112273
aa?7
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
HC BACKGRD MtTER RtADING/SCALE
HC NACKGRO PPM
CO SAMPLE
CO SAMPLE
MtTEH READING/SCALE
PPM
CO BACKGRD MtTF.R READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE MhTF.K READING/SCALE
COa SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COa HACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE MKTER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD MhTER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CUa CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SOa COCENTRATIDN PPM
HC MASS (GKAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
C02 MASS (GRANS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SOa MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMf./KM (GRAKS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
SO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
HC C.^AMS/KG OF FUEL i.st
CO GKAMS/KG OF FUfL 2.8
CO? l,"AMS/KG UF FULL 31bl
MIX i.RAMS/KG OF FUEL 7.»2
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUFL 0.00
35.b/ a
3b
13.I/ 2
!•»
30.1/13
28
3.2/13
3
H1.2/ 2
i.an
i.s/ a
.05
-»n.2/ a
»o.a
i.o/ a
i.o
af
2H
1.7b
0.0
2.BO
5.8H
bblt.tO
15.52
0.00
-ai)
,H3)
.13 (
.27 (
303 (
.71 ( l.lf)
o.oo ( o.nn)
HC GRAMS/MIN
CO GRAMS/MIN
coe GRAMS/MIN
NOX GRAMS/MIN
soe GRAMS/MIN
.3
as1*
.b7
o.on
J BALANCt FUFL KCONUMY L/1HUKM (MILES/GALLON)
TOTAL uvs FLOW: cJus.iSTn. cu. M
( 18.13)
-------
TABLE
O
w
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 2b
DATE 5/17/78 TIME 325 HRS. TEST NO. 8
MODEL 1975 CHEVY NOVA SET-7 ENGINE 5.7 LITREO
RUN DURATION 23.59 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 31.77 KILOMETRES
CVS BLOWER TEST VOL. 25U.02 ACT. CU. METRES
SAMPLE
3ULFATE DATA
FILTER NO. H7FH-293S
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 17.51
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F 87
SAMPLE AREA SO. IN. 7273*.00
DILUTION FACTOR 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 5.00
STAND. AREA SQ. IN. 15bS39.00
SOt,MICROG/FILTER 23.232
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F ?o
AREA,BUBBLER 1 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,BUBBLER 2 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SQ. IN. 1.00
S02, MILLIG/BUBBLER 1 0.000
302, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2 0.000
302, PPM 0.0
SULFATE AND S02 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET H2S01,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET 302,GRAM/TEST
NET 3ULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET H2SOt,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET S02»GRAM/KILOMETRE
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 2102 GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
13.242
13.520
o.ono
. bOB
.b21
0.000
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL 302 H2SOf
.b5
0.000
0.00
302 + H2SOt
,b8
.b8
-------
r AHLF.
oo
FXHAU3T EMISSIONS FROM SINuLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 2b
OATt S/17/7H
MODEL 1H75 CHEVY NOVA
PRIVFR TJ
HET HIILB TEMP ?1 L
SPFC. HUM. .13.4 GRAM/KG
DISTANCE lb.41H KM
TIME -II HRS.
HFET
TEST WT. 181* KG.
DRY RULB TEMP ?R C
HARO. 732.5 MM HG.
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE 5.7 LITRE B
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 55.3 PCT
MEASURED FUEL O.OM KG
FUEL 73K.2 G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO l.BbU
HUN DURATION
RLUWER INLET PMKSS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
KLUXER INLET ThMp.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
HLOWER REVOLUTIONS
RLOWER CU. CM /REV.
ie.7b MINUTES
7b2.o MM.
7b2.0 MM H?0
43 DEC. C
23853
b!5B3
22?S
PAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE MEUR READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC HACKGHD MKTER HEADING/SCALE
HC BACKGRO PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CU SAMPLE PPK
CO HACKGRD MtTER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGHO PPM
CO? SAMPLE MUFR READING/SCALE
COS SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COS BACKGHD PfRCENT
NOX SAMPLE MtTEH READING/SCALE
NMX SAMPLF PPM
NOX HACKGRD MtTER READING/SCALE
NOX OACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTHAlION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GHAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GPAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX bWAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
SO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
35. t/ ?
35
13.?/ ?
1H
?U.h/13
an
2.8/13
3
HS.OX 2
?.?3
l.f/ 2
.US
sa.o/ a
52. 0
.?/ z
.7
24
Ib
2.18
51.4
o.n
l.Sb
2.13
1518.13
12.19
0.00
.10 (
.13 (
?75 (
.74 (
o.no (
.15)
.21)
443)
1.11)
o.nu)
HC
CO
GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
GHAMS/KR OF FUFL
TO? UHAMS/KG OF FUFL
MIX C.RAhS/KG UF FUFL
SO? UKAM3/KG OF FUeL
1.01
1.5
31b4
8.53
(1.0(1
HC GRAHS/MlN
CO GRAMS/MIN
C02 GRAMS/MIN
NOX GRAMS/MIN
SO? GRAMS/MIN
.12
.2
354
.^b
O.UO
HALANCt Fl'FL ECONOMY L/10UKM ( M 1 LF S / G ALL ON )
wr, fLOW= lla.lSID. CU. METRtS
11.77 ( iq.99)
-------
TABLE
UNTT NO.
VEHICLE MUDEL
TEST NO.
NOVA CHEVY
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1978 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
ACTUAL DISTANCES USED IN CALCULATIONS
DATE 5/a?/78 MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 5.7* LITRE 8 CURB WT.
-0
0 KG
YR. 1175
GVM 0 KG
D
W
BAROMETER 71S.SU MM OF HG.
•DRY BULB TEMP. ?1.H OEG..C
REL. HUMIDITY fH PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF. PRKSS., G2, 7fq.3 MM.
RAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
co?
COB
H?0
METER HEADING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
OACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
8ACKGKD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
CO? HACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO? RACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE MFTER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX 8ACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
NOX RACKGRD PPM
SO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SO? SAMPLE PPM
SO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
SO? BACKGHD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
SO? MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM (MPG)
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES (SCF)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM(MILES)
WEIGHTED FUEL
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
TOTAL CVS
CONSUMPTION LITKFS/IUOKM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM fGRAMS/MILE)
FLOW = ?71.b STD. CU. METRES
WET BULB TEMP 17.? DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 1.5 GRAMS/KG
COMMENTS 1978 FTP-C
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 711.3 MM. HgO
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 11 DEG. C
1
1Ub?1
BB.8/ ?
81
11. b/ ?
1?
83.1/11
381
.b/11
?
Ib.l/ 3
1.81
3. 1/ 3
.05
31. 7/ 2
31.7
l.O/ 2
1.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
7q
3b8
1.7b
33.8
0.0
3.12
32.21
2130. bl
H.bi
0.00
.bO (
5.b3 C 1.
1?1.07 (b8?.
.8? ( 1 .
18. Sb ( 1?.
75. •* (?bbl
5.73 ( 3.
17.03
.30
?.5?
3St.Ot
.50
?
blfbl
?b,3/ 2
?b
11. IX 2
11
88.2/13
81
?.b/13
3
bl.S/ 3
1.01
3.*/ 3
.05
S.»X 2
l.t
.b/ 2
.b
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
Ib
83
1.05
8.8
0.0
1.20
12. t7
?tbS.37
?.10
0.00
Ib) .20 ( .31)
Ob) 2.0t ( 3.28)
33) t02.53 (b»7.bb)
32) .3H ( .55)
b8) 17.31 ( 13.5fa)
.•») 1?8.B C*S50.0)
Sb) b.12 C 3.81)
( 13.82)
C .-*8)
( t.Ob)
Cb3H.01)
( .80)
3
tOb!3
t5.3/ 2
ts
11. 3/ 2
11
7b.8/13
7b
2.1/13
2
81. t/ 3
1.50
2. 1/ 3
.03
22. I/ 2
22.1
.8/ 2
.8
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
35
71
1.H7
22.2
0.0
1.53
b.11
2028. Ib
3.07
0.00
.27 (
1.01 ( 1.
355.38 (571.
.51 (
15.28 ( 15.
75.3 (2bbO
5.71 ( 3.
H3)
75)
80)
87)
fO)
.t)
55)
-------
I AHl.t
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMI
Dftit s / ? e / 7 a
MODEL 1975 NUVA CHEVY
DRIVER BP
WE T BULH TFMP 17 C
SPEC. HUM. p.i GRAM/KG
DISTANCE ?] .531) KM
TIME -0 MRS.
SET-7
TEST HT. 181H KG.
DRY BULB TEMP ?b C
BARO. 73S.H MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 5.7 LITREV 8
GVM Q KG
REL. HUM. 37.5 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
FUEL 738.? G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO l.BhO
PUN DURATION
BLOWER iNLtT PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
[UNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /RtV.
23.21 MINUTES
7H9.3 MM. H20
7*9.3 MM H?0
H* DEG. C
31289
115129
?233
D
I
RESULTS
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
OACKGWD MtTER READING/SCALE
HACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
MFTER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGHD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
COS SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COS BACKGRD PERCENT
MtTEW RtADING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGHD MtTER READING/SCALE
NOX RACKGKD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? COCENTRAT10N PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
NOX SAMPLE
NUX SAMPLE
HC
CO
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
so? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
HC GRAMS/KG QF FUEL i.ib
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 11.5
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31*8
NOX GRAMS/hG OF FUEL H.98
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL tl.no
.12 (
l.lb (
317 (
.5U (
o.no (
35
lb.7/ ?
17
HI. 0/12
108
l.b/12
3
1S.7/ 3
1.80
3.«»/ 3
.Ob
21. 5X 2
21.5
20
100
1.75
28.7
0.0
2.52
b832.bq
10.81
0.00
.11)
1.87)
511)
.81)
o.nn)
HC GRAMS/MIN
CO GRAMS/MIN
CO? GRAMS/MIN
NOX GRAMS/MIN
302 GRAMS/MIN
.11
1.1
213
.»b
0.00
C»RBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY L/IOOKM (MILES/GALLON)
TOT4L LVS FLOW= 813.8STD. CU. METRES
13.bH ( 17.2S)
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMI
D
DATE 5/52/78 TIME -0 MRS. TEST NO. 2
MODEL 1175 NOVA CHEVY SET-7 ENGINE 5.7 LITREO
RUN DURATION 33.aq MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21.7t KILOMETRES
CVS BLOWER TEST VOL. 257.12 ACT. CU. METRES
SAMPLE
SULFATE DATA
FILTER NO. t?FH-2S3B
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 17.IS
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F 77
SAMPLE AREA SQ. IN. 7b79t.OO
DILUTION FACTOR 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 5.00
STAND. AREA SQ. IN. I*bb57.00
SOt,MICROG/FILTER 2b.lBl
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F ?o
AREA,BUBBLER 1 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,BUBBLER 2 0.00
DIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SQ. IN. 1.00
302, MILLIG/BUBBLER 1 0.000
302, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2 0.000
302, PPM 0.0
SULFATE AND S02 EMISSIONS
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
NET SULFATE, MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET H2sot, MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET 302, GRAM/TEST
NET SULFATE, MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET H2SOt, MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET 302, GRAM/KILOMETRE
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 2180 GRAMS SULFUR
FUEL
SULFUR, GRAMS ,b8
PCT. RECOVERY
15.921
lb.2S5
0.000
.732
.748
0.000
IN FUEL, .0310
302
0.000
0.00
PCT.
H2SO*
.0053
.79
302 + H2SO
-------
TAHLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EM9
D
OATE SAV/7R
MODEL 1^75 NOVA CHEVY
DRIVEP BP
WET BULB TEMP i? C
SPEC. HUM. 8.8 GRAM/KG
DISTANCE lb.285 KM
TIME -0 MRS.
FET
TEST WT. 181* KG.
DRY BULB TEMP ?b C
BARD. 739.H MM HG.
FUEL 738.2 G/LITRE
TEST NO.
ENGINE 5
GVH 0 KG
REL. HUM. HO
MEASURED FUEL
FUEL HC
7 LlTREV fl
PCT
0.00 KG
RATIO 1.8bO
RUN DURATION
B|_OWtR INLtl PRESS.
BLOWER 1>IF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TFMP.
nYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVULUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
12.75 MINUTES
7H9.3 MM. H20
7*9.3 MM H?0
HH OEG. C
?3bb7
b!391
2230
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE MT.TFR READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRO PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PtHCENT
COS BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
C02 HACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE MEIER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
302 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
SO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.1H
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL H . 9
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 315R
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL S.bO
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUFL O.flll
.10 (
.»3 C
280 (
.50 (
n.oo (
39. 9/ 2
HO
17. 9/ 2
18
bO.b/13
58
2. fa/13
3
H9.7/ 2
2.27
2.S/ 2
.09
H0.3/ 2
HO. 3
.9
25
S3
2.19
39. b
0.0
l.bH
7.02
H5b3.03
8.09
0.00
.b9)
H51)
.80)
O.MO)
HC GRAMS/MIN .13
CO GRAMS/MIN ,b
CO? GRAMS/MIN 358
NOX GRAMS/MIN .b3
302 GRAMS/MIN 0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUFL ECONOMY L/lOfJKM (MILES/GALLON)
TOT»L CVS FLOH= 1H.1STO. CU. METRES
12.00 ( IS.bO)
-------
APPENDIX E
COMPUTER PRINTOUTS
FOR
THREEWAY CATALYST SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION AND
DURABILITY TESTS ON THE 1977 PLYMOUTH FURY
(Tests in Chronological Order)
-------
UNIT NO. EHR
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST Nl).
PLYMOUTH FURY
TABLE VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIKHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
* DATE 3/30/77 MFGR. CODE
ENG1NF 5.90 LITRE B CURB WT.
-0
0 KG
YR.
GVM
1977
0 KG
BAROMFTER 7H0.92 MM OF HG.
DRY HIILB TEMP. 2H.H DEG. C
HUMIDITY ?9 PCT.
FXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF. PRfcSS.,
RAG RESULTS
RAT, NO.
OLOWER REVOLUTIONS
G2, 71) .2 MM. H20
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
co
C02
C02
CO?
C02
MOX
NOX
« NOX
NJ NOX
S02
302
302
S02
HC
CO
C02
NOX
302
HC
CO
C02
NOX
302
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLF PPM
BACKGRO MFTER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
HACKGRD MFTER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE MFTER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
RACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METFR READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
1
*2*2n
32.9/ 3
329
.b/ 3
b
85.f/ 3
2377
.!/ 3
2
*3.8/ 2
1.9*
1.7/2
.Ob
70.O/ 3
210.0
.!/ 3
.3
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
32*
22b>f
1.B9
209.7
0.0
1*.B3
209.2*
27Sb.70
27.28
0.00
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS S02
2.00 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
19.0* GRAMS/KILOMETRE
*99.21 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
5.f7 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
n.tltl GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WET BULB TEMP 13.9 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY S.b GRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 711.2 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. * 3 DEG. C
2
7*713
lb.1/ 3
Ibl
l.O/ 3
10
25.b/ 3
59b
.!/ 3
2
32.I/ 2
1.31
1.7/ 2
.Ob
*9.1/ 3
1*7.3
.3/ 3
.9
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
152
57*
1.29
l*b.5
0.0
12. 2b
93.35
3311.78
33.55
0.00
3
*3029
21.S/ 3
215
.b/ 3
b
38.O/ 3
911
.!/ 3
2
*2.1/ 2
1.85
1.3/ 2
.05
91.9/ 3
275.7
.2/ 3
.b
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
210
8b8
1.81
275.2
0.0
9.7*
81.39
2b78.98
3b.30
0.00
CA9BON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 22.81 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW = 299.7 STD. CU. METRES
-------
TARI.E
H
OJ
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMHFR
DATE 3/3U/77
MODEL 1177 PLYMOUTH FURY
DRIVER SH
WET RULB TEMP lb C
SPKC. HUM. b.fl GKArt/KG
TIME -0 HRS.
SET 7
TEST WT. 9)77 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 2b C
BARO. 7tl.7 MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 5.1 LITRE R
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 31.5 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF.< P^ESS.
RLOWER INLET TFMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
RLCMER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
2H.31 MINIJTE3
73b.h MM. H20
MM H20
73b.b
H3
3HHR5
OEG. C
2230
METER READING/SCALE
RAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGHD MFTER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE i.ot
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE 10.15
co? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 32b
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE H.2i
S02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE U.OO
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL q.SH
co GRAMS/KG UF FUEL 13.2
C0?_ GHAMS/KG OF FUEL ?S13
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31.tn
sop GRAMS/KG OF FUEL o.nn
ao.b/3
20t>
.1/3
q
f l.H/3
1010
.1/3
2
H4.8/2
1.11
.05
28.0/H
280.0
.I/1*
1.0
118
IbO
1.15
271.2
0.0
25.01
2ft. 11
ins, 28
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN 1.03
co GRAMS/MIN 10.0
C02 GRAMS/MIN 323
NOX GRAMS/MIN H.25
SO?. GRAMS/MIN 0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY = It.83 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TAHLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE 1/TO/77 TIME -0 MRS. TEST NO. ?
MODEL 1^7? PLYMOUTH FURY SET 7 ENGINE s.i LITHEO
HUN DUHATI'M 2>f,31 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 2f.05 KILOMETRES
CVS HLIHEH TEST VOL. 2bl.3n ACT. CU. METRES
3UI.FATE DATA
SAMPLE
BACKGROUND
W
I
H NO. »7FH-27S8
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 12. IS
SAMPLE TEMP. HE<~,. F 81
SAMPLE AKEA SO. IN. 1P7790.00
DILUTION FACTOR i
STAND. DEN. MICHOG/ML 5.00
STAND. AREA 30. IN. ?lb575.00
90t ,MICROR/F ILTKR 2
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F 70
AREA, BIIBBLEK 1 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER I 1
AREA,fll|RBLEK ? 0.0(1
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AKEA,SO. IN. 1.00
302, MILLIG/BUB6LER 1 0.000
302, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2 o.ooo
302, PPM 0.0
SULFATE AND 302 EMISSIONS
NFT SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST 25.433
NFT H2sot,MILLIGRAM/TEST 25.sb?
NET so2,GRAM/TEST o.ooo
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE 1.057
NET H2SOt,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE 1.080
NET 302,GRAM/KILOMETRE 0.000
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL NT., 2b21 GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
1 .00
70
0.00
1
1.00
1 .00
0.000
1.0(1
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
.8*
0.000
0.00
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0320 PCT.
FUEL S02 H2SOt
.0085
1.01
302 + H2SOH
.0085
l.ni
-------
TABLE
KXHAU3T EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE 3/10/77
MODEL 1977 PLYMOUTH FURY
DRIVER SH
WET 3ULH TEMP it, c
SPEC. HUM. 5.8 GRAM/KG
TIME -a HRS.
H FET
TEST WT. ai?7 KG.
ORY BULB TEMP 28 C
BARO. 7tl.7 MM HG.
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE 5.9 LITREV 8
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 23.B PCT
MEASURED FUEL U.OO KG
RUN DURATION 15.10 MINUTES
RLOWKH INLET PRESS. 723.9 MM. H20
BLOWER DIF. PHF.SS. 753.1 MM H20
BLOWEK INLET TE'IP. 13 DEG. C
DYNO REVOLUTIONS 28935
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS 72851
BLOWER CU. CM /REV. 2231
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRO PPM
CO SAMPLE METFR READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO HACKGRD METER ME AOING/SC ALE
CO BACKGKD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER HEADING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 flACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION ?CT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .88
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE H.1S
C02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 28b
NOX GPAMS/KILOMETRE -*.0b
S02 GKAMS/hlLOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL S.2b
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 8b.2
COP GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3005
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 42.73
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
23.0/3
230
.8/3
8
HH.7/3
1087
0.0/3
0
5U.f>/2
2.32
l.H/2
.05
3b.2/H
3b2.0
223
1030
3.28
3bl.2
0.0
17.55
Ib3.3b
5b9S.87
81.00
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN J.lb
CO GRAMS/MIN 10.8
C02 GRAMS/MIN 377
NOX GRAMS/MIN 5.3b
S02 GRAMS/MIN 0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY = 12.93 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
UNIT NO. fl
VEHICLE MOOFL
TEST NO. i
PLYMOUTH SALON
TAHLE VEHICLE EMISSION RFSULT.S
1175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATF R/J7/77 MFf,R. CODE
ENGINF 5.10 LITRE B CURB WT.
-n
0 KG
YR.
GVM
KG
R F L .
F TFR 7*?.q5 MM OF HG.
iiLH TFHP. ?s.n OFT,, c
HUMIDITY b n P c T .
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. P R (• S S . i
RAT, RESULTS
W
I
G? ,
MM. H ? 0
RAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLF METER
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC RACKGRD METER
HC RACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE MFTFR
CO SAMPLE PPM
co BACKGRO MFTFD
CO BACK G 40 PPM
co? SAMPLF METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
RFADING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLK PERCENT
co? RACKGRO MFTER
READING/SCALE
CO? HACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX HACKGHD MFTFR
NOX 8ACKGRD PPM
SO? SAMPLE METFR
90? SAMPLE PPM
SO? BACKGRD METER
SO? RACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
CO? CONCENTRATION
NOX CONCENTRATION
SO? CONCENTRATION
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
TO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
SO? MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS S02
HEADING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
PPM
]
?;
.2b GRAMS/KILOMETRE
f.HS GRAMS/KILOMETRE
3in.iR GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.S3 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
n. OH GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1
f D71H
13.5/3
135
1.5/3
15
55.0/3
1370
.3/3
h
88.0/3
1 . ht
t.t/3
.07
27.7/2
27.7
3.1/2
3.1
-M. n/*
-n.o
-n.n/*
-o.o
122
1215
1.58
25.0
0.0
5.3b
Lit ,S2
?01.b7
3.81
o.nn
WET 8UL8 TEMP 19.4 DF.G. C
4BS. HUMIDITY i?..i GRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 73b.h nM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. H3 PEG. C
18. 3/2
18
1.5/3
15
11. 2/*
1 1
.2/3
1.15
H.5/3
.07
13. O/?
13.0
1.9/2
1.1
-n.n/*
-O.o
-O.O/*
-n.o
5
b
1.08
11.3
0.0
.35
*1b
2511.12
2. 11*
0.00
3P. I/?
32
I1*. 5/2
70.
71
2.3/»
?
H3.0/3
1.53
.07
22.7/2
22.7
1 .7/2
1.7
-n.o/*
-o.o
-o.o/*
-n.o
11
bb
i.f?
21.2
0.0
.8f
5.82
2050.51
3.23
0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL CONSUMPTION = 17.0(1 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETRES
TOTAL CVS FLOW = 2R?.7 STD. CU. METRFS
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 8
M
DATE 8/17/77 TIME -fl HRS.
MODEL 1977 PLYMOUTH/SALON SET-7
DRIVER SR TE3T WT. 2041 KG.
WET BULB TEMP 18 C DRY BULB TEMP 2b C
SPEC. HUM. 9.7 GRAM/KG 8ARO. 7t2.2 MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 5.9 LITREV 8
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. Hb.3 PCT
MEASURED FUEL n.on KG
PUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIP. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER cu. CM /REV.
23.28 MINUTE3
73b.b MM. H20
73b.b MM H20
43 DEC. C
320b9
112305
2228
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
HC
CO
COS MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
302 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE
co GRAMS/KILOMETRE
co? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
3.2b
soa
.12
0.00
tO.b/2
11
18,7/2
19
72. I/*
317
13
95.3/3
1.71
.Ob
B.0/2
8.0
1.7/2
1.7
2H
290
1.74
b.5
0.0
2.9b
70.90
bb95.37
2.53
o.no
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.38
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 33. o
co? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3113
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL l.lfl
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN .13
CO GRAMS/MIN 3.0
C02 GRAMS/MIN ?8R
NOX GRAMS/MIN .11
302 GRAMS/MIN 0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY = 13.HO LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
FXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE R*G SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 8
W
I
00
DATE 8/17/77 TIME -0 MRS. TEST NO. 2
MODEL 1977 PLYMOUTH/SALON SFT-7 ENGINE 5.9 LITREfl
RUN DURATION 23. PB MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21.7>» KILOMETRES
CVR 9LOWFR TEST VOL. 25H.2H ACT. CD. METRES
SAMPLE
SUl.FATE DATA
FILTER NO. H7FH-2858
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 13.b8
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F RO
SAMPLE AREA SO. IN. 55028.00
DILUTION FACTOR 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 5.no
STAND. AREA SO. IN. 115891,.00
30>»,MICROG/FILTER l>».0fs
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F 70
AREA,BUBBLER 1 O.OD
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,BUBBLER 2 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SO. IN. 1.00
302, MILLIG/BUBBLER 1 n.OOO
SO?, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2 0.000
302, PPM 0.0
SULFATE AND 302 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NFT H2SO»,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET 302,GRAM/TEST
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET H2SOH,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET 302,GRAM/KILOMETRE
10.330
10.5»7
0.000
.175
BACKGROUND
1 .00
70
o.nn
i
1 .no
i .00
o.ono
i .no
70
o.oo
i
o.no
i
1.00
i.no
o.ooo
o.ooo
o.o
0.000
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 2151 GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAM3
PCT. RECOVERY
SULFUR IN FUEL, ,030n PCT.
FUEL - 302 H2S04
0.000
o.oo
,003t
.53
302 + H2SOH
.003H
.53
-------
TABLE
FXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 8
H
DATE 8/17/77 TIME -0 MRS.
MODEL 1177 PLYMOUTH/SALON FFT
DRIVER SR TEST WT. ?rm KG.
WET BULB TEMP 18 C DRY BULB TEMP 2h C
SPEC. HUM; l.t GRAM/KG BARO. 7t2.2 MM HG.
RUN DURATION 12.78 MINUTES
BLOWER INLET PRESS. 73b.b MM. H20
BLOWER DIF. PRESS. 73b.b MM H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. f3 DEC. C
DYNO REVOLUTIONS 2>*211
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS b!735
BLOWER CU. CM /REV. 2228
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE 5.1 LITREV fl
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. i»3.7 PCT
MEASURED FUEL n.on KG
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER RFADING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
CO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
HC
CO
HC
CO
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .If
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE 3.13
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 273
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .11
302 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL I.h3
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 35.b
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3108
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.29
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
51. 1/2
51
18.B/2
11
87. b/*
b.?/*
21
*8.3/2
2.11
2.1/2
.OR
10.4/2
10. »
1.1/2
1.1
35
38*
2.1?
8.8
0.0
2.3b
51.57
1.87
0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN .18
CO GRAMS/MIN f.O
C02 GRAMS/MIN 352
NOX GRAMS/MIN .15
302 GRAMS/MIN 0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY = 11.11 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TAHLF.
UNIT >in.
VFHICI F
TEST NO. 1
PLY FURY
HAROMFIFR 719 . '
DRY BIIL« TFMP.
REl. HUMIDITY
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
MM OF HG.
22.H OFG. C
fcS PCT.
VEHICLF EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
OATE 9/23/77 MFGR. CODE -n
ENGINE 5.90 LITRE 8 CURB WT. 0 KG
WET BULB TEMP 18.3 DEC. C
A8S. HUMIDITY 11. b GRAMS/KG
VR.
GVM
1977
U KG
W
I
HLOWER OIF. PRFSS., G?, bHS.R MM.
RAG RESULTS
H20
WAG NO.
HI. HWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE MFTFR WFAI) I NG/SC ALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC RACKGRD MFTFR READING/SCALE
HC HACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE MFTFR Rf ADING/3CALE
TO SAMPLF PPM
m HACKGRD MFTER RFAD I NG/3C ALE
TO riACKGRD PPM
rn? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CD? BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE MFTER REAPING/SCALE
NflX SAMPLE PPM
NfiX flACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX HACKGRD PPM
SO? SAMPLE MFTFR READING/SCALE
SO? .SAMPLE PPM
SO? HACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
SO? BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? CONCENTRATION PPM
HC. MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
1
•HI794
90.7/3
91
11.0/2
11
28.2/3
bhl
.1/3
2
91.3/3
1.71
t.1/3
.fib
30.5/2
311.5
1.2/2
1.2
-O.O/*
-n.o
-0. O/*
-0.0
Bl
b?»
l.hS
29.5
o.n
3.5S
55.53
CO? MASS GRAMS ?321.Ht
NOX MASS GRAMS
SO? MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC .20 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS CO 3.25 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS CO? Hflf.H? GRAMS/K ILOMETRF
WEIGHTED MASS NDX .31 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS S02 t'.OO GRAMS/K I LOMETRF
4.f 1
n.oo
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl b85.8 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TF.MP. 43 DEG. C
b9857
15. 1/?
15
1M.4/2
10
3.8/*
H
b5.ll/3
l.lb
f .0/3
.lib
H.3/2
H.3
1.1/2
1 .1
-o.n/*
-o.o
-o.o/*
-o.n
t
id
l.ll
3.3
0.0
.»?
b.ll
?bb5. 13
.85
0.00
3
40737
10.B/2
11
83.U/*
194
1.3/*
2
85.1/3
1.58
f .0/3
.fib
18.8
1.0/2
1.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
17
1B2
1.52
11.3
o.n
.75
Ih.lH
213b.OB
1.70
0.00
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARRON BALANCE = 5.7 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
UNIT NO. 335
VEHICLE MODEL
PLY.
TABLE VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
TEST NO. * DATE 9/28/77 MFGR. CODE
FURY ENGINE 5.90 LITRE 8 CURB WT.
-0
0 KG
YR. 1S7?
GVM 0 KG
BAROMETER 739.90 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.8 DEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY b9 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIP. PRESS., 62, b88.3 MM.
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
H20
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
S02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
302 SAMPLE PPM
S02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
302 BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
9.8/3
98
1.9/3
19
32.3/3
7b5
.1/3
2
90.9/3
1.70
3.7/3
.Ob
51.1/2
51.1
.7/2
.7
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-o.n
82
721
l.bS
50.5
0.0
3.58
b3.97
C02 MASS GRAMS 2310.09
NOX MASS GRAMS
302 MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC .lb GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS CO 2.3b GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS C02 399.28 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS NOX 1.39 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS 302 0.00 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
7.78
0.00
WET BULB TEMP 18.9 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.3 GRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., 61 b9U.9 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. H3 DEG. C
2
b9813
lS.b/2
lb
b.9/*
7
3.0/*
3
b3.5/3
1.13
3.3/3
.05
17.Y/2
17. H
.b/2
.b
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
3
t
1.09
lb.9
0.0
.21
.57
2blS.20
•Ktb
0.00
3
10b31
IB. 1/2
18
13.b/2
It
11.7/*
11
2.1*/*
2
B».t/3
l.Sb
.05
3*. 3/3
102.9
.3/3
.9
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
b
8
1.52
102.1
0.0
.27
.7H
2122.38
15.73
0.00
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE = 5.8 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
w
I
UNIT Ml). 8
Vf HICl F MUOEL
TEST NO.
PLYMOUTH
TAHLE VFHICLE EMISSION RESULT3
197H LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
ACTUAL DISTANCES USED IN CALCULATIONS
1 DATE 111/20/77 MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 5.10 LITRE 8 CURB «T.
-0 YR.
0 KG GVM
1S7 7
U Mi
HARflMFTFW 74(1.bh MM OF HP,.
OHY rtHl H TFMP. ?s.H HER. -C
MKL . HiJMIDI TY 41 DC1 .
EXHAUST FMJSSIONS
DIP.
RA(, RESULTS
HAT, NO.
HLUWER REVOI
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
TU
TO
CD
CO
COP
CO?
C02
C02
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
302
SO?
S02
.SOP
G?f b85.8 MM. H2H
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRO
HACKGRD
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
HACKGRD
BACKGRO
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRD
BACKGRO
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
HACKGRD
flACKGRIJ
IITIONS
IF TER READING/SCALE
PPM
MtTF.R READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
MFTER READING/SCALE
PPM
METKR READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METEK READING/SCALE
PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
TO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS I;RAMS
S02 MASS G9AMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILK)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MlLF)
NOX GHAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION KY CB L/10MKM (MPG)
cvs FLO*. STD. Cii. METRES CSCFI
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM(IIILES)
NEIGHTFD FOf-.l. CONSUMPTION L I T RF S/ I ilOKM (MPT,)
WEIGHTED MASS HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
HEIGHTFD MASS CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
HEIGHTFO MASS COS GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
WEIGHTED M»SS NOX KRAMS/KH ( GR A MS/ •< ILE 1
ini»c CV3 FLU* = ?B1.<» "JTO. CU. MET!»FS
BULB TEMP 17.8 DEC. C
ArfS. HUMIDITY 9.9 GRAMS/KG
COMMENTS 1178 FTP-C
SLOWER INLET PRESS., GI hHS.s MM. H?O
SLOWER INLET TEMP. 43 DEG. c
1
4 n 7 't ?
in.3/ 3
103
2.2/ 3
22
32. 4/ 3
7b7
.4/ 3
s
10. 5/ 3
l.bl
3.2/ 3
.05
2b.o/ 2
2b.O
.5/ 3
.5
-M.O/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
8*
753
l.bS
25. b
0.0
3.70
b4.34
2304. b2
3.b4
11.00
.b4 ( I.
11. OS ( 17.
317. [12 Cb38.
.b3 ( ) .
17.77 ( 13.
7b.S (27011
5.80 ( 3.
17.72
.20
3.53
4l>q. 10
.33
2
bISlh
2H.8/ 2
25
20. I/ 2
20
71 .7/13
7(1
10.b/13
10
bb. I/ 3
1.11
3.7/ 3
.Ob
3.S/ 2
3.5
.5/ 2
.5
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
b
58
1.13
3.0
0.0
.49
8.81
2718. ?b
.74
0.00
03) .08 ( .13)
83) 1.42 ( 2.28)
HI) 433.57 (b17.b2)
01) .12 ( .11)
23) 18. bl C 12. bf)
.0) 131.0 (4b2b.l)
bl) b.27 ( 3.10)
( 13.27)
( .32)
( S.faB)
(bS8.24)
C .54)
3
40701
28. 2/ 2
28
lb.0/ 2
Ib
58.3/12
130
2.7/12
5
85. b/ 3
1.51
3. 1/ 3
.Ob
22. I/ 2
22.1
l.O/ 2
1.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
14
120
1.53
21.2
n.o
.b2
10. bS
2145.03
3.02
0.00
.11 (
1.85 ( 2.
371. b4 (517.
.52 (
lb.00 ( 14.
7b.4 (2b17
5.77 ( 3.
17)
17)
17)
84)
70)
.8)
51)
-------
UNIT NO. t MH
VEHICLE MODEL
NO. J
FURY PLYMOUTH
bAROMFTFR 73H.M1 MM (IF HG.
DRY RULH TEMP. ?•».•» OEG. c
REL. HUMIDITY 35 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIP. PRtSS., ('?, hSll.H MM. HPO
RAG RhSULlS
RAG NC.
RLOWfcR KtVULUUUNS
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
)97s LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
OATF. 11/5R/77 MFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE 5.90 LITRE B CURB WT. 0 KG
WET BULB TEMP 15.0 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY b.9 GRAMS/KG
YR.
GVH
1977
U KG
M
HC
HC
HC
HC
f.Ll
CO
CO
CO
cop
CO?
cu?
COP
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
SO?
S02
SOP
SO?
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
SO?
HC
co
CU2
NOX
SO?
SAC.PLt MhTfR
r.Aft'Lt PPM
(sACKURp MhTEH
f'ACKGRl; PPM
SAKPLE MF.TtP
SAMPLE PPM
BALKGRD MF.TER
HACKGKD PPM
SAhPLt MFTER
HEADING/SCALE
Rf ADING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
KEAD tNG/SCALE
(
READING/SCALE
SAKPLE PERCENT
OACKliRD MhTEH
READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE MFTFR
SAMPLE PPM
bACKGRO MFTtR
RACKGKO PPM
SAKPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD MF.TFR
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/3CALE
RfcAOING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
PPM
1
M- H 7 9 1
9.8/3
98
l.D/3
111
30.9/3
723
.2/3
5
B9.H/3
I.h7
3.8/3
.Ob
H2.8/2
H2.8
.t
-n.u/*
-II. 0
-o.n/*
-o.o
89
l.bl
42.5
0.0
3.91
b 1 . 3 7
227t.be
5. S3
n.nu
WEIGHTED MASS MC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS co2
WEIGHTF.D MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS 502
. I b GRAMS/KILOMETRE
P.hi GkAMS/KlLOMETRE
399.nl GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.58 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
11.01" GKAMS/KILOMETRE
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl bbO.H MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. H2 DEG. C
Z
b9742
13.2/2
13
12.8/2
13
2b.3/*
25
3.9/*
t
bS.1/3
l.lb
3.9/3
.Ob
8.b/2
8.b
.5/2
.5
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
2
21
1.11
B.I
0.0
.11
3.15
2b73.b2
1.81
0.00
3
H0731
15.1/2
15
13.9/2
If
H5
3.7/*
t
82.2/3
1.52
t.7/3
.07
38.1/2
38.1
.7/2
.7
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
3
HO
1.H5
37.5
0.0
.13
3.53
20f0.99
t.87
0.00
FUEL ECONOMY BY CAKHiiN BALANCE = 5.8 KILOMETRF/LITRE
-------
TAbLE
UNIT NU. F. MB
VKHICLE MOOFL
TEST NO.
PLY FURY
bARflMRTER 719.9(1 MM OF HG.
DHY BlILU TEMP. 23.3 DEG. C
HEL. HUMIDITY bb PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIP. PRESS. , 62, b?3.1 MM.
PAG RESULTS
HAG NO.
PLOHER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
ro
CO
CO
CO
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
PPM
w
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
PATE 12/13/77 MFGR. CODE -0 YH.
ENGINE 5.90 LITRE B CURB WT. U KG GVM
WET BULB TEMP 18.9 DtG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.1 GRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl b73.1 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. <*3 DEC. c
197?
U
MtTER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRO METfR READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HACKGHD PPM
C02
C02
C02
C02
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
302
302
302
302
HC
CO
C02
NOX
302
HC
CO
C02
NOX
302
SAMPLE
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
12.1/3
121
.9/3
9
27.H/3
b37
.1/3
Z
1.77
.Ob
2b.5/2
2b.S
1.8/2
1.8
-n.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
113
bOO
1.71
2f.9
0.0
5.00
53.51
2"U0.19
3.83
0.00
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS co
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS S02
.20 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
2.18 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
lll.lb GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.-»S GRAMS/KILOMETRE
0.00 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
2
h9908
9.5/2
1U
8.3/2
8
lb.3/*
Ib
•KO/*
H
b5.2/3
1.17
3.b/3
.Ob
b.3/2
b.3
1.9/2
1.9
-0.lt/*
-o.n
-o.n/*
-o.o
2
11
1.12
* .b
o.u
.15
1.75
2b98.13
1.20
o.on
3
HObOl
It. 5/2
1*
8.8/2
9
3b.8/*
35
85.5/3
1.58
3.7/3
.Ob
30.8/2
30.8
1.8/2
1.8
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
7
29
1.53
29.2
0.0
.30
2.b2
2152.90
t.47
0.00
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE = S.b KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE
UNIT NO. 235
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO.
FURY EM 8
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE 12/lb/77 MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 5.90 LITRE 8 CURB HT.
-0
0 KG
YR. 197?
GVM 0 KG
BAROMETER 734.31 MM OF HG.
DRY dULB TEMP. 35.0 DEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY 53 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF. PRESS., G?, bbll.4 MM.
RAG RESULTS
I
M
Ul
H20
RAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGHD METER
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER
HEADING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
HEADING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER
READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER
NOX BACKGRO PPM
S02 SAMPLE METER
S02 SAMPLE PPM
S03 BACKGRD METER
SO? BACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
CO? CONCENTRATION
NOX CONCENTRATION
S02 CONCENTRATION
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NUX MASS GRAMS
SO? MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS cos
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS SO?
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
PPM
1
40758
54.5/2
54
8.5/2
9
82. 4/*
384
i.nx*
3
44.2/2
1.9b
2.1/2
.08
30.9/2
30.9
1.0/2
1.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
47
3bO
1.90
30.0
0.0
2.08
31.93
2b55.43
.08 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1.39 GftAMS/KILOMETRE
4tU.94 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.54 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
0.00 GKAMS/KILOMETRE
4.38
tl.OO
WET BULB TEMP 18.3 DEC. C
AB3. HUMIDITY 10.8 GRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl bbO.4 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 43 DEC. C
2
b9907
B.9/2
1
9.4/2
q
18.O/*
17
2.0/*
2
70.2/3
1.27
3.9/3
.Ob
7.7/2
7.7
.7/2
.7
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
0
15
1.21
7.1
0.0
.03
2.24
2914.57
1.77
0.00
3
40733
11.5/2
11
B.b/2
9
18.b/*
18
1.3/*
1
88.3/3
I.b4
4.2/3
.Ob
35.5/2
35.5
.8/2
.8
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
4
Ib
1.59
34.8
0.0
.17
1.40
2216.58
S.07
0.00
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE = 5.3 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE
UN I T NU. P15
VtHICLt MW>EL
TEST NO.
FURY
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1 7H LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
ACTUAL DISTANCES USED IN CALCULATIONS
DATE 12/19/77 MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 5.90 LITRE 8 CURB WT.
-0
0 KG
YR.
GVM
1977
U KG
HAROMI-TF-.R 73R.b3 MM OF HG.
UHY HULH TEMP. 2».H OEG. C
WtL. HUMIDITY HS PCT.
FXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., G?, bS5.3 MM.
RAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CD
CO
r. o
CO
COS
CO?
w
I
H?0
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAKPLE
HACKGHD METER READING/SCALE
HACKGRO PPM
SAKPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAKPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
RACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
MtTER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
CO?
CU?
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
SO?
SO?
302
SO?
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
HACKGRO PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
SO? MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILF.)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/1HOKM (MPG)
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES (SCF)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM(MlLES)
WEIGHTED FUEL CONSUMPTION LITRES/IUOKM (MPG)
WEIGHTED MASS HC GRAMS/KM (GHAMS/MlLE)
WEIGHTED MASS CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
WEIGHTED MASS CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
WEIGHTED MASS NOX GRAMS/KM (GBAMS/MICE)
TOTAL cvs FLOH = anb.i STO. CD. METRES
WET BULB TEMP lb.7 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 8.8 GRAMS/KG
COMMENTS 1978 FTP EM g
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl b55.3 MM. H?0
BLOWER INLET TEMP. HI DEG. C
1
10791
80. 8/ 2
81
IB. I/ 2
18
23. 8/ 3
550
.!/ 3
?
95. 2/ 3
1.79
1.S/ 3
.07
17. 2/ 2
17.2
1.3/ 2
1.3
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
bS
522
1.73
lb.1
0.0
2.88
1b.71
2135.19
2.23
0.00
.50 (
8.08 ( 13.
121.01 (b?7.
.39 (
18.58 ( 12.
77.0 (2718
5.78 ( 3.
17.50
.09
1.98
10b.b9
2
7001b
13. 1/ 2
13
17. 1/ 2
17
23.8/13
23
5.0/13
5
b3.b/ 3
1.13
I.I/ 3
.07
7.0/ 2
7.0
l.O/ 2
1.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-3
17
1.07
b.l
0.0
-.19
?.b7
2595.35
1.15
0.00
80) -.03 ( -.05)
00) .12 ( .b8)
11) 112.19 (bb3.bS)
b2) .23 ( .37)
bb) 17. b3 ( 13.31)
.3) 132.1 (IbbS.l)
59) b.29 ( 3.91)
( 13.11)
( .11)
( 3.19)
(faS1.3b)
3
10793
lb.3/ 2
Ib
lb.8/ 2
17
?8.b/13
27
3.7/13
1
88. 1/ 3
1 .bl
I.I/ 3
.07
3b.3/ 2
3b.3
l.O/ 2
1.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
2
23
1.59
35.1
0.0
.07
2.03
2231.39
1.91
0.00
.01 (
.35 (
381.88 (b!9.
.85 ( 1.
lb.15 ( 11.
77.0 (2718
S.B1 ( 3.
02)
Sb)
27)
3b)
30)
.1)
bl)
-------
TABLE
UNIT Nil. 23S
VF.HICLE MODEL
1F.ST NO.
PLY FURY EM-H
M
I
BAROMETER 7^2.19 MM Of- HG.
DRY bULB 1FMP. Pb.l DfR. C
REL. HUMIDITY 37 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF. PRESS., GP, 73b.b MM.
BAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
PLOWtR REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
no
ro
CD
cu
cop
rop
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1178 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
ACTUAL DISTANCES USED IN CALCULATIONS
DATE 12/29/77 MFGR. CODE -o
ENGINE 5.90 LITRE 8 CURB WT. 0 KG
WEI BULB TEMP lb.7 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 8.1 GRAMS/KG
COMMENTS 1178 FTPC
YR.
GVM
197?
U KG
HPO
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER RFADING/SCALE
OACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD MUTER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PF.RCENT
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
CO? BACKGRU METER READING/SCALE
CU? BACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NUX BACKGRD MFTFR READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
SOP SAMPLE METER REAOING/SCALE
SU2 SAMPLE PPM
SO? BACKGRU METER READING/SCALE
SO? BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COP CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
ROP CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
TO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
SOP MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM (MPG)
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES (SCF)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM(MILES)
BLOWER INLET PRESS., 61 73b.b MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. »3 DEG. C
1
HflHhO
12. 2/ 3
12?
2. I/ 3
PI
9H.1/11
H82
a. 1/11
b
ta.8/ 2
1.89
1.7/ 2
.Ob
32. 7/ a
3a.?
1.3/2
1.3
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
10H
•»53
1.83
31. b
0.0
H.SH
39.87
P538.98
4.20
u.no
.78 ( 1
b.8R ( 1)
H37.91 (70t
.72 ( 1
2
b9blb
20. 5/ 2
PO
19. S/ 2
19
18.3/13
17
5.7/13
b
bB.t/ 3
1.23
H.H/ 3
.07
9.5/ 2
9.5
l.O/ 3
l.U
^,. -0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
3
12
1.17
8.b
0.0
.21
1.79
2787.15
1.97
0.00
.2b) .03 (
.Ob) .29 (
.bO) HHS.lb (7
.17) .31 (
19.?b ( IP.??)
75.b (SbbS.h)
5.80 ( 3.bO)
OS)
Hb)
2b)
51)
19.02 ( 12.37)
130.1 (HS93.2)
b.2b ( 3.89)
37.t/ 2
37
15.B/ 2
Ifa
b3.3/13
bl
3.7/13
89.O/ 3
l.bb
3.9/ 3
.Ob
Ha.i/ a
ta.i
i.o/ a
1.0
-0.0/-0
-o.o
-0.0/-0
-o.o
a»
55
l.bO
HI.a
o.o
1.03
H.89
2aa?.75
5.50
0.00
.IB c .as)
.8* ( 1.35)
382.PH (bl5.02)
.9H ( 1.52)
lb.39 ( 1H.3S)
75.8 (2b77.2)
5.83 ( 3.b?)
WEIGHTED FUEL
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
TOTAL CVS
CONSUMPTION L1TRE3/100KM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
COP GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX URAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FLOW = ?H1.S STO. CU. METRES
18.35 ( 12.82)
.?3 ( .37)
l.RO ( 2.90)
•*?h.37 (bBb.03)
.57 ( .9P)
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER R
W
t-1
00
DATE t?/?9/77
MODEL 197? PLY FURY EM-B
DRIVER AL
WET BULB TEMP 17 C
SPEC. HUM. q.? GRAM/KG
TIME -n HRS.
3ET-7
TEST WT. go1*! KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 25 C
8ARO. 7HD.7 MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 5.9 LITREV R
GVW n KG
REL. HUM. f5.7 PCT
MEASURED FUEL n.on KG
RUN DURATION ?3.?8 MINUTES
BLOWER INLET PRESS. 73b.b MM. H20
BLOWER DIF. PRESS. 73b.b MM H?0
BLOWER INLET TEMP. H? DEC. C
OYMO REVOLUTIONS 31R35
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS 1155H3
BLOWER cu. CM /REV. ???b
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD MFTER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO 8ACKGRD PPM
co? SAMPLE MFTER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
NOX 8ACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CD MASS (GRAMS)
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .03
TO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .31
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 327
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .bS
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE tl.flO
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .30
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3.3
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31b3
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL h.n
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
it. 9/2
15
in.
11
33
l.l/*
1
13.H/2
.Ob
38. H/?
38. <»
.9/2
.9
b
30
1.87
37. b
0.0
.bR
7.39
7187.70
1».3B
n.oo
HC GRAMS/MIN .03
CO GRAMS/MIN .3
co? GRAMS/MIN 309
NOX GRAMS/MIN .b?
so? GRAHS/MIN o.no
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY = 1».02 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER 8
H
I
DATE l?/?9'/77 TIME -0 HRS. TEST NO. 2
MODEL 1977 PLY FURY EM-8 SET-7 ENGINE 5.9 LITREO
RUN DURATION 23.SB MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21.95 KILOMETRES
CVS BLOWER TEST VOL. 2«»9.89 ACT. CU. METRES
SULFATE DATA
FILTER NO.
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F
SAMPUE AREA SO. IN.
DILUTION FACTOR
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML
STAND. AREA SO. IN.
SO't.MlCROG/FILTER
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F
AREA,BUBBLER ]
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1
APEA,BUBBLER 2
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 2
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML
STAND. AREA,SO. IN.
soa, MILLIG/BUBBLER i
so?, MILLIG/BUBBLER ?.
SO?, PPM
SAMPLE
t7-FH-2Bb3
15.85
78
St952.00
1
5.on
l"»3b?b.OO
19.130
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFATE AND SO? EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET Hssot,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET 302,GRAM/TEST
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET H230*,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET 302,GRAM/KILOMETRE
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 2272 GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
12.15H
12.H09
o.oon
.S5H
.585
0.000
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
1
1.00
I.00
0.000
I .00
70
0.00
1
n.oo
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0320 PCT.
FUEL 302 H2SOH
.73
0.000
n.oo
.no*!
.5b
302 *• H2SO»
.00*1
.Sb
-------
I
M
O
FXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SJNULF HAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER ? 3 "5
D A T F I r1 / i? 9 / 7 7
Mlintl in?!! ^LY FURY EH-R
DRIVE" Al
"f-. T rtill M IEMP 17 .f.
S P f C . HUM. 8 . H G K A M / K G
MISMNI.F Ih.tbS KM
TIME -II MRS.
HFET
TFS1 WT. ?0»1 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP ?b C
HARO. 7H(J.? MM HG.
TEST NO. 3
ENGINES^.I) LITREV R
r;vv« n KG
REL. HUM. Hn.s PCT
MEASURED FUEL n.on KG
FUEL 738.? G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER [)IF. PRESS.
«Lcwt« INLET TFMH.
PYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HLOWER CU. CM /REV.
l?.7b MINUTES
73b.h MM. HeO
73b.b MM HSO
•»3 DEC. C
blt85
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
RACKURD MFTER RFAOING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
MFTFR READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PH"
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
SO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
HC r,RAMS/KG OF FUEL .?H
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL ?.5
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3)b5
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 8.70
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
.05 (
.?a (
28«f (
.78 (
0.00 (
1H.R/ Z
15
11. 3/ ?
11
31.R/13
30
.1/13
1
50. O/ 2
2.8H
1.7/ 2
.lib
b3.3/ 2
b3.3
l.O/ 2
1.0
5
an
a. as
ba.s
u.ci
.31?
3.b9
12. Bb
0.00
.Of)
.3b)
1.2b)
0 . 0 0 )
HC GRAMS/MIN
CO GRAMS/MIN
C02 GRAMS/MIN
NOX GRAMS/MIN
802 GRAMS/MIN
.03
.3
3b?
1.01
0.0(1
CARHDN OALANCE FUEL FCiiNOMY L/10DKM (MILES/GALLON)
12.15 ( 11.37)
-------
TABLE
UNIT NO. EM8
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO.
FURY PLY
to
H20
BAROMETER 750.88 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. SI.I DEG. C'
REL. HUMIDITY 23 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF. PRESS., G2, 73b.b MM.
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD FPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX 6ACKGRD PPM
302 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
S02 SAMPLE PPM
302 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
802 BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
302 MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM (MPG)
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES (SCF)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM(MILES)
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1978 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
ACTUAL DISTANCES USED IN CALCULATIONS
DATE I/ 3/78 MFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE 5.^0 LITRE 8 CURB WT. 0 KG
WET BULB TEMP 10.b DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.5 GRAMS/KG
COMMENTS 1178 FTP-C
YR.
GVM
1177
0 KG
WEIGHTED FUEL
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
TOTAL CVS
CONSUMPTION LITRES/100KM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FLOW = £85.b STD. CU. METRES
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 73b.b MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. f2 DEG. C
1
f0558
12. S/ 3
125
8.S/ 2
q
1b.l/ll
SOI
2.b/ll
a
17. f/ 3
1.83
f.S/ 3
.07
37. 8/ 2
37.8
,8/ 2
.8
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
118
f72
1.77
37.1
0.0
5.22
f2.2b
2f 1b.37
f .f 1
0.00
.SO ( 1.
7.30 ( 11.
f31.23 (b13.
.7b ( 1.
11.02 C 12.
7b.8 (2713
5.71 ( 3.
18.18
.22
1.81
H22.S1
.hi
2
blbSl
10. b/ 2
11
.I/ 3
1
22.0/13
21
2.0/11
b
b8.2/ 3
1.23
f.8/ 3
.07
11. SX 2
11.5
.7X 2
.7
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
2
IS
l.lb
10.1
0.0
.18
2.2?
2803.85
2.22
0.00
fS) .03 ( .05)
75) .3b ( .58)
85) fff.02 (71f.f3)
23) .35 ( .57)
37) 18.18 ( 12.31)
.5) 131.1 (fbSI.S)
bO) b.31 ( 3.12)
( 12. If)
( .35)
( 2.11)
(b71.B2)
( .17)
3
f OSf 8
15. S/ 2
IS
8. I/ 2
8
3b.l/13
3t
5.3/13
5
Bb.f/ 3
l.bO
t.2/ 3
.Ob
H8.1/ 2
•»8.1
.?X 2
.7
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
8
28
1.55
»7.5
0.0
.37
2.53
217*. b3
S.bH
0.00
.Ob (
.Ht (
37f.8S (b03.
.17 ( 1.
Ib.Ot ( If.
7b.B (2712
5.80 ( 3.
10)
70)
13)
57)
b?)
.b)
bl)
-------
TARI.F
FXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE RAG SAMPLE
VFHICLE NUMBER 8
W
I
PATE I/
MOOFL 1177 FURY PLY
DRTVFR SR
WET RULR TFMP i? C
3PFC. HUH. 3.P GRAM/KG
RUN DURATION ?3.?<
RLOWER INLET PRESS. 711.?
BLOWER DIF. PRESS. 711.?
BLOWER INLFT TEMP. 43
DYNO REVOLUTIONS 31b19
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS ii??s?
BLOWER CD. CM /REV.
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METF.R READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER RE AH ING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
CO? SAMPLE METFR READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOHETRE .03
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .?9
CO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 339
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .81
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .??
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL ?.?
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31hH
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 7.bO
so? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL n.nn
TIME -n HRS.
SFT-7
TFST WT. ?rm KG.
DRY BULB TEMP ?* C
BARO. 751.3 MM Hf,.
?9 MINUTES
MM. H?0
MM H?0
DEG. C
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE S.q LITREV H
GVW 0 KG
PEL. HUM. 11.7 PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.on KG
l?
R.l/?
8
?8
?.!/*
.08
5-».0/2
SH.n
.b/2
.b
s
?s
1.89
53.5
0.0
.b3
b.?7
17.77
o.no
HC GRAMS/MIN .03
CO GRAMS/MIN .3
CO? GRAMS/MIN 318
NOX GRAMS/MIN ,?b
SO? GRAMS/MIN 0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY = 1H.5? LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER B
DATE I/ 3/78 TIME -0 HRS. TEST NO. 3
MODEL 1177 FURY PLY SET-7 ENGINE 5.9 LITREO
RUN DURATION 53.39 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 31.81 KILOMETRES
CVS BLOWER TF3T VOL. 350.*5 ACT. CU. METRF.S
W
I
to
U)
SUI.FATE DATA
FILTER NO.
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F
SAMPLE AREA SO. IN.
DILUTION FACTOR
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML
STAND. AREA SO. IN.
SO*,MICROG/FILTER
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F
AREA,BUBBLER 1
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1
AREA,BUBBLER 3
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 3
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML
STAND. AREA,SQ. IN.
503, MILLIG/BUBBLER 1
303, MILLIG/BUBBLER ?
S03, PPM
SAMPLE
*7-FH-38b5
15.8*
78
7*835.00
1
5.00
l*b99b.oo
35.*55
l.no
70
o.oo
l
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
BACKGROUND
I .00
70
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
I .00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFATE AND 303 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST lb.190
NET H2SOH,MILLIGRAM/TEST lb.530
NET 303,GRAM/TEST 0.000
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE .7*3
NET H3SO*,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE .758
NET SOB,GRAM/KILOMETRE o.ooo
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 3339 RRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0330 PCT.
FUEL 303 H3S01
.75
0.000
o.oo
.OOSH
.73
303 + H3S01*
.005*
.73
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER S
DATF I/ 3/7R
MODEL 1177 FURY PLY
DRIVER SR
WET HUL8 TEMP if C
RPFC. HUM. 3.R GRAM/KG
TIME -n HRS.
FET
TEST WT. ?n>»i KG.
DRY RULB TEMP ?>» C
BARO. 751.3 MM HG.
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE 5.9 LITREV R
GVW n KG
BEL. HUM. 19.7 PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.on KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWFR INLET TEMP.
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
RLOWEH REVOLUTIONS
RLOWER CU. CM /REV.
12.7b MINUTES
711.3 MM. H?0
711.? MM H?0
H? DEC. C
239?!
K1553
BAG
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO?
CO?
CO?
CO?
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
SO?
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
SO?
RESULTS
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLF
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
8ACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLF PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .0?
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .1?
co? GRAMS/KILOMETRE ?en
NO* GRAMS/KILOMETRE .85
SO? GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .?•»
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.3
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31b?
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 9.51
30? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL O.ntl
1?
R
17. I/*
Ib
l.b/*
?
HB.9/?
?.??
1.7/8
.Ob
77. •»
.5
5
1*
2.17
77.0
0.0
.3b
1.9>»
4b7b.l?
1».OS
n.no
HC GRAMS/MIN .03
CO GRAMS/MIN .?
co? GRAMS/MIN 3b?
NOX GRAMS/MIN 1.10
SO? GRAMS/MIN 0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY = 1?.11 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
UNIT NO. EMB
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO, 1
FURY PLYMOUTH
TABLE VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE 1/24/78 MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 5.10 LITRE B CURB WT.
-0
0 KG
YR. 1177
GVM 0 KG
BAROMETER 737.U MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.2 DEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY 42 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS.,
BAG RESULTS
fd
i
G2, 73b.b MM. H20
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD MFTER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD MF.TER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
S02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
S02 SAMPLE PPM
S02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
S02 BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
1
42508
85.9/2
8b
8.7/2
1
S3. I/*
480
1.4/*
4
IS. 4/3
1.85
4.5/3
.07
44.7/2
44.7
.S/2
.1
-O.O/*
-n.o
-O.O/*
-0.0
78
453
1.80
43.1
0.0
3.57
41.51
C02 MASS GRAMS 2bOb.28
NOX MASS GRAMS
S02 MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC .17 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS CO 2.02 GRAMS/K ILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS C02 Htl.57 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS NOX .85 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS S02 H.OO GRAMS/KILOMETRE
5.15
a. no
WET BULB TEMP 14.4 DEG. C
AB3. HUMIDITY 7.2 GRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 73b.b MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 43 DEG. C
2
71883
11.2/2
11
8.1/2
8
2b.3/*
25
1.7/*
2
b8.4/3
1.23
2.1/3
.04
17.3/2
17.3
1.0/2
1.0
-D.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
4
22
1.11
Ib.f
0.0
.30
3.41
2922.13
3.75
0.00
3
40110
14.b/2
15
8.2/2
e
bb.2/*
b4
3. I/*
3
81.3/3
l.bb
3.4/3
.05
54.0/2
54.0
.1
-O.O/*
-0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
7
5S
I.b2
53.2
0.0
.32
5.18
2255.81
b.92
0.00
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE = 5.3 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
UN I T >i(J. f. Mfl
VfcUlCLF. MODEL
TEST Nil.
PLY FURY FM R
TAULt VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
197H LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
ACTUAL DISTANCES USED IN CALCULATIONS
1 DATE l/2b/7H MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 5.9(1 LITRE 8 CURB WT.
-0
0 KG
YR.
GVM
1H77
U KG
w
I
73b.b MM. H20
HAPOHFI'R 7HP.II3 MM OF HP,.
DKY MMLh ItMP. ,M.9 DEH. L
HI- L . HiMIOI TY I h PC f .
fcKHAUSl FMISSIONS
RLl'WEH UIF. PUfcSS., 02,
RAC, iVfSUl.TS
PA(. NO.
RLOWFH REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE Ml FFR READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC HACKGHD METER READING/SCALE
HC HACKGHD PPM
CO SAKPLt MeTER READING/SCALE
TO SAMPLE PPM
TO HACKGRD ME TEH READING/SCALE
CO HACKGRD PPM
CU? SAMPLE METER HEAOING/SCALE
ro? SAMPLE PERCENT
TO? HACKGRD MFTER READING/SCALE
CO? RACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX flACKGRD PPM
80? SAMPLE MFTER READING/SCALE
SO? SAMPLE PPM
S02 BACKGHI) MFTFH HEADING/SCALE
S02 BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CU MASS GRAMS
CU? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
SO? MASS GRAMS
HC CRAMS/KM (URAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (RHAMS/MILE)
CO? bRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NUX L.HAMS/KM ( GRAMS/M TLE )
FUfL CONSUMPTION BY CR L/101'KM (MPG)
CVS FLU*. STU. CU. METRES ISCF)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM(MILES)
WET BULB TEMP 11.1 DEG. C
AHS. HUMIDITY ?.9 GRAMS/KG
COMMENTS 197H FTPC
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 73b.b MM. HgQ
BLOWER INLET TEMP. H3 DEG. C
1
* IJ b 7 1
71. 8/ 2
72
ID. 3/ 2
1U
73.9/11
32*
.7/11
2
*2. 2/ 2
1.85
1. 3/ 2
.115
*7. B/ 2
*7. R
.b/ 2
.b
-0.0/-0
-n.o
-II.O/-0
-II. 0
b3
309
1.81
*7.3
n.u
2.78
27.5?
;*7.aa
5.52
0.00
.*7 ( ,7b)
*.h8 ( 7.53)
32.71 (b9h.?3)
.9* ( 1.51)
18. R5 ( 12. *R)
7b.7 (27(17.2)
5.H9 ( 3.bb)
2
b971H
11. */ ?-
11
8. I/ 2
R
2b.b/ld
25
1.7/13
2
b8. 3/ 3
1.23
3.5/ 3
.05
18. S/ Z
18.5
.*/ i
.»
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-U
-O.U
H
23
1.18
18.1
0.0
.29
3.51
28*1.19
3.b3
0.00
.05 ( .07)
.55 ( .88)
**2.37 (711.77)
.57 ( .91)
18.92 ( 12. *3)
131.* (*b*0.0)
b.*2 ( 3.99)
3
*059b
lb.9/ 2
17
9.3/ 2
9
70.1/13
bB
1.5/13
1
87. b/ 3
I.b3
*.0/ 3
.Ob
58. S/ 2
58.5
.7/ Z
.7
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
9
bS
1.57
57.9
0.0
.39
5.7b
2205.23
b.75
0.00
.07 (
.98 ( 1.
375.93 (bO*.
1.15 ( 1.
lb.12 ( 1*.
7b.5 (2702
5.87 ( 3.
11)
58)
87)
85)
59)
.0)
b5)
WEIGHTED FUEL CONSUMPTION LITRES/IIIDKM (MPT,)
WEIGHTFU MASS HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MlLt)
Wtll^HlED MASS CO GHAMS/RM (GRAMS/MILE)
HE1GH1FO MASS COS UKAMS/KM (r^RAMS/MILE)
HtlGHTFO MASS NOX GKAMS/r\H (GRAMS/MILE)
TOTAL l.vf< FLOW = ?BH.h ?TO. CM. METRFS
1H.1* ( 12.9fa)
.1* ( .22)
1.52 ( 2.**)
H2E.3D (b 79.*9)
.80 ( 1.89)
-------
TABLE
UNIT NO. EMB
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO.
FURY PLY
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
197B LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
ACTUAL DISTANCES USED IN CALCULATIONS
DATE e/ 3/78 MFGR, CODE
ENGINE 5.10 LITRE 8 CURB WT.
•0
0 KG
YR. 1177
GVM 0 KG
BAROMETER 7m.*b MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. ?3.3 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 30 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., G?, 73h.b MM,
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HSO
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
cos
COS
COS
COS
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
802
SOS
SOS
SOS
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGPD PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
so? CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COS MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
SOS MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
co GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MRE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/IOOKM CMPG)
cvs FLOW STO. cu. METRES CSCF)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM(MRES)
WEIGHTED FUEL
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
TOTAL CVS
CONSUMPTION LITRES/100KM (MpG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
COt GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MRE)
FLOW « 38S.b STD. CU. METRES
WET BULB TEMP 13.3 DEG. C
AB8. HUMIDITY 5.8 GRAMS/KG
COMMENTS 1178 FTP-C
BLOWER INLET PRESS,, 61 73b.b MM, H80
BLOWER INLET TEMP, >»3 DEG, C
1
*0b80
85. BX t
Bb
I.I/ !
10
17.5/11
51H
1.0/11
3
11, 3/ 3
1,70
H.S/ 3
.07
37. I/ S
37.1
.7/ !
.7
-0.0/-0
•0,0
-0.0/-0
•0,0
77
»10
l.b»
3b,5
0.0
3.31
»3.tS
esii.ii
*.S3
0.00
.58 (
7,»» ( 11.
312. b
-------
TABLE
FXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMS
w
I
to
03
DATE ?/ 3/7P
MODEL 1977 FURY PLY
DRIVER BP
WET BULB TEMP 11 c
SPEC. HUM. • t.t» GRAM/KG
DISTANCE 21.837 KM
TIME -0 MRS.
SET-7
TEST WT. ?0»1 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 2H C
BARO. 7H8.S MM HG.
FUEL 738.2 G/LITRE
TEST NO. ?
ENGINE 5.1 LITREV 8
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 22.7 PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.oo KG
FUEL HC RATIO 1.8bO
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER r>IF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
23. ?8 MINUTES
7b?.0 MM. H20
7b?,0 MM H20
»3 DEG. C
31735
2??b
METF.R READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
co
co
co
CO BACKGRD PPM
co? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
co? BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
(GRAMS)
(GRAMS)
NOx SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
CO MASS
CO? MASS
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
302 M*SS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MRE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
SO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL ,2H
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL b."'
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3158
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 7.71
SO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
18.b/ 2
n
Ib.b/ 2
17
b7.8/13
bb
?.5/13
?
Hl.V 2
l.B»
?.?/ ?
.08
51.5/ 2
51.5
1.7V 8
1.7
H
bl
1.77
50.0
0.0
.52
b833.«b
Ib.bt
0.00
.02 ( .OH)
.bl ( 1.10)
313 ( 50*)
,7b ( 1.23)
0.00 ( 0.00)
HC GRAMS/MIN
co GRAMS/MIN
C02 GRAMS/MIN
NOX GRAMS/MIN
so? GRAMS/MIN
.0?
.b
21H
.72
0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL FCONOMY L/100KM (MILES/GALLON)
13.HI ( 17.55)
-------
TABLE
tXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EM8
DATE t'/ 3/'78 IIME -U MRS. TEST NO. 2
MOOEL 1H77 FURY PLY 3ET-7 ENGINE 5.1 LlTREO
RUN DURATION 23.58 M1N. DISTANCE DRIVEN 31.88 KILOMETRES
CVS BLUHER TEST VOL. 241.75 ACT. CLI. METRES
3ULFATL DATA
FJLTEtf 110.
SAMPLfc VOL. CU. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F
SAMPLE AREA su. IN.
DILUTION FACTOR
STAND. r/EN. MICROG/ML
STAND. AREA SU. IN.
SO^/MICROU/FILTE*
SULFUR DICXIuE DATA
SAMPl.t Vut.. CU. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. DEU. F
AREA,HUPBLER 1
OIL. FACT.,HUbBLER 1
OIL. FACT., BUBBLER 3
STAND. OEN. MICROG/ML
STAND. AfiEA,SU. IN.
S02, MlLLlL/bUbbLER 1
S02, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2
soe, PPM
SULFATt AND SOS EMISSIONS
SAMPLE
47FH-2881
lb.00
71
H8388.00
1
s.oo
m3H78.00
Ib.8b3
1.00
7U
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.L10
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
NFT SULFATE, MILLIGRAM/TEST
NFT H2S01, MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET sop,GP-AH/TFsr
NET SULFAFE, MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET He.SliH .MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET SOa,OHAM/KlLOhETRE
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL «!., 2173 UKAMS
SULFUH,GRAMS
PCT. HECOVERY
10.b28
10.851
o.ooo
0.000
BACKGROUND
1.00
7(1
O.UO
1
1.00
1.00
,b7
o.ono
o.oo
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL S05 HPSOH
.0035
.53
SO? t H5SOH
.0035
.53
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EM8
W
I
DATE ?/ 3/7B
MODEL 1977 FURY PLYMOUTH
DRIVER RP
WET BULB TEMP u c
SPEC, HUM. i».o GRAM/KG
DISTANCE lb.
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
co? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
CO* BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLF METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COZ CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
802 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
CO? MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
.02 (
,3b (
NOX GRAMS/KM
SO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .PI
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL "».?
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31b?
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL «*.H?
so? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL o.oo
.81 (
0.00 (
lb.0/ 2
Ib
13.8/ 2
1"»
51.2/13
H9
2,vi3
3
2.20
2.2/ 2
.08
75.9/ 2
75.9
2.1/ 2
2.1
H
HH
0.0
.30
*50b.72
13. »3
0.00
.03)
.58)
•»*0)
1.31)
0.00)
HC GRAMS/MIN .0?
CO GRAMS/MIN .5
C02 GRAMS/MIN 353
NOX GRAMS/MIN i.os
so? GRAMS/MIN o.no
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MILES/GALLON)
( ?0.1?)
-------
TARLE
UNIT NO.
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 1
FURY PLYMOUTH
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
L975 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE P./ b/7R MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 5.90 LITRE B CURR WT.
-0
0 KG
YR, 1977
GVM 0 KG
BAROMETER 7«7.'5? MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. ?s.n PFG. C
REU. HUMIDITY IB PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIP. PRESS., ce, 71*9.3 MM.
BAG RESULTS
H
I
U)
H?0
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METFR
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER
HC flACKGRO PPM
co SAMPLE METER
CO SAMPLE PPM
co BACKGRI? METER
CO BACKGPD PPM
co2 SAMPLE MFTER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? 8ACKGRD METER
READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METFR
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGHO METFH
NOX BACKGRD PPM
soa SAMPLE METER
S02 SAMPLE PPM
so? BACKGRO METER
S02 BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
CO? CONCENTRATION
NOX CONCENTRATION
SO? CONCENTRATION
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
so? MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS so?
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
PPM
1
«*0531
11.1/3
111
1.5/3
15
86. I/*
H29
1.2/*
H
9<5,b/3
1,80
H.3/3
.07
HO.?/?
<*0.2
.8/2
.8
-O.O/*
•»0.0
-O.O/*
-0.0
98
109
l.'H
39.5
0.0
»,30
Bb.lR
?«»31.Sb
.19 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
2.01* GRAMS/KILOMETRE
«»03.bl GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.t.3 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
0.00 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
"».b5
0.00
WET BULB TEMP 12,2 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.1, GRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 7*9.3 MM. H80
BLOWER INLET TEMP, tH DEG. C
b9SbO
is.*/?
is
13,3/2
13
38. 3/*
3b
?.b/*
3
1.15
H.l/3
,0b
15,3/2
15.3
.7/2
.">
-o.o/*
•0,0
-0,0/*
-0,0
3
33
1.09
14,7
0,0
.a*
s.oo
2.9b
0.00
19.1/2
19
13.1/2
13
8b,3/*
8b
2
BH.f/3
l.Sb
3.H/3
.05
39.H/2
39, H
.8/2
.8
-O.O/*
-0,0
-O.O/*
-0,0
8
81
1.58
38.7
0.0
.33
7,22
812H.09
f.57
0.00
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE s 5.8 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
T A B L f
FXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE HAG SAMPLE
VI-HICLE NUMBER EM8
D Aft
MOnf.L
f.t
V\T } HJRY PLYMOUTH
DRIVER HP
HFT riULtt Tb'IP )^ L
SPl-C. HUH.' S.ii GKAM/KG
TIMt -IJ HRS.
SEI-7
IEST I,T. 2iiHi KG.
URY rtULH TEMP 21* C
bAKU. 7*b.S MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE s.s LITREV a
GVW o KG
REL. HUM. 85.8 PCT
MEASURED FUEL O.OU KG
»•*
HSU
MM.
MM
UfcG. C
W
I
HAG RESULTS
HC
MC
MC
ML
CO
cu
CO
co
CO?
civ
CD5
CO?
NUX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
coe
NOX
soe
hC
CO
CO?
NOX
S08
SAKPLt METtK
S A K P L E PHN
H A C K S M I) METER
HACM;RU PPM
SAMPLE MhIEK
SAKPLt PPM
hACKURO rtfcTER
HACKGRl) PPM
SAMPLt MLTFrt
HEAUING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
REAUING/SCALE
WKAUING/SCALE
KtAOING/SCALE
SAKPLE PERCENT
HACKGRl) MtlEH
we AUING/SCALE
rtACKGHO Pr-IKCENT
SArlPLt itFTER
SAMPLE PP^i
HACKGRU ME TEH
HACKGRO PPM
CONCENTHAT ION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
COCENTRA f ION
MASS (GHAMSJ
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GKAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GKAMS)
REAUING/SCALE
Rf AUING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
PPM
HC GRAMS/MLOMFTRE .03
CO GRAflS/MLOMETRE .b5
CO? GUAMS/KILUritTKE 318
NOX GRAMS/KILOMF:TRE .HD
SO? GHAMS/MLOME IK'E 0.00
15
11
bb.3/*
bM
3.b/*
f
fS.5/2
1.87
1.5/2
.115
52.1
.b/2
.h
5
5<1
1.R2
52. H
D.tl
.58
*. 35
17.75
0.00
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
so?
GRAMS/KG
GH;AMS/KG
GRAMS/Kf,
G R 4 M S / is I.
GRAMS/KG
OF
OF
OF
OF
Of
FUEL
FUFL
F U [-. L
FUf L
FUEL
.?b
b.t
31 58
7. S3
n . n o
CARBON BALANCE FUtL ECONOMY =
HC GRAMS/MIN ,U3
CO GRAMS/MIN ,b
CO? GRAMS/MIN sut
NOX GKAMS/MIN ,7b
S02 GRAMS/MIN O.OU
13.b8 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
EXHAU3T EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMH
1
00
LO
DATE H/ h/7H TIME -U HRS. TEST NO. 2
MODEL 1H77 FURY PLYMOUTH 3ET-7 ENGINE 5.H LITREO
RUN DURATION H3.e? MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 23.a5 KILOMETRES
CVS BLUWl'K TEST VUL. aSU.51 ACT. CU. METRES
SULFATE DATA
FTLTtK NO.
SAMPLt VOL. CU. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F
SAMPLE AREA SU. IN.
DILUTION FACTOR
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML
STAND. AREA SO. IN. It
Sot,MiCROG/FILTER
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. cu. FT.
SAMPLE TEMP. OEG. F
AREA,hufJBLER 1
DIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1
AREA,BUBBLER a
DIL. FACT.,BUBBLER a
STAND. OEN. MICROG/ML
STAND. AREA,SU. IN.
SOa, MILLlG/tlUBFiLER 1
SOe, MILLIG/BUBbLER a
soa, PPM
SULFATE AND Sua EMISSIONS
SAMPLE
17FH-2887
IS.BI
81
35bl7.00
1
5.00
i.oo
711
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
i.oo
0.000
11.1(00
o.o
NET SULFATE, MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET HeSOH, MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET SOP, GRAM/ TEST
NET SULFATE, MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET HaSOl , MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET SUa,GHAM/KILOhET«E
7.S18
e.ont
0.000
,35h
,3b3
0.000
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0..00
1
1.00
I .00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL *T., aa37 GRAi-IS
SULFUR. UKAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
SULFUR IN FUEL,
FUEL SOa
.0310 PCT.
HaSOH
u . n o o
o . n u
.ouab
.38
SO? + H2SOt
.uoab
.38
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE HAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMS
DATE 2/ ^/7R
MODEL 1177 FURY PLYMOUTH
URJVFR HP
"ET HIJI.H TEMP |b C
SPEC . HUH. b. 1 GKAM/KG
TIME -0 HHS.
FET
1EST WT. 2(1*1 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 2b C
OANU. 7Hb.S MM HG.
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE 5.9 LITREV 8
GVW 0 KG
*EL. HUM. 28.4 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DUKATION
BLOWER INLEI PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
INLET 1EMP.
VULUIIONS
BLOwER REVOLUTIONS
BlUwEH CU. CM /HEV. 2227
12.7b MINUTES
73h.h MM. H 2 0
73b.b MM H20
*2 DEG. C
i
u>
MtTEH K'hAUING/SCALE
PPM
HACKGHU METtR RfcAD ING/SLALE
tiACKGRl) PPM
SAMPLE METFR KEADINU/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
UACKGKD MtTER RtADING/SCALE
HAG HKSULT3
HC SAKPLF
HC SAKfLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO riACKGRD PPM
CO? SAMPLE ME TEH HEADING/SCALE
CU£ SAMPLE PERCENT
C05 HACKRHU ME TEH RFAOING/SCALE
COS HACKGHO PtHCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGKD MtTEK READING/SCALE
NIJX BACKGRO PPM
HC CDNCENTHA 1 ION PPM
CO CllNtENTKAl ION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SOS CnCENTRAlION PPM
MASS (UKAMSj
MASS (GRAMS)
NOX SAC.PLE
NOX SAMPLE
HC
CO
COS MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SOS MASS (GRAMS)
HC GKAri.'5/KIUOME IKt
CD M^AMS/KILOMETRE
CO? GKAM-S/KILOKEThE
NUX GKAMS/KILOME THE
SOS GrtAMS/RILOME TKE
,3b
S7?
.87
N.UO
1H.7/S
15
11.9/3
IS
51.O/*
H9
1.8/*
2
H9.0/S
3.S3
1.9/3
.07
7B.O/3
7b.O
1.0/2
1.0
5
HS
3.17
75.2
0.0
.32
b.02
tb!9.39
IH.tf
0.00
HC GRAKS/KG OF FULL
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL
CUP. GRAMS/KG OF FUE.L
NOX GHAMS/KG OF FUfcL 9.B9
SOS GKAMS/RG OF FUEL l'..i)n
CARBON BALANCE FUEL t CON LIMY
HC GRAMS/MIN .03
CO GRAMS/MIN .5
C02 GRAMS/MIN 3b2
NOX GRAMS/MIN 1.13
sos GRAMS/MIN o.ou
11.88 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
UNIT NO. fl
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. J
PLYMOUTH FUHY
TAtiLF VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
RATE ?/?7/7B MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 5.10 LITRE 8 CURB WT.
-0
0 KG
YR. 117?
GVM U KG
BAROMETER 737.11 MM OF HG.
DRY HULH TEMP. ?5.H DKG. C
REL. HUMIDITY 4h PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER (HF. PRtSS., GS, 73b.b MM. H?0
HAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO?
CO?
CO?
CO?
NOX
NOX
H HOX
1 HOX
$ SO?
SO?
so?
so?
HC
CO
CO?
NUX
SO?
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
SO?
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
HACKGKO MFTER
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLF METER
SAMPLE PPM
liACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER
Kh APING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
RFADINU/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
HACKGKD METER
READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE MFTER
SAMPLE PFM
BACKGRD MhTER
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE MF.TER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRU Mt.TfcR
BACKGhD PPM
CONCENTRA1 ION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
Rt ADING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
PPM
1 1.8/3
118
1.2/3
12
17.I/*
511)
l.l/*
3
4?.b/2
1.88
1.8/2
.07
41.4/2
41.4
.1/2
.1
-n.o/*
-o.o
-n.n/*
-n.o
108
4S1
1.82
48.b
n.n
4.b1
42.27
?524.bO
b. 70
(1.01)
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTFD MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
WEIGHTED MASS so?
.22 GkAMS/KILOMETRE
a.bb GRAMS/KILOMETRE
427.b8 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.1.1 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
II.(in GkAMS/KILOMFTRE
WET BULB TEMP 17.2 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 9.3 GRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 73b.b MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 42 DEG. C
2
b1S18
13.1/2
It
10.b/2
11
57. h/*
55
4.0/*
4
b8. 8/3
1.24
4.2/3
.Ob
18. 3/2
18.2
.1/2
.1
-o.n/*
-o.o
-o.o/*
-o.o
50
1.18
17. t
0.0
.32
7.47
280b.02
t.10
0.00
3
fOblB
IS. 5/2
11
10.2/2
10
bl.l/*
137
2
8S.D/3
l.bb
3.8/3
.Ob
51.0/2
51.0
.7/2
.7
-O.O/*
-0.0
-o.o/*
-0.0
11
121
l.bl
50.1
0.0
.tb
11.31
222b.se
b.«H
0.00
FUEL ECONOMY HY CAMJDN BALANCE = 5. "• KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE
tXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EHB
DATE ?/?7/78
MODEL 1177 PLYMOUTH FURY
DPIVtR BP
WF.T 8ULH TEMP IB C
SPFC. HUM. in.2 GRAM/KG
DISIANLF 21.8b5 KM
TIME -0 HRS.
SET-7
TEST WT. 20H1 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP ?>» C
8ARO. 738.» MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 5.9 LlTREV fl
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 52.0 PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.ou KG
FUEL 738.2 G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO l.BbO
RUN DURATION
RLUWtR INLET PRESS.
BLUWLR D1F. PRESS.
RLHWFR INLET TEMP.
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /KFV.
23. b? MINUTES
73b.b MM. H20
?3b.b MM H20
H5 DEG. C
3177b
H2bb9
2235
„
'
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD MFTER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE MFTER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
HACKGRD MF.IEH READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE
RAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE MFTER READING/SCALE
PeKCF_NT
fiACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CCI? BACKGRD PFRCENT
NOX SAMPLE MFTER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLF. PPM
NOX BACKGRD MF.TER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRAT ION PPM
SO? COCENTRATJON PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
HC
CO
HC
CO
CO? MASS (GHAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SO? MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
SO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
HC GHAHS/KG OF FUEL .32
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 13.2
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUF_L 31HB
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1(1.79
SO? GWAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
'N BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY L/10OKM (MILES/GALLON)
TOTAL CVS FLOM= 8(iq.lSTD. CU. METRES
LE
iLE
iLE
,LE
;LE
iLE
iLE
.03
1.3H
320
1.10
u.uo
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
so?
15
10. 3/ 2
10
S7.b/12
128
.H/12
1
12. 7/ Z
1.88
1.7/ 2
.Ob
bl.8/ 2
bl.B
.9/ 2
.9
b
181
1.83
bl.O
0.0
.72
29.39
b995.80
23.99
0.1)0
C .05)
( 2.1b)
( 515)
C 1.77)
( 0.00)
GRAMS/MIN .03
GRAMS/MIN 1.2
GRAMS/MIN gqb
GRAMS/MIN i.ui
GRAMS/MIN o.oti
13.75 ( 17.11)
-------
TABU.
I
CO
tXHAIIST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMB
DATF Z/r.7/7« TIME -II MRS. TEST NO. S
MODEL 1177 PLYMOUTH FURY SET-? ENGINE 5.9 LITREO
RON DURATION 83.h7 M1N. DISTANCE DRIVEN S1.7H KILOMETRES
CVS ULOUf H TEST VOL. c?SJ.8t ACT. CU. METRES
SAMPLE
>»7FH-28HS
81
OU
1
tKI
tlU
SULFAft. DATA
FFLIEK NO.
SAMPLE VOL. CO. FT. lb
SAMPLE TEMP. DEL.. F
SAMPLE ARM SO. IN. SSflb
OILlUIOH FACTOR
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 5
STAND. AREA SU. IN. 155M02
SOt, MICfU;r,/FILTER l?.btl
SULf-UK DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL.. cu. FT. i.oo
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. f 70
AREA,KUHBLER i o.oo
DJL. FAC r.,b
-------
I-XHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMS
I) A It rVf7/7H
MODEL 1*7? PLYMOUTH FUKY
UW]VEi< HP
HE r HUI.H TEMP in C
SP|C. HUM. 10.7 GWAIi/KG
ITME -U HRS.
FET
TEST WT. 2(1*1 KG.
DRY HULb TEMP 25 C
BAKU. 738.* MM HG.
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE 5.9 LITREV B
GVW 11 KG
REL. HUM. 52.b PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 K«
PUN IHIKA1ION I?.7H MINUTES
HLUKEW INLET PRESS, vst.h MM. H?O
HLU-/KK OIF. PRFSS. 73b.b MM H20
HLU-tR INLET TH'iP.
DYNU HI.VOLUTIONS
«L(MER REVOLUTIONS
RLU'ltR CU. CM /KEV.
«*3
23535
DEG. C
w
I
Ul
CD
At, HE .'HILTS
HL
HC
HI.
HC
CO
CO
Co
CU
CU?
CO?
Co?
CU2
NUX
NUX
NUX
NUX
HC
cu
CU?
NUX
su?
HC
CU
CU?
NUX
SU?
SAMPLE MKTEH
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRU HFTER
HACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE MKTER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRl) MtTER
HACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE MH TEW
SAMPLE PFRCE
HACKGRD Mf.TER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
NT
READING/SCALE
HACKGHD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
MCKGRD METER
HACKGHD PPM
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRAT Il)W
CUNCEN1KA f ION
COCENTRAT10N
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GKAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCI
PPM
PPM
It
1U.1/2
10
151
.?/*
1
50.9/2
2.33
l.b/2
.Ub
H5.B/2
85.8
1.0/2
1.0
b
112
2.29
85.0
tl.O
.39
1*.89
1792.07
18.51
O.UO
HC
CO
COP
NOX
Su?
HC
CO
CU?
MUM
SU?
GRAMT./KlLOME TRE
UKAMS/MLUMETRF
Gl'AMS/KILOHETKE
UHAhS/KILOMETRK
GRAMS/KILOMF.TRF
i, RAMS/KG OF FUEL
URAMS/KG OF FUEL
GI'AMS/KG OF FUEL
UKAMS/ivG OF FUEL
UHAMS/i^G OF FUFL
.02
.90
t?91
1 .12
n.no
.25
H.8
3153
J ?. IR
n .on
HC GRAMS/MIN .03
CO GRAMS/MIN 1.2
C02 GRAMS/MIN 37b
NOX GRAMS/MIN j.ifs
302 GRAMS/MIN n.OU
BALANCE FUEL tCl'NuMY = 12.*9 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
UNIT NO. FMfi
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 1
FURY PLY
BAROMETER 7H2.1S MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 2b.l DEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY 50 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
M
I
OJ
BLOWER DIF. PRESS., G2, 7"*1.3 MM. H20
BAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
302 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
802 SAMPLE PPM
S02 SACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
S02 BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
J
H0703
12.b/3
12b
l.b/3
Ib
23.8/3
550
.1/3
2
H2.1/2
1.85
l.S/2
.05
27.b/2
27. b
.V2
.1
-O.O/*
0.0
-o.o/*
n.o
112
520
1.80
2b.8
0.0
*.12
tb.02
C02 MASS GRAMS 2520.2'*
NOX MASS GRAMS
S02 MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC .31 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS co 2.0? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS C02 H17.H7 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS NOX .51 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS 302 0.00 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
3.12
0.00
TABLE VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
DATE H/ 7/78 MFGR. CODE -0 Y*.
ENGINE 5.90 LITRE B CURB Wl. 0 KG GVM
WEI BULB TEMP 18.9 DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 10.B GRAMS/KG
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 7*1.3 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. ta DEG. c
117?
0 KG
2
bltlt
lb.3/2
Ib
15.5/2
15
23. 8/*
23
3.5/*
3
b?.3/3
1.21
.07
11.8/2
11.8
1.0/2
1.0
-O.I)/*
0.0
-o.o/*
0.0
1.15
10.1
0.0
.11
e.ei
2735.31
2.71
0.00
3
t071b
11.8/2
20
1H.H/2
52
2.H/*
2
85.8/3
1.51
f .5/3
.07
33.1/2
33.1
1.2/2
1.2
-O.O/*
0.0
-o.o/*
0.0
7
t8
1.53
32.0
0.0
.31
*.21
2138.30
H.bB
o.no
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE = S.b KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMS
M
I
DATE t/ 7/7H
MODEL 1^77 FURY PLYMOUTH
DRIVER BP
WET RULB TEMP 2U C
SPEC. HUM. 11.7 GRAM/KG
TIME -0 MRS.
3ET-7
TEST WT. 2011 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 28 C
BARO. 710.2 MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE s.i LITRE B
GVH 0 KG
REL. HUM. iB.8 PCT
MEASURED FUEL O.On KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNQ REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
23.28 MINUTES
73b.b MM. H20
73b.b MM H20
13 DEC. C
31359
112171
2228
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
RAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGKD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
HC
CO
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
302 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILQMETRE .02
CO GRAMS/KILOMETRE .55
C02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 313
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .51
302 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .19
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL s.b
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31bO
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 5.15
302 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.110
11.1/2
11
12.8/2
13
51.5/*
52
.!/*
0
9b.8/3
1.82
1.1/3
.Ob
29.1/2
2S.1
1.2/2
1.2
3
19
1.77
28.1
0.0
.10
12.Ob
b807.11
11.73
0.00
HC GRAMS/M1N .OS
CO GRAMS/MIN .5
C02 GRAMS/MIN 295
NOX GRAMS/MIN .so
302 GRAMS/MIN o.OU
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY = 13.12 LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EM8
DATE t/ 7/78 TIME -0 HRS. TEST NO. I
MODEL 1177 FURY PLYMOUTH SET-7 ENGINE 5.1 LITREO
RUN DURATION 23.58 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21.7t KILOMETRES
CVS BLOWER TEST VOL. 250.hi ACT. CU. METRES
SAMPLE
SULFATE DATA
FILTER NO. *7FH-ai05
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 17.33
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F <«0
SAMPLE AREA SO. IN. ttl74.00
DILUTION FACTOR 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 5.00
STAND. AREA SQ. IN. 1571b2.00
SOt,MICROG/FILTER IH.OSt
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F 70
AREA,BUBBLER 1 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,BUBBLER 2 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER a 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SO. IN. 1.00
302, MILLIG/BUBBLER 1 0.000
802, MILLIG/BUBBLER a 0.000
302, PPM 0.0
SULFATE AND S02 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET HaSOH,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET soa,GRAM/TEST
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET H2S01,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET soa,GRAM/KILOMETRE
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 215-» GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
B.02b
8.lit
o.ooo
.3b1
.377
o.ooo
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL 302
.b7
0.000
0.00
1
,00
,00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
soa t
.0027
.to
.0027
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EM8
n
i
DATE t/ 7/78
MODEL J^?? FURY PLYMOUTH
DRIVER BP
WET BULB TEMP iq c
SPEC. HUM. )l).i» GRAM/KG
TIME -o MRS.
FET
TEST WT. 20M KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 27 C
BARO. 710.? MM HG.
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE S.R LITREV 8
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. fS.O PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLRT TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HLOWER CU. CM /REV.
12.7t MINUTES
73b.b MM. H20
MM H20
73b.b
f 3
83523
b!831
2221
DEC. C
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
CO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KILOMETRE .02
co GRAMS/KILOMETRE .35
C02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 273
NOX GRAMS/KILOMETRE .fS
S02 GRAMS/KILOMETRE 0.00
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .23
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL ».l
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31b2
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 5.b5
802 GHAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
IS. 2/2
IS
12.3/2
12
SO.O/*
t8
2.2/*
2
»8.0/2
2.17
l.b/2
.Ob
37.S/2
37. 9
1.3/2
1.3
5
»3
a. 12
3b.8
0.0
.33
5.71
8.03
0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY
HC GRAM3/MIN .03
co GRAMS/MIN ,s
002 GRAMS/MIN 353
NOX GRAMS/MIN ,b3
302 GRAMS/MIN o.oo
11.bB LITRES PER HUNDRED KILOMETERS
-------
TABLE
UNIT NO.
VEHICLE
EMg
TFST NO.
FURY PLYMOUTH
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
ACTU»L DISTANCES USED IN CALCULATIONS
DATE H/ll/78 MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 5.90 LITRE 8 CURB WT,
-0
0 KG
YR.
GVM
0 KG
BAROMETER 7»n.lp MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. ?O DEC.. C
REL. HUMIDITY ?i PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., G?, 7b?.0 MM.
BAG RESULT*
BAG NO'.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO?
CO?
td
i
H50
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGPD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLF METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE
SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGPO METER READING/SCALE
NOX 84CKGRO PPM
so? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
so? SAMPLE PPM
SO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
SO? BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? CONCENTRATION PPM
HC Miss GRAM3
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
SO? MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/IOHKM (MPG)
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES (3CF)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM(MIUE91
WEIGHTED FUEL
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
TOTAL CVS
CONSUMPTION LITRES/lCinKM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM CGRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO* GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM CGRAMS/MILE)
FLOW * ?n3.? STD. cu. METRES
WET BULB TEMP 13.1 DEG. C
AB8. HUMIDITY 5,b GRAMS/KG
COMMENTS 1178 FTP-C
BLOWER INLET PRESS,, GI 7b?.o MM.
BLOWER INLET TEMP. t? DEG. C
1
H08BO
70. 7/ t
71
8,b/ ?
1
13.5/11
1 73
.8/11
2
*8,0/ ?
1.8«f
l.b/ ?
,0b
31. b/ ?
3t ,b
.?/ e
.7
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-o.o
b3
HSO
1.71
3*.0
0.0
Z.78
31. Bb
Hll.bl
4,?1*
0.00
,*8 (
b,1S ( 11.
<»35.78 (701.
.7H ( 1.
11.13 ( 1?.
7b.l (?b8b
5,7* ( 3.
IB. So
.!»
1 »1b
HZ1.71
.bfl
g
70b11
11. B/ ?
ie
7. 1/ ?
7
?H,3/13
jj
l.H/13
1
bb.1/ 1
i.eo
3.5/ 3
.05
15. B/ 2
15.8
.-*/ ?
,i»
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
;
81
1.15
15. »
0.0
,H J
3.«3
*77b.3b
3.33
0.00
78) .07 ( ,11)
18) .S3 ( .85)
17) 451.83 (7?b.11)
11) .«» ( .8?)
30) 11.13 ( IS. 17)
.1) 131. b (tbHb.?)
5b) b.lH ( 3.8B)
( 1*.7?)
( .?7)
( 3.15)
(bll.SH)
( 1.01)
3
H0511
81. 1/ ?
11
7. a/ ?
7
bb,5/13
bS
5.2/13
5
88. 8/ 3
l.bS
»,0/ 3
,0b
Ht.O/ ?
H2.0
,t/ ?
,*
-0.0/-0
-0.0
•0.0/-0
-0.0
16
SB
l.bO
•H.b
0,0
,b4
9. Ob
??10.77
5.15
0,00
.11 ( .
.88 ( 1.
383.11 (bl7.
,81 ( 1.
Ib.Hb ( 1*.
75.5 (3bbb
S.7b ( 3.
18)
HI)
B<0
t *)
21)
.0)
58)
-------
TARLE
M
l
FXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG
VEHICLE NUMBER
DATE t/n/7*
MODEL 1977 FURY PLYMOUTH
DRIVER BP
WET BULB TF.wp Ib C
SPEC. HUM. 7.H GRAM/KG
DISTANCE P1.500 KM
TIME -0 HRS,
SET-7
TEST WT. 20H1 KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 2b C
BARO. 7*0.•» MM HG.
FUEL 738.e G/LITRE
TEST NO,
ENGINE »
GVW
REL.
0 KG
HUM.
LITRfV I
J3.7 PCT
MEASURED FUEL o.oo KB
FUEL HC RATIO
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER OIF'. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TFMP,
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
?3.?i MINUTES
7b2.n MM. H20
7b2.n MM H20
»3 DEC. C
312»b
MFTER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO 9ACKGRD
coz SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLF PERCENT
coz BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COt BACKGPD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COI CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO* COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
CO? MASS (GRAM3)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SOZ MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
SO? GRAMS/KM (GR»MS/MILE)
11, 7/ P
12
7,b/ ?
9
bf.S/13
bO
3.7/13
1.81
l.b/ 2
.Ob
1.2
5
SH
1.78
HO, 5
0.0
.03 (
.b2 (
J17 (
,b7 (
n.oo (
b808.31
o|oo
,05)
510)
1.08)
0,00)
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .2*
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL b.l
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3159
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL b.b?
802 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL O.OH
HC GRAMS/MIN ,pj
Co GRAMS/MIN ,b
C02 GRAMS/MIN 212
NOX GRAMS/MIN ,b?
302 GRAMS/MIN 0,00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MILES/GALLON)
TOTAL'CVS FLO<"I" ?OB.bSTD. CU. METRES
13.5b ( 17.35)
-------
TABLE
M
I
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMS
DATE >>/ll/78 TIME -0 HRS. TEST NO. 2
MODEL 1^77 FURY PLYMOUTH SET-7 ENGINE 5.S LlTREO
RUN DURATION 23.29 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21.7t KILOMETRES
CVS BLOWER TEST VOL. 2*1.87 ACT. CU. METRES
SUl.FATE DATA
SAMPLE
FILTER NO. t?FH-2913
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. Ib.t2
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F as
SAMPLE AREA SO. IN. 33190.00
DILUTION FACTOR 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 5.00
STAND. AREA SQ. IN. Ibl7b7.00
SOt,MICROG/FILTER 10.251
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F TO
AREA,BUBBLER 1 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,BUBBLER 2 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SQ. IN. 1.00
S02f MILLIG/BUBBLER 1 0.000
S02, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2 0.000
302, PPM 0.0
SULFATE AND S02 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATErMILLIGRAM/TEST b.273
NET H2SOH,MILLIGRAM/TEST b.tot
NET SOS,GRAM/TEST 0.000
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE .289
NET H2SOH,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE .295
NET 302>GRAM/KILOMETRE 0.000
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 21b* GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
.b7
0.000
0.00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL S02 H2SOH
.0021
.31
302 +.H2SOt
.0021
.31
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE 840 SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMS
w
I
*>•
DATE »/ll/?« TIME .0 HRS,
MODEL )q»? FURY PLYMOUTH FET
DRIVER HP TEST WT. 20*1 KG,
WET BULB TfMp 11 c DRY BULB TEMP 2» C
SPEC. HU". 3.0 GRAM/KG 8ARO. 7HO,* MM HO.
DISTANCE lb'.?HS KM FUEL 738,2 G/LITRE
TEST NO, 3
ENGINE 5.1 LITREV 8
GVW 0 KG
REL, HUM, lb,2 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
FUEL HC RATIO l.BbO
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLFT TEMP,
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER cu. CM /REV.
12. 7» MINUTES
7b2.0 MM. H20
7b2.0 MM H20
>»2 DEC. C
?3b08
222?
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLF METER READING/SCALE 11
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE b
HC BACKGPD PPM
,2/ 2
11
,8/ 2
7
co SAMPLF METER READING/SCALE b*.s/i3
CO SAMPLF PPM
bO
co BACKGRD METF.R READING/SCALE ».i/i3
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE »s
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
a.
C02 BACKGRO METER READINO/SCALE i
C02 BACKGRO PERCENT
•
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALP 52
NOX SAMPLE PPM
52
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
802 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMJ)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
SOP MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
SOP GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL ,2b
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUFL 5,0
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31bl
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL b.»»
so? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL o.oo
i.
52
0.
•
7.
<»»SO.
1.
o.
.02 ( .OH)
,M ( .70)
?7f ( »*!)
,5b ( .10)
0,00 C 0.00)
HC GRAMS/MIN
co GRAMS/MIN
C02 GRAMS/MIN
NOX GRAMS/MIN
so2 GRAMS/MIN
s
,0/ 2
17
.«/ 2
OS
.3/ 2
.3
,»/ 2
.»
b
S3
12
.0
0
3b
11
bl
08
00
.03
.b
3»q
.71
n.oo
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY L/jnriKM
11.73 ( 20.Ob)
-------
UNIT NO. FIM8
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO.
PLY FURY
BAROMETER 73Y.31 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB IEMP. 28.8 DEG. C
KEL. HUMIDITY 3b PCT.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1R78 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
ACTUAL DISTANCES USED IN CALCULATIONS
DATE 5/ 3/78 MFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE 5.90 LITRE 8 CURB WT. 0 KG
WET BULB TEMP 13.9 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY b.» GRAMS/KG
COMMENTS 1978 FTPC
YR. 1177
GVM 0 KG
G2, 73b.b MM. H20
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS.,
BAG RESULTS
HAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
C03 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
COS SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
CO? BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER-READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
SU2 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SOS SAMPLE PPM
SO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
SO? BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SOS CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
SCI? MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM (MPG)
CVS FLOW STO. CU. MEIRES (SCF)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM(MILF.S)
WEIGHTED FUEL
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
TOTAL CVS
CONSUMPTION LITRES/1UOKM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FLOW = 578.0 STO. CU. METRES
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 73b.b MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. H5 DEG. C
I
f 0 b h 3
33. t/ 3
33"»
1. 1/ 3
11
5t.H/ 3
13-»7
.!/ 3
2
17. I/ 3
1.63
3.S/ 3
.05
3b.5/ 3
3b.5
.i/ a
.9
-0.07-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.11
325
1282
1.78
35.7
0.0
1* .04
111.9H
24^.58
f ,t9
0.00
2.H7 ( 3.
IS. 71 ( 31.
H30.87 (b93.
.79 ( I.
20.05 C 11.
75.0 (2bH8
5. b8 ( 3.
18. bS
.59
b.bb
H21.S3
.85
2
bS520
11. 8/ 2
12
10. 0/ 2
10
29.0/13
27
3.0/13
3
b7.H/ 3
1.21
2.7/ 3
.0-»
23. 0/ 2
23.0
.9/ 2
.9
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
3
21*
1.17
22.2
0.0
.20
3.5b
2755. fa?
Y.77
0.00
98) .03 ( .05)
72) .58 C .93)
28) HYS.Bb (71b.S9)
27) .77 ( 1.2f)
73) 19.05 ( 12.35)
.3) 128.2 (H527.1*)
53) b.19 ( 3.85)
( 12. b2)
( .95)
( 10.71)
(b83.07)
( 1.37)
3
f05f3
38. 7/ 2
39
9.9/ 2
10
25. O/ 3
579
.!/ 3
2
87. 2/ 3
l.b?
2. 1/ 3
.03
*8.t/ 2
«f8.H
.9/ 2
.9
-0.0/-0
-n.o
-0.0/-0
-0.0
30
552
1.59
t7.b
0.0
1.30
ta.io
2178. 9S
5.97
0.00
.53 (
8.39 ( 13.
380.25 (bll.
l.OH ( 1.
lb.82 ( 13.
7t.B (2faHO
5.73 ( 3.
3b)
50)
82)
bB)
98)
• •»)
5b)
-------
TABLE
HXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMR
DATE » c
SPFC. MUM. b.l GRAM/KG
DISTANCE 21.b3l) KM
TIME -o HRS.
SET 7
TEST WT. 2ntl KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 25 C
BARO. 733.0 MM HG.
FUEL 738.2 G/LITRE
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 5.9 LITREV 8
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 30.1 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.0(1 KG
FUEL HC RATIO l.bbO
RUN DURATION
HLOwtR INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
23.30 MINUTES
7H9.3 MM. H20
7H9.3 MM H20
"»3 DEG. C
112292
2228
W
I
00
MF.TER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKI;RO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD MFTER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAKPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
CU? RACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
cu2 BACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRAlION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
HC
CO
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
302 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE) .02 (
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE) .bS (
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE) 317 (
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE) 1.01 (
SO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE) 0.00 (
15. O/ 2
15
12. 7/ 2
19
b7.0/13
bS
H.5/13
H
"»2.b/ 2
1.88
1.9/ 2
.07
bS.2/ 2
bs.a
i.7/ a
1.7
H
58
1.82
b3.7
0.0
.ts
b8bb.ll
21.85
0.00
.Of)
l.Of )
511)
I.b3)
n.no)
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .2?
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL b.5
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3159
MIX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 10.05
SO? GRAMS/KG UF FUEL 0.00
HC GRAMS/MIN .02
CO GRAMS/MIN .b
C02 GRAMS/MIN 295
NOX GRAMS/MIN .94
S02 GRAMS/MIN O.ni)
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MILES/GALLON)
13.bO ( 17.3U)
TOTAL CVS FLOH= PMb.SSTD. CU. METRES
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EM8
DATE 5/ 2/78 TIME -0 HRS. TEST NO. 2
MODEL 1177 PLY FURY SET-7 ENGINE 5.1 LITREO
RUN DURATION 23.30 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21.74 KILOMETRES
cvs BLOWER TEST VOL. 2su.iB ACT. cu. METRES
SAMPLE
SULFATE DATA
FILTER NO. f7FH-2929
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 17.f8
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F 78
SAKPLE AREA SO. IN. ff8b9.00
DILUTION FACTOR 1
STAND. DEN. MlCROG/ML 5.00
STAND. AREA SO. IN. 151*93.00
SOf,MICROG/FILTER If.809
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
SAMPLE TEMP. DEC. F 70
AREA,BUBBLER 1 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,BUBBLER 2 0.00
OIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SO. IN. 1.00
so2, MILLIG/BUBBLER i o.ooo
so2, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2 o.ooo
S02, PPM 0.0
SULFATE AND 302 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET H2SOf,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET 302,GRAM/TEST
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET H2SOf,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET 302,GRAM/KILOMETRE
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 2183 GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
8.590
8.770
0.000
.395
,-»03
0.000
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
,b8
0.000
0.00
1
.00
00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL S02 H2SOH
.0029
302 + H2SOf
.0029
-------
1 ABLE
f.XHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE PAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMR
W
I
DA 1 F S/ 3/7H
MOtitL 11'77 PLY FUHY
ORIVtR JC
WET BIILH TEMP 1H C
SPEC. HUM. 5.9 GRAM/KG
DISTANCE lb.3S4 KM
TIME -U MRS.
HFE1
TEST WT. 2Dfl KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 2b C
HARD. 732.8 MM HG.
FUEL 738.? 6/LITRE
TEST NO. 3
ENGINE s.i LITREV e
GVW o KG
REL. HUM. 28.0 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
FUEL HC RATIO l.BbU
RUN OIJI'ATlUN
BLOwfcR INLET PRESS.
rtLOrfER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER INLET Tfc'MP.
OYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
12.7b MINUTES
7f9.3 MM. H20
7fq.3 MM H20
H3 DEG. C
237b7
bine?
222b
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGKU METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
hC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
S02 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MA3S (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
302 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GKAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C0,> GHAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
SO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
18. O/ 2
18
12. S/ 2
13
50.1/12
110
3.H/12
>»
H8.1/ 2
2.22
l.S/ 2
.OS
85. b/ S
85. b
1.3/ 2
1.3
R
101
2.18
BH.5
0.0
.HI
13.32
15.75
0.00
.03 (
.81 (
275 (
.Sb (
0.00 (
.05)
1.31)
HH3)
1.55)
0.00)
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .35
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL S.3
C02 GRAHS/KG OF FUEL 315f
NOX &HAMS/KG OF FUEL 11.Of
SO.' GRAMS/KG OF FUtL U.OO
HC GRAMS/MIN
CO GRAMS/MIN
C02 GRAMS/MIN
NOX GRAMS/MIN
302 GRAMS/MIN
..OH
1.0
353
1.23
0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MILES/GALLON)
TOTAL CVS FLOH= 113.DSTD. CU. METRES
11.80 (
-------
TABLE
UNIT NO. FM8
VEHICLE MODEL
1ES1 NU.
PLYMOUTH FURY
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
jq?8 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
ACTUAL DISTANCES USED IN CALCULATIONS
DATE 5/ B/7B MFGR. CODE
ENGINE 5.90 LITRE S CURB WT.
-0
0 KG
YR. 1977
GVM U KG
BAROMETER 71H.1? MM UF H6.
DRY BULB TEMP. ?3.9 OF6. C
REL. HUMIDITY 31 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS.* G?, 73b.b MM.
RAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
HLUWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
I
Ui
H?0
METFR READING/SCALE
PPM
CO?
CO?
CO?
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
SO?
SO?
SO?
SO?
SAKPLE
SAMPLE
1>ACKGRI1 MEIER READING/SCALE
BACKGPD PPM
SAKPLE MFTER HEADING/SCALE
SAKPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE
SAKPLE
OACKGHD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGHD PPM
SAMPLE
SAKPLF
METFR READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGKD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SO? CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
SO? MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/10UKM (MPG)
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES ISCF)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM(MILES)
WEIGHTED FUEL
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
TOTAL CVS
CONSUMPTION LITRFS/1UOKM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MlLE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
COS GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FLOW = ?79.9 SID. CU. METRES
WET BULB TEMP 13.1 DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 5.9 GRAMS/KG
COMMENTS 1178 FTPC
BLOWER INLET PRESS., GI ?3b.b MM. HBO
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 43 OEG. c
1
40b89
95. ?/ 2
95
10. 9/ 2
11
?b.7/ 3
b?0
.!/ 3
2
42. S/ ?
1.87
l.b/ 2
.Ob
54. 9/ 2
54.9
.?/ 2
- .7
-D.O/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
8b
590
l.S?
54.3
o.n
3.7*
51. 8b
2518.11
b.77
O.OU
.b5 ( 1.
9.01 ( 14.
H37.b9 (70t.
1.18 ( 1 .
19.37 ( 1?.
75.5 (?bbb
5.75 ( 3.
IB. 39
.18
?.B7
•»?b.73
1.118
?
b9blt
13. IX 2
13
10. 3/ 8
10
ta.?/13
10
.5/13
0
bb.9/ 3
1.20
3.0/ 3
.05
31. 0/ 2
31.0
.?/ 2
.7
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
H
38
l.lb
30. H
Ot 0
.28
5.75
2742. Ob
b.48
o.nu
05) .04 ( .07)
SO) .92 ( 1.49)
24) 44U.7? (709.12)
89) 1.04 ( l.b?)
14) 18.88 ( 12. 4b)
.3) 1?9.1 (45b0.9)
58) b.22 ( 3.87)
( 1?.79)
( .28)
( 4.b2)
(hHS.Otl)
( 1.74)
3
40539
18. ?/ 2
18
9.9/ 2
10
bn.0/12
134
.4/1?
1
89. fa/ 3
l.b?
2.4/ 3
.04
51. S/ 2
51.9
.9/ 2
.9
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
10
128
I.b4
51.1
0.0
.41
11.18
22SS.50
b.35
0.00
.07 (
1.93 ( 3.
388.51 (b25.
1.H9 ( 1.
lb.72 ( 14.
75.2 (2b5b
5.81 ( 3.
11)
10)
12)
7b)
07)
.0)
bl)
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMfl
I
ui
N)
DATE. S/ 8/7H
MfinfL 1977 PLY FURY
DRIVER TJ
WEf HULR TEMP ih C
SPEC. HUM. b.R GRAM/KG
DISTANCE 21.74J KM
TIME -n MRS.
SET-?
TEST WT. 20*1 KG.
DRV BULB TEMP 28 C
HARU. 737.h MM HG.
FUEL 738.2 G/LITRE
TEST NO. 1
ENGINE 5.9 LITRE 8
GVN n KG
REL. HUM. 28.H PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
FUEL HC RATIO 1.8bO
RUN DURA I ION
RLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLUWER DIP. PRESS.
BLOWER INLFT TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
SLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
23.28 MINUTES
7K2.D MM. H20
7H2.0 MM H20
f3 DEG. C
31bb8
112172
2227
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD MFTER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
co
CO
CO
CO BACHGWD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPK
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
802 COCtNTRATION PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GRAMS)
NOX SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
HC
CO
ib.n/ 2
Ib
12. 3/ 2
12
S3.b/12
119
1 .t/12
2
•»3.0/ 2
1.90
l.b/ 2
.Ob
Sb.b/ 2
Sb.b
l.l/ 2
1.1
5
111
1.85
55.7
0.0
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
S02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .29
co GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 12.1
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 31t9
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 8.77
S02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL O.PP
2b.8H
7010. ?»
19.52
n.oo
.03 (
1.23 (
.90 (
0.00 (
.05)
1.98)
518)
l.Ht)
n.nn)
HC GRAMS/MIN
CO GRAMS/MIN
C02 GRAMS/MIN
NOX GRAMS/MIN
S02 GRAMS/MIN
.03
301
o.un
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY L/ldnKM (MILES/GALLON)
TOTAL CVS FLUH= 2O7.3STD. CU. METRES
13.82 ( 17.02)
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMS
M
un
U)
DATE S/ 8/78 TIME -0 HRS. TEST NO. 1
MODEL 1177 PLY FURY SET-7 ENGINE 5.1 LlTREO
RUN DURATION 23.28 MIN. DISTANCE DRIVEN 21.7t KILOMETRES
cvs BLOWER TEST VOL. 2*s.83 ACT. cu. METRES
SAMPLE
SULFATE DATA
FILTER HO. 17FH-2132
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 17.11
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F 88
SAMPLE AREA so. IN. sotob.oo
DILUTION FACTOR i
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 5.00
STAND. AREA SO. IN. lb*372.00
SOH,MICROG/FILTER 15.333
SULFUR DIOXIDE DATA
SAMPLE VOL. CU. FT. 1.00
SAMPLE TEMP. DEG. F 70
AREA,BUBBLER i o.oo
OIL. FACT..BUBBLER 1 1
AREA,BUBBLER 2 0.00
DIL. FACT.,BUBBLER 2 1
STAND. DEN. MICROG/ML 1.00
STAND. AREA,SQ. IN. 1.00
S02, MILLIG/BUBBLER 1 0.000
SOS, MILLIG/BUBBLER 2 0.000
S02, PPM 0.0
SULFATE AND S02 EMISSIONS
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET H2SOf,MILLIGRAM/TEST
NET 302,GRAM/TEST
NET SULFATE,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET H2SOH,MILLIGRAM/KILOMETRE
NET 302,GRAM/KILOMETRE
SULFUR BALANCE
FUEL WT., 2235 GRAMS
SULFUR,GRAMS
PCT. RECOVERY
8.118
S.lOb
0.000
.110
.HIS
0.000
BACKGROUND
1.00
70
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
1.00
70
0.00
1
0.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.000
0.000
0.0
SULFUR IN FUEL, .0310 PCT.
FUEL 302 H2SOf
.bl
0.000
0.00
.0030
.t3
302 i H2SO*
.0030
-------
T AHLF
I
cn
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMB
DATE S/ R/7H
MODEL 1177 PLY FURY
DRIVER TJ
WET BULB TFMP lb C
SPFC. HUM. b.3 GRAM/KG
TIME -U HRS.
FET
TF.ST WT. SITU KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 29 C
BAUD. 737.b MM HG.
TEST NO. 1
ENGINE 5.S LITRE R
G V W 0 K G
REL. HUM. ?t.B PCT
MEASURED FUEL O.Of) KG
DISTANCE
KM
FUEL 73B.2 G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO 1.8bO
RUN DURATION
PLOWEW INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
BLOWER IULET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
12. 7b MINUTES
7b2.0 MM. H20
7b2.0 MM H20
43 UEG. C
b!571
BLOWER CU. CM /REV. 222b
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRO PPM
CO SAMPLE MFTER READING/SCALE
CO SAKPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
COS SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
COS SAMPLE PERCENT
COS BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COS BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
302 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
COS MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
302 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
COS GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
SO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
Ih.l/ 2
ib
11. a/ a
12
52.0/12
115
.8/12
1
H8.2/ i
2. IB
1.3X 2
.05
b8.1/ 2
bB.l
l.O/ Z
1.0
b
1U8
2.1H
b?.3
0.0
.HI
It. 38
12. 7B
O.Ofl
.02 (
.87 (
271 (
.78 (
o.on (
.ni)
l.HCI)
J.25)
0.00)
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .SH
CO GRAMS/KG OF FURL 10.1
CO? GRAMS/KG OF FUF.L 3153
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL i.ns
502 GRAMS/KG OF FUFL n.on
HC GRAMS/MIN
co GRAMS/MIN
COS GRAMS/MIN
NOX GRAMS/MIN
S02 GRAMS/MIN
.03
1.1
350
1.011
n.oo
CARHUN BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY L/lHilKM (MILES/GALLON)
TOTAL CVS f:LOH= 113.9STP. CU. METRES
11. b3
2n.22)
-------
TABLE
UNIT NO. EM8
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO.
PLYMOUTH FURY
H20
BAROMETER 7H0.1b MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.b OEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY S3 PCT.
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
•BLOWER DIF. PRESS., G2, 73b.b MM.
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD MtTER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
COa SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
COa SAMPLE PERCENT
COa BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COa BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
i NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
1 NOX BACKGRD PPM
i 303 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SOa SAMPLE PPM
SOa BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
SOa BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COe CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
SOB CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COa MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
SOa MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
COa GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM (MPG)
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES (SCF)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM(MILES)
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
1978 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
ACTUAL DISTANCES USED IN CALCULATIONS
DATE S/ai/78 MFGR. CODE -0
ENGINE 5.90 LITRE a CURB WT. o KG
WET BULB TEMP 18.9 DEC. C
AbS. HUMIDITY 11.1 GRAMS/KG
COMMENTS 1178 FTPC
YR.
GVM
1177
U KG
WEIGHTED FUEL
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
WEIGHTED MASS
TOTAL CVS
CONSUMPTION LITRES/1UOKM (MPG)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
COe GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FLOW = 281.1 STD. CU. METRES
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl 73fa.b MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. H3 DEC. C
1
HOS98
S.I/ 3
SS
1.5/ 3
15
H2.8/ 3
1028
.!/ 3
a
93. S/ 3
1.75
3.9/ 3
.Ob
31. 8/ a
31.8
i.o/ a
1.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
8b
97H
1.70
30. q
0.0
3.75
85.75
235H .H9
H.5H
0.00
.bS ( 1.
1H.87 ( 33.
HOB. a? (bSb.
.79 ( 1.
iB.si ( ia.
75. b (2b70
5.77 ( 3.
18. HS
.aa
S.b?
naa.73
.aa
a
blbbl
17. ?/ a
18
13. o/ a
13
bO.0/12
13H
2.H/12
H
b8.1/ 3
1.23
H.3/ 3
.07
15. 7/ 2
15.7
.5/ 2
.5
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
b
125
1.17
15.2
0.0
.HH
18.85
27b9.59
3.8H
0.00
OS) .07 ( .IS)
S2) 3.08 ( H.1S)
11) 452.50 (788.07)
27) .b3 ( 1.01)
71) 19.53 ( la.OS)
.9) 139.8 (1S82.S)
58) b.12 ( 3.80)
( 12.75)
( .35)
( 9.12)
(bSO.17)
( 1.32)
3
«*0b09
33. b/ 2
3«f
14. b/ 2
15
97.7/12
a*s
1.9/12
3
Bb.a/ 3
l.bO
a.?/ 3
.OH
H8.2/ 2
H8.2
1.2/ 2
1.2
-0.0/-0
-0.0
-0.0/-0
-0.0
21
231
l.Sb
H7.1
0.0
.11
20.33
21bH.37
b.92
0.00
,lb (
3. 55 ( 5.
377.92 (b08.
1.21 ( 1.
lb.39 ( 1H.
75.7 (2b71
5.73 ( 3.
25)
71)
08)
9H)
35)
.b)
5b)
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMS
M
I
ui
DATE 5/21/78
MODEL 1177 PLYMOUTH FURY
ORIVtH TJ
WET 8ULH TEMP J7 C
SPFC. HUM. 8.8 OKAM/KG
DISTANCE 21.b5e KM
TIME -M MRS.
SET-7
TEST NT. 20tl KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 2H C
BARO. 7t0.2 MM HG.
TEST NO. 2
ENGINE 5.1 LITREV 8
GVW o KG
REL. HUM. HS.O PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
FUEL 738.2 G/LlTRE FUEL HC RATIO 1.8bO
PUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRESS.
RLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
23.21 MINUTES
7b2.0 MM. H20
7b2.D MM H20
H3 DEG. C
31Hbb
1122Sb
222b
PAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGKO METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
802 COCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS (GRAMS)
CO MASS (GRAMS)
C02 MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
S02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .31
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUF.L 20.0
C02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3137
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 1.77
S02 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
11. 2/ 2
11
It.HX 2
1»
78.»/12
180
2.S/12
H
12. 3/ 3
1.73
3.bX 3
.Ob
SH.b/ 2
St.b
l.b/ 2
l.b
7
Ib8
l.bB
S3. 2
0.0
.80
»0.7S
11.15
n.oo
.Ot (
1.88 (
21b (
.12 (
0.00 (
.Ob)
3.03)
H7b)
o.no)
MC GRAMS/MIN
CO GRAMS/MIN
C02 GRAMS/MIN
NOX GRAMS/MIN
302 GRAMS/MIN
.03
1.7
275
.8b
0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MILES/GALLON)
TOTAL CVS FLOH= ?08.5STD. CU. METRES
12.75 ( 18.»S)
-------
TABLE
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM SINGLE BAG SAMPLE
VEHICLE NUMBER EMH
I
Ul
-J
DATE 5/2S/78
MODEL 1177 PLYMOUTH FURY
DRIVER TJ
WET BULB TEMP lb C
SPEC. HUM. 8.1 GRAM/KG
DISTANCE
TIME -0 HRS.
H-FET
TEST WT. ?0tl KG.
DRY BULB TEMP 2H C
BARO. 7411.4 MM HG.
TE3T NO. 3
ENGINE 5.9 LITREV B
GVW 0 KG
REL. HUM. 41.7 PCT
MEASURED FUEL 0.00 KG
KM
FUEL 738.2 G/LITRE FUEL HC RATIO l.BfaU
RUN DURATION
BLOWER INLET PRESS.
BLOWER DIF. PRF.SS.
RLOWER INLET TEMP.
DYNO REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER CU. CM /REV.
15.7b MINUTES
7b2.0 MM. H20
7b2.0 MM H20
43 DEG. C
537*7
blSOl
222b
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METFR READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BAG RESULTS
HC SAMPLE
HC SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO BACKGRD PPM
COS SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD MtTER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGKO PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
802 COCENTRAT10N PPM
MASS (GRAMS)
MASS (GHAMS)
COS MASS (GRAMS)
NOX MASS (GRAMS)
S02 MASS (GRAMS)
HC
CO
HC
CO
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
COS GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
S02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
HC GRAMS/KG OF FUEL .37
CO GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 17.5
C05 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 3JH1
NOX GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 11.51
S05 GRAMS/KG OF FUEL 0.00
1B.5/ 2
18
12. b/ 2
13
81.5/12
189
1.4/12
2
4b.8/ 2
2.10
l.b/ 2
.Ob
79. I/ 2
79.1
l.l/ 2
1.1
e
177
2.05
78.2
0.0
.50
23.52
>>29b.21
0.00
.03 (
l.tf (
2b3 (
.9b (
0.00 (
.05)
2.32)
H23)
1.55)
0.00)
HC GRAMS/MIN
CO GRAMS/MIN
COc GRAMS/MIN
NOX GRAMS/MIN
S02 GRAMS/MIN
.OH
1.8
337
1.23
0.00
CARBON BALANCE FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MILES/GALLON)
11.32 ( 20.78)
TOTAL CVS FLOWr 11H.3STD. CU. METRES
-------
TABLE
VEHICLE NO. EM8
VEHICLE MODEL 77 FURY
ENGINE 5.9 LObO CIO) V-B
TRANSMISSION A3
GVW II KG( -U LB3)
BAROMETER 739.If MM HG(29.10 IN H6)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.0 OEG C(77.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. CCDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
n
i
Ul
oo
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
COS SAMPLE
CO? BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRO
HC
HC
CO
CO
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUFL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM (MPG)
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP
TEST NO.5-? RUN 1
DATE b/ 1/78
TIME 09!32
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
BAG CART NO. 1
TEST WEIC.HT
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD
GASOLINE
ODOMtTtR 2S5H9
PKOJECT NO. 11-t 74H-IMI1
KG( 450U LHS)
10.4 KW( 1H.U HP)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY Sb PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 11.4 GM/KGC 79.1 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. l.n?3H
COLO TRANSIENT
7b?,0 C30.0)
7b?.0 (30.0)
43.9 (111.0)
4Ub21
75.? (?b5b.O)
14.O/ 3/
1.9/ 3/
2b.l/ 3/
.3/ 3/
140
IS
bOb
7
48. b/ ?/ ?.?0
l.S/ ?/ .07
S3.b/ ?/ 5f
l.S/ 2/ ?
5.8S
1?H
5bH
?.1S
52. H
5.3S
»S.3b
esss.i
7.71
.It ( 1.50)
B.57 ( 13.78)
513.0 ( 825. •»)
1.3* ( 2.15)
22. bO ( 10.«»1)
5.7b ( 3.58)
.24 ( .38)
3.90 ( b.?7)
524.08 (843.25)
1. 4 11 ( 2.25)
22.bb ( 10.38)
STABILIZED
7b2.0 (30.0)
7b2.0 (30.0)
43. 3 (110.0)
b9b53
129.1 (4558.1)
20. 3/ 2/ 20
18. b/ 2/ 19
59.1/12/ 132
4.9/12/ 9
83. B/ 3/ 1.55
3.9/ 3/ .Ob
37. ?/ 2/ 37
.b/ 2/ 1
B.57
H
118
1.50
3b.7
17.72
3535.1
S.2b
.05 ( .07)
2. 82 ( H.Sf)
5b2.5 ( 905.1)
1.47 ( 2.37)
24.20 ( 9.72)
b.28 ( 3.91)
HOT TRANSIENT
7b2.0 (30.0)
7b2.0 (30.0)
43.3 (110.0)
4Ub05
75.2 (2b57.3)
24.B/ i/ 25
lb.1/ 2/ lb
73.9/12/ Ib8
.9/12/ 2
43.b/ 2/ 1.93
1.3/ 2/ .05
50.9/ 2/ 51
.b/ 2/ 1
b.88
11
158
1.89
5U.H
.48
13.82
.2bU3.3
7.42
.08 ( .14)
2.43 ( 3.91)
H58.1 ( 737.2)
1.31 ( 2.10)
19.73 ( 11.92)
5.b8 ( 3.53)
-------
TABLE
VEHICLE NO. EMB
VEHICLE MODEL 77 FURY
ENGINE 5.1 LUbO CIO) V-8
TRANSMISSION A3
GVW 0 KG( -0 L6S)
BAROMETER 731.90 MM HG(?q.l3 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 83.q OEG CC7S.O DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H50CIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CCDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
H
I
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
CO? SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
SET
TEST NO.5-2
DATE b/ 1/78
TIME ll«3b
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. Z
BAG CART NO.
RUN 2
PKOJECT NU.
TEST WEIGHT 1818 KG( tOOO LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 10. t Kw( 1H.O HP)
GASOLINE
OOOMtTER
RELATIVE HUMIDITY *8 PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY S.I GM/KGC b3.S GRAINS/LB)
7b2.0 (30.0)
7*2.0 (30.0)
f3.3 (110.0)
112335
208.t (735S.7)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. .SH8S
11
lb
78
tt
1
bS
1
.8/ 2/
.3/ 2/
.8/12/
.8/12/
.8/ 2/ J
.b/ 2/
.7/ 2/
.t/ 2/
b.bb
b
171
1.15
20
lb
181
1
L .11
.Ob
bb
1
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
.71
11.38
7*22.5
.03 ( .05)
1.87 ( 3.02)
33b.3 ( SH1.1)
1.11 ( 1.78)
It.tS ( lb.2f)
22.07 ( 13.72)
-------
VEHICLE NO. EM8
VfHICLF MODEL 77 FURY
ENGINF s.9 LOhn CID) V-B
TRANSMISSION A3
GVH n KG( -0 LBS)
BAROMETER 739.1H MM HG(29.10 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 2H.H DEC C(7h.O DEC f~)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOHER INLET P MM. H20CIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOHER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
TABLE VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
HFET
TEST NO.5-2 RUN 3
PATE b/ 1/78
TIME 12:>»5
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
HAG CART NO. 1
w
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
CO? SAMPLE
CO? BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX HCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/inOKM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
PHOJECT NU. ll-H7«b-0(Jl
TES1 V.EIGHT 1R18 KG( HUOO LHS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 10.H KW( 1 H . l> HP)
GASOLINE
ODOMtTER
RELATIVE HUMIDITY <*5 PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY B.8 GM/KG( bl.9 GRAINS/L8)
7b2.0 (30.0)
7b2.0 (30.0)
H3.3 (110.0)
b!399
113.8 (H017.9)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. .9419
It. I/ e/
12. 5/ 2/
7U.8/12/
2.2/ia/
H7.2/ a/
l.S/ 2/
bH.H/ 2/
l.B/ 5/
b.2b
13
IfaO
»
2.13
.05
bt
2. OB
b2.9
.2*
19. bH
H333.H
12.89
.01 ( .02)
1.11 ( 1.79)
2HS.b ( 395.2)
.73 ( 1.18)
10. Sb ( 22.28)
17. bH ( 10. 9b)
-------
APPENDIX P
COMPUTER PRINTOUTS
FOR
AIR MODULATION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION AND
DURABILITY TESTS ON A 1978 VOLVO
(Tests in Chronological Order)
-------
TARLF A-4.
H ir.i fc n-i. i f.-iu
.HICLE M')OF|. ?H VOLVH HM-JI
r, I nt- c.i I.(1 in CILO L-M
AIJlMl mi I'd
* KT,( -ii Lt!S)
HARII'KfFH 7IH.H9 MM Hi:(29.09 IN HU)
L)PY H'lLM lenp. e^.d DIG T(7d.ll OF.t, F)
HA i, RF3IIL 1 S
UtSCK|PT[UN
HL''if.l-!i OIF H MM. H?0(IM.
Hl.iiw(..< ItJLET P MM. Hen( IN. H?|)J
I'iLFT TfcMH. OEG. C(OhG. F)
ht Vdl.UT JONS
CVS KuV, STI). CLI. KE
M
1
ro
HC
HC
CO
( I)
COP
CO?
NOX
SAMPLE
HCKGHIJ
SA-IPLt
HC^GHO
SA IPLt
H c < r> tu)
SAiPLt
Mh rF W/RANI,E/PPM
M h FEK/WANUE/PPM
MF TF
ME ThH/WANUEXPCT
Mfc ft RXRANGEXPPM
NOX HCKGHD ME TF.HXRANGE/PPM
PC f
DllUTIUN
HC CONCKKTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPH
LOP COHCl r.TRATIDN
NOX CONCKNTRA TIllN PPM
HC MASS
CO MASS C.WAMS
CO? MASS I.KAMS
Nil* MASS
HC GRIMS/KM
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
COP GRAMS/KM (UWAMS/NlLt)
NO* liKAMS/KM (U.9AMS/MILE)
FUFL CONSUMPTION 4Y CH L/I
UKM(HPG)
LALCULATLI) OISIANCF KM CMILtS)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GNAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CU GRAMS/KM
Co? GRAMS/KM
NOir G.VAMS/KM (L.PAMS/MHE)
FllfL Cl'NSUMPTlMM hY Crt L/lHHKM (MPu)
3. If (
3?3. 1 3 (
.11? (
VEHICLE E'MSSION RESULTS
f rp
PROJECT Nl. ll-H7Hh-lHil
TEST NO. i RUN i
OATf 7Xe!7X7B
I IME It? :-*H
OYNO NO. 3
CV3 NO. 2
HAi, CART NO. 1
TEST HEIGHT 13bH
ACTUAL ROAU LOAD
GAbOLINE EN-27H-F
OflOMETEH ?8
H.H
3iUiu
KV.( 11.3
HP)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
q PCT
B.S GM/KG( 59. t GRAINSXLB)
NUX HUMIDl TV f. .F . . I.Hlb
OLD TRANSIENT
719
43
7b
7b.
8.
21 .
^
77.
3.
2.
•
. 3
.3
1
.5
2X
OX
ox
i/
2X
IX
IX
bX
1
1
(29.
(1111
1199
(27(1
2X
2X
3/
3X
3X 1
3X
2X
2X
9.10
b9
529
.37
1.9
3.05
7.12
5)
.0)
0.1)
7b
8
555
2
.41
.05
2
1
STABILIZED
749.3 (29.5)
719.3 (29.
12.8 (109
705bO
131.0 (4b2
20. IX 2X
8. 1/ 2X
b5.0X12X
1.3X12X
52. SX 3X
4.3X 3X
.8X 2X
.bX 2X
14.42
12
lib
.85
.2
.93
17. b9
5)
.0)
8.b)
2(1
8
122
.92
.07
1
1
HOT
711
719
13
7S
30.
B.
7b.
1.
bB.
3.
1.
•
TRANSIENT
.3 (29.5)
.3 (29.5)
.3 (110.
10S21
.2 (2b55
7X 2X
HX 2X
0)
.9)
31
8
bX12X 175
SX12X
(IX 3X 1.
SX 3X .
IX 2X
7X 2X
10.78
23
Ibb
1.1?
.5
1.02
l^.SS
3
22
05
1
1
.2S
.51 ( .Rb)
8.30 ( 13.3b)
33b.B ( 541.9)
.01 ( .07)
15.111 ( 15. Mi)
5.b8 ( 3.53)
.39)
b. Jt)
R.Sq)
..13)
.Ob
.25)
.15 (
2.^1 C
337.7 ( 543. H)
.01 ( .01)
Ib.OH)
It.b3 (
b.07 (
3.77)
.Ob
.18 (
2.57 (
285. b (
.01 (
12.38 (
S.b? (
.08)
3.52)
-------
VEHICLE No.tn-in
VEHICLE MJDEl. 7H VOLVO EK-LIJ
ENGINF ?.l LC130 CIO) L-H
TRANSMISSION
GV^ II KG( -II LHS)
BA-ROMFTER 73R.3H hM HGC29.07 IN Ht)
ORY HIILB TEMP. 25.11 DEG C(77.ll DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
HLO^'EF OIF P MM. H?0(IN. H20)
HLO^EH ir.'LET P MM. H?U(IN. M?0)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CCDEG. F)
HLOWER REVOLUTIONS
cvs FLOW sro. cu.
TABLE VFHICLF tMISSION RESULTS
SET
IEST NO. 1 RUN
DATE 7/27/78
TIME 1HI22
DYNO Nil. 3
CVS NO. 2
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY -
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
CO
HC
HC
co
CO
CO?
co?
fiOX
NOX
SAMPLE
BCKGKD
SAMPLE
BCKGKD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
HCKGRl)
METEK/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/R/INGE/PPM
ME IFR/RANGE/PPM
ME FER/KANtiE/PCT
METER/RANUE/FCT
ffcTFP/RANGE/PPM
METEH/RANGE/PPM
PROJECT NO. ll-t74b-IJIIl
TEST WEIGHT 13bf KIH 1UUQ LbS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 8.t K«( 11.3 HP)
GASOLINE EM-27H-F
ODOMtTEH 113
1 PCT
7.1 GM/KGC 55.b GRA1NS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. .Slfab
1
7*9.3 (.2S.S)
7fS,3 (?S.5)
f 3.3 (I in.O)
eilH.2 (7352.3)
31. b/ 2/
R.ll/ 2/
95.7/1?/
1.7/12/
32
B
237
3
80. a/ 3/ 1.H7
3.S/ 3/ .05
l.S/ 2/ 2
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CfiMLfcNTRA riON PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
P.M3
P25
.7
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
2.1-*
5 * . 5 n
.87
hC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GHAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUFL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/1HOKM(MP&)
CAlCULATf.C DISTANCE KM (MILES)
.If ( .22)
2.5b ( t.J2)
255.7 ( tll.H)
.01 ( .02)
11.10 ( 21.19)
21.27 ( 13.22)
-------
VfcMlLI t '/il.t K-) II
Vt>- I Cl t ">iJl>( L
t NT, | NF c1 . I L ( 1 }n
i I»u PCT
AH30LUTE HUMIDITY 8.t GM/KGC SB.b GKAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.I-.
^
OA(, KFSUL1S
HAT, NIJKrtt K
I) IF P
IHLtr
IriLFT
CVS
HC
HC
CO
Cll
CO?
(II?
MOX
MM. H?U(IN. H?0)
P MM. H?0(IN. HPO)
TF-Mp. OEG. CfDtr,. F)
K «(. VOLU T I IINS
F-LUH STD. CU. MEIRtS(SCF)
SAMPl.fc
HCKGUl)
SAMPLt
SAMPLE
HCKGRD
METF.H/KANGE/PPM
M£U R/RANbE/PPM
MtTEH/RANGE/PPM
MF TtH/RANGE/PPM
ME TFK/RANGE/PCT
ME It H/RANUF/PCT
Mt Tt KVHANGE/PPM
METFR/RANGE/PPM
niLUTIOIJ FACTOR
HC CONCF MRATK1N FPM
CU LUNCF NTRAT IQl-i PPM
co? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CUNCENTRAT ItIN PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
Cll MASS GrtAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX HA3S GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
co I.HAM.H/KM (GRAns/Kli E)
CU? GH4MS/KM (wRAMS/MLE)
NUX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FHFL CONSUMPTION 6Y CH L/KIIIKMIMPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
i
7 H q. .1 (? q. s)
74q.3 (eq.5)
H3. 3 ( J lll.n)
h I 581
11H.2 (H032.7)
35.8/ ?/
b8.ll/ I I/
1 .0/1 I/
HI.e/ 2/
i.o/ e/
.b/ 2/
7.31
29
270
1.78
.5
35.qn
371b.-»
.1U
.11 (
2.12 (
3b
B
28b
3
1 .SO
.03
1
1
.18)
3.H8)
?iq.q ( 353.q)
.111 ( .01)
q.st ( si.bs)
ib.qo ( in.so)
-------
I
Ul
VEHICLE NU.EM-lt)
VEHICLE MUOEL 78 VOLVA EM-IH
ENGINE 2.1 L(13U CHO L-4-
TRANSMISSION
GVW I KG( -I) L6S)
BAROMETEP ?Hl.f3 MM HG(21.JH TN Hb)
DRY BULB fFHP. 21.1 DF.G Cl7M.fl [IK.- F)
HAG RFSULrs
PAR N U ••> H E K
DESCRIPTION
HLflWER OIF F MM. H2U(IN. H?0)
HLOfcER INLET P MM. HPOdN. H20)
INLET TEMP. DEC. CCDEG. F)
REVOLUTIONS
CVS r-LOrt STO. CU. rETRES(SCF)
TAHLE A-3. VEHICLE f-MISSION RESULTS
f rp
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
DATE 7/2H/78
TIME 13:?1
PYNO MO. 3
CVS NO. 2
bAG CART NO. 1
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
PCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGHD
CO? SAMPLE
CO? HCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKC5RO
METER/RANtE/PPM
METER/KANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
HETER/RAN6E/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CO'vCENTRAl ION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NIW CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MLE)
CO
(GRAMS/MILE)
CH? GKfiMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NIIX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/NILE)
PHOJECT NU. ll-tJH
TEST '1EIGH1 13bt KG( 3QUO LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 8.1 Kw( 11.3 HP)
GASOLINE EM-e7t-K
ODOMETER 1S7
RELATIVE HUMIDITY ht PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 1U.?. GM/KGC 71.7 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMinirr C.F
J
COLD TRANSIENT
7 b 2 . f) ( 3 U . ())
-fbS.O ( 311. U )
t3.3 (1111.11)
JN BY CB L/ JflllKM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
.58 ( .Sf)
«l.tS ( IE..20)
335.5 ( 531. "O
.(IS ( .OR)
) 5 . 0 3 ( J. 5 . h 5 )
S.B3 ( 3.b8)
STABILIZED
7b5.0 (30.0)
7ba.O (3U.O)
>>3.3 (110.0)
.57 ( .»3)
».80 ( 7.75)
Sfb.5 ( 557.b)
.00 ( .00)
15.15 ( 15.53)
b.13 ( 3.81)
HOT TRANSIENT
7b2.0 (30.0)
7b2.(J (3U.O)
H3.3 (110.0)
75
87.
11.
28.
^
71.
3.
?.
•
HIISIS
.5 (2bbb
5/ 2/
n/ 2/
.3)
88
11
5/ 3/ bb1*
3/ 3/
b/ 3/ 1.
5/ 3/ .
B/ 2X
8/ 2/
8.7t
7H
h2b
l.tl
2.1
3.31
55. U*
115H.7
.30
7
Hb
US
3
1
blS^l
121.3 (tSbb
3H.O/ 2/
13. O/ 2/
.2)
31*
13
87.1/12/ 2U1
3.3/12/
5H.S/ 3/ .
H.U/ 3/ .
.BX 2/
,8/ 2/
13.70
22
115
.10
.1
l.bf
21. H2
2125.1
.01
b
15
Ob
1
1
tOSOb
75.3 (2bS1
HI. I/ 2/
10. 5/ 2/
.1
t2
10
Bl.1/12/ 188
l.t/12/
b7.2/ 3/ 1.
3.t/ 3/ .
.8/ 2/
.b/ 2/
10.10
32
178
l.lb
.3
1.H1
15.57
1511.1
.04
2
21
05
1
1
.2* ( .31)
2.b8 ( H.32)
275.7 ( HH3.5)
.01 ( .01)
11.18 ( 11.bf)
5.80 ( 3.bl)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE) .33 ( .52)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE) 5.11 ( 8.3H)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE) d?t.51 (522.27)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE) .HI ( .H2)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/KIUKM (MPlO IH.?^ ( Jb.51)
-------
TABLE A-2. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTPC
VEHICI F NO.FM-1 (1
VEHICIF MH|>F-|_ ?H VMLVO
LNGINir ?. I LU3II CIO) L-H
TRANSMISSION Ml
(JVW u KG( -n LHS)
BAROMFTFR 738.12 MM HG(?1.0K IN HG)
DRY HUL« TEMP. ?b.l OEG C(79.0 F)EG F)
BAG RESULTS
RAT, NUMHEK
DE.TCMIPTION
BLOWF.R OIF P MM. H,?0(IN. H?0)
BLOHER INLET P MM. H?0(IN. HPO)
HLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CCDEG. F)
RLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRFS(SCF)
HC SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD MFTFR/KANGE/PPM
co SAMPLE MKTER/RANGE/PPM
co bCKGRo MFTER/RANGE/PPM
co? SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
co? PCKGRD METER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLE MF.TER/RANGE/PPM
NOX HCKGRD MFTFR/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC COMCFNTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
co? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
co GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
COP GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUFL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/inHKM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (URAMS/MILF)
FUFL CONSUMPTION HY CB L/lnliKM (MPG)
.Ib (
l.»8 (
2R5.37
.Ib
TEST NO. 3
DATE 8/21/78
TIME lf:?7
DYNO NO. 2
CVS NO. 7
BAR CART NO.
RUN 1
PROJECT NO. Il-t7«»b-0lll
TEST HEIGHT 13bH KG( 3000 LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 8.t KW( 11.3 HP)
GASOLINE
ODOMETER
RELATIVE HUMIDITY t 7 PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.2 GM/KG( 71.5 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. .18HD
COLD TRANSIENT
lbon.2 (b3.D)
lf>7.8 (57.0)
H3.3 (lln.D)
10310
b3.7 (2251.t)
R8.3/ 2/
lb.1/ 2/
11.7/11/
2.7/11/
82. h/ 3/ 1
3.0/ 3/
11. I/ 2/
.3/ 2/
B.tb
7»
505
1.H8
10.8
2.72
37.50
R8
Ib
53b
8
.52
.05
11
0
1.30
(
.7b)
b.St ( in.52)
302.0 ( YB5.1)
.P3 ( ,3b)
13.31 ( 17.57)
5.73 ( 3.5b)
.2h)
2.31)
.2b)
STABILIZED
Ib00.2 (b3.0)
1HH7.B (57.0)
»3.3 (110.0)
17715
101.2 (3855.7)
21.I/ 2/
1H.O/ 2/
7.2/13/
SH.O/ 3/
3.2/ 3/
H.8/ 2/
.3/ 2/
21
1*
7
5
'.05
5
0
8
3
.10
1.S
.51
.33
1717.7
.13
.08 ( .13)
.05 ( .08)
210.3 ( Hb7.0)
.15 ( .2*)
12.to ( 18.17)
b.11 ( 3.85)
HOT TRANSIENT
Ib00.2 (b3.0)
1HH7.8 (57.0)
H3.3 (110.0)
103bB
b3.b (22tb,5)
23.I/ 2/ 2H
11.I/ 2/ 12
37.0/13/ 35
t.3/13/ 1
73.I/ 3/ 1.3f
3.5/ 3/ .05
b.S/ 2/ 7
.3/ 2/ 0
1.13
13
30
1.30
b.2
1501.2
.75
.08 (
.3^ (
2b3.b (
.13 (
.It)
.b2)
.l)
.21)
11.21 ( 20. 81*)
S.73 ( 3.5b)
1?.30 ( 11.12)
-------
VEHICI E NO.EM-.Lll
VEHICLE MODEL 7R VOLVlJ -
ENGINE 2.1 L(130 CID) L-f
TRANSMISSION
GVh 0 KG( -n LHS)
BAROMFTER 7MU.9.2 MM HG(r>H.l? IN HG)
DRY BULH TEMP, 24.4 DhG C(7b.ll DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
RAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWFR OIF P
INLET
INLET
TABLE A-l. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP
TEST NO. 4 RUN 1
DATE 8/30/78
TIME 14:12
DYNO NO. 2
CVS NO. 7
BAG CART NO. 1
CVS
MM. H2U(IU. H2U)
P MM. HPn(IN. H?0)
TFMP. Dtr;. C(OEG. F)
REVOLUTIONS
FLU* STD. CIJ. METRES(SCF)
1
-J
HC SAMpLE
HC BCKC-Rl)
CO SAMPLE
CO UCKGRD
CO? SAMPLE
CiJ? BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANUE/PPM
METtR/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
MfcTFR/RANGE/PPM
MEJER/KANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METFR/RANGE/PPM
MEIER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FAC10K
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GKAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
co GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MIIF)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/1HOKM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CH L/1I1MKM (MPG)
ERROR UHtntl JPH3H7H HtlS
PROJECT NO. ll-474b-001
TEST WEIGHT 13b4 KG( 3000 LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 8.4 KW( 11.3 HP)
GASOLINE
ODOMETER 157
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 59 PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 11.b GM/KG( 81.3 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. l.OSOb
1
COLD TRANSIENT
Ib00.2 (b3.0)
(58.0)
.7 (107.0)
103BS
8. 77
b3
f 89
I.1*?
9.7
3b.51
Ibb2.9
1.22
.41 ( .bb)
b.42 ( 10.32)
292.2 ( 470.2)
.21 ( .35)
12. 9b ( 18.15)
S.b9 ( 3.54)
1.38 ( 2.22)
P8P..08 (453. Bb)
.15 ( .25)
12.15 ( 19.35)
COLD TRANSIENT
STABILIZED
lbQO.2 (b3.0)
1*73.2 (58.0)
H3.3 (110.0)
177bO
109.1 (3854.3)
14.2b
10
2
.88
3.9
.b4
.25
1758.4
.85
.10 ( .17)
.04 ( .07)
285.1 ( 458.8)
.14 (
.22)
12.19 ( 19.30)
b.17 ( 3.83)
HOT TRANSIENT
Ib00.2 (b3.0)
(58.0)
43.3 (110.0)
10383
b3.8 (2253.2)
75. 3/ 2/
13. 5/ 2/
18.8/U/
5.0/11/
80. O/ 3/
t.O/ 3/
10. I/ 2/
.5/ 2/
75
13
527
15
1.H7
.Ob
10
1
IS. I/ 2/
10. 5/ 2/
10.7/13/
9.0/13/
53. b/ 3/
t.O/ 3/
H.4/ 2/
.5/ 2/
eo
10
10
s
.«H
.Ob
4
1
20. 7/ 2/
S.I/ 2/
17.3/13/
b.2/13/
7f.H/ 3/
3.S/ 3/
fa.S/ 2/
,t/ 2/
21
S
17
b
1.35
.05
7
0
1.87
13
10
1.31
b.l
.4b
.78
1525.7
.77
.08 ( .13)
.14 ( .22)
2b8.b ( 432.2)
.14 ( .22)
11.48 ( 20.48)
S.bB ( 3.53)
CT 404V-8
SFMARL 01] END OF RECORD
*LINE NO.11
ERROR NUMBER
*EI
-------
TABLE
VEHICLE NO. FMin
VEHICLF MODFL 7R VOLVO ?H«tr>L
FNGINF f.1 L fI3n CID) L-Y
TRANSMISSION 43
C.VW 0 KT,f -n LRS)
BAROMfTER 7»?.'»H MM HG(?9.83 IN HG)
DRY BULB T£Mp. ?^.B DEC C(73.n DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
HAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OTF P MM, H?OUN. H?O)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H?O(IN. H?O)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. OEG. C»8
RELATIVE HUMIDITY bl PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY in.q GM/KGC 7b.l GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F . 1.00«.H
1
COLD TRANSIENT
7b?.0 (30.0)
7t,?.0 (30.0)
H3.3 (UO.O)
»0575
75. b (?bbB,7)
lb.3/ ?/ lb
1?.9/ ?/ 13
b.7/U/ 7
B.0/13/ ?
bl.7/ 3/ 1.10
».?/ 3/ ,0b
5. 1/ 2/ 5
H
H
1.0*
1H35.B
,b5
.03 ( .05)
.07 ( .11)
251.3 ( 401.3)
.11 ( ,18)
10.73 ( 21,92)
5,71 ( 3,55)
SET -7
7b?.0 (30.0)
7b?.D (30.0)
H3.3 (110.0)
208.* (7359,?)
lb.7/ ?/
11. 5/ ?/
8.7/13/
17
11
8
3
4, b/ 3/ l,3b
3.3/ 3/ .05
7.5/ ?/ 8
9.85
b
b
1.31
l.HO
5009.5
2.79
,0»
,07
233.5
.13
9.98
Sl.tS
.Ob)
.11)
375.7)
.21)
23. Si)
13.33)
COMBINED FUEL ECONOMY L/inoKM
11.30 ( 20.B3)
-------
TABLE
VEHIcLF EMISSION RESULTS
HFET
PROJECT NO. ll-H7fb-001
VEHICLE NO.
VEHICLE MODEL 78 VOLVO
ENGINE ?.l L(13n CID) L-t
TRANSMISSION A3
GVW 0 KGf -0 LBS)
BAROMETER 7«M.bB MM HG(?9.?0 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMp. ?3'.3 DEC CC7H.O DEC F
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
BLOWER DIF P MM. H?0(IN. H?0)
BLOWER INLET P MM. HPOHN. H?0)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG'. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
cvs FLOW STD'. cu. METRES(SCF)
HC SAMPLE
HC 8CKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
CO? SAMPLE
CO? BCKGRO
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRO
MFTER/RANGE/PPM
MPTER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
MFTER/RANGE/PPM
METF.R/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRiTION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS RRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMg/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
TEST MO. 5 RUN 3
DATE 9/19/78
TIME
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. ?
BAG CART NO. i
TEST WEIGHT mt KGC 3000 LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 8.* KW( 11.3 HP)
GASOLINE EM-?7f-F
ODOMETER -0
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 51 PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 9.3 GM/KG( bH.9 GRAINS/LB)
1
7h?.0 (30.0)
7b?.0 (30.0)
H3.3 (llfl.O)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F, .95HB
lit. 5 (fOtH.5)
18. 9/ ?/
9.8/ ?/
9.J/13/
10
9
3
9?.3/ 3/ 1.73
3.5/ 3/ .05
15. 3/ ?/ IS
.I/ ?/ 1
7.75
10
b
l.t.8
.bB
.."
352?. b
.Of
.05
it.8
.n
9.18
.07)
.08)
3*5.7)
.30)
?5.b3)
10.19)
-------
TABLE
VFHICLE NO. EMIO
VEHICLE MOOFL 78 VOLVO
ENC.INE ?. i LUSH ciD) V-B
TRANSMISSION A3
CVW n KG( -I) LBS)
BAROMETER 7*0.HI MM HG(21.15 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.q OEG C(75.0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF P MM. H?0(IN. H?0)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H?O(IN. H?O)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. OEG. C(OEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAM3/KM (CRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KMCMPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
co? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/10DKM (MPG)
1
0
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO?
CO?
NOX
NOX
SAMPLE
BCKGRO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRO
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP SET
TEST NO. 6 RUN 1
DATE 1/20/78
TIME 121*5
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. Z
BAG CART NO. 1
PROJECT NO. ll-*7*b-0fll
TEST WEIGHT i3b* KGC BOOO LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 8.* KW( 11.3 HP)
GASOLINE EM-27*-F
ODOMETER 307b
IN STOCK CONDITION
RELATIVE HUMIDITY *8 PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY S.I GM/KGC b3.* GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. .1*83
COLD TRANSIENT
7*1.3 (21.5)
7»1.3 (21.5)
*3.3 (110.0)
HObOS
75.5 (?bb7.H)
.H3 ( ,b«O
1.52 ( 15.3?)
303.b ( *B8.»)
.1* ( .23)
13.bS ( 17.23)
5.7? ( 3.5b)
.17 ( .27)
f.13 ( b.b*)
285.7? (*51.7?)
.Ob ( .01)
J?.*1 ( 18.83)
STABILIZED
7*1.3 (21.5)
7*1.3 (21.5)
*3.3 (110.0)
b1b*3
121.5 (*57*.3)
HOT TRANSIENT
7*1.3 (21.5)
7*1.3 (21.5)
*3.3 (110.0)
*0b*1
75.b (2b70.*)
.11 ( .17)
3.25 ( 5.23)
211.5 ( *b1.0)
.01 ( .02)
12.b7 ( 18.5b)
b.01 ( 3.71)
.01 ( .1*)
l.bB ( 2.71)
2bl.S ( *20.7)
.08 ( .12)
11.28 ( 20.85)
5.70 ( 3.5*)
*
SET-7
7*1.3 (21.5)
7*1.3 (21.5)
*3.3 (110.0)
112352
201.0 (7380.3)
bS.
10.
27.
4
72.
3.
7.
1.
I/ Z/
5/ ?/
I/ 3/
?/ 3/
O/ 3/
b/ 3/
O/ ?/
I/ 2/
1.75
Sb
bll
1.2b
b.O
2.*b
S*.*7
173b.*
.82
bb
10
b50
5
1.30
.Ob
7
1
Ib.B/ Zf
8.7/ 2/
b3.5/12/
*.0/12/
*b.b/ 3/
3.7/ 3/
,8/ Zl
.S/ 2/
lb.31
1
131
.75
.3
.b*
11.82
1775.7
.08
17
1
1*?
7
.80
.Ob
1
1
IB
7
53
3
b3
3
*
.b/ 2/
.b/ ?/
.*/!?/
.2/12/
.3/ 3/ 1
,8/ 3/
.O/ 2/
.I/ 2/
11.73
12
101
l.OB
3.2
.51
1.58
1*81.1
.**
H
8
118
b
L.13
.Ob
*
1
2b
8
13
.O/
.3/
• * f A
2/
2/
a/
2.5/12/
?b
3
*
.2/
.8/
.*/
.&/
1
3/ 1
3/
2/
2/
.*7
11
2b
B
??B
*
1.31
.Ob
*
1
215
1.
*
2
52
3*
.0
.2*
.2*
512*. 1
1
.50
.10 ( .17)
2.*3 ( 3.11)
238.1 ( 383.1)
.07 ( .11)
10.3* ( 22.75)
21,!>2 ( 13.37)
COMBINED FUEL ECONOMY L/100KH (MPG)
11.52 ( S0.»l)
-------
VEHICLE NO. EM10
VEHICLE MODEL 78 VOLVO 2H1DL
ENGINE 2.1 L(130 CID) L-t
TRANSMISSION A3
GVW U KG( -0 IBS)
BAROMETER 710.tl MM HG(21.15 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.1 DEG C(75.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20dN. HSO)
RLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
TABLE VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
HFET
TEST NO. £ RUN 3
DATE 1/20/78
TIME
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
BAG CART NO. 1
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
PROJECT NO. ll-H7>»b-001
TEST HEIGHT 13bt KG( 3000 LB3)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 8.t KW( 11.3 HP)
GASOLINE EM27H-F
ODOMETER -0
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
7-H.3 (29.5)
7*1.3 (21.5)
H3.3 (110.0)
blbBl
II1*.? (1052.3)
PCT
1.1 GM/KG( b3.f GRAIN8/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. .1t83
33. 5/ 2/
1.7/ 2/
71.3/11/
.8/11/
13. 7/ 3/
3. I/ 3/
I.I/ 2/
l.O/ 2/
7.1'
25
210
1.70
33
10
307
2
1.7b
.Ob
5
1
1
l.bb
36.70
3580.1
.81
.10 ( .lb)
2.37 ( 3.82)
21S.H ( 353.0)
.05 ( .08)
1.5H ( 2f.fa?)
lb.32 ( 10.lt)
-------
vt HICI F NO. tmn
VfHlfLe MUIX L 7« VOLVU
tur, If'F a.l L(13fl CIO) L-4
TRANSMISSION A3
GVW ii KT,( -ii LBS)
TABLE VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP
TEST NO. 7 RUN 1
DATE 9/?l/78
TIME 13t?5
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
BAG CART NO. 1
HG(29.23 IN HG)
BiROhflfR Jta.HM MM HG(29.23 IN HG)
DRY hllLH TEMP. 21.1 OEG C(7U.O OEG F)
HAG PFSl'LTS
RAG NUMBFK
DESCRIPTION
HLOHER DIF P MM. H?0(IN. H20)
HLOHEH INLET P MM. H?O(IN. H?O)
HLOWER INLET IEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
HLUHER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLUK STH. CU. METRES(SCF)
PROJECT NU. ll->»7>tb-0ni
TEST WEIGHT 13bH KG( 3000 LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD a.* KH( 11.3 HP)
GASOLINE EM-?7*-F
ODOMtTER 3118
1 MINUTE OF AIR INJECTION INTO MANIFOLD
RELATIVE HUMIDITY bo PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY S.b GM/KGC bb.1 GRAlNS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. .Sb33
COLD TRANSIENT
7H9.3 (29.5)
7*9.3 (29.5)
*3.3 (110.0)
*OB12
7b.2 (2b89.B)
STABILIZED
7*9.3 (29.5)
7*9.3 (29.5)
*2.8 (109.0)
b9bl*
130.0 (H590.9)
HOT TRANSIENT
7*9.3 (29.5)
7»9.3 (29.5)
»3.3 (110.0)
75.8 (2b77.S)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGKU
SAMPLE
BCKGRO
CO? SAMPLE
CO? BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX 8CKGHD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METFR/RANGE/PPM
ME TER/RANGE/PPM
ME. fER/RANGE/PPM
MEIER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
MF TER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
co? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRAI ION PPM
HC MASS GHAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GHAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
Co GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CH L/1()OKM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MJLES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? URAMS/KM (GRAns/MlLE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/10QKM (MPG)
bS.8/ 2/
10. 9/ ?/
32. ?/ 3/
.!/ 3/
70. 7/ 3/ ]
3.2/ 3/
S.I/ 2/
.b/ 2/
9.87
5b
721
1.23
*.b
2.*b
b3.90
1721. b
.fa*
bb
11
75b
2
1.28
.OS
5
1
15. 8/ 2/
9.B/ 2/
9b.0/13/
3.0/13/
*b.*/ 3/
3.9/ 3/
.B/ 2/
.?/ 2/
Ifa.Sb
7
92
.7*
.1
.H9
13.87
17bb.l
.03
Ifa
10
98
3
.80
.Ob
1
1
.*3 (
11.12 ( 17.89)
299.b ( *82.0)
.11 ( .18)
13.59 ( 17.31)
5.75 ( 3.57)
.15 ( .?t)
3.95 ( b.35)
281.77 (H53.3b)
.05 C .08)
IS.31 ( 11.11)
.08 ( .13)
2.27 ( 3.fab)
289.3 ( tbS.S)
.01 ( .01)
12.51 ( 18.80)
b.10 ( 3.79)
19. 2/ 2/
10. b/ 2/
51.3/12/
1.2/12/
19
11
113
2
b2.0/ 3/ 1.10
3.9/ 3/ .Ob
».0/ 2/ f
,5/ 2/ 1
12.01
9
107
1.05
3.5
.tl
9.43
.07 ( .12)
l.bS ( 2.b5)
25*. 2 ( *09.0)
.09 ( .1H)
10.97 ( 21. H5)
5.72 ( 3.5b)
-------
TABLE
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
CFTP 3 BAG
I
Ul
VEHICLE NO. 10
VEHICLE MODEL 78 VOLVO 8ft PL
ENGINE 5. I L(13ll CID) L-t
TRANSMISSION A3
GVW n KG( -fi LOS)
BAROMETER 7*5.1=1 MM HG(?q.35 IN HG)
OKY BULB TEMP. 55.3 DEG Cf.73.1.1 f>E& F)
BAG RESULTS
RAG NUM8F.K
DESCRIPTION
BLOUEK DIP f MM. HgOCIN. H50)
BLOWER INLET H MM. HSUCIN. HSU)
BLOwhR INLET TEMP. OEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLUM SID. CO. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
co
CO
SAMpLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
C05 SAMPLE
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
MElF.R/RANGE/ppM
MET ER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
MtlER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANL-iE/PCT
MEIER/HANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
ME1ER/RANGE/PPM
DILimuN FACTOR
HC CUNCErjlRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C05 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CU5 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GKAMR/MILE)
Co GRAMS/KM (GKAMS/MILE)
C05 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY Cti L/100KM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (URAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CH L/100KM (MPG)
TEST NO. 8
OAfE 9X39X78
TIME
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 3
BAG CART NO.
RUN 1
PROJECT NO. Il-f7*fa-001
TEST HEIGHT 13bt KG( 3000 LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 8.* KW( 11.3 HP)
GASOLINE
ODOMETER 3188
IN STOCK CONDITION WITH CO ADJUSTMENT
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 58 PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.2 GM/KG( 71.3 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. .9829
COLD TRANSIENT
711.3 (58.0)
b85.8 (37.0)
•ft.* (118.0)
H0b3b
7b.3
.05 ( .03)
1.33 ( 1.98)
557.37 (Hit.11)
.37 ( .bO)
U.07 ( ?1.25)
STABILIZED
711.2 (28.0)
bSB.5 (37.5)
•»3.3 (110.0)
blbtB
130.8 (Hbll.3)
HOT TRANSIENT
711.3 (28.0)
b18.5 (37.5)
Hf.H (112.0)
7b.O (2b82.7)
52
30
83
3
b3
3
33
1
5
3b
11
5
.bX 2X
.IX 2X
.9X11X
.OX11X
.*X 3X 1
.qx sx
.HX 2X
.HX 2X
11. tl
3t
371
l.OB
21.1
1.51
33. q?
1503.3
3.03
.27 (
.81 ( 9
H.q ( 43
.53 (
.73 ( 30
.b7 ( 3
S3
30
sqs
q
.13
.Ob
32
1
.43)
.35)
b.2)
.8b)
.05)
.53)
10.
IS.
9.
9.
f 3.
4.
7.
1.
™ •
•
2b4
•
11.
b.
IX 2X
bX 2X
BX13X
5X13X
3X 3X .
BX 3X .
9X 3X
IX 2X
18.07
-S
1
.b?
b.q
-.35
.10
IbDH.O
i.bq
Ob ( -.
03 (
.b ( 425
28 (
29 ( 20.
Ob ( 3.
10
Ib
9
q
74
07
8
1
oq)
03)
.7)
45)
84)
77)
11.
It.
10.
7.
58.
4.
18.
1.
m •
•
238
•
10.
5.
SX 2X
7X 2X
5X13X
bX13X
5X 3X 1.
4X 3X .
IX 2X
OX 2X
12. q*
-2
3
.q?
17.2
-.09
.27
1350.*
2.45
02 ( -.
OS (
.1 ( 383
H3 (
17 ( 23.
b7 ( 3.
11
15
10
7
03
07
IB
1
03)
OB)
.2)
70)
1*)
52)
-------
TABLE
VEHICLE NO. in
VEHICLE MOOFL 'n VOLVO ?H* DL
ENGINE ?.l Lflln CIO) L-1
TRANSMISSION A3
GVW 0 KT.f -o Lf<3)
BAROMFTER 7*1.Hi MM HG(?9.19 IN HG)
DRY HULB TEMP. >*.* DEG c(7b.o DEC ft
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMREO
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF P MM. H?OUN. H?O)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H?0(IN. H?0)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CCOEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
cvs FLOW STD. cu. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMpLF
BCKORO
SAMpLF
BCK(JBr>
CO? SAMPLE
CO? BCKGRO
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKORO
MFTER/RANGE/PPM
MFTER/RANGE/PPM
MFTER/RANGE/PPM
MFTER/RANGE/PPM
MFTER/RANGE/PCT
MFTER/RANGE/PCT
MFTER/RANGE/PPM
MFTER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC. GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/lOOKMfMPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RFSULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/IOOKM
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
CFTP
TEST NO, RUN 1
DATE lO/ 5/78
TIME HI*?
DYNO NO. ?
CVS Nn. 7
BAG CART NO. i
PROJECT NO. M-*7*b-001
TEST WEIGHT lib* KG( 3000 IBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 8.» KW( 11.1 HP)
GASOLINE
ODOMETER 2b*8
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 7* PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 1*.7 GM/KGU02.8 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F, 1.150
-------
TABLE
VEHICLE NO.EM-10
VEHICLE MODEL 78 VOLVO
ENGINE 2.1 L(130 CIO) L-H
TRANSMISSION A3
GVW 0 KG( -n LBS)
BAROMETER 7H1.17 MM H6(29.18 IN H6)
DRY BULB TEMP. 2H.H DEG C(7b.O DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF f MM. HaO(IN. HgO)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOwER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLOW STD. Cu. METRES(SCF)
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRO
COa SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
HC
HC
CO
CO
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
co GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KMCMPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
COe GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM (MPG)
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP
TEST NO. 7 RUN 1
DATE 10/10/78
TIME 13153
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 3
BAG CART NO. 1
PROJECT NO. ll-H7Hfa-001
TEST WEIGHT 13b* KG( 3000 LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD B.H KW( 11.3 HP)
GASOLINE EM-271-F
ODOMETER
RELATIVE HUMIDITY H5 PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.8 GM/KGC bl.b GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. .9H09
COLD TRANSIENT
73b.b (39.0)
73b.b (29.0)
H2.B (101.0)
HOb7S
7b.O (2bB2.7)
.OH (
.31 (
.38 ( .Hb)
b.55 ( 10.5H)
aB7.b ( iba.7)
.Hb ( .7*)
13.75 ( IB.fS)
5.82 ( 3.b2)
.Ob)
a.
STABILIZED
73b.b (39.0)
73b.b (39.0)
*0.b (105.0)
b9b!3
130.5 (Hb08.7)
-.0* ( -.07)
.03 ( .OH)
2b8.8 ( 133.5)
.17 ( .27)
11.»7 ( B0.51)
b.lb ( 3.83)
HOT TRANSIENT
73b.b (21.0)
73b.b (39.0)
HH.» (112.0)
HObSO
75.7 (ab73.1)
SO.H/ 2/
13. 9/ 2/
S2.1/11/
5.1/11/
bi.q/ 3/
H.2/ 3/
20. a/ s/
.b/ a/
10.22
38
H32
1.20
19.7
l.bb
38.17
lb7H.7
2.b9
so
1H
HbH
Ib
1.2b
.Ob
ao
i
7.»/ a/
11. b/ a/
9.0/13/
s. a/is/
HH.b/ 3/
H.9/ 3/
s.o/ a/
,b/ a/
17.50
-H
1
.b9
H.»
-.27
.Ib
Ib55.7
l.OH
7
12
9
B
.7b
.08
S
1
8.S/ 2/
B.8/ 2/
b.8/13/
5.1/13/
bl.l/ 3/ 1
H.9/ 3/
lb.9/ a/
.b/ 8/
12.3*
0
a
1.03
lb.3
.02
.Ib
1*07. b
2.23
9
9
7
5
.08
.08
17
1
.00 ( .01)
.03 ( .05)
2HH.3 ( 393.1)
.39 ( .b2)
10.H3 ( 22.55)
5.7b ( 3.SB)
.39 ( .H7)
11. »5 ( ao.5f)
-------
TABLE
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
SET
VEHICLE NU.EM-IO
VEHICLE MODEL 73 VOLVO
ENGINE 2.1 L(130 CID) L-«»
TRANSMISSION
GVW o KG( -u LBS)
BAROMETER 7H1.17 MM HG(29.18 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. ?S.o DEG CC77.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
BLOWER OIF P MM. H?0(IN. H?0)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H?0)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CCDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLOW 3TD. CU. METRES(SCF)
METER/RANGE/PPM
ME1ER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
MEIER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/JOOKM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
^
1
1 1
CTl
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO?
CO?
NOX
NOX
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
TEST NO. 7
DATE 10/10/78
TIME 14150
OYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
BAG CART NO.
RUN 1
PROJECT NO. ll-H7Hb-001
TEST WEIGHT 13b» KG( 3000 LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 8. •» KW( 11.3 HP)
GASOLINE EM-27*-F
ODOMETER -0
RELATIVE HUMIDITY H? PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY B.b GM/KGC bO.O GRAIN3/LB)
73b.b (2^.0)
73b.b (29.0)
*?.B (109.0)
11P33S
20R.8 (7»OR.O)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. .S3HO
9 ,H/ 2/
10. b/ 2/
•KB/13/
3.8/13/
72. b/ 3/ 1
5.0/ 3/
10. B/ 2/
l.f/ 2/
10. Ib
-0
1
1.25
9.5
-.02
.29
9
11
5
H
.32
.08
11
1
3.57
-.00 ( -.00)
.01 ( .02)
218.H ( 351.5)
.Ib ( .2b)
9.32 ( 25.23)
21.95 ( 13.bf)
-------
VEHICLE NO.EM-10
VEHICLE MODEL 78 VOLVO
ENGINE 5.1 L(13U CIO) L-
TRANSMISSION
GVW o KG( -0 LBS)
BAROMETER 7H1.17 MM HG(2S.18 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.1 DEG C(75.n DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
TABLE VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
HFET
TEST NO. 7 RUN 1
DATE 10/10/78
TIME
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
BAG CART NO. 1
1
-J
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO?
C02
NOX
NOX
SAMpLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
PROJECT NO. ll-1»7Hb-001
TEST WEIGHT 13bt K6( 3000 IBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD B.H KW( 11.3 HP)
GASOLINE EM-27H-F
ODOMETER -0
RELATIVE HUMIDITY "»8 PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY S.O GM/KG( b3.3 GRAINS/LB)
73b.b (21.0)
73b.b (21.0)
H2.B UUq.O)
blb89
115.2 CtObB.S)
11.S/ 2/ 11
10.ix a/ 10
5.1/13/ S
t.7/13/ 5
S*.l/ 3X 1.7b
H.b/ 3/ .07
17.O/ 2/ 17
1.2/ 2/ 1
7.59
3
1
1.70
lb.0
.18
.11
35S2.7
3.33
.01 ( .02)
.01 ( .01)
213.t { 3H3.H)
.20 ( .32)
9.11 C 25.82)
lb.8* ( 10.Hb)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. .SH7S
-------
TABLE
I
t->
CD
VEHICLE NO. ?Ht)
.28 ( .45)
9.77 ( 2H.08)
5.7b ( 3.58)
-------
TABLE
VEHICLE NO. 3b5
VEHICLE MODEL 78 VOLVO
ENGINE ?.l LM30 CIO) L-H
TRANSMISSION
GVW II KG( -0 LBS)
BAROMETER 7t5.2f MM HG(?9.3<* IN HG)
DRY RULP TEMP. 25.0 DtG CC77.0 OEG F)
BAG RESULTS
RAR NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
RLOWER INLET P MM. H20UN. H?0)
BLOWER INLET TFMP. DEC. C(OEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLOH STO. CLI. METRES(SCF)
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CD CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NO* CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/IUOKM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM
nd
i
i_i
vD
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO?
CO?
NOX
NUX
SAMpl.E
BCKRRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
CFTP
TEST NO. RUN
DATE l/lb/79
TIME
DYNO NO. ?
CVS NO. R
BAG CART NO. 1
PROJECT NO. ll-H7tb-001
TEST WEIGHT 1591 KG( 3500 LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 9.2 KW( 18.3 HP)
GASOLINE
ODOMETER 395b
RELATIVE HUMIDITY -»2 PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.5 GM/KGC 59.5 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. .9321
COLD TRANSIENT
1219.3 (>»B.O)
792.5 (31.2)
H3.3 (110.0)
.tfl ( .77)
7.b5 ( 15.31)
289.3 ( HbS.5)
.18 ( .29)
12.93 ( 18.20)
5.8t
.18 ( .3D)
2.H8 ( 3.99)
282.09 (H53.89)
.09 ( ,1H)
12.23 ( 19.23)
3.b3)
STABILIZED
1519.2 (H8.0)
792.5 (31.2)
H3.3 (110.0)
.10 ( .lb)
.9fa ( 1.55)
28b.b ( fbl.2)
,0<* ( .07)
12.31 ( 19.11)
b.29 ( 3.91)
HOT TRANSIENT
1219.2 (H8.0)
792.5 (31.2)
H3.3 (110.0)
8b
b5.
9.
92.
2.
b3.
*.
8.
*•
12Hb7
.0 (3035
S/ 2/
7/ 2/
.9)
b5
10
7/11/ fb9
1/U/
*/ 3/ 1.
I/ 3/ .
2/ 2/
H/ 2/
11.33
57
**7
1.07
b.9
2.81
f».b9
Ib89.7
I.Ob
b
13
Ob
8
1
IHb
IB.
11.
*2.
*.
13.
*.
2.
2.
2130*
.8 (5185
O/ 2/
•*/ 2/
7/13/
H/13/
I/ 3/ .
S/ 3/ .
9/ 2/
O/ 2/
18.07
7
35
.b?
1.0
.bl
b.Ot
1802.2
.2b
.1)
18
11
to
H
7t
07
3
2
Bb
25.
12.
91.
5.
59.
3.
b.
2.
12*91
.1 (30*2
B/ 2/
5/ 2/
3/13/
*/13/
I/ 3/ 1.
8/ 3/ .
I/ 2/
3/ 2/
12. b8
1*
e*
.99
t.o
.71
S.fb
15b3.8
.bl
.2)
2b
13
92
5
05
Ob
b
2
.12 ( .20)
1.H5 ( 2.33)
2b9.1 ( H31.3)
.10 ( .1?)
11.55 ( 20.3b)
5.83 ( 3.b3)
-------
TARLE
I
NJ
O
VFHTCIF NO. 2H*
VFHICIE MODEL ?n vnLvn
t NT. INF ?.l L(13n CID) L-H
TRANSMISSION A3
GVW n KGC -0 LBS)
BAROMFTER 731.31 MM Hr,(?i.n IN HG>
DRY BULB TEMP. ?3.1 OEG C(75.n DEC F)
BAG RFS'JLTS
RAT, NUMBER
nESCRIPTION
RLOWF.R OIF F MM. H?.0(IN. H?0)
RLOHFR INLET P MM. HPOCIN. H2o)
RLnwER INLET TEMP. OEG. C(OEG. F)
RLOWER REVOLUTIONS
TVS FLOW 3TD. CD. METRES(SCF)
HC
MC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
RCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRO
CO? SAMPLE
CO? BCKGRO
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGF./PPM
METFR/RANGF/PPM
METFR/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
MF.TER/RANGE/PCT
METER/PANGF/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
MFTER/RANGF./PPM
DILUTION FACTOP
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
Hf GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NflX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MRES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
TO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NO* GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUFL CONSUMPTION BY Cfl L/100KM (MPG)
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP
TEST NO. RUN
DATE f/ 5/71
TIME 1SI43
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. ?
BAG CART NO. 1
PROJECT NO. ll-»7»h-OMl
TEST HEIGHT 1SS1 KG( 3500 LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 9.? KW( 12.^ HP)
GASOLINE EM-27»-3
ODOMETER H?.lb
RELATIVE HUMIDITY H8 PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 9.1 GM/KG( b3.5 GRAIN3/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F
1
COLO TRANSIENT
7b?.0 (30.0)
73b.b (2S.O)
H3.1 (111.0)
75.8 (2b7b.b)
.37 ( .51)
7.10 ( II. f3)
?B8.7 ( Hbf.S)
12.85 ( 18.31)
5.11 ( 3.b8)
.10 ( .lb)
l.bl ( ?.72)
271.53 CMb.81)
.15 ( .25)
11.7? ( ?0.n8)
STABILIZED
7b2.n On.O)
73b.b (21.0)
H2.2 (108.0)
b17bO
121.9 (H588.8)
51. 0/ 2/
10. 3/ 2/
9b.0/ll/
1.5/11/
70. 3/ 3/
2. 1/ 3/
12. 1/ 2/
1.8/ S/
10.12
50
f 7b
1.23
11.3
2.17
•f 1.97
1707.5
1.55
51
in
500
5
1.27
.Of
13
2
9. I/ 2/
B.I/ 2/
5.1/13/
2.B/13/
*5.7/ 3/
3.S/ 3/
*.3/ 2/
I.I/ 2/
17. Ot
2
2
.73
2.5
.11
.3*
17t7.2
.59
10
1
5
3
.78
.05
H
2
.02 (
.05 (
278.5 (
.01 (
.03)
.09)
.l)
.15)
11.81 ( 19.78)
b.27 ( 3.90)
HOT TRANSIENT
7b2.0 (30.0)
73b.b (29.0)
»3.3 (110.0)
H0133
7b.l (2b88.7)
!•».!/ 2/ 1H
B.3/ 2/ 8
5n.f/13/ HB
2.8/13/ 3
bl.O/ 3/ l.OB
3. I/ 3/ .Ob
I.1*/ 2/ 9
l.S/ 2/ 2
12.31
b
"»»
1.09
7.7
3.88
1*32.9
I.Ob
.05 ( .08)
.b? ( 1.0?)
( 39*. 8)
.18 ( .21)
10.53 ( 22.35)
5.8H
3.b3)
-------
TABLE
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTPC
10
VEHICLE NO.
VEHICLE MODEL 78 VOLVO
ENGINE 2.1 LCIBO CID) L-H
TRANSMISSION
GVW u KG( -o LBS)
BAROMETER 7HS.7H MM HG(29.3b IN HG)
DRY BUL* TEMP. 23.9 DEG C(75.0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
PAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF P MM. H20(IN. HgO)
PLOWER INLET P MM. H?0(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CCDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMpLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
CO? SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PpM
METFR/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
co MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
co GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM CGRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MlLE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM (MPG)
TEST NO.
DATE 2/ 7/71
TIME 10:35
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. ?
BAG CART NO.
RUN
PROJECT NO. ll-^Hb-OUl
TEST WEIGHT 1591 KG( 3500 LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 9.2 KW( 12.3 HP)
GASOLINE
ODOMETER H155
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 3H PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY b.t GM/KGC HH.9 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. .87bO
COLD TRANSIENT
7ba.O (30.0)
73b.b (29.0)
f2.2 (108.0)
H07?3
7b.b (270H.8)
59. 3/ 2/
7.b/ 2/
81.8/11/
.7/1 I/
b7.8/ 3/ ]
3.0/ 3/
11. 3/ 2/
.H/ 2/
10. b?
52
1.18
10.9
2.32
32. H9
lbS2.0
I.HO
59
8
379
2
1.22
.05
11
0
.HO ( .bH)
.5.58 ( 8.98)
283.8 ( HSfa.b)
.2H ( .39)
12.5H ( 18.7b)
5.82 ( 3.b2)
.11 ( .IB)
1.3b ( 2.19)
.39 (ftl.33)
.13 ( .20)
11.81 ( J9.91)
STABILIZED
7fa2.0 (30.0)
7H9.3 (29.5)
HO.b (105.0)
b9715
131.3 (
-------
TABLE
to
NJ
VEHICLE NO. ?tn
VEHICLE MODFL ?e VOLVO 2tH
tNCUNE f.l L(130 C1D) L-H
TRANSMISSION A}
Gvw n KG( -u LB3)
BARdMFTER 7H5.7* MM HG(?9.3b IN HG)
DRY HULB TFMP. ?7.? DEP, C(B1.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAT, NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
HLOWfR DIF F MM. H?0(IN. H?0)
RLOhF.R INLET P MM. H20UN. H20)
8LOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
RLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CV3 FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
SAMPLE
HC
HC
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
CO? SAMPLE
CO? BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/FPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAM3
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
co GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/inOKM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
Co? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM (MPG)
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP
TEST NO. RUN
DATE 2/12/79
TIME 13SHS
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. ?
BAG CART NO. 1
PROJECT NO. ll-»7Hb-001
TEST HEIGHT 1591 KG( 3500 LB3)
ACTUAL ROAD L0*0 9.2 KH( 12.3 HP)
GASOLINE EM-27H-F
ODOMETER H19b
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 3* PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.9 GM/KG( b2.3 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. .9H3S
COLD TRANSIENT
7b2.0 (30.0)
73b.b
7b.8 (2710.8)
5».7/ 2/ 55
9.i»/ 2/ 9
7H.9/11X 330
.8/11/ 2
bb.7/ 3/ 1.20
3.0/ 3/ .05
11.0/ 2/ 11
1.9/ 2/ 2
10.85
31b
l.lb
9.3
28
•
Ib2»
*
».
27»
»
12.
5.
1
35
79
.8
22
10
91
•
(
(
(
(
(
(
28
.2
28
7
»f
19
3
,5b)
.70)
2.2)
.35)
."*5)
,b7)
.10 ( ,lb)
1.23 ( 1.98)
257.35 (H1H.08)
.12 ( .19)
11.08 ( 21.23)
STABILIZED
7b2.0 (30.0)
73b.b (29.0)
«»3.3 (110.0)
b9772
130.9 (HbSH.l)
12.0/ 2/ 12
9.b/ 2/ 10
3.0/13/ 3
t3.0/ 3/ .73
3.5/ 3/ .05
».2/ 2/ •»
2.3/ 2/ 2
18.22
3
1
,b8
2.0
.22
.18
Ib37.9
.0» ( .Ob)
.03 ( .05)
259.9 ( «H8.2)
.08 ( .12)
11.10 ( 21.20)
b.30 ( 3.92)
HOT TRANSIENT
7b2.0 (30.0)
73b.b (29.0)
*3.3 (110.0)
412b7
77.5 (2737.5)
15. 5/ 2/ 15
10. H/ 2/ 10
57.7/13/ 55
1.9/13/ 2
57. 9/ 3/ 1.02
2.B/ 3/ .Ot
7.b/ 2/ 8
2.3/ 2/ 2
13.03
b
52
.«»8
5.5
.2b
.77
.05 ( .07)
.80 ( 1.29)
239.3 ( 385.0)
.13 ( .21)
10.27 ( 22.90)
5.82 ( 3.b2)
-------
TABLE
VEHICLE wo.
VEHICLE "OnEL ?B VOLVO PH4-DL
ENGINE ?.J Ltl3n CID) L-H
TRANSMISSION 43
GVw 0 K(l( -n LPS)
711.in MM HG(?1.13 IN MR)
DRY RULB TfMp. ?3.i» nEG C(75.0 DEG F)
RAG RESULTS
BAT, NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM. HPOCIN. H?O)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H?0(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. OFG. C(OEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLO'M STO. CM. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
METFRXRANGEXPPM
MFTFRXRANGEXPPM
SAMPLE
MFTFPXRANGEXPCT
co? BCKGRO METERXRANGEXPCT
NOX SAMPLE MFTFRXRANGEXPPM
MFTFRXRANGEXPPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
Co CONCENTRATION PPM
Co? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS G«AMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAwg/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY C" L / innKM f MPR)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MRES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMSXMIl.E)
CO? GRAMS/KM (f,RAM«l/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/innKM
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP SET
TEST NO. RUN
DATE 3X 1X71
TIME 14|S2
OYNO NO. 1
CVS NO. 2
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 3s PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 7,1 GMXKG(
PROJECT NO. U-H7fb-001
TEST WEIGHT 1511 KGC 3500 LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 1,2 KW( ie,3 HP)
GASOLINE
ODOMETER HbSl
GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F.
COLD
741
723
43
75
in.
| 1
88,
1.
7h.
3.
1?.
1.
TRANSIENT
.3 (21
.1 (28
.3 (11
40b78
.8 (2b
8X 3X
3X 3X
4X11X
bXUX
4X 3X
bX 3X
IX 2X
4X ?X
1.2b
Ib
410
1.35
10,1
4.22
3b.23
18b8.1
.5)
.5)
n,o)
77,7)
ins
13
432
S
1,40
.Ob
12
1
STABILIZED
741
723
43
121
13.
11.
21.
3,
«»'.
H,
5.
1.
.3 (21.
.1 (28.
,3 (110
b1b28
5)
5)
.0)
.P (4582.1)
4X 2X
bX 2X
3X13X
2X13X
8X 3X
OX 3X
2X 2X
5X 2X
Ib.lB
3
17
.77
3.8
.19
2.54
1823,2
13
12
20
3
.8?
.Ob
5
2
HOT
741
723
43
7b
22.
12.
78,
e.
b3.
3.
b.
1.
TRANSIENT
.3 (21.
.1 (28.
.3 (110
4071b
.0 (2b8
8X 2X
SX 2X
7X13X
5X13X
IX 3X 1
BX 3X
3X 2X
8X 2X
11.81
11
73
1.07
*.7
,50
b,47
1411.8
5)
5)
.0)
5.3)
23
13
78
2
.12
,0b
b
2
741
723
43
201
25.
21.
87,
1.
?•*,
H.
5,
1.
SET-7
.3 (21,
.1 (?B.
,3 (110
112380
5)
5)
.0)
.4 (731b,4)
bX 2X
IX 2X
2X13X
7X13X
OX 3X 1
OX 3X
BX 2X
IX 2X
1.B8
b
83
1.21
*,8
.71
20,17
4150,1
2b
22
B8
2
.35
.Ob
b
1
,73 ( 1.17)
b,2R ( in, 10)
3J3.7 ( 5?0,1)
5.77 ( 3.51)
.11 ( .31)
1 . R 1 ( S . 11)
?88.8t (HbH.75)
.15 C .?•»)
I?.t8 ( IB.Bb)
.84
,03 (
211.0 (
.13 (
12. t5 ( 18,81)
b.27 ( 3.81)
.05)
,b5)
"»bB,2)
.22)
.bl
.01 ( .14)
1.12 ( 1.80)
258,4 ( 415,8)
.10 ( ,17)
11.12 ( 21,Ib)
5.77 ( 3.51)
1.72
.03 ( .05)
.13 ( 1.41)
228.0 ( 3bb,1)
.08 ( ,13)
1.80 ( 24.01)
21.71 ( 13,41)
COMBINED FUEL ECONOMY LXJflOkM
11.27 ( 2(1.R7)
-------
TABLE
KJ
7R VPLvn
ciD) L-*
-n
VEHICLE NO, p*
VEHICLE "OnFL
ENGINE ?,i Lru
TRANSMISSION 43
r.vw (i KM
BAROMFTER 7»H.fH MM HG(?9.H5 IN HR)
DRY BULB TFMP. ,,s>t, nFr, C(7B.O OF.r, F)
BAG RESULTS
BAT,
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF P
BLOWER INLET
HPOCIN, H?O)
HPOHN. H?OI
. .
BLOWER INLET TFMP. DFP. CCDEG. n
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
cvs FLOW STD. cu. METRFSCSCF)
HC SAMPLF MFTER/RANGE/PPM
HC BCKGRD MFTER/RANGE/PPM
CO SAMPLE MfTFR/RANGE/PPM
co BCKGRD MFTER/RANGE/PPM
co? SAMPLE METER/RANGE/PCT
co? BCKGRD MFTER/RANGE/PCT
NOX SAMPLF MFTER/RANGE/PPM
NOX BCKGRD MFTER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS RRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GHAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
co GRAMS/KM (GR*MS/MILE)
CO? GR«MS/KM (GR4MS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
EUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (PRAMS/MILE)
co GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
EUEL CONSUMPTION RY CB
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP
TEST NO.
DATE 3/ 5/7<»
TIME J3I30
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. ?
BAG CART NO. 1
RUN
PROJECT NO. ll-»7»ti-nni
TEST WEIGHT 15^1 KG( 3SOO UBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 9.? KW( 1?,3 HP)
GASOLINE
ODOMETER
RELATIVE HUMIDITY ?? PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY t.5 GM/KG( 31.H GRAINSXLfl)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F.
COLD TRANSIENT
7H1.3 (?9.5)
1.37
.1* f .23)
1.55 ( ?,50)
?b3.?5
.15
11.31,
STABILIZED
7*9.3 (?9.5)
7?3,9 (?B,5)
.8*
.•»9 ( .79)
5.51 ( 8.87)
27*. 1 ( IHl.n)
.23 ( ,38)
12.13 ( 19.39)
5,88 ( 3,bb)
.03 ( .OH)
.23 ( .38)
2b8,b ( t32.1)
.I* ( .22)
11. »8 ( 20. H9)
b.21 ( 3.8b)
HOT TRANSIENT
7*9.3 (?9.5)
7?3.9 (?8.5)
"b.l (115
HObbl
.n)
7b.7 (2710.8)
75. 3/ ?/
1 l.O/ ?/
81.5/11/
l.l/ll/
bb.5/ 3/ 1
3.3/ 3/
1?,0/ 2/
.8/ 2/
10.83
b5
3b3
1.15
11.3
2.89
32. »?
lbl?.b
75
11
377
3
.n
.05
12
1
•»2.2 (108. n)
b9h9H
131.7 (Hb52.1)
12. 5/ ?/ 13
10. 9/ 2/ 11
13.8/13/ 13
3.8/13/ *
43. 5/ 3/ ,7>4
3,b/ 3/ ,0b
»,7/ 2/ 5
.7/ 2/ 1
17.97
2
9
.b9
f.O
.17
l.*5
Ibb7,l
*3.3 (110
>»0550
7b.5 (270
22, 2/ 2/
9.5/ 2/
72.2/13/
2.5/13/
bO.9/ 3/ 1
3.b/ 3/
5.8/ 2/
,7/ 2/
12.29
13
b7
1.03
5.2
.59
5.92
1HH2.9
.0)
1.*
2?
10
71
2
,08
,0b
k
1
« .10 ( ,lb)
1.01 ( l.b?)
245.2 ( 39H.b)
.11 ( .17)
10.55 ( 22.30)
5.88 ( 3.bb)
-------
TABLE
Ul
VEHICLE NO. ?<*.»
VEHICLE MODEL ?B VOLVO
ENGINE 2.1 L(]3n CID) L-*
TRANSMISSION A3
GVW 0 KG( -n LBS1
BAROMETER 7*5.*9 MM HGf?9.35 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMp. ;»i'.7 DEC C{71.0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
SAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM. H?0(IN, H?0)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H?0(IN. H?o)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC". CCOEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
CO? SAMPLE
co? BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRO
MFTER/RANGE/PPM
MPTERXRANGEXPPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
MFTER/RANGE/PCT
METERXRANGEXPCT
METE&XRANGEXPPM
METERXRANGEXPPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MRE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/lOOKMfMPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMg/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAM3XMILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MRE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM (MPG)
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP
TEST NO. RUN
DATE 3/ bX79
TIME HI20
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
BAG CART NO. 1
PROJECT NO. U»*7»b-001
TEST WEIGHT 1591 KG( 3500 LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 9.2 KW( 12,3 HP)
GASOLINE
ODOMETER "0
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 34 PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 5.b GM/KG( 39.1 GRAINS/IB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F, ,8555
1
COLD TRANSIENT
7b2.0 (30.0)
73b.b (29.0)
»3.3 (110.0)
HOblS
7b.2 (2b90.B)
b3.3/ 2X b3
11. 5/ 2/ H
79.1/11/ 3bO
1.2X11X »
b7.»X 3/ 1.21
3,bX 3/ .Ob
!?.!/ ?/ 12
,8X 2/ 1
10.70
53
3H4
l.lb
2.32
30.51
U20.V
.bt)
8.38)
.HO (
5.21 (
27b.H (
12.20 ( 19.28)
5.8b ( 3,bf)
.11 ( .18)
1.31 ( 2.10)
272.11 (»37.83)
.15 ( ,2*)
11.72 ( 20.08)
STABILIZED
7b2.0 (30.0)
73b.b (29.0)
H3.3 (110.0)
b9bfl
130.b (Hbl3.5)
12. 5X 2X
11. 3X 2X
11.3X13X
3.3X13X
»b,2X 3X
3.9X 3X
*,9X 2X
,7X 2X
lb.B8
8
13
11
11
3
.79
.Ob
5
1
».8
.1*
l.lb
17bS.S
.02 ( .04)
,19 ( .30)
28*.2 ( *57.3)
.15 ( .23)
12.15 ( 19.37)
b,21 ( 3.8b)
HOT TRANSIENT
7b2.0 (30.0)
73b.b (29.0)
*3.3 (110.0)
tOSbl
7b.l (2b87.1)
18. SX 2X IB
10. 5X 8X 10
35.0X13X 33
2.7X13X ]
bl.»X 3X 1,09
3.7X 3X ,0b
5. OX 2X 5
,5X 2X 1
12.23
9
30
1.0*
.39
2,b3
l»f 7,2
.57
.07 (
,HS (
,11)
,72)
.10 ( .15)
10.55 ( 22,29)
5.87 ( 3,bS)
-------
TABLE
VFHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP
VFH JC.I E MM. ?MH
VFHICIF MfinrL ?B VOLVH
ErninF ?. i i (13P cio) L-»
IP MI' ,»• I SS ION A?
GVW I KG( -fi LHS)
BAROMf-TFR 7"7.7H MM HG(21.11 IN HG)
DRY hulR U^P. ?3.1 DFG C(7S.O DEC F)
BAT. PFSIILTS
PAG NIIMUFR
DESCRIPTION
BIHWFR OIF P MM. H?0(IN. HpO)
HLOWFR TNLET P MM. H2CKIN. H?0)
RLOwFR INLET TEMP. DEG. C(OEG. F)
Rl.OWFR REVOLUTIONS
fV? FLOW STD. CU. METPES(SCF)
Krj
K)
cn
HC
HC
ro
CO
CO?
ro?
NOX
NOX
SAMPLE
R C K G F) 0
SAMPl F
BCKGFyD
SAMPLF
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
RCKGRD
/PPM
MF TFp/RANGE/PPM
MtTFR/RANGF/PPM
METFR/RANGE/PPM
MFTFR/RANGE/PCT
MFTER/RANGE/PCT
ME1F.R/RANGE /PPM
METER/RANGE./PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
Cd2 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOx CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
NT GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
Co GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (RRAMS/M1LF)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUFL CONSUMPTION f?Y CR L/lnOKM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MJLF)
CO GR*Mf,/KM (GRAMS/MILF)
CClP GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILF)
FUFL CONSUMPTION BY CH L/IOOKM (MPG)
TFST NO.
DATE 3/12/71
TIME ni:l7
DVNO NO. 3
CyS NO. 2
BAG CART NO.
RUN
PROJECT NO. 1 1-t 7Hb-Ofll
TEST WEIGHf 1511 KG( 1SOO LPS)
ACTUAL ROAD LO*D 1.2 KW( 12.3 HP)
GASOLINE
ODOMETER »721
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 31 PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY S.H GM/KG( -»o.s GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. .Rh03
1
COLD TRANSIENT
7b?.n (30-0)
73b.b (21.0)
12.8 (101.0)
7b.b (5705.1)
81
10
2/ 2/
,?/ 2/
80.5/11/
11
370
b7.1/ 3/ 1.21
Ob
11
1.0/ 3/
II. 5/ 2/
I.I/ 2/
10.73
71
351
1.15
3.1b
31.27
lb!2.S
1.23
.55 ( .81)
S.18 ( 8.P2)
282.8 ( 151.1)
.22 ( .35)
12.51 ( 18.80)
5.70 ( 3.51)
.1* ( .23)
1.31 ( 2.10)
2b1.5H (H33.7b)
.13 ( .22)
11.bl ( 20.2b)
STABILIZED
7b2.0 (30.0)
73b.h (21.0)
12.2 (108.0)
131. fc
.20
.15
Ib73.1
.03 ( .05)
.15 ( .25)
270.3 ( »3f.1)
.12 ( .11)
11.55 ( 20.37)
b.11 ( 3.85)
HOT TRANSIENT
7b2i.O (30-Q)
73b.b (21.n)
13.3 (IIO.U)
10581
7b.1 (2b17.b)
13. 2/ 2/
11. 2/ 2/
H.5/13/
8.1/13/
11. 0/ 3/
1.0/ 3/
5.0/ 2/
1.7/ 2/
17.71
3
b
.bl
13
11
11
8
.75
.Ob
5
2
15. O/ 2/
11. 3/ 2/
28.2/13/
3.8/13/
bl.1/ 3/ 1
3.b/ 3/
5.5/ 2/
l.O/ 2/
12.13
5
22
1.05
15
11
27
1
.10
.Ob
fa
1
.20
2.00
llbB.1
.58
.01 ( .Ob)
.35 ( .57)
258.3 ( 115.b)
.10 ( ,lb)
11.05 ( 21.28)
S.bl ( 3.53)
-------
TABLE
VEHICLE NO. 2tt
VEHICLE MODEL ?B VOLVO
ENGINE 2.1 LCIIO CID) L-
TRANSMISSION A3
GVW 0 KG( -n LBS)
BAROMETER 7ft.98 MM HG(29.31 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.0 DEG C(77.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
ME1ER/RANGE/PCT
METFR/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
002 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
Co GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/IOOKM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/lflOKM (MPG)
*J
NJ
^J
HC SAMPLE
HC BCKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
C02 SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP SET
TEST NO. RUN
DATE 1/lb/79
TIME
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
BAG CART NO. 1
PROJECT NU. ll-171*b-0nl
TEST WEIGHT 1591 KG( 3500 LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 9.2 KW( 12.3 HP)
GASOLINE
ODOMETER -n
RELATIVE HUMIDITY H2 PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 8.5 GM/KG( 59.5 GRAINS/Lb)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. .9322
COLD
7b2
7f9
f 3
75
70.
12.
81.
3.
70.
3.
10.
' *
1
TRANSIENT
.0 (30*
.3 (29.
.3 (110
f05b7
0)
5)
.n)
.9 (2b82.0)
9/ 2/
I/ 2/
H/ll/
2/11/
7/ 3/ 1
7/ 3/
O/ 2/
5/ 2/
10. If
bO
353
1.23
9.5
P.b3
31.23
170b.7
1.29
71
12
37b
10
.28
.Ob
10
1
2
STABILIZED
7b2
7f9
H2
130
11.
13.
8.
b.
f 5.
3.
3.
•
•0 (30-
.3 (29.
.2 (108
b9bf 5
0)
5)
.0)
.b (fb!2.9)
S/ 2/
2/ 2/
b/13/
b/13/
9/ 3/
B/ 3/
2/ 2/
f/ 2/
lb.95
-1
2
.73
2.8
-.07
.32
1755.1
.bb
u
13
B
b
.79
.Ob
3
0
HOT
7b2
7f 9
f 3
7b
lb.
15.
2b.
5.
b2.
3.
5.
•
3
TRANSIENT
•0 (30«
.3 (29.
.3 (110
f Ob99
.2 (2b9
7/ 2/
O/ 2/
1/13/
2/13/
a/ 3/ i
9/ 3/
I/ 2/
f/ 2/
11.93
3
19
I.Ob
t.7
.13
1.71
If 8*. 2
.bf
0^
5)
.0)
0-f)
17
IS
25
5
.12
.Ob
5
0
7b2
7f 9
f 3
210
18.
22.
b5 .
3.
72.
3.
5.
1.
4
SET-7
•0 (30.
.3 (29.
.3 (110
112257
0)
5)
.0)
.1 (7f20.8)
b/ 2/
9/ 2/
2/13/
1/13/
3/ 3/ 1
b/ 3/
B/ 2/
I/ 2/
10. lb
-2
58
1.2b
f .8
-.25
If .20
f853.3
1.80
19
23
b3
3
.31
.Ob
b
1
S.H5 ( 8.7b)
297.b ( t78.9)
.23 ( ,3b)
13.13 ( 17.92)
5.73 ( 3.5b)
.10 ( .15)
1.25 ( 2.ni)
283.00 (tS5.35)
.13 ( .22)
12.18 ( 19.32)
-.01 ( -.02)
.05 ( .09)
288.* ( fbf.O)
.11 ( .17)
12.31 ( 19.11)
b.09 ( 3.78)
.02 ( .01)
.30 ( ,'*9)
2bl.8 ( -»21.2)
.11 ( .18)
11.20 ( 21.01)
5.fa7 ( 3.52)
-.01 ( -.U2)
.bb ( l.Ub)
22b.l ( 3K3.8)
.08 ( .1H)
9.b9 ( 2*.27)
21.Hb ( 13.3t)
COMBINED FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
11.Ob ( 21.27)
-------
TABLE
^
to
co
VFHICLF. NO. ?fu
VEHICLE MOnFL >n vni vn ?H>M)L
ENT.INE ?. 1 L( Mn cm) L-i
TRANSMISSION 41
GVw 11 K G ( - n L R 3 1
RAPOMfTE" Jlfc.R* MM HG(?9.01 IN HG)
DRY BULB TpMp. ?9.M nET, C(85.n OEG f
HAT, R F S11L T S
HAG HiJMflfp
DESCRIPTION
HLOWE" DIF P MM. H?OfIN. H?0)
IN|. FT ° MMt H?0(IN. H?0)
INLET TF«P. OFG. C(DEG. F:
REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLO* STO. CD. MFTRES(SCF)
SAMPLF
TFR/RANGF. /PPM
UCKGRD
MFTFR/RANGF./PCT
MFTFR/RANGE/PCT
MpTf R/RANGE/PPM
HC
HC
cn
Cn
CO?
CO?
NOX
NOX
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
co? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CD? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS G"*M3
HC GRAMS/KM fGRAMS/MlLE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE!
FUEL CONSUMPTION HY c«
CALCULATFD DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RFSULTS
HC GHAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILt)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILF)
FUFL CONSUMPTION HY CB L/lOnKM (MRG)
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP
TEST NO. RUN
DATE 3/19/79
TIME 13123
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 2
BAG CART NO. 1
PROJECT NO. ll-»7»b-001
TEST HEIGHT 1511 KG( 3500 LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 9.2 KW( 12.3 HP)
GASOLINE
ODOMETER
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 73 PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 11.? GM/KG(i37.8 GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F, l.»185
COLD TRANSIENT
7b?.0 (30.0)
7<»9.3 (?9.5)
HI.7 (107.0)
HOblS
75.3 (2bbO.S)
bS.l/
98,4/J
.B/ll/
b9,3/ 3/ 1
lib/ 2/
10,2b
57
b8
13
523
2
1.25
.Ob
B
i. to
2.47
43.50
Ib53.b
1.2b
7.55 { 12.15)
287.0 ( fbl.8)
.22 ( .35)
12.81 ( lS.3b)
5,7b ( 3,58)
.12 ( .20)
2,bl ( H.21)
28».?1 (H57.30)
.07 ( .12)
1?,32 ( 19.09)
STABILIZED
7b2.0 (30.0)
7»9,3 (29.5)
HO.b (105,0)
b9b'»7
129.H (HS71.1)
15.3/ 2/
13.4X ?/
bS.S/13/
3/
15
13
b4
2
.81
.Ob
1
1
lb.44
3
59
.75
.3
.20
B.B9
1777.8
.12
.03 ( ,05)
l,4b ( 2.35)
292,0 ( 4b9.9)
,02 { ,03)
12,57 ( 18.72)
b,09 ( 3,78)
HOT TRANSIENT
7b2.0 (30.0)
7H9.3 (29,5)
43.3 (110.0)
H0573
75.0 (2bH9,B)
?3.7/ 2/ 24
17.B/ BX IB
73.9/13/ 73
2.2/13/ S
bS.3/ 3/ 1,17
3.9/ 3/ ,0b
2,2/ 2/ 2
,b/ 2/ 1
11.37
7
b?
1.11
1.7
.32
5,88
1531,1
,0b
1.03
2b7.S
.Ob
11.49
5.72
,09)
l.bS)
430,4)
,09)
20.47)
3,Sb)
-------
TABLE
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP
I
to
ID
VEHICLE NO. ?
-------
TARLF
VFHTCI h Nil. ?HH
VFHICIE MnPFL 7R VQLVO 2440L
t NUINF P.I I ( 1 in C ID) I.-4
TRANSMISSION Al
(iVW II Kfi( -II LHS)
HARilMFTFk 711.If) MM HG(?.1.13 IN HG)
DRY Hill H I£MP. 2K.7 DFG C(B().n OEG F)
BAT,
K f S 1 1 L 1 S
HAi; NIIMHf.K
n f . S C R I P T I 0 N
FiLOWFR DIF P
HLOWFR INLET
PI (II
r vs
T)
U)
o
HT
Hf
(.0
CO
rn?
CO?
NOX
SAMpLF
HCKRHD
SAMPLE
PCKHRD
SAMPLE
RCKGRD
SAMPLE
NOX
MM. H?0(IN. H?0)
P MM. H?0(IN. H?0)
TFMP. OFT,. C(OEG. F)
F w REVOLU1TUNS
FIIIW STD. Cll. METRES(SCF)
MF ft R/HANr.K/fipM
MF. FFR/RANGF./PPM
MF f F fv/RANGF/PPM
ME TFR/RANGF./PPM
METEK/RANGE/PCT
MF FFR/RANGE/PCT
METFR/RANGE/PPM
MF.TER/RANGE/PPM
OHUrifIN FACTOR
HC fClNCCNTRATIDN PPM
Cn CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCFNIRA TION PCT
NHX CONCf'NTRAT ION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM CURAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM ( T.RAMS/M ILE )
CO? GRAMS/KM (liRAMS/MILE )
NliX GRAMS/KM [r.RAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CH I./ 100KM (MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (PRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (C-MArtS/MILE)
NPV GRAMS/KM IGHAMS/MlLE)
Fl'FL CONSUMPTION RY CH L/100KM (MPG)
VFHICLt EMISSION RESULTS
FTP
TEST NO. RUN
DATE »/17/79
TIME 13:15
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 8
BAG CART NO. 1
PROJECT NU. ll-»7'»h-niil
TEST WEIGH I IS 1
ACTUAL RQAU LOAD
GASOLINE FM-??««-F
ODOMETER qfaP.7
KV.(
LPS)
.3 HP)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY HO PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY ] II.7 GM/KG( 7».V GRAINS/LH)
NOX HUMIOI 1 > C.F
COLD TRANSIENT
774.7 (3(1.5)
7h2.0 (311.0)
»2.B (101.0)
HObll?
75.f (Phbl.b)
.10 ( .lh)
1.?? ( I .1h)
2Rb.38 C»h0.78)
12.32 ( 19.10)
STABILIZED
77>*.7 (30.5)
7b2.0 (30.0)
H2.2 (108.0)
blbSS
121.5 (H572.9)
51.
12.
7b.
1.
71.
3.
11.
1.
O/
I/
0/1
4/1
I/
S/
4/
3/
10
2/
?/
51
13
1 / 338
I/
3/ 1.
3/ .
2/
2/
.11
47
4
21
05
11
1
lb.
14.
U.
4.
Hb.
H.
3.
1.
3/
b/
4/1
b/1
I/
n/
b/
n/
lb
321
1.
10
?
2B
24
.2
.Ob
.)?.
1708.1
•
4.
211
•
J3.
5.
1
3b
13
.7
2b
J7
70
.47
(
( 7.
( 482
(
C J.7.
( 3.
58)
14)
.2)
•»2)
Fib)
54)
•
•
212
•
12.
b.
•
2
2/
2/
3/
3/
3/ .
3/ .
2/
2/
.54
3
fa
75
.7
.19
.98
lb
15
1 1
4
81
Ob
4
1
1778.3
03
lb
.7
11
51
07
.bb
(
(
( 471
(
( 18.
( 3.
05)
2b)
.0)
17)
80")
78)
HOT TRANSIENT
774.7 (30.5J
7b2.0 (30.0)
43.3 (110.0)
40550
75.2 (2b55.3)
Ifl.S/ 2X IB
lb.3/ 2/ lb
31.8/13/ 30
3.4/13/ 3
b4.3/ 3/ 1.15
3.4/ 3/ .05
4.B/ 2/ 5
.b/ 2/ I
11.b?
4
2b
1.10
H.3
.lb
P.27
151b.2
.bl
.03 ( .U4)
.40 ( ,b4)
£b4.5 ( 425.b)
.11 I
.1?)
11.32 ( 20.78)
5.73 ( 3.5b)
-------
TABLE
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
SET
PROJECT NU.
VEHICLE NO. 211
VEHICLE MODEL 78 VOLVO 211DL
ENGINE 3.1 LU30 CIl>) L-1
TRANSMISSION A3
GVW 0 KG( -n LBS)
BAROMF1ER 739.b5 MM HG(?9.12 tN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP, 2b.7 OEG ccau.o DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAT, NUMBER
BLOWER OIF P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H?OUN. H?O)
BLOWFR INLET TFMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
tiLOKER REVOLUTIONS
cvs FLOW STO. cu. METRESCSCF)
MEIEH/RANGF./PPM
METFH/KANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
MEfER/RANGE/PPM
METF.H/RANGE/PCT
METEH/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGC/PPM
METF.R/RANGF./PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C03 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS G"AMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
Co GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE.)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILF.)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRftMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
1
OJ
HC SAMPLE
nr BCKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
CO? SAMPLE
CO? BCKGRO
NOX SAMPLE
NOX RCKGRD
TEST NO. RUN
UATF t/17/7S
TIME 15:10
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. 5
BAG CART NO. 1
TEST WEIGHI 1591 KG( 35"U LBS)
ACTUAL ROAU LOAD 9.2 KW( 12.3 HP)
GASULINE EM-271-F
ODOMETER Qb41
RELATIVE HUMIDITY t-» PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.0 GM/KG( bq.7 GRAINS/LB)
771.7 (30.5)
7bg.O (30. n)
11.1 (112.0)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F.
207. S (7327.8)
17.
12.
81.
1.
71.
3.
b.
I.
I/
7/
0/1
8/1
2/
b/
I/
I/
9
1.
5
19
2/
?/
3/
3/
3/ 1.
3/ .
2/
2/
.85
b
79
30
.1
.72
.07
17
13
R1
2
35
Ob
b
1
1911.1
•
•
230
9.
21.
1
03
89
.5
09
90
11
.98
(
( 1.
( 370
(
( 23.
( 13.
05)
13)
.B)
15)
7b)
33)
-------
VMUTI r Nfi. PIH
VMULI.f M0l>f L 7R Vt)l. VO ?H'*r>L
t NT, INI r . I L ( 1 3D din L-f
THANSI I ^S I UN Al
|| KC, ( -0 LHS)
HAHIMfHH 719. !•»
UPY HIM* T(MP. f
MM Hr,(?q.Jtn IN HG)
,f |H G C(81.r< DF.t F)
H»G
MM. Hi
P MM.
HAG 'JilMflf R
HI nwF- H OIF P
n| Ortl; R I'H.F T
INLF T
REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HfIN. H?0)
HHOCIN. H?0)
oer,. CCDEG. F)
Hf
HC
CO
CO
CIV
rn?
NOX
NOX
DILI
HC
CO
CO?
N'lX
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
SAMPLF MEU R/RANGE/PPM
HCKI;RO MFTFH/RANGF/PPM
SAMPLE MK re R/RANGF/PPM
MCKGRD METFT/RANGF/PPM
SAMPLE METFR/RANGE/PCT
RCKGRD ME' ER/RANGE/PCT
SAMPLE ME 1 FR/RANGE/PPM
HCKGfiD MF. IF H/HANUE/PPM
jriON FACTOR
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRA f ION PPM
CONCFNTRA flON PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS liRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM ((,WAMS/HI |_E )
cn GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
co? GKAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
MIFL CONSUMPTION 8Y C8 LXIUUKM(MPG)
CAICULATEO DISTANCE KM (MILES)
TARLF VFHICI.E EMISSION RESULTS
FET
TEST NO. RUN
DAJF 4/17/71
T 1ME lb! 13
DYNO NO. 3
CVS NO. ?
RAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY t? PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY
TEST WEIGHI
ACTUAL ROAD LllAD
GASOLINE F.M-?7'»-F
ODOMtTF.R
|