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

-------
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.

-------