EPA-460/3-74-027
 JULY 1972
             STATUS OF  INDUSTRY
             PROGRESS  TOWARDS
     ACHIEVEMENT OF THE 1975
FEDERAL EMISSION STANDARDS
     FOR LIGHT-DUTY  VEHICLES
       U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
          Office of Air and Waste Management
       Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
          Emission Control Technology Division
             Ann Arbor, Michigan  48105

-------
                                        EPA-460/3-74-027
STATUS  OF INDUSTRY  PROGRESS


      TOWARDS  ACHIEVEMENT


       OF THE  1975 FEDERAL


        EMISSION STANDARDS


     FOR  LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES


                      by

          W. U. Roessler, T. lura, and J. Meltzer

                Aerospace Corporation
                El Segundo, California


                Contract No. 68-01-0417


           EPA Project Officer: F. Peter Hutchins


                   Prepared for

        U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
            Office of Air and Waste Management
         Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
           Emission Control Technology Division
              Ann Arbor, Michigan  48105

                    July 1972

-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees. current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplies permit -  from the
Air Pollution  Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or. for a fee,
from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia  22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Aerospace Corporation, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-01-0417. The
contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from Aerospace
Corporation.   The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are
those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection
Agency.  Mention of company or product names is not to be considered
as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
                  Publication No. EPA-460/3-74-027.
                                ii

-------
                               FOREWORD
This report, prepared by The Aerospace Corporation for the Environmental
Protection Agency, Division of Emission Control Technology,  presents a
compilation and assessment of all available information pertaining to the
technological progress  made by the automotive industry toward meeting the
1975 Federal emission  standards for light-duty vehicles.

The status of the technology reported here is that existing at the time of the
EPA Suspension Request Hearings held in Washington,  D. C. , between April
10 - 28,  1972.  Important findings and conclusions  are  presented in the
Highlights and Executive Summary sections of the report.  Material  related
to candidate  1975 emission control systems is given in  Section 2. An assess-
ment of emission control techniques and system components (engine  modifi-
cations,  EGR,  oxidation catalysts, thermal reactors, and secondary air
supply) is presented in  Sections 3 through 7. Engineering emission goals
and emission control system deterioration characteristics with mileage
accumulation are discussed in Section  8.  The interim  standards proposed
by the  automobile manufacturers  are summarized in  Section 9 and mainte-
nance, cost, safety and production lead time aspects  are briefly discussed
in Sections 10 and 11.  Section  12 presents a brief  status  report of uncon-
ventional automotive  engines, including the rotary  (Wankel), diesel,  gas
turbine,  stratified charge,  Rankine cycle,  and  Stirling  cycle.  Finally,  the
highlights of the_ statements made at the EPA Suspension Request Hearings
of April  10 - 28, 1972 by witnesses who are not a part of the  automotive
industry are presented  in Appendix A.

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Appreciation is acknowledged for the guidance and continued assistance
provided by Mr. F. P. Hutchins of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Division of Emission Control Technology, who served as EPA Project Officer
for this study.

The following technical personnel of The Aerospace Corporation made
valuable contributions to the assessment performed under this contract.
               J. A. Drake
               L. Forrest
               M.  G. Hinton
               D. E. Lapedes
P. P.  Leo
W. M. Smalley
C. Speisman
K. B.  Swan
                                      U,  U,
                                      W. U. Roessler,  Manager
                                      Technology Assessment Study
Approved by:
Toru lura, Director
Pollution and Resources Programs
s'eph Meltzer, Gr
vironmental Pr
  Director
ams Directorate
                                   IV

-------
                               CONTENTS


FOREWORD	       iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT	       iv
HIGHLIGHTS  	       xv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	        1
      1.     Introduction	        1
      2.     Candidate 1975 Emission Control Systems	        1
      3.     Unconventional Automotive Engines	        8
      4.     Engine Modifications	        9
      5.     Exhaust Gas Recirculation 	       10
      6.     Oxidation Catalysts	       10
      7.     Thermal Reactors	       22
      8.     Secondary Air Supply	       23
      9.     Emission Goals	       23
     10.     Interim Standards	       29
     11.     Production  Lead Time		       34
     12.     Maintenance, Safety,  and Cost	       36
     13.     Regulatory Problem Areas	       37
1.    INTRODUCTION	.*	     1-1
2.    CANDIDATE 1975 EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS  	     2-1
      2. 1   Summary Discussion	     2-1
      2.2   Selected Systems--By Manufacturer	:	     2-8
            2. 2. 1    American Motors  	     2-8
            2.2.2    Chrysler	     2-18
            2. 2.3    Ford	     2-31
            2.2.4    General Motors	     2-51
            2.2.5    International  Harvester  	     2-67
            2. 2. 6    Alfa Romeo   	     2-75

-------
                         CONTENTS (Continued)


           2.2.7   BMW	    2-75
           2.2.8   British Leyland Motor Corporation	    2-75
           2.2.9   Citroen	    2-81
           2.2. 10  Daimler-Benz AG (Mercedes-Benz)	    2-81
           2.2. 11  Honda Motor Company	    2-91
           2.2. 12  Mitsubishi Motors Corporation  	    .2-93
           2.2. 13  Nissan (Datsun)	    2-95
           2.2. 14  Renault	    2-102
           2.2. 15  Rolls-Royce Motors Limited	    2-104
           2.2. 16  Saab  .	    2-107
           2.2. 17  Toyo Kogyo	2-115
           2. 2. 18  Toyota . .	    2-120
           2.2.19  Volkswagen  	    2-125
           2.2.20  Volvo	    2-130
REFERENCES	    2-141
3.     ENGINE MODIFICATIONS	    3-1
      3. 1   Background  	    3-1
      3.2   Modification Requirements for  1975	    3-2
      3.3   Carburetion System Modifications  	    3-4
           3.3.1   General	    3-4
           3.3.2   Industry Status	    3-5
      3.4   Ignition System Modifications   	    3-8
           3.4.1   General	 .  ..    3-8
           3.4.2   Industry Status	    3-9
REFERENCES	    3-13
                                  VI

-------
              CONTENTS (Continued)
4. EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION 	
4. 1 Background 	 	
4. 2 Requirements for 1975 	
4. 3 Industry Status 	
REFERENCES 	
5. OXIDATION CATALYSTS 	 	
5. 1 Summary Discussion 	
5. 2 Catalyst Types 	
5.2. 1 Typical Catalysts 	
5.2.2 Automotive Catalyst/Substrate
Combinations 	
5. 3 Specific Catalyst Features (By Company) 	
5. 3. 1 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. -
(Houdry Division) 	
5. 3. 2 American Cyanamid 	 	
5. 3. 3 Chemico 	
5. 3.4 Engelhard Industries 	
5. 3. 5 W. R. Grace and Co 	
5. 3. 6 Matthey Bishop, Inc 	
5. 3. 7 Monsanto 	
5.3.8 Oxy-Catalyst, Inc 	
5.3.9 Union Carbide Corporation 	 •. .
5.3. 10 Universal Oil Products Company 	
5. 3. 11 Miscellaneous 	
5.4 Substrate and Converter Design Features 	
5.4. 1 Substrate Features (By Company) 	
4-1
... 4-1
, . . . 4-2
4-3
4-5
5-1
... 5-1
5-10
5-11

5-12
5-13

5-13
5-15
5-15
5-15
5-16
5-16
5-17
5-17
5-17
5-18
5-18
5-18
5-18
5.4.2   Converter Design Features (By Company) .  . .    5-28
                        Vll

-------
                         CONTENTS (Continued)
      5.5  Contamination and Deterioration Effects	    5-36
           5. 5. 1    Contamination Effects   . . .	    5-36
           5.5.2    Deterioration Effects	    5-45
      5.6  Principal Problem Areas and Plans for Resolution  . . .    5-49
           5. 6. 1    Contamination Control	    5-50
           5. 6.2    Increased Catalyst Activity	    5-50
           5. 6. 3    Thermal Control	    5-56
           5. 6.4    Attrition Control	    5-56
      5.7  Emissions	    5-59
           5.7. 1    Air Products and Chemicals (Houdry)
                    Division)	    5-60
           5.7.2    American Cyanamid	    5-67
           5.7.3    Chemico 	    5-67
           5.7.4    Engelhard	    5-70
           5.7.5    W.R.  Grace	    5-82
           5.7. 6    Johnson-Matthey	•.	    5-97
           5.7.7    Monsanto	    5-104
           5.7.8    Oxy-Catalyst  	    5-104
           5.7.9    Union Carbide	    5-108
           5.7. 10  Universal Oil Products	    5-108
           5.7. 11  Kali-Chemie	    5-115
           5.7. 12  Degussa . . .	    5-115
      5.8  Overtemperature Protection Systems	    5-120
      5.9  Projected Maintenance and Replacement
           Procedures  	    5-126
REFERENCES   	    5-129
6.    THERMAL REACTORS	    6-1
      6. 1*  Summary Discussion	    6-1
      6.2  Special Design Features	    6-3
                                    vm

-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
6.2. 1 American Motors 	
6. 2. 2 Chrysler 	
6.2.3 Ford 	
6.2.4 General Motors 	
6.2. 5 International Harvester 	
6. 2. 6 British Leyland 	
6.2.7 Daimler-Benz 	
6. 2. 8 Nissan 	
6. 2. 9 Saab 	
6. 2. 10 Toyo Kogyo 	
6. 2. 11 Toyota 	
6.2. 12 Volkswagen 	
6. 2. 13 Volvo 	
6. 2. 14 DuPont 	
6.2. 15 Esso 	 	
6. 2. 1 6 Ethyl 	
REFERENCES 	 	 	
7. SECONDARY AIR SUPPLY 	
7. 1 Summary Discussion 	
7.2 Selected Systems (By Manufacturer) 	
REFERENCES 	 	
8. EMISSION GOALS 	
8. 1 General 	
8.2 Deterioration Factor 	
8. 3 Prototype -to-P reduction Slippage Factor 	 	
8.4 Production Quality Control Factor 	
8. 5 Selected Prototype Emission Goals 	
.... 6-3
.... 6-4
.... 6-4
.... 6-5
.... 6-6
.... 6-7
.... 6-7
.... 6-7
.... 6-8
.... 6-10
.... 6- 11
.... 6-11
.... 6-12
.... 6-12
.... 6-14
.... 6-15
.... 6-18
.... 7-1
.... 7-1
.... 7-2
.... 7-4
.... 8-1
. . . . 8-1
.... 8-4
.... 8-5
. . . . 8-5
. . . . 8-8
           IX

-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
8. 5. 1 American Motors 	 -.-.-. 	
8. 5. 2 Chrysler 	
8. 5. 3 Ford Motor Company 	
8. 5.4 General Motors 	
8. 5. 5 International Harvester 	
8. 5. 6 British Leyland 	
8. 5. 7 Daimler-Benz 	
8. 5. 8 Mitsubishi . . . 	
8. 5. 9 Nissan 	
8. 5. 10 Saab 	
8. 5. 11 Toyo Kogyo 	
8. 5. 12 Toyota 	
8. 5. 13 Volkswagen 	
8. 5. 14 Volvo 	
8. 5. 15 Catalyst Manufacturers 	 •
REFERENCES 	
9. INTERIM STANDARDS 	
9. 1 Summary Discussions 	 	
9.2 Proposed Interim Standards 	
9.2. 1 American Motors 	
9.2.2 Chrysler 	
9.2.3 Ford Motor Company 	
9.2.4 General Motors 	
9.2.5 International Harvester 	
. 9. 2. 6 British Layland 	
9.2.7 Daimler-Benz 	
9.2.8 Mitsubishi 	
9. 2. 9 Nissan 	
	 8-8
	 8-12
	 8-13
	 8-21
	 8-26
	 8-27
	 8-29
	 8-29
	 8-30
	 8-31
	 8-33
	 8-34
	 8-34
	 8-35
	 8-36
	 8-39
	 9-1
	 9-1
	 9-4
	 9-4
	 9-8
	 9-9
	 9-12
	 9-12
	 9-13
	 9-14
	 9-14
	 9-15

-------
                         CONTENTS (Continued)
           9.2. 10  Saab-Scania	    9-15
           9.2. 11  Toyo-Kogyo	    9-16
           9.2. 12  Toyota	    9-16
           9.2. 13  Volkswagen  	    9-17
           9.2.14  Volvo  	.  ..    9-17
           9.2. 15  Chemico  	    9-17
           9.2.16  Engelhard	    9-17
           9.2. 17  W. R. Grace	    9-18
           9.2. 18  Universal Oil Products	    9-18
REFERENCES	    9-19
10.   MAINTENANCE, SAFETY,  AND COST	   10-1
      10. 1  Maintenance	   10-1
      10. 2  Safety	   10-3
           10. 2. 1  General		   10-3
           10. 2. 2  Poor Passing Performance	   10-3
           10.2.3  Fire Hazard	   10-3
           10.2.4  Catastrophic Component Failures	   10-5
      10. 3  Costs  	   10-5
           10. 3. 1  General	   10-5
           10. 3. 2  Increased Purchase Price	   10-6
           10.3.3  Maintenance  Costs	   10-7
           10.3.4  Fuel Costs	   10-8
REFERENCES	   10-9
11.   PRODUCTION LEAD  TIME	   11-1
      11.1  Introduction	   11-1
           11. 1.1  Data Source	   11-1
           11. 1.2  Terminology	   11-1
           11. 1.3  Schedule Considerations	   11-1
                                  XI

-------
                         CONTENTS (Continued)


      11.2 Pacing Items  	..,;	    11-2
           11. 2. 1   American Motors  	    11-3
           11.2.2   Chrysler	    11-3
           11. 2.3   Ford	    11-4
           11.2.4   General Motors	    11-4
      11.3 Automobile Manufacturers' Schedules for
           Catalytic Converters	    11-4
      11.4 Catalyst Suppliers' Schedules		    11-5
      11.5 Contractual Commitments  with Suppliers	    11-8
      11.6 Schedule Integration	    11-8
      11.7 Schedule Compression and Cost Interactions  	    11-10
REFERENCES	    11-13
12.   UNCONVENTIONAL AUTOMOTIVE ENGINES	    12-1
      12. 1 Wankel (Rotary) Engine  ....'.	    12-1
           12. 1. 1   Ford	    12-1
           12. 1. 2   General Motors	    12-2
           12. 1.3   Daimler-Benz	    12-3
           12. 1.4   Toyo Kogyo .	    12-3
      12. 2 Diesel Engine	    12-4
      12. 3 Gas  Turbine	    12-5
           12. 3. 1   General	    12-5
      12.4 Stratified Charge Engine	    12-6
           12.4. 1   General	 . .	    12-6
           12.4.2   Ford	    12-7
           12. 4. 3   General Motors	    12-7
           12.4.4   Chrysler	    12-8
      12. 5k Rankine Engine	    12-8
           12. 5. 1   Ford	    12-8
                                    XII

-------
                          CONTENTS (Continued)


            12. 5. 2  General Motors	    12-9
            12. 5. 3  Chrysler	    12-9
      12. 6  Stirling Engine	    12-9
            12. 6. 1  Ford	    12-9
            12. 6. 2  General Motors	    12-10
REFERENCES	    12-11
APPENDIX:    NONAUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY TESTIMONY	     A-1
                                    Xlll

-------
                              HIGHLIGHTS


A review and evaluation was made of all available information pertinent to
the technological progress of the automotive industry in meeting the 1975
Federal emission standards for light duty vehicles.   Assessment of the
status of the industry as of the time of the EPA Suspension Request Hearings
(April 10-28, 1972) resulted .in the following findings.
1.    All but a small fraction  of the 1975 model year light duty vehicle
      production will utilise spark ignition reciprocating engines.  The
      typical 1975 first-choice emission control system is based on the
      use of an oxidizing catalytic converter. Additional features of the
      system include exhaust gas recirculation, improved carburetion
      and ignition,  and devices or techniques to promote fast warmup of
      the induction system and catalytic  converter.
2.    In addition to spark ignition reciprocating engine systems, Toyo
      Kpgyo will produce rotary engine vehicles and Daimler-Benz will
      produce diesel engine vehicles for the  1975 U.S.  market.  The
      Toyo  Kogyo rotary engine emission control system consists only
      of the addition of a thermal reactor.   The Daimler-Benz diesel
      vehicle (220D) is stated  to be  capable  of meeting  1975 standards
      without aftertreatment devices.
3.    The Toyo  Kogyo rotary engine emission control system has suc-
      cessfully achieved the company's 1975 low mileage emission goals.
      Toyo  Kogyo expressed optimism that its system would be able to
      meet  the 1975 standards.  However, this type  of engine cannot be
      produced in sufficient quantities by the automotive industry to
      satisfv any significant fraction of the 1975 production requirements.
4.    Daimler-Benz believes that a vehicle with a pre-chamber diesel
      engine of the  2. 2-liter class can meet the 1975 standards without
      the use of aftertreatment devices.  It is unlikely that this type of
                                    xv

-------
      engine can meet the 1976 NO  standards.  The current low production
                                 .X
      rate of this engine cannot be increased substantially by 1975.
5.     Although the emission potentials of the stratified charge, the gas
      turbine, the Rankine,  and the Stirling "engines look promising and
      although substantial progress on them has been made in recent years,
      they are still in the development stage and a number of technical
      problem areas have yet to be resolved,  including the development of
      mass production techniques.  Therefore, mass production of these
      engines  cannot be scheduled, at this time.
6.     No manufacturer has yet demonstrated meeting the 1975 standards at
      50, 000 miles. Many automobile and catalyst manufacturers have met
      the 1975 standards at low mileage.
7.     Only a limited number of test vehicles have been driven in extended
      durability tests beyond 20, 000 miles.  Johnson-Matthey has tested
      a car equipped with a noble metal monolithic catalyst which had
      emission levels below the 1975 standards through the 24, 000-mile test
      duration to  date.  However,  lead-sterile fuel was used.  American
      Motors, Chrysler, General  Motors,  and Volvo have longer mileage
      accumulations ranging from 25, 000 to 50, 000  miles.  Although these
      tests were encouraging in that emission levels were below the stan-
      dards at discrete  mileage points, they must be viewed with caution
      since in all cases there were some factors present which preclude
      direct comparison of the emission data with the 1975 standards.
      These include high emissions at intermediate  mileage points,  non-
      standard driving cycles, obsolete test procedures, and/or use of fuel,
      with a lead  content below that anticipated for 1975.
8.     The available emission data may reflect conservative  emission levels
      becaus  , in most  cases, the vehicles tested did not  include all of the
      emission control system components or improvements projected for
      the 1975 systems.  Current  fleet tests,  which in many cases include
      prototypes of the proposed system components,  should give an
                                   xvi

-------
       indication of the degree of emission reduction attributable to these
       components.
 9.     Improved catalysts are being developed and tested by the  catalyst
       industry and have shown better emission performance and durability
       characteristics.  However, they have not yet been tested  in con-
       junction with the proposed 1975  vehicle/emission control  system
       configurations.  Only after durability testing  in 1975 prototype
       vehicles can a quantitative assessment be made of the emission con-
       trol potential of these improved catalysts.
10.     The manufacturers' low mileage emission goals for  1975  prototype
       emission control systems are substantially lower than the 1975 stan-
       dards to allow for prototype-to-production design and performance
       variations and to allow for anticipated deterioration in emission
       control with mileage accumulation.  With the exception  of the Toyo
       Kogyo rotary engine these low mileage goals  have not been met.
11.     Test data from some vehicles equipped with catalytic converters
       indicate rapid emission degradation during  the low mileage (0-4, 000
       miles) period followed by either gradual or no deterioration as mileage
       is accumulated.  Other catalytic converter  vehicle tests do not show
       the initial rapid deterioration and exhibit a  gradual emission deterior-
       ation with mileage accumulation.  Therefore,  deterioration factors
       determined from one type of vehicle/emission control system are not
       necessarily  applicable to other configurations. Available emission
       data suggest that emission degradation is more severe for systems
       with initially low emissions.
12.     All manufacturers have requested adoption  of interim standards less
       stringent than  the 1975 standards.  The proposed interim  standards
       ran^••? from values equal to the 1974 standards to approximately 40
       percent of these values.  Even this 40 percent value  is still  sub-
       stantially higher than the  1975 standards.  Most automobile  manu-
       facturers have proposed interim standards  that can be met by means
                                     xvii

-------
      of engine modifications.  Only Ford and International Harvester
      selected interim standards which require the use of a catalytic
      converter.
13.    The catalytic converter is the most critical component in 1975 emis-
      sion control systems because of the 50, 000-mile durability require-
      ment.  Oxidation catalysts have  inherent performance degradation
      and physical durability problems which to date have not been com-
      pletely resolved.  Loss of catalytic activity is  caused by contamina-
      tion from fuel and oil additives,  such as lead,  phosphorous,  sulfur,
      barium, and zinc, and by loss of catalytic surface area caused by
      exposure to excessive temperature.  The physical durability prob-
      lems relate to thermal stresses, vibrational loads,  and over-
      temperature conditions which have  caused mechanical failure of the
      catalyst substrate and/or its conuuner.
14.    Although catalyst development is proceeding on both noble and base
      metal catalysts using monolithic or pellet substrates, most manu-
      facturers are concentrating their efforts on noble metal/monolithic
      catalytic converters.   To date the lowest emission data at high
      mileage were reported for a vehicle incorporating a noble metal/
      monolithic catalyst.
15.    Although quantitative relationships  between lead content and emissions
      have not yet been established it  is the opinion of some automobile and
      catalyst manufacturers that catalyst performance is strongly affected
      by the lead content in fuel, even at  lead levels  below 0. 07 gm/gal.
      If this effect is confirmed a maximum lead level should be established
      which takes into consideration both  catalyst performance as well as fuel
      refinery and handling aspects at low lead levels.
16.    With the -  cception of Toyo Kogyo, thermal reactor-only systems are
      not being considered by the automobile manufacturers as first-choice
      systems.  Although the thermal  reactor has  low emission degradation
      and is relatively insensitive to fuel contamination,  most automobile
                                     XVlll

-------
       manufacturers have reported such negative aspects as poor mechanical
       durability,  high underhood temperatures,  and low fuel economy,,   In
       addition, 1976 NO  standards cannot be met with the thermal reactor
                        3C
       alone.
17.     The catalytic converter is the pacing production development item that
       impacts on the production lead time requirement for the mass pro-
       duction of 1975 emission control systems.  Based on information from
       both the automobile manufacturers and catalyst suppliers,  the overall
       lead time for catalytic converter production ranges from 24 to 28
       months (this requires a firm commitment in mid-1972).  Some catalyst
       suppliers have estimated  that further schedule compressions can be
       made, but with corresponding increases in unit costs.   Sufficient
       information was  not available to allow a critical evaluation of schedule
       compression possibilities and effects.
18.     Several  important issues  which have a  great effect on whether the
       automobile manufacturers can meet the 1975  standards are still un-
       resolved.   These include emission averaging  for certification and
       assembly line vehicles, maximum allowable fuel contaminant levels,
       clarification of maintenance procedures for all emission control
       system components, and definition of warranty and  recall procedures.
       All these issues  must be resolved before a quantitative evaluation of
       the manufacturers' ability to comply can be made.
19.     A number of automobile manufacturers  have expressed the  opinion that
       the applicability  of the EPA certification driving cycle to vehicles
       incorporating a catalytic converter and/or thermal  reactor should be
       re-examined.  The cycle  may be too mild to adequately test the
       emission performance and safety aspects of these systems.
                                     xiv

-------
                          EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.          INTRODUCTION
This report presents a compilation and assessment of all available information
pertaining to  the  technological progress made by the automotive industry
toward meeting the 1975 Federal emission standards for light duty vehicles
(HC =  0. 41 gm/mi, CO = 3.40 gm/mi, NOX = 3. 10 gm/mi).
The status of technology reported here is that existing at the time of the EPA
Suspension Request Hearings held in the period of April 10-28,  1972.  Infor-
mation was taken from material in the manufacturers' applications for  sus-
pension of the 1975 emission standards,  testimony presented at the hearings,
and supplementary material provided by the hearing witnesses at the  request
of the  hearing panel.   To supplement this information in certain areas,  data
were used from previous responses by  industry to EPA  requests for
technology information.
Topics covered in this report include first-choice emission  control systems,
possible alternate systems,  unconventional engine designs,  and emission con-
trol system components.  Emphasis has been directed toward low and high
mileage emissions,  component and system durability characteristics (in par-
ticular,  catalytic  converters), and factors affecting emission goals and
interim standards.
This section of the report summarizes the more pertinent information from
this assessment.  Further details can be found in  the main body of the report.
2.          CANDIDATE 1975 EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
The emission control systems projected for 1975 model vehicles  are  exempli-
fied by the following package of components and engine modifications:
            Oxidizing catalytic converter
            Air injection

-------
           Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
           Carburetor modifications
           Ignition system modifications
                                                               •          t -
With the exception  of Toyo Kogyo,  which utilizes a thermal reactor on their
rotary engine,  all of the manufacturers' first-choice systems incorporate an
oxidizing catalytic  converter with air injection to promote the oxidation of
unburned hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) of the engine exhaust.
The catalytic converter type which appears most frequently among the
selected first-choice systems is the  noble metal/monolithic catalyst exempli-
fied by the Engelhard PTX design.  General Motors,  International Harvester,
and a number of other manufacturers have  selected the base metal/pelletized
type of converter as  a first-choice design.  In many cases, a firm decision
as to  catalyst type  has  not been made and several systems are being tested
 i
and evaluated concurrently.
Nearly all  of the first-choice systems employ EGR for the control of oxides
of nitrogen (NO ).  However, most British Leyland and the Toyo Kogyo and
Saab vehicles exported to the United States are reported to be capable of
meeting  the 1975 3.10 gm/mi NOX standard without EGR.
In addition to the aftertreatment systems delineated above,  a number of
manufacturers, including Chrysler,  General Motors, and Ford, utilize a
partial thermal reactor in place of the conventional exhaust manifold, pri-
marily to provide  rapid warmup of the catalytic  converter under cold start
conditions.
Carburetion system modifications that have been identified for first-choice
systems range from  complete redesigns, utilizing new concepts, to minor
improvements  to the current conventional systems.  These modifications  are
generally directed  toward improving the precision and stability of the air/fuel
ratio  and also v :lude such features  as altitude compensation,  quick release
choke devices, and induction manifold heating. All of the domestic and sev-
eral of the foreign  manufacturers propose, or have in development, electronic
(breakerless) ignition systems which are targeted for inclusion in their

-------
first-choice system.  These systems generally provide an improvement in
spark-timing precision, consistency, and reliability.
The most pervasive problem in the industry relative to 1975 emission control
systems appears to be the lack of adequate  durability in the catalytic conver-
ters currently under test.  Catalyst durability is composed of two aspects:
physical durability and emission durability.  For monolithic designs, the
physical aspect of the problem is symptomized by cracking and local melting
of the catalyst substrate, due  to vibratory loads and overtemperature.  For
pellet-type  systems, the problem is exhibited as a loss of catalyst material
caused  by brittleness of the  pellets and/or deficiencies in the design and con-
struction of the support grids.  Physical breakdown appears to be particularly
severe  in 4-cylinder engine  systems because of characteristically high vibra-
tions.   Canister deformation and  rupture failures have occurred with both
types of converter  designs.
The emission durability is most strongly impacted by a loss of catalyst
efficiency with accumulated  mileage without mechanical deterioration.  The
problem has several causes, including poisoning of the catalyst due to small
quantities of lead,  sulfur, or phosphorus in the fuel and/or loss of catalyst
surface area due to overheating.  The overheating  effect  appears to be pri-
marily  related to rich air/fuel operation and may be encountered under
various engine/vehicle operating  conditions including acceleration, decelera-
tion, choking,  high power operation,  and malfunctions of different types.
In addition to the catalytic converter, durability problems with other  1975
emission system components are  reported.  Notable among these are EGR
valves and thermal reactors.
Other problems which appear to be characteristic of the  1975  emission
control systems are degradation of vehicle driveability, loss  of vehicle per-
formance, and deterioration of fuel economy. Driveability problems reported
encompass the following: loss of  cold start  drive-away capability, stumbles,
stalls, inadequate acceleration, difficulty in hot starting,  rough idle,  surging,

-------
hesitation, and backfire.  Power losses and losses  in fuel economy (relative
to 1972 vehicles) range from 10 to 20 percent for both parameters.
With regard  to the degradation of vehicle driveability, performance, and fuel
economy, improvements are being sought by modifying the design of the fuel
metering, induction, and ignition systems.  Electronic engine control, which
integrates  the adjustment of ignition timing, air/fuel ratio, and EGR flow rate
with respect to engine load and RPM, may provide the means to  achieve an
optimized balance between  exhaust emissions versus  vehicle performance
and economy.  Electronic engine control is a feature of the Chrysler first-
choice system.
The emission performance .of the 1975 systems is categorized in terms of
low and high (4000 ) mileage accumulation.  Many of the manufacturers'  low
mileage test results fall well within  the  1975 standards; most of  these  systems
drift outside the limits of the standards at low levels of mileage  accumulation.
In general,  zero mileage vehicles do not meet the manufacturers'  engineering
emission goals.
The status of high mileage  emission level capabilities for  1975 first-choice
systems may be gauged from the summary of best high mileage  emission
results presented in Table!.  The emissions obtained at 32,000 miles from
an American Motors Javelin (3000-lb, 6-cylinder, 258-CID engine) equipped
with an AC-Delco base metal, pelletized catalytic converter (Car D17-11)
were below the standards.  However, the HC emission level at 32, 000 miles
is above the  standard when determined on the basis of a straight-line,  least-
squares fit of all data points.  This system is continuing to accumulate
mileage (EPA durability driving schedule).
Two other  high mileage vehicles may be noted.   One of these is  an American
Motors 1970 production model Hornet (same vehicle weight "and engine as the
Javelin).  Th 3 vehicle (Car DOO-24), equipped with an Engelhard PTX 423
noble metal monolithic catalytic converter, has completed 50, 000 miles of
durability testing and at this mileage a least-squares data fit indicates

-------
           Table  1.   First-Choice  Systems,  Summary of Best  High Mileage  Emission Results
    Manufacturer
American Motors
American Motors
Chrysler
Ford
General Motors
International Harvester
Alfa Romeo
BMW
British Leyland
Citroen
Daimler-Benz
Honda
Mitsubishi
Nissan
Renault
Saab
Toyo Kogyo
Toyota
Volkswagen
Volvo
                           Test or Car No.
D17-11
DOO-24
698
Ford tfl
2222
Austin
R16



75-A

OB44085
                                               First-Choice System Components
EM + EGR + AI + OC
EM + EGR + Al + OC
EM + EGR + AI + PTR + OC
EM + EGR + AI (+ TR) f OC
EM + EGR + AI + PTR + OC
EM + EGR + AI + OC
Not defined
EM + EGR + AI + OC
EM + AI + OC
Not defined
EM + EGR + AI + OC
Not defined
EM + AI (+ TR) + OC
EM + EGR + AI + OC
AI + OC
EM + AI + OC
(EM) + AI + TR
(+ OC for reciprocating)
EM + EGR + AI + OC
EM(+ EFI) + EGR + Alt TR + OC
EM + EGR + AI + OC
                                                    Mileage
32,000
50, 000
43, 000
 8, 000
 8,000
 4,000
                                                     11,400
10,000
 8,000
16, 000
 8,000

25,3448
                                                                                                     1975 CVS-CH
                                                                                                   Emissions, gm/mi
                                                                                                HC
 0. 39
(0. 32
(0. 16
 0.25
 0.32
 0. 33
                                                                 0.28
                                                                 0.5
                                                                 0.2
                                                                 0. 32
 0.27

 0. 24
                                                                                                         CO
3.04
4. 8
1.88
1.84
4.6
4. 7
                                                                          2.73
          3.9.
          1.2
          3.91
2.82

2.45
                                                                                                                  NO
1. 5
2. I)1
3.91)2
2.55
2.6
                                                                                  2.32
         0. 78
         1.69
1.29

1.82
                                                                                                                               Remarks
9,  12, Base OC
Noble OC
5, b, 12, NobleOC
9,  13, Noble OC
9,  Base OC
3
6
6
7,  Noble OC
6
6
6
3
14, Noble OC
4, 10, Noble OC
6,  Noble OC
5,11, 14,NobleOC
6, Noble OC
5, 12,  Noble OC
 1.  Least-squares fit to 1972 test results converted to 1975 test procedure; slow choke
 2.  1972  CVS-C test procedure
 3.  No high mileage data met standards
 4.  Emissions package incomplete/uncertain
 5.  Converter subsequently failed (within 4000 miles)
 6.  No high mileage data provided
 7.  Exceeded standards below  17,000  miles
 8.  Converter miles
 9.  Test  continuing
10.  Average of  two  tests
11,  After maintenance
12.  Standards were exceeded at lower mileage points
13.  Best of two tests
14.  Non-standard maintenance schedule
                                                              AI   —  Air Injection
                                                              EFI  —  Electronic Fuel Injection
                                                              EGR -  Exhaust Gas Recirculation
                                                              EM  —  Engine Modifications
                                                              OC   -  Oxidizing Catalyst
                                                              PTR -  Partial  Thermal Reactor
                                                              TR   -  Thermal Reactor

-------
the emissions were 0. 32, 4. 8, and 2. 1 gm/mi for HC,  CO,  and NOX>
respectively.  The 1975 CO  standard of 3.4 gm/mi was exceeded at roughly
30, 000 miles.  The other high mileage vehicle which is noteworthy is a
400-CID Chrysler car.  This vehicle (Car 698),  equipped with dual Engelhard
platinum/monolith converters which had been transferred from another vehi-
cle,  developed a total converter  mileage of 43,000 miles at emission levels
of 0.16,  1.88, and 3.91 gm/mi for HC, CO,  and  NOX, respectively.   The
catalyst container failed mechanically at this point.
In addition to the two high mileage vehicles discussed above,  the Volvo first-
choice emission vehicle might also be mentioned.   This system  accumulated
25,344 converter  miles within standards.   The catalyst failed mechanically^
at 29, 900 miles.
Though not included in Table 1, because no high mileage emission data were
provided, the Toyo Kogyo rotary engine with thermal reactor deserves special
mention.  Toyo Kogyo states that this system has met its internal engineering
goals and is confident that it will achieve the 50, 000-mile emissions durability
requirement.
Summarizing the emissions performance indicated  by the data in Table 1,
eight first-choice  systems have met the standards at accumulated mileages
in excess of  4000  miles.  None of these has achieved the 50,000-mile dura-
bility requirement; one system has met the standards at 32, 000 miles and is
still under test.   A total of three systems have demonstrated the potential of
achieving 25,000 converter miles within standards;  two of the converters
subsequently failed in test.   A total of three catalytic converter  failures
occurred among the eight test vehicles which met the standards  at more  than
4000 miles.
In the main,  the alternate systems under investigation by the manufacturers
for potential u_e in 1975 model year vehicles incorporate different types or
designs of catalytic converters but are otherwise similar to the  emission con-
trol packages selected as first-choice systems.  A  typical example is General
Motors, whose second- and third-choice systems substitute noble metal pellet

-------
and noble metal monolithic converter designs for the first-choice base metal
pellet converter design.  Therefore,  the discussion in the preceding para-
graphs,  encompassing system descriptions,  problems and plans for resolu-
tion,  and fuel consumption and performance  penalties, applies also to most
of the systems in  the alternate systems category.
At least four manufacturers are experimenting with alternate 1975 emission
control systems which incorporate full-size  thermal  reactors.  These
                                                               •J*
are Ford,  General Motors,  International Harvester, and Nissan.   The Ford
system is installed on their Group II test fleet vehicles which are equipped
with dual (series) noble metal catalytic converters,  a thermal reactor,  and
EGR.  The  General Motors  system consists  of a thermal reactor with EGR.
Durability data for these systems were not provided.  The International Har-
vester system exceeds the standards  at zero mileage.
The Nissan system comprises engine modifications, a thermal reactor, EGR,
and an oxidizing catalytic  converter.  Problems  encountered with the Nissan
reactor may be represented as being typical  of thermal reactors. These prob-
lems  are reactor  core deformation and durability, and the need to develop
inexpensive materials which will survive the high temperature, turbulent  core
environment.  The fuel consumption penalty for the Nissan system was quoted
as 10 to  15 percent relative to 1972 model year  vehicles.  The maximum mile-
age accumulated on this system  was 32, 000 miles at emission levels ranging
from  0. 5 to 0.75 gm/mi HC, 11  to  13 gm/mi  CO, and 0.75 to 1.1  gm/mi NO .
                                                                         .X
This system may  be under development for 1976.
It may be noted that Toyota is testing  a thermal reactor system which also
appears  to be targeted to the 1976 model year.  This system incorporates
engine modifications,  EGR,  an oxidizing catalyst, and a reducing catalyst.
Two vehicles equipped with this  system failed the CO  standard before 8000
miles were accumulated.
 The Toyo Kogyo thermal reactors are classified as first-choice devices.

-------
3.          UNCONVENTIONAL AUTOMOTIVE ENGINES
Automotive engine candidates classified here as unconventional include the
Wankel, the stratified charge; the diesel, the gas turbine, and the Rankine
and Stirling engine systems.  The continuous combustion engine types (gas
turbine, Rankine, Stirling) generally show encouraging emission results. .
However, the Rankine system is regarded by the automobile  manufacturers  as
being too complex and costly for widespread automotive application and all
three of these engine types are  considered to be unavailable  in sizeable pro-
duction quantities before the 1980"*" time period.  The light duty diesel engine,
on the basis of anticipated test procedures and current test results,  can meet
the 1975 standards without exhaust treatment devices; however,  the 1976
NO  requirement appears to be unattainable by the diesel even when incorpo-
rating the techniques (e.g., EGR,  NO  catalyst) presently under consideration
for internal combustion gasoline engines.
The Wankel rotary engine is being produced by Toyo Kogyo at a low production
rate of about 15,000 per month for the Mazda vehicle and  is also under study
and development by Ford, General Motors, and Daimler-Benz.  The untreated
exhaust contains somewhat more HC, approximately the same CO, and consid-
erably less NOX than the conventional reciprocating  engine.  In general, the
domestic manufacturers visualize the possible advantages of the Wankel to be
primarily in the areas of reduced size and weight, which could permit the util-
ization of some  emission control systems not  suited to the conventional engine
(e.g., large thermal reactor).  Toyo Kogyo is  confident that its rotary engine
system equipped with a thermal reactor will demonstrate the capability of
meeting the 50,000-mile emissions durability  requirement. Nevertheless, the
prospects of developing  this engine for high-volume  industry-wide production
output in time for the 1975 or 1976 model year seem remote.
Another system offering the potential of low emissions is the stratified charge
engine which achieves satisfactory (no misfire) operation at high EGR rates
          «
by providing a localized rich charge in the vicinity of the  spark electrodes.
This engine  type, which incorporates a thermal reactor, EGR,  and

-------
oxidizing catalyst, may permit the achievement of very low NO  emissions
without a NOX catalyst and with relatively good fuel economy.  The develop-
ment of the stratified charge engine is being pursued by Ford, Texaco,  and
Chrysler.  A variation of this principle, embodying a prechamber device,  is
being studied by General Motors.  These systems are still under development
and are not expected to be available in production quantities for a number of
years.
Ford,  General Motors, and  Chrysler have passenger car gas turbine pro-
grams.  Chrysler states that its engine would meet the 1975 emission
standards.  However, the 1976 standards have not yet been demonstrated.
Major problem areas include poor fuel economy at part load and poor accel-
eration characteristics.  All manufacturers indicate that sizable production
is not possible until the 1980 time period.
4.          ENGINE  MODIFICATIONS
Certain components of  the 1975 emission control system, such as EGR and the
catalytic converter,  impose demanding requirements on the design of the car-
buretion and ignition systems with respect to response, precision, flexibility,
and control characteristics.  Accordingly, all of the major automobile manu-
facturers are actively  pursuing the development of new or improved carbure-
tion,  ignition, and control devices for the projected 1975 emission systems.
The principal carburetion system  modifications include altitude and ambient
temperature compensation,  and electrically heated chokes.  At least three
domestic manufacturers, Chrysler,  Ford, and General Motors, are conduct-
ing in-house development work on electronically controlled fuel injection sys-
tems.  A number of the foreign manufacturers already have'these types of
systems in production.   With regard to ignition system modifications, the
general industry trend  appears to  be toward the adaptation  of electronic  sys-
tems  typified by Chrysler's  breakerless, inductive design in which ignition
coil currejit  is switched by an electronic control unit in response to timing
signals produced by a distributor magnetic pickup.  The ultimate in projected
1975 engine system innovations is the electronic engine control system pro-
posed by Chrysler, which would integrate the regulation of ignition timing  and

-------
EGR flow rate in response to engine  speed,  load,  operating temperature,
and certain transient conditions.
In general,, the bulk of the durability emissions testing accomplished to date
has been conducted on systems which incorporate  considerably less  than a
full complement of the proposed engine modifications including innovative
devices discussed by the manufacturers for their projected 1975 systems.
The reason for this  may be that many of these devices are still in the process
of development. It seems likely that these modifications and devices will
improve emission system performance and  durability;  however,  it is not
possible at this time to predict the degree of improvement that might be
derived from  their use.
5.          EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION
The principal control of NOX emissions in 1975 emission control  systems will
be accomplished by  the use of  exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), in which a
portion of the exhaust gas is recycled into the engine to lower  the temperature
of combustion. All  of the proposed 1975  EGR systems operate on the same
basic  principle, although the designs of the  different manufacturers  differ  in
a number of details.  These include the location of the exhaust gas pick up, the
point of introduction of the recycled gas into the engine induction  system, the
metering devices, and the signal source and associated control system.
While most manufacturers plan to continue with current types  of EGR system
des:gns through 1975, problems have been encountered with the plugging of
orifices and/or sticking  of the EGR flow control valves.  These problems may
ultimately  demand design modifications to the systems projected  for use in
1975,  depending upon EPA decisions concerning the allowable  maintenance that
can be performed during certification testing.
6.          OXIDATION  CATALYSTS
With the exception of Toyo Kogyo,  all of the manufacturers' first-choice sys-
tems incorporate an oxidation  catalyst with  air injection for the aftertreatment
of HC and CO emissions in the engine exhaust.  Toyo Kogyo's  first-choice
                                     10

-------
 systems utilize a thermal reactor device.  The key to the achievement of the
 1975 Federal standards, therefore, lies with the successful development of
 an oxidation catalyst.  However, many problem areas remain to be resolved,
 such as durability,  emission performance uncertainties,  catalyst contamina-
 tion, and safety.  Industry's status with respect to these  problems and plans
 for their  resolution will be discussed next.
 6. 1         PROBLEM AREAS
 6. 1. 1      Durability Problems
 Oxidation catalysts  pose fundamental durability problems due to inherent char-
 acteristics associated with the pellet alumina substrate or the monolithic cer-
 amic substrate with alumina wash coat.
 Catalyst durability is composed of two separate but interrelated aspects:
 emission  durability and physical durability.  Emission durability,  or the
 ability to  continue oxidizing HC and CO to the required levels throughout
 50, 000 miles,  is most strongly impacted by decremental  changes in  catalytic
 activity or efficiency  caused by:
      a.     Contamination from fuel  and oil additives or  compounds
            (e. g., lead, phosphorus,  sulfur, etc.) resulting in "poisoning"
            of the catalytic material.
      b.     Reduced alumina porosity due to phase change at excessive
            temperature.
      c.     Alumina thermal shrinkage due to excessive temperature.
Physical durability, or  the ability to maintain the substrate intact throughout
50, 000 miles,  is most strongly impacted by:
      a.     Thermal expansion differences between monolithic ceramic
            s.ubstrates and their supporting container.
      b.     Local melting of monolithic ceramic substrates due  to
            overtemperature.
      c.     Failure  of pellet retaining screens due to  overtemperature.
      d.   '  Cracking of monolithic ceramic substrates and break up of
            pellet substrates due to vibratory loads.
                                     11

-------
6. 1. 2      Emission Performance
Representative best examples of emission performance data for catalysts
produced by 12 different companies are shown in Table 2.  These catalysts
                                           ?"•
were tested in experimental systems which ranged from "conventional"
passenger cars (with the addition of a catalytic converter) to laboratory
prototype 1975 systems.  Many  catalysts  (base metal or noble metal,  pellet
or monolithic) achieved HC and  CO levels far below  1975 standards when
fresh.  However, when the catalysts  are operated to extended mileages,  the
HC and CO levels tended to rise to levels exceeding the 1975 standards.
While a number of these catalysts met 1975 HC and CO standards at greater
than 20, 000 miles, the variation of vehicle test procedures (AMA durability
runs, dynamometer runs, etc.)  and the variation in test fuels and oils pre-
clude a systematic assessment of the true capability of a given catalyst under
projected EPA certification conditions.   These conditions encompass the
50, 000-mile EPA certification test specifications and the use of fuel with
projected additive contaminant levels of 0. 05  gm/gal lead (max.), 0. 01 gm/
gal phosphorus (max.),  and conventional lube  oils.   Such an assessment can
be made only with vehicles incorporating the full complement of 1975 emis-
sion control  system components, tested in accordance with EPA  certification
procedures.
6. 1. 3       Catalyst Contamination
Oxidation catalysts are  very susceptible to contamination from sources which
can reduce or destroy catalytic activity.  There is universal agreement that
the catalytic  efficiency of current automotive  catalysts can be lost or reduced
by reaction with, or blanketing by,  lead, phosphorus, and sulfur in gasoline.
However, there is  a  scarcity of actual test data to establish the actual poison-
ing mechanism and the particular amount of efficiency degradation attributable
to a given contaminant  level.
                                     12

-------
Table 2.  Catalytic Converter Vehicle Test Results (Representative Best Examples)

(»nd Type)

Houdry (BP)
Chemico (BP)
Engelhard (NM)








W.R. Grace (BP)
1 NMl
(IN M|
Matthey Bishop (NM)

Monsanto (BP)

Oxy -Catalyst (BP)
UOP (NP)
(NM)
(BP)
Kali-Chemie (BP)
Degussa (BP)


ICI (NP)
AC-Delco (BP)



Testing Co.

CM
EPA
Engelhard


Volvo

American Motors
CM
Ford

GM

Johnson -Matthey
Volvo
Saab
CM
CM
UOP
UOP
GM
Saab
Saab


Brit. Leyland
American Motors

Int. Harvester

Test/Car
No.

61318
1971 Olds
351 V8
351 V8
351 VB
913
1091
DOO-24
61319
17934
IA58D

1246
161

Avenger
467
9/385
61329
2541
71 Ford 351
71 Chev
933
7/301
12/301


Austin
Dll-3
D17-11
393
System Description

Noncatalyst Mods
or Components
EM+A1 + EGR
-
A!
AI * EGR
AI + EGR
EM + AI + EGR
EM + AI + EGR
EM t EGR + AI
EM + Alt EGR
AI
EM+AI+EGR + TR

EM+AI + EGR
AI

AI+EGR
AI
Elect. Inj. + AI
EM+AI+EGR
EM+AI + EGR


AI * EGR
Elect. Inj. + AI
Elect. Inj. * AI


AI
Alt EGR
AI + EGR
AI + EGR
Gatalyst
Destg.
1259 JX3-1X1
2 beds
PTX 433
STD PTX5
IMP PTX 5
PTX 416
PTX 416
PTX 423 -S
PTX -4
PTX 423 -S
PTX 5.35
PTX 5. 10
DAVEX 117
Spiral
Substrate
AEC 3A
AEC 3A
404
NBP-70194

PZ-195
PZM-7711
PZ-4-214-R-14








Emissions
Lo'*- Mileage
Test
Mileage
0

500
380
0
0
—
0
0
0

0
0

0
100
0
126
9
-
0
0
0
0


0
0
0
0
HC
C.25
C.15
0.16
0.32
0.22
0.11
—
0.09a
0. 13
0.23'

0.27
0 46

0. 11
0. 19
0.22
0.47
0. 17
-
0.38
0.19
0.. 22
0. 19


0. 19
0.23
._
0.35
CO
2.9
1.36
0.52
2. 1
0.28
K55
—
1.5*
1.9
3.11*

1.7
5 I

1.65
1.56
1.44
4.0
2.7
-
1.65
1.8
2.85
2.11


1.38
1.47
3.4
4.56
N0x
1.9
0.26
_
<3
<3
2.48
—
0.75"
1.3
1.27°

2.9
4 5

0.85
3.32
2.37
1.1
2.2
-
-
2.4
1.02
1.66


2.08
2.12
1.9
3. 11
, gm/mi
High Mileage
Test
Mileage
21,178

35,821
25,260
12,030
_
25,344
50,000
21.527
70, 000
25,000

1 6 000

24,000

9.750
5,550
10,245
21.933
-
46,301
5,900
2,580


9.200
_
32,000
20,000
HC
0.87

0.35
0.39
0.24
_
0.24
0.32a
0.55
0. 85
o!?5*

0 46

0.33

0.50
0.55
0.91
0.47
-
0.78
0.25
0.74


0.20
_
0.51a
0.51
CO
4.1

3.0
3.3
2.6
_
2.45
4.8*
5.5
8 7
7>

6 85

1.33

2.97
8.8
9.5
2.65
-
11.7
3.63
15.7


2.61
_
3.4*
8.76
NO
X
1.6

_
<3
2.2
_
1.82
2.1*
1.6
3. 5
K64°

4 0

2.01

2.87
1. 1
2.3
-
-
2.1
1.96
2.5


2.21
_
1.9*
3.0

Remarks

Test continuing

Lead-sterile fuel
over non-AMA
durability cycle
Catalyst failed at
29,900 mi
1970-type slow choke

Ford 1975 durability
program


Lead -sterile fuel




20% catalyst lost



Catalyst poisoned by
phosphorus in fuel
(4 PPM)




NOTES

2. Catalyst type symbol N = Noble metal; B = Base metal; P = Pellets; M = Monolithic
3. System mods or components; EM = Engine modifications; AJ = Air injection; EGR - Exhaust gas rscirculation
$



-------
  6. 1. 3. 1     Lead Additives
  The effect of lead contaminant level in the fuel on the efficiency of an
  Engelhard PTX  3 catalyst is illustrated in Figure 1.  Although trends between
  the  lead-free, 0. 035 gm/gal, and 0.07 gm/gal levels can be established,  the
  variability in the data precludes the establishment of an accurate correlation
  of catalyst efficiency vs lead level and test duration.  It should be noted that
  these tests were conducted  at constant engine speed and over a mild durability
  cycle, and as a  result the data may not be directly  applicable to catalysts
  installed in a vehicle and subjected to the EPA certification cycle.  This
  becomes evident when the data in Figure 1 are compared with the durability
  data provided by other manufacturers, which generally indicate a  rather
  gradual degradation of catalyst/system performance with mileage accumula-
  tion.  This discrepancy points out the need for further systematic work in the
  area of fuel contaminant effects on catalyst performance.
  6. 1. 3. 2     Other Contaminants
  Much less specific information is available concerning the deleterious effects
  of phosphorus and sulfur on catalytic activity.  Saab-Scania reports  "catalyst
  poisoning" with lead sterile fuel containing only 4 ppm phosphorus.
  General Motors tests have been conducted with 0.02 gm/gal lead, 0.  005  gm/gal
•  phosphorus,  and  0. 03 percent  sulfur.   They have seen no "significant" differ-
  ences in  the effects of these contaminants on base metal catalysts as opposed
  to ? oble metal  catalysts, although they feel that lead may be worse for base
  metals.  General Motors states that the temperature range of 900-1200  °F
  normally seen  in an automotive catalyst is the range where sulfur readily
  deposits  on the catalyst surface.  If the converter could  be designed to oper-
  ate  above 1300 °F all the time, sulfur problems would be alleviated.  General
  Motors feels that phosphorus effects  are bad, regardless of the converter
  operating temperature.  General Motors bench test data of an Qxy-Catalyst
  catalyst indicate  that the sulfur build up on the catalyst is especially damaging
  to carbon monoxide reactivity.
                                      14

-------
   80
o 60
                                          -o—--.£>
   40
   20
    0
PTX3 0.2% PT
DATE COMPLETED 3-28-72

EVALUATION CONDITION
  INL.  CAT. TEMP. 800° F
  ENGINE SPEED 1000 rpm
  WITHOUT AIR
                         I
        V V
FUEL:
 Pb FREE
 0.035 gm/gal Pb
 0.07 gm/gal Pb
       OIL:  ASHLESS
    DURABILITY CYCLE
  MODE   TEMP.    TIME
          1000° F
          1200° F
1
2
3
4
                                              1250° F
                                              1200° F
14 min
15 min
 6 min
 7 min
                                  I
                        200                 400
                           TIME ON TEST, hr
                                                   600
      Figure 1.  Effect of Lead Additive on Catalyst Efficiency

-------
A chemical analysis by Ford of durability-tested catalysts revealed
contamination from lead and phosphorus in the fuel and lubricants; zinc from
lubricants; copper from an unknown source; and nickel,  chromium, iron, and
manganese from a thermal reactor manifolQ liner. Engelhard durability tests
with unleaded gasoline (~0.03  gm/gal lead) resulted in. the catalyst picking up
substantial quantities of lead,  zinc,  phosphorus,  and barium.  Engelhard
associates the zinc and barium with motor oil.
Matthey Bishop  feels the hydrocarbon efficiency deterioration of one of their
catalysts was due to phosphorus picked up from the engine oil.
6. 1.4       Safety
Physical failure of either monolithic or pellet catalytic converters due to
either overtemperature  conditions or rupture of  the canister could cause
vehicle fires, posing a serious vehicle safety  hazard.  Currently,  there
are insufficient  data available  to evaluate  safety aspects of catalytic
                     •4
converters.
6. 1. 5       Technology Uncertainties
Oxidation catalyst technology is rapidly changing through intensive product
design modifications, as well as through comprehensive test and evaluation
programs, in both the catalyst  industry and the automotive industry.  Because
of these rapid changes, the emission data frequently reported as "latest"
results are based on catalyst materials and substrates which may  in fact
bu "old technology" previously discarded by others.   Due to  the time delay
inherent in the relationship between the substrate-catalyst-converter sup-
pliers and the automakers themselves, it  is not surprising that some prob-
lems reportedas "severe" by one company are treated as "solved" by others.
Some of the recent data presented by the  catalyst makers with their latest
technology have indicated encouraging results  at  relatively high mileage;
however, it remains to be seen whether these  catalysts can maintain good
performance when tested in a prototype emission package under realistic
driving conditions by the automobile manufacturers.
                                    16

-------
6.2         INDUSTRY PLANS FOR  RESOLUTION OF PROBLEMS
6. 2. 1      Contamination Control
The Administrator of EPA has  proposed to limit the lead content of
gasoline to 0.05 gm/gal and the phosphorus content of gasoline to 0.01 gm/gal
for the unleaded grade of gasoline to  be made available for automobiles utiliz-
ing catalytic converters.  A similar  regulation of the sulfur content in such
unleaded grade will also be promulgated if the auto companies can present
substantive evidence to establish the  needed level.
All parties agree that zero levels of  contaminants  would be desirable,  but
practical considerations,  such as lead  contamination in shipment,  and the
need  for phosphorus additives used in detergent or  carburetor cleaning  solu-
tions, dictate that trace levels  of these contaminants will have to  be "tolerated"
by the catalysts, at least in the immediate future.
The exact  contribution of lubricating  oil constituents to catalyst deactivation
is not evident.  Ashless oils would certainly help to ensure minimization of
this contaminant but such oils have not  been widely evaluated  and could
adversely  affect other engine parts.  At present there  is no clear picture of
whether or not to regulate lubricating oil composition.   Therefore it would
appear that near-term automotive catalysts would  have to tolerate conven-
tional lubricating oils.
6. 2. 2      Increased Catalyst Activity
An obvious approach to improving the ability of emission control systems
with oxidation catalysts to meet the 1975  standards is to increase the catalyst
activity.  This is particularly true with regard to lowering the light-off tem-
perature,  inasmuch as the sooner the catalyst is active after  start up, the
lower the cold start emissions. It would be expected that all  catalyst sup-
pliers would be actively pursuing such technological advancements to gain a
competitive advantage.
For example, in this area, Engelhard has recently related progress in
improving the catalytic activity and thermal stability of PTX-type monolithic
                                     17

-------
catalysts.  Comparison of standard versus improved  PTX catalysts shows
the improved PTX catalyst has greatly increased retention of activity for
carbon monoxide and olefinic hydrocarbon oxidation even after severe thermal
aging.  Johnson-Matthey,  another proponent'of "noble  metal/monolithic cata-
lysts, also has reported similar progress in improved catalytic activity and
high-temperature thermal stability.   Both manufacturers  report reductions  in
light-off  temperature of approximately 180-250 °F.
General Motors, currently a base metal/pellet proponent,  has presented data
which indicate a basic difference in activity  characteristics between base and
noble metal catalysts.  They point out that the base metal catalyst starts con-
version at a lower temperature than the noble metal type and the level of
conversion gradually increases as temperature increases.  On the other
hand, the noble metal catalyst exhibits a rapid increase in conversion effi-
ciency once a threshold temperature  is reached (this  is shown in Figure 2).
Engelhard, General Motors, and Matthey Bishop presented data  showing that
prolonged exposure of noble metal catalysts  to elevated temperature would
result in a gradual decrease of catalyst activity with increase in soak temper-
atures in the range of 1200-2000 °F.  Similar  data for base metal catalysts  by
General Motors, however, indicate no  significant deterioration in catalyst
activity in the temperature range between 1200 and 1500°F.
6. 2. 3      Overtemperature Protection Systems
Ovi rtemperature protection  systems of several types are proposed to pre-
vent overheating of the catalyst bed,  overheating of the  vehicle structure,
and vehicle and  external fires.  Two  basic approaches have been suggested  by
the automotive industry and are under evaluation for providing the necessary
catalyst overtemperature protection.  Both approaches  employ a thermo-
couple signal to  actuate the control device.
One method is to control the secondary air supply to the catalytic converter.
Without the'necessary oxidizing atmosphere, the catalyst would not function
efficiently and generate the normal temperature rise  across the bed.  The
                                    18

-------
100
                                                A  HC
                                                O  CO
                                            	  NOBLE METAL
                                                   BASE METAL
  300
400
       500
TEMPERATURE,  °F
600
Figure 2.  Conversion Characteristics of Base Metal and Noble Metal Catalysts
          (Standard Bench Test Evaluation)

-------
other method is to completely bypass the exhaust gas around the catalytic
converter whenever a certain temperature, say 1500 °F, is exceeded. This
approach would fully protect the catalyst (if actuated in time),  whereas the
first approach  still exposes the catalyst to  the gas temperature of the exhaust
flow.  Current opinions of the various companies relative to the type of over-
temperature protection system  proposed for 1975 vehicles vary widely.
Chrysler is developing a full by-pass system,  Ford plans to have secondary
air control, Nissan  is considering both approaches,  General Motors plans to
incorporate a choke which fails in the open position, and Volvo and  British
Leyland  plan to have a warning  system only.
In addition to these two protection system approaches, other refinements/
devices are also being considered, including placement of the  converter  fur-
ther downstream from the exhaust manifold to reduce inlet gas temperatures,
and the use of an air dump valve during periods of vehicle deceleration to
minimize the catalyst bed temperature.
With regard to  vehicle structure protection, heat shields are proposed for
use between the converters and the vehicle. General Motors proposes insula-
tors on top and bottom of their converter to protect against vehicle  overheat-
ing as well as grass fires.
6.2.4       Attrition Control
Advances in both catalyst substrate properties and canister design features
ar . required to meet the durability requirements of the 1975 emission
standards.
Early pellet substrates were subject'to severe breakup or  attrition,  as well
as thermal shrinkage.  Data from a number of manufacturers  indicate that
pellet attrition  has been substantially reduced and further improvements  may
be possible.
Similarly,  Engelhard has described improved catalyst properties leading to
          4
increased high-temperature activity which may result  in improved durability
of the alumina wash coat of the  monolith catalyst.
                                   20

-------
The wide spectrum of catalytic converter mechanical failure types and modes
experienced to date  illustrates clearly that the canister (or container) design
must protect the ceramic  substrates (pellet or monolith) from excessive
vibratory loads and  stresses.   In view of the inherent fragility of ceramics,
such failure can be ascribed to deficiencies in the canister support design.
Aside from General Motors (AC-Delco) and Universal Oil Products (Mini-
Verter), most companies  had  exceedingly poor results with pellet converters.
For example, Chemico requires pellet addition (due  to attrition)  at 3000- to
8000-mile intervals.
General Motors claims that its horizontal-bed converter design,  in combina-
tion with thermal shrinkage improvements in the pellet substrate, has solved
the attrition problem. If so, the internal pellet support arrangement (top  and
bottom  retaining screens, etc.) is such as to accommodate the relative ther-
mal expansion of the pellets, retainers, and  canister shell while  holding the
pellets  in sufficiently close-packed proximity to prevent  vibratory movement
of the pellets against each other.
Early monolithic converters apparently were little more than a sheet  metal
canister, housing the ceramic core.  In such an arrangement, it would be
expected that differential thermal expansion  and vibratory loads would
severely damage the catalyst,  as has been evidenced.  A number of promis-
ing design approaches, however,  have been advanced for solving these prob-
lems.   These include shock mounting of the  core in the canister, compensat-
ing for  differential thermal expansion, and preventing axial movement between
core and canister.
6. 2. 4       Platinum Availability
The question of platinum availability has been an issue of concern for  some
of the automobile and catalyst  manufacturers.  A recent  study conducted
by Johnson-Matthey, which is  associated  with Rustenburg Platinum Mines,
Limited, a major producer of  platinum in the Western world, has indicated
that sufficient platinum will be available to satisfy the combined demand of
                                    21

-------
the automotive industry and all other platinum users.  Engelhard has also
stated previously that adequate platinum supplies will be available to satisfy
the demands of the automotive industry provided that platinum from used cata-
lysts  is recycled.
7.           THERMAL REACTORS
The thermal reactor is a high-temperature chamber which replaces the con-
ventional engine exhaust manifold.  Hot exhaust gases from the  engine  enter
the thermal reactor, which is sized and configured to increase the residence
time of the gases and permit further  oxidation reactions,  thus reducing the
HC and CO concentrations.
Whereas both rich and lean reactors  have been considered and evaluated for
use in 1975  emission control systems,  all of the reactors presently being
tested by the automobile manufacturers as potential 1975 candidate devices
are designed for fuel-rich engine operation.   These systems require the addi-
tion of secondary air (usually injected at  the engine exhaust port) to enhance
the oxidation reactions in the  reactor.
With the exception of Toyo Kogyo, no manufacturer proposes  to use a full-
size thermal reactor device as a first-choice system component for 1975.
The General Motors and Chrysler systems utilize a partial (i. e.,  a  small,
simplified) reactor which serves primarily as a  quick-heat device for rapid
warmup of their catalytic converter.  The Toyo Kogyo reactor is a prime
emission control component of its rotary engine  system; in addition, the
reactor is one of several systems being evaluated for use on its 1975 recipro-
cating engine.  Several manufacturers  are evaluating reactor devices  as 1975
alternate system components.
Thermal reactor problems  identified by the various manufacturers encompass
the following: lack of sufficient emission control capability,  packaging diffi-
culties, excessive underhood  temperatures,  and lack of sufficient reactor
          •
and secondary air injection system durability.  In addition to  these problems,
severe  engine damage has been caused  by reentry of metal oxide particles
                                    22

-------
from the reactor core material through the EGR system into the engine
lubricating oil. A recent study by Ford  implies that an incompatibility
may exist between thermal reactors and catalytic converters when used
together.  Material deposits have been found in the catalyst which are thought
to originate in the  reactor liner.  These deposits may contribute to the exces-
sive deterioration  observed in a number of thermal reactor/catalytic conver-
ter emission  control systems.
8.          SECONDARY AIR SUPPLY
Although secondary air injection at engine exhaust ports has been widely used
as an independent control device for the  suppression of HC and CO emissions
since 1966, it is not being given serious consideration by any automobile man-
ufacturer as a sole system for meeting the 1975 standards.
In aftertreatment devices for HC and CO control, such as  catalytic conver-
ters and thermal reactors, sufficient oxygen is needed to promote oxidation
of the pollutants.   The oxygen required is provided by secondary air supplied
by an engine-driven air pump.
Generally,  little more than passing mention of the use and type of  air pump
was made by the automobile manufacturers in discussing their projected 1975
emission control systems. Pump durability and pump noise are frequently
identified as problem areas; the durability problem appears to be particularly
troublesome.   However,  no manufacturer classifies any part of the air injec-
tion system as critical for 1975.
9.          EMISSION GOALS
9. 1         GENERAL
In order to  comply with the 1975 emission standards  on production vehicles at
50, 000 miles,  the  automobile manufacturers must demonstrate substantially
lower emission goals on low mileage engineering prototype vehicles to account
for a number  of parameters affecting emission control  system performance.
These parameters  include the  emission control system deterioration factor (DF)
                                    23

-------
the prototype-to-production slippage factor (PPS), and,  in case emission
averaging is not permitted, the production quality control factor (QCF).
Based on these definitions, the low mileage  emission goals for engineering
prototype vehicles are computed from the following equation:

                   A,        	M             ,   .
                   Mgoal  =  DF X PPS X QCF '  gm/mi

where M represents the 1975  HC, CO,  and NOX emission standards and DF
represents the system deterioration factor between low mileage and 50, 000
miles.  To minimize "green" engine/control-system  effects, EPA has
selected the 4, 000-mile point as the low mileage  reference value.  It should
be noted that deterioration factors must be used with  care.   In general, deter-
ioration factors determined for one type of vehicle /emission control system
K
are only applicable to similar  configurations.
The in-house emission  goals established by  the various manufacturers for
reciprocating spark ignition engine-powered vehicles are presented in
Table 3. Also shown are the emission goals selected by Toyo  Kogyo and
Mercedes-Benz for rotary engine-powered vehicles.  Mercedes-Benz has
stated that the  220D diesel vehicle will probably  meet the  1975 standards but
did not provide emission goals for diesels.  With the  exception of one set of
numbers presented by General Motors, the emission  goals  established by the
automobile manufacturers are based  on the emission  averaging concept
(QCF = 1. 0).  Another set of emission  goals presented by General Motors  is
listed in the table.  This set is based on the  assumption that 99..5 percent of
the production vehicles  meet the 1975 standards at 50, 000 miles.   This
assumption results in such extremely low HC and  CO emission levels that  it
is doubtful  whether these values can be attained with current spark ignition
engine emission control system technology.
                                    24

-------
               Table 3.  Summary of Low Mileage Emission Goals
                      for Projected 1975 Control Systems
Selected
Manufacturers
American Motors
General Motors
(No catalyst
change)
(Catalyst change,
25, 000 mi)
(99.5% of cars
meeting standard
at 50, 000 mi)
Foreign
Manufacturers
1C engine, catalyst
(and thermal
reactor)
1C engine, thermal
reactor (recipro-
cating and rotary)
Emission Control
System
EM+EGR+AI+OC

EM+EGR+AI+PTR+OC
Same
Same


EM( +EGR) +AI+(TR) +OC
EM(+EGR)+AI+TR
Emission Goals gm/mi
HC
0.10-0. 15

0.2
0.27
0.07


0. 14-0.2
0.26-0.29
CO
1.50-2.55

1.7
2.27
0.71


1.2-2.0
2.2-2.3
NOx
2.2

2.07
2.07
1.16


1.2-2.3
2.0-2.3
AI = Secondary air injection
EM = Engine modifications
EGR = Exhaust gas recirculation
TR = Thermal reactor
OC = Oxidation catalyst
PTR = Partial thermal reactor
Most manufacturers have assumed HC and CO emission deterioration factors
of 2.0 for systems incorporating catalytic  converters.  Based on the available
test data, this assumption appears too optimistic, although further improve-
ments in the carburetion, choke, and ignition systems, and in catalyst perfor-
mance might be achieved in time for use in 1975 vehicles.  Toyo Kogyo has
selected a HC and a CO deterioration factor of  1. 3 for systems incorporating
a thermal reactor only. This is a  lower factor than that selected for  its
                                     25

-------
systems incorporating a catalytic converter.  NO  deterioration factors
                                                3t
assumed by the manufacturers vary between 1. 1 and 1. 8.  It is believed that
these levels are attainable, although EGR system maintenance may be
required to accomplish this.
The emission goals presented by the automobile manufacturers are based on
the ground rule that catalyst replacement is not permitted during the 50, 000-
mile test.  If catalyst replacement were permitted at intermediate mileage
points,  the emission goals could be relaxed somewhat.  The degree  of relaxa-
tion is primarily determined  by  the shape of the emission-versus-mileage
curve which is generally different for different vehicle/control system com-
binations.  General Motors is the only manufacturer that has provided emis-
sion goals for 25, 000-mile catalyst replacement intervals.
9. 2        DETERIORATION FACTOR
The deterioration factor (DF) of the emission control system is primarily
responsible for the manufacturer's stringent emission  goals.  This factor
accounts for the emission  increase which results from the performance
degradation with mileage accumulation of all components utilized in  the sys-
tem including the  engine, the  catalyst, and other aftertreatment devices.   In
general, the  catalytic converter is the critical component.  Catalyst degrada-
tion is the result of poisoning of the active elements by lead,  phosphorus,
sulfur,  and oil additives, and of  attrition and exposure to overtemperature
cond uons.  Those manufacturers considering thermal  reactor systems expect
their deterioration factors to be  lower than those of catalyst systems.
Many of the high mileage tests of emission control systems incorporating a
catalyst indicate a rather gradual deterioration of emission performance with
mileage accumulation. This is illustrated  by most of the HC  and  CO data pro-
vided by American Motors, General Motors,  Engelhard, and Ford  and by  the
HC data presented by Matthey Bishop.  These data  suggest that deterioration
factors derived for a particular  vehicle/control system are only valid for
similar configurations and operating conditions.  For example, the
                                    26

-------
deterioration factors derived from a catalyst system operated under
idealized conditions (lead-sterile fuel and moderate catalyst temperature)
are not necessarily applicable to similar vehicles which are subjected to
commercially available "lead-free" fuel and/or more severe durability or
customer driving patterns.
Test data provided by Ford from the 1974 California catalyst-only vehicle
fleet indicate rapid degradation of the emissions during the first few thousand
miles on two  of the five vehicles.  In both instances the emissions remained
essentially constant from this mileage point up to 50, 000 miles.  This trend
is contradictory to other Ford durability data.
The deterioration factors derived from the  high mileage emission data pro-
vided by the automobile manufacturers  are  summarized in Figure 3.  Although
it is not possible to precisely correlate these data,  it is apparent that the
degradation has  generally been more severe for systems with low initial (low
mileage) emissions.
Since the emission control systems projected for use in 1975 vehicles will
incorporate improved carburetion,  choke, and ignition systems as well as
improved (stabilized) catalytic converters,  the emissions  and the deteriora-
tion factors of these systems should be lower than currently indicated.  It
appears that this assumption was included in the considerations made by the
automobile manufacturers in establishing their deterioration factors.
9. 3         PROTQTYPE-TQ-PRODUCTION SLIPPAGE FACTOR
The prototype-to-production slippage factor (PPS) is defined as the ratio of
the average emissions  of production vehicles compared with the emissions of
identical engineering prototype vehicles.  Based on past experience, the
emissions from production vehicles  are on the average higher than those of
the prototype  because  of production tolerances and adjustments made in the
final desig"n and fabrication of certain components.   Although these factors
are known for current vehicles,  it is difficult to make accurate predictions
for future designs. Most of the manufacturers project PPS factors between
1. 1 and  1. 25.
                                    27

-------


u *
u.
11 3
o 0
u. §
o m o
P •
1|
LU
O

• AMC (CVS-CH)
O CMC (CVS-CH,
D FORD (CVS-C)
0 IH (CVS-CH)

O
o •
0
• o
A

1
A MITSUBISHI (CVS-CH)
Bst) V NISSAN (CVS-C)
O MATTHEY BISHOP (CVS-CH)
6 HOUDRY (CVS-C)

0
0 D V
°Vo *°
• ° °8

              0.2     0.4    0.6    0.8     1.0     1.2


                  HC EMISSIONS AT 4000 mi, gm/mi
  o
  ca
 5«  2
 o
 u
                        O
                 1.4
   D






O           &




        O
               2      4      6      8      10      12


                  CO EMISSIONS AT 4000 mi, gm/mi
                  14
Figure 3.  Deterioration Factors vs Emissions at 4000 Miles
                             28

-------
9.4         PRODUCTION QUALITY CONTROL FACTOR
The  production quality control factor (QCF) accounts for the differences
between the average emissions of a certain vehicle model  and the maximum
emissions of a  specified percentage of the total vehicle population of that
model.   The effect of  the QCF  on the  emission goals is illustrated in
Figure  4,  which shows the HC and CO emission distributions from 1971
General Motors production vehicles.  Although these curves may not be
applicable to 1975 model vehicles, they are presented here to show trends.
As indicated,  extremely low emission goals would be required if a high per-
centage of the vehicles would have to meet the standards.  For example, a
QCF  of  approximately 2. 8 for HC and 3. 1 for CO  would be required
to achieve compliance with 99. 5 percent of General Motors vehicles in
Figure  4.  This results in correspondingly tighter emission goals.  Con-
versely, if the  emission averaging concept is adopted, the  QCF  has
no effect on the emission goals (QCF = 1. 0).
10.         INTERIM  STANDARDS
All thirteen automobile manufacturers appearing as  witnesses at the EPA
Suspension Request Hearings have asked for a one-year  suspension of the
1975  Federal emission standards and  adoption of less stringent interim
standards.  In  justifying their request, the automobile manufacturers con-
tend that the technology is currently not available to achieve the  1975 stan-
dards on spark ignition reciprocating engine-powered production vehicles.
Furthermore,  the automobile manufacturers are extremely reluctant to mass
produce a  catalytic emission  control system without having successfully
demonstrated vehicle/control system  safety, performance, and durability.
To date, there are no  data available that prove that mass-produced  vehicles
can meet the 1975 emission standards at 50, 000 miles when operated under
conditions  simulating  customer driving patterns.
The  interim standards proposed by the automobile manufacturers and a num-
ber of the  catalyst suppliers are presented in Table  4.  All of these interim
                                    29

-------
                4.0
                3.0
 HC EMISSION LEVEL
  (GRAMS PER MILE)
                2.2
                2.0


                1.3
                1.0
LIMIT
                                                95% OF CARS'
                                              V-TESTED ARE
                                               .BELOW LIMIT
                       5% OF CARS
                          TESTED
                  0   10  20   30  40  50   60   70  80   90  100
                              PERCENT OF CARS TESTED

                60r
CO EMISSION LEVEL
 (GRAMS PER MILE]
                                          V •' :88%OFCARS
                                               ;ARE TESTED
                                          •' s  'iBELOW LIMIT
                                                              12% OF CARS
                                                                 TESTED
                  0   10  20   30   40   50  60   70   80   90  100

                              PERCENT OF CARS TESTED


Figure 4.  HC and CO Emission Levels from 1971 California Car Production
           Audit (1473  Cars Tested) (GM Production Vehicles)
                                    30

-------
Table 4.  Interim 1975 Emission Standards Proposed by Manufacturers
Manufacturer
Emission Control
Concept
I. DOMESTIC AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS
American Motors
Chrysler
Ford
General Motors
International Harvester
Engine Modification
Engine Modification
Oxidation Catalyst
Engine Modification
Oxidation Catalyst
II. FOREIGN AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS
British Leyland
Daimler-Benz

Nissan
Saab-Scania
Toyo Kpgyo

Toyota
Volkswagen
Volvo
Engine Modification
Engine Modification
Diesel Engine
Without Catalyst
Engine Modification
Engine Modification
Engine Modification
Rotary Wankel Engine
With Thermal Reactor
Engine Modification
Engine Modification
Engine Modification
III. CATALYST MANUFACTURERS
Chemico
Engelhard
W. R. Grace
Universal Oil Products
Catalyst Addition
Catalyst
Catalyst
Catalyst
Emissions, gm/mi
HC

3.4
1. 5 to
2.0
1. 6
1.5
3.4
1. 0 to
1. 15

3. 4
1. 5
0. 41
3.4
3.4
-
(0.41)
3. 4
3.4
3/4

CO

39
20 to
25
19
19
39
12 to
20

39
20
3. 4
39
39
-
(3.4)
39
39
39

NO
X

3. 0
2. 5 to
2.0
2. 0
3. 1
3.0
3. 0 to
1.75

3. 0
1.5
3. 1
3.0
3.0
-
(3.1)
3.0
3. 0
3.0

Technology to meet 1975
standards available
1975 Standards or slightly
higher
0. 6 to
0. 8
0.96
7 to
10
7.99
—
-
Manufacturers' Remarks

1974 Standards
To be selected within that range
Some models possibly without
catalyst
1974 Standards
Either combination feasible

1974 Standards

Meets 1975 Standards
1974 Standards
1974 Standards
Not selected
Good chance to meet 1975 Standards
1974 Standards
1974 Standards
1974 Standards

No test data supporting claim




-------
standards are based upon the concept of emission averaging and,  in the case
of Ford, upon the satisfactory resolution by EPA of several regulatory issues,
including fuel specifications,  vehicle maintenance,  and special allowances for
methane in the exhaust.  Ford proposed that the hydrocarbon composition of
the exhaust should be considered in evaluating vehicle compliance with the
standard.  The methane reactivity was specifically mentioned, since meth-
ane's role in the smog formation process is negligible.  Methane conversion
efficiency of the catalyst is low, compared with other more reactive hydro-
carbons.  If reactivity were considered, catalysts would appear  to be more
effective in reducing hydrocarbons in the exhaust.
With the exception of Ford and International Harvester, which propose to use
oxidation catalysts, the  remaining automobile manufacturers' suggested
interim standards -will be achieved by engine modifications, including im-
proved carburetion, choke, and ignition systems.
With the exception of Chrysler, Ford, International Harvester,  and Daimler-
Benz, all automobile manufacturers have proposed to adopt the  1974 emission
standards for 1975 spark ignition reciprocating engine-powered  vehicles,
primarily for the  following stated reasons:
      a.     Promulgation of interim standards  lower  than the 1974 standards
            has little effect on improving air quality,  as shown by the National
            Academy of  Sciences.
      b.     Adoption of more stringent standards would tend  to dilute current
            emission control system development efforts because the auto-
         ,  makers might then be inclined to  select 1975 systems using
            devices such as thermal reactors,  which  have  little chance of
            ever meeting the 1976 NOX standard.
      c.     Excessive risk and  system cost.
The interim standards proposed by Chrysler and Daimler-Benz are of the
order of 50  percent of the  1974  standards.  Both companies .would attempt to
achieve these levels by means of engine modifications only, possibly with the
use of secondary air injected into the exhaust manifold.  This basic approach
is considered to be desirable because it minimizes the raw engine emissions.
                                    32

-------
As a result, potential catalyst heat load problems will be reduced in future
systems incorporating catalysts.
Ford and International Harvester propose interim standards somewhat below
those recommended by Chrysler and Daimler-Benz.  Both Ford and Inter-
national Harvester project the use of oxidation catalysts in their interim sys-
tem vehicles but Ford believes that the catalyst might be omitted on some
Ford models.  In this case,  catalytic  systems could be introduced  more grad-
ually to gain the  required field experience and to minimize the risk.  Since
the emissions from the Ford 1972 and  1973 development fleets and the raw
engine emissions from the Ford Riverside fleet are substantially lower than
the 1974 standards, the prospects appear favorable for this approach. To
further investigate this matter, a review was made of 1972-73 certification
test data from American Motors, Ford,  General Motors, and Nissan. Adjust-
ments  were then made to these data to account for emission deterioration,
production slippage and, where applicable, conversion to the 1975  test proce-
dure.  Based on  the resultant analysis, it appears that the following emissions
can be achieved with available 1972 technology without the use of a catalyst:
2.5 gm/mi  HC,  2.5 gm/mi CO,  and 3.0  gm/mi NOX, respectively.
With the likelihood of further emission reductions resulting from carburetor
and ignition system improvements, it is believed that emission standards
more stringent than the 1974 standards are feasible for 1975.  Further emis-
sion reductions are possible by incorporation of catalysts currently under
development. Even with conservative estimates of catalyst efficiencies at
50,000 miles, the HC values shown above could be  reduced by approximately
30 percent and the  CO values by about 40 percent, respectively. This assumes
no replacement of the catalyst.  If catalyst replacement at 25,000 miles is con-
sidered, the above percentage reductions would be  changed to approximately
55 percent and 60 percent for HC and CO, respectively.
Catalyst replacement at 20,000 or 25,000 miles has been discarded by Ford
on the  basis of data which lead it to believe that catalyst deterioration is
primarily confined to the  low mileage  range. However,  the Ford position
                                     33

-------
appears questionable in view of the vehicle durability test data submitted by
American Motors,  General Motors, Matthey Bishop, and other data from
Ford.  Most data from these manufacturers indicate a rather gradual emis-
sion and catalyst effectiveness deterioration with mileage accumulation.
None of the other manufacturers has provided information regarding cata-
lyst replacement between 0 and 50,000 miles.
11.         PRODUCTION LEAD TIME
Each automobile manufacturer has identified one or more factors which con-
trol or define his lead time requirement for the development of production
tooling and facilities needed to mass produce 1975 emission control system
components.  In each case, the most critical items  cited were the fabrication
of the catalytic converter and the completion of durability tests currently
being conducted for the verification of the complete  emission system design.
Since the catalytic  converter appears to be a pacing production development
item with which all of the manufacturers must  contend, it serves as a  con-
sistent basis for examining and comparing production  schedules and lead
times among the different manufacturers.  The data available for this  com-
parison are shown  in Figure 5.   In general, the agreement  of the catalytic
converter production milestones among the various  automobile manufacturers
is good; the overall lead time requirements range from 25 to 28 months.
If the lead time  reference point is fixed at the date of firm commitment, it is
sei n that the lead times estimated to be required by the various  catalyst sup-
pliers vary in a narrow range from 21 to 25 months. Allowing for the fact that
production catalysts must be available at the manufacturer's plant in advance
of first vehicle production,  the  automotive manufacturer's lead time require-
ment would be expected to be  approximately 2 years.  This is consistent with
the previously noted lead time requirements of 25 to 28 months cited by the
automobile manufacturers.  Since the schedules of the automotive manufacturers
are in good general agreement, it is concluded that there are no gross
                                     34

-------
Oo
(SI

AMERICAN MOTORS
CHRYSLER
FORD
GENERAL MOTORS
VOLVO
VOLKSWAGEN
CY 72 CY 7
2468 10 12 246
C
I
A C
I i
3 CY 74
6 10 12 2 4 68
F

D E F
i i
-^LEAD TIME REFERENCE POINT
ABC D E F
I^dZ '
A B
i i
E F
f T~ i
A C
i i
B
I
1 i i i i 1 i i i i
D E F
i i i
D F
i
i 1 iii i i
                          30
                      25       20      . 15       10
                          MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
         A


         B


         C
PRODUCTION DESIGN PRELIMINARY
  APPROVAL
TOOLING AND FACILITIES
  PROGRAM APPROVAL

FACILITIES AND LONG LEAD TIME
  PARTS/EQUIPMENT CONTRACT
START DURABILITY  AND
  CERTIFICATION TESTS
START VEHICLE PILOT PART
  PROGRAM
D

E


F - START VEHICLE PRODUCTION
                  Figure 5.  Significant Milestones for Catalytic Converter Production
                           (Data Supplied by Automobile Manufacturers)

-------
inconsistencies among or between the lead time specifications of the suppliers
and manufacturers.
Ford has contracted with Eng'elhard Industries for supplying catalysts to be
used in the Ford emission control system arid has provided financial backing
of up to $4.9 million for facilities and equipment. This relationship repre-
sents the only case to date of a contractual commitment between an automo-
bile  manufacturer and a catalyst supplier for production facilities.
All manufacturers  have indicated that their current schedules represent an
accelerated work effort in order to develop production facilities in time for
the 1975 model  year.  Additional schedule compression holds higher risks
for the automobile  manufacturers because of the resulting major reductions
in the time allowance set for correcting problems in production hardware
design or assembly line operations; this  effect is only correctable to  a degree
through the use of labor on an overtime basis,  which in turn raises product
cost. Some catalyst suppliers have estimated  an ability to further compress
their schedules by  3 to 6  months, but with corresponding increases in unit
costs from 3 to 12  percent.
12.        MAINTENANCE, SAFETY, AND COST
Recognizing that the 1975-1976 emission goals may never be  effectively
achieved unless emission control systems maintain their efficiency in ser-
vice, EPA has indicated that they would consider approving increased mainte-
nance of the emission system components under certain guidelines.  Difficulty
in meeting the  50,000-mile requirement  has led to the consideration of per-
mitting more maintenance and repair over the  durability test mileage,  pro-
vided that failure or deterioration of the  component would, by. appropriate
design, "induce" the car  owner to have the defect remedied.  This approach
is fundamentally difficult to  implement because many types of emission con-
trol system failures tend to improve vehicle performance and driveability.
Proposed fail-open modes for the EGR valve are found to  pose  safety hazard
problems, while the cost of catalyst  replacement tends to militate against the
                                     36

-------
success of an approach permitting voluntary refurbishment of the system.
In summary,  no effective approach has yet been found to ensure that emission
systems \vill continue to function properly in service.
Safety issues  concerned with the 1975 emission control systems include poor
passing performance, increased fire hazard, and possible catastrophic fail-
ures of critical vehicle components due to increased  underhood and exhaust
temperatures associated with the thermal reactor and/or catalytic converter.
The performance problem has led  a number of manufacturers to  consider
dropping low-power economy models in order to  retain safe driveability
throughout their product line.  Currently, no one using the  overtemperature -
controlled catalytic converter by-pass valve is  confident that it represents a
satisfactory solution to the fire hazard problem.
The major cost factors associated with the 1975 emission control system
package relate to increases in the  purchase  price of the car, increases in
vehicle lifetime maintenance costs, and increases in fuel costs.   Projections
of sticker price increases for 1975 emission system  cars (using  a 1968 base-
line) range from $255 to $412 among the various  domestic manufacturers.
13.        REGULATORY PROBLEM AREAS
In developing  engineering goals for the 1975 emission control systems,  the
automobile manufacturers had to make a number  of assumptions  related to
vehicle durability and to certification test procedures.  These assumptions,
which require action by EPA, include emission averaging for certification
and assembly line vehicles, fuel contaminant regulation, methane allowance,
and maintenance, warranty, and recall procedures.
All manufacturers  have assumed that emission averaging will be permitted
by EPA for both certification and assembly  line vehicles.  It is the consensus
of the industry that meeting 1975 emission standards  with every vehicle is not
practical  because of variations in the production  tolerances and the test data.
A number of manufacturers have recommended that the fuel contaminant
levels be  limited to values  below those permitted by the proposed EPA fuel
                                     37

-------
additive regulations in order to prevent catalyst poisoning.  In addition, the
establishment of maximum sulfur and other additive levels in fuel is con-
sidered desirable.   Test data by General Motors indicate that catalyst dam-
age occurs with fuels  containing more than 0. 02 gm/gal lead, 0. 005 gm/gal
phosphorus,  and 0. 03 percent sulfur.  Test fuel volatility is  another impor-
tant issue which deserves consideration by EPA.  As  shown by General
Motors, modifications in the fuel volatility can result in  substantial reduc-
tions of CO emissions during the cold start phase of the certification cycle
without adversely affecting vehicle driveability.  Since methane is essentially
nonreactive,  Ford proposes establishment by EPA of  a methane allowance
in interpreting HC emission test data.  This  approach would  be particularly
significant for  control systems using platinum catalysts since the methane
conversion efficiency  of these catalysts is  generally low.
The question of what constitutes a meaningful certification  cycle for vehicle/
control systems utilizing a catalyst has been raised by a number of  automo-
bile manufacturers.  Chrysler has stated that the catalyst temperatures
achieved during the EPA certification cycle are substantially lower  than those
obtained under high-load and/or customer  driving conditions.  As a result,
vehicle/control system safety and catalyst durability cannot be adequately
evaluated with  the current certification procedure.
                                     38

-------
                            1.   INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to. present'.a.compilation and evaluation of all
available information pertaining to the assessment of the technological progress
by the automotive industry toward meeting the 1975 Federal emission standards
for light duty'vehicles.  These 1975 standards are:
            HC (hydrocarbons)                      0.41 gm/mi
            CO (carbon monoxide)                   3.40 gm/mi
            NO  (oxides of nitrogen)                 3.10 gm/mi

To  fulfill the objectives  of this study, the work effort was composed of two
areas:  data compilation and data review, summarization, and evaluation.
A compilation was made of all information available from three sources:
(1)  the manufacturers' applications for  suspension of the 1975 emission
standards,  (2) the testimony and supplementary material presented by the
witnesses at the April 10-28,  1972 EPA Suspension Request Hearings, and
(3)  the documents submitted by industry in response to the September 1971
EPA technology survey questionnaire.  A review, summarization, and evalua-
tion of all data acquired were  performed.  First-choice emission control
systems, possible alternate systems, unconventional engine designs,  and
emission control system components were included in the study.  Emphasis
has been directed toward low and high mileage emissions; component  and
system durability characteristics--in particular, catalytic converters; and
factors affecting emission goals and interim standards.   In addition,  the
problem areas related to the emission control systems and components were
identified and the  manufacturers' plans  for resolution were evaluated.

The body of the  report is based on information obtained  from the automotive
industry, including domestic and foreign automakers, catalyst manufacturers,
and  catalyst component suppliers.  The appendix includes the  highlights  of
the statements made by nonautomotive industry witnesses at the April 10-28
EPA Suspension Request Hearings.
                                    1-1

-------
             2.  CANDIDATE 1975 EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
  2. 1            SUMMARY DISCUSSION
  The discussion of candidate 1975 emission control systems presented in the
  following sections of this report is based on information from three sources:
  the manufacturer's  applications for suspension, the testimony and supple-
  mentary material presented at the April 10-28 Washington, D. C. hearings,
  and  the material submitted in response to the September,  1971 EPA tech-
  nology assessment  survey questionnaire.  The suspension applications were
  a prime source of material on Ford,  Chrysler, General Motors, Interna-
  tional Harvester, and Volvo.  The hearing testimony provided supplementary
  data on these manufacturers,  and, in addition, yielded information on the
  first-choice systems for American Motors, British Leyland,  Daimler-Benz,
  Nissan,  Saab, Toyo Kogyo,  Toyota,  and Volkswagen.   The 1971 EPA survey
  provided the data base for the other auto manufacturers discussed in this
  section: Alfa Romeo, BMW, Citroen, Honda,  Mitsubishi, Renault,  and
  Rolls-Royce.

  The 1975 emission  control system is  exemplified  by the following package  of
  components and engine modifications:
              Oxidizing catalytic converter
              Air injection
              Exhaust gas recirculation  (EGR)
              Carburetor modifications
              Ignition system modifications
  With the exception of Toyo Kogyo which utilizes a thermal reactor, all of
 /the manufacturers'  first-choice systems incorporate an oxidizing  catalytic
  converter with air injection to promote the oxidation of unburned hydro-
  carbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) of the engine exhaust.y The catalytic
1  converter type which appears  most frequently among the selected
                                      Z-l

-------
  first -choice systems is the noble metal /monolithic catalyst exemplified by
  the Engelhard PTX design.  General Motors,  International Harvester,  and
  a number of other manufacturers have selected the base metal/pelletized
  (AC-Delco) type of converter as a first-choice design.  In many cases a
  firm, decision as to catalyst type has not been made and several systems are
  being tested and evaluated concurrently.

  Nearly all of the first-choice systems employ EGR for the  control of oxides
                    ~\
  of nitrogen (NO  ). ) However, most British Leyland and the Toyo Kogyo and
                 x  /
  Saab vehicles exported to the U.S. are said to be capable of meeting the 1975
  3.10 gm/mi NO  standard without EGR.
                 ji
  In addition to the aftertreatment systems delineated above, a number of
  manufacturers,  including Chrysler,  GM, and Ford, utilize a partial thermal
  reactor in place of the conventional exhaust manifold, primarily to provide
  rapid warmup of the catalytic converter  under cold start conditions.
  ff
  jfkDarburetion system modifications-thattha-ve-bTe'en identified for first "choice —
           range from complete redesigns, utilizing new concepts, to minor
   improvements to the current conventional systems.  These modifications
   are generally directed toward improving the precision and stability of the
   air /fuel raticraand also include such features as altitude  compensation,  quick
   release choice  devices, and induction manifold heating.  All  of the domestic
   and several of the foreign manufacturers propose, or have in development,
V^-electronic (breakerless) ignition systems which are targeted for inclusion in
        first-choice system.  These systems generally provide an improvement
  fh spark-timing precision, consistency and reliability.

  The most pervasive problem in the industry relative to 1975 emission control
  systems appears to be the lack of adequate durability in the catalytic con-
  verters currently under test.  Catalyst durability is composed of two aspects:
  physical durability and emission  durability.  For  monolithic designs, the
  physical aspect of the problem is symptomized by cracking and local melting
                                      2-2

-------
of the catalyst substrate,  due to vibratory loads and overtemperature.  For
pellet-type systems, the problem is exhibited as a loss of catalyst material,
caused by brittleness of the pellets and/or deficiencies in the design and
construction of the support grids.  Physical breakdown appears to be partic-
ularly severe in 4-cylinder engine systems because of characteristically
high vibrations.  Canister deformation and rupture failures have occurred
with both types of converter designs.

Einission durability is most strongly impacted by a loss of catalyst efficiency
•with accumulated mileage without mechanical deterioration.  The problem
has several causes,  including poisoning of the catalyst due to small quantities
of lead,  sulfur, or phosphorous in the fuel and/or loss of catalyst surface
area  due to overheating.   The overheating effect appears to be  primarily
related to rich air/fuel operation and may be encountered under various
engine/vehicle operating conditions including acceleration, deceleration,
choking, high-power operation, and malfunctions of different types.

In addition to the catalytic converter, durability problems with other  1975
emission system components are reported.  Notable among these are EGR
valves and thermal reactors.

Other problems which appear to be characteristic of 1975  emission control
systems are degradation of vehicle driveability, loss  of vehicle performance,
and deterioration of fuel economy.  Driveability problems reported encom-
pass  the following:  loss of cold start driveaway capability,  stumbles,  stalls,
inadequate acceleration,  difficulty in hot starting, rough idle, surging, hesi-
tation, and backfire.  Power losses  and losses in fuel economy (relative to
1972  vehicles)  range from 10 to 20 percent for both parameters.

The catalytic converter durability problem is being treated in several ways.
One of these is characterized by improvements  in the basic design of the  con-
verter (by the catalyst supplier); another technique involves improvements
in the precision control of the converter operating environment (by the
                                    2-3

-------
auto manufacturer).  Basic converter design innovations include the use of
stacked (layered) and extruded monolithic substrates having superior physical
properties to first-generation rolled or spiral designs, improved pellet con-
figurations and grid systems , and better shock-mounting and  support arrange-
ments.  Limit regulation of air /fuel mixtures,  improved carburetion, and
converter by-pass overtemperature protection  systems are some of the
techniques under development for controlling the quality of the exhaust flow
to the catalyst.

With regard to the degradation of vehicle driveability,  performance,  and fuel
economy, improvements  are being sought by modifying the design of the fuel
metering,  induction, and ignition systems.  Electronic engine control,  which
integrates  the adjustment of ignition timing,  air /fuel ratio, and EGR flowrate
with respect to engine load and RPM,  may provide the means to achieve an
optimized balance of exhaust  emissions versus  vehicle performance and
economy.  Electronic engine  control is a feature of the Chrysler  first-choice
system.

The  emission performance of the 1975 systems is categorized in  terms of
low and high (4000  ) mileage  accumulation.   Many of the manufacturers' low
mileage test results fall well within the 1975 standards;  most of these sys-
tems drift outside the limits of the standards at low  levels of  mileage accumu-
lation.  In general,  zero-mileage vehicles do not meet the manufacturers'
     nal engineering emission goals.
The status of high mileage emission level capabilities for  1975 first-choice
systems may be gauged from the summary of best high mileage emission
results presented in Table 2-1.  The maximum mileage accumulated with all
three pollutants within standards was 32,000 miles, achieved by an American
Motors Javelin (3000-lb,  6-cylinder, 258-CID engine) equipped with an
AC-Delco base metal, pelletized catalytic converter (Car D17-11). This
system is continuing to accumulate mileage (EPA durability driving schedule).
                                    2-4

-------
       Table 2-1.   First-Choice Systems,  Summary of Best High  Mileage  Emission Results
    Manufacturer
                           Test or Car N'o.
                                               First-Choice System Components
                                                    Mileage
                                                                                                     1975 CVS-CH
                                                                                                  Emissions, ^m/
                                                                                                HC
                                                                                                         CO
                                                                                                                  NO
                                                                                                                               Remarks
American Motors
American Motors
Chrysler
Ford
General Motors
International Harvester
Alfa Romeo
BMW
British Leyland
Citroen
Daimler-Benz
Honda
Mitsubishi
Nissan
Renault
Saab
Toyo Kogyo
Toyota
Volkswagen
Volvo
D17-11
DOO-24
698
Ford »1
2222
Austin
Rib
75-A

OB44085
EM + EGR + AI + OC
EM + EGR + AI + OC
EM + EGR + AI + PTR + OC
EM + EGR + AI (+ TR) + OC
EM + EGR + AI * PTR + OC
EM + EGR + AI + OC
Not defined
EM + EGR + AI t OC
EM + AI + OC
Not defined
EM + EGR + AI + OC
Not defined
EM + AI (+ TR) + OC
EM + EGR + AI + OC
AI + OC
EM + AI + OC
(EM) +  AI + TR
C- OC for reciprocating)
EM + EGR -> AI + OC
EM (+ EFI) + EGR + AI + TR + OC
EM + EGR -f AI + OC
32,000
50,000
43,000
 8, 000
 8. 000
 4.000
                                                    11, 400
10,000
 8,000
16, 000
 8,000

25, 3448
 0. 39
(0. 32
(0..16
 0. 25
 0. 32
 0. 33
                                                                 0.28
                                                                 0. 5
                                                                 O.Z
                                                                 0.32
 0.27

 0. 24
3.04
4. 8
1.88
i. 84
4.6
4.7
                                                                         2.73
         3.9
         1.2
         3.91
2.82

2.45
1. 5
a.U1
3.91)2
2. 55
2.6
                                                                                  2.32
         0.78
         1.69
1.29

1.82
9,  12, Base OC
Noble OC
5, 8, 12, NobleOC
9,  13, Noble OC
9,  Base OC
3
6
6
7,  Noble OC
6
6
6
3
14, Noble OC
4, 10, Noble OC
6, Noble OC
5,11, 14,NobleOC
6, Noble OC
5, 12,  Noble OC
 1.  Least-squares fit to 1972 test results converted to 1975 test procedure; slow choke
 2.  1972 CVS-C test procedure
 3.  No high mileage  data met standards
 4.  Emissions package incomplete/uncertain
 5.  Converter subsequently failed (within 4000 miles)
 6.  No high mileage  data provided
 7.  Exceeded standards below  17,000 miles
 8.  Converter miles
 9.  Test continuing
10.  Average of  two  tests
11.  After maintenance
12.  Standards were exceeded at lower mileage points
13.  Best of two  tests
14.  Non-standard maintenance schedule
                                                             AI    —  Air  Injection
                                                             EFI  —  Electronic Fuel Injection
                                                             EGR  —  Exhaust Gas Recirculation
                                                             EM   —  Engine Modifications
                                                             OC   —  Oxidizing Catalyst
                                                             PTR  -  Partial  Thermal  Reactor
                                                             TR   —  Thermal Reactor

-------
Two other high mileage vehicles may be noted.  One of these is an
American Motors 1970 production model Hornet (same vehicle weight and
engine as the Javelin). This vehicle (Car  DOO-24), equipped with an
Engelhard PTX 423 noble metal monolithic catalytic converter, has com-
pleted 50, 000 miles of durability testing and at this mileage  a least squares
data fit indicates the emissions were 0.32, 4.8, and 2. 1 gm/mi for HC, CO,
and NO , respectively.  The 1975 CO standard of  3. 4 gm/mi was exceeded
       •"•
at roughly 30,000 miles.  The other high mileage  vehicle is  a 400-CID
Chrysler car.  This vehicle (Car 698), equipped with dual Engelhard
platinum/monolith converters which had been transferred from another
vehicle, developed a total converter mileage of 43,000 miles at emission
levels of 0. 16, 1. 88, and 3. 91 gm/mi for  HC,  CO, and NO , respectively.
The catalyst container failed mechanically at this  point.

In addition to the two high mileage vehicles discussed above,  the Volvo
first-choice emission vehicle might also be mentioned.  This system accu-
mulated 25, 344 converter miles within standards.   The catalyst failed
mechanically at 29, 900 miles.

Summarizing the emissions performance indicated by the data in Table  2-1,
eight first-choice systems  have met the standards at accumulated mileages
in excess of 4000 miles.  None of these has achieved the 50, 000-mile dur-
ability requirement; one system has met the standard at 32, 000 miles and
is st;ll under test. A total  of three  systems have  demonstrated the potential
of achieving 25,000 converter miles within standards;  two of the converters
subsequently failed in test.  A total  of three catalytic converter failures
occurred among the eight test vehicles which met  the standards at more
than 4000 miles.

In the main,  the alternate systems under investigation by the manufacturers
for'potential use  in 1975 model year vehicles incorporate different types or
designs of catalytic converters but are otherwise  similar to  the emission
control packages selected as first-choice  systems.  A typical example is
                                    2-6

-------
GM, whose second- and third-choice  systems substitute noble metal pellet
and noble metal monolithic converter designs for the first-choice base metal
pellet converter design.  Therefore,  the discussion in the preceding para-
graphs,  encompassing system descriptions,  problems and plans for resolu-
tion, and fuel consumption and performance penalties, applies also to most
of the systems in the alternate systems category.

At least  four manufacturers are experimenting with alternate 1975 emission
control systems which incorporate full-size thermal reactors.  These
are Ford,  GM, International Harvester, and Nissan.   The Ford system is
installed on their Group II test fleet vehicles which are equipped with dual
(series)  noble metal catalytic converters, a thermal reactor, and EGR.  The
GM system consists of a thermal reactor with EGR.  Durability data for ttiese
systems  are not provided.. The International  Harvester  system exceeds the\
standards at zero mileage.

The Nissan system comprises engine modifications, a thermal reactor, EGR,
and an oxidizing catalytic converter.  Problems encountered with the Nissan
reactor may be represented as being  typical of thermal reactors.  These
problems are reactor core deformation and durability,  and the need to
develop inexpensive materials which will  survive the high-temperature,
turbulent core  environment.  The fuel consumption penalty for the Nissan
system was quoted  as 10 to 15 percent relative to 1972 model year vehicles.
The maximum  mileage accumulated on this  system was 32,000 miles at
emission levels ranging from 0.5 to 0.75 gm/mi HC, 11 to 13 gm/mi CO,  and
0.75 to 1. 1 gm/mi  NO .  This system may be under development for 1976.

It may be noted that Toyota is testing a  thermal reactor  system which also
appears to be targeted to the 1976 model year.  The system incorporates
engine modifications,  EGR,  an oxidizing catalyst, and a reducing catalyst.
 The Toyo Kogyo thermal reactors are classified as first-choice devices.
                                     2-7

-------
Two vehicles equipped with this system failed the CO standard before
8000 miles were accumulated.
2.2           SELECTED SYSTEMS --BY MANUFACTURER   .
2.2.1         American Motors
2.2.1.1       First-Choice System
2.2.1.1.1     Special Design Features
American Motors first-choice 1975 system includes EGR, secondary air
injection, an oxidizing catalytic converter, and extensive engine modifica-
tions.  A final decision has not been made as to whether the  catalytic con-
verter will be a noble metal monolithic type or a base metal pelletized type.
Designs which appear to be prime candidates are the Engelhard noble metal
system and the AC-Delco base metal system.  The engine modifications
include changes in the carburetion,  induction system, valve  timing,
cylinder  head design, ignition system,  and combustion chamber configuration.
2.2. 1. 1.2     Problem Areas and Plans  for Resolution
The problems delineated by American Motors include the following:
           a.   Vehicles tested to date are far from satisfactory in terms
                of driveability and freedom from stalling and rough opera-
                tion during the first few  miles after a cold start.  American
                Motors is  attempting to resolve these problems by revising
                the design  of the fuel metering, induction, and ignition
                systems.
           b.   Emission control durability is difficult to achieve.  Although
                American Motors has tested several vehicles to extended
                durability   mileage, none has met their engineering goals beyond
                4000 miles.  This is attributed to durability deficiencies in
                both the catalyst and the  engine (valve and ignition) systems.
           c.   Major underbody changes are required to permit packaging
                the emission control system.  American Motors  states that
                a minimum lead time of  2 years is needed to effect the neces-
                sary body  changes.
                                    2-8

-------
2.2. 1. 1.3    Emissions
2.2.1.1.3.1  Test Programs and Vehicle Description
American Motors is currently testing several prototype emission control
systems installed in a broad spectrum of 6- and 8-cylinder engine/vehicle
combinations, both with and without EGR.  The test fleet encompasses three
different  6-cylinder engine sizes (199, 232, 258 CID) mounted in two different
inertia weight vehicles (3000,  3500 Ib), and two V-8 engines (304, 360 CID)
mounted in  3500- and 4000-lb inertia weight vehicles.
2.2.1.1.3.2  Test Procedures
Durability vehicles were tested using  the AMA driving cycle. Emission
testing employed both the  1972 CVS-C  and the 1975 CVS-CH Federal Test
Procedures.  All tests were conducted with fuel containing less than 0.024
gm/gal lead (0.014 gm/gal typical), less than 0.001 gm/gal phosphorous, and
less than 0.04 percent by weight sulphur.

Emission levels on Vehicle DOO-24 were obtained using the 1972 CVS-C test
procedure throughout the 50,000-mile  durability test.  At 50,000 miles, this
vehicle was also tested using the 1975  CVS-CH test procedure and the ratio
of CVS-CH  to CVS-C emission levels  determined.  This ratio, defined by
American Motors  as the correlation ratio, was then applied  to the CVS-C test
points  over  the entire 50,000 mile range to arrive at the "calculated" CVS-CH
emission data presented in Figures 2-1,  -2 and -3.
2.2.1.1.3.3  Emission Data Summary
Emission data reported by American Motors (Refs. 2-1 and  2-2) are pre-
sented in Tables 2-2 and 2-3 and Figures  2-1 through 2-12.  The test vehicles
indicated are equipped with various emission control devices including
catalytic  converters.  With the exceptions noted in  Table 2-2, all vehicles
are equipped with EGR;  other equipment is not delineated  except as  noted.
None of the  vehicles represents a complete  1975 prototype system.
                                    2-9

-------
 Table 2-2.  Low Mileage Emission Data--
            American Motors First-Choice System

Car No.
DZ7-1
D21-4
DOO-12
D08-6

Dll-2
Dll-3
Buck I
D14-2

Buck II
Buck III
D20-6
Buck IV
Inertia
Weight, Ib
3500
4000
3000
4000

4000
3500
3500
3000

3500
3500
3500
3500

Engine
360-V8
304-V8
199-6
360-V8

360-V8
258-6
304-V8
232-6

304-V8
304-vs
304-V8
304-V8
Test
Mileage
0
0
0
4000

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
Test
Procedure
1975 CVS-CH
1972 CVS-C
1972 CVS-C
1975 CVS-CH

1975 CVS-CH
1975 CVS-CH
1972 CVS-C
1975 CVS-CH

1972-CVS-C
1972 CVS-C
1975 CVS-CH
1972 CVS-C
Emissions, gm/mi
HC CO NO
X
0.50 5.01 3.24
1.02 23. 10 1.49(2)
0.29 6.26 2.38
0.39 2.50 -3.20(2)

0.39 6.09 2.83(2)
0.23 1.47 2.12(2)
0.30 4.73 -
0.23 2.38 3.28

0.37 4.53 -
0.44 5.07 -
0.25 2.03 1.95
0.75 5.78 -

Remarks
AC base metal pellet
(1)
(1)
Without EGR;2 UOP
miniverter
AC base metal pellet
AC base metal pellet
(1)
Without EGR; AC base
metal pellet
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1) Catalyst type and manufacturer not specified.
(2) Contradictory data, Refs. 2-3 and 2-4.
Table 2-3.   High Mileage Emission Data --
            American Motors First-Choice System
Car No.
D17-11

DOO-24

DOO-25


D01-28


Inertia
Weight, Ib
3000

3000

3000


4000


Engine
258-6

232-6

232-6


360-V8


Test
Mileage
32,000

50,000

24, 000


12,000


Test
Procedure
1975 CVS-CH

1975 CVS-CH

1975 CVS-CH


1975 CVS-CH


Emissions, gm/mi
HC CO NO
X
0.39 3.04 1.50

0.45 6.46 2.05(1)
0. 32 4. 80 2. lo'2>

0.75 8.57 2.75(3)


1.21 16.94 4. 33(4)


Remarks
AC base metal catalyst.
Test continuing
Engelhard noble metal
PTX-423 catalyst.
Test completed
Engelhard noble metal
PTX-423 catalyst.
Test terminated
AC base metal
catalyst. Test
continuing.
(1) Test points at 50,000 miles from Figures 2-1 through 2-3.
(2) Least squares straight line calculated values at 50,000 miles.
(3) Before maintenance.
(4) After maintenance.
                           2-10

-------
                                                T           I             I
                                         ENGINE at CID NO VAC. SPARK ADVANCE
                                         CAR!. IV
                                         TRAHSMSSION - AUTOMATIC
                                         •OOr - HORNET
                                         CATALT1T - ENGELHARD tnoM* nwtal) PTX-421
                                         rUCL - UNLEADED 10.0M vn/rill. PHOS. (<0.OOSI
                                         TUT PROCEDURE II»TS <•&• ada*M from
                                           IIT» prtotira)

                                         CORRELATION DATIO  Hfl IMBI8H * ° **"
                                         COHIIELATION RATIO WAS DCTERUNED AT THE
                                         50.000 mil. POINT MING DATA FHOU VEMCLC
                                         OX.14. THIS RATIO WAS THEN APPLIED TO ALL
                                         OTHER POINTS OF ACTUAL DATA GATHERED USING
                                         THE I9T2 PROCEDURE. THE POINTS PLOTTED ON
                                                           21X000         30,000

                                                              DISTANCE. •>
                                                                                                        EMISSIONS
                                                                      HC
                               w  •

                               M


                               S  »

                               5


                               5  4
                                        ENGINE - 232 CIO NO VAC. SPARK ADVANCE
                                        CARS IV
                                        TRAMSM&SKW - AUTOMATIC
                                        BODY - HORNET
                                        CATALYST - ENGELHARD  (noM* rratal) PTX-423
                                        FUEL - UNLEADED |f "		   	
                                        TEST PROCEDURE 111
                                          1*72 proc**.r*|

                                    ~   CORRELATION RATIO [jfj ftlHIoll} c °'443
CORRELATION RATIO WAS DETERMINED AT THE
SO, 000 mil* POINT USING DATA FROM VEHICLE
000-24. THIS RATIO WAS THEN APPLIED TO ALL
OTHER POINTS OF ACTUAL DATA GATHERED USING
THE I9T2 PROCEDURE. THE POINTS PLOTTED ON
THIS PACE REFLECT THE USE OF 1 HE RATIO
s.-—
                         CO
                                                           20, 000        30,000

                                                               OISTMCC. mi
                                .1

                                J  4
                                           ENGINE - 232 CID HO VAC. SPARK ADVANCE
                                           CARS. IV
                                           TRANSMISSION - AUTOMATIC
                                           BOOT - HORNET
                                           CATALYST - ENGELHARD (ncbl* mnal) PTX-423
                                           FUEL - UNLEADED 0.016 «n/0H|, PHOS. (<0.005)
                                           TEST PROCEDURE M9tt W(M> oolcutn^ from
                                             N72 proc»dur»I

                                                                        '•«•
   CORRELATE «T»

   CHCMLUMNCSCENCC EQUIVALENT
                                           CORRELATION RATIO WAS DC TERM NED AT THE
                                           SO.000 mil* POINT USING DATA FROM VEHICLE
                                           DOO-24. THIS RATIO WAS THEN APPLIED TO ALL
                                           OTHER POINTS OF ACTUAL DATA GATHERED USING
                                           THE t«72 PROCEDURE. THE POINTS PLOTTED ON
                                           THIS PACC REFLECT THE USE OF THE RATIO
                                                                                                             NO
                                                           20,000         30.000

                                                              DISTMCE. «i
Figures  2-1,   2-2,  2-3.   American  Motors  Durability  Test  Data — Vehicle  DOO-24
                                                                  2-11

-------
                   1"
                   CJ
                   1°.'
                                                                           EMISSIONS
                               ENGINE IS* CID W/IOK ECU
                               EXHAUST DEVICE AC CAT CONV. IbM mMII
                               FUEL - UNLEADED IO.OM vn/fri|. PHO. I<0.009I. SULFUR
                               TUT PROCEDURE - 1»TS
                               COIII. COEFF. O.M2
                               ITO. ERKOR 0. U9
                               DET. FACTOR Ikr
HC
                                     20,000    JO, 000

                                         DISTANCE. •!
ENGINE 2M CIO W/IOX ECU
EXHAUST DEVICE AC CAT. CONV. (MM mMill
TEST PROCEDURE - I9TS
STD. tKKOK O.UT m/M
DET. FACTOR (by ••Isolation) 1. OS
FUEL: /—9n'
UNLEADED 0. 016 gm/J.1 / 	
PHOS. I
-------
                                                                              EMISSIONS
                     • 0.1
                     I
                       0.2 -


                        .L=
CATALYST - CNCELHAMD PTX-4Z3 |ne*ta mrall

IS* *&&&?."& •"**>• ""*• l<°-"»1
                                                                                   HC
                                           10,000      10.000

                                             OISTIICE, •!
                                            (HUM 212 CIO
                                            CAR*. IV
                                            TMANM1UICM - AUTOMATIC
                                            •COT - HOKNET
                                            CATALTIT - ENOELHAUD PTI-421 |noM« mMII
                                            FU(L - UNLEADED JO. OH |m/g*l|.
                                             PHO9. (Ml Mn 0.0051,
                                             — - PIlOCEOr	
                                            TEST •

                                            I
       EDU*E I

          I
                                                               I
                                                                                   CO
                                           10.000      30,000

                                              DISUICE, ml
                                   ENGINE 232 CID
                                   CADI. IV
                                   TRANSUSSIOH - AUTOMATIC
                                   MOOT - HOMNET
                                   CATALYST - EHBELHAIID PTX-42] |noM> imMI
                                   FUEL - UNLtAOEO 10.014 frJfH. PMOJ. I<0.b03l
                                   TEST PDOCEOUIE - l*n
                                   OET. FACTOR - O.M (by Mnpotatlail
                            	r
                           -I__L° ZIL
                                        i— m.
                                      NO,
                                           20.000

                                              OISTIICC.
Figures  2-7,  2-8,  2-9.   American Motors Durability  Test Data—Vehicle DOO-25
                                                   2-13

-------
                                                                                   EMISSIONS
                                 0.4



                                 0.1
                                                      ENOINE S40 CIO
                                                      CARB. 4V
                                                      TMKSMUIOM • AUTOMATIC

                                                      CATALYST -
                                                                                          HC
                                                  MI ooo     to.no
                                                    DUKRCl. ml
                                                                           90,000
                                I 20
                                s
                                tf»
ENGINE MO CIO
CARB. 4V
TRANSMISSION - AUTOMATIC
•OOY - HORNET
CATALYST * AC lbo» imMt)
FUEL - UNLCADCD O.OU gm/gal.
  PHtB. < 0.009
TE9T PKOCtOUHE - I9R
                                                                                          CO
                                                   M. 000     10,000

                                                    OIS!«»Ct. HI
                                                 CNCINC . MO CID
                                                 CARS. 4V
                                                 TRANSMISSION - AUTOMATIC
                                                 BOOT - HORNET
                                                                                          NO,
                                                   20,000     )0,000

                                                       DISTMCE ,«l
Figures 2-10,  2-11,  2-12.  American Motors  Durability  Test Data — Vehicle  D01-28R
                                                         2-14

-------
High mileage emission data are presented in Figures 2-1 through 2-12.  The
data are summarized in Table 2-3 which shows emission results at the highest
mileage accumulated on each vehicle.

Referring to the high mileage emission results, there are two vehicles of
particular interest on the basis of performance.  These are Vehicles DOO-24
and D 17-11. Vehicle DOO-24 is a  1970 production model 258-CID 6-cylinder
Hornet  equipped with EGR, secondary air, and an Engelhard noble metal
(PTX 423) monolithic catalytic converter.  The vehicle inertia weight is
3000 Ib.  This vehicle has completed the 50,000-mile durability test with both
the HC  and  NO  emission levels below  the 1975 standards based upon the
least squares fit to the  emission test results shown in Figures 2-lthrough 2-3.
The CO straight line value at 50,000 miles exceeded the standard by a  factor
of approximately 40 percent.

The other vehicle  of interest is D17-11 which to date has accumulated 32,000
miles,  with all emission levels below the 1975  standards.   This vehicle is  a
258-CID 6-cylinder  Javelin equipped with EGR  (10 percent), secondary air,
and an AC-Delco base metal pelletized catalyst.  The vehicle inertia weight
is 3000 Ib.  Emission results achieved through 32,000 miles are shown in
Figures 2-4 through 2-7.  Durability testing of this vehicle is continuing.

Two additional vehicles  are undergoing EPA durability testing at American
Motors. These are vehicles DOO-25 and D01-28R. Vehicle DOO-25 is  a
232-CID 6-cylinder  Hornet equipped with EGR, secondary air,  and an
Engelhard PTX-423 catalytic converter.  The vehicle inertia weight is 3000 Ib.
American Motors  states (Ref.  2-3) that this test was terminated at 20,000
miles because of high deterioration rates.   However, the test mileage  data
submitted in Ref.  2-3 indicates an additional test point at 28,000 miles as
shown in Figures 2-7 through 2-9.  At  the 24, 000  mile test point, both the
HC and CO emission levels were significantly higher than the 1975 standards.
                                    2-15

-------
Vehicle D01-28R is a 360-CID V-8 Hornet equipped with EGR, secondary
air, and an AC-Delco base metal catalytic converter.  The vehicle inertia
weight is 4000 Ib.  Emission results achieved through 12,000 miles are
shown in Figures 2-10 through 2-12.  Poor emission control has been
exhibited on this vehicle, with CO and NO  exceeding the 1975 standards
from 0 miles  and HC from 4000 miles.  Extremely rapid deterio.ration of
the catalyst efficiency is also indicated by both the HC and CO data.
2.2.1.1.3.4  Best Emission Results
The best low and high mileage emission results reported to date by American
Motors (Ref.  2-4) are shown below in Table 2-4.  It is of interest to note that
in each case this was achieved with the 258-CID 6-cylinder engine mounted
in the 3000- and 3500-lb inertia weight vehicles. Also shown in Table 2-4
are the American Motors engineering goals at 0 and 4000 miles.  It will be
noted that Vehicle Dll-3 meets Lhe CO and NO  engineering goals at 0 miles
but exceeds the  HC goals at both 0 and 4000 miles.

           Table 2-4.  Best Emission Results -- American Motors

         Item
  Best High Mileage
  Best Low Mileage
  Engineering Goals
    at 0 miles
    at 4000 miles
Vehicle

D17-11
Dll-3


Engine

258-6
258-6


Miles
(1)
32,000
0


HC

0.39
0.23
0. 10
0. 15
CO

3.04
1.47
1.50
2.55
NO

1.50
2. 12
2.2
2.2
  (1)  Standards were exceeded at several mileage test points below 32, 000
      miles.
2.2.1.1.3.5  Test Data Variability
Test data variability as  reported by American Motors (Ref. 2-4) for seven
6- and 8-cylinder low mileage vehicles has been utilized to calculate the
coefficient of variation (tr/x, %) for consecutive CVS-CH tests, where 
-------
                 Table 2-5.  Range of Test Data Variability
                             for American Motors Low
                             Mileage Vehicles

                      (Coefficient of Variation, tr/x.%)

                      HC                     6 - 21%
                      CO                    11-21%
                      NO                     1 - 10%
                         ?c

2.2.1.1.4     Fuel Consumption and  Performance Penalties
Fuel consumption penalties associated with 1975 model year vehicles were
not discussed in detail by American Motors beyond a. statement estimating
that the fuel consumption would increase by 8 to 18 percent over the 1972
vehicles (Ref.  2-4).  Those portions of the 1975 emission control system
which would contribute to this increase in  fuel consumption were not
discussed.

Specific reductions in performance were not presented by American Motors
other than to delineate it as one  of the major unresolved problem areas
associated with the catalyst-EGR system being developed  to meet the 1975
standards.  General driveability was  described as far from satisfactory
(Ref.  2-4), as  was freedom from stalling and rough operation during the first
few miles  after a cold start.
2.2.1.2       Alternate Systems
American Motors does not have  an alternate 1975 system. They believe
their first-choice system is the  only approach which has  any chance for
success and that exploring alternative or second-choice systems would dilute
their primary  effort (Ref. 2-4).
                                   2-17

-------
2.2.2         Chrysler
2.2.2.1       First-Choice Systems
2.2.2. 1. 1     Special Design Features
Chrysler's first-choice  1975 emission control system incorporates the
following devices and modifications (Ref. 2-5, -6,  -7):
           Catalytic converter (platinum/monolith)
           Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
           Exhaust port air injection
           Catalyst by-pass protection system
           Partial exhaust thermal reactor
           Engine modifications
                Double wall exhaust pipe
                Heated carbureter air intake
                Carburetor mixture calibration with barometric pressure
                control  and electric assisted choke.
                Electronic engine control
Chrysler's reasons for selecting this  system maybe  summarized as f ollows.
The selection of the catalytic  converter  was based on the success achieved
with this device in meeting the 1975 standards under zero-mileage laboratory
conditions.  The monolithic noble metal converter design was  preferentially
selected over pelletized systems on the  basis of Chrysler's experience that
the noble monolith had higher activity at the lower engine temperatures .
Also, Chrysler's early development work with pebble-bed catalysts showed
pronounced deterioration problems.  The converter utilizes a  monolith
ceramic substrate coated with an Engelhard platinum catalyst-encased in a
304 stainless  steel container.  The device is positioned close to the engine in
the toeboard  location, based on the need for fast warmup and adequate operat-
ing temperatures as well as the availability of space.
                                   2-18

-------
The exhaust thermal reactor and the auxiliary air supplied to the exhaust
ports is employed to burn a major portion of the combustibles in the exhaust
during cold start and warmup and to increase catalyst temperature to an
effective operating level.  EGR is employed to provide NO  control.  Sub-
stantial  development of the EGR system is proceeding to provide flow control
and durability of all components involved.  The double wall exhaust pipe
minimizes heat loss between the  thermal  reactor and the catalytic converter.
It thus helps in  achieving a faster warmup of the catalyst to "light-off"
temperature.

Chrysler states that any temperature in excess of 1500  F can seriously
damage  the effectiveness of the catalyst; therefore,  a by-pass protection
against high exhaust gas temperatures is provided to route the exhaust gas
around the converter whenever the limiting temperature is exceeded.
2.2.2.1.2   Problem Areas and Plans for Resolution
Chrysler reports that while they have made encouraging progress to date,  a
number  of difficult problems remain to be  resolved.  The most pressing of
these are:
            Material durability at high temperature
            Vehicle driveability
            50,000-mile durability of system components
            Maintenance of emission levels for 50,000 miles
            Fuel penalties
            Reducing system cost
Chrysler's goal is to optimize the system as a whole to achieve the lowest
possible emission levels consistent with safe, dependable performance.  The
fuel penalties are brought  about by vehicles made heavier by the added safety
and emission control systems, decreased compression ratios, ignition spark
timing changes to achieve  maximum emission control, EGR which requires
richer air/fuel  ratios to retain acceptable  and safe driveability,  and by
increased exhaust backpressure.
                                    2-19

-------
Durability of the  subsystems is an area of great concern to Chrysler.
Catastrophic failure of the catalyst container has occurred, produced by such
events as ignition system failure under cruise conditions.  A catalyst by-pass
                                           jX.
and actuator device has been under development, but its success depends on
the development of a reliable  sensor system.  The location of the sensor is
very critical since any delay can result in temporary overtemperature condi-
tions.  Low temperature switch settings can result in loss of emission control
at steady-state operating conditions.  Lack of suitable sensors with adequate
response characteristics is delaying meaningful durability evaluations.

Although platinum monolith catalysts continue to be favored for emission
effectiveness and durability, recent progress reported by catalyst manu-
facturers with improved pebble catalysts is prompting Chrysler to re-evaluate
this type of system.
2.2.2.1.3    Emissions
2.2.2.1.3.1  Test Programs and Vehicle Descriptions
A fleet of eight 1973 Plymouth Furys are being used for "development testing
of the first-choice emission control system.  This program has the code name
A-335 and was initiated in April 1971.  The eight cars are equipped with a
360 CID  V-8 engine, automatic transmission,  power steering and brakes,
and air conditioning.

A schematic of the vehicle emissions package is provided in Figure 2-13.
Supplementary information on emission system  components is  being obtained
from research vehicles other than those in this  eight vehicle test fleet.   For
example, Chrysler Vehicle #333 (see Table 2-6) has provided considerable
information pertaining to catalyst durability.   Other vehicles have been used
to establish the performance  of the emission control package with different
engine sizes.
                                   2-20

-------
N

tx)
                 ELECTRIC
                   CHOKE
 MODIFIED
FRAME  RAIL
           ALTITUDE
        COMPENSATING
         CARBURETOR
       MONOLITHIC  CATALYST
            CONVERTER
                                                           CATALYST
                                                         BYPASS VALVE
EXHAUST  MANIFOLD
    REACTORS
             AIR PUMP
     EXHAUST
GAS RECIRCULATION
                                   ELECTRONIC
                                    ENGINE
                                    CONTROL
         BY-PASS PIPE    STANDARD MUFFLER
                       Figure 2-13.  Chrysler A-335 Special Emission Car (System Features)

-------
2.2.2.1.3.2  Test Procedures
A major portion of vehicle test work is carried out at the Chrysler Proving
Ground in Chelsea, Michigan. This  facility is used to test the emissions
control systems under a variety  of operating conditions.  Also conducted at
this location are the official certification activities and mileage accumulation
tests.  A modified AMA schedule is generally used for  mileage accumulation:
however, certain of the Chrysler durability vehicles were run on driving
schedules which were considerably milder than the modified AMA cycle.

Chrysler has used four different emission test procedures:
      1975-CVS-CH                       1975  Federal Test Procedure
                                          (three bag cold/hot start
                                          technique).
      1972-CVS-C                         1972  Federal Test Procedure
                                          (one bag cold start technique).
      1972-CVS-H                         Same as 1972  CVS-C except the
                                          car does not have a cold soak and
                                          is started in a warmed up
                                          condition.
      Hot 7-mode                         One hot cycle  of the  1971 Federal
                                          Test  Procedure.
Most tests are being  made with fuel containing 0.02 - 0.03 gm/gal of lead.
Chrysler believes that the catalyst durability might be  cut in half using the
proposed Federal lead level of 0.05 gm/gal (max).
2.2.2. 1.3.3  Emission Data Summary
Chrysler's  emissions results are presented in Tables 2-6 and 2-7.  Low
mileage emission results are shown  in Table 2-6.  The cars listed have been
used not only to test the effectiveness of the first -choice subsystems but also
to test the  effects of such engine adjustments as spark  advance  and EGR
flow rates.   Two mileages are shown:  one is representative of the accumu-
lated mileage on the defined system, the other is the total accumulated
mileage on  the particular catalytic converter configuration being  tested.
                                   2-22

-------
                                Table 2-6.  Chrysler Low Mileage Emissions
to
i
tv

Car No.
1 19






134














145



258









Engine CID
440






360














318



360








Mileage
Vehicle
396


671
1038
1268

157

183

265
431
913

987
1205
1489
1783

1969
2021
10

47
331
10

247
255
332
514

627

Catalyst
396


671
1038
1268

157

183

265
431
913

987
1205
1489
1783

1969
2021
0

37
321
0

237
245
322
504

617

Emissions,gm/mi
HC CO NOX
0.39 2.8 2.85


0.26 0.7 1.51
0. 13 1. 3 1.85
0.23 1.0 1.28

0.28 8.4 2.26

0. 15 3.4 2.25

0.22 4.9 1.66
0.29 4.3 1.54
0.20 1.5 1.78

0.45 9.8 2.09
0.21 7.2 1.14
0.17 2.0 2.28
0.40 5.9 2.24

0.20 0.6 1.90
0.21 0.3 1.84
1. 66 15. 0 2. 17

0.37 5.6 3.05
0.29 4.7 2.42
0.22 2.6. 1.54

0.39 1.4 2.92
0.02 0.1 2.95
1.49 5.7 4.52
0.21 1.0 3.70

0.23 0.9 5.44

Test
Procedures



1975-CVS-CH









1972-CVS-C






1975-CVS-CH



1975-CVS-CH

1972-CVS-C

1972-CVS-C
1972-CVS-H
1972-CVS-C

1975-CVS-CH


Converter or
Thermal Reactor (TR)
Engelhard Vert/Oval,
135 in3 (.2% Pt).
No TR




EngeLhard Toeboard,
90 in3 (.2% Pt).
No TR













Engelhard Oval-
Underseat. No TR


Engelhard Toeboard
(.35% Pt). No TR



Thermal reactor




Remarks
Air Pump 1. 25:1


Air Pump 1. 67:1
Choke mod: leaner A/F
Choke mod; high- flow
EGR valve
Air pump 1. 34:1

EGR on at coolant above
120°
Richer idle set
Air pump 1. 52: 1
A/F = 0. 064 (richer main
jet)
A/F = 0.072
New carburetor
High-flow EGR valve
New intake system;
large Venturi 4 bbl carb.
Larger Venturi thermo
quad.

Very rich choke

Repaired choke diaphragm

Air pump 1. 67: 1



Richer idle set
No EGR

Rerunning baseline
configuration

-------
                           Table 2-6.  Chrysler Low Mileage Emissions (Cont. )
ro

Car No.
378











303*








306*


326







333




Engine CID
360











360








360


400-2V







360



Mileage
Vehicle
15
112

415
870

1238
1340

1446


370

728
998

1244

1334

624

1069
143


621
819
1058
1201
1300**
0


2107
Catalyst
0
97

400
855

1225
1325

1431


370

728
998

1244

1334

624

1069
143


621
819
1058
1201
1300**
0


2107
Emissions, gm/mi
HC CO NOX
0.22 3.3 2.3
0.32 5.6 1.54

0.06 0.6 2.81
0.17 2.2 3.26

0.21 3.6 4.85
0.43 4.1 3.91

0.14 1.2 3.69


0.37 6.7 1.79

0.50 3.4 1.83
0.12 3.9 1.55

0.46 3.4 1.70

0.46 14.5 1.55

0.24 2.2 6.69

0.38 4.3 5.31
0.72 6.2 4.53


0.52 3.1 3.63
0.57 4.8 2.52
0.36 3.9 1.87
0.48 2.3 2.40
0.30 1.2 4.00
0.41 2.48 1.49


0.38 2.37 1.45
Test
Procedures

1972-CVS-C




1975-CVS-CH









1972-CVS-C





1972-CVS-C





1975-CVS-CH





1972-CVS-C

Converter or
Thermal Reactor (TR)
Engelhard. PTR











Engelhard Oval
(0.2% Pt). PTR







Engelhard Oval
(0.2% Pt). TR

Engelhard Vert
Oval (0.27. Pt).
No TR





Twin Engelhard
Toeboard (0.2% Pt).
No TR


Remarks

Double wall exhaust
pipe

Auto spark advance
control (OSAC)

Standard exhaust
pipe
New carburetor;
double wall exhaust
pipe
Air pump 1. 34:1;
cast reactors
Tuneup, oil change
High- flow EGR
valve
Carburetor and EGR
valve mod
Baseline plus man-
flow EGR valve
Air pump l.B34:I;
cast reactors
New Carburetor
EGR above 115° F
water temp. Air pump
1.67:1

Carburetor mod
Tuneup and choke mod
Carburetor mod
Carburetor mod
Air pump 1. 7:1




-------
                             Table 2-6.  Chrysler Low Mileage Emissions (Cont. )
ro
ro
un

Car No.
385


467*




467*


499*

585





650






683




Engine CID
360-2V


360




360


360

440





400






360



Mileage i Emissions, gm/mi Test
Vehicle
0

2000
96


189
215
4718

4889
107

0



35=5
3749
0



1000
3000
3000
0

3022

Catalyst
0

2000
96


189
215
0

171
107

0



359
3749
0



1000
3000
3000
0

3022

HC CO NO j Procedures
0.28 4. 3 2. 19

0.04 1.5 1.90
0.08 8.0 1.50


0.06 1.9 1.60
0. 24 4. 3 2.10
0.34 23.9 5.64

0. 12 6. 5 1.43
0.2 3.3 2.19

0, 73 2. ? 2.4!



0. 16 2. o 2. 07
0. 30 3. 7 1. 69
0. 12 1.51 -



0. 14 3. 65
0.47 2.2 1.75
0.75 1.44 5.03
0.03 3.80 3. SI

0.05 2.50 2.93


1972-CVS-C



1972-CVS-H

1972-CVS-C

197S-CVS-CH
1
1975-CVS-CH




1975-CVS-CH




1972-CVS-H


Hot 7 mode
1972-CVS-H
1972-CVS-C

1~'72-CVS-C

Converter or
Thermal Reactor (TR)
Engelhard Toeboard
(0. 35% Pt). No TR

Engelhard Oval
135 in3 (0.2% Pt).
PTR


New Englehard
converter (C. 2% Pt)
135 in3
Engelhard Horiz Oval
135 in3 0.2% Ptl.PTR
Engelhard Toeboard
Vert Oval 135 in3
(0. 2 To Pt). No TR



Dual Engelhard
Toeboard 107 in3
(0.2% Pt). 2-4
containers. No TR



Engelhard Vert Oval,
135 in (0.2% Pt).
No TR


Remarks
Air pump 1. 526:1

A/F changed
Air pump 1 . 52 : 1


Ne\v carburetor

New engine


Air pump 1. 52:1

Air pump 1. 25:1





Air pump 1 . 25:1
OSAC





Air pump 1. 52:1


i
A-335 program vehicle Mileage estimated

-------
                                  Table 2-7.  Chrysler High Mileage Emissions

Car No.
333















385






535






650


698





683





CID
360





Mileage
Vehicle
0

Catalyst
0

5030 5030

10121

10121
10318 ' 10318
i









360-2V






440




15117 | 15117
20327

20599
25336
32952
35712
35943
36094
0

5000

10000
15000
20000
257

3749
8462
13678
18330
! 21443
400








360




3000

8000
0

10000
20000
25000
30000
0
20327

20599
25336
32952
35712
35943
36094
0

5000

10000
15000
20000
257

3749
8462
13678
18330
21443
3000

8000
13000

23000
33000
38000
43000
0
I
3022 j 3022
8350 ' 8350
13284
13284
Emissions, gm/mi

HC CO N0x Test Procedure
0.41 2.48 1.49

0.62 5.41 1.72

0.40 4.1 1.54
0.32 2.2 1.52

0.38 3.9 2.25 j
1.1 11. 5 2. 76 1
1
0.73 5.4 2.51
0.45 6.0 3.20
0.42 5.3 2.72
0.21 4.5 1.43
0.36 4.7 0.78
0.33 4.1 1.56 i
0.28 4. 3 2. 19

0.26 6.8 1.30

0.47 2.0 1.15
0.28 2.38 1.55
0.26 2.84 1.56
0.20 2.4 2.46

0.30 3.7 1.69
0.35 2.6 1.55
0.44 2.1 1.5
0.39 1.9 1.10
.
0.75 1.44 5.03

0.04 12.7 4.73
0.11 3.9 1.84

0.39 1.7 2.55
0.53 2.19 4.30
0. 22 3.99 3.99
0.16 1.88 3.91
0.03 3.80 3.81

0.05 2.5 2.93
0.11 6.74 3.07
0.07 4.25 2.69







1972-CVS-C











1972-CVS-C






Thermal Reactor (TR)
Twin Engelhard Toeboard (0.2% Pt).
No TR














Engelhard Toeboard (0. 35% Pt)
(Improved catalyst, no TR)





Engelhard Toeboard Vert Oval
135 in3 (0.2% Pt). No TR
!
•1975-QVS-CH




•1972-CVS-H




•1972-CVS-C




1972-CVS-C






Dual Engelhard PTX-423S
107 in3 Toeboard. No TR

Dual Engelhard PTX-423S
107 in3 Toeboard. No TR




Engelhard Vert Oval 135 in

Remarks
Air pump 1. 7:1

Catalyst temperature kept
below 1500 F

EGR mods, engine
tune -up



New air pump


Replace choke spring
Replace monolith wrapping
Still running
Air pump 1. 526:1





Catalyst container failed at
23,000 mi.
Air pump 1. 52:1
1
General endurance test



Catalyst failed
Air pump 1. 25:1


System transferred from
Car 650: General endurance
test; no Pb, no P in fuel

New Engine
Converter damaged
Air pump 1. 52:1
(0.2% Pt). No TR



General endurance test

Still running
ro
i
N)

-------
Reported high mileage emissions are listed in Table 2-7.  Good emission
results were obtained with Vehicle 333 using a twin configuration Engelhard
converter (0.2 percent platinum on a spiral monolith substrate) in a toeboard
location.  Vehicle 333 was driven on an AMA schedule modified so that the
catalyst temperature never exceeded  1500   F.  This car was  frequently tuned
up and parts replaced.

Vehicle 385 had an improved catalyst with higher platinum loading.  However
it was driven on the Chrysler proving ground (a more severe  test than that
above) and received only the customer-specified servicing.  This  catalyst
failed at 20, 000 miles.  The failure was caused by abrasion of the catalyst;
container on the roadway.  A similar  test will be conducted in the near future
using a stacked monolith substrate.
2.2.2.1.3.4   Best Emission Results
Several of the tests showed emission levels within the 1975 standards.  Three
first-choice-type systems have met the standards at high mileage.

The best low mileage emission results were obtained with Vehicle 119
                                                                    3
(Model HP85, 440-CID engine with automatic transmission).  A 135 in
Engelhard vertical oval  converter was used. Emissions at 1268 miles were
0.23, 1.0,  and 1.28 gm/mi HC, CO,  and NO , respectively.
                                            3C
The best high mileage emission results were obtained with Vehicle 385
(360-2V engine with automatic  transmission). This car was driven on the
regular Chrysler proving ground and did not receive special servicing.  The
converter was  an Engelhard 0.35 percent platinum monolith in a toeboard
location.  At 20,000 miles, the emission levels were well within 1975
standards at 0.26,  2.84 and 1. 56 gm/mi HC, CO, and NO , respectively.
                                                        Jt
However the catalyst container failed  at 23, 000 miles.

Two systems have done  well in Chrysler's  durability testing.  One of these,
Vehicle 333 (Plymouth Fury,  360 CID) utilized a converter designated by
Chrysler as "twin Engelhard toeboard converters" (0.2 percent platinum/
monolith).  Mileage accumulation was accomplished using the AMA driving
cycle modified to lower  acceleration rates  above 50 mph to hold the catalyst

                                   2-27

-------
bed temperature below 1500  F.  The car was tuned up every 5000 miles.  At
36,094 miles the emission levels per the 1972-CVS-C procedure were 0.33,
4.1, 1. 56 gm/mi for HC, CO,  and NO , respectively. At this point it was
   •                                  '^
noted that the monolith was loose in its container and was abrading.  The other
system that performed well was run on Vehicles 650 and 698 (400 CID engine)
and utilized a converter designated by Chrysler as a "dual Engelhard toeboard
107 in converter" (0.2 percent platinum/monolith).  This system accumulated
43,000 miles before a hole was burned in the side of one of the containers.
Per the 1972-CVS-C procedure, the emissions were 0.16, 1.88,  3.91 gm/mi
for HC, CO, and NO ,  respectively.
2.2.2.1.3.5  Test Data Variability
Chrysler reports that identical repeated 1975 CVS-CH tests within the same
laboratory produce results that vary by about plus or minus 25 percent.
Between laboratories, the variation is well over plus or  minus 50 percent.
Calculations made  on a limited sample of data taken from Vehicle 333 show
that three repeated tests in the same facility produce the following standard
deviations  (in percent):

                 HC = ±28.8, CO =  ±48.6, NO  =  ±12.3

2.2.2.1.4     Fuel Consumption and Performance Penalties
Chrysler reports that,  depending on the speed,'the  1975  first-choice system
wquld have a fuel economy of 1 to 4 mi/gal less than the  1971 system.  It is
also reported that in city traffic the fuel economy for the 1975 model will be
81 percent of 1968  model year  values.

Chrysler states that to avoid stumbles,  stalls, and  inadequate acceleration,
engines with larger displacement,  richer air/fuel ratios, and faster idling
speeds will have to be used.  It is probable that the smaller  engines in some
models will have to be  discontinued in order to retain acceptable and safe
                                   2-28

-------
drive ability.  The  expected performance penalty is  not explicitly stated in
Chrysler's submittal.
2.2.2.2       Alternate Systems
2.2.2.2.1     Special Design Features
Several modifications to the Chrysler first-choice system are being pursued.
As of April 20, 1972 the final selection of the catalyst to be used in production
had not been made; a number of different catalytic converter systems are
currently being evaluated  for possible use.   The second-choice system seems
to center around the use of a pellet-type converter such as the UOP  stabilized
spherical platinum (PTAS) catalyst.  Other possible modifications to the first-
choice  system include (1)  deletion of the 30 percent thermal reactor and of the
double wall exhaust pipe (provided that cold start emissions can be brought
within manageable  limits), and (2) elimination of the catalyst by-pass system
(provided that better exhaust gas temperature control is achieved or more
tolerant catalysts are found).
2.2.2.2.2     Problem Areas and Plans for Resolution
In the past, unacceptable deterioration observed in testing pebble catalytic
converters led to a decision by Chrysler to shelve these devices in favor of
the noble metal monolith catalytic converter.  However,  recently reported
advances in the technology has prompted Chrysler to re-examine the whole
class of pebble-type catalysts.  Chrysler plans to resume testing of the pellet
systems using the performance achieved with the Engelhard PTX platinum/
monolith converter as a reference for comparison.  It is believed that the
high temperature stability of catalysts such as UOP PX-4 might provide the
basis for eliminating the 30 percent  thermal reactor and the catalyst by-pass
from the list of subsystems to be used on the 1975 model.
2.2.2.2.3     Emissions
The more advanced pebble-bed catalysts such as the UOP-PTAS type have
not yet  been tested. Emission levels obtained with some of the early pellet-
type catalysts tested by Chrysler are shown in Table 2-8.
                                   2-29

-------
                         Table 2-8.  Chrysler Low Mileage Emissions (Alternate
                                     Catalytic Converter Design)
Car No.
258

259

259

259



Engine
CID
360

360

360

360



Mileage
0
141
0
27
0
50
0
170
496
519
857
Emissions, gm/mi
HC CO NOx
0.66 4.1 5.93
0.66 4.8 5.29
0.30 4.5 1.39
0.34 3.5 1.34
0.04 0. 9 1. 15
0.25 5.6 2.06
0.23 3.6 1.21
0.17 3.6 1.83
0.40 3.1 1.41
0.47 2.9 1.33
1.62 39.4 0.41
Test
Procedure
1975-CVS-CH

1972-CVS-C

1972-CVS-C


1972-CVS-C

1975-CVS-CH
Converter or
Thermal Reactor (TR)
Davex 45-V toeboard
pebble bed, PTR

Monsanto EGA 302
pebble bed, PTR

Davex 137 pebble bed,
PTR

Houdry 1057 JX8-2X1
pebble bed, PTR



Remarks
-






Secondary air
mod
Air pump 1. 52: 1
New air pump;
A/F change
I
W
o

-------
2.2.3          Ford
2.2.3.1        First-Choice Systems
2.2.3.1.1     Special Design Features
Based upon currently available data, it  is Ford's judgment that its first-
choice system for 1975 will consist of a single catalytic converter in con-
junction with EGR, secondary air injection, and engine modifications.  A
single Engelhard PTX noble metal monolithic  catalyst will be used on the
4-cylinder and 6-cylinder passenger cars and the V-8 F-100 pickup truck.
Two catalysts, one on either side, will  be used on the V-8 engine passenger
cars.

This system is favored because the projected  50,000-mile emission per-
formance levels closely approximate the catalyst-thermal reactor system at
a substantially lower cost to the consumer.  This projected cost differential
to the  customer has been estimated by Ford to be $140 (Ref. 2-8).
2.2.3.1.2     Problem Areas and Plans for Resolution
A  major problem area  reported by Ford (Ref.  2-9) is  the deterioration of
catalyst efficiency.  No car that Ford has tested has successfully accumu-
lated 50,000 miles and maintained the emission levels within the 1975
standards.  A  32-car test program was  started in March 1972  at Riverside
as part of the effort to  evaluate the performance of the catalyst and the
emission control system as a whole.
2.2.3.1.3     Emissions
2.2.3. 1.3. 1   Test Programs and Vehicle Description
The current Ford test program is  a two-phase program utilizing 44 vehicles:
32 vehicles are being tested at Riverside, California and 12 vehicles at
Dearborn, Michigan.  Phase I is a  50,000-mile durability study to determine
the system/component  deterioration factors.  Phase n is being conducted to
determine 4,000-mile emission levels which,  in conjunction with the
                                    2-31

-------
deterioration factors determined from Phase I, can be used to project
certification emission capabilities of the candidate  systems.

Four groups of vehicles will be tested in Phase I at Riverside.  Each group
of vehicles will consist of:
            Two 460-CID Lincolns
            Two 351C-CID Galaxies
            Two 250-CID Mavericks (6 cylinder)
            Two 360-CID F-100 pickup trucks
The Phase II tests to be conducted at Dearborn will consist of three of each
of the above vehicles.

Current production 1972 vehicles will be modified for the Phase I and II test
programs to include the appropriate exhaust  system,  heat shields, etc. , for
use with reactor manifolds  and/or catalytic converters and will be equipped
                        \
as follows:
            Secondary air injection
            Induction-hardened valve seats
            Breakerless ignition
            Advanced carburetors  and distributors
            Exhaust gas recirculation
Group I vehicles will be fitted  with a single PTX noble metal monolithic
catalyst on  the 6-cylinder Mavericks and the  F-100 pickup trucks.  Two  PTX
monolithic catalysts will be fitted, one on each side, to the Galaxies and
Lincolns.  Group II vehicles will have a manifold reactor plus  a second single
PTX catalyst in series with the converter configuration used on Group I
vehicles.  Group III vehicles will consist of the dual (series) catalytic con-
verters without the thermal reactors.  A decision on the components to be
used on Group IV vehicles is scheduled for late April 1972 and will be based
on an analysis of the results from Groups I through III to that date.
                                   2-32

-------
2.2.3.1.3.2   Test Procedures
The vehicles at Riverside are being tested in accordance with the AMA
durability cycle.  Emission test results are based on the 1975 CVS-CH test
procedure.  In addition to the Riverside data,  low mileage emission results
(CVS-CH) were also reported for a Mercury Marquis equipped with the
catalyst-only system.  The driving cycle and vehicle mileage were not
specified for the Mercury.
2.2.3.1.3.3   Emission Data Summary
The low mileage emission data  reported by Ford for the catalyst-only equipped
vehicles for both the Riverside  and Dearborn.fleets are presented in Table
2-9.  The data shown for the Riverside vehicles are the  average of two con-
secutive tests for each vehicle at each of the reported mileage points.  It
should be noted that of the Riverside vehicles, the Mavericks exceeded the
1975 standards for HC and NO " at 2000-4000 miles,  and the Lincolns exceeded
                             X
the 1975 standard for HC at 0 miles and that for CO  at 2,000 miles.  The
F-100 exceeded the 1975  standards for HC and CO at 0 miles but the data indi-
cate a gradual reduction in HC and CO and at 4, 000 miles the standards are
met.  The reasons for this were not clear to Ford (Ref.  2-9), but may be  a
"green" engine effect.

The Dearborn Test Fleet data,  also shown in Table 2-9, include the results
of two consecutive tests at each test mileage for each vehicle.   The Dearborn
cars were reported as being equipped with catalysts similar  to the Group I
vehicles at Riverside.  Ford also reported (Ref.  2-10) that the Dearborn
vehicles "have higher CO levels than the durability cars running at Riverside
because of an effort to reduce NO  emissions to levels somewhat more
                                X
typical  of what would be required for a 1975 model. " No additional informa-
tion was provided by Ford, although the fact that,  in general, the Dearborn
cars exhibit lower NO  and higher HC/CO emissions than the Riverside fleet
                     X
would suggest that a lower air/fuel ratio setting and/or a higher EGR rate was
used on the  Dearborn fleet.
                                    2-33

-------
Table 2-9.  Low Mileage Emission Results--Ford
            (Group I) First-Choice System
Vehicle
Riverside Test Fleet^ '
Maverick #1
Maverick #2
Ford #1
Ford #2
F-100 #1
F-100#2
Lincoln #1
Lincoln #2
Development Vehicle
Mercury
Engine CID

250
250
351
351
360
360
460
460

429
Mileage
. '.
0
2000
4000
0
2000
4000
0
2000
4000
0
2000
4000
0
2000
4000
0
2000
4000
0
2000
4000
0
2000
4000

***
Emissions, gm/rrii*
HC CO NO
X

0.41 2.23 2.45
. 0. 58 3.28 2.96
0.63 3.56 3.48
0.32 0.95 2.92
0.35 1.37 4.20
0.42 3.19 3.04
0.19 1.91 2.34
0.43 3.17 2.47
0.25 1.91 2. 56
0.20 1. 75 2.46
. 0.22 2.32 2.75
0.32 2.29 2.89
0.55 4.42 2.30
0.47 3.82 2.55
0.38 4.40 2.47
0.49 2.83 2.45
0. 36 2.41 2. 81
0.33 2.11 2.74
0.63 3.21 2.36
0.54 3.52 2.25
0. 60 3.21 2. 35
0.43 2.88 2. 16
0. 54 3. 39 2. 31
0.70 4.43 2.51

0.23 1.03 1.14
^CVS-CH test procedure
Average of two consecutive tests at each mileage point
Reported only as "low mileage"
                         2-34

-------
Table 2-9.  Low Mileage Emission Results --Ford (Group I)
            First-Choice System (continued)
Vehicle
<-*' -',-
Dearborn Test Fleet
Maverick


Ford


F-100
Lincoln


Engine CID

250


351


360
460


Mileage

0
4000

0
4000

0
0
4000

o..
'*'"'
Emissions, gm/mi
HC CO NO
X

0.52 6.56 1.51
0.29 5.69 1.54
0.54 5.68 1.76
0.72 7.05 2.10
0.22 2.31 1.86
0.25 3.18 1.88
0.35 5.77 1.81
0. 38 6.44 2.00
0.29 0.83 2.54
0.20 1.44 2.37
0.23 2.53 1.69
0.56 7.04 1.52
0.38 3.72 1.75
0. 31 2.46 1.72
#
CVS-CH test procedure
Equipped with catalyst similar to Group I at Riverside. These vehicles
have higher CO levels than the durability cars running at Riverside because
of an effort to reduce NOX to levels somewhat more typical of what would be
required for a 1975 model.
                           2-35

-------
Only limited high mileage emission data are available from the Ford first-
choice system being tested at Riverside.  These results are presented in
Table 2-10.  It should be noted that the two Fords and the F-100 #2 are the
only Group I vehicles which continue to meet the 1975 standards at
8000 miles.
2.2.3.1.3.4  Best Emission Results
The best low mileage emission results (average of two tests), reported by
Ford for their first-choice test vehicles are presented in the table below.
All results are at zero or low  mileage with the exception of the F-100 pickup
truck.   For this vehicle, the best results were obtained  at 4,000 miles.

            Best Emission Results -- Ford First-Choice System

      Vehicle           Miles         HC           CO          NO
Maverick #2
Ford #2
F-100 #2
Lincoln #2
Mercury
0
0
4,000
0
*
0.32
0.20
0.33
0.43
0.23
0.95
1.75
2.11
2.88
1. 03
	 x.
2.92
2.46
2.74
2. 16
1. 14
    *
     Reported only as "low mileage."

The best high mileage emission results achieved on a single test on the Ford
first-choice system were obtained on the Ford Galaxie #1 being tested at
Riverside.  These  results, at 8, 000 miles,  were 0.25,  1.84,  and2.55gm/mi
for HC, CO, and NO ,  respectively.
                    .X
2.2.3.1.3.5  Test  Data Variability
Test data variability at the 1975-76 emission levels has been reported by
Ford (Ref. 2-8) in  terms of the coefficient of variation, o-/x%,  for test-to-test
variability, as follows:
                                    2-36

-------
Table 2-10.  High Mileage Emission Results — Ford First-Choice
             System (Riverside Test Fleet)
Vehicle
Maverick #1

Maverick #2
Ford #1

Ford #2

F-100 #1
F-100 #2
Lincoln #1
Lincoln #2

Eng.
CID
250

250
351

351

360
360
460
460 .

Mileage
8000

8000
8000

8000

8000
8000
8000
8000

;';
Emissions, gm/mi
HC CO NO
0.78 2.28 3.37
0.66 2.37 3.46
0.56 3.85 3.29
0.25 1.84 2.55
0.23 2.32 2.45
0.24 2.45 2.45
0.28 2.26 2.85
0.45 5.37 2.48
0. 31 2. 12 2.42
0.37 4.12 2.74
0.57 3.63 2.40
0.59 4.34 3.15
Remarks


1 test only




1 test only
1 test only
1 test only


'CVS-CH test procedure
                              2-37

-------
                        Ford Test Data Variability
                     (Coefficient of Variation, (r/x, %)

             Emission                        -Test-to-Test
               HC                              20 - 26%
               CO                              19 - 34%
               NO                              10 - 23%

Although the small sample size of the data available from the Phase I dura-
bility tests on a given vehicle does not permit an accurate determination of
the coefficient of variation, evaluation of the spread in the Riverside data
indicates that the results to date are consistent with the test-to-test
variability reported by Ford.
2.2.3.2       Alternate Systems
2.2.3.2.1     Special Design Features
Two alternate emission control systems are currently being tested by Ford
at Riverside and Dearborn.  These are the Group II (dual catalysts plus
thermal reactor) and the Group III (dual catalysts only) vehicles described in
detail in Section 2. 2 . 3 . 1. 3 . 1.  A third  system, designated  Group  IV,  will
also be tested following a decision on the components to be  used based on the
resuHs obtained from the Group I, n and III vehicles.
2.2.3.2.2     Problem Areas and Plans for Resolution
As previously stated,  Ford's primary problem concerns the durability of
the emission control system.  Accordingly, the Group II, III and IV vehicles
are also being evaluated on the AMA durability driving cycle to determine the
best combination of emission system components required to meet the 1975
emission standards  over the 50,000-mile  range.
                                    2-38

-------
Ford indicates that they plan to continue the investigation of the catalyst plus
thermal reactor system vehicles  as well as the thermal reactor-only system.
However, a project recently completed by the Ford Car Research Office
implies that a basic incompatibility may exist between  reactor manifolds and
catalytic converters.  Material deposits were found in  the catalyst which were
thought to originate from the stainless steel liner of the reactor manifold.
Ford speculates that these deposits may contribute to the overall deterioration
of the combined system,  thus causing it to deteriorate  more rapidly than the
catalyst-only system. Investigations attempting to resolve this issue are
continuing.
2.2.3.2.3      Emissions
2.2.3.2.3.1   Test Programs and Vehicle Descriptions
AMA durability tests are being conducted at Riverside  on Group II and  III
cars.  Similar durability tests will begin in the near future on Group IV  cars
as part of the Ford Phase I program.  Phase II (see Section 2.2.3. 1.3. 1)
emission testing is being done concurrently at  Dearborn.
2.2.3.2.3.2   Test Procedures
All emission data is being obtained in accordance with  the 1975 CVS-CH test
procedure.
2. 2. 3 . 2. 3 . 3   Emission Data Summary
Low mileage emission results for the Ford dual catalyst plus thermal reactor
system being tested on the Group n vehicles at Riverside and Dearborn are
shown in Table 2-11.  It will be noted that only a few of the Riverside Group II
vehicles met the 1975 standards.   These included the Maverick #1 through
2000 miles, Ford # 1 at 2000 miles only, the F-100 #2 at 4000 miles  only, and
the Lincoln # 1  at 0 miles only.  Of the Dearborn cars,  only the F-1.00 pickup
truck met the standards at 0 and 4000 miles.
                                    2-39

-------
Table 2-11.  Low Mileage Emission Data--Ford Alternate
             System (Group II)
Vehicle
Riverside Test Fleet
Maverick #1
Maverick #2
Ford #1
Ford #2
F-100 #1
F-100 #2
Lincoln #1
Lincoln #2
Engine CID

250
250
351
351
360
360
460
460
Mileage

0
2000
4000
0
2000
0
2000
4000
0
2000
4000
0
2000
4000
0
2000
4000
0
2000
4000
0
2000
4000
*
Emission, gm/mi
HC CO NO
X

0.22 3.23 1.76
0.32 2.98 2.02
0.52 5.06 1.86
0.54 8.74 1.68
0.44 5.53 1.81
0.36 3.72 2.17
0.27 2.93 2.06
0.40 4.82 2.08
0.32 4.21 1.76
0.40 4.65 1.88
0.32 5.58 1.57
0.38 4.45 1.44
0.39 4.99 1.62
0.40 5.63 1.75
0.24 3.96 3.12
0.25 3.43- 2.55
0.26 3. 16 1.91
0.23 2.22 2.33
0.27 4.29 2.63
0.26 3.58 2.33
0.32 4.51 1.97
0.35 6.28 2.02
0.37 5.60 2.17
Remarks

1 test only







CVS-CH test procedure
Average of two consecutive tests at each mileage point unless otherwise
indicated.
                            2-40

-------
Table 2-11.
Low Mileage Emission Data--Ford Alternate
System (Group II) (Cont. )


Vehicle
Dearborn Test Fleet
Maverick


Ford



F-100
j

Lincoln





Engine CID

250


351



360


460





Mileage

0
4000

0

4000

0

4000
0

4000

*
Emission, gm/mi
HC CO NOx

0.49 2.59 1.55
0.48 3.31 1.94
0.43 2.90 1.95
0.28 3.98 2.15
0.39 4.74 2.21
0.33 5.85 2.33
0.22 4.44 1.95
0.16 0.72 1.81
0.10 0.68 1.40
0.23 0.92 2.14
0.21 2.04 1.72
0.57 7.00 1.59
0. 19 1.49 1.60
0.23 4.44 1.43


Remarks

1 test only








1 test only




CVS-CH test procedure
f Equipped with thermal reactor and extra catalyst similar to Group III at
Riverside. These vehicles have higher CO levels than the durability
cars at Riverside because of an effort to reduce NOX to levels somewhat
more typical of what would be required for a 1975 model.
                             2-41

-------
The primary problem with the Group II vehicles appears to be a general
inability to meet the CO standard of 3.4 gm/mi.

Low mileage emission results reported to date for the Ford dual catalyst-
only system, undergoing test at Riverside and Dearborn on the Group III
vehicles, are shown in Table 2-12.  All of the Riverside Group III vehicles
met the  1975 standards at 0 miles with the exception of the Lincoln #2.  How-
ever, only the Fords and F-100 pickup trucks  continued to meet the standards
at 2000-4000 miles.  None of the Dearborn Fleet Vehicles met the standards
at either 0 or 4000 miles.

No high mileage emission data have been reported for the Ford Group II and
III cars undergoing durability testing at Riverside.  Approximately 12,000
miles have been accumulated on a Maverick/Comet 302 CID V-8 with an
emission control system similar to the Riverside Group III cars;  i.e. , dual
catalysts in series without a thermal reactor.   Results are shown in Table 2-13
It will be noted that although this vehicle  continued to meet the NO standard
                                                                7C
over the mileage tested, HC and CO emission  control deteriorated between the
3129-mile and 5803-mile test points; thereafter, the HC  emissions exceeded
the 1975 standards.

Two of Ford's earlier high mileage test programs that are obliquely related
to the current durability evaluation may be mentioned.  One of these, desig-
nated as the 1975 Durability  Test Program,  involved the test of six develop-
ment  "Concept Emission System" vehicles equipped with thermal  reactor,
catalytic converter, EGR,  secondary air injection, and quick release choke.
These vehicles were tested over the AMA durability driving cycle; emission
results  were obtained in accordance with the 1972  CVS-C test procedure.

Although these vehicles were tested up to 50,000 miles,  this mileage value
does not represent the accumulated emission system mileage since numerous
system component failures occurred and  replacements were made during the
course of the test.  A representative set  of failure incidents is given by the
                                   2-42

-------
Table 2-12.  Low Mileage Emissions--Ford Alternate
            System (Group III)
Vehicle
Riverside Test Fleet ' '
Maverick #1
Maverick #2
Ford #1
Ford #2
F-100 #1
F-100 #2
Lincoln #1
Lincoln #2
Engine CID

250
250
351
351
360
360
460
460
Mileage

0
2000
4000
0
2000
0
2000
4000
0
2000
0
2000
0
2000
4000
0
2000
0
2000
Emissions, gm/mi '
HC CO NO
X

0.32 0.60 2.34
0.31 1.11 3.09
0.37 0.95 3.36
0.21 1.73 2.08
0.60 2.18 2.70
0.17 1.77 2.26
0.20 1.51 2.20
0.28 1.56 2.45
0.26 1. 53 2. 19
0.34 1.46 2.26
-0.34 4.71 2.05
0.40 4.01 1.98
0.32 1.71 2.09
0.44 1.23 1.95
0.34 2.22 2.35
0. 28 1. 59 2. 10
0.31 3.55 2.59
0.24 4.26 2. 18
0.31 5.68 1.99
CVS-CH test procedure
Average of two consecutive tests at each mileage point
                       2-43

-------
          Table 2-12.  Low Mileage Emissions--Ford Alternate
                      System (Group III)  (continued)
Vehicle
;'c >'"
Dearborn Test Fleet' '
Maverick
Ford
F-100
Lincoln
Engine CID

250
250
360
460
Mileage

0
4000
0
4000
0
4000
0
4000
*
Emissions, gm/mi
HC CO NO
X

0.49 10.2 1.70
0. 56 11. 2 2. 12
0.62 14.5 2.32
0.58 12.9 1.69
0.31 4.61 1.81
0.35 6.00 1.87
0.28 6. 81 1. 17
0.28 3.92 1.86
0.25 0.67 2.46
0.40 3.78 1.63
0.44 5.90 1.46
0.66 5.24 1.70
0.62 9.44 0.94
0.69 11.70 1.01
0.99 17.43 0.89
1.06 15.99 0.99
 CVF^CH test procedure
'-•
i" _
 Equipped with extra catalyst similar to Group III at Riverside.  These
 vehicles have higher CO levels than durability cars running at Riverside
 because of an effort to reduce NOX to levels somewhat more typical of
 what would be required for a  1975 model.
                                 2-44

-------
Table 2-13. High Mileage Emission Data--Ford Alternate
            System (Group III Type)
Vehicle
Maverick /Comet
302 CID











-




Miles
103
128
207
220
844
870
3035

3114
3129
5803
5821
5888
5928
5952
12060
12088
12108
Emissions, gm/mi
HC
0.22
0.20
0.26
0.26
0. 37
0.31
0. 35

0.53
0.35
0.62
0.56
0.88
0.63
0.73
0.76
0.80
0.59
CO
0.97
1.29
3.07
1.45
4. 18
2.39
3.07

2.57
1.90
3. 32
2.94
5.43
3.07
5.01
4. 71
4.51
2.84
NO
X
2.62
1.51
1.52
1.69
1.59
1.69
1.67

1.71
1.72
2. 12
1.92
2.39
2.22
1.94
1. 61
1.96
2.20
Remarks

EGR Increased




Change power
valves from 5. 5
to 3. 0 in Hg


Timing at 3° ETC.
Change oil & filter
Set timing back to
6° ETC






                          2-45

-------
test history for vehicle 12A90,  a  1971 351-CID Ford.  Emission system
components and component failures or malfunctions for this test vehicle are
described in Table 2-14; test emission results for HC and CO are  shown in
Figure 2-14.  (NO  levels were  below the 1975 standard throughout the test.)

The other earlier high mileage  test program involved a developmental fleet
of five durability vehicles. The test program was started in  mid>-1971 to
evaluate the possibility of meeting the 1974 California standards using a
catalyst-only system (without thermal reactor) in conjunction with  EGR,
secondary air injection, and a quick-release  choke.   The use of this system
for the  1974 model year was abandoned when it was  established that lead-free
fuel would not be available.

Basically, this  fleet represents a developmental predecessor of the Group I
vehicles currently undergoing test at Riverside and  Dearborn.  Approximately
50,000  miles were accumulated on each vehicle over the AMA durability test
route.  Emission results were  obtained in accordance with the  1972 CVS-C
test procedure.

Durability testing of the 1974 California model year vehicle resulted in
numerous failures of emission  components including catalytic converters,
overtemperature controls, EGR components, air injection system components,
carburetion, ignition, and engine components.  Repairs and/or replacements
were made as required during the course of  each test and, as  a  result, the
total  vehicle durability miles do not represent emission control system
durability mileage.

Typical results obtained during this test are  shown for Vehicle  1A97, a  1971
400-CID Ford,  in Figure 2-15 (HC and CO) and Figure 2-16 (NO ).  The HC
and CO emission levels exceeded the 1975 standards while that of NO
remained well below the standard throughout the test. Emission system
components and component failures or malfunctions for  this test vehicle
are described in Table 2-15.
                                    2-46

-------
Table 2-14.   Durability Test Vehicle  Specifications  (Vehicle No.   12A90-D)
                                   Type:  1971 400-2V A/T Ford
                                   Test Program:  1975 AMA Durability

            Emission System Components

               • Reactor cylinder heads with exhaust port liners

               • Phase III spacer EGR, pickup before muffler and through cooler, cold
                 lockout (125°F PVS)

               • 19 in air pump with 1. 5:1 drive ratio.  Replaced 1. 7:1 drive ratio

               • 70F57 S. D. distributor @ 6°  BTC initial with cold lockout of part
                 throttle advance (125°F PVS)

               • 2100 2V GPD carburetor with ACE 39 calibration and 20 sec
                 Schmelzer quick choke and 5 sec. restrictor

               • Phase I type "H" reactors with core

               • Monolithic PTX 5.35 converters

            Emission Component Failures or Malfunctions During Durability

               • 30,000 Miles  -  Converters failed; installed new PTX 5.35 converter
                               -  Air pump ratio changed from  1. 7:1 to 1. 5:1

               • 35,000 Miles  -  Air pump failed; installed new pump
                               -  Transmission failed;  installed new transmission

               • Various mileages -  Left hand reactor outlet gasket failed 9 times
                                      during durability causing  engine mount failure
                                      at 26, 500 miles
              1971 400-3V FORD I2A90-D
              PTX 5.35 CONVERTERS-UEACTORS-EGR

                       HYDROCARBON
                          NEW
                          CONVERTERS-
CARBON MONOXIDE

    NEW
    CONVERTERS -
                                            100
                                          u  80
                                             60
                                             40
                                             20
                                                                  RT. CONVERTER
                                                                  FAILED
                                                EMISSIONS
                                                    NEW CONVERTERS
      ™"^T
                      10     X     30
                       TEST MILES, 000
                                        40
10     20    30
 TEST MILES. 000
                                                                             30
                                                                             20
                                                                              10 52
                                                                          40
                     Figure  2-14.   Ford AMA Durability Data
                                             2-47

-------
Table 2-15.  Durability Test Vehicle Specifications (Vehicle No. 1A97-D)


                         Type: 1971 400-2V A/T Ford
                         Test Program: 197.4 Model Year  California
                                          Durability

 Emission System Components

    •  Cylinder heads with port air injection

    •  EGR into the  carburetor, spacer, pickup before muffler and
      through a cooler

    •  19  in  air pump with  1.37:1  drive  ratio was used through the
      30, 000 mile test.  Changed  to 1. 50:1 before the  35, OpO mile test

    •  Single diaphragm distributor with production calibration.
      Initial timing 6°BTC

    •  Carburetor calibration No.  ACE 39.  Idle CO set to 2.5% at
      an  idle speed of 560 rpm

    •  Monolithic PTX 5.2 converter used on  left-hand side and monolithic
      PTX 5. 35 used on right-hand side

 Total Durability as of 4/20/72

    •  50, 000 miles, test completed

 Emission Component Failures or  Malfunctions  During Durability Period

    •  EGR vacuum  switch failed

    •  Schmelzer valve found defective and replaced

    •  Choke shaft replaced

 Number of Emission Test Conducted

    •  15  prior  to  start of durability

    •  18  during the durability period
                                  2-48

-------
1971 400-2V FORD-1A97
PTX-535 CONVERTERS
           HYDROCARBON
                                             CARBON MONOXIDE
      10     20      30
        TEST MILES, 000
  20      30
TEST MILES, 000
          Figure  2-15.   Ford AMA Durability  Data
               1971 400-2V FORD 1A97
               PTX-5.35 CONVERTERS-EGR
                  40
                S 20
                           I       I       I
                              OXIDES OF NITROGEN
                     _ STD
                                  I	I
                           10     20     30     40
                                TEST MILES, 000
                                                     SO
           Figure 2-16.   Ford AMA  Durability Data
                                2-49

-------
2.2.3.2.3.4  Best Emission Results
The best low mileage emission results for the Group II and III vehicles being
tested at Riverside are shown in the table below.  Results are for zero miles
unless otherwise indicated.  In addition to the Riverside test vehicles,  data
are also shown under Group III (dual catalysts only) for the best emission
results achieved on a Maverick V-8 development car at approximately
125 miles.

    Best Emission Results  -- Ford Alternate Systems (Groups II and III)
                                                    Riverside
                                          HC          CO          NO
                                          		          	x
Group II (Dual Cats, and Reactor)
    Maverick, 6 cyl.                     0.22         3.23         1.76
    Ford                                0.36         3.72         2.17
    F-1002                              0.32         4.21         1.76
    Lincoln                             0.23         2.22         2.33
Group III (Dual Cats. Only)
    Maverick, 6 cyl                      0.21         1.73         2.08
    Ford                                0.26         1.53         2.19
    F-1002                              0.32         1.71         2.09
    Lincoln                             0.28         1.59         2. 10
    Maverick, V-8                       0.20         1.29         1.51
 Average of two consecutive tests
2At 2,000 miles.

2.2.3.2.3.5   Test Data Variability
The Riverside test data for the Ford dual catalyst plus thermal reactor
equipped vehicles  (Group II), and the dual catalyst-only vehicles  (Group III),
exhibit a greater spread than do the data from the Ford first-choice system
which employs the single catalyst.  This is consistent with the Ford statement,
                                   2-50

-------
(Ref. 2-9) that  "systems  with many specific control devices have greater
variability as each added device contributes its own degree of variability. "
The small data  sample size does not permit a meaningful evaluation of the
coefficient of variation.
2.2.3.2.4    Fuel Consumption and Performance Penalties
Fuel consumption and performance penalties for the Ford alternate (Group II
and III) systems were not  discussed.  Some performance information was
provided for the 302-CID Maverick developmental vehicle.  This vehicle is
equipped with the  dual catalyst system and is comparable to the Group III
vehicle.  At 5800  miles, the average driveability was reported as 6 (on a
scale of 10), ranging from 5 on light acceleration to 7 at WOT.  Fuel con-
sumption penalties were not reported.
2.2.4         General Motors
2.2.4.1      First-Choice Systems
2.2.4.1.1    Special .Design  Features
The General Motors first-choice  system comprises the following subsystems
(Refs. 2-11 through 2-15):
            Catalytic converter (base metal/particulate)
            Secondary air  supply (AIR)
            Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
            Engine modifications
                Modified carburetor with altitude compensation and
                fast acting choke
                Modified intake  system with quick heat manifold to produce
                early fuel evaporation (EFE)
                Modified exhaust system acting as a partial thermal
                reactor
                Electronic ignition system
                Modified spark timing
                                    2-51

-------
The system is illustrated in Figure 2-17.  It was selected on the basis of the
following considerations:
            a.   1975 emission levels were approached, at low mileage.
            b.   Many of the components use existing technology; the only
                exception is the catalytic converter.
            c.   The system can be readily modified for  1976 NO  control.
            d.   The system involves a minimum number of vehicle
                compromises.
The base metal/particulate catalyst converter was  selected over the noble
metal /monolithic catalyst converter for a number of reasons.  General Motors
states that it is  cheaper,  more  readily available, has better deterioration
and durability characteristics,  and is less subject to poisoning.  The light-off
(50 percent conversion efficiency)  temperature is said to be  about the same as
the monolithic type at zero miles.

With regard to change in light-off temperature with use,  GM 24-hour soak
tests  are reported to show that  the light-off temperature of the noble metal
converter increases linearly with increasing soak temperature, whereas the
base metal  catalyst  retains its low light-off temperature at soak temperatures
as high as  1800  F.   This is regarded as proof that the base metal pellet
system has greater  ability to withstand overtemperature conditions.  In addi-
tion,  the GM data indicate that the activity of the base metal catalyst starts at
lower temperature.

Another GM consideration concerning the selection of the pelletized  catalyst
was that the pellets  might be readily and cheaply replaced, an advantage that
may be particularly significant  if maintenance is authorized at mileage inter-
vals under 50,000 miles.

The EFE manifold is used on the first-choice  system in conjunction  with an
improved carburetor and choke components to improve the cold start emis-
sions.  The electronic ignition  system is included to permit engine operation
                                    2-52

-------
            -AIR INJECTION
             PUMP
                  QUICK HEAT
                  MANIFOLD (EFE
                        IMPROVED CARBURETION AND CHOKE
                        ALTITUDE AND TEMPERATURE
                        COMPENSATION
ui
Oo
                                      EXHAUST GAS
                                      RECIRCULATION
                                       MODIFIED SPARK
                                       TIMING
CATALYTIC
CONVERTER
                                           PCV VALVE
                                                                   DOMED TANK
                                                                   VAPOR SEPARATOR
                                    -CARBON
                                     CANISTER
                 -ELECTRONIC
                  IGNITION
                Figure 2-17.  General Motors First-Choice 1975 Emission Control System

-------
with leaner air/fuel mixture ratios while still retaining acceptable
driveability and improved reliability over the life of the vehicle.
2.2.4.1.2    Problem Areas and Plans for Resolution
Further development is said to be needed to improve the durability of the
catalytic converter and of the EGR valve.  Testing of these systems is being
actively pursued.  General Motors feels that physical durability of the pellets
is no longer a problem.  Catalyst shrinkage has  been limited to 10 percent
for a 24-hour soak at  1800 F.  Sulfur poisoning, which is a very serious
problem at catalyst  bed operating temperatures below 1300  F, has  been
shown to be much milder above 1300  F.  For this reason GM may decide
to operate their converter above  1300  F instead of the present nominal
operating temperature of 900 to 1200   F.

Durability of the EGR valve is still not adequate  and design improvements
will be checked out during road testing under various loads.  The EFE mani-
fold and the electronic ignition  systems are still at the engineering prototype
level. More experimental work is required prior to committing a specific
design to production.
2.2.4.1.3     Emissions
2.2.4.1.3.1   Test Programs and Vehicle Description
According to GM, a total of 380 catalytic converter systems have been built
aad . osted during the last 2 years. Emission test results  from 50 low mileage
experimental systems were included in the GM submission.   These  encompass
tests on a variety of catalytic converter types and makes,  including base and
noble metal pellet and noble metal monolithic designs.

For certification, General Motors requires a minimum of 13 cars to meet
the  1975 Federal  standards.  In addition to the certification test fleet, GM
will pre-test 13 similar vehicles to verify the emissions and  durability.  A
concurrent test program will check out the cars  from the standpoint of
                                    2-54

-------
driveability, fuel consumption, safety,  mechanical durability, etc. , under
customer driving and variable weather  conditions.  This will be done on the
GM proving ground.  Because of the large number of models,  engines,  and
transmission options provided, the test program will be designed on a
statistical basis to verify satisfactory performance and operation over the
broad spectrum of hardware combinations. The number of cars to be tested
in this program have not yet been determined.

In addition to the above, GM is operating  a baseline test fleet of 18 vehicles
to test the durability of the catalytic converter canister.
2.2.4.1.3.2   Test Procedures
All recent testing has  been conducted using the  1975 CVS-CH Federal Test
Procedure.  Durability testing is accomplished using a modified AMA driving
schedule.
2.2.4.1.3.3   Emission Data Summary
Low mileage emission data submitted by GM are shown in Table 2-16; high
mileage data are presented in Table 2-17. Each entry represents a single
test and should be viewed with due regard for the high degree of test-to-test
variability discussed in Section 2.2.4. 1.3.5.

For the most part, these data represent the experimental  system vehicles
which are closest to GM's description of the total first-choice package required
for the  1975 model year vehicle.  It will be noted that not all of the vehicles
are equipped with the full complement of components  for the first-choice
system.  Carburetor altitude compensation and electronic ignition components,
which are among the missing items, are stated by GM to have little impact
on EPA test emissions results. The quick heat EFE manifold is missing on
many cars because  of the lack of advanced design engine components  available
for experimentation.  GM states that this is not particularly important in
evaluating the emission performance of these vehicles  since they are not
equipped with the appropriate  chokes for low CO EFE performance anyway.
                                    2-55

-------
                            Table 2-16.  General Motors Low Mileage Emissions
ro
i
Car
No. Car & CID
61336 Chev. 350
61341 Chev. 350
61340 Chev. 350
61355 Chev. 350
61358 Chev. 350
61317 Chev. 350
61318 Chev. 350
61319 Chev. 350
61339 Chev. 402
61329 Chev. 402
61324 Chev. 402
62504 Pont. 455
62505 Pont. 455
1938 Pont. 455
2586 Olds 350
2611 Olds 350
2541 Olds 350
Oxidizing Catalyst
Type' Supplier
BB Grace
Davex 117
BB Grace
Davex 117
BB Grace
Davex 117
BN Universal Oil
PZ-2-168 R-5
BN Universal Oil
PZ-2-168 R-5
BB Oxy-Catalyst
G-623-71 No Prom.
BB APCC
MN Engelhard PTX-4
BB Grace
Davex 117
BB Monsanto
NBP-701094
BB Grace
Davex 1 1 7
BB Universal Oil
PZ-1-224-1
BB APCC
BB Monsanto
ECA-125
BB APCC .
1259JX3-1X1
BB Universal Oil
PZ-1-224-1
BB Oxy-Catalyst
System Description
Mod.
AIR EGR Carb. EFE
XX X
XX X
XX X
XX X
XXX X
XX X
XX X
XX X
XX X
XX X
XX X
XX X
XXX X
XXX X
XX X
XX X
XX X
Test -Test Test
Weight Date Mileage
4500 7-71 800
4500 8-71 400
4500 8-71 150
4000 2-72 700
4500 1-72 80
4500 10-71 0
4500 12-71 0
4500 8-71 0
4500 10-71 100
4500 2-72 2,934
4500 6-71 1,000
4500 11-71 100
4500 4-72 6
4500 12-71 400
5000 2-72 42
5000 1-72 1
5000 3-72 9
1975 CVS-CH Emissions,
gm/mi(2)
HC CO NOX
0.30 7.0 1.3
0.50 7.0 1.1
0.60 10.0 1.4
0.30 2.7 0.8
0.33 2.4 0.9
0.47(89) 6.7(75) 1.4
0.25(76) 2.9(71) 1.9
0.13(84) 1.9(83) 1.3
0.37 12.8 0.8
0.55 3.8 1.0
0.36 4.1 0.9
0.34 2.4 0.9
0.20 0.8 1.4
0.41 5.4 1.5
0.28(83)* '7.3(67)* 3.7
0.24(82)* 9. 1(55)* 1.9
0. 17(88)* 2.7(82)* 2.2
Status
Co-op development
(Arvin)
Co-op development
(Norris)
Co-op development
( Walker i
System development
System development
Durability test
Durability test
Durability test
System development
Durability test
Crosscheck car
System development
System development
System development
Durability test
Durability test
Durability test
See notes on last sheet.

-------
                       Table 2-16.  General Motors Low Mileage Emissions (Continued)
m
-j
Car
No. Car &c CID
61420 Olds 455
62403 Olds 455
62411 Olds 455
2826 Buick 455
2242 Buick 350
4231 Buick 350
62102 Buick 455
2827 Buick 455
62115 Skylark 455
9168 Buick 455
8245 Buick 455
61125 Buick 455
5274 Buick 455
8195 Buick 455
2828 Buick 455
Oxidizing Catalyst
Type Supplier
BN Universal Oil
PZ-2-168-R-5
BB APCC
1259 JX3-1X1
BB APCC
1259JX3-1X1
BB Degussa
OM56ET
BB APCC
1259JX3-1X1
BB Oxy-Catalyst
BB APCC
12591X3-1X1
BB Grace
Davex 142 SMR 7-388
BB APCC
1259JX3-1X1
BB Universal Oil
PZ-1-225-1
BB Universal Oil
PZ-4-214 R-14
BB Monsanto
ECA-125
BB Universal Oil
PZ-4-214 R-14
BB Universal Oil
PZ-4-214 R-14
BB Monsanto
ECA-141
System Description
Mod.
AIR EGR Carb. EFE
XX X
XX X
XX X
X X
XX X
XX X
XXX X
X X
1
XXX X
XX X
XX X
X X X
XX X
XX X
X X
Test Test Test
V.'eight Date Mileage
5000 12-71 100
1-72 275
1-72 400
2-72 860
2-72 874
3-72 1,126
3-72 1,134
4-72 2,257
5000 2-72 118
5500 1-72 240
5000 3-72 10
4500 3-72 0
4500 2-72 0
5500 2-72 1,689
5000 2-~2 88
4500 4-72 280
5000 3-72 650
5000 2-72 300
5000 2-72 2,500
5000 3-72 300
5000 3-72 1.644
5000 3-72 0
1°75 CVS-CH Emissions,
HC CO NOX
0.20 2.6 .0
0.40 5.2 .5
0.40 2.6 .0
0.27 3.9 .1
0.27 3.2 .1
0.26 2.1 1.2
0.25 2.9 1.0
0.3^ 3.2 1.1
0.45 -. •} 1.0
0.52 5.0 0.9
0. 38(781* 3. 5(851* 3. 3
0.56 3.9 1.8
0.64 6.8 2.5
0.63 3.2 1.0
0.27(79)* 4. 2(71)* 3. 7
0.70 2.5 0.9
0.31 2.7 1.7
0.23(81)* 2. 8(911* 1. 4
1.00 7.6 0.9
0.44 2.3 1.5
0.25 2.5 1.0
0. 14(391* 3. 8(75)* 3. 1
Status
Durability test
System development
System development
Durability test
Durability test
Durability test
System development
Durability test
System development
System development
System development
System development
System development
System development
Durability test
See notes on last sheet.

-------
                       Table 2-16.  General Motors Low Mileage Emissions (Continued)
NJ
1
Ul
00
Car
No. Car & CID
2822 Buick 455
2823 Buick-455
2824 Buick 455
2825 Buick 455
BAK Buick 455
934 Buick 455
933 Buick 455
61202 Cad 472
61206 Cad 472
61201 Cad 472
61203 Cad 472
1246 Cad 500
2222 Cad 500
1420 Opel 1.9 lit
1450 Opel 1.9 lit
Oxidizing Catalyst
Type Supplier
BB Oxy-Catalyst
G-1313
BB Grace
Davex 142 SMR 7-38£
BB Oxy-Catalyst
G-1313
BB Oxy-Catatyst
BB Universal Oil
PZ-4-214 R-14
BB Universal Oil
PZ-1-224-1
BB Oxy-Catalyst
BB Monsanto
ECA-125
BB Monsanto
ECA-125
BB Universal Oil
PZ-4-214 R-14
BB APCC
1259JX4-1X1
BB Grace
Davex 117
BB APCC
1259JX3-1X1
MN Engelhard PTX
BB Grace
Davex 117
System Description
Mod.
AIR EGR Carb. EFE
X X
X X
1
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
XXX X
XXX X
XX X
XX X
XX X
XX X
X X . X
XX X
Test Test Test
Weight Date Mileage
5000 1-72 0
5000 1-72 0
5000 1-72 0
5000 3-72 0
5000 11-71 21
5000 1-72 0
5000 11-71 0
5500 2-72 1,000
55'0 2-72 1,200
5000 1-71 50
5500 2-72 300
5500 1-72 0
5500' 1-72 0
2500 2-72 0
2500 12-71 0
1975 CVS-CH Emissions,
em/m'{2)
HC CO NOX
0.41(67)* 5. 7(45)* 3. 5
0.20(84)* 4.7(51)* 2.9
0 33(81)* 3. 0(74)* 3. 7
0. 31(79)* 4.6(74)* 3. 3
0. 17(88)* 1.8(87)* 3. 7
0.25 2.7 2.0
0. 19 1.8 2. 4
0. 92 6. 8 0. 9
0.51 4.6 0.9
0.16 5.9 1.0
0.25 6.0 0.9
0.27 1.7 2.9
0.35 1.1 2.0
0.23 2.7 1.5
0.53 10.4 1.7
Status
Durability test
Durability test
Durability test
Durability test
Durability test
Durability test
Durability test
System development
System development
Durability test
System development
Syatem development
Durability test
System development
Durability test
Note: Emissions data reported for each vehicle represent one test only.
(1) Type: BB = Bulk base metal APCC = Air Products and Chemicals Co (Houdry)
BN = Bulk noble metal
MN = Monolith noble metal
MB = Monolith base metal
(2) Catalyst conversion efficiency shown in parentheses - %
* Efficiency calculated from with and without -converter tests not from simultaneous test.

-------
                          Table 2-17.  General Motors High Mileage Emissions
N)
Car
No. Car tc CID
61319 Chev. 350
61318 Chev. 350
61317 Chev. 350
Dev. Chev. 400
61329 Chev. 402
2014 Olds 350
2611* Olds 350

2494b Olds 455
2823a Olds 455
2249a Olds 455
2850 Olds 455
Oxidizing Catalyst
Type"' Supplier
MN Engelhard
PTX-4
BB APCC
BB Oxy-Catalyst
G-623-71
BB Oxy-Catalyst
BB Monsanto
NBP-70194
BB Grace -Davex
142 SMR-7-3881
BB Universal Oil
PZ-1-224-1
BB Grace - Davex
142 SME 7-3881
BB Oxy-Catalyst
BB APCC
1259JX3-1X1
BB' Oxy-Catalyst
BB Oxy-Catalyst
System Description
Mod.
AIR EGR Carb. EFE
XX X
XX X
X X . X
X
XX X
X X
XX X
XXX
X
X X'
X X
X X
Test .Test .Test
Weight Date Mileage
4500 8-71 0
11-71 8,424
2-72 21,52,7
4500 12-71 0
4-72 Z1.178
4500 10-71 0
3-72 32,014
5000 12-71 0
3-72 5,544
4500 7-71 126
8-71 229
9-71 627
10-71 825
2-72 2,934
4-72 5.550
4500 2-72 20
3-72 3,034
4-72 6,436
5000 1-72 1
2-72 6,145
5000 2-72 0
3-7Z 6,337
4-72 12,022
5000 1-72 0
2-72 2,548
3-72 4,615
3-72 6,097
4-72 9,280
5500 1-72 10
1-72 3,336
2-72 8,927
4500 1-72 54
4-72 6,400
5500 1-72 0
2-72 3,235
2-72 6.447
3-72 12,257
4-72 18,000
. 1975 CVS-CH Emissions.
gm/mi(2)
HC CO NOX
0.13(84) 1.9(83) 1.3
0.51(65) 4.9(77) .4
0.55(76) 5.5(70) .6
0.25(76) 2.9(71) .9
0.87(58) 4.1(64) .6
0.47(89) 6.7(75) .4
1.20(73) 13.6(50) .4
0.19 2.0 5.9
0.51 5.4 5.3
0.47 4. 0 1.1
0.91 3.2 1.5
0.74 4.5 1.2
0.85 2.5 1.1
0.55 3.8 1.0
0.55 8.8 1.1
0. 59(71)* 11. 1(47)* 2. 1
0.70 11.6 2.0
0. 89(54)* 15. 5(10)* 2.9
0.24(82)* 9. 1(55)* 1.9
1.4 14.6 2.6
0.40(71)* 9. 0(39)* 2. 3
0.52 17.7 2.4
0.91 24.0 2.2
0.20(33)* 9.2(27)* 3.2
0.62 11.0 4.2
0.53 8.2 4.5
0.63 7.2 3.5
1.02 7.7 3.3
0. 34(72)* 10.7(16)* 2. 1
0.41 10.3 2.0
0.62(51)* 11.6(30)* 2.0
0. 27(7B)« 10.8(70)* 1. 7
0.48 11.9 1.3
0. 31(75)* 10. 5(-8)« 2. 0
0.34 9.7 2.6
0.55 7.8 1.2
0.53 9.2 2.6
0.53 7.4 2.7
Status
Test continuing
Test 'continuing
Test continuing
Test continuing
Test continuing
Test continuing
Terminated; catalyst
lost
Test continuing
Test continuing
Test continuing
Test continuing
Test continuing
See notes on last sheet.

-------
Table 2-17.   General Motors High Mileage Emissions (Continued)
Car
No. Car & CID
2233 Olds 455
4231 Buick 350
62124 Buick 455
62125 Buick 455
62126 Buick 455
933 Buick 455
BAK Buick 455
931 Buick 455
2222 Cad. 500
1450 Opel 1.9 lit.
Oxidizing Catalyst
Type'1' Supplier
BB APCC
1259JX3-1X1
BB Oxy-Cataly«t
BB APCC
1259JX3-1X1
BB APCC
1259JX3-1X1
BB APCC
1259JX3-1X1
BB Universal
Oil Products
PZ-4-214-R-14
BB Universal
Oil Products
PZ-4-214-R14
BB APCC
1259JX3-1X1
BB APCC
1259JX3-1X1
BB Grace
Davex 117
System Description
Mol.
AIR EGR Carb. EFE
X X
XX X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
XX X
XX X
Test Test Test
Weight Date Mileage
4500 12-71 0
1-72 14,227
1-72 19,868
2-72 24,304
3-72 30,037
4500 2-72 0
2-72 1,600
3-72 4,200
4-72 7,600
5000 2-72 43
2-72 2,910
3-72 7,280
3-72 10,097
5000 2-72 32
2-72 3,201
3-72 7,198
3-72 10,469
5000 2-72 33
2-72 3,381
3-72 7,096
3-72 10,079
500o .11-71 0
12-71 7,798
1-72 19,106
2-72 27,161
2-72 38,661
3-72 43,179
4-72 46,301
5000 11-71 21
11-71 31
1-72 2,805
4-72 12,980
5000 12-71 0
1-72 7,544
5500 1-72 0
1-72 2,000
2-72 4,000
4-72 8,000
1500 12-71 0
1-72 12,000
2-72 23,000
1975 CVS-CH Emissions
gm/mi(2)
HC CO NOX
0.31(85)* 5.6(51)* 2. 1
0.48 10.7 1.6
0.52 11.7 1.6
0.56(10)* 8.6(18)* 1.9
0.73 10.6 2.3
0.64 6.8 2.5
0.76 7.7 4.2
0.66 8.2 3.7
0.81 9.5 3.7
0.38(75) 4.1(75) 5.6
1.08(48) 7.2(60) 5.3
0.43(68) 3.6(67) 4.9
0.98(43) 9.9(50) 5.9
0.64(67) 3.6(78) 5.7
0.72(52) 4.0(67) 5.7
1.16(44) 7.1(59) 5.8
1.24(36) 9.6(54) 5.7
0.54(78) 2.1(89) 6.0
0.65(56) 3.3(56) 5.5
0.67(58) 3.8(50) 4.9
0.71(59) 3.2(50) 5.1
0.19 1.8 2.4
0.36 4.4 2.8
0.44 4.3 2.0
0.51 5.6 2.2
2.71 9.3 2.6
0.90 7.5 2.3
0.78 11.7 2.1
0. 17(88)* 2.8(87)* 3.7
0.17 3.3 3.7
0.47 6.3 3.7
0.36 6.6 1.6
0.29 2.3 6.0
0.64 6.7 4.0
0.35 1.1 2.0
0.40 2.3 1.9
0.35 3.2 2.1
0.32 4.6 2.6
0.53 10.4 1.7
0.73 10.8 2.2
1.2 22.9 2.5
Status
Discontinued; high
deterioration
Test continuing
Catalyst being changed
Catalyst being changed
Catalyst being changed
Te'st stopped
Test continuing
Test stopped
Test continuing
Test continuing
Type: BB = Bulk base metal • Efficiency calculated from with and without converter tests, not from simultaneous test.
MN - M^m^nnwVm,*.! APCC / Air ProducTs and Chemicals Co. (Houdry)
MB " Mono -h has tal Non-AMA Durability Schedules
MB - Monolith base metal a = K (provlng Gyroimd)> ReguUr Schedule
(2)Catalyst conversion efficiency shown in parentheses - %. b = Hill Schedule, Milford PC
Note: Emissions data reported for each vehicle represent one test only.

-------
Most of the vehicles shown in Tables 2-16 and 2-17 were equipped with base
metal/bead catalytic converters (designated BB).  Included among these first-
choice  system test results are GM data obtained for other catalytic converter
designs.  These systems, which may be regarded as GM alternate system
candidates, include the platinum/bead system  (designated BN) and the
platinum/monolith (Engelhard) system (designated MN).

Whereas GM  stated in the suspension request hearing that zero mile emissions
were lower for the noble metal/monolith catalyst,  but that the deterioration
factor is more severe than for its first-choice (base metal/bead) catalyst,
the test results shown in Tables 2-16 and 2-17 do not always  support  this
statement.  For example, the emission levels for Vehicles 62505 and 933
(base metal/bead) are comparable to those for Vehicle 61319 (platinum/
monolith) at low mileage.  At high mileage the emissions of Vehicles  933
and 61319 are similar.
From the data displayed in Table 2-16, GM observes that its first-choice
(BB)  system shows the potential of achieving low mileage emission levels of
about 0.3 gm/mi HC,  2. 5 gm/mi CO,  and 1. 5 gm/mi NO  .  However, GM
emphasizes that none of the systems tested has been built from production
machinery nor have attempts been made to duplicate these tests on different
vehicles.  Vehicles with these initial levels are shown in Table 2-17 to exceed
the 1975 standards before 5000 miles are accumulated.

High mileage emissions are shown in Table 2-17.  Vehicles appearing in this
list were driven over 4000 miles.  It may be seen that all of the systems
which performed well at or below 4000 miles exceed the 1975 Federal speci-
fications at relatively low mileage.

As yet, none of the GM converters has achieved the 50, 000-mile durability
requirement.  The maximum reported accumulated mileage for first-choice
systems was 46,301 miles, which was achieved with a 455-CID Buick equipped
with a UOP base metal/pellet catalytic converter designated PZ-4-214-R-14.
Emission levels at this point were 0. 78, 11.7,  and 2. 1 gm/mi for HC, CO,
and NO , respectively; the test was terminated here.
       5C
                                   2-61

-------
One other high mileage data point, not included in Table 2-17 because infor-
mation concerning test procedures is lacking, may  be mentioned.  This data
point  appeared in Attachment  2, Volume 1 of the GM supplementary material
submitted during the public hearings and was part of the data delineated in
the testimony of David Hawkins on April 26,  1972.  The data concern GM
Test #472, which reports emission levels  for a 455 CID,  1971  Buick as
0.37,  2.42, and 3. 44 gm/mi for HC, CO,  and NO , respectively, at an
                                                .X
accumulated mileage of 27,600 miles.  The maximum mileage reported for
this vehicle was 45,300 miles, at  which point the respective  emissions were
0. 53,  3. 5, and 4. 0 gm/mi. General Motors  states  that these data are based
on the 7-mode test procedure.  The vehicle emissions package included a
Monsanto ECA-125 catalytic converter.  Other emissions equipment was not
specified.
2.2.4.1.3.4   Best  Emission Results
Sixteen vehicles listed in Table 2-16 have  all three  pollutants (HC, CO, and
NO )  within the 1975 Federal standards at low mileage.   The lowest overall
emission levels were obtained with car #62505 (Pontiac, 455 CID) equipped
with an Air Products base-metal/bead catalyst converter (HC = 0. 20 gm/mi,
CO -0.8 gm/mi, NO   =1.4 gm/mi).   Another first-choice  catalyst type
                    X
which appears to be successful on a low mileage basis is  the UOP base
metal/bead catalyst designated PZ-1-224-1.  Other systems which show
promise  include Oxy-catalyst and W. R.  Grace (Davex 117) designs.

None  of the high mileage  results reported  by GM meets  the  1975 standard.
Good  emission results at lower mileage levels were obtained with an Air
Products catalyst #1259JX3-1X1 (base metal/bead)  mounted  in a Cadillac
(500 CID).   At 4000  miles the emissions were still within standards. At
8000 miles HC and NO   emissions were still within standards  (0. 32 and
                     x                                       x
2. 6 gm/mi, respectively) but CO  had exceeded the  standard  (4. 6 gm/mi).
                                   2-62

-------
The best high mileage results,  from the standpoint of mileage accumulated,
would appear to be the Test #472 data discussed in the previous section and
quoted as 0.37, 2.42 and 3.44 gm/mi for HC,  CO, and NO ,  respectively,
                                                         Jt
at 27, 600 miles (7-mode).  This test point, it may be noted, was fortuitously
selected from among other high mileage data which exceed the standards.
2.2.4.1.3.5   Test Data Variability
General Motors states that sixteen repetitive tests on one car showed a range
of 67 percent for HC measurements and 200 percent for CO measurements.
The following one-standard-deviation test-to-test variations are quoted by
General Motors: HC = ±8. 6 percent,  CO = ±12. 4 percent,  NO  = ±15 percent.
                                                            Jt
The corresponding test cell-to-test cell variations are HC  = ±24. 1 percent,
CO = ±20 percent,  NO   = ±15 percent.  The data variability from car to car
                     X
of the same model is not given.
2.2.4.1.4     Fuel Consumption and Performance Penalties
The 1975 emission components  and engine modifications cause an increase of
approximately 10 percent in fuel consumption.

Efforts to reduce cold start emissions have resulted  in very marginal vehicle
driveability during cold  operation.  Frequent stalls after cold start and during
the warmup period have  been encountered.  The loss in power at full throttle
is not anticipated to be large unless high EGR rates must be used at full
throttle for NO  control.
              x
2.2.4.2       Alternate Systems
2. 2. 4. 2. 1      Special Design Features
General Motors states that a final selection of  the first-choice system cata-
lytic converter design has not been made, and  that evaluations are proceeding
on improved catalyst formulations as well as other catalytic converter
designs.  Among the latter are  noble metal pellet and monolithic types.
                                   2-63

-------
General Motors claims that the design of its  emission control package
permits an easy switch to the monolithic type of catalytic converter if
superior emissions performance and durability indicate the  desirability of
such a change.

Another possible GM alternate system utilizes a  thermal reactor for some
vehicles like the Vega (4-cylinder engine). Air/fuel conditions required for
reactor operation offer the advantage  of less initial  release  of NO , thereby
                                                                .X
requiring  less aftertreatment by reducing catalyst systems planned  for 1976.
2.2.4.2.2    Problem Areas and Plans for  Resolution
Two major problems encountered by GM with the noble metal /monolith
catalyst converter are high deterioration rates and susceptibility to overtem-
perature and to  poisoning.  Improved  catalyst formulations continually are
being tested and will  be used if found to be superior to  the first-choice system.

Problems encountered with the manifold reactor  are driveability and packaging.
The need  of extensive insulation to maintain high oxidizing temperatures
(1500-2000 °F) affects the problem of engine compartment packaging.  More
experience in the  use of high efficiency insulation materials is said  to be
needed.  Air requirements for the thermal reactor exceed those for the
catalytic converter; a larger air pump is therefore required.  Satisfactory
materials for manifold reactor durability have not yet been found.
2.2.4.2.3    Emissions
2.2.4. 2. 3. 1   Test Programs  and Vehicle Description
The test program description provided in Section 2. 2.4. 1. 3. 1 js generally
applicable to the second-choice system.  General Motor's experimental exhaust
manifold reactor vehicles were a 350-CID Chevrolet and a 140-CID  Vega.
                                    2-64

-------
2.2.4.2.3.2   Test  Procedure
The 1975-CVS-CH Federal Test Procedure was used.  Durability data for the
GM alternate systems are not provided except for the vehicle utilizing an
Engelhard platinum/monolith catalyst converter.  This system was tested on a
modified AMA test track.
2.2.4.2.3.3   Emission Data Summary
The emission data reported by GM for alternate catalytic converter systems
of the noble metal bead and monolithic designs are included in Tables 2-16
and 2-17.  Additional GM data covering the performance of the noble metal/
monolithic Engelhard PTX  system were reported in the Engelhard submittal
and are  presented in Table 2-18.  Table 2-19 provides low mileage emission
data for the exhaust manifold reactor system.
2.2.4.2.3.4   Best Emission Results
The only data for  the noble metal bead-type catalyst  (BN) was  reported for the
UOP  PZ-2-168-R-5 design.  This catalyst has accumulated 2287 miles within
standards (Car 61420 in Table 2-16). High mileage data for this system was
not provided.

The Engelhard platinum/monolith converter (Car 61319 in Tables 2-16 and
2-17) shows  very good low mileage emission results: 0.13, 1.9, and 1.3
gm/mi for HC, CO,  and NO , respectively.  The 1975 standards were
                           3C
exceeded for HC at 4000 miles,  for CO at 5500 miles,  and for NO  at 6000
miles.   Referring to the GM data reported by Engelhard and shown in
j .v>] : 2-18,  Car 17934,  described as a 455-CID 1971 Buick Estate Wagon
 .juipped with two Engelhard PTX-423S monolithic converters,  is indicated
 o have accumulated 24,630 miles at emission levels of 0. 34,  3. 09, and
2. 54  gm/mi for HC,  CO, and NO , respectively.  Engelhard further reports
                                3C
that this system accumulated a total of  70, 000 miles, at which point the
respective emissions were 0. 85, 8. 7,  and 3. 5 gm/mi.
                                     2-65

-------
to
                     Table 2-18.  General Motors Mileage Emission Data Reported by Engelhard
                                  (GM Alternate Systems)


Car No.
17934











Car and CID
Buick 455









Oxidizing Catalyst

Type"1
MN

Supplie r
Engelhard
PTY.d?^










I


Svsieni Description

AIR
X










EGR
X









Mod
Carb.
X










EFE











Test
Weight
5000










Test
Date
5M4'71


6/11/71
6'22/.71
7/1J71
T/16/71
2/27/72



Car
Mileage
13,092


24.527
28,721
33,252
37,722




Catalyst
Mileage
0


11.435
15,629
20, 160
24.630
70,000


1°72-CVS-C Emissions!
l>m:;v.i
HC CO NOX
• 0. 12 1. 88 2. 39


0.48 3.01 2.43
0.31 3.33 2.67
0.55 3.76 2.08
0.34 3.09 2.54
0.85<2>8.7(Z' 3.5(2)



Comments
High speed tire test at ;

perature during
emission run 1230°F -



After completion of
70.000 mi. tested on AC
Test Car 067 at Detroit
"'Type: MN = monolith/platinum (0. 2'.)
1975-CVS-CH test procedure: average of 2 tests.
                  Table 2-19.  Exhaust Manifold Reactor System Vehicles (GM Alternate Systems)
Car
Chev.
Vega
Vega
Chev.
Chev.
Engine
CID
350
140
140
350
350
Emissions, gm/mi*
HC CO NO
•x
0.1 3.9 0.8
0.2 2.8 0.39
0.24 3.0 0.39
0.28 1.1 0.6
0.1 1.2 1,2
System Description
Glass insulated, Air, EGR
Sand insulated, Air, EGR
Sand insulated, Air, EGR
Reducing catalyst converter, Air, EGR
(1976 System)
Reducing catalyst converter, Air, EGR
(1976 System)
"1975 CVS-CH Procedure

-------
 Best low mileage emissions for the exhaust manifold reactor -system
 (without reducing catalyst) were 0. 2, 2. 8,  and 3. 9 gm/mi for HG^CO,  and
 NO  , respectively.  No high mileage emissions for the. exhaust manifold
   ?c
 reactor system were provided.
 2.2.4.2.3.5   Test Data Variability
 The available data do not permit a  statement to be mdde concerning test data
 variability.  Variations are expected to be.  of the; same, order of magnitude
 as described for the GM first-choice system in Section  2.2.4: 1.3. 5.
 2.2.4.2^.4     Fuel Consumption and Performance Penalties
 The second-choice catalytic converter  system is  expected to change the fuel
 consumption and affect performance to  the  same degree reported for the first-
 choice  system in 2.2.4. 1.4.  In the case of the exhaust reactor manifold
 system, the fuel consumption penalty is expected to be more severe because
 the engine must be operated with rich air/fuel ratios  to sustain efficient
 reactor operation.  Operation at high EQR  to  Deduce NO  seriously deteriorates
vehicle performance.  Compared to the current production vehicle, the Vega
manifold reactor system shows a 50 percent increase in the time required to
accelerate from 0 to 60 mph.
 2. 2. 5         International Harvester
 2. 2. 5. 1       First-Choice Systems
2.2.5.1.1   .  Special Design Features
The  system presently envisaged by International Harveste.r as a first-choice
selection would consist of an oxidizing catalytic converter, advanced EGR,  and
engine modifications, including advanced carburetion and  a quick heat manifold.
The  advanced EGR system utilizes  EGR rate/load proportioning calibrations
as well as venturi signal proportional amplifiers.  Neither the advanced EGR
nor advanced fuel systems are yet available in the form  of production proto-
types; therefore, modifications to current hardware are being used (Refs.
2-16, -17) on all test vehicles for these items.
                                     2-67

-------
The selection of a specific catalytic converter has not yet been ma.de by
International Harvester.  Primary effort to date has concentrated on an AC-
Delco base metal/pelletized catalyst packaged by the Walker Manufacturing
Company, and an Engelhard noble metal monolithic catalyst, also packaged
by Walker.  International Harvester does not plan to manufacture the catalyst
container but  rather will procure it from an outside vendor.
2.,2. 5. 1.2    Problem Areas and  Plans for Resolution
International Harvester has not  yet met the 1975 emission standards, even
with zero mile vehicles.  This is attributed to the low horsepower-to-weight
ratio of the International Harvester vehicles which results in high average
engine load factors with resulting high exhaust gas temperatures.  Progress
in limiting maximum gas  temperature entering the catalyst, while  still main-
taining adequate chemical energy input during lighter load phases,  has  resulted
in increased cold start emissions.
2.2.5.1.3    Emissions
2. 2. 5. 1. 3. 1   Test Programs and Vehicle Description
International Harvester is continuing the evaluation of emission control
systems as components become available.  New catalytic converters are
undergoing test as they are received from outside vendors.  A Matthey Bishop
noble/metal catalyst on a Corning extruded monolithic substrate is one of the
confii urations being examined.  Test results from this converter are not
reported. All high mileage emission data reported for the first-choice system
have been accumulated on the 5500-lb inertia weight Travelall vehicles,
equipped with either the AC-Delco  base metal/pelletized converter, the
Engelhard noble metal/monolithic  (stacked) converter, or the W.R. Grace
noble metal/monolithic (spiral wound) converter.  All high mileage data have
been accumulated in accordance with the AMA durability schedule.
2.2.5.1.3.2  Test Procedures
Test data reported by International Harvester conform to the  1975 CVS-CH
test procedure.
                                   2-68

-------
 2.2.5.1.3.3   Emission Data Summary
 First-choice  system low mileage emission data reported by International
 Harvester (Reference 2-16) was designated as a range of "representative"
 emission levels as follows:

               International Harvester First-Choice System--
                     "Representative " Emission Levels

                         HC       0.3-0.5 gm/mi
                         CO       4. 5 - 8.8 gm/mi
                         NO       2.4 - 3. 1 gm/mi
                            X.
AMA durability (high mileage) test results are reported for tests conducted
on two different 5500-lb inertia weight vehicles as shown in Table 2-20.  In
no case has the 1975 standard for  CO been achieved.
2.2.5.1.3.4   Best Emission Results
The  best emission results reported by International Harvester  for their first-
choice system were achieved at zero miles on Travelall Vehicle #1 shown in
Table 2-20.   These were 0.35 gm/mi HC, 4.5 gm/mi CO, and 2.5 gm/mi
NO  .
   x
2.2.5.1.3.5   Test Data Variability
The  material  presented by International  Harvester does not permit a  statement
concerning data variability to be made.
2. 2. 5. 1.4     Fuel Consumption and Performance Penalties
International Harvester  estimates  that the fuel economy for 1975 vehicles will
be 10-15 percent below that of the  1972 vehicles  (Ref. 2-16). To offset the
anticipated loss in vehicle driveability and power, an increase in engine dis-
                                 3
placement of approximately 80 in.   is estimated to be required.  New engines
are in the development stage  and are scheduled for production in the 1975 model
year vehicles.
                                     2-69

-------
          Table 2-20.  High Mileage Emission Results —International Harvester First-Choice System
i
-«J
o
Vehicle ;
.Travelall #1 392 CID
Manual Transmission






Travelall #2 392 CID
Automatic Transmis-
sion



Miles
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
0
4000
8000
12000
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
Emissions, gm/mi
HC CO NO
X
0.45 4.4 3.0
0.46 10.4 4.2
0.77 12.7 2.3
0.83 12.4 2.5
0.83 11.4 2.6
0.35 4.5 2.5
0.63 8.8 2.4
0.63 10.3 2.5
0.68 9.2 2.3
0.35 4.6 3.1
0.33 4.7
0.49 5.7 2.5
0.53 7.5 3.6
0.69 11.7 4.7
0.51 8.8 3.0
Remarks
AC-Delco base metal converter
Inadvertent use of leaded fuel
suspected


Engine tuned, converter recharged


Test Continuing
AC-Delco base metal converter



O*
""1975 CVS-CH test procedure

-------
2. 2. 5. 2       Alternate Systems
2. 2. 5. 2. 1     Special Design Features
The system being evaluated by International Harvester on a second-choice
basis consists of a thermal reactor,  EGR,  and an advanced fuel  system with
a fast heat manifold.  Although the degree of control of HC and CO has not
been at all satisfactory to date,  it is the opinion of International  Harvester
that the  thermal reactor represents a reliable system which is more suitable
to the heavy duty nature of its product.

An additional system  being developed in a parallel program involves a
combination of the first- and second-choice systems; i.e.,  catalytic conver-
ter, thermal  reactor,  EGR, air injection,  and engine modifications.
2.2.5.2.2     Problem Areas
Problems  related to the International Harvester alternate systems were not
discussed  in specific  terms. Extremely poor CO control with the thermal
reactor  system has been encountered, along with poor performance,  drive-
ability,  emission control durability,  and fuel economy.   As is the case with
the first-choice  system, International Harvester is experiencing a great
deal of difficulty in achieving the 1975 CO standards.
2.2.5.2.3     Emissions
2. 2. 5. 2. 3. 1   Test Programs and Vehicle Description
All data  reported for  International Harvester are based on  the 1975 CVS-CH
test procedure unless otherwise indicated.
                                     2-71

-------
2. 2. 5. 2. 3. 2  Emission Data Summary
Low mileage emission data reported by International Harvester for their
second-choice  system were designated in Ref. ,2-16 as a range of
"representative" emission levels as follows:

             International Harvester Second-Choice System--
                     "Representative" Emission Levels
                      HC        0.37 -  1. 0 gm/mi
                      CO       14.8  - 22.3 gm/mi
                      NO        1.2  -  2.8 gm/mi
                         Ji
High mileage emission data were reported for two Travelall vehicles equipped
with the thermal reactor/EGR second-choice system. These data are shown
in Table 2-21.   Vehicle  257, which  had no overtemperature protection device,
was tested with 5 percent EGR.  The reactor core was fabricated from 185R
chrome aluminum alloy.  The thermal reactors were removed for inspection
at 24, 000 miles.  The left reactor core runners were found to be eroded and
the core assembly  severely warped.  High underhood temperatures resulted
in premature ignition wire failures. Vehicle 399 was tested with 8 percent
EGR.  This vehicle was equipped with an overtemperature protection system.
Test data were not reported at intermediate mileage points for this vehicle.
Reactor casting life was reported as unacceptable;  cracking was observed at
2000-1000 miles.

Only limited emission data are available for the International Harvester
second alternate system (thermal reactor,  catalytic converter, EGR,  air
injection and engine modifications).  "Representative" emission levels were
reported to be  0. 63 gm/mi HC, 3. 5 gm/mi  CO,  and 0. 77 gm/mi NO  .  No
                                                                  X.
details regarding test mileage, converter type, or  other specific information
were provided.
                                   2-72

-------
          Table 2-21.  High Mileage Emission Data — International Harvester Second-Choice System
Vehicle
Travelall #257






Travelall #399

Miles
0
4,000
8,000
1Z,000
16,000
20,000
20, 000
24,000
0
25,794
Emissions
gin/mi*
HC CO NO
X
0.41 22.3 1.78
0.66 22.8 2.20
1.42 18.9 2.83
0.52 21.7 2.81
0.37 15.7 2.76
4.84 86.2 1.27
0. 70 14. 0 2. 65
1.07 21. 1 1. 96
0.56 14.8 1.98
1.75 42.3 1.53
Remarks
5% EGR, 1972 distributor




Engine miss -fire noted
Recheck with new spark plugs and ignition wires,
carburetor cleaned.
'Miss -fire detected on first part of test.
8% EGR

V1975 CVS-CH test procedure
tv)

^1
oo

-------
2.2.5.2.3.3  Best Emission Results
The best emission results reported by International Harvester for its
alternate systems may be summarized-as follows:
              International Harvester Alternate Systems --
                           Best Emission Results
                                               Emissions,  gm/mi
       System                    Miles         HC        CO       N°x
   EGR + AI + TR                16,000        0.37      15.7       2.76
   EM + EGR + AI + TR  + OC Not specified   .  0.63       3.5       0.77

2.2.5.2.3.4  Test Data  Variability
No statement concerning  test data variability can be made.
2.2.  5.2.4     Fuel Consumption and Performance Penalties
Fuel consumption and performance penalties for the alternate
International Harvester systems are not discussed.
                                    2-74

-------
2. 2. 6         Alfa Romeo
2.2. 6. 1       First-Choice System
2. 2. 6. 1. 1     Special Design Features
Alfa Romeo did not identify a candidate 1975 system (Ref. 2-18).  Test results
reported by UOP (Ref.  2-19) for a 4-cylinder 2.0 liter overhead cam engine
                     3
equipped with a 60 in PZ-216 UOP catalyst were 0.44, 2.69, and 1.83 gm/mi
for HC, CO, and NO  respectively, by 1975 CVS-CH procedures (averages of
two tests).  Mileage  associated with these results was not specified.
2.2.7         BMW
2.2.7.1       First-Choice System
2. 2. 7. 1. 1     Special Design Features
The  1975  system projected for use by BMW will consist of engine modifica-
tions, EGR,  air injection,  and an oxidation catalyst.  The lowest emission
data obtained,  but not reported,  approximate the 1975 standards (Ref.  2-18).
2.2. 8         British Leyland Motor Corporation
2.2.8. 1       First-Choice System
2. 2. 8. 1. 1     Special Design Features
British Leyland states that it is impracticable and uneconomical to select a
system suitable only for 1975; accordingly, it has made a major effort to
develop a 1975 emission control package which, with the add-on of a reducing
catalyst,  would also  serve for use in  1976 (Refs. 2-20,  -21,  -22).

The  British Leyland  first-choice system for 1975 comprises'an oxidizing
catalytic converter (type not selected, but probably  a platinum monolith),
secondary air injection, and engine modifications.   Thermal  reactors have
been  rejected as being unable to meet the 1976 standards and were not needed
for the  1975 standards.  Exhaust gas  recirculation (EGR) will not be used on
most models (possible exceptions include the Jaguar).  The 1975 NO  standard
                                    2-75

-------
is being met with ignition timing retardation and by reducing engine
compression ratio  to 8:1.

British Leyland has contracted with Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) for
technical support in the development of suitable catalytic converter designs.
British Leyland plans to produce its own converter hardware.  Both mono-
lithic and granular catalytic converter designs are being evaluated.
2.2.8.1.2      Problem Areas and Plans for Resolution
                                                                      V    a
Durability is a problem both for the engine and the catalyst.  Valve recession
resulting from use of unleaded fuel has been difficult to cure, especially in
the smaller  engines where there is little room for valve inserts.  Mechanical
failure of the granular catalyst container, which results in the loss of catalyst
particulates, is a problem which has not yet been solved.   Another problem
is catalyst poisoning due to fuel and oil contaminants.  This problem is par-
ticularly difficult because the local fuel contains different amounts of sulfur
and other contaminants than in the U.S.  British Leyland finds it impossible
to say when, or even if,  a solution can be found to the problems of catalyst
poisoning, attrition,  or mechanical failure.

Installation of the converter has presented packaging problems because of its
size and the heat generated and emitted to the local environment.  In addition,
expansion between  the metallic case and the  ceramic core of the monolithic
converter design is a problem yet to be overcome.  Data developed to date
strongly suggest that British Leyland catalysts will have to be replaced at
intermediate mileage points in order to maintain emission control for
50, 000 miles.

British Leyland does not believe that any of the problems  are insurmount-
able, but they feel  they are running out of time to develop a satisfactory
50, 000-mile catalytic converter.-
                                    2-76

-------
 2.2.8.1.3     Emissions
 2. 2. 8. 1. 3. 1   Test Programs and Vehicle Description
 Tests have been carried out on the following vehicles:

            Austin Marina
            MGB
            Triumph GT6
            Triumph Spitfire
            Triumph TR-6
            Jaguar XJ6

 The gasoline  used for testing has 0. 014 gm/gal of lead at 91 octane.  British
 Ley-land believes that the EPA specification for gasoline lead content will
 ultimately be lov.-er than the 0. 05 gm/gal value currently projected for unleaded
 fuel.   Consequently they have not yet attempted to study the effect  of higher
 lead content on catalyst performance.

 No mention is made of test  conditions,  or the number  of cars involved in
 British Leyland's test  program.
 2.2.8.1.3.2   Test Procedures
 The 1975 Federal Test Procedures are being used for  all tests.  The driving
 cycle for mileage accumulation was not specified.
 2.2.8.1.3.3   Emission Data Summary
 Emission data are shown in Table 2-22 for low mileage emissions  and  in
 Table  2-23 for high mileage emissions.  Some of the catalysts were identified
 during the EPA hearing and these are designated  in the tables.
 2.2.8.1.3.4   Best Emission Results
 The best  (low mileage) emission  results were obtained with a 110-CID Austin
Marina equipped with an Engelhard PTX monolithic catalyst.  Emission levels
                                    2-77

-------
                              Table 2-22.   British Leyland Low Mileage Emissions
Type/
Car Engine CID Weight, Ib Mileage
Austin • 110 Saloon 0
2500
Austin 110 Saloon 0
2500 4000
Austin 110 Saloon 0
2500
Austin 110 Saloon 0
2500
MGB 110 Sports 0
3000
Triumph GT6 113 Saloon 0
2500
Triumph Spitfire 80 Sports 0
2000
Triumph TR-6 152 Sports 0
2750
Jaguar XJ-6 258 Saloon 0
4000 4100
Jaguar XJ-6 258 Saloon 0
4000
*
Emissions, gm/mi
HC CO N°x
0.11 1.78 1.86
0.04 1.49 1.67
0.10 0.92 2.27
0.18 2.29 2.33

0.19 1.38 2.08
0.14 1.02 2.41
0.58 1.78 2.04
0.50 1.95 1.87
0.39 5.10 1.75
0.08 2.80 0.86
0.15 3.00 1.10
0.20 2.50 1.00
Oxidizer Catalyst
Engelhard PTX (Pt/monolith)
Engelhard PTX (Pt/monolith)
ICI noble metal/monolith

ICI noble metal/granular
Johnson-Matthey noble metal
Engelhard PTX (Pt/monolith)
Engelhard PTX (Pt/monolith)
Engelhard PTX (Pt/monolith)
Engelhard PTX (Pt/monolith)
Johnson-Matthey noble metal
Comments
Stacked monolith
Stacked monolith







With EGR
Without EGR
*1975 CVS-CH test procedure
ts)
I
-J
00

-------
Table 2-23.  British Leyland High Mileage Emissions
Car
Austin


Austin


Austin

Engine CID
110


110


110

Type/
Weight, Ib
Saloon
2500


Saloon
Z500


Saloon
2500

Mileage
0
11400
11450
17000
0
6574
9200
13000
0
4500
5800
Emissions/gm/mi
HC CO N°x
0.11 1.78 1.86
0.28 2.73 2.32
0.34 2.08 1.65
0.63 4.65 1.32
0.18 2.29 2.33
0.45 3.00 1.97
0.20 2.61 2.21
No data provided
0.19 1.38 2.08
0.25 1.14 2.44
No data provided
Oxidizer Catalyst
Engelhard PTX (Pt/monolith)


ICI noble metal/monolith


ICI noble metal/granular

Comments
Stacked monolith
Valve recession
New head on engine
Catalyst was sent back
to supplier


Test in progress

Slight catalyst
deterioration
* 1975 CVS-CH test procedure

-------
were 0. 04 gm/mi HC,  1. 49 gm/mi CO, 1. 67 gm/mi NO  .  After 4000 miles
the emission levels were still within standards at 0. 1-0 gm/mi, 0. 92 gm/mi,
and 2. 27 gm/mi.  Best high mileage results were achieved with the Austin
vehicle also using an Engelhard PTX catalyst; 11,450  miles were accumulated
with emissions still within standards at 0. 34 gm/mi  HC,  2. 08  gm/mi CO,
1. 65 gm/mi NO .  The plotted  results  indicate that  HC exceeded the standard
at 12, 000 miles.   The maximum mileage accumulated on this system was
17, 000 miles.
2.2.8.1.3.5   Test Data Variability
In answering questions from the Ford Motor Company, British Leyland stated
that the day-to-day repeatibility of data on one car is ± 15 percent.  The
spread of results with mileage  and on different examples of nominally identi-
cal vehicles has not yet been  determined.
2.2.8. 1.4    Fuel Consumption and Performance Penalties
British Leyland states that the  difference  between a  1975 car marketed for
the U. S. and one for the home market will be a 13 percent increase in fuel
consumption coupled with reduced performance of about 10 percent.

Driveability will be slightly improved compared with 1972/73 models because
of the use of richer air/fuel ratios.  However, driveability will be worsened
during the warmup period.  Expected fuel consumption for a 1975 vehicle
with a 110-CID engine is 28. 7 mi/gal.
2. 2. 8. 2       Alternate Systems
2. 2. 8. 2. 1    Special Design Features
Every effort is being made to dispense with EGR  on  all models.   The alternate
system would  incorporate EGR  on some models,  including the Jaguar.  In
addition,  it may be necessary to add a  catalyst overtemperature protection
system.
                                   2-80

-------
2. 2. 8. 2. 2     Problem Areas and Plans for Resolution
No problems with the EGR and the catalyst by-pass system are defined.
2. 2. 8. 2. 3     Emissions
The 1975-CVS-CH Federal test procedure is used.  The duty cycle for mile-
age accumulation was not specified.   The test vehicle was a Jaguar XJ6.
Emission results obtained with and without EGR are shown in Table 2-22.
The maximum mileage accumulated  was 4100 miles with HC - 0. 15 gm/mi,
CO = 3.0 gm/mi, and NO  =1.10 gm/mi.  No information on test data
                         j£.
variability specific to the alternate system is provided.
2. 2. 8. 2. 4     Fuel Consumption and Performance Penalties
British Leyland believes that better  driveability is achieved without EGR.  No
further information on fuel consumption or performance is  given.
2. 2. 9         Citroen
2. 2. 9. 1       First-Choice System
2.2.9. 1. 1     Special Design Features
Citroen did not identify a candidate 1975 system (Ref.  2-18).
2.2.10         Daimler-Benz AG (Mercedes-Benz)
2.2.10.1       First-Choice System
2.2.10.1.1    Special Design Features
A first-choice 1975 emission control system is identified separately for  the
Mercedes-Benz vehicles equipped with a gasoline engine and for vehicles
equipped with a diesel engine (Refs.  2-23, -24,  -25).
2.2.10.1.1.1  Gasoline  Engine
Mercedes-Benz vehicle  equipped with a gasoline  engine is projected to use
the following subsystems in 1975:
            Noble metal /monolith oxidation catalyst converter
            Secondary air injection
                                   2-81

-------
            Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
            Engine modifications
                Carburetor or fuel injection system changes
                Retarded ignition and short c-h'dke operation
                Reduced compression ratio (8:1)
                Warmup of intake air
The bulk of promising low emission levels data  has been obtained on
dynamometer testing with Engelhard PTX-4 noble metal/monolith catalytic
converters.  Some good results  have also been obtained with Matthey Bishop,
Kali-Chemie, and Degussa catalysts.
2.2.10.1.1.2 Diesel Engine
The Mercedes-Benz vehicle equipped with a light duty 4-cylinder diesel
engine of the 2.2-liter class is likely to meet the 1975 Federal emission
standards for HC,  CO, and NO  . However this  is contingent upon the
promulgation of emission standards and test procedures applicable to diesel
engine vehicles.  Only minor modifications to the fuel injection system will
be required provided the restrictions on exhaust smoke  arid  particulate con-
tent are not unduly severe.
2.2.10.1.2   Problem  Areas and Plans for Resolution
2. 2. 10. 1. 2. 1 Gasoline  Engine
According  to Daimler-Benz, the success of its entire emission control
system hinges on the development of a  successful oxidizing catalytic con-
verter. New catalyst formulations are tested on engine dynamometers as
soon as received.   The major problems with the catalytic converters are
insufficient mechanical durability and high deterioration of conversion
efficiency.  Daimler-Benz is very pessimistic about the resolution of the
catalyst deterioration problem and does not expect any technological
breakthrough in this area.
                                    2-82

-------
2.2.10.1.2.2  Diesel Engine
Daimler-Benz states that an EPA ruling on smoke and particulate emissions
from dies el engines is urgently needed.  In addition, pollutant measurement
techniques applicable to diesel engines must be defined.

Daimler-Benz believes it will be able to meet the 1975 Federal standards
with its light duty diesel  engine by simple modifications to the fuel injection
system.  However,  it cautions that this will no  longer be true if severe
smoke and particulate  controls are instituted.  This is a particular problem
during cold start.  Daimler-Benz has achieved  low levels of smoke and
particulate emissions (less  than 1 gm/mi).   Further reduction might force a
change  in the engine combustion characteristics which could increase the
other pollutant levels.
2.2.10.1.3    Emissions
2. 2. 10. 1. 3. 1  Test Programs and Vehicle Description
The bulk  of Daimler-Benz's test program is being run on dynamometers with
engines or experimental  cars.  As long as 50,000-mile durability cannot be
successfully completed on engine dynamometers,  Daimler-Benz sees no need
for committing cars to road testing.  Oxidizing catalytic converters are tested
on the 2.2-liter (134 CID) 4-cylinder engines used on Mercedes-Benz (MB)
220 vehicles, on the 2.8-liter, 6-cylinder engines with fuel injection used on
MB 250 vehicles, and on the 4. 5-liter (276 CID) V-8 engines with  fuel injec-
tion used  on MB  280 vehicles.

The experimental vehicles are as  follows:
           MB 220  V-25 (3500 Ib) mechanical shift
           MB 220  VL-5 (3500 Ib) mechanical shift
           MB 250  (3500 Ib) automatic shift
           MB 250  CE (3500 Ib) automatic shift
           MB 250  CE (4000 Ib) automatic shift
                                    2-83

-------
            MB 280 (4000 Ib) automatic shift
            MB 450 (4000 Ib) automatic shift
            MB W108 (4000 Ib) automatic shift
                                            •*„'
No information is provided on the diesel test program.
2.2.10.1.3.2  Test Procedures
All emission level measurements on gasoline engines reported by Daimler-
Benz were made using the 1975'-CVS-CH Federal Test Procedure (Table
2-24).  Diesel engine test procedures are not defined.

Catalytic converter durability tests are reported in Table 2-25.   Those tests
with both hours and miles  shown were run on engine dynamometers using the
Mercedes W3 test schedule (mild driving conditions) as follows:
         Duration, hr                  RPM                  Load
               1/4                      idle
               1/2                      2000                   1/2
               1/2                      3000                   1/2
               1/4                      idle
               1/4                      3000                   full
               1/2                      4000                   1/3
            2  1/4
The systems in Table 2-25  with only mileage shown were road tested in an
unspecified manner.  The gasoline used for test contains less than 0. 01 gm/
gal of lead and less than 0. 03 percent of sulfur.
2. 2. 10. 1. 3. 3  Emission Data Summary
2.2.10.1.3.3.1  Gasoline Engines
The low mileage emission results obtained recently by Daimler-Benz are
listed in Table 2-24. The majority of catalyst  converters  shown were
manufactured by Engelhard (platinum/monolith).  Sixty percent of the test
                                   2-84

-------
Table 2-24. Daimler-Benz Low Mileage Emissions
Test
Date
12-9-71
12-10-71
12-16-71
1-31-72
10-27-71
10-29-71
11-3-71
11-4-71
11-11-71
11-11-71
11-12-71
11-12-71
11-15-71
11-10-71
11-10-71
11-16-71
11-18-71
11-24-71
12-8-71
12-9-71
12-10-71
Test
Number
1778
1788
1818
2032
1579
1591
1574
1611
1632
1636
1639
1640
1644
1655
1657
1679
1683
1710
1770
1780
1791
Car
Model
220V25
220V25
220V25
220VL5
250CE
250
250CE
250CE
250CE
250CE
250CE
250CE
250CE
250CE
250CE
250CE
250CE
250CE
250CE
250CE
250
Vehicle
Mass, Ib
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
4000
4000
4000
3500
4000
3500
Emissions, gm/mi''"
HC
0. 38
0.25
0.41
0.23
0.75
0.24
0.30
0.36
0.51
0.22
0.35
0.27
0.36
0. 51
0.45
0.73
0.35
0. 56
0.36
0. 34
0. 30
CO
3.48
2.04
8. 19
2.84
5.43
1.85
1. 57
1.74
1. 13
1.85
2.09
2.69
2.69
3.69
1.83
1.73
3.50
4.39
3.06
3.52
3.04
NO
X
0.61
0.72
0.61
0.44
1.16
1.69
1.84
1.97
1.72
1.94
2. 15
1. 27
2.01
1.65
1.55
1.82
2.16
2. 12
1.82
2.20
1.89
Oxidizer Catalyst
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard




PTX-4.




4.5
2 PTX-4, PTX-5
PTX-4.
PTX-4.
PTX-4.
PTX-4.
PTX-4.
PTX-4.
PTX-4.
PTX-4.
PTX-4.
PTX-4.
PTX-4.
PTX-4.
PTX-4.
PTX-4.
2 PTX-
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4, PTX-5

-------
                         Table 2-24.  Daimler-Benz Low Mileage Emissions (Continued)
Test
Date
12-14-71
12-17-71
1-24-72
1-26-72
3-6-72
12-14-71
1-4-71
1-7-72
1-10-72
1-27-72
1-27-72
2-2-72
2-3-72
2-8-72
2-9-72
2-10-72
2-11-72
2-16-72
2-15-72
2-18-72
2-25-72
Test
Number
1805
1827
1997
2015
2208
1807
1873
1911
1912
2012
2020
2028
2057
2072
2076
2079
2084'
2085
2099
2110
2151
Car
Model
250
250CE
250CE
280
250CE
W108
W108
450
450
W108
W108
W108
W108
W108
W108
W108
W108
W108
W108
W108
W108
Vehicle
Mass, Ib
3500
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
40.00
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
Emissions,
HC
0.33
0.33
0.31
0.68
0.33
0.47
0. 35
0. 20
0.31
0.40
0.48
0. 11
0.13
0.17
0.22
0. 16
0.19
0.12
0.14
0.13
0.22
CO
3. 18
3. 16
3. 99
7.21
7.66
3.99
4. 3Z
3.37
4. 09
3.62
1.49
3.42
2. 08
2.41
2.81
1. 88
1.90
. 2. 35
2.87
2.45
3.81
gm/mi
NO
X
1.36
1.88
2.97
2.24
2.95
1.60
1. 75
2.05
2.08
2.34
2.59
1.91
1.82
1.70
1.61
1.57
1.23
1.19
1. 18
1.35
l._17
Oxidizer Catalyst
Engelhard 2 PTX-4, PTX-5
Engelhard PTX-4. 4. 5
Engelhard PTX-4. 4. 5
Engelhard PTX-4. 4. 5
Engelhard PTX-4. 4. 5
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard 4 PTX-4
Engelhard 4 PTX-4
Engelhard 4 PTX-4
Engelhard
Engelhard 4 PTX-4
Engelhard 4 PTX-4
Engelhard
Engelhard 4 PTX-4
Engelhard 4 PTX-4"
Engelhard 4 PTX-4
Engelhard 4 PTX-4
Engelhard
ro
i
00

-------
                        Table 2-24.  Daimler-Benz Low Mileage Emissions (Continued)
Test
Date
2-29-72
3-3-72
3-7-72
3-13-72
3-16-72
3-17-72
-
-
Test
Number
2180
2197
2204
2245
2258
2264
2324
2377
*1975 CVS-CH test
Car
Model
W108
W108
W108
W108
W108
W108
-
-
procedure
Vehicle
Mass, Ib
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
-
-
Emissions,
HC
0. 11
0. 13
0. 10
0. 13
0. 10
0.15
0. 10
0.14

CO
2.34
5.56
3.17
2.67
1.47
1.72
1.70
2.3

gm/mi'"
NO
X
1. 14
0.97
1.44
0. 81
1. 14
0. 88
0. 28
1.0
Oxidizer Catalyst
Matthey Bishop
Engelhard 4 PTX-4
Engelhard 4 PTX-4
Matthey Bishop
Matthey Bishop
Matthey Bishop
Kali-Chemie
Degussa

i
oo

-------
Table 2-25.  Daimler-Benz Catalyst Durability Tests
Company
Engelhard
1. PTX
2. PTX
3. PTX
4. PTX
5. PTX
6. PTX
7. PTX
8. PTX
9. PTX
10. PTX
11. PTX
12. PTX
13. PTX
Kali-Chemie
14. KG
15. KG
16. KG
17. KG
18. KG
19. KG
20. KG
Heraeus
21. H
22. H
23. H
24. H
Grace
25. G
Degussa
26. Dl
APC-Ceraver
27. APC
28. APC
Matthey Bishop
29. Ml
300 M
31. M
32. M
33. M
34. M
Serial No.

1212 638
1212 4461
1212 446F
1212 564
1212 425D
1212 446 A
1212 446B
1212 446C
1212 446D
1212 446E
1212 212L
1212 429B
1212 429C

101/4035
103/4035
1/3368
2/3368
3/3368
4/3368
5/3368

101/250
102/250
101/350
102/350

1

506E

1 RC6226
2 RC6226

1/3A
S/3A
9/3A
10/3A
11/3A
101/350/3A
Hours

330
140
60
30
45
4
50
50
50
55
(a)
51
65

54
32
18
(a)
(a)
(a) '
(a)

17
12
23
34

14

32

72
72

63
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
4
Miles

15500
6600
2820
1410
2100
188
2350
2350
2350
2580
1200
2390
3050

2530
1500
845
1300
1300
1300
1300

800
565
1080
1600

660

1500

3380
3380

2950
3700
3700
3700
3700
188
Status

Defective
Defective
Defective
Defective
Defective
Defective
Running
Running
Running
Running
Running
Running
Running

Defective
Defective
Defective
Running
Defective
Running
Running

Defective
Defective
Defective
Defective

Running

Defective

Defective
Defective

Defective
Defective
Defective
Running
Running
Defective
(a) = Road test
                        2-88

-------
data listed are within the 1975 Federal emission standards.   Vehicles  and
emission levels pertinent to the mileage accumulation data shown in
Table  2-25 were not specified.
2. 2. 10. 1. 3. 3. 2  Diesel Engines
Tests  of the  220D (diesel) and 220 gasoline powered Mercedes automobiles
(1972 procedure) revealed that the diesel produces about 30 percent as much
HC, 5 percent as much CO, and 50 percent as much NO  as the gasoline 220.
Based on PHS odor  rating and opacity  smokemeter measurements, it was
found that under  certain driving conditions the odor was "as intense as old
style injector-equipped city buses." The smoke opacity rating was on the
order  of 10 percent.

Table  2-26 gives emission results obtained •with a single  car.  All emission
levels  are within standards as measured by the  1972 CVS procedure using a
heated FID instrument  for the HC.  Daimler-Benz  stated that the diesel
emission levels should not deteriorate significantly with accumulated mileage.
2.2.10.1.3.4    Best Emission Results
2.2.10.1.3.4.1  Gasoline Engine
The best  (low mileage) emission results  shown were obtained in  Test #2324
with a  Kali-Chemie  catalyst:  HC = 0. 10  gm/mi, CO = 1. 70 gm/mi, and
NO  =  0.28 gm/mi.   The highest accumulated mileage shown  in Table  2-25 is
   5C
15, 500 miles  and was obtained on an engine dynamometer with an Engelhard
PTX catalyst  converter.  This test was terminated when  some axial displace-
ment of the substrate was noted.  The  type of catalyst converter which
appears the most promising to date will be road tested as soon as more units
are received from Engelhard Industries.
2.2.10.1.3.4.2  Diesel Engine
From  Table 2-26, the best results  shown are:  HC  = 0.26 gm/mi (CVS-
continuous), CO = 1.55 gm/mi, and  NO  = 1.09 gm/mi.
                                    2-89

-------
Table 2-26.  Mercedes 220 Diesel 1972 Federal Test Results
J

Emissions, gm/mi
HC, SwRI FIA Heated3
CVS Bag
CVS Continuous
HC, Beckman FIAC
CVS Bag
CVS Continuous

CO, NDIR
NO NDIR
(as NO) Electrochem
Chemilum6
NOX Saltzman
(as NOp) Chemilum
Formaldehyde
Aliphatic Aldehydes
(as formaldehyde)
Acrolein

1
5/28/71

0.25
0.86

0. 27
0.28
i
1. 62
0.47
0. 73

1. 28

0. 014
0. 022

0. 012
a Heated lines and analyzer at 375 F
Run
2
6/1/71

0.26
0.82

0.27
0.38

1.61
0.59
1.07

1.J4

0.018
0.018

0. 010

Number and
- 3
6/2/71

0. 31
0. 92

0. 23
0. 30

1. 60
0.47
0. 29

1.46

0. 009
0.016

0. 019

Date
4
6/3/71

0. 25
0. 71

0. 18
0. 26

1. 55
0.46
0. 33

1. 09

0.018
0. 025

0. 019


5
6/4/71

0.36
1. 06

0. 18
0.23

1. 73
0.39
0.33

1.22

0.018
0.020

0. 013




Average

0.
0.

0.
0.

1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.

0.


29
87

22
29

62
47
55
42
27
83
015
020

015

b Entire 23-min run hand-integrated on 1-sec intervals.
c Model 400 heated analyzer at 100°F
d Envirometrics Faristor.


e Single run made 6/14/71 with new Thermo
Note: The diesel is not covered by the








Electron Instrument.
1972 Light-Duty Procedure.
                          2-90

-------
2.2. 10. 1.3. 5  Test Data Variability -- Gasoline Engines
Daimler-Benz reported that the spread of test results over the last six
months using the first-choice system on MB 220 vehicles is as follows:
                               HC                CO              NO..
   Spread,  gm/mi        0.23  - 0.41        2.04 - 8.19      0.44 - 0.72
   Spread,  %                 ±29                ±65               ±24
   Average, gm/mi           0.31               4.70              0.59
2.2.10.2      Alternate Systems
2. 2. 10. 2.1    Special Design Features
If improved pellet noble metal catalysts are shown to be capable of better
durability than the monolithic noble metal catalysts they will be used for the
1975 model year vehicle.  Daimler Benz has not yet tested these  alternate
systems.

If the possibility of fire resulting from catalyst overtemperature  is  shown to
be a real danger, a safety subsystem will be added.  Daimler-Benz is
developing the technology to prevent possible catalyst substrate overheating
through the use of either a by-pass system  or an air pump cutoff.
2.2.11         Honda Motor  Co.  , Ltd.
2.2. 11. 1      First-Choice Systems
2.2. 11. 1. 1    Special Design Features
The latest Honda information available  is derived from Reference 2-18,
dated October 28, 1971.  As of this date, a  first-choice emission control
system had not yet been selected.  However, the best emission results
reported  were obtained with a car equipped  with an oxidizing catalytic con-
verter, air injection thermal reactor (AIR), exhaust gas recirculation (EGR),
and engine modifications.
                                    2-91

-------
2.2.11.1.2    Problem Areas and Plans for Resolution
The main problem area outlined by Honda  concerns the improvement of
methods for protecting systems from overtemperature conditions which
severely reduce the durability of the emission control system.
2. 2. 11.1.3    Emissions
No details, either on test cars or on test programs are provided.  Emission
level measurements were made using the 1975 CVS-CH test procedure.  The
best values indicated were HC = 0. 20 gm/mi, CO = 3.0 gm/mi, and
NO  =  0. 8 gm/mi.  No durability test results were provided.   Test data
   ?£
variability is not given.  An  increase  in pollutants by a factor of two is
expected for mass-produced vehicles  compared to the prototypes.
2.2. 11. 1.4    Fuel Consumption and Performance Penalties
The fuel consumption penalty for urban driving is  expected to be as high as
25-30 percent.  Performance penalties are mentioned with regard to decreased
driveability caused by EGR.   No data  are provided.
2.2. 11.2      Alternate Systems
2.2.11.2.1    Special Design Features
Removal of the thermal  reactor is considered by Honda to represent an
alternate system selection.  The best emission levels given for this system
are HC = 0. 20 gm/mi, CO = 4. 0 gm/mi, and NO   = 1.2 gm/mi.  No dura-
                                               5t
bility test data are available.  The fuel consumption penalty is not as severe
as for  Honda's first-choice system: for urban driving it is 10-15 percent; for
steady-state,  12 percent.
                                   2-92

-------
2.2. 12        Mitsubishi Motors Corporation
2.2. 12. 1      First-Choice Systems
2. 2. 12. 1. 1    Special Design Features
The data  on Mitsubishi are derived from the 1971 EPA technology assessment
survey response data October 1971 (Ref. 2-26),  which identifies the
Mitsubishi first-choice emission control system as follows:
            Oxidation catalyst
            Air injection into the exhaust system
            Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
            Engine modifications
                Improved carburetor and fast choke
                Modified ignition system
Efforts have been made to reduce pollutants in the cylinder discharge to the
lowest possible levels.  Pollutant levels were reported as  HC =1.7 gm/mi,
CO = 23. 5 gm/mi, and NO  =  1.43 gm/mi (1975  CVS-CH); very little margin
                          x.
is said to be available for further improvement.

The selection of the oxidation  catalyst has  not yet been made.  However,  it
would appear from the comments provided that a noble metal/monolithic type
is the preferred choice.
2.2.12.1.2    Problem Areas and Plans for Resolution
The major problem area  is identified as catalyst deterioration.   Variation of
engine raw emissions with mileage accumulation is also a problem and so is
the  durability of the secondary air pump.  The actual catalyst deterioration
factor was reported as 3. 0.  It is hoped that this will be reduced to 2. 0 by 1975.
                                   2-93

-------
2.2.12.1.3   Emissions
2.2. 12. 1. 3. 1 Test Programs and Vehicle Description
The Mitsubishi test program has involved more than 30 combinations of
different catalysts  and converter designs, and encompasses 50 test vehicles
(the only car exported to the USA by Mitsubishi  is the Dodge Colt).   Whereas
the noble metal/monolithic appears to be the favored choice, both the noble
metal/pellet and the base metal/pellet are also  being tested.
2.2.12.1.3.2 Test Procedures
The emission level measurements are made by  the 1975 CVS-CH test pro-
cedure and durability testing is done using the AMA driving schedule.
2. 2. 12. 1. 3. 3 Emission Data Summary
Zero mile  emission levels obtained with an Engelhard PTX-5 platinum
monolith catalytic  converter were  reported as HC = 0. 3 gm/mi, CO = 3.1
gm/mi, and NO • = 1. 9 gm/mi. At 29,000 miles the emissions were quoted
               3t
as HC  = 0. 6 gm/mi,  CO = 6. 0 gm/mi (NOX not  given).  Data submitted by
UOP at the EPA Suspension Request Hearings (Ref 2-19) from an unidentified
Mitsibushi vehicle  (presumed to be the Dodge Colt) show the following
results:
                            Emissions, gm/mi
     Mileage
       600
      4243
      7000            0.25          4.33            - (screen failure
                                                      at about 8000 miles)
2.2.12.1.3.4 Test Data Variability
Mitsubishi'states that its emission data show variations as high as ±50  percent.
It is "compelled" to make several  measurements at each test point to obtain
a reliable average  emission value. Mitsubishi feels that this plurality  of test
HC
0. 14
0. 19
0.25
CO
2.25
2.91
4.33
NO
X
-
-
- (
                                   2-94

-------
measurements would create a serious problem if required for all production
vehicles.
2.2. 12. 1.4    Fuel Consumption and Performance Penalties
The fuel consumption penalty for the Mitsubishi 1975 catalyst-only system is
stated by Mitsubishi to be approximately 5 percent.  Engine power penalties
could be as high as 20 percent.  Mitsubishi comments that driveability has
deteriorated, but  hopes that further development will provide adequate driving
characteristics by production time.
2.2.12.2      Alternate Systems
2.2.12.2.1    Special Design Features
Mitsubishi has been developing a partial (rich) thermal reactor.   It could be
used in addition to an oxidation catalyst in combination with rich air/fuel
mixtures to  improve NO  emissions.  For this combination of devices,  the
following emission levels were measured:  HC = 0. 23 gm/mi, CO = 4. 5
gm/mi,  and NO   = 0. 9 gm/mi.  According to  Mitsubishi the fuel  consumption
                X
penalty for the combined system is 25 percent.  No other pertinent  data on
alternate systems are provided.
2. 2. 13        Nissan (Datsun)
2. 2. 13. 1      First-Choice Systems
2. 2. 13. 1. 1    Special Design Features
The Nissan (Datsun) first-choice system will consist of an HC/CO noble
monolithic catalytic converter, EGR, air injection, and engine modifications.

A noble metal monolithic catalyst was selected for use in the first-choice
system because of the excessive  attrition experienced with base metal
pellet type catalysts.  Although efforts are  continuing to evaluate  catalysts
from some 21 different worldwide sources, Nissan indicates (Ref. 2-27) it
is currently testing Engelhard and Johnson-Matthey catalysts on its
first-choice  system.  It was  stated in Ref.  2-28 that all  of the test fleet
                                    2-95

-------
vehicles use Engelhard catalysts on a stacked substrate.   This is in
contradiction to the Phase litest results (Table 2-27) which show Car B-697
equipped with a UOP noble metal catalyst.  Clarification  is not provided in
the Nissan references.

The reasons for the selection of the first-choice system were not discussed.
2.2.13.1.2    Problem Areas and Plans for Resolution
Nissan reports (Ref.  2-29) that the primary problems continue to be lack of
catalyst durability  and deterioration of catalyst conversion efficiency.  It is
proceeding with the development and evaluation of new catalysts as they
become available.  Nissan is working on several methods of accomplishing
catalyst overtemperature protection including the use of an exhaust by-pass
system,  secondary air cut off,  and/or precise air/fuel mixture control under
differing driving conditions to reduce  the overall heating  load  on the catalyst.
Satisfactory  performance, durability, and reliability of these  systems have
not yet been  obtained.

In addition to overall catalyst durability, Nissan also  reports  driveability
problems in  terms of engine stall, hesitation on rapid acceleration, and
general engine roughness due to EGR, spark retard, and quick release choke.
Evaluation tests of vehicle driveability, with 12-18 percent EGR on both the
first- and second-choice systems, rate driveability at 2 (poor) on a scale  of
5 (< .-ccellent).  By comparison,  the 1972 model year 97.4-CID vehicle is rated
as 4 (good).
2.2.13.1.3    Emissions
2.2.13.1.3.1  Test Programs and Vehicle Descriptions
The Nissan test program has been a two-phase effort.  The main purpose  of
Phase I (now terminated) was to establish catalyst durability.   Phase II tests,
started in February 1972,  are being conducted to test the entire vehicle
concept for 1975.
                                   2-96

-------
Table 2-27.
Nissan First-Choice System
(Phase II Test Fleet)
Car No.
B-700
B-696
B-697
EMS
Automatic quick
released choke
with fast warm-
up device,
retarded ignition
and increased
throttle opening
Same as above
Same as above
Catalyst
PTX-416 Engelhard-
American Lava
(stack type) with
secondary air
PTX-419
(stack type)
UOP Noble metal-
pellet (2.4 liter)
EGR
18%
(Intake
manifold
entry)
18%
18%
Date
2/1/73
Z/14/7Z
Z/Z4/7Z

3/Z1/72
2/19/7Z
3/11/72
3/Z3/72
2/3/72
2/26/72
3/14/72
Mileage
0
4, 000
8, 000
12, 000
16, 000
0
4, 000
8, 000
0
4, 000
8, 000
Emissions, gm/mi
HC
0. 17
0.28
0.37
-
0.50
O.Z3
0.31
0.23
Q. 14
0.31
0.31
CO
0.99
2.4
2.6
-
3. 5
0.45
0.7Z
1.2
1.4
1.8
Z.8
NO
X
0.8Z
0.71
0.85
-
0.87
0.73
1.04
0.78
0.96
0.90
1.00
Remarks

--
Adjusted idle setting;
changed spark plug and
breaker points
Skipped
--
--
--
Adjusted idle setting;
changed spark plug and
breaker points
--
--
Adjusted idle setting;
changed spark plug and
breaker points
Notes: 1. All test results based on 1975 CVS-CH test procedure.
2. All tests are still running.

-------
Phase I test vehicles were  1972 model year cars with 1.6-liter engines,
manual chokes, and an EGR system which used air cleaner entry.  The
Phase I test fleet comprised 2500-lb vehicles.

Phase II test vehicles are 1975 model year concept cars with 2. 0-liter
engines, quick release automatic chokes,  fast warm up devices,-and an EGR
system which uses intake manifold entry.   The Phase II test fleet was
reported to comprise  3000-lb vehicles representative of a special version
incorporating unspecified safety components.
2.2.13.1.3.2  Test Procedures
Emission results reported by Nissan for the Phase I test fleet  equipped with
its first-choice systems were  measured in accordance with the 1972-CVS-C
test procedure.  Phase II results were obtained  in accordance  with the 1975
CVS-CH test procedure.  The  driving cycle used on the mileage accumulation
tests  was reported as a modified AMA durability test route (Ref. 2-27).
2.2.13.1.3.3  Emission Data
Emission data  reported by Nissan (Refs. 2-28 and 2-30) for the first-choice
system are presented in Table 2-28 for  the Phase I test vehicles.   The cur-
rent Phase II test program  results are shown in Table 2-27. Phase I tests
were  terminated in September  1971, because,  in the opinion of Nissan, the
emission control deterioration rates were  too high.  Phase II tests are con-
tinuing.  It will be noted that car No. B-700 exceeded the  1975  HC/CO
standards between 8000 and 16, 000 miles.
2.2. 13. 1.3. 4  Best Emission Results
The best emission results reported by Nissan for the Phase II first-choice
system were exhibited by car No. B-696 at zero miles.  These results were
0.23 gm/mi HC, 0.45 gm/mi CO, and 0.73 gm/mi NO  .
                                   2-98

-------
                                    Table 2-28.
Nissan First-Choice System

(Phase I Test Fleet)
Car No.
B-415
(Car 1)
B-263
(Car 2)
EMS
Manual choke
Manual choke
Catalyst
PTX-416 Engelhard-
American Lava
(stack type ) with
secondary air
PTX-516 (stack type)
EGR
13% (Air
cleaner
entry)
18%
Date
6/5/71
6/25/71
7/20/71
8/26/71
9/13/71
9/27/71
6/4/71
7/12/71
7/28/71
8/20/71
9/9/71
9/21/71
Mileage
0
4,000
8. 000
12, 000
17, 000
20, 000
0
4, 000
8, 000
12, 000
17, 000
20,000
Emission Data,
gm/mi
HC
0.40
0.75
0.83
1.05
0.95
1. 13
0.661
0.77
0. 83
1.22
1.27
1.24
CO
6. 1
6 1
7.1
7.6
8.7
8.6
5.7
6.5
6.5
7.4
7.9
7.4
NO
X
0.89
1. 15
1. 16
1.14
1. 13
1.24
0.87
1. 12
1.09
1.24
1.31
1.44
Remarks
-.
Changed EGR filter
Adjusted idle mixture;
changed EGR filter
Changed spark plugs,
breaker point, and
EGR filter
Adjusted valve clear-
ance; changed EGR
filter
Stopped the test
because too high
deterioration of
emissions
--
Changed EGR filter
Changed EGR filter
Changed spark plugs,
breaker point, and
EGR filter
Adjusted valve clear-
ance; changed EGR
filter
Stopped the test because
of too high deterioration
of emissions
Note: All test results based on 1972 CVS-C test procedure.
ro
i
vD

-------
                                  Table 2-28.  Nissan First-Choice System

                                              (Phase I Test Fleet) (Continued)
Car No.
8D-463
(Car 3)
8D-388
(Car 4)
8D-452
(Car 5)
EMS
Manual choke
Manual choke
Manual choke
Catalyst
PTX-516 (Stack type)
PTX-516 (Stack type)
PTX-416 (Stack type)
EGR
20%
18%
22%
Date
3/20/71
4/20/71
5/25/71
6/20/71
7/20/71
4/16/71
6/15/71
7/1/71
5/1/71
6/2/71
6/25/71
7/25/71
Mileage
0
4,000
8,000
12, 000
16,000
0
4, 000
8,000
0
4,000
8,000
12,000
Emission Data,
gm/mi
HC
0.30
0.30
0.31
0.41
0.45
0.35
0.44
0.65
0.55
0.55
0.58
0.73
CO
2.8
3.0
2.6
2.6
2.9
3.2
5.7
4.9
2.8
3.5
3.4
2.9
NO
X
1.05
1.08
1.04
1. 12
0.85
1.05
0.75
0.78
1.05
1. 00
0.74
0.75
Remarks
_ —
--
Charged air cleaner
Adjusted idle setting;
changed spark plugs
Stopped the test because
of its seriously poor
driveability (rating
of 1.5)
..
Changed air cleaner
and carburetor
Stopped the test due to
HC/CO emissions
exceeding standards
--
--
Changed air cleaner
and EGR filter
Stopped the test due to
HC emission exceeding
standard
Note: All test results based on 1972 CVS-C test procedure.
ro
i
Hk
o
o

-------
2.2.13.1.3.5  Test Data Variability
No comment on Nissan test data variability can be made.
2. 2. 13. 1.4    Fuel Consumption and Performance Penalties
Fuel consumption penalties for the Nissan first-choice system are reported
to be 5-10 percent higher than the 1972 model year vehicle.  Performance
penalties were not specifically referred to other than in terms of poor
driveability as discussed in Section 2. 2. 13. 1. 2.  A statement was made that
vehicle acceleration capability is impaired.
2.2.13.2      Alternate Systems
2. 2. 13.2. 1    Special Design Features
The Nissan second-choice  system uses a thermal reactor in addition to the
HC/CO catalytic converter, EGR, air injection, and engine modifications
employed in the first-choice  system.
2.2.13.2.2    Problem Areas
Problems associated with the Nissan  second-choice system encompass those
reported for the first-choice  system plus specific problems associated with
the thermal reactor.  Reactor core deformation and durability continues to
be a problem as does the development of a satisfactory insulating material
which will resist both mechanical vibration and  high exhaust gas temperature.
Efforts are continuing to  develop an inexpensive and easily workable core
material.
2.2.13.2.3    Emissions
2.2. 13.2. 3. 1  Test Programs and Vehicle Descriptions
Test programs and vehicle descriptions for the  Nissan second-choice system
are the same as discussed  in Section  2. 2. 13. 1. 3. 1.
                                   2-101

-------
2.2.13.2.3.2 Test Procedures
Emission results reported by Nissan for the Phase I test fleet equipped with
the second-choice system were measured in accordance with the 1972 CVS-C
test procedure.  Phase II results were obtained in accordance with the 1975
CVS-CH test procedure.  The  driving cycle used on the mileage accumulation
tests was reported to be a modified AMA durability test route (Ref. 2-27).
2.2.13.2.3.3 Emission Data Summary
Emission data for Nissan's alternate system are given in Table  2-29  for both
the Phase I and  Phase II test results.   The data were presented  by Nissan
only as a range  of emission  levels.  The most notable deterioration in emis-
sion is  seen to occur in the CO emissions for both the Phase I and Phase  II
test vehicles: Phase I vehicles show a fourfold  increase in 32, 000 miles  while
the level for Phase II vehicles doubles  in 8, 000  miles.
2.2.13.2.3.4 Best Emission Results
The best emission  results achieved by  Nissan cannot be determined from the
data reported in Table 2-29.
2.2.13.2.3.5 Test Data  Variability
Test data variability was not discussed by Nissan.
2.2. 13.2.4   Fuel Consumption and Performance  Penalties
The fuel economy for the Nissan second-choice  system was  stated to  be
10-15 percent below the 1972 model year vehicle.
2.2. 14        Renault
2.2. 14. 1     First-Choice Systems
2. 2. 14. 1.1   jxpecial Design Features
Reference 2-18  identifies two Renault emission  control systems.  One of
these  comprises an oxidizing catalytic  converter, air injection and EGR;  the
other  system  utilizes a thermal reactor with air injection.
                                   2-102

-------
Table 2-29  Nissan Second-Choice System
Type
Alternative
System
Emission
Control
Package
AB
System
Main
Components
EMS
Reactor,
HC/CO
Catalyst,
EGR
Phase I Test Fleet 197Z CVS-C
Number
of
Vehicles
Tested
8
2
Mileage
0
32, 000
Emission Levels,
gm/mi
HC
0. 13
to
0.44
0. 50
to
0.75
CO
2.0
to
4. 1
11
to
13
NO
X
0. 59
to
0.78
0.75
to
1. 1
Phase 2 Test Fleet 1975 CVS-CH
Number
of
Vehicles
Tested
1
1
Mileage
0
8, 000
Emission Levels,
gm/mi
HC
0. 27
0.47
CO
1.9
3.6
NO
X
0.73
0.92
Notes: 1. Weight of vehicles tested: Phase 1 test vehicle, 2, 500 Ibj Phase 2 test vehicle, 3, 000 Ib.
2. The lowest emission values shown above were not obtained on a given vehicle, i.e., the lowest value of HC was not obtained in
combination with the lowest value of CO or NO .
X

-------
2.2. 14. 1.2
Emissions
Emission results (1975 CVS-CH) for the two control systems identified in
Reference 2-18 are as follows:

Systems
AI (+ EGR) + OC
AI + TR
Emissions, gm/mi
HC
0. 6
1. 0
AI = Air injection
EGR = Exhaust gas recirculation
CO
3.5
6.0
OC = Oxidizing catalyst
TR = Thermal reactor
NO
2. 25
1.9


No additional information on these systems was furnished.

Results of a 16, 000 mile durability test of a Renault 1. 7-liter R16 vehicle
were reported by Engelhard (Ref.  2-13).  These data cannot be identified
with a  particular Renault system.  Test results are shown in Table 2-30.
2.2.15       Rolls-Royce Motors Limited
2. 2. 15.1      First-Choice Systems
2.2. 15. 1. 1    Special Design Features
The  latest information available from Rolls-Royce was submitted in response
to the EPA technology assessment survey questionnaire  and is dated
4 November. 1971 (Ref. 2-31).   The system most likely to be selected for
1975 model  cars comprises an oxidation catalyst,  manifold air injection,
modulated EGR, and  engine modifications that include a  new carburetor,  new
choke  (AED-Automatic Enrichment Device), retarded  spark, and 7. 5:1 com-
pression ratio.  Transmission-controlled spark and catalyst overtemperature
protection devices may also be  added.  Catalytic converters using both noble
and base metal catalysts are being investigated.
                                   2-104

-------
Table 2-30.  Emission Data, Renault 1.7-Liter R16
             (Reported by Engelhard)
Mileage
0
1, 000
1, 000
4, 000
8, 000
8, 000
8, 000
8, 000
8, 000
12, 000
12, 000
16, 000
16, 000
Emissions, gm/mi
1975 CVS-CH test
procedure
HC CO NOX
0.08 1.01 1.46
0.23 1.72 1.57
0.11 1.75 1.63
0.15 2.55 1.50
0.31 12.57 0.86
0.36 12.0 0.85
0.33 11.11 1.09
0.26 6.20 1.77
0.15 2.67 1.93
0.48 4.60 1.38
0.27 3.28 1.79
0.33 3.31 1. 50
0.31 4.51 1.87
Remarks

65 primary idle jet
70 primary idle jet



New Beach air pump
Saginaw air pump fitted
Saginaw pump relief valve restricted
Before service
After service

Check test
                     2-105

-------
2.2.15.1.2    Problem Areas and Plans for Resolution
Rolls-Royce states that, due to installation problems,  at least 6 feet of exhaust
piping will separate the catalytic converters from the engine.  A major
redesign of the exhaust system could reduce the separation to 4 feet, which is
the closest possible with the existing vehicle design.  This remoteness  results
in a long warm-up time.  Other major problems are durability and overheating
of the  catalytic converter,  developing a reliable overtemperature protection
system, and EGR valve plugging.  No details of the continuing development
effort  are given.  Rolls-Royce  states that "only by releasing straight from
the drawing board to production,  with all the risks that this entails, could
a catalytic converter system be incorporated in  1975 model cars. "
2. 2. 15. 1. 3    Emissions
No details of Rolls-Royce's emissions test program are given.  The emission
data quoted are measured per the  1971 Federal test procedure.  With a
Johnson-Matthey platinum/monolithic catalyst,  Rolls-Royce has obtained
these emission levels: HC = 0. 18 gm/mi, CO = 2. 53 gm/mi, and NO  = 4. 15
                                                                    IX
gm/mi.  No durability test data were provided.  No information on test data
variability was submitted.
2.2.15.1.4    Fuel Consumption and Performance Penalties
Rolls-Royce estimates that a fuel  consumption penalty as high as 25 percent
is possible.  Driveability problems are anticipated,  but the performance
penalties,  including those associated with the reduction of the compression
ratio from 9:1 to 7.5:1 and the addition of EGR,  are  not given.
2.2.15.2      Alternate  Systems
2.2.15.2.1    Special Design Features
Alternate designs of exhaust manifolds and carburetors are being pursued.
To improve mixture preparation and distribution so that extremely lean
mixtures may be used, an auxiliary  small bore induction manifold with
                                   2-106

-------
extreme exhaust heating is being investigated.  Rolls-Royce states that
the system appears promising.
2.2.16        Saab
2.2.16.1      First-Choice System
2.2. 16. 1. 1    Special Design Features
The final selection of a first-choice system has not yet been made by Saab.
However, according to testimony presented in Reference 2-32, Saab cur-
rently favors its Concept 2 system  as a possible first choice.  This system
consists of the following:
            a.  Zenith CD2 carburetor
            b.  Noble metal, monolithic catalyst
            c.  Air injection
The selection of a specific  catalytic converter has not yet been made.
Exhaust gas recirculation does not  appear to be necessary to meet the 1975
Federal standards for NO . No overtemperature protection device/system
has been tested to date,  although Saab feels that such a system must be
developed to adequately control emission levels.
2. 2.16. 1. 2     Problem Areas and Plans for Resolution
The most significant problem encountered by Saab has been the lack of dura-
bility of the catalyst.  Deactivation  of the catalyst has been caused both by
lead poisoning and by overheating due to over-rich  mixtures during cold start
and retarded  spark timing.   Mechanical cracking of the monolithic catalyst
support has also been experienced due  to what Saab believes is improper
design of the container.  The design does not provide sufficient allowance for
the differences  in expansion between the container and the substrate.

Development of a satisfactory  catalytic  converter is continuing.  Saab is con-
tinuing work in-house on container  design and development as  well as working
                                   2-107

-------
with outside vendors.  It has ordered but has not yet received the
Matthey  Bishop catalyst on the  Corning extruded substrate.
2.2.16.1.3     Emis sions
                                              _. !*
2.2. 16. 1. 3. 1   Test Programs and Vehicle Description
Saab is currently conducting durability tests on the first-choice system over
the Saab  MAR (Mileage Accumulation Route) driving cycle, which is its
EPA-approved vehicle certification driving cycle (Ref.  2-32).

Saab has conducted two tests to date on its first-choice system (see
Table 2-31).  The first test (Test No. 4) utilized an oval Matthey Bishop noble
metal catalyst and was terminated after 995 miles when inspection  revealed
that the catalyst insert was loose.   The unit was returned  to the manufacturer.
The second test (Test 5) was conducted on the same car equipped with a
Matthey  Bishop catalyst of different but undefined configuration (Ref. 2-33).
2.2.16.1.3.2   Test Procedures
All test data reported by Saab are  based on the 1975 CVS-CH test procedure.
   Table 2-31.  Low Mileage Emission Data --  Saab First-Choice System
Test No.
4

5



Car No.
311

311



Engine
2 liter





Catalyst
Mileage
0
995
0
1200
2520
3540
Emissions, gm/mi
HC
0. 30
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.32
0. 12
CO
1. 73
1.95
2. 32
1. 76
4.67
1.27
NOX
2. 23
2. 00
1.95
2. 02
1.75
1. 07
                                   2-108

-------
2.2. 16. 1. 3. 3  Emission Data Summary
Results of two Saab low mileage tests of their first-choice system are shown
in Table 2-31.  As previously indicated, Test 4 was terminated at 995 miles;
Test 5 is continuing.  To date,  approximately 3500 miles  have been accumu-
lated on this vehicle.

When questioned about the high CO results at 2520 miles in Test 5, Saab
indicated (Ref.  2-32) that no adjustments were made to the vehicle between
the 2520 and 3540 mile test points and that they knew of no reason for this
other than test-to-test variation.

No high mileage emission data -were reported for  the first-choice system.
2.2.16.1.3.4  Best Emission Results
The best  (low mileage) emission results reported by Saab for  its first-
choice system were obtained on Test 5,  Car 311 at 3540 miles.  These were
0. 12 gm/mi HC, 1. 27 gm/mi CO, and 1. 07 gm/mi NO .
                                                     X.
2.2.16.1.3.5  Test Data Variability
Reference 2-33 provides the following general comment on test data
variability: Saab does not believe that the  lack of reproducibility in the test
results is caused by the test procedure.  No other comment is provided.
2.2. 16. 1.4    Fuel Consumption and Performance Penalties
Fuel consumption penalties are not delineated by Saab.  Only a general
statement is made  (Ref. 2-33) that fuel consumption will be increased due to
richer air/fuel ratio,  reduced spark advance, and lower compression ratio.
Fuel consumption for  Tests 4 and  5 conducted on the first-choice system was
reported to be 22 mi/gal; no baseline fuel consumption value was reported.
A 6 percent power  loss was reported for Tests 4 and 5 with driveability rated
at 7 on a  scale of 10.  A driveability rating of 5 is defined by Saab as border-
line; a rating  of 6 and higher  is classified as acceptable.
                                   2-109

-------
2.2.16.2     Alternate Systems
2.2. 16.2. 1   Special Design Features
The Saab second-choice system, denoted as the Concept 3 system, will
consist of the following:
            a.   Bosch electronic fuel injection or Zenith CD-2 carburetor
            b.   Base metal pellet catalyst (Saab container)
            c.   Air injection
            d.   EGR (may be deleted)
Selection of a specific base metal pclletized catalytic converter has not yet
been made, although Saab has  stated that its best results to date with the
base metal catalyst have been  obtained with catalysts from Kalie-Chemie and
Monsanto.  A final decision has not been made with regard to the use of EGR,
although Saab expressed the opinion that it would not be necessary to meet the
1975 standards.

Other  systems being studied by Saab include, the Concept  1 and  Concept 4
systems.  The Concept 1 system incorporates electronic fuel injection or a
Zenith carburetor, noble metal/monolithic catalyst (Engelhard),  and on-off
EGR (may be deleted).  Three tests have been conducted on this system;
the mileage accumulated was 1770, 4550 and 7700 miles.  All three tests
were terminated when the catalyst insert came loose.

The Saab Concept 4 system, consisting of a Zenith CD2 carburetor,  on-off
EGR, and a base metal pellet catalyst (vendor-supplied container) is  currently
undergoing test.   To date, 4180 miles have been accrued,  wit.h emission levels
of 0. 39 gm/mi HC,  4. 55 gm/mi CO, and 1. 53 gm/mi NO  .
                                                       J\.
In addition to the preceding, several systems which include a thermal reactor
are being investigated.  In general, these thermal reactor systems have not
been effective and are being investigated only as a back-up system in the event
                                   2-110

-------
adequate durability cannot be obtained with a catalytic converter system.
Saab has not tested a thermal reactor/catalytic converter system (Ref. 2-32).
2.2.16.2.2    Problem Areas and Plans for Resolution
In addition to the general problem of catalyst durability discussed in Sec-
tion 2. 2. 16. 1. 2, Saab reports that catalyst attrition and loss of particulate
presents a serious problem associated with the base metal catalyst.  Catalyst
poisoning with 4 ppm of phosphorous in the fuel was also  experienced in
Test 12 on a car equipped with a Degussa catalyst.
2.2.16.2.3    Emissions
2.2. 16.2. 3. 1  Test Programs and Vehicle Description
A total of six tests have been reported by Saab on vehicles equipped with
its  second-choice system.  Of these,  four (Tests  6, 7, 9, and 12) are or
have been run over the Saab MAR driving cycle, one (Test 8) is being con-
ducted over a "stop-and-go" driving cycle which consists of mixed  city driving
•with frequent cold starts,  and one (Test  10) is  being tested over the Saab
normal road driving cycle which is run 16 hours a day at an average speed of
44 mph and a maximum of 70 mph.

Test vehicles used for testing the Saab second-choice  system include those
equipped with both 1. 85- and 2.0-liter engines, both automatic and  manual
transmissions, and base metal,  pellet-type catalysts from three different
manufacturers.  Particular combinations employed are indicated together
with the emission results in Table 2-32.
2.2.16.2.3.2  Test Procedures
All test results were obtained in accordance with the  1975 CVS-CH  test
procedure.
2.2.16.2.3.3  Emission Data
Low and high mileage emission results for the Saab second-choice  system
tests are  shown in Table 2-32.
                                   2-111

-------
Table 2-32.  Emission "Data--Saab Second-Choice System
Test No.
. 6





7











8



Car No.
301





301











314



Engine
Liters
1.85





'1.85











2.0



Fuel
System
EFI





EFI











Carb.



Catalyst Mfr
Kali-Chemie





Kali-Chemie











Monsanto



Mileage
0
3,410
4, 010
5,350
7,430
7,460
0
13
208
450
515
960
1,410
2, 170
2, 770
4, 310
5,930
7,360
0
60
110
160
Emissions, gm/mi
HC CO N°x
0.23 2.98 2.59
2.18 4.72 2.55
0.26 2.76 2.56
0.32 3.38 - 2.66
0.58 6.20 2.33
0.50 6.12 2.38
1.26 29.63 0.77
0.22 2.85 1.02
0.17 1.83 1.21
0.25 3.01 1.29
0.25 3.21 1.38
0.19 2.24 1.30
0. 20 1.90 - 0. 00
0.19 2.18 2.89
0.31 2.79 1.52
0.27 3.41 1.53
0.25 3.63 1.96
0.33 3.93 0.00
0.26 3.03 1.10
0.16 2.39 0.87
0.27 2.15 1.56
0.20 2.68 1.32
Remarks
MAR driving cycle




Test continuing
High CO unexplained; MAR cycle





NO unexplained




NOX unexplained; test terminated as
container cracked
With EGR; stop-and-go driving cycle


Test continuing

-------
                     Table 2-32.  Emission Data--Saab Second-Choice System (Continued)
Test No.
9











10



12






Car No.
385











341



301






Engine
Liters
1.85











2.0



1.85






Fuel
System
EFI











EFI



EFI






Catalyst Mfr
Monsanto











Monsanto



Degussa






Mileage
0
43
185
195
208
592
764
2, 740
4, 210
6,380
8, 280
10,420
0
2, 170
2, 190
2, 300
0
20
615
630
1, 000
2,600
2,600
Emissions, gm/mi
HC CO N°x
0.07 0.34 1.52
0.10 0.75 1.10
0.18 0.93 1.54
0.22 1.75 1.99
0.21 1.57 2.14
0.24 1.18 2.07
0.22 1.44 2.37
0.22 1.33 2.54
0.23 1.18 2.59
0.19 1.40 2.10
0.29 1.34 2.14
0.50 2.97 2.87
0.31 1.61 1.75
1.09 8.89 1.31
0.61 4.16 1.58
0.79 6.81 1.49
0. 19 2. 11 1.66
0.21 0.95 1.75
0.37 5.44 2.01
0.32 5.81 1.81
0.16 6.22 2.00
0.74 15.66 2.52
1.64 30.72 3.09
Remarks
MAR driving cycle










Test continuing
Normal driving cycle


Test continuing
MAR driving cycle





Test terminated; catalyst poisoned
by 4ppm phosphorous
ts)
I

-------
2.2.16.2.3.4  Best Emission Results
The best low mileage emission levels reported by Saab for its second-
choice system without EGR were on Test 9 at zero miles.  This vehicle was
                                             h
equipped with a 1.85-liter engine, electronic fuel injection, secondary air
injection, and a Monsanto base metal catalyst.  Emission levels achieved
were 0. 07 gm/mi HC, 0, 34 gm/mi CO,  and  1. 52 gm/mi NO  .  "
                                                          5C
Only one vehicle has been tested using the Saab  second-choice system with
EGR.  This vehicle (Test 8) was equipped with a 2. 0-liter engine, a Zenith
carburetor, a Monsanto base metal catalyst, and metered EGR (rate not
specified).  The best  emission  results achieved, at 60 miles, were 0. 16 gm/mi
HC, 2. 39 gm/mi CO, and 0. 87 gm/mi NO .
2.2.16.2.3.5  Test Data Variability
Test data variability is not discussed by Saab other than the general comment
reported in Section 2. 2. 16. 1. 3. 5.
2.2.16.2.4    Fuel Consumption and Performance Penalties
Fuel consumption penalties were not reported by Saab for its second-
choice system  tests.  Actual fuel consumptions  ranged from 21 mi/gal on
Test 6 to 25 mi/gal on Test 9.  Fuel consumption was not checked on Test 8
(the vehicle included EGR).  Baseline fuel consumption was not reported.

A power loss of 5 percent was reported for all second-choice system tests
with the  exception of Test 12; in this test a power loss of 3 percent was
reported.

Driveability was  reported to have a rating of 5 (borderline) on the EGR-
equipped car used in Test 8, a  rating of 6 on Tests 9 and 10,  and a rating of
8 on Tests 6 and  7.'
                                   2-114

-------
2.2.17        Toyo Kogyo
2. 2. 17. 1      First-Choice Systems
2.2. 17. 1. 1    Special Design Features
The system proposed by Toyo Kogyo for use on the rotary engine for model
year  1975 is currently planned to consist of a thermal reactor,  improved
control of the secondary air injection system, and an improved  induction
system.  No EGR is. planned for use on the rotary engine for 1975.  Toyo
Kogyo also indicates (Ref. 2-34) that a forced cooling  system would be used
on the reactor for the rotary engine vehicle. This  statement was not ampli-
fied further during the Toyo Kogyo testimony.

A  first-choice system has not yet been selected by  Toyo Kogyo for the
4-cylinder reciprocating piston engine.  Development work is continuing on
three different systems for this engine.  These include the thermal reactor
system,  the HC/CO catalytic converter system, and a combination of the two.
No other details of these developmental systems were provided  by Toyo Kogyo,
although it could be inferred from its testimony (Ref. 2-34) that EGR will
not be used on the 1975 model year  reciprocating engine but rather is being
investigated on test bed engines for possible application to the 1976  model
year reciprocating engine  emission control  system.
2.  2. 17. 1. 2     Problem Areas and Plans for Resolution
The primary problem associated with the Toyo Kogyo rotary engine emission
control system is that the durability of the  reactor has not yet been demon-
strated.  Because of the increased reactivity required to meet the  1975
standards, the device is expected to operate at a core temperature approxi-
mately  130°F higher than the 1972 production model.  The possible adverse
effects  on underhood components of  the vehicle caused by the increased tem-
perature are currently being investigated to determine whether it will be
necessary to make  any modifications to the vehicle body structure  or under-
hood components.
                                   2-115

-------
With regard to the reciprocating engine systems, the major problem
encountered with the catalytic  converter systems has been lack of adequate
durability.  Details  of the durability problem were  not provided,  nor were
the type or design of catalytic  devices identified'  Unsatisfactory results
were reported in efforts to  devise a satisfactory catalyst overtemperature
protection system.

The thermal reactor device applied to the reciprocating engine has created
the usual  problem of excessive heat in the engine compartment and,  in addi-
tion, has  created difficulties in compartment packaging.  These problems
might require major modifications to  the vehicle body structure and to the
layout of engine components.
2.2.17.1.3     Emissions
2. 2. 17. 1. 3. 1  Test  Programs and Vehicle Description
The rotary engine test fleet consists of three 2750-lb vehicles equipped with
70-CID two-rotor rotary engines and manual transmission.  Only low  mileage
emission  tests have been conducted.  The reciprocating engine test vehicle
is equipped  witha 110-CID engine.   The test fleet consists of three vehicles
equipped with the thermal reactor  system, two equipped with the catalytic con-
verter system, and  three equipped with the thermal .reactor/catalytic  con-
verter system. Emission tests of the  reciprocating engine systems have also
been limited to low mileage.

Durability tests (50, 000 miles) are scheduled to start in May, 1972 and be
completed in September, 1972 for both the rotary and reciprocating  engine
vehicles.  The driving cycle to be followed was  specified (Ref.  2-35) only as
"general durability testing  of the vehicle-system combination on the road and
dynamometer to obtain the  final design of the control system. "
                                   2-116,

-------
2.2.17.1.3.2  Test Procedures
All emission test data reported by Toyo Kogyo were obtained in accordance
with the 1975-CVS-CH test procedure.
2.2. 17. 1.3. 3  Emission Data Summary
Emission levels  achieved at low mileage on the rotary engine equipped with a
thermal reactor  were 0. 17 gm/mi HC,  2. 2 gm/mi CO,  and 0. 93 gm/mi NO  .
These values represent  the average  of 18 tests obtained from three vehicles,
each of which had accumulated  from 300 to  1000 miles.  Individual test  results
were not reported.

Low mileage emission results for the conventional engine with each of three
emission control systems are shown in Table 2-33. All results represent the
average emissions obtained from the indicated number of vehicles and indi-
vidual tests as reported by Toyo Kogyo.  All tests  were conducted on a  110-
CID engine.  As  was the case for the rotary engine vehicles, individual  test
results were not reported.
2.2.17.1.3.4  Best Emission Results
Best overall emission results were achieved with the rotary engine as
reported above.  For the reciprocating engine, the best results were achieved
•with the thermal reactor-only system,  which yielded average values of 0. 15
gm/mi HC, 2.6 gm/mi CO,  and 2.3 gm/mi NO  , as shown in Table 2-33.
                                             X.
2.2.17.1.3.5  Test Data Variability
Test data variability was reported by Toyo Kogyo (Ref. 2-35) in terms of a
1 sigma standard deviation for each engine/emission control  system.  This
has been converted to the coefficient of variation, cr/x, %,  for ease  of com-
parison with data variability presented by other manufacturers, as  shown in
the following table.
                                   2-117

-------
                                    Table 2-33.  Toyo Kogyo Reciprocating
                                                 Engine Emission Results
Control System
Thermal Reactor
, (Type A)*
HC/CO Catalyst
(Type X)*
Thermal Reactor
(Type B)* plus
Catalyst (Type Y)'"
.
No. of Vehicles
Tested
2
2
3

Not otherwise identified
No. of Tests
Averaged
6
6
9

Emissions,
gm/mi, CVS-CH
HC CO N°x
0. 15 2.6 2.3
0.29 2.8 2.6
0.25 2.9 2.5

Mileage
When Tested
300 - 1100
400 - 500
500 - 600

v
oo

-------
                     Toyo Kogyo Test Data Variability
                      (Coefficient of Variation, cr/x)
                                                          Coefficient of
                                          N    t        Variation, tr/x,%
Engine           Control System          Tests       HC      CO
Rotary       Thermal Reactor               18         17.6    10.9
Recipr.      Thermal Reactor                6         16.7    11.5
Recipr.      Catalytic Converter           66         13.8     8.9
Recipr.      Reactor plus Converter                  12. 0     9. 7

2.2.17.1.4   Fuel Consumption and Performance Penalties
The fuel consumption penalty for the rotary engine was reported by Toyo
Kogyo to be 5 percent below the 1972 model year vehicle which is also
equipped with a  thermal reactor.  The reported 5 percent loss  in fuel
economy is due  to (unspecified) changes in the air/fuel ratio (Ref. 2-35).
Driveability of the  1975  rotary  engine vehicle is rated by Toyo  Kogyo as
"fair, "  as is the 1972 model year vehicle.

The fuel consumption penalties are reported for the reciprocating engine
emission control system as  10 percent for the thermal reactor system and
5 percent  for both the catalyst and reactor/catalyst systems when compared
to the 1972 model year production vehicle.  Driveability is rated as "fair"
for  all three emission control systems.
2.2. 17.2     Alternate Systems
No second-choice system is planned by Toyo Kogyo for use on the 1975 rotary
engine vehicle.  At the present time, it plans to continue with the reactor
core fabricated  from 20-percent chrome,  3-percent aluminum sheet metal
stock.  They did indicate, however, that they might have to go  to a reactor
core material with some nickel content if the  results of the durability tests
so indicate.
                                   2-119

-------
None of the previously described emission control systems being developed
by Toyo Kogyo has been designated as a second-choice system and will not
be reviewed in this section.
2. 2. 18         Toyota
2.2.18.1       First-Choice Systems
2.2.18.1.1    Special Design Features
The Toyota first-choice system,  designated System 75rA, comprises an
oxidizing  catalytic converter,  air injection, EGR,  and engine modifications
(Refs. 2-36, 2-37).   The catalytic converter is  a pelletized noble metal design
utilizing palladium as the catalyst agent (the  source of the catalyst materials
was not specified; Toyota plans to develop and manufacture its  own con-
tainer).  The engine modifications include redesign of the induction system to
improve warm-up characteristics (low thermal  inertia intake manifold),
carburetor improvements,  and lean choke operation.  Toyota also is  investi-
gating a possible change in combustion chamber configuration to reduce  HC
and NO  emissions.
       ?c
Toyota states that the selection of System 75-A  was based on the following
considerations:
            a.   The catalytic converter was  essential to the goal of meeting
                Federal emission standards for 1975.
            b.   EGR looked promising as a means of achieving the California
                1974/75 NOX standards,  and was in an advanced state of
                development.
            c.   The engine modifications  selected  were based on improve-
                ments under development and in use for a number of model
                years.
The selection of palladium for the catalyst was a cost  consideration
(palladium is one-third the price of platinum).   The pelletized configuration
was selected in preference to a monolith structure partly because  Toyota
believed the monolithic version tended to be poisoned by lead easier than the
larger volume  pelletized design.
                                   2-120

-------
2.2.18.1.2    Problem Areas and Plans for Resolution
In general, the performance and durability of the 75-A system are
unsatisfactory.  Low mileage emission results meet the  1975 standards but
fail to meet Toyota's low mileage engineering  goals.  The possibility of
improving catalyst warm-up characteristics by mounting the converter closer
to the engine is under consideration; however, this poses a  potential problem
of converter overheating.

With  regard to other system problems,  Toyota is still working to achieve
and maintain an optimum air/fuel ratio which would permit  both the catalyst
and EGR  system to operate at best efficiency.

Component problems in the Toyota system include catalyst durability, con-
verter case deformation and rupture, and  carburetor icing and throttle valve
freezing in cold weather due  to EGR (the Toyota  system introduces recircu-
lated gas  between the carburetor venturi and throttle valve).  Although no
data were available to support this claim,  Toyota feels that 0. 05 gm/gal lead
content gasoline will be unsatisfactory; some toxification of the catalyst is
suspected even with the 0. 02 gm/gal gasoline that currently is being used in
the test vehicles.  High fuel consumption and degraded performance were
additional problems associated with the first-choice system.

With  regard to the air/fuel problem,  Toyota plans to make carburetor
improvements, including the addition of altitude  compensating devices.   It
also is considering the use of fuel injection.

With  regard to catalyst  system durability,  Toyota is working on the develop-
ment  of a stronger catalyst carrier and is  studying new designs for the
structure and suspension of the  case.  Monolithic systems are also being
investigated.
                                   2-121

-------
The EGR problems are being approached in several directions, including
coating the throttle shaft with a special protective material,  controlling EGR
gas temperature,  and terminating the recirculating flow at a minimum engine
temperature.                                •  -
2.2.18.1.3    Emissions
2.2.18.1.3.1 Test Programs and Vehicle  Description
Toyota's testing of its complete emissions  package is  limited.  Only one
vehicle durability run of the first-choice 75-A system has been made.  One
more first-choice vehicle test was started  recently.  The test vehicle is
equipped with a 96. 9-CID, 4-cylinder engine and an automatic transmission.
The vehicle has an inertia wheel rating of 2500 Ib.
2.2.18.1.3.2 Test Procedures
Durability mileage accumulation was accomplished using the prescribed EPA
driving cycle and emission tests were conducted using the CVS method.  It
was not specified that 1975-CVS-CH procedures were used.  The test program
deviated from nonstandard practice in that maintenance was performed at
each4000-mile test interval (the maintenance was described as "engine adjust-
ments"; no further description was provided).
2.2.18.1.3.3  Emission Data Summary
Data from the single  durability test of the first-choice system are shown in
Table 2-34.  Toyota's low mileage emission goals of 0. 19, 1. 5,  and 1. 9
gm/mi, respectively, for HC, CO, and NO  are exceeded for the HC and CO
                                         X.
pollutants at zero miles.  Two entries  are shown for each 4000-mile test
point.  These are the emission results obtained before and after conducting
the maintenance mentioned above.  At or near the 12, 000-mile point it was
observed that the converter case had broken and that the catalyst was
scattered.  The test was then terminated.
                                  2-122

-------
Table 2-34.  Toyota First-Choice System Durability
             Test Emission Results
Emission
Control
System
75-A






Mileage
0
4, 000

8, 000

12, 000

1975 CVS-CH Emissions, gm/mi
HC
0.21
0.39
0. 29*
0. 51
0. 27*
0.46
0.36*
CO
2.60
2.67
2. 13*
2.56
2. 82*
4.13
2. 55*
NO
X
1.16
1. 30
1.36*
1.47
1.29*
1.39
1.25*
^Engine adjusted.
Note: Catalytic converter damage found at 12, 000 mi.

-------
2.2.18.1.3.4  Best Emission Results
Best results are represented by the data shown at zero miles; that is,
0.21 gm/mi HC, 2.60 gm/mi CO and 1. 16 gm/mi NO  .
                                                   3£
2.2.18.1.3.5  Test Data Variability
Toyota  states that tests  of its prototype 1975 emission package vehicles
showed  variations in HC, CO,  and NO  emissions of 50, 30, and 30 percent,
                                    X
respectively, about the mean values.
2.2. 18. 1.4    Fuel Consumption and Performance Penalties
When operated over the  driving schedule of the 1975 Federal test procedure,
the 75-A system showed an increase  in fuel consumption of 10 percent.

The following performance problems were observed in the driveability test
vehicles:  power loss of 10-20 percent, torque loss at  lower engine speeds of
20-50 percent, engine overheating, run-on, difficulty in hot restarting, tip-in,
rough idle,  engine  stalling, surging,  hesitation, back-fire, poor acceleration
(especially with EGR operation), and vibration.
2.2.18.2       Alternate Systems
2.2.18.2.1    Special Design Features
Toyota does not have an alternate system for the  1975  model year.  Two other
systems are currently under development.   These systems, designated 76-A
and 76-B, appear to be targeted toward the 1976 model year application.  The
76-A system incorporates engine modifications, EGR, an oxidizing catalyst,
and a reducing catalyst.   The 76-B system contains the same components as
the 76-A and, in addition, incorporates a thermal reactor.
                                  2-124

-------
Durability test results for these systems are limited; the data presented
show that neither system met the 1976 standards at zero miles.  Both sys-
tems failed the 1975 CO standard at relatively low mileage:  76-A at or  before
4000 miles and 76-B at or before 8000 miles.  Additional information on these
systems may be found in Reference 2-37.
2.2.19       Volkswagen
2.2.19.1     First-Choice System
2.2.19.1.1   Special Design Features
Using the building-block approach, Volkswagen is developing its 1975 system
so as to permit the add-on of a reducing catalyst (or catalyst bed) for the 1976
model year vehicle (Refs. 2-38, 2-39,  2-40, 2-41).  Two first-choice 1975 systems
are identified.  Both use  a thermal reactor, an HC/CO converter,  and EGR.
One  system employs carburetion, the other employs "conventional EFI
(Electronic Fuel  Injection). "

The  thermal reactor serves principally as  a warm-up device for the catalytic
converter.  The opposed-piston Volkswagen engine poses special problems in
this  regard because two reactors are required in order to effect a  close
engine mounting arrangement.  The catalytic converter is  a monolithic type
(the  Johnson-Mathey AC-8 noble metal design is preferred).   A ceramic
monolithic substrate manufactured by American Lava is used.

In addition to the above systems which are  designed for the opposed-piston
air-cooled engines,  Volkswagen delineated another first-choice system which
is designed for the water-cooled in-line engine used  in the Audi vehicle.  This
emission system basically comprises an HC/CO converter with EGR.

A component/feature description for each of the  systems discussed above is
provided in Table 2-35.
                                   2-125

-------
                 Table 2-35.  Volkswagen First-Choice Systems Description
                  Air-Cooled Engine (VW)
                                                               Water-Cooled Engine (Audi)
      Concept 1 (EFI)
                                 Concept 2 (Carburetion)
         Concept 4
EFI

EGRa

Air Injection0

Thermal Reactor
Catalytic Converter
(HC/CO)

Converter Overtemperature
Diverter System

Low Thermal Inertia
Exhaust Manifold
                              Modified Carburetor

                              EGRb

                              Air Injection0

                              Thermal Reactor
                               Catalytic Converter
                               (HC/CO)

                               Converter Overtemperature
                               Diverter System

                               Low Thermal Inertia
                               Exhaust Manifold
Modified Carburetor

EGRb

Air Injection

Extreme Spark Retard
during warm-up.

Catalytic Converter (HC/CO)
Converter Overtemperature
Diverter System

Low Thermal InertiaV
Exhaust Manifold
 Upstream throttle entry,  effective after warm-up

 Upstream carburetor entry at low load, downstream at high load; effective after warm-up

 Into exhaust ports and thermal reactor on warm-up; thereafter into thermal
 reactor only
I
  nto exhaust ports on warm-up; thereafter into HC/CO converter

-------
2.2.19.1.2   Problem Areas and Plans for Resolution
The problems discussed by Volkswagen include the following:  (1) increased
fuel consumption, (2) decreased engine performance, (3) mechanical stabil-
ity of the catalyst support monolith, (4) potential of fire due to the high
temperature operation  of the converter,  and (5) maintaining emission con-
trol system adjustment.  In  addition to these problems, Volkswagen identi-
fies major design problems  in the following areas: (1) sealing and lubricating
the exhaust by-pass valve; (2) EFI system performance; (3) carburetor air/
fuel balance; and (4) mechanical durability, reactivity loss, and start-off per-
formance deficiencies in the  catalytic  converter.

Volkswagen sees no possibility of improving the fuel  consumption behavior  of
the control system in the foreseeable future.  Some improvement in drivea-
bility might be achieved by substituting "special reactor devices" (not further
identified) for the currently  used lean  choke  operation.  The performance loss
problem is stated to be intractable  except by the device of increasing engine
displacement or mean effective cylinder pressure.  Both of these solutions'
would require a major  engine redesign.
2.2.19.1.3   Emissions
2.2.19.1.3.1 Test Programs and Vehicle Description
Volkswagen asserts that it has conducted 250 emission tests in the course
of developing and improving Volkswagen control systems.   These tests  were
performed exclusively  on  low mileage  vehicles using air-cooled engines with
displacements of 1.6 and 1. 7 liters and water-cooled engines of 1.6 liter
displacement.  While Volkswagen has  operated durability test  cars and  has
accumulated 15,000 kilometers on at least one of its  first  choice systems,
this program is being conducted solely for the purpose of evaluating mechanical
durability and has not been interrupted to measure emissions.
                                   2-127

-------
2.2.19.1.3.2 Test Procedures
Volkswagen (low mileage) emission results were obtained using  1975 test
procedures.
2.2.19.1.3.3 Emission Data Summary
Low mileage emission data for the Volkswagen first-choice emission systems
are shown in Table 2-36.  The data represent mean values for several tests
of different vehicles having less  than 600 miles accumulated.  Included in the
emissions package reflected by the data is a NO  reducing catalyst.
                                              •X
Volkswagen's basic plan is to delete the reducing catalyst for the 1975 system
if sufficient NO  control can be achieved by other means.
              5C
2.2.19.1.3.4 Best Emission Results
The best overall emission results for each of the Volkswagen first-choice
systems are  included in Table 2-36.  It may be seen that the air-cooled engine
does considerably better  in CO control with the Volkswagen thermal reactor
included in the system.  Concept 4 (water-cooled engine without  thermal reac-
tor) appears  to accomplish satisfactory CO control by the warm-up extreme-
spark-retard technique.  The best data for both engine types are exemplified
by the following emission values for Concept  1:  HC =  0.25, CO  = 2. 2, and
NO  = 0. 39 gm/mi.
   X.
2.2.19.1.3.5 Test Data  Variability
Data needed to evaluate variability were not provided.
2.2.19.1.4    Fuel Consumption and Performance  Penalties
The emission control systems which Volkswagen has under development for
meeting 1975 standards increase fuel consumption by at  least 20 percent over
1974 models, decrease engine performance by 10 to 25 percent,  and adversely
affect driveability by causing hesitation during acceleration and  cruise,
particularly if the engine is operated at lower than  normal temperature. The
loss of performance is  stated to  be the direct consequence of modifying the
                                   2-128

-------
Table 2-36.  Low Mileage Emission Data Summary--Volkswagen
             First-Choice Systems (with NO  Converter)
Concept No.
and
(Engine )
1
(Air Cooled)
1
(Air Cooled)

2
(Air Cooled)
4
(Water
Cooled)
Emissions, gm/mi
(Mean)
HC CO N°x
0.38 2.2 0.64
0.46 5.54 0.5

0.49 4.9 0.46

0.82 4.04 0.57
No. of
Vehicles
3
3

1

4
No.
of
Tests
10
6

9

10
Emissions, gm/mi
(Overall Best Value)
HC CO N°x
0.25 2.2 0.39
0.49 4.78 0.42

0.39 2.8 0.46

0.62 3.35 0.29
Test
Procedure
1975-CVS-CH
1975-CVS-CH

1975-CVS-CH

1972-CVS-C
Remarks
With NO converter
X
With NOX converter,
without thermal
reactor
With NO converter
X



-------
combustion process to reduce emissions.  Volkswagen provides little hope
for overcoming these difficulties without a major redesign of the engine.
2.2. 19.2      Alternate Systems
2.2. 19.2. 1    Special Design Features
The Volkswagen alternate 1975 system comprises an advanced EFI (Electronic
Fuel Injection) device, EGR, a low thermal inertia  exhaust manifold, an
HC/CO oxidation catalyst,  and a catalyst  overtemperature protection system.
Few details concerning  this alternate system were provided in the Volkswagen
submittal or testimony transcript.  Ten tests (1975 CVS-CH) of a single (air-
cooled engine) vehicle equipped with this system, including the NO  catalyst
bed, yielded the following results:
                                          Emissions,  gm/mi
           Values                  HC             CO           NO
           	                  	           	          	x
     Mean Value                  0.35           1.36            0.31
     Best Overall Value           0.20           2.01            0.11

2.2.20        Volvo
2.2.20.1      First-Choice Features
2.2.20.1.1   Special Design Features
The Volvo first, choice system comprises the following subsystems
(Refs.  2-42, -43, -44, -45):
           Catalytic converter (platinum/monolithic)
           Secondary air supply
           Catalyst protection warning system
           Exhaust gas  recirculation
           Engine modifications
           Fuel injection system
           Modified intake system
                                    2-130

-------
Both Engelhard and Johnson-Mathey platinum catalytic converter designs
are being evaluated for use in this system.  The fuel injection system is being
developed by Bosch, Germany, and features a feedback device which senses
the quantity of  exhaust gas recirculated to the engine intake.

Volvo has worked with thermal reactors and catalytic converters since  early
1970.  Its selection of a monolithic,  noble metal catalytic converter for the
first-choice system is stated to be based on a number of  considerations includ-
ing the following:  (1)  emission results  (low mileage) met engineering
standards, (2)  fuel economy and driveability were favorable compared to
other systems,  (3) installation and attrition problems were minimized,
(4) mechanical failures were reduced, and (5) the  device  offered the best
possibility for  incorporation into  a complete emissions package which could
meet the 1975 standards.
2.2.20.1.2    Problem Areas and Plans for Resolution
Like other automobile manufacturers experimenting with catalyst systems,
Volvo has been unable to demonstrate satisfactory durability of the  catalytic
converter and has experienced problems in catalyst attrition, mechanical
failure overheating, noise, and rapid deterioration in conversion efficiency.
According to Volvo, the last problem is due in part to the use of 0. 05 gm/gal
lead content fuel.  More recent testing  has been accomplished with  0. 015
gm/gal fuel which appears to provide better performance with mileage
accumulation.

Maximum mileage achieved with the Volvo first-choice system was
accomplished with an Engelhard PTX 416 converter which, .according to
testimony presented at the Volvo  recall hearing on April  24, 1972, failed
at 29, 000 miles (see Table 2-37).  By way of attacking the durability problem,
Volvo has ordered and intends to  test other  Engelhard PTX converter designs.
One type has a  layered,  as opposed to a rolled,  substrate structure.  Another
                                    2-131

-------
Table 2-37.  Volvo First-Choice System — High Mileage Emissions

Test
No.
601
641
679
715
756
766
851
941
1020
1073
1080
1086
1091


Car Reg. No.
OB 46234
(Volvo 144,
engine B20F,
automatic
transmission)


OB 44085
(Volvo 144
engine B20F)






x f-i a
Mileage
at test
0
1, 600
3,864
5,815
8, 138
9,370
9,415
14, 283
18, 221
22,875
22,900
22,950
25,344
29,900

% Excess
Fuelb
C









.









£
Emissions, gm/mi
~~ TT~ NO
CO HC -x
2.17 0.21 1.31
1.33 0.28 1.60
0.94 0.27 2.35
0.91 0.31 1.79
6.14 0.48 1.76
9.55 0.45 1.59
2.08 0.18 1.82
0.88 0.18 2.07
1.34 0.46 1.78
2.67 0.51 2.18
4.33 0.35 2.05
3.70 0.20 1.76
2.45 0.24 1.82


Catalytic
Converter
Engelhard
PTX-416
(Spiral
Wound )



Converter
from car
OB 46234






Remarks
With EGR


Engine
problems
With EGR
EGR valve
changed.

d

-
Failure
aTotal mileage accumulated on catalytic converter
Referenced to an unspecified nominal setting
CA11 tests use 1975 CVS-CH procedure
Fuel injection nozzle changed (poor driveability)

-------
type with the layered structure uses a new improved catalyst coating.  Ten
of these new designs will be installed in durability test cars; others will be
used in low mileage  cars for testing different aspects of the first-choice
emission system operation.
2.2.20.1.3    Emissions
2.2.20.1.3.1  Test Programs and Vehicle Description
Durability testing of the  Volvo system has been conducted primarily on a
subsystem basis; complete system vehicle testing had just been started as
of the date of the Suspension Request Hearing.

The vehicle  test program to date has been performed with Volvo vehicle
models 142 and 144 fitted with engine-type B20F (4-cylinder engine with
electronically controlled fuel injection).

The test fleet consists of about 15 cars fitted with emission control systems
in various development and engineering phases.  Both Engelhard and Johnson-
Mathey noble metal monolithic catalytic converter  systems are being tested
for the first-choice system; other catalysts (including AC-Delco, UOP, and
Grace base metal types)  are being tested on a second-choice basis.

Wherever low mileage results are promising, the Volvo testing procedure
is to continue to accumulate mileage on those vehicles and  systems that dis-
play good performance.  The high mileage test fleet, therefore, comprises
those vehicles that have demonstrated good,  low mileage test performance.
2.2.20.1.3.2 Test Procedures
The 1975 Federal test procedure  (three-bag cold/hot start technique) is being
used in the test  program. The driving cycle for mileage accumulation was
not specified.
                                    2-133

-------
2. 2. 20. 1. 3. 3 Emission Data Summary
Low mileage emission results for Volvo's first-choice systems incorporating
EGR were not provided in the submission data or the hearing testimony
available at this writing.  Low mileage results without EGR and for different
catalytic converter devices are shown in Table 2-38.

High mileage emission results for car OB 46234 are shown in Table 2-37.
It is noted that the vehicle is equipped with EGR.   The jump in CO emission
level for Tests 756 and 766 was stated by Volvo to be due to a faulty thermostat
which caused excessive choking.  The catalytic converter used was installed
in another vehicle (see Table 2-37) and accumulated 25, 344 miles with
emission levels of 0.24,  2.45, and 1.82 gm/mi ,for HC,  CO,  and NO  ,
                                                                  3C
respectively.  The Volvo recall testimony of April 24 reports that this catalyst
failed mechanically at 29,900 miles.
2.2.20.1.3.4 Best Emission Results
The maximum low mileage  achievement shown in the Table.2-38 data  is for
Vehicle OB 46232 which accumulated 2030 miles with emission levels of 0. 28,
1.59, and 2. 9 gm/mi for HC, CO,  and NO  ,  respectively, using the Engelhard
                                        .X
PTX 416 converter.

According to Table 2-37, the maximum high mileage achieved within  standards
was accomplished with Vehicle OB 44085 using an Engelhard  converter trans-
ferred from another vehicle.  Emission levels at a total (converter ) accumu-
lated mileage of 25, 344 miles were 0. 24, 2. 45, and 1. 82 gm/mi for HC, CO,
and NO , respectively.
       3c
2.2.20.1.3.5 Test Data  Variability
The variability of the test data at low mileage is best expressed in terms of
the  range in the emission results at test mileages under 600 miles as follows.
The fuel setting in these tests was varied between 0 and -6 percent.
                                  2-134

-------
                  Table 2-38.  Volvo First-Choice Emission System--Low Mileage Emissions
CO
(Jl
Test
No.
433
508
542
445
468
499
520
550
524
549
628
680
711
757
776
467
475
Car Reg. No<
OB 46234
(Volvo 144
engine B20F
automatic
transmission)


OB 46232
(Volvo 144
engine B20F
manual
transmission)





OB 44448

Mileage
at test
0
205
600
25
160
185
0
155
12
146
855
1,410
1,790
2, 030
2,610
100
200
1300
% Excess
• Fuela
0
0
0
-4
-4
-4
0
0
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-0
-4
-4.5
-6
' -6
Emissions, gm/mi
CO HC N0x
2.18 0.12 2.12
1.04 0.15 3.23
1.33 0.29 3.82
1.60 0.03 2.64
0.66 0.10 2.82
0.61 0.19 3.44
1.92 0.43 2.60
1.59 0.15 3.07
1.12 0.26 2.81
1.49 0.26 3.24
0.89 0.22 3.24
0.60 0.27 2.22
0.85 0.32 2.20
1.59 0.28 2.90
1.54 0.58 2.23
1.56 0.19 3.32
1.16 0.14 2.87
4.28 0.72 3.65
Catalytic
Converters
Engelhard
PTX-416
(Spiral
Substrate)



Engelhard
PTX-416
(spiral
Substrate)






Johnson-
Matthey
AEC 3
Remarks
Without EGR
Automatic transmission
Same reactor unit



Without EGR
Manual transmission
Same reactor unit






Without EGR
Automatic transmission
With reference to an unspecified nominal setting
All tests with 1975 CVS-CH test procedure
C100% catalyst attrition at next test.

-------
                   Range of Emission Results, gm/mi
         HC                       CO                      NO
                                                               x
      0.03-0.43               0.60-2.18'              2.12-3.82
The high mileage data on the first-choice system does not permit a statement
concerning variability to be made.

Tests carried out on the same car and with the same test equipment are
reported by Volvo to produce  results which vary up to about 50 percent above
and below the mean value.
2. 2. 20. 1.4    Fuel Consumption and Performance Penalties
Volvo states that the increased backpressure created by the catalytic reactor,
along with the power loss due to the air pump, reduces  engine performance.
The sum of  these losses is stated to be about 10 percent for the Engelhard
converter on engine type B20E and accounts for a fuel consumption increase
of about 20 percent.
2.2.20.2      Alternate Systems
2. 2. 20. 2. 1    Special Design Features
The Volvo second- and third-choice systems differ from the first-choice
system only in the design of the catalytic converter.  Instead of the noble
metal monolithic device used  in the first-choice system, the second- and
third-choice systems utilize base metal pelletized converters.   The second-
choice system employs a UOP "mini" reactor  which mounts directly to the
engine exhaust manifold.  The third-choice system employs floor-mounted
base metal catalysts of UOP and AC-Delco design.

The Volvo fourth-choice system comprises a thermal reactor,  EGR, and a
rapid warm-up device. This  system is described in further detail in Sec-
tion 6, Thermal Reactors.  The discussion that follows addresses the Volvo
second- and third-choice  catalytic converter systems.
                                   2-136

-------
2. 2. 20. 2. 2    Problem Areas and Plans for Resolution
The general problem of attrition, performance deterioration, converter over-
heating,  noise,  and heat emission to the local environment as discussed in
connection with the first-choice monolithic system appear also to apply to
Volvo's base metal catalyst systems.  Vibrations from pulsations in the
exhaust and from second-order inertia forces in the 4-cylinder engine have
resulted in  severe attrition and breakdown of the UOP mini systems.   Three
of these  converter units are reported to have failed.

Presumably, additional testing of the base metal catalytic converter systems
will be conducted.  Specific  solutions applicable to second- and third-choice
system problems are not discussed in the Volvo submittal.
2.2.20.2.3   Emissions
2. 2. 20. 2. 3. 1  Test Programs and Vehicle Description
As described in the discussion of Volvo's first-choice system, the vehicle
test  program to date  has been performed with Volvo vehicle models 142 and
144 fitted with engine type B20F (4-cylinder engine with electronically con-
trolled fuel injection).  The total test fleet consists of about 15 cars fitted
with emission control devices in various stages of development.
2.2.20.2.3.2  Test Procedure
The  1975 CVS-CH Federal test  procedure is used.  The duty cycle for mileage
accumulation was not specified.
2. 2.  20. 2. 3. 3  Emission Data Summary
Emission results achieved on low mileage cars for the second-choice close-
coupled UOP "mini"  converter, along with low mileage results for the
third-choice, floor-mounted AC-Delco system,  are shown in Table 2-39.   One
high mileage test has been performed with the second-choice UOP system.
The  results from this test are shown in Table 2-40.
                                   2-137

-------
                         Table 2-39.  Volvo Alternate Systems--Low Mileage'Emissions
Test
No.
200
215
247
269
273
479
489
498
516
525
528

732
Car Reg.
OA 34293




OA 34293



OB. 44448
OB 50430
Mileage
at test
125
210
275
350
375
1, 630
1, 650
1, 690
1, 720
1, 760
1, 800
130
120
% Excess
Fuela
0
0
0
0
0
-9.5
-2.5
-8
-7
-7
-9.5
0
0
Emissions, gm/mi
CO HC NOX
1.23 0.11 2.20
1.10 0.14 2.39
2.10 0.25 2.29
1.19 0.13 2.29
1.62 0.12 2.15
1.24 0.23 1.16
2.72 0.28 1.64
2.64 0.40 1.73
2.49 0.30 1.60
2.60 0.36 1.72
1.16 0.21 1.68
2.74 0.36 3.70
2.43 0.24 3.14
Catalytic
Converter
UOP '
UOP
UOP
UOP
UOP
UOP
UOP
UOP
UOP
UOP
UOP
AC-Delco
AC-Delco
(new pellet
type)
Remarks
Without EGR




With EGR
(second-
choice
system)



Without EGR

3. '
Referenced to an unspecified nominal setting
b!975 CVS-CH test procedure
00
00

-------
                       Table 2-40.  Volvo Alternate Systems--High Mileage Emissions
Test
No.
602
647
692
733

Car Reg.
OB 44085
Automatic
transmission



Mileage
at test
0
1, 600
4, 093
5, 852
7, 000
% Excess
Fuela
-8
-8
-5
-5

Emissions, gm/mi"
CO HC N0x
1.69 0.12 1.24
0.66 0.24 1.58
0.56 0.47 1.76
6.24 0.18 1.26

Catalytic
Converter
UC


'
>P



Remarks
With EGR
(second-choice
system)


Reactor
breakdown
Referenced to an unspecified nominal setting
b!975 CVS-CH test procedure
to

-------
2. 2. 20. 2. 3. 4 Best Emission Results
The Table 2-39 data show that the second-choice (UOP) system was well
within the limits of the  1975 standards at 1800-miles, with emission levels of
0.21, 1.16, and 1. 68 gm/mi for HC, CO, and NO , respectively.   The
                                               Ji
maximum mileage accumulated  on this system was 7000 miles, at which
point  reactor breakdown occurred (see Table  2-40).  The CO standard was
exceeded at a mileage between about 4000 and 5800 miles.
2. 2. 20. 2. 3. 5 Test Data Variability
The variability of the data is typified by  the Table 2-39 results for the
second-choice system (with EGR).  In the mileage range  shown, that is,
from  1630 to 1800 miles, the  data vary about  the mean by 42 percent for HC
and 85 percent for CO.
2.2. 20. 2. 4    Fuel Consumption and Performance Penalties
These performance parameters  are not discussed for the second- and third-
choice Volvo systems.
                                  2-140?

-------
                              REFERENCES
2-1   American Motors Corporation,  Technical Data Submittal provided by
      AMC at the request of the EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel,
      20 April 1972.

2-2   American Motors Corporation,  Transcript of Proceedings  -- Auto
      Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency,
      Washington, B.C., 11 April 1972.

2-3   American Motors Corporation,  Technical Data Submittalprovided by
      AMC at the request of the EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel,
      25 April 1972.

2-4   American Motors Corporation,  Letter to Mr.  William D. Ruckelshaus,
      Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, 4 April  1972.

2-5   Chrysler Corporation, "Application for Suspension of 1975  Motor
      Vehicle Emission Standards Pursuant to Section 202(b)(5) of the Clean
      Air Act," March 1972.

2-6   Chrysler Corporation, Technical Data Submittal provided by Chrysler
      at the request of the EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel,
      25 April 1972.

2-7   Chrysler Corp'oration, Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto Emissions
      Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. ,
      20 April 1972.

2-8   Ford Motor Company, "Application for Suspension of 1975 Motor
      Vehicle Exhaust Emissions Standards," Volumes I and II,  5 April 1972.

2-9   Ford Motor Company, Technical Data Submittal provided by Ford at
      the  request of the EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel,  26 April
      1972.

2-10  Ford Motor Company, Transcript of Proceedings  --  Auto Emissions
      Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,  D. C. ,
      19 April 1972.

2-11  General Motors Corporation,  "Request for Suspension of 1975 Federal
      Emissions Standards, " Volumes I and II,  3 April 1972.

2-12  General Motors Corporation,  Technical Data Submittal provided by
      GM at the request of the EPA Suspension  Request Hearing Panel,
      21 April 1972.
                                   2-141

-------
                        REFERENCES (continued)
2-13  Engelhard Minerals and Chemicals Corporation, Engelhard Industries
      Division, "Technical Appendix to Summary Statement of Engelhard,
      Addendum II," 24 April 1972.

2-14  General Motors Corporation,  Transcript of Proceedings  -- Auto
      Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency,
      Washington, D. C. , 17 April 1972.

2-15  General Motors Corporation,  Transcript of Proceedings  -- Auto
      Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency,
      Washington, B.C., 26 April 1972  (recall).

2-16  International Harvester, "Request for One-Year Suspension of 1975
      HC and CO Light-duty  Emission Standards Submitted to EPA,
      Washington, D. C. , " 29 March 1972.

2-17  International Harvester Company, Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto
      Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency,
      Washington, B.C., 14 April 1972.

2-18  Automobile Emissions Control - A Technology Assessment as of
      December 1971, Mobile Source Pollution Control Program, Office
      of Air Programs,  Environmental Protection Agency,  1 January 19V2.

2-19  Universal Oil Products,  Technical Data Submittal provided by UOP
      at the request of the EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel,
      21  April  1972.

2-20  British Leyland Motors, Inc. , "EPA Hearing of Volvo Application
      for Deferment of Emission Legislation Applicable to 1975 Model
      Year Vehicles," March 1972.

2-21  British Leyland Motors, Inc., Technical Data Submittal provided  by
      British Leyland at the  request of the  EPA Suspension Request Hearing
      Panel, 14 April 1972.

2-22  British Leyland Motors, Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto Emissions
      Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington, D.C. ,
      11  April  1972.

2-23  Daimler-Benz, "Statement of  Daimler-Benz AG before the Environ-
      mental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. , " April  1972.
                                   2-142

-------
                        REFERENCES (continued)
2-24  Daimler-Benz AG,  Technical Data Submittal provided by Daimler-Benz
      at the request of the EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel,
      19 April 1972.

2-25  Mercedes-Benz Company (Daimler-Benz AG), Transcript of
      Proceedings  -- Auto Emissions Extension  --  Environmental
      Protection Agency,  Washington, D. C. , 19 April 1972.

2-26  Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, "A Status  Report of Emission Control
      for  1975 and  1976 Light-Duty Vehicles, " October  1971.

2-27  Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A. (Datsun), Transcript of
      Proceedings  -- Auto Emissions Extension  --  Environmental Protection
      Agency, Washington, D. C. , 11 April 1972.

2-28  Nissan Motor Company,  Ltd. ,  (Datsun), Technical Data Submittal
      provided by the Nissan Motor Company at the request of the EPA
      Suspension Request Hearing Panel, 24 April 1972.

2-29  Nissan Motor Company,  Ltd. ,  (Datsun), "Summary Statement of
      Information," 5 April 1972.

2-30  Nissan Motor Company,  Ltd. ,  (Datsun), Technical Data Submittal
      provided by the Nissan Motor Company at the request of the EPA
      Suspension Request Hearing Panel, 27 April 1972.

2-31  Rolls-Royce Motors Limited, "Emission Control for 1975 and 1976
      Light-Duty Motor Vehicles -- Status Report, " 4 November  1971.

2-32  Saab-Scania,  Inc.,  Transcript  of Proceedings -- Auto Emissions
      Extension --  Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,  D. C. ,
      12 April 1972.

2-33  Saab-Scania of America, Inc. and Saab-Scania AB, "Information
      Submitted in  Response to Subpoena dated March 17,  1972 of
      Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. "

2-34  Toyo Kogyo Company, Ltd. , Transcript of Proceedings  -- Auto
      Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency,
      Washington,  B.C.,  21 April 1972.

2-35  Toyo Kogyo Company, Ltd. , "Statement of Toyo Kogyo Company, Ltd. , "
      April 1972.
                                   2-143

-------
                        REFERENCES (continued)
2-36  Toyota Motor Company, Ltd., "A Summary of Toyota's Technology
      and Processes for Meeting the 1975 Federal Emission Standards, "
      5 April 1972.

2-37  Toyota Motor Company, Ltd. , Transcript of Proceedings  -- Auto
      Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
     .B.C.,  13 April 1972.

2-38  Volkswagen  of America, Inc. , "Information and Documentary Materials
      Relating to Volkswagen's Emission Research and Design Effort to
      Meet 1975 Federal Emission Goals, " 10  April  1972.

2-39  Volkswagen  of America, Inc. , Technical Data Submittal provided by
      VW at the request of the EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel,
      28  April 1972.

2-40  Volkswagen  of America, Inc. , Transcript of Proceedings  -- Auto
      Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency,
      Washington,  D. C. ,  10  April  1972.

2-41  Volkswagen  of America, Inc. , Transcript of Proceedings  -- Auto
      Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency,
      Washington,  D. C. ,  11  April  1972.

2-42  AB Volvo, "Request for Suspension of the 1975 Emission Standards, "
      9 March 1972.

2-43  AB Volvo, "Supplement to Request for Suspension of the 1975
      Emissions Standards, " 15 April 1972.

2-44  Volvo, Inc., Transcript of Proceedings  -- Auto Emissions Extension --
      Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. ,  10  April  1972.

2-45  Volvo, Inc., Transcript of Proceedings  -- Auto Emissions Extension --
      Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.,  24  April  1972
      (recall).
                                  2-144

-------
                       3.  ENGINE MODIFICATIONS
3. 1            BACKGROUND
With the establishment of the California automobile emission regulations in
1966, and the recognition that more stringent standards would probably evolve,
the automobile manufacturers initiated major development efforts directed
toward  significantly reducing engine exhaust emission levels.  These efforts
are typified by such programs as the  Improved Combustion System (IMCO)
by Ford, the Controlled Combustion System (CCS) by General Motors, the
Cleaner Air System (CAS) by Chrysler, and by other supporting activities
such as the Inter Industry Emission Control (IIEC) program involving six
major petroleum manufacturers and five automobile manufacturers.

The above  efforts,  in conjunction with other research projects, have addressed
the more than  100 vehicle characteristics or components that affect exhaust
emission levels and have resulted in a large number of modifications to the
basic engine and its components.  These include  major refinements in the
ignition and carburetion systems,  changes in the combustion chamber design,
changes in the  compression ratio and valve timing,  and changes in the exhaust
manifold including the addition of air  injection.

As a result of all the modifications that have been applied to the 1972 auto-
mobiles, or those scheduled for inclusion in the  1973 models,  exhaust emis-
sion levels have been substantially improved.  HC and CO emissions have
been reduced by approximately 80 percent and NO  emissions by approximately
                                                Ji
40 percent compared to those from uncontrolled automobiles prior to 1966.
(Although the potential  is available for making improvements in NO  emissions
                                                                 .X
that are similar, but smaller, to those for HC/CO, the performance penalty
that would be incurred  in meeting  even lower standards has prevented this
potential from  being realized.)
                                    3-1

-------
Presented in Table 3-1 are the average emission levels obtained from
American Motors (Ref.  3-1) certification tests and Ford (Ref.  3-2) develop-
ment fleet tests.  Included for comparison are the typical emissions from
pre-1966  automobiles.

               Table 3-1.  American Motors Certification Data
                           and Ford Development Fleet Data
Emission
HC
CO
NO
X
Pre-1966
*i*
Uncontrolled
17
125
5
Ford
1972* 1973*"
2.37 2.09
24.2 17.15
2.22 2.42
Amer. Motors
1972** 1973 	
2.45 1.51
22.4 14.9
2.83 2.78
Reduction
Average, %
87
84
48
*1972 CVS-C Procedure
"1975 CVS-CH Procedure
While still further improvement in emission levels might be achieved by
additional modifications to the basic engine  it is not reasonable to expect that
these gains would be very significant.
3.2           MODIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 1975
In the past,  emission improvements by basic engine modifications have  kept
pace with the evolution of new and more severe standards,  but the situation
for 1975 is significantly different.   Emission level standards can no longer
be satisfied by improving the basic  engine; compliance requires the addition
of aftertreatment devices.  Further, the engine and any engine modifications
                                    3-2

-------
required for compatibility with the 1975 system must also be compatible with
the components of a system which is capable of meeting the  1976 standards.

The oxidation catalyst, generally accepted as necessary to meet the  1975 HC
and CO standards,  imposes new  requirements on basic engine emissions as
well as engine performance in order to ensure satisfactory system emission
levels and,  at the same time,  provide  acceptable driveability, economy,
durability, and safety.  These new requirements result from limitations in
the catalyst warm-up time period,  the conversion capability, and the temp-
erature tolerances of the catalyst.   The EGR system,  although previously
incorporated to meet 1973-74 NO  standards, imposes additional new require-
ments which also relate to the basic engine emissions and performance.
These new EGR  requirements  result both from 1975 system interactions and
the projection of increased EGR  flow rates and/or inclusion of a reducing
catalyst to meet the 1976 standards.

The EGR  system and the  oxidation catalyst primarily impact the carburetion
and ignition systems and  impose demanding requirements with respect to their
response, precision, flexibility and  control.   Since the existing carburetion
and ignition systems have already been refined to their practical limits, it is
obvious that  new  types of these systems, with their associated sensors  and
controls,  are needed for  any advanced emission control system.  All of the
major automobile manufacturers are actively pursuing such new systems.
Undoubtedly, the new designs also will improve the basic engine exhaust
emissions: however,  these designs have  not been finalized and, therefore,
it is not possible to predict the level of improvement that might be achieved.

Other engine modifications may be required on the  1975 emission control
systems .  but no automobile manufacturers have identified any which might
significantly influence emissions or  performance of the basic engine.
                                    3-3

-------
3.3            CARBURETION SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS

3.3.1          General
Carburetion systems of the conventional type in current production are, for

the most part, incompatible with the emission control systems proposed for
meeting the 1975 standards for the following major reasons:

           a.   To satisfy the condition for satisfactory emission control  and
                acceptable vehicle performance requires a significant improve-
                ment in the preparation and distribution of the air/fuel
                mixture.

           b.   To minimize emissions during the cold start period, before
                the catalyst is  sufficiently active, improvements are required
                in the predictability and response of the choke system.  In
                addition, induction system improvements  are required to
                promote  early  fuel evaporation in order to reduce the period
                of choke  operation consistent with acceptable  driveability.

           c.   To protect the  durability of the catalytic converter and to
                maximize its conversion efficiency, improvements are
                required in the precision  and response of the  fuel metering
                system to optimize the  air/fuel mixture for the complete
                range of operating modes and ambient  conditions.

           d.   To provide the best balance between fuel economy, drive-
                ability and power, improvements are required in the flexibility
                of the fuel metering system.  In addition,  improvements are
                required to provide for controllability  to optimize the integra-
                tion of variable ignition timing and EGR flow rates.

Achieving such a combination of all required improvements by modifying

existing designs is recognized to be impractical.  Although a new type of

carburetion system is a major  change requiring extensive development, it is

apparent that  most of the automobile manufacturers are actively pursuing  this

approach.  Their  motivation is primarily  to obtain a competitive advantage,

for it is in this area that  the technology is  indeed well understood.  This

technology can be exploited to offset the degradation in driveability,

.performance, and economy  that would otherwise occur in  1975 vehicles.
                                     3-4

-------
Because of the competitive advantage aspect,  detailed progress in the
development of new carburetion systems is most likely regarded as classi-
fied information: therefore, progress reported by the automobile manufacturers
is probably general by intent and  should be viewed accordingly.
3.3.2          Industry Status
All of the automobile manufacturers are  actively engaged in some type of
development program to achieve a carburetion system that will provide
satisfactory performance and compatibility with their 1975 emission control
systems.  These programs range from the improvement of the quality control
of existing carburetors to the development of completely new carburetion
systems of the conventional fuel metering (venturi) or timed fuel injection
types.   Since these involve concurrent development of alternate systems,
most of the automobile manufacturers have not committed a particular design
for inclusion in their 1975 systems.  This is particularity true for the  foreign
automobile manufacturers.  As a result, the industry status in this area is
presented  only for the American automobile manufacturers and  is based  on
the material provided in References 3-3 through 3-7.
3.3.2.1       American Motors
To improve carburetor performance for its 1975  emission control system,
American  Motors has applied refinements to the conventional carburetor
including altitude compensation, ambient temperature compensation, staged
power enrichment,  an improved accelerator pump, and a modulated exhaust
gas recirculation system.   In addition, the control of carburetor fuel flow
characteristics has  been improved and the  allowable fuel flow band tolerance
has been reduced.

The requirement for improved choke performance is  recognized by American
Motors  and a number of choke features are being investigated.  These  include
a staged choke pull down, choke plate offset, electrically heated chokes with
ambient temperature compensation,  and a thermostatically controlled choke
heat by-pass system.  Although the exact choke requirements have not been
                                     3-5

-------
defined,  American Motors states that new choke designs, unknown at this
time, will be required for their 1975-76 emission control system.

Currently, no in-house development programs for fuel injection systems are
underway at American Motors; however, the Bendix fuel injection system
developments  are being monitored.
3.3.2.2       Chrysler
To provide better fuel metering, Chrysler is developing a number of carbure-
tor modifications,  including modulated power valves, altitude compensation,
and improved  lean mixture preparation.

An electrically assisted choke is a part of the  Chrysler 1975 emission control
system.  This type of choke -was developed and has been released for incor-
poration in 1973 models and is currently being improved for application in
1975 vehicles.

An electronic  fuel metering  system is under development at Chrysler.  The
fuel injected is controlled by direct measurement  of the air and fuel  flows by
use of pulse-generating flow meters.  Effects  of intake  air temperature and
barometric pressure are compensated for by electronic circuits.   The fuel
flow control unit is operated by the metering electronics to  provide pro-
grammed air/fuel ratios.  This system would  be  compatible with  the Chrysler
electronic engine  control, which would then combine the ignition timing and
fuel metering  functions.  Development of this system has not progressed to a
point where it can be programmed  for any specific Chrysler model year
vehicles.
3.3.2.3       Ford
A new concept carburetor system has been designed and development has
progressed to the production engineering phase.  This new  system, which
employes a variable venturi concept,  is planned for limited application in
                                    3-6

-------
some 1974 models and is targeted for inclusion in all 1975 emission control
systems.   The salient features  of this new design include the following:
            a.   Reduced metering system complexity and reduced number
                of manufacturing variables that affect the carburetor-to-
                carburetor statistical variation.
            b.   Improved hot fuel handling capabilities.
            c.   Elimination of the "off-idle to main system" transfer problem.
            d.   Improved metering stability and  air/fuel mixture preparation.
            e.   Effective altitude compensation and cold enrichment.
Development of a predictable choke system is continuing at Ford.  The current
"best system" features an electrically heated bimetal control which has the
potential to eliminate the dependence of the current choke system on manifold
vacuum for rapid release.  In addition,  a totally  electronically programmable
choke system which uses a  thermister sensor and servometer activators for
increased precision is also being investigated. These devices are currently
being screened prior to incorporation into Ford's new carburetor system.

Ford is also pursuing the development of an electronic  fuel injection system.
A number of major problems have been uncovered during the development
program which require resolution before this type of system can be committed
to production.
3.3.2.4        General Motors
Three types of major conventional carburetors are planned as a part of the
General Motors basic 1975  emission control systems.  These carburetors
include a modified one-barrel,  a new plain tube two-stage  progressive two-
barrel,  and a modified four-barrel.  A  new type  of air  valve carburetor, in
place of the new but conventional two-barrel carburetor, is also being con-
sidered.  Current plans  are to continue  with the present four-barrel carbure-
tor and improve it to achieve optimum overall emission control system per-
formance.  These modifications include altitude compensation, improved
choke operation, improved  metering accuracy, and revised evaporation
control provisions.
                                    3-7

-------
General Motors considers that its present choke system is marginal and does
not have the potential for the improvement required to satisfy the  1975 emis-
sion control system requirements.  A new system is being developed and
durability testing is in progress. An electronic fuel injection system  is also
under development. To date, the performance of this system is not signi-
ficantly better than that  of the General  Motors conventional carburetor systems
and a number of areas require resolution before it could  seriously be  considered
for production.
3.3.2.5       International Harvester
International Harvester,  in conjunction with its  supplier, is planning to make
improvements in the carburetion system to be included in its 1975-76  emis-
sion control system. The progress of  International Harvester's development
program, however, has been compromised by the unavailability of test-
specimens of advanced  carburetor designs from its suppliers.
3.4           IGNITION SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS
3.4.1         General
The  emission control systems proposed for 1975 require a high degree of
precision, reliability and flexibility of the ignition system to ensure satis-
factory emission levels  and acceptable vehicle performance and driveability.

To promote early catalyst warm-up during a cold start and to optimize drive -
ability, performance,  and economy within the constraints of NO  control by
EGR requires modifications  to the existing ignition systems to provide a
flexible and programmable spark timing control.  In addition, the durability
of the catalyst requires  high ignition reliability since it is intolerant to the -
high temperatures resulting  from plug misfire or incomplete ignition.
  /
The  breaker point type of ignition systems  in current production have  inherent
limitations which preclude complete  satisfaction of the requirements for the
1975 emission systems.  Further, these systems are not compatible with
projected requirements  for the sensing and control of the engine variables.
                                     3-8

-------
Consequently,  most of the automobile manufacturers are actively pursuing
the development of electronic ignition systems.  This type of system not only
has the potential for the required precision reliability and control flexibility
but also provides a higher and more constant voltage output which would mini-
mize misfiring under  certain engine operating  conditions. In addition,  it
eliminates the maintenance requirements associated with breaker point systems.
3.4.2         Industry Status
All of the American automobile manufacturers are considering the use  of
electronic ignition systems of the breakerless  type as a part of their 1975-76
emission control systems.  While some  of the  foreign automobile manufac-
turers are also considering a change to electronic ignition systems, others
are not convinced of its necessity or benefits.  Since the information available
from the foreign manufacturers on their ignition system development programs
or plans is very meager and inconclusive, the  industry  status  is presented
for the American manufacturers only,  and is based  on the material provided
in References  3-1 through 3-5.
3.4.2.1        American Motors
Ignition systems of the breakerless inductor type and unitized  designs are
being investigated by American Motors to obtain improved ignition reliability,
reduced maintenance, and extended useful life.  To  date, each of two systems
has been operated over 5, 000 vehicle miles and several additional installations
in vehicles are planned.  Incorporation of this  type of system is targeted for
1975-76 vehicles.
3.4.2.2        Chrysler
Chrysler  Corporation has developed an electronic ignition system which is now
available  on most 1972 vehicle/engine combinations.  This is a breakerless
inductive  system in which ignition coil current is switched by an electronic
control unit in response to  timing signals produced by a distributor magnetic
pickup.  To achieve more accurate and flexible control  of spark timing  at all
                                     3-9

-------
engine operating conditions an improved version of this system is being
developed and is planned as a part of Chrysler's 1975 emission control system.

In conjunction with the above type of ignition system,  Chrysler also proposes
an electronic engine control system for its 1975 vehicles.  This control
system combines the operating logic  of several systems into one control unit.
Input signals are received from the electronic distributor, ambient tempera-
ture sensor, engine coolant, carburetor spark port, and catalyst temperature
sensor.  The desired spark advance is computed as a function of engine speed
and load,  operating temperatures, and in response to certain transient con-
ditions.  In addition,  the unit  shuts off exhaust gas  recirculation for some
operating modes,  controls the catalyst by-pass protection system,  and pro-
vides warning if malfunction causes the catalyst temperature  to exceed
1600 °F.
3.4.2.3       Ford
Improved ignition systems have been under investigation by Ford for a number
of years and this has resulted in the design and preliminary testing of an
electronic ignition system which includes a breakerless type distributor.
Test results have been encouraging and  major system components have
successfully undergone extreme  stress testing without failure.  In addition, a
20 percent improvement in available  spark voltage during cold start cranking
has been obtained. This system also provides increased spark voltage to
improve ignition system performance,  and indirectly, to reduce exhaust
emission levels.

Current efforts  are aimed at confirming initial reliability test results, com-
pleting production cost studies, and determining effects on the emission per-
formance of normally maintained vehicles.  Additional studies are being
conducted to explore the use of new magnetic materials and components.

Two systems currently under study are  a Ferrosonant capacitor discharge
ignition system  and a pulse RF ignition system.  Investigations are also
                                    3-10

-------
underway to explore the effect of various spark plug parameters with the
objective of improving the misfire limit at leaner air/fuel ratios.

If its engineering development programs are successful,  and if the potential
advantages  of this type of system are substantiated by subsequent tests, Ford
plans to incorporate an electronic  ignition  system of the breakerless type in
future emission control systems.
3.4.2.4      General Motors
General Motors is continuing the development of optimum centrifugal and
vacuum spark calibration and on-off spark timing  controls such as those
currently used in production vehicles.  An improved electronic ignition system
is also being developed.  This system is similar to those currently available
on some models of the  1972 Pontiacs, except that  it will have a higher capacity
to allow a wider spark plug gap and a long-duration spark for improved
ignition of lean mixtures.  Currently, this improved system is in the
experimental design stage.

Current plans are to phase in the new high-energy electronic ignition system
for full production in the  1975 model year.
3.4.2.5      International Harvester
International Harvester is considering the inclusion of an electronic ignition
system as  a part of its  future emission control systems.  Development in
this area,  however, is  lagging because of the lack of experimental hardware
from its suppliers.  The earliest date anticipated  for production is  1976.
                                    3-11

-------
                             REFERENCES
3-1    American Motors Corporation, Letter to Mr. William D. Ruchekshaus,
       Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,  4 April 1972.

3-2    Ford Motor Company,  Technical Data Submittal provided by Ford
       at the request of the EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel,
       26 April 1972.

3-3    American Motors Corporation, "Emission Control for 1975-76
       Model Years - Light-Duty Vehicles," Status Report, October  16, 1971.

3-4    Chrysler Corporation, "Progress  Report to the Environmental
       Protection Agency on the Technical Effort Aimed at Compliance
       with 1975-76 Emission Standards,  Established by the Clean Air Act
       of December 1970, " 20 October  1971.

3-5.   Ford Motor Company,  "1975/1976 Light-Duty Vehicle Emission
       Control Program, " Status Report to the EPA, October  18, 1971.

3-6    General Motors Corporation,  "1975-76 Emis sion Control System
       Status," 11 November  1971.

3-7    International Harvester Company,  "Summary of Efforts Directed
       Towards Compliance with Clean Air Act as Pertaining to
       Automotive Emission," November 1971.
                                   3-12

-------
                  4.  EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION
4.1           BACKGROUND
The amount of NO  produced by internal combustion engines is related to the
                 Ji
combustion temperature in the cylinder. At the high combustion temperatures
associated with optimum engine performance, the uncontrolled NO  emissions
are typically in the range of 4-6 gm/mi. Within the limitations of acceptable
driveability and fuel economy, this quantity can be reduced appreciably by
the introduction of an inert gas into the  combustion chamber to absorb heat
and thereby lower the temperature during combustion.  Since the  engine
exhaust is a convenient source for an inert gas, systems  employing exhaust
gas recirculation (EGR) are generally proposed for the reduction  of NO
                                                                     3C
emissions to the 2-3 gm/mi level.

The lower combustion temperature resulting from the use of EGR causes a
reduction in power output (at the same spark advance setting) which effectively
translates into a fuel economy loss.   A  fuel consumption penalty of 3 to 5
percent is typical of the loss incurred for the EGR flow rates needed to reduce
the NO emission to the 3.0 gm/mi level required by the  1973-74 and 1975
Federal standards.

EGR also effects vehicle driveability.  Concurrent with the reduction in com-
bustion temperature is  a loss in pressure,  a delay in the  initiation of combus-
tion and a decrease in flame speed resulting in a retarded pressure peak.  The
net effect is a more pronounced cycle-to-cycle pressure (and torque) variation
which  affects  the smoothness  of operation and/or response ("driveability").
Other  noticeable performance effects can be rough idle,  stumble during part-
throttle operation,  surge at certain cruise  speeds, and an increase in full
throttle acceleration time.  In general,  all of these effects increase  in
severity with  an increase in EGR  flow rate.
                                    4-1

-------
While all of the EGR systems operate on the same basic principle, the desings
of the different manufacturers differ in a number of details.  These include
the location of the exhaust gas pick up, the amount  of exhaust gas cooling,  the
point of introduction of the recycled gas into the engine induction system, the
metering devices, and the modulation signal source and associated control
system.  Operational variables include recycle rates and "on-off" program-
ming of EGR to achieve the required emission levels  and to accommodate
certain engine operating conditions.                                  >
4.2           REQUIREMENTS FOR 1975
The Federal NO  requirements for 1975 are essentially unchanged from those
               Jt
of 1973-74 (3. 1 versus 3.0 gm/mi, respectively).  The difference,  simply
reflects the change in the  1975 test procedures which apply a weighted average
of the hot and cold start emissions.   Consequently, most of the automobile
manufacturers plan to continue the production of their current  types of EGR
system designs at least through 1975.

To ensure satisfactory performance of the emission control system proposed
for 1975,  it is expected that  major changes will be made in the carburetion
and ignition systems  and their associated controls.  These  systems signifi-
cantly affect the basic engine characteristics and thus interact, in a complex
fashion, with the emission control systems.  These  anticipated changes, there-
fore,  might well affect the EGR system performance and/or requirements.

Improved carburetion and  ignition systems  are being developed by most of
the automobile manufacturers, but production versions are not yet available.
As a result, the 1975 emission control system development tests, for the
most part, have been conducted with  carburetion and ignition systems cur-
rently in production.   The results from these tests,  therefore, cannot be
extrapolated to accurately predict the performance of the 1975 EGR-equipped
production systems when all of the engine modifications are included.
                                    4-2

-------
In general,  the type of carburetion and ignition system improvements that are
expected should benefit the EGR system.  These benefits could be in the form
of improved fuel economy or driveability, which accrue through reduction of
EGR flow rate requirements, or of improved NO  emissions at the EGR flow
rates currently  employed by some manufacturers. Additional development,
however,  will be required to achieve the optimum balance in the projected
1975 emission control systems.
4. 3           INDUSTRY STATUS
At the present time,  the  1973 model year vehicles, most of which incorporate
EGR systems, are undergoing or have completed emission control certification.
A common problem that has been experienced during these tests is the limited
durability of the EGR systems.  This problem is associated with the plugging
of orifices in the system and/or sticking of the EGR flow control valves.

To alleviate this problem, periodic EGR system maintenance during the 1973
certification tests has been allowed (References 4-1 and 4-2).

The clarification of the allowable maintenance that can be performed on the
EGR system during certification tests will undoubtedly require modifications
to the current EGR system designs of many of the automobile manufacturers.
However, there is  no information available  at this time to indicate the extent
of the modifications that are being considered.
                                    4-3

-------
                              REFERENCES
4-1    Aerospace Corporation Report No. TOR-0172(2787)-2,  "An
       Assessment of the Effects of Lead Additives in Gasoline on Emission
       Control Systems which Might Be Used to Meet the 1975-76 Motor
       Vehicle Emission Standards,"  15 November 1971.

4-2    Letter from E. O. Stork, Director, Mobile Source Pollution Control,
       to Dr. F. W.  Bowditch, General Motors Engineering Staff,
       November 19,  1971.

4-3    Letter from E. O. Stork, Director, Mobile Source Pollution Control,
       to Dr. F. W.  Bowditch, General Motors Engineering Staff,
       December 9,  1971.
                                    4-4

-------
                       5.  OXIDATION CATALYSTS
5. 1            SUMMARY DISCUSSION
 *
Emission control systems incorporating catalytic converters containing an
oxidation catalyst are, with one exception (Toyo Kogyo with thermal reactor),
considered by the automotive industry as the "best" or "first-line" approach
for meeting the 1975 Federal HC and CO emission standards for light-duty
spark ignition 1C engine vehicles. Despite intensive experimental evaluation
programs, no one has yet demonstrated that he can meet the 1975 50, 000-
mile emission standards.  However,  one or more catalyst changes at lower
mileage could permit the manufacturers to meet the 1975  standards.

The problem  of meeting the HC and CO standards for a duration of 50, 000-
mile distance is a severe one when viewed from considerations of the inher-
ent characteristics of oxidation catalysts. The alumina substrate or ceramic
substrate with alumina wash coat which  supports the active catalytic material
requires a high degree of thermal and mechanical protection to guard against
loss of alumina porosity  (essential for high catalytic activity) and against
failure of the ceramic substrate.  The catalysts also are very sensitive to
contamination from sources which can reduce or destroy catalytic activity
(e.g., "poisons" such as lead,  phosphorus, sulfur,  etc.).  Despite such
inherent characteristics, several oxidation catalysts have been developed
which merit consideration for integration into 1975-type emission control
systems.

Table 5-1 summarizes typical best emission levels  obtained with oxidation
catalysts at low mileage, where the effects of excessive temperature or
contamination have not yet  significantly impaired catalyst  performance.
Catalysts from  13 different companies are included; the experimental vehicle
systems range from conventional passenger cars to laboratory prototype
1975 systems.  As can be noted,  many catalysts (base metal or noble metal,
pellet or monolithic) achieve HC and CO levels far below 1975 standards when
                                    5-1

-------
Table 5-1. Summary of "Representative-Best"
           Mileage Catalyst Data

Catalyst Mfr. /
Type

APCC (Houdry)
(Base/Pellets)

Am. Cyanamid
(Base/Pellets)
Chemico
(Base/Pellets)

(Noble/Mono)



























Testing Co.

Chrysler




Test/
Car No.

259
62505
61318


EPA (Ann Arbor)

Car and/or CID

360
Pontiac 455
Chevrolet 350


System Description

AI

x
x
X


1971 Oldsmobile-350
i
Engelhard
















Chrvsler

21/119
351-V8
x


351-V8


351-V8



X





440 x
35/258 GD57E41/360
Volvo j 913/

Am. Motors

GM
Brit. Leyland
SAAB
Ford









OB 54821
DOO-24

61319

3/271

EGR

Mod.

Carb. EFE

X | X
x ! x x
X j X
1


TR



Test
Catalyst Mileage
1975 CVS-CH Emissions

HC
1
30ro Size 1057 JX8-2X1 0 0.23a
1259JX3-1X1
6
! 1259JX3-1X1 0

0. 20/
0.25


: j Two beds j 0. 15
;



x



X



PTX-433 • 500 . 0. 16


Std. PTX-5 380 0.32



Imp. PTX-5
I

x : 0. 2rc Pt; Oval; 135 in?
x x ; i 0. 35To Pt; Oval

0 0. 22


1268 i 0.23
627
0.23
Model 144; Engine B20B x x PTX-416 0 0.11

232-6

Chevrolet 350
Austin Marina, 110 CID
1.85 Liter
351 Ford- 1, Group I



1A58-D






351 Ford-1, Group III

1971 351 W-2V






x

X
X
X
X

X

X







j
1
PTX-423-S I 0 0.09b
i i
x | x j

X
X

X

X





PTX-4 0 0. 13
| PTX (stackedl | C ; 0. 04

x

x

X












1






Type H





' 0
(2) PIX-5.35 0

(2) PTX- 5. 35, 0
1 PTX-7.35
PTX-5. 35 IRHI
PTX-5. 10 (LH)





0


0

0.43
0. 19

0. 17


' 0.23a


0.1 Oa

a!972 CVS-C test procedure
Least-squares straight line value

CO

3.6a
0.8/
2.9


1.36

0.52


2. 1


0. 28


1.0
0.9
1. 55

1.5°

. '1.9
1.49
2.99
1.91

1.77


3. lla


1.41a



gm/mi



1.21a
1.4
1.9




Remarks






.0.26

Lead Sterile fuel
and ashless lube
oil
<3.0 Lead Sterile, fuel
and ashless lube
oil
<3.0 Lead Sterile fuel
and ashless lube
oil
1.28
5.44 EGR off
2.48


0. 75 1970 type slow
choke
1.3

1.67
0.96
2. 34 Riverside
program
2.26 Riverside


1.27a

program

Cold ^ Ford
emis- 1975
sions Dura-
0.99a

,. bilitv
Hot _
emis- _
Program
sions > B


                             5-2

-------
Table 5-1.  (Continued)
Catalyst M.'r./
Type
W.R. Grace
(Base/Pellets)
W.R. Grace
(Noble/Mono)
Matthey Bishop
(Noble/Mono)
Monsanto
(Base/Pellets)
Oxy-Catalyst
(Base/Pellets)
UOP
(Noble/Pellets)
UOP
(Noble/Mono)
Testing Co.
W.R. Grace
CM
W.R.Grace
Chrysler
Int. Harvester
Johnson- Matthey
Brit, Levland
Volvo
Daimler-Benz
Saab
Saab
GM
GM
UOP
Toyota
Saab
Mitsubishi
Volvo
UOP
Toyo Kogyo
Test/
Car No.
275
2823
1246
300
2/117
161


06B '44443
2180
5/311
9/385
2828
61329
933
2541




602/
OB 44085


Car and/or CID
1970 Impala-350
Buick-455
Cadillac- 500
1971 Chevelle-350
360
1100 D Travelall; V-345
1972 Avenger;
1500 CC Cricket Engine
MGB, 110 CID
1972 Model 144; Engine B20F
W-108
2. 0 liter
1.85 liter
Buick 455
Chevrolet 402
Buick 455
Oldsmobile 350
1971 Chevrolet 350
Toyota 1. 600 liter
Saab 99E; 1.85 liter


1971 Ford 351
1971 Chevrolet 350
Mazda 1.600 liter
System Description
AI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X



X
EGR

X
X

X

X

Mod.
Garb. | EFE

I

i

I
j
i i



X
X
X
X

X


X


i
j
Elect.
Inject.
X
X

















TR



SO"". Size
















Catalyst
Test
Mileage
Da vex- 1.42
(300 in."1)
Davex 142
(SMR 7-38811
Davex 117
Davex 502
(51 in.3)
Davex 47V
(2) 3 x 3-1/4 in. Discs
Spiral substrate
AEC 3A

AEC 3A


404
ECA-141
XBP-70194
G-1313
PZ-224-M1
PZ-224-8605
PZ-214
PZ-216
PZ-226

2294-165
PZM-7711
PZM-17122
0
0

126
0
0
0
100
1350

0
2520
0
0
126
0
Q
0
0
0
403
0
0
0
0

1975 CVS -CH Emissions, grr./mi
HC
0. 17
0.20
0.27
0.21
0.40
0.46
0. 11
0. 14
0:72
0. 11
0. 21
0.32
0. 22
0. 14
0.47
0. 19
0. 17
0. 17
0. 07
0.21
0. 19
0. 05
0. 12
0.69
0.38
0.53
CO
3.24
4. 7
1.7
1.70
8.3
5. 1
1.65
1.02
1. 56
4.28
2.34
2. 32
1.44
3.3
4.0
1.8
2.7
0.90
0.73
2.69
3. 15
1.04
1.69
2. 10
1.65
5.00
X0x

2.9

1.01
4. 51
0.85
2.41
3. 32
3:65
1. 14
l.°5
1. 75
2.37
. 1
1. 1
2.4
2. 2


3.77

1.24


Remarks





Lead-Sterile
fuel

Converters empty
at next test







(4-3/4 x 1.7 in.)
Mitsubishi converte


Estimated 1975
CVS-CH orocedure
         5-3

-------
Table 5-1.  (Continued)
Catalyst Mfr. /
Type
UOP
(Base/Pellets)
Kali-Chemie
(Base/Pellets)
Degussa
(Base/Pellets)
1C!
(Noble/Pellets)
(Noble/Mono)
AC-Delco
(Bass/Pellets)
Testing Co.
UOP
CM
Saab
Daimler- Benz
Saab
Daimler- Benz
CM
British Leyland
British Leyland
AM Motors
Volvo
Int. Harvester
Test/
Car No.

932
61420
7/301
2324
12/301
2377
2826
-
-
Dll-3
732/
OB 50430
393
Car and/or CID
1971 Chevrolet 351
1971 Chevrolet 350
Buick 455
Oldsmobile 455
1. 85 liter

1.85 liter

Buick 455
Austin Marina, 110 CID
Austin Marina, 110 CID
258-6
1972 Model 144
1110 Travelall; V-392
System Description
AI
X
X
X
X
X

X


X
X
X

X
EGR

X
X







X

X
Mod.
Carb.

X
Elect.
Inject.

Elect.
Inject.






X
EFE












TR












Catalyst
PZ-1-214-3
PZ-1-214L- 1
PZ-4-214-R-14
PZ-2-168-R-5




OM 56 ET





Test
Mileage
0
0
0
100
0

0
2580

10
0
0
0
120
0
1975 CVS-CH Emissions, gm/mi
HC
0. 14
0. 04
"0.19
0. 20
0. 22
0. 10
0. 19
0.74
0. 14
0.38
0. 19
0. 18
0.23
0. 24
0.35
CO
1.21
1.00
1.8
2.6
2.85
1.70
2. 11
15.66
2.3
3.5
1.38
'•2.29
1.47
2.43
4.56
NO
X
3. 53
2.41
2.4
1.0
1. 02
0.28
1.66
2.52
1.0
3.3
2.08
2.33
2. 12
3. 14
3.11
Remarks
GM converter
GM converter











a!972 CVS Test Procedure
        5-4

-------
fresh.  However,  when the catalysts are operated to extended mileages, the
HC and CO emissions tend to rise to levels exceeding the  1975 standards.
Table 5-2  summarizes typical best high-mileage or durability emission
test data for the same catalysts shown in Table 5-1  at low-mileage conditions.
The emission levels  shown in these tables  should be read  with caution to pre-
vent misinterpretation of the data.  Emission test procedures included the
seven-mode, 1972 CVS-C and 1975 CVS-CH procedures, which give different
results and are difficult to correlate for different catalyst systems.  Also,
several data points which appeared on the table were based on "hot" test
cycles which give considerably lower values than the corresponding "cold
start" test.  The method of accumulating durability  mileage also varied,
making any simple comparison difficult.  Finally, many of the tests were run
on catalyst test-bed vehicles,  while others were run on laboratory prototype
1975 systems.

While a number of these  catalysts met 1975 HC and  CO standards at greater
than 20,000 miles, the variation of vehicle test procedures (AMA durability
runs, dynamometer runs, etc. ) and the variation in test fuels and  oils pre-
cludes a systematic assessment of the true capability of a given catalyst
under projected EPA certification conditions.  These conditions encompass
the 50,  000-mile EPA certification test specifications and  the use of fuel with
projected additive contaminant  levels of 0. 05 gm/gal lead (max. ),  0. 01 gm/
gal phosphorus (max. ), and  conventional lube oils.  Such an assessment can
be made only with vehicles incorporating the full complement of 1975 emission
control system components, tested in accordance  with EPA certification
procedures.

Catalyst durability is composed of two separate but  interrelated aspects:
emission durability and physical durability.  Emission durability,  or the
ability to continue oxidizing  HC and CO to the required levels throughout
                                    5-5

-------
Table 5-2.  Summary of "Representative-Best" High
            Mileage Catalyst Data

Catalyst Mfr./
Type
APCC (Houdry)
(Base/Pellets}
AM Cy ana mid
(Base/Pellets)
Chemico
(Base/Pellets)
Engelhard
(Noble/Mono)



















Testing Co.
CM

No data

No data

Engelhard





Chrysler



Volvo

Am. Motors

CM


Brit, Leyland
Ford

Test/
Car Xo.
61318
2233










20X333

12/385
13/698
1091/
OB 44085
DOO-24

61319
17934


1A58-D


Car and/or CID
Chevrolet 350
Oldsmobi'e 455




351-V8

Torino- 351

351-V8

360

360
400
1972 Model 144; Engine B20F

232-6

Chevrolet 350
1971 Buick. 455

Austin Marina, 110 CID
1971 351 W-2V
System Description

AI

EGR
X X





X



X

X

X
X
X

X

X
X


X
;•:








x

X

X

X



X



X
Mod.
Carb. -
X
X


















X



X

EFE





TR




I






































Type H

Catalyst
12S9 JX3-1>11
1259 JX3-1X1




PTX-433

(2) PTX-433-S

Imp. PTX-5

0. 2% Pt; twin

0. 35To Pt
0. ZTo Pt; two 4 in.
PTX-416

PTX-423-S
(0.27o Pt)
PTX-4
(2) PTX-423-S

PTX (stackedl
PTX-5. 35 (RH)
PTX-5. 10 (LH)

Test
Mileage
21, 178
30, 037




35,821

48, 300

12,030

35,943

20, 000
43,000
25, 344

50, 000

21, 527
70, 000

17,000
25,000
1975 CVS-CH Emissions, gnVmi

HC
0.87
0.73




0.35

23 ppm

0.24

0.36a

0.26a
0. 16a
0. 24

0.32b

0.55
0.85

0.63
0.75*.
0.58a

CO
4. 1
10.6




3.0

40 ppmd

2.6

4.7a

2.84a
1.88a
2.45

4.8"" '

5.5
8.7

4.t5
7.97a
7.81a

X
1.6
2.3








<2.2

0.78a

1.56a
3.91a
1.82

* ML

1.6
3.5

1.32
' 1.64a
l.-28a


Remarks
Test continuing
Test discontinued




Lead-free fuel and
ashless lube oil
Commercial lead -free fuel and
standard lube oil
ashless lube oil
Lead-sterile fuel and
ashless lube oil
Replaced monolith wrapping;
temperature kept below 1500°F
Catalyst failed
Converter damaged X.
Catalyst failed at 29, 900 mi
(used 0. 015 gm/gal lead)
1970 type slow choke


70, 000 mi high speed tire test
run at Arizona track

Cold Emissions 1 Ford 1975
I Durability
8
                           5-6

-------
Table 5-2.  (Continued)
Catalyst Mfr. /
Type
W.R. Grace
(Base/Pellets!
(Noble/Mono)
Matthey- Bishop
(Noble/Mono)
Monaanto
(Base/Pellets)


Oxy-Catalyst
(Base/Pellets)

UOP
(Noble/Pellets)

(Noble/ Mo no)
UOP
(Base/Pellets)

Testing Co.

CM
Int Harvester
Johnson-Matthey
Saab

CM


CM

UOP
Mitsubishi

UOP
UOP
CM

Test/
Car No.

1450
161

9/385

61329
472

61317
2850
2541





933
BAK
Car and/or CID

Opel 1. 9 liter
1100 D Travelall; V-345
1972 Avenger
1500 CC Cricket engine
1.85 Liter

Chevrolet 402
Buick 455

Chevrolet 350
Oldsmobile 455
Oldsmobile 350
1971 Ford 351


1971 Ford 351
1971 Chevrolet 351
Buick 455
Buick 455
System Description
AI

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X




X
X
X
EGR

X

X


X


X
X
X





X

Mod.
Carb.

X


Elect.
Inject.
X


X
X
*







EFE


















TR


















Catalyst

Davex 117
Spiral substrate
AEC 3A
404

NBP-70194
ECA-125

G-623-71

PZ- 195 (in 2 mini-
verters; 4-3/4 x
1.7"; 30 in.Vbank)
PZ-216

2294-165
PZ-1-214-3
PZ-4-214-R-14
PZ-4-214-R-14
Test
Mileage

23, 000
16,000
24, 000
9, 750

5, 550
27,600
45,500
32,014
18,000
10, 245
21,933
25, 086
7, 000
8, 000
12, 500
7, 180
7. 722
15, 875
46,301
12.980
1975 CVS-CH Emission, gm/mi
HC

1.2
CO

22.9
0.46 6.85
0.33
0.50

0.55
0.37C
0.53C
1.20
0. 58
0.91
0.47
0.74
0.25

1.07
0. 15
0.06
0.30
0.73
0.36
1. 33
2.97

8.8
2.42C
3.52=
13.6
7.4
9.5
2.65
2.46
4.33

1.59
5.25
1.15
2.90
11.7
6.6
NO
X

2. 5
3.99
2.01
2.87

1. 1
3.44C
4.0C
1.4
2.7
2.3




2.52
2.48
3.00
' 2. 1
1.6
Remarks



Lead-Sterile
fuel







Est. 1975 CVS-CH
20-257« catalyst lost
Hot only

Screen failure
Hot only
After 1550 °F
recycling of bed
temperature
More recycling


        5-7

-------
Table 5-2.  (Continued)
Catalyst Mfr./
Type
Kali Chemie
(Base/Pellets)
1C I
(Noble/Pellets)
(Noble/.Mona)
AC-Delco
(Base/Pellets)
a!972 CVS Test F
Testing Co.
Saab
Brit. Leyland
Brit. Leyland
Am. Motors
Int. Harvester
Test/
Car No.
7/301


D17-11
393
Car arid/or CID
1.85 Liter
Austin Marina, 110 CID
Austin Marina, 110 CID
Z58-6
1110 Travelall; V-392
System Description
Al
X


X
x
EGR



X
x
Mod.
Carb.
Elect.
Inject.




EFE





b c d
q f
TR





Catalyst





Test
Mileage
5,900
9,200
4,500
32,000
20, 000
1975 CVS-CH Emissions, gm/mi
HC
0.25
0.20
0.25
0.51b
0. 51
CO
3.63
2.61
1. 14
3.4b
8. 76
NO
X
1.96
2.21
2.44
1. 9b
3. 00
Remarks






         5-8

-------
50, 000 miles, is most strongly impacted by decremental changes in
catalytic activity or efficiency caused by:

            a.  Contamination from fuel and oil additives or compounds
                (e.g., lead,  phosphorus,  sulfur, etc.1) resulting in
                "poisoning" of the catalytic material

            b.  Reduced alumina porosity due to phase change at excessive
                temperature

            c.  Alumina thermal shrinkage due to excessive temperature

Physical durability, or the ability to maintain the substrate intact throughout
50, 000 miles, is most strongly impacted by

            a.  Thermal expansion differences between monolithic ceramic
                substrates and their supporting container

            b.  Local melting of monolithic ceramic substrates due to
                overtemperature

            c.  Failure of pellet retaining screens due to overtemperature

            d.  Cracking of monolithic ceramic substrates and breakup of
                pellet substrates due to vibratory loads
                              *
In addition to loss of emission control,  physical failure of either monolithic

or pellet catalytic converters due to either overtemperature conditions  or

rupture of the canister can cause vehicle fires, posing a  serious vehicle

safety hazard.


A number of solutions to the above oxidation catalyst problem areas are

currently under active consideration or development by the Federal Govern-

ment,  the catalyst  suppliers, and the auto makers, as follows.

            a.  Fuel additive regulation.  The Administrator  of EPA is
                currently proposing to  regulate the level of lead (0. 05 gm/gal
                max. ) and phosphorus (0. 01  gm/gal max. ) in gasoline to
                reduce the effects of these catalyst "poisons" to hopefully
                tolerable  levels.

            b.  Qvertemperature protection.  Various methods of thermal
                control are being developed by the auto makers.to protect the
                catalyst from overtemperature conditions.  In one system,
                                     5-9

-------
                control is effected by precise regulation of engine exhaust
                conditions at the inlet to the catalyst bed.  In another pro-
                posed system,  control is effected by bypassing the catalyst
                bed when the exhaust gas HC and/or CO level or temperature
                is excessive.                '• ' "•'
            c.   Improved catalyst properties.   The catalyst suppliers are
                improving both the physical strength and activity of their
                catalysts.
            d.   Improved catalyst containers.   Both catalyst suppliers and
                auto makers are developing catalyst containers with improved
                de&ign features  to overcome thermal differential expansion
                and vibration effects.
The proposed innovations and development activities described above reflect
a technology that is rapidly changing through intensive product design modi-
fications, as well as through comprehensive test and evaluation programs in
both the catalyst industry and the automotive industry.  Because of these
rapid changes, the activity and durability data frequently reported as latest
results are based on catalyst materials and substrates which may  in fact  be
"old technology" previously discarded by others.  Due to the time  delay
inherent in the relationship between the substrate-catalyst-converter suppliers
and the auto makers themselves, it is not surprising that some problems
reported as severe by one company are treated as solved by others.  Some
recent data presented by the catalyst makers with their latest technology  have
indicated encouraging results at  relatively high mileage; however, it remains
to be seen whether these catalysts can maintain good performance when
tested in a prototype emission package under realistic driving conditions  by
the auto manufacturers.
5.2           CATALYST TYPES
A  catalytic  converter is a device containing a catalyst material
which  promotes  chemical reactions  which  would otherwise occur
very  slowly.  Those catalysts which promote  the  oxidation of  HC and
CO into carbon dioxide  (CO2) and water  (H.,0) are referred to as "oxidation
catalysts, " "HC/CO catalysts, "  or "HC/CQ oxidation catalysts. "  A great
                                   5-10

-------
effort has gone into developing this type of catalyst for automotive application
and literally hundreds of combinations have been tested,  including base
metals, precious metals, and combinations of both.  The HC/CO oxidation
catalysts,  as the name implies,  require excess oxygen (air) to convert the
HC and CO to H?O  and CO?.  This can be accomplished by  operating the
engine at  lean air-fuel mixtures or by adding secondary air to the engine
exhaust upstream of the catalyst.  To date the latter approach has been used
almost exclusively.

Both base metal and noble metal catalysts are under intensive evaluation and
development by the automobile industry.  Specific configurations of catalysts
and catalytic converters  vary widely.  One approach is to use a monolithic
coated substrate  contained in a cylindrical shell.  Another  approach is to use
a pelletized form of catalyst held in place by interior louvered members,
within an  outer container.  In general, the specific  structural and chemical
formulations are considered trade secrets by the catalyst suppliers.   Neces-
sary attributes for catalytic converters for automotive use include sufficient
chemical  activity,  long life, resistance to mechanical shock, and high-
temperature capability.
5.2.1          Typical Catalysts
Hundreds of  catalyst types have been examined for possible use in controlling
automotive emission of HC and CO.   Usually,  these catalysts were first tested
in laboratory-scale experiments, with the more  promising ones then tested
in engine  dynamometer tests and,  finally, in vehicle road tests.
5.2.1.1        Base Metal Catalyst
Base metal catalysts employ metals or oxides of metals  from the transitional
group of the  Periodic Table of Elements which includes vanadium (V),
chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn),  iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni),  copper
(Cu), and zinc (Zn). Several metals and  their oxides are usually combined to
form a catalyst (e.g., Cu-Cr, Cu-Mn).   Supports such as alumina
                                    5-11

-------
and/or silica (SiO,,) are used to provide structural strength.  Notice that a
few base metal catalysts also incorporate trace amounts of noble metals  such
as platinum (Pt) or palladium (Pd).
5.2. 1.2       Noble or Precious Metal Catalysts
The noble or precious metal catalysts that have been tested are primarily Pt
and Pd.  They are deposited on Al-O,, SiCU,  or cordierite supports (see
Section 5.4) and are characterized by relatively low concentrations of active
metal (approximately from 0. 1  to  0. 6 percent by weight).  In general, an
alumina or promoted-alumina "wash coat" is applied to the substrate prior to
the deposition of the noble metal on monolithic cordierite  substrates.
5.2.2         Automotive Catalyst/Substrate Combinations
Most catalyst suppliers and/or automotive users refer to a catalyst type by.
substrate (or support) type, in addition to the type  of catalytic material
involved.  The substrate is the material on which the active catalyst compo-
nent (and wash coat,  when used) is coated, and can be either a pellet, or a
monolithic structure.

The pellet  (or bead,  or particulate) type of substrate consists of small
individual alumina (A1_O,) pellets which can be of a variety of shapes ranging
from spheres to elongated cylindrical rods.  They  are  generally small in
cross-section or diameter  (approximately from 1/8 to  3/16 inch), thus
requiring many such pellets for a catalytic converter.

The monolithic type of substrate refers to a  single unit structure or package,
generally of  honeycomb configuration to provide the necessary surface area
for chemical reactions.  While referred to as monolithic, the structure may
in fact be composed of layers of corrugated material stacked together to
comprise the entire monolithic unit.   Such structures are usually composed
of cordierite materials.
                                    5-12

-------
 The following catalyst/substrate combinations are those reported to be of
 principal interest for automotive HC/CO oxidation catalytic converters: base
 metal/pellets, noble metal/pellets, and noble metal/monoliths.

 A fourth possible combination, base metal/monolith, apparently is  not  under
 active development or consideration.  General Motors has stated that a
 suitable base metal/monolith catalyst has not been made available by catalyst
 suppliers.         ;      ,                •    ;     '
 5.3            SPECIFIC CATALYST  FEATURES (BY COMPANY)
 The follpwing sections briefly describe the known characteristics or design
 features of specific catalysts supplied to the automotive industry by the
 various catalyst  suppliers for evaluation. Such  definitions are limited to the
 extent disclosed  in the recent EPA 1975 Suspension Hearings  or as  disclosed
 in communications between the catalyst manufacturers and the Division of
 Emission Control Technology, EPA,  Ann Arbor, in April 1972.

 Table  5-3 is a brief summarization of the catalyst suppliers and their
 products, as  discussed below.
 5. 3. 1          Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (Houdry Division)
 The Houdry Division of Air Products and Chemicals,  Inc. has been  principally
 concerned with developing base metal/pellet catalysts .(Ref. 5-1). It has
 supplied four different catalysts of this type (designated A, B, C, D) to the
AC-Delco Division of General Motors  and two other catalysts  (E  and F) to
 Chrysler Corporation.           .

 While  its catalysts are designated base metal, sorrie are promoted with small
 concentrations of precious metal.

It is not clear whether Houdry fabricates the pellet or hot.  It apparently has
been involved in  a program of improving  the pellet durability properties,
however this  could relate to thermal and  other treatments instead of direct
pellet fabrication from raw materials.
                                    5-13

-------
Table 5-3.  Potential Catalyst Suppliers
Company
UOP
Oxy- Catalyst
Matthey- Bishop
W.R. Grace
Engelhard
Monsanto
American Cyanamid
Chemico
APCC (Houdry)
Union Carbide
Kali-Chemie
Degussa
ICI
Products
Base
Metal
Pellets
X
X
-
Davex 142
-
X
X
X
X
Noble Metal
Pellets
X
-
-
-
-




Monoliths

-
X
Davex 502
(PTX Series)




Catalytic metal choice unknown.
Support would be flexible fibers
in various forms (tow, yarn,
felt, monoliths)
X
X







Supplied To
U.S. auto companies and many
foreign manufacturers (includ-
ing Volvo), GM (and others)

4 U.S. and 20 foreign auto
manufacturers
GM, Ford, Chrysler, and
foreign manufacturers
Most auto companies
Saab, Chrysler, GM
GM
None (Tests at GM)
AC-Delco (A, B, C, D)
Chrysler (E, F)
"
Saab, Daimler-Benz
Saab, Daimler-Benz, GM
Brit. Leyland
Remarks
Noble metal pellet
(spherical) is UOP's
first choice



Under supply contract
to Ford

Claim recent thermal and
attrition improvements
Consultant role only
Some promoted with
small amounts of
precious metals
Not targeted for- 1975 use
(developmental only)


Noble metal pellet or
monolith.

-------
5.3.2         American Cyanamid
Automotive catalyst development efforts of American Cyanamid have been
concentrated on base metal/pellet catalysts (Ref. 5-2).  It is known to have
supplied such catalysts to General Motors,  and may have  supplied others.
Cyanamid claims to have made recent improvements in thermal stability and
attrition characteristics of their catalysts.

Cyanamid has no real position in the monolithic catalyst area.
5. 3. 3         Chemico
Chemico is not a commercial producer of catalysts (Ref.  5-3).  However,
it has been developing an emission control system which incorporates a base
metal/pellet catalyst.  Its position is that it is trying to develop a technology
and would plan to market that technology to other companies as a consultant.

Chemico has had discussions with the four major domestic automobile manu-
facturers and with  a number of suppliers.  To date,  Chemico has  signed
testing agreements with GM, Chrysler, and Ford.
5.3.4       .  Engelhard Industries
Engelhard's principal automotive oxidation catalyst product is the exhaust gas
purifier tradenamed "PTX" (Ref. 5-4).  In brief, PTX is  a noble metal
(platinum)/monolith catalyst.  As supplied in  the past it is cylindrical,
although there is no reason it could not be (and may be) provided in other
shapes (e. g. , oval, square, etc. ).  The monolithic substrate utilized to date
has been the corrugated ceramic produced by American Lava (tradenamed
"ThermaComb") in both stacked (laminated) and spiral (rolled-up) configura-
tions.  Again, the  Corning monolithic  substrate (designated W-l) could be
used as well.

Engelhard  has supplied PTX automotive catalysts to a number of domestic
and foreign auto manufacturers for evaluation.  In general,  most of these
                                    5-15

-------
have been of the standard PTX design (e.g.,  PTX-433, PTX-433S, PTX-5,
PTX-423S,  etc.)-  Engelhard also claims an improved PTX catalyst which
has better high temperature stability and light-off temperature characteristics,
                                            ' " .*' '••
Englehard is currently under contract to Ford  for PTX catalyst  supply (with
the American Lava "ThermaComb" substrate).
5.3.5
          W.R.  Grace and Co.
W.R. Grace and Co. has developed two oxidation catalyst types and supplied
them to automobile manufacturers for evaluation (Ref. 5-5).  One is a base
metal/pellet catalyst (Davex 142) that employs an alumina support material
not commercially available (fabricated by Grace).  The other is a noble metal/
monolith catalyst (Davex 502) which employs a unitary ceramic support.  The
monolith supports used by Grace to date have been those commercially avail-
able from American Lava and Corning,  and developmental supports provided
by an outside supplier and an internal Grace research program.

Grace has  supplied catalyst samples to GM,  Ford,  Chrysler and a number of
foreign manufacturers.

Grace indicates the costs for their products shown in the following table:
   Code Name
                 Type Catalyst
Cost to Automotive Companies
   Davex 142
           Base Metal Pellet
   Davex 502
           Noble Metal Monolithic
                                      (2)
    $1 - $1.25/lb
    @  -7-1/2 Ib
    $7.50 - $9.50  per unit(1)
    $11 - $13 per unit(3)
  (1).
  (2)
  (3)
one unit per car
0. 026 oz Pt and 0.026 oz other noble metal per converter.
two units per V-8 engine, one for 6-cyl engine.
5.3.6
          Matthey Bishop, Inc.
Matthey Bishop is a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson-Matthey & Co. , Ltd.
Its principal automotive catalyst product is a noble metal (platinum)/monolith
                                   5-16

-------
developed by the Matthey Bishop Research Laboratories,  Malvern and the
Corporate Research Center,  Wembley, England (Ref. 5-6).  Its most recent
catalyst product is designated the "AEC 3A" oxidation catalyst.  It is collab-
orating with four US auto manufacturers and twenty British, European, and
Japanese manufacturers.

Matthey Bishop feels its noble metal /monolith unit does not use  excessive
platinum (0.04 oz/unit; two units required for a V-8 engine) and would have
reasonable cost ($ 10-$ 15/unit without container) to automobile manufacturers.
5.3.7          Monsanto
It is known that Monsanto has provided base metal/pellet catalysts to some
auto makers.  However,  no information from Monsanto was available for
consideration.
5.3.8          Oxy-Catalyst, Inc.
Oxy-Catalyst has manufactured and installed many thousands of catalytic
exhaust purifiers on all types of industrial vehicles powered by 1C engines
(forklift trucks, etc.). Its principal products were OC-100 (the tradename
for their pellet purifier) and Oxy-Cat (their platinum/monolith unit).

For automotive application it is most seriously considering base metal/pellet
catalysts  and has been supplying GM through the AC Spark Plug Division.  It
has supplied 76 of the 368 base metal pelleted formulations tested by GM
(Ref. 5-7).

Oxy-Catalyst has given GM  a price quotation of about  $1 per Ib (6 Ib/converter).
The pellet alumina substrate is obtained from outside vendors from among
Reynolds, Kaiser,  Alcoa, and Pechiney.
5.3.9          Union Carbide Corporation
Union Carbide is in the developmental stage of automotive catalysts employing
a proprietary ceramic fiber as a catalyst support (Ref. 5-8).  These  flexible
fibers  can be prepared in a  multitude of forms, such as yarn, felt, tow, and
                                    5-17

-------
various monolithic structures.  Union Carbide has not identified any choice  or
restriction as to base or noble metal  catalytic material.

Union Carbide does not expect to have a viable catalyst entry until 1976;
therefore, it is not a contender for 1975  systems.
5.3.10         Universal Oil Products Company
The Purzaust group of UOP has  developed three different oxidation catalyst
candidate's for use in 1975 (Ref.  5-9).  They are base metal/pellets, noble
metal/pellets, and noble metal/monolith.

Currently UOP has working programs with the U.S. and many foreign auto-
mobile manufacturers on the development of catalysts and catalytic  converters,

One new UOP development  is the Mini-Verter.  This is a small (30  in ),
simple,  and reportedly inexpensive converter charged with a small  quantity
of highly  active catalyst material designed to operate at elevated tempera-
ture levels.  Universal Oil Products Co. believes the noble metal spherical
pellet catalyst offers the most promise in automotive application.
5.3.11         Miscellaneous
A  number of other potential catalyst suppliers (e.g. , Kali-Chemie,  Degussa,
ICI, etc.) have products which are not described herein due to  a lack of
detailed information.
5.4           SUBSTRATE AND CONVERTER DESIGN FEATURES
5.4. 1         Substrate Features (By Company)
The following sections briefly describe the known characteristics or features
of specific catalyst substrates supplied to the catalyst suppliers by the sub-
strate producers.  Such definitions are limited to the extent disclosed in the
recent EPA 1975 Suspension Hearings or as disclosed in communications
between the substrate manufacturers  and the Division of Emission Control
Technology, EPA, Ann Arbor, in April  1972.
                                    5-18

-------
Table 5-4 is a brief summarization of substrate suppliers and their products,
as discussed below.
5.4.1.1      Alcoa
Alcoa has supplied alumina pellet substrates to catalyst manufacturers for
catalyst preparation (Ref. 5-10).  Alcoa both mines and processes alumina ore.
Alcoa already manufacturers pellets for nonautomotive catalyst preparations
and has supplied these and modified pellets to various catalyst manufacturers.
Alcoa has contacted 13 firms with whom it has been working.  To date, Alcoa
has not produced a satisfactory catalyst substrate and has been unsuccessful
in obtaining Low density,  High thermal stability, Pellet strength, and Effective
catalyst life.

Alcoa does not feel that  it can produce a successful substrate pellet although
it has been trying to do  so for 18 months.  Alcoa feels the catalyst companies
will make their  own pellet.  However, Alcoa does hope to supply alumina
powder to catalyst manufacturers to make their own pellets.  Alcoa could
also play a role in supplying whatever alumina was needed for ceramic
monolith substrates.
5.4. 1.2      American Lava Corporation
American Lava has produced honeycomb and split-cell type corrugated
ceramic catalyst supports (tradenamed "ThermaComb") for ten years
(Ref. 5-11).   ThermaComb substrates, until the very recent  availability of
the Corning W-l  substrate, have been the principal monolithic  substrates used
in noble metal/monolith catalysts evaluated for automotive application (e. g. ,
Engelhard,  Matthey Bishop catalysts).

The two ceramic compositions_xurrently available  in corrugated structures
                            (R i                                     iR I
are alpha alumina, Al Si Mag>—'614 and 776, and cordierite,  Al Si Mag\_y795.
The two alumina  bodies  differ only in the porosity level and physical properties
that are affected  by porosity as shown in Table 5-5 (Ref 5-11).
                                    5-19

-------
Table 5-4.  Potential Catalyst Substrate Suppliers
Product
Company
UOP
Union Carbide
Reynolds
Kaiser
W. R. Grace
Corning
American Lava
Alcoa
Raw
Materials

Ceramic
Tow, yarn, felt
fibers
(flexible)

Alumina
powders



Alumina
powders
Pellets
X

X
(Alumina)
X
(Alumina)
X
(Alumina)


—
Monoliths
X
X
-
-
(Development
item)
X
(Cordierite)
X
(Cordierite)
—
Remarks
For own catalyst use only
Not targeted for 1975 use
(developmental only)
Can supply in quantity at
$0.41/lb
Would supply both raw
materials and pellets
For own catalyst use only
Recent entry in monolith
substrate field
Principal substrate used to
date for noble metal /monolith
catalysts
Will not manufacture sub-
strate - suppliers of raw
materials only

-------
                               Table 5-5.  Alumina Body Physical Properties
Materials:
Property
Water Absorption
Safe Operating
Temperature
Specific Gravity of
Material Web
Specific Heat
Coefficient of
Thermal Expansion
Thermal Shock
Resistance
Compressive Strength
(Parallel to Passages)
Modulus of Rupture
Thermal
Conductivity
Unit
%
%

Btu/lb. °F.
in. /in. /°F.
70-1400°F.

Psi (5c/in. SC)
0.016 Thick Web
Psi (4 in. Centers,
1 in. x 1 in. Beam,
5c/in. SC)
Solid Ceramic @ 570°
Btu in. /hr. ft. Z °F.
Alsimag 614
Alsimag 776
Dense 96% Alumina Porous 96% Alumina
Highest mechanical
strength. Good
corrosion resistance.
0
1538
2800
3.65
0.21
4. 4 x 10'6
Fair
15,500
2,800
F. 119.0
For catalyst
carriers and
special applications.
17
1200
2192
2.5
0.21
3.9 x.10"6
Good
8,500
1,500
85.0
Alsimag 795
Cordierite
Good thermal shock
resistance. Excellent
as catalyst carrier.
25-30
1200
2192
1.7
0. 19
2. 1 x 10"6
Excellent
2,750
1,800
10
(Jl

-------
Cordierite is the mineralogical name for the ternary oxide 2 MgO-2Al._O,' 5
                                                             /R\
SiO_ and this compound is the primary constituent in Al Si MagV_y795.

The basic differences between the split cell and honeycomb structures are
shown in Figure 5-1.  Also pictured is the cross-flow split cell design,
the crisscross split cell, and the crisscross honeycomb.

Two basic forming methods are used to make the corrugated products,
stacking and rolling. They are illustrated in Figure  5-2.  The rolled struc-
                                   (R i
tures are available only in Al Si MagV^/795,  split cell configuration.

The stacked structures •were those first used by the catalyst makers in
developing noble metal/monolith units, then rolled  structures  were utilized.
More recently, the catalyst makers (e.g.  , Engelhard,  Matthey Bishop) have
reverted to the use of the stacked structures.

American Lava will be one of the monolith suppliers  for Ford  (via Engelhard),
and has been in contact with Matthey Bishop, W. R. Grace, and  Universal
Oil Products.
5.4. 1.3        Corning Glass Works
Corning Glass  Works has concentrated on the development of a monolithic
multicellular ceramic substrate for use as a catalyst carrier (Ref. 5-12). It
has invented a process  which allows it to form  the ceramic substrate in a
wide variety of shapes.  The product is truly monolithic,  since it is made all
at one time,  and it is made by a process that is fast and precisely controllable.
This product, called W-l, was introduced to catalyst and automobile manu-
facturers in December 1971.   Catalyst companies have been able to apply
catalysts to this substrate without difficulty. To date,  tests have shown that
catalytic activity and durability are equal  to that of other  acceptable supports.

Coming's cordierite ceramic monolithic  substrate  material is different from
conventional monoliths.  It may be easier to make and the cross-sectional
shape  of the monolith can be easily varied.  Corning  is quoting between 5£
                                    5-22

-------
 : '          SC SPLIT  CELL (Note Separator)
 Nfe  H".
                         xxsc
                      CRISS-CROSS,
                       SPLIT CELL'
                    'Note separators
                    .and. corrugations
                     •   * at 45°
• CRISS-CROSS,
  HONEYCOMB
with corrugations
   at 45°
 Note there is no
   separator.
Figure 5-1.  Corrugated Structure  Types
                        5-23

-------
               RpUJID. STRUCTURES
Figure 5-2.  Stacked and Rolled Corru-
             gated Structures
            5-24

-------
and 5-l/2£ per cubic inch for this material to Chrysler and Ford, and assumes
that approximately 100 cu in. per vehicle will be sufficient for a total sub-
strate cost of $5.00 to $5. 50.  The cost of the substrate is somewhat influ-
enced by volume; less  so, within limits,  by its shape.   Limited durability data
are available from Corning.  The automotive manufacturers also have this
data.   Corning feels their material has mechanical properties superior to that
of their  competition.

Corning claims that the material from which  it makes the substrate will
present  "absolutely no  supply problems. " The Corning substrate is
being considered for use by one or more of the following catalyst
firms:  Johnson Matthey, Engelhard, Grace,  Monsanto, Houdry,
and/or Universal Oil Products.

Information provided by Johnson-Matthey (Ref. 5-13) on Corning W-1
substrate properties is given in the following  listing:

       Designation                                  Corning W-l
       Composition                                 Cordierite
       Type                                        Glass  Ceramic
       Configuration                                Rectangular Grid
       Wall Thickness (in)                          0.009
       Open Area (percent)                         74
                                  2   3
       Superficial Surface  Area (ft  /ft )             720
       Bulk Density (lb/ft3)                         28
       Expansion Coefficient (per  F x 10  )        12.2
       Axial Crush Strength  (psi)                   7000
       Porosity (percent)                           31
       Max. Service Temperature (°C)              1200
       Wash Coat                                  Yes
       Metal Area (m  /gm Total Metal              0. 17
          + Wash Cost + Support)
                       o
       Surface Area (m  /gm Total Metal            18-20
          + Wash Coat + Support)
                                    5-25

-------
5.4. 1.4       W.R. Grace
As mentioned in Section 5.3-5,  W.R.  Grace manufactures its own alumina
pellet for their Davex 142 base metal/pellet catalyst.  Grace also has an
in-house developmental monolithic support which may be used for its Davex
502 noble metal/monolith catalyst (Ref. 5-5).
5.4.1.5       Kaiser Chemicals
Kaiser Chemicals is  a producer of basic alumina materials and a supplier
of formed (or beaded) pellet catalyst substrates (Ref.  5-14).  Three Kaiser
products have now undergone various  stages of performance evaluation;
namely,  catalyst substrate  alumina powder, type "sa", catalyst substrate
alumina  spheres, type "sas", and catalyst substrate alumina spheres,  type
"sp".  Both the "sa"  and the "sas" materials are now being produced on a
commercial  scale.  The type "sp"  material is still in  a developmental  stage
in that it has not been produced in plant scale equipment.   This new product ,
if satisfactory, offers cost  savings  compared to types  "sa" and "sas"
substrates.
5.4.1.6       Reynolds Metals Company
Reynolds is a major producer and marketer of chemicals  generally associated
with the  production of aluminum metal.  Although aluminum melts at 1200  F,
the oxide of aluminum (Al_O,, or alumina) is a very stable substrate material
capable of withstanding 3500°F temperatures while remaining relatively
chemically inert.  It can be heat treated so that it has  a large interior  surface
area, which  is a necessary attribute for pellet substrates.

Reynolds Aluminum Research Division has developed supports which are of
interest  to several of the catalyst manufacturers (Ref. 5-15).
                                   5-26

-------
Reynolds to date has two major pellet candidates which have adequate
durability and attrition resistance as determined by bench scale testing.
Reynolds feels its pellets are performing satisfactorily in vehicle durability
tests.  However, Reynolds recognizes that subsequent treatment of its pellets
by the  catalyst manufacturers  changes physical durability characteristics of
the pellet.  These changes make durability data supplied  by the automobile
or catalyst manufacturers more meaningful than data  from Reynolds.  Reynolds,
therefore, cannot state whether the durability of its support is sufficient for
an acceptable catalyst.

Reynolds does have the ability to supply these supports in necessary quantities
and has quoted price estimates of $0.41/lb.

Reynolds has supplied samples to the firms with which they have active
working  agreements.  These are W. R. Grace, Engelhard, Air  Products and
Chemicals,  Monsanto,  and Oxy-Catalyst.
5.4.1.7       Union Carbide
As mentioned in Section 5.3.9, Union Carbide  is developing a proprietary
ceramic fiber for catalyst support application.  These flexible fibers can be
prepared in a multitude of forms, such as tow,  yarn,  felt,  and various
monolithic structures.   This material would be applicable to both base and
noble metal catalysts.  These  supports  are  not  expected to be sufficiently
well developed for  1975 oxidation catalyst use, but may be a 1976 support
contender.
5.4.1.8       Universal Oil Products
Universal Oil Products (UOP)  has conducted research and development of both
spherical pellet substrates and monolithic substrates  (Ref. 5-9).  If UOP
produced such substrates, presumably  it  would be for its own finished
catalyst  product and not for  supply to other  catalyst makers.
                                    5-27

-------
5,4.1.9       Miscellaneous

Matthey Bishop has reported (Ref. 5-13) that it has examined some alternatives
to the ThermaComb and W-l monolith substrates, including the following:

           a.   A reaction bonded silicon  nitride (Si,N.) honeycomb  similar
                in configuration to ThermaComb.  It does not require a wash
                coat (to promote at least short term activity) and has a higher
                light off temperature and lower conversion efficiency than
                ThermaComb or W-l.   The material is also stated to be too
                expensive for other than experimental use.

           b.   A rigid fibrous form of alumina,  Fibral 80,  which does not
                require a wash coat.  Although Fibral 80 is remarkable for
                an ultra-low light off temperature, it suffers from relatively
                low conversion.  The conversion problem is attributed  to an
                ineffective configuration which the manufacturer is currently
                modifying.

           c.   Monoliths recently have become available in development
                quantities from Champion Spark Plug, Hexcel Corporation,
               . and Owens-Illinois.  No data on these designs are yet
                available.

5.4.2         Converter Design Features (By Company)

5.4.2. 1       AC Division,  General Motors

In the recent EPA Suspension Hearing testimony, GM (Ref.  5-16) indicated

that its AC Division had primary responsibility for catalysts and that the

Oldsmobile Division was  the lead division  for converter development.  How-

ever, other companies utilizing or testing such GM-supplied catalytic con-

verters refer to them as  AC or AC-Delco  converters.


The AC converter is comprised of a pancake-shaped canister, shown in

Figure 5-3, which houses pelletized catalysts.  The exact mechanical

interior features are  not  specified, but would necessarily include either a

louvered interior pellet-holder  or a screen-retainer arrangement for holding

the  pellets.
                                   5-28

-------
AIR INJECTION
PUMP
     QUICK HEAT
     MANIFOLD (EFE)
           IMPROVED CARBURETION AND CHOKE
           ALTITUDE COMPENSATION
           DECEL THROTTLE CRACKER

                          EXHAUST GAS
                          RECIRCULATION

                           TRANSMISSION
                           CONTROLLED
                           SPARK
                                     -CATALYTIC
                                     CONVERTER
                               PCV VALVE
       UNITIZED
       IGNITION
                Figure 5-3. AC Pancake Converter Installation

-------
General Motors indicates the canister will be fabricated  of a new
nonnickel-containing steel,  GM-6125-M, which was developed by the steel
companies expressly for GM.
5.4.2.2        Chrysler
Chrysler (Ref. 5-17) has utilized a number of converter  types in evaluating
catalysts,  including the GM (AC  or AC-Delco) pebble-bed converter, a
cylindrical monolith converter, a dual cylinder monolith converter, and an
oval monolith converter.

The  cylindrical monolith converter is shown in Figure 5-4; the dual cylinder
monolith converter in Figure 5-5; the oval monolith converter in Figure 5-6.
In general, all have metal (stainless  steel)  containers which house the
monolithic catalyst element and any retaining or support elements; e.g. ,
wire support mesh between monolith and container.

Chrysler has tested a number of pellet type catalysts with the "GM pebble -
bed" converter, including W. R. Grace  Davex 45 V, Monsanto EGA 302,
W. R. Grace Davex 137,  Houdry (Air Products & Chem. ) 1057JXB-2X1, an
American  Oil Co. Catalyst,  and  a UOP  Three-Way Catalyst.

Cylindrical monolith converter tests  have utilized Engelhard PTX and
W. R. Grace Davex 47  V catalysts.

Oval monoliths have apparently been limited  to Engelhard PTX  catalysts.
At least one of these incorporated the new Corning W-l substrate, in that
it was referred to as "extruded" substrate.
5.4.2.3        Engelhard
In addition to providing the bare  monolithic catalyst core element (i.e. ,  PTX
element),  Engelhard also will provide a canister for  containment of this
element.   Engelhard has a patented proprietary core containment device or
arrangement to provide mechanical support for the ceramic  core element
                                    5-30

-------
I
UJ


                             Figure 5-4. 'Chrysler Cylindrical Monolothic Converter

-------
Ul

Ji
N
                        *•

                                                               CAR # 385

                                                         23,000 MI. @ P.G.

                                                       A. M. A.  ENDURANCE TEST

                                                       ENGELHARD PT. CATALYST

                                                                .35% LOADING

                                                       4  BISCUITS   4.00  O.D. X 3'


                                                       REMOVED  11/24/71
                              Figure 5-5.   Chrysler Dual Cylinder Monolithic Converter

-------
                      304  STAINLESS
                     STEEL CONTAINER
EXHAUST GAS
FROM ENGINE
               MONOL FHIC CATALYST
 ATALYST
MPERATURE
 SENSOR
                                            EXHAUST GAS TO
                                             BYPASS VALVE
                                          304 STAINLESS STEEL
                                          WIRE SUPPORT MESH
             SECTION THRU CONVERTER
              Figure 5-6. Monolithic Catalytic Converter

-------
(Ref. 5-18).  Presumably this involves the use of wire mesh and/or crimped
wire located between the core and the canister.

A more recent addition is the use of a small pin extending through the stain-
less steel canister into the mesh which goes around the core element to
prevent rotation of the core within the canister housing (Ref.  5-18).
5.4.2.4       Ford
Ford has tentatively selected the  Engelhard PTX (noble metal/monolithic)
catalyst for initial use,  employing the American Lava ThermaComb substrate
(Ref. 5-19). UOP,  Matthey-Bishop, and W. R. Grace are other contending
catalyst suppliers.

In all cases, it would appear that Ford would retain responsibility for pro-
duction of the catalyst container.  No details have been provided concerning
canister design,  materials,  or ceramic core support techniques.  In outward
appearance, however, the design would resemble the Engelhard cylindrical
PTX units.

Ford has also  utilized test converters provided by Arvin  Industries for
pelletized catalysts. Arvin  is also  designing containers for monolith converter
evaluations.

The Walker Manufacturing Company has also provided Ford with converters
of the radial flow and downflow types for pelletized catalysts.  Converter work
with Walker is continuing.
5.4.2.5       Johns on-Matthey
Johnson-Matthey, in addition to producing  noble metal/monolith catalysts
has also supplied the converter outer shell or canister to the auto industry
for limited test purposes (Ref. 5-13).
                                     5-34

-------
Johnson-Matthey originally produced a rectangular canister box containing
two ceramic blocks, each 3-inches long.  The canister had the edge seams
welded.  This type of catalyst core containment was discontinued due to weld
seam cracking and attrition  between the interfaces of  the two ceramic blocks.

Johns on-Matthey now provides converters with the following design features.
            a.   Six-inch deep ceramic blocks
            b.   A ceramic tape cemented to the exterior of the catalyst block
            c.   A fire hardened cement at the periphery of the inlet and exist
                faces to prevent attrition on the securing frames.
            d.   Crimped wire mesh to secure the catalyst within the reactor
                to give a resilient mounting which compensates for the dif-
                ferential expansion of the ceramic/metal interface
            e.   A stainless  steel reactor constructed  by conventional muffler
                techniques in liaison with a UK exhaust  system manufacturer
The ceramic core and  container can be constructed in either cylindrical or
oval cross section.   The latest catalytic converter (AEC 3A), which is being
evaluated on the Johns on-Matthey  1975 Concept Vehicle  (see Section 5. 7. 6).
is oval.  Although Johns on-Matthey does not propose to  supply such  containers
commercially, container designs and resultant characteristics  are a part of
the state-of-the-art technology.
5.4.2.6       Universal Oil Products
Universal Oil Products has developed a small cylindrical container for its
pellet catalysts, the  combination of which (container plus noble metal/pellets)
is called the Mini-Verter (Ref. 5-9).  It is similar to  the Engelhard PTX
container in shape; no design details are available.
5.4.2.7       Miscellaneous
As noted in Section 5.4.2.4,  both Arvin Industries and the Walker Manu-
facturing Company have been and will continue working with the Ford Motor
Company on catalytic converter development, primarily in  canister  or
                                    5-35

-------
catalyst containment. Presumably these companies and others also cooperate
with other automotive or catalyst companies and are a potential supplier of
converter canisters.
5.5            CONTAMINATION AND DETERIORATION EFFECTS
A basic problem with catalysts, to date, is their unacceptable deterioration
of conversion efficiency with mileage accumulation.  This deterioration results
from a variety of sources, including contamination effects and thermal and
mechanical deterioration factors.   The following sections summarize and
discuss the more important considerations as disclosed by recent testimony
and data submitted in support of the EPA Suspension Hearings.
5.5. 1         Contamination Effects
5. 5. 1. 1       Fuel Additives
There is universal agreement that the catalytic efficiency of current  auto-
motive catalysts can be  lost or  reduced by reaction with or blanketing by lead,
phosphorus, and sulfur in gasoline. However there is a scarcity of actual
test data to establish the actual poisoning  mechanism and the particular amount
of efficiency degradation attributable  to a  given contaminat level.
5. 5. 1. 1. 1     Lead Additives
With regard to lead additives, the early recognition of the deleterious effects
on catalyst  efficiency with accumulated mileage or test time (as reported in
the recent Aerospace Corporation Lead Cost-Benefit Study,  Ref. 5-20) resulted
in the automobile companies conducting more recent catalytic converter
evaluations  with either lead sterile gasoline (less than 0.0002 gm/gal) or
gasoline containing relatively low levels of lead (approx. 0.02 to 0.03 gm/gal).
In response to this recognition and additional  evidence concerning the deleteri-
ous effects  of phosphorus, the Administrator  of EPA has promulgated pro-
posed rules (Ref. 5-21) to limit the lead content of gasoline to a maximum of
0. 05 gm/gal and the phosphorus  content to a maximum of 0. 01 gm/gal; the
maximum content of sulfur may be regulated upon submission of supporting
evidence to  establish the  required level.
                                    5-36

-------
The actual lead levels used by the various  companies differs widely, as
shown in the following listing of test fuel lead levels.
            a.   AMC -- <.024  gm/gal (Ref.  5-22)
            b.   British Leyland -- 0.014 gm/gal  (0.02 gr/gal in one
                                   occasion) (Ref. 5-23)
            c.   Chrysler  -- 0.02  - 0.03 gm/gal (all tests to date) (Ref.  5-24)
            d.   Engelhard -- lead sterile (0.0002 gm/gal) and Amoco Prem-
                             ium (0.02 - 0.03 gm/gal) (Refs. 5-24 and 5-25)
            e.   Ford -- primarily 0.03 gm/gal (Ref. 5-19)
            f.   GM -- primarily 0.02 gm/gal (Ref. 5-16)
            g.   Matthey Bishop -- <0.0006 gm/gal (Ref. 5-13)
            h.   Saab-Scania -- 20 ppb (Ref.  5-26)
          .  i.   Toyota -- 0.01 -0.02 gm/gal (Ref. 5-27)
            j.   Volvo -- 0.015 gm/gal (recent vehicle tests)  5 ppm (some
                         test fuels)  15 ppm (some bench tests) (Ref. 5-28)
            k.   VW -- 5-10 ppm  (Ref. 5-29)
General Motors stated (Ref. 5-16) that tests  were also made with gasoline
containing 0.01 gm gal of  lead,  but GM could not notice much difference
between these tests and those made with  0.02 gm/gal.  Matthey  Bishop
(Ref.  5-30) reports that in a 100-hour static engine test run with 0.05 gm/gal
there  was only a very slight difference between "zero lead" (<0. 0006 gm/gal)
and 0. 05  gm/gal.  Chrysler (Ref. 5-24) believes that catalyst activity degrada-
tion with  mileage varies directly with lead content at the lower levels (in the
range of 0.05 gm/gal).  Nissan (Ref. 5-31),  in consonance with  the Chrysler
opinion above,  feels that 0.01 gm/gal is preferable to 0.02 gm/gal.

It is evident, therefore, that the specific relationship between catalyst
efficiency degradation and lead  level is an elusive  one.  This is well
illustrated by the Ford data of Figure 5-7, showing durability tests
of an Engelhard PTX  converter with ashless  oil.   As can be noted, although
                                    5-37

-------
I
CO
00
             O
             oc
                 80
                                                        -O	£_
                 60
40
                 20
       PTX3  0.2% PI
       DATE COMPLETED 3-28-72

       EVALUATION CONDITION
          INL. CAT. TEMP. 800° F
          ENGINE SPEED  1000 rpm
          WITHOUT AIR
        V
FUEL:
 Pb FREE
 0.035 gm/gal Pb
 0.07 gm/gal Pb
       OIL:  ASHLESS
    DURABILITY CYCLE
  MODE   TEMP.    TIME
          1000° F
          1200° F
          1250° F
          1200° F
1
2
3
4
14 min
15 min
 6 min
 7 min
                                                         1
                                     200                400
                                         TIME ON TEST, hr
                                                           600
                       Figure 5-7.  Effect of Lead Additive on Catalyst Efficiency

-------
definite trends between the lead-free,  0.035 gm/gal, and 0.07 gm/gal levels
can be established, variability in the data would make comparisons between
discrete levels; e.g., between 0.01 gm/gal and 0.03 gm/gal; exceedingly
difficult.  Also, since these data were based on engine dynamometer tests
run on nonrepresentive cycles,  the relationships may not hold when mileage
is accumulated on systems subjected to representative driving cycles. The con-
clusion that the lesser the amount of lead the better (within practical limits,
of course) is an obvious one. Ford points out (Figure 5-7) that the catalyst HC
efficiency decreases  from 90 percent for the lead free case to 80 percent for
lead levels as low as 0. 03 gm/gal,  and that this doubled the HC emissions for
the Engelhard catalyst tested (Ref.  5-19).

While there may be some doubt as to whether the effect of lead is a "reactive"
one or one of "mere coating" of the catalyst  surface and pores, UOP has pre-
sented test evidence (Ref. 5-32) to illustrate that catalysts have a tolerance
to occasional doses of lead (i.e., have a regenerative property).  This is
shown in Figure 5-8, showing lead effects on emissions for a car operated
alternately on "lead-free" and leaded gasoline.  Dxiring the  early stages  of the
test, fuel was alternated between lead-free fuel with about 0.03 gm/gal and
fuel containing 2.5 gm/gal lead.  Catalyst recovery when operated on lead-
free fuel is shown for both HC and CO emissions.  At about 19,000 miles,
the EPA's proposed regulation on fuels (Ref. 5-21) was published and the
vehicle was switched to fuel containing 0.05  gm/gal lead and 0.01 gm/gal
phosphorus.  Catalyst activity,  as indicated by the  emission levels of HC and
CO remained relatively constant over the balance of the 25,000-mile run.

Universal Oil Products ascribes this regenerative phenomenon to the  opinion
that the deleterious effect of lead is one of surface-covering and pore-clogging,
not an irreversible chemical reaction.  Further, UOP hypothesizes that
there is an equilibrium-solution relationship between the  engine exhaust  gas
and lead.  With normal concentrations of lead (e.g.  2-3 gm/gal) the amount
of lead is in  excess of the amount the exhaust gas can accommodate (at the
catalyst surface and gas temperatures existing in the converter) and therefore
                                    5-39

-------
171
I
          CO
          00
O
 I
CO
          in
          r*»
          O)
              E
              fcfl
              E
              bO
                        1.8 gm/gal
'0.043 gm/gal
'0.01  gm/gal
0. 023 WT
0.01-0.03 gm/gal
0.01      gm/gal
0.01      WT  %
                      0. 04 WT %
                                              __10             15

                                        VEHICLE TEST MILES, in thousands
                  Figure 5-8.  Lead Effects on Emissions During UOP 25,000-Mile Test

-------
the lead deposits continuously out on the catalyst surface,  thereby reducing its
active surface area.  Conversely,  when the engine exhaust gas  contains very
low amounts of lead (e.g.,  approximately 0.03 gm/gal), the exhaust gas can
accommodate more lead in solution and actually picks up lead volatized from
the catalyst surface if it has been previously exposed to higher  fuel lead
concentrations.

Notice that this  25, 000-mile UOP test was conducted on a  noble metal/pelleted
catalyst which may have operated at temperature levels somewhat higher than
anticipated or used by the automobile  manufacturers in some of their tests.
It would be expected that  the regenerative phenomenon disclosed by UOP data
is  temperature dependent; i.e. ,  the higher the temperature the lower the lead
deposition rate (with leaded fuels)  and/or the higher the lead vaporization
rate from catalyst  surfaces.

Therefore, engine  systems designed to minimize "raw" exhaust emissions
entering the catalytic converter  (lower HC and CO, lower  inlet  gas tempera-
tures) would appear to be more adversely affected by lead concentrations in
the fuel than engine systems designed to rely on the catalytic converter for
more HC  and  CO oxidation  (higher HC and CO levels to converter).

With regard to pellets versus monolithics, Oxy-Catalyst (Ref.  5-7) indicates
its experience reveals that pellets  are more resistant to lead (and other
contaminants) than monolithics.  Oxy-Catalyst OC-100 purifiers (using
platinum pellet catalysts) operate effectively for at least 300 hr on regular
leaded gasoline  while its  monolithic or honeycomb type of  purifier is rendered
quite ineffective after only  25 to 50 hours of operation on the same gasoline.
5.  5. 1. 1.2    Phosphorus  and Sulfur  Additives
Much less specific information is available  concerning the deleterious  effects
of phosphorus and sulfur  on catalytic  activity.  Saab-Scania (Ref. 5-33) reports
"catalyst  poisoning" with fuel containing only 4 ppm phosphorus.  The  fuel
used in this test had only 20 ppb of lead.
                                    5-41

-------
General Motors tests (Ref.  5-16) have been conducted with 0.02 gm/gal Pb,
0.005 gm/gal phosphorus and 0.03 percent sulfur.  It has seen no "significant"
differences in the effects of these contaminants on base metal catalysts  as
opposed to noble metal catalysts.  General Motors feels that lead may be
worse for base metals, but it cannot prove it.  General Motors  states
(Ref.  5-34) that if a vehicle is driven with a catalytic converter at tempera-
tures  of 900-1200 F (where GM's operates most of the time) this is a temp-
erature range where sulfur readily deposits  on the catalyst surface.  If  the
converter could be designed to operate above 1300 F all the time, then  sulfur
problems  would be alleviated. General Motors feels that phosphorus effects
are bad regardless of the converter operating temperature (inferring an
irreversible  reactive poisoning effect).

Oxy-Catalyst (Ref. 5-7) has provided GM bench test data of their baae metal/
pellet catalyst  material HN-1429-1.  These data on conversion temperature
and contaminant buildup vs  engine running times are shown in Figures 5-9,
5-10,  5-11,  5-12,  5-13, and  5-14, and illustrate the effects of varying  contents
of lead, phosphorous and sulfur in the test fuel. While interactions are pos-
sibly involved, the data indicate  that sulfur buildup on the catalyst appears
to be especially damaging to carbon monoxide reactivity.  This  effect is des-
cribed in the figures as the increase in the 50-percent conversion tempera-
ture,  or "light-off" temperature, with  endurance or running time.  Increase
in "light-off" temperature causes increase in emissions when tested under
cold start conditions.   These  figures also indicate the build-up of lead on the
catalyst with increasing lead  content,  as  discussed above in Section 5. 5. 1.1.1.
No clear phosphorus effects are noted  on the figures for the concentrations
tested.
5. 5. 1.2        Oil Additives and  Miscellaneous Effects
A recent chemical analysis by Ford (Ref.  5-35) of a catalyst which had been
durability tested revealed contamination from the following sources:  lead and
phosphorus from fuel and lubricants; zinc from lubricants;  copper from an
unknown source; and nickel, chromium, iron and manganese from the reactor
                                   5-42

-------
£ 900

4*
S
                TEST CU MS MATERIAL HN-142t-l
         > 2lj)	   COKVEKTK J» ENGINE - 1
           ||      FUEL. Pk<.009. P.121. S.05


          i	L_J	1^
                                                             S *°°
                                                             z'
                        100     190     200     290
                     [•CUE lummc TIM. ii
TEST CM-955 MATERIAL HN-MM-1
   CONVEHTEII-3SI ENGINE - 2
   FUEL. Pb<. 005. P.07, S.
         I      J  __l	I
        100     ISO     200
     EICIII IUNHIK6 TIME, kr
                                S no
                                               TEST CU-555 M»Tt»l»L m-1429-1
                                                  COHVE»TE«-353 ENGINE - 3
                                                  FUEL. Pb.5, P<.m, S.04«n/l>l
            Figures 5-9,  5-10,  5-11.   Oxy-Catalyst Fuel Effects Data
                                                    5-43

-------
s rao
i
»
s
5 soo
                    COMVERTEH-944 ENGINE - 4
                    FUEL. Pb.OI. P<.005. S.02gm/gol~
                                                             i
                                                             s
S MO
if
S

2 500
                                                                              TEST CU-SS3 MATERIAL HN-1429-1
                                                                                 CONVERTER-IS* ENGINE - 5
                                                                                 FUEL. Pb.0». P<.0«. S.04cWcil
                        100    1U     200
                    HtlK IUMIM TIME, hi
                  50     100     150     MO
                    EKGIIE lUKIIIS TIIK. kr
                               X
                               s-
                               I
                               « TOO
                               M
                               m
                               I
                               0 600
                               *»
                               m

                               S soo

                                   -«o.«KH
                                             TEST CM-S5S MATERIAL HN-I4W-1
                                   —  0.2 |f-/—    CONVERTER-352 ENGINE - 6
                                          /      FUEL. Pt><.oos, P<.OOS, S.M \
                                300'—    0
                                                     100     in     200
                                                 U6I»[ RUKIIK TIKE, hi
        Figures  5-12,  5-13,  5-14.   Oxy-Catalyst Fuel Effects  Data
                                                    5-44

-------
manifold liner.  Ford feels that further work must be done on reducing
contaminant levels in fuels and lubricants.  The metal contaminants are of
particular concern since they could have a serious bearing on the  suitability
of a reactor/catalyst combination.

Engelhard has reported a 50,000-mile durability test for their PTX catalyst
(Ref. 5-36).  The test was conducted with an unleaded gasoline having a lead
content of approximately 0.03 gm/gal.  The catalyst picked up substantial
quantities of Pb, Zn,  P, and Ba during the  test.   The Zn and Ba are con-
taminants that Engelhard associates with motor oil.   Engelhard's  present
position is that  the most probable cause of PTX catalyst deterioration are
metal poisons that may be present in the fuel and  lubricating oils.

Matthey Bishop expressed the opinion (Ref. 5-30) that the HC efficiency
deterioration of their catalyst was due to phosphorus  pickup from  the engine
oil.
5.5.2         Deterioration Effects
5.5.2.1       Thermal Effects
5.5.2.1.1     Alumina Phase Changes
Automotive catalyst pellet substrates are composed of activated alumina
material,  as noted in Section 5.2.2.  Monolithic substrates also have a
wash-coat of alumina (or promoted alumina) on the honeycomb ceramic
substrate to provide the porosity and high surface area to volume  charac-
teristics essential for high catalytic activity.

Although the alumina  (pellet or monolith wash coat) does not melt  until a
temperature of approximately 3600 F is reached, it does undergo a phase
change from gamma alumina to alpha alumina at approximately 1750°F.
Chrysler states that the effect is one of crystal agglomeration which reduces
the porosity of the alumina to a point where the catalyst reactivity is
significantly reduced.  Chrysler  states that such an overtemperature exposure
                                    5-45

-------
of only from 1 to 2 seconds is  sufficient to result in significant catalyst
deactivation (Ref. 5-24).
5.5.2.1.2    Thermal Shrinkage
Pellet substrates (alumina) are also subject to shrinkage in physical volume
with increased temperature.  The effect of such thermal shrinkage is to
reduce the catalyst efficiency via reduced surface area and to cause a
"loosening" of the pellets in the converter canister (in the absence of mech-
anical design features which compensate for the volume loss).

General Motors  reported that in early designs excessive shrinkage occurred
at a temperature of 1400  F.  It feels that  current pellets exhibit satisfactory
thermal shrinkage properties at temperatures up to 1800 F.  General Motors
current pellet specifications allow 10-percent shrinkage when exposed to
1800°F for 24 hours (Ref. 5-34).
5.5.2. 1.3    Thermal Differential Expansion
Both pellet and monolithic substrates have thermal expansion coefficients
different from the converter canisters housing them.  Upon bed warm-up,
the pellets can become looser in the bed than originally packed.  Monolith
catalyst elements also can become "loosened" with respect to the container.
Both may then be subject to mechanical attrition effects as discussed in
Section 5.5.2.2.
5.5.2.1.4    Melting
Although the alumina material (pellet and  wash coat of monolith) does not
melt until about 3600 F, the cordierite material used for monolithic sub-
strates (e.g. American Lava ThermaComb and Corning W-l) has a melting
point of approximately 2500-2600 F. Even though the overall bed temperature
is below this level, local zones have been subject to overtemperature
conditions and have melted.  Engelhard reports (Ref. 5-18) that this is a self-
limiting phenomenon in that it is local in nature and does not affect the overall
monolith or the  canister metal.  Toyota (Ref.  5-37) also refers to monolith
melting damage  due to local overtemperatures.  American Lava (Ref. 5-38)
                                    5-46

-------
confirms the partial internal melting characteristic which reduces the overall
catalyst efficiency but does not necessarily "fail" the entire unit.

A related problem with regard to pellet catalysts  is referred to by UOP
(Ref. 5-39).  There have been instances wherein pellet catalyst have been
exposed to overtemperature conditions to the point where the pellet retaining
outlet screen burned out (screen melts at 2600°F).  The result was that the
catalyst pellets blew out the tailpipe; however, they were cool enough to
handle by the time they left the tailpipe.   Also,  Nissan (Ref.  5-31) refers to
a test in which a pellet catalyst (of Japanese manufacture) "burned and
stacked together (fused)" under conditions of full-load at 60 mph.
5.5.2.2       Vibration Effects
The catalytic converter is subjected to vibratory inputs  from a number of
sources,  including road shocks, induced mechanical loads  from mounting to
the engine exhaust system (exhaust manifold and/or pipe extending therefrom),
and gas dynamic loads from the pulsating exhaust gas flow.

With regard to induced mechanical loads there is  some evidence that second-
order rotational vibrations associated with 4-cylinder in-line engines may be
more severe than 6-cylinder or V-8 engines.
5.5.2.2.1     Pellet Catalysts
In pellet catalysts the principal effects of excessive vibratory forces are
pellet breakup or "attrition".  Volvo (Ref. 5-40) reports that in a test  run
in March 1972 with an AC-Delco converter the pellets broke up and resulted
in an empty container in approximately 5000 miles. Volvo had similar pellet
breakup with UOP noble metal catalysts.   Toyota  and Mercedes-Benz
(Daimler) (Ref. 5-41) report similar pellet rupture experience. Chemico
(Ref. 5-3) indicates that pellet attrition requires refill or topping off in
approximately 3000-mile intervals for their  current design to maintain 1975
emission levels.  They project refill intervals  of approximately 8000 miles
for an advanced design.
                                    5-47

-------
On the other hand,  GM (Ref. 5-16) states that it currently has no physical
durability problems with their pellet catalysts.  It acknowledges pellet
attrition problems prior to early  1970, but claims its converter design has
solved the problem.
5.5.2.2.2     Monolith Catalysts
Nearly all monolith catalysts tested to date have utilized American Lava
substrates of either the spiral (rolled) or stacked (parallel-layered structure)
types as shown in Figure 5-2.  Originally,  stacked type designs were utilized;
then the  spiral type was used.  Current  monoliths with American Lava  sub-
strate are of the stacked type because of severe mechanical cracking problems
with the  spiral type. Monolithic catalysts were originally cylindrical in cross-
section;  however, oval shapes are also being evaluated.

Volvo (Ref.  5-42) reports  a number of monolith mechanical failures, espe-
cially in conjunction with 4-cylinder engine operation.  This failure mode is
attributed to characteristically high second-order rotational vibratory
forces.  Three Johnson-Matthey oval converters have failed mechanically in
low-mileage tests at Volvo. One of these broke in pieces  at 700-800 miles.
Volvo's longest  durability test to  date (with an Engelhard PTX unit) was
recently ended at 29,900 miles with a failure of the substrate.  The substrate
was  extruded out of the converter housing; there was no indication of
overheating (Ref. 5-28).

VW (Ref. 5-29)  feels that the principal cause of mechanical failure of spiral
and stacked monolithic substrates is the differential thermal expansion bet-ween
the  substrate and the container housing which then  allows the vibrating  move-
ments between the ceramic core and the housing.  Saab-Scania (Ref. 5-26)
concurs  in this regard.  American Lava (Ref. 5-38) feels  that the spiral  type
of substrate is more susceptible to this  type  of damage; this is why it has
reverted to  the stacked substrate design.
                                    5-48

-------
In an early converter design in which two [end-to-end] ceramic pieces were
used to comprise the catalyst core, Johnson Matthey reports that movement
between the two pieces resulted in mechanical failure (Ref. 5-30).

Chrysler  (Ref.  5-17), GM (Ref.  5-16),  and Daimler-Benz (Ref.  5-41) also
report mechanical failure problems with monolithic substrates.

Engelhard (Ref. 5-18) claims to have solved the monolithic differential thermal
expansion problem with a patented proprietary design (including wire mesh
between ceramic and container).  Matthey Bishop (Ref. 5-13) claims the
problem is solvable by use  of improved support materials, insulation between
the ceramic and the canister,  and crimped wires between ceramic and the
canister.
5.6            PRINCIPAL  PROBLEM AREAS AND PLANS FOR RESOLUTION
Based on  the information discussed in Section 5. 5, it •would appear that the
primary problem areas associated with the use  of oxidation catalysts include
catalyst contamination, inadequate catalyst activity, thermal deterioration,
and catalyst attrition.

The following sections  discuss each of these basic problem areas and indicate
the plans  underway or proposed for resolving them.  Notice that the  automo-
tive catalytic converter technology is rapidly changing as a result of intensive
product design, test, and evaluation programs in both the catalyst supplier and
automotive industries.  Therefore,  the activity and durability data reported by
various companies as their latest results are based often on catalyst mate-
rials and  substrates which may be in  fact old technology previously discarded
by others. Due to the time-lag inherent in the relationship between the
substrate-catalyst-converter suppliers  and the auto makers themselves, it is
natural that some instances reported  as  "severe problems" by one company
are treated as  "solved  problems" by others.
                                    5-49

-------
5. 6. 1         Contamination Control
As mentioned in Section 5. 5.1.1, the Administrator of EPA has proposed
(Ref.  5-21) to limit the lead content of gasoline to 0. 05 gm/gal and the phos-
phorus content of gasoline to 0.01 gm/gal for the unleaded grade of gasoline
to be made available  for automobiles utilizing catalytic converters.  A similar
regulation of the  sulfur content in such unleaded grade will also be promul-
gated if the auto companies can present substantive evidence to  establish the
needed level.

All parties agree that zero levels of contaminants would be desirable,  but
practical considerations such as  lead contamination in shipment, and the need
for phosphorus additives used in detergent or carburetor  cleaning solutions,
dictate that trace levels of these  contaminants will have to be "tolerated" by
the catalysts, at least in the  immediate future.

The exact contribution of lubricating oil constituents to catalyst deactivation
is not evident. Ashless oils  would certainly help to assure minimization of
this contaminant but  such oils have not been  widely evaluated and could
adversely affect other engine parts. At present there is no clear picture of
whether  or not to regulate lubricating oil composition.  Therefore it would
appear that near-term automotive catalysts would have to "tolerate"
conventional  lubricating oils.
5. 6. 2          Increased Catalyst Activity
An  obvious approach  to improving the ability of emission control systems
with oxidation catalysts  to meet the 1975 standards is to increase the  catalyst
activity.  This is particularly true with regard to lowering the light-off
temperature,  inasmuch  as the sooner after startup that the  catalyst is active
the lower the  cold  start  emissions.  It would be expected that all catalyst
suppliers would be actively pursuing such technological advancements to gain
a competitive advantage.
                                    5-50

-------
For example, in this area Engelhard (Ref. 5-4) has recently related progress
in improving the catalytic activity and thermal stability of PTX-type mono-
lithic catalysts.  Overall progress is demonstrated in Figure 5-15 where all
catalysts shown were thermally aged and evaluated in a bench scale adiabatic
catalyst screening unit.  Comparison of data for standard versus improved
PTX show the improved PTX catalyst has greatly increased retention of     '
activity for CO and olefinic hydrocarbon oxidation even after, severe thermal
aging.

Johnson-Matthey (Ref. 5-13), another proponent of noble metalAnonolith catalysts,
also has reported similar progress in improved catalytic activity and high
temperature thermal stability. For example,  Figure 5-16 illustrates the
low light-off temperature characteristics of its most advanced catalyst,
AEC 3A, and compares it to some of their other noble metal/monoliths and a
base metal (copper chromite)  catalyst.  The effects of thermal aging on the
AEC 3A catalyst are shown in Figure,5-17.  As can be noted, the effects are
similar to the "improved PTX" characteristics of Figure 5-15 in terms of the
50-percent conversion temperature.  The figure'shows that exposure to
elevated temperatures increases  the  catalyst light-off temperature.  After
aging at 970 C (1778 F) the 50-percent conversion (or light-off)  temperature
is approximately 275  C which compares to a 50-percent conversion tempera-
ture of approximately 280 C for the  Engelhard improved PTX cataly.st when
exposed to the same aging temperature (Figure 5-15).

General Motors, currently a base metal/pellet proponent, confirms the basic
difference in activity characteristics  between base and noble metal catalysts.
However, GM (Ref. 5-34) points out  that the base metal catalyst  starts conver-
sion at very low  temperatures and the level of conversion gradually increases as
temperature increases.  This  is shown in Figure 5-18.  On the other hand,
the noble metal  catalyst does little conversion until a threshold temperature
is reached.  The conversion characteristic of the base metal at lower tem-
peratures can be an advantage if the  application results in temperatures in
the lower range.
                                    5-51

-------
      450
   CM

  O
      400
I S
I %
I S
      350
   C9
   I   300
   CO
   o
CO
ce.
o
      250
  CO
      200
  ID
      150
  _L

  T
                   95% CONFIDENCE
                   LIMITS (±2
-------
i
Ul
OJ
                 100
              C/5
                  50
A EC 3 A
(most
advanced
catalyst)
                           150
                                                  A EC 8 A
                      CO
                      HC
                                                 I
                       200                  250

                      INLET TEMPERATURE,  C
300
                     Figure 5-16.  Johnson Mathey Catalyst Light-Off Temperatures

-------
   100
    50
    0
     200
                 !    I
                                     INITIAL TEST
                              	650-750° C
                              	840-970° C
                   - 1100° C
        300
INLET TEMPERATURE,  C
400
STATIC ENGINE DURABILITY TEST:
  EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE OVER
  A  24-hr TEST ON AEC 3A
Figure 5-17.  Effects of Thermal Aging on AEC3A Catalyst
                       5-54

-------
Ui
                                                                A HC
                                                                O CO
                                                             	 NOBLE METAL
                                                                   BASE  METAL
                  300
400
       500
TEMPERATURE, °F
600
700
               Figure 5-18.  Conversion Characteristics of Base Metal and Noble Metal Catalysts
                                      (Standard Bench Test Evaluation)

-------
General Motors also presented data to  show how prolonged exposure to
elevated temperature affects catalyst activity toward hydrocarbons and CO.
Figure  5-19 shows how a typical noble  metal catalyst deteriorates when
subjected to temperatures in the range of  1200 to 2000 F.

Figure  5-20 shows similar data for a typical base metal catalyst.  In the
temperature range between 1200 and 1500 F, there is no significant  increase
in the 50-percent conversion temperature and  so there is no significant
deterioration in catalyst activity if this temperature range is not exceeded.

(general Motors concludes that these characteristic differences can be
optimized for either catalyst type.  In GM's system application, considering
cold start engine operation and catalyst operation at lower temperatures,
these differences tend to be optimized in favor of the base metal catalyst.
With a different physical application of the catalyst, the  advantages of the
noble metal catalyst could be optimized.
5.6.3          Thermal Control
Thermal control devices or techniques are required to protect the catalyst
and provide for vehicle safety.  The catalyst protection is  required to prevent
thermal-associated activity degradation and durability degradation.  The
vehicle safety requirement involves protection against overheating problems
which might result in vehicle fires or external fires caused by contact with
hot catalytic converter surfaces.  Most devices  or  techniques -which  protect
the catalyst also provide for vehicle safety.  However,  some vehicle safety
provisions (e.g.,  heat shields between converter and body floor) do not aid in
catalyst protection. Thermal control devices or techniques  are separately
discussed in Section 5.8.
5.6.4         Attrition Control
Advances in both catalyst substrate properties and canister design features
are required to meet the durability requirements of the 1975 emission
standards.
                                    5-56

-------
    900
    SCO
    700
 v>  600
    500
A  HC
O  CO
             I
                    I
                                         I
                                                             I
            1200    1300    1400    1500    1600   1700    1800
                     24 HOUR SOAK-FURNACE TEMPERATURE, °F
 •Temperature at which 50% of HC or CO is converted
                                                            1900    2000
Figure 5-19.   Soak Temperature Effects  on Catalyst Activity
                          (Noble  Metal Catalyst)
   900
            1200   1300    1400    1500    1600    1700    1800
                    24 HOUR SOAK-FURNACE TEMPERATURE, °F
. 'Temperature at which 50% of HC or CO If converted
                                              1900   2000
Figure 5-20.  Soak Temperature  Effects  on Catalyst Activity
                         .  (Base Metal Catalyst
                                   5-57

-------
5^6.4. 1       Substrate Properties Improvement
Early pellet substrates were subject to severe breaking-up or attrition
a^s well as thermal shrinkage problems.  As evidenced by GM's (Ref. 5-34)
cfurrent specification requirements (10-percent shrinkage for 24 hours at
1800°F) and American Cyanamid's statement (Ref.  5-43) that they have
"whipped" the 1800°F and attrition problem,  substantial improvements in
p:ellet attrition durability characteristics have already been achieved.
further improvements may be possible.
 t
Similarly,  the improved catalyst properties described by Engelhard
(Section 5.6. 2) leading to increased high-temperature activity, may result
in improved durability of the alumina wash coat of the monolith catalyst.
5.6.4.2       Canister Design Features
The wide spectrum of catalytic converter mechanical failure types and modes
shown in Section 5. 5. 2. 2 illustrate clearly that the canister (or container)
design must protect the ceramic substrates (pellet or monolith) from exces-
sive vibratory loads  and stresses.  In view of the inherent fragility of
ceramics,  such failures can be ascribed to deficiencies in the canister
support design.
5> 6. 4. 2. 1     Pellet Converters
Aside from GM (AC-Delco) and UOP (Mini-Verter), most companies had
exceedingly poor results  with pellet  converters.  For example, Chemico
(Ref.  5-3)  requires pellet addition (due to attrition) at 3000- to 8000-mile
' J.
intervals.
 £
 t                                                            '
General Motors (Ref. 5-16) claims that its horizontal-bed converter design,
in combination with thermal shrinkage improvements in the pellet substrate,
has solved the attrition problem.  If so,  its internal pellet  support arrange-
ment (top and bottom retaining screens,  etc. ) is such as to accommodate
                                     5-58

-------
relative thermal expansions of pellets, retainers,  and canister shell while

holding the pellets in sufficiently close-packed proximity to prevent vibratory

movement of the pellets against each other.

5. 6. 4. 2. 2     Monolith Converters

Early monolith converters apparently were little more than a sheet-metal

canister housing the ceramic core.  In such an arrangement it would be

expected that differential thermal expansion and vibratory loads would severely

damage the catalyst, as has been evidenced.


A number  of promising design approaches,  however,  have been advanced for

solving these problems.  For example:

            a.   Engelhard has  a potential proprietary method of
                compensating for the differential thermal expansion
                between the ceramic core and the stainless  steel canister
                (wire mesh between them).  It also has provided a pin
                (extending through canister and wire mesh)  to prevent
                axial movement between core and canister.  (Ref. 5-18).

            b.   Volkswagen has proposed a spring-loaded sleeve between
                the core and canister.  (Ref.  5-44).

            c.   Volvo has proposed  the use of rubber mounts for the
                converter. (Ref.  5-42)^

            d.   Johnson-Matthey (Ref.  5-13)  claims the problem is
                solvable by use of improved support materials, insulation
                between ceramic and the canister, and crimped wires
                between the ceramic and the canister.

5. 7            EMISSIONS

The following sections summarize pertinent results as to the emission
characteristics of the various  catalysts proposed for use.  No attempt is

made to  summarize all of  the existing data; rather,  the approach used is to

select those data considered most representative of the current state of the

art of automotive oxidation catalyst technology.
                                    5-59

-------
5. 7. 1         Air Products and Chemicals (Houdry Division)
Houdry has submitted base metal/ pellet catalysts to General Motors,
Chrysler,  and other automotive companies.  Houdry does not perform vehicle
emission tests and therefore relies on auto company data,  (Ref. 5-1).
5. 7. 1. 1      Low Mileage Emissions
Tables  5-6 and 5-7 indicate the properties of four catalysts supplied to GM
(Ref. 5-1)  and two catalysts supplied to Chrysler (Ref. 5-1) together with low
mileage emission data as provided by the auto companies to Houdry.  Notice
that all six catalysts were well below the  1975 HC standard, but two catalysts
exceeded the CO standard,  even at low mileage.
5. 7. 1. 2      High Mileage Emissions
An  early Houdry catalyst was evaluated in a 50, 000-mile durability test by
AC but  demonstrated declining  performance (Ref. 5-1).  The results of this
evaluation are shown in Figure 5-21.   It was discovered at the  conclusion of
the test that 40 percent of the volume of the catalyst and 20 percent of the
initial weight  had been lost, indicating substantial shrinkage and attrition.
It was not  until the fall of  1971  that catalysts with sufficient physical strength
has been prepared by  Houdry to justify extensive durability tests by AC.   The
results of  these later  AC durability tests  and of Chrysler durability tests are
not yet available to Houdry.
5. 7. 1.3      Comparison with Auto  Company Data
Pertinent recent test data from General Motors (Ref.  5-45) and Chrysler
(Ref. 5-17) are shown in Table 5-8.  Notice that no tests at extended mileage
meet the 1975  standards.
                                    5-60

-------
Table 5-6.   Emission Data From Air Products and
            Chemicals Corp.  (Houdry)a
Catalyst A B '
50% conversion
fresh condition
CO (°F)
HC (°F)
50% conversion
1800°F-24 hr. aging
CO (°F)
HC <°F)
Shrinkage after 1800°F
24 hr. aging, vol. %
Attrition after 1800°F
24 hr. aging, wt. % loss

402 390
442 423
407 443
664 598
18.4 5.0
8. 7 2. 7
C D

402 421
418 424
470 438
565 ' 467
3.2 .2.0
2.3 1.5
Car Test Results (AC)
1975 CVS-CH Emissions
HC, gm/mi
CO, gm/mi
aCatalysts supplied to AC
0.27 0.32
3.3 3.2
Div. of GM (Ref. 5-1)
0.28 0.30
3.3 3.8

                      5-61

-------
            Table 5-7.  Emission Data From Air Products and

                        Chemicals Corp. (Houdry)a
Catalyst E ,_, F
50% conversion
fresh condition
CO (°F)
HC (°F)
50% conversion
1800°F-24 hr. aging
CO (°F)
HC (°F)
Attrition after 1800°F
24 hr. aging, wt.%loss
Chrysler dynamometer
(Car 259)
gm/mi
1

Catalysts submitted to
b!700°F-16 hr. aging
C1800°F-24 hr. aging
396 390
454 423
355 443
359 598
3. 6b 2. 7C
test
Run No. HC CO HC CO
(73) 0.23 3.6 0.26 3.4
(74) 0.20 2.8
(75) 0.28 4.9
(76) 0.20 3.6
(77) 0.19 3.5
(78) 0. 17 3.6
Avg. 0.21 3.65
Chrysler Corp. (Ref. 5-1)
r
• x
                                  5-62

-------
U1
I
OJ
         1.8
         1.6
         1.4
         1.2
CO


§  1.0
oo
   0.8




   0.6




   0.4


    0
                    AC CM714 260 cu in.  CONVERTER

                    INDOLENE CLEAR FUEL

                    350 CHEVROLET 2 BBL CAR 60328

                    1970 B WITH AIR
              HC DETERIORATION FACTOR = 2.19
                          10,000
                                                                                          20  E
                                                    CO DETERIORATION FACTOR = 1.77
                                           1972 CVS-C TEST PROCEDURE
                                                                                           15
                                                                                          10
                                                                                              E
                                                                                              tao
                                                                                              V)

                                   20,000          30,000

                                    AMA DURABILITY, mi
40,000
   O
50,000
                    Figure 5-21.  Durability Data for Houdry Base Metal Catalyst PIN  1269

-------
Table 5-8.  APCC (Houdry) Catalysts (Auto Co. Data)
C«r No.
Chrysler
259
CM
62403
62411
62102
62115
61203
61322
61318
62505
2586
Car and/or CIO

360

Oldsmobile 455
Oldsmobile 455
Buick 455
Skylark 455
Cadillac 472
Chevrolet 350
Chevrolet 350
Pontiac 455
Oldimobile 350
Test
Weigh!



5000
5500
5500
4500
5500
4500
4500
4500
5000
Telt
Date



2/72
1/72
2/72
4/72
2/72
2/72
3/72
12/71
4/72
2/72
2/72
4/72
4/72
2/72
J/72
System Description
AI

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EGR

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mod.
Carb.

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EFE





X
X



X

TR

30%
Siae










Catalyst

Base/Pellet
(1057 JX8-2X1)

Baie/Pellet
(1259 JX3-1X1)
Base/Pellet
(1259 JX3-1X1)
Base/Pellet
(1259 JX3-1X1)
Base/Pellet
(1259 JX3-1X1)
Base/Pellet
(1259 JX4-1X1)
Baie/Pellet
(1259 JX3-1X1I
Base/ Pellet
Base/Pellet
Bate Pellet
(1259 JX3-1X1I
cvs
Teat
Proc.

1972

1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
Test '
Mileage

0
170

118
240
1.689
280
300
0
1, 158
0
21, 178
6
1.465
1.914
3.778
42
1. 168
Emissions, gm/mi
HC

0.23
0. 17

0.45
0.52
0.63
0.70
0.25
0.44
0.66
0.25
0.87
0.22
0.57
0.36
0.5J
0.28
0.71
CO

3.6
3.6

5.4
5.0
3.2
2.5
6.0
3.2
10.3
2.9
4.1
0.9
2.4
1.3
1.75
7.3
12.5
N0x

1.21
1.83

1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.2"
0.2"
.9
.6
.4
.4
.1
.0
3.7
3.8
Remarks



System Development
System Development
System Development
System Development
System Development
Catafyst changed;
Excessive Deterioration
Test continuing
Discontinued; high
deterioration
Overtemperature
*NO catalyst in system

-------
                                            Table 5-8.  (Continued)
Car N'o

2823

18504

2233




2590

2539

2878
2242

62124



62125



62126



62127



ar an /or

Oldsmobile 455

Oldsmobile 455

Oldsmobile 455




Oldsmobile 455

Oldsmobile 455

Oldsmobile 455
Buick 350

Buick 455



Buick 455



Buick 455



Buick 455



Test
Weiizht

5500

5500

4500




5000

5000

5500
4500

5000



5000



5000



5000



Test
ate

1/72
1/72
2/72
3/72
3/72
12/71
1/72
1/72
2/72
3/72
2/72
3/72
2/72
3/72
1/72
1 l~f
_/ i L
3/72
3/72
2/72
2/72
3/72
3/72
2/72
2/72
3/72
3/72
2/72
2/72
3/72
3/72
2/72
2/72
3/72
3/72
System Description
AI















X

X



X



X



X



EGR

x



x




X

„




















Mod.
Carb

X

X

X




X

X


X

X



X



X



X



EFE

































TR



































Base/Pellet
(12J9 JX3-1X1)
Base/Pellet
(1259 JX3-1X1J
Base/Pellet
(1259 JX3-1X1)



Base/Pellet
(1259 JX3-1X1)
Base/Pellet
(1259 JX3-1X1)
Base/Pellet
(12 59 JX3- 1X1)
Base/Pellet
(1259 JX3-1X1)
Base/Pellet
(1259 JX3-1X1)


Base/Pellet
(1259 JX3-1X1)


Base/Pellet
(1259 JX3-1X1)


Base/Pellet
11259 JX3-1X1)


Test

1975

1975

1975




1975

1975

1975
1975

1975



1975



1975



1975



Test

10
3, 336
8 927
91
487
0
14.227
19.668
24,304
30.037
47
1.418
1
1, 139
0
2 460
0
3,950
43
2,910
7, 280
10, 097
32
3,201
7. 198
10,469
33
3,381
7,096
10,079
17
3, 342
7, 111
10, 006
Emissions gm/mi
HC

0.34
0.41
0 62
0.25
0.26
0.31
0.48
0.52
0.56
0.73
0.42
0.61
0. 30
1.04
0.22
0.51
0.56
0.74
0.38
1.08
0.43
0.98
0.64
0.72
1. 16
1.24
0.54
0.65
0.67
0.71
0. 56'
0.91
0.93
0.99
CO

10.7
10.3
11 6
3.0
1.8
5.6
10.7
11.7
8.6
10.6
7.0
7.9
4.6
11.0
1 c
5.9
5.7
4. 1
7. 2
3.6
9.9
3.6
4.0
7. 1
9.6
2. 1
3.3
3.8
3.2
3.9
9.3
9. 5
10. 1
NO
X
i. 1
2.0
2 n
3. 1
1.4
2. 1
1.6
1.6
1.9
2.3
2.3
3.5
2.3
2.4
3.8
Si
. 0
1.8
1. 5
5.6
5.3
4.9
5.9
5.7
5.7
5.8
5.7
6.0
5.5
4.9
5. 1
5.7
5. 1
5. ;

Remarks

.

Test continuing




Teat discontinued

Over temperature

Over temperature


Test continuing



Changing catalyst



Changing catalyst



Changing catalyst



6. 5 Changing catalyst
(Jl
I
Ul

-------
Table 5-8.  (Continued)
Car No.
62129


62128



62130


62115

931

2222



Car and/or C1D
Buick 455


Buick 4SS



Buick 455


Buick 455

Buick 4SS

Cadillac 500



Test
Weight
5000


5000



5000


4500

5000

5500



Test
Date
2/72
3/72
4/72
2/72
2/72
3/72
3/72
2/72
3/72
3/72
1/72
3/72
12/71
1/72
1/72
1/72
2/72
4/72
System Description
AIR
X


X



X


X

X

X



EGR










X

X

X



Mod.
Carb.
X


X



X


X



X



EFE










X







TR


















Catalyst
Base/Pellet
(1259 JX1-1X1)

Base/Pellet
(1259 JX3-1X1)


Base/Pellet
(125S JX3-1X1)

Base/Pellet
(1259 JX3-1X1)
Base/Pellet
(1259 JX3- 1X1)
Base/Pellet
(1259 JX3-1X1I


Telt
Proc.
1975


1975



1975


1975

1975

1975



Test
Mileage
48
3,400
7,401
48
2,660
7,079
10, 104
39
3,405
7,362
323
876
0
7,544
0
2,000
4, 000
8,000
Emissions, gm/mi
HC
0.48
0.60
0.80
0.52
0.75
1.08
1.00
0.53
0.65
0.86
0.60
1.25
0.29
0.64
0.35
0.40
0.35
0.32
CO
3.0
3.5
6.7
4.2
6.6
8.8
9.7
4. 1
5.9
7.6
3.0
5.5
2.3
6.7
1.1
2.3
3.2
4.6
NO
X
5.8
5.0
i. 1
6.2
4.5
5.3
5. 1
4.4
4.8
3.7
1.3
1.3
6.0
4.0
2.0
1.9
2. 1
2.6
Remarks


Test continuing



Changing catalyst


Test continuing

Changing catalyst

Test discontinued



Test continuing

-------
Table 5-10.  Emissions Data From Chemico for Federal Clean Car Incentive Program


Test
Date
3/7/72
3/8/72
3/9/72
3/10/72
3/16/72
3/25/72
3/27/72
3 / ?Q /7 >
J 1 £-7 f 1 ft
3/30/72
3/31/72
4/6/72
4/7/72
4/11/72



Test Mileage
. Accumulated
1,495
1, 505
1, 517
1, 529
1, 588
1, 677
1, 790
6 595
6,607
2, 019
2, 556
2, 567
2, 784



Vehicle
Tested
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
/O V
\°)
(B)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)




System Configuration
Mach VIII
Mach VIII
Mach VIII
Mach VIII
Mach VIII
Mach VIII
Mach VIII
Standard production car
Mach VIII
Mach VIII
Mach VIII
Mach VIII



lot Bed
Catalyst
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
None
A
A
A
A



2nd Bed
Catalyst
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
None
A
A
A
A

\1975 CVS-CH
Tent Procedure
NO
HC CO N0x
0.23 3.32 0.33
0.1.5 1.36 0.26
0.29 2.63 0.32
0.19 2.29 0.31
0.18 1.50 0.24
0.19 1.12 0.29
0.28 1.67 0.43
3/V4 An ft ] i Q ?
, \Mt %U. U 1 J , 7 <-
2.35 30.26 2.85
0.38 2.18 '0.30
0.46 1.81 0.30
0.63 2.06 0.36
0.37 1.27 0.32


Fuel
Consumption,
mi/gal
10.6
11.0
9.91
9.95
9.98
12.9
9.48
UQ
. 7
10.9
9.97
9.75
10.40
9.97




Remarks
Meets 1976 standards
Meets 1976 standards
Meett 1976 standards
Meets 1976 standards
Meets 19.76 standards
Meets 1976 standards
Meets 1976 standards
Meet B 1972 stan da rds-
Meeta 1972 standards
Meets 1976 standards
Distributor points burned
Distributor points burned
Points replaced
Meets 1975 standards
Vehicle Tested: (A) 1971 Oldsmobile - Delta 88 - 350 cubic inch displacement - Test Inertia Weight: 4500 Ib
(B) 1972 Oldsmobile - Delta 88 - 350 cubic inch displacement - Test Inertia Weight: 4500 Ib (Avis Rental Car)
Tester/Location: Environmental Protection Agency - Ann Arbor, Michigan

-------
In September 1971, CHEMICO's car was tested at GM Tech Center and again
the  emissions were below the 1976 emission levels.

In February 1972, CHEMICO's  car was  tested at Scott Research Laboratories,
Plumsteadville, Pa.  This car was submitted to EPA for evaluation under the
Federal Clean Car Incentive Program.  Early results from this EPA evalu-
ation are presented in Table 5-10. All test data  shown are for low mileage
(less than 1500 miles) and with  fresh catalyst.  Considerable catalyst attrition
was evident even below 1000 miles.
5.7.3.2       High Mileage Emissions
CHEMICO has no high mileage emission data.
5.7.4         Engelhard
Engelhard has been very active in performing  tests to demonstrate the
applicability of noble metal/monolith catalysts for automotive use.
5.7.4. 1       Low and High Mileage Emissions
5. 7.4. 1. 1     Durability on Dynamometer
As  a baseline for durability of standard  PTX-433, a test -was run on  an engine
dynamometer using the mileage accumulation  schedule shown in Figure 5-22
(Ref. 5-4).  With this schedule  inlet temperatures to PTX purifiers are
approximately 900-1000 F.  This particular catalyst was first tested on a car
using lead sterile fuel.  The car was involved  in  an accident at 4156  catalyst
miles.  One of the two purifiers on that  V8 vehicle was damaged.  The purifier
which was intact was removed and installed on an engine dynamometer, and
an additional 31,665 miles were accumulated with lead-free  fuel and ashless
lubricating oil.  The  results are shown  in Figure 5-23.

After a total of 35, 821 miles, the emissions were 0. 35 gm/mi for hydro-
carbons and 3. 0 gm/mi for carbon monoxide.
                                    5-70

-------
20
10 -
         20     40
60     80     100
 TIME  IN CYCLE, sec
720    740
   Figure 5-22.  Englehard Mileage Accumulation Cycle for
                      Engine Dynamometers
                            5-71

-------
    HC
GRAMS
     PER
    MILE
2.5"
2f\m
1.5«
1.0*
0.5«

1.9 1975-76 Standard
..
1.6
1
i
i

0.16
Eli!
1
1
i
0
0.13
R2E1
.41
1.2
rrsj
1
i
gro
^

ms per mile
' 0.35

1
j|j(
              Baseline 500  Baseline 4,156  Baseline 35,821
                       0           (3)           (3)
                                  MILEAGE
30*

25-

co20'
GRAMS 15i
PER
MILE10'
5*





t








Z5.<
1
1
1
1
^
1



3

1


0.52





1
1

c?S






I











2.4
EHJ
i
IS:
•si









^
1
1
1
1
i

vk
1
^
Sr
.




1975-76
3.4 grams per mile
V 3.0

i
SSi
i

             Baseline   500  Baseline 4,156  Baseline  35,821
                      (!)            0)           (3)

                                 MILEAGE
                                                                        O^DYNAMOMETER:
                                                                        351 C.I.D. VB Engine
                                                                        Equipped with Air Pump,
                                                                               NoEGR
                                                                   NOTES
1
                                                                        Up to 4,156 miles accumulated
                                                                        on car (350 C.I.D. V8, air
                                                                        pump, A.I.R., no EGR) with
                                                                        lead sterile fuel and ashless
                                                                        lubricating oil, 500 miles
                                                                        test on this car.
                                                                      2. 4,156-35,821 miles accumu-
                                                                        lated on engine dynamometer
                                                                        with lead free fuel and
                                                                        ashless lubricating oil.
                                                                      3. CMS Test on car
                                                                        351 C.I.O. VQ, air pump,
                                                                        Thermactor, no EGR.
                                                                      4. All data per 1975 CVS-CH
                                                                        Test Procedure .
              Figure  5-23.   Engelhard PTX-433 Catalyst Durability Test
                                               5-72

-------
5. 7. 4. 1. 2    Standard PTX Catalyst Durability Data
5. 7. 4. 1. 2. 1  FTP Hot Cycle  Emission Data
A 50, 000-mile durability test was conducted (Ref. 5-25) for a standard PTX
catalyst on a Ford Torino station wagon equipped with a 351 C. I. D. V8 engine,
automatic transmission,  no air pump, and no EGR.   Each bank of the engine
has a PTX-433S catalyst located about 18 inches downstream of the manifold
under the front floor board. Commercially available lead-free fuel and
standard lubricating oil were used.  A city-suburban driving cycle was used
for mileage accumulation with an average  speed of 28 mph.  This  cycle con-
sisted of driving on rural,  city, and turnpike roads.  The FTP hot cycle
emission  results for one of the PTX catalysts are shown in Figure 5-24.  The
catalyst maintained a high  level of activity throughout the test period.
5.7.4.1.2.2   1975 CVS-CH Emission Data
To  establish activity durability of the present PTX catalyst using  1975 CVS
test procedures, a 25,000-mile test (Ref.  5-25')f wa-s conducted with a  1975
prototype exhaust emission control system which  included an air pump, an
exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system,  and two  PTX-5 catalytic converters
on a V-8 engine.  A city-suburban driving cycle was used for mileage
accumulation; Engelhard does not have a test track to allow strict compliance
with the EPA Certification Test.  Emission tests  were conducted at approxi-
mately 4000-mile intervals.  The data from this test are presented in
Figure 5-25  in terms of HC and CO concentrations and catalyst system effi-
ciencies.   Catalyst deactivation during the 25,000-mile test was minimal for
HC.  The CO emissions increased by about 50 percent but were  still below
the 1975 standards.
5.7.4. 1. 3     Durability Test by Automotive'Company
Engelhard has  a close working relationship with substantially all of the
domestic  and foreign automotive companies.  Figure 5-26 presents durability
data reported by American Motors to Engelhard (Ref. 5-4).  The test  car
                                    5-73

-------
a.
O
u
         * Con version efficiency
86%


2084
              286
74%



2676


 ^
                       696
                            92%



                            2650
                                210
                  96%



                  2080
                                               1
                                                       82%


                                                       3590
                                                        1

                                                 630
                                                      96%


                                                      3590
                                                               97%



                                                               1230
                                                                1
            570
          4.852
 11.106    16.393
                            24,657
33,500
36,641
48,300
                                         MILEAGE
 5
 a.
        'Conversion efficiency
          96%




          217
              8
         81%




         185
82%



236



^
                                    88%



                                    295
                    1
                       35

                           78%
         199
                     43
                           I
                              43
                  I
                                    79%
                                                        165
                                                  36
                                    79%



                                     165
                                                           34
                                                                82%



                                                                130
                                                                              23
            570      4,852     11,106    16,393    24,657    33,500    36,641     48,300



                                      MILEAGE



       Figure  5-24.  Engelhard  Federal Test Procedure Hot Cycle

                       Emission Data for a PTX-433-S Catalyst (Ford

                       Torino -  351 CID Engine)
                                       5-74

-------
4.0


3.5


3.0


2.5


2.0


1.5


1.0


0.5

                  1975-76 STANDARD
                  0.41 grams per mile
                  . 38 - -OJJ	0.37- _ 0.40 _ o. 39 _ _
                 n   n    n   n   n
  BASELINE 380   4125  8247  12,54019,53225,26025,268
                                    (1)    (1)(2) BASELINE
                         MILES
35
30
25
20
15
10
    30.2
                  -1975-76 STANDARD
                   3.4 grams per mile
          -2. 1"2. 15—i.g- —2.0--2.2--W--
           n   FI   n   n    n    11
 BASELINE 380   4125   8247  12,54019,53225,26025,268
                                    (1)   (1)(2) BASELINE
                         MILES
                                                               ON CAR  - 351 C.I.D.  V8 ENGINE

                                                               PTX-5 (8 corr. per in.)

                                                               CAR EQUIPPED WITH 1975
                                                               PROTOTYPE  SYSTEM  - EGR,
                                                               AIR  PUMP, PLATINUM
                                                               CATALYST CONVERTER
                                                            NOTES:
                                                               1.  Manifold to catalyst insulated.
                                                                  Air pump output partially diverted
                                                                  after cold start.

                                                               2.  Catalyst annul us insulated to
                                                                  'prevent bypassing

                                                               3.  No other adjustments to
                                                                  engine during test

                                                               4.  Lead sterile  fuel and ashless
                                                                '  lubricating oil

                                                               5.  1975 CVS-CH test procedure used

                                                               6.  City/suburban driving cycle

                                                            BASELINE - CAR  WITHOUT CATALYST
    level less than 3.0 grams per mile)
        Figure 5-25.   Englehard PTX-5  Catalyst Durability Test
                                          5-75

-------
(All
                            * CYLINDER CAR
                  except •» indicated are '72 CVS-C test. '75 emission
                      are Hated in terms of '72 CVS-C tests.)
CRAMS
  MR
 Mill
0.70

0.4A

fcJAV


0.40

o.ao
0.10

0.10


•9f




m*t-
•**«











ri
m
AM


7
M






i
7<
P
^


'X
A.


IS
IMI
















r^
H






.11
••'t
.j
&
»
K
',



IN
Ml















i/
04
•




10
1
M




$
?
••i

• '
IR
lil<
















D
•




ao

S)

v,
•_:
'<;!


IX.




























.13
'^

».'
v\
"•
^
tn



























.16
"5

*'', *


•'i
''$,
,:S
»>X


/ ;



















.41

?y.
1
;>
^!
'*",
^;i
|;



1
*ft

















^






42
Jj>

1
|
t^"

x
f

^
A






.41

:<^

1
'S1'
'%
.-:•:-••,


- !V
Jt A

















A





44

1
;.;'>;
£
1

*•
^

Ij
^
• o

















1



•••<
ll
*<&
^
P
,.'S
1
X'
;.\'"'
1

^"*.
>,; s
:t.
:A







.11
:'-'•
<•'>
.'S?
•'^v
•.''*
.'••?

A
ll
•/






a.
T*









k
                          .
                       A4».A. MILIACI IN THOUSANDS
«*•

is.
'CO »
CRAMS '
Mi t,
Mill
* ' ' A.


'
:: • : " ' >', ;, '
..'* '; :
; * .
W75-7* STANPARD
4.7 fMins per mile
:j ':••>'"''•'• "

.

i.Of
' ^ ' ' T ' 1
•i*W 1 ': I


!•'
P,I;

' !|'
I1'1
!if
00 4 1 19 14
i


lit
1
20

11.67


9.17
I
6.7


1

M
•''!'
!|!;'
!:;i"




I.S.
•*•



v
.




.at
I

•ii
.'
jri7



'''






•'t
/''







'•'•'




I,
k



#
6.4«






24 40 4444 48 50 50
                      ,A,M,A, MILIAOI IN THOUSANDS
                           •' 1.S-2-0 gram* per mile)
                                                   •1975 CV8-CH
Figure 5-26.   American Motors  Durability Test of Englehard
                            Catalyst

-------
was new,  but was not equipped with the improved chokes and carburetors
projected for use in 1975 cars.   The AMA driving cycle was used for mileage
accumulation and, generally, emission tests were made at 4000-mile intervals
using the  1972 CVS-C procedure.  At 50, 000-miles, a test was made using the
1975 CVS-CH procedure.  As shown in Figure 5-26, the hydrocarbon emissions
were  0.38 gm/mi and carbon monoxide emissions were 6.46 gm/mi.
According to AMC, most of the carbon monoxide was emitted during the cold
start  portion of  the test and that the projected 1975 choke and carburetor
modifications might be expected to improve the  system performance.
5.7.4.1.4    Retrofit Fleet Test of Durability
In addition to working with automotive manufacturers, Engelhard Industries
has cooperated  with fleet owners who are interested in retrofitting their cars
or trucks with catalytic devices.  One of these has involved the evaluation of
PTX units by the city of New York on Police Department patrol cars
(Ref.  5-4). The cars are 1971, six cylinder vehicles which has been using
commercially available unleaded fuel prior to catalyst installation.  However,
since at some time the cars could have been inadvertently filled with leaded
gasoline, the fuel and oil  systems were drained and refilled with commer-
cially available  unleaded fuel and 10W30 engine  oil (1. 2 percent  sulfated ash).

The cars are not designed to meet 1975 emission standards and have slowly
acting chokes.  In one instance, the choke did not fully open until 200 seconds
after the  start of the test.  The  retrofit consisted of an air pump and a PTX-5
catalyst.   Mileage was accumulated in the normal service of police work, and
there have been no unfavorable comments on driveability by the Police
Department.

These tests are still in progress; the most  recent data furnished by the city
of New York using the  1972 CVS-C procedure are presented in Figure 5-27.
As shown in this figure,  the reduction of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide
emissions is significant.
                                    5-77

-------
       Equipment - 1971 Special Police Model (6 Cylinder) Equipped With
                PTX-5 & Air Pump        No NOX  Control
                Fuel: Amoco Unleaded    Lube Oil: 10W3O (l.2%Sulfated A»h)
     Te«t Precedure..1972 CVS C Procedure (Single Bag) Te»t Every 4,OOO Miles
       HC
      GRAMS
       MIL!
       CO
      GRAMS
       PER
       MILE

7.0-
6.0'

5.0-


4.0'
3.0-

2.0'

l.O-





4. 55







ir?!.r
iBliliii
5-'::';:.:i
T.IJ; :r
1;
IP
•
iJT-i
T-'-'jE
Els?
iSfflv-
;>.r^r.




1.0*





S.46









111
ii-ti
-f-i;:."
Pi:
SS;.":!
i«i!wi-
ii^H
xsj;/
i^fr
HIP
rgsii
i=^
^"ir-:;






1.61





5.36









i'Hi;
lil
a?:ul
fenp
l£i
Ifl
sij^;
3^iii
iliuU::
PrftSi
i:i!r:r::'
Ip
;^.ir-:
p
KJ&;



5.36
1.4*




;"5-;;:
VJISS
Sf^'s
-«•/.;.
!i£-
iiiip
•••.tlli:,
*
11
r-M'|!t
Ljii^ii
-•*rrjii.
liiij
ill
Pjilip!







1.10

7.47












1
_M.-:rd;
li^
ill
JlilS;
:::.'(.-*;;-
ȣk:
?=»*
|-.-":tli
PS?
ib=
n
IP
K:'J!Si
l;
ih-j=S-:
xi-Uli
rj-'ir^
^-^S-j
P!T;r:











9.S7
      POUCI CAI NUMMI     1693    1866     2351     378     476
 MILES ON CATALYST    16,469  15,289   10,496   2,294    1,6O8

70.'
60.-

50.'


40.<

3O.<
20.-

10.'




47.5








:'~,?£

~xir.',:
=•:;;;:•
Ststf
US'
Uf.r?
r-l"k
m
y^fi
pu'-ii
[|i"«:
ill





14.7




55. •










i&g

;p!r
i'l-.rv.1-
Viv.M
•iS?!i»
jJw'jS;
IS
1-fflES
ti't-K
•'ivr-
^j;
i^l'v!'
^







17.4






SI. 7









aHS?
lirtri-

li|

li
!li|Sjij:
Hiii'-J
':•;!!:*;
.i.l;.|-;:.:
^^
m
irSi'J






l».3





54.1










,:i:.:.-.i
JSSi
•lifiirfi;

itl!iii
::!:'r-t
•:'r::n
ij;;-'j.-i;
':!!::;:;
Hi

1







14.0


76.3












'ff^>
;••!!{•
^'.iiiiK
Elfil?.
i
';ii'«

':Vi;:'i
'•»:£:!
•»;;>!;
^^'if:
•niiSf:
•liill/
;••*•:
ill!^
^:|!u
::.;ix
pi!
SB—I











1.56

      poiici CAR NUMtii     1693    1866     2351     378      476
 MILES ON CATALYST    16,469   15,289   10,496   2,294    1,608
                   BASELINE Eiian^a      OUTLET
                 (Car without catalyst)
Figure 5-27.  Emission Data on New York City-Owned Police
               Cars Equipped with Engelhard PTX-5 Catalyst
                                 5-78

-------
According to Engelhard, the emission data for cars 1693,  1866,  2351, and
378 indicate a deficiency of required secondary air in some parts of the test
cycle.  Engelhard feels that a proper balance of,raw emissions and secondary
air would improve  efficiency.
5. 7.4. 1. 5    Activity for Removal of Reactive Hydrocarbons
Engelhard stresses (Ref. 5-25) that although the activity of a catalyst in use
generally decreases with time, the PTX converter retains a high activity for
the conversion of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons--olefins and
aromatics--commonly recognized as being smog precursors.  This is
illustrated in Figure 5-28 which compares the activity (at steady state 30 MPH)
of a PTX catalyst after 500 and 50, 000 miles.

According to Engelhard, the significance of this finding is that there  need be
no stringent limits  on olefin and aromatic content of lead free fuel when the
PTX converter is used for automobile exhaust gas purification.
5. 7.4. 1. 6    Improved PTX-Type Catalyst Durability Data
The data presented in Figures 5-23 through 5-28 were obtained with the
standard PTX designed for automotive use. However, Engelhard (Ref.  5-4)
feels that improvements can be made and expects to accomplish these prior
to the 1975 model year.  The improvement potential of Engelhard "second-
generation" catalysts  is indicated by its laboratory and engine dynamometer
tests, but general durability confirmation has just started.

Figure 5-29 presents  durability data for one of these improved catalysts which
was tested with the air pump output partially diverted after cold start.   Lead-
sterile fuel and ashless lubricating oil were used.  Prior to the 8550-mile
test, the distributor points were replaced and the,ignition readjusted.

Figure 5-29 shows that the hydrocarbon emissions for the improved PTX-5
at 8550 miles were 0. 26 gm/mi as compared with the standard PTX-5 with
0.41 gm/mi at 8247 miles in Figure 5-25.   The carbon monoxide  emissions
                                    5-79

-------
00
o
                                               FRESH PTX      AGED PTX
                                              (after 500 mi)  (after 50,000 mi)

             SMOG PRECURSORS

                % REMOVAL OF HYDROCARBONS

                ACETYLENES                      100.0           100.0
OLEFINS
AROMA TICS
99.1
99.1
93.7
93.4
OTHER HYDROCARBONS

  OTHER PARAFFINS                   93.9           36.8

  METHANE                           11.3            9.6


TOTAL HYDROCARBONS                 97, 1           81.4
(carbon basis)


DECREASE IN TOTAL REACTIVITY        99.2           91.9
OF EMITTED HYDROCARBONS
                 Figure 5-28.  Engelhard Test Results (Steady State 30 MPH) - Removal of
                            Olefins and Aromatics After 50, 000 Miles

-------



HC
GRAMS
PER
MILE

3.5-

3.0.
2.5,
2.0.

1.5.
1.0.
.5.

ON
1351 C.I. D.



2.4
(
- u:
1 L
1 , "
r
! -1,
J l>
J_
' t -L

CAR
V8 ENGINE)
. Car oquippad with 1975 prototype
syst0m--EGR, air pump and
catalytic converter.

	 "°'22~ 	 0.18-
BSSJS1^^ ^WTfMRl
BASELINE 0 513

1975-76 STANDARD
O.41 grams per mil*
	 0.23 	 0.26 	
«M»; IMNTOl '
5350 8550
 CO
GRAMS
  PER
 MILE
30-

25..

20-
15..

10..
5..












26.0
; ..r.
iii'-'iJHS'lii
.r:..;-p
Bill
F" '?.;!
'". !-'--.i:. .:'r^
"••..•: '••*'.
Pii






1975-76 STANDARD
3.4 grams p»r mil*
1
2.10 "2.30
             BASELINE      O          513        5350


                          (NOx'*vtl Uss tkoi 3.0 gn« ••/ nil*)
8550
   Figure 5-29.  Engelhard Imoroved PTX-5 Catalyst Durability Test
                                 5-81

-------
for the improved PTX-5 after 8550 miles were approximately the same as
the standard PTX at 8247 miles (See Figure 5-10).
5. 7. 4. 2       Comparison with Auto Company Test Data
Representative auto company test data for Engelhard catalysts are presented
in Tables 5-11 through 5-17.
5.7.5         W. R. Grace
W. R. Grace uses two  350-cu-in.  Chevrolet automobiles in its test work: the
first, a 1970 Impala; the second,  a 1971 Chevelle (Ref.  5-5).  These are
regular production  cars to which they have added an air pump which injects
air into the exhaust manifold.
5. 7. 5. 1       Low Mileage Emissions
Table 5-18 summarizes typical results obtained with Grace oxidation catalysts
in the fresh condition.   The circled values  represent values at or below 1975
standards.  In this  tabulation,  the catalysts designated as "D-" are materials
which have been supplied to automobile manufacturers for test; those desig-
nated "R-" are still experimental materials.   The emission levels of these
cars, when operated with air injection in the  manifold and no catalyst, are of
the order of magnitude specified with regard  to hydrocarbons and CO by the
State of California for  1974.

As  of the present time, Grace  feels that two of its catalysts are  candidates
for commercial production.  These are Davex 142, a base metal pellet
catalyst, and Davex 502, a noble metal monolith catalyst.

Davex 502 was s.elected on the  basis of data from Runs No.  221,  300,  and 383
in Table 5-18.  Notice that Davex 142 (Run No. 487 in Table 5-18) does  not
meet the 1975 standard with  respect to carbon monoxide.  However,  it has
been reported to Grace by the A-C Division of General Motors that tests with
the Davex 142 catalysts have resulted in low mileage emission levels of
0. 20-0. 25 gm/mi of hydrocarbons and 2. 0-2. 5 gm/mi of carbon monoxide.
                                    5-82

-------
Table 5-11.   Engelhard Catalyst Data- -Chrysl
Test
Xo.
1
21

1
6
30

2

1
35
1
30

1
27
7 '


24

1
20
21
1

1
12

Car Xo.
119


134



145

258

278


303

306


326

333


376

385


Model and/or CID
440


GP57H43/360



318

CD57E41/360

GD57-41/360


CP57H43/360

GP57H43/360


HD63-M-41/400-2V

360


HV24/225

360- 2V


Test
Weight





























Test
Date





























Sys em Description
AI
EGR
X 1
X

X
x


X

X

X


X
X
X


X

X


X

X


X


X


X

X

X



X
X


X

X


X

X

Mod.
Garb.



















X









EFE

TP


















30rc

Size















Cast
Reactors
Cast
Reactors










i
Catalyst
Xoble/Mo-,o
0. 2rj Pt; Oval
Test
Proc.
1972
1975
135 ir,.3 i
Xoble/Mono
0.2~:, Pt;
5 in. o. d.
90 in. 3
Noble. 'Mono
Oval (under seat)
Xoble/Mono
0.35^ Pt.
Noble/Mono


Xoble/Mono
0. 2"i Pt; Oval
Xoble/Mono
0.2r, Pt; Oval
135 in. 3
Xoble/Mono
0. 2T» Pt; Oval
Xoble/Mono
0.2% Pt ; twin

Xoble/Mono
PTX 523
Xoble/Mono
O.SS0"; Pt.
1972
Test
Mileage
Emissions, gm/mi
KC
0 0. 51
1,263

0. 23

0 : 0. 13
1972 133 • 0.15
1972

1*75

1972
1?75
1972
1975
1.7:2 0.40

0

CO
3.C
l.n

4. 3
3.4
5. 9

1.66

10 0.22
627 0.23
15 0.22
1,446
0. 14
i
1972
1972
1972


1975

1972
1972
1972
1975

1?72
1972

0
1, 294
1.030


1, 201

0
35,943
36,094
0

0
20, COO

0.37-
0. 24
0. 12


0.48

0.41
0.36
0. 33
0. 35

0.28
0.26

15.0
•.:O
3. 5
1.28

Remarks
Xo EGR
EGR added; choke
modification
4.41 Xo EGR
2. 25
2. 24

EGR above 120UF


2. 17 Yerv rich choke
!
2.6 1.54
0.9
3.3
1.2

4. 3
8.0
5. 7


2.3

2.48
4.7
4.1
4. :

4.3
:.34
5. 44
2. 3
3. 6;

4.05
1.67
. 54


2.4

1.49
0. 78
1. 56
2. 24

2. 19
1. 56

EGR off

Xo EGR: double wall
exhaust pipe added
Double wall exhaust p;
Baseline with EGR






Replaced mono wraupi




Catalyst failed

                        5-83

-------
Table 5-11.  (Continued)


Test
No.
10


3

1
14
3
4
5
6
1
3


1
5





Car No.
467


499

585 •

624

650/698



683



	


Model and /or CID
HP57P43/.360


HP57/360

440

400

400



360





Test
Weight



















Test
Date




















A! •
	
x




•x


!
1 X

'

X






EGP.
x












x




Sys
Mod.
Carb.


















om ilJvi s c

ETE



,














r-i'-Xion

• TR
Cast
Ke actors

30Tt Cast
Reactors















Catalyst
Noble/ Mono
0. 2T. Pt; Oval

Noble/Mono
0. 1*1 Pt; Oval
Noble/Mono
• 0. i*i Pt; Oval
Noble /Mono
O.i"'-. Pt; 5 in.
o.d.
Noble/Mono
0.2T» Pt; Two
4 in. diam units

Noble/Mono
0. 2"; Pt; Oval




Test
Pvoc.
1575


197;

1V75

1972 Hot

Hot
7-rr.^de
1°72 hot

1972
1972




Test.
Mileaje
171


107

0
13,676
.0
381
i;l°4
0
43. 000


n
8, 350



ErrisEi&r.s, gm/rr.i
	
HC CO NOX
0.12 6.5 1.43


0.2 3.3 2ilv

0. 73 2. 3 2.41
0.44 2.1 1,. 50.
0.10 5.9 3.12
0.37 3.2 4.49
0.20 2.8 '4.26
0.12 4.6 3.66
0. 12 1. 51
0. 16 1.88 3.91


0.03 3.8 3.31
0.11 6.74 3.07





Remarks







[ Leaded fuel used
I Unleaded fuel used

Converters damaeed


Double wall exhaust J
EGR above 120°F
	 	

         5-84

-------
Table 5-12.  Engelhard Catalyst Data--Volvo, International
            Harvester,  American Motors,  and General Mot


Test
Xo.
520
776

433

913
1099
601

1091




















Car No.
OB 46232


OB 46234

OB 54821

OB 46234
and
OB 44083

161


DOO-24
DOO-25

61319


1420

17934







Car and/or CID
'72 Model 142 E; Engine B20F


Model 144; Engine B20F


Test
Weight




'
Model 144; Engine B20B

'72 Model 144; Engine B20F



1100 D Travelall: V-345


232-6
232-6

Chevrolet 350


Opel 1.9 liter

'71 Buick - 455













3000
3000

4500


2500








Test
Date
12/10/71
2/15/72

11/29/71

3/3/72
4/7/72
1/10/72
4/7/72


1/20/72
2/26/72
3/26/72



8/71
11/71
2/72
2/72

2/72




	 1 |
System Description

AI
X


X

X

X



X


X
X

X


X

X



	

ECR







X









X


X





	
Mod.
Carb.



!
EFE ' 7R Catalyst
Xoble/Mo:io
1 ' PTX-416
i

! ! Xoble/Moao




Emissions, sm/mi
Test Test '
Proc. Mileaae KC
1975 i 0

CO
0.43 ' 1.92
2. 030 0. 23 ' 1. 59

1975

0

0.12 2. IS
; i PTX-416 | ' 600 0.29 1.33



Xoble/Mono
; PTX-416
Noble/.\!T.io
! - PTX-416
: | '


l
• Noble/Mono
i




X


X


)
















{Stacked Substrate)




Noble/Mono
PTX-4 '

Xoble/Mono '
PTX
1 Xoble/Mono
PTX-423S (2)
. (0. 2iro Pt) . .


1975 0 ! 0. 11

[•'•75
2, vOO i 0. 36
1.55
2.13
0 0.21 2 17
25, 344

i
197 =


197:
1975

1975


1975

1975

0
8, 000
10. 353
50, 000
24, 000

0
8, 424
21, 527
0

70, 000
C. 24


0.29
0.35

0.323
0. 75

0. 13
0. 51
0. 55
0.23

0.85b
2.45


4. 10
3. 93

4.803
8. 57

1.9
4.9
5. 5
2.7

8.7b
i



0. 15


1.3

aLeast squares straight line value Average of two tests ' ' g

NO
X
2.60
.2.90

2. 12
3.82
2.48
0.79
1. 31
1. 82


3.82
3.79

1.45
2.75

1. 3
1.4
1.6
1. 5

3.5b


3.3




P err.arks
Volvo {Ref. 5-40, 5-46)









1
Int. Harvester (Ref. 5-471

Loose substrate
AM. Motors (Ref. 5-48)


Gen. Motors (Ref. 5-45)




After completion of high
speed tire test 70,000-mi
run at Arizona track.
Same car - Fresh
PTX 423S catalysts

                                     5-85

-------
Table 5-13.  Engelhard Catalyst Data—British Ley-land
Car
Austin Marina (A)
Austin Marina (A)
Triumph GT-6 (C)
Triumph Spitfire (D)
TR-6 (E)
Jaguar XJ-6 (F)
Mileage
0
ll,400b
11,450
17, 000b
0
4, 000
0
0
0
0
4, 100
EGR
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Emissions, gm/mia
HC CO NOX '
0.11 1.78 1.86
0.28 2.73 2.32
0.34 2.08 1.65
0.63 4.65 1.32
0.04 1.49 1.67
0.098 0.92 2.27
0.58 1.78 2.04
0.50 1.95 L.87
0.39 5.10 1.75
0.08 2.80 0.86
0.15 3.00 1.10
a!975 CVS-CH test procedure
Valve recession; new head fitted after test

-------
                             Table 5-14. Engelhard Catalyst Data--Saab Scania
Test
No.
1
2
3

Vehicle
No.
340
340
271

Fuel
System
El. Inj.
El. Inj.
Carb.

Air
Injection
Yes
Yes
Yes

EGR
No
No
On - Off

Driving
Cycle
Normal
Normal
MARC

Mileage
0
4, 550b
0
l,770b
0
7, 700b
Emissions, gm/mia
NO
HC CO x
0.61 5.72 1.46
1.22 17.7 1.48
0.33 4.32 1.12
0.95 16.51 1.34
0.43 2.99 0.96
0.87 15.12 0.95
a!975 CVS-CH test procedure
Catalyst insert loose
Mileage accumulation route (ave. speed = 32 mph, highest speed = 55 mph, 16 hr/day)
Ui
I
oo

-------
                           Table 5-15.  Engelhard Catalyst D'ata--Dairnler Benz
Test
Date
12-9-71
12-10-71
12-16-71
1-31-72
10-27-71
10-29-71
11-3-71
11-4-71
11-11-71
11-11-71
11-12-71
11-12-71
11-15-71
11-10-71
11-10-71
11-16-71
11-18-71
11-24-71
12-8-71
12-9-71
Test
No.
1778
1788
1818
2032
1579
1591
1574
1611
1632
1636
1639
1640
1644
1655
1657
1679.
1683
1710
1770
1780
Car
Model
220V25
220V25
220V25
220VL5
250CE
250
250CE
250CE
250CE
250CE
250CE
250CE
250CE
250CE
250CE
250CE
250CE "-
250CE
250CE
250CE
License
Plate




114E73
S-J8529
114E73
114E73
114E73
114E73
114E73
114E73
114E73
114E73
114E73
S-J8191
114E73
114E73
114E73
114E73
•f
Emissions, gm/mi
HC
0. 38
0.25
0.41
0.23
0.75
0.. 24
0.30
0.36
0.51
0.22
0.35
0.27
0. 36
0.51
0.45
0,73
0. 35
0.56
0.36
0. 34
CO
3.48
2.04
8.19
2.84
5.43
1.85
1.57
1.74
1.13
1.85
2.. 09
2.69
2.69
3.69
1.83
1.73
3.50
4.39
3.06
3.52
NO
X
0.61
0.72
0.61
0.44
1.16
1.69
1.84
1.97
1.72
1.94
2.15
1.27
2.01
1.65
1.55
1.82
2.16
2.12
1.82
2.20
Oxidize r Catalyst
Englehard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard PTX-4.4.5
Engelhard 2 PTX-4,
PTX-5
Engelhard PTX-4.4.5
Engelhard PTX-4.4.5
Engelhard PTX-4.4.5
Engelhard PTX-4.4.5
Engelhard PTX-4.4.5
Engelhard PTX-4.4.5
Engelhard PTX-4.4.5
Engelhard PTX-4.4.5
Engelhard PTX-4.4.5
Engelhard PTX-4.4.5
Engelhard PTX-4.4.5
Engelhard PTX-4.4.5
Engelhard PTX-4.4.5
Engelhard PTX-4
Vehicle
Mass
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
4000
4000
4000
3500
4000
I
00
00

-------
Table 5-15.  Engelhard Catalyst Data--Daimler Benz  (Continued)
Test
Date
12-10-71
12-14-71
12-17-71
1-24-72
1-26-72
3-6-72
12-14-71
1-4-71
1-7-72
1-10-72
1-27-72
1-27-72
2-2-72 -
2-3-72
2-8-72
2-9-72
2-10-72
2-11-72
2-16-72
2-15-72
Test
No.
1791
1805
1827
1997
2015
2208
1807
1873
1911
1912
2012
2Q20
2028
2057
2072
2076
2079
2084
2085
2099
Car
Model
250
250
250CE
250CE
280
250CE
W108
W108
450
450
W108
W.1.08 .
W1.08.
W108
W108
W108 .
W108
W108
W108
W108
License
Plate
S-J8529
S-J8191
114E73
114E73
S-J8191
114E73
E60

E60
. E60

. ~. .








*fr
Emissions, gm/mi'
HC
0, 30
0, 33
0. 33
0. 31
0,68
0.33
0.47
0.35
0.20
0.31
0.40
.0.48
0. 11
0.13
0. 17
0.22
0.16
0. 19
0.12
0. 14
CO
3.04
3. 18
3. 16
3.99
7.21
7.66
3.99
4.32
3.37
4.09
3.62
, 1.49
3,. 42
2.08
2.41
2.81
1.88
1.90
2.35
2.87
NO
X
1.89
1.36
1.88
2.97
2. 24
2.95
1.60
1.75
2.05
2.08.
2.34
. 2. ..5.9
1.91
1.82
1.70
1.61
1.57
1.23
1.19
1. 18
Oxidizer Catalyst
Engelhard 2 PTX-4,
PTX-5
Engelhard 2 PTX-4,
PTX-5
Engelhard PTX-4
Engelhard PTX-4
Engelhard PTX-4
Engelhard PTX-4
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard
Engelhard 4 PTX-4
Engelhard 4. PTX-4
Engelhard 4 PTX-4
Engelhard
Engelhard 4 PTX- 4
Engelhard 4 PTX-4
Engelhard
Engelhard 4 PTX-4
Engelhard 4 PTX-4
Engelhard 4 PTX-4
Vehicle
Mass
3500
3500
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
.4000 ..
4000
4000 -.
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000
4000

-------
                        Table 5-15.  Engelhard Catalyst Data--Daimler Benz (Continued)
Ul
I
vO
o
Test
Date
2-18-72
2-'25-72
3-3-72
3-7-72
Test
No.
2110
2151
2197
2204
Car
Model
W108
W108
W108
W108
License
Plate
E60
$
Emissions, gm/mi
HC
0.13
0. 22
0^13
6.10
CO
2.45
3'. 81
5. 56
3.17
NO
X
1. 35
1. 17
0.97
1.44
Oxidizer Catalyst
Engelhard 4 PTX-4
Engelhard
Engelhard 4 PTX-4
•Engelhard PTX-4
Vehicle
Mass
4000
4000
4000
4000
* 1975 CVS -CH test procedure

-------
                       Table 5-16a.  Engelhard Catalyst Data -  Ford Riverside Program
                                    (Group I Single Catalyst) (Ref. 5-35)
.Vehicles
250 Maverick -1
(1) PTX-6. 35
250 Maverick -2
351 Ford -1
(2) PTX-5. 35
351 Ford -2
360 F-100 -1
(1) PTX-7. 35
360 F-100 -2
460 Lincoln -1
(2) PTX-6. 35
460 Lincoln -2
Average:
\
0 Miles
HC CO NO
X
0.41 2.23 2.45
0.32 0.95 2.92
0.19 1.91 2.34
0.2 1.75 2.46
0.55 4.42 2.30
0.49 2.83 2.45
0.63 3.21 2.36
0.43 2.88 2.16
0.40 2.52 2.43
2000 Miles
HC CO NO
X
0.58 3.28 2.96
0.35 1.37 4.2
0.43 3.17 2.47
0.22 2.32 2.75
0.47 3.82 2.55
0.36 2.41 2.81
0. 54 3. 52 2. 25
0. 54 3. 39 2. 31
0.44 2.91 2.79
4000 Miles
HC CO NO
X
0.63 3.56 3.48
0.42 3.19 3.04
0.25 1.91 2.56
0. 32 2. 29 2. 89
0. 38 4. 4 2. 47
0.33 2.11 2.74
0.6 3.21 2.35
0.7 4.43 2.51
0.45 3.14 2.76
0-4000 Mile
Deterioration Factor
HC CO NO
X
1.5 1.68 1.52
1.34 3.53 1.03
1 . 49 0. 9 1 . 09
1.65 1.29 1.17
0.69 0.93 1.07
0.65 0.74 1.12
0.96 1.0 0.95
1.13 1.55 1.14
1.18 1.45 1.14
Note: Emission values (in grams per mile) are the average of two consecutive 1975 CVS-CH Tests.
I
sO

-------
                       Table 5-l6b.  Engelhard Catalyst Data— Ford Riverside Program

                                     (Group II, Extra Catalyst with Reactor) (Ref. 5-35)
Vehicles
250 Maverick -1
(Z) PTX-6.35
250 Maverick -2
351 Ford -1
(2) PTX-5. 35
(1) PTX-7. 35
351 Ford -2
360 F-100 -1
(2) PTX-7. 35
360 F-100 -2
460 Lincoln -1
(2) PTX-6. 35'
(1) PTX-7. 35
460 Lincoln -2
Average:
0 Miles
HC CO NO
X
0.22 3.23 1.76
0.54 8.74 1.68
0.36 3.72 2.17
0.32 4.21 1.76
0.38 4.45 1.44
0.24 3.96 3.12
0. 23 2. 22 2. 33
0,32 4.51 1.97
0. 33 4. 38 2. 03
2000 Miles
HC CO NO
X
0.32 2.98 2.02
0.49 9.79 1.83
0.27 2.93 2.06
0.4 4.65 1.88
0.39 4.99 1.62
0. 25 3. 43 2. 55
0. 27 4. 29 2. 63
0.35 6.28 2.02
0.34 4.92 2.08
4000 Miles
HC CO NOx


0.40 4.82 2.08
0.32 5.58 1.57
0.4 5.63 1.75
0.26 3.16 1.91
0. 26 3. 58 2. 33
0.37 5.6 2.17
0. 34 4. 62 2. 09
0-4000 Mile
Deterioration Factor
HC CO NO
X




1.07 1.03 1.23

1.13 1.51 1.0
1.17 1.22 1.11
1.12 1.25 1.11
Note: Emission values (in grams per mile) are the average of two consecutive 1975 CVS-CH tests.
(Jl
I
ru

-------
                      Table 5-16c.  Engelhard Catalyst Data— Ford Riverside Program

                                   (Group III, Extra Catalyst) (Ref. 5-35)
Vehicles
250 Maverick -1
(2) PTX - 6. 35
250 Maverick -2
351 Ford -1
(2) PTX - 5. 35
(1) PTX - 7. 35
351 Ford -2
360 F-100 -1
(2) PTX - 7. 35
360 F-100 -2
460 Lincoln -1
(2) PTX - 6. 35
(1) PTX - 7. 35
460 Lincoln -2
Average:
0 Miles
HC CO NO
0.32 0.6 2.34
0.21 1.73 2.08
0.17 1.77 2.26
0.26 1.53 2.19
0.34 4.71 2.05
0.32 1.71 2.09
0.28 1.59 2.1
0.24 4.26 2.18
0.27 2.24 2.16
2000 Miles
HC CO NO
X
0.31 1.11 3.09
0.6 2.18 2.7
0.2 1.51 2.2
0.34 1.46 2.26
0.40 4.01 1.98
0.24 1.08 2.24
0.31 3.35 2.59
0.31 5.68 1.99
0.36 2.59 2.35
4000 Miles
HC CO NO
X
0.37 0.95 3.36

0.28 1.56 2.45






0-4000 Miles
Deterioration Factor
HC CO NO
1.02 1.71 1.59








Note: Emission values (in grams per mile) are the average of the consecutive 1975 CVS-CH tests.
Ul
I
U)

-------
Table 5-l6d.  Engelhard Catalyst Data — Ford Riverside Program
              (Group I,  Single Catalyst)
Vehicle

250 Maverick C-l
(1) PTX - 6. 35

250 Maverick C-2
(1) PTX - 6. 35

351 Ford C-l
(2) PTX - 5. 35

351 Ford C-2
(2) PTX - 5. 35

360 F-100 C-l
(1) PTX - 7. 35

360 F-100 C-2
(1) PTX - 7. 35

460 Lincoln C-l
(2) PTX - 6. 35

460 Lincoln C-2
(2) PTX - 6. 35
HC

0.66
0.59

0. 33
0. 36

0,20
0. 30

0. 37
0. 26

0.62
0. 32

0. 34
0. 38

0.47
0. 61

0.94
0.46
CO
4000 Mile
3.36
3.76
2000 Mile
1. 12
1. 61
4000 Mile
1.69
2. 12
4000 Mile
2. 44
2. 13
2000 Mile
4. 37
3. 26
2000 Mile
2. 10
2. 72
2000 Mile
3. 22
3.82
4000 Mile
4.46
4. 39
Note: Emission values (in grams per
consecutive 1975 CVS-CH tests
NO
X

3.77
3. 19

3. 70
4.69

2.52
2. 60

2.77
3. 00

2.86
2.24

2.76
2. 85

2. 27
2. 23

2. 61
2.41
HC

0. 78
0.66

0. 41
0. 42

0. 25
0. 23

0. 24

0. 41
0. 34

0. 32
0. 33

0. 57
0. 63

0. 57
mile) are the ave
CO
8000 Mile
2. 28
2.37
4000 Mile
3. 60
2. 67
8000 Mile
1.84
2. 32
8000 Mile
2.45
4000 Mile
4. 21
4. 59
4000 Mile
2. 12
2. 09
4000 Mile
2.93
3.49
8000 Mile
3.63
rage of two
NO
X

3. 37
3. 46

3. 05
3.02

2. 55
2. 45

2.45

2.47
2. 46

2.72
2.76

2. 26
2. 44

2. 40

                               5-94

-------
Table 5-17.  Engelhard Catalyst Data-Ford "1975 Durability Test Program" (Ref. 5-35)


Engine /Vehicle
Combination
12A90-D
1P38-D
1971 2.0L-2V A/T Pinto
IA58-D
1971 351W-2V A/T Ford

17A54-D
1971 351W A/T Ford
1L27-D
1971 460V A/T Lincoln
Syitem Description


AJ
X
X

X


X

X


CCR
X
X

X


X

X

Mod.
Garb.
X
X

X


X




TR
Type H
Phase I;
No core
Type H


Type H

Phase I
No core

Catalyst
PTX 5.35 (2)
PTX 5.35 (1)

PTX 5. 35 (R-Side)
PTX 5. 10 (L-Side)

PTX 5.35 (R-Side)
PTX 5.2 (L-Side)
PTX 6. 35 (2)


AMA
Durability
Mileage
0
1, 500
16, 500
0
25.000
25,000
0
45,000
0
35.000
Cold Emitiionf, gm/mi


HC
0.41

0. 17
0.23
3. 10
1.24
0.29
0.83
0.25
0.53

CO
4.68

6.84
3. 11
12. 13
11.48
8.36
15.09
3.82
3.66

X
0.70

1. 52
1.27
1.42
1.62
0.86
1.43
0.88
1.59
Hot Emissions, gm/mi


HC
0.28
0.07
0. 11
0. 10
3.08
0.67
0. 17
0.81
0.05
0.46

CO
1.39
0.23
7.25
1.41
9.43
5.66
2.61
6.98
2.70
3.61
NO
X
0.81
1.29
1.09
0.99
0.35
0.95
0.83
0.63
0.68
1.52
Remarks







Three port linera failed
After valve job


Reworked left reactor;
new head linen
U|»972-CVS-C test procedure

-------
Table 5-18.  Grace Vehicle Emission Data (1975
            CVS-CH Test Procedure)
Run No.
88
18
270
93
239
245
275
280
487
250
286
221
300
383
414
Catalyst
Designation
D45
D-45V
D-115
D-117
D-135
D-138
R-9119
D-139
D-142
D-501
R-9109
D-502
D-502
D-502
D-602
Vehicle
—
—
1970
—
1970
1971
1970
1970
1971
1971
1971
1970
1971
1971
1971
Catalyst Type
Pellet, Base
Pellet, Base
Pellet, Base
Pellet, Base
Pellet, Base
Pellet, Base
Pellet, Base
Pellet, Mix
Pellet, Base
Monolith, Base
Monolith, Mix
Monolith, Noble
Monolith, Noble
Monolith, Noble
Monolith, Noble
Catalyst
Volume,
in-^
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
70
70
51
51
36
36
Emissions,
Km /mi
HC
dS>
CQ» 2g^P
cgTjTD
cO£>
CUD
(QI^
(grrp
(§TFD
dP
d£>
dD
cs>
CjD
dz>
cGD
CO
5.90
4. 70
5. 37
6,41
3.99
4.94
CO3>
dTTp
3. 87
3.77
cO£>
SB>
COD
C2TjL>
3HP
Note:
Pellet Nominal 1 /8-in dia ball or extrudate
Monolith Ceramic (Cordierite) structure
Base Base metal catalytic agent
Noble Main catalytic agent of noble metal
Mix Main catalytic agent of base metal —promoted by more than
trace quantity of noble metal
d_^) Values at or below 1975 emission standards
                     5-96

-------
5. 7. 5. 2       High Mileage Emissions
The only data received by Grace from automobile companies are results
reported by GM on two catalysts.  One of these, Davex 45V, was aged for
50, 000 miles by the AMA durability procedure and the emission levels
determinedby the 1972 CVS-C procedure.  The other catalyst, Davex42, was
aged for 50, 000 miles; however, no emission  data were provided by Grace.
A standard 1970 vehicle -with a 350 cubic inch  engine was used in these tests.

Figures 5-30 and 5-31 show the GM results translated to  1975 CVS-CH values
using a correlation developed by Grace for pellet catalysts (Ref. 5-5).

The 50,000 mile,  1975 CVS procedure levels for this catalyst are 0.6 gm/mi
hydrocarbons and  11  gm/mi carbon monoxide.  Grace stated that it had
specified a temperature limit of  1600  F for this catalyst, but the catalyst
was exposed to temperature excursions as high as 2000 F and operated a
substantial portion of the time above  1600 F during the first 3000 miles.  By
the end of the test the catalyst had undergone substantial shrinkage (but no
weight loss)  and there was possible bypassing or channeling in the container.
To the best of Grace's knowledge,  the 1970  vehicle used in this test was not
specially provided  with low emission hardware other  than air injection into
the exhaust manifold.
5. 7. 5. 3       Comparison with Auto Company Test Data
Applicable auto company data from Chrysler (Ref.  5-17), International
Harvester (Ref. 5-47), and General Motors (Ref. 5-45) are shown in Table 5-19.
The maximum mileage reported is 23, 000 miles.
5.7.6          Johnson-Matthey
Johnson-Matthey, the parent company of Matthey Bishop, has reported
(Ref.  5-13) results from a vehicle configured to demonstrate its catalytic
converter concept (noble metal/monolith).  The test vehicle is a Chrysler
Avenger with a 1.5 liter GL, Plymouth Cricket engine designed to meet 1972
                                    5-97

-------
      14 i
M
t/m

O
ISSI

CD
MO
                              CO DETERIORATION FACTOR 1.32

                              • ACEO ON AMA DURABILITY SCHEDULE
                              • TESTED BY 1972 CVS-C PROCEDURE
                              • DATA CONVERTED TO 1975 EQUIVALENTS
                                 BY GRACE
                   10
                               20    25    30
                               MILES, thousands
                                                35
                                                      40
                                                            45
                                                                 50
Figure 5-30.
                  General Motors Durability Evaluation  of Davex
                  45-V Catalyst (CO Emissions)
,—
O
g/m
P
SSI
p
Ok
               j
                   10
                                         *
                                   HC DETERIORATION FACTOR 1.38
                                   • AGED ON AMA DURABILITY SCHEDULE
                                   • TESTED BY 1972 CVS-C PROCEDURE
                                   • DATA CONVERTED TO 1975 EQUIVALENTS
                                      BY GRACE
                                     1      II      II
                               20    25    30
                               MILES, thousands
                                                35
                                                      40
                                                            45
                                                                 50
Figure 5-31.
                 General Motors Durability Evaluation of Davex
                 45-V  Catalyst (HC Emissions)
                                   5-98

-------
                                   Table  5-19.  W.R. Grace  Catalyst Data
                                                                                         5-105
Test No.

2
36












Car
No.
Car and/or CID
Chrysler
117
258
360
GD57E41/360
Int. Harvester
161
HOOD Travel.ll: V-345
General Motors
61336
61341
61340
61330
61324
2827
2823
1246
2014
2611
2484
1450
Chev 350
Chev 350
Chev 350
Chev 402
Chev 402
Buick 455
Buick 455
Cad 500
Old. 350
Old. 350
Old! 455
Opel 1.9 Liter
Test
Weight




4500
4500
4500
4500
4500
5000
5000
5500
4500
5000
5000
1500
Test
Date




7/71
8/71
8/71
10/71
6/71
2/72
1/72
1/72
2/72
3/72
4/72
2/72
3/72
4/72
2/72
3/72
12/71
1/72
2/72
System Description
AI

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


X
EGR

X


X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

3C
Mod.
Garb.




X
X
X
X
X


X
X

X
EFE












X


TR

30T. Site













Catalyst

Noble/Mono Davex 47V
3 x 3-1/4 in. Discs (21
Base/Pellet Davex 45V
Noble /Mono {Spiral
Substrate!
Base/Pellets (Davex 1171
Base/Pellets (Davex 1171
Base/Pellets (Davex 1171
Base/Pellets (Davex 117)
Base/Pellets (Davex 1171
Base/Pellets Davex 142
SMR 7-3881
Base /Pellets Davex 142
SMR 7-3881
Base /Pellets Davex 117
Base/Pellet Davex 142
SMR-7-3881
Base /Pellet Davex 142
SMR-7-3881
Base/Pellet Davex 142
SMR-7-3881
Base/Pellet Davex 117
Test
Free.

1972
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975

Test
Mileage

0
459
0
0
16.000
800
400
150
100
1,000
88
0
0
20
3.034
6.436
0
6.337
12.022
2
1,000
0
12,000
23,000
Emissions, gm/mi
HC

0.40
0.60
0.66
0.46
0.46
0.30
0.50
0.60
0.37
0.36
0.27
0.20
0.27
0.59
0.70
0.89
0.40
0.52
0.91
0.33
0.34
0.53
0.73
1.2
CO

8.3
5. 1
4. 1
5. 1
6.85
7.0
7.0
10.0
12.8
4.1
4.2
4.7
1.7
11.1
11.6
15.5
9.0
17.7
24.0
6.5
6.4
10.4
10.8
22.9
NOX

1.01
1.41
5.93
4.51
3.99
1.3
1. 1
1.4
0.8
0.9
3.7
2.9
2.9
2. 1
2.0
2.9
2.3
2.4
2.2
3.9
3.2
1.7
2.2
2.5
Remarks




(Arvin co-op)
(Norria co-op)
(Walker co-op)








vD

-------
emission regulations,  equipped with Stromberg CD2SE low emission
carburetor and vacuum advance-retard distributor.  It is modified to a low
compression engine (8:1) with improved valve seats for use with lead-free
fuel.  The modifications include an EGR system, and a manifold air oxidation
system designed by Ricardo &  Company Engineers, Limited, equipped with a
                         3
Lucas AP1F air pump  (4 ft /min at 850 rpm running at 1:1  engine speed) and
a Smith air dump valve for deceleration modes.

An AEC3A catalyst is  used in the current test program.  It has ceramic
monolith supports for  low pressure drop, high thermal and mechanical shock
resistance,  low attrition loss,  and low thermal mass.  The support is treated
with a proprietary -wash coat to increase the area available for deposition of
the  active catalyst.  The catalyst formulation is based on promoted platinum
metals for increased effectiveness.

Johnson-Matthey reports that with these engine modifications vehicle
driveability is not significantly impaired; however, performance of the vehicle
decrease marginally due to the use of EGR  and the pressure drop in the
catalyst unit.  The fuel penalty incurred is  not expected to  be more than
5 percent,  and possibly  less than 3 percent.  The gasoline  used for the
endurance test has a reported  lead content of 0. 000563 gm/gal.

The vehicle has been tested according to the 1975 CVS-CH  test procedure.
The breakdown of CVS tests is quoted for reference, giving the total emissions
(in  grams) for the three exhaust bags:  cold transient (first 505  seconds^cold
stabilized (rest of driving cycle),and hot transient  (second  505 seconds).
Johnson-Matthey intends to continue this road test until 50, 000 miles have
been completed or  until  the level of  emissions exceeds 1975 standards.

5.7.6. 1       Durability Test Results
The emissions over the  1975 CVS-CH Test  procedure for the first 24,000
miles of the durability run are presented in Table  5-20.  A complete breakdown
of emissions for the three bags is presented in Table 5-21. The CO and NO
                                   5-100

-------
Table 5-20.  Johnson-Matthey Avenger Durability Results
             (Catalyst EC 3A/4 - E/BA25/90
Miles

0
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
6, 000
8,000
10,000
12,000, preservice
12,000, post-service
16,000
20,000
24,000, preservice
He'1'

0. 11
0. 09
0. 106
0. 16
0. 15
0. 15
0. 19
0. 17
0. 19
0. 21
0. 21
0. 30
0. 26
0. 33
'1975-CVS-CH test procedure; emissions
co(l)

0. 85
0.58
1. 03
0. 75
0. 88
0.91
0.91
0. 73
0. 51
0. 74
0. 71
0. 74
1. 06
1. 33
in gm/mi.
NO ^*
X
1.65
1.93
2. 16
2. 07
1.84
1.81
2. 10
2.09
2. 03
1.77
1. 50
2. 04
1.76
2.01

                          5-101

-------
Table 5-21.  John son-Matthey Avenger Durability Complete
             Bag Results for  Catalyst EC 3A/4 - E/BA25/90
Miles
0



500



1,000



2,000



3,000



4, 000



6,000



8,000



Emissions
HC
CT
cs
HT
sw
CT
CS
HT
sw
CT
CS
HT
SW
CT
CS
HT
SW
CT
CS
HT
SW
CT
CS
HT
sw
CT
CS
HT
sw
CT
CS
HT
SW
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
40
15
19
11
81
19
24
09
06
19
25
106
36
37
4
16
40
29
42
15
47
25
38
15
78
41
44
19
25
43
61
17
11
1
0
0
7
1
0
0
11
2
1
1
10
1
0
0
11
0
1
0
12
0
1
0
12
1
0
0
8
1
1
0
CO
.70
.01
.61
. 85
.01
.00
.59
. 581
.73
.02
. 18
.03
.00
.01
.6
. 75
. 54
.99
. 17
. 88
. 05
.99
. 16
.91
.77
.00
.59
.91
.8
.01
. 19
.73
NOX
6.
4.
8.
1.
8.
5.
8.
1.
8.
6.
10.
2.
9.
6.
9.
2.
7.
5.
8.
1.
8.
5.
7.
1.
8.
6.
9.
.2.
9.
6.
9.
2.
60
96
08
65
38
77
93
93
98
28
65
16
7
1
2
7
49
72
53
84
7
5
66
81
95
53
43
10
15
49
22
09
gm
gm
gm
gm/mi
gm
gm
gm
gm/mi
gm
gm
gm
gm /mi
gm
gm
gm
gm /mi
gm
gm
gm
gm
gm
gm
gm
gm/mi
gm
gm
gm
gm /mi
gm
gm
gm
gm /mi
                            5-102

-------
Table 5-21.  Johnson-Matthey Avenger  Durability  Complete
             Bag Results for  Catalyst EC 3A/4 - E/BA25/90
             (Continued)

Miles
10,000



12,000, preservice



12,000, post-service



16,000



20,000



24,000, preservice



Emissions
HC
CT
CS
HT
SW
CT
CS
HT
SW
CT
CS
HT
SW
CT
CS
HT
SW
CT
CS
HT
SW
CT
CS
HT
SW
CT Cold transient
CS Cold stabilized
HT Hot transient
SW Sum weighted
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.




06
55
80
19
72
46
73
21
66
46
74
21
79
90
03
30
89
66
88
26
52
85
95
33




CO
4.
1.
1.
0.
8.
1.
1.
0.
8.
1.
1.
0.
8.
1.
1.
0.
13.
0.
1.
1.
18.
1.
1.
1.




83
04
22
51
86
02
2
74
37
03
21
71
22
01
77
74
91
99
75
06
43
02
80
33




NOX
9.
6.
8.
2.
7.
6.
6.
1.
8.
6.
8.
1.
9.
6.
8.
2.
7.
5.
8.
1.
8.
6.
9.
2.




01
45
67
04
92
21
48
77
83
08
93
49
03
38
91
04
10
55
14
76
28
33
13
01




gm
gm
gm
gm/mi
gm
gm
gm
gm/mi
gm
gm
gm
gm/mi
gm
gm
gm
gm/mi
gm
gm
gm
gm/mi
gm
gm
gm
gm/mi




                            5-103

-------
emissions are relatively constant over the test run whereas HC emissions
are rising.  The cause of increased HC emission is currently under investi-
gation.  These data trends are shown graphically in Section 3. 1. 7.
5. 7. 6. 2       Comparison with Auto Company Test Data
Applicable auto  company test data for Johnson-Matthey catalysts are shown
in Table 5-22 for British Leyland (Ref.  5-23),  Volvo  (Ref. 5-46), Daimler-
Benz  (Ref. 5-49),  and Saab-Scania (Ref.  5-33).  The  maximum mileage
reported is 2520 miles (Saab).
5.7.7         Monsanto
Monsanto was not  a participant in the Suspension Hearings and did not
provide background information to EPA.

Chrysler (Ref. 5-17), Saab-Scania (Ref.  5-33),  and General Motors (Ref. 5-45)
did  provide emission test data for Monsanto base metal/pellet  catalysts they
had evaluated.   The data are summarized in Table  5-23.
5.7.8         Oxy-Catalyst
Oxy-Catalyst does not perform vehicle emission tests and therefore relies
on auto  company data.  The tests conducted on their catalysts by the automobile
manufacturers consist of engine  dynamometer performance tests, car
performance tests, and durability tests.
5. 7. 8. 1       Low Mileage Emissions
Oxy-Catalyst's latest catalyst (HN-1429) performance data (Ref. 5-7) are
tabulated in Table 5-24.
5. 7. 8. 2       High Mileage Emissions
The latest test results on durability received from  GM (Ref. 5-7) for the
HN-1429 catalyst  show that after 4600 miles, the emissions have  increased
to 3.8 gm/mi CO and 0. 36 gm/mi HC.   On earlier  generations  of catalyst,
                                   5-104

-------
                                 Table 5-22.  Johnson-Matthey Catalyst Data
Test No.


467
616
1020
ioei
1102
2180
2245
2264
4

5

Car No.


OB44448

OB50424

OBS0840



Ml

311

Car and/or CID
MGB
Jaguar XJ-6
1072 model 144: engine B20F

1972 model 144: engine B20F

1072 model 144: engine B20F
WI08
WI08
W108
2.0 liter

2.0 liter

Test
Weight







4000
4000
4000




Teit
Date


12/2'71
1/11/72
3/17/72
3/20/72
4/10/72
2/20/72
3/13/72
3/16/72




System Description
A!
X
X
X

X

X



X

*

EGR






X







Mod.
Carb.














EFE














TR














Catalyst
Noble /Mono: JM
Noble /Mono: JM
Noble /Mono: JM AEC 3 A
Noble/Mono: JM AEC 3A
Noble /Mono: JM AEC 3 A
Noble /Mono: JM AEC 3 A
Noble/Mono. JM AEC 3A
Noble /Mono: JM
Noble/Mono: JM
Noble /Mono: JM
Noble /Mono: JM

Noble /Mono: JM

Test
Proe.
1975
1975
1975

1975

1975
1975
1975
1975
1075

1975

Test
Mileage
0
0
100
1.300
0
750
0



0
995
0
2.520
Emissions, gm/mi
HC
0. 14
0.20
0. 19
0.72
0.17
0. 17
0.31
0. 11
0. 13
0. 15
0.30
0.21
0.21
0.32
CO
1.02
2.50
1.56
4.28
1.52
1.25
3.28
2.34
2.67
1.72
1.73
1.95
2.32
4.67
NOX
2.41
1.00
3.32
3.65
2.46
2.41
O.S
1. 14
0.81
0.83
2.23
2.00
1.95
1.75
Remarks
Brit. Leyland
Brit. Leyland
Volvo
Honeycomb Broken
Volvo
Honeycomb Broken
Volvo
Daimler-Benz
Daimler-Benz
Daimler-Benz
Saab
Catalyst Loose
Saab
Catalyst Loose
o
U1

-------
                                     Table 5-23.  Monsanto Catalyst Data
i
H*
O
Test No.
1
2
8


9



10










Car No.
259

314


385



341


1938
61125
2828
61206
61329

61201

Or and /or C1D
360

2.0 liter


1.85 liter



2.0 liter


Pontiac 455
Buick 455
Buick 455
Cadillac 472
Chevrolet 402

Cadillac 472

Test
Weight












4500
5000
5000
5500
4500

5500

Ten
Date












12/71
2/72
3/72
2/72
7/71
4/72
zm
3/72
System Description
AI
x

X


X






X
X
X
X
X

X

EGR
X

X









X
X
X
X
»

X

Mod.
Carb.





Elect.
Inject


Elect.
Inject

X
X

X
X

X

EFE












X


X


X

TR
30% Slie



















Catalyst
Base/Pellet (ECA 302)

Base /Pellet
(Monsanto 404)

Base/Pellet



Bate /Pellet


Base/Pellet (ECA-125)
Base/Pellet (ECA-125)
Base /Pellet (ECA- 141 1
Base/Pellet (ECA-125)
Base /Pellet (NBP-701941

Base /Pellet (ECA. 1251

Test
Proc.
1972

1975


1975



1975


1975
1975
1975
1975
1975

1975

Test
Mileage
0
27
0

248
0

9.750

0

2,050
400
2.500
0
1,200
126
5.550
1.000
1.500
Emissions, gm/mi
HC
0.30
0.34
0.26

-
0.22

0.50

0.31

0.61
0.41
1.0
0. 14
0.51
0.47
0.55
0.92
1.80
CO
4.5
3.5
3.03

-
1.44

2.97

1.61

4.16
5.4
7.6
3.8
4.6
4.0
6.8
6.8
8.8
NO,
1.39
1.34
1.10

-
2.37

2.87

1.75

1.58
1.5
0.9
3.1
0.9 .
1. 1
1.1
0.9
0.8
Remarks
Chrysler

Saab

Teat Continuing
Saab

Test Continuing,
Mar Cycle
Saab

Test Continuing
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM

CM


-------
Table 5-24.  GM Evaluation of Oxy-Catalyst Catalyst
             (Low Mileage Emissions Data)'a)

TestNo.(b)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Average
Emission results with
(0 mi) are:

Catalyst
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
7
(a) Prototype vehicle
Emissions,
HC
0.28
0. 20
0. 28
0.38
0.32
0.34
0. 29
0.41
0. 34
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.32
different fresh catalyst

Emissions,
HC
0. 30
0. 30
0. 30
0. 26
0.34
0.20
0.23
0. 20
without EGR
gm/mi
CO
1.7
1.6
3.0
1.7
2.2
2.1
3.3
2.4
2.4
2.5
5.4
3. 5
2.68
formulations

gm/mi(c)
CO
5.0
2.7
3. 5
2. 5
3.9
3.2
2.3
1.9

(b) These were repeat tests made with a fresh HN- 1429
catalyst
(c) 1975 CVS-CH




                         5-107

-------
durability tests of up to 33, 000 miles indicate catalyst hot cycle efficiencies
decline from 98 percent initially to an average stable level of about 60 percent
within the first 15, 000 miles (see Figure 5-32).  The fuel used in testing con-
tained 0. 02 gm/gal lead,  0. 004 gm/gal phosphorus, and 0. 04 percent by
weight sulphur.
5. 7. 8. 3        Comparison with Auto Company Test Data
Data submitted by General Mx>tors (Ref. 5-45)  concerning its vehicle test
evaluations of Oxy-Catalyst catalysts are  shown in Table 5-25.
5.7.9          Union Carbide
Union Carbide  did not provide  catalyst emission data; no auto company
evaluations of Union Carbide catalysts are reported.
5.7. 10         Universal  Oil Products
5.7. 10. 1       Emission Data  - Low and High Mileage
Universal Oil Products has performed many vehicle tests incorporating
catalyst systems.  Universal Oil Products (Ref.  5-50) believes that a noble
metal pelleted catalyst is one of their best candidates.  A durability test of
this catalyst on a 1971 vehicle gave the following results:
                                    Estimated 1975  CVS-CH
                                      Emissions, gm/mi
               Mileage               HC                 CO
                8,000               0.36                1.46
               16,500               0.28                0.81
               21,933               0.47                2.65

This catalyst failed to meet the emission standards after about 20, 000 miles.
Universal Oil Products feels this catalyst failed to meet the standards
because of attrition from over-temperature conditions.  It has since improved
the stability  of this catalyst which it predicts should reduce  this type of
attrition.
                                   5-108

-------
Ul
I
          100
           90
        S  80
           70
           60
           50
           40
AMA DURABILITY,  CLEAR FUEL
    CONVERSION EFFICIENCY

      1972 CVS-C WITH EGR
                                                                                            f
                      5       10      15      20       25       30       35      40      45      50

                                                MILES, 000

                   Figure 5-32.  General Motors Durability Test of Oxy-Catalyst P-623

-------
Table 5-25.   Oxy-Catalyst Catalyst Data
Tcit No.

















Car No.
2822
2824
2825
933
61317

Dev

2541

2494

2249

2850
4231

Car and/or CID
Bulck 455
Buick 455
Bulck 455
Buick 455
Chevrolet 350

Chevrolet 400

Oldimobile 350

Oldsmobile 455

Oldimobile 455

Oldimobile 4S5
Buick 350

Test
Weight
5000
5000
5000
5000
4500

5000

5000

5000

4500

5500
4500

Teit
Date
1/72
1/72
3/72
11/71
10/71
3/72
12/71
3/72
3/72
4/72
1/72
4/72
1/72
4/72
1/72
4/72
2/72
4/72
SyBtem Description
AI
X
it
X
X
X

X

X






X

EGR
X
X
X
X
X



X



X

X
X

Mod.
Carb.




X



X

X

X

X
X

EFE

















TR

















Catalyit
Baie/Pellet (G-13131
Baie/Pellet [G. 13131
Baie/Pellet
Baie /Pellet
B.ie/Pellet (G-62J-711

Baie /Pellet

B»»e /Pellet

Baie /Pellet

Baie/Pellet

Baie/Pellet
Baie /Pellet

Teit
Proc.
1975
1915
1975
1975
1975

1975

1975

1975

1975

1975
1975

Teit
Mileage
0
0
0
0
0
32.014
0
5.544
9
3,103
0
9,280
54
6.400
0
18,000
0
7.600
Emiuioni, gm/mi
HC
0.41
0.33
0.31
0. 19
0.47
1.20
0. 19
0.51
0. 17
0.46
0.20
1.02
0.27
0.48
0.31
0.58
0.64
0.81
CO
5.7
3.0
4.6
1.8
6.7
13.6
2.0
5.4
2.7
7. 1
9.2
7.7
10.8
11.9
10.5
7.4
6.8
9.5
NO,
3.5
3.7
3.3
2.4
1.4
1.4
5.9
5.3
2.2
2. 1
3.2
3.3
1.7
1.3
2.0
-4
2.7
2.5
3.7
Remarks


















-------
Universal Oil Products has also developed a noble metal monolithic oxidation
catalyst on which they reported no emission data. Ford is reportedly
interested in this catalyst.

The third candidate UOP has developed is a base metal pelleted catalyst on
which the following data were reported (Ref. 5-51):

                            1975 CVS-CH gm/mi
    Baseline  emissions*       Zero miles    1500 miles     7722 miles
    HC            1.12           0.14          0.19           0.08
    CO           12.62           1.21           3.90           1.15

During this test, the  CO did rise above the standard at about 1500 miles due
to,  UOP feels, low temperature sulfur poisoning. Universal Oil Products
reduced the air/fuel ratio of the engine at 7180 miles to increase the catalyst
temperature.   This reversed the deactivation and lowered the CO emissions
below the standard.

Table 5-26 summarizes representative emission data for various UOP
catalysts, as  determined from tests performed by UOP (Ref.  5-51).
5.7.10.2       Catalyst Durability  Road Test
Road tests to  25,000 miles  on two  cars equipped with the noble metal, pelleted
cataly.st system were recently completed in an EPA  sponsored test conducted
by Olsen Laboratories (Ref. 5-9).   The results of these runs are shown in
Table 5-27.
5.7.10.3       Retrofit Applicability
In low mileage tests (under 4000 miles) conducted by UOP (Ref. 5-39),  82
vehicles had emissions which represent an 85-percent reduction of the  90-
percent reduction required  to meet the 1975 standards.  Seven vehicles
actually met the  1975 standards.  Data for these vehicles are  shown in
Table 5-28.
^Vehicle without catalyst

                                   5-111

-------
Table 5-26.  Summary of Representative Catalyst Test
             Data (from UOP Tests of UOP Catalysts)
Test
No.





















































Car
No.





















































Car and/or CID
1972 Buick Le Sabre


1971 Chev 350




1971 Chev 350



1971 Chev 550
1971 Chev 350


1»71 Ford 551



1971 Ford 351


1971 Ford 351

1972 Dat«un 510

19' 1 Chev 350


191 1 Chev 350

Alfc Romeo Z. 0 liter
14 cyl.l


197: Capri - 1.6 liter

1971 Capri . 1.0 liter

1971 Flat 1.6 liter


1971 Chev 151




1971 Chev 350




Test
Weight





















































Test
Date
' '72


12/71




10/71



11/71
11/71






12/71


12/71

2/72

3/72


3/72

3/72



3/72

3/72




4/72




4/72




System Description
A I



X




X
















X

X


X












X




X




EGR




Mod.
Carb.




|




































































Fuel
rich



























ETE

















TR
Catalyst
PZ-214











































































:












PZ-224-M1

Tsst | Tel'.
Proc . : Mileage
1975 *SI

-.•„.
known

!»75 eit ] 0 hr
12 hrs
PZ-224-M2 i T 0 hr
PZ-224.8605

PZ-1-214-2
PZ-I-215-1

PZ-1-221-M1
PZM-11711 J5' ODx3- long,
.PZM-7711 :5 OD x !" long,
PZM-9711 i5" OD x 3 ' long'
PZM-10711 15" OD x 3" long.
PZ-H5 (in 2 L'OP mini-
Jo inJ/banki


2294-163


1»7; ei!



107- e«t
1Q75 cst


0 hr
!2 hn
C- hr
Ohr
12 hrs
3 hr
0
rlr-.!.ssions , gtr./.T.i
••X i CO i NO,
•5.21 | 2.22 2.<>1
, i

5. P 0.90
0.2= • 2.1?
0.-- i 1.35
o.o-
0.20



0."3
:.3S I
Rem&rkt



CM ccr.vr>r:«r
i



0.15 1.77 i CM converter i75'> air-
O.U-C.19 ' O.S8-1.36 i
'J.24-C.3S i 2.0-3.54
0.27 j 1.13
O.o= 5.51
0.:-9 1.65
0. f3
; 0.4"
19T= cst i •• i. 1?
^033 0. 36
1^,503 0.23
i 21.933
25.9S6
197? est


C
2200
12. =00.
2294-165 1=7? e.t 0
1
PZ-195
PZ-216
PZ-226
PZ-1-2I4L-1: aged or.
1971 Ford Calaxie

2441-112

P7.-Z14
PZ.|05
PZ-168
PZ.ZI6
PZ.1-Z16-M2

PZ-216

PZ-l'S
PZ.m
PZ.m
PZ-1-J14-): aj.d




2424-1CC


2424-SS
1»75 est

1975


1»75

12.50C.


0
4670
4 70
0
1200
1975 est

|
19T5 !
197! est 0
1.35
2.60
1.45
1. 46
0.31
0.47 I 2.65
0. 74
0.32
0.65
1.19
0.6 =
1.07
0.25-C.28
0. 16-C.24
0.04
0. 14
0.14

0.02
0.11
0.54
0.38
0.58
0.42
0.50
I
1«TS |
i



l»7f
0
0
0
0
3.»!

0.30
o.zo
0.45
0.14
'liC | 0.1!


7722 ; 0.06

j I'.JTf 0.30
Iciest 0 O.S-




i
2.46
1.07
1.7E
1.59
2. 10
1.59
0.54-2.1!
0.9°-2.0
1.00
4.91
2 03

0.84
2. 39
2.45
4.29
5.78
2.60
0.«9

5. SO

0.51
0.57
0.§6
1.21
-.25
1.1!

2.00
!.=•

















2.6-3.7
2.41
.2.33
1 °0

'2.63
2.4&
1.96
2.25
1.52
J.74


2.23




:.J?


"Monolithic



"Cold" only
Xoblf 'pellets
20-253". c«t»lv*t Ion
"Hot11 only
•'Monolith - 'hot' only


"Monolith"
'Hot'1 only
VOP mini -verier

CM converter

1500°F for 30 min
CM convener

SO In' converter


60 In3 convener
;1> MIM-verter
t4O/4- K 1.7-1
i2> Mir.t-vtrtfrt
(4-J/4 • H 1.4"1
<1. Mlni-vetier
'4.3/4' • t.T'-

CN! converter
2.52
2.48

!.OC


i"»C . C.C4 f.5? 1 ?.47
o ; o.'o
rOOO 0.63
i.-2
-.5$ '.5^
After IMO°F recvclirtf
of b*^ temperature
More recycl.ni
Vcno i! OD« 3
per bank •

Mono t? ' CD x ">"
per bank1
                             5-112

-------
Table 5-27.  2.5, 000 Mile Durability Tests of UOP Mini-Verier with
             PT-A-S Catalyst (2-1965 Chevrolets,  327 CID)
Car and Mileage Point
Car #21b






0 Miles - Base
With Converter
- Emissions Removed
20, 000 Miles0- Base
- With.' Converter
- Emissions Removed
Car #22d






a
b
c
d
0 Miles - Base
- With Converter
- Emissions Removed
25, 000 Miles - Base
- With Converter
- Emissions Removed
Emissions,
HC

9.1
1.9
7.2 (79%)
16.7
5.6
11.1 (66%)

7.9
1.45
6.45 (82%)
26.85
5. 2
21.65 (81%)
1972 CVS-C test procedure
Unleaded fuel
Test concluded at 20, 500 miles. Total vehicle miles were
and vehicle deterioration made continuation impractical.
10 percent of miles on leaded fuel
/ -a
gm/rm
CO

92. 1
2.7
89.4
199.5
92.8
106.7

65.0
2.3
62.7
86.2
16.9
69.3


over




(97%)


(53%)



(96%)


(80%)


100, 000

                              5-113

-------
Table 5-28. UOP Summary of Emission Results
            for Retrofitted Vehicles  (Mileage
            Less Than 4000 Miles)

Vehicle
Fiat 85
Fiat 1600b
Subaru FF-1
Datsun
71 Chevrolet
65 Chevrolet
71 AMC

Catalyst
216
216
195
216
214
226
195
Emissions, gm/mi
HC
0.40
0.36
0.21
0.22
0. 14
0.32
0.32
CO
1. 20
0. 57
2.74
0.77
1.21
0.58
1.3Q
a!975 CVS-CH Test Procedure bAverage of two tests
                     5-114

-------
5.7.10.4      25, 000 Mile Durability Tests
Five 25, 000-mile tests are currently being conducted by UOP; one of these
has been completed (Ref. 5-32).  The results of this  test are shown in
Figure 5-8.  During the early stages of this test, fuel was alternated between
lead-free fuel at about 0. 03 gm/gal lead and fuel containing 2. 5 gm/gal lead.
Good catalyst recovery when operated on lead-free fuel  is shown for both HC
and CO emissions.  At about 19f000 miles, the vehicles •were switched to
fuel containing 0. 05 gm/gal lead and 0. 01 gm/gal phosphorus.  Catalyst
activity, as indicated  by  emission levels of HC and CO,  remained virtually
constant over the balance of this 25, 000-mile run.

This test indicates the ability of this catalyst to remain  active in spite of
occasional contamination from fuel additives and with continued operation on
fuel at the lead and phosphorus levels suggested in the recent proposed EPA
fuel additive regulations  (Ref. 5-21).
5. 7. 10. 5      Comparison with Auto Company Test Data
A number of auto companies have provided UOP with the results of testing
UOP catalysts.   These data are summarized in Table 5-29.  Additional
emission test data are available from submissions  made by the  auto  companies
during the Suspension Hearings.  These data are summarized in Table 5-30.
5.7.11         Kali-Chemie
Kali-Chemie was not a participant in the EPA Suspension Hearings.  A
limited amount of test data for its catalysts are available from Saab-Scania
(Ref.  5-33) and Daimler-Benz (Ref. 5-49), as shown in  Table 5-31.
5.7. 12         Degussa
Degussa was not a participant in the EPA Suspension Hearings.   A limited
amount of test data for their catalysts are available from Saab-Scania
(Ref.  5-33), Daimler-Benz (Ref.  5-49),  and General Motors (Ref.  5-45), as
shown in Table 5-32.
                                   5-115

-------
Table 5-29.  Summary of UOP Catalyst Data (Received
             by UOP from Automakers'! (Re:.  5-51)

Test
No.


























Car
No.



























Car and/or CID
1972 Isuzu; 110 CID
(PA 30D; 4 cyl)
Subaru FF-1; 1. 3 liter

Toyota; 1. 6 liter
Mitsubishi Colt

Saab 99EA; 1. 85 liter



Mazda 1.6 liter




Saab

Toyo Kogyo Capella
1.6 liter
Mitsubishi
Toyota; 1. 86 liter
Mitsubishi



Test
Weight


























Test
Date
2/72
1/72
2/72
12/71

2/72

1/72

12/71

4/72

12/71

10/71






4/72


System Description

AI
X



K




X

X



X
X









EGR




X











X








Estimated
Mod.
Carb.


























EFE


























pTR
1 Er.-.issior.s . gm/rr.i :
Test | Test : | :
Catalyst Proc. Mileage : HC CO ! NOX • Remarks
x '• PZ-165 19~?:: ; 0 ; C.24 ".61 i : ;."O? low-cro:ile converter: -.veic crack at 25CO rr.:U =
| 1975 i 1400 0.55 4.72 ,


PZ-226 ' 1Q75
0 ".il 2.6 ' 3.5f . -••;• rc,r:-f-'!-r

! ! i i i


PZ-214 j 1975

PZ-l-214-2 i 1°72


















FZ-216 1975

PZM-17121 i 1975"
PZM-17122
5;1 V. 59 r. 4o i i Mitsubishi converter
3000 1. 34 23. 7 j j
0.67 ". !": ; 0.~4 i UOP lo\v-Dro:'ile conx-erter, best carburetor setting
0. Q5 ?. 1? 1 . 3t 12r; leaner setting
403 j 0. 1° i. 1: ', 3. "7 VOP n-.i.-.i-verter .4-?'4 ' x 1.71".
1142 ,\23 2.01 5.45 ;
0.90 6.15 i Monolith
0.53 5.00 .\:onolith
PZ-226 1975 O.S7 7.C Tovo Kogvo container
PZ-214
PZ-195 1975"
PZ-216 1975

PZ-226
f Toyo converter 'i
PZ-226 1975
PZ-226 1975
PZ-226 1975':
PZ-216 1975
: ?.90 10.3 I Toyo Koeyo container
0 0.1° 4.2 i i Mini-vert'er (In in3!
0 0.16 2.77 0.QS Mini-verier 15-3/4" x 1.4"!
4180 0.39 4.55 1.53
0 0.48 1.34 i Hot CVS onlv
0 . 1.39 15. 2 Cole CVS only
0 0.05 1.04 Mitsubishi converter
0 j 0.33 3.57 j Toyota converter; 0.32 err..' gal lead
600 0.14 2.25 1 Mitsubishi converter
i 7000 i 0.25 4.3J ' Screen :aih:re at 3000 mi
i i i

.
                            5-116

-------
                         Table  5-30.
Summary of UOP Catalyst Data Submitted by
Auto Makers During Hearings
Test
No.
4


Q14
*f 14
080
200

602
692






















Car No.
637

D08-6


OA34293

OB44065


Car and/or CID
Chrysler (360)
IRef 5-17)
AM. Motors (360-V8I
{Ref. 5-48)
IRef. 5-46)
Volvo IRel. 5-46)

Volvo (Ref. 5-46)


General Motors (Ref. 5-45)
61355
61358
62504
9168
8245
5274
8195
61201
2014

2611

61420

934


933

BAK

Chev 350
Chev 350
Pont. 455
Buick 455
Buick 455
Buick 455
Buick 455
Cad 472
Olds 350

Olds 350

Olds 455

Buick 455


Buick 455

Buick 455

Test
Weight


4000








4000
4500
5000
5000
5000
5000
5500
4500

5000

5000

5000


5000

5000

Test
Date











2/72
11/71
3/72
2/72
3/72
3/72
1/71
2/72
2/72
1/72
2/72
12/71
4/72
11/71
3/72

11/71
4/72
11/71
4/72
System Description
AI
„










x
x
X
X
X
X
X


»

X

»


X

X

ECR







X



X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

x

X


X



Mod.
Carb.











X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

x

X








EFE
















X














pTR
.10*-. Sine










X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

x

X

x


X

X

C»taly»t
UOP

(2, UOP mini-verter»
UOP noble Delict*

UOP

UOP



PZ-2-168 R-5 (Base/Pellets)
PZ-1-224-1 (Base/Pellets)
PZ-1-225-1 (Base/Pellets)
PZ-4-214 R-14 {Base/Pellets)
PZ-4-214 R-14 (Base/Pellets)
PZ-4-214 R-14 (Base/Pellets)
PZ-4-214 R-14 (Base/Pellets)
PZ-1-224-1 (Base/Pellets)

PZ-1-224-1 (Base/Pellets)

PZ-2-168-R-5 (Noble/Pellets)

PZ-1-224-1 (Base/Pellets)


PZ-4-2I4-R-I4 (Base/Pellets)

PZ-4-214-R-14 (Base/Pellets)

CVS
Te»t
Proc.
1972

1975
1975

1975

1975



1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975

1975

1975

1975


1975

1975

Test
Mileage


4000

195
125
375
0
5852
7000

700
80
100
650
300
300
1644
50
85
4552
1
6145
100
2287
0
18132

0
46.301
21
12980
Emissions, gm/mi
HC
0.8

0.39
0 13
0.19
0. 11
0.12
0.12
0.18


0.30
0.33
0.34
0.31
0.23
0.44
0.25
0. 16
0.52
0.95
0.24
1.4
0.20
0.17
0.25
1.49

0.19
0.78
0. 17
0.36
CO
2.9

2. SO
2 74
3.52
1.23
1.62
1.69
6.24


2.7
2.4
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.5
5.9
12.0
12.0
9. 1
14.6
2.6
3.2
2.7
14.7

1.8
11.7
2.8
6.6
NO,
3.0

3.20
3 62
3.23
2.20
2.15
1.24
1.26


0.8
0.9
0.9
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.0
1.0
2.3
2.4
1.9
2.6
1.0
1. 1
2.0
2.1

2.4
2. 1
3.7
1.6
Remarks
Couldn't control A/F








Reactor breakdown









Discontinued

Lost catalyst



Backfire damaged

mu er
Test stopped


(SI
I

-------
                                    Table 5-31.  Kali-Chemie Catalyst Test
                                                (Base Metal/Pellets)







Auto
Co.
Saab
Saab

Daimler
Benz
Test
No.
6
7

2324
Vehicle
No.
301
301


Fuel
System
El. Inj.
El. Inj.


Air
Injection
Yes
Yes


EGR
No
No


Mileage
Type
MAR
MAR


Mileage
0
5,350b
0
5, 900°

Emissions, gm/mi
HC CO N°x
0.23 2.98 2.59
0.32 3.38 2.66
0.22 2.85 1.02
0.25 3.63 1.96
0.10 1.70 0.28
a!975 GVS-CH test procedure
Test continues
Container cracked
oo

-------
Table 5-32.  Degussa;Catalyst Test Data
             Base :Metfal/Pellets)
Auto
Co.
Saab
Daimler
Benz
GM
Test
No.
12 .
2377
2826
Vehicle
. ^ No.
301

Buick
455d
Fuel
System
•El. Inj. .


Injectioti
Yes "•'•

Yes
• EGR:
•r No .'..

Yes
•Mileage
- Type ;-
;" MAR;-.
-"

Mileage
;0 :
2, 58 Ob

10
*i
Emissions, g-m/mi
HC CQ : N°x
"o. 19 2±ll" 1.66
'0.74 15.;66"; 2. 52
0. 14 2.3 1.0
0.38 3.5 3.3
a!975 CVS-CH test procedure
Catalyst poisoned by phosphorus (4 ppm) in fuel
Mileage accumulation route
Degussa catalyst OM 56 ET . .

-------
5.7. 13        Imperial Chemical Industries
Imperial Chemical Industries was not a participant in the EPA Suspension
Hearings.  However, British Leyland (Ref. 5-23) did provide  emission test
data for ICI catalysts, as shown in Table 5-33.
5.7.14        AC-Delco
A number of auto companies presented emission test data results they
obtained when using  AC-Delco converters  containing base metal/pellet
catalysts.  It is not known who supplied the pellets originally.  The test data
are summarized in Table 5-34.
5.8           OVERTEMPERATURE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
Overtemperature protection systems of several types are proposed to provide
against overheating of the catalyst bed, overheating of the vehicle structure,
and causing fires.  Catalyst bed temperatures normally run in the 1200-1400 F
range during normal operation.  These temperatures can rise to 1700-1800  F
(Chrysler, Engelhard) during high speed driving and when pulling trailer loads.
Chrysler points out that catalyst overtemperature can result from a variety
of conditions, including, spark plug misfire,  turning key off during deceler-
ation,  high speed driving, pulling trailer  loads,  stuck choke, plugged air
cleaner, low carburetor float, and fuel boiling due to protracted idling.

Two basic approaches have  been suggested by the automotive industry and are
under evaluation for providing the necessary  catalyst overtemperature
protection.  Both approaches  employ a thermocouple  signal to actuate the
control device.

One  method is to control the secondary air supply to the catalytic converter.
Without the necessary oxidizing atmosphere,  the catalyst would  not function
efficiently and generate the  normal temperature  rise across the bed.
                                   5-120

-------
Table 5-33.  British Leyland Test Data
             for ICI Catalysts
Car
f+
Austin Marina (A)
Austin Marina (A)
Mileage
0
6, 574
9, 200
0
4, 500
EGR
No
No
No
No
No
Emissions, gm/mi
HC CO N°x
0. 18 2. 29 2. 33
• 0,45 3,00 1.97b
0.20 2.61 2.21
0. 19 1.38 2.08
0.25 1.14 2.44
a!975 CVS test procedure CNoble /monolith
Valve recession, new head fitted after test Noble/pellets

-------
                     Table 5-34.  AC-Delco Converters -- Emission Test Data Summary
Ul
i
ro
Tell
No.






806
852
732
809



C»r No.
American
D17-11
D27-1
nu. z
Dll-3
DI4-2
OOI-2B
•Car and/or CID
Motort (Ref. 5-481
258-6
360-V8
360-V8
258-6
232-6
360-V8
Volvo (Ref. 5-461
OB44448

OBS0430

1972 Model 144

1972 Model 144

International Harveater (Ref. S-47)
156

393
MOOD Tr.v.Ull V-392

II 10 Travelall V.J92
Teat
Weight
3000
3500
4000
3500
3000
4000







Teit
Date






2/72
2/72
2/72
2/72
9/71
11/71
1/72
4/72
int.
4/71 '
System Deaeription
AI
X
X
X
X
X
X




K
•
•
«
"EOR
X
X
X
X

X




X
t
•
I
Mod.
Carb.













EFE













TR













Catalyat '
Baae/pelleta
Baae/pellett
Baie /pellet i
Baae /pellet*
Baae /pellet!
Bate /pellet!
Baie /pellet!
Baae /pellet!
Baae /pellets
Bate/pellet!
Bait /pellet!
BMe/ptlletl
B***7f*Hni
Teat
Proc.
197S
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975

1975

197!
197!
.)>»
Teat
Mileage
32.000
0
0
0
0
12,000
150
339
120
3340
0
16.000
0
11.000
0~
1C. 000
Emiaiioni, gm/mi
' HC
0.39
0.50
0.39
0.23
0.23
1.21
0.39
0.38
0.24
0.39
0.45
0.83
0.3S
0.68
0.3S
O.SI
CO
3.04
5.01
6.09
1.47
2.38
16.94
3.50
2.40
2.43
5.75
4.4
11.4
4. 53
9.18
4.J6
8.76
NOx
1.50
3.24
2.83
2.12
3.28
4.33
4.54
4.57
3.14
3.47
2.96
2.59
2.49
2.29
j.h
3.00
Remark!
Actual teat point!






40% pellet Ion

30% pellet Ion
Suapeetcd inadvertent uae of
leaded fuel at 4000 milei
Converter recharged
Still in progreit


-------
The other method is to completely bypass the catalytic converter with the
exhaust gas.  This approach would fully protect the catalyst (if actuated in
time), whereas the first approach still exposes the catalyst to the gas  tem-
perature of the exhaust flow.   Figures 5-33 and 5-34 illustrate one such
bypass system arrangement,  as denoted by Chrysler for their A335 emission
control system (Ref.  5-17).   It is designed to route exhaust gases around the
converter whenever 1500 F is exceeded.

In addition to these two protection system approaches, other refinements/
devices are also required.  Electronic ignition systems are proposed to help
eliminate plug misfiring.  The converter proper can be located  sufficiently
far away from the exhaust manifold to reduce inlet gas temperatures.  How-
ever,  the farther away it is,  the slower is the warmup of the bed under cold-
start conditions.  Johnson-Matthey (Ref. 5-13) suggests  the use of an air
dump-valve during periods of vehicle deceleration to minimize the catalyst
bed temperature.

With regard  to vehicle structure protection heat shields are proposed for use
between the converters and the vehicle.  General Motors  (Ref. 5-16) proposes
insulators on top and bottom of its converter to protect against vehicle over-
heating as well as "grass fires".

The following illustrates current opinions of  various companies relative to
the types of overtemperature protection systems proposed for 1975 vehicles:
           a.   Volvo prefers a warning system only; no  bypass (Ref.  5-40).
           b.   VW has made no selection; a warning system (optical or
                audible) may be included with perhaps an interlock to
                prevent starting the car (Ref. 5-52).
           c.   Nissan is considering both bypass and secondary air control
                (Ref. 5-53).
                                   5-123

-------
Ui
i
ro
                    ELECTRIC
                     CHOKE
       MODIFIED
      FRAME RAIL
             ALTITUDE
           COMPENSATING
           CARBURETOR
             MONOLITHIC CATALYST
                 CONVERTER
                       CATALYST
                     BYPASS VALVE
EXHAUST  MANIFOLD
    REACTORS
               AIR  PUMP
                    EXHAUST
               GAS RECIRCULATION
ELECTRONIC
  ENGINE
 CONTROL
BY-PASS PIPE    STANDARD MUFFLER
                      Figure 5-33.  Chrysler A-335 Special Emission Car (System Features)

-------



           IR VALVE IN CATALYST POSITION:
   ENGINE SPEED BELOW 2500 R.P.M.
   CATALYST TEMPERATURE BELOW 1500° F.
FROM CATALYTIC CONVERTER
       EXHAUST BYPASS
           VACUUM CONTROL
TO MUFFLER
ACTUATOR
             Figure 5-34.  Chrysler Catalyst By-pass Valve

-------
           d.   British Ley-land prefers not to use bypass (although it
                has used an experimental system); it utilizes thermo-
                couples,  warning lights and buzzers (Ref. 5-54).
           e.   GM has no bypass in its present plans; it incorporates a
                choke which fails in the open position; it may use devices
                in fuel metering and air flow devices to solve downhill
                coast problems (Ref.  5-34).
           f.   Ford prefers to cut off the air supply to the converter
                (using thermocouple for signal)  (Ref. 5-35).
           g.   Chrysler has discarded air cut-off or air bypass to a
                certain extent;  it  is developing a full bypass system
                (Ref.  5-17).
5. 9           PROJECTED MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT
              PROCEDURES
Engelhard reports  (Ref. 5-18) that its converters are presently designed to
be welded into the exhaust system.  Firm details on other systems have not
been provided by other companies.  Potential users of monolithic catalyst
beds have envisioned converter designs which enable simple cartridge-type
replacement of the monolithic bed.

In the past, potential users of converters incorporating pelletized catalyst-
beds projected the  eventual possibility of being able to withdraw used pellets.
from the converter (by vacuum means,  etc. ) and insert fresh or new pellets.
CHEMICO (Ref. 5-3) has now proposed the "topping off" of a converter
which has a reservoir of pellets above the pellets actually in use  (similar
to hydraulic brake fluid reservoir); the  topping-off would be accomplishedtat
regular servicing intervals.

UOP states (Ref. 5-39) that the spherical pellets used in their Mini-Verter
can be removed and replaced in a matter of minutes (comparable to an
oil change).
                                   5-126

-------
In all cases, these are mere projections at the moment, with demonstrated
automotive application capability lacking.  The exact method of catalytic
converter replacement* or refurbishment must await final selection of catalyst
material, final design  of the converter canister, and evaluation of
replacement or refurbishment alternatives.
                                   5.127

-------
                            REFERENCES
5-1  Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Houdry Division, "Progress in
     the Development of Automotive Emission Control Catalysts,"
     13 April 1972.

5-2  American Cyanamid Company, "Statement by American Cyanamid
     Company, Suspension Request Public Hearing, Environmental
     Protection Agency, " Washington. D.C. , April 1972.

5-3  Chemical Construction Corporation (Chemico),  "Statement to the
     Environmental Protection Agency, Suspension Request Hearing,
     Motor Vehicle Pollution Control," 21 April 1972.

5-4  Engelhard Minerals and Chemicals Corporation, Engelhard Industries
     Division, "Summary Statement for EPA Hearings o* Volvo Application
     for One-year Suspension of Auto Emission Standards, " 10 April 1972.

5-5  W.  R. Grace and Company,  "Presentation to the Environmental
     Protection Agency Auto Exhaust  Hearings," 5 April 1972.

5 -6  Matthey Bishop, Inc.,  "Testimony Presented to Environmental
     Protection Agency, Washington,  D.C. (with Technical Appendix), "
     12 April 1972.

5-7  Oxy-Catalyst. Incorporated, "Testimony Presented to the
     Environmental Protection Agency," 17 April 1972.

5-8  Union Carbide Corporation,  Union Carbide  letter to EPA regarding
     information on emission control, 4 April 1972.

5-9  Universal Oil Products Company, "Summary of Data Pertinent to
     Volvo's Request for Suspension of the 1975  Hydrocarbon and Carbon
     Monoxide Standards for the Environmental Protection Agency, "
     4 April 1972.

5-10 Aluminum Company of America,  "Summary Statement to Environ-
     mental Protection Agency," 11 April 1972.

5-11 American Lava Corporation, "Presentation to the Environmental
     Protection Agency," Ann Arbor, Michigan, 3 April  1972.

5-12 Corning Glass Works,  "Summary Statement for the Administrator,
     Environmental Protection Agency," 20 March 1972.
                                 5.128

-------
                         REFERENCES (continued)
5-13  Matthey Bishop, Inc. , Technical Data Submittal provided by
      Matthey Bishop at the request of the EPA Suspension Request
      Hearing Panel, 17 April 1972.

5-14  Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, Kaiser Chemicals
      Division,  "Alumina Substrates for Auto Exhaust Emission Control
      Catalysts," 30 March 1972.

5-15  Reynolds Metals Company,  Technical Data Submittal provided by
      Reynolds at the request of EPA,  Ann Arbor, Michigan,  April 1972.

5-16  General Motors Corporation,  Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto
      Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency,
      Washington, D. C. , 17 April 1972.
                     - .    i
5-17  Chrysler Corporation, "Application for Suspension of 1975 Motor
      Vehicle Emission Standards Pursuant to Section 202(b)(5) of the
      Clean Air Act, " March 1972.

5-18  Engelhard Minerals  and Chemicals Corporation, Engelhard Industries
      Division,  Transcript of Proceedings  -- Auto Emissions Extension --
      Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington, D. C. ,  12 April 1972.

5-19  Ford Motor Company, Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto Emissions
      Extensions -- Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington,  D. C. ,
      19 April 1972.

5-20  Aerospace Corporation Report No. TOR-0172(2787)-2,  "An
      Assessment of the Effects of Lead Additives in Gasoline on Emission
      Control Systems which Might Be Used to Meet the  1975-76 Motor
      Vehicle Emission Standards,"  15 November  1971.

5-21  Federal Register, "EPA  - Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives  -
      Notice of Proposed Rule Making," Vol. 37, No. 36, Part III,
      23 February 1972.

5-22  American Motors Corporation,  Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto
      Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency,
      Washington, D. C. , 11 April 1972.

5-23  British Leyland Motors, Inc. ,  Technical Data Submittal provided by
      British Leyland at the request of the EPA Suspension Request Hearing
      Panel, 14 April 1972.
                                   5-129

-------
                        REFERENCES (continued)
5-24  Chrysler Corporation,  Transcript of Proceedings  -- Auto Emissions
      Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington, D.C.,
      20 April 1972.

5-25  Engelhard Minerals and Chemicals Corporation, Engelhard Industries
      Division, "Technical Appendix to Summary Statement of Engelhard,
      Addendum I, " 19 April 1972.

5-26  Saab-Scania,  Inc., Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto Emissions
      Extension --  Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington, D.C.,
      21 April 1972.

5-27  Toyota Motor Company, Ltd. , "A Summary of Toyota's Technology
      and  Processes for Meeting the 1975 Federal Emission Standards, "
      5 April 1972.

5-28  Volvo, Inc. ,  Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto Emissions  Extension -
      Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,  D. C. ,  24 April 1972
      (recall).

5-29  Volkswagen of America, Inc., Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto
      Emissions  Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency,
      Washington, D. C. , 10  April 1972.                 , . .

5-30  Matthey Bishop, Inc.,  Transcript of Proceedings  -- Auto Emissions
      Extension --  Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington, D.C. ,
      13 April 1972.

5-31  Nissan Motor Corporation in U. S. A. (Datsun),  Transcript of
      Proceedings  -- Auto Emissions  Extension -- Environmental
      Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. ,  11 April 1972.

5-32  Universal Oil Products Company, UOP Statement, EPA Hearings
      on Proposed  Lead Regulations, Los Angeles, California, 3  May  1972.

5-33  Saab-Scania of America, Inc.  and Saab-Scania AB, "Information
      Submitted in Response  to Subpoena dated 17 March 1972 of Environ-
      mental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. "

5-34  General Motors Corporation, "Request for Suspension of 1975  Federal
      Emissions  Standards, " Volumes I and II, 3 April 1972.
                                  5-130

-------
                        REFERENCES (continued)
5-35  Ford Motor Company,  "Application for Suspension of 1975 Motor
      Vehicle Exhaust Emissions Standards, " Volumes I and II,
      5 April  1972.

5-36  Engelhard Industries, Inc. , Engelhard letter to the Aerospace
      Corporation,  October 1971.

5-37  Toyota Motor Company,  Ltd.,  Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto
      Emissions  Extension -- Environmental Protection  Agency,
      Washington, D. C. ,  13 April  1972.

5-38  American Lava Corporation, Transcript of Proceedings --  Auto
      Emissions  Extension -- Environmental Protection  Agency,
      Washington, D. C. ,  14 April  1972.

5-39  Universal Oil Products Company,  Transcript of Proceedings  -- Auto
      Emissions  Extension -- Environmental Protection  Agency,
      Washington, D.C.,  18 April  1972.

5-40  AB Volvo,  "Request for Suspension of the  1975 Emission Standards,"
      9 March 1972.

5-41  Daimler-Benz AG,  "Statement of Daimler-Benz AG Before  the
      Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,  D.  C. ," April 1972.

5-42  Volvo, Incorporated,  Transcript of Proceedings  -- Auto Emissions
      Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,  D. C. ,
      10 April 1972.

5-43  American Cyanamid Company, Transcript of Proceedings --  Auto
      Emissions  Extension -- Environmental Protection  Agency,
      Washington, D. C. ,  18 April  1972.

5-44  Volkswagen of America,  Inc. ,  Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto
      Emissions  Extension -- Environmental Protection  Agency,
      Washington, D. C. ,  11  April  1972.

5-45  General Motors Corporation,  Technical Data Submittal provided by
      GM at the request of the  EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel,
      21 April 1972.

5-46  AB Volvo,  "Supplement to Request for Suspension of the 1975 Emissions
      Standards," 15 April 1972.
                                   5-131

-------
                         REFERENCES (continued)
5-47  International Harvester Company,  Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto
      Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency,
      Washington, D. C. ,  14 April 1972.

5-48  American Motors Corporation,  Technical Data Submittal provided by
      AMC at the request of the EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel,
      20 April 1972.

5-49  Daimler-Benz AG,  Technical Data Submittal provided by Daimler-
      Benz at the request of the EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel,
      19 April 1972.

5-50  Universal Oil Products Company, "UOP Position Statement for EPA
      Hearings on One-year Suspension of  1975 Automobile Emissions
      Standards," 17 April 1972.

5-51  Universal Oil Products Company, Technical Data Submittal provided
      by UOP at the  request of the EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel,
      21 April 1972.

5-52  Volkswagen of America,  Inc., "Information and Documentary Materials
      Relating to Volkswagen's Emission Research and Design Effort to Meet
      1975 Federal Emission Goals, " 10 April 1972.

5-53  Nissan Motor Company,  Ltd. (Datsun),  "Summary  Statement of
      Information, "  5 April 1972.

5-54  British Leyland Motors,  Inc. , "EPA Hearing of Volvo Application
      for Deferment of Emission Legislation Applicable to  1975 Model
      Year Vehicles," March 1972.
                                  5-132

-------
                        6.  THERMAL REACTORS
6.1           SUMMARY DISCUSSION
The thermal reactor is a high-temperature chamber which replaces the
conventional engine  exhaust manifold.  Hot exhaust gases from the engine
enter the thermal reactor, which is sized and configured to increase the
residenc.e time of the gases and permit further oxidation reactions, thus
reducing the HC and  CO concentrations.

In general,  the thermal reactor embodies a double-walled insulated configura-
tion,  with exhaust port liners to conserve the sensible heat in the exhaust gas
and to direct" the flow to the inner-core section of the reactor.   In some
instances,  baffles and/or swirl plates are used to promote mixing.  Illustra-:
tions  of two reactor designs,  the DuPont Type V and the Esso RAM are
shown in Figures 6-1 and 6-2.

Whereas both rich and  lean reactors have been considered and evaluated for
use in 1975 emission control  systems, all of the reactors presently being
tested as potential 1975 candidate devices are designed for fuel-rich engine
operation.   These systems require the addition of secondary air (usually
injected at the engine exhaust port) to promote the oxidation reactions in the
reactor.

With the exception of Toyo Kpgyo,  no manufacturer proposes to use a full-size
thermal reactor device as a first-choice system component for 1975.   The
General Motors and Chrysler systems utilize a partial (i.e. ,  a small,
simplified) reactor which serves primarily as a quick-heat device  for rapid
warm-up of a catalytic converter.  The  Toyo Kogyo reactor is a prime
emission control component for this  manufacturer's rotary engine  system; in
                                    6-1

-------
        EXHAUST GAS
       OUTER SHELL
RADIATION     CORE
 SHIELD
TO EXHAUST SYSTEM
          Figure 6-1.  DuPont Type V Thermal Reactor
                                         EXHAUST
                                                  EXHAUST
                                           EXHAUST
                                  EXHAUST
           FLAME
           HOLDER
                          EXHAUST
         Figure 6-2.  Esso Rapid Action Manifold (RAM)
                      Reactor
                                6-2

-------
addition,  it is  one of several systems being evaluated for use on the Toyo
Kogyo 1975 reciprocating engine.  Several manufacturers  are evaluating
reactor devices as 1975 alternate system components.

Thermal  reactor problems identified by the various manufacturers encompass
the following:  (a) lack of sufficient emission control capability,  (b) packaging
difficulties,  (c) excessive underhood temperatures, and (d) lack of sufficient
reactor durability.  In addition, durability problems continue to plague the
secondary air  injection system. Numerous air pump replacements have been
reported  by a number of  manufacturers during the course  of reactor durability
testing.

Severe engine  damage has been caused by reentry of metal oxide particles
from the  reactor core material through the EGR system into the engine lubricat-
ing oil.  Such a problem was encountered in the DuPont test vehicle fleet
assigned  to the California Air Resources Board for evaluation.   DuPont is
currently investigating improved reactor core  materials.  A recent study by
Ford implies that a basic incompatibility may exist between thermal reactors
and catalytic converters when used  together.  Material deposits have been
found in the catalyst which are thought to originate in the reactor liner.  These
deposits  may contribute to the excessive deterioration observed in a number of
thermal reactor/catalytic converter emission control systems.
6.2            SPECIAL DESIGN FEATURES
6.2.1          American  Motors
The use of a thermal reactor has been investigated by American Motors as a
possible alternate system.  However, this manufacturer was unable to reach
the low level of emissions achieved with the catalytic converter system.  This
fact,  in combination with the  major revisions to the vehicle front end that
would be required to accommodate the device, has resulted in a decision to
confine the  1975 development effort to a catalytic converter system (Refs. 6-1,
6-2).
                                    6-3

-------
6.2.2         Chrysler
Chrysler has abandoned thermal reactors as a prime first- or second-choice
emission control system primarily because of lack of emission control poten-
tial and high-temperature material problems.  The 1975 first-choice system
will utilize a partial thermal reactor which will function primarily to accele-
rate the  warm-up of the catalytic converter under cold  start conditions.  The
Chrysler partial reactor is approximately  one-third the volume of a full-size
DuPont-type system; further oxidation reactions are  sustained in the down-
stream catalytic converter.  The reactor design incorporates stainless steel
liners to help maintain high exhaust gas temperature and to promote mixing
and burning of the combustibles with the secondary air  injected into the
exhaust ports.

Chrysler is looking for new lower cost core alloy materials  with  less nickel
content,  but believes that it is two or three years  away from a demonstration
of 50, 000-mile durability (Refs. 6-3, 6-4, 6-5).
6.2.3         Ford
Initially,  Ford's first-choice system for 1975 was a combined thermal reactor/
catalyst system.  Based on work during the past year,  however,  Ford believes
that the first-choice system ultimately will be a catalyst-only type.  Emission
results with this system are nearly as good as those for the combined reactor-
catalyst system.  The slight advantage in emission performance which the
reactor-catalyst system may provide  is not considered commensurate with
the cost increase involved.  A final first-choice system selection will be made
on completion of the Riverside test program when additional data on comparative
system performance will be available (Ref. 6-6).
                                                       /
The test series of 32 vehicles being conducted at Riverside includes eight
vehicles (Group II) that incorporate exhaust manifold reactors which function
primarily as preheaters for the  catalytic converter.  The  Group  II tests are
scheduled for completion in October 1972.  Data for 4000 miles reported for
the Group II vehicles to data are presented in detail in Section 2.2.3.
                                    6-4

-------
The effect of long-time exposure of components and materials to the thermal
reactor environment is being evaluated.  A recent Ford experimental investiga-
tion identified material deposits which are thought to originate in the stainless
steel liner of the reactor.  Investigations are under way to resolve this issue.
Ford speculates that a basic incompatibility may exist between thermal reactors
and  catalytic converters used in combination.

Development reactors tested on six vehicles in the  Ford 1975 model year
durability test program exhibited four failures at mileages ranging from 5000
to 30,000 miles (Ref. 6-6).
6.2.4         General Motors
Problems of temperature, space,  and durability,  as well as unsatisfactory
emission performance, have led General Motors to discard the thermal reactor
as a primary system for  meeting the  1975 standards.  Possible applications of
the thermal reactor to some specific  vehicle models are being evaluated.

Limited studies on combinations of a. manifold reactor and catalytic converters
have been conducted.  General Motors reports that a few experimental systems
show promise of low emissions at levels at  or below 1975 standards.  These
systems are not ready for production because of problems related to both
subsystems which remain to be solved.

General Motors reports that the primary potential application of the thermal
reactor system is the  Vega vehicle.   Emission levels obtained with a Vega
equipped with a thermal reactor and EGR were reported to range from 0. 2 to
0. 24 gm/mi HC, 2. 8 to 3. 0 gm/mi CO, and 0. 39 gm/mi NO  (see Section 2. 2. 4).
                                                          2t
Problems encountered with the General Motors manifold reactor concern
driveability and packaging.  The need for extensive insulation to maintain high
oxidizing temperatures (1500  to 2000°F) affects the problem of engine compart-
ment packaging. More experience in  the use of high-efficiency insulation
                                    6-5

-------
materials is said to be needed.  Air requirements for the thermal reactor
exceed those for the catalytic converter; a larger air pump is therefore
required.  Satisfactory materials for manifold reactor durability have not
yet been found.

When questioned on its emission test results with a thermal reactor on a
rotary engine, General Motors was unable to provide any reason why emissions
achieved by Toyo Kogyo were significantly lower (Refs. 6-7, 6-8).
6.2.5         International Harvester
International Harvester is considering the use of a thermal reactor on two
alternate-choice systems for 1975. The first consists of a thermal reactor,
EGR, and advanced fuel system with fast-heat manifold.  All development
testing has been carried out  on the 5500-lb inertia weight Travelall vehicle.
Representative CVS-CH emission levels for this vehicle were reported to be
(in grams per mile):
                    HC                       0.37 to 1.0
                    CO                      14. 8 to 22. 3
                    NOx                      1.2 to 2.8

Durability testing of this system was conducted to 24, 000 miles , at which time
the reactor was removed for inspection.   The left reactor core runners were
found to be eroded  and the core assembly  severely warped.  High underhood
temperatures resulted in ignition wire failures at 20,000 miles.  Detailed
emission levels at  intermediate mileage points for this vehicle  are shown in
Section 2.2.5 (International Harvester alternate-choice systems).

A second vehicle,  also durability-tested to approximately 26,OQO^niles (see
Section 2.2.5) with the thermal reactor  system, exhibited deterioration in CO
emission control at 25,794 miles (from  an initial value of 14.8  gm/mi to a final
                                    6-6

-------
value of 42.3 gm/mi).  The reasons for this are currently being investigated.
Intermediate mileage points were not reported.  It was concluded by Inter-
national Harvester that the CO control with thermal reactors was inadequate.
Reactor casting life was reported as "unacceptable" (cracking at 2000 to
4000 miles).

Another alternate system,  composed of a thermal reactor,  catalytic converter,
EGR, air injection,  and engine modifications,  was tested on the Travelall
vehicle.  International Harvester reported "representative" emission levels
of 0.63 gm/mi for HC, 3.5 gm/mi for CO.  and 0.77 gm/mi for NO .  No
                                                                 J\.
details  regarding  test mileage, converter type, or other  specific information
were provided (Refs. 6-9,  6-10).
6.2.6          British Leyland
British Leyland's approach has been directed toward the  development of a
1975 emission control package which, with the  add-on of  a reducing catalyst,
would meet the standards for 1976.   A thermal reactor was considered but was
rejected when it was concluded from experimental investigations that a thermal
reactor/EGR  system would be unable to meet the 1976 NO  standards.   British
Leyland indicated, however, that thermal reactor work is being pursued in
conjunction with Associated Octel and with Engineering Research and Applica-
tion, Ltd,  (Ref. 6-11).
6.2.7          Daimler-Benz
Development effort with thermal reactors, both singly and in conjunction with
oxidation catalysts, was conducted by this manufacturer in three of seven
systems under consideration.  However, thermal reactors are not used in its
first-choice or alternate  1975  candidate systems, and  no details on thermal
reactors were provided (Ref. 6-12).
6.2.8          Nissan
The Nissan second-choice system uses a thermal reactor in addition to an
HC/CO catalytic converter,  EGR,  air injection, and engine modifications.
                                    6-7

-------
Reactor deformation and core damage have been encountered frequently.
An inexpensive and easily workable core material possessing a good corrosion
characteristic and high-temperature strength has not been found.  An
acceptable insulating material and the proper configuration to retain it intact
has not been developed.

CVS-CH emission levels for the Nissan thermal reactor system were reported at
8000 miles as 0.47, 3.6, and 0.92 gm/mi for HC,  CO, and NO , respectively
                                                            ji
(see Section 2.2. 13 and Ref.  6-13).
6.2.9         Saab
To date,  Saab has tested thermal reactors of the early DuPont-type, the Esso
RAM-type, and a Saab-Scania design.

Saab states that although the emission-reducing potential of the thermal reactor
does not  seem to be adequate to meet the  1975 standards, the durability problems
may be easier to solve than with the use of the catalytic converter.  Saab,
therefore,  is continuing  development work in this area as a backup,  but is not
planning  to combine the thermal reactor with an HC/CO catalytic converter.

A  proprietary thermal reactor  developed  by  Saab which shows promise will be
fitted to a fuel injection engine  to determine  the potential of  such a combination.

Emission results reported by Saab for thermal reactor-equippe.d  vehicles are
shown  in Table 6-1. It  should be emphasized that although a total of 12,992
miles was reported by Saab for  Test 14, this mileage  actually represents
vehicle mileage  and not reactor mileage,  since the reactor was "stripped
and refurbished" by Zenith Carburetor five times during the reported mileage
period.
                                   6-8

-------
Table 6-1.  Saab Thermal Reactor Systems
Test
No.
13
14
15
16

Car
No.
209b
209C
427
22 lb

Reactor
Type
DuPont
DuPont
Esso RAM
Saab -Scania

Reactor
Mileage
0
3400
0
12992
160
0
1500

Emissions, gm/mi
HC CO NOX
0.20 3.6 1.3
0.41 14.56 1.23
0.26 13.27 3.03
0.12 3.24 1.32
0.65 7.82 1.03

Remarks
No EGR. 7% power loss.
Emissions reported unchanged
from 0 mile results.
No EGR. 7% power loss.
Frequent cracking and leak-
age. Plug wires burned.
Test continuing*^.
Best result, optimization
testing. Use of EGR not
specified. Durability test to
be started.
No. EGR, Electr. fuel injection
Not tested, tremendous
cracking and sealing
problems .
a!975 CVS-CH test procedure.
Normal driving cycle.
MAR driving cycle.
Reactor stripped and rebuilt at frequent intervals. Air pump replaced at 12, 992 miles.

-------
Specific problem areas itemized were:  (a) failure to achieve reduction of
CO to required levels,  (b) thermal expansion (reactor-to-cylinder block),
(c) high fuel economy loss of 10 to 15 percent, (d) power loss up to 10 percent,
(e) overheating of the reactor,  and (f) high temperatures in the vicinity of
the reactor (Ref. 6-14).
6.2.10        Toyo Kogyo
Toyo Kogyo is fairly optimistic that the 1975 standards can be met with a
thermal reactor system similar to the design currently installed on  their
rotary engines.   It plans to establish final production design specifications
for 1975 vehicles in October 1972.

Three vehicles with 70-CID rotary engines have been tested at low mileage
(300-1000 miles).  Emission data based on the average of 18 tests on the three
vehicles,  using the 1975 Federal test procedure,  were 0. 17 gm/mi HC,
2.2 gm/mi CO,  and 0.93 gm/mi NO .  This is  discussed in greater detail in
                                  3C
Section 2.2. 17 as the Toyo Kogyo first-choice system for the  1975 rotary
engine vehicle.  General Motors has indicated that its emission test results
with a reactor-equipped rotary engine were significantly higher than those
of Toyo Kogyo.

Because the 1975 reactor will  operate at a temperature about  130 F higher
than the 1972 production model, durability of the  1975 reactor must  be con-
firmed.  The possible adverse effects of the thermal environment on various
underhood components must be determined.

It is anticipated that fuel consumption will increase by about 5 percent over the
1972 models.  Fuel with lead concentrations currently on the market is not
considered to pose severe durability problems, although, in general,  the lower
lead content fuel is preferred from the durability standpoint.
                                   6-10

-------
With its reciprocating piston engine, Toyo Kogyo is conducting development
work on a thermal reactor system, a catalyst system, and a combination
system of the two.  These are discussed in greater detail in Section 2.2. 17
as candidate first-choice systems for Toyo Kogyo.

Recent data on two test vehicles with 110-CID reciprocating piston engines
equipped with thermal reactors and tested between 300 to 1100 miles achieved
average emission levels of 0. 15 gm/mi HC, 2.6 gm/mi CO, and 2.3 gm/mi
NO  , based on an average of six tests on the two vehicles.

Use of the thermal reactor is seen as having particularly severe under hood
effects as compared with the rotary engine, because the  reciprocating engine
occupies a larger volume in the engine compartment (Refs.  6-15, 6-16).
6.2.11        Toyota
No thermal reactor is envisioned for 1975.  A thermal reactor is planned for
installation ahead of an HC/CO catalytic converter  for 1976.

Toyota indicated that the thermal reactor performance goals (unspecified)
have nearly been met, but major unresolved problem areas  remain, including
poor material durability and heat resistance and the need for further  develop-
ment of the  secondary air  control system to prevent reactor overheating.
Toyota also felt that heat from the thermal reactor may cause vapor lock in
the  brake system (Refs. 6-17, 6-18).
6.2.12       Volkswagen
Volkswagen indicates that it has had numerous problems  with thermal reactors.
Due to the horizontally opposed cylinder arrangement of the Volkswagen engine,
the  system requires two reactors or, alternately,  extremely long exhaust port
extensions.
                                   6-11

-------
Volkswagen's recent test results indicate that the 1975 emission standards
cannot be attained with thermal reactors alone.  Therefore, the reactors are
being used principally to provide faster warmup of the catalytic converters
used as a component in the Volkswagen emission control systems (Ref. 6-19).
6.2.13        Volvo
Volvo's fourth choice for a 1975 system includes a thermal reactor for HC/CO
control.  A turbulent reactor designated as Type 4 (modified) has been selected
for vehicle evaluation and the best (low mileage) results  obtained are shown in
Table 6-2.

The problems reported by Volvo for the thermal reactor system are high fuel
penalty (about 50 percent increase in fuel consumption),  poor driveability,  loss
of performance,  and mechanical failures  (Ref.  6-20).
6.2.14        DuPont
The DuPont reactor is a conventional cylindrical design consisting of a cast-
iron outer shell which houses a tubular core and shield to reduce heat loss.
The latest design configuration, referred to as  the Type  VUI reactor,  recently
was designed for the V-8 engine and is the same physical size as the  older
Type V version but external  insulation is used,  instead of internal heat shielding,
to maintain high reactor temperatures.  The Type V reactor is illustrated in
Figure 6-1.
The DuPont emission control concept comprises the thermal reactor types
described above, along with  EGR  and a trapping system  to remove lead
particulates from the exhaust gas. Recent emission tests of this system
installed in 4- and 8-cylinder engine vehicles were reported in Refs.  6-21
and 6-22.  The data, which were based on the 1975 CVS-CH procedure, are
summarized  in Table 6-3. It may be seen that  the system does not meet the
1975 standards for CO.
                                   6-12

-------
   Table 6-2.  Volvo Thermal Reactor (VFM 80)
              Emission Results
Test
No.
656
721
744
752
1000
Car Reg. No.
OB 48503
Automatic
Transmission



Air /Fuel
Setting
Percent
+ioa
-noa
+ ioa
+ioa
+ 10a
Reactor
Mileage at
Test (Miles)
0
100
140
170
590
Emissions, gm/mi
CO HC NOX
1.92 0.29 2.13
4.09 0.20 1.58
2.61 0.09 1.92
2.09 0.19 2.40
1.58 0.12 1.36
Test
Procedure
Year
1975
CVS-CH




Remarks
Without
EGR

Air pump
ratio
1.26
Air pump
ratio 1. 5
With EGR
aCold start enrichment disconnected at 600°C exhaust temperature from reactor.
Full load enrichment disconnected.
Table 6-3.  DuPont Reactor System Emission Results

Engine Type
4-Cylinder(2)



V-8(2>


Emissions, gm/mi
HC CO NOX
0.29 5.2 0.6
0.32 5.2 0.55
0.18 4.7 0.58
0. 18 4.7 0.70
0.20 6.0 0.70
0.18 7.2 0.52
0.22 7.1 0.58

Remarks




Average of DuPont tests
Outside lab - 2-Test Average
EPA Test average
^1975 CVS-CH test procedure.
'unidentified U.S. manufactured cars.
                        6-13

-------
DuPont states that the V-8 fuel economy was decreased by 14 percent and the
4-cylinder's by 17 percent compared to standard production models when
driven over the road in a mixed city suburban  course.   Full-throttle per-
formance of the V-8 was not affected relative to the standard production
model; acceleration of the 4-cylinder engine vehicle was impaired by the
necessity of using EGR at full throttle to achieve low NO  emissions.
                                                      x
With regard to emissions durability, DuPont states that thermal reactors have
been shown to control HC and CO with essentially no change in emission levels
for the life of the vehicle.

The physical durability of systems equippped with the DuPont reactor is a
question that apparently is not yet resolved. A six-vehicle test program con-
ducted by the State of California in 1970 was terminated at 20,000 miles because
of excessive wear of the timing chain and valve train caused by metal oxide
particles from the reactor core being taken through the EGR system into the
lubricating oil.

Based on engine dynamometer tests, DuPont believes that reactor cores
fabricated of Inconel 601 would be more oxidation-resistant than 310 stainless
steel  and would operate satisfactorily for the lifetime of the car.  However,
DuPont has not yet tested Inconel 601 on vehicles.

It was indicated that damage has been observed in electrical and plastic com-
ponents under the hood due to the heat generated by the thermal reactors
(Refs. 6-21,  6-22).
6.2.15        Esso
The most recent Esso thermal reactor  development is referred to as RAM
(Rapid Action Manifold).  The reactor (Figure  6-2) consists of a torus made
of Type 310 stainless steel.  Connecting arms  lead exhaust gases from the
engine to the torus.  The gases flow around the torus  and  exit through a slot
                                    6-14

-------
into a central plenum and then into the exhaust pipe.  The slot is positioned
so that the gases must flow at least half-way around the torus before they can
exit, and so that a portion of the circulating gases flows completely around
the torus to  mix with the entering engine exhaust. Air is injected into each
engine exhaust port and is aimed toward the valve.  Most of the thermal
reaction takes place as the gases swirl through the reactor. Flameholders
are  located at the exit of each engine exhaust port; they act to stabilize the
flame at the  exhaust port outlets during start-up, when the  engine is choked.

Esso results for the RAM  system are quoted as follows (Ref.  6-23):

                                    1972-CVS-C  Emissions,  gm/mi
                                           HC    CO   NOx
               Without EGR                0.07   4.2   1.89
               WithEGR(l2%)             0.08   3.7   0.72

These and other Esso tests of the modified RAM concept were intended to
be demonstrative only; no durability tests have been made.  If this concept
were tested for durability, a more adaptable material than the Type 310
stainless  steel used in the demonstrator model would be required.
6.2.16        Ethyl
The  Ethyl Corporation has been actively pursuing the development of lead-
tolerant emission control devices.  This effort has evolved a  combination of
emission  control devices referred to as the Ethyl Lean Reactor System, which
includes a full-size lean thermal reactor for HC and CO control, an EGR
system for NO  control, and  advanced  carburetion for engine'operation at the
selected lean air-fuel ratio (approximately 17.5)  provided by a specially
developed, high-velocity carburetor.  Spark advance characteristics in the
Ethyl system are tailored to provide the best compromise among fuel economy,
driveability,  and low emissions.
                                    6-15

-------
Ethyl has demonstrated this approach with vehicle tests.  All test work
reported has been done with fuel containing approximately 3 gm/gal of lead.
With use of this fuel, the Ethyl Lean Reactor System avoids fuel economy
penalties incurred by lowering compression ratio to accommodate low-octane
fuels.   Ethyl states that the retention of a high-compression ratio also
makes it possible to operate with satisfactory driveability at leaner mixtures
than otherwise would be the case, and minimizes problems of EGR with  respect
to vehicle driveability effects.

The most advanced versions of the Ethyl Lean Reactor System are embodied
in several Pontiacs and one 1971 Plymouth.  Emissions of two of these cars,
based on the single-bag CVS test procedure, are shown in Tables  6-4 and 6-5.
Similar data obtained with the CVS-CH test procedure for the  1971 Plymouth
are compared with the single-bag data in Table  6-4. As can be seen,  the
HC and CO emissions exceed the 1975 standards.  The NO  emissions are
well below the  1975 standard.

Further improvements proposed by Ethyl which could reduce HC  and CO
emissions include moderation of the amount of air injected during the first  few
minutes of warm-up operation to increase exhaust oxidation during the choking
period; design  changes to improve heat conservation in the exhaust ports
and exhaust port liners;  improvements in the intake manifold to promote .
quicker warm-up; alterations in transmission characteristics  to accelerate
warm-up; use of higher compression ratio to permit still leaner mixtures
and better utilization of EGR; and use of charcoal absorber traps to reduce
HC exhausted during engine startup.

These are logical technical approaches,  but until they are incorporated and
demonstrated,  this  concept is considered deficient with regard to  meeting the
1975 HC and CO standards (Ref. 6-24).
                                    6-16

-------
Table 6-4.  Ethyl Lean Reactor--Emission Data
           for 1970 Pontiac (Vehicle 766)
Vehicle Description
1970 Pontiac LeMans
400 CID Engine
Automatic Transmission
Power Steering
Power Brakes






1972 CVS Procedure

Run Date
4-5-71
4-6-71
4-19-71
4-20-71
4-21-71
4-22-71
6-3-71
6-24-71
Avg.
12-18-70
1970 7-Mode Procedure

Run Date
4-8-71
4-13-71
4-14-71
Avg.
Equivalent gm/mi
Modifications
3-Venturi Carburetor
EGR System
Exhaust Manifold Reactor
Exhaust Port Liners
Evaporative Loss Controls
Exhaust Cooler Units
Particulate Trapping Device
Air-Injection Pump (Operates During
Choking Period)
Transmission Modifications
(Modulator and Governor)

HC CO NOx
(gm/mil (gm/mi) (gm/mil
0.74 7.3 .40
0.75 7.0 .60
0.74 5.3 .70
0. 78 6. 2 . 70
0. 84 6.2 . 48
0.82 5.9 .45
0.88 6.5 1.45
0.73 6.8 1.40
0.79 6.4 1.52
0.64 9.1 1.09

HC CO NO
(ppm) (%) (ppm)
19 0.21 226
20. 0.20 200
.23 0.21 197
20.7 0.21 208
0.26 5.0 0.81
                                                   Table 6-5.  Ethyl Lean Reactor--Emission Data for
                                                             '.. 1971 Plymouth (Vehicle 18M-448)
Vehicle Description
1971 Plymouth Fury HI
360 CID Engine
Automatic Transmission
Power Steering
Power Brakes
Air Conditioning
1972 CVS Procedure (Single -bag tests)
HC
Run Date gm/mi
2-26-71 .1.00
3-2-71 0.74
3-8-71 0.92
3-24-71 0.82
4-8-71 1.00
Avg. 0. 89
1975 CVS Procedure (Three-bag tests)
0.52
Modifications
3-Venturi Carburetor
EGR System
Exhaust Manifold Reactor
Exhaust Port Liners
Evaporative Loss Controls
Exhaust Cooler Units
CO
gm/mi
8.0
7.3
7.6
10.0
10.0
8.6
6.2

gm/mi
1.6
1.7
0.86
1.5
1.23.
1.37
1.37

-------
                              REFERENCES
6-1   Automobile Emissions Control - A Technology Assessment as of
      December 1971, Mobile Source Pollution Control Program, Office of
      Air Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,  1 January  1972.

6-2   American Motors Corporation, Technical Data Submittal provided by
      AMC at the request of the EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel,
      20 April 1972.
                                                                        j
6-3   Chrysler Corporation, "Application for Suspension of 1975 Motor
      Vehicle Emission Standards Pursuant to Section 202(b)(5) of the Clean
      Air Act, " March 1972.

6-4   Chrysler Corporation, Technical Data Submittal provided by Chrysler
      at the request of the EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel,
      25 April 1972.

6-5   Chrysler Corporation, Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto Emissions
      Extension--  Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. ,
      20 April 1972.

6-6   Ford Motor Company,  "Application for Suspension of 1975 Motor
      Vehicle Exhaust Emissions Standards, " Volumes I and II, 5 April 1972.

6-7   General Motors Corporation,  "Request for Suspension of 1975 Federal
      Emissions Standards, " Volumes I and II, 3 April 1972.

6-8   General Motors Corporation,  Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto
      Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
      D. C., 26 April 1972  (recall).

6-9   International  Harvester,  "Request for One-Year Suspension of 1975
      HC and CO Light-duty Emission Standards Submitted to EPA,  Washington,
      D. C., " 29 March 1972.

6-10  International  Harvester Company, Transcript of Proceedings  -- Auto
      Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
      D. C.,  14 April 1972.

6-11  British Leyland Motors,  Inc. ,  "EPA Hearing of Volvo Application for
      Deferment of Emission Legislation Applicable to  1975 Model Year
      Vehicles, " March 1972.

6-12  Daimler-Benz, "Statement of Daimler-Benz AG before the Environmental
      Protection Agency,  Washington, D. C.," April 1972.
                                   6-19

-------
                       REFERENCES (continued)
6-13  Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A. (Datsun), Transcript of
      Proceedings -- Auto Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection
      Agency, Washington, D.  C.,  11 April 1972.

6-14  Saab-Scania of America,  Inc. and Saab-Scania AB,  "Information Sub-
      mitted in Response to Subpoena dated March 17,  1972 of Environmental
      Protection Agency,  Washington, D. C. "

6-15  Toyo Kogyo Company, Ltd., "Statement of Toyp Kogyo  Company, Ltd., "
      April  1972.

6-16  Toyo Kogyo Company, Ltd., Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto
      Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington,
      D.  C., 21 April 1972.

6-17  Toyota Motor Company, Ltd., "A Summary of Toyota's Technology and
      Processes for Meeting the 1975 Federal Emission Standards, "
      5 April 1972.

6-18  Toyota Motor Company, Ltd., Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto
      Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington,
      D.  C., 13 April 1972.

6-19  Volkswagen of America,  Inc., "Information and  Documentary Materials
      Relating to Volkswagen's Emission Research and Design Effort to Meet
      1975 Federal Emission Goals, " 10 April 1972.

6-20  AB Volvo, "Request for Suspension of the 1975 Emission Standards, "
      9 March 1972.

6-21  E.  I.  DuPont De Namours and Company "Statement for  Presentation to
      the Environmental Protection Agency at a Hearing on the Request by
      Volvo, Inc. , for a One-Year Suspension of the 1975 Light-Duty Vehicle
      Emission Standards," April 10, 1972.

6-22  E.  I.  DuPont De Namours and Company,  Technical Data Submittal
      provided by DuPont at the Request of the EPA Suspension Request Hearing
      Panel, 28 April 1972.

6-23  R.  J.  Lang, "A Well Mixed Thermal Reactor or System for Automotive
      Emission Control" SAE Paper No. 710608, June 1971.

6-24  The Ethyl Lean Reactor System, Ethyl Corporation Research
      Laboratories,  Detroit, 1 July  1971.
                                   6-20

-------
                     7.  SECONDARY AIR SUPPLY
7. 1            SUMMARY DISCUSSION
Although secondary air injection at engine exhaust ports has been widely used
as an independent control device for the suppression of HC and CO emissions
since 1966, it  is not being given serious  consideration by any automobile
manufacturer as a prime system for meeting 1975 standards.

In aftertreatment devices for HC and CO control,  such as  catalytic converters
and thermal reactors, sufficient oxygen is needed to promote oxidation of the
pollutants.  The oxygen  required is provided by an engine-driven air pump.

The production hardware for the current air injection system typically con-
sists  of an engine-driven air pump, hoses,  steel tubing manifolds to deliver
the  air to each exhaust port,  and a  series of valves  to prevent backfiring and
backflowing and to provide  relief to the pump when the engine is operating at
high speeds and peak loads.   In most systems,  the belt-driven air pump pro-
vides air flow  modulation solely on the basis of engine RPM and neglects the
demand variation due to  throttle setting.   A number  of manufacturers are
investigating the use of fully modulating electric drives or air by-pass tech-
niques for  advanced control systems.

Generally, little more than passing mention of the use and type of air pump
drives was made by the automobile manufacturers in discussing their pro-
jected 1975 emission control systems.   Pump durability and pump noise are
frequently identified as problem areas; the durability problem appears to be
particularly troublesome.  However, no manufacturer classifies any part of
the  air injection system  as critical for 1975.

Fuel economy  and power-loss penalties associated with the operation of air
injection systems are  negligible.
                                  7-1

-------
In the following paragraphs, the absence of an entry for a given manufacturer
indicates that specific information concerning air injection  system components
was not provided.
7. 2            SELECTED SYSTEMS, BY MANUFACTURER
7. 2. 1          Chrysler Corporation
The Chrysler system for 1975 includes an oxidation catalytic converter and a
partial thermal reactor (Ref. 7-1).   The secondary air is supplied by a
26-cubic-inch-per-revolution air pump.  The previously used 19-cubic-inch
pump was required to operate  at a speed too  high for satisfactory pump life.
A drive ratio of 1. 52:1 has  been used in the Chrysler integrated system tests.
7. 2. 2          Ford
Secondary air will be used with Ford's current first-choice system, which
utilizes a catalytic converter (Ref. 7-2).  In 1971,  Ford conducted high-
mileage tests of six vehicles equipped with 1975-type air injection systems.
Secondary air pump failures occurred in four of these vehicles at mileages
ranging from 5000 to 35,000.  However, Ford does not regard  the air pump
as a significant problem component.
7. 2. 3          General Motors
General Motors has used a  19-cubic-inch-per-revolution pump extensively in
production vehicles  and feels it has demonstrated  satisfactory performance
and reliability.  All current installations are driven directly by the engine
through a conventional  V-belt arrangement. Most applications have a drive
ratio of about 1. 2:1  (Ref. 7-3).

The catalytic converter requires approximately 30 percent more air than is
currently delivered. Use of the 19-cubic-inch pump would require drive
ratios  of approximately 2:1.  Durability at speeds in excess of  6000 RPM,
which would  be needed, is limited.  In addition, new noise problems are
introduced at high speeds.  The approach considered  for  1975  includes a
larger displacement pump with drive ratios which could differ for particular
vehicle applications.
                                    7-2

-------
Air will continue to be introduced near the exhaust ports.  The prior experience
of General Motors with its Air Injection Reactor System (AIR) has shown this
to be the optimum  location,  and  experiments with oxidation catalysts have  not
established a more desirable location.
7. 2. 4         Volvo
The use of secondary air is contemplated for all four of Volvo's alternate
1975  systems (Ref. 7-4).  A program to develop a secondary air supply sys-
tem was initiated  in 1970.  The system may include a temperature sensor  in
the converter or reactor and a valve for shutting off or by-passing the secon-
dary air.  The research and development phase is reported to be 80 percent
completed and engineering testing is in the  initial stages.

Pump noise and deterioration of air flow control due to wear  of valves and
seals, as well as failure of the temperature sensors caused by vibration,  are
the main problems in Volvo's air supply system.
7. 2. 5         British Leyland
British Leyland will use air injection systems  similar to those installed in
its 1972 model year vehicles.  The  existing air pump capacity is insufficient
for the  1975  catalytic converter  systems, and modified designs are being
investigated  (Ref.  7-5).
7. 2. 6         Daimler-Benz
Daimler-Benz1 first-choice system includes an oxidation catalyst, air injec-
tion,  and EGR.  This  manufacturer is having air pump durability problems and
has recently engaged a new  supplier who is  working to improve durability
(Ref. 7-6).
7. 2. 7         Saab-Scania
Saab-Scania  reports that AC-Delco  or Lucas rotary vane-type secondary air
supply pumps with V-belt drives are being investigated.  Tests have shown
that injection of air as close as possible to the exhaust valves yields the best
results.  Engine power and fuel  economy  losses associated with the pump are
slight (Ref. 7-7).

                                    7-3

-------
                             REFERENCES
7-1   Chrysler Corporation,  "Application for Suspension of 1975 Motor
      Vehicle Emission Standards Pursuant to Section 202(b)(5) of the Clean
      Air Act, " March 1972.

7-2   Ford Motor Company,  "Application for Suspension of 1975 Motor
      Vehicle Exhaust Emissions Standards, " Volumes I and II,  5 April 1972.

7-3   General Motors Corporation, "Request for Suspension of 1975 Federal
      Emissions Standards, " Volumes I and II, 3 April 1972.

7-4   AB Volvo, "Request for Suspension of the 1975 Emission Standards, "
      9 March  1972.

7-5   British Leyland Motors,  Inc., "EPA Hearing of Volvo Application for
      Deferment of Emission Legisl- Uon Applicable to 1975 Model Year
      Vehicles, " March 1972.

7-6   Daimler-Benz, "Statement of Daimler-Benz AG before the Environmental
      Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. ," April 1972.

7-7   Saab-Scania of America, Inc. and Saab-Scania AB, "Information Sub-
      mitted in Response to Subpoena dated March 17,  1972 of Environmental
      Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. "
                                   7-4

-------
                          8.  EMISSION GOALS
8. 1            GENERAL
In order to comply with the 1975 emission standards on production vehicles
at 50, 000 miles, the automobile manufacturers must demonstrate substanti-
ally lower emission goals on low-mileage engineering prototype vehicles to
account for a number of parameters affecting emission control system per-
formance.  These parameters include the emission deterioration factor (DF)
of the control system, the prototype-to-production slippage factor  (PPS), and,
in case emission averaging is not permitted, the production quality control
factor (QCF).  Based on these definitions, the low-mileage emission goals
for engineering prototype vehicles are computed from the following equation

                    ,,       	M           ,  .
                    Mgoal =  DF x PPS x QCF  '  gm/mi

•where M represents the 1975 HC, CO, and NO  emission standards and DF
represents the system deterioration factor between low mileage and 50, 000
miles.  To minimize "green" engine/control-system effects,  EPA  has
selected the 4000-mile point as the low-mileage reference value.  It  should
be noted that deterioration factors must be used with care.  In general,
deterioration factors determined for one type of vehicle/emission control
system are only applicable to similar configurations.

The  in-house emission goals established by the various manufacturers for
reciprocating spark ignition engine-powered vehicles are presented in Table
8-1.  Also listed in this table are the emission goals selected by Toyo Kogyo
and Daimler-Benz for rotary engine-powered vehicles. Daimler-Benz
                                   8-1

-------
                       Table 8-1.  Low Mileage Emission Goals (Averaging Permitted)

                                   Projected 1975 Control Systems
oo
i

Manufacturer

I. DOMESTIC
American Motors


Chrysler
Ford
General Motors




II. FOREIGN
British Ley land

Daimler-Benz


Mitsubishi

Nissan

Saab-Scania
Toyo Kogyo



Toyota
Volkau-agen

Volvo


Emission
Control Concept


EM + EGR + AI + OC

EM t EGR T AI + OC
EM + EGR + AI * PTR + OC

EM + EGR + AI + PTR+ OC
Catalyst change at 23, 000
miles
°Q. 5% of cars meeting
standards at 50,000 miles
EM * EGR + AI -f(TR) + OC

EM + AI • OC

EM t EGR * AI 4 OC
Diesel engine (no catalyst1
Rotary engine 4EGR4AI4OC
EM t AI 4 (TRI * OC
EM * AI 4 TR
EM . AI + EGR 4 OC

EM « AI 4 OC
EM * AI + OC
EM * AI * TR
Rotary engine 4- AI 4- TR

EM t AI t EGR 4 OC
EM 4 (EFK t AI * EGR 4
TR 4- OC
EM 4 AI + EGR * OC


Emission Goals,
gnn/mile
HC CO NOx

0.15 2.55 2.2

0.10 1.50 2.2
Not specified

0.20 1.7 2.07
0.27 2.27 2.07

0.07 0.71 1.16


0. 16 1.36 1. 5

0.20 2.0 2.0
Not specified
0.20 2.0 2.0
0. 14 1.2 1.4
0.26 2.2 2.0
0. 18 1. 50 0. %

0.20 1.7 1.5S
0. 19 1.5 2. 3
0.29 2.3 2.3
0.29 2.3 2.3

0.19 1.5 1.9
0. 17 1.4 0. 12<

0.20 1.7 1.2


Reference
Mileage


4000

<10
-


-

Low

Low
Low

Low
_
Low
Low
Low
Low

Low
Low
Low
Low

Low
Low

Low

Selected Control
System
Deterioration
Factor
HC CO NOX

2.0 - 1.1

1.1
-

2.0 2.0 1.5
1.5

_
18 18 18

2.0 2.0 1.7

_
_ _

2.0 2.0
-
2.0 2.0 1.4

2.0 2.0 2.0
2.0 2.0 l.Z
1.3 1.3 1.2
1.3 1.3 1.2

2.0 2.0 1.5
_

_


Prototype-To-
Production Slippage
Factor


Remarks


-1.25

•1.25
-


-

_


l.Z

-
_

-
-
1. 1

-
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1

1. 1 - 1.2
<1.3

_

Catalyst replacement may be
required

Selection of goals not pnssi-
maintenance)
bility characteristics
Best estimate of goals: lack
of durability data



vehicles
Goals may have to be lowered
further

Will meet 1975 emission
standards


Goals may not be stringent
enough (<0.02 gm/gal Pb)
Preliminary estimate


Toyo Kogyo believes that they
can meet these goals
Preliminary estimates
Catalyst replacement at
20,000 mi1
Preliminary goals: insufficient
data
"1976 NOx GOAL

EM = Engine Modifications TR = Thermal Reactors
EGR = Exhaust Gas Recirculation OC = Oxidation Catalyst

-------
has stated that the 220D diesel vehicle will probably meet the 1975 standards
but did not provide emission goals for diesels.  With the  exception of one set
of numbers presented by General Motors, the emission goals established by
the automobile manufacturers are based on the emission  averaging concept
(QCF =  1. 0).  Another set of emission goals presented by General Motors is
listed in Table 8-1.   This set is based on the assumption that 99. 5 percent of
the production vehicles meet the  1975  standards at 50, 000 miles.  This
assumption results in such extremely  low HC and CO emission  levels that it
is doubtful whether these values can be attained with current spark ignition
engine emission control system technology.

Most manufacturers have assumed HC and CO emission deterioration factors
of 2. 0 for systems incorporating catalytic converters.  Based on the avail-
able test data, this assumption appears too optimistic,  although further
improvements in the  carburetion, choke, and ignition systems,  and in catalyst
performance might be achieved in time for use in 1975 vehicles.  Toyo Kogyo
has selected a HC and a CO deterioration factor of 1. 3 for systems incor-
porating a thermal reactor only.  This is a lower factor than that selected for
its systems incorporating a catalytic converter.

NO  deterioration factors assumed by the manufacturers  vary between 1. 1
   3C
and 1. 8.  It is believed that these levels are attainable, although EGR  system
maintenance may be required to accomplish this.

The emission goals presented by the automobile manufacturers  are based on
the ground rule that catalyst replacement is not permitted during the 50, 000-
mile test.  If catalyst replacement were permitted at intermediate mileage
points, the emission goals  could be relaxed somewhat.  The degree of relax-
ation is primarily determined by the shape of the emission-versus-mileage
curve which  is generally different for different vehicle/control  system com-
binations.  General Motors is the only manufacturer that  has provided emission
goals for 25, 000-mile catalyst replacement intervals.
                                    8-3

-------
8.2           DETERIORATION FACTOR
The deterioration factor (DF) of the emission control system is primarily
responsible for the manufacturer's stringent emission goals.  This factor
accounts for the emission increase which results from the performance
degradation -with mileage accumulation of all components utilized in the
system including the engine, and the catalyst and other aftertreatment
devices.  In general, the catalytic converter is the critical component.  As
discussed in Section 5.5, catalyst degradation is the result of poisoning of
the active elements  by lead, phosphorus,  sulfur, and oil additives, and of
attrition and exposure to overtemperature conditions.  Those manufacturers
considering thermal reactor systems expect their deterioration factors to be
lower than those of catalyst systems.

Many of the high mileage tests of emit-.ion control systems incorporating a
catalyst indicate a rather gradual deterioration of emission performance with
mileage accumulation.   This is illustrated by the HC and CO  data provided by
American Motors, General Motors,  Engelhard, and Ford and by the HC data
presented by Matthey Bishop.  These data suggest that deterioration factors
derived for a particular vehicle/control system are only valid for  similar
configurations and operating conditions.   For example, the deterioration
factors derived from a catalyst system operated under idealized conditions
(lead-sterile fuel  and moderate catalyst temperature) are not necessarily
applicable to similar vehicles which  are  subjected to commercially available
"lead-free" fuel and/or more severe durability or customer driving patterns.

Test data provided by Ford from the 1974 California catalyst-only vehicle
fleet indicate rapid degradation of the emissions during the fir-st few thousand
miles on two of the five  vehicles. In both instances the emissions remained
essentially  constant from this mileage point up to 50,000 miles.  This trend
is contradictory to other Ford durability data.
                                    8-4

-------
The deterioration factors derived from the high mileage emission data
provided by the automobile manufacturers are summarized in Figure 8-1.
Although it is not possible to precisely correlate these data, it is apparent
that the degradation has generally been more severe for systems with low
initial (low mileage) emissions.

Since the  emission control  systems projected for use in 1975 vehicles will
incorporate improved carburetion,  choke, and ignition systems as well as
improved (stabilized)  catalytic converters, the emissions and the deterior-
ation factors of these  systems should be  lower than currently indicated.  It
appears that this assumption was included in the considerations made by the
automobile manufacturers in establishing their deterioration factors.
8.3            PRQTOTYPE-TO-PRODUCTION SLIPPAGE FACTOR
The prototype to production slippage factor (PPS) is defined as the ratio of
the average emissions of production vehicles compared with the  emissions
of identical engineering prototype vehicles.  Based on past  experience,  the
emissions from production vehicles are, on the average, higher  than those of
the prototype because of production tolerances and adjustments made in the
final design and fabrication of  certain components.  Although these factors
are known for current vehicles,  it is difficult to make accurate predictions
for future designs.  As  indicated in Table 8-1, most manufacturers project
PPS factors  between 1. 1 and 1. 25.
8.4            PRODUCTION QUALITY CONTROL FACTOR
The production quality control factor  (QCF) accounts for the differences
between the average emissions of a certain vehicle model and the maximum
emissions of a specified percentage of the total vehicle population of that
model. The effect of  the QCF on the  emission goals is illustrated in
Figure 8-2,  which shows the HC and CO  emission distributions from 1971
General Motors production vehicles.  Although these curves may not be
                                    8-5

-------
  210 2
  I—  •
                I       I       I       I       I       I
           • AMC (CVS-CH)     A MITSUBISHI (CVS-CH)
           O CMC (CVS-CH, est) V NISSAN (CVS-C)
           D FORD (CVS-C)     O MATTHEY BISHOP (CVS-CH)
           0 IH (CVS-CH)       G HOUDRY  (CVS-C)
             O
                                 n  v
                     O
                         A   O  O
                                    8
    E  3
  I"  2
                 O
                                            D
                                        o
                246       8      10      12
                   CO EMISSIONS AT 4000 mi, gm/mi
               0.2     0.4     0.6     0.6    1.0     1.2     1.4
                   HC EMISSIONS AT 4000 mi, gm/mi
14
Figure 8-1.  Deterioration Factors vs Emissions at 4000 Miles
                             8-6

-------
               4.0
               3.0
 HC EMISSION LEVEL
  (GRAMS PER MILE)
               2.2
               2.0


               1.3
               1.0
CO EMISSION LEVEL
(GRAMS PER MILE]
                     LIMIT
                                                95% OF CARS
                                                TESTED ARE
                                                BELOW LIMIT
                                            5% OF CARS
                                               TESTED
                  0   10   20   30   40  50   60  70  80
                              PERCENT OF  CARS TESTED
                                      90  100
                                         ;-/:::'>:88%OFCARS
                                            :•
-------
applicable to 1975 model vehicles,  they are presented to show trends.  As
indicated, extremely low emission goals would be required if a high percen-
tage of the vehicles would have to meet the standards.  For example, QCF's
of approximately 2.8 for HC and 3, 1 for CO would be required to achieve
compliance -with 99.5 percent of General Motors vehicles in Figure 8.2.  This
results in correspondly tighter emission goals.  Conversely, if the emission
averaging concept is adopted, the QCF has no  effect on the emission goals
(QCF = 1.0).
8.5           SELECTED PROTOTYPE EMISSION GOALS
8. 5. 1         American Motors
The following prototype emission goals have been established by American
Motors for its 1975 first-choice system, which consists of engine modifi-
cations,  oxidation catalysts, and EGR (Ref. 8-1).

      Reference Mileage             1975 CVS-CH Emissions,  gm/mi
HC
0. 15
0. 1
CO
1.35
- -
NOX
2.2
2.2
         4000
         Less than 10

These numbers are based on the use of 4000-mile to 50, 000-mile emission
deterioration factors of 2. 0 for HC and CO and 1. 1 for NO ,  and a prototype-
to-production slippage factor of 1.25.   Since the HC and CO deterioration
factors demonstrated by American Motors to date are significantly higher,
catalyst replacement maybe required during the 50, 000-mile period.  Ameri-
can Motors forsees no difficulty in meeting the NO  standard over the 50, 000-
                                                jC
mile range without EGR maintenance.   Substantially lower HC and CO emission
goals were selected for "zero mileage" vehicles to account for "green system"
effects.
                                   8-8

-------
Emission control system durability data from two American Motors Hornet
vehicles (Vehicles DOO-24 and DOO-25) equipped with an Engelhard PTX-423
catalyst and operated on fuel containing 0. 016 gm/gal lead and less than
0.005 gm/gal phosphorus are presented in Figures 8-3 through 8-8.  As
indicated in these figures, the emission deterioration is approximately
linear with mileage accumulation.  The deterioration factors derived from
these data are shown below.  For Vehicle DOO-25, the factors are based on
a linear extrapolation of the data from 24, 000 to 50,000 miles.

                   Vehicle DOO-24                Vehicle DOO-25
DF
HC
CO
NOX
Miles
0-4000
-
1.95
1.13
Miles
4000-50,000
2. 72
2.41
2. 38
                                              Miles           Miles
                                              0-4000      4000-50,000
                                                              3.66
                                               1.27           3.20
                                               1.0            1.00
The HC and NO  emissions of Vehicle DOO-24 were within the standard at
               x
50, 000 miles,  while the CO standard was  exceeded at approximately 30, 000
miles.  As indicated by Engelhard (Ref. 8-2), the CO emissions on that
vehicle should be reduced with use of a 1975-type advanced carburetor.
Although the 4000-50, 000 mile deterioration factors for HC and CO Vehicle
DOO-25 are  only slightly higher than those of Vehicle DOO-24,  the standards
are exceeded at very low mileage.  This illustrates that the system specific
deterioration factor must be coupled with  the system specific  low mileage
emissions when projecting emission control system performance to high
mileage.

The lead and phosphorus levels of the fuel used in these tests  were of the
order of 50 percent of those allowed by the proposed EPA fuel additive regu-
lations.  Since fuel contaminants affect catalyst durability, the emission
deterioration factors  computed from the American Motors data may be
                                    8-9

-------
                         • O.I

                         £
                         M
                         8 o.e
       I             I            I
ENOW Ett cio NO vie. SPARK ADVANCE

TRAHSMStlON - AUTOMATIC
BOOT - HORNET
CATALTST • KMOCLHAJID IMM« n«M| PTX-423
rUIL - UNLEADED (O.OM Bn/rH. PHD). 1.««
                                 CORRELATION RATIO WAS DETERMNED AT THE
                                 SO. 000 mil. POINT USINO DATA FROM VEHICLE
                                 DOO-M. THIS RATIO WAS THEN APPLIED TO ALL
                                 OTHER POINTS OF ACTUAL DATA GATHERED USNC
                                 THE \m PROCEDURE. THE POINTS PLOTTED OH
                                 TMS PACE REFLECT THE USE OF THE RATIO

                                                    20. 000        90,000

                                                        OISTAKU, III
                                                                           CO
                          e'
                             '
                                     ENGINE - 232 CID HO VAC. SPARK ADVANCE
                                     CAHB. IV
                                     TRANSMISSION - AUTOMATIC
                                     MOT - HORNET
                                     CATALTST - ENOELHARD l~»l« TOOI) PTX-421
                                     FUEL - UNLEAKD  0.016 >n/gQl). PHOS. (<0, 005)
                                     TEST PROCEDURE IIVT9 voluM cakuloM from
                                     CO..EL.TK* .A™
                                     CHEULUMINESCENCE EOUVALENT
  CORRELATION RATIO WAS DETERUMEO AT THE
  VI030 mill POINT USING DATA FIOU VEHICLE
  000-24. THIS RATIO WAS THEN APPLIED TO ALL
  OTHER POINTS OF ACTUAL DATA GATHERED USIKC
  THE Kn PROCEDURE.  THE POINTS PLOTTED ON
  TMS PACE  REFLECT THE USE OF THE RATIO
NO
                                                                                                                   x
                                                     20,000        30.000

                                                        DISTAMI. ai
Figures  8-3,  8-4,   8-5.    American  Motors  Durability  Test  Data--Vehicle DOO-24
                                                                   8-10

-------
                                                 .
                                             FUCL • UNLCAOCO '0.916 «miT>lf4|
                                             T*JT ownceoijBr   i«»s
                                                                                    E MISSIONS
                                                                                         HC
                                            e MCI we 23? -n
                                            CA»B. IV
                                            TRANSUIUtON  AIJTOM*
                                            •GOT • HO*MEr
                                            C»r«Lf*T . CMGCLHAMD
                                            FUCL  tJNlfAOC9 10.0'6
                                              PHfM  ((••» »wn (1.008).
                                            TEST - P4nCCOtJ« I9T1
 J	_ ,   ,i_
», mo       in wm
   OISTMCI- *!
                                                                                         CO
                                                                         .-..J
                                                                          w. ono
                                             tifnuA rJNLEADCD '0. 116 pr*/*ali. »**OS
                                    TfST PttOCEDUDC  t»^
                                    OCT **CTON  O.M ibv •vtrionlatlan)
                                                      in. oao       «. aon       sa aoo
Figures  8-6,  8-7,  8-8.   American Motors  Durability Test  Data--Vehicle  DOO-25
                                                      8-11

-------
optimistic.  Conversely,  incorporation of "second-generation" improved
catalysts may actually result in a reduction of the deterioration factors.  At
this time there is insufficient information available for a meaningful assess-
ment of these parameters.

It should be noted that Vehicle  DOO-24 was tested in accordance with the
1972 Federal test procedure.  The data was then adjusted by American Motors
by a factor which was determined from 1972 and  1975 test procedure data
taken at the 50, 000-mile point.  This approach is considered an approximation
only.

The emission goals  selected by American Motors include a factor of 1. 25 to
account for prototype-to-production slippage.  Although current test data
indicate slippage factors of 1. 3 to  1. 3T, American Motors  expects by 1975 to
approach the value  of 1. 25 through use of improved production, inspection,
and calibration procedures.  Test-to-test variability considerations -were
neglected and the concept of emission averaging was assumed for new vehicles
and for vehicles in  the field.
8.5.2         Chrysler
The engineering goal of the Chrysler Corporation for 1975  emission  control
is to develop a system which will achieve the emission standards through
50, 000 miles  of normal operation while at the same time exhibit safe, accept-
able driving characteristics.  Chrysler recognizes  that emission control
systems suffer deterioration as mileage  is accumulated.  In past model years,
the  emission deterioration at 50C000 miles has been of the  order of 33 percent
(Ref.  8-3).  However, these factors are not applicable to 1975-type emission
control systems utilizing catalysts with currently unknown durability and
deterioration characteristics.

Chrysler  states that several questions have to be answered by  EPA before
meaningful  emission goals can be established which will ensure that  mass-
produced vehicles will meet the  1975 emission standards for their  useful
                                   8-12

-------
life.  These questions are related to emission averaging procedures,  vehicle/
emission control system maintenance, and assembly line testing (Ref. 8-3).
In addition, catalyst operating temperature and fuel contaminant levels,
inciting load, sulfur,  and phosphorus, affect emission control system  :.
durability to a degree that cannot be determined by Chrysler at this time  ;
(Ref. 8-4).

Chrysler provided high mileage emission test data from Cars 333 and 698.
Both vehicles incorporated Engelhard PTX catalysts, and were operated with
fuel containing 0. C2-0.03 gm/gal lead.  Car 333 was operated under controlled
conditions, with the maximum catalyst temperature limited to  1500 F. Fre-
quent tuneups were made for the purpose of establishing the potential of
catalytic  control systems under "mild" operating conditions.  Since higher
catalyst temperatures may be  reached in customer vehicles, this test is not
considered representative by Chrysler with respect to the performance and
safety characteristics of its projected 1975 control system.

The HC and CO emissions from Car 333  (1972 CVS-C procedure) arc pre-
sented in Figures 8-9 and  8-10.  As indicated, the data are rather erratic but
the emissions are encouraging and the average deterioration factors are low.
Similar results were obtained from Car 698.
8. 5. 3          Ford Motor Company
In their application for suspension (Ref.  8-5), Ford states that current
uncertainty in the deterioration factors of 1975-type vehicles precludes at
this time the establishment of meaningful emission goals.  Initially, Ford's
engineering objectives for its principal ("kitchen sink") 1975 control system
were based on the optimistic belief  that the average emission levels would
increase by no more than 100 percent for HC and CO and 40 percent for NO  ,
from zero to 50,000 miles (Ref.  8-5).  In addition, Ford assumed a factor of
1. 1 to account for production slippage between development and certification
vehicles. Although based  on very preliminary projections rather than actual
                                   8-13

-------
1 0
'i
"^•0.8
E "
ba
C/»
z
0 0 6
C/>
V)
X
UJ
o 0.4C
a:
09
0
I I, I
CAR 333 (360 CIO engine)
TWIN ENGELHARD TOEBOARD CONVERTERS
1972 TEST PROCEDURE
MILD DURABILITY CYCLE
0NEW AIR
UPUMP
0 n
O
•> n
-o 0 8 o
0
|

-.LOOSE IDLE
° SCREW

O
°1_
^~ NEW CHOKE
0 SPRING

               10,000
20, 000        30, 000

     TEST MILES
             40, 000
             50, 000
   Figure 8-9.  Chrysler Durability Test Data (HC Emissions)
  12
  10
E
at
          CAR 333 (360 CID engine)
          TWIN ENGELHARD TOEBOARD CONVERTERS
          1972 TEST PROCEDURE
          MiLD DURABILITY CYCLE
                                     O
                               0NEW AIR
                               UPUMP
                                                   .LOOSE IDLE
                                                   'SCREW
   Poo
                                                   .NEW CHOKE
                                                   'SPRING
               10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50, 000
                                 TEST MILES

  Figure 8-10.  Chrysler  Durability Test Data (CO Emissions)
                                   8-14

-------
test experience with the 1975 system, these objectives provided an initial
target for Ford's development and engineering programs.

Based on further experimental work on  six combined thermal reactor/catalyst
vehicles, the average emission deterioration factors projected  by Ford for
these systems  are 2. 2 for HC,  1. 8 for CO,  and 1. 1 for NO  between zero
and 4000 miles, and  1.8, 2.0, and 1.3, respectively, between 4000 and
50, 000 miles.   The emission data from two of these vehicles are presented
in Figs.  8-11 through 8-14.   Considering test data variabilities, there
seems little  justification for using different deterioration rates  for the low
and high mileage regimes.  The data from the remaining vehicles show similar
trends.  In all  cases  the 1975 HC and CO  standards were exceeded at low
mileage.  The  NO  emissions were always below the 1975  standard.  Ford
                 3C
attributes the rapid performance deterioration to component failures and mal-
adjustments, as well as catalyst degradation.

Deterioration factors  derived from these  data by linear extrapolation are as
follows:

                   Vehicle 12 A 90                 Vehicle 17  A 54
DF
HC
CO
NO
Miles
0-4000
2.1
1.69
1.57
Miles
4000-50,000
2.21
4.9
2. 28
                                              Miles           Miles
                                              0-4000       4000-50,000
                                               2.41           2.86
                                               1.20           2.80
                                               1.28           1.55
       X.

Additional high mileage test data were provided by Ford from the 1974 Calif-
ornia catalyst-only vehicle fleet which was designed to meet the less stringent
1974 California emission standards.  As discussed in Section 9, the deterior-
ation factors derived from these data were used to establish the interim
                                    8-15

-------
                          1971 400-2V FORD 12A90
                          PTX 5. 35 CONVERTERS-REACTORS-EGR
               HYDROCARBON
                                                  CARBON MONOXIDE
                NEW
                CONVERTERS
    v>
    u)
  ^ 100
                                     . 80
                                      60
                                    "»  40
        o

NEW     " 20
CONVERTERS
                                    j- NEW
                                   ff  CONVERTERS
                                                             RT. CONVERTER
                                                             FAILED
                                                                        —1 30
                                                                          20
                                             EMISSIONS
                                                         I
                             rNEW     _
                             \CONVERTERS
                             V.
                                                                              JE

                                                                              fit
   
10  52
              10     20     30

               TEST MILES, 000
40
                10     20      30

                  TEST MILES, 000
                                    40
                      40
                               I      I       I      I
                                OXIDES OF NITROGEN
                        0     10    20     30     40     SO

                                  TEST MILES,  000
Figures 8-11,  8-12.   Ford AMA Durability  Test Data  (1975 System)
                                      8-16

-------
                   1971-351-W FORD 1TAS4
                   PTX-5. 35 CONVERTERS-REACTORS-EGR
        HYDROCARBON
                                             CARBON MONOXIDE
                              100
                             280
O" "^EFFICIENCY
\ EFFICIENCY

 \
                   REACTOR
                   FAILED
                                                                   -I 30
                                                                     20
                                   EMISSIONS
                                                     NEW
                                                     REACTOR
                 fOR-J
                                                 I	I
                                                                     10 52
       10     20     30

        TEST MILES, 000
  10     20     30     40    50

      TEST MILES, 000
                       T      i      i       r
                         OXIDES OF NITROGEN
                       10     20     30     40

                           TEST MILES, 000
                                                 SO
Figures 8-13,  8-14.   Ford AM A Durability Test Data
                               8-17

-------
standards proposed by Ford for 1975.   The HC and CO emissions from two
of these vehicles are presented in Figures 8-15 and 8-16.  As indicated in
Figure 8-15, the HC and CO emissions increase very rapidly during the first
2000 miles and remain essentially constant to 50, 000 miles.  Data from three
other vehicles in this fleet show similar trends.   However,  on  one of these
three vehicles only 7-mode data were provided by Ford for the low mileage
region and leaded fuel was used on one  of these vehicles between 12, 000 and
14,000 miles.  Conversely, the data in Fig. 8-16 show a more gradual
degradation.

Ford is in the process of developing additional data from several potential
emission control systems.  Although low mileage data from the Ford River-
side test program indicate a reduced rate of deterioration for the first 4000
miles. Ford is not revising its i-mis^on goals on the basis of this preliminary
information.  The average zero-to-4000-mile HC, CO, and NO  deterioration
                                                             X.
factors of the Riverside Group I vehicles are 1. 18, 1.45, and 1. 14, respec-
tively.  Over the same interval, the average catalyst deterioration factors are
1.67 for HC and  1. 25  for CO,  indicating "green  engine" effects and/or measure-
ment variabilities.  These values are considerably lower than those from
the catalyst-only and thermal  reactor/catalyst vehicle fleets discussed above,
and Ford is very encouraged by these results.  Similar results were obtained
from the  Group II and Group III vehicles.  The average zero to 4000-mile
deterioration factors computed from the Dearborn fleet are comparable to
the Riverside fleet data,  although the CO levels  are generally higher and the
NO  levels somewhat lower for the  Dearborn fleet.
   Jf
Another important subject related to establishing emission goals is the
ability to accurately measure  emissions at the low 1975 levels.  Although
considerable progress has been made in the past few years,  a  number of
testing problems remain unresolved which have  a significant impact upon
selection of and compliance with realistic emission goals.  These problems
concern data variability, correlation, instrumentation, and vehicle operation.
                                   8-18

-------
          1971 351-C 2V COUGAR 1W10
          PTX-5.35 CONVERTERS-EGR
                         HYDROCARBON
                                                             CARBON MONOXIDE
                                                                   NEW CONVERTERS
oo
i
h—'
sD
E
E"
          CO
          CO
                                                                                       .	O
                        NEW CONVERTERS
                           EFFICIENCY
                             20     30      40
                           TEST MILES, 000
                                                             20      30      40
                                                              TEST MILES, 000
E
E^
M
co~
                                                                                               CO
                                                                                               CO
                                 Figure 8-15.  Ford AMA Durability Test Data

-------
        1971 351W-2V FORD - 17A53O
        PTX 5.1  CONVERTERS - NO REACTORS - EGR (Phase III)
                      HYDROCARBON
    CARBON MONOXIDE
00
I
                    10       20      30

                      TEST MILES, 000
10     20      30      40

     TEST MILES,  000
                                                                                       —I 30
                                                                                               E
                                                                                               M

                                                                                              00
                                                                                              09
                                                                                              09
                               Figure 8-16.  Ford AMA Durability Test Data

-------
The effect of these emission testing-related problems on the emission goals
is illustrated in the following table:
                                        HC          CO         NOX
    Standard -  gm/mi                  0.41          3.4         0.4
    Typical Allowance for             42.7          55.9        37.8
    Variability - %
    Correlation Allowance -%         15.0          15.0        15.0
    Total Uncertainty in %             57.7          70.9        52.8
    Total Uncertainty in gm/mi         0.24          2.4         0.21
    Required Objective*                0. 17          1. 0         0. 19
      Does not include system deterioration

The net effect is the equivalent of a 50-to-70-percent reduction in the  1975
emission standards due  to emissions  testing variabilities.  By comparison,
as discussed in Section  9, Ford used  a factor of only 1.2 in computing its
proposed interim standards.  Ford believes  that this factor can be achieved'
through improvements in test equipment, instrumentation, testing techniques,
and emission averaging.
8.5.4         General Motors
General Motors states that it currently is not in a position to establish
accurate engineering emission goals for 1975 model vehicles because  of a
lack of reliable control  system deterioration factors and uncertainty whether
emissions averaging and/or catalyst change  at intermediate mileage points
will be allowed by EpA.  In addition,  it feels that the questions of fuel con-
taminant levels,  and vehicle  recall and warranty must be fully resolved
(Ref.  8-6).
                                     8-21

-------
As indicated by the General Motors  1972 certification data,  the performance
degradation of the 1975 emission control systems was rather mild.  For
instance,  the 4000- to 50,000-mile deterioration factor for HC was only 1. 13.
However, on current systems incorporating catalytic converters and EGR the
deterioration factors observed are substantially higher.  Based on the limited
data available to date, General Motors has selected deterioration factors of
2.0 for HC and CO and 1.5 for NO  as the most optimistic estimate for  1975-
                                 5C
type systems.  This does not include an allowance for potential problems
resulting from short-trip driving.  It should be noted that the selected HC
and CO deterioration factors have not yet been achieved by General Motors
on any system approaching the 1975 emission levels.

Based on the selected deterioration  factors, General Motors has established
the following emission goals for  1975 systems:

                                                        Catalyst Change
                          No Catalyst Change            at 25, OOP  Miles
                                                            Emission
                                                           Averaging
Emissions,
gm/mi
HC
CO
NO
Emission
Averaging
0.2
1.7
2. 07
99. 5% of Cars
Meeting Standards
0.07
0.71
1. 16
         X
                                                              0. 27
                                                              2.27
                                                              2. 07
The first and third columns in the above table show the emission levels that
must be  achieved in low mileage experimental cars if the average car is  to
meet the standards for 50,000 miles.  For comparison,  the second column
shows  the low mileage targets if 99. 5 percent of the individual cars are to
meet those values at 50, 000 miles.  In this case, the emission goals for  HC
and CO are less than 40 percent of the values computed on the basis of
emission averaging.
                                    8-22

-------
At the request of the EPA Suspension Hearing Panel, General Motors has
provided AMA durability test data from two vehicles operated with base metal
catalytic converters for more than 30, 000 miles and tested in accordance
with the 1975 test procedure.  These data, which are presented in Figures
8-17 through 8-19, indicate almost linear HC and CO emission deterioration
with mileage accumulation and somewhat erratic NO emission distributions.
                                                   3C
Also presented in these figures are test data from Car 61319, utilizing an  -
Engelhard PTX-4 catalyst.  Although the emissions appear to level off on
Car 61319 after 5000 to 10, 000 miles,  the data sample is inadequate to draw
meaningful conclusions with respect to emission deterioration.

The following deterioration factors were established from Figures 8-17 to
8-19:
                       Car 933                       Car 2233
DF
HC
CO
NOX
Miles
0-4000
1.3
1.45
1. 00
Miles
4000-50,000
3.54
4. 11
0. 96*
                                              Miles           Miles
                                              0-4000       4000-50,000
                                               1.16           2.56
                                               1.18           2.50
    'very erratic data

As indicated, the 4000- to 50,000-mile deterioration factors of Car 2233 are
significantly lower than those of Car 933, but the emissions on that car are .
higher.  This illustrates again that the deterioration factor alone is not a meaning-
ful criterion for  evaluating performance  of emission  control systems.
                                                                          t
High mileage data from vehicles operated at constant speed (50 mph) were pro-
vided by the AC Spark Plug Division of General Motors.  The data from two
of these vehicles are depicted in Figures 8-20 and 8-21 (1975 CVS-CH test pro-
cedure). Again,  the emissions increase  approximately linearly as mileage is
                                    8-23

-------
   1.2
   t.O
  . 0.8
           I            I            I
 + CAR 2233, OLDS 455, APCC - CATALYST
-O CAR 933, BUICK 455, UOP PZ-4-2I4-R-14 CATALYST
 A CAR 61319, CHEV 350, ENGELHARD PTX-4
   1975 TEST PROCEDURE
   0.2
                10,000
                                                 CAR 2233

                                               CAR 933
                             20,000       30,000
                                 TEST MILES
                                                       I
                                                     40,000
                                                              A   -
                                                                 50,000
                                                                                 EMISSIONS
                                                                                          HC
                10.000
                               a CAR 2233, OLDS 455, APCC
                               A CAR 933. BUICK 455, UOP PZ-4-214-R-14
                               + CAR 61319, CHEV 350. ENGELHARD PTX-4 	
                                 1975 TEST PROCEDURE
                            20.000       30.000
                                 TEST MILES
                                                     40.000
                                                                  50.000
                                                                                          CO
   3.0
   2.5
_    I t
E
.-  2.0
   ,L
    0 [	
                          DCAR 2233, OLDS 455, APCC
                          ACAR 933, BUICK 455, NDP PZ-4
                          + CAR 61319. CHEV 350, ENGELHARD PTX-4
                10,000
                            20, 000        30,000
                                 TEST MILES
                                                     40,000
                                                                  50,000
                                                                                          NO
                                                                                              x
       Figures  8-17,  8-18,  8-19.    General  Motors Test Data
                                        8-24

-------
E
M
tn
   1.2
   i.o
   0.8
   0.6
   0.4
   0.2
              + TEST No. 636 OPC 932
              O TEST NO. 638 DPC 933
                50-mph TIRE TESTS
                1975 EMISSION TEST PROCEDURE
                                                         TEST No. 638-
                                                         OPC 933
                            TEST No. 638
                            OPG 932
                 10,000        20,000         30,000
                                  TEST MILES
                       40,000
          50,000
      Figure 8-20.  General Motors (AC Division) Durability Test
                      Data (HC Emissions)
       12
       10
                 O TEST No. 638 OPO 933
                   50-mph TIRE TEST
                   1975 EMISSION TEST PROCEDURE
                   10,000
20,000        30,000
     TEST MILES
40,000
50,000
      Figure 8-21.  General Motors (AC Division) Durability  Test
                      Data (CO Emissions)
                                     8-25

-------
accumulated,  except for CO on Car 638 DPG 932 which decreases from
18.4 gm/mi at zero mile to 4. 73 at 50, 000 miles.   While this CO change
phenomenon was not explained by AC it may have resulted from faulty choke
operation.  Since these data are from constant-speed tests, no efforts were
made to derive deterioration factors.  The data are presented primarily to
illustrate that substantial system deterioration can occur even under mild
operating conditions.

The high mileage data from AC Spark Plug Test 472 are  not considered here
because of uncertainties with respect to the test procedure.  According to
General Motors (Ref.  8-7), these data are based on the 7-mode test procedure,
but this is not evident from the test log sheet.

As requested by the EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel, General Motors
has provided emission data at 4000 miles and 50,000 miles from 11 additional
vehicles  equipped with either noble or base metal bulk catalysts (Ref. 8-8).
Many of these vehicles have high emissions initially (under 4000 miles). The
deterioration factors computed from those data are included in Fig. 8-1.
8. 5. 5          International Harvester
The emission goals (in grams per mile) established by International Harvester
for low mileage certification  vehicles using catalysts are:
                                HC    =  0. 2
                                CO   =1.7
                                N0x  =  1.5
These values are based on assumed deterioration factors of  1. 2 for the
engines and 1. 5 for the catalyst, and a factor of approximately 1. 1 to account
for production variations, with the assumption that the averaging concept will
be permitted for production vehicle emissions (Ref. 8-9).  Furthermore,
periodic  catalyst replacement is being considered by International Harvester
to meet the selected catalyst  deterioration factor of 1.5.
                                    8-26

-------
International Harvester has provided limited AMA durability data from
Travelall vehicles equipped with base metal catalysts and operated on com-
mercially available  "unleaded" fuel. In all cases, the emissions  at low
mileage were approaching or exceeding the 1975 standards.  The  data from
Vehicle 2, which was tested in accordance with the 1975 test procedure,  are
shown in Figure 8-22.  The emission deterioration on this vehicle is approxi-
mately linear with mileage.  If these data are extrapolated, the following
deterioration factors are obtained:

                               Miles                     Miles
                              0-4000                  4000-50,000
                               1.18                      2.90
                               1.35                      3.93
                                   Excessive data scatter

8.5.6          British Leyland
The  1972  emission goals  (in grams  per mile) for low mileage engineering
prototypes are:

                               HC   =  0.16
                               CO   =  1.36
                               NO   =  1.50
                                  Ji

These values are based on an assumed system deterioration factor of 2. 0,
a 20-percent allowance to account for production variations, and on the
assumption that emission averaging will be allowed for  production vehicles
(Ref. 8-10). However, test data provided by British Leyland indicate that
the emission deterioration of current systems is significantly higher. For
example,  the HC and CO  emissions  obtained from an Austin Marina vehicle
                                   8-27

-------
TRAVELALL VEHICLE  No. 2
AC DELCO BASE METAL CONVERTER
1975 TEST PROCEDURE
   0.2
E

^
o
                       HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
                     CARBON  MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
                       ,000              20, 000

                     TEST MILEAGE, mi
      Figure 8-22.  International Harvester Emission Data
                        8-28

-------
equipped with an Engelhard stacked PTX catalyst are 0. 11 gm/rrii and 1. 78
gm/mi, respectively, at zero mile,  and 0. 63 gm/mi and 4. 65 gm/mi at
17, 000 miles.  The NO  emissions decreased during that period from 1. 86
gm/mi to 1. 32 gm/mi.  Although the data sample is too limited to draw firm
conclusions, the HC and CO emission deterioration in the range tested
increases gradually with mileage accumulation. In the past the prototype-
to-production slippage factor on British Leyland vehicles has varied between
1.0 and 1.25.  However, these  slippage factors may not be applicable to the
catalytic systems projected for use in 1975.
8. 5. 7          Daimler -Benz
The low mileage prototype emission goals (in grams per mile) established by
Daimler-Benz for both reciprocating and rotary spark ignition engines are:

                                HC   =  0.20
                                CO   =  2.0
                                NO   =  2.0
                                   x

These  values include assumed allowances for catalyst deterioration, prototype-
to-production slippage, and measurement inaccuracies (Ref.  8-11).  Con-
sidering the test data presented by Daimler-Benz, these goals appear rather
optimistic.
                                                                          t
Low mileage goals for diesel-powered vehicles were not specified.  However,
according to Daimler-Benz the 220D  vehicles will probably meet the  1975
standards for HC, CO, and NO  .                                           •
                             ji
8.5.8          Mitsubishi
Although the extent of additional catalyst improvements cannot be predicted
by Mitsubishi at this time, it considers  the following emission goals (in grams
per mile) to be reasonable estimates for 1975  catalytic and thermal reactor  *
systems (Ref.  8-12).
                                    8-29

-------
                           Catalyst                Thermal Reactor
        HC                  0. 14                       0. 26
        CO                  1.2                        2.2
        NO '                 1.4                        2. 0
           .X

The values for the catalyst system are based on assumed HC and CO deter-
ioration factors of 2. 0 and a production quality control factor  of 1. 5 to account
for production variations.   If emissions averaging is permitted, the QCF
factor becomes unity and the emission goals will be relaxed accordingly.

Based on data provided by Mitsubishi from an unidentified vehicle tested with
an Engelhard PTX-5 catalyst and unleaded fuel,  the following  deterioration
factors were derived.

                               Miles                      Miles
          DF                  0-4000                 4000-50,000
         HC                    1.60                       1.37
         CO                    1.33                       1.88

NO  data were not presented by Mitsubishi.   Over the range of data shown
   3C
(zero to 29, 000 miles), CO emissions increase gradually with mileage while
HC increases rapidly in the first 2000 miles and very slowly thereafter.  More
rapid emission degradation was observed with a pelletized catalyst.  In all
cases, the emission standards were exceeded at very low mileage.
8.5.9         Nissan
In an effort to meet the 1975 emission standards, Nissan has established the
following emission goals (in grams per mile) for engineering prototype
vehicles (Ref. 8-13).
                                    8-30

-------
                               HC   =  0. 18
                               CO   =1.50
                               NO   =  0. 96
                                  X.

These goals are based on unleaded gasoline (less than 0. 02 gm/gal Pb) and
utilization of the emission averaging concept.  The selected NO  goal is
sufficiently low to satisfy both the  1975 Federal and proposed California
emission standards.

Deterioration factors of 2. 0 for HC and CO and 1.4 for NO were assumed,
                                                         Jt
and a prototype-to-production slippage factor of 1. 1 was used for ail pollutants.
The  slippage factor was derived from 1971 and 1972 model year data.  Deter-
ioration factors derived from Nissan 1971  and 1972 certification vehicles
are approximately 1. 15 for HC and CO and 1. 0 for NO  .  Although these
                                                    .X
factors are not directly applicable to 1975  vehicles,  they provide an indication
of the engine contribution to the deterioration over 50, 000 miles.

As illustrated in Figure 8-23, the data obtained by Nissan indicate substan-
tially higher HC emission degradation.  The  following deterioration factors
are obtained by linear extrapolation of these  data:

                    Vehicle B-263                 Vehicle B-415
DF
HC
CO
Miles
0-4000
1. 18
1.09
Miles
4000-50,000
2.85
1.90
                                              Miles           Miles
                                              0-4000      4000-50,000
                                               1.82           2.53
                                               1.10           2.08
8. 5. 10         Saab
In preparing for the 1975 Federal emission standards, Saab-Scania has
established emission goals for low mileage prototype vehicles of 50 percent
or less of the 1975 standards.  These goals were selected on the basis of
                                    8-31

-------
CO

—   4
o
o
                                             n
D CAR B-263; PTX 416,  18% EGR

O CAR B-415; PTX 516,  18% EGR

  1972 CVS-C TEST PROCEDURE
                        10,000


                      TEST MILEAGE, mi



           Figure 8-23.  Nissan Durability Test Data
                             20, 000
                           8-32

-------
information extracted from the open literature and from extrapolation of Saab
test data.  Since the durability data provided by Saab is limited to less than
11, 000 miles, derivation of meaningful deterioration factors is not possible
at this time (Ref. 8-14).

Prototype-to-production slippage factors for the 1975 systems are currently
not known.  It is expected that this factor will be lower for catalyst systems
than for thermal reactor configurations which are generally more sensitive
to air/fuel ratio variations.  Also, application of fuel injection systems is
expected to result in lower slippage factors compared with vehicles using
carburetors.
8.5.11         Toyo Kogyo
In order to meet the 1975 Federal emission standards, Toyo Kogyo has estab-
lished the following emission goals (in grams per mile) for rotary and reci-
procating spark ignition engines (Ref.  8-15):
                   System                        HC       CO      NO
'x
   Rotary Engine, Thermal Reactor              0.29      2.3      2.3
   Reciprocating Engine,  Thermal Reactor       0.29      2.3      2.3
   Reciprocating Engine,  Oxidation Catalyst      0. 19      1.5      2. 3
   Reciprocating Engine,  Thermal               0. 19      1.5      2. 3
   Reactor + Oxidation Catalyst

The emission goals of the thermal reactor systems  were established on the
basis of a 50,000-mile prototype-to-production slippage factor of 1. 1, HC and
CO deterioration factors of 1. 3 each, and a NO deterioration factor of 1. 2.
                                              j£
The selected deterioration factor for HC and CO is based on the experience
gained on 1970-72 model-year rotary engine vehicles using a thermal  reactor.
                                    8-33

-------
Lower goals were set for the catalyst systems, primarily because of a lack
of sufficient test data and experience with this  type of system.  The IIEC
targets were used as a guideline in setting the  goals.
8. 5. 12        Toyota
Toyota has tentatively selected the following low-mileage emission goals (in
grams per mile) (Ref.  8-16).

                               HC   =  0.19
                               CO   =  1.5
                                     =1.9
These goals were established by assuming emission averaging and perfor-
mance deterioration over the life of the system.  In addition,  a prototype-to-
production slippage factor of 1. 1 to 1. 2 was assumed.  Although it has been
difficult for Toyota to predict accurately the deterioration rate of  oxidation
catalysts  over 50, 000 miles, factors as high as 3. 0 for HC and 2. 5 for CO
are indicated  from Toyota bench test data for  25, 000 miles, using fuel with
a lead level of 0.01 to 0. 02 gm/gal.  Toyota is optimistic with respect to
future reduction of these factors by means of  improved catalysts.   The NOT
                                                                         -A.
deterioration  factor is estimated to be approximately  1. 5.
8.5.13        Volkswagen
As stated by Volkswagen (Ref. 8-17), the following emission goals (in grams
per mile) have been selected for 1975 prototype vehicles:

                                HC    -  0.17
                                CO    =  1.4
                                NO    =  0.12
                                  x
                                    8-34

-------
The NO  goal was established on the basis of utilizing a reduction catalyst
as part of the Volkswagen emission control system which is being developed
to meet both the 1975 and 1976 emission standards.  Although the reduction
catalyst will not be used on 1975 model  vehicles (Ref. 8-18), NO  emission
goals were not provided by Volkswagen  for their 1975 system.

The emission goals are based on catalyst  replacement at  20,000-mile inter-
vals and include an allowance for catalyst deterioration and laboratory test
variabilities.  Prototype-to-production  slippage was not taken into account
because of a lack of applicable production experience on systems of this
type (Ref. 8-18).

Volkswagen states that accurate prediction of system deterioration is currently
not possible.  However, recent test data indicate that the catalyst reactivity
decreases in 20,000 miles by approximately 40 percent for HC and CO and
55 percent for
8.5.14
Since first-choice system durability data are currently not available,  Volvo
has established the following emission goals (in grams per mile) on the basis
of very limited catalyst bench and vehicle test data (Ref.  8-19):

                                HC  =  0.2
                                CO  =  1.7
                                N0x =  1.2

These goals  will be adjusted as more data become available from the  1975
emission control system test program.  Data from one vehicle utilizing an
Engelhard PTX-416 catalyst indicate low HC and CO emissions and deterioration
factors.  However, catalyst failure occurred at 29,900 miles.
                                     8-35

-------
8.5.15        Catalyst Manufacturers
None of the catalyst manufacturers has established emission goals for 1975
vehicle/control systems.  However, a number of these manufacturers have
provided encouraging emission durability data from a number of test vehicles.
The  highlights from these programs are briefly discussed here.

The  Houdry Division of Air Products has provided AMA durability data from
an early base metal catalyst which was tested in accordance with the 1972
CVS-C test procedure (Ref.  8-20).  The emission data from this test are
depicted in Figure 8-24.  As indicated in the figure, the  emissions increase
approximately linearly with mileage.  The average 4000- to 50, 000-mile
deterioration factors are 2. 19 for HC and 1.77 for CO.  The 1975 standards
are exceeded at zero mileage.

Engelhard has provided high mileage emission data from a vehicle equipped
with a PTX-5 catalyst and driven over a city suburban route.  The test data,
which are included in Section 5. 7.4, indicate very low HC and CO emissions
and deterioration factors. Although the vehicle has not completed 50, 000
miles and was not tested  on the AMA cycle,  the data are encouraging.

Data from New York police cars equipped with PTX-5  catalysts were also
provided by Engelhard (Ref.  8-21).  The catalyst conversion efficiencies
computed from these data are presented in Figure 8-25.   The HC  conversion
efficiency decreases linearly with mileage, while the CO efficiency appears
to level off at approximately 10, 000 miles.   Since the vehicles have not
accumulated sufficient mileage, these data should be used with caution.

Matthey Bishop has  provided emission data for a  subcompact Chrysler (U.K. )
Avenger vehicle tested by Johnson Matthey with an AEC-3A catalyst and lead-
sterile fuel (Ref. 8-22).   The emissions from this vehicle are plotted  in
Figures 8-26 to 8-28.  As indicated,  there is essentially no deterioration in
the CO and NO   emissions.  The high CO value at 24,000 miles (pre-service)
             Ji
is attributed to choke problems.  By linear extrapolation of the HC data,  the
4000- to 50,000-mile HC deterioration factor is  3. 88.
                                    8-36

-------
  HOUDRY HN 1269 BASE METAL CATALYST
  AC CMT14 260 cu.in. CONVERTER
  INOOLENE CLEAR FUEL
  350 CHEVROLET 2 bbl CAR 60328
  1970 B WITH AIR
  4972 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE (EPA)
HC DETERIORATION FACTOR = 2.19
                                     CO DETERIORATION FACTOR =1.77
          10,000
                     20.000         30,000

                          TEST MILES
40,000
                                                                   50,000
      Figure 8-24.   Houdry  Durability Test Data
  1.0

I 0.1


I0'4

I 0.4
CJ


!M
                S VEHICLE! EQUIPPED WITH
                  ENGELHARD PTJC-5 CATALYSTS

                6-CYLINDER VEHICLES
                   5000
                               10,000

                              TEST MILES
                                             IS, 000
                                                       10,000
   Figure 8-25.   New York Police Car Fleet Data
                               8-37

-------
0 I	1	1	1	1	I	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	ill  111
                                                                 EMISSIONS
                                                                       HC
        AVENGER VEHICLE
        1975 TEST PROCEDURE
                                                    20.000
                                                                       CO
3
AVENGER VEHICLE
W5 TEST PROCEDURE
             5.000
                          10.000
                        TEST MILES
                                      15.000
                                                   20,000
                                                                      NO
                                                                         x
 Figures 8-26,  8-27, 8-28.   Johnson-Mathey Durability Test Data
                                    8-38

-------
                              REFERENCES
8-1   American Motors Corporation, Letter to Mr. William D.  Ruckelshaus,
      Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,  4 April 1972.     '

8-2   Engelhard Minerals and Chemicals Corporation, Engelhard Industries
      Division,  "Technical Appendix to Summary Statement  of Engelhard,
      Addendum II, " 24 April 1972.

8-3   Chrysler Corporation, "Application for Suspension of  1975 Motor
      Vehicle Emission Standards Pursuant to Section 202(b)(5) of the Clean
      Air Act, " March 1972.

8-4   Chrysler Corporation, Technical Data Submittal provided by Chrysler
      at the request of the EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel,         >
      25 April 1972.

8-5   Ford Motor  Company,  "Application for Suspension of  1975 Motor
      Vehicle Exhaust Emissions Standards, " Volumes I and II, 5 April 1972.

8-6   General Motors Corporation,  "Request for Suspension of 1975 Federal
      Emissions Standards, " Volumes I and  II, 3 April 1972.

8-7   General Motors Corporation,  Transcript of Proceedings  -- Auto
      Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
      D. C.,  26 April 1972  (recall).

8-8   General Motors Corporation,  Technical Data Submittal provided by
      GM at the request of the  EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel,
      21 April 1972.

8-9   International Harvester,  "Request for  One-Year Suspension of 1975 HC
      and CO  Light-duty Emission  Standards, " Submitted to EPA,  Washington,
      D. C., " 29 March 1972.

8-10  British  Leyland Motors,  Inc. ,  "EPA Hearing of Volvo Application for
      Deferment of Emission Legislation Applicable to 1975 Model Year
      Vehicles, " March 1972.

8-11  Daimler-Benz, "Statement of Daimler-Benz AG before the Environmental
      Protection Agency,  Washington, D. C.," April  1972.

8-12  Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, "A Status Report of Emission Control
      for  1975 and  1976 Light-duty Vehicles," October 1971.
                                   8-39

-------
                       REFERENCES (continued)
8-13  Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. (Datsun),  "Summary Statement of
      Information, " 5 April 1972.

8-14  Saab-Scania of America, Inc. and Saab-Scania AB,  "Information
      Submitted in Response to Subpoena dated March 17, 1972 of Environ-
      mental Protection Agency, Washington,  D. C. "

8-15  Toyo Kogyo Company, Ltd., "Statement of Toyo Kogyo Company,
      Ltd. , " April 1972.

8-16  Toyoto Motor Company, Ltd., "A Summary of Toyota's Technology
      and Processes for Meeting the 1975 Federal Emission Standards, "
      5 April 1972.

8-17  Volkswagen of America, Inc., "Information and Documentary
      Materials Relating to Volkswagen's Emission Research and Design
      Effort to  Meet 1975 Federal Emission Goals, " 10 April 1972.

8-18  Volkswagen of America, Inc., Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto
      Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency,
      Washington, D. C. ,  10 April 1972.

8-19  AB Volvo, "Request for Suspension of the 1975 Emission Standards, "
      9 March  1972.

8-20  Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. ,  Houdry Division,  "Progress in
      the Development of Automotive Emission Control Catalysts, "
      13 April  1972.

8-21  Engelhard Minerals and Chemicals  Corporation,  Engelhard Industries
      Division, "Summary Statement for EPA Hearings on Volvo Application
      for One-year Suspension of Auto Emission Standards, " 10 April 1972.

8-22  Matthey Bishop, Inc., Technical Data Submittal provided by Matthey
      Bishop at the request of the  EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel,
      17 April  1972.
                                   8-40

-------
                         9.  INTERIM STANDARDS
9. i            SUMMARY DISCUSSION
All thirteen automobile manufacturers appearing as witnesses at the EPA
Suspension Request Hearings have asked for a one-year  suspension of the
1975 Federal emission standards and adoption of less stringent interim stan-
dards.  In justifying their request, the automobile manufacturers contend
that the technology is currently not available to achieve the 1975 standards
on spark ignition, reciprocating engine-powered production vehicles.
Furthermore,  the automobile manufacturers are extremely reluctant to
mass produce a catalytic emission control system without  having success-
fully demonstrated vehicle/control system safety, performance, and
durability.  To date,  there is no data available that proves that mass-
produced vehicles can meet the 1975 emission standards at 50,000 miles
when operated under conditions simulating customer driving patterns.

The interim standards proposed by the automobile manufacturers and a
number of the catalyst suppliers are presented in Table 9-1.  All of these
interim standards are based upon the concept of emission averaging and,  in
the case of Ford,  upon the satisfactory resolution by EPA  of several regula-
tory issues,  including fuel specifications, vehicle maintenance, and methane
allowance.  The methane allowance is proposed by Ford  to account for the
fact that,  while the methane conversion efficiency of the  catalyst is low,  the
reactivity of the CH.  hydrocarbon in the smog formation process is negligible.

With the exception of Ford and International Harvester, who propose to use
oxidation catalysts, the remaining  auto manufacturers' suggested interim
standards will be achieved by engine modifications, including  improved
carburetion, choke, and ignition systems.
                                   9-1

-------

Manufacturer
Emission Control
Concept
I. DOMESTIC AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS
American Motors
Chrysler
Ford
General Motors
International Harvester
Engine Modification
Engine Modification
Oxidation Catalyst
Engine Modification
Oxidation Catalyst
II. FOREIGN AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS
British Leyland
Daimle r - Benz

Nissan
Saab-Scania
Toyo Kogyo

Toyota
Volkswagen
Volvo
Engine Modification
Engine Modification
Diesel Engine
Without Catalyst
Engine Modification
Engine Modification
Engine Modification
Rotary Wankel Engine
With Thermal Reactor
Engine Modification
Engine Modification
Engine Modification
III. CATALYST MANUFACTURERS
Chemico
Engelhard
W. R. Grace
Universal Oil Products
Catalyst Addition
Catalyst
Catalyst
Catalyst
Emissions, gm/mi
HC

3. 4
1. 5 to
2.0
1.6
1.5
3.4
1. 0 to
1. 15

3. 4
1. 5
0.41
3.4
3.4
—
(0.41)
3. 4
3. 4
3.4

CO

39
20 to
25
19
19
39
12 to
20

39
20
3. 4
39
39
-
(3.4)
39
39
39

N0x

3.0
2. 5 to
2.0
2.0
3. 1
3. 0
3. 0 to
1.75

3. 0
1. 5
3. 1
3.0
3.0
-
(3.1)
3.0
3. 0
3.0

Technology to meet 1975
standards available
1975 Standards or slightly
higher
0. 6 to
0.8
0.96
7 to
10
7.99
—
-
Manufacturers' Remarks

1974 Standards
To be selected within that range
Some models possibly without
catalyst
1974 Standards
Either combination feasible

1974 Standards

Meets 1975 Standards
1974 Standards
1974 Standards
Not selected ;
Good chance to meet 1975 Standards
1974 Standards
1974 Standards
1974 Standards

No test data supporting claim




-------
Daimler-Benz is optimistic with respect to meeting the 1975 standards
with the diesel-powered 220D vehicle.  Toyo Kogyo expressed confidence
that the standards could be met with the rotary engine version of the
Mazda vehicle. However,  both engine types  cannot be produced in suffi-
cient quantities to create an impact on air  quality in 1975-76.  Further-
more, the excessive cost,  the unfavorable  prospects for meeting the 1976
NO  standards, and the potential aldehyde  (odor) problem are inherent dis-
   x                                                                     f
advantages of the diesel engine.

Two catalyst manufacturers,  Engelhard and Chemico,  are optimistic in terms
of meeting the 1975  standards, although neither one has demonstrated the
required emission control system durability  over 50, 000 miles on the EPA
certification cycle.  This optimism is based  on the contention that further
improvements in the substrate, wash coat, and catalyst formulation are
likely to occur in time to be incorporated into 1975 emission control systems.
It  should be recognized that suppliers would be favorably inclined toward the
establishment  of standards which demand the use of catalytic converters.

With the exception of Chrysler, Ford, International Harvester, and Daimler-
Benz, all automobile manufacturers have proposed to adopt the 1974 emission
standards for 1975 reciprocating, spark ignition  engine-powered vehicles,
primarily for the following stated reasons:
            a.   Promulgation of interim standards lower than  the 1974 stan-
                dards has little effect on improving air quality, as shown by
                NAS (Ref. 9-1).
            b.   Adoption of more stringent standards would tend to dilute
                current emission control system development  efforts  because
                the  automakers might then be inclined to select 1975 systems
                using devices such  as thermal reactors, which have little
                chance of ever meeting the 1976  NO  standard.
            c.   Excessive  risk and system cost.
The interim standards proposed by  Chrysler  and Daimler-Benz are of the
order of 50 percent  of the 1974 standards.  Both  companies would attempt  to
achieve these levels by means of engine modifications only, possibly
                                    9-3

-------
with the use of secondary air injected into the exhaust manifolds.  This basic
approach is desirable because it minimizes the raw engine emissions.  As a
result, potential catalyst heat-load problems will be minimized in future  sys~
terns incorporating catalysts.

Ford and International Harvester propose interim standards somewhat below
those recommended by Chrysler and Daimler-Benz.  Both Ford and Inter-
national Harvester project the use of oxidation catalysts in their interim sys-
tem vehicles, but Ford believes that the catalyst might be omitted on some
Ford models.  In this case,  catalytic systems could be introduced gradually
to gain the required field experience and to  minimize the risk.  Since the
emissions  from the Ford 1972 and 1973 development fleets and the engine
emissions  from the Ford "Riverside" fleet are substantially lower than the
1974  standards,  the prospects appear favorable for  this approach.

Catalyst  replacement at 20,000 or 25, 000 miles has been discarded  by Ford
on the basis of data which lead them  to believe that catalyst deterioration is
primarily confined to the low mileage range.  However, the  Ford position
appears questionable in view of the vehicle durability test data submitted  by
American Motors,  General Motors,  Matthey Bishop, and Ford.  As discussed
in Section 8, most  data from these manufacturers indicate a rather gradual
emission and catalyst effectiveness deterioration with mileage accumulation.
None of the other manufacturers has provided information regarding catalyst
replacement between 0 to 50, 000 miles.
9. 2            PROPOSED INTERIM STANDARDS
9. 2. 1          American  Motors
American Motors considers compliance with the  1975  Federal emission stan-
dards to be technically unfeasible and recommends that the 1974 standards
and test procedures be continued through model year 1975 (Ref.  9 = 2),,
                                    9-4

-------
This conclusion is based on the contention that the American Motors'
candidate catalytic converter system for 1975 is not sufficiently developed to
be released for production within the short time  remaining before critical
production-related decisions have to be made.   American Motors recommends
that selection of interim  standards be based on the degree of control that can
be achieved with systems without catalytic converters.  Furthermore,
American Motors states  that the engineering efforts currently under way on
the 1975 system would be diluted  if more  stringent interim standards were
selected for  1975  and, therefore compliance with the 1975-76 emission stan-
                                                                         r
dards would  be  further delayed.

Although one American Motors vehicle (Section 8) has met the 1975 HC and
NO  standards for 50, 000 miles (CO was above the standard) American
   X,
Motors does not believe that the adoption of these standards can be justified
on the  basis  of a single successful vehicle durability test over the relatively
"mild"  EPA  route.  Furthermore, American Motors points out that on that
test, fuel was used with a lead and phosphorus contamination level of only
approximately 50  percent of the maximum allowed by the proposed EPA fuel
additive regulation.

Since the lowest HC and CO emissions achieved by 1972 and  1973 American
Motors certification vehicles  are  substantially below the 1974  standards
(Ref.  9-3), it appears that  American Motors might be able to meet more
stringent requirements than the proposed  1975 interim standards at least on
some models.   The data base for  this judgment is presented in Figures 9-1
to 9-3  for a Matador  1972 certification vehicle (304CID, automatic, engine
modifications) and in Figures 9-4 to 9-6 for a Hornet 1973 certification
vehicle (232  CID,  automatic,  engine modifications).  The data plotted in these
figures are adjusted to the  1975 test procedure.  The curves drawn represent
an estimated fit to the data points. As indicated, the HC and  CO emissions of
the 1972 vehicles  increase  by a factor of approximately 1.4 between  4,000
and 50, 000 miles, while NO  remains essentially constant.  While at 50, 000
                           Jv
miles the HC level shows little remaining margin,  the  CO emissions are
                                    9-5

-------
                      u
                      1 f.0
                      vt
                      M
                      2

                      ' ,.»'
                                            CAR Oil-150
                                            EKGIWC sw CID
                                            tl MAINTENANCE
                                            DATA &DJU3T&O TO IV75 TEST PDCCEOUBE
                                            SO, CCS
                                               OUBflBIUTY. Pi
                                                                                   EMISSIONS
HC
                                             CAR Oil-ISO
                                             CMUHE JM CID
                                             tl kUINTCNANCC
                                             DATA ADJUSTED TO "" TEST PROCEDURE
                                             20,000      30.000      W.CtO      SO. 000
                                               DUMBIIITV. al
                                                                                       CO
                                      CA* DII-ISD
                                      f NOINI KM CIO
                                      t| UAINTEKANCC
                                      DATA ADJUSTED TO 1919 TEST PfiOCEOURI
                           0        10,080      20.000       $0,000      40,080       SO.C39
                                               DUBSBIlltV, al
                                                                                       NO
Figures  9-1,   9-2,  9-3.   American Motors Matador  1972 Certification  Car
                                                      9-6

-------
                     I'
                     s
                     a
                                      CAR D20-M.
                                      ENGINE 2B CIO
                                      11MAINTENANCE
                                      DATA ADJUSTED TO 1979 TEST PROCEDURE
                                           JO. 000       10.000
                                             ouiuiuir. •!  .
                                                                                  EMISSIONS
HC
                            CAR 010-91.
                            ENGINE IB CIO
                            tl MAINTENANCE
                            DATA ADJUSTED TO ltT9 TUT PROCEDURE
                                           20,000       30.000
                                             DUItllLITT. >l
                                                                                        CO
                                                      T
                                       CAII D20-9L
                                       ENGIIIE ttt CIO
                                       11 MAINTENANCE
                                       DATA ADJUSTED TO It79 TEST PROCEDURE
                                                                                         NO
                                          10.000       30.000
                                             OUIMIUIT. •!
Figures  9-4,  9-5,  9-6.   American Motors Hornet  1973 Certification Car
                                                     9-7

-------
less than 50 percent of the 1974 Standard.  The 1973 vehicle shows
increasing HC emissions and decreasing CO emissions as mileage is
accumulated.  No explanation was offered by American Motors regarding the
trend of  the CO emissions.   At 50,000 miles,  the HC and CO emissions are
approximately 1.8 gm/mi and 11.7 gm/mi, which is substantially lower  than
the 1974  standard. The NO  emissions  are above the 1974  standard between 0
                          x
and 12,000 miles.  Although not discussed by American Motors, it  seems
possible  that the  deterioration of the  engine emissions may be reduced by
means of the projected improved carburetion,  choke, and ignition systems.

American Motors did not provide information on maintenance requirements,
cost,  and growth potential of the system projected for compliance with the
1975 interim standards proposed by American Motors.
9. 2. 2         Chrysler
In  the opinion of Chrysler, the 1975 emission control system concepts with
catalysts or any other alternative control technique cannot be reduced to
practical hardware within the lead time  remaining for 1975 production
(Ref.  9-4).  For  this reason, Chrysler  emphasizes and is pursuing the
engine modification approach for 1975 model vehicles.  The modifications
currently being investigated  include improvements on the current Chrysler
"Cleaner Air System" and incorporation of electronic spark timing  control,
EGR, carburetor  altitude control, and exhaust port air injection on all
engines.   Utilization of catalytic converters is not anticipated because of
severe catalyst durability problems encountered by Chrysler to date.

With these improvements, Chrysler projects to meet the  following interim
standards (in grams per mile) with 1975 model vehicles:
                  1974          Recommended  1975           1975
                Standards         Interim Standards         Standards
    HC            3.4               1. 5 to 2. 0                0. 41
    CO           39. 0                20 to 25                 3. 4
    NO            3. 0               2. 5 to 2. 0                3. 1
                                    9-8

-------
 The above emission  ranges specified by Chrysler illustrate the tradeoffs
 between maximum HC,  CO and NO  control.  Chrysler states that the low
 limits for all these pollutants probably cannot be met simultaneously in  1975.

 According to Chrysler,  the purchase price of a car meeting the  interim  stan-
 cards would be substantially lower than that of a car equipped to meet the
 1975 standards.  Compared with a  1974 car,  the retail price increase of the
 two systems is $148  and $411,  respectively (Ref.  9-4).  The higher cost of
 the system meeting the  1975 standards reflects the  incorporation of catalytic
 converter(s) and the  partial thermal reactor(s) projected for that system.

 The engine modifications required in the system designed to meet the pro-
 posed interim standards are compatible with  catalytic converter systems
 which,  in the opinion of Chrysler, are ultimately required to meet the 1975
 standards.  Incorporation of these engine modifications is considered both
 desirable and necessary with respect to emission control  system reliability
 and durability, as well as vehicle driveability and safety.
 9. 2. 3         Ford Motor  Company
 Ford contents that the technology to achieve the 1975 emission standards is
 currently not available and, as a  result, less stringent interim standards
 should be established for 1975 model year  vehicles.  Based on engineering
 judgment,  Ford believes that the following combinations of interim standards (in
 grams per mile) canbemetwith 1975 model Ford production vehicles (Ref. 9-5):
                        HC         1.6        1.5
                        CO        19.0       19.0
                        N0x       2. 0        3. 1
 Ford's selection of these interim standards is contingent upon satisfactory
 EPA  resolution of several important regulatory issues which directly affect
 Ford's emission control capabilities for 1975 vehicles.  These issues include
allowable lead and phosphorus levels in the fuel,  permission to average the
 emissions of certification  vehicles,  introduction of a methane allow-
ance for vehicles equipped  with catalytic converters, and establishment of
                                    9-9

-------
maintenance procedures for durability/certification vehicles.  Currently no
data are'available at Ford which demonstrate that the proposed interim stan-
dards can be achieved on production vehicles.   However,  Ford anticipates
that sufficient progress can be made to meet these levels by 1975.

The proposed interim  standards  are based upon utilization of a catalyst-only
system (no thermal reactor).   According to  Ford, these values represent the
limit of the  technology available  for 1975 production vehicles.  Although Ford
anticipates that most of the 1975 vehicles will  require an  oxidation catalyst to
meet these interim standards, some models may be certified without catalysts.
In view of the low emissions achieved  by Ford on the 1972 and 1973 model
development vehicle fleets at  low mileage and  the  potential improvements in
the area of engine modifications, this  approach appears feasible.   On the
average, the emissions of the Ford 1973 development fleet vehicles are
2. 09 gm/mi HC,  17. 15 gm/mi CO, and  2. 42 gm/mi NO  (based on the 1975
                                                      X
test procedure) (Ref. 9-6).

The 1972 vehicles were tested in accordance with  the 1972 test procedure;
average  emissions of 2. 37 gm/mi HC,  24. 2 gm/mi CO and 2. 22 gm/mi NO
were obtained.  Using the 1975/1972 conversion factors derived by Ford for
the 1973 vehicles (0.90 for HC, 0.72 for CO, 1.02 for NO ), the 1975-
                                                        X.
equivalent emissions were computed for the 1972 vehicles.  On this basis,
the 1972 and 1973 vehicle emissions are quite  comparable.  Of course,
these numbers must be adjusted  to account  for  engine emission deterioration
over 50, 000 miles.

Test data for the Ford Riverside fleet provided by Engelhard indicate average
zero mileage "raw" engine emissions  of approximately 1. 45 gm/mi HC,
25. 1 gm/mi CO and 2. 24 gm/mi NO .
                                  x
The interim standards proposed by Ford have been developed from projec-
tions of average emissions obtained from low mileage,  best-effort catalyst-
only systems developed in 1971 and deterioration factors derived from five
vehicles that had completed 50, 000 miles of durability testing.  In addition,
                                   9-10

-------
Ford applied a factor of 1. 2 to account for test data uncertainties.   According
to Ford, the average sales-weighted low mileage emissions from these best-
effort vehicles are 0. 45 gm/mi HC,  6. 5 gm/mi CO and 1. 2 gm/mi NO .
                                                                    JL
Considering the low mileage HC and CO emissions  achieved on the Riverside
vehicles,  these HC and CO values appear to be conservatively high.  The low
mileage to 50,000-mile emission deterioration factors of 2.8 for HC, 2.4 for
CO and 1. 4 for NO  were derived by Ford principally from the 1974
                  Jv
California fleet test data.  Although these systems  are not considered repre-
sentative  of 1975 configurations by the report team, the deterioration factors
selected by Ford are considered reasonable approximations.  These aspects
are discussed in Section 8.  Ford intends to  develop more accurate deteriora-
tion factors upon completion of the Riverside test program.  However, the
Engelhard catalysts utilized on these vehicles are not of the improved type
and, as a result, the emission performance of these systems may not ade-
quately reflect current state-of-the-art technology.

Although the question of catalyst replacement and its effect on interim stan-
dards has not been fully investigated by Ford, the emissions benefit is con-
sidered small unless the catalyst were replaced at  unreasonably short
intervals.   This conclusion by Ford is based on the data from the 1974     ,
California fleet tests.  As discussed in Section 8, these data indicate that
catalyst deterioration  occurs primarily during  the early stages of catalyst
usage.  Following an initial  rapid rise,  the emissions remain essentially   f
constant up to very high mileage.  Since these trends are contradictory to  «,
other Ford  data and to most ot the  data provided by other manufacturers,
the rationale for the Ford  conclusion regarding catalyst replacement is not
readily apparent.

No information was provided by Ford on maintenance,  cost and growth
                                                                         a
potential of the proposed interim system. However, the basic design of
this system appears to be  identical to the systems projected by Ford to
meet the  1974 standards.
                                    9-11

-------
9. 2. 4         General Motors
In requesting suspension of the  1975 Federal emission standards, General
Motors recommends utilization of the 1974 standards as the interim standards
for 1975 model-year vehicles.  General Motors  states that continuing the
1974 standards for an additional year will allow  them to  concentrate on sys-
tems that will meet'the 1975 standards at a later date, whereas more stringent
interim standards might cause serious dilution of the total emissions-control
effort.

To justify this position, General Motors (Ref. 9-7) refers to the NAS Study
and stresses the  small impact that a one-year suspension would have on
ambient air quality.

Although General Motors  believes that  some improvement over the  1974 stan-
                                                                      •
dards might be achieved by selective use of certain emission control system
components, they are unable at this time to establish specific numbers on
attainable levels  for a number of reasons.  These  concern unresolved ques-
tions regarding fuel composition,  emission averaging, assembly line testing,
warranty, and recall procedures.  In addition, General Motors feels that the
control system performance and durability has not been  adequately  demon-
strated. As a result,  the  capability of the advanced emission control  system
in terms of consistently achieving emission levels below the 1974 standards
remains in doubt.

Considering the emissions of General Motors 1972 production vehicles at
4, 000 miles (between 59  percent and 75 percent  of the 1972  standards,
Ref. 9-7),  it appears that General Motors should be able to meet more
stringent standards in 1975 than the 1974 levels.
9. 2. 5         International Harvester
As stated in their suspension request (Ref. 9-8) International Harvester will
not be able to meet the  1975 emission standards on 1975 model vehicles.
                                   9-12

-------
However, assuming availability of fuel with sufficiently low levels of
contaminants and application of the emission-averaging concept, International
Harvester anticipates meeting either of the following two combinations of
interim standards (in grams per mile):
                  HC                 1.0           1.15
                  CO                12. 0        "  20. 0
                  NO                 3.0           1.75
                    x
Although lower emission levels have been achieved by International Harvester
on low-mileage research and development vehicles and engines, selection of
more stringent standards is believed not to be justified in view of the  rapid
performance deterioration  of current systems and the nature of the International
Harvester product line.   It is further suggested by International Harvester to
limit the interim standards to 10 percent of a manufacturer's production
volume in order to gain  field experience with  these emission  systems on a
lower-risk scale.

The  emission control system that would be used by International Harvester
to meet these interim standards would incorporate an oxidation catalyst,
which is also a component of the system currently projected to comply with
the 1975 standards.

Considering their low-volume production and  the problems related to  heavier-
duty vehicles,  International Harvester estimates the retail cost of the 1975
emission control system to be approximately  $450.
9.2.6      British Leyland
Although they meet the 1975 Federal emission standards  at low mileage,
British Leyland suggests that the  1974  standards be  adopted as interim  stan-
dards for 1975 for two reasons  (Ref. 9-9).  First, the required durability of
the projected 1975 emission control system has not  been  demonstrated and,
second, establishment of interim standards between the 1974 and 1975 standards
would not alleviate the durability and installation problems, but might
                                    9-13

-------
divert efforts to a different system and further delay achievement of the
1975 emission standards.  British Leyland also states that sufficient lead
time is not available to design and develop a new or modified system to meet
interim emission  standards in 1975.
9. 2. 7          Daimler-Benz
Daimler-Benz produces a number of spark ignition engine models and one
diesel engine model for passenger vehicle applications.

With respect to spark-ignition engines, Daimler-Benz has revised its
earlier position (Ref. 9-10) of only being  able to meet the 1974 standards on
1975 vehicles and is  now of the opinion that  the following interim standards
(in grams per mile) can be met (Ref. 9-11):
                            HC             1.5
                            CO            20.0
                            NO             1.5
                               x
Selection of these interim standards is based on the use  of an emission con-
trol  system without  a catalyst.  Although  incorporation of a catalyst might
further reduce the emissions,  engineering release of such a system is not
feasible at this time  because of the uncertainties and risks associated with
current catalyst configurations.

Daimler-Benz believes  that the  1975  standards  (for gasoline -powered
vehicles) can be met by the 2. 2-liter diesel vehicle without the use of a
catalyst.  There are indications that NO   emissions as low as 1. 0 gm/mi
could be achieved by means of adjustments in the diesel  combustion process.
According to Daimler-Benz,  this engine cannot be produced in sufficient
quantity by 1975 to have  an impact on air  quality.
9. 2. 8          Mitsubishi
Since Mitsubishi was not a witness at the recent  EPA Suspension Request
Hearings, there is no information available on Mitsubishi's position with
                                    9-14

-------
 respect to interim standards.   However,  Mitsubishi has submitted the
 following best-engine emission data (in grams per mile) obtained in accor-
 dance with the 1975 test procedure  (Ref. 9-12):
                           HC             1.7
                           CO            23.5
                           NO             1.43
                              x                                         >
 These levels, which are considered by Mitsubishi to be the ultimate that can
 be achieved by means of engine modifications, are similar to Chrysler's pro-
 posed interim standards.
 9. 2. 9         Nissan
 Nissan states that they are unable to meet the 1975 Federal emission  stan-
 dards on  1975 model vehicles, and  recommends adoption of the 1974 standards
 for 1975 (Ref. 9-13).  From the point of view of system  reliability and dura-
 bility, Nissan has no proven system for mass production other than that
 which satisfies the 1973 standards.  Nissan believes that adoption of more
 stringent  interim standards would only disrupt current efforts aimed at
 meeting the 1975-76 emission  standards at a later date.

 Considering the emissions  from the Nissan  1972 certification vehicles
 (1. 86 to 2. 25 gm/mi HC, 18. 2 to 19. 5 gm/mi CO and  1. 98 to 2. 92 gm/mi NOx),
 it appears that Nissan might be able to meet interim standards below the 1974
 levels.
9. 2. 10       Saab-Scania
Saab-Scania  states that the 1974 HC and CO standards should be considered
as interim standards for the 1975 model year,  if the 1975 standards are
suspended (Ref. 9-14).                                                  i

According to Saab, the emissions from their current vehicles have already
been minimized by means  of engine modifications to a point where further
significant reduction cannot be expected without the use of thermal reactors
                                   9-15

-------
and/or catalytic converters.  To date,  adequate durability and reliability
of these components have not been demonstrated, and incorporation of
unproven systems is not considered by Saab to be in the public interest.

Although there are indications that the emissions from the 1973 Saab certifi-
cation vehicles are lower than the  1974 standards, Saab feels that adoption of
standards more stringent than the  1974 values is not justified on that basis
alone for two  reasons.  First, the certification vehicles are prototypes and
not production vehicles and, second, the  certification durability test is not
yet complete.   However,  under questioning by the EPA Hearing Panel
(Ref.  9-15), Saab admitted that more stringent interim standards could pos-
sibly  be met by Saab  1975 model year vehicles.

Compliance with  the interim standards proposed by Saab will be accomplished
by means of engine modifications  combined with an  improved fuel-injection
system.
9.2.11         Toyo Kogyo
Based on available data, Toyo Kogyo is pessimistic with respect to meeting
the 1975  standards with spark ignition engine-powered vehicles (Ref. 9-16).
Conversely, the prospects of meeting these  standards with  rotary engine
vehicles are rather bright, although the 50, 000-mile durability of the thermal
reactor system used on that vehicle remains to be confirmed (Ref. 9-16 ).
Since thermal reactors have been used successfully  by Toyo Kogyo on current
rotary-engine powered vehicles, no unsurmountable problems are  anticipated
by Toyo Kogyo for that vehicle type.
9.2.12         Toyota
Toyota states  that the 1975 emissions standards are too stringent and far
beyond its  current technological capabilities.  Therefore,  Toyota requests
adoption of the 1974 standards for 1975.  Establishment of more stringent
standards  is considered undesirable by Toyota because current efforts aimed
at meeting the 1975 standards would be disrupted (Ref.  9-17).
                                    9-16

-------
 9. 2. 13        Volkswagen
Based on the results from the emission control system research and develop-
ment work conducted to date,  Volkswagen has concluded that the 1975 emis-
sion standards cannot be met with 1975 Volkswagen vehicles (Ref. 9-18).
Therefore, Volkswagen recommends adoption of the 1974 standards as
interim standards for 1975.   According to Volkswagen, more stringent interim
standards might result in the development and adoption of control systems
having  little or no growth potential.   Furthermore,  the effect of more
stringent interim standards on air quality is minute.
9. 2. 14         Volvo
                                                                         I
Volvo has stated that compliance with the 1975 standards is not  possible at,
this time and adoption of the 1974 standards for 1975 vehicles is urgently
requested (Ref. 9-19).

In the opinion of Volvo,  the  emissions of current engines cannot be substan-
tially reduced from current levels by means of engine modifications  and EGR
alone, and catalytic converters and thermal reactors are required to meet
the 1975 standards.  Since the  durability of these components is still an
unresolved problem area, Volvo is  unable to justify the incorporation of such
devices into their 1975 vehicles at this  time.
9. 2. 15         Chemico
Chemico has stated that the technology required to meet the 1975-76 emis-
sion levels is available at Chemico (Ref.  9-20), but that catalyst contamina-
tion by fuel additives must be prevented and the regulations must be modifie'd
to allow bulk catalyst addition at regular maintenance intervals. Chemico
did not provide high mileage test data to  support this statement.
9. 2. 16       Engelhard
It is Engelhard1 s firm belief that current  efforts to meet the  1975  standards
will be successful provided development programs now in progress throughout
the industry are not permitted to slacken.  Conversely,  if implementation  of
                                     9-17

-------
the standards were postponed by one year, or if the standards were relaxed
significantly, then compliance with the air quality standards would be
unnecessarily delayed (Ref.  9-21).

Engelhard is not aware of any  inherent reasons why the catalyst cannot last
50,000 miles providing it is  not subjected to poisons or over-temperature
conditions.   Furthermore, Engelhard states that the likelihood of successful
development of an improved,  second-generation PTX catalyst  before model
year 1975 need not interfere with  automotive  companies' plans for including
PTX converters in 1975 model year production  planning considerations.
9. 2. 17        W. R. Grace
In the opinion of Grace (Ref. 9-22), it is probably not  technologically feasible
at this time to meet  the 1975 emission  standards (to 50, 000 miles).  Based on
current Grace technology, the HC and  CO standards will be exceeded between
5, 000 to 10, 000 miles. According to Grace the  following HC and  CO emis-
sion levels (in grams per mile) should  be attainable for 50, 000 miles:
                             HC        0. 6 to 0. 8
                             CO        7 to 10
These values are based upon the emissions from 1970-71 vehicles, and
catalyst deterioration factors computed by Grace from test data.
9., 2. 18        Universal  Oil Products
Universal Oil Products is very pessimistic regarding the development in the
near future  of a practical, cost-effective system which is  capable of meeting
the 1975 standards,  and recommends that the following emission values (in
grams per mile) be  adopted as interim standards (Ref.  9-23).
                             HC           0.96
                             CO           7.99
The National Academy of Sciences' recommendations permitting catalyst
change and averaging of emissions should also be adopted  (Ref. 9-23).
                                    9-18

-------
                              REFERENCES
9-1    National Academy of Sciences, "Semiannual Report," prepared by
       The  Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions, Division of Engineering,
       National Research Council, 1 January 1972.

9-2    American Motors Corporation,  Letter to Mr. WilliamD. Ruckelshaus,
       Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, 4 April 1972.

9-3    American Motors Corporation,  Technical Data  Submittal provided by
       AMC at the request of the EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel,
       25 April 1972.

9-4    Chrysler Corporation,  "Application for Suspension of 1975 Motor
       Vehicle Emission Standards Pursuant to Section 202(b)(5)  of the
       Clean Air Act, " March 1972.

9-5    Ford Motor Company, "Application for Suspension of 1975 Motor
       Vehicle Exhaust Emissions Standards," Volumes I and II,  5 April 1972.

9-6    Ford Motor Company, Technical Data Submittal provided  by Ford
       at the request of  the EPA Suspension Request Hearing Panel,
       26 April 1972.

9-7    General  Motors Corporation,  "Request for Suspension of  1975 Federal
       Emissions Standards, " Volumes I and II,  3 April 1972.

9-8    International Harvester,  "Request for One-Year Suspension of 1975
       HC and CO Light-Duty Emission Standards, " Submitted to EPA,
       Washington,  D. C. ,   29 March 1972.

9-9    British Leyland Motors, Inc. , "EPA Hearing of Volvo Application
       for Deferment of Emission  Legislation Applicable to 1975 Model
       Year Vehicles,"  March  1972.

9-10   Daimler-Benz, "Statement  of Daimler-Benz AG before the Environ-
       mental Protection Agency,  Washington,  D. C., " April 1972.

9-11   Mercedes-Benz Company (Daimler-Benz AG), Transcript of
       Proceedings -- Auto Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protec-
       tion Agency, Washington, D.  C. , 19 April 1972.

9-12   Mitsubishi Motors Corporation,  "A Status Report of  Emission Control
       for 1975 and 1976 Light-duty Vehicles, " October 1971.
                                   9-19

-------
                        REFERENCES (Continued)
9-13   Nissan Motor Company,  Ltd.  (Datsun), "Summary Statement of
       Information, " 5 April 1972.

9-14   Saab-Scania of  America, Inc.  and Saab-Scania AB,  "Information
       Submitted in Response to Subpoena, dated March 17, 1972, of
       Environmental  Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. "

9-15   Saab-Scania, Inc.,  Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto  Emissions
       Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. ,
       12 April 1972.

9-16   Toyo Kogyo Company,  Ltd.,  "Statement of Toyo Kogyo Company,
       Ltd. , " April 1972.

9-17   Toyota Motor Company,  Ltd. ,  "A Summary of Toyota's Technology
       and Processes  for Meeting the 1975 Federal Emission  Standards, "
       5 April  1972.

9-18   Volkswagen of America, Inc.,  "Information and Documentary
       Materials Relating to Volkswagen's Emission Research and Design
       Effort to Meet  1975 Federal Emission Goals, " 10 April 1972.

9-19   AB Volvo,  "Request for Suspension of the 1975 Emission Standards,"
       9 March 1972.

9-20   Chemical Construction Corporation (Chemico),  "Statement to the
       Environmental  Protection Agency, Suspension Request Hearing,
       Motor Vehicle Pollution Control," 21 April 1972.

9-21   Engelhard Minerals and Chemicals Corporation, Engelhard
       Industries Division,  "Summary Statement for EPA Hearings on
       Volvo Application for One-year Suspension of Auto Emission
       Standards," 10 April 1972.

9-22   W.  R. Grace and Company, Transcript of Proceedings'-- Auto
       Emissions  Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency,
       Washington, D. C. ,  18 April 1972.

9-23   Universal Oil Products Company,  "UOP Position Statement for
       EPA Hearings on One-year Suspension of 1975 Automobile
       Emissions  Standards,"  17 April 1972.
                                   9-20

-------
                 10.  MAINTENANCE, SAFETY, AND COST
10.1           MAINTENANCE
As the levels of automobile emissions drop, proper engine and emission con-
trol maintenance can have an increasingly larger effect on air quality.  At the
low emission levels of cars meeting the 1975-76 standards, if a small per-
centage of the car population has malfunctioning engines or emission control
systems, the total amount of pollutants released to the atmosphere by all of
the automobiles designed to meet the 1975-76 standards could double.

Ensuring that all vehicles, engines and emission control systems are oper-
ating properly is a very difficult undertaking.  Historically, for financial and
convenience reasons,  American car owners have not practiced preventive
maintenance on a large scale, tending to perform maintenance  or  repairs
only when vehicle performance has deteriorated markedly.  Since vehicle
performance may be unaffected or may actually improve if certain elements
of the emission control system fail or deteriorate  in their effectiveness,* it
is very questionable whether  the car owner will, at his option,  maintain these
devices in good repair (Ref.  10-1).   Because of this, EPA has felt it is
extremely important to certify only emission control systems incorporating
designs which require minimal maintenance and repair.  Accordingly, its
50, 000-mile durability test procedure for certification currently restricts
maintenance to one servicing of the ignition and carburetor system.  No
servicing of the emission control system is permitted.                    .
*One example is the EGR  system.  The recirculated exhaust is an inert diluent
which effectively reduces  engine  size and hence power output.  It also decreases
fuel economy.   Plugging of the EGR system or an EGR valve failure, which
reduces the amount of recirculated exhaust flow,  actually would improve
vehicle performance.  Another example is the catalyst; its failure, in most
instances, would go unnoticed by the vehicle operator.
                                     10-1

-------
However, as a result of problems in passing the 50, 000-mile durability test,
EPA has presently under development proposed regulations that -would allow
increased maintenance under certain guidelines . These regulations contem-
plate  catalyst replacement and other reasonable maintenance.   EPA would
consider approving EGR valve maintenance if the valve malfunction was  such
as to  cause vehicle performance deterioration leading the car owner to have
the defect remedied (Refs.  10-2 and 10-3).  To achieve this  result, it has
been suggested that the EGR system should be redesigned so as to fail only
in the "on" position.  Several automobile companies (e.g., Ref. 10-1) have
declared this to be (1) undesirable,  and (2) unsafe,  on the following bases:
(1) if  the EGR valve remains in the  open position upon malfunction of the
system,  the car cannot be started; and (2) failure of the EGR system might
cause sudden power loss at an undesirable time.  Examples  of the latter are
during car-passing maneuvers (at wide-open throttle EGR is normally off in
many systems) or during deceleration on a freeway where the engine may
stall if EGR is suddenly applied, leading to loss of power brakes and  steering.

Preliminary estimates  of catalyst replacement cost  by catalyst manufacturers
range between $20 and $100, enough money to make  voluntary catalyst replace^
ment very questionable, since no vehicle performance degradation will
ordinarily be incurred.  Chrysler (Ref. 10-1) has  suggested gradual artifi-
cially induced performance degradation, controlled by an emission sensor,
as an approach to ensure catalyst replacement.  No  such devices  presently
have been invented.

The situation may be worse than indicated by the problems in attempting to
pass the  50,000-mile durability test.  Many of the automobile-companies
have expressed the opinion that the  EPA durability test is a relatively easy
test compared with the  operating conditions to which many cars are exposed.
The passing of a prescribed 50, 000-mile test by a very limited number of
cars does nothing but ensure that a  very small part of a large fleet of vehicles
is operating properly.   Mandatory inspection,  test,  and correction of
defective emission control systems of all  used vehicles is another alternative
                                    10-2

-------
to maintenance-free systems,  but it too has its problems,  e. g. ,  cost,
inconvenience, lack of a suitable test,  and long periods of vehicle operation
between tests.

In summary,  it can be stated that no effective approach has yet been found
which will ensure that the emission control system on practically all cars
will continue to function properly.
10. 2          SAFETY
10. 2. 1         General
The primary safety issues associated with proposed 1975-76 automobile
emission control systems are:
            a.   Poor  car-passing performance.
            b.   Increased fire hazard.
            c.   Possible sudden and catastrophic failures during critical
                situations of automobile components (such  as ignition or
                fuel system) due to the excessive heat of the emission
                control system.
10. 2. 2         Poor Passing Performance
With 1975-76 emission control systems,  car-passing performance may be
degraded because of the  use of EGR, changes in spark ignition timing for
emission control, higher exhaust system engine backpressure, and lower
compression ratios required by the use of unleaded gasoline necessitated by
lead-sensitive  catalyst systems.

Some manufacturers propose to cut off EGR at wide-open throttle in order
to retain as much performance as possible.  Some manufacturers have
indicated that it may be necessary  to drop several of their  lower-powered
economy models in order to achieve safe driveability.
10.2.3         Fire Hazard
The possibility of increased fire hazard in  automobiles equipped with 1975-76
emission control systems is due to the higher temperatures in the exhaust
                                   10-3

-------
system (including the thermal reactor and/or catalytic converter).  These

increased temperatures are the result of the oxidation of the HC and CO

emissions and are highest when the engine is operated at a very rich

mixture.  The worst  operating conditions are:

           a.   Choked engine operation (particularly bad with  an engine
                which is cranked a long time before starting  and which
                accumulates fuel in the  catalyst system).
           b.   High-power operation for a long period  of time, e. g. , very
                high highway  speeds or  when pulling a trailer on freeways or
                mountain grades.  (To increase power,  the engine is operated
                richer. )
           c.   Coasting for a long period of time, e. g.  , descending a
                mountain grade (very rich mixture engine operation).
           d.   High altitude  operation without altitude compensation features
                in the engine  fuel control system (results in rich engine
                mixture).

           e.   Misfiring  spark plug which causes engine exhaust
                enrichment.
           f.   Engine mixture enrichment to reduce NO  emissions and/or
                enhance thermal reactor emission reduction performance.

Proposed approaches to reduction or elimination of the increased fire hazards

and some of the problems  associated with these approaches are:

           a.   Time  limit on engine cranking  (highly inconvenient).

           b.   Carburetor modification to prevent engine enrichment under
                high-power operating conditions (reduces engine performance,
                does not protect against a misfiring plug, may  result in  poor
                driveability,  and particularly for  1976,  nonachievement  of the
                NO  standard).
                  X.
           c.   Reduction of heat emission from the exhaust system by
                insulation and/or forced-air cooling.

           d.   Overtemperature sensor which reduces  secondary air flow
                or activates exhaust by-pass for thermal reactor or catalyst
                (very high protective system reliability is a must; if this is
                the only protection system,  it  may be activated many times
                during the life of the car).
                                   10-4

-------
 The overall fire hazard situation assessment of the automobile companies,
 at least for 1975,  ranges from serious concern to reasonably happy.  No
 one who is depending on an overtemperature-controlled by-pass valve is
 extremely confident of achieving a satisfactory solution to the fire hazard
^problems of the emission control system.
 10.2.4         Catastrophic Component Failures
 The combustion of fuel-rich engine exhaust in the emission control system
 can raise engine compartment temperatures significantly.  Located in the
 engine compartment are many vital vehicle components which can malfunction
 in an unsafe manner as a  result of these high temperatures.  Examples of
 such malfunctions are the breakdown of electrical insulation on wires for the
 ignition and lights, which could  cause sudden loss of power or headlights at
 critical times; vapor lock in the hydraulic brake or power steering systems;
 loss of vacuum for power brakes due to hose failure; and fuel  system vapor
 lock.

 The problems caused by high engine compartment temperatures have caused
 many automobile manufacturers to reject thermal reactors.  Other approaches
 to alleviate engine compartment temperature  problems are the insulation of
                                                                       8
 critical components  or heat sources such as catalysts.  With respect to
 catalysts, the preferable approach has been to try to locate them outside of
 the engine compartment.  But this has the disadvantage of making rapid
 catalyst warm-up difficult and of increasing emissions during a cold start.
 10.3          COSTS
 10. 3. 1        General
 The major factors to be considered in evaluating the cost of an emission
 control system are:
            a.   The increase in the purchase price  of the car  due to the
                 addition of the emission control system.
                                    10-5

-------
            b.   Any increased maintenance cost for the car over its
                lifetime as a result of the addition of the emission control
                system.
            c.   Any increased fuel cost over the life of the car due to the
                addition of the emission control system.   This includes fuel
                cost increases  due to increases in the cost per gallon of
                fuel and decreases in engine efficiency.
10. 3. 2        Increased  Purchase Price
Some estimated increases in "sticker price" of cars equipped with emission
control systems to meet 1975 standards, over an uncontrolled emission
vehicle, are discussed in the following paragraphs.
10. 3. 2. 1       American Motors
American Motors estimates the cost of its projected 1975 system to the
customer at $255  (Ref. 10-4).  The projected 1975  system is similar to the
Ford HC/CO catalyst  system although it is not  clear whether the American
Motors system incorporates a catalyst by-pass protection system.
10.3.2.2       Chrysler
Chrysler estimates the cost of their first-choice 1975  system at $412
(Ref. 10-1). This system is the same  as  the Ford  HC/CO catalyst  system
plus a small or "partial" thermal reactor.  (The addition of the thermal
reactor could explain the cost differential between Ford and Chrysler. )
10.3,2.3       Ford
Ford has estimated costs for a number of potential 1975  emission control
systems as  shown below (Ref.  10-5).  All systems  include, in  addition to
the components shown, EGR, secondary air pumps, modified carburetors
and distributors, and induction-hardened valve  seats.
                                   10-6

-------
                                                  Projected Customer
                                                     Retail Cost, $
   HC/CO Catalyst                                       370
   Thermal Reactor                                      400
   Dual HC/CO Catalyst*                                 440
   HC/CO Catalyst plus Thermal Reactor                 510
   Dual HC/CO Catalyst plus Thermal Reactor            580
   *r
   'As used here, the dual catalyst has  one HC/CO catalyst near the
    front of the vehicle and an additional one near the rear.
10.3.2.4      General Motors
The estimated increase in retail price of a vehicle equipped with the pro-
jected 1975 General Motors emission  control system is $300 (Ref.  10-6).
The emission control system is similar to the Ford HC/CO system.  (The
$70 difference in price may be due to  the incorporation of a catalyst over-
temperature  control in the Ford  system. )
10. 3. 3         Maintenance Costs
Maintenance costs include tuneups and parts replacement (such as spark
plug or catalyst replacement) necessary to keep emissions at a low level.
Very little factual information is available on the consumer-use maintenance
required for cars equipped with emission control systems meeting the
1975-76 standards because of the  limited field experience with these systems.
There have been various opinions offered on the cost of catalyst replacement
or refurbishment.  The costs estimated per refurbishment have ranged from
$20 to over $100.  The low numbers correspond to replacement  of pellets
only, in a pellet-type catalyst.  If catalyst refurbishment were necessary
every 25,000 miles and the cost per refurbishment were on the high side of
the cost range  discussed above, a major increase in car maintenance costs
would result.
                                   10-7

-------
10.3.4        Fuel Costs
Fuel costs of automobiles capable of meeting 1975-76 standards -will be
higher than those of uncontrolled vehicles,  because of higher fuel consumption
projected for the 1975 vehicles.  This loss  in fuel economy is due to the
incorporation of the emission control system,  reduction of the engine  com-
pression ratio, and increased vehicle weight.  Chrysler has  stated that the
fuel economy (miles per gallon) of its cars  for 1975 and 1976 will only be
81 percent and 70 percent, respectively,  of that of a pre-emission control
car; e.g., 1968 year  model (Ref.  10-7).  The  1976 fuel economy could
improve significantly if a suitable NO   catalyst were developed, but progress
to date on such development has not been encouraging.

Chrysler's projected  fuel economy degradation is typical of that reported by
other manufacturers.  Causes for the poor  fuel economy are:
             a.   Decreased  compression ratios (due to the use of lower
                 octane number unleaded gasoline because catalysts will
                 not  tolerate leaded gasoline).
             b.   Ignition spark timing  changes to maximize emission control
                 rather than fuel economy.
             c.   EGR for NO  reduction.
                            Ji.
             d.   Operation at richer air/fuel  ratios to maintain acceptable
               .  and safe driveability with EGR.
For the range of fuel economy reductions indicated above,  the fuel cost
increases over a car's lifetime  (85,000 miles average)  are estimated  to be
of the order of $500 for 1975-type systems  and $1000 for cars equipped with
1976-type emission control systems, an  amount which is larger than the
increase in the sticker or purchase  price of the  car due to the addition of the
emission control system.  If every car on the  road eventually had emission
controls of this type, the nation's increased fuel cost would be $5 to $10 billion
annually, and of course the rate of depletion of crude oil reserves would
increase markedly.   Development of emission control  systems which  permit
better fuel economy is obviously highly desirable.
                                    10-8

-------
                              REFERENCES
                                         •',*-'.             r
10-1   Chrysler Corporation,  Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto Emissions
       Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.  C.,
       20 April 1972.

10-2   Letter from E. O. Stork, Director, Mobile Source Pollution Control,
       to Dr. F. W. Bowditch, General Motors Engineering Staff, November
       19, 1971.

10-3   Letter from E.  O.  Stork,  Director, Mobile Source Pollution Control,
       to Dr. F. W. Bowditch, General Motors Engineering Staff,
       December 9, 1971.

10-4   American Motors Corporation, Technical Data Submittal  provided
       by AMC  at the  request of the EPA Suspension Request Hearing
       Panel, 20 April 1972.

10-5   Ford Motor Company, "Application for Suspension of 1975 Motor
       Vehicle Exhaust Emissions Standards, " Volumes I and II,
       5 April 1972.

10-6   General  Motors Corporation, Transcript of Proceedings  -- Auto
       Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency,
       Washington, D. C. ,  17 April 1972.

10-7   Chrysler Corporation,  "Application for Suspension of 1975 Motor
       Vehicle Emission Standards Pursuant to Section 202(b)(5) of the
       Clean Air Act, " March 1972.
                                    10-9

-------
                      11.  PRODUCTION LEAD TIME
11.1          INTRODUCTION
11. 1. 1        Data Sources
The primary sources of data for the discussion of automotive production
lead time presented in this section are (a) past and current submittals by
the automobile manufacturers pertaining to progress in the development of
emission control systems for 1975 model year cars,  (b) testimony given
in the recent EPA hearings on the request for suspension of the 1975 Federal
exhaust emission standards, and (c) data available in the open literature on
lead time requirements for the production implementation of new automotive
vehicle designs.  The pertinent information acquired from these sources
is less than adequate for  a detailed  treatment of the lead time topic; the data
are used solely to highlight some general points in the discussion that follows.
11.1.2         Terminology
Production lead time is defined as the period between commitment by manage-
ment of capital funds for  production facilities and the date of achievement
of the first mass-produced article.   This period is selected by the manufacturer
so as to provide sufficient time to specify,  design, procure, install, and
checkout production tooling and equipment and to accelerate the manufacturing
process to full-volume output.   Normally, the commitment of funds for pro-
duction is not made  until  "proof-of-design" prototype testing has been com-
pleted and the  suitability  of the basic design and operating features of the
system has been established or verified.
11. 1. 3         Schedule Considerations
The operations which must be accomplished during the production lead time
interval include: production engineering,  tool construction and tryout, pilot
                                   11-1

-------
assembly,  and production build up.  In addition to allotting time for these
activities,  sufficient time must be provided for contingencies such as delays
due to equipment,  labor, or material shortages; labor strikes;  and equipment
checkout problems.  Accordingly, the lead time must be lengthened, to a
degree governed partly by past experience and the complexity of the  product
to be manufactured. Frequently, as in the case of a program with a fixed end
date (the first day that full production capacity is reached), economic con-
siderations demand that a large amount of time be reserved to minimize the
possibility of missing the designated milestone.  However, overly conservative
scheduling can lengthen the lead time excessively which then increases labor
costs.  Conversely, the compression of lead time can also lead to increased
costs because of the need for overtime  labor in both the automobile and
supplier  manufacturing facilities.

In summary, lead time is governed largely by equipment procurement/
installation/checkout time and  by the need to minimize program costs; it is
flexible to  the extent that the duration is defined on the basis of a number of
judgment factors.

Over the years,  the transition  from hand labor to machine tasks and then
to computer-controlled automated operations  has led to increased lead times.
This has naturally arisen from the requirement by the  equipment manufacturers
to devote more time to  the design and checkout of the highly specialized and
sophisticated equipment required for modern, high-volume-rate assembly line
operations. Great care in equipment design and assembly line design is
necessary  because the magnitude of the associated economic investment
reduces  the allowable margin for error.
11.2          PACING ITEMS
With regard to 1975 emission control systems components,  each manufacturer
has identified  one  or more factors which  control or define his production
                                   11-2

-------
lead time requirement.  In each case, the most critical items cited were
the fabrication of the catalytic converter and the completion of durability
tests currently being conducted for the verification of the complete emission
system design.   The manufacturing schedule for catalytic converters is
lengthy; it is believed that this is due primarily to the fact that the converter
design represents a new technology and, in contrast to most automotive com-
ponents, involves a source of supply that  is unfamiliar with and unproven
by automotive industry experience in high-volume production practices,
procedures, and requirements.  Hence, the lead time requirement encompasses
the additional uncertainties and contingencies associated with new vendor
associations.

The following paragraphs discuss the particular manufacturing/lead time
problems emphasized by the major domestic automobile manufacturers.

Of great concern to the automobile manufacturer is the need currently to
commit to production the design of the engine,  chassis,  and body without
full knowledge of the impact of emission control equipment on these major
pieces of hardware.  Design modifications after a period of time become
very costly in terms of overtime labor necessary to adhere to  schedules.
11.2.1       American Motors
American Motors states that body/frame changes required to accommodate
the catalytic converter are the critical pacing lead time items.  Production
drawings for these body changes must commence on June 1,  1972 (Ref. 11-1).
11.2. 2       Chrysler
Chrysler's decision on the type of catalyst to be used in its emission control
system is the critical pacing item.  It has  stated that the final  system
definition is  required 31 months prior to the start of production (January
1972).  Formal commitment to a catalyst  supplier is  required  28 months
prior to  the start of production (April 1972) (Ref.  11-2).
                                    11-3

-------
11.2.3        Ford
While tooling is not a controlling factor,  Ford's overall lead time requirement
is based on the time required to prove out new hardware facilities and equip-
ment and to redesign its mass production processes.  In association with
Engelhard,  the catalyst supplier,  two facilities are planned for the production
of the catalytic converter.  One of these, Plant #1, is a pilot production plant
due to be in full operation by April 1,  1973 (ultimately,  the plan is to convert
this  plant to a production facility).  The other facility, Plant #2,  is  due to be
in full operation by April 1, 1974;  site procurement was planned for May 1,
1972.  A decision on the source of supply for the catalytic  converter canister
has  not been made.  (Ref. 11-3. )
11.2.4        General Motors
General Motors'longest lead time requirement  concerns the fabrication of
electron beam welders to be used in the mass production of the catalytic
converter canister.   Six welders are required for full-volume  production and
the total lead time for this equipment is  24 months.  General Motors states
that in order for this equipment to be available for 1975 model year production
purchase orders must be placed by July 1, 1972.  Production welding experience
is lacking for the new corrosion-resistant steel used for the canister and new
•welding techniques must be tested and evaluated.  With regard to other com-
ponents in the proposed 1975 emission control system--such as the carburetor,
electronic ignition, and quick heat manifold--the lead time is paced by capital
equipment acquisition and the period required for field tests.   Lead time for
these components is not critical (Ref. 11-4).
 11. 3          AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS'  SCHEDULES FOR
               CATALYTIC CONVERTERS
 Since the catalytic converter appears to be a pacing production development
 item with which all of the manufacturers must contend, it  serves as a con-
 sistent basis for examining and comparing production schedules and lead times
                                    11-4

-------
among the different manufacturers.  The data available for this comparison
are shown in Figure 11-1.

In general, the agreement in the catalytic converter production milestones
among the various manufacturers is  good.  Exact agreement between Ford
and American Motors Milestone C, facilities contract,  is noted; both manu-
facturers reference this milestone to the Engelhard facilities development.
Among all the manufacturers  represented, the overall lead time requirement
ranges from 25 to 28 months.

The schedules shown for the two foreign manufacturers are referenced to a
decision date for selecting the type of converter to be used in their 1975
systems.  This date appears to be a  couple of months downstream from the
equivalent decision point for the domestic manufacturers.  The reason for this
is not known; however,  the difference is not significant.
11.4          CATALYST SUPPLIERS' SCHEDULES
Schedules  submitted in  the suspension request hearings by the catalyst sup-
pliers  are shown in Figure 11-2 in comparison with the Figure 11-1 suppliers'
schedule submitted by Ford.  The corresponding sets of data from these two
figures are found to be  in agreement. If the lead time reference point is fixed
at the date of firm commitment, it is seen that the lead times estimated to be
required by the various catalyst suppliers vary in a narrow range from 21 to
25 months.  The differences in lead time may be  due to varying degrees of
optimism in estimating the facility construction  and equipments schedule.

From Figure 11-2, and allowing for  the fact that production.catalysts must be
available at the manufacturer's plant in advance of first vehicle production,
the automotive manufacturers' lead time requirement would be expected to be
approximately 2 years.  This is consistent with the Ford lead time
requirement shown  in  Figure 11-1  as  28 months.   Since the schedules
of the automotive manufacturers are in  good general agreement, it is
                                   11-5

-------

AMERICAN MOTORS
CHRYSLER
FORD
GENERAL MOTORS
VOLVO
VOLKSWAGEN
CY
246

72 tt
8 10 12 2 4 6
C
i
A C
L , 	 1

f 73 CY 74
8 10 12 2 4 68
F

D E F
i i
^LEAD TIME REFERENCE POINT
ABC D E F
ij_
A B
i T"
A
C
<£
1 , ,
i


C
i
*
B
i
i ill lit i
i i
E F
i
D E F
i i i
D F
i
til i i i i i i
                 30
                      25       20       15        10        5
                          MONTHS TO VEHICLE PRODUCTION
A

B

C
PRODUCTION DESIGN  PRELIMINARY
  APPROVAL

TOOLING AND FACILITIES
  PROGRAM APPROVAL

FACILITIES AND  LONG LEAD TIME
  PARTS/EQUIPMENT CONTRACT
D - START DURABILITY AND
      CERTIFICATION  TESTS
E - START VEHICLE PILOT PART
      PROGRAM

F - START VEHICLE PRODUCTION
       Figure 11-i.  Significant Milestones for Catalytic Converter Production
                  (Data Supplied by Automobile Manufacturers)

-------
• ENGLEHARD
    • PLANT No.  1

    • PLANT No.  2

• OXY-CATALYST

• MATTHEY BISHOP

• W.R. GRACE

• MONSANTO

• UOP
                      CY 71
                    8 I 10 I  12
CY 72
    8  10  12
CY 73
6 I  8 I 10 I 12
CY 74
     8   10
                                          V25 mo)
                                              S(24 mo)
                                             ^(24 mo)
     RESEARCH,  DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT
     PROGRAM APPROVAL PERIOD (commitment agreements,
     product specification definition, etc)
     PLANT SITE SELECTION, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION
     EQUIPMENT DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, DELIVERY, INSTALLATION
     PLANT START UP,  SHAKEDOWN
     FULL PRODUCTION
  •*• REQUIRED COMMITMENT DATE FROM AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS
  <2> POSSIBLE SLIPPED COMMITMENT DATES (cost increase)
           Figure H-2.^ Representative Catalyst Production Lead Time Schedules .

-------
concluded that there are no gross inconsistencies among or between the lead
time specifications of the suppliers and manufacturers.
11.5          CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS WITH SUPPLIERS
The Ford/Engelhard  relationship represents the only case to date of a
contractual commitment between an automobile manufacturer and a catalyst
supplier.  Ford has contracted with Engelhard Industries for supplying cata-
lysts to be used in its emission control system and has provided financial
backing of up  to $4. 9  million for facilities and equipment.  Ford is also con-
sidering other sources  of supply but no other contracts have been initiated to
date.   Other automobile manufacturers are also evaluating multiple sources
of supply for catalysts but have not made contractual commitments as yet.
11.6          SCHEDULE INTEGRATION
An example of the integration of a  supplier schedule with that of an automobile
manufacturer  is shown  in Figure 11-3 for the Ford/catalyst supplier relation-
ship.   The Ford production milestone schedule taken from Figure 11-1 is
compared in Figure 11-3 with the Engelhard Plant #2 facility construction
program and with the construction program for other catalyst platers and for
substrate suppliers.

Milestone C in the Ford schedule represents the supplier facilities contract
award  and this may be seen to  correspond -with the initiation of  construction in
the Engelhard schedule.  The build up to  full production in the Engelhard
schedule corresponds to the Ford milestone for the completion  of the production
sample build,  immediately preceding milestone E,  which is the start of vehicle
pilot production.   At this point, the supplier's production output must be
available for Ford's pilot assembly operation.

Ford is negotiating with other catalyst platers,  and their schedules for plant
construction,  tooling  and production corresponds well with the Engelhard
schedule.
                                   11-8

-------

FORD
CATALYST PLATER
SITE SELECTION
SITE PROCUREMENT
CONSTRUCTION
ENGLEHARD PLANT No. 2
TOOLING AND FIXTURES
PRODUCTION
OTHER CATALYST PLATERS
MATTHEY-BISHOP
Un P
. \j* ••
W.R. GRACE
SUBSTRATE SUPPLIERS
/% IVIbK 1 w AIN LAVA

2

4
CY
6
AB














1

—















	













72
8
C
1



















10





















12





















2






















4





















CY
6





















73
8
I





















10
3




















12




















CY 74
2



































k



4
6
E F
1








\



— -



-



-






x.


Figure 11-3. Catalytic Converter Program Timing (Ford)"

-------
For the substrate construction.  Ford has made purchase commitments with
American Lava, and may presently be making  commitments to another
substrate supplier.  The timing for the development of these supplier facilities
is about 24 months, or approximately the same as for the Engelhard facility
development.

In general, the scheduling duration seems to be consistent between the
manufacturer and the suppliers.
11.7          SCHEDULE COMPRESSION AND COST INTERACTIONS
All manufacturers have indicated that their current schedules  represent an
accelerated work effort in order to develop production facilities in time for
the 1975 model year.  An example of this schedule compression is given by
Chrysler (Figure 11-4).   A reduction of one full year in lead time is shown;
this appears to have been accomplished mainly through a delay in the start of
the production design and test phase and an increase in the  overlap of this
phase with other work efforts.   Notable is the lack of  schedule change in the
design release phase.

Additional schedule compression holds higher risks for  the automobile
manufacturer because of major  reductions in the time allowance for correcting
problems in production hardware design or assembly line operations; this effect
is only correctable to a degree through the use of labor  on overtime which
in turn raises product cost.  Some compression is afforded if the original
program goals are revised.  Ford estimated an added gain of  3 to 3-1/2 months
over its accelerated schedule if its proposed interim emission standards were
adopted (see Figure 11-5).

Some catalyst suppliers have estimated an ability to further compress their
schedules by 3 to 6 months  (Figure 11-2) but with corresponding  increases in
unit costs from approximately 3 to 12 percent.  At this time there is insufficient
information to accurately correlate the increase in unit  cost with schedule
compression for either catalyst or automobile manufacturers.
                                   11-10

-------



DEVELOPMENT AND £
TEST

PRODUCTION DESIGN
AND TEST
LONG-LEAD TOOL
COMMITMENT
DESIGN RELEASE
CERTIFICATION
PILOT PRODUCTION
CY 70
246 81012





LEAD TIME*
REFERENCE

CY 71
2468 1012

_J


L
POINT 4

CY 72
246 81012


^pllll




CY 73
2468 10J12




JL_
mmmmlm*
H
r™™™

CY 74
2468 1012






ill
NORMAL

ACCELERATED
      Figure 11-4.  Comparison of Chrysler Production Design Schedules
                   (1975 Emission Control System)

-------
                                        START 50,000-mi  DURABILITY TESTING
ACCELERATED SCHEDULE
  FORD ENGINE  EMISSION PROGRAM
  TIMING PLAN*
ACCELERATED HIGH RISK SCHEDULE

  FORD ENGINE EMISSION PROGRAM*
  (assumes adoption of interim standards)


* Suspension request, Exhibit 4-8 (a)
      ENGINEERING RESEARCH
£*••? Xi* * • •
      DESIGN/DEVELOPMENT
      PROGRAM APPROVAL
      PRODUCTION ENGINEERING
 I i  i i  i i 1  i  i i  i i I  i  i i  i i  I i i  i  i
48       36       24        12
     MONTHS TO VEHICLE PROUCTION
                                                                      .1
   TOOL CONSTRUCTION  AND
   TRYOUT
   PILOT ASSEMBLY
   PRODUCTION BUILDUP
              Figure 11-5. Accelerated Development Schedules

-------
                              REFERENCES
11-1   American Motors Corporation,  Letter to Mr. William D. Ruckelshaus,
       Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, 4 April  1972.

11-2   Chrysler Corporation, "Application for Suspension of 1975 Motor
       Vehicle Emission Standards Pursuant to Section 202(b)(5) of the
       Clean Air Act," March 1972.

11-3   Ford Motor Company, "Application for Suspension of 1975  Motor
       Vehicle Exhaust Emissions Standards, " Volumes I and II,
       5 April 1972.

11-4   General Motors Corporation,  "Request for  Suspension of 1975 Federal
       Emissions Standards," Volumes I and II, 3 April 1972.
                                    11-13

-------
            12.  UNCONVENTIONAL, AUTOMOTIVE ENGINES


Unconventional automotive engines are those other than the reciprocating
spark ignition internal combustion engine.  They include the  Wankel, diesel,
gas turbine, stratified charge, Rankine,  and Stirling engine classes.  The
following sections briefly describe the salient features of each engine type
and summarize the status of the  automotive industry development efforts.
12. 1           WANKEL (ROTARY) ENGINE
The Wankel engine,  although in the spark ignition internal combustion class,
is entirely different mechanically from the conventional reciprocating engine.
InStead of reciprocating pistons and valves, this engine contains  one or more
triangular-shaped rotors which rotate on an eccentric shaft in a rotor housing.
The volume between the rotor and the housing varies as the rotor turns to
first achieve compression of the air/fuel mixture and then expansion of the
products of combustion.

Compared with the conventional reciprocating engine, the Wankel is smaller
in weight and  volume for the same power, has very low levels of vibration
since there are no reciprocating  masses, and can run on very low octane
number fuels; its untreated exhaust contains somewhat more  HC,  approxi-
mately the same  CO, and much less NO ; its cost in large volume production
                                      Jf,
is expected to be less, and its fuel economy the same or poorer,  depending
on the particular design.
12.1.1         Ford
Ford's Wankel engine program includes both dynamometer and vehicle
phases (Ref. 12-1).   The dynamometer phase is concerned with optimization
of a Ford-designed Wankel engine and additional emission control system
components.  The current vehicle phase is concerned with evaluation of a
Mazda RX-2 vehicle (Toyo Kogyo Wankel engine) equipped with Ford emission
                                   12-1

-------
control devices.  The best emission results obtained by Ford on a carefully
timed Mazda rotary engine vehicle are 1. 3 gm/mi HC, 24 gm/mi CO and
0. 66 gm/mi (1975 test procedure).

Ford believes that a thermal reactor, a catalytic converter,  and exhaust gas
recirculation will have to be used with the Wankel engine to meet 1975-76
emission standards.  Results from the Mazda test vehicle are expected from
the Riverside test facility in late 1972; test results from a vehicle incorporating
a Ford-designed Wankel are expected in mid-1973.

If the development program is successful, Ford estimates that it would then
require at least 42 additional months to begin production of the engine.
12.1.2        General Motors
General Motors has  conducted an intensive study and development  program
on the  rotary combustion Wankel engine for two years (Ref.  12-2).   Base
engine emissions for the General Motors Wankel engine are somewhat higher
in HC, about the same in CO, and slightly lower in NO  than the conventional
                                                    Jt
G. M. reciprocating  engines.  Hence,  both thermal reactors and catalytic
converters have been applied to the rotary engine.  Possible advantages of
the Wankel are visualized to be primarily in the areas of reduced size and
weight, which could  permit the utilization of some emission control systems
not suited to the conventional engine (e. g. , a large thermal reactor).

The 1975 standards have been achieved at low mileage (by a small margin)
with a  Wankel-powered 2500-lb vehicle incorporating air injection in the
exhaust manifold and a monolithic noble metal catalyst (no EGR).  The
manufacturer  believes that the durability problems of the catalyst will be
similar to those encountered with conventional engines.
                                   12-2

-------
General Motors has not been able to achieve the 1975 standards with a thermal
reactor alone; the best single test was marginal on HC, over on CO,  and
consistently below  1 gm/mi on NO .   General Motors states they suspect that
the reason that they were not able to make the 1975 standards at low mileage
with the thermal reactor alone, while Toyo Kogyo did accomplish this,  is
that the fuel economy of  its Wankel engine is similar to that of conventional
reciprocating engines  while the Toyo Kogyo Wankel was 25 to  30 percent
poorer.  General Motors NO  test results tend to belie this contention as
                           Ji
they were consistently in the  0. 5 to 0. 7  gm/mi range; these satisfactory
NO  emission results  were attributed to running rich to obtain good per-
formance from the thermal reactor.

General Motors states they cannot produce Wankel engines for 1975 model year
cars, except on a very limited basis.
12.1.3        Daimler-Benz
The Daimler-Benz Wankel engine is in a predevelopment state (Ref. 12-3).  It
has been installed in a vehicle with an emission control system consisting of a
monolithic oxidation catalyst, EGR, air injection,  and retarded ignition.
Emission test results (gm/mi) are 0. 34 for HC, 2. 49 for CO, and 1. 24 for
NO  (averages of 21 tests).
   3t
Daimler-Benz  states that production of Wankel engines for model years
1975-76 is not  possible.
12. 1.4         Toyo Kogyo
Toyo Kogyo presently produces  rotary-engined cars at a low-production rate
(15, 000 cars/month versus  25,000 cars/day for General Motors) (Ref.  12-4).
This company has met the 1975 standards at low mileage with a 2750-lb
vehicle equipped with a 70-CID two-rotor Wankel and a thermal reactor (no
                                   12-3

-------
EGR).  Emission results (in grams per mile) were 0. 17 for HC, 2. 2 for
CO,  and  0.93 for NO  (averages of 18 tests).  These values satisfy Toyo
                    Ji
Kogyo engineering low mileage goals.

Toyo Kogyo has not demonstrated 50, 000-mile durability but is optimistic
about this performance capacity.  Equivalent engine dynamometer tests have
successfully been completed; the thermal reactor used is very similar to the
one now on its 1972 rotary engine cars.  The Toyo Kogyo thermal reactor is
unique from that developed by other manufacturers in that it is force cooled
by air from the  secondary air pump which results in relatively low reactor
material temperatures and low heat rejection to the engine compartment.
Emission performance for the 1975 prototype system was improved over the
1972 system by carburetor and ignition system modifications  and modulation
of the secondary air system.  These changes resulted in sizable emission
performance improvements during  the engine warm-up portions of the emission
tests (Ref. 12-5).

Toyo Kogyo's projected 1975 car has  a fuel economy loss of five percent
compared to their 1972 model.  However, Ford and General Motors claim
their 1972 small economy cars (e.g. , Vega, Pinto, etc. ) have 25 to
30 percent better fuel economy than the Toyo Kogyo 1972 rotary engine
vehicles.

The  maximum production rate estimated by Toyo Kogyo for 1975 is 50, 000
to 70, 000 cars  per month.
12.2          DIESEL, ENGINE
The diesel engine, widely used in heavy-duty vehicles (trucks,  buses, etc. ),
has the potential for low emissions without aftertreatment of its exhaust.  Test
procedures for light-duty diesel-powered vehicles have not been firmly
established.  However, on the basis of anticipated procedures and current test
results, it appears that the 1975 standards are achievable without exhaust
treatment by the Mercedes 220D vehicle (Ref.  12-3).
                                  12-4

-------
 The diesel achieves low HC and CO emissions by operating at high
 compression ratios and very lean air/fuel ratios.  However, operation in the
 lean air/fuel ratio regime precludes utilization of a NO  catalyst,  which
 requires a reducing atmosphere.  Tests with the only other  alternate methods
 of reducing NO  emissions, e. g. , EGR and retarded injection,  to date indicate
               Ji
 the  1976  standards are not achievable by a diesel.

 The high compression ratio and lean air/fuel ratio of the diesel result in its
 being  a very large and heavy engine.  Daimler-Benz indicates that the size and
 weight problem may be so acute that it is impossible to build a diesel-powered
 car with sufficient power to meet the passing requirement of the DOT safety
 car (Ref. 12-6).

 Initial cost of the diesel is more  than for  a conventional  reciprocating
 gasoline  engine of the same power.   Daimler-Benz has indicated an increased
 cost of $1500 for the diesel  over the gasoline engine (120-horsepower engines).
 Daimler-Benz presently sells a 62-horsepower diesel car which is economically
 attractive for some markets where its fuel economy and long life are important
 (e. g. , high mileage commercial uses where  gasoline prices and horsepower
 taxes  are very high (Ref.  12-6)).

 No other automobile manufacturers foresee the diesel as an attractive approach
 to meeting the 1975-76 standards.  Their expressed reasons are essentially the
same as discussed above,  plus a concern for  the diesel1 s distinctive exhaust
 odor.
 12. 3          GAS  TURBINE
 12. 3. 1        General
 The gas turbine operates at very lean air/fuel ratios with correspondingly low
 maximum temperatures  in the  engine  as  compared with  a reciprocating
 engine.   Hence, the HC and  CO emissions of the engine are low.  It is
                                   12-5

-------
hoped that no aftertreatment devices will be necessary.  Chrysler states
that its engine would meet the 1975 standards.  To date no automobile manu-
facturer has succeeded in meeting the 1976 NO  standards, although some
are encouraged by their test results.

Ford,  General Motors, and Chrysler all have passenger car gas turbine
programs.  In addition to the emission problems discussed above, they indi-
cate other problems, including:  (a) high cost, (b) poor fuel economy at part-
load, (c) requirement for large quantities of nickel,  and (d) poor acceleration
characteristics (Refs.  12-1, 12-2, 12-7).

All manufacturers indicate that sizable production is not possible until the
1980s.
12.4          STRATIFIED  CHARGE ENGINE
12.4. 1       General
The term "stratified charge" characterizes the most significant difference
between this type  of engine and  the conventional  reciprocating internal com-
bustion engine.  At the commencement of combustion,  the air/fuel mixture
is not homogeneous  but purposely made locally richer  (or "stratified") near
the spark plug.  Improved fuel economy and possible multifuel use were the
original reasons for interest in this type of engine.

The engine may permit the achievement of low NO  emissions without an NO
                       ,                        -X                         Jt
catalyst and •with relatively satisfactory fuel economy.  This is possible
because the local  richness permits higher EGR rates without misfire for the
same engine air/fuel ratio and results  in reduced peak combustion tempera-
tures.  A thermal reactor and/or catalytic converter will be necessary for
HC/CO emission reduction.  Hence, this engine is of interest primarily for
1976 standards since the 1975 NO  standard can be met with a  conventional
reciprocating engine.
                                    12-6

-------
12.4.2         Ford
Ford has built and tested a 141-CID engine in an M-151 MUTT (army vehicle
of 3000-lb gross weight (Ref. 12-1)).  The engine design also has been
adapted to a 141-CID Capri engine and to a 351-CID V-8 engine for a Torino.
Emission results (in grams per mile) from the MUTT program are:

                                         HC    CO      NO
              Average of 14 EPA tests  0.37   0.93    0.33
              Average of 4 Ford tests   0.34   1.01    0.35

It should be noted that the test vehicle was unable to follow the CVS acceleration
schedule because of insufficient power.  Such reduced acceleration also normally
would reduce NO  emissions from a conventional engine.
                Ji
The major problems encountered with this type of engine at the present time
include the following:
            a.   A production-feasible design for the injector is not available.
            b.   Engine operation still encounters misfire at high EGR  rates.
            c.   Durability of some  engine components (such as spark plugs )
                is questionable.
            d.   The HC/CO catalyst durability problems of the conventional
                engine also  must be solved.
Ford estimates  the earliest  possible date for limited production is 1979.
12.4.3        General Motors
General Motors has conducted tests on a prechamber variation similar to that
tested at the University of Wisconsin by H. K. Newhall,  et al.   The General
Motors engine is in a very early state of development (Ref.  12-2).
                                    12-7

-------
12.4.4        Chrysler
In late 1970, Chrysler entered into an agreement with Texaco to  evaluate
Texaco's stratified charge engine (Ref.  12-7).  Chrysler is adding HC/CO
catalysts and EGR to two Texaco engines which will be installed in Cricket
vehicles for testing.  Chrysler is also designing a V-8 stratified charge
engine for a normal-size passenger car.
12.5          RANKINE ENGINE
In the Rankine engine system,  combustion takes place in an external burner,
and heat is then added to the working fluid in a boiler.  The external burner
can operate at lean air/fuel ratio if desired  and,  similar to the gas turbine,
has potential for low emissions without aftertreatment of the exhaust.
12.5.1        Ford
Ford entered into an agreement in 1970  with Thermo-Electron Company for
a joint development program on Rankine cycle engines for  automotive  use
(Ref. 12-1).  As part of  this effort, emissions have been measured from a
full-size burner and simulated boiler operated on a simulated CVS-CH test.
The  results obtained were (in grams per mile):
               HC                   CO                  NO..
               ^™-^^™                  -^——                  ^^^_^£L.
              0.13                 0.19                  0.26
These  emissions are based on the projected flow rates required by the engine
to operate over  the Federal driving cycle.

Many problems  remain to be overcome, however, before this concept could
possibly be  introduced into production.  These problems include  condenser
size, safety aspects, cost,  controls, and engine cooling.

Ford's  assessment is that unless technological breakthroughs are made,  the
engine is too complex and costly for widespread automotive application.
                                    12-8

-------
12.5.2        General Motors
General Motors has built and tested steam cars and is continuing work in the
field (Ref. 12-2).  It also concludes that a technological breakthrough is
necessary for this type of engine to become attractive for use in passenger
cars.
12.5.3         Chrysler
Past studies by Chrysler have led to a negative view toward the Rankine type
of power plant for automotive use for the same types  of reasons discussed above
(Ref.  12-7),  However, recent developments have encouraged Chrysler to
reassess its position.  It has entered into an agreement with Steam Engine
Systems, Inc. ,  to install a Rankine engine in a production vehicle.   This is a
long-term program,  however, and production, if it were to occur,  would be
many years away.
12.6          STIRLING ENGINE
The Stirling  engine cycle -which is based on the alternate heating and  cooling
of an  entrapped gas volume is a very efficient cycle.  Its combustor is an
external combustor and hence has the same potential  for low emissions as
exists for the Rankine cycle engine.  Further emission reduction might be
possible by means of a trade-off between fuel economy and emissions.
12.6.1        Ford
In August 1971 Ford entered into a technical exchange agreement with Philips
of Holland who has been the most important developer of Stirling engines.
Philips' calculations,  based on tests with  small engines, indicate this type
of engine has the potential for meeting 1976 standards (Ref. 12-1).

Recently completed packaging studies by Ford indicate the major problem is
large radiator  size.   Other unresolved problem areas are safety (hydrogen
working fluid), cost,  and complexity.
                                   12-9

-------
Earliest possible production date is estimated to be 1980.



12. 6. 2        General Motors



General Motors has designed and built a Stirling engine car (Ref.  12-2).


The HC and CO emissions were low,  but NO  emissions were high.  General
                                          j£

Motors  believes this engine is too heavy, complex, and expensive for automo-


tive use.
                                 12-10

-------
                             REFERENCES
12-1   Ford Motor Company, "Application for Suspension of 1975 Motor
       Vehicle Exhaust Emissions Standards, " Volumes I and II,
       5 April 1972.

12-2   General Motors  Corporation,  "Request for Suspension of 1975
       Federal Emissions Standards, " Volumes  I and II, 3 April 1972.

12-3   Daimler-Benz,  "Statement of Daimler-Benz AG before the Environ-
       mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.  C.," April 1972.

12-4   Toyo Kogyo Company, Ltd. ,  Transcript of Proceedings -- Auto
       Emissions Extension -- Environmental Protection Agency,
       Washington, D.  C. , 21 April 1972.

12-5   Toyo Kogyo Company, Ltd. ,  "Statement of Toyo Kogyo Company,
       Ltd.," April 1972.

12-6   Mercedes-Benz  Company (Daimler-Benz  AG), Transcript of
       Proceedings -- Auto Emissions Extension -- Environmental
       Protection Agency, Washington, D.  C. , 19 April 1972.

12-7   Chrysler Corporation, "Application for Suspension of 1975 Motor
       Vehicle Emission  Standards Pursuant to Section 202(b)(5) of the
       Clean Air Act, " March 1972.
                                   12-11

-------
         APPENDIX:  NONAUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY TESTIMONY

This  appendix is made up of the highlights of the statements made at the
EPA  Suspension Request Hearings held on April 10-28, 1972 in Washington,
D. C. , by witnesses that are not part of the automobile industry.
Mr. Rudich
Mr. David A.  Rudich is the President of Enviro Plan,  a consulting engineering
firm  involved in a broad spectrum of environmental quality and natural
resource management activities which also include automotive emission
control.  His testimony was specifically directed at technology development
within the field of internal combustion engines.   These are the significant
points in his testimony:
      a.    The "proper" approach to the control of emissions is by
            cleaning up the combustion  process; not by cleaning up the
            products  from combustion.
      b.    Enviro Plan has a theoretical design which has promise  to
            meet the  1975-76 requirements and can be  applied to
            current internal combustion engines.
      c.    Enviro Plan does not have the financial resources to pursue
            the hardware development and  has been unable to stimulate
            anv interest from the automobile industry.
Ms. Leavitt
Ms. Helen Leavitt,  author,  contends that the automobile is technologically
outmoded and should be replaced by public transportation systems.  Her
position is that the denial of the  suspension requests will bring about the
recognition of the automobile limitations and result in an earlier diversifi-
cation of interest by the automobile manufacturers. She envisions that this
diversification would include the development of public transportation systems.
Mr. Pancoe
Mr. Arthur Pancoe  is the director of the Society Against Violence to
Environment (SAVE) and Citizens Action Program  in Chicago (CAP).  His
                                   A-l

-------
basic points are (I) do what can be done now, (2) cost of emission controls
and replacements  should not be a consideration, and (3) people have the
right to clean air.

Baaed on hie judgme^t'Qjf ,the available technology, he recommends that th«
requirements be red.ucefij'to 85 percent of the 1975 standards.
Ms.  Reid
Ms.  Barbara  Reid, Washington representative of Environmental Policy
Center, attacks most of'the issues involved with quotatiqrjS; from the hearings
                       !             i    '           •  ' • ' '- i  "i .
and reference data which support the denial of the suspension request.   Her
                       I             i    '               ••(•'''!• I  '
major concern, which was discussed in  much length during the; panel
questioning, was  the averaging concept in the acceptance of production line
vehicles. She contends that it should not be  allowed on the ibasi's that it is
not consistent with the intent of the Clean Air Act and does not serve the
interest of the automobile purchaser.
Mr.  Clapper
Mr.  Louis S.  Clapper, Director of Conservation for the National Wildlife
Federation, contends that the suspension cannot be considered as "essential
to the public interest or the public health and welfare of the United States. "
He did not address the other issues which bear on this  determination.
He recommends that people buy less powerful cars.  This  is  based on his
opinion that smaller cars produce less emissions.
Mr.  Chou
Mr.  Hsiao Ta Chou, mechanical engineer, states that  the solution to the
automobile engine emissions lies in achieving complete combustion in the
engine by precise  control of the air/fuel mixture and that he  has developed
a technology for the determination of the instantaneous value  of  the true
fuel mass flow rate for controlling the exact mixture under all conditions.
His complaint is that while he  has the  solution, he cannot interest anyone
in using his technology.
                                  A-2

-------
David G. Hawkins
Mr. Hawkins is an attorney with the National Resources Defense Council.
It was Mr. Hawkins1 opinion that:
      a.    There has been no demonstration that a suspension is
            essential to the public interest.
      b.    None of the applicants has established that he has made
            all good faith efforts to comply with the standards.
      c.    It has not been established that the technology is not
            available to meet the  standards.
Accordingly, Mr. Hawkins offered the following proposal to EPA.  Concurrent
with the denial of the requests, the Administrator should request from
Congress an emission tax on automobiles which do not meet the 1975 stan-
dards.  The tax would be applicable  to the cars of any manufacturer who in
the future requested and was granted a suspension of the  standards.   The
amount of the tax would be keyed  to the level of the interim standards  set at
the time of suspension.  The higher  the interim standard, the higher the tax.
Individual manufacturers would also be permitted to request certification of
their vehicles at levels more stringent than the interim standard in return
for a proportional tax reduction.
Clarence M. Ditlow
Mr. Ditlow represented the Public Interest Research Group,  Washington,
D. C.  It was his opinion that a one-year suspension is not essential to the
public health and welfare of the United States.  He stated that the extent and
direction of emission control research and development by the  motor vehicle
manufacturers preclude the finding of any good faith attempt to  meet the
1975 vehicle emission standards.

It was Mr. Ditlow1 s recommendation that the  suspension requests be denied
and that EPA should recommend that Congress enact legislation setting an
interim standard (unspecified) and requiring  retrofitting of all pre-1968 light
duty motor vehicles with emission control technology sufficient to lower
                                   A-3

-------
total emissions from all motor vehicles to at least the levels attainable if
the 1975 light duty vehicle emission standards were  in effect.
J. Wagshal,  M. P. Walsh, F. C. Hart, J. L. Rankin,  D. Shapiro
This group appeared  before the panel on behalf of 4 cities and 21 states in
opposition to the granting of any suspension to the 1975 standards.  It was
their contention that under the law,  as  defined by the Clean Air Act, the
applicants had not demonstrated that it was in the public interest or welfare
to grant a suspension, that a good faith effort had not been made, and that
it had not been shown that the technology was not available.  They also
expressed the opinion that the National Academy  of Sciences report had
become obsolete in view of the progress which had been made since it had
been published and in view of the evidence presented at the  hearings.
Louis B.  Lombardo
Mr. Lombardo is  currently forming an organization known  as the Public
Interest Campaign.  It was his opinion  that the suspension request should be
denied on the basis that (1) it was not in the best interest of the United
States to grant a suspension; ;(r2) a good faith  effort has  not been demonstrated
by the auto manufacturers; (3) the applicants  have not demonstrated that the
technology is not available; and (4) in his opinion, the National Academy of
Sciences report indicates that technology is available to meet the standards.

Mr. Lombardo also requested that EPA subpoena manufacturers of fuel
injection systems  (e.g. , American  Bosch and Bendix) to obtain further
information on the capabilities of fuel injection systems to meet the 1975
standards.
Robert J. Rauch
Mr.  Rauch is assistant Legislative Director of Friends of the  Earth.   The
initial portion of his testimony dealt with a discussion of the credibility of
the auto manufacturers' claim that the  converters they have tested cannot
                                   A-4

-------
 come close to meeting the 50, 000 mile standard whereas the converter
 manufacturers have testified that the standards can be met.  It was
 Mr. Rauch's opinion that the catalyst manufacturers stand to lose more
 than the auto manufacturers if the catalytic converters do not meet the 1975
 standards,  and that the testimony of the catalyst manufacturers is, therefore,
 more credible.

 Mr. Rauch  also discussed the legal and moral pros and cons of granting the
 extension and, in conclusion, recommended that the request for suspension
 be denied since,  in his opinion, the testimony of the catalyst manufacturers
 alone casts sufficient doubt that meeting  the  1975 standards is technologically
 infeasible.
 I.  Walton Bader
 Mr. Bader  is a trustee of the Heart Disease  Research Foundation which is
 engaged in research activities directed toward the reduction of heart and
 lung ailments.

 Mr. Bader's testimony consisted  primarily of the following statement.
 The Heart Disease Research Foundation has  determined that a correlation
 exists between the increase  of heart and respiratory ailments and the
 increase of pollution  in the metropolitan areas.  The Foundation's position
is  that the automobile is the  primary cause of pollution in most metropolitan
 areas.  Therefore, it opposes the request by the automobile manufacturers
 for a one-year extension to the 1975 standards.
William D.  Balgord
Mr. Balgord represented the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.  This organization, in cooperation with the New York City
 Department of Air Resources, has completed two years of a three-year
 research effort to develop catalytic  emission control systems independent of
 the auto manufactureres.  Its objective is to  demonstrate the technical and
                                   A-5

-------
 economic feasibility of these systems in relation to the 1975 standards.
 The effort has been focused on reducing NO ,  with no effort being made to
.develop HC/CO oxidizing catalysts.  Testing to date has been conducted on
 a bench-mounted V-8 engine operated over a simulated durability driving
 cycle.  Commercially available  unleaded fuel  has been used for all tests.

 The most promising NO  reducing catalysts appear to be a base-metal
                       A.
 catalyst mounted on a honeycomb substrate.   Preliminary results indicate
 a potential for greater than 99 percent reduction of NO  in a two-catalyst
                                                     Ji
 converter system which also controls HC and  CO (no details were presented
 of the oxidizing catalyst).
 J. Howard Flint
 Mr. Flint is counsel for the Pancoastal-PXP  Corporation, Hartford,
 Connecticut.  Mr.  Flint presented brief verbal testimony together with
 written and film documentation regarding the  Corporation's findings on the
 Pritchard steam-driven automobile being developed in Australia.  No
 specific details were  provided in the verbal testimony other than the general
 statement that this vehicle, without a catalytic converter, meets the 1975
 standards and exceed the 1976 NO   standard by approximately 0.2 percent.
                                .X
 Meeting the  1976 NO  requirement does not present any problem to the
                    jt
 Pritchard Co. , according to Mr. Flint.
 Department  of Air Resources, New York City
 Testimony on behalf of the  New York City Department of Air Resources was
 presented by Mr.  Fred C.  Hart, Commissioner,  Department of Air
 Resources; Mr. Michael P. Walsh,  Director, Bureau of Motor Vehicle
 Pollution Control; and Mr.  Jerome Wagshal,  Special Counsel to the  City
 of New York.  The primary purpose of their testimony was to report the
 results to date of a  program to evaluate  the potential of an Engelhard PTX-5
 catalytic converter  as a retrofit device for light duty vehicles in urban
 service.
                                   A-6

-------
 The test fleet used in this program consisted of six police cars, four
 assigned as patrol vehicles and two as inspector vehicles.  One of the patrol
 vehicles was not equipped with the retrofit devices and served as* the base-
 line control vehicle.  All vehicles were 1971 6-cylinder, 225-CID Plymouth
 Furys with automatic transmission.

 Five of the vehicles were  equipped with an Engelhard PTX-5 noble metal
 catalyst and secondary air injection between the exhaust manifold and the
 catalytic  converter.  No NO  control was attempted nor was an overtempera-
 ture protection system used.  All six test vehicles were equipped with
 electronic ignition systems.

 The fuel used was commercially available Amoco Super Premium gasoline
 with a Research Octane No.  of 100.3.  A random sampling of the amount of
 lead in the fuel showed, for the most part, 0. 01 gm/gal or less although
 one sample was found to contain approximately 0. 1 gm/gal while another
 was  1. 0  gm/gal.  This "contamination" was believed to be the  expected
 variation that might be encountered with the normal distribution of various
 grades of fuel.  No attempt was made to correlate the  lead content of the
 fuel with any observed deterioration in the catalyst efficiencies.

 All vehicles were tuned to the manufacturer's recommended specifications at
 the start of the test.   Subsequent  maintenance was performed according  to
 standard Police Department procedures and consisted  of an oil change and
 new oil filter every 4, 000  miles.   Spark plugs were checked  every 6, 000
 miles and replaced as necessary.

 The driving pattern experienced by the four  patrol vehicles (including the
 control vehicle) was described as a combination of extensive periods at
idle as well as substantial amounts of high-speed driving.  These  cars were
in 24-hour per day operation  and accumulated 3500-4500 miles per month.
 The inspector vehicles experienced what was described as reasonably normal
driving and accumulated mileage at the rate of 1,000-1,500 miles per month.
                                   A-7

-------
No overheating of the catalytic converters was experienced and although
specific data were not obtained, no overt evidence of an increase in fuel
consumption or any decrease in performance was observed.

All emission tests were performed in accordance with the 1972 CVS test
procedure approximately every 4,000 miles.  Emission results are shown
in Table A-1. Although these vehicles do not meet the 1975 standards, a
significant reduction in the HC/CO emission levels was  achieved with what
seems to  be a comparatively unsophisticated emission control system.

An additional program is being initiated  using Engelhard,  UOP,  and Oxy-
Catalyst to  retrofit a small fleet of heavy duty sanitation trucks.  It is
planned to have  15 vehicles converted by May 1972.

Based upon the results achieved from the retrofit program, it was concluded
by Mr. Walsh that it should be possible  to meet the  1975 standards by
controlling  the catalyst temperature, the choke mechanism, and  the amount
of oxygen injected into the converter.
Richard S.  Morse
Mr. Morse is a senior Professor  at the  Sloan School of Management,
Massachusetts Institute  of Technology.   He also is Chairman of the Board
of the Steam Engine Systems Corporation which has a contract with EPA
to build a steam automobile power plant. The emissions from the burner of
this power plant were reported to  be 0.09 gm/mi HC, 0.60 gm/mi CO, and
0. 16 gm/mi NO .  The test procedure under which these results were
obtained was not specified.

It was Mr.  Morse's opinion that short of a wartime-type crash program, it
would be very difficult to mass produce  a steam powered vehicle by 1975
and  would probably take three years even on a crash basis.
                                  A-8

-------
Table A-l.  New York City Light-Duty Vehicle Retrofit Program
Cata-
Veh. Actual lyst
No. Date Miles Miles

378 10/15/71 3,899 Before
12/14/71 6,026 1.028
01/02/72 7,292 2,294
03/08/72 12,357 7,359
Conversion: 4,998 mi - 152 hr
476 10/15/71 3,119 Before
11/18/71 4,457 7
12/16/71 4,952 502
01/13/72 6,058 1,608
03/09/72 7,632 3,182
Conversion: 4,450 mi - 143 hr
1128 10/08/71 6,552
12/10/71 14,460
01/19/72 18,892
02/17/72 20,815
03/23/72 23,831
Control
1693 10/07/71 15,860 Before
10/12/71 15,892 0
10/14/71 15,902 10
11/24/71 21,147 5,255
12/08/71 23,110 7,218
01/20/72 28,561 12,669
02/16/72 32,361 16,750
03/24/72 35,834 19,942
Conversion: 15,892 mi - 708.2 hr
1866b 10/08/71 6,758 Before
10/14/71 6,836 3
10/29/71 8,456 1,623
11/24/71 12,352 5,519
12/22/71 15,234 8,401
01/06/72 17,806 10,973
02/17/72 22,122 15,289
Conversion: 6,833 mi - 710 hr
2351 10/08/71 6.534 Before
12/09/71 14,979 2,657
01/07/72 18,377 6,055
02/10/72 22,816 10,496
03/22/72 29,786 17.464
Conversion: 12,322 mi - 1212 hr
a!972 Federal test procedure

Meter
Hours

98
199.7
256.2
555. 1

67
143.5
168
223. 1
302. 1

	
..
--
..
--

705
708.2
718.2
1205
1396
1904.9
2294.6
2264.4

704
710
909
1331
1655
1944
2630. 1

487
1437
1820
2414.3
3208


Cata-
lyst
Hours

Before
47.7
112.2
403. 1

Before
0.5
25
80. 1
159. 1

	
--
--
..
--

Before
0
1
496.8
687.8
1196.7
1586.4
1956.2

Before
0
199
621
945
1234
1920.1

Before
225
608
1203.3
1996


Emissions, gm/mi

CO

54.8
12.9
14.0
17.8

76.3
9.2
3.3
3.6
5.0

51.3
41.0
45.2
48.8
50.7

47.5
20.1
13.7
15.2
20.6
12.5
14.7
12.0

55.8
13.6
3.0
6.9
10.9
16.4
17.4

51.7
18.7
20.4
18.3
17.8



HC

5.36
0.86
1. 10
1.17

7.47
0.95
0.56
0.57
0.45

6.49
2.41
2.20
2.38
5.01

4.55
1.61
1.86
0.94
0.88
0.93
1.08
1.75

5.46
1.44
0.47
0.83
1.06
1.72
1.61

5.36
1.04
1.11
1.48
2.35



NO
X
_ _
6.19
7.39
7.77

	
2.40
5.34
5.62
5.52

_ _
3.82
5.99
4.37
3.67

..
--
--
6.87
--
6.94
7.47
3.59



--
4.33
4.78
4.97
7.99

• - .
5.07
8.80
7.05
5.03


Add 762.8 hr to all subsequent meter readings
                              A-9

-------
Mr.  Morse summarized his testimony by stating that from the point of view
of public interest and feasibility, he felt that less stringent standards
should be adopted which roughly paralleled the California standards and
suggested a NOX standard of 1.0-1.5 gm/mi.  This, in his view, would
result in both improved fuel economy and driveability.
Union Oil
The Union Oil Company testimony may be  summarized as follows:
      a.     The automotive emission standards are too severe and should
            be relaxed.
      b.     The 50,000-mile durability requirement for the catalyst
            should be shortened.
      c.     Exhaust emission controls should be mandatory on all
            cars on the road.
      d.     Annual inspection for all cars  should be mandatory as a
            condition of license renewal.
                                  A-10

-------
                                    TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                             (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 . REPORT NO.

  PPA-460-3-74-027
                               2.
                                                             3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
    Status of Industry Progress Towards Achievement  of
    the 1975 Federal Emission Standards for Light  Duty
    Vehicle
5. REPORT DATE

      Tilly 1Q77	
6. PERFORMfNG ORGANIZATION CODE
 7. AUTHOR(S)

   W.V.  Roessler,  Toru lura, Joseph Meltzer
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.

  ATR-73(7322)-l
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
                                                             10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
   Aerospace  Corp.
   El  Segundo, Calif.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

    68-01-0417
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
   Environmental  Protection Agency
   Emission Control  Technology Division
   Ann Arbor, Michigan  48105
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 16. ABSTRACT
   A  compilation of  the data available which showed  the progress made as of mid  1972
   by the Automobile Manufacturers  toward meeting  the 1975 model year emission
   standards.  Each  approach to meeting the standards is discussed  and referenced
   to the manufacturers using that  approach.
 7.
                                 KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                   DESCRIPTORS
                                               b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
              c. COSATI ricld/Group
   Emissions
   Automobile
   Light-Duty Vehicle
   Catalyst
   Carburetion
   Thermal reactor
   Exhaust gas recirculation
 8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
   Release Unlimited
                                               19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report}
                                                Unclassified
              21. NO. OF PAGES
                  476
                                               20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
                                                Unclassified
                                                                           22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                             A-ll

-------