EPA-AA-TSS-82-5
Technical Report
Disablement Testing of 1981-1982
Model Year Vehicles with Closed-Loop
Emission Control Systems
by
R. Bruce Michael
September, 1982
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Inspection/Maintenance Staff
Ann Arbor, Michigan
-------
2
Table of Contents
Section Heading Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 3
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 3
3.0 TEST VEHICLES, PROCEDURES AND DISABLEMENTS : 4
4.0 SUMMARY OF EMISSION RESULTS 7
5.0 ABILITY OF I/M TESTS TO DETECT PROBLEMS 10
6.0 VARIATIONS IN TEST RESULTS 12
6.1 . Variations in Oxygen Sensor Disablements 12
6.2 Variations Between Throttle Body Injected
and Carbureted Vehicles 14
APPENDIX TEST RESULTS OF INDIVIDUAL VEHICLES 15
-------
Disablement Testing of 1981-1982 Model Year Vehicles
With Closed-Loop Emission Control Systems
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to present the results of emission control
system disablement testing of recent model year vehicles. Starting in 1981,
Federal vehicles were designed to meet more stringent emission standards such
that most employed computer controls utilizing exhaust emission feedback.
Some vehicles prior to 1981 also used feedback systems, but it was not until
1981 that large quantity production of the systems occurred, along with a
relatively finalized, system design. Because EPA had little data on the
emissions of these vehicles when they experienced emission control problems, a
test program was designed to test many types of these vehicles. Included in
the test program were four vehicles equipped with throttle body fuel injection
(TBI). One was a 1981 Ford and the other three were 1982 GM cars. The GM
cars are the first with TBI produced in large quantity, and it was necessary
to know if they differed in emission levels from normally carbureted
vehicles. Included :.n this report is a fifth TBI vehicle (GM) that EPA tested
separately in its Ann Arbor laboratory. All other vehicles were tested by a
contractor for EPA, Hamilton Test Systems Inc., in Portland, Oregon.
The results of this program can be used to evaluate the likely effectiveness
of Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) short tests in order to identify problems
with these vehicles, and provide general knowledge of the emission performance
of these vehicles when problems may occur. The results by themselves cannot
determine the air quality impact of these vehicles, however, since the rate of
occurrence of the failures in the field is also a major contributing factor.
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The results showed that several types of problems which might occur with new
technology vehicles result in very high FTP emissions. The HC emissions often
were 10 times as great as the certification standards and CO emissions often
were 20 or more times; the standards. It would only take a small percentage of
the vehicles having these problems to greatly increase fleet average emission
1 e ve 1 s .
Nearly all of the problems which result in very high emission levels can be
detected by short emission tests (I/M tests). These short tests were able to
identify about 95% oJ: the excess FTP emissions for the tested vehicles.
Vehicles with throtirle body fuel injection (TBI) appear to have the same
probability of high emissons when problems occur as carbureted vehicles. The
frequency of problems occurring with them might be less, however, due to the
fact that their mixture control solenoids do not relax in such a way that they
allow high fuel flow when de-energized. If power is lost to the solenoids in
a TBI system, they will most likely close entirely, shutting off all fuel and
forcing the owners to get repairs. Carbureted cars, in contrast, usually
continue to run with no noticeable driveability problems, but with high
-------
emissions and usually poor fuel economy. Both types of vehicles may be
equally subject to problems in which the computer sends improper signals to
the solenoids.
3.0 TEST VEHICLES, PROCEDURES AND DISABLEMENTS
A description of the test vehicles is shown in Table 1. In addition to the
five cars with TBI systems, there are two with more conventional ported fuel
injection. Nearly all vehicles had exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and most
had some type of air injection (the Chevette was the only one with pulse air
injection, the others having a regular air pump).
All vehicles were tested first in a correctly operating condition (baseline)
and then with one or more disablements, each disablement occurring individual-
ly. For the baseline test, most vehicles were tested in their as-received
condition, however a few vehicles received minor parts replacements or
adjustments prior to the test in order to restore them to a correctly
operating condition. The disablement types and the number of vehicles
receiving each is shown, in Table 2. Because there are several types of oxygen
sensor disablements, each type is listed in the table. Three vehicles were
tested with the oxygen sensor disabled in two different ways.
Each vehicle was given a specific test sequence at each configuration. The
sequence is listed in Table 3. The first through third tests and the sixth
test in Table 3 are performed on a dynamometer under load and measure mass
emissions. The second and fourth through sixth tests measure concentrations
of emissions; they are considered "short" tests, which could be used in State
in spec t ion pro grams.
-------
Table 1
Description of Vehicles Tested
DIABLEMENT
VEH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
MFR
AMC
Chry
Chry
Ford
Ford
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
VW
Toy
GM
Chry
GM
Ford
GM
GM
VW
GM
MODEL
Concord
Horizon
Reliant
Mustang
Lincoln
Chevette
Citation
Skylark
Citation
Cutlass
Caprice
Riviera
Rabbit
Corolla
Citation
Reliant
Cutlass
Mustang
Bonnevil
Citation
Rabbit
Phoenix
MYR
81
81
81
81
81
81
82
82
81
81
81
81
81
81
82
81
81
81
81
81
81
82
CYL
6
4
4
4
8
4
4
4
6
6
8
8
4
4
4
4
6
4
8
4
4
4
CID
258
105
135
140
302
098
151
151
173
231
267
307
105
108
151
135
231
140
307
151
105
151
FUEL SYS
Carb
Carb
Carb
Carb
TBI
Carb
TBI
TBI
Carb
Carb
Carb
Carb
Port FI
Carb
TBI
Carb
Carb ' .
Carfa
Carb
Carb
Port FI
TBI
EMISSION CONTROLS
3-way, AIR, EGR
3-Way+Ox, AIR, EGR
3-Way+Ox, AIR , EGR
3-Way+Ox, AIR, EGR
3-Way+Ox, AIR, EGR
3-Way, PAIR, EGR
3-Way, EGR
3 -Way, EGR
3-Way+Ox, AIR, EGR
3-Way, AIR, EGR
3-Way+Ox, AIR, EGR
3-Way-HDx, AIR, EGR
3-Way
3-Way, AIR, EGR
3-Way, EGR
3-Way+Ox, AIR, EGR
3-Way, AIR, EGR
3-Way-KDx, AIR, EGR
3-Way+Ox, AIR, EGR
3-Wayn-Ox, AIR, EGR
3-Way
3-Way, EGR
TESTS RUN
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
4,
1,
2,
3,
3,
1,
4,
1,
1
2,
1,
4,
1,
1,
1,
2,
1,
5,
5,
5,
5,
7
5,
5
5
5,
5,
3,
5,
5
5,
5,
5,
5,
3,
5,
5
2,
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5, 6
6
8
6
6
6
5, 6
6
7, 8, 9
Abbreviations:
A. Emission Controls
3-Way - Three-way catalyst
3-Way-t-Ox - Three-way catalyst plus oxidation catalyst
AIR - Air pump
PAIR - Pulse air injection
EGR - Exhaust gas recirculation
B. Disablements
1. 02 sensor disconnected - lead(s) open
2. 02 sensor disconnected - lead(s) grounded
3. 02 sensor disconnected - leads shorted
' 4. 02 sensor disconnected - leads shorted and grounded
5. Coolant temperature sensor disconnected
6. Mixture control solenoid disconnected
7. EGR vacuum line disconnected and plugged
8. Manifold absolute pressure sensor disconnected
9. Throttle position sensor disconnected
-------
6
Table 2
Types of Emission System Disablements
Type of Disablement JJ
1. Oxygen Sensor Disconnected
a. Lead(s) Open . 14
b. Lead(s) Grounded 4
c. Leads Shorted Together 4
d. Leads Shorted and Grounded 3
2. Coolant Temperature Sensor Disconnected and Open 19
3. Mixture Control Solenoid Disconnected and Open 14
4. EGR 2
5. Manifold Absolute Pressure Sensor Disconnected and Open 2
6. Throttle Position Sensor Disconnected and Open 1
Table 3
Emission Test Sequence
1. Federal Test Procedure
2. 50 mph Cruise Test '
3. Highway Fuel Economy Test
4. Four-Mode Idle Test
5. Ford Idle Test (Ford vehicles only)
6. Loaded Two-Mode
-------
4.0 SUMMARY OF EMISSION RESULTS
All vehicles were tested in a baseline condition and with at least one type of
oxygen sensor disablement. All but one vehicle were also tested with at least
one additional disablement.
Table 4 presents the average Federal Test Procedure (FTP) emission and fuel
economy results for each specific condition. Baseline results are also shown
for each condition. Figures 1 and 2 show bar charts of the HC and CO levels
for several specific conditions.
The emissions changes due to 02 sensor disablements vary greatly depending
on the manner in which the disablements are performed and also on the
manufacturer and engine family. (These variations are summarized here, but
discussed more fully in Section 6. ) Disconnecting the sensor and not doing
anything else ("open" condition) usually causes a somewhat rich condition, but
not always. For example, the range of FTP CO emissions is from 1.46 to 109.6
grams per mile (g/mi) for the 14 cars. Similar wide variations were seen for
the "shorted" and "shorted and grounded" cases. For the grounded condition,
the emission results are quite uniform, although the sample is small and three
of the four vehicles are of the same type (GM TBI cars). Here, the CO ranges
from 157.7 to 186.1 g/mi. Grounding the sensor lead (and not doing anything
else to it) apparently always causes the fuel metering to go to a very rich
condition for the vehicles tested. Shorting the sensor leads and then
grounding them should give the same result of high emissions as just grounding
the leads. However, one of the three vehicles tested had emissions below the
Federal standards, although it is possible that the wires shorting and/or
grounding the leads became loose; an inconsistency was noted in the 50 mph
cruise test before and after the FTP. Prior to the FTP the 50 mph cruise CO
for this vehicle appeared to be several percent (there was only chart recorder
data), but after the FTP the contractor recorded 0.0% on the test.
Only one vehicle responded adversely to the disablements such that the owner
would probably not continue to drive the car without getting it fixed. This
was a Plymouth Reliant which overheated badly for all the disablements.
Emissions tests were able to be conducted, however, and the data from this car
is averaged with the others in Table 4. Including its emissions does not
change the mean levels greatly, therefore separate mean levels are not shown.
Its emissions were similar to the averages of the others for the 02 sensor
and CTS disablement, but were quite a bit lower for the mixture control
solenoid disablement (1.16 HC and 24.8 CO).
FTP and short test data for each vehicle are listed in the Appendix.
-------
Table 4
Average FTP Emission Results for
All Vehicles for Each Disablement
Condition
FTP emissions (grams per mile)
N HC CO NOx MPG
Baseline
22
0.32
3.77 0.76 21.22
02 Sensor Disabled-All
Vehicles*
22
2.15
69.0
0.57
17.31
02 Sensor Disconnect-Open
Baseline
02 Sensor Disconnect-Grounded
Baseline
02 Sensor Shorted
Baseline
02 Sensor Shorted & Grounded
Baseline
CTS Disconnect
Baseline
Mixture Control Solenoid
Baseline
EGR Disconnect
Baseline
MAP Sensor Disconnect
Baseline
TPS Disconnect
Baseline
Highest Test on Each Vehicle
14
14
4
4
4
4
3
3
19
19
14
14
2
2
2
2
I
I
22
0.86
0.36
5.65
0.18
1.68
0.30
2.37
0.31
1.14
0.34
4.24
0.41
0.22
0.21
1.81
0.13
0.16
0.12
3.73
23.1
3.73
172.2
3.59
68.4
2.25
84.3
4.12
32.7
4.05
110.0
4.39
2.36
2.50
79.6
2.81
2.27
1.59
109.9
0.84
0.82
0.19
0.73
0.64
0.74
0.82
0.64
0.88
0.76
0.35
0.82
2.35
0.79
0.17
0.54
0.35
0.70
0.40
19.67
20.98
17.07
25.01
'15.22
18.78
.16.12
19.30
19.18
21.43
16.40
20.43
18.59
18.72
19.41
24.39
23.46
24.37
17.06
* For vehicles 11, 19 and 22, the 02 sensor disablement which produced the
higher FTP CO emissions was selected for this average.
-------
Figures "1 and 2
RVEBRGE H£ RESULTS FOR SIX DISflBLEM£NTS
5. 6S
-------
10
5.0 ABILITY OF I/M TESTS TO DETECT PROBLEMS
Because many of these disablements result in such high emission levels, it is
very important that I/M tests be able to identify most, or all of them as
needing repair. Table 5 shows the percent of vehicles which passed and failed
the I/M short tests versus their FTP HC and CO pass-fail status. The
cutpoints used to determine pass-fail status of the short tests were those
recommended for the 207(b) Emission Performance Warranty. The short tests
failed about two-thirds of all FTP failures. The AMC vehicle passed the FTP
during two of its disablements and failed the Idle Test (Errors of Commission,
or EC) after it had been idling for 6 minutes (First Idle), but passed each
time after it had received a 2500 rpm preconditioning (Second Idle). These
were the only two EC tests.
Table 6 shows the amount of excess emissions, i.e., emissions above the FTP
standards, that were identified by each short test. Two of the short tests
could identify 95% of the excess HC and CO emissions .of these vehicles. This
compares with a 60-70% e'xcess identification of a sample of 1981 model year
vehicles tested in their as-received condition.*
The I/M test failure rate and amount of excess emissions identified depends,
of course, on the I/M cutpoints chosen. Readers may note from the individual
data in the Appendix that the I/M pass-fail status of several vehicle disable-
ment tests is sensitive to the cutpoints chosen.
* Memo titled "New Technology Emission Status" from Bruce Michael to Charles
Gray, Director, ECTD, December 12, 1981.
-------
11
Table 5
Identification Rates for I/M Tests
All Disablements Combined (N = 60)
Two-Speed Idle
Loaded Two-Mode
Idle Test
(First Idle)
Idle Test
(Second Idle)
Pass FTP Fail FTP Pass FTP Fail FTP
Pass Short Test Fail Short Test Fail Short Test Pass Short Test
(Correct Pass) (Correct Fail) (Ec) (Eo)
24.1%
24.1%
20.7%
25.5%
53.4%
55.2%
44.8%
36.4%
0.0
0.0
3.4%
0.0
22.4%
20.7%
31.0%
38.2%
Table 6
Excess FTP Emissions Identified
(Emissions in grams per mile)
Excess FTP Emissions
Total Amount of Excess Emissions
Amount Identified by
Two-Speed Idle
Percent of Total
Amount Identified by
Loaded Two-Mode
Percent of Total
Amount Identified by
Idle Test (First)
Percent of Total
Amount Identified by
Idle Test (Second)
Percent of Total
HC
111.3
105.0
94%
104.5
94%
94.9
85%
No. of HC
Failing
Vehicles
44
31
32
26
CO
3573.7
3^15.3
96%
3353.0
82%
No. of CO
Failing
Vehicles
46
31
32
26
88.1
20 2677.2
75%
20
-------
12
6.0 VARIATIONS IN TEST RESULTS
6.1 Variations in Oxygen Sensor Disablements
As was mentioned in Section 4.0, the oxygen sensor disablements gave quite
varying results depending on the manner of disablement. Results also varied
within manufacturer, but were usually more consistent with similar fuel
systems within manufacturer. The three 1981 model year GM cars tested with
the 02 Sensor "open" all had HC emissions at about 0.3 and CO at 2 grams per
mile (g/mi). The two 1982 GM TBI cars, however, had much higher HC and CO,
ranging from 0.5 to 1.6. g/mi HC and 16 to 58 g/mi CO. Two of the three
Chrysler cars tested in this configuration, "K" cars, had very similar CO
emissions at about 32 g/mi while the third car, the Horizon, had CO at only
3 g/mi. Two of the three Fords were Mustangs, having CO emissions ranging
from 10 to 15 g/mi, while the third, the Lincoln (with TBI), had CO emissions
at only 4 g/mi. The VW had the highest CO emissions at 109 g/mi.
All four vehicles tested in the "shorted" condition were carbureted GM cars,
three yielding quite high emissions, each over 80 g/mi CO, and one yielding
only 2.6. (This latter car does not have suspicious emissions, because it was
also tested "open" with similar results.) The three GM TBI cars tested with
the 02 sensor "grounded" gave consistent high emissions results, each over
150 g/mi CO.
Table 7 shows the range, mean and standard deviation of the results for each
type of disablement. Only when the oxygen sensor was grounded were the
results very consistent. Two probable reasons for the variation of the others
are (l) that without grounding the oxygen sensor lead(s), the sensor can give
erratic signals to the computer due to electromagnetic pick up and (2) that
the computer can sense that a problem exists and, unless forced rich by
grounding the lead(s), may "remember" past performance and try to copy it. GM
representatives have indicated that both of these may happen with GM cars.
EPA does not currently have an estimate of the frequency of oxygen sensor
failures and disablements or of the specific manners in which they °ccurt'
Purposeful and inadvertent disablements are most likely co result in an "open"
condition, perhaps with intermittent grounding if the lead(s) can Couch the
engine block, for example, but failures due Co defect or wear may occur in
other ways. What does seem certain though is that extremely wide variations
in emissions will occur. EPA has tested vehicles in their as-received
condition in its 1981 Emission Factors Program with FTP CO emissions well over
100 g/mi due to oxygen sensor problems.
-------
13
Table 7
C>2 Sensor Disconnect HC and CO Results
Minimun, Maximum, Mean, and Standard Deviation
(FTP emissions in grams per mile)
Condition
Open
Baseline
Grounded
Baseline
Shorted
Baseline
Shrt. & Grnd
Baseline
N
14
14
4
4
4
4
3
3
Pollutant
HC
HC
HC
HC
MIN
0.25
0.09
3.19
0.12
0.24
0.23
0.21
0.22
MAX
2.41
0.97
10.7
0.33
3.12
0.40
5.56
0.44
MEAN
0.86
0.36
5.65
0.18
1.68
0.28
2.37
0.31
SD
0.69
0.26
3.42
0.10
1.19
0.08
2.82
0.12
Pollutant
CO
CO
CO
CO
MIN
1.46
0.96
157.7
1.59
2.65
1.34
2.33
2.96
MAX
109.6
9.73
186.1
5.17
99.9
2.94
161.3
5.24
MEAN
23.1
3.73
172.2
3.59
68.4
2.25
84.3
4.12
SD
30.3
3.20
11.8
1.49
44.5
0.73
79.6
1.14
-------
14
6.2 Variations Between Throttle Bodv Injected and Carbureted Vehicles
Four 1982 GM cars with TBI were tested, all having the same engine sizes and
emission control systems. A comparison of their FTP HC and CO results with
the carbureted cars for two disablements is shown in Table 8. Also shown are
the results of four 1981 low volume luxury TBI cars* tested in the 1980
Emission Factors Program and the one 1981 Lincoln TBI car tested in this
program. One of the two 1982 model year GM TBI vehicles tested with the 02
sensor disconnected (open) gave higher CO emissions, but not higher HC
emissions, than all 10 of the carbureted cars. The other TBI car had CO
emissions at about the mean of the 10 carbureted cars. All three GM TBI cars
produced much lower emissions with the coolant temperature sensor (CTS)
disconnected then the average of the 14 carbureted cars. The range of
emissions was very wide for the 14 cars, however nearly all had substantially
higher emissions than the three TBI cars. The very small sample size does not
allow for specific conclusions, however.
Concerning the luxury TBI cars, the two Lincolns gave quite different emission
levels in the first disablement mode. CO emissions from one were just 3.7
g/mi, and 166.4 from the other. These results are so different that they
cause suspicion, but the data records were checked and appear to be correct.
The two luxury GM cars also gave varied results, but not as dramatic. One had
24.3 g/mi CO while the other had 2.4. These two vehicles were also tested
with the oxygen sensor leads disconnected and shorted. CO emissions ranged
from 15 to 84 g/mi confirming that these two cars reacted quite differently to
oxygen sensor disablements.
A comparison could not be made with any other disablements. Three of the four
cars tested with the 02 sensor grounded were the TBI cars. The fourth was a
VW Rabbit with ported fuel injection. The Rabbit had much higher HC than the
TBI cars (10.7 vs. average 3.96 g/mi) and somewhat higher CO (186 vs. average
168 g/mi) . The TBI cars could not run with their mixture control solenoids
disconnected, so no comparison could be made in this regard, and the only two
cars tested with EGR disablements were both TBI cars.
Table 8
Comparison of GM TBI Vehicles with Other Vehicles Tested
(FTP emissions, in grams per mile)
1982 GM TBI Carbureted 1981 Luxury TBI
Test N HC C£ N HC _CO N HC CO
Specifications 4 0.12 2.63 15 .39 4.17 5 0.28 3.30
0? Sensor-Open 2 1.05 38.0 10 .72 13.3 5 0.79 45.7
CTS Disconnect 3 0.17 3.93 14 1.48 43.3 3 0.51 6.54
* Two GM Cadillacs, one Chrysler Imperial and one Lincoln Continental.
-------
15
APPENDIX
TEST RESULTS OF
INDIVIDUAL VEHICLES
-------
AlMMiNDIX
RT KMTSSTONS AND
ECONOMY
VTI1 (i i- :iml;i nlrt _
iii
'til TE5T MOST
1 0 .4
1 . » .4
I 5 .4
1 L .4
0 O . -1
2 I .4
2 '5" 4
2 t> 4
3 O .4
3 1 .4
3 S 4
3 L> .4
4 O .4
4 1 .4
4 S "
4 G .4
5 O 1
5 1 .4
5 7 .4
G O |;vd
Coolant sensor disc.
Mixture solenoid disc.
ECU disc.
Mani fold P sens disc.
Thro t lie pos .-.,., disc
-------
.0
0
..0
.9
,9
19
'9
IO
in
10
IO
1 1
1 1
1 1
. 1 1
1 1
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
15
15
15
15
10
O
3-
s
0
3
sr
c
0
1
S
t
o
3
6"
C
Jt
o
'/
£~
L
o
i
'5~
o
i
o
a
! OOO
. 2 2 OOO
. 4 OOOO
. 4 OOOO
.20OOO
1
.'7 OOOO
. 1 IOOO
. GOOOO
3GOOO
1 . 24OO
52OOO
. 09OOO
1 . 7400
. 5'JOOO
. I-IOOO
1 . 59OO
1 OOOO
. 2GOOO
1 . 7 OOO
. 12 OOO
.O2OOO
.70000 -1
. 2 7 OOO
.SOOOO
. 2 OOOO
. 3 7 OOO
. 1 IOOO
. 39OOO
. I30OO
1 . OOOO
23
IG
22
23
IG
10
15
19
IG
15
16
17
17
14
12 .
17.
15.
12 .
13.
1 1 .
24 .
19 .
24 .
22 .
23
24 .
17 .
23.
19.
22.
22O
. 92O
.930
. I4O
.OIO
. 47O
. 140
. 250
. 42O
.350
.OIO
. 96O
94O
490
G7O
770
2 IO
2OO
34O
IOO
95O
03O
70O
93O
34O
44O
OGO
74O
23O
700
33
2G
3 1
29
22
24
22
27
24
2O
24
2G
26
19
19
26.
2 1
14 .
10 .
14 .
4 1 .
3 1 .
40
33 .
34
30
3 1
30.
20 .
34 .
. 2 5O
. 37O
. 53O
. 57O
. 200
. 47O
.OOO
,9GO
. 25O
. 32O
.220
. oao
GOO
.020
39O
330
57O
73O
3OO
330
GOO
44O
5GO
03O
570
93O
35O
50O
G3O
250
-------
VLII
IG
IG
16
17
17
17
17
10
i n
10
10
11
M
'1
»1
It
10
10
'JO
1 0
'I /
21
11
21
72.
22.
12
2 1
1?
1 i-i'i
, '
S"
^
V
.5"
c,
0
/
£
6
o
D_
ST
o
i
2L
7
tf
T
IICS 1
. 4 1 OOO
. 4 1 OOO
. 4 1 OOO
. 4 IOOO
.4 IOOO
. 4 IOOO
. 4 1 OOO
. 4 IOOO
,i i OOO
. 4 1 OOO
. 4 1 OOO
. 4 1 OOO
. 4 IOOO
. 4 1 OOO
. 4 IOOO
. j i
7 . OOOO
7 . OOOO
7 . OOOO
7 . OOOO
7 .OOOO
7 . OOOO
7 . OOOO
3. 4 OOO
-i anno
3 . 4 OOO
3 . 4 OOO
3 . 4 OOO
3 . 4 OOO
3. 4 OOO
3 . 4 OOO
3. 4 OOO
3 . 4 OOO
3. 4000
3 . 4 OOO
3 . 4 OOO
3 . 4 OOO
3 . 4 OOO
3 . 4 OOO
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
mi', i
1 . OOOO
1 .OOOO
1 . OOOO
1 . OOOO
1 . OOOO
1 . OOOO
1 . OOOO
1 . OOOO
1 OOOO
1 . OOOO
1 . OOOO
1 . OOOO
1 . OOOO
1 . OOOO
1 . OOOO
1 OOOO
1 . OOOO
i . oooo
1 . OOOO
1 OOOO
1 . OOOO
1 . OOOO
1 . OOOO
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
1 .0
III.
1 . 52OO
2 .OlOO
1 .OGOO
. 22OOO
5 . 5600
3. 2 100
1 1 . OOO
.9700O
1 . OOOO
69000
. 7 9 OOO
4 OOOO
. 3 1 OOO
3 . IOOO
12 . 92O
1 . 4 5OO
. 2GOOO
3 IOOO
. 95OOO
. 7 5 OOO
. 3 3 OOO
10. 700
.2 GOOD
. 12
.53
4.53
. 14
1 .72
.16
t.ii
3 1 . 250
25 . 2SO
17 47O
G.24OO
IG 1 . 32
I33.G4
2 19. 79
0. I2OO
14 .670
5. IOOO
15 . 3 10
. 1 . 34OO
1 4 GOO
09 .530
3O4 . GO
09 070
2 7 4 OO
2 OOOO
36 0 IO
1 7 . 7 4 O
5 I7OO
DIG . OG
3 . 4 OOO
1.59
1 6 . 34
170.2
1
1 .58
76.64
2.27
I i\ 1 /\
3 7 OOO
. 5 9 OOO
. 4 3 OOO
.490OO
.4:iOOO
j
.22OOO
. 15 OOO
.G7OOO
.45OOO
1 . 29OO
. 39OOO
. 99OOO
3 . O2OO
1 . 9 1 OO
. 12 OOO
. 10000
.79OOO
1 . O'JOO
1 . OOOO
.GOOOO
I.. 3 OOO
. 1 IOOO
1 . 2000
.69
.26
.30
2.78
.21
,35
19 . 99O
2O 4 IO
2O.67O
10 .4GO
14 .530
13.320
13. IGO
2 1 04O
2O. 120
2 1 .G4O
2O.23O
IG O9O
IG I4O
I3.54O
IO 47O
1 1 .960
22 . 3GO
20.3 10
2O. I5O
22 .3GO
'20 . 64O
17 . G7O
20 . 4OO
24.37
23.19
16.64
23.91
19,62
23.46
27 270
211 . 06O
20 G30
27 .740
22.24O
10 2OO
21. I3O
34.750
3 1 . O7O
33 .GGO
3 1 .700
27 . 130
26 .O4O
20.33O
16 . 4 DO
19. GGO
36. GOO
15. 46O
33 . OOO
36. 7GO
44 . 720
26. I9O
43 6 IO
33.77
33.29
2 7 . 34
33. 19
27.12.
34 . 20
-------
i r..t i i n\ i i\
VEll
'1
1
1
1
9
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
<4
"I
4
4
5
5
5
G
G
G
G
7
17 J
7 .
TEST
/
S
G
Q
1
S
c
O
1
5"
L,
O
1
S*
G
O
1
1
O
'1
S
c
0
»
,T
1
12 .
IIC3O
IO
53
23
17
9
5
7
5
4
1 1
O
O
12
20
14
33
16
13
0
3O
19
49
1(19
2
155
.,
1 1 '!' , hi 1
.o.uled luO'-Mode --
13. 1 -1 .
C03O MCI
o. n
. I50OO 22
O. (i
. IOOOO - 1 126
mono -! '-"i
. IOOOO - 1 G
. IOOOO -121
0. 7
O. 22
. 17000 0
O. 0
0. O
. IOOOO - 1 7
. 3OOOO IO
O. 6
.340OO (1
0. S
O. 7
O . '1
. I'JOOO /
. IOOOO - 1 (i
.II2OOO 131
4 . 7 GOO 3 2O
. IOOOO - 1 1
3.3SOO , IO4
. IOOOO 1 2
..
15.
COI
O
O.
O.
2 . 7 9OO
' O.
O
IOOOO
O
O.
IOOOO
o.
0.
0.
o.
o.
0
0.
o.
o
o.
o.
1 .590O
G . O5OO
O.
2 . 39OO
O .
IG .
IICNI
IG
172
1 10
I2G
20
14
- 1 IG
14
5
- 1 0
O
O
0
2 1
14
IG
0
n
0
G
14
I2O
224
3
144
2
I /Mil r Ki J W
U 1 1 1 1 HJ I
17 .
CON I
. I2OOO
I
4 . UGOO
2. 49OO
3.0IOO
O.
O.
. IOOOO - 1
O.
O.
. IOOOO - 1
O.
0
o.
o.
0.
o.
o.-
o.
0.
o.
o.
7 IOOO
1 5 3 IOO
O.
2 900O
O.
le Idle
10 .
IIC25
G
20
13
60
10
14
IO
13
5
3
O
O
10
26
12
2G
0
0
12
IG
1 1
17
2OG
3
36
2
Tesil
19.
CO 2 5
0.
.22000
o.
1 . 4GOO
O.
O.
O.
O.
0.
. IOOOO - 1
O.
0.
0.
. 20OOO - 1
o
. 2OOOO - 1
O.
0.
O
. I2OOO
O.
. 2OOOO
6.930O
0.
02OOO
O.
2O.
IICN2
0
15
7
126
34
15
29
15
9
4
O
0
9
12
12
10
0
0
0
U
12
1 13
277
2
143
2
2 1 .
COM2
O.
O.
o.
2.7100
. IOOOO - 1
O.
. IOOOO - 1
O.
O.
0.
O.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
0.
0.
0.
1 . OOOO
5.. 1500
O.
3 . 37OO
O.
-------
VCII ll'ST MC3O C():iO MCI
' IG I 207 . 7 . 33OO :i 1
IG 5 20 . 4OOOO - 1 42
IG C 3O . 4 OOOO - 1 35
17 O 3 O. 2
17 f ill 2 9 . O7OO 77 1
17 5" 131 G.7UQO IGI
i' L, UJ4 ii.iiiuu "/OCj
I" O 32 O. 4G
10 1 3O . 9OOOO - 1 39
IU S 29 0. 30
10 L 20 .GOOOO - 1 3G
11 O 49 .1 OOOO - 1 1 G
/1 ' 'IG O IO
f\ £ 104 3.000O 271
'1 *- -I O I f) . 7 -1 OO '.) / 3
' ? 3 G 1 . 0'oOO 2
'£> O 0 O II
10 ' 13 O 0
1:/o i 73 2 'JGOO II
1 ° £> 01 1 . '1 30O II
1 1 O 5 . . IOOOO - 1 G
2' -3 439 11.210 975
' ' 5 5 0 G
2i -0 20 .02 II
21 ' 55 1.5 72
72- 2. 185 6./, 100
:*z i 20 .O/. 20
17 H 'J60 10.0 7<_io
?^ ') l'» .()/, II
C(ll IICNI
20000 - t 30
0. 30
O. 20
. 2OOOO - 1 5
IO.77O 7OI
5.2OOO 151
i t . GiiO Gl»9
O. 511
O . 4 7 G
O 492
O 405
O. 29
O. 19
3.67OO 310
II . GGOO 57 1
. 4OOOO - 1 G
O. 12
O 12
. IOOOO - 1 2G
O. 17
O 0
1 1 2 10 70O
O 14
.02 8
1
.75 25
2.0 120
. O/. 30
101 9/.0
. O/i 1 2
com nc 2 5
O. 03
. IOOOO - 1 13
. IOOOO - 1 10
. 30OOO - t 5
1 0 . 7 OO 144
1
4.O9OO 55
JO.'JGG !!5!
7 O'.iOO 4 4
7 .OOOO 5O
7.33OO 24
7 . 35OO 44
O. 13
O 9
4 .7/OO 132
II . 'J7OO 311 1
. 7 OOOO - 1 4
O. 9
O 14
O . 53
O. 19
O. IO
1 1 2 10 056
O. 12
.02 12
.02 15
2.1 25-85
.1 19
101 20001
. O/, 1 5
CO 3 11
1 G9OO
IOOOO - 1
. IOOOO - 1
O.
0 . G 7 OO
3 27OO
it nsoo
. IOOOO - 1
. GOOOO - 1
O.
. 3OOOO - 1
O.
O.
4 .11400
IO. 'J2O
I.2GOO
O.
0.
2 . G.1OO
32OOO
. 47OOO
1 1 . 2 IO
O.
.03
.02
.7-4.7
.04
10 1
.O/i
IICN2
15
25
2G
4
G92
15 1
1.10
50
44
39
39
IO
G
230
Si 90
2
0
IO
9
10
0
939
IO
10
20
115
19
780
15
CON2
IOOOO - 1
O.
0.
. GOOOO - 1
IO. 99O
4.05OO
II. IOO
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
3. 77OO
0 . OGOO
. IOOOO - 1
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
11.2 IO
O.
.02
.03
1.8
.O/.
10.2
.O/i
-------
Mil If.,
» O
o 2.
» S
a G
9 3
'9 o"
9 6
10 o
iO j
10 5
10 6
1 1 £>
H 3
II i"
MI G
u 1
12 o
12 '1
12 5
12 L
13 O
13 1
13 5
H 0
14 1
15 O
15 2.
is 5
15 g
IG O
1 IH..HJ
2
IG3
3
17
139
155
JUG
G
2 j'i
2 2O
25
3O
00
32 1
25
10
IG
IGQ
3 11
2
I9G
G
III
.5(3
O
I0!l
7
25G
25
"-"
O 2
5 . I3OO I09
O. 2
O. 'J
I . O I OO I 3
3 . 4 5OO I 7
9.G3OO 250
. 3 OOOO - I 2
'i . GuOO 3i> i
J.IIIOO lb(i
I . (I GOO 2 I 5
. 2 OOOO - I 2O
O. 1 9
2.92OO I'l
9.57OO 372
0. 1 5
O. 2 a
. 370OO IO
3.23OO 3 li
7 . 59OO 33O
O. 2
7.9IIOO 'J'J
. 1OOOO - I 3
. IOOOO - I I'J
2 . I5OO I 3
0. I
5.9IOO MIG
. IOOOO - I II
II . 57OO 70 I
O . !> '
0 3
2.O2OO IOI
O. 2
0 IS
O. 32
O 21
G O5OO 230
O GG
I OOOO I 3 3
4 . 57OO I 94
O 25
O. 25
. IOOOO - I 19
5.50OO 3IO
0. 2O
0 . I 3
O. 2 I
IOOOO - I 23
I 9OOO 345
O. 2
3 5700 9G
O. 7
0. IO
O. 14
O. 2
4 . 4 IOO 24 1
4OOOO - 1 5
IO.9IO 04O
0. Ill
O.
1 . G9OO
O.
O.
O.
O.
5.G IOO
. 4 OOOO - 1
. G4OOO
3.G40O
0
O
0
1 . 3GOO
O.
0
O.
O.
1 . 40OO
O.
3 4 9OO
O.
O.
0
O.
i
4 35OO
. IOOOO - 1
IO OGO
O.
4
95
2
2O3
2OOI
I2O
G59
5
19
93
12
IO
52
304
0
G
3G
IO7
399
4
24 1
0
1 1
155
2
125
2
20OI
IO
O. 4
!> 97OO 94
0. 2
5 .1-IOO 21
1 1 . 2 IO 19
5. OOOO 15
I 1 . 2 IO 25G
. 50OOO - 1 5
S 9SOO 2OG
75OOO 135
5. OOOO 196
0 . 10
O. 14
2.90OO IG
IO.G7U 357
0 . II
O. 21
3. IOOO 0
4.75OO 26
1 1 2 IO 310
O. 4
G 4 IOO IOO
0. G
2OOOO - 1 10
3.20OO 15
0. 2
G OOOO IGO
O. 4
II.2IO 095
O. 3O
0.
i .snoo
o.
. IOOOO - 1
. IOOOO - 1
0.
5.0900
. IOOOO - 1
41 t t~\t~\
. I IOO
1 . 0'.iOO
1 . 1 3OO
o.
o.
. IOOOO - 1
5. IGOO
0.
O.
. IOOOO - 1
. IOOOO - 1
1 . 75OO
0.
3.5GOO
0.
O.
O.
O.
3.03OO
. IOOOO - 1
IO. 09O
0.
------- |