EPA-AA-TSS-83-2
             The Emission Effects of Misfueling
          Five  1981-82 Model Year Automobiles With
          10 Continuous Tankfuls of Leaded Gasoline
                      R. Bruce Michael
                         August 1983
                           NOTICE
Technical  reports  do  not  necessarily  represent  final  EPA
decisions  or  positions.    They  are  intended   to   present
technical analyses  of  issues using  data  which are  currently
available.  The purpose  in  the  release of such reports  is  to
facilitate  the  exchange  of  technical  information  and  to
inform  the  public  of  technical developments  which may  form
the basis  for a  final  EPA decision,  position or  regulatory
action.
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
             Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
                  Office of Mobile Sources
            Emission Control Technology Division
                   Technical Support  Staff
                     2565 Plymouth Road
                 Ann Arbor, Michigan  48105

-------
                              2




                      Table of Contents






Section                                                 Page



Background                                                3



Vehicle Types                                             4



Vehicle Preparation                                       4



Fuels Used                                                6



Mileage Accumulation                                      6



Emission Tests Conducted                                  7



Test Conditions                                           7



Results                                                   8



Conclusions                                              12



References                                               22



Appendix                                                 23

-------
Background

Misfueling of  catalyst equipped vehicles  (the use  of  leaded
gas  instead   of  unleaded)  has  been  known  to  substantially
increase the regulated emissions of  pre-1980 model year (MYR)
vehicles.   Even  one   tankfu^  of  leaded  gasoline can  cause
emission levels to double or  triple.(1-3)*  The early vehicle
catalysts  controlled  only  two  of  the three  major  regulated
emissions  -  hydrocarbons  (HC)  and  carbon  monoxide  (CO) .
These  catalysts  are  usually    referred   to   as  "oxidation
catalysts",  because   they  add  oxygen   to  the   HC  and  CO
molecules  to  form H20   and  C02-   Starting   in  1981,  most
catalysts  controlled  oxides  of nitrogen  (NOx)  emissions  as
well  as  HC  and  CO.   The  control  of NOx  is a  "reduction"
process, because oxygen  is  subtracted from  the NOx molecules
to  form  N2.   Catalysts which  perform both  the oxidation and
reduction  catalyst functions  are  referred to  as  three-way
catalysts.

Three-way  catalysts  differ  from earlier  oxidation  catalysts
in  three main  ways.   First,  three-way  catalysts  contain   a
third  precious  metal for  the  reduction function,  rhodium
(Rh) , as  well as platinum  (Pt)  and palladium  (Pd)  which are
used  in  oxidation  catalysts.    Second,  the support material
differs in that current three-way  catalysts  have  larger pores
and higher surface  areas  than  older  catalysts, which affects
the chemical  reactions.   Third,  the ratio and amounts  of Pt
and  Pd  have  often   changed.(4)    In  addition,  there  are
important differences  in  the vehicles on  which three-way and
oxidation  catailysts  are   used.   Three-way catalysts  are most
often  used  in  combination with  closed-loop  fuel  control,
which  results in  a  different  exhaust  gas composition than
typically enters an oxidation  catalyst.    Finally, closed-loop
fuel  systems  depend on catalyzed  exhaust gas  oxygen sensors
which  themselves  may be  influenced  by  misfueling.   These
differences  moan  that the  effects  of  misfueling  three-way
catalyst  vehicles  require separate  quantification from those
of  misfueling oxidation  catalyst  vehicles.   Because   it  is
likely that most of  the  vehicles produced in  the 1980's will
have three-way catalysts, this  test  program  focused mainly on
them.    There  have   been  previous   misfueling   studies  of
three-way  catcilyst  vehicles (1,2)  but these  were  limited  to
early  generation  systems  or   to   only  one  or   two  current
generation vehicles.
*Numbers in parentheses refer  to  references  at the end of the
report.

-------
The rate  of misfueling  of  passenger cars  has been  recently
estimated at eibout  10%. (5)   This is a  substantial  percentage
which has a  significant  environmental  impact.  EPA wanted  to
determine the effect of  misfueling  on  late model vehicles  in
order to help predict the effect on  fleetwide emission  levels
in the  1980's,   A test  program  was therefore  initiated  with
Automotive  Test  Laboratories  (ATL)  in  Ohio,  which  had  a
contract  with  EPA to  perform work  assignments as  required.
This  task was  Work Assignment  No.  1   to  EPA  Contract  No.
68-03-3157.

Vehicle Types

Five vehicle  types  were designated  by  EPA as  test  vehicles.
The  1981 MYR  vehicles  were  to have  accumulated  at  least
25,000 miles  prior  to testing  and   the  1982  MYR vehicles  at
least  15,000  miles.   The  vehicles  recruited  are  listed  in
Table  1   (more  specific   information  is   given  in   the
Appendix) .  Each  conforms  to the types  originally  designated
by EPA,  except,  for  the  Plymouth Reliant.   EPA had desired  a
three-way catalyst  closed-loop  emission control  system  for
this vehicle type,  but  ATL  could only  obtain a vehicle  with
the alternate  engine size  which had  an oxidation  catalyst.
EPA agreed  to  the use of  this  vehicle.   EPA also agreed  to
allowing the use  of two  1981 MYR vehicles which had  less  than
25,000 miles.

Vehicle Preparation

All test  vehicles had their  as-received tank  fuels  measured
for the presence  of leaded gas and  the  tailpipes  checked  with
a  lead  detection paper.   No vehicles  appeared  to  have  been
misfueled prior to the test program.

Vehicles  were  thoroughly inspected  prior to  testing  and  none
were  found   to  require  more  than  minor  adjustments.   All
vehicles  were   then  set   to   the  manufacturer's   tune-up
specifications.  All vehicles were left  in  this condition for
the entire  test  program  and did not appear to change  in any
manner.

-------
                                            5

                                         Table  1
MYR   MFR
                                           Closed-
Make./Model  Engine   Fuel System  Catalyst  Loop?
                                                                      Air
                                                                   Injection?  Odometer
1981
QVl
Buicx
Regal
231 CID
6 cyl
Carbureted
3-way
Yes
Pump
25,902
1981  Ford     Mercury
               Lynx

1981  Chrysler Plymouth
               Reliant
1981  VW
1982  CM
               Rabbit
               Chevrolet
               Citation
             98 CID  Carbureted
            4 cyl

            156 CID  Carbureted
            4 cyl

            105 CID  Port F.I.
            4 cyl

            151 CID  TBI
            4 cyl
Ox+3-way  No


Oxidation No


3-way     Yes


3-way     Yes
                                                                      Pump      24,850


                                                                      Pulse     42,620
No
No
21,657
16,934
Definitions:

MYR
CID
Port F.I.
TBI
Closed-Loop
Ox+3-way

Oxidation
Pump
Pulse
             - Model year
             - Cubic inch displacement
             - Port fuel injection
             - Throttle body fuel injection
             - Emisision  system which  senses  the  exhaust  gas
               and sends  the  information to a  computer which
               uses  the information  in controlling  the fuel
               system; sometimes called "feed-back" system.
             - Oxidation catalyst plus three-way catalyst, in
               two separate containers
             - Oxidation catalyst
             - Air pump driven by the engine
             - Pulse  air  injection  utilizing  only  suction
               pulses in the exhaust

-------
Fuels Used

All  emissions  testing  was  performed  with indolene  unleaded
test fuel.  The leaded  fuel used  for  mileage  accumulation was
a  commercially obtained  fuel  with   a  lead  content  of  1.02
grams per  gallon.   This closely matches  the  national  average
lead  content  of leaded regular  gasoline  which was  recently
measured at 0.99 grams per gallon.(6)

Mileage Accumulation

Vehicles were  driven  on the test track  at the Transportation
Research Center  (TRC)  for all mileage  accumulation.   This is
the   test   track   in   Liberty,   Ohio   where   ATL  has   its
laboratory.  The mileage  accumulation speed averaged  about 50
mph and the vehicles were driven  up to 16  hours per day.   The
driving  cycle  consisted  of  driving  at  55  mph with  a  stop
every 10 miles.  Because  the  test  intervals were separated by
numbers of  tankfuls,  rather than specific mileages,  and  this
process involved estimation,  the mileage  between  test  points
varied  slightly,  and  was  different  for  each  vehicle.   The
average mileage for each  tankful  varied between 250-360  miles
for  the  different   vehicles.   Table   2  shows  the  total  miles
driven on  leaded fuel, and  the estimated numbers  of  gallons
used with the associated amounts of lead, for each vehicle.

The  total  number of gallons of lead  used  by  each  vehicle had
to be estimated, due  to the fact that  between  each test  each
vehicle  was driven for  two  approximate  tankfuls,  and  the
exact amount of  fuel  used  during  only the first  tankful was
known.   A  method   was  used   to  approximate   the  number  of
gallons  used   :Ln the  second  tank.    Because  the  vehicle  was
filled at  the  beginning of the  mileage accumulation interval
and  refilled after  one  tank of driving,  it was known exactly
how  many gallons were  used  during the  first  tank.   Miles per
gallon  (mpg) were   then calculated  for that  tank.   After the
second  tank,   the  tank  was  not  refilled,  and  therefore  the
amount  of   fuel  consumed was  not  known,  but  the number  of
miles driven was known.  The  same  mpg was assumed as  during
the   first   tank,   and   the   number   of  gallons   used   was
estimated.  Th:.s calculation  was  performed separately at  each
interval for each  vehicle.   Due to the  type  of driving  being
consistent  during both  tanks,  it  is estimated that the number
of gallons calculated is very accurate.

-------
                              7

                           Table 2

           Miles Driven and Amounts of Leaded Fuel
          Used During the 10 Tankfuls of Misfueling
                Miles           No. of            No. of
    Vehicle     Driven      Gallons Leaded      Grams Lead

    Regal        3010           133.7             136.4
    Lynx         2914            87.2              88.9
    Reliant      2514           103.1             105.2
    Rabbit       2979            91.2              93.0
    Citation     3597           112.4             114.6
Emission Tests Conducted

The following  test  sequence  was performed on  each  vehicle at
each test stage.

    1.   Federal Test Procedure
    2.   50 mph Cruise Test
    3.   Highway Fuel Economy Test
    4.   Four-Speed Idle Test
    5.   Loaded Two-Mode Test
    6.   Engine Restart Idle Test  (Ford Idle Test)
Test Conditions

Emission  Test  sequences  were  performed  at  the  following
conditions:
    Vehicle Condition                       No. Test Sequences

    Baseline                                        2
    Catalyst removed  (with straight pipe)           1
    After 2 tankfuls leaded  (catalyst on)           1
    After 2 more tankfuls leaded  (4 total)          1
    After 2 more tankfuls leaded  (6 total)          1
    After 2 more tankfuls leaded  (8 total)          1
    After 2 more tankfuls leaded  (10 total)         2
    With new catalyst                               1
    With new oxygen sensor (when applicable)        1

-------
Results

All vehicles  generally  produced increasingly more  FTP  EC,  CO
and NOx  emissions  as they were  exposed to more  leaded fuel.
Table  3  shows the  average  FTP  emissions  at each  test stage
for the  five vehicles.   Table 4  shows the  average  emission
levels  for  the   three  closed-loop  3-way  catalyst  vehicles
(which have oxygen  sensors).   The  degree  of emission increase
varied considerably from  vehicle  to  vehicle,  however.   For
example,   the CO emissions  of  the  five   vehicles  after  10
tankfuls  of   leaded  gasoline  were  approximately  300%,  240%,
60%,  10% and 290%  greater  than  the  baseline  levels.   Data
from   the  tests   with   the   catalyst  removed   also  show
considerable  variation  in emission  levels,  particularly  for
CO.   The  vehicles  with  closed-loop,  three-way  catalysts,
though,   all  emitted  relatively  low  CO  levels  with  the
catalyst  removed.   This  indicates  the  generally  good  CO
control associated with closed-loop sytems.

Figure 1  graphically shows  the HC,  CO and  NOx  emissions  at
each  stage  for   each  vehicle,  along with  graphs  showing  the
conversion loss  at each  test  stage.    The  percent conversion
loss was  determined by  dividing the change  in  emissions from
baseline  by  the  difference  between   the  baseline  emission
level  and  the level with the  catalyst  removed.   HC emissions
increased fairly steadily for  all  five  vehicles,  although not
to  the same  degree.  CO emissions increased  for  only  four  of
the five  vehicles,  and often leveled off  after  a  few tankfuls
of  leaded, rather  than  continually increasing.   NOx emissions
increased  for all  five vehicles to  varying  degrees.   The  HC
increases  are  more  dramatic   than  those   of  CO  and  NOx,
similarly to  past observances.   This is because the catalysts
generally are more  negatively  affected  by  misfueling in their
HC  conversion efficiency  than  their CO  and NOx conversion.
(Individual test scores are  shown  in the Appendix.)

It  is not possible to  predict the  emission  increases from
observing  just  the  amount  of  lead   passing  through  the
catalyst, even if the catalyst volume  and  size  of the vehicle
are considered.  For example,  the  two vehicles  which used the
most  leaded  fuel (the  Regal and Citation)  had  very different
emission  increases.   Their  catalyst  and   emission  control
designs  are  similar, yet the  Regal's   HC  emissions increased
much  more than   the  Citation's.   It  may be  possible,  though,
that  a  formula  could  be  devised which   would  predict  the
effects  if  it   included  other  factors  such  as  engine-out
emissions,   air   injection,   type  of  fuel  system,   fuel
consumption, vehicle weight, etc.

Figures   2-3  show   bar   charts  of  the   average  misfueling
emission  levels  as  a percent of  baseline  levels.   Figure 2  is
based  on  all five vehicles  for  HC and  CO, and just  the four

-------
three-way  catalyst  vehicles   for  NOx.   Average  HC  and  CO
emissions  increase most  substantially  for  about  the  first
four tanks  of  leaded and then  increase more slowly;  this is
only a generalization, however.  Average  HC emissions are 4.4
times  the  baseline  levels  after  10  tanks  of  leaded  gas,
average  CO  emissions are  2.g  times  the  baseline  levels  and
average NOx emissions are 1.9  times  the baseline levels.   The
baseline  amount  of  emission  control  (conversion  efficiency)
is  82%  for  HC (550-100/550)  and  after 10  tankfuls  of leaded
it  is  20%;  the  conversion   efficiency  for  CO  is  80%  at
baseline  and  44% after  10 tankfuls  of leaded;  for NOx  it is
76%  at  baseline  and  54%  after 10  tankfuls of  leaded.   This
represents  a loss  in conversion efficiency  due  to  10 tankfuls
of  leaded of  76%  for HC  (82-20/82) ,  45%  for CO and 29% for
NOx.

In  Figure  3  emission levels  are  shown  for  just  the  three
3-way catalyst  vehicles with  feedback control.   The changes
are  similar to  those  in  Figure  2,  although  the  percentage
increases over baseline  levels are  slightly  greater  after 10
tanks of  leaded.   This may be  due  to the effect of leaded gas
on  the  oxygen sensors,  which  causes  some loss of  feedback
control.  It is  apparent, though, that the  main effect was on
catalyst  poisoning,  not  oxygen sensor  poisoning,  since  the
emission  levels  returned  to  near   baseline  levels  when  new
catalysts  were   installed.  With  the  new  oxygen  sensors, HC
and  CO  decreased  further  on  all  three  vehicles,  but  NOx
increased  on  two  of  the  vehicles.   This  indicates  that the
poisoned   oxygen  sensors  were  sending   incorrect  signals
indicating  a  greater (richer)  fuel-air ratio  was  needed when
it  really was  not.  This  occurrence  is logical,  because  as  a
sensor  is  poisoned  it  would   be  expected  that  its voltage
output would  become  less  as it  loses  its  ability  to measure
oxygen in the exhaust gas, and a  lower voltage signal is  read
by  the  computer  as  meaning the  fuel-air  ratio needs  to be
richer.

Figure  4  shows   the average   emission  levels  of   the   four
three-way  catalyst vehicles  from this program at  a  few  test
conditions, and  compares  them  to  the  average  levels of  nine
early  model  year  three-way  catalyst  vehicles  which  were
misfueled  in  two  test  programs  in  1979  and 1980. (1,  2)   As
can  be  seen in  Figure  4, emission  levels due  to misfueling
are  similar for  the  two  groups.   There  are  several problems
in  making  a  direct  comparison  with  these  two   programs,
however,  such that  we  can  only  say  that  misfueling had   a
similar  effect on  the  two groups.   The  earlier test programs
used fuel with a higher average lead content than  the present
one;  six of the nine vehicles used  fuel  with 2.5  grams of
lead  per gallon and the  other  three used  fuels  with  lead
averaging about  1.0  grams per  gallon.   Knowing  this,  it would
be  expected that  the vehicles  in  the  earlier  programs would

-------
                              10

have higher average emissions after a  similar  number  of tanks
of  leaded  gas  than  in  the present  program.   Other  factors
lead to lower emissions, though.  Most  of  the  vehicles tested
in  the  earlier  program  began  their  test  programs at  lower
mileage  than  the  vehicles  in  this program and  six  of  the
vehicles had  new catalysts  installed  at  (or  just prior  to)
the beginning of the misfueling  test program,  whereas  in this
program  the  original  catalysts  were  used.    These  latter
differences  are  probably   the   cause  of  the  usually  lower
baseline and no-catalyst emissions of  the  earlier  models seen
in Figure 4, but complicate the misfueling comparisons.

A  simpler  comparison  is  shown  in  Figure  5,  which  presents
just the  results from one of the  early model year  programs
(1)  with  the   four   three-way   catalyst   vehicles  in  this
program.   Both  the   three-way   catalyst   vehicles  and  the
oxidation catalyst vehicles  from that  early  program (all were
1979 MYR)  are  shown.   This single  earlier  program  can  be
compared  more  directly  to  the   present  one  (as   opposed  to
combining  both  earlier  programs),  because  this   one  program
used gasoline having  a nearly identical average  lead  content
as  the  present  one,  and  the original  catalysts.   The  average
emissions  of  the  early  three-way  catalyst vehicles  showed
similar trends  with  misfueling   to the  current  vehicles.   The
HC  and  CO  emissions  of  the   oxidation  catalyst  vehicles
increased  with  misfueling  more  than  either of the three-way
groups  on  an  absolute basis, but not  on  a  percentage basis.
The fact  that  the percentage  increases were greater  for  the
three-way  groups  is  because  their baseline  emissions  were
much  lower,  such   that  even   smaller   absolute  increases
affected  the   percentage   increases   more  greatly.    It  is
interesting to  note  that  the average  emissions  of  the  1979
MYR three-ways  with  the catalyst removed  were  lower  for  HC
and CO, but  higher  for NOx.    Because  the earlier  vehicles
generally   were   first    generation    designs,    definitive
conclusions cannot be made about  these differences, however.

Another concern with misfueling  is whether  it  affects  cold or
warm operation  to different  degrees.   The  FTP  is  divided into
three segments  of  driving  and one of these  is driving from a
"cold"  condition  (the  vehicle not having been  operated for at
least  12  hours) .    The  emissions  from  each  of  the  three
segments  is  collected  into  separate  "bags"  and  analyzed
separately.   Figures  6-8  show  the  effects  on  the  three
segments   (bags)  of  the  FTP   from  10  tankfuls  of  leaded
gasoline, for each pollutant.   Two  graphs are shown  for  each
pollutant  on  each page.    The  top graph shows  the percentage
increase in emissions  for  the total FTP and  also  each segment
(bag)  of  it.   The bottom  graph   shows  the  contribution which
each bag  of  the FTP  contributes to  the  total.   Noticeable
trends  occur  for both HC  and CO.  Bag 1  emissions  increase

-------
                             11

the least amount,  and bag 2 the  most.   Also, whereas  before
misfueling  bag  1  contributed  the  most  to  the  FTP,   after
misfueling  bag 2  does.   The  larger  increase seen  in  bag  2
emissions is  logical,  because  normally  the  catalyst is  only
operating effectively part  of  the time in bag  1 (due  to  the
cold  initial  condition)  whereas  in bag  2  it  is  normally
operating  all  of  the  time.    Therefore,   a   reduction   in
catalyst  effectiveness  would  be  a  greater  detriment  to  bag
2.  The bag  3  driving  cycle  is the same as bag  1  except  that
the vehicle  is started warm.   As  can  be  seen, bag  3  emissions
also  increase  more than  bag 1, but  not  as greatly  as  bag 2.
The bag  3 percentage contribution  to the FTP remains  nearly
the same.  The different driving  cycles in bags  2  and 3 are a
possible  cause for  the  difference  in  percentage  increases.
Bag 3  (and  bag 1) has a  higher  average speed and  less stops
per mile  than bag  2.   Apparently,  the  decrease in catalyst
effectiveness  from   misfueling   varies   with   the  driving
condition.

Concerning I/M short tests,  most  of  the  vehicles continued to
have  relatively low short test emissions  with misfueling,  low
enough  to  pass  most  state  I/M  standards.   This  is  not
surprising,  because  I/M  tests  are  designed to  catch  only
those  vehicles  which are   emitting  at  very  high  emission
levels,  generally higher than produced by  these well tuned
vehicles  even  after  misfueling.    Also,  the  I/M tests  do  not
check  vehicles under conditions  which  require  much catalyst
activity.   Short  test results are  shown  in  the Appendix  for
the individual vehicles along  with  the FTP  results.   Three of
the five  vehicles passed all  the  short  tests after  1C tanks
of  leaded gas, using 207(b)  cutpoints.   However,  two  of  the
five  passed all   the  short   tests  with  the catalyst removed.
After  10  tankfuls  of leaded, only  one  vehicle  (the  Regal)
would have  failed  the simple Idle  Test  using  207(b)  cutpoints
of  220 ppm  HC  and 1.2%  CO;   the same  vehicle  was the only one
to  fail  the 207(b)  cutpoints  for  the  Loaded Two-mode test;
the Reliant  was   the  only  vehicle  to fail the  cutpoints  for
the Two-Speed  Idle test; and no vehicles  failed  the  Idle Test
cutpoints after an engine preconditioning of 2500 rpm.

Vehicles  were  also tested for  lead deposits at the tailpipe
using Plumbtesmo  lead  sensitive  paper.   Table 5 presents  the
results.  After  two  tanks  of leaded fuel,   only  two  of  the
vehicles  showed   a positive lead  reading at   the  tailpipe.
After four  tanks  of  leaded  fuel,  four of  the vehicles  showed
a positive  reading and  after eight tanks all of the vehicles
showed a positive reading.

-------
                             12
Conclusions
All  catalyst  equipped vehicles  experience greatly  increased
emission  levels  when  run  on  leaded  gasoline.   Three-way
catalyst vehicles  experience  similar  increases  in  HC and  CO
emissions as  do older oxidation  catalyst equipped  vehicles,
plus they have increased  NOx emissions.

For  the five  vehicles  in  this  study,  emission levels  were
found to steadily  increase with misfueling such  that  after  10
tankfuls  of  leaded  gasoline,  HC  emissions  were  over  four
times  the  baseline   levels  and  CO  emissions  nearly  three
times.   For  the four vehicles  with three-way catalysts,  NOx
emissions were nearly double the baseline levels.

Most  catalyst  deactivation  occurs  within four  tankfuls  of
leaded  gasoline.   HC and  CO  emissions  continue to  increase
with further  misfueling,  but not  to the same degree.   After
10  tankfuls  of leaded gasoline  catalysts are not  completely
deactivated,  but   only about  one-fourth  of  the original  HC
control,  and  one-half of  the  original  CO   control  remains;
nearly three-fourths of the original NOx control  remains.
                           Table 3

                Average  FTP  Emission  Levels  of
                 the Five Kisfueled Vehicles
       (Only the Four 3-Way catalyst vehicles for NOx)
                                 Emissions in grams per mile
Test
Stage

No catalyst
Baseline
After 2 tanks leaded
After 4 tanks leaded
After 6 tanks leaded
After 8 tanks leaded
After 10 tanks leaded
New catalyst
 HC

1.92
0.35
0.86
 ,20
 .22
 ,38
 .55
1
1
1,
1
0.29
           CO
25.6
 5.1
 9.5
11.7
10.5
12.0
14.3
 3.9
 NO_X

2.87
0.70
0.74
1,
1
1.
1
07
26
32
32
                    0.30

-------
                             13

                           Table 4
               Average FTP Emission Levels of
    the Three 3-Way Catalyst Vehicles with Oxygen Sensors
                                   Emissions in grams per mile

                                   HC        CO        NOx
No Catalyst                        1.99      11.0      3.33
Baseline                           0.30      2.30      0.73
After 2 tanks leaded               0.80      7.01      0.75
After 4 tanks leaded               1.10      6.47      1.19
After 6 tanks leaded               1.25      6.29      1.44
After 8 tanks leaded               1.37      5.74      1.48
After 10 tanks leaded              1.54      7.19      1.49
New Catalyst                       0.33      3.10      0.26
New Catalyst and New Oxygen Sensor 0.20      1.46      0.36
                           Table 5
                   Plumbtesmo Test Results
                (x = positive lead detection)
Test        Regal     Lynx      Reliant    Rabbit    Citation

Baseline      -         -          -          -         -
2 Tanks       -         -          -          x         x
4 Tanks       x         -          x          x         x
6 Tanks       x         -          x          x         -
8 Tanks       x         x          x          x         x
10 Tanks      x         x          x          x         x
Note:    Some readings which  showed positive lead prior  to 8
         tanks of leaded fuel were marginally detectable.

-------
 3.0
 2.5
u
X
 1.0
 O.S
          HC EMISSIONS FOR THE S VEHICLES
 0.0
     DO CUT    I TANKS   * TANKS  10 TANKS   NCM

          6H3CI.N   » TANKS   C TANKS   NCM CAT

               MISFUELINS CONDITION
     14

 Figure  1




—  RESRL


•>««  LTNX


—  RELIANT


	* RABBIT


—••  CITATION
                                                                                       MC CONVERSION L033
                 100


                  90


               r> 80
               •n
               a
               -< 70

               x

               2 60
               m

               £ so
               z

               5 140


               2 so
                                                                        to
                      BflSELN        V TANKS        » TRNXS

                             2  TANKS        ( TANKS       10 TANKS

                                MISFUEUNG CONDITION
                                                                                        CO CONVERSION LOSS
          CO EMISSIONS  FOft THE  S  VEHICLES
   60

   ss

   so

   us
  VI

  5»o


  H:s

  £30

  oZS
  u
   20

  CIS

   to

    S
RECAL


LTNX


RELIANT


RABBIT


CITATION
      NO CAT   2 TAHKJ   f TAJIK!   10  TANK]   NCM 02

          IP9CLN    ' TANK1   I TANKS   NCH CRT

                MISFUELINC  CONDITION
          NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE S VEHICLES
                                                       RECAL


                                                       LTNX


                                                       RELIANT


                                                       RABBIT


                                                       CITATION
                       100


                        90


                        80
                      n
                      n

                      o 70


                      S 60


                      S so
                      w

                      x MO
                      a
                      u


                      S 3°

                      S 20
                      E
                      I" . »
                      4. 10


                         0


                       -10
     NO CAT   2 TANKS   f TANKS   10 TANKS   NCH 02

          IASILN   « TANKS  I TANKS  KEN CAT

                H.1SFUELIN6 CONDITION
                  100



                   90


                   80
                M
                m

                o  70



                |  60


                1  SO
                w


                I-
                U


                X  "

                S  20
                c
                I"  < A
                a.  10


                    0


                  -10
                       BASELN         « TANKS        a TANKS

                             2 TANKS        f  TANKS        10  TANKS

                                 MISFUELINC CONDITION



                                  NOX CONVERSION  LOSS
                       BASELN         U  TRNKS        t TANKS

                             2 TANKS        S TANKS        10 TANKS

                                 NI3FUELIN6  CONDITION

-------
        HC  EMISSIONS flS PERCENT  OF BflSELINE
                  ron ALL me YDIJCLCJ
550
«500
*
o

k«H ^ ^
HU n n
w
u3SO
X
uJSOO
n
gZSO
o200
o
5100
a.
50
0
550

















HU2
39U

312 350






100
n
aie







^~^






























f

































82

                                                                          15
                                                                     Figure  2
      NO CJIT     t TMRf     8 T»HR»    10
            ftfitC       % TBKKJ     I IIUIKV
                 KJ3FUELIHO COMOITION
                                           MCI CHI
 600

 550
«SOO


I'50
ttOO
o200

£150

5100
CL
   50
        CO EMISSIOHS AS PEHCTHT  OF BflSELIHE
                  roa KLL rive YCHICLCI
       503
                                       281
                       230
                                 230
                 188
            100
                            208
                                             78
                                            n
      «0 CUT     8 TIUX*     «  1(WR>    VO IMXt
            MtC       1 TBKKJ     • TdKlU     MCI CAT
                KISFUELINO COMOITIOH
        NOX EHISSIOHS RS PERCENT  OF  BASELINE
              roa TKC roun 3-war CAT YCHICLU
  600

  5SO
"500
o
n
cHOO
w
£350

JJ300
n
£250

&200
o
£100
o.
  SO
       U10
                       153
                            180
                                  189  189
            100   108
                 D
      «o car      2  TANKS    e TRNU
            MIC      % TIWM     •
                                     to
                                           SCI CflT

-------
        MC  EMISSIONS HS PCBCEMT  or Ba
            rOft 1HC T»«E »-«T r«!JB«CK YtMCLCt
 700
Ssoo
=300


k.
O

.-200

tti
u


£100
683


•
•
•

S13
t
u 1 1


100
n
•Bl



387











157














I 10
Hn
      HO C»Y    i TUNUI    9 TftMKt    19 IRIiTli    HE*

           MIC     I TBIKS   ( TANK!    MCI CUT

                 NISFUEHHQ CONOITIOH
                                                                           16

                                                                       Figure  3
         CO EHIS5IOMS SS  PERCEHT OF BRSELINE
           ron THC THnet J-IRT FCCOMCX TCHUUCS
 700
x
o
 rSOO
      •tl78
o

-200

w
u
                305
 100
n
                     211  273
                                   313
                                        135
                                             93
      10 Cll    t  TRMK9   t TRMK3    10 T8MK3    IM 01
           SDK     i mid    a rm»    xea CAT
                 NI3FUELIHO COHOITIOH
        MOX EMISSIONS  flS  PERCENT OF BBSELINS
           roa me Tn«e J-K«T rsiawcx
 700
Ssoo
 300
      1156
                     189
                         !97  303  201
                                        -B
                                             19
                                       riD
     MIT CAT    ? IHXNS    «  IHHUJ    it 1SXO    xCX

-------
                                                                    17
                                                                Figure  4
             Comparison of Current  3-Way Catalyst Vehicles
                        With Two Earlier Programs
                                HC
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
•M.S
z
° 1 S


"1.1
X
"1.2
= 1.0
to. 8
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.0










0 27
1
1








D. 86
S

X>N
v X


1.
1.62











79




















J.37










3.91
^
\\
\\
XX

2.




1 .31







OH











                                                      BASELINE

                                                      1-2 TRNKS LEADED

                                                       6 TANKS LEHOED*

                                                      NO .CATALYST
                   1977-79 HTR (N-91    1981-82 NTR (N-H)
 28
 21
z
o
                   CO
               21.3
            11.0
         9. 1
      3.1
         x^H
                          9.6
                            10.5
 3.2


 2.8


 2.1
= 2.0
x
Si.2


^0.8


 0.1


 0.0
                   NOX
                                                        2. SI
                                                     1.35
                                              o.su°4£

                                                                        2.87
                                                                     1.25
0.70°:
     1977-79 NTH (H-31    1981-82 NTR  (N-«H
                                              1977-79 HTR (N-91    1981-82 HTR (N-1)
Data for the  1981-82  MYR cars were taken  after 6 tanks of leaded fuel.
For the 1977-79 MYR cars, the tests were  not conducted at specific
tanks of leaded fuel,  but averaged 6 tankfuls.

-------
                                                                       18
                                                                   Figure  5
              Comparison  of Current 3-Way Catalyst Vehicles
               With 3-Ways and Oxidation Catalyst  Vehicles
                           From One  Earlier Program
                                        HC
 3.2

 2.«


s2*'
o
32.°
n
Hi..
                     0.0
                        9.7

\
                                    0.2
                                            I.
                                                0.3
             BASELiMC

             1-2 7BXH3 LtdOtO

             8 TANKS LEAOEO

         IZ] NO CA7ALT3T
                        •79 OX JO (41   '78 3HAT (31  *»l-2 3HAT I
                    CO
                    NOX
 28
 211
220
£16
             / ^y

                     ^

            a.

 3.8


 3.2


 2.8
n

°2.«
n
«r*
^2.0
yj

X1.S
o
z
 1.2
*.

^0.8


 0.1


 0.0
                          S
                                                               e

                                                                           l.St

                                                                                       t.i7
                                                                               0.7«


    •79 0X10 1H)   '79 3MRT (3)  '81-2 SMflT (U)
     '79 OXJO (U)  '79 SMflT (3) >81-2 SHflT (H)

-------
          FTP  HC Bag  Emissions  (N=5!
               FTP HC BRG INCREflSES
            OUC TO 10 TSNUU OF HISFUELINC
 700
Z600
  . .


S300
 200
  100
         345
                                       357
      TOTflL FTP   BflG 1      BAG 2      BflG  3
                                                         19

                                                     Figure 6
         HC  -  BflG  CONTRIBUTIONS TO TOTflL FTP
   60
   SO
  z30
  a
  u
   10
              25
          BflC 1
                       3t
BflG 2
                                    22
                                     BflG  3
                                               CI3  BEFORE MISFUEUNG
                                                   RFTER  10 TflNKS LEftOEb

-------
          FTP CO Bag  Emissions  (N=5)
                                                         20
                                                     Figure  7
 700
 = 600
£500
 :i|00
 •300
 '200
 :ioo
               FTP CO BflG INCBEflSES

           DUE TO 10 TflHWTULS OF HISFUEUNG
                             H35
                    77
                                       21U
      TOTflL FTP   BflC 1
    BflG
BflG  3
   60
   50
  z
  o
  £20
   10
         CO  -  BflG  CONTfllBUTIONS TO TOTBL FTP
              37
          BflG t
                           142
                       22
BflG 2
                                     BflG 3
                           BEFORE  MISFUEL1NG




                       IZJ flFTEB  10  TflNKS  LEflOEO

-------
                                                           21

                                                        Figure  8
FTP  NOx Bag  Emissions  (4  3-Way Catalyst Vehicles)
     700
    ZSOO

    _i
    u
    en
    5500
                  FTP NOX BAG INCREASES
               DUE TO 10 TflNKFULS OF HI3FUEUNG
                          t
    S3 00
    c
    u
     "200
      100
             89
          TOTAL FTP    BBC  1
                                127
                                          106
     BAG  2      BAG 3
            NOX -  BRC  CONTRIBUTIONS TO TOTflL  FTP
       60
       SO
       30
      u
      c
       10
              39
                  31
              BRC 1
                              37
31
 BAG 2
                                       30
                                           32
BflG 3
                           BEFORE  MISFUELING




                       IZ3 AFTER  10 TNKS LEADED

-------
                             22

                          References


1.   "A Study  of  the  Effects  of  Fuel  Switching on  Catalyst
    Equipped Vehicles",  Final Report  on  Tasks  #4  and  #7  to
    EPA     Contract     #68-03-2693,     Automotive     Testing
    Laboratories, Inc., August 1980.

2.   "Catalyst   Poisoning   and   Catalyst   Recovery  Due   to
    LMisf ueling",  Final Report  on  Tasks  #2   and   #3  to  EPA
    Contract  #68-03-2783,  California  Air  Resources  Board,
    October 1979.

3.   "Casual  Misfueling of  Catalyst  Equipped  Vehicles",  EPA
    Report No.  EPA-AA-TAEB-80-1,  by James Long, October 1979.

4.   "Improved  Pelleted  Catalyst  Substrates  for  Automotive
    Emissions  Control,"   SAE  Paper  800084,  Adomaitis,  Smith
    and Achey,  February 1980.

5.   Motor Vehicle  Tampering  Survey  -  1982,  EPA-330/1-83-001,
    National Enforcement Investigations Center, April 1983.

6.   "Motor  Gasolines,  Winter  .1981-82,"   DOE/BETC/PPS-82/3,
    U.S.  Department of Energy, July 1982.

-------
                             23
                                      APPENDIX
                               Test Vehicle Information
                                        Vehicle
Item
Manufacturer
Make
Model
Model Year
Eng. Displacement  (CID)
Fuel System
No. of Cylinders
Transmission Type
Catayst Type

Supplementary Air
V.I.N.

Engine Family

Test Inertia Weight
Test tip
Initial Odometer
Tire Size
EPA Fuel Economy
  City
  Highway
(3-1
Buick
Regal
1981
231
Car b (2V)
6
Auto  (Lockup)
CL-Loop
3-Way
Pump
1G4AJ47A6BG1-
18373
14E2TM

3750
11.2
25,902
P195/75R14

21
30
Ford
Mercury
Lynx
1981
98
Carb(2V)
4
Auto
Open-Loop
3-Way
Pump
1MEBP6527-
BW606833
1.6AP

2625
6.5
24,850
P165/80R13

26
36
Chrysler
Plymouth
Reliant
1981
156
Car b (2V)
4
Auto
Oxidation

Pulse
1P313K46D5-
BF129193
BCR2.6V2BJ2

2750
7.5
42,620
P175/80R13

23
31
Volkswagen
VW
Rabbit
1981
105
Port F.I.
4
4-speed
CL-Loop
3-Way
None
1VWBB0179-
BV010897
BVW1.7V6-
FF537F
2375
7.7
21,657
155SR13

28
42
GM
Chevrolet
Citation
1982
151
TBI
4
Auto  (Lockup)
CL-Loop
3-Way
None
1GIAX68R3C-
6106894
C2G25V5 -
TPG5
3000
7.3
16,934
P185/80R13

25
40

-------
FTP Data
    Four-Modo Idle Test

  1st I
-------